Draft - Marine Corps Air Station Miramar

DRAFT 

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT FOR 

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING 

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION MIRAMAR 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY 

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 

PREPARED FOR: 

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION MIRAMAR 

AND NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 

COMMAND, SOUTHWEST 

AUGUST 13, 2008

D R A F T 

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT FOR 

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING, 

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 

MIRAMAR, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 

Prepared for: 

MCAS Miramar and 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest 

1220 Pacific Highway 

San Diego, CA 92132-5190 

Contract No. N68711-04-D-3032 

August 13, 2008

Supplemental Environmental Assessment for 

Military Family Housing, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, 

San Diego County, San Diego, California 

Lead Agency: 

United States Marine Corps 

Title of the Proposed Action: Military Family Housing (MFH), Marine Corps Air Station 

(MCAS) Miramar, San Diego County, San Diego, California 

Affected Region: 

Designation: 

MCAS Miramar 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) 

Abstract 

This SEA analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with revisions to the MFH 

project description and boundaries previously analyzed in the 2004 Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for MFH in the San Diego Region. The SEA analyzes environmental impacts for the 

Preferred Alternative including biological resources, cultural resources and schools. No significant 

environmental impacts have been identified for the Preferred Alternative. This SEA has been 

prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended 

(42 U.S. Code [USC] § 4231 et seq.); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 

1500-1508); and the Marine Corps Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual (Marine 

Corps Order [MCO] P5090.2A). The NEPA process ensures that environmental impacts of 

proposed major Federal actions are considered in the decision-making process. 

Point of Contact: 

Contracting Officer’s 

Technical Representative: 

Mr. William Moog 

Environmental Management Officer 


P.O. Box 452001 Building 6317 


Phone: (858)577-1108, Fax: (858) 577-4200 

Ms. Adrianne Saboya 

Environmental Planner 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest 

1220 Pacific Highway 


Phone: (619) 532-4742 Fax: (619) 532-4160 

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In August 2004, the Department of the Navy (DoN) signed the Record of Decision (ROD) 

documenting selection of the Preferred Alternative, Site 8A from the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) for Military Family Housing (MFH) in the San Diego Region, ( DoN 2004). The 

FEIS proposed action would have provided up to 1,600 units of MFH at Marine Corps Air Station 

(MCAS) Miramar (Figure 1) in San Diego County. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

(SEA) has been prepared by the United States Department of the Navy to document changes in the 

FEIS Site 8A project description and in the location and size of the Site 8A limits of construction 

(LOC). 

This SEA has been prepared in accordance with the National Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S. Code [USC] § 4231 et seq.); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] § 1500-1508); and the Marine Corps Environmental Compliance and Protection 

Manual, Chapter 12 (Marine Corps Order [MCO] P5090.2A) which establishes procedures for 

implementing NEPA. As required by CEQ 1502.9(c), the decision to prepare this supplemental 

analysis was based on changes to the Preferred Alternative evaluated in the previous FEIS. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The existing regional MFH deficit is 2,870 units. The proposed Project (SEA Site 8A) is designed 

to reduce this deficit by providing suitable, affordable housing units for enlisted military personnel 

and their families in close proximity to assigned duty Stations. The Project proposes to develop 

1,400 MFH units on approximately 356 acres at MCAS Miramar (Figure 1) in San Diego County. 

The Project includes 482 buildings comprised of a mix of one, two and three story townhouse style 

duplexes, tri-plexes, four-plexes, five-plexes and six-plexes. The proposed Project includes one 

13.3 acre site reserved for siting two elementary schools, and an approximately 2 mile long 

extension of Santo Road as the primary access road to State Route 52 (SR-52). Existing unpaved 

roads in East Miramar will provide secondary emergency access. 

After the ROD was signed, a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping error was discovered 

that affected the location of the Project boundary. The DoN corrected this error and re-analyzed 

resources within the Project LOC. The DoN revised the previously analyzed FEIS footprint from 

294 acres to 356 acres. The increase in the FEIS Site 8A acreage was the result of refining the 

community plan and incorporating several storm water retention basins in accordance with National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. 

Additional expansion of the Site 8A LOC was required to realign the access road to avoid non- 

DoN property. This re-alignment resulted in the inclusion of a previously avoided archeological site 

within the LOC and direct impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp found to be present in road 

rut/puddles (RECON 2007). 

iii

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

The CEQ NEPA implementation regulations establish a number of policies for federal agencies, 

including “using the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed 

actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions on the quality of the human 

environment” (40 CFR 1500.2[e]). The alternatives considered in the FEIS included Site 2, Site 3, 

Site 8B and the No Action Alternative. These alternatives were previously evaluated in the FEIS 

and will not be analyzed in the SEA. The SEA evaluates environmental impacts to Site 8A as 

modified from the FEIS analysis. 

CEQ regulations, NEPA, and DoN procedures for implementing NEPA specify that an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) should only address those resource areas potentially subject to 

impacts. In addition, the level of analysis should be commensurate with the anticipated level of 

environmental impact. The 2004 FEIS analysis of Air Quality, Land Use, Socio-economics, 

Utilities, Public Services, Soils and Geology, Water Resources, Hazardous Wastes/Substances and 

Materials, Noise, Traffic, Public Safety and Visual Resources do not change as a result of the 

Preferred Alternative (SEA Site 8A) and are therefore eliminated from further analysis. This SEA 

evaluates changes to the FEIS Site 8A Biological Resources (Section 3.1), Cultural Resources 

(Section 3.2) and Schools (Section 3.3). Analysis of these changes reveals that there will be no 

significant impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources or Schools. The environmental 

consequences associated with the Preferred Alternative are presented in Chapter 3. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Due to the proposed changes in the Site 8A LOC, this SEA evaluates impacts to the Del Mar 

manzanita, habitat supporting the San Diego fairy shrimp, and archeological resources. Del Mar 

manzanita were discovered within the FEIS LOC prior to the signature of the ROD, but at the time, 

it was assumed that impacts to this resource could be avoided. The need to document this resource 

resulted from new survey information obtained following the Cedar Fire (a region-wide brushfire 

that burned a large percentage of MCAS Miramar property) and the need to correct the FEIS 

mapping error affecting the Preferred Alternative boundary. Because of improved visibility of the 

FEIS Site 8A area after the Cedar Fire, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) required resurvey 

of some areas within the Site 8A LOC. The DoN initiated surveys under two separate 

contracts to document biological and archaeological resources within the revised Project LOC that 

were not addressed by the FEIS. In addition, the DoN conducted in-house surveys of 27.3 acres to 

address archaeological data gaps not covered in the FEIS or by existing archaeological surveys. 

This SEA also documents a reduction in the number of units and a change in the unit mix occurring 

after the ROD was signed. In January 2005, the DoN eliminated the two-bedroom units and 

increased the number of three and four bedroom units. This change to the unit mix replaced 

apartment style buildings with two-story townhouse style units, which are more desirable for 

families. In January 2008, DoN reduced the FEIS Site 8A Project from 1,600 units to 1,400 units to 

decrease the site density and improve quality of life. This resulted in a decrease in the number of 

three bedroom units and an increase in the number of four bedroom units compared to the FEIS unit 

iv

mix. Lastly, this SEA evaluates potential impacts on San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) 

primary and secondary schools resulting from the decrease in the number of housing units and 

changes to the unit mix. 

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. iii 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...............................................................1-1 

1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ....................................................................... 1-1 

1.3 Location ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.4 Background........................................................................................................................ 1-4 

1.5 Scope of SEA Environmental Review ............................................................................... 1-5 

1.6 Decisions Needed .............................................................................................................. 1-7 

1.7 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................. 1-7 

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

2.1 Description of Proposed Action......................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Analysis ....................................... 2-8 

2.3 Alternative Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis ........................................................... 2-9 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Chapter 3 

Chapter 4 

Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures3-1 

3.1 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................3-13 

3.3 Schools..............................................................................................................................3-19 

Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-1 

4.1 Related Projects ................................................................................................................. 4-1 

4.2 Environmental Analysis of Related Projects...................................................................... 4-9 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Chapter 5 Other NEPA Considerations .........................................................................................5-1 

5.1 Possible Conflicts between the Proposed Action and the Objectives of Federal, State and 

Local Land Use Plans, Policies and Controls .................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives Including the Proposed 

Action and All Mitigation Measures Being Considered .................................................... 5-1 

5.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources that Would be Involved if the 

Proposed Action is Implemented ....................................................................................... 5-1 

5.4 The Relationship between Local Short-Term Use of the Environment and Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ......................................................................... 5-2 

5.5 Means to Mitigate and/or Monitor Adverse Environmental Impacts................................. 5-2 

5.6 Any Probable and Unavoidably Adverse Environmental Effects Should the Proposal be 

Implemented ...................................................................................................................... 5-2 

33 

Chapter 6 

Persons and Agencies Contacted................................................................................6-1 

34 

Chapter 7 

References......................................................................................................................7-1 

35 

Chapter 8 

List of Preparers.............................................................................................................8-1 

vi

List of Tables, Figures and Appendices 

Tables 

Table ES-1 

Table 1.4-2 

Table 1.5-1 

Table 2.3-1 

Table 3.1-1 

Table 3.1-2 

Table 3.1-3 

Table 3.2-1 

Table 3.3-1 

Table 3.3-2 

Table 3.3-3 

Table 3.3-4 

Table 3.3-5 

Table 3.3-6 

Table 3.3-7 

Figures 

Figure 1 

Figure 2 

Figure 3 

Figure 4 

Figure 5A 

Figure 5B 

Figure 6 

Figure 7 

Figure 8 

Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences by Resource 

Site Plan Changes Since the FEIS 

Geographic Extent of Potential Impacts and Mitigations 

Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences by Resource 

FEIS and SEA Vegetation Impact Comparison 

FEIS and SEA Impact Comparison of Wetlands, OWUS 

Direct Impacts to Regionally and Locally Declining Vegetation and Habitat Types and Associated 

Habitat Compensation (in Acres and Hectares) for SEA Site 8A 

Summary: Cultural Resources Located within LOC for the Proposed Action 


Student Generation Rates (1) for MFH Sites 

Existing Capacity of Area Schools 

Projected Capacity of Area Schools 

Site 8A Projected Student Enrollment 

SEA Site 8A Student Projected Increase 

Capacity of Area Middle and High Schools 

MCAS Miramar Vicinity Map 

FEIS and SEA Site 8A Project Comparison 

SEA Site 8A Project Description 

SEA Site 8A Preliminary Site Plan 

SEA Site 8A Biological Resources 

SEA Site 8A California Gnatcatcher Habitat 

SEA Site 8A Waters of the U.S. 

SEA Site 8A Cultural Resource Survey Areas 

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

Appendices 

Appendix A 

Appendix B 

Appendix C 

Appendix D 

USFWS Biological Opinion Surveys and Consultation 

Clean Water Act Consultation 

Archaeological Survey and Consultation 

SDUSD Provided Data 

vii

Acronyms 

ACHP 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ARAR 

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement 

ASM 

ASM Affiliates, Inc. 

BAH 

Basic Allowances for Housing 

CAGN 

California gnatcatcher 

CALTRANS California Department of Transportation 

CEQ 

Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act 

CFR 

Code of Federal Regulation 

CSS 

Coastal sage scrub 

DMM 

Del Mar manzanita 

DoN 

Department of the Navy 

EA 

Environmental Assessment 

EE/CA 

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis 

EMD 

Environmental Management Department 

EO 

Executive Order 

FEIS 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FONSI 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

GIS 

Geospatial Information System 

HQMC 

Headquarters Marine Corps 

INRMP 

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

LOC 

Limits of Construction 

MBTA 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MCAS 

Marine Corps Air Station 

MCO 

Marine Corps Order 

MEC 

Munitions and Explosives of Concern 

MFH 

Military Family Housing 

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

NCCP 

Natural Community Conservation Plan 

NEPA 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1996 

NPDES 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NRHP 

National Register of Historic Places 

OWUS 

Other Waters of the United States 

PPV 

Public Private Venture 

PPV LLC Public-Private Venture Limited Liability Company 

ROD 

Record of Decision 

SDFS 

San Diego fairy shrimp 

SDG&E 

San Diego Gas & Electric 

SDUSD 

San Diego Unified School District 

SEA 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

SEIS 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

SF 

Square Feet 

SHPO 

State Historic Preservation Office 

SR 

State Route 

STP 

Shovel Test Pit 

SWPPP 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

USFWS 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

viii

ix 

Acronyms

CHAPTERONE 

Purpose and Need for Proposed Action 

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for Military Family Housing (MFH) in the San 

Diego Region analyzed development of Site 2, Site 3, Site 8A and Site 8B for the proposed MFH 

development at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar in San Diego, California. In August 2004, the 

Department of the Navy’s (DoN) Record of Decision (ROD) documented Site 8A as the Preferred 

Alternative for the proposed development of up to 1,600 MFH units at MCAS Miramar. Since the ROD 

was signed in 2004, changes to the Preferred Alternative (Site 8A) and associated environmental 

consequences substantiated preparation of the Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA). This SEA 

documents changes to the Preferred Alternative evaluated in the FEIS for MFH in the San Diego Region, 

(DoN 2004). The revised Preferred Alternative (Site 8A) is the proposed action analyzed in this SEA and is 

referred to as the proposed Project throughout the SEA. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The purpose and need for the proposed Project is to reduce the regional housing deficit by providing 

suitable, affordable housing for enlisted military personnel and their families in close proximity to assigned 

duty Stations. The Housing Requirements Market Analysis published in 2002 (Science Applications 

International Corporation) identified an existing housing deficit of 2,356 units and a projected shortfall of 

2,870 units for 2007. 

The shortage of MFH and high rental rates in San Diego County adversely affect military families, primarily 

junior and mid-level enlisted military personnel, E1-E6. A substantial number of military families pay out of 

pocket costs to bridge the increasing gap between market rents and Basic Allowances for Housing (BAH). 

To find suitable and affordable housing, some military families live significant distances from assigned duty 

stations. Families that do not live in close proximity to assigned duty stations are impacted by lengthy 

commutes and have a reduced level of access to associated military community resources and social 

networks that are critical for supporting quality of life. The provision of affordable, suitable housing that is 

centrally located is critical for morale, retention and combat readiness of Navy and Marine service members. 

1.3 LOCATION 

MCAS Miramar is located 13 miles north of downtown San Diego and 4 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. 

State Route (SR) 52 and Interstate 805 (I-805) form the Station’s southern and western boundaries. MCAS 

Miramar is divided by Interstate 15 (I-15) and encompasses over 23,000 acres. The area west of I-15, or 

West Miramar, supports the industrial and aviation complex with ancillary support of commercial, 

administrative and existing MFH. The area east of I-15, referred to as East Miramar, contains existing 

training areas, rifle/pistol ranges and ordnance storage and the proposed Project site (Figure 1). 

1-1

Miramar 

Ranch North 

Mira Mesa 

§¨¦ 15 

Scripps 

Ranch 

§¨¦ 805 §¨¦ 5 §¨¦ 15 

East 

Elliot 

University 

City 

Clairemont 

Kearny 

Mesa 

tu 56 tu 52 tu 125 

Tierrasanta 

Mission 

Trails 

Regional 

Park 

Santee 

OVERVIEW MAP 


tu 163 

§¨¦ 8 

LEGEND 

SOURCES: 

USGS (7.5 quads: Del Mar, Poway, La Jolla, La Mesa); 

SANDAG (county 2000, freeways 2005); 

MCAS Miramar (installation boundary); 

NAVFAC (limits of construction). 

1 100 200Feet0 

0 1 2 Miles 

SCALE: 1" = 2 Miles (1:126,720) 

tu 94 

MCAS MIRAMAR VICINITY MAP 


CREATED BY: JN DATE: 01-21-08 

PM: EN PROJ. NO: 27696000.00001 

MCAS Miramar Boundary 

Proposed MFH 

Limits of Construction 

FIG. NO: 

1

! 

SEA 

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

CERCLA 

MUNITIONS RESPONSE 

! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! 

! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! !! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Parcel Owner: 

San Diego Unified 

School District 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Parcel 

Owner: 

State of 

California 

tu 52 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! !! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! !! 

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! 

! 

!! 

! ! ! !! 

FEIS 

RESOURCE SURVEY BOUNDARY 

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION 

PROJECT DIVISION LINE 

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! 

! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! 

! ! ! ! 

! 

ACCESS 

ROAD 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

HOUSING SITE 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

LIM ITS OF 

CONSTRUCTION (LOC) 

RESOURCE SURVEY 

BOUNDARY OUTSIDE 

FEIS LOC 

CERCLA MUNITIONS 

RESPONSE 

1 

!! !! 

!! ! !! 

SOURCES: SEA project features originated by 

Clark Realty and provided by NAVFAC 

Southwest. FEIS project features provided by 

NAVFAC Southwest. March 2004 aerial 

provided by MCAS Miramar. 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

500 1000 0 500 0 1000 1500 1000Feet 

2000 Feet 

SCALE: 1" = 1,000' (1:12,000) 

FEIS SEA Net Change 

LOC Site LOC 

(P ink Line) 

Site: 264 acres 300 acres + 36 acres 

Access Road: 34 acres 56 acres + 22 acres 

Total: 298 acres 356 acres + 58 acres 

FEIS 

Resource Survey 

Boundary 

(Red Line) 

Site: 

316 acres 

Access Road: 

21 acres 

Total: 

337 acres 

FEIS Acreages Not Affected by the SEA LOC 

SEA LOC Not Evaluated in FEIS 

Housing Site - 21 Acres Housing Site - 56 Acres 

Access Road - 18 Acres 

Access Ro ad - 43 Acres 

Total - 39 Acres 

To tal - 99 Acres 

FEIS AND SEA SITE 8A PROJECT COMPARISON 

MCAS MIRAMAR 



PM: EH PROJ. NO: 27696000.00001 

FIG. NO: 

2 

1. The exact location of the munitions response is contingent on the results of the CERLCA process.

CHAPTERONE 


1.4 BACKGROUND 

The June 2004 FEIS evaluated the DoN proposal to construct up to 1,600 MFH units in response to the 

growing need for suitable and affordable housing for enlisted personnel (E1-E6) and their families in the 

San Diego region. The FEIS analyzed four action alternatives, Site 2, Site 3, and Site 8A (the Preferred 

Alternative), Site 8B, and the No Action Alternative. As documented in the August 2004 ROD, Site 8A was 

selected as the FEIS Preferred Alternative. The FEIS Preferred Alternative site plan accommodated 

approximately 282 buildings comprised of duplexes, four-plexes, six-plexes and eight-plexes configured in 

townhouse and apartment style buildings. This site plan provided 400 two bedroom units, 896 three 

bedroom units, and 304 four bedroom units. FEIS Site 8A Limits of Construction (LOC) and FEIS Site 8A 

resource survey boundaries are depicted in Figure 2. 

1.4.1 Revisions to the Limits of Construction 

Changes to the FEIS Site 8A Housing LOC resulted from refining the community plan and from the 

addition of several storm water retention basins in accordance with National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. Additional expansion of the Site 8A LOC was required to realign 

the access road to avoid non-DoN property. As part of the re-alignment, the access road LOC was revised to 

incorporate safe roadway design geometries and avoid two existing utility easements. In July 2006, the DoN 

finalized the Housing LOC. 

Due to improved visibility of the MFH Project area after the Cedar Fire in October 2003, the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) required re-survey of some areas within the FEIS Site 8A area. Surveys of the 

2003 Cedar Fire areas were conducted between January 2, 2004 and April 30, 2004. This effort included 

site testing on three previously recorded sites. “The Archaeological Survey of MFH Site 8 and the Testing of 

Three Sites, San Diego California” was initiated to perform site survey and testing in accordance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The access road re-alignment 

required to avoid non-DoN property resulted in the inclusion of an archeological site within the LOC. 

Subsequent surveys were conducted within the Project LOC by DoN Archaeologists (Refer to Figure 7 and 

Appendix C). 

The 2004 FEIS and subsequent ROD assumed that impacts to the Del Mar manzanita (DMM) and San 

Diego fairy shrimp (SDFS) would be avoided. After the Site 8A mapping error in the FEIS was discovered, 

the site was resurveyed for the DMM. These post-Cedar Fire surveys revealed that impacts to the DMM 

were unavoidable. The re-alignment of the Project boundary to correct the FEIS mapping error resulted in 

direct impacts to the SDFS found to be present in road rut/puddles (RECON 2007). The “Biological 

Assessment for the MFH Project (Site 8) on MCAS Miramar” was initiated to describe effects on listed and 

proposed species that occur or have the potential to occur within the Project LOC. During preparation of the 

Biological Assessment, a rounding error was discovered in the vernal pool acreage documented in the 2004 

FEIS. Although the number of vernal pools in the proposed Project has not changed since the FEIS, the 

proposed Project increases the vernal pool impact from 0.01 (FEIS) to 0.02 acres. 

1-4

CHAPTERONE 


Prior to August 2004, FEIS Site 8A was managed as part of an operational range complex reserved for 

ground training activities. In order to implement a change in land use from an operational range complex to 

a residential neighborhood, the Proposed Munitions Response Limits illustrated in Figure 3 were defined as 

the area that would be evaluated in the site’s Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation & 

Liability Act (CERCLA) documentation. The CERCLA response will be used to facilitate regulatory 

closure of the site for the planned construction of MFH units and other land uses incompatible with 

operational range activities. In support of the CERCLA response, an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis 

(EE/CA) will be prepared by the DoN. The EE/CA evaluates the extent and impact of Munitions and 

Explosives of Concern (MEC) and presents removal action alternatives to reduce the risks and hazards 

associated with MEC. This effort includes the preparation of recommendations for implementing response 

actions inside and outside the LOC. 

1.4.2 Revisions to Unit Mix/Housing Type 

On January 4, 2005, the DoN issued a revision to the FEIS Site 8A unit mix to support MFH demand and 

improve neighborhood quality of life. The changes eliminated the two bedroom units and increased the 

number of three and four bedroom units. Three and four bedroom units were desirable because they 

supported the demand for housing, while providing typical market rate amenities such as home offices, extra 

living areas and exercise/hobby rooms. Another key change in the 2005 site plan revision was the 

replacement of apartment style buildings with two-story townhouse style units, which are more desirable for 

families. In January 2008, the DoN reduced the Project from 1,600 units to 1,400 units and revised the unit 

mix to support an increased quality of life through lower site density. This change resulted in a decrease in 

the number of three bedroom units and an increase in four bedroom units compared to the previous FEIS 

analysis. Refer to Table 1.4-2 for a comparison of proposed FEIS and SEA site plans. 

Table 1.4-2 


2004 FEIS Site Plan 2008 SEA Site Plan Change in Units 

Number of Units 1,600 1,400 -200 

2-Bedroom Units 400 0 -400 


4-Bedroom Units 304 560 +256 

1.5 SCOPE OF SEA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

The decision to prepare a SEA was based on 40 CFR 1502.9(c) guidance, which requires that supplements 

to FEISs be prepared if: 

(i) The agency makes substantial changes in the Proposed Action that are relevant to environmental 

concerns; or 

(ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and 

bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts. 

1-5

CHAPTERONE 


This SEA is a focused assessment of the changes in the specific resource areas noted above from the 

previously approved FEIS Preferred Alternative. The scope of the SEA analysis was determined through a 

three step screening process. The first step identified resources that have not changed since the FEIS. The 

second step preliminarily evaluated resources that may be affected by changes to the Preferred Alternative. 

The third step identified those resources that require evaluation in the SEA as a result of changes to the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Changes to the proposed Project would not significantly affect the following resources differently from that 

described in the June 2004 FEIS, and are therefore excluded from analysis in the SEA: Land Use, Socioeconomics, 

Air Quality, Utilities, Public Services, Traffic, Hazardous Wastes/Substances and Materials, 

Noise, and Public Safety. Resources that were preliminarily evaluated, then eliminated from detailed 

analysis in the SEA included Soils and Geology, Water Resources and Visual Resources. 

Soils and Geology: The Preferred Alternative would not result in different impacts than those stated in the 

FEIS. Although the Preferred Alternative increases the LOC by 61.7 acres, the impact and mitigation 

measures required are the same as those provided in FEIS sections 3.8 and 4.8. The increase of the Project 

footprint, distributed across the Project, only causes pro rata growth in previously proposed mitigation 

measures that are standard in the construction industry. The change in the LOC represents an incremental 

increase to the proposed FEIS mitigation measures which would remain effective; no additional evaluation 

of impacts to Soils and Geology is performed in this SEA. 

Water Resources: The Preferred Alternative would not result in different impacts than those stated in the 

FEIS. Although the Preferred Alternative increases the LOC by 61.7 acres, the impact and mitigation 

measures required are similar to those provided in FEIS sections 3.9 and 4.9. The revised site plan in the 

SEA also incorporates non-discretionary requirements from NPDES regulations (i.e. storm water retention 

basins) that were not part of the FEIS conceptual site plan. The revised Project site plan would result in 

identical or reduced impacts to the water resources described in the FEIS. Therefore, no additional 

evaluation was required for this resource. 

Visual Resources: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not increase the visual impacts from 

those described in the FEIS. The revised site plan decreases the number of housing units from the 1,600 

units proposed in the FEIS to 1,400 units and replaces larger apartment style buildings proposed in the FEIS 

with smaller townhouse style buildings with predominantly two, three, and four-plex buildings. A 

significant reduction of building sizes, from 282 larger buildings to 482 smaller buildings, would result from 

the site plan revision. This change enhances view sheds across the community and provides greater open 

space within the community. These changes do not present an additional visual impact from the Key View 

and Key Observation Points illustrated in FEIS Figure 4.5-1. Therefore, no additional evaluation was 

required for this resource. 

The scope of this SEA environmental review focuses on Biological Resources (Section 3.1), Cultural 

Resources (Section 3.2) and Schools (Section 3.3). These resources require re-evaluation in the SEA to 

document changes to the Preferred Alternative. 

1-6

CHAPTERONE 


1.6 DECISIONS NEEDED 

This SEA is intended to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare a 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

based on proposed changes to the FEIS Site 8A Preferred Alternative (DoN 2004). A FONSI would be 

prepared if all associated impacts can be mitigated to levels that are less than significant. If impacts cannot 

be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels, a SEIS would be prepared. 

1.7 REGULATORY SETTING 

This SEA has been prepared in accordance with the following statutes and guidelines: 

a. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370d [1994]), which 

requires an environmental analysis for Federal actions having the potential to impact the quality of 

the natural and human environment; 

b. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions 

of NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500-1508); 

c. DoN Regulations Implementing NEPA (32 CFR Part 775), which provides DoN policy for 

implementing the CEQ regulations and NEPA; 

d. US Marine Corps Order (MCO) P5090.2A, Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual 

Chapter 12, which establishes procedures for implementing NEPA. 

1-7

CHAPTERONE 


1-8

CHAPTERTWO 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 

CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed Project (SEA Site 8A) is a revision to the FEIS Preferred Alternative (FEIS Site 8A). The 

proposed Project would develop 1,400 MFH units at MCAS Miramar. The primary access road from SR- 

52 will be an approximately 2 mile long extension of Santo Road. The proposed Project would begin with 

munitions response action in 2009. Mass grading would start in 2010 and building construction would 

commence in 2011 with an estimated completion date of 2017. Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 describe elements 

of the Preferred Alternative that have changed since the 2004 FEIS and ROD. 

2.1.1 Revised Limits of Construction 

The revised footprint of approximately 356 acres includes the LOC for the housing development and 

access road. As illustrated in Figure 3, the proposed Project LOC includes storm water retention basins 

and fire management zones. Retention basins are provided in accordance with NPDES requirements. Fuel 

Break Zone 1 (red buffer zone) and Fuel Break Zone 2 (pink buffer zone) extend 100 feet from the 

housing perimeter to the outer edge of the LOC. According to the City of San Diego’s Guide to Fire 

Safety and Brush Management for Private Property (Revised May 2004) guidance, Fuel Break Zone 1 is 

an irrigated zone of 40 feet containing ornamental landscape species, while Fuel Break Zone 2 is a 40 foot 

wide non-irrigated buffer containing native vegetation. Beyond Zone 2 is a third zone (20 feet wide) 

which includes thinned and pruned native vegetation. 

The proposed Project access road LOC realigns the approximately 2-mile Santo Road extension identified 

in FEIS Site 8A. The access road LOC contains areas proposed for re-vegetation with native species. The 

realignment increases the access road LOC to 56 acres, which is a 22 acre increase from the FEIS Site 8A 

alignment. 

2.1.2 Revised Unit Mix/Housing Type 

As illustrated in Figure 4, the revised 1,400 unit conceptual site development plan currently proposes to 

construct up to 482 buildings comprised of a mix of one, two and three-story townhouse style duplexes, 

tri-plexes, four-plexes, five-plexes and six-plexes. The associated unit mix includes 560 three bedroom 

units and 840 four bedroom units. The final site plan, to be submitted to and filed with the Navy, is 

expected to be substantially consistent with the housing types described above. Refer to Table 1.4-2. 

2-1

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! !! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! !! ! ! ! ! ! 

Parcel Owner: 



! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Parcel 

Owner: 

State of 

California 

tu 52 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

1. The exact location of the munitions response is contingent on the results of the CERLCA process. 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! !! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! !! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! !! 

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! 

! 

!! 

! ! ! !! 


! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! 

! ! ! ! 

! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! 

! 

ACCESS 

ROAD 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

HOUSING SITE 

!( !( !( 

!( 

!( !( !( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( !( !( 

!( !( 




NAVFAC Southwest. March 2004 aerial 


500 1000 0 500 0 1000 1500 1000Feet 

2000 Feet 

SCALE: 1" = 1,000' (1:12,000) 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

LEGEND 

SEA Proposed Project Limits 

!!! 

!( !( !( !( !( 

!( !( !( !( !( 

!( !( !( !( !( 

Limits of Construction (LOC) 

Site Acreage - 300 

Access Road Acreage - 56 

CERCLA Munitions Response 1 

Native Revegetation Areas 

Site Development Plan 

Fuelbreak Zone 1 

Fuelbreak Zone 2 

Detention Basins 

Drainage Channel 


Note: Maintenance Road Acreages were 

calculated outside the Limits of Construction. 

SEA SITE 8A PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

MCAS MIRAMAR 



PM: EH PROJ. NO: 27696000.00001 

FIG. NO: 

3 

! ! ! ! ! ! !

CHAPTERTWO 


2.1.3 Project Features and Mitigation Measures 

The following project features are included as part of the proposed Project to mitigate project related 

impacts below a significant level. Mitigations described in this section are provided for resources with 

increased impacts relative to the previous FEIS analysis. 

2.1.3.1 Schools 

As illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, the proposed Project includes a 13.3 acre school site reserved for two 

elementary schools. The two elementary schools would be built by the San Diego Unified School District 

(SDUSD). Refer to Table 2.3.1 for a summary of impacts and mitigations. 

2.1.3.2 Biological Resources 

A Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation was conducted to obtain the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion regarding the effects of the Preferred Alternative on 

Federally listed threatened and endangered species. All conservation and mitigation measures provided in 

the USFWS Biological Opinion (Appendix A) will be implemented. 

Plant and Aquatic Communities 

As part of the proposed Project, impact minimization measures for potential impacts to regionally 

declining vegetation would be implemented in accordance with the mitigation planning guidance 

provided in the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) (MCAS Miramar 2006). This 

management plan was developed in cooperation with the resource agencies. Appropriate public comments 

were considered in the preparation of this plan. Table 2.3-1 lists the acreages of direct impacts to 

regionally and locally declining vegetation and habitat types by the current project, and associated 

compensation. 

Special Status Species 

• California gnatcatcher - Approximately 5.6 acres of historically California gnatcatcher (CAGN) 

occupied disturbed coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat is present within the Access Road LOC. This 

area represents a portion of one territory which, prior to the Cedar Fire, supported one pair of 

CAGN. Although the site is presently not known to be occupied, this impact represents an 

increase over the previous FEIS analysis, which did not identify any potential impact to CAGN. 

• Del Mar manzanita - Impact to 30 DMM individuals would occur within the Housing Site LOC. 

No impacts were identified in the previous FEIS analysis. 

• San Diego fairy shrimp- Impact to 2 SDFS occupied road ruts/man-made puddles would occur 

within the Access Road LOC. This impact represents an increase over the previous FEIS analysis, 

which did not identify an impact to the species. 

Refer to Table 2.3-1 for project features and mitigation measures that minimize project impacts on the 

CAGN, DMM, and SDFS. 

2-3

CHAPTERTWO 


Species of Regional Special Concern 

Implementation of the following project measures would ensure that there would be no significant direct 

impacts to any species of regional special concern or birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA): 

• Compensation for the loss of regionally rare vegetation/habitat types described for direct impacts 

to these types would also compensate for the loss of habitats for Species of Regional Special 

Concern. 

• Vegetation clearing activities would be timed to avoid the breeding season of migratory birds to 

the maximum extent practicable to avoid damage to active bird nests. If habitat clearing outside 

of the breeding season is infeasible, the Public Private Venture (PPV) contractor(s) shall hire a 

qualified biologist to conduct a nest survey and avoid the taking of any active migratory bird 

nests. For planning purposes, migratory breeding season is February 15 to August 31. 

Temporary indirect impacts to Species of Regional Special Concern and birds protected under the 

MBTA are incidental to the Project and are not expected to be significant. 

Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the United States 

A previous assessment of these resources in the 2004 EIS documents that they have low function and 

value, limited to flood flows. The ephemeral drainages support a minimal amount of wetlands, i.e., 

freshwater seeps, and these wetlands have a moderate habitat value. Impacts to wetlands and other waters 

of the United States (U.S.) would be mitigated through implementation of agency permit conditions 

developed during the CWA 404/401 process. Although associated permitting is being prepared as 

CERCLA Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), proposed impact 

minimization ratios and acreage for jurisdictional waters and wetlands are shown in Table 2.3-1. 

2-4

CHAPTERTWO 


1 

2 

Table 2.3-1 

Summary of Project Features and Impact Minimization Measures by Resource 

Resource 

Change in 

Impacts1 Project Features and Impact Minimization Measure 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Native grassland -1.8 acres Proposed Project reduces impacts below those stated in the 2004 FEIS. 

Disturbed native 

grassland 

- 1.1 acres 

Proposed Project reduces impacts below those stated in the 2004 FEIS. 

Un-vegetated Waters of 

the U.S. (1:1) 

+ 2.63 acres Provide a compensation of 3.30 acres, an increase of 2.63 acres over the previous 

analysis. Impacts to wetlands and other waters of the US would be mitigated through 

implementation of agency permit conditions developed during the CWA 404/401 process. 

Compensatory mitigation would include onsite or offsite wetland vegetation creation and 

enhancement. CWA permitting is being implemented through the CERCLA process. 

Del Mar manzanita + 30 

individuals 

A Restoration Plan for DMM and its habitat would be prepared by a biologist with 

experience and/or knowledge of DMM or chaparral restoration. The Plan would include a 

5-year maintenance and monitoring program, measurable restoration success criteria, and 

an adaptive management strategy/outline. All restoration planning would be coordinated 

with Natural Resources Specialists at MCAS Miramar. 

A biologist with a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit would collect DMM seeds and cuttings 

between March and June to be used in the restoration effort. Seeds would be collected 

from the individual DMM plants expected to be lost because of the Preferred Alternative as 

well as from other individuals in the surrounding area. Seeds will be pre-treated as 

appropriate to enhance germination success (e.g., smoke or heat exposure, prior to 

planting), planted and grown in a greenhouse and transplanted to the restoration site 

identified prior to ground disturbance activities. Transplant individuals would be planted 

generally between December and March depending on weather conditions (and further 

outlined in the Restoration Plan). 

Following seed collection, DMM burls and as much of the root systems as possible would 

be salvaged from the individuals within the Project Area and translocated to the restoration 

site. Salvage of individuals would occur during the optimal period for transplanting 

(generally mid- to late-November) when plants are dormant. The burls and root balls 

would be excavated by hand or using heavy machinery. If direct translocation is not 

possible due to the timing of construction and restoration implementation criteria (identified 

in the Restoration Plan), salvaged plants would be stored in a greenhouse/growing facility 

and planted at the restoration site during winter months (i.e., December through March 

depending on rainfall patterns). 

The monitoring biologist would ensure that fencing installed by the contractor along the 

perimeter of the road adjacent to the DMM plants located directly north of the Project Area 

(see Figure 4 of the BO) is properly placed prior to ground disturbance activities. The 

contractor would use orange silt fencing topped with snow fencing for visibility to reduce 

the potential for accidental impacts. 

To avoid unintentional impacts to DMM, silt fencing shall be installed at the edge of the 

road adjacent to the habitat supporting these individuals. This will minimize the collection 

of fugitive dust by acting as a barrier and prohibiting potential effects to the growth and 

health of individuals. 

3 (1) This table identifies new impacts resulting from changes to the project boundary, housing mix and the proposed housing site 

4 development plan. These impacts were determined by calculating the change in the Preferred Alternative since the FEIS. 

5 

2-5

CHAPTERTWO 


1 

2 

Table 2.3-1 


Resource Change in 

Impacts 1 

Project Features and Impact Minimization Measure 

3 

4 

5 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Coastal Sage Scrub + 13.9 acres The proposed Project decreases impacts on unoccupied undisturbed CSS from 16.9 acres 

(FEIS) to 12.5 acres (SEA). The Project increases impacts on unoccupied disturbed CSS 

from 9.2 acres (FEIS) to 21.9 acres (SEA). The Project impacts 5.6 acres of historically 

occupied disturbed CSS not previously documented in the FEIS. Using a 1:1 ratio for 

CAGN occupied disturbed CSS (+5.6 acres) and unoccupied undisturbed CSS (-4.4 

acres); and a 0.5:1 ratio for unoccupied disturbed CSS (+12.7 acres), the total 

compensation required for CSS is 7.6 acres. 

California 

gnatcatcher 

San Diego fairy 

shrimp 

+1 Historical 

CAGN Territory 

(2) 

+ 2 road 

ruts/man-made 

puddles 

The compensation for lost CSS vegetation described above includes compensation for 5.6 

acres that was part of one historically documented CAGN territory. In addition to habitat 

compensation, pre-construction surveys for CAGN will be conducted and if CAGN are 

found in the project vicinity, habitat clearing within 500 feet of suitable, occupied habitat 

will be completed outside of the breeding season for the CAGN (15 Feb - 31 Aug). 

Biological monitoring, project boundary marking, and construction contractor education will 

be done to prevent habitat damage beyond the project boundary. 

Direct permanent impacts to SDFS within two road rut/man-made puddles occurring within 

the Access Road Limits of Construction would be offset through a replacement ratio of 

1.5:1 for restoration of higher quality vernal pool habitat. Habitat compensation would be 

identified in advance of construction activities and occur either on MCAS Miramar, or off 

the installation through habitat preservation, creation, and/or enhancement. 

A Restoration Plan for SDFS and its habitat would be prepared by a biologist with 

experience and/or knowledge of SDFS restoration. The Plan would include a 5-year 

maintenance and monitoring program, measurable restoration success criteria, and an 

adaptive management strategy/outline. All restoration planning would be coordinated with 

Natural Resources Specialists at MCAS Miramar. 

A qualified biologist would supervise salvage of soils containing SDFS cysts during the dry 

season prior to construction activities. 

The monitoring biologist will ensure that fencing installed by the contractor adjacent to the 

A4 vernal pool avoidance area (see Figure 3 of the BO) is properly placed prior to ground 

disturbance activities. The contractor would use orange silt fencing topped with snow 

fencing for visibility to reduce the potential for accidental impacts. 

Implementation of a NAVFAC approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 

would ensure that runoff is effectively controlled to avoid impacts to vernal pools and their 

watersheds that occur outside of the Project Area footprint. 

Silt fencing shall be placed at the project boundary limits near any off-site vernal pool 

complexes to minimize effects from fugitive dust. A vernal pool avoidance area has been 

designated south of the lower section of the access road LOC. Implementation of an 

approved SWPPP will ensure that runoff is effectively controlled. 

If access roads are near off-site vernal pool complexes, silt fencing shall be erected to 

minimize effects from fugitive dust and provide a visual barrier so that unintended impacts 

from vehicle traffic will be avoided. 

(2) Impact to one historical CAGN nesting territory with greater than 40% of historically suitable habitat being lost. After build out, 

the local carrying capacity for CAGN will be potentially reduced by one territory, assuming complete recovery of sage scrub from 

fire and temporary impact areas long the access road. 

2-6

CHAPTERTWO 


1 

2 

Table 2.3-1 


Resource 

SCHOOLS 

General 

Impacts 

Resulting from 

Changes to 

the Preferred 

Alternative 1 

Project Features and Impact Minimization Measures 

Student generation estimates for the proposed MFH project will be verified within the 

project’s initial 5-year lease period. The United States Department of Education 

administers Federal Impact Aid Funds in accordance with Title VIII of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as amended through January 12, 2002). Impact 

aid is intended to compensate local school districts for burdens placed on their 

resources by federal activity. School must apply for impact aid with funds paid directly by 

the Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education 1995). The DoD would 

assist, to the extent practicable, affected schools in their pursuit of federal impact aid. 

This Federal Impact Aid is in addition to possessory interest taxes the PPV Limited 

Liability Company (LLC) would pay under the California Revenue and Tax Code. For 

purposes of student forecasting for the middle and high schools, the SDUSD will be 

notified of development approval and estimated completion at least one year prior to the 

new school year. 

Elementary Schools 282 students A 13.3 acre site will be set aside within the project LOC for two elementary schools to be 

constructed by SDUSD. This project feature will reduce impacts below a significant 

level. 

Middle Schools 67 students If enrollment at Farb and DePortola Middle School is reduced by 5 percent, consistent 

with district-wide projections for 2014 (SDUSD 2008), revisions to the project would not 

result in impacts greater than those stated in the 2004 FEIS. If district enrollment 

exceeds projections, SDUSD could use “Enrollment Options”, student transportation, 

and construction of classrooms and facilities to accommodate the 298 students 

generated by the project. 

High School 64 students If enrollment at Serra High School is reduced by 10 percent, consistent with district-wide 

projections for 2014 (SDUSD 2008), revisions to the project would not result in impacts 

greater than those stated in the 2004 FEIS. If district enrollment exceeds projections, 

SDUSD could use “Enrollment Options”, student transportation, and construction of 

classrooms and facilities to accommodate the 228 students generated by the project. 

3 

2-7

CHAPTERTWO 


1 

2 

Figure 4 

Preferred Alternative Site Plan 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER 

ANALYSIS 

The 2004 FEIS included and provided detailed analysis of the Preferred Alternative (Site 8A), Action 

Alternatives (Site 8B, Site 2, Site 3), and the No Action Alternative. Since the FEIS No Action 

Alternative and FEIS Site 8B, Site 2 and Site 3 have not changed, they are not evaluated as part of the 

SEA but are briefly described below for informational purposes. 

2.2.1 The FEIS No Action Alternative 

Under this alternative, Sites 2, 3 and 8 would continue to be used for military ground training. No MFH 

would be developed. Therefore, the Purpose and Need would not be met. 

2-8

CHAPTERTWO 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

2.2.2 FEIS Site 2 Alternative 

Under the Site 2 alternative, up to 1,000 units would be developed on 283 acres. Site development would 

include up to 192 buildings comprised of 30 two story four-plexes, 35 single-story duplexes, 39 two-story 

townhouse six-plexes, 64 apartment style six-plexes and 24 two-story apartment style eight-plexes. Site 2 

is located in East Miramar at the Station’s northern boundary, south of Pomerado Road. This alternative 

was not selected as the preferred alternative since it did not produce the number of units provided by FEIS 

Site 8A/8B and would result in unavoidable impacts on Station resources. Associated visual and traffic 

impacts could not be avoided or substantially reduced. Implementation of this alternative would have also 

impacted seven DMM located in the middle of the site. 

2.2.3 FEIS Site 3 Alternative 

Under the Site 3 alternative, up to 1,246 units would be developed on 208 acres. Site development would 

include up to 222 buildings comprised of 39 two story townhouse duplexes, 38 two story townhouse fourplexes, 

33 two-story townhouse six-plexes, 72 two-story apartment style six-plexes and 40 two story 

apartment style eight-plexes. Site 3 is located directly east of MCAS Miramar’s East Gate and would be 

accessed via an extension of Miramar Way. This alternative was not selected as the preferred alternative 

since it did not produce the number of units provided by FEIS Site 8A/8B and would result in 

unavoidable impacts on the Station’s mission and resources. This alternative would significantly reduce 

the size and shape of Training Area 4 which supports the Station training mission. Impacts to endangered 

species and vernal pool complexes at the end of Miramar Way could not be avoided if this alternative 

were implemented. Visual impacts could not be avoided or substantially reduced. 

2.2.4 FEIS Site 8B Alternative 

An alternate access to Site 8, referred to as Site 8B, would involve the construction of a new interchange 

on SR 52 and the construction of an approximately 400-foot-long (121.8 meter-long) roadway from the 

development site to the new interchange (FEIS Figure 2.4). If this alternate access were selected, 

subsequent environmental documentation for the interchange would need to be prepared in accordance 

with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and California Department of Transportation 

(CALTRANS) guidelines. 

2.3 ALTERNATIVE CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS 

This SEA addresses changes to FEIS Proposed Action (Site 8A) only. This alternative was selected as the 

Preferred Alternative in the ROD. The revised Preferred Alternative is the only alternative carried 

forward for detailed analysis in the SEA. For a detailed description of impacts associated with the SEA 

Preferred Alternative, refer to Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures. 

33 

34 

35 

2-9

CHAPTERTWO 


1 

2 

2-10

CHAPTERTHREE 

Existing Environment and Environmental 

Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

CHAPTER 3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

This section describes existing environmental conditions within the proposed Project LOC, the potential 

range of environmental consequences of the proposed Project on area resources, and possible mitigation 

measures to reduce environmental effects. This SEA discloses differences in environmental impacts 

associated with the changes and additions to the original FEIS Site 8A alternative. 

3.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

This section describes the native and naturalized plants and animals within the FEIS Preferred Alternative 

and the proposed Project (SEA Site 8A) as delineated in Figure 2. This document addresses changes to 

biological impacts that result from the revisions to the FEIS Site 8A project area. Consistent with the 

FEIS, the SEA biological resources are divided into five major categories: plant and aquatic 

communities, wildlife, special-status species, species of regional special concern, and waters of the U.S. 

• Plant and aquatic communities include existing terrestrial plant communities, including vernal 

pools. 

• Wildlife includes all animals with the exception of those identified as special-status species or 

species of regional special concern including invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, 

and birds, including those species protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA). Assessment of a project’s effects on migratory birds places an emphasis on “species of 

concern” as defined by Executive Order (EO) 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds. 

• Special-status species are defined as plant and animal species listed as threatened, endangered, or 

proposed as such by the USFWS. 

• Species of regional special concern include former candidates for Federal listing as threatened 

and endangered, species of concern to the State of California, and species that are regionally rare 

or of limited distribution. Species are determined to be regionally rare by the wildlife agencies 

and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 

• Waters of the United States are defined in the Code of Federal Regulation (33 CFR Part 328) as 

(1) all waters that are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in 

interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the 

tide; (2) all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) all other waters such as intrastate 

lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, 

prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction 

of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including such waters: (i) which are or could 

be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) from which fish 

or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) which are 

used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce; (4) all 

3-1

CHAPTERTHREE 



impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (5) 

tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section; (6) the territorial seas; 

and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in 

paragraphs (1) through (6) of this section of the Code of Federal Regulation (33 CFR 328.3[a]; 40 

CFR 230.3[s]). 

3.1.1 Affected Environment 

The affected environment identifies biological resources within the Project area that have changed since 

the FEIS as a result of revisions to the LOC or new survey information. Refer to Figure 5A for site 

vegetation, DMM, San Diego fairy shrimp, vernal pool resources and pre-Cedar Fire CAGN point 

locations. Figure 5B identifies historically occupied territory for the CAGN prior to the Cedar Fire. Figure 

6 illustrates the jurisdictional waters of U.S. affected by the Project. Refer to Table 3.1-1, FEIS and SEA 

Vegetation Impact Comparison, and Table 3.1-2, FEIS and SEA Impact Comparison of Wetlands, Other 

Waters of the U.S. 

3.1.1.1 Plant and Aquatic Communities 

The majority of the plant and aquatic communities that would be impacted by the proposed Project are 

identical to the plant and aquatic communities identified in Section 4.7 of the 2004 FEIS. The FEIS and 

SEA Project areas were burned during the 2003 Cedar Fire. This fire resulted in a change in ecological 

function that was not documented in the 2004 FEIS. Figure 5A shows the distribution of plant and aquatic 

communities within the proposed Project LOC. The revision of the project area has resulted in an increase 

of 61.7 acres to the overall size of the project. 

The proposed Project LOC contains four vernal pools in the eastern portion of the Housing Site LOC. 

These are the same four vernal pools evaluated in the previous FEIS analysis. Although the number of 

vernal pools in the proposed Project has not changed since the FEIS, the proposed Project increases 

impacts to vernal pools from 0.01 acres to 0.02 acres. This increased area resulted from a rounding error 

in the 2004 FEIS. Although these vernal pools are considered a regionally declining type of habitat, none 

were found to be occupied by any threatened or endangered species (RECON 2007). Since the proposed 

Project contains the same vernal pools evaluated in the FEIS, impacts to vernal pools are not evaluated 

further in this SEA. 

3-2

CHAPTERTHREE 



Table 3.1-1 

FEIS and SEA Vegetation Impact Comparison 

Vegetation 

FEIS LOC 

Acreages 1 

SEA LOC 

Acreages 

Net Change 

in Acreage 

Chamise Chaparral 182.6 86.7 -96.0 

Coastal Sage-Scrub Chaparral 2.9 25.4 22.4 

Developed 10.7 14.3 3.6 

Diegan coastal sage scrub 16.9 12.2 -4.7 

Disturbed Chamise Chaparral 3.6 20.4 16.8 

Disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub 9.2 27.0 17.8 

Disturbed Habitat 9.9 26.3 16.4 

Disturbed native grassland 1.1 0.0 -1.1 

Disturbed Non-Native Grassland 3.7 10.9 7.2 

Disturbed Non-Native/Native grassland 1.1 2.8 1.8 

Disturbed Sage-Scrub Chaparral 2.0 6.3 4.3 

Disturbed Southern Mixed Chaparral 0.0 2.1 2.1 

Non-native grassland 7.4 0.0 -7.4 

Non-Native/Native Grassland 0.1 0.6 0.5 

Native Grassland 1.8 0.0 -1.8 

Scrub Oak Chaparral 6.6 30.6 24.0 

Southern Mixed Chaparral 34.8 90.5 55.8 

Total 294.3 356.0 61.7 

1 

The vegetation acreages provided in FEIS Table 3.7-1 vary slightly from the FEIS LOC of 298 acres identified 

in FEIS Table 2-2 and illustrated in SEA Figure 2. 

Table 3.1-2 

FEIS and SEA Impact Comparison of 

Wetlands, Other Waters of the U.S. 1 

Site 8A Vegetation 

FEIS 

LOC 

Acreage 

SEA LOC 

Acreage 

1 Freshwater seep and vernal pool impacts are the same as identified in the 2004 FEIS. 

Net Change in Acreage 

SEA LOC Minus 

FEIS LOC 

Natural flood channel/streambed – 

OWUS 0.67 3.30 2.63 

Total Wetlands, OWUS 0.67 3.30 2.63 

3-3

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

!( 

! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(!(!(!( !( 

!(!(!(!(!( 

!( !( 

!( 

!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( 

!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( 

!(!( 

!( 

!( !(!( 

!(!(!( 

GF 

!(!( !( 

!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( 

!( 

!(!(!( 

!(!( 

GF 

!( 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

") 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! !! ! 

! ! ! 

GF 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

GF 

GF 

GF 

GF GF GF GF GF GF GF Parcel 

Owner: 

State of 

California 

GF GF 

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! !! ! ! ! ! ! 

Parcel Owner: 



! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

tu 52 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! !! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

") 

") 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! !! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! !! 

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! 

! 

!! 

! ! ! !! 


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

") 

!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! 

GF 

! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! 

GF 

! 

ACCESS 

ROAD 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

GF 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

GF 

GF 

GFGFGF GF 

GF 

HOUSING SITE 

Fire Road 

Fuel Break 

!!!! Waters of the US 

GF 

GF 

GF 


") CAGN Pre Cedar Fire Locations 

!( Del Mar Manzanita Census 

A4 Vernal Pool Avoidance Area 

GF GF 

GFGFGF 

GFGF 

GF 

GF 

GF GF GF GF 

Vernal Pools in the Action Area 

that do not contain any threatened and endangered species 

Man-made Puddles and Road Ruts in the Action Area 

that only contain San Diego Fairy Shrimp 

Man-made Puddles and Road Ruts in the Action Area 

that do not contain any threatened and endangered species 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

GF 

GF 

GFGF GF GFGFGFGF GFGFGF GF GF GFGFGFGF GFGF GFGF 

GFGFGFGF GFGF 




NAVFAC Southwest. March 2004 aerial, and 

all other data provided by MCAS Miramar. 

GF 

GF 

GFGF 

GF 

500 1000 0 500 0 1000 1500 1000Feet 

2000 Feet 

SCALE: 1" = 1,000' (1:12,000) 

Vegetation 

LEGEND 

GF 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Vernal Pools Outside the Action Area 

Coastal Sage-Scrub Chaparral 

Disturbed Sage-Scrub Chaparral 

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 

Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 

Chamise Chaparral 

Disturbed Chamise Chaparral 





Non-Native/Native Grassland 

Disturbed Non-Native Grassland 

Disturbed Non-Native/Native grassland 

Southern Mixed Chaparral 

Disturbed Southern Mixed Chaparral 

Scrub Oak Chaparral 

Disturbed Habitat 

Developed 

!!! CERCLA Munitions Response 1 

SEA SITE 8A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

MCAS MIRAMAR 


CREATED BY: MS DATE: 03-25-08 

PM: EH PROJ. NO: 27696000.00001 

FIG. NO: 

5A 


CHAPTERTHREE 



3.1.1.2 Wildlife 

Refer to FEIS Appendix B for a complete list of wildlife observed in the Project area. 

3.1.1.3 Special Status Species 


One listed plant species, the federal endangered DMM (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia), was 

observed within the Project LOC. Approximately thirty (30) individual DMM occur within the Project 

LOC. 


Refer to Figure 5A for an illustration of San Diego fairy shrimp within the Project LOC. Two road ruts 

located in the western part of the Access Road LOC were found to be occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp 

(Branchinecta sandiegonensis) during sampling conducted by a permitted biologist (RECON 2007). In 

addition, sixty-four road-ruts/man-made puddles and four vernal pools in the eastern portion of the 

Housing Site LOC were surveyed for threatened and endangered species, including the San Diego fairy 

shrimp. None of these road-ruts/man-made puddles and vernal pools were found to be occupied by any 

special status species. A vernal pool watershed occurs outside of the project area south of the project 

access road LOC. 


The first Station-wide survey conducted following the Cedar Fire, a presence/absence survey, identified 

21 pairs and one lone territorial male during the 2004 breeding season (Bitterrroot Restoration 

Incorporated [BRI] 2005). In that same year, a habitat assessment of MCAS Miramar determined that 

1,283 acres were considered suitable habitat for the coastal CAGN (BRI 2005). None of the suitable 

gnatcatcher habitat that remained following the Cedar Fire was within the FEIS LOC. 

Surveys conducted during two breeding seasons following the 2003 Cedar Fire produced no recorded 

sightings of CAGN for the months of May and June of 2005 in the project vicinity (NAVFAC SW 2006). 

Between 1997 and 2001, one breeding pair with two nesting sites were observed for the federally 

threatened coastal CAGN (Polioptila californica californica) during focused surveys conducted by the 

Air Station between 1997 and 2001 (Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, 2007). The breeding pair was 

observed in or immediately adjacent to the Access Road LOC during 2001 only. Station-wide surveys 

documented thirty-six breeding pairs of the federally threatened coastal CAGN (Polioptila californica 

californica) during focused surveys conducted by MCAS Miramar (RECON (in prep) 2007). No 

gnatcatchers were detected during this survey within the Project LOC. 

3-5

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 


! ! ! ! !! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! !! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! !! ! ! ! ! ! 

Parcel Owner: 



! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Parcel 

Owner: 

State of 

California 

tu 52 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! !! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

") 

") 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! !! 

! ! ! ! ! 


! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! !! 

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 




! 

! 

!! 

! ! ! !! 

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! 

! ! ! ! 

! 

! ! ! 


! ! ! 

! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! 

! 

ACCESS 

ROAD 

HOUSING SITE 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Fire Road 

Fuel Break 

!!!! Waters of the US 

500 1000 0 500 0 1000 1500 1000Feet 

2000 Feet 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

SOURCES: SEA project features originated 

SEA SITE 8A CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER HABITAT 

by Clark Realty and provided by NAVFAC 


MCAS MIRAMAR 

NAVFAC Southwest. March 2004 aerial, and 

all other data provided by MCAS Miramar. 


SCALE: 1" = 1,000' (1:12,000) 


") CAGN Sites 

Vegetation 

LEGEND 

Estimated limits of CAGN Territory/Home Range 

Estimated pre Cedar limits Fire of CAGN Territory/Home Range 

Project Impact on CAGN Territory/Home Range 

Coastal Sage-Scrub Chaparral 

Disturbed Sage-Scrub Chaparral 

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 

Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 

Chamise Chaparral 

Disturbed Chamise Chaparral 

Non-Native Grassland 

Disturbed Non-Native Grassland 

* Vegetation outside the LOC is shown for reference using the same colors, 

but at a much lighter shade then is depicted here. 

Non-Native/Native Grassland 

Disturbed Non-Native/Native grassland 

Disturbed native Grassland 

Southern Mixed Chaparral 

Disturbed Southern Mixed Chaparral 

Mulefat Scrub 

Disturbed Mulefat Scrub 

Scrub Oak Chaparral 

Disturbed Scrub Oak Chaparral 

Vernal Marsh 

Disturbed Vernal Marsh 

Ceanothus Chaparral 

Disturbed Ceanothus Chaparral 

Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest 

Riparian Forest (Sycamore Woodland) 

Disturbed Habitat 

Developed 

Natural Flood Channel/Streambed 


PM: EH PROJ. NO: 27696000.00001 

FIG. NO: 

5B 


CHAPTERTHREE 



3.1.1.4 Species of Regional Special Concern 

No new species of regional concern were detected in the Project LOC (CNPS 2008 and Reiser 2001). 

Refer to FEIS Section 3.7 for a discussion of species of regional concern. 

3.1.1.5 Waters of the United States 

An Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdictional determination conducted for FEIS Site 8A concluded 

that none of the vernal pools and road-ruts/man-made puddles in the project area are considered 

jurisdictional waters of the United States because they are not hydrologically connected to other Waters 

of the U.S. (ACOE 2005). However, the 12 ephemeral drainages (including upper order tributaries and 

freshwater seeps) that occur within the FEIS Site 8A footprint were determined to be jurisdictional waters 

of the U.S. Refer to FEIS Section 3.7 for a complete discussion of wetlands within the FEIS Site 8A LOC 

(DoN 2004). Changes in impacts to Jurisdictional Waters have resulted from the revision of the project 

area, and are discussed in the following section. Refer to Figure 6 for an illustration of this resource 

within the proposed Project LOC. 

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative on the biological resources within 

the proposed Project LOC. Figure 2 depicts the Project LOC in comparison to the alternative analyzed in 

the 2004 FEIS. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that all the biological resources within the 

LOC would be permanently and directly impacted. 

Since the proposed Project would remove all biological resources within the LOC, there would be no 

temporary direct or indirect impacts to on-site resources. All indirect impacts would be limited to impacts 

to biological resources immediately adjacent to the LOC footprint. Temporary indirect impacts would 

result from construction activities, while permanent indirect impacts would result from maintenance and 

operation of the proposed Project. 

Table 3.1-1 and Table 3.1-2 identify the vegetation types and habitats that have different impacts than 

those presented in the FEIS. Positive numbers identify where impacts are increasing as a result of the 

proposed Project and negative numbers identify where impacts are less than those stated in the FEIS. 

3.1.2.1 Loss of Plant and Aquatic Communities 

Figure 5A shows the distribution of plant and aquatic communities within the proposed Project LOC. 

Impacts to plant and aquatic communities within the LOC include approximately 356 acres, resulting in a 

net increase of 61.7 acres of disturbance as compared to the FEIS. As shown in Table 3.1-1 and 3.1-2, 

regionally declining community types impacted by the project include Diegan CSS (including such 

habitat in disturbed and burned condition) and naturalized stream channels. Project impacts to Diegan 

CSS total 40 acres which represents a 13.9 acre increase compared to the FEIS. The total Diegan CSS 

impact is comprised of 12.5 acres of unoccupied undisturbed habitat, 21.9 acres of unoccupied disturbed 

3-7

CHAPTERTHREE 



habitat and 5.6 acres of occupied disturbed CSS. Impact minimization measures for Diegan CSS are 

identified in Table 2.3-1. 

Impacts previously identified to native grasslands have been avoided with the revised LOC footprint. 

Impacts to the chaparral communities, non-native grasslands, disturbed habitats, and developed areas 

would not be significant, as these communities are not considered regionally rare or declining habitats. 

3.1.2.2 Loss of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the United States 

Impacts to 185.3 linear feet of natural stream channels would occur as a result of the proposed Project. 

Mitigation measures are discussed in Chapter 2 of this SEA. As illustrated in Appendix B, Clean Water 

Act Consultation, development of the Preferred Alternative would impact 29 segments of ephemeral 

drainages totaling approximately 28,481 linear feet (8,681 meters) and 3.30 acres (1.34 hectares) of 

wetlands and waters of the U.S. A recent jurisdictional assessment concluded that these 29 ephemeral 

drainages and the 0.30 acre (0.12 hectare) of freshwater seep are jurisdictional waters of the United States 

under the Clean Water Act (CWA) (ACOE 2005). The previously proposed project investigated in the 

2004 FEIS would have impacted approximately 0.30 acre (0.12 hectare) of wetlands and 0.67 acre (0.27 

hectare) of other waters of the U.S. This represents a 2.63 acres (1.06 hectares) increase in impacts to 

other waters of the U.S. Figure 6 shows the jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the proposed Project 

LOC. 

3-8

! 

3 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

GF 

! ! ! !! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Parcel Owner: 



! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Parcel 

Owner: 

State of 

California 

tu 52 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! !! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! !! 

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! 

! 

!! 

! ! ! !! 


! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! 

! 

! ! ! 

! !! 

! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

ACCESS 

ROAD 

29 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

! ! 

26 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

18 

HOUSING SITE 

24 

25 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

27 

23 

28 

GF 

7 

8 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

21 

17 

4 

22 

16 

19 

!! ! ! ! ! 

6 

20 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

5 

1 

2 

13 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

10 

14 

SOURCES: ACOE (freshwater seeps, 2005); 

SEA project features originated by Clark Realty and 

provided by NAVFAC Southwest. FEIS project 

features provided by NAVFAC Southwest. March 2004 

aerial, and all other data provided by MCAS Miramar. 

GF 

11 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

500 1000 0 500 0 1000 1500 1000Feet 

2000 Feet 

SCALE: 1" = 1,000' (1:12,000) 

9 

12 

15 

LEGEND 

Location of Freshwater Seeps 

GFApproximate 

Waters of the U.S. (with ID) 

2 Feet 

3 Feet 

4 Feet 

5 Feet 

Non-Delineated (Assumed @ 5 feet) 

Jurisdictional Determination Boundary 







SEA SITE 8A WATERS OF THE U.S. 

MCAS MIRAMAR 



PM: EH PROJ. NO: 27696000.00001 

FIG. NO: 

6 


CHAPTERTHREE 



3.1.2.3 Loss of Wildlife 

Impacts to common wildlife species are expected to be similar to those assessed in the 2004 FEIS. 

3.1.2.4 Loss of Special Status Species 

An Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation was conducted to obtain the USFWS Biological 

Opinion regarding the effects of the Preferred Alternative on Federally listed threatened and endangered 

species. All conservation and mitigation measures provided in the USFWS Biological Opinion (Appendix 

A) will be implemented. 


Impact to thirty (30) DMM individuals within the LOC would occur as a result of construction of the 

proposed Project. This represents an increase in impacts to this species from those documented in the 

2004 FEIS. Compensation measures are discussed in Section 2.1.3 Project Features. As a result of the 

mitigations that preserve the genetic resource of this plant species, impacts to the species as a result of the 

project are not considered to be significant. 

Figure 5A shows the distribution of DMM locations within the Project LOC. 


Two San Diego fairy shrimp-occupied road ruts/puddles, located within the Access Road LOC, would be 

impacted (RECON 2007). Adverse effects to San Diego fairy shrimp would occur as a result of the 

proposed Project. Figure 5A shows the distribution of San Diego fairy shrimp, occupied and unoccupied 

road ruts/man-made puddles and vernal pool locations in the vicinity of the LOC. The implementation of 

impact minimization measures during construction, as outlined in the Biological Opinion, are summarized 

in Appendix A. Mitigations included as project features are identified in Section 2.1.3 of this SEA. As a 

result of the mitigations that preserve the genetic resource of this species, impacts to the species as a 

result of the project are not considered to be significant. 


As illustrated in Figure 5A, areas of Diegan CSS in the access road LOC were determined to be occupied 

by one pair of CAGN prior to the 2003 Cedar Fire. Post-fire gnatcatcher surveys conducted in the project 

area determined that it is currently unoccupied. No direct impacts would occur to the coastal CAGN from 

development of the proposed Project while the site remains in its recently burned condition. However, the 

proposed Project would permanently preclude future occupation in areas that previously supported 

gnatcatchers prior to the Cedar Fire and a reduction in local habitat carrying capacity for this species in 

the project vicinity is likely to occur. 

Approximately 5.6 acres of disturbed Diegan CSS within the Access Road LOC is estimated to be within 

the historically occupied territory for CAGN. Burned CSS typically requires 5 to 12 years to recover from 

a major wildfire before it becomes suitable for gnatcatcher occupation (Mock in Unitt 2004). Given the 

3-10

CHAPTERTHREE 



extended dry conditions since 2003, the likely recovery interval for gnatcatcher occupation is likely to be 

much more than 5 years post-fire at this site. After build out, the local carrying capacity for gnatcatcher 

would be potentially reduced by one territory containing 5.6 acres of disturbed CSS. This territory, 

illustrated in Figure 5B, has greater than 40% of historically suitable habitat. This assumes complete 

recovery of sage scrub from fire and temporary impact areas along the access road. The compensation for 

lost CSS vegetation described above includes compensation for 5.6 acres that was part of one historically 

documented CAGN territory. In addition to habitat compensation, pre-construction surveys for CAGN 

will be conducted and if CAGN are found in the project vicinity, habitat clearing within 500 feet of 

suitable, occupied habitat will be completed outside of the breeding season for the CAGN (15 Feb - 31 

Aug). Biological monitoring, project boundary marking, and construction contractor education will be 

done to prevent habitat damage beyond the project boundary. 

3.1.2.5 Loss of Regional Species of Special Concern 

Direct impacts to species of regional concern encountered in the Project LOC would be similar to those 

assessed in the 2004 FEIS. Development of the Project could indirectly impact plant and wildlife species 

of regional special concern through construction activities such as construction noise; unauthorized 

human access; outdoor, nighttime construction lighting; and fugitive dust emissions. 

3.1.2.6 Indirect Impacts 

Biological resources adjacent to the proposed Project footprint were analyzed for potential indirect 

impacts where pertinent. These impacts have shifted in location with the alteration of the proposed Project 

LOC compared to the FEIS LOC. Changes to indirect impacts that have resulted from an alteration in the 

Project LOC are discussed in conjunction with the discussion of permanent impacts to biological 

resources. The potential direct and indirect biological impact of the fire management zones that may be 

located beyond the LOC have not been quantified at this time. Examples of potential indirect impacts 

include: 

1. Night-time lighting that could increase predation rates on sensitive animals or adversely disrupt 

typical behavior patterns of wildlife; 

2. Increased noise levels due to traffic along the access road that may disrupt the communication 

behavior of sensitive animals; 

3. Increased urban runoff that may adversely affect downstream plant communities and sensitive 

plant populations; 

4. Exotic species invasions into adjacent native communities due to increased water availability and 

other edge effects; 

5. Interference with wildlife movement in an area where impediments to wildlife movement are 

currently minimal; and 

3-11

CHAPTERTHREE 



6. Coating of surrounding vegetation with dust from construction activities could potentially 

temporarily hinder plant growth and vigor. 

Indirect impacts to vegetation, habitats and species populations for the proposed Project would generally 

be similar to that assessed in the FEIS for the proposed Project (SEA Site 8A). 

3-12

CHAPTERTHREE 



3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources are by definition prehistoric or historic objects, sites, buildings, structures, or districts 

that may have historical, archaeological, architectural, engineering, or cultural significance. Cultural 

resources are protected by numerous federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Federal laws and 

regulations, including the NHPA of 1966 (as amended) (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), identify MCAS 

Miramar’s regulatory responsibilities concerning cultural resources. Significant cultural resources are 

defined as those resources that meet one or more criteria for eligibility for nomination of the resource to 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

The NHPA of 1966 (as amended) (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) established the federal government’s policy and 

programs for recognizing and protecting historic properties and created the NRHP, the SHPO, and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies 

to consider the effects of their undertakings on any properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the 

NRHP. Section 106 also allows the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on projects that affect 

cultural resources listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Section 110 of the NHPA requires federal 

agencies to identify, evaluate, and nominate cultural resources under agency control to the NRHP. 

Section 110 also requires federal agencies to preserve and use historic buildings “to the maximum extent 

feasible,” and to have in place Section 106 compliance procedures. Consultation with other local, State, 

and federal agencies; Native Americans; and other private individuals is also required when appropriate. 

EO 11593 mandates that federal agencies strictly comply with the requirements of the NHPA and directs 

federal agencies to identify cultural resources, nominate potentially eligible cultural resources to the 

NRHP, and avoid damaging cultural resources that may be eligible for the NRHP. Similarly, EO 13287 

directs federal agencies to actively advance the protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of 

historic properties owned by the federal government. 

3-13

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! !! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! !! ! ! ! ! ! 

Parcel Owner: 



! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Parcel 

Owner: 

State of 

California 

tu 52 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

1. The exact location of the munitions response is contingent on the results of the CERLCA process. 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! !! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! !! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! 

! !! 

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! 

! 

!! 

! ! ! !! 


! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! !! 

! ! ! ! 

! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! 

! 

ACCESS 

ROAD 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

HOUSING SITE 

Surveys: 

SOURCES: SEA project features 

originated by Clark Realty and provided 

by NAVFAC Southwest. FEIS project 

features provided by NAVFAC Southwest. 

March 2004 aerial, and all other data 


500 1000 0 5000 1000 1500 1000Feet 

2000 Feet 

SCALE: 1" = 1,000' (1:12,000) 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

LEGEND 

B. Giacomini and C. Caudell, 2004, Post-Fire Archaeological 

Survey of 9635 Acres on MCAS Miramar, San Diego County, 

California. - Anteon (Received By URS 10-27-06) 

M. Becker and S. Hector, 2006, Archaeological Survey of 

MFH Site 8 and the Testing of 3 Sites, MCAS Miramar, 

San Diego County, California. - ASM (Received by URS 11-15-06) 

C. Bowden-Renna and R. Apple, 2004, Evaluation of Site CA-SDI-15,729/15,730 

Proposed Housing Area 8 and Survey of Access Route, MCAS Miramar, 

San Diego County, California. - EDAW (Received by URS 11-15-06) 

J. Eighmey, 2000, Archaeological Survey for Proposed Multi-Family 

Housing Areas 2, 3, and 8, MCAS Miramar, San Diego County, 

California. - KEA (Received By URS 11-15-06) 

NAVFAC, 2007, Archaeological Survey of 27.3 Acres, 

MCAS Miramar, San Diego County, California. - NAVFAC 

FEIS Limits of Construction 







SEA SITE 8A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AREAS 

MCAS MIRAMAR 



PM: EH PROJ. NO: 27696000.00001 

FIG. NO: 

7 

! ! ! ! ! ! !

CHAPTERTHREE 



Once cultural resources are identified, they are evaluated for eligibility for inclusion into the NRHP. 

Only cultural resources determined to be significant are protected under the NHPA. The NRHP includes 

districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, 

archaeology, engineering, and culture. The significance of a cultural resource is determined by its 

integrity and whether it meets the criteria for the NRHP. Criteria for evaluation are included in Title 36, 

Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, 

archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that 

possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and 

(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns 

of our history; or 

(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

(c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic 

values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components 

may lack individual distinction; or 

(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 

history. 

If a resource is determined to be eligible, an assessment of effect would be conducted to identify any 

impacts that would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative. 


Four cultural resource sites (CA-SDI-4634, CA-SDI-5654, CA-SDI-15729/15730, and CA-SDI-16950) 

and five prehistoric isolates (P-37-018868, P-37-018869, P-37-018870, P-37-018871, and P-37-018872) 

had been previously recorded within the 2004 FEIS LOC. Only one of these sites (CA-SDI-15729/15730) 

was evaluated in Section 4.6.1 of the 2004 FEIS. As a result, this SEA incorporates information from 

cultural resources not identified in Section 4.6.1 of the 2004 FEIS and from one previously unrecorded 

cultural resource site (CA-SDI-17456). Resources potentially impacted by the Preferred Alternative are 

summarized in Table 3.2-1. For a detailed Cultural Background refer to Section 3.6 of the 2004 FEIS for 

MFH in the San Diego Region (2004 FEIS). 

URS archaeologists conducted a review of archaeological resource data provided by MCAS Miramar and 

NAVFAC, Southwest to determine whether cultural resources are present within the adjusted LOC that 

were not addressed in the 2004 FEIS. Information reviewed included Geographic Information Systems 

(GIS) data for previously recorded sites and pedestrian survey boundaries, as well as corresponding 

technical reports (Becker 2006, Giacomini 2004, Bowden-Renna 2004, Eighmey 2000) from ASM 

Affiliates, Anteon Corporation, EDAW Inc., and KEA Environmental respectively. DoN Archaeologists 

performed subsequent archaeological pedestrian surveys of the 27.3 acres on January 4, 2007, February 1, 

2007 and March 1, 2007. These surveys were conducted to address the Project footprint not previously 

evaluated by the FEIS. Based on an inspection of previous documentation, survey data from the four 

aforementioned environmental consulting services and the DoN survey, five cultural resource sites and 

3-15

CHAPTERTHREE 



five prehistoric isolates are located within the LOC for the Preferred Alternative (Figure 7). Findings from 

the DoN survey and SHPO consultation are included in Appendix C. 

3.2.1.1 CA-SDI-4634 

CA-SDI-4634 was initially recorded in 1975 by R. Tolles as a multi-component site. The prehistoric 

component consisted of two scrapers and one ceramic shard and the historic component consisted of a 

military camp site, trash dump, and a series of rock circles and fire rings. M. Hatley updated site records 

in 1978 and noted an additional cobble concentration believed to be a deflated gun pit. Considerable 

survey efforts were devoted to the relocation of CA-SDI-4634 in 2000 by KEA Environmental, Inc. 

(KEA). KEA concluded that the features noted in the original site records were not cultural or were 

grossly mismapped by the original recorders. Additional work was not recommended within the original 

LOC identified in the 2004 FEIS; however, KEA recommended a thorough survey of the area if project 

boundaries were modified (Eighmey 2000). A survey that covered adjustments to the project LOC was 

conducted by Anteon Corporation (Anteon) in 2004 after a region-wide brushfire that burned a large 

percentage of MCAS Miramar property. Although the site is mentioned as a previously recorded site in 

the vicinity in the subsequent report, there is no indication the site was actually located during survey 

activities (Giacomini and Caudell 2004). Based on the survey information provided by KEA and Anteon, 

CA-SDI-4634 is either not cultural or was mis-mapped. 

3.2.1.2 CA-SDI-5654 

CA-SDI-5654 was initially recorded in 1978 by Price and described as a light shell scatter. Site records 

were updated in 1995 by M. Bischoff who reported the site was destroyed by road construction activities. 

3-16

CHAPTERTHREE 



Table 3.2-1. 

Summary: Cultural Resources Located within Limits of Construction for Preferred Alternative 

CA- 

SDI- 

P-37- 

Cultural 

Resource 

Description 

Recommendations 

NRHP 

Status 

4634 004634 

Lithic and 

ceramic artifacts 

and historic 

military camp 

5654 005654 Lithic scatter 

16950 Lithic scatter 

17456 026628 Lithic scatter 

018868 

018869 

018870 

018871 

018872 

Isolated quartz 

flake 

Isolated 

metavolcanic 

flake 

Isolated 

metavolcanic 

flake 

Isolated 

metavolcanic 

bifacial core 

fragment 

Isolated 

metavolcanic 

flake 

Originally recorded in 1975 and updated in 1978, the site was not 

located during two subsequent surveys (2000 and 2004). The site is 

presumed to be mis-mapped or incorrectly recorded. No further 

mitigation is necessary. 

The site was evaluated as not eligible for the NRHP (Becker and 

Hector 2006). Test results were submitted to SHPO. The SHPO 

concurred with DoN ’s conclusions (Appendix C). No mitigation is 

necessary. 


Hector 2006). Test results were submitted to SHPO. The SHPO 


necessary. 


Hector 2006. Test results were submitted to SHPO. The SHPO 


necessary. 

Recorded as an isolate. No mitigation is necessary. 





- 

Non- 

Eligible 

(NE) 

NE 

NE 

NE 

NE 

NE 

NE 

NE 

A survey by KEA in 2000 and a post-fire survey by Anteon in 2004 were also unable to locate the site 

(Eighmey 2000; Giacomini and Caudell 2004). The 2005 ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM) survey noted the 

area where the site was originally recorded was heavily disturbed. Five lithic artifacts, including four 

flakes and one modified cobble tool, were observed in undisturbed portions of the site surface. No 

artifacts were located in three shovel test pits (STPs) and one 1 m by 1 m unit excavated during the test 

3-17

CHAPTERTHREE 



and evaluation phase. DoN concluded CA-SDI-5654 was severely impacted by a military bivouac and 

little of the site remains. As a result, the site is recommended as ineligible for the NRHP (Becker and 

Hector 2006). The SHPO concurred with the DoN conclusions (Appendix C). 

3.2.1.3 CA-SDI-16950 

Prehistoric site CA-SDI-16950 was originally recorded by EDAW in 2004 and described as a large lithic 

scatter consisting of debitage, cores, core fragments, and modified flakes (Bowden-Renna and Apple 

2004). Findings discussed in the 2004 FEIS recommended site avoidance because the site was potentially 

eligible for the NRHP. The site was evaluated in 2005 by ASM. Subsurface testing consisted of twentysix 

STPs and three 1 m by 1 m units. Surface collections and excavations produced 190 artifacts 

including 184 flaked stone (two bifaces, one utilized flake, and 181 debitage), one shell fragment, three 

bone fragments, and two munitions. The survey concluded that the site is ineligible for the NRHP due to 

(1) extensive bioturbation of the soil; (2) the shallow nature of the deposit and its limited size, (3) limited 

artifact diversity, and (4) the ability of the testing program to provide adequate evidence that the site does 

not have the potential to yield important information on prehistoric research topics (Becker and Hector 

2006). The SHPO concurred with DoN ’s conclusions (Appendix C). 

3.2.1.4 CA-SDI-17456 

Prehistoric lithic scatter CA-SDI-17456 was recorded in 2005 by ASM. One core, two modified cobbles, 

and four debitage were located on the site surface. Five STPs and one 1 m by 1 m unit were excavated; 

however, no subsurface artifacts were located. As a result, CA-SDI-17456 is recommended as ineligible 

for the NRHP (Becker and Hector 2006). The SHPO concurred with DoN ’s conclusions (Appendix C). 

3.2.1.5 Prehistoric Isolates 

Prehistoric isolates P-37-018868, P-37-018869, P-37-018870, P-37-018871, and P-37-018872, are located 

within the LOC for the Preferred Alternative. The lithic isolates were located by KEA in 2000 and 

consist of four flakes and one core fragment (Eighmey 2000). 


This section evaluates the potential effects of the Preferred Alternative on cultural resources as a result of 

the adjustment to the project LOC and new survey information. Based on an inspection of previous 

documentation and survey data, five cultural resource sites and five prehistoric isolates are located within 

the LOC for the Preferred Alternative (Figure 7). Based on a review of previous documentation and 

survey data (3.2.1 Affected Environment), no known NRHP eligible or NRHP listed sites are located 

within the LOC for the Preferred Alternative. No mitigation is required for the proposed Project. 

3-18

CHAPTERTHREE 



3.3 SCHOOLS 

This section evaluates the potential effects of the Project on area schools as a result of the adjustment to 

the number of housing units and unit mix and attendant increases in student generation (Table 3.3-1). 

Specifically, the increase in the number of four bedroom units, the reduction on the number of three 

bedroom units and the elimination of two bedroom units in the plan amendment, may cause a greater 

impact to educational resources available to military families. 

The previous FEIS site plan proposed up to 1,600 new housing units and provided 400 two bedroom 

units, 896 three bedroom units and 304 four bedroom units. The revised Project site plan decreases the 

number of housing units from 1,600 to 1,400 units and changes the unit mix to 840 three bedroom units 

(60 percent) and 560 four bedroom units (40 percent). The FEIS and SEA analyses assume that enlisted 

grade E1-E3 populations occupy approximately 25 percent of housing units, while enlisted grade E4-E6 

populations occupy 75 percent of housing units. 

Table 3.3-1 


2004 FEIS Site Plan 2008 SEA Site Plan Change in Units 

Number of Units 1,600 1,400 -200 



4-Bedroom Units 304 560 +256 

The changes and additions to housing types and occupancy discussed in this SEA may result in increased 

levels of students at all grade levels. An analysis of projected student generation and associated impacts to 

regional public schools is provided below. 


MCAS Miramar is located within the SDUSD. The existing elementary schools in the surrounding 

communities of the proposed housing development include Vista Grande, Kumeyaay, and Tierrasanta. 

Middle school students from the Project would attend De Portola and Farb middle schools, while high 

school students would attend Serra High School. School impacts will be mitigated by providing 

approximately 13.3 acres of land to the San Diego Unified School District for construction for two 

elementary schools, and by the availability of Federal Impact Aid administered by the U.S. Department of 

Education (in addition to possessory, interest taxes paid by the PPV entity to the State of California), and 

by advanced notice to the school district of the development schedule. With the construction of the 

elementary schools on the land provided, existing elementary schools are not expected to experience 

impacts and will not be evaluated further in this SEA. Refer to Appendix D for 2007-2008 capacity and 

enrollment data provided by SDUSD. 

3-19

CHAPTERTHREE 



In order to estimate the impact to area schools posed by the changes to the original site plan presented in 

the FEIS, standard student generation rates are used. Table 3.3-2 identifies specific generation rates for 

three and four bedroom units for E-1 to E-3 and E-4 to E-6 rank levels. These generation rates were used 

in the 2004 FEIS analysis and are consistent with Navy and SDUSD student generation data and 

guidance. These student generation rates have been consistently used in projecting student populations in 

recent MFH projects and SDUSD enrollment projections. 

Enlisted Housing E-1 Through E-3 

Table 3.3-2 

Student Generation Rates (1) for MFH Sites 

Students Per 3 

Bedroom Unit 

Students Per 4 

Bedroom Unit 

Elementary School (K-5 th Grade) 0.55 1.07 

Middle School (6 th -8 th Grade) 0.049 0.143 

High School (9-12 th Grade) 0.038 0.143 

Enlisted Housing E-4 Through E-6 

Elementary School (K-5 th Grade) 0.868 1.525 

Middle School (6 th -8 th Grade) 0.137 0.433 

High School (9 th -12 th Grade) 0.069 0.373 

(1) Based on existing students residing in MFH housing and SDUSD projections. Source: Department of the Navy. 

In January 2008, SDUSD provided enrollment and capacity data for 2007-2008 for use in this analysis 

(Refer to Appendix D, SDUSD Provided Data). Table 3.3-3 identifies current available capacities at 

DePortola Middle School, Farb Middle School and Serra High School. Based on current available 

capacity and existing enrollment, middle schools have greater capacity to accommodate additional 

students. 

3-20

CHAPTERTHREE 



Table 3.3-3 

Existing Capacity of Area Schools (2007-2008) (1) 

School Capacity Existing Enrollment (2) Current Available 

Student Capacity 

De Portola Middle 1,025 986 39 

Farb Middle 959 772 187 

Serra High 2,124 2110 14 

(1) Source: SDUSD. Refer to Appendix D SDUSD Provided Data. 

(2) Existing enrollment includes students that are bussed or commute to Farb Middle School, DePortola Middle School 

and Serra High School from other communities as part of the enrollment options program offered by SDUSD. Enrollment 

options include the Voluntary Ethnic Enrollment Program (VEEP), Choice, Magnet and Program Improvement School 

Choice (PISC) schools. 

Based on SDUSD’s Enrollment by School Level Historical 1990-2004 and Draft Forecast 2005-2014 

(Appendix D), middle school and high school enrollments are expected to decrease by 2014. Consistent 

with these SDUSD projections, the anticipated decreases in enrollment between 2007 and 2014 would 

occur at middle schools and high schools affected by the Project. Based on these projections, a 5 percent 

decrease in enrollment is expected at Farb Middle School and DePortola Middle School and a 10 percent 

decrease in enrollment is expected at Serra High School. Refer to Table 3.3-4 for 2014 projected 

enrollment. 

Table 3.3-4 

Projected Capacity of Area Schools (2014) 

School 

Capacity 

Existing 

Enrollment (1) 

Projected 

Decrease in 

Enrollment (2) 

Projected 

Enrollment 

Projected 

Available 

Student 

Capacity 

De Portola Middle 1,025 986 5 Percent 937 88 

Farb Middle 959 772 5 Percent 734 225 

Serra High 2,124 2110 10 Percent 1,899 225 

1 Existing enrollment includes students that are bussed or commute to Farb Middle School, DePortola Middle School and Serra 

High School from other communities as part of the enrollment options program offered by SDUSD. Enrollment options include 

the Voluntary Ethnic Enrollment Program (VEEP), Choice, Magnet and Program Improvement School Choice (PISC) schools. 

2 Refer to Appendix D, Enrollment by School Level Enrollment by School Level Historical 1990-2004 and Draft Forecast 2005- 

2014 (Source: SDUSD). 

The existing 2007-2008 enrollment data provided by SDUSD includes students participating in various 

enrollment options programs (SDUSD 2008). Enrollment options programs include Voluntary Ethnic 

Enrollment Program (VEEP), Choice, Magnet and Program Improvement School Choice. Based on the 

3-21

CHAPTERTHREE 



SDUSD 2007-08 Residency Report: Resident and Incoming Students by School and Ethnicity (Appendix 

D), participation in enrollment options accounts for a significant portion of existing enrollment. 

• At Serra High School, approximately 46 percent of the school’s students are from other 

communities and 54 percent of students are local residents; 

• At Farb Middle School, 53 percent of the school’s students are from other communities 

and 47 percent of students are local residents; 

• At DePortola Middle School, 26 percent of the school’s students are from other 

communities and 74 percent of students are local residents. 


The proposed Project produces more students than the previous FEIS Site 8A Alternative because two 

bedroom units were removed from the plan, three bedroom units decreased by 56 units, while four 

bedroom units increased by 256 units. Table 3.3-5 identifies the Project’s projected student enrollment 

which includes 298 middle school students and 228 high school students. The projected student 

populations generated by the proposed Project would be phased in over the 5 year construction period. 

For each year of construction between 2012 and 2017, the proposed Project is expected to generate 59 

middle school students and 45 high school students. 

Table 3.3-5 

Projected Student Enrollment 

Projected 

Housing Units 

K-5 

Students 

Middle School 

Students 

High School 

Students 

Rank Bedrooms 

E1-E3 2 

E1-E3 3 210 116 10 8 

E1-E3 4 140 150 20 20 

E4-E6 2 

E4-E6 3 630 547 86 43 

E4-E6 4 420 641 182 157 

Total 1,400 1,453 298 228 

The projected student enrollment for the proposed Project is increasing the number of middle school 

students from 231 to 298 and increasing the number of high school students from 164 to 228. As shown 

in Table 3.3-6, this represents a 67 student increase in middle school students and a 64 student increase in 

high school students from the previous FEIS Site 8A Alternative analysis. 

3-22

CHAPTERTHREE 



Table 3.3-6 

Student Increase Above FEIS Analysis 

2004 FEIS Site 8A 

1,600 Units 

2006 SEA Site 8A 

1,400 Units 

Net Increase in 

Students 

K-5 1,172 1,453 281 

Middle 231 298 67 

High 164 228 64 

Total 1,567 1,979 412 

Since SDUSD anticipates a 10 percent decrease in high school enrollment and a 5 percent decrease in 

middle school enrollment between 2007 and 2014, the projected students generated each year of 

construction would be accommodated within anticipated capacities at local schools. Table 3.3-7 identifies 

the impact of 298 middle school students and 228 high school students on local school capacities. 

Table 3.3-7 

Project Impacts to Middle and High School Facilities 

Total 

Capacity 

Projected 

Enrollment 

(1) 

Available 

Capacity 

Projected 

SEA 

Student 

Increase 

SEA 

Deficit 

Middle School 1,984 1,671 313 +298 none 

High School 2,124 1,899 225 +228 3 

(1) Refer to Table 3.4-3 for projected available capacities based on SDUSD’s Enrollment by School Level Enrollment by 

School Level Historical 1990-2004 and Draft Forecast 2005-2014 (Appendix D). 

Because of the projected decline in enrollment in the area, the proposed Project would result in fewer 

impacts to middle schools and high schools than estimated in the FEIS. The three student deficit is not a 

significant impact, in light of SDUSD’s ability to manage the Enrollment Options program to 

accommodate additional students from within the community. Refer to Table 2.3-1. 

3-23

CHAPTERTHREE 



3-24

CHAPTERFOUR 

Cumulative Effects 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects are defined, according to CEQ regulations (40 CFR, 1508.7), as: 

“The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person 

undertakes such other actions.” Section 4.1 documents past, present, and/or future/reasonably foreseeable 

projects that have the potential to create cumulative environmental effects when combined with the 

incremental impact associated with implementation of the proposed Project. The cumulative analysis for 

the proposed Project was performed by 1) defining the regional of influence for each resource, 2) 

screening projects within the region of influence, and 3) identifying projects with related impacts within 

the project vicinity. 

For the purpose of this analysis, the geographic area where cumulative impacts have the potential to occur 

was evaluated for biological resources, cultural resources and schools. The geographic area evaluated in 

this analysis includes MCAS Miramar and extends 6-miles from the Project and includes Tierrasanta, 

East Elliot, Santee, Scripps/Miramar Ranch, Mira Mesa and Kearny Mesa. Although the geographic area 

of effect for schools is defined as the SDUSD boundary, impacts are more likely to occur within a 6-mile 

radius of the proposed Project. The past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, described in the 

following section, are illustrated in Figure 8. 

The screening process includes a review of projects within the resource region of influence, eliminates 

projects not related to the proposed Project and identifies related projects. For the purpose of this analysis, 

related projects include those projects that have the potential to contribute cumulatively to the effects of 

the proposed Project: biological resources, cultural resources and schools. Projects that do not affect the 

same resources as the proposed Project were excluded from the cumulative analysis. Sunroad Centrum, 

Human Resource Service Center Consolidation, Military Justice Center, Emergency Response Station, 

Miramar Marine Mart, MV-22 Basing, Auto Services Center, and the Combat Training Tank Complex 

were not evaluated since they do not have the potential to impact biological resources and schools 

affected by the proposed Project. . 

Section 4.1 provides a description of the related projects evaluated in this cumulative analysis and Section 

4.2 identifies the related impacts on biological and cultural resources and schools. 

4.1 RELATED PROJECTS 

4.1.1 On-Station Projects 

Except for the San Diego Community Power Project and Grow the Force Temporary Bed-down, all on- 

Station projects are located in West Miramar. 

33 

34 

4-1

LEGEND 

$1 On -Station 

1 - Bulk Fuel Storage (Kinder Morgan) 

2 - Fort Roescrans National Cemetery Annex (VA Cemetery) 

3 - US Army Reserve Center 

4 - P-125 Jet Fuel Underground Storage 

5 - P-187 Temporary Bed-down 

6 - P-189 Air Command and Control 

7 - P-190 Command Ops and Training 

8 - P-191 Tactical Air Control Equipment Facility 

9 - P-192 Maintenance Hanger 

10 - P-193 BEQ 

11 - P-194 Armoy Addition 

12 - P-790V Regional Confinement Facility 

13 - San Diego Community Power Project (ENPEX) 

14 - SDG&E Easement 45115 

15 - P-180 In-line Fueling Station 

* Projects 3 through 11 are associated with 

the Grow The Force Program 

"/ Off-Station Projects 

A - Castlerock 

B - Fanita Ranch 

C - Med-Impact 

D - Parkview 

E - Scripps Cypress Pointe 

F - SR-52 Expansion 

G - Stonebridge Estates 

H - Sycamore Landfill 

I - Treviso 

J - Scripps Wisteria 

K - Sorrento Valley Science Park 

L - Stone Creek 

M - Thurgood Marshall Middle School 

[_ 

URS Project Site 

6 mi Buffer Zone 

Carmel 

OVERVIEW MAP 

Mountain Ranch 

tu 56 


"/ L 

"/ C 

"/ 

E 

J 

"/ 

"/ 

§¨¦ 15 G 

"/ K 

"/ M 

$K 10 $K 5 

$K 11 

$K $K $K 3 

12 

$K 6 $K 7 

§¨¦ 805 $K 8 

$K 2 

9 

$K 15 

$K 5 

$K $K 

13 

$K 14 

$K 

"/ 

1 

tu 

tu 52 F 

tu 52 163 

"/ D 

§¨¦ 8 

§¨¦ 5 tu 163 4 

[_ 

"/ H 

"/ A 

"/ I 

tu 125 

§¨¦ 15 §¨¦ 8 

"/ B 

SOURCES: 

SANDAG (county 2000, freeways 2005); 

MCAS Miramar (installation boundary); 

DigitalGlobe (aerial 2007). 

5000 100 200Feet0 

0 5000 10000 Feet 

SCALE: 1" = 2 mi (1:136,320) 

PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY 

FORESEEABLE ACTIONS 

MCAS MIRAMAR 



PM: EH PROJ. NO: 27696000.00001 

FIG. NO: 

8

CHAPTERFOUR 


1 

2 

Table 4.1-1 

Related Projects in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project 

Project Name Approved or Proposed Uses Anticipated Buildout Date 

On-Station 

U.S. Army Reserve Center 

SDG&E Easement 45115 

Administration Building, Maintenance and Repair Building, 

Grounds Keeping Shed, Heating and Cooling Equipment 

Building, four equipment storage facilities, one hazardous 

2008 

materials and waste storage area, vehicle parking and fuel 

storage areas on a 15-acre site. 

A 15.45 acre easement consisting of a 150-foot wide utility 

corridor approximately 4,487 feet in length. 2008 

P-125 Jet Fuel Underground Storage 

Tanks 

Replace seven JP-5 underground storage tanks with three 

above ground storage tanks and modify the pipeline distribution 

system. The project will be located on a 6.7 acre site. 

2008 

3 

Grow the Force 

P-187 Temporary Bed-down 

P-189 Air Command and Control 

P-192 Maintenance Hangar 

P-193 BEQ 

P-194 Armory Addition 

P-190 Command Ops & Training 

P-191 Tactical Air Control Equipment 

Facility 

Bulk Fuel Storage Facility (Kinder 

Morgan) 

P-180 In Line Fueling Station 

P-790V Regional Confinement Facility 

San Diego Community Power Project 

(ENPEX Power Plant) 

Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery 

Annex (VA Cemetery) 

Temporary and permanent facilities to support GTF. P-187 

includes site improvements and infrastructure to support 

warehousing, administration, storage and maintenance 

equipment. 

The project site includes 6 to 7.5 acres for construction of two 

80,000-barrel fuel tanks, and associated equipment and 

utilities. 

The proposed 9,000 gallon per minute (GM) in-line fueling 

station will include an area for fueling MV-22 aircraft in addition 

to services for up to four active and reserve duty Marine 

Medium Helicopter Squadrons (HMM). 

Proposed 33 acre site includes a 18,998 SF Industries and 

Maintenance Building Level 1 and 2 Confinement space for 200 

male and female prisoners and detainees. 

60 acres, 750 megawatt power plant 

200,000-grave national cemetery on a 323 acre site. 

2008-2009 

2009 

2009 

2009 

Unknown 

2008 

4-3

CHAPTERFOUR 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Table 4.1-1 

Related Projects in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project 

Project Name Approved or Proposed Uses Anticipated Buildout Date 

Off-Station 

Expand the Sycamore Landfill from 71 to 157 million cubic yards (CY) of municipal 

Sycamore Landfill 

solid waste. The proposed Project will increase the average daily tonnage from 

Masterplan Update 

3,965 tons per day to a maximum of 13,000 tons per day by 2025. 

2025 

City of Santee 

General Plan 

Update 

Castlerock 

The proposed plan revises the City of Santee General Plan to support growth 

through the year 2020. 2020 

192 acres (78 hectares) 376 single family dwelling units 122 multi-family dwelling 

units 

Unknown 

Fanita Ranch 2,550 acres (1,032 hectares) 1,380 homes 200 acres for recreation Unknowm 

Stonebridge Estates 

2,658 acres 

828 single family homes 

106 multi-family units 

25.8 acres schools/parks 

4.8 acres (institution) 

2007 

Treviso 186-unit Condominium development on an 8.56 acre site. Unknown 

Scripps Wisteria 3.92 acres 114 residential units 35,258 SF of commercial space Unknown 

Thurgood Marshall 36.5 acres new 3-story Thurgood Marshall Middle School in Scripps Ranch to 

2007 

Middle School replace old Thurgood Marshall Middle school, along with 162,000 SF of facilities 

Scripps Cypress 40 acres 80 single family homes 

Pointe 

Unknown 

Med-Impact 

Stone Creek 

Parkview 

SR-52 Widening 

Sorrento Valley 

Science Park 

150,000 SF light industrial and retail use project Currently in the final stages of 

design 

293 total acres 171 developed acres 6,240 multi-family residential units 149,000 SF Unknown, Phase I studies 

of commercial space, 100,000 SF of office space and 550,000 SF of industrial currently being prepared for 

space. The project is expected to generate 15,000 new residents. 

the project 

288 condo or apartment style units 

Unknown 

The project will widen State Route 52 from its junction with Interstate 805 to the 

junction with State Route 125. 

At the time of the preparation of the SEA, no additional information was available for 

this project. 

4.1.1.1 U.S. Army Reserve Center 

Unknown 

Unknown 

The U.S. Army Reserve 63 rd Regional Readiness Command proposes to construct a new Army Reserve 

Center on MCAS Miramar to replace two San Diego area leased properties and provide for future 

increases in personnel requirements. The complex would include an Administration Building, 

Maintenance and Repair Building, Grounds Keeping Shed, Heating and Cooling Equipment Building, 

four equipment storage facilities, one hazardous materials and waste storage area, vehicle parking and 

fuel storage areas on a 15 acre site. 

4-4

CHAPTERFOUR 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

4.1.1.2 SDG&E Easement 

The project would grant a new San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) easement to replace the existing 

easement between MCAS and SDG&E (Marine Corps Easement 45115). The existing and proposed 

easement is a 15.45 acre area consisting of a 150-foot wide utility corridor approximately 4,487 feet in 

length. 

4.1.1.3 Jet Fuel Storage Tanks 

MCAS Miramar proposes to replace seven jet petroleum fuel (JP-5) underground storage tanks (USTs) 

with three aboveground tanks with greater storage capacity and to modify the distribution pipeline system 

so it is entirely south of Rose Canyon. The project would include removal of USTs, the abandonment and 

removal of other existing facilities, construction of new facilities, and installation of temporary facilities. 

The purpose of the project is to replace the aging JP-5 UST and underground piping system with 

aboveground facilities, not only to provide additional storage capacity, but to also replace the distribution 

pipeline system so that Rose Canyon is not traversed. 

4.1.1.4 Grow the Force 

Temporary and permanent facilities are proposed to support the addition of 500 Marines at MCAS 

Miramar. The temporary bed-down (P-187) would begin in 2008 and includes site improvements and 

infrastructure to support warehousing, administration, storage and maintenance equipment. Permanent 

bed-down, to be completed in 2009, would include six facilities: P-189 Air Command and Control, P-192 

Maintenance Hangar, P-193 BEQ, P-194 Armory Addition, P-190 Command Ops & Training and P-191 

Tactical Air Control Equipment Facility. 

4.1.1.5 Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 

In October 2007, the Department of the Navy issued Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (KMEP) a 20-year 

easement for construction of a fuel tank breakout storage facility. The easement consists of a 9.7 acre 

parcel previously leased to the City of San Diego for operation of the Miramar Landfill. The project 

includes pipeline connections from the new storage area to pipelines at Miramar and Naval Base Point 

Loma, access roads, utility alignments, a new electrical substation, a temporary construction corridor, 

parking and a temporary construction laydown area. An Environmental Assessment was completed in 

June 2007, resulting in a FONSI. 

4.1.1.6 In-Line Fueling Station 

The proposed 9,000 gallon per minute (GM) in-line fueling station (P-180) would include an area for 

fueling MV-22 aircraft in addition to services for up to four active and reserve duty Marine Medium 

Helicopter Squadrons (HMM). The project would be located just north of runway 24R/06L, adjacent to 

existing crash crew pads along Sidewinder Road. 

4-5

CHAPTERFOUR 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

4.1.1.7 Regional Confinement Facility 

A Military Construction project has been requested for FY 2009 for construction and alteration of 

Regional Confinement facilities in response to a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 directive 

to consolidate four corrections facilities into a joint Southwest Regional Confinement Facility at MCAS 

Miramar. An EA is required for the project and is currently underway. Proposed construction includes an 

18,998 SF Industries and Maintenance Building, and Level 1 and 2 Confinement space for 200 male and 

female prisoners and detainees. The project would be sited adjacent to the existing brig, Building 7684, 

located along Miramar Way. Permanent impacts to coastal CAGN would result from the loss of 

approximately 0.4 acre (0.16 ha) of occupied plant communities. 

4.1.1.8 San Diego Community Power Project (ENPEX Power Plant) 

ENPEX Corporation has proposed plans to construct a 750 megawatt power plant on 60 acres of MCAS 

Miramar property. The Siting and Feasibility Study (April 2006) for the proposed project identified two 

potential sites for the power plant, one of which is at the southeast edge of the East Miramar boundary 

adjacent to Padre Dam, and the other adjacent to the existing SDG&E Substation located in northeast 

Miramar. The DoN has not made a determination to go forward with the proposal, and has not initiated a 

joint NEPA/Application for Certification (AFC) analysis. Development of either proposed site would 

appear to impact sensitive resources, or other resources that would be considered cumulative with 

development of Site 8A housing. 

4.1.1.9 VA Cemetery 

As part of an Annex to the Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery, development and operation of a national 

cemetery at MCAS Miramar has been approved. The cemetery annex will provide 160,000 in-ground 

grave sites and 40,000 cremation niches for Veterans. The site location is on the northwest edge of the 

Main Station boundary. The Final EIS was published in September 2007, and the ROD was signed in 

April 2008. The cemetery is expected to open in 2009. Impacts to 0.01 acre of vernal pool habitat and 27 

man-made depressions (0.299 acre) containing San Diego fairy shrimp and 12.97 acres of gnatcatcher 

occupied CSS are included in the project boundaries. Mitigation measures are addressed in the USFWS 

Biological Opinion. 

4.1.2 Off-Station Projects 

4.1.2.1 Sycamore Landfill Master Plan 

The Sycamore Canyon Landfill Master Plan proposes to expand the capacity of the Sycamore Landfill 

from 71 to 157 million cubic yards (CY) of municipal solid waste. The proposed project would increase 

the average daily tonnage from 3,965 tons per day to a maximum of 13,000 tons per day by 2025. The 

project is located in the East Elliot Community Planning Area within the City of San Diego. The City of 

Santee is located 100 feet from the proposed project. Impacts associated with continued growth of the 

landfill include impacts to the CAGN, potential habitat disturbance west of the Spring Canyon/Little 

Sycamore Canyon ridgeline, habitat disturbance within vegetated streambed channels, and potential 

impacts to sensitive plants. 

4-6

CHAPTERFOUR 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

4.1.2.2 City of Santee General Plan Update 

The City of Santee General Plan is being revised to support growth through the year 2020. A Master Plan 

EIR was prepared for the project in 2003. Implementation of the plan would result in significant impacts 

to public facilities, biological resources and cultural resources. According to the EIR, these significant 

impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. 

4.1.2.3 Castlerock 

Castlerock, located approximately 2 miles east of the Project in East Miramar, is the closest off-base 

development to the proposed Project. The proposed housing development is located in the East Elliot area 

of San Diego and is being developed by Pardee Homes. Castlerock proposes to construct 376 single 

family dwelling units and 122 multi-family dwelling units on 192 acres (78 hectares). Approval by the 

City of San Diego is anticipated to occur by 2008 with project completion expected by 2011. While 

Castlerock is located in the East Elliot area, children living in the development would attend school in the 

Santee School District. Construction is expected to begin in late 2008. The initial Screencheck EIR has 

been submitted to the City of San Diego for review. 

4.1.2.4 Stonebridge Estates 

Stonebridge Estates, located in Scripps Miramar Ranch, is a master planned community containing 828 

single family and 106 multi-family units, 25.8 acres of schools and parks and 4.8 acres dedicated to an 

institution. 

4.1.2.5 Fanita Ranch 

The Fanita Ranch Specific Plan area, located in the City of Santee approximately 3-1/2 miles from the 

Project in East Miramar, was purchased in July 2003 by Barratt American Inc. The site encompasses 

2,550 acres (1,032-hectare); the proposed development would include 1,380 homes, 1,400 acres of natural 

and open space areas and 200 acres of recreation. The 1,380 dwelling units would be single family homes 

on lots ranging in size from 6,000 SF to half an acre. The development would also include recreational, 

cultural, educational and retail facilities. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2007, with the first phase 

of homes to be completed by the end of 2008. Children living in this development would attend school in 

the Santee School District. 

4.1.2.6 Treviso 

The proposed Treviso development would construct a 186-unit condominium development at 7908 

Mission Gorge Road. The project would be constructed on an 8.56 acre site containing an abandoned 

Kmart store. The California Environmental Quality Act Negative Declaration issued for the project by the 

Santee City Council on November 19, 2003 found that the project would not result in any significant 

impacts. 

4-7

CHAPTERFOUR 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

4.1.2.7 Scripps Wisteria 

The Scripps Wisteria development is located within the Scripps Miramar Ranch Community Planning 

area approximately 4 miles north of Site 8A. The Project was proposed by Western Pacific Housing (D.R. 

Horton). As approved the site is 3.92 acres and would consist of 114 residential units and 35,258 SF of 

commercial space. The Project was approved in June 2006 and an appeal against the Project was denied 

in October 2006. 

4.1.2.8 Thurgood Marshall Middle School 

This project replaced the existing Thurgood Marshall Middle School with a new school located in Scripps 

Ranch. The new school, located approximately 3 miles from the Project in East Miramar, occupies 36.5 

acres and accommodates 1,600 students. The new school includes three 3-story classroom buildings and a 

162,000 SF of facilities. The school opened on September 1, 2007. 

4.1.2.9 Scripps Cypress Pointe 

Scripps Cypress Pointe is located in the Scripps Miramar Ranch Area, approximately 3 miles from the 

Project in East Miramar. This project proposes to construct 80 single family homes on 40 acres. 

Currently, the entire parcel is zoned Open Space. Cypress Pointe has requested an amendment to the 

Scripps Miramar Ranch Community Plan to re-designate a portion of the site to Low Density Residential. 

4.1.2.10 Med-Impact 

The Med-Impact project is located in Miramar Ranch North, approximately 4-1/2 miles from the Project 

in East Miramar. The project originally proposed to construct seven buildings, covering 658,456 SF, on a 

30 acre lot. The project was previously approved for light industrial, but the developer is now asking for 

an amendment to allow light industrial and retail uses. This project is in the final stages of design. Med- 

Impact has amended the project, downsizing the project to 150,000 square feet (SF). 

4.1.2.11 Stone Creek 

The Stone Creek development is part of the Mira Mesa community and is located approximately 5 miles 

from the Project in East Miramar. Although the project site contains 293 acres, only 171 acres are 

proposed for development. The proposed project would construct 6,240 multi-family residential units, 

149,000 SF of retail/commercial space, 100,000 SF of office space and 550,000 SF of industrial/business 

park space. Approximately 63 acres would be designated as parkland, which would contain public trails 

and public “piazzas.” Since the project is expected to generate 15,000 new residents, necessary public 

facilities would be provided on-site. Phase I studies are currently being prepared for the project. 

4.1.2.12 Parkview 

The Parkview project is in Kearny Mesa, approximately 4-1/2 miles from the Project in East Miramar. 

The current development proposes to construct 288 units as condominium or apartment style units on 

Aero Court. At the time of the preparation of the SEA, no additional information was available for this 

project. 

4-8

CHAPTERFOUR 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

4.1.2.13 SR-52 Widening 

The project would widen SR 52 from its junction with Interstate 805 to the junction with SR 125. The 

project would be constructed in two segments. It is anticipated that environmental clearance work would 

be completed and approved by late 2008. If the work encroaches onto adjacent properties, particularly 

regional park areas, the environmental clearance would take a number of years longer. 

4.1.2.14 Sorrento Valley Science Park 

The Sorrento Valley Science Park is located in the community of Mira Mesa, approximately 6 miles from 

the Project in East Miramar. At the time of the preparation of the SEA, no additional information was 

available for this project. 

4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF RELATED PROJECTS 

The impacts associated with implementing the proposed Project are limited and localized in nature. Since 

the proposed site plan reduces the number of units from 1,600 proposed in the FEIS to 1,400 units, any 

additional impacts associated with the increase in the LOC would be very small in magnitude. With 

impact minimization measures identified in Table 2.3-1, the magnitude of the net change or impact 

between the FEIS Preferred Alternative (Site 8A) and the proposed Project is too small to meaningfully 

alter the incremental impacts of the various related projects or the incremental impacts of ongoing 

operations at the MCAS Miramar or surrounding communities. Thus, as demonstrated below, the 

proposed Project would not contribute meaningfully to cumulative biological, cultural, and school 

impacts. 

4.2.1 Biological Resources 

Cumulative impacts would occur if projected increases in impacts to sensitive biological resources could 

not be addressed by on-site or off-site mitigations. Projects proposed at MCAS Miramar that have similar 

impacts to biological resources as the proposed Project include the U.S. Army Reserve Center (P-111), Jet 

Fuel Tanks (P-125), the Kinder Morgan Bulk Fuel Facility, the Regional Confinement Facility (P-790V), 

and Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery: 

• The Army Reserve Center project would potentially impact chaparral. 

• Biological resource impacts associated with the SDG&E Easement are being addressed and 

mitigated in accordance with the SDG&E Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), which 

is consistent with the Station INRMP. 

• The Jet Fuel Tanks Project would result in impacts Permanent direct impact to 5.22 acres of 

occupied CAGN habitat will be compensated with 6.99 acres and 4.66 acres of of recently 

occupied plant communities will include enhancement of 6.26 acres. The USFWS determined 

that the level of anticipated take (7 pairs) is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or 

supporting habitat. Compensation consistent with the INRMP will be implemented. 

4-9

CHAPTERFOUR 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

• The Kinder Morgan Bulk Fuel Storage Facility would result in impacts to 10.06 acres of local 

vegetation. Permanent impacts include 5.22 acres of disturbed habitat, 1.5 acres of disturbed CSS, 

and 0.75 acre of mixed CSS chaparral. With mitigation measures, the project will not likely 

adversely impact the CAGN. Compensation consistent with the INRMP will be implemented. 

• The Regional Confinement Facility would directly impact the coastal CAGN by the loss of 

approximately 0.4 acre (0.16ha) of occupied plant communities (CSS). Occupied coastal sage 

habitat will be replaced to compensate for the loss. 

• Approximately 12.97 acres of disturbed CAGN habitat will be impacted by the VA Cemetery 

project (Site 2 Alternative). This alternative would also impact two vernal pools (.01 acre) and 27 

man-made depressions (0.299 acres) occupied by the San Diego fair shrimp and 4 vernal pools 

with no listed species (.013 acre). The Site 4 Alternative would impact 12.57 of regionally rare 

communities, 14.88 acres of disturbed habitat occupied by the CAGN, 25 vernal pools (0.26 acre) 

and 25 man-made depressions (.32 acre) with San Diego fairy shrimp and/or San Diego mesa 

mint and 33 vernal pools (.153 acres) with no species. 

Proposed projects located off-Station that have similar biological impacts as the proposed Project are 

identified in Table 4.1-2 Summary of Cumulative Impacts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project. Of the 

projects listed, site specific impact data was available for the Sycamore Landfill Master Plan, and 

Stonebridge Estates. 

• The Sycamore Landfill expansion would impact the CAGN and 4.72 acres of native grassland. 

Although this loss will be mitigated by conveyance of 6.71 acres of MHPA parcels, a “net loss” 

of habitat would result. 

• Full build out of Stonebridge Estates impacted 200 acres of CSS and one CAGN. Impacts to 

biological species were mitigated to less than significant levels. 

• No impacts would result from the Treviso project. 

• No information is currently available for the Stone Creek project since Phase I studies are 

currently being prepared. 

• According to the Fanita Ranch FEIR and Santee General Plan Update, implementation would 

result in significant impacts to biological resources. For both projects, impacts would be 

mitigated below a significant level. 

Mitigations for impacts associated with off-Station project impacts are being compensated using NCCP 

guidance. Since the proposed mitigations in Table 2.3-1 reduce the impacts on biological resources below 

the level of significance, the impact of the Project would not contribute considerably to impacts on 

biological resources. 

4-10

CHAPTERFOUR 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

4.2.2 Cultural Resources 

Projects containing resources potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places include the 

Integrated Maintenance Facility, ENPEX Power Plant, VA Cemetery, Castlerock, Scripps Wisteria, 

Scripps Cypress Point, Med-Impact and Sorrento Valley Science Park. No impacts would result from the 

Treviso project. No information is currently available for the Stone Creek project since Phase I studies are 

currently being prepared. According to the Fanita Ranch FEIR and Santee General Plan Update, 

implementation would result in significant impacts to cultural resources, but these impacts would be 

mitigated below a significant level. 

Since the proposed Project would not result in impacts to cultural resources, the Project would not 

contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on cultural resources in the vicinity. 

4.2.3 Schools 

As stated in the FEIS, the proposed Project does not represent a substantial increase in new population in 

the region, as the majority of military families that would be assigned to the proposed development 

currently reside in the local community. Significant cumulative impacts would occur if projected 

increases in the number of students at local schools could not be accommodated by the SDUSD even with 

on-site or off-site mitigations. No cumulative impacts to elementary schools would occur since the 

proposed development includes a 13.3 acre site for the development of two elementary schools by 

SDUSD. School impacts are also mitigated by the availability of Federal Impact Aid administered by the 

U.S. Department of Education (in addition to possessory interest taxes paid by the PPV entity to the State 

of California); and by advanced notice to the school district of the development schedule. 

No cumulative impacts to middle and high schools will result because 1) all planned off base 

developments are included in the SDUSD’s 2014 student enrollment projections and 2) according to the 

District’s enrollment projections, 5 and 10 percent decreases are expected in middle and high school 

enrollment by 2014. If these projected decreases occur, no significant impacts to these schools would 

occur as a result of the proposed Project. If enrollment does not decrease consistent with SDUSD 

projections, the Enrollment Options Program participation could be managed, and student transportation 

processes could be managed, and construction of classrooms and facilities could be undertaken to 

accommodate the Project’s 298 middle school and 228 high school students without significant impacts. 

If the enrollment options program or student transportation program are adjusted to accommodate 

students generated by the proposed Project, this would directly impact enrollment options participation at 

Farb Middle School, De Portola Middle School and Serra High School. Since half of local students attend 

schools outside of Tierrasanta as part of the enrollment options program, other middle and high schools in 

the District would be indirectly affected by the Project. 

35 

36 

4-11

CHAPTERFOUR 


1 

2 

Table 4.1-2 

Summary of Cumulative Impacts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project 

Project Name Biological Cultural Schools 

3 

4 

5 

6 

On-Base 

U.S. Army Reserve Center 

SDG&E Easement 45115 

P-125 Jet Fuel Underground 

Storage Tanks 

Grow the Force 

P-187 Temporary Bed-down 

P-189 Air Command and Control 

P-192 Maintenance Hangar 

P-193 BEQ 

P-194 Armory Addition 

P-190 Command Ops & Training 

P-191 Tactical Air Control 

Equipment Facility 

Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 

(Kinder Morgan) 

P-790V Regional Confinement 

Facility 

San Diego Community Power 

Project (ENPEX) 

Potential impacts to chaparral. Compensation 

consistent with the INRMP will be implemented. 

Biological impacts are being addressed and 

mitigated in accordance with the SDG&E NCCP 

Plan, which is also consistent with the INRMP. 

Implementation of mitigations would reduce impacts 

below a significant level. 

Permanent direct impact to 5.22 acres of occupied 

California gnatcatcher habitat will be compensated 

with 6.99 acres and 4.66 acres of of recently 

occupied plant communities will include 

enhancement of 6.26 acres. The USFWS 

determined that the level of anticipated take (7 pairs) 

is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or 

supporting habitat. Compensation consistent with the 

INRMP will be implemented. 

Associated impacts include all or portions of recently 

occupied breeding territory/home range for one pair 

of CAGN and 8 ruts, puddles, impoundments found 

to have SDFS. Compensation consistent with the 

INRMP will be implemented. 

A total of 10.06 acres of local vegetation will be 

impacted. Permanent impacts include 5.22 acres of 

disturbed habitat, 1.5 acres of disturbed CSS, and 

0.75 acre of mixed CSS chaparral. With mitigation 

measures, the project will not likely adversely impact 

the California gnatcatcher. Compensation consistent 

with the INRMP will be implemented. 

The EA is currently underway. Potential impacts 

include .4 acre (0.16 ha) loss of occupied plant 

communities, and permanent impacts to California 

gnatcatcher. Impacts to CSS will be compensated at 

a ratio of 2:1 (for occupied CSS) and 1:1 

(unoccupied CSS chaparral); Unoccupied CSS will 

be compensated for at a 0.5:1 ratio or 8.9 acres. 

DON has not initiated a joint NEPA/AFC analysis. 

Development would impact sensitive resources. 

Note: Resource specific impacts are identified where information was available. 

Site 13 of the 2004 Post-Fire 

Archaeological Survey is within 

the project boundary. No 

significant impacts would result 

since this site is not NHRP 

eligible. 

No impact to cultural resources 

would result. 

No existing or surveyed cultural 

resource sites would be 

affected by the Project. A letter 

was received from SHPO dated 

10 July 2006 that concurred 

with the above findings. 

All buildings and archaeological 

sites have been evaluated and 

none are eligible for the NRHP. 

No impacts to cultural 

resources would occur as a 

result of any of the proposed 

alternatives. 

No impacts would occur. 

Resources possibly eligible for 

the NRHP. 

No 

Impact. 

No 

Impact. 

No 

Impact. 

No 

Impact. 

No 

Impact. 

No 

Impact. 

No 

Impact. 

4-12

CHAPTERFOUR 


1 

2 

3 

Table 4.1-2 


On-Station 


Fort Rosecrans National 

Cemetery Annex (VA 

Cemetery) 


Sycamore Landfill 

Masterplan 

City of Santee General 

Plan Update 

Castlerock 

Fanita Ranch 

Stonebridge Estates 

Treviso 

12.97 acres occupied by California gnatcatcher, two vernal pools 

(0.010 acre) and 27 man-made depressions (0.299 acre) with San 

Diego fairy shrimp. Impacts to four vernal pools (0.013 acre) with 

no federally listed species. Development of site 2 would impact 

five ephemeral drainages (3,333 feet and 0.230 acre). Impacts to 

California gnatcatcher will be compensated at a ratio of 2:1 for 

undisturbed native habitats; 1:1 for disturbed and suitable native 

habitats; and 0.5:1 for disturbed habitats. Regionally rare occupied 

plant communities will be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 (undisturbed 

habitat) and 0.5:1 (disturbed habitat). Vernal pools will be 

compensated at a ratio of 3:1 (SDFS occupied) and 1:1 

(unoccupied). Man-made depressions occupied by the SDFS will 

be compensated at a ratio of 1.5:1 

Potential impacts to nesting gnatcatchers; Habitat disturbance 

within vegetated stream channels; 56 acres native habitat. 

Impacts to sensitive resources would be mitigated below significant 

levels. 

Potential environmental consequences on area resources. 

Impacts to resources would be mitigated below significant levels. 

No significant 

impacts would 

occur. 

No Impact. 

Impacts to 

resources would be 

mitigated below 

significant levels. 

Resources possibly 

eligible for the 

NRHP. 

Cultural facilities to 

be included in the 

development area. 

200 acres of CSS; Take of 1 CAGN. Information was 

not available at the 

time of the 

submittal. 

A CEQA Negative Declaration was issued for the project. No 

impact would result. 

A CEQA Negative 

Declaration was 

issued for the 

project. No impact 

would result. 

No Impact. 

No Impact. 

Impacts to 

resources would 

be mitigated 

below significant 

levels. 

Potential 

impacts to 

schools in 

Santee. 

Potential 

impacts to 

schools in 

Santee. 

Impacts to 

schools were 

mitigated 

through 

dedication of a 

25.8 acre 

school/park site. 

Minimal impact 

on Santee 

schools. 

4-13

CHAPTERFOUR 


1 

2 

Table 4.1-2 




Scripps Wisteria 

Thurgood Marshall 

Middle School 



Resources 

possibly 

eligible for 

the NRHP. 

Information 

was not 

available at 

the time of 

the submittal. 

Potential impacts 

to schools in 

Scripps Miramar 

Ranch. 

The new school 

accommodates 

1,600 middle 

school students. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Scripps Cypress Pointe 

Med-Impact 

Stone Creek 

Parkview 

Sorrento Valley Science 

Park 



Unknown. Phase I studies currently being prepared for the 

project. 



Resources 

possibly 

eligible for 

the NRHP. 

Resources 

possibly 

eligible for 

the NRHP. 

Unknown. 

Phase I 

studies 

currently 

being 

prepared for 

the project. 

Information 

was not 

available at 

the time of 

the submittal. 

Resources 

possibly 

eligible for 

the NRHP. 


to schools in 

Scripps Miramar 

Ranch. 

No Impact. 

Unknown. Phase 

I studies currently 

being prepared 

for the project . 


to schools in 

Kearny Mesa. 

No Impact. 

Note: Resource specific impacts are identified where information was available. Mitigations for impacts associated with off-Station project 

impacts are being compensated using NCCP guidance. 

4-14

CHAPTERFIVE 

Other NEPA Considerations 

CHAPTER 5 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS 

5.1 POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 

THE OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE 

PLANS, POLICIES AND CONTROLS 

Implementation of the proposed Project is consistent with Federal, State and local land use plans, policies 

and controls. The Federal acts, policies and initiatives that apply to the proposed Project include the 

following: The Endangered Species Act, MBTA and EO 13186 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds, the NHPA of 1966, and the Clean Air Act. Other local acts, policies and 

initiatives that apply to the proposed Project include CALTRANS Mobility 2030, SDUSD student 

generation rates and facility planning criteria, MCAS Miramar Master Plan, and the MCAS Miramar 

INRMP. 

Refer to SEA sections 3.1 Biological Resources, 3.2 Cultural Resources, and 3.3 Schools for detailed 

analysis of these resources. 

5.2 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF 

ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALL 

MITIGATION MEASURES BEING CONSIDERED 

Energy use associated with the proposed Project would be consistent with or less than those impacts 

described in FEIS Section 6.3. The proposed site plan eliminates 400 2-bedroom units, decreases the 

number of three bedroom units from 896 to 820, and increases the number of four bedroom units from 

304 to 580. Projected energy use is not expected to increase since the number of proposed units is 

decreasing from 1,600 units proposed in the FEIS to 1,400 units. 

5.3 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF 

RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IF THE PROPOSED 

ACTION IS IMPLEMENTED 

Since implementation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in the size of the family housing 

development in East Miramar, implementation would result in impacts to the local environment that 

would result in irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. The proposed Project would, 

irreversibly, dedicate an additional 61.7 acres to the FEIS Site 8A development. No new cultural 

resources are known to exist within the new footprint, although this area contains biological resources not 

documented in the previous FEIS analysis. 

Since the new footprint occurs along the perimeter of the LOC, the new footprint contains the project’s 

Fuel Break Management Zones. Fuel Break Zone 1 is an irrigated zone of 40 feet containing ornamental 

landscape species, while Fuel Break Zone 2 is a 40 foot wide non-irrigated buffer containing native 

vegetation. Beyond Zone 2 is a third zone (20 feet wide) which includes thinned and pruned native 

vegetation. 

5-1

CHAPTERFIVE 

Other NEPA Considerations 

Since fuel break management zones 2 and 3 will be re-vegetated with native species following 

construction, a large portion of the new biological resource footprint would only be temporarily 

committed to the project. 

Refer to FEIS Section 6.3 for a description of irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources 

associated with the project. 

5.4 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- 

TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Since implementation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in the size of the family housing 

development in East Miramar, implementation would result in impacts to the local environment that 

affect the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity. The proposed Project would, 

irreversibly, dedicate an additional 61.7 acres to the FEIS Site 8A development. This additional footprint 

would not be available for other productive uses. As mentioned in Section 5.3, a portion of the new 

footprint along the outer boundaries of the project would be re-vegetated following construction. Since 

the proposed Project is increasing the size of an approved land use, the net change in the size of the 

housing development would not result in impacts that decrease environmental productivity, limit the 

potential future use of the environment or result in long-term risks to health, safety or the general welfare 

of the public. 

Refer to FEIS Section 6.2 for a description of impacts on short-term uses for the Site 8A alternative. 

5.5 MEANS TO MITIGATE AND/OR MONITOR ADVERSE 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

This SEA has determined that the proposed Project has the potential to result in environmental impacts to 

Biological Resources, Cultural Resources and Schools. However, inclusion of project features and impact 

minimization measures described in Table 2.3-1 would reduce these impacts to a less than significant 

level. 

5.6 PROBABLE AND UNAVOIDABLY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL 

EFFECTS SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED 

Since this SEA has determined that the proposed Project would not result in any significant 

environmental impacts, no probable and unavoidably adverse environmental effects are associated with 

implementation of the proposed Project. 

5-2

CHAPTERSIX 

Persons and Agencies Contacted 

CHAPTER 6 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED 


Mr. Jack Harkins, Station S-4, Public Works Department 

David Boyer, Director, Natural Resources Division, Environmental Management Department (EMD) 

Barbara Bell, GIS Analyst, EMD 

Myrna Algaza, Environmental Planner, EMD 

Frank Guasti, Facilities Planner, Marine Corps Community Services Facilities 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest 

Hiphil Clemente, Senior Environmental Planner, Central Integrated Product Team 

Adrianne Saboya, Senior Environmental Planner, Central Integrated Product Team 

Susan Hulbert, Associate Counsel 

Jerry Dunaway, PPV Housing 

Coralie Cobb, Senior Natural Resources Specialist, Environmental Core Team 

Albert Owen Ph.D., Natural Resources Specialist, Desert Integrated Product Team 

Danielle Page, Senior Archaeologist, Environmental Core Team 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Mr. Wayne Donaldson, State Historic Preservation Officer 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Kathleen Brubaker, Division Chief, San Diego USFWS 

United States Army Corps of Engineers 

Mark Durham, Chief South Coast Section 

San Diego Unified School District 

Lee Dulgeroff, Interim Director Project Management Department 

Sandy Robles, Office of School Choice 

Merrilee Willoughby, Demographer 

Michael Lytton, Facilities Planner 

6-1

CHAPTERSIX 

Persons and Agencies Contacted 

Clark Realty 

Morgan Rogers, Development Executive, Clark Realty Capital, LLC 

6-2

CHAPTERSEVEN 

References 

CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES 

Allen S. Hoper and Richard Wright. 1994 Vegetation and Land Cover Types, Naval Air Station Miramar. 

Prepared for Department of the Navy, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command. 

Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), 2005. Jurisdictional Determination Letter dated December 20, 2005. 

ACOE Los Angeles District, San Diego Field Office, San Diego, California. 

Becker, Mark S., and Susan M. Hector, 2006. Archeological Survey of MFH Site 8 and the Testing of 3 

Sites, MCAS Miramar, San Diego County, California. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc. 

Bowden-Renna Cheryl, and Rebecca McCorkle Apple, 2004. Evaluation of Site CA-SDI-15,729/15,730 

Proposed Housing Area 8 and Survey of Access Route, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San 

Diego County, California. Prepared by EDAW, Inc. 

Davis, Emma L., C.W. Brott, and D.L. Weide, 1969. The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego 

Museum of Man Papers No. 6. 

Department of the Navy (DoN). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Military Family 

Housing in the San Diego Region. Prepared by EDAW Inc. 

Department of the Navy (DoN). 2004. Record of Decision (ROD), Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for Military Family Housing in the San Diego Region. 

Eighmey, James D., 2000. Archaeological Survey for Proposed Multi-Family Housing Areas 2, 3, and 8, 

MCAS Miramar, San Diego County, California. Prepared by KEA Environmental, Inc. 

Giacomini, Barb, and Chase Caudell, 2004. Post-Fire Archaeological Survey of 9635 Acres on Marine 

Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego, California. Prepared by Anteon Corporation. 

MCAS Miramar INRMP 2006. Final Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan for Marine Corps 

Air Station Miramar, California 

Mock, P.J. 2004. California gnatcatcher. Pages 430-433 in P. Unitt. San Diego County Bird Atlas . 

Ibis Publishing. 

Moriarty, James Robert III., 1966. Cultural Phase Divisions Suggested by Typological Change 

Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating at San Diego. 

Anthropological Journal of Canada 4(4):20-30. 

7-1

CHAPTERSEVEN 

References 

Oberbauer, T., 1996. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities in San Diego County Based on Holland’s 

Descriptions, San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, California. 6 pp. 

O’Leary, J.F., D. Stow and L Coulter. 2002. Vegetation and Land Cover Mapping on Marine Corps Air 

Station Miramar, San Diego, California. Final Report. Prepared for MCAS Miramar and 

Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command by Center for Earth Systems 

Analysis Research, Department of Geography, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. 

O’Leary, J.F., Allen S. Hoper and Richard Wright. 1994 Vegetation and Land Cover Types, Naval Air 

Station Miramar. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command. 

Purer, E.A. 1939. Ecological study of vernal pools, San Diego County. Ecology 20:217-229. 

RECON, 2007. Final Biological Assessment for the Military Family Housing Project (Site 8A) on MCAS 

Miramar. 

Rogers, Malcolm J., 1966. Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San 

Diego. 

True, D.L., 1958. An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23:255-263. 

True, D.L., and Eleanor Beemer, 1982. Two Millingstone Inventories from Northern San Diego County, 

California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4:233-261. 

Warren, Claude N., 1967. The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 

32(2):168-185. 

Warren, Claude N., 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California 

Coast. In: Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin-Williams, 

pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1(3). Portales. 

Warren, Claude N., 1987. San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In: San Dieguito – La Jolla: 

Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis R. Gallegos. San Diego County Archaeological 

Research Paper No. 1, pp. 73-85. 

Warren, Claude N., Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittner, 1993. Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods. 

In: Historic Properties Background Study for the City of San Diego Clean Water Program. Brian 

F. Mooney Associates, San Diego. Submitted to Clean Water Program for Greater San Diego. 

Zedler, P.H. 1987. The ecology of southern California vernal pools: A community profile. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Biol. Rep. 85(7.11). 136 pp. 

7-2

CHAPTEREIGHT 

List of Preparers 

CHAPTER 8 LIST OF PREPARERS 

This SEA was prepared for MCAS Miramar under the direction of NAVFAC, Southwest by URS 

Corporation. Members of the professional staff are listed below: 

Elizabeth Nedeff, Project Manager 

Grace Weevie, Senior Environmental Planner 

Pat Mock Ph.D., Senior Biologist 

Dev Vrat, Senior Urban and Environmental Planner 

Dana Spaccarotella, Planner 

Cheryl Delekto, Biologist 

Kristen Walker J.D., Archaeologist 

Amy Gramlich, Visual Resource Analyst 

Seth Hopkins, Environmental Planner 

George Door, Senior Traffic Engineer 

8-1

8-2

APPENDIXA 

USFWS Biological Opinion

W.N. Thornton FWS-SDG-08B0111-08F0102 41 

under the Act, provided that such taking is in compliance with this incidental take 

statement. 

Section 9 of the Act does not address the incidental take of listed plant species. However, 

protection of listed plants is provided in that the Act requires a Federal permit for the 

removal or reduction to possession of endangered or threatened plants from Federal 

lands. Furthermore, it is unlawful for any person to remove, cut, dig up, or damage or 

destroy an endangered plant species in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any 

state or in the course of any violation of a state criminal trespass law [section 9(a)(2)(B) 

of the Act]. 

The measures described below are nondiscretionary and must be undertaken by the 

Department of the Navy, and/or the contractor in order for the exemption in section 

7(o)(2) to apply. The Department of the Navy has a continuing duty, subject to their 

jurisdictional authority, to regulate the activity situated within the Action Area and 

covered by this incidental take statement. Within the Action Area, if the Department of 

the Navy (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions; or, (2) fails to 

require the contractor to adhere to the terms and conditions through enforceable terms 

that are added to the contract, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. If the 

contractor fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions of the incidental take 

statement, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. To monitor the impacts 

of incidental take, the Department of the Navy must report the progress of the action and 

its impact on the species to our agency as specified in the incidental take statement [50 

CFR § 402.14(i)(3)]. 

6.1 Amount or Extent of Take 

The Service anticipates up to one pair of gnatcatchers could be harmed as a result of the 

permanent removal of 5.6 acres of historically occupied gnatcatcher habitat. The Service 

anticipates that it will be difficult to quantify the exact number of SD fairy shrimp that 

could be affected by the proposed action for the following reason: 

1. The exact population size is difficult to estimate due to the dynamic conditions 

associated with their habitat. The reproductive success of SD fairy shrimp is 

dependent on seasonal fluctuations in their habitat, such as presence or absence of 

water during specific times of the year, duration of inundation, and other 

environmental factors that likely include specific salinity, conductivity, dissolved 

solids, and pH levels (See Section 2.2.5). Therefore, the population of SD fairy in 

any given pool varies dramatically. 

Nevertheless, we anticipate that all SD fairy shrimp and/or cysts within the two road 

ruts/puddles in the proposed access road path (i.e., two road ruts or 0.01 acre of occupied 

SD fairy shrimp habitat) will be taken in the form of direct mortality (i.e., harm) by 

grading and filling the puddles they occupy. Should project construction directly impact 

more than one pair of gnatcatchers or the two identified road ruts/puddles (0.01 acre of

APPENDIXB 

Clean Water Act Consultation

APPENDIXC 

Archaeological Surveys and Consultation

APPENDIXD 

SDUSD Provided Data

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Office of the Deputy Superintendent 

Instructional Facilities Planning Department 

1/24/2008 

Existing Capacity of Area Schools 

School Total Capacity Fall 07-08 Enrollment Available Capacity 

Kumeyaay 519 473 46 

Vista Grande 548 468 80 

Tierrasanta 485 512 -27 

De Portola Middle 1025 986 39 

Farb Middle 959 772 187 

Serra High 2124 2110 14 

C:\DOCUME~1\ELIZAB~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\notesE1EF34\~0639178

Enrollment by School Level 

Historical 1990-2004 and DRAFT Preliminary Forecast 2005-2014 

DRAFT for 

Discussion 

80,000 

70,000 

60,000 

1999-00: 71,922 

2007-08: 59,135 

50,000 

40,000 

2006-07: 35,552 

30,000 

2002-03: 31,712 

20,000 

2010-11: 26,389 

10,000 

0 

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014 

Fcst. K-5 Hist. K-5 Fcst. 6-8 Hist. 6-8 Fcst. 9-12 Hist. 9-12 

Note: Does not include approximately 7,000 students identified in special day class and continuation programs. 

SDUSD, Instructional Facilities Planning Dept.

September 28, 2007 Enrollment Report 

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

SERRA 

SP.ED/ TOTAL INFANT/ GRAND LAST 

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 K-12 OTHER K-12 PRE-F TOTAL YEAR CHANGE 

0357A SERRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 603 550 451 416 2020 90 2110 0 2110 2156 -46 

0327A DE PORTOLA 0 0 0 0 0 0 314 320 309 0 0 0 0 943 43 986 0 986 1012 -26 

0367A FARB 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 247 249 0 0 0 0 746 26 772 0 772 792 -20 

0136A HANCOCK 128 138 138 121 121 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 757 30 787 0 787 833 -46 

0166A KUMEYAAY 75 81 79 67 75 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 437 17 454 19 473 469 4 

0206A MILLER 144 138 129 116 115 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 761 24 785 11 796 816 -20 

0274A TIERRASANTA 85 75 72 97 75 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 481 31 512 0 512 490 22 

0284A VISTA GRANDE 64 76 77 83 71 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 449 19 468 0 468 516 -48 

Sub-Total 

496 508 495 484 457 445 564 567 558 603 550 451 416 6594 280 6874 30 6904 7084 -180 

UNIVERSITY CITY 

0355A UNIVERSITY CITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 521 461 406 430 1818 72 1890 0 1890 1915 -25 

0325A STANDLEY 0 0 0 0 0 0 412 431 436 0 0 0 0 1279 49 1328 0 1328 1372 -44 

0077A CURIE 94 98 98 99 95 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 582 12 594 0 594 593 1 

0087A DOYLE 132 158 155 121 120 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 805 0 805 807 -2 

0263A SPRECKELS 115 119 115 125 135 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 739 0 739 0 739 748 -9 

Sub-Total 

341 375 368 345 350 347 412 431 436 521 461 406 430 5223 133 5356 0 5356 5435 -79 

ATYPICAL/OTHER 

0331A A.L.B.A. 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 13 17 16 5 3 1 60 11 71 0 71 99 -28 

0439A DEL SOL 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 50 53 0 53 67 -14 

0361A GARFIELD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 318 0 318 353 -35 

0396A GARFIELD ORACLE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 93 0 93 101 -8 

0382A HOME HOSP INSTRUCTIO 6 4 3 2 7 0 7 3 7 7 7 3 1 57 10 67 2 69 82 -13 

0386A INT LIFE SKL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 11 11 0 

0791A LCI INSTR 4 3 8 3 4 11 9 13 19 43 19 28 14 178 96 274 0 274 220 54 

0500A MET SCHOOL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 191 0 191 139 52 

0395A MT EVEREST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 248 248 0 248 240 8 

0438A NEW DAWN HS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 0 48 56 -8 

0364A RILEY 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 76 79 0 79 72 7 

0479A TRACE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 346 347 200 547 0 547 448 99 

0793A TRACE/SRS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 28 30 0 30 40 -10 

0362A TWAIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 383 383 0 383 446 -63 

0297A WHITTIER 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 6 15 21 5 26 29 -3 

0369A MUIR 29 19 21 15 24 26 28 27 30 41 27 25 13 325 0 325 0 325 272 53 

0368A SCPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 241 230 236 205 210 174 1465 28 1493 0 1493 1430 63 

0310A CPMA 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 213 188 0 0 0 0 600 0 600 0 600 603 -3 

0170A LANGUAGE ACADEMY 115 120 105 95 96 84 84 67 57 0 0 0 0 823 0 823 0 823 828 -5 

0181A LONGFELLOW 121 112 102 98 68 67 42 53 20 0 0 0 0 683 1 684 0 684 664 20 

Sub-Total 

275 258 240 215 199 193 542 630 568 343 267 270 552 4552 1807 6359 7 6366 6200 166 

Friday, October 26, 2007 Page 6 of 7

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT -- Office of the Deputy Superintendent -- Instructional Facilities Planning Dept. 

2007-08 Residency Report: Resident and Incoming Students by School and Ethnicity 

School Name 

Residency 

Status 

African 

American Asian Filipino Hispanic 

Indo- 

Chinese 

Native 

American 

Pacific 

Islander White Total % 

Resident 16 6 4 102 2 3 4 145 282 35.8% 

Total 61 9 8 515 9 5 4 177 788 

321 PERSHING Incoming 59 6 4 255 13 2 8 77 424 43.9% 

Resident 47 19 9 96 11 9 9 342 542 56.1% 

Total 106 25 13 351 24 11 17 419 966 

322 CLARK Incoming 20 0 1 70 13 1 0 3 108 8.2% 

Resident 116 5 5 928 122 2 2 24 1204 91.8% 

Total 136 5 6 998 135 3 2 27 1312 

323 CORTEZ HILL Incoming 33 1 1 127 0 3 1 45 211 100.0% 

Total 33 1 1 127 0 3 1 45 211 

324 ROOSEVELT Incoming 35 3 4 98 1 2 0 28 171 17.6% 

Resident 121 17 17 516 8 2 8 113 802 82.4% 

Total 156 20 21 614 9 4 8 141 973 

325 STANDLEY Incoming 64 39 43 331 33 3 9 242 764 57.6% 

Resident 20 104 10 87 7 3 2 330 563 42.4% 

Total 84 143 53 418 40 6 11 572 1327 

326 TAFT Incoming 54 6 6 205 28 2 2 48 351 47.8% 

Resident 97 18 20 83 22 7 2 134 383 52.2% 

Total 151 24 26 288 50 9 4 182 734 

327 DE PORTOLA Incoming 38 3 4 156 15 1 1 34 252 25.6% 

Resident 71 55 27 119 18 5 11 428 734 74.4% 

Total 109 58 31 275 33 6 12 462 986 

328 WANGENHEIM Incoming 25 9 10 66 20 0 1 25 156 11.9% 

Resident 127 70 305 196 158 9 24 263 1152 88.1% 

Total 152 79 315 262 178 9 25 288 1308 

329 WILSON Incoming 7 0 0 53 12 0 0 1 73 9.4% 

Resident 91 7 3 516 60 0 8 22 707 90.6% 

Total 98 7 3 569 72 0 8 23 780 

331 A.L.B.A. Incoming 15 0 1 36 3 2 1 5 63 100.0% 

Total 15 0 1 36 3 2 1 5 63 

332 CLAIREMONT Incoming 44 9 7 615 33 7 4 189 908 59.3% 

Resident 13 10 11 168 8 6 5 403 624 40.7% 

Total 57 19 18 783 41 13 9 592 1532 

336 HENRY Incoming 116 21 6 478 91 2 10 117 841 34.4% 

Resident 80 59 34 270 39 22 13 1089 1606 65.6% 

Total 196 80 40 748 130 24 23 1206 2447 

338 HOOVER Incoming 45 1 1 104 37 0 0 8 196 9.1% 

Resident 275 12 8 1395 208 3 8 58 1967 90.9% 

Total 320 13 9 1499 245 3 8 66 2163 

2/6/2008 Page 12 of 16



School Name 

Residency 

Status 

African 


Indo- 

Chinese 

Native 

American 

Pacific 


339 HIGH TECH Incoming 55 24 43 134 5 4 5 244 514 100.0% 

HIGH 

Total 55 24 43 134 5 4 5 244 514 

342 LA JOLLA Incoming 31 54 11 287 16 7 1 209 616 36.9% 

Resident 9 100 12 110 6 2 9 805 1053 63.1% 

Total 40 154 23 397 22 9 10 1014 1669 

346 MADISON Incoming 116 10 12 342 27 4 9 68 588 46.9% 

Resident 48 19 22 234 33 7 8 295 666 53.1% 

Total 164 29 34 576 60 11 17 363 1254 

348 PREUSS Incoming 87 37 19 452 111 0 1 41 748 100.0% 

Total 87 37 19 452 111 0 1 41 748 

349 MIRA MESA Incoming 40 2 14 113 9 0 1 16 195 7.5% 

Resident 209 134 789 340 356 8 29 528 2393 92.5% 

Total 249 136 803 453 365 8 30 544 2588 

350 MISSION BAY Incoming 168 20 23 946 97 8 5 131 1398 81.1% 

Resident 27 2 5 130 0 2 3 156 325 18.9% 

Total 195 22 28 1076 97 10 8 287 1723 

352 MORSE Incoming 51 1 45 110 7 0 7 7 228 8.4% 

Resident 431 13 1005 812 53 8 57 110 2489 91.6% 

Total 482 14 1050 922 60 8 64 117 2717 

353 HIGH TECH MID Incoming 42 17 18 91 4 2 3 143 320 100.0% 

MED ARTS Total 42 17 18 91 4 2 3 143 320 

354 POINT LOMA Incoming 62 9 3 642 10 3 1 69 799 39.3% 

Resident 68 28 19 309 3 15 9 781 1232 60.7% 

Total 130 37 22 951 13 18 10 850 2031 

355 UNIVERSITY Incoming 132 37 166 485 38 3 9 255 1125 59.3% 

CITY 

Resident 33 103 15 135 14 4 6 461 771 40.7% 

Total 165 140 181 620 52 7 15 716 1896 

357 SERRA Incoming 105 18 25 652 74 4 2 88 968 45.8% 

Resident 189 65 59 175 40 13 20 586 1147 54.2% 

Total 294 83 84 827 114 17 22 674 2115 

359 SCRIPPS Incoming 88 24 19 233 55 1 1 52 473 20.6% 

RANCH Resident 76 199 166 168 141 8 7 1063 1828 79.4% 

Total 164 223 185 401 196 9 8 1115 2301 

361 GARFIELD Incoming 47 1 1 251 8 0 1 13 322 100.0% 

Total 47 1 1 251 8 0 1 13 322 

362 TWAIN Incoming 53 3 19 221 10 3 2 50 361 100.0% 

Total 53 3 19 221 10 3 2 50 361 

3637 LINCOLN Incoming 132 1 3 94 4 1 3 5 243 10.3% 

Resident 798 4 22 1144 68 2 33 47 2118 89.7% 

Total 930 5 25 1238 72 3 36 52 2361 

2/6/2008 Page 13 of 16



School Name 

Residency 

Status 

African 


Indo- 

Chinese 

Native 

American 

Pacific 


364 RILEY Incoming 33 0 1 26 1 1 0 16 78 100.0% 

Total 33 0 1 26 1 1 0 16 78 

365 KEILLER LEAD. Incoming 155 1 33 306 4 1 5 19 524 100.0% 

ACAD. Total 155 1 33 306 4 1 5 19 524 

366 CHARTER SD Incoming 305 32 63 732 39 18 14 599 1802 100.0% 

Total 305 32 63 732 39 18 14 599 1802 

367 FARB Incoming 48 10 5 284 45 0 1 17 410 53.1% 

Resident 87 10 27 65 0 4 12 157 362 46.9% 

Total 135 20 32 349 45 4 13 174 772 

368 SCPA Incoming 321 27 223 470 42 8 7 399 1497 100.0% 

Total 321 27 223 470 42 8 7 399 1497 

369 MUIR Incoming 45 6 10 150 5 3 7 102 328 100.0% 

Total 45 6 10 150 5 3 7 102 328 

3702 CRAWFORD Incoming 11 2 1 16 12 0 0 0 42 10.7% 

IDEA 

Resident 60 11 5 182 71 1 2 18 350 89.3% 

Total 71 13 6 198 83 1 2 18 392 


MULTIMEDIA Resident 62 7 1 165 84 2 2 14 337 86.2% 

Total 77 8 2 188 95 2 2 17 391 


CHAMPS Resident 111 4 3 156 48 1 3 9 335 85.0% 

Total 140 4 3 178 53 1 3 12 394 


LAW & BUS. Resident 67 5 0 166 28 1 0 10 277 82.0% 

Total 101 5 0 184 36 1 0 11 338 

3713 MANN Incoming 2 0 0 12 7 0 0 2 23 6.3% 

EXPEDITION Resident 54 7 2 195 66 0 0 17 341 93.7% 

Total 56 7 2 207 73 0 0 19 364 

3717 MANN Incoming 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 9 2.4% 

EXPLORATION Resident 102 4 1 198 60 0 2 6 373 97.6% 

Total 108 4 1 199 61 0 2 7 382 

3718 MANN Incoming 2 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 14 3.9% 

EXPRESSION Resident 94 7 1 185 43 0 2 16 348 96.1% 

Total 96 7 1 195 45 0 2 16 362 

3733 KEARNY MEDIA Incoming 22 1 1 46 10 2 4 17 103 22.7% 

& DESIGN Resident 54 10 17 112 56 5 2 95 351 77.3% 

Total 76 11 18 158 66 7 6 112 454 

3734 KEARNY SCI. Incoming 42 1 0 73 5 1 1 13 136 30.0% 

2/6/2008 Page 14 of 16

Draft - Marine Corps Air Station Miramar

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?