Att._3_-_Final_Environmental_Assessment.pdf

FINAL

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR THE F-35 WEST COAST BASING

AT MCAS MIRAMAR

Marine Corps Air Station Miramar

November 2017

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR THE F-35 WEST COAST BASING

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION MIRAMAR

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Lead Agency: United States Marine Corps Title of Proposed Action: F-35 West Coast Basing at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar Affected Region: San Diego County Designation: Environmental Assessment

ABSTRACT

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) has prepared this Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S. Code §§4321- 4370h, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508) and Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, Change 3, Chapter 12, dated 26 August 2013, Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, Chapter 12, which establishes procedures for implementing NEPA. This SEA documents and analyzes the environmental consequences of identified necessary revisions at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar to the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and selected in the 2010 Record of Decision (ROD) prepared for United States Marine Corps F-35B West Coast Basing. The 2010 EIS evaluated the Department of the Navy’s proposal to base the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter at USMC bases on the West Coast. The revisions to the 2010 ROD Selected Alternative are the Proposed Action analyzed in this SEA. The Proposed Action would construct or modify airfield facilities and supporting infrastructure to accommodate six F-35 squadrons at MCAS Miramar to replace F/A-18 legacy aircraft. Construction of new facilities would require the demolition and relocation of some existing buildings and facilities. The No Action Alternative analyzed in this SEA would consist of implementation of the 2010 ROD Selected Alternative.

Point of Contact: Mr. Ben Lawrence, NEPA Planner, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Central Integrated Product Team 937 North Harbor Drive, Building 1, 3rd Floor San Diego, CA 92132 Phone: (619) 532-4438 Email: benjamin.t.lawrence@navy.mil

November 2017 mailto:benjamin.t.lawrence@navy.mil

F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar i Final SEA

Table of Contents Abstract Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... ES-1 1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................ 1-1

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

1.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 1-1

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

1.4 Applicable Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................... 1-5

1.5 Scope of Analysis and Decision to be Made ......................................................................... 1-5

2 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Project 1: Extension to the Existing KC-130 Aircraft Flightline Parking Apron (MILCON Project P-203) ........................................................................................ 2-4

2.1.2 Project 2: Construction of an F-35 Centralized Engine Repair Facility (CERF;

MILCON Project P-254) .......................................................................................... 2-4

2.1.3 Project 3: Relocation of Ready Service Magazine Facility 9605 (included in MILCON Project P-203) .......................................................................................... 2-5

2.1.4 Project 4: Construction of Three Hangars (MILCON Projects P-198, P-201 and P-202) ....................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.1.5 Project 5: Construction of the F-35 Simulator Facility and Associated Improvements (MILCON Project P-210) ................................................................ 2-6

2.1.6 Project 6: Construction of a New Communications Facility and Associated Infrastructure Upgrade (MILCON Project P-249) ................................................... 2-6

2.1.7 Project 7: Renovation of Existing Buildings 8200, 8122, 8121 and 8478 (MILCON Project P-253) ........................................................................................ 2-7

2.1.8 Project 8: Renovation of Storage Facilities for Supply and Aviation Armaments (MILCON Project P-255) ........................................................................................ 2-7

2.1.9 Project 9: Replacement of Airfield Perimeter Fence (MILCON Project P-238) ..... 2-7

2.1.10 Project 10: Construction of Two Vertical Landing Pads

(MILCON Project P-222) ........................................................................................ 2-8

2.1.11 Construction Schedule ............................................................................................. 2-8

2.1.12 Vernal Pool Mitigation Area .................................................................................... 2-9

2.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................... 2-9

2.3 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ............................................................................... 2-9

2.3.1 Alternative Basing Locations for the F-35 ............................................................... 2-9

2.3.2 Alternative Siting Locations at MCAS Miramar ..................................................... 2-9

2.4 Resource Areas Eliminated from Detailed Consideration .................................................. 2-12

2.5 Anticipated Permits and Approvals .................................................................................... 2-12

2.6 Environmental Protection Measures ................................................................................... 2-13

2.6.1 General Measures ................................................................................................... 2-13

2.6.2 Specific Conservation Measures ............................................................................ 2-15

2.7 Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................................... 2-20 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 3-1

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

3.1.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-18

Table of Contents ii F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar Final SEA

3.2 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 3-28

3.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 3-29

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-30

3.3 Topography, Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 3-33

3.3.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 3-33

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-34

3.4 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 3-37

3.4.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 3-37

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-40

3.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste .......................................................................................... 3-44

3.5.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 3-44

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-46

3.6 Safety and Environmental Health ....................................................................................... 3-52

3.6.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 3-52

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-52

3.7 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 3-55

3.7.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 3-55

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-60

3.8 Utilities and Infrastructure .................................................................................................. 3.63

3.8.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 3.63

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-66

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

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

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

4.3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.1 Geographic Scope of the Cumulative Effects .......................................................... 4-6

4.3.2 Time Frame of the Cumulative Effects Analysis ..................................................... 4-6

4.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................................. 4-6

4.4.1 Biological Resources ................................................................................................ 4-7

4.4.2 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 4-8

4.4.3 Topography, Geology, and Soils .............................................................................. 4-9

4.4.4 Water Resources .................................................................................................... 4-10

4.4.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste ............................................................................. 4-10

4.4.6 Safety and Environmental Health .......................................................................... 4-11

4.4.7 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................ 4-11

4.4.8 Infrastructure and Utilities ..................................................................................... 4-13

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

5.1 Possible Conflicts between the Proposed Action and the Objectives of Federal Acts, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans ................................................................................... 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 Commitment of Natural or Depletable Resources .................... 5-1

5.4 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use of the Human Environment and

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Biological Productivity ............................... 5-2

5.5 Any Probable Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided and are Not

Amenable to Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 5-3 6 List of Preparers .............................................................................................................................. 6-1 7 Persons and Agencies Contacted ..................................................................................................... 7-1 8 References ....................................................................................................................................... 8-1

F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar iii Final SEA

Appendices

(contained in CD on back cover)

A Applicable Federal Regulations, Instructions, and Public Law B Cooperating Agency Invitation Letter C Biological Opinion D-1 Clean Air Act Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) D-2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases CalEEMod Output

List of Tables

No. Title Page

ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences ............................................................. ES-3 2.1-1 Anticipated Completion Dates of Proposed Action Alternative Projects ................................. 2-8 2.1-2 Direct, Permanent Impacts to Vegetation Types Not Occupied by Federally Listed

Species and Proposed Compensation ...................................................................................... 2-16 3.1-1 General Vegetation Types/Land Cover Within the Proposed

Action Alternatvie Footprint...................................................................................................... 3-9 3.1-2 Vernal Pools and Other Seasonally Ponded Features Within The Proposed

Action Alternative Footprint.................................................................................................... 3-11 3.1-3 Proposed Action Alternative Direct, Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Vegetation

Types ....................................................................................................................................... 3-21 3.7-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................................... 3-56 3.7-2 Federal and State Air Quality Designation for the San Diego Air Basin ................................ 3-57 3.7-3 Emission Rates for Criteria Pollutants in Nonattainment Areas .............................................. 3-59 3.7-4 2012 Regional Emmissions for the San Diego Air Basin ........................................................ 3-60 3.7-5 Annual Construction Emissions .............................................................................................. 3-61 4-1 Cumulative Actions ................................................................................................................... 4-2

List of Figures

No. Title Page

1-1 Regional Location Map ............................................................................................................. 1-2 1-2 MCAS Miramar Flightline Zone ............................................................................................... 1-4 2-1 Proposed Action Alternative Footprint ...................................................................................... 2-3 2-2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................. 2-11 3.1-1 Proposed Action Area (Aerial Photograph) ............................................................................... 3-3 3.1-2 General Vegetation Types/Land Cover ..................................................................................... 3-4 3.1-2a General Vegetation Types/Land Cover ..................................................................................... 3-5 3.1-2b General Vegetation Types/Land Cover ..................................................................................... 3-6 3.1-2c General Vegetation Types/Land Cover ..................................................................................... 3-7 3.1-2d General Vegetation Types/Land Cover ..................................................................................... 3-8 3.1-3 Vernal Pools and Other Seasonally Ponded Features/Federally Listed Species ...................... 3-12 3.1-4 Coastal California Gnatcatcher – Occupied Habitat ................................................................ 3-14 3.4-1 Watersheds and 100-year Floodplains at MCAS Miramar ...................................................... 3-39 3.6-1 Explosive Safety Quantity Distance Arcs ................................................................................ 3-53 iv F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Acronyms and Abbreviations

F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar v Final SEA

Acronyms and Abbreviations I MEF 1st Marine Expeditionary Force 3rd MAW Third Marine Aircraft Wing 4th MAW Fourth Marine Aircraft Wing ACM asbestos-containing materials A.D. Anno Domini AGL above ground level AFB Air Force Base AFFF Aqueous Film Forming Foam AMSL above mean sea level APE area of potential effect APZ accident potential zone ARB Air Reserve Base AT/FP Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection BASH bird airstrike hazards BMP Best Management Practice B.P. before present CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality

Standards CALA Combat Aircraft Loading Area CalRecycle California Department of

Resources Recycling and Recovery

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CERF Centralized Engine Repair Facility CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DoD Department of Defense DoN Department of the Navy DTSC Department of Toxic Substances

Control EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMD Environmental Management

Department EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act ESQD Explosive Safety Quantity

Distance FEMA Federal Emergency Management

Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FLEDS Flightline Electrical Distribution

System FY Fiscal Year GIS Geographic Information System

GHG greenhouse gases GWP global warming potential HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning I Interstate IBI Index of Biotic Integrity INRMP Integrated Natural Resources

Management Plan IRP Installation Restoration Program JSF Joint Strike Fighter kV kilovolt LBP lead-based paint LEED Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design LHD Landing Helicopter Deck LID Low Impact Development MA Management Area MACS Marine Air Control Squadron Marine Corps U.S. Marine Corps MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MC munition constituents MCAS Marine Corps Air Station MCO Marine Corps Order MEC munitions and explosives of concern MEF Marine Expeditionary Force METF Maximum Extent Technically

Feasible MILCON Military Construction mm millimeter MOU Memorandum of Understanding MRP Munitions Response Program MRS Munitions Response Site MSCP Multiple Species Conservation

Program MWWD Metropolitan Wastewater

Department NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality

Standards NAF Naval Air Facility NAS Naval Air Station NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering

Command NEPA National Environmental Policy

Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act N2O nitrous oxide NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOX oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic

Places O3 ozone

Acronyms and Abbreviations vi F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar Final SEA

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OT&E Operational Test and Evaluation PAH polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons PCB polychlorinated biphenyl Pb lead PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter POL petroleum, oil, and lubricants ppm parts per million PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal PSD Prevention of Significant

Deterioration QDR Quadrennial Defense Review RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategies RCRA Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act ROD Record of Decision ROI Radius of Influence RONA Record of Non-Applicability RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control

Board SAPF Special Access Program Facility SANDAG San Diego Association of

Governments SARA Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control

District

SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority

SDDEH San Diego Department of Environmental Health

SDSSA San Diego Shotgun Sport Association

SWDMP Storm Water Discharge Management Plan

SEA Supplemental Environmental Assessment

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and

Countermeasure SR State Route STOVL Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plan TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure TDS total dissolved solids UFC Unified Facilities Criteria U.S. United States USC U.S. Code USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USMC U.S. Marine Corps UST underground storage tank WRCC Western Regional Climate Center VL vertical landing VOC volatile organic compound

F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar ES-1

Executive Summary The United States Marine Corps (USMC) has prepared this Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 United States Code (USC) §§4321-4370h, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508, and Marine Corps Order (MCO) P5090.2A, Change 3, Chapter 12, dated 26 August 2013, Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, which establishes procedures for implementing NEPA. This SEA describes the potential environmental consequences resulting from a proposal to construct or modify airfield facilities and supporting infrastructure to accommodate six F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (hereinafter referred to as the F-35) squadrons at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar to replace F/A-18 legacy aircraft. Construction of new facilities would require the demolition and relocation of some existing buildings and facilities.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for United States Marine Corps F-35B West Coast Basing (hereinafter referred to as “2010 EIS”) analyzed the Department of the Navy (DoN) proposal to base the F-35 at USMC bases on the West Coast (DoN 2010a). In December 2010, the Record of Decision (ROD; DoN 2010b) documented selection of the 2010 EIS Preferred Alternative to base six operational F-35 squadrons at MCAS Miramar in San Diego, California; five operational F-35 squadrons at MCAS Yuma, Arizona; and one operational testing and evaluation F-35 squadron at MCAS Yuma. Since the ROD was signed in 2010, the DoN has identified necessary revisions to the 2010 ROD Selected Alternative to provide facilities and infrastructure support to F-35 squadrons based at MCAS Miramar. This SEA documents those changes to the 2010 ROD Selected Alternative and analyzes the associated environmental consequences in accordance with CEQ regulations at 40 CFR §1502.9. The revisions to the 2010 ROD Selected Alternative are the Proposed Action analyzed in this SEA.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to support the West Coast basing of the F-35 by providing the necessary facilities and infrastructure at MCAS Miramar. The need for the Proposed Action is to accommodate the integration of six operational F-35 squadrons into the existing Marine Corps command, organizational structure, and physical facilities at MCAS Miramar, replace aging legacy F/A-18 aircraft, and efficiently and effectively maintain combat capability and mission readiness by providing the necessary infrastructure to support this mission. Although facility requirements for the F-35 are evolving, additional information is now available, allowing the identification of additional infrastructure and footprints to complete facilities’ requirements of F-35 basing, which is the scope of the analysis in this SEA.

The two alternatives evaluated in this SEA are the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action Alternative would consist of 10 infrastructure projects that either were not identified in the 2010 EIS or have been substantially modified since publication of the ROD, including:

(1) construction of an extension to the existing KC-130 aircraft parking apron; (2) construction of an F-35 Centralized Engine Repair Facility (CERF); (3) relocation of ready service magazine facility;

(4) construction of three hangars; (5) construction of an F-35 simulator facility and associated improvements; (6) construction of a new communications facility and associated infrastructure upgrade;

(7) renovation of several existing buildings; (8) renovation of storage facilities for supply and aviation armaments; (9) airfield security improvements, including replacement of an airfield perimeter fence, establishment of a clear zone, repair of fence gaps, installation/repair of an automated gate, and related improvements; and (10) construction of two high temperature concrete Vertical Landing (VL) pads. The No Action Alternative analyzed in this SEA would consist of implementation of the 2010 ROD without change.

Resource areas analyzed in detail in this SEA include the following: biological resources; cultural resources; topography, geology and soils; water resources; hazardous materials and waste; safety and environmental health; air quality (construction only); and infrastructure and utilities. Several resource areas

Executive Summary

ES-2 F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar Final SEA are not addressed in this SEA because they were adequately covered in the 2010 EIS, and revisions to the 2010 ROD Selected Alternative would not alter consequences for those environmental resources. Resources not analyzed further for this reason include airfields and airspace, noise, operational air quality, land use (including agricultural resources and recreational resources), socioeconomics, community facilities and services, ground traffic and transportation, and environmental justice.

The potential environmental consequences associated with implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative are summarized in Table ES-1. As shown in Table ES-1, no significant impacts to any resource area would occur with implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative with the inclusion of Environmental Protection Measures. Based on the analysis presented in this EA, the USMC has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as the Preferred Alternative.

F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar ES-3

Table ES-1

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Resource Proposed Action Alternative (Preferred Alternative) No Action Alternative

Biological Resources

Areas proposed for development are primarily disturbed or degraded. Proposed Action Alternative construction would directly and permanently remove 37.77 acres of vegetation (includes 35.91 acres of vegetation not occupied by listed species and 1.86 acres of vegetation occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher) and would directly and temporarily impact 2.50 acres of vegetation during airfield fence replacement.

Direct, permanent impacts to Waters of the U.S. would total approximately 0.065 acre.

Direct, temporary impacts to Waters of the U.S. total approximately 0.009 acre.

General wildlife that currently occupy the Proposed Action Alternative footprint would experience direct, permanent impacts resulting from the loss of 37.77 acres of naturally vegetated areas (includes 1.86 acres of vegetation occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher), and direct, temporary impacts resulting from the loss of 2.50 acres of naturally vegetated areas.

Direct, permanent impacts to special status species would occur to San Diego button-celery, San Diego fairy shrimp, and coastal California gnatcatcher due to removal of occupied vernal pools, other seasonally ponded features, and gnatcatcher habitat.

Direct, temporary impacts to San Diego button-celery, San Diego mesa mint, and San Diego fairy shrimp could occur through impact/displacement from fence post footing replacement. Direct temporary impacts to the gnatcatcher could occur through one-time fence replacement and subsequent annual fence clear zone maintenance.

Indirect permanent and/or temporary impacts to vegetation communities/land cover, Waters of the U.S., general wildlife, and/or special status species could occur from changes to hydrology/water quality, human encroachment, lighting, effects of compensation, fugitive dust, invasive species, and construction noise.

Direct impacts to sensitive habitats and species would be mitigated in accordance with the INRMP (plus any additional requirements for Clean Water Act permitting) and the vernal pool compensation plan for the Proposed Action Alternative.

Conservation measures would be implemented to avoid and/or minimize potential adverse indirect effects.

With implementation of the conservation measures described in Section 2.6.2 of this SEA, biological impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative would be less than significant.

Per the 2010 EIS, potential impacts related to biological resources would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of applicable measures.

ES-4 F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar Final SEA

Cultural Resources • No potential for adverse effects to cultural resources.

• 53 previously documented resources identified in the Proposed Action Area of Potential

Effects (APE) and the Indirect Effects APE (4 archaeological sites, and 49 historic built environment resources). None are eligible for listing on the NRHP.

• In addition, due to the nature of the hard pan substrate at this site, the likelihood of unanticipated discoveries during construction is minimal, so monitoring during construction is not recommended.

• In its October 12, 2016 letter to MCAS Miramar, the SHPO concurred with this finding of No Historic Properties Affected by the Proposed Action Alternative, as well as with the findings of ineligibility for sites SDI-19395 and SDI-19401.

Per the 2010 EIS, potential impacts related to cultural resources would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of applicable measures.

Topography, Geology and Soils

• No significant impacts related to geologic conditions with proposed completion of site-specific geotechnical investigations and incorporation of associated recommendations and/or applicable regulatory/industry standards.

• Potential erosion and sedimentation impacts would be less than significant with implementation of erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) per the project SWPPP(s) and related NPDES requirements.

Per the 2010 EIS, under the No Action Alternative potential impacts would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of applicable measures to ensure conformance with associated regulatory/industry standards.

Water Resources • Impacts related to local infiltration, groundwater recharge capacity, potential runoff generation/control, floodplains/flooding, water quality, accidental discharge of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, solvents, concrete, paint, and portable septic system wastes, and introduction of demolition-related materials into local drainages or storm drain systems would be less than significant with implementation of BMPs per applicable NPDES and related requirements.

Per the 2010 EIS, under the No Action Alternative, potential impacts would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of applicable measures to ensure conformance with associated regulatory standards.

F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar ES-5

Hazardous Materials and Waste

• No significant impacts on hazardous materials and waste would occur.

• Potential impacts related to demolition of structures with asbestos-containing material

(ACM), lead-based paint (LBP), and other hazardous materials would be less than significant with regulatory conformance and implementation of remedial measures.

• Potential hazardous material/waste impacts related to Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites and/or Munitions Response Program (MRP) sites would be less than significant with applicable site assessment/investigation efforts and conformance with regulatory requirements.

• Potential hazardous material/waste impacts related to Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites and/or Munitions Response Program (MRP) sites would be less than significant with applicable site assessment/investigation efforts and conformance with regulatory requirements.

• Potential impacts from construction-related incidental spills and waste generation (e.g., fuels, lubricants, solvents, and paint) would be less than significant with implementation of project planning and design actions described in the 2010 EIS, and standard construction measures.

• Potential long-term operational impacts would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels with conformance with associated regulatory standards.

Per the 2010 EIS, under the No Action Alternative, potential impacts would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of applicable measures to ensure conformance with associated regulatory standards.

Safety and Environmental Health

• No impact related to ground safety or explosive safety would occur with review by and implementation of requirements of the Explosive Safety Manager.

Per the 2010 EIS, under the No Action Alternative, potential impacts would be less than significant with implementation of applicable measures to ensure conformance with associated regulatory standards.

Air Quality (Construction Only)

• No conformity determination required, as construction activities would be well below de minimis levels.

• A record of non-applicability (RONA) was completed and can be found in Appendix B of this SEA.

• F-35 aircraft operations and personnel changes associated with the F-35 program at MCAS Miramar were fully evaluated in the 2010 EIS and no changes are proposed, so no additional analysis related to these issues is necessary.

Per the 2010 EIS, under the No Action Alternative, construction emissions would not exceed the federal de minimis thresholds for nonattainment pollutants, and no impacts to air quality would occur.

ES-6 F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar Final SEA

Infrastructure and Utilities

• No significant impacts on utilities and infrastructure would occur.

• Existing utility systems are generally considered adequate to support the proposed facilities.

• Any new facilities and additions would be implemented with more energy efficient design standards and utility systems than are currently in place. Construction projects would incorporate LEED and sustainable development concepts.

• Demolition of existing utilities facilities would be accomplished without significant interruption of services, and would be replaced as appropriate.

Per the 2010 EIS, under the No Action Alternative, potential impacts would be less than significant with implementation of applicable measures to ensure conformance with associated regulatory and industry standards.

F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar 1-1

1 Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for United States Marine Corps F-35B West Coast Basing (hereinafter referred to as “2010 EIS”) analyzed the Department of the Navy (DoN) proposal to base the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (hereinafter referred to as the F-35) at United States Marine Corps (USMC) bases on the West Coast (DoN, 2010a). In January 2010, the Record of Decision (ROD) documented selection of the 2010 EIS Preferred Alternative to base six operational F-35 squadrons at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar in San Diego, California; five operational F-35 squadrons at MCAS Yuma, Arizona; and one operational testing and evaluation F-35 squadron at MCAS Yuma. Since the ROD was signed in 2010, the DoN has identified necessary revisions to the 2010 ROD Selected Alternative to provide facilities and infrastructure support to F-35 squadrons based at MCAS Miramar. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) documents those changes to the 2010 ROD Selected Alternative and analyzes the associated environmental consequences in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 1502.9. The revisions to the 2010 ROD Selected Alternative are the Proposed Action analyzed in this SEA.

This SEA focuses exclusively on revisions to ground facilities and infrastructure necessary to support six operational F-35 squadrons at MCAS Miramar, including ten specific project elements that either were not identified in the 2010 EIS or have been substantially modified since publication of the ROD.

These ten project elements are described in Section 2. As a supplement to the 2010 EIS, this SEA incorporates that original analysis by reference where appropriate to avoid unnecessary duplication of information.

1.2 Project Location

The Proposed Action would be implemented at MCAS Miramar, located approximately 10 miles north of downtown San Diego, California (Figure 1-1). As described in the 2010 Final EIS, MCAS Miramar occupies approximately 23,000 acres and is one of the largest military installations in the area.

Its southern and western boundaries are generally defined by State Route 52 (SR-52) and Interstate 805 (I-805), respectively. The communities of Mira Mesa and Scripps Ranch have been built up to the northern limits of the Air Station, the communities of Tierrasanta and Clairemont are located to the south of the Air Station, the community of University City is located to the west, and the eastern boundary of the Air Station abuts the City of Santee and an unincorporated area of San Diego County.

MCAS Miramar is bisected by I-15, and divided into three major sectors. The area west of I-15 is known as Main Station and West Miramar. Main Station contains the airfield as well as commercial, administrative, and industrial uses; aviation support facilities; and housing areas. The City of San Diego leases land from the United States on which it operates a municipal landfill within the Air Station, just north of SR-52 in West Miramar. The East Miramar area is mostly undeveloped and used for training. This SEA focuses on the portion of Main Station known as the Flightline Zone, located south of Rose Canyon, which provides on-station flightline and airfield functions.

A×

MCAS Miramar Boundary Proposed Action Location

Poway

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Vista

Escondido

Otay

Chula Vista

Santee

San Marcos

Encinitas

El Cajon

La Mesa

Coronado National

City

Imperial Beach

Lemon Grove

Solana Beach Del Mar

San Diego

Camp Pendleton

Lake San Marcos

Lake Hodges

Lake Wohlford

Lake Ramona Lake Poway

Miramar Reservoir

Lake Murray

Sweetwater Reservoir

Lake Jennings

Otay Reservoir

Pacific Ocean

San Diego Bay

Santee Lakes

Sutherland Reservoir

Lake Henshaw

El Capitan Reservoir

Loveland Reservoir

Vail Lake

O'Neill Lake

Barrett Lake

Tijuana

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

Dulzura

Julian

Ramona

Warner Springs

RIVERSIDE

COUNTY

ORANGE

COUNTY

SAN DIEGO

COUNTY

AlpineLa Jolla Aª

Aª

WÛ

WÛ

WÙ

A©

Fallbrook

?z

A©

?z

Ä

A©!"̂$

!"a$

?z

?h

%&s(

!"̂$ AÛ

AÀ

!"_$Aù

!"a$

AÀ

?j

A×

?j

%&s(

Figure 1-1

F-35 WEST COAST BASING SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - MCAS MIRAMAR

DRAFT SEA

Regional Location MapI:\P

RO

JE

CT

S\N \N

AV

\N

AV

-03

.04 _F

B_

W est

Co ast

Ba sin g\M ap

\SE

A\

Fig 1-1

_R eg ion al.

mx d

N

AV

-03 .04

8/

/20

- N G

N

Source: MCAS Miramar

0 5 102.5 Miles

1 Purpose and Need

F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar 1-3 Final SEA

MCAS Miramar’s primary mission is to maintain and operate the facilities and provide services and material to support operations of the Third Marine Air Wing (3rd MAW) and other tenant organizations. MCAS Miramar has two runways, a Landing Helicopter Deck (LHD) strip, and five helicopter pads with associated support facilities (see Figure 1-2). The primary (24R/06L) and secondary (24L/06R) runways parallel each other and are oriented in a southwest/northeast direction. The primary runway is 12,000 feet long, while the secondary runway is 8,000 feet long. Crossing these runways is Sierra Taxiway, which is approximately 2,800 feet long. Two helicopter landing pads are located within Sierra Taxiway for vertical landings by helicopter and tilt-rotor aircraft. The LHD strip, designated Runway 24S/06S, is 1,000 feet long and is used for helicopter pattern operations. It is located parallel to the primary and secondary runways to the south.

The five helicopter pads are located northwest of the main runway.

MCAS Miramar currently supports up to seven operational F/A-18 jet squadrons, an F/A-18 fleet readiness squadron, four CH-53E helicopter squadrons, six active MV-22 tilt-rotor squadrons, one Reserve MV-22 squadron, one KC-130J transport/refueler squadron, and three operational support aircraft. MCAS Miramar is a dynamic installation where aircraft inventory changes due to cadre status, deployment, aircraft transition, service life, and other related factors. As such, the inventory presented herein represents a “snapshot in time” associated with baseline operations.

1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to support the West Coast basing of the F-35 by providing the necessary facilities and infrastructure at MCAS Miramar.

The need for the Proposed Action is to accommodate the integration of six operational F-35 squadrons into the existing Marine Corps command, organizational structure, and physical facilities at MCAS Miramar, replace aging legacy F/A-18 aircraft, and efficiently and effectively maintain combat capability and mission readiness by providing the necessary infrastructure to support this mission.

The Proposed Action is required because the 2010 EIS was prepared at a time when available information was insufficient to determine the optimum siting of many of the facilities needed for the F-35 program at MCAS Miramar. Although facility requirements for the F-35 are evolving, additional information is now available, so that details of proposed infrastructure (including project footprints) can now be identified.

Therefore, this SEA is focused on analyzing the newly identified information on proposed infrastructure originally addressed in general terms in the 2010 EIS.

Miramar Road

Mi tsc he r W ay

Runway 24S/06S

South/West Miramar

East Miramar

West Gate

North Gate

Runway 24R/06L Runway 24L/06R

Main Station

Sierra Taxiway

Helipads

Miramar Way

Johnson Road

Ke ar ny Vi lla R oa d

Schilt Avenue

Boyington Road

Robinson Way

Fleming Court

Edson Road

Smith Road

Talbot Avenue

Sidewinder Road

I:\P

RO

JE

CT

S\N \N

AV

\N

AV

-03

.04 _F

B_

W est

Co ast

Ba sin g\M ap

\SE

A\

Fig 1-2

_A eri al_ M ira ma r.m xd

N

AV

-03 .04

/12

/20

- N G

Figure 1-2 F-35 WEST COAST BASING SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - MCAS MIRAMARDRAFT SEA

MCAS Miramar Flightline Zone Source of Aerial: SANDAG Technical Services - GIS

MCAS Miramar Boundary

0 2,500 FeetN

F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar 1-5 Final SEA

1.4 Applicable Regulatory Requirements

This SEA examines the environmental consequences associated with revisions to the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the 2010 EIS in order to meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. It describes existing environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Proposed Action; direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that may result from the Proposed Action; and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse impacts resulting from revisions to the 2010 Preferred Alternative.

This SEA has been prepared in accordance with applicable federal regulations, instructions, and public laws, including but not limited to, those identified in Appendix A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires consideration of potential impacts to the environment in the decision-making process for federal actions. CEQ regulations represent the “action forcing” provisions of NEPA to ensure that federal agencies comply with NEPA. MCO P5090.2A provides specific guidance for the Marine Corps in preparing environmental documentation for proposed actions subject to NEPA. The decision to be made by the MCAS Miramar Commanding Officer relates to which alternative best fulfills the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action while avoiding and/or minimizing potential adverse environmental impacts.

As the regulatory authority for the Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was invited to be a federal cooperating agency in the preparation of required NEPA documentation and related environmental planning as described in Title 40 CFR 1501.6 (Appendix B).

1.5 Scope of Analysis and Decision to be Made

CEQ regulations, NEPA, and USMC procedures for implementing NEPA specify that an EA should address only those resource areas potentially subject to impacts. In addition, the level of analysis should be commensurate with the anticipated level of environmental impact. Resource areas analyzed in detail in this SEA include the following:

• Biological Resources • Hazardous Materials and Waste

• Cultural Resources • Safety and Environmental Health

• Topography, Geology and Soils • Air Quality (Construction Only)

• Water Resources • Infrastructure and Utilities

Several resource areas are not addressed in this SEA because they were adequately covered in the 2010 EIS, and revisions to the 2010 ROD Selected Alternative would not alter consequences for those environmental resources. Resources not analyzed further for this reason include airfields and airspace, noise, operational air quality, land use (including agricultural resources and recreational resources), socioeconomics, community facilities and services, ground traffic and transportation, and environmental justice. F-35 aircraft operations and personnel changes associated with the F-35 program at MCAS Miramar were fully evaluated in the 2010 EIS and no changes are proposed, so no additional analysis related to these issues is necessary.

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 the proposed revisions to the 2010 FEIS Preferred Alternative. A FONSI would be prepared if all associated impacts are either less than significant or can be mitigated to levels that are less than significant.

If impacts cannot be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels, an SEIS would be prepared.

1-6 F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

F-35 West Coast Basing Supplemental Environmental Assessment – MCAS Miramar 2-1

2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action addressed in this SEA is comprised of the revisions to the 2010 ROD Selected Alternative regarding the construction or modification of airfield facilities and infrastructure to accommodate and maintain six F‐35 squadrons at MCAS Miramar to replace F/A‐18 legacy aircraft.

Construction of new airfield and support facilities would require the demolition and relocation of existing buildings and facilities.

The USMC used several selection criteria to develop the Proposed Action in order to meet the purpose and need. These criteria included the following:

Availability of space for development of needed airfield facilities, such as apron space, hangar space, and support facilities to accommodate the aircraft and personnel

Compatibility with the MCAS Miramar Master Plan and MCAS Miramar Installation Development Plan

Functional co-location requirements for certain facilities to be close to other specific facilities

Compatibility with existing air operations

Costs, both in manpower and in military construction/renovation, associated with the implementation of the alternative

Avoidance or minimization of environmental impacts

The Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative are carried forward for full analysis as described below. Alternatives considered but eliminated as infeasible are discussed in Section 2.3 (Alternatives Considered but Eliminated).

2.1 Proposed Action Alternative

The elements of the Proposed Action Alternative include:

Project 1. Extension of the existing KC-130 Aircraft…