[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 161 (Friday, August 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51641-51646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-19157]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for Development of Military Family Housing 
(MFH) in the San Diego Region

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (DON) announces its decision to 
construct up to 1,600 MFH units and supporting infrastructure at Marine 
Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar, San Diego, CA. This will be 
accomplished by implementing the MFH Site 8A Alternative, as described 
in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Military Family 
Housing in the San Diego Region. This decision will greatly improve 
conditions for enlisted service members and their families.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander, Southwest Division, Naval 
Facilities Engineering Command, Attn: Sheila Donovan, Code 05G.SD, 1220 
Pacific HWY, San Diego, CA 92132-5190, telephone (619)-532-1253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire Record of Decision 
(ROD) is provided as follows:
    Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and 
Department of the Navy regulations (32 CFR part 775); the Department of 
the Navy announces its decision to construct up to 1,600 MFH units and 
supporting infrastructure at MCAS Miramar. This decision implements the 
preferred alternative identified in the FEIS for Military Family 
Housing in the San Diego Region.
    The purpose of the project is to provide suitable, affordable 
housing units for enlisted military personnel and their families in 
reasonable proximity to the installations where they are assigned. The 
projected MFH shortfall for the San Diego region is 2,870 units by 
2007. Additional suitable, affordable MFH for enlisted military 
families is, therefore, required.
    The availability of suitable, affordable MFH for enlisted military 
families will make a positive contribution to their quality of life. 
This improved quality of life and subsequent increase in morale, job 
satisfaction, and enlisted service retention rates ultimately have a 
direct, positive impact on the DON's combat readiness and mission 
capabilities. Therefore, the provision of suitable, affordable MFH will 
support the mission of local Navy and Marine Corps commands. The 
Proposed Action will not completely eliminate the existing and 
projected MFH shortfall, but it will vastly improve enlisted military 
family living conditions by providing up to 1,600 MFH units for 
enlisted military families.
    The Federal action will include construction of up to 1,600 MFH 
units in one 264-acre development area located in the southeastern 
portion of MCAS Miramar near the community of Tierrasanta. The project 
will also provide land for two elementary schools and a community 
center or park within the development area. Access to the site will 
require an approximately 2.5 mile extension of Santo Road, involving 
approximately 34 acres. Existing internal roads to eastern MCAS 
Miramar, also known as East Miramar, will provide secondary emergency 
access. The extension of Santo Road will provide direct access to State 
Route (SR) 52 approximately one mile east of I-15. For MCAS Miramar 
enlisted personnel residing at the MFH, access to MCAS Miramar Main 
Station gates will be via I-15 to Miramar Road or Miramar Way.
    The Proposed Action will be implemented through DON's Public-
Private Venture (PPV) housing program, a program authorized by law, to 
give the Department of Defense (DOD) the authority to employ a variety 
of private sector approaches to build or renovate MFH using private 
capital to leverage government funds. Using the PPV approach for the 
Proposed Action, DON will lease land to a private sector developer who 
will build, own, operate, and maintain the MFH. The developer will, in 
turn, rent the MFH to enlisted military families at rental rates at or

[[Page 51642]]

below each service member's Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). The 
private sector developer will contribute the majority of upfront 
development costs and will fund all ongoing operations and maintenance 
of the homes. With government oversight, the PPV entity will provide 
most of the environmental mitigation required by the FEIS.
    Alternatives Considered: A screening process, based upon criteria 
set forth in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), identified a 
reasonable range of alternatives that would satisfy the Navy's purpose 
and need. Three alternatives and the no action alternative were 
analyzed in detail in the EIS.
    The preferred alternative is Site 8A, the least environmentally 
sensitive of the three sites. Site 8A will provide more MFH units than 
either of the two other alternatives considered. This alternative 
provides for construction of up to 1,600 units comprised of 282 
buildings including two-story duplexes, fourplexes, sixplexes, and 
eightplexes. Up to 188 MFH units will meet the Americans with 
Disability Act standards. Land for two elementary schools and a 
community center or park will be located in the development area, along 
with other recreational facilities to include tot lots, play lots, 
basketball and sports courts, picnic/barbecue areas, and ball fields. 
Construction will be phased over a 4-year period, with each phase 
constructing approximately 25 percent of the total MFH units.
    Alternative 8B is a variant of Site 8A, differing only with regard 
to the access route. Alternative 8B would require construction of a new 
interchange with SR-52 directly south of the developed area, in 
addition to a utility corridor along the route of Site 8A's 2.5 mile 
road between the developed area and the existing Santo Road 
interchange.
    The Site 2 alternative includes 283 acres and would include 
development of up to 1,000 MFH units in the northwest corner of East 
Miramar. The location consists of three land parcels connected by a 
ridge-top road. Site 2 would include land for a school and other site 
amenities. Access to Site 2 would be via Pomerado Road, one of the main 
access roads in the area.
    Under the Site 3 alternative, up to 1,246 MFH units would be 
located on 208 acres on East Miramar. Site 3 would include land for a 
school site and other site amenities. Site 3 would be accessed by a 
two-mile extension of Miramar Way from its current terminus just east 
of I-15.
    Implementation of the no action alternative would result in no MFH 
construction. Consequently, the purpose of the Proposed Action, to 
provide additional suitable, affordable MFH for enlisted military 
families in the San Diego region, would not be met. The no action 
alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative because it 
does not involve any change to the physical environment.
    Environmental Impacts: The DON prepared an EIS to evaluate the 
potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of each 
of the alternatives for the following environmental resource areas: 
land use; socioeconomics/environmental justice; utilities; public 
services; cultural resources; biological resources; soils and geology; 
water resources; hazardous wastes, substances, and materials; traffic/
circulation; air quality; noise; and, public safety/environmental 
health and safety risks to children. Chapter 4 of the FEIS provides a 
detailed discussion of impacts and mitigation measures.
    The preferred alternative, Site 8A, presents no significant impacts 
to land use, socioeconomics/environmental justice, hazardous wastes, 
substances and materials, air quality, and noise; thus, no mitigation 
measures are offered in those areas. Implementation of the preferred 
alternative will result in impacts on several resources at MCAS 
Miramar, but the DON and the PPV entity building the project and 
responsible for MFH operation will implement mitigation measures to 
ensure that impacts are not significant.
    Site 8A is part of an operational range. Because MFH is 
incompatible with use of Site 8A as an operational range, the portion 
of the operational range that will comprise the MFH footprint and its 
surrounding safety buffer zone will be closed. The closed portions of 
the operational range will undergo a munitions response following the 
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. and the National 
Contingency Plan, 40 CFR part 300. Once the munitions response is 
complete, Site 8A land use will be compatible with MFH.
    Absent mitigation, the preferred alternative would impact 
utilities, as several downstream sections of the sewer lines cannot 
accommodate the development. Development of Site 8A will result in an 
increased demand for fire and police services at MCAS Miramar.
    The military families within MFH on Site 8A will add approximately 
1,175 elementary students, 231 middle school students, and 164 high 
school students to the area. Based on the number of elementary school 
students projected for Site 8A, the MFH will create a need for the 
equivalent of two elementary schools.
    One archaeological site, a sparse lithic scatter, will be impacted 
by the development of Site 8A. The DON initiated consultation with the 
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on December 9, 1999, and 
executed the SHPO's established testing plan for sparse lithic 
scatters. The Cedar Fire of October 26, 2003, revealed that two sparse 
lithic scatters in the area are actually one large lithic scatter, 
requiring modification of the testing plan. The DON submitted the 
amended plan to the SHPO on March 9, 2004, and the test results on 
April 15, 2004. The SHPO concurred with DON's conclusion that the site 
is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places 
(NRHP). Some areas on Site 8A that were inaccessible prior to the 
October 26, 2003, fire are now accessible, and based on current 
discussions with the SHPO, DON will evaluate whether to survey and/or 
test such areas during the CERCLA munitions response. It is not 
anticipated that cultural resources will be impacted within the safety 
buffer area since the munitions response in this area is expected to be 
limited to surface detection and removal.
    Development of the project site, including the munitions response, 
site grading, and construction, will have no effect on Federally listed 
threatened or endangered species. Absent mitigation, significant 
impacts to biological resources, including regionally and locally 
declining vegetation and habitat types (e.g., Diegan coastal sage 
scrub, native grasslands, vernal pools) and jurisdictional waters 
(e.g., freshwater seeps) of the United States would occur when the site 
is developed. The munitions response in the safety buffer zone could 
result in permanent impacts to certain sensitive resources, such as 
vernal pools. Temporary, indirect impacts could occur to biological 
resources from fugitive dust or noise generated by munitions 
detonation. Permanent land use controls, such as fences, could have 
permanent indirect impacts if they displace biological resources, or 
are situated in drainage courses where they will alter hydrological 
processes such as erosion and sedimentation.
    Absent mitigation, significant impacts would occur during 
construction at Site 8A on roadway segments between Miramar Way and I-
15 northbound and Kearny Villa Road northbound. Impacts to the 
following intersections would

[[Page 51643]]

occur: Kearny Villa Road southbound/Miramar Way; Kearny Villa Road 
northbound/Miramar Way; 1-15 southbound ramps/Miramar Way; and, Santo 
Road/SR-52 eastbound and westbound ramps as well as the existing 
bridge. Absent mitigation, the completed project would significantly 
impact Miramar Way/I-15 northbound ramps to Kearny Villa Road 
northbound ramps.
    Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC), if not mitigated, would 
pose a potential for significant public safety impacts during both the 
construction and occupancy phases of the project. During construction, 
site workers could come into contact with MEC. During occupancy, 
housing residents could encounter and unintentionally detonate MEC 
located on the project footprint and in the safety buffer zone. 
Children within the MFH site could be exposed to potential risks 
associated with MEC.
    Mitigation: Unless otherwise specified, mitigation measures 
identified in the FEIS will be the responsibility of the PPV entity, 
and such measures will be specified in the contractual agreements and 
real estate instruments governing the relationship between the PPV 
entity and the DON. The PPV agreement will reserve to DON the authority 
to oversee all mitigation actions undertaken by the PPV entity.
    Several sections of the sewer lines in Santo Road south of SR-52 
will be upgraded and pumping stations will be constructed on the 
proposed access road for those portions of the road adverse to grade, 
thus reducing impacts to utilities to below significance.
    MCAS Miramar plans to construct an additional fire station in East 
Miramar in 2008. The new station will be located at Site 8A, and the 
existing station will remain in place. MCAS Miramar will construct a 
temporary fire station upon first occupancy, pending construction of 
the new facility. In addition, MCAS Miramar will increase staffing of 
the MCAS Miramar military police force. These measures will reduce 
impacts to police and fire services to below significance.
    School impacts will be mitigated by providing approximately 13.3 
acres of land to the San Diego Unified School District, 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 advanced notice to the school 
district of the development schedule.
    At present, no mitigation will be necessary with regard to cultural 
resources, because the impacted site is not eligible for listing on the 
NRHP. If NRHP eligible sites are identified during the CERCLA munitions 
response, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requirements will 
be incorporated as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements 
(ARARs) under CERCLA.
    Sections 6 and 7 of MCAS Miramar's Integrated Natural Resources 
Management Plan (INRMP) prescribe compensation ratios to mitigate 
habitat impacts. When applying the compensation ratios for habitat 
impacts, the quality of the vegetation/habitat type will be taken into 
consideration. When degraded vegetation/habitat types are involved, the 
ratios will be adjusted to achieve an equivalent compensation. A lower 
compensation ratio will be appropriate where high-quality habitat is 
being offered for impacts to a degraded habitat.
    Implementation of the following measures will ensure that there 
will be no significant direct impacts to the Diegan coastal sage scrub 
and native grasslands: providing habitat compensation at a ratio of 1:1 
for habitat unoccupied by listed threatened and endangered species; and 
compensating for disturbed habitat that is unoccupied by listed 
threatened and endangered species at a ratio of 0.5:1, either on MCAS 
Miramar or off MCAS Miramar through habitat preservation, creation, or 
enhancement.
    Implementation of the following measures will ensure that there 
will be no significant direct impacts to vernal pools: Providing 
habitat compensation at a ratio of 2:1 (no threatened or endangered 
species present); avoiding work around vernal pools during the rainy 
season or when ground is wet (generally from November 1 to April 30); 
and before construction, salvaging vernal pool soil (plants, seeds, 
cysts, and soil) during the dry season for later use in restoration.
    Provision of habitat compensation at a ratio of 2:1, either on MCAS 
Miramar or off MCAS Miramar through habitat preservation, creation, or 
enhancement, will ensure that there will be no significant direct 
impacts to the freshwater seeps.
    The nature and extent of impacts to biological resources from the 
munitions response in the safety buffer zone cannot be determined 
before it begins. However, in addition to the measures discussed below 
for each resource, the PPV entity will ensure the presence of a 
qualified biological monitor at sensitive biological resource sites to 
minimize impacts during vegetation trimming and MEC excavations. At a 
minimum, the monitor will conduct a general survey of the munitions 
response site before and after cutting and excavations in order to 
quantify the extent of impacts. The monitor will also identify 
sensitive areas that should be avoided, and will identify alternative 
routes for equipment access and alternative times for clearance 
activities to avoid impacts during portions of the season when certain 
resources are more vulnerable to impacts.
    Implementation of the following measures will ensure that there 
will be no significant impact to regionally rare and declining habitats 
in the safety buffer zone: providing habitat compensation for 
regionally rare and declining habitats at replacement ratios identified 
in Table 6 of the INRMP for permanent impacts from the construction of 
any land use controls; brush thinning to facilitate munitions response 
equipment and ensure that personnel access will not remove plant roots 
and that above-ground biomass will be properly disposed of or recycled 
for mulch; minimizing the area of impact and soil loss; and 
implementing passive restoration of temporary disturbance areas.
    To ensure that the munitions response in the safety buffer zone is 
not likely to jeopardize the continued viability of any endangered or 
threatened species, the DON will consult, as appropriate, with U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). If such discussions reveal measures 
necessary to avoid jeopardy to a species, such measures will be 
implemented, and no other mitigation measures will be necessary to 
avoid a significant impact. In light of USFWS comments on the FEIS, as 
discussed below, the DON will conduct gnatcatcher surveys within one 
year prior to any brush thinning, grading, or ground disturbance 
activities in either the development footprint or in the safety buffer 
zone. If gnatcatchers are observed at that point, appropriate measures 
will be implemented in consultation with the USFWS to avoid 
jeopardizing the viability of the species. Similarly, vernal pools and 
road ruts within the development footprint will be surveyed for the 
presence of fairy shrimp within one year prior to initiation of 
grading. If, however, dry conditions prevent ponding necessary for 
fairy shrimp surveys, the DON will have to rely on existing survey data 
as the best information available for that species.
    Any habitat clearing activities will be timed to avoid the breeding 
season of most 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 DON and PPV entity will

[[Page 51644]]

coordinate with the USFWS to implement requirements to mitigate impacts 
to migratory birds.
    Traffic impacts during construction and afterward will be mitigated 
to less than significant through the following measures: at the Miramar 
Way--I-15 Northbound Ramps to Kearny Villa Road, the PPV entity will 
provide a fair-share contribution toward the re-striping of Miramar 
Way, between the I-15 northbound ramps and the Kearny Villa northbound 
ramps, to create a second westbound lane--the current width of the 
overpass, 40 feet, provides adequate width for this re-striping; at 
Kearny Villa Road Southbound Ramps/Miramar Way, the PPV entity will 
provide a fair-share contribution for the construction of a traffic 
signal; for Kearny Villa Road Northbound Ramps/Miramar Way, the PPV 
entity will provide a fair-share contribution for the installation of a 
traffic signal and construction of an exclusive right-turn lane at the 
Miramar Way westbound intersection approach, an improvement that will 
require re-striping of the Miramar Way westbound intersection approach; 
for I-15 Southbound Ramps/Miramar Way, the PPV entity will provide a 
fair-share contribution for the construction of a traffic signal at 
this intersection (meets California Department of Transportation 
(CALTRANS) Warrant 2, ``Interruption of Continuous Traffic''); 
a second through-lane at the Miramar Way westbound approach will also 
be recommended, which is consistent with the roadway re-striping 
necessary on the Miramar Way overpass; and for Santo Road/SR-52 
Eastbound Ramps, the PPV entity will provide a traffic signal, an 
improvement required in association with the widening of the Santo Road 
bridge and resulting in a situation that with signalization, the 
intersection will operate at Level of Service (LOS) A during the AM 
peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour. For Santo Road/SR 52 
Westbound ramps, the PPV entity will provide the following improvements 
required in order to provide access to and from Site 8A: installing a 
traffic signal; widening the Santo Road bridge over SR 52 by 12 feet to 
accommodate a southbound left-turn lane; adding a northbound right-turn 
lane; adding a lane on the off-ramp; and adding an east leg (access to/
from Site 8A). With all these improvements, these intersections will 
operate at an acceptable LOS and project-related impacts will be 
reduced to levels below significance.
    The following specific procedures will be implemented during the 
munitions response and in subsequent construction design and operation 
on the site footprint. These measures will include: Soil excavation for 
the footprint of Site 8A, including the 100-foot (30.5-meter) firebreak 
around the perimeter of the housing site; the development and 
implementation of an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) and Explosive 
Safety Submission (ESS) to ensure environmental mitigation commitments 
are being met and explosive safety hazards minimized; and survey and 
clearance from the development footprint of any brush remaining after 
the October 2003 wildfire, including brush clearance on areas with 
slopes under 30 percent to accommodate towed and man portable detection 
equipment and brush clearance on areas greater than 30 percent slope to 
create lanes sufficiently wide to accommodate movement of personnel and 
hand-held magnetometers. The munitions response within the developable 
footprint of Site 8A will be an iterative process of excavation and 
magnetometer use, with an anticipated excavation depth to 3 feet (1 
meter).
    The munitions response within the footprint of Site 8A, including 
the 100-foot (30.5) firebreak, will follow CERCLA and the National 
Contingency Plan with oversight by the PPV entity's quality control 
officer and by the government. The munitions response will also follow 
DOD and DON policies regarding munitions response.
    All surface and subsurface anomalies within the developable 
footprint of Site 8A will be located and geo-referenced for 
reacquisition during the munitions response. Any MEC not previously 
detected within the developable footprint of Site 8A will be identified 
visually by qualified Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) technicians during this 
munitions response and any follow-on site preparation.
    At a minimum, the upper 3-foot (1-meter) layer of soil within the 
developable footprint of Site 8A will be characterized and ultimately 
placed in a canyon. The detection and response to MEC and excavation to 
3 feet of soil will be repeated until no MEC is detected. The specific 
requirements for any characterization, removal, and disposal of soil 
from the munitions response site will be identified under CERCLA, but 
the process will at minimum include the following: Excavated soil will 
be placed as fill over soil previously cleared of MEC, serving as a cap 
that will not be less than 3 feet (1 meter) deep; ground cover or soil 
stabilization measures will be employed over any filled areas in the 
canyon to minimize erosion; qualified UXO technicians will oversee the 
soil excavation, filling, and site infrastructure and foundation work; 
and without additional fill, excavation will over-excavate soil at 
least 3 feet (1 meter) below any MEC response.
    A safety buffer zone will be established around the MFH perimeter. 
The safety buffer zone will be identified, in part, based on range 
usage in range fans associated with historical training at the former 
Camp Elliott, which overlap Site 8A and extend off-site within station 
boundaries. The size of the safety buffer zone will be based on the MEC 
encountered and the safe distances prescribed in Explosive Ordnance 
Disposal (EOD) Publication 60A-1-1-4, Table 2-4.
    It is anticipated that the following site-specific procedures will 
be implemented during the munitions response for the Site 8A safety 
buffer zone: development and implementation of an EPP and ESS to ensure 
environmental mitigation commitments are being met and explosive safety 
hazards minimized; survey of the entire safety buffer zone prior to the 
detector-aided surface munitions response; selective trimming of 
vegetation where necessary to facilitate the munitions response; and if 
necessary, brush clearance within the buffer areas will include 
trimming of the brush within identified access lanes to accommodate the 
use of man-portable detection equipment, and provide for emergency 
egress, with special field procedures used for sites having greater 
than 30 percent slope. The munitions response will include detector-
aided visual acquisition and response to surface MEC and range debris. 
The munitions response within the safety buffer zone will follow 
CERCLA, the National Contingency Plan, DOD, and DON policies with 
oversight by the PPV entity's quality control officer and by the 
government.
    It is anticipated that land use controls, including legal 
mechanisms, engineering controls, and educational programs will be part 
of the remedy selected in the munitions response. The site-specific 
land use controls that may be employed at the selected site and 
surrounding safety buffer zone will be tailored to the munitions 
response and may include the following: Legal mechanisms, such as an 
amendment to the installation master plan; engineering controls, 
including fences, warning signage and landscaping; and educational 
programs, including rental notices, educational materials, and annual 
MEC awareness programs for MFH management personnel.
    For the Site 8A safety buffer zone perimeter, an 8-foot high 
containment

[[Page 51645]]

fence or other appropriate engineering control will be constructed at 
the far extent of the 100-foot (30.5-meter) firebreak and the beginning 
of the safety buffer zone. A fence or other appropriate engineering 
control will be provided around the exterior of the permanent safety 
buffer perimeter.
    Every fifth year, a review required by CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) 
will be conducted to assess the selected remedy's protectiveness. This 
will include a review of the continued effectiveness of land use 
controls. This five-year review will also include a limited visual 
inspection for the presence of any MEC within the munitions response 
site as well as soil erosion/stability. Depending on the CERCLA 
process, this five-year review may also entail a survey of housing 
residents to validate awareness training and other educational 
programs, and a review of any recorded EOD responses by MCAS Miramar 
personnel.
    The preferred alternative presents no other significant impacts 
that cannot be mitigated.
    Response to Comments Received Regarding the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement: The FEIS was distributed to government agencies and 
the public on June 25, 2004, for a 30-day public review period. The DON 
received comments on the FEIS from one Federal agency, one state 
agency, two cities, one school district, one city water department, and 
one community planning agency. The comments identified concerns related 
to school impacts, traffic impacts, fire safety, water use, visual 
resources, and consistency with city planning requirements. Many of 
these comments simply stated support for or opposition to the preferred 
alternative. Others reiterated comments that were received on the DEIS 
and responded to in the FEIS. Comments of general support or opposition 
are not addressed in the ROD. Comments restating issues previously 
raised are not addressed in the ROD because they were addressed in the 
FEIS and responses to comments on the DEIS. New issues raised in 
comments received during the 30-day public review period are addressed 
below.
    The City of San Diego urges the DON to consider using recycled 
water on the project. The DON is committed to following applicable 
Federal law and executive orders regarding recycling water and other 
products, including Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government 
through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition (1998) and 
Executive Order 12902, Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at 
Federal Facilities (1994).
    The City of San Diego commented that the FEIS should meet 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standards as well as NEPA 
requirements, and that it should propose mitigation consistent with 
city standards for impacts that may result from any city actions. The 
city did not identify what those actions would be. Regardless, this 
Federal action is not subject to CEQA, and therefore, mitigation for 
any city actions would be beyond the scope of this FEIS.
    CALTRANS commented that state-owned signalized intersections must 
be analyzed by using Intersecting Lane Vehicle (ILV) calculations per 
the Highway Design Manual. Highway Capacity Software (HCS), which the 
DON used to evaluate all signalized intersections, is an accepted 
methodology per the CALTRANS Guide for Preparation of Traffic Impact 
Studies (January 2001). CALTRANS also commented on differences between 
traffic counts performed by the DON and those performed by CALTRANS 
during 2001. The differences in the numbers are expected, however, 
because they reflect the collection of different data. The DON counted 
traffic at all intersections during a given peak hour period in order 
to accurately determine total traffic impacts during any specified 
period. CALTRANS conducted separate counts of separate intersections at 
separate peak hour times for each intersection, the sum of which does 
not reflect total traffic impacts at any particular point in time. The 
DON's traffic analysis accurately projects traffic impacts from the 
development of Site 8A.
    The Tierrasanta Community Council commented that the traffic study 
underestimates the traffic impacts on Santo Road, Clairemont Mesa 
Boulevard, and Tierrasanta Boulevard associated with commuters avoiding 
congested freeways. The DON's traffic impact analysis considered a 
number of factors in developing traffic distribution patterns for Site 
8A, including modeled traffic assignments, travel time studies on 
freeways and surface routes, and community input. The projected traffic 
distribution patterns reflect the expert professional judgment of the 
DON's traffic engineer.
    The City of Santee commented that the FEIS must study impacts 
associated with projected closure of the Miramar Landfill, which the 
City of Santee estimates at 2010. Solid waste generated by 1,600 
families will not significantly accelerate the date at which the 
landfill reaches capacity. Once the landfill reaches capacity, the 
impacts to MFH will be the same as the impacts to the rest of the City 
of San Diego. Analysis of future landfill options at this point would 
be speculative and beyond the scope of the FEIS.
    The USFWS commented that, in light of the expected period between 
the ROD and the beginning of grading construction activities, any such 
activities should be preceded by timely protocol level surveys for the 
California gnatcatcher and the San Diego fairy shrimp. As discussed in 
the mitigation section above, the DON will conduct such surveys as part 
of the CERCLA munitions response. If, however, dry conditions prevent 
ponding necessary for fairy shrimp surveys, the DON will necessarily 
rely on existing survey data as the best information available for that 
species.
    The USFWS further commented that the DON should mitigate for the 
loss of gnatcatcher habitat as if any pre-fire occupied habitat 
remained so occupied. The USFWS points to statements in the FEIS 
regarding mitigation assuming pre-fire conditions. The FEIS makes 
clear, however, that the DON will not assume that occupied territories 
destroyed by the Cedar Fire remain occupied.
    The DON assumes vegetation will grow back if no development occurs. 
The DON does not assume previously occupied gnatcatcher territories 
will again become occupied, because the gnatcatchers that previously 
occupied any such territories were either killed or displaced by the 
Cedar Fire. Pre-construction gnatcatcher surveys will identify whether 
and where any gnatcatcher reoccupations have occurred at that point. 
Loss of actual occupied gnatcatcher habitat, if any, will be mitigated 
according to the ratio for occupied habitat in the INRMP.
    Conclusions: After carefully considering the purpose and need for 
the proposed action, the analysis contained in the EIS, and the 
comments received on the EIS from Federal, state, and local agencies, 
non-governmental organizations, and individual members of the public, I 
have determined that the preferred alternative, Site 8A, will best meet 
the needs of the DON for the following reasons:

--It best addresses the critical shortage of MFH in the San Diego area, 
especially given the limited availability of sites that meet Navy 
criteria and which could accommodate the number of housing units 
envisioned in the proposed action.
--It is environmentally preferred to the Site 8B, Site 2, and Site 3 
alternatives.

[[Page 51646]]

--Significant impacts caused by the proposed action can be mitigated. 
Most mitigation measures can be accomplished by the PPV entity with 
appropriate DON oversight.
--Sufficient actions, through CERCLA compliance, land use controls, and 
site clearance, will be taken to minimize the potential threat posed by 
the presence of MEC to construction personnel, housing residents, and 
members of surrounding communities.

    Dated: August 12, 2004.
Wayne Arny,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Facilities).
[FR Doc. 04-19157 Filed 8-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P