This page intentionally left blank.
Draft

Environmental Assessment

Abstract

Lead Agency for the EA: United States Marine Corps Air Station Miramar

Title of Proposed Action: P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar

Affected Region: San Diego, San Diego County, CA

Designation: Draft Environmental Assessment

The United States Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar has prepared this Draft Environmental 

Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 United 

States Code (USC) §§ 4321-4370h, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508, and Marine Corps Order 

(MCO) P5090.2A, Change 3, Chapter 12, 26 August 2013, Environmental Compliance and Protection 

Manual, which establishes procedures for implementing NEPA. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to 

upgrade the existing sewer system at MCAS Miramar. This is needed to reduce the effluent flow into the 

City of San Diego’s sewer system to less than the permitted limit of 1.6 million gallons per day. This EA

analyzes two (2) alternatives and the No-Action Alternative.

Point of Contact: MCAS Miramar

Lieutenant Colonel James Szepesy

Environmental Management Officer

P.O. Box 452001, Building 6022

San Diego, California 92145-2001

Phone: (858) 577-1650, Fax: (858) 577-4200

Contracting Officer’s

Technical Representative: Mr. Ryan Maynard

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest

1220 Pacific Highway

San Diego, California 92132-5182

Phone: (619) 532-3728

May 2014
This page intentionally left blank.
P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks i May2014

Draft EA

Table of Contents

1 Abstract

2 Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... 1

3 1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action....................................................................................1-1

4 1.1 Introduction/Background .................................................................................................1-1

5 1.2 Location ...........................................................................................................................1-1

6 1.3 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................1-3

7 1.4 Decision to Be Made........................................................................................................1-3

8 1.5 Scope of Analysis ............................................................................................................1-3

9 1.6 Regulatory Setting and Intergovernmental Coordination ................................................1-4

10 1.7 Public Involvement..........................................................................................................1-6

11 1.8 Organization of the Document.........................................................................................1-6

12 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................................2-1

13 2.1 Proposed Action...............................................................................................................2-1

14 2.2 Alternatives Development and Screening Criteria...........................................................2-1

15 2.3 Alternatives......................................................................................................................2-2

16 2.3.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank Alternative 

17 (Preferred Alternative)........................................................................................2-2

18 2.3.1.1 Facilities and Components .................................................................2-2

19 2.3.1.2 Construction .......................................................................................2-5

20 2.3.1.3 Site Access..........................................................................................2-8

21 2.3.1.4 Utilities...............................................................................................2-8

22 2.3.1.5 Operation and Maintenance................................................................2-8

23 2.3.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and Holding 

24 Tank ....................................................................................................................2-8

25 2.3.2.1 Facilities and Components .................................................................2-8

26 2.3.2.2 Construction .....................................................................................2-10

27 2.3.2.3 Site Access........................................................................................2-10

28 2.3.2.4 Utilities.............................................................................................2-10

29 2.3.2.5 Operation and Maintenance..............................................................2-11

30 2.3.3 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................2-11

31 2.3.4 Environmental Protection Measures.................................................................2-11

32 2.3.4.1 Air Quality........................................................................................2-11

33 2.3.4.2 Biological Resources........................................................................2-12

34 2.3.4.3 Geologic Resources..........................................................................2-14

35 2.3.4.4 Public Health and Safety ..................................................................2-14

36 2.3.4.5 Recreation.........................................................................................2-14

37 2.3.4.6 Transportation/Circulation/Traffic ...................................................2-14

38 2.3.4.7 Utilities.............................................................................................2-15

39 2.3.4.8 Water Resources...............................................................................2-15

40 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis.....................2-15

41 2.4.1 Renovation/Modernization of Existing Sewer Lines........................................2-15

42 2.4.2 Gravity-fed Tank Pump on Rim of Rose Canyon.............................................2-16

43 2.4.3 Multiple Gravity-fed Tank Locations...............................................................2-16

44 2.4.4 Pump Tank on West Side of Pless Road...........................................................2-16

45 2.5 Summary of Impacts......................................................................................................2-16

46 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................................3.1-1

47 3.1 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................3.1-1
MCAS Miramar Table of Contents

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks ii May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.1.1 Definition of Resource.....................................................................................3.1-1

2 3.1.2 Region of Influence .........................................................................................3.1-2

3 3.1.3 Affected Environment......................................................................................3.1-2

4 3.1.3.1 Baseline Air Quality........................................................................3.1-2

5 3.1.3.2 Regional and Local Air Pollutant Sources ......................................3.1-3

6 3.1.3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................3.1-3

7 3.1.4 Applicable Regulations and Standards ............................................................3.1-4

8 3.1.4.1 Federal Regulations.........................................................................3.1-5

9 3.1.4.2 Local Regulations............................................................................3.1-5

10 3.1.5 Environmental Consequences..........................................................................3.1-5

11 3.1.5.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank

12 (Preferred Alternative).....................................................................3.1-6

13 3.1.5.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and 

14 Holding Tank...................................................................................3.1-7

15 3.1.5.3 No-Action Alternative .....................................................................3.1-7

16 3.2 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................3.2-1

17 3.2.1 Definition of Resource.....................................................................................3.2-1

18 3.2.2 Region of Influence .........................................................................................3.2-2

19 3.2.3 Affected Environment......................................................................................3.2-2

20 3.2.3.1 Vegetation Communities.................................................................3.2-2

21 3.2.3.2 General Wildlife and Wildlife Corridors.........................................3.2-5

22 3.2.3.3 Special Status Species .....................................................................3.2-5

23 3.2.3.4 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States..........................3.2-10

24 3.2.4 Environmental Consequences........................................................................3.2-14

25 3.2.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank 

26 (Preferred Alternative)...................................................................3.2-15

27 3.2.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and 

28 Holding Tank.................................................................................3.2-19

29 3.2.4.3 No-Action Alternative ...................................................................3.2-22

30 3.3 Geologic Resources ......................................................................................................3.3-1

31 3.3.1 Definition of Resource.....................................................................................3.3-1

32 3.3.2 Region of Influence .........................................................................................3.3-1

33 3.3.3 Affected Environment......................................................................................3.3-1

34 3.3.3.1 Topography......................................................................................3.3-1

35 3.3.3.2 General Geology..............................................................................3.3-1

36 3.3.3.3 Faulting and Seismicity ...................................................................3.3-1

37 3.3.3.4 Geologic Hazards ............................................................................3.3-2

38 3.3.4 Environmental Consequences..........................................................................3.3-2

39 3.3.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank 

40 (Preferred Alternative).....................................................................3.3-2

41 3.3.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and 

42 Holding Tank...................................................................................3.3-4

43 3.3.4.3 No-Action Alternative .....................................................................3.3-4

44 3.4 Public Health and Safety...............................................................................................3.4-1

45 3.4.1 Definition of Resources...................................................................................3.4-1

46 3.4.2 Region of Influence .........................................................................................3.4-1

47 3.4.3 Affected Environment......................................................................................3.4-1

48 3.4.3.1 Protection of Children (Executive Order 13045).............................3.4-1

49 3.4.3.2 Hazardous Materials and Waste Disposal .......................................3.4-2

50 3.4.3.3 Installation Restoration Program.....................................................3.4-2

51 3.4.3.4 Military Munitions Response Program............................................3.4-2
MCAS Miramar Table of Contents

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks iii May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.4.3.5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Petroleum, 

2 Oil, and Lubricants Sites .................................................................3.4-2

3 3.4.3.6 Other Federal Health and Safety Requirements..............................3.4-4

4 3.4.4 Environmental Consequences..........................................................................3.4-4

5 3.4.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank 

6 (Preferred Alternative).....................................................................3.4-4

7 3.4.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and 

8 Holding Tank...................................................................................3.4-5

9 3.4.4.3 No-Action Alternative .....................................................................3.4-6

10 3.5 Recreation .....................................................................................................................3.5-1

11 3.5.1 Definition of the Resource...............................................................................3.5-1

12 3.5.2 Region of Influence .........................................................................................3.5-1

13 3.5.3 Affected Environment......................................................................................3.5-1

14 3.5.4 Environmental Consequences..........................................................................3.5-1

15 3.5.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank 

16 (Preferred Alternative).....................................................................3.5-1

17 3.5.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and 

18 Holding Tank...................................................................................3.5-2

19 3.5.4.3 No-Action Alternative .....................................................................3.5-2

20 3.6 Transportation, Circulation, and Traffic .......................................................................3.6-1

21 3.6.1 Definition of Resource.....................................................................................3.6-1

22 3.6.2 Region of Influence .........................................................................................3.6-1

23 3.6.3 Affected Environment......................................................................................3.6-1

24 3.6.4 Environmental Consequences..........................................................................3.6-3

25 3.6.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank 

26 (Preferred Alternative).....................................................................3.6-3

27 3.6.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and 

28 Holding Tank...................................................................................3.6-4

29 3.6.4.3 No-Action Alternative .....................................................................3.6-4

30 3.7 Utilities..........................................................................................................................3.7-1

31 3.7.1 Definition of Resources...................................................................................3.7-1

32 3.7.2 Region of Influence .........................................................................................3.7-1

33 3.7.3 Affected Environment......................................................................................3.7-1

34 3.7.3.1 Electrical Distribution System.........................................................3.7-1

35 3.7.3.2 Communication System...................................................................3.7-1

36 3.7.3.3 Natural Gas......................................................................................3.7-1

37 3.7.3.4 Water Supply and Distribution System...........................................3.7-1

38 3.7.3.5 Sanitary Sewer System....................................................................3.7-2

39 3.7.3.6 Storm Drainage System...................................................................3.7-2

40 3.7.3.7 Solid Waste Disposal.......................................................................3.7-2

41 3.7.4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures.................................3.7-2

42 3.7.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank 

43 (Preferred Alternative).....................................................................3.7-2

44 3.7.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and 

45 Holding Tank...................................................................................3.7-3

46 3.7.4.3 No-Action Alternative .....................................................................3.7-4

47 3.8 Water Resources...........................................................................................................3.8-1

48 3.8.1 Definition of Resource.....................................................................................3.8-1

49 3.8.2 Region of Influence .........................................................................................3.8-1

50 3.8.3 Affected Environment......................................................................................3.8-1

51 3.8.3.1 Surface Water..................................................................................3.8-1
MCAS Miramar Table of Contents

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks iv May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.8.3.2 Water Quality ..................................................................................3.8-1

2 3.8.3.3 Groundwater....................................................................................3.8-2

3 3.8.3.4 Floodplains/Flooding.......................................................................3.8-2

4 3.8.4 Environmental Consequences..........................................................................3.8-4

5 3.8.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank 

6 (Preferred Alternative).....................................................................3.8-4

7 3.8.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and 

8 Holding Tank...................................................................................3.8-5

9 3.8.4.3 No-Action Alternative .....................................................................3.8-6

10 4 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................................4-1

11 4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................4-1

12 4.2 Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis.............................................................4-1

13 4.2.1 Vernal Pool Mitigation Area Planning ...............................................................4-1

14 4.2.2 Grow the Force Initiative....................................................................................4-5

15 4.2.3 Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery Annex .........................................................4-5

16 4.2.4 West Coast Basing of the MV-22 .......................................................................4-5

17 4.2.5 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft Introduction ...........................................................4-6

18 4.2.6 United States Army Reserve Center...................................................................4-6

19 4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis..........................................................................................4-6

20 4.3.1 Air Quality..........................................................................................................4-7

21 4.3.1.1 Criteria Pollutants...............................................................................4-7

22 4.3.1.2 Greenhouse Gases ..............................................................................4-7

23 4.3.2 Biological Resources..........................................................................................4-9

24 4.3.3 Transportation, Circulation, and Traffic ...........................................................4-10

25 5 Other NEPA Considerations.........................................................................................................5-1

26 5.1 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives 

27 Including the Proposed Action and All Mitigation Measures Being 

28 Considered .......................................................................................................................5-1

29 5.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Natural or Depletable 

30 Resources.........................................................................................................................5-1

31 5.3 Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long32 Term Productivity............................................................................................................5-1

33 5.4 Any Probable Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided 

34 and are not Amenable to Mitigation ................................................................................5-2

35 5.5 Possible Conflicts Between the Action and the Objective of Federal and 

36 State Land Uses ...............................................................................................................5-2

37 6 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted.......................................................................................6-1

38 7 List of Preparers............................................................................................................................7-1

39 8 References.....................................................................................................................................8-1
MCAS Miramar Table of Contents

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks v May 2014

Draft EA

List of Figures

1 Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map ...................................................................................................1-2

2 Figure 2-1. Conceptual Site Plan for Alternative 1 ............................................................................2-3

3 Figure 2-2. Conceptual Sewer Equalization Tank..............................................................................2-4

4 Figure 2-3. Equalization Tank and Active Flow System Detail.........................................................2-6

5 Figure 2-4. Conceptual Site Plan for Alternative 2 ............................................................................2-9

6 Figure 3.2-1. Vegetation Communities in the Vicinity of Alternative 1 ............................................3.2-3

7 Figure 3.2-2. Vegetation Communities in the Vicinity of Alternative 2 ............................................3.2-4

8 Figure 3.2-3. Federally Listed Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of Alternative 1 .................3.2-7

9 Figure 3.2-4. Federally Listed Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of Alternative 2 .................3.2-8

10 Figure 3.2-5. Wetlands, Waters of the U.S., Vernal Pools, and Other (Non-Vernal Pool) 

11 Seasonally Ponded Features in the Vicinity of Alternative 1 .....................................3.2-11

12 Figure 3.2-6. Wetlands, Waters of the U.S., Vernal Pools, and Other (Non-Vernal Pool) 

13 Seasonally Ponded Features in the Vicinity of Alternative 2 .....................................3.2-12

14 Figure 3.4-1. IR and MR Sites at MCAS Miramar.............................................................................3.4-3

15 Figure 3.8-1. 100-Year Flood Plain at MCAS Miramar.....................................................................3.8-3

List of Tables

16 Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts.....................................................................................................ES-2

17 Table 1-1. Applicable Federal Regulations, Instructions, and Public Law.......................................1-5

18 Table 1-2. Intergovernmental Coordination and Permits..................................................................1-5

19 Table 2-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences....................................................2-17

20 Table 3.1-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards......................................................................3.1-2

21 Table 3.1-2. Annual and Total Emissions Due to Construction of the Sewer Equalization 

22 Tanks at MCAS Miramar – Alternative 1 and Alternative 2........................................3.1-7

23 Table 3.2-1. Existing Vegetation Communities within the Project Site for the 

24 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.....................................................................................3.2-2

25 Table 3.2-2. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Known to Occur in the 

26 Vicinity of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 ..................................................................3.2-6

27 Table 3.2-3. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Species of Conservation Concern Known to 

28 Occur in the Vicinity of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2............................................3.2-10

29 Table 3.2-4. Vegetation Communities Potentially Removed under Alternative 1..........................3.2-16

30 Table 3.2-5. Vegetation Communities Potentially Removed under Alternative 2..........................3.2-20

31 Table 3.3-1. Seismic Parameters for Major Active Faults Within 60 Miles of the Project Site .......3.3-2

32 Table 4.1-1. Related and Cumulative Projects.....................................................................................4-2

33 Table 4.3-1. Maximum Annual GHG Emissions from Alternative 1 ..................................................4-8

Appendices

34 A Air Quality Technical Data

35 A-1 Emission Calculations for the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar 

36 Project Alternatives

37 A-2 Record of Non-Applicability (RONA)

38 B Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting (MMMR) Tracking Sheet
MCAS Miramar Acronyms and Abbreviations

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks vi May 2014

Draft EA

Acronyms and Abbreviations

μg/m3 1 micrograms per cubic meter

2 AB Assembly Bill

3 ADT average daily trips

4 Air Station Marine Corps Air Station Miramar

5 AMJV Accord MACTEC Joint Venture

6 APE area of potential effects

7 ARB California Air Resources Control Board

8 AST above ground storage tank

9 AT&T American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation

10 bhp break horsepower

11 BMP Best Management Practice

12 CAA Clean Air Act

13 CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

14 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

15 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act

16 CFR Code of Federal Regulations

17 CH4 methane

18 CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level

19 CNG compressed natural gas

20 CO carbon monoxide

21 CO2 carbon dioxide

22 CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

23 CRAM California Rapid Assessment Method

24 CWA Clean Water Act

25 dB decibel

26 DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program

27 DoD Department of Defense

28 DoN Department of the Navy

29 DPM diesel particulate matter

30 EA Environmental Assessment

31 EIS Environmental Impact Statement

32 EO Executive Order

33 EPA Environmental Protection Agency

34 ESA Endangered Species Act

35 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

36 FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

37 GHG greenhouse gasses

38 GIS geographic information systems

39 gpm gallons per minute

40 GWP global warming potential

41 HAP hazardous air pollutant

42 HAZWOPER hazardous waste operations and emergency response

43 I- Interstate

44 INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

45 IR Installation Restoration

46 IRP Installation Restoration Program

47 KV kilovolt
MCAS Miramar Acronyms and Abbreviations

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks vii May 2014

Draft EA

1 LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

2 LID Low Impact Development

3 LNG liquefied natural gas

4 LOS level of service

5 MA Management Area

6 Marine Corps United States Marine Corps

7 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

8 MCAS Marine Corps Air Station

9 MCI Marine Corps Installations

10 MCO Marine Corps Order

11 mgpd million gallons per day

12 MMRP Military Munitions Response Program

13 MOU Memorandum of Understanding

14 MR Munitions Response

15 N2O nitrous oxides

16 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

17 NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command

18 NAVOSH Naval Occupational Safety and Health

19 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

20 NOA Notice of Availability

21 NOx oxides of nitrogen

22 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

23 NWP Nation Wide Permit

24 O3 ozone

25 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

26 PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

27 PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

28 POL Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant

29 ppm parts per million

30 PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

31 PVC polyvinyl chloride

32 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

33 ROD Record of Decision

34 ROG reactive organic gases

35 ROI Region of Influence

36 RONA Record of Non-Applicability

37 SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments

38 SDAB San Diego Air Basin

39 SDCAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District

40 SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric

41 SDRWQCB San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board

42 SIP State Implementation Plan

43 SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure

44 SR- State Route

45 SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

46 SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

47 TAC toxic air contaminants

48 TDS total dissolved solids

49 TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon
MCAS Miramar Acronyms and Abbreviations

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks viii May 2014

Draft EA

1 USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

2 USC United States Code

3 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

4 USMC United States Marine Corps

5 USN United States Navy

6 UST underground storage tank

7 V/C volume-to-capacity

8 VA Department of Veterans Affairs

9 VOC volatile organic compound
P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks ES-1 May 2014

Draft EA

 

Executive Summary

1 The United States Marine Corps (USMC) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

2 accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 United States Code 

3 (USC) §§ 4321-4370h, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 

4 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508, and Marine Corps Order (MCO) P5090.2A, 

5 Change 3, Chapter 12, dated 26 August 2013, Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, which 

6 establishes procedures for implementing NEPA. 

7 This EA describes the potential environmental consequences resulting from a proposal by MCAS 

8 Miramar, San Diego, California to upgrade its existing sewer system to reduce the effluent flow into the 

9 City of San Diego’s sewer system to less than the permitted limit of 1.6 million gallons per day (mgpd). 

10 The Proposed Action involves construction and operation of a storage tank with a holding capacity 

11 sufficient to temporarily retain excess sewage flow generated by a nominal 10-year 24-hour storm event 

12 (1.5 million gallons); an active flow control system to regulate the discharge flow; and associated piping, 

13 pumps, conduits, and access points. Additional supporting improvements include site access and utility 

14 infrastructure upgrades. Site improvements would include grading and clearing, demolition and repaving 

15 of the existing road surface and culverts, and restoration of disturbed areas, including Diegan Coastal 

16 Sage Scrub and the ephemeral streambed, to pre-construction conditions. Construction would occur over

17 a 15-month period. Operation and maintenance of the facility would entail annual cleaning and inspection 

18 of the storage tank. The USMC has developed two action alternatives: Alternative 1 (De La Garza Road 

19 Gravity Tank) and Alternative 2 (De La Garza Road Pump Station and Holding Tank). The alternatives 

20 differ in the design and location of the storage tank.

21 The CEQ regulations, NEPA, and the USMC procedures for implementing NEPA specify that an EA 

22 should address only those resource areas potentially subject to impacts. In addition, the level of analysis 

23 should be equivalent with the anticipated level of environmental impacted. Based on this guidance, the 

24 following resource areas were evaluated for potential environmental consequences: Air Quality; 

25 Biological Resources; Geologic Resources; Public Health and Safety; Recreation; Transportation, 

26 Circulation, and Traffic; Utilities; and Water Resources. Results of the air quality analysis indicate the 

27 emissions would be less than the General Conformity Rule thresholds which would satisfy the condition 

28 of a Clean Air Act Record of Non-applicability (RONA) to be prepared. Several other resource areas have 

29 been reviewed for environmental impacts but have not been carried forward for detailed analysis in this 

30 EA because potential impacts were determined to be negligible, including aesthetics, cultural resources, 

31 environmental justice, land use, noise, public services, and socioeconomics.

32 The potential environmental consequences associated with implementation of the Alternative 1, 

33 Alternative 2, and the No-Action Alternative are summarized briefly in Table ES-1 and in greater detail in

34 Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 of this EA. For a detailed description and analysis refer to Chapter 3. As shown in 

35 Table ES-1 and Table 2-1, implementation of the Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and the No-Action 

36 Alternative would not result in significant impacts to any resource area with the inclusion of 

37 Environmental Protection Measures. Based on the analysis presented in this EA, the USMC has identified 

38 Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative.
MCAS Miramar Executive Summary

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks ES-2 May 2014

Draft EA

Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts

Resource Area

Alternative 1:

De La Garza Road 

Gravity Tank

Alternative 2:

De La Garza Road 

Pump Station and 

Holding Tank

No-Action 

Alternative

Air Quality NSI NSI NI

Biological Resources NSI NSI NI

Geologic Resources NSI NSI NI

Public Health and Safety NSI; BI (Water Quality) NSI; BI (Water Quality) NI; I (Water Quality)

Recreation NSI NSI NI

Transportation/Circulation/Traffic NSI NSI NI

Utilities NSI NSI NI

Water Resources

NI (Groundwater); 

NSI (Surface Water; 

Floodplains/Flooding); 

NSI/BI (Water Quality)

NI (Groundwater); 

NSI (Surface Water; 

Floodplains/Flooding); 

NSI/BI (Water Quality)

NI; I (Water Quality)

Notes: NSI = No Significant Impact; NI = No Impact; I = Impact; BI = Beneficial Impact
P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 1-1 May 2014

Draft EA

1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action

1 1.1 Introduction/Background

2 This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the United States Marine Corps Air Station 

3 Miramar (MCAS Miramar or Air Station) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

4 (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] §§ 4321-4370h, as amended), the Council on 

5 Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA 

6 (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), United States Marine Corps (USMC)

7 Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual (Marine Corps Order [MCO] P5090.2A, Change 3, 

8 Chapter 12, dated 26 August 2013), and other applicable laws. NEPA encourages public involvement in 

9 the environmental review process. The development of this EA includes the publication of a Notice of 

10 Availability (NOA) informing interested parties or agencies of the existence of the report. Please refer to 

11 Section 1.7, Public Involvement, for additional information on the public participation process.

12 This EA describes the potential environmental consequences resulting from a proposal by MCAS 

13 Miramar, San Diego, California to upgrade its existing sewer system to reduce effluent flow into the City 

14 of San Diego’s sewer system to less than the permitted limit of 1.6 million gallons per day (mgpd).

15 MCAS Miramar’s sewer system consists of approximately 38 miles of 6-inch to 16-inch lines originally 

16 built between 1953 and 1960. The MCAS Miramar sewer system discharges for treatment via an outfall 

17 to the City of San Diego’s sewer collection system. The discharge is regulated by an Industrial User 

18 Discharge Permit (Number 05-1019-03-A), which limits the flow rate into the City’s collection system to 

19 less than 1.6 mgpd. During significant rain events, stormwater infiltration and inflow into the Air 

20 Station’s sewer system due to cracks in the existing system results in outflow in excess of the current 

21 discharge limits. The existing gravity collection sewer system does not have the capability to control the 

22 flow rate of discharge. The Proposed Action involves construction and operation of a storage tank with a 

23 holding capacity sufficient to temporarily retain excess sewage flow generated by a nominal 10-year 

24 24-hour storm event (1.5 million gallons); an active flow control system to regulate the discharge flow; 

25 and associated piping, pumps, conduits, and access points. Additional supporting improvements include 

26 site access and utility infrastructure upgrades. Site improvements would include grading and clearing, 

27 demolition and repaving of the existing road surface and culverts, and restoration of disturbed areas, 

28 including Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, to pre-construction conditions. Construction would occur over a 

29 15-month period. Operation and maintenance of the facility would consist of annual cleaning and 

30 inspection of the storage tank.

31 1.2 Location

32 MCAS Miramar is located approximately 13 miles north of downtown San Diego (Figure 1-1). The Air 

33 Station is over 23,015 acres in size. The southern and western boundaries are generally defined by State 

34 Route 52 (SR-52) and Interstate 805 (I-805). The communities of Mira Mesa and Scripps Ranch have been

35 built up to the northern limits of the Air Station. The communities of Tierrasanta and Clairemont are located 

36 to the south of the Air Station. The community of University City is located to the west. The eastern

37 boundary of the Air Station abuts the City of Santee and an unincorporated area of San Diego County.
MCAS Miramar 1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 1-2 May 2014

Draft EA

Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map
MCAS Miramar 1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 1-3 May 2014

Draft EA

1 MCAS Miramar is bisected by I-15, which effectively divides the Air Station into three areas. The area 

2 west of I-15 is known as Mainside and West Miramar. Mainside contains the airfield, as well as 

3 commercial, administrative, and industrial uses; aviation support facilities; and housing areas. The City of 

4 San Diego leases land within the Air Station, just north of SR-52 in West Miramar, on which it operates a

5 municipal landfill. The East Miramar area is mostly undeveloped and used for training. The Proposed 

6 Action would be implemented along De La Garza Road located on West Miramar (Figure 1-1).

7 1.3 Purpose and Need

8 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to reduce future effluent flow from MCAS Miramar into the City 

9 of San Diego’s sewer system to less than the permitted limit of 1.6 mgpd.

10 The Proposed Action is needed because, during significant rainfall events, existing sewer infrastructure is 

11 not capable of metering effluent flow within the permitted limit of 1.6 mgpd.

12 1.4 Decision to Be Made

13 The first decision to be made as a result of the analysis in this EA is to decide if an Environmental Impact 

14 Statement (EIS) needs to be prepared. An EIS will need to be prepared if it is anticipated that the 

15 Proposed Action would have significant impacts on the human or natural environment. Should an EIS not 

16 be deemed necessary, the Proposed Action or an alternative action from this EA would be selected for 

17 implementation. This selection would be documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact.

18 1.5 Scope of Analysis

19 CEQ regulations, NEPA, Department of the Navy (DoN), and USMC procedures for implementing 

20 NEPA specify that an EA should address only those resource areas potentially subject to impacts. In 

21 addition, the level of analysis should be equivalent to the anticipated level of environmental impact. 

22 Resource areas analyzed in detail in this EA include the following:

• Air quality

• Biological Resources

• Geologic Resources

• Public Health and Safety

• Recreation

• Transportation, Circulation, and Traffic

• Utilities

• Water resources

23 Several other resource areas were considered, but not carried forward for detailed analysis in this EA 

24 because potential impacts from the alternatives would be non-existent or would be considered negligible.

25 Resources not analyzed further include aesthetics, cultural resources, environmental justice, land use,

26 noise, public services, and socioeconomics. These resources are detailed below.

27 Aesthetics: The Proposed Action would not adversely affect visual resources. The Proposed Action 

28 involves construction consistent with that of MCAS Miramar and the surrounding area. The Proposed 

29 Action would not result in an alteration of the current visual setting and would be conducted in 

30 accordance with MCAS Miramar’s Base Exterior Architecture Plan (MCAS Miramar 2008). Therefore, 

31 impacts on aesthetics would not be expected to occur.

32 Cultural Resources: A cultural resource survey in the area of potential effects (APE) for the Proposed 

33 Action was completed by ASM in 2009. No archeological sites or isolates were identified within, or in 

34 close proximity to, the APE. Because the Proposed Action would involve redevelopment of previously 
MCAS Miramar 1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 1-4 May 2014

Draft EA

1 installed underground utilities and previously disturbed sites, no impacts on cultural resources or historic 

2 properties would be expected to occur.

3 Environmental Justice: The Proposed Action would comply with Executive Order (EO) 12898 (Federal 

4 Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-income Populations) and EO 13045

5 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). No communities, including 

6 low-income communities or minority communities, exist at the project site. Therefore, the Proposed Action 

7 would not result in disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations and would not result in 

8 environmental health or safety risks to children. As such, no impacts on environmental justice would occur.

9 Land Use: The Proposed Action would not result in a change to existing land uses and would be 

10 consistent with established land use development guidelines addressing safety, functionality, and 

11 environmental protection zones. Therefore, no impacts on land use would occur.

12 Noise: Operations of the Proposed Action are not expected to generate noise above existing levels. The 

13 Proposed Action would result in only temporary construction related increases in noise levels beyond those 

14 already present at the project site and surrounding areas. The amount of increased noise at the construction 

15 site would be representative of a typical construction site and would not exceed 85 decibels (dB). One 

16 sensitive noise receptor, a recreational area called the Fish Pond, is present in the vicinity of the Proposed 

17 Action. However, this site would be closed for use during the construction phase of the Proposed Action. 

18 Therefore, no noise impacts would be expected to occur.

19 Public Services: There would be no additional military, government, civilian, and/or contractor support 

20 personnel stationed at MCAS Miramar as a result of the Proposed Action. Consequently, the Proposed Action 

21 would not require any substantial increase in public services, and no impacts on public services would occur.

22 Socioeconomics: The Proposed Action would be located entirely within MCAS Miramar. There would be 

23 no additional military, government, civilian, and/or contractor support personnel stationed at MCAS 

24 Miramar during construction or operation of the Proposed Action. In addition, construction and operation 

25 of the Proposed Action would not have a noticeable effect on local population, employment, or income 

26 levels. Therefore, no impacts on socioeconomics would occur.

27 1.6 Regulatory Setting and Intergovernmental Coordination

28 This EA has been prepared in accordance with applicable federal regulations, instructions, and public law,

29 including but not limited to those identified in Table 1-1.

30 As part of the NEPA compliance process, coordination and consultation with appropriate government 

31 agencies would be initiated to obtain regulatory input and guidance related to the Proposed Action. The 

32 purpose is to ensure that all applicable laws, regulations, and policies have been identified and the Proposed 

33 Action has been duly evaluated in light of these considerations. The agencies that would be consulted and

34 the permits that may be required are listed in Table 1-2.
MCAS Miramar 1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 1-5 May 2014

Draft EA

Table 1-1. Applicable Federal Regulations, Instructions, and Public Law

Name Regulation

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 42 USC §§ 4321-4370h

Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of National Environmental Policy Act

40 CFR Parts 1500-1508

Department of the Navy Procedures for Implementing National 

Environmental Policy Act

32 CFR Part 775

Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual Chapter 12 Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, Change 2

National Historic Preservation Act 16 USC §§ 470-470x-6

Clean Water Act 33 USC §§ 1251-1387

Clean Air Act, as amended, including 1990 General Conformity Rule 42 USC §§ 7401-7671q

Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act 42 USC §§ 9601-9675

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 42 USC §§ 6901-6992k

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-income Populations, 11 February 1994

EO 12898

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, 

23 April 1997

EO 13045

Endangered Species Act 16 USC §§ 1531-1544

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16 USC §§ 703-712

Responsibility of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 

January 11, 2001

EO 13186

Protection of Wetlands, 24 May 1977 EO 11990

Invasive Species EO 13112

Native Americans Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 25 USC §§ 3001-3013 & 40 CFR Part 10

Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards EO 12088

United Facilities Criteria for Low Impact Development United Facilities Criteria 3-210-10

Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation 

Management

EO 13423

Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 

Instruction 5090.2C Change 2

Notes: USC = United States Code; CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; EO = Executive Order

Table 1-2. Intergovernmental Coordination and Permits

Agency Required Permit

United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion

State Water Resources Control Board 2009-0009-DWQ Construction General Permit

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Water Quality Certification

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Permit to Operate
MCAS Miramar 1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 1-6 May 2014

Draft EA

1 1.7 Public Involvement

2 MCAS Miramar published an NOA of the Draft EA for three consecutive days in the San Diego Union 

3 Tribune (Dates TBD). The notice described the Proposed Action, solicited public comments on the Draft 

4 EA, provided dates of the public comment period, instructions for providing comments, and announced 

5 that copies of the Draft EA would be available for public review on the MCAS Miramar website (TBD). 

6 The Draft EA will be available for review for 30 days. All applicable public comments will be taken into 

7 consideration in the development of the Final EA.

8 1.8 Organization of the Document

9 This EA is organized as follows: Chapter 1 defines the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. 

10 Chapter 2 describes the alternatives for accomplishing the Proposed Action, including the No-Action 

11 Alternative, and other alternatives not carried forward for NEPA analysis. Chapter 3 describes the 

12 affected environment and analyzes the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. 

13 Chapter 4 examines the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action and other projects in the area. 

14 Chapter 5 addresses various other considerations required by NEPA. This is followed by chapters on 

15 references, persons and agencies contacted, and a list of preparers and their qualifications. 
P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-1 May 2014

Draft EA

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 This chapter describes the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives for accomplishing the Proposed 

2 Action. As required by NEPA and MCO P5090.2A Ch 3, this EA must identify and assess reasonable 

3 alternatives to the Proposed Action that would avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions on the 

4 quality of the natural and human environment. This EA only carries forward for detailed analysis those 

5 alternatives that could meet the purpose of and need for the project as defined in Chapter 1 and the 

6 reasonable alternative screening criteria listed in Section 2.2.

7 2.1 Proposed Action

8 The Proposed Action addressed in this EA is the upgrade of the existing sewer system at MCAS Miramar 

9 to reduce effluent flow into the City of San Diego’s sewer system to less than the permitted limit of 

10 1.6 mgpd. The Proposed Action involves construction and operation of a storage tank with a holding 

11 capacity sufficient to temporarily retain excess sewage flow generated by a nominal 10-year 24-hour 

12 storm event (1.5 million gallons); an active flow control system to regulate the discharge flow; and 

13 associated piping, pumps, conduits, and access points. Additional supporting improvements include site 

14 access and utility infrastructure upgrades. Site improvements would include grading and clearing; 

15 demolition and repaving of the existing road surface and culverts; and restoration of disturbed areas, 

16 including Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, to pre-construction conditions. Construction is anticipated to occur 

17 over a 15-month period. Operation and maintenance of the facility would entail annual cleaning and 

18 inspection of the storage tank.

19 2.2 Alternatives Development and Screening Criteria

20 MCAS Miramar identified several screening criteria to develop a reasonable range of alternatives that 

21 meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. These factors include:

22 • A design with the ability to temporarily hold excess sanitary sewer volume and regulate flow to 

23 comply with the City of San Diego Industrial User Discharge Permit outfall limits of not more 

24 than 1.6 mgpd.

25 • Holding capacity sufficient to temporarily retain excess sewage flow generated by a nominal 

26 10-year 24-hour storm event (1.5 million gallons).

27 • A design that minimizes complexity and operations and maintenance costs.

28 • A design that provides a single intercept solution (i.e., replaces one line rather than multiple lines).

29 • A location along the existing sewer line near the outfall.

30 • A location that avoids or minimizes potential impacts to sensitive natural resources and 

31 associated impacts to biological communities, including threatened and endangered species.

32 Based on a review of the screening criteria, two design options (the gravity tank and pump station/holding 

33 tank options) to be placed along De La Garza Road have been carried forward for evaluation in this EA. 

34 Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and the No-Action Alternative are described below.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-2 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 2.3 Alternatives

2 2.3.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank Alternative

3 (Preferred Alternative)

4 Two sewer lines, United States Navy [USN] 9 and USN 10, currently exist within De La Garza Road. 

5 USN 9 is a 15-inch vitrified clay pipe located underneath De La Garza Road. USN 10 is a 16-inch

6 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipeline that runs along the north side of De La Garza Road, parallel to the 

7 road. Alternative 1 (De La Garza Road Gravity Tank Alternative) would replace a portion 

8 (approximately 1,400 feet) of USN 9 with a gravity-fed equalization tank (Figure 2-1). 

9 Alternative 1 would consist of demolishing approximately 1,400 feet of De La Garza Road, conducting 

10 any required contaminated soil cleanup, removing a portion of USN 9 and replacing it with a 1.5 million 

11 gallon gravity-fed sewer equalization tank, constructing ancillary support facilities (temporary sewer 

12 bypass system, sewer piping and valve controls, connection to existing electrical utility), and restoring the 

13 roadway and disturbed areas following construction. During construction, USN 10 would be utilized to 

14 bypass USN 9 to allow for the removal and replacement of USN 9 with the new sewer equalization tank. 

15 During operation, USN 10 would be retained and utilized as an emergency bypass to the new sewer 

16 equalization tank when it is full and during tank maintenance. 

17 The following sections describe Alternative 1 in greater detail based on the current conceptual design 

18 (Accord MACTEC Joint Venture [AMJV] 2011a). In accordance with EO 13123 and other directives, 

19 sustainable features were integrated into the project design, development, and construction, as practical. 

20 Reuse of the demolished road pavement and removed sewer pipe was determined to be cost prohibitive. 

21 Final construction plans would be developed under a design-build contract; therefore, minor deviations from 

22 the current conceptual site plan may be required during the final design phase. The conceptual project layout 

23 was designed to represent the maximum level of disturbance, and all areas potentially disturbed are included 

24 within the project boundaries. The project boundary minimizes the impact to native vegetation that occurs 

25 on either side of the existing road. Any design modifications would occur within the project boundary and 

26 would require review and authorization by MCAS Miramar.

27 2.3.1.1 Facilities and Components

28 Equalization Tank

29 The equalization tank would consist of a 1.5-million gallon gravity-fed box culvert (6-feet high by 24-feet 

30 wide by 1,400-feet long), which would replace approximately 1,400 feet of USN 9 under De La Garza 

31 Road (Figure 2-2). There would be a 16-foot difference in elevation from the upstream end (where 

32 sewage enters the tank) to the downstream end of the tank, allowing sewage to flow by gravity (as 

33 opposed to being pumped). The ceiling of the tank would serve as the foundation for new road pavement 

34 for the portion of De La Garza Road within the project site. Once complete, the road would be capable of 

35 handling normal, heavy traffic loads (16,000-pound wheel load or 32,000-pound dual spaced wheel load) 

36 (AMJV 2011a). The tank would have sufficient capacity to temporarily retain excess sewage flow 

37 generated by a nominal 10-year, 24-hour storm, and limit the rate of flow into the City of San Diego’s 

38 sewer system to within the required permit limit of 1,111 gpm (1.6 mgpd) (AMJV 2011a). The tank 

39 would run parallel to USN 10, which would be retained as an emergency bypass.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-3 May 2014

Draft EA

2-1 Conceptual Site Plan for the Proposed Action

Figure 2-1. Conceptual Site Plan for the Alternative 1
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-4 May 2014

Draft EA

2-2 Conceptual Sewer Equalization Tank

Figure 2-2. Conceptual Sewer Equalization Tank
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-5 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 Two manually-operated valves would be installed at the upstream end of the tank, one in USN 9 and one 

2 in USN 10 (Figure 2-3). During normal conditions, the valves would be positioned so that all flow from 

3 USN 9 and USN 10 would be diverted through the sewage equalization tank (valve to USN 9 would be 

4 open and the valve to USN 10 closed). During emergency conditions (e.g., when the tank is full) or 

5 maintenance activities, the valves would be switched to divert all flow into USN 10, bypassing the 

6 equalization tank (Figure 2-3). The control valves at the discharge end of the tank would be operated 

7 automatically by an active flow control system. The tank would have a 15-inch overflow line connecting

8 to USN 10 that would remain open at all times (Figure 2-3). 

9 The overflow line would also provide an escape route for sewer gases generated within the tank, and air 

10 displaced during the filling of the tank. In addition, a 6-inch vent would be located at the upstream end of 

11 the tank that would extend eight feet above ground (to keep it above flood water levels) to also allow for 

12 gas to escape. This vent would be equipped with a carbon filter to reduce objectionable odors.

13 A watertight, traffic-rated hatch would be located at both the upstream and downstream ends of the tank. 

14 These hatches would allow crews to access the tank for inspection and maintenance activities and would 

15 allow the entire length of the tank to be ventilated. The access hatches would be bolted shut when not in use.

16 Active Flow Control System

17 An active flow control system would be used to control the flow rate exiting the sewer equalization tank. 

18 The active control system would consist of a dual redundant system. One system would be active at all times 

19 and the active system would be rotated on a monthly basis to maintain functionality. Each system would 

20 consist of a magnetic flow meter, an electrically actuated valve, and a controller. In addition, the system 

21 would include a mechanical bypass valve to allow flow into the system to flush out the system’s sediment 

22 trap. The active flow control system would be connected to an existing electrical supply at the site. A solar 

23 powered battery could be included as a viable redundant backup for valve control in case of a power 

24 outage, or in case the main power grid is offline.

25 The flow meter would measure the flow through the sewer line. If the flow through the system increases 

26 above 1,111 gpm (1.6 mgpd), the system would automatically close the valve at the discharge end of the 

27 tank to limit the flow to less than 1,111 gpm (1.6 mgpd). The excess flow would be retained in the sewer 

28 equalization tank. If the sewage flow exceeded the capacity of the tank, the overflow would bypass the 

29 active control system and discharge into USN 10 (Figure 2-3). The tank overflow would remain open at 

30 all times.

31 2.3.1.2 Construction

32 Site Preparation

33 Site preparation would include clearing and grubbing of native vegetation (Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub). 

34 The exact amount of native vegetation that could be disturbed would be determined during the final 

35 design phase. However, it is anticipated that up to approximately 0.73 acres of native vegetation (Diegan 

36 Coastal Sage Scrub) along the north and south sides of De La Garza Road could be temporarily disturbed 

37 by clearing and grubbing. In addition, the project would include excavating, stockpiling, and disposing of 

38 approximately 17,000 cubic yards of soil and road pavement. The number and type of heavy motorized 

39 equipment used for site grading and excavating would be developed during the final project design but 

40 would likely include scrapers, front-end loaders, dump trucks, water trucks, and an excavator or auger for 

41 the tank. Two laydown areas for equipment and materials would be utilized during construction. The 

42 primary laydown area would be located on Miramar Way and the second would be located on the south 

43 side of De La Garza Road at the intersection of Pless Road. Both locations are within currently disturbed 

44 areas (Figure 2-1).
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-6 May 2014

Draft EA 

2-3 Equalization Tank and Active Flow System Detail

Figure 2-3. Equalization Tank and Active Flow System Detail
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-7 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 Construction would occur over approximately 15-months. Grubbing and/or removal of surface 

2 vegetation, would be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (15 February through 1 August), to 

3 the maximum extent feasible. Construction would occur during the bird nesting season as the rainy 

4 season allows. Construction would be conducted in accordance with Construction General Permit 

5 Order 2009-009-DWQ, which would be obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board 

6 (SWRCB) prior to the start of construction. In addition, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from 

7 the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) could be required for potential 

8 indirect impacts to water quality in Rose Canyon Creek (Figure 2-1).

9 Following construction, the road surface would be repaved and culverts along the road would be 

10 reconstructed. Disturbed areas, including Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, would be restored to 

11 pre-construction conditions.

12 Soil Management

The project site is located within the boundary of Installation Restoration (IR)1 13 Site 2, Rose Canyon. Soil 

14 sampling was conducted to determine if Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and 

15 Liability Act (CERCLA) contaminants associated with IR Site 2 are present within the project site. Soil 

16 testing results indicated that CERCLA contaminants are not expected to be encountered and that the soil 

17 proposed to be excavated from the project site would not be classified as hazardous waste under either 

18 federal or state regulations (AMJV 2012). However, if prior to or during construction CERCLA 

19 contaminants are discovered removal actions would be subject to the requirements of CERCLA

20 (40 CFR Part 300). In addition, project would be required to: 1) coordinate with MCAS Miramar 

21 Environmental Management Department, Installation Restoration Program Manager and 2) receive 

22 concurrence from the Remedial Project Manager at Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC)

23 and SDRWQCB prior to execution of the project to ensure conformance with CERCLA. CERCLA 

24 removal actions are exempted from the procedural requirements of NEPA. Therefore, any such actions 

25 conducted as part of this alternative are not evaluated in this EA.

26 Fuel-impacted soils (i.e., soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons) are located within the project 

27 site (AMJV 2012). It is anticipated that up to one-third of the 17,000 cubic yards (5,667 cubic yards) of 

28 soils that would be excavated may be fuel-impacted. These soils are not considered hazardous waste, but 

29 do require special handling and disposal. Further studies of IR Site 2 will be conducted to determine the 

30 extent of contaminated soils.

31 The construction contractor would be responsible for proper management and disposal of hazardous 

32 waste generated during construction activities. Any contaminated soils excavated from the project site 

33 would be managed in accordance with conditions set forth in the SDRWQCB Order R9-2002-343, Waste 

34 Discharge Requirement for the Disposal and/or Reuse of Petroleum Fuel Contaminated Soils in the 

35 San Diego Region. Stockpiled soils would be properly characterized using procedures outlined in the 

36 San Diego Department Manual of Environmental Health Site Assessment and Mitigation Manual. If soil 

37 and/or construction debris were determined to be hazardous, they would be stored and transported into 

38 the appropriate waste disposal facility in accordance with 40 CFR and Title 22 regulations. Construction 

39 personnel would be trained for hazardous waste operations and emergency response (HAZWOPER) 

40 in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements 

41 (29 CFR 1910.120 (e)). All hazardous waste generated from the project would be manifested through the 

42 Waste Management Division of the MCAS Miramar Environmental Management Department and be 

43 assigned an MCAS Miramar Generator Number (MCAS Miramar 2009). The project would also comply 

 1 The DoD developed the IR Program to identify, evaluate, and clean up contamination from past operations on military bases worldwide. The 

IR Program is designed to ensure DoD compliance with federal and state regulations that protect the environment.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-8 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 with the Defense Environmental Restoration Program Manual (DERP), USACE EM 385-1-4 (U.S. Safety 

2 and Health Requirement Manual), with regard to disposal of CERCLA waste, and MCO 5090.2A (USMC

3 Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual).

4 2.3.1.3 Site Access

5 During construction, the portion of De La Garza Road located within the project site would be closed to 

6 through traffic. A construction traffic management and detour plan would be developed. This plan would 

7 specify necessary lane closures, detours, signage, lighting, flaggers, and other traffic control measures, as

8 needed during construction. In addition, the plan would specify routes for emergency service vehicles in 

9 the event of an emergency. Sidewinder Road and Johnson Road would provide access to the Fish Pond 

10 for authorized MCAS Miramar personnel to conduct operation and maintenance activities while De La 

11 Garza Road is closed to through traffic (Figure 2-1).

12 2.3.1.4 Utilities

13 Electrical power and communication is provided by overhead electrical distribution lines that terminate in 

14 the western portion of the project site. The active flow control system would be connected to the existing 

15 electrical line at the project site. No other utility upgrades would be required.

16 2.3.1.5 Operation and Maintenance

17 The proposed sewer equalization tank is self-cleaning. However, annual inspection and maintenance of 

18 the tank would be required. Entry into the sewer equalization tank would require a confined space entry 

19 permit and would need to be conducted by qualified and specially trained personnel. A water truck and 

20 pressure washer would be used to wash down the tank on an annual basis.

21 2.3.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and Holding Tank

22 2.3.2.1 Facilities and Components

23 Alternative 2 would include the construction of a holding tank and pump station intersecting and adjacent 

24 to USN 9 and USN 10 (Figure 2-4). 

25 A 26-foot high, 100-foot diameter prefabricated steel tank would be located near the intersection of Pless 

26 Road and De La Garza Road and would sit on a concrete ring pad (100-feet in diameter by 2-feet wide by 

27 3-feet deep) (Figure 2-4) (AMJV 2011b). The holding tank would include a valve vault to house an active 

28 flow control system as a means of regulating the discharge flow. 

29 Ancillary facilities would include a wet well (comprised of a 26-foot by 52-foot box culvert), a pump 

30 station, a return pipe to USN 9, and an overflow tie-in to USN 10 (AMJV 2011b). The pump station 

31 would be housed in a building and would include one pump mounted on a stainless steel rail system 

32 controlled by a variable frequency drive and a dual redundant active flow control system. The active flow 

33 control system would be the same as described for Alternative 1.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-9 May 2014

Draft EA 

2-4 Conceptual Site Plan for Alternative 2

Figure 2-4. Conceptual Site Plan for Alternative 2
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-10 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 2.3.2.2 Construction

2 Site preparation would include clearing and grubbing of approximately 25,000 square feet of material,

3 including the permanent (approximately 0.21 acres) and temporary removal (approximately 0.78 acres) 

4 of native vegetation (Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub). In addition, Alternative 2 would require the grading, 

5 excavating, stockpiling, and disposing of approximately 2,200 cubic yards of soil. Similar to 

6 Alternative 1, the project site is located within the boundary of IR Site 2. It is anticipated that up to 

7 one-third of the 2,200 cubic yards (733 cubic yards) of soils that would be excavated may be 

8 fuel-impacted. Soil excavation, stockpiling, handling, and disposal would be managed as described for 

9 Alternative 1.

10 Heavy motorized equipment used for site grading and excavating would be similar to that described for 

11 Alternative 1. The laydown area for construction equipment and materials would be in the same location 

12 as described for Alternative 1 (Figure 2-4).

13 Construction would to occur over approximately 15-months. Grubbing and/or removal of surface 

14 vegetation, would be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (15 February through 1 August), to the 

15 maximum extent feasible. Construction would occur during the bird nesting season, as the rainy season 

16 allows. Areas temporarily disturbed during construction, including those with Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, 

17 would be restored to pre-construction conditions. Construction would be conducted in accordance with 

18 Construction General Permit Order 2009-009-DWQ, which would be obtained from the SWRCB prior to 

19 the start of construction.

20 2.3.2.3 Site Access

21 During construction of Alternative 2, the portion of De La Garza Road located within the project site 

22 would be closed to through traffic. In addition, Pless Road would be subject to closure during 

23 construction of the proposed water line. A construction traffic management and detour plan would be 

24 developed. This plan would specify necessary lane closures, detours, signage, lighting, flaggers, routes for 

25 emergency service vehicles in the event of an emergency, and other traffic control measures, as needed. 

26 As with Alternative 1, Sidewinder Road and Johnson Road would provide access to the Fish Pond for

27 authorized MCAS Miramar personnel to conduct operation and maintenance activities while De La Garza 

28 Road is closed to through traffic.

29 2.3.2.4 Utilities

30 Alternative 2 would require utility system upgrades and modifications to support the holding tank and 

31 pumps. Approximately 1,400 feet of electrical transmission lines would be constructed to operate the 

32 pump station. The transmission line alignment would tie into the existing distribution system in Miramar 

33 Way, would be placed within the right-of-way along Pless Road, and would connect to the proposed 

34 pump station. During power outages a 150-kilowatt generator would be required to supply electricity to 

35 operate the pump system (AMJV 2011b). During the construction phase of this project, the contractor in 

36 consultation with the station’s Environmental Management Department shall obtain the necessary air 

37 permit from the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) to install the emergency 

38 generator. In addition, the generator’s fuel tank would meet applicable requirements of the Spill 

39 Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule (40 CFR Part 112) and the California Fire Code.

40 Approximately 900 feet of 2-inch water distribution lines would be constructed to provide water to flush 

41 the system after each use. The new water line would connect from existing infrastructure within the Naval 

42 Consolidated Brig area and would be placed within the right-of-way along Pless Road connecting to the 

43 proposed water tank.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-11 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 2.3.2.5 Operation and Maintenance

2 The tank would be flushed following each use, would be painted as needed, and would require 

3 replacement approximately every ten years. The pumps would be flushed and cleaned annually, which 

4 would require one water truck. Entry into the tank would require a confined space entry permit and would 

5 need to be conducted by qualified specially trained personnel.

6 2.3.3 No-Action Alternative

7 Under the No-Action Alterative, the existing sewer system within the project site would not be upgraded. 

8 Therefore, MCAS Miramar would be out of compliance with their sewer system discharge permit during 

9 substantial rainfall events. 

10 The No-Action Alternative provides a measure of the baseline/existing conditions against which the 

11 impacts of the alternatives can be compared. In this EA, the No-Action Alternative is described in 

12 Chapter 3 as the Affected Environment. 

13 2.3.4 Environmental Protection Measures

14 The following section describes the environmental protection measures that would be included in all the 

15 action alternatives (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2) unless otherwise noted. These measures would be 

16 included as contract requirements on all relevant project scoping, scheduling, and planning documents.

17 2.3.4.1 Air Quality

18 Measure 1. Fugitive Dust Control. The project proponent, construction oversight authority, or duly 

19 designated contractor shall ensure that fugitive dust emissions do not extend beyond the property line for 

20 more than 3-minutes in any 60 minute period and shall mitigate fugitive dust to minimize track out/carry 

21 out emissions during demolition, construction, and transport in accordance with the San Diego County 

22 Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) Rule 55. The construction contractor shall implement the 

23 following measures, where applicable, to minimize fugitive dust emissions: 

24 1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to 

25 prevent dust from leaving the construction area.

26 2. Minimize the amount of disturbed ground area at a given time.

27 3. Minimize traffic speeds on all unpaved roads.

28 4. Install gravel pads at construction area access points to prevent tracking of soil onto paved roads.

29 5. Provide temporary wind fencing around sites being graded or cleared.

30 6. Suspend all soil disturbance activities when winds exceed 25 miles per hour or when visible dust 

31 plumes emanate from the site. Stabilize all disturbed areas at this time.

32 7. Cover truck loads that haul dirt, sand, or gravel or maintain at least two feet of freeboard in 

33 accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code.

34 8. After completion of clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation, treat the disturbed areas by 

35 watering, revegetation, or by spreading non-toxic soil binders until they are paved or otherwise 

36 developed to prevent dust generation.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-12 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 9. Designate personnel to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as 

2 necessary, to prevent the transport of dust off-site. Their duties would include holiday and 

3 weekend periods when work may not be in progress.

4 Measure 2. Construction Equipment Emission Control Measures. The construction contractor shall 

5 implement the following measures during proposed construction activities, where feasible. 

6 1. Maintain equipment according to manufacturer specifications.

7 2. Restrict idling of equipment and trucks to a maximum of five minutes at any location.

8 3. Install diesel oxidation catalysts and/or catalyzed diesel particulate traps on equipment exhaust 

9 systems.

10 4. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel- or gasoline-powered generators. 

11 5. Provide temporary traffic control, such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to 

12 maintain smooth traffic flow.

13 6. Keep construction equipment and equipment staging areas away from sensitive receptor areas 

14 (such as day care centers).

15 7. Re-route construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.

16 8. Any equipment or operation requiring an operating permit from the SDCAPCD or other 

17 regulatory body shall be obtained by the owner/operator of that equipment/operation. Examples 

18 of such equipment and operations include non-mobile equipment utilizing an internal combustion 

19 engine greater than 50 break horsepower (bhp) (diesel-fueled electrical generators, lighting units, 

20 air compressors, etc.), rock crushing operation, and concrete batching operation. The use of 

21 off-road diesel vehicles during construction, such as loaders, crawler tractors, skid steers,

22 backhoes, and forklifts with engines rated at 25 bhp or greater, shall comply with California Air 

23 Resources Control Board (ARB) regulations (CCR 13 Section 2449).

24 9. Use alternatively-fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), 

25 liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric. 

26 2.3.4.2 Biological Resources

27 Measure 3. Avoid, Minimize, and Compensate for Disturbance to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. The final 

28 project shall be designed to avoid/minimize impacts by reducing disturbance footprints to Diegan Coastal 

29 Sage Scrub to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, staging areas and/or other temporary 

30 construction-related requirements shall be located within the laydown areas.

31 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would result in temporary impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. The 

32 temporary removal of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub shall be compensated for through habitat 

33 restoration/creation and/or purchase of an equivalent amount of credits from an off-Station conservation 

34 bank. Consistent with the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) (MCAS Miramar 

35 et al. 2011), temporary impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub occupied by or within the use area for the 

36 federally-listed coastal California gnatcatcher and located in MAs I and II would be mitigated at a 

37 2:1 ratio. Impacts to Diegan coastal Sage Scrub not occupied by or within the use area for the 

38 federally-listed coastal California gnatcatcher would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio to achieve no net loss 

39 of the habitat.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-13 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 The Construction Contractor shall develop a Revegetation Plan that will be approved by MCAS Miramar 

2 before implementation. The Revegetation Plan shall address all revegetation efforts associated with the 

3 construction activities and include specific erosion control measures, irrigation requirements, species 

4 composition, seed mix origins and ratios, weed control, water regimes, maintenance activities, success 

5 criteria, and monitoring requirements. Seed mixes used for Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub revegetation shall 

6 be from locally collected sources. A suggested seed mix includes the following species: California 

7 sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), broom baccharis 

8 (Baccharis sarothroides) black sage (Salvia mellifera), and deer weed (Acmispon glaber). The Plan 

9 components shall be implemented as soon as feasible after construction. The Revegetation Plan shall 

10 address all revegetation efforts associated with project activities and include specific erosion control 

11 measures, irrigation requirements, species composition, seed mix origins and ratios, weed control, water 

12 regimes, maintenance activities, success criteria, and monitoring requirements. Disturbed areas of Diegan 

13 Coastal Sage Scrub shall be replanted with appropriate native seed or plantings in accordance with the 

14 Revegetation Plan the first fall after the completion of construction activities and before the winter 

15 rainfall season to minimize the need for watering. Reseeding/replanting that becomes necessary after the 

16 start of the rainy season shall be done as soon as possible. The Revegetation Plan shall specify the final 

17 monitoring program duration and frequency, with a minimum of five years of monitoring post-restoration. 

18 Invasive weed control (e.g., hand removal, mechanical and herbicide control) shall be implemented in 

19 areas reseeded/replanted until the native vegetation is established. The Revegetation Plan will be 

20 approved by the MCAS Miramar Environmental Management Department prior to the start of 

21 construction activities. Areas impacted by construction shall be inspected by the MCAS Miramar

22 Environmental Management Department within one year following the completion of construction, to 

23 determine whether any remedial measures are required. Remedial measures may include 

24 re-seeding/re-planting, weed control, watering, and/or erosion control.

25 Alternative 2 would result in permanent impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub that is not occupied by 

26 coastal California gnatcatcher and is located outside of the use area for this species. Consistent with the 

27 INRMP (MCAS Miramar et al. 2011), permanent impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub located in MAs I 

28 and II that does not provide habitat for federally listed species (i.e., the coastal California gnatcatcher) 

29 will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio to achieve no net loss of habitat. Thus, the permanent removal of Diegan 

30 Coastal Sage Scrub associated with Alternative 2 shall be compensated for through habitat 

31 restoration/creation at a 1:1 ratio or purchase of an equivalent amount of credits from an off-Station 

32 conservation bank.

33 Measure 4. Invasive Plant Species Control. All equipment and/or vehicles shall be power-washed before 

34 entering MCAS Miramar property and the project site. While washing wheeled vehicles, the front wheels 

35 shall be turned lock-to-lock to allow for exposure of surfaces that may hold soil or weed seeds. This is to 

36 control the spread of invasive (non-native) weeds.

37 Measure 5. Conduct Vegetation Removal/Grubbing Outside of Nesting Season for Coastal California 

38 Gnatcatcher and Migratory Bird Treaty Act-Protected Species. Contractors shall comply with the 

39 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Due to the presence of habitat for the federally-listed coastal 

40 California gnatcatcher and other MBTA species within and in the vicinity of the project site, any grading, 

41 grubbing, mowing, and/or removal of surface vegetation, particularly Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, shall 

42 not be scheduled between 15 February and 1 August to avoid potential impacts on nesting. 

43 Measure 6. Biological Monitoring during Construction. A qualified Project Biologist will be retained by 

44 the Contractor for the duration of construction activities and will be on site at all times during clearing 

45 and grubbing of vegetation or habitats that have the potential to support listed species, specifically the 

46 coastal California gnatcatcher and San Diego fairy shrimp. The Project Biologist will identify work areas, 

47 monitor work activity, and provide “tailgate” sessions for the construction contractor, and will oversee 
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-14 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 and execute the conservation protection measures pertaining to biological resources. The Project Biologist 

2 will have experience with threatened California coastal gnatcatcher and endangered San Diego fairy 

3 shrimp and will be approved by MCAS Miramar prior to the start of construction activities.

4 Measure 7. Utilize Designated Areas for Parking, Driving, and General Construction Use. Parking, 

5 driving, laydown, stockpiling, and storing vehicles and equipment shall be limited to existing roads and 

6 previously compacted and developed area. No off-road traveling is permitted outside the project 

7 boundary.

8 Measure 8. Monitoring/Avoidance of Vernal Pools and Other Seasonally Ponded Features Occupied by 

9 San Diego Fairy Shrimp. Occupied vernal pools and other seasonally ponded features in the immediate 

10 vicinity of the project site and vernal pool watersheds within the project site located upgradient of 

11 occupied features shall be clearly marked on construction plans and avoidance areas flagged or fenced 

12 prior to the start of construction activities. Consistent with the INRMP, any construction that could affect 

13 habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp associated with vernal pools, seasonally ponded features, and 

14 vernal pool watersheds located upgradient of these features will occur outside of the rainy season (about 

15 1 November to 1 June) and in dry conditions only. Following the initial clearing of features, ongoing 

16 construction activities can occur in the wet season with implementation of adequate erosion control Best 

17 Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g., jute netting, geotextiles, and other materials), as determined by the 

18 Project Biologist, to avoid an increase or decrease of water quantity, sediment transport, and change in 

19 water quality runoff to pool basins. Sedimentation into basin shall be prevented and soil-disturbing 

20 activities during rainy season or when ground is wet (about 1 November to 1 June) will be minimized.

21 2.3.4.3 Geologic Resources

22 No Environmental Protection Measures are required with respect to Geologic Resources. See 

23 Section 2.5.8 for measures pertaining to erosion.

24 2.3.4.4 Public Health and Safety

25 Measure 9. 40-Hour HAZWOPER Monitor. A monitor, with 40-Hour HAZWOPER training and 

26 experience in identifying contaminated soil and groundwater, will be present during excavation and 

27 grading.

28 2.3.4.5 Recreation

29 Measure 10. Fish Pond Access during Construction. Sidewinder Road and Johnson Road would provide 

30 non-recreation access to the Fish Pond for operation and maintenance activities while De La Garza Road 

31 is closed to through traffic.

32 2.3.4.6 Transportation/Circulation/Traffic

33 Measure 11. Avoid Peak-Hour Delivery. To minimize traffic congestion, the delivery of materials and 

34 equipment shall be outside of peak traffic hours (6:30 to 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 to 5:00 p.m.) unless otherwise 

35 approved by the Contracting Officer. All deliveries are to be via the East Gate on Miramar Way, unless 

36 previously approved by the Contracting Officer.

37 Measure 12. Construction Worker Ridesharing. To minimize traffic congestion, construction workers 

38 shall be encouraged to rideshare/carpool.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-15 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 Measure 13. Construction Traffic Plan. A construction traffic management and detour plan would be 

2 developed. This plan would specify necessary lane closures, detours, signage, lighting, flaggers, and other 

3 traffic control measures, as needed. The traffic plan would specify routes for emergency service vehicles 

4 in the event of an emergency.

5 Measure 14. Road Traffic Load Signs. Warning signs indicating road load rating (16,000 pound wheel 

6 load or 32,000 pound dual space wheel load) shall be posted at the De La Garza entrance off Pless Road.

7 2.3.4.7 Utilities

8 No Environmental Protection Measures are required with respect utilities.

9 2.3.4.8 Water Resources

10 Measure 15. Temporary Sediment Control Measures. Temporary sediment control practices shall be 

11 applied throughout the construction phase within the project site and could include fiber roll and/or silt 

12 fence perimeter protection, fiber roll slope protection, gravel bag, check dam protection. The construction 

13 entrance shall be stabilized to minimize the tracking of mud and dirt onto roads by construction vehicles. 

14 If necessary, a sediment basin would be constructed at the downslope end of the construction area during 

15 construction activities to slow off-site surface flows and sediment transport.

16 Measure 16. Stockpile Management during Construction. Stockpiles of soil shall be properly contained to 

17 eliminate or reduce off-site sediment transport to receiving waters, including Rose Canyon Creek and 

18 downstream Mission Bay. Soil stockpiles shall be placed on top of heavy-duty plastic sheeting on areas 

19 with an improved asphalt or concrete surface. Potentially hazardous waste shall be stored in a designated 

20 area. All soil stockpiles shall be covered with material adequate to prevent soil transport by wind or 

21 rainwater runoff. Covers shall be maintained in good condition.

22 Measure 17. On-site Equipment and Vehicle Washing. Runoff from on-site equipment and vehicle 

23 washing shall be contained at the construction site and would not be discharged to receiving waters or the 

24 local storm drain system.

25 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for Detailed 

26 Analysis

27 The following alternatives, developed as part of a siting study conducted by MCAS Miramar 

28 (AMJV 2011b), were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis in this EA as they did not 

29 meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and/or did not satisfy the reasonable alternative 

30 screening criteria (Section 2.2).

31 2.4.1 Renovation/Modernization of Existing Sewer Lines

32 This alterative would renovate or modernize the existing sewer system at MCAS Miramar. However, 

33 renovation of sewer lines would not address the need to hold excess sanitary sewer volumes and regulate 

34 the discharge rate to the City of San City of San Diego’s sewer system to comply with the designated 

35 permit limit. Therefore, this alternative would not satisfy two of the reasonable alternative screening

36 criteria, and accordingly was eliminated from further consideration in this EA.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-16 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 2.4.2 Gravity-fed Tank Pump on Rim of Rose Canyon

2 This alternative would involve the construction and operation of a gravity-fed sewer equalization tank on 

3 the rim of Rose Canyon, a pump station to lift sewage flow to the higher elevation, and an electrical 

4 connection and emergency power supply to the pump station. This alternative would require the removal 

5 of more than 42,000 square feet of sensitive Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub that has been identified as 

6 occupied California gnatcatcher habitat. In addition, this alternative would require significant costs 

7 associated with construction of the pump station and associated operation and maintenance costs. As 

8 such, this alternative does not meet the screening criteria to minimize operations and maintenance costs, 

9 minimize design complexity, and avoid or minimize potential impacts to sensitive natural resources and 

10 associated impacts to biological communities, including threatened and endangered species. Therefore, 

11 this alternative was eliminated from further consideration in this EA.

12 2.4.3 Multiple Gravity-fed Tank Locations

13 This alterative would involve the construction of four gravity-fed sewage equalization tanks on the four 

14 trunk lines contributing the largest quantity of sewage flow to the Rose Canyon sewer mains. The tanks 

15 would be located at: Rose Canyon North, east of Schlit Avenue; Rose Canyon South, east of 

16 Schlit Avenue; Anderson Avenue; and Flight Line West in vicinity of manhole B1-M17-3.

17 The proposed tank locations would not require alteration of existing structures, cause changes to planned 

18 future development, or result in permanent loss of natural habitat. However, the tie-in at each tank would 

19 require removal of approximately 20 feet by 150 feet of sensitive Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub that has 

20 been identified as occupied California gnatcatcher habitat. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub disturbed during 

21 project activities would be revegetated at the completion of the project, resulting in no permanent loss of 

22 California gnatcatcher habitat.

23 This alternative is a multiple intercept solution and therefore does not meet the screening criteria for a 

24 single intercept solution. In addition, this alternative would not collect any groundwater infiltration 

25 occurring in the mains in Rose Canyon and thus may not meter total flows to below the required 

26 discharge limit. Therefore, the multiple gravity-fed tank locations alternative was eliminated from further 

27 consideration in this EA.

28 2.4.4 Pump Tank on West Side of Pless Road

29 This alternative would be similar in location and design to Alternative 2. However, the tank would be 

30 located on the west side of Pless Road rather than on the east side as proposed under Alternative 2. This 

31 alternative would result in the permanent loss of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation identified as

32 occupied by California coastal gnatcatcher. Therefore, this alternative does not meet the screening criteria 

33 to minimize potential impacts to sensitive natural resources and associated impacts to biological 

34 communities, including threatened and endangered species; accordingly, this alternative was eliminated 

35 from further consideration in this EA.

36 2.5 Summary of Impacts

37 Resource areas analyzed in this EA include the following: Air Quality; Biological Resources; Geologic 

38 Resources; Public Health and Safety; Recreation; Transportation/Circulation/Traffic; Utilities; and Water 

39 Resources. The environmental consequences associated with implementation of Alternative 1, 

40 Alternative 2, and the No-Action Alternative are presented and compared in Table 2-1. A detailed 

41 description of the affected environment and analysis of the environmental consequences is presented in 

42 Chapter 3.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-17 May 2014

Draft EA 

Table 2-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences

Resource

De La Garza Road Gravity Tank

(Alternative 1)

De La Garza Road Pump Station 

and Holding Tank

(Alternative 2) No-Action Alternative

Air Quality Emissions from Alternative 1 would be below the Conformity 

Rule de minimis or the Prevention of Significant Deterioration

thresholds and would satisfy the conditions of a Clean Air Act 

Record of Non-Applicability. Implementation of Special 

Conservation Measures 1 and 2 would minimize emissions of 

fugitive dust and construction equipment emission during 

construction. Additionally, due to the mobile and intermittent 

operation of proposed diesel-powered construction 

equipment over a large construction area, these sources

would produce ambient concentrations of Toxic Air 

Contaminants in a localized area that would remain well 

below acceptable health risk standards. Therefore, significant 

impacts to air quality would not occur and no mitigation is 

required.

Under Alternative 2, impacts on air quality 

would be similar but slightly less than 

Alternative 1 because it would require less 

equipment usage for grading and construction 

of the new pump station and holding tank. 

Therefore, significant impacts to air quality 

would not occur and no mitigation is required.

For the No-Action Alternative, the 

Proposed Action would not occur, 

and there would be no change in 

existing conditions. No impacts on 

air quality would occur and no 

mitigation is required.

Biological 

Resources

Alternative 1 would result in direct, temporary impacts during 

construction to 0.73 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub in 

two long, narrow strips along both sides of De La Garza 

Road that provides suitable habitat for the federally-listed 

coastal California gnatcatcher and for migratory bird species, 

including 19 species designated as Species of Concern 

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Alternative 1 could result 

in temporary, indirect impacts to Rose Canyon Creek,

associated jurisdictional wetlands, and several vernal pools 

and other seasonally ponded features in the project vicinity. 

With implementation of Environmental Protection Measures 

3 through 8 including avoiding impacts on federally listed 

gnatcatcher, Migratory Bird Treaty Act-protected nesting bird 

species, and vernal pools; and avoiding and minimizing 

disturbance to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, significant 

impacts to biological resources would not occur.

Under Alternative 2, impacts on biological 

resources would be greater than Alternative 2

because construction of the pump station and 

holding tank would result in the temporary 

removal of 0.78 and the permanent removal of 

0.21 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 

which provides suitable habitat for the 

federally-listed coastal California gnatcatcher.

In addition, Alternative 2 would result in direct, 

temporary impacts approximately 60 linear feet 

of Rose Canyon Creek. However, with 

implementation of Environmental Protection 

Measures 3 through 8 significant impacts to 

biological resources would not occur.

For the No-Action Alternative, the 

Proposed Action would not occur. 

There would be no change in 

existing conditions and no impacts 

on biological resources would occur.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-18 May 2014

Draft EA 

Table 2-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences

Resource

De La Garza Road Gravity Tank

(Alternative 1)

De La Garza Road Pump Station 

and Holding Tank

(Alternative 2) No-Action Alternative

Geologic 

Resources

With conformance to established plans and policies,

Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command P-355 Seismic Design Manual, most 

stringent criteria identified in the latest design specifications 

of the Structural Engineering Association of California, MCAS 

Miramar requirements to prepare a site-specific geotechnical 

investigation with recommendations for design and 

construction, and the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit 

for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction 

and Land Disturbance (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ; NPDES 

No. CAS000002), including implementation of standard 

Best Management Practices, and erosion control measures, 

significant impacts to geologic resources would not occur and 

no mitigation is required.

Under Alternative 2, impacts on geologic 

resources would be similar but slightly less than 

Alternative 1 because it would require less 

equipment usage for grading and construction 

of the new pump station and holding tank. 

Therefore, significant impacts to geologic 

resources would not occur and no mitigation is 

required.

For the No-Action Alternative, the 

Proposed Action would not occur, 

and there would be no change in 

existing conditions. No impacts on 

geologic resources would occur and 

no mitigation is required.

Public Health and 

Safety

The project would comply with established plans and 

policies; the DoN Environmental Restoration Program; 

USACE EM 385-1-4 (U.S. Safety and Health Requirement 

Manual); MCO 5090.2A (USMC Environmental Compliance 

and Protection Manual), San Diego Department Manual of 

Environmental Health Site Assessment and Mitigation 

Manual, SDRWQCB Order R9-2002-343, Waste Discharge 

Requirement for the Disposal and/or Reuse of Petroleum 

Fuel Contaminated Soils in the San Diego Region; and 

EO 13423 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, 

and Transportation Management). In addition, Special 

Conservation Measures 9 (40-Hour HAZWOPER monitoring) 

and 16 (Soil Stockpile Management) would minimize be 

implemented during construction. Therefore, significant 

impacts to public health and safety would not occur and no 

mitigation is required.

Under Alternative 2, impacts on public health 

and safety would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 1. Therefore, 

significant impacts to public health and safety 

would not occur and no mitigation is required.

For the No-Action Alternative, the 

Proposed Action would not occur, 

and there would be no change in 

existing conditions. However, 

inadvertent discharge of wastewater 

to Mission Bay would continue to 

occur during some heavy 

precipitation events. As a result, 

public health impacts related to poor 

water quality would continue to 

occur in association with the 

No-Action Alternative.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-19 May 2014

Draft EA 

Table 2-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences

Resource

De La Garza Road Gravity Tank

(Alternative 1)

De La Garza Road Pump Station 

and Holding Tank

(Alternative 2) No-Action Alternative

Recreation Access to the Fish Pond would be closed temporarily during 

construction. However, the reduction of available resources 

would be short-term and only affect a small non-public user 

group. Following construction, access to the Fish Pond would 

be the same as under the existing conditions. Non-recreation 

access to the Fish Pond for authorized personnel to conduct 

operation and maintenance activities would be provided by 

Sidewinder Road and Johnson Road for operation and 

maintenance activities while De La Garza Road is closed to 

through traffic (Measure 10). Therefore, no significant 

permanent impacts to recreation would occur during 

operation and no mitigation is required.

Under Alternative 2, impacts on recreation 

would be the same as those described for 

Alternative 1. Significant impacts to recreation 

would not occur and no mitigation is required.

For the No-Action Alternative, the 

Proposed Action would not occur, 

and there would be no change in 

existing conditions. No impacts on 

recreation would occur.

Transportation, 

Circulation, and 

Traffic

Addition of the construction traffic during peak traffic hours 

would worsen the delays at the freeway ramps and 

intersections in the vicinity of the East Gate already operating 

at Level of Service (LOS) F and would contribute to already 

poorly performing freeway segments along I-15 in the vicinity 

of MCAS Miramar. Implementation of Measure 11

(rideshare/carpooling) would minimize impacts. In addition, 

construction of Alternative 1 would require the temporary 

closure of De La Garza Road. Implementation of Measure 14

Construction Traffic Management and Detour Plan would 

minimize impacts. Therefore, no significant impacts to 

transportation, circulation, and traffic would occur and no 

mitigation is required.

Under Alternative 2, impacts on transportation, 

circulation, and traffic would be the same as 

those described for Alternative 1 and significant 

impacts to would not occur and no mitigation is 

required.

For the No-Action Alternative, the 

Proposed Action would not occur, 

and there would be no change in 

existing conditions. No impacts on 

transportation, circulation, and traffic 

would occur.
MCAS Miramar 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 2-20 May 2014

Draft EA 

Table 2-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences

Resource

De La Garza Road Gravity Tank

(Alternative 1)

De La Garza Road Pump Station 

and Holding Tank

(Alternative 2) No-Action Alternative

Utilities Alternative 1 would not include the construction or operation 

of new water distribution mains, natural gas distribution lines, 

or communications lines, and would not result in an increase 

in demands of these utilities at MCAS Miramar.

Alternative 1 would increase demands on sanitary sewer 

system, electricity, storm drainage system and solid waste 

disposal. However, the existing capacities of all utilities are 

adequate to accommodate Alternative 1. Therefore, 

significant impacts on utilities would not occur and no 

mitigation is required.

Alternative 2 would not include the construction 

or operation of new natural gas distribution 

lines or communications lines, and would not 

result in an increase in demands of these 

utilities at MCAS Miramar.

Alternative 2 would increase demands on 

sanitary sewer system, water supply and 

distribution system, electricity, storm drainage 

system and solid waste disposal. However, the 

existing capacities of all utilities are adequate to 

accommodate Alternative 2. Therefore,

significant impacts on utilities would not occur 

and no mitigation is required.

For the No-Action Alternative, the 

Proposed Action would not occur, 

and there would be no change in 

existing conditions. No impacts on 

utilities would occur.

Water Resources Alternative 1 would potentially discharge waste materials that 

would affect the quality of surface water during construction. 

These impacts would be managed through incorporation of 

Low Impact Development features into the project design, 

conformance with applicable requirements including the 

NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, 

and the MCAS Miramar Storm Water Management Plan for 

non-industrial uses. In addition, Alternative 1 would include a 

number of Environmental Protection Measures and BMPs to 

prevent or minimize potential effects to water quality, 

increased sedimentation, and/or flooding potentials in Rose 

Canyon Creek and downstream Mission Bay, as specified 

by Environmental Protection Measures 15 through 17.

Therefore, significant impacts to water resources would not 

occur and no mitigation is required.

Under Alternative 2, impacts on water 

resources would similar to but less than those 

described for Alternative 1 because a smaller 

area of disturbance would be required under 

this alternative. Therefore, significant impacts to 

water resources would not occur and no 

mitigation is required.

For the No-Action Alternative, the 

Proposed Action would not occur, 

and there would be no change in 

existing conditions. However, 

without the sewer upgrades, 

inadvertent discharge of wastewater 

to Rose Canyon Creek and Mission 

Bay would continue to occur during 

some heavy precipitation events. As 

a result, water quality would 

continue to be degraded in 

association with the No-Action 

Alternative.
P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.1-1 May 2014

Draft EA

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

1 This chapter describes the conditions of the existing environment and environmental consequences for 

2 resources potentially affected by implementation of Alternative 1 (De La Garza Gravity Tank), 

3 Alternative 2 (De La Garza Road Pump Station and Holding Tank), and the No-Action Alternative. The 

4 resources evaluated in detail in this chapter include Air Quality (Section 3.1), Biological Resources 

5 (Section 3.2), Geologic Resources (Section 3.3), Public Health and Safety (Section 3.4), Recreation 

6 (Section 3.5), Transportation, Circulation, and Traffic (Section 3.6), Utilities (Section 3.7), and Water 

7 Resources (Section 3.8). 

8 3.1 Air Quality

9 3.1.1 Definition of Resource

10 Air quality in a given location is defined by pollutant concentrations in the atmosphere and is generally

expressed in units of parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3 11 ). One aspect of 

12 significance is a pollutant’s concentration in comparison to a national ambient air quality standard. Such 

13 standards represent the maximum allowable atmospheric concentrations that may occur while still 

14 protecting public health and welfare with a reasonable margin of safety. The Environmental Protection 

15 Agency (EPA) established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS 

16 represent maximum acceptable concentrations that generally may not be exceeded more than once per 

17 year, except annual standards, which may never be exceeded. The NAAQS are shown in Table 3.1-1.

18 This section addresses baseline air quality conditions for MCAS Miramar and includes a description of air 

19 quality terminology, regulatory requirements applicable to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, and current air 

20 quality conditions.

21 The main pollutants of concern considered in this air quality analysis include volatile organic compounds 

22 (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter less than or equal to 

23 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter 

24 (PM2.5). Although VOCs and NOx (other than nitrogen dioxide) have no established ambient standards, 

25 they are important as precursors to ozone (O3) formation.

26 Toxic air contaminants (TACs) include air pollutants that can cause serious illnesses or increased 

27 mortality, even in low concentrations. TACs are compounds that generally have no established ambient 

28 standards, but are known or suspected to cause short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic 

29 non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic) adverse health effects. The ARB designates diesel particulate matter 

30 (DPM) from the combustion of diesel fuel as a TAC. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are the term used 

31 by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for a set of air pollutants that are similar to TACs. The CAA 

32 identifies 187 substances as HAPs, such as benzene, formaldehyde, mercury, and toluene.

33 In addition to the criteria pollutants listed above, anthropogenic (caused by human activities) greenhouse 

34 gases (GHGs) have been identified as contributors to global climate change. GHGs include carbon 

35 dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and other trace gases that are present in trace 

36 amounts in the atmosphere. This is a developing area of scientific study with no established thresholds to 

37 determine significance of impacts under NEPA. The potential effects of proposed GHG emissions are by 

38 nature global and cumulative impacts, as individual sources of GHG emissions are not large enough on 

39 their own to have an appreciable effect on climate change. Therefore, the impact of proposed GHG 

40 emissions to climate change is discussed in the context of cumulative impacts in Chapter 4.
MCAS Miramar 3.1 Air Quality

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.1-2 May 2014

Draft EA

Table 3.1-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Time

National Standards (a)

Primary (b, c) Secondary (b, d)

Ozone (O3) 8-hour 0.075 ppm

(147 μg/m3) Same as primary

Carbon monoxide (CO)

8-hour 9 ppm

(10 mg/m3) ---

1-hour 35 ppm

(40 mg/m3) ---

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

Annual 0.053 ppm

(100 μg/m3) Same as primary

1-hour 0.10 ppm

(188 μg/m3) ---

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

3-hour

1-hour 0.075 ppm

(196 μg/m3) ---

PM10 24-hour 150 μg/m3 Same as primary

PM2.5

Annual 15 μg/m3 ---

24-hour 35 μg/m3 ---

Lead Rolling 3-month average 0.15 μg/m3 Same as primary

Quarterly average 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary

Notes: ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meters

a Standards other than the 24-hour PM10, 24-hour PM2.5, and those based on annual averages are not to be 

exceeded more than once a year. 

b Concentrations are expressed first in units in which they were promulgated. Equivalent units given in 

parenthesis.

c Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public 

health. Each state must attain the primary standards no later than three years after that states implementation plan 

is approved by the EPA.

d Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or 

anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

Source: California Air Resources Board 2012

1 3.1.2 Region of Influence

2 The region of influence (ROI) for this air quality analysis is defined as all of San Diego County, which 

3 equates to the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Identifying the ROI for air quality requires knowledge of the 

4 types of pollutants being emitted, pollutant emission rates, topography, and meteorological conditions. 

5 The ROI for inert pollutants (pollutants other than ozone and its precursors) is generally limited to a few 

6 miles downwind from a source. The ROI for photochemical pollutants, such as O3, can extend much 

7 farther downwind than for inert pollutants. Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by 

8 photochemical reactions of previously emitted pollutants, or precursors. Ozone precursors are mainly 

9 VOCs and NOx. In the presence of solar radiation, the maximum effect of VOCs and NOx emissions on 

10 O3 levels usually occurs several hours after they are emitted and many miles from the source.

11 3.1.3 Affected Environment

12 3.1.3.1 Baseline Air Quality

13 The EPA designates all areas of the U.S. in terms of having air quality better than (attainment) or worse 

14 than (nonattainment) the NAAQS. Former nonattainment areas that have attained the NAAQS are 

15 designated as maintenance areas. Presently, the SDAB is in attainment of the NAAQS for all pollutants 
MCAS Miramar 3.1 Air Quality

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.1-3 May 2014

Draft EA

1 except O3. Additionally, the western portion of the SDAB (the portion of San Diego County generally 

2 west of the interior desert region) is also a maintenance area for CO.

3 Ozone concentrations are generally the highest during the summer months, coinciding with the period of 

4 maximum regional insolation. Maximum O3 concentrations tend to be regionally distributed, since 

5 precursor emissions become homogeneously dispersed in the atmosphere. Inert pollutants, such as CO, 

6 tend to have the highest concentrations during the colder months of the year, when light winds and 

7 nighttime/early morning surface-based temperature inversions inhibit atmospheric dispersion. Maximum 

8 inert pollutant concentrations are usually found in direct proximity to an emission source.

9 3.1.3.2 Regional and Local Air Pollutant Sources

10 The SDCAPCD periodically updates emissions for the SDAB for purposes of forecasting future 

11 emissions, analyzing emission control measures, and for use in regional air quality modeling. The largest 

12 sources of VOCs, CO, and NOx emissions within the region are on-road vehicles. The 2008 annual 

13 emissions inventory determined that on-road vehicles emitted 33 percent of the VOCs, 64 percent of the 

14 CO, and 56 percent of the NOx emissions within the entire SDAB (ARB 2009). Other large contributors 

15 of VOCs within the region include the use of solvents and surface coatings. Combustive sources such as 

16 vehicles, diesel engines, and industrial facilities emit fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and gaseous 

17 pollutants (such as NOx), which can react in the atmosphere to produce secondary fine particulates. 

18 Coarser particles (PM10) are directly emitted from soil-disturbing activities such as construction, mining, 

19 agriculture, and vehicular road dust.

20 Emission sources associated with existing uses at MCAS Miramar include civilian and military personal 

21 vehicles, commercial and military vehicles, aircraft engines, tactical support equipment, small stationary 

22 sources, and ongoing construction activities.

23 3.1.3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

24 Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. These emissions occur from natural 

25 processes and human activities. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere influences the long-term 

26 range of average atmospheric temperatures. Scientific evidence indicates a trend of increasing global 

27 temperature over the past century due to an increase in GHG emissions from human activities. The 

28 climate change associated with this global warming is predicted to produce negative economic and social 

29 consequences across the globe.

30 The most common GHGs emitted from natural processes and human activities include CO2, CH4, and 

31 N2O. Examples of GHGs created and emitted primarily through human activities include fluorinated 

32 gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons used in refrigerants and propellants, among other 

33 products) and sulfur hexafluoride. Each GHG is assigned a global warming potential (GWP), which 

34 equates to the ability of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP rating system is 

35 standardized to CO2, which has a value of one. For example, CH4 has a GWP of 21, which means that it 

36 has a global warming effect 21 times greater than CO2 on an equal-mass basis. The total GHG emissions 

37 from a source are often expressed as a CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The CO2e is calculated by multiplying the 

38 emission of each GHG by its GWP and adding the products together to produce a single, combined 

39 emission rate representing all GHGs.

40 Recent observed changes due to global warming include shrinking glaciers, thawing permafrost, a 

41 lengthened growing season, and shifts in plant and animal ranges (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

42 Change 2007; United States Global Change Research Program 2009; and California Energy 

43 Commission 2012). Predictions of long-term environmental impacts due to global warming include 
MCAS Miramar 3.1 Air Quality

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.1-4 May 2014

Draft EA

1 sea level rise, changing weather patterns with increases in the severity of storms and droughts, changes to 

2 local and regional ecosystems including the potential loss of species, and a significant reduction in winter 

3 snow pack. In California, global warming effects are predicted to include exacerbation of air quality 

4 problems, a reduction in municipal water supply from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea level that would 

5 displace coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and an increase 

6 in the incidence of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health problems (California Energy 

7 Commission 2012).

8 Federal agencies on a national scale address emissions of GHGs by reporting and meeting reductions 

9 mandated in federal laws, EOs, and agency policies. The most recent of these are EOs 13423 and 13514 

10 and the EPA Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. Several states have promulgated 

11 laws as a means of reducing statewide levels of GHG emissions. In particular, the California Global 

12 Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) directs the State of California to reduce statewide 

13 GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Groups of states also have formed regionally-based 

14 collectives (such as the Western Climate Initiative) to jointly address GHG pollutants.

15 In an effort to reduce energy consumption, reduce dependence on petroleum, and increase the use of 

16 renewable energy resources in accordance with the goals set by EOs and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

17 the Marine Corps and DoD have implemented a number of renewable energy projects (NAVFAC

18 Southwest 2006a). The types of projects currently in operation within the southwest region include 

19 thermal and photovoltaic solar systems, geothermal power plants, and wind generators. The military also 

20 purchases one half of the biodiesel fuel sold in California and continues to promote and install new 

21 renewable energy projects within the southwest region.

22 On 18 February 2010, the CEQ proposed for the first time draft guidance on how federal agencies should 

23 evaluate the effects of climate change and GHG emissions for NEPA documentation (CEQ 2010). The 

24 CEQ does not provide a reference point as an indicator of a level of GHG emissions that may 

25 significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In the analysis of the direct effects of a 

26 proposed action, the CEQ proposes that it would be appropriate to: 1) quantify cumulative emissions over 

27 the life of the project; 2) discuss measures to reduce GHG emissions, including consideration of 

28 reasonable alternatives; and 3) qualitatively discuss the link between such GHG emissions and climate 

29 change. The CEQ is expected to issue its final guidance in the near future.

30 3.1.4 Applicable Regulations and Standards

31 The CAA of 1970 and its subsequent amendments establish air quality regulations, and the NAAQS 

32 delegate the enforcement of these standards to the states. In California, the ARB is responsible for 

33 enforcing air pollution regulations. In San Diego County, the SDCAPCD has this responsibility. Basic 

34 elements of the CAA include the NAAQS for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, 

35 attainment plans, motor vehicle emission standards, stationary source emission standards and permits, and 

36 enforcement provisions.

37 The CAA establishes air quality planning processes and requires areas in nonattainment of a NAAQS to 

38 develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that details how the state will attain the standard within 

39 mandated time frames. The requirements and compliance dates for attainment are based on the severity of 

40 the nonattainment classification of the area. The following section provides a summary of the federal, 

41 state, and local air quality rules and regulations that apply to the Proposed Action and its alternatives.
MCAS Miramar 3.1 Air Quality

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.1-5 May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.1.4.1 Federal Regulations

2 Clean Air Act

3 Section 176(c) of the CAA, as articulated in the EPA General Conformity Rule, states that a federal 

4 agency cannot issue a permit or support an activity unless the agency determines that it will conform to

5 the most recent EPA-approved SIP. This means that projects using federal funds or requiring federal 

6 approval in nonattainment or maintenance areas must not: 1) cause or contribute to any new violation of 

7 an NAAQS; 2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation; or 3) delay the timely 

8 attainment of any standard, interim emission reduction, or other milestone. Emissions of attainment 

9 pollutants are exempt from the conformity rule. Actions would conform to a SIP if their annual emissions 

10 remain less than applicable de minimis thresholds. Formal conformity determinations are required for any 

11 actions that exceed these thresholds. Based on the present attainment status of the SDAB, the Proposed 

12 Action would conform to the most recent EPA-approved SIP if its annual construction or operational 

13 emissions do not exceed 100 tons of VOCs, CO, or NOx. SDCAPCD Rule 1501 implements the EPA 

14 General Conformity Rule. The conformity evaluation for the Proposed Action is summarized in 

15 Section 3.1.5 and presented in complete form in Appendix A-1of this EA.

16 Executive Orders

17 The following EOs regulate air quality.

18 • EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, requires federal agencies to

19 comply with applicable pollution control standards and to cooperate with EPA, state, and local 

20 regulatory agencies.

21 • EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, sets 

22 goals to reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy intensity by 3 percent annually or 30 percent 

23 by 2015.

24 • EO 13432, Cooperation Among Agencies in Protecting the Environment with Respect to 

25 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles, Nonroad Vehicles, and Nonroad Engines, 

26 ensures the coordination between federal agencies to protect the environment with respect to 

27 GHG emissions from vehicles, engines, and motor vehicle fuels.

28 • EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 

29 establishes sustainability goals for federal agencies. This EO requires federal agencies to increase 

30 energy efficiency, reduce GHG emissions, conserve water, reduce waste, support sustainable 

31 development, reduce petroleum consumption, and promote environmentally responsible products 

32 and technologies.

33 3.1.4.2 Local Regulations

34 The SDCAPCD is the local agency responsible for enforcement of air quality regulations in the project 

35 region. The SDCAPCD has developed air quality plans to reduce emissions to a level that will bring the 

36 SDAB into attainment of the ambient air quality standards (SDCAPCD 2013a). Control measures for 

37 stationary sources proposed in the air quality plans and adopted by the SDCAPCD are incorporated into 

38 the SDCAPCD Rules and Regulations (SDCAPCD 2013b).

39 3.1.5 Environmental Consequences

40 For the purposes of this air quality analysis and for air pollutants designated as in nonattainment or 

41 maintenance of an NAAQS and therefore subject to general conformity requirements, if the total 
MCAS Miramar 3.1 Air Quality

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.1-6 May 2014

Draft EA

1 emissions estimated for the Proposed Action or alternative exceed a conformity de minimis threshold that 

2 triggers a conformity determination in the SDAB project region (100 tons per year of VOCs, CO, or 

3 NOx), further analysis was conducted to determine whether impacts were significant. In such cases, if 

4 emissions conform to the approved SIP, then proposed impacts would not be determined significant. In 

5 the case of a criteria pollutant for which the SDAB is in attainment of its NAAQS (SO2, PM10, and PM2.5), 

6 the analysis used the EPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) threshold for new major sources 

7 of 250 tons per year as an indicator of significance of air quality impacts from the Proposed Action or 

8 alternative. Although the PSD permitting program is not applicable to mobile sources, PSD thresholds are 

9 used as criteria for measuring air quality impacts under NEPA.

10 Air quality impacts from the Proposed Action or alternative would occur from: 1) combustive emissions 

11 due to the use of fossil fuel-powered equipment; and 2) fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) during 

12 site preparation and the operation of equipment on exposed soils. Factors needed to derive proposed 

13 construction source emission rates were obtained from the Compilation of Air Pollution Emission 

14 Factors, AP-42, Volume I (EPA 1995), EMFAC2011 Model for on-road vehicles (ARB 2013a), and the 

15 In-Use Off-Road Equipment 2011 Inventory Model for off-road construction equipment (ARB 2013b).

16 The equipment activity data needed to estimate emissions from proposed construction were based on past 

17 construction projects that are similar to the Proposed Action. Appendix A-1 includes data and 

18 assumptions used to calculate proposed construction emissions. As a conservative approach, the analysis 

19 assumed that all construction would occur within one calendar year.

20 3.1.5.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank (Preferred Alternative)

21 Table 3.1-2 summarizes the annual and total emission estimations for the construction of Alternative 1.

22 These data show that annual VOC, CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions generated from 

23 Alternative 1 would only be small fractions of their applicable conformity de minimis or PSD threshold.

24 As a result, Alternative 1 would not produce significant air quality impacts and no mitigation is required.

25 Implementation of standard fugitive dust and construction equipment emission control measures (Special 

26 Conservation Measures 1 and 2) would minimize emissions of PM10 and PM2.5.

27 Proposed construction equipment would emit TACs that could potentially impact public health. The main 

28 source of TACs would occur in the form of particulates from the combustion of diesel fuel. Due to the 

29 mobile and intermittent operation of proposed diesel-powered construction equipment over a large 

30 construction area, these sources would produce ambient concentrations of TACs in a localized area that 

31 would remain well below acceptable health risk standards. As a result, Alternative 1 would not produce 

32 significant impacts to public health and no mitigation is required.

33 Operational activities associated with Alternative 1 would produce a minor amount of air emissions due 

34 to the occasional consumption of electricity and the use of a water truck and pressure washer to maintain 

35 the tank on an annual basis. Therefore, operation of Alternative 1 would not produce significant air 

36 quality impacts and no mitigation is required.

37 The results of air quality analysis indicate that proposed emissions from Alternative 1 would not exceed 

38 their applicable conformity de minimis thresholds. Appendix A-2 of this EA includes a CAA Record of 

39 Non-Applicability (RONA) documentation for Alternative 1.
MCAS Miramar 3.1 Air Quality

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.1-7 May 2014

Draft EA

Table 3.1-2. Annual and Total Emissions Due to Construction of the Sewer Equalization Tanks at

MCAS Miramar – Alternative 1 and Alternative 2

Alternative/Activity

Air Pollutant Emissions (Tons)

VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2e

Alternative 1

Site Preparation/Backfill 0.04 0.12 0.48 0.00 1.13 0.13 62.34

Construct Sewer Tank 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.10 0.01 15.64

Pave De la Garza Road 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 1.98

Total Emissions – Alternative 1 0.05 0.15 0.63 0.00 1.24 0.15 79.96

Alternative 2

Site Preparation 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.01 8.99

Construct Steel Tank/Box Culvert 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.01 8.28

Utilities Installation 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 3.59

Total Emissions – Alternative 2 0.02 0.04 0.17 0.00 0.10 0.02 20.87

NEPA Significance Thresholds 1002 1002 1002 2503 2503 2503 NA

Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; NA = not available; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; NOx = 

oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter less than or equal to 

10 microns in diameter; SO2 = sulfur dioxide

1. Assumes all emissions would occur within a calendar year.

2. Conformity de minimis threshold.

3. Environmental Protection Agency Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) threshold.

1 3.1.5.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and Holding Tank

2 Table 3.1-2 summarizes the annual and total emission estimations for the construction of Alternative 2.

3 These data show that annual VOC, CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions generated from 

4 Alternative 2 would be only small fractions of their applicable conformity de minimis or PSD thresholds.

5 As a result, Alternative 2 would not produce significant air quality impacts and no mitigation is required.

6 Implementation of standard fugitive dust and construction equipment emission control measures (Special 

7 Conservation Measures 1 and 2) would minimize emissions of PM10 and PM2.5.

8 Proposed construction equipment would emit TACs that could potentially impact public health. The main 

9 source of TACs would occur in the form of particulates from the combustion of diesel fuel. Due to the 

10 mobile and intermittent operation of proposed diesel-powered construction equipment over a large 

11 construction area, these sources would produce ambient concentrations of TACs in a localized area that 

12 would remain well below acceptable health risk standards. As a result, Alternative 2 would not produce 

13 significant impacts to public health and no mitigation is required.

14 Operational activities associated with Alternative 2 would produce a minor amount of air emissions due 

15 to the occasional consumption of electricity and the use of a water truck to maintain the tank on an annual 

16 basis. During power outages, a 150-kilowatt diesel-powered generator would supply electricity to operate 

17 the pump system. The generator would operate under an SDCAPCD air permit and would produce minor 

18 air quality impacts. Therefore, operation of Alternative 2 would not produce significant air quality 

19 impacts and no mitigation is required.

20 3.1.5.3 No-Action Alternative

21 Under the No-Action Alternative, none of the proposed upgrades to the existing sewer system would 

22 occur. Therefore, no impacts on air quality would occur and no mitigation is required.
MCAS Miramar 3.1 Air Quality

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.1-8 May 2014

Draft EA

This page intentionally left blank.
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-1 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 3.2 Biological Resources

2 3.2.1 Definition of Resource

3 For the purposes of this EA, biological resources are defined as plant communities, plant species, wildlife 

4 species, habitat linkages, and special status communities and species that may be affected by 

5 implementation of the Proposed Action and alternatives. These resources are divided into four major 

6 categories: vegetation communities, general wildlife, special status species, and wetlands and other 

7 Waters of the U.S.

8 Vegetation communities include all existing terrestrial plant communities, with the exception of special 

9 status plant species.

10 General Wildlife includes all animals with the exception of these identified as special status species. 

11 Wildlife includes invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

12 Special status species are defined as those listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing as 

13 threatened or endangered, or are candidates for such listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

14 ESA protects federally-listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. Federal species of

15 concern are protected by law; however, these species could become listed, and thus protected, at any time. 

16 Although DoN policy encourages cooperation to protect state and state-listed species; there is no statutory 

17 mandate for protection by federal entities. Also included in this category are species protected by the Bald 

18 Eagle Protection Act, federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act [MBTA], and EO 13186, Responsibilities of 

19 Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.

20 The following data sources were consulted/developed to support the analysis present in this chapter:

21 • MCAS Miramar INRMP (MCAS Miramar et al. 2011); 

22 • MCAS Miramar geographic information systems (GIS) resource database (MCAS Miramar GIS 

23 Data 2012) and site visits conducted on 13 October 2012 and 10-12 April 2013; 

24 • MCAS Miramar Natural Resource Division staff and NAVFAC Southwest natural resource and 

25 planning staff have provided additional relevant information and technical reports;

26 • Rare plant survey data (Dossey and Associates 2006 and 2008); 

27 • Coastal California gnatcatcher survey data (Haas 2010; Tierra Data Inc. 2013; personal 

28 communication, Dr. Chuck Black 2013);

29 • Dry season protocol vernal pool fairy shrimp species survey data (MCAS Miramar 2012; site 

30 visits conducted by SAIC on 13 October 2012 and 10 - 12 April 2013; personal communication 

31 Dr. Chuck Black 2013); and

32 • Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. surveys (Lichvar and Dixon 2008; SAIC 2013).

33 Wetlands are defined under Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations (33 CFR 328) as, “those areas that are 

34 inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and 

35 that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in 

36 saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamp, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” 

37 Jurisdictional wetlands exist when the following three criteria are present: wetland hydrology, hydric soils 

38 (i.e., soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing 
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-2 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part), and hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., plant-life that 

2 thrives in wet conditions).

3 3.2.2 Region of Influence

4 The ROI for biological resources is defined as areas wherein biological resources may be directly or 

5 indirectly affected due to ground disturbance during construction activities. For the purposes of this 

6 project, this includes the project sites for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 and immediately adjacent areas. 

7 3.2.3 Affected Environment

8 3.2.3.1 Vegetation Communities

9 The vegetation communities described in this EA are based on data from the MCAS Miramar GIS 

10 database depicting the vegetation communities found within and adjacent to the project site for

11 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (MCAS Miramar 2012 GIS Data) and a site visit in 2013. The description 

12 of vegetation communities in this EA follows the Oberbauer et al. (2008) classification system, which 

13 expands upon the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California

14 (Holland 1986). Scientific nomenclature for plants follows The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of 

15 California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). 

16 Vegetation communities that occur in Rose Canyon surrounding the project site include: Chamise 

17 Chaparral, Coastal and Valley Fresh Water Marsh, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Scrub Oak Chaparral, 

18 Southern Mixed Chaparral, Disturbed, and Developed. However, only four vegetation communities are 

19 present within the project site: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, 

20 Disturbed, and Developed. Figure 3.2-1 depicts vegetation communities identified within the project site 

21 for Alternative 1, which is located immediately adjacent to De La Garza Road. Figure 3.2-2 shows 

22 vegetation communities within the project site for Alternative 2, which is located immediately adjacent to 

23 De La Garza Road and Pless Road. Table 3.2-1 provides the amount of each vegetation community 

24 located within the project site for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. A detailed description of each 

25 community is provided in Oberbauer et al. (2008) and a general description of each community in relation 

26 to the project site is provided below.

Table 3.2-1. Existing Vegetation Communities within the Project Site for the

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2

Vegetation Community Alternative 1 (acre) Alternative 2 (acre)

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 0.67 0.99

Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 0.06 0

Developed 1.32 1.02

Disturbed 0 0.29

Total 2.05 2.30

Source: MCAS Miramar GIS Data 2012; SAIC 2013

27 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub

28 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub within the ROI consists of low, soft woody subshrubs. California sagebrush 

29 (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and broom baccharis 

30 (Baccharis sarothroides) are dominant species. Less common plant species include black sage (Salvia 

31 mellifera), and deer weed (Acmispon glaber). The understory varies from barren with a rocky substrate to 

32 a mix of non-native grasses and forbs including rye grass (Festuca sp.), rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon 

33 monspeliensis), wild oats (Avena spp.), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), 
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-3 May 2014

Draft EA

Figure 3.2-1. Vegetation Communities in the Vicinity of Alternative 1
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-4 May 2014

Draft EA

Figure 3.2-2. Vegetation Communities in the Vicinity of Alternative 2
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-5 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 spotted spurge (Chamaesyce maculata), cut leaf plantain (Plantago coronopus), and erodium (Erodium

2 spp.). Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub borders De La Garza Road.

3 A total of approximately 0.73 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (0.67 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage 

4 Scrub and 0.06 acres of Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub) is present within the project site for 

5 Alternative 1 in two long narrow strips along both sides of De La Garza Road. A total of approximately 

6 0.99 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub is present within the project site for Alternative 2 in one narrow 

7 strip along the east side of Pless road and to the south of De La Garza Road.

8 Developed

9 Developed communities have been constructed upon or physically altered to an extent that native 

10 vegetation is no longer supported. Developed areas within the project site are characterized by permanent 

11 or semi-permanent structures, pavement, or hardscape and comprise a majority of the project site for both 

12 alternatives. De La Garza Road and Pless Road and other existing roads are developed areas.

13 Disturbed

14 Areas classified as disturbed are those where past or present physical disturbance (e.g., brushing, tilling, 

15 or vehicle disturbance) is prevalent, with more than half of the area covered by species adapted to 

16 disturbance, especially forbs, or by bare ground. Disturbed areas have the potential to support native 

17 vegetation if left undisturbed or are subjected to active restoration actions. Disturbed land is located on 

18 the east side of Pless Road within the project site for Alternative 2.

19 3.2.3.2 General Wildlife and Wildlife Corridors

20 MCAS Miramar supports habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species including seven species of 

21 amphibians, 30 species of reptiles, over 200 species of birds, and 39 species of mammals (MCAS 

22 Miramar et al. 2011). A complete list of wildlife species known to occur on MCAS Miramar is provided 

23 in the INRMP (MCAS Miramar et al. 2011). Many of these wildlife species are adapted to Diegan 

24 Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral vegetation communities, which are the two most common vegetation 

25 communities found on MCAS Miramar.

26 The ROI is representative of wildlife habitats common on MCAS Miramar and the greater San Diego 

27 region. On West Miramar, in the project vicinity, a variety of common wildlife species are expected to 

28 occur based on the presence of suitable habitat and in association with the vegetation communities in the 

29 area. Species likely present at the project site include: fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), side30 blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), California king snake (Lampropeltis getula californiae), western 

31 scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), California towhee 

32 (Melozone crissalis), California quail (Callipepla californica), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), 

33 Anna’s Hummingbird (Calypte anna), bobcat (Felis rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), mule deer 

34 (Odocoileus hemionus fuliginita), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). 

35 In addition, Rose Canyon serves as one of two primary east-west corridors for wildlife movement on

36 MCAS Miramar and provides connectivity to habitat patches west of the Air Station (MCAS Miramar 

37 et al. 2011). Mule deer and bobcat use has been documented in Rose Canyon.

38 3.2.3.3 Special Status Species

39 For the purposes of this assessment, special status species are those listed as threatened or endangered, 

40 proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for such listing under the ESA. Also 

41 included in this category are species protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-6 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 MBTA. There are six special status plant species and five special status wildlife species known to occur at 

2 MCAS Miramar. Bald and golden eagles are not known to occur in the ROI and are not discussed further.

3 Federally-Listed Species

4 No federally-listed plant species are known to occur within the ROI. Two federally listed wildlife species,

5 San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila 

6 californica californica) are known to occur within the ROI (Figures 3.2-3 and 3.2-4; Table 3.2-2) and are 

7 discussed below.

8 Critical habitat, as defined under the ESA, has not been designated on MCAS Miramar because the 

9 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined that the MCAS Miramar INRMP 

10 provides a conservation benefit for the species.

Table 3.2-2. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

Known to Occur in the Vicinity of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2

Species Status Habitat/ Occurrence in Project Footprint

San Diego fairy shrimp 

(Branchinecta 

sandiegonensis)

FE

San Diego fairy shrimp may be present in seasonally astatic (flooded) vernal pools and 

other (non-vernal pool) seasonally ponded features in coastal areas within grassland, 

agriculture, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral habitats. This species is known to occur 

in all 10 vernal pool habitat management units on MCAS Miramar. Occupied vernal 

pools and other (non-vernal pool) seasonally ponded features are located in the vicinity 

of the project site for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but not within the project 

boundaries. However, a portion of mapped watersheds associated with these San Diego 

fairy shrimp-occupied features are located within and adjacent to the project sites for 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 - in some cases downslope from the occupied features.

coastal California 

gnatcatcher

(Polioptila californica 

californica)

FT, 

CSC

This species is locally abundant on MCAS Miramar where suitable habitat exists. 

Coastal California gnatcatchers activity and use areas occur in Rose Canyon and in the 

vicinity of the project area (MCAS 2012; Haas 2010; Tierra Data Inc. 2013; personal 

communication Dr. Chuck Black 2013). Gnatcatchers have been observed in the project 

vicinity in 1998, 2007, 2009, and 2013.

Status:

Federal Status (determined by USFWS): State Status (determined by California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]):

FE Federally Listed Endangered CSC California Special Concern Species

FT Federally Listed Threatened

11 San Diego Fairy Shrimp

12 San Diego fairy shrimp were listed as endangered on 3 February 1997 (USFWS 1997). A Recovery Plan 

13 for Vernal Pools of Southern California (that includes San Diego fairy shrimp) was finalized in 1998 

14 (USFWS 1998). Critical habitat has been designated in the region for San Diego fairy shrimp; however, 

15 as noted above, the USFWS has determined that the MCAS Miramar INRMP provides a conservation 

16 benefit for the species beyond that which would be afforded by critical habitat designation. A complete 

17 description of the regulatory and natural history for this species can be found in the Federal Register

18 (65 FR 63 63438; USWFS 2007) and www.ecos.fws.gov.

19 San Diego fairy shrimp occur in vernal pools and other (non-vernal pool) seasonally ponded features (herein 

20 referred to as other seasonally ponded features). Habitat for this species is from 2 to 12 inches deep with 

21 water temperatures from 50 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit, and water chemistry is one of the most important 

22 factors in determining species’ distribution (USFWS 1997). The vast majority of vernal pool habitat on 

23 MCAS Miramar is encompassed within Level I Management Areas (MA), which connotes the highest 

24 conservation priority on the Air Station (MCAS Miramar et al. 2011).
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-7 May 2014

Draft EA 

Figure 3.2-3. Federally Listed Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of Alternative 1
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-8 May 2014

Draft EA 

Figure 3.2-4. Federally Listed Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of Alternative 2
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-9 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 MCAS Miramar maintains a GIS resource database including data on vernal pools and other seasonally 

2 ponded features occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp. This database was reviewed for occurrences in the 

3 ROI. In addition, dry season protocol vernal pool fairy shrimp species surveys were conducted within the 

4 ROI in 2013 (personal communication Dr. Chuck Black 2013). Occupied San Diego fairy shrimp habitat 

5 has been documented in several vernal pools and other seasonally ponded features near the project site for 

6 Alternative 1 (Figure 3.2-3). Occupied San Diego fairy shrimp habitat has also been documented in 

7 several vernal pools and other seasonally ponded features near the project site for Alternative 2

8 (Figure 3.2-4). Alternative 1 is located within MA Level II (Non-vernal pool threatened/endangered 

9 species). MA Level I (Vernal pools and associated watersheds), which has the highest conservation 

10 priority on MCAS Miramar, is located outside the project boundaries (and upslope/upstream). 

11 Alternative 2 is located within MA Level I along Pless Road, Level II (Non vernal pool 

12 threatened/endangered species), and Level V (Developed Areas). Some isolated, high value natural 

13 resources (e.g., vernal pool habitat and costal California gnatcatcher habitat) occur within these MAs, 

14 which also require appropriate management and conservation considerations.

15 Coastal California gnatcatcher

16 The coastal Californian gnatcatcher was federally listed as threatened on 30 March 1993. As noted above, 

17 essential coastal California gnatcatcher habitat occurs on MCAS Miramar but all these lands are excluded 

18 from critical habitat designation because the Air Station has a legally operative INRMP (MCAS Miramar 

19 et al. 2011). The completed federal listing and detailed information on the coastal California gnatcatcher 

20 regulatory history, range, life history, habitat, and abundance can be found in the Federal 

21 Register 58(59): 16742 and 65(206):63680-63743 (USFWS 1993, 2000). 

22 This subspecies is generally described as coastal sage scrub-obligate; however, investigations suggest that 

23 coastal California gnatcatchers also use chamise chaparral near coastal sage scrub as nesting habitat. On 

24 MCAS Miramar coastal California gnatcatcher surveys have been conducted periodically since the 

25 species was listed, and focused surveys have been carried out since 1994 to determine home range and 

26 dispersal (Haas 2010). However, in 2003 the Cedar Fire burned an estimated 17,600 acres of the total 

27 23,015 acres on the Air Station. Since then, surveys have occurred in 2004, 2007, 2009, and 2013. 

28 In 2004, 21 coastal California gnatcatcher pairs and one solitary male were documented on MCAS 

29 Miramar (Haas 2010). In 2007, surveys identified 34 pairs, three solitary males, and eight individuals. In 

30 2009, pairs were identified at 71 locations and 30 solitary birds were observed (Haas 2010). Since 2007, 

31 historic surveys have included sightings in Rose Canyon in the project vicinity (Figure 3.2-3 and 3.2-4). 

32 In 2013, coastal California gnatcatcher surveys identified two pairs and two nests in Rose Canyon (Tierra 

33 Data Inc. 2013). Coastal California gnatcatchers were observed using suitable habitat in the project 

34 vicinity and these use areas are consistent with historic documentations (Figure 3.2-4). 

35 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Species

36 The MBTA is an international agreement among the United States, Canada, and Mexico that protects 

37 designated species of birds. Specifically, the MBTA controls the taking of these birds, their nests, eggs, 

38 parts, or products. Virtually all birds are protected under the MBTA, with only a few exceptions, such as 

39 the California quail. A complete list of all species of all migratory birds protected by the MBTA is in the 

40 Federal Register (50 CFR 10.13). EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 

41 Birds, directs federal agencies to take actions to further implement the MBTA. A Memorandum of 

42 Understanding (MOU) between the DoD and the USFWS was developed under EO 13186 to promote the 

43 conservation of migratory birds. Nineteen bird species designated a Species of Concern under the MBTA

44 have the potential to occur in the project vicinity (Table 3.2-3).
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-10 May 2014

Draft EA 

Table 3.2-3. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Species of Conservation Concern Known to 

Occur in the Vicinity of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2

Common Name Scientific Name

HERONS, SPOONBILLS

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis 

Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

VULTURES, HAWKS, FALCONS

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

PIGEONS

White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 

RAILS, LIMPKINS, CRANES

American Coot Fulica americana 

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola 

SWIFT, HUMMINGBIRDS

Costa’s Hummingbird Calypte costae 

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus 

Allen’s Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin 

SONGBIRDS

FLYCATCHERS

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

SHRIKES, VIREOS

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

LARKS, WRENS, GNATCATCHERS

California Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 

Coastal California Gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica 

Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii 

NEW-WORLD WARBLERS

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 

SPARROWS

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli

BLACKBIRDS

Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor 

1 3.2.3.4 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States

2 Determinations regarding jurisdiction discussed in this EA are preliminary and subject to verification and 

3 approval by the USACE. Project-specific surveys were completed to determine the occurrence of

4 wetlands and other bodies of water that may be subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE under 

5 Sections 401 and 404 of CWA (33 CFR parts 320–330). In addition, non-jurisdictional wetlands 

6 including vernal pool and other (non-vernal pool) seasonally ponded features, as defined by MCAS 

7 Miramar, were identified during the surveys. Potential federal CWA jurisdictional wetlands, other Waters 

8 of the U.S., and non-jurisdictional wetland features are present in the ROI (Figure 3.2-5 and Figure 3.2-6).

9 Wetland forms, site photos, and a plant species list are provided in the Wetland Delineation Report 

10 (SAIC 2013).
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-11 May 2014

Draft EA 

Figure 3.2-5. Wetlands, Waters of the U.S., Vernal Pools, and Other (Non-Vernal Pool) Seasonally Ponded Features in the Vicinity of Alternative 1
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-12 May 2014

Draft EA 

Figure 3.2-6. Wetlands, Waters of the U.S., Vernal Pools, and Other (Non-Vernal Pool) Seasonally Ponded Features in the Vicinity of Alternative 2
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-13 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 In addition, a California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) assessment was conducted to determine the 

2 condition of Rose Canyon Creek. A detailed explanation of the regulatory environment, methods applied, 

3 and results are provided in Attachment D of the Wetland Delineation Report (SAIC 2013).

4 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States 

5 Frequently the term “wetlands and other Waters of the U.S.” is used when describing areas under USACE 

6 jurisdiction. Waters of the U.S. are those that have been, are, or may be used in interstate or foreign 

7 commerce, all interstate waters, and all other waters the use, degradation, or destruction of which could 

8 affect interstate or foreign commerce. Under Section 404 of the CWA, wetlands are defined as areas that are 

9 “inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that 

10 under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

11 conditions” (40 CFR 230.3 and 33 CFR 328.3). Jurisdictional wetlands are a subset of Waters of the U.S., 

12 which in addition to wetlands as defined above, include areas subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and 

13 areas that are within the limits of the ordinary high water mark. EO 11990, (dated 24 May 1977 and 

14 amended by EO 12608 on 9 September 1987, and MCO P5090.2A), requires federal agencies to minimize 

15 the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to enhance their natural and beneficial values.

16 No potentially jurisdictional wetlands occur within the project site for Alternative 1. One other seasonally 

17 ponded feature (a ditch not occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp that has intermittent standing water) is 

18 located within the project site. Since this ditch conveys water to an isolated wetland, and not to Rose 

19 Creek, it does not meet the USACE definition of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.; however, this 

20 determination is pending USACE verification. No other Waters of the U.S. are located within the project 

21 site. Several likely Waters of the U.S. are located in the project vicinity including Rose Canyon Creek and 

22 an associated vernal marsh wetland. Rose Canyon Creek is located within the project site for Alternative 2.

23 Rose Canyon Creek and this associated wetland are regulated and protected under Section 404 of the CWA.

24 Vernal Pools

25 Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that develop on a variety of soils, usually underlain by an iron-silica 

26 hardpan, typically on coastal terraces (MCAS Miramar et al. 2011). Vernal pools develop during seasonal 

27 rains that begin in late fall or early winter and extends into the spring. Year-to-year variation in the time 

28 and duration of precipitation affects the depth, and extent of standing water. In dry years many pools do 

29 not fill. Vernal pools features can provide habitat for federally listed fairy shrimp species, as discussed in 

30 Section 3.2.3.3.

31 Vernal pool habitat typically occurs on the costal terraces of MCAS Miramar in the western half of the 

32 Air Station. Vernal pools are not uniformly distributed, but occur in groups or clusters on mesas where 

33 soil and topographic conditions favor their development. Historically, vernal pool clusters were separated 

34 from each other by a system of canyons trending in a northeast/southwest direction and draining towards 

35 the ocean. Three of these large canyons drain MCAS Miramar: Rose Canyon, San Clement Canyon, and 

36 Murphy Canyon.

37 No vernal pools are present in the project site for Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 (Figure 3.2-5 and 

38 Figure 3.2-6); however, a vernal pool complex is located immediately south of the project site for 

Alternative 1 and a portion of the watershed associated with the complex1 39 is within the project site 

40 (Figure 3.2-5). Some of these vernal pools are occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp and discussed in 

41 Section 3.2.3.3. 

 1 Note that the locations of vernal pool watersheds are estimated based on MCAS Miramar GIS data.
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-14 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 Vernal pools are also located near the project site for Alternative 2 on the western side of Pless Road 

2 south of Miramar Road (Figure 3.2-6). Some of these vernal pools are occupied by San Diego fairy 

3 shrimp and discussed in Section 3.2.3.3.

4 Other (Non-Vernal Pool) Seasonally Ponded Features 

5 Other seasonally ponded features areas are depressions that hold water following a series of rainfall 

6 events, but have not been identified by Miramar Natural Resource Division as true vernal pools. Other 

7 seasonally ponded features are assigned “type” descriptors (e.g., puddle, road rut, ditch, marsh, 

8 watercourse, and impoundment), based on their origin and disturbance. 

9 Other seasonally ponded features occur within and adjacent to the project site for Alternative 1. A

10 drainage ditch that has intermittent standing water is located on the south side of Del La Garza Road

11 within the project site (Figure 3.2-5). This ditch was determined be isolated from Rose Canyon Creek and 

12 non-jurisdictional during the 2013 wetland delineation survey (SAIC 2013). However, confirmation by the 

13 USACE is required.

14 Other seasonally ponded features located outside of but near the project site include several puddles, 

15 ditches, and marshes. Immediately north of De La Garza Road there are several puddles, two ditches 

16 within the generalized vernal pool watershed area, and a marsh. Three marshes are located just south of 

17 De La Garza Road, two of the marshes are located southwest and one marsh just south of the road. The 

18 wetland delineation survey conducted in May 2013 concluded that these other seasonally ponded features 

19 are not considered jurisdictional wetlands as defined by the USACE. However, confirmation by the 

20 USACE is required. The marsh, located north of De La Garza Road, is a jurisdictional wetland (as defined 

21 by the USACE), as discussed above.

22 No other seasonally ponded features are located within the project site for Alternative 2; however, several 

23 are located in the project vicinity. Two other seasonally ponded features, within a generalized vernal pool 

24 watershed area, are located to the west of the project site near the intersection of Pless Road and Miramar 

25 Way. One of the features is occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp (discussed in detail in Section 3.2.3.3). 

26 Four additional other seasonally ponded features, all within the same generalized vernal pool watershed 

27 area, are located to the east of the project site near the intersection of Pless Road and Miramar Way. 

28 Three of these features are occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp. Finally, two other seasonally ponded 

29 features within one generalized vernal pool watershed area are located to the west of the project site. 

30 One of the features is occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp (Figure 3.2-6).

31 3.2.4 Environmental Consequences 

32 Several types of impacts on biological resources could result from construction of Alternative 1 and 

33 Alternative 2 including permanent and temporary impacts, as well as direct and indirect impacts. The 

34 definitions of the four types of impacts to biological resources are described below.

35 • Direct Impact. Any alteration, disturbance, or destruction of biological resources (specifically 

36 through vegetation/habitat removal) that would result from project-related activities and occur in 

37 at the same time and place as the action is considered a direct effect. 

38 • Indirect Impact. As a result of project-related activities, biological resources may also be 

39 impacted in an indirect manner. Indirect impacts are defined as those impacts that are caused by, 

40 or would result from, a proposed project and are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to 

41 occur.
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-15 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 • Temporary Impact. Any impact to biological resources that are considered reversible can be 

2 viewed as temporary. Examples include the generation of fugitive dust during construction or the 

3 removal of plant communities for construction activities and subsequent revegetation of the 

4 affected area.

5 • Permanent Impact. Any impacts that result in the irreversible removal of biological resources are 

6 considered permanent. Examples include construction a building or permanent road on an area 

7 containing biological resources.

8 The significance of potential impacts on a biological resource is based on:

9 • Unmitigated permanent or long-term temporary impact to federally listed species, including 

10 significant loss of occupied habitats;

11 • Unmitigated adverse impact to populations of migratory birds listed as Species of Concern under 

12 the MBTA;

13 • Unmitigated loss or impact to large quantities of wetlands in federal CWA jurisdictional Waters 

14 of the U.S.;

15 • Unmitigated effects to important quantities of regionally- and declining-populations (i.e., federal 

16 species of special concern and species considered rare and threatened or endangered by the State 

17 of California).

18 • Unmitigated loss of important quantities of declining vegetation communities that are considered 

19 rare, both locally and regional;

20 • Alteration of regionally- and locally-important wildlife corridors that would severely and 

21 permanently limit their use by wildlife species; and/or,

22 • Substantial, unmitigated erosion resulting in loss of site integrity to support vegetation and 

23 degradation of downstream water quality by sediment loading.

24 3.2.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank (Preferred Alternative)

25 Vegetation Communities

26 Direct impacts would include the temporary clearing and grubbing of approximately 0.73 acres of Diegan 

27 Coastal Sage Scrub in two long, narrow strips along both sides of De La Garza Road (Table 3.2-4).

28 However, following construction disturbed areas of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub would be restored in 

29 place to existing or better conditions in accordance with the Revegetation Plan described in Measure 3.

30 Therefore, direct impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub would not be significant.

31 Indirect impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub could occur due to the establishment of invasive plants

32 within this community, which could decrease the overall quality of habitat by out-competing native 

33 species, contributing to reduced diversity and structure, and reduced habitat functions and values. The 

34 potential for establishment of invasive plants would be minimized through implementation of invasive 

35 weed control (e.g., hand removal, mechanical, and herbicide control) in areas reseeded/replanted until the 

36 native vegetation is established (Measure 3) and equipment washing would occur prior to delivery to the 

37 project site (Measure 17). Therefore, Alternative 1 would not have significant indirect impacts to Diegan 

38 Coastal Sage Scrub and no mitigation is required.

39 Activities associated with operation and maintenance of Alternative 1 would not result in significant

40 impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and no mitigation is required.
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-16 May 2014

Draft EA 

Table 3.2-4. Vegetation Communities Potentially Removed under Alternative 1

Vegetation Community Temporary Impact (acres) Permanent Impact (Acres)

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 0.67 0

Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 0.06 0

Developed 0.55 0.77

Total 1.28 0.77

1 General Wildlife and Wildlife Corridors

2 Alternative 1 would result in the direct, temporary disturbance of approximately 0.73 acres of Diegan 

3 Coastal Sage Scrub in two long, narrow strips along both sides of De La Garza Road, which provides

4 habitat for common wildlife species. Following construction disturbed areas of Diegan Coastal Sage 

5 Scrub would be restored to existing conditions according to the Revegetation Plan of Measure 3.

6 Construction activities could also result in the direct loss of common, less-mobile wildlife species such as 

7 lizards and rodents. However, the number of individuals that could be lost would be inconsequential to 

8 populations present on MCAS Miramar. Therefore, direct impacts to general wildlife species would not 

9 be significant and no mitigation is required.

10 Temporary, indirect impacts to wildlife species may occur within adjacent habitat due to an increase in 

11 dust, noise, or other construction-related disturbances. Temporary disturbances due to noise associated 

12 with grubbing, as well as an increase in the general activity and human presence could mask bird 

13 vocalizations, invoke stress in birds and reduce breeding success, and cause common bird and wildlife 

14 species to avoid the work area during construction periods. Although the adjacent lands primarily consist 

15 of suitable habitat for wildlife, the common species in the vicinity of the project site have adapted to 

16 ongoing human activity and elevated noise associated with traffic along De La Garza Road, aircraft 

17 operations at the nearby flightline including takeoff and landings, general military industrial use, and 

18 recreational use associated with the nearby Fish Pond. As a result, indirect impacts would not be 

19 significant. Potential effects should be avoided by following seasonal restrictions outlined in Measure 5. 

20 Therefore, based on adherence to seasonal timing restrictions and restoration requirements, indirect 

21 impacts to general wildlife species would not be significant and no mitigation is required.

22 Activities associated with operation and maintenance of Alternative 1 would not result in significant 

23 impacts to general wildlife species and no mitigation is required.

24 Special Status Species

25 San Diego Fairy Shrimp

26 There are no known features occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp within the project site. Therefore, 

27 Alternative 1 would not result in direct impacts to this species.

28 The project site for Alternative 1 would impact a roadside ditch not occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp.

29 A small portion of a generalized vernal pool watershed area drawn for this ditch and a number of 

30 occupied vernal pools and other seasonally ponded features to the south of the ditch would also be 

31 impacted. A linear berm and small scale topographical features isolate the occupied pools and their 

32 associated generalized vernal pool watershed area from the area that would be impacted by project 

33 activities. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 incorporates implementation of avoidance of occupied vernal pools

34 outside the project site and seasonal avoidance of construction activity within watersheds upgradient of 

35 occupied vernal pools (Measure 8), implementation of temporary sediment control measures (Measures 8 

36 and 15), and stockpile management during construction (Measure 16). In addition, action would be taken 

37 to minimize soil loss and the runoff of soil laden stormwater from the project site through conformance 

38 with the requirements outlined in the National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) Construction 

39 General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance 
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-17 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002), including implementation of Best Management 

2 Practices (BMPs) (e.g., silt fences, fiber rolls, siltation basins, gravel bags, or other controls as 

3 appropriate). Impacts to water quality resulting from soil erosion are discussed in detail in Section 3.3 and 

4 in Section 3.8. With implementation of the identified environmental protection measures and 

5 conformance with requirements outlined in the Construction General Permit, Alternative 1 would not 

6 result in significant impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp during construction.

7 Activities associated with operation and maintenance of Alternative 1 would not result in significant 

8 impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp or occupied habitat for this species and no mitigation is required.

9 No permanent removal of habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp is proposed under Alternative 1, and no 

10 temporary or permanent removal or degradation of any occupied habitat is proposed. In addition, because 

11 the project site and nearby habitats occur on federal land, all future actions that are reasonably certain to 

12 occur in the project vicinity and that would have the potential to affect San Diego fairy shrimp would 

13 subject to ESA consultation and permitted as required by the USFWS. As a result, the cumulative effects

14 identified for San Diego fairy shrimp from Alternative 1, in conjunction with other projects on MCAS 

15 Miramar and in the regional vicinity, would not be cumulatively significant.

16 Coastal California Gnatcatcher

17 Alternative 1 would temporarily remove approximately 0.73 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and 

18 Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub located in two long, narrow strips along both sides of De La Garza 

19 Road. This habitat is designated by MCAS Miramar as MA II and is occupied by or within the use area of 

20 the coastal California gnatcatcher (Figure 3.2-3). Vegetation removal or clearing would result in a direct, 

21 temporary impact to the coastal California gnatcatcher as this habitat would be unavailable until it is 

22 restored to existing conditions following construction. However, this temporary habitat loss would

23 primarily consist of impacts along a linear footprint, minimizing the potential that any pairs or individuals 

24 will be displaced from their territory. In addition, given the small amount of area that would be disturbed 

25 and the large amount of suitable habitat outside the project site, pairs and individuals would be expected 

26 to utilize suitable habitat that lies adjacent to the project site during the construction period and during 

27 restoration of disturbed areas.

28 Removal of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub during nesting season could result in reduced nesting success.

29 The potential for temporary impacts to nesting due to construction and direct removal of suitable Diegan 

30 Coastal Sage Scrub habitat should be avoided by not removing/grubbing vegetation during nesting season 

31 (15 February to 1 August) (Measure 5). In addition, a Project Biologist would monitor all grading, 

32 grubbing, mowing, and/or removal of surface vegetation, particularly Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, during 

33 construction activities (Measure 6). Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub impacted by construction activities would 

34 be restored to existing conditions following construction according to the Revegetation Plan of

35 Measure 3. Therefore, with implementation of measures that have been incorporated into the project, 

36 Alternative 1 would not result in significant direct, temporary impacts on costal California gnatcatcher.

37 Indirect, temporary impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher may occur within suitable habitat due to an 

38 increase in noise, dust, and increased human activity during construction. Proposed construction activities 

39 could affect the behavior of coastal California gnatcatchers located in the project vicinity by masking 

40 calls, causing stress, or disturbing food gathering or nesting activities. However, the project site and the 

41 nearest observations of coastal California gnatcatchers are located within the departure corridor of current 

42 aircraft operations and immediately adjacent to a road, and subject to noise associated with general 

43 military industrial use. Additional temporary noise associated with construction activities would be within 

44 normally occurring levels and negligible compared to the other frequent noise sources. Potential impacts 

45 to coastal California gnatcatcher would be further minimized though implementation of Measure 5.
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-18 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in significant indirect, temporary impacts on coastal California 

2 gnatcatcher.

3 After construction and site restoration is completed, activities associated with operation and maintenance 

4 of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher or suitable 

5 habitat for this species and no mitigation is required.

6 Alternative 1 would result in the temporary removal of suitable habit for the coastal California gnatcatcher

7 located in two long, narrow strips along both sides of De La Garza Road within the project site. However, 

8 all temporarily removed habitat would be restored in place following construction. During construction and 

9 restoration, existing habitat adjacent to the road would not be available to individual gnatcatchers for 

10 nesting, foraging, or protection. Once restoration is complete, all functions and values would return. In 

11 addition, all future actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the project vicinity and that would affect 

12 this species would be subject to ESA consultation and permitted as required by the USFWS.

13 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Species

14 The project site supports suitable habitat for migratory bird species, including 19 species designated as 

15 Species of Concern. Alternative 1 would temporarily remove approximately 0.73 acres of Diegan Coastal 

16 Sage Scrub and Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub that provides habitat for MBTA species along two 

17 long, narrow strips along both sides of De La Garza Road. Following construction disturbed areas of 

18 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub would be restored to existing conditions according to the Revegetation Plan of 

19 Measure 3. Due to the small amount of area that would be disturbed and the large amount of suitable 

20 habitat outside the project site, MBTA species would be expected to utilize suitable habitat that lies 

21 adjacent to the project site during the construction period and during restoration of disturbed areas. 

22 Therefore, no significant direct impacts to populations of migratory birds, including Species of Concern, 

23 listed under the MBTA would occur.

24 Temporary, indirect impacts to MBTA species may occur within adjacent habitat due to an increase in 

25 dust, noise, or other construction-related disturbances. Impacts to MBTA species would be similar to 

26 those described above for general bird species and for the coastal California gnatcatcher. The potential for

27 construction activities to adversely modify behavior of MBTA species is unlikely, particularly because of 

28 the temporary nature of the activity and the proximity to the active flightline and general military 

29 industrial uses. Habitat clearing activities would be timed to avoid the nesting season (Measure 5). 

30 Implementation of this measure should avoid the potential for impacts to migratory bird species and 

31 temporary, indirect impacts to populations of migratory birds, including Species of Concern, listed under 

32 the MBTA. Therefore, construction of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to MBTA 

33 species and no mitigation is required.

34 After construction and site restoration is completed, activities associated with operation and maintenance 

35 of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to MBTA species or suitable habitat for these

36 species and no mitigation is required.

37 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States

38 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States

39 Rose Canyon Creek (Waters of the U.S.) and an associated vernal marsh (jurisdictional wetland) are 

40 located near but outside of the project site on the north side of De La Garza Road. Alternative 1 would not 

41 result in direct impacts to these features.

42 Temporary, indirect impacts to Rose Creek and the jurisdictional wetland could occur if construction 

43 activities alter or degrade water quality in these features due to sediment loading or accidental release of 
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-19 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 pollutants. Any areas impacted would be returned to existing conditions following construction according 

2 to the Revegetation Plan of Measure 3. Implementation of Measure 15 (Temporary Sediment Control) 

3 and Measure 16 (Stockpile Management) would minimize soil loss and the runoff of soil laden 

4 stormwater from the project site. In addition, because Alternative 1would result in a disturbance of greater 

5 than one acre, the project would require a NPDES Construction General Permit for Storm Water 

6 Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ; NPDES 

7 No. CAS000002) from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in accordance with 

8 Section 402 of the CWA. Alternative 1 would comply with the requirements of the Construction General 

9 Permit, including implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including BMPs 

10 (e.g., silt fences, siltation basins, gravel bags, or other controls) to protect storm water runoff, a visual 

11 monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible pollutants, and sediment monitoring 

12 plan (if applicable). Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in significant temporary, indirect impacts to 

13 federal CWA jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of the U.S.

14 Activities associated with operation and maintenance of Alternative 1 would not result in significant

15 impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or other Waters of the U.S. and no mitigation is required.

16 Vernal Pools and Other (Non-Vernal Pool) Seasonally Ponded Features

17 No vernal pools are located within the project site. One other seasonally ponded feature (a roadside ditch

18 on the south side of De La Garza Road not occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp that has intermittent 

19 standing water) is located within the project site. Construction of Alternative 1 would result in direct 

20 impacts to approximately 60 linear feet (0.15 acre) of the ditch. However, the area would be returned to 

21 existing conditions following construction according to the Revegetation Plan of Measure 3. In the event 

22 that the USACE determines that this other seasonally ponded feature is jurisdictional, coverage under 

23 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12 and/or NWP 33 and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification would be 

24 required prior to construction. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in a significant direct impact to 

25 vernal pools and other seasonally ponded features during construction.

26 Several vernal pools and other seasonally ponded features (some of which are occupied by San Diego 

27 fairy shrimp) are located adjacent to the project site. A linear berm and small-scale topographical features 

28 isolate the pools and their associated generalized vernal pool watershed area from the area that would be 

29 impacted by project activities. Nonetheless, as described in the discussion for San Diego fairy shrimp, 

30 sediment control (Measures 8 and 15), stockpile management (Measure 16), and avoidance and 

31 monitoring of occupied vernal pools, other seasonally ponded features, and watersheds (Measure 8) 

32 would avoid potential impacts to any vernal pools and other seasonally ponded features located adjacent 

33 to the project site. Therefore, construction of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to 

34 vernal pools, generalized vernal pool watershed areas, or other seasonally ponded features.

35 Activities associated with operation and maintenance of Alternative 1 would not result in impacts to 

36 vernal pools or other seasonally ponded features and no mitigation is required.

37 3.2.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and Holding Tank

38 Vegetation Communities

39 Alternative 2 includes the construction of a pump station and holding tank and the extension of utility 

40 lines along Pless Road. Construction activities (clearing and grubbing) would result in the temporary 

41 disturbance of 0.78 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub in one long, narrow strip along the east side of

42 Pless Road and to the south of De La Garza Road (Table 3.2-5). Temporary direct (removal of habitat) 

43 and indirect (invasive species) impacts due to construction would be similar to but slightly greater than 

44 those discussed for Alternative 1 because construction activities would remove additional habitat and 
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-20 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 increase the potential for the establishment of invasive species. Implementation of Measure 3

2 (revegetation of disturbed areas), Measure 4 (invasive plant species control), and Measure 5 (avoiding 

3 impacts on coastal California gnatcatcher and habitats) would ensure no net loss of this vegetation 

4 community. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not result in significant temporary impacts to Diegan Coastal 

5 Sage Scrub during construction.

6 Construction and operation of Alternative 2 would result in permanent, direct impacts to 0.21 acres of

7 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub located to the south of De La Garza Road due to placement of the holding 

8 tank and pump station. This habitat is not occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher and is located 

9 outside of the use area for this species. Enhancement or compensation for permanent impacts to Diegan 

10 Coastal Sage Scrub would be implemented at a 1:1 ratio off-site in Level I and II MAs targeting Diegan 

11 Coastal Sage Scrub or purchase of an equivalent amount of credits from an off-Station conservation bank

12 to ensure no net loss (Measure 3). Therefore, Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to 

13 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub.

Table 3.2-5. Vegetation Communities Potentially Removed under Alternative 2

Vegetation Community Temporary Impact (Acres) Permanent Impact (Acres)

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 0.78 0.21

Developed 1.02 0

Disturbed 0.29 0

Total 2.09 0.21

14 General Wildlife and Wildlife Corridors

15 Alternative 2 would result in the direct, temporary disturbance of approximately 0.78 acres of Diegan 

16 Coastal Sage Scrub in one long, narrow strip along the east side of Pless Road and to the south of De La 

17 Garza Road, which provides habitat for general wildlife species. Temporary direct (loss of habitat) and 

18 indirect (disturbance due to increased noise, dust, and human activity) impacts due to construction would 

19 be similar to but slightly greater than those discussed for Alternative 1 because construction activities 

20 would remove additional habitat. Construction activities could also result in the direct loss of common, 

21 less-mobile wildlife species such as lizards and rodents. Similar to Alternative 1, the number of 

22 individuals that could be lost would be inconsequential to the populations present on MCAS Miramar. 

23 Therefore, temporary direct and indirect impacts to general wildlife species would not be significant and 

24 no mitigation is required.

25 Construction and operation of Alternative 2 would result in permanent, direct impacts to 0.21 acres of 

26 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub to the south of De La Garza Road due to placement of the holding tank and 

27 pump station. The loss of this community would represent a reduction in habitat available to general 

28 wildlife species. However, enhancement or compensation for permanent impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage 

29 Scrub would be implemented at a 1:1 ratio off-site in Level I and II MAs targeting Diegan Coastal Sage 

30 Scrub or purchase of an equivalent amount of credits from an off-Station conservation bank (Measure 3). 

31 Therefore, construction and operation Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to general 

32 wildlife species.
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-21 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 Special Status Species

2 San Diego Fairy Shrimp

3 Impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp would be similar to those discussed for Alternative 1. There are no 

4 occupied vernal pools or other seasonally ponded features within the project site. One generalized vernal 

5 pool watershed area that contains occupied habitat for San Diego fairy shrimp intersects the project site

6 along the west side of Pless Road at the intersection of Miramar Road. With avoidance of occupied 

7 features and seasonal avoidance of generalized vernal pool watershed areas located upgradient of 

8 occupied features (Measure 8), no impacts to occupied habitat would occur. Therefore, Alternative 2

9 would not result in significant impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp.

10 After construction and site restoration (Measure 3) is completed, activities associated with operation and 

11 maintenance of Alternative 2 would not result in impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp or occupied habitat 

12 for this species.

13 Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp. In addition, all future 

14 actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the project vicinity and that may affect San Diego fairy 

15 shrimp would subject to ESA consultation and permitted as required by the USFWS. As a result, 

16 Alternative 2, in conjunction with other projects on MCAS Miramar and in the regional vicinity, would not 

17 result in cumulatively significant impacts on San Diego fairy shrimp.

18 Coastal California Gnatcatcher

19 Alternative 2 would result in the direct, temporary disturbance of approximately 0.78 acres of Diegan 

20 Coastal Sage Scrub in one long, narrow strip along the east side of Pless Road and south of De La Garza 

21 Road, some of which is occupied by or within the use area for coastal California gnatcatcher. Temporary 

22 direct (loss of habitat) and indirect (disturbance due to increased noise, dust, and human activity) impacts 

23 due to construction would be similar to but slightly greater than those discussed for Alternative 1 because 

24 construction activities would remove additional habitat. Based on the limited removal of quality habitat, 

25 short-term nature of dust and noise producing construction activities, exiting noise environment within 

26 the project site, as well as implementation of Measures 3 and 5, Alternative 2 would not result in 

27 significant temporary, direct and indirect impacts on coastal California gnatcatcher.

28 Construction and operation of Alternative 2 would result in permanent, direct impacts to 0.21 acres of 

29 Diegan Coastal Sage due to placement of the holding tank and pump station. This habitat is not occupied 

30 by or within the use area of coastal California gnatcatcher (Figure 3.2-4). Therefore, construction and 

31 operation Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher. However, 

32 enhancement or compensation for permanent impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub would be 

33 implemented at a 1:1 ratio off-site in Level I and II MAs targeting Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub or by 

34 purchase of an equivalent amount of credits from an off-Station conservation bank (Measure 3) to ensure 

35 no net loss of this habitat.

36 Alternative 2 would not result in significant temporary or permanent impacts to suitable habit for the coastal 

37 California gnatcatcher. In addition, all future actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the project 

38 vicinity and that would affect this species would subject to ESA consultation and permitted as required by 

39 the USFWS. As a result, the cumulative impacts identified for coastal California gnatcatcher from 

40 Alternative 2, in conjunction with other projects on MCAS Miramar and in the regional vicinity, would not 

41 be cumulatively significant.
MCAS Miramar 3.2 Biological Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.2-22 May 2014

Draft EA 

1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Species

2 Alternative 2 would result in temporary impacts to 0.78 acres and permanent impacts to 0.21 acres of 

3 suitable habitat (Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub) for MBTA species. These impacts would be similar to but 

4 greater than Alternative 1 because construction activities would remove additional habitat. 

5 Implementation of Measures 5 should avoid temporary construction impacts to migratory birds and 

6 populations of migratory birds, including Species of Concern, listed under the MBTA and no significant 

7 impacts would occur.

8 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States

9 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States

10 Rose Canyon Creek, a Waters of the U.S., is present at the project site. Approximately 60 linear feet 

11 (0.007 acre) would be temporarily affected by project construction. Coverage under NWP 12 and/or 

12 NWP 33 and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification would be required prior to construction. 

13 Permitting actions and/or consultation with regulatory agencies are coordinated through the 

14 Environmental Management Department. In addition, any areas impacted would be returned to existing 

15 conditions following construction according to the Revegetation Plan of Measure 3. Therefore, no net loss 

16 Waters of the U.S. would occur. Implementation of Measure 15 (Temporary Sediment Control) and 

17 Measure 16 (Stockpile Management) would minimize soil loss and the runoff of soil laden stormwater 

18 from the project site. In addition, Alternative 2 would conform to the requirements outlined in the NPDES 

19 Construction General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land 

20 Disturbance (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002), including implementation of BMPs 

21 (e.g., silt fences, siltation basins, gravel bags, or other controls). Therefore, construction of Alternative 2

22 would not result in significant impacts to Waters of the U.S.

23 After construction and site restoration is completed, activities associated with operation and maintenance 

24 of Alternative 2 would not result in impacts to wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. and no mitigation is 

25 required.

26 Vernal Pools and Other (Non-Vernal Pool) Seasonally Ponded Features 

27 No vernal pools or other seasonally ponded features are located within project site. Several other 

28 seasonally ponded features are located adjacent to the project site on the west and east sides of Pless Road 

29 at the intersection of Miramar Way. Similar to Alternative 1, construction activities could result in 

30 temporary, indirect impacts to these features caused by downstream sedimentation and decreased water 

31 quality. Implementation sediment control (Measure 15), stockpile management (Measure 16), and vernal 

32 pool protection measures (Measure 8) should avoid potential impacts. Therefore, construction of 

33 Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to other seasonally ponded features. 

34 After construction and site restoration is completed, activities associated with operation and maintenance 

35 of Alternative 2 would not result in impacts to vernal pools and other seasonally ponded features and no 

36 mitigation is required.

37 3.2.4.3 No-Action Alternative

38 For the No-Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur. There would be no change in 

39 existing conditions, and no impacts to biological resources would occur.
MCAS Miramar 3.3 Geologic Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.3-1 May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.3 Geologic Resources

2 3.3.1 Definition of Resource

3 Geologic resources are defined as the geology, soils, and general topography of a given location. The 

4 term geology encompasses surface and subsurface bedrock units (e.g., formations), as well as associated 

5 structural elements (e.g., faults) and related hazards (e.g., seismicity). Soils are generally defined as the 

6 unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock deposits, and may be derived directly from bedrock 

7 (e.g., decomposed granite), or subject to chemical and/or physical alteration (e.g., topsoil or hardpan).

8 Topography is generally described to include factors such as elevation, slope, aspect, and landform type.

9 The described resources can exhibit scientific, economic, and/or recreational value, as well as hazards and 

10 constraints to development from conditions such as steep slopes, expansive soils, erosion, or liquefaction 

11 (i.e., the process by which soils become liquid when subject to seismically induced ground shaking).

12 3.3.2 Region of Influence

13 The ROI for geologic resources includes applicable portions of the project site where ground disturbance 

14 (e.g., clearing and grading) and construction activities are proposed, as well as on- and off-site areas that 

15 could potentially be affected by project-generated conditions such as erosion.

16 3.3.3 Affected Environment

17 3.3.3.1 Topography

18 MCAS Miramar is located on a gently sloping mesa surface dissected by Rose Canyon, San Clemente 

19 Canyon, and their tributary canyons. The canyons drain primarily to the west. Elevations at the Air 

20 Station range from approximately 1,000 to 1,200 feet in the east to 200 feet in the west. The project site

21 lies within the base of the gently sloping Rose Canyon, at an elevation of 336 to 352 feet above mean sea 

22 level. Moderately sloping canyon walls define the canyon to the north and south of the project site 

23 (NAVFAC 2006b).

24 3.3.3.2 General Geology 

25 Stratigraphy

26 The project site is underlain by alluvium and slopewash at the base of Rose Canyon. The canyon walls 

27 immediately to the north and south of the project site consist of slopewash, sandstone, conglomerates of 

28 the Lindavista Formation, and conglomerates of the Stadium Conglomerate (NAVFAC 2006b).

29 Soils

30 The soils in the vicinity of MCAS Miramar have been mapped as Redding gravelly loam or Redding 

31 cobbly loam (NAVFAC 2006b). These soils are generally not susceptible to settlement, but have a 

32 moderate to high expansion potential, and a severe potential for erosion (United States Department of 

33 Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1973).

34 3.3.3.3 Faulting and Seismicity

35 A fault that has exhibited surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (the last 11,000 years) is 

36 defined as active by the California Geological Survey. A fault that has exhibited surface displacement 

37 during the Pleistocene Epoch (which began about 1.6 million years ago and ended about 11,000 years 

38 ago) is defined as potentially active. Pre-Pleistocene faults are considered inactive.
MCAS Miramar 3.3 Geologic Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.3-2 May 2014

Draft EA

1 MCAS Miramar is located in southern California, which is a highly seismic region. However, no known 

2 active or potentially active faults underlie MCAS Miramar, and the Air Station has not experienced major 

3 seismic activity. Major regional faults in the vicinity of MCAS Miramar, capable of affecting the site in 

4 terms of ground shaking, include the Elsinore, San Jacinto, Rose Canyon, Coronado Bank, and San 

5 Clemente faults (Table 3.3-1). The San Andreas Fault, a major active fault that traverses much of the 

6 length of California, is located approximately 80 miles northeast of the project site.

Table 3.3-1. Seismic Parameters for Major Active Faults Within 60 Miles of the Project Site

Fault

Distance to

Project Area (miles)

Maximum Credible Earthquake 

(Richter Magnitude)

Elsinore 37 7.5

San Jacinto 60 7.5

Coronado Bank 12 6.75

Rose Canyon 4 7.0

San Clemente 55 7.65

Sources: Greensfelder 1974; California Division of Mines and Geology 1994

7 3.3.3.4 Geologic Hazards

8 Potential geologic hazards at the project site include soil expansion and erosion (Section 3.3.3.2), and 

9 seismically induced ground shaking (Section 3.3.3.3). The majority of MCAS Miramar, including the 

10 project site, has a very low potential for liquefaction and compaction of soils during seismic events 

11 because of the well-consolidated and dense nature of the earth materials and the lack of a shallow 

12 groundwater table (NAVFAC 1996).

13 3.3.4 Environmental Consequences

14 3.3.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank (Preferred Alternative)

15 Topography and Slope Stability

16 The project site is located within Rose Canyon, the base of which is relatively broad and gently sloped.

17 The Proposed Action would require demolition, excavation, stockpiling of soil, and subsequent grading to 

18 restore the current grade. The laydown areas for construction equipment and materials would be located 

19 within currently disturbed areas (Figure 2-1). The side slopes of the canyon would not be disturbed and 

20 the existing road grade would not change; therefore, the existing topography and slopes would not be 

21 altered. Excavations for the proposed sewer equalization tank would result in temporary steep to possibly 

22 vertical slopes, up to 15 feet deep. However, these temporary excavations would be shored to prevent 

23 slope failure and possible injury to construction personnel, and subsequently backfilled with compacted 

24 soil to existing grade. All excavations, grading, and construction would be completed in accordance with 

25 Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code requirements. Therefore, no significant topographic and slope 

26 stability impacts would occur as a result of Alternative 1.

27 Soils and Erosion

28 Although the slope gradient within the project site is relatively gentle, soils exhibit a high erosion 

29 potential. Proposed demolition and excavation activities along the 1,400 feet of roadway associated with 

30 the proposed sewer equalization tank would result in removal of existing pavement and vegetation, and 

31 associated soil disturbance. This would temporarily exacerbate the potential for erosion-induced 

32 sedimentation of Rose Canyon Creek and downstream water bodies. Rose Canyon has been identified as a 

33 source of high concentrations of organically rich fine sediments draining into Mission Bay, aggravating 

34 silting of the bay and degrading bottom sediment quality (MCAS Miramar et al. 2011).
MCAS Miramar 3.3 Geologic Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.3-3 May 2014

Draft EA

1 While disturbed portions of De La Garza Road would be stabilized through installation of hardscape 

2 (pavement) and temporary areas of disturbance along the road would be revegetated, erosion potential 

3 would be higher in the short-term than for existing conditions. Short-term erosion and sedimentation 

4 impacts would be mitigated through implementation of BMPs, compliance with established plans and 

5 policies, and incorporation of standard erosion control measures into the project design. MCAS Miramar 

6 is required to manage its lands to control and prevent soil erosion and preserve natural resources by 

7 conducting surveys and implementing soil conservation measures. MCO 5090.2A states, “Construction 

8 projects shall be designed to eliminate post construction and soil erosion, and altered or degraded 

9 landscapes and associated habitats shall be restored and rehabilitated whenever practicable” (MCAS 

10 Miramar Natural Resources Division et al. 2011).

11 More specifically, because project construction would disturb more than one acre, the construction 

12 contractor would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit for Storm 

13 Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ; 

14 NPDES No. CAS000002) before the start of construction activities. Specific conformance requirements 

15 include submittal of a Notice of Intent to the SWRCB before the start of construction, and submittal of a 

16 Notice of Termination upon completion of construction and related stormwater activities. The 

17 construction contractor would be required to implement all appropriate BMPs for erosion and 

18 sedimentation control, as well as for revegetation, as identified in Order # 99-08-DWQ and specified in 

19 the Notice of Intent to the SWRCB. The contractor would complete a risk determination and prepare a 

20 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), in accordance with the risk level requirements in the 

21 General Permit. The SWPPP would include appropriate BMPs (e.g., silt fences, siltation basins, gravel 

22 bags, or other controls) necessary to stabilize the soil in denuded or graded areas during the construction 

23 and revegetation phases of this alternative. This plan would be written in accordance with the relevant 

24 section of the Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook: Construction (California Stormwater 

25 Quality Association 2011). All construction contracts on MCAS Miramar are completed in accordance 

26 with standard BMPs, referring specifically to erosion control and management. The SWPPP and risk 

27 determination would be submitted to the MCAS Miramar Water Quality Program Manager, who would

28 be responsible for ensuring that the SWPPP is implemented.

29 Due to implementation of BMPs, compliance with established plans and policies, and incorporation of 

30 standard erosion control measures into project design and construction, significant erosional impacts 

31 associated with project construction would not occur. Following construction, the road surface would be 

32 repaved and culverts along the road would be restored; therefore, operation of the project site would be 

33 similar to existing conditions. As a result, no significant erosional impacts associated with project 

34 operations would occur and thus implementation of Alternative 1 would not have a significant impact to 

35 geologic resources.

36 Seismicity

37 MCAS Miramar is not underlain by any active or potentially active faults. Active faults located within 

38 60 miles of MCAS Miramar (Table 3.3-1) could result in strong seismically induced ground motion and 

39 associated ground shaking. However, the proposed sewer equalization tank would be designed and 

40 constructed to comply with the seismic design criteria identified in the Uniform Building Code, the 

41 NAVFAC P-355 Seismic Design Manual, and the most stringent criteria identified in the latest design 

42 specifications of the Structural Engineering Association of California. In addition, construction and 

43 design measures for construction activities at MCAS Miramar include the preparation of a site-specific 

44 geotechnical investigation that includes recommendations for design and construction. Therefore, 

45 implementation of Alternative 1 would not have a significant impact with respect to seismic risk.
MCAS Miramar 3.3 Geologic Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.3-4 May 2014

Draft EA

1 Accordingly, implementation of Alternative 1 would not have a significant impact to geologic resources

2 and no mitigation is required.

3 3.3.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and Holding Tank

4 Under Alternative 2, construction activities would be confined to the existing right-of-way along Pless 

5 Road, and at the proposed holding tank and associated pump station. No substantial cut and fill 

6 activities would be required during construction, thus minimizing potential temporary slope instability.

7 Construction could temporarily increase the potential for erosion-induced sedimentation of Rose Canyon 

8 Creek and downstream water bodies. Potential erosion impacts would be reduced with implementation of 

9 the standard erosion control measures as identified in the SWPPP (e.g., silt fences, siltation basins, 

10 gravel bags, or other controls), as required by the NPDES Construction General Permit 

11 (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002), and compliance with established plans and 

12 policies. Structures built under Alternative 2 would have the potential to be subject to seismically-induced 

13 ground movement. In addition, construction would be completed in accordance with provisions of the 

14 Uniform Building Code, the NAVFAC P-355 Seismic Design Manual, the most stringent criteria 

15 identified in the latest design specifications of the Structural Engineering Association of California, and 

16 MCAS Miramar requirements to prepare a site-specific geotechnical investigation with recommendations 

17 for design and construction. Thus, impacts from geotechnical hazards such as slope instability, expansive 

18 soils, and earthquakes would be minimized. Accordingly, implementation of Alternative 2 would not have 

19 a significant impact to geologic resources and no mitigation is required.

20 3.3.4.3 No-Action Alternative

21 Under the No-Action Alterative, upgrades to the existing sewer system would not occur. Therefore, there 

22 would be no significant impacts to geologic resources under the No-Action Alternative.
MCAS Miramar 3.4 Public Health and Safety

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.4-1 May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.4 Public Health and Safety

2 3.4.1 Definition of Resources

3 This section addressees issues that could potentially affect the safety of personnel at MCAS Miramar.

4 Specifically, safety issues associated with hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, including IR and 

5 Munitions Response (MR) sites, are addressed in this section.

6 Hazardous materials and wastes include substances that pose a potential hazard to human health and 

7 safety or the environment due to their quantity, concentration, and/or physical and chemical properties.

8 Hazardous materials and wastes are characterized by their ignitability, corrosiveness, reactivity, and 

9 toxicity. Hazardous materials and wastes include any material that due to its quantity, concentration, 

10 physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either cause or significantly contribute to an increase 

11 in mortality, serious irreversible illness, incapacitating reversible illness, or genetic changes that may pose 

12 a substantial threat to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, 

13 disposed, or otherwise managed.

14 The management of hazardous materials and wastes at MCAS Miramar is guided by Station Order 5090.5 

15 (MCAS Hazardous Waste Management Plan), Station Order 5100.1 (OSHA Manual), and the MCAS 

16 Miramar Installation Restoration Program (IRP), in accordance with CERCLA (42 USC 9601 et seq.).

17 The Air Station’s IRP is a program for the evaluation and cleanup of sites where past practices at MCAS 

18 Miramar resulted in the contamination of soils, groundwater, or other media by hazardous substances.

19 NAVFAC administers the IRP at MCAS Miramar. An Initial Assessment Study to identify areas of 

20 contamination was originally conducted in 1984. Since that time, the IRP has performed ongoing 

21 response actions to investigate the release of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminates into the 

22 environment and to select and implement appropriate remedial and removal actions addressing such 

23 releases.

24 The Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) was established in 2001 to manage the 

25 environmental, health, and safety issues presented by Munitions and Explosives of Concern at MCAS 

26 Miramar. The MMRP is an element of the DERP and adheres to the CERCLA process. Munitions and 

27 Explosives of Concern distinguishes specific categories of military munitions that may pose unique 

28 explosives safety risks; these include: 1) Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) (munitions used for their intended 

29 purpose but failed to function); 2) Discarded Military Munitions (items abandoned without proper 

30 disposal); and 3) Munitions Constituents (munitions present in sufficient concentrations to constitute an 

31 explosive hazard).

32 3.4.2 Region of Influence

33 The ROI for hazardous materials is the project site, which corresponds to the geographic area in which 

34 hazardous materials are involved in the construction and operation of the proposed facilities.

35 3.4.3 Affected Environment

36 3.4.3.1 Protection of Children (Executive Order 13045)

37 EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (Protection of 

38 Children), was issued in 1997. This order requires each federal agency to “...make it a high priority to 

39 identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and 

40 shall...ensure that its policies, programs, activities and standards address disproportionate risks to 

41 children...”
MCAS Miramar 3.4 Public Health and Safety

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.4-2 May 2014

Draft EA

1 The project site is located in a sparsely populated area of MCAS Miramar, near the northwest end of the 

2 northwest-southeast trending runway. Recreational areas in the vicinity of the site include the Fish Pond, 

3 located approximately 0.1 miles south of the site, and a golf course located approximately 0.25 miles

4 north of the project site. Facilities used frequently by children, such as family housing units, schools, or 

5 childcare centers, are located at least 1.5 miles northeast of the project site (NAVFAC 2006b).

6 3.4.3.2 Hazardous Materials and Waste Disposal

7 Industrial and hazardous wastes are accumulated at 60-day sites within the Air Station for temporary 

8 storage and are picked up weekly by materials handlers and disposed of at permitted hazardous waste 

9 disposal facilities in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.

10 3.4.3.3 Installation Restoration Program

11 The project site is located within the boundary of IR Site 2 (Rose Canyon), which encompasses most of 

12 Rose Canyon within MCAS Miramar (Figure 3.4-1). IR Site 2 is a result of concentrated industrial waste 

13 that was discharged into Rose Canyon via storm drains during the 1940s through the 1960s. Wastes 

14 included oil, grease, hydraulic fluid, fuel, solvent, paint thinner, plating waste water, corrosive waste, and 

15 beryllium dust. A site investigation is in process.

16 Because the project site has not been evaluated to-date under the CERCLA program, soil sampling and 

17 analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential for soil contamination. Fourteen borings were drilled to a 

18 maximum depth of 16 feet and samples were analyzed for various petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, 

19 hexavalent chromium, cyanide, and pesticides. The sampling and analysis plan focused on the 

20 environmental quality of the soil to be removed during the construction of the proposed wastewater 

21 equalization tank, potential impacts to construction worker health and safety, and waste classification and 

22 volumes (AMJV 2012). Analytical results were compared to project-specific screening levels to identify 

23 potential construction worker health and safety concerns. Most constituent concentrations were below 

24 screening levels with few exceptions. Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), as motor oil, was detected 

25 above guidance levels provided by the SDRWQCB (SDRWQCB 2002) in 9 of 37 samples analyzed, with 

26 a maximum concentration of 1,400 ppm, at a depth of 15 feet below ground surface. Arsenic was detected 

27 at concentrations in excess of screening levels for all 37 samples; however, these concentrations are 

28 typical of natural background arsenic concentrations on MCAS Miramar. No other metals were detected 

29 at concentrations in excess of project-specific screening levels (AMJV 2012).

30 3.4.3.4 Military Munitions Response Program

31 A total of 12 MR sites have been identified at MCAS Miramar. However, no MR sites are located at or 

32 near the project site. The closest MR site is located approximately 2,000 feet east of the project site

33 (Figure 3.4-1) (MCAS Miramar 2012). Therefore, the MMRP is not discussed further in this EA.

34 3.4.3.5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants Sites

35 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sets forth a framework for the management of 

36 Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant (POL) sites, which are regulated under the Underground Storage 

37 Tank/Aboveground Storage Tank (UST/AST) program at MCAS Miramar. However, there are no RCRA 

38 POL sites at or near the project site; the closest UST site is approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the 

39 project site, and the closest AST site is approximately 2,000 feet east of the project site (Figure 3.4-1).

40 Therefore, RCRA POL sites are not discussed further in this EA.
MCAS Miramar 3.4 Public Health and Safety

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.4-3 May 2014

Draft EA

Figure 3.4-1. IR and MR Sites at MCAS Miramar
MCAS Miramar 3.4 Public Health and Safety

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.4-4 May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.4.3.6 Other Federal Health and Safety Requirements

2 The DoN maintains health and safety programs to protect its personnel and property. Occupational health 

3 is an element of the overall Navy Occupational Safety and Health (NAVOSH) program, which includes 

4 explosive, nuclear, aviation, industrial, and off-duty safety.

5 All proposed construction and operation activities must meet the requirements of EO 13423 

6 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management). These requirements 

7 are intended to ensure, wherever feasible, that pollution would be prevented or reduced at the source; 

8 pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled would be treated in an environmentally safe manner; and 

9 disposal or other releases to the environment would be employed as a last resort. These requirements are 

10 contained in all contractual documents pertaining to new construction at MCAS Miramar.

11 3.4.4 Environmental Consequences 

12 3.4.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank (Preferred Alternative)

13 Protection of Children (Executive Order 13045)

14 Although children may occasionally recreate at the Fish Pond and golf course, these sites are located 

15 approximately 0.25 miles from the project site. No schools, daycare centers, or family housing units

16 which would be frequented by children are located in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no 

17 children would be exposed to environmental conditions or military activities at or in the project vicinity.

18 Accordingly, implementation of Alternative 1 would not have a significant impact to the protection of 

19 children and no mitigation is required.

20 Hazardous Materials and Waste Disposal

21 Construction and operation of Alternative 1 would require the use, transport, and storage of hazardous 

22 materials or waste. The transport, management, and disposal of soil excavated during construction is 

23 discussed in the following section. Any hazardous waste disposal associated with construction or 

24 operation demands would be adequately addressed by existing regulations for storage, transportation, and 

25 disposal of hazardous wastes. All hazardous waste generated from the project would be manifested 

26 through the Waste Management Division of the MCAS Miramar Environmental Management 

27 Department. The project would also comply with DERP, USACE EM 385-1-4 (U. S. Safety and Health 

28 Requirement Manual), with regard to disposal of CERCLA waste, and MCO 5090.2A (USMC

29 Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual). Therefore, no significant hazardous waste related 

30 impacts would occur in association with Alternative 1 and no mitigation is required.

31 Installation Restoration Program

32 The Proposed Action would require demolition, excavation, stockpiling of soil, and off-site disposal of up 

33 to 17,000 cubic yards of soil. Excavations would be completed up to 15 feet deep and 24 feet wide, over a 

34 distance of 1,400 feet. The project site is located within the boundary of IR Site 2, Rose Canyon. Based 

35 on the results of soil sampling completed at the project site, MCAS Miramar does not expect that the soil 

36 proposed to be excavated from the project site would be classified as hazardous waste under either federal 

37 or state regulations (AMJV 2012). However, if prior to or during construction CERCLA contaminates are 

38 discovered, removal actions would be subject to the requirements of CERCLA (40 CFR Part 300) and 

39 RCRA (40 CFR 260). In addition, the project would: 1) coordinate with MCAS Miramar Environmental 

40 Management Department, Installation Restoration Program Manager; and 2) receive concurrence from the 

41 Remedial Project Manager at NAVFAC and SDRWQCB prior to execution of the project to ensure 

42 conformance with CERCLA. CERCLA remedial actions are exempted from the procedural requirements 

43 of NEPA. Therefore, any such actions conducted as part of this alternative are not evaluated in this EA.
MCAS Miramar 3.4 Public Health and Safety

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.4-5 May 2014

Draft EA

1 Although soils classified as hazardous waste are not likely present, petroleum-impacted soils (i.e., soils 

2 contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons) are located within the project site. Up to approximately 

3 5,667 cubic yards of excavated soil (approximately one third of total volume of soil [17,000 cubic yards])

4 may require special handling and disposal (AMJV 2012). Construction personnel would be trained for 

5 HAZWOPER, in accordance with OSHA requirements (29 CFR 1910.120 (e)). In addition, a monitor 

6 with 40-hour HAZWOPER training, and experience in identifying contaminated soil and groundwater,

7 would be present during grading and excavations to identify and properly segregate potentially 

8 contaminated soil from uncontaminated soil (Measure 9). The monitor would sample the stockpiled soil 

9 to determine final disposition of the soil (i.e., hazardous, nonhazardous/ petroleum contaminated, or 

10 clean). Stockpiled soils would be characterized using procedures outlined in the San Diego Department 

11 Manual of Environmental Health Site Assessment and Mitigation Manual. Any contaminated soils 

12 excavated would be managed in accordance with Measure 16 and conditions set forth in the SDRWQCB 

13 Order R9-2002-343, Waste Discharge Requirement for the Disposal and/or Reuse of Petroleum Fuel 

14 Contaminated Soils in the San Diego Region; would be stored and transported in accordance with 40 CFR 

15 and Title 22 regulations; and would be in coordination with an approval from the Remedial Project 

16 Manager and SDRWQCB. All hazardous waste generated from Alternative 1 would be manifested 

17 through the Waste Management Division of the MCAS Miramar Environmental Management Department 

18 and be assigned an MCAS Miramar Generator Number (MCAS 2009). With implementation of proper 

19 soil disposal and health and safety protocols, Alternative 1 would not have a significant hazardous waste 

20 related impact to public health and safety.

21 Other Federal Health and Safety Requirements 

22 The proposed requirements of EO 13423 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and 

23 Transportation Management) would be specified in construction contractor contracts and implemented 

24 with standard BMPs associated with Alternative 1. Therefore, construction of Alternative 1 would not 

25 have a significant impact to public health and safety associated with environmental health risks.

26 The Proposed Action would not result in a change in operational activities that would potentially affect 

27 the health and safety of personnel operating and maintaining the sewer system. Consequently, there would 

28 be no increase in potential public health and safety impacts. Therefore, operation of Alternative 1 would 

29 not have a significant impact to public health and safety.

30 As discussed in Section 3.8, post-construction water quality would be improved as a result of 

31 Alternative 1, as the proposed sewer equalization tank would prevent the discharge of excess wastewater 

32 from the sewer system, during heavy rain events, into Rose Canyon creek and downstream Mission Bay.

33 The existing sewer infrastructure is not capable of metering effluent flow within permitted levels and the 

34 sewer does not have the capability to limit the rate of discharge. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in 

35 beneficial impacts with respect to water quality and its effect on public health. Accordingly, 

36 implementation of Alternative 1 would not have a significant impact to public health and safety and no 

37 mitigation is required.

38 3.4.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and Holding Tank

39 For Alternative 2, safety and environmental health impacts would generally be the same as those 

40 described for Alternative 1. Accordingly, implementation of Alternative 2 would not have a significant 

41 impact to public health and safety and no mitigation is required. In addition, as described for 

42 Alternative 1, beneficial public health impacts would occur as a result of improved water quality.
MCAS Miramar 3.4 Public Health and Safety

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.4-6 May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.4.4.3 No-Action Alternative

2 Under the No-Action Alterative, potential construction related impacts would not occur. However, 

3 upgrades to the existing sewer system and inadvertent discharge of wastewater to Rose Canyon Creek and 

4 downstream Mission Bay would continue to occur during some heavy rain events. As a result, public 

5 health impacts related to poor water quality would continue to occur in association with the No-Action 

6 Alternative.
MCAS Miramar 3.5 Recreation

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.5-1 May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.5 Recreation

2 3.5.1 Definition of the Resource

3 Recreation, as defined for the purposes of this EA, includes both facility and land based recreation 

4 activities. Facility-based recreation activities are defined as a building or facility that provides a particular 

5 recreational use such as swimming pools, gymnasiums, and bowling alleys. Land-based recreation 

6 activities are defined as areas that provide a particular recreational use such as golf courses, playing 

7 fields/outdoor courts, parks, open space, riding stables, and hunting and fishing areas.

8 3.5.2 Region of Influence

9 The ROI for recreation encompasses the project site as well as recreational facilities in the project vicinity 

10 that would be affected by Alternative 1 and alternative.

11 3.5.3 Affected Environment

12 One recreational facility, the Fish Pond, is located in the project vicinity. The Fish Pond is a 7-acre pond 

13 located approximately 0.1 mile south of the project site off De La Garza Road. The facility is maintained 

14 by MCAS Miramar as a recreational fishery and is stocked with largemouth bass, channel catfish, and 

15 bluegill (MCAS Miramar 2013). Access to the Fish Pond is limited to authorized Miramar Marine Corps 

16 Community Services patrons including active duty, reservists, retirees, DoD civilian employees of MCAS 

17 Miramar, and family members (NAVFAC 2006b). Management of the Fish Pond is accomplished jointly,

18 with the Miramar Marine Corps Community Services managing the recreational aspects and the 

19 Environmental Management Department providing technical support regarding fishery and water quality 

20 issues (NAVFAC 2006b).

21 Use of the Fish Pond for recreational fishing was estimated based on the number of annual fishing permits 

22 issued between 2010 and 2012. The number of fishing permits that were issued for the Fish Pond in 2010, 

23 2011, and 2012 were 319, 326, and 268, respectively. In addition, it is estimated that 15 to 50 people per 

24 day utilize the Fish Pond for jogging and physical training. Because individuals do not have to check-in 

25 to use the Fish Pond, the number of users for other recreational activities such as picnics is unknown 

26 (R. Maynard, personal communication, 3 January 2013).

27 3.5.4 Environmental Consequences

28 3.5.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank (Preferred Alternative)

29 Access to the Fish Pond would be closed during the 15-month construction period. No recreational 

30 activities would occur during this time, resulting in temporary impacts to recreational use of the facility.

31 Sidewinder Road and Johnson Road would provide non-recreation access to the Fish Pond for authorized 

32 MCAS Miramar personnel conducting operation and maintenance activities while De La Garza Road is 

33 closed to through traffic (Measure 10) (Figure 2-1).

34 Although access to the Fish Pond would be closed temporarily during construction, the reduction of 

35 available resources would be short-term and only affect a small non-public user group. Following 

36 construction, access to the Fish Pond would be the same as under the existing conditions. Therefore, no 

37 significant permanent impacts to recreation would occur during operation and no mitigation is required.
MCAS Miramar 3.5 Recreation

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.5-2 May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.5.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and Holding Tank

2 Temporary impacts to recreation under Alternative 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 

3 Following construction, access to the Fish Pond would be the restored to existing conditions. Therefore, 

4 no significant permanent impacts to recreation would occur during operation and no mitigation is 

5 required.

6 3.5.4.3 No-Action Alternative

7 Under the No-Action Alternative, upgrades to the existing sewer system would not occur and access to 

8 Fish Pond would not be temporarily closed during construction. Existing conditions would remain as 

9 described in Section 3.5.1. Therefore, no impacts to recreation would occur under the No-Action 

10 Alternative.
MCAS Miramar 3.6 Transportation, Circulation, and Traffic

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.6-1 May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.6 Transportation, Circulation, and Traffic

2 3.6.1 Definition of Resource

3 Transportation, circulation, and traffic refer to the movement of vehicles on roadways and through 

4 intersections. Operational conditions for roadways and intersections are typically defined in terms of 

5 average daily trips (ADT) and level of service (LOS). These factors indicate the ability of the roadway 

6 network to adequately accommodate existing and future traffic needs.

7 LOS is a letter designation that ranges from A through F and describes the range of possible operating 

8 conditions on a particular type of roadway facility. LOS is based on speed, freedom to maneuver, driving 

9 comfort, and convenience. Intersection analysis is based on the time that a vehicle is delayed at an 

10 intersection. LOS for signalized intersections is based on the average time (in seconds) that vehicles 

11 entering the intersection are delayed. LOS for unsignalized, two-way, stop-controlled intersections is 

12 based on the delay for the worst movement (e.g., crossing and left or right turns). LOS A for intersections 

13 indicates operations with very low delay and few stopped vehicles; LOS E indicates operations with 

14 significant delay and extensive queuing; and LOS F represents operations that are unacceptable to most 

15 drivers. LOS for freeway segments is determined by volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios, which reflect the 

16 fraction of capacity represented by the traffic flow.

17 3.6.2 Region of Influence

18 The ROI for transportation, traffic, and circulation includes the roadways and major intersections found 

19 on MCAS Miramar in the vicinity of the project site. Freeway segments in the vicinity of MCAS Miramar 

20 also are included within the ROI for transportation, traffic, and circulation. Based on their proximity to 

21 the project site and the likely travel patterns to regional facilities, the following freeways and roads were 

22 determined to be within the ROI: I-15, I-805, SR-52, Miramar Way, Miramar Road, Kearny Villa Road, 

23 De La Garza Road, and Pless Road.

24 3.6.3 Affected Environment

25 Regional access to MCAS Miramar is provided by a network of freeways and arterial roads. The freeways 

26 include I-15, I-805, and SR-52. The arterial street network within MCAS Miramar includes Miramar 

27 Way, Miramar Road, and Kearny Villa Road. I-15 serves as the major regional interstate highway that 

28 provides access to MCAS Miramar, intersecting the Air Station and dividing it into two areas 

29 (West Miramar and East Miramar). SR-52 traverses the southern boundary of the Air Station and I-805 

30 is located along the western boundary of the Air Station. Miramar Way is the prime internal east-west 

31 arterial road, ranging from two to four lanes and located north of the project site. West of I-15, Miramar 

32 Road is a prime arterial road that forms the northern boundary of the Air Station until its intersection with 

33 Miramar Way approximately three miles west of I-15. Kearny Villa Road runs generally north to south 

34 along the east side of West Miramar, west of I-15. The project site is located on De La Garza Road 

35 approximately 0.5 miles south east of the West Gate, 2.3 miles southwest of the North Gate, and 2.3 miles 

36 southwest of the East Gate. The site is accessed via Miramar Way.

37 The principal roadways that serve the project site are described below.

38 I-805 is an eight-lane freeway running in a north/south direction along the western boundary of MCAS 

39 Miramar. Freeway on-ramps and off-ramps in the vicinity of the Air Station are located at Sorrento 

40 Valley Road, Genesee Avenue, La Jolla Village Drive (becomes Miramar Road at I-805), Nobel Drive, 

41 Gilman Drive, Governor Drive, SR-52, and Claremont Mesa Boulevard. I-805 currently carries an 
MCAS Miramar 3.6 Transportation, Circulation, and Traffic

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.6-2 May 2014

Draft EA

1 ADT volume of 196,000 to 215,600 vehicles in the area (San Diego Association of Governments 

2 [SANDAG] 2012a).

3 I-15 is an eight-lane freeway running in a north/south direction through MCAS Miramar. Freeway 

4 on-ramps and off-ramps are located at Mira Mesa Boulevard, Carroll Canyon Road, Miramar/Pomerado 

5 Road, Miramar Way, SR-163, and SR-52. I-15 currently carries an ADT volume of 161,400 to 

6 314,100 vehicles in the vicinity of the Air Station (SANDAG 2012a). The intersection of I-15 

7 Southbound and Miramar Way at the westbound left-turn approach operates at LOS A during peak 

8 morning, noon, and afternoon conditions (TranSystems 2012). The intersection of I-15 Southbound and 

9 Miramar Way at the southbound approach operates at a LOS F during peak morning conditions, LOS C at 

10 peak noon conditions, and LOS B during peak afternoon conditions (TranSystems 2012).

11 Miramar Road runs primarily in an east/west direction along the north boundary of MCAS Miramar, and 

12 provides access to the North and West Gates of the Air Station. It becomes Pomerado Road east of I-15. 

13 Miramar Road from I-805 and Eastgate Mall is a six-lane prime arterial with a capacity of 60,000 ADT at 

14 LOS E (SANDAG 2012b). Miramar Road between Miramar Place and Camino Santa Fe is a four-lane 

15 major arterial with a capacity of 50,000 ADT at LOS E (SANDAG 2012b). Miramar Road between 

16 Miramar Way and Kearny Mesa Road is a six-lane prime arterial with a capacity of 60,000 ADT at 

17 LOS E (SANDAG 2012b). Miramar Road currently carries an ADT volume of 42,200 to 73,000 vehicles

18 between I-805 and I-15 (SANDAG 2012b). The intersection of Miramar Way and Miramar Road near the 

19 West Gate operates at a LOS B during peak morning, noon, and afternoon hours (TranSystems 2012).

20 The North Gate is located off Miramar Road at Mitscher Way and is one of the primary entrances to the 

21 Air Station along with the East Gate. The gate operates on a 24-hour a day 7 days a week basis.

22 Approximately 700 vehicles enter the North Gate during morning peak hours (0615 to 0715), averaging 

23 13 vehicles per minute (TranSystems 2012).

24 The West Gate is located off Miramar Road and Miramar Way and is a secondary entrance to the Air 

25 Station. The gate operates between 0530 and 1830 on weekdays and is closed on weekends. 

26 Approximately 280 vehicles enter the gate during peak morning hours (0630 to 0730), averaging 

27 five vehicles per minute (TranSystems 2012).

28 Kearny Villa Road is a four-lane major arterial running in a north/south direction through MCAS 

29 Miramar, and provides access to the East Gate of the Air Station. Kearny Villa Road in the vicinity of the 

30 Air Station currently carries an ADT volume of 11,000 to 26,100 vehicles from north of Miramar Road to 

31 SR-52 (SANDAG 2012b). The existing capacity of Kearny Villa Road is approximately 40,000 ADT at 

32 LOS E (SANDAG 2012b). The southbound intersection of Kearny Villa Road and Miramar Way operates 

33 at LOS A from the westbound left-turn approach during peak morning, noon, and afternoon conditions, 

34 while the southbound approach operates at LOS D during peak morning conditions, LOS D during peak 

35 noon conditions, and LOS F during peak afternoon conditions. The northbound intersection of Kearny 

36 Villa Road and Miramar Way operates at LOS C during peak morning conditions and at LOS A during 

37 peak noon and afternoon conditions from the eastbound left-turn approach. The southbound approach at 

38 this intersection operates at a LOS F during peak morning conditions and LOS C during peak noon and 

39 afternoon conditions (TranSystems 2012).

40 The East gate is located off Kearny Villa Road at H Avenue and provides primary access to the Air 

41 Station along with the North Gate. All heavy trucks are required to enter and leave MCAS Miramar by 

42 the East Gate. The gate operates on a 24-hour a day 7 days a week basis. Approximately 1,881 vehicles 

43 enter the gate during peak morning conditions, averaging about 33 vehicles per minute 

44 (TranSystems 2012).
MCAS Miramar 3.6 Transportation, Circulation, and Traffic

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.6-3 May 2014

Draft EA

1 Miramar Way is a major arterial running in an east/west direction through MCAS Miramar, and provides 

2 access to the East Gate of the Air Station. Miramar way is a two-lane road between Miramar Road and 

3 Anderson Avenue on the west and then becomes a four-lane road between Anderson Avenue to the East 

4 Gate. Miramar Way in the vicinity of the Air Station carries an ADT volume of 14,700 to 18,900 vehicles 

5 (SANDAG 2012b). The intersection of Miramar Way and Miramar Road operates at LOS B during peak

6 morning, noon, and afternoon hours (TranSystems 2012). The heaviest traffic volumes on MCAS 

7 Miramar are on Miramar Way. The traffic volumes on Miramar Way peak at about 21,000 vehicles per 

8 day at the East Gate, dropping down to about 14,000 east of Mitscher Way, 9,300 west of Mitscher Way, 

9 and down to around 2,600 at the West Gate (TranSystems 2012).

10 Pless Road is a two-way roadway running in a north/south direction, and provides access to the project 

11 site. Specific traffic data are not available for this road. However, the capacity of a two-lane roadway is 

12 generally 15,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day (TranSystems 2012). During the morning peak period there is 

13 a heavy pattern of traffic turning from Miramar Way onto roadways feeding the flightline.

14 De La Garza Road is a two lane road running in an east/west direction in the project site. Specific traffic 

15 data are not available for this road. However, the capacity of a two-lane roadway is generally 15,000 to 

16 20,000 vehicles per day (TranSystems 2012).

17 3.6.4 Environmental Consequences

18 3.6.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank (Preferred Alternative)

19 Implementation of Alternative 1 would temporary affect the local road network through the delivery of 

20 materials to the project site during construction and by temporarily closing De La Garza Road to through 

21 traffic. Because increases in traffic volumes associated with the construction activities would be 

22 temporary, no long-term impacts to the regional transportation network would occur. Heavy construction 

23 vehicles would generally remain onsite for the duration of their use. Thus, increases in traffic volumes 

24 would mainly result from construction workers traveling to and from the project site and trucks delivering 

25 materials including soil to and removing materials from the project site. A maximum of approximately 

26 50 vehicle round trips per day would be required during proposed construction activities including 

27 35 equipment round trips per day and 15 worker round trips per day. All construction equipment and 

28 material hauls would access the Air Station through the East Gate unless otherwise approved by MCAS 

29 Miramar.

30 Addition of the construction traffic during peak traffic hours would worsen the delays at the freeway 

31 ramps and intersections in the vicinity of the East Gate already operating at LOS F and would contribute 

32 to already poorly performing freeway segments along I-15 in the vicinity of MCAS Miramar. The 

33 increases in traffic volumes from construction of Alternative 1 would be temporary (lasting for the 

34 15-month construction period) and would vary daily depending on the construction schedule. To 

35 minimize traffic congestion, delivery of materials and equipment would occur outside of peak traffic 

36 hours (6:30 to 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 to 5:00 p.m.) as described in Measures 11 (Section 2.3.3.6) and 

37 construction workers would be encouraged to rideshare/carpool (Measure 12).

38 Construction of Alternative 1 would require the temporary closure of De La Garza Road. De La Garza 

39 Road is a minor service road that provides access only to limited facilities at the Air Station. The 

40 construction contractor would be required to implement a Construction Traffic Management and Detour 

41 Plan as detailed in Measure 13. Following construction, De La Garza Road would be repaved and 

42 returned to its pre-construction configuration. A sign indicating the road load rating would be posted at 

43 the start of De La Garza Road near the intersection of Pless Road (Measure 14). Therefore, temporary 

44 impacts to transportation, circulation, and traffic during construction would not be significant.
MCAS Miramar 3.6 Transportation, Circulation, and Traffic

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.6-4 May 2014

Draft EA

1 There would be no additional military, government, civilian, and/or contractor support personnel stationed at 

2 MCAS Miramar as a result of Alternative 1. Consequently, operation of Alternative 1 and would not 

3 increase overall traffic volumes or circulation patterns within the Air Station. Therefore, no significant 

4 impacts to traffic, transportation, or circulation would occur and no mitigation is required.

5 3.6.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and Holding Tank

6 Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to Alternative 1, but would result in slightly less construction 

7 vehicle trips. Construction and operation of Alternative 2 would require a maximum of approximately 

8 15 vehicle round trips per day during proposed construction activities including five equipment round 

9 trips per day and 10 worker round trips per day. As with Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would temporarily 

10 worsen the peak hour delays at the freeway ramps and intersections in the vicinity of the East Gate 

11 already operating at LOS F and would contribute to an already poorly performing freeway segments 

12 along I-15 in the vicinity of MCAS Miramar during the construction period. As with the Alternative 1, 

13 Measures 11 and 12 would be implemented to minimize traffic congestion. Therefore, temporary impacts 

14 to transportation, circulation, and traffic during construction would not be significant.

15 Construction of the Alternative 2 would require the temporary closure of De La Garza Road and Pless 

16 Road. The contractor would be required to implement a Construction Traffic Management and Detour 

17 Plan (Measure 13). Following construction, De La Garza Road and Pless Road would be repaved and 

18 returned to pre-construction conditions. Consequently, no significant impacts to traffic, transportation, or 

19 circulation would result from construction of the Alternative 2 and no mitigation is required.

20 Alternative 2 operation would be the same as Alternative 1 and would not increase overall traffic volumes 

21 or circulation patterns within the Air Station. Therefore, no significant impacts to traffic, transportation, or 

22 circulation would occur and no mitigation is required.

23 3.6.4.3 No-Action Alternative

24 Under the No-Action Alternative, upgrades to the existing sewer system would not occur. Existing 

25 conditions would remain as described in Section 3.6.1 and existing traffic levels and circulation patterns

26 would remain unchanged. Therefore, no significant impacts to transportation, circulation, and traffic 

27 would occur and no mitigation is required.
MCAS Miramar 3.7 Utilities

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.7-1 May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.7 Utilities

2 3.7.1 Definition of Resources

3 Utilities, as defined for the purposes of this EA, include electrical distribution systems (including power 

4 lines and substations), telecommunication systems, natural gas, potable water supply and distribution 

5 systems, sanitary sewer system, storm drainage systems, and solid waste disposal. Hazardous material 

6 disposal is discussed in Section 3.4.

7 3.7.2 Region of Influence

8 The ROI for utilities encompasses the project site, as well as on- and off-site areas that contain utility 

9 lines and/or infrastructure that would be affected by potential changes to existing conditions.

10 3.7.3 Affected Environment

11 3.7.3.1 Electrical Distribution System

12 Electrical power for MCAS Miramar is purchased from the regional utility company, San Diego Gas and 

13 Electric (SDG&E). Electricity is provided through a 12-kilovolt (KV) underground connection originating 

14 at the SDG&E substation located on Miramar Road, which connects to Miramar’s 12 KV switching 

15 station (substation No. 4). Power is distributed by a 12-KV loop that feeds five additional substations and 

16 more than 90 miles of transmission lines. Emergency power is provided by SDG&E’s Miramar Power 

17 Block combustion turbines and by fixed standby generators (NAVFAC 2006b). Electrical power is 

18 provided at the western end of the project site by underground electrical distribution lines (Figure 2-1).

19 3.7.3.2 Communication System

20 Communication services for MCAS Miramar are provided by American Telephone and Telegraph 

21 Corporation (AT&T) through a network of aboveground and underground lines. The system was installed 

22 in December 1986 and has a capacity of 5,000 lines. Currently, there are approximately 2,500 working 

23 lines (NAVFAC 2006b). Communication service to the project site is provided by an overhead

24 communication line strung on the same transmission poles as the electrical distribution lines.

25 3.7.3.3 Natural Gas

26 Natural gas for MCAS Miramar is purchased from SDG&E and supplied through a gas main located in 

27 Maxam Avenue. Natural gas is distributed to the Air Station through approximately 11 miles of 2-inch 

28 and 3-inch gas lines (NAVFAC 2006b). All lines are located on the northern part of MCAS Miramar. 

29 Two propane gas tanks and associated distribution systems also supply gas to the Air Station in a limited 

30 capacity. No natural gas lines are located within the project site. The closest lines are located 

31 approximately 0.25 miles north of the project site in Miramar Way.

32 3.7.3.4 Water Supply and Distribution System

33 Potable water for MCAS Miramar is purchased from the City of San Diego. The City of San Diego 

34 imports approximately 80 to 90 percent of its water, which is a blend of Colorado River, State Water 

35 Project, and local sources (City of San Diego 2012a). The main connection to the City of San Diego water 

36 system is located along the northwest side of MCAS Miramar near Miramar Road and Bauer Road

37 (NAVFAC 2006b). MCAS Miramar is supplied with a metered 16-inch line located off Miramar Road. A 

38 backup 16-inch connection point is located at Kearny Villa Road on the northeast side of the Air Station. 

39 The system consists of 6- to 14-inch cast iron lines built from 1951 to 1960. In addition, MCAS Miramar 

40 has three water storage tanks, two with one million gallon and one with 750,000 gallon capacities.
MCAS Miramar 3.7 Utilities

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.7-2 May 2014

Draft EA

1 A separate, closed water system is used for fire protection of the aircraft hangars (NAVFAC 2006b). The 

2 fire system is fed from two ground-level storage tanks (each one million gallons), and has six 1,500 gpm 

3 pump stations. East Miramar and Sycamore Canyon have 40,000 linear feet of distribution system and 

4 five small storage tanks.

5 No water supply lines are located within the project site. The closest water lines are located 

6 approximately 0.25 miles north of the project site within the Naval Consolidated Brig area.

7 3.7.3.5 Sanitary Sewer System

8 The sewer system on MCAS Miramar consists of 202,862 linear feet of 6- to 16-inch lines originally built 

9 from 1953 to 1960, and includes three septic tank systems and nine oil/water separators

10 (NAVFAC 2006b). A sewage flow metering station is located in Rose Canyon. An additional five septic 

11 tanks and two oil/water separators that are not connected to the sanitary sewer system are located in East 

12 Miramar and Sycamore Canyon. Sewer wastewater is collected on MCAS Miramar and discharges to the 

13 City of San Diego’s Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant under an existing contract. The cost of 

14 service is based on the quality of sewage and the amount of water used. Treated waste from the from the 

15 Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant is discharged into the Pacific Ocean, two miles off of Point 

16 Loma. Biosolids from the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant are fed by pipeline to the Metro 

17 Biosolids Center for treatment and use as soil amendments, landfill, and landfill cover at the Miramar 

18 Landfill (City of San Diego 2012b).

19 Two sewer lines, USN 9 and USN 10, are located within De La Garza Road. USN 9 is a 15-inch vitrified 

20 clay pipe that runs underneath De La Garza Road. USN 10 is a 16-inch PVC pipeline that runs along the 

21 north side of De La Garza Road (Figure 2-1) (MCAS Miramar GIS data 2012).

22 3.7.3.6 Storm Drainage System

23 The storm drain system at MCAS Miramar consists of 2,300 linear feet of 6- to 36-inch distribution lines

24 made of various materials (NAVFAC 2006b). In addition, there are dozens of culverts of various sizes 

25 and materials as well as creeks and streams that convey stormwater throughout the Air Station.

26 Stormwater is discharged off of the Air Station at twelve locations.

27 No storm sewer lines are located within the project site. The closest storm sewer line is located 

28 approximately 0.25 miles north of the project site within the Naval Consolidated Brig area. There are 

29 several open drainages that collect and convey stormwater within the project site including the 

30 intermittent creek within Rose Canyon and culverts along De La Garza and Pless Roads.

31 3.7.3.7 Solid Waste Disposal

32 Solid waste produced on MCAS Miramar is collected by Air Station personnel and disposed of at the 

33 Miramar Landfill located at MCAS Miramar. The Miramar Landfill accepts eligible construction and 

34 demolition debris, mixed municipal waste, and tires. The landfill currently has a capacity of 

35 16,473,000 cubic yards (Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2012). Hazardous waste 

36 disposal is discussed in Section 3.4.

37 3.7.4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures

38 3.7.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank (Preferred Alternative)

39 Implementation of Alternative 1 would not include the construction or operation of new water distribution 

40 mains, natural gas distribution lines, or communications lines, and would not result in an increase in 

41 demands of these utilities at MCAS Miramar. Therefore, no impacts on the potable water, natural gas, or 
MCAS Miramar 3.7 Utilities

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.7-3 May 2014

Draft EA

1 communication systems would occur. The Proposed Action would include upgrades to the sanitary sewer 

2 system, a tie-in to the existing electrical distribution system, and replacement of the storm drainage 

3 system within the project site. In addition, solid waste would be generated during construction activities. 

4 Impacts associated with these activities are evaluated below.

5 Electrical Distribution System

6 The active flow control system would be connected to the existing electrical line at the project site to 

7 support this alternative. The demand for electricity to serve the project site would be met by existing 

8 services provided by SDG&E and the proposed electrical system upgrade would be designed consistent 

9 with SDG&E standards. Therefore, no significant impacts on the electrical system would occur.

10 Sanitary Sewer System

11 The Proposed Action would not generate wastewater or increase demands on the sanitary sewer system at 

12 MCAS Miramar. Under this alternative, the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure would be upgraded to 

13 limit the discharge rate of effluent to the City of San Diego’s sewer system to less than the permitted limit 

14 of 1.6 mgd. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have a beneficial impact on the sewer system.

15 Storm Drainage System

16 Culverts located along De La Garza would be demolished and replaced (temporarily impacted) during 

17 construction. As described in Section 3.3, the construction contractor would obtain authorization for 

18 construction under the NPDES Construction General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with 

19 Construction and Land Disturbance (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002) from the 

20 SWRCB. The contractor would be required to implement all appropriate BMPs for contaminated runoff 

21 control, as identified in Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ; as specified in the application to the SWRCB. The 

22 culverts would be replaced and the storm drainage system would operate as under existing conditions. 

23 Therefore, no permanent impacts would occur and temporary impacts to the stormwater system would not 

24 be significant.

25 Solid Waste Disposal

26 Construction activities associated with Alternative 1 would generate solid wastes including demolished 

27 asphalt, sewer pipelines, and excavated soils. Solid waste would be disposed of at the Miramar Landfill. 

28 Sufficient capacity exists within the Miramar Landfill to accommodate the small volume of solid waste 

29 expected to be generated by Alternative 1. Solid wastes would not be generated during operational 

30 activities associated with this alternative. Therefore, impacts on solid waste disposal would not occur 

31 during operations and no mitigation is required.

32 3.7.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and Holding Tank

33 Implementation of Alternative 2 would not include the construction or operation of new natural gas 

34 distribution lines or communications lines and would not result in an increase in demands of these utilities 

35 at MCAS Miramar. Therefore, no impacts on natural gas and communication systems would occur.

36 Alternative 2 would include upgrades to the electrical distribution system, water supply and distribution 

37 system, sanitary sewer system, and replacement of the storm drainage system within the project site. In 

38 addition, solid waste would be generated during construction activities. Impacts associated with these 

39 activities are evaluated below.

40 Electrical Distribution System

41 Alternative 2 would include the construction of approximately 1,400 feet of overhead electrical 

42 transmission lines to operate the pump station. The transmission line alignment would connect to the 
MCAS Miramar 3.7 Utilities

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.7-4 May 2014

Draft EA

1 existing distribution system along Miramar Way and would be placed within the right-of-way along Pless

2 Road (Figure 2-3). The demand for electricity to serve the project site during operation of the pump 

3 station would be met by existing services provided by SDG&E. The proposed electrical system upgrades 

4 would be consistent with SDG&E standards. Therefore, no significant impacts on the electrical system 

5 would occur and no mitigation is required.

6 Water Supply and Distribution System

7 Implementation of Alternative 2 would include construction of approximately 650 feet of additional water 

8 distribution lines to flush the pump station system after use. The new water line would be placed 

9 underground within the right-of-way along Pless Road, with connections to the existing infrastructure 

10 within the Naval Consolidated Brig area and the proposed water tank (Figure 2-3). Operation of the 

11 facility would not result in a significant increase in demands on the water supply and distribution system

12 at MCAS Miramar. Therefore, significant impacts on water supply and distribution systems would not 

13 occur and no mitigation is required.

14 Sanitary Sewer System

15 Alternative 2 would generate wastewater from flushing the pump station and tank system after use.

16 However, the increase demands on the sanitary sewer system at MCAS Miramar would not be significant.

17 In addition, the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure would be upgraded to limit the discharge rate of 

18 effluent to the City of San Diego’s sewer system to less than the permitted limit of 1.6 mgd. Therefore, 

19 Alternative 2 would have a beneficial impact on the sewer system.

20 Storm Drainage System

21 Culverts located along each side of De La Garza Road that convey stormwater off MCAS Miramar would 

22 be demolished and replaced during construction of the wet well and pump station. Therefore, temporary 

23 impacts to the storm drainage system would occur during construction. These temporary impacts would 

24 be less than described for Alternative 1 due to the smaller project footprint. The culverts would be 

25 replaced and operation of the storm drainage system would be conducted as under existing conditions. 

26 Therefore, no permanent impacts would occur and temporary impacts would not be significant; no

27 mitigation is required.

28 Solid Waste Disposal

29 Construction activities associated with this alternative would generate solid wastes, including demolished 

30 asphalt, sewer pipelines, and excavated soils. This alternative would generate less solid waste than

31 Alternative 1. Solid waste would be disposed of at the Miramar Landfill. Sufficient capacity exists within 

32 the Miramar Landfill to accommodate the small volume of solid waste expected to be generated by 

33 Alternative 2. Solid wastes would not be generated during operational activities associated with this 

34 alternative. Therefore, no significant impacts on solid waste disposal would occur and no mitigation is 

35 required.

36 3.7.4.3 No-Action Alternative

37 Under the No-Action Alternative, upgrades to the existing sewer system would not occur. Existing 

38 conditions would remain as described in Section 3.7.1 and utility demands would remain unchanged. In 

39 addition, the existing sewer system would continue to exceed the permitted discharge limit of 1.6 mgd 

40 during significant rain events. As a result, MCAS Miramar would continue to be subject to fines for 

41 exceeding the permit limit, which could result in a significant impact to the sanitary sewer system.
MCAS Miramar 3.8 Water Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.8-1 May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.8 Water Resources

2 3.8.1 Definition of Resource

3 Water resources include surface water, groundwater, water quality, and floodplains/flooding. Surface 

4 water includes all lakes, ponds, rivers, streams (perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral), impoundments, 

5 and wetlands within a defined area or watershed. Groundwater is located beneath the ground surface in 

6 soil pore spaces or in bedrock fractures. Water quality refers to the chemical and physical composition of 

7 water as affected by natural conditions and human activities. Floodplains are areas subject to inundation 

8 (flooding) from defined storm events. A 100-year floodplain, for example, is the inundation area 

9 associated with a 100-year storm (i.e., a storm event having a one percent chance of occurring in any 

10 given year).

11 3.8.2 Region of Influence

12 The region of influence for water resources includes the project site and associated off-site areas that 

13 could potentially be affected by project-generated changes in hydrologic conditions.

14 3.8.3 Affected Environment

15 3.8.3.1 Surface Water 

16 MCAS Miramar is located on the coastal plain of San Diego County, within the San Clemente and Rose 

17 Canyon drainage basins. These canyons converge west of MCAS Miramar. The project site is located 

18 within Rose Canyon, which traverses MCAS Miramar from east to west and intersects several minor 

19 tributaries that flow in north/south trending canyons. The intermittent creek within Rose Canyon extends 

20 generally northeast to southwest through West Miramar, and ultimately turns south before entering 

21 Mission Bay, approximately 7 miles southwest of the project site. Rose Canyon Creek has been 

22 channelized; however, much of the surface water within the broad-based canyon occurs primarily as 

23 overland sheet flow during periods of heavy rainfall in early spring and winter. Due to low average 

24 rainfall, surface water runoff is relatively low. Surface runoff from MCAS Miramar primarily drains into 

25 Rose Canyon and to a lesser extent into San Clemente and Sycamore canyons. Drainage occurs through 

26 natural topographic gradients and man-made drains (SDRWQCB 2011; DoN 1996).

27 3.8.3.2 Water Quality

28 No known water quality data are available for runoff within or adjacent to the project site, although 

29 stormwater flows are typically subject to wide variations in water quality with factors such as runoff 

30 volume, velocity, and adjacent land uses. Specifically, runoff from urban areas typically exhibits higher 

31 concentrations of contaminates such as dissolved and suspended solids, metals, nutrients, chemical 

32 pesticides/herbicides, oxygen demanding substances, and hydrocarbons than undeveloped areas. The 

33 Rose Canyon Creek watershed encompasses development such as urban properties (on and off of the 

34 Air Station), aircraft facilities, a golf course, and various Air Station facilities. Hangar 7, the Naval 

35 Consolidated Brig area, and the Fish Pond are located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. 

36 Surface water monitoring conducted for downstream portions of the Rose Canyon Creek watershed 

37 (including Mission Bay) since 2001 have identified generally moderate to poor water quality, with 

38 established thresholds exceeded for constituents, including bacteria, nutrients, turbidity, inorganics 

39 (sulfate), and metals (MCAS Miramar 2010). 
MCAS Miramar 3.8 Water Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.8-2 May 2014

Draft EA

1 Rose Canyon is known to have stream bank erosion problems. Rose Canyon was identified as a source of 

2 high concentrations of organically rich fine sediments draining into Mission Bay, aggravating silting of 

3 the bay and degrading bottom sediment quality (MCAS Miramar et al. 2011).

4 3.8.3.3 Groundwater

5 Groundwater at MCAS Miramar generally occurs in two aquifers: the Quaternary alluvium and the 

6 confined regional aquifer of the Scripps Formation. In addition, groundwater potentially occurs in the 

7 transient, gravity-controlled system in the Stadium Conglomerate and Lindavista Formation (DoN 1996). 

8 The project site is located within Rose Canyon, which is underlain by Quaternary alluvium and flanked 

9 by the Stadium Conglomerate and Lindavista Formation. Tributary groundwater flows toward this canyon 

10 and recharges the shallow aquifer within the alluvium, which occurs at a depth of approximately 10 to 

11 25 feet below ground surface. However, groundwater is not present to a depth of at least 16 feet at the 

12 project site. Although the groundwater is permanent and supports sycamore and oak trees, this alluvial 

13 aquifer is not considered a significant groundwater basin (SDRWQCB 2011; DoN 1996; AMJV 2012).

14 A regional aquifer occurs within the sand and gravel layers of the Eocene Scripps Formation, located at a 

15 depth of approximately 160 to 250 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow in this aquifer in the 

16 vicinity of the project site is predominantly to the west and southwest, parallel to Rose Canyon. An 

17 aquiclude is a low-permeability unit that forms the upper or lower boundary of an aquifer. Aquicludes in 

18 the Scripps Formation consist of sandy clays and claystones of overlying deposits that create confining 

19 conditions. The resulting pressure on the aquifer is sufficient to raise the groundwater as much as 100 feet 

20 above the water table (DoN 1996).

21 The amount of groundwater within the Stadium Conglomerate and the Lindavista Formation overlying 

22 the aquicludes of the regional aquifer is variable and limited in quantity. Low annual rainfall, combined 

23 with low average soil moisture and the very low permeability of the Stadium Conglomerate, result in 

24 limited groundwater recharge (DoN 1996).

25 Groundwater quality beneath MCAS Miramar is generally poor due to high total dissolved solids (TDS) 

26 concentrations. TDS concentrations generally exceed the groundwater quality objective of 

27 750 milligrams/liter. The regional confined aquifer beneath the project area has been designated by the 

28 SDRWQCB as having no existing beneficial uses (SDRWQCB 2011; DoN 1996). Therefore, MCAS 

29 Miramar receives potable water supplies from the City of San Diego Water Department.

30 3.8.3.4 Floodplains/Flooding

31 Floodplains are defined as areas with a one percent chance of flooding in any given year. Federal 

32 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps do not extend into MCAS Miramar 

33 (i.e., MCAS Miramar is marked as “area not included”). The FEMA floodplain maps for 100-year and 

34 500-year flood events have been prepared for only areas of Rose Canyon located outside of MCAS 

35 Miramar. However, the approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain associated with Rose Canyon Creek 

36 have been delineated by the USACE as part of the 2001 Planning Level Delineation of Aquatic 

37 Resources, Floodplain Mapping, and Functional Assessment of Riparian Ecosystems at MCAS Miramar, 

38 San Diego County, California (Smith and Lichvar 2001). This analysis identifies a 100-year floodplain 

39 for Rose Canyon Creek based on assessment of historical rainfall/drainage data and mathematical 

40 modeling efforts. As shown in Figure 3.8-1, the project site is located within the 100-year floodplain of 

41 Rose Canyon Creek.
MCAS Miramar 3.8 Water Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.8-3 May 2014

Draft EA

Figure 3.8-1. 100-Year Flood Plain at MCAS Miramar
MCAS Miramar 3.8 Water Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.8-4 May 2014

Draft EA

1 3.8.4 Environmental Consequences

2 3.8.4.1 Alternative 1: De La Garza Road Gravity Tank (Preferred Alternative)

3 Surface Water

4 The project site is located within the Rose Canyon Creek watershed and surface drainage within and from 

5 the project site flows generally to the south-southwest, with associated flows eventually entering Rose 

6 Canyon Creek and ultimately reaching Mission Bay. The Proposed Action would not entail alteration of 

7 local drainage patterns, and the flow directions and locations from within and downstream of the project 

8 site would remain the same as under existing conditions. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in 

9 significant impacts to surface water and no mitigation is required.

10 Water Quality

11 Potential water quality impacts from Alternative 1 would be associated with temporary, construction12 related erosion/sedimentation and the use/storage of construction related hazardous materials (e.g., fuels 

13 lubricants, paints, and solvents). Increased erosion potential during construction could result from road 

14 demolition, soil and sewer excavations, soil stockpiling, removal of vegetative cover, grading (cut and fill 

15 operations), and offsite transport of soils in vehicle tires. These potential impacts would be addressed 

16 through incorporation of LID features into the project design, conformance with applicable requirements 

17 including the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (described for erosion/

18 sedimentation in Section 3.1), and the MCAS Miramar Storm Water Management Plan for non-industrial 

19 uses. In addition, Alternative 1 would include a number of Environmental Protection Measures and BMPs 

20 to prevent or minimize potential effects to water quality, increased sedimentation, and/or flooding 

21 potentials in Rose Canyon Creek and downstream Mission Bay, as specified by Measures 15 through 17

22 (Section 2.5.8). Before commencement of site grading, control devices such as silt fences, fiber rolls, 

23 gravel bags, and/or check dam protections would be placed within and around the project site to reduce 

24 surface water flow velocities, retard soil erosion and off-site transport, and protect sensitive habitats. The 

25 entrances/exits to the project site would be stabilized to remove soil from vehicle tires during 

26 construction. Any portion of the project site left unattended for more than 14 days would be covered to 

27 prevent erosion during construction. Existing vegetated areas disturbed during construction would be 

28 revegetated with native vegetation for stabilization. Therefore, construction of Alternative 1 would not 

29 result in significant water quality impacts due to erosion/sedimentation and no mitigation is required.

30 Surface water and/or shallow groundwater quality impacts could potentially occur as a result of 

31 inadvertent dispersion of contaminants during grading, construction, and subsequent operations. Grading 

32 and construction would require the use of vehicles and equipment powered by diesel fuel/gasoline and 

33 lubricated with oil and other mechanical fluids, which are considered hazardous substances. Accidental 

34 releases of such substances (e.g., spills arising from leakage of fuel, motor oil, or hydraulic fluid during 

35 operation and/or equipment maintenance) could also occur. All vehicles and equipment would carry 

36 supplies of fuel and other mechanical fluids only in the quantities needed for their operation. The use of 

37 licensed, trained personnel for the safe operation of vehicles and equipment required for construction/

38 demolition, as well as performance of a regular, comprehensive maintenance program would further 

39 reduce the potential for an accident to occur. To minimize the risk of release of fuel or other petroleum 

40 products, equipment fueling and maintenance would be completed at designated fueling stations. Before 

41 construction, the construction contractor would obtain authorization for construction under the General 

42 Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity from the SWRCB. The 

43 contractor would be required to implement all appropriate BMPs for contaminated runoff control, as 

44 identified in Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ; as specified in the application to the SWRCB. Therefore, 

45 Alternative 1 would not result in significant water quality impacts due to the inadvertent dispersion of 

46 contaminants during grading, construction, and subsequent operations and no mitigation is required. 
MCAS Miramar 3.8 Water Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.8-5 May 2014

Draft EA

1 Operation of the roadway overlying the proposed sewer equalization tank would be conducted as under 

2 existing conditions. Minor surface water quality impacts would continue to occur as a result of leaks of 

3 small amounts of oil/grease and other fluids from vehicles. However, post-construction surface water 

4 quality and underlying groundwater quality would be improved as a result of Alternative 1, as the 

5 proposed sewer equalization tank would prevent discharge of excess wastewater from the sewer system,

6 during heavy rain events, into Rose Canyon Creek and downstream Mission Bay. The existing sewer 

7 infrastructure is not capable of metering effluent flow within permitted levels and the sewer does not have 

8 the capability to limit the rate of discharge. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in beneficial impacts 

9 with respect to water quality and no mitigation would be required.

10 Groundwater

11 This alternative would not result in an increase in operations and associated personnel. Therefore, 

12 Alternative 1 would not involve the long-term use or extraction of groundwater for consumptive or other 

13 purposes, and no associated impacts would occur. As such, Alternative 1 would not result in impacts to 

14 water supply and no mitigation is required.

15 Floodplains/Flooding

16 EO 11988, dated 24 May 1977, and amended by EO 12148 on 20 July 1979, requires agencies to take 

17 actions to reduce risks to human safety and property that may be associated with floods, and to preserve 

18 the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. In addition, agencies are required to analyze 

19 potential effects of any actions that may be taken in a floodplain, and include requirements outlined in this 

20 order in the planning process.

21 The project site is located within the 100-year floodplain of Rose Canyon Creek. However, no 

22 aboveground structures that would be subject to flood damage would be constructed as part of 

23 Alternative 1. All construction would be below ground and the overlying roadway would be restored 

24 similar to existing conditions. In addition, a 6-inch vent located at the upstream end of the tank would 

25 extend 8 feet above grade (to keep it above flood water levels) to allow for gas to escape. The proposed 

26 tank would have sufficient capacity to temporarily retain excess sewage flow generated by a nominal 

27 10-year 24-hour storm, to limit the maximum sanitary sewer flow rate into the City of San Diego’s sewer 

28 outfall to within the required permit limit of 1.6 mgpd, thus resulting in beneficial flood related impacts. 

29 The existing roadway would be restored to existing conditions, resulting in no increase in impermeable 

30 and associated increased runoff. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not cause significant flooding impacts to 

31 Rose Canyon Creek and no mitigation is required. 

32 3.8.4.2 Alternative 2: De La Garza Road Pump Station and Holding Tank

33 Water resources impacts associated with this alternative would be similar, but less than those 

34 associated with Alternative 1. A smaller area of disturbance would be required under this alternative, as 

35 grading would generally be confined to the area of the proposed 100-foot diameter holding tank and 

36 associated pump station, rather than demolition and excavation of soil along 1,400 feet of roadway (for 

37 Alternative 1). The proposed tank site is gently sloping; therefore, substantial cut and fill activities would 

38 not be required during construction, thus minimizing the potential for soil erosion. Also similar to 

39 Alternative 1, minor leaks and spills of petroleum products and hazardous materials could occur during 

40 construction. These potential impacts would be addressed through incorporation of LID features into the 

41 project design, conformance with applicable requirements including the NPDES General Construction 

42 Activity Storm Water Permit described for erosion/sedimentation in Section 3.1, and the MCAS Miramar 

43 Storm Water Management Plan for non-industrial uses. In addition, Alternative 2 would include a number 

44 of Environmental Protection Measures and BMPs to prevent or minimize potential effects to water quality 
MCAS Miramar 3.8 Water Resources

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 3.8-6 May 2014

Draft EA

1 as a result of increased sedimentation and minor spills, as specified in Measures 15 through 17. Similar to 

2 Alternative 1, this alternative would result in beneficial flood related impacts, as construction of the pump 

3 and holding tank would prevent future discharge of excess wastewater to Mission Bay during flood 

4 events. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to surface water resources and no 

5 mitigation is required.

6 Alternative 2 would include connection to the MCAS Miramar potable water distribution system to flush 

7 the sewage system after each use. MCAS Miramar receives potable water supplies from the City of 

8 San Diego Water Department. Therefore, this alternative would not involve the long-term use or 

9 extraction of on-site groundwater for consumptive or other purposes, and no associated impacts would 

10 occur. As such, Alternative 2 would not result in impacts to water supply and no mitigation is required.

11 3.8.4.3 No-Action Alternative

12 Under the No-Action Alterative, upgrades to the existing sewer system would not occur. Therefore, no 

13 construction related impacts on water resources would occur and mitigation is not required. However, 

14 without the sewer upgrades, inadvertent discharge of wastewater to Rose Canyon Creek and Mission Bay

15 would continue to occur during some heavy precipitation events. As a result, water quality would 

16 continue to be degraded in association with the No-Action Alternative.
P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 4-1 May 2014

Draft EA

4 Cumulative Impacts

1 4.1 Introduction

2 CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require that the cumulative impacts of a proposed action be 

3 assessed (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). A cumulative impact is defined as the following:

4 “...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when 

5 added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

6 (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result 

7 from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 

8 (40 CFR § 1508.7)

9 CEQ’s guidance for considering cumulative effects states that NEPA documents “should compare the 

10 cumulative effects of multiple actions with appropriate national, regional, state, or community goals to 

11 determine whether the total effect is significant” (CEQ 1997). The first step in assessing cumulative 

12 effects, therefore, involves identifying and defining the scope of other actions and their interrelationship 

13 with the proposed action or alternatives. The scope must consider other projects that coincide with the 

14 location and timeline of the proposed action and other actions. Section 4.1.1 identifies the projects 

15 considered in the cumulative analysis. Section 4.2 provides an analysis of cumulative impacts for each of 

16 the environmental resources discussed in this EA. 

17 4.2 Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis

18 Cumulative impacts may occur when there is a relationship between a proposed action and other actions 

19 expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar time. This relationship may or may not be 

20 obvious. Actions overlapping, or in close proximity to, the proposed action can have more potential for 

21 cumulative impacts on “shared resources” than actions that may be geographically separated. Similarly, 

22 actions that coincide temporally may have the higher potential for cumulative impacts. To the extent that 

23 details regarding such actions exist and the actions have a potential to interact with the Proposed Action 

24 outlined in this EA, these actions are included in the cumulative analysis. For the purposes of this EA, the 

25 timeframe of current and/or reasonably foreseeable projects extends from 2013 to 2015. The cumulative 

26 actions are summarized in Table 4.1-1 and in the following sections.

27 4.2.1 Vernal Pool Mitigation Area Planning

28 An EA is being prepared to analyze the potential impacts of actions associated with establishment and 

29 operation of a mitigation area at MCAS Miramar to provide the means to mitigate for future impacts to 

30 federally-listed vernal pool species and jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. resulting from projects at MCAS 

31 Miramar. The mitigation area may be used in the future as part of a broader mitigation/conservation 

32 strategy, which would include the formalization of a self-use conservation/mitigation bank or 

33 permittee-responsible advanced mitigation area. The action would be located at various mitigation areas 

34 throughout MCAS Miramar. Development of each mitigation area would involve site-specific planning 

35 (e.g., range removal and other remedial actions, and preparation of site-specific restoration documents); 

36 grading and clearing the project site and access roads and laydown areas if necessary; contouring the 

37 vernal pools; filling of the pools with inoculum (soil containing fairy shrimp cysts); and maintenance and 

38 monitoring. The establishment of a mitigation area would represent a change in land use at MCAS 

39 Miramar and would require a Master Plan update and internal coordination. This project is reasonably 

40 foreseeable; however, a development schedule is not currently available.
MCAS Miramar 4 Cumulative Impacts

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 4-2 May 2014

Draft EA

Table 4.1-1. Related and Cumulative Projects 

Project Title Project Description

Anticipated 

Buildout Date Project Impacts

Vernal Pool 

Mitigation Area 

Planning

Establishment and operation of a 

mitigation area at MCAS Miramar 

to provide the means to mitigate 

for future impacts to federallylisted vernal pool species and 

jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. 

resulting from projects at MCAS 

Miramar.

Unknown Potential project impacts may include: Air Quality, GHG, Biological Resources; Traffic; Cultural 

Resources; Public Health and Safety; Geologic Resources; Land Use; Water Resources; and Noise.

Grow the Force 

Initiative

Construction and operation of 

permanent facilities to replace the 

temporary facilities that currently 

support approximately 

440 Marines assigned to 

MCAS Miramar.

Complete • Biological Resources: Temporary impacts to biological resources were avoided with 

implementation of conservation measures. No impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub or coastal 

California gnatcatcher. Potential indirect impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp during construction 

due to downstream sedimentation and degradation of water quality.

• Air Quality: No significant air quality impacts. Emissions from the proposed action were less 

than the General Conformity Rule de minimis threshold and would satisfy the conditions of a 

CAA RONA.

• GHG: Cumulative GHGs not determined to make a significant contribution to global climate 

change.

Fort Rosecrans 

National

Cemetery 

Annex, MCAS 

Miramar 

90,000-grave national cemetery 2040 • Traffic: 253 additional daily trips in 2010 – no impacts; 1,012 additional daily trips in 2030. 

Significance thresholds will not be exceeded, but some intersections, roadway segments, and 

freeway segments will operate at unacceptable LOS during peak hours under all scenarios.

• Air Quality: Temporary construction emissions will be less than significant; long-term reactive 

organic gases (ROG) and NOx emissions will be below the General Conformity Rule de minimis 

threshold and will be partially offset by avoidance of longer vehicle trips to Riverside and 

Los Angeles national cemeteries. Further measures to minimize air emissions related to grading, 

earthwork, and operations were identified in the Final EIS and will be implemented.

• Noise: Aircraft noise ranges from 68-79 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Noise 

impacts associated with land use compatibility will occur if interior noise levels on the site are not 

reduced to below 50 dBA; design measures will reduce interior noise levels accordingly. Noise 

generated by the site will be minimal (vehicles and small construction equipment) and will not 

affect sensitive receptors due to distance and intervening traffic.

• GHG: No GHG analysis was done; however, based on the facility’s planned Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design (LEED) status, it can be assumed that operational GHGs would be 

minimized. Construction-related GHGs also likely will be minimized through the implementation of 

air emission reduction measures referenced above.
MCAS Miramar 4 Cumulative Impacts

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 4-3 May 2014

Draft EA

Table 4.1-1. Related and Cumulative Projects

Project Title Project Description

Anticipated 

Buildout Date Project Impacts

• Biological Resources: The project would remove approximately 6.37 acres of occupied coastal 

California gnatcatcher habitat. In addition, the project would impact two vernal pool basins

occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp (approximately 0.01 acres), 27 man-made and occupied 

basins (0.299 acres), and four unoccupied basins (0.013 acres). Impacts to biological resources 

will be mitigated to below a level of significance. 

West Coast 

Basing of the 

MV-22

Approved replacement of 

CH-46E medium lift helicopters 

with the MV-22 Osprey for the 

3rd and 4th Marine Aircraft Wings.

2010-2020 • Traffic: Significant unmitigated direct impacts due to degradation of LOS from an additional 

867 operational ADT on a segment of Miramar Way that is currently operating at an unacceptable 

LOS F. Significant unmitigated direct and cumulative impacts to six road segments will occur 

during operations of the MV-22 project, in conjunction with estimated traffic volumes for 2010 

and 2020. Cumulatively significant construction-related traffic impacts could be mitigated to less 

than significant by limiting construction activities to off-peak hours.

• Air Quality: No significant construction-related impacts were identified for air quality. Operational 

emissions will exceed the General Conformity Rule de minimis threshold for NOx (100 tons per 

year); a formal CAA General Conformity Determination was prepared and the emissions were 

determined to conform to the most recent federally approved O3 SIP for the SDAB. Based on 

incorporation in that SIP of an NOx emissions growth increment for military programs, impacts 

will be less than significant.

• Noise: No significant impacts were identified for noise.

• GHG: Cumulative GHGs will be less than significant because they are approximately 

0.002 percent of the U.S. total CO2e emissions.

• Biological Resources: The project would impact: 0.1 acre of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub,

0.42 acres of Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and 8.4 acres of Native and Non-Native 

Grassland. The project would also impact 0.078 acres of CWA jurisdictional seasonally ponded 

features occupied San Diego fairy shrimp; 0.029 acres of non-jurisdictional/unoccupied vernal 

pools; 0.006 acres of non-jurisdictional/occupied vernal pool basins; 0.016 acres of occupied 

seasonally ponded features; 0.02 acres of CWA jurisdictional wetlands; and 0.11 acres of 

jurisdictional ephemeral streambed. Direct and indirect impacts to biological resources will be 

mitigated to reduce impacts to habitat, sensitive species and water quality.

• Cultural Resources: Potential impacts to cultural resources will be avoided, minimized, or (when 

necessary) mitigated through implementation of measures contained in the Programmatic 

Agreement between the USMC, California State Historic Preservation Office, Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and other consulting parties.
MCAS Miramar 4 Cumulative Impacts

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 4-4 May 2014

Draft EA

Table 4.1-1. Related and Cumulative Projects

Project Title Project Description

Anticipated 

Buildout Date Project Impacts

Joint Strike 

Fighter Aircraft

Introduction, 

MCAS Miramar

Proposed replacement of the 

F-18/AV-8B with the Joint Strike 

Fighter (F-35).

2013-2023 • Traffic: Temporary construction traffic would occur, but the project would result in removal of 

military personnel from MCAS Miramar and an overall net reduction in trips would occur. No 

impacts to ground traffic and transportation would occur.

• Air Quality: Demolition and construction emissions would be minimal and temporary and would be 

below de minimis thresholds. Operation would result in a net increase in annual emissions for all 

criteria pollutants except SO2, which would increase only nominally. 

• Noise: Relative to baseline, 3 to 4 dB CNEL increase at 7 of 17 representative receptor sites 

under the Preferred Alternative. Five sites would experience decreased noise levels. A total of 

72 percent reduction in population within the 65 dB CNEL curve would occur.

• GHGs: Cumulative GHGs would be less than significant because they are approximately 

0.003 percent of U.S. total CO2e emissions.

• Biological Resources: The project would impact 0.3 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral and 

2.2 acres of Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher; 

0.3 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and 8.7 acres of Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 

not occupied by costal California gnatcatcher; and 0.01 acre of non-native grassland. The project 

would also impact 0.5 acres of vernal pools occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp; 0.02 acres of 

unoccupied non-jurisdictional vernal pools; 0.2 acres of unoccupied, CWA jurisdictional wetlands; 

and 1,303 linear feet of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Impacts to biological resources would be 

reduced through avoidance, restoration, and compensation.

U.S. Army 

Reserve Center,

MCAS Miramar

Proposed construction and 

operation of an U.S. Army

Reserve Center, including 

construction of three buildings 

within a 15-acre parcel southeast 

of the Naval and Marine Corps 

Reserve Center.

2013 • Traffic: Construction would result in temporary minor traffic impacts on Pomerado Road. 

Access road LOS would improve following construction.

• Air Quality: Minor short-term impacts would occur due to construction emissions. Emissions 

would be less than the General Conformity Rule de minimis thresholds.

• GHG: Construction-related GHG emissions would be temporary and cease at the end of 

construction. BMPs to reduce air pollutants would minimize GHG as well. LEED construction, 

efficient layout, and energy-efficient appliances and practices would minimize the amount of 

electrical demand and GHG emission for this facility.

• Noise: No detailed analysis was conducted for noise; no impacts are anticipated.

• Biological Resources: The project would impact 10 acres of Chemise Chaparral and 1.4 acres 

of Non-native Grassland. Impacts to biological resources would be mitigated through 

avoidance/BMPs and revegetation.
MCAS Miramar 4 Cumulative Impacts

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 4-5 May 2014

Draft EA

1 4.2.2 Grow the Force Initiative

2 The USMC prepared an EA to address potential environmental impacts of construction and operation of 

3 permanent facilities to replace the temporary facilities that currently support approximately 440 Marines 

4 assigned to MCAS Miramar. The action included the construction of five permanent facilities including 

5 the repair/upgrade of existing facilities and the construction of associated site improvements and 

6 infrastructure needed to support the permanent facilities. Buildout of the action is anticipated to be 

7 completed by 2015. The Final EA was completed in September 2010 and the FONSI was signed on 

8 8 October 2010. Minor short-term air quality and traffic impacts will occur during construction, but will

9 not be significant or result in operational impacts. Construction-related GHG emissions will not make a 

10 significant contribution to global climate change; and the facilities’ LEED status would minimize the 

11 generation of operational GHG emissions. Impacts from the project on biological resources, including 

12 temporary, indirect impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp and San Diego button-celery from 

13 construction-related erosion, will be prevented or reduced through conservation measures to be 

14 incorporated into the project during construction. Impacts to geologic resources will be minimized by 

15 incorporation of industry standards and impacts to water quality will be reduced through project design 

16 measures including LID and LEED and compliance with the applicable requirements of the NPDES 

17 Phase II General permit and the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. The Grow 

18 the Force Initiative has been suspended. Some projects under this action have been completed while 

19 others were not implemented.

20 4.2.3 Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery Annex

21 The Navy and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prepared an EIS to address the potential

22 environmental impacts from building an annex to the Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery. The proposed 

23 cemetery annex would be a partnership between the VA and DoN to ease the shortage of burial plots in 

24 San Diego for honorably discharged veterans and their families. The national cemetery annex would be 

25 located on approximately 323 acres in the northwest corner of MCAS Miramar, with approximately 

26 214 acres to comprise the development footprint identified in the Final EIS. The cemetery annex would 

27 be constructed over a 30-year planning period to provide 50,000 casketed gravesites and 

28 40,000 columbarium niches. The first phase of construction began in January 2010 and will provide 

29 approximately 22,500 gravesites. The remaining portions of the proposed cemetery annex will be 

30 developed in similar phases as each previous phase is depleted. Buildout of the proposed action is 

31 anticipated to be completed by 2040. The Final EIS was completed and a Record of Decision (ROD) was 

32 signed on 01 April 2008. Although no significant air quality impacts were identified, the VA will 

33 incorporate measures to minimize air emissions from grading, earthwork, and operations, as established in 

34 the Final EIS. Noise compatibility impacts from aircraft will be reduced through project design measures. 

35 Significant impacts to biological resources, including coastal sage scrub habitat occupied by the coastal 

36 California gnatcatcher, vernal pools with and without San Diego fairy shrimp, and jurisdictional Waters 

37 of the U.S. will occur; however, these impacts will be fully mitigated by the VA.

38 4.2.4 West Coast Basing of the MV-22

39 The Navy prepared an EIS for the introduction of a new tilt-rotor aircraft, the MV-22 Osprey, to the Third 

40 and Fourth Marine Aircraft Wings to replace the veteran CH-46E medium-lift helicopters, which the 

41 USMC plans to remove from service. The installations examined in the EIS for potential MV-22 basing 

42 were Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, MCAS Miramar, MCAS Yuma, Naval Air Facility El Centro, 

43 and Edwards Air Force Base. The ROD was signed on 17 November 2009. The Marine Corps began 

44 basing the aircraft at MCAS Miramar in 2010. Eight squadrons will be based at MCAS Miramar, and two 

45 at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, with the roll-out complete in 2017. Basing at MCAS Miramar 

46 includes construction of new hangar modules, modification of existing hangars, replacement of refueling 
MCAS Miramar 4 Cumulative Impacts

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 4-6 May 2014

Draft EA

1 facilities, and wash racks on the flight line. The proposed action will result in an increase of 48 aircraft 

2 and 746 personnel at MCAS Miramar. Traffic impacts from continuing operations are expected to be 

3 significant and unmitigable. Significant impacts to biological resources including jurisdictional wetlands, 

4 coastal sage scrub, vernal pools, San Diego fairy shrimp, and coastal California gnatcatcher will be 

5 mitigated to less than significant.

6 4.2.5 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft Introduction

7 The USMC prepared a draft EIS for the introduction of the next generation warplane known as the 

8 Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35B, to the Third and Fourth Marine Aircraft Wings to replace the Marine 

9 Corps F-18 and AV-8B. Although the F-35B is still in development, the Marine Corps version of the 

10 plane would be a single-seat, short take-off, vertical landing aircraft that could be based at two locations 

11 on the West Coast, including MCAS Miramar and MCAS Yuma, beginning as early as 2013 and possibly 

12 extending through 2023. The supersonic stealth aircraft would be used by the Marine Corps, Navy, and 

13 Air Force. The preferred alternative would base six operational F-35B squadrons at MCAS Miramar. New 

14 support facilities at MCAS Miramar under the proposed action also would include new hangars, helipad 

15 and apron expansion, wash racks and rinse facilities, a simulator facility, and a runway upgrade. The 

16 preferred alternative would result in reduction of 30 aircraft and 635 military personnel at MCAS 

17 Miramar. The ROD was signed on 08 December 2010. Impacts from the preferred alternative on 

18 biological resources (threatened and/or endangered species including the coastal California gnatcatcher 

19 and San Diego fairy shrimp, and associated habitat, jurisdictional wetlands) would be mitigated to less 

20 than significant.

21 4.2.6 United States Army Reserve Center

22 The Army has prepared a Final EA for the proposed construction and operation of an U.S. Army Reserve 

23 Center (Center) within a 15-acre vacant parcel southeast of the Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center at 

24 MCAS Miramar. Three buildings are proposed, including a 90,138-square feet administration and training 

25 building, a 6,681-square feet unheated storage facility, and a 5,703-square feet Organizational 

26 Maintenance Shop. Additional proposed site improvements include approximately 89,640 square feet of 

27 Privately Owned Vehicles parking, approximately 105,696 square feet of military equipment parking, a 

28 military vehicle wash rack with an oil/water separator at the OMS, perimeter security fencing, area 

29 lighting, and extension of utilities to the site. Up to 600 Army Reserve personnel could be stationed at the 

30 Center, and as many as 300 soldiers would be expected to train at the Center on any given weekend. 

31 Approximately 40 full-time Army Reserve personnel would work at the Center Monday through Friday. 

32 The FONSI was signed on 9 June 2011. Minor short-term air quality and traffic impacts would occur 

33 during construction, but would not be significant or result in operational impacts. Construction-related 

34 GHG emissions would be temporary and minimized by construction BMPs; the Center’s LEED status 

35 would minimize the generation of operational GHG emissions. Impacts from the project on biological 

36 resources, including downstream vernal pools and associated endangered species, would be prevented or 

37 reduced through conservation measures to be incorporated into the project during design, construction, 

38 and operation.

39 4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis

40 This section addresses the potential cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action in conjunction with the 

41 aforementioned projects. These projects represent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions with 

42 the potential for cumulative impacts when considered in conjunction with the potential impacts from the 

43 Proposed Action. However, if a project would not result in direct or indirect impacts on a resource area, it 

44 would not contribute to a cumulative impact on that resource area. CEQ guidance states, “A cumulative 

45 effects analysis should ‘count what counts,’ not produce superficial analyses or a long laundry list of 
MCAS Miramar 4 Cumulative Impacts

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 4-7 May 2014

Draft EA

1 issues that have little relevance to the effect of the Proposed Action or the eventual decisions” 

2 (CEQ 1997). Therefore, the cumulative impact analysis focuses on: 1) those resource areas with the 

3 potential to be significantly impacted by the project; and/or 2) those resource areas currently in poor or 

4 declining health or at risk even if project impacts would be relatively small (less than significant).

5 4.3.1 Air Quality

6 4.3.1.1 Criteria Pollutants

7 The ROI of the criteria air pollutant cumulative analysis is primarily the SDAB. As described in 

8 Section 3.1.5 of this EA, construction activities associated with Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would 

9 produce emissions that would remain substantially below all emission significance thresholds. Emissions 

10 from cumulative projects would potentially contribute to the ambient pollutant impacts generated from 

11 proposed construction activities. However, these emissions would occur far enough away from proposed 

12 construction such that they would produce low ambient pollutant impacts in proximity to the project site. 

13 Therefore, air quality impacts from the minor amounts of project emissions, in combination with 

14 emissions from cumulative projects, would not be substantial enough to contribute to an exceedance of 

15 an ambient air quality standard. Implementation of standard fugitive dust and construction equipment 

16 emission control measures (Special Conservation Measures 1 and 2) would ensure that air emissions from 

17 construction activities proposed for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would not result in a significant 

18 cumulative impact.

19 As described in Section 3.1.5, operational activities associated with Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would 

20 produce nominal emissions. Consequently, proposed operational activities would also not result in a 

21 significant cumulative impact to criteria pollutant levels.

22 4.3.1.2 Greenhouse Gases

23 The potential effects of proposed GHG emissions are by nature global and cumulative impacts, as 

24 individual sources of GHG emissions are not large enough to have an appreciable effect on climate 

25 change. Therefore, an appreciable impact on global climate change would only occur when proposed 

26 GHG emissions combine with GHG emissions from other man-made activities on a global scale.

27 Currently, there are no formally adopted or published NEPA thresholds of significance for GHG 

28 emissions. Therefore, in the absence of an adopted or science-based NEPA significance threshold for 

29 GHGs, this EA compares GHG emissions from Alternative 1 to the U.S. net GHG emissions inventory 

30 of 2011 (EPA 2013) to determine the relative increase in proposed GHG emissions. The Proposed Action 

31 was chosen for analysis, as it is predicted to generate the largest amount of GHGs of any project 

32 alternative. Appendix A-1 presents estimates of GHG emissions generated by Alternative 1.

33 Table 4.3-1 summarizes the maximum annual GHG emissions generated from Alternative 1. These data 

34 show that the ratio of CO2e emissions from Alternative 1 to the CO2e emissions associated with the net 

35 U.S. sources in 2011 is approximately 0.00008/5,797 million metric tons, or about 0.000001 percent of 

36 the U.S. CO2e emissions inventory. Since GHG emissions from Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would 

37 equate to minimal amounts of the U.S. inventory, they would not substantially contribute to global 

38 climate change. Therefore, GHG emissions from the both alternatives would not produce significant 

39 cumulative impacts to global climate change.
MCAS Miramar 4 Cumulative Impacts

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 4-8 May 2014

Draft EA

Table 4.3-1. Maximum Annual GHG Emissions from Alternative 1

Scenario/Activity Metric Tons per Year1

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Alternative 1 Emissions - - - 80

U.S. 2011 Net Emissions (106 metric tons)2 - - - 5,797.3

Emissions as a percent of U.S. Emissions - - - 0.000001

Notes:

1. CO2e = (CO2 * 1) + (CH4* 21) + (N2O * 296).

2. Source: EPA 2013

1 Although Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would not produce significant cumulative impacts to global 

2 climate change, the USMC and DoN implement broad-based programs to reduce energy consumption and 

3 shift to renewable and alternative fuels, thereby reducing overall emissions of GHGs. Some of these 

4 programs include the following:

5 • EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, adopted 

6 in October 2009, directs federal agencies to increase renewable energy use to achieve general 

7 GHG emission reductions. EO 13514 requires federal agencies to develop a 2008 GHG emissions 

8 baseline and to develop a percentage reduction target for agency-wide GHG reductions by 

9 FY 2020. As part of this effort, federal agencies will evaluate sources of GHG emissions and 

10 develop, implement, and annually update an integrated Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan 

11 that will prioritize agency actions based on lifecycle analyses. The DoD is currently developing 

12 its Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan that will guide USMC initiatives to reduce GHG 

13 emissions. 

14 • The Commandant of the Marine Corps’ “Bases-to-Battlefield” Expeditionary Energy Strategy 

15 and Implementation Plan (2011) declares the intent to implement measures to conserve energy 

16 and to reduce a dependence on foreign oil. The campaign plan identifies long-term goals to 

17 reduce energy intensity and increase the amount of renewable electrical energy usage. This plan 

18 requires base commanders to evaluate the effectiveness of incorporating emerging technologies 

19 that would reduce GHGs. 

20 • Marine Corps Installation (MCI) West has undertaken a study to evaluate and address GHG 

21 emissions, as documented in the draft Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Marine Corps 

22 Installations West (MCI West 2009). The study provides the basis for recommended GHG 

23 management policies at MCI West. 

24 • On 16 October 2009, the Secretary of the Navy announced five energy targets for the Navy and 

25 USMC, as summarized below.

26 o When awarding contracts, appropriately consider energy efficiency and energy footprints as 

27 additional factors in acquisition decisions. 

28 o By 2012, demonstrate a Green Strike Group composed of nuclear vessels and ships powered 

29 by biofuels. By 2016, sail the Strike Group as a Great Green Fleet composed of nuclear ships, 

30 surface combatants equipped with hybrid electric alternative power systems running on 

31 biofuels, and aircraft running on biofuels. 

32 o By 2015, cut petroleum use in its 50,000 non-tactical commercial fleet in half, by phasing in 

33 hybrid, flex fuel, and electric vehicles. 
MCAS Miramar 4 Cumulative Impacts

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 4-9 May 2014

Draft EA

1 o By 2020, produce at least half of the shore-based installations energy requirements from 

2 alternative sources. Also, convert 50 percent of all shore installations to net zero energy 

3 consumers. 

4 o By 2020, half of the DoN’s total energy consumption for ships, aircraft, tanks, vehicles and 

5 shore installations will come from alternative sources. 

6 • As part of its efforts to encourage the development of alternative fuels, on 22 January 2010 the 

7 DoN and the USDA signed a Memorandum of Understanding to encourage the development of 

8 advanced biofuels and other renewable energy systems. 

9 Renewable energy projects currently implemented and planned within the jurisdiction of MCI West 

10 would reduce emissions of GHGs by about 250,000 metric tons from current operations over a 25-year 

11 life cycle (DoN 2010). These projects include thermal and photovoltaic solar systems, geothermal power 

12 plants, and wind generators. These renewable energy initiatives are not proposed as emission reductions 

13 to directly offset GHG emissions produced by either alternative, but rather demonstrate initial responses 

14 for DoN compliance with EO 13514 and to factor GHG management into DoN proposals and impact 

15 analyses.

16 Climate Change Adaptation

17 In addition to assessing whether Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would potentially impact climate change, 

18 the following considers how climate change could impact these actions and what adaptation strategies, if 

19 any, would be required to respond to these future conditions. For projects within southern California, 

20 the main effect of climate change to consider is increased temperatures, droughts, and wildfires, as 

21 documented in Our Changing Climate 2012 - Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from 

22 Climate Change in California (California Energy Commission 2012). Current operations at MCAS 

23 Miramar have adapted to the relatively arid conditions in the area, as well as the prevalence of wildfires. 

24 Exacerbation of these conditions in the future could impede proposed construction and operational 

25 activities during extreme events or could cause smoke obscurations from wildfires. No other substantial 

26 effects from future climate change would impact proposed construction and operational activities. 

27 4.3.2 Biological Resources

28 The ROI of cumulative impacts varies and is based on the presence of suitable habitat and known 

29 occurrences of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub that provides suitable habitat for the federally listed coastal 

30 California gnatcatcher, and wetlands occupied by the federally listed San Diego fairy shrimp—on or in 

31 the vicinity of MCAS Miramar. Projects with potential direct and indirect impacts on biological resources 

32 include those that would result in the loss of native plant communities, permanent loss of sensitive plant 

33 populations, species losses that affect population viability, and the reduction in adjacent habitat quality 

34 from temporary actions including the addition of noise and dust during construction to permanent effects 

35 such as the addition of lighting. For native plant and wildlife communities, other significant impacts could 

36 include habitat fragmentation or the permanent loss of contiguous (interconnecting) native habitats such 

37 as migration or movement corridors.

38 The projects listed in Table 4.1-1 have the potential to impact biological resources. Potential impacts from 

39 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project areas range from the loss of various-sized 

40 areas of vegetation communities to impacts to habitat occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher 

41 and/or San Diego fairy shrimp. These impacts are mitigable and have been/will be mitigated. In addition, 

42 all ground-disturbing projects at MCAS Miramar are required to adhere to various protection measures 

43 designed to minimize effects to vulnerable species and their habitats, including Diegan Coastal Sage 

44 Scrub, vernal pools and associated federally listed species, and wetlands or other Waters of the U.S. 
MCAS Miramar 4 Cumulative Impacts

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 4-10 May 2014

Draft EA

1 Furthermore, the potential for cumulative effects on biological resources at MCAS Miramar associated 

2 with habitat and wildlife disturbance is much reduced because of on-going monitoring and management 

3 activities in place to minimize adverse effects from development and operations. Potential cumulative 

4 effects of federal actions on federally listed endangered species are addressed project-by-project through 

5 the Section 7 ESA consultation process with USFWS. Through this process MCAS Miramar and USFWS 

6 jointly assess project-specific effects and develop and implement appropriate measures that reflect current 

7 conditions and status of the species. Consultation has resulted in development of conservation programs 

8 for federally listed species and their habitats as outlined in the MCAS Miramar INRMP. Collectively, 

9 these requirements ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not result in significant 

10 cumulative impacts to biological resources.

11 As discussed in Section 3.2, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would result in the temporary removal of 

12 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub located in two long, narrow strips along both sides of De La Garza Road that 

13 is occupied by or within the use area of the federally listed coastal California gnatcatcher during 

14 construction. No permanent removal of habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp is proposed under 

15 Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 and no temporary or permanent removal or degradation of any occupied 

16 habitat is proposed. Alternative 1 would result in direct impacts to one other seasonally ponded feature in 

17 project site during construction. In addition, Alternative 1 could result in temporary, indirect impacts to 

18 Rose Creek (Waters of the U.S.) and associated jurisdictional wetlands located north of the project site, as 

19 well as vernal pools and other seasonally ponded features (some of which are occupied by San Diego 

20 fairy shrimp) located south of the project site if construction activities alter or degrade water quality due 

21 to sediment loading or accidental release of pollutants. However, a linear berm and small-scale 

22 topographical features isolate these features from the area that would be impacted by project activities. 

23 Alternative 2 would result in temporary, direct impacts to a portion of Rose Canyon Creek (Waters of 

24 the U.S.) located in the project site. Implementation of Environmental Protection Measures 3 through 8 

25 would ensure that construction and operational activities associated with both alternatives would not 

26 result in significant effects on these biological resources. As a result, the cumulative impacts identified for 

27 biological resources for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, combined with other cumulative projects listed in 

28 Table 4.1-1, would not be cumulatively significant.

29 4.3.3 Transportation, Circulation, and Traffic

30 Traffic conditions in the vicinity of MCAS Miramar are currently congested and some intersections, 

31 freeway segments, and roads are operating at unacceptable LOS (E or F) during peak hours. Traffic and 

32 circulation impacts would only occur during the approximately 6-month construction period. Long-term, 

33 operational traffic volumes would not increase compared to existing conditions because no additional 

34 military, government, civilian, and/or contractor support personnel would be stationed at MCAS Miramar 

35 as a result of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. Implementation of Measure 11 (delivery of materials and 

36 equipment would occur outside of peak traffic hours) and Measure 12 (construction worker 

37 rideshare/carpooling) would minimize traffic congestion in the vicinity of MCAS Miramar. In addition, 

38 construction of Alternative 1 would require the temporary closure of De La Garza Road and Alternative 2

39 would require the closure of De La Garza Road and Pless Road. The construction contractor would be 

40 required to implement a Construction Traffic Management and Detour Plan (Measure 13) and De La 

41 Garza Road and Pless Road would be repaved and returned to its pre-construction configuration following 

42 construction. A sign indicating the road load rating would be posted at the start of De La Garza Road near 

43 the intersection of Pless Road following construction of Alternative 1 (Measure 14). MCAS Miramar 

44 would require other cumulative projects to implement these measures. Therefore, the addition of 

45 short-term, construction-related traffic would not result in cumulatively significant impacts to 

46 transportation, circulation, and traffic.
P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 5-1 May 2014

Draft EA

5 Other NEPA Considerations

1 5.1 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of 

2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action and All Mitigation 

3 Measures Being Considered

4 The alternatives would result in a negligible increase in energy use at MCAS Miramar. However, energy 

5 (electricity) and water consumption, as well as demand for services, would not increase significantly due 

6 to implementation of either alternative (refer to Section 3.7).

7 5.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Natural or 

8 Depletable Resources

9 NEPA requires an analysis of significant, irreversible effects resulting from implementation of a Proposed 

10 Action. Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are those that are typically 

11 used on a long-term or permanent basis; however, those used on a short-term basis that cannot be 

12 recovered (e.g., non-renewable resources such as metal, wood, fuel, paper, and other natural or cultural 

13 resources) also are irretrievable. Human labor is also considered an irretrievable resource. All such 

14 resources are irretrievable in that they are used for one project and thus become unavailable for other 

15 purposes. An impact that falls under the category of the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

16 resources is the destruction of natural resources that could limit the range of potential uses of that 

17 resource.

18 Implementation of the alternatives would result in an irreversible commitment of building materials; fuel 

19 for construction equipment and vehicles used during construction activities; and human labor. However, 

20 these commitments of resources are neither unusual nor unexpected, given the nature of the action. 

21 The alternatives would not result in the destruction of other environmental resources such that the range 

22 of potential uses of the environment would be limited, or affect the biodiversity of the region. 

23 5.3 Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment 

24 and Long-Term Productivity

25 NEPA requires consideration of the relationship between short-term use of the environment and the 

26 impacts that such use could have to the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of the 

27 affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment are of 

28 particular concern. Such impacts include the possibility that choosing one alternative could reduce future 

29 flexibility to pursue other alternatives, or that choosing a certain use could eliminate the possibility of 

30 other uses at the site.

31 Implementation of either alternative would not result in any such environmental impacts because it would 

32 not pose long-term risks to health, safety, or the general welfare of the communities surrounding the

33 project site that would significantly narrow the range of future beneficial uses. In addition, biological 

34 productivity would not be affected as implementation of the alternatives would not result in significant 

35 direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to any biological resources. 
MCAS Miramar 5 Other NEPA Considerations

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 5-2 May 2014

Draft EA

1 5.4 Any Probable Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be 

2 Avoided and are not Amenable to Mitigation

3 This EA has determined that the alternatives would not result in any significant unmitigable impacts; 

4 therefore, there are no probable adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or are not amenable 

5 to mitigation. 

6 5.5 Possible Conflicts Between the Action and the Objective of 

7 Federal and State Land Uses

8 Implementation of either alternative would not result in a conflict with the objectives of federal and state 

9 land use plans including applicable polices of the MCAS Miramar Master Plan (NAVFAC 2006).
P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 6-1 May 2014

Draft EA

6 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted

1 United States Government

2 United States Navy

3 Ryan Maynard, NAVFAC SW Environmental Planner

4 United States Marine Corps

5 Myrna Alzaga, MCAS Miramar, Program Support Division

6 Herb Baylon, MCAS Miramar, Public Works

7 Barbara Bell, MCAS Miramar, Environmental Management Department

8 Chuck Black, MCAS Miramar, Environmental Management Department

9 Dave Boyer, MCAS Miramar, Environmental Management Department

10 JoEllen Kassebaum, MCAS Miramar, Environmental Management Department

11 Delmar Lake, MCAS Miramar, Public Works
MCAS Miramar 6 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 6-2 May 2014

Draft EA

This page intentionally left blank.
P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 7-1 May 2014

Draft EA

7 List of Preparers

1 Lead Agency

2 USMC

3 MCAS Miramar

4 San Diego, California

5 Myrna Alzaga, Project Leader

6 This EA was prepared for the MCAS Miramar under the direction of the DoN by Leidos (formerly 

7 SAIC). Members of Leidos’s professional staff who contributed to the preparation of this document are 

8 listed below. 

Name Title Degree

Years of 

Experience Project Participation

Catrina Gomez Environmental Planner MSEM, Environmental 

Science and Management

10 Project Manager; 

Executive Summary; 

Utilities; Recreation; 

Transportation; Other NEPA 

Considerations; QA/QC

Trevor Pattison NEPA Project Manager/ 

Environmental Scientist

B.S., Geological SciencesEarth Systems14 Biological Resources; 

QA/QC

Chris Crabtree Air Quality Specialist B.A., Environmental Studies 21 Air Quality

Perry Russell Geologist/ 

Hydrogeologist

M.S., Geological Sciences 24 Geological Resources; 

Public Health and Safety; 

Water Resources

Tara Schoenwetter Senior 

Ecologist/Biologist

Ph.D., Ecology & 

Conservation Biology

13 Biological Resources

Heather Duvall Word Processing 

Specialist

A.A., Office Technology 18 Word Processing

Elizabeth Riley Word Processing 

Specialist

B.A., Psychology 3 Word Processing

Nicole Schoo Environmental Scientist B.S., Biology 3 Copy Editing

Catherine FitzGerald Graphic Artist A.A., Fine Arts 30 Graphic Design

Chris Woods GIS Programmer B.A., Geography 13 GIS
MCAS Miramar 7 List of Preparers

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 7-2 May 2014

Draft EA

This page intentionally left blank.
P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 8-1 May 2014

Draft EA

8 References

1 Accord MACTEC Joint Venture (AMJV). 2012. Draft Soil Assessment Report for the Proposed 

2 Wastewater Equalization Tank Site. Unpublished report prepared for U.S. Department of the 

3 Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest; San Diego, California. Contract 

4 No.: N62473-09-D-2613.

5 . 2011a. Sewer Equalization Tank Design Report, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego, 

6 California. Unpublished report prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest; 

7 San Diego, California. Contract No. N62473-09-D-2613, Delivery Order No. 0021.

8 . 2011b. Final Recommended Site Locations Report for Sewer Equalization Tank(s), Marine Corps 

9 Air Station Miramar, San Diego, California. Unpublished report prepared for Naval Facilities 

10 Engineering Command Southwest; San Diego, California. Contract No. N62473-09-D-2613, Delivery 

11 Order No. 0021.

12 ASM. 2009. Final Archaeological Survey of 2,280 Acres on Marine Corps Air Station Miramar San 

13 Diego County, California. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering 

14 Command, Southwest. December. 

15 Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012.

16 The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California 

17 Press, Berkeley.

18 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013a. Mobile Source Emission Inventory – Current Methods 

19 and Data - EMFAC2011 - Updated: January 2013. Available at: 

20 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm. Accessed on: 06 May 2013.

21 . 2013b. Mobile Source Emission Inventory – Categories - Off-Road Diesel Equipment: In-Use 

22 Off-Road Equipment (Construction, Industrial, Ground Support and Oil Drilling). Available at:

23 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#inuse_or_category. Accessed on: 06 May 2013.

24 . 2012. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at: 

25 http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed on: 03 May 2013.

26 . 2009. 2008 Estimated Annual Average Emissions – San Diego County. Available at:

27 http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat_query.php?F_DIV=-

28 4&F_DD=Y&F_YR=2008&F_SEASON=A&SP=2009&F_AREA=CO&F_CO=37. Accessed

29 on: 03 May 2013.

30 California Division of Mines and Geology. 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, 

31 with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, compiled by C. W. Jennings.

32 California Energy Commission. 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012 – Vulnerability & Adaptation to the 

33 Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California: A Summary Report on the Third Assessment 

34 from the California Climate Center. Publication No. CEC-500-2012-007. Available at: 

35 http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/third_assessment/. Accessed on: 03 May 2013.

36 California Stormwater Quality Association. 2011. Construction Best Management Practice Handbook. 

37 Available at: http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/.
MCAS Miramar 8 References

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 8-2 May 2014

Draft EA

1 City of San Diego. 2012a. General Information for Public Utilities Water. Available at:

2 www.sandiego.gov/water/gen-info/index.shtml. Accessed on: 12 December 2012.

3 . 2012b. Metro Biosolids Center Overview from the Public Utilities Wastewater Section. Available at: 

4 www.sandiego.gov/mwwd/facilities/metrobiosolids.shtml. Accessed on: 12 December 2012.

5 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. Draft Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

6 Climate Change Impacts. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/

7 initiatives/nepa/ghg-guidance. Accessed on: 21 February 2013.

8 . 1997. CEQ Handbook: Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental 

9 Policy Act. January.

10 Department of the Navy (DoN). 2010. Final United States Marine Corps F-35B West Coast Basing 

11 Environmental Impact Statement. October.

12 . 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement Realignment of NAS Miramar. San Diego, 

13 California, February.

14 Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2012. Facility/Site Summary Details for West 

15 Miramar Sanitary Landfill (37-AA-0020). Available at: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilties/

16 Directory/37-AA-0020/Detail. Accessed on: 12 December 2012.

17 Dossey and Associates. 2008. Western Miramar Rare Plant Surveys Report, Marine Corps Air Station 

18 Miramar, San Diego, California (N68711-02-R-8077-0003, 0004, 005, 0006). Prepared for 

19 MCAS Miramar and Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest. 18 August 2008.

20 . 2006. Western Miramar Rare Plant Surveys. Final Report. Marine Corps Air Station Miramar 

21 San Diego, California.

22 Greensfelder, R.W. 1974. Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California.

23 California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.

24 Haas, W.E. 2010. Distribution of the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) on Marine Corps Air 

25 Station Miramar Results of 2009 Surveys. Report prepared under Contract No. M67865-08-T-0068. 

26 Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. 

27 Nongame Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

28 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution 

29 of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

30 on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pacauri, R.K., and Reisinger, A]. Geneva, Switzerland.

31 Lichvar and Dixon. 2008. Delineation of Wetlands, Other Waters of the United States, and Nexus 

32 Determinations at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California. Main Station and Flight Line 

33 Areas.

34 Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar. 2013a. Installation Restoration (IR). Available at: 

35 http://community.marines.mil/unit/mcasmiramar/ems/Pages/InstallationRestoration.aspx.

36 Accessed on: 26 April 2013.
MCAS Miramar 8 References

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 8-3 May 2014

Draft EA

1 . 2013b. The Miramar Fish Pond. Available at: www.mccsmiramar.com/fishpond.html. Accessed

2 on: 29 April 2013.

3 . 2012. MCAS Miramar IR and MRP Sites. January 2012. Available at: 

4 http://www.miramarirp.com/Images/IR%20AND%20MRP.pdf/ Accessed on: 26 April 2013.

5 . 2010. Final Environmental Assessment, Permanent Facilities for Grow the Force Marine Corps 

6 Air Station Miramar, San Diego County, California.

7 . 2009. Marine Corps Air Station Miramar Requirements, Specific Facilities Design/Construction 

8 Requirements, March.

9 . 2008. Base Exterior Architecture Plan, MCAS Miramar. Prepared for MCAS Miramar by 

10 DeLorenzo, Inc.

11 Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar Natural Resources Division, Gene Stout and Associates, and 

12 Geomorph Information Systems. 2011. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 2011–

13 2015. Unpublished report prepared for Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar; 

14 San Diego, California.

15 Marine Corps Installation (MCI) West. 2009. MCI West Regional Greenhouse Gas Assessment (2008–2009).

16 Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). 2006a. Renewable Energy and Distributed 

17 Generation Projects.

18 . 2006b. MCAS Miramar Master Plan. Unpublished report prepared for Marine Corps 

19 Installations, West.

20 Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County.

21 Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.” 

22 Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986.

23 Oberbauer, T. 1990. Areas of Vegetation Communities in San Diego County. Department of Planning and 

24 Land Use, San Diego County, CA.

25 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2012a. State Freeway Average Daily Traffic Data. 

26 Available at: www.sandag.org/resources/demographics_and_other_data/transportation/adtv/

27 freeway_adt.pdf. Accessed on: 12 December 2012.

28 . 2012b. City of San Diego Average Daily Traffic Data. Available at: 

29 www.sandag.org/resources/demographics_and_other _data/transportation/adtv/sandigo_adt.pdf.

30 Accessed on: 12 December 2012.

31 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD). 2013a. Air Quality Planning. Available at: 

32 http://www.sdapcd.org/planning/plan.html. Accessed on: 03 May 2013.

33 . 2013b. Rules and Regulations. Available at: http://www.sdapcd.org/rules/rules.html. Accessed 

34 on 06 May 2013.
MCAS Miramar 8 References

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks 8-4 May 2014

Draft EA

1 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). 2011. Water Quality Control Plan for 

2 the San Diego Basin (9). Adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San 

3 Diego Region on 8 September 1994 with amendments effective on or before 4 April 2011.

4 . 2002. Waste Discharge Requirements for the Disposal and/or Reuse of Petroleum Fuel 

5 Contaminated Soils (FCS) in the San Diego Region. Order No. R9-2002-0342. December 11.

6 Science Application International Corporation (SAIC). 2013a. Final Delineation of Wetlands and Other 

7 Waters of the United States in Support of Sewer Line Project. Prepared for Marine Corps Air 

8 Station Miramar, California.

9 Smith and Lichvar. 2001. Planning Level Delineation of Aquatic Resources, Floodplain Mapping, and 

10 Functional Assessment of Riparian Ecosystems at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego 

11 County, California.

12 Tierra Data Inc. 2013. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Surveys at Marine 

13 Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar. Report prepared under Contract No. N62473-06-D-2402.

14 TranSystems. 2012. Existing Conditions Report: MCAS Miramar Traffic Study. Unpublished report 

15 prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Contract No. N64273-10-D-5402.

16 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Services. 1973. Soil Survey of San Diego County.

17 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data -

18 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2011 (April 2013). Available at: 

19 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. Accessed on: 15 May 2013.

20 . 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Volume I. Section 13.2.3, Heavy 

21 Construction Operations. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s02-3.pdf. 

22 Accessed on: 03 May 2013.

23 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

24 Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta 

25 sandiegonensis); Final Rule. Federal Register 72(238): 70648-70714. December 12.

26 . 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Determination of Critical Habitat 

27 for the Coastal Gnatcatcher; Final Rule. Federal Register 65(206):63680-63743, October 24.

28 . 1998. Vernal Pools of Southern California Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon.

29 .1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for 

30 the San Diego Fairy Shrimp. Federal Register 62:4925-4939.

31 .1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for 

32 the Coastal Gnatcatcher. Federal Register 58(59): 16742, March 30.

33 United States Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 

34 Thomas, R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson (eds.). Cambridge University Press.
Appendix A 

Air Quality Technical Data 
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A-1 

Emission Calculations for the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at 

MCAS Miramar Project Alternatives
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A.1 Emission Calculations for the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar Project Alternatives.

Table A.1-1. Emission Source Data for the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar - Alternative 1.

Table A.1-2. Air Emission Factors for Equipment Associated with the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar Projec

Table A.1-3. Annual Emissions associated with the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar - Alternative 1.

Table A.1-4. Emission Source Data for the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar Alternative 2.

Table A.1-5. Annual Emissions associated with the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar - Alternative 2.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

A B C DE F G H

Table A.1-1. Emission Source Data for the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar - Alternative 1.

Hp Load Number Hours/ Daily Total Total

Construction Activity/Equipment Type Rating Factor (1) Active Day Hp-Hrs Days Hp-Hrs

Site Preparation/ Backfill

 Crane 180 0.29 1 4 209 2 418 

 Excavator 128 0.38 1 8 389 27 10,467 

 Loader/Backhoe 80 0.37 1 8 237 54 12,716 

 Scraper - 23 CY 365 0.48 1 8 1,402 1 1,402 

 Water Truck - 5000 Gallons 175 0.38 1 4 266 54 14,284 

 Dump Truck - 8 CY NA NA 16 NA NA 1,759 28,144 

 Haul Truck - Demo Material (2) NA NA 16 NA NA 5 80 

 Fugitive Dust (3) NA NA 1.5 NA NA 54 81 

Sewer Tank Construction

 Air Compressor - 100 CFM 50 0.54 1 4 108 25 2,700 

 Crane 230 0.29 1 6 400 25 10,005 

 Forklift 94 0.20 1 2 38 25 940 

 Haul Truck - Materials (2) NA NA 60 NA NA 90 5,400 

 Fugitive Dust (3) NA NA 0.5 NA NA 13 7 

Paving - De la Garza Road

 Compactive Roller 165 0.38 2 8 1,003 0.5 526 

 Grader 180 0.41 1 8 590 0.6 344 

 Loader 215 0.37 1 8 636 0.6 370 

 Paving Machine 200 0.36 1 8 576 0.4 203 

 Water Truck - 5000 Gallons 175 0.38 1 8 532 1.3 680 

 Truck - Haul Base Material (2) NA NA 30 13 375 0.6 218 

 Truck - Haul Paving Material (2) NA NA 30 16 480 0.6 279 

 Fugitive Dust (3) NA NA 1 NA NA 1.3 1 

Notes: (1) From ARB In-Use Off-Road Equipment Inventory Model, where applicable (ARB 2011).

 (3) Number Active = miles/roundtrip, Hours/Day = daily truck trips, Daily Hp-Hrs = daily miles, and Total Hp-Hrs = total miles

 (2) Number Active is the average daily acres disturbed on a continuous basis and Total Hp-Hrs are total acre-days for the en
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

J KL M N O P Q R S

Table A.1-2. Air Emission Factors for Equipment Associated with the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar Project Alternatives.

Fuel

Project Year/Source Type Type VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Reference

Year 2012

Off-Road Equipment - 26-50 Hp D 1.43 5.78 3.30 0.004 0.58 0.54 568 (1)

Off-Road Equipment - 51-120 Hp D 0.64 6.95 2.13 0.004 0.54 0.50 568 (1)

Off-Road Equipment - 121-175 Hp D 0.48 6.58 1.81 0.004 0.34 0.32 568 (1)

Off-Road Equipment - 176-250 Hp D 0.37 6.13 0.67 0.004 0.24 0.22 568 (1)

Off-Road Equipment - 251-500 Hp D 0.30 4.99 0.68 0.003 0.19 0.17 568 (1)

On-road Truck - Idle (Gms/Hr) D 10.60 44.59 90.79 0.05 1.22 1.12 5,472 (2)

On-road Truck - 5 mph (Gms/Mi) D 3.24 4.80 17.00 0.04 0.61 0.66 2,600.00 (3)

On-road Truck - 25 mph (Gms/Mi) D 0.33 1.20 6.09 0.04 0.17 0.19 1,298.07 (3)

On-road Truck - 55 mph (Gms/Mi) D 0.17 0.78 4.90 0.04 0.18 0.19 1,023.48 (3)

On-Road Trucks - Composite (Gms/Mi) D 0.37 1.11 5.86 0.04 0.22 0.20 1,184.68 (4)

Fugitive Dust (Lbs/acre-day) - - - - - 27.50 2.75 - (5)

Notes: (1) Emissions factors developed for calendar year 2013 off-road composite equipment fleet with the use of the ARB In-Use Off-Road Equipment Inventory Model (ARB 2013)

 except CO emissions factors obtained from the Urbemis 2007 model and based on tractors/loaders/backhoes (Jones&Stokes Ass. 2007).

 (2) Idling emission factors developed from EMFAC2007 (ARB 2006). Units in grams/hour.

 (3) Generated with the use of the EMFAC2011 model for calendar year 2013 for truck fleet in San Diego County (ARB 2013). Assumes annual average temperatures.

 Units in grams/mile.

 (4) Composite factors based on a round trip of 5% at 5 mph, 30% at 25 mph, and 65% at 55 mph. Units in grams/mile. Although

 not shown in these calculations, emissions from 5 minutes of idling mode included for each truck round trip.

 (5) Units in lbs/acre-day from section 11.2.3 of AP-42 (USEPA 1995). Emissions reduced by 50% from uncontrolled levels to simulate implementation of 

 best management practices (BMPs) for fugitive dust control.

Emission Factors (Grams/Horsepower-Hour)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

U V W X Y Z AA AB

Table A.1-3. Annual Emissions associated with the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar - Alternative 1.

Construction Activity/Equipment Type VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Site Preparation/Backfill

 Crane 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 

 Excavator 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.55 

 Loader/Backhoe 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 7.96 

 Scraper - 23 CY 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 

 Water Truck - 5000 Gallons 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.00 8.94 

 Dump Truck - 8 CY 0.01 0.04 0.20 0.00 0.01 0.01 37.64 

 Haul Truck - Demo Material 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 

 Fugitive Dust - - - - 1.11 0.11 - 

Subtotal 0.04 0.12 0.48 0.00 1.13 0.13 62.34 

Sewer Tank Construction

 Air Compressor - 100 CFM 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.69 

 Crane 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.26 

 Forklift 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 

 Haul Truck - Materials 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.10 

 Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.09 0.01 - 

Subtotal 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.10 0.01 15.64 

Paving - De la Garza Road

 Compactive Roller 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 

 Grader 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 

 Loader 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 

 Paving Machine 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 

 Water Truck - 5000 Gallons 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 

 Truck - Haul Base Material 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 

 Truck - Haul Paving Material 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 

 Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.02 0.00 - 

Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 1.98 

Total Emissions - Proposed Action 0.05 0.15 0.63 0.00 1.24 0.15 79.96 

Total Emissions (Tons)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A B C DE F G H

Table A.1-4. Emission Source Data for the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar Alternative 2.

Hp Load Number Hours/ Daily Total Total

Construction Activity/Equipment Type Rating Factor (1) Active Day Hp-Hrs Days Hp-Hrs

Site Preparation

 Excavator 128 0.38 1 8 389 4 1,440 

 Loader/Backhoe 80 0.37 1 8 237 7 1,729 

 Water Truck - 5000 Gallons 175 0.38 1 4 266 7 1,862 

 Dump Truck - 8 CY NA NA 16 NA NA 272 4,352 

 Haul Truck - Demo Material (2) NA NA 16 NA NA 1 16 

 Fugitive Dust (3) NA NA 0.5 NA NA 7 4 

Steel Tank/Box Culvert Construction

 Air Compressor - 100 CFM 50 0.54 1 4 108 15 1,620 

 Crane 230 0.29 1 6 400 15 6,003 

 Forklift 94 0.20 1 2 38 15 564 

 Haul Truck - Materials (2) NA NA 60 NA NA 40 2,400 

 Fugitive Dust (3) NA NA 0.3 NA NA 10 3 

Utilities Installation

 Air Compressor - 100 CFM 50 0.54 1 4 108 12 1,296 

 Forklift 94 0.20 1 2 38 15 564 

 Loader/Backhoe 80 0.37 1 4 118 3 355 

 Trencher 37 0.54 1 8 160 2 320 

 Water Truck - 5000 Gallons 175 0.38 1 2 133 7 931 

 Haul Truck - Materials (2) NA NA 60 NA NA 10 600 

 Fugitive Dust (3) NA NA 0.25 NA NA 3 1 

Notes: (1) From ARB In-Use Off-Road Equipment Inventory Model, where applicable (ARB 2011).

 (3) Number Active = miles/roundtrip, Hours/Day = daily truck trips, Daily Hp-Hrs = daily miles, and Total Hp-Hrs = total miles.

 (2) Number Active is the average daily acres disturbed on a continuous basis and Total Hp-Hrs are total acre-days for the entire
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U V W X Y Z AA AB

Table A.1-5. Annual Emissions associated with the P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar - Alternative 2.

Construction Activity/Equipment Type VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Site Preparation

 Excavator 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 

 Loader/Backhoe 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 

 Water Truck - 5000 Gallons 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 

 Dump Truck - 8 CY 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.82 

 Haul Truck - Demo Material 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 

 Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.05 0.00 - 

Subtotal 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.01 8.99 

Steel Tank/Box Culvert Construction

 Air Compressor - 100 CFM 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 

 Crane 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.76 

 Forklift 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 

 Haul Truck - Materials 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.15 

 Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.03 0.00 - 

Subtotal 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.01 8.28 

Utilities Installation

 Air Compressor - 100 CFM 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 

 Forklift 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 

 Loader/Backhoe 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 

 Trencher 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 

 Water Truck - 5000 Gallons 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22 

 Haul Truck - Materials 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 

 Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.01 0.00 - 

Subtotal 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 3.59 

Total Emissions - Proposed Action 0.02 0.04 0.17 0.00 0.10 0.02 20.87 

Total Emissions (Tons)
Appendix A-2 

Record of Non-Applicability (RONA)
This page intentionally left blank.
P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks A2-1 May 2014

Draft EA

Appendix A-2. United States Marine Corps

Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) for

Clean Air Act Conformity and Air Quality Emissions Estimates

1 Introduction

2 This proposed action falls under the Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) category and is documented 

3 with this RONA.

4 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published “Determining Conformity of 

5 General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans; Final Rule” in the 30 November 1993 

6 Federal Register (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 6, 51, and 93). In 2006, the EPA revised 

7 the general conformity rule to include de minimis emission levels for particulate matter with a diameter 

8 equal to or less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and its precursors. On 5 April 2010, EPA finalized more 

9 wide-sweeping revisions to the general conformity rule (75 Federal Register [FR] 17253-17279). These 

10 revisions took effect on 6 July 2010. These publications provide guidance on how to document Clean Air 

11 Act Conformity requirements.

12 Federal regulations state that no department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government shall 

13 engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license to permit, or approve any 

14 activity that does not conform to an applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP). It is the responsibility of

15 the Federal agency to determine whether a Federal action conforms to the applicable SIP before the action 

16 is taken (40 CFR Part 1 51.850[a]).

17 Federal actions are exempt from conformity determinations if their emissions do not exceed designated 

18 de minimis levels for criteria pollutants (40 CFR 93.153c). The general conformity rule also exempts 

19 certain federal actions from the requirements of the rule, as these actions are assumed to conform to a SIP.

20 Conformity de minimis levels (in tons per year) for the San Diego Air Basin, the region potentially 

21 affected by the proposed action, are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Conformity De Minimis Levels for Criteria Pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin

Criteria Pollutant De Minimis Level (tons/year)

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 100

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 100

22 Proposed Action 

23 Activity: Construction and operation of sewer equalization tank systems. Proposed action proponent is the 

24 Public Works Department at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (MCAS Miramar).

25 Location: MCAS Miramar, California. Proposed activities would occur along De La Garza Road located 

26 in West Miramar.

27 Proposed Action Name: P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks at MCAS Miramar.

28 Proposed Action Summary: The Marine Corps proposes to construct and operate a storage tank with a 

29 holding capacity sufficient to temporarily retain excess sewage flow generated by a nominal 10-year 
MCAS Miramar Appendix A-2. RONA

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks A2-2 May 2014

Draft EA

1 24-hour storm event (1.5 million gallons); an active flow control system to regulate the discharge flow; 

2 and associated piping, pumps, conduits, and access points. Additional supporting improvements include 

3 site access and utility infrastructure upgrades. Site improvements would include grading and clearing, 

4 demolition and repaving of the existing road surface and culverts, and restoration of disturbed areas to 

5 pre-construction conditions. Construction would occur over approximately 15-months and would be 

6 conducted outside of the rainy season (about 1 November to 1 June). Grubbing and/or removal of surface 

7 vegetation, would be conducted outside of the bird breeding season (15 February through 1 September), 

8 to the maximum extent feasible.

9 Operational activities associated with the Proposed Action would produce a minor amount of air 

10 emissions due to the occasional consumption of electricity and the use of a water truck and pressure 

11 washer to maintain the tank on an annual basis. Operational emissions would be de minimis and therefore 

12 are not evaluated in this RONA.

13 Air Emissions Summary: Based on the air quality analysis for the proposed action, the emissions for the 

14 proposed action would be well below conformity de minimis levels.

15 Affected Air Basin: San Diego Air Basin

16 Date RONA Prepared: May 23, 2013

17 RONA Prepared by: Leidos (formerly Science Applications International Corporation [SAIC])

18 Proposed Action Exemptions

19 The proposed action is exempt because the calculated total emissions are below de minimis levels set 

20 forth in the Clean Air Act General Conformity Regulation.

21 Attainment Status and Emissions Evaluation and Conclusion

22 The General Conformity Rule requires conformity evaluations for proposed emissions that would occur 

23 within areas that are in nonattainment or maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).

24 The project site is within San Diego County and is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego County Air 

25 Pollution Control District. Therefore, the focus of this conformity applicability analysis is to compare 

26 project emissions to de minimis levels applicable to San Diego County.

27 The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) presently is classified as in nonattainment of the O3 NAAQS. Ozone is 

28 a secondary pollutant formed when ozone precursors, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic 

29 compounds (VOCs), intermix in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, the EPA general 

30 conformity regulations set de minimis levels for ozone precursors instead of ozone. The western portion 

31 of the SDAB (the portion of the county generally west of the interior desert region) also is in maintenance 

32 of the CO NAAQS. Based upon these designations, the applicable annual conformity de minimis thresholds 

33 for these areas are 100 tons of VOCs, CO, and NOx.

34 Table 2 summarizes the conformity-related emissions that would occur from the proposed action within 

35 the San Diego County project region. The main sources of conformity-related emissions associated with 

36 project construction would include combustive emissions due to the use of fossil fuel-powered 

37 construction equipment. The data shows that conformity-related emissions for the proposed action would 

38 be well below the applicable de minimis levels. Therefore, emissions from the proposed action would 

39 show conformity under the Clean Air Act, as amended.
MCAS Miramar Appendix A-2. RONA

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks A2-3 May 2014

Draft EA

Table 2. Annual Conformity-Related Emissions from the Proposed Action at MCAS Miramar

Equipment Type Air Pollutant Emissions (tons)

VOC CO NOx

Site Preparation/Backfill 0.04 0.12 0.48

Construct Sewer Tank 0.01 0.03 0.13

Pave De la Garza Road 0.00 0.00 0.02

Total Emissions (tons/year) 0.05 0.15 0.63

San Diego Air Basin Conformity Thresholds (tons/year) 100 100 100

Exceed Thresholds? No No No

Notes: (1) All emissions would occur within one calendar year.

1 RONA Approval

2 I concur in the finding that air emissions associated with the proposed action are below de minimis levels 

3 and therefore do not require further conformity evaluation.

______________________________________________________ Date: ____________________

4 Colonel John P. Farnam

5 Commanding Officer

6 MCAS Miramar
MCAS Miramar Appendix A-2. RONA

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks A2-4 May 2014

Draft EA

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B 

Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting (MMMR) Tracking Sheet 
This page intentionally left blank. 
P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks B-1 May 2014

Draft EA

Appendix B. MMMR Tracking Sheet

Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting (MMMR) Tracking Sheet

EPM # Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting Measures

Environmental 

Assessment 

Section

Implementation 

Procedure or Action

Responsible 

Organization

Deliverable/ 

Report

Compliance 

Schedule

Verification of 

Compliance

1 Fugitive Dust Control. The project proponent, construction oversight authority, or 

duly designated contractor shall ensure that fugitive dust emissions do not extend 

beyond the property line for more than 3-minutes in any 60 minute period and shall 

mitigate fugitive dust to minimize track out/carry out emissions during demolition, 

construction, and transport in accordance with the San Diego County Air Pollution 

Control District (SDCAPCD) Rule 55. The construction contractor shall implement 

the following measures, where applicable, to minimize fugitive dust emissions: 

1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas of vehicle movement 

damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the construction area.

2. Minimize the amount of disturbed ground area at a given time.

3. Minimize traffic speeds on all unpaved roads.

4. Install gravel pads at construction area access points to prevent tracking of soil 

onto paved roads.

5. Provide temporary wind fencing around sites being graded or cleared.

6. Suspend all soil disturbance activities when winds exceed 25 miles per hour or 

when visible dust plumes emanate from the site. Stabilize all disturbed areas at 

this time.

7. Cover truck loads that haul dirt, sand, or gravel or maintain at least two feet of 

freeboard in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code.

8. After completion of clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation, treat the 

disturbed areas by watering, revegetation, or by spreading non-toxic soil binders 

until they are paved or otherwise developed to prevent dust generation.

9. Designate personnel to monitor the dust control program and to order increased 

watering, as necessary, to prevent the transport of dust off-site. Their duties 

would include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.

Section 3.1; 

Appendix A

Implement fugitive dust 

control measures

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:

2 Construction Equipment Emission Control Measures. The construction contractor 

shall implement the following measures during proposed construction activities, 

where feasible. 

1. Maintain equipment according to manufacturer specifications.

2. Restrict idling of equipment and trucks to a maximum of five minutes at any 

location.

3. Install diesel oxidation catalysts and/or catalyzed diesel particulate traps on 

equipment exhaust systems.

4. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel- or gasolinepowered generators. 

5. Provide temporary traffic control, such as a flag person, during all phases of 

construction to maintain smooth traffic flow.

6. Keep construction equipment and equipment staging areas away from sensitive 

receptor areas (such as day care centers).

Section 3.1 Implement construction 

equipment emission 

control measures

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:
MCAS Miramar Appendix B. MMMR Tracking Sheet

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks B-2 May 2014

Draft EA

Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting (MMMR) Tracking Sheet

EPM # Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting Measures

Environmental 

Assessment 

Section

Implementation 

Procedure or Action

Responsible 

Organization

Deliverable/ 

Report

Compliance 

Schedule

Verification of 

Compliance

7. Re-route construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor 

areas.

8. Any equipment or operation requiring an operating permit from the SDCAPCD or 

other regulatory body shall be obtained by the owner/operator of that 

equipment/operation. Examples of such equipment and operations include nonmobile equipment utilizing an internal combustion engine greater than 50 break 

horsepower (bhp) (diesel-fueled electrical generators, lighting units, air 

compressors, etc.), rock crushing operation, and concrete batching operation. 

The use of off-road diesel vehicles during construction, such as loaders, crawler 

tractors, skid steers, backhoes, and forklifts with engines rated at 25 bhp or 

greater, shall comply with California Air Resources Control Board (ARB)

regulations (CCR 13 Section 2449).

9. Use alternatively-fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural 

gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric.

3 Avoid and Minimize, and Compensate for Disturbance to Diegan Coastal Sage 

Scrub. The final project shall be designed to avoid/minimize impacts by reducing 

disturbance footprints to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub to the maximum extent 

practicable. In addition, staging areas and/or other temporary construction-related 

requirements shall be located within the laydown areas.

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would result in temporary impacts to Diegan Coastal 

Sage Scrub. The temporary removal of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub shall be 

compensated for through habitat restoration/creation and/or purchase of an 

equivalent amount of credits from an off-Station conservation bank. Consistent with 

the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) (MCAS Miramar et al. 

2011), temporary impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub occupied by or within the 

use area for the federally-listed coastal California gnatcatcher and located in MAs I 

and II would be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio. Impacts to Diegan coastal Sage Scrub not 

occupied by or within the use area for the federally-listed coastal California 

gnatcatcher would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio to achieve no net loss of the habitat.

The Construction Contractor shall develop a Revegetation Plan that will be approved 

by MCAS Miramar before implementation. The Revegetation Plan shall address all 

revegetation efforts associated with the construction activities and include specific 

erosion control measures, irrigation requirements, species composition, seed mix 

origins and ratios, weed control, water regimes, maintenance activities, success 

criteria, and monitoring requirements. Seed mixes used for Diegan Coastal Sage 

Scrub revegetation shall be from locally collected sources. A suggested seed mix 

includes the following species: California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California 

buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides) 

black sage (Salvia mellifera), and deer weed (Acmispon glaber). The Plan 

components shall be implemented as soon as feasible after construction. The 

Revegetation Plan shall address all revegetation efforts associated with project 

activities and include specific erosion control measures, irrigation requirements, 

Section 3.2 Develop and 

implement a 

Revegetation Plan. 

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:
MCAS Miramar Appendix B. MMMR Tracking Sheet

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks B-3 May 2014

Draft EA

Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting (MMMR) Tracking Sheet

EPM # Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting Measures

Environmental 

Assessment 

Section

Implementation 

Procedure or Action

Responsible 

Organization

Deliverable/ 

Report

Compliance 

Schedule

Verification of 

Compliance

species composition, seed mix origins and ratios, weed control, water regimes, 

maintenance activities, success criteria, and monitoring requirements. Disturbed 

areas of Diegan coastal Sage Scrub shall be replanted with appropriate native seed 

or plantings in accordance with the Revegetation Plan the first fall after the 

completion of construction activities and before the winter rainfall season to minimize 

the need for watering. Reseeding/replanting that becomes necessary after the start 

of the rainy season shall be done as soon as possible. The Revegetation Plan shall 

specify the final monitoring program duration and frequency, with a minimum of five 

years of monitoring post-restoration. Invasive weed control (e.g., hand removal, 

mechanical and herbicide control) shall be implemented in areas reseeded/replanted 

until the native vegetation is established. The Revegetation Plan will be approved by 

the MCAS Miramar Environmental Management Department prior to the start of 

construction activities. Areas impacted by construction shall be inspected by the 

MCAS Miramar Environmental Management Department within one year following 

the completion of construction, to determine whether any remedial measures are 

required. Remedial measures may include re-seeding/re-planting, weed control, 

watering, and/or erosion control.

Alternative 2 would result in permanent impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub that 

is not occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher and is located outside of the use 

area for this species. Consistent with the INRMP (MCAS Miramar et al. 2011), 

permanent impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub located in MAs I and II that does 

not provide habitat for federally listed species (i.e., the coastal California 

gnatcatcher) will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio to achieve no net loss of habitat. Thus, 

the permanent removal of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub associated with Alternative 2 

shall be compensated for through habitat restoration/creation at a 1:1 ratio or 

purchase of an equivalent amount of credits from an off-Station conservation bank.

4 Invasive Plant Species Control. All equipment and/or vehicles shall be powerwashed before entering MCAS Miramar property and the project site. While washing 

wheeled vehicles, the front wheels shall be turned lock-to-lock to allow for exposure 

of surfaces that may hold soil or weed seeds. This is to control the spread of invasive 

(non-native) weeds.

Section 3.2 Power-wash all 

equipment and/or 

vehicles before 

entering MCAS 

Miramar property or 

the project site.

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:

5 Conduct Vegetation Removal/Grubbing Outside of Nesting Season for Coastal 

California Gnatcatcher and Migratory Bird Treaty Act-Protected Species. Contractors 

shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Due to the presence of 

habitat for the federally-listed coastal California gnatcatcher and MBTA species in 

and in the vicinity of the project site, any grading, grubbing, mowing, and/or removal 

of surface vegetation, particularly Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, shall not be 

scheduled between 15 February and 1 August to avoid potential impacts on nesting.

Section 3.2 Limit laydown areas to 

previously compacted/ 

developed areas.

Avoid grubbing, and/or 

removal of surface 

vegetation including 

Diegan Coastal Sage 

Scrub between 

15 February through 

1 August.

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:
MCAS Miramar Appendix B. MMMR Tracking Sheet

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks B-4 May 2014

Draft EA

Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting (MMMR) Tracking Sheet

EPM # Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting Measures

Environmental 

Assessment 

Section

Implementation 

Procedure or Action

Responsible 

Organization

Deliverable/ 

Report

Compliance 

Schedule

Verification of 

Compliance

6 Biological Monitoring during Construction. A qualified Project Biologist will be 

retained by the Contractor for the duration of construction activities and will be on

site at all times during clearing and grubbing of vegetation or habitats that have the 

potential to support listed species, specifically the coastal California gnatcatcher and 

San Diego fairy shrimp. The Project Biologist will identify work areas, monitor work

activity, and provide “tailgate” sessions for the construction contractor. The monitor 

will oversee and execute the conservation protection measures pertaining to 

biological resources. The Project Biologist will have experience with threatened 

California coastal gnatcatcher and endangered San Diego fairy shrimp and will be 

approved by MCAS Miramar prior to the start of construction activities.

Section 3.2 A Project Biologist will 

be retained by 

Contractor during 

construction activities 

and will be on site at all 

times during clearing 

and grubbing of 

vegetation or habitats 

that have the potential 

to support listed 

species, specifically 

the coastal California 

gnatcatcher and San 

Diego fairy shrimp.

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:

7 Avoid and Minimize Disturbance to Vernal Pool Watershed. The Contractor will take 

action to avoid an increase or decrease of water quantity, sediment transport, and 

change in water quality runoff to pool basins. Sedimentation into basin shall be 

prevented and soil-disturbing activities during rainy season or when ground is wet 

(about 1 November to 1 June) will be minimized.

Section 3.2 Implement actions to 

avoid impacts to water 

quality, sediment 

transport and runoff.

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:

8 Monitoring/Avoidance of Vernal Pools and Other Seasonally Ponded Features 

Occupied by San Diego Fairy Shrimp. Occupied vernal pools and other seasonally 

ponded features in the immediate vicinity of the project site and vernal pool 

watersheds within the project site located upgradient of occupied features shall be 

clearly marked on construction plans and avoidance areas and flagged or fenced 

prior to the start of construction activities. Consistent with the INRMP, any 

construction that could affect habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp associated with 

vernal pools, seasonally ponded features, and vernal pool watersheds located 

upgradient of these features will occur outside of the rainy season (about 

1 November to 1 June) and in dry conditions only. Following the initial clearing of 

features, ongoing construction activities can occur in the wet season with 

implementation of adequate erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs)

(e.g., jute netting, geotextiles, and other materials), as determined by the Project 

Biologist, to avoid an increase or decrease of water quantity, sediment transport, and 

change in water quality runoff to pool basins. Sedimentation into basin shall be 

prevented and soil-disturbing activities during rainy season or when ground is wet 

(about 1 November to 1 June) will be minimized.

Section 3.2 Monitoring of vernal 

pools during 

construction; clearly 

mark vernal pools in 

the immediate vicinity 

of the project site on 

construction plans; 

flag/fence avoidance 

areas before the start 

of construction; No 

construction shall 

occur around vernal 

pools during the rainy 

season or when the 

ground is still wet 

(about 1 November to 

1 June); approval of 

Project Biologist for 

construction near 

vernal pools in rainy 

season.

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:
MCAS Miramar Appendix B. MMMR Tracking Sheet

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks B-5 May 2014

Draft EA

Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting (MMMR) Tracking Sheet

EPM # Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting Measures

Environmental 

Assessment 

Section

Implementation 

Procedure or Action

Responsible 

Organization

Deliverable/ 

Report

Compliance 

Schedule

Verification of 

Compliance

9 40-Hour HAZWOPER Monitor. A monitor, with 40-Hour HAZWOPER training and 

experience in identifying contaminated soil and groundwater, will be present during 

excavation and grading.

Section 3.4 Monitoring of 

excavation and 

grading.

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:

10 Fish Pond Access during Construction. Sidewinder Road and Johnson Road would 

provide non-recreation access to the Fish Pond for operation and maintenance 

activities while De La Garza Road is closed to through traffic.

Section 3.5 Establish access to the 

Fish Pond.

MCAS Miramar None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:

11 Avoid Peak-Hour Delivery. To minimize traffic congestion, the delivery of materials 

and equipment shall be outside of peak traffic hours (6:30 to 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 to 

5:00 p.m.) unless otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer. All deliveries are to 

be via the East Gate on Miramar Way, unless previously approved by the 

Contracting Officer.

Section 3.6 Avoid peak-hour 

deliver of material and 

equipment

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:

12 Construction Worker Ridesharing. To minimize traffic congestion, construction 

workers shall be encouraged to rideshare/carpool.

Section 3.6 Encourage 

construction worker 

ridesharing

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:

13 Construction Traffic Plan. A construction traffic management and detour plan would 

be developed. This plan would specify necessary lane closures, detours, signage, 

lighting, flaggers, and other traffic control measures, as needed. The traffic plan 

would specify routes for emergency service vehicles in the event of an emergency.

Section 3.6 Prepare a Construction 

Traffic Plan

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:

14 Road Traffic Load Signs. Warning signs indicating road load rating 

(16,000 pound wheel load or 32,000 pound dual space wheel load) shall be posted 

at the De La Garza entrance off Pless Road.

Section 3.6 Install Road Traffic 

Load Sign

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:

15 Temporary Sediment Control Measures. Temporary sediment control practices shall

be applied throughout the construction phase within the project site and could 

include fiber roll and/or silt fence perimeter protection, fiber roll slope protection, 

gravel bag, check dam protection. The construction entrance shall be stabilized to 

minimize the tracking of mud and dirt onto roads by construction vehicles. If 

necessary, a sediment basin would be constructed at the downslope end of the 

construction area during construction activities to slow off-site surface flows and 

sediment transport.

Section 3.8 Identify sediment 

control features to be 

used during and 

following construction.

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:

16 Stockpile Management during Construction. Stockpiles of soil shall be properly 

contained to eliminate or reduce off-site sediment transport to receiving waters, 

including Rose Canyon Creek and downstream Mission Bay. Soil stockpiles shall be 

placed on top of heavy-duty plastic sheeting on areas with an improved asphalt or 

concrete surface. Potentially hazardous waste would be stored in a designated area. 

All soil stockpiles shall be covered with material adequate to prevent soil transport by 

wind or rainwater runoff. Covers shall be maintained in good condition.

Section 3.8 Implement stockpile 

management 

measures.

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:

17 On-site Equipment and Vehicle Washing. Runoff from on-site equipment and vehicle 

washing shall be contained at the construction site and would not be discharged to 

receiving waters or the local storm drain system.

Section 3.8 Implement containment 

measures for runoff 

from equipment and 

vehicle washing.

Contractor None During 

Construction

Verified by:

Date:
MCAS Miramar Appendix B. MMMR Tracking Sheet

P-236 Sewer Equalization Tanks B-6 May 2014

Draft EA

This page intentionally left blank.