GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT

What’s in this document? 

The United States Marine Corps, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of 

Reclamation, has prepared this Legislative Environmental Impact Statement to assess the potential 

environmental effects of the proposed renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range land 

withdrawal. The document describes why the land withdrawal renewal is being proposed; action and 

no-action alternatives; the existing environment that could be affected by the project; the potential 

impacts from each of the alternatives; and the cumulative effects of this action when considered with 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

What should you do? 

• Please read this Legislative Environmental Impact Statement and provide comments. Additional 

copies of this document are available for review at the Yuma County Library (Main Branch), 

Brawley Public Library, San Diego Public Library (San Ysidro Branch), Palo Verde Valley 

Library in Blythe, and Community Center Branch Library in El Centro, and can also be 

downloaded from the project website at 

http://www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com/html/documentsmaps.html. 

• Participate in public meetings. Meeting dates and locations are expected to be announced on the 

project website at http://www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com/index.html. 

We welcome your comments. If you have any comments regarding the Draft Legislative Environmental 

Impact Statement, send your written comments by November 30, 2012, to:

Ms. Kelly Finn

NEPA Project Manager

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest

1220 Pacific Highway 

Building 1, Central IPT 

San Diego, CA 92132 
1 Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 

2 for the Renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal

3 

4 

5 Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps 

6 

7 Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

8 Management

9 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

10 

11 Title of the Proposed Action: Renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

12 Range Land Withdrawal

13 

14 Location of the Proposed Action: State of California, Counties of Imperial and Riverside 

15 

16 For Additional Information Ms. Kelly Finn

17 Contact: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest

18 Telephone: (619) 532-4452 

19 

20 Mail Comments on the Draft Ms. Kelly Finn

21 Legislative Environmental NAVFAC Southwest

22 Impact Statement to: 1220 Pacific Hwy 

23 Building 1 Central IPT 

24 San Diego CA 92132 

25 

26 Submit Electronic http://www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com/Comment/Default.aspx

27 Comments to: 

28 

29 Comment Period: A 90-day comment period for this Draft Legislative Environmental 

30 Impact Statement (LEIS) will close on November 30, 2012. 

31 

32 ABSTRACT

33 

34 This Draft LEIS addresses the proposed renewal of the military land withdrawal and reservation of the Chocolate 

35 Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR) in Imperial and Riverside counties, California. To support a continuing 

36 military need for the CMAGR, renewal of the land withdrawal is required by the California Military Lands 

37 Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 (Public Law [P.L.] 103-433) for the approximately 228,465 acres of public 

38 land in the CMAGR administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The remaining federal land in the 

39 range (approximately 229,903 acres) is permanently administered by the Department of the Navy (DoN). The 

40 renewal of the CMAGR is essential for developing and maintaining the readiness of Marine Corps and Naval 

41 Aviation forces. The CMAGR also supports the training of Marine Corps and Navy land combat forces; including 

42 naval special warfare forces. This LEIS addresses four renewal alternatives in detail. With Alternative 5, the no43 action alternative, Congress would not renew the CMAGR land withdrawal. As a consequence, the current 

44 withdrawal of BLM land in the CMAGR would expire at the end of October 2014, the BLM land would no longer be 

45 available for military purposes, and the remaining DoN land would not provide an adequate restricted land-base to 

46 continue tactical aviation training. The effects of the alternatives on range and airspace operations, non-military land 

47 use, geological resources, water resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, visual 

48 resources, public health and safety, hazardous materials and waste, socioeconomic resources, and environmental 

49 justice are discussed. 50 

51 

52 

53 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-1 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 INTRODUCTION

3 The Department of the Navy (DoN) intends to ask the U.S. Congress to renew the withdrawal of 

4 approximately 357 square miles (about 228,465 acres) of federal public land and to reserve the withdrawn 

land for continued military training.15 This public land, located in Imperial and Riverside counties, 

6 California, currently comprises almost half of the 716-square-mile “Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

7 Range (CMAGR).” The land within the CMAGR is administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

8 (BLM, 228,465 acres), Bureau of Reclamation (162 acres) and the DoN (229,903 acres). This Draft 

9 Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (Draft LEIS) has been prepared by the DoN and the U.S. 

10 Marine Corps (hereafter, Marine Corps), in accordance with the requirements of the National 

11 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, to address the potential environmental consequences of 

12 renewing the land withdrawal and continuing military training activities at the CMAGR. 

13 The CMAGR is a live-fire training range that is essential for developing and maintaining the readiness of 

14 Marine Corps and Naval Aviation forces and Marine Corps and Navy land combat forces. These land 

15 forces are typically battalion-sized units and smaller. 

16 The CMAGR supports training by units of the DoN, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Reserve 

17 Components, and U.S. National Guard; however, the Marine Corps is the primary user of this range. 

18 Local command for military operation and administration of the CMAGR has been delegated by the 

19 Secretary of the Navy to the Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona. 

20 The majority of aircraft that are used in training at the range originate from squadrons based at MCAS 

21 Yuma and MCAS Miramar. Other regionally-based squadrons that regularly use the CMAGR are 

22 stationed in California, at MCAS Camp Pendleton and Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island, and in 

23 Arizona, at Luke Air Force Base. Aircraft that originate from other Marine and Naval air stations and Air 

24 Force bases or that are launched from DoN aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean are also frequently flown 

25 in training missions at the CMAGR. In total, roughly 100 squadrons from throughout the nation 

collectively fly more than 6,000 training sorties annually at the CMAGR.226

27 At its most basic form, the decision to be made by Congress is whether to renew the land withdrawal for 

28 the CMAGR or to allow the current withdrawal to expire on 31 October 2014, as currently provided by 

29 the “California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act” (hereafter, CMLWOA). A decision to 

30 renew the land withdrawal would permit continued use of the CMAGR for military training activities and 

31 other related defense purposes for at least the duration of the new withdrawal. 

32 In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, a 

33 legislative EIS, rather than an administrative EIS, has been prepared to address the proposed land 

34 withdrawal. An LEIS is the detailed environmental statement required by law for proposed actions that 

35 require legislative proposals to Congress for implementation.

36 Chapter 1.0 of the LEIS provides a description of the purpose of and need for the action as well as other 

37 introductory background information. Chapter 2.0 describes the proposed action and alternatives, 

38 including the no-action alternative. The affected environment is addressed in Chapter 3.0. Chapter 4.0 

39 reports the projected environmental effects of the alternatives. The cumulative effects of the alternatives 

40 when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions are addressed in Chapter 5.0. 

 

1 The term “public land” generally means any land and interest in land owned by the United States within the several 

States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)).

2 A sortie consists of a single military aircraft from take‐off through landing, and includes a flying mission. For this 

LEIS, the term sortie is commonly used when summarizing an amount of flight activity from a base.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-2 August 2012 

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary 

1 Chapter 6.0 summarizes the consultation and coordination processes, including agency and public 

2 outreach for public scoping and for seeking input on the Draft LEIS so that public comments are included 

3 in the Final LEIS. Chapter 7.0 includes a list of preparers, contributors, and reviewers, and Chapter 8.0 

4 provides a list of references used in the preparation of the LEIS. 

5 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR RENEWING THE CMAGR 

6 As discussed further in Chapter 1, the purpose for renewing the CMAGR land withdrawal is to retain the 

7 training range, which is a component of the national defense training infrastructure indispensable to the 

8 continued and future readiness of Marine Corps and Navy air and ground forces, including Naval Special 

9 Warfare (NSW) Sea, Air and Land (SEAL) units and air combat training conducted by other branches of 

10 the Department of Defense. The need for quality training that provides a realistic approximation of the 

11 conditions that Marines, sailors, airmen, and soldiers will face in combat as individuals and in small or 

12 large units cannot be overstated. The U.S. military is fully invested in the principle that high quality 

13 training is essential to success and survival in combat. Access to ranges that offer flexible, diverse, and 

14 realistic training is essential to preparing tactical forces of the highest possible quality. Thus, the necessity 

15 of keeping the CMAGR fully in service can best be understood from two main perspectives: (1) the 

16 necessity of providing high quality training and (2) the superlative qualities of the CMAGR for 

17 supporting that training. 

18 The primary and essential purpose of the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal is to retain 

19 the use of this vital range for Marine Corps and Navy aviation training. The CMAGR is also critical for 

20 training Marine Corps ground units that support or participate in certain aspects of tactical aviation and 

21 for training small Marine Corps and NSW ground units for land combat missions. The boundary, duration 

22 of withdrawal, and management jurisdiction are decisions which must be made by Congress. 

23 PUBLIC INTEREST AND ISSUES 

24 The NOI to prepare this Draft LEIS was published in the Federal Register on 24 September 2010. In 

25 addition to the NOI, several methods were used to involve the public and facilitate exchange of updated 

26 project information throughout the planning process, including various types of announcements, agency 

27 and tribal coordination, and public scoping meetings. 

28 Coordination with cooperating agencies, other agencies having responsibilities involving CMAGR land 

29 and airspace, public interest groups, and interested individuals has occurred throughout the preparation of 

30 the Draft LEIS. This has included various agency meetings, public open house meetings, newsletters, and 

31 a website. Notification letters were mailed to 49 agencies and 36 tribes expected to have an interest in the 

32 land withdrawal renewal or a regulatory review responsibility. 

33 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

34 Four alternative actions (Alternatives 1 through 4) for keeping the CMAGR available to support training 

35 and the no-action alternative (Alternative 5) of allowing the current land withdrawal to expire in October 

36 2014 were developed in consideration of comments received from the public, Native American tribes, and 

37 government agencies during the scoping process. 

38 Each of the four action alternatives addresses four elements: 

39  A proposed range boundary and land withdrawal area 

40  Either a set duration for the proposed land withdrawal with an option for requesting a subsequent 

41 renewal, or a land withdrawal without a termination date 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-3 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

1 Proposals for redefining DoN and BLM management responsibilities for the CMAGR

2 Provisions for the disposal and management of land released from the CMAGR

3 The Marine Corps is proposing to realign the CMAGR boundary in four locations. Two realignments on 

4 the eastern side of the range would parallel the Niland-Blythe Road. On the north side of the range, the 

5 boundary could be realigned to exclude CMAGR land parcels north of the Bradshaw Trail (a partial 

6 realignment) or could exclude the unneeded parcels and include acquisition of parcels south of the trail 

7 for a full realignment with the Bradshaw Trail. Excluded DoN land would be disposed of through existing 

8 General Services Administration (GSA) authorities and procedures. Another potential realignment on the 

9 southwestern end of the range would follow the Union Pacific Railroad and the Mesquite Regional 

10 Landfill Rail Spur. The four boundary realignment proposals create four boundary and land withdrawal 

11 options:

12 Renew the CMAGR boundary and land withdrawal area without change from the existing 

13 condition (Alternative 1—no realignment option)

14 Renew the CMAGR boundary and land withdrawal area per the existing conditions except 

15 incorporate the full Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, and south of Niland-Blythe Road realignments 

16 (Alternative 2—maximum realignment option)

17 Renew the CMAGR boundary and land withdrawal area per the existing conditions except 

18 incorporate the full Bradshaw Trail and south of Niland-Blythe Road realignments 

19 (Alternative 3—intermediate realignment option)

20 Renew the CMAGR boundary and land withdrawal area per the existing conditions except 

21 incorporate the partial Bradshaw Trail realignment (Alternative 4—minimum realignment option)

22 Three options are also proposed for the duration of the renewed CMAGR land withdrawal:

23 20 years

24 25 years

25 indefinite

26 Three options are proposed for administering federal land management responsibilities for the DoN and 

27 BLM lands within the current CMAGR boundary and for BLM land that may be included in the range for 

28 the first time as a part of a proposed boundary realignment. The options include:

29 Retain the existing DoN and BLM management assignments within the renewed CMAGR, which 

30 provide that the DoN is responsible for managing DoN land in accordance with the Sikes Act and 

31 the BLM is responsible for managing BLM land in accordance with the FLPMA (Alternative 1—

32 existing condition)

33 Transfer management responsibility for BLM land within the renewed CMAGR to the DoN for 

34 the duration of the land withdrawal, which would make the DoN responsible for managing both 

35 the DoN and withdrawn BLM lands within the range in accordance with the Sikes Act 

36 (Alternatives 2 and 4)

37 Transfer jurisdiction for the BLM land within the renewed CMAGR to the DoN, which would 

38 make the DoN responsible for managing all land within the range in accordance with the Sikes 

39 Act until such time that the need for the range may end and it is deactivated and closed 

40 (Alternative 3)
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-4 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

1 The boundary realignment and land withdrawal area proposals of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would each 

2 release some BLM and DoN land from the CMAGR. Alternatives considered for the disposal and 

3 management of land released from range include:

4 Released DoN land would be transferred to BLM; BLM would manage transferred DoN and 

5 formerly withdrawn BLM land per FLPMA (Alternative 2)

6 Released DoN land would be disposed of through existing General Services Administration 

7 (GSA) authorities and procedures; DoN would manage released land per the Sikes Act until 

8 disposal is complete and BLM would manage formerly withdrawn BLM land per FLPMA 

9 (Alternatives 3 and 4)

10 Table ES-1 shows how the four elements—boundary alignment and withdrawal area, withdrawal 

11 duration, agency management responsibilities, and disposal and management of land released—for the 

12 proposed renewal of the CMAGR would be allocated among the four renewal alternatives. A summary of 

13 the no-action alternative is also included in Table ES-1.

14
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-5 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

1 Table ES-1 Summary of Alternatives for Renewing the CMAGR

Action Element Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Boundary

Alignment and 

Withdrawal Area

Boundary and withdrawal 

area would remain 

unchanged from current 

condition

Boundary and withdrawal 

area would be changed to 

incorporate the full 

Bradshaw Trail, Union 

Pacific Railroad, and 

Niland-Blythe Road

realignments

Boundary and withdrawal 

area would be changed to 

incorporate the full 

Bradshaw Trail and NilandBlythe Road realignments

Boundary and 

withdrawal area would 

be changed to 

incorporate the partial 

Bradshaw Trail

No action taken, withdrawal 

expires in October 2014, and 

range would be closed; 

boundary would no longer 

define an active range, but 

would demarcate a post-range 

planning and cleanup area

Duration of Range Renewal BLM land within CMAGR 

boundary would be 

withdrawn and reserved for 

20 years

BLM land within CMAGR 

boundary would be 

withdrawn and reserved for 

25 years

Authorization for CMAGR 

would not expire

Same as Alternative 2 CMAGR would not be renewed

Assignments for CMAGR 

Management 

Responsibilities

Would be unchanged from 

current condition; DoN 

would manage DoN land 

per Sikes Act and BLM 

would manage withdrawn 

BLM land managed per 

FLPMA 

Responsibility for managing 

withdrawn BLM land would 

be transferred to DoN; DoN 

would manage DoN and 

BLM lands per Sikes Act

BLM land would be 

transferred to DoN; DoN 

would manage all CMAGR 

land per Sikes Act 

Same as Alternative 2 All DoN and withdrawn BLM 

land would be released from 

CMAGR; DoN would continue 

to manage DoN land per Sikes 

Act until disposition of DoN 

land determined; BLM would 

manage BLM land managed per 

FLPMA; DoN would be 

responsible for any needed 

post-range cleanup

Disposal of and 

Management 

Responsibilities for Land 

Released from CMAGR

No land would be released Released DoN land would 

be transferred to BLM; 

BLM would manage 

transferred DoN and 

formerly withdrawn BLM 

land per FLPMA; DoN 

would be responsible for 

any needed post-range 

cleanup

Released DoN land would 

be disposed of through 

existing GSA authorities 

and procedures; DoN would 

manage released land per 

Sikes Act until disposal 

complete; BLM would 

manage formerly withdrawn 

BLM land per FLPMA; 

DoN would be responsible 

for any needed post-range 

cleanup

Same as Alternative 3 DoN would continue to manage 

closed DoN range land per 

Sikes Act until disposition of 

DoN land determined; BLM 

would manage formerly 

withdrawn BLM land managed 

per FLPMA; DoN would be 

responsible for any needed 

post-range cleanup

2
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-6 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

1 Under Alternative 5, Congress would take no action to renew the CMAGR land withdrawal. As a 

2 consequence and as provided by the CMLWOA, the current withdrawal of BLM land in the CMAGR 

3 would expire at the end of October 2014, the BLM land would no longer be available for military 

4 purposes, and the remaining DoN land would not provide an adequate restricted land-base to continue 

5 tactical aviation training. From that point forward, the BLM would manage the BLM land in accordance 

6 with FLPMA. 

7 If Congress decides not to renew the CMAGR land withdrawal, the Secretary of Defense would have to 

8 address the displacement of training and the level of clean-up that is appropriate for the type of future 

9 land use. The Secretary of Defense, acting through the DoN, would determine if lands that were once 

10 used for training and testing may contain unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, or 

11 munitions constituents. 

12 Each of the action alternatives provides a set of range renewal elements that in aggregate is unique to that 

13 alternative. Although the four action alternatives do not include all possible combinations of the range 

14 renewal elements, the action and no-action alternatives combined represent the reasonable range of 

15 alternatives as indicated for consideration in this Draft LEIS by the continuing military need for the range, 

16 government and public input received during scoping, and guidance provided by the CMLWOA. Analysis 

17 of the action and no-action alternatives will evaluate and disclose the full spectrum of environmental 

18 consequences that may result from any potential combination of the range renewal or non-renewal 

19 options.

20 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS

21 The existing environment of the CMAGR region was inventoried so that the effects of alternatives could 

22 be assessed for their effect on the environment. Data collection included range and airspace operations, 

23 non-military land use, geological resources, water resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural

24 resources, noise, visual resources, public health and safety, hazardous materials and waste, socioeconomic 

25 resources, and environmental justice. 

26 After the data were collected and the existing environment was described, an impact assessment was 

27 completed for the resources affected by the LEIS alternatives. The results of this assessment were used to 

28 help compare the impacts of the alternatives. Table ES-2 summarizes the environmental effects of the 

29 alternatives for each resource.

30 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

31 The environmental effects associated with implementing the alternatives have been assessed for each 

32 element of the environment described in Chapter 3. The impacts of implementing the proposed action 

33 were analyzed based on the baseline environmental conditions. These baseline environmental conditions 

34 for the CMAGR reflect the influence of military use, which includes aircraft overflights, bombing and 

35 gunnery targets, munitions impact areas, roads, troop deployment areas, developed training sites, and 

36 range maintenance and other types of support areas. 

37 An inventory of the CMAGR found that 99.48 percent of the range surface is used to support the military 

38 mission of the range. About 2,571 acres (0.56 percent) of the range that is north of the Bradshaw Trail has 

39 no assigned military mission. The levels of surface disturbance associated with military use of the 

40 CMAGR ranges from negligible to complete. However, only a small proportion of the range, less than 

41 5 percent, supports surface uses that cause or may cause moderate to complete levels of physical 

42 disturbance to the ground surface, vegetative communities, and surface drainages. Most of the land 

43 associated with the range serves to protect public safety by providing the necessary space to contain the 

44 munitions, and effects of those munitions, expended during the conduct of military training. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-7 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

1 While most environmental effects associated with the action alternatives occur within the CMAGR 

2 boundaries, some effects may extend to adjoining off-range areas by natural processes such as rainwater 

3 runoff, airborne propagation, or biological species movements. The extent to which adjoining off-range 

4 areas may be affected varies depending on the individual resources and processes involved. In general, 

5 because the proposed actions associated with Alternatives 1 through 4 do not include proposed changes in 

6 military operations, most off-range environmental effects would not discernably differ from existing 

7 conditions. Physical, biological, or cultural resource environments in off-range locations that may be 

8 affected by the proposed actions are disclosed in the affected environment description for each resource 

9 area. However, off-range environmental effects are generally minor to inconsequential given the lack of 

10 perennial or seasonally intermittent surface water flow from the CMAGR, the rarity of ephemeral surface 

11 storm water flows of any substantial volumes, the very limited extent of substantial surface disturbing 

12 activities at the range (less than 1 percent of the range surface), the relatively minor role that the range 

13 plays in seasonal migratory pathways of wildlife, and the very limited volume of vehicular traffic that is 

14 authorized to enter and leave the range. Off-range noise and air-quality effects do occur as a result of 

15 on-range activities, but these effects do not exceed regulatory criteria for either of these types of 

16 emissions.

17 Closure, decommissioning, and eventual reuse of the CMAGR, which would occur under Alternative 5, 

18 the no-action alternative, likely would affect the same physical, biological, and cultural resource 

19 environments as would Alternatives 1 through 4, but in a different way. At this time, the nature and extent 

20 of remediation or response actions is highly speculative, and would be subject to further study as well as 

21 funding priorities. Assuming that some level of decontamination would occur, the amount of surface 

22 disturbance associated with remedial actions could be substantially greater than from ongoing military 

23 operations, particularly on land primarily providing a safety buffer. The socioeconomic and 

24 environmental justice environments that would be affected by either renewal of the CMAGR under any of 

25 the action alternatives or closure of the range as result of the no-action alternative would initially include 

26 communities both near to and distant from the CMAGR that are socially or economically impacted by 

27 activities at the range. The key affected distant communities would be those in the vicinities of MCAS 

28 Yuma and MCAS Miramar from which most military training missions at the range are mustered. MCAS 

29 Yuma also provides administrative and management support for the CMAGR.

30
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-8 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

1

2 This page left intentionally blank.

3
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-9 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

1 Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No Action Alternative

Range and Airspace 

Operations

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

Military training capabilities, capacities, and 

operations at the CMAGR and associated 

special use airspace would be preserved and 

unchanged from existing condition.

About 647 acres of DoN land and 1,924

acres of BLM land that are not needed for 

either current or foreseeable future military 

purposes would be retained.

No improvements in the prominence, 

accessibility, and maintainability of the 

CMAGR boundary in the Bradshaw Trail 

area.

Existing National Airspace System structure 

and civil aviation operations would be 

unchanged from existing conditions.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 1 for military training 

capabilities, capacities, and operations.

About 647 acres of DoN land and about 

1,924 acres of BLM land that are not needed 

for either current or foreseeable future 

military purposes would be released.

Physically and visually prominent boundary 

that would be accessible for posting and 

maintaining prohibited entry signs, periodic 

monitoring, and patrol would be established.

Same as Alternative 1 for National Airspace 

System structure and civil aviation 

operations.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 1 for military training 

capabilities, capacities, and operations.

Same as Alternative 2 for release of DoN 

and BLM land.

Same as Alternative 2 for establishing a 

physically and visually prominent boundary.

Same as Alternative 1 for National Airspace 

System structure and civil aviation 

operations.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 1 for military training 

capabilities, capacities, and operations.

Same as Alternative 2 for release of DoN 

and BLM land.

Physically and visually prominent boundary 

that would be accessible for posting and 

maintaining prohibited entry signs, periodic 

monitoring, or patrol would be partially 

established.

Same as Alternative 1 for National Airspace 

System structure and civil aviation 

operations.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate a post-range planning and 

cleanup area:

CMAGR would be closed, decommissioned, 

and slated for non-military use.

Military training capabilities, capacities, and 

operations at the CMAGR would be lost. 

R-2507N/S/E restricted airspace designation 

would likely be changed to a 

MOAA/ATCAA or possibly canceled. 

Existing MOAA/ATCAAs and MTRs may 

also be modified or cancelled.

Need for training capabilities and capacities 

at CMAGR would not end with range 

closure.

Recreating CMAGR training capabilities 

within the BSTRC, at BMGR East, or the 

MCAGCC would likely diminish some 

existing capabilities at the other ranges, 

cause training scheduling conflicts, and 

reduce the aggregate capabilities and 

capacities of these range complexes. This 

would also diminish the multidimensional 

and multi-tiered training system that has 

been developed at the integrated system of 

ranges, range complexes, and military bases 

in southern California and Arizona over 

decades for preparing MAGTFs.

NSWG training would have to be relocated.

New routing opportunities may be created 

for civil aviation operations in special use 

airspace areas associated with closed 

CMAGR.

No realignment along UPRR:

No improvement in the prominence, 

accessibility, and maintainability of the 

CMAGR boundary in the UPRR area.

No development of additional range 

capabilities that could potentially support 

some training operations.

Realignment along UPRR:

Physically and visually prominent boundary 

would be established that would be 

accessible for posting and maintaining 

prohibited entry signs, periodic monitoring, 

and patrol.

Realignment would create a range area 

partially underlying R-2507S with the 

capabilities of potentially supporting some 

training operations.

No realignment along UPRR:

Same as Alternative 1.

No realignment along UPRR:

Same as Alternative 1.

No realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

No improvement in the prominence, 

accessibility, and maintainability of the 

CMAGR boundary in the Niland-Blythe 

Road area.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Physically and visually prominent boundary 

would be established that would be 

accessible for posting and maintaining 

prohibited entry signs, periodic monitoring, 

and patrol.

About 250 acres of BLM land that are not 

needed for either current or foreseeable 

future military purposes would be released.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2.

No realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 1. 
Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative (continued)

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-10 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No Action Alternative

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

No effect on military training capabilities, 

capacities, or operations at the CMAGR and 

associated special use airspace.

Higher cost of administering range renewal 

cycles due to increased frequency of these 

cycles compared to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

Same as Alternative 1 for military training 

capabilities, capacities, and operations.

Lower cost of administering range renewal 

cycles due to decreased frequency of these 

cycles compared to Alternative 1 but not 

compared Alternative 3.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

Same as Alternative 1 for military training 

capabilities, capacities, and operations.

The end of periodic range renewal 

requirements would provide the lowest cost 

of administering range compared to 

Alternative 1, 2, and 4.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

Same as Alternative 2.

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

No effect on military training capabilities, 

capacities, or operations at the CMAGR and 

associated special use airspace.

Split, dual agency management would likely 

raise costs and lower management 

efficiencies for administering the range 

compared to single agency management.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands: 

Same as Alternative 1 for military training 

capabilities, capacities, and operations.

Costs would likely be lower and 

management efficiencies higher for 

administering the range than would occur 

with a split, dual agency management.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands: 

Same as Alternative 1 for military training 

capabilities, capacities, and operations.

Costs would likely be lower and 

management efficiencies higher for 

administering the range than would occur 

with a split, dual agency management.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

Same as Alternative 2.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

No effect on military training capabilities, 

capacities, or operations at the CMAGR and 

associated special use airspace.

Averts DoN costs and other commitments 

for administering management and disposal 

of range land not needed for military 

purposes.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

Same as Alternative 2 for military training 

capabilities, capacities, and operations.

DoN would incur costs and other 

commitments for administering management 

and disposal of range land not needed for 

military purposes.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed:

Same as Alternative 2 for military training 

capabilities, capacities, and operations.

Same as Alternative 3 for administering 

management and disposal of unneeded range 

land.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

Not applicable.

Non-military Land and 

Airspace Use (including 

Utilities, Surface 

Transportation, and 

Recreation) 

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

Land development adjacent to and near the 

CMAGR would continue to be influenced by 

the military operations within the range. 

Lands within the CMAGR would continue to 

be reserved for military purposes.

No effects on environmental management 

plans and approved county plans. 

Recreational opportunities would be 

unchanged. 

No effects on transportation corridors. 

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Land acquired for CMAGR would be 

withdrawn from all forms of appropriation 

under the public land laws (including the 

mining laws and the mineral leasing and the 

geothermal leasing laws); land released 

could become available for appropriative 

uses.

Change in role for land acquired or released 

could prompt amendments to environmental 

management plans and/or county plans.

Would clearly demarcate range boundary 

from non- range lands and the public would 

be less likely to inadvertently enter the 

range. 

BLM management of the trail and Riverside 

County maintenance of the trail could be 

accomplished without encroaching into the 

CMAGR.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Land released could become available for 

appropriative uses.

Change in role for land released could 

prompt amendments to environmental 

management plans and/or county plans.

Would improve demarcation of range 

boundary along the Bradshaw Trail and 

Niland-Blythe Road alignments. 

Same as Alternative 2 for management and 

maintenance of Bradshaw Trail.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Land released could become available for 

appropriative uses.

Change in role for land released could 

prompt amendments to environmental 

management plans and/or county plans.

Same as Alternative 2 for management and 

maintenance of Bradshaw Trail.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate a post-range planning and 

cleanup area:

While military operations would be 

discontinued, there would be a planning 

effort to allocate current military operations 

and to begin a clean-up process for the range. 

In the near term, as decontamination 

processes are initiated and implemented, no 

alternative land uses could be introduced 

within the CMAGR. If land is processed and 

made available for other future uses, it could 

prompt extensive land and resource 

management planning efforts and plan 

amendments.

Former range boundary would demarcate a 

post-range planning and cleanup area.

Realignment along UPRR:

Same types of effects as full realignment 

along Bradshaw Trail alternative listed 

above, except there is no trail to be managed 

by or maintained by the county.
Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative (continued)

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-11 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No Action Alternative

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same types of effects as full realignment 

along Bradshaw Trail alternative listed 

above.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Land released (250 acres) could become 

available for appropriative uses.

Would clearly demarcate range boundary 

from non- range lands and the public would 

be less likely to inadvertently enter the 

range.

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

Would have the greatest potential to keep the 

CMAGR for military purposes in perpetuity 

and exclude the lands from other public 

purposes.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Would have the greatest potential to make 

CMAGR lands available for non-military 

land uses, but it would be speculative to 

suggest when or what types of future uses 

might be allowed.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

Having a single agency responsible for land 

management would offer consistency and 

avoid the potential for duplication of similar 

efforts.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

Same as Alternative 2.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

Same as Alternative 2 

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

The BLM would be responsible for 

addressing plan amendments to the CDCA 

Plan, the NECO and the Western Colorado 

Desert Routes of Travel Designations Plan as 

part of the planning for future non-military 

use of the former range land, assuming land 

is environmental cleared for other uses.

The DoN lands within the range would 

become excess property if the CMAGR were 

to close and would be either transferred to 

another federal agency, such as the BLM, or 

disposed of as surplus.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

Possible need to amend the BLM’s current 

CDCA Plan, the Northern and Eastern 

Colorado Desert Coordinated Management 

Plan (NECO) and the Western Colorado 

Desert Routes of Travel Designations Plan.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

BLM would be the managing federal 

jurisdiction for the public lands located 

within the current boundary.

DoN land would become excess property 

and would be either transferred to another 

federal agency or disposed of as surplus 

through existing GSA authorities.
Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative (continued)

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-12 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No Action Alternative

Geological Resources Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

Military surface use impacts on geological

resources would not change.

Soils currently disturbed by military surface 

use would continue to be disturbed and 

subject to increased wind and water erosion 

or increased runoff.

Mineral and energy resources currently 

withdrawn from the public domain would 

continue to be unavailable for exploration 

and/or development. Continued land 

withdrawal preserves potential resources for 

future development and use.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Boundary realignment would not affect the 

lands currently impacted by military surface 

use. Impacts on geological resources by 

military surface use would be the same as 

Alternative 1.

Potential mineral or energy resources on 

released lands could be developed and 

impact geological resources.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail.

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate a post-range planning and 

cleanup area:

Military surface use would cease. Impacted 

soils may be cleaned up or have restricted 

land use. Disturbed soils in the surface use 

areas would likely stabilize and, with time, 

may revegetate and reduce erosion or runoff.

Remediation may disturb soils in areas that 

currently experience negligible surface use, 

increasing potential for erosion. If cleared for 

alternative uses, the future use also may 

cause more surface disturbance than current 

military operations, although the extent of 

remedial action and potential for future use 

cannot be estimated at this time.

Realignment along UPRR:

Same types of effects as full realignment 

along Bradshaw Trail alternative listed 

above.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same types of effects as full realignment 

along Bradshaw Trail alternative listed 

above. 

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2.

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

Existing requirements of a land withdrawal 

application (including mineral potential) 

would no longer apply. By eliminating the 

need for this evaluation, there may be a less 

clear future understanding of the mining 

opportunities that would be unavailable by 

continuing the military reservation status of 

the CMAGR.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Same as above regarding withdrawal area.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

Current management responsibilities would 

remain the same and would have no new 

impacts on geological resources.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

Changed management responsibilities would 

have no effect on geological resources.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

No effect on most of the lands, however, the 

mineral rights on some of the released lands 

may revert to the State and be available for 

exploration and development.
Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative (continued)

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-13 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No Action Alternative

Water Resources Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

Military surface use impacts on water 

resources would not change. Surface water 

use on the CMAGR prohibited by law.

Ephemeral surface water drainages currently 

disturbed by military surface use would 

continue to be impacted by increased 

sediment loads and sedimentation.

Ground water resources would not be 

impacted as they are not used as a water 

supply by the military. Ground water use 

beneath the CMAGR is prohibited by law.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Boundary realignment would not affect the 

lands currently impacted by military surface 

use. Impacts on water resources by military 

surface use would be the same as 

Alternative 1.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail.

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate a post-range planning and 

cleanup area:

Military surface use would cease. Impacted 

ephemeral surface water drainages may be 

cleaned up or have restricted land use. 

Disturbed soils in the surface use areas and 

drainages would likely stabilize and return to 

their natural state and reduce or eliminate 

sediment impacts to surface water.

Remediation may disturb soils in areas that 

currently experience negligible surface use, 

increasing potential for sediment loads and 

sedimentation. If cleared for alternative uses, 

the future use also may cause more surface 

disturbance than current military operations;

however, the extent of remedial action and 

potential for future use cannot be estimated 

at this time.

Realignment along UPRR:

Same types of effects as full realignment 

along Bradshaw Trail alternative listed 

above.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same types of effects as full realignment 

along Bradshaw Trail alternative listed 

above. 

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2.

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Same as above regarding withdrawal area.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

Current management responsibilities would 

remain the same and would have no new 

impacts on water resources.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

Changed management responsibilities would 

have no effect on water resources.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

No effect.

Air Quality Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

Current emissions sources at the CMAGR 

would continue unchanged. 

No new impacts are anticipated.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Current emissions sources at the CMAGR 

would continue unchanged. 

Emissions increases associated with 

boundary demarcation and erecting signs 

would be small, infrequent and within the 

range maintenance activities currently 

occurring at CMAGR.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same effects as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail.

Same effects as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate post-range planning and 

remedial response area:

Emissions associated with military aircraft 

operations would be substantially lessened, 

and emissions associated with air-to-ground 

operations would cease altogether. 

Any necessary remediation response is 

highly speculative. It is anticipated that a 

remedial response would have a greater 

effect if the remedial activities increase 

ground disturbance in areas with negligible 

military surface use.
Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative (continued)

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-14 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No Action Alternative

Realignment along UPRR:

Same effects as full realignment along 

Bradshaw Trail alternative listed above. 

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same effects as full realignment along 

Bradshaw Trail alternative listed above.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2.

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR 

CMAGR – DoN would manage DoN and 

BLM lands:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

No effect.

Biological Resources Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

Current effects on biological resources 

from military operations would continue.

OHV trespassing onto CMAGR would 

continue due to boundaries that are difficult 

to identify, adversely impacting biological 

resources.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Impacts to biological resources in acquired 

land areas would be insignificant because 

these areas would predominantly function 

as buffer zones and incorporation within 

CMAGR would eliminate damage from 

public uses.

Prominent feature for the range boundary 

may reduce potential for OHV or other 

inadvertent trespass into the range, which 

may help to minimize impacts to biological 

resources. 

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 3.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate a post-range planning and 

cleanup area:

Anticipated physical disturbance due to 

CMAGR deactivation, post-range planning 

activities, or cleanup would be expected to 

result in some loss of or damage to 

biological resources, although future 

actions would be evaluated under NEPA. 

Impacts from alternative land uses and 

associated mitigation measures would be 

evaluated through additional NEPA 

documentation following a public planning 

process for the future use of these lands.

Realignment along UPRR:

The land added to the CMAGR by 

realigning the boundary with the UPRR 

could contain fringe habitat for dune 

specialists. No military operations are 

currently proposed within this land and the 

nearby Algodones Dunes provide core 

habitat for these species. Disturbance 

within the acquisition area, if warranted, 

would not have a significant impact on the 

survival of these species. 

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

No effect.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2.
Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative (continued)

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-15 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No Action Alternative

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

Other environmental documentation and 

LEIS would be prepared and impacts to 

biological resources would be re-evaluated 

in 20 years.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

Other environmental documentation and 

LEIS would be prepared and impacts to 

biological resources would be re-evaluated 

in 25 years.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

Biological resource impacts would not be 

re-evaluated for a withdrawal renewal 

under NEPA at a set expiration date.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

Same as Alternative 2.

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Impacts associated with military activities 

would no longer occur.

Land uses presently prohibited under 

military withdrawal, such as mining and 

off-highway-vehicle use, may be allowed to 

occur. The potential for the public to use 

released land that remain under DoN 

jurisdiction would have to be determined 

through planning to evaluate the extent that 

such use would not be inconsistent with 

hazards that may be present from UXO.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

DoN would manage CMAGR under the 

Sikes Act. Under the Sikes Act, the DoN is 

required to prepare an Integrated Natural 

Resource Management Plan (INRMP) that 

should be updated every 5 years. There is 

currently no such plan for DoN land at 

CMAGR. 

DoI land is currently managed under 

FLPMA with CMAGR included in the 

NECO. Following management transfer to 

DoN, this plan would no longer be 

applicable to DoI land at CMAGR.

DoN-exclusive management of CMAGR 

could reduce management focus on BLM 

sensitive species and CNPS rare plants 

because the DoN is under no legal 

obligation to protect these species. 

Protection for federally threatened and 

endangered species such as the desert 

tortoise would continue under the 

management transfer; therefore, the 

management transfer would not impact 

these species.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

Same as Alternative 2.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

Same as Alternative 2.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed:

Same as Alternative 2.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

No effect.
Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative (continued)

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-16 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No Action Alternative

Cultural Resources Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

Existing uses of the CMAGR would 

continue, unchanged; no new impacts 

anticipated.

Potential impacts to cultural resources may 

occur as a result of low-level flight 

maneuvers or supersonic flight speeds, but 

this is unchanged from the current 

condition.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 1 for existing CMAGR.

Better demarcated boundary may reduce 

impacts to the extent that recreational based 

activities would no longer occur south of the 

Bradshaw Trail. Public activity along the 

north side of the trail corridor may affect 

cultural resources that may be present, but 

the release of the land from the CMAGR 

would leave this potential unchanged from 

the present condition.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 1 for existing CMAGR.

Better demarcated boundary may reduce 

impacts to the extent that recreational based 

activities would no longer occur south of the 

Bradshaw Trail. Public activity along the 

north side of the trail corridor may affect 

cultural resources that may be present, but 

the release of the land from the CMAGR 

would leave this potential unchanged from 

the present condition.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 1 for existing CMAGR.

Public activity along the north side of the 

trail corridor may affect cultural resources 

that may be present, but the release of the 

land from the CMAGR would leave this 

potential unchanged from the present 

condition.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate a post-range planning and 

cleanup area:

Impacts associated with military activities 

would no longer occur.

Anticipated physical disturbance due to 

CMAGR deactivation, post-range planning 

activities, or cleanup to cultural resources 

would be expected to result in some loss of 

or damage to cultural resources, although 

actions would be evaluated for compliance 

with NEPA and NHPA.

To the extent that former CMAGR land is 

made available for other uses, there could 

be physical disturbances to cultural 

resources due to potential increase in public 

access (e.g., vandalism, destruction, or 

looting, inadvertent damage caused by 

pedestrian or vehicular traffic) or other 

development of the land.

Realignment along UPRR:

Cultural resources present within the land 

that would be added to the CMAGR through 

the boundary realignment could potentially 

be impacted by a future military use, 

although none is proposed at this time.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Released land could become more accessible 

and potentially increase impacts to cultural 

resources in this area.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2.

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Land uses presently prohibited under 

military withdrawal, such as mining and offhighway-vehicle use, may be allowed to 

occur. The potential for the public to use 

released land that remain under DoN 

jurisdiction would have to be determined 

through planning, which would include 

evaluation of cultural resource impacts.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

No effect.
Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative (continued)

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-17 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No Action Alternative

Noise Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

Ambient noise exposure at all areas in the 

vicinity of CMAGR is expected to remain 

similar to current conditions.

No new impacts are anticipated.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Noise-producing ground-based and airborne 

operations are not expected to change as a 

result of boundary realignment.

No new impacts are anticipated.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate a post-range planning and 

cleanup area:

Non-renewal would severely curtail the 

opportunities for military training and thus 

eliminate most of the associated noiseproducing sources from the ambient sound 

environment.

No immediate new impacts are anticipated. 

Cannot speculate as to what future noise 

sources and corresponding impacts may be 

present.

Realignment along UPRR:

Same effects as full realignment along 

Bradshaw Trail alternative listed above.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same effects as full realignment along 

Bradshaw Trail alternative listed above.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2.

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

No effects.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

No effect.

Visual Resources Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

No effect. 

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Negligible visual impacts as seen from land 

along and beyond the CMAGR perimeter.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate a post-range planning and 

cleanup area:

Additional studies would be conducted to 

determine the extent and priority of range 

clean-up activities and future use of the 

range. Depending on the nature of the 

remediation activities, views of the CMAGR 

landscape from perimeter lands may change 

and result in a greater degree of visual 

contrast.

Realignment along UPRR:

Negligible visual impacts as seen from land 

along and beyond the CMAGR perimeter.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Negligible visual impacts as seen from land 

along and beyond the CMAGR perimeter.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2.
Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative (continued)

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-18 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No Action Alternative

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

Negligible to low visual impacts from 

ongoing military use, as seen from land 

along and beyond the CMAGR perimeter.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

Same as Alternative 1.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

Same as Alternative 1.

Duration of Range Renewal:

Same as Alternative 1.

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

Same as Alternative 1.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

Same as Alternative 1.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR:

Same as Alternative 1.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

Same as Alternative 1.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

Same as Alternative 2.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed:

Same as Alternative 2.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

Same as Alternative 2.

Public Health and Safety Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

Health and safety issues would remain the 

same as current conditions. 

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

The CMAGR boundary would be more 

readily identified by the use of prominent 

geographic features, reducing the potential

for inadvertent trespass into the CMAGR 

and thus reducing public health and safety 

risks.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 2, although the northern 

range boundary would be more difficult to 

identify than with Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate a post-range planning and 

cleanup area:

Additional studies would be conducted to 

determine the extent and priority of range 

clean-up activities and future use of the 

range. Extensive cleanup procedures would 

be needed prior to any reuse of the CMAGR 

for purposes other than military operations to 

ensure protection to public health and safety. 

Realignment along UPRR:

Same effects as full realignment along 

Bradshaw Trail alternative listed above.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same effects as full realignment along 

Bradshaw Trail alternative listed above.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2.

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

No effect.

DoN responsible for cleanup

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

No effect.

DoN responsible for cleanup

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed:

Same as Alternative 3. 

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

No effect.

DoN responsible for cleanup.
Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative (continued)

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-19 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No Action Alternative

Hazardous Materials and 

Waste

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

Handling and storage of hazardous materials 

would remain the same as current conditions. 

Existing protocol and procedures provide for 

safe use of hazardous materials and for 

response should there be an inadvertent spill 

or release.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

No change in the locations in which 

hazardous materials would be used or in the 

protocol and procedures for safe handling of 

hazardous materials. Therefore, same as 

Alternative 1.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate a post-range planning and 

cleanup area:

DoN would determine which lands that have 

been used for training and testing may 

contain UXO, munitions, or munitions 

constituents. Studies would be required to 

determine the extent and degree of the 

hazard, appropriate remedial actions, and 

funding requirements. It is anticipated that 

removal of all hazards, particularly at core 

impact areas for targets, would require 

extensive cleanup. 

Realignment along UPRR:

Same effects as full realignment along 

Bradshaw Trail alternative listed above.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same effects as full realignment along 

Bradshaw Trail alternative listed above.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal:

Same as Alternative 2 

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR:

Same as Alternative 2 

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

No effect.

DoN responsible for cleanup

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

No effect.

DoN responsible for cleanup

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed:

Same as Alternative 3. 

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

No effect.

DoN responsible for cleanup.

Socioeconomic Resources Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

No new impacts anticipated.

Beneficial economic effects in the vicinity of 

the installations that primarily use the range 

for training would continue. 

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 1.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 1.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate a post-range planning and 

cleanup area:

Effects from military use of the range would 

cease.

Negative economic impacts anticipated in 

the vicinity of the installations that primarily 

use the range for training.

There could be impacts to communities in 

the vicinity of the range depending on nonmilitary land uses, although the future use of 

the range is undetermined.

Realignment along UPRR:

Same as Alternative 1.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 1.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2.
Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative (continued)

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ES-20 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No Action Alternative

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

Greatest potential of the action alternatives 

to continue the beneficial socioeconomic 

effects in perpetuity for the military 

installations that use the CMAGR for 

training.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

No effect.

Environmental Justice Boundary/Withdrawal Area – unchanged 

from current condition:

Continued military operations of the 

CMAGR would not be anticipated to cause 

disproportionately high and adverse human 

or environmental effects on low-income or 

minority communities.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 1.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Full realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 2.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area:

Partial realignment along Bradshaw Trail:

Same as Alternative 1.

Boundary/Withdrawal Area – Boundary 

would demarcate a post-range planning and 

cleanup area:

Effects from military use of the range would 

cease.

Negative economic impacts anticipated in 

the vicinity of the installations that primarily 

use the range for training, although this is 

unlikely to fall disproportionately on a community of concern for environmental justice.

Realignment along UPRR:

Same as Alternative 1.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 1.

Realignment along Niland-Blythe Road:

Same as Alternative 2.

Duration of Range Renewal – 20 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no expiration:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – 25 years:

No effect.

Duration of Range Renewal – no renewal:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

unchanged from current condition:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

DoN would manage DoN and BLM lands:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM land would be transferred to DoN:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for CMAGR –

BLM would manage BLM lands; DoN lands 

would be disposed of through existing 

procedures:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – no lands released:

Not applicable.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – transferred to BLM:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN lands disposed through 

existing procedures; BLM to manage BLM 

land: 

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed:

No effect.

Management Responsibilities for Lands Not 

Renewed – DoN would manage closed DoN 

land until disposition determined; BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn BLM 

land:

No effect.

1

2
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal i August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 Page

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1

4 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION.................................................................................1-1

5 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1-1

6 1.1.1 Decision to be Made........................................................................................1-2

7 1.1.2 Process for Renewing the CMAGR Withdrawal and Reservation..................1-5

8 1.1.3 Withdrawal Application Elements and LEIS Alternatives..............................1-6

9 1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR RENEWING THE CMAGR .....................................1-8

10 1.2.1 Necessity of Training.......................................................................................1-8

11 1.2.2 CMAGR Training Functions and Benefits....................................................1-12

12 1.2.3 Future Requirements for the CMAGR ..........................................................1-26

13 1.3 CMAGR BOUNDARY REALIGNMENT ...................................................................1-27

14 1.3.1 South of Niland-Blythe Road Realignments.................................................1-27

15 1.3.2 Bradshaw Trail Boundary Realignment ........................................................1-29

16 1.3.3 Union Pacific Railroad Realignment.............................................................1-29

17 1.4 DURATION OF THE LAND WITHDRAWAL...........................................................1-30

18 1.5 REASSIGNMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY...............................1-30

19 1.6 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW........................................................1-32

20 1.6.1 Legislative Environmental Impact Statement................................................1-32

21 1.6.2 Study Region .................................................................................................1-32

22 1.6.3 Public Scoping Process..................................................................................1-32

23 1.6.4 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis.....................................................1-35

24 1.7 APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ...................................................1-35

25 1.8 ORGANIZATION OF THIS LEIS................................................................................1-37

26

27 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES................................2-1

28 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................2-1

29 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1...........................................................................................................2-5

30 2.2.1 Proposed Range Boundary and Lands Withdrawn..........................................2-5

31 2.2.2 Proposed Duration of the Land Withdrawal and Option for Subsequent 

32 Renewal...........................................................................................................2-5

33 2.2.3 Proposed Management Provisions...................................................................2-6

34 2.2.4 Continuing Military Land Use.........................................................................2-7

35 2.3 ALTERNATIVE 2.........................................................................................................2-11

36 2.3.1 Proposed CMAGR Boundary Realignments and Range Perimeter Lands to Be 

37 Withdrawn or Released .................................................................................2-12

38 2.3.2 Proposed Management Provisions.................................................................2-16

39 2.3.3 BLM and DoN Lands Released from CMAGR ............................................2-16

40 2.4 ALTERNATIVE 3.........................................................................................................2-17

41 2.5 ALTERNATIVE 4.........................................................................................................2-18

42 2.6 ALTERNATIVE 5 (NO ACTION) ...............................................................................2-20

43 2.7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT EVALUATED IN DETAIL 

44 IN THE LEIS.................................................................................................................2-21

45 2.7.1 Land Withdrawal Durations Shorter than 20 Years ......................................2-21

46 2.7.2 Consolidate DoN and BLM Lands................................................................2-23

47

48
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ii August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

1 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT....................................................................................................3-1

2 3.1 CMAGR REGIONAL, HISTORICAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS..........3-1

3 3.2 RANGE AND AIRSPACE OPERATIONS....................................................................3-3

4 3.2.1 Evolution of the Regional Airspace and Range Setting ..................................3-3

5 3.2.2 Military Use Airspace......................................................................................3-6

6 3.2.3 Air and Ground Training Operations.............................................................3-10

7 3.2.4 Military Surface Use and Roads....................................................................3-14

8 3.2.5 Non-Military Surface Use and Roadless Areas.............................................3-20

9 3.2.6 Ordnance Expenditures..................................................................................3-23

10 3.2.7 Operational Range Clearance Program .........................................................3-26

11 3.3 NON-MILITARY LAND USE .....................................................................................3-27

12 3.3.1 Regional Land Use Setting............................................................................3-27

13 3.3.2 Land Status and Management Responsibilities.............................................3-28

14 3.3.3 Land Use........................................................................................................3-31

15 3.3.4 Utilities..........................................................................................................3-33

16 3.3.5 Renewable Energy.........................................................................................3-33

17 3.3.6 Surface Transportation ..................................................................................3-35

18 3.3.7 Non-Military Land Use Potential in the CMAGR.........................................3-36

19 3.3.8 Recreation......................................................................................................3-37

20 3.4 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................................3-38

21 3.4.1 Regional Geologic Setting.............................................................................3-38

22 3.4.2 CMAGR Geology..........................................................................................3-39

23 3.4.3 Soils...............................................................................................................3-41

24 3.4.4 Mineral Resources.........................................................................................3-42

25 3.4.5 Paleontological Resources.............................................................................3-46

26 3.5 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................3-50

27 3.5.1 Water Resources Setting................................................................................3-50

28 3.5.2 Surface Water................................................................................................3-51

29 3.5.3 Groundwater..................................................................................................3-52

30 3.5.4 Water Rights..................................................................................................3-57

31 3.5.5 Water Development Potential........................................................................3-57

32 3.6 AIR QUALITY..............................................................................................................3-57

33 3.6.1 Air Quality Setting ........................................................................................3-58

34 3.6.2 Air Quality Regulatory Environment ............................................................3-61

35 3.6.3 Project Setting ...............................................................................................3-63

36 3.6.4 Existing Air Quality ......................................................................................3-63

37 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................3-66

38 3.7.1 Biological Resource Setting ..........................................................................3-66

39 3.7.2 Vegetation......................................................................................................3-66

40 3.7.3 Aquatic Habitats and Floodplains..................................................................3-69

41 3.7.4 Wildlife Habitat.............................................................................................3-70

42 3.7.5 Special Status Species ...................................................................................3-71

43 3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................3-79

44 3.8.1 Cultural Resource Setting..............................................................................3-80

45 3.8.2 Historic Resources.........................................................................................3-85

46 3.8.3 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................3-86

47 3.8.4 Cultural Resource Management ....................................................................3-87

48 3.9 NOISE............................................................................................................................3-88

49 3.9.1 Noise Metrics and Regulations......................................................................3-88

50 3.9.2 Noise Setting .................................................................................................3-91
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal iii August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

1 3.9.3 Noise Models.................................................................................................3-92

2 3.9.4 Noise Exposures at the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range............3-93

3 3.10 VISUAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................3-96

4 3.10.1 Visual Resource Setting.................................................................................3-96

5 3.10.2 Visual Resources...........................................................................................3-96

6 3.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.............................................................................3-100

7 3.11.1 Safety Setting...............................................................................................3-100

8 3.11.2 Aviation Safety............................................................................................3-101

9 3.11.3 Ground Safety..............................................................................................3-102

10 3.11.4 Non-Military Health and Safety Issues........................................................3-103

11 3.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE.............................................................3-104

12 3.12.1 Hazardous Materials and Waste Setting......................................................3-104

13 3.12.2 Management of Hazardous Materials and Wastes and Petroleum, Oil, 

14 and Lubricants.............................................................................................3-105

15 3.12.3 Hazardous Materials and Waste Conditions................................................3-106

16 3.13 SOCIOECONOMICS..................................................................................................3-109

17 3.13.1 Socioeconomic Setting ................................................................................3-109

18 3.13.2 Socioeconomic Region of Influence............................................................3-109

19 3.13.3 General Demographic Trends and Economic Conditions ...........................3-110

20 3.13.4 Economic Profiles .......................................................................................3-116

21 3.14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ..................................................................................3-117

22 3.14.1 Environmental Justice Setting .....................................................................3-117

23 3.14.2 Environmental Justice Background .............................................................3-117

24 3.14.3 Environmental Justice Conditions...............................................................3-118

25

26 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................4-1

27 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................4-1

28 4.2 RANGE AND AIRSPACE OPERATIONS....................................................................4-2

29 4.2.1 Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................4-2

30 4.2.2 Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................4-3

31 4.2.3 Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................4-5

32 4.2.4 Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................4-6

33 4.2.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)................................................................................4-6

34 4.3 NON-MILITARY LAND USE .....................................................................................4-11

35 4.3.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................4-11

36 4.3.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................4-12

37 4.3.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................4-13

38 4.3.4 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................4-14

39 4.3.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)..............................................................................4-14

40 4.4 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................................4-15

41 4.4.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................4-16

42 4.4.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................4-17

43 4.4.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................4-17

44 4.4.4 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................4-18

45 4.4.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)..............................................................................4-18

46 4.5 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................4-19

47 4.5.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................4-20

48 4.5.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................4-20

49 4.5.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................4-21

50 4.5.4 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................4-21

51 4.5.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)..............................................................................4-21
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal iv August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

1 4.6 AIR QUALITY..............................................................................................................4-23

2 4.6.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................4-23

3 4.6.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................4-25

4 4.6.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................4-25

5 4.6.4 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................4-26

6 4.6.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)..............................................................................4-26

7 4.6.6 General Conformity.......................................................................................4-26

8 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................4-26

9 4.7.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................4-27

10 4.7.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................4-31

11 4.7.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................4-32

12 4.7.4 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................4-33

13 4.7.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)..............................................................................4-33

14 4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................4-33

15 4.8.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................4-36

16 4.8.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................4-37

17 4.8.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................4-38

18 4.8.4 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................4-39

19 4.8.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)..............................................................................4-39

20 4.9 NOISE............................................................................................................................4-40

21 4.9.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................4-40

22 4.9.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................4-40

23 4.9.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................4-41

24 4.9.4 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................4-41

25 4.9.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)..............................................................................4-42

26 4.10 VISUAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................4-42

27 4.10.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................4-43

28 4.10.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................4-44

29 4.10.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................4-45

30 4.10.4 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................4-45

31 4.10.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)..............................................................................4-45

32 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY...............................................................................4-46

33 4.11.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................4-47

34 4.11.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................4-47

35 4.11.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................4-48

36 4.11.4 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................4-48

37 4.11.5 Alternative 5 ..................................................................................................4-48

38 4.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE...............................................................4-49

39 4.12.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................4-49

40 4.12.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................4-49

41 4.12.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................4-50

42 4.12.4 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................4-50

43 4.12.5 Alternative 5 ..................................................................................................4-50

44 4.13 SOCIOECONOMICS....................................................................................................4-50

45 4.13.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................4-52

46 4.13.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................4-53

47 4.13.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................4-53

48 4.13.4 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................4-53

49 4.13.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)..............................................................................4-54

50 4.14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ....................................................................................4-55

51 4.14.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................4-57
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal v August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

1 4.14.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................4-57

2 4.14.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................4-57

3 4.14.4 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................4-57

4 4.14.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)..............................................................................4-57

5 4.15 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................4-58

6 4.15.1 Impacts of Proposed Alternatives..................................................................4-58

7 4.16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES.......4-60

8

9 5. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..........................................................................................................5-1

10 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................5-1

11 5.2 EFFECTS OF PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE 

12 ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................5-1

13 5.2.1 Summary of the Additive and Interactive Effects of Past and Present 

14 Actions on the CMAGR Region......................................................................5-8

15 5.2.2 Summary of the Additive and Interactive Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable 

16 Future Actions when Considered Together with Past and Present Actions ..5-12

17 5.3 EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL RESOURCES ...............................................................5-13

18 5.3.1 Airspace and Ranges .....................................................................................5-13

19 5.3.2 Non-Military Land Use .................................................................................5-14

20 5.3.3 Geological Resources....................................................................................5-16

21 5.3.4 Water Resources............................................................................................5-17

22 5.3.5 Air Quality.....................................................................................................5-18

23 5.3.6 Biological Resources.....................................................................................5-19

24 5.3.7 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................5-20

25 5.3.8 Noise..............................................................................................................5-21

26 5.3.9 Visual Resources...........................................................................................5-21

27 5.3.10 Public Health and Safety ...............................................................................5-22

28 5.3.11 Hazardous Materials and Waste ....................................................................5-23

29 5.3.12 Socioeconomics.............................................................................................5-23

30

31 6.0 CMAGR CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...............................................................6-1

32 6.1 HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.....................................................................6-1

33 6.2 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OUTREACH METHODS.....................................................6-1

34 6.2.1 Government Leader Briefing...........................................................................6-1

35 6.2.2 Notice of Intent................................................................................................6-1

36 6.2.3 Newsletters......................................................................................................6-1

37 6.2.4 Website ............................................................................................................6-1

38 6.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL COORDINATION ................................................................6-2

39 6.3.1 Cooperating Agencies......................................................................................6-2

40 6.3.2 Other Agency and Tribal Consultation............................................................6-2

41 6.4 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS, ISSUES AND COMMENTS........6-2

42 6.4.1 Formal Notification of Public Scoping Meetings............................................6-2

43 6.4.2 Comment Organization....................................................................................6-4

44 6.5 DISTRIBUTION AND REVIEW OF THE DRAFT LEIS .............................................6-5

45

46 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS..............................................7-1

47

48 8.0 LIST OF REFERENCES..............................................................................................................8-1

49

50 INDEX ...............................................................................................................................................Index-1

51

52
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal vi August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

1

2 This page left intentionally blank.

3

4

5
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal vii August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

1 LIST OF TABLES

2 Table ES-1 Summary of Alternatives for Renewing the CMAGR.................................................. ES-5

3 Table ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative.................................................. ES-9

4 Table 1-1 Categories of Comments Received During Public Scoping ..........................................1-34

5 Table 2-1 Summary of Alternatives for Renewing the CMAGR.....................................................2-4

6 Table 2-2 Land Areas Affected by CMAGR Alternatives...............................................................2-5

7 Table 2- 3 Land Areas to be Added to or Released from the CMAGR by Boundary Realignment 

8 Proposals........................................................................................................................2-12

9 Table 3-1 Originating Dates for Military Air Installations, Military Ranges, and Restricted 

10 Airspace in Southwestern Arizona and Southern California ...........................................3-4

11 Table 3-2 Special Use Airspace, ATCAA, and Training Ranges in the BSTRC Areaa ..................3-8

12 Table 3-3 Military Training Routes within Five Nautical Miles of the CMAGR..........................3-10

13 Table 3-4 Common Aviation Training Activities at the CMAGR, ECR, and Adjacent 

14 MOAs/ATCAAs............................................................................................................3-11

15 Table 3-5 Annual Utilization of the Special Use Airspace at and Adjacent to the Chocolate 

16 Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range a ................................................................................3-13

17 Table 3-6 Military and Non-Military Surface Use Areas at the CMAGR .....................................3-21

18 Table 3-7 Numbers of Roadless Areas at the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range in 

19 Selected Size Categories................................................................................................3-23

20 Table 3-8 Ordnance Expenditures at the CMAGR in FY 2004a....................................................3-25

21 Table 3-9 Recreation Resources within the ROI............................................................................3-38

22 Table 3-10 CMAGR Soil Associations (NRCS 2011).....................................................................3-41

23 Table 3-11 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards.........................................................3-59

24 Table 3-12 De Minimis Threshold ...................................................................................................3-62

25 Table 3-13 Representative Air Quality Data for the CMAGR (2006-2010)....................................3-64

26 Table 3-14 Current Annual Emissions Due to Limited1 CMAGR Aircraft Operations (Riverside 

27 and Imperial Counties)...................................................................................................3-65

28 Table 3-15 Summary of Federal, State, or Bureau of Land Management Listed Species 

29 Dismissed from Further Analysis ..................................................................................3-73

30 Table 3-16 Sound Pressure Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments .................3-90

31 Table 3-17 Scenic Quality Rating Indicators...................................................................................3-99

32 Table 3-18 Existing KOP Visual Conditions.................................................................................3-100

33 Table 3-19 Region of Influence for CMAGR Withdrawal ............................................................3-110

34 Table 3-20 Population and Average Growth from 2000 to 2010...................................................3-112

35 Table 3-21 Population Projection and Average Annual Growth....................................................3-113

36 Table 3-22 Civilian Labor Force, Total Employment, Number Unemployed and Employment 

37 Rates for the Region of Influence ................................................................................3-114

38 Table 3-23 Income Characteristics. 1999.......................................................................................3-115

39 Table 3-24 Leading Industries near Military Installations.............................................................3-117

40 Table 3-25 Population and Percentage of Individuals Living Below the Poverty Line in the 

41 Region of Influence .....................................................................................................3-119

42 Table 3-26 Total Minority Population in the Region of Influence.................................................3-120

43 Table 4-1 Estimated Annual Emissions Due to Limited1 CMAGR Aircraft Operations 

44 (Riverside and Imperial Counties).................................................................................4-24

45 Table 4-2 Federal Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS) ..................................4-34

46 Table 4-3 Visual Impacts Seen from the Key Observation Points.................................................4-44

47 Table 4-4 2009 Annual Expenditures of MCAS Yuma on Yuma County.....................................4-51

48 Table 5-1 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Within the Region of 

49 Influence of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range .........................................5-2
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal viii August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

1 Table 6-1 Newspaper Publication of Paid Display Advertisement..................................................6-3

2 Table 6-2 Public Scoping Meeting Attendance................................................................................6-4

3 Table 6-3 Summary of Total Issues Identified.................................................................................6-5

4 Table 7-1 List of Preparers...............................................................................................................7-1

5 Table 7-2 List of Contributors and Reviewers.................................................................................7-4

6

7 LIST OF FIGURES

8 Figure 1-1 CMAGR Vicinity.............................................................................................................1-3

9 Figure 1-2 Existing Underlying Land Jurisdictions at the CMAGR .................................................1-4

10 Figure 1-3 Federal Land Withdrawal and NEPA Processes for Renewal of the CMAGR ...............1-7

11 Figure 1-4 Military Ranges, Air Installations, and Bases in the CMAGR Operating Region.........1-13

12 Figure 1-5 CMAGR Training Support Facilities.............................................................................1-18

13 Figure 1-6 Military Training Airspace in the CMAGR Operating Area .........................................1-21

14 Figure 1-7 CMAGR Boundary Segments Proposed for Realignment.............................................1-28

15 Figure 2-1 Proposed Full Bradshaw Trail and Niland-Blythe Road Realignments of the 

16 CMAGR Boundary........................................................................................................2-13

17 Figure 2-2 Proposed Union Pacific Railroad Realignment of the CMAGR Boundary...................2-14

18 Figure 2-3 Proposed Partial Bradshaw Trail Realignment of the CMAGR Boundary....................2-19

19 Figure 2-4 State of California Mineral and Reversionary Rights....................................................2-22

20 Figure 3-1 Jet Routes and Airfields within the CMAGR Operating Area.........................................3-7

21 Figure 3-2 Existing Military Surface Use at the CMAGR ..............................................................3-16

22 Figure 3-3 Composite 2011 Weapon and Surface Danger Zones for Live-Fire Training at the 

23 CMAGR.........................................................................................................................3-19

24 Figure 3-4 Roadless Areas at the CMAGR .....................................................................................3-24

25 Figure 3-5 Non-Military Land Use within the CMAGR Vicinity...................................................3-29

26 Figure 3-6 Geologic Map at the CMAGR.......................................................................................3-40

27 Figure 3-7 Soils at the CMAGR......................................................................................................3-43

28 Figure 3-8 Geothermal Resource Favorability within the CMAGR Vicinity..................................3-44

29 Figure 3-9 Surface Watersheds at the CMAGR ..............................................................................3-53

30 Figure 3-10 Groundwater at the CMAGR.........................................................................................3-54

31 Figure 3-11 Jurisdictional Waters Connectivity................................................................................3-67

32 Figure 3-12 Special Status Species within the CMAGR Vicinity.....................................................3-72

33 Figure 3-13 Existing Noise Contours at the CMAGR.......................................................................3-95

34 Figure 3-14 Viewshed and Key Observation Points at the CMAGR ................................................3-98

35 Figure 3-15 Socioeconomics Region of Influence within the CMAGR Operating Region ............3-111

36 Figure 5-1 Locations of Actions Considered in the Cumulative Effects Analysis............................5-7

37

38 LIST OF APPENDICES

39 Appendix A California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994

40 Appendix B Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 185

41 Appendix C Methodology for Characterizing the Military-Surface-Use Footprint at the Chocolate 

42 Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range

43 Appendix D Description of Ordnance Listed in Table 3-8

44 Appendix E Navy Record of Non-Applicability for Clean Air Act Conformity

45 Appendix F Programmatic Agreement

46 Appendix G Key Observation Points (KOP)

47 Appendix H Tribal Consultation 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ix August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

1 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

2 °C degrees Centigrade 

3 °F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/m34 micrograms per liter

5 μPa micropascals

6

7 A.D. Anno Domini (in the year of our Lord)

8 ACBCI Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 

9 ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

10 ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

11 ADOE Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility

12 AFA Artillery Firing Area

13 AFC Application for Certification

14 AGL above ground level

15 AIM Aeronautical Information Manual

16 AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

17 ARB Air Reserve Base 

18 ARPA Archeological Resource Protection Act 

19 ASM ASM Affiliates

20 ASP Ammunition Supply Point

21 ATC Air Traffic Control

22 ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace

23 AUX auxiliary 

24

25 B.P. Before Present 

26 BASH Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Hazards 

27 BLM Bureau of Land Management

28 BMGR Barry M. Goldwater Range

29 BO 1996 Biological Opinion 

30 BSTRC Bob Stump Training Range Complex

31

32 CAA Clean Air Act 

33 CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

34 CAMA California-Arizona Maneuver Area

35 CARB California Air Resources Board 

36 CAS close air support

37 CD compact disk 

38 CDCA California Desert Conservation Area

39 CDD California Desert District

40 CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

41 CDP Census Designated Place

42 CDWR California Department of Water Resources 

43 CEC California Energy Commission

44 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

45 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

46 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

47 CFA Controlled Firing Area

48 CFR Code of Federal Regulations

49 CH4 methane

50 CHL California Historical Landmarks

51 CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal x August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

1 CLdn C-weighted Ldn

2 CMAGR Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range

3 CMLWOA California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994

4 CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

5 CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level

6 CNELmr Onset-Rate Adjusted Monthly variant of CNEL

7 CNIC Commander, Navy Installations Command

8 CNPS California Native Plant Society

9 CO carbon monoxide

10 CO2 carbon dioxide

11 CO2e CO2 equivalent

12 CPHI California Points of Historical Interest, 

13 CRHR California Register of Historical Resources

14 CSM conceptual site model

15 CSP California State Parks 

16 CVMSHCP Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan

17 CWA Clean Water Act 

18

19 dB decibel

20 dBA A-weighted decibel

21 dBC C-weighted decibel

22 DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program

23 DoD Department of Defense

24 DoI Department of the Interior

25 DoN Department of the Navy

26 DMM discarded military munitions

27 DTC Desert Training Center

28 DWMA Desert Wildlife Management Area 

29

30 ECR El Centro Ranges

31 EIC Eastern Information Center 

32 EIS Environmental Impact Statement

33 EO Executive Order 

34 EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal

35 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

36 EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

37 ESA Endangered Species Act

38 eWRIMS Electronic Water Rights Information Management System

39

40 FAA Federal Aviation Administration

41 FAC forward air controller

42 FARP forward arming and refueling point

43 FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

44 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

45 FL Flight Levels

46 FLPMA Federal Lands Policy and Management Act

47 FLTFA Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act

48 FRM Federal Reference Method

49 FTA Federal Transit Administration 

50 FY Fiscal Year

51
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal xi August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

1 GAP Gap Analysis Program

2 GHG greenhouse gas

3 GIS geographic information system 

4 GOPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

5 GPO Government Printing Office

6 GPS Global Positioning System 

7 GSA General Services Administration

8 GTP Gas Turbine Plant

9 GWP global warming potential

10

11 HABS Historic American Buildings Survey

12 HAER Historic American Engineering Record

13 HAP hazardous air pollutants

14 HE high explosive 

15 HMH Marine heavy helicopter squadron

16 HMLA Marine light/attack helicopter squadron

17 HMLAT Marine light attack helicopter training squadron

18 HMM Marine medium helicopter squadron

19 HMMT Marine medium helicopter training squadron

20 HMX octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine

21 hp horsepower

22 HPD Historic Property Data File

23 HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

24 Hz Hertz

25

26 ICAPCD Imperial County Air Pollution Control District

27 ICM improved conventional munitions

28 ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan

29 IFR Instrument flight rule

30 IGR Intergovernmental Review 

31 IID Imperial Irrigation District

32 INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

33 IR Instrument (Flight Rule [IFR]) Route

34 IRP Installation Restoration Program

35 ISDRA Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area

36

37 JDAM Joint Direct Attack Munition

38

39 KGRA known geothermal resource area

40 KOP Key Observation Point

41 kV kilovolt

42

43 laser Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

44 lb pound

45 Ldn day-night sound level

46 Ldnmr Onset-Rate Adjusted Monthly variant of Ldn

47 LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

48 LEIS Legislative Environmental Impact Statement

49 Leq equivalent continuous noise level

50 Lmax maximum Leq

51 Lmin minimum Leq

52 LORS laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal xii August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

1 Lp sound pressure level (or SPL)

2 Lw sound power level (or PWL)

3 LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

4 LZ Landing Zone

5

6 MACG Marine Air Control Group

7 MAG Marine Aircraft Group 

8 MAGTF Marine Air Ground Task Force

9 MAW Marine Aircraft Wing

10 MAWTS-1 Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron One

11 MC munitions constituents

12 MCAGCC Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center

13 MCAS Marine Corps Air Station

14 MCB Marine Corps Base

15 MCI West Marine Corps Installations West 

16 MCL maximum contaminant limit 

17 MCO Marine Corps Order

18 MCRP Marine Corps Reference Publication

19 MCWP Marine Corps Warfighting Publication

20 MEC munitions and explosive of concern

21 mg/L milligrams per liter

22 Midway Midway Gas Turbine Plant and Substation

23 MLWA Military Lands Withdrawal Act

24 MM millimeter

25 MOA Military Operations Area

26 MOU Memorandum of Understanding

27 MUC Multiple-Use Class

28 MW megawatt

29 MRP Munitions Response Program 

30 MRSPP Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol 

31 MSL mean sea level

32 MTR Military Training Route

33 MUC Multiple-Use Class

34 MW megawatt

35

36 N2O nitrous oxide

37 NA Numbers of Events At or Above a Specified Noise Threshold

38 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

39 NAB Naval Amphibious Base

40 NADB National Archaeological Database

41 NAF Naval Air Facility

42 NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

43 NAHC Native American Heritage Commission

44 NAS Naval Air Station

45 NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command

46 NECO Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan

47 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

48 NHL National Historic Landmark 

49 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

50 NIPTS Noise Induced Permanent Threshold Shift

51 NM nautical miles

52 NO2 nitrogen dioxide
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal xiii August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

1 NOA Notice of Availability 

2 NOI Notice of Intent

3 NOTAM Notice to Airmen

4 NOx oxides of nitrogen

5 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

6 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

7 NSW Naval Special Warfare

8 NSWG-1 Naval Special Warfare Group 1

9 NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

10

11 O3 ozone

12 OBCF octave band center frequency

13 OHP Office of Historic Preservation

14 OHV off-highway vehicle

15 OHWM ordinary high water mark

16 OPNAV Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 

17 OSS Operations Support Squadron

18

19 PA preliminary assessment

20 P.L. Public Law

21 Pb lead

22 PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification

23 PGM precision-guided munitions

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

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

26 ppb parts per billion

27 ppm parts per million

28 PWL sound power level (or Lw)

29

30 RARD Regional Archaeological Research Design

31 RCO Range Control Officer

32 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

33 RDX hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine

34 REC Recognized Environmental Condition

35 Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

36 REEA West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation Area

37 RETI Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative

38 REVA Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment

39 RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 

40 ROD Record of Decision 

41 ROG reactive organic gases 

42 ROI Region of Influence

43 RONA Record of Non-Applicability 

44 ROW right-of-way

45 RTA Range and Training Area

46 RY Reporting Year

47

48 SAR OPS Search and Rescue Operations

49 SCAG Southern California Association of Governments

50 SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

51 SCIC South Coastal Information Center 

52 SDLA Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal xiv August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

1 SDSU San Diego State University

2 SDZ surface danger zone

3 SEAL Sea, Air and Land

4 SECNAVINST Secretary of the Navy Instruction

5 SEL Sound Equivalent Level

6 SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

7 SI site investigation 

8 SIP State Implementation Plan

9 SLF Sacred Lands File

10 SO2 sulfur dioxide

11 SoCal Gas Southern California Gas

12 SOP Standard Operating Procedures

13 SPL sound pressure level (also Lp)

14 SR State Route

15 SRA State Recreational Area 

16 SSAB Salton Sea Air Basin 

17 StaO Station Order

18 STATSGO2 State Soil Geographic Database 

19 SWAT special warfare training area

20

21 TAC toxic air contaminants

22 TACTS Tactical Aircrew Combat Training System

23 TCP traditional cultural places

24 TDS total dissolved solids

25 THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office

26 TNT trinitrotoluene

27 TNW Traditional Navigable Water

28 TRI Toxics Release Inventory

29

30 U.S.C. United States Code

31 UAS unmanned aircraft systems

32 UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

33 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

34 USAF U.S. Air Force

35 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

36 USGS U.S. Geological Survey

37 USMC U.S. Marine Corps

38 UXO unexploded ordnance

39

40 V Victor

41 VFR Visual Flight Rule

42 VMA Marine attack squadron (Harrier) 

43 VMFA Marine fighter jet attack squadron

44 VMFAT Marine fighter jet attack training squadron

45 VMGR Marine aerial refueler and transport squadron

46 VMM Marine medium tilt-rotor squadron

47 VMU Marine unmanned aerial vehicle squadron

48 VOR very high frequency omnidirectional range

49 VR Visual (Flight Rule [VFR]) Route

50
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal xv August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

1 WCB West Coast Basing

2 WDZ Weapons Danger Zone

3 WECO Western Colorado Desert Routes of Travel Designations

4 WRCC Western Regional Climate Center

5 WTI Weapons Tactics Instructor

6 WWII World War II

7

8 YPG Yuma Proving Ground

9 YTRC Yuma Training Range Complex

10
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal xvi August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

1

2 This page left intentionally blank.

3

4
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal G-1 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

1 GLOSSARY

2 Air defense systems – Typically include surface-to-air missiles or anti-aircraft artillery and radars or 

3 infra-red heat detection systems that are used to track aircraft and control missile or artillery fire directed 

4 at them.

5 air-to-air – The art of maneuvering a combat aircraft in order to attain a position from which an attack 

6 can be made on another aircraft.

7 air-to-ground (or air-to-surface) – Flights designed to attack surface targets. 

8 air traffic control assigned airspace – Airspace having a defined vertical and lateral limit, assigned by 

9 an FAA air traffic control facility for the purpose of providing air traffic segregation between the 

10 specified activities being conducted within this assigned airspace and other IFR traffic within the 

11 surrounding vicinity. ATCAAs are normally designated for military utilization and established at 

12 altitudes of 18,000 feet mean sea level and above. They are usually placed above a MOA.

13 battalion – A military unit of around 300 to 1,200 soldiers usually consisting of between two and seven 

14 companies. For the CMGR, a battalion is typically 300 to 400 troops.

15 commercial air carrier – Scheduled airlines, charter airlines, and commercial operators such as Federal 

16 Express.

17 controlling agency – A designated FAA air traffic control facility which maintains overall cognizance 

18 and controlling authority over the use of any parcel of Special Use Airspace or airspace for special 

19 military use. Typically one of the FAA’s 23 individual Air Route Traffic Control Centers is the 

20 designated Controlling Agency for any particular parcel of Special Use Airspace, and as such, may 

21 authorize transit through or flight within that parcel of airspace.

22 controlled firing area – A block of nonregulatory special use airspace designated by the FAA in which 

23 firing activities are conducted under controlled conditions so as to eliminate hazards to nonparticipating 

24 aircraft, and to ensure the safety of persons and property on the ground.

25 criteria pollutants – Air pollutants for which primary standards for the protection of human health and 

26 secondary standards for the protection of human welfare have been established.

27 cultural resources – Archaeological and historic resources that could potentially be affected by a given 

28 project. Cultural resources include any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object 

29 included in, or eligible for inclusion, in the NRHP. Historic properties also include resources determined 

30 to be National Historic Landmarks (NHL).

31 cumulative impact – The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the 

32 action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

33 agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result 

34 from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 

35 1508.7).

36 direct effects – Effects which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and same place 

37 (40 CFR 1508.8(a)).
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal G-2 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

1 endangered species – Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

2 of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary [of Interior] to 

3 constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of [the Endangered Species] Act would present 

4 an overwhelming risk to man (the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; Section 3(6)).

5 fixed-wing aircraft – A generic term used in this document to reference the broadest class of aircraft—

6 those in which aerodynamic lift is generated when the airframe including the fixed- or nonrotating-wing 

7 is moved through the air by forward thrust from a jet engine or engine driven propeller.

8 general aviation – That portion of civil aviation other than scheduled airlines, charter air carriers, and 

9 large aircraft commercial operators (such as Federal Express). Examples of general aviation operations 

10 range from pleasure or business flights in small single-engine aircraft such as a Piper Super Cub, Cessna 

11 172 or Beechcraft Bonanza to corporate flight activities in high performance aircraft such as the 

12 Beechcraft King Air, Cessna Citation business jet, or Gulfstream business jets.

13 guzzler – Metal structures built in suitable wildlife habitats to provide an additional source of water for 

14 wildlife of all types and sizes. The structure collects rainwater in a pond and stores it in tanks; the tanks 

15 then feed the water to a drinker that can be accessed by wildlife.

16 habitat – Place where an animal or plant normally lives, often characterized by a dominant plant form or 

17 physical characteristic.

18 indirect effects – Effects which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

19 distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and 

20 other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and 

21 related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (40 CFR 1508.8(b)).

22 legislative EIS – a detailed environmental statement for proposed actions that require legislative 

23 proposals to Congress for implementation. NEPA requires administrative agencies to prepare 

24 environmental impact statements for all proposals of legislation that might significantly affect the quality 

25 of the human environment (Sec. 102 [42 USC S 4332(C)]).

26 live-fire training (live ordnance training) – refers to training in which ordnance is discharged from 

27 weapons, such as an aircraft cannon, or released, such as the dropping of a bomb or the firing of an air28 to-air or air-to-surface missile. Ordnance that is fired or released for training purpose may be grouped in 

29 two general classes: live and inert. Live ordnance is fused and charged for actual warfighting.

30 military operations area – Airspace of defined vertical and lateral dimensions which has been 

31 established by the FAA below Class A airspace (i.e., at altitudes of less than 18,000 feet mean sea level) 

32 to separate/segregate certain military aviation activities from Instrument Flight Rules traffic, and to 

33 identify where these activities are conducted for Visual Flight Rules traffic. Only non-hazardous 

34 activities may be conducted within a MOA.

35 military training route – Routes established generally below 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) for use 

36 by military aircraft to conduct low-altitude, high-speed navigation, and tactical training at airspeeds in 

37 excess of 250 knots. A MTR is made up of several route segments with each individual segment having a 

38 designated route width and vertical altitude block within which the aircraft using the route must remain. 

39 Additionally, there are two types of MTRs: IR Routes (IFR MTRs) and VR Routes (VFR MTRs). MTRs 

40 designated as VR routes require that all flights be conducted in accordance with visual flight rules except 

41 that flight visibility shall be 5 miles or more, and no flights will be conducted below a ceiling of less than 

42 3,000 feet above ground level.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal G-3 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

1 mitigation – Measures taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Mitigation could reduce the 

2 magnitude and extent of an impact from a level of significance to a level of insignificance. Mitigation 

3 includes:

4 a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

5 b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.

6 c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.

7 d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during 

8 the life of the action.

9 e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments 

10 (40 CFR 1508.20).

11 National Register of Historic Places – A federal listing of historic resources protected under the 

12 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

13 PM10 – Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. (One micron is equal to one-millionth of a 

14 meter.)

15 precision guided munitions – A missile, bomb or artillery shell equipped with a terminal guidance 

16 system that guides its last phase of flight to precisely hit a selected target. PGMs follow optical, infrared, 

17 laser, radar, or Global Positioning System signals to guide them to the target.

18 restricted area – Airspace having defined vertical and lateral dimensions which has been established by 

19 the FAA within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restriction. 

20 Restricted Areas are established to contain or segregate activities, such as ordnance delivery or air-to-air 

21 gunnery, which would be hazardous to other non-participating aircraft.

22 rotary-wing aircraft or helicopters – The more elaborate reference to this category of aircraft places 

23 emphasis on the fact that the lift and forward thrust that allows the machine to fly is generated by the 

24 rotating wing or rotor.

25 scheduling agency – The organization or military command which has been designated as the primary 

26 point of contact and/or coordinating activity for scheduling the use of a particular parcel of Special Use 

27 Airspace or a particular type of airspace for special military use, such as a MTR.

28 segregation – BLM segregation of the affected lands removes them from all forms of appropriation 

29 under the public land laws to allow time for the land withdrawal issue to be decided.

30 sensitive species – includes species that could easily become endangered or extinct in the state.

31 significant impact – According to 40 CFR 1508.27, ―significantly‖ as used in NEPA requires 

32 consideration of both context and intensity:

33 a. Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such 

34 as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the 

35 locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a 

36 site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than 

37 in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.

38 b. Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more 

39 than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following 

40 should be considered in evaluating intensity:
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal G-4 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

1 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the 

2 federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

3 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

4 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural 

5 resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically 

6 critical areas.

7 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be 

8 highly controversial.

9 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or 

10 involve unique or unknown risks.

11 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future action with significant 

12 effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

13 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively 

14 significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively 

15 significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action 

16 temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

17 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or 

18 objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may 

19 cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

20 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or 

21 its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

22 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements 

23 imposed for the protection of the environment.

24 sortie – A single military aircraft from take‐off through landing, and including a flying mission. For this 

25 LEIS, the term sortie is commonly used when summarizing an amount of flight activity from a base.

26 special use airspace – Airspace of defined dimensions wherein activities must be confined because of 

27 their nature, and/or wherein limitations may be imposed upon non-participating aircraft.

28 squadron – A squadron in air force, or naval aviation is mainly a unit comprising a number of military 

29 aircraft, usually of the same type, typically with 12 to 24 aircraft.

30 surface danger zone – The mathematically predicted area in which a projectile will impact upon return 

31 to earth. This area has specific dimensions for the expected caliber of the weapon(s) being fired so that 

32 all projectile fragments will be contained in this area. No part of an SDZ may extend off of the 

33 installation property. 

34 tactical aviation – the whole spectrum of moves and counter-moves that aircrews and aircraft perform to 

35 fight a war against enemy forces within the air-to-air (i.e., aircraft versus aircraft) or air-to-ground (i.e., 

36 aircraft versus ground forces) combat arenas or that provide air transport (i.e., airlift) support to friendly 

37 ground forces in the battle area.

38 threatened species – Any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the 

39 foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (the Endangered Species Act of 

40 1973, as amended; Section 3(19)).

41 tilt-rotor aircraft – Combine capabilities of both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft; the MV-22 is the 

42 only U.S. military example.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal G-5 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

1 tinajas – ephemeral pools that develop after seasonal storm events found in narrow canyons in bedrock 

2 depressions that occur below waterfalls or are carved out by spring flow or seepage.

3 weapons system – An aircraft combined with its target acquisition equipment (for example, radar, 

4 optical television tracking system, laser or infrared targeting system, gun sight) and weapons (guns, 

5 rockets, bombs, or missiles) are considered to be a weapons system.

6
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-1 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

2 1.1 INTRODUCTION

3 The Department of the Navy (DoN) intends to ask the U.S. Congress to renew the withdrawal of federal 

4 public land within the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR) and to reserve the 

withdrawn land for continued military training. Federal public land15 currently comprises almost half of 

6 the CMAGR, which encompasses a total area of about 458,530 acres (approximately 716 square miles) 

7 located in Imperial and Riverside counties, California (Figure 1-1). This Legislative Environmental 

8 Impact Statement (LEIS) has been prepared by the DoN and the U.S. Marine Corps (hereafter, Marine 

9 Corps), in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 

10 (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 4321-4370h), to address the potential environmental consequences of renewing 

11 the land withdrawal and continuing military training activities at the CMAGR.

12 The CMAGR is a live-fire training range that is essential for developing and maintaining the readiness of 

13 Marine Corps and Navy aviators. The range is also vital for training select Marine Corps and Navy land 

14 combat forces; including Naval Special Warfare (NSW) forces.

15 The CMAGR was initially established during World War II and has been indispensable for military 

16 aviation training ever since. The range currently supports training by units of the DoN, U.S. Air Force, 

17 U.S. Army, U.S. Reserve Components, and U.S. National Guard; however, the Marine Corps is the 

18 primary user of this range. Local command for military operation and administration of the CMAGR has 

19 been delegated by the Secretary of the Navy to the Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air Station 

20 (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona. The majority of aircraft that are used in training at the range originate from 

21 squadrons based at MCAS Yuma and MCAS Miramar, California. Other regionally based squadrons that 

22 regularly use the CMAGR are stationed at MCAS Camp Pendleton and Naval Air Station (NAS) North 

23 Island in California and Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. Aircraft that originate from other Marine and 

24 Naval air stations and Air Force bases or that are launched from DoN aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean 

25 are also frequently flown in training missions at the CMAGR. In total, aircrews from roughly

26 100 squadrons located throughout the nation collectively fly more than 6,000 training sorties annually at 

27 the CMAGR.

28 Land combat training at the CMAGR also began during World War II with the opening of a Marine Corps 

29 artillery school. The use of the range for training NSW forces dates from 1966 and is oriented toward 

30 individual fighting skills and small team tactics. Since the late 1970s, training of Marine land forces has 

31 typically emphasized integration with Marine air forces but has also included training of infantry combat 

32 teams. NSW and Marine Corps land warfare training at the CMAGR typically involves battalion-sized or 

33 smaller units. The CMAGR is not used for training land forces in mechanized or armored warfare.

34 The CMAGR currently includes about 228,465 acres (nearly 357 square miles) of withdrawn federal 

35 public land administered by the Department of the Interior (DoI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

36 and about 229,903 acres (359 square miles) of federal land administered by the DoN. Approximately 

37 162 acres (about 0.25 square mile) of land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 

38 is located inside of the CMAGR boundary; the Reclamation land is not withdrawn for military purposes.

39

 

1 The term ―public land‖ generally means any land and interest in land owned by the United States within the several 

States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)).
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-2 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

The withdrawn public land (hereafter BLM land) in the CMAGR is currently withdrawn and reserved21 for 

2 use as a military range by the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 

3 (CMLWOA) (Public Law [P.L.] 103-433) (see Appendix A). CMLWOA states that the public lands in 

4 the CMAGR are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws (including the 

5 mining laws and the mineral leasing and the geothermal leasing laws) and are reserved for use by the 

6 Secretary of the Navy for testing and training for aerial bombing, missile firing, tactical maneuvering and 

7 air support, and other defense-related purposes. The BLM and DoN lands in the CMAGR are generally 

8 interspersed in a checkerboard pattern of one square-mile (640 acre) sections, but are used collectively 

9 and in common to support the air combat training missions and other defense activities that occur at the 

10 range (Figure 1-2). The Reclamation land is located in several dispersed parcels near the western 

11 perimeter of the range. Dikes have been constructed on the Reclamation parcels to protect the Coachella 

12 Canal from flooding. 

13 The authority provided by the CMLWOA to use the BLM land within the CMAGR for military purposes 

14 will terminate at the end of October 2014. However, the Act also provides that the Secretary of the Navy 

15 may request a renewal of the withdrawal if there will be a continuing military need for the range after that 

16 date (P.L. 103-433 § 806(a)). The Secretary of the Navy has determined that the CMAGR will be needed 

17 to support national defense missions assigned to the Marine Corps and Navy beyond October 2014 and 

18 proposes that the CMAGR land withdrawal be renewed. The CMLWOA (P.L. 103-433 § 806(b)) requires 

19 the DoN to prepare a Draft LEIS concerning a proposal to renew the national defense land withdrawal for

20 the CMAGR. A Final LEIS, which will include public comments on this Draft LEIS and DoN responses 

21 to those comments, will be submitted to Congress as part of the DoN’s application for the proposed 

22 renewal of the CMAGR. Congress has reserved the authority for renewing the CMAGR land withdrawal 

for itself, through the Defense Withdrawal Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. §§ 155-158)323 and the CMLWOA

24 (P.L. 103-433 § 806(c)), and will make the final decision as to whether or not to renew the CMAGR land 

25 withdrawal to support its continued military use.

26 1.1.1 Decision to be Made

27 The fundamental decision to be made by Congress is whether to renew the land withdrawal for the 

28 CMAGR or to allow the current withdrawal to expire at the end of October 2014, as provided by the 

29 CMLWOA. A decision to renew the land withdrawal would permit continued use of the CMAGR for air 

30 and ground combat training and other related defense purposes for at least the duration of the new 

31 withdrawal. Presumably, Congress would once again provide the Secretary of the Navy with the option of 

32 requesting a subsequent renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal if it were still needed to support 

33 national defense purposes beyond the duration of the renewal proposed in this LEIS.

34

 

2 As provided by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(j)) ―withdrawn‖ federal 

lands are those that are withheld from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws, 

for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or 

reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal 

land, other than ―property‖ governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended 

(40 U.S.C. 472) from one department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency. 

3 Also referred to as the Engle Act of 1958.
111 Arizona California

Imperial County, California

Mexico

95

Mexico

Arizona

Eagle

Mountain

Railroad

(Inactive)

Union Pacific Railroad

SALTON

SEA

Yuma

Glamis

Calipatria

Indio

Niland

Brawley

El Centro

Blythe

8

10

Riverside County

Imperial County

Riverside County

San Diego County

Imperial County

San Diego 

County

Laguna Army

Airfield

Marine

Corps Air

Station Yuma

Naval Air

Facility

El Centro

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 1\CMAGR_Vicinity.mxd (BLC 6/12/2012)

CMAGR P a c i f i c O c e a n

California

San Diego

Sacramento

Los Angeles

San Francisco

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Legend

Existing Chocolate Mountain 

Aerial Gunnery Range

(CMAGR)

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Military Airfield

City\Town

Railroad

Interstate

Highway

County Boundary

CMAGR Vicinity

Figure 1-1

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 5 10 15 20

Miles

Map Scale 1:650,000

0 5 10 15 20

Kilometers

1-3

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, BLM 2011, 

ESRI 2010, USGS NHD 2010

Imagery: Bing Aerials © 2010 Microsoft Corporation

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad (Inactive)

R11E R12E R13E R14E R15E R16E R17E R18E

R20E

T11S

T12S

T9S

T10S

T13S

R19E

T8S

R21E

T7S

R19E

R15E R16E R17E R17.5E R18E

T11S

R11E

T9S

T10S

T8S

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

R

i

ve

rs

ide 

C

o

u

n

ty

Imp

e

rial 

C

o

u

n

ty

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 1\CMAGR_Underlying_Land_Juris.mxd (BLC 6/29/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Department of the Navy

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Gas Line

Transmission Line

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Railroad

Township and Range Boundary

Section Boundary

Existing Underlying

Land Jurisdictions

at the CMAGR

Figure 1-2

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

1-4

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BLM 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-5 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 A Congressional decision to not renew the land withdrawal would end the use of the CMAGR as a 

2 military aviation training range on 31 October 2014 when the current withdrawal of public lands expires. 

3 The use of the formerly withdrawn range lands for other defense activities as authorized under the 

4 CMLWOA would end. Although the Secretary of the Navy would retain full jurisdiction for the DoN 

5 lands that currently comprise about 51 percent of the CMAGR, the checkerboard pattern of land 

6 jurisdiction that characterizes the range would make these parcels incapable of supporting the aviation 

7 weapons training for which it is highly prized. The pattern of fractured land jurisdiction would also curtail 

8 the usefulness of the DoN parcels for weapons training by ground units. Live-fire training with air-to9 surface, air-to-air, surface-to-air, or surface-to-surface ordnance requires consolidated control of all 

10 affected land areas to protect the safety of both the public and military personnel. Most of the individual 

11 parcels in the checkerboard pattern for which the DoN holds jurisdiction are one square-mile sections.

12 Department of Defense (DoD) safety criteria for live-fire ranges require that ground areas exposed to 

13 hazards from either aircraft delivered weapons or ground combat weapons to the 99.9999 percent level of 

14 containment be clear of all persons that are not participating in a training exercise. The danger zones 

15 associated with most of the military weapons employed on the CMAGR require surface areas that are far 

16 too large to be supported by the sectional grid pattern of DoN land that would remain if the withdrawal of 

17 the public lands in the range were allowed to expire.

18 Deactivation of the CMAGR would likely require a period of several years to identify training missions to 

19 be retained, moved, or cancelled; relocate training missions performed on the range that are to be moved 

20 to other military installations; remove aerial bombing and gunnery targets and other range infrastructure; 

21 clean-up and restore target sites and other use areas as necessary; and decontaminate the range to 

22 eliminate live unexploded ordnance (UXO), and toxic and hazardous materials in accordance with the 

23 provisions of the CMLWOA and other applicable laws (see Appendix A). The process that would be 

24 necessary to develop and implement action-specific plans for closing the range and canceling or 

25 relocating training missions would likely require planning and decision-making support from subsequent 

26 NEPA analyses. NEPA analyses would also likely be needed to support development and implementation 

27 of plans for the reuse of both the BLM and DoN lands within the deactivated CMAGR or custodial 

28 management of those portions of the range, such as target impact areas, that may be found to be too 

29 contaminated with buried UXO to allow safe reuse. Preparation of a new resource management plan or 

30 plans, which typically involves NEPA analysis, for the BLM and DoN lands would also likely be a task 

31 precipitated by the deactivation of the CMAGR.

32 1.1.2 Process for Renewing the CMAGR Withdrawal and Reservation 

33 Procedures that the Secretary of the Navy must follow to request a renewed withdrawal for the CMAGR 

34 are set forth by the CMLWOA (P.L. 103-433 §§ 806 and 808). The Secretary of the Navy must:

35 Advise the Secretary of the Interior of a continuing need for the range before November 2011

36 Publish a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) concerning any proposal for the continued 

37 withdrawal of the range by 31 October 2012

38 Hold at least one public hearing on the Draft EIS in California

39 File an application for the continued withdrawal and reservation of the range in accordance with 

40 the regulations and procedures of the DoI applicable to the withdrawal of land for military uses 

41 The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare this Draft LEIS, published in the Federal Register on 

42 24 September 2010, constituted the formal notice to the public of the Secretary of the Navy’s finding of a 

43 continuing military need for the CMAGR and of the intent to request continued withdrawal and 

44 reservation of the range beyond October 2014 (see Appendix B). In accordance with the Council on 

45 Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, an LEIS, rather than an 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-6 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 administrative EIS, has been prepared to address the proposed land withdrawal (40 Code of Federal 

2 Regulations [CFR] § 1506.8). An LEIS is the detailed environmental statement required by law for 

3 proposed actions that require legislative proposals to Congress for implementation. Public opportunities 

4 to comment on the Draft LEIS will include public meetings to be held in communities in southern 

5 California and/or Arizona. The Final LEIS will include the comments on the Draft LEIS and responses to 

6 those comments. A Record of Decision (ROD), which is the decision implementing instrument for 

7 administrative EISs, will not be prepared because Congress—rather than the Secretaries of the Navy, the 

8 Interior, or another administrative department—will be the decision-making authority for the proposed 

9 action to renew the CMAGR land withdrawal.

10 This LEIS provides one of the components required in the application to Congress for renewal of the 

11 CMAGR land withdrawal. Other application process requirements are provided by the Defense 

12 Withdrawal Act of 1958, CMLWOA, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 

13 (43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1787). Congress reserved for itself the sole authority to withdraw, reserve, or restrict 

14 federal public lands that have an aggregate area of 5,000 acres or more for any one national defense 

15 project or facility through the Defense Withdrawal Act of 1958. This Act also assigns the Secretary of the 

16 Interior with the responsibility to process DoD applications for national defense withdrawals, reserva17 tions, or restrictions aggregating 5,000 acres or more for any one project or facility. DoI procedures for 

18 processing military land withdrawals are provided by the FLPMA, as codified at 43 CFR Part 2300. The 

19 overall process for considering major national defense land withdrawals draws together procedures from 

20 FLPMA (43 CFR § 2310.3-2 (b)(3)) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370h) in a manner that integrates 

21 DoN and BLM resources, expertise, and studies; technical information; and analyses generated by each 

22 set of procedures (Figure 1-3). This dual track process also affords the public with opportunities to 

23 participate in the process and to comment on the proposed land withdrawal before the application is 

24 forwarded to Congress.

25 1.1.3 Withdrawal Application Elements and LEIS Alternatives 

26 In accordance with the Defense Withdrawal Act of 1958, CMLWOA, and FLPMA and among other 

27 requirements, the application for continued withdrawal of BLM land in the CMAGR must describe four 

28 key elements including:

29 The continuing military need for the proposed land withdrawal

30 The proposed exterior boundary and land area of the withdrawal

31 The proposed duration for which the withdrawal would continue in effect

32 Proposed agency responsibilities for managing the withdrawn lands

33 As already indicated, the primary and essential purpose of the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land 

34 withdrawal is to retain the use of this vital range for Marine Corps and Navy aviation training. The 

35 CMAGR is also critical for training Marine Corps ground units that support or participate in certain 

36 aspects of tactical aviation and for training small Marine Corps and NSW ground units for land combat 

37 missions. This draft LEIS addresses four alternatives for securing the CMAGR for continuing military use 

38 by extending the withdrawal of BLM land within the range for that purpose. The four range renewal 

39 alternatives vary from each other by offering three variations on the alignment of the range boundary, 

40 three withdrawal duration choices, and three options for assigning management responsibilities between 

41 the DoN/Marine Corps and DoI/BLM. All four alternatives, however, share the same basic purpose of and 

42 need for extending the land withdrawal for the CMAGR. Section 1.2 provides further detailed explanation 

43 of the purpose of and need for renewing the land withdrawal. 

44
Figure 1-3

Federal Land Withdrawal and NEPA Processes for Renewal of the CMAGR

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

Develop

Preliminary

Alternatives

Preapplication

Consultations

with BLM

Submit

Application for

Requested Land

Withdrawal

LEGEND

Federal Statutory

Land Withdrawal Process

(43 CFR 2300)

BLM = Bureau of Land Management

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations

CMAGR = Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range

DOI = Department of the Interior

National Environmental

Policy Act Process

(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and

MCO P5090.2A)

Public Involvement

Opportunity Congressional Action 

Transmit

Proposed

Withdrawal

Legislation

to Congress

Congress

Determines

Future Use

of CMAGR 

Conduct Investigations,

Studies, & Analyses

Required for

Processing Application

Finalize

Alternatives;

Collect &

Compile

Resource Data

Assess

Impacts, Plan

Mitigation,

Prepare &

Release

Draft LEIS

Comment Period &

Public Hearings

on Draft LEIS

Prepare &

Release

Final LEIS

Summer/Fall

 2011 Winter 2011 to

Summer 2012

Summer/Fall 2012 Spring 2013

1 Sep 2010 Winter 2011/

Summer 2012

Federal Register

Notice of Intent

to Prepare LEIS

24 Sep 2010

LEIS

Public

Scoping

Dec 2010

LEIS = Legislative Environmental Impact Statement

MCO = Marine Corps Order

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act

Prepare Case File

for Secretary DOI
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-8 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 The variations in the CMAGR boundary, duration, and agency management assignments proposed by the 

2 four renewal alternatives are also responses to the continuing military need for the range and to the 

3 current checkerboard pattern of DoN and BLM land jurisdictions. Detailed explanations of the purpose of 

4 and need for the boundary alignment alternatives are provided in Section 1.3, explanations of the purpose 

5 of and need for the withdrawal duration alternatives are provided in Section 1.4, and explanations of the 

6 purpose of and need for the agency management assignment alternatives are provided in Section 1.5.

7 1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR RENEWING THE CMAGR

8 The purpose for renewing the CMAGR land withdrawal is to retain the training range, which is a 

9 component of the national defense training infrastructure indispensable to the continued and future 

10 readiness of Marine Corps and Navy air and ground forces, including NSW Sea, Air and Land (SEAL) 

11 units. The CMAGR also supports air and ground combat training needed by Air Force, Army, National 

12 Guard, and Reserve Components and land-based training by Marine Corps and Navy units. The need for 

13 quality training that provides a realistic approximation of the conditions that Marines, sailors, airmen, and 

14 soldiers will face in combat as individuals and in small or large units cannot be overstated. The U.S. 

15 military is fully invested in the principle that high quality training is essential to success and survival in 

16 combat. Another long-held maxim is that access to ranges that offer flexible, diverse, and realistic training 

17 is essential to preparing tactical forces of the highest possible quality. Thus, the need for the CMAGR can 

18 best be understood from two main perspectives: (1) the necessity of providing high quality training and 

19 (2) the superlative qualities of the CMAGR for supporting that training.

20 1.2.1 Necessity of Training

21 The range is primarily used to train air combat pilots and other aircrew members. Training is essential to 

22 all warfare specialties but nowhere is the importance of training more evident than in the demands placed 

23 on combat aircrews. Combat in aircraft that can aggressively maneuver to destroy other aircraft, attack an 

24 enemy on the ground or at sea, ferry troops or supplies in and out of forward battle areas, provide 

25 surveillance and control of the battle space, perform reconnaissance of an enemy’s position and strength, 

26 or perform other vital warfighting functions is among the most technologically advanced and tactically 

27 challenging forms of warfare. Aircrews engaged in combat must constantly observe and assess their 

28 situation, select courses of action, and act in a continually unfolding tactical environment all while coping 

29 with the physical stresses of high speed flight and flight maneuvers. This essential challenge and the ever 

30 increasing sophistication of combat aircraft and weapons systems used by and against them has made 

31 thorough, ongoing training indispensable for military aircrews. No participant in any form of tactical 

aviation432 is likely to survive, much less prevail in combat, without adequate training. The sophistication 

33 of aircraft and weapons system technology cannot compensate for inadequate training. Aircrews must 

34 know every aspect of their aircraft and weapons to employ them successfully in combat. It is also 

35 paramount that aircrews receive ongoing training throughout their military flying career. Combat flying 

36 skills are highly perishable. Consequently, these skills can be effectively developed and maintained only 

37 through an ongoing program of frequent training that is realistic to the tactical missions aircrews are 

38 expected to perform.

39 Unlike land and sea warfare, aerial warfare is a very recent innovation. Naval aviation began in 1910 

40 followed in 1912 by the advent of aviation in the Marine Corps. Out of the first century of service for 

41 these two military air arms, three events in particular illustrate the critical relevancy of training and 

42 training ranges to the readiness of the force to meet national defense missions. First was the urgent need 

 

4 Tactical aviation refers to the whole spectrum of moves and counter-moves that aircrews and aircraft perform to 

fight a war against enemy forces within the air-to-air (i.e., aircraft versus aircraft) or air-to-ground (i.e., aircraft 

versus ground forces) combat arenas or that provide air transport (i.e., airlift) support to friendly ground forces in the 

battle area. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-9 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 to develop major training bases and ranges almost overnight to prepare U.S. aviators for combat in World 

2 War II. Second was a pressing need to reverse the low rates of combat success and the high rates of U.S. 

3 aircrew losses in air-to-air engagements against North Vietnamese pilots in the Vietnam War. U.S. 

4 training concepts and air-to-air tactics were critically assessed and air-to-air combat training was 

5 completely revamped to correct this situation. Third was the air combat experiences in the Persian Gulf, 

6 Afghanistan, and Iraqi wars, which brought into sharp focus the need for U.S. aircrews to be well 

7 prepared to fulfill their roles in a highly integrated yet versatile air-ground combat team that may be 

8 called upon to defeat the sophisticated air defense system of a hostile nation or support friendly special 

9 forces in counter terrorism or counterinsurgency missions.

10 1.2.1.1 Lessons from the World War II Era

11 The period from about 1935 through 1944 was marked by a critical need to train tens of thousands of U.S. 

12 military aviators to defend the nation in World War II. In 1935, the Navy and Marine Corps together had 

13 fewer than 1,500 aircraft of all types and less than 1,000 pilots (Portz 1990a). Fortunately, aviation 

14 expansion plans were being laid to prepare for the increasing likelihood of war in Europe and the Pacific. 

15 In 1940, the Navy and Marine Corps had about 2,100 aircraft and 1,800 pilots but this increased to about 

16 3,400 aircraft and 4,600 pilots by mid-1941 and to about 7,000 aircraft and 11,000 pilots in June 1942 

17 (Portz 1990a). By the end of 1944 the Navy and Marine Corps had approximately 41,000 aircraft and 

18 60,000 pilots, greater than a 500 percent increase over the numbers available at the time of the attack on 

19 Pearl Harbor (Portz 1990b). The Army Air Force experienced the same need to produce dramatically 

20 increasing numbers of trained aircrews and aircraft during this period (Boyne 1993).

21 The enormous task of equipping and training the pilots needed for the war effort required building

22 hundreds of new military airfields to train student aircrews how to fly and creating aerial gunnery and 

23 bombing ranges to teach them how to fight. The nation was fortunate that the pace of events during World 

24 War II and the limited capabilities of our adversaries to project combat power across oceans granted the 

25 time needed to build the infrastructure, materiel, and programs to train and equip desperately needed 

26 aircrews. Also fortunate was the fact that the nation still had reserves of suitable open land and airspace in 

27 which it could quickly establish training bases, airspace, and ranges. America was able to quickly produce 

28 tens of thousands of aircrew members during World War II that were well trained, competitive, and 

29 eventually superior to their adversaries.

30 Today, however, the complexity and sophistication of military aircraft and the air combat environment 

31 greatly lengthens the amount of time and other investments needed to produce qualified aircrews. Oceans 

32 are no longer as difficult for potential adversaries to bridge as they were in the 1940s and contemporary 

33 threats often emerge at a very rapid pace. The nation’s land and airspace is much more densely committed 

34 and/or developed for public, private, and commercial purposes than it was in that earlier era and the 

35 sophistication and complexity of modern aircraft and other warfighting materiel often precludes their 

36 rapid manufacture.

37 In short, readiness today means being fully prepared to fight; being ready to hold the line while we plan, 

38 build, develop, and train, as occurred during World War II, will no longer provide the nation with an 

39 adequate defense. With few exceptions, the military bases and ranges that are available today to support 

40 national defense are a subset of the inventory that was developed by the close of World War II. This is 

41 especially true of the nation’s largest training ranges, including the CMAGR, which are principally 

42 located in the Southwest. Some of these ranges have been reduced or expanded in area since the 1940s 

43 but present day prospects for creating major new ranges in any part of the country are now greatly 

44 impeded by the increased density of settlements and surface transportation and utility systems, long term 

45 commitments of many remaining open space areas to land uses (such as National Parks and wilderness 

46 preservation) that are incompatible with military training use, other environmental constraints, high rates 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-10 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 of civil aviation use of the nation’s airspace, and other concerns. Consequently, preserving existing 

2 training range resources, including overlying and adjacent special use airspace, is critical to ongoing 

3 defense training programs and for safeguarding opportunities to support future training requirements that 

4 are yet to emerge. 

5 1.2.1.2 Lessons from the Korean and Vietnam Wars

6 Air-to-air combat over North Vietnam between U.S. and North Vietnamese air forces began in 1965 and 

7 the early outcomes came as a shock to the Americans. During World War II, America had won air 

8 superiority and eventually supremacy over German and Japanese air forces in 1944 and 1945 despite 

9 suffering high initial losses of aircrews in 1941 and 1942. Steady improvements in U.S. aircraft, training, 

10 and tactics made these air combat achievements possible and, in turn, made successful Allied land 

11 invasions possible and saved countless thousands of ground troops from devastating enemy air attack. 

12 Frontline U.S. and communist aircraft were considered to be fairly comparable during the Korean War 

13 but superior training and tactics led to a U.S. success ratio of 10 enemy aircraft downed for every one 

14 aircraft lost. American dominance in air-to-air combat and in air-to-ground attack made it possible for 

15 United Nations ground forces to recover twice from devastating enemy offensives and eventually helped 

16 to force the North Koreans accept an armistice ending the fighting (U.S. Air Force [USAF] 1999).

17 Most senior U.S. air commanders and strategists in Vietnam were veterans of World War II and Korean 

18 War air warfare, and U.S. aircraft were considered to be a generation advanced over the improved but 

19 essentially still Korean War vintage fighters, Mig-17s, flown by the North Vietnamese. The Americans 

20 expected to quickly achieve air dominance but discovered a capable and difficult foe in the North 

21 Vietnamese Air Force. Although there were times when American air power was able to inflict lopsided 

22 victories over the North Vietnamese with focused counter air efforts, the overall air-to-air exchange rate 

23 for the first several years of the air war saw one U.S. aircraft lost for every two enemy fighters. One 

24 problem was that aircraft designers and warfare planners incorrectly forecasted that the advent of air-to25 air missiles in the 1950s would eliminate the need for guns in air-to-air combat. As a consequence, the 

26 early models of the F-4 aircraft—which was destined to become one of the most important and widely 

27 used fighter aircraft developed since World War II—were built without guns. Just as damaging was the 

28 fact that faith in the perceived superiority of missiles over guns caused training of air-to-air combat 

29 maneuvering and tactics to be deemphasized for most U.S. aircrews. These assumptions were proved to 

30 be false over North Vietnam where the U.S. missiles of the day proved to be far less reliable and effective 

31 against the agile Mig-17s than expected and North Vietnamese pilots proved to be more adept than 

32 expected at maneuvering to engage U.S. aircraft with guns (Michel 1997, USAF 1999).

33 Guns were eventually installed on U.S. fighters and American commanders and aircrews tried a number 

34 of tactical nuances to improve the air-to-air situation but many were reluctant to abandon their basic 

35 training methods or tactics. Finally, as the war continued into 1968, more rigorous training in air-to-air 

36 combat resulted in a victory ratio that climbed to 3.5 to 1 for the U.S. Air Force. The Navy, however, 

37 introduced a more focused and aggressive response by creating a new training program, which later 

38 became known as Top Gun, that focused on making air-to-air combat training as realistic as possible. Top 

39 Gun students were pitted against a special instructor squadron that employed enemy tactics and used 

40 aircraft that would simulate the capabilities of the enemy’s aircraft. Top Gun students were taught to use 

41 tactics that best emphasized the advantages of their aircraft over the capabilities of the North Vietnamese 

42 Migs and that took advantage of the vulnerabilities in the enemy’s aircraft and tactics. Further, Top Gun 

43 graduates were taught to disseminate what they had learned at the program to their squadron mates so that 

44 aircrew throughout the Navy could improve their performance in combat. During heavy air engagements 

45 in 1972, Navy aircrew achieved a 6 to 1 victory advantage over North Vietnamese fighters. The Top Gun 

46 program was attributed with much of this success (Michel 1997).
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-11 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 The need for high-quality, realistic training is further reinforced by another lesson relearned in Vietnam. 

2 The Navy and Air Force found that an informal ―ten-mission axiom‖ from previous wars was to hold true 

3 in Vietnam as well. That axiom states that if a combat aircrew survives their first 10 missions, then they 

4 will likely survive to complete their assigned combat tour. The 10 mission statistic suggests that an 

5 aircrew gains a ―combat awareness‖ or ―combat frame of mind‖ over the course of those missions that 

6 improved either the speed or quality of their decision making, thus making them both less vulnerable and 

7 more effective in engaging the enemy. Post-combat reviews also found that most of the aircrews lost 

8 during their initial missions experienced hesitancy or confusion in their first contact with the enemy or 

9 had not yet acquired the necessary mental agility to manage the unfolding battle situation all while 

10 enduring the physical stresses of high-speed combat maneuvers. The Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force 

11 embarked on training programs following the war designed to make peace-time training as realistic as 

12 possible so that when aircrews ―fought like they trained‖ they would find that training would reduce the 

13 10 mission rule from the beginning. 

14 1.2.1.3 Lessons from the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraqi Wars

15 Air combat experiences in the Persian Gulf (1991), Afghanistan (2001-present), and Iraqi (2003-2011) 

16 wars showed once again the critical importance of thorough and realistic training. U.S. led coalition air 

17 forces prosecuted a sophisticated, five-week-long air campaign in the Persian Gulf War that so shaped the 

18 Kuwait-Iraq battlespace that the subsequent ground offensive to eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait succeeded 

19 in only four days. The air campaign quickly achieved dominance of the air and suppressed antiaircraft 

20 defenses; disrupted Iraqi command, control, communications, and intelligence activities; denied freedom 

21 of movement to the Iraqi army and access to its sources of supply and support; and damaged or destroyed 

22 warfighting materiel throughout the country and on the battlefield. The air campaign, which was both

23 extensive and fluid in its scope, was unprecedented in its near continuous tempo and complexity and yet 

24 had to meet demands to keep collateral damage to property and harm to noncombatants to a previously 

25 unobtainable minimum. The scope of the campaign was made possible by technological advances in 

weapons systems, including precision-guided munitions526 (PGMs), but the success of the attack ultimately 

27 depended on the skills of highly trained aircrews, air commanders, and ground personnel.

28 The Afghanistan and Iraqi wars have further validated the importance of technologically advanced 

29 airpower in modern warfare including the overpowering benefits that skillfully employed PGMs can 

30 provide for achieving both strategic and tactical objectives. In contrast to the Persian Gulf War in which 

31 air power was used to prepare the battlespace before the beginning of the ground invasion, the air and 

32 ground campaigns in the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars have occurred concurrently from the very beginning 

33 of the conflicts. Air power has been used in these ongoing conflicts to achieve strategic or tactical 

34 objectives independent of direct ground actions, but by far these conflicts have been characterized by the 

35 use of air power in close support of and coordination with friendly ground forces. Close air support 

36 (CAS) involves the delivery of air-to-ground ordnance on enemy forces in direct support of close by 

37 friendly forces. The close proximity of friendly and enemy forces makes CAS one of the most critical and 

38 challenging combat tasks to be performed by aircrews. Even with PGMs, detailed training in the 

39 command, control, coordination, and delivery of CAS is necessary to minimize the risks to friendly forces

40 (Bohn 2007).

41 The Afghanistan and Iraqi wars have reinforced the lessons learned during the Vietnam conflict regarding

42 the importance of training small ground units for a variety of land combat missions. Many types of small 

43 unit actions, such as rearming and refueling support for helicopters at forward battlefield positions and

 

5 A missile, bomb or artillery shell equipped with a terminal guidance system that guides its last phase of flight to 

precisely hit a selected target. PGMs follow optical, infrared, laser, radar, or Global Positioning System signals to 

guide them to the target.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-12 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 special reconnaissance, direct action, unconventional warfare, or counterterrorism strikes by Special 

2 Operations Forces, have been vital to the prosecution of these conflicts. Troops must receive training that 

3 is realistic to the challenges and conditions that they will face on these special missions to be successful.

4 1.2.1.4 Summary

5 Aircraft, weapons systems, and air combat tactics have evolved rapidly throughout the history of aerial 

6 warfare. The experiences cited here in every major armed conflict in which the United States has been 

7 involved since World War II clearly illustrate why realistic training is critical for keeping pace with this 

8 evolution and in finding success in all phases of air warfare. Realistic training is also critical to the 

9 planning, design, and engineering of new aircraft, weapons systems, and tactics for air combat. Engineers 

10 and test pilots team to develop aircraft that are capable of meeting specified objectives, but ultimately 

11 aircrews must bring aircraft, weapons, and tactics together to form a force that is combat ready. This 

12 union can only be perfected in the air in a training environment where aircrews are challenged by condi13 tions and tactical situations that are as realistic as safety can allow. Combat aircrews are also the ones that 

14 will first develop new tactics to counter emerging changes in an adversary’s aircraft, aircraft weapons, or 

air defense systems615 or to identify deficiencies in their own aircraft or tactics. So too must small ground 

16 units that perform special combat missions receive training that is realistic to their specialties. The extent 

17 to which deficiencies in equipment or tactics can be discovered and skills developed in realistic training 

18 rather than battle pays great dividends in terms of lives saved and combat effectiveness (USAF 1999).

19 1.2.2 CMAGR Training Functions and Benefits

20 The Marine Corps’ mission is unique among the military services in that, by law, it operates as a 

21 combined arms force in three dimensions—land, sea and air (10 U.S.C. § 5063). Specifically, the Marine 

22 Corps is required to ―be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions, three air wings, 

23 and such other land combat, aviation, and other services as may be organic therein.‖ In maintaining a high 

24 state of training and readiness for its assigned mission, the Marine Corps has become the Nation’s 

25 premier combined arms, expeditionary force, ready to respond immediately to crises anywhere in the 

26 world in defense of the nation and its allies and interests. 

27 The Marine Corps organizes its ground combat divisions and air wings into Marine Air Ground Task 

28 Forces (MAGTFs), which form the fundamental cornerstones of modern Marine Corps combat doctrine. 

29 MAGTFs are scalable in size and can be tailored for specific missions (e.g., humanitarian assistance, 

30 emergency response, peacekeeping, specific regional threat, and major war abroad). This ability provides 

31 the flexibility to address the full spectrum of possible military operations by sizing and tailoring MAGTFs 

32 to fit the situation, and optimize forces as needed for forward presence, engagement, crisis response, 

33 antiterrorism, and war fighting. Regardless of their size, all MAGTFs are composed of common 

34 organizational elements that include command, ground combat, air combat, and logistics.

35 The CMAGR is integral to training the air combat element of the MAGTF but also provides important 

36 support to the preparation of the command, ground combat, and logistics elements that integrate with air 

37 to form an effective combined arms force. The contributions provided by the CMAGR to air combat and 

38 other MAGTF training needs occur at three successively larger geographic and operational scales, which 

39 are referred to for the purposes of this document as the CMAGR operating area, the Bob Stump Training 

40 Range Complex (BSTRC), and the regional range complex operating area (Figure 1-4). The CMAGR

41

42

 

6 Air defense systems typically include surface-to-air missiles or anti-aircraft artillery and radars or infra-red heat 

detection systems that are used to track aircraft and control missile or artillery fire directed at them.
R-2301E

Barry M.

Goldwater

Range East

R-2501N

R-2501W

MCAGCC

Laguna Army Airfield

Marine Corps Air

Station Yuma

Naval Air Facility El Centro

Twentynine 

Palms

Expeditionary

Airfield

Naval Air Station North Island

Marine Corps

Air Station

Camp Pendleton

Marine Corps

Air Station

Miramar

R-2306C

R-2306D

R-2306E

R-2308A

R-2308B

R-2308C

R-2309

R-2311

R-2507E

R-2507N

R-2507S

R-2510A

R-2510B

R-2512

R-2301W

R-2306A

R-2306B

R-2501E

R-2501S

R-2503A

R-2503B

R-2503C

R-2503D Yuma

Proving

Ground

Barry M.

Goldwater

Range West

Loom

Lobby

Range

Shade Tree

Range

Inkey Barley

Range

MC Recruit

Depot San

Diego

Camp

Pendleton

Kitty Baggage Range

Luke Air

Force Base

R-2305

R-2304

R-2307

Naval Amphibious Base

(NAB) Coronado

Shade Tree

Range

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 1\CMAGR_BSTRC.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Legend

Military Airfield

Bob Stump Training Range Complex

(any color fill)

Other Marine Corps Range

(any color fill)

Other DoD Range

Special Use Airspace

Restricted Airspace

Military Operations Area / 

Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace

50 Mile Distance from CMAGR

100 Mile Distance from CMAGR

150 Mile Distance from CMAGR

200 Mile Distance from CMAGR

State Boundary

Military Ranges,

Air Installations, and

Bases in the CMAGR

Operating Region

Figure 1-4

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

U.S. Marine Corps Bob Stump Training Range Complex (BSTRC) 

1. Prima ry mission—training suppo rt for all aspects of Ma rine Corps 

tactical aviation 

2. CMAGR and BMGR West pr ovide the core training capab ilities 

and capa cities 

3. ECR and YPG provide supp lementary training capabilities and 

capacities 

4. Close to Marine and Navy ai r stations, Camp Pendleton, and 

aircraft carriers 

5. Year-round flying weather 

U.S. Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at 

Twentynine Palms (MCAGCC) 

1. Primary mission—training combined elements of 

Marine Air Ground Task Forces 

2. Premier pre-deployment training range for Marine 

expeditionary forces 

3. Current training capacity – expeditionary units of 

up to 3,000 troops 

4. Proposed expansion would train expeditionary 

brigades of 15,000 troops 

5. Ranges support combined arms training of infantry, 

armored, air, and support units 

6. Fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter aircrews trained 

in support of ground forces 

U.S. Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton

1. Prima ry mission—training in amphibious and air assault 

and ground combat 

2. Five amphibious assault landing beaches and inland g round 

combat ranges 

3. Aviation training emphasis is on helicopte r ai r assault and 

suppo rt of g round forces 

4. MCAS Camp Pendleton is within the MCB 

U.S. Marine Corps Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR) 

1. Prima ry mission—training in air-to-g round attack and air-to-a ir combat 

2. Premi er Mari ne Co rps ra nge for air-to-g round trainin g with live e xplo si ve ord nance 

3. Emph asis on tra ining ind ivid ual aircrews in fl ights of o ne, two, and four aircraft 

4. Su pports trainin g with mo st types of conventional explosive and inert o rdnan ce 

5. Realistic air-to-g round targets in diverse terrain setting s 

6. Lan ding zones, observation posts, oth er ground sites that supp ort 

air-g round traini ng 

7. Su pports lar ge force-o n-force a viation traini ng e xercises that use a ll 

of the BSTRC 

8. Hosts Na vy SEALs desert traini ng 

U.S. Navy El Centro Ranges (ECR) 

1. Prima ry mission—training in air-to-air and air-to-ground combat 

2. Four small air-to-ground ranges with basic training capabilities 

3. Limited to inert ordnance 

4. Restricted airspace can be scheduled to suppo rt CMAGR missions 

Marine Corps Recruit Depot 

1. Prima ry mission – basic training to make 

civilians into Marine s 

2. Individual and small unit training 

U.S. Marine Corps Barry M. Goldwater Range West (BMGR West) 

1. Prima ry mission—training in air-to-air, air -to-ground, and 

surface-to -air combat 

2. Instrumented air combat training range (Tactical Aircrew 

Combat Training System) 

3. Numerou s ground units deployment area s to support 

air combat training 

4. Air -to-ground range supporting urban combat 

ope rations training 

5. Realistic battlefield settings in diverse terrain – 

limited to ine rt ordnance 

6. Individual ai rcrew training as well as large -scale air-ground 

combat e xercises 

7. Core range for large force-on -fo rce aviation training exercises 

hosted at the BSTRC 

U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground (YPG) 

1. Prima ry mission—testing ground combat and 

aircraft weapons systems 

2. Restricted airspace available for air combat 

training when not needed fo r testing 

3. Air -to-ground target range with limited 

training capability 

4. Ground units deployment areas to support 

air combat training

0 10 20 30 40

Miles

Map Scale 1:1,400,000

0 10 20 30 40

Kilometers

1-13

P a c i f i c O c e a n

San

Francisco

Sacramento

San

Diego

Los

Angeles

Tucson Yuma

Phoenix

Flagstaff

Arizona

California

BMGR West - Barry M. Goldwater Range West

BSTRC - Bob Stump Training Range Complex

ECR - El Centro Ranges

MCAGCC - Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center

MCAS - Marine Corps Air Station

MCB - Marine Corps Base

YPG - Yuma Proving Ground

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-14 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 operating area includes one tactical range, the CMAGR, and overlying and contiguous special use 

airspace72 that supports military flight activities at that range. The BSTRC includes two tactical ranges (the 

3 CMAGR and Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) West in Arizona), special use airspace that either 

4 overlies or is contiguous to these ranges, and other blocks of nearby special use airspace—including that 

5 overlying the Yuma Proving Ground (YPG) in Arizona and the El Centro ranges, which include the two 

6 basic bulls-eye ranges underlying R-2510 and R-2512 in California. The regional range complex

7 operating area includes the BSTRC, El Centro ranges, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center 

8 (MCAGCC) at Twentynine Palms in California, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in California, YPG 

9 in Arizona, and the special use airspace associated with each of these three complexes.

10 Expiration of the CMAGR land withdrawal would eliminate training at that range and would diminish the 

11 type, diversity, and volume of training that could be accomplished at the remaining ranges in the BSTRC 

12 and the larger regional range complex operating area. The CMAGR also provides exceptional 

13 opportunities to train Marine Corps and Navy ground forces in a desert environment. These forces 

14 typically involve Marine battalion and smaller-sized units and NSW units training in basic and advanced 

15 special operations tactics, techniques, and procedures.

16 1.2.2.1 CMAGR Operating Area

17 As an individual range, the CMAGR serves multiple training purposes. Its land and airspace, however, 

18 have been configured principally for live-fire training with aircraft weapons in an environment that 

19 realistically simulates a tactically diverse and complex air-ground battlefield. Though the CMAGR is 

20 used primarily by the Marine Corps, it is also used by aircrews from the Navy and other branches of the 

21 Armed Services. The premiere function of the range is training Marine Corps aircrews to survive and 

22 fight decisively in performing their MAGTF missions. Training in fixed-wing, rotary-wing (helicopters), 

and tilt-rotor aircraft823 is supported. Towards these ends, the range features a wide array of realistic target 

24 complexes and individual sites that simulate enemy airfields, air defenses, vehicle depots, truck convoys, 

25 troop and armor positions, power stations, and command and communications sites among other types of

26 facilities and positions. Many of the targets on the CMAGR are authorized for training with live 

27 ordnance, which includes devices that are equipped with high explosives, pyrotechnics, or smoke

28

 

7 Airspace wherein activities must be confined because of their nature, or wherein limitations are imposed upon 

aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities, or both (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Part 3-4-2). The vertical limits of special use airspace are measured by 

designated altitude floors and ceilings expressed as flight levels or as feet above mean sea level (MSL). The 

horizontal limits of special use airspace are measured by boundaries described by geographic coordinates or other 

appropriate references that clearly define their perimeter. Types of special use airspace include: Alert Area, 

Controlled Firing Area (CFA), Military Operations Area (MOA), Prohibited Area, Restricted Area, and Warning 

Area (FAA 2002).

8

Fixed-wing aircraft have conventional airframes in which wings provide lift and support aircraft directional control 

surfaces, and engines provide thrust through a propeller or jet turbine. Rotary-wing aircraft, or helicopters, are 

propelled by an engine driven rotary wing that provides lift, thrust, and directional control. Tilt-rotor aircraft 

combine capabilities of both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft; the MV-22 is currently the only U.S. military 

example. The MV-22 can fly like a conventional aircraft or its engines, which are positioned at the end of its wings, 

can be rotated vertically to allow its propellers to function like rotors and give the aircraft the ability to operate like a

helicopter.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-15 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

charges91 . Targets throughout the range have been positioned to utilize terrain features and reflect tactics

2 that adversaries might use to their advantage. In every way possible, the range is configured to expose 

3 training aircrews to conditions that are realistic relative to those to be encountered in combat. 

4 Training by units that perform land-based warfighting functions also occurs at the CMAGR. Most of 

5 these units have missions that are directly associated with tactical aviation including air defense, air 

6 surveillance and control, forward air control, communications, operation and control of unmanned aircraft 

7 systems (UAS), and forward arming and refueling of rotary-wing and MV-22 aircraft. Marine Corps 

8 ground combat activities are conducted in the CMAGR in support of aviation training and include 

9 artillery and mortar fires and the insertion and extraction of ground combat forces. NSW forces conduct 

10 basic individual and advanced small unit training in two ground-training areas that abut restricted airspace 

11 on the northern and western perimeters of the CMAGR. These areas contain a variety of individual and

12 small unit ranges used for Marine Corps and Navy land combat forces. Typically, these forces are 

13 battalion sized and smaller for the Marine Corps, and NSW teams. All ground-based training at the 

14 CMAGR occurs in designated locations that are consistent with the priority needs of aviation training.

15 The primary purpose of renewing the CMAGR land withdrawal is to maintain the invaluable assets and 

16 capabilities that it provides for training Marine and Navy aircrews and aircrews of other components of 

17 the U.S. Armed Forces. As an individual range, key assets and capabilities of the CMAGR include:

18 Restricted land and airspace of sufficient size to support realistic training with diverse air-to19 surface targets and designated sites where ground-units can operate in support of aviation training 

20 activities

21 Supporting special use airspace

22 Varied terrain

23 Authorization for live-fire training with live ordnance

24 Ability to train with PGMs

25 Close proximity to air stations and bases

 

9

Several terms are used in this LEIS to describe ordnance and training with ordnance. The term ordnance refers to a 

weapons system or individual components of that system. An aircraft gun and its ammunition together or separately 

may be considered to be ordnance as may an aircraft targeting system and the missile or bomb that it directs. The 

terms ordnance and munition may be used interchangeably. Aircraft weapons used on the CMAGR include machine 

guns, cannons, bombs, rockets, and missiles that are used to attack enemy military forces or other assets on the 

ground or in the air. Aircraft also release self-defense and ground illumination flares. Ground-based weapons used 

on the CMAGR include machine guns, grenades, artillery, rockets, missiles, pyrotechnics, and devices equipped 

with smoke charges. Live-fire training refers to training in which ordnance is discharged from weapons, such as an 

aircraft cannon, or released, such as the dropping of a bomb or the firing of an air-to-air or air-to-surface missile.

Ordnance that is fired or released for training purpose may be grouped in two general classes: live and inert. Live 

ordnance refers to cannon, mortar, or artillery rounds or projectiles; grenades; rockets; missiles; pyrotechnics; 

smoke; or other devices that are equipped with high explosives, pyrotechnics, or smoke charges. Live ordnance is 

fused and charged for actual warfighting. Its use in training provides aircrews or ground troops with full 

appreciation of the power and effects associated with and the unforgiving safety demands of live ordnance. Inert 

ordnance, which is also called practice ordnance, does not contain high explosives, pyrotechnics, or smoke 

warheads. Practice missiles or rockets contain functional motors and propellants to provide them with flight 

capabilities, but are not armed with live warheads. Inert ordnance may or may not contain a small ―spotting‖ or 

―marking‖ charge that will produce a flash and smoke to reveal where the round has hit. Practice bombs may be 

either full-sized replicas of their live warfighting counterparts, but with non-explosive fillers, or they may be subsized (e.g., 1/20-scale) devices that accurately simulate the trajectory of the full-scale bomb. Live and inert ordnance 

reliability is typically greater than 99.9 percent—meaning that less than 0.1 percent of all expended ordnance and 

submunitions may pose an UXO hazard within the CMAGR.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-16 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 Year-round flying weather

2 Designated ranges and support areas where NSW units can train

3 Restricted Land and Airspace. Although the primary action proposed in this LEIS is to renew the 

4 CMAGR land withdrawal, from the perspective of military operations, the range is composed of land and 

5 overlying airspace to which surface or airborne entry is restricted to persons and aircraft that are 

6 authorized participants in training or other official activities (Figure 1-5). The authority to restrict surface

7 entry to the range is provided by the CMLWOA (see Appendix A). Three blocks of airspace—designated 

as restricted areas10 8 R-2507N, R-2507S, and R-2507E—that extend from the surface to 40,000 feet above 

mean sea level (feet MSL)11 9 and provide exclusive-use for military aircraft operations and live-fire 

10 training exercises. Restricted range land and airspace is needed to:

11 Protect the safety of the public and military personnel alike by excluding nonpermitted, 

12 nonparticipating surface and airspace users from areas where hazardous military activities are 

13 occurring

14 Contain all hazardous training activities including certain types of flight and flight maneuvers and 

15 live-fire weapons trajectories, surface impacts, and detonations 

16 Prevent nonparticipants and incompatible land uses from interrupting or interfering with military 

17 training and support activities

18 The lateral boundaries of R-2507N, R-2507S, and R-2507E form a contiguous block of airspace that is 

19 roughly 12 to 15 miles wide and about 45 miles long. The entire CMAGR can be used for training that 

20 requires its full dimensions or it can be divided into two smaller, yet still effective, north and south sub21 ranges to allow more than one training event to occur at a time. The size of this block of restricted 

22 airspace and the underlying restricted land area has contributed significantly to the flexibility of the 

23 CMAGR to support a wide diversity of air combat training and would continue to provide the range with 

24 the capacity to accommodate emerging training missions. The productivity of a range is directly 

25 connected to the land and airspace that it can provide to contain the hazardous effects of aerial gunnery, 

26 bombing, rocketry, missile firing, and laser targeting. The dimensions of the CMAGR also provide 

27 sufficient space for 29 separate target areas or complexes (see Figure 1-5). Each target complex includes a 

28 variety of simulated enemy positions, vehicles, and other tactical facilities such as airfields and industrial 

29 sites. The wide variety of target sets available greatly contributes to the diversity and realism of training. 

30 Most conventional aircraft munitions and air-to-ground PGMs are approved for use at the CMAGR, 

31 including rounds with live high-explosives warheads. 

32

 

10 A block of regulatory special use airspace with a defined altitude floor and ceiling and lateral boundaries 

identified by an underlying area on the surface of the earth. Restricted areas, designed by the FAA and established in 

14 CFR Part 73 through the rulemaking process, contain airspace within which the flight of aircraft, while not 

wholly prohibited, is subject to restrictions for the purpose of containing or segregating activities that would be 

hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. Examples of hazardous activities include firing of aircraft cannons, rockets, 

or missiles; aircraft delivery of aerial bombs; firing artillery; surface-to-air or surface missile launches; or training 

aircrews at night in the use of night vision goggles with the external lights of the participating aircraft extinguished. 

Penetration of restricted areas by nonparticipating aircraft without authorization from the using or controlling 

agency may be extremely hazardous to the aircraft and its occupants. The FAA delegates control of restricted areas 

to a responsible military agency.

11 In aviation terminology, altitudes of 18,000 feet and above are referred to as Flight Levels (FL) and are stated in 

three digits that represent hundreds of feet. For example, FL180 is 18,000 feet and FL400 is 40,000 feet. FL 

altitudes are identified using a standard atmospheric pressure reading so that all aircraft at a given FL will be at a 

defined altitude over the long distances typically flown at high altitude and will, thus, retain their relative vertical 

separations. For simplicity, altitudes are stated in this LEIS in feet MSL unless otherwise noted.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-17 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 Criteria for the land area and airspace dimensions of Marine Corps training ranges are established by

2 Marine Corps Reference Publication (MCRP) 3-0C Operational Training Ranges Required Capabilities

3 (DoD, USMC 2009a). The dimensions provided are those that would support the full spectrum of Marine 

4 Corps training requirements for its ground, air, and logistical combat elements. The land and airspace 

5 dimensions of the CMAGR cannot support all training operations but, relative to both the MCRP 3-0C 

6 criteria and actual training results, it ranks as the Marine Corps’ most capable and productive dedicated, 

7 air-to-ground range.

8 Aviation training at the CMAGR is also enhanced by the presence of ground support areas that are used 

9 by Marine aviation units that perform air defense, air control, communications, refueling and rearming of 

10 rotary-wing and tilt rotor aircraft, and other aviation related functions. Observation posts are located at 

11 13 positions from which ground-based forward air controllers (FACs) can direct air strikes onto targets.

12 Ground-based or airborne FACs often play an essential role in combat to the benefit of both friendly 

13 ground troops and aircrews by ensuring that close air support can be effectively brought to bear on an 

14 enemy. An additional 10 sites are positioned where artillery can fire spotting rounds to mark targets for 

15 air strikes. The use of artillery on CMAGR provides fire control and coordination training to the artillery 

16 troops, aircrews, and FACs, who also serve as artillery spotters in these exercises. Ground aviation units 

17 involved in extended training at the CMAGR can establish bivouacs (temporary camps) at forward 

18 arming and refueling points (FARPs), the UAS operating site, or a designated bivouac and work area to 

19 the west of the UAS site (see Figure 1-5).

An expeditionary training site for units that fly and maintain a small tactical UAS, the RQ-7B Shadow12 20 ,

21 has been established at the CMAGR (see Figure 1-5). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

22 requires UASs to be flown in restricted area airspace for most training because of the inability of the UAS 

23 to visually see and avoid nonparticipating aircraft in civil airspace. Simulated battlefield features—

24 including target complexes, ground support areas, FARPS, and observation posts—present realistic 

25 surveillance objectives for UAS training at the CMAGR.

26 Integration of air and ground combat power is at the core of the MAGTF approach to warfare. Although 

27 most of the training at the CMAGR is focused on the delivery of air-to-ground ordnance, the range also 

28 provides aircrews with training in the fundamentals of working with other MAGTF participants 

29 (including FAC, artillery, air defense, and air surveillance and control).

30

 

12 The RQ-7B Shadow 200 is a remotely operated tactical-surveillance aircraft that provides day/night 

reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition and battle damage assessment to a range of about 75 miles.
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad

(Inactive)

Live/Inert Ordnance

Authorized

Field ASP

UAS

Operating

Site

Bivouac

and Work

Area

Camp Billy

Machen

Authorized

Authorized

Inert Ordnance

Live/Inert Ordnance

R-2507E

R-2507N

R-2507S

R2510A

R2510B R-2512

Kane East MOA/ATCAA

Kane West MOA

Abel East

MOA

Abel North

MOA/ATCAA Imperial 

South ATCAA

Imperial 

North ATCAA

Abel South

MOA/ATCAA

Niland-Blythe Road

Controlled

Firing Area

Bombay

Controlled

Firing Area

Niland

SWAT-4

SWAT-5

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

Coachella Canal

Mesquite Region

Landfill Rail Spur

Riverside County

Imperial County

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 1\CMAGR_Training_Support_Facilities.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Gas Line

Transmission Line

Observation Post

Artillery Firing Area (AFA)

Camp Billy Machen

Bivouac and 

Work Area

Field Ammunition 

Supply Point (ASP)

Unmanned Aircraft

System (UAS)

Operating Site

Special Use Airspace

Restricted Airspace

Military Operations Area 

(MOA) / Air Traffic Control 

Assigned Airspace 

(ATCAA)

Line Dividing Area Authorized 

for Live/Inert Ordnance Versus

Inert Ordnance Only Area

Controlled Firing Area

Target or Target Complex

Special Warfare 

Training Area (SWAT)

Forward Arming and 

Refueling Point (FARP) /

Landing Zone (LZ)

Landing Zone (LZ)

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Road

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Railroad

Approved Rail Spur

CMAGR Training

Support Facilities

Figure 1-5

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

1-18

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2012

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-19 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 Supporting Special Use Airspace. Aircrew training at the CMAGR benefits from several Military 

Operations Areas13 (MOAs), Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace14 2 (ATCAA) areas, and Military 

Training Routes15 3 (MTRs) (Figure 1-6). The Abel and Kane MOAs and ATCAAs enhance CMAGR 

4 training operations in three ways:

5 MOAs and ATCAAs provide locations where training in skills, such as air combat maneuvers 

6 and fighter intercepts, that do not involve live-fire use of aircraft weapons can occur without 

7 disrupting or displacing weapons training missions within the restricted areas at the CMAGR.

8 MOAs and ATCAAs can serve as training areas from which flights can directly transition to the 

9 CMAGR for weapons training. This relationship also works in reverse where flights can 

10 transition to the MOAs and ATCAAs for an additional training segment after completing a 

11 weapons training segment at the CMAGR. 

12 MOAs and ATCAAs can be used directly to provide additional airspace for weapons training 

13 missions at the CMAGR. No weapons may be armed, fired, or released while an aircraft is in 

14 either a MOA or ATCAA; however, MOAs or ATCAAs can be used to initiate approaches to 

15 CMAGR targets or to reposition between multiple attacks on those targets. 

16 MTRs enhance training by providing a low-level, high speed approach through which aircraft can 

17 transition directly to attacks on targets on the CMAGR.

18 Varied Terrain. The CMAGR provides some highly varied terrain that is well suited to its use for 

19 tactical aviation training. The Chocolate Mountains form a rugged, northwest-to-southeast spine roughly 

20 down the center of the CMAGR that is bisected along its length by several passes. The ragged margins of 

21 the mountains blend into broad alluvial slopes and valley plains. The effect is a landscape that provides a 

22 diverse setting for air-ground combat training. Simulated targets, such as airfields or vehicle convoys, are 

23 typically located on the alluvial slopes or plains. The avenues of aerial attack available to aircrews, 

24 however, are often delineated by intervening mountains. There are many iterations of this basic target 

25 setting throughout the range, each with a different set of tactical circumstances created by the disposition 

26 of simulated enemy facilities, equipment, and forces within the terrain. Aircrews must learn to quickly 

27 recognize, understand, and solve the tactical challenges presented by each of these target settings. 

28 Because of the targeting diversity made possible by the terrain, aircrews find each training sortie to be 

29 instructional and not repetitious. The cumulative experience aircrews gain by facing the tactical diversity 

 

13 A MOA is a block of nonregulatory special use airspace designated by the FAA to provide airspace for certain 

military flight activities, such as air combat maneuvers or intercepts usually involving two or more aircraft. These 

activities often necessitate acrobatic or abrupt flight maneuvers including high speeds, sudden turns, and vertical 

ascents and descents that can measure in the tens of thousand of feet per minute, which nonparticipating aircrews 

may have little or no chance to anticipate, detect, or avoid. Participating aircraft may fly at high subsonic airspeeds 

in MOAs below 10,000 feet MSL where aircraft are otherwise generally restricted to indicated airspeeds of 

250 knots or less. The ceiling of a MOA may extend up to, but cannot include, 18,000 feet MSL. MOAs are 

depicted on aeronautical charts and pertain to flight below 18,000 feet MSL. Instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic 

may be cleared through a MOA if Air Traffic Control (ATC) can provide safe separation from participating aircraft. 

Otherwise, ATC will restrict IFR traffic from the MOA. Pilots flying Visual Flight Rules (VFR) may fly within a 

MOA but they must exercise extreme caution as ATC’s ability to provide separation and reliance on standard seeand-avoid scans is tenuous at best. 

14 An ATCAA is similar to a MOA, but with a floor at or above FL 180 and a ceiling at some higher altitude. 

ATCAAs are often, but not always, placed directly over a MOA so that the ATCAA can serve as an extension of 

MOA when scheduled concurrently.

15 MTRs are one-way flight corridors that provide routes at altitudes below 10,000 feet MSL where military aircraft 

can fly at high subsonic airspeeds, which is in excess of the otherwise 250 knots limit required below 10,000 feet 

MSL, during low-level flight training. MTRs may be up to several hundred miles in length.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-20 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 of the CMAGR is essential for preparing them for combat. The CMAGR also offers a variety of complex 

2 terrain and vegetative types that supports effective small Marine Corps and NSW land unit training.

3 Training with Live Ordnance. The authorization for aircrews to deliver live-ordnance on tactically 

4 realistic targets at the CMAGR is a central component of the overall value of this range to the readiness of 

5 Marine Corps and Navy aviation. The unique benefit of live-fire training is that it provides aircrews with 

6 the chance to apply the general skills learned in simulators and other types of training in a realistic 

7 operational environment. Live fire training helps aircrews span the gaps between abstract subject matter 

8 learned in the classroom, physical and mental skills learned in the safe and controlled environment of a 

9 simulator, and the stressful and dangerous environments into which aircrews will have to deploy their 

10 weapons. Basic live-fire training in the delivery of air-to-ground ordnance occurs in the BSTRC at bulls11 eye targets at the El Centro ranges or at BMGR West. Aircrews learn and practice the fundamentals of 

12 air-to-ground attacks at these ranges by repeatedly flying precise attack patterns, aided by lead-in lines 

13 and position and distance markers laid out on the ground, to deliver ordnance on the bulls-eye targets. 

14 Bulls-eye target ranges are only approved for training with inert practice ordnance. The capstone step in 

15 the evolution of aircrew air-to-ground attack skills at the BSTRC occurs at the CMAGR, which provides 

16 the facility needed to hone these skills through diverse and tactically realistic, live-fire training. This 

17 training is further distinguished by the fact that most of the target sets at the CMAGR are approved for 

18 live-ordnance deliveries, which provides aircrews with the experience of fully employing their aircraft’s 

19 weapons.

20 The live-ordnance training capability, both air and ground, at the CMAGR is regionally and nationally 

21 irreplaceable given the capabilities, capacities, and availabilities of other DoD training ranges. Three 

22 other ranges in the local region have live ordnance delivery capabilities including BMGR East and YPG 

23 in Arizona and MCAGCC in California. BMGR East, which is operated by Luke Air Force Base, 

24 provides three targets that are authorized for fixed-wing aircraft deliveries of live general purpose bombs 

25 of up to 2,000 pounds net explosive weight. Each of these targets, however, is marked only by a small hill 

26 and offers no tactical diversity or challenge. The value of BMGR East for training aircrews operating 

27 fixed-wing aircraft from MCAS Miramar, NAS North Island, or aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean with 

28 either live- or inert-practice ordnance is also diminished by the distance of BMGR East from those 

locations. At a distance of about 85 miles, BMGR East is within the effective training radius16 29 of fixed30 wing aircraft operating from MCAS Yuma but at over 220 miles is beyond the effective routine training 

31 radius of aircraft taking-off from MCAS Miramar, NAS North Island, or aircraft carriers (see Figure 1-4). 

32 YPG, a major U.S. Army test range, is within 30 miles of MCAS Yuma and 150 miles of MCAS 

33 Miramar, which is within the effective training radii of the AV-8B and F/A-18 aircraft that currently 

34 operate from these air stations and the forthcoming F-35. However, the air-to-ground range approved for 

35 live ordnance, which is designed and instrumented for testing, cannot provide the quality tactical training 

36 that can be achieved at the CMAGR. In addition, test missions rather than training activities are assigned 

37 priority at YPG. The MCAGCC offers live-ordnance training capabilities that are tactically realistic and 

38 also is within the effective training radii of current and scheduled fixed-wing aircraft that operate from 

39 MCAS Miramar or MCAS Yuma. The drawback of the MCAGCC as an alternative to the CMAGR is 

40 that the scheduling priority at the MCAGCC for training MAGTF integration renders these ranges 

41

42

 

16 Effective training radius means the distance an aircraft can travel to a training range, complete an approximately 

40-minute training mission, return to base without refueling, and retain a fuel reserve for an emergency or weather 

caused delay or divert before landing. In a 2008 analysis for the new F-35 aircraft, the Marine Corps found this 

distance to be about 170 miles (150 nautical miles [NM]) (DoN 2008). The effective training radius of the F-35 

exceeds that of either the F/A-18 or AV-8B aircraft that it will replace beginning as early as late 2012.
R-2507E

R-2507N

R-2507S

R-2510A

R-2510A and B

R-2512

Kane East

MOA/ATCAA

Kane West

MOA

Abel East

MOA

Abel North

MOA/ATCAA

Imperial

South

ATCAA

Imperial North

ATCAA

Abel South

MOA/ATCAA

Quail

MOA/ATCAA

R-2308A

R-2306C

R-2306A

R-2308B

R-2306D

R-2309

R-2308C

R-2306E

R-2307

R-2311

R-2308B

R-2301W

R-2301E

Dome

MOA/ATCAA

Kane South

MOA

Naval Air Facility

El Centro

Loom Lobby

Range

Shade Tree

Range

Inkey Barley

Range

Kitty

Baggage

Range

Laguna Army

Airfield

Marine Corps Air

Station Yuma

Yuma

Proving

Ground

Barry M.

Goldwater

Range West

Barry M.

Goldwater

Range East

Abel Bravo

MOA/

ATCAA

CMAGR

Mexico

California

Arizona

California

Controlled

Firing Area

Bombay

Controlled

Firing

Area Niland

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 1\CMAGR_MTR_MOA.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Legend

Military Airfield

Military Training Route (MTR)

Military Range

Controlled Firing Area

Special Use Airspace

Restricted Airspace

Military Operations Area (MOA) / 

Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA)

State Boundary

Military Training

Airspace in the CMAGR

Operating Area

Figure 1-6

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 6 12 18 24

Miles

Map Scale 1:850,000

0 6 12 18 24

Kilometers

1-21

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-22 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 unavailable for live-ordnance training for aircrews. Also located in the Southwest, are live-fire tactical 

2 training ranges that support live ordnance deliveries at the Army National Training Center and Naval Air 

3 Warfare Center China Lake in California and the Air Force Air Warfare Center Nevada Test and Training 

4 Range in Nevada. The National Training Center is similar to the MCAGCC and is heavily scheduled for 

5 pre-deployment training for Army brigades. The primary mission and scheduling priority at China Lake 

6 are weapons test activities. The Nevada Test and Training Range is also a highly capable training 

7 installation but scheduling priorities at this range go to test activities and missions conducted by the Air 

8 Force Fighter Weapons School and other large-scale training exercises. All three of these range 

9 complexes also are beyond the un-refueled operational radius of aircraft based in the CMAGR operating 

10 area. Elsewhere in the West, the Air Force Utah Test and Training Range provides tactical aviation 

11 training with live ordnance but this range is also beyond the operational radius of southwestern-based 

12 aircraft. Opportunities for tactical training with live ordnance are very limited in the eastern part of the 

13 country.

14 Training with Precision-Guided Munitions. PGMs have become an essential and heavily used asset in 

15 the arsenal of the U.S. Armed Forces. PGMs debuted as an influential weapon of war during the Persian 

16 Gulf War in 1991, although only about 7 percent of all bombs dropped during that conflict were PGMs. 

17 By the time of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars in 2001 and 2003, the distinct advantages afforded by 

18 PGMs over conventional weapons in accuracy, combat effectiveness, and reduced collateral damage 

19 resulted in these munitions being used in well over half of the air strikes performed by U.S. and allied 

20 forces (Meilinger 2007). The use of PGMs requires aircrews, FACs, and other involved personnel to have 

21 the exacting skills necessary to effectively employ and direct these weapons. The skill set required 

22 includes the use of air and ground laser range finding and designation of targets. The CMAGR supports 

23 realistic aircrew and FAC training in air-to-ground deliveries of PGMs. PGMs with either inert or live 

24 high-explosives warheads can be delivered at the CMAGR on a variety of realistic target sets. 

25 Year-Round Flying Weather. The desert climate of southwestern Arizona and southeastern California 

26 provides some of the most consistent visual flying conditions in the country, as evidenced by an average 

27 annual rate of possible sunshine of 90 percent at Yuma, Arizona, the highest of any city in the United 

28 States (National Climate Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2004). 

29 Favorable climate contributes importantly to the efficiency of aviation training in the CMAGR region and 

30 benefits tactical aviation in at least three ways. First, the dependably good flying weather supports a high 

31 tempo flight training schedule. This schedule in turn provides the capacity needed to accommodate the 

32 combined training requirements of the many CMAGR users. Because of the good weather CMAGR users 

33 can reliably plan and fly their missions in a cost effective manner. Second, aircrews benefit from flying 

34 frequently enough to develop and retain the highly refined skills that their profession demands. 

35 Experience clearly shows that these skills are eroded quickly by inactivity (Kern 1997, U.S. Army 

36 Combat Readiness/Safety Center 2010). Third, the climate supports important training deployment 

37 programs for aviation units from areas of the country with more inclement flying weather. As a result of 

38 its reliable weather and proximity to outstanding training ranges, MCAS Yuma is the most active 

39 deployment site for Marine aviation units from both the East and West coasts. The air station hosts 

40 between 50 and 70 unit deployments per year. Naval Air Facility (NAF) El Centro is also an active host 

41 for squadrons deploying to the CMAGR for training exercises. Consequently, the loss of the CMAGR 

42 would negatively impact the combat readiness of Marine Corps and Navy squadrons from many locations 

43 in the country.

44 Close Proximity to Air Stations and Bases. A basic requirement of tactical aviation training is for 

45 military bases and ranges to be within reasonably close proximity if training is to yield combat ready 

46 aircrews for an effective investment in time and money. Close proximity between air bases and ranges 

47 allows aircrews and aircraft to spend a larger proportion of the limited and expensive flight time available 

48 on productive training activities, such as air combat maneuvering or air-to-ground ordnance delivery, 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-23 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 rather than flying enroute to and from the range. For the F-35 aircraft, an effective base to range distance 

2 would be no more than about 170 miles. The F/A-18A/B/C/D and AV-8B aircraft have an operational 

3 training radius that is less than that projected for the F-35 but these aircraft can train effectively at the 

4 CMAGR from their current home stations at MCAS Miramar and MCAS Yuma. The operational training 

5 radius of the MV-22 is about 230 miles (DoN 2009). The unrefueled training radius for current rotary6 wing aircraft varies among different types, but helicopters typically need to be home stationed within 

7 about 110 miles of the primary training range if cost effective readiness is to be achieved.

8 For fixed-wing tactical aircraft and the MV-22, the CMAGR is currently within the unrefueled flight 

9 radius of MCAS Yuma, MCAS Miramar, NAS North Island, and NAF El Centro (see Figure 1-4). Fixed10 wing aircraft and the MV-22 launched from aircraft carriers close to the California coast can also reach 

11 the CMAGR. Rotary-wing aircraft from MCAS Yuma or NAF El Centro are able to use the CMAGR 

12 without refueling.

13 Ground Training Capabilities. Realistic, tactical employment of live ordnance, small arms, fire and 

14 maneuver, lasers, and UASs in NSW and Marine ground unit training is critical to the preparation of 

15 personnel and small units for combat effectiveness. The primary space at the CMAGR allocated to 

16 support tactical training of NSW and Marine ground units is located in two special warfare training areas 

17 (abbreviated as SWAT and called SWAT-4 and SWAT-5) that abut the northern and western sides of 

18 R-2507N (see Figure 1-5). SWAT-4 and SWAT-5 provide a variety of individual and small unit ground 

19 ranges that allow the realistic employment of infantry types of weapons. The geographic relationship of 

20 R-2507N to SWAT-4 and SWAT-5 is advantageous for this training as it allows the surface danger 

zones17 21 (SDZs) established and managed to support live-fire weapons use in SWAT-4 and SWAT-5 to 

22 extend into restricted airspace, thus maximizing the terrain available in the SWATs for tactical maneuver. 

SWAT-4 and SWAT-5 are each overlain by a Controlled Firing Area18 23 (CFA), called Niland CFA and 

24 Bombay CFA, to prevent live-fire weapons use from endangering overflying aircraft that are not 

25 participating in the training activities (see Figure 1-5). Range scheduling and control procedures are in 

26 place to avoid live-fire conflicts between aviation activities in R-2507N and ground activities in SWAT-4 

27 and SWAT-5 to optimize the productivity of the CMAGR and maximize the training benefits achievable 

28 to all users.

29 1.2.2.2 CMAGR’s Importance to the Bob Stump Training Range Complex

30 The BSTRC is one of the Nation’s largest and most capable tactical aviation training assets. It is the only 

31 major range complex in the United States that has the capability and capacity to provide full spectrum 

32 support for Marine Corps tactical aviation training. The multiple training areas in the complex provide a 

33 series of training capabilities, diverse tactical settings, the capacity to support either many simultaneous 

34 training evolutions or large force-on-force exercises, and flexibility for accommodating new training 

35 needs. The BSTRC has the capabilities to support training for all six functions of a Marine Aircraft Wing, 

36 which include:

 

17 A surface danger zone is the mathematically predicted area in which a projectile will impact upon return to earth, 

either by direct fire or ricochet. The SDZ is the area extending from a firing point on the ground to a distance 

downrange based on the projectiles fired. This area has specific dimensions for the expected caliber of the 

weapon(s) being fired so that all projectile fragments will be contained in this area. No part of an SDZ may extend 

off of the installation property. An SDZ must be clear of non-participating personnel whenever firing is being 

conducted. 

18 A block of nonregulatory special use airspace designated by the FAA in which firing activities, such as mortar or 

artillery shoots, are conducted under controlled conditions so as to eliminate hazards to nonparticipating aircraft, and 

to ensure the safety of persons and property on the ground. CFAs are not depicted on aeronautical charts since they 

do not cause a nonparticipating aircraft to change its flight path. Rather, the firing activity must be suspended until 

traffic is safely clear of the CFA.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-24 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 Offensive air support—involves air operations that deliver firepower against enemy ground 

2 forces for the destruction or neutralization of installations, equipment, and personnel.

3 Aerial reconnaissance—employs visual observation and/or sensors in aerial vehicles to acquire 

4 intelligence information.

5 Assault support—uses aircraft to provide tactical mobility and logistic support to the MAGTF for 

6 the movement of high priority personnel and cargo within the immediate area of operations (or 

7 the evacuation of personnel and cargo).

8 Control of aircraft and missiles—integrates the other five functions of Marine aviation by 

9 providing the commander with the ability to exercise command and control authority over Marine 

10 aviation assets.

11 Anti-air warfare—involves operations required to destroy, or reduce to an acceptable level, the 

12 enemy air and missile threat.

13 Electronic warfare—involves the use of electromagnetic energy to determine, exploit, reduce, or 

14 prevent hostile use of the electromagnetic spectrum and actions which retain friendly use of the 

15 electromagnetic spectrum.

16 The CMAGR and BMGR West combined provide over 1,900 square miles of range land, which are 

17 collectively overlain by a total of almost 2,200 square miles of restricted area airspace (see Figure 1-6). 

18 The remaining airspace areas of the BSTRC provide about 7,850 additional square miles of training 

19 airspace.

20 Both CMAGR and BMGR West support training in offensive air support, assault support, anti-air 

21 warfare, aerial reconnaissance, and control of aircraft and missiles, but training in electronic warfare 

22 occurs principally at BMGR West. Because of attributes unique to each range, they offer different but 

23 complementary training experiences and benefits for the five functional areas of Marine aviation that they 

24 both support. Training based on one of these two ranges alone would not produce combat aircrews that 

25 are as qualified as those that have the benefit of training at both ranges. For example, the CMAGR 

26 provides about 36 percent of the range land area of the BSTRC but its contribution to offensive air 

27 support training is greater than its proportional share of the BSTRC land area. As already noted, the 

28 CMAGR provides extensive arrays of tactically diverse and realistic targets for live-fire aircrew training 

29 in delivering most types of air-to-surface ordnance. Many of these targets are approved for attack with 

30 live-ordnance and one set of live-fire targets has been specifically developed for training helicopter 

31 aircrews. The BSTRC hosts 80 percent of the Marine Corps’ air-to-ground aviation training but most of 

32 this training is supported at the CMAGR.

33 The training assets at BMGR West for offensive air support include two live-fire target sets and a variety 

34 of tactically realistic target sets that are part of the Yuma Tactical Aircrew Combat Training System 

35 (TACTS). The principal features of the two live-fire target sets include a bull’s-eye target for delivering 

36 bombs and rockets, panel targets for strafing, an urban training complex that simulates a built-up urban 

37 setting, and an autonomously controlled target vehicle that moves in a racetrack circuit. The bull’s-eye

38 and panel targets support development of basic ordnance delivery skills while the urban training complex 

39 and moving target vehicle both offer more tactically realistic challenges to aircrews. However, limited 

40 avenues of attack constrain the diversity of training that can be achieved at the urban training and moving 

41 vehicle targets. The live-fire targets at BMGR West are all limited to inert practice ordnance.

42 The Yuma TACTS is a powerful training tool that allows aircrews to engage in simple or complex tactical 

43 problems involving air-to-air, air-to-surface, and/or surface-to-air combat. The system uses electronic 

44 technology to track and record entire engagements between friendly and aggressor aircraft and can also 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-25 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 electronically simulate air-to-surface and surface-to-air attacks. No ordnance can actually be expended at 

2 any phase in the training, however, and the effectiveness of all attacks is electronically simulated and 

3 scored. The advantages of the TACTS for offensive air support training are that aircrews can readily 

4 make multiple attacks on a variety of ground targets and those air-to-surface attacks can be smoothly 

5 integrated with other aspects of an air strike mission such as having to deal with an enemy’s air defenses. 

6 In contrast, the CMAGR provides the experience and additional realism of actually expending ordnance 

7 while controlling and maneuvering their aircraft throughout an actual air-to-ground attack. The tactic of 

8 choice in combat is to release all of the ordnance necessary to destroy a target during a single attack so as 

9 to reduce aircrew exposure to defensive ground fire or missiles, or interception by enemy fighters. In 

10 some situations, this requires the delivery of up to several thousands of pounds of ordnance at once, 

11 which means that the pilot must be able to reflexively control the aircraft through the sudden weight loss 

12 without losing focus on unfolding combat events. At the CMAGR, aircrews can hone their accuracy and 

13 flying skills by dropping only one or a few bombs per pass and making many practice passes or they may 

14 release up to 6,000 pounds of ordnance in a single pass. 

15 Thus, while the TACTS and inert live-fire ranges at BMGR West provide clear and distinct instructional 

16 benefits for aircrews they neither replicate nor supplant the training values that aircrews achieve by 

17 engaging the tactical scenarios provided by the diverse target arrays at the CMAGR. Aircrews profit 

18 immensely by training at both ranges and the close proximity of the CMAGR and BMGR West not only 

19 makes that possible but essentially serves as a multiplier that enhances the investment made by stationing 

20 aircrews near or deploying them to the BSTRC.

21 One of the best indicators of the irreplaceable importance of the BSTRC to the readiness of Marine Corps 

22 aviation is the fact that it is used to host the semiannual Weapons Tactics Instructor (WTI) Course. The 

23 WTI Course provides the Marine Corps’ most advanced training for employing aviation weapons and 

24 tactics in combat. The course objective is to graduate flight officers who (1) are fully qualified in their 

25 warfare specialty, (2) can plan and execute missions that integrate logistics and tactics for both aviation 

26 and ground support assets, and (3) have the experience and knowledge necessary to conduct an effective 

27 and comprehensive aircrew training program for their respective squadrons. Only the best qualified 

28 aircrews from operational squadrons are accepted to the WTI Course. The Marine Corps uses the course 

29 to enhance its service-wide capabilities in advanced aviation weapons and tactics by providing each 

30 Marine Corps squadron annually with a qualified WTI. To keep the WTI Course at the cutting edge, its 

31 contents are updated before each semiannual session to ensure that WTI graduates are prepared to defeat 

32 the capabilities and tactics of contemporary or potential adversaries. The WTI Course is characterized by 

33 a demanding academic program and complex flight training exercises that realistically simulate real world 

34 combat scenarios. The BSTRC is an ideal setting for the course because it can fully support the 

35 complexity and realism needed to make the flight portion of the training effective. The CMAGR in 

36 particular provides the course instructors and students to propose and develop tactics, techniques, and 

37 procedures for air-to-ground attacks that are appropriate and effective for the types of combat challenges 

38 that Marine Corps aircrews face in the contemporary world.

39 The loss of the CMAGR would eliminate the multiplier effect provided by the combined assets of the

40 BSTRC and would greatly curtail the quality and quantity of training that could be produced at this 

41 complex. Losing the CMAGR would also diminish the individual values of MCAS Yuma, MCAS 

42 Miramar, NAS North Island, NAF El Centro, and BMGR West for supporting the readiness of Marine 

43 Corps and Navy aviation.

44 1.2.2.3 CMAGR’s Importance to the Regional Range Complex Operating Area

45 As already noted, the nation’s largest military ranges are concentrated in the Southwest as a legacy of the 

46 buildup of military forces during World War II, the remaining availability of relatively open lands and 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-26 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 unencumbered airspace in the early 1940s, and a climate that allowed year-round training with few 

2 weather related delays or cancellations. The ranges of the BSTRC and the larger regional operating area, 

3 which also encompasses Camp Pendleton, the MCAGCC, the R-2510 and R-2512 ranges, and YPG, are 

4 all descendent from this earlier era. 

5 Although not likely intended in the early 1940s, the concentration of training ranges and air stations in 

6 relatively close proximity to each other in southern California and southwestern Arizona confers a distinct 

7 benefit for current training programs. As evidenced by the BSTRC, training of combat forces can be 

8 distributed within a complex to take advantage of the best features of the individual ranges to support 

9 comprehensive training of the whole force. A closely located, multiple-range complex also benefits the 

10 force by providing greater training diversity, capacity, and flexibility than any of its member ranges can

11 alone. These benefits are expanded at the regional scale in southern California and southwestern Arizona 

12 by the availability of additional ranges that contribute to MAGTF training. Foremost at this scale are 

13 Camp Pendleton and the MCAGCC. Camp Pendleton is a primary range for training both helicopter 

14 aircrews and ground combat forces. At Camp Pendleton, a major training emphasis is currently placed on 

15 the use of rotary-wing and MV-22 aircraft for assault support. MCAGCC is the Marine Corps’ largest and 

16 most capable live-fire range complex for MAGTF training. Training for all six functions of Marine Corps 

17 aviation occurs here for fixed-wing, rotary-wing, and tilt-rotor aircraft. The priority at the MCAGCC is on 

18 MAGTF integration. Training at the MCAGCC is where the Marine Corps brings the readiness of its 

19 combat-ready expeditionary units to its highest pre-deployment level.

20 The R-2510 and R-2512 ranges support basic training in the delivery of air-to-surface ordnance. These 

21 bulls-eye ranges are close to the BSTRC and provide a training capability that is also developed at BMGR 

22 West but is not present at the CMAGR. The R-2510 and R-2512 ranges are an addition to the capacity of 

23 the BSTRC for basic air-to-surface training and allow the training priority of the entire CMAGR and most 

24 of BMGR West to be placed on tactical level skills. YPG is also close to the BSTRC and provides 

25 additional capacity and diversity for training in offensive air support, assault support, and anti-air warfare 

26 on an as available basis. 

27 Training for air components of MAGTFs is distributed and integrated over the ranges and air stations and 

28 facilities that are located in southern California and southwestern Arizona. Finally, assembly of a combat 

29 ready MAGTF is accomplished at the MCAGCC but it is largely through the other ranges in the region 

30 that the individual aircrews, squadrons, aircraft groups, and aircraft wings are prepared. In this manner, 

31 each range supports training that is essential to the ultimate readiness of the MAGTF. The individual 

32 ranges may be differentiated in terms of training capabilities, diversity, capacity, and flexibility but the 

33 loss of any one range would diminish the quality and quantity of training that could be supported by the 

34 overall regional network.

35 1.2.3 Future Requirements for the CMAGR

36 The CMAGR is, and will remain, indispensable to Navy and Marine Corps aviation and ground forces 

37 training into the foreseeable future. The Marine Corps currently relies and will continue to depend on the 

38 CMAGR to support training of operational and student aircrews stationed in the local operating area. In 

39 addition to these local squadrons, training deployments by Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Air National 

40 Guard, and Reserve Component units will continue to use the CMAGR on a frequent basis. The 

41 continuing need for the CMAGR is also signified by active plans to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18 

42 aircraft flown by the Marine Corps squadrons at MCAS Yuma and MCAS Miramar with F-35 aircraft, 

43 which is expected to begin in 2012 and extend through 2023. Training operations flown by F-35 aircraft 

44 home stationed at MCAS Yuma are expected to occur within the BSTRC, including the CMAGR, and 

45 BMGR West, 99 percent of the time (DoN 2010). Further, planning has been completed to home station 

46 up to eight squadrons of MV-22 aircraft at MCAS Miramar and up to two squadrons of MV-22 aircraft at 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-27 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 MCAS Camp Pendleton. The MV-22s will replace current CH-46E aircraft. Transitioning to MV-22s has 

2 already begun for some squadrons at MCAS Miramar. The decisions for basing MV-22s at MCAS 

3 Miramar and MCAS Camp Pendleton and the decisions for basing F-35s at MCAS Yuma and MCAS 

4 Miramar demonstrate a long-term DoN commitment to these air stations and to CMAGR and other 

5 components of the BSTRC. CMAGR is also an important training range asset for Marine Corps and Navy 

6 ground forces, including NSW units, due to close proximity to the Marine Corps ground forces and NSW 

7 home stationed in the San Diego, California, region.

8 1.3 CMAGR BOUNDARY REALIGNMENT 

9 Four segments of the CMAGR boundary are proposed for realignment including:

10 Two separate but short segments of approximately 1.2 and 2 miles in length south of the Niland11 Blythe Road near where it intersects the eastern side of the range boundary

12 An approximately 36-mile long segment along the northern side of the range between the 

13 easternmost and westernmost points at which the Bradshaw Trail intersects the range boundary

14 An approximately 27-mile long segment near the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) along the 

15 southwestern side of the range (see Figure 1-7)

16 The need to realign these four boundary segments was identified through the assessment of the continuing 

17 military need for the CMAGR. This assessment was performed in accordance with requirements provided 

18 by the CMLWOA, Defense Withdrawal Act of 1958, and FLPMA. Each area of the range, including its 

19 perimeter, was assessed in terms of the continuing or potential need of the land to support military 

20 training. The full assessment of how the surface of the CMAGR is used to support military training, range 

21 security, and safety is provided in Section 3.2.4. The proposed boundary realignments would: 

22 Eliminate land from the CMAGR for which there is no continuing military need

23 Facilitate the Marine Corps’ responsibilities for safeguarding the public from hazardous training 

24 activities and deterring unauthorized access to the range

25 Encompass land that would be new to the range but that would facilitate the security of the range 

26 boundary and/or lend direct support to training operations

27 Although realignment of the boundary in all four areas, which include an aggregate of about 66 miles of 

28 the current 171 miles-long range perimeter, would provide the greatest degree of safety, security, land 

29 use, and operational benefits for the CMAGR and adjacent BLM land, the proposed realignments in the 

30 four areas are functionally independent from each other. The enactment of all four realignments is 

31 proposed by the DoN but the enactment of only one, two, or three of the realignments would still provide 

32 desirable benefits. The proposed boundary realignments are secondary objectives to the primary need to 

33 renew the CMAGR land withdrawal, which should not be delayed or encumbered by these secondary 

34 proposals. The specific rational for each of the proposed boundary realignments follows. 

35 1.3.1 South of Niland-Blythe Road Realignments

36 These two short realignments would have the effect of not renewing the national defense land withdrawal 

37 for about 250 acres of BLM land in aggregate and would reduce the total length of the range perimeter by 

38 about 3.2 miles. The affected parcels project from the main body of the range, have no overlying 

39 restricted airspace, are too small to provide effective training capacities, and do not facilitate maintenance 

40 of a secure and manageable boundary. In short, there is no continuing military need for these parcels. 

41 Management of the affected land would revert to BLM, which could open the land at a later date for 

42 appropriate public uses.

43
Union Pacific

Railroad

Realignment

Bradshaw Trail

South of Niland-Blythe Road

111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad

(Inactive)

R-2507E

R-2507N

R-2507S

R-2512

Niland-Blythe Road

Glamis

Niland

Coachella Canal

Mesquite Region

Landfill Rail Spur

Riverside County

Imperial County

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 1\CMAGR_Bndry_Realignment_Segments.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Segments for Proposed Realignment

Bradshaw Trail

South of Niland-Blythe Road

Union Pacific Railroad Realignment

Restricted Airspace

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Road

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Railroad

Approved Rail Spur

CMAGR Boundary

Segments Proposed

for Realignment

Figure 1-7

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

1-28

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2012

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-29 August 2012 

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action 

1 1.3.2 Bradshaw Trail Boundary Realignment 

2 The Bradshaw Trail, the first road to cross Riverside County to the Colorado River, was blazed in 1862 as 

3 an overland stage route. The BLM designated the trail as a National Backcountry Byway in 1992 (U.S. 

4 Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 2010). Riverside County periodically 

5 grades the Bradshaw Trail to maintain its condition for public use. The segment of the Bradshaw Trail 

6 that stretches from the Coachella Canal to the easternmost point where the trail is last within the CMAGR 

7 boundary is about 36 miles in length (see Figure 1-5). Over this distance, about 20 miles of the trail in 

8 aggregate traverses land that is inside the CMAGR and about 16 miles of trail traverses land that is 

9 outside of the range. About 2,571 acres of DoN and withdrawn BLM land that is currently part of the 

10 CMAGR, but north of the Bradshaw Trail, is segregated from the main body of the range. Further, there 

11 are some parcels, totaling about 995 acres in aggregate, that are south of the Bradshaw Trail but that are 

12 not part of the CMAGR. As described in Chapter 2, two alternative realignments of the Bradshaw Trail 

13 portion of the CMAGR boundary are considered in this LEIS. The purposes of the Bradshaw Trail 

14 realignment shared by these alternatives include: 

15  Releasing from the CMAGR about 647 acres of DoN land and about 1,924 acres of BLM land 

16 north of the Bradshaw Trail for which there is no continuing military need—following any 

17 needed cleanup or decontamination, the released land may be available for other public purposes. 

18  Facilitating the Marine Corps’ responsibility to safeguard public safety and deter inadvertent 

19 trespass by establishing a well demarcated and readily recognizable range boundary generally 

20 along the southern side of the Bradshaw Trail. The full Bradshaw Trail realignment alternative 

21 would align the boundary along the entire 36-mile length of the Trail that currently traverses the 

22 CMAGR. This alternative would require the first-time addition of about 530 acres of BLM land 

23 to the range and authorize DoN acquisition of about 455 acres of private land and about 10 acres 

24 of state land. The other realignment alternative would not add land to the CMAGR but would 

25 result in the range boundary coinciding with about 72 percent of the 36-mile length of the Trail 

26 that currently traverses the range. The Bradshaw Trail would provide the Marine Corps with 

27 direct access to the range perimeter to post, monitor, and maintain range danger and prohibited28 entry warning signs. 

29  Excluding the Bradshaw Trail National Backcountry Byway from the CMAGR, which would 

30 eliminate DoN/Marine Corps management responsibilities for the trail and would consolidate 

31 responsibility for the Bradshaw Trail entirely with the BLM. 

32 1.3.3 Union Pacific Railroad Realignment 

33 The proposed boundary realignment along the southwestern side of the CMAGR would generally follow 

34 the eastern side of the UPRR right-of-way (ROW), the northern side of the Mesquite Regional Landfill 

35 Rail Spur ROW, and an existing access road to the range (see Figure 1-7). This realignment would also 

36 facilitate the Marine Corps’ responsibility to safeguard public safety from hazardous training activities 

37 and deter inadvertent trespass by establishing a well demarcated and readily recognizable range boundary. 

38 The perimeter of the range in this area is currently not road accessible through most of its length and 

39 cannot be readily maintained or monitored. The new alignment would be accessible via existing roads for 

40 posting and maintaining prohibited-entry warning signs, monitoring the condition of the area, and security 

41 patrol actions as necessary. The new alignment would add about 11,903 acres of BLM land to the 

42 CMAGR and would authorize DoN acquisition of about 658 acres of state land. About 52 percent of the 

43 realigned range area would underlie a portion of the R-2507S airspace that currently extends outside of 

44 the CMAGR. The new area would be useful for supporting range operations such as FARPs and locations 

45 within the lateral boundaries of R-2507S could be used for live-fire activities such as artillery fires into 

46 designated target areas in the existing interior of the range. The new area would not be suitable for an 

47 artillery or air-to-ground target because its close proximity to the range boundary. 

48 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-30 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 1.4 DURATION OF THE LAND WITHDRAWAL 

2 As provided by the FLPMA, the applicant for either a new or renewed land withdrawal must specify a 

3 duration for a proposed land withdrawal (43 CFR § 2310.1-2(c)(11)). In accordance with this 

4 requirement, this LEIS provides three duration alternatives—20 years, 25 years, and indefinite—for the 

5 proposed CMAGR land withdrawal. The 20- and 25-year durations would each include an option for the 

6 Secretary of the Navy to again request a subsequent renewal if a continuing military need for the range is 

7 identified as the end of the withdrawal term is approached. A 20-year duration would replicate that 

8 provided for the current land withdrawal by the CMLWOA, which, with an option for a subsequent 

9 renewal, would support the currently foreseeable future need for the range. The principal argument for 

10 this option is that it would continue the status quo, which has supported the ongoing military requirements 

11 for the range. The principal contention against the 20-year alternative and for a withdrawal of longer 

duration is that the planned program lives of the MV-22 and F-35 aircraft programs19 12 , which will become 

13 the dominant aircraft types to be flown by the Marine Corps within the next 10 years, already exceed the 

14 20-year renewal horizon by more than two-fold. Multi-decadal service lives are expected of all new 

15 military aircraft fleets. Thus, the foreseeable military need for the CMAGR to support training in tactical 

16 aircraft likely already exceeds 20 years by more than 200 percent. Although the proposed 20-year renewal 

17 would include an option to further extend the withdrawal of the CMAGR to support continuing military 

18 needs, the short initial duration of the withdrawal would increase the frequency of required renewal 

19 processes and, as a result, the annual cost of keeping the range in service as compared to withdrawals of 

20 25 years or longer. The least expensive alternative would be a withdrawal of indefinite duration, which 

21 would eliminate the cost of processing subsequent renewal applications to support continuing military 

22 requirements. This option would keep the CMAGR in service until such time that the military needs for 

23 the range end. A withdrawal duration of 25 years would be consistent with the duration provided by 

24 Congress for the nearby BMGR and five other major DoD ranges through the Military Lands Withdrawal 

25 Act (MLWA) of 1999. The indefinite duration withdrawal would most likely result if Congress elected to 

26 resolve the management redundancies, inefficiencies, and conflicts that arise from the checkerboard 

27 pattern of BLM and DoN land jurisdictions by permanently transferring the BLM land to DoN 

28 jurisdiction rather than in combination with another arrangement of DoN-DoI management 

29 responsibilities. 

30 1.5 REASSIGNMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY 

31 As provided by the FLPMA, the applicant for either a new or renewed land withdrawal must provide a 

32 plan for the management of the land proposed for withdrawal (43 CFR § 2310.3-2(c)). In accordance with 

33 this requirement, this LEIS provides three alternatives for assigning federal agency responsibilities for

34 managing natural and cultural resources at the CMAGR including:

35 Retaining the current split management scenario in which the DoN is responsible for managing 

36 DoN land and the BLM is responsible for managing withdrawn BLM land

37 Transferring responsibility for managing all land within the CMAGR to the DoN for the duration 

38 of the land withdrawal

39 Transferring the withdrawn BLM land to the DoN, which would make the DoN responsible for 

40 managing all land within the CMAGR 

41 Responsibility for managing non-military land use and natural and cultural resources within the CMAGR 

42 currently is divided between the DoN and BLM by virtue of the checkerboard pattern of DoN and BLM 

43 land jurisdictions (see Figure 1-2) and guidance from the CMLWOA. In accordance with the CMLWOA, 

 

19 The MV-22 is expected to be in service until at least 2044 (DoN, Naval Air Systems Command 2011) and the 

F-35 is expected to serve until at least 2050 (Tirpak, J.A. 2011). 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-31 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 the BLM is responsible for managing the almost 50 percent of the CMAGR that is comprised of 

2 withdrawn public land and for preparing a management plan for that land in accordance with the FLPMA. 

3 The CMLWOA, however, is silent on the subject of management responsibility for the other slightly 

4 more than 50 percent of the range, which is comprised of DoN lands. This omission has the effect of 

5 leaving the DoN fully responsible for managing this portion of the CMAGR in accordance with the Sikes 

6 Act, as amended (most recently amended by the Sikes Act Improvement Amendments, hereafter ―Sikes 

7 Act‖ (16 U.S.C. §§ 670-670f)). 

8 The BLM had responsibility for non-military use, which was almost nonexistent, and the subsurface 

9 mineral estate of the withdrawn land in the CMAGR before the passage of the CMLWOA in 1994, but 

10 that Act placed the BLM in the position of having primary management responsibility for that land for the 

11 first time since the range was established during World War II. It was also the first time that the 

12 provisions of the FLPMA were to become the primary guidance for managing a portion of the land within 

13 the CMAGR. 

14 The BLM addressed the withdrawn land portion of the CMAGR in the Northern and Eastern Colorado 

15 Desert Coordinated Management (NECO) Plan, which was completed in 2002. The planning area for the 

16 NECO Plan encompassed roughly 6,000 square miles (about 3.8 million acres) of federal land under the 

17 collective jurisdictions of the BLM, DoI National Park Service, and DoN. The withdrawn land portion of 

18 the CMAGR contributes less than 6 percent of the federal land addressed in the NECO Plan. The NECO 

19 Plan, which was prepared in accordance with the CMLWOA and FLPMA, addresses management of 

20 certain critical biological species in the CMAGR but does not speak to the breadth of natural and cultural 

21 resources on the range and provides no guidance as to how resources should be managed relative to the 

22 effects of military activities on those resources or to preserving the capability of the range to support its 

23 military mission.

24 The lands and natural resources at most of the Nation’s military reservations, including those composed 

25 entirely of withdrawn public lands, are managed in accordance with the Sikes Act. The Sikes Act sets 

26 forth specific resource management policies and guidance for U.S. military installations and requires the 

27 preparation of Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs) for installations—including 

28 those, such as the CMAGR, composed in part or entirely of withdrawn lands—with significant natural 

29 resources. The Sikes Act provides that: 

30 Consistent with the use of military installations to ensure the preparedness of the Armed 

31 Forces, the Secretaries of the military departments shall carry out the program ... to 

32 provide for ... the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on military 

33 installations ... (16 U.S.C. § 670a(a)(3)(A))

34 Among numerous provisions specifying the content and purposes of the INRMP is one that specifies that 

35 the plan provide for ―no net loss in the capability of military installation lands to support the military 

36 mission of the installation...” (16 U.S.C. § 670a(b)(1)(I)). This Sikes Act provision speaks directly to the 

37 issue of setting resource management priorities relative to the primary purpose of a military range, which 

38 at the broadest scale is to ensure the preparedness of the Armed Forces. Resources are to be conserved 

39 and rehabilitated and non-military use managed in such a way that the use of the installation for its 

40 intended military mission would not be curtailed or limited by resource protection or sustainability 

41 constraints imposed by the lack of appropriately focused conservation or rehabilitation activities or 

42 adverse effects from non-military use. The FLPMA includes similar provisions for managing resource 

43 values in a manner that will protect and conserve those values while providing for sustainable yields of 

44 those resources. The FLPMA provides no equivalency, however, to the policy and procedural guidance 

45 provided by the Sikes Act for managing military reservations in a manner that directs and balances 

46 resource values and non-military uses relative to the purposes of the reservation. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-32 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 This LEIS proposes to transfer to the DoN all responsibility for managing natural and cultural resources 

2 throughout the range in accordance with the Sikes Act and to relieve the BLM of any further role in the 

3 ongoing active management of the range. These changes are needed to (1) assign resource management 

4 responsibility to the DoN alone, (2) provide resource management guidance that is appropriate to address 

5 the special conditions of a military reservation, and (3) streamline the land management process.

6 Although reassignment of land management responsibilities within the CMAGR from the BLM to the 

7 DoN is proposed by the DoN to improve management efficiency and accountability, this proposal is a 

8 secondary objective to the primary need to renew the CMAGR land withdrawal. Renewal of the land 

9 withdrawal should not be delayed or encumbered by this proposal.

10 1.6 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

11 1.6.1 Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 

12 This LEIS was prepared in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370h); the CEQ regulations for 

13 implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); Marine Corps Order 

14 (MCO) P5090.2A, change 2, dated 21 May 2009, Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, 

15 which establish procedures for implementing NEPA; and Secretary of the Navy Instruction 

16 (SECNAVINST) 5090.8A, Policy for Environmental Protection, Natural Resources, and Cultural 

17 Resources Programs. As provided by the Defense Withdrawal Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-337), land 

18 withdrawals for military purposes that are more than 5,000 acres in aggregate may be made only through 

19 an Act of Congress. In other words, Congress—rather than the Secretaries of the Navy, the Interior, or 

20 another administrative department—will be the decision-making authority for the proposed action to 

21 update and reauthorize the CMAGR land withdrawal. Consequently, a LEIS, rather than an administrative 

22 EIS, is the appropriate level of NEPA documentation to address the proposed land withdrawal.

23 1.6.2 Study Region 

24 The study region for this LEIS is defined as the CMAGR and areas affected by the CMAGR. The 

25 geographic extent of the study region varies depending upon the resource that would be affected by the 

26 alternatives being considered. For example, with regard to geological resources, analyses are largely 

27 limited to the geology, topography, and soils within the CMAGR. The cultural resource analysis focuses 

28 both on the CMAGR as well as on a broader region to take into consideration the historical context in 

29 which these resources occur and the interests of Native American tribes. Similarly, the socioeconomic 

30 analysis includes both the immediate CMAGR area and the economic, demographic, and social 

31 conditions of communities affected by air installations that use the CMAGR to support a significant 

32 component of their training activities. Therefore, the geographic extent of socioeconomic analysis 

33 includes much of southwestern Arizona and southern California. The study regions for other potentially 

34 affected resources are also each sized according to the extent that the renewal of the CMAGR may affect 

35 these resources. The study regions defined for each resource are described in Chapter 3 Affected 

36 Environment.

37 1.6.3 Public Scoping Process 

38 An NOI to prepare an LEIS for the CMAGR renewal was published in the Federal Register on 

39 24 September 2010 (Volume 75, Number 185, pp. 58370-58372). The NOI contained a brief statement 

40 about the current CMAGR land withdrawal; the purpose of the proposed renewal; the preliminary 

41 alternatives; and dates, times, and locations of public scoping meetings. A copy of the NOI is included in 

42 Appendix B.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-33 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 In addition to the NOI, several methods were used to notify the public and other government agencies. 

2 This included letters to government agency and tribal representatives; advertisements published in seven 

3 newspapers; newsletters mailed to 280 individuals; and four public scoping meetings held in selected 

4 communities near the CMAGR or the military installations that use the CMAGR. Scoping meetings 

5 occurred in Yuma (6 December 2010), El Centro (7 December 2010), Palm Springs (8 December 2010) 

6 and San Diego (9 December 2010); a total of 35 persons from the public registered their attendance at the 

7 scoping meetings. Ongoing coordination has occurred throughout the preparation of the LEIS with BLM, 

8 as a cooperating agency, and other agencies having responsibilities involving CMAGR lands and 

9 airspace. 

10 Through the initial agency and public scoping process, 25 comment submissions (including oral 

11 comments made at scoping meetings, letters, comment forms, and entries made through the website) were 

12 received from 21 individuals. Some individuals offered only a single comment, while others provided 

13 several comments on a single or multiple categories; consequently, more than 75 comments were

14 extracted from the submittals received. Comments were organized into 16 general issue categories. These 

15 categories and types of comments received are listed alphabetically in Table 1-1. 

16 The category of Alternatives received the most comments. Of the individuals who commented on the 

17 alternatives, all but one person supported the renewal of the CMAGR. A comment was received urging 

18 that all current and future mission requirements be reviewed before any current range areas are proposed 

19 for release from the CMAGR. The continuing military need for all areas of the range is documented in 

20 Section 1.3 of this LEIS. The findings of this assessment are referenced in Section 1.3 and are reported in 

21 Section 3.2.4. Two corrections to the proposed realignments of the CMAGR boundary presented at 

22 scoping have been made as a result of the continuing military need assessment and as an outcome of 

23 continuing research into the range property records. A potential future requirement to support NSW 

24 training was identified for the northwesternmost portion of the CMAGR. This almost 6,000 acre area is 

25 now included in all proposed renewals of the CMAGR land withdrawal. The second correction involves 

26 range property that was thought to be located to the west of the Coachella Canal during scoping. 

27 Subsequent records research has shown that these properties are no longer part of the range; thus, the 

28 boundary realignments that are proposed in this LEIS do not involve land to the west of the canal. 

29 Recreation was the category that received the next highest percentage of comments. A major concern for 

30 recreation is public access to off-road activities and mining opportunities, specifically where preliminary 

31 alternatives proposed to realign the CMAGR boundary near the UPRR.

32
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-34 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 Table 1-1 Categories of Comments Received During Public Scoping

Comment Category Subcategory Types of Comments

Agency Coordination Invite U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to serve as a 

cooperating agency

Airspace Address need for any changes to airspace

Alternatives Support Land Withdrawal

Oppose Land Withdrawal

Support Alternative 3 Fully examine a fee-simple transfer of BLMadministered public land to the DoN, which has 

considerable merit

Oppose Acquisition of BLM 

Land North of the Railroad

Address negative impact to recreation on these public 

lands if the boundary realignment includes acquisition 

of BLM lands

Other Alternatives to Consider Modify boundaries, consider a shorter renewal 

duration, consider adding other lands to range, review 

all mission requirements before surrendering any 

current range area

Support Adjusted Boundary Support a clearly defined and delineated boundary

Biological Resources Threatened and Endangered 

Species

Address effects on Mojave desert tortoise

Cumulative Effects Describe methodology used for analysis

Hazardous Materials Address range/contamination clean-up for lands no 

longer part of the CMAGR

Land Use Address impacts to utilities, energy development, 

mining, other land uses

Military Use Address training requirements and military 

encroachment on non-range lands

Miscellaneous We support the military and all it does

Process NEPA Address LEIS in the same manner as an administrative 

EIS

Segregation20 Clarify if NEPA meetings also addressed procedural 

requirements for segregation meetings

Purpose and Need Provide rationale for proposed acquisition of land

Public Use Recreation Provide recreational access to lands proposed for 

acquisition

Access Address access to Mary Load Mine, dikes and canals, 

and sacred sites 

Resource Management Maintain compliance programs

Safety Address threats from unexploded ordnance

Socioeconomics Address socioeconomic impacts on local communities

Water Address groundwater impacts

2

 

20 BLM segregation of the affected lands removes them from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws 

(including the mining, mineral leasing, and geothermal leasing laws) to allow time for the land withdrawal issue to 

be decided.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-35 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 1.6.4 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

2 Some issues developed during scoping are beyond the scope of the LEIS because they are not directly 

3 related to decisions being made regarding the proposed renewal and issues that are not relevant to the 

4 purpose and need for action. These issues are more properly considered in existing processes outside of 

5 NEPA so should be eliminated from detailed analysis.

6 The following issues have been eliminated from detailed analysis because they are beyond the scope of 

7 the LEIS:

8 Improving Coachella Valley Water District access to Reclamation stormwater facilities on the 

9 CMAGR for the purposes of maintenance and repair. CMAGR parcels adjacent to these facilities 

10 are mostly on DoN lands so that modifying withdrawn lands boundaries are not helpful. Access 

11 for repair of these facilities is in the nature of an agency request to use property for specific 

12 purposes under the control of the DoN. There are specific, existing DoN policies for addressing 

13 these requests.

14 Limit military vehicles access or speeds on Reclamation canal roads outside of the CMAGR.

15 1.7 APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

16 As addressed in Section 1.1.2, the procedures for requesting renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal are 

17 identified in the CMLWOA, and the BLM regulations and procedures applicable to land withdrawals for 

18 military uses are provided by the FLPMA. The Defense Withdrawal Act of 1958 (also referred to as the 

19 Engle Act) provides Congress with the sole authority to withdraw, reserve, or restrict federal public lands 

20 that have an aggregate area of 5,000 acres or more for any one national defense project or facility.

21 This LEIS has been prepared in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370h) and the CEQ 

22 procedures for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). The LEIS has also been prepared in 

23 accordance with other applicable statutes, regulations, ordinances, rules, and/or policies and instructions, 

24 including, but are not limited to:

25 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (P.L. 95-341; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1996 and 1996a)

26 Archeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa-470mm; P.L. 96-95 and 

27 Amendments)

28 Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q

29 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 1980 

30 (42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675)

31 DoN Regulations for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR Part 775) 

32 Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544

33 Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007, § 438

34 Executive Order (EO) 12898 Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

35 Populations and Low-Income Populations, 1994 (59 Federal Register 7629)

36 EO 13045 Environmental Justice for Children, 1997 (62 Federal Register 1985)

37 EO 13123 Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management, 1999 (64 Federal 

38 Register 30851)
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-36 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 EO 13186 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds and the Migratory 

2 Bird Treaty Act, Amended 30 October 1998 (66 Federal Register 3853 and 16 U.S.C. §§

3 701-712)

4 EO 13423 Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, 2007 

5 (72 Federal Register 2763) including Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable 

6 Buildings, Memorandum of Understanding (2006), Naval Facilities Engineering Command

7 (NAVFAC) Instruction 9830.1 Sustainable Development Policy (06-09-2003), and U.S. Green 

8 Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-Silver Level 

9 Mandatory Requirements for New Construction

10 EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance

11 EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 1977 (42 Federal Register 26961)

12 Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.2 (49 U.S.C § 40103(b)

13 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387

14 Federal Wetland Regulations 33 CFR Part 328

15 MCO 3500.27A, Operational Risk Management

16 MCO 5090.2A, Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, Chapter 12

17 MCAS Yuma Station Order 3710.6I (range regulations for activities scheduled by MCAS Yuma)

18 MCAS Yuma Station Order 3750.2 (Aviation Safety Program)

19 MCAS Yuma Station Order 3750.2D (Pre-mishap Plan)

20 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended, 1994 (16 U.S.C. §§

21 470-470x-6)

22 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 1977 (36 CFR Part 60)

23 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (P.L. 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 

24 §§ 3001-3013)

25 Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) 3500.39A, Operational Risk Management

26 Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 13101-13109)

27 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 2010 (California Water Code Division 7)

28 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 1976 (42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992k)

29 Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 670-670f, 74 Stat. 1052), as amended, P.L. 86-797, approved 

30 15 September 1960

31 State of California Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ National 

32 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit No. CAS000002 Waste Discharge 

33 Requirements for Discharge of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land 

34 Disturbance Activities

35 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1340), P.L. 92-195, 

36 approved 15 December 1971
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-37 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1 1.8 ORGANIZATION OF THIS LEIS

2 Chapter 1.0 has provided a description of the purpose of and need for the action as well as other 

3 introductory background information. Chapter 2.0 describes the proposed action and alternatives, 

4 including the no-action alternative. The affected environment is addressed in Chapter 3.0. Chapter 4.0 

5 reports the projected environmental effects of the CMAGR renewal alternatives, and management actions 

6 to mitigate the effects of these alternatives. The cumulative effects of the alternatives when added to other 

7 past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions are addressed in Chapter 5.0. Chapter 6.0 

8 summarizes the consultation and coordination processes, including agency and public outreach for public 

9 scoping and for seeking input on the Draft LEIS so that public comments are included in the Final LEIS. 

10 Chapter 7.0 includes a list of preparers, contributor, and reviewers, and Chapter 8.0 provides a list of 

11 references used in the preparation of the LEIS. The appendices include the CMLWOA, the NOI to 

12 prepare this LEIS, the methodology for characterizing the military surface use footprint at the CMAGR, a 

13 description of ordnance, the record of non-applicability for Clean Air Act conformity, a cultural resources 

14 Programmatic Agreement, summary of tribal consultation, photos of Key Observation Points, and an 

15 index.

16

17
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-1 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2 2.1 INTRODUCTION 

3 The DoN has determined that there is a continuing need for the CMAGR to support Marine Corps and 

4 DoN aviation combat training, Marine Corps and NSW land combat training, and other national defense 

5 activities beyond the expiration of the current range land withdrawal in October 2014. Four alternative 

6 actions for keeping the CMAGR available to support training were developed in consideration of 

7 comments received from the public, Native American tribes, and government agencies during scoping on 

8 the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal. These four action alternatives and the no-action 

9 alternative of allowing the current land withdrawal to expire in October 2014 are described in this 

10 chapter. Detailed descriptions of the four action alternatives and the no-action alternative follow in 

11 Sections 2.2 through 2.6. Alternatives considered but not carried forward for detailed study are identified 

12 in Section 2.7. Section 2.8 provides a comparison of the projected environmental effects of each of the 

13 action alternatives and the no-action alternative.

14 Each of the four action alternatives addresses four elements:

15 A proposed range boundary and land withdrawal area

16 Either a set duration for the proposed land withdrawal with an option for requesting a subsequent 

17 renewal, or a land withdrawal without a termination date 

18 Proposals for redefining DoN and BLM management responsibilities for the CMAGR

19 Provisions for the disposal and management of land released from the CMAGR

20 As explained in Section 1.3, the assessments of the continuing military need for the CMAGR and the 

21 suitability of the range boundary for safeguarding the public from hazardous training operations and 

22 deterring inadvertent trespass led to proposals to realign the CMAGR boundary in four locations—two 

23 short realignments on the eastern side of the range, a long realignment on the northern side of the range, 

24 and a long realignment on the southwestern side of the range (see Figure 1-7). The two long realignments, 

25 one along the Bradshaw Trail at the northern end of the range and one along the UPRR at its southwestern 

26 end, would affect a combined total of about 66 miles of the existing 171-miles-long CMAGR perimeter. 

27 Two proposals for realigning the boundary along the Bradshaw Trail—either a full or partial 

28 realignment—have been developed, and one proposal is offered for realigning the boundary along the 

29 UPRR. More details on all four realignment alternatives are provided below in the descriptions of range 

30 renewal Alternatives 2 through 4.

31 Realignment of the CMAGR boundary at all four proposed locations, including either the full or partial 

32 Bradshaw Trail alternatives, is proposed by the DoN to best fit the management and operational 

33 requirements of the range. However, the benefits to be gained from the proposed realignments would be 

34 functionally independent from each other. Each realignment would be of value if enacted either alone or 

35 in combination with other realignment proposals. Although other combinations of the four realignment 

36 proposals would be possible, the alternatives address four possibilities for the range boundary and land 

37 withdrawal area. These options, which vary from implementing no boundary realignments to 

38 implementing all four realignment proposals, include:

39 Renew the CMAGR boundary and land withdrawal area without change from the existing 

40 condition (Alternative 1—no realignment option)
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-2 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 Renew the CMAGR boundary and land withdrawal area per the existing conditions except 

2 incorporate the full Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, and south of Niland-Blythe Road realignments

3 (Alternative 2—maximum realignment option)

4 Renew the CMAGR boundary and land withdrawal area per the existing conditions except 

5 incorporate the full Bradshaw Trail and south of Niland-Blythe Road realignments

6 (Alternative 3—intermediate realignment option)

7 Renew the CMAGR boundary and land withdrawal area per the existing conditions except 

8 incorporate the partial Bradshaw Trail realignment (Alternative 4—minimum realignment option)

9 Three options are proposed for administering federal land management responsibilities for the DoN and 

10 BLM lands within the current CMAGR boundary and for BLM land that may be included in the range for 

11 the first time as a part of a proposed boundary realignment. The options include:

12 Retain the existing DoN and BLM management assignments within the renewed CMAGR, which 

13 provide that the DoN is responsible for managing DoN land in accordance with the Sikes Act and 

14 the BLM is responsible for managing BLM land in accordance with the FLPMA (Alternative 1—

15 existing condition)

16 Transfer management responsibility for BLM land within the renewed CMAGR to the DoN for 

17 the duration of the land withdrawal, which would make the DoN responsible for managing both 

18 the DoN and withdrawn BLM lands within the range in accordance with the Sikes Act 

19 (Alternatives 2 and 4)

20 Transfer jurisdiction for the BLM land within the renewed CMAGR to the DoN, which would 

21 make the DoN responsible for managing all land within the range in accordance with the Sikes 

22 Act until such time that the need for the range may end and it is deactivated and closed 

23 (Alternative 3)

24 Three alternatives—20 years (Alternative 1), 25 years (Alternatives 2 and 4), and indefinite 

25 (Alternative 3)—are also proposed for the duration of a renewed CMAGR land withdrawal. A withdrawal 

26 duration of 20 years would be equivalent to the existing condition provided by the CMLWOA. The 

27 25-year duration would be consistent with that provided by Congress for the nearby BMGR and five other 

28 DoD ranges in the MLWA of 1999. A 25-year or indefinite duration would best fit the expected long-term 

29 military need for the CMAGR. 

30 The boundary realignment and land withdrawal area proposals of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would each 

31 release some BLM a nd DoN land from the CMAGR. Alternatives considered for the disposal and 

32 management of land released from range include:

33 Released DoN land would be transferred to BLM; BLM would manage transferred DoN and 

34 formerly withdrawn BLM land per FLPMA (Alternative 2)

35 Released DoN land would be disposed of through existing General Services Administration 

36 (GSA) authorities and procedures; DoN would manage released land per the Sikes Act until 

37 disposal is complete and BLM would manage formerly withdrawn BLM land per FLPMA 

38 (Alternatives 3 and 4)

39 Table 2-1 shows how the four elements—boundary alignment and withdrawal area, withdrawal duration, 

40 agency management responsibilities, and disposal and management of released land—for the proposed 

41 renewal of the CMAGR would be allocated among the four renewal alternatives. A summary of the no42 action alternative is also included in Table 2-1.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-3 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 Each of the action alternatives provides a set of range renewal elements that in aggregate is unique to that 

2 alternative. Although the four action alternatives do not include all possible combinations of the range 

3 renewal elements, the action and no-action alternatives combined represent the reasonable range of 

4 alternatives as indicated by the continuing military need for the range, government and public input 

5 received during scoping, and guidance provided by the CMLWOA. If Congress decides to renew the 

6 CMAGR land withdrawal based on the alternatives presented in this LEIS, it will have the option of four 

7 range boundary alignment alternatives, three land withdrawal duration alternatives, three management 

8 responsibility alternatives, and two land disposal and management responsibility alternatives. Analysis of 

9 the action and no-action alternatives will disclose the full spectrum of environmental consequences that 

10 may result from any potential combination of the range renewal or non-renewal options. 

11 In accordance with the guidance provided by 43 CFR Part 2300 for processing applications for national 

12 defense land withdrawals of more than 5,000 acres in aggregate, the Director of the BLM has the 

13 responsibility of reviewing the application case file, which will include the land withdrawal application, 

14 LEIS, and all other relevant studies and information, and forwarding his recommendations regarding the 

15 appropriate action to the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior, in turn, has the 

16 responsibility of reviewing the Director’s recommendations and the case file, and transmitting proposed 

17 legislation for the land withdrawal to Congress along with his recommendations on the appropriate course 

18 of action. The LEIS will provide the Director and the Secretary of the Interior with four defined land 

19 withdrawal alternatives for renewing the CMAGR. The analysis provided in the LEIS of this range of 

20 action alternatives will also provide the Director or the Secretary of the Interior with the documentation of 

21 potential environmental effects necessary to recommend a combination of range renewal elements in the 

22 proposed legislation that differs from those combinations represented in the LEIS alternatives. Neither the 

23 Director or the Secretary of the Interior have the authority to deny the proposed CMAGR land withdrawal 

24 or to defer forwarding proposed legislation for the land withdrawal to Congress, but they may express any 

25 objections that they may have with the proposed range renewal in their recommendations. The Secretary 

26 of the Navy also has the option of providing Congress with his recommendations for the proposed range 

27 renewal should they differ from those of the Secretary of the Interior.

28 As the decision-making authority for the proposed range renewal, Congress may choose to either renew 

29 or not renew the range. If Congress decides to renew the range, it may select some or all of the terms 

30 identified for one of the four action alternatives, select terms from among two or more of the alternatives, 

31 or choose terms from one or more of the alternatives plus include new terms that are in addition to those 

32 provided by this Draft LEIS. 

33 Some of the alternatives would influence the range boundary and thus the amount of land to be included 

34 in the CMAGR or released from the range. Congress will decide the extent to which the boundary would 

35 be realigned, if at all. The approximate acres of land that would be either included in or released from the 

36 CMAGR if the boundary realignments are implemented as proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are 

37 summarized in Table 2-2. The acres of land that would be included in and/or released from the CMAGR 

38 would vary from the figures provided in Table 2-2 depending on the boundary that Congress decides to 

39 implement, but the table lists the range of boundary options being proposed for consideration in range 

40 renewal Alternatives 1 through 4.

41
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-4 

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Prop

Table 2-1 Summary of Alternatives for Renewing the CMAGR 1

Action Element Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Boundary

Alignment and 

Withdrawal Area

Boundary and withdrawal 

area would remain 

unchanged from current 

condition

Boundary and withdrawal 

area would be changed to 

incorporate the full 

Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, 

and Niland-Blythe Road

realignments

Boundary and withdrawal 

area would be changed to 

incorporate the full 

Bradshaw Trail and 

Niland-Blythe Road 

realignments

Boundary and 

withdrawal area would 

be changed to 

incorporate the partial 

Bradshaw Trail

realignment

No 

ex

ran

bo

de

wo

pla

Duration of Range 

Renewal

BLM land within CMAGR 

boundary would be 

withdrawn and reserved 

for 20 years

BLM land within CMAGR 

boundary would be 

withdrawn and reserved 

for 25 years

Authorization for CMAGR 

would not expire

Same as Alternative 2 CM

ren

Assignments for CMAGR 

Management 

Responsibilities

Would be unchanged from 

current condition; DoN 

would manage DoN land 

per Sikes Act and BLM 

would manage withdrawn 

BLM land managed per 

FLPMA 

Responsibility for 

managing withdrawn BLM 

land would be transferred 

to DoN; DoN would 

manage DoN and BLM 

lands per Sikes Act

BLM land would be 

transferred to DoN; DoN 

would manage all 

CMAGR land per Sikes 

Act 

Same as Alternative 2 Al

lan

CM

tin

Sik

Do

wo

ma

wo

ne

Disposal of and 

Management 

Responsibilities for Land 

Released from CMAGR

No land would be released Released DoN land would 

be transferred to BLM; 

BLM would manage 

transferred DoN and 

formerly withdrawn BLM 

land per FLPMA; DoN 

would be responsible for 

any needed post-range 

cleanup

Released DoN land would 

be disposed of through 

existing GSA authorities 

and procedures; DoN 

would manage released 

land per Sikes Act until 

disposal complete; BLM 

would manage formerly 

withdrawn BLM land per 

FLPMA; DoN would be 

responsible for any needed 

post-range cleanup

Same as Alternative 3 Do

ma

lan

dis

de

ma

BL

FL

res

po

2
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-5 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 Table 2-2 Land Areas Affected by CMAGR Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Alternative 5

No-Action 

Alternative

Land Area to be Included in CMAGR (in Acres)

BLM-administered Land 228,465 238,724 226,822 226,825 0

Reclamation-administered Land 162 162 162 162 0

DoN Land 229,903 229,256 229,256 229,256 0

State Land 0 668 10 0 0

Private Land10 455 455 0 0

Total CMAGR Area 458,530 469,265 456,705 456,243 0

Land Area to be Released from CMAGR (in Acres)

BLM-administered Land 0 2,174 2,174 1,640 228,465

Reclamation-administered Land 0 0 0 0 162

DoN Land20 647 647 647 229,903

Total 0 2,821 2,821 2,287 458,530

1 2 Affected private properties could potentially be acquired by the DoN at a later date through existing administrative authorities 

3 for real estate acquisition.

2 4 About 5 percent of the DoN land currently in the CMAGR is former California state land that was acquired in fee by the DoN. 

5 California holds reversionary rights to the former state land that would have to be addressed should affected DoN parcels be 

6 slated for transfer or disposal under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, or 5.

7

8 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1

9 Alternative 1 would generally maintain the status quo of the CMAGR land withdrawal and reservation by 

10 proposing to continue almost all the provisions of the CMLWOA. The range would be reserved for the 

11 same military purposes as provided by the CMLWOA, which again would include testing and training for 

12 aerial bombing, missile firing, tactical maneuvering and air support, and other defense-related purposes 

13 consistent with these military purposes. The other features that would define the withdrawal, 

14 management, and use of the CMAGR under Alternative 1 would include (1) the proposed boundary of the 

15 range and the lands withdrawn, (2) the duration of the land withdrawal, (3) agency responsibilities for 

16 managing the withdrawn range, and (4) continuing military land use at the range.

17 2.2.1 Proposed Range Boundary and Lands Withdrawn

18 The CMAGR would be renewed by withdrawing the same public lands as are included in the current land 

19 withdrawal for the range (see Figure 1-2). The boundary and land area of the range would both be 

20 unchanged from the current condition (Table 2-1 and Table 2-2). 

21 2.2.2 Proposed Duration of the Land Withdrawal and Option for Subsequent Renewal

22 The duration of the withdrawal is proposed to be 20 years with the option to request a subsequent renewal 

23 if a continuing military need for the range is identified as the end of the withdrawal term is approached. 

24 The proposed duration would be the same as provided by the CMLWOA (P.L. 103-433 § 806). A 

25 proposed provision to allow a request for a subsequent renewal of the range is consistent with both the 

26 CMLWOA and the MLWA of 1999 and reflects the long-term outlook for military aircrew training needs. 

27 The anticipated service lives of the new F-35 and MV-22 aircraft, which will become the mainstays of 

28 Marine Corps aviation over the next decade, will likely exceed the approximately four decades of service 

29 that their predecessor aircraft have provided. Multi-decadal service lives are expected of all new military 

30 aircraft fleets. Commensurate with these long service-life expectations must be the continuing availability 

31 of training range support.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-6 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 Should use of the CMAGR be terminated at the expiration of the proposed land withdrawal and 

2 reservation, a process for assessing the environmental conditions of closing range lands would trigger 

3 planning requirements for the future disposition of the BLM and DoN lands in the range. Because 

4 existing statutory and regulatory processes for addressing potential contaminants within the existing range 

5 require consideration of numerous factors, the nature and extent of future remediation activities or 

6 response actions is highly speculative. The current DoD program for the evaluation and cleanup of closed 

7 former range lands is the Munitions Response Program (MRP) under the Defense Environmental 

8 Restoration Program (DERP). For the purposes of this LEIS, the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) assumes 

9 that the MRP and DERP or similar programs would continue into the foreseeable future.

10 Under the MRP, closed former range lands are evaluated and scored using the Munitions Response Site 

11 Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP). The MRSPP score reflects the relative potential for the site to be a 

12 danger to human health and the environment. The MRP process is driven by a number of policy and 

13 guidance documents that are consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

14 and Liability Act (CERCLA). In accordance with CERCLA, the DoN and BLM closed former range

lands would undergo a preliminary assessment (PA) and site investigation (SI)115 . For locations where it is 

16 appropriate, a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) would analyze various appropriate 

17 remedial alternatives for any munitions and explosives of concern (i.e., no action, destruction in place, 

18 removal, etc.). The analyses would take into account the various unique aspects of the property and 

19 contaminants as well as potential response costs. Funding for decontamination of CMAGR lands would 

20 be subject to Congressional authorization and project prioritization across USMC and DoN facilities.

21 2.2.3 Proposed Management Provisions

22 Alternative 1 proposes to continue the provisions of the CMLWOA for managing the withdrawn public 

23 lands in the CMAGR (P.L. 103-433 § 805). Under these provisions, the Secretary of the Interior, acting 

24 through the BLM, would manage the roughly 50 percent of the range that is composed of withdrawn 

25 public lands in accordance with FLPMA and consistent with guidance provided by the CMLWOA 

26 (P.L. 103-433 § 805). Key features of the CMLWOA provisions include the stipulations that nonmilitary 

27 use and public visitation of the withdrawn lands be permitted only to the extent that these actions would 

28 be compatible with the military purposes of the CMAGR. The nature of those purposes are and would 

29 continue to be of sufficient hazard to public safety that public visitation and other nonmilitary uses of the 

30 range have not and would not in the foreseeable future be allowed. 

31 The principal challenges related to managing the CMAGR in accordance with CMLWOA guidance have 

32 been twofold. First, the same military use hazards that curtail public visitation and other nonmilitary uses 

33 of the range also greatly limit access for BLM resource managers. Second, resource management 

34 prescriptions can be constrained by the alternating mosaic of BLM and DoN land jurisdictions (see 

35 Figure 1-2) and the differing management responsibilities that accompany these jurisdictions (see 

 

1 A PA is designed to determine, based on limited data, whether a site poses little or no threat to human health and 

the environment or if it does pose a threat, whether the threat requires further investigation. PA investigations collect 

readily available information about a site, its surrounding area, and sites requiring assessment for possible response 

actions. If the PA results in a recommendation for further investigation, a SI is performed. A SI provides the data

needed for Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring and documentation to determine if the site should be added to the 

National Priorities List, which guides the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation. SI 

investigators typically collect environmental and waste samples to determine what hazardous substances are present 

at a site. They determine if these substances are being released to the environment and provide an initial assessment 

of the extent of the release. The Remedial Investigation serves as the mechanism for collecting data to characterize 

site conditions; determine the nature of the waste; assess risk to human health and the environment; and conduct 

treatability testing to evaluate the potential performance and cost of the treatment technologies that are being 

considered. The Feasibility Study is the mechanism for the development, screening, and detailed evaluation of 

alternative remedial actions. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-7 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 Table 1-1 and Section 1.5). As prescribed by law, the roughly 50 percent of the CMAGR that is 

2 composed of DoN lands is managed in accordance with the Sikes Act. As a result, roughly every other 

3 section of land in the CMAGR checkerboard of land jurisdictions is managed alternatively by either the 

4 BLM or the Marine Corps, acting for the DoN, in accordance with either FLPMA or the Sikes Act, 

5 respectively. Further complicating the management issue is a Sikes Act provision that requires DoD 

6 agencies to develop resource management plans for all lands within a military reservation whether the 

7 lands are under the full jurisdiction of the agency or are withdrawn public lands, while the BLM manages 

8 in accordance with its own resource management plan. 

9 2.2.4 Continuing Military Land Use

10 Renewal of the CMAGR would authorize military use to continue for at least the duration of the renewal. 

11 The prognosis for future military land use at the range would be the same regardless of whether 

12 Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 were selected as the instrument for its renewal and management. The forecast for

13 most military land use at the CMAGR is that the current facilities and configuration of the range would be 

14 able to support most new training mission requirements for the foreseeable future and that the overall 

15 pattern of use would be unlikely to substantially change from the current pattern. This is not to say that 

16 evolving training requirements would not result in new range land uses being introduced or existing uses 

17 being modified or discontinued. Potential future changes in military land use may include development of 

18 new targets; areas for training or support activities that do not involve live-fire, electronic 

19 instrumentation, roads, or other facilities in appropriate locations; or discontinued use of existing 

20 facilities. Overall, however, a description of the existing military land use at the CMAGR, which is 

21 presented below, would provide a reliable accounting of the great preponderance of land use patterns that 

22 would likely occur if the range were renewed in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4.

23 As at any large and long-serving live-fire range, the pattern of military land use at the CMAGR has 

24 developed over many decades through planning processes that sought to address the various demands and 

25 constraints of training missions, geography, airspace, and safety requirements. Training aircrews to 

26 deliver air-to-ground ordnance is the mission that has most influenced how the CMAGR has been shaped. 

27 Ground-based training activities have had a historically lesser but nevertheless important role in shaping 

28 range land use. 

29 The aircrew training mission requires opportunities to employ the aircraft weapons in a manner that 

30 reflects their use in actual combat. Supporting this training at the CMAGR has long meant providing an 

31 assortment of realistic appearing targets in diverse settings that allow aircrews to practice attacks using 

32 warfighting tactics. When coupled with other factors that affect target placement and allowable ordnance 

33 delivery practices, the result is an array of individual targets and target complexes that is widely 

34 distributed (see Figure 1-5). Airspace and safety considerations have strongly influenced target 

35 placement. Targets must be positioned and ordnance must be delivered in such a manner that projectiles, 

36 fragments, debris, and other components resulting from the firing, launching, or detonation of the weapon 

37 are at all times contained within the restricted airspace and land area of the CMAGR. As a result, most 

38 targets are located away from the perimeter of the range. Restrictions are placed on both the type of 

39 ordnance and the method and direction of its delivery that can be employed on targets near the range 

40 perimeter to ensure that the delivery is safely contained. 

41 Terrain has also affected the locations selected for targets and other training support features. Although 

42 interrupted by broad, low passes and canyons in a few places, the Chocolate Mountains generally form a 

43 rugged and sharply-sloped backbone running roughly down the southeast-to-northwest centerline of the 

44 CMAGR. Targets and other features are grouped in tactically realistic positions along the base of these 

45 mountains, in mountain passes, and on the surrounding plains. Training features have not been located on 

46 upper mountain slopes, which are too steep for vehicular access needed to establish the targets. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-8 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 The R-2507N, R-2507S, and R-2507E airspaces can be scheduled concurrently by one unit so that the 

2 entire CMAGR can be used for a training evolution. Alternatively, the R-2507N, R-2507S, and R-2507E 

3 airspaces are large enough so that the range can be subdivided into northern and southern segments to 

4 support simultaneous but independent training flights. While R-2507N may be scheduled by itself, 

5 R-2507S and R-2507E are always scheduled together as a unified block of airspace and range land. When 

the northern and southern segments are scheduled separately, a 5 nautical mile (NM)

2

6 wide buffer zone is 

7 activated that straddles their common boundary to ensure safe separation of flights that are operating 

8 independently. The buffer zone may not be penetrated by aircraft or aircraft munitions when it is in effect.

9 R-2507N, R-2507S, and R-2507E can also be stratified vertically to form blocks of high and low airspace 

10 that can be scheduled separately from each other to support independent training activities. The low 

11 airspace extends from the surface to 6,000 feet MSL and the high airspace has a floor of 7,000 feet MSL 

12 and a ceiling of 40,000 feet MSL. Both the high and low airspace must be scheduled for live-fire training 

13 that requires ordnance releases above 6,000 feet MSL. The airspace from 6,000 to 7,000 feet MSL is 

14 included when the high and low blocks are scheduled together. If the northern and southern segments of 

15 the CMAGR and the high and low airspace block are all activated, the range can be separated into four 

16 sub-areas that can each support independent training activities. 

17 2.2.4.1 Ground-Based Training Support Features 

18 Chapter 1 identifies the types of training support features that have been established at the CMAGR. A 

19 description of these features follows.

20 Air-To-Ground Targets. A total of 29 separate target areas are available at the CMAGR for 

21 training aircrews to deliver air-to-ground ordnance. Fourteen target areas are located within the 

22 area of the range underlying R-2507N and 15 are located under R-2507S (see Figure 1-5). No 

23 targets underlie R-2507E but this airspace is used to support aircraft involved in ground attack 

24 training at R-2507S. Each target area includes a variety of simulated enemy positions, vehicles, 

25 and other tactical features such as airfields and industrial sites. One of the target areas in 

R-2507N is an improved conventional munitions326 (ICM) range. The Mount Barrow target area in 

27 the southeasternmost corner of R-2507S is reserved for helicopter aircrew training because its 

28 location is the closest part of the CMAGR to MCAS Yuma, which maximizes the training time 

29 available to the aircrew by minimizing enroute flight time to and from the range. Helicopter 

30 aircrews also engage their targets at much closer distances than do aircrews of fixed-wing 

31 aircraft. The necessity of working in close proximity to the target favors the use of helicopters at 

32 Mount Barrow because of the proximity of this target area to the R-2507S airspace perimeter. 

33 Helicopter aircrews are able to safely and realistically direct fires on this target complex without 

34 risking ordnance impacts that spill-out of either R-2507S or the CMAGR.

35 Range standard operating procedures describe which type of ordnance may be utilized on each 

36 target array. The use of live high-explosives ordnance is limited in R-2507N to targets that are 

37 generally located north of the Chocolate Mountains (see Figure 1-5). Inert practice ordnance can 

38 be used on all targets in R-2507N. High explosive ordnance deliveries (aircraft delivery or 

39 artillery) throughout the CMAGR are currently limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 

40 Pacific Time (California local time) for off-range noise abatement purposes. Combat tactics may 

41 lead an aircrew to attack a target with either a single bomb or with multiple bombs in a single 

 

2 A unit of distance commonly used in aeronautical and marine navigation that is equivalent to one minute of 

latitude. One nautical mile equals 6,076.1 feet or 1.852 kilometers or approximately 1.15 statute miles.

3 Munitions characterized by the delivery of two or more anti-personnel or anti-materiel and/or anti-armor

submunitions by an artillery warhead or projectile.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-9 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 pass. Training for multiple-bomb attacks is supported at the CMAGR but limits have been 

2 established for drops of live high-explosives ordnance. The limits are defined as the maximum 

3 net explosive weight of all the ordnance combined that can be dropped per aircraft pass. The 

4 limits are:

5 o Twelve MK-82 (500-pound) general purpose bombs 

6 o Six MK-83 (1,000-pound) general purpose bombs 

7 o Four MK-84 (2,000-pound) general purpose bombs 

8 When a combination of the MK-82, MK-83, or MK-84 bombs are dropped, the maximum net 

9 explosive weight limit an aircraft can drop in a single pass is 6,000 pounds (MCAS Yuma 2010).

10 Forward Arming and Refueling Points. A FARP is a pre-designated site at the CMAGR that is 

11 used to rearm and refuel helicopters or MV-22 aircraft. The ground units that perform the FARP 

12 mission can access each of the six designated FARPs by road. Each FARP is located and sized to 

13 provide space for landing and takeoff operations, positioning for rearming and refueling vehicles

14 and stores, other associated activities such as perimeter defense or air communications, and 

15 bivouacs for ground personnel. 

16 Landing Zones. A landing zone is a pre-designated site at the CMAGR that is approved for use by 

17 helicopters or tilt-rotor aircraft. There are 15 approved landing zones at the CMAGR of which six 

18 are at the designated FARPs (see Figure 1-5). MV-22s are restricted to the 15 landing zones that 

19 have been environmentally assessed and cleared to support training with this aircraft. Helicopters 

20 may operate at these landing zones or may land and takeoff from any other suitable CMAGR 

21 location. 

22 Artillery Firing Areas. Artillery firing areas are pre-designated CMAGR locations from which 

23 artillery may be fired. There are nine artillery firing areas in R-2507N and one in R-2507S (see 

24 Figure 1-5). 

25 Observation Posts. Observation posts are pre-designated CMAGR locations from which ground26 based FACs can control aircraft and direct ordnance deliveries in support of ground troops. 

27 R-2507N and R-2507S provide nine and four observation posts, respectively (see Figure 1-5). All 

28 of these observation posts are approved for the operation of ground-based lasers for designating 

29 targets for aircraft (MCAS Yuma 2010, Station Order 3710.6I, paragraphs 4005.1 2.e and 

30 4005.3 2.f).

31 Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operating Site. A previously disturbed site in R-2507N has been 

32 developed for UAS operations (see Figure 1-5). The site has an approximately 1,000-foot by 

33 75-foot dirt runway, a 100-foot by 50-foot maintenance pad, and a 100-foot by 50-foot launch 

34 pad. Marine Corps units may bivouac at the UAS site provided logistical support for portable 

35 toilets, trash, waste water, and other requirements is arranged.

36 Field Ammunition Supply Point. A field ASP is located in R-2507N near the UAS operating site 

37 (see Figure 1-5). The ASP is used for safely storing ammunition used by ground units, such as 

38 artillery units that fire within the CMAGR, and distributing it to them as it is needed for training. 

39 Ordnance is only stored in the ASP when units requiring the munitions are in the field. Armed 

40 guards are posted at the supply point whenever ammunition is present.

41 Special Warfare Training Areas SWAT-4 and SWAT-5. Marine Corps range support for NSW 

42 land combat training is provided at SWAT-4 and SWAT-5, which are each overlain by the Niland 

43 and Bombay CFAs (see Figure 1-5). The CFAs provide the special use airspace necessary to 

44 allow live-fire of small arms and other infantry weapons. Live-fire exercises are integral to the 

45 realism and quality of NSW training. NSW forces train at 30 designated ranges in SWAT-4 and 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-10 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 SWAT-5 to develop a variety of land combat skills. Training activities include special 

2 reconnaissance, small arms marksmanship and dynamic shooting with pistols, automatic and 

3 sniper rifles, machine guns, rifle and hand grenades, live fire and movement/maneuver training, 

4 and training with various static and projectile explosives.

5 Camp Billy Machen. Camp Billy Machen is a Naval Special Warfare Group 1 (NSWG-1) 

6 training camp located in SWAT-4 (see Figure 1-5). This developed installation provides spaces 

7 for administrative, communications, instructional, billeting, maintenance, supply, and other 

8 functions that support NSWG-1 and Naval Special Warfare Center land warfare training.

9 Range Roads. There are about 482 miles of roads in the CMAGR that are used to support training 

10 and range maintenance activities (see Figure 1-5). The conditions of the roads vary from graded 

11 dirt surfaces to four-wheel drive tracks; none are paved. Public access to the CMAGR and its 

12 road network is prohibited at all times because of the hazards presented by the use of live 

13 ordnance and to prevent interruption of military training. However, two roads, the Niland-Blythe 

14 Road and Gas Line Road, receive periodic commercial use to service a transmission line and gas 

15 pipeline that cross the range through R-2507N. The transmission line roughly parallels the 

16 Niland-Blythe Road along its passage through the center of the range but deviates from the road’s 

17 alignment near the range boundaries. A service road provides access to the transmission line at 

18 locations that deviate from the Niland-Blythe Road. Commercial entry to the CMAGR to service 

19 these utilities is only on an as authorized basis.

20 2.2.4.2 Operational Range Clearance Program

21 Air-to-ground ordnance delivery training and live-fire use of artillery, mortars, and other ground-based 

22 weapons at the CMAGR results in the accumulation of ordnance scrap, UXO, and target debris. If left 

23 unattended, the accumulation of these materials within designated target impact areas would amass 

24 concentrations that could produce safety and environmental issues that could threaten the sustainable use 

25 of both individual target areas and, ultimately, the CMAGR itself. In accordance with the CMLWOA 

26 (P.L. 103-433 § 807) and until the last several years, the Marine Corps addressed the issue of ordnance 

27 and target debris accumulation by continuing a long-running program of periodically clearing expended 

28 ordnance and debris from CMAGR targets and roads to the extent necessary to provide personnel 

29 conducting target construction and maintenance or performing other authorized duties on the range with 

30 safe access and work areas. In 2004, the DoD issued new guidance to further promote the long-term, 

31 sustainable use of test and training ranges (DoD Directive 4715.11 Environmental and Explosives Safety 

32 Management on Department of Defense Active and Inactive Ranges within the United States). The 

33 Marine Corps in turn issued Marine Corps Order (MCO) 3550.12, which establishes operational range 

34 clearance programs at its ranges, to implement DoD Directive 4715.11. MCO 3550.12 defines range 

35 clearance as 

36 the destruction or removal and proper disposition of military munitions (i.e., unexploded 

37 ordnance (UXO) and munitions debris) and other range-related debris (e.g., target debris and 

38 military munitions packaging and crating material) to maintain or enhance operational range 

39 safety or prevent the accumulation of such material from impairing or preventing continued 

40 operational range use.

41 Military munitions are identified as including: (1) confined gaseous, liquid, and solid propellants; 

42 (2) explosives (including bulk explosives); (3) pyrotechnics; (4) chemical and riot control agents; 

43 (5) smokes and incendiaries; (6) rockets; (7) guided and ballistic missiles; (8) bombs; (9) warheads, 

44 cluster munitions and dispensers; (10) mortar rounds, small arms ammunition, and grenades; (11) artillery 

45 ammunition; (12) mines, torpedoes, and depth charges; (13) demolition charges; and (14) any devices and 

46 components of any afore listed item.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-11 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 In accordance with MCO 3550.12, MCAS Yuma has completed a baseline clearance of each active target 

2 area within the CMAGR. The aggregate target area cleared of munitions and other range-related debris 

3 during the baseline clearance represents a several-fold expansion of the areas that were formerly cleared 

4 under the previous program evolution to provide safe access and work areas for target construction and 

5 maintenance. Range clearances were performed by qualified explosive ordnance disposal personnel. The 

6 baseline clearance involved:

7 The use of demolition charges to destroy munitions, such as live bombs, that are too dangerous 

8 for handling and require disposal in place

9 On-range collection and processing of munitions that have hazardous components, such as 

10 practice bomb with a live smoke-producing spotting charge, but that can be safely handled and 

11 rendered safe for removal from the range

12 The collection and removal from the range of non-hazardous ordnance scrap, munitions that have 

13 been rendered safe and processed for removal, and other range-related debris

14 Off-range recycling or sanitary disposal of scrap and debris items that are qualified for these 

15 respective processes in accordance with governing regulations and policies

16 Most baseline clearance actions were limited to the destruction or removal of munitions and other range17 related debris from the ground surface in target areas or range access roads. Subsurface clearances were 

18 restricted to those locations where it was necessary to mitigate personnel operating risks in a specific area, 

19 such as in roadways, target construction sites, or ground personnel training areas.

20 Operational range clearance at the CMAGR has now evolved into a continuing program to limit the 

21 buildup of UXO, ordnance scrap, and target and other range-related debris from range access roads and 

22 active target areas. Each of the target areas at the CMAGR have been scheduled for subsequent and 

23 reoccurring clearances on 1, 3, or 5 year intervals based on the findings of the baseline clearance, the 

24 quantity of ordnance delivered on the target, and the classification of the target as being approved for use 

25 with inert training ordnance only or approved for use with live ordnance. Targets that are more heavily 

26 used and that receive live ordnance are scheduled to receive more frequent clearances than targets that 

27 receive smaller quantities of ordnance or that are limited to use with inert ordnance. The clearance cycle 

28 at each target is adjusted as needed to keep it in a safe and sustainable operating condition and to keep 

29 expended ordnance and other range-related debris from becoming an environmental concern.

30 The operational range clearance program would be continued at the CMAGR under Alternative 1.

31 2.3 ALTERNATIVE 2

32 Renewal of the CMAGR under Alternative 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1 in terms of 

33 the military purposes of the range, and assigned agency responsibilities for range cleanup should the 

34 withdrawal be terminated at the expiration of the renewal term. Alternative 2 would also continue the 

35 same military land use, training support features, and operational range clearance program as described 

36 for Alternative 1.

37 The CMAGR renewal actions proposed by Alternative 2 that would differ from those provided by 

38 Alternative 1 include:

39 The proposed duration would be for 25 years rather than for 20 years. 

40 The CMAGR boundary would be realigned in accordance with the full Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, 

41 and south of Niland-Blythe Road realignments.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-12 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 Realignment of the CMAGR boundary would result in up to about 12,433 acres of BLM land that 

2 is not currently in the range being incorporated in the range and about 2,174 acres of BLM land 

3 and about 647 acres of DoN land that are currently a part of the CMAGR being released from the 

4 range (Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 and see Table 2-2). 

5 The first-time inclusion of about 455 acres of private and 668 acres of state land within the 

6 authorized boundary of the CMAGR, which would authorize the DoN to pursue existing real 

7 estate acquisition authorities to potentially acquire the affected private and state land.

8 Authority to manage the withdrawn public lands in the CMAGR would be transferred to DoN. 

9 DoN would manage the withdrawn public lands, together with DoN lands, in accordance with the 

10 Sikes Act.

11 DoN lands that would be released from the CMAGR, as a result of the boundary realignment, 

12 would be transferred to the DoI and managed by the BLM in accordance with FLPMA.

13 2.3.1 Proposed CMAGR Boundary Realignments and Range Perimeter Lands to Be Withdrawn 

14 or Released

15 If fully enacted, Alternative 2 would implement the full Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, and south of Niland16 Blythe Road realignments of the CMAGR boundary (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). Implementation of 

17 all four boundary realignments is proposed by Alternative 2 to release the full amount of land for which 

18 there is no continuing military need from the range, and provide the greatest extent of range boundaries 

19 with the enhanced capabilities to safeguard public safety and deter inadvertent trespass. Implementing just 

20 one or any combination of two or three of these realignments also would be of some benefit, however, as 

21 the four realignments are not functionally interdependent and each one would provide independent value. 

22 Additional details about each of the boundary realignments proposals follow and acreages associated with 

23 each of the boundary realignments are provided in Table 2-3. 

24 Table 2-3 Land Areas to be Added to or Released from the CMAGR

25 by Boundary Realignment Proposals

Full Bradshaw 

Trail UPRR

Niland-Blythe 

Road

Partial Bradshaw 

Trail

Land Area to be Added to CMAGR (in Acres)

BLM-administered Land 530 11,903 0 0

State Land 10 658 0 0

Private Land 455 0 0 0

Total CMAGR Area 995 12,561 0 0

Land Area to be Released from CMAGR (in Acres)

BLM-administered Land 1,924 0 250 1,640

DoN Land 647 0 0 647

Total Release Area 2,571 0 250 2,287

26

27 The south of Niland-Blythe Road realignments would include the release of two parcels totaling about 

28 250 acres of currently withdrawn BLM land in aggregate from the CMAGR and would shorten the range 

29 perimeter by about 3.2 miles (see Figure 2-1). Neither of the two parcels are known to have been used as 

30 designated target impact areas and likely would eventually become available for non-military reuse 

31 subject to BLM management in accordance with the FLPMA following any steps necessary by the DoN 

32 to decommission the affected areas as former parts of the CMAGR and acceptance of the land by the 

33 Secretary of the Interior.

34
Niland-Blythe

Road Realignment

Niland-Blythe

Road

R-2507S

R-2507N

Eagle Mountain Railroad (inactive)

Union Pacific Railroad

Riverside County

Imperial County

T9S

R12E

T7S

T8S

R15E R13E

R16E

R14E

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 2\CMAGR_Bndry_Full_BradshawTrail.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Legend

Existing CMAGR

Boundary

Alternative 2 and 3

Proposed CMAGR 

Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Existing Railroad

Road

Restricted Airspace

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Military Reservation

State

Private

Department of Navy Land that would not

be retained in the CMAGR but would be

made available for transfer or disposal

Bureau of Land Management that

would not be Renewed for the CMAGR

County Boundary

Township and Range Boundary

Section Boundary

Proposed Full Bradshaw Trail

and Niland-Blythe Road 

Realignments of the 

CMAGR Boundary

Figure 2-1

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

Map

Extent

2-13

0 1 2 3 4

Miles

Map Scale 1:135,000

0 1 2 3 4

Kilometers

Proposed realigned 

CMAGR boundary offset

from Bradshaw Trail

centerline is approximately

30 feet (9.1 meters)

NOT TO SCALE

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2012

Surface Management: BLM 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010,

USGS NHD 2010, BLM 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Glamis

R-2507S

R-2512

Union Pacific Railroad

Mesquite Region 

Landfill Rail Spur

T13S

R16E

T11S

T12S

R18E

R17.5E

R19E

R17E

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 2\CMAGR_Bndry_UP_Southwest.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Proposed Union Pacific

Railroad Realignment 

of the CMAGR Boundary

Figure 2-2

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

Map Extent

2-14

0 1 2 3 4

Miles

Map Scale 1:100,000

0 1 2 3 4

Kilometers

Legend

Existing CMAGR

Boundary

Alternative 2 Proposed

CMAGR Boundary

Coachella Canal

Approved Rail Spur

Existing Railroad

Restricted Airspace

City\Town

Highway

Road

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Military Reservation

State

Private

County Boundary

Township and Range Boundary

Section Boundary

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2012

Surface Management: BLM 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010,

USGS NHD 2010, BLM 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-15 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 The full Bradshaw Trail realignment would align the CMAGR boundary along the southern side of the

2 trail for the entire 36 miles over which it intersects the range. The intent of the proposed boundary 

3 realignment action would be twofold: (1) align the new boundary such that the Bradshaw Trail would be 

4 located entirely outside of the CMAGR and (2) align the new boundary close enough to the southern 

5 shoulder of the Bradshaw Trail so that the southern margin of the trail is viewed by the public as the 

6 northern perimeter of the CMAGR. The range boundary would have to be aligned so that the National 

7 Backcountry Byway could continue to be maintained for public off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. This 

8 means that the boundary alignment would have to provide sufficient space for the periodic grading and 

9 clearing operations that are conducted by Riverside County to keep the road passable for public use. 

10 Typical grading and clearing actions that affect road shoulders and adjacent areas include removing flood 

11 debris, clearing water drainages, and depositing grading overburden. However, the setback of the range 

12 boundary from the Bradshaw Trail should not be sufficient to create public use space on the southern side 

13 of the road. In essence, the Bradshaw Trail road corridor would serve as the well-defined and physically 

14 visible southern limit of land open to public use along the northern perimeter of the CMAGR.

15 The final alignment of the CMAGR boundary along the Bradshaw Trail under Alternative 2 would be 

16 determined by survey following renewal of the range land withdrawal and in view of the road 

17 maintenance and use factors. For the purposes of this LEIS, the alignment of the proposed boundary has 

18 been approximated as following an offset 30 feet to the south of the centerline of the Bradshaw Trail as 

19 determined from geo-rectified satellite imagery. This boundary approximation, which appears in 

20 Figure 2-1, provides an adequate basis for estimating the relative environmental effects of Alternative 2 

21 compared to the other alternatives.

22 The full Bradshaw Trail realignment would release about 647 acres of DoN land and about 1,924 acres of 

23 currently withdrawn BLM land from the range (see Table 2-3). The released DoN and BLM land, which 

24 would include all segments of the Bradshaw Trail that are currently on the range, is not needed to support 

25 either current or future military activities that require the restricted land and airspace environments of the 

26 CMAGR. The full realignment proposal would also result in (1) the first-time withdrawal of about 

27 530 acres of BLM land adjacent to the south side of the Bradshaw Trail that has not previously been 

28 included in the CMAGR and (2) the first-time inclusion of about 455 acres of private and 10 acres of state 

29 land within the authorized boundary of the CMAGR (see Table 2-3). Alternative 2 would consolidate all 

30 federal land adjacent to the south side of the Bradshaw Trail within the range. The realigned boundary 

31 would have no direct effect on the ownership or use of included private or state land. Rather, inclusion of 

32 private or state land within the external boundary of the CMAGR would authorize the DoN and Marine 

33 Corps to potentially acquire the included private and state property through existing real estate acquisition 

34 authorities. No military use of the affected private or state land could occur without prior permission from 

35 the owner(s) or state or until such time that the property is acquired.

36 The proposed change at the UPRR would align the range boundary to be contiguous to the eastern side of 

37 that railroad’s ROW and to be contiguous to the north side of the ROW for the Mesquite Regional 

38 Landfill Rail Spur (see Figure 2-2). The boundary realignment would follow existing roads to connect to 

39 the existing CMAGR boundary at its northern and southern ends. 

40 The proposed UPRR realignment would add up to about 12,561 acres to the CMAGR as a result of (1) the 

41 first-time withdrawal of about 11,903 acres of BLM land that are not currently in the range and (2) the 

42 first-time inclusion of about 658 acres of state land within the authorized external boundary of the range

43 (see Figure 2-3). About 52 percent of the additional area that would be encompassed by the realigned 

44 range boundary area would be located within the existing lateral boundaries of the R-2507S restricted 

45 airspace. The area encompassed by the realigned boundary that would be under the R-2507S restricted 

46 airspace would include about 6,138 acres of BLM land and about 438 acres of state land. The area added 

47 to the CMAGR as a result of the proposed UPRR realignment could be useful for supporting training 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-16 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 activities such as FARPs, landing zones, or artillery firing positions. No air-to-ground or artillery impact 

2 areas would be located in the proposed acquisition area. Private property that would be affected by the 

3 boundary realignment would potentially be acquired by the DoN at a later date through the process 

4 described for the Bradshaw Trail realignment. State land could not be used for military training or range 

5 support purposes unless either title or other use rights to the affected land are first acquired.

6 2.3.2 Proposed Management Provisions

7 The natural resource management responsibility for withdrawn public lands in the CMAGR would be 

8 transferred from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Navy and would span the duration of 

9 the range withdrawal. The responsibilities for managing both DoN owned land and withdrawn BLM land 

10 in the CMAGR would be delegated to the Marine Corps, which would act locally through the 

11 Commanding Officer, MCAS Yuma. The primary statutory authorities and requirements for both DoN 

12 and withdrawn BLM lands would be provided by the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 670a-670f.). The Sikes Act 

13 requires the Secretary of Defense to carry out a program to provide for the conservation and rehabilitation 

14 of natural resources on military installations including all public lands withdrawn from all forms of 

15 appropriation under public land laws and reserved for use by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of 

16 a military department. 

17 The purpose of such a program would be to promote the conservation and rehabilitation of natural 

18 resources on military installations and the sustainable multipurpose use of those resources. The Sikes Act 

19 also requires that lands and natural resources at a military installation must be managed consistent with 

20 the military purposes of the installation and ensure no net loss in the capability of military installation 

21 lands to support those purposes. In the case of the CMAGR, the primary military purpose is aircrew 

22 training, particularly in air-to-ground delivery of ordnance. 

23 The Sikes Act requires the development and implementation of an INRMP, which would be developed in 

24 cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game. 

25 INRMPs incorporate practices, processes, and procedures to comply with other natural resource laws and 

26 regulations including, but not limited to the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and Migratory 

27 Bird Treaty Act. The Sikes Act also requires INRMPs be reviewed as to operation and effect by all 

28 cooperating parties frequently and no less often than five years. To support an adaptive management 

29 strategy for natural resource management, as well as support of the military mission, the DoN policy is 

30 that the INRMP is reviewed annually with the cooperating parties and updated or revised as deemed 

31 necessary by these reviews.

32 2.3.3 BLM and DoN Lands Released from CMAGR 

33 Approximately 2,174 acres of BLM and 647 acres of DoN lands would be released from the CMAGR by 

34 Alternative 2 (see Figure 2-1 and Table 2-2). Released BLM land would have no further military function 

35 and would subsequently be managed solely by the BLM. The released lands would not be available for 

36 appropriation under the public land laws or other public uses as provided by the FLPMA until the 

37 Secretaries of the Interior and Navy complete a collaborative assessment of (1) the extent to which these 

38 lands may be contaminated with expended ordnance and (2) other environmental conditions of the 

39 released lands. Plans for any required cleanup of ordnance or other contaminates would be developed 

40 based on the assessment findings, as described for Alternative 1 (see Section 2.2.2). The DoN would be 

41 responsible for any post-range cleanup needed as a result of military use. The CMLWOA provided 

42 procedures for the Secretary of the Interior to follow in deciding whether or not to accept withdrawn 

43 BLM land that may have been relinquished from the CMAGR by the Secretary of the Navy before the 

44 expiration of the withdrawal (P.L. 103-433 § 808(d)). Neither the CMLWOA nor the FLPMA, however, 

45 provide procedural guidance for the Secretary of the Interior to follow in deciding whether or not to 

46 accept former CMAGR land that is no longer needed for continuing military purposes after the 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-17 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 withdrawal provided by the CMLWOA expires. Procedures for the DoI to follow to either accept or not 

2 accept BLM land freed from the CMAGR by the expiration of the current land withdrawal would have to 

3 be provided by existing federal property law or the subsequent legislation to renew the withdrawal for 

4 BLM land for which there is a continuing military need.

5 The DoN proposes that DoN land that would be released from the CMAGR, as a result of the boundary 

6 realignment, would be transferred to the DoI and managed by the BLM in accordance with FLPMA. The 

7 extent to which released DoN land may require disposal of expended ordnance or other types of cleanup 

8 would be addressed in accordance with an MRP as described in Section 2.2.2.

9 2.4 ALTERNATIVE 3

10 Renewal of the CMAGR as proposed by Alternative 3 would continue its current military purposes, land 

11 use, training support features, and operational range clearance program. Explanations of these purposes, 

12 uses, features, and programs are provided in the description of Alternative 1. 

13 Alternative 3 would implement the full Bradshaw Trail and south of Niland-Blythe Road realignments of 

14 the CMAGR boundary (Figure 2-1) and would be the same as described for Alternative 2 in 

15 Section 2.3.1, except for the UPRR realignment.

16 Alternative 3 would provide a third option for assigning agency responsibilities for managing the 

17 CMAGR, which differs from those provided by either Alternatives 1 or 2. Alternative 3 would transfer 

18 jurisdiction for and interests in the public land in the range from the DoI to the DoN. The transfer would 

19 have the effect of consolidating all lands in the range under DoN jurisdiction and eliminating the existing 

20 checkerboard of dual jurisdictions. The DoN would manage the range in accordance with the Sikes Act 

21 and other applicable laws as described for Alternative 2 (see Section 2.3.3). 

22 The transfer of DoI land to the jurisdiction of the DoN would also have the effect of granting a charter for 

23 the CMAGR that would not expire until such time that the DoN determines that there would be no further 

24 need for the range and that it should be closed. The unlimited duration of the land withdrawal and 

25 reservation that would be provided by Alternative 3 differs from the durations offered by Alternatives 1, 

26 2, and 4, which would all terminate the range after 20 or 25 years unless it is subsequently renewed by 

27 Congress for another term. Should the CMAGR be renewed as proposed by Alternative 3, but later 

28 terminated after some indefinite period when the military need for the range ends, agency responsibilities 

29 for range cleanup would be the same as those described for Alternative 1.

30 BLM land and DoN land that are currently part of the CMAGR, but would be released from the range 

31 under Alternative 3, are the same as those lands that would be released under Alternative 2. Released 

32 BLM land would have no further military function and would subsequently be managed solely by the 

33 BLM. The DoN would be responsible for any post-range cleanup needed as a result of military use of 

34 BLM land. The need for cleanup would be determined as described for Alternative 2.

35 In contrast to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would not propose direct Congressional transfer of DoN land to 

36 the DoI/BLM but would direct the DoN to dispose of its land that would be released from the CMAGR 

37 through existing GSA authorities and procedures. The transfer of the released DoN land to the BLM 

38 would be a possible, if not probable outcome, but some or all of the land could potentially be transferred 

39 to other federal or non-federal agencies or offered for purchase by private entities. The extent to which 

40 DoN land slated for disposal may require disposal of expended ordnance or other types of cleanup would 

41 be addressed in accordance with an MRP as described in Section 2.2.2.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-18 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 2.5 ALTERNATIVE 4

2 Renewal of the CMAGR under Alternative 4 would be the same as described for Alternative 1 in terms of 

3 the military purposes of the range and assigned agency responsibilities for range cleanup. Alternative 4 

4 would also continue the same military land use, training support features, and operational range clearance 

5 program as described for Alternative 1. Like Alternative 2, Alternative 4 would provide a land withdrawal 

6 duration of 25 years and would transfer responsibility for managing the withdrawn BLM land to the DoN, 

7 which would manage the land in accordance with the Sikes Act.

8 Alternative 4 would implement the partial Bradshaw Trail boundary realignment, which would affect the 

9 alignment of the CMAGR boundary between the eastern entry of the trail to the range and its western 

10 exit. The partial realignment would align the range boundary along the southern side of those Bradshaw 

11 Trail segments that traverse either DoN land or withdrawn BLM land that is currently part of the 

12 CMAGR (Figure 2-3). The CMAGR boundary would not be changed from its existing alignment where 

13 the Bradshaw Trail traverses either BLM land that is not currently withdrawn as a part of the range or 

14 land that is privately or state owned. 

15 The partial Bradshaw Trail realignment would release about 647 acres of DoN land and about 1,640 acres

16 of currently withdrawn BLM land from the range. The released DoN and BLM land, which would include 

17 all segments of the Bradshaw Trail that are currently on the range, is not needed to support either current 

18 or future military activities that require the restricted land and airspace environments of the CMAGR. 

19 BLM, private, and state lands adjacent to the south side of the Bradshaw Trail that have not previously 

20 been included in the CMAGR would remain outside of the range with Alternative 4.

21 The disposal and future management of DoN and BLM lands released from the CMAGR by the proposed 

22 boundary realignments would also occur as described for Alternative 3.

23
Niland-Blythe

Road

R-2507S

R-2507N

Eagle Mountain Railroad (inactive)

Union Pacific Railroad

Riverside County

Imperial County

T9S

R12E

T7S

T8S

R15E R13E

R16E

R14E

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 2\CMAGR_Bndry_Partial_BradshawTrail.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Legend

Existing CMAGR

Boundary

Alternative 4

Proposed CMAGR 

Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Existing Railroad

Road

Restricted Airspace

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Military Reservation

State

Private

Department of Navy Land that would not

be retained in the CMAGR but would be

made available for transfer or disposal

Bureau of Land Management that

would not be Renewed for the CMAGR

County Boundary

Township and Range Boundary

Section Boundary

Proposed Partial Bradshaw 

Trail Realignment of the 

CMAGR Boundary

Figure 2-3

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

Map

Extent

2-19

0 1 2 3 4

Miles

Map Scale 1:135,000

0 1 2 3 4

Kilometers

Proposed realigned 

CMAGR boundary offset

from Bradshaw Trail

centerline is approximately

30 feet (9.1 meters)

NOT TO SCALE

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2012

Surface Management: BLM 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010,

USGS NHD 2010, BLM 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-20 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 2.6 ALTERNATIVE 5 (NO ACTION) 

2 Under Alternative 5, Congress would take no action to renew the CMAGR land withdrawal. As a 

3 consequence and as provided by the CMLWOA, the current withdrawal of BLM land in the CMAGR 

4 would expire at the end of October 2014, the BLM land would no longer be available for military 

5 purposes, and the remaining DoN land would not provide an adequate restricted land-base to continue 

6 tactical aviation training. From that point forward, the BLM would manage the BLM land in accordance 

7 with the FLPMA and the Sikes Act would no longer be applicable to those properties. 

8 If Congress decides not to renew the CMAGR land withdrawal, the Secretary of Defense would have to 

9 address the displacement of training and the level of clean-up that is appropriate for the type of future 

10 land use. The Secretary of Defense, acting through the DoN, would determine if lands that were once 

11 used for training and testing may contain UXO, discarded military munitions (DMM), or munitions 

12 constituents (MC). 

13 When an operational DoD range is closed, the eligible closed former range lands are entered into the 

14 MRP, and subjected to an evaluation and scoring process using the MRSPP. The MRSPP score reflects 

15 the relative potential for the site to be a danger to human health and the environment. The MRP process is 

16 driven by a number of policy and guidance documents that are consistent with the CERCLA. In 

17 accordance with CERCLA, the DoN and BLM closed former range lands would undergo a PA and SI. 

18 The primary goal of the SI is to collect the appropriate amount of information to make the following 

19 decisions:

20 If an RI/FS is required

21 If a response to any hazards is required

22 If the site is qualified for no further action 

23 As information becomes available from the site investigation, the MRSPP scores are updated to reflect the 

24 most current situation and cost estimates for site completion are refined. For locations where it is 

25 appropriate, an RI/FS would analyze various appropriate remedial alternatives for any munitions and 

26 explosives of concern (i.e., no action, destruction in place, removal, etc.). The analyses would take into 

27 account the various unique aspects of the property and contaminant as well as cost. A final decision 

28 document, such as a Record of Decision under CERCLA, would be issued on the remedial action chosen. 

29 At this time, the nature and extent of remediation or response actions is highly speculative. Should 

30 Congress decide not to renew the CMAGR land withdrawal, the DoN and BLM closed former range 

31 lands would begin MRP evaluation and additional studies would be conducted. Funding for 

32 decontamination of CMAGR lands would be subject to Congressional authorization and project 

33 prioritization across USMC and DoN facilities. 

34 As previously indicated, a Congressional decision to not renew the withdrawal of BLM land in the 

35 CMAGR would have the effect of rendering the range unsuitable for supporting tactical aviation training 

36 as it currently occurs. As a result, the Marine Corps and DoN would have to begin planning to determine 

37 how and where to train the aviation and other forces that currently use the CMAGR. No preliminary plans 

38 or concepts have been developed related to redistributing the training. Consequently, it would not be 

39 appropriate to speculate in this Draft LEIS as to how specific Marine Corps and DoN training 

40 requirements may be redefined or how units may be directed to other ranges, and, possibly, realigned to 

41 other home installations to compensate for the loss of the CMAGR. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-21 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 Planning would also have to begin to determine the final disposition of the approximately 229,903 acres 

2 of DoN land currently in the CMAGR. If the DoN land in the CMAGR were found to have no military 

3 purposes, all or some of this land may be found to be surplus by the DoN. The potential subsequent 

4 transfer of DoN land to another DoD agency, the BLM, or other government agency, or their potential 

5 opening for entry through the operation of the public land laws would be determined by future planning. 

6 The uncertainties of the extent of clean-up required and the type of reuse activities make identification of 

7 the nature of the planning process highly speculative at this time. The State of California holds 

8 reversionary rights for about 11,311 acres of land in the CMAGR that were acquired in fee by the DoN 

9 from the state (Figure 2-4). California also holds some or all mineral rights on an additional 10,981 acres 

10 of the DoD land. The state’s reversionary and mineral rights would become factors in determining the 

11 disposition of the affected land.

12 The Marine Corps would manage the released land in accordance with the Sikes Act and other applicable 

13 laws as long as they remain under DoN jurisdiction. The potential for the public to use released land that 

14 remains under DoN jurisdiction would have to be determined through planning conducted in accordance 

15 with the Sikes Act and to the extent that such use would not be inconsistent with hazards that may be 

16 present from UXO. 

17 2.7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT EVALUATED IN DETAIL IN THE LEIS

18 The Marine Corps evaluated additional potential alternatives for the Proposed Action. During the scoping 

19 period (September 24, 2010 through December 23, 2010), the public suggested alternatives for the Marine 

20 Corps to consider. The Final Scoping Report (published in March 2011and available on-line at 

21 http://www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com/html/documentsmaps.html) provides further details on the 

22 scoping process. This section describes alternatives that were considered but not carried forward for 

23 detailed analysis in the LEIS, and the rationale for elimination. 

24 2.7.1 Land Withdrawal Durations Shorter than 20 Years

25 During scoping, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 suggested consideration of a land 

26 withdrawal with a duration of 15 years as an alternative to the 25-year duration proposed by the DoN at 

27 that time. The EPA recommended that the shorter withdrawal be considered ―because ecosystems are now 

28 experiencing the effects of climate change, and the cumulative impacts from climate change may combine 

29 with training impacts to affect resources in a shorter time frame than has been the case in the past‖ (EPA 

30 2010). Section 1.4 provides the rationale for a proposed withdrawal duration of 25 years or longer. 

31 In response to the EPA comment, the withdrawal duration proposed by Alternative 1 was shortened from 

32 25 years to 20 years, which is consistent with the current withdrawal duration provided by the 

33 CMLWOA. The EPA-recommended duration alternative of 15 years was not selected for detailed 

34 consideration because it would not provide a basis for sharply defining the environmental differences 

35 among the alternatives. The legacy of military training at the CMAGR since WWII indicates that 

36 environmental impacts from range operations have not expanded or compounded through time at 

37 appreciable rates. Although climate change might result in the Southwest enduring hotter average 

38 temperatures and decreasing average rainfall over the next several decades, these trends cannot be 

39 forecasted at this time with the precision necessary to assess how resources might be affected within a 

40 15 year withdrawal. Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the Marine Corps would prepare an INRMP in 

41 cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and 

42 Game (CDFG), and update the INRMPs no less than every five years. The INRMP’s adaptive 

43 management strategy would respond to potential impacts from climate change over a shorter time frame 

44 and is consistent with the EPA comment.

45
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad (Inactive)

R11E R12E R13E R14E R15E R16E R17E R18E

R20E

T11S

T12S

T9S

T10S

T13S

R19E

T8S

R21E

T7S

R19E

R15E R16E R17E R17.5E R18E

T11S

R11E

T9S

T10S

T8S

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

R

i

ve

rs

ide 

C

o

u

n

ty

Imp

e

rial 

C

o

u

n

ty

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 2\CMAGR_State_CA_Mineral_Rights.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Department of the Navy

Navy Acquired Land, State of California

Retained Reversionary and\or Mineral Rights

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Gas Line

Transmission Line

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Railroad

Township and Range Boundary

Section Boundary

State of California 

Mineral and 

Reversionary Rights

Figure 2-4

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

2-22

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BLM 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-23 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 – Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

1 2.7.2 Consolidate DoN and BLM Lands

2 As noted in Chapter 1, Section 1.5, responsibility for managing non-military land use and natural and 

3 cultural resources within the CMAGR is split between the DoN and BLM by virtue of the checkerboard 

4 pattern of DoN and BLM land jurisdictions and guidance from the CMLWOA. The result is a 

5 management scheme that leaves the DoN and the BLM with a set of responsibilities that are divided, 

6 overlapping, and/or redundant. An approach considered initially to eliminate the checkerboard 

7 jurisdiction pattern was to propose an exchange of DoN and BLM parcels to create a consolidated block 

8 of land under each agency’s jurisdiction. One block would be roughly situated in the R-2507N portion of 

9 the CMAGR and the other would be in the R-2507S portion. This approach would create two roughly 

10 equally-sized blocks of land under either DoN or BLM management jurisdiction, but there would still be 

11 a continuing military need to withdraw and reserve the BLM block to provide the land space necessary to 

12 support Marine Corps and Navy training at the CMAGR. Consequently, this approach would not 

13 eliminate (1) the separate responsibilities of the DoN and BLM for managing natural and cultural 

14 resources and non-military land uses in their respective portions of the CMAGR, (2) the differences and 

15 inconsistencies between management guidance provided by the Sikes Act and FLPMA for the DoN and

16 BLM lands, or (3) the responsibility of the DoN to manage both DoN and withdrawn BLM lands in 

17 accordance with the Sikes Act. The land consolidation alternative would do nothing to eliminate these 

18 management inconsistencies and overlaps and, consequently, was not evaluated in detail.

19
CMAGR Regional, Historical, and Environmental Settings

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-1 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2 3.1 CMAGR REGIONAL, HISTORICAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS 

3 Chapter 3 provides descriptions of the existing environmental setting, resources, and conditions that may 

4 be affected by decisions to either renew or to not renew the CMAGR in accordance with the alternatives 

5 proposed in this LEIS. The affected environment descriptions are broken down into 13 resource areas so 

6 that the geographic scope and detail of the information can be scaled to best fit the particulars of each 

7 resource and to support the impact assessments provided in Chapters 4 and 5. The 13 resource areas 

8 include:

Range and airspace operations

Non-military land use

Geological resources

Water resources

Air quality

Biological resources

Cultural resources

Noise

Visual resources

Public health and safety

Hazardous materials and waste

Socioeconomics

Environmental justice

9 The geographic scales of the affected environments described in Chapter 3 are directly related to the 

10 scope of actions proposed in the five alternatives addressed in this LEIS. Military use of the CMAGR 

11 would be continued by the land withdrawal actions proposed in Alternatives 1 through 4. Alternative 5, 

12 the no-action alternative, would allow the current CMAGR land withdrawal to expire, which would result 

13 in the closure of the entire range. Alternatives 1 through 4 address four elements, which include:

14 Proposed alignment of the range boundary and withdrawal of BLM lands enclosed in that 

15 boundary

16 Proposed assignments of DoN and BLM responsibilities for land management at the CMAGR

17 Proposed duration of the land withdrawal

18 Proposed assignments of DoN and BLM responsibilities for managing land that would be 

19 released from the range

20 The principal physical, biological, and cultural resource environments that likely would be affected by the 

21 various boundary alignment and withdrawal area actions proposed by Alternatives 1 through 4, which 

22 would renew the range and its use, generally occur within the CMAGR boundaries proposed by these 

23 alternatives or within areas proposed for release from the range. The effects of the proposed actions may 

24 also be extended to adjoining off-range areas by natural processes such as rainwater runoff, airborne 

25 propagation, or biological species movements. The extent to which adjoining off-range areas may be 

26 affected varies depending on the individual resources and processes involved. Physical, biological, or 

27 cultural resource environments in off-range locations that may be affected by the proposed actions are 

28 disclosed in the affected environment description for each resource area. 

29 As previously disclosed, aviation training at the CMAGR involves the use of airspace both directly over

30 the range and in an extended local region contiguous with the range airspace. The aviation training 

31 mission at the CMAGR expands consideration of the likely effects of the land withdrawal alternatives 

32 proposed in this LEIS to airspace areas outside the range boundaries. 
CMAGR Regional, Historical, and Environmental Settings

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-2 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Closure, decommissioning, and eventual reuse of the CMAGR, which would occur under Alternative 5—

2 the no-action alternative—would likely affect the same physical, biological, and cultural resource 

3 environments as would Alternatives 1 through 4. The socioeconomic and environmental justice 

4 environments that would be affected by either renewal of the CMAGR under any of the action 

5 alternatives or closure of the range as result of the no-action alternative would initially include 

6 communities both near to and distant from the CMAGR that are socially or economically impacted by 

7 activities at the range. Small cities, towns, and other small rural communities are located in the general 

8 region of the CMAGR, particularly to the south and west. The key affected distant communities would be 

9 those in the vicinities of MCAS Yuma, MCAS Miramar, MCAS Camp Pendleton, and Naval Amphibious 

10 Base (NAB) Coronado from which most military training missions at the range are mustered and 

11 provided with base support. MCAS Yuma also provides administrative and management support for the 

12 CMAGR.

13 The levels of detail provided for each of the resource area descriptions vary but generally address the 

14 need to perform comparative impact assessments at two geographic scales. The larger assessment scale 

15 considers the CMAGR as a single landscape unit that will either be renewed for military training 

16 purposes, as proposed by action Alternatives 1 through 4, or will be closed, decommissioned, and, 

17 eventually, converted to non-military use as proposed by no-action Alternative 5. The focus at this larger 

18 assessment scale is in comparing the effects of range renewal to the consequences of not renewing the 

19 range. From a regional perspective (see Figure 1-1), the CMAGR is certainly an important piece of the 

20 landscape. The range encompasses almost twice the surface area of the Salton Sea and four times the area 

21 of the largest nearby designated wilderness area, the Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness, which is located 

22 less than 3 miles to the north. The range is about 86 percent as large as the area that was in agricultural 

23 production in Imperial County in 2010. Additional information on past actions that shaped the area‘s 

24 physical, ecological, military, airspace, and socioeconomic landscapes can be found in Section 5.2.1.1.

25 The differences in the proposed range renewal actions offered by Alternatives 1 through 4 would not be 

26 discernable in terms of likely environmental effects from comparisons among alternatives at the 

27 landscape unit scale. Alternative 1 would renew the same boundary and surface area as the existing 

28 CMAGR. Alternative 2 would realign the CMAGR boundary in four locations and add a total of about 

10,735 acres129 to the range but this would amount to only about a 2.3 percent increase in surface area (see 

30 Figures 2-1 and 2-2). Alternative 3 would realign the CMAGR boundary in three places, which would 

31 decrease the area of the range by about 1,826 acres, or about 0.4 percent (see Figure 2-3). Alternative 4 

32 also would realign the CMAGR boundary and decrease the area of the range by about 2,287 acres. These 

33 small proposed changes in range surface area would not register as distinguishing environmental effects 

34 in landscape-scale comparisons to Alternative 5, which would alter the land use future across the entire 

35 458,530 acre expanse of the range.

36 The smaller assessment scale is concerned with differentiating the environmental impacts that would 

37 likely arise as a result of each of the different boundary alignments and land withdrawal areas proposed 

38 by action Alternatives 1 through 4. At this localized scale, important resource values or uses may be 

39 differentially affected by the boundary alignment alternatives and the level of detail provided to describe 

40 these resources must be commensurate with an assessment of these differences. The smaller assessment 

41 scale has no relevance to no-action Alternative 5.

42

 

1 The boundary realignments prescribed by Alternative 2 would support an increase in the CMAGR surface area of 

up to 10,735 acres; however, realizing this full expansion would require the acquisition of 455 acres of private land 

and 668 acres of State land that would be encompassed within the realigned administrative boundary of the range.
Range and Airspace Operations 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-3 August 2012 

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

1 3.2 RANGE AND AIRSPACE OPERATIONS 

2 3.2.1 Evolution of the Regional Airspace and Range Setting 

All airspace in the CMAGR operating region is part of the National Airspace System2 3 , which is managed 

4 by the FAA to support the requirements of three major airspace user groups—general aviation, 

5 commercial air carriers, and DoD. A principal purpose of the National Airspace System is to provide each 

6 of the major user groups with an independent, yet equal, right of access to the system. The right of access 

7 does not mean, however, that equal access can be provided to all airspace locations or altitudes to all users 

8 at all times. In fact, all of the airspace in the National Airspace System is classified by location, altitude, 

9 and time so that it can be made available as needed to support the requirements of one or more users on a 

10 selective or segregated basis. Allocating user access to the National Airspace System is the responsibility 

11 of the FAA and is necessary to provide the airspace required for particular flight operations while at the 

12 same time deconflicting activities to promote the greatest margins of safety practicable for all users. As 

13 indicated in Section 1.3.2, designation of special use airspace is one of the principal tools available to the 

14 FAA to provide airspace needed for national defense training and testing purposes while simultaneously 

15 protecting the safety of nonparticipating users. 

16 Although the concept of managing the Nation’s airspace as part of a National Airspace System was not 

17 defined as such until after the passage of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 1301 et seq.), 

18 development of the airspace environment and military ranges that characterize the contemporary CMAGR 

19 operating region began before World War II (WWII) and had assumed much of its present form by the 

20 close of the 1960s. The legacy of civil and military aviation in the CMAGR operating region dates from 

21 before 1920 but the first steps to configure airspace in the region and elsewhere in the Nation to support 

22 user needs began on the civil side. Both civilian and military users would benefit, however, from the 

23 resulting provisions. By the mid-1920s, rapid progress in and expansion of aviation, including the advent 

24 of airmail service, had created a need to establish a national system of airways to improve aeronautical 

navigation and, as a result, the reliability and safety of flight3 25 . The first airways were established simply 

26 by providing pilots with ground-based navigation markers for visual reference in the day and rotating 

27 light beacons for navigation at night. Ground-reference markers and beacons were located at intervals of 

28 15 to 25 miles. About 18,000 miles of visual ground-reference airways were in place across the nation by 

29 1933, including an east-west airway north of the area that would become the CMAGR in 1942 (Mola

30 2011). 

31 Although flight safety and reliability were enhanced by the ground-reference airway system, the need for 

32 pilots to keep ground-based markers or lighted beacons in sight limited its use to fair and clear weather. 

33 Development of an airway system based on low-frequency radio navigation that could provide pilots with 

34 course guidance in all visibility conditions had also been underway and transmission stations to establish 

35 these airways were beginning to be operationally deployed by 1930. By WWII, low-frequency radio36 range airways supported a substantial air navigation network throughout America (Mola 2011). A visual 

37 ground-reference airway, known as Green 5, connecting Los Angeles, Blythe, Phoenix, and Tucson had 

38 been in place by 1928 (Richards 2011). Green 5 was operationally upgraded by 1940 to a radio-range 

39 airway that approximated the same route (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Coast and Geodetic 

 

2

 The National Airspace System consists of the common network of U.S. airspace; air navigation facilities, 

equipment and services, airports or landing areas; aeronautical charts, information and services; rules, regulations 

and procedures; technical information; and manpower and material. Included are system components shared jointly 

with the military (U.S. Department of Transportation, FAA 2010). 

3 From the first airways to the present, airways have been defined as an established and pre-surveyed flight corridor 

over the earth surface that is delineated by a centerline that extends from one ground-based navigation aid or 

intersection with another airway centerline to another ground-based navigation aid (or through several navigation 

aids or intersections). (adapted from: U.S. Department of Transportation, FAA, Flight Standards Service 2008) 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-4 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Survey 1940). Also operational by 1943 were a radio-range airway to the south, Red 9, that linked San 

2 Diego, El Centro, Yuma, and Gila Bend to cities further to the east and a radio-range airway to the north, 

3 Green 4, which extended from Los Angeles through Palmdale and Needles to Albuquerque and other 

4 eastward locations (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey 1943).

5 At the advent of WWII, Green 4, Green 5, and Red 9 were the principal east-west airways that connected 

6 the southern California coast by air transport to the rest of the country. Additional north-south airways 

7 linked the Los Angeles and San Diego areas to San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and other points along 

8 the West Coast and other airways provided southwest-northeast routes to Salt Lake City, Denver, and 

9 other locations across the central and northern tiers of the nation. However, Green 4, Green 5, and Red 9 

10 represented the most important air transport corridors within the region that would soon host the 

11 CMAGR, El Centro Ranges, BMGR, and YPG and later the MCAGCC (Table 3-1). The alignments of

12 these and all early airways were chosen to connect the selected cities via flight paths that were as short as 

13 possible considering the need to also avoid air traffic conflicts, allow long-range reception of radio 

14 navigation signals or observation of lighted beacons, minimize flight over high-altitude terrain, and 

15 permit ground access for constructing and operating transmitters or beacons. 

16 Table 3-1 Originating Dates for Military Air Installations, Military Ranges, and Restricted 

17 Airspace in Southwestern Arizona and Southern California

Currently Active Military Air Installationa Year Established or that

Military Use Began

Southwestern Arizona

Marine Corps Air Station Yumab1942 c

Laguna Army Airfield, Yuma Proving Ground (YPG)b1943d

Luke Air Force Base, Glendaleb1941c

Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Fieldb1942e

Southern California

Marine Corps Air Station Miramar 1941f

Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton 1942f

Twentynine Palms Expeditionary Landing Field, Twentynine Palms 1941f

Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego 1917f

Naval Air Facility El Centro 1942f

Currently Active Military Rangea Year Established or that

Military Use Began

Southwestern Arizona

Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR)b1941e

YPGb1943d

Southern California

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR) 1942d, f

El Centro Ranges (ECR) 1943d, f

Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC)b1943d, f

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton 1942f

Current Restricted Airspacea Year Established

Southwestern Arizona

R-2301W (overlies BMGR West)b1942d

R-2301E (overlies BMGR East)b1942d

R-2304 (overlies BMGR East)b1942d

R-2305 (overlies BMGR East)b1942d

R-2306A/B/C/D/E (overlies YPG) after 1950 before 1954d

R-2307 (overlies YPG) after 1950 before 1954d

R-2308A/B/C (overlies YPG) after 1950 before 1954d

R-2309 (overlies YPG) 1988d

R-23011 (overlies YPG) 1997g
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-5 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Current Restricted Airspacea Year Established

Southern California

R-2507N/S (overlies CMAGR) 1942d

R-2507E (overlies CMAGR) 2006h

R-2510A/B (overlies ECR) 1942d

R-2512 (overlies ECR) 1943d

R-2501E/N/S/W (overlies MCAGCC) 1943d

R-2503A/B (overlies Camp Pendleton Ranges) 1943d

a Current installation, range and restricted airspace names are listed, all have been renamed one or more times since they were first established. 

The current user/host command often differs from its original primary user/host command.

b

Installation, range, or restricted airspace that was inactive for at least some period between the end of World War II and the beginning of the 

Korean War (1946-1951)

c

Source: installation web site history

d

Source: Los Angeles Sectional Aeronautical Charts dated Feb 1943, Mar 1945, Feb 1950, Sep 1954; 

Phoenix Sectional Aeronautical Charts dated Apr 1940, Feb 1943, Mar 1945, Feb 1950, Aug 1954, Nov 1988; 

San Diego Sectional Aeronautical Charts dated Aug 1940, Feb 1942, Feb 1943, Mar 1945 

e

Source: USAF 1999

f

Source: The California State Military Museum at http://www.militarymuseum.org/HistoryPosts.html

g

Source: Federal Register Volume 62, Number 83, 30 April 1997

h

Source: Federal Register Volume 71, Number 9, 13 January 2006

1 Over the two decades following WWII, the Nation replaced low-frequency radio-range and remaining 

2 visual ground-reference airways with airways based on the advanced very high frequency, 

3 omnidirectional range (VOR) transmitters. VOR airways (also referred to as Victor [V] airways) continue 

4 to form an important foundation of the Nation‘s air navigation system. The same factors that influenced 

5 the placement of the visual ground-reference and low-frequency radio-range airways also guided 

6 development of the Victor airway network and, with slight adjustments in alignment, Green 4, Green 5, 

7 and Red 9 became V-12, V-16, and V-66, respectively. The complexity and volume of aviation activity in 

8 the region has, however, increased many-fold since conversion to the Victor airway system was initiated. 

9 V-12, V-16, and V-66 continue to be key components in the regional airway network but the number and 

10 density of airways in that network has been correspondingly increased to add access to many additional 

11 locations and carry the air traffic loads (Figure 3-1). Stratification of the airway network into low- and

12 high-altitude structures also occurred as the size, altitude capabilities, range, and speed of civil aircraft 

13 increased dramatically after WWII. The low- and high-altitude structures are divided at 18,000 feet MSL 

14 with the Victor airway system supporting air navigation below that altitude and the jet route system 

15 supporting flight at or above that altitude. Jet routes were established using the same radio navigation aids 

16 used for Victor airways but generally provide longer and straighter segments for long-distance high-speed 

17 flight.

18 The CMAGR, ECR, BMGR, and YPG (shown on Figure 1-4) were all created during the short period 

19 from fall 1941 through 1943 just as the low-frequency radio-range airway system neared its full 

20 implementation. Some naval aviation training, including aerial bombing, was also occurring at 

Twentynine Palms by 1945 but this range was not activated by the Marine Corps until 1952.421 Although 

22 the ranges established during the early 1940s experienced some inactivity during the period between 

23 WWII and the Korean War, all of these ranges and the MCAGCC have been in continuous use since that 

24 later conflict. Year-round flying weather, undeveloped expansive land spaces, realistic training and test 

25 conditions, and relatively few conflicts with existing land uses were among the original prime motivations 

26 for establishing military ranges in southern California and southwestern Arizona. The availability of 

27 relatively unencumbered airspace was also a critical factor favoring the prospective range locations in 

28 California and Arizona. Green 4, Green 5, and Red 9 represented the extent of the federal airway network 

29 in the vicinities of these locations and the CMAGR, ECR, BMGR, YPG, and MCAGCC were each 

 

4 The Twentynine Palms facility was activated by the Marine Corps in 1952. The facility was named the ―Marine 

Corps Training Center Twentynine Palms‖ in February 1953. In February 1957, it was renamed Marine Corps Base, 

Twentynine Palms. In February 1979, it was designated ―Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center.‖ Currently, it is 

known as the ―Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, 

Twentynine Palms.‖
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-6 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 established in unallocated airspace that did not conflict with this network. The local aviation footprint in 

2 the areas of the future CMAGR and BSTRC was also minimal in 1940 before WWII as indicated by the 

3 fact that only eight communities, and no military, airports were charted in these areas and all but one of 

4 these were located beneath or closely adjacent to Green 5 or the soon to be activated Red 4 (U.S. 

5 Department of Commerce, U.S. Geodetic Survey 1940). 

6 The importance of the BSTRC area to both military and civil aviation has increased markedly since the 

7 1940s as indicated by the presence of the CMAGR, ECR, BMGR, and YPG; special use airspace and 

8 MTRs supporting activities on these ranges and other defense operations; three military airfields; 28 civil 

9 airports; one joint military and civilian use airfield; and low- and high-altitude airway networks of 

10 increased complexity (see Figure 3-1). The National Airspace System would have developed differently 

11 in the BSTRC area had the CMAGR, ECR, BMGR, YPG, and special use airspace not been established 

12 beginning in the 1940s. The reality, however, is that creation of these ranges and their overlying special 

13 use airspace occurred after the federal airway network had been established and did not conflict with the 

14 selection of the priority corridors for that initial network. Creation of the military ranges and special use 

15 airspace also does not appear to have displaced any of the charted airfields in operation at the time. 

16 Compromises were to come on both sides over the next six plus decades in the process of supporting civil 

17 and military aviation in the region as the federal airway system grew, additional special use airspace and 

18 MTRs were designated, new airfields were established, some existing airfields expanded or contracted, 

19 and some airfields were closed. The near continuous presence of military and civil aviation in the region, 

20 however, has shaped airspace and airspace use such that each has a legitimate and defining role.

21 3.2.2 Military Use Airspace

22 Training at the BSTRC is supported by restricted airspace, CFAs, MOAs, ATCAA, and MTRs (Table 3-2

23 and see Figure 1-6). At the CMAGR, restricted areas R-2507N, R-2507S, and R-2507E directly overlie 

24 more than 85 percent of the range land area and serve to contain and segregate live-fire training and other 

25 military activities that would be hazardous to non-participating aircraft (see Figure 1-5). The principal 

26 hazardous activities occurring in these restricted areas involve aircraft delivery of air-to-ground or air-to27 air ordnance but also occurring are ground-to-ground fires from artillery and mortars, expenditures of 

28 ground-to-air ordnance, ricochets from surface-fired heavy machine guns and the use of other infantry 

29 weapons, high explosive (HE) detonations of demolition charges, and maneuvers by tactical aircraft at 

30 night without illuminated recognition lights. 

31 The two CFAs overlie an additional 7 percent of the CMAGR, an area that includes SWATs 4 and 5 (see 

32 Table 3-2 and Figure 1-5). The CFAs provide the controlled environment necessary to allow Navy 

33 SEALs, or other ground troops, to conduct live-fire training with some infantry weapons, such as mortars 

34 and HE demolition charges, which would be hazardous to non-participating aircraft if the fires of selected 

35 weapons or HE detonations were not suspended during the flight of these aircraft through the CFAs. The 

36 combination of the CFAs and R-2507N provide special use airspace to support live-fire use of certain 

37 weapons in the SWATs. In this effective combination, firing positions are located in the SWATs and 

38 either the targets are located in R-2507N or the SDZs for the weapon projects into R-2507N.

39
R-2507E

R-2507N

R-2507S

R-2510A

R-2510A and B

R-2512

Kane East

MOA/ATCAA

Kane West

MOA

Abel East

MOA

Abel North

MOA/ATCAA

Imperial

South

ATCAA

Imperial North

ATCAA

Abel South

MOA/ATCAA

Quail

MOA/ATCAA

R-2308A

R-2306C

R-2306A

R-2308B

R-2306D

R-2309

R-2308C

R-2306E

R-2307

R-2311

R-2308B

R-2301W

R-2301E

Dome

MOA/ATCAA

Kane South

MOA

Naval Air Facility

El Centro

Loom Lobby

Range

Shade Tree

Range

Inkey Barley

Range

Kitty

Baggage

Range

Laguna Army

Airfield

Yuma International /

Marine Corps 

Air Station Yuma

Yuma

Proving

Ground

Barry M.

Goldwater

Range West

Barry M.

Goldwater

Range East

Abel Bravo

MOA/

ATCAA

CMAGR

Mexico

California

Arizona

California

Dateland

Airfield

Quail

Mesa

Ranch

Somerton

W R

Byron

Borrego

Air Ranch

Desert

Julian Hinds Center

Pump Plant

Airstrip

Hunt's

Sky Ranch

Rancho

Vallecito

Desert Air

Sky Ranch

Emory

Ranch

Walter's

Camp

Morton

Castle

Dome Army

Heliport

Rolle

Airfield

Agua

Caliente

Blythe

Borrego

Valley

Brawley Muni

Calexico

Intl

Cliff

Hatfield Memorial

Chiriaco

Summit

Holtville Imperial

County

Jacumba

Ocotillo

Palm

Springs

Intl Bermuda

Dunes

Jacqueline

Cochran

Rgnl

Salton

Sea

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_JetRoutes_Airfield.mxd (BLC 6/29/2012)

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Legend

Military Airfield

Military-civilian Joint-use Airfield

Civilian Public Use Airfield

Civilian Private Airfield

Airways

High Altitude Jet Route

(18,000 - 45,000 Feet MSL)

Low Altitude (Victor) Airways

(Below 18,000 Feet MSL)

Military Land Range

State Boundary

Special Use Airspace

Restricted Airspace

Military Operations Area (MOA) / 

Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA)

Airways and Airfields

within the CMAGR

Operating Area

Figure 3-1

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 6 12 18 24

Miles

Map Scale 1:850,000

0 6 12 18 24

Kilometers

3-7

Source:

Jet Routes: YRMD 2010 - 2011

Airfield: BTS 2011

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Rang

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-8 

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chap

Table 3-2 Special Use Airspace, ATCAA, and Training Ranges in the BSTRC Area

a 1

Special Use Airspace/ATCAA Associated Training Ranges Published Altitudes

b 

Airspace Over or Contiguous to the CMAGR

R-2507N CMAGR: air-to-air/air-to-ground, SWAT 4 and SWAT 5 Surface to 40,000 

R-2507S CMAGR: air-to-air/air-to-ground Surface to 40,000 

R-2507E CMAGR: air-to-air/air-to-ground Surface to 40,000 

CFA Niland CMAGR: SWAT 4 Surface to 5,000 

CFA Bombay CMAGR: SWAT 5 Surface to 5,000 

Abel North MOA/ATCAA Aviation only, no underlying land range 7,000 to 40,000 

Abel South MOA/ATCAA Aviation only, no underlying land range 7,000 to 40,000 

Abel East MOA Aviation only, no underlying land range 5,000 to but not including 13,000 

Abel Bravo MOA/ATCAA Aviation only, no underlying land range 7,000 to 40,000 

Kane East MOA/ATCAA Aviation only, no underlying land range 10,000 to 40,000 

Kane South MOA Aviation only, no underlying land range 10,000 to but not including 18,000 

Kane West MOA Aviation only, no underlying land range 10,000 to but not including 18,000 

Airspace Over the ECR

R-2510A ECR: air-to-ground Surface to 15,000 

R-2510B ECR: air-to-ground 15,000 to 40,000 

R-2512 ECR: air-to-ground Surface to 23,000 

Other BSTRC Airspace 

R-2301W BMGR-W: Air-to-Air, TACTS, Cactus West, Urban Training 

Complex, Auxiliary Airfield (AUX) II

Surface to 80,000 

R-2306A/B/E YPG: testing and training Surface to 80,000 

R-2306C YPG: testing and training Surface to 40,000 

R-2306D YPG: testing and training Surface to 23,000 

R-2307 YPG: testing and training Surface to Unlimited 

R-2308A YPG: testing and training 1,500 AGL to 80,000 

R-2308B YPG: testing and training Surface to 80,000 

R-2308C YPG: testing and training 1,500 AGL to 23,000 

R-2309 YPG: Tethered Aerostat Radar System border surveillance Surface to 15,000 

R-23011 YPG: testing and training Surface to 3,500 

Dome MOA/ATCAA Aviation only, no underlying range 6,000 to 80,000 

Imperial North/South ATCAAs Aviation only, no underlying range 19,000 to 40,000 

Quail MOA/ATCAA Aviation only, no underlying land range 10,000 to 22,000 

Turtle MOA/ATCAA Aviation only, no underlying land range 11,000 to 22,000 

a

See Figure 3-1 for airspace locations except that Turtle MOA/ATCAA, which is to the north of Quail MOA/ATCAA is not depicted. 2

b

Feet above MSL unless noted as above ground level (AGL) 3

c

7 days per week unless otherwise stated, may be active at other times as announced by Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) 4

d Area is typically active 24 hours per day/7 days per week 5

e Notice to Airman—time-critical aeronautical information for immediate dissemination 6

7
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-9 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The CMAGR and restricted areas R-2507N, R-2507S, and R-2507E are located within a larger airspace 

2 complex that also includes seven MOAs, four ATCAAs, and three other restricted areas—R-2510A and B 

3 and R-2512 (see Table 3-2 and Figure 1-6). Although live-fire training with aircraft weapons can only 

4 occur within restricted airspace, the adjacent MOAs and ATCAAs enhance the versatility and realism of 

5 this training by expanding the airspace available for tactical maneuvers before or following ordnance 

6 delivery actions in R-2507N, R-2507S, and R-2507E at the CMAGR. Abel North, Abel South, and Kane 

7 East MOA/ATCAAs and the Abel East MOA are particularly useful for supporting this type of training 

8 because these airspace areas are contiguous with the CMAGR. The MOAs and ATCAAs adjacent to the 

9 CMAGR also provide airspace for flight training that does not involve ordnance deliveries or other 

10 hazardous activities. Activation of the Imperial North and/or South ATCAAs, which encompass the gap 

11 between the CMAGR and YPG restricted airspace complexes, can provide high-altitude military-use 

12 airspace with an east-west axis of up to 110 NM. 

13 R-2510A and B and R-2512 are activated to support training at the ECR in ordnance delivery, laser target 

14 designation, helicopter landing zone operations, and parachute air drops. 

15 Thirteen MTRs, which share nine centerlines, are currently located within 5 NM of the R-2507N/S/E 

16 restricted airspace at the CMAGR (Table 3-3 and see Figure 1-6). Three of these MTRs—IR-216, IR-217,

17 and VR-1266—can be used in direct conjunction with training missions at the CMAGR. These three 

18 MTRs provide entry to the CMAGR and allow aircrews to practice long-distance, low-level, terrain 

19 following, high-speed flight as a tactic for attacking a target while using terrain to mask their approach 

20 and evade detection. Seven of the MTRs support similar low-level, high-speed approaches for training at 

21 the Loom Lobby and Shade Tree ranges within R-2510A (see Table 3-3 and Figure 1-6). Four other 

22 MTRs transit airspace in the near vicinity of R-2507N/S/E but do not directly support operations either at 

23 the CMAGR or within R-2510A. 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-10 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-3 Military Training Routes within Five Nautical Miles of the CMAGR

Instrument 

(IR) or 

Visual (VR) 

MTRaScheduling Agencyb Hours of Use

Route 

Segment 

Widths

Authorized Floor

and Ceiling

Entry to 

CMAGR

Entry to 

R-2510A

IR-214 3d MAWc, MCAS 

Miramar

Even numbered days, 

daylight

2 to 8 NM 200 AGL

6,000 to 8,000 MSL

No No

IR-216 3d MAW, MCAS 

Miramar

Even numbered days, 

daylight

6 NM 200 AGL

7,000MSL

Yes No

IR-217 3d MAW, MCAS 

Miramar

Continuous 10 NM 200 to 1,500 AGL

6,000 to 7,000 MSL

Yes No

IR-218 3d MAW, MCAS 

Miramar

Continuous 4 to 10 NM 500 AGL to 4,500 MSL

4,000 to 6,000 MSL

No No

VR-288 452 OSS/DOTd, 

March ARBe

Continuous 10 NM 300 AGL

1,000 to 3,000 MSL

No Yes

VR-289 452 OSS/DOT, 

March ARB

Continuous 10 NM 300 AGL

1,000 to 4,500 MSL

No Yes

VR-296 452 OSS/DOT, 

March ARB

Continuous 10 NM 300 AGL

1,000 to 4,000 MSL

No Yes

VR-299 452 OSS/DOT, 

March ARB

Continuous 10 NM 300 AGL

1,000 to 4,000 MSL

No Yes

VR-1211 452 OSS/DOT, 

March ARB

Continuous 10 NM 300 AGL

1,500 MSL

No Yes

VR-1257 CO, Strike Fighter 

Wing, NAS Lemoore

Daylight hours or by 

NOTAM

3 to 4 NM 200 to 2,500 AGL

1,500 AGL

No Yes

VR-1266 CO, MCAS Yuma 0700 to 1800 local 3 to 6 NM 200 AGL

1,500 AGL

Yes Yes

VR-1267 CO, MCAS Yuma 0700 to 1800 local 4 to 8 NM 200 AGL

1,500 AGL

No No

VR-1268 CO, MCAS Yuma 0700 to 1800 local 2 to 8 NM 200 AGL

1,500 AGL

No No

a 2 IR = Instrument Flight Rules (IFRs) MTR. IRs must be flown under IFRs regardless of weather conditions. VR = Visual Flight 

3 Rules (VFRs) MTR. VRs flown under VFRs, which means that aircrews are responsible for seeing and avoiding other aircraft. 

4 VFR minimums for MTR operations are at least 5 miles of flight visibility and a cloud ceiling of no less than 3,000 feet AGL.

b 5 Agency responsible for scheduling use of a MTR.

6

c MAW = Marine Aircraft Wing

d 7 OSS = Operations Support Squadron

e 8 ARB = Air Reserve Base

9

10 3.2.3 Air and Ground Training Operations 

11 Training for tactical air and ground combat occurs at the CMAGR both as separate and combined arms 

12 elements. Air combat training also occurs in the MOAs and ATCAAs that are adjacent to the CMAGR 

13 and at the nearby ECR. Tactical aviation training is a particularly fast-paced and complex activity 

14 demanding that pilots and other aircrew members master many individual skills that they can integrate as 

15 necessary to perform an assigned mission. Twenty-five types of tactical aviation training activities 

16 currently occur on a regular basis at the CMAGR, adjacent MOAs and ATCAAs, and/or ECR to provide 

17 aircrews with the repertoire of combat skills they need (Table 3-4). Types of tactical aviation training 

18 other than those listed in Table 3-4 may also occur at the CMAGR on an irregular or as needed basis. 

19 Future requirements for new types of training also will likely emerge to prepare aircrews to meet 

20 developing threats or to employ new aircraft, such as the MV-22 and F-35, and weapons systems as they 

21 come on line and mature operationally. Of the 25 tactical aviation training activities listed in Table 3-4, 

22 21 are supported at the CMAGR. Most training sorties involve more than one type of tactical aviation 

23 activity and many involve the delivery of one or more types of ordnance.
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-11 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-4 Common Aviation Training Activities at the CMAGR, ECR, and Adjacent 

2 MOAs/ATCAAs

Air Combat Training Activity

Abel/Kane MOAs/ATCAAs

R-2512 at ECR

R-2510A/B at ECR

R-2507N/S/E at CMAGR

Aerial Delivery: aircraft release parachuting personnel, sensors, equipment, or supplies. X X

Aerial Photography: develop proficiency with handheld cameras. X

Aerial Refueling: develop proficiency in day and night aerial refueling. X X

Air Combat Maneuvering: offensive and defensive air-to-air combat tactics. X X X X

Air-to-Air Gunnery: air-to-air gunnery at an airborne target. X

Air-to-Air Missile Firing: engaging an airborne target with an air-to-air missile. X

Air-to-Ground Inert Ordnance Delivery: ground attack with conventional inert ordnance at day or night 

or in instrument weather conditions. X X X

Air-to-Ground Live Ordnance Delivery: ground attack with conventional live ordnance at day or night 

or in instrument weather conditions. X

All-Weather Operations: missions under all weather conditions, including air-to-air intercepts started 

beyond visual range where weapons engagement does not depend on visual identification. No weapons are 

launched or fired.

X

Close Air Support: flights designed to support friendly ground forces by delivering conventional air-toground ordnance, as directed by a forward air controller, on enemy positions in close proximity to the 

supported friendly forces.

X

Combined Strike Tactics: combined air-to-ground strike with coordination of several types of aircraft 

and aircraft weapons. X

Direct Air Support Holding: develop proficiency in the tactics of timing a supporting air-to-ground 

strike from a nearby holding position. X

Fighter Intercepts: air-to-air weapons intercepts started beyond visual range where weapons engagement 

depends on visual identification. X

Formation Flight: develop day or night proficiency in tactical formations and maneuvers. X

Forward Air Control Airborne: control attack/fighter aircraft in close air support or direct air support 

missions. X

Helicopter Attack: teach the fundamentals of or develop tactical proficiency in any aspect of helicopter 

attack. X

Helicopter/MV-22 External Cargo Lifts: flights in which weights, personnel, cargo, vehicles, or aircraft 

are suspended from a helicopter or MV-22 and transported. X

Helicopter/MV-22 Forward Arming and Refueling: develop tactical proficiency in FARP operations. X

Helicopter/MV-22 Insertions and Extractions: develop tactical proficiency in inserting and extracting 

ground forces in battlefield areas. X

Helicopter/MV-22 Night Vision Goggle Operations: day or night flying with helmet mounted, thermal 

imaging devices.

X X X

Helicopter/MV-22 Landing Zone Operations: flights designed to develop tactical proficiency in 

forward landing zone operations. X

Laser Targeting: use of weapons systems with laser target designators to attack ground targets. X X

Post Maintenance Check Flight: review and validate the conditions of an aircraft following maintenance. X X

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations: flight operations conducted using remotely controlled UASs. X

Visual Reconnaissance: visually locating targets, assessing topography, or assessing enemy order of 

battle. X

3
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-12 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Utilization of the restricted airspace at the CMAGR and in the adjacent special use airspace is reported 

annually to the FAA in accordance with FAA Order JO 7400.2H52 . Data from recent reports show that 

3 annual military flight activity in R-2507N/S/E fluctuated from high to low over the period of FY 2006 

4 through FY 2010 by over 20 percent (Table 3-5). Such variations in year-to-year utilization rates are 

5 common. The majority of fixed-wing training missions at the CMAGR require scheduling of both 

6 R-2507N and R-2507S airspace, which means that a single training mission for a fixed-wing aircraft at 

7 the range is typically recorded as one sortie for both restricted areas. Thus, the annual R-2507N and 

8 R-2507S sortie counts at the range are similar but not additive. R-2507E was established to be activated 

9 jointly with R-2507S to support the same training missions; consequently, the utilization rates for 

10 R-2507S and R-2507E are identical for FY 2007 through FY 2010. Since R-2507E was not established 

11 until part way through FY 2006, the sortie count in this year for this restricted area is only about one-third 

12 of the count for R-2507S. Overall, the data for R-2507N/S/E combined indicate that in recent years the 

13 CMAGR has been used for more than 6,000 training sorties annually but use has not eclipsed 

14 7,000 sorties. 

15 Abel North, Abel South, and Kane East are the MOA/ATCAAs that are the most frequently used in 

16 conjunction with training at the CMAGR. Utilization data for the Abel North, Abel South, and Kane East

17 MOA/ATCAAs shows flight training activity in these airspace areas to also vary from year-to-year 

18 although total use occurs in the MOA/ATCAAs at a lesser rate than in R-2507N/S/E. 

19 A second metric, the operation, is also used to measure special use airspace utilization particularly as a 

20 tool for assessing noise generated by aircraft. The term operation is used to quantify aircraft movements. 

21 For example, if the objective is to quantify aircraft noise at an airfield, then an operation is defined as a 

22 single aircraft movement, such as a landing, take‐off, or flight in a closed pattern about the runway. For 

23 airspace and ranges, an operation comprises the use of one airspace unit—which could be a restricted 

24 area, MOA, or ATCAA or a subunit of one of these airspace areas—by one aircraft. Each time a single 

25 aircraft flies in a different airspace unit, one operation is counted for that unit. Often, one flight by one 

26 aircraft in a restricted area, MOA, or ATCAA is counted as one operation for each airspace area 

27 equivalent to the manner in which sorties would be counted. For some training missions, however, a 

28 single sortie could also be recorded as more than one operation. If, for example, a mission at the CMAGR 

29 included two aircraft using R-2507N/S/E for high altitude fighter intercepts for 20 minutes and then only 

30 R-2507N for low altitude strafing attacks for 20 minutes, then the mission would be scored as two sorties 

31 in each of R-2507N/S/E but as four operations in R-2507N, to reflect the use of high and low altitude 

32 airspace units, and two operations in each of R-2507S/E, to reflect the use of only the high altitude 

33 airspace unit. In this example, the operations metric provides a more detailed representation of aircraft 

34 movements that generate noise than would the sortie metric. As a result, the number of operations flown 

35 in special use airspace may be registered as greater than the number of sorties. The 2010 Final U.S. 

36 Marine Corps EIS for the West Coast Basing of the F-35B (DoN 2010b) provides such an example. As 

37 noted previously, the F-35 aircraft, which will begin to replace AV-8B aircraft at MCAS Yuma and 

38 selected models of the F/A-18 aircraft at MCAS Miramar as early as 2012, will be flown at the CMAGR. 

39 Analyses in the West Coast Basing of the F-35 FEIS included an assessment of existing baseline noise 

40 conditions at the CMAGR with AV-8B and F/A-18 aircraft but no F-35s and projections of the noise 

41 conditions that would occur with the F-35s, no AV-8Bs, and the retirement of some F/A-18s. These noise 

42 assessments, which are referenced in detail later in this LEIS, were based on a baseline of 7,376 flight 

43 operations at the CMAGR in FY 2006, which exceeds the roughly 5,385 and 5,608 sorties reported for 

44 the R-2507N/S/E airspace (see Table 3-5).

 

5

Special Use Airspace Annual Utilization Reports are prepared for each restricted area and MOA. Use is reported as the number 

of sorties flown in the subject airspace for the applicable federal year. One sortie equals one flight by one aircraft from takeoff to 

landing. A mission that requires an aircraft to be operated in more than one special use airspace area on a single flight may be 

counted as a single sortie in each special use airspace area used.
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-13 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-5 Annual Utilization of the Special Use Airspace at and Adjacent to the Chocolate 

Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range a 2

Airspace Area

Federal Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

R-2507N Sorties 5,385 5,617 6,349 6,662 6,287

Days Utilized 305 297 297 304 305

Average Sorties/Day 18 19 21 22 21

R-2507S Sorties 5,608 5,677 6,411 6,868 6,319

Days Utilized 307 301 307 313 304

Average Sorties/Day 18 19 21 22 21

R-2507E bSorties 1,999 5,677 6,411 6,868 6,319

Days Utilized 133 301 307 313 304

Average Sorties/Day 15 19 21 22 21

Abel North 

MOA/ATCAA

Sorties 3,885 4,566 4,417 4,688 4,543

Days Utilized 264 286 294 287 285

Average Sorties/Day 15 16 15 16 16

Abel South 

MOA/ATCAA

Sorties 3,870 4,674 4,578 4,786 4,517

Days Utilized 266 288 298 302 290

Average Sorties/Day 15 16 15 16 16

Abel East MOA Sorties 311 440 463 473 316

Days Utilized 42 39 55 63 53

Average Sorties/Day 7 11 8 8 6

Abel Bravo 

MOA/ATCAA

Sorties 267 505 521 467 383

Days Utilized 31 45 62 53 67

Average Sorties/Day 9 11 8 9 6

Kane East 

MOA/ATCAA

Sorties 1,994 1,953 2,063 2,189 2,342

Days Utilized 241 236 242 251 205

Average Sorties/Day 8 8 9 9 11

Kane South MOA Sorties 505 301 341 337 392

Days Utilized 64 47 79 63 76

Average Sorties/Day 8 6 4 5 5

Kane West MOA Sorties NA NA NA NA NA

Days Utilized NA NA NA NA NA

Average Sorties/Day NA NA NA NA NA

R-2510A Sorties NA NA NA NA NA

Days Utilized NA NA NA NA NA

Average Sorties/Day NA NA NA NA NA

R-2510B Sorties NA NA NA NA NA

Days Utilized NA NA NA NA NA

Average Sorties/Day NA NA NA NA NA

R-2512 Sorties 1,833 1,684 1,520 1,636 1,976

Days Utilized 235 200 209 221 224

Average Sorties/Day 8 8 7 7 9

a 3 Data compiled from Special Use Airspace Annual Utilization Reports FY 2006 through 2010. Special Use Airspace Annual 

4 Utilization Reports are prepared in accordance with FAA Order JO 7400.2H.

b 5 R-2507E was first established during FY 2006 and was available for use for only the last few months of the year.

6

7 As already indicated, both the Marine Corps and NSWG-1 conduct ground combat training at the 

8 CMAGR. Marine ground combat training usually involves activities that integrate the functions of ground 

9 and air forces. These activities typically occur at designated support areas located in and around the 

10 lateral limits of the R-2507N/S/E airspace (see Figure 1-5). NSW training generally occurs within 

11 SWATs 4 and 5. 

12 The semiannual WTI Course, which is conducted by Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron 

13 One (MAWTS-1) stationed at MCAS Yuma, is the premiere, complex training event that incorporates 

14 Marine ground units at the CMAGR although ground units also take part in other periodic multifaceted 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-14 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 exercises at the range or conduct periodic individual unit training. Ground personnel participating in the 

2 WTI Course perform land-based air control, air defense, electronic warfare, communications, forward air 

3 control, forward arming and refueling of helicopters, UAS operations, insertions or extractions of non4 mechanized infantry units by helicopter or MV-22, or other combat or combat support functions. Most 

5 units deploying to the CMAGR occupy designated ground support areas that have been pre-selected to 

6 provide both tactical realism and safe working areas for troops participating in a live-fire exercise that 

7 combines air and ground forces. CMAGR locations designated to support ground forces include 

8 observation posts, artillery firing areas, FARPs, landing zones, and the UAS operating area, Field ASP, 

9 and bivouac and work area (see Figure 1-5). Ground troop use of these ground support areas also has 

10 environmental management benefits. Those areas selected to support activities that involve military 

11 vehicles generally exhibit ground surfaces that are resistant to damage and cumulative deterioration from 

12 vehicle use. Other types of potential impacts from ground troop activities are largely controlled by 

13 standard environmental protection measures. Human sewage at base camps and other locations of troop 

14 concentrations is contained in portable toilets and removed by commercial contractor to approved sewage 

15 treatment facilities. All litter is policed and contained daily to be carried off the range to approved landfill 

16 sites. Vehicles are restricted to approved roads except when operating in a designated ground support 

17 area. Fuel tankers, vehicles being fueled, and other stationary equipment such as generators that may leak 

18 fuels or lubricants are placed over temporary containment aprons formed by plastic sheeting and sandbags 

19 to catch inadvertent spills. A hazardous materials response plan and team is in place at MCAS Yuma to 

20 respond immediately to any spills.

21 Insertions or extractions of troops occur from helicopters or MV-22s operating at designated landing 

22 zones or from helicopters that either enter a low hover or land at any range location that is tactically 

23 realistic to the training mission and meets operational safety requirements. Units of up to a battalion in 

24 size, 300 to 400 troops, may be inserted in some exercises but insertions of company strength units, about 

25 110 to 140 troops, or smaller are more common. Teams as small as four troops are inserted to perform 

26 forward air control, reconnaissance, or other low-profile functions during some exercises. An inserted unit 

27 may remain at the insertion site until extracted or may move on foot to another location from which they 

28 may be extracted. Some extractions occur via vehicles on designated range roads rather than by helicopter 

29 or MV-22. Troops moving cross-country carryout all litter generated by their activities. Human waste is 

30 buried in individual cat holes. 

31 Ground unit participation in the WTI Course and similar training with combined air and ground elements 

32 helps to create a training environment that realistically simulates the complexities and sophistication of 

33 modern air-ground combat, enhances the quality of the instruction received by WTI students, provides 

34 valuable instruction to ground units in their own specialties, and develops the experience air and ground 

35 elements need to effectively integrate their actions in combined arms combat. 

36 In contrast to Marine Corps ground combat training at the CMAGR, which occurs at intermittent intervals 

37 usually in association with aviation training and/or WTI, NSW training occurs within SWATs 4 and 5 on 

38 a continuous, year-round basis. The NSW program accommodates up to about 350 Navy SEALS per 

39 training evolution.

40 3.2.4 Military Surface Use and Roads

41 An inventory of military surface use at the CMAGR was prepared for this LEIS to identify how the 

42 various areas of the range are used to support training operations and to quantify the area of the range 

43 committed to each use. Surface use was categorized in the inventory by activity and by the levels of 

44 physical disturbance that the various categories of activities have on the ground surface, vegetative 

45 communities, and surface drainages. The methodology used for surface use inventory is provided in 

46 Appendix C.
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-15 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The surface use inventory found that currently nearly the entire surface of the CMAGR is used in some 

2 capacity to support military training. Each area of the range used for training support can be classified as 

3 belonging to either one or both of two broad use categories and to either one or two of nine use 

4 subcategories. The two broad use categories include (1) tactical training weapons ranges and (2) other 

5 training areas (Figure 3-2). The weapons ranges category, which includes all of the tactical weapons 

ranges used for aviation and ground combat training, is subdivided into five subcategories66 :

7 Target simulations and other earthwork features

8 Core weapons impact areas

9 Secondary weapons impact areas

10 Weapons delivery containment area 

11 SWATs 4 and 5

12 The other training areas category, which includes all other areas of the CMAGR that support training 

13 operations, is subdivided into four subcategories:

14 Ground support areas

15 No live-fire training, support, and range access control areas

16 Camp Billy Machen 

17 Range access roads

18 3.2.4.1 Target Simulations and Weapons Impact and Containment Areas

19 The subcategory for target simulations and other earthwork features include activities that involve 

20 grading, excavating, or depositing soil or otherwise reshaping the ground surface to replicate tactical 

21 battlefield features (see Figure 3-2). The subcategory includes all runways, aircraft parking revetments, 

22 surface-to-air missile sites, and other earthwork features that were prepared to appear as battlefield 

23 features from the air. Core weapons impact areas include the locations closest to target features in which 

24 the greatest concentrations of ordnance impact the ground. Core weapons impact areas are locations 

25 where the vegetative community, ground surfaces, and surface drainage patterns have been substantially 

26 or completely disrupted from the natural norm by the aggregate volume of ordnance that impacts in the 

27 area over time. The core weapons impact area for each target was defined in accordance with the extent of 

28 impact disruptions that have resulted from training use rather than by the application of standard radius 

29 criteria. 

30 Secondary weapons impact areas form a second concentric band centered around a target that is typically 

31 larger than the inner core weapons impact area (see Figure 3-2). The secondary weapons impact area 

32 extends outward from the outer limit of the core weapons impact area to the farthest extent of ordnance 

33 impacts that can be readily attributed to deliveries on that target. Ordnance impacts at the inner perimeter 

34 of a secondary weapons impact area are relatively concentrated but the surface disturbance effects of 

35 impacts in this area are less pronounced than those observed in the core weapons impact area. On the 

36 average, ordnance impact effects diminish sharply in secondary weapons impact area with distance from 

37 the target to the point at the outer limit of this area beyond which ordnance impacts attributable to that 

38 target cease to be detectable. 

39 

6 The terms ―core weapons impact areas, secondary weapons impact areas, and weapons delivery containment areas‖ 

were developed for this LEIS to describe quantifiable areas of surface disturbance caused by ordnance delivery 

training at the CMAGR. They have no relation to range safety as prescribed in MCO 3570.1B or with weapon 

danger zones or surface danger zones.
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad (Inactive)

R-2507E

R-2507N

R-2507S

R2510A

R2510B R-2512

Camp Billy

Machen

Controlled

Controlled

Firing Area

Bombay

Niland

Area

Firing

Coachella Canal

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

R

i

ve

rs

ide 

C

o

u

n

ty

Imp

e

rial 

C

o

u

n

ty

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_Military_Surface_Use.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Gas Line

Transmission Line

Controlled Firing Area

Restricted Airspace

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Railroad

Military Surface Use Area

Tactical Training Weapons Range

Target or Other

Earthwork Feature

Active Core Weapons

Impact Area

Active Secondary

Weapons Impact Area

Inactive Core Weapons

Impact Area

Inactive Secondary

Weapons Impact Area

SWATs 4 and 5

Weapons Delivery

Containment Area

Other Training Area

Camp Billy Machen

Additional Training, Support,

and Range Control

Ground Support Area

Road Corridor (15 feet wide)

Non-Military Use Area

Excess—No Assigned

Military Function

Inactive Railroad Corridor

(40 feet wide)

Canal Dike Road Corridor

(15 feet wide)

Existing Military 

Surface Use

at the CMAGR

Figure 3-2

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

3-16

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Military Surface Use and Non-Military Use: URS 2011 - 2012

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2012

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BLM 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-17 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The weapons delivery containment area includes the range space that extends from the outer perimeters of 

2 the secondary weapons impact areas to the lateral limits of the R-2507N/S/E restricted airspace or the 

3 land boundary of the CMAGR, whichever is nearest to the range interior (see Figure 3-2). Ordnance 

4 impacts in this area are generally widely disbursed and cannot be readily attributed to attempts to deliver 

5 ordnance on any specific target. The aggregate effects of ordnance impacts in the weapons delivery 

6 containment area have not disrupted natural vegetative communities, ground surfaces, or surface drainage 

7 patterns in any cumulatively apparent manner that departs from the norms for these landscape features. 

8 3.2.4.2 Weapons and Surface Danger Zones

9 Although ordnance impacts within the weapons delivery containment area occur relatively infrequently in 

10 widely scattered locations, the essential importance of the containment area to the capability of the 

11 CMAGR to support live-fire training is confirmed by weapon danger zones (WDZs) and SDZs developed 

12 for the range (MCAS Yuma 2010). A WDZ defines the ground and airspace needed to laterally and 

13 vertically contain projectiles, fragments, debris, and components resulting from the firing, launching, 

14 and/or detonation of aircraft delivered ordnance. The DoD standard for risk acceptance on all ranges is a 

15 99.9999 percent level of containment, which means that the probability of munitions (for inert ordnance) 

16 or a hazardous fragment (for live ordnance) escaping the containment area is one in a million. SDZs are 

17 prepared to determine the restricted land and airspace requirements to laterally and vertically contain

18 projectiles, fragments, debris, and components resulting from the firing, launching, or detonation of 

19 ground-to-ground or ground-to-air weapons such as artillery, mortars, or surface-to-air missiles. SDZs 

20 provide a 99.9999 percent level of containment for each type of ground-to-ground or ground-to-air

21 weapon employed at a range. Both WDZs and SDZs must be wholly within the limits of the installation 

22 and overlying special use airspace (MCO 3570.1B). 

23 A three-dimensional WDZ must be prepared for each type of aircraft, weapon, method of weapon 

24 delivery, and target terrain. A composite WDZ, which is the summation of all acceptable individual 

25 WDZs for a particular range, is prepared to determine the minimum area needed to contain approved 

26 ordnance delivered from aircraft at that range. Land uses that are not a participating part of the training 

27 mission of the range and consistent with personnel safety are allowed within the range composite WDZ 

28 (MCO 3550.11). Similarly, a composite SDZ provides a summation of all acceptable individual SDZs for 

29 a particular range and defines the minimum land and airspace areas needed for safe live-fire training with 

30 all applicable weapons. 

31 Figure 3-3 shows current composite WDZs and SDZs for the CMAGR. The composites are compilations 

32 of the WDZs and SDZs for the individual aircraft ordnance delivery and ground-based firing missions 

33 that occur at the range. Although the current composites are generally representative of how land and 

34 airspace at the CMAGR supports live-fire training, the composites for any given past or future year would 

35 likely vary somewhat from those shown in Figure 3-3 as a result of differences in the aircraft, air and 

36 ground weapons. The current WDZ and SDZ composites encompass 100 percent of the core and 

37 secondary weapons impact areas, 80 percent of the weapons delivery containment area, and 67 percent of

38 SWATs 4 and 5. The composites for any year could be expected to fully encompass the core and 

39 secondary weapons impact areas, but the proportions of the containment area and SWATs that are 

40 encompassed in WDZs or SDZs may fluctuate to some extent in reflection of changes in the training 

41 missions performed. In any respect, the current composites demonstrate the essential function of the 

42 weapons delivery containment area of the range. 

43 3.2.4.3 SWATs 4 and 5

44 SWATs 4 and 5 host 30 designated firing ranges for NSW or Marine ground unit training with small arms 

45 and various other types of man-portable infantry weapons. As a result of the nature of the special warfare 

46 training that predominates in the SWATs and the weapons used, the firing ranges are not heavily 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-18 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 developed or affected by ordnance impacts and detonations. Thus, the SWATs are addressed in the 

2 surface use inventory as a single unit that generally supports similar training missions and activities 

3 throughout its area (see Figure 3-2). Camp Billy Machen is included as a separate category in the surface 

4 use inventory because of the unique features of this developed cantonment and training area.

5 3.2.4.4 Ground Support Areas

6 As already noted, specific locations, which are collectively referred to as ground support areas, have been 

7 designated at the CMAGR to support training activities by ground forces. Individual ground support areas 

8 are designated for use as observation posts, artillery firing areas, FARPs, landing zones, a UAS operating 

9 area, a Field ASP, and a bivouac and work area (see Figure 1-5). With certain exceptions, ground support 

10 areas appear in the military surface use inventory as a collective category (see Figure 3-2). The ground 

11 support areas that appear as such in the inventory exhibit levels of surface disturbance from the activities 

12 that they support that distinguish them from surrounding unused areas. The ground support areas that do 

13 not appear in this inventory category include the observation posts, 9 of the 10 artillery firing areas, 2 of 

14 the 6 FARPs, and the 11 landing zones that are located outside of the 4 FARPs that are included. None of 

15 these areas were physically distinguishable from the surrounding use areas. The 13 observation posts, 9 of 

16 the 10 artillery firing areas, and most of the landing zones are located in either the secondary weapons 

17 impact or weapons delivery containment areas. The artillery firing area that is included in the ground 

18 support areas category is co-located with a FARP that also appears. The location of many of the ground 

19 support areas in either the secondary weapons impact or weapons delivery containment areas 

20 demonstrates how the range is used to afford flexible support for various training missions. When these 

21 ground support areas are activated for training missions that involve ground unit participation, then no 

22 ordnance deliveries with WDZs or SDZs that would encumber the occupied support areas are allowed 

23 unless means are in place to protect exposed ground personnel.

24 3.2.4.5 Additional Training, Support, and Range Access Control Areas and Road Network

25 The additional training, support, and range access control areas identified in the military surface use 

26 inventory include areas of the CMAGR that are external to either its restricted airspace or CFAs and 

27 therefore cannot support live-fire training. These areas can be used, however, for any of a number of

28 ground-based training or range management activities such as offsite helicopter or MV-22 landings for 

29 troop insertions or extractions, cross-country navigation or path finding exercises for small infantry 

30 teams, or staging sites for target maintenance or clearance activities. These peripheral areas are also 

31 managed to limit land uses to those that would be compatible with the CMAGR training mission.

32 A road network has been established at the CMAGR to provide access for constructing and maintaining 

33 its infrastructure, conducting range operational clearances, training, and managing natural and cultural 

34 resources. The Gas Line and Niland-Blythe roads are used by commercial utility companies to access the 

35 gas line and overhead electric transmission lines that cross the range for inspection, maintenance, or 

36 repairs.

37

38
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad (Inactive)

R-2507E

R-2507N

R-2507S

Controlled

Controlled

Firing Area

Bombay

Niland

Area

Firing

Controlled

Firing Area

Bombay

Controlled

Firing Area

Niland

Coachella Canal

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

R

i

ve

rs

ide 

C

o

u

n

ty

Imp

e

rial 

C

o

u

n

ty

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_WDZ_SDZ.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Controlled Firing Area

Restricted Airspace

SWAT Range Surface Danger Zones

Air-to-Ground Laser Safety Danger Zones

Weapon Danger Zones for

Currently Active Training Events

Available Weapon Danger Zones

for Potential Training Events

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Railroad

Weapon and Surface Danger

Zones and Laser Safety Danger

Zones at the CMAGR

Figure 3-3

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

3-19

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Danger Zones: USMC Range Training Area Management 2012

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BLM 2010

Imagery: Bing Aerials © 2010 Microsoft Corporation

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-20 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 3.2.4.6 Surface Use Inventory Findings

2 The observational and quantified findings of the military surface use inventory of the CMAGR are 

3 provided in Table 3-6. The inventory found that about 99.48 percent of the range surface is used to 

4 support the military mission of the range and only about 0.56 percent of the range, or about 2,571 acres, 

5 has no assigned military mission. The land with no assigned military mission is the area of the range that 

6 is north of the Bradshaw Trail and south of the Nyland-Blythe Road (see Figure 3-2). Only a small 

7 proportion of the range, about 5 percent, supports surface uses that cause or may cause moderate to 

8 complete levels of physical disturbance to the ground surface, vegetative communities, and surface 

9 drainages. The military surface uses listed in Table 3-6 that cause or may cause moderate-to-high to 

10 complete levels of physical disturbance include:

11 Target simulations and other earthwork features

12 Core weapons impact areas

13 Secondary weapons impact areas

14 Some ground support sites

15 Camp Billy Machen and its adjacent operating areas

16 Range road corridors

17 Secondary weapons impact areas are included in this list because the interiors of these areas closest to the 

18 target are moderately to highly impacted by ordnance deliveries. However, the effects of ordnance 

19 impacts typically decrease sharply in these areas with increasing distance from the target such that the 

20 levels of disturbance at their outer perimeters is negligible. As a result, more than half of the area of the 

21 secondary weapons impact areas can be estimated to exhibit less than moderate levels of disturbance. 

22 Thus, the proportion of the CMAGR surface that is moderately to completely disturbed by military 

23 activities is likely no more than 2 percent, although it is reported as about 5 percent in this LEIS to be 

24 conservative. 

25 The CMAGR road network includes an aggregate total of 427 miles excluding road segments that traverse 

26 target simulations or core weapons impact areas. Some are improved roads, but most are not.

27 3.2.5 Non-Military Surface Use and Roadless Areas 

28 Dikes developed to protect the Coachella Canal from uncontrolled surface runoff and the inactive Eagle 

29 Mountain Railroad are located within the CMAGR along its western and northern boundaries (see 

30 Figure 3-2). In aggregate, these two non-military surface uses encompasses less than 100 acres (see

31 Table 3-6). Three other non-military surface uses cross the CMAGR including a natural gas pipeline and 

32 two electric power transmission lines (see Figure 3-2). Although these utilities are designated as 

33 avoidance areas for ordnance delivery training, the roads that were developed for constructing and 

34 servicing these utilities are also used for military transportation. Thus, these dual-purpose road corridors 

35 are included in the inventory of military, rather than non-military, surface uses.

36
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-21 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-6 Military and Non-Military Surface Use Areas at the CMAGR

Surface Use Area Associated Surface Disturbance

Total

Area in

Acres

Percentage 

of CMAGR 

Affected*

Military Surface Use

1 Target simulations and other earthwork 

features 

Physical disturbance of entire ground surface, extensive alteration of surface drainage, and 

complete removal of native vegetation community. Periodic re-grading of target 

simulations/earthworks keep vegetation communities from re-establishing and re-disrupt 

surface drainage.

200 0.04

2 Core weapons impact area Disturbance of ground surface at or near some targets is extensive to complete where highyield HE ordnance detonations over time result in concentrated and coalescing craters that 

may reach depths in excess of 10 feet. Vegetative communities are eliminated near targets. 

Natural surface drainage patterns can be substantially altered. In areas farther from targets 

where impact craters densities are lower and do not overlap, ground surfaces between craters 

and vegetative communities are still subject to ordnance blast and shrapnel effects and ejecta 

from craters. Use over time is likely to subject nearly any ground location in the core weapons 

impact area to ordnance delivery effects.

2,309 0.5

3 Secondary weapons impact area Clusters of high-yield HE impact craters cause concentrated ground disturbance in some 

localized areas, especially at and near individual targets, but impact craters numbers and 

densities generally decrease sharply with increasing distance from targets. Physical 

disturbance of the ground surface also generally decreases sharply with distance from 

individual targets and natural processes shaping ground/soil surfaces, surface drainages, and 

vegetative communities become increasingly predominant. Physical disturbance in the regions 

of this area closest to the target is moderate to complete; disturbance in the outer region 

decreases from moderate to negligible with increasing distance from the target.

19,391 4.23

4 Weapons delivery containment area Some scattered ordnance impact craters but, in the context of the broader landscape 

disturbances to ground surfaces and vegetative and wildlife communities, these impacts are 

negligible; natural processes shaping ground/soil surfaces, surface drainages, and vegetative

and wildlife communities function without discernable constraint from ordnance delivery.

369,788 80.7

5 Ground support sites (21 individual sites 

including FARPs, Firebase Burt/Staging Area, 

Siphon 8 Bivouac and Work Area, Field ASP, 

UAS airstrip, and additional training sites)

Moderate to complete levels of disturbance to ground surfaces, surface drainages, and 

vegetative communities. Disturbances in FARPs, Firebase Burt/Staging Area, and additional 

training sites result in moderate to high levels of disturbances in areas of concentrated and 

repeated use by vehicles, troop bivouacs, aircraft landings and takeoffs, aircraft refueling and 

rearming, and other ground unit work areas such as communications or air control sites. 

Construction/grading of Siphon 8 Bivouac and Work Area, Field ASP, and UAS airstrip 

required complete reshaping of the existing ground surface; however, the airstrip and 

associated ground troop bivouac and work areas are located within a larger inactive and 

historic rock quarry site in which the ground surfaces, surface drainages, and vegetative 

communities had been previously and completely altered from the undisturbed natural 

condition.

429 0.09

6 Camp Billy Machen and associated static 

ranges

High to complete levels of disturbance to ground surfaces, surface drainages, and vegetative 

communities as a result of the construction and use of the Camp Billy Machen and associated 

static ranges.

134 0.03
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-22 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Surface Use Area Associated Surface Disturbance

Total

Area in

Acres

Percentage 

of CMAGR 

Affected*

7 SWATs 4 and 5 Negligible to low levels of disturbance to ground surfaces, surface drainages, and vegetative 

communities over most of the SWAT live-fire training area. Moderate to high levels of 

disturbance to ground surfaces, surface drainages, and vegetative communities in some small 

and dispersed areas (individually less than an acre) where concentrated or repeated use by 

Navy SEALs has occurred.

31,593 6.9

8 Additional training, support, and range access 

control areas

Negligible levels of disturbance to ground surfaces, surface drainages, and vegetative 

communities over most of areas as a result of military training and range support activities. 

Low to moderate levels of disturbance in some dispersed perimeter areas near public use 

roads outside of the range likely due to trespass off-highway vehicle (OHV) use by nonmilitary users.

30,817 6.7

9 Range road corridors (427 miles of road 

segments in aggregate with a standardized 

corridor width of 15 feet, excludes road 

segments that traverse target simulations or 

core weapons impact areas (Lines 1 and 2))

High to complete levels of disturbance to ground surfaces, surface drainages, and vegetative 

communities within road corridors. Corridors vary in width as they result from lightly-used, 

single-lane tracks to frequently-used graded roads. Area calculations are based on a standard 

corridor width of 15 feet to represent an average disturbance and influence zone associated 

with road maintenance and use.

740 0.16

10 Total Military Surface Use (Sum of Lines 1 - 9) 455,399 99.35

Non-Military Surface Use

11 Excess area-—land north of the Bradshaw 

Trail, which has no assigned military function

Negligible levels of disturbance to ground surfaces, surface drainages, and vegetative 

communities over most of areas; low to moderate levels of disturbance in some small and 

dispersed areas likely due to non-military activities including OHV use.

2,778 0.61

12 Inactive railroad corridor (9.28 miles of 

corridor with a width of 40 feet)

Complete levels of disturbance to ground surfaces, surface drainages, and vegetative 

communities within the railroad road corridor.

44 <0.01

13 Canal dike corridors (27 miles of aggregate 

corridor with a width of 15 feet)

Complete levels of disturbance to ground surfaces, surface drainages, and vegetative 

communities within these graded canal dike corridors.

45 <0.01

14 Total Non-Military Surface Use (Sum of Lines 11 and 15) 2,868 0.63

15 Total Military and Non-Military Surface Use (Sum of Lines 10 and 16) 458,267 100.0

1 * The percentage for each line is calculated as line area divided by 458,267 acres, the total area of the CMAGR as determined by summing all of the individual surface use areas of 

2 the range. The sizes of the individual surface use areas were determined by geographic information system (GIS) analysis. This summation value for the area of the range is 263 

3 acres, or about 0.06 percent, smaller than the total area of the range (458,530 acres) reported elsewhere in this LEIS, including in Section 1.1, which was also determined by GIS 

4 analysis. The second and larger figure is the area encompassed by the external boundary of the CMAGR. The summation value is smaller because of overlaps between the 

5 polygons representing the many separate use area designations, which are small in any one location but collectively account for a 263-acre underestimate of the area of the range. 

6
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-23 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 DoI guidance for preparing land withdrawal applications provide that roadless areas or roadless islands 

2 having wilderness characteristics be identified within the requested withdrawal area (43 CFR

3 § 2310.3-2(b)(3)(ii)). The proposed renewal of the CMAGR is for the continued use of a military range 

4 that has been in use for nearly 70 years. Although there are undeveloped and relatively undisturbed areas 

5 in the range that are 5,000 acres or more, the minimum area required by the Wilderness Act of 1964 

6 (16 U.S.C. 1131, et seq.), ongoing use of these areas to receive dispersed impacts from live and inert 

7 ordnance, off-site helicopter or MV-22 landings, and cross-country infantry movements renders an 

8 assessment of wilderness characteristics as inappropriate. Thus, the roadless area assessment has been 

9 limited in this LEIS to identifying the areas within the CMAGR that are not bisected by roads, target 

10 simulations, other earthwork features, core and secondary weapons impact areas, ground support areas, 

11 railroads, or canal dikes, which collectively occupy about 5 percent of the range surface (Figure 3-4). 

12 Although affected by and needed to support military use, the 95 percent of the range that is roadless 

13 remains in a relatively undeveloped, unstructured, and undisturbed condition. Military purposes served by 

14 these areas include serving as weapons delivery containment areas; no live-fire training, support, and 

15 range access control areas; or SWAT 4 or 5 (see Figure 3-2). There are 14 roadless areas in the CMAGR 

16 that are 5,000 acres or more in size (Table 3-7). Most of these areas, including the largest area 

17 encompassing about 139,430 acres, are classified as weapons delivery containment areas.

18 Table 3-7 Numbers of Roadless Areas at the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range 

19 in Selected Size Categories

Roadless Area Category

Number of Roadless

Areas Comments

Less than 1,000 acres 241

1,000 acres to 5,000 acres 15

5,001 acres to 10,000 acres 7

10,001 acres to 20,000 acres 2 Roadless areas of 15,954 and 17,690 acres

20,001 acres to 40,000 acres 3 Roadless areas of 22,752, 24,538, and 36,160 acres

40,001 acres to 100,000 acres 1 Roadless area of 73,814 acres

greater than 100,001 acres 1 Largest roadless area is 139,430 acres

20

21 3.2.6 Ordnance Expenditures

22 Ordnance expenditures occur at the CMAGR as essential parts of both air and ground combat training. As 

23 already indicated, the range is approved for training with most types of conventional (i.e., non-nuclear) 

24 ordnance, including some fire (i.e., NAPALM) and cluster bombs, although limits are placed on the 

25 employment of all weapons to ensure that hazards associated with their use are contained within the land

26 and airspace boundaries of the range. The CMAGR, like all Marine Corps ranges, is not approved for 

27 expenditures of depleted uranium rounds.

28 The types, variants, and volumes of ordnance expended each year at the CMAGR varies in accordance 

29 with the specific training missions performed, the availability of ordnance for training, and the prevailing 

30 tempo of training, which in turn can reflect international affairs and deployments by Marine Corps and 

31 Navy units that are otherwise home stationed in the CMAGR operating region. Although year-to-year 

32 ordnance expenditures at the CMAGR vary, expenditures for a single year are nevertheless typical of the

33
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad (Inactive)

R-2507E

R-2507N

R-2507S

R2510A

R2510B R-2512 Coachella Canal

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

R

i

ve

rs

ide 

C

o

u

n

ty

Im

p

e

rial 

C

o

u

n

ty

Largest

Roadless Area

149,308 Acres

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_Roadless_Areas.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Restricted Airspace

Roadless Area

Road Corridor

Core and Secondary 

Weapons Impact Area

Ground Support Area

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Railroad

Roadless Areas

at the CMAGR

Figure 3-4

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

3-24

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Military Surface Use: URS 2011 - 2012

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2012

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BLM 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-25 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

general pattern of ordnance use. Table 3-8 shows ordnance expenditures for Fiscal Year (FY) 200471 and 

2 descriptions of the ordnance are provided in Appendix D. These data were collected for the West Coast 

3 Basing of the F-35 FEIS that addressed the need to find appropriate military air installations in the 

4 western United States at which to base Marine Corps F-35 aircraft, which will begin replacing legacy 

5 F/A-18 and AV-8B aircraft as early as in 2012. The FY 2004 ordnance data continue to provide a fair 

6 perspective of current and foreseeable expenditures at the CMAGR with some updates to account for 

7 trends in warfighting tactics, improvements in military ordnance, and new aircraft weapons systems

8 capabilities. Annual training use of 2.75-inch rockets had nearly tripled from about 2,850 in FY 2004 to 

9 about 8,500 in FY 2009 and expenditures of 20mm cannon rounds nearly doubled from about 134,000 

10 rounds to about 260,000 rounds. At the same time, the use of the MK-76 inert training bombs, which are

11 25-pound subcaliber devices with smoke producing spotting charges that simulate the delivery trajectories

12 of full-sized and unguided bombs, decreased by about one-half from the FY 2004 figure of almost 11,500. 

13 Most dramatic over the same time period has been an about 18-fold increase in training expenditures of 

14 the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) from only 17 rounds in FY 2004 to over 300 annually by FY 

15 2009. The Global Positioning System (GPS) guided JDAM, which is listed as the GBU-31 in Table 3-8, 

16 was relatively new in 2004 and, although used extensively in warfighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, had not 

17 yet been widely incorporated in training. Precision-guided weapons like the JDAM have become 

18 mainstays of U.S. air combat tactics because of the significant advantages that they offer in combat 

19 effectiveness and reduced collateral damage over conventional unguided munitions. The training variant 

20 of the JDAM used at the CMAGR is a full-sized weapon with a GPS guidance system but has an inert 

21 warhead.

Table 3-8 Ordnance Expenditures at the CMAGR in FY 2004a22

Ordnance

Air-To-Ground Training 

Expenditures

WTI Course 

Expenditures

SEAL Training 

Expenditures

Total Rounds 

Expended

2.75-inch Rocket HE 2,832 2,832

2.75-inch Rocket Inert 26 26

5-inch Rocket HE 584 584

20mm Cannon 134,298 134,298

25mm Cannon 4,800 4,800

30mm Cannon 800 800

MK-20 Inert 591 591

MK-20 HE 8 8

MK-76 11,453 11,453

MK-77 NAPALM Incendiary 13 13

MK-82 HE 2,186 2,186

MK-82 Inert 20 20

MK-83 HE 1,302 1,302

MK-83 Inert 8 8

MK-84 HE 80 80

MK-84 Inert 2 2

MK-86 49 49

MK-87 1 1

CBU-20 6 6

CBU-58 4 4

CBU-87 158 158

CBU-99 160 160

CBU-100 8 8

BDU-13 4 4

BDU-16 26 26

BDU-20 20 20

 

7

1 October 2003 through 30 September 2004
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-26 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Ordnance

Air-To-Ground Training 

Expenditures

WTI Course 

Expenditures

SEAL Training 

Expenditures

Total Rounds 

Expended

BDU-24 2 2

BDU-33 82 82

BDU-45 735 735

BDU-48 596 596

BDU-87 32 32

BDU-99 42 42

GBU-10 8 8

GBU-12 56 56

GBU-16 33 33

GBU-23 10 10

GBU-24 72 72

GBU-31 17 17

GBU-40 8 8

GBU-42 11 11

GDU 2 2

TOW Missile 17 17

AGM-114 Hellfire Missile 11 11

AGM-122 Sidearm Missile

(AIM-9)

4 4

AGM-88 HARM 1 1

LGTR 419 419

LUU-2 87 87

LUU-19 8 8

CHAFF 533 533

Flares 734 734

60mm WP/RP/SMK/ILL 120 120

60mm HE 200 908 1,108

81mm WP/RP/SMK/ILL 360 360

81mm HE 540 540

155mm WP/RP/SMK/ILL 312 312

155mm HE 1,060 1,060

M72A2 66mm HE LAW Missile 152 152

40mm HE 9,073 9,073

40mm Inert 18,260 18,260

84mm HE 1,636 1,636

84mm Inert 244 244

Demolition Charge 8,234 8,234

Total Rounds Expended 204,159

a 1 Data Source: Department of the Navy (DoN). 2010b. Appendix C-1.7 Modeled Ordnance at Chocolate Mountain Aerial 

2 Gunnery Range. Final EIS for the West Coast Basing of the F-35B, Volume 2. October. 

3

4 3.2.7 Operational Range Clearance Program

5 As described in Section 2.2.4.2, the Marine Corps currently conducts an operational range clearance 

6 program at the CMAGR on an ongoing annual basis in accordance with MCO 3550.12. The purpose of 

7 the program is to destroy and remove military munitions—including UXO and munitions debris—and 

8 other range-related debris from range targets or other contaminated areas. This is done to maintain or 

9 enhance operational range safety and prevent the accumulation of such material from impairing or 

10 preventing continued operational range use. 

11 The CMLWOA provided that the Secretary of the Navy was to maintain a range decontamination 

12 program at the CMAGR, to the extent that funds were made available, that would, at a minimum, match 

13 the level of the program that was performed in FY 1986 (P.L. 103-433 § 807(a)). Based on available 

14 funding and the practice at the time, the program in FY 1986 was limited to clearing UXO or other 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-27 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 hazards from range roads and target surface areas to provide safe access and work areas for personnel 

2 constructing and maintaining targets or performing other authorized duties on the range. These clearances 

3 were scheduled only as needed in advance of range maintenance and construction activities. By standard 

4 operating procedure, range clearance records were kept for three years and then discarded. Range 

5 clearances at the CMAGR occurred in the same mode as the FY 1986 program through FY 2008. In FY 

6 2009, funding was made available to implement an operational range clearance program at the CMAGR 

7 in accordance with MCO 3550.12, which was issued by the Commandant of the Marine Corps in August 

8 2008. 

9 In keeping with the program‘s concept of operations, which is described in Section 2.2.4.2, a baseline 

10 clearance of each active target area at the CMAGR has been completed. The results of the baseline 

11 clearance include:

12 FY 2009—1,554 tons of munitions and other range debris were cleared from seven target areas 

13 encompassing 841 acres in aggregate at a cost of $8,319,500.

14 FY 2010—about 1,274 tons of munitions and other range debris were cleared from seven target 

15 areas encompassing 597 acres in aggregate at a cost of $3,127,177.

16 FY 2011—about 531 tons of munitions and other range debris were cleared from 17 target areas 

17 encompassing about 1,455 acres in aggregate at a cost of $7,209,472.

18 In total from FY 2009 through FY 2011, the baseline clearance removed 3,359 tons of munitions and 

19 other range debris from the 29 active target areas at the CMAGR, which encompassed about 2,893 acres 

20 in aggregate. Three of the 29 active target areas were cleared twice in the three years of record. The total 

21 of about 2,893 acres cleared compares favorably to the approximately 2,500 acres in aggregate that were 

22 classified as target simulations and core weapons impact areas in the military surface use inventory (see 

23 Table 3-6). The first three years of the operational range clearance program cost a total of $18,656,149.

24

25 3.3 NON-MILITARY LAND USE

26 This section discusses land use conditions in the area potentially affected by the CMAGR land 

27 withdrawal. The following discussion focuses primarily on existing and future land use conditions within 

28 the 5-mile region of influence (ROI); however, a larger planning area within the vicinity of the CMAGR 

29 is included to provide a regional land use context (Figure 3-5).

30 3.3.1 Regional Land Use Setting

31 The CMAGR is located in a remote region of the eastern California desert. With very few exceptions, the 

32 land use that has developed in the ROI over the last century has remained stable. Along the northernmost 

33 section of the CMAGR is a series of geologic features with basin and range formations. These stark 

34 natural features create a natural buffer along the boundary of the CMAGR. Toward the western region of 

35 the CMAGR, the lands remain primarily undeveloped with small nodes of scattered residential dwellings, 

36 recreational activities, and renewable natural resource exploration. Toward the southernmost region of the 

37 CMAGR is the largest node of development activity, which is primarily industrial in nature with active 

38 recreation areas and utility and transportation corridors. This area includes the UPRR ROW and the 

39 Reclamation Coachella and Highline Canal system, ultimately expanding toward the Imperial Valley 

40 agricultural belt and the Salton Sea State Recreational Area (SRA). See Figure 3-5, Non-Military Land 

41 Use at the CMAGR for land uses within the ROI and the vicinity of the CMAGR. 
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-28 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 With the exception of the town of Niland, the community of Bombay Beach, and pockets of other 

2 outlying communities, very few permanent residential developments are located within the ROI of the 

3 Range. This region of the desert is not urbanized, which allows for expanses of natural undisturbed open 

4 space, natural resources exploration, utility corridors, agriculture, and multiple recreational activities. 

5 3.3.2 Land Status and Management Responsibilities 

6 Lands within and along the perimeter of the CMAGR are described in this section in terms of land status 

7 or jurisdiction. Land status depicts the limits of administration or jurisdiction maintained by the major 

8 landholders or administrators. Land status designations are important as they directly determine agency 

9 jurisdiction, expenditure of management funds, and basic land use and resource management.

10 3.3.2.1 Land Status and Management Authorities within the CMAGR

11 In general, land jurisdiction within the CMAGR follows a checkerboard pattern (see Figure 1-2). As 

12 discussed in Section 1.5, approximately 51 percent of the CMAGR is DoN land and is managed in 

13 accordance with the Sikes Act. Most of the balance of the land is managed by the BLM in accordance 

14 with FLPMA. 

15 The FLPMA provides the BLM with an overarching mandate to manage the public lands and resources 

16 under its stewardship under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. ―Multiple use‖ is a concept 

17 that directs management of public lands and their resource values in a way that best meets the present and 

18 future needs of Americans, defined as a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into 

19 account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources (BLM 

20 1976). The BLM manages its land within the CMAGR in accordance with the Northern and Eastern 

21 Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (BLM 2002a), an amendment to the California Desert 

22 Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan.

23 The Sikes Act requires DoD agencies to develop resource management plans for the natural resources and 

24 land associated with Nation‘s military reservations, including those composed entirely of withdrawn 

25 public land. The Sikes Act also sets forth specific resource management policies and guidance for U.S. 

26 military installations and requires the preparation of INRMPs for installations, such as the CMAGR. 

27 3.3.2.2 Regional Land Jurisdictions, Greater CMAGR Region – Federal 

28 California Desert Conservation Area Plan: Designated by the FLPMA in 1976, the CDCA is a 25-

29 million acre expanse of land in Southern California. About 10 million acres are administered by the BLM. 

30 The Range and surrounding region is included in the CDCA. Congress directed the BLM to prepare and 

31 implement a comprehensive, long-range plan for the management, use, development, and protection of 

32 the public lands within the CDCA based on the concepts of multiple use, sustained yield, and 

33 maintenance of environmental quality. The CDCA establishes goals for protection and use of the desert, 

34 designates distinct multiple use classes for the lands involved, and establishes a framework for managing 

35 the various resources within these classes. These lands are managed in a controlled balance between 

36 higher intensity use and protection. A wide variety of uses, such as mining, livestock grazing, recreation, 

37 energy, and utility development, are allowed. Damage that permitted uses cause must be mitigated (BLM 

38 1980). 

39
111

Arizona

California

95

Mexico

Eagle Mountain

Railroad

(Inactive)

Union Pacific Railroad

Camp Billy

Machen

Palen/McCoy Joshua

Tree

Chuckwalla

Mountains

Mecca

Hills

Orocopia

Mountains

Santa

Rosa

Little

Chuckwalla

Mountains

Palo Verde

Mountains

Imperial

Indian Refuge

Pass

North

Algodones

Dunes

Picacho

Peak

Little

Picacho

Fish Creek

Mountains

Sawtooth

Mountains

SALTON

SEA

Blythe

Frink

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

Brawley

Blythe

Bombay

Beach

Riverside County

Imperial County

Riverside County

San Diego County

Imper ai l County

San D ei go 

County

Salvation

Mountain

10

10

Trigo

Mountains

Chuckwalla

Desert Wildlife

Management Area

Corn

Springs

Mule

Mountains

Dos

Palmas

San Sebastian

Marsh/San

Felipe Creek

North

Algodones

Dunes

Palen

Dry Lake

Alligator Rock

Chuckwalla

Valley Dune

Thicket

Lake

Cahuilla

- A

Lake

Cahuilla

- B

Singer

Geoglyphs

West

Mesa

Indian

Pass

Camp Dunlap (Slab City) Midway Substation

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_Non_Military_LandUse.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Region of Influence - Five Miles

Camp Billy Machen

Bombay Beach

Gas Line

Transmission Line

Substation

Mesquite Mine

Mesquite Regional Landfill

Salton Sea Recreation Area

BLM Imperial Sand Dunes

Recreation Area

BLM Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern

BLM Wilderness Area

City\Town\Locale

County Boundary

Railroad

Interstate

Highway

Non-Military

Land Use within

the CMAGR Vicinity

Figure 3-5

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

3-29

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Miles

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Kilometers

Map Scale 1:475,000

Source:

ACEC, Recreation Area, Wilderness: BLM 2008 - 2010

Mequite Mine and Regional Landfill: YRMD 2011

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BLM 2010

Imagery: Bing Aerials © 2010 Microsoft Corporation

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-30 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (NECO): The NECO 

2 (BLM 2002a) is an amendment to the 1980 CDCA. The NECO is a landscape-scale, multi-agency 

3 planning effort that protects and conserves natural resources while simultaneously balancing human uses 

4 within a planning area that encompasses over five million acres. Lands within the NECO area are popular 

5 for hiking, hunting, rockhounding, and driving for pleasure. Several commercial mining operations, 

6 livestock grazing, OHV recreational areas, and utility transmission corridors exist in the area as well. The 

7 NECO‘s planning boundary extends from the southwestern alignment of the CMAGR northeast toward 

8 Interstate 40 and southwest to Interstate 10. 

9 Western Colorado Desert Routes of Travel Designations (WECO) Amendment: The WECO is an 

10 amendment to the CDCA that designates preferred routes of travel across public lands managed by the 

11 BLM in the WECO Planning Area. The planning area covers approximately 475,000 acres and 

12 approximately 2,320 miles of OHV routes in parts of Imperial and San Diego counties. The WECO‘s 

13 planning boundary extends south and west of the CMAGR toward the Salton Sea. Following the CDCA, 

14 as amended, the BLM manages the type and level of OHV use to create an environment that promotes the 

15 health and safety of visitors and employees and alleviates conflict between nearby residents and 

16 recreational users (BLM 2002b).

17 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP): The plan establishes a 

18 reserve system to protect biodiversity while facilitating development in other parts of the Coachella 

19 Valley. The CVMSHCP provides for the protection and enhancement of biological values, with emphasis 

20 on the Big Morongo, the Fringe Toed Lizard Preserve, and the Dos Palmas Areas of Critical 

21 Environmental Concern. The BLM provides a portion of the federal funding toward development and 

22 implementation of the CVMSHCP (BLM 2002c).

23 3.3.2.3 Regional Land Jurisdiction – State

24 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Regional Transportation Plan: The Southern California 

25 Association of Governments‘ (SCAG) Intergovernmental Review (IGR) section, part of the 

26 Environmental Planning Division of Planning and Policy, is responsible for performing consistency 

27 reviews of regionally significant local plans, projects, and programs. The CMAGR is located within the 

28 regional planning boundary of the SCAG. Regionally significant projects are required to be consistent 

29 with SCAG‘s adopted regional plans and policies such as the Regional Comprehensive Plan and the 

30 Regional Transportation Plan. The criteria for projects of regional significance are outlined in California 

31 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15125 and 15206 (SCAG 2008).

32 3.3.2.4 Regional Land Jurisdiction – County 

33 The State of California Government Code Section 65300, states that each ―county or city shall adopt a 

34 comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county....‖ Furthermore, 

35 Government Code Section 65302 states that, ―The general plan shall consist of a statement of 

36 development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, 

37 standards, and plan proposals.‖ The CMAGR is located within the management authority of both 

38 Riverside and Imperial counties. Both counties have adopted General Plans (Governor‘s Office of 

39 Planning and Research [GOPR] 2005). 

40 Riverside County General Plan: The Riverside County General Plan covers the entire unincorporated 

41 portion of Riverside County and is augmented by 19 more detailed Area Plans covering the County's 

42 territory with the exception of the undeveloped desert areas. The goal of the General Plan is to manage 

43 the overall pattern of development more effectively. The Area Plans provide a clear and more focused 

44 opportunity to enhance community identity within Riverside County and stimulate quality of life at the 

45 community level. The Eastern Riverside County Desert Area (Non-Area Plan) governs the land densities 
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-31 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 north of the Riverside/Imperial County boundary line west toward Coachella Valley and east toward 

2 Blythe (Riverside County 2008).

3 The Imperial County General Plan: The Imperial County General Plan consists of nine elements titled 

4 Land Use, Housing, Circulation and Scenic Highways, Noise, Seismic and Public Safety, Agricultural, 

5 Conservation and Open Space, Geothermal and Transmission, and Water. Also included in the General 

6 Plan is a Land Use Map designating a series of land use categories which identifies locations, and 

7 discusses the type and anticipated maximum allowable density of ultimate development within the 

8 County (Imperial County 1993).

9 3.3.3 Land Use 

10 Lands along the perimeter of the CMAGR within the ROI are described in this section in terms of 

11 jurisdiction, existing land use, and future land use. The BLM is the single largest jurisdictional entity in 

12 the immediate vicinity of the range. No active commercial grazing leases have been identified within the 

13 ROI. Land uses within the ROI and the vicinity of the CMAGR are indicated on Figure 3-5, Non-Military 

14 Land Use at the CMAGR.

15 3.3.3.1 Northern Section

16 The lands described in this section are located toward the northern boundary of the CMAGR, adjacent to 

17 the Dos Palmas Preserve Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and the western tip of the 

18 Range, north and east toward the Little Chuckwalla Mountains. This northern section of the CMAGR is 

19 located within BLM‘s Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office and Riverside County Planning 

20 Boundaries. 

21 The vast majority of the lands in this area are administered by the BLM, and much of the land is 

22 designated as ACECs (see Figure 3-5). These lands are generally undeveloped and used primarily as open 

23 space and conservation with some recreational uses such as hiking, camping, bird watching, hunting, and 

24 rockhounding. 

25 In addition to the BLM lands, there are scattered parcels of private and State Trust lands. Privately owned 

26 parcels are scattered along the Bradshaw Trail within Riverside County‘s jurisdiction. Some parcels have 

27 isolated residential dwellings, although the majority appear to be abandoned or are rarely inhabited. Some 

28 private parcels have recently been purchased by private developers and donated to the BLM to mitigate 

29 for the development or renewable energy on other land in the region. In addition, there are small parcels 

30 of State Trust lands in this area that are administered by the California State Lands Commission 

31 (Figure 3-5, Land Ownership in the vicinity of the CMAGR).

32 The Riverside County planning department is currently updating their 5-Year General Plan for future land 

33 use. General Plan Amendment No. 960 includes the area along the north section of the CMAGR. The 

34 ―Eastern Riverside County Desert Plan‖ is the overlying county planning document that encompasses this 

35 area of the CMAGR. The draft update states, ―Development in areas surrounding the Chocolate Mountain 

36 Aerial Gunnery Range shall remain limited and compatible with the Open Space Foundation 

37 Component.‖ Once the updates to the plan are approved, new planning policies will be enacted that will 

38 ―Prohibit new residential land uses, except construction of a single-family dwelling on a legal residential 

39 lot of record, within the current 60 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level contours of the Chocolate 

40 Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range‖ (Riverside County 2011).

41 3.3.3.2 Eastern Mid-section

42 The lands described in the following sections are located toward the east and south of the mid-section of 

43 the CMAGR, and adjacent to the Riverside and Imperial county divide. The BLM El Centro Field Office 
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-32 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 manages the area south of the county divide. The majority of land within the CMAGR is within the 

2 planning jurisdiction of Imperial County. The existing land use within this area is heavily associated with 

3 renewable natural resources and utility infrastructure, with the land ownership checkerboard divided 

4 between public and private ownership (Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3, Land Ownership in the vicinity of the 

5 CMAGR). Residential dwellings are scattered throughout this area. Based on a review of aerial 

6 photography and limited field reconnaissance, it is difficult to discern if the dwellings on certain privately 

7 held parcels are abandoned or seldom used as a weekend retreat. 

8 The Imperial County Comprehensive Plan has delineated future land use of these lands as ―Open Space 

9 and Recreation Land Uses,‖ with the majority of the land uses within this category consisting of 

10 environmentally sensitive areas, parks, fault zones, floodways and floodplains, agricultural lands, and 

11 areas designated for the managed production of mineral resources (Imperial County 2007).

12 3.3.3.3 Southeastern Section

13 The BLM El Centro Field Office and Imperial County have jurisdiction over the southern section. The 

14 land use pattern associated with the southeast ROI is generally industrial in nature, with some recreational 

15 activities. The existing Mesquite Gold Mine abuts the CMAGR in this area. The Mesquite Gold Mine is 

16 operated as an open pit mine with leaching pads for processing. It is considered to be one of the largest 

17 active gold mines in the country (New Gold 2011). Adjacent to the mine site is the newly permitted 

18 Mesquite Regional Landfill administered by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (SDLA). The 

19 landfill covers approximately 4,245 acres and is permitted to receive waste by rail. A 5-mile rail spur 

20 connects the landfill to the UPRR mainline, near the destinations of Glamis, Algodones Dunes, and the 

21 Imperial Sand Dunes Recreational Area (ISDRA) (SDLA 2011).

22 3.3.3.4 Southwestern Section

23 The BLM El Centro Field Office and Imperial County have jurisdiction within the Southwestern 

24 CMAGR ROI. The existing land use patterns are diverse and include several regionally significant 

25 destinations and culturally relevant attractions. In this area of the CMAGR, the UPRR and the Coachella 

26 Canal currently act as physical barriers for land use transition.

27 The town of Glamis is located south of the southernmost reach of the CMAGR. This area is associated 

28 with the ISDRA and is considered to be a winter haven for recreational and OHV visitors. The area has 

29 very few permanent structures or infrastructure and the land is managed largely by BLM. Imperial County 

30 has created a Specific Plan in this area to assist in the management of the temporary population boom that 

31 can occur overnight during the winter months and holiday weekends (Imperial County 2007). The ISDRA 

32 is further discussed in Section 3.3.8, Recreation. 

33 The existing land use within the ROI of the CMAGR in the southwestern section is primarily uninhabited 

34 and transitions from generally recreation in nature to agricultural near the UPRR-Coachella Canal 

35 junction. The Imperial County Land Use Plan supports the transition in this area (Imperial County 2007). 

36 The Imperial Valley agricultural belt continues east of the Salton Sea on a northwestern trajectory past the 

37 urban area of Niland and south along the Coachella and Highline canal system. Industrial uses within the 

38 area include a county waste facility, a major filtration plant south of Camp Dunlap, and small mining and 

39 gravel pit operations. Minor residential nodes occur southwest of the CMAGR and adjacent to the 

40 Coachella Canal. These residences are primarily mobile home parks/trailer parks with seasonal 

41 populations that peak during the winter months. Other residential specific plan developments that focus 

42 on recreational mineral spas occur near the town of Frink and northwest of Niland, adjacent to the 

43 CMAGR. 
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-33 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Slab City is located south of the Coachella Canal and west of Beal Road, north of the town of Niland. 

2 Slab City‘s foundation is located on the dismantled Fort Dunlap Marine training base. The area is widely 

3 known to attract site seeing, winter visitors and local squatters. Slab City has become a fairly organized 

4 off the grid community, with a centralized trading center; library; and Leonard Knight‘s Salvation 

5 Mountain, a religious monument visited by thousands each year. 

6 With the exception of renewable natural resource production, discussed in Section 3.3.5, no other future 

7 land uses were identified in this section of the CMAGR ROI.

8 3.3.4 Utilities

9 This section identifies major existing electrical transmission lines, petroleum and gas pipelines greater 

10 than 16 inches in diameter, and irrigation canals that occur within or adjacent to the CMAGR. 

11 3.3.4.1 Utilities within the CMAGR

12 Three transmission line corridors and one gas line corridor are located within the CMAGR. The ―Gasline‖ 

13 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line is maintained by Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and crosses the 

14 CMAGR along the Gasline Road alignment. The transmission line shares right-of-way with the Southern 

15 California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), which delivers natural gas via a 24-inch-wide natural gas pipeline. 

16 The pipeline runs south through Imperial County; transects the CMAGR; and serves Niland, Calipatria, 

17 Brawley, Imperial, El Centro, Heber, and Calexico. The ―N‖ 161-kV transmission line, maintained by 

18 IID, extends along the western perimeter of the Range, from Camp Billy Machen, northerly along the 

19 Coachella Canal and then toward the city of Coachella, California. The ―F‖ 161-kV transmission line, 

20 maintained by IID, transects the CMAGR, from the Niland Substation northeasterly toward the city of 

21 Blythe, California. The DoN granted easements for the utilities within the CMAGR.

22 3.3.4.2 Utilities within the CMAGR ROI

23 Two utility corridors designated by the BLM California Desert District (CDD) are located to the northeast 

24 and southwest of the CMAGR and are associated with the expansion of transmission infrastructure in 

25 relation to renewable energy development in the region. 

26 The newly expanded Midway Gas Turbine Plant and Substation (Midway) is located south of the 

27 CMAGR, and adjacent to the town of Niland. Midway also contains an additional solar generation 

28 component. Midway serves as a peaking power plant and links to the greater southwestern power grid and 

29 to several lower voltage IID transmission lines located to the south and east of the CMAGR ROI (IID 

30 2011).

31 The Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline delivers petroleum in pipelines located within the UPRR ROW, along the 

32 southwest boundary of the CMAGR, to a petroleum storage facility near the Midway Substation in 

33 Niland. 

34 The Coachella Canal is located southwest of the CMAGR and was first placed into service in 1949; as a 

35 feature of the Coachella Division of the All-American Canal System, Boulder Canyon Project. The 

36 Coachella Canal is 123 miles in length and delivers Colorado River water from the All-American Canal to 

37 irrigate 78,530 acres of agricultural land in the Coachella Valley of California (Reclamation 2009).

38 3.3.5 Renewable Energy 

39 The combination of the following federal, state, and local policies, acts, and plans; remoteness of the 

40 region; availability of water; existing infrastructures; and geographical expanse of open space, make the 
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-34 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 lands around the CMAGR eligible for renewable and natural resource development. The following energy 

2 policies, plans, and initiatives may influence energy development within the CMAGR ROI.

3 3.3.5.1 Renewable Energy – Federal

4 Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA): The FLTFA, also referred to as the Baca Act, 

5 was signed into law on 25 July 2000 (BLM 2000). The FLTFA directs revenues generated from the sale 

6 or disposal of certain public lands to an acquisition account. Four agencies, including the BLM, U.S. 

7 Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, can use the acquisition account 

8 to purchase lands located within federally designated areas from willing sellers, and the account also can 

9 be used by the BLM to place public lands for sale. The agencies entered into a National Memorandum of 

10 Understanding (MOU) in May of 2003 for land purchases governed under the FLTFA. In California, the 

11 four regional offices of the agencies entered into an MOU, under a Statewide Interagency Implementation 

12 Agreement (BLM 2005).

13 West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation Area (REEA): In July 2011, the BLM 

14 released the draft REEA EIS, which is proposed to amend the CDCA. The REEA evaluates the potential 

15 environmental impacts of allocating federal mineral estate (not including acquired lands) for geothermal 

16 energy leasing, testing, and development of geothermal power generation facilities on public lands near 

17 the CMAGR. The REEA also was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of allocating 

18 BLM-administered federal surface estate in the same planning area for testing and development of solar 

19 and wind power generation facilities (BLM 2011a).

20 3.3.5.2 Renewable Energy – State

21 The Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI): California has adopted energy policies that 

22 require substantial increases in the generation of electricity from renewable resources. RETI is a statewide 

23 initiative that has assisted in identifying the transmission projects needed to accommodate renewable 

24 energy goals, support future energy policy, and facilitate transmission corridor designation and 

25 transmission and generation siting and permitting (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2010).

26 3.3.5.3 Renewable Energy – County

27 Riverside and Imperial counties have recently adopted or are in the process of updating land use 

28 ordinances that provide for the physical land use planning criteria, development standards, and 

29 regulations for potential development pertaining to alternative energy, within the region of influence of 

30 the CMAGR.

31 3.3.5.4 Renewable Energy Projects

32 Multiple renewable energy projects led by the BLM and applicable California state and county 

33 environmental review are currently in different phases of consultation, public participation, and

34 environmental analysis. The majority of these projects are wind energy, followed by solar energy and 

35 geothermal. 

36 Two major renewable energy nodes have been identified adjacent to the CMAGR. The first node is 

37 adjacent to the northwestern CMAGR boundary, within Riverside County and west of the Little 

38 Chuckwalla Mountains, where three applications for wind projects are in various stages of review. The 

39 proposed projects in this area appear to be sited primarily on BLM- and Reclamation-managed lands. The 

40 second node is located east of the southeastern section of the CMAGR, near New Gold‘s Mesquite Mine 

41 and east of State Route (SR) 78. This node is located within the previously discussed CDD-designated 

42 utility corridor. Five wind energy applications and one solar energy application are currently being 
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-35 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 reviewed within this area. These projects appear to be sited primarily on BLM- and Reclamation2 managed lands, with some sited on privately held lands (BLM 2011b).

3 3.3.5.5 Mitigation/Compensation

4 Lands acquired by the BLM under donation agreements, for mitigation/compensation purposes, and with 

5 Land and Water Conservation Funds, are to be managed as avoidance/exclusion areas for land use 

6 authorizations that could result in surface-disturbing activities. Four such parcels are located along the 

7 CMAGR boundary. Should BLM-California managers have use authorization applications pending, or 

8 receive new applications on lands that meet the above criteria, they are required to notify the State 

9 Director and set up a briefing to address how to respond to those applications. Should managers have 

10 inquiries related to pre-application activities for any land use authorizations on lands that meet the above 

11 criteria, they will notify applicants regarding the location of these lands as soon as possible and advise 

12 them to avoid these lands or provide details on how they would plan to operate or mitigate their project in 

13 a manner consistent with the values of the lands donated or acquired for conservation purposes 

14 (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2010).

15 3.3.6 Surface Transportation 

16 3.3.6.1 Surface Transportation within the CMAGR

17 As the CMAGR is not open to public use, interior roads are limited to use by authorized military 

18 personnel and utility maintenance repair personnel only when the areas to be accessed are not being used 

19 for ordnance training. Military road uses include access for EOD target clearances, target cleanup and 

20 maintenance, other ground support activities, and NSWG-1 training. Access along utility lines may be 

21 authorized for utility personnel when safety requirements are met.

22 3.3.6.2 Surface Transportation within the CMAGR ROI 

23 The geologic features and the presence of the CMAGR form a natural buffer that influences the regional 

24 vehicular traffic network. Over time, a transportation ―loop‖ has been developed throughout the region. 

25 Interstate 10 is the principal arterial route in the traffic network and is located north of the CMAGR and 

26 north of the Chuckwalla DWMA. Interstate 10 is the southernmost east-west, coast-to-coast Interstate 

27 Highway in the United States and supports large amounts of regional traffic. 

28 The CMAGR is bordered by four principal arterials. SR 78 is near the southeast boundary of the CMAGR 

29 and passes through the agricultural districts of Brawley before turning north and passing through 

30 Algodones Sand Dunes and Glamis, to its terminus in Blythe. Southwest of the CMAGR is SR 111, 

31 which is the main north/south corridor through the agricultural districts of Calipatria and Niland. Within 

32 the urban area of Niland, the direction of SR 111 transitions to a northwestern trajectory, toward the 

33 Coachella Valley, between the CMAGR and the Salton Sea. SR 86 splits off on a north/south trajectory in 

34 the southeastern desert region and transects SR 111 near the United States and Mexican border. SR 86 

35 traverses through the Imperial Valley near El Centro and Brawley, and near the western side of the Salton 

36 Sea into the Coachella Valley. It joins SR 111 in Coachella and heads into Indio. Major and minor 

37 collector roads support the rural and agricultural land uses southwest of the CMAGR (see Figure 1-1, 

38 CMAGR Vicinity). 

39 Due to the relatively remote location of the Range in the desert region, there are very few direct access 

40 points to the range. The one exception is the Bradshaw Trail, located along the northern-most boundary of 

41 the CMAGR and the rural road network associated with Camp Billy Machen and Slab City.
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-36 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 3.3.7 Non-Military Land Use Potential in the CMAGR

2 The following sections discuss the suitability of the CMAGR for non-military land uses typically located 

3 on multiple use public lands.

4 3.3.7.1 Current Non-Military Land Use within the CMAGR

5 With the exception of the utility corridors discussed in Section 3.3.4.2 and Reclamation maintained 

6 appurtenant dikes, no non-military land uses are allowed within the boundaries of the CMAGR. The 

7 CDCA multiple use categories have not been assigned within the boundaries of the CMAGR.

8 3.3.7.2 Potential Federal Land Use 

9 Non-military land use within the current boundaries of the CMAGR would be dependent on the closure of 

10 the CMAGR. A re-designation of land use would be required by the BLM including additional plan 

11 amendments to the NECO and CDCA. Under guidance from the FLTFA, the BLM would be the 

12 managing federal jurisdiction for the public lands located within the current boundary. The DoN lands 

13 within the range would become excess property if the CMAGR were to close and would be either 

14 transferred to another federal agency, such as the BLM, or disposed of as surplus through existing GSA 

15 authorities. 

16 The BLM would be responsible for developing a management plan and designating Multiple-Use Classes 

17 (MUCs) as driven by the CDCA (BLM 1980, Chapter 2). However, much of the CMAGR is highly 

18 contaminated by military munitions, rendering the land unsafe for most public uses until the land could be 

19 decontaminated (see additional discussion in Section 2.5). For lands that could be demilitarized and 

20 decontaminated for future land uses, the following MUCs are consistent with the current CDCA land uses 

21 adjacent to the CMAGR. 

22 Class C (controlled use). These lands include Wilderness and areas ―preliminarily recommended‖ for 

23 Wilderness by Congress, such as Wilderness Study Areas. Class C lands contain highly significant 

24 resource values, which include wilderness values, but may also include wildlife, cultural, scenic, 

25 botanical, geologic, and other values. Congressionally designated Wilderness is by law closed to 

26 motorized-vehicles. Access would generally be limited to non-motorized activities, such as hiking or 

27 horseback riding (BLM 1980).

28 Class L (limited use). These lands are managed to protect sensitive, natural, scenic, ecological, and 

29 cultural resource values that may exist. Class L allows generally lower-intensity, carefully controlled uses 

30 that do not significantly diminish resource values (BLM 1980). 

31 Class M (moderate use). These lands are consistent with the previously identified alternative energy 

32 nodes. The lands designated for this category are managed in a controlled balance between higher 

33 intensity uses and areas of protection. Class M allows for the widest variety of uses, such as mining, 

34 livestock grazing, recreation, energy, and utility development. Any damage caused by permitted uses 

35 must be mitigated (BLM 1980).

36 Class I (intensive use). These lands are managed for concentrated use to meet human needs. Reasonable 

37 protection is provided for sensitive natural values, and mitigation of impacts and rehabilitation of 

38 impacted areas would occur when possible (BLM 1980).

39 For additional land uses allowed in MUCs C, L, M, and I, see Chapter Two of the CDCA Plan and 

40 Table 1, Multiple-Use Class Guidelines (BLM 1980).
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-37 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 3.3.7.3 Potential County Land Use within the CMAGR ROI 

2 As previously discussed in the Land Use Section 3.3.3, Riverside and Imperial counties have addressed 

3 the lands associated outside of the Range boundary in similar fashion in their separate Comprehensive 

4 Plan documents. Each comprehensive plan generally outlines the land uses within the ROI to be primarily 

5 open space, with an emphasis on recreational activities and very low density residential. Should the 

6 CMAGR be decommissioned, both Riverside and Imperial counties would need to review and update 

7 their Comprehensive Plans to include the lands within the decommissioned Range Boundary. Areas 

8 within the Range would need to be decontaminated. This process would need to be completed before

9 potential future land use planning. Utility corridors and natural resource development would be allowed 

10 under certain designations.

11 3.3.8 Recreation 

12 This section discusses applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding recreational resources and 

13 identifies the type of recreational activities available within the ROI of the CMAGR.

14 3.3.8.1 Recreation within the CMAGR

15 Public access is not permitted within the CMAGR. Therefore, there are no recreation opportunities or 

16 other recreational uses of the natural resources within the boundaries.

17 3.3.8.2 Recreation Resources within the ROI 

18 Lands adjacent to the current CMAGR boundary are designated as MUC C, L, and M per the CDCA 

19 Plan. Recreational uses such as hiking, camping, bird watching, hunting, rockhounding, and other 

20 recreational activities are permitted within these categories. These uses are primarily dispersed activities 

21 and are low to moderate level uses. Adjacent areas of public lands also are used to a moderate level by 

22 hikers. Within the BLM‘s Desert District, along the northern section of the CMAGR, Special Recreation 

23 Permits are required which allow specified recreational uses of the public lands and related waters. They 

24 are issued as a means to manage visitor use, protect natural and cultural resources, and provide a 

25 mechanism to accommodate commercial recreational uses. These permits are authorized by the Land and 

26 Water Conservation Fund Act. There are five types of permits that are required: commercial, competitive, 

27 vending, individual or group use in special areas, and organized group activity and event use (BLM 

28 2011). Fourteen-day camping limits apply on public lands.

29 The Bradshaw Trail is also located within this area. The BLM grants permits for land use or special 

30 recreation along the trail and allows primitive vehicular camping within 300 feet of the trail except in 

31 designated wilderness areas. Seven CDCA wilderness areas are located along the Bradshaw Trail 

32 including: Big Maria Mountains, Chuckwalla Mountains, Little Chuckwalla Mountains, Orocopia 

33 Mountains, Palen-McCoy, Rice Valley, and Riverside Mountains Wildernesses. These wilderness areas 

34 are closed to all motorized and mechanical vehicles, including bicycles (BLM 2011). 

35 The southern region of the CMAGR is within the BLM‘s El Centro District. Recreational OHV use is of 

36 moderate to high level of usage and is generally associated with the ISDRA. The OHV usage within the 

37 ISDRA is the most active and highly impactive uses. The Algodones and Imperial Sand Dunes system is 

38 located along this area. Mechanized or motorized vehicles are not permitted in the Algodones wilderness 

39 area; however, the BLM does grant permits within the ISDRA for all street legal vehicles used for 

40 transportation to recreational sites. This permit is required at all times while in the fee area. Other permits 

41 within the ISDRA include commercial, competitive, vending, individual or group use in special areas, and 

42 organized group activity and event use. These permits follow the same guidance as the permits within the 

43 Desert District. 
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-38 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The following table outlines recreational opportunities within the ROI of the CMAGR.

2 Table 3-9 Recreation Resources within the ROI

Recreation Area Primary Access Facilities Primary Season

Anza-Borrego 

Desert State Park

State Route 78 and 

State Route 86

500 miles of OHV roads, 12 wilderness areas 

with hiking and biking trails, and 7 areas of 

historic and cultural interest

October-May

Imperial Sand Dunes Interstate 8 and State 

Route 78

160,000 acres interspersed with OHV and 

campground facilities which include, but is not 

limited to, Buttercup, Gecko Rd, Glamis, 

Gordons Well/Dunebuggy Flats, Mammoth 

Wash, Ogilby, Osborne, along both sides of the 

Coachella Canal and Ted Kipf Rd. 

October-May

Heber Dunes State 

Vehicular 

Recreation Area

Interstate 8 343 acres offering OHV facilities, camping, 

hiking and picnicking. 

October-May

Ocotillo Wells State 

Vehicular 

Recreation Area

State Route 78 80,000 acres offering OHV facilities, hiking 

and biking trails, and bird watching.

October-May

Salton Sea State 

Recreational Area

State Route 111 Fishing, birding, camping, windsurfing, 

boating, hiking, picnicking, and hunting.

October-May

Imperial Wildlife 

Area

State Route 111 Wister Unit, Finney-Ramer Unit, and Hazard 

Unit; bird blinds, hunting, camping, hiking, and 

picnicking.

12 months

3 SOURCE: BLM 2011c, California Department of Parks and Recreation 2009

4

5 3.4 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

6 Geological resources include soils, surficial and subsurface geology, geologic structure, seismicity, 

7 paleontology, and energy and non-energy mineral resources.

8 3.4.1 Regional Geologic Setting

9 The CMAGR is located in the Colorado Desert and Salton Sea geomorphic provinces of California,

10 which are situated in the southwesternmost portion of the Basin and Range physiographic province. The 

11 Basin and Range province (Fenneman 1931) is characterized by generally steep, subparallel, 

12 discontinuous mountain ranges that trend northwest to southeast separated by broad, gently sloping to 

13 nearly flat, deep alluvial basins. The CMAGR is characterized by the rugged Chocolate Mountains, a 

14 range that rises abruptly from broad alluvium-filled desert basins. The Chocolate Mountains stretch more 

15 than 60 miles in a northwest to southeast direction and are east of the Salton Sea, south and west of the 

16 Chuckwalla Mountains, and southeast of the Orocopia Mountains. The Chocolate Mountains are largely 

17 tilted fault blocks comprised of the Southern California batholith and Orocopia Schist of Mesozoic age

18 (about 65 to 250 million years ago), overlain by thrust fragments of an older Precambrian metamorphic 

19 complex, with minor Tertiary (about 3 to 65 million years ago) volcanic and intrusive rocks. Pliocene

20 (about 3 to 5 million years ago) and Pleistocene (about 2 to 3 million years ago) marine and nonmarine 

21 sedimentary deposits and Holocene (present-day to 10,000 years ago) alluvium occur within the adjacent 

22 basins to the east and west.

23 The Chocolate Mountains occur along the eastern margin of the Imperial Valley and Salton Sea. The 

24 Imperial Valley and Salton Sea occur in the Salton Trough, a complex pull-apart rift valley, which was 

25 formed by the right-lateral motion of the San Andreas transform fault system, which runs along the 
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-39 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 western boundary of the CMAGR, and the northwestward progressing spreading ridge complex of the 

2 Gulf of California segment of the Eastern Pacific Rise (Alles 2007). The Salton Trough, an extension of 

3 the Gulf of California, is separated from the Gulf of California by the Colorado River Delta. The Salton 

4 Trough is a Neogene age (23 million years ago to present) basin. This basin has been filled with post5 Oligocene interbedded marine and freshwater sediments, which is estimated at over 4 miles thick in some 

6 places (Eiders 1979a; 1979b). The great thickness of these sediments demonstrates that considerable 

7 sinking of the basin floor has occurred as the sediments accumulated during the past 23 million years.

8 Late Pleistocene and possibly early Holocene sediments were deposited in ancient Lake Cahuilla. Lake 

9 Cahuilla, which occupied the area of the present-day Salton Sea, was a fresh water lake that received 

10 inflow from the Colorado River and runoff from the local mountains. A change in course of the Colorado 

11 River eliminated most of the inflow to Lake Cahuilla, allowing it to evaporate. Present-day (Holocene) 

12 surficial sediments range from clayey and silty alluvium near the Salton Sea, to alluvial and colluvial fans 

13 along the base of the Chocolate Mountains. Wind-blown (eolian) fine sands in some adjacent valleys form 

14 spectacular dunes like the Sand Hills, which occur along the southwestern corner of the CMAGR. Eolian 

15 sand dunes are formed by strong desert winds that transport sand downwind until they form into sheets 

16 and dunes.

17 3.4.2 CMAGR Geology 

18 The Chocolate Mountains within the CMAGR are comprised of Proterozoic gneisses and associated rocks 

19 that were thrust over the Orocopia Schist and subsequently intruded by at least five different granitic 

20 plutons (Norris and Webb 1990). The oldest granitic plutons are early Triassic (about 235 million years 

21 old) but most are of Mesozoic age. The Proterozoic (about 0.5 to 2.5 billion years ago) gneisses, the 

22 Orocopia Schist, and the thrust fault have all been intruded by some of the youngest (23 million years) 

23 granitic intrusives in California (Norris and Webb 1990). Volcanic rocks of similar Oligocene age (about 

24 23 to 34 million years ago) are widely distributed in the Chocolate Mountains. Miocene age (about 5 to 

25 23 million years ago) fanglomerates, with interbedded basaltic flows, unconformably overlie these older 

26 rocks and are overlain unconformably by Miocene-Pliocene age marine, lagoonal, and nonmarine 

27 deposits of the Bouse Formation (Norris and Webb 1990). Figure 3-6 provides a geologic map of the 

28 CMAGR.

29 Late Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene alluvial deposits overlie most of the older formations in the 

30 Chocolate Mountains and form dissected piedmont slopes around the Range (Norris and Webb 1990).

31 These alluvial fan and terrace deposits have been informally designated as the older, intermediate, and 

32 younger alluvium based on their stratigraphic relationships (Dillon 1975). The older alluvium consists of 

33 poorly consolidated deposits of sand, silt, and breccia that unconformably overlie the Chocolate 

34 Mountains. Conglomerate and other rocks and forms dissected aprons and high-standing terraces. The 

35 surfaces of these fans and terraces usually have a well-developed coat of desert pavement and desert

36 varnish. The intermediate alluvium unconformably overlies the older alluvium and consists of locally 

37 derived unconsolidated conglomerate, breccia, and sand that form dissected fans, low terraces, and 

38 abandoned channel features. The surfaces of the intermediate alluvium have poorly developed desert 

39 pavement and varnish. The younger alluvium consists of sands and gravels occurring as channel fill in the 

40 present-day washes, as sheet wash deposits on the alluvial plains, and as wind-blown sands of the Sand 

41 Hills that unconformably overlie the intermediate alluvium (Dillon 1975). The unconformable 

42 relationships between the various alluvial deposits suggest that the base level of erosion has been 

43 intermittently lowered by continued subsidence and rifting beneath the Imperial Valley.

44

45
SUPERSTITION

SAND

HILLS

SALTON CREEK FAULT

FAULT

ANDREAS

SAN

FAULT

QPc

QPc

Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

gr}

gr}

gr}

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Tv

Tv Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

Tv

sch

sch

sch

sch

sch

sch

sch

sch

sch

sch

sch

Tvp

Tvp

Tvp

Tvp

Tvp

Tvp

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

gr

gr

gr

gr

gr

gr

gr

gr

gr

gr

gr

gr

gr-m

Qrv

Qs

@c

@c?

P

P

gr=

gr= gr=

gr=

gr= gr=

gr=

m

m

Q

Tc

Tc

Tc

Tc

Tc

Tc

Tc

Ti

Ti

Ti

Ti

Ti

Ti

Ti

Ti

Ti

Ti

Ti

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

= =

=

=

=

QPc

QPc

=c

=c

=c

=c

=c

=c

=c

=c

=c

=c

=c

=c

gr

Q

Q

Q

gr=

=c =c

=c

m

sch

=c

=c

sch

=c

=c

=c

=c

Tc

=c

Q

gr

Tv

=

Ti

Tv

Tvp

QPc

gr

gr

gr

Tv

@c

Tv

gr

gr

=c

Q

Qoa

Q

Q

Q

sch

Qs

@c

Ti

Q

Q

Q

gr}

Qoa

Tc

Qoa

=

=

Qoa

Qoa

=

gr Qoa

Q

Qoa

Q

Tv

=c

Qoa

Tv

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

=

Qoa

gr=

@c

Qoa

=

=

=

Qoa

gr =c }

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Q

Tv gr

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Tv

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Q

Tc

Tc

Tc

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad

(Inactive)

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

Riverside County

Imperial County

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_Geology.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Railroad

Lake

Geologic Map 

at the CMAGR

Figure 3-6

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

3-40

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Geology: California Geological Survey 2010

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BLM 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter

Geology

Quaternary Deposits

Qs

Q

Qoa

QPc

Mesozoic Sedimentary and

Metasedimentary Rocks

sch

Mesozoic Mixed Rocks

gr-m

Thrust Fault

Pre-Cambrian Rocks

=

=c

gr

=

Mesozoic Plutonic Rocks

gr

gr}

Tertiary Sedimentary

Rocks

Tc

P

@c

Anticlinal Fold

Fault trace - Solid where well located,

dashed where approximately located 

or inferred, dotted where concealed,

and queried where continuation or

existence is uncertain.

Tertiary Volcanic

Rocks

Tv

Ti

Tvp
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-41 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 3.4.2.1 Seismicity

2 The Gulf of California and its onshore extension, the Salton Trough (which includes Mexicali, Imperial, 

3 and Coachella valleys), are located over a series of complex pull-apart rifts in the Earth‘s crust that are 

4 filling with sediment from above, derived chiefly from the Colorado River, and magmatic material from 

5 below. The Salton Trough is one of the most seismically active areas in California and has been shaken 

6 by 32 or more moderate-to-large earthquakes in the last 100 years. The seismicity is evidence of 

7 continued tectonic spreading of the ocean floor beneath the Salton Trough where high heat flow produces 

8 commercially viable geothermal energy resources.

9 As shown in Figure 3-6, northwest-trending faults are common in and adjacent to the CMAGR (Jennings 

10 and Bryant 2010). The most prominent of these faults is the San Andreas Fault, which is located along the 

11 eastern shore of the Salton Sea west of the CMAGR. The Hot Springs Fault is located northeast of the 

12 San Andreas Fault and runs along a portion of the northwestern boundary of the CMAGR. The Sand Hills 

13 Fault is concealed, but appears to extend southeast from the intersection of the San Andreas Fault and the 

14 Brawley Seismic Zone beneath the Sand Hills west of the CMAGR boundary. Numerous west-northwest15 trending faults also are common in and adjacent to the CMAGR. The most prominent of these faults is the 

16 Salton Creek Fault, which runs along the northern boundary of the CMAGR in the Salt Creek Wash 

17 (Jennings and Bryant 2010). The Chocolate Mountains thrust fault occurs within the CMAGR in the 

18 southern portion of the range. Many of these faults have been recently active within the last 10,000 years 

19 (Jennings and Bryant 2010).

20 3.4.3 Soils

21 The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has identified 20 soil series and 7 soil associations 

22 (i.e., groups of soil series) within the CMAGR. These soils are described in the State Soil Geographic 

23 (STATSGO2) Database developed by the NRCS (2011). The soil associations are shown on Figure 3-7

24 and summarized in Table 3-10. The Tecopa-Rock Outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents and the Upspring25 Sparkhule-Rock Outcrop soil associations include rock outcrops and very shallow mountain soils formed 

26 in residuum and colluvium. The Vaiva-Rock Outcrop-Quilotosa-Laposa soil association includes hill 

27 pediment and fan complex soils on foothills, pediments, and alluvial fans. The Rillito-Gunsight soil 

28 association consists of very deep soils on dissected older fans, soils on ancient fans with preserved 

29 surfaces, and young to ancient fan soil complexes. The Myoma-Carsitas-Carrizo, Vaiva-Quilotosa-Hyder30 Cipriano-Cherioni, and Cajon-Bitterwater-Bitter-Badland soil associations include active fan and wash 

31 soils; young fan soil complexes; and fan, lakebed, and badland soil complexes. All soils at the CMAGR 

32 are well-drained to excessively well-drained and primarily consist of sandy and rocky loams derived from 

33 igneous and metamorphic rocks.

34 Table 3-10 CMAGR Soil Associations (NRCS 2011)

Soil Association Soil Occurrence

Erosion Hazard

Water Wind

Tecopa-Rock Outcrop-Lithic 

Torriorthents Mountain soils found on mountain slopes 

and areas with rock outcrop Slight Moderate

Upspring-Sparkhule-Rock Outcrop

Vaiva-Rock Outcrop-QuilotosaLaposaHill pediment and fan complex soils found 

on foothills, alluvial fans, and pediments

Slight to 

Moderate

Moderate to 

High

Rillito-Gunsight

Old alluvial fan soils found on dissected 

older alluvial fans, in valleys, and on 

pediments

High to 

Extremely 

High

High to

Very High

Myoma-Carsitas-Carrizo Young alluvial fan and wash soils found in 

mountain washes, on pediments, and on 

alluvial fans

Slight to 

Moderate

Moderate to 

High

Vaiva-Quilotosa-Hyder-CiprianoCherioni

Cajon-Bitterwater-Bitter-Badland

35 Source: STATSGO2 Database (NRCS 2011). 
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-42 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 3.4.4 Mineral Resources

2 Minerals resources in the federal estate are categorized as leasable, salable, or locatable. Leasable 

3 minerals include energy-related mineral resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, and geothermal, and some 

4 non-energy minerals, such as potash, salt, phosphate, and sulfur. Salable minerals, or mineral materials, 

5 are common varieties of minerals and building materials such as sand, gravel, stone (building stone, 

6 including travertine), aggregate (including caliche), silica, clay, volcanic rock products (pumice, pumicite, 

7 cinders, perlite, roofing granules), and humate. Locatable minerals are any minerals not leasable or 

8 salable, and include, but are not limited to, gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, barite, gypsum, molybdenum, 

9 gemstones, and certain varieties of high calcium limestone.

10 No known leasable, salable, or locatable minerals are currently being mined on the CMAGR. However, 

11 leasable, salable, or locatable minerals have been mined on the CMAGR in the past and are currently 

12 being and have been mined on lands outside of and adjacent to the CMAGR. The occurrence of some of 

13 these mined areas adjacent to the CMAGR boundary and the presence of historical mines and prospects 

14 on the CMAGR suggests that the CMAGR likely includes areas with potential mineral resources.

15 3.4.4.1 Leasable Minerals

16 No known oil, natural gas (for example, methane), or coal resources are present at the CMAGR or in the 

17 adjacent areas. Approximately 46 wells have been drilled in the Imperial Valley west of the CMAGR to 

18 explore for petroleum in the Cenozoic sedimentary strata without favorable results (Tarbet 1971; Morton 

19 1977). The deepest well was drilled to a depth of 13,443 feet. No natural gas or petroleum exploration 

20 wells appear to have been drilled on the CMAGR. The potential for finding oil, natural gas, or coal within 

21 the CMAGR is considered unlikely because the prospective stratigraphic section is thin adjacent to the 

22 Chocolate Mountains; the volume of marine rocks in the sedimentary sequence is small; the marine and 

23 non-marine sediments were deposited in shallow, oxidizing environments unsuitable for the preservation 

24 of organic petroleum hydrocarbon source rocks; and the hydrothermal and metamorphic activity 

25 associated with the Salton Sea geothermal system has severely altered the sediments likely destroying 

26 potential petroleum hydrocarbon sources. Tarbet (1951; 1971), Cook (1987), and Barker et al. (1995) 

27 have evaluated the petroleum potential of the Imperial Valley and concluded that the possibility of 

28 producing commercial quantities of petroleum in the area is very slight.

29 Numerous geothermal prospects have been identified in the Imperial Valley outside of the CMAGR. 

30 Several ―known geothermal resource areas‖ (KGRAs) located in the Salton Sea area are shown on 

31 Figure 3-8. The Salton Sea (the closest KGRA to the CMAGR), East Mesa, Heber, and North Brawley 

32 KGRAs have currently operating geothermal power plants. The Salton Sea plant is 1 of 10 generating 

33 plants in the Salton Sea KGRA operated by CalEnergy Generation LLC, and produces about 340 mega34 watts (MW) of energy. The Salton Sea Geothermal Power Plant captures superheated, highly pressurized 

35 water from reservoirs located thousands of feet beneath the earth‘s surface. When the hot water is quickly

36 de-pressurized at the same hot temperature, it ―flashes‖ into steam. The steam is used to drive a turbine to 

37 create electricity. After being cooled, the steam is condensed into liquid form (water), where it is 

38 reinjected into the subsurface to be reheated. Geothermal power development and use grew by 6 percent 

39 in the United States during 2009.

40 Geothermal energy production also has other potential mineral resources with economic benefits. Brines 

41 produced from the geothermal wells have significant quantities of valuable minerals (for example, silica, 

42 manganese, lithium, boron, zinc, copper, gold, and silver). CalEnergy is successfully recovering high43 grade zinc from the geothermal brines. Research is underway to recover manganese and to purify waste 

44 silica into a salable product (Clutter 2000). Simbol Materials recently launched commercial operations to 

45 recover lithium, manganese, and zinc from geothermal brine before returning it to the subsurface (Wald 

46 2011, Korosec 2011).
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad

(Inactive)

C

h

o

c

o

l

a

t

e

M

o u n t a i n s

Orocopia Mountains

Imperial

Valley

Algodones Dunes

Palo Verde Mountains

Mountain

Blue

Mount

Barrow

Little Mule

Mountains

Black Hills

Chuckwalla Mountains

Little Chuckwalla Mountains

Glamis

Niland

SALTON

SEA

Riverside County

Imperial County

Coachella Canal

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_Soils.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Target or Target Complex

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Railroad

Soil Types

Cajon-BitterwaterBitter-Badland (s1128)

Myoma-CarsitasCarrizo (s991)

Rillito-Gunsight (s1140)

Rock Outcrop (s1131)

Rositas-BeelineBadland (s1129)

Rositas-Dune

land-Carsitas (s1136)

Rositas-OritaCarrizo-Aco (s1041)

Rositas-OritaCarrizo-Aco (s994)

Tecopa-Rock outcropLithic Torriorthents (s1126)

Upspring-SparkhuleRock Outcrop (s1127)

Vaiva-Quilotosa-HyderCipriano-Cherioni (s1141)

Vaiva-Rock outcropQuilotosa-Laposa (s1133)

Vint-ImperialGlenbar-Gilman (s993)

Vint-Meloland-Indio (s996)

Water (s8369)

Soils

at the CMAGR

Figure 3-7

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

3-43

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Soils: NRCS STATSGO 2011

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BLM 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
111

Arizona

California

95

Eagle Mountain

Railroad

(Inactive)

Union Pacific Railroad

SALTON

SEA

Blythe

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

Brawley

Blythe

10

Riverside County

Imperial County

Riverside County

San Diego County

Imper ai l County

San D ei go 

County

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_Geothermal_Overview.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Lake

Geothermal Power Plant

State Geothermal Resource Field

Known Geothermal Resource Area

Geothermal Favorability

Probability Index

> 15

10 - 15

5 - 10

4 - 5

3 - 4

2 - 3

1 - 2

0.5 - 1

0.1 - 0.5

< 0.1

City\Town

County Boundary

Railroad

Interstate

Highway

Geothermal Resource

Favorability within

the CMAGR Vicinity

Figure 3-8

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

3-44

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Miles

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Kilometers

Map Scale 1:475,000

Source:

Geothermal Favorability: USGS 2010

Geothermal Resource Areas and Power Plants:

CA Department of Conservation 2010

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BLM 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-45 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The U.S. Navy‘s Geothermal Program Office has conducted geothermal exploration on the CMAGR 

2 since the mid-1970s. The Geothermal Program Office has recently established three exploration areas on 

3 the CMAGR designated the Hot Mineral Spa, East Niland, and Glamis areas (Alm et al. 2010). Thirteen 

4 500-foot-deep temperature gradient holes were drilled and tested in the Hot Mineral Spa/Camp Billy 

5 Machen area. Eleven of the 13 wells tested will not be tested further, however, two wells are proposed for 

6 additional testing requiring deeper wells. Temperature gradients calculated from the 13 test holes ranged 

from 9.6 to 42.7 degrees Centigrade (o7 C) per 100 meters of depth and are similar to gradients from wells 

8 at Hot Mineral Spa (Alm et al. 2010). Bottom hole (at approximately 500 feet) temperatures ranged from 

37 to 62.8oC (Alm et al. 2010). A geothermal gradient greater than 9o9 C per 100 meters is considered 

10 indicative of a potential geothermal resource. These positive results, along with the CMAGR‘s 

11 association with the Salton Trough, Hot Mineral Spa, and Glamis KGRA, suggest that the CMAGR has 

12 the potential for geothermal resources (Alm et al. 2010). The geothermal potential of the CMAGR is 

13 further confirmed by the recently completed assessment of the geothermal resources of the United States 

14 (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2008, 2010a). The USGS assessment estimated the geothermal 

15 favorability of the United States, including the CMAGR area (Figure 3-8), and suggests that the CMAGR 

16 has moderate to high geothermal potential. The most favorable geothermal area with the highest potential 

17 is found in the northwest corner of the CMAGR. Moderate to moderately high favorable areas are found 

18 along the western CMAGR boundary. Geothermal favorability decreases from west to east across the 

19 CMAGR. Previous studies suggest there may be geothermal energy resources underlying certain areas 

20 within the CMAGR. The extent of such resource, and feasibility of developing the resource, has not been 

21 determined. Renewable energy development, including geothermal energy development, is not planned 

22 for the CMAGR, and would not occur if such development would have any adverse effects on military 

23 training within the CMAGR. If in the future there is a renewable energy resource identified that could be 

24 developed without any unacceptable impacts to military training, development of such resource would be 

25 jointly coordinated, as appropriate, between the Department of the Navy and Department of the Interior.

26 No potash, phosphate, or sulfur resources have been reported mined on the CMAGR or in areas adjacent 

27 to the CMAGR. Salt has been recovered in the past outside the CMAGR by evaporation of the Salton Sea 

28 brines (Morton 1977). Potash and salt may occur in the subsurface beneath the present-day Salton Sea and 

29 the former Lake Cahuilla but are not known at the CMAGR. Pilot-scale by-product sodium, potassium, 

30 and calcium salt recovery has been attempted from produced waters in geothermal fields and may be 

31 commercially developed in the future. However, at present, salts are not recovered from geothermal 

32 brines in the Salton Sea area or at the CMAGR. Phosphate deposits do not appear to be present at the 

33 CMAGR and are not likely considering its geological setting. The potential for potash, phosphate, salt, 

34 and sulfur deposits at the CMAGR is considered none to low.

35 3.4.4.2 Salable Minerals

36 No salable mineral resources are currently being mined on the CMAGR but have been mined on the 

37 CMAGR in the past. Areas adjacent to the CMAGR are currently being or have been mined for sand and 

38 gravel from the unconsolidated alluvial deposits. No other salable minerals (for example, stone, pumice, 

39 pumicite, cinders, or clay) are currently being mined on or adjacent to the CMAGR. The potential for 

40 salable minerals, particularly sand and gravel, on the CMAGR is moderate to high. Geologically, other 

41 salable minerals (for example, stone, pumice, pumicite, cinders, or clay) likely exist at the CMAGR, but 

42 their potential is generally thought to be none to moderate.

43 3.4.4.3 Locatable Minerals

44 No active mines or locatable mineral claims are currently reported on the CMAGR (U.S. Navy 2011). 

45 Locatable mineral claims and an active gold mine are found adjacent to the CMAGR boundary. The 

46 Mesquite gold mine, California‘s second largest active gold mine, borders the CMAGR boundary to the 
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-46 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 south and produces about 100,000 ounces of gold per year. The Mesquite gold mine is an epithermal gold 

2 deposit related to the geothermal activity in the adjacent Salton Trough.

3 Locatable minerals are likely present on the CMAGR because historical mines and prospects from the late 

4 1800s and early 1900s are present on the range. The CMAGR area was first prospected for gold in the late 

5 1800s. The Paymaster (lead and silver) and the Mary Lode and Mesquite gold mine districts were 

6 established in the late 1800s to early 1900s. During the 1930s there were several unsuccessful attempts to 

7 work the dry placer gold deposits in the Chocolate Mountains. Occurrences of gold, copper, lead, silver, 

8 manganese, uranium, and thorium mineralization also have been reported within the CMAGR boundary 

9 (Sampson and Tucker 1942; Morton 1977). Considering its geologic setting, locatable minerals likely 

10 exist at the CMAGR. Their potential is generally thought to be none to low, except for gold which 

11 appears to have the moderate potential. 

12 3.4.4.4 Strategic and Critical Minerals

13 Strategic and critical minerals are defined as minerals for which the quantity required for essential 

14 military, industrial, and civilian uses of the United States with no available economic substitutes exceeds 

15 the reasonably secure domestic and foreign sources of supply. Strategic and critical minerals that 

16 potentially occur on the CMAGR include manganese and tungsten. Manganese has been mined in the 

17 past. The occurrence of platinum group metals or rare earth elements, currently two of the most strategic 

18 and critical minerals, have not been reported on the CMAGR and are not likely considering its geological 

19 setting. The potential for strategic and critical mineral deposits on the CMAGR is considered none to low.

20 3.4.5 Paleontological Resources

21 3.4.5.1 Overview

22 Paleontological resources, including fossils and the geologic contexts in which they are found, can occur 

23 in a variety of rock types throughout the proposed project area. They are important scientific and 

24 educational resources because of their utility in achieving multiple goals. These include (1) documenting 

25 the presence and evolutionary history of particular groups of organisms, many now extinct; 

26 (2) reconstructing the environments in which these organisms lived; (3) determining the relative ages of 

27 the strata in which they occur; and (4) determining the geologic events that resulted in the deposition of 

28 the sediments in which they are preserved.

29 Federal, state, and local statutes and policies afford protection of fossils on public lands. Paleontological 

30 resources are recognized as nonrenewable scientific resources.

31 3.4.5.2 Paleontological Resources Potential

32 In 2008, the BLM established the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system to quantify the 

33 occurrence of and risk of impact to paleontological resources on public lands. The five classes the system 

34 recognizes are listed below.

35 Class 1 – Very Low. Geologic units not likely to contain recognizable fossil remains 

36 Units that are igneous or metamorphic, excluding reworked volcanic ash units 

37 Units that are Precambrian in age or older 

38 o Management concern for paleontological resources in Class 1 units is usually negligible or 

39 not applicable. 

40 o Assessment or mitigation is usually unnecessary except in very rare or isolated 

41 circumstances. 
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-47 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The probability of impacting any fossils is negligible. Assessment or mitigation of paleontological 

2 resources is usually unnecessary. The occurrence of significant fossils is non-existent or extremely rare. 

3 Class 2 – Low. Sedimentary geologic units not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically 

4 significant nonvertebrate fossils 

5 Vertebrate or significant invertebrate or plant fossils not present or very rare 

6 Units that are generally younger than 10,000 years before present 

7 Recent eolian deposits 

8 Sediments that exhibit significant physical and chemical changes (i.e., diagenetic alteration) 

9 o Management concern for paleontological resources is generally low. 

10 o Assessment or mitigation is usually unnecessary except in rare or isolated circumstances. 

11 The probability for impacting vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils is 

12 low. Assessment or mitigation of paleontological resources is not likely to be necessary. Localities 

13 containing important resources may exist, but would be rare and would not influence the classification. 

14 These important localities would be managed on a case-by-case basis. 

15 Class 3 – Moderate or Unknown. Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in 

16 significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential 

17 Often marine in origin with sporadic known occurrences of vertebrate fossils 

18 Vertebrate fossils and scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils known to occur 

19 intermittently; predictability known to be low 

20 (or) 

21 Poorly studied and/or poorly documented; potential yield cannot be assigned without ground 

22 reconnaissance 

23 Class 3a – Moderate Potential. Units are known to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant 

24 nonvertebrate fossils, but these occurrences are widely scattered. Common invertebrate or plant fossils 

25 may be found in the area, and opportunities may exist for hobby collecting. The potential for a project to 

26 be sited on or impact a significant fossil locality is low, but is somewhat higher for common fossils. 

27 Class 3b – Unknown Potential. Units exhibit geologic features and preservational conditions that 

28 suggest significant fossils could be present, but little information about the paleontological resources of 

29 the unit or the area is known. This may indicate the unit or area is poorly studied, and field surveys may 

30 uncover significant finds. The units in this class may eventually be placed in another class when sufficient 

31 survey and research is performed. The unknown potential of the units in this class should be carefully 

32 considered when developing any mitigation or management actions. 

33 Management concern for paleontological resources is moderate or cannot be determined from 

34 existing data. 

35 Surface-disturbing activities may require field assessment to determine an appropriate course of 

36 action. 
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-48 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 This classification includes a broad range of paleontological potential. It includes geologic units of 

2 unknown potential, as well as units having a moderate or infrequent occurrence of significant fossils. 

3 Management considerations cover a broad range of options as well and could include pre-disturbance 

4 surveys, monitoring, or avoidance. Surface-disturbing activities will require sufficient assessment to 

5 determine whether significant paleontological resources occur in the area of a proposed action and 

6 whether the action could affect the paleontological resources. These units may contain areas that would be 

7 appropriate to designate as hobby collection areas due to the higher occurrence of common fossils and a 

8 lower concern about affecting significant paleontological resources. 

9 Class 4 – High. Geologic units containing a high occurrence of scientifically important fossils. Vertebrate 

10 fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils are known to occur and have been 

11 documented, but may vary in occurrence and predictability. Surface-disturbing activities may adversely 

12 affect paleontological resources in many cases. 

13 Class 4a – Unit is exposed with little or no soil or vegetative cover. Outcrop areas are extensive with 

14 exposed bedrock areas often larger than two acres. Paleontological resources may be susceptible to 

15 adverse impacts from surface-disturbing actions. Illegal collecting activities may impact some areas. 

16 Class 4b – These are areas underlain by geologic units with high potential but that have a reduced risk of 

17 human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation due to moderating 

18 circumstances. The bedrock unit has high potential, but a protective layer of soil, thin alluvial material, or 

19 other conditions may lessen or prevent potential impacts to the bedrock resulting from the activity.

20 Extensive soil or vegetative cover; bedrock exposures are limited or not expected to be impacted.

21 Areas of exposed outcrop are smaller than two contiguous acres.

22 Outcrops form cliffs of sufficient height and slope so that impacts are minimized by topographic 

23 conditions.

24 Other characteristics are present that lower the vulnerability of both known and unidentified 

25 paleontological resources:

26 o Management concern for paleontological resources in Class 4 is moderate to high, depending 

27 on the proposed action. 

28 o A field survey by a qualified paleontologist is often needed to assess local conditions. 

29 o Management prescriptions for resource preservation and conservation through controlled 

30 access or special management designation should be considered. 

31 o Class 4 and Class 5 units may be combined as Class 5 for broad applications, such as 

32 planning efforts or preliminary assessments, or when geologic mapping at an appropriate 

33 scale is not available. Resource assessment, mitigation, and other management considerations 

34 are similar at this level of analysis, and impacts and alternatives can be addressed at a level 

35 appropriate to the application.

36 The probability of impacting significant paleontological resources is moderate to high and is dependent 

37 on the proposed action. Mitigation considerations must include assessment of the disturbance, such as 

38 removal or penetration of protective surface alluvium or soils, potential for future accelerated erosion, or 

39 increased ease of access resulting in greater looting potential. If impacts to significant fossils can be 

40 anticipated, on-the-ground surveys prior to authorizing the surface disturbing action will usually be 

41 necessary. On-site monitoring or spot-checking may be necessary during construction activities. 
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-49 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Class 5 – Very High. Highly fossiliferous geologic units that consistently and predictably produce 

2 vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils, and that are at risk of human3 caused adverse impacts or natural degradation.

4 Class 5a – Unit is exposed with little or no soil or vegetative cover. Outcrop areas are extensive with 

5 exposed bedrock areas often larger than two contiguous acres. Paleontological resources are highly 

6 susceptible to adverse impacts from surface disturbing actions. Unit is frequently the focus of illegal 

7 collecting activities. 

8 Class 5b – These are areas underlain by geologic units with very high potential but that have a reduced 

9 risk of human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation due to moderating 

10 circumstances. The bedrock unit has very high potential, but a protective layer of soil, thin alluvial 

11 material, or other conditions may lessen or prevent potential impacts to the bedrock resulting from the 

12 activity.

13 Extensive soil or vegetative cover; bedrock exposures are limited or not expected to be impacted.

14 Areas of exposed outcrop are smaller than two contiguous acres.

15 Outcrops form cliffs of sufficient height and slope so that impacts are minimized by topographic 

16 conditions.

17 Other characteristics are present that lower the vulnerability of both known and unidentified 

18 paleontological resources.

19 The level of geologic mapping used for this LEIS recognizes numerous geologic units ranging in age 

20 from Pre-Cambrian to late Quaternary (see Figure 3-6). These fall into four of the PFYC.

21 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Q)

22 These deposits consist of alluvial fans and other alluvium. Although the basin of ancient Lake Cahuilla 

23 lies just to the west, none of these lacustrine sediments lie within the CMAGR. Quaternary alluvial fans 

24 certainly produce vertebrae fossils, but not in large numbers. Under the BLM PFYC system, these 

25 Quaternary alluvial deposits are rated 3.

26 Quaternary Nonmarine Deposits (Qoa)

27 This category includes eolian sand (dunes). These deposits can produce significant vertebrate fossils, but 

28 the vertebrate fossils vary in occurrence and predictability. Thus, they are classified 4a in the BLM PFYC 

29 system. 

30 Plio-Pleistocene Nonmarine Deposits (QPc)

31 These deposits also can produce significant vertebrate fossils, but these vary in occurrence and 

32 predictability. They are classified 4a in the BLM PFYC system.

33 Miocene Nonmarine Deposits (Tc)

34 Again, these deposits can produce significant vertebrate fossils, but these vary in occurrence and 

35 predictability. They are classified 4a in the BLM PFYC system.

36 Oligocene Nonmarine Deposits (Ogc)

37 Oligocene nonmarine deposits also can produce significant vertebrate fossils, and they vary in occurrence 

38 and predictability. They are assigned a rating of 4a in the BLM PFYC system.
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-50 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Tertiary Volcanic Rocks (Tv, Tvp1 and Ti)

2 Most volcanic rocks do not produce significant paleontological resources. They are assigned the rating of 

3 1 in the BLM PFYC system.

4 Mesozoic Sedimentary and Metasedimentary Rocks (sch)

5 Because of their metamorphosed nature, these rocks are unlikely to produce significant paleontological 

6 resources. These rocks are given a rating of 2 in the BLM PFYC system.

7 Mesozoic mixed Rocks (gr-m)

8 Granitic rocks do not produce significant paleontological resources. They are given the rating of 1 in the 

9 BLM PFYC system.

Mesozoic Plutonic Rocks (gr and grMz 10 )

11 Plutonic rocks do not produce significant paleontological resources. They are assigned the rating of 1 in 

12 the BLM PFYC system.

Pre-Cambrian Rocks (pC, pCc, grpC 13 )

14 It is possible that some Pre-Cambrian sedimentary rocks could produce paleontological resources. These 

15 could be significant because at a few key places in the world, Neoproterozoic rocks of the Ediacaran 

16 period have produced macrofossils; these are very significant as this biota is presumed to contain the 

17 ancestors of the earliest Cambrian biota. Non-sedimentary rocks would not produce significant vertebrate 

18 fossils. The exact nature of these rocks is not specified, so they are assigned the rating of 2 in the BLM 

19 PFYC system.

20 3.4.5.3 Methods

21 A search was made for pertinent information on paleontological resources in available geological and 

22 paleontological literature. The search yielded general information about the paleontological potential of 

23 the sediments within the CMAGR, but no examples of specific localities. Works consulted include BLM 

24 (2011); Jefferson (1991a; 1991b; 1995; and 2010); and Morton (1977). No fossils have been reported 

25 found at the CMAGR by military personnel or archaeologists.

26

27 3.5 WATER RESOURCES

28 Water resources are defined as sources of water available for use by humans, flora, or fauna, and include

29 surface water, groundwater, near-shore waters, and wetlands. Surface water resources include stormwater, 

30 lakes, streams, rivers, and springs. Groundwater is defined as any source of water beneath the ground 

31 surface. Surface water and groundwater may be used for potable water, agricultural irrigation, industrial, 

32 and recreational purposes. 

33 3.5.1 Water Resources Setting

34 The CMAGR is located within the Salton Sea Transboundary and Imperial Reservoir regional watersheds. 

35 Surface water is extremely scarce at the CMAGR. There are no naturally occurring perennial surface 

36 water features on the range. Within the CMAGR, the Salton Sea Transboundary regional watershed is 

37 comprised of portions of four local watersheds; arranged from northwest to southeast they are the Salt 

38 Creek, Imperial Valley-Frontal Salton Sea, Alamo River, and Algodones Dunes-Chocolate Mountain 

39 watersheds. Ephemeral surface water drainages within these CMAGR watersheds flow seasonally and 
Water Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-51 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 discharge to the Salton Sea. The Imperial Reservoir regional watershed within the CMAGR is comprised 

2 of the Arroyo Seco-Upper Milpitas Wash and Lower Milpitas Wash watersheds. Ephemeral surface water 

3 drainages within these CMAGR watersheds flow seasonally and discharge to the Colorado River.

4 Perennial surface waters are present outside the CMAGR and include the Salton Sea, New River, Alamo 

5 River, and Colorado River. The Salton Sea, New River, and Alamo River are largely sustained by 

6 irrigation return flows. Figure 3-9 shows the locations of watershed boundaries, washes, and current 

7 target areas at the CMAGR.

8 The CMAGR is underlain by portions of four groundwater basins defined by the California Department 

9 of Water Resources ([CDWR] 2003). These basins are designated part of the Colorado River Hydrologic 

10 Region. Figure 3-10 shows the groundwater basins underlying the CMAGR which includes, from north to

11 south, the Chocolate Valley, East Salton Sea, Amos Valley, and Arroyo Seco Valley basins. Groundwater 

12 resources within the CMAGR are extremely limited. Bedrock areas of the Chocolate Mountains have 

13 limited groundwater potential and are classified by the CDWR as non-water-bearing. More extensive 

14 groundwater resources are present in the down-faulted sedimentary basins located east and west of the 

15 Chocolate Mountains. Recharge to the groundwater basins is derived chiefly from infiltration of runoff 

16 along the base of the Chocolate Mountains. However, high evaporation, low rainfall, and rapid runoff 

17 result in minimal groundwater recharge. The amount and quality of groundwater stored in the

18 groundwater basins underlying the CMAGR are not known because very few wells have been drilled on 

19 the range.

20 3.5.2 Surface Water 

21 Surface water at the CMAGR is derived from infrequent rainfall events that produce localized flash22 flooding and temporary surface water runoff, especially during thunderstorms in the monsoon seasons. 

23 Rainfall averages less than 5 inches per year and the pan evaporation rate is 100 inches per year, resulting 

24 in a net water loss of up to 95 inches. The combination of low precipitation and high evaporation prevents 

25 surface water from infiltrating deeply into CMAGR soils. Thus, most of the year, the desert washes on the 

26 CMAGR are dry. During heavy rainstorms, these washes drain surface water runoff from the surrounding 

27 landscape. This runoff can be captured in natural catchments such as tinajas (natural bedrock 

28 depressions), sand tanks, charcos (mud holes), and playa lakes. Natural springs or seeps are found in some 

29 locations on the CMAGR; however, for most of the year they are dry. Groundwater discharges from 

30 bedrock joints and fractures within the Chocolate Mountains also are ephemeral and short lived, occurring 

31 only after a rainfall event.

32 Surface water drainages are divided by the Chocolate Mountains. On the western and some of the eastern 

33 slopes, runoff drains toward the Salton Sea. Runoff from the east slope of the northern Chocolate 

34 Mountains drains to Salt Creek Wash which, in turn, drains to the Salton Sea. Runoff from the east slope 

35 of the central portion of the Chocolate Mountains drains to the Salton Sea by way of several mountain 

36 passes, the largest of which is Iris Wash. Runoff from the eastern slope of the southern portion of the 

37 Chocolate Mountains drains northeastward into Arroyo Seco and Milpitas Washes and then 

38 southeastward to the Colorado River.

39 Artificial tanks, wildlife water sources (guzzlers), and tinajas are the only open water sources within the 

40 CMAGR available to wildlife. The artificial water sources largely have been constructed by Desert 

41 Wildlife Unlimited in cooperation with the CDFG, the Navy, and the Marine Corps and are designed to 

42 collect rainwater using concrete basins and/or natural topography to support on-range wildlife 

43 populations. The CDFG manages 26 existing guzzlers within the CMAGR that provide supplemental 

44 source of water for desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) 

45 in the Chocolate Mountains (BLM 2009). In 2009, the BLM and CDFG approved the installation of eight 

46 additional guzzlers; three have been built, and are counted among the 26 existing guzzlers, and five are 
Water Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-52 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 pending (BLM 2009). At Beal Well and Salvation Well, water is pumped to the surface by a windmill.

2 The storage capacity of the tanks and guzzlers ranges from 1,000 to 24,000 gallons. Water can be retained 

3 in these systems for a time period of several months to more than one year, depending on weather and 

4 wildlife use. The tinajas are ephemeral pools that develop after seasonal storm events in narrow canyons 

5 where depressions in exposed bedrock collect and hold rainfall. Within the CMAGR, Tortuga Springs is 

6 the only aquifer-fed, natural spring; however, this spring has been reported as dry since 1976 (Lesicka 

7 1990). 

8 Perennial surface water is present in the Coachella Canal, along the western range boundary. Along the 

9 length of the CMAGR boundary, portions of the Coachella Canal are lined with concrete to minimize 

10 water losses. The water in the canal is kept separate from local storm water runoff by a series of siphons 

11 that allow the canal to flow beneath storm water channels. Storm water is directed toward the siphons by 

12 a series of low, earthen dikes on the uphill side of the canal. Water in the Coachella Canal is derived from 

13 the Colorado River and is diverted at the Imperial Dam, approximately 20 miles upstream from Yuma, 

14 Arizona.

15 Beneficial uses of surface water within the region are largely associated with irrigated agriculture, mining, 

16 geothermal energy production, and recreational use (primarily the Salton Sea). Agricultural use is the 

17 predominant beneficial use of water in the region. Surface waters in the region also provide habitat for 

18 fish and wildlife. Most of the surface water used is imported via canals from the Colorado River. Accord19 ing to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin (California Regional Water Quality 

20 Control Board 2006), the potential existing and intermittent beneficial uses of perennial, intermittent, and 

21 ephemeral streams and washes is agriculture, municipal use, industry, groundwater recharge, contact and 

22 non-contact recreational use, warm freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat. Beneficial uses of surface 

23 waters within the CMAGR are largely limited to groundwater recharge and wildlife habitat.

24 3.5.3 Groundwater

25 There are currently no active water supply wells on the CMAGR. Groundwater use beneath the CMAGR 

26 is precluded by Public Water Reserve 65. Water for CMAGR activities is transported to the range.

27 Groundwater resources within the CMAGR are extremely limited. Little rainfall, high evaporation, and 

28 rapid runoff result in minimal groundwater recharge. Recharge has been estimated at 6.3 to 

29 9.5 millimeters per year, or 10 to 14 percent of precipitation (CDM Federal Programs 2003). These values 

30 are similar to those found at the Yucca Mountain facility in the northern Mojave Desert of Nevada, an 

31 area with approximately twice the average annual rainfall that the CMAGR receives. At Yucca Mountain, 

32 recharge rates of zero are estimated for relatively flat areas with deep sandy soil, 10 to 20 millimeters per 

33 year for flat-lying bedrock ridges, and 100 millimeters per year or more for drainage channels with thin 

34 soils overlying fractured bedrock (Bechtel/SAIC 2004).

35 Bedrock areas of the Chocolate Mountains have limited groundwater potential and are classified by the 

36 CDWR (2003) as non-water-bearing. Shallow wells located in the bedrock areas are assumed to tap 

37 waters in thin alluvium or fractured bedrock. The water-bearing potential of the bedrock formations is 

38 highly limited. Infiltration into bedrock formations at the CMAGR is expected to be significantly less 

39 because of the steep slopes of the Chocolate Mountains, which increase runoff and decrease percolation. 

40 More extensive groundwater resources are present in the down-faulted sedimentary basins located east 

41 and west of the Chocolate Mountains. The most important hydrologic features of the groundwater basins 

42 are the alluvial fans. The aquifers in the intermontane sedimentary basins receive most of their recharge 

43 through the coarse sediments deposited in the fans (Planert and Williams 1995). Sinks, which are areas 

44 where runoff from the ephemeral desert washes is temporarily impounded against sand dunes, form 

45 locally important recharge features along the northeast margin of the Sand Hills, along the southwestern 

46 corner of the CMAGR (Loeltz et al. 1975).
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad

(Inactive)

C

h

o

c

o

l

a

t

e

M

o u n t a i n s

Orocopia Mountains

Imperial

Valley

Algodones Dunes

Palo Verde Mountains

Mountain

Blue

Mount

Barrow

Little Mule

Mountains

Black Hills

Chuckwalla Mountains

Little Chuckwalla Mountains

Glamis

Niland

Riverside County

Imperial County

Coachella Canal

Ship Creek

Milpitas Wa sh

Salt Creek

Alamo River

Vinagre Wash

Ninemile Wash

Arroyo Seco

Mammoth Wash

Iris 

Wash

Palo

Verde

Valley

Arroyo

Seco-Upper

Milpitas Wash

Lower

Milpitas

Wash

Mesquito

Springs

Ford

Well

Ship

Creek-Ford

Dry Lake Salt

Creek

Gould

Wash-Colorado

Algodones River

Dunes-Chocolate

Mountain

Deer

Peak

Alamo

River

Imperial

Valley-Frontal

Salton Sea

Salton

Sea

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_Surface_Water.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Stream\Wash

Ditch

Lake\Reservoir

Surface Watershed

Target or Target Complex

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Railroad

Surface Watersheds

at the CMAGR

Figure 3-9

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

3-53

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Surface Water: USGS NHD 2010

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BLM 2010

Imagery: Bing Aerials © 2010 Microsoft Corporation

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad

(Inactive)

C

h

o

c

o

l

a

t

e

M

o u n t a i n s

Orocopia Mountains

Algodones Dunes

Palo Verde Mountains

Mountain

Blue

Mount

Barrow

Little Mule

Mountains

Black Hills

Chuckwalla Mountains

Little Chuckwalla Mountains

Glamis

Niland

SALTON

SEA

Riverside County

Imperial County

Coachella Canal

Amos

Valley

Imperial

Valley

East

Salton

Sea

Arroyo Seco

Valley

Chocolate

Valley

Palo

Verde

Mesa

Chuckwalla

Valley

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_Groundwater.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Target or Target Complex

Well

Groundwater Flow Direction

Groundwater Basin

Amos Valley

Arroyo Seco Valley

Chocolate Valley

Chuckwalla Valley

East Salton Sea

Imperial Valley

Palo Verde Mesa

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Railroad

Groundwater

at the CMAGR

Figure 3-10

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

3-54

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Wells: NHD 2010, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Groundwater Basin: CDWR 2010

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BLM 2010

Imagery: Bing Aerials © 2010 Microsoft Corporation

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Water Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-55 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Several shallow dug wells in the northern portion of the CMAGR were surveyed by the U.S. Geological 

2 Survey (USGS) in 1975 and found to have groundwater at depths of 10 to 38 feet below ground surface 

3 (Loeltz et al. 1975). Along the southwestern border of the CMAGR, groundwater is recharged by leakage 

4 from the All American Canal and, historically, from the Coachella Canal before it was lined. The USGS 

5 surveyed two wells along the canals within the CMAGR, completed at total depths of 550 and 1,000 feet, 

6 with water levels of 25 and 154 feet below ground surface. The USGS studies indicate that groundwater 

7 in the vicinity of the canals is chemically similar to Colorado River water and that groundwater elevations 

8 are higher along the canals, indicating that groundwater is locally derived from canal leakage (Loeltz 

9 et al. 1975). There is not enough groundwater data east of the Coachella Canal to develop potentiometric 

10 contours for the water table or characterize the groundwater quality beneath the CMAGR.

11 The CMAGR is underlain by portions of four groundwater basins defined by the CDWR (CDWR 2003). 

12 These basins are part of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. Figure 3-10 shows the groundwater 

13 basins underlying the CMAGR, which include, from north to south, the Chocolate Valley, East Salton 

14 Sea, Amos Valley, and Arroyo Seco Valley basins. The general groundwater characteristics of each of 

15 these basins are discussed below. 

16 3.5.3.1 Chocolate Valley Groundwater Basin

17 The Chocolate Valley groundwater basin encompasses an area of 130,000 acres, including much of the 

18 northeastern part of the CMAGR. The basin is bounded by non-water-bearing rocks of the Orocopia and 

19 Chuckwalla mountains on the north and the Chocolate Mountains on the south and southeast. A low-lying 

20 drainage divide forms the eastern boundary, and the Salton Sea forms the western boundary. The basin is 

21 underlain by as much as 400 feet of Quaternary alluvium and Quaternary and Tertiary sedimentary 

22 deposits (CDWR 2004a). The basin is traversed by the San Andreas fault zone (including the Banning, 

23 Mission Creek, Salton Creek, Clemens Well, and San Andreas faults), which may impede groundwater 

24 movement and discharge to the Salton Sea. Depths to groundwater are sparse, except in the far western 

25 portion of the basin where groundwater levels are reported to range between 10 and 99 feet below ground 

26 surface. Groundwater flow is to the northwest and southwest where it presumably discharges as 

27 underflow to the Salton Sea (CDWR 2004a).

28 Recharge to the basin is derived chiefly from infiltration of runoff along the base of the Orocopia, 

29 Chuckwalla, and Chocolate mountains. Surface water runoff is drained to the Salton Sea by way of Salt 

30 Creek Wash. CDWR estimates the total storage capacity in the Chocolate Valley groundwater basin at 

31 1,000,000 acre-feet, with approximately 200 acre-feet of recharge per year (CDWR 2004a). The actual

32 amount of groundwater stored in the Chocolate Valley groundwater basin is not known.

33 Groundwater quality in the basin is considered poor for domestic use because of elevated fluoride and 

34 total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations and possibly for irrigation use because of elevated boron 

35 contents. Fluoride contents in Chocolate Valley groundwater range from 0.6 to 60.0 milligrams per liter 

36 (mg/L) and average about 5.5 mg/L. The maximum contaminant limit (MCL) for fluoride in drinking 

37 water is 4.0 mg/L. TDS contents range from about 460 to 24,500 mg/L, with an average concentration of 

38 about 3,000 mg/L (CDWR 2004a). The secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/L. Boron 

39 concentrations range from 0.08 to 15.8 mg/L and average about 2.2 mg/L.

40 3.5.3.2 East Salton Sea Groundwater Basin

41 The East Salton Sea groundwater basin lies in Chocolate Valley west of the CMAGR and occupies 

42 196,000 acres between the non-water bearing rocks of the Chocolate Mountains to the east and the San 

43 Andreas Fault to the west. Groundwater is stored in Quaternary alluvium and Quaternary and Tertiary 

44 sedimentary deposits that range up to 400 feet thick in the basin. Depths to groundwater range from 20 to 

45 48 feet below ground surface. CDWR records indicate a steady decline in water levels in the basin 
Water Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-56 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 between 1963 and 2000. Groundwater generally flows to the west and discharges to the Salton Sea 

2 (CDWR 2004b).

3 Recharge to the basin is derived chiefly from infiltration of runoff at the base of the Chocolate Mountains. 

4 Surface water runoff is drained to the Salton Sea by way of Iris Wash. Recharge, estimated at 200 acre5 feet per year, occurs as infiltration of runoff along the base of the adjacent mountains. CDWR estimates a 

6 total basin storage capacity of 360,000 acre-feet (CDWR 2004b). The actual amount of groundwater 

7 stored in the Chocolate Valley groundwater basin is not known.

8 Groundwater within the basin is generally unsuitable for domestic, agricultural, or industrial use because 

9 of high salinity (chloride), sulfate, and TDS. TDS concentrations range from 356 mg/L to 51,632 mg/L 

10 (CDWR 2004b). The secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/L.

11 3.5.3.3 Amos Valley Groundwater Basin

12 The Amos Valley groundwater basin lies beneath a southeast-trending valley west of the Chocolate

13 Mountains. The basin is bounded by the non-water bearing rocks of the Chocolate Mountains to the north 

14 and east and by the San Andreas Fault on the south and southeast. The Amos Valley groundwater basin is 

15 comprised of 130,000 acres underlain by as much as 550 feet of Quaternary alluvium and Quaternary and 

16 Tertiary sedimentary deposits (CDWR 2004c). The basin is traversed by the San Andreas fault zone, 

17 which may act as a barrier to groundwater flow.

18 The depth to groundwater ranges from 19 feet below surface in the northwest portion of the basin to as 

19 much as 480 feet below surface in the southeast part of the basin. Groundwater in the Amos Valley basin 

20 flows to the northwest into the East Salton Sea groundwater basin (Moyle 1974; Tetra Tech 1999; 

21 Tompson et al. 2008). Recharge to the basin is derived chiefly from infiltration of runoff along the base of 

22 the Chocolate Mountains. Natural recharge to the basin is estimated to be about 250 acre-feet per year 

23 (CDWR 2004c), with a total groundwater storage capacity of 2,900,000 acre-feet. The actual amount of 

24 groundwater stored in the Amos Valley groundwater basin is not known (CDWR 2004c).

25 Groundwater quality in the Amos Valley basin is considered marginal to poor for domestic use because of 

26 elevated fluoride, chloride, sulfate, and TDS concentrations (CDWR 2004c). Fluoride concentrations 

27 range between 1 to 3.9 mg/L and average about 2.5 mg/L. The MCL for fluoride in drinking water is 

28 4.0 mg/L. TDS contents range from about 750 to 3,100 mg/L, with an average of about 1,500 mg/L. The 

29 secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/L. Groundwater in the basin may also be marginal 

30 to poor for irrigation because of boron, which was reported at 4.3 mg/L in one well.

31 3.5.3.4 Arroyo Seco Valley Groundwater Basin

32 Groundwater is present in the alluvial deposits of the Arroyo Seco groundwater basin, which lies beneath 

33 the Arroyo Seco Valley east of the Chocolate Mountains. The basin is bounded on the west by the non34 water bearing rocks of the Chocolate Mountains and on the east by the Chuckwalla, Little Chuckwalla, 

35 Little Mule, Black Hills, and Palo Verde mountains. The Arroyo Seco groundwater basin includes an area 

36 of 258,000 acres of Holocene alluvium and Pliocene to Pleistocene sedimentary deposits (CDWR 2004d).

37 The consolidated rocks of the Little Mule Mountains, which trend south toward Blue Mountain, constrict 

38 eastward movement of groundwater in the central part of the basin (CDWR 2004d). Depths to 

39 groundwater range from 30 to 198 feet below ground surface. Regional groundwater flow in the basin is 

40 generally toward the southeast.

41 Surface water runoff is drained to the Colorado River by way of Arroyo Seco in the northwest portion of 

42 the basin and Milpitas Wash in the southeast part of the basin. Recharge to the Arroyo Seco Valley basin 

43 is derived chiefly from runoff that infiltrates through alluvial deposits along the base of the surrounding 
Water Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-57 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 mountains. Additional recharge may be obtained from subsurface inflow from the Chocolate Valley 

2 groundwater basin. Natural recharge to the basin is estimated to be about 1,500 acre-feet per year (CDWR 

3 2004d), with a total groundwater storage capacity of 7,000,000 acre-feet. The actual amount of 

4 groundwater stored in the Arroyo Seco Valley groundwater basin is not known.

5 CDWR indicates the water is generally of potable quality, with TDS concentrations typically ranging 

6 from about 300 to 900 mg/L and locally up to 2,450 mg/L (CDWR 2004d). Fluoride concentrations range 

7 from 0.10 to 5.20 mg/L, and boron concentrations range from 0.10 to 5.00 mg/L. However, groundwater 

8 may exceed MCLs at some locations and be unsuitable for domestic use.

9 3.5.4 Water Rights

10 Although the Federal government typically reserves water rights on public lands, water use at the 

11 CMAGR is governed by Public Water Reserve 65. A review of the California State Water Resources 

12 Control Board Electronic Water Rights Information Management System (eWRIMS) confirms that no 

13 surface water licenses or permits exist within the CMAGR.

14 3.5.5 Water Development Potential

15 Surface water development potential at the CMAGR is low because there are no naturally occurring 

16 perennial surface water features on the range. Surface water at the CMAGR is derived from infrequent 

17 rainfall events that produce localized flash-flooding and temporary surface water runoff; thus, most of the 

18 year the desert washes on the CMAGR are dry. These waters could be temporarily retained in reservoirs;

19 however with rainfall averages less than 5 inches per year and a pan evaporation rate of 100 inches per 

20 year, water captured in reservoirs would likely evaporate. 

21 Where possible, beneficial use of groundwater in the region has been designated for municipal, industrial, 

22 or agricultural use (California Regional Water Quality Control Board 2006). The groundwater

23 development potential is defined by volume and capacity of the basin (for example, storage), producibility 

24 of groundwater, quality of groundwater, and the overall potential for sustained renewability of 

25 groundwater via recharge. Groundwater basins beneath the CMAGR have sufficient storage capacity and 

26 the groundwater can likely be produced using standard well field technologies. Although large volumes of 

27 groundwater likely exist, the actual water volume, water quality, and sustained renewability of the basins 

28 is poorly known because very few wells have been drilled on the range. Historically, there has been little 

29 need to investigate and develop the groundwater in the CMAGR area due to the availability and low cost 

30 of imported surface water. Good quality groundwater is likely present at shallow depths, less than 

31 1,000 feet, and likely decreases in quality with depth as the salinity and TDS concentrations increase. 

32 Sustained renewability of groundwater beneath the CMAGR is also likely limited because the range is 

33 located in the Colorado Desert, which has low rainfall (less than 5 inches per year) and high evaporation 

34 rates, resulting in minimal recharge and replenishment of groundwater that might be removed from 

35 storage. Considering the above, large-scale groundwater development potential on the CMAGR is 

36 considered low.

37

38 3.6 AIR QUALITY 

39 The following sections describe (1) the air quality setting, including regional climate and pollutant 

40 descriptions; (2) the regulatory environment, including federal, state, and local involvement and 

41 requirements; (3) the project setting; and (3) the existing air quality of the CMAGR and its vicinity, 

42 including air quality monitoring results, attainment status, and discussions of the collective emissions 

43 sources.
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-58 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 3.6.1 Air Quality Setting

2 Criteria Pollutants

3 Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants that have been determined by 

4 the EPA to be of concern with respect to the health and welfare of the general public. This resource type 

5 considers ambient (outdoor) air quality and emissions of air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act, as 

6 well as the greenhouse gases (GHGs) water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), tropospheric ozone, nitrous 

7 oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4). Seven major pollutants of concern, called ―criteria pollutants,‖ are 

8 carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), suspended particulate 

9 matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10), fine particulate matter less than or equal to 

10 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality 

11 Standards (NAAQS) for these pollutants. Areas that violate a federal air quality standard are designated as 

12 non-attainment areas.

13 Ambient air quality refers to the atmospheric concentration of a specific compound (amount of pollutants 

14 in a specified volume of air) that occurs at a particular geographic location. The ambient air quality levels 

15 measured at a particular location are determined by the interactions of emissions, meteorology, and 

16 chemistry. Emission considerations include the types, amounts, and locations of pollutants emitted into 

17 the atmosphere. Meteorological considerations include wind and precipitation patterns affecting the 

18 distribution, dilution, and removal of pollutant emissions. Chemical reactions can transform pollutant 

19 emissions into other chemical substances. Ambient air quality data are generally reported as a mass per 

20 unit volume (for example, micrograms per cubic meter of air) or as a volume fraction (for example, parts 

21 per million [ppm] by volume). 

22 Pollutant emissions typically refer to the amount of pollutants or pollutant precursors introduced into the 

23 atmosphere by a source or group of sources. Pollutant emissions contribute to the ambient air 

24 concentrations of criteria pollutants, either by directly affecting the pollutant concentrations measured in 

25 the ambient air or by interacting in the atmosphere to form criteria pollutants. Primary pollutants, such as 

26 CO, SO2, Pb, and some particulates, are emitted directly into the atmosphere from emission sources.

27 Secondary pollutants, such as O3, NO2, and some particulates, are formed through atmospheric chemical 

28 reactions that are influenced by meteorology, ultraviolet light, and other atmospheric processes. PM10 and 

29 PM2.5 are generated as primary pollutants by various mechanical processes (for example, abrasion, 

30 erosion, mixing, or atomization) or combustion processes. However, PM10 and PM2.5 also can be formed 

31 as secondary pollutants through chemical reactions or by gaseous pollutants condensing into fine aerosols. 

32 In general, emissions that are considered ―precursors‖ to secondary pollutants in the atmosphere (such as 

33 reactive organic gases [ROG] and oxides of nitrogen [NOX], which are considered precursors for O3), are 

34 the pollutants for which emissions are evaluated to control the level of O3 in the ambient air.

35 Existing air quality at a given location can be described by the concentrations of various pollutants in the 

36 atmosphere. Pollutants are defined as two general types: (1) ―criteria‖ pollutants and (2) toxic compounds. 

37 Criteria pollutants have national and/or state ambient air quality standards. As shown in Table 3-11, the

38 EPA establishes the NAAQS, while the California Air Resources Board (CARB) establishes the state 

39 standards, termed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The NAAQS represent 

40 maximum acceptable concentrations that generally may not be exceeded more than once per year, except 

41 the annual standards, which may never be exceeded. The CAAQS represent maximum acceptable 

42 pollutant concentrations that are not to be equaled or exceeded. The CARB is responsible for enforcing 

43 both the federal and state air pollution standards (DoN 2010).
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-59 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-11 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Time

California Standards 

(or CAAQS)1

Federal Standards 

(or NAAQS)2

Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7

Ozone (O3)

1 Hour 0.09 ppm

(180 μg/m3)

Ultraviolet Photometry

--- Same as Primary 

Standard Ultraviolet Photometry

8 Hour 0.070 ppm

(137 μg/m3)

0.075 ppm (147 

μg/m3)

Respirable 

Particulate Matter 

(PM10)

24 Hour 50 μg/m3

Gravimetric or Beta 

Attenuation*

150 μg/m3

Same as Primary 

Standard

Inertial Separation and 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m Gravimetric Analysis 3* - -

Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5)

24 Hour No Separate State Standard 35 μg/m3

Same as Primary 

Standard

Inertial Separation and 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m Gravimetric Analysis 3*

Gravimetric or Beta 

Attenuation 15.0 μg/m3

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO)

8 Hour 9 ppm

(10 mg/m3)

Non-Dispersive Infrared 

Photometry (NDIR)

9 ppm

(10 mg/m3)

None Non-dispersive Infrared 

Photometry (NDIR) 1 Hour 20 ppm

(23 mg/m3)

35 ppm

(40 mg/m3)

8 Hour

(Lake Tahoe)

6 ppm

(7 mg/m3)

-- -- --

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2)

Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm

(57 μg/m3) Gas Phase Chemiluminescence

53 ppb8

(100 μg/m3)

Same as Primary 

Standard Gas Phase Chemiluminescence 1 Hour 0.18 ppm

(339 μg/m3)

100 ppb8

(188 μg/m

3

)

None

Lead10

(Pb)

30 days average 1.5 μg/m3

Atomic Absorption

-- --

High Volume Sampler 

and Atomic Absorption

Calendar Quarter -- 1.5 μg/m3

Same as Primary 

Standard Rolling 3-month 

Average11 -- 0.15 μg/m3

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Annual Arithmetic Mean --

Ultraviolet Fluorescence

30 ppb9

(80 μg/m3)

--

Ultraviolet Fluorescence; 

Spectrophoto-metry 

(Pararosaniline Method)

24 Hour 0.04 ppm

(105 μg/m3)

140 ppb9

(365 μg/m3)

--

3 Hour -- --

0.5 ppm9

(1300 μg/m3)

1 Hour 0.25 ppm

(655 μg/m3)

75 ppb9

(196 μg/m3)

--

Visibility Reducing 

Particles 8 Hour

Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer – visibility 

of 10 miles or more (0.07-30 miles or more for Lake 

Tahoe) due to particles when the relative humidity is 

less than 70 percent. Method: Beta Attenuation and 

Transmittance through Filter Tape.

NO FEDERAL STANDARDS
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-60 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Pollutant Averaging Time

California Standards 

(or CAAQS)1

Federal Standards 

(or NAAQS)2

Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7

Sulfates

(O4S-22) 24 Hour 25 μg/m3

Ion Chroma-tography*

Vinyl Chloride10

(C2H3Cl) 24 Hour 0.01 ppm(26 μg/m3)

Gas Chroma-tography

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(H2S) 1 Hour 0.03 ppm(42 μg/m

3

)

Ultraviolet Fluorescence

1. California standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2(1 and 24 hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All 

others are not to be equaled or exceeded. CAAQSs are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 

2. National standards (other than O3, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 

standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard 

is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150μg/m3is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5 the 24-hour 

standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the EPA for further clarification 

and current federal policies. 

3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25 degrees Centigrade 

(°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm 

in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 

4. Any equivalent procedure that can be shown to the satisfaction of the CARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 

5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 

6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 

7. Reference method as described by the EPA. An ―equivalent method‖ of measurement may be used but must have a ―consistent relationship to the reference method‖ and 

must be approved by the EPA.

8. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm. Note that 

the EPA standards are in the units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in the units of ppm. To directly compare the national standards to the California 

standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm respectively.

9. On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. The EPA also proposed a new automated Federal Reference Method (FRM) using ultraviolet technology, but will retain the older pararosaniline 

methods until the new FRM have adequately permeated State monitoring networks. The EPA also revoked both the existing 24-hour SO2 standard of 0.14 ppm and the 

annual primary SO2 standard of 0.030 ppm, although they will still remain in effect until 1 year after the new 1-hour designations take effect. The secondary SO2 standard 

was not revised at this time; however, the secondary standard is undergoing a separate review by the EPA. Note that the new standard is in units of ppb. California standards 

are in the units of ppm. To directly compare the new primary national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national 

standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

10. The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as  ̳toxic air contaminants‘ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow 

for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

11. National lead standard, 3-month rolling average: final rule signed October 15, 2008.

Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2010

1
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-61 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Toxic Air Contaminants

2 Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne compounds that have been determined to present some level 

3 of acute or chronic health risk (cancer or non-cancer) to the general public. A list of TACs is established 

4 by the CARB at the state-level, while the EPA maintains its own separate list identified as hazardous air 

5 pollutants (HAPs). These pollutants may be emitted in trace amounts from various types of sources, 

6 including combustion sources.

7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

8 Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. These emissions occur from natural 

9 processes as well as human activities. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates, in part, the 

10 earth‘s temperature. Scientific evidence suggests a trend of increasing global temperature over the past 

11 century is potentially due to an increase in GHG emissions from human activities. Potential climate 

12 change associated with GHGs may produce economic and social consequences across the globe.

13 The most common GHGs emitted from natural processes and human activities include CO2, CH4, and 

14 N2O. Examples of GHGs created and emitted primarily through human activities include fluorinated 

15 gases (hydro fluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) and sulfur hexafluoride. Each GHG is assigned a global 

16 warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the ability of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. The 

17 GWP rating system is standardized to CO2, which has a value of one. For example, CH4 has a GWP of 21, 

18 which means that it has a global warming effect 21 times greater than CO2 on an equal-mass basis. Total 

19 GHG emissions from a source are often reported as a CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The CO2e is calculated by 

20 multiplying the emission of each GHG by its GWP and adding the results together to produce a single, 

21 combined emission rate representing all GHGs. On a national scale, federal agencies are addressing 

22 emissions of GHGs by reductions mandated in federal laws and Executive Orders. Most recently, 

23 Executive Order 13423 Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, 

24 and Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 

25 were enacted to address GHGs, including GHG emissions inventory, reduction, and reporting. Several 

26 states have promulgated laws as a means to reduce statewide levels of GHG emissions. In particular, the 

27 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 directs the state of California to reduce statewide GHG 

28 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

29 The DoN and Marine Corps have implemented a number of renewable energy projects in an effort to 

30 reduce energy consumption, reduce GHGs, reduce dependence on petroleum, and increase the use of 

31 renewable energy resources in accordance with the goals set by Executive Order 13123, Greening the 

32 Government through Efficient Energy Management, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (legislation 

33 passed by Congress that includes promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy efforts in DoD 

34 facilities, among many other items) (NAVFAC, 2006). The types of projects currently in operation within 

35 the NAVFAC Southwest region include thermal and photovoltaic solar systems, geothermal power plants, 

36 and wind generators. The DoN continues to promote and install new renewable energy projects within the 

37 NAVFAC Southwest region. 

38 The potential effects of proposed GHG emissions are by nature global and may result in cumulative 

39 impacts, as individual sources of GHG emissions are not large enough to have an appreciable effect on 

40 climate change.

41 3.6.2 Air Quality Regulatory Environment

42 The Federal CAA of 1970 and its subsequent amendments established air quality regulations and the 

43 NAAQS, and delegated the enforcement of these standards to the states. The CARB is the state agency 

44 that has been delegated authority to enforce air pollution regulations and set guidelines to attain and 

45 maintain the NAAQS. The CARB has in turn delegated the responsibility of regulating stationary 
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-62 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 emission sources to regional air district agencies. The CAA establishes air quality planning processes and 

2 requires areas in nonattainment to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that details how the state 

3 will attain and maintain the NAAQS. The following section provides a summary of the federal, state, and 

4 local air quality rules and regulations that apply to the Proposed Action.

5 Federal Requirements

6 Section 176(c) of the 1990 CAA Amendments contains the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR 51.850-

7 860 and 40 CFR 93.150-160). The General Conformity Rule requires any federal agency responsible for 

8 an action in a nonattainment or maintenance area to determine that the action conforms to the applicable 

9 SIP. This means that federally supported or funded activities will not (1) cause or contribute to any new

10 air quality standard violation; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing standard violation; or 

11 (3) delay the timely attainment of any standard, interim emission reduction, or other milestone. The rule 

12 allows for approximately 30 exemptions that are assumed to conform to an applicable SIP. Emissions of 

13 attainment pollutants are exempt from conformity analyses. Actions would conform to a SIP if their 

14 annual direct and indirect emissions remain less than the applicable de minimis thresholds. Formal 

15 conformity determinations are required for any actions that exceed these thresholds. 

16 As discussed in a project setting section that follows, a portion of the CMAGR lies within Imperial 

17 County, and a portion lies within Riverside County. The conformity de minimis thresholds for the 

18 Imperial County portion of the CMAGR are 100 tons per year for O3 precursors, including NOX and 

19 ROG, and 70 tons per year for PM10. The conformity de minimis thresholds for the Riverside County 

20 portion of the CMAGR are 25 tons per year for O3 precursors and 70 tons per year for PM10. These 

21 thresholds are summarized in Table 3-12.

22 Table 3-12 De Minimis Threshold

Criteria Pollutant

De Minimis Threshold 

(tons/year)

Riverside County

PM10 70

NOX 25

ROG 25

Imperial County

PM10 70

NOX 100

ROG 100

23

24 State and Local Requirements

25 The CARB is the state agency responsible for air quality within the state of California. The CARB has 

26 delegated authority to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) to administer air 

27 quality in the Imperial County portion of the SSAB and has delegated authority to the South Coast Air 

28 Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to administer air quality in the Riverside County portion of the 

29 SSAB.

30 ICAPCD contributions to the California SIP include 2009 O3 and PM10 plans, which address both the O3

31 and PM10 NAAQS, respectively (ICAPCD 2011). The most recent attainment plan for the Mojave Desert 

32 is the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (DoN 2010).
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-63 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 3.6.3 Project Setting

2 Regional Climate

3 The CMAGR is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which includes all of Imperial County 

4 and the southwest third of Riverside County. The climate of the CMAGR is desert, with low humidity, 

5 high summer temperatures, and moderate winter temperatures. 

6 Data from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) are available for Eagle Mountain, California, 

7 which is located to the west of the CMAGR near Joshua Tree National Park. Data from this location 

8 indicate that July is the hottest month with an average maximum temperature of 104.9 degrees Fahrenheit 

9 (°F) (40.5 °C). January is the month with the lowest average maximum temperature of 64.4°F (18°C). 

10 July is the month with the highest average minimum temperature of 82.6°F (28.1°C). The month with the 

11 lowest average minimum temperature is January at 44.3°F (6.8°C) (DoN 2010) (WRCC 2011).

12 Average precipitation measured at the Eagle Mountain meteorological station is 3.67 inches per year. The 

13 driest months are from April through June. August is the wettest month due to the influence of the 

14 summer monsoon rain pattern (DoN 2010).

15 3.6.4 Existing Air Quality

16 The existing air quality in the vicinity of the CMAGR is described in the following subsection, which 

17 includes a discussion of local air quality monitoring data and attainment status, and a semi-quantitative 

18 discussion of existing emissions.

19 Local Monitoring Data and Attainment Status

20 Representative air quality data for the region, as collected at the Niland and Brawley monitoring stations 

21 in Imperial County for the period 2006-2010, are shown in Table 3-13. Only O3, PM10, and PM2.5 are

22 measured at these monitoring stations. CO, NO2, and SO2 concentrations are not anticipated to be 

23 elevated due to the undeveloped nature of the range (DoN 2010).
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-64 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-13 Representative Air Quality Data for the CMAGR (2006-2010)

Air Quality Indicator 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

O3

1

Peak 8-hour value (ppm) 0.080 0.082 0.085 0.083 0.075

Days above federal standard (0.075 ppm)2, 3 3 7 3 5 0

PM10

1

Peak 24-hour value (μg/m3) 116 162 122 202 58

Days above federal standard (150 μg/m3) 0 3.5 0 6.1 0

PM2.5 

2

Peak 24-hour value (μg/m3) 30.4 19.5 32.7 26.6 16.2

Days above federal standard (35 μg/m3)

4

* * 0 * *

Annual Average value (μg/m3) * * 8.2 * *

Notes:

μg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter 

ppm = parts per million 

1 Data from the Niland Monitoring Station. 

2 The federal O3 standard was revised downward in 2008 to 0.075 ppm. 

3 The federal 8-hour O3 standard was previously defined as 0.08 ppm. Measurements were rounded up 

or down to determine compliance with the standard; therefore a measurement of 0.084 ppm is rounded 

to 0.08 ppm. The 8-hour O3 ambient air quality standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring 

site when the average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average O3 concentration is 

less than or equal to the standard. 

4 Data from the Brawley Monitoring Station. The federal PM2.5 standard was revised downward in 2007 

to 35 μg/m3.

* Insufficient data available to determine the value. 

Source: DoN 2010; CARB 2011

2

3 The Imperial County portion of the SSAB is classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 8-hour O3

4 NAAQS, and the western two-thirds of Imperial County is classified as a serious nonattainment area for 

5 PM10. The SSAB portion of Riverside County is classified as a severe-15 nonattainment area for the 

6 8-hour O3 NAAQS, and also is classified as a serious nonattainment area for PM10. The CMAGR attains 

7 all other NAAQS. The CMAGR is also considered a nonattainment area for the CAAQS for O3 and PM10, 

8 and attains all other CAAQS (DoN 2010).

9 Emissions Sources

10 Current emission sources at the CMAGR range include, but are not limited to military aircraft operations 

11 (including fuel combustion); dropping and/or firing of live ordnance by aircraft and/or ground forces in 

12 training; vehicle travel on unpaved roads associated with ground force and naval special warfare training; 

13 range maintenance activities; and wind-generated dust from both disturbed and undisturbed portions of 

14 the desert terrain. Vehicles and aircraft combust fuel, resulting in the emission of criteria pollutants and 

15 greenhouse gases, whereas ground vehicle movement, the use of live ordnance, and wind generally result 

16 in dust. Emissions from limited aircraft operations associated with the CMAGR are presented in 

17 Table 3-14, based on the results of recent technical reports. Emissions resulting from other activities, such 

18 as ground force training and range maintenance, are not included in the quantitative results presented; 

19 although, as with the aircraft operational emissions, they would not be affected by the specific proposed 

20 action that is the subject of this LEIS. 
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-65 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 3-14 Current Annual Emissions Due to Limited11 CMAGR Aircraft Operations 

2 (Riverside and Imperial Counties)

Activity Annual Emissions (tons per year)

CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5

4

Riverside County

Existing AV-8B20.92 0.37 0.03 0.03 0.55 N/A

F/A-18 A/C/D20.26 0.71 0.05 0.04 0.67 N/A

CH46 Operations3

0.41 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.04 N/A

Total 1.59 1.16 0.15 0.08 1.26 1.25

Imperial County

Existing AV-8B21.21 0.49 0.03 0.04 0.73 N/A

F/A-18 A/C/D20.34 0.93 0.06 0.06 0.88 N/A

CH46 Operations3

1.66 0.33 0.29 0.03 0.15 N/A

Total 3.21 1.75 0.38 0.13 1.76 1.74

3 Notes:

4 N/A = not available.

1 5 Emissions in the above table are noted as limited because they do not include all aircraft used at CMAGR, but rather those key 

6 aircraft involved in recent West Coast basing EISs, as well as those slated for replacement/retirement by newer aircraft. 

2

7 AV-8B and F/A-18 A/C/D emissions are based on low altitude (less than 3,000 feet above ground level [AGL]) sortie data 

8 obtained from ―Table 58. Annual Flight Operations for Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range R-2507,‖ from F-35B West 

9 Coast Basing EIS (DoN 2010b). As obtained, these annual emissions data are not specific to a particular year.

3

10 CH-46 operational emissions are based on data obtained from Table B1-35, Chocolate Mt. Range CH-46 Aircraft Emissions –

11 Fiscal Year 2014 (DoN, 2009). The data presented above are estimated fiscal year 2014 CH46 operational emissions. As noted 

12 in Table B1-121 of the same report, because approximately 80/20% of the CMAGR occurs within the Imperial/Riverside 

13 County portions of the SSAB, the estimated emissions within the CMAGR were distributed by these amounts into these areas.

4

14 Because PM2.5 emissions were not provided in the referenced report and are due to liquid fuel combustion, the total PM2.5

15 emissions values were estimated to be equal to 99% of PM10 emissions. This is consistent with South Coast Air Quality 

16 Management District‘s ―Final –Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds‖ 

17 dated October 2006.

18

19 There are few permanent structures on the CMAGR other than those at Camp Billy Machen. The only 

20 operations outside the Camp are training exercises. ICAPCD Rule 800 concerns particulate matter; per 

21 this rule, the CMAGR is granted an exemption for military range training, range clearance, and target 

22 maintenance activities. The rule restricts speed limits to 25 miles per hour on unpaved roads; additionally, 

23 access to the range is restricted—that is, public entry is not allowed. Activities within Camp Billy 

24 Machen and any road maintenance must follow Rule 800 (DoN 2011).

25 The following potential pollutant-emitting equipment are known to exist at Camp Billy Machen (DoN 

26 2011).

27 Two permitted emergency generators, including:

28 o Kohler Model 150REOZJE, 237 horsepower (hp), diesel-fueled, and limited to 

29 50 operational hours per year for maintenance purposes (by permit condition), ICAPCD 

30 Permit # 2762A-1

31 o Kohler Model 100REZG, 162 hp, propane-fired, and limited to 50 operational hours per 

32 year for maintenance purposes (by permit condition), ICAPCD Permit # 2762A-2
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-66 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Non-retail service station with gasoline dispensing; 8,000 gallon capacity tank, equipped with 

2 Phase II vapor recovery equipment; ICAPCD Permit #2366

3 Several small gasoline and diesel engines, all of which are below the size threshold to trigger the 

4 need for permits

5 Portable welding operations, one of which is a diesel engine for use on the ranges; the other is 

6 electrical for shop use

7 Due to the limited use and nature of this equipment and the associated range maintenance operations 

8 performed in support of Camp Billy Machen operations, direct emissions have not been estimated.

9

10 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

11 This section describes the baseline conditions for biological resources. The term ―biological resources‖ 

12 includes plant and animal species, terrestrial and aquatic habitats (including jurisdictional waters, see 

13 Section 3.7.3.2), and habitats of concern (including special-status plant communities, critical habitat, and 

14 wildlife corridors). The sections that follow describe these for the CMAGR and their context within the 

15 greater CMAGR region.

16 3.7.1 Biological Resource Setting 

17 The CMAGR encompasses most of the Chocolate Mountains, the largest mountain range in the Colorado 

18 Desert. The Colorado Desert is a western subdivision of the Sonoran Desert located west of the Colorado 

19 River. The Chocolate Mountains are bounded by the Colorado River to the east; the Coachella Valley, 

20 Salton Sea, and Imperial Valley to the southwest; the Orocopia Mountains and Chuckwalla Mountains to 

21 the north; and Chuckwalla Bench to the northeast. The Algodones Dunes parallel the western flank of the 

22 Chocolate Mountains outside the boundary of the CMAGR, extending from south of the Mexican border 

23 to about Mammoth Wash, which is about 10 miles east of the town of Calipatria (Figure 3-11). 

24 Background information for this section was obtained from GIS data, the California Native Plant Society, 

25 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and regional 

26 planning documents. The information is provided in the context of the Endangered Species Act, 

27 Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and California Food and Agriculture Code 

28 §§7270-7224.

29 3.7.2 Vegetation

30 The vegetation within the CMAGR is comprised of two primary natural plant communities, Colorado 

31 Sonoran desert scrub and dry desert wash woodland (Gap Analysis Program [GAP] 2008). These native 

32 plant communities occur widely in the surrounding region, along with areas of the desert dunes plant 

33 community in the Algodones Dunes, as well as developed agricultural lands and urban areas surrounding

34 the CMAGR. Accurate acreages of the native communities in the CMAGR are not available; the best 

35 available data are from GAP land cover data (GAP 2008), which may underestimate the amount of 

36 Colorado Sonoran desert scrub and overestimate the amount of dry desert wash woodland at the 

37 CMAGR.

38
111

Arizona

California

95

Eagle Mountain

Railroad

(Inactive)

Union Pacific Railroad

C

h

o

c

o l a

t

e

M

o u n t a i n s

Coachella Valley

Orocopia Mountains

Imperial

Valley

Chuckwalla Mountains

Algodones Dunes

Palo Verde Mountains

Chuckwalla Bench

Imperial

Reservoir

Southern

Mojave

Whitewater

River

Salton

Sea

San

Felipe

Creek

Lower

Colorado

Carrizo

Creek

SALTON

SEA

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

Brawley

10

Riverside County

Imperial County

Riverside County

San Diego County

Imper ai l County

San D ei go 

County

Salt Creek

Colorado 

River

New 

River

Alamo River

Milpitas Wash

Arroyo Seco

Mammoth Wash

Iris Wash

Coachella Canal

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_Waters of US.mxd (jw 7/31/2012)

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Lake

City\Town

Railroad

Interstate

Highway

County Boundary

Hydrologic Unit (HUC)

Carrizo Creek

Imperial Reservoir

Lower Colorado

Salton Sea

San Felipe Creek

Southern Mojave

Whitewater River

Wetland Type

Freshwater-Forested and Shurb Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Riverine

Stream/River

Jurisdictional 

Waters Connectivity

Figure 3-11

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

3-67

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Miles

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Kilometers

Map Scale 1:475,000

Source:

Hydrology: USGS NHD 2010

NWI: USFWS 2004

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, USGS NHD 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-68 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Colorado Sonoran Desert Scrub – This desert scrub community typifies most of the CMAGR and 

2 occurs in mountains, valleys, alluvial fans, and bajadas. This desert scrub is characterized by a sparse to 

3 moderately dense layer (2-50 percent cover) of xeric adapted shrubs and little or no interspersed 

4 vegetation (Nature Serve 2011). Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) and white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa)

5 are typically the dominant species in the region, but other shrubs and cacti can form unique associations 

6 depending on local soils, topography, and other environmental conditions (Nature Serve 2011). Desert 

7 succulents commonly associate as subdominant species in the southern Chocolate Mountains and 

8 southern part of the CMAGR and could be categorized as a separate vegetation type known as desert 

9 succulent scrub. Common associates in this sub-region include jumping cholla (Cylindropuntia bigelovii) 

10 and ocotillo (Foqueria splendens) (Davis et al. 2008). Desert pavement often occurs in patches of 

11 Colorado Sonoran desert scrub, which limits the density and diversity of plant cover to nearly pure stands 

12 of creosote bush in such localities (Brown 1994). The community transitions abruptly to desert dry wash 

13 woodland along most desert washes.

14 The desert scrub community is not designated as a sensitive plant community by BLM. None of the 

15 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) rare associations of Colorado Sonoran desert scrub are 

16 documented in the CMAGR and surrounding areas (CNDDB 2011). 

17 Desert Wash Woodland – While limited in area, desert wash habitats are vitally important to wildlife 

18 and ecological processes throughout the southwestern deserts. Numerous desert washes occur throughout 

19 the CMAGR. Salt Creek is the largest wash in the CMAGR area east of the Coachella Canal and forms a 

20 lowland divide between the Orocopia Mountains and Chocolate Mountains and flows westward into the 

21 Salton Sink. The largest washes within the CMAGR include Arroyo Seco, Mammoth Wash, Milpitas 

22 Wash, and Iris Wash (see Figure 3-11). Washes in the region only flow with runoff during seasonal rain 

23 events and often form braided channels and sorted sandy substrates in the wash bottoms.

24 Plants typifying dry desert wash woodlands include tree-like shrubs that grow taller and closer together 

25 than in the surrounding desert scrub (Nature Serve 2011). Tree-like species typically growing in this 

26 vegetation type in the CMAGR include blue paloverde (Parkinsonia floridum), desert ironwood (Olneya 

27 tesota), smoketree (Dalea spinosa), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), and honey mesquite (Prosopis 

28 glandulosa) (Nature Serve 2011). Availability of water and depth to groundwater typically affect which 

29 combinations of these species occur along a particular stretch of wash. Blue paloverde dominates most of 

30 the desert wash woodlands in the CMAGR; with honey mesquite dominated stands being restricted to Salt 

31 Creek and its tributaries, ironwood dominated stands occurring in the southern part of the CMAGR, and 

32 catclaw acacia-dominated stands growing on bajadas above the Salton Sea and Coachella Canal. 

33 Dry desert wash woodlands are designated as a sensitive plant community by BLM. CNDDB rare 

34 associations of dry desert wash woodland occur in the CMAGR and surrounding areas. These include 

35 stands co-dominated by Munz‘s cholla (Cylindropuntia munzii), crown of thorns (Koeberlinia spinosa), 

36 and crucifixion thorn (Castela emoryi). These species are described in the special status species section of 

37 Table 3-15. 

38 Desert Dunes – This plant community occurs in areas with sand deposits and sand dunes southwest of the 

39 Chocolate Mountains outside of the CMAGR. The most prominent formation is the nearby Algodones 

40 Dunes (see Figure 3-11). Vegetation in active dunes typically is limited to depressions or bowls without 

41 moving sands (Nature Serve 2011). The soils in these areas consist primarily of fine sand. Vegetation is 

42 adapted to relatively high sand mobility and deep water percolation (Nature Serve 2011). Most of these 

43 plant species are capable of rapid growth, given favorable soil moisture conditions. 
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-69 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Common vegetation within this community includes Mormon tea (Ephedra spp.), Colorado desert 

2 buckwheat (Eriogonum deserticola), desert dicoria (Dicoria canescens), common sandpaper plant 

3 (Petalonyx thurberi), desert panicum (Panicum urvilleanum), and plicate coldenia (Tiquilia plicata)

4 (Nature Serve 2011). Additionally, birdcage evening primrose (Oenothera deltoides) and desert lily 

5 (Hesperocallis undulata) may occur in the relatively stable dunes that form a transitional zone next to 

6 stands of creosote bush (Nature Serve 2011).

7 3.7.3 Aquatic Habitats and Floodplains 

8 The CMAGR is located within the Salton Sea and Imperial Reservoir hydrologic units. The Salton Sea 

9 hydrologic unit within the CMAGR is drained by the Salt Creek, Iris Wash, and Mammoth Wash. 

10 Ephemeral surface water drainages within the Salton Sea hydrologic unit flow and discharge to the Salton 

11 Sea, which is considered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to be a Traditional Navigable 

12 Water (TNW). The Imperial Reservoir hydrologic unit within the CMAGR is drained by the Arroyo Seco 

13 and Milpitas washes. Ephemeral surface water drainages within the Imperial Reservoir hydrologic unit 

14 flow and discharge to the Colorado River, which also is a TNW. Figure 3-11 shows the locations of 

15 hydrologic units and connecting drainage washes at the CMAGR.

16 Surface water is extremely scarce at the CMAGR. There are no naturally occurring perennial surface 

17 water features on the range. Perennial surface waters are present outside the CMAGR and include the 

18 Salton Sea, Colorado River, New River, Alamo River, and Coachella Canal. Surface water at the 

19 CMAGR is derived from infrequent rainfall events that produce localized flash-flooding and temporary 

20 surface water runoff, especially during thunderstorms in the monsoon seasons. Most of the year, the 

21 desert washes on the CMAGR are dry. During heavy rainstorms, these washes drain surface water runoff 

22 from the surrounding landscape.

23 3.7.3.1 Wetlands 

24 Under Section 404 of the CWA, wetlands are defined as ―areas that are inundated or saturated by surface 

25 or ground water at a frequency sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

26 prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.‖ Three parameters are used

27 in the field to delineate wetlands: hydrophytic vegetation (more than 50 percent of dominant plants are 

28 adapted to anaerobic soil conditions), hydric soils (soils classified as hydric or that exhibit characteristics

29 of a reducing environment), and wetland hydrology (inundation or soil saturation during at least 5 percent 

30 of the growing season, which is 18 days in Southern California). 

31 Wetlands provide wildlife habitat—including for special status species; slow, detain, and store stormwater 

32 runoff; and improve water quality. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database (USFWS 2004), 

33 which identifies potential wetlands in landscapes based on remote sensing methods, indicates that 

34 approximately 1,647 acres of potential wetlands occur in the CMAGR, including 1 acre of freshwater 

35 emergent wetland, 8 acres of freshwater forested/shrub wetland, and 1,638 acres of riverine wetland 

36 (mostly wash woodlands). The NWI findings have not been validated by ground surveys and the NWI 

37 database overestimates the occurrence of wetlands within the CMAGR. 

38 3.7.3.2 Waters of the U.S.

39 Waters of the U.S. refers to areas under the USACE‘s jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA 

40 and are generally defined by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The USACE‘s jurisdiction can 

41 extend beyond the OHWM to the limit of adjacent wetlands, when present. Wetlands also can occur 

42 within waters of the U.S. Ephemeral surface water drainages supporting OHWMs within the CMAGR, 

43 such as Iris Wash, Mammoth Wash, and Arroyo Seco, are considered waters of the U.S (see Figure 3-11,

44 Jurisdictional Waters Connectivity). Outside the CMAGR, the Salton Sea is a TNW, and its tributaries, 

45 the New and Alamo rivers, are waters of the U.S.
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-70 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Surface water drainages in the CMAGR are divided by the Chocolate Mountains. On the western slopes, 

2 runoff drains toward the Salton Sea. Runoff from the east slope of the northern Chocolate Mountains 

3 drains to Salt Creek Wash which, in turn, drains to the Salton Sea. Runoff from the west slope of the 

4 central portion of the Chocolate Mountains drains to the Salton Sea by way of several mountain passes, 

5 the largest of which is Iris Wash. Runoff from the eastern slope of the southern portion of the Chocolate 

6 Mountains drains northeastward into Arroyo Seco and Milpitas washes and then southeastward to the 

7 Colorado River, also a TNW.

8 Perennial surface water is present in the Coachella Canal, along the western range boundary. The water in 

9 the canal is kept separate from local storm water runoff by a series of siphons that allow the canal to flow 

10 beneath storm water channels. Storm water is directed toward the siphons by a series of low, earthen 

11 dikes on the uphill side of the canal. Water in the Coachella Canal is derived from the Colorado River and 

12 is diverted at the Imperial Dam, approximately 20 miles upstream from Yuma, Arizona. 

13 3.7.4 Wildlife Habitat

14 Most wildlife species are able to survive by evading the hot and dry extremes of the Colorado Desert‘s 

15 climate through behavioral and physiological adaptations. Many species are adapted to survive without 

16 free water in their environment. As a consequence of harsh climatic extremes, limited habitat resources, 

17 and regional geographic barriers, the diversity of animal species in the CMAGR is typically low relative 

18 to other parts of the Sonoran and Mojave deserts.

19 The CMAGR largely lacks surface waters for wildlife with the exception of ephemeral pools that develop 

20 after seasonal storm events. Artificial tanks, wildlife water sources (guzzlers), and tinajas (natural bedrock 

21 depressions) are the only open water sources within the CMAGR available to wildlife. The CDFG 

22 manages 26 existing guzzlers within the CMAGR principally to provide supplemental water for desert 

23 bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in the Chocolate 

24 Mountains (BLM 2009). Five additional guzzlers are proposed for future installation.

25 3.7.4.1 General Wildlife

26 As already indicated, the diversity of wildlife species in the Colorado Sonoran desert scrub plant 

27 community within the CMAGR is low. A representative list of the most common species includes the 

28 desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), western whiptail 

29 lizard (Aspidoscelis tigris), sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), 

30 mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), lesser nighthawk (Chordeiles acutipennis), black-tailed gnatcatcher 

31 (Polioptila melanura), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), big brown bat (Eptesicus 

32 fuscus), kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), Botta‘s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), Merriam‘s kangaroo rat 

33 (Dipodomys merriami), round-tailed ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus), desert cottontail 

34 (Sylvilagus audubonii), and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) (BLM 2002, BLM 2011). Local

35 variations in substrate, topography, and cover account for site-specific differences in species composition.

36 A relatively larger number of wildlife species utilize dry desert wash woodlands. Wildlife commonly 

37 associated with this plant community includes species that are specific to this habitat for most or all of 

38 their life-cycle functions and those that utilize both dry desert wash woodlands and the surrounding desert 

39 scrub habitats. Common species include the side blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western whiptail 

40 lizard, zebra-tailed lizard, sidewinder, red-tailed hawk, Gambel‘s quail (Callipepla gambelli), mourning 

41 dove, ladder-backed woodpecker (Picoides scalaris), verdin (Auriparus flaviceps), western flycatcher 

42 (Empidonax difficilis), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus burnneicapillus), warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), 

43 Wilson‘s warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), black-tailed gnatcatcher, 

44 white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus), coyote (Canis 

45 latrans), kit fox, mule deer, white-tailed antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus), black-tailed 
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-71 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 jack rabbit, and desert cottontail (BLM 2002, BLM 2011). The hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) has been 

2 documented from the CMAGR in the Chocolate Mountains (CNDDB 2011), and dry desert wash 

3 woodlands would provide adequate stop-over habitat for this species during migration. 

4 The common wildlife associated with desert dune habitats include black-tailed gnatcatcher, mourning 

5 dove, Colorado fringe-toed lizard (Uma notata), kit fox, round-tailed ground squirrel, desert kangaroo rat 

6 (Dipodomys deserti), and black-tailed jackrabbit (BLM 2011). 

7 3.7.4.2 Wildlife Corridors 

8 The Chocolate Mountains form an ecological peninsula bounded by the Colorado River to the east; the 

9 Coachella Valley, Salton Sea, and Imperial Valley to the southwest; the Orocopia Mountains and 

10 Chuckwalla Mountains to the north; and Chuckwalla Bench to the northeast. The area is somewhat 

11 ecologically isolated due to the proximity of the Colorado River.

12 Little development has occurred to the north and west of the CMAGR. Historical connections for wildlife 

13 movement through lowlands are largely intact between the Orocopia, Chocolate, and Chuckwalla 

14 mountains. The Coachella Canal, Interstate 10, SR 78, and the UPRR are filter-barriers that inhibit

15 wildlife movement to varying degrees in the region (see Figure 3-11). The Coachella Canal is the greatest 

16 of these man-made barriers, which greatly restricts terrestrial wildlife movements between the CMAGR 

17 and areas to the west and south. SR 78 may impede wildlife movement to and from the Palo Verde 

18 Mountains and the southern part of the Chocolate Mountains.

19 3.7.5 Special Status Species

20 Figure 3-12 shows recorded confirmed locations for special status species in the CMAGR vicinity. 

21 Certain special status species have been excluded from further analysis because they are not known to 

22 occur at the CMAGR or if they are present are unlikely to be affected under the various alternatives; these 

23 species are summarized in Table 3-15. Two listed or sensitive species that are fully analyzed are the 

24 Mojave desert tortoise and the desert bighorn sheep.

25 Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) – Federally Threatened, State Threatened

26 The Mojave desert tortoise primarily occurs in the bajadas, mountain foothills, and valleys of the Mojave 

27 and Colorado deserts west of the Colorado River. This species usually occurs below 4,000 feet in creosote 

28 bush, saltbush scrub habitats, tree yucca (Joshua tree and Mojave yucca) communities, and some ocotillo29 creosote habitats (Brennan and Holycross 2006, Stebbins 2003). Creosote bush, white bursage, tree yucca, 

30 galleta grass (Pleuraphis rigida), and blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima) are indicator species of 

31 overall desert tortoise habitat (Brennan and Holycross 2006, Nussear et al. 2009). Mojave desert tortoises 

32 occupy a wide variety of soil types and substrates that include sand dunes, rocky hillsides, and caliche 

33 caves in washes, sandy soils, and desert pavements. Tortoises must have suitable substrates and terrain for 

34 digging burrows (Brennan and Holycross 2006, Stebbins 2003). The availability of adequate forage 

35 resources consisting of native grasses, herbaceous perennials and annuals, and cacti are important for 

36 determining habitat suitability for the Mojave desert tortoise (Brennan and Holycross 2006, Stebbins 

37 2003, Nussear et al. 2009).

38

39
111

Arizona

California

95

Mexico

Eagle Mountain

Railroad

(Inactive)

Union Pacific Railroad

SALTON

SEA

Blythe

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

Brawley

Blythe

10

Riverside County

Imperial County

Riverside County

San Diego County

Imper ai l County

San D ei go 

County

Coachella Canal

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_SSS.mxd (jw 7/31/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Modeled Desert Tortoise Habitat

Low

Moderate

High

Critical Habitat

Desert tortoise

Peirson's milk-vetch

Big Game

Nelson's bighorn sheep

Mammals

American badger

California leaf-nosed bat

Pallid bat

Pocketed free-tailed bat

Western mastiff bat

Western small-footed myotis

Western yellow bat

Birds

Burrowing owl

Crissal thrasher

Gila woodpecker

Le Conte's thrasher

Loggerhead shrike

Merlin

Prairie Falcon

Amphibians and Reptiles

Couch's spadefoot

Flat-tailed horned lizard

Mohave desert tortoise

Wildlife Water

(Guzzler)

City\Town

County Boundary

Railroad

Interstate

Highway

Special Status

Species within

the CMAGR Vicinity

Figure 3-12

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

3-72

Source:

Critical Habitat: USFWS 2010

Desert Tortoise Model: USGS 2009

Special Status Species: California Natural Diversity Database 2011

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, USGS NHD 2010

Imagery: Bing Aerials © 2010 Microsoft Corporation

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Miles

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Kilometers

Map Scale 1:475,000

Plants

Algodones sunflower

California ayenia

Cove's cassia

Crown-of-thorns

Darlington's blazing star

Desert silver bush

Emory's crucifixion-thorn

Giant spanish-needle

Harwood's rattleweed

Las Animas colubrina

Munz's cholla

Orocopia sage

Peirson's milk-vetch

Pink fairy-duster

Saguaro

Sand evening-primrose

Sand food

Slender cottonheads

Spear-leaf matelea

Triple-ribbed milk-vetch

Wiggins' croton

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-73 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-15 Summary of Federal, State, or Bureau of Land Management Listed Species Dismissed from Further Analysis

Common Name

Scientific Name

Federal 

Status

BLM

Status

State 

Status

Species or Habitat

Present Potential Absent Habitat Association

Big Game

Burro mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus 

eremicus)

None None None x

Occurs in desert wash woodland communities with dense cover and good 

forage near permanent water during summer and away from water in other 

seasons (BLM 2002). 

Mountain Lion 

(Puma concolor brownii)

None None SSC x

Occurs in low mountains and large dry desert washes with riparian or 

shrubby vegetation interspersed with irregular terrain or rocky outcrops 

(Bolster 1998). Follows the yearly movements of mule deer, and is known 

to spend the hot summer and fall in riparian areas along the Colorado River 

and in dense desert wash woodlands near the Coachella Canal (BLM 2002).

Special Status Animals

Amphibians

Couch‘s spadefoot 

(Scaphiopus couchii) None S SSC x

Occurs in Sonoran desert scrub, related semi-desert grasslands, and 

occasionally next to agricultural fields (Brennan and Holycross 2006, 

Stebbins 2003). Breeding pools usually occur in valleys but also can form 

in lower rocky arroyos and canyons.

Reptiles

Flat-tailed horned lizard 

(Phrynosoma (Anota) 

mcallii)

CA S SSC x

Occurs in Sonoran desert scrub dominated by creosote bush in low dunes 

and flatlands with a deep, sandy substrate (Brennan and Holycross 2006, 

Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee 2003). 

Colorado Desert fringe-toed 

lizard 

(Uma notata)

None S SSC x

Occurs in open dune fields, washes, river banks, and shrub-invaded sand 

hummocks with at least sporadic, open patches of fine, unconsolidated or 

wind-blown sand (Brennan and Holycross 2006, Stebbins 2003). 

Birds

Burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia)

None S SSC, FP x

Inhabits desert scrublands, grasslands, agricultural areas, and golf courses 

(WFO and CDFG 2008).

Northern harrier 

(Circus cyaneus)

None None SSC, FP x

Prefers open habitats with lookout perches such as shrubs or fence posts. 

These habitats include weedy borders of rivers, lakes, streams, freshwater 

marshes, grasslands, weed fields, pastures, and some croplands (including 

alfalfa and melons). 

Golden eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos)

BGEPA S FP x

Forages in grassy and open shrubby habitats and nests primarily on cliffs, 

but has been known to nest in large trees. (Source?)

Ferruginous hawk

(Buteo regalis)

None None SSC, FP x

Overwinters in desert scrub and agricultural areas of the Imperial Valley 

(WFO and CDFG 2008).

Swainson‘s hawk

(Buteo swainsoni)

None S T, FP x

Most often found in grasslands, shrub lands, and agricultural areas, where 

open land for foraging and trees for roosting and nesting are available. 

Merlin 

(Falco columbarius)

None None Watch 

List, FP x

Occurs in grasslands, shrub lands, woodlands, and agricultural areas with 

suitable perch sites.
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-74 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Common Name

Scientific Name

Federal 

Status

BLM

Status

State 

Status

Species or Habitat

Present Potential Absent Habitat Association

Prairie falcon 

(Falco mexicanus)

None None FP x

Found in areas where cliffs provide secure nesting sites (WFO and CDFG 

2008). This species occurs in all vegetation types in the desert, although 

sparse vegetation provides the best foraging habitat (WFO and CDFG 

2008). Predominantly a winter resident in the Colorado Desert (WFO and 

CDFG 2008). 

Peregrine falcon 

(Falco peregrinus)

None None FP x

Occurs in areas with rocky, steep cliffs, primarily near water, where prey 

(shorebirds, songbirds, and waterfowl) concentrations are high. Nests are 

found on ledges of cliffs, and sometimes on man-made structures such as 

office towers and bridge abutments (USFWS 2001).

Loggerhead shrike 

(Lanius ludovicianus)

None None SSC x

Occurs in a wide variety of open habitats, including shrub-scrub habitats, 

chaparral, fencerows, old orchards, mowed roadsides, cemeteries, golf 

courses, agricultural fields, riparian woodlands, and open woodlands (WFO 

and CDFG 2008).

Gila woodpecker 

(Melanerpes uropygialis) None S E x

Occurs in low desert scrub with saguaro, paloverde, ironwood, or mesquite 

trees (WFO and CDFG 2008). Also frequents riparian woodlands and dry 

desert washes with a high density of trees and tree-like shrubs. 

Crissal thrasher 

(Toxostoma crissale)

None None SSC x

Uses a variety of vegetation communities but consistently inhabits tall, 

dense brush and shrub thickets in dry desert washes irrespective of the plant 

composition (WFO and CDFG 2008). Individuals have been encountered in 

mountain chaparral and oak-piñon-juniper woodlands in parts of Arizona 

(Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). 

LeConte‘s thrasher

(Toxostoma lecontei)

None None SSC x

Inhabits sparse desert scrub habitats with few scattered trees or tall shrubs 

(Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). It often nests in spiny shrubs or densely 

branched cactus. Uses scattered shrubs and cactus for cover, most 

frequently saltbush and cholla.

Lucy‘s warbler 

(Oreothlypis luciae)

None None SSC x

Occurs in lowland riparian habitat including tamarisk, mesquite-willow, 

cottonwood-mesquite, and cottonwood-willow associations and in midelevation ash-walnut-sycamore-live oak associations and tamarisk thickets,

rarely in palo verde and ironwood (Johnson et al. 1997). 

Vaux‘s swift 

(Chaetura vauxi) None None SSC x

Usually roosts and nests in large cavities in a variety of tree species and less 

frequently in artificial structures. Forages over a variety of habitats, 

including over water at various heights.

Mammals

California leaf-nosed bat 

(Macrotus californicus)

None S SSC x

Mating, maternity, and overwintering roosts are in caves or mines that 

provide a warm temperature of about 80°F (Adams 2003). Forages almost 

exclusively along dry desert washes within about 6 miles of the roost site 

(Adams 2003). 

Pallid bat 

(Antrozous pallidus)

None S SSC x

Occurs in desert scrub, piñon-juniper woodlands, and transition forest 

habitats. Roosts in small colonies of up to 20 individuals in rock crevices, 

buildings, and other built structures (Adams 2003), and occasionally in 

caves, mines, rock piles, and tree cavities. 
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-75 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Common Name

Scientific Name

Federal 

Status

BLM

Status

State 

Status

Species or Habitat

Present Potential Absent Habitat Association

Western yellow bat 

(Lasiurus xanthinus)

None None SSC x

Occurs in desert and semi-desert habitats of the southwestern United States 

(Adams 2003). Commonly roosts beneath dead palm fronds in both native 

and non-native palm trees, in cottonwoods in riparian gallery forests and 

woodlands, and in tree-like yuccas (Adams 2003). 

Western small-footed myotis 

(Myotis ciliolabrum)

None S None x

Occurs in deserts, chaparral, riparian zones, and western coniferous forests; 

it is most common above the piñon-juniper woodland zone (Adams 2003). 

Individuals are known to roost singly or in small groups in cliff and rock 

crevices, buildings, concrete overpasses, caves, and mines (Adams 2003). 

Pocketed free-tailed bat 

(Nyctinomops femorosaccus)

None None SSC x

Occurs in a variety of plant communities from desert scrub through pineoak forests, but the species is most common in desert and semi-desert 

environments (Adams 2003). In California, found primarily in creosote 

bush and chaparral habitats in or near granite boulders, cliffs, or rocky 

canyons (Adams 2003) and roosts primarily in crevices of rugged cliffs, 

high rocky outcrops, and slopes (Adams 2003). 

Big free-tailed bat 

(Nyctinomops macrotis)

None None SSC x

Primarily inhabits rugged, mountainous terrain in desert and semi-desert 

habitats. Occurs in desert scrub, woodlands, and evergreen forests (Adams 

2003) and roosts in rock crevices where cliffs occur and occasionally roosts 

in buildings, caves, and tree cavities (Adams 2003). 

Western mastiff bat 

(Eumops perotis)

None S SSC x

Most common in areas with desert scrub and broad open expanses (Adams 

2003). Foraging habitat includes dry desert washes, flood plains, chaparral, 

oak woodland, open ponderosa pine forest, grassland, and agricultural areas 

(Adams 2003). Primarily a cliff-dwelling species that roosts in rock 

crevices, under exfoliating slabs of rock, in shallow cliff-side caves, and in 

buildings (Adams 2003).

American badger 

(Taxidea taxus)

None None SSC x

Characteristically inhabits open habitats and avoids heavily wooded areas 

(CDFG 2011, Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Occurs in prairies, meadows and 

parklands in forested areas, alpine tundra, and desert and semi-desert 

shrublands (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). 

Plants

Harwood‘s rattleweed 

(Astragalus insularis var. 

harwoodii)

None None CNPS 2.2, 

SH S2.2 x

Occurs in Sonoran desert scrub in dunes and other areas with a sandy 

substrate (CNPS 2011, SEINet 2011).

Peirson‘s milk-vetch 

(Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii)

T None E x

Occurrence limited to the Algodones Dunes and Gran Desierto. (CNPS 

2011, SEINet 2011). Designated critical habitat for the species occurs in the 

Algodones Dunes from SR 78 to approximately Mammoth Wash. 

Triple-ribbed milk-vetch 

(Astragalus tricarinatus)

E None SH S1.2 x

Occurs on rocky exposed slopes, ridges, and rockslides in upland areas with 

a decomposed granite substrate (Amsberry and Meinke 2007). 

California ayenia 

(Ayenia compacta)

None None CNPS 2.3, 

SH S3?18 x

Occurs on bajadas and rocky slopes (CNPS 2011, SEINet 2011). 

 

8

Adding an ―?‖ to the rank represents more certainty than S3S4 (in the range of vulnerable to apparently secure), but less certainty than S3 (vulnerable).
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-76 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Common Name

Scientific Name

Federal 

Status

BLM

Status

State 

Status

Species or Habitat

Present Potential Absent Habitat Association

Pink fairy-duster 

(Calliandra eriphylla) None None CNPS 2.3, 

SH S2S3 x

Occurs on sandy, rocky soils in washes, gullies, and mesas and in dry desert 

wash woodlands with blue paloverde, ironwood, and smoketree (CNPS 

2011, SEINet 2011).

Sand evening-primrose 

(Camissonia arenaria)

None None CNPS 2.3, 

SH S2 x

Occurs in Sonoran desert scrub dominated by creosote bush, with sandy to 

rocky substrates (CNPS 2011, SEINet 2011). 

Saguaro

(Carnegiea gigantea) None None CNPS 2.2, 

SH 1.2 x

Occurs on rocky slopes, bajadas, and well-drained flats with a sandy to 

gravelly substrate (CNPS 2011, SEINet 2011). In the western part of its 

range, saguaro is increasingly restricted to dry wash habitats. 

Emory‘s crucifixion-thorn 

(Castela emoryi)

None None CNPS 2.3, 

SH S2S3 x

Occurs on sandy to gravelly substrates on bajadas and in dry washes (CNPS 

2011, SEINet 2011).

Las Animas colubrine 

(Colubrina californica)

None None CNPS 2.3,

SH S2S3.3 x

Occurs along washes and dry slopes with coarse substrates (CNPS 2011, 

SEINet 2011).

Wiggins‘ croton 

(Croton wigginsii) None S 

CNPS 2.2, 

SH S1.2, 

RCNPPA

x

Grows in the Colorado Desert within Sonoran desert scrub on fine sandy 

soils of dunes and sand fields in the Algodones Dunes (CNPS 2011, SEINet 

2011). 

Munz‘s cholla 

(Cylindropuntia munzii) None S 

CNPS 

1B.3, 

SH S1.2

x

Grows in Sonoran desert scrub on sandy to gravelly substrates along washes 

and canyon walls (CNPS 2011, SEINet 2011). 

Desert silver bush 

(Argythamnia claryana or 

Ditaxis claryana)

None None CNPS 2.2, 

SH S1 x

Grows on sandy substrates in Sonoran and Mojave desert scrub, often near 

dry washes and on bajadas (CNPS 2011, SEINet 2011). 

Crown-of-thorns 

(Koeberlinia spinosa var. 

tenuispina)

None None CNPS 2.2, 

SH S2.2 x

Occurs in the Colorado Desert on rocky or gravelly soils in washes and 

ravines within Sonoran desert scrub and within dry desert wash woodland 

dominated by blue paloverde, ironwood, and smoketree (CNPS 2011, 

SEINet 2011). 

Algodones sunflower 

(Helianthus niveus var. 

tephrodes)

None S

CNPS 

1B.2, 

SH S1.2

x

Occurs in the Algodones Dunes in dune environments with fine sands and a 

cover of creosote bush desert scrub (CNPS 2011, SEINet 2011). 

Spear-leaf matelea 

(Matelea parvifolia) None None CNPS 2.3, 

SH S2.2 x

Occurs in Sonoran and Mojave on gravelly, rocky soils in hills and 

mountains in desert scrub plant communities and associates with creosote 

bush (CNPS 2011, SEINet 2011). 

Darlington‘s blazing star 

(Mentzelia puberula 

[oreophila])

None None CNPS 2.2, 

SH S2 x

Grows commonly on rock outcrops and talus along canyon walls in creosote 

bush desert scrub, primarily in the Mojave Desert (CNPS 2011, SEINet 

2011). 

Slender cottonheads 

(Nemacaulis denudata var. 

gracilis)

None None CNPS 2.2, 

SH S2 x

Grows in sand dunes and deep sandy soil and associates with sparse desert 

scrub and coastal strand plant communities (CNPS 2011, SEINet 2011).

Giant Spanish-needle 

(Palafoxia arida var. 

gigantea)

None S

CNPS 

1B.3, 

SH S2

x

Grows in Colorado Sonoran desert scrub and desert dunes with deep, fine, 

sandy soils (CNPS 2011, SEINet 2011). 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-77 Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chap

Common Name 

Scientific Name

Federal 

Status 

BLM 

Status 

State 

Status 

Species or Habitat 

Present Potential Absent Habitat Associatio

Sand food (Pholisma sonorae) None S CNPS 1B.2, 

SH S2 

 x 

Occurrence restricted to the Algodones Dunes Imperial Valley in California, as well as dunes 

County, Arizona, and northwestern Sonora, Me2011). 

Orocopia sage (Salvia greatae) None None CNPS 1B.3, 

SH S2 

x 

Occurs in the Colorado Desert in Sonoran desefans, and desert dry washes with sandy gravelly 2011). Occurs with creosote bush, blue palover(CNPS 2011, SEINet 2011). 

Cove’s cassia (Senna covesii) None None CNPS 2.2, SH S1 x Grows in Sonoran desert scrub or near dry dese

sandy soil (CNPS 2011, SEINet 2011). 

1 Federal Status: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (T = Threatened, E = Endangered, CA = Candidate), BGEPA= Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Ac2 BLM Status: S = sensitive 3 State Status: 4 California Department of Fish and Game (SSC = Species of Special Concern, FP = Fully Protected (Fully Protected species may not be taken or posse5 licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species fo6 California Native Plant Society Rankings 7 CNPS 1B.2 (1: rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, .2: Fairly threatened in California [20-80% occurrences threatened / mode8 threat]) 9 CNPS 1B.3 (1: rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, .3: Not very threatened in California [<20% of occurrences threatened / lo

10 threat or no current threats known]) 11 CNPS 2.2 (2: rare, threatened, or endangered in California but common elsewhere, .2: Fairly threatened in California [20-80% occurrences threatened 12 immediacy of threat]) 13 CNPS 2.3 (2:rare, threatened, or endangered in California but common elsewhere, .3: Not very threatened in California [<20% of occurrences threaten14 immediacy of threat or no current threats known]) 15 California State Heritage Rankings 16 SH S2.2 (S2: Imperiled; .2: fairly endangered in California [20-80 percent occurrences threatened]) 17 SH S1.2 (S1: Critically Imperiled; .2: fairly endangered in California [20-80 percent occurrences threatened]) 18 SH S3 (S3: Vulnerable) 19 SH S2S3 (S2: Imperiled; S3: Vulnerable) 20 SH S2S3.3 (S2: Imperiled; S3: Vulnerable; .3: not very endangered in California [less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened]) 21 RCNPPA = Rare California Native Plant Protection Act 22 
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-78 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The CMAGR is the primary installation harboring desert tortoise habitat in the Colorado Desert in 

2 California (USFWS 1990, 1994a). In 1994, about 6.6 million acres in four states were designated as 

3 Critical Habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise, including about 183,419 acres 

4 (40 percent) of the northeastern half of the CMAGR (USFWS 1994b; see Figure 3-12). Occurrences of 

5 the Mojave desert tortoise in the CMAGR are reported from the northeastern side of the Chocolate 

6 Mountains and southward along SR 78 (CNDDB 2011) (Figure 3-12). Suitable habitat occurs for the 

7 species throughout the CMAGR, but density estimates are low for the west side of the Chocolate 

8 Mountains (Dames & Moore 1995, Nussear et al. 2009) (Figure 3-12). The highest densities of Mojave 

9 desert tortoises in the surrounding region had been on the Chuckwalla Bench, but precipitous declines 

10 have occurred due to factors affecting the species throughout its range. These have included habitat loss, 

11 diseases, excessive predation on young tortoises by ravens and coyote, collecting, shooting, highway and 

12 vehicle kills, and other factors.

13 The recovery plan for the Mojave desert tortoise was recently updated in 2011 (USFWS 2011). Military 

14 operations (e.g., construction and operation of bases, ranges, and field maneuvers) have taken place in the 

15 Mojave Desert since 1859 and can affect tortoises and their habitats similarly to other large human 

16 settlements (i.e., illegal collection of tortoises, trash dumping, increased raven (Corvus corax) 

17 populations, domestic predators, OHV use, increased exposure to disease, and increased mortality) 

18 (USFWS 1994a; Krzysik 1998; Boarman 2002). The value that military lands can provide for 

19 conservation has long been recognized (Stein et al. 2008). Restricted-access military lands provide an 

20 extensive network of tortoise habitats that are managed either directly or indirectly for desert tortoise 

21 conservation. Military lands with conservation objectives expressed through compliance with the Sikes 

22 Act include a great deal of desert tortoise habitat outside of and contiguous with designated tortoise 

23 conservation areas (USFWS 2011).

24 Designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise occupies about half of the CMAGR. Target areas within 

25 the designated critical habitat are not part of the critical habitat area because the constituent elements for 

26 which the area was designated have been removed by military training activities. However, about 

27 95 percent (177,000 acres) of the critical habitat in the CMAGR is in areas of negligible to low military 

28 surface use. Approximately 300 acres of military use roads pass through the critical habitat and about 

29 9,300 acres of the critical habitat within the CMAGR are in areas of moderate military use to support the 

30 secondary weapons impact areas. Near the northern perimeter of the CMAGR, including some land south 

31 of the Bradshaw Trail, some to the critical habitat was acquired through purchases from the Land and 

32 Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . 

33 Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) – BLM Sensitive

34 Nelson‘s desert bighorn is found in the desert mountains of southeastern California. Desert bighorn sheep 

35 favor open, rocky, and steep terrain and avoid dense vegetation that blocks visibility (CDFG 2011). 

36 Habitat used by desert bighorn also includes springs and plateaus (BLM 2002). The CMAGR 

37 subpopulation is part of a larger Sonoran meta-population. 

38 Long-term survival of local sub-populations of bighorn sheep requires movement of individuals among 

39 regional subpopulations to prevent genetic bottlenecks, to maintain viable population numbers, and to 

40 recolonize vacant or formerly occupied areas (Bleich et al. 1990 and Schwartz et al. 1986 in BLM 2002). 

41 Desert bighorn sheep will move from mountains through valleys to reach preferred habitat sites (Bleich 

42 et al.1990 in BLM 2002). The Coachella Canal, Interstate 10, and SR 78 are filter-barriers that inhibit or 

43 prevent historical movement of bighorn sheep between regional mountain ranges (BLM 2002). Historical 

44 movement corridors from the Chocolate Mountains to the Orocopia Mountains, Chuckwalla Mountains, 

45 and Palo Verde Mountains likely remain intact, because little or no development occurs between these 

46 mountain ranges. 
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-79 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 CDFG offers limited hunting of this subspecies; the agency allowed 24 tags in the Colorado Desert in 

2 2011. Desert bighorn in the CMAGR cannot be hunted because of the safety hazards associated with 

3 military training that necessarily keeps the area closed to public use.

4

5 3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES

6 Under the NHPA of 1966, as amended, significant cultural resources, referred to as historic properties, 

7 represent any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for 

8 inclusion in, the NRHP. Historic properties also include resources determined to be National Historic 

9 Landmarks (NHL), which represent nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of 

10 the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting U.S. heritage. 

11 A cultural resource is considered significant if it meets one of the NRHP criteria and retains sufficient 

12 historic integrity to convey its significance. Generally, cultural resources are temporally associable with 

13 either the prehistoric or historic periods. 

14 Traditional cultural places (TCPs) also are included among historic properties. TCPs (which are addressed 

15 in the amended NHPA) are cultural resources associated with the practices or beliefs of a living 

16 community that are rooted in that community‘s history. These resources play an important role in 

17 maintaining the community‘s cultural identity. Examples of cultural resources that may be significant for 

18 Native American communities and potentially NRHP-eligible include locations associated with the 

19 traditional beliefs of a group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world or locations 

20 where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone or continue to go to perform 

21 ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice. Guidelines for evaluating 

22 whether a Native American cultural resource may be eligible for NRHP listing is provided in the National 

23 Register Bulletin 38 (Parker and King 1998).

24 Inventory Methods

25 A multi-faceted approach was implemented to develop a general overview of known cultural resources 

26 within the CMAGR. This approach included a review of existing data from past reports and studies for 

27 the identification and evaluation of historic properties, the completion of a supplemental record search of 

28 the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) by the Eastern Information Center 

29 (EIC) and by the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), the submission of an information request to 

30 the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and additional research of available data sources.

31 The record search, the NAHC information requests, and additional research were focused on those areas 

32 along the existing perimeter of the CMAGR where boundary realignments are proposed, and within a 

33 0.5-mile radius of these proposed boundary realignment areas. 

34 The NAHC was contacted to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a listing of individuals and 

35 groups believed to have knowledge of the area. Individuals and groups identified by the NAHC were 

36 contacted to solicit any questions, comments, or concerns regarding the project. The purpose of the 

37 supplemental record searches and the Native American coordination is to determine if other sensitive or 

38 significant Native American cultural resources have been identified in areas that could be affected by 

39 proposed boundary realignment since the completion of other past studies. 

40 In addition to the above, other sources were identified and reviewed for information pertaining to cultural 

41 resources. Studies reviewed include, but are not limited, to the Integrated Cultural Resources 

42 Management Plan for the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, California (AECOM 2011), the 

43 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Coast Basing of the F-35B (DoN 2010), the Final 

44 Environmental Impact Statement for the West Coast Basing of the MV-22 (DoN 2009a), and the Yuma 
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-80 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Training Range Complex (YTRC) FEIS (USMC 1997). These documents served as primary sources for 

2 the following section. Research requests were submitted for access to cultural resources records available 

3 through MCAS Yuma, DoN, BLM, and local governments and agencies that control property in, or 

4 immediately adjacent to, the areas where boundary realignments are proposed. Site-specific research also 

5 was completed for proposed boundary realignment areas and their immediate vicinities, including

6 Certified Local Government annual reports and other data; Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) 

7 and the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) records; the National Register Information 

8 System, the on-line database for National Register sites; Calisphere Digital Resources; Online Archive of 

9 California; Government Land Office Plat Maps; Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps; local historical societies 

10 and libraries; private collections; and inventory files and data on-file with other agencies.

11 3.8.1 Cultural Resource Setting

12 As recently as May 2011, an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) for the CMAGR 

13 was created for MCAS Yuma (AECOM 2011). In addition to this ICRMP, MCAS Yuma developed a 

14 cultural affiliation study to accompany the ICRMP (AECOM 2010), along with a detailed Regional 

15 Archaeological Research Design (RARD; Cleland and Wahoff 2006) for use in the management of 

16 cultural resources. These documents served as primary sources upon which the following regional cultural 

17 setting overview is based. Current knowledge of the prehistory and history of the California Colorado 

18 Desert is considered in detail elsewhere (Cleland and Wahoff 2006; Schaefer 1994) and is summarized 

19 below.

20 In addition to these studies, the Marine Corps continues to consult with the State Historic Preservation 

21 Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding operational changes at the 

22 CMAGR. For example, a Programmatic Agreement was developed to address activities connected to the 

23 West Coast basing of the MV-22 Osprey (see Appendix F). The intended purpose of this Programmatic 

24 Agreement was to achieve compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and to provide an overall 

25 framework for the Section 106 process.

26 Previously recorded cultural resources and the range of resource types potentially within specified 

27 proposed boundary realignment areas or the project vicinity were identified in addition to the regional 

28 cultural setting. The following discussion summarizes the results of this inventory, which was based on 

29 the results from record search requests, as well as information inquiries, additional background research, 

30 and the review of previous reports and investigations pertaining to cultural resources.

31 3.8.1.1 Regional Cultural Setting, Overview

32 Regional Prehistory

33 The CMAGR is situated within the Colorado Desert in a region that had few cultural resource

34 investigations until the 1980s. As more extensive cultural resource evaluations and data recovery are 

35 completed, a clearer picture of the cultural history of the Colorado Desert is beginning to emerge 

36 (Schaefer 1994; Schaefer and Laylander 2007). In a recent review of the prehistory of the Colorado 

37 Desert, Schaefer and Laylander (2007) point out that though the prehistory in this region has its own 

38 distinct material manifestations, it is nevertheless embedded in a larger context that includes the Mojave 

39 and Sonoran deserts. Furthermore, the course of prehistory in the area was influenced throughout the 

40 Holocene by the Colorado River as it periodically inundated the Salton Trough and created Lake Cahuilla 

41 (Schaefer and Laylander 2007; Weide 1976). For the purpose of the present review, the history for the 

42 Salton Sea basin and surrounding Colorado Desert is generally differentiated into three periods: Early (or 

43 Paleo-Indian), Archaic, and Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric (or Patayan).
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-81 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Early Period

2 This period generally refers to the earliest settlement of the Colorado Desert region, continuing into the 

3 terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene periods and is most commonly associated with the disputed 

4 Paleoindian cultural traditions such as the Clovis and Folsom, and the San Dieguito complex (ca. 12,000 

5 to 8,500 years before present [B.P.]), the latter of which was first identified by Malcolm Rogers (1966). 

6 The primary subsistence strategy associated with the early period centered on hunting and gathering 

7 activities dependent upon the exploitation of available animal and biotic resources. Stone tool 

8 assemblages identified as San Dieguito include an extensive array of lithic artifacts including bifaces, 

9 choppers, scrapers, crescents, and other tools, many of which are associated with hunting and gathering 

10 activities or functions. Cultural resources from this period in the Colorado Desert are generally 

11 represented as lithic scatters or rock features such as cleared circles, trails, and geoglyphs located on 

12 deflated desert pavement surfaces commonly situated along the shorelines of Pleistocene lakes or near 

13 major drainage areas (Rogers 1966; Warren 1966).

14 Archaic

15 Despite this period being scantly represented in the Colorado Desert region (Schaefer 1994; Weide 1976), 

16 it is estimated that the Archaic Period lasted approximately 8,500 to 1,500 years B.P. and represented a 

17 time when regional adaptations became well established within diverse local conditions. Some 

18 researchers have proposed that the desert regions may have been broadly abandoned during this period 

19 due to broad climactic shifts (Hayden 1976). The artifact assemblage during this period includes 

20 extensive concentrations of stone tools, most notably the Pinto-style projectile points, and the more 

21 regular appearance of a flat, smaller variety of milling stone. Groundstone tools, including manos, 

22 metates, mortars, and pestles were developed to aid in the processing of new food resources and are 

23 commonly found in artifact assemblages throughout the Mojave and Colorado deserts (Moratto 1984). In 

24 addition to stone tools, people of the Colorado Desert may have used wooden milling utensils and other 

25 artifacts of organic materials that are not typically preserved in the archaeological record. Ethnographic 

26 records show use of wooden mortars and pestles, items such as hooked sticks for shaking mesquite pods 

27 down from trees, nets to collect cactus and then beat them against the ground to remove the needles, 

28 digging sticks for excavating rodents from burrows or digging up plants, and throwing sticks for hunting 

29 hare and other small game (Barker 1976). 

30 The most prominent sites associated with this period include the Indian Hill Rockshelter (McDonald 

31 1992) in Anza Borrego Desert State Park, the Truckhaven cairn burial, and a preceramic occupation along 

32 the old Lake Cahuilla shoreline (Moratto 1984:404), as well as several sites in the Coachella Valley (Love 

33 and Dahdul 2002). Some suggest that the presence of these sites indicate that the Colorado Desert region

34 was not entirely unoccupied during the early and middle portions of the Archaic Period and that people 

35 may have only been present on a seasonal basis because of limited access to resources (Fagan 2003;

36 Weide 1976). As the presence or absence of Lake Cahuilla is not well known from this period, the 

37 scarcity of sites also might indicate that the Salton Trough was generally dry (Schaefer and Laylander 

38 2007).

39 Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Period

40 Recent research shows that around A.D. 1200, the Colorado River shifted course and refilled Lake 

41 Cahuilla (Schaefer and Laylander 2007). This refilled lake provided a stable year-round water supply in 

42 the Colorado Desert. People began to repopulate the Colorado Desert; some were following the river on 

43 its route from the Colorado River Valley and some were attracted from the Mojave Desert or the 

44 mountain ranges to the west (Moratto 1984; Weide 1976). Ceramic wares, which had been introduced 

45 centuries before in other areas, were brought into this region with the influx of people. The Patayan 
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-82 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 cultural complex, which dates roughly from 1450 B.P. to the historic period, is the most notable presence

2 in the Colorado Desert during this period. 

3 Drastic changes in the artifact assemblage, economic and kinship systems, and settlement patterns are 

4 associated with the Late Prehistoric Period. Changes that occurred during this period include the 

5 introduction of the bow and arrow (as attested to by the appearance of Cottonwood Triangular and Desert 

6 side-notched series projectile points), the paddle and anvil pottery technique, a transition in human burial 

7 practice from inhumations to cremations, the appearance of ornate rock art and intaglios/geoglyphs, 

8 expansive trade networks, and floodplain agriculture along the lower Colorado River (McGuire and 

9 Schiffer 1982; Rogers 1945; Schroeder 1975, 1979). Materials commonly used in projectile point 

10 production during the Late Prehistoric to Protohistoric Period include chalcedony, chert, quartzite, quartz, 

11 fine-grained basalt, andesite, and obsidian. Isotropic materials such as obsidian also were preferred 

12 sources for projectile points, and access to such materials was improved due to the receding shoreline of 

13 Lake Cahuilla, the result of which exposed a local obsidian source, Obsidian Butte, located between 

14 131 feet to 230 feet below sea level at the southern end of the Salton Sea. 

15 Regional History 

16 The regional history of the Chocolate Mountain area begins with the first appearance of European 

17 explorers to breach the desert regions, the Spanish. The Spanish began to explore parts of California as 

18 early as 1539, after which Spanish exploration became more sporadic for the next 200 years due to the 

19 remoteness of the area and difficult accessibility. Multiple expeditions dating to the 1700s, including 

20 those led by Father Francisco Garcés (1771), Pedro Fages (1772), and Captain Juan Bautista de Anza 

21 (1774), saw the return of the Spanish to the area and the establishment of overland routes that helped open 

22 up the region to travel (Beck and Haase 1974:15).

23 The discovery of gold in California in 1848 and the resultant influx of emigrants west marked the 

24 beginning of the Early American Period. During this time, the remote and often hostile desert regions of 

25 southern California became even more accessible for settlement due to the establishment of forts and 

26 camps throughout Arizona, Nevada, and California. The development of wagon roads and, later, a mail 

27 route and stage lines, facilitated access to, and exploitation of, the desert regions of southern California. 

28 Particular to the Chocolate Mountain area, Dr. Isaac Smith surveyed a route along the eastern flank of the

29 Salton Basin from Dos Palmas to Yuma in 1857, and in 1862 William Bradshaw scouted an overland 

30 stage route from San Bernardino to La Paz, Arizona, that skirted across the northern and northeastern 

31 edges of the Chocolate Mountains. The trail travelled by William Bradshaw was the first road across 

32 Riverside County as an overland stage route.

33 The period between the 1870s and 1942 was marked by a steep increase in the development of the 

34 Colorado Desert, which was predominantly dependent on the establishment of transportation and access 

35 to reliable water. In 1872 the Southern Pacific Railroad was constructed connecting Los Angeles to 

36 present-day Indio, California; eventually spanning the entire distance from Indio to Yuma, Arizona. All 

37 along the route small communities developed, including Dos Palmas, Frinks, and Amos, all of which are

38 adjacent to the present-day CMAGR western boundary. Other important railroad lines soon followed; 

39 among them were the Southern Pacific and the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railroads appearing in 

40 1881. These railroads further facilitated the settlement and exploitation of the region. The most notable 

41 example of this was the marked increase in mining activities in the Colorado Desert, which peaked 

42 between 1890 and 1910 and reappeared during the 1930s (Morton 1977; Rice et al. 1996). As noted in the 

43 RARD the heaviest mining activity was localized in the southeastern half of the Chocolate Mountains

44 range.
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-83 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 One of the major obstacles hindering the settlement of the Imperial Valley during most of the 19th 

2 Century was the lack of a reliable water source. The CMAGR ICRMP notes that agricultural development

3 of the area encouraged the California Development Company to begin construction of a canal in the lower 

4 Imperial Valley during the late 1890s and the completion of a canal along the old Alamo River channel to

5 carry water from the Colorado River to the Imperial Valley in 1901 (AECOM 2011). Soon thereafter, 

6 agricultural pursuits increased, as did population and settlement, which resulted in the founding of new 

7 cities and communities as illustrated by the 1905 establishment of El Centro. Soon a new channel was 

8 sought to alleviate the silting of the Alamo Canal. This construction led to the accidental flow of the 

9 Colorado River into the Imperial Valley between 1904 and 1907, and resulted in the formation of the 

10 Salton Sea. To bring water to the eastern Imperial Valley, the Coachella Canal was later constructed 

11 between 1936 and 1940. A more detailed discussion of this canal can be found in Section 3.8.2.

12 History of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range 

13 The following brief history of the CMAGR is taken directly from the CMAGR ICRMP (AECOM 2011). 

14 Use patterns of the Colorado Desert region changed during WWII. Large swaths of the desert were tapped 

15 by the U.S. military for training and maneuvering exercises, the most notable of which were led by

16 General George S. Patton, Jr., who established the Desert Training Center (DTC). The DTC was later 

17 changed to the California-Arizona Maneuver Area (CAMA) and focused on training military personnel in 

18 desert survival and warfare. With the administrative headquarters of the DTC situated at Camp Young, 

19 near what is now Chiriaco Summit, the entire area of the DTC encompassed some 18,000 square miles in 

20 southeastern California, western Arizona, and southern Nevada. Aside from Camp Young, ten other 

21 divisional camps were also established (Henley 1992:8). Continuing this tradition of military use of the 

22 area, the Chocolate Mountains became the site for Camp Dunlap, a Marine Training Center that later 

23 changed to the CMAGR (Beck and Haase 1974:88). CMAGR land and airspace have served as a 

24 bombing range since WWII. In 1966, the cantonment for Camp Billy Machen was constructed in the 

25 western CMAGR, which serves as a training camp for the Navy SEALs.

26 3.8.1.2 Record Search Results

27 Records searches were completed by the EIC, located at the University of California, Riverside, as well as 

28 by the SCIC at San Diego State University (SDSU). These record searches included a review of relevant 

29 previously recorded cultural resources and previous investigations that were completed within the areas 

30 that would be affected by proposed boundary realignments and within a 0.5-mile search radius of these 

31 lands (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2). Information reviewed included location maps for all previously recorded 

32 trinomial and primary cultural resources; DPR 523 series forms and updates for all cultural resources 

33 previously identified; previous investigation boundaries; and National Archaeological Database (NADB) 

34 citations for associated reports, technical reports, historic maps, and historic addresses. This search also 

35 included properties listed on the NRHP and the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), California 

36 Historical Landmarks (CHL), Caltrans Historic Highway Bridge Inventory, California Historical 

37 Resources Inventory, local city and county registries of historic properties, and the California Register of 

38 Historical Resources (CRHR).

39 Eastern Information Center Results

40 A cultural resource records search was requested from the EIC on 8 August 2011, which is the CHRIS 

41 cultural resources repository for Riverside County. The EIC also reviewed other sources, including maps 

42 and manuscripts housed at the EIC, the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Archaeological 

43 Determinations of Eligibility (ADOE) listing, the OHP Directory of Properties in the Historic Property 

44 Data File (HPD), as well as copies of relevant portions of historical topographic maps on file at the 

45 information center. Results of the record search completed by the EIC were received on 17 August 2011. 

46 The records search results indicated that 17 previous cultural resources studies have been completed in or 
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-84 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 within the 0.5-mile radius of the lands that would be affected by proposed boundary realignments. Ten of 

2 these studies were conducted within portions of areas affected by the proposed boundary realignments. In 

3 addition to the 17 previous studies, seven other reports were identified by the EIC as providing overviews 

4 of cultural resources within the general project vicinity. The EIC likewise identified 25 cultural resource 

5 properties previously recorded within the lands that would be affected by proposed boundary 

6 realignments and an additional 31 properties recorded within the 0.5-mile record search radius. The EIC 

7 summary identified one property listed in OHP ADOE, the Bradshaw Trail, as not evaluated for inclusion 

8 on the National Register of Historic Places; however, the ADOE printout provided by the EIC notes the 

9 status code for this property as ―2S2.‖ This designation indicates an individual property that has been 

10 determined eligible for listing on the National Register and is simultaneously listed in the California 

11 Register. The EIC review of the OHP HPD also identified another property, the Coachella Canal, as not 

12 evaluated for inclusion on the National Register. The Coachella Canal carries a status code of ―7R,‖ 

13 which represents a property identified in reconnaissance level survey but not evaluated. 

14 South Coastal Information Center Results

15 A cultural resources records search was requested from the SCIC on 3 August 2011. The SCIC is the 

16 cultural resources repository for San Diego and Imperial counties. The records search was completed by 

17 SCIC staff and included a review of all previously recorded cultural resources and previously conducted 

18 cultural surveys within the lands that would be affected by the proposed boundary realignments and 

19 within a 0.5-mile record search radius around the lands that would be affected by the proposed boundary 

20 realignments. Additionally, the SCIC consulted other sources that included a review of historic addresses 

21 for historic properties and a review of historic maps. The results of the record search completed by the 

22 SCIC were received on 18 August 2011. These results identified 47 previously conducted cultural 

23 surveys, 29 previously recorded cultural resources within the area that would be affected by the proposed 

24 boundary realignments, and 78 previously recorded cultural resources within 0.5-mile of the area that 

25 would be affected by the proposed boundary realignments. The majority of previous cultural 

26 investigations identified by the SCIC covers or crosses into portions of these lands. SCIC results indicate 

27 the presence of the Coachella Canal, but do not provide clear indication of the determination of eligibility 

28 for portions of this property within Imperial County.

29 3.8.1.3 DoN/USMC/Other Agencies Cultural Resources Records

30 DoN and MCAS Yuma documentation associated with cultural resources management programs and 

31 efforts were considered. MCAS Yuma records indicate that a total of 329 cultural resources have been 

32 identified at CMAGR; these consist of several different site types with a prehistoric, historic-period, or 

33 multi-component (historic-period and prehistoric) temporal association. The National Register eligibility 

34 has not been evaluated for 265 of the 329 resources; 60 have been evaluated and were determined as not 

35 eligible. Four resources identified by MCAS Yuma are determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

36 Among these, one is described as eligible, while three are recommended as eligible with the concurrence 

37 of the California SHPO. The site types identified include a cabin, camp sites, mining camp sites, chipping 

38 stations, ceramic and lithic scatters, debitage, cleared circles, a fire ring, a geoglyph, a habitation site, a 

39 historic complex, a lake area, mining and prospecting sites, petroglyph sites, quarries, pot-drop sites, 

40 roads, a rock cairn, other rock features and rock rings, survey markers, trails, trash dumps, well, and dump 

41 sites. The site type for some resources is unknown, while some of the listed site types were described as 

42 not re-located. 

43 A series of historical aerial images taken of the CMAGR property dating to 1943 shows several segments 

44 of the Coachella Canal while it was under construction. On several slides within this set of images, a dry 

45 linear canal feature is clearly visible, and at times the canal is identified in the images as the ―All 

46 American Canal.‖ Site records for the Coachella Canal on file at both the EIC and the SCIC indicate that 
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-85 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 before the name ―Coachella Canal‖ this feature was referred to as the ―All American Canal.‖ A more 

2 detailed discussion of this canal is provided below.

3 3.8.2 Historic Resources

4 Sources of information reviewed for the historic-period resources research included the National Register 

5 Information System, the online database for National Register sites; CPHI, CHL, and the California 

6 Historical Resources Inventory; Calisphere Digital Resources and Online Archive of California for 

7 historic photos, maps, and documents; California State University, Chico California Historical 

8 Topographic Map Collection (http://cricket.csuchico.edu/spcfotos/maps/topo_search.html); local 

9 historical societies and libraries (websites of Palm Springs Historical Society, Pioneers Museum and 

10 Cultural Center, and Salton Sea History Museum); general plans; and inventory files and data on-file with 

11 other agencies. Research did not reveal the presence of any NRHP-eligible or -listed historic-period 

12 resources. However, historic-period resources were identified during review of the current topographic 

13 maps and general internet searches based on map locations. As indicated in the CMAGR RARD, the built 

14 environment within the CMAGR is generally not a primary concern due to the minimal presence of 

15 buildings or structures, though the RARD also notes that the most common historic-period resources are 

16 those associated with mining or military training activities (2001). Similarly, the CMAGR ICRMP states 

17 that no TCPs have been identified within the CMAGR; however, it notes that the potential for such 

18 properties of importance to Native Americans exists (AECOM 2011). Historic-period resource types 

19 identified include the Coachella Canal, other waterworks structures or features, Camp Dunlap, other 

20 military-related locations and features, the Niland-Glamis Road, the Niland-Blythe Road, other historic21 period trails and roads, Eagle Mountain Railroad, Southern Pacific Railroad, other railroads (industrial 

22 railroad through Salt Creek), Acolita Dike, gravel pits, mining prospects, Gas Line Road, and the 

23 Bradshaw Trail. The Bradshaw Trail has been determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and is 

24 discussed in more detail below.

25 The Bradshaw Trail 

26 William D. Bradshaw, a former soldier based in Los Angeles, established the Bradshaw Trail, which 

27 became the most important route to the La Paz mines in southern Arizona (Sturm 1993). When Bradshaw

28 heard the news of the gold discovery at La Paz, he quickly decided to establish a new trail that would be a 

29 more direct and less dangerous route than the others. In 1862, Bradshaw assembled a party of eight that 

30 left San Bernardino on a fairly well-known route through San Gorgonio Pass and Whitewater Canyon to 

31 Agua Caliente and from there to the Cahuilla villages at the Salton Sink. While at the Salton Sink, 

32 Bradshaw convinced the Cahuilla chief, Cabezon, and a visiting Maricopa man from Arizona to draw him 

33 a map of the Native American trade route between there and the Colorado River that passed along well34 spaced watering spots known only to the Native Americans. Bradshaw and his group then followed the 

35 map that directed them along the south side of the Orocopia and Chuckwalla Mountains to Lone Palm 

36 Oasis or Soda Spring, then to Dos Palmas, followed by Tabaseca Tank, Chuckwalla Well, and Mule 

37 Spring near the Mule Mountains, to Willow Spring in Palo Verde Valley, before reaching the river where 

38 they crossed to Arizona at a place he called Providence Point to Olivia on the Arizona side. The same 

39 year that William Bradshaw established the overland course, stage lines began using the route to carry 

40 passengers from Los Angeles to La Paz.

41 The trail travelled by William Bradshaw in 1862 was the first road across Riverside County used as an 

42 overland stage route. This general path was primarily used between 1862 and 1877 to haul miners and 

43 other passengers to the gold fields. By 1868, the U.S. Post Office had begun using the series of passes and 

44 paths to deliver mail to Prescott, Arizona. After the Southern Pacific Railroad to Arizona was completed, 

45 stage lines gradually eliminated their use of the Bradshaw Trail. The eligibility of this resource has been 

46 evaluated, and the Bradshaw Trail has been determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. A report 

47 authored by Jerry Schaefer and his associates, which is on file at the EIC, states that as part of the North 
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-86 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Baja Pipeline Project a formal determination of eligibility for the entire Bradshaw Trail was made. This 

2 report states that ―the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) made a formal determination of 

3 National Register eligibility for the entire Bradshaw trail in a letter to SHPO dated December 13 2001‖ 

4 and that ―...FERC received concurrence from SHPO on February 19, 2002‖ (Schaefer et al 2003: 105).

5 Coachella Canal

6 Construction on the ―Old Coachella Canal‖ began in 1935 to funnel water from the All American Canal, 

7 located well south of the current CMAGR near Calexico, California, for irrigation purposes throughout 

8 the Coachella Valley. Activities for the construction of this 123.5-mile-long canal began in 1934-1935 

9 and it was not until 1949 that the first water traveled along its course. This canal crosses through both 

10 Imperial and San Diego counties and, as such, has been recorded under different resource identification 

11 numbers. For the portion within Imperial County, the Coachella Canal has been recorded as 

12 CA-IMP-7658, while in Riverside County this resource is identified as P-33-005705. 

13 The segment of the Coachella Canal within Imperial County was first recorded in 1997 by ASM Affiliates 

14 (ASM) and later updated by M. Avina (1999), and S.N. Ghabhláin for ASM (2003). In Riverside County, 

15 this canal was recorded in 1983 by C. Foulkes; it was also updated by S.N. Ghabhláin in 2003. According 

16 to the site records, construction of the Riverside County portion of the canal began in 1938 by the 

17 Coachella Valley Water District, and it was completed in 1948. The 1997 updated site record indicates 

18 that construction activity on this canal was intermittently halted as a result of WWII, once in 1941 and 

19 again in 1944. It is also noted in the site record that, once complete, the canal remained in use until the 

20 1980s when the Old Coachella Canal was decommissioned and a newer, concrete-lined canal was entered 

21 into service. According to the records search results from the EIC, the Coachella Canal currently has a 

22 California Historical Resource Status Code of ―7R,‖ which means that this cultural resource was 

23 identified during a reconnaissance level survey and has not been evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP.

24 3.8.3 Cultural Resources

25 Research results indicate that site types within and in the vicinity of the CMAGR include a plethora of 

26 prehistoric and historic-period resources that range from isolated finds to complex settlements or campsite 

27 locations. Prehistoric resource types include isolated prehistoric finds, lithic and ceramic scatters, large 

28 habitation sites, rock shelter sites, cleared circles, trails, rock cairns and other rock features, petroglyph 

29 and geoglyph locations, and trails. The vast majority of identified cultural resource types within the 

30 CMAGR and its immediate vicinity are temporally associated with the prehistoric period. Historic-period 

31 resource types consist of isolated finds; trash scatters (can, glass, other debris, or a combination); camp 

32 sites; abandoned structural remains or foundations; rock alignments; military maneuver or related 

33 locations; and abandoned town-sites, roads, railroad segments and features associated with the railroad.

34 Many historic-period resources are associated with early mining activities in the area or WWII military 

35 training activities (Cleland and Wahoff 2006).

36 Chocolate Mountain NRHP Archaeological District

37 One NRHP archaeological district is present within DoN and BLM managed lands within the southern 

38 portion of the CMAGR (AECOM 2011). This Chocolate Mountain Archaeological District is described 

39 as encompassing 198 square miles, of which 169 miles are within the CMAGR. This district was 

40 determined eligible for listing in 1973, based upon the work of a National Park Service archaeologist 

41 named Charles M. McKinney (McKinney n.d.). The majority of McKinney‘s original documentation 

42 related to work he performed has been lost. The archaeological district represents a high concentration of 

43 numerous prehistoric sites associated with the San Dieguito complex. Since its formation, 90 sites have 

44 been recorded within portions of this district in the CMAGR; 30 of which have been evaluated. Other 

45 sites have also been recorded within this district on BLM lands, though these sites have not been 
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-87 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 evaluated as contributors to the district. Reassessment of this district and redefinition of the district 

2 boundary has been recommended (AECOM 2011).

3 3.8.4 Cultural Resource Management

4 3.8.4.1 Regulatory Context

5 As a U.S. military installation, the primary regulatory context governing the management of cultural 

6 resources within the confines of the CMAGR is federal. Several important federal statutes and regulations 

7 are of paramount importance, including the ARPA, NEPA, NHPA, and NAGPRA. A multitude of other 

8 regulations pertaining to cultural resources are also pertinent; among them, Executive Orders and 

9 Memoranda, and several U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps guidelines and policies, specifically DoDI 

10 4715.13 and 4702.10 . A detailed listing and discussion of applicable laws and regulations is available in 

11 the CMAGR ICRMP (AECOM 2011). 

12 3.8.4.2 Previous Investigations and Management Plans, Cultural Resources

13 As mentioned above, a number of prior investigations, reports, and management plans have been 

14 developed for the CMAGR, the most recent of which is the CMAGR ICRMP (AECOM 2011; see also 

15 Apple and Cleland 2001; Cleland and Wahoff 2006 and 2010). All of these documents provide 

16 comprehensive overviews of the cultural context, as well as in-depth summaries of previous cultural 

17 resources investigations completed for or within the confines of the CMAGR. A cursory summary of the 

18 more detailed discussions offered by these publications is provided below. 

19 The earliest investigations in the Colorado Desert region were spearheaded by Malcolm J. Rogers who 

20 recorded and tested a wide array of sites across the Colorado and Mojave deserts, as well as northern 

21 Baja, California. As part of a monumental effort by Rogers, the CMAGR area was first surveyed as part 

22 of two research efforts: a large survey effort along the 12-meter (40-foot) western shoreline of Lake 

23 Cahuilla, and surveys relating to Roger‘s interest in Native American trail networks. As a result of this 

24 activity, numerous village and habitation sites were recorded along the Lake Cahuilla shoreline, some of 

25 which are within or near to the CMAGR, ―mainly in the area between the present-day community of 

26 Niland and the borders of Imperial/Riverside Counties‖ (AECOM 2011: 29-30).

27 Assessment of the CMAGR and its environs continued into the early 1970s under the auspice of work 

28 completed by Charles M. McKinney. McKinney completed an assessment of the Chocolate Mountains 

29 area for a broader Geothermal Land Leasing Program study and, though little of his original 

30 documentation survives, an NRHP Archaeological District was established in 1973 as a result of his 

31 investigation. The von Werlhofs became involved in the study of the region during the mid-1970s and 

32 into the 1980s, including more investigations into the study of trails and the earliest studies completed 

33 specifically for the CMAGR. Multiple cultural resource management investigations have occurred within 

34 the Colorado Desert since the 1980s, with a few inside the CMAGR. Under such work, as of 2011, 

35 approximately 62,000 acres of the CMAGR have been intensively surveyed for cultural resources, 

36 comprising less than 14 percent of the entire range (AECOM 2011:30). 

37 3.8.4.3 Native American Heritage Commission, Sacred Lands File Search Results

38 The NAHC was contacted on 4 August 2011 to request a search of the SLF as part of a preliminary 

39 background check. The SLF represents a separate data repository maintained and updated by the NAHC 

40 regarding areas or resources of traditional cultural significance to Native Americans. Many areas and 

41 resources harbor traditional cultural significance to Native Americans for a variety of reasons, among 

42 them being religious, cultural, or economic. A response letter was received from the NAHC by fax on 

43 12 August 2011 that indicated no Native American cultural resources were identified in the specified area. 

44 The NAHC response notes that their Sacred Lands inventory is not exhaustive and that inadvertent 
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-88 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 discovery of Native American cultural resources is possible. Also provided in the NAHC response is a 

2 summary of state and federal statutes relating to Native American historic properties of religious and 

3 cultural significance to Native American Indian tribes, as well as a listing of Native American individuals 

4 and organizations to be contacted for further information regarding cultural resources, the area, or for 

5 comment.

6 Additional letters were prepared, addressed to the individuals identified by the NAHC, and sent by email 

7 or fax on 17 August 2011, and later by certified priority mail on 18 August 2011. Follow-up phone calls 

8 to all individuals listed by the NAHC, for whom telephone numbers were provided, were made on 30 

9 August 2011. Messages were left for those individuals who were unavailable and comments received in 

10 response to letters and follow-up telephone calls were documented, including date of response, method of 

11 contact, and a description of comments received (see Appendix H). 

12

13 3.9 NOISE 

14 3.9.1 Noise Metrics and Regulations

15 3.9.1.1 Acoustics Fundamentals

16 Noise is generally defined as loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound that is typically associated 

17 with human activity and that interferes with or disrupts normal activities. Although prolonged exposure to 

18 high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause hearing loss, the principal human response to 

19 environmental noise is annoyance. The response of individuals to similar noise events is diverse and 

20 influenced by the type of noise, the perceived importance of the noise and its appropriateness in the 

21 setting, the time of day and the type of activity during which the noise occurs, and the sensitivity of the 

22 individual.

23 Noise also may affect wildlife, as evinced by apparent disruption of resting, foraging, migrating, and 

24 other life-cycle activities; however, sensitivity to noise varies with species. Further, wildlife observed in 

25 proximity to human activities and land uses have likely developed habituation (to a degree that allows 

26 their life-cycle activities to continue without significant effect) to continuous, intermittent, and even 

27 impulsive man-made sounds.

28 Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as 

29 air, and are sensed by the human ear. Sound is generally characterized by several variables, including 

30 frequency and intensity. Frequency describes the pitch of the sound and is measured in Hertz (Hz), while 

31 intensity describes the sound‘s loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Decibels are measured using a 

32 logarithmic scale. A sound level of zero dB is approximately the threshold of human hearing and is barely 

33 audible under extremely quiet listening conditions. Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 

34 60 dB. Generally, sound levels in the range of approximately 110 to 120 dB can be felt inside the human 

35 ear as discomfort, levels between 130 to 140 dB are felt as pain, and levels above this range risk ear tissue 

36 damage (Berglund and Lindvall 1995). The minimum change in the sound level of individual events that 

37 an average human ear can detect is about 1 to 2 dB. A 3- to 5-dB change is readily perceived. A change in 

38 sound level of about 10 dB is usually perceived by the average person as a doubling (or if decreasing by 

39 10 dB, halving) of the sound‘s loudness.

40 Due to the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted directly and 

41 are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically; however, some simple rules are useful in dealing 

42 with sound levels. For instance, if a sound‘s energy is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 dB, 

43 regardless of the initial sound level. By way of example, 60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB; and 80 dB + 80 dB = 

44 83 dB.
Noise

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-89 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Sound level is usually expressed by reference to a known standard. This report refers to sound pressure 

2 level (SPL, or Lp) and sound power level (PWL, or Lw). In expressing sound pressure on a logarithmic 

3 scale, the sound pressure is compared to a reference value of 20 micropascals (μPa). SPL depends not 

4 only on the power of the source, but also on the distance from the source and on the acoustical 

5 characteristics of the space surrounding the source. PWL, on the other hand, is independent of these 

6 environmental factors. To help distinguish the two descriptors, one may use a lighting analogy: the 

7 wattage of a light bulb when turned on will be a constant 100 watts, but the brightness or intensity of the 

8 light changes with receiver distance and other parameters (for example, are the room walls painted white, 

9 which is reflective, or an absorptive black color?).

10 Hz is a measure of how many times each second the crest of a sound pressure wave passes a fixed point.

11 For example, when a drummer beats a drum, the skin of the drum vibrates a number of times per second.

12 When the drum skin vibrates 100 times per second it generates a sound pressure wave that is oscillating at 

13 100 Hz, and this pressure oscillation is perceived by the ear/brain as a tonal pitch of 100 Hz. Sound 

14 frequencies between 20 and 20,000 Hz are within the range of sensitivity of the best human ear.

15 Sound from a tuning fork contains a single frequency (a pure tone), but most sounds one hears in the 

16 environment do not consist of a single frequency and instead are composed of a broad band of frequencies 

17 differing in sound level. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of 

18 evaluating all frequencies of a sound according to a weighting system that reflects the typical frequency19 dependent sensitivity of average healthy human hearing. This is called ―A-weighting,‖ and the decibel 

20 level measured is referred to as dBA. In practice, the level of a noise source is conveniently measured 

21 using a sound level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the dBA ―curve‖ of decibel adjustment 

22 per octave band center frequency (OBCF) to a ―flat‖ or unweighted SPL. ―C-weighting,‖ which has less 

23 adjustment in the lower frequency spectrum than A-weighting, is typically applied to assess impulsive 

24 sounds such as a sonic boom or ordnance detonation and is denoted by the units ―dBC.‖

25 Although sound level value may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in 

26 time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a mixture of noise 

27 from distant sources that creates a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is 

28 identifiable. A single descriptor, the Leq (equivalent continuous noise level), may be used to describe 

29 sound that is changing in level. Leq is the energy-mean dBA during a measured time interval. It is the 

30 ―equivalent‖ constant sound level that would have to be produced by a given source to equal the acoustic 

31 energy contained in the fluctuating sound level measured. In addition to the energy-average level, it is 

32 often desirable to know the acoustic range of the noise source being measured. This is accomplished 

33 through the maximum Leq (Lmax) and minimum Leq (Lmin) indicators that represent the root-mean-square 

34 maximum and minimum noise levels measured during the monitoring interval. The Lmin value obtained 

35 for a particular monitoring location is often called the acoustic floor for that location. To describe the

36 time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors L10, L50, and L90 are 

37 commonly used. They are the noise levels exceeded 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of the 

38 measured time interval, respectively. Sound levels associated with the L10 typically describe transient or 

39 short-term events. Half of the sounds during the measurement interval are softer than L50 and half are 

40 louder, so it is often called the ―median‖ sound level. Levels associated with L90 often describe 

41 background noise conditions and/or continuous, steady-state sound sources. 

42 Day-night sound level (Ldn) is defined as the dBA for a 24-hour day with a 10 dB penalty added to 

43 nighttime sound levels (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) to compensate for increased sensitivity to noise during 

44 usually quieter evening and nighttime hours. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is also 

45 defined as the dBA for a 24-hour day. It is calculated by adding a 5 dB penalty to sound levels in the 

46 evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB penalty to sound levels at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), 
Noise

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-90 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 thus providing somewhat greater compensation than Ldn for increased sensitivity during such time periods 

2 when a quiet environment is expected.

3 Sound levels of typical noise sources and environments are provided in Table 3-16 to provide the reader a 

4 frame of reference.

5 Table 3-16 Sound Pressure Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments

Common Outdoor Activities

Noise Level

(dBA) Common Indoor Activities

Jet Fly-over at 1,000 feet (300 meters) 110-100 Rock Band

Gas Lawn Mower at 3 feet (1 meter) 100-90

Diesel Truck at 50 feet (15 meters), at 50 mph 

(80 kilometers/hour) 90-80 Food Blender at 3 feet (1 meter)

Commercial Area, Gas Lawn Mower at 100 feet 

(30 meters) 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet (3 meters)

Heavy Traffic at 300 feet (90 meters) 60 Normal Speech at 3 feet (1 meter)

Quiet Urban Daytime 50-40 Large Business Office

Quiet Urban/Suburban Nighttime 40-30 Theater, Large Conference Room 

(Background)

Quiet Rural Nighttime 30-20 Library, Bedroom at Night, Concert 

Hall (Background)

20-10 Broadcast/Recording Studio

Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0

Source: Caltrans 2009.

6

7 Additional noise metrics that are considered applicable to this LEIS and consistent with those described in 

8 the F-35B West Coast Basing FEIS (DoN 2010b) include the following:

9 A-weighted Sound Exposure Level (SEL). Like Lmax, SEL describes a single noise event whereas 

10 Ldn and CNEL are time-averaged metrics describing the cumulative noise environment of 

11 individual noise events over longer periods. Unlike Lmax, however, SEL represents both the 

12 intensity of a sound and its duration. For instance, individual time-varying noise events such as 

13 aircraft overflights have a sound level that gradually rises and then falls through a defined period 

14 of time during which the event occurs. SEL thus provides a measure of the net impact of the 

15 entire acoustic event, but not the direct sound level heard at any given time. During such an 

16 overflight, SEL would include both the instantaneous (for aircraft noise, this is defined generally 

17 as one-eighth of a second, or a ―fast‖ response time in terms of sound level measurement) Lmax

18 and the lower noise levels that might be measured at a location as the aircraft approaches and 

19 recedes.

20 Onset-Rate Adjusted Monthly variant of Ldn (Ldnmr) and CNEL (CNELmr). These are specifically 

21 used for describing cumulative aircraft noise exposure from airspace and range operations.

22 C-weighted Ldn (CLdn or dBC Ldn), is specifically used for describing noise exposure from 

23 ordnance activity and sonic booms.

24 Numbers of Events At or Above a Specified Noise Threshold (NA) describes a metric for 

25 potential speech interference.

26 Noise Induced Permanent Threshold Shift (NIPTS) expresses, in terms of average dB, potential hearing 

27 loss. 
Noise

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-91 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 3.9.1.2 Applicable Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards

2 While military aircraft are exempt from the federal Noise Control Act, which only covers aircraft certified 

3 by the FAA, the FAA regulates airspace and approves military as well as civil aviation flight routes.

4 Noise effects on the environment are considered in this flight route approval process, as they are in the 

5 regulations that govern the EIS process for the military, and they are assessed with respect to land use 

6 compatibility. Exterior noise levels up to 65 dBA Ldn are considered compatible with potentially noise7 sensitive receivers or land uses such as residences, transient lodging, classrooms, and medical facilities; 

8 and thus this threshold can serve as a guidance indicator of potential noise effect for such land uses that 

9 are in the vicinity of the CMAGR.

10 Similarly, the noise elements from general plans for both Riverside and Imperial counties have adopted 

11 similar land use compatibility guidelines with respect to noise level ranges that would be considered 

12 ―normally acceptable‖ or ―marginally acceptable‖ for residential-type land uses. In general, such noise 

13 level ranges or thresholds, which for residential-type land uses are generally consistent with the afore14 stated 65 dBA Ldn, are applied to new development considered for an area. In other words, if a project 

15 alternative considered in this LEIS would result in an area of potential development, the current or 

16 estimated noise level associated with that alternative might either preclude certain types of new 

17 development or land use, or allow such development only upon incorporation of some noise level 

18 reducing features or mitigation.

19 3.9.2 Noise Setting

20 The ambient noise environment of the CMAGR and its immediate surroundings can be characterized as 

21 having components from a variety of military and non-military man-made activities in addition to natural 

22 sounds.

23 3.9.2.1 Defining Existing Conditions and Sources

24 The contribution to the ambient noise environment from military operations, largely from aircraft and 

25 ordnance delivery, has recently been studied and discussed in both the MV-22 West Coast Basing Final 

26 Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (DoN 2009a) and the F-35B West Coast Basing FEIS (DoN 

27 2010b) documents. Both of these studies compared existing or baseline conditions associated with 

28 operations at the CMAGR with conditions that reflected expected changes to CMAGR operations due to 

29 the proposed West Coast basing actions for these respective aircraft. The more recent of the two studies, 

30 for F-35, included proposed MV-22 operations in the baseline. In December 2010, the DoN approved the 

31 F-35B West Coast Basing FEIS Preferred Alternative in its ROD; hence, for purposes of this LEIS, the 

32 noise analysis presented in the F-35B West Coast Basing FEIS is the most current assessment of noise 

33 from military operations, and that its ―proposed‖ (i.e., proposed changes to CMAGR operations that 

34 would occur due to F-35 West Coast basing adoption) condition set represents existing military noise 

35 contribution to the ambient noise environment.

36 Non-military man-made sources of noise in the region primarily include roadway and rail traffic, 

37 commercial and industrial operations (including agricultural activity and equipment), human activities 

38 (for example, off-road vehicle operation, property landscaping or maintenance, etc.) as well as operating 

39 heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment at residences or agricultural land uses where 

40 such activities occur.

41 Natural sounds would be expected to include seasonal or year-round contribution from present wildlife 

42 species, with examples such as birdsong and insect activity (for example, cricket or beetle chirps).

43 Livestock and domesticated animals (for example, horses, dogs, etc.), while associated with human 

44 activity, might also be considered part of the natural sound environment. Wind passing through ground 
Noise

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-92 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 vegetation also produces audible sound contribution, which can even dominate a background sound 

2 environment when sustained average wind speeds are of sufficient magnitude.

3 3.9.2.2 Physical Setting and Noise-sensitive Receivers

4 The area between the CMAGR southwestern boundary and the Salton Sea appears to contain a variety of 

5 land uses that include either residential uses on what may otherwise be agricultural land, residential 

6 communities such as Bombay Beach and Niland, and even commercial resorts such as Glamis North 

7 KOA and the apparent residences near area attractions such as Salvation Mountain. The latter two 

8 examples appear to abut the Coachella Canal and might thus be considered representative of closest off9 range potentially noise-sensitive receivers with respect to the CMAGR boundary.

10 3.9.3 Noise Models

11 3.9.3.1 Military Operations

12 The approved F-35B West Coast Basing FEIS (DoN 2010b) modeled aircraft operations with conditions 

13 and parameters including summarized considerations as follows:

14 Sonic booms (generated by aircraft traveling at airspeeds in excess of Mach 1) and factors 

15 affecting their magnitude and audibility at ground-level receivers

16 Reference data on which the semi-empirical noise models are based, such as that for the F-35 

17 aircraft

18 ―Area-type‖ operations, where aircraft are uniformly distributed horizontally within an airspace 

19 unit and reflect mission types such as:

20 o Rotary-wing close air support in five working areas

21 o Air-to-Air (helicopter and F-5 operations) in three working areas

22 o Air Combat Maneuvers in three working areas

23 o Area Reconnaissance in one working area

24 o Fixed-wing close air support with forward air controller and artillery in seven working 

25 areas

26 o Low Altitude Training and Air Interdiction in one working area

27 ―Route-type‖ operations, where aircraft are dedicated to a specific route (for example, bombing 

28 track or ingress/egress route) and reflect as follows:

29 o Low altitude rotary-wing close air support missions

30 o High altitude fixed-wing close air support

31 Ordnance delivery training would occur within the R-2507

32 Each aircraft type is modeled at speeds and altitudes specific to each mission

33 Modeling used the busiest month, since the modeled aircraft fly R-2507 daily during the busiest 

34 month (30 days) of activity

35 3.9.3.2 Non-military Noise Sources

36 With respect to non-military sources of noise, exposure levels at various distances from roadways can be 

37 coarsely estimated from guidance provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in its Transit 

38 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document (FTA 2006). Alternatively, or when the distance 
Noise

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-93 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 between a receiver and a roadway or rail segment exceeds 800 feet, this guidance also offers an estimate 

2 of noise exposure based on population density. These estimates of non-military noise contribution to the 

3 ambient sound environment can then be compared with results from a field survey conducted late June 

4 2006 in the vicinity of the Niland Gas Turbine Plant (GTP) as part of its CEC Application for 

5 Certification (AFC). The purpose of the field survey was to measure daytime and nighttime outdoor 

6 sound levels at representative noise-sensitive receiver locations near the proposed GTP (such as 

7 residences), and observe apparent noise-producing events and activities.

8 3.9.4 Noise Exposures at the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range

9 3.9.4.1 Military Operations

10 Aircraft Noise Exposure

11 Figure 3-13 shows the results of the F-35B West Coast Basing FEIS (DoN 2010b) modeled ―proposed‖ 

12 aircraft operations for its approved Preferred Alternative, which will be considered characteristic of 

13 CMAGR aircraft operations for this LEIS due to its approval by the corresponding DoN ROD.

14 Ordnance Noise Exposure

15 Figure 3-13 also illustrates modeled ordnance noise from the F-35B West Coast Basing FEIS Preferred 

16 Alternative and shows that the 62 dBC CNEL contours do not extend beyond the current government 

17 property boundaries and hence do not expose off-range persons or housing units to noise levels greater 

18 than 62 dBC CNEL.

19 3.9.4.2 Non-military Noise Sources

20 As described in the Niland GTP Final Initial Study, results from the ambient noise field survey performed 

21 at a residential receiver on Cuff Road, approximately 800 feet north of Beal Road and approximately 

22 1,600 feet east of what is now the operating Niland GTP facility, indicate that hourly Leq ranges from 39 

23 to 60 dBA over a continuous 24-hour period (CEC 2006) and includes intermittent sources such as 

24 roadway traffic, rail traffic, and railroad crossing bells. Without information to the contrary, these 

25 measurement results also would appear to include sound from distant military operations conducted at the 

26 CMAGR concurrent with the survey period (28-29 June 2006). The nearest CMAGR boundary location is 

27 just over 2 miles away from this measurement position.

28 Based on population density of approximately 2,500 persons per square mile for the community of 

29 Niland, the estimated daytime and nighttime average sound levels of 50 and 40 dBA Leq, respectively,

30 and per FTA guidance, fall within the above-stated measured hourly Leq range from the field survey 

31 performed before construction of the Niland GTP. Given the sensitivity penalty applied to nighttime 

32 hours, the effective Ldn would be approximately 50 dBA per the same FTA guidance.

33

34
Noise

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-94 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1

2 This page left intentionally blank.

3

4
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad (Inactive)

R-2507E

R-2507N

R-2507S

R2510A

R2510B R-2512

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

Glamis

North KOA

Bombay

Beach

Salvation

Mountain

R

i

ve

rs

ide 

C

o

u

n

ty

Imp

e

rial 

C

o

u

n

ty

65

65

65

70

70

70 70

70

62

62

62

70

62

62

70

70

62

70

70

70

70

70

62

62

62

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_CNEL_Noise_Contours.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Restricted Airspace

Existing Ordnance Noise,

CNEL 62 (dBC) Contour

Existing Ordnance Noise,

CNEL 70 (dBC) Contour

Existing Aircraft Operations Noise, 

CNELmr 65 (dBA) Contour

Location of Potential

Noise-Sensitive Receiver

County Boundary

Highway

Railroad

Existing Noise

Contours

at the CMAGR

Figure 3-13

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

3-95

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Noise Contours: JSF EIS 2010

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BLM 2010

Imagery: Bing Aerials © 2010 Microsoft Corporation

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Visual Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-96 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 3.10 VISUAL RESOURCES

2 3.10.1 Visual Resource Setting

3 Visual resources consist of the landforms, vegetation, and human development within a landscape that 

4 define the visual character of an area. Visual resource management objectives have not been established 

5 for DoN or BLM land within the CMAGR. However, NEPA requires that consideration be given to 

6 aesthetic concerns as part of ―a systematic and interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated 

7 use of the natural and social sciences, and the environmental design arts in planning and decision-making 

8 which may have an effect on man‘s environment.‖ As stipulated in 40 CFR Part 1508.8, ―effects 

9 include ... aesthetic, whether direct or indirect or cumulative ... both beneficial and detrimental.‖ 

10 For this assessment, the sensitive viewer is defined as the recreational users, tourists/travelers, and 

11 inhabitants of the area. Because the range is closed to the public, the region of influence for visual 

12 resources for this analysis is a buffer area within 5 miles of the existing or proposed range boundary, 

13 whichever extend farther. 

14 3.10.2 Visual Resources

15 3.10.2.1 Viewer Sensitivity and Project Visibility 

16 Visual sensitivity is a measure of public concern for the scenic or visual landscape. Visual sensitivity is 

17 dependent on various indicators of public concern, such as the type of users, amount of use, special areas 

18 such as wilderness, adjacent land uses, and public interest in the proposed action. 

19 The degree of project visibility is based on viewing distance, screening, and backdrops. The contrast of

20 structures and activities within the landscape typically decreases with increased viewing distance because 

21 the details and scale/dominance are reduced. The contrast also decreases with increased similarity of 

22 structures and activities to the backdrop of vegetation, landform, and development.

23 3.10.2.2 Scenic Quality

24 Scenic quality is a measure of the visual appeal of a characteristic landscape. It is given a high, moderate, 

25 or low rating based on factors such as diversity of landform, water, vegetation, cultural modifications,

26 adjacent scenery, and scarcity.

27 Scenic quality is related to the uniqueness of the landscape within a region. The CMAGR is in the 

28 Sonoran Desert subregion of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. The subregion is characterized 

29 by mountain ranges and intervening desert plains. The range is adjacent to the Salton Basin subregion that 

30 includes the Algodones Dunes (Imperial Sand Dunes) (Fenneman 1931). The smallest ecological 

31 subregions (level IV) are the Central Sonoran/Colorado Desert Mountains and the Central Sonoran/

32 Colorado Desert Basins. The subregions contain scattered low mountains and large areas of palo verde33 cactus shrub and giant saguaro cactus (EPA 2010, 2011).

34 The most visually unique views with the highest scenic quality within the 5-mile region of influence are 

35 in the area where the Sonoran Desert and Salton Basin subregions meet at the sand dunes. The overall 

36 landscape of the CMAGR is common in the physiographic subregion and the level IV ecoregion. The 

37 range has local diversity or interest because the Chocolate Mountains provide a variety of form, line, 

38 color, and texture. The landforms vary from tall vertical peaks to low horizontal and diagonal mountains, 

39 with colors ranging from dark tan to chocolate brown. The vegetation on the desert plains also has a 

40 variety of form, line, color, and texture and varies from scattered green to olive shrubs, with large-scale 

41 weak horizontal lines and small-scale vertical lines, to green, round to oval trees in a dotted/stippled 

42 pattern. 
Visual Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-97 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The most noticeable facilities and disturbances in the region of influence include paved and dirt roads, 

2 rural residences, small communities, farms, canals and dikes, transmission and utility lines, and gravel 

3 pits.

4 3.10.2.3 Data Collection Methods

5 Viewshed of Facilities and Disturbances

6 Military facilities and physical disturbances are generally screened from views outside the range by 

7 topography and vegetation. Some facilities and disturbances, especially those close to the boundary and 

8 above ground, may be visible. Examples include:

9 Camp Billy Machen, several structures including a communications tower, less than 0.1 mile 

10 from the boundary

11 SWAT target villages, including several structures, 1.6 miles from the boundary

12 Vicinity of Artillery Firing Area 1, earthen bunkers and parallel berms, 0.7 mile from the 

13 boundary

14 Vicinity of Artillery Firing Area 2, earthen rectangular berm targets, 2.2 miles from the proposed 

15 boundary

16 From all the facilities and disturbances mapped for this LEIS, 15 locations with the greatest potential of 

17 being seen outside the boundary were used to develop a viewshed map. The viewshed is the area from 

18 which a viewer might be able to see range facilities and disturbances that are not blocked by topography. 

19 For the computer analysis of the viewshed, a digital elevation model with a resolution of 33 feet 

20 (10 meters) was used. The facilities and disturbances were assigned heights as follows: Camp Billy 

21 Machen – 35 feet, other structures including earthen berms – 15 feet, and ground disturbances – ground 

22 level. The average eye height of the viewer was assumed to be 5.5 feet.

23 The viewshed is limited to the ROI 5 miles beyond the existing or proposed Range boundary, whichever 

24 extends farther. This distance, the foreground-middleground distance zone of 0 to 5 miles, is used by the 

25 BLM and other federal agencies to delineate the distance where management activities may be viewed in 

26 detail (Figure 3-14). This 5-mile buffer area covers approximately 962,000 acres.

27 Key Observation Points

28 Key observation points (KOPs) are viewing locations that represent areas where visually sensitive 

29 viewers could be most affected by a change in the landscape. They are chosen based on potential visibility 

30 of range facilities from several locations with sensitive viewers. The computer generated viewshed 

31 analysis data was overlaid on a 1:500,000 scale aerial photo as a tool to determine initial KOPS based on 

32 seen areas.

33 Locations of potentially sensitive viewers within the viewshed were determined using the BLM‘s 

34 Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area 8.5-by-11-inch map and various GIS data layers and base maps, 

35 including internet (Bing) and DoD aerial photographs at various scales. Fifteen potential KOP locations 

36 were identified. These locations were surveyed in the field for potential visibility of Range features and 

37 situations of the viewers. 

38
111

Arizona

California

Eagle Mountain

Railroad

(Inactive)

Union Pacific Railroad

Osborne Overlook

Watchable Wildlife Site

Ted Kipf Road

Coachella Canal Road

Slab City

Cuff (Gas Line) Road

Fountain of Youth Spa

Dietz Drive

Bradshaw Trail Kiosk

Bradshaw

Trail North

SALTON

SEA

Blythe

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

Brawley

Blythe

Riverside County

Imperial County

Riverside County

San Diego County

Imper ai l County

San D ei go 

County

10

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_Visual_Resources.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Key Observation Point

(arrow indicates viewing direction)

Selected Facilities and Disturbances

Viewshed of Selected 

Facilities and Disturbances

Region of Influence - Five Miles

City\Town

County Boundary

Railroad

Interstate

Highway

Viewshed and Key

Observation Points

at the CMAGR

Figure 3-14

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

3-98

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Miles

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Kilometers

Map Scale 1:475,000

Source:

Key Observation Points, Viewshed, 

Region of Influence: URS 2011

Facilities and Disturbances: URS 2011

based on 2009 Aerials provided by IGI&S

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010

Imagery: Bing Aerials © 2010 Microsoft Corporation

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Visual Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-99 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The closest sensitive recreational viewers are along the Bradshaw Trail, in the North Algodones Dunes 

2 Wilderness, and in the ISDRA. The largest number of sensitive travelers/tourists consists of visitors to the 

3 Osborne Overlook. The closest and largest number of sensitive inhabitants consists of the residents of

4 Slab City, and visitors of Lark, Fountain of Youth, and Seaview spas.

5 Of the 15 potential KOP locations surveyed, 10 KOPs were selected to represent the sensitive viewers 

6 (see Figure 3-14). The Osborne Overlook, Watchable Wildlife Site, and Ted Kipf Road KOPs are not in 

7 the viewshed but were chosen for views of the largest area proposed to be added to the range with 

8 Alternative 2. The Osborne Overlook KOP also provides an overall view of the southern end of the range, 

9 which is the part seen by most of the viewers.

10 Scenic quality was analyzed from each KOP looking toward the facility, disturbance, or proposed 

11 expanded boundary. The scenic quality indicators used in the analysis are listed in Table 3-17.

12 Table 3-17 Scenic Quality Rating Indicators

Scenic Quality 

Rating Scenic Quality Indicators

High Landscape elements (landforms, vegetative patterns, water characteristics, and cultural 

features) have high visual appeal

Landscape has high degrees of variety, vividness, intactness, harmony, and uniqueness 

(attributes)

Distinctive landscapes that attract people to view

Moderate-to-High Landscape elements have moderate-to-high visual appeal

Landscape characteristics have a mix of moderate and high values

Landscape may contain built features that neither complement nor detract from overall 

visual quality

Moderate Landscape elements are moderately appealing

Landscape characteristics have common or ordinary values

Landscape may contain inharmonious built features, but they are subordinate

Low-to-Moderate Landscape elements have low-to-moderate appeal

Landscape has weak or missing characteristics and is somewhat common throughout a 

broad geographic area

Landscape may have prominent though not dominant inharmonious built features

Low Landscape elements have low-to-no appeal

Landscape is missing character or is common throughout a broad geographic area

Landscape is dominated by inharmonious built features

13

14 A list of the existing visual conditions for each KOP is presented in Table 3-18. A representative 

15 photograph from each KOP is included in Appendix G.
Visual Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-100 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-18 Existing KOP Visual Conditions

KOP

Distance From 

CMAGR 

Boundary

Facility, 

Disturbance, or 

Proposed Boundary 

Closest to KOP

Sensitivity (Viewers and 

Location) Scenic Quality

Osborne 

Overlook 

4.6 miles southwest 

of the boundary

(3.0 miles westsouthwest of the 

proposed boundary)

Proposed expanded 

boundary and 

southern end of the 

range

Tourists and recreationists at 

the overlook along State 

Route 78, 4 miles west of 

Glamis (no visitor facilities).

Moderate to high for overall 

view; some distinctive peaks, 

mountains, and plains provide 

variety in form, line, color, and 

texture with the adjacent Imperial 

Sand Dunes. Moderate for the 

proposed desert plain addition.

Watchable 

Wildlife Site 

1.7 miles southwest 

of the boundary

(400 feet southwest 

of the proposed 

boundary)

Proposed expanded 

boundary

Tourists and recreational 

users at parking area for 

Watchable Wildlife Site and 

North Algodones Dunes 

Wilderness, 3 miles 

northwest of Glamis.

Moderate, some distinctive 

mountain peaks. (Immediate

foreground views of railroad 

track, pipeline road, and utility 

lines are considered the viewers‘

platform and are not included in 

the scenic quality rating.) 

Ted Kipf Road 0.7 mile west of the 

boundary

(on the proposed 

boundary)

Proposed expanded 

boundary

Recreational users at a dike 

along Ted Kipf Road just 

east of railroad crossing.

Moderate, common desert plains.

Coachella Canal 

Road

1.0 mile westsouthwest of the 

boundary

Bunker and material 

storage

Recreational users at a dike 

along Coachella Canal Road 

by Flowing Wells Road.

Moderate, common basin and 

range landscape.

Slab City 200 feet southwest 

of the boundary

Bivouac and work 

area

Residents in homes near a 

dike along Coachella Canal 

Road.

Moderate, common basin and 

range landscape.

Cuff (Gas Line) 

Road

0.7 mile south of the 

boundary

Camp Billy Machen Residents from Niland at a 

county gravel pit.

Moderate, common basin and 

range landscape.

Fountain of 

Youth Spa

1.0 mile southwest 

of the boundary

SWAT structures Residents on Spa Road 

heading east toward the spa 

entrance, 0.8 mile to the east.

Low to Moderate, common 

mountain views, most of the view 

of the desert plain is occupied by 

the canal dike, community, and 

landfill.

The Bradshaw 

Trail North

0.3 mile inside the 

existing CMAGR 

boundary (on the 

proposed boundary)

Target complex Recreationists on the 

Bradshaw Trail about 6 

miles east-southeast of Gas 

Line Road.

Moderate, views dominated by 

common rolling plains with 

scattered vegetation.

The Bradshaw 

Trail Kiosk

On the boundary Bombing disturbance Recreationists on the 

Bradshaw Trail at the kiosk, 

about 2 miles east-southeast 

of the Bradshaw Trail North 

KOP.

Moderate, scattered mountain 

peaks dominated by rolling plains 

with scattered vegetation.

Dietz Drive On the boundary Forward arming and

refueling point and 

artillery firing area

Residents and recreationists 

at the corner of Dietz and 

Skyline drives.

Moderate, common desert plain.

2

3 3.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

4 3.11.1 Safety Setting

5 This section discusses historical and present conditions that contribute to range safety within the CMAGR 

6 study area, and an overview of the regulations established for the protection of health and safety. The 

7 study area for public health and safety is determined by the geographic extent of military operations 

8 associated with the CMAGR. In terms of air operations, the study area includes the restricted airspace 

9 overlying the range (R-2507N, R-2507S, and R-2507E). For ground operations, the study area includes 

10 the CMAGR land area and its immediate vicinity. 
Public Health and Safety 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-101 August 2012 

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

1 The CMAGR includes a land area of 458,530 acres and the associated restricted airspace covers 

2 401,920 acres. About 5 percent of the CMAGR supports surface uses that cause or may cause moderate to 

3 complete levels of physical disturbance to the ground surface, vegetative communities, and surface 

4 drainages. The balance of the range provides the land need for WDZs or SDZs to ensure a 

5 99.9999 percent level of containment; in other words, the probability of munitions (for inert ordnance) or 

6 a hazardous fragment (for live ordnance) escaping the containment area is one in a million. This level of 

7 containment is designed to protect public health and safety. Within SWATs 4 and 5, no impacts from 

8 aviation weapons are permitted, as training in this area is primarily for the use of ground-based infantry 

9 weapons such as rockets, mortars, and demolition charges. 

10 The CMAGR provides a large land and airspace area for air tactics; CAS missions; laser system 

11 operations; and air-to-ground bombing, rocket, and strafing exercises. All types of live and inert 

12 conventional ordnance up to 2,000-pound general purpose bombs, including MK 20 (Rockeye) and 

13 cluster bomb units, are authorized in defined target areas in accordance with Station Order 3710.6I, Range 

14 and Training Area Standard Operating Procedures (StaO 3710.6I). Deliveries of Rockeyes and cluster 

15 bombs are restricted to one designated target polygon in R-2507N. Inert or live ordnance may be 

16 delivered on all designated targets in R-2507S and on targets in the northern portion of R-2507N; the 

17 southern portion of R-2507N is authorized for inert ordnance only (see Figure 1-5). Ordnance operations 

18 must be coordinated with the Range Scheduling Office. All high explosive ordnance deliveries are 

19 restricted to the hours 6 a.m.to 10 p.m. Pacific time (local California time) for noise abatement purposes 

20 (StaO 3710.6I).

21 Updated in July 2010, Draft StaO 3710.6I defines the procedures and regulations for Commands using the 

22 Range and Training Areas (RTA) managed by MCAS Yuma, including the CMAGR. StaO 3710.6I 

23 specifies individual responsibilities; gives descriptions of available training ranges; provides instructions 

24 on how to schedule the RTA; and defines safety regulations for all live fire, maneuver, and air operations 

25 within the RTA. 

26 CMAGR activities include training of members of the armed forces in the use and handling of military 

27 munitions, ordnance, and weapon systems on both land and in the air. As part of the Range Management 

28 Department, Operations Division, the Range Control Officer (RCO) is responsible for range safety. The 

29 CMAGR Range Safety Officer and range inspectors serve as the direct representatives of the RCO for the 

30 enforcement of StaO 3710.6I and safety standards throughout the RTA (USMC 2010). 

31 As outlined in the documents developed by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV 

32 3500.39A) and the Marine Corps (MCO 3500.27A), Operational Risk Management is employed at the 

33 training ranges to identify and assess hazards and implement controls for all phases of training events. 

34 The requirements for air and ground safety of all civilians and military personnel as well as the public at 

35 large are outlined in these documents and provide for a process to maintain readiness in peacetime, 

36 achieve success in combat while balancing the need to safeguard people and resources (DoN 2000). 

37 3.11.2 Aviation Safety 

38 The FAA is responsible for ensuring safe and efficient use of airspace by military and civilian aircraft and 

39 supporting national defense requirements. To meet these requirements, the FAA has established 

40 regulations for airspace safety, developed airspace management guidelines, implemented a civil-military 

41 common system, and coordinated cooperative activities between the FAA and the DoD. MCAS Yuma 

42 schedules all or portions of seven restricted areas, including R-2507N, R-2507S, and R-2507E overlying 

43 the CMAGR and had adopted specific air safety rules as directed in the StaO 3710.6I. 

44 Range safety procedures include the application of the recently updated Draft StaO 3710.6I along with the 

45 2006 publication of MCO 3550.1, which requires the RCO to approve entry of personnel or aircraft into 
Public Health and Safety 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-102 August 2012 

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

1 the range training area. Communications between all air and ground based civilian and military personnel 

2 is critical and MCAS Yuma has very descriptive directions for how all entry and exit procedures are to be 

3 handled. Should any civilian or unauthorized aircraft stray into or purposely enter the controlled airspace 

4 at the CMAGR, MCAS Yuma has strict procedures to immediately halt all military training missions until 

5 the violating aircraft can be safely guided away or removed from the restricted airspace. 

6 A recent assessment of procedural control on the range was conducted to determine whether the level of 

7 communication between pilots and range management is fully effective. The assessment revealed that 

8 there were weak communications signals in some of the areas of the Chocolate Mountains, which has 

9 been remedied. Another procedural change improved communications with aircrews to provide more 

10 timely information regarding ground personnel and range-unique restrictions, update the Range Facility 

11 Management Support System, and better account for all delivered ordnance by location (Schulz 2011). 

12 Chapter Four of StaO 3710.6I provides the “rules of engagement” for all aircraft operating within the 

13 CMAGR. Under these provisions, Range Control has complete authority to refuse any aircraft in violation 

14 of the directive. All pilots are briefed on the flight plan layout and associated course rules, and are given 

15 the aircrew safety brief as well. The directives also specify procedures for drop tanks, bombs, chaff, and 

16 flares. 

17 Chaff and flare deployment, which are defensive mechanisms used by aircrews to avoid detection and/or 

18 attack by adversaries, is authorized throughout R-2507N and R-2507S areas. SOPs for chaff operations 

19 include restrictions to protect airport surveillance radar, altitude restrictions for chaff operations, 

20 restrictions to protect weather radar, dictates to use current weather data for chaff flow predictions; and 

21 contact information for the MCAS Yuma Frequency Manager (StaO 3710.6I). 

22 Before any live ordnance drop, pilots are required to confirm that all targets are clear before engagement 

23 with the target. As part of the MCAS Yuma Air Safety Program, a WDZ Tool was developed to ensure 

24 that munitions and hazardous fragments are contained within the range boundary. The WDZ Tool allows 

25 for input of aircraft type, ordnance to be used, and delivery parameters that ensure that a 99.9999% level 

26 of containment is achieved so as not to endanger personnel located adjacent to the range area boundary. 

27 3.11.3 Ground Safety 

28 3.11.3.1 Unauthorized Entry 

29 To protect the general public from intentional or accidental entry onto the CMAGR, a series of signs 

30 warning unauthorized personnel not to enter the RTA are posted along the perimeter of the range in areas 

31 frequented by visitors. The signs are placed closely enough so that an individual standing anywhere along 

32 the range perimeter will be able to see a sign when looking to either the left or right. The warnings are 

33 written in both English and Spanish. MCAS Yuma Range Maintenance is responsible for keeping 

34 warning signs up to date. 

35 MCAS Yuma periodically conducts a physical patrol of the range boundaries along with local and federal 

36 law enforcement officials and maintains access control gates at the entry and exit points to the CMAGR. 

37 In addition, MCAS Yuma has conducted public outreach programs to raise awareness of the military 

38 training mission at CMAGR and the associated dangers and hazards. 

39 Unauthorized personnel are not allowed on the CMAGR at any time, but there are occasions where 

40 trespassers or “scrappers” access the range despite these patrols, the public outreach and education, and 

41 the warning signs. Scrappers are individuals who enter the CMAGR without authorization for the purpose 

42 of removing salvageable materials such as aluminum, brass, and copper. Scrappers have been known to 

43 be armed and sometimes present a danger to anyone who approaches them. Under Station Order 5532, 
Public Health and Safety 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-103 August 2012 

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

1 requirements have been established regarding the use of force by non-law enforcement personnel. 

2 Standard procedure is to immediately notify Range Control with a complete description of the trespassers 

3 and their location. In accordance with StaO 3710.6I directives, any live fire exercises are terminated until 

4 such a time that the trespassers are removed from the range. Unauthorized personnel and vehicles found 

5 within range boundaries or spotted by either an airborne crew or authorized person is cause to abort 

6 ordnance training operations in that area, thereby interfering with training activities. In 2009, nearly 

7 245 range hours were lost to unauthorized users. There were 29 recorded incidences of unauthorized users 

8 penetrating the CMAGR boundary reported for the 2010 and 2011 calendar years combined (MCAS 

9 Yuma 2010-2011). 

10 3.11.3.2 Ground Activities 

11 Chapter Six of StaO 3710.6I provides specific guidance for use of the range for ground training activities. 

12 Range scheduling is required to obtain ground access for training and ground maintenance to the roads 

13 beneath the associated airspace to resolve conflicts with aviation training. When possible, specific co-use 

14 is coordinated between the ground entity and scheduled aviation units(s) when simultaneous range 

15 occupation can be accomplished in a safe manner. 

16 Numerous rifle, machinegun, rocket, and explosive demolition training exercises are conducted within 

17 SWAT-4 (adjacent and southwest of R-2507N) and SWAT-5 (adjacent and northwest of R-2507N). 

18 Aircrews are instructed to exercise extreme caution when entering/exiting CFAs Niland and Bombay 

19 (which overlie SWAT-4 and SWAT-5, respectively), due to hazards from munitions fired from the 

20 ground ranges. 

21 A SDZ tool has been used to define the ground and airspace designated within the training complex for 

22 both vertical and lateral containment of projectiles, fragments and other debris from the launching and 

23 detonation of a weapon system. The SDZ Tool is used to generate a “worst case scenario” to ensure the 

24 safety of all on and off range personnel (MCO 3570.1). 

25 3.11.3.3 Ordnance and Unexploded Ordnance Safety 

26 Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD) is routinely performed to neutralize hazards from live fire training 

27 exercises. Though periodic sweeps are performed on the range, UXO can be found scattered throughout 

28 the CMAGR. Unexploded bombs, rockets, cannon rounds, and other types of ordnance may be 

29 encountered anywhere, lying on the ground or partially to fully buried due to impact and resulting 

30 explosion. These munitions have the potential to explode, even though they have lain in the desert for 

31 decades. In fact, age may have rendered them more unstable and more prone to detonation by disturbance 

32 than when they were actually dropped or fired. It is impossible to tell if ordnance is safe from its 

33 appearance, so it must be treated as if it were live and must not be touched. EOD personnel provide a 

34 24-hour first-response capability for MCAS Yuma and civil authorities. Targets associated with R-2507 

35 are closed during EOD sweeps and range maintenance. Dates of these closures are published via the range 

36 notification websites. 

37 3.11.4 Non-Military Health and Safety Issues 

38 3.11.4.1 Environmental Hazards 

39 Environmental Hazards associated with the CMAGR include hot daytime temperatures, strong sunlight 

40 and sunburn hazard, and the non-availability of water sources throughout the CMAGR. For this reason, as 

41 well as the extremely hazardous military mission conducted at the range, MCAS Yuma has taken the 

42 approach that all non-authorized personnel are to keep out of the boundaries unless permitted. Authorized 

43 civilian personnel often access the northern boundary of the CMAGR along the Bradshaw Trail and are 
Public Health and Safety

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-104 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 guided by warning signs of hazards and no-entry to make sure they stay on the trail and remain north of 

2 the CMAGR.

3 3.11.4.2 Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment

4 In addition to strict controls on access to the CMAGR, MCAS Yuma has also conducted a Range 

5 Environmental Vulnerability Assessment (REVA) to study potential off-range impacts associated with the 

6 use of military munitions. The baseline REVA identifies potential chemical hazards associated with the 

7 ordnance used on operational ranges. The baseline assessment indicated minimal environmental impacts 

8 off-range from surface water runoff due to the lack of rainfall, evaporation rate, and distance to ecological 

9 receptors. The detected levels of contaminants are considered to have no or minimal effect on wildlife, 

10 groundwater, or surface waters. Because none of the ground or surface waters discharge to any human 

11 receptors, there is no potential risk to human health. 

12

13 3.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE

14 3.12.1 Hazardous Materials and Waste Setting

15 The affected environment for hazardous materials and waste is related to the past and present hazardous 

16 materials use and hazardous waste disposal practices on the CMAGR. 

17 3.12.1.1 Regulatory Guidance

18 Hazardous materials are defined as chemical substances that pose a substantial hazard to human health or 

19 the environment. Hazardous materials include hazardous substances, extremely hazardous substances, 

20 hazardous chemicals, and toxic chemicals. In general, these materials pose hazards because of their 

21 quantity, concentration, physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics. Hazardous materials may be 

22 found in the form of a solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material that alone or in combination 

23 may (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible 

24 or incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or 

25 the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. 

26 Hazardous waste is regulated under the RCRA, which provides the EPA the authority to control 

27 hazardous waste from ―cradle-to-grave,‖ including its generation, transportation, treatment, storage and 

28 disposal. RCRA identifies hazardous wastes with lists of specific wastes, and categorizes wastes that 

29 exhibit a specific characteristic (for example, it is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic in accordance 

30 with RCRA-specific definitions). The EPA uses the term ―hazardous substance‖ for chemicals that, if 

31 released into the environment above a certain amount, must be reported and, depending on the threat to 

32 the environment, federal involvement in handling the incident can be authorized under CERCLA. Also, as 

33 part of the MCAS Yuma Range Management, the CMAGR is required to adhere to environmental 

34 requirements enforced by the California EPA. For the purpose of this discussion, the term ―hazardous 

35 substance‖ is used in this document to refer to either hazardous materials or hazardous waste if the 

36 specific distinction is not relevant.

37 3.12.1.2 Historical Regulatory Actions

38 In the early 1980s, the Navy Installation Restoration Program (IRP) was established to search for, 

39 investigate, and clean up Navy sites that were contaminated with chemicals and hazardous substances in 

40 the years before safe handling and waste management practices were in place. During the second phase of 

41 the IRP, sites with munitions and explosives-related contaminants were investigated. These investigations 

42 were performed in compliance with CERCLA. 
Hazardous Materials and Waste

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-105 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 In 1992, the Navy conducted a Preliminary Assessment of the CMAGR to look for signs of hazardous 

2 waste disposals or spills. Seven sites were identified, two of which were eliminated. Site 2, an open burn 

3 site consisting of burnt scrap metal, was eliminated because it was located in an active live fire range, and 

4 the DoD prohibits sampling due to safety concerns at active ranges. The scrap metal at the site was 

5 removed through Range Operations and Maintenance. Site 3 (diesel fuel stain) consisted of a fuel spill 

6 area approximately 10 feet in diameter beneath a 500-gallon above-ground storage tank. This site is not 

7 classified as an IRP site because petroleum spills are addressed under RCRA. Site 3 was closed in 1994 

8 after approximately 45 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated and properly disposed. 

9 Groundwater sampling and analysis was conducted and the results revealed that the groundwater had not 

10 been impacted from the spill. 

11 The remaining five sites were along the central-southwestern CMAGR property boundary where Navy 

12 SEAL training activities took place. The sites were formerly used by the Navy for disposal of trash and 

13 debris such as empty storage drums, scrap metal, shell casings, paint cans, glass bottles, old bombing 

14 vehicles, and construction materials. The Navy searched the records of what was disposed of at each site 

15 and found no evidence of hazardous substances. Soil samples were analyzed from each site and no 

16 chemical contamination from the debris was found. Debris from the sites was consolidated and then 

17 properly disposed of off site. 

18 3.12.2 Management of Hazardous Materials and Wastes and Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants

19 Training activity on the CMAGR consists of air-to-air, air-to-ground, low altitude tactics, laser, landing 

20 zone, FARP, unmanned aircraft system, and, helicopter support team operations. For most of these 

21 training operations, munitions are obtained at MCAS Yuma where the flights originate. 

22 The Environmental Director has the overall responsibility for management of the hazardous materials and 

23 waste program at the CMAGR. The Compliance Director is second in command for this program. Fuel 

24 storage tanks are located only within the Camp Billy Machen area. There is one 180-day hazardous waste 

25 accumulation area on the range where petroleum-contaminated soil generated during training missions is 

26 stored. No satellite accumulation areas for hazardous wastes are on the CMAGR nor are there any open 

27 burn/open detonation sites for munitions treatment. According to the Environmental Director, no Notice 

28 of Violation has been issued against the range (Rodriguez 2011).

29 Periodically, artillery training is conducted concurrently with air-to-ground activities, and ammunition is 

30 needed for use by ground personnel. Ammunition is delivered to the Siphon 8 Field ASP, which is located 

31 near the southwestern boundary of the range, just northwest of the Speed Bag air strip, and is stored in 

32 ordnance storage igloos. All ASPs require armed guards while ammunition and ordnance are present, and 

33 an MCAS inspector must be present at the time of delivery. The ammunition is only kept in this location 

34 during the training mission when artillery batteries are in the Artillery Firing Area.

35 In addition to delivery of ordnance to the storage igloos for artillery training, military vehicles access the 

36 range for a variety of reasons. Vehicle access is needed to perform target maintenance as well as to 

37 perform construction and service activities. Fuel trucks are needed to deliver aviation fuel during FARP 

38 exercises, and vehicles need to access the Siphon 8 Bivouac Area, and the Speedbag Airfield. Depending 

39 on the density of unexploded ordnance on the range, vehicles are sometimes used during EOD efforts. 

40 Whenever vehicles are in use, there is the possibility of spills or leaks of petroleum, oils, and lubricants. 

41 Military personnel accessing the range take precautions against spills and leaks by laying large plastic 

42 tarps on the ground on which vehicles can park. During FARP activities, fuel is transferred from fuel 

43 trucks to fuel bladders from which the aircraft are refueled. In this case, containment areas lined with 

44 plastic tarps and surrounded by elevated berms are used to protect against spills. Fuel trucks enter the 

45 containment areas to transfer the fuel and protect against spills.
Hazardous Materials and Waste

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-106 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plans, and Storm Water Management Plans have been 

2 developed for the range and the Camp Billy Machen area. In addition, SOPs have been developed to 

3 govern the use, storage, and accountability of ammunition and explosives. These SOPs include:

4 NAVSEA OP 5 Volume 1 Seventh Rev, Ammunition and Explosives Safety Ashore (DoN 

5 2009c)

6 MCO P8020.10, Marine Corps Ammunition Management and Explosive Safety

7 NAVSEA SW020-AG-SAF-10, Transportation Safety Handbook for Ammunition Explosives 

8 and Related Hazardous Material

9 Detailed daily records are kept of all range ordnance expenditure events, including the event date, type of 

10 activity (range training, open burning, open detonation, tamped detonation, and range clearance), type of 

11 munitions expended, and the quantity expended. This information is used to evaluate the usage in 

12 anticipation of preparation of annual Toxic Chemical Reporting submittals and for tracking information 

13 regarding the release of munitions constituents from the range to off-range areas. 

14 Two above-ground storage tanks are located at the Camp Billy Machen Navy SEAL training compound. 

15 Both have a capacity of 1,200 gallons; one contains diesel fuel and the other contains unleaded gasoline.

16 There also is one 180-day Hazardous Waste Accumulation Area for storing weapons cleaning solvents 

17 and rags for disposal. As with the CMAGR, records are kept at Camp Billy Machen to track 

18 miscellaneous material storage such as oils, lubricants, adhesives, sealants, battery terminal cleaners and 

19 protectors, brake fluid, brake cleaner, antifreeze, spray paint, degreasers, and routine cleaning products

20 (Rodriguez 2011). For EPCRA Reporting Year (RY) 2010, 43 individual hazardous materials were listed. 

21 Four 55-gallon drums of various grades of oil were listed along with several other types of oils in 5-gallon 

22 cans. Other products were identified in packages ranging from 1 fluid ounce to 1 gallon. Quantities of

23 these products were deemed to be minimal.

24 3.12.3 Hazardous Materials and Waste Conditions

25 3.12.3.1 Toxic Chemical Reporting

26 The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), or Title III of the Superfund 

27 Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, acknowledges the public‘s right to information 

28 concerning toxic chemical usage and releases to the environment. Facilities that are required to submit a 

29 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Report under EPCRA Section 313 must complete a Form R of each listed 

30 toxic chemical that meets the reporting criteria. 

31 Reports documenting range activities (i.e., ordnance expenditures) and non-range activities are required. 

32 The CMAGR consists of several training ranges and the NSWG training facility at Camp Billy Machen. 

33 No non-range munitions activities were conducted at the CMAGR to warrant preparation of the non-range 

34 activities report. Ordnance expenditure training missions at Camp Billy Machen are directed at the targets 

35 located on the CMAGR, so those calculations are included in the report for range activities.

36 Reporting Year 2006 was the first year that EPCRA 313 requirements were implemented for CMAGR

37 operations at which time eight toxic chemicals exceeded the EPCRA Section 313 thresholds. For 

38 reporting purposes below, MCAS Yuma uses two categories; ―Manufactured‖ or ―Otherwise Used.‖ The 

39 toxic chemicals associated with CMAGR operations exceeding the reporting thresholds were:

40 Aluminum (fume or dust) – 369,711 pounds (lb) (otherwise used)

41 Barium compounds – 15,371 lb (otherwise used)
Hazardous Materials and Waste

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-107 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Benzene – 13,993 lb (otherwise used)

2 Copper – 413,753 lb (otherwise used)

3 Lead – 74,756.9 lb (otherwise used)

4 Lead compounds – 6,788.7 lb (manufactured), 7,882.5 lb (otherwise used)

5 Nitroglycerin – 145,483 lb (otherwise used)

6 Phosphorus (yellow or white) – 14,266 lb (otherwise used)

7 For the most recent reporting year (RY 2010), six toxic chemicals associated with CMAGR operations 

8 exceeded the EPCRA Section 313 thresholds. The toxic chemical exceeding the reporting thresholds 

9 were:

10 Aluminum (fume or dust) – 215,984 lb) (otherwise used)

11 Copper – 166,937 lb (otherwise used)

12 Lead – 40,614.3 lb (otherwise used)

13 Lead compounds – 1584.1 lb (manufactured), 924.9 lb (otherwise used)

14 Nitroglycerin – 40.682 lb (otherwise used)

15 Napthalene – 14,581 lb (otherwise used)

16 In each of the cases where a toxic chemical exceeding the reporting thresholds was repeated from RY 

17 2006 to RY 2010, the weight of the exceedence was reduced in RY 2010.

18 For RY 2006 for non-range activities, no toxic chemicals exceeded the reporting thresholds. During RY 

19 2007, diesel fuel and gasoline were identified as exceeding reporting thresholds in Building 6001, and in 

20 RY 2008, diesel fuel and gasoline were identified as exceeding reporting thresholds in Building 6006.

21 3.12.3.2 Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment 

22 Hazardous constituents contained in munitions delivered to the CMAGR air-to-ground ranges are usually 

23 consumed in a series of chemical reactions that occur upon detonation. Occasionally the munitions do not 

24 fully detonate or do not detonate at all. If EOD teams do not recover these undetonated munitions and the 

25 munitions case is damaged or eventually corrodes, the MCs could be available to the environment and 

26 cause an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. 

27 The U.S. Marine Corps REVA program meets the requirements of the current DoD Directive 4715.11 

28 Environmental and Explosives Safety Management on Operational Ranges within the United States and 

29 DoD Instruction 4715.14 Operational Range Assessments. The purpose of the REVA program is to 

30 identify whether there is a release or substantial threat of a release of MCs from the operational range or 

31 range complex areas to off-range areas. This is accomplished through an assessment of operational range 

32 areas, development of conceptual site model (CSM), and, where applicable, screening-level fate and 

33 transport modeling of the REVA indicator MCs. Indicator MCs selected for the REVA program include 

34 octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX), hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), 

35 trinitrotoluene (TNT), and perchlorate. To identify whether there was a release or substantial threat of a 

36 release of MCs from the operational range or range complex areas to off-range areas, an initial REVA 

37 was conducted in 2008. 
Hazardous Materials and Waste

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-108 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The REVA was conducted for the Yuma Training Range Complex, which includes the CMAGR. A total 

2 of 35 range areas were identified in CMAGR North and 15 range areas in CMAGR South. Loading rates 

3 for MCs were calculated for each area. The MCs loading rates at 12 of the sites in CMAGR North and all 

4 15 of the sites in CMAGR South were found to be potentially significant (greater than 1 milligram per 

5 square meter per year). Because surface water in the washes draining from the CMAGR is not used as a 

6 potable water source, as an irrigation water source, or for any contact activity, either on range or off 

7 range, no human or ecological receptors were identified in the baseline. The pathways evaluated for 

8 REVA include both surface water and groundwater. Since no complete exposure pathway was identified,

9 it was assumed that there was no potential risk to human health or the environment. All operational ranges 

10 will be reassessed at a minimum every 5 years to ensure both long-term sustainability to the ranges and 

11 protectiveness to human health and the environment.

12 3.12.3.3 Preliminary Site Evaluation 

13 Some of the alternatives being considered in this LEIS would realign the boundary of the CMAGR to 

14 more closely follow prominent geographic features. These alternatives could result in the disposal of 

15 some properties currently included in the CMAGR range and/or the acquisition of land not currently 

16 included in the CMAGR. To evaluate the environmental condition of these properties, a Preliminary Site 

17 Evaluation was conducted. The purpose of the Preliminary Site Evaluation was to gather information 

18 about the subject properties and surrounding areas to identify conditions indicative of releases or 

19 threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants, petroleum or petroleum 

20 products, and controlled substances. The Preliminary Site Evaluation was accomplished by, and limited 

21 to, review of agency databases and other reasonably ascertainable records regarding past and current land 

22 use for indication of the manufacture, generation, use, storage and/or disposal of hazardous substances at 

23 the site. 

24 Two general areas were evaluated. The first is the land adjacent to the Bradshaw Trail located along the 

25 northern border of the CMAGR in Riverside County (see Figure 2-1). The second area consists of land 

26 located adjacent to the southwest portion of the CMAGR in Imperial County (see Figure 2-2). The 

27 Bradshaw Trail area consists of portions of 168 non-contiguous land parcels totaling approximately 

28 3,172 acres and stretching over approximately 38 miles. The southwest area along the UPRR consists of 

29 all and/or portions of 45 adjacent land parcels totaling approximately 12,717 acres. No municipal water, 

30 sanitary sewer, storm water or electrical supply systems appear to service these properties.

31 Available historical documents reviewed dated back to 1943 and indicated that the CMAGR has been 

32 utilized for aerial gunnery and bombing training since the WWII period. However, it appears that the 

33 areas (along the Bradshaw Trail and along the proposed UPRR) that lie on the perimeter of the CMAGR 

34 generally have not supported specific range-related activities. These areas remain vacant. 

35 Review of aerial photographs indicates that activities associated with FARP Star Assault have encroached 

36 onto a portion of the northwestern corner of the site along the UPRR. This action could be considered to 

37 be a potential Recognized Environmental Condition (REC). Based on the proximity of the site to an 

38 active military range, there is the potential for the presence of errant UXO or munitions and explosives of 

39 concern (MEC) and/or associated debris on the subject property. No RECs were identified in connection 

40 with current or historical operations identified in aerial photographs, topographic maps of the lands 

41 proposed for acquisition or disposal, and available records.

42
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-109 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 3.13 SOCIOECONOMICS

2 3.13.1 Socioeconomic Setting

3 This section discusses existing socioeconomic conditions in the area potentially affected by the CMAGR 

4 land withdrawal. The following analysis focuses primarily on existing socioeconomic conditions within 

5 the ROI, as defined below. The degree of effect of the CMAGR on affected areas (states, counties, 

6 communities, and Native American Reservations) in the vicinity of the CMAGR, and the affected areas in 

7 the vicinity of the installations that regularly use the CMAGR are determined to fully describe the 

8 affected environment.

9 3.13.2 Socioeconomic Region of Influence

10 The ROI for the socioeconomic environment of the CMAGR includes areas in the immediate vicinity of 

11 the CMAGR, and installations that rely on the CMAGR to support a significant component of their 

12 training mission. The majority of aircraft that train at the range originate from squadrons based at MCAS 

13 Yuma in Arizona and MCAS Miramar in California. Other local squadrons that regularly or occasionally 

14 use the CMAGR are stationed at MCAS Camp Pendleton and NAS North Island in California and Luke 

15 Air Force Base in Arizona.

16 Table 3-19 lists the states, counties, communities, and Native American Reservations with the potential to 

17 be affected by the CMAGR land withdrawal, and particularly if the land withdrawal is not renewed. 

18 These include the communities and cities within the vicinity of the CMAGR (Coachella, La Quinta, 

19 Indio, Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Blythe, Niland, Calipatria, Brawley, El Centro, and 

20 Glamis); MCAS Miramar in San Diego (El Cajon, Poway, San Diego, and Santee), California; MCAS 

21 Yuma in Yuma (Yuma), Arizona; MCAS Camp Pendleton (Oceanside) and NAS North Island 

22 (Coronado) in San Diego County, California; and Luke AFB in Maricopa County (Glendale, Phoenix, and 

23 Surprise), Arizona. The Native American Reservations in the vicinity of the CMAGR and vicinity of the 

24 installations (Agua Caliente Reservation, California; Augustine Reservation, California; Cabazon 

25 Reservation, California; Cahuilla Reservation, California; Morongo Reservation, California; Torres26 Martinez Reservation, California; Fort Yuma Reservation [Quechan Indian Tribe], California/Arizona; 

27 Cocopah Reservation, Arizona; Colorado River Reservation, Arizona/California; Gila River Reservation, 

28 Arizona) are evaluated as well. Communities associated with the five primary military installations 

29 affected by the CMAGR are shown in Table 3-19, by county, with Native American Reservations shown 

separately. As shown on Figure 3-15, the ROI includes five counties, 22 communities930 , and 10 Native 

31 American Reservations. 

 

9 Data are available for all the communities within the ROI, except for Glamis, California. Glamis is not an 

incorporated place or a Census Designated Place (CDP), according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A CDP is a 

recognizable community or concentration of population that is not an incorporated place. An area not defined as a 

place or CDP is considered to be included in the remainder of the county, for which there are no specific Census 

data.
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-110 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-19 Region of Influence for CMAGR Withdrawal

Jurisdiction (State 

and Counties) Communities, Cities, and Native American Reservations

California

Riverside County Coachella, La Quinta, Indio, Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Blythe

Imperial County Niland, Calipatria, Brawley, El Centro, Glamis

San Diego County El Cajon, Poway, City of San Diego, Santee, Coronado, Oceanside

Arizona

Yuma County Yuma

Maricopa County Glendale, Phoenix, Surprise

Native American 

Reservations

Agua Caliente Reservation, CA; Augustine Reservation, CA; Cabazon Reservation, CA; 

Cahuilla Reservation, CA; Morongo Reservation, CA; Torres-Martinez Reservation, CA; 

Fort Yuma Reservation, CA/AZ; Cocopah Reservation, AZ; Colorado River Reservation, 

AZ/CA; Gila River Reservation, AZ

2

3 3.13.3 General Demographic Trends and Economic Conditions

4 Data such as population, employment by level of participation and industry sector, household 

5 income, poverty status, and race and ethnicity were collected for the ROI. The data were compiled, 

6 and the following demographic and economic conditions and trends were identified. Data on poverty 

7 status and race and ethnicity are detailed in Section 3.14, Environmental Justice.

8 Population Trends and Projections

9 The population for each of the states, counties, communities, and Native American Reservations is listed 

10 in Table 3-20. All but four of the communities in the ROI had a population exceeding 20,000 in 2010 and 

11 only five of the 22 communities in the ROI had a population exceeding 100,000 in 2010 (data for Glamis 

12 were not available). Only one of the 10 Native American Reservations in the ROI had a population 

13 exceeding 20,000 in 2000. Population data for 2010 were not available for the Native American 

14 Reservations at the time of preparation of this document. The greatest percent of annual growth in 

15 population between 2000 and 2010 was 28.09 percent in Surprise, Arizona. The other communities had 

16 annual growth that ranged between 0.08 percent and 8 percent except for two communities, Poway and 

17 Coronado, which experienced a decrease in annual population growth from 2000 to 2010 by 0.05 percent 

18 and 2.15 percent, respectively. Table 3-21 provides population projections for the counties and states 

19 within the ROI.

20 In general, population projections indicate that California state and associated counties are expected to 

21 continue their growth pattern through 2050. Population projections for the state of Arizona and associated 

22 counties indicate a similar growth pattern between 2010 and 2020. However, annual population growth 

23 between 2020 and 2050 will continue at a smaller rate. 

24
111

California

Arizona

California

Mexico

95

Mexico

Arizona

P a c i f i c O c e a n

Morongo Indian

Reservation

Agua Caliente 

Indian Reservation

Cabazon Indian

Reservation

Torres-Martinez

Indian Reservation

Cahuilla Indian

Reservation

Gila River Indian

Reservation

Fort Yuma

Indian Reservation

Cocopah Indian Reservation

Colorado River

Indian Reservation

Augustine

Reservation

Yuma

Phoenix Glendale

Surprise

Glamis

Calipatria

Coachella

El Cajon

Indio

Niland

Oceanside

Palm

Desert

Palm

Springs

Brawley

El Centro Santee

Blythe

Coronado

Indian

Wells

La Quinta

Poway

San Diego

5

15

17

40

8

10

Mohave County

Yavapai County

Mohave County

La Paz County

Yavapai County

La Paz County

M

Y

a

a

ri

v

c

apai County

opa County

La Paz County

Maricopa County

La Paz County

Yuma County

Maricopa County

Yuma County

Mar ci opa County

Pinal County

Maricopa County

Pima County

Yuma County

Pima County

Pinal County

Pima County

Luke Air

Force Base

Marine Corps Air

Station Yuma

Naval Air Station

North Island

Marine Corps Air

Station Camp Pendleton

Marine Corps Air

Station Miramar

San Bernard ni o County

Los Angeles County

San Bernardino County

Riverside County

Riverside County

Orange County

Riverside County

Imperial County

Riverside County

San Diego County

mI perial County

San Diego County

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 3\CMAGR_Socioeconomics.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Military Airfield

Indian Reservation

City\Town

Railroad

Interstate

Highway

County Boundary

State Boundary

Socioeconomics Region

of Influence within the

CMAGR Operating Region

Figure 3-15

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 10 20 30 40

Miles

Map Scale 1:1,400,000

0 10 20 30 40

Kilometers

3-111

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010, BIA 2005

Imagery: Bing Aerials © 2010 Microsoft Corporation

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-112 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-20 Population and Average Growth from 2000 to 2010

Jurisdiction 2000 2010

Average Growth Number and Annual Growth 

Rate 2000-2010

Total Number Annual Percent

Riverside County, California

Riverside County 1,545,387 2,189,641 644,254 4.17%

Coachella 22,724 40,704 17,980 7.91%

La Quinta 23,694 37,467 13,773 5.81%

Indio 49,116 76,036 26,920 5.48%

Indian Wells 3,816 4,958 1,142 2.99%

Palm Desert 41,158 48,445 7,290 1.77%

Palm Springs 42,807 44,552 1,745 0.41%

Blythe 20,463 20,817 354 0.17%

Imperial County, California

Imperial County 142,361 174,528 32,167 2.26%

Niland 1,143 1,006 -137 -1.19%

Calipatria 7,289 7,705 416 0.57%

Brawley 22,052 24,953 2,901 1.32%

El Centro 37,835 42,598 4,763 1.26%

San Diego County, California

San Diego County 2,813,833 3,095,313 281,480 1.0%

El Cajon 94,869 99,478 4,609 0.49%

Poway 48,044 47,811 -233 -0.05%

City of San Diego 1,223,400 1,307,402 84,002 0.69%

Santee 52,975 53,413 438 0.08%

Coronado 24,100 18,912 -5,188 -2.15%

Oceanside 161,029 167,086 6,057 0.38%

California 33,871,653 37,253,956 3,382,303 0.10%

Yuma County, Arizona

Yuma County 160,026 195,051 35,725 2.20%

Yuma 77,515 93,064 15,549 2.00%

Maricopa County, Arizona

Maricopa County 3,072,149 3,817,117 744,968 2.42%

Glendale 218,812 226,721 7,909 0.36%

Phoenix 1,321,045 1,445,632 124,587 0.94%

Surprise 30,848 117,517 86,669 28.09%

Arizona 5,130,632 6,999,810 1,869,178 3.64%

Native American Reservations

CMAGR Area

Agua Caliente Reservation, CA 21,358 N/A N/A N/A

Augustine Reservation, CA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cabazon Reservation, CA 806 N/A N/A N/A

Cahuilla Reservation, CA 154 N/A N/A N/A

Morongo Reservation, CA 954 N/A N/A N/A

Torres-Martinez Reservation, CA 4,146 N/A N/A N/A

MCAS Yuma Area

Fort Yuma Reservation, CA 2,376 N/A N/A N/A

Cocopah Reservation, AZ 1,025 N/A N/A N/A

Colorado River Reservation, 

AZ/CA

9,201 N/A N/A N/A

Luke AFB Area

Gila River Reservation, AZ 11,257 N/A N/A N/A

2 Notes: Data for Arizona state and counties are from U.S. Census 2000 and U.S. Census 2010. N/A means data are not available. 

3 Data for Glamis were not available. There are discrepancies for Arizona County in Table 3-19 and Table 3-20 due to actual U.S. 

4 Census data versus Arizona Department of Commerce projections, respectively.

5 Sources: California Department of Finance 2010a; U.S. Census 2000 and 2010; U.S. Census 2010a.

6
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-113 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-21 Population Projection and Average Annual Growth

Jurisdiction 2000 2010

Average 

Annual 

Growth 

Rate 

2000-

2010

Total 2020 

Projection

Average 

Annual 

Growth 

Rate 

2010-2020

Total 2030 

Projection

Average 

Annual 

Growth 

Rate 

2020-

2030

Total 2050 

Projection

California

Riverside 

County

1,545,387 2,189,641 4.1% 2,904,848 3.3% 3,507,498 2.1% 4,730,922

Imperial 

County

142,361 174,528 2.2% 239,149 3.7% 283,693 1.9% 387,763

San Diego 

County

2,813,833 3,095,313 1.0% 3,550,714 1.5% 3,950,757 1.1% 4,508,728

California 33,871,648 37,253,956 1.0% 42,206,743 1.3% 46,444,861 1.0% 59,507,876

Arizona

Yuma County 160,656 198,637 2.4% 271,361 3.7% 316,158 1.7% 377,598

Maricopa 

County

3,097,620 4,063,802 3.1% 5,276,074 3.0% 6,207,980 1.8% 7,661,423

Arizona 5,130,632 6,999,810 3.6% 8,779,567 2.5% 10,347,543 1.8% 12,830,829

2 Sources: California Department of Finance 2007, Arizona Department of Commerce 2011.

3

4 Employment

5 Table 3-22 details the civilian labor force, total employed and unemployed, and unemployment rates for

6 each of the states, counties, and communities within the ROI as reported by the California Economic 

7 Development Department and Bureau of Labor Statistics. In California, the total statewide labor force in 

8 June 2011 was 18,071,900, and the total number of unemployed individuals was 2,183,100, for an 

9 unemployment rate of 12.1 percent. Riverside, Imperial, and San Diego counties had unemployment rates 

10 of 14.4, 28.5, and 10.4 percent, respectively. San Diego County is the only county with a lower 

11 unemployment rate than the California statewide average. Of the communities in California, Calipatria

12 had the highest unemployment rate of 30.1 percent, and the City of San Diego had the highest number of 

13 unemployed individuals at 72,300. 

14 In Arizona, the total statewide labor force in May of 2011 was 3,174,810, and the total number of 

15 unemployed individuals was 312,744, for an unemployment rate of 9.9 percent. Yuma and Maricopa 

16 counties had unemployment rates of 27.3 and 8.8 percent, respectively. Of the communities in Arizona, 

17 the City of Yuma had the highest unemployment rate with 22.1 percent, and Phoenix had the highest 

18 number of unemployed individuals with 82,841. Data for the Native American Reservations within the 

19 ROI were not available. 
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-114 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-22 Civilian Labor Force, Total Employment, Number Unemployed and

2 Employment Rates for the Region of Influence

Jurisdiction Civilian Labor Force Total Employment

Number 

Unemployed

Unemployment 

Rate

Riverside County, California

Riverside County 900,200 770,800 129,400 14.4%

Coachella 12,200 9,500 2,700 22.3%

La Quinta 14,400 13,300 1,100 7.6%

Indio 27,000 22,800 4,20 15.5%

Indian Wells 1,700 1,600 100 5.8%

Palm Desert 24,400 22,300 2,100 8.6%

Palm Springs 25,800 22,900 2,900 11.2%

Blythe 7,000 5,800 1,200 17.2%

Imperial County, California

Imperial County 76,000 54,300 21,600 28.5%

Calipatria 1,700 1,200 500 30.1%

Brawley 13,100 9,000 4,100 31.2%

El Centro 22,000 16,000 6,000 27.2%

San Diego County, California

San Diego County 1,565,800 1,403,700 162,100 10.4%

El Cajon 53,300 45,900 7,500 14.0%

Poway 27,900 26,200 1,700 6.1%

City of San Diego 699,000 626,600 72,300 10.3%

Santee 32,800 29,900 2,900 8.8%

Coronado 8,700 8,100 600 6.9%

Oceanside 85,800 77,300 8,500 9.9%

California 18,071,900 15,888,800 2,183,100 12.1%

Yuma County, Arizona

Yuma County 92,098 66,954 25,144 27.3%

Yuma 49,785 38,797 10,988 22.1%

Maricopa County, Arizona

Maricopa County 1,995,744 1,820,921 174,823 8.8%

Glendale 128,787 117,007 11,780 9.1%

Phoenix 802,032 719,191 82,841 10.3%

Surprise 35,296 31,422 3,874 11.0%

Arizona 3,174,810 2,862,066 312,744 9.9%

3 Notes: Data are current as of June 2011 for California and Arizona. Data for Native American Reservations and Niland were not 

4 available. 

5 Sources: California Economic Development Department 2011a, 2011b; Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011a, 2011b.

6

7 Income Characteristics

As shown in Table 3-23, the 1999 median household income in California was $47,493.10 8 The median

9 household income for the California counties included in the ROI was lower than the statewide average. 

10 San Diego County was near the statewide average with a median household income of $47,067. There are 

11 six communities in the ROI in California with median household incomes greater than the statewide 

12 average, with Indian Wells being the highest at $93,986. 

 

10 As of July 2011, the most complete data for the communities in the ROI for median household income were the 

U.S. Census 2000 data.
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-115 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-23 Income Characteristics. 1999

Affected Area Median Household Income ($)

Riverside County, California

Riverside County 42,887

Coachella 28,590

La Quinta 54,552

Indio 34,624

Indian Wells 93,986

Palm Desert 48,316

Palm Springs 35,973

Blythe 35,324

Imperial County, California

Imperial County 31,870

Niland 25,592

Calipatria 30,962

Brawley 31,277

El Centro 33,161

San Diego County, California

San Diego County 47,067

El Cajon 35,566

Poway 71,708

City of San Diego 45,733

Santee 53,624

Coronado 66,544

Oceanside 46,301

Yuma County, Arizona 47,493

Yuma County 32,182

Yuma 35,374

Maricopa County, Arizona

Maricopa County 45,358

Glendale 45,015

Phoenix 41,207

Surprise 44,156

Arizona 40,558

Native American Reservations

CMAGR Area

Agua Caliente Reservation, CA 37,560

Augustine Reservation, CA -

Cabazon Reservation, CA 29,773

Cahuilla Reservation, CA 36,364

Morongo Reservation, CA 51,071

Torres-Martinez Reservation, CA 21,993

MCAS Yuma Area

Fort Yuma Reservation, CA and AZ 20,929

Cocopah Reservation, AZ 27,120

Colorado River Reservation, AZ/CA 27,216

Luke AFB Area

Gila River Reservation, AZ 18,599

2 Note: Data for Glamis were not available.

3 Source: U.S. Census 2000c.

4
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-116 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The median household income for Arizona was $40,558. Yuma County is below the Arizona statewide 

2 average with $35,374 in median household income, and Maricopa County was above the statewide 

3 average with $45,358. Glendale, Phoenix, and Surprise were all above the statewide average and the City 

4 of Yuma was below the statewide average. 

5 Morongo Reservation was the only Native American Reservation in the ROI that was above its respective 

6 statewide median household income, with $51,071 compared to the California median household income 

7 of $47,493. The Gila River Reservation in Arizona reported the lowest median household income of 

8 $18,599. There was no median household income reported for the Augustine Reservation. 

9 3.13.4 Economic Profiles

10 The CMAGR is located in both southern Riverside County and northern Imperial County in California. 

11 There is no economic activity within the CMAGR as it is restricted to military training operations. The 

12 area along the northern border of the CMAGR (Riverside County) is primarily desert open space. The 

13 CMAGR borders federal lands primarily used for habitat conservation and recreation. There is no direct 

14 economic activity in the vicinity of the CMAGR with the exception of BLM campsites and BLM Long15 Term Visitor Areas that often require camping fees (BLM 2002). The area immediately south of the 

16 CMAGR (Imperial County) is primarily used for agriculture, with some open desert. The agricultural 

17 lands border the CMAGR near the Salton Sea. 

18 California‘s economy is based primarily on government, professional and business services, retail trade, 

19 and leisure and hospitality. The economy of Riverside County is based primarily on government, retail 

20 trade, leisure and hospitality, and education and health services. Imperial County‘s economy is based 

21 primarily on government, agriculture, transportation, warehousing, utilities, and retail trade. The economy 

22 of San Diego County is focused on government, professional business services, leisure and hospitality, 

23 and educational and health services (California EDD 2011c). 

24 The Arizona economy is based primarily on government, educational and health services, professional 

25 and business services, and leisure and hospitality. The economy of Yuma County, Arizona, is based 

26 primarily on government, retail trade, educational and health services, and leisure and hospitality. The 

27 economy of Maricopa County is based primarily on educational and health services, retail trade, 

28 government, and leisure and hospitality (U.S. BEA 2009). 

29 Military contributions to community economies are most pronounced in the communities nearest to the 

30 installations in the ROI where aircraft squadrons that train at the CMAGR area based. Table 3-24 lists

31 the cities near these installations and provides the leading industries in these cities.
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-117 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-24 Leading Industries near Military Installations

City Leading Industries

MCAS Miramar

El Cajon construction, health services, educational services, hospitality and leisure

Poway educational services, professional and business services, health care services, computer and 

electronic services

San Diego educational services, professional and business services, science and technology, health care 

services

Santee construction, health care services, educational services, government

MCAS Yuma

Yuma government, educational services, health care services, hospitality and leisure

MCAS Camp Pendleton

Oceanside health care services, educational services, hospitality and leisure, construction

NAS North Island

Coronado professional and business services, educational services, government, health care services

Luke AFB

Glendale construction, health care services, educational services, finance and insurance

Phoenix educational services, professional and business services, health care services, retail services

Surprise health care services, construction, finance and insurance, government

2 Notes: Educational and health care services are grouped for state and county data, but shown as separate industries at the city 

3 level. Table 3-24 lists the top four industries for each city from left to right.

4 Source: California Economic Development Department 2011c.

5

6 3.14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

7 3.14.1 Environmental Justice Setting

8 The ROI for evaluating the affected environment for Environmental Justice includes the same states, 

counties, communities, and Native American Reservations indicated in Section 3.13, Socioeconomics. 11 9

10 3.14.2 Environmental Justice Background

11 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national 

12 origin by all federal agencies or activities receiving federal financial assistance.

13 Executive Order

14 Presidential EO 12898 of February 11, 1994, ―Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

15 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,‖ is intended to ensure that federal departments and 

16 agencies identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

17 environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

18 populations. This order requires the EPA and all other federal agencies (as well as state agencies 

19 receiving federal funds) to develop strategies to address Environmental Justice. Pursuant to EO 12898, 

20 federal agencies ensure that part of their mission is to achieve Environmental Justice and to allow for a 

21 meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of, compliance with, and enforcement of, 

 

11 Data are available for all the communities within the ROI, except for Glamis, California. Glamis is not an 

incorporated place or a Census Designated Place (CDP), according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A CDP is a 

recognizable community or concentration of population that is not an incorporated place. An area not defined as a 

place or CDP is considered to be included in the remainder of the county, for which there are no specific Census 

data.
Environmental Justice

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-118 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 federal laws, regulations, and policies affecting human health or the environment regardless of race, color, 

2 national origin, or income. 

3 Council on Environmental Quality guidelines for implementing the EO are directed at NEPA-related 

4 activities and include the following.

5 When NEPA requires an analysis of environmental effects, each federal agency should analyze 

6 the health, economic, and social effects of a proposed action on minority populations and low7 income populations.

8 Mitigation measures outlined in NEPA documents should, whenever feasible, address significant 

9 and adverse effects of proposed federal actions on minority populations and low-income 

10 populations.

11 The public participation component of NEPA should include identifying potential effects and 

12 mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities and improving the accessibility of 

13 public meetings, official documents, and notices to affected communities.

14 3.14.3 Environmental Justice Conditions

15 Low Income Populations

16 As shown in Table 3-25, approximately 5.15 percent of the population of California was living below the

17 poverty line in 1999. Of the counties in the California ROI, all are above the statewide percentage, with 

18 Imperial County at 22.58 percent, Riverside County at 14.17 percent, and San Diego County at 

19 12.43 percent. The communities of Indian Wells, Poway, and Coronado have lower percentages of the 

20 population living below the poverty line than the statewide percentage, with 3.4, 4.28, and 4.98, 

21 respectively. The California community with the highest percentage (28.86 percent) living below the 

22 poverty line was Coachella. In California, the City of San Diego had the highest number of individuals 

23 living below the poverty line, with 172,527.

24 In 1999, Arizona had approximately 13.91 percent of the population living below the poverty line. Yuma 

25 County is above the statewide poverty line with 19.23 percent, and Maricopa County is below with 

26 11.75 percent. Only the cities of Yuma and Phoenix have higher percentages than Arizona, with 14.67 

27 and 15.79 percent, respectively. The Arizona community with the highest percentage and number of 

28 individuals living below the poverty line was Phoenix, with 15.79 percent and 205,320, respectively; 

29 Surprise had the lowest percentage and number of individuals living below the poverty line, at 

30 8.74 percent and 2,689, respectively. 
Environmental Justice

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-119 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 Table 3-25 Population and Percentage of Individuals Living Below the

2 Poverty Line in the Region of Influence

Affected Area

Total Population for 

Whom (1) Poverty Status 

Is Determined

Income in 1999 Below the 

Poverty Level

Percent Below the 

Poverty Level

Riverside County, California

Riverside County 1,511,153 214,084 14.17%

Coachella 22,411 6,468 28.86%

La Quinta 23,618 1,847 7.82%

Indio 48,400 10,419 21.53%

Indian Wells 3,792 129 3.4%

Palm Desert 41,063 3,766 9.17%

Palm Springs 42,438 6,402 15.09%

Blythe 11,601 2,423 21.75%

Imperial County, California

Imperial County 131,459 29,681 22.58%

Niland 1,205 258 21.41%

El Centro 36,945 8,405 22.75%

Calipatria 3,182 771 24.23%

Brawley 21,841 5,806 26.58%

San Diego County, California

San Diego County 2,722,408 338,399 12.43%

El Cajon 92,758 15,469 16.68%

Poway 47,762 2,044 4.28%

City of San Diego 1,181,612 172,527 14.6%

Santee 51,989 2,823 5.43%

Coronado 17,704 881 4.98%

Oceanside 159,599 18,492 11.59%

California 33,100,044 4,706,130 5.15%

Yuma County, Arizona

Yuma County 154,251 29,670 19.23%

City of Yuma 74,347 10,910 14.67%

Maricopa County, Arizona

Maricopa County 3,027,299 355,668 11.75%

Glendale 215,389 25,688 11.93%

Phoenix 1,300,100 205,320 15.79%

Surprise 30,763 2,689 8.74%

Arizona 5,021,238 698,669 13.91%

Native American Reservations

CMAGR Area

Agua Caliente Reservation, CA 21,214 2,229 10.51%

Augustine Reservation, CA - - -

Cabazon Reservation, CA 799 248 31.04%

Cahuilla Reservation, CA 168 62 36.9%

Morongo Reservation, CA 908 163 17.95%

Torres-Martinez Reservation, CA 4,029 1,698 42.14%

MCAS Yuma Area

Fort Yuma Reservation, CA and AZ 2,342 776 33.13%

Cocopah Reservation, AZ 1,052 330 31.37%

Colorado River Reservation, AZ/CA 8,892 1,939 21.81%

Luke AFB Area

Gila River Reservation, AZ 10,794 5,625 52.11%

3 Notes: Percentages are rounded to the nearest decimal. Data for Glamis were not available.

4 (1) Following the Office of Management and Budget‘s Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money 

5 income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family‘s total income is less than 

6 the family‘s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not 

7 vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price Index. The official poverty definition uses money 

8 income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).

9 Poverty status is in 1999 dollars.

10 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000a, 2000c.
Environmental Justice

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-120 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1 The Gila River Reservation in Arizona is the only community in the ROI that has incidences of poverty 

2 exceeding 50 percent, with 5,625 individuals or 52.11 percent, living below the poverty line. Of the 

3 Native American Reservations in the ROI, Gila River Reservation had the highest number and percentage 

4 of individuals living below the poverty line; the Cahuilla Reservation had the lowest number, with 

5 62 individuals. Of the Native American reservations, the Agua Caliente Reservation had the 

6 lowest percent of individuals living below the poverty line, with 10.51 percent.

7 The typical threshold for Environmental Justice communities of concern and affected areas in the ROI is 

8 discussed in detail in Section 4.14.

9 Minority Populations

10 As shown on Table 3-26, there are some communities within the ROI with high populations of racial and 

11 ethnic minorities. In California, the communities of Coachella, Indio, Calipatria, Brawley, and El Centro, 

12 and Imperial County as a whole have minority populations above 50 percent. Among the communities 

13 within the ROI, Coachella had the highest percent of minority population (97.39 percent), although the 

14 greatest number of minority individuals is 487,193 in the City of San Diego. 

15 As presented in Table 3-26, the areas displaying the highest concentration of minorities are Native

16 American Reservation areas, where the total minority population is as high as 96.3 percent; there are 

17 10,840 minority individuals in the Gila River Reservation. All of the Native American Reservations had 

18 high minority populations except for Agua Caliente and Colorado River Reservations. There were no 

19 records available for the Augustine Reservation. 

20 Table 3-26 Total Minority Population in the Region of Influence

Affected Area

Total Population for 

Whom Race and 

Hispanic/Latino 

Origin Was 

Determined

Total Minority Population 

by Race (Other than White) 

and Percentage Minority (1)

Total Hispanic/Latino 

Origin Population and 

Percentage (2)

Riverside County, California

Riverside County 1,545,387 531,909 34.42% 559,575 36.21%

Coachella 22,724 13,914 61.23% 22,132 97.39%

La Quinta 23,694 5,092 21.49% 7,584 32.01%

Indio 49,116 25,213 51.33% 37,028 75.39%

Indian Wells 3,816 140 3.69% 113 2.96%

Palm Desert 41,155 5,416 13.16% 7,031 17.08%

Palm Springs 42,807 9,276 21.67% 10,155 23.72%

Blythe 11,825 5,286 44.7% 5,345 45.2%

Imperial County, California

Imperial County 142,361 72,071 50.63% 102,817 72.22%

Niland 1,143 408 35.69% 632 55.29%

Calipatria 7,247 4,943 68.21% 4,245 58.58%

Brawley 22,096 10,434 47.22% 16,514 74.74%

El Centro 37,835 20,107 53.14% 28,219 74.58%

San Diego County, California

San Diego County 2,813,833 941,994 33.48% 750,965 26.69%

El Cajon 94,869 24,663 26% 21,313 22.47%

Poway 48,044 8,237 17.14% 4,974 10.35%

City of San Diego 1,223,400 487,193 39.82% 310,752 25.4%

Santee 52,975 7,046 13.3% 6,016 11.36%

Coronado 24,100 3,759 15.6% 2,369 9.83%

Oceanside 161,029 54,163 33.64% 48,691 30.24%
Environmental Justice

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-121 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Affected Area

Total Population for 

Whom Race and 

Hispanic/Latino 

Origin Was 

Determined

Total Minority Population 

by Race (Other than White) 

and Percentage Minority (1)

Total Hispanic/Latino 

Origin Population and 

Percentage (2)

California 33,871,648 13,701,589 40.45% 10,966,556 32.38%

Yuma County, Arizona

Yuma County 160,026 50,757 31.72% 80,772 50.47%

City of Yuma 77,515 24,547 31.67% 35,400 45.67%

Maricopa County, Arizona

Maricopa County, AZ 3,072,149 695,790 22.65% 763,341 24.85%

Glendale 218,812 53,519 24.46% 54,343 24.84%

Phoenix 1,321,045 382,192 28.93% 449,972 34.06%

Surprise 30,848 4,327 14.03% 7,184 23.29%

Arizona 5,130,632 1,257,021 24.5% 1,295,617 25.25%

Native American Reservations

CMAGR Area

Agua Caliente Reservation, CA 21,358 2,417 11.32% 2,628 12.3%

Augustine Reservation, CA - - - - -

Cabazon Reservation, CA 806 330 40.94% 731 90.69%

Cahuilla Reservation, CA 154 123 79.87% 26 16.88%

Morongo Reservation, CA 954 745 78.09% 194 20.36%

Torres-Martinez Reservation, CA 4,146 2,680 64.64% 3,821 92.16%

MCAS Yuma Area

Fort Yuma Reservation, CA and AZ 2,376 1,726 72.64% 662 27.86%

Cocopah Reservation, AZ 1,025 551 53.76% 47 4.59%

Colorado River Reservation, AZ/CA 9,201 4,244 46.13% 2,920 31.74%

Luke AFB Area

Gila River Reservation, AZ 11,257 10,840 96.3% 1,055 9.37%

1 Notes: 

2 (1) The races that the Census tallies as ―Other than White alone‖ are ―Black or African American alone,‖ ―American Indian and

3 Alaska Native alone,‖ ―Asian alone,‖ ―Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone,‖ and ―Some other race alone.‖

4 (2) White is considered non-Hispanic white only. The federal government considers race and Hispanic/Latino origin (ethnicity) 

5 to be two separate and distinct concepts. People identified as Hispanic or Latino origin may be of any race. The data summarized 

6 in this table present minority population as individuals that answered a race category other than ―white.‖ The data summarized in 

7 the right column of this table present Hispanic/Latino as a separate category to determine the percent ethnic minority.

8 Source: U.S. Census 2000b.

9

10

11
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-1 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

2 4.1 INTRODUCTION 

3 Chapter 4 reports the foreseeable environmental impacts that likely would result from implementing each 

4 of the five individual alternatives studied in this LEIS. Action Alternatives 1 through 4 would each renew 

5 the CMAGR land withdrawal and continue military use of the range, and Alternative 5, the no-action 

6 alternative, would allow the land withdrawal to expire, which would end military use of the range and 

7 trigger its closure and decommissioning. The environmental impacts reported in this LEIS are defined as 

8 modifications to the environment that would be brought about by implementing either one of the action 

9 alternatives or the no-action alternative. Impacts can be beneficial or adverse and may arise as either a 

10 direct or indirect consequence of implementing a proposed action. Cumulative effects, which consider the 

11 effects of the proposed action together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

12 are addressed in Chapter 5.

13 Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place as the action. Indirect effects 

14 are reasonably foreseeable consequences that are also attributable to the action but that occur later in time 

15 than the action and/or at a location away from the action. As provided at 40 CFR 1508.27, the 

16 significance of an impact is defined in terms of context, intensity, and the effect on the resource. 

17 As indicated in Section 3.1, where applicable, the impact assessment in this LEIS considered the effects 

18 of the action and no-action alternatives in the context of two geographic scales—a landscape-unit scale 

19 and a local scale. The impact assessments at the landscape-unit scale regard the CMAGR as a whole and 

20 reflect the size of the range, projected long-term use patterns at the range, and its physical geography and 

21 ecological setting. As described in Section 3.1, at 458,530 acres the CMAGR is almost twice the size of 

22 the Salton Sea, about four times larger than the largest nearby wilderness area, and about 86 percent as 

23 large as the area of Imperial County in 2010 that was in agricultural production (see Figure 1-1). 

24 Although military use at the CMAGR would be expected to evolve incrementally over time, as described 

25 in Sections 2.2.4 and 3.2, the patterns of land and airspace use for the foreseeable future would be 

26 expected to be generally consistent with current conditions in terms of range and airspace infrastructure 

27 and surface and airspace use effects. Alternatives 1 through 4 would each continue the same status quo 

28 patterns of military land and airspace use. As a result, continuing military use at the CMAGR would 

29 result in essentially the same natural resource management decisions and direct and indirect 

30 environmental impacts regardless of which action alternative might be selected to effect renewal of the 

31 range. Thus, renewal of the range would provide no basis for differentiating the action alternatives from 

32 each other on the basis of environmental effects likely to result from continuing military use. The 

33 environmental effects of the action alternatives, however, could be distinguished from the effects that 

34 would result from the no-action alternative, which would terminate military use range wide and create the 

35 potential for follow-on civilian use. In other words, selection of the no-action alternative would trigger a 

36 change in land and airspace use across the entire landscape unit that comprises the CMAGR. 

37 The physical geography and ecological setting also supports consideration of the CMAGR as a 

38 contiguous landscape-scale unit. The Chocolate Mountains form the central topographic backbone of the 

39 range and are almost entirely enclosed within the military reservation (see Figure 1-1). The mountain 

40 range is bound on both sides of its long irregular flanks by broad bajadas that generally slope outward and 

41 downward to the military reservation boundary. Most of the surface water drainage within the CMAGR 

42 leads from the peaks and ridges of the Chocolate Mountains into channels that flow out of the military 

43 reservation. Although certainly connected to the greater basin and range province that characterizes the 

44 larger region, the CMAGR can be characterized as occupying a physiographic subunit within that 

45 province. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-2 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 A similar range-wide perspective is of value for considering the ecological position of the CMAGR and 

2 the implications of the range renewal versus non-renewal alternatives. Located within the northwest 

3 corner of the Sonoran Desert, the CMAGR is close enough to the Mojave Desert to the north for its plant 

4 communities and wildlife to be influenced by transitions between these two natural ecoregions. The 

5 internal landscape of the range continues to be in a largely undeveloped and relatively undisturbed 

6 condition in which natural processes continue to predominate. At the landscape scale, the BLM lands that 

7 generally surround the range to the north, east, and south are similarly undeveloped and undisturbed and 

8 exhibit the predominance of natural processes. Significantly, however, the CMAGR abuts a sharp divide 

9 (marked by the Coachella Canal) between the extensively developed agricultural, industrial, and 

10 urbanized area of the Imperial Valley to the west, and the relatively undeveloped more natural landscapes 

11 to the east. Given the alternatives of renewing or not renewing the CMAGR, the future implications of the 

12 range as a major land use and ecological factor in the greater region would be best assessed at the 

13 landscape-scale.

14 Local scale assessments are suitable in this LEIS for considering the differences in environmental 

15 outcomes that would occur as a result of the range boundary alignments proposed by Alternatives 1 

16 through 4. Although the proposed boundary realignments would either increase or decrease the total area 

17 of the CMAGR by only about 2.2 percent or 0.5 percent, respectively, and likely would have little 

18 relevance at a landscape scale, the effects of these proposals must also be assessed at a scale consistent 

19 with the locations affected by the realignments.

20 The likely environmental impacts of implementing each of the four action alternatives and the no-action 

21 alternative on each of the resource areas described in Chapter 3 are identified in Chapter 4, in the same 

22 order that the resource areas are described in Chapter 3. Action Alternatives 1 through 4 are described in 

23 Chapter 2 in terms of four action elements—proposed boundary alignment and withdrawal area, proposed 

24 duration of the land withdrawal, proposed CMAGR management assignments, and proposed management 

25 assignments for land released from the CMAGR (see Table 2-1). The likely impacts of each element of 

26 the action alternatives on each of the resource areas are generally addressed in the order that the elements 

27 are described in Chapter 2.

28 4.2 RANGE AND AIRSPACE OPERATIONS 

29 The impact analysis for range and airspace operations considered the following potential effects:

30 Airspace structure and access to airspace. Actions that would change user access to airspace or 

31 that would otherwise constrain flight operations could impact military and/or civil aviation.

32 Training capabilities and capacities. Actions that would limit access at the CMAGR for 

33 training or limit or otherwise adversely affect training activities could impact the training 

34 capabilities and/or capacities of the range.

35 Range management. Actions that could affect the ability of range management to support 

36 training operations, maintain range security and safety, and/or operate efficiently and effectively.

37 4.2.1 Alternative 1 

38 Alternative 1 would renew the CMAGR land withdrawal without change from its current condition, 

39 including the range boundary and land area, withdrawal duration, and agency management assignments. 

40 This action would preserve the existing military training capabilities and capacities of the CMAGR and 

41 would not change the conduct of military activities at the range, in the overlying and adjacent special use 

42 airspace, or at bases in the regional operating area (see Figures 1-4 and 1-5). Civil aviation access to 

43 airspace in the CMAGR region and civil flight operations would also be unchanged from the current 

44 conditions (see Figure 3-1). 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-3 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 The CMAGR boundary would remain as it currently is aligned with Alternative 1. As a result, the DoN 

2 and Marine Corps would continue to be responsible for managing about 647 acres of DoN land north of 

3 the Bradshaw Trail that is not needed for either current or future military purposes (see Figure 3-2). 

4 Further, the BLM would continue to be responsible for managing about 2,174 acres of withdrawn BLM 

5 land along the Bradshaw Trail and south of the Niland-Blythe Road that also is not needed for either 

6 current or future military purposes. Nevertheless, non-military use of the withdrawn BLM land would 

7 continue to be subject to the limitations provided by the national defense land withdrawal legislation. 

8 The Marine Corps is responsible for protecting public safety at the CMAGR by maintaining a well 

9 demarcated range boundary that is clearly posted with prohibited entry and danger/hazard area warning 

10 signs. This management responsibility would continue to be complicated, however, by the retention of the 

11 DoN and BLM land north of the Bradshaw Trail as the trail would continue to provide a public access 

12 corridor that would be internal to the range boundary. Posting prohibited entry and danger/hazard area 

13 signs on the actual range boundary in this area would be completely ineffective. The Marine Corps would 

14 have no way of effectively meeting its public safety obligations other than to continue to post the required 

15 range warning signs along the southern side of the Bradshaw Trail. This consequence would continue to 

16 encumber the combined total of about 2,821 acres of DoN and BLM land north of the Bradshaw Trail 

17 with split management jurisdictions and restrictions on use. 

18 The CMAGR and its associated military airspace would also be unchanged by the proposed 20-year 

19 duration of the CMAGR land withdrawal. Although a 20-year renewal period is less than the foreseeable 

20 continuing need for the range, national defense land withdrawal legislation provided by Congress, 

21 including the CMLWOA, has typically included additional provisions for requesting further renewal of 

22 the land withdrawal if the military need for the withdrawn land would continue beyond the established 

23 duration. Assuming that range renewal legislation based on Alternative 1 would include a provision for 

24 requesting a subsequent renewal, there is no likely reason to conclude that a land withdrawal duration of 

25 20 years would prematurely curtail or otherwise affect military training at the CMAGR, in the overlying 

26 and adjacent special use airspace, or at bases in the regional operating area. Civil aviation access to 

27 airspace in the CMAGR region and civil flight operations would also be unchanged from the current 

28 conditions by this element of Alternative 1. Compared to longer withdrawal durations, the 20-year 

29 duration would, however, increase the cost of administering the range and securing its continuing 

30 availability for training by increasing the frequency of renewal application and assessment cycles.

31 Responsibility for land management at the CMAGR, which is currently split between the DoN and DoI, 

32 would also be unchanged by Alternative 1; DoN would be responsible for DoN land and BLM would be 

33 responsible for DoI/BLM land (see Figure 1-2). The military training capabilities of the CMAGR likely 

34 would be unaffected by the continuing split land management responsibilities, although the cost and 

35 management efficiencies for administering the range likely would be higher than if a single agency 

36 managed the range.

37 4.2.2 Alternative 2

38 Alternative 2 would renew the CMAGR land withdrawal but would also realign the range boundary and 

39 land area, increase the duration of the withdrawal to 25 years, and transfer responsibility for managing 

40 withdrawn BLM land in the range to the DoN. Jurisdiction for DoN land released from the range would 

41 be transferred to the DoI. 

42 Like Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would preserve the existing military training capabilities of the CMAGR 

43 and, with one potential exception, would not change the conduct of military training activities at the 

44 range, in the overlying and adjacent special use airspace, or at bases in the regional operating area. The 

45 potential exception pertains to the proposed realignment of the southwestern boundary of the range to 

46 generally be contiguous to the ROW of the UPRR and Mesquite Regional Landfill Rail Spur and the 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-4 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 implications of this action for military operations in the range (see Figure 2-2). This action would add 

2 about 11,903 acres of BLM land to the range and would support a subsequent Marine Corps action to 

3 acquire about 658 acres of privately owned land, which would be within the administrative boundary of 

4 the CMAGR, through existing real estate acquisition procedures. 

5 The proposed southwestern realignment is not prompted by a need to support an existing, proposed, or 

6 even contemplated training mission at the CMAGR, but rather by the need to establish a range boundary 

7 that would better safeguard public safety and deter inadvertent trespass. Nevertheless, the action would 

8 expand the range sufficiently in a location that would create some potential operational capabilities. 

9 However, it is important to note that the capabilities described in the following paragraph reflect only 

10 potential capabilities based simply on the dimensions and configuration of the proposed realignment area 

11 relative the existing dimensions and configurations of the CMAGR and the R-2507S restricted airspace. 

12 Even if the southwestern realignment is approved by Congress, detailed mission, safety, and 

13 environmental planning would be necessary before a proposed training use of the realignment area could 

14 be implemented. That planning could result in a proposed mission not being approved because of 

15 limitations or concerns other than the mission’s consistency with the potential operational capabilities of 

16 the realignment area.

17 About 52 percent (or about 6,500 acres) of the southwestern realignment area would underlie an existing 

18 portion of R-2507S restricted airspace that extends beyond the current land boundary of the CMAGR (see 

19 Figure 2-2). The part of the realignment area that would be within the lateral boundaries of R-2507S 

20 potentially could be used to support the outer margins of a WDZ for aircraft ordnance deliveries in the 

21 interior of the CMAGR. This potential could allow weapons to be delivered by tactics or at new target 

22 locations that would establish a WDZ that affects the realignment area. This same expansion area also 

23 could potentially be used to support firing positions and SDZs for artillery, mortars, or other surface-to24 surface weapons or surface-to-air weapons that are oriented to fire into the interior of the range. No 

25 portion of the realignment area would be suitable for use as a designated target impact area because the 

26 close proximity to the CMAGR boundary would make it impossible to contain the WDZs or SDZs 

27 associated with the target within both the limits of the range and R-2507S. The entire new range area 

28 potentially would be suitable for use as FARPs, other LZs, UAS operations, or other non-firing training or 

29 range support activities. The portion of the realignment area that would underlie R-2507S would be 

30 classified as an ordnance delivery containment area, and the remainder of the additional range land would 

31 be classified as a no live-fire training, support, and range control area (see Section 3.2.4 and Figure 3-2). 

32 The private land encompassed within the boundary realignment could not be used for range operations, 

33 including WDZ or SDZ overlays, unless either the land or use rights are acquired by the DoN. 

34 Neither the boundary realignment nor potential future military operations in the southwestern range 

35 realignment area would change special use airspace dimensions or operational procedures and would not 

36 impact civil airspace user access to airspace or flight operations.

37 Alternative 2 would also implement the Niland-Blythe Road and the full Bradshaw Trail realignments of 

38 the northern CMAGR boundary (see Figure 2-1 and Tables 2-2 and 2-3). The boundary realignment 

39 would support subsequent Marine Corps actions, through existing real estate acquisition procedures, to 

40 acquire about 10 acres of state and 455 acres of private land that would be within the administrative 

41 boundary of the CMAGR. The additions of BLM, state, and private land to the CMAGR along its 

42 northern perimeter would benefit the ability of the Marine Corps to maintain a secure boundary, but the 

43 acquisition of these scattered perimeter areas would not meaningfully alter the operational capacities of 

44 the range. These additions to the CMAGR would not affect military or civil use of airspace either at the 

45 range or in the adjacent region and would not affect military activities at bases in the regional operating 

46 area.
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-5 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 The release of about 2,821 acres of DoN and BLM land, including the Bradshaw Trail and affected areas 

2 to the north, from the CMAGR would consolidate management of that land with the BLM and would 

3 eliminate the current agency management redundancies and land withdrawal restrictions on land use. 

4 Future use of the Bradshaw Trail and other released land would be managed in accordance with the 

5 FLPMA and other applicable law. Use of the released land, however, should remain compatible with the 

6 military activities at the CMAGR, which would continue to include low-level over flight of the released 

7 land. Release of the land north of the Bradshaw Trail would not affect military training at the CMAGR, in 

8 the overlying and adjacent special use airspace, or at bases in the regional operating area. Civil aviation 

9 access to airspace in the CMAGR region and civil flight operations also would be unchanged from the 

10 current conditions by this element of Alternative 2.

11 The CMAGR and its associated military airspace likely would be unchanged by the proposed 25-year 

12 duration of the CMAGR land withdrawal. Although a single 25-year renewal period would provide a time 

13 horizon that is less than the foreseeable continuing need for the range, the range renewal legislation likely 

14 would include the provision typical of military land withdrawal acts that would authorize the DoN to 

15 request a subsequent renewal. Thus, there is no likely reason to conclude that a land withdrawal duration 

16 of 25 years would prematurely curtail or otherwise affect military training at the CMAGR, in the 

17 overlying and adjacent special use airspace, or at bases in the regional operating area. Civil aviation 

18 access to airspace in the CMAGR region and civil flight operations would also be unchanged from the 

19 current conditions by this element of Alternative 2. Compared to the shorter withdrawal duration of 20 

20 years proposed by Alternative 1, the 25-year duration would decrease the cost of administering the range 

21 and securing its continuing availability for training by decreasing the frequency of renewal application 

22 and assessment cycles.

23 The transfer of management responsibility for the withdrawn BLM land in the CMAGR from the DoI to 

24 the DoN would eliminate agency management redundancies, reduce management costs, and increase 

25 management efficiencies. The natural resources of the range would be managed in accordance with the 

26 Sikes Act. The Sikes Act was purposefully developed to meet the needs of U.S. military installations and 

27 would provide management policy guidance for conserving and rehabilitating natural resources in a 

28 manner that supports the long-term use of the CMAGR for military purposes. Preparation of an INRMP 

29 for each installation is mandated and, among other requirements, the INRMP must provide for no net loss 

30 in the capability of the installation lands to support the military mission of the installation (16 U.S.C. § 

31 670a(b)(1)(I)). This is essentially a sustainable use provision that mandates that resource management and 

32 use priorities must be consistent with and support the primary purpose of the installation. Resources are to 

33 be managed and non-military use permitted and regulated in such a way that the use of the installation for 

34 its intended military mission would not be curtailed or limited by resource protection or sustainability 

35 constraints imposed by the lack of appropriately focused conservation or rehabilitation activities or by the 

36 adverse effects from non-military use. The FLPMA includes provisions for protecting, conserving, and 

37 restoring resources providing for sustainable multiple use of those resources. The FLPMA provides no 

38 equivalency, however, to the priority policy and procedural guidance provided by the Sikes Act for 

39 managing natural resources at a military installation in a manner that is consistent with and supports the 

40 military purposes of the installation. These actions generally would not affect the military training 

41 capabilities or activities at the CMAGR, special use airspace, bases in the regional operating area, or civil 

42 aviation.

43 4.2.3 Alternative 3

44 Alternative 3 would renew the existing land withdrawal area and boundary of the CMAGR with the 

45 exception that the range area and boundary would be modified by the Niland-Blythe Road and full 

46 Bradshaw Trail boundary realignments (see Figure 2-1). The foreseeable effects of these two boundary 

47 realignments would be the same as described for these realignments under Alternative 2. 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-6 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 Like Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would preserve the existing military training capabilities of the CMAGR 

2 and would not change the conduct of military training activities at the range, in the overlying and adjacent 

3 special use airspace, or at bases in the regional operating area. Civil aviation access to airspace in the 

4 CMAGR region and civil flight operations would be unchanged from current conditions by any 

5 Alternative 3 actions. 

6 Jurisdiction for withdrawn BLM land in the CMAGR would be permanently transferred under 

7 Alternative 3 from the DoI to the DoN. This action would convey the same management efficiency 

8 benefits and the same advantages for sustaining the natural resource of the CMAGR to support the 

9 military use of the range for the long-term as would the transfer of resource management responsibility 

10 from DoI to DoN under Alternative 2 (see Section 4.2.2). Alternative 3 however, would make these 

11 benefits permanent and would eliminate the need to conduct and process periodic application and 

12 assessment cycles to secure renewal of the range land withdrawal. Alternative 3 also directs that unneeded 

13 and released DoN land would be disposed of through existing GSA authorities and procedures. These 

14 actions would not directly affect military training capabilities or activities at the CMAGR, in special use 

15 airspace, or at bases in the regional operating area. 

16 4.2.4 Alternative 4

17 Alternative 4 would renew the existing land withdrawal area and boundary of the CMAGR with the 

18 exception that the range area and boundary would be modified by the partial Bradshaw Trail boundary 

19 realignments (see Figure 2-3). Like the full Bradshaw Trail realignment, the partial realignment would 

20 release the Bradshaw Trail and DoN land and currently withdrawn BLM land from the range, but would 

21 not include additional BLM, state, or private land in the range. Like Alternative 1, Alternative 4 would 

22 preserve the existing military training capabilities of the CMAGR and would not change the conduct of 

23 military training activities at the range, in the overlying and adjacent special use airspace, or at bases in 

24 the regional operating area. The foreseeable effects of the partial Bradshaw Trail boundary realignment 

25 on military range operations, special use airspace, military bases in the regional operating area, and 

26 military and civil airspace use would be the same as described for the full Bradshaw Trail boundary 

27 realignment under Alternative 2 except that effects resulting from acquiring additional range land would 

28 not occur.

29 Alternative 4 shares the same proposal as Alternative 2 for assigning agency land management 

30 responsibilities at the CMAGR and for a 25-year duration of the land withdrawal. Alternative 4 would 

31 have the same effects on military training capabilities and activities at the CMAGR, special use airspace, 

32 military bases in the regional operating area, and military and civil airspace users as would Alternative 1 

33 for these action elements.

34 4.2.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)

35 Alternative 5 would result in the closure, decommissioning, and eventual non-military reuse of the 

36 CMAGR. Expiration of the land withdrawal for the BLM land in the CMAGR likely would trigger an 

37 immediate closure of the range to military training operations, which in turn would have rapid and 

38 cascading impacts on military training capabilities, capacities, and operations throughout the BSTRC, the 

39 greater regional range complex operating area, and the military bases that support the units that train at 

40 these range and airspace complexes (see Figure 1-4). 

41 Although the DoN would continue to hold jurisdiction for roughly half of the land within the CMAGR, 

42 the loss of the BLM land for supporting training coupled with the checkerboard-like distribution of DoN 

43 and BLM land within the range (see Figure 1-2) would essentially render the DoN land useless for 

44 supporting the live-fire aviation and ground training for which the range is highly valued. Military surface 

45 use needs and requirements for containing weapons range WDZs and SDZs clearly indicate that DoN and 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-7 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 BLM land must be used jointly and in common to provide sufficient land space to support live-fire 

2 weapons training at the CMAGR (see Figures 3-2 and 3-3). 

3 Conceivably, some ground-based training or support activities, such as FARP or UAS operations or 

4 academic classes at Camp Billy Machen, could continue on DoN parcels alone; however, the potential 

5 interest and benefit in pursuing such activities on residual parcels of the former range is uncertain. The 

6 real and full value of and justification for the CMAGR has long been its capabilities and capacities to 

7 support realistic, multiple, and often integrated training activities. Training integration at the CMAGR 

8 takes four key forms:

9 Individual aircrews or ground combatants participate in a series of training missions, which are 

10 each designed to develop a particular combat skill, such that over successive training evolutions, 

11 the individual integrates multiple proficiencies into his/her combat skill set.

12 Individual aircrews or ground combatants conduct training missions that include multiple combat 

13 tasks designed to develop his/her ability to integrate and combine multiple combat skills into a 

14 single integrated mission.

15 Multiple aircrews or ground combatants conduct training missions together with the objective of 

16 coordinating and combining their efforts to develop/improve their abilities to fight as an 

17 integrated combat team.

18 Air and ground forces participate together in a combined arms training evolution to 

19 develop/improve their abilities to fight as an integrated air-ground combat team.

20 As indicated, the potential to conduct some individual training activities on the DoN land remaining at the 

21 former CMAGR might be present following the loss of both the withdrawn BLM land and live-fire 

22 training capabilities, but the capability to support realistic training and training integration would unravel. 

23 Training functions conducted on residual DoN land would have to be pursued in relative isolation, 

24 without the complex, realistic training challenges of multiple-mission tasks and combined-arms 

25 integration provided by the CMAGR. 

26 The continuing need within the BSTRC and greater regional range complex operating area for the training 

27 capabilities and capacities at the CMAGR would not end as a consequence of closing the range in 

28 accordance with Alternative 5. Rather, closure of the CMAGR would precipitate an urgent need to either 

29 restore its training capabilities and capacities elsewhere within the region or to find replacement training 

30 opportunities outside of the region. Currently, 42 percent and 39 percent of all Marine Corps helicopter 

31 and fixed-wing aircraft squadrons, respectively, are based in the greater CMAGR region and use the 

32 range. Furthermore, MCAS Yuma and the BSTRC together are the most active training deployment 

33 destination for Marine Corps aviation, and they are used by Navy, Air Force, Army, and Reserve aviation 

34 units as well. A number of factors, such as year-round flying weather, combine to account for the 

35 significance of the BSTRC as a training destination. However, none are more important than the 

36 capability of the CMAGR to support live ordnance deliveries in a tactical training environment that 

37 realistically simulates the air-ground battlespace in which the Marine Corps is tasked to fight and defeat 

38 hostile forces. The CMAGR is the Marine Corps’ premiere land-based range for tactical aviation training 

39 with live ordnance; a capability that is not replicated within the eastern two-thirds of the country. 

40 The extensive and complex range, airspace, and basing planning that would be necessary to realign 

41 training missions and develop new training capabilities and capacities within the greater CMAGR region 

42 or at locations elsewhere in the country to compensate for the closure of the CMAGR is beyond the scope 

43 of this LEIS. A survey of some of the prominent challenges of replacing CMAGR training capabilities 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-8 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 and capacities, however, will illustrate the scope of effects that closure of the CMAGR would have on 

2 airspace and ranges. 

3 If the CMAGR were to close, the clear preference would be to reestablish its critical training capabilities 

4 and capacities within the BSTRC to provide continuing training support to squadrons based in the region 

5 and preserve the multifaceted and multi-tiered training capabilities at the BSTRC and larger regional 

6 range complex operating area that are used service-wide to hone the warfighting capabilities of the 

7 Marine Corps (see Section 1.3.2). 

8 Although the CMAGR is a multifaceted range, its core capability is air-to-ground ordnance training, most 

9 importantly the ability to support the tactical delivery of air-to-ground live and inert ordnance. This 

10 capability is central to the way Marine Corps aviation trains, and is not duplicated elsewhere in the 

11 Marine Corps. This capability exists due to the combined effects of restricted areas R-2507N/S/E and the 

12 underlying land areas. This capability is enhanced by the surrounding military operating areas, restricted 

13 areas, and air traffic controlled airspace areas. 

14 In addition to supporting aviation training for all of the services, the CMAGR also supports ground 

15 tactical training for both the Marine Corps and Naval Special Forces Command. Marine Corps ground 

16 training generally focuses on support of aviation training, most notably the twice annual WTI courses.

17 The Marine Corps has deployed infantry battalions in support of these events in the past, and plans to 

18 continue that support into the future. 

19 Naval Special Forces use SWATs 4 and 5 within the CMAGR extensively. Immediately adjacent to 

20 R2507N, the SDZs of SWATs 4 and 5 are underneath two controlled firing areas, with portions of the 

21 SDZs extending into the R-2507. This dual use of the R-2507 serves to greatly reduce the amount of land 

22 and airspace ground forces would otherwise require. Compensating for these core live-fire and live 

23 ordnance training capabilities within the BSTRC for both the aviation and special warfare communities 

24 likely would be the greatest challenge to overcoming the loss of the CMAGR. 

25 BSTRC capabilities for live-fire aviation and ground combat training outside of the CMAGR are briefly 

26 described in the ―Training with Live Ordnance‖ subsection of Section 1.3.2.1. The bulls-eye targets at the 

27 El Centro ranges and BMGR West are generally limited to basic instruction in air-to-ground delivery with 

28 inert ordnance (see Figure 1-4). The urban CAS range at BMGR West provides limited tactical air-to29 ground training in a simulation of a confined 1,500-foot radius urban setting, but only with inert 

30 ordnance. YPG can accommodate live ordnance drops, but these deliveries are supported only on 

31 instrumented test ranges, and there are no air-to-ground tactical training ranges there. YPG is a major 

32 DoD test range at which training opportunities are a secondary priority and limited. BMGR East, which is 

33 used periodically as an auxiliary training area for the WTI Course and other Marine Corps training 

34 evolutions, provides three extensive tactical aviation training ranges, but the target sets at these ranges are 

35 nearly all restricted to inert ordnance. BMGR East also is already intensively used for Air Force student 

36 pilot instruction and beyond the unrefueled training radius of fixed-wing aircraft based at MCAS Miramar 

37 and the unrefueled radius of all home-based Marine Corps helicopter squadrons. There are no special 

38 warfare or other tactical ground-combat training ranges within the BSTRC other than the SWATs at the 

39 CMAGR. Thus, there is no ready replacement within the BSTRC for the live-fire and live-ordnance 

40 training capabilities and capacities at the CMAGR.

41 Creating new live-fire and live-ordnance training capabilities and capacities within the BSTRC region 

42 would be the only option for replacing those that would be lost with the closure of the CMAGR. Given 

43 the existing commitments of land and airspace in the BSTRC region not already dedicated to military 

44 training use, the option of creating an entirely new range to replace the CMAGR is likely infeasible. 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-9 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 The only opportunity in the BSTRC that could be given consideration would be developing new live-fire 

2 and live-ordnance tactical ranges within BMGR West or revamping BMGR East tactical ranges to support 

3 training with live ordnance. Both of these ranges have the land and airspace dimensions that potentially 

4 could support live-fire and live-ordnance tactical ranges. However, these proposals are highly speculative, 

5 and implementation would face important obstacles at each location. As previously relayed in 

6 Section 1.3.2.2, the CMAGR and BMGR West are both vital BSTRC assets that provide complimentary 

7 rather than redundant training benefits. Although BMGR West currently lacks the live-fire and live8 ordnance capabilities of the CMAGR, years of investment have developed a robust and sophisticated 

9 training environment at BMGR West. The facilities there include—but are not limited to—the Yuma 

10 TACTS range, which is capable of simultaneously challenging up to 36 aircrews with simple or complex 

11 and tactically realistic problems involving air-to-air, air-to-surface, and/or surface-to-air combat; ground 

12 support areas for fully integrating air support, air defense, and other ground units with the aviation 

13 element in MAGTF training; two inert ordnance target sets including the urban target complex; and bare14 bones forward airfields for tactical fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter operations. A live-fire and live15 ordnance tactical range conceivably could be developed within the midst of this existing training 

16 infrastructure but not without tradeoffs between the existing and proposed training capabilities. Live17 ordnance targets would place the existing infrastructure in jeopardy of destruction if the targets were not 

18 located so that the axes of attack appropriately protected existing facilities. Given the wide distribution of 

19 existing infrastructure at BMGR West, the constraints on the potential target locations likely would limit 

20 the diversity and realism of a live-ordnance tactical range if the priority were to protect the existing 

21 training capabilities. Alternatively, a higher priority could be assigned to more fully developing the 

22 capabilities of the prospective training tactical range, and some existing training infrastructure likely 

23 would have to be sacrificed, which would diminish the diversity and/or realism of the existing training 

24 capabilities. 

25 Training use of live-ordnance requires access constraints to protect the safety of both military personnel 

26 and the public. Non-participating and unprotected participating persons cannot enter active WDZs or 

27 SDZs during live ordnance delivery missions. Entry by persons into range areas that may be affected by 

28 post-mission UXO would also have to be controlled, limited, or prohibited to protect their safety. These 

29 constraints likely would further complicate or limit the relocation, use, and/or maintenance of range 

30 infrastructure—such as electronic instrumentation, forward airfields, and ground support areas—that 

31 currently supports training other than live-ordnance delivery. UXO issues would also complicate and 

32 possibly constrain the use of ground support areas during training evolutions that require the participation 

33 of ground units.

34 The tradeoffs discussed thus far represent only a cursory assessment of the potential conflicts that likely 

35 would arise from attempts to locate a new live-ordnance tactical range within the existing training 

36 priorities and infrastructure of BMGR West. Others are likely. Assuming the infrastructure conflicts could 

37 be adequately resolved, the need for further tradeoffs likely would arise concerning the scheduling of 

38 continuing training missions and the new live-ordnance training mission. More than 43 percent more 

39 aviation training sorties were scheduled at BMGR West in FY 2010 than at the CMAGR. Training rates 

40 at BMGR West and CMAGR have been either nearly the same or reversed (more sorties schedule at 

41 CMAGR) in various other years. The implication is that if the training capabilities of the CMAGR and 

42 BMGR West have to be combined at BMGR West alone, then the volume of training that currently occurs 

43 at each independent range likely would not be sustainable. In other words, scheduling limitations likely 

44 would impact sortie rates if the capabilities of these ranges would be combined at BMGR West alone. 

45 All of these speculations about actions that may be taken to offset the consequences of closing the 

46 CMAGR on aviation training capabilities, capacities, and operations have been limited to mission and 

47 scheduling conflicts that likely would arise from a need to realign the live ordnance training capabilities at 

48 the CMAGR to BMGR West. The likely outcome is that the diversity and/or realism of the existing 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-10 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 aggregate training capabilities and capacities of the BSTRC would be significantly diminished. This 

2 conclusion is reached without consideration of how relocating Navy SEAL live-fire training to BMGR 

3 West would further complicate and likely exacerbate the need for adverse tradeoffs among training 

4 mission priorities. 

5 Further, no consideration of potential environmental issues or concerns that may constrain opportunities 

6 to optimize the benefits of all training missions has been included in this assessment. For example, 

7 Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), a federally listed endangered species, is present 

8 in the eastern third of BMGR West and in BMGR East, and the flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma 

9 mcalli), which is managed under a conservation agreement to avert a need to list it as threatened, occupies 

10 the westernmost portions of BMGR West. The presence of these two species and other environmental 

11 factors likely would constrict further the potential degree to which a live-ordnance tactical range could be 

12 developed in either BMGR West or BMGR East to compensate for the closure of the CMAGR.

13 The MCAGCC at Twentynine Palms, which is located outside of the BSTRC and BMGR East, but still 

14 within the un-refueled operating radius of fixed-wing aircraft at MCAS Miramar and MCAS Yuma, likely

15 would be the first range considered as a candidate to absorb and replicate lost live-ordnance training 

16 capabilities at the CMAGR. The MCAGCC is, however, beyond the un-refueled operating radius of 

17 helicopter squadrons based in the BSTRC region. The potential for the MCAGCC to serve as an 

18 alternative to the CMAGR is discussed in the ―Training with Live Ordnance‖ subsection of 

19 Section 1.3.2.1. As with BMGR West and BMGR East, the immediate issue at the MCAGCC would not 

20 be the adequacy of its land and airspace dimensions, but rather, the potential conflicts with existing 

21 training infrastructure and schedules. In particular, the MCAGCC is already heavily scheduled for pre22 deployment training of MAGTFs; this function likely would be a higher priority in the consideration of 

23 the tradeoffs in training capabilities and capacities that would occur if a substantial proportion of the 

24 CMAGR mission were to be relocated to the MCAGCC. The Marine Corps is evaluating the 

25 implementation of the Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Program at the MCAGCC. This program 

26 will replace the pre-deployment program that has been the focus of effort. The MAGTF Training Program 

27 will utilize the majority of the base, resulting in reduced areas and availability for units and aircraft not 

28 directly involved in the training.

29 Existing ranges at distances beyond that of the MCAGCC from the BSTRC that would have the basic 

30 dimensions needed to support the live-ordnance training mission of the CMAGR are all beyond the un31 refueled operating radius of both the fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter squadrons based in the BSTRC 

32 region. These ranges—including the Army National Training Center and Naval Air Warfare Center China 

33 Lake in California, the Air Force Air Warfare Center Nevada Test and Training Range, the Air Force 

34 Utah Test and Training Range, the Army White Sands Missile Range and McGregor Range in New 

35 Mexico, and possibly others in Idaho, Colorado, and Alaska—all have assigned test and/or training 

36 missions. Should the CMAGR live-ordnance training mission be relocated to any of these sites, it would 

37 raise potential concerns for mission displacement, curtailment, or other negative tradeoffs. In addition to 

38 the potential losses of military training capabilities and capacities that may be triggered, moving CMAGR 

39 training missions to any of these ranges would likely also require massive and frequent deployments or 

40 major base realignments of Marine Corps squadrons from the CMAGR region to these faraway ranges. 

41 Continuation of the R-2507N/S/E restricted airspace would not be directly or immediately impacted by 

42 the expiration of the CMAGR land withdrawal, but the resulting termination of live-fire missions at the 

43 range and in this airspace likely would trigger, at a minimum, a near-term review of requirements for its 

44 floor at the ground surface, full lateral dimensions, and ceiling. In fact, the requirement for continuing the 

45 restricted area designation as compared to either changing its status to a MOA/ATCAA or canceling the 

46 special use airspace designation altogether likely would be part of the review. Additionally, the 

47 requirements for some of the MOAs/ATCAAs and MTRs closely integrated with the training missions at 
Range and Airspace Operations

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-11 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 the CMAGR likely would also be called into review with modifications to or cancellations of those 

2 airspace areas and MTRs as possible outcomes.

3 In summary, closure of the CMAGR likely would have negative impacts on military training capabilities 

4 and capacities beyond those that would be curtailed by the loss of this range alone. Attempts to 

5 compensate for the loss of CMAGR training capabilities within the BSTRC, at BMGR East, or the 

6 MCAGCC likely would cause tradeoffs that would diminish existing capabilities at the other ranges, 

7 cause training mission scheduling conflicts, and reduce the overall capabilities and capacities of these 

8 range complexes in aggregate. Closure of the CMAGR likely would adversely impact and, to a degree, 

9 unravel the multidimensional and multi-tiered training system that has been developed over decades at the 

10 integrated system of ranges, range complexes, and military bases in southern California and Arizona for 

11 preparing MAGTFs.

12

13 4.3 NON-MILITARY LAND USE

14 This section discusses the potential effects on land ownership and planned land uses in the CMAGR study 

15 area that are expected to result from the alternatives. Elements of the alternatives that are most applicable 

16 to the analysis are whether the CMAGR is renewed for continued military use or is not renewed. The 

17 duration of the withdrawal (whether for 20 years, 25 years, or indefinite) would not influence land 

18 ownership and planned land uses. The primary impacts to land use are associated with adopted 

19 environmental management plans, utility and renewable energy corridors, and recreation. 

20 The method for analysis of non-military land use with regard to the proposed alternatives is to conduct a 

21 comparison between the land uses that currently exist, within the ROI of the CMAGR as discussed in 

22 Chapter 3, and the adoption of any of the proposed alternatives. The duration of impact is considered 

23 long-term unless otherwise noted. 

24 The 2006 BLM Resource Management Plans for California’s Public Lands, the California Desert 

25 Conservation Area Plan, and the six related plan amendments were used to evaluate potential impacts to 

26 land status and management, agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Riverside 

27 County and Imperial County General Plans were also reviewed. The land use designations associated with 

28 the ROI are Rural Development Area for BLM-administered lands and Reclamation-administered lands. 

29 These lands are primarily undeveloped with little to no existing residential, commercial, industrial, or 

30 public facilities located within the Project area. 

31 For the purposes of this LEIS, the impact analysis considered the following potential effects on non32 military land use, which would be considered adverse if they result in:

33 Conflicts with adopted environmental management plans and approved county plans

34 Changes in utility, right-of–way, or natural resource easements

35 Interference with currently established recreational, agricultural, or other landscape level uses of 

36 the area

37 4.3.1 Alternative 1

38 The boundary and withdrawal area would remain unchanged from the current condition with 

39 Alternative 1. Agency management responsibilities on the CMAGR would be unchanged from current 

40 conditions and training operation would continue. The DoN would continue to manage range operations 
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-12 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 and the DoN land per the Sikes Act, and BLM would continue to manage DoI withdrawn land per 

2 FLPMA. 

3 Landscape level land uses within the ROI would remain unchanged from the conditions that currently 

4 exist and no current or potential land uses would be affected by continuing military training. The 

5 associated environmental management plans and approved county plans would continue functioning in 

6 their current capacity. Utility, renewable resources exploration, and right-of-way easements would 

7 continue to be possible in the designated Multiple-Use Classes (MUCs) defined by the CDCA Plan. 

8 Transportation corridors would not be impacted. 

9 Recreational opportunities would be unchanged. The BLM allows primitive camping within 300 feet of 

10 the Bradshaw Trail except in the designated Chuckwalla-Palen Wilderness Area. Evidence of recreational 

11 camping within 300 feet of the trail in the area north of the CMAGR was noted during field 

12 reconnaissance. Under Alternative 1, the land withdrawal would last for 20 years, although there could be 

13 subsequent renewal authorizations. Land development adjacent to and near the CMAGR would continue 

14 to be influenced by the military operations within the range, such as exposure to military aircraft noise 

15 and concerns for tall structures that could be an obstruction hazard to low-flying aircraft. Lands within the 

16 CMAGR boundary would continue to be reserved for military purposes, and public access would 

17 continue to be prohibited within the CMAGR, including for appropriative uses, such as grazing and 

18 mining.

19 4.3.2 Alternative 2

20 With Alternative 2, the CMAGR boundary and withdrawal area would be realigned parallel to and 

21 approximately 30 feet from the Bradshaw Trail, the Niland-Blythe Road, the UPRR, and the Mesquite 

22 Regional Landfill Rail Spur, excluding these features from the range (see Figures 2-1 and 2-3). 

23 Responsibility for managing withdrawn BLM land would be transferred to the DoN. The DoN would 

24 manage DoN and BLM lands per Sikes Act. 

25 4.3.2.1 Northern Section of the CMAGR

26 Direct effects from the boundary realignment would be noted from the landscape level (Figure 2-1). The 

27 boundary adjustment along the Bradshaw Trail would create a clear demarcation between the range 

28 boundaries and non-range lands. No changes to Riverside County’s approved plans would be required. 

29 The tracts of land north of the Bradshaw Trail that would not be renewed would include about 647 acres 

30 of DoN land and about 1,924 acres of BLM land. The released DoN lands potentially could be transferred 

31 to the BLM, but they would not be available for appropriation under the public land laws or other public 

32 uses as provided by the FLPMA until the Secretaries of the Interior and Navy assess the extent of 

33 contamination and other environmental conditions associated with these lands. Should the Secretary of 

34 the Interior decide to accept the released land, BLM could open these lands to public land laws in 

35 accordance with the FLPMA. The released BLM lands could be reassessed per the current MUC category 

36 designation in this region. These lands may be considered for utility, natural resources development, and 

37 right-of-way easements and permitting. 

38 The new boundary alignment would better demark the range boundary, decreasing the potential for 

39 recreationists traveling on the Bradshaw Trail to enter accidentally into the range boundaries. BLM 

40 management of the Bradshaw Trail, which is a National Backcountry Byway, and periodic county 

41 maintenance of the trail could be accomplished without encroaching into the CMAGR. Public safety is 

42 further discussed in Section 4.11.
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-13 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4.3.2.2 Southern Section of the CMAGR

2 Alternative 2 would also realign a portion of the southwestern CMAGR boundary to follow the Mesquite 

3 Regional Landfill Rail Spur and the UPRR’s Sunset Route. This alignment would create a clear 

4 demarcation between the range boundaries and non-range lands. The UPRR plans to expand the route into 

5 a double-track corridor for 9 miles along this area. The expansion of the new line would assist in creating 

6 an additional buffer for the range, and the boundary realignment would not interfere with the railroad’s 

7 expansion plans. No changes to Imperial County’s approved plans would be required for this alternative. 

8 The realignment would preclude non-military land uses—such as renewable energy development, OHV 

9 and dispersed recreation, or utility projects—from the BLM land that would be included in the CMAGR 

10 for the first time. Ongoing energy or utility projects do not occur in the area and would not be impacted 

11 by the proposed withdrawal, but potential future projects would be excluded. The area, which is not 

12 currently used extensively for dispersed recreation, is designated as a limited OHV use area in which 

13 there are no designated travel routes. Withdrawal of this area as a part of the CMAGR would have little 

14 effect on current recreation use, but would also preclude future opportunities to promote the area for 

15 either OHV or dispersed recreation.

16 4.3.2.3 Land Management Responsibilities

17 The responsibility for managing the currently withdrawn BLM lands as well as the lands affected by the 

18 realigned boundary would be transferred to the DoN for their management under Alternative 2. DoN 

19 lands currently located within the CMAGR that are not proposed for renewal with Alternative 2 would be 

20 released for use by the BLM and managed under the terms outlined by FLPMA. BLM’s current

21 California Desert Conservation Area Plan, the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated 

22 Management Plan, and the Western Colorado Desert Routes of Travel Designations Plan note the location 

23 and boundary of the CMAGR, but exclude the range land from their planning area because the land is 

24 withdrawn from public use. With implementation of this alternative, the plans may be updated to reflect 

25 the change in the range boundary, acreage calculations, and associated maps and figures. Assuming lands 

26 are exchanged between BLM and DoN, the BLM planning areas would change to include lands not 

27 renewed and to exclude lands acquired by DoN; while the revisions would be minor, BLM may elect to 

28 amend their plans to reflect these changes.

29 Roughly 50 percent of the CMAGR is composed of DoN land and is managed in accordance with the 

30 Sikes Act. As a result, approximately every other section of land in the CMAGR is managed alternatively 

31 by either the Marine Corps, acting for the DoN, or the BLM. The Sikes Act that requires DoD agencies to 

32 develop resource management plans for all lands within a military reservation. BLM is responsible for 

33 managing the almost 50 percent of the CMAGR that is composed of withdrawn public land and for 

34 preparing a management plan for that land in accordance with FLPMA. All of the land within the 

35 CMAGR would be managed according to the regulations promulgated in the Sikes Act.

36 4.3.2.4 Duration of Range Renewal

37 Alternative 2 would renew the land withdrawal and authorize the use of the range land for military 

38 purposes for 25 years, and would allow for subsequent renewal of the land withdrawal. The procedural 

39 process and effects would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 1.

40 4.3.3 Alternative 3

41 With Alternative 3, the CMAGR boundary would incorporate the full realignment along the Bradshaw 

42 Trail and the Niland-Blythe Road. The management responsibilities for lands not renewed would be 

43 disposed of through existing procedures following an assessment of the environmental condition and 

44 potential contamination level of these lands. 
Non-Military Land Use

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-14 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 BLM lands within the CMAGR would be congressionally transferred to DoN and the lands would be 

2 managed in accordance with the Sikes Act. This would eliminate the land withdrawal condition and 

3 essentially establish the range for military purposes indefinitely. There would be no expected changes to 

4 the region from a landscape perspective. The continued use of the CMAGR would not disrupt any 

5 existing land uses associated with the ROI, and the range would continue to be consistent with adopted 

6 environmental management plans and approved county plans. Existing land uses in the ROI—including 

7 utility, renewable resources, and right-of-way easements; currently established recreational opportunities; 

8 agricultural; or other landscape-level uses of the area—would not change. Effects noted along the 

9 Bradshaw Trail would be the same as discussed in Alternative 2. This alternative would have the greatest 

10 potential to keep the CMAGR for military purposes in perpetuity and exclude the lands from other public 

11 purposes. 

12 4.3.4 Alternative 4

13 With Alternative 4, the boundary and withdrawal area would be changed to incorporate the partial 

14 Bradshaw Trail alignment. Agency management responsibilities for withdrawn BLM land within the 

15 CMAGR would be transferred to DoN, as previously discussed in Alternative 2. Management 

16 responsibilities for lands not renewed would be the same as Alternative 3. The duration of range renewal 

17 for withdrawal and reservation of DoI land within the CMAGR boundary would be 25 years, which is the 

18 same as Alternative 2.

19 4.3.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)

20 The land withdrawal under Alternative 5 would expire in October 2014, which would ultimately close the 

21 range lands for military purposes. The boundary would no longer define an active range, but would 

22 demarcate a post-range planning and clean-up area. The DoN would continue to manage closed DoN 

23 range land per Sikes Act until disposition of DoN land is determined. 

24 While military operations would be discontinued, there would be a planning effort to allocate current 

25 military operations and to begin a clean-up process for the range. In the near term, as decontamination 

26 processes are initiated and implemented, no alternative land uses could be introduced within the CMAGR. 

27 Under guidance from the FLTFA, the BLM would be the managing federal jurisdiction for the public 

28 lands located within the current boundary. The DoN lands within the range would become excess 

29 property if the CMAGR were to close and would be either transferred to another federal agency, such as 

30 the BLM, or disposed of as surplus through existing GSA authorities. The BLM would be responsible for 

31 developing a management plan and designating multiple categories as driven by the CDCA. A small 

32 proportion of the range, about 5 percent, supports surface uses that have caused or may cause moderate to 

33 complete levels of physical disturbance to the ground surface, vegetative communities, and surface 

34 drainages. Within this small percentage of the range, the target areas where live, high explosive munitions 

35 are dropped may be contaminated to the extent that future public use would not be possible. Other 

36 training areas as well as WDZ and SDZ buffer areas would not be available for potential future public 

37 uses until the land could be decontaminated (see additional discussion in Section 2.6). The BLM would 

38 assess a re-designation of land uses and would be required to address additional plan amendments to the 

39 California Desert Conservation Area plan, the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated 

40 Management plan and the Western Colorado Desert Routes of Travel Designations plan. Assuming range 

41 lands are rendered safe for other purposes, certain lands within the range might be developed for uses 

42 compatible with the level of decontamination. New opportunities could potentially be developed for the 

43 expansion of existing utility corridors, renewable energy rights-of-way, transportation projects, or other 

44 possible uses. 

45 The closure of the CMAGR may also increase opportunities for recreational uses such as hiking, 

46 camping, birding, hunting, and other recreation-based activities. 
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-15 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4.4 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

2 This section qualitatively evaluates the impacts to Geological Resources for the proposed land uses under 

3 Alternatives 1 through 5 (No Action).

4 The impact analysis considered the following potential effects:

5 Loss of vegetation and physical or biological crusts – Permanent loss of vegetation or physical 

6 or biological crusts to bare or disturbed ground could lead to accelerated wind and water erosion. 

7 Disturbed soils take a long time to recover in a desert environment.

8 Soil productivity – Reduced soil productivity by soil compaction or erosion loss could occur that 

9 would prevent successful stabilization and re-establishment of native cover.

10 Temporary erosion/desertification – Disturbed soils could result in physical or biological soil 

11 crust destruction, vegetation loss, accelerated wind and water erosion, fugitive dust generation, 

12 increased sediment loads, and/or degraded water quality.

13 Soil contamination – Range operation could contaminate soils from chemicals (for example, 

14 spilled fuels), explosives, or unexploded ordnance.

15 Energy and mineral resource development – Withdrawal or release of land would preclude or 

16 allow energy and mineral resource exploration and/or development.

17 Direct effects on soils by military surface use primarily consist of physical disturbance of the near-surface 

18 soil layers that could result in loss of soil structure, increased soil compaction, destruction of physical or 

19 biological crusts, loss of vegetative cover, introduction of invasive non-native plant species, and/or 

20 accelerated wind and water erosion. Fuel spills, explosive residues, and exploded and unexploded 

21 ordnance debris could result in soil contamination. Indirect effects on soils include reduced surface water 

22 infiltration with an associated increase in surface water runoff, soil productivity decline resulting in poor 

23 plant growth or seed germination, and soil contamination migration. Both direct and indirect effects on 

24 soils would occur as a result of continued military surface-disturbing activities such as target complexes 

25 and off-road vehicle use. Many of these effects would also occur if the CMAGR is released for 

26 recreational use, utility construction, or energy and mineral resource development.

27 Vegetative cover and physical or biological crusts can be disrupted by surface uses. The limited 

28 vegetative cover and physical or biological crusts existing at the CMAGR stabilize the soils, reduce wind 

29 and water erosion, and locally increases soil productivity. Desert environments, like the CMAGR, are 

30 dominated by biological crusts at or near the soil surface. Soils with healthy biological crusts supply 

31 conditions favorable to plant growth because they provide high amounts of nutrients and plant available 

32 water, both of which are limiting factors for plant growth in the desert. Soils with well-established and 

33 undisturbed biological crusts have much greater resistance to soil erosion than less well-developed crusts 

34 or bare soil. 

35 Physical or biological crusts can be destroyed by sediment deposition from accelerated wind or water 

36 erosion of disturbed soils. Burial of these crusts kills organisms in the crust, eliminating the crust’s 

37 function in soil stabilization and nutrient contribution that is needed for soil productivity. Vegetative 

38 cover may also be damaged by surface use, resulting in subsequent wind and water erosion through 

39 abrasion, burial, or deposition of dust on plants, which reduces their ability for photosynthesis, minimizes 

40 transpiration, and causes increased soil surface temperatures. Loss of native vegetative cover in disturbed 

41 soil areas also increases the chance of invasive, non-native plant species introduction, colonization, and 

42 naturalization.
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-16 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 Wind erosion of soils is influenced by vegetation and terrain at different scales. Soil roughness and 

2 vegetative cover affect the local transport and deposition of soil particles by sheltering the soil from the 

3 force of the wind, slowing down wind speeds, and trapping soil particles that move to the bare areas 

4 between plants. Damage to vegetation, soil crusts, or desert pavement exposes bare soil to wind, which 

5 picks up and transports soil particles until topography reduces wind speed and deposits the soil particles. 

6 If vegetation, soil crusts, or desert pavement are damaged or destroyed by surface use disturbance and not 

7 provided adequate recovery periods, wind erosion would cause the bare ground to expand downwind until 

8 slowed by terrain.

9 Water erosion is more localized at the CMAGR but can also cause substantial damage, especially along 

10 off-road tracks and disturbed target areas with steep slopes. Water erosion can result in increased 

11 sediment loads, downstream sedimentation, and/or degraded water quality, especially along ephemeral 

12 drainages at the CMAGR. Loss of vegetation and soil crusts accelerates water erosion in disturbed soils.

13 The long-term effects on soils are related to the areal extent of the surface impacts and the length of time 

14 necessary for the soils to recover or stabilize following surface disturbance. Soil recovery requires 

15 re-establishment of soil stability, hydrologic function, and protective covers, such as vegetation and 

16 biological crust. The status of these indicators is used to measure the health of the land and sustainability 

17 of soils. The length of time for full recovery varies depending on the soil type, climatic conditions, size of 

18 the area disturbed, and land use during recovery. In addition, recovery of desert soils is very slow, taking 

19 decades or perhaps a century or more to form a new crust. At the CMAGR, full recovery of the soil is less 

20 likely in areas that experience repeated disturbance, such as the target areas, especially when combined 

21 with the desert environment. Limited recovery of soil stability and ground or vegetative cover may be all 

22 that could be expected once surface disturbance occurs. 

23 4.4.1 Alternative 1

24 For geologic resources, the primary direct impact from Alternative 1 would be continued disturbance of 

25 range soils by military surface use, and indirect impacts from erosion. The boundary alignment under 

26 Alternative 1 would remain unchanged and would not influence the primary military surface use areas. 

27 Soils can be affected adversely by exploded and unexploded weapons debris, chemical or explosive 

28 residues, and fuel spills. These direct effects are confined largely in the weapons target and support areas, 

29 which are about 5 percent of range soils. Range soils disturbed by military operations under Alternative 1 

30 could be locally indirectly impacted because the disturbed soils are susceptible to increased wind and 

31 water erosion. Soil disturbance results in altered soil structure, destruction of physical and biological 

32 crusts, desert pavement, or vegetated surfaces, potentially resulting in increased fugitive dust, loss of soil 

33 productivity, and increased sediment load and/or sedimentation in ephemeral drainages on the range. Loss 

34 of native vegetative cover in disturbed soil areas also increases the chance of invasive, non-native plant 

35 species introduction, colonization, and naturalization. Sediment loads are not expected to be transported 

36 off range because streamflow is ephemeral and most of the intensely disturbed soil areas are located about 

37 3 miles or more inside the range boundaries.

38 Disturbed soils may also experience changes in water infiltration or holding capacities. Soil permeability 

39 can either be increased or decreased by military activities, resulting in more or less water infiltration, 

40 because of the disruption of the existing soil structure or compaction from weapon impacts and off-road 

41 vehicle use. Changes in soil permeability may locally increase surface water runoff, increase or decrease 

42 water loss via evaporation, or improve or reduce vegetation growth and transpiration.

43 Soils can be affected adversely by exploded and unexploded weapons debris, chemical or explosive 

44 residues, and fuel spills. The significance of soil impacts depends on the size of the area affected. These 

45 effects are confined largely to the core and secondary weapons impact areas and ground support areas and 

46 military roads. Collectively, the areas of the CMAGR subject to moderate to complete levels of 
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-17 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 disturbance are about 5 percent of the range (see Table 3-6); this is considered a minor impact to soils on 

2 a range-wide basis. The high evaporation rates and low precipitation at the range likely would limit the 

3 spread of chemical or explosive residues in soils outside the target areas. Soils not impacted by military 

4 surface use would continue to be unaffected. Furthermore, because military surface disturbing activities 

5 are negligible to low for about 95 percent of the CMAGR (see Table 3-6), and because other land uses 

6 (such as grazing, mining, and recreation) are not allowed, the military reservation prevents the range from 

7 exposure to soil disturbance associated with these other types of uses. 

8 Previous studies suggest there may be geothermal energy resources underlying certain areas within the 

9 CMAGR. The extent of such resource, and feasibility of developing the resource, has not been 

10 determined. Renewable energy development, including geothermal energy development, is not planned 

11 for the CMAGR, and would not occur if such development would have any adverse effects on military 

12 training within the CMAGR. If in the future there is a renewable energy resource identified that could be 

13 developed without any unacceptable impacts to military training, development of such resource would be 

14 jointly coordinated, as appropriate, between the Department of the Navy and Department of the Interior.

15 4.4.2 Alternative 2

16 The potential impacts of implementing Alternative 2 on geologic resources are much the same as those 

17 under Alternative 1. The boundary realignment, withdrawal duration, and change in land management 

18 responsibilities do not affect the small percentage of land already disturbed by military surface use at a 

19 moderate to complete level. Soils affected by military surface use would continue to be disturbed and 

20 subject to disturbed soil structure, loss of soil crusts and vegetation, introduction of invasive, non-native 

21 plant species, accelerated wind and water erosion, increased runoff and sediment loads, and downstream 

22 sedimentation along ephemeral drainages. Energy and mineral resources would continue to be withdrawn 

23 and unavailable for exploration and/or development; this would extend to prohibit energy and mineral 

24 development in the land that would be acquired by the realigned boundary. Land outside of the new 

25 boundary could be impacted by increased recreational use, utility corridor construction, or energy or 

26 mineral resource development; however, the percentage of land affected by the boundary realignment is 

27 small, and the likely impacts would be negligible. Land not impacted by military surface use would 

28 continue in their natural state if the CMAGR is renewed. 

29 4.4.3 Alternative 3

30 The potential impacts of implementing Alternative 3 on geologic resources are much the same as those 

31 under Alternative 1. The boundary realignment, withdrawal duration, and change in land management 

32 responsibilities do not affect the small percentage of land already disturbed by military surface use. Soils 

33 affected by military surface use would continue to be disturbed and subject to disturbed soil structure, loss 

34 of soil crusts and vegetation, introduction of invasive, non-native plant species, accelerated wind and 

35 water erosion, increased runoff and sediment loads, and downstream sedimentation along ephemeral 

36 drainages. Energy and mineral resources would continue to be withdrawn and unavailable for exploration 

37 and/or development. Land outside of the new boundary could be impacted by increased recreational use, 

38 utility corridor construction, or energy or mineral resource development; however, the actual percentage 

39 of land affected by the boundary realignment is small, and the likely impacts would be negligible. Land 

40 not impacted by military surface use would remain in its natural state if the CMAGR is renewed.

41 By transferring the BLM land to the DoN, there would be no need to request a renewal of the land 

42 withdrawal and some of the existing land withdrawal application requirements would no longer apply (for 

43 example, mineral resource analysis). DoN jurisdiction would likely preclude future mining opportunities 

44 on the CMAGR.
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-18 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4.4.4 Alternative 4

2 The potential impacts of implementing Alternative 4 on geologic resources are much the same as those 

3 under Alternative 1. The boundary realignment, withdrawal duration, and change in land management 

4 responsibilities do not affect the small percentage of land already disturbed by military surface use. Soils 

5 affected by military surface use would continue to be disturbed and subject to disturbed soil structure, loss 

6 of soil crusts and vegetation, introduction of invasive, non-native plant species, accelerated wind and 

7 water erosion, increased runoff and sediment loads, and downstream sedimentation along ephemeral 

8 drainages. Energy and mineral resources would be withdrawn permanently from the public domain and 

9 unavailable for exploration and/or development. Land outside of the new boundary could be impacted by 

10 increased recreational use, utility corridor construction, or energy or mineral resource development; 

11 however, the actual percentage of land affected by the boundary realignment is small, and the likely 

12 impacts would be negligible. Land not impacted by military surface use would remain in its natural state 

13 if the CMAGR is renewed.

14 4.4.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)

15 For geologic resources, future land uses that could occur if the CMAGR is not renewed under 

16 Alternative 5 (No Action) may include clean-up and/or restricted land use of areas previously disturbed 

17 by military operations and recreational use; utility corridor construction; or mining and geothermal, solar, 

18 or wind energy resource development. Cessation of military surface uses would eliminate future soil 

19 disturbance at weapons impact areas and reduce the susceptibility of the disturbed soils to further erosion 

20 and allow them to recover to their natural state. Release of the CMAGR lands to another DoD agency, the 

21 BLM, or the State of California would likely open unrestricted lands to public use and/or mineral resource 

22 development.

23 Clean-up of land disturbed by military operations may increase soil erosion, depending on the extent that 

24 subsurface cleanup activities and the tools used to remove ordnance from the surface (for example, the 

25 need to drive trucks cross country to a target area). It would be premature to speculate on the nature of 

26 clean-up activities, but certain control measures to minimize soil erosion could be used. While the 

27 dangers associated with the potential for unexploded ordnance may be too great for decontamination in 

28 core weapons impact areas associated with targets, decontamination of lesser impacted areas could result 

29 in substantial surface disturbance. In some cases, soils exposed to hazardous constituents remaining from 

30 ordnance detonations and ordnance that did not detonate on impact and has leached into the soils may 

31 need to be removed for treatment, such as thermal processing, or disposed of in an authorized off-range 

32 facility to remove the hazardous constituents. Soil areas that are cleaned up or have restricted public 

33 access would also become less susceptible to increased erosion over time as they return to their natural 

34 undisturbed state.

35 Depending on the future land uses allowed if the CMAGR is not renewed, impacts to geologic resources 

36 could be considerable. While future allowable uses are undefined at this time, a few examples of potential 

37 use can help to understand the potential effects. Recreational use, particularly off-road activities, would 

38 likely increase the overall susceptibility of soils to erosion or runoff. Off-road travel would also locally 

39 increase naturally-occurring wind and water erosion by altering soil structure and destroying physical or 

40 biological soil crusts, desert pavement, or vegetated surfaces, potentially resulting in increased fugitive 

41 dust and sediment loads and/or sedimentation in the ephemeral drainages. Off-road travel would compact 

42 soils along frequently used roads or trails and increase storm water runoff during precipitation events. 

43 Off-road travel, along with the loss of native vegetative cover in disturbed soil areas, would increase the 

44 chance of invasive, non-native plant species introduction, colonization, and naturalization. Utility corridor 

45 construction would have similar impacts to recreational use; however, the impacts could be minimized by 

46 using proper soil erosion control measures.
Geological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-19 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 Mineral or energy exploration and development would likely have the most significant impacts to 

2 CMAGR geologic resources. Mineral or geothermal energy exploration would have similar soil impacts 

3 to recreational use or utility corridor construction. Exploration likely would involve off-road travel, 

4 seismic surveys, or drilling, which temporarily would increase the susceptibility of soils to wind and 

5 water erosion or runoff. Development of mineral or energy resources would have more significant 

6 impacts on geological resources, particularly soils, because of the construction and build out of mine 

7 facilities, including surface or underground workings and/or heap leach pads; or, geothermal power plant 

8 facilities, including production wells and brine ponds, solar panel fields, wind turbines, and other 

9 infrastructure, such as paved roads, rail spurs, or electrical transmission lines and substations that would 

10 likely increase the area of soils susceptible to wind and water erosion. These activities promote increased 

11 sediment loss, sediment loads, sedimentation, and runoff in the ephemeral drainages. However, erosion 

12 and runoff control measures likely would be implemented during mining to reduce sediment transport and 

13 minimize water quality effects. Open-pit mining also would have the potential to generate large waste 

14 rock or tailing volumes which would be stored on adjacent land and may oxidize and produce acid rock 

15 drainage. Mining may also increase geologic hazards such as unstable slopes or open mine workings. 

16 Withdrawal and injection of geothermal fluids into the subsurface may also locally increase seismic 

17 activity.

18

19 4.5 WATER RESOURCES

20 This section qualitatively evaluates the impacts to Water Resources for the proposed land uses under 

21 Alternatives 1 through 5 (No Action).

22 The impact analysis considered the following potential effects:

23 Surface Water Hydrology – Disruption of soil structure, damage to or loss of vegetation, soil 

24 crusts, or desert pavement, soil compaction could lead to altered drainage patterns, increased 

25 runoff, erosion, and sedimentation, and increased flooding in ephemeral drainages on the range.

26 Surface Water Quality – Increased runoff and erosion could lead to increased sediment loads 

27 and degraded surface water quality as well as increased evaporation and decreased groundwater 

28 recharge.

29 Groundwater Availability – Location of the range in a desert environment limits groundwater 

30 recharge and likely limits the availability of groundwater as a reliable water supply. 

31 Anthropogenic activities could potentially deplete limited groundwater resources.

32 Groundwater Quality – Limited recharge and high evaporation rates at the range may result in 

33 poor groundwater quality that is not suitable for use. Anthropogenic activities at the range may 

34 contaminate groundwater by inadvertent spills of chemicals or explosives.

35 Currently, the CMAGR is largely undeveloped except for limited areas disturbed by military surface use. 

36 With the action alternatives, continued military surface use would occur largely within the previously 

37 disturbed areas and would not increase surface water hydrology or quality impacts that may have 

38 occurred. Potential surface water hydrology impacts that might occur as a result of military surface use 

39 include alterations to landforms and topography; disruption of soil structure; damage to or loss of 

40 vegetation, soil crusts, or desert pavement; soil compaction that could lead to altered drainage patterns, 

41 increased runoff, erosion, and sedimentation; and increased flooding in ephemeral drainages on the range. 

42 Military surface use also may impact surface water quality by increased sediment loads (for example,

43 increased turbidity), inadvertent fuel spills, chemical and explosive residues, and the occurrence of 

44 exploded and unexploded ordnance debris. Surface water on the CMAGR is limited to intermittent or 
Water Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-20 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 ephemeral streams and is not plentiful; it is typically of poor quality, and is not used as a water supply 

2 source. Areas currently exposed to moderate to complete military surface use disturbance are estimated to 

3 be about 5 percent of the total CMAGR, which minimizes the overall surface water impacts. Because 

4 targets tend to be centralized within the range to provide adequate safety buffers and because most other 

5 military surface uses are well within the range boundary, off-range impacts to surface water are not 

6 anticipated.

7 The military does not use groundwater at the CMAGR. Military surface uses do not appear to affect 

8 groundwater availability or quality. Groundwater at the CMAGR is thought to be of naturally limited 

9 availability and poor quality because of the high evaporation and low precipitation rates, which limit 

10 recharge and increase total dissolved solids concentrations in water in desert environments. The high 

11 evaporation rates and low precipitation at the range also limit the spread and migration of chemical or 

12 explosive residues that may be present in the target area soils to the underlying groundwater.

13 Because the military does not use the water resources at the CMAGR and the operations have no direct 

14 effects on the watershed, renewal of the CMAGR with any of the action alternatives would have no 

15 landscape-scale effect on water resources in the region.

16 4.5.1 Alternative 1

17 Like for geologic resources, the notable indirect impact to water resources if the CMAGR is renewed 

18 under Alternative 1 would be potentially increased sediment loads, sedimentation, and/or degraded water 

19 quality in ephemeral drainages resulting from the direct effect of continued disturbance by military 

20 surface use and the resulting erosion of range soils. As discussed in Section 3.11.4.2, the REVA found no 

21 or only minimal impact from munitions constituents in surface water at the CMAGR. While concern for 

22 off-range transport of UXO from surface water runoff has been identified, the EOD clearances conducted 

23 at the CMAGR have not demonstrated that any substantial migration of UXO has occurred, and no off24 range occurrences of UXO as a result of entrainment in sediment flows have been reported (Malcolm 

25 Pirnie, Inc. 2008).

26 With Alternative 1, the range boundary would remain unchanged, and the primary military surface use 

27 areas would also remain unchanged. Soils disturbed by military operations would continue to be 

28 susceptible to periodic wind and water erosion during infrequent storm events. Military activities locally 

29 increase naturally-occurring erosion in target and off-road use areas by altering the soil structure and 

30 destroying physical or biological soil crusts, desert pavement, or vegetated surfaces and exposing them to 

31 wind and water erosion, transport, and sedimentation during infrequent storm events. The dispersed 

32 nature of military activities at the CMAGR, however, has limited the disturbed soil acreage in each 

33 watershed and this limited and dispersed military use would not change under Alternative 1. As illustrated 

34 in Table 3-6, moderate to complete soil disturbance impacts are estimated to occur on about 5 percent of 

35 the CMAGR. Soil disturbance in these areas locally increases fugitive dust emissions and the sediment 

36 load, sedimentation, and suspended sediment in ephemeral surface waters. Little if any of the eroded 

37 sediment is thought to be transported off range and, in most areas, the increased sediment load in the 

38 ephemeral drainages does not appear to reach natural off-range receiving waters such as the Colorado 

39 River or the Salton Sea. The limited surface water and groundwater resources present on the CMAGR are 

40 not currently used for military operations and would not be used if the CMAGR is renewed. Continued 

41 withdrawal of CMAGR land from the public domain would preclude potential impacts to water resources 

42 from exploration and/or development of mineral resources.

43 4.5.2 Alternative 2

44 The potential impacts of implementing Alternative 2 on water resources are the same as those under 

45 Alternative 1. The boundary realignment, withdrawal duration, and change in land management 
Water Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-21 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 responsibilities would not influence the amount of land already disturbed by military surface use from the 

2 existing condition. Soils affected by military surface use would continue to be disturbed and subject to 

3 disturbed soil structure, loss of soil crusts and vegetation, accelerated wind and water erosion, fugitive 

4 dust emissions, increased runoff and sediment loads, and downstream sedimentation along ephemeral 

5 drainages. The limited surface water and groundwater resources present on the CMAGR currently are not 

6 used for military operations and would not be used if the CMAGR is renewed per the terms identified for 

7 Alternative 2. Energy and mineral resources would continue to be withdrawn and unavailable for 

8 exploration and/or development. The approximately 2,821 acres released from the range with the 

9 realigned boundary potentially could be impacted by increased recreational use, utility corridor 

10 construction, or energy or mineral resource development. Because no new surface-disturbing military 

11 land uses are proposed within the land that would be acquired with Alternative 2, no increase in adverse 

12 effects to water resources would be anticipated. Land not impacted by military surface use would 

13 continue to remain in its natural state if the CMAGR is renewed.

14 4.5.3 Alternative 3

15 The potential impacts of implementing Alternative 3 on water resources are the same as those under 

16 Alternative 1. The boundary realignment, withdrawal duration, and change in land management 

17 responsibilities would not influence the amount of land already disturbed by military surface use from the 

18 existing condition. Soils affected by military surface use would continue to be disturbed and subject to 

19 disturbed soil structure, loss of soil crusts and vegetation, accelerated wind and water erosion, fugitive 

20 dust emissions, increased runoff and sediment loads, and downstream sedimentation along ephemeral 

21 drainages. The limited surface water and groundwater resources present on the CMAGR currently are not 

22 used for military operations and would not be used if the CMAGR is renewed per the terms identified for 

23 Alternative 3. Energy and mineral resources would continue to be withdrawn and unavailable for 

24 exploration and/or development. The approximately 2,821 acres released from the range with the 

25 realigned boundary could be impacted by increased recreational use, utility corridor construction, or 

26 energy or mineral resource development; however, the likely impacts would be negligible. Land not 

27 impacted by military surface use would continue to remain in its natural state if the CMAGR is renewed.

28 4.5.4 Alternative 4

29 The potential impacts of implementing Alternative 4 on water resources are the same as those under 

30 Alternative 1, except that approximately 2,287 acres would be released from the range with the partial 

31 Bradshaw Trail realignment of the CMAGR boundary (see Figure 2-3). The boundary realignment, 

32 withdrawal duration, and change in land management responsibilities would not influence the amount of 

33 land already disturbed by military surface use from the existing condition. Effects on soils and associated 

34 influence on runoff and sediment loads, and downstream sedimentation along ephemeral drainages would 

35 be unchanged. Released land could be impacted by increased recreational use, utility corridor 

36 construction, energy or mineral resource development, or other uses; however, the likely impacts would 

37 be negligible. 

38 4.5.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)

39 Impacts to water resources may increase if the CMAGR is not renewed under Alternative 5 (No Action) 

40 because of the potential for other types of land uses. 

41 While future allowable uses are undefined at this time, a few examples of potential use can help to 

42 understand the potential effects of alternative land uses. If the range is not renewed, and following a 

43 planning period to clean-up the range and determine potentially compatible uses, the range may be open 

44 to recreation use, utility corridor construction, energy (for example, geothermal, solar, or wind) and 

45 mineral exploration and development, or other uses. These activities, which would result in ground 

46 disturbance, would have similar impacts on surface water hydrology as ground disturbance from military 
Water Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-22 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 surface use. The limited surface water may be captured (for example, retention ponds) and used to supply 

2 water to geothermal or mine facilities, further limiting groundwater recharge. Surface water quality 

3 impacts likely would increase as the potential for increased sediment loads, inadvertent chemical spills, 

4 geothermal cooling water or brine discharges, and acid mine drainage would increase. Potential surface 

5 water impacts likely would be less controlled (for example, off-road recreational use), more widespread 

6 (for example, geothermal or mine infrastructure development), and not limited to designated areas as 

7 currently occurs for military surface use. Increased land use likely would increase the potential impacts on 

8 surface water hydrology and quality.

9 Cessation of military surface use would eliminate future soil disturbance associated with military 

10 operations. However, clean-up of lands disturbed by military operations may increase soil erosion, 

11 sediment loads, or degrade water quality (for example, suspended solids), depending on the extent that 

12 subsurface cleanup activities and the tools used to remove ordnance from the surface (for example, the 

13 need to drive trucks cross country). It would be premature to speculate on the nature or extent of clean-up 

14 activities, but disturbance areas could be substantial and contribute to increased soil erosion, sediment 

15 loads, and degraded water quality along the ephemeral drainages, until the soils are stabilized and become 

16 adequately revegetated to return the land to its natural processes.

17 While any future uses of the range would be speculative until further planning occurs, some potential uses 

18 have been identified for a comparative analysis of effects associated with alternative activity. Recreational 

19 use, utility corridor construction, and mining and energy development potentially would increase soil 

20 erosion and subsequent sediment transport and sedimentation impacts along ephemeral surface waterways 

21 during infrequent storm events. Mining and energy (for example, geothermal, solar, or wind) 

22 development could change surface water use. The limited surface water may be captured (for example, 

23 retention ponds) and used to supply water to geothermal or mine facilities, further limiting groundwater 

24 recharge. Mining and energy development may also increase the potential for surface water and 

25 groundwater contamination by the inadvertent release of mine waters, geothermal fluids, chemicals, or 

26 acid rock drainage to the environment. Potential water resources impacts likely would be less controlled 

27 (for example, off-road recreational use), more widespread (for example, geothermal or mine infrastructure 

28 development), and not limited to designated areas as currently occurs for military surface use. Potential 

29 increased land use under Alternative 5 (No Action) likely would increase the potential impacts on surface 

30 water resources compared to those under its current military use, depending on the future land uses 

31 allowed.

32 Should the range be opened to recreation use, utility corridor construction, energy (for example, 

33 geothermal, solar, or wind) and mineral exploration and development, or other uses, there may or may not 

34 be an increased demand for groundwater. Groundwater likely would not be used for recreational activities 

35 or utility corridor construction, so potential impacts on groundwater availability and quality probably 

36 would not occur with these uses. It is likely that energy and mineral resource development would attempt 

37 to develop groundwater as a water supply because of restrictions on imported surface water allocations 

38 for non-agricultural facilities. Excessive use of the limited groundwater resource present at the CMAGR 

39 likely would cause significant aquifer drawdown, which could impact long-term local groundwater 

40 availability. Groundwater removed from the underlying aquifers likely would not be replenished because 

41 of the high evaporation and low recharge rates at the CMAGR. Energy or mineral resource development 

42 could impact groundwater quality. Geothermal fluids containing elevated dissolved solids could be 

43 released inadvertently into the subsurface and degrade the existing marginal to poor groundwater quality. 

44 Reinjection of geothermal water to the subsurface likely would not impact shallow groundwater quality. 

45 Heap leaching operations or acid mine drainage from mine development could also be released to the 

46 subsurface and impact groundwater quality. 
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-23 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4.6 AIR QUALITY 

2 The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with Alternatives 1 through 5, and the 

3 analysis of general conformity to the State Implementation Plan for action alternatives. The impact 

4 analysis considered the following potential effects on a qualitative basis:

5 Ground-based operational emissions

6 Aircraft operational emissions

7 4.6.1 Alternative 1

8 Under Alternative 1, the withdrawal of BLM land at the CMAGR for military training purposes would be 

9 renewed for 20 years with no changes in the boundary or management responsibilities. This alternative 

10 would result in the continuation of baseline impacts related to current military training operations. 

11 Because the emissions generated by ground-based and flight operations are not expected to change as a 

12 result of this alternative, no new air quality impacts are anticipated, and detailed emissions were not 

13 calculated.

14 Emission sources at the CMAGR range include, but are not limited to: military aircraft operations 

15 (including fuel combustion); dropping and/or firing of live ordnance by aircraft and/or ground forces in 

16 training; vehicle travel on unpaved roads associated with ground force and naval special warfare training; 

17 range maintenance activities; and wind-generated dust from both disturbed and undisturbed portions of 

18 the desert terrain. Vehicles and aircraft combust fuel, resulting in the emission of criteria pollutants and 

19 greenhouse gases; whereas ground vehicle movement, the use of live ordnance, and wind generally result 

20 in dust. Aircraft operations associated with the CMAGR are presented in Table 4-1, based on the results 

21 of recent environmental analysis for changes in military aircraft operations involving the CMAGR. 

22 Emissions resulting from other activities, such as ground force training and range maintenance, are not 

23 included in the quantitative results presented; although, as with the aircraft operational emissions, they 

24 would not be affected by the proposed land withdrawal renewal action that is the subject of this LEIS.

25 Table 4-1 presents an estimation of annual military aircraft operational emissions associated with the 

26 anticipated F-35B and MV-22 training operations at the CMAGR, together with assumed operations of 

27 legacy aircraft (including AV-8B, F/A-18 A/C/D, CH46) that will be replaced over various transitional 

28 time periods. 
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-24 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-1 Estimated Annual Emissions Due to Limited11 CMAGR Aircraft Operations 

2 (Riverside and Imperial Counties)

Annual Emissions (tons per year)2

Activity CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5

5

Riverside County

AV-8B30.92 0.37 0.03 0.03 0.55 0.54

F/A-18 A/C/D30.26 0.71 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.66

CH46 Operations40.41 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.04

F‐35B Operations–Training60.14 1.53 0.03 0.11 0.64 0.63

MV-22 Operations–Training70.78 21.41 0.02 0.60 2.38 2.38

Total 2.51 24.10 0.20 0.79 4.28 4.25

Imperial County

AV-8B31.21 0.49 0.03 0.04 0.73 0.72

F/A-18 A/C/D30.34 0.93 0.06 0.06 0.88 0.87

CH46 Operations41.66 0.33 0.29 0.03 0.15 0.15

F‐35B Operations–Training60.19 2.01 0.04 0.15 0.85 0.84

MV-22 Operations–Training73.11 85.66 0.06 2.42 9.54 9.54

Total 6.51 89.42 0.48 2.70 12.15 12.12

SOURCES:

F‐35B Operations – (DoN 2010b). This readily available information is based on projected Year 2017 operations.

MV-22 Operations—Table B1-102. Chocolate Mountain Range MV-22 Aircraft Emissions - Fiscal Year 2017(DoN 2009a). For 

consistency, estimated 2017 data were also used for MV-22 operations.

NOTES:

1

Estimated emissions in the above table are noted as limited because they do not include all aircraft used at CMAGR. It also does 

not include emissions resulting from the use of ordnance, ground force training, and maintenance activities because these are also 

baseline activities.

2 While the total emissions are greater than those presented in the affected environment section, these increases are not due to the 

action proposed in this LEIS (renewal, or non-renewal of CMAGR); the emissions are the subject of previously approved NEPA 

projects (i.e., West Coast basing of new aircraft). Retirement (or phasing out) of the legacy aircraft will take place over various time 

periods, as follows: AV-18B, 2012-2016; F-18, 2017-2023; CH-46, underway and expected to be completed by 2020.

3 AV-8B and F/A-18 A/C/D emissions are based on low altitude (less than 3,000 feet above ground level [AGL]) sortie data 

obtained from ―Table 58. Annual Flight Operations for Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range R-2507,‖ from F-35B West 

Coast Basing EIS (DoN 2010b). As obtained, these annual emissions data are not specific to a particular year.

4

CH-46 operational emissions are based on data obtained from Table B1-35, Chocolate Mt. Range CH-46 Aircraft Emissions –

Fiscal Year 2014 (DoN 2009). The data presented above are estimated fiscal year 2014 CH46 operational emissions. As noted in 

Table B1-121 of the same report, because approximately 80/20% of the CMAGR occurs within the Imperial/Riverside County 

portions of the SSAB, the estimated emissions within the CMAGR were distributed by these proportions into these areas.5

Because PM2.5 emissions were not provided in the referenced reports for AV-8B, F/A-18 and CH46 aircraft and are due to 

liquid fuel combustion, the PM2.5 emissions values were estimated to be equal to 99% of PM10 emissions. This is consistent with 

South Coast Air Quality Management District’s ―Final –Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 

Significance Thresholds‖ dated October 2006.

6

In the case of the F-35B aircraft operations, emissions are based on low altitude activity, noted as ―40 minutes of cruise x 40% 

below 3,000 feet AGL‖ in the prior EIS.

7 As noted in Table B1-121 of the MV-22 EIS, because approximately 80/20% of the CMAGR occurs within the Imperial/Riverside 

County portions of the SSAB, the estimated emissions within the CMAGR were distributed by these same percentages into these 

areas.

3

4 Ongoing military operations and range clearance activities that are currently part of the CMAGR

5 operations would continue to occur under Alternative 1. For this reason, and because the CMAGR 

6 boundary and withdrawal area would remain unchanged, there would be no change in emissions with 

7 Alternative 1.
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-25 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4.6.2 Alternative 2

2 Under Alternative 2, the boundary and withdrawal area of the CMAGR would be changed to implement 

3 the full Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, and Niland-Blythe Road realignments (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2), 

4 making the boundary more recognizable by following prominent geographic features. Because the 

5 emissions generated by ground-based and flight operations are not expected to change as a result of this 

6 alternative, no new air quality impacts are anticipated.

7 Emissions sources at the CMAGR, as described under Alternative 1 (including military aircraft 

8 operations, use of live ordnance, vehicle travel on unpaved roads, range maintenance activities and wind9 generated dust), would continue; thereby, CMAGR emissions would remain unchanged. The land 

10 proposed for non-renewal (or release) under Alternative 2 is not known to have been used for former 

11 targets and is at the periphery of the range; for this reason, the need for remedial actions is highly 

12 speculative and emissions for such activity have not been estimated.

13 Direct effects would be limited to emissions associated with vehicles and equipment needed to erect 

14 warning signs or other boundary demarcation activities and are anticipated to be very low, infrequent, and 

15 would be considered within the range maintenance activities currently occurring at CMAGR. The

16 boundary would be accessible by existing access roads, so no cross-country travel would be necessary.

17 Indirect effects are not anticipated, other than fugitive dust resulting from wind erosion of previously 

18 disturbed soil that continues to be subject to ongoing disturbance.

19 While the annual operational emissions estimate for military aircraft presented in Table 4-1 is also 

20 appropriate for Alternative 2, the presented emissions do not include other activities, such as ground force 

21 training and range maintenance. As with the aircraft operational emissions, emissions that result from the 

22 use of live ordnance, wind-blown dust, or ground force training and range maintenance activities would 

23 not be affected by the proposed land withdrawal renewal action that is the subject of this LEIS.

24 Furthermore, there is no air quality-related difference between a 20-year and 25-year renewal duration 

25 (other than in a total emissions for each time period), as the range activities would likely just be displaced 

26 but not avoided.

27 4.6.3 Alternative 3

28 Alternative 3 would transfer the BLM land to the DoN, making a land withdrawal duration moot. Because 

29 the emissions generated by ground-based and flight operations are not expected to change as a result of 

30 this alternative, no new air quality impacts are anticipated.

31 Current emissions sources at the CMAGR, as described under Alternative 1 (including military aircraft 

32 operations, use of live ordnance, vehicle travel on unpaved roads, range maintenance activities and wind33 generated dust), would continue; thereby, CMAGR emissions would remain unchanged. However, unless 

34 the military determined in the future that there would be no need for the CMAGR, the emissions 

35 associated with military operations could continue in perpetuity.

36 While the annual operational emissions estimate for military aircraft presented in Table 4-1 is also 

37 appropriate for Alternative 3, the presented emissions do not include other activities, such as ground force 

38 training and range maintenance. As with the aircraft operational emissions, these ground-related 

39 emissions resulting from the use of live ordnance, wind-blown dust, or ground force training and range 

40 maintenance activities would not be affected by the proposed land withdrawal renewal action that is the 

41 subject of this LEIS.
Air Quality

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-26 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4.6.4 Alternative 4

2 Under Alternative 4, no lands would be added to the CMAGR, but approximately 2,287 acres would be 

3 released. 

4 Direct effects would be limited to emissions associated with vehicles and equipment needed to erect 

5 warning signs or other boundary demarcation activities and are anticipated to be very low, infrequent, and 

6 would be considered within the range maintenance activities currently occurring at CMAGR. Indirect 

7 effects are not anticipated, other than fugitive dust resulting from wind erosion of previously disturbed 

8 soil that continues to be subject to ongoing disturbance. As with Alternative 2, the land proposed for non9 renewal (or release) is not known to have been used for former targets and is at the periphery of the range; 

10 for this reason, the need for remedial actions is highly speculative and emissions for such activity have 

11 not been estimated.

12 Because agency management assignments and the duration of the CMAGR renewal would have no 

13 influence on emissions, the effects on air quality would be approximately the same as those described for 

14 Alternative 3.

15 4.6.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)

16 Since air-to-ground operations would cease at the CMAGR under Alternative 5, emissions associated 

17 with military aircraft operations would be expected to be substantially less than those presented in 

18 Table 4-1; however, until post-range planning determines which operations could reasonably continue, 

19 the magnitude of the decrease cannot be estimated. The training conducted at the CMAGR likely would 

20 be displaced to other training ranges, which could result in transferring the emissions associated with 

21 military operations to a different location.

22 Land development of the CMAGR and any necessary remediation response is highly speculative. It is 

23 anticipated that a remedial response would have a greater effect if the remedial activities increase ground 

24 disturbance in areas with negligible military surface use.

25 4.6.6 General Conformity

26 A portion of the CMAGR lies within Imperial County, and a portion lies within Riverside County. The 

27 conformity de minimis thresholds for Imperial County and Riverside County are presented in Table 3-11.

28 The proposed renewal and/or realignment options of the CMAGR land withdrawal presented in 

29 Alternatives 1 through 4 would result in no emissions increase. Furthermore, per 40 CFR 93.153, the 

30 conformity requirements do not apply to judicial and legislative proceedings (LEIS) that would result in 

31 no emissions increase. Therefore, the DoN concludes that the general conformity rule does not apply to 

32 Alternatives 1 through 4, and a Conformity Analysis would not be required. For this reason, a Record of 

33 Non-Applicability (RONA) was prepared and provided in Appendix E.

34

35 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

36 At a landscape scale, the CMAGR and the general region east of the Coachella Canal and UPRR function 

37 as a relatively intact Sonoran Desert ecosystem. While not all species in the area are native, most of the 

38 plant and animal species that occurred in the area in the early 1900s are still present in the region. The 

39 CMAGR and the nearby wilderness areas offer large tracts of land that are relatively unfragmented, 

40 allowing wildlife to maintain movement patterns. 
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-27 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 This Section discusses impacts to biological resources that are expected to result from the alternatives. 

2 The impact analysis considered the following potential effects:

3 Damage and/or loss of vegetation

4 Introduction of invasive non-native plant species on disturbed soils

5 Erosion near or in wetlands and along or in waters of the U.S.

6 Destruction of burrows of small mammals and reptiles

7 Alteration or destruction of wildlife habitat

8 Mortality, injury, or disturbance of wildlife species

9 4.7.1 Alternative 1

10 Under Alternative 1, the withdrawal of BLM land at the CMAGR for military training purposes would be 

11 renewed for 20 years. This alternative would result in the continuation of baseline impacts related to 

12 current military training operations. Impacts were considered for military use over the entire CMAGR,

13 including both the withdrawal parcels and DoN parcels.

14 4.7.1.1 Withdrawal Renewal and Continued Military Use

15 Landscape level surface uses and expected levels of disturbance within the CMAGR are presented in 

16 Table 3-6. Approximately 5 percent of the CMAGR is subject to moderate to complete levels of 

17 disturbance, including core and secondary weapons impact areas, ground support areas, and roadways. 

18 Approximately 95 percent of the range is subject to only low to negligible levels of disturbance. These 

19 data indicate that plant and wildlife communities can function without discernable constraint from surface 

20 disturbing activities within about 95 percent of the range. Munitions constituents from ordnance would be 

21 expected within designated weapons impact areas. However, there are also procedures to prevent releases 

22 of munitions constituents and perform clean-up, should an off-range release occur. As discussed in 

23 Section 3.12.3.2, the Marine Corps evaluates impacts of munitions constituents on biological resources 

24 through the REVA program. A REVA including the CMAGR was conducted in 2008 (Malcolm Pirnie, 

25 Inc. 2008).

26 Vegetation

27 As indicated above, local direct vegetation damage and loss would continue as a result of range renewal, 

28 but impacts would be concentrated in and limited principally to existing targets and core weapons impact 

29 areas, road corridors, and ground support areas, which comprise less than 1 percent of the CMAGR 

30 surface, and when combined with the secondary weapons impact area are about 5 percent of the CMAGR. 

31 Impacts in high disturbance areas may be expected to continue, which would prevent vegetation from re32 establishing functional communities with densities and diversity characteristic of the Colorado desert.

33 Military surface use areas with moderate levels of disturbance may also be expected to experience 

34 continuing impacts, but in these locations vegetation communities persist, although in a somewhat 

35 diminished state. Introduction of invasive non-native plant species could be a local indirect impact where 

36 ground surfaces are in a disturbed state and existing native vegetation has been damaged or destroyed.

37 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

38 Continued military activities that could affect wetlands and Waters of the U.S. locally include vehicle use, 

39 ordnance impacts, or other ground disturbing activities. Existing substrate within many of the washes is 

40 loose and erodible. Ground disturbance related to military activities could continue to contribute to 

41 erosion to the extent that military operations, such as driving within and across washes, occurs resulting 
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-28 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 in indirect effects. Of the 1,647 acres of potential wetlands cited by the National Wetland Inventory 

2 database as occurring at the CMAGR, 61 acres occur within high disturbance areas, 236 acres occur 

3 within moderate disturbance areas, and 1,350 acres occur within low to negligible disturbance areas. The 

4 NWI findings have not been validated by ground surveys and the NWI database overestimates the 

5 occurrence of wetlands within the CMAGR.

6 Wildlife Habitats 

7 Ordnance delivery in target areas would continue to prevent vegetation from being re-established and 

8 would continue to jeopardize and destroy burrows of small mammals and reptiles. Vegetation damage 

9 would also continue to result from range maintenance activities, such as operational range clearances to 

10 remove expended ordnance and debris from CMAGR targets and roads. Vegetation damage from 

11 disturbances in desert wash woodlands would disturb impact sensitive and valuable wildlife habitats. 

12 Wildlife that would potentially be indirectly impacted by loss of wash woodland habitat include special 

13 status species discussed in Section 3.7.5 as well as a variety of migratory and breeding resident bird 

14 species, rodents, and reptiles. Although wildlife habitat damage and loss in moderate to high disturbance 

15 areas of the CMAGR may be locally severe, several factors mitigate these impacts. First, the areas 

16 affected are localized and in aggregate comprise only a small portion of the range. Second, the patterns of 

17 military surface use at the CMAGR are relatively stable and target and other high disturbance areas 

18 typically serve for many years with little increase in size. The need to develop new targets and other high 

19 disturbance areas arises infrequently so there has also been little growth over the years in the numbers of 

20 these areas. Third, since 95 percent of the CMAGR serves primarily to support WDZs and SDZs and 

21 receives only low or negligible levels of surface disturbance, the overall quality of wildlife habitat at the 

22 range is determined principally by natural processes. Thus, the CMAGR comprises an important unit in 

23 the greater ecological landscape of the region. Renewal of the CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 1 

24 would be expected to provide continued conservation benefits to wildlife habitat.

25 A key wildlife management activity at CMAGR is the development and maintenance of artificial water 

26 sources. The only open water sources within the CMAGR available to wildlife are tanks, guzzlers, and 

27 tinajas (natural bedrock depressions). There are 26 existing and five proposed guzzlers within the 

28 CMAGR. The 26 existing and four proposed guzzler sites are located within low to negligible disturbance 

29 areas. The remaining proposed guzzler would be located within a low to moderate disturbance area. 

30 Ordnance delivery at or near water sources potentially could result in contamination of water consumed 

31 by wildlife or cause direct damage to guzzlers or tanks. Elevated levels of aluminum, boron, and 

32 magnesium have been observed in ordnance crater sediments at the Barry M. Goldwater Range (DoD 

33 1998). The risk to wildlife waters at the CMAGR from ordnance delivery must be considered as low, 

34 however, because these facilities are located away from designated target areas and almost exclusively in 

35 low to negligible disturbance areas that would not receive contaminated sediments. No data is available to 

36 assess specific ordnance delivery impacts on tinajas at the CMAGR, but the potential for impacts would 

37 appear to be low as these features are typically located in mountain and other upland locations, which 

38 would place them away from designated targets in low to negligible disturbance areas. No change in the 

39 conditions of wildlife waters or tinajas would be expected to occur as a result of the renewal of the 

40 CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 1.

41 Direct local impacts to wildlife species can involve mortality, injury, or disturbance from human 

42 activities. Delivery of inert or high explosive ordnance in target areas as well as vehicle use can result in 

43 mortality or injury to wildlife. Aircraft collision mortalities are unlikely to jeopardize any wildlife 

44 populations at the CMAGR because these collisions are rare and occur most frequently during take-off 

45 and landing (DoN 2010b), as opposed to the overflights that occur at the CMAGR. Public access would 

46 continue to be restricted from the CMAGR, which reduces the potential for other human disturbance of 

47 both wildlife habitat and individual animals of the various wildlife species. No change in the potential for 
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-29 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 direct impacts to wildlife would be expected to occur as a result of the renewal of the CMAGR in 

2 accordance with Alternative 1.

3 Noise from aircraft overflights, ordnance delivery, or other military activities can disturb wildlife. A 

4 number of studies of the effects of noise on wildlife have been conducted in diverse settings. Although 

5 there appears to be consensus among investigators that noise does directly affect wildlife and that these 

6 effects are increased by the magnitude, frequency, and duration of the noise, few conclusions have been 

7 reached concerning the extent or significance of such changes. Wildlife responses to aircraft range from 

8 apparent disregard to panic fleeing, and vary with season, reproductive status, exposure to aircraft, aircraft 

9 type, distance from aircraft, and other factors. Studies indicate that ungulates (hoofed animals) may 

10 respond to low-level overflights with increased heart rates and have been observed fleeing low-level 

11 aircraft (DoD 1998). However, these investigators concluded that aircraft disturbances monitored in these 

12 studies were minimal and of short duration. Additionally, the investigators concluded that the responses 

13 of the animals decreased with increased exposure, suggesting that they habituate to the disturbance (DoD 

14 1998). Noise from aircraft, ordnance delivery, or other military activities is not believed to be an issue of 

15 concern for wildlife populations at the CMAGR. No change in noise impacts on wildlife would be 

16 expected to occur as a result of the renewal of the CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 1.

17 Many wildlife species must be able to move on a daily and/or seasonal basis to secure forage or prey, find 

18 water, locate cover, and/or complete various life cycle stages. With the possible exceptions of some 

19 localized areas, such as Camp Billy Machen or an active ground support area occupied by troops, there 

20 are almost no impediments to wildlife movements in the CMAGR. Continuation of military training at the 

21 CMAGR would not impact or impede wildlife movement corridors. No changes in wildlife movements or 

22 freedom of movement would be expected to occur as a result of the renewal of the CMAGR in 

23 accordance with Alternative 1.

24 Special Status Species

25 The following discussion addresses impacts to the Mojave desert tortoise and the desert bighorn sheep, 

26 which are both special status species at the CMAGR. Special status species from the general region that 

27 were excluded from further analysis in this LEIS because available information indicates that they are 

28 unlikely to occur at the CMAGR are listed in Table 3-15.

29 Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) – Federally Threatened, State Threatened

30 Local direct impacts to tortoises resulting from training activities include direct mortality due to ordnance 

31 delivery or collisions with vehicles. Some tortoises are also likely killed in burrows collapsed by 

32 ordnance delivery or vehicle use. The 1996 Biological Opinion (BO) issued by the USFWS for military 

33 activities at the CMAGR determined that these activities were not likely to jeopardize the continued 

34 existence of the desert tortoise, nor were they likely to result in the significant destruction or adverse 

35 modification of critical habitat for the desert tortoise. As discussed in Section 4.7.1.1, the aggregate 

36 effects of military training at the CMAGR have resulted in degradation or loss of habitat, including 

37 special status species habitat, but the activities that cause or may cause moderate to complete levels of 

38 physical disturbance to the ground surfaces, vegetation communities, and surface drainages have affected 

39 only about 5 percent of the range after 70 years of use. Military activities across the remaining 95 percent 

40 of the range typically have been and continue to be localized and widely dispersed. In aggregate, military 

41 use within this part of the range has caused only low to negligible levels of habitat disturbance, which has 

42 provided important conservation benefits to desert tortoise and other native species (Stein et al. 2008). 

43 The 1996 BO provides for an annual take allowance of 11 tortoises injured/killed and 112 tortoises 

44 harassed. No mitigation measures are currently proposed beyond those included in the 1996 Biological 

45 Opinion for CMAGR. Desert tortoise protection measures prescribed by the 1996 BO include:
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-30 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 Take reporting

2 Clearance surveys for new ground disturbing activity

3 Surveys of training activity sites to determine potential need for relocation

4 Preparation and implementation of a Desert Tortoise Management Plan with a finalization 

5 deadline of 1 year after finalization of the NECO Plan

6 Designation of a desert tortoise management representative who would survey all ground support 

7 areas for take following operations

8 Preparation of an annual monitoring report for submittal to the USFWS

9 Surveys to facilitate density estimates across the CMAGR

10 Establishment of a portion of the CMAGR as part of the Chuckwalla Desert Wildlife 

11 Management Area (DWMA), with Limited Use Zones within the DWMA where military activity 

12 is excluded

13 No changes in the current conditions of the Mojave desert tortoise population and its habitat in the 

14 CMAGR or the effects of military training on this species and its habitat would be expected to occur as a 

15 result of the renewal of the range in accordance with Alternative 1. The habitat conservation effects of 

16 renewing the range likely would facilitate the continued conservation and recovery of this threatened 

17 species.

18 Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) – BLM Sensitive

19 The overall effects of military activities at the CMAGR on desert bighorn sheep are minimal and are 

20 likely more than offset by the habitat conservation and enhancements. The aggregate effects of 70 years 

21 of military use on wildlife habitat within the range have been minimal and habitat in the range is well 

22 protected from disturbance or loss from non-military land uses. A relatively extensive system of wildlife 

23 waters have been developed in the range to augment the habitat requirements of this animal. Additionally, 

24 breeding and foraging habitat is widely available to the north, east, and southeast of the CMAGR and 

25 there are no or few filter barriers that would impede bighorn sheep movements between the CMAGR and 

26 these other habitats. Limited hunting of this species is allowed in California, but access to the CMAGR 

27 for hunting is not compatible with military training. The direct impact of noise on ungulates is 

28 inconclusive, but presumably individuals currently inhabiting the CMAGR have acclimated to aircraft 

29 fly-over and ordnance explosion noise. The potential for direct mortalities to bighorn sheep likely is 

30 minimal because training activities that could cause direct mortalities, such as ordnance delivery and 

31 driving, generally are concentrated within about 5 percent of the CMAGR and do not include the habitat 

32 areas of most favorable quality for this species.

33 No changes in the current conditions of the desert bighorn sheep population and its habitat in the 

34 CMAGR or the effects of military training on this species and its habitat would be expected to occur as a 

35 result of the renewal of the range in accordance with Alternative 1. The habitat conservation effects of 

36 renewing the range likely would facilitate the continued conservation and recovery of this species.

37 4.7.1.2 20-Year Range Renewal

38 No adverse effects to wildlife habitat or any wildlife species would be likely to occur as a result of the 

39 land withdrawal duration of 20 years that would be provided by Alternative 1. No changes in military 

40 activities are foreseen over this period of time that would be likely to adversely affect the overall 

41 conditions of wildlife habitat or wildlife populations. Proposed changes in use or for new uses would be 

42 addressed, as necessary through applicable NEPA planning and consultations in accordance with the 

43 ESA. The terms of the current 1996 BO would remain in effect for Mojave desert tortoise. Consultation 
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-31 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 with the USFWS would have to be reinitiated if there are changes in potential impacts to threatened or 

2 endangered species, or if incidental take levels are exceeded. The current habitat and species conservation 

3 benefits of the CMAGR would be expected to continue for the duration of the withdrawal. Congress 

4 would presumably provide the DoN with the option to request a subsequent land withdrawal for the 

5 CMAGR should the military need for the range exceed 20 years. It is anticipated that another LEIS would 

6 be prepared and impacts to biological resources would be re-evaluated in support of such a request. 

7 4.7.2 Alternative 2

8 Under Alternative 2, the withdrawal of DoI land at the CMAGR by the DoN for military training 

9 purposes would be renewed for 25 years, and the Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, and Niland-Blythe Road 

10 realignments of the range boundary would be implemented. 

11 4.7.2.1 Withdrawal Renewal and Continued Military Use

12 Specific impacts related to the withdrawal renewal and continued military use of the CMAGR under 

13 Alternative 2 are similar to those under Alternative 1 (see Section 4.7.1.1).

14 4.7.2.2 Boundary Realignment

15 Under Alternative 2, the boundary and withdrawal area would incorporate the full Bradshaw Trail, 

16 UPRR, and Niland-Blythe Road realignments. 

17 Overall impacts to biological resources as a result of the proposed boundary realignments likely would be 

18 negligible. It is anticipated that most of the acquired land areas would predominantly function only as 

19 buffer zones in which there would be little or no direct military surface use. The UPRR realignment may 

20 provide an exception to this prognosis as sufficient land space with overlying restricted airspace would be 

21 acquired to potentially support some military activities, but there are currently no proposals for surface 

22 use of that area. Future proposals to introduce military surface use to the UPRR realignment area would 

23 be addressed through applicable NEPA planning and consultations in accordance with the ESA. No 

24 occurrences of federally listed species are reported from the UPRR realignment area. The Alternative 2 

25 realignments would incorporate an additional 8 acres of potential wetlands as identified by the National 

26 Wetland Inventory database in the range. 

27 On a landscape level incorporation of adjacent land into the CMAGR would result in the conservation and 

28 protection of biological resources in those areas from OHV activities and other public uses. Increased 

29 protection from OHV trespassing onto the CMAGR may also result from the realignments resulting from 

30 the increased effectiveness that the realigned boundaries would be expected to provide for deterring 

31 trespass. Disposed lands could be subject to a number of public uses that could potentially degrade the 

32 biological resources in comparison to military management of those lands, however, BLM planning and 

33 impact assessment processes would evaluate these potentials before the introduction of new activities.

34 The UPRR acquisition area is near the Algodones Dunes and may contain fringe habitat for species 

35 adapted to dunes such as the Colorado Desert fringe-toed lizard, flat-tailed horned lizard, Harwood’s

36 rattleweed, Peirson’s milk-vetch, Wiggin’s croton, Algodones sunflower, slender cottonheads, giant 

37 Spanish needle, and sand food (see Table 3-15). With the exception of Peirson’s milk-vetch, these species 

38 are not protected under the federal Endangered Species Act and are special status only as State Species of 

39 Special Concern, BLM Sensitive species, and/or CNPS rare plants. The proposed acquisition area does 

40 not include high value dune habitat and these species have not been reported from this area. Core habitat 

41 for these dune specialists occurs outside the acquisition area in the nearby Algodones Dunes. 
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-32 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4.7.2.3 Management Transfer to DoN

2 Under this alternative, responsibility for managing DoI withdrawn land would be transferred to DoN, and 

3 the DoN would manage the CMAGR under the Sikes Act. DoN-exclusive management of the CMAGR 

4 would maintain the focus on preserving natural resources in consideration of military mission, with active 

5 management and conservation of special status species that are not federally protected, including BLM 

6 sensitive species, and CNPS rare plants. The DoN is obligated to protect sensitive biological resources 

7 under the Sikes Act. Unifying management under the DoN could also provide more consistent, complete, 

8 and simplified management of biological resources in the CMAGR. Under the current dual management 

9 system, management responsibility is inconsistent and unclear due to the checkerboard pattern of land 

10 management. Management transfer to the DoN would necessitate an INRMP that could focus more 

11 specifically on management of natural resources in the context of a military training range. DoN 

12 management also would release BLM lands from the multiple-use provisions designated under FLPMA,

13 such as grazing, development, mining, and OHV use that can consume and degrade habitats for plants and 

14 animals. Protection for federally threatened and endangered species, such as the desert tortoise, would 

15 continue to be addressed on transferred lands under the Endangered Species Act, with administration and 

16 oversight by the USFWS. The management transfer would likely improve management of sensitive 

17 species compared to the current dual management by DoN and BLM by clearly giving responsibility to 

18 one agency.

19 4.7.2.4 25-Year Range Renewal

20 No adverse effects to wildlife habitat or any wildlife species would be likely to occur as a result of the 

21 land withdrawal duration of 25 years that would be provided by Alternative 2. Although Alternative 2 

22 would provide a withdrawal duration that would be 5 years longer than the 20 years that would be 

23 provided by Alternative 1, the effects of the 25 year duration on biological resources would likely be 

24 similar to those of the shorter duration.

25 4.7.3 Alternative 3

26 Under Alternative 3, BLM land in the CMAGR would be permanently transferred to the DoN and the full 

27 Bradshaw Trail and Niland-Blythe Road realignments of the range boundary would be implemented. 

28 DoN-exclusive management of the CMAGR would maintain the focus on preserving natural resources in 

29 consideration of military mission, with active management and conservation of special status species that 

30 are not federally protected, including BLM sensitive species, and CNPS rare plants.

31 4.7.3.1 Withdrawal Renewal and Continued Military Use

32 Specific impacts related to the land withdrawal renewal and continued military use of the CMAGR under 

33 Alternative 3 are similar to those under Alternative 1 (see Section 4.7.1.1).

34 4.7.3.2 Boundary Realignment

35 The full Bradshaw Trail and Niland-Blythe Road realignments of the CMAGR boundary proposed by 

36 Alternative 3 would have the same overall negligible effects on biological resources as described for these 

37 realignments under Alternative 2. 

38 4.7.3.3 Management Transfer to DoN

39 Specific impacts related to the management transfer to DoN under Alternative 3 are similar to those under 

40 Alternative 2 (see Section 4.7.2.3). 
Biological Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-33 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4.7.3.4 Permanent Range Renewal

2 The permanent range renewal that would occur as a result of the transfer of BLM land to the DoN as 

3 proposed by Alternative 3 would have the same effect on biological resources as that of Alternative 2, 

4 which included a 25-year land withdrawal duration, but with the likely option of subsequent renewals. 

5 4.7.4 Alternative 4

6 Under Alternative 4, the withdrawal of BLM land at the CMAGR by the DoN for military training 

7 purposes would be renewed for 25 years, and the partial Bradshaw Trail realignment of the range 

8 boundary would be implemented. 

9 4.7.4.1 Withdrawal Renewal and Continued Military Use

10 Specific impacts related to the withdrawal renewal and continued military use of the CMAGR under 

11 Alternative 4 are similar to those under Alternative 1 (see Section 4.7.1.1).

12 4.7.4.2 Boundary Realignment

13 The partial Bradshaw Trail realignment of the CMAGR boundary proposed by Alternative 4 would have 

14 similar overall negligible effects on biological resources as described for the full Bradshaw Trail 

15 realignment under Alternative 2. 

16 4.7.4.3 25-Year Range Renewal

17 The effects of the 25-year land withdrawal duration proposed by Alternative 4 on biological resources 

18 would be the same as the effects of the 25-year duration proposed by Alternative 2.

19 4.7.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)

20 Under Alternative 5, the CMAGR would be closed, decommissioned, and prepared for eventual reuse.

21 Direct and indirect impacts associated with military activities would no longer occur potentially allowing 

22 for a slow recovery of degraded vegetation and affected wildlife communities. However, land uses 

23 presently prohibited under military withdrawal, such as mining and OHV use, may be allowed. The 

24 potential for the public to use released land that remains under DoN jurisdiction would have to be 

25 determined through planning conducted in accordance with the Sikes Act and to the extent that such use 

26 would not be inconsistent with hazards that may be present from UXO.

27 Effects from decontamination activities and removal of military facilities on the range would be addressed 

28 in separate NEPA documentation. The remediation response is speculative, but it is anticipated that it 

29 could have a greater effect if the remedial activities increase ground disturbance in areas with negligible 

30 military surface use. Impacts from alternative land uses and associated mitigation measures would be 

31 evaluated through additional NEPA documentation following a public planning process for the future use 

32 of these lands. Agencies with jurisdictional responsibility for future land uses include BLM, DoD, 

33 USFWS, CDFG, and state and local agencies or governments.

34

35 4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES

36 Potential impacts on the cultural environment are assessed pursuant to Section 101(b)(4) of NEPA, which 

37 directs federal agencies to preserve important historical and cultural aspects of our nation’s heritage. As 

38 discussed in Section 3.8, the potential impacts of Federal actions on cultural resources must also be 

39 considered relative to the guidance of a number of laws, depending on the nature of the resource being 
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-34 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 impacted. Marine Corps responsibilities for assessing the potential for its activities to affect cultural 

2 resources as provided by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Archaeological Resources 

3 Protection Act (ARPA), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and 

4 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) are discussed below. The applicability of these and 

5 other Federal laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS) to the protection and management of 

6 cultural resources at the CMAGR and the assessment of potential effects on these resources are 

7 summarized in Table 4-2 .

8 Table 4-2 Federal Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)

LORS Applicability

National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) 

42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.

Requires Federal agencies to consider potential environmental impacts of projects 

with federal involvement and to consider appropriate mitigation measures.

Federal Lands Policy and 

Management Act 

(FLPMA) 43 U.S.C. 

§§ 1701 et seq.

Requires the Secretary of the Interior to manage public lands in a manner that will 

protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical and archaeological values.

National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) 

16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.

Establishes national policy of historic preservation; requires that Federal agencies

consider effects to significant cultural resources (i.e., historic properties) prior to 

undertakings.

Section 106 of the Federal 

Guidelines 16 U.S.C. 

§ 106 of the NHPA

Requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of projects on historic 

properties (resources included in or eligible for the NRHP). It also gives the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and SHPO an opportunity to 

consult. 

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979 (16 

U.S.C. §§ 470aa-470mm)

Governs the collection of archaeological resources on public and Indian lands.

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990) (25 U.S.C. 

§§ 3001 et seq.)

Defines ―cultural items,‖ ―sacred objects,‖ and ―objects of cultural patrimony;‖

establishes an ownership hierarchy; provides for review; allows excavation of 

human remains, but stipulates return of the remains according to ownership; sets 

penalties; calls for inventories; and provides for return of specified cultural items.

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1996

Provides protection of exercise of Native American religious practices.

Antiquities Act of 1906 

(16 U.S.C. §§ 431-433)

Establishes criminal penalties to protect cultural resources on Federal lands. 

Archeology and Historic 

Preservation: Secretary of 

Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines 48 CFR. 44716 

(29 Sep 1983) 

Provides a set of standards and guidelines for archaeology and historic 

preservation. These are considered to be the appropriate professional methods and 

techniques for the preservation of archaeological and historic properties. The 

Secretary’s standards and guidelines are used by Federal agencies. The State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) refers to these standards in its requirements 

for selection of qualified personnel and in the mitigation of potential impacts to 

cultural resources on public lands in California.
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-35 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

LORS Applicability

Executive Order 11593, 

Protection of the Cultural 

Environment‖, 13 May 

1971 (36 Federal Register 

8921)

(1) Orders the protection and enhancement of the cultural environment through 

requiring Federal agencies by to administer the cultural properties under their 

control in a spirit of stewardship and trusteeship for future generations, 

(2) initiates measures necessary to direct their policies, plans and programs in such 

a way that federally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, architectural 

or archaeological significance are preserved, restored and maintained for the 

inspiration and benefit of the people, and 

(3), in consultation with the ACHP (16 U.S.C. 4701), institute procedures to assure 

that Federal plans and programs contribute to the preservation and enhancement of 

non-federally owned sites, structures and objects of historical, architectural or 

archaeological significance.

NOTES:

ACHP = Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; FLPMA = Federal Lands Policy and Management Act; 

LORS = Laws, ordinances, regulations and standards; NAHC = California Native American Heritage 

Commission; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office; U.S.C = 

United States Code

1

2 Assessment of effects under NHPA Section 106 involves several steps, starting with identification of the 

3 Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking. The APE of an undertaking is defined as ―the 

4 geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the 

5 character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist‖ (36 CFR 800.16(d)). The APE for this 

6 LEIS includes the current boundary of the CMAGR and the areas of potential boundary realignment 

7 described in Section 2.3.1. 

8 The next step in the Section 106 assessment process is to identify historic properties within the APE (see 

9 Section 3.8 of this LEIS). Step 3 is to determine if the undertaking (Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4) or a decision 

10 to close the range by allowing the land withdrawal to expire (Alternative 5) would affect historic 

11 properties. Cultural resources that are included or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are referred to as 

12 historic properties in the NHPA. The NHPA provides that if an ―... undertaking is a type of activity that 

13 does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were 

14 present, the agency official has no further obligations under section 106 or this part‖ (36 CFR

15 § 800.3(a)(1)). If an undertaking would have an effect on historic properties, it must then be determined

16 whether or not the effect will be adverse to those resources. Section 106 of the NHPA provides guidance 

17 for determining the levels of effect on cultural resources that may result from a proposed undertaking 

18 (36 CFR § 800.9). If an adverse effect is identified, the federal agency must consult with the SHPO, 

19 Native American tribes, and other stakeholders to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect. The 

20 Marine Corps has initiated consultation with the California SHPO on the proposed undertaking.

21 ARPA prohibits the collection of archaeological resources from public lands (and Indian lands) without a 

22 permit issued by the land managing agency, and establishes criminal and civil penalties for removal, sale, 

23 purchase, exchange, transportation, receipt, or offering of any archaeological resource obtained from 

24 public lands (or Indian lands) in violation of any provision, rule, regulation, ordinance, or permit under 

25 the act, or under any federal, State, or local law. 

26 NAGPRA establishes rights of Indian tribes to claim ownership and repatriation of human remains, 

27 funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony held or controlled by federal agencies 

28 and museums that receive federal funds. Intentional excavations and inadvertent discoveries of such items 

29 must follow plans developed in consultation with Native Americans. The Marine Corps follows the 

30 NAGPRA regulations.
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-36 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 AIRFA established a policy to protect and preserve for American Indians the inherent right of freedom to 

2 believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions, including but not limited to access to religious 

3 sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional 

4 rites. The Marine Corps complies with AIRFA by obtaining and considering the views of Indian leaders 

5 when a proposed land use might conflict with traditional Indian religious beliefs or practices, and by 

6 avoiding unnecessary interference with Indian religious practices as projects are implemented.

7 Since range operations would not change under any of the action alternatives, no new effects to historic 

8 properties at the CMAGR would be anticipated as a result of the range renewal, renewal duration, and 

9 management responsibility portions of the proposed action/undertaking. Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 would 

10 each also leave the current ICRMP and MV-22 Programmatic Agreement in place. 

11 The boundary realignment elements of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, and property disposal Alternatives 3 and 4 

12 have the potential to affect cultural resources, and are evaluated in additional detail below.

13 Alternative 5, the no-action alternative, would prompt closure and decommissioning of the CMAGR and 

14 likely non-military reuse of much of the DoN and BLM lands that comprise the current range. Closure, 

15 decommissioning, and reuse of the CMAGR would likely affect historic properties; however, as described 

16 in Section 2.6, the actions that would cause these effects cannot be predicted in detail at this time and 

17 would be the subject of future analysis and consultation. 

18 4.8.1 Alternative 1

19 Alternative 1 would renew the status quo conditions at the CMAGR established by the CMLWOA,

20 meaning that there would be no changes to the range boundary or land withdrawal area, 20-year duration

21 of the withdrawal, or the split in DoN and DoI management responsibilities. As already indicated, the 

22 proposed renewal of the land withdrawal would have no effect on the performance or distribution of 

23 ongoing military activities at the range except to permit them to continue after the October 2014 

24 expiration date of the current land withdrawal. Previous assessments have found that military activities at 

25 the CMAGR can directly or indirectly affect historic properties or other cultural resources as a result of 

26 target construction, explosive ordnance delivery by aircraft or surface fires, vehicle use, operational range 

27 clearances, or other training or support activities. Although the extent to which historic properties or other 

28 cultural resources may have been affected by past military use of the CMAGR is not specifically known, 

29 contemporary management of the range dates from the development of the 1997 Yuma Training Range 

30 Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement (USMC 1997), which provided the first range-wide 

31 assessment of impacts on historic properties or other cultural resources from ongoing and proposed 

32 military activities. The potential for training activities that were proposed for the CMAGR following the 

33 completion of the 1997 EIS to affect historic properties or other cultural resources were addressed in 

34 subsequent NEPA documentation. The 2009 and 2010 EISs prepared for the West Coast basing and 

35 operation of the MV-22 and F-35B aircraft, respectively, are the most prominent examples (DoN 2009a 

36 and DoN 2010b). These EISs addressed the potential for the use of either of these two aircraft to affect 

37 cultural resources at the CMAGR. The Marine Corps completed Section 106 consultations relative to 

38 actions proposed through the 1997, 2009, and 2010 EISs and all other applicable NEPA documentation 

39 for the range. 

40 The 1997 EIS also provided the first comprehensive inventory of CMAGR ground locations used in direct 

41 support of military training activities. That assessment found that direct effects of military activities on 

42 terrestrial resources at the range were confined principally to the inventoried use areas, which in 

43 aggregate comprised a small proportion of the range. The 1997 finding was updated and corroborated by 

44 the surface use inventory completed for this LEIS, which indicates that direct military use areas, including 

45 the core and secondary weapons impact areas, that cause moderate to complete levels of disturbance to 

46 the ground surface, comprise only about 5 percent of the range surface in aggregate (see Section 3.2.4.6). 
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-37 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 The balance of the range area has experienced low to negligible surface disturbing impacts, as indicated 

2 in Table 3-6. Both active and inactive use areas were incorporated in the inventory to provide results that 

3 reflect the 70-year legacy of the CMAGR. Only a small percentage of the CMAGR property has been 

4 inventoried for the presence of cultural resources and a detailed inventory of cultural resources at the 

5 range is not available. Thus, the results of the military surface use inventory cannot be used to gauge the 

6 extent to which historic properties or other cultural resources have been affected by 70 years of military 

7 use. The inventory does show, however, that the great preponderance of surface impacting effects from 

8 both past and present military use are concentrated in less than 5 percent of the range area and that there 

9 has only been a slow and incremental change in the distribution of military surface use areas over time. 

10 Although historic properties or cultural resources that may occur in these concentrated use areas may be 

11 impacted by military activities, the presence of the CMAGR has likely also afforded a strong conservation 

12 benefit to historic properties that are located in the remaining 95 percent of the range. 

13 As already noted, Marine Corps compliance with the NHPA and other laws and regulations applicable to 

14 cultural resources at the range is currently guided by the 2011 ICRMP and the 2009 MV-22 

15 Programmatic Agreement, which was incorporated in the ICRMP. Renewal of the CMAGR land 

16 withdrawal in accordance with Alternative 1 would allow continued military training at the range, but 

17 would not change either military use of the range from current conditions or the determination of effect 

18 represented in the MV-22 Programmatic Agreement that military use of LZs by the MV-22 at the 

19 CMAGR has on historic properties. In other words, Alternative 1 would cause no new effects to historic 

20 properties or other cultural resources. Renewal of the range land withdrawal would also continue the 

21 responsibility of federal agencies using and managing the range to comply with the NHPA, ARPA, 

22 NAGPRA, AIRFA, and other applicable cultural resources laws and regulations for ongoing activities and 

23 proposed actions. 

24 4.8.2 Alternative 2

25 Alternative 2 differs from Alternative 1 in that it would incorporate the full Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, and 

26 Niland-Blythe Road realignments of the range boundary, increase the duration of the land withdraw to 

27 25-years, and transfer responsibility for managing withdrawn BLM land from the DoI to the DoN. 

28 Alternative 2 would also transfer DoN land released from the CMAGR north of the Bradshaw Trail to the 

29 BLM to be managed by that receiving agency along with formerly withdrawn BLM land. The boundary 

30 realignments would incorporate about 10,735 acres into the range for the first time and release a total of 

31 about 2,821 acres of DoN and currently withdrawn BLM land from the range. Cultural resources would 

32 not be affected by the range renewal, renewal duration, or management responsibility portions of the 

33 action/undertaking proposed by Alternative 2.

34 The search of CHRIS indicates that cultural properties have been recorded by previous surveys at five 

35 sites—including the Bradshaw Trail and the Eagle Mountain Railroad—located within parcels proposed 

36 for acquisition along the southern side of the Bradshaw Trail and at 28 sites within parcels proposed for 

37 acquisition along the UPRR. These sites, or other unrecorded cultural resources that may occur within the 

38 proposed acquisition parcels, would not be directly affected by the boundary realignment action. These 

39 parcels would be used to complete a contiguous and geographically prominent boundary, which would 

40 enhance the security of the range against inadvertent trespass (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2). No proposals 

41 have been identified to use or develop the parcels for any military surface use other than enhancing the 

42 security of the range boundary. The action may indirectly benefit any cultural resources within the parcels 

43 proposed for acquisition in two ways: (1) by precluding land uses that could adversely affect these 

44 resources and (2) by providing increased security from vandalism, looting, or other damage that may 

45 result from chance discovery of sites by public visitors or intentional criminal activity. 
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-38 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 The land that would be acquired with the UPRR realignment, up to 12,561 acres, is of sufficient size that 

2 it could potentially support future military surface uses, such as a FARP, that are in addition to its 

3 proposed boundary security purposes (see Section 2.3.1). Although, no additional uses have been 

4 proposed for this area at this time, future proposals for military activities in the affected area would 

5 require consideration in accordance with NEPA at that time. New future military use of the acquired area 

6 also would be subject to the NHPA, ARPA, NAGPRA, AIRFA, and other applicable law and regulations 

7 governing the protection and management of cultural resources. Marine Corps use and management of 

8 property acquired along the Bradshaw Trail or the UPPR would be guided by the CMAGR ICRMP.

9 The search of CHRIS indicates that cultural properties have been recorded by previous surveys at 21 sites 

10 within DoN or currently withdrawn BLM parcels along the Bradshaw Trail or south of Niland-Blythe 

11 Road proposed for release from the CMAGR as a consequence of implementing boundary realignments 

12 proposed by Alternative 2. These recorded sites, or other unrecorded cultural resources that may occur 

13 within the proposed release parcels, also would not be directly affected by this action. Public and 

14 government use of the Bradshaw Trail would be unaffected by the release of the DoN and BLM land. 

15 Public activity along the north side of the trail corridor may affect cultural resources that may be present, 

16 but the release of the land from the CMAGR would leave this potential unchanged from the present 

17 condition. The transfer of DoN land by Congressional action to the DoI as proposed by Alternative 2 

18 would place all of the released land under BLM management jurisdiction. No new land uses have been 

19 proposed or are reasonably foreseeable for the land that would be released from the range. The BLM 

20 would not begin planning for the reuse of the affected parcels until after Congress takes action to enact 

21 the Bradshaw Trail and Niland-Blythe Road realignments. All of the released DoN and currently 

22 withdrawn BLM parcels would continue to be subject to the NHPA, ARPA, NAGPRA, AIRFA, and other 

23 applicable law and regulations governing the protection and management of cultural resources.

24 None of the 36 Native American tribes or tribal bands that were contacted during scoping for this LEIS 

25 reported that resources of traditional, religious, or cultural significance are located within the parcels 

26 slated for either release from or acquisition for the CMAGR as a result of boundary realignment actions 

27 proposed by Alternative 2. Further, no resources of traditional cultural significance to Native Americans 

28 were identified as occurring within these parcels by the search of the SLF database or through follow-up 

29 communications with Native American individuals and organizations listed by the NAHC to be contacted 

30 for further information (see Section 3.8.4.3). If Native American resources of traditional cultural 

31 significance are subsequently identified to occur within parcels proposed for acquisition, the Marine 

32 Corps would ensure that tribes have appropriate access to these resources in accordance with the AIRFA.

33 4.8.3 Alternative 3

34 Alternative 3 incorporates the full Bradshaw Trail and Niland-Blythe Road realignments of the range 

35 boundary, but not the UPRR realignment proposed by Alternative 2. Alternative 3 also differs from 

36 Alternative 2 in that (1) DoN land released from the CMAGR as a result of the Bradshaw Trail boundary 

37 realignment would be disposed of through existing GSA authorities and procedures—rather than a 

38 Congressional transfer to the BLM—and (2) Congress would transfer management responsibility for 

39 withdrawn BLM land in the renewed CMAGR to the DoN. Cultural resources would not be affected by

40 the range renewal, renewal duration, or management responsibility portions of the action/undertaking

41 proposed by Alternative 3.

42 The effects on cultural resources of the land acquisitions proposed by the Alternative 3 boundary

43 realignments would be the same as those described for Alternative 2. Cultural resources that are known to 

44 occur or may occur within withdrawn BLM parcels proposed for release from the CMAGR as a 

45 consequence of the full Bradshaw Trail or Niland-Blythe Road realignments would not be affected by this 

46 action as described for Alternative 2. Disposal of DoN land to be released from the CMAGR, however, 
Cultural Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-39 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 potentially may lead to adverse affects on cultural resources. The first priority for the disposal of the DoN 

2 parcels in accordance with GSA authorities and procedures would be an administrative transfer of the 

3 land to another federal agency; transfer to the BLM would be the most probable outcome. Administrative 

4 transfer to the BLM would have the same effects on cultural resources as the legislative transfer to this 

5 agency proposed by Alternative 2. In the event that the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 

6 another federal department would not accept transfer, the DoN land may be transferred out of federal 

7 jurisdiction to a state or county agency or Native American tribe or private ownership, which may result 

8 in adverse effects on cultural resources that are known to occur or may occur on the property. The 

9 potential effects of disposing of released DoN land through GSA authorities and procedures to non10 federal entities would receive further consideration in accordance with NEPA and other applicable law 

11 should Congress elect not to transfer released land to the BLM.

12 4.8.4 Alternative 4

13 Alternative 4 would incorporate the same proposals for the renewal of the range, land withdrawal 

14 duration, and management responsibility assignments as Alternative 2 and the same disposal procedures 

15 for released land as Alternative 3. The effects of these proposed actions on cultural resources would be 

16 the same as those described for Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 would incorporate the partial 

17 Bradshaw Trail realignment, which would release DoN and currently withdrawn BLM land that includes 

18 the Bradshaw Trail and the CMAGR areas currently north of the trail, but not the acquisition of BLM, 

19 state, or private land south of the trail. Not acquiring land south of the Bradshaw Trail would have no 

20 effect on cultural resources. The effects on cultural resources of disposing of the land released from the 

21 CMAGR by the partial Bradshaw Trail realignment would be the same as described for Alternative 3.

22 4.8.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)

23 Under Alternative 5 the current land withdrawal for the CMAGR would expire and the range would be 

24 closed. General plans for decommissioning and decontaminating the range in accordance with existing 

25 legal guidance and programs are described in Section 2.6. As also indicated in Section 2.6, procedures for 

26 the disposition of DoN land from the closed range are less certain and would require planning that would 

27 not begin before Congress determined to allow the CMAGR land withdrawal to lapse. Barring new 

28 Congressional decisions on the matter, planning for the potential reuse of the closed range land would 

29 also have to begin, although progress may be impeded until headway is made on the disposition of DoN 

30 land. UXO contamination may constrain the spectrum of potential land uses that could be considered in 

31 some locations of the closed range, but otherwise areas of the former range may warrant attention for uses 

32 spanning the possibilities from wilderness to industrial development. Against this somewhat uncertain 

33 outlook, it would appear likely that cultural resources that may be present in the CMAGR would be 

34 affected by some of the actions that would be proposed to decommission, decontaminate, and reuse the 

35 closed range. Both the DoN and DoI would be involved in the processing of the closed CMAGR. 

36 Management and use of the closed CMAGR would continue to be subject to the operation of the NHPA, 

37 including consultations in accordance with Section 106, ARPA, NAGPRA, AIRFA, and other applicable 

38 law and regulations governing the protection and management of cultural resources. Thus, the potential 

39 effects of the closure process and future land use proposals on cultural resources would be addressed by 

40 the responsible agency at such time that these issues become timely. A decision to allow the CMAGR 

41 land withdrawal to expire, however, would have no direct effects on cultural resources.

42
Noise

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-40 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4.9 NOISE

2 The following discussion of potential noise effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 focuses on areas in the 

3 immediate vicinity of the CMAGR. The existing noise environment, as described in Section 3.9 of this 

4 LEIS, is generally expected to continue under each of the action alternatives. Slight localized differences 

5 in noise exposure among the action alternatives may be due to the proposed boundary shifts along the 

6 Bradshaw Trail and Niland-Blythe Road realignments and the UPRR realignment, as proposed in various 

7 combinations by the four action alternatives. The main reason for emphasis on the boundary realignment 

8 element associated with land withdrawal renewal is that, in general, if the noise sources in a before-and9 after analysis do not change and are largely unaffected by the other range renewal elements under 

10 consideration, then the potential for direct impact must relate to the receiver—either its location or 

11 character (i.e., land use or presence of sensitive receiver) changes. Because the noise sources (i.e., 

12 CMAGR airborne and ground-based operations) are not expected to change from current baseline 

13 conditions, the following subsections use the premise that:

14 No off-range populations are currently exposed to 65 dBA CNEL or 62 dBC CNEL due to 

15 CMAGR operations (as described in Section 3.9.4).

16 The current ambient CNEL or Ldn at representative and/or potential noise-sensitive receivers is 

17 comprised of a number of natural and man-made noise-producing sources.

18 The evaluation of current speech interference, nighttime awakenings and potential for hearing 

19 loss is as described and discussed in the F-35B West Coast Basing FEIS (DoN 2010b).

20 The impact analysis for noise considered opportunities for this current baseline status to change, based 

21 primarily on the effects of source-to-receiver distance alterations caused by CMAGR boundary 

22 realignments.

23 4.9.1 Alternative 1

24 Under this alternative, the current CMAGR boundaries remain unchanged and thus do not result in 

25 shortening the distances between one or more noise-producing sources (for example, ground-based 

26 artillery or aircraft flight training operations or related activity) and off-range noise-sensitive receivers.

27 Thus, ambient noise exposure at all areas in the vicinity of CMAGR is expected to remain similar to 

28 current conditions. As there are currently no known noise impacts from CMAGR as described in 

29 Chapter 3, and because the noise-producing ground-based and flight operations are not expected to 

30 change as a result of this alternative, no new direct or indirect noise impacts are anticipated. 

31 4.9.2 Alternative 2

32 Under this alternative, the current CMAGR boundaries would be changed to reflect the full Bradshaw 

33 Trail, UPRR, and Niland-Blythe realignments. 

34 As shown in Figure 2-1, usage of the Bradshaw Trail as a CMAGR northern boundary appears to shorten 

35 the distance between one or more noise-producing sources (for example, ground-based training operations 

36 or related activity) and off-range locations by as much as 0.5 mile. For purposes of this discussion, off37 range areas shall be interpreted to include privately-owned land in Figure 2-1, which may potentially 

38 contain current or future noise-sensitive receivers. Since neither CMAGR flight operations nor airspace 

39 boundaries are expected to change as a result of this alternative, the small boundary shifts would 

40 potentially only affect distances to noise-producing ground-based activities that are primarily in the 

41 controlled firing areas in the northwestern part of R-2507N. As shown in Figure 3-13, other ground-based 

42 noise sources and ordnance noise are deep within the range and far from the proposed boundary shifts, 

43 and are therefore not likely to cause noise levels different from current conditions at off-range locations. 
Noise

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-41 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 Furthermore, if ground-based activities near the northern boundary shifts are also unchanging as a result 

2 of this alternative, then the CMAGR northern boundary change would not affect the source-to-receiver 

3 distances and thus not be expected to result in new direct or indirect impacts.

4 Along the southwestern CMAGR area, as shown in Figure 2-2, this alternative would position a new 

5 boundary nearly 2.5 miles closer to Glamis, where many recreational users of the Algodones Dunes visit 

6 or pass through for fuel and supplies. While this might create an opportunity for a CMAGR ground-based 

7 training operation or activity to become physically closer to receivers in proximity to Glamis, no such 

8 operations are currently proposed. As shown on Figure 1-5, there are currently no ground-based noise9 generating activities located in this area of the CMAGR. Additionally, due to the recreational OHV uses 

10 that currently occur (and would be expected to continue) at and near Glamis, along with other sources of 

11 noise such as the nearby Mesquite Regional Landfill, the ambient sound environment would already be 

12 expected to be dominated by these existing recreational uses and less so by CMAGR ground-based 

13 operations or activity. The same might even be said, for certain time periods, of the Bradshaw Trail that is 

14 also frequented by recreational OHV traffic.

15 As there are currently no known noise impacts from CMAGR as described in Chapter 3, and because the 

16 noise-producing ground-based and airborne operations are not expected to change as a result of this 

17 alternative, no new direct or indirect noise impacts are anticipated.

18 4.9.3 Alternative 3

19 With respect to CMAGR boundary changes, this alternative would incorporate the same full Bradshaw 

20 Trail and Niland-Blythe Road realignments as that of Alternative 2, and thus the noise impact analysis for 

21 this alternative would be considered functionally similar to that of Section 4.9.2 for that proposed 

22 realignment.

23 As there are currently no known noise impacts from CMAGR as described in Chapter 3, and because the 

24 noise-producing ground-based and airborne operations are not expected to change as a result of this 

25 alternative, no new direct or indirect noise impacts are anticipated.

26 4.9.4 Alternative 4

27 Under this alternative, the current CMAGR boundaries would be changed to reflect the partial Bradshaw 

28 Trail realignments. 

29 As shown in Figure 2-3, and unlike what is presented in Figure 2-1 for Alternatives 2 and 3, pulling the 

30 existing CMAGR northern boundary back to the south side of the Bradshaw Trail does not create 

31 opportunities for shortening the distance between one or more noise-producing sources (for example, 

32 ground-based or airborne training operation or related activity) and a potential noise-sensitive receiver, 

33 which for purposes of this discussion shall be interpreted to be what is depicted as privately owned land 

34 in Figure 2-3. As shown in Figure 3-13, ground-based noise sources and ordnance noise are largely deep 

35 within the range and far from the proposed boundary shifts, and are therefore not likely to cause noise 

36 levels different from current conditions at off-range locations. No changes in CMAGR flight operations, 

37 ground-based activities, or airspace boundaries are proposed, so ambient sound contributions from 

38 CMAGR under these non-changing conditions would be expected to remain unaltered and result in no 

39 anticipated generation of new noise impacts.

40 As there are currently no known noise impacts from CMAGR as described in Chapter 3, and because the 

41 noise-producing ground-based and airborne operations are not expected to change as a result of this 

42 alternative, no new direct or indirect noise impacts are anticipated.
Noise

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-42 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4.9.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)

2 With the no-action alternative, the land withdrawal for the CMAGR would be allowed to expire in 2014, 

3 and the remaining DoN land would not provide an adequate restricted land-base to continue tactical 

4 aviation training. Because the dominant use of the range is air-to-ground training, most aviation training 

5 would cease. As long as the restricted airspace designation remains, air-to-air combat training could occur 

6 and helicopter training involving the use of FARPs or LZs on DoN land could potentially continue, 

7 although these operations may be discontinued at the CMAGR, as well. Regardless, not renewing the land 

8 withdrawal would severely curtail the opportunities for military training and thus eliminate most of the 

9 associated noise-producing sources from the ambient sound environment. The immediate or short-term 

10 resulting direct change to the future ambient sound environment would likely be a reduction of overall 

11 sound level, but the magnitude of the change would depend on a number of factors, including the 

12 applicable metric and the presence of other man-made and natural sound-producing activities or 

13 phenomena at a given receiver position in the study area (i.e., as described in Chapter 3 and in the vicinity 

14 of CMAGR, such as residential communities like Niland).

15 Indirectly, the sharp reduction and potential loss of military use of the CMAGR area suggests, albeit 

16 speculatively, that other ranges might see corresponding increases in ground and aircraft training 

17 operations. Should the CMAGR land withdrawal not be renewed, additional studies would be required to 

18 consider how to accommodate the training; these studies would need to address the potential noise 

19 impacts that could result at or near alternate training ranges and the installations used to home base 

20 aircraft.

21 The DoD closure process of CMAGR associated with the unavailability of the currently withdrawn BLM 

22 land would entail evaluation of and subsequent clean-up or disposition of UXO and potentially hazardous 

23 substances. These processes imply the usage of conventional and specialized equipment that would need 

24 to operate within the current CMAGR boundary—especially in known target areas—and correspondingly 

25 involve potentially substantial increases in passenger vehicle and heavy truck traffic noise (associated 

26 with personnel work shifts, deliveries to the work areas, and hauling hazardous substances off-range) 

27 along routes that provide access to these areas requiring clean-up. The scope of these operations is 

28 unknown at this time and speculative, as would be the estimates of noise produced and their contributions 

29 to the ambient sound environment.

30

31 4.10 VISUAL RESOURCES

32 Impacts to visual resources consider the existing scenic quality of the landscape, the contrast of the 

33 proposed action to the landscape, and viewers who are sensitive to the visual changes. Information 

34 presented in Section 3.10 of this LEIS forms the basis on which potential impacts are assessed. 

35 Visibility of Range Facilities and Ground Disturbances

36 Visibility is based on screening, distance, backdropping and related facility contrast, and other factors, 

37 such as the angle of observation and light and atmospheric conditions. The main type of screening is 

38 topographic, although vegetation and structures may provide localized screening. With greater distance, 

39 landscape elements become less obvious and less detailed. The visual elements of form and line become 

40 more dominant than color or texture as distance from the observer increases. Backdropping is the ability 

41 of facilities and disturbances (such as bombing) to be visually absorbed when viewed against the 

42 background of landform, sky, vegetation, or development. The extent of visual absorption by the 

43 background is determined by the degree or complexity of visual elements and contrast of the facilities and 

44 disturbance to its surroundings. To provide maximum contrast for the impact assessment, all of the KOP 

45 photographs were taken so the CMAGR landscape was frontlit with the sun behind the photographer. 
Visual Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-43 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 Level of Impact

2 Assessment of local-scale direct impacts was performed using the following considerations:

3 The level of existing scenic quality

4 The degree of perceived change (or project contrast) to the scenic quality

5 Distance of the viewer from the facility or disturbance

6 Sensitivity of the viewers 

7 The three levels of impact criteria are defined as follows:

8 High (or major) impact: The proposed alternative would likely cause a substantial long-term 

9 and adverse effect on landscape character or scenic quality on an existing viewshed due to the 

10 contrast between the facilities and disturbances and the level of existing scenic quality.

11 Moderate impact: The proposed alternative would create a noticeable, but not substantial, 

12 change in landscape character or scenic quality; or would cause a noticeable, but not substantial, 

13 change on a sensitive viewer’s viewshed.

14 Low (or minor)/negligible impact: The proposed alternative would create negligible or no 

15 change in contrast and susceptibility to changes in scenic quality, viewer sensitivity, facility 

16 visibility, and viewer exposure.

17 The KOPs, locations, proposed activities that would be visible, type of viewers and their sensitivity, and 

18 scenic quality are included in Section 3.10.2.3, Table 3-16.

19 4.10.1 Alternative 1

20 Under Alternative 1, the CMAGR land withdrawal would be renewed for 20 years with no change in the 

21 boundary, management, or military activities. Table 4-3 shows the level of existing direct impact within 

22 the range that can be seen from the surrounding land. The seven KOPs chosen to represent current views 

23 of the CMAGR facilities and disturbances were not analyzed in depth because ongoing visual impacts 

24 would remain unchanged under Alternative 1. The Osborne Overlook, Watchable Wildlife Site, and Ted 

25 Kipf Road KOPs are discussed in greater detail under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 because they were chosen 

26 to represent the change in available public views associated with boundary realignments.
Visual Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-44 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 Table 4-3 Visual Impacts Seen from the Key Observation Points

KOP

Facility Closest to 

KOP

Scenic 

Quality Facility Visibility Including Contrast

Visual 

Impact

Alternative

Applicable to 

KOP

Coachella 

Canal Road

Bunker and 

material storage

Moderate Possible view of horizontal embankments and 

bare ground that have the same form, line, 

color, and texture as the horizontal to rolling 

landforms.

Negligible 1, 2, 3, 4

Slab City

Bivouac and work 

area

Moderate Possible view of horizontal embankments and 

bare ground that have the same form, line, 

color, and texture as the horizontal to rolling 

landforms, including washes.

Negligible 1, 2, 3, 4

Cuff (Gas 

Line) Road

Camp Billy 

Machen

Moderate Vertical communications tower with white 

round dishes contrasts with the horizontal 

greens, tans, and browns of the vegetation and 

landforms. Buildings and white storage tank 

are mostly screened by canal dikes. The camp 

facilities are near the non-military dikes, 

gravel pits, and transmission towers and 

appear to be associated with the non-military 

facilities.

Low 1, 2, 3, 4

Fountain of 

Youth Spa

SWAT structures Low to 

Moderate

Not noticeable from this distance or angle 

(the structures are not visible from points 

closer to CMAGR).

Negligible 1, 2, 3, 4

Bradshaw 

Trail North

Target complex Moderate Not noticeable due to gentle ridges, which 

screen the targets.

Negligible 1, 2, 3, 4

Bradshaw 

Trail Kiosk

Bombing 

disturbance

Moderate Small, round, and tan oval shapes visible 

within the landscape result from bomb 

explosions and contrast with the more 

massive horizontal and diagonal dark tan and 

brown mountain elements. Viewer attention is 

led in the opposite direction from the 

disturbance towards the informational kiosk. 

Low 1, 2, 3, 4

Dietz Drive

Forward arming 

and refueling point 

and artillery firing 

area

Moderate Views of brown, gray, and white structures 

are mainly blocked by trees. Structures are 

much less obvious than those on private land 

to the east of the range.

Low 1, 2, 3, 4

Osborne 

Overlook

None (shows 

proposed boundary 

expansion)

Moderate to 

High

None in the viewshed except for the 

Alternative 2 proposed land addition. Land is 

similar to the surrounding landscape.

Negligible 2

Watchable 

Wildlife Site

None (shows 

proposed boundary 

expansion)

Moderate None in the viewshed except for the 

Alternative 2 proposed land addition. Land is 

similar to the surrounding landscape.

Negligible 2

Ted Kipf Road

None (shows 

proposed boundary 

expansion)

Moderate None in the viewshed except for the 

Alternative 2 proposed land addition. Land is 

similar to the surrounding landscape.

Negligible 2

2

3 4.10.2 Alternative 2

4 Under Alternative 2, the CMAGR land withdrawal would be renewed for 25 years, the Marine Corps 

5 would assume natural and cultural resource management responsibilities for the withdrawn BLM land, 

6 and the boundary would be realigned to parallel the Bradshaw Trail (including acquisition of land up to 

7 the southern side of the trail), Niland-Blythe Road, and UPRR, as described in Section 2.3 and illustrated 

8 in Figures 2-1 and 2-2. The proposed boundary changes would be expected to have negligible impacts to 

9 the scenic quality of the range, and the Marine Corps management in accordance with the Sikes Act 

10 would not be expected to change the level of influence to visual resources. 
Visual Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-45 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 The Osborne Overlook KOP provides an overall view of the proposed land addition east of the railroad. 

2 The land addition is a very minor visual element in the landscape that is dominated by the Chocolate 

3 Mountains, Imperial Sand Dunes, SR 78, and the surface mine near Glamis. At the Watchable Wildlife 

4 Site and Ted Kipf Road KOPs, dikes block the views of the surface of the plains in the proposed land 

5 addition. Views from the top of the dikes looking at the proposed land addition are similar to views of the 

6 surrounding BLM and DoN land. All the land proposed for boundary changes consists of dissected plains 

7 similar to the adjacent military range and public land. The visual impacts for all other KOPs would be the 

8 same as for Alternative 1 (Table 4-3). 

9 Along the Bradshaw Trail, the released BLM-administered public lands would be subject to the types of 

10 land uses allowed in accordance with FLPMA, once the land had been evaluated for environmental 

11 concerns and safety risks and cleared for alternative uses. Being federal land, environmental evaluation in 

12 accordance with NEPA would be required for any project proposals for development of the land. The 

13 released DoN managed land would continue to be administered in accordance with the Sikes Act, until 

14 DoN disposes of its land through existing GSA authorities and procedures.

15 4.10.3 Alternative 3

16 Under Alternative 3, the BLM land within the CMAGR would be transferred to the DoN, thereby 

17 eliminating the need for any future land withdrawal. Boundary changes would be the same as for 

18 Alternative 2, except it would not incorporate the realignment with the UPRR. The proposed DoN 

19 management would be in accordance with the Sikes Act and would not be expected to change the level of 

20 influence to visual resources. The visual impacts would be the same as with Alternative 2 for the northern 

21 and eastern boundary area and the same as Alternative 1 for the southwestern boundary area, and as listed 

22 in Table 4-3. The released BLM managed public lands, once cleared of environmental or safety concerns, 

23 would be subject to the types of land use allowed in accordance with FLPMA and the BLM NECO Plan, 

24 but any development on this land would be subject to NEPA compliance.

25 4.10.4 Alternative 4

26 Under Alternative 4, the CMAGR land withdrawal would be renewed for 25 years (same as 

27 Alternative 2), the Marine Corps would assume natural and cultural resource management responsibilities 

28 for the withdrawn BLM land (same as Alternative 2). The boundary would be similar to Alternative 1 

29 with the exception that DoN land north of the Bradshaw Trail would not be renewed, as providing for the 

30 partial Bradshaw Trail realignment. The released DoN land, once cleared of environmental or safety 

31 concerns, would be subject to the types of land use allowed in accordance with FLPMA and the BLM’s 

32 NECO Plan, but any development on this land would be subject to NEPA compliance. The visual impacts 

33 would be similar to those listed for Alternative 2 and 3 and in Table 4-3.

34 4.10.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)

35 Under Alternative 5, the CMAGR land withdrawal would not be renewed. The DoN and BLM closed 

36 former range lands would begin to be evaluated in accordance with the MRP, and additional studies 

37 would be conducted by the Marine Corp and DoN to determine the extent and priority of range clean-up 

38 activities. Until additional studies and planning effort are undertaken, it would be speculative to estimate 

39 the types of changes that might occur within the landscape or the potential for future use of the land and 

40 how those might influence the visual environment, although uses comparable to those on adjacent lands 

41 might be expected. Changes would undergo further review under NEPA, and specific effects would be 

42 evaluated at that time. 

43 The closure process would entail evaluation of and subsequent clean-up or disposition of UXO and 

44 potential hazardous substances, subject to Congressional funding authorization and project prioritization 

45 across USMC and DoN facilities. Although the scope of these operations is unknown and speculative, it 
Visual Resources

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-46 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 is anticipated that the motions of crews and machinery could add visual contrasts to the usually static 

2 landscape. These activities would be temporary and the visual impact would be low to negligible.

3

4 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

5 This section discusses the potential effects on public health and safety that are expected to result from the 

6 alternatives. Information presented in Section 3.11 of this LEIS forms the basis on which potential 

7 impacts are assessed. In addition, potential issues associated with public health and safety identified 

8 during the agency and public scoping process were considered. Elements of the alternatives that are most 

9 applicable to the analysis are whether the CMAGR is renewed for continued military use or is not 

10 renewed. The duration of the withdrawal (whether for 20 years, 25 years, or indefinite) would not 

11 influence actions taken to protect public health and safety. MCAS Yuma would continue to be responsible 

12 for public safety measures, such as ensuring the boundary is marked with warning signs, regardless of 

13 which agency (DoN or BLM) has natural resource management responsibilities on the CMAGR. No 

14 changes in military operations are proposed, including for areas that could be affected by a boundary 

15 realignment; however, to ensure safety, a boundary realignment would influence the lands that would or 

16 would not be accessible by the public. Therefore, this section focused on the elements of the alternatives 

17 that could result in a different effect on public health and safety.

18 The impact analysis considered the following potential effects:

19 Accidental or intentional trespass onto the range by unauthorized personnel

20 Potential for weapons delivery containment area changes 

21 Site specific hazards and contamination

22 The method for analysis of public health and safety with regard to the proposed alternatives is to compare 

23 the safety conditions that would exist under each of the proposed alternatives as compared with the 

24 baseline of current conditions. Current risks include those related to military training activities. This risk 

25 is controlled by military protocols that have been established to minimize those potential risks. 

26 Occasionally, an accident occurs, but military protocols also have been established to react to incidents 

27 related to training activities and situations in a timely and safe manner. The SDZ and WDZ protocols 

28 provide procedures to contain munitions and munitions blasts within safety zones and away from the 

29 public. These protocols are available through Range Control.

30 As discussed in Section 3.11, the use of air-to-ground live munitions delivery is one of the primary 

31 training exercises employed at the CMAGR. Munitions are delivered to specific targets within the range.

32 WDZs are established to ensure weapons delivery containment. The majority of WDZs that are 

33 established are based on the type of ordnance delivered to a target, the aircraft used, and the trajectory of 

34 the release (from high or low altitude, lofted, etc.). The DoD standard for WDZs on all ranges is that 

35 99.9999 percent of the projectiles, fragments, debris, and components resulting from the firing, launching, 

36 and/or detonation of aircraft delivered ordnance will remain in the containment area. These containment 

37 areas would not change for any of the alternatives where the DoN maintains control of the CMAGR. The 

38 dual components of land and airspace serve to create a single training space that provides the capability 

39 for the execution of a wide variety of tactics and ordnance delivery. The air and ground range boundaries 

40 serve the dual purpose of containing and segregating military training activities from the public.

41 Other current risks at the CMAGR are related to unauthorized entry onto the range, whether intentional or 

42 accidental, creating the possibility of injury to trespassers and/or users of the range. The public is 

43 unauthorized to enter the CMAGR for safety reasons, and no change in this policy is proposed with any 
Public Health and Safety

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-47 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 of the action alternatives being considered. MCAS Yuma is responsible for range management, including 

2 efforts to mark the range boundary. Similarly, there are no public health and safety effects associated with 

3 the duration of the land withdrawal, with the exception of the no-action alternative, whereby the current 

4 land withdrawal would expire. Therefore, the analysis focused primarily on range boundary distinctions 

5 among the action alternatives

6 4.11.1 Alternative 1

7 Under this alternative, the boundary and withdrawal area would remain unchanged from the current 

8 condition. The potential for health and safety issues would also remain unchanged from current 

9 conditions. Warning signs are posted in English and Spanish at 200-foot intervals along the range 

10 boundary; however, if a sign gets knocked down or is not observed, persons could unintentionally enter 

11 the range. Posting and maintaining the warning signs is difficult in some areas where the boundary is only 

12 accessible by foot, particularly along the southwest boundary, which may be more than 3 miles from the 

13 nearest access road. If warning signs are knocked down, the boundary may not be clearly marked by an 

14 observable sign until the sign is replaced during the next scheduled maintenance along the boundary.

15 As described in Section 3.11, elements that contribute to maintaining safety include established WDZs 

16 and SDZs (shown in Figure 3-3), air safety rules to keep non-participating aircraft out of range airspace, 

17 procedures to abort live-fire exercises when range trespassers are detected, and EOD operations to 

18 neutralize hazards from live fire training exercises.

19 Scoping identified concerns regarding the potential for off-range transport of UXO from surface water 

20 runoff. CMAGR Explosives Ordinance Disposal (EOD) staff have reportedly observed submunitions 

21 (individual components of ordnance – see Appendix D) along various washes within the installation 

22 boundary and still on operational range area (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2008). No off-range migration of UXO 

23 has been documented. The Marine Corps is committed to addressing all UXO safety concerns. Should 

24 UXO or other military debris be identified outside of the CMAGR, it would be addressed by the Military 

25 Munitions Response Program (MMRP).

26 4.11.2 Alternative 2

27 Under Alternative 2, the CMAGR boundary and withdrawal area would be realigned to follow prominent 

28 geographic features. The boundary would be realigned to be parallel to the Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, 

29 Mesquite Landfill Rail Spur, and the Niland-Blythe Road. Because these geographic features would better 

30 identify the CMAGR boundary, unintentional access would be expected to decrease, particularly once the 

31 signs used to mark the boundary are relocated along these features. Additionally, having the boundary 

32 follow a road facilitates maintenance of the signs because they are much more easily observed even when 

33 the roads are being used for access in situations other than for range maintenance.

34 DoN released land and BLM withdrawn land not renewed with Alternative 2 would be evaluated for 

35 potential hazards, such as unexploded ordnance, and the DoN would clean up the land before it would be 

36 considered for alternative land uses. While the land that would be excluded from the CMAGR with 

37 Alternative 2 is along the periphery of the range, and no targets are known to have been located in these 

38 areas, the land would still be carefully evaluated for the potential for errant projectiles, fragments, debris, 

39 and other munitions components. Clean-up and decontamination activities would be conducted by 

40 specially trained personnel, and appropriate health and safety measures would be observed to avoid injury 

41 or accidents. Planning efforts for future uses of the land would consider the level of decontamination 

42 required and the potential safety risk associated with the authorized future use (for example, if it would be 

43 safe to allow activities that might include subsurface earthwork).
Public Health and Safety

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-48 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 As noted with Alternative 1, the Marine Corps is committed to addressing all UXO safety concerns and

2 would evaluate and appropriately dispose of UXO or other range-related military debris, should any be 

3 identified outside of the CMAGR boundary.

4 4.11.3 Alternative 3

5 Under Alternative 3, the boundary separating the CMAGR from non-range lands would be realigned to 

6 incorporate the full Bradshaw Trail and the Niland-Blythe Road alignments (see Figure 2-1). No 

7 additional public land would be acquired to fully realign the boundary to these prominent geographic 

8 features, but certain parcels of DoN land would be released and certain parcels of BLM withdrawn land 

9 would not be renewed (see Figure 2-2). This would more clearly demarcate the northern range boundary 

10 compared to Alternative 1, but be less effective than Alternative 2. The challenges associated with posting 

11 and maintaining warning signs along the southwestern boundary would be the same as described for 

12 Alternative 1.

13 Alternative 3 would also transfer the BLM land within the CMAGR to the DoN and the DoN would 

14 manage the CMAGR land per the Sikes Act. While the range has historically been closed to public access 

15 and would remain closed to public access, the change in land jurisdiction potentially could help to 

16 reinforce that the CMAGR is a military reservation by eliminating the BLM administrative role because 

17 the public may be more familiar with BLM’s multiple use principles that are applied to most public land 

18 within its jurisdiction.

19 As noted with Alternative 1, the Marine Corps is committed to addressing all UXO safety concerns and

20 would evaluate and appropriately dispose of UXO or other range-related military debris, should any be 

21 identified outside of the CMAGR boundary.

22 4.11.4 Alternative 4

23 The withdrawal area would be changed to not renew DoN land north of the Bradshaw Trail, so that the 

24 boundary for Alternative 4 would partially align with the southern side of the trail. The effects would be 

25 the same as those described for Alternative 3. 

26 4.11.5 Alternative 5

27 Under Alternative 5, the land withdrawal for the CMAGR would be allowed to expire in October 2014, 

28 and the remaining DoN land would not provide an adequate restricted land-base to continue tactical 

29 aviation training. Extensive clean-up procedures would need to be established before the public would be 

30 allowed to access areas of the range, which could take many years in areas with the greatest potential to 

31 be contaminated with UXO or other hazardous substances.

32 As described in Section 2.6, a separate planning effort by the DoD, similar to a military closure/reuse plan 

33 and study, would be required to define the reallocation of military uses, the clean-up processes, and the 

34 potential future uses of the land, so the effects of Alternative 5 on public health and safety can only be 

35 identified in a general way for the current analysis. The DoN would be responsible for all necessary 

36 cleanup activities. Portions of the range that primarily served as WDZs and SDZs may have the greatest 

37 potential to be decontaminated effectively enough to be safe for certain uses such as dispersed recreation, 

38 utility corridors, or renewable energy projects. Planning efforts for future uses of the land would consider 

39 the level of decontamination required and the potential safety risk associated with any future use that may 

40 be authorized. Some areas of the range may be so contaminated by ordnance and the potential for UXO 

41 that public health and safety could not be assured for other uses. If the CMAGR land withdrawal were 

42 allowed to expire, no public access would be granted until a thorough clean-up of all hazards was 

43 completed by the DoN. 
Hazardous Materials and Waste

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-49 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE

2 As noted in Section 3.12, for the purpose of this discussion, the term ―hazardous substance‖ is used in this 

3 section to refer to either hazardous materials or hazardous waste if the specific distinction is not relevant.

4 This section presents an analysis of the potential impacts to the management of identified hazardous 

5 substances in the CMAGR study area that are expected to result from the alternatives. Elements of the 

6 alternatives that are most applicable to the analysis are whether the CMAGR is renewed for continued 

7 military use or is not renewed. The duration of the withdrawal (whether for 20 years, 25 years, or 

8 indefinite) would not influence how hazardous substances are generated, used or managed. Additionally, 

9 DoN would be responsible for the safe handling and management of hazardous substances used or 

10 generated in military operations regardless of which agency (DoN or BLM) has natural resource 

11 management responsibilities on the CMAGR. No changes in military operations are proposed, including 

12 in areas that could be affected by boundary realignment; however, DoN would have responsibilities for 

13 appropriate clean up of land not renewed and assume certain responsibilities for land added to the 

14 CMAGR boundary. Therefore, this section focused on the elements of the alternatives that could result in 

15 a different effect associated with hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.

16 The analysis of hazardous substance management with regard to the proposed alternatives was assessed 

17 by first considering the use and presence of live fire ordnance, UXO, and other hazardous substances on 

18 site. Using this existing condition as a baseline, a comparison was made between procedural changes that 

19 could potentially come about in the way hazardous materials are used, managed, and cleaned up. The 

20 major potential risks related to management of hazardous substances are those related to military training 

21 activities. Military protocols have been established to minimize those potential risks, and to react in a 

22 timely and safe manner should an incident occur. Other risks involve the general public at large, who 

23 might accidently or knowingly trespass beyond the marked boundary of the range and potentially be 

24 exposed to a hazardous substance.

25 Live air-to-ground munitions delivery is one of the primary training exercises employed at the CMAGR. 

26 Munitions are delivered to specific targets that are surrounded by a largely undeveloped weapons delivery 

27 containment area that covers most of the range. This serves as a safety and security buffer intended to 

28 ensure that hazardous substances and explosives are contained within the range boundaries.

29 4.12.1 Alternative 1

30 Under this alternative, the boundary, withdrawal area, and withdrawal duration would remain unchanged.

31 CMAGR management responsibilities would not change from the current condition. The quantities and 

32 locations of use and storage of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous wastes would also remain 

33 unchanged. Hazardous constituents from ordnance would be expected within the target impact areas. As 

34 noted in Section 3.12, there are fuel storage tanks at Camp Billy Machen; fuels, oils and lubricants may 

35 be used within the range to fuel and service helicopters and vehicles during training operations (USMC 

36 2002). Additionally, there are procedures to prevent the releases and to clean up hazardous substances, 

37 should a release occur, as discussed in Section 3.12. 

38 4.12.2 Alternative 2

39 Under Alternative 2, the CMAGR boundary and withdrawal area would be realigned to follow prominent 

40 geographic features. The new boundary alignment would incorporate the full Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, 

41 Mesquite Landfill Rail Spur, and the Niland-Blythe Road realignments. Because these geographic 

42 features would better identify the CMAGR boundary, unintentional access would be expected to decrease, 

43 particularly once the signs used to mark the boundary are relocated to parallel these features. 

44 Additionally, having the boundary follow a road facilitates maintenance of the signs because they are 

45 much more easily observed even when the roads are being used for access in situations other than for 

46 range maintenance.
Hazardous Materials and Waste

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-50 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 Under Alternative 2, the CMAGR boundary would be realigned to parallel the Bradshaw Trail, Niland2 Blythe Road, and UPRR, as shown in Figures 2-1 and 2-2.The quantities and locations of use and storage 

3 of hazardous substances and generation of hazardous wastes would remain unchanged. Most of these 

4 areas are within the interior portions of the range. Proposed changes in resource management 

5 responsibilities and in the duration of the land withdrawal would have no effect on the potential for 

6 incidents involving hazardous substances.

7 4.12.3 Alternative 3

8 Under Alternative 3, the CMAGR boundary line and withdrawal area would be changed to incorporate 

9 the full Bradshaw Trail and Niland-Blythe Road realignments and the authorization for CMAGR would 

10 not expire. Like Alternatives 1 and 2, no change in the quantities, locations, or management of hazardous 

11 substances would occur, and there would be no change in the potential for incidents involving hazardous 

12 substances.

13 4.12.4 Alternative 4

14 Alternative 4 would not renew DoN land north of the Bradshaw Trail, and DoN would assume

15 management responsibilities for the BLM land within the range. The DoN would be responsible for the 

16 safe handling and management of hazardous substances used or generated in military operations 

17 regardless of which agency (DoN or BLM) has jurisdiction of the land and natural resource management 

18 responsibilities. Like Alternative 3, released land would be disposed of through existing GSA authorities 

19 and DoN would be responsible for any post-range clean-up requirements. Therefore, Alternative 4 would 

20 have the same effects as Alternative 3 with regard to hazardous substances.

21 4.12.5 Alternative 5

22 Under Alternative 5, the land withdrawal for the CMAGR would be allowed to expire in October 2014.

23 The remaining DoN land would not provide an adequate restricted land-base to continue tactical aviation 

24 training. Extensive cleanup procedures would need to be established before the public would be allowed 

25 to access areas of the range, which could take many years in areas with the greatest potential to contain

26 UXO or other hazardous substances. A separate planning effort would be required to define the 

27 reallocation of military uses and the potential future uses of the land. The DoN would manage DoN land 

28 until a decision is made regarding the disposition of the land. As described in Section 2.6, the Secretary of 

29 Defense, acting through the DoN, would determine which lands that have been used for training and 

30 testing may contain UXO, munitions, or munitions constituents. A separate environmental analysis and 

31 other CERCLA-related studies would be required to determine the extent and significance of risks 

32 associated with the hazard and the appropriate remedial actions that would be needed. Funding for 

33 decontamination of CMAGR lands would be subject to Congressional authorization and project 

34 prioritization across USMC and DoN facilities.

35

36 4.13 SOCIOECONOMICS

37 The ROI for socioeconomic impacts is defined in terms of the current contribution of the CMAGR to the 

38 social and economic environment of a specific region, which includes both the immediate CMAGR area 

39 and the economic, demographic, and social conditions of communities affected by military installations 

40 that use the CMAGR to support a significant component of their training activities. As such, the 

41 geographic extent for socioeconomic impacts is at the landscape-scale and a greater region of 

42 socioeconomic analysis, which includes much of southwestern Arizona and southern California. The 

43 communities in the vicinity of the CMAGR and in the vicinity of the military installations that use the 

44 CMAGR are indicated in Section 3.13. 
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-51 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 This LEIS does not speculate as to how specific Marine Corps and DoN training requirements may be 

2 redefined or how units may be directed to other ranges, and, possibly, realigned to other home 

3 installations to compensate for the loss of the CMAGR. Economic modeling of changes in the 

4 contribution of the installations that use the CMAGR on their surrounding communities would be part of 

5 a separate environmental analysis. However, a brief discussion is provided below to illustrate the effect 

6 that a realignment of personnel could have on communities in the vicinity of installations should the ―No 

7 Action‖ alternative be chosen and the range no longer used for training purposes. Additionally, there is no 

8 economic activity within the CMAGR itself, nor does the CMAGR directly contribute economically to 

9 the communities within the vicinity of the range.

10 The majority of aircraft that are used in training at the range originate from squadrons based at MCAS 

11 Yuma in Arizona and MCAS Miramar in California. Available economic information about these two 

12 installations suggests that these installations have beneficial economic impacts on their local 

13 communities, as described below. 

14 MCAS Yuma has a direct beneficial economic impact on the City of Yuma and Yuma County. According 

15 to the Greater Yuma Economic Development Corporation, MCAS Yuma supports 80 percent of the 

16 Marine Corps’ air-to-ground aviation training. With 4,249 military personnel and 1,877 civilian 

17 employees, MCAS Yuma has a total of more than $485 million in annual expenditures within Yuma 

18 County. Table 4-4 below highlights a 2009 report of the annual expenditures of MCAS Yuma within 

19 Yuma County.

20 Table 4-4 2009 Annual Expenditures of MCAS Yuma on Yuma County

Military and Civilian Payroll/Contracts

Appropriated

Military $178,464,058

Civilian $34,292,855

Non-Appropriated

Marine Corps Community Services $8,740,533

Billeting Fund $470,822

Support Services

Support/Non-Contract $3,940,950

Commercial $38,562,636

Construction/Service $4,440,135

Other Government $67,637,965

Total Payroll/Contracts $336,549,954

Additional Expenditures

Purchases $9,009,257

Utilities $6,808,550

Educational Assistance $1,612,762

Medical $9,806,400

Funding Retirement Population $46,210,000

Miscellaneous $9,539,317

Total Direct Beneficial Economic Impact to the Local 

Community in 2009

$419,536,240

21 SOURCE: Greater Yuma Economic Development Corporation. 2009; excerpts from the 2009 

22 Command Chronology Report submitted by the City of Yuma Public Affairs Office.

23

24 The 2009 total direct beneficial economic impact to the local community of $419,536,240 represents the 

25 actual figures from wages, purchases, and other expenditures. This figure does not take into account 

26 indirect or induced economic impacts; for example, wages or household spending from MCAS Yuma 

27 employees support additional local economic activities, including the purchase of goods and services 

28 within the local community. This portion of spending, which is directed to local businesses and 
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-52 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 employees, is once-again recirculated within the local economy, producing additional economic activity.

2 This activity creates additional indirect and induced economic activity and jobs within the local 

3 community. 

4 Similar baseline data are not available for MCAS Miramar. However, according to an economic impact 

5 study conducted in 2011 by the San Diego Military Advisory Council, DoD direct spending in the San 

6 Diego region in 2009 equaled $30.5 billion and sustained approximately 354,627 jobs with total earnings 

7 of $16.3 billion (San Diego Military Advisory Council 2011). The report does not detail the contribution 

8 of MCAS Miramar specifically to the total DoD economic impact in the San Diego region. According to 

9 the report, MCAS Miramar employs 9,237 active duty military—Marines, 510 active duty military—

10 Navy, and 680 civilian employees. MCAS Miramar contributes to the overall DoD economic impact in 

11 the San Diego region.

12 Additionally, both MCAS Yuma and MCAS Miramar perform annual air shows that bring in visitors and 

13 additional expenditures. The MCAS Miramar Air Show draws up to 700,000 visitors annually. The 

14 weekend event brings an estimated $9.25 million to the San Diego region, resulting in a total economic 

15 impact of more than $17.27 million (San Diego Military Advisory Council 2011). An estimated 

16 37,000 visitors attended the 2009 MCAS Yuma Air Show (Greater Yuma Economic Development 

17 Corporation 2009).

18 The installations that use the CMAGR for training were analyzed qualitatively for socioeconomic 

19 impacts. However, there was not sufficient information pertaining to employment and installation 

20 expenditures to quantitatively measure the indirect and induced effect on local economies. The 

21 socioeconomic impact analysis considered impacts to existing communities, quality of life, employment, 

22 housing, fiscal resources, populations, schools, police, fire, utilities, or public services resulting from the 

23 renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal.

24 As analyzed below, there are no direct or indirect impacts to existing communities, employment, housing, 

25 fiscal resources, populations, schools, police, fire, utilities, or public services resulting from the renewal 

26 of the CMAGR land withdrawal. There are no indirect effects to communities within the ROI that would 

27 induce growth, change land use patterns, adversely affect quality of life, or increase population and 

28 growth rates. Renewal of the range under Alternatives 1 through 4 would continue the direct, indirect, and 

29 induced beneficial economic impacts, as previously indicated. This LEIS does not speculate as to how the 

30 CMAGR might be used if Alternative 5 were selected, because no preliminary plans or concepts have 

31 been developed related to redistributing the training. Therefore, there is no socioeconomic analysis 

32 associated with uses of the range other than for the current training purposes.

33 Alternatives 1 through 4 would allow for continued air combat training and other related defense purposes 

34 for at least the duration of the new withdrawal. Alternative 5 would end the use of the CMAGR as a 

35 military aviation training range on 31 October 2014, when the current withdrawal of public lands expires. 

36 Alternatives 1 through 5 are evaluated below based on boundary alignment and withdrawal area, and 

37 duration of range renewal. Alternatives 1 through 4 are not evaluated for management of the CMAGR or 

38 management of the land released from CMAGR, as management options would not impact 

39 socioeconomic resources. Under Alternative 5, BLM would manage public lands and potentially DoN 

40 disposed lands. The BLM would manage non-military use of these lands according to the multiple-uses 

41 provisions of FLPMA. Therefore, management of the CMAGR is evaluated for the no-action alternative. 

42 Range renewal elements are discussed in Chapter 2 and summarized in Table 2-1.

43 4.13.1 Alternative 1

44 No adverse socioeconomic impacts to existing communities, employment, housing, fiscal resources, 

45 populations, schools, police, fire, utilities, or public services are expected with renewal of the land 
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-53 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 withdrawal, as there would be no expected changes to the operation and use of the CMAGR. Ongoing 

2 beneficial effects would continue. The continued use of the CMAGR would not disrupt an existing 

3 community, nor would it adversely affect the quality of life or socioeconomic resources of any 

4 community within the ROI. Military installations with missions supported by the CMAGR would 

5 continue to operate at current levels for an additional 20 years, and would continue to contribute to the 

6 beneficial socioeconomic effects within the affected communities and counties.

7 4.13.2 Alternative 2

8 This alternative incorporates the full Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, and Niland-Blythe Road realignments. It is 

9 anticipated that the military installations with missions supported by the CMAGR would continue to 

10 operate in a similar capacity, supporting approximately the current levels of training operations for 25 

11 years; therefore, no adverse socioeconomic impacts to existing communities, employment, housing, fiscal 

12 resources, populations, schools, police, fire, utilities, or public services are expected. The location of 

13 training operations within the CMAGR would remain unchanged; therefore, military training operations 

14 would not encroach beyond the current boundary alignment closer to an established community as a result 

15 of the Alternative 2 realignment. The continued use of the CMAGR and the proposed boundary changes 

16 would not disrupt an existing community, nor would it adversely affect the quality of life or 

17 socioeconomic resources of any community within the ROI. Military installations with missions 

18 supported by the CMAGR would be expected to continue to operate at current levels for at least the 

19 25-year duration of the CMAGR land withdrawal renewal, and would continue to contribute to the 

20 beneficial socioeconomic effects within the affected communities and counties. The Bradshaw Trail, 

21 UPRR, and Niland-Blythe Road would remain outside and adjacent to the CMAGR boundary, and 

22 therefore no effect is anticipated on these resources or the users of these travel corridors. 

23 4.13.3 Alternative 3

24 Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to those described under Alternative 2, i.e., 

25 the CMAGR would continue to contribute to the socioeconomic beneficial impacts within the affected 

26 communities and counties and no adverse socioeconomic impacts to existing communities, employment, 

27 housing, fiscal resources, populations, schools, police, fire, utilities, or public services are expected. The 

28 boundary and withdrawal area would be changed to incorporate the full Bradshaw Trail and Niland29 Blythe Road realignments, as shown in Figure 2-1. The location of training operations within the 

30 CMAGR would not change; therefore, military training operations would not encroach beyond the current 

31 boundary alignment closer to an established community as a result of the Alternative 3 realignment. 

32 Alternative 3 would not affect the socioeconomic conditions within the ROI, as there would be no 

33 expected changes to the operation and use of the CMAGR. The continued use of the CMAGR would not 

34 disrupt an existing community, nor would it adversely affect the quality of life or socioeconomic 

35 resources of any community within the ROI.

36 Alternative 3 would authorize use of the CMAGR indefinitely by transferring the public land to the DoN. 

37 It is anticipated that military installations with missions supported by the CMAGR would continue to 

38 operate indefinitely in a similar capacity as current conditions, and would continue to contribute to the 

39 socioeconomic benefits within the affected communities and counties.

40 4.13.4 Alternative 4

41 Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative 4 would be similar to those described above under 

42 Alternatives 2 and 3; that is, the CMAGR would continue to contribute to the beneficial socioeconomic 

43 effects within the affected communities and counties and no adverse socioeconomic impacts to existing 

44 communities, employment, housing, fiscal resources, populations, schools, police, fire, utilities, or public 

45 services are expected. The boundary and withdrawal area would be changed to incorporate the partial 

46 Bradshaw Trail realignment. Alternative 4 would authorize use of the CMAGR for an additional 25 years. 
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-54 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 As with Alternative 3, the location of training operations within the CMAGR would not change as a result 

2 of Alternative 4; therefore, military training operations would not encroach beyond the current boundary 

3 alignment closer to an established community as a result of the Alternative 4 realignment. Alternative 4 

4 would not affect the socioeconomic conditions within the ROI, as there would be no expected changes to 

5 the operation and use of the CMAGR. The continued use of the CMAGR would not disrupt an existing 

6 community, nor would it adversely affect the quality of life or socioeconomic resources of any 

7 community within the ROI. It is anticipated that the military installations with missions supported by the 

8 CMAGR would continue to operate in a similar capacity, supporting approximately the current levels of 

9 training operations for the 25-year duration of the land withdrawal. This would continue to contribute to 

10 the beneficial socioeconomic effects within the affected communities and counties. 

11 4.13.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)

12 No preliminary plans or concepts have been developed related to closure of the CMAGR and 

13 redistribution of training. Therefore, this LEIS does not speculate as to how specific Marine Corps and 

14 DoN training requirements may be redefined or how units may be directed to other ranges, and, possibly, 

15 realigned to other home installations to compensate for the loss of the CMAGR. However, it is reasonable 

16 to assume that there would be some negative economic impacts to those communities near the 

17 installations that use the CMAGR for training should units relocate to other home installations. Non18 renewal of the CMAGR could result in military mission changes at MCAS Miramar, MCAS Yuma, 

19 MCAS Camp Pendleton, NAS North Island, and Luke AFB. Currently, training at the CMAGR is mostly 

20 performed by the MCAS Yuma and MCAS Miramar installations. Therefore, the impact to local 

21 economies may be higher in those communities located in the vicinity of MCAS Yuma and MCAS 

22 Miramar.

23 As indicated in the introduction of Section 4.13, the presence of military installations, defense contractors, 

24 military personnel, and civilian employees has significant economic influence in the region of the 

25 installations that use the CMAGR for training. Communities supporting the CMAGR in the ROI could all 

26 be affected to some degree if the CMAGR were not renewed. Substantial changes in the overall 

27 installation mission capabilities that would directly result in the loss of employment would most likely 

28 occur at MCAS Yuma and MCAS Miramar. Adverse socioeconomic impacts would be greatest in Yuma 

29 County near MCAS Yuma, most likely in the City of Yuma, and in San Diego County near MCAS 

30 Miramar, in particular El Cajon, Poway, San Diego City, and Santee. It is less likely that the communities 

31 in the vicinity of the CMAGR would experience adverse economic impacts from non-renewal, as there is 

32 no economic activity within the CMAGR or economic activity related to the CMAGR within the vicinity 

33 of the range.

34 MCAS Yuma contributed $419,536,240 in direct economic activity to the local community in 2009.

35 MCAS Miramar contributed a portion of the $30.5 billion in economic impact on the entire San Diego 

36 region from the DoD direct spending in the San Diego region in 2009. The no-action alternative could 

37 result in negative economic impacts to the communities near MCAS Yuma and MCAS Miramar 

38 installations, should the non-renewal of the CMAGR result in relocation of military personnel, and a 

39 subsequent reduction in direct economic activity to local communities.

40 Alternative 5 would result in the closure and decommissioning of the CMAGR and the likely 

41 decontamination and eventual non-military reuse of portions of the range. Management of public lands 

42 under Alternative 5 could result in use of the range for non-military land uses managed by BLM that may 

43 generate local economic activity. BLM manages land according to multiple uses (designated under 

44 FLPMA) such as grazing, development, mining, and OHV use. Not all non-military land uses have 

45 economic impacts, but possible economic benefits to communities nearby the CMAGR as a result of 

46 project/development construction related expenditures could have direct, indirect, and induced beneficial 
Socioeconomics

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-55 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 impacts on local economies. However, negative economic effects would likely be experienced at the air 

2 stations or other installations where aircraft, aircrews, or other military personnel that train at the range 

3 are based. As discussed previously, closure of the CMAGR would precipitate an urgent need to either 

4 restore its training capabilities and capacities elsewhere within the region or to find replacement training 

5 opportunities outside of the region. Socioeconomic impacts from such changes would be evaluated 

6 through a public planning process and additional NEPA analysis.

7

8 4.14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

9 As mentioned in Section 3.14.2 of this document, Presidential EO 12898, ―Federal Actions to Address 

10 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,‖ is intended to ensure that 

11 federal departments and agencies identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

12 adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

13 populations and low-income populations.

14 Evaluating whether a proposed action has the potential to have disproportionately high and adverse 

15 impacts on minority and/or low-income populations typically involves

16 Identifying any minority or low income communities within an appropriate unit of geographic 

17 analysis 

18 Identifying any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts from the 

19 proposed action, and, if there are any such impacts 

20 Examining the spatial distribution of any minority or low-income communities to determine if 

21 they would be disproportionately affected by these impacts

22 Guidelines provided by the EPA and the CEQ indicate that a minority community may be defined as one

23 where either the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or the minority population 

24 percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the 

25 general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis (CEQ 1997; EPA 1998). The same 

26 guideline is used here to evaluate environmental justice impacts on low-income populations.

27 The affected area, although not defined by the EPA guidance, should be interpreted as that area that 

28 would or may be affected by the proposed action. The unit of geographic analysis for determining 

29 environmental justice impacts is the ROI as defined in Section 3.14, which includes both the immediate 

30 CMAGR area and the communities affected by military installations that use the CMAGR to support a 

31 significant component of their training activities. As such, the geographic extent to evaluate 

32 environmental justice impacts is at the same landscape- and regional-scale of the socioeconomic analysis, 

33 which includes much of southwestern Arizona and southern California. 

34 Low-Income Populations 

35 As indicated in Table 3-24 the Gila River Reservation in Arizona exceeds the EPA guideline of 

36 50 percent of persons living below the poverty line. The percentage of persons living below the poverty 

37 line in the communities in Riverside, Imperial, and San Diego counties in California, range from 

38 3.4 percent to 28.86 percent. The percentage of persons living below the poverty line in the communities 

39 in Yuma and Maricopa counties in Arizona, range from 8.74 percent to 19.23 percent. Within the Native 

40 American Reservations there are 10.51 percent to 52.1 percent of persons living below the poverty line. 

41 The Torres-Martinez Reservation in California represents the second highest percentage (42.14) of 

42 persons living below the poverty line. This community does not exceed the EPA guidance of 50 percent 
Environmental Justice

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-56 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 or greater; however, it represents a percentage of persons living below the poverty line that is 

2 meaningfully greater than the percentage of persons living below the poverty line within the ROI.

3 Minority Populations

4 Table 3-25 shows the minority populations within the communities in the ROI. As indicated in Table 3-25 

5 and Section 3.14.3, the minority population in Riverside, Imperial, and San Diego counties in California, 

6 ranges from 2.96 percent to 97.39 percent minority. The communities in Yuma and Maricopa counties in 

7 Arizona range from 14.03 percent to 45.67 percent minority. The Native American Reservations range 

8 from 4.59 percent to 96.3 percent minority.

9 The following communities in the vicinity of the CMAGR have minority populations that exceed the EPA 

10 threshold: Coachella (97.39 percent), Indio (75.39 percent), Brawley (74.74 percent), El Centro 

11 (74.58 percent), Calipatria (68.21), Niland (55.29 percent), Cabazon Reservation (90.69 percent), 

12 Cahuilla Reservation (79.87 percent), Morongo Reservation (78.09 percent), and Torres-Martinez 

Reservation (92.16 percent).113 The following communities in the vicinity of the installations that use the 

14 CMAGR have minority populations that exceed the EPA threshold: Fort Yuma Reservation 

15 (72.64 percent), Cocopah Reservation (53.76 percent), and Gila River Reservation (96.3 percent). All of 

16 these communities exceed the EPA threshold of 50 percent minority population and represent potential 

17 communities of concern for environmental justice impacts. 

18 Alternatives

19 Alternatives 1 through 4 would allow for continued air combat training and other related defense 

20 purposes. Alternative 5 would end the use of the CMAGR as a military aviation training range on 

21 31 October 2014, when the current withdrawal of public lands expires. Alternatives 1 through 5 are 

22 evaluated below based on boundary alignment and withdrawal area, and duration of range renewal. 

23 Assignment options for management of the CMAGR or management of the land released from CMAGR 

24 would not impact a community of concern for environmental justice impacts; therefore, these components 

25 of alternatives for renewing the CMAGR are not discussed below. These range renewal elements are 

26 discussed in Chapter 2 and summarized in Table 2-1.

27 The renewal of the CMAGR is not anticipated to cause disproportionately high and adverse human or 

28 environmental effects on low-income or minority communities within the ROI. The communities of 

29 concern in the vicinity of the CMAGR and in the vicinity of installations that use the CMAGR would not 

30 experience environmental justice impacts because renewal of the range would not cause new direct or 

31 indirect environmental or human health impacts. Therefore, the renewal of the CMAGR would not result 

32 in adverse impacts to the communities of potential concern.

 

1

Some of the communities listed on Table 3-25 have a percentage of racial minority population and a percentage of 

Hispanic/Latino origin population. This is done because, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, White is considered 

non-Hispanic white only. The federal government considers race and Hispanic/Latino origin (ethnicity) to be two 

separate and distinct concepts. People identified as Hispanic or Latino origin may be of any race. The data 

summarized in Table 3-25 present minority population as individuals that answered a race category other than 

―white.‖ The data summarized in the right column of Table 3-25 present Hispanic/Latino as a separate category to 

avoid double counting. 

The percentage in parenthesis above represents the higher of the two percentages. 
Environmental Justice

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-57 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 4.14.1 Alternative 1

2 The boundary and withdrawal area would remain unchanged from current condition. Renewal of the 

3 CMAGR for an additional 20 years would not disproportionately affect a potential community of concern 

4 for environmental justice. Therefore, there are no significant impacts that may degrade a low-income or 

5 minority neighborhood and affect the communities of concern.

6 4.14.2 Alternative 2

7 This alternative incorporates the full Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, and Niland-Blythe Road realignments. It is 

8 anticipated that military installations with missions supported by the CMAGR would continue to operate 

9 in a similar capacity, supporting approximately the current levels for 25 years. The location of training 

10 operations would remain unchanged within the CMAGR; therefore, military training operations would 

11 not encroach beyond the current boundary alignment. The communities of potential concern for 

12 environmental justice impacts in the vicinity of the CMAGR and in the vicinity of the installations that 

13 use the CMAGR for training would not experience a disproportionate effect, because renewal of the range 

14 is not anticipated to cause new direct or indirect environmental or human health impacts. Renewal of the 

15 CMAGR for an additional 25 years and boundary realignment would not disproportionately affect a low16 income or minority neighborhood. 

17 4.14.3 Alternative 3

18 Environmental justice impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to those described under 

19 Alternative 2. The boundary and withdrawal area would be changed to incorporate the full Bradshaw 

20 Trail and Niland-Blythe Road realignments. Alternative 3 would authorize use of the CMAGR 

21 indefinitely. The location of training operations within the CMAGR would not change as a result of 

22 Alternative 3. Renewal of the CMAGR indefinitely and boundary realignment would not 

23 disproportionately affect a low-income or minority neighborhood, because renewal of the range is not 

24 anticipated to cause new direct or indirect environmental or human health impacts.

25 4.14.4 Alternative 4

26 Environmental justice impacts under Alternative 4 would be similar to those described under 

27 Alternatives 2 and 3. The boundary and withdrawal area would be changed to incorporate the partial 

28 Bradshaw Trail realignment. Alternative 4 would authorize use of the CMAGR for an additional 25 years. 

29 As with Alternative 1, 2, and 3, the location of training operations within the CMAGR would not change 

30 as a result of Alternative 4. Renewal of the CMAGR for an additional 25 years and boundary realignment 

31 would not disproportionately affect a low-income or minority neighborhood because renewal of the range 

32 is not anticipated to cause new direct or indirect environmental or human health impacts.

33 4.14.5 Alternative 5 (No Action)

34 This LEIS does not speculate as to how specific Marine Corps and DoN training requirements may be 

35 redefined or how units may be directed to other ranges, and, possibly, realigned to other home 

36 installations to compensate for the loss of the CMAGR. However, it is reasonable to assume that there 

37 would be some negative economic impacts on those communities nearest the installations that use the 

38 CMAGR for training, should units relocate to other home installations. Non-renewal of the CMAGR 

39 could result in military mission changes at MCAS Yuma, MCAS Miramar, MCAS Camp Pendleton, 

40 Luke AFB, and NAS North Island. Currently, training at the CMAGR is mostly performed by squadrons 

41 based at the MCAS Yuma and MCAS Miramar installations. Therefore, the impact to local economies 

42 may be higher in those communities located in the vicinity of MCAS Yuma and MCAS Miramar.
Environmental Justice

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-58 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 As indicated in Tables 3-24 and 3-25, there are no communities of concern for low-income or minority 

2 populations in the communities near MCAS Miramar. The Fort Yuma Reservation represents a 

3 community of concern for environmental justice (72.64 percent minority population) that could 

4 experience negative economic impacts if MCAS Yuma redefines training requirements or realigns 

5 military personnel to another installation, though they may not be disproportionate. It is not anticipated 

6 that the Gila River Reservation near Luke AFB would experience the same level of effect as the Fort 

7 Yuma Reservation, because Luke AFB personnel do not use the CMAGR as extensively. 

8 As discussed previously, closure of the CMAGR would precipitate an urgent need to either restore its 

9 training capabilities and capacities elsewhere within the region or to find replacement training 

10 opportunities outside of the region. Socio-economic impacts from such changes would be evaluated 

11 through a public planning process and additional NEPA analysis.

12

13 4.15 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

14 Unavoidable adverse impacts (also referred to as residual impacts) are the effects that would remain after 

15 mitigation measures have been applied. In general, unavoidable adverse impacts occur because there is no 

16 reasonable or effective mitigation to reduce the impact or the mitigation is not expected to be effective 

17 enough to reduce the level of impact to a low or negligible level. This section describes the unavoidable 

18 adverse impacts associated with any of the alternatives to renew the CMAGR. Alternative 5 was 

19 evaluated only for range and airspace operations; all other resource analysis of Alternative 5 would be 

20 speculative as to unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Only the alternatives that could cause 

21 unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are discussed. Range and airspace operations, non-military 

22 land use, geological resources, biological resources, and cultural resources, have potential to be 

23 unavoidably adversely impacted by certain alternatives. Hazardous materials and waste could 

24 unavoidably adversely impact the environment as discussed below. Water resources, visual resources, and 

25 socioeconomic resources have no adverse effects and are excluded from this discussion. Air quality, 

26 noise, public health and safety, and environmental justice impacts are avoidable, and therefore, are not 

27 discussed below.

28 4.15.1 Impacts of Proposed Alternatives

29 Range and Airspace Operations

30 Under Alternative 5 the CMAGR would be closed, decommissioned, and slated for non-military use. 

31 Military training capabilities, capacities, and operations at the CMAGR would be lost. Recreating 

32 CMAGR training capabilities within the BSTRC, at BMGR East, or the MCAGCC would likely diminish 

33 some existing capabilities at the other ranges, cause training schedule conflicts, and reduce the aggregate 

34 capabilities and capacities of these range complexes. Loss of the CMAGR would also diminish the 

35 multidimensional and multi-tiered training system that has been developed at the integrated system of 

36 ranges, range complexes, and military bases in southern California and Arizona over decades for 

37 preparing MAGTFs. NSWG training would also have to be relocated. New routing opportunities may be 

38 created for civil aviation operations in special use airspace areas associated with closure of the CMAGR.

39 Non-Military Land Use

40 As long as the CMAGR remains withdrawn in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 as a military 

41 reservation, land uses that are incompatible with military operations would not be allowed on the 

42 CMAGR. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-59 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 Geological Resources

2 Renewal of the range in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4, would result in continued effects on 

3 soils by military surface use primarily within the core and secondary weapons impact areas, roads, and 

4 other areas with moderate to complete surface disturbance. These levels of disturbance from military use 

5 are limited to about 5 percent of the CMAGR and would primarily consist of physical disturbance of the 

6 near-surface soil layers that could result in loss of soil structure, increased soil compaction, destruction of 

7 physical or biological crusts, loss of vegetative cover, and/or accelerated wind and water erosion. Fuel 

8 spills, explosive residues, and exploded and unexploded ordnance debris could result in soil 

9 contamination. Indirect effects on soils, which would also primarily occur in areas of moderate to 

10 complete military surface use, include reduced surface water infiltration with an associated increase in 

11 surface water runoff, soil productivity decline resulting in poor plant growth or seed germination, and soil 

12 contamination migration. 

13 For the duration of the land withdrawal, in accordance with any of the action alternatives, extraction of 

14 mineral and energy resources would continue to be precluded from CMAGR lands. While this is an 

15 unavoidable effect associated with renewal of the land withdrawal, the effect is not irretrievable because

16 these resources would remain preserved for future development and use. However because of the 

17 intensive use of munitions, geological resource development may potentially be precluded even after 

18 expiration of the land withdrawal in some locations for safety reasons. 

19 Biological Resources

20 Renewal of the range in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4,, would result in a continuation of the 

21 impacts to biological resources. Only a small proportion of the range supports surface uses that cause or 

22 may cause moderate to complete levels of physical disturbance to the ground surface, vegetative 

23 communities, and surface drainages. Vegetation communities have been affected by military operations in 

24 the past, especially within the highly disturbed areas associated with the core weapons impact areas (less 

25 than 0.5 percent of the CMAGR) where vegetative communities are eliminated. Physical disturbance of 

26 the ground surface generally decreases sharply with distance from individual targets and natural processes 

27 shaping ground/soil surfaces, surface drainages, and vegetative communities become increasingly 

28 predominant. Vegetation communities within the CMAGR have been altered, but continually re-vegetate 

29 and persist to provide productive biological communities. This process would continue if the range is 

30 renewed from ordnance impacts on targets, maintenance of existing roads and target areas, and damage to 

31 vegetation from off-road use of vehicles, primarily during ground forces training activities. 

32 Continued military operations that could affect washes include off-road vehicle use, ordnance explosions, 

33 or other ground disturbance. Ground disturbance related to military activities could continue to contribute 

34 to erosion to the extent that military operations, such as driving within and across washes, occur. Impacts 

35 from ordnance at target areas would continue to prevent the re-establishment of vegetation.

36 Direct impacts to wildlife involve mortality, injury, or disturbance from human activities. Delivery of 

37 inert or high explosive ordnance in target areas as well as vehicle use can result in mortality or injury to 

38 wildlife. Noise from aircraft overflights can also disturb wildlife. None of these impacts are expected to 

39 jeopardize the continued existence of wildlife. 

40 Cultural Resources

41 Renewal of the range, in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4, could result in a continuation of 

42 impacts through continued military use of the CMAGR. As the majority of cultural resources documented 

43 within the CMAGR represent archaeological sites that may be recommended or determined eligible based 

44 on their potential to yield information (Criterion D), direct impacts to such sites may occur as a result of 

45 direct ground-disturbing and ordnance delivery activities. Direct disturbances to cultural resources, 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-60 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 particularly archaeological sites, are more likely to occur at areas associated with target arrays. Such 

2 direct disturbance may affect the integrity of cultural resources.

3 Hazardous Materials and Waste

4 Renewal of the range, in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4, would result in a continuation of the 

5 impacts from hazardous constituents from ordnance within and adjacent to target arrays, including UXO. 

6 Other types of potentially hazardous materials used at the CMAGR include fuel stored at Camp Billy 

7 Machen; petroleum, oils and lubricants used within the range to fuel and service helicopters and vehicles 

8 during training operations; and ammunition stored on the range. Military protocols and procedures have 

9 been established to minimize potential risks associated with these materials, and to react in a timely and 

10 safe manner should an incident result in release of a hazardous substance. 

11

12 4.16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

13 A commitment of resources is irreversible when the effects of proposed activities result in limiting the 

14 future options for resource development or management. An irretrievable commitment refers to the lost 

15 production or use of a resource that would cause the resource to be unavailable for use by future 

16 generations. For example, the extraction of a nonrenewable mineral resource means it would not be 

17 available for use by a future generation. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 propose renewal of the CMAGR to 

18 support continued military training operations. Implementation of an action alternative would require the 

19 continuing commitment of resources in support of military training. Some of these resources would be 

20 irreversibly and irretrievably committed to these actions at least for the life of the range renewal. For 

21 some resources the commitment would extend beyond the life of the range. 

22 With Alternative 5, the current withdrawal of BLM land in the CMAGR would expire at the end of 

23 October 2014, the BLM land would no longer be available for military purposes, and the remaining DoN 

24 land would not provide an adequate restricted land-base to continue tactical aviation training. At this time, 

25 the nature and extent of remediation or response actions is highly speculative, as is the future potential use 

26 for the land. If the land were remediated to allow for alternative land uses, it may be anticipated that uses 

27 may be similar to those already occurring in the vicinity, such as renewable energy generation, mining, 

28 recreation, or wilderness designation; these alternative uses could also result in irreversible and 

29 irretrievable commitments of resources. However, the extent to which non-renewal of the CMAGR would 

30 lead to such resource commitments is not addressed in this LEIS because it would be speculative to 

31 assume what non-military land uses may occur or which lands would be affected. In addition, such future 

32 uses would be subject to separate environmental analysis of irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

33 resources. 

34 Water resources and visual resources are not irreversible or irretrievable. Air quality, noise, public health 

35 and safety, and environmental justice are not resources and do not contribute to the irreversible and 

36 irretrievable commitment of any resources. These elements of the environment are not discussed below.

37 Range and Airspace Operations

38 Renewal of the CMAGR would provide continuing justification for retaining restricted areas R 2507N, 

39 R 2507S, and R 2507E for the life of the range renewal. These areas directly overlie more than 85 percent 

40 of the range land area and serve to contain and segregate live-fire training and other military activities. 

41 The CFAs provide the controlled environment necessary to allow Navy SEALs, or other ground troops 

42 the ability to execute essential training. Twenty-five types of air combat training activities currently occur 

43 on a regular basis at the CMAGR, adjacent MOAs and ATCAAs, and/or the El Centro Ranges to provide 

44 aircrews with the repertoire of combat skills that they need. Designation of these airspaces and areas as 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-61 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 restricted for military use would have to be irreversible and irretrievable for the life of the range, if the 

2 CMAGR is to continue to support live-fire training with aviation weapons. Civil aviation access to 

3 airspace in the CMAGR region and civil flight operations would continue to be excluded from the 

4 CMAGR.

5 Non-military Land Use

6 Renewal of the CMAGR would constitute an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the range area 

7 to support various military land uses for at least the life of the range. The proposed renewal would 

8 continue the statutory closure of the range lands for all forms of appropriative land use, including grazing, 

9 development, mining, recreational use, and other public uses allowed by FLPMA, for the period of the 

10 land withdrawal. The range would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed to closed public access 

11 during the life of the range. These access limitations and closures are necessary to protect public safety 

12 and prevent interference with military operations.

13 Termination of the range land withdrawal would result in the ending of the reservation of the range lands 

14 for military purposes, and its closure to appropriative land uses to support those purposes. While military 

15 operations would be discontinued, a separate planning effort by the DoD, similar to a military 

16 closure/reuse plan and study, would be required to define the reallocation of military uses, the clean-up 

17 processes, and the potential future uses of the land. Assuming range lands are rendered safe for other 

18 purposes, certain lands within the range may be developed for uses compatible with the level of 

19 decontamination. New opportunities could potentially be developed for the expansion of existing utility 

20 corridors, renewable energy rights of way, transportation projects, or other possible uses. Former target 

21 areas, however, may be so burdened by UXO or munitions constituents that direct reuse of these locations 

22 would not be possible for safety reasons. These types of sites may be irretrievably lost for reuse after the 

23 life of the CMAGR. 

24 Geological Resources

25 Contamination from UXO could render an area unsafe for future mining or other land uses, which could 

26 result in irreversible and irretrievable commitment of mineral resources even beyond the military use of 

27 the range. This potential already exists; however, the renewal of the range could cause additional 

28 unexploded munitions to accumulate and possibly exacerbate the effect.

29 Biological Resources

30 The proposed action could cause irretrievable impacts to biological resources including loss of vegetation, 

31 degradation of wildlife habitat, and mortality or disturbance to wildlife. Loss of vegetation and 

32 degradation of wildlife habitat are considered irretrievable because desert vegetation can be particularly 

33 slow to recover, and the proposed action does not include provisions for restoration or mitigation of 

34 damaged habitat. However, loss of vegetation and habitat is primarily concentrated in the core and 

35 secondary weapons impact areas, and other areas where military use has resulted in moderate to complete 

36 disturbance; these areas represents about 5 percent of CMAGR.

37 Impacts related to the mortality, injury, or disturbance of individual plants and animals are considered 

38 irretrievable; however, range renewal is not expected to cause irretrievable damage to the long-term 

39 health of any species as a whole at CMAGR. Wildlife populations at CMAGR would continue to persist 

40 at reduced densities due to the habitat loss and disturbance related to military training. Military training 

41 has been ongoing at CMAGR before this range renewal; therefore wildlife density reductions represent a 

42 reduction from pre-military use rather than existing conditions at CMAGR. The Biological Opinion 

43 covering take of desert tortoises due to military training at CMAGR includes mitigation; however, these 

44 mitigation measures do not necessarily prevent take, and the expected take represents an irretrievable 

45 impact.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-62 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

1 Habitat loss due to the proposed action is considered an irreversible impact because the proposed action 

2 would require irreversible commitment of habitat at CMAGR for the purpose of military training for the 

3 life of the renewal. Portions of CMAGR may simultaneously function as wildlife habitat and military 

4 training area; however, areas adjacent to target arrays would preclude use as wildlife habitat.

5 Cultural Resources

6 Impacts to cultural resources ordinarily are thought of as irretrievable when physical disturbance occurs. 

7 Some such resources within the CMAGR or within lands proposed for incorporation into the CMAGR 

8 could be subject to damage from military on-the-ground activities or air-to-surface ordnance delivery, 

9 which may cause physical disturbance to cultural resources resulting in an irreversible and irretrievable 

10 loss of the resource; such disturbance would occur for the life of the CMAGR. However, extensive to 

11 complete disturbance of ground surface is mostly anticipated to occur at or near targets. Core and 

12 secondary weapons impact areas and other areas with moderate to complete military surface disturbance 

13 represent about 5 percent of CMAGR. Outside of these heavily disturbed areas , the effect of military 

14 ordnance delivery generally decreases sharply with increasing distance from targets. While some historic 

15 or archaeological resources may be damaged from munitions impact, ground troop training, or EOD 

16 clearance, an even greater amount of damage could potentially result with the no-action alternative, due to 

17 deactivation, post-range planning, and clean-up activities. If decontamination activities would be more 

18 extensive than current use and clearance practices, the potential for damage to cultural resources could be 

19 even greater with the no-action alternative.

20 Hazardous Materials and Waste

21 Continued use and presence of live fire ordnance and UXO potentially could irreversibly and irretrievably 

22 contaminate some portions of target impact areas , leaving these areas unsuitable for non-military land 

23 uses. 

24 Should the range not be renewed, extensive cleanup procedures would need to be established before the 

25 public would be allowed to access areas of the range, which could take many years in areas with the 

26 greatest potential to be contaminated with UXO or other hazardous materials. A separate planning effort 

27 by the DoD, similar to a military closure/reuse plan and study, would be required to define the 

28 reallocation of military uses, the clean-up processes, and the potential future uses of the land. Until the 

29 land could be rendered safe, it would be irretrievably unavailable for other uses. 

30 Socioeconomics

31 The CMAGR would be irreversibly and irretrievably unavailable for all forms of appropriative land use 

32 or other types of economic development during the life of the range withdrawal. However, renewal of the 

33 range in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 would continue to provide economic benefits to the 

34 communities in the vicinity of the installations that use the CMAGR for training. The range would 

35 become potentially available for non-military economic uses following the termination of the range.

36
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-1 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 5. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

2 5.1 INTRODUCTION

3 Cumulative effects are those additive or interactive effects that would result from the incremental impact 

4 of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

5 regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 

6 § 1508.7). Interactive effects may be either countervailing—where the net cumulative effect is less than 

7 the sum of the individual effects—or synergistic—where the net cumulative effect is greater than the sum 

8 of the individual effects. The Council on Environmental Quality handbook for considering cumulative 

9 effects advises that focusing the cumulative effects analysis on meaningful cumulative impact issues, 

10 rather than on all conceivable impact relationships, is critical to the success of this analysis to support 

11 better decisions about the proposed action and alternatives (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). The 

12 handbook also advises that cumulative effects need to be analyzed in terms of the specific resources, 

13 ecosystem, and human community that may be affected by the proposed action or alternatives. The 

14 analysis must consider how cumulative effects may be manifested over short and long time frames and 

15 how they may cause meaningful impacts that extend over areas that may exceed political or administra16 tive boundaries. Each affected resource, ecosystem, and human community must be analyzed in terms of 

17 its own capacity to accommodate additional effects, based on its own time and space parameters.

18 Section 5.2 provides the assessments of the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

19 futures actions on affected resources, ecosystems, and human communities in the CMAGR region. 

20 Section 5.3 provides the assessments of the cumulative effects of each alternative on individual resources 

21 when considered together with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable futures 

22 actions. As indicated in Section 4.14, no adverse environmental justice impacts would be likely to occur 

23 as a result of Alternative 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5; consequently, no discussion of cumulative effects on 

24 environmental justice is included in Section 5.3. Assessments are provided for each of the other 

25 individual resource categories addressed in Chapter 4.0.

26 Cumulative effects analysis normally encompasses geographic boundaries beyond the immediate area of 

27 the proposed action, and a timeframe including past actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

28 The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis varies by resource area. For example, the 

29 geographic scope of cumulative impacts on resources such as soils and vegetation is localized, whereas 

30 the geographic scope of air quality is the region. To support the cumulative effects analysis, the Marine 

31 Corps reviewed public documents to identify present and future military actions, other federal actions, 

32 and non-federal actions. The BLM, a Cooperating Agency on this LEIS, also provided information on 

33 potential renewable energy projects. The identification of a potential project as ―reasonably foreseeable‖

34 does not constitute Marine Corps endorsement of such actions, only that they have been proposed and are 

35 appropriately considered within the scope of this analysis.

36 5.2 EFFECTS OF PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE 

37 ACTIONS 

38 A list of 50 actions in total, including 32 past and present actions and 18 reasonably foreseeable future 

39 actions, have been identified that are relevant to the cumulative effects analysis of this LEIS (Table 5-1). 

40 The past and present actions listed are those that played important roles in shaping the current landscape, 

41 airspace, and socioeconomic conditions in which the CMAGR is located. The reasonably foreseeable 

42 future actions listed are those that will help to clarify how the environment of the CMAGR region may 

43 likely be expected to change as a result of factors other than the renewal or closure of the range. The 

44 locations of most of the actions listed in Table 5-1 are shown in Figure 5-1. Some actions, such as 

45 Number 10, development of the National Airspace System, have a general rather than specific location 

46 and are not depicted in Figure 5-1. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-2 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 Table 5-1 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Within the Region of Influence of the 

2 Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range

Action Name Action Summary 

PAST and PRESENT ACTIONS 

1. Historic Mining Mining was one of the earliest resource-based economic activities that supported settlement in the CMAGR region. 1780 - 1942. 

2. Bradshaw Trail A pioneering mining and stage coach route, the Bradshaw Trail was designated by the BLM as a National Backcountry Byway in 1992 (U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 2010). The trail currently supports public recreation including OHV use; scenic travel; and access 

for camping, rockhounding, wildlife exploration, bird watching, and hiking (BLM 2009). 1862 - present.

3. Southern Pacific 

Railroad (SPRR), 

now Union Pacific 

Railroad (UPRR)

By 1877, the SPRR connected Los Angeles, CA, and Yuma, AZ; by 1881, the SPRR connected to the Texas and Pacific Railroad in Texas to complete 

the Nation’s second transcontinental railway (Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum 2012). In 1996, the UPRR and SPRR merged. In 

October of 2010, UPRR announced plans to expand to a double-track corridor for 9 miles within Imperial County (UPRR 2010). 1877 - present.

4. Salton Sea The Salton Sea is a saline lake that currently covers about 242,640 acres (376 square miles) (Setmire 2000). 1905 - present.

5. Agriculture 

Production

Agriculture made possible by irrigation water from the Colorado River included about 536,209 acres in the Imperial Valley and about 78,530 acres in the 

Coachella Valley in 2010. 1901 - present. 

6. Historic settlement Early Spanish and Anglo settlements in the CMAGR vicinity were mining towns that began as early as the 1780s. A boom and bust cycle of mines and 

mining towns continued until about 1905. Lasting economic development and settlement began after 1900 when canal construction brought water for 

agriculture to the Imperial Valley. El Centro, the largest city in Imperial County with a 2010 U.S. census population of 42,598, was founded in 1906. 

Other communities include Imperial (1904), Brawley (1908), Calipatria (1919), Niland (1914), Mecca (unknown), and Coachella (1876), which had

2010 census populations of 14,758, 24,953, 7,705, 1,006, 8,577, and 40,704, respectively. 1780s - present

7. Imperial Irrigation 

District (IID)

Incorporated in 1911 to supply irrigation water, the IID is now a multifaceted utility company. IID provides Colorado River water to a total of 1,675 

miles of canals in the Imperial Valley (IID 2011). About 97 percent of the water delivered by the IID is used for agricultural purposes. In the 1930s, IID 

began producing hydroelectric power and is now transitioning to modern power sources, such as solar and wind production. Three IID transmission lines 

traverse the CMAGR. 1911 - present.

8. Coachella Canal The Coachella Canal was placed into service in 1949 as a Reclamation project. The canal delivers Colorado River water from the All-American Canal to 

agricultural land in the Coachella Valley. The canal is contiguous to the CMAGR boundary for about 26 miles and can be crossed only at 17 siphons 

over that distance. 1949 - present. 

9. Highway and Road 

System

The highway and road system in the CMAGR vicinity grew from the Bradshaw Trail in 1862 to include a circuitous network of wagon and unpaved 

roads between Imperial Valley towns, several meandering and unpaved road links between the El Centro area and San Diego and between El Centro and 

Yuma, unimproved roads between the Imperial and Coachella valleys, and an unpaved precursor to the present-day SR 78 between Glamis and Blythe 

by the early 1920s. The first paved highways in the region, completed circa 1926, included U.S. 60, which connected Blythe and Los Angeles, and U.S. 

80, which connected San Diego, El Centro, and Yuma. U.S. 80 was replaced by the completion of I-8 in 1964, and U.S. 60 was replaced by I-10 in 1972. 

SR 111, to the west of the CMAGR, was completed in the mid-1930s, but was not paved until about 1964. 1862 - present.

10. National Airspace 

System Development

The evolution of the complex of military ranges, special use airspace, high- and low-altitude civil airways and airspace, and military and civil airfields 

that constitute the National Airspace System in the CMAGR region began in the 1920s with the development of civil airfields and first-generation 

airways. Development of radio navigation airways began in the 1930s. Military activities, including the development of military airfields, ranges, and 

special use airspace, dominated aviation in southern California and Arizona during World War II, but most military airfields and ranges were closed and 

most special use airspace was cancelled shortly after the war. The Korean and Cold wars renewed the importance of the region for military training 

beginning in 1951, and some military airfields, ranges, and special use airspace were reactivated, including most of that that is currently incorporated in 

the BSTRC. Civil aviation was the principal developmental driver of the National Airspace System in the region before World War II, and military 

exigencies were predominant during the war. Although early 1950s events returned military requirements to an influential role in the evolution of 

aviation in the CMAGR region, from that time forward, neither military nor civil airspace users alone were to again dominate the process. Advances in 

aircraft and other aviation technology and military and civil user needs have prompted many structural and procedural changes to the regional National 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-3 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

Action Name Action Summary 

Airspace System, but the basic structure of special use airspace and airways in use today was present by the early 1960s and on an overall basis has not 

changed markedly since the early 1980s (see Figures 1-6 and 3-1). 1920s - present.

11. Sonny Bono 

Salton Sea National 

Wildlife Refuge

The refuge, encompassing about 32,766 acres, was established in 1930 and is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a sanctuary and breeding 

ground for birds and other wildlife. 1930 - present.

12. IID 161kV 

Transmission Line 

This 161kV transmission line is maintained by IID and transects the CMAGR generally along the Niland-Blythe Road. The transmission line was 

constructed before 1934 and predates the CMAGR. 1934 - present.

13. CMAGR Military use of the CMAGR began in 1942 for Marine Corps artillery training. Restricted airspace was established over most of the CMAGR area by 

1942 and nearly completely encompassed the range by the close of World War II. Aviation training also occurred at the range during World War II. 

After the training lull between World War II and the Korean War, use of the CMAGR for aviation and some ground training resumed; the range has 

remained in continuous use until the present. 1942 - present.

14. NAF El Centro NAF El Centro was established as MCAS El Centro in late 1942. Following World War II, the MCAS was re-commissioned as several different types of 

Naval air installations and finally as a NAF in 1979. NAF El Centro currently provides realistic training to active and reserve aviation units in aerial 

gunnery and bombing using the two El Centro range complexes within the R-2510A/B and R-2512 restricted airspaces and the CMAGR. 1942 - present.

15. El Centro Ranges The El Centro Ranges and overlying restricted airspace were established in 1942 (see Figure 1-4). 1942 - present.

16. ―Gasline‖ 161kV 

Distribution line 

This 161kV distribution line is maintained by IID and transects the CMAGR along the Gas Line Road. The distribution line, which was built in 1954, 

serves Niland, Calipatria, Brawley, Imperial, El Centro, Heber, and Calexico. 1954 - present.

17. Southern 

California Gas 

Company

A Southern California Gas Company 24-inch natural gas pipeline transects the CMAGR and shares the ROW with the ―Gasline‖ transmission line. The 

pipeline, which was built in or before 1954, serves Niland, Calipatria, Brawley, Imperial, El Centro, Heber, and Calexico. 1954 - present.

18. ―F‖ -twin 230kV 

Transmission Line 

The ―F‖ twin 230-kV transmission lines, which were built in 1955, are maintained by IID and extend along the Niland-Blythe Road. 1955 - present.

19. ―N‖ 161kV 

Transmission Line

The ―N‖ 161-kV line, which was built in 1962, is maintained by IID and crosses the CMAGR boundary at two locations along the western boundary of 

the range and passes along the west side of the Coachella Canal near Camp Billy Machen. 1962 - present.

20. BLM Land Use 

Plans and Area

Specific Plans

The 1980 California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan establishes management guidance for the protection and use of 25 million acres of federal 

land. The Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (NECO) amended the CDCA plan for five million acres to provide 

landscape-scale, multiagency protection and conservation of natural resources while simultaneously balancing human uses of the ecosystems. The 

NECO includes the CMAGR and is the only resource management plan in effect for the range. The Western Colorado Desert Routes of Travel 

Designations Amendment (WECO) to the CDCA in 2003 designated preferred routes of travel across public lands managed by the BLM. 1980 - present.

21. Imperial Sand 

Dunes Recreation 

Area (ISDRA) and 

Proposed Recreation 

Area Management 

Plan (RAMP)

The ISDRA, which encompasses about 227,000 acres, was designated in 1972 by the BLM to manage and protect unique natural, cultural, and 

recreational resource values in the Algodones Dunes system. A Draft RAMP and EIS for the ISDRA was published in April 2010. ISDRA is a premier 

site for OHV recreation, but also encompasses 25,829 acres that are designated as the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness. The 2010 Draft RAMP/EIS 

shows that existing OHV use in most of the area between the UPRR and CMAGR near Glamis is limited to designated routes, which is not proposed for 

change. 1972 - present.

22. Areas of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACECs)

The Dos Palmas, Corn Spring, Chuckwalla Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA), Singer Geoglyphs, North Algodones Dunes, and habitat 

associated with the flat-tailed horned lizard are specially managed by the BLM as ACECs. ACECs are generally managed for the protection of important 

cultural and natural resources but not at the exclusion of other compatible public uses. The listed ACECs are adjacent to or near the CMAGR and 

collectively encompass over 860,000 acres. 1980 - present.

23. BLM Designated 

Utility Corridors

Utility corridors, which are preferred locations for existing and future utility ROWs, were designated in the CMAGR area through the 1980 CDCA Plan 

and subsequent plan amendments or as provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58 § 368). Utility corridors may support oil, gas, and/or 

hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution facilities. 1980 - present.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-4 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

Action Name Action Summary 

24. Mesquite Gold 

Mine

Opened in 1986 and one of the largest gold mines in the country, the Mesquite Mine extracts over 100,000 ounces of gold annually (valued at over $100 

million). The mine, which abuts the CMAGR, is operated as an open pit mine and utilizes leaching pads for ore processing. One section of BLM 

withdrawn land was released from the CMAGR at the time of the 1994 CMLWOA for the expansion of this mine. 1986 - present.

25. 1994 Wilderness 

Designations and 

CMAGR land 

withdrawal

The California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-433) designated eight wilderness areas in the vicinity of the CMAGR. Title VIII of the 

California Desert Protection Act of 1994 is cited as the CMLWOA of 1994 and provided for the renewal of the land withdrawal for the CMAGR. The 

eight wilderness areas include Mecca Hills (26,242 acres), Orocopia Mountains (55,614 acres), Chuckwalla Mountains (122,326 acres), Little 

Chuckwalla Mountains (28,034 acres), Palo Verde Mountains (30,605 acres), Indian Pass (32,419 acres), Picacho Peak (8,860 acres), and North 

Algodones Dunes (25,895 acres). 1994 - present.

26. Designated 

Critical Habitat for 

Threatened Species 

In 1994, a total of about 6.6 million acres in four states was designated as critical habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise, a federally 

listed threatened species, including about 183,419 acres within the northeastern half of the CMAGR, which is about 40 percent of the range (see Figure 

3-12). Peirson ́s milk-vetch was listed by California as a state endangered species in 1979 and by the USFWS as a federal threatened species in 1998. 

About 12,105 acres within the Algodones Duens is designated critical habitat for the milk-vetch (see Figure 3-12). No critical habitat is designated 

within the CMAGR, but critical habitat occurs within about 2.5 miles of lands proposed for acquisition along the UPRR (CCNDB 2011). 1994 - present.

27. Brawley Bypass 

SR 78 and SR 111 

Expressway

The Brawley Bypass project will connect SR 86 and SR 111 through an 8-mile, four-lane divided expressway bypass to the northwest, north, northeast, 

and east of the City of Brawley. The project will include new bridges and an interchange, and accommodates for the future Brawley Airport expansion. 

Phase 1 construction began in February 2004 and was completed in May 2005; Phase 2 construction began in February 2008 and was completed in June 

2011; and Phase 3 construction is underway and is scheduled to be completed in early 2013. 2004 - present.

28. Riverside County 

General Plan

The General Plan covers the unincorporated portion of Riverside County and states: ―Prohibit new residential land uses, except construction of a singlefamily dwelling on a legal residential lot of record, within the current 60 [decibel] Community Noise Equivalent Level contours of the Chocolate 

Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range.‖ DRAFT- Land Use Element, June 20, 2011. 2003 - present.

29. Imperial County 

General Plan

The 1993 General Plan designated the majority of the lands surrounding the CMAGR as Recreation and Open Space, which protects the unique character 

of the desert and range areas. This land use designation creates a compatible land use buffer for the CMAGR. 1993 - present

30. Big Game 

Guzzlers within 

CMAGR

The CDFG maintains 26 existing wildlife guzzlers in the CMAGR, particularly for the benefit of bighorn sheep and desert mule deer (see Figure 3-12). 

In 2009, the BLM and CDFG approved the installation of eight additional guzzlers; three have been built, and are counted among the 26 existing 

guzzlers, and five are pending (see Figure 5-1). Some of the guzzlers approved in 2009 were located to provide bighorn sheep and desert mule deer with 

sources of water away from the Coachella Canal, which is a drowning hazard to these animals. Each guzzler includes a 10,000-gallon fiberglass storage 

tank and a 2,500-gallon drinker. 

31. Devers-Palo 

Verde No. 2 500-kV 

Transmission Line 

This project includes a new 500/220-kV Colorado River Substation near Blythe and a new 111-mile 500-kV transmission line between the Southern 

California Edison Company’s Devers Substation near Palm Springs and the new Colorado River Substation. Approved in July 2011, construction of the 

project was expected to begin in the 4th quarter of 2011 and be completed by the 3rd quarter of 2013. 2010 - present.

32. Chocolate 

Mountains Solar 

Farm Extension 

A 49.9 MW photovoltaic (PV) solar power plant is to be located on 320 acres of previously disturbed private land northwest of Niland (CEQAnet 

2010a). It is expected to become operational in late 2012. 2012 - present.

33. Upgrade Camp 

Billy Machen, 

MILCON P-771 at 

the CMAGR

Proposed upgrades at Camp Billy Machen would improve this facility to support on-going military training as currently performed. The proposed 

upgrades would improve the quality of life for personnel and provide sufficient instructional space, materials handling and material preparation facilities, 

and berthing. This would result in increased efficiencies and associated improvement in logistics, training, and ultimately, special operations forces 

readiness and operations. The proposed upgrades would occur both within the existing cantonment area and within an uninhabited area immediately 

adjacent to the cantonment area, a total project area of about 150 acres. 2011 - present.

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS

34. BLM West 

Chocolate Mountains 

Renewable Energy 

Evaluation Area

The West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation Area, which encompasses 21,300 acres, will identify public land that should be made 

available for geothermal leasing, solar energy ROWs, and wind energy ROWs. The proposed action would identify sites within certain BLM-managed 

surface lands as suitable for authorizing ROWs for testing and developing solar and wind energy facilities, which the current CDCA Plan does not 

authorize (BLM 2010a). The 1980 CDCA Plan would be amended to support the preferred action. 2010 - present. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-5 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

Action Name Action Summary 

35. BLM Wind 

Energy Project 

Applications

As of December 2011, seven applications were being processed by the BLM for wind energy projects on BLM land near or adjacent to the east side of 

the CMAGR. Five of the proposed projects—Oro Valley Wind, Oro Valley Type II, Black Mountain Wind, Black Mountain Wind Testing (Type II), 

and Gold Basin Type II—would encompass about 35,000 acres in the vicinity of the SR 78 and Ogilby Road intersection. The other two projects—John 

Deere Renewables Type II and Riverside Wind Energy Black Hills Type II—would encompass about 17,000 acres at a location immediately east of the 

CMAGR and south of the Imperial and Riverside county boundary. Four wind energy projects—Ocotillo Express, Ocotillo Wind Testing, Ocotillo 

Renewables Type II, and Ocotillo Express Type II—proposed for about 30,620 acres of BLM land in southwest Imperial County were also being 

processed by the BLM. All of these proposed wind project areas are located adjacent to existing transmission lines (BLM 2011e). 2011 - present.

36. BLM Solar 

Energy Project 

Applications/Authori

zations

As of December 2011, five applications were being processed by the BLM for a solar energy projects on BLM land in the CMAGR region including: (1) 

Ogilby Solar on about 3,000 acres south of the CMAGR between SR 78 and Ogilby Road, (2) Imperial Solar (Solar Reserve) on about 4,000 acres south 

of the CMAGR near Mexico, (3) Ocotillo Sol on about 115 acres southwest of El Centro, (4) Dixieland Solar Farm on about 246 acres west of El Centro, 

and (5) Superstition Solar 1 on about 5,587 acres near the south end of the Salton Sea. Three additional solar projects—Centinela Solar Energy Project, 

Imperial Solar Energy Center West, and Imperial Solar Energy Center South—on private land southwest of El Centro were authorized for transmission 

on BLM land (BLM 2011f). 2011 - present.

37. IID ―S‖ Line 

Upgrade 230-kV 

Project

The ―S‖ Line project proposes to upgrade approximately 18 miles of the 230-kV overhead electrical transmission line by installing new double-circuit 

steel poles to replace the existing wood poles supporting a single 230-kV circuit. The ―S‖ Line follows I-8 and SR 86 southwest of the City of El Centro, 

with the northern terminus at the El Centro Switching Station. The original ROW was amended/renewed in March 2010. 2010 - present.

38. Black Rock 1, 2, 

and 3 Geothermal 

Power Project 

The proposed project (formerly Salton Sea Unit 6 30 Power Project) is for a 185-MW geothermal generating plant on an 80-acre parcel adjacent to the 

southern shore of the Salton Sea (CEC 2009). 2005 - present.

39. Hudson Ranch II The Hudson Ranch II is a geothermal energy project near Niland that would produce approximately 49.9 MW of electricity on about 326 acres of land. A 

Mitigated Negative Declaration (environmental clearance) is in process with Imperial County. 2011 - present.

40. The Energy Solar 

Source I & II

Energy Solar Source I & II includes twin solar 80-MW project proposals. The projects would be built on two adjacent parcels of land of about 480 acres 

each. The projects have been approved by Imperial County and are in the final design phase. 2011 - present.

41. Imperial Valley 

Solar Company 1 

Photovoltaic Solar 

Facility

The proposed project is to develop a 23-MW facility on a 123-acre site currently owned by IID. The power would be transmitted by a 2,400-foot-long, 

13.2-kV, overhead transmission line into the existing IID Niland Substation (County of Imperial 2010b). 2011 - present.

42. Proposed 

California Desert 

Protection Act of 

2011

Senate Bill S138, introduced into Congress on 25 January 2011 by Senator Dianne Feinstein, proposes designation of the Vinagre Wash Special 

Management Area, comprising about 74,714 acres, to conserve, protect, and enhance plant and wildlife values and outstanding and nationally significant 

ecological, geological, scenic, recreational, archaeological, cultural, historic, and other resources. The Act would also designate about 48,333 acres of the 

proposed Special Management Area as potential wilderness to be designated as wilderness when the Secretary of the DoI, in consultation with the 

Secretary of the DoD, determine that all activities on Federal land that are incompatible with the Wilderness Act have terminated. Potential wilderness 

areas would include: (1) 9,160 acres as additions to the existing Indian Pass Wilderness; (2) 17,436 acres as the Milpitas Wash Wilderness; (3) 13,647 

acres as the Buzzard Peak Wilderness; and (4) 8,090 acres as additions to the existing Palo Verde Mountain Wilderness. 2009 - present.

43. Cahuilla Gold 

Project

Consolidated Goldfields Company proposes to conduct a gold exploratory drilling program (200 holes) on both tribal and private lands west of Salton 

Sea Beach. A Conditional Use Permit was granted in November 2010. If minable deposits are found, a formal plan of operations could be developed and 

additional regulatory review would be required before a mine opening. 2010 - present.

44. Mesquite Valley 

Regional Landfill

The Mesquite Valley Regional Landfill is an Imperial County-approved project that is planned for about 4,245 acres near Glamis and next to the 

Mesquite Gold Mine just south of the CMAGR. The project will receive waste via a 5-mile rail spur that will connect the landfill site to the UPRR 

mainline. The final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was completed and approved by Imperial County in September of 2010. 2010 - present.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-6 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

Action Name Action Summary 

45. Pending Urban 

Development Plans

As of January 2012, Imperial County Planning and Development Services was processing plans for five development projects (Imperial County Planning 

and Development Services 2011) in the vicinities of the cities of El Centro and Brawley that had reached the draft environmental impact report stage,

including:

a. The proposed 101 Ranch Project would include up to 6,986 homes on about 1,895 acres; up to four elementary schools; a junior high school; a 

community shopping center or mixed commercial/institutional residential facility; parks, recreation centers, paseos, trails, and landscaped open space; 

recreational vehicle storage; stormwater retention facilities and irrigation easements; and major roads. 2011 - present.

b. The proposed Adler 70 Project would include 392 dwelling units on about 80 acres built as a mix of single-family detached residences and attached 

condominiums, a cluster of manufactured homes, a commercial/small business area, and a storm water detention basin/park. 2011 - present.

c. The proposed Mosaic Project would include up to 1,154 residential dwelling units on about 201 acres, neighborhood commercial use, parks, and open 

space. 2011- present.

d. The proposed Desert Springs Resort Project would be a recreational resort community on about 1,105 acres for motor sports and recreational vehicle 

(RV) enthusiasts with up to 411 water sport lots, 792 RV lots, 22 estate lots, 150 vacation villas, 100 garage villas, interconnecting lakes and 

waterways, and motor sport road courses. 2011 - present.

e. The proposed Rancho Los Lagos Project would include up to 3,830 dwelling units on about 1,076 acres, two elementary schools, a community 

commercial center, business park, parks, golf course, open space, and major roads. 2011 - present.

46. Brawley Airport 

Expansion

Expansion of the Brawley Airport, which was opened in 1940, is under way but will continue until 2019. The project will eventually lengthen and 

upgrade the existing runway and taxiway and include a number of other improvements. 2010 - 2019. 

47. Initiate F-35 

Training at the 

CMAGR

In December 2010, the DoN announced its decision to base six operational F-35 squadrons (up to 16 aircraft each) at MCAS Miramar in California and 

five operational F-35 squadrons plus an Operational Test and Evaluation squadron (8 aircraft) at MCAS Yuma in Arizona. This basing action includes 

conducting readiness and training operations to attain and maintain proficiency in the operational employment of the F-35 and special exercise 

operations. Some squadrons may begin transitioning to F-35s as early as by the end of 2012. 2010 - present.

48. Reconfigure 

SWATs 4 and 5 at 

the CMAGR

The Marine Corps and NSW are coordinating requirements and proposed designs to reconfigure the capabilities of the training ranges within SWATs 4 

and 5 to provide for improvements to efficiency, capacity, diversity, and tactical realism. 2011 - present.

49. SWATs 4 and 5 

Restricted Airspace 

at the CMAGR

A preliminary proposal is being considered to replace CFAs Niland and Bombay with restricted airspace over SWATs 4 and 5 to support additional 

special warfare training capabilities and increased tempos, which would exceed the capacity of CFAs to provide adequate margins of safety to nonparticipating aircraft. Specific dimensions and operating procedures for the proposed restricted airspace have not yet been determined. 2011 - present.

50. North Gila -

Imperial Valley #2 

Transmission Line

The North Gila - Imperial Valley #2 project is a proposed 500 kV transmission line between the North Gila Substation in Yuma County, Arizona, and 

the Imperial Valley Substation in Imperial County, California. The project would cross a mix of BLM and private land; the route on BLM land would be 

in designated Utility Corridor L, which generally follows Interstate 8. The BLM is the lead federal agency for the project and plans to prepare an 

EIS/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with scoping projected for the fourth quarter of 2012.

51. Desert 

Renewable Energy 

Conservation Plan 

(DRECP) and 

EIS/EIR

The proposed DRECP would establish the structure to integrate renewable energy development and biological resource conservation across more than 

22-million acres of the Mojave and Colorado Desert regions of southern California, which includes the CMAGR. The DRECP will comprehensively 

address how participating entities with jurisdiction over renewable energy and transmission projects and related facilities in the desert of California will 

conserve natural communities and species pursuant to the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, federal ESA, and the FLPMA. The 

DRECP is a proposed multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan intended to conserve threatened and endangered species and natural communities, while 

also facilitating the timely permitting of renewable energy projects to help meet the State’s goal of providing at least 33 percent of electricity generation 

through renewable energy by 2020 and the Federal government’s goal of increasing renewable energy generation on public land. Scoping for the 

proposed DRECP and EIS began in August 2011; a draft DRECP, EIS, and EIR are scheduled for release Summer, 2012.

1
111 Arizona California

Imperial County, California

Mexico

95

Mexico

Arizona

Eagle

Mountain

Railroad

(Inactive)

Union Pacific Railroad

Sonny Bono Salton

Sea National

Wildlife Refuge

SALTON

SEA

Yuma

Glamis

Calipatria

Indio

Niland

Brawley

El Centro

Blythe

8

10

Riverside County

Imperial County

Riverside County

San Diego County

mI per ai l County

San Diego County

45a

45e

45b

45d

45c

1

1

5

7 6

7

18

19

21

27

31

32

46

34

34

37

38

39

40

41

42

42

43

44

49

48

49

48

5

50

50

50

50 50

3

3

2

2

4

8

8

13 24

9

9

12

17

16

11

11

14

35 35

35

35

36

36

33

35

35 36

36

36

30

30

30

30

30

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Chapter 5\CMAGR_Cumulative_Effects.mxd (BLC 7/31/2012)

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Legend

Existing CMAGR

Boundary

City\Town

Railroad

Interstate

Highway

County Boundary

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Gas Line

Transmission Line

Planned Wildlife Water

(Guzzler)

Critical Habitat

Desert tortoise

Peirson's milk-vetch

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

National Wildlife Refuge

BLM Imperial Sand Dunes

Recreation Area

BLM Solar 

Energy Application

BLM Wind 

Energy Application

BLM Wilderness Area

BLM Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern

Action Site Location*

General Location of Action*

Locations of Actions

Considered in

the Cumulative

Effects Analysis

Figure 5-1

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 5 10 15 20

Miles

Map Scale 1:650,000

0 5 10 15 20

Kilometers

5-7

*This map shows the locations of 40

actions listed in Table 5-1. The locations

of the other 10 actions are either applicable

to the general CMAGR area, described

in sufficient detail in Table 5-1, or depicted

on other figures in this LEIS as referenced

in Table 5-1.

Source:

ACEC, Recreation, Wilderness,

and Application Data: BLM 2008 - 2011

Critical Habitat: USFWS 2010

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, BLM 2011, 

USFWS 2011, ESRI 2010, USGS NHD 2010

Imagery: Bing Aerials © 2010 Microsoft Corporation

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-8 August 2012 

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects 

1 5.2.1 Summary of the Additive and Interactive Effects of Past and Present Actions on the 

2 CMAGR Region 

3 Natural and cultural resources and ecosystems are dynamic in that they change, at least on some 

4 timescale, in response to internal and/or external processes or pressures. Human communities also 

5 undergo changes that for a period of time may not be obvious but at other times can be sudden and/or 

6 dramatic. Human actions are often the source of either additive and incremental pressures, or dramatic 

7 events that can influence or radically change the trajectories of individual resources and ecosystems. The 

8 cumulative effects of human activities on the greater CMAGR region are the interest of this cumulative 

9 effects analysis. The specific human actions incorporated in this analysis are identified and described in 

10 Table 5-1. The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis varies in accordance with the 

11 characteristics of the resource being assessed. For example, the actions that influence air quality, 

12 biological resources, and socioeconomics operate through different processes and pathways that often 

13 involve different geographic scales. For most terrestrial resources and environments, however, and 

14 particularly for considerations of ecological relationships at the landscape scale, the area generally 

15 between Interstates 8 and 10 and between the Colorado River and the western side of the Imperial Valley 

16 represents the region of influence for assessing most cumulative effects. From a topographic perspective, 

17 these reference points place the CMAGR about in the middle of a broader and interconnected 

18 physiographic unit that encompasses the adjacent mountain ranges and valley basins. The area also 

19 includes the originating and receiving watersheds that affect the CMAGR. The CMAGR itself almost 

20 fully contains a discrete subunit of the Sonoran Basin and Range ecoregion and within the referenced area 

21 is well embedded among the representative subunits of his ecoregion (EPA 2011). For the purposes of 

22 assessing cumulative effects on airspace and airspace operations, the greater CMAGR region is generally 

23 considered to include the extent of airspace required for support of operations at the CMAGR, which 

24 generally includes R-2507N/S/E, MOAs and ATCAAs contiguous to the CMAGR, Niland and Bombay 

25 CFAs, and MTRs that enter the CMAGR. The additive and interactive effects of past and present actions 

26 on terrestrial resources and environments in the CMAGR Region are summarized first, followed by a 

27 summary of the additive and interactive effects on airspace and airspace operations. 

28 5.2.1.1 Additive and Interactive Effects of Past and Present Actions on Terrestrial Resources and 

29 Environments 

30 The current conditions of individual resources and the indigenous ecosystem within the greater CMAGR 

31 region have been influenced and, in some locations, determined by the cumulative effects of human 

32 activities since the first Spanish missionaries and prospectors arrived in the 1780s. Modern human 

33 communities in the region were established, built, and changed by the influx of successive groups and 

34 waves of people and their activities. The early Spanish miners prospected in the Cargo Muchacho and 

35 southeastern Chocolate Mountains, but their activities ended after only a few years. Mexican prospectors 

36 reentered the area in the 1860s, to be followed a few years later by American miners, which began 

37 something of a regional mining boom and bust cycle that would continue in the CMAGR region until 

38 about the mid-1940s, when most of these operations would play out (Vredenburgh, Shumway, and Hartill 

39 1981). The effects of historic-period mining on shaping the future trajectory of the region’s resources and 

40 ecosystem have been scattered and localized. Adverse impacts have been dramatic at certain historic41 period mine sites; but, on an overall regional basis, the aggregate resource and ecosystem effects of this 

42 activity have been relatively modest. In its heyday, historic-period mining was the basis for the most 

43 prosperous community growth in the region; however, in the end it developed no settlements of lasting 

44 consequence. The most likely contribution of early mining to shaping the future natural and cultural 

45 landscapes of the region was to help attract attention to economic potentials in the area other than mineral 

46 wealth. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-9 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 Early transportation developments in the CMAGR region included the Bradshaw Trail and the Southern 

2 Pacific Railroad. The Bradshaw Trail was developed in the early 1860s as a mining supply road and later 

3 served as a stagecoach route, but it historically functioned only as a means of traversing the CMAGR 

4 region and had little influence on the development of the local area. A surviving 70-mile segment of the 

5 trail, which crosses the northern boundary of the CMAGR in several places, was designated as a National 

6 Backcountry Byway in 1992. This segment is currently regionally prominent both as a recreational travel 

7 route and for access to designated wildernesses and other public land areas.

8 The SPRR was constructed in the 1870s and, like the Bradshaw Trail, its traverse of the CMAGR region 

9 was subordinate to another purpose; in this case, building a transcontinental railway across the southern 

10 part of the country. Still, the SPRR helped to drive the mining boom in the CMAGR region from about

11 1880 to 1917. The most important historic benefit of the SPRR to the region’s economy, however, was 

12 yet to come. The rich soils in the Imperial Valley were recognized as early as 1859, but the lack of water 

13 prevented agricultural development. The position of the Imperial Valley at an elevation below that of the 

14 Colorado River, which would allow irrigation water to flow by gravity through a canal from the river to 

15 the valley, provided a solution. By 1900, the stage was set for the construction of a canal and a series of 

16 subsequent events and outcomes that would not only open a rich economic future for the Imperial Valley 

17 but would also dramatically transform its natural landscape and ecology. The SPRR figured into the 

18 equation by conveying labor, settlers, and industrial support to the canal works and ensuing agricultural 

19 developments and agricultural products to markets both on the West Coast and to the east. The canal 

20 opened in 1901, and the results were dramatic. By 1905, the extent of irrigated land had increased from 

21 about 1,500 acres to 67,000 acres, and the SPRR had built a spur line south from Niland to connect the 

22 new agricultural industry with its suppliers and national markets (see Figure 5-1). The advent of 

23 production agriculture in a formerly waterless desert was the first transformative event with regional 

24 significance. By 1907, the area in agricultural production had swelled to about 175,000 acres. By 1929, 

25 almost 425,000 acres of irrigated crop land had been developed in the Imperial Valley. A vibrant new 

26 industry had been created in a few years that would dominate all manner of decisions concerning the 

27 regional and local economies, land use and the environment, settlement and social patterns, road and 

28 highway systems, governance, and other socioeconomic issues for decades. More than a century after it 

29 began, the influence of agriculture on issues both inside and beyond the region remains strong.

30 The second transformative event of regional significance occurred only four years after the pioneering

31 canal system that triggered the agricultural boom became operational. In 1905, Colorado River flooding 

32 overwhelmed the control structures of the canal, allowing nearly the entire volume of the river to flow 

33 into the Salton Sink. Almost 18 months passed before efforts to restore the Colorado River to its natural 

34 channel and rebuild the canal control system were successful. By that time, the contemporary Salton Sea, 

35 with an initial surface area of about 333,000 acres (about 520 square miles), had been created. The surface 

36 area of the Salton Sea is currently about 241,000 acres (about 376 square miles), making it the largest lake 

37 in California. The current size of the lake has been relatively stable in recent years, as losses from 

38 evaporation are roughly balanced by inflows from irrigation return water, municipal and industrial 

39 effluent, and storm water runoff. Formation of the Salton Sea in 1905-1907 converted 520 square miles of 

40 an ephemeral desert playa into an internally drained lake and wetland system. Although the health of the 

41 lake and wetlands systems have declined markedly over recent decades (for example, salinity in the 

42 Salton Sea and surrounding wetlands have increased to levels that exceed that of ocean water), the 

43 wetlands have become a vital component of the Pacific migratory bird flyway, and the lake is valued as 

44 fish habitat and for recreational purposes. Federal, state, and local actions are planned to restore and 

45 sustain the Salton Sea and its wetlands; however, these plans may be undermined by recent court 

46 decisions that would allow Imperial Valley farmers to transfer water to San Diego County and possibly 

47 cause the lake to dry up. Loss of the lake would greatly impact the migratory bird flyway, eliminate fish 

48 habitat, and expose heavily polluted lakebed sediments to drying and accelerated wind erosion. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-10 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 From the perspective of the regional ecology, the formation, longevity, and possible decline of the Salton 

2 Sea have greater significance when considered in aggregate with the expansive areas of the Imperial and 

3 Coachella Valleys that have been converted to agricultural, municipal, or industrial uses. The CMAGR is 

4 situated in the Sonoran Desert and a basin and range physiographic province that generally can be 

5 characterized as composed of upland plant and wildlife communities that occupy rocky mountain slopes, 

6 ridges, and canyons and lowland plant and wildlife communities that occupy bajada slopes, washes, and 

7 basins between mountain ranges. Patches of various types of wildlife habitats within this setting are 

8 separated from each other in many locations by the discontinuous character of the mountain ranges, 

9 bajada slopes, washes, and basins. Periodic or seasonal movements of terrestrial wildlife across gaps 

10 between favorable habitat patches are an important short- or long-term survival strategy for some wildlife 

11 species. For example, periodic long-distance movements of big horn sheep, burro mule deer, or mountain 

12 lion between habitats in mountains, upper bajada slopes, or desert wash woodlands occur as animals seek 

13 more favorable cover, forage, prey, or breeding conditions. These movements may enhance the survival 

14 of individual animals but also benefit the distribution and genetic diversity of their species. Actions that 

15 disrupt or curtail wildlife movements between habitat patches may be adverse for affected species. In this 

16 regard, the Salton Sea combined with the agricultural, municipal, industrial, transportation, and utility 

17 developments of the Imperial and Coachella Valleys created a barrier of over 100 miles in length that has 

18 fully curtailed the movements of most wildlife between the upland Sonoran Desert habitats on the eastern 

19 and western sides of the Salton Sink. This effect essentially places the CMAGR at the western limit of a 

20 relatively large block of Sonoran Desert—that includes the range and the areas north to Interstate 10 and 

21 east of the Coachella Canal, east to the Colorado River, and south to the Coachella Canal, the All 

22 American Canal, and Interstate 8—that remains relatively unfragmented and ecologically interconnected. 

23 The block is not entirely free of activities that may affect some wildlife or their movements—SR 78, 

24 Ogilby Road, and the UPRR being among the most prominent—but there is no indication that the 

25 populations of any species have been seriously curtailed or otherwise diminished by these activities.

26 In addition to being relatively unfragmented, natural ecological resources and functions in the Sonoran 

27 Desert block that contains the CMAGR are generally benefited by a number of existing management 

28 designations that exclude, limit, or otherwise regulate land uses that would be more likely to diminish 

29 ecological resources and functions. Included are eight designated wilderness areas that encompass almost 

30 330,000 acres of BLM land in aggregate, over 860,000 acres within ACECs that are managed to 

31 protect/conserve certain resource values, about 1,020,600 acres of critical habitat for the Mojave 

32 population of the desert tortoise (a minor portion of the habitat unit extends north of Interstate 10), about 

33 12,105 acres of critical habitat for Peirson’s milk-vetch, and about 227,000 acres that is encompassed in 

34 the ISDRA (see Figures 3-5, 3-12, and 5-1). There is considerable overlap among some of these 

35 management designations, and they collectively represent a wide range of applicable management latitude 

36 and prescriptions. In aggregate, however, these designations generally serve to protect or conserve natural 

37 processes and functions as the predominant forces shaping the overall vitality of the ecological landscape. 

38 The CMAGR may be added to the mix of management and land use designations that generally 

39 contributes to a regional conservation benefit. The principal conservation effect of the military range is 

40 that it excludes land uses such as human settlement, mining, OHV recreation, and others that would be 

41 consumptive of land and resources to provide an area where military training can occur without either 

42 jeopardizing public safety or encumbering the performance and effectiveness of training. To be sure, 

43 70 years of military training at the CMAGR has impacted the land surface and terrestrial resources but, as 

44 demonstrated in Section 3.2.4, over the long-term, military surface uses—such as core or secondary 

45 weapons impact areas or developed training sites that cause moderate to complete levels of physical 

46 disturbance to the ground surface, vegetative communities, surface drainages, and other resources in these 

47 locations—affect less than 5 percent of the range. By far, most of the range serves as WDZs, SDZs, or 

48 other types of safety areas and receives little or no use that impacts either its land surface or other natural 

49 or cultural resources (see Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4). Thus, on overall balance, long-term exclusion of 

50 consumptive non-military land uses since the CMAGR was established in 1942, coupled with the 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-11 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 relatively limited extent to which military use has impacted the range surface, has resulted in effective 

2 conservation of most of the terrestrial resources and environments of the range.

3 In summary, the additive and interactive effects of past and present actions on terrestrial resources and 

4 environments in the greater CMAGR region have created two landscapes that contrast sharply from each 

5 other in terms of land development, economic activity, and conservation of the natural environment. The 

6 two landscapes roughly occupy the eastern and western sides of this region and are separated along a line 

7 roughly marked by the Coachella Canal. In general, the past and present land uses to the east of the canal 

8 have allowed most natural features and processes to persist and natural processes continue to be the 

9 predominant overall influence shaping terrestrial resources and environments. Land use designations, 

10 such as wilderness and critical habitat, and management prescriptions, such as ACECs, have contributed 

11 to the protection and conservation of resources within the region. Although the CMAGR was established 

12 to support military training rather than to protect or conserve natural or cultural resources, the range has 

13 nevertheless contributed a strong resource conservation effect that has thus far integrated well with the 

14 overall trajectory of land and resource conservation that characterizes the landscape to the east of the 

15 Coachella Canal in which the range is embedded.

16 The additive and interactive effects of past and present actions west of the Coachella Canal contrast 

17 sharply from the effects realized east of the canal. The western region has been highly developed to 

18 support agricultural, municipal, and industrial purposes. The area is highly productive economically but 

19 has been highly modified from the environment that was in place as little as 112 years ago.

20 5.2.1.2 Additive and Interactive Effects of Past and Present Actions on Airspace and Airspace 

21 Operations

22 The development of the National Airspace System in the CMAGR operating region is tracked in some 

23 detail in Section 3.2.1. To summarize, development began in the 1920s and until the outbreak of World 

24 War II was driven principally by the needs of civil aviation. The era was marked by a rapid expansion in 

25 the numbers and distribution of both civil airfields and airways, which improved air navigation and

26 enhanced the reliability and safety of flight. By the beginning of 1942, civil airfields and east-west airway 

27 service had expanded across southeastern California, but military airfields were still found only along the 

28 coast and special use airspace for military training existed in only a few places in the vicinity of San 

29 Diego. A few months later, however, national defense needs had become paramount and special use 

30 airspace had been established across many thousands of square miles of southern California and southern 

31 Arizona. Before the close of the war, several tens of military airfields had been constructed throughout the 

32 region and the CMAGR and other ranges in the BSTRC had been established (see Figure 1-4). The close 

33 of the war prompted a sharp reversal in military aviation priorities as most military airfields and ranges in 

34 the region were closed and most special use airspace was cancelled. Among the few military airfields in 

35 the CMAGR operating area to avoid post-war deactivation and that remain active today were those that 

36 became MCAS Miramar, MCAS Yuma, NAF El Centro, and Laguna Army Airfield. 

37 Civil aviation priorities in the immediate post-war years regained prominence in the development and use 

38 of the regional airspace system as military infrastructure and activities declined. The advent of the Korean 

39 and Cold wars, however, soon prompted a reappraisal of the importance of the CMAGR region for 

40 military training and, beginning in 1951, special use airspace at the CMAGR, ECR, and BMGR was 

41 re-established and these ranges were reactivated. Special use airspace and ranges in the region have 

42 remained in effect ever since. Although the importance of the CMAGR region to military aviation had 

43 re-emerged, military aviation was not to resume the regional dominance that it had assumed during World 

44 War II. The regional airspace system continued to evolve, but was developed in response to the legitimate 

45 needs of both military and civil airspace users. Although requirements to modify the airspace system 

46 continue to emerge—R-2507E, for example, was designated in 2006 within airspace that was already 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-12 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 encompassed in the Abel North MOA/ATCAA—by the beginning of the 1980s, the overall structure of 

2 civil and special use airspace in the CMAGR operating area closely approximated the structure that is 

3 currently in effect. 

4 5.2.2 Summary of the Additive and Interactive Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

5 when Considered Together with Past and Present Actions 

6 Most prevalent among being reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in Table 5-1 are renewable 

7 energy projects. Solar, wind, and, possibly geothermal energy projects are proposed to the east and west 

8 of the CMAGR. Five wind and one solar project that would affect 38,000 acres in aggregate are proposed 

9 for BLM land near the junction of SR 78 and Ogilby Road, and two wind projects that would encompass 

10 an additional 17,000 acres are proposed for BLM land adjacent to the eastern side of the CMAGR along 

11 the Niland-Blythe Road (see Figure 5-1). These proposed projects, which would all be near existing 

12 transmission lines, are all in the early application stage of development and no impact assessments have 

13 yet been completed on their potential environmental consequences. If implemented as currently proposed, 

14 however, they would represent a substantial increase in industrial activity in the SR 78/Ogilby Road area, 

15 which is near the existing Mesquite Gold Mine and soon to be constructed Mesquite Valley Regional 

16 Landfill. Industrial-scale power generation would also be introduced near the CMAGR and Niland-Blythe 

17 Road where none has previously existed and where paved road access is nonexistent. The West Chocolate 

18 Mountains REEA would amend the 1980 CDCA Plan to authorize solar, wind, and geothermal energy 

19 ROWs between the Coachella Canal and the CMAGR north of the ISDRA (see Figure 5-1). 

20 Development of the energy projects currently proposed to the east of the Coachella Canal would be a 

21 break with the area’s prevailing pattern of land use that has generally supported protection or 

22 conservation of terrestrial resources and environments. The California Desert Protection Act of 1994

23 designated a substantial proportion of this area as wilderness, which is unavailable for renewable energy 

24 or other types of developments. The land within the CMAGR is also generally unavailable for renewable 

25 energy development, with the possible exception of some peripheral CMAGR areas that cannot currently 

26 be used for live-fire activities (see Figure 3-2). Much of the rest of the area is designated either as critical 

27 habitat and/or as an ACEC. Most of the locations currently proposed for renewable energy developments 

28 are within designated critical habitat and/or ACECs. The critical habitat and ACEC designations would 

29 likely either impose constraints on how the proposed projects might be developed to protect desert 

30 tortoise and certain other resources, or may curtail the viability of either the current or future energy 

31 project proposals altogether. The potential for additional energy projects or other developments to be 

32 proposed for the area of the CMAGR region east of the Coachella Canal would be further curtailed if the 

33 proposed California Desert Protection Act of 2011 becomes law. This proposed Act would designate an 

34 additional 75,000 acres of BLM land as a special management area, in which almost 65 percent of the 

35 area would be further designated first as potential wilderness and then wilderness (see Figure 5-1). The 

36 potential for this Act to become law is not known and cannot be assessed. The proposed energy projects 

37 in the area east of the Coachella Canal, when considered together with the other past, present, and 

38 reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not be likely to change the overall levels of protection and 

39 conservation that are currently afforded to terrestrial resources and environments in the area. 

40 Solar and geothermal energy projects that are proposed to the west of both the CMAGR and the 

41 Coachella Canal are joined by other proposals for transmission line construction, planned community and 

42 resort developments, an airport expansion, and a highway bypass (see Table 5-1). All of these projects 

43 would generally be constructed in locations that have been previously developed for agriculture, 

44 municipal, or industrial activities or are adjacent to such activities (see Figure 5-1). Although each of 

45 these projects may or may not have impacts that are locally important when they are considered apart, 

46 when considered together with the other past and present projects, these reasonably foreseeable future 

47 projects are consistent with the highly developed conglomerate of agricultural, industrial, urban, 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-13 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 transportation, and energy development that already exists in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and 

2 would not likely change the overall land use patterns of the area west of the Coachella Canal or notably

3 affect the overarching conditions of terrestrial resources and environments in the area.

4 Assuming that the CMAGR land withdrawal is renewed and the range remains open, three reasonably 

5 foreseeable projects are proposed to enhance NSWG-1 training at the range. The proposed NSWG-1 

6 projects would reconfigure and update facilities at Camp Billy Machen and within the training ranges at 

7 SWATs 4 and 5. The proposed restricted airspace would replace the Niland and Bombay CFAs to support 

8 additional special warfare training capabilities and increased tempos, which would exceed the capacity of 

9 CFAs to provide adequate margins of safety to non-participating aircraft. As these three projects are 

10 currently projected, they would not appear to be likely to change the basic character of NSWG-1 training 

11 at the CMAGR or to be likely to alter the overall effects of the CMAGR on terrestrial resources. 

12 Training with the F-35 aircraft at the CMAGR has been approved but has not yet been initiated (DoN 

13 2010c). Squadrons slated to convert from legacy AV-8B and F/A-18 aircraft will begin receiving F-35s as 

14 early as 2012. Training at the CMAGR with this aircraft will begin once pilots have completed transition 

15 training in the F-35 and squadrons have received enough aircraft to support training operations. The EIS 

16 prepared for the West Coast basing of this aircraft did not identify any significant impacts associated with 

17 F-35 training at the CMAGR (DoN 2010b).

18 5.3 EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL RESOURCES

19 5.3.1 Airspace and Ranges

20 When considered together with other past and present actions, Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 would have no 

21 cumulative effects on airspace or military ranges as compared to current conditions. The current airspace 

22 and range conditions of the CMAGR region are an outcome of past and present actions as reported in 

23 Table 5-1 and Section 5.2.1.2. Alternatives 1 through 4 would each renew the CMAGR land withdrawal 

24 and keep the range open. Keeping the range open would preserve both the authority and restricted land 

25 area necessary to conduct live-fire training activities, which, in turn, would provide prime justification for 

26 keeping the R-2507N/S/E restricted airspace in effect. Keeping the range open also would continue the 

27 training range resources that serve, at least in part, as the basis for maintaining other military airspace in 

28 the CMAGR operating area. Alternative 2 proposes to realign the southwestern CMAGR boundary to 

29 abut the UPRR, which would add about 11,903 acres of BLM land to the range and provide the 

30 possibility of adding about 658 acres of state-owned land to the range through a later acquisition (see 

31 Figure 2-3). About 52 percent of the additional land would underlie R-2507S. The range expansion area 

32 potentially would be able to support certain training activities, but the new capabilities would be a small 

33 addition to the overall capacities of the CMAGR. The proposed range realignment area is part of the West 

34 Chocolate Mountains REEA that is being considered by the BLM as a site for wind, solar, and geothermal 

35 energy projects. The proposed REEA and CMAGR boundary realignment actions would be mutually 

36 exclusive and could not create a coexisting conflict for military airspace or range use. Alternative 1, 2, 3, 

37 or 4, when considered together with other past and present actions, would also leave existing access to 

38 airspace by civil and military users alike unchanged.

39 Some of reasonably foreseeable actions may affect airspace or range operations. Proposed projects for 

40 wind and solar energy facilities, transmission lines, and urban developments have the potential to affect 

41 flights on MTRs, the alignments of the MTRs, or low-level helicopter flights to or from the CMAGR. 

42 Potential effects would result from the development of structures, such as wind turbines, of sufficient 

43 height to present hazardous obstructions to low flying aircraft or the development of communities or 

44 facilities, such as housing, that would be sensitive to low-level overflights. Other effects may include 

45 disruptions of ground and airborne radar signals by moving wind turbine blades or interference by project 

46 lighting with night-vision goggle flight training. Training program managers must track and address land 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-14 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 use proposals on a regular basis by identifying development proposals that may interfere with MTR use, 

2 helicopter flight routes, radar or night-vision goggle performance, or other training activities through 

3 appropriate federal, state, or local planning offices and by periodically checking areas near the CMAGR 

4 or below flight routes for new obstacles or other incompatible developments. Although FAA regulations 

5 may restrict some project tower heights, range and training program managers may lack direct authority 

6 to restrict or modify proposed projects as needed to protect military training capabilities. They must often

7 request planning office or development proponent cooperation in avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating the 

8 potential conflicts of proposed projects with military operations. 

9 As explained in Section 5.2.2, the proposed NSWG-1 range and restricted airspace projects at SWATs 4 

10 and 5, when considered together with Alternatives 1 through 4, would not be likely to cause adverse 

11 cumulative effects for military airspace or range use at the CMAGR. Civil airspace users could be 

12 affected by the proposed restricted airspace because non-participating aircraft would be barred from 

13 entering active restricted airspace in contrast to the existing CFAs, which have no affect on non14 participating aircraft movements. The reality of this potential affect cannot be determined at this time as 

15 the restricted airspace proposal is still in a conceptual planning stage. Still, when considered together with 

16 Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4, the restricted airspace proposal for SWATs 4 and 5 would not be likely to cause 

17 adverse cumulative effects for other military airspace or range use at the CMAGR.

18 No-action Alternative 5 would result in the closure of the CMAGR and end military training at that 

19 installation. Alternative 5 would also likely lead to modification or cancellation of R-2507N/S/E and 

20 possibly other contiguous special use airspace and MTRs. These events would in turn trigger a series of 

21 responses to the need to compensate for the loss of the training capabilities and capacities at the CMAGR 

22 that would impact other ranges and airspace in the BSTRC, MCASs, and other air installations in the 

23 BSTRC operating area, and probably ranges, airspace, and air installations outside of the CMAGR 

24 operating area. The planning information that would be needed to specifically project the magnitudes and 

25 extent to which these rippling effects would impact military airspace and ranges outside of the CMAGR 

26 cannot be collected in advance of a Congressional decision to close the CMAGR. At this time, 

27 meaningful projections of how closure of the CMAGR would affect civil airspace structures or use in the 

28 CMAGR area cannot be determined. However, the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

29 listed in Table 5-1 would not have additive or interactive effects that would have a meaningful cumulative 

30 bearing on the outcome of Alternative 5 for airspace and ranges.

31 5.3.2 Non-Military Land Use

32 Renewal of the CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4, when considered together with other 

33 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would:

34 Not be likely to result in adverse cumulative effects on non-military land use in most areas that 

35 are external to the existing boundaries of the range

36 Continue to exclude non-military land uses from the range interior, which when added to land use 

37 exclusions imposed by past, present, and possibly future wilderness, critical habitat, ACEC, and 

38 special management area designations in the nearby region would affect regional opportunities 

39 for non-military land use

40 At the time that the CMAGR was established during World War II, the principal non-military land uses 

41 and economic interests in the region were external to its boundaries in the agricultural areas of the 

42 adjacent Imperial and Coachella valleys. An IID 161kV transmission line that generally follows the 

43 Niland-Blythe Road predated the range and was granted a ROW by the DoN through the range so that it 

44 could continue to provide power to its service areas. Similar arrangements were developed in about 1954 

45 for the IID ―Gasline‖ 161kV distribution line and the Southern California Gas Company pipeline, which 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-15 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 share a ROW that crosses the range. Some existing and possibly future mining interests were excluded 

2 from the new range but creation of the range had no effects on off-range land use. In the 70 years since 

3 the CMAGR was established, the range and off-range land use have generally developed and coexisted 

4 without interference. Some concerns about noise from aircraft and ordnance have been registered by off5 range residents but the range and range activities have not restricted off-range land use or land use 

6 opportunities. Renewal of the CMAGR under Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 would continue that relationship.

7 Renewal of the CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 2 would realign the CMAGR boundary in the 

8 southwest to abut the UPRR and in the north along the Bradshaw Trail and Niland-Blythe Road (see 

9 Figures 2-1 and 2-2). The proposed boundary realignment along the UPRR would incorporate about 

10 11,903 acres of BLM land and the possibility of about 658 acres of state owned land in the range for the 

11 first time, which would conflict with the potential development of wind, solar, or geothermal energy 

12 projects in the portion of the West Chocolate Mountains REEA that overlaps the realignment area. The 

13 proposed boundary realignment would also preclude other types of non-military land use, such as OHV 

14 and dispersed recreation, from the realignment area. The proposed Bradshaw Trail realignment would 

15 incorporate about 530 acres of BLM land and possibly about 455 acres of private land and 10 acres of 

16 state land in the range for the first time, which would similarly preclude renewable energy projects or 

17 other types of non-military land use, none of which are currently proposed, from these realignment area. 

18 The Bradshaw Trail and Niland-Blythe Road realignments prescribed by Alternative 2 would also release 

19 about 647 acres of DoN land and about 1,924 acres of currently withdrawn BLM land from the range. 

20 Released land would be managed by the BLM and it is likely it eventually would be available for non21 military land use, although the nature of such use cannot be predicted. The Alternative 2 boundary 

22 realignments would affect non-military land use opportunities in the areas acquired for or released from 

23 the CMAGR but would not affect the use of other off-range areas.

24 A substantial area of primarily BLM land east of the Coachella Canal is currently affected by land use 

25 designations that exclude or may limit many types of non-military land use that ordinarily may be 

26 permitted in multiple use public land areas. These land use designations include wilderness, critical 

27 habitat, ACECs, and the CMAGR (see Figure 5-1). Access to additional areas of BLM land for non28 military land use may be affected in the future by proposals for a special management area, two new 

29 wilderness areas, and additions to two existing wilderness areas. When considered together with the 

30 existing wilderness areas, critical habitat, and ACECs and the potential future special management area 

31 and additional wilderness, renewal of the CMAGR would represent a continuing additive cumulative 

32 effect that would exclude non-military land use from over 458,000 acres. 

33 No-action Alternative 5 would result in the expiration of the CMAGR land withdrawal, closure of the 

34 range, and termination of military training at that installation. These consequences likely would lead to 

35 the eventual opening of currently withdrawn BLM land for non-military land use in accordance with 

36 FLPMA and consistent with range decontamination requirements and actions. Some former target areas 

37 or other range locations may be too contaminated with UXO to be opened but substantial areas of the 

38 formerly withdrawn BLM land likely would become eligible for opening. It is also likely that substantial 

39 areas of DoN land would become available for non-military land use following necessary 

40 decontamination and disposal. However, in addition to restrictions on land use that may be required 

41 because of residual UXO contamination, land use on about 40 percent of the former range land would 

42 continue to be subject to critical habitat designation for desert tortoise. When considered together with the 

43 existing wilderness areas, critical habitat, and ACECs and the potential future special management area 

44 and additional wilderness, closure of the CMAGR would represent an additive cumulative effect that 

45 would likely eventually increase the area in the region available for non-military land use.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-16 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 5.3.3 Geological Resources

2 As indicated in Section 5.2.1.1, the CMAGR is a key component in a large block of Sonoran Desert to the 

3 east of the Coachella Canal that exhibits the following conditions: 

4 Developed land uses are generally scattered and affect minimal proportion of the overall 

5 landscape

6 Natural soils and plant communities are relatively undisturbed and accelerated erosion is not 

7 identified as a widespread problem

8 OHV use is prohibited from the land unit or restricted to designated routes

9 Extraction of minerals and geothermal energy is prohibited from the land unit or is generally 

10 limited in scope

11 These conditions currently exist as a result of several major land units designations that provide for long12 term protection or conservation—either as a direct or indirect effect—of natural resources and landscapes. 

13 The designated land units, which overlap in some locations, include almost 330,000 acres of wilderness in 

14 aggregate, more than 860,000 acres of ACECs, about 1,032,705 acres of critical habitat, and about 

15 458,530 acres as the CMAGR. The collective result of these designated land units is an expansive, 

16 interconnected, and relatively intact landscape in which natural resources and processes generally remain 

17 predominant. This is not to say that geological resources would not be subject to impacts in some 

18 locations. The effects of military training use on soils in the CMAGR have been described. Significant 

19 soil disturbance impacts, particularly in target impact areas or intensively used ground troop training sites, 

20 render soils susceptible to locally increased naturally-occurring wind and water erosion and changed 

21 water infiltrations and holding capacities. Still, significant disturbance of soils is estimated to occur on 

22 only about 5 percent of the CMAGR. Outside of the CMAGR, other sizable areas east of the Coachella 

23 Canal are proposed for renewable energy development actions that would likely cause similar soil 

24 disturbance impacts. These areas include about 35,000 acres of BLM land near the junction of SR 78 and 

25 Ogilby Road and 17,000 acres of BLM land near the eastern boundary of the CMAGR and the Niland26 Bythe Road (see Figure 5-1). Although it would not affect these renewable energy development 

27 proposals, the proposed California Desert Protection Act of 2011 would limit the extent to which other 

28 development proposals could affect this region by designating an additional almost 75,000 acres of BLM 

29 land as a special management area, in which almost 65 percent of the area would be further designated as 

30 potential wilderness and then wilderness (see Figure 5-1). The potential for this Act to become law is not 

31 known and cannot be assessed. 

32 In addition to providing protection or conservation benefits to soil resources, existing wilderness 

33 designations and the CMAGR have precluded development of mineral or geothermal resources that may 

34 occur within these areas. The proposed California Desert Protection Act of 2011 would similarly preclude 

35 extraction of mineral and geothermal resources in the special management area and wilderness areas that 

36 would be designated by that Act. Development of minerals or geothermal energy is not prohibited by 

37 existing critical habitat and ACEC designations, but resource protection priorities for these areas provide 

38 additional constraints on how these resources are developed and how impacts resulting from such 

39 developments must be mitigated.

40 On sum total, when considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

41 actions, renewal of the CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 would continue to contribute 

42 to the cumulative extent to which soil resources in the area east of the Coachella Canal are generally 

43 protected and conserved. Renewal of the CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 would also 

44 contribute to the cumulative extent to which development of mineral or geothermal resources in the area 

45 east of the Coachella Canal generally continues to be prohibited. Proposed realignments of the CMAGR 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-17 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 boundary in accordance with Alternative 2, 3, or 4 would add various areas of BLM and possibly private 

2 or state land to the range as identified in Table 2-2 and shown in Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. Each of these

3 three alternatives would also release DoN and BLM land from the range as a result of the proposed 

4 boundary realignments in quantities shown in Table 2-1. Land incorporated into the CMAGR under any 

5 of these alternatives would potentially receive soil conservation benefits and be closed to mineral and 

6 renewable energy developments. Land released from the CMAGR under any of these alternatives may 

7 become eligible for mineral or renewable energy development and subject to activities that would cause 

8 soil disturbance. 

9 No-action Alternative 5, which would close the CMAGR, likely would lead to the opening of substantial 

10 portions of the former range to activities that potentially would cause soil disturbance and associated 

11 effects and may subject areas with economically viable mineral or geothermal resources to development 

12 and extraction. Critical habitat designation that overlays about 40 percent of the range area would not be 

13 affected by a range closure and likely would moderate the extent to which proposals that would disturb 

14 soils or would develop minerals or geothermal energy are approved and implemented. The closure of the 

15 CMAGR would not affect how soils continue to be protected or conserved or how extraction of mineral 

16 or geothermal resources is prohibited or managed within other land units east of the Coachella Canal, but 

17 closure likely would eliminate at least portions of the former range from the aggregate total of land in the 

18 region with priority soil protection/conservation mandates and prohibitions/limitations on mineral or 

19 geothermal resource development. 

20 5.3.4 Water Resources

21 Cumulative effects on water resources, either at the range or the greater region, would occur as a result of 

22 past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect the quality or quantity of either 

23 surface runoff or ground water. No ground-water aquifers of importance in off-range locations are 

24 connected to the CMAGR as an important recharge area, and off-range activities are not impacting on25 range ground water. As a result, ground water can be discarded as a cumulative effects concern. Storm

26 water runoff from off-range drainages into the CMAGR is not a significant factor and can also be 

27 discarded as a potential cumulative effects pathway. Other than the wildlife waters program, nearly all 

28 non-military land uses/activities that potentially could affect surface water have been excluded from the 

29 interior of the CMAGR for 70 years, which eliminates concerns for cumulative effects on surface water 

30 resources inside of the range. As already indicated, storm water runoff from the CMAGR into off-range 

31 drainages is infrequent and likely is produced only in small quantities, except in response to very rare 

32 extreme precipitation events. In general, runoff quantities and quality from natural watersheds are closely 

33 related to the conditions of both soil surfaces and plant communities; at the CMAGR, surface water is 

34 typically of poor quality, and is not used as a water supply source. However, undisturbed soils and plant 

35 communities maximize rain water infiltration into soils, retard surface runoff, resist erosion, reduce 

36 sediment loads in runoff, and reduce runoff volumes, minimizing off-range runoff and mitigating the 

37 potential for worse water quality. Target impact areas, roads, ground troop training sites, and some other 

38 areas on the CMAGR are locations where disturbances of soils and plant communities may be intense and 

39 concentrated, but these locations are widely dispersed within the range and only affect about 5 percent of 

40 the range surface area in aggregate. Disturbances of soils and plant communities within the other 

41 95 percent of the CMAGR are minimal, suggesting that the runoff that does emerge from the range likely 

42 is of a quality that would be expected from a Sonoran Desert watershed in a well-conserved natural area. 

43 Renewal of the CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 would continue to conserve 

44 watersheds and water resources at the range in a generally high quality condition. Thus, the overall 

45 cumulative effect of renewing the CMAGR on water resources likely would be minimal when considered 

46 together with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-18 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 Closure of the CMAGR in accordance with no-action Alternative 5 would end further disturbances of the 

2 range watershed from military activities but also potentially would result in substantial portions of the 

3 range being opened to non-military reuse. Thus, the extent to which closure of the CMAGR in accordance 

4 with Alternative 5 would result in cumulative effects on water resources, when considered together with 

5 other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, is too speculative to determine with any 

6 specificity. Among others, recreational vehicle use, transmission or pipe line construction, mining, and 

7 renewable energy developments would be candidate reuse activities, but no specifics on the extent to 

8 which these activities may occur or how they may be managed to control impacts on resources can be 

9 determined. Concentrated reuse activities, such as mining or renewable energy development, may alter 

10 local watershed areas in a manner that increases runoff volumes and lowers water quality. Dispersed and 

11 lower intensity activities, such as recreation, would be less likely to produce such effects on a meaningful 

12 scale. Regardless of the types and distribution of reuse that may occur at a former CMAGR, however, 

13 rainfall events that would generate surface water flows that may affect off-range waters would continue to 

14 be infrequent, which would reduce the potential for significant cumulative effects on water resources to 

15 occur.

16 5.3.5 Air Quality

17 The CMAGR is located in portions of the SSAB that are classified as marginal to severe-15 

18 nonattainment areas for the 8-hour O3 NAAQS and a serious nonattainment area for PM10. The CMAGR 

19 attains all other NAAQS. The CMAGR is also considered to be in a nonattainment area for the CAAQS 

20 for O3 and PM10, and attains all other CAAQS (DoN 2010b). The air quality status of the SSAB results 

21 from existing additive emissions of many sources including aircraft operations, ordnance delivery, vehicle 

22 use, and other activities that occur at the CMAGR. The preponderance of the emissions in the SSAB, 

23 however, likely arise from agricultural, industrial, municipal, civil transportation, and other regional non24 military sources. A number of reasonably foreseeable actions in the CMAGR region—including 

25 numerous renewable energy projects, power transmission line projects, a gold mine, a landfill, 

26 transportation improvements, and urban development—may increase air emissions, at least in the short 

27 term during project construction. However, increased vehicle travel and emissions from development 

28 would most likely be captured in emission inventories and modeling conducted for air quality planning 

29 efforts (for example, for preparation of state implementation plans [SIPs], in the case of nonattainment 

30 pollutants/areas). Most of the foreseeable proposed actions would be subject to federal, state, or local laws 

31 and regulations that would require mitigation measures to limit the amount of air pollutants emitted. In 

32 any event, renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 and 

33 continuation of military operations at the range would cause no net change in the emissions from the 

34 range. Thus, renewal of the CMAGR would be anticipated to result in negligible emission increases when 

35 considered together with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions.

36 No-action Alternative 5 would close the CMAGR and eliminate ground-based military training operations 

37 and air-to-ground ordnance delivery as emission sources. Closure of the range likely would lead to 

38 activities to clear UXO, munitions constituents, target scrap, and other possible contaminants from the 

39 range. The extent and nature of the decontamination response that would follow closure of the CMAGR 

40 cannot be specified at this time, but decontamination activities would be emission sources. Emissions 

41 from decontamination activities, however, would not be likely to exceed those of ongoing training 

42 activities. Military flight training would possibly continue in airspace overlying the CMAGR, but these 

43 operations would no longer be associated with the range and would likely be diminished in numbers from 

44 current training rates or may eventually be discontinued. Either way, emissions in the SSAB from military 

45 aircraft would likely be reduced as a result of Alternative 5. Non-military land uses would eventually be 

46 introduced to at least a portion of the former CMAGR but the extent and nature of these uses cannot be 

47 determined at this time. In any event, termination of the CMAGR land withdrawal in accordance with 

48 Alternative 5 and closure of the range when considered together with other past, present, and reasonably 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-19 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 foreseeable future actions would not be likely to cause adverse cumulative impacts to the air quality status 

2 of the SSAB.

3 5.3.5.1 Greenhouse Gases

4 The potential effects of proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are by nature global and cumulative 

5 impacts, as individual sources of GHG emissions are not large enough to have an appreciable effect on 

6 climate change. Therefore, an appreciable impact on global climate change would only occur when 

7 proposed GHG emissions combine with GHG emissions from other man-made activities on a global 

8 scale. For Alternative 1, 2, 3 and 4, no change in range operations are proposed. CMAGR management 

9 responsibilities, boundary alignment, and duration of range renewal are also not expected to result in any 

10 change in GHG emissions. However, for Alternative 5, range operations would cease and training 

11 activities would be moved to other unknown locations. Alternative 5 might result in increased GHG 

12 emissions due to higher fuel use due to the need to travel further distances to train. The details of future 

13 training are speculative at this time and would be evaluated further if Alternative 5 is selected.

14 5.3.5.2 Climate Change Adaptation

15 In addition to assessing potential GHG emissions, it is also important to assess how climate change might 

16 impact the Proposed Action and what adaptation strategies could be developed in response. This is a 

17 global issue for DoD. As is clearly outlined in the Quadrennial Defense Review Report of February 2010 

18 (U.S. Department of Defense 2010), the DoD would need to adjust to the impacts of climate change on 

19 our facilities and military capabilities should such change occur. DoD already provides environmental 

20 stewardship at hundreds of installations throughout the United States and around the world, working 

21 diligently to meet resource efficiency and sustainability goals as set by relevant laws and executive 

22 orders. Although the United States has significant capacity to adapt to potential climate change, it would 

23 pose challenges for civil society and DoD alike. DoD’s operational readiness hinges on continued access 

24 to land, air, and sea training and test space. Consequently, the DoD must complete a comprehensive 

25 assessment of all installations to assess the potential impacts of predicted climate change on its missions 

26 and adapt as required. The Quadrennial Defense Review Report goes on to illustrate that DoD would 

27 work to foster efforts to assess, adapt to, and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Within the United 

28 States, the DoD would leverage the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, a joint 

29 effort among DoD, the Department of Energy, and the USEPA, to develop climate change assessment 

30 tools.

31 For the CMAGR, adaptation issues requiring evaluation and consideration could revolve around aridity 

32 associated with the Southwest. The U.S. Global Climate Research Program report, Global Climate 

33 Change Impacts in the U.S. (2009), predicts that the Southwest could face droughts, scarcity of water 

34 supplies, increased temperature, drought, and wildfire. As climate science advances, the DoN would 

35 regularly reevaluate climate change risks and opportunities at the bases to develop policies and plans to 

36 manage its effects on the operating environment, missions, and facilities. Managing the national security 

37 effects of climate change would require DoN to work collaboratively, through a whole-of-government 

38 approach, with local, state, and federal agencies.

39 5.3.6 Biological Resources

40 As summarized in Section 5.2.1.1, the effects of past and present actions on biological and ecological 

41 resources in the eastern and western parts of the CMAGR region are sharply differentiated. Past and 

42 present actions have left the area to the east of the Coachella Canal, which includes the CMAGR, 

43 generally as an expansive, interconnected, and predominantly natural landscape that retains significant 

44 and widespread biological resource values. The area is comprised of a large mostly contiguous tract of 

45 BLM and DoN land interspersed with some private and state parcels. Conservation of biological 

46 resources in this area has greatly benefited from land use designations, including the CMAGR, that 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-20 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 provide for long-term protection or conservation—either as a direct objective or indirect effect—of 

2 natural resources and landscapes. The area is affected by SR 78, a few county roads, dispersed recreation 

3 including OHV use, the UPRR, and the Mesquite Gold Mine, but natural processes generally predominate 

4 in sustaining and shaping the biological environment. Reasonably foreseeable actions include solar and 

5 wind energy projects, comprising 54,000 acres of BLM land in aggregate, that have been proposed for 

6 areas to the east of the CMAGR. These projects likely would result in habitat loss, may present movement 

7 barriers to some species populations, would introduce wind farms that have been found to cause direct 

8 mortality of birds, and likely would have other adverse consequences for biological resources. A 

9 countervailing proposal for the same general area is the proposed California Desert Protection Act of 

10 2011, which would exclude renewable energy and other development proposals from almost 75,000 acres 

11 of BLM land by designating it as a special management area, in which almost 65 percent of the area may 

12 later be designated as wilderness.

13 In sharp contrast to the status of biological resources in the eastern portion of the CMAGR region, native 

14 plant communities and wildlife habitats throughout most of the western area have been highly modified, 

15 eliminated, and/or replaced by the formation of the Salton Sea and development of the area for 

16 agriculture, settlement, and other economic activities. Highways, canals, large contiguous tracts of 

17 agricultural land, the Salton Sea, and urban development provide little or no habitat value for many native 

18 species and form a significant barrier to the movements of other native terrestrial species. The ecological 

19 relationships of the CMAGR to the western area have been significantly diminished. Proposed renewable 

20 energy and power transmission projects, urban development, and other development activities in the 

21 western area would do nothing to improve the biological resource condition of the area. As discussed in 

22 Section 2.7.1, climate change might result in the Southwest enduring hotter average temperatures and 

23 decreasing average rainfall over the next several decades. However, these trends cannot be forecasted at 

24 this time with the precision necessary to assess potential impacts to biological resources. Under 

25 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the Marine Corps would prepare an INRMP that would adopt an adaptive 

26 management strategy to respond to potential impacts from climate change.

27 Renewal of the CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4, together with other past, present, 

28 and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would also renew the range area as a vital ecological 

29 component in the largest tract of relatively intact Sonoran Desert in California. Closure of the CMAGR in 

30 accordance with no-action Alternative 5 would present the risk of having an adverse rather than positive 

31 cumulative effect on biological resources. That risk would stem from the fact that substantial portions of 

32 the former range potentially would be opened to non-military reuse, such as OHV use, transmission or 

33 pipe line construction, mining, and renewable energy developments. These activities, especially industrial 

34 scale mining and renewable energy development, could result in habitat loss curtailment of wildlife 

35 movements, and other negative biological effects. On the other hand, management planning for post36 range use may assign priority to conserving or protecting the ecological resource values.

37 5.3.7 Cultural Resources

38 Prehistoric sites and historic-period built environment resources both individually and when evaluated 

39 together provide an important window into the past, particularly when these resources are found in the 

40 same setting and context in which they originated. These resources and their original settings also 

41 represent places of traditional importance to Native Americans. As indicated in Sections 5.2.11 and 5.3.6, 

42 the CMAGR is a major land unit in a greater area east of the Coachella Canal that comprises the largest 

43 relatively undisturbed tract of the Sonoran Desert in California. Military training activities that directly 

44 affect the surface of the CMAGR are clearly defined and localized to specific areas. After 70 years of 

45 military use, about 95 percent of the range retains its original natural desert setting and exhibits ground 

46 surfaces that are largely undisturbed. Further, the need to protect public safety from hazards associated 

47 with live-fire training, UXO, laser use, and other military activities, and to prevent interruption of training 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-21 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 schedules, has required that the CMAGR be closed to public access. These conditions, which are 

2 incidental consequences of the range and range operations, do not guarantee protection of cultural 

3 resources; but, nevertheless, they benefit the preservation of prehistoric sites, historic-period built 

4 environment resources, and the context and settings in which they originated. Land use and management 

5 conditions that are generally protective of prehistoric sites and historic-period built environment resources 

6 also are found at other land units within the block of Sonoran Desert in which the CMAGR is located, 

7 particularly within the eight wilderness areas that encompass almost 330,000 acres in aggregate and the 

8 over 860,000 acres of ACECs. At the same time, the list of reasonably foreseeable future actions that are 

9 proposed to occur in the same block of Sonoran Desert includes wind and solar energy projects that likely 

10 would not be favorable to the long-term preservation of cultural resources in place and in context. These 

11 proposed renewable energy projects would comprise 54,000 acres of BLM land, in aggregate, to the east 

12 of the CMAGR. A countervailing proposal for the same general area is the proposed California Desert 

13 Protection Act of 2011, which would exclude renewable energy and other development proposals from 

14 almost 75,000 acres of BLM land by designating it as a special management area, in which almost 

15 65 percent of the area would be later designated as potential wilderness and then wilderness.

16 When considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, renewal of 

17 the CMAGR, in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4, would contribute to the cumulative extent to 

18 which prehistoric sites, historic-period built environment resources, and the context and settings in which 

19 they originated would continue to be protected in the area east of the Coachella Canal. Closure of the 

20 CMAGR in accordance with no-action Alternative 5 would present the risk of having an adverse rather 

21 than positive cumulative effect on cultural resources. That risk would stem from the fact that a substantial 

22 portion of the presently preserved-in-place desert landscape of the greater area east of the Coachella 

23 Canal potentially would be opened to development or alteration. On the other hand, management planning 

24 for post-range use may assign priority to protecting cultural and other resource values of the area.

25 5.3.8 Noise

26 Aggregate off-range noise exposure from military flight and ordnance use operations at the CMAGR 

27 currently averages less than 65 dB. Noise exposure levels on this order are within those normally 

28 acceptable for all types of land use. Among the reasonably foreseeable future actions is initiation of 

29 training with the F-35 aircraft. Notably, the on- and off-range noise exposure levels that would occur after 

30 the F-35 replaces legacy AV-8B and F/A-18 aircraft are forecasted to decrease from current levels (DoN 

31 2010b). A number of the past and present actions and other reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as 

32 highway or construction activities, currently generate or would generate noise in the CMAGR region. 

33 Setting aside the aforementioned F-35 training at the CMAGR, current and future non-military noise 

34 sources in the region are not or would not be loud enough or close enough to the range to generate noise 

35 effects when added to the ambient sound environment of the range to produce a significant cumulative 

36 increase in noise either at the range or in the surrounding areas. This conclusion would hold true whether 

37 the CMAGR was renewed in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4. Closure of the CMAGR in 

38 accordance with no-action Alternative 5 would, at a minimum, reduce aircraft overflight noise and 

39 eliminate ordnance detonations at the former range. A reduction in the noise generated from military 

40 activities would not produce a significant cumulative effect when added together with other past, present, 

41 and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

42 5.3.9 Visual Resources

43 Visual resources within the CMAGR viewshed have been affected by past and present actions. Noticeable 

44 off-range negative impacts to scenic quality within the viewshed include gravel pits and landfills, a 

45 surface mine, transmission lines, occupied and abandoned residential areas, the Coachella Canal and 

46 associated berms, and three railroads and associated berms. In contrast to these off-range visual quality 

47 conditions, on-range visual quality is generally unimpaired by existing military activities and 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-22 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 infrastructure as seen from the most critical viewpoints. In fact, scenic quality is positively affected at 

2 some KOPs where the viewshed includes vistas of designated wilderness and unencumbered military 

3 range land. Visual resources likely would be negatively impacted by some reasonably foreseeable future 

4 projects in the CMAGR viewshed, such as wind energy projects in the West Chocolate Mountains REEA, 

5 where proposed visually prominent structures may be observed by many viewers. Renewal of the 

6 CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 would have a positive effect on visual resources in 

7 the greater region by keeping the range portion of the common viewshed generally free of land uses that 

8 would impair scenic quality. 

9 Closure of the CMAGR in accordance with no-action Alternative 5 likely would lead to non-military 

10 reuse of the former range. Some types of reuse may negatively affect scenic quality in the greater regional 

11 viewshed when considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in 

12 the areas of the common viewshed that are outside of the current range. Future reuse of the former 

13 CMAGR cannot be reliably predicted, but a number of possibilities can be suggested. For example, 

14 recreational use, especially involving off-highway vehicles, could create visually prominent roads or trails 

15 in currently roadless or lightly used areas. Projects such as mines or renewable energy developments 

16 could also create visually prominent structures or earthworks. Development of these types of projects 

17 would diminish the generally positive contribution that the CMAGR provides to the cumulative scenic 

18 quality when on- and off-range areas share the same viewshed.

19 5.3.10 Public Health and Safety

20 Military training often involves activities that are inherently hazardous to non-participating personnel, 

21 vehicles, or aircraft. Military ranges, including the CMAGR, and restricted airspace are designed to 

22 protect the safety of the public and military personnel alike by restricting non-participants from training 

23 areas and airspace where hazardous activities are occurring and by conducting live-fire weapons use in 

24 accordance with DoD standards that there be a 99.9999 percent probability of containing all munitions or 

25 munitions fragments within the range and airspace boundaries. Equivalent standards are in place to 

26 govern the safe conduct of other potentially hazardous activities, such as the use of lasers for designating 

27 targets. Renewal of the CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 would result in continuing 

28 military training at the range and in R-2507N/S/E restricted airspace. Range and flight safety planning 

29 and standard operating procedures would remain in effect, be updated as required, and be strictly 

30 implemented. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions relevant to renewal of the CMAGR 

31 would not directly cause additive or interactive effects that would expose either non-participating or 

32 military personnel to increased risks associated with military activities. The public may be exposed to 

33 increased risk at the CMAGR, however, as an indirect effect of future development projects that displace 

34 recreation users and prompt them to enter the range as an alternative recreation travel route or site. A 

35 number of renewable energy projects that are proposed close to the range are examples. Development of 

36 these or other projects may make affected public land areas either unavailable or unsuitable for recreation 

37 use or travel. A development project near the CMAGR may also create vehicle access that conveys the 

38 public to remote areas of the range boundary that do not currently experience much trespass with the 

39 unintended effect of increasing the vulnerability of the range to intrusion. Conversely, a development 

40 could potentially curtail public access to an area of the range boundary, which would have the effect of 

41 improving range security and protecting public safety. These issues would have to be addressed on the 

42 individual merits of proposed projects.

43 Non-participating persons periodically enter the CMAGR, either intentionally or unintentionally, without 

44 authorization and expose themselves to increased risks from on-range hazards. Training activities are 

45 suspended immediately whenever trespassers are detected and are not resumed until the security of the 

46 range can be reestablished. None of the identified past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

47 would have an additive effect that would somehow increase the frequency of unauthorized entry to the 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-23 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 range. In fact, the realignments of the range boundary proposed by Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are designed in 

2 large part to reduce the risk of unauthorized and unintentional trespass by establishing well defined and 

3 visually prominent boundary alignments along the Bradshaw Trail and UPRR, to reduce public 

4 misunderstanding as to the presence or location of the CMAGR.

5 Closure of the CMAGR in accordance with no-action Alternative 5 would begin processes for assessing 

6 UXO or other hazards on the former range, identifying appropriate decontamination strategies, 

7 determining appropriate civil reuse of the closed range, implementing range decontamination, and 

8 implementing range reuse. UXO would present critical security and public safety issues; but, none of the 

9 other identified past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions likely would have an additive or 

10 interactive effect that would somehow influence these issues.

11 5.3.11 Hazardous Materials and Waste

12 Renewal of the CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 would result in continuing military 

13 activities at the range, which would include the continuing need to handle, use, process, dispose of, and/or 

14 contain and cleanup hazardous materials and wastes in accordance with well defined lines of 

15 responsibility and procedures for addressing these requirements. Identified past, present, and reasonably 

16 foreseeable future actions would not be likely to cause any additive or interactive effects that either would 

17 trigger a need to alter the lines of responsibilities or procedures for hazardous materials and waste issues 

18 at the range, or would change the probability or risk of a hazardous materials or waste spill. Similarly, 

19 when considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, closure of 

20 the CMAGR in accordance with Alternative 5 likely would not cause additive or interactive effects that 

21 either would trigger a need to alter the lines of responsibilities or procedures for hazardous materials and 

22 waste issues at the range, or would exacerbate or diminish a hazardous materials or waste spill.

23 5.3.12 Socioeconomics

24 Although agriculture spurred economic and community development in the CMAGR region for four 

25 decades before military training needs prompted the establishment of the CMAGR, NAF El Centro, and 

26 the ECR, the economies and communities of the region and military training both enjoyed success over 

27 the subsequent 70 years without notable interference or conflict from each other or from the cumulative 

28 effects of other past and present actions. The associations between the CMAGR and the economies and 

29 communities in its vicinity that have emerged over this long period are both well established and well 

30 known. Past, present, and future land uses—such as agriculture, recreation, mining, residential and 

31 commercial developments, transportation and other infrastructure improvements, construction projects, 

32 utility lines, wildlife and wilderness protection, and renewable energy projects—are socioeconomic 

33 activities and/or assets that have benefited or will benefit the region’s economies and communities. 

34 Renewal of the range in accordance with Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 would continue the use of the range to 

35 the benefit of military preparedness, but also when considered together with other past, present, and 

36 reasonably foreseeable future actions would not be anticipated to have adverse effects on the region’s 

37 economies and communities. 

38 Most of the socioeconomic benefits associated with the operation of the CMAGR are experienced at the 

39 air stations or other installations where aircraft, aircrews, or other military personnel that train at the range 

40 are based. Renewal of the land withdrawal and the corresponding continuation of military operations 

41 would not change the socioeconomic effects experienced at those installations, so there would be no 

42 influence on cumulative effects at those communities. 

43 Alternative 5 would result in the closure and decommissioning of the CMAGR and the likely 

44 decontamination and eventual non-military reuse of at least substantial areas of the range. Closure of the 

45 range may generate local economic activity associated with expenditures for range decommissioning and 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 5-24 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects

1 cleanup and eventual range reuse. When considered together with other past, present, and reasonably 

2 foreseeable futures actions, the cumulative socioeconomic effects of closure may well be positive for the 

3 local region. On the other hand, range closure would also likely result in the cancellation of expected 

4 projects, such as improvements at Camp Billy Machen and SWATs 4 and 5 to support NSWG training. 

5 Cancellation of these projects may preclude possible economic benefits to nearby communities as a result 

6 of construction related expenditures. 

7 Closure and decommissioning of the CMAGR would likely have adverse socioeconomic impacts at the 

8 air stations or other installations where aircraft, aircrews, or other military personnel that train at the range 

9 are based. These effects may be severe should the loss of training capabilities at the range lead to base 

10 realignment or closure actions. The extent to which range closure effects may impact air stations or other 

11 installations when considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions is 

12 beyond the scope of this LEIS. 

13
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 6-1 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 6 – CMAGR Consultation and Coordination

1 6.0 CMAGR CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

2 6.1 HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

3 Preparation of this Draft LEIS represents the efforts and involvement of a broad range of participants, 

4 including federal, state, and local agencies; American Indian tribes; private organizations; and 

5 individuals. The DoN is preparing the Draft LEIS in accordance with NEPA of 1969, to evaluate potential 

6 environmental effects of the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal. Interested parties were 

7 invited to participate through various formal and informal methods, including meetings with public 

8 agencies and tribes, scoping meetings, letters of invitation to potential cooperating agencies, e-mail 

9 correspondence, website, and distribution of newsletters. This section summarizes these activities.

10 6.2 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OUTREACH METHODS

11 Methods used to involve the public and facilitate exchange of updated project information throughout the 

12 planning process have included various types of announcements, agency and tribal coordination, and 

13 public scoping meetings.

14 6.2.1 Government Leader Briefing

15 In September 2010, selected Congressional leaders were notified by letter that the Marine Corps planned 

16 to file an NOI to prepare an LEIS for renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal. Government leaders in 

17 Sacramento, California were briefed by Marine Corps Installations West (MCI WEST) on military 

18 activities within the region and were provided with a short fact sheet about the proposed renewal action at 

19 the CMAGR.

20 6.2.2 Notice of Intent

21 The public was notified of the intent to prepare a Draft LEIS and the dates and locations of scoping 

22 meetings through the NOI published in the Federal Register on 24 September 2010 (Appendix B). The 

23 NOI also provided project information including a description of the purpose and need, the preliminary 

24 alternatives, environmental issues and resources to be examined, information on how to submit 

25 comments, DoN contact information, and highlights about other opportunities for public input in the LEIS 

26 process.

27 6.2.3 Newsletters 

28 On 18 November 2010, Newsletter #1 was distributed to approximately 281 people to notify government 

29 agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other interested parties of the intent to prepare an LEIS 

30 and of the scoping process. The newsletter mailing list included private property owners whose land could 

31 be affected by the boundary realignments proposed by Alternative 2, 3, or 4; local elected or municipal 

32 officials; Federal and State agencies; potentially interested American Indian tribes; and other interested 

33 parties. 

34 A second newsletter was released in October 2011 to update the public and other interested parties about 

35 the status of the CMAGR land withdrawal and the renewal process. This newsletter documented the 

36 results of the scoping meetings and presented an updated timeline for the project.

37 6.2.4 Website

38 The public website for the project, located at: www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com, offers interested 

39 parties online information pertaining to the project background, preliminary alternatives, published 

40 documents, maps, and the LEIS schedule. Materials available at the public scoping meetings are available 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 6-2 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 6 – CMAGR Consultation and Coordination

1 on the “Documents and Maps” page. This website is designed to encourage participation by offering 

2 online comment submissions and the option to be added to the mailing list; both located under the “Get 

3 Involved” page.

4 6.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL COORDINATION

5 6.3.1 Cooperating Agencies

6 The DoN is required by law to prepare NEPA analysis and documentation in cooperation with any other 

7 Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law (40 CFR 1501.6). Additionally, qualified Federal agencies, 

8 tribes, or other governments can enter into formal cooperation under this provision and are called 

9 cooperating agencies. 

10 Cooperating agency letters of invitation were sent at the initiation of scoping to those agencies and tribal 

11 governments identified by the DoN, as having a jurisdictional, regulatory, or special expertise that would 

12 contribute to the preparation of the LEIS. Cooperating agencies are allowed opportunities for participation 

13 through interagency meetings and active engagement in the preparation of the LEIS, in addition to other 

14 opportunities throughout the NEPA process. Specific roles of the lead and cooperating agencies, as well 

15 as coordination opportunities and the issue resolution process, are defined in coordination with the 

16 cooperating agencies for the Project. The BLM and Reclamation are serving as cooperating agencies. 

17 6.3.2 Other Agency and Tribal Consultation

18 In addition to sending Newsletter #1 to agency and tribal representatives, notification letters were mailed 

19 to 49 agencies and 36 tribes expected to have an interest in the land withdrawal renewal or a regulatory 

20 review responsibility. In some cases, multiple persons within an agency or tribe received the letter, so 

21 more than 100 notification letters were sent. The letter invited scoping comments and provided 

22 information as to who to contact to request additional information or arrange for a meeting with project 

23 team representatives. 

24 Follow-up telephone calls were made to the American Indian tribes on 22 December 2010 in an effort to 

25 ensure that tribes were aware of the LEIS activities and their opportunity to offer scoping comments, and 

26 to inquire if they needed additional information.

27 The Marine Corps has initiated consultation with the California SHPO on the proposed undertaking 

28 associated with the disposal of DoN land for the realignment of the CMAGR boundary.

29 6.4 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS, ISSUES AND COMMENTS

30 6.4.1 Formal Notification of Public Scoping Meetings

31 In addition to the other notification opportunities, the public was formally notified of the scoping 

32 meetings through paid advertisements. These advertisements were published in newspapers local to the 

33 scoping meeting locations or the communities near military installations that use the CMAGR for 

34 training. Table 6-1 lists the newspapers, publication area, and dates of publication for the scoping 

35 meetings. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 6-3 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 6 – CMAGR Consultation and Coordination

1 Table 6-1 Newspaper Publication of Paid Display Advertisement

Newspaper Publication Area Dates of Publication

Yuma Sun Arizona areas: Yuma, Somerton, San Luis, 

Gadsden, Roll, Dateland, Wellton, and Tacna 

California areas: Winterhaven 

14-16 November 2010

28-30 November 2010

Baja Del Sol Yuma County, Arizona Spanish Language 

Newspaper

19 November 2010

26 November 2010

03 December 2010

Desert Warrior Marine Corps Air Station Yuma 18 November 2010

24 November 2010

02 December 2010

Imperial Valley Press Imperial Valley California – specifically: 

Mexicali, Baja, San Diego County; and 

Yuma, Arizona

16-18 November 2010

30 November 2010

01-02 December 2010

Palo Verde Valley Times Blythe, California and Quartzsite, Arizona 17 November 2010

19 November 2010

01 December 2010

03 December 2010

Desert Sun Palm Springs, California 16-18 November 2010

30 November 2010

01-02 December 2010

Union Tribune San Diego County, California 15-17 November 2010

29-30 November 2010

01 December 2010

2

3 In early December, 2010, four public scoping meetings were held in the cities of Yuma, Arizona, and 

4 El Centro, Palm Springs, and San Diego, California. The meetings were held in an open house format to 

5 provide information to the public and request public input. Each open house began at 5:30 p.m. and 

6 continued until 8:00 p.m. Attendees were invited to register their attendance, and each person was given a 

7 handout of Frequently Asked Questions and a comment form. Eight display boards were used to illustrate 

8 information, including the vicinity of the CMAGR, Federal land withdrawal and NEPA processes, 

9 military ranges in the operating region and how they are used, military features of the CMAGR, current 

10 land jurisdiction, proposed CMAGR boundary realignments, summary of preliminary alternatives, and 

11 LEIS study topics. Attendees could browse the information on the boards and speak informally to 

12 representatives from the project team.

13 Questions and comments were discussed through one-on-one conversations between attendees and project 

14 team representatives during the open house. Attendees were invited to offer oral comments to a court 

15 reporter who recorded them verbatim. Transcripts of these comments were reviewed in conjunction with 

16 written comments to ensure that all issues were identified. Comment forms were available at each 

17 meeting for attendees to provide written comments at the time of the meeting, or to return by mail. 

18 Locations, dates, and attendance of each public meeting are shown in Table 6-2. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 6-4 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 6 – CMAGR Consultation and Coordination

1 Table 6-2 Public Scoping Meeting Attendance

Location Date Attendance

Yuma, Arizona – Yuma County Library

2951 S 21st Drive; Rooms B-C

Yuma, AZ 85364

06 December 2010 7

El Centro, CA – Holiday Inn Express

350 Smoketree Drive

El Centro, CA 92243

07 December 2010 15

Palm Springs, CA – Holiday Inn

1800 E Palm Canyon

Palm Springs, CA 92264

08 December 2010 2

San Diego, CA – San Diego Planning Commission Hearing Room

5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B

San Diego, CA 92123

09 December 2010 11

Total attendance at scoping meetings 35

2

3 Comments regarding the proposed action alternatives were considered by the DoN in refining the project 

4 description and alternatives that serve as the basis for the impact assessment. The CEQ regulations 

5 implementing NEPA require agencies to identify alternative ways of meeting their need for the action as 

6 well as performing an analysis of the impacts of a proposed action on the environment. These impacts 

7 include effects on natural, human, and cultural resources. Discussions with affected public or agencies 

8 helped to define and evaluate effects of the different alternatives on the environment. Comments relating 

9 to environmental impacts were considered by the DoN in developing the scope of LEIS technical studies. 

10 The Final Summary Scoping Report containing further details of the scoping process is available for 

11 review on the project website at www.ChocolateMountainRenewal.com. 

12 6.4.2 Comment Organization

13 Mailed letters, electronic (e-) mail messages, project website submittals through 23 December 2010, and 

14 comment forms received at each scoping meeting, were reviewed, documented, and entered into a 

15 database to facilitate organization, sorting, analytical review, and management of the comments in several 

16 different ways. The database is structured to organize comments into separate issue categories, identify 

17 the type (e.g., letter, e-mail, comment form), and source of submittal (e.g., agency, special interest group, 

18 citizen), and tally the number of comments using various combinations of identifiers.

19 Using the experience and professional judgment of the study team, the comments were organized into 

20 17 major issue categories; on a broad scale, the categories pertain to process, purpose and need, 

21 alternatives, and environmental impacts. Table 6-3 summarizes the volume of comments received on each 

22 of the main issue categories.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 6-5 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 6 – CMAGR Consultation and Coordination

1 Table 6-3 Summary of Total Issues Identified

Main Issue Number of Comments

Percent Based on Total 

Number of Comments

Agency Coordination 2 2.6%

Airspace 1 1.3%

Alternatives 30 39.0%

Biological Resources 2 2.6%

Cultural Resources 2 2.6%

Cumulative Effects 1 1.3%

Hazardous Materials 3 3.9%

Land Use 7 9..1%

Military Use 2 2.6%

Miscellaneous 1 1.3%

Process (including NEPA and Segregation) 4 5.2%

Purpose & Need 1 1.3%

Public Use (including Recreation and Access) 12 15.6%

Resource Management 2 2.6%

Safety 4 5.2%

Socioeconomics 1 1.3%

Water 2 2.6%

Total Comments 77 100%

2

3 As noted in Table 6-3, the subject of “Alternatives” was the most frequently mentioned main issue, 

4 accounting for 39 percent of all comments received. Within this category, more than half of the comments 

5 identified suggestions for other alternatives to consider or variations on the preliminary alternatives. The 

6 second most frequently mentioned issue was “Public Use,” which included comments regarding 

7 recreation and access. 

8 6.5 DISTRIBUTION AND REVIEW OF THE DRAFT LEIS

9 A summary of the scoping process, data collection efforts, and the findings of the impact assessment and 

10 mitigation planning is documented in this Draft LEIS. This Draft LEIS was sent to regulatory agencies, 

11 Native American Tribes, elected officials, and to individuals who requested copies during scoping. 

12 Concurrently, a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft LEIS was announced in the Federal Register, 

13 on the project website, and local newspapers with information on locations where hard copies of the 

14 document are available for review. The document is available for viewing on the project website at:

15 www.ChocolateMountainRenewal.com. In addition, electronic copies are available on compact disk (CD) 

16 upon request. The NOA also indicates the duration of the public review and comment period, the address 

17 where comments can be sent, and the time and location of the public meetings. Public meetings on the 

18 Draft LEIS are planned for Yuma, Arizona, and Palm Springs, El Centro, and San Diego, California.

19 Public meetings provide an opportunity for interested parties to comment on the content of the Draft LEIS 

20 and form the basis for making subsequent changes in the Final LEIS.

21
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 6-6 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 6 – CMAGR Consultation and Coordination

1 The following lists the entities that were provided a copy of the Draft LEIS:

2 FEDERAL

3 Army National Guard Readiness Center

4 Federal Highway Administration

5 Natural Resources Conservation Service, San 

6 Diego Office

7 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Yuma 

8 Field Office

9 U.S. Bureau of Land Management

10 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

11 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

14 U.S. National Park Service

15

16 TRIBAL

17 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

18 Ak-Chin Indian Community

19 Augustine Band of (Cahuilla) Mission Indians

20 Barona Band of Mission Indians

21 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians

22 Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians

23 Campo Kumeyaay Nation

24 Chemehuevi Indian Tribe

25 Cocopah Indian Tribe

26 Colorado River Indian Tribe

27 Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office

28 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

29 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe

30 Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Quechan Tribe

31 Gila River Indian Community

32 Inaja Band of Mission Indians

33 Jamul Band of Mission Indians

34 Kumeyaay Cultural Committee

35 Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians

36 La Posta Band of Mission Indians

37 Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno 

38 Indians

39 Manzanita Band of Mission Indians

40 Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians

41 Morongo Band of Mission Indians

42 Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians

43 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

44 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians

45 San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

46 San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians

47 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians

48 Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians

49 Sycuan Band of Mission Indians

50 Tohono O’odham Nation

51 Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

52 Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians

53 Viejas Band of Mission Indians

54

55 STATE OF ARIZONA

56 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

57 Arizona Game and Fish Department

58

59 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

60 California Air Resources Board

61 California Department of Fish and Game

62 California Department of Parks and Recreation

63 California Department of Transportation

64 Office of the Attorney General

65 State Department of Health Services

66 State Department of Water Resources Control 

67 Board

68 State Historic Preservation Office

69

70 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES 

71 Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator, California

72 Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, California

73 John Kyl, U.S. Senator, Arizona

74 John McCain, U.S. Senator, Arizona

75 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives 

76 from California (53)

77 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives 

78 from Arizona (8)

79 Jerry Brown, Governor of California

80 Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona

81

82
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 6-7 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 6 – CMAGR Consultation and Coordination

1 Public comments will be accepted for 90 days from the date of the NOA, during which time public 

2 meetings will be held to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft LEIS. Following the close of the 

3 comment period, written and verbal comments on the Draft LEIS will be reviewed and responses to 

4 comments developed. A Final LEIS will then be prepared, incorporating responses to comments and any 

5 additional evaluation that may be warranted. The Final LEIS will be circulated in the same manner as the 

6 Draft LEIS. Because this is an LEIS, no ROD will be issued by the DoN. As discussed in Section 1.1.2, 

7 Congress will decide whether to renew the land withdrawal for the CMAGR or to allow the current 

8 withdrawal to expire.

9 The Final LEIS will be sent to entities listed above that received the Draft EIS, those who request a copy 

10 of the Final LEIS, and persons who provide comments on the Draft LEIS.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 7-1 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7 – List of Preparers, Contributors, and Reviewers

1 7. LIST OF PREPARERS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS 

2 This LEIS was prepared by the individuals listed in Table 7-1, which includes the preparers’ role,

3 educational background, and years of experience. Persons who contributed to the preparation of the LEIS 

4 by providing information and/or contributing to the review of preliminary drafts are listed in Table 7-2.

5 Table 7-1 List of Preparers 

Name EIS Responsibility Education/Experience 

URS Corporation

Lynn Bowdidge Non-military Land Use and Visual 

Resources Technical Review

MS, Environmental Science

BA, Communications

13 years of experience in environmental 

planning and NEPA compliance

Sunny Bush Public Health and Safety/Hazardous 

Materials, Public Involvement Task 

Leader 

BA, English

BS, Hazardous Materials Management

International Association of Public 

Participation Certification

12 years of experience in environmental 

planning, environmental due diligence, and 

public involvement

Eric Carlson Air Resources BS, Environmental Engineering

18 years of experience in air quality 

permitting/compliance, including 4+ years 

NEPA/CEQA permitting experience

Brian Colson GIS Analysis and Mapping BS, Geography

6 years of experience in GIS

Robert DeBaca Biological Resources PhD, MS, BA, Biology

BA, Environmental Conservation

24 years of experience in biology; 6 in 

NEPA compliance.

Beth Defend Project Manager BA, Technical Journalism

27 years of experience in environmental 

planning and NEPA compliance

Farshad Farhang Noise Analysis Technical Review MBA, Business Administration

BS, Electrical Engineering

23 years of experience in acoustical studies 

and design and noise analyses for 

environmental documents under 

NEPA/CEQA

Arlene Garcia-Herbst Cultural Resources Task Leader PhD, Anthropology (In progress)

C.Phil., Anthropology

MA, BA, Anthropology

More than 13 years of experience in 

archaeological research, fieldwork, and 

publication in the American Southwest 

(California, Arizona, Colorado and 

Nevada), and Argentina (Patagonia). Areas 

of expertise include NEPA, NHPA 

Section 106, and CEQA Compliance

Rima Ghannam Socioeconomics and Environmental 

Justice Technical Review

MS, Environmental Management

11 years of experience in environmental 

planning and socioeconomic analysis

Jon Goin Biological Resources MS, Fisheries Biology

BS, Environmental Studies

More than 12 years of experience in 

biological research, fieldwork, and 

environmental compliance 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 7-2 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7 – List of Preparers, Contributors, and Reviewers

Name EIS Responsibility Education/Experience 

Richard Henry Earth Resources

Water Resources

MS, BS, Geology

33 years of experience in earth and water 

resources planning and evaluation

Massoud Karimi Environmental Site Evaluation BS, Geological Sciences/Geophysics

26 years of experience in geological and 

environmental consulting

David Konopka Visual Resources Grad. Studies, Landscape Architecture

BS, Natural Resource Conservation

5 years of experience in visual resource 

management and NEPA compliance

Carolyn Laurie Non-military Land Use BS, Regional Development and Urban 

Planning

7 years of experience in land use planning

Peter Martinez Administrative Record Management MA, Geography

BS, Geography

18 years of experience implementing GIS 

and IT solutions

David Marx Quality Control MPH, Public Health

BS, Biology

29 years of experience in environmental 

planning and NEPA compliance

Kimberly Maeyama Cultural Resources PhD, Archaeology 

MA, Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology

BA Interdisciplinary Humanities

7 years of professional experience as a 

Cultural Resource Management 

Archaeologist

Mitch Meek Graphics BFA, Graphic Design

28 years of experience in graphics and 

illustrations for NEPA documents and 

presentation materials 

Julie Mitchell Air Resources Impacts Technical 

Reviewer

BS, Atmospheric Sciences

BS, Mathematics and Computer Science

18 years of experience in air quality, 

including 15+ years NEPA/CEQA/similar 

permitting experience

Patrick Mock Biological Resources Task Leader PhD, Biology

BS, Wildlife Biology

CSE, CWB®, 30+ years of experience in 

biological assessment and environmental 

compliance

Elizabeth Nedeff-Perales Project Management Assistance BA, Urban Planning

19+ years of experience in environmental 

planning, military and facility planning, 

and NEPA compliance

Darin Neufeld Socioeconomics 

Environmental Justice

MA, Urban History

BA, History

5 years of experience in environmental 

planning, socioeconomic analysis, and 

NEPA permitting/compliance
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 7-3 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7 – List of Preparers, Contributors, and Reviewers

Name EIS Responsibility Education/Experience 

Kamalesh Pinnisetti Principal-In-Charge MS, Civil/Environmental Engineering

BS, Civil Engineering

Over 18 years of experience in managing 

multi-disciplinary projects ranging from 

planning, construction management, 

information technology, air quality, 

wastewater compliance, hazardous waste 

compliance, to groundwater quality data 

management

Keith Pohs Technical Editing MS, Earth Science

BA, Geology

13 years of experience in natural resource 

studies, technical writing, NEPA 

compliance, and project management

Meg Quarrie Word Processing BA, Liberal Arts

Over 30 years in Word Processing and 

Document Management

Anne Runnalls Air Resources Background Technical 

Reviewer; Air Quality Conformity: 

Record of Non-Applicability (RONA)

BS, Chemical Engineering

23 years of experience in engineering 

design, application and research, including 

5+ years NEPA/CEQA/similar permitting 

experience

Joe Stewart Paleontological Resources PhD, Systematics and Ecology

MA, Systematics and Ecology

BA, Biology

36 years of experience in paleontology; 

9 years of experience in paleontological 

resource management and NEPA 

compliance 

Mark Storm Noise Analysis BS, Aeronautics & Astronautics

18 years of experience in acoustics and 

noise control engineering; 6 years of 

experience in noise resource assessment 

relating to NEPA compliance

Julie Stout Biological Resources BS, Biology

6 years of experience in wildlife biology 

and environmental planning, including 

NEPA compliance

Rachel Wagner Project Coordination Website

Comment Analysis System

BS, Applied Computing

11 years of experience in computer-aided 

drafting, graphic design, and website 

development 

Jen Wennerlund Quality Control BS, Geography

23 years of experience in geography, 

cartography, remote sensing, and land use 

planning

Lowell Woodbury Environmental Site Evaluation BA, Geological Sciences

22 years of experience in Phase I and 

Phase II Environmental Site Assessments

Resource Perspectives Inc.

Brock Tunnicliff Purpose and Need/Project Description

Military Land Use and Range 

Operations

Technical Advisor

PhD, Natural Resources

MS, Watershed Hydrology

BS, Forest Ecology

37 years of experience in natural resource 

assessment and management; 25 years of 

experience in NEPA compliance and 

military range land withdrawal renewals

1
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 7-4 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7 – List of Preparers, Contributors, and Reviewers

1 Table 7-2 List of Contributors and Reviewers

Name Organizational Department Role

U.S. Department of the Navy

Kelly Finn, CEP NAVFAC Southwest NEPA Project Manager

Greg Magnuson NAVFAC Southwest Real Estate and BLM Withdrawal Application

Chuck Colwell NAVFAC Southwest GIS Mapping and Real Estate

Lonie Cyr NAVFAC Southwest Cadastral and Real Estate

Chris Haskett NAVFAC Southwest Real Estate Contracting Officer

U.S. Marine Corps

Ron Pearce MCAS Yuma Range Manager

Michael Ouellett MCAS Yuma, Contractor GIS/Cadastral/Real Property Research

David Rodriguez MCAS Yuma Environmental Director

Sue Goodfellow, PhD HQMC MCICOM Planning and Conservation

Ron Lamb, CEP HQMC MCICOM NEPA Specialist

Maj. Andrew Marcelis HQMC I&L Long Range Planning, Project Officer

Jim Omans HQMC Facilities Planning and 

Real Estate

Facilities Planning and Real Estate, Head

Lee Viverette HQMC TECOM Range Training and Education

Spike Saunders MCIWEST G-3 Operations Operations, Assistant Chief of Staff

George Ellis MCIWEST G-3 Range and 

Training

Regional Range and Training Area Planning

Patrick Christman MCIWEST G-7 WREC/GEA Government and External Affairs, Assistant Chief 

of Staff

Mike Hamilton MCIWEST G-7 WREC/GEA Deputy Director, Regional Environmental 

Coordinator

Zak Likens MCIWEST Environmental 

Security

Environmental Coordination and Compliance

Philip White MCIWEST Real Estate Program Coordinator

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Liz Easley California State Office Real Estate

Lance Bishop California State Office Cadastral

Jim McCavit California State Office Cadastral

Cindy Staszak California State Office Natural Resources Division

Celeste Mitchell Washington Office Realty Specialist (Military Liaison)

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Cindy Flores Water and Lands Contracts Group Manager

Anna Pinnell Resource Management Office Lands Team Lead

2
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-1 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 8. LIST OF REFERENCES

2 AECOM. 2011. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan for the Chocolate Mountain Aerial 

3 Gunnery Range, California. Prepared for MCAS Yuma.

4 Adams R.A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West: Natural History, Ecology, and Conservation.

5 University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 289 pp.

6 Alford, Alice Jean. 1987. The Growth and Development of the Palo Verde Valley, 1860-1936. M.A. 

7 thesis, Department of History, University of San Diego.

8 Alles, D.L. 2007. Geology of the Salton Trough. Western Washington University. 

9 Alm, S., S. Bjornstad, M. Lazaro, A. Sabin, D. Meade, J. Shoffner, W.C. Huang, J. Unruh, M. Strane, and 

10 H. Ross. 2010. Geothermal Energy Resource Investigations, Chocolate Mountains Aerial 

11 Gunnery Range, Imperial Valley, California. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 34, 

12 pp. 509-514.

13 Amsberry K. and R.J. Meinke. 2007. Status evaluation of Astragalus tricarinatus (triple-ribbed 

14 milkvetch). Native Plant Conservation Program, Oregon Department of Agriculture for California 

15 Department of Fish and Game, 22 pp.

16 Apple, Rebecca McCorkle and James Cleland. 2001. Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection 

17 (HARP) Plan for the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range, Imperial County, California. 

18 Prepared by EDAW, Inc., San Diego, California. Report on file NAVFAC. 

19 Arizona Department of Economic Security. 2011. Research Administration, Population Statistics Unit. 

20 (Arizona Population projections 2006-2055). Accessed on 30 August 2011 at 

21 http://www.workforce.az.gov/population-projections.aspx.

22 ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM). 2010. Barry M. Goldwater Range Integrated Cultural Resources 

23 Management Plan, Part III: Cultural Resources Management on BMGR West. Prepared by ASM 

24 Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma and 

25 Southwest Division, San Diego.

26 Babcock, E.A. 1974. Geology of the Northeast Margin of the Salton Trough, Salton Sea, California. 

27 Geological Society of America Bulletin. Volume 85, March 1974, Number 3, p. 321-332.

28 Baldwin, J.M. Payne, and L. Lewis. 1997. Field Trip along the San Andreas Fault, from Whitewater to 

29 Bombay Beach, Salton Trough, California. In Baldwin, J., Lewis, L., Payne, M., and G. 

30 Roquemore, editors, Field Trip Guidebook No. 25 published by South Coast Geological Society, 

31 Santa Ana.

32 Barker, C.E., T.D. Fouch, J.A. Grow, and J A. Peterson. 1995. Western Great Basin Province (018) and 

33 Salton Trough Province (016). In Gautier, D.L., Dolton, G.L., Takahashi, K.I., and Varnes, K.L., 

34 editors. 1995 National assessment of United States oil and gas resources--results, methodology 

35 and supporting data: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30, Release 2.

36 Barker, J.P. 1976. Ethnographic Sketch of the Yuha Desert Region. In Background to Prehistory of the 

37 Yuha Desert Region, edited by P.J. Wilke, pp. 21–41. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-2 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 Bechtel/SAIC Company, LLC. 2004. Technical Basis Document No. 1: Climate and Infiltration, 

2 Revision 1. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

3 Management, Las Vegas, Nevada.

4 Beck, Warren A., and Ynez Haase. 1974. Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press: 

5 Norman, Oklahoma.

6 Berglund, B., and T. Lindvall, ed. 1995. Community Noise, Center for Sensory Research, Stockholm, 

7 Sweden.

8 Bleich, V.C., J.D. Wehausen, and S.A. Holl. 1990. Desert-dwelling mountain sheep: conservation 

9 implications of a naturally fragmented distribution. Conservation Biology 4, no. 4: 383-90.

10 Boarman, W.I. 2002. Threats to desert tortoise populations: A critical review of the literature. U.S. 

11 Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Sacramento, California.

12 Bohn, R., LtCol, USAF. Joint Close Air Support Transformed. Air & Space Power Journal. Spring 2007. 

13 Accessed on 06 March 2007 at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/

14 apj/apj07/spr07/bohnspr07.html.

15 Bolster, B.C., editor. 1998. Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. Draft Final 

16 Report prepared by P.V. Brylski, P.W. Collins, E.D. Pierson, W.E. Rainey and T.E. Kucera. 

17 Report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Management Division, 

18 Nongame Bird and Mammal Conservation Program for Contract No.FG3146WM.

19 Boyne, Walter J. 1993. Silver Wings: A History of the United States Air Force. Simon & Schuster.

20 Brennan, T.C., and A.T. Holycross. 2006. A Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles in Arizona. Arizona 

21 Game and Fish Department.

22 Brown, David E. (ed.). 1994. Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. 

23 University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah, 344 pp.

24 Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011a. Employment and Unemployment by County, July. Accessed on 

25 30 August 2011 at: http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables.

26 . 2011b. Local Area Unemployment Statistics for May 2011. Accessed on 30 August 2011 at 

27 http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=la.

28 BLM, see U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

29 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics. Accessed in July 

30 2011at http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/.

31 . 2010. ―Ambient Air Quality Standards‖ (table). Accessed 8 September 2010 at 

32 http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. 

33 California Department of Finance. 2010. Total Population: 2000 and 2010 Incorporated Cities by County 

34 in California. Accessed on 30 August, 2011 at http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/

35 state_census_data_center/census_2010/view.php. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-3 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 . 2007. Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050, Sacramento, 

2 California, July.

3 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2011. Life History Accounts and Range Maps -

4 California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Accessed August 2011at 

5 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx. 

6 . 2002. Guide to hunting deer in California. Second Edition, Wildlife Programs Branch, 90 pp.

7 Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2009. Technical Noise Supplement, Prepared by ICF 

8 Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, California. November.

9 California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2010. Draft Land and Water Conservation Fund 

10 Program. Accessed on 5 January 2012 at http://parks.ca.gov/pages/1008/files/

11 lwcf_admin_guide_draft_2010.pdf. 

12 . 2009. Desert Region Parks. California State Parks. 2009. Accessed on 23 September 2001 at 

13 http://www.parks.ca.gov/parkindex/region_info.asp?id=11&tab=1. 

14 California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). 2004a. Chocolate Valley Groundwater Basin. 

15 California’s Groundwater. Bulletin 118 Appendix A. Accessed via IWRIS 

16 (http://www.water.ca.gov/iwris/) on 7 September 2011. 3 pp.

17 . 2004b. East Salton Sea Groundwater Basin. California’s Groundwater. Bulletin 118 

18 Appendix A. Accessed via IWRIS (http://www.water.ca.gov/iwris/) on 7 September , 2011. 3 pp.

19 . 2004c. Amos Valley Groundwater Basin. California’s Groundwater. Bulletin 118 Appendix A. 

20 Accessed via IWRIS (http://www.water.ca.gov/iwris/) on 7 September 2011. 3 pp.

21 . 2004d. Arroyo Seco Valley Groundwater Basin. California’s Groundwater. Bulletin 118 

22 Appendix A. Accessed via IWRIS (http://www.water.ca.gov/iwris/) on 7 September , 2011. 3 pp.

23 . 2003. California’s Groundwater. Bulletin 118 Updated 2003. October. 246 pp.

24 California Economic Development Department. 2011a. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census 

25 Designated Places, June 2011—Preliminary (Data not Seasonally Adjusted). Accessed on August 

26 30, 2011 at: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov. 

27 . 2011b. REPORT 400 C Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties. State of California 22 July 

28 2011, March 2010 Benchmark (Data not Seasonally Adjusted). Accessed on 30 August 2011 at 

29 http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur-400c.pdf.

30 . 2011c. Industry Employment and Labor Force – by Annual Average. March 2010 Benchmark. 

31 Accessed on 31 August 2011 at http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov.

32 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2010. ―Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative.‖ Accessed on 

33 29 August 2011 at http://www.energy.ca.gov/reti/. 

34 . 2006. ―Final Initial Study, Niland Gas Turbine Plant (06-SPPE-1), Imperial County,‖ Accessed 

35 on 30 August at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-700-2006-006/CEC-700-2006-

36 006-F.PDF.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-4 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 California Herps. 2011. Scaphiopus couchii. Accessed online at 

2 http://www.californiaherps.com/frogs/pages/s.couchii.html on October 17, 2011.

3 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2011. ―Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants‖ (online 

4 edition, v8-01a). Accessed on 30 August 2011.

5 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2011. RareFind 4. September 4.California Regional 

6 Water Quality Control Board. 2006. Region 7 Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River 

7 Basin. June. 106 pp.

8 . No Date. ―Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board Region 7 Fact Sheet –

9 Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.‖ 2 pp.

10 Cassiliano, M.L. 2002. Revision of the Stratigraphic Nomenclature of the Plio-Pleistocene Palm Spring 

11 Group (New Bank), Anza-Borrego Desert, Southern California. Proceedings of the San Diego 

12 Society of Natural History, No. 38, 30 April 2002, pp. 1-30.

13 CDM Federal Programs Corp. 2003. Final Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Part B Permit 

14 Application, 2003 Update for Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Munitions Treatment Range, 

15 Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona.

16 Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum. 2012. Seventy-Five Years of Progress. An 

17 Historical Sketch of the ―Southern Pacific‖ 1869-1944. Accessed on 22 December 2010 at

18 http://cprr.org/Museum/SP_1869-1944/index.html. 

19 Cleland, J. and T. Wahoff. 2006. Regional Archaeological Research Design for Chocolate Mountain 

20 Aerial Gunnery Range, Imperial and Riverside Counties, California. Contributions by 

21 R. McCorkle Apple, C. Gregory, J. Underwood, and A. York. Prepared for Naval Facilities 

22 Engineering Command, Southwest and U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma. 

23 Cleland, J.H., D. Earle, and T. Wahoff. 2010. Cultural Affiliation Study for the Chocolate Mountain 

24 Aerial Gunnery Range. Prepared for Marine Corps Air Station Yuma. Contract N68711-05-C25 2026.

26 Clutter, T. J. 2000. Mining Economic Benefits from Geothermal Brine. GHC Bulletin. June. pp. 1-3.

27 Cook, H.E. 1987. National Petroleum Assessment Western Basin and Range Province: U.S. Geological 

28 Survey Open-File Report 87-450-L, 16 p.

29 Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National 

30 Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C., Executive Office of the President.

31 Dames and Moore. 1995. Biological assessment for the desert tortoise for the military use of the 

32 Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, California. Prepared for: Marine Corps Air Station 

33 Yuma, Yuma, Arizona; Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego 

34 California, 38 pp.

35 Davis, F.W., D.M. Stoms, A.D. Hollander, K.A. Thomas, P.A. Stine, D. Odion, M.I. Borchert, J.H. 

36 Thorne, M.V. Gray, R.E. Walker, K. Warner, and J. Graae. 1998. The California Gap Analysis 

37 Project--Final Report, 30 June. University of California, Santa Barbara, California, 255 pp.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-5 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 DoN, see U.S. Department of the Navy.

2 Dibblee, T.W. 2008. Geologic Map of the Durmid 15 Minute Quadrangle, Riverside and Imperial 

3 Counties, California. Dibblee Geology Center Map DF-376, edited by John A. Minch. San 

4 Barbara Museum of Natural History.

5 . 1984. Stratigraphy and Tectonic of the San Felipe Hills, Borrego Badlands, Superstition Hills 

6 and Vicinity. In Rigsby, C.A., editor, The Imperial Basin – Tectonics, Sedimentation, and 

7 Thermal Aspects. Published by the Pacific Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and 

8 Mineralogists, Los Angeles, California.

9 . 1954. Geology of the Imperial Valley Region, California: California Division of Mines Bulletin 

10 170, Chapter II, Part 2, pp. 21-28, Plate 2.

11 Dillon, J.T. 1975. Geology of the Chocolate and Cargo Muchacho Mountains, Southeasternmost 

12 California. PhD Dissertation University of California Santa Barbara. September. 405 pp.

13 Dorsey, R. 2006. ―Stratigraphy, Tectonics, and Basin Evolution in the Anza-Borrego Desert Region.‖ In

14 Jefferson, G.T. and L. Lindsay, editors, Fossil Treasures of the Anza-Borrego Desert. Sunbelt 

15 Publications, San Diego. pp. 89-106.

16 Eiders, W.A. 1979a. ―Historical Preface: Man and nature on the Colorado Delta.‖ In Eiders, W.A., editor, 

17 Geology and Geothermics of the Salton Trough, prepared for the Geological Society of America 

18 92nd Annual Meeting, San Diego, California. University of California, Riverside Campus 

19 Museum Contribution. November 1979. Number 5: v-viii.

20 Eiders, W.A. 1979b. ―The Geological Background of the Geothermal Fields of the Salton Trough.‖ In

21 Eiders, W.A., editor, Geology and Geothermics of the Salton Trough prepared for the Geological 

22 Society of America 92nd Annual Meeting, San Diego, California. University of California, 

23 Riverside Campus Museum Contribution. November 1979. Number 5: 119.

24 EPA, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

25 Fagan, Brian. 2003. Before California: An Archaeologist Looks at Our Earliest Inhabitants. Altamira 

26 Press, Walnut Creek, California.

27 FAA, see U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.

28 FTA, see U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.

29 Fenneman, Nevin M. 1931. Physiography of Western United States. London: McGraw Hill.

30 Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of 

31 Natural History and University Press of Colorado, xii+467 pp.

32 Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee. 2003. Flat-tailed horned lizard 

33 rangewide management strategy, 2003 revision. 80 pp + appendices.

34 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (GOPR). 2005. The State of California Government Code 

35 Section 65300. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. December, 2005. Accessed on 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-6 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 26 August, 2011 at http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/publications/

2 California_Planning_Guide_2005.pdf. 

3 Greater Yuma Economic Development Corporation. 2009. Excerpts from the 2009 Command 

4 Chronology Report submitted by the City of Yuma Public Affairs Office. Accessed on 

5 15 December 2011 at: http://www.greateryuma.org/militaryanddefensetesting.html.

6 Gutierrez, C., W. Bryant, G. Saucedo, and C. Wills. 2010. 2010 Geologic Map of California. California 

7 Geological Survey. Geologic Data Map No. 2. 

8 Hayden, J.D. 1976. ―Pre-Altithermal Archaeology in the Sierra Pinacate, Sonora, Mexico.‖ American 

9 Antiquity 41:274-289.

10 Henley, Brigadier General David C. 1992. ―The Land that God Forgot...‖ The Saga of General George 

11 Patton’s Desert Training Camps. The Western Military History Association.

12 Imperial County Agricultural Crop and Livestock Report. 2010. http://www.co.imperial.ca.us/ag/

13 Crop_&_Livestock_Reports/Crop_&_Livestock_Report_2010.pdf. 

14 Imperial County. 2007. ―Imperial County General Plan, Land Use Map: Land Use Element. Imperial 

15 County Planning Department. Accessed on 18 August, 2011 at http://www.icpds.com/. 

16 . 1993. Imperial County General Plan, Land Use Element. Planning & Development Services 

17 Department, Imperial County. 1993. Accessed on 18 August, 2011 at http://www.icpds.com/. 

18 Imperial County Planning and Development Services. 2011. Mount Signal Solar Farm. Accessed at 

19 http://www.icpds.com/?pid=2928. 

20 Imperial Irrigation District (IID). 2011. Solar Project. Imperial Irrigation District. 2011. Accessed on 

21 28 September, 2011 at http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=447. 

22 . No Date. IID Water History Timeline. Accessed at

23 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9. 

24 Jefferson, G.T. 2010. Chocolate Mountains Bureau of Land Management Geothermal Leases: 

25 Paleontologic Resources Record Search and Estimate of Formation Sensitivity. Unpublished 

26 manuscript, Stout Research Center, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, pp. 1-4. on file at the 

27 Sanberg Group, Inc., Whittier.

28 . 1995. Salton Sea SRA, Paleontological Resources Inventory and Management 

29 Recommendations. Unpublished manuscript, Stout Research Center, Anza-Borrego Desert State 

30 Park. pp. 1-6. 

31 . 1991a. A catalogue of Late Quaternary vertebrates from California: part one, nonmarine lower 

32 vertebrate and avian taxa. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports 

33 Number 5.

34 . 1991b. A catalogue of Late Quaternary vertebrates from California: part two, mammals. 

35 Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports Number 7.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-7 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 Jenning, S. and G.R. Thompson. 1986. ―Diagensis of Plio-Pleistocene sediments of the Colorado River 

2 Delta, Southern California.‖ Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56(1): 89-98.

3 Jennings, C.W., and W.A. Bryant. 2010. ―2010 Fault Activity Map of California.‖ California Geological 

4 Survey. Geological Data Map No. 6.

5 . 1967. ―Geologic Map of California, Salton Sea Sheet.‖ California Division of Mines and 

6 Geology, 1:250000.

7 Johnson, R. Roy, Helen K. Yard and Bryan T. Brown. 1997. Lucy’s Warbler (Oreothlypis luciae), The 

8 Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved 

9 from the Birds of North America. Accessed at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/

10 318doi:10.2173/bna.318. 

11 Kern, Tony. 1997. Redefining Airmanship. McGraw-Hill Professional. 463 pp. 

12 Kirby, S.M., S.U. Janecke, R.J. Dorsey, B.A. Housen, V.E. Langenheim, K.A. McDougall, and A.N. 

13 Steely. 2007. ―Pleistocene Brawley and Ocotillo Formations: Evidence for strike-slip deformation 

14 along San Felipe and San Jacinto Fault Zones, Southern California.‖ Journal of Geology, 

15 Volume 115, pp. 43-62.

16 Korosec, K. 2011. ―Simbol Materials to Mine Lithium from the Salton Sea.‖ SmartPlanet Weekly

17 29 September 2011. Accessed on 4 October 2011 at http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent18 energy/simbol-materials-to-8216mine-lithium-from-the-salton-sea/9208.

19 Krzysik, A.J. 1998. Desert tortoise populations in the Mojave Desert and a half-century of military 

20 training activities. Pages 61-73 in J. Van Abbema (ed.), Proceedings of the International 

21 Conference on Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles. New York 

22 Turtle and Tortoise Society, New York.

23 Lesicka, Leon. 1990. Personal communication with Bob McKernan, cited in Final Environmental Impact 

24 Statement for the Yuma Training Range Complex, (DoD 1997).

25 Love, Bruce and Mariam Dahdul. 2002. ―Desert Chronologies and the Archaic Period in the Coachella 

26 Valley.‖ Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 38 (2 & 3), Spring and Summer 2002. 

27 Accessed on 23 August 2011 at http://www.pcas.org/Vol38No23.htm. 

28 Malcolm Pirnie. 2008. Final Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment MCAS Yuma.

29 Maloney, N.J. 1986. ―Coastal Landforms of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, Northerneast, Salton Basin, 

30 California.‖ In Guptil P.D., R.W. Ruff, and E.M. Gath, editors, Geology of the Imperial Valley, 

31 California. Annual Field Trip Guidebook No. 14. South Coast Geological Society. pp. 151-158.

32 Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar Annual Report 2011. Accessed on 15 December 2011 at 

33 http://www.miramar.usmc.mil/documents/SHR.pdf.

34 Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma. 2010. Station Order 3710.61 (StaO 3710.61). Range and 

35 Training Area Standard Operating Procedures. Yuma Range Management Department. 29 July.

36 . 2010-2011. Range Management Department SPOT Reports.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-8 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 McDonald, A. 1992. Indian Hill Rockshelter and Aboriginal Cultural Adaptation in Anza-Borrego Desert 

2 State Park, Southeastern California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 

3 Riverside.

4 McGuire, Randall H., and Michael B. Schiffer (editors). 1982. Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of 

5 Southwestern Arizona. Academic Press: New York, New York.

6 McKinney, Charles M. n.d. Memorandum to the Director of the Office of Archaeology and Historic 

7 Preservation Subject: Recommendation for the Determination of National Register Eligibility 

8 Under Section 2b, Executive Order 11593.

9 Meilinger, P.S. 2007. Lowering Risk Air Power Can Reduce Civilian Casualties. Armed Forces Journal. 

10 Army Times Publishing Company, Gannett Company, Inc. July. Accessed on 12 March 2011 at 

11 http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/07/4079006/

12 Michel III, Marshall. 1997. Clashes, Air Combat Over North Vietnam 1965-1972. Naval Institute Press, 

13 Annapolis, MD. 340 pp.

14 Mola, Roger. 2011. The Evolution of Airway Lights and Electronic Navigation Aids. U.S. Centennial of 

15 Flight Commission. Accessed on 12 Oct 2011 at http://centennialofflight.gov/essay/

16 Government_Role/navigation/POL13.htm.

17 Moratto, Michael. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press: San Diego, California. 

18 Morton, Paul K. 1977. Geology and Mineral Resources of Imperial County, California. County Report 7. 

19 California Division of Mines and Geology: Sacramento, California.

20 National Climate Data Center (NCDC). 2011. Annual Climate Summary, El Centro California, 2010.

21 . 2004. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

22 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (The Sikes Act). 2003 as amended. Public Law 

23 108-136, 16 United States Code 670, et seq. Accessed on 18 August 2010 at 

24 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/

25 getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ136.108.pdf. 

26 National Weather Service. 2011. Cibola current forecast. Accessed at http://forecast.weather.gov/afm/

27 PointClick.php?lat=33.195029344358204&lon=-114.97604370117187.

28 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), see U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

29 Conservation Service.

30 Nature Serve. 2011. Nature Serve Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. 

31 Nature Serve, Arlington, Virginia. Accessed on 15 August 2011 at http://www.Nature 

32 Serve.org/explorer.

33 Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest. 2006. Department of the Navy 

34 Southwest – Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation Projects.

35 New Gold. 2011. New Gold Project Description. 2009. Accessed on 6 September 2011 at 

36 http://www.newgold.com/. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-9 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 Norris, R.M. and R.W. Webb. 1990. Geology of California. Second Edition. New York. John Wiley and 

2 Sons. 541 pp.

3 Nussear, K.E., T.C. Esque, R.D. Inman, Leila Gass, K.A. Thomas, C.S.A. Wallace, J.B. Blainey, D.M. 

4 Miller, and R.H. Webb. 2009. ―Modeling habitat of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the 

5 Mojave and parts of the Sonoran Deserts of California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona: U.S. 

6 Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1102,‖ 18 p. 

7 Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

8 Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. Revised 1992; 1998. U.S. Department of the 

9 Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. Accessed 23 August 2011 at 

10 http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb38/. 

11 Portz, M., Capt USNR (Ret.). 1990a. Aviation Training and Expansion, Part 1. Naval Aviation News, 

12 July-August.

13 . 1990b. Aviation Training and Expansion, Part 2. Naval Aviation News, September-October.

14 Proctor, R.J. 1968. Geology of the Desert Hot Springs-Upper Coachella Valley Area, California. 

15 California Division of Mines and Geology. Special Report 94.

16 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 24 USC 6901 et seq.

17 Rice, Richard B., William A. Bullough, and Richard J. Orsi. 1996. The Elusive Eden, a New History of 

18 California. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.: New York, New York.

19 Richards, Stu. 2011. Map of Passenger, Express and Air Mail Routes in the United States. 1928. Posted 6 

20 July. Accessed on 12 Oct 2011 at http://propspistonsandoldairliners.blogspot.com/2011/07/1928-

21 passenger-express-and-air-mail.html. 

22 Riverside County (RC). 2011. Draft Riverside County General Plan, update, Land Use Section. 2011 

23 Riverside County Planning Department. Available by request from Riverside County Planning 

24 Department.

25 . 2008. Riverside County General Plan, updated, Land Use Section. Riverside County Planning 

26 Department. October, 2008. Accessed on 1 September 2011 at 

27 http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/planning/).

28 Rodriguez, David. 2011. Environmental Director, MCAS Yuma, personal communication. 4 October.

29 Rogers, Malcolm J. 1966. San Dieguito I in the Central Aspect. In Ancient Hunters of the Far West, 

30 edited by M.J. Rogers, H.M. Wormington, E.L. Davis, and C.W. Brott, pp. 37-58. Copley Press: 

31 San Diego, California.

32 . 1945. Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1:167–198.

33 Sampson, R.J., and W.B. Tucker. 1942. Mineral Resources of Imperial County. California Division of 

34 Mines Report 38. pp. 105-145.

35 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. 2007. Mesquite Valley Landfill, project overview. Accessed 

36 on 4 January 2012 at http://www.mrlf.org/. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-10 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 San Diego Military Advisory Council. 2011. San Diego Military Economic Impact Study, April. Accessed 

2 on 15 December 2011 at http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Press/

3 Documents/Publications/2011_SDMAC.pdf.

4 Schaefer, Jerry. 1994. ―The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent 

5 Approaches and Discoveries.‖ Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16 (1): 

6 60-80.

7 Schaefer, Jerry, Sinead Ni Ghabhlain, and Mark Becker. 2003. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory, 

8 and Evaluation for the Coachella Canal, Lining Project: Prehistoric and Historic, Sites Along the 

9 Northeastern Shore of, Ancient Lake Chauilla [sic], Imperial and Riverside Counties, California. 

10 EIC Report Number RI-06999. Confidential report on-file at the Eastern Information Center, 

11 available only to qualified persons.

12 Schaefer, J. and D. Laylander. 2007. ―The Colorado Desert: Ancient Adaptations to Wetlands and 

13 Wastelands.‖ In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture and Complexity, edited by T.L. 

14 Jones and K. Klar, Alta Mira Press: Lanham, Maryland.

15 Schroeder, Albert H. 1979. ―Prehistory: Hakataya.‖ In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 100–107. 

16 Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9. Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D.C.

17 . 1975. ―The Hohokam, Sinagua and the Hakataya.‖ Imperial Valley College Museum Society 

18 Publications, Occasional Paper 3. El Centro, California.

19 Schulz, Lance Cpl. Jakob. 2011. ―New MCAS range order aims for safety.‖ Published in the Yuma Sun 

20 newspaper. 26 January.

21 Schwartz, O.A., V.C. Bleich, and S.A. Holl. 1986. ―Genetics and the conservation of mountain sheep 

22 Ovis canadensis nelsoni.‖ Biological Conservation 37: 179-90.

23 Setmire, Jim, editor. 2000. Eutrophic Conditions at the Salton Sea, A topical paper from the 

24 Eutrophication Workshop convened at the University of California at Riverside, September 7-8. 

25 Downloaded on 22 December 2010 from: 

26 http://www.saltonsea.ca.gov/pdfs/limnology/000907Setmire.pdf. 

27 Stein, B.A., C. Scott, and N. Benton. 2008. Federal lands and endangered species: the role of military and 

28 other federal lands in sustaining biodiversity. BioScience 58:339-347.

29 Sturm, Brad. 1993. Draft Southern California Gas Company Natural Gas Transmission Line 6902 

30 Project, Riverside and Imperial Counties, California, The Bradshaw Trail: Recommendation for 

31 National Register Eligibility. Submitted to the Bureau of Land Management /Palms Springs –

32 South Coast Field Office. Copies available at the Eastern Information Center c/o Department of 

33 Anthropology, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California.

34 Southwest Environmental Information Network (SEINet). 2011. Accessed August 2011 at 

35 http//:swbiodiversity.org/seinet/index.php. 

36 Stebbins, Robert C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd Edition. Houghton 

37 Mifflin Company, 533 pp.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-11 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008. Regional Comprehensive Plan. The 

2 Southern California Association of Governments. October, 2008. Accessed on 1 September 2011 

3 at http://www.scag.ca.gov/rcp/index.htm.

4 Southern California Earthquake Data Center. 2010. Fault Map – Southern Region and Historic 

5 Earthquakes in Southern California.

6 Sykes, G. 1937. The Colorado River Delta. American Geographical Society Special Publication, No. 19.

7 American Geographical Society. New York, New York.

8 Tarbet, L.A. 1971. ―Petroleum Potential of Imperial Valley, California in Future Petroleum Provinces of 

9 the United States Their Geology and Potential.‖ American Association of Petroleum Geologists 

10 Memoir 15, Volume 1. pp. 384-391.

11 . 1951. Imperial Valley [California] in ―Possible Future Petroleum Provinces of North America.‖

12 American Association of Petroleum Geologists Special Publication 27. pp. 120-123.

13 Tirpak, J.A. 2011. Make or Break Time for the F-35. airforce-magazine.com. Online Journal of the Air 

14 Force Association. Vol. 94, No. 8. August. Downloaded on 14 March 2012 from: 

15 http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/August 

16 2011/MakeorBreakTimefortheF-35.aspx

17 Tompson, A., Z. Demir, J. Moran, D. Mason, J. Wagoner, S. Kollet, K. Mansoor, and P. McKereghan. 

18 2008. Groundwater Availability Within the Salton Sea Basin, Final Report. Lawrence Livermore 

19 National Laboratory Report LLNL-TR-400426. 29 January 2008. 143 pp.

20 Unitt, P. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego Museum of Natural History. 

21 U.S. Army Combat Readiness/Safety Center. 2010. NVG Currency Perishable Skill — Currency is Not 

22 Proficiency. Accessed at https://safety.army.mil/aviationsafety///tabid/494/Default.aspx. 

23 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2009. CA25N Total Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by 

24 NAICS Industry. Accessed on 31 August 2011 at http://www.bea.gov/itable/.

25 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2009. Coachella Canal Unit History. U.S. Department of the 

26 Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. October 2009. Accessed on 29 August 2011 at

27 http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=CRBSCP+-+Coachella+Canal+Unit+-

28 +Title+I. 

29 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Census. Accessed on 29 August 2011 at http://2010.census.gov/2010/census/. 

30 . 2010a. Arizona Counties and Incorporated Places, Population Change between 2000 and 2010.

31 . 2000a. Decennial Census 2000. Accessed on 29 August 2011 at 

32 http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000html. 

33 . 2000b. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1)—100-Percent Data (Tables P3 and P4). Accessed on 

34 29 August 2011 at http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000html.

35 . 2000c. Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3)—Sample Data (Table-P53). Accessed on 29 August

36 2011 at http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000html. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-12 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 . 2000a. Census 2000 Summery File 3 (SF3)—Sample Data (Table-87). Accessed on 29 August 

2 2011 at http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000html.

3 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. U.S. General Soil Map, 

4 State Soil Geographic (STATSGO2) Database. United States Department of Agriculture. 

5 Accessed on 1 November 2011 at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov.

6 U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. 1943. San Diego Sectional Aeronautical 

7 Chart (Q2) February 4 and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. 

8 1943. Los Angeles Sectional Aeronautical Chart (R-2).

9 . 1940. San Diego Sectional Aeronautical Chart (Q2). August.

10 U.S. Department of Defense. 2010. Quadrennial Defense Review Report. February. 

11 http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200700.pdf. 

12 U.S. Department of Defense, Air Force (USAF). 1999. Renewal of the Barry M. Goldwater Range Land 

13 Withdrawal Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1. March.

14 . 1998. Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement for the Renewal of the Barry M. 

15 Goldwater Range Land Withdrawal. September.

16 . 1997. Environmental Effects of Self Protection, Chaff and Flares. Final Report, Headquarter Air 

17 Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.

18 U.S. Department of Defense, United States Marine Corps (USMC). 2009a. Marine Corps Reference 

19 Publication, 3-0C, Operational Training Ranges Required Capabilities. 29 May.

20 . 2009b. United States Marine Corps Cultural Resources Program Guide. First Edition (January 

21 2009). Accessed on 2 August 2011 at http://www.marines.mil/unit/logistics/Documents/

22 LFL/LFL-1/CulturalResources/Outreach/

23 2009%20USMC%20Cultural%20Resources%20Program%20Guide.pdf. 

24 . 2007. MCO P8020.10, Marine Corps Ammunition Management and Explosive Safety. 

25 31 October.

26 . 1997. Yuma Training Range Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by 

27 Dames & Moore. January.

28 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2012. Palm Springs-South Coast 

29 Field Office. Accessed in January 2012 at http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings.html.

30 . 2011. Chuckwalla-Palen Mountains Wilderness Area. Accessed on 4 January 2012 at

31 http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings/chuckwalla_palen.html.

32 . 2011. Special Recreation Permits. Accessed on 4 January 2012 at

33 http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/recreation/recpermit.html.

34 . 2011a. DRAFT: West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation Area (REEA). U.S. 

35 Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, El Centro Field Office. June 2011. 

36 Accessed on 2 September 2011at http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/wcm.html.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-13 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 . 2011b. California Renewable Energy Projects and Utility Corridors. U.S. Department of the 

2 Interior Bureau of Land Management, Desert District, California. September, 2011. Accessed on 

3 26 August 2011 at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/pa/energy/

4 application_maps.Par.30605.File.dat/CDD_Application_Map.pdf. 

5 . 2011c. Recreation. October 2011. Accessed 23 September 2011 at 

6 http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/recreation.html.

7 . 2011d. Draft Environment Impact Statement and California Desert Conservation Area Plan

8 Amendment for the West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation Area. Accessed at 

9 http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/wcm.html.

10 . 2011e. Wind Energy. Accessed on 26 January 2012 at 

11 http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/energy/wind.html.

12 . 2011f. Solar Energy. Accessed on 26 January 2012 at 

13 http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/energy/solar.html.

14 . 2009. Environmental Assessment for Eight Wildlife Guzzlers for the CMAGR. California Desert 

15 District, El Centro Field Office, 31 pp.

16 . 2008. Paleontology Resources Management Manual and Handbook H-8270-1, 38 p.

17 . 2005. California Statewide Interagency Implementation Agreement, Federal Land Transaction 

18 Facilitation Act Public Law 106-248. November. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California/Nevada Operations Office, National Park Service, 

20 Pacific West Region. Accessed 26 August 2011 and 4 January 2012 at 

21 http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib//blm/ca/pdf/pdfs/pa_pdfs/row_lands.Par.a8a9b4fd.File.p

22 df/FLTFA_Agreement_CA.pdf. 

23 . 2002a. Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (NECO). Bureau 

24 of Land Management Desert District, California. December 2002, and Final Environmental 

25 Impact Statement, July 2002. California Department of Fish and Game. Accessed on 26 August 

26 2011 at http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/weco.html. 

27 . 2002b. Western Colorado (WECO) OHV Routes of Travel Designation Plan. Bureau of Land 

28 Management Desert District, Riverside, California October 2002. Accessed 26 August 2011 at 

29 http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/weco.html.

30 . 2002c. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Bureau of 

31 Land Management, Desert District, California. December 2002. Accessed 25 September 2011 at 

32 http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings/coachella_valley.html.

33 . 2000. Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA). 25 July 2000. Public Law 106-248, 

34 -114 STAT. 613. Accessed on 26 August 2011 at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/

35 blm/ut/lands_and_minerals/lands/fltfa.Par.46964.File.dat/Act.pdf.

36 .1980. California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA), as Amended. U.S. Department of the 

37 Interior Bureau of Land Management Desert District, Riverside, California. Accessed on 

38 26 August 2011 at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/cdd/

39 cdcaplan.Par.15259.File.dat/CA_Desert_.pdf . 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-14 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 . 1976. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as amended (FLPMA). U.S. Department 

2 of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. 69 pp.

3 U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2011. Preliminary Site Assessment, Chocolate Mountains Aerial 

4 Gunnery Range Proposed Boundary Realignment, 40 Miles (64 kilometers) Northwest of Yuma, 

5 AZ, Riverside and Imperial Counties, California. Prepared by URS for NAVFAC Southwest and 

6 the U.S. Marine Corps. 21 December.

7 . 2010a. Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC), Navy Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike 

8 Hazard (BASH) Program Implementing Guidance and the BASH Manual addendum.

9 . 2010b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Coast Basing of the F-35B. October. 

10 Accessed on 1 August 2011 at http://www.usmcjsfwest.com/.

11 . 2010c. Record of Decision for the U.S. Marine Corps West Coast Basing of the F-35B Aircraft. 

12 Dated 9 December. Published in the Federal Register: December 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 

13 240).

14 . 2009a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Coast Basing of the MV-22.

15 Prepared for NAVFAC Southwest, San Diego, CA. October.

16 . 2009b. Revision to Cost Thresholds for Accident Severity Classification. Accessed on 

17 21 September 2011 at http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/documents/osh/oshdata/mrr/dod18 cost_thresholds-09.pdf.

19 . 2009c. NAVSEA OP 5 Volume 1 Seventh Rev, Ammunition and Explosives Safety Ashore. 

20 22 September.

21 . 2008. F-35B USMC West Coast Training Range to Home Base Radius Study. In Support of 

22 Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest (NAVFAC Southwest). 24 June.

23 . 2006. NAVSEA SW020-AG-SAF-10, Transportation Safety Handbook for Ammunition 

24 Explosives and Related Hazardous Material. 6 September.

25 . 2003. Proposed Plan/Draft Remedial Action Plan for Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

26 Range, Installation Restoration Program Sites 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8. July.

27 . 2000. Operational Risk Management (OPNAV INSTRUCTION 3500.39A and MARINE CORPS 

28 ORDER 3500.27A). 26 September.

29 Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command. 2011. NAVAIR Notice 13100 CH-1, AIR-1.1. 

30 MV-22 Weapon System Planning Document. 2 February.

31 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2011. Federal Aviation 

32 Administration Order JO 7400.2H. Procedures For Handling Airspace Matters. 10 March. 

33 Accessed on 23 December 2011 at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/AIR.pdf

34 . 2010. Aeronautical Information Manual Pilot/Controller Glossary. February 11. Accessed on 

35 12 October 2011 at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/index.htm
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-15 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 . 2008, Flight Standards Service.. The Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. FAA-H2 8083-25A

3 . 2002. Aeronautical Information Manual, Pilot/Controller Glossary. 8 August.

4 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2010. National Scenic 

5 Byways Program, Official Designations, Bradshaw Trail. Accessed at 

6 http://www.byways.org/explore/byways/2172/designation.html.

7 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise & 

8 Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May.

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Conterminous 

10 United States. Updated December 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Western 

11 Ecology Division. Corvallis, Oregon. Available at:

12 http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii_iv.htm.

13 . 2010. Primary Distinguishing Characteristics of Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United 

14 States. Accessed on 6 June 2010 at http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm.

15 . 2010. Letter from Karen Vitulano, Environmental Review Office Region IX, to Kelly Finn, 

16 DoN Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Region, regarding Scoping Comments 

17 for the Renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal, Imperial 

18 and Riverside Counties, California. 22 December.

19 . 1998. Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA 

20 Compliance Analyses.

21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Revised recovery plan for the Mojave population of the 

22 desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California. 222 pp.

23 . 2004. National Wetlands Inventory. Database. Accessed at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/.

24 . 2001. Species abstract for the American peregrine falcon. Arizona Ecological Services Office, 

25 Phoenix, 1 page.

26 . 1996. Biological Opinion for the Military Use of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

27 Range, California (1-6-95-F-40).

28 . 1994a. Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

29 Portland, Oregon.

30 . 1994b. Determination of Critical Habitat for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise.

31 Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 26, pages 5820- 5866.

32 . 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the 

33 Mojave population of the desert tortoise. Federal Register 55:12178-12191.

34 U.S. Geological Survey. 2010a. Geothermal Favorability Map Derived From Logistic Regression Models 

35 of the Western United States. GIS Shapefiles and Geodatabases. Accessed at 

36 http://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/geothermal/western_us/spatial/shape/favorabilitysurface.zip.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 8-16 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 8 – References

1 . 2010b. Salton Seismic-Imaging Project (SSIP). A Survey to Evaluate Earthquake Hazards and 

2 Structure of the Earth's Crust in Imperial and Coachella Valleys. 4 May 2010.

3 . 2008a. Assessment of Moderate- and High-Temperature Geothermal Resources of the United 

4 States. U. S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3082. 4 pp.

5 . 2008b. Earthquakes Hazards Program/Quaternary Fault and Fold Database.

6 Vredenburgh, L.M., G.L. Shumway, and R.D. Hartill. 1981. Desert Fever, An Overview of the Mining 

7 History in the California Desert Conservation Area. Accessed on 15 January 2012 at

8 http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/cdd/aml.Par.54155.File.dat/

9 Desert%20Fever%20-%20History%20of%20Mining%20in%20the%20CDCA.pdf. 

10 Wald, M.L. 2011. ―Start-Up in California Plans to Capture Lithium, and Market Share.‖ New York 

11 Times. 28 September 2011.

12 . 2007. 2006 Reporting Year Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

13 Section 313 Report for Camp Billy Machen/Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (Non14 Range Activities). 22 June.

15 . 2004. Final Report, Perchlorate Investigation, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona.

16 Warren, Claude N. 1966. ―The San Dieguito Type Site: M.J. Rogers’ 1938 Excavation on the San 

17 Dieguito River.‖ San Diego Museum of Man Papers 5:1-39.

18 Waters, M.R. 1983. ―Late Holocene lacustrine chronology and archaeology of ancient Lake Cahuilla, 

19 California.‖ Quaternary Research, Volume 19: 373-387.

20 Weide, M.L. 1976. ―A Cultural Sequence for the Yuha Desert.‖ In Background to Prehistory of the Yuha 

21 Desert Region, edited by P.J. Wilke. pp. 81–94. Ballena Press: Ramona, California.

22 Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2011. ―Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Eagle 

23 Mountain, California (042598), Period of Record: 9/ 1/1933 to 12/31/2010.‖ Accessed in August 

24 2011 at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2598. 

25 Wormer, S.R. Van and J.D. Newland. 1996. The History of Hedges and the Cargo Muchacho Mining 

26 District Parts I and II. The Journal of San Diego History, San Diego Historical Society Quarterly, 

27 Spring 1996, Vol. 42, Nos. 2 and 3.

28 Zeiner, et al. 1990a. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Volume 2: Birds. David 

29 Zeiner, W. Laudenslayer K. Mayer, and Marshal White eds. The Resource Agency. Sacramento. 

30 732 pp.

31 . 1990b. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Volume 3: Mammals. David 

32 Zeiner, W. Laudenslayer and K. Mayer eds. The Resource Agency. Sacramento. 407 pp.

33 . 1988. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Volume 1: Amphibians and 

34 Reptiles. David Zeiner, W. Laudenslayer and K. Mayer eds. The Resource Agency. Sacramento. 

35 269 pp.

36
APPENDIX A 

CALIFORNIA MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL AND 

OVERFLIGHTS ACT OF 1994 
S. 21—31

SEC. 710. LAND APPRAISAL.

Lands and interests in lands acquired pursuant to this Act

shall be appraised without regard to the presence of a species

listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

SEC. 711. DEFINITION.

Any reference to the term ‘‘this Act’’ in titles I through IX shall be deemed to be solely a reference to sections 1 and 2,

and titles I through IX.

TITLE VIII—MILITARY LANDS AND

OVERFLIGHTS

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This title may be cited as the ‘‘California

Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994’’.

(b) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) military aircraft testing and training activities as well

as demilitarization activities in California are an important

part of the national defense system of the United States, and

are essential in order to secure for the American people of

this and future generations an enduring and viable national

defense system;

(2) the National Park System units and wilderness areas

designated by this Act lie within a region critical to providing

training, research, and development for the Armed Forces of

the United States and its allies;

(3) there is a lack of alternative sites available for these

military training, testing, and research activities; (4) continued use of the lands and airspace in the California

desert region is essential for military purposes; and (5) continuation of these military activities, under appropriate terms and conditions, is not incompatible with the protection and proper management of the natural, environmental,

cultural, and other resources and values of the Federal lands

in the California desert area.

SEC. 802. MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS.

(a) OVERFLIGHTS.—Nothing in this Act, the Wilderness Act,

or other land management laws generally applicable to the new

units of the National Park or Wilderness Preservation Systems

(or any additions to existing units) designated by this Act, shall

restrict or preclude low-level overflights of military aircraft over

such units, including military overflights that can be seen or heard

within such units.

(b) SPECIAL AIRSPACE.—Nothing in this Act, the Wilderness

Act, or other land management laws generally applicable to the

new units of the National Park or Wilderness Preservation Systems

(or any additions to existing units) designated by this Act, shall

restrict or preclude the designation of new units of special airspace

or the use or establishment of military flight training routes over

such new park system or wilderness units.

(c) NO EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall

be construed to modify, expand, or diminish any authority under

other Federal law.
S. 21—32

SEC. 803. WITHDRAWALS.

(a) CHINA LAKE.—(1) Subject to valid existing rights and except

as otherwise provided in this title, the Federal lands referred to

in paragraph (2), and all other areas within the boundary of such

lands as depicted on the map specified in such paragraph which

may become subject to the operation of the public land laws, are

hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public

land laws (including the mining laws and the mineral leasing

laws). Such lands are reserved for use by the Secretary of the

Navy for—(A) use as a research, development, test, and evaluation

laboratory; (B) use as a range for air warfare weapons and weapon

systems; (C) use as a high hazard training area for aerial gunnery,

rocketry, electronic warfare and countermeasures, tactical

maneuvering and air support; (D) geothermal leasing and development and related power

production activities; and

(E) subject to the requirements of section 804(f) of this

title, other defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes specified in this paragraph.

(2) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the Federal

lands located within the boundaries of the China Lake Naval Weapons Center, comprising approximately one million one hundred

thousand acres in Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties, California, as generally depicted on a map entitled ‘‘China Lake Naval

Weapons Center Withdrawal—Proposed’’, dated January 1985. (b) CHOCOLATE MOUNTAIN.—(1) Subject to valid existing rights

and except as otherwise provided in this title, the Federal lands

referred to in paragraph (2), and all other areas within the boundary

of such lands as depicted on the map specified in such paragraph

which may become subject to the operation of the public land

laws, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under

the public land laws (including the mining laws and the mineral

leasing and the geothermal leasing laws). Such lands are reserved

for use by the Secretary of the Navy for—

(A) testing and training for aerial bombing, missile firing,

tactical maneuvering and air support; and

(B) subject to the provisions of section 804(f) of this title,

other defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes

specified in this paragraph.

(2) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the Federal

lands comprising approximately two hundred twenty-six thousand

seven hundred and eleven acres in Imperial County, California,

as generally depicted on a map entitled ‘‘Chocolate Mountain Aerial

Gunnery Range Proposed—Withdrawal’’ dated July 1993.

SEC. 804. MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.

(a) PUBLICATION AND FILING REQUIREMENT.—As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary

shall—

(1) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing

the legal description of the lands withdrawn and reserved by

this title; and

(2) file maps and the legal description of the lands withdrawn and reserved by this title with the Committee on Energy
S. 21—33

and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the

Committee on Natural Resources of the United States House

of Representatives.

(b) TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.—Such maps and legal descriptions shall have the same force and effect as if they were included

in this title except that the Secretary may correct clerical and

typographical errors in such maps and legal descriptions.

(c) AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION.—Copies of such maps

and legal descriptions shall be available for public inspection in

the appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land Management; the

office of the commander of the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake,

California; the office of the commanding officer, Marine Corps Air

Station, Yuma, Arizona; and the Office of the Secretary of Defense,

Washington, District of Columbia.

(d) REIMBURSEMENT.—The Secretary of Defense shall reimburse

the Secretary for the cost of implementing this section.

SEC. 805. MANAGEMENT OF WITHDRAWN LANDS.

(a) MANAGEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.—(1)

Except as provided in subsection (g), during the period of the

withdrawal the Secretary shall manage the lands withdrawn under

section 802 of this title pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and other

applicable law, including this title.

(2) To the extent consistent with applicable law and Executive

orders, the lands withdrawn under section 802 of this title may

be managed in a manner permitting—

(A) the continuation of grazing pursuant to applicable law

and Executive orders were permitted on the date of enactment

of this title;

(B) protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat;

(C) control of predatory and other animals;

(D) recreation (but only on lands withdrawn by section 802(a) of this title (relating to China Lake)); (E) the prevention and appropriate suppression of brush

and range fires resulting from nonmilitary activities; and (F) geothermal leasing and development and related power

production activities on the lands withdrawn under section

802(a) of this title (relating to China Lake).

(3)(A) All nonmilitary use of such lands, including the uses described in paragraph (2), shall be subject to such conditions

and restrictions as may be necessary to permit the military use

of such lands for the purposes specified in or authorized pursuant

to this title.

(B) The Secretary may issue any lease, easement, right-ofway, or other authorization with respect to the nonmilitary use

of such lands only with the concurrence of the Secretary of the

Navy.

(b) CLOSURE TO PUBLIC.—(1) If the Secretary of the Navy

determines that military operations, public safety, or national security require the closure to public use of any road, trail, or other

portion of the lands withdrawn by this title, the Secretary may

take such action as the Secretary determines necessary or desirable

to effect and maintain such closure.

(2) Any such closure shall be limited to the minimum areas

and periods which the Secretary of the Navy determines are

required to carry out this subsection.
S. 21—34

(3) Before and during any closure under this subsection, the

Secretary of the Navy shall—

(A) keep appropriate warning notices posted; and

(B) take appropriate steps to notify the public concerning

such closures.

(c) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The Secretary (after consultation with

the Secretary of the Navy) shall develop a plan for the management

of each area withdrawn under section 802 of this title during

the period of such withdrawal. Each plan shall—

(1) be consistent with applicable law;

(2) be subject to conditions and restrictions specified in

subsection (a)(3);

(3) include such provisions as may be necessary for proper

management and protection of the resources and values of

such area; and

(4) be developed not later than three years after the date

of enactment of this title.

(d) BRUSH AND RANGE FIRES.—The Secretary of the Navy shall

take necessary precautions to prevent and suppress brush and

range fires occurring within and outside the lands withdrawn under

section 802 of this title as a result of military activities and may

seek assistance from the Bureau of Land Management in the

suppression of such fires. The memorandum of understanding

required by subsection (e) shall provide for Bureau of Land Management assistance in the suppression of such fires, and for a transfer

of funds from the Department of the Navy to the Bureau of Land

Management as compensation for such assistance.

(e) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—(1) The Secretary and the Secretary of the Navy shall (with respect to each land withdrawal under section 802 of this title) enter into a memorandum

of understanding to implement the management plan developed

under subsection (c). Any such memorandum of understanding shall

provide that the Director of the Bureau of Land Management shall

provide assistance in the suppression of fires resulting from the

military use of lands withdrawn under section 802 if requested

by the Secretary of the Navy. (2) The duration of any such memorandum shall be the same

as the period of the withdrawal of the lands under section 802.

(f) ADDITIONAL MILITARY USES.—Lands withdrawn under section 802 of this title may be used for defense-related uses other

than those specified in such section. The Secretary of Defense

shall promptly notify the Secretary in the event that the lands

withdrawn by this title will be used for defense-related purposes

other than those specified in section 802. Such notification shall

indicate the additional use or uses involved, the proposed duration

of such uses, and the extent to which such additional military

uses of the withdrawn lands will require that additional or more

stringent conditions or restrictions be imposed on otherwise-permitted nonmilitary uses of the withdrawn land or portions thereof.

(g) MANAGEMENT OF CHINA LAKE.—(1) The Secretary may

assign the management responsibility for the lands withdrawn

under section 802(a) of this title to the Secretary of the Navy

who shall manage such lands, and issue leases, easements, rightsof-way, and other authorizations, in accordance with this title and

cooperative management arrangements between the Secretary and

the Secretary of the Navy: Provided, That nothing in this subsection

shall affect geothermal leases issued by the Secretary prior to
S. 21—35

the date of enactment of this title, or the responsibility of the

Secretary to administer and manage such leases, consistent with

the provisions of this section. In the case that the Secretary assigns

such management responsibility to the Secretary of the Navy before

the development of the management plan under subsection (c),

the Secretary of the Navy (after consultation with the Secretary)

shall develop such management plan.

(2) The Secretary shall be responsible for the issuance of any

lease, easement, right-of-way, and other authorization with respect

to any activity which involves both the lands withdrawn under

section 802(a) of this title and any other lands. Any such authorization shall be issued only with the consent of the Secretary of

the Navy and, to the extent that such activity involves lands withdrawn under section 802(a), shall be subject to such conditions

as the Secretary of the Navy may prescribe.

(3) The Secretary of the Navy shall prepare and submit to

the Secretary an annual report on the status of the natural and

cultural resources and values of the lands withdrawn under section

802(a). The Secretary shall transmit such report to the Committee

on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate

and the Committee on Natural Resources of the United States

House of Representatives.

(4) The Secretary of the Navy shall be responsible for the

management of wild horses and burros located on the lands withdrawn under section 802(a) of this title and may utilize helicopters

and motorized vehicles for such purposes. Such management shall

be in accordance with laws applicable to such management on

public lands and with an appropriate memorandum of understanding between the Secretary and the Secretary of the Navy. (5) Neither this title nor any other provision of law shall be

construed to prohibit the Secretary from issuing and administering

any lease for the development and utilization of geothermal steam

and associated geothermal resources on the lands withdrawn under

section 802(a) of this title pursuant to the Geothermal Steam Act

of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) and other applicable law, but

no such lease shall be issued without the concurrence of the Secretary of the Navy. (6) This title shall not affect the geothermal exploration and

development authority of the Secretary of the Navy under section

2689 of title 10, United States Code, except that the Secretary

of the Navy shall obtain the concurrence of the Secretary before

taking action under that section with respect to the lands withdrawn under section 802(a).

(7) Upon the expiration of the withdrawal or relinquishment

of China Lake, Navy contracts for the development of geothermal

resources at China Lake then in effect (as amended or renewed

by the Navy after the date of enactment of this title) shall remain

in effect: Provided, That the Secretary, with the consent of the

Secretary of the Navy, may offer to substitute a standard geothermal lease for any such contract.

SEC. 806. DURATION OF WITHDRAWALS.

(a) DURATION.—The withdrawals and reservations established

by this title shall terminate twenty years after the date of enactment of this title.

(b) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.—No later than

eighteen years after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary
S. 21—36

of the Navy shall publish a draft environmental impact statement

concerning continued or renewed withdrawal of any portion of the

lands withdrawn by this title for which that Secretary intends

to seek such continued or renewed withdrawal. Such draft environmental impact statement shall be consistent with the requirements

of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321

et seq.) applicable to such a draft environmental impact statement.

Prior to the termination date specified in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Navy shall hold a public hearing on any draft environmental impact statement published pursuant to this section. Such

hearing shall be held in the State of California in order to receive

public comments on the alternatives and other matters included

in such draft environmental impact statement.

(c) EXTENSIONS OR RENEWALS.—The withdrawals established

by this title may not be extended or renewed except by an Act

or joint resolution of Congress.

SEC. 807. ONGOING DECONTAMINATION.

(a) PROGRAM.—Throughout the duration of the withdrawals

made by this title, the Secretary of the Navy, to the extent funds

are made available, shall maintain a program of decontamination

of lands withdrawn by this title at least at the level of decontamination activities performed on such lands in fiscal year 1986.

(b) REPORTS.—At the same time as the President transmits

to the Congress the President’s proposed budget for the first fiscal

year beginning after the date of enactment of this title and for

each subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary of the Navy shall transmit to the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and

Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and

to the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Natural

Resources of the United States House of Representatives a description of the decontamination efforts undertaken during the previous

fiscal year on such lands and the decontamination activities proposed for such lands during the next fiscal year including— (1) amounts appropriated and obligated or expended for

decontamination of such lands;

(2) the methods used to decontaminate such lands;

(3) amount and types of contaminants removed from such

lands;

(4) estimated types and amounts of residual contamination

on such lands; and

(5) an estimate of the costs for full contamination of such

lands and the estimate of the time to complete such decontamination.

SEC. 808. REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL.

(a) NOTICE AND FILING.—(1) No later than three years prior

to the termination of the withdrawal and reservation established

by this title, the Secretary of the Navy shall advise the Secretary

as to whether or not the Secretary of the Navy will have a continuing military need for any of the lands withdrawn under section

802 after the termination date of such withdrawal and reservation.

(2) If the Secretary of the Navy concludes that there will

be a continuing military need for any of such lands after the

termination date, the Secretary of the Navy shall file an application

for extension of the withdrawal and reservation of such needed

lands in accordance with the regulations and procedures of the
S. 21—37

Department of the Interior applicable to the extension of withdrawals of lands for military uses.

(3) If, during the period of withdrawal and reservation, the

Secretary of the Navy decides to relinquish all or any of the lands

withdrawn and reserved by this title, the Secretary of the Navy

shall file a notice of intention to relinquish with the Secretary.

(b) CONTAMINATION.—(1) Before transmitting a notice of

intention to relinquish pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary

of Defense, acting through the Department of the Navy, shall prepare a written determination concerning whether and to what

extent the lands that are to be relinquished are contaminated

with explosive, toxic, or other hazardous materials.

(2) A copy of such determination shall be transmitted with

the notice of intention to relinquish.

(3) Copies of both the notice of intention to relinquish and

the determination concerning the contaminated state of the lands

shall be published in the Federal Register by the Secretary of

the Interior.

(c) DECONTAMINATION.—If any land which is the subject of

a notice of intention to relinquish pursuant to subsection (a) is

contaminated, and the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary

of the Navy, determines that decontamination is practicable and

economically feasible (taking into consideration the potential future

use and value of the land) and that upon decontamination, the

land could be opened to operation of some or all of the public

land laws, including the mining laws, the Secretary of the Navy

shall decontaminate the land to the extent that funds are appropriated for such purpose.

(d) ALTERNATIVES.—If the Secretary, after consultation with

the Secretary of the Navy, concludes that decontamination of any

land which is the subject of a notice of intention to relinquish

pursuant to subsection (a) is not practicable or economically feasible,

or that the land cannot be decontaminated sufficiently to be opened

to operation of some or all of the public land laws, or if Congress

does not appropriate a sufficient amount of funds for the decontamination of such land, the Secretary shall not be required to

accept the land proposed for relinquishment.

(e) STATUS OF CONTAMINATED LANDS.—If, because of their

contaminated state, the Secretary declines to accept jurisdiction

over lands withdrawn by this title which have been proposed for

relinquishment, or if at the expiration of the withdrawal made

by this title the Secretary determines that some of the lands withdrawn by this title are contaminated to an extent which prevents

opening such contaminated lands to operation of the public land

laws—

(1) the Secretary of the Navy shall take appropriate steps

to warn the public of the contaminated state of such lands

and any risks associated with entry onto such lands;

(2) after the expiration of the withdrawal, the Secretary

of the Navy shall undertake no activities on such lands except

in connection with decontamination of such lands; and

(3) the Secretary of the Navy shall report to the Secretary

and to the Congress concerning the status of such lands and

all actions taken in furtherance of this subsection.

(f) REVOCATION AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary, upon deciding that it is in the public

interest to accept jurisdiction over lands proposed for relinquish-
S. 21—38

ment pursuant to subsection (a), is authorized to revoke the withdrawal and reservation established by this title as it applies to

such lands. Should the decision be made to revoke the withdrawal

and reservation, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register

an appropriate order which shall— (1) terminate the withdrawal and reservation;

(2) constitute official acceptance of full jurisdiction over the lands by the Secretary; and (3) state the date upon which the lands will be opened

to the operation of some or all of the public lands law, including

the mining laws.

SEC. 809. DELEGABILITY.

(a) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.—The functions of the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Navy under this title may

be delegated. (b) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.—The functions of the Secretary under this title may be delegated, except that an order

described in section 807(f) may be approved and signed only by

the Secretary, the Under Secretary of the Interior, or an Assistant

Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

SEC. 810. HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING.

All hunting, fishing, and trapping on the lands withdrawn by this title shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions

of section 2671 of title 10, United States Code.

SEC. 811. IMMUNITY OF UNITED STATES.

The United States and all departments or agencies thereof shall be held harmless and shall not be liable for any injury or

damage to persons or property suffered in the course of any geothermal leasing or other authorized nonmilitary activity conducted

on lands described in section 802 of this title.

SEC. 812. EL CENTRO RANGES.

The Secretary is authorized to permit the Secretary of the Navy to use until January 1, 1997, the approximately forty-four

thousand eight hundred and seventy acres of public lands in Imperial County, California, known as the East Mesa and West Mesa

ranges, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding

dated June 29, 1987, between the Bureau of Land Management,

the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of the Navy. All

military uses of such lands shall cease on January 1, 1997, unless

authorized by a subsequent Act of Congress.

TITLE IX—AUTHORIZATION OF

APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 901. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to the National Park

Service and to the Bureau of Land Management to carry out this

Act an amount not to exceed $36,000,000 over and above that

provided in fiscal year 1994 for additional administrative and

construction costs over the fiscal year 1995–1999 period, and

$300,000,000 for all land acquisition costs. No funds in excess

of these amounts may be used for construction, administration,

or land acquisition authorized under this Act without a specific
APPENDIX B 

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 75, NO. 185 
58370 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Notices 

properties. USACE Detroit District, and 

Wayne County, MI acting as the nonfederal sponsor, have formed a 

partnership to reevaluate the flooding 

issues along the NBEC. The GRR/EIS, 

will update a feasibility study and EIS 

completed by USACE in 1988. The 

purpose of this GRR/EIS is reanalysis of 

the federal interest in developing flood 

risk management measures on the 

NBEC. The analysis will include 

reformulation of the authorized plan 

from the 1988 study for applicability. 

The GRR/EIS will incorporate a review 

of developments in the floodplain 

during the last 22 years, consideration 

of changing needs of the local 

communities, and current 

environmental conditions. When 

complete, the GRR/EIS will recommend 

if flood mitigation measures should 

occur with federal assistance. Federal 

funding for the GRR/EIS phase 

originates from American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act funds, which requires 

the GRR/EIS to be developed on an 

accelerated schedule. 

Project Authority: The GRR/EIS is 

being completed based on authorization 

by Section 102 of the River and Harbor 

Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–789). The 

original study Feasibility Report and 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Flood Protection in the Ecorse Creek 

Drainage Basin, Wayne County, 

Michigan, 1987 (Revised 1988) 

recommended the development of a 

retention basin as the selected plan. 

Construction of the selected plan from 

the 1988 feasibility study was further 

authorized by Section 101(a) (14) of the 

Water Resources Development Act 

(WRDA) of 1990. Construction never 

occurred. Project authorization was 

extended in Section 3179 of the WRDA 

of 2007 to conduct the GRR. 

Project Alternatives: A number of 

flood risk management alternatives will 

be evaluated as part of the GRR/EIS 

including retention basins, stream 

widening and restoration, flood walls 

and levees, along with non-structural 

measures such as management plans, 

warning systems and property 

acquisition. 

Draft EIS Scoping Process: The 

scoping process for public input will 

involve Federal, State, and local 

agencies, along with affected Indian 

tribes, other interested parties and 

entities. Coordination with natural 

resources and environmental agencies 

will be conducted under the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act, Endangered 

Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air 

Act, and the National Historic 

Preservation Act. A public meeting will 

be held (see DATES) to include 

discussion of environmental issues 

associated with potential flood risk 

management alternatives. 

Issues to be considered during the 

development of the Draft EIS and public 

review and input process include: 

aesthetics, dredged material disposal, 

water quality, air and noise quality, 

hazardous, toxic and radiological waste, 

threatened and endangered species, 

environmental justice, wetlands, 

historic properties, recreation, 

cumulative impacts, natural resource 

mitigation and other issues that may 

affect public health and welfare. It is 

estimated the Draft EIS will be available 

for public review and comment in late 

2011. 

John M. Niemiec, 

Project Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23934 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Intent To Prepare a 

Legislative Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Extension 

of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial 

Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal 

Lead Agency: Department of the Navy, 

DoD. 

Cooperating Agency: Bureau of Land 

Management, Department of the 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969 and regulations 

implemented by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500– 

1508), the Department of the Navy 

(DoN) and the United States Marine 

Corps (USMC), with the cooperation of 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

intends to prepare a Legislative 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(L–EIS) and conduct public scoping 

meetings for the proposed extension of 

the withdrawal of approximately 

226,711 acres of public land in Imperial 

and Riverside counties, California, for 

continued military use of the Chocolate 

Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range 

(CMAGR). 

The California Military Lands 

Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 

(Pub. L. 103–433) withdrew 226,711 

acres of public land to DoN, reserving 

these lands for defense-related purposes 

for a period of 20 years (until October 

31, 2014). The Act provides that the 

DoN may seek extension of the CMAGR 

withdrawal. As part of the withdrawal 

process, the Secretary of the Navy is 

required to publish a Draft L–EIS 

addressing legislative alternatives and 

the effects of continued withdrawal. The 

CMAGR Draft L–EIS will evaluate the 

environmental effects of the proposal to 

extend the land withdrawal for an 

additional 25 years (through 2039) and 

will evaluate alternative actions to 

restructure the existing range boundary 

for improved efficiency in the 

management of the CMAGR and 

adjacent lands. 

DATES AND ADDRESSES: DoN is initiating 

a 90-day public scoping process to 

identify community interests and 

specific issues to be addressed in the 

L–EIS, which starts with the publication 

of this Notice of Intent (NOI). Four 

public scoping meetings have been 

scheduled to enlist written and oral 

comments regarding the scope of the 

Draft L–EIS analysis: 

1. Monday, December 6, 2010, 5:30 

p.m. to 8 p.m., Yuma County Library, 

Rooms B–C, 2951 S. 21st Drive, Yuma, 

Arizona 85364; 

2. Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 5:30 

p.m. to 8 p.m., Holiday Inn Express—El 

Centro, Conference Room B, 350 

Smoketree Drive, El Centro, California 

92243; 

3. Wednesday, December 8, 2010, 5:30 

p.m. to 8 p.m., Holiday Inn, 1800 E. 

Palm Canyon, Palm Springs, California 

92264; and 

4. Thursday, December 9, 2010, 5:30 

p.m. to 8 p.m., San Diego Planning 

Commission Hearing Room, 5201 Ruffin 

Road, Suite B, San Diego, California 

92123. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

CMAGR L–EIS Project Manager (Attn: 

Kelly Finn), NAVFAC Southwest, 1220 

Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA 92132– 

5190; phone 619–532–4452. Additional 

supplementary information regarding 

the CMAGR Draft L–EIS is available at 

http:// 

www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com. 

Please submit requests for special 

assistance, sign language interpretation 

for the hearing impaired, or other 

auxiliary aids needed at the scoping 

meeting to the L–EIS Project Manager by 

November 26, 2010. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

scoping meeting schedules and 

locations will also be published in local 

newspapers. The public is invited to 

attend these meetings to view projectrelated displays, speak with DoN and 

USMC representatives, and submit 

public comment forms at information 

stations. A court reporter will be 

available at the meetings to accept oral 

comments. The scoping meetings will 

be conducted in an informal, open 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Notices 58371 

house style meeting format. All 

comments regarding the scope of issues 

that should be considered in the Draft 

L–EIS must be received within 90 days 

of the publication date of this notice to 

ensure full consideration in the Draft 

L–EIS analysis. 

Submitting Comments: Federal, state, 

and local agencies and interested parties 

are encouraged to provide oral and/or 

written comments regarding the scope 

of the L–EIS, reasonable alternatives 

and/or specific issues or topics of 

interest to the public. Comments may be 

submitted by: (1) Attending one of the 

public scoping open houses and 

providing oral or written comments, (2) 

submitting a comment form on the 

project’s public website at http:// 

www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com, 

or (3) mail. Written comments should be 

submitted to the L–EIS Project Manager 

listed below under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. All written 

comments on the scope of the L–EIS 

should be submitted and/or postmarked 

no later than December 23, 2010. 

The USMC will consider all 

comments received during the scoping 

period. A mailing list has been 

assembled to facilitate preparation of 

the L–EIS. Those on this list will receive 

notices and information related to L–EIS 

preparation. This list includes local, 

state, and federal agencies with 

jurisdiction or other interests in the 

alternatives. In addition, the mailing list 

includes affected municipalities and 

other interested parties. Anyone 

wishing to be added to the mailing list 

may request to be added by contacting 

the L–EIS project manager at the address 

provided below. 

Before including your address, 

telephone number, email address, or 

other personal identifying information 

in your comment, please be aware that 

your entire comment—including any 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

Although requests can be made to 

withhold personal identifying 

information from public review, it may 

not be possible to keep this information 

from disclosure. 

The CMAGR has served as an aerial 

bombing and gunnery training range 

since the 1940s. The CMAGR currently 

provides more than 700 square miles 

(459,000 acres) of land, and overlying 

and adjacent special-use airspace that 

extends laterally for several thousands 

of square miles that, among other 

activities, supports training in air 

combat maneuvering and tactics; close 

air support (where air-to-ground 

ordnance is fired to directly support 

friendly forces engaged in ground 

combat); airborne laser system 

operations; air-to-air gunnery; and airto-ground bombing, rocketry, and 

strafing. Artillery, demolitions, small 

arms, and Navy Special Warfare training 

are also conducted within the range. 

The CMAGR is a centerpiece in a much 

larger training complex that 

incorporates adjacent and nearby 

special use airspaces and ranges to 

support full-spectrum combat 

operations so that Marines can 

realistically train as they will fight. 

Purpose and Need: The purpose of 

and need for the proposed CMAGR 

renewal is for the DoN to retain a 

military aircrew training range for nearand long-term preparedness of United 

States tactical air forces. Extending the 

land withdrawal will provide for the 

continued effective implementation of 

ongoing aircrew training while 

maintaining the flexibility to adapt to 

the training needs of new technologies 

as they develop. The performance of air 

operations in combat is directly related 

to the quality and depth of training. The 

CMAGR provides a unique combination 

of attributes that serve this training 

requirement, including the favorable 

location and flying weather; sufficient 

land and airspace; diverse terrain; and 

developed training support facilities. 

The CMAGR consists of 

approximately 459,000 acres of desert 

mountain terrain in Imperial and 

Riverside counties, California. The land 

jurisdiction map of the CMAGR closely 

resembles a checkerboard where every 

other section (640 acres or 1 square 

mile) is managed by either the DoN or 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

The DoN owns 232,116 acres of the 

checkerboard, while the alternate 

sections of the range (226,711 acres) are 

made up of withdrawn lands managed 

by the BLM. 

Since the CMAGR comprises DoNowned and BLM-managed public lands, 

environmental stewardship for the 

CMAGR is implemented through the 

Sikes Act for DoN land and the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act for 

BLM land. Because the management 

goals and procedures of these acts differ, 

two separate regulatory schemes are 

required to administer the checkerboard 

land jurisdiction pattern of the range. 

Currently, DoN has full administrative 

jurisdiction to manage military training 

and resource management on DoNowned lands within the CMAGR, and 

the BLM is responsible for resource 

management on the alternating sections 

of public lands withdrawn and reserved 

for DoN use. 

Preliminary Alternatives: A range of 

alternatives, including the no-action 

alternative required by NEPA, will be 

considered. The L–EIS will also 

consider other reasonable alternatives 

that are identified during scoping or the 

preparation of the L–EIS. Four 

preliminary action alternatives have 

been identified. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 

would include restructuring the 

CMAGR boundaries to more closely 

follow certain prominent geographic 

features, such as aligning part of the 

CMAGR boundary to closely parallel but 

no longer cross features such as the 

Bradshaw Trail and Coachella Canal. 

1. Alternative 1 would extend the 

current withdrawal with no boundary or 

jurisdictional changes, for a period of 25 

years. 

2. Alternative 2 would extend the 

land withdrawal for a period of 25 years 

with restructured boundaries and would 

allocate full administrative jurisdiction 

for resource management to DoN, in 

addition to the military activities. 

3. Alternative 3 would extend the 

land withdrawal for a period of 25 years 

and transfer all custody and 

accountability for the real property 

within both the current withdrawal and 

the restructured boundaries from BLM 

to DoN. All responsibility for resource 

management and use of the lands would 

then reside with DoN. 

4. Alternative 4 would extend the 

land withdrawal for a period of 25 years 

with the restructured boundaries; 

management of the military activities 

would remain with DoN and the 

resource management would remain 

with BLM. 

5. Under Alternative 5, the No Action 

Alternative, the existing land 

withdrawal for the CMAGR, provided 

by the California Military Lands 

Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994, 

would expire. The capability to support 

existing and future training activities at 

the CMAGR that rely on these lands 

would cease. No alternative range is 

located in the operational region that 

has the weapons training capacity of the 

CMAGR. Consequently, aircrew and 

other training terminated at the CMAGR 

by the No Action Alternative would 

have to be relocated to ranges elsewhere 

in the country or curtailed. Range cleanup operations at CMAGR would be 

required. 

Environmental Issues and Resources 

To Be Examined: The Draft L–EIS will 

evaluate the potential environmental 

effects associated with each of the above 

alternatives and any additional 

alternatives developed during the 

scoping period. Issues to be addressed 

include, but are not limited to, 

biological resources, cultural resources, 

geology and soils, hydrology, noise, air 

quality, safety, hazardous materials and 

waste, socioeconomics and 

environmental justice. Relevant and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
58372 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Notices 

reasonable measures that would avoid 

or mitigate environmental effects will 

also be analyzed. Additionally, the 

USMC will undertake any consultations 

required by the Endangered Species Act, 

Clean Water Act, National Historic 

Preservation Act, and any other 

applicable law or regulation. 

In accordance with the Engle Act of 

1958, and the Federal Lands Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, the DoN is 

required to file an application with the 

BLM requesting the Secretary of the 

Interior process a proposed legislative 

withdrawal and reservation of public 

land to continue military training 

exercises at the CMAGR. The proposed 

alternatives would withdraw at least 

222,041 but not more than 242,058 acres 

of public land. As a result of the 

proposed boundary restructuring, 

approximately 15,347 acres of public 

land not in the existing 226,711 acre 

withdrawal would be withdrawn. The 

restructured boundary would offer the 

best opportunities to define and manage 

a secure boundary for the CMAGR, 

safeguard public use of adjacent public 

land, and consolidate holdings for more 

efficient environmental stewardship. 

The public land would be withdrawn 

from all forms of appropriation under 

the public land laws, including surface 

entry, mining, mineral leasing, and the 

Materials Act of 1947. 

L–EIS Schedule: This notice is the 

first phase of the L–EIS process and 

announces the 90-day public comment 

period and public scoping meetings to 

identify community concerns and local 

issues that should be addressed in the 

L–EIS. The next phase occurs when a 

Notice of Availability (NOA) is 

published in the Federal Register and 

local media to publicly announce the 

release of the Draft L–EIS. A minimum 

45-day public comment period for the 

Draft L–EIS will commence upon 

publication of the NOA in the Federal 

Register. The USMC will consider and 

respond to all comments received on the 

Draft L–EIS when preparing the Final L– 

EIS. After publication of the Draft L– 

EIS, one or more public hearings will be 

held, and public notice will be given 

regarding the time and place of the 

hearing(s). The Draft L–EIS will be 

available for public and agency review 

and comment before the public 

hearing(s). 

Dated: September 17, 2010. 

D.J. Werner, 

Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge 

Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Federal 

Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23984 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army; Corps of 

Engineers 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Skokomish General Investigation 

Study, Mason County, WA 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

will prepare an Integrated Feasibility 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement 

(FR/EIS) for proposed ecosystem 

restoration and flood risk management 

in the Skokomish River Basin which 

empties into Hood Canal, near Shelton, 

Washington. The Skokomish Indian 

Tribe and Mason County are the nonFederal sponsors for the project. 

The Skokomish River General 

Investigation (GI) Feasibility Study for 

the Skokomish River Basin is being 

conducted under the authority of 

Section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 

1962 (Pub. L. 87–874). 

The Skokomish River channel has 

been filling with sediment for several 

decades, resulting in frequent flooding 

and decreasing natural ecosystem 

structures, functions, and processes 

necessary to support critical fish and 

wildlife habitat throughout the 

Skokomish River Basin. Increased 

sediment load, reduced flows, and 

encroachment of the floodplain by manmade structures are leading to 

continued degradation of natural 

ecosystem functions and habitat. The 

degraded riverine and estuarine aquatic 

habitat has caused a decline in the 

population of critical fish and wildlife 

species, including multiple ESA listed 

species. Additionally, the channel 

capacity of the Skokomish River varies 

significantly. Limited channel capacity 

causes floodwater to leave the banks at 

various locations, ultimately causing 

frequent flooding of local roads, two 

state highways, agricultural fields, 

residences, and other structures. 

The Skokomish River GI is a basinwide study; however, work by others, 

constrain the limit of Corps’ 

involvement to actions primarily in the 

lower Skokomish River Valley. 

Problems, opportunities, and objectives 

will be examined within the context of 

the entire watershed. Recognizing the 

relationships between the upper and 

lower watershed will ensure a 

comprehensive study overview. 

The purpose of the FR/EIS and 

feasibility study is to evaluate if there is 

a federal interest in aquatic ecosystem 

restoration and flood risk management 

in the Skokomish River Basin. 

DATES: Submit comments by October 25, 

2010 on the scope of issues to be 

addressed in the draft FR/EIS. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments 

concerning this notice to Mr. Patrick 

Cagney, Environmental Resources 

Section, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Seattle District, P.O. Box 3755, Seattle, 

WA 98124–3755. Submit electronic 

comments and supporting data to 

patrick.t.cagney@usace.army.mil 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions regarding the scoping process 

or preparation of the draft EIS may be 

directed to Mr. Patrick Cagney, 

telephone (206) 764–3654, e-mail 

patrick.t.cagney@usace.army.mil 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Study Area: The Skokomish River 

Basin (Basin) is located in northwest 

Washington, predominantly in Mason 

County. The project study area is 

comprised of the entire drainage basin, 

including the estuary at Annas Bay. The 

river collects drainage from an 

approximate 240 square mile drainage 

basin, and eventually flows into 

southern Hood Canal, an arm of Puget 

Sound. The river flows out of three subbasins (South Fork, North Fork, and 

Vance Creek) into a broad, flat alluvial 

plain known as the Skokomish River 

Valley. The Skokomish Indian 

Reservation is located within the lower 

valley and extends along the southeast 

portion of the Olympic Peninsula. The 

Basin is defined by the Water Resource 

Inventory Area (WRIA) 16 and is located 

within U.S. Congressional District #6 of 

Washington State. 

2. Alternatives: The EIS will 

separately evaluate alternatives for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration and flood 

risk management. Alternatives that will 

be evaluated under aquatic ecosystem 

restoration will include an alternative 

that uses physical actions to restore the 

Basin’s habitat-forming processes and/or 

create habitats that have been lost as a 

result of historic alterations. Example of 

actions that could occur under this 

alternative include: increasing 

floodplain habitat and connectivity, 

restoring off-channel habitat for juvenile 

fish, improving estuarine functions and 

processes, and increasing emergent and 

riparian vegetation. Another alternative 

that will be considered will focus on 

benefits to the several aquatic species 

listed under the Endangered Species 

Act. Actions under this alternative 

could include creation of spawning and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
APPENDIX C

METHODOLOGY FOR CHARACTERIZING THE 

MILITARY-SURFACE-USE FOOTPRINT AT THE

CHOCOLATE MOUNTAIN AERIAL GUNNERY RANGE
C-1

INTRODUCTION

An inventory of military surface use at the CMAGR was prepared to identify how the various portions of 

the range are used to support training operations and to quantify the area of the range committed to each 

use. Surface use was categorized in the inventory by activity and by the levels of physical disturbance that 

the various categories of activities have on the ground surface, vegetative communities, and surface 

drainages.

RANGE USE CATEGORIES

The inventory of military surface use at the CMAGR began with MCAS Yuma, Range and Training Area 

Standard Operating Procedures, Station Order 3710.6I, which identifies specific areas of the range that 

have been designated to support various training activities and provides the locations and standard 

operating procedures for each training area or site. A base map depicting the training areas/sites 

identified in Station Order 3710.6I and the range road network was prepared using the GIS database 

maintained by MCAS Yuma (see Figure 1-5). In aggregate, the features depicted in Figure 1-5 represent 

developed capabilities at the CMAGR to support training and show how these capabilities are distributed 

within the range, but, by themselves, these depictions do not reveal how most of the range is used to 

support training. In fact, nearly the entire surface of the CMAGR currently is used in some capacity to 

support military training. To capture the full spectrum of use at the range in the inventory, training areas 

or sites were classified as belonging to either one or both of two broad categories of use and to either one 

or two of nine use subcategories. The two broad categories of use include (1) tactical training weapons 

ranges and (2) other training areas. The weapons ranges category, which includes tactical weapons ranges 

used for aviation and ground combat training, is subdivided into five subcategories:

Target Simulations and Other Earthwork Features. Features that result from grading, excavating, 

filling, or otherwise reshaping the ground surface. The subcategory includes all runways, aircraft 

parking revetments, surface-to-air missile sites, and other earthwork features that were prepared 

to appear as battlefield features from the air. These features are generally located within, but are 

smaller than, the Target or Target Complex polygons shown in Figure 1-5. Some features, 

particularly earthwork at currently inactive targets, were found by the surface use inventory to be 

located outside of the current inventory of Target or Target Complex polygons (see Figure 3-2).

Core Weapons Impact Areas. The areas at and close to target features in which the greatest 

concentrations of ordnance impacts the ground. Vegetative community, ground surfaces, and 

surface drainage patterns are substantially or completely disrupted from the natural norm by the 

aggregate volume of ordnance that has impacted core weapons impact areas over time. Most core 

weapons impact areas were found to be located inside Target or Target Complex polygons, but 

often do not assume the shape or full dimensions of those polygons and include areas outside of 

those polygons in some instances (see Figure 3-2).

Secondary Weapons Impact Areas. The ordnance impact area that extends outward from the outer 

limit of the core weapons impact area to the farthest extent of ordnance impacts that can be 

readily attributed to deliveries on that target is identified as the secondary weapons impact area. 

The secondary weapons impact area generally forms a roughly concentric band around the core 

weapons impact area and is typically larger than the inner impact area. Ordnance impacts at the 

inner perimeter of a secondary weapons impact area are relatively concentrated but the surface 

disturbance effects of impacts in this area are less pronounced than those in the core weapons

impact area. On the average, ordnance impact effects diminish sharply in secondary weapons 

impact areas with distance from the target to the point beyond which ordnance impacts 
C-2

attributable to that target cease to be detectable. Most of the Target or Target Complex polygons 

were found to encompass at least some of the secondary weapons impact areas for those targets or 

complexes, but the secondary weapons impact areas for many targets extend outside of these 

polygons (see Figure 3-2).

Weapons Delivery Containment Areas. The weapons delivery containment area extends from the 

outer limits of the secondary weapons impact areas to the lateral limits of R-2507N/S/E or the 

land boundary of the CMAGR, whichever is nearest to the range interior. Ordnance impacts in 

this area are infrequent and widely disbursed and generally cannot be attributed to ordnance 

deliveries on any specific target. The aggregate effects of ordnance impacts have not disrupted 

natural vegetative communities, ground surfaces, or surface drainage patterns in any cumulatively 

apparent manner. The weapons delivery containment area is essential to the capability of the 

CMAGR to support live-fire training as the area is necessary for containing the weapon danger 

zones (WDZs) and surface danger zones (SDZs) associated with ordnance deliveries on targets at 

the range (see Figure 3-3). A WDZ defines the ground and airspace needed to laterally and 

vertically contain 99.9999 percent of all projectiles, fragments, debris, and components resulting 

from the firing, launching, and/or detonation of aircraft-delivered ordnance. The SDZs provide an 

equivalent scale of containment for the use of ground-to-ground or ground-to-air ordnance. The 

weapons delivery containment area is not depicted on Figure 1-5 and is generally located outside 

of the Target or Target Complex polygons (see Figure 3-2).

SWATs 4 and 5. The special warfare, ground-combat ranges used for training Navy SEALs or 

Marine ground units. The two SWATs host 30 designated firing ranges for training with small 

arms and various other types of man-portable infantry weapons. SWATs 4 and 5 are fully 

depicted in Figure 1-5.

The other training areas category, which includes all other areas of the CMAGR that support training, is 

subdivided into four subcategories:

Ground Support Areas. Specific range surface locations that have been designated to support 

training activities by ground forces. Individual ground support areas are designated for use as 

observation posts, artillery firing areas, FARPs, landing zones, a UAS operating area, a Field 

ASP, and a bivouac and work area (see Figure 1-5). The ground support areas that appear in the 

military-surface-use inventory are those that exhibit levels of surface disturbance from the 

activities that they support that distinguish them from surrounding unused areas. Certain ground 

support areas do not appear in the inventory as ground support areas as they are not physically 

distinguishable from the surrounding use areas. Areas not included in the ground support area 

category include the 13 observation posts, 9 of the 10 artillery firing areas, 2 of the 6 FARPs, and 

the 11 landing zones that are located outside of the 4 FARPs that are included. The observation 

posts, artillery firing areas, and most of the landing zones are located in either the secondary 

weapons impact areas or ordnance delivery containment areas. Designated ground support areas 

are depicted in Figure 1-5, but the surface use inventory found that the full area of surface use 

associated with some of these sites extends beyond the designated site (see Figure 3-2).

Additional Training, Support, and Range Access Control Areas. These areas include those 

portions of the CMAGR that are external to either its restricted airspace or CFAs and therefore 

cannot support live-fire training (see Figure 3-2). These areas can be used, however, for any of a 

number of ground-based training or range management activities such as offsite helicopter or 

MV-22 landings, cross-country navigation for foot troops, or staging sites for target maintenance 

or EOD clearances.
C-3

Camp Billy Machen. This unique area includes Camp Billy Machen and adjacent small arms 

ranges, and other training or support areas. Camp Billy Machen is depicted in Figure 1-5; 

however, the larger area encompassing adjacent rifle and pistol ranges and operating areas was 

defined through the surface use inventory.

Range Roads. The range road network includes the roads that provide access for constructing and 

maintaining its infrastructure, conducting range operational clearances, training, and managing 

natural and cultural resources. The currently active network of range roads is depicted in

Figure 1-5. Road corridors vary in width throughout the CMAGR, but typically the width of these 

corridors is 15 feet or less as determined from sampling observable corridor widths in the GIS 

registered aerial imagery of the range. A corridor width of 15 feet was used as a standard for 

calculating the aggregate surface area of the range road network for this inventory of military 

surface use. 

Inactive Railroad Corridor. The inactive railroad corridor includes the Eagle Mountain Railroad 

on the north side of the CMAGR. A corridor width of 40 feet was found to be typical for the 

railroad and was used to calculate the surface area of the railroad in the range. 

Canal Dike Road Corridor. A corridor width of 15 feet was found to be typical for the canal dike 

roads and was used to calculate the aggregate surface area of these road corridors in the range.

METHODOLOGY

Following from the baseline inventory of designated training areas and sites provided by Station Order 

3710.6I, assessing the size, distribution, and intensity of the military surface use footprint at the CMAGR 

involved the use of an ArcGIS 10TM and geographically referenced, aerial imagery with one-foot 

resolution. The high-resolution imagery was provided by MCAS Yuma and was generated in 2009. The 

assessment of the military surface use footprint was accomplished using the following five steps:

Verify and Add Earthwork Features. The CMAGR features shown in Figure 1-5—which include 

the boundaries of the range, special use airspace, SWATs, roads, target/target complex polygons, 

and ground support areas and other ground use training sites—were projected over the imagery of 

the range. The locations of physically apparent features such as roads were verified. Earthwork 

features that were defined in the imagery, such as target simulations and roads, but that were not 

in the existing database were delineated as polygons in a GIS layer.

Delineate Core and Secondary Weapons Impact Areas. Air-to-ground ordnance deliveries have 

caused distinct patterns of physical ground disturbance concentrated around CMAGR targets. 

These effects are readily identifiable in the 2009 range imagery and were used to determine the 

distributions of core and secondary weapons impact areas at these targets. Craters caused by live 

HE bombs of between 500 and 2,000 pounds net explosive weight are particularly prominent and 

the distribution of these craters represent the cumulative pattern of ordnance delivery effects at 

each target over years of use. The pattern of bomb impacts craters at each target was delineated 

by depicting individual craters as points in a GIS data layer (Figure C-1). This process was 

completed for each active designated target at mapping scales between 1:1,000 and 1:2,500 that 

were selected as needed to distinguish craters. Determining the distributions of the core and 

secondary weapons impact areas did not require that every bomb crater be located and depicted, 

but, rather, that only the craters needed to define the patterns of these distributions be identified. 

Core and secondary weapons impact areas were differentiated from each other based on the 

densities of craters observed and the effects of ordnance impacts on the ground surface, 
C-4

vegetative cover, and surface drainage patterns. Disturbance of ground surface at or near some 

individual targets was extensive to complete where HE ordnance detonations over time resulted 

in concentrated, overlapping, and/or coalescing cratering effects. Vegetative cover had been 

eliminated in the core weapons impact areas and natural surface drainage patterns were often 

substantially altered. In core weapons impact areas where craters densities were lower and did not 

overlap, ground surfaces and vegetation between craters were still subject to blast and shrapnel 

effects and ejecta from craters. Cumulative use over time subjected nearly all ground locations in 

the core weapons impact areas to ordnance delivery effects.

The division between core and secondary weapons impact areas was delineated where the unimpacted space between HE craters began to become more prominent and where vegetative cover 

and natural surface drainage patterns remained visible (Figure C-2). Within the locations 

delineated as secondary weapons impact areas, impact craters numbers and densities generally 

decreased sharply with increasing distance from targets. Physical disturbance of the ground 

surface also decreased sharply with distance from individual targets. At the outer limits of the 

secondary weapons impact area, impact craters were no longer detectable and the patterns of 

vegetative cover and natural surface drainage patterns were indistinguishable from those 

occurring in similar natural settings that were remote from all target impact areas. A near 

analysis was performed in GIS to associate the impact craters to the nearest target, and defined 

the farthest extent of the secondary weapons impact areas. 

Core and secondary weapons impact areas were initially delineated for active targets designated 

in Station Order 3710.6I. The entire range was then scanned at a scale of 1:8,000 to detect impact 

crater clusters at inactive targets. Core and secondary weapons impact areas were also delineated

as polygons in a GIS layer using the same method for each inactive target located.

Delineate Ground Support Areas. Concentrated vehicle use, bivouacs, FARP operations, and 

other activities have caused recognizable physical ground disturbance at designated ground 

support areas that distinguish the areas that receive repeated use from other locations 

(Figure C-2). Use areas were delineated as polygons in a GIS layer based on the aerial imagery 

and GIS data provided by MCAS Yuma for ground support areas and other locations. Camp Billy 

Machen is a built-up cantonment area that was delineated as a polygon in a GIS layer in the same 

manner.

Describe Levels of Surface Disturbance Associated with each Range Use Subcategory. The levels 

of surface disturbance that has typically occurred within the areas allocated for each subcategory 

of military use were described based on the degree of disturbance apparent in the aerial imagery. 

Descriptions of the levels of disturbance that are characteristic of each range use subcategory are 

provided in Table 3-6.

Calculate Area of each Range Use Subcategory. Target and other earthwork features, core and 

secondary weapons impact areas, ground support areas, and Camp Billy Machen were 

represented as polygons in a GIS layer. The GIS was used to calculate the area of the CMAGR 

affected by each subcategory of military use based on the polygonal data. The aggregate areas of 

road, railroad, and canal dike road corridors were calculated using the designated standard width 

of each type of corridor and the aggregate length of each corridor type in the range. The results of 

these calculations are provided in Table 3-6.

A final GIS layer was assembled to incorporate all categories of range surface use. This layer provides the 

composite military surface-use footprint at the CMAGR (Figure C-3).
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad

(Inactive)

R-2507E

R-2507N

R-2507S

Live/Inert Ordnance

Authorized

Inert Ordnance

Live/Inert Ordnance

See Inset

Glamis

Niland

Riverside County

Imperial County

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Appendix C\CMAGR_MilitarySurfaceUse_Craters.mxd (BLC 7/2/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Impact Crater Location

Target Feature or

Other Earthwork Feature

Restricted Airspace

Line Dividing Area Authorized 

for Live/Inert Ordnance Versus

Inert Ordnance Only Area

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Road

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Railroad

CMAGR Impact Crater

Locations based

on Aerial Imagery

Figure C-1

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

C-5

Inset

0 0.5 1

Miles

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

Inset Map Scale 1:50,000

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2012, URS 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010

Imagery: IGI&S 2009

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad

(Inactive)

R-2507E

R-2507N

R-2507S

Live/Inert Ordnance

Authorized

Inert Ordnance

Live/Inert Ordnance

See Inset A

See Inset B

Glamis

Niland

Riverside County

Imperial County

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Appendix C\CMAGR_MilitarySurfaceUse_ImpactArea.mxd (BLC 7/2/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Impact Crater Location

Target Feature or

Other Earthwork Feature

Core Weapons Impact Area

Ground Support Impact Area

Forward Arming and 

Refueling Point (FARP) /

Landing Zone (LZ)

Restricted Airspace

Line Dividing Area Authorized 

for Live/Inert Ordnance Versus

Inert Ordnance Only Area

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Road

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Railroad

CMAGR Core Weapons Impact

Areas and Ground Support

Areas based on Aerial Imagery

Figure C-2

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

C-6

Inset A

Inset B

0 0.5 1

Miles

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

Inset A Map Scale 1:50,000

0 0.5 1

Miles

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

Inset B Map Scale 1:50,000

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2012, URS 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010

Imagery: IGI&S 2009

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
111

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad

(Inactive)

R-2507E

R-2507N

R-2507S

Live/Inert Ordnance

Authorized

Inert Ordnance

Live/Inert Ordnance

See Inset

Glamis

Niland

Riverside County

Imperial County

 P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012_Choc_Mtn_LEIS\GIS\mxds\DLEIS\Appendix C\CMAGR_MilitarySurfaceUse_Classes.mxd (BLC 7/2/2012)

Legend

Existing CMAGR Boundary

Impact Crater Location

Restricted Airspace

Line Dividing Area Authorized 

for Live/Inert Ordnance Versus

Inert Ordnance Only Area

Military Surface Use Area

Target or Other Earthwork Feature

Core Weapons Impact Area

Secondary Weapons Impact Area

Ground Support Area

Weapons Delivery Containment Area

City\Town

County Boundary

Highway

Road

Bradshaw Trail

Coachella Canal

Railroad

CMAGR Military Surface Use

Classification for Ordnance Delivery

and Ground Supports Areas

Figure C-3

CMAGR Land Withdrawal

Renewal LEIS

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

Map Scale 1:260,000

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

C-7

Inset

0 0.5 1

Miles

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

Inset Map Scale 1:50,000

This Map is for Reference Use Only.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources to

develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The

user must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bear

responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect

to the possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology,

currency of the data, and other conditions specific to certain data. 

This information does not depict all possible resources. Field 

verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This

information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:

Military Surface Use: URS 2011 - 2012

Range Features: IGI&S 2010 - 2011, YRMD 2010 - 2012, URS 2011

Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010

Imagery: IGI&S 2009

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11N

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: WGS 1984

Units: Meter
APPENDIX D

DESCRIPTION OF ORDNANCE LISTED IN TABLE 3-8
D-1

Appendix D

Description of Ordnance Listed in Table 3-8

Ordnance Description

2.75-inch Rocket HE (high 

explosive)

Unguided 2.75-inch air-to-ground rocket with a solid propellant motor and a HE 

warhead.

2.75-inch Rocket Inert Unguided 2.75-inch air-to-ground rocket with a solid propellant motor and an inert 

training warhead.

5-inch Rocket HE Unguided 5-inch air-to-ground rocket with solid propellant motor and a HE 

warhead.

20mm Cannon Ammunition 20mm cannon round fired from an aircraft gun with inert training or HE projectiles.

25mm Cannon Ammunition 25mm cannon round fired from an aircraft gun with inert training or HE projectiles.

30mm Cannon Ammunition 30mm cannon round fired from an aircraft gun with inert training or HE projectiles.

MK-20 Inert Inert training version of the MK-20 RockeyeII—an unguided, anti-armor cluster 

bomb with 247 bomblets.

MK-20 HE HE version of the MK-20 RockeyeII—an unguided, anti-armor cluster bomb with 

247 bomblets.

MK-76 Inert, 25-pound, subcaliber training bomb with smoke producing spotting charge—

simulates delivery trajectory of full-sized service bombs.

MK-77 Incendiary 500-lb, air-dropped incendiary bomb. 

MK-82 HE HE version of the 500-pound general purpose bomb, which is a free-fall, unguided

bomb.

MK-82 Inert Inert training version of the 500-pound general purpose bomb filled with sand or 

concrete with an optional smoke-producing spotting charge.

MK-83 HE HE version of the MK-83, 1,000-pound general purpose bomb, which is a free-fall, 

unguided bomb.

MK-83 Inert Inert training version of the MK-83, 1,000-pound general purpose bomb filled with 

sand or concrete with an optional smoke-producing spotting charge.

MK-84 HE HE version of the MK-84, 2,000-pound general purpose bomb, which is a free-fall, 

unguided bomb.

MK-84 Inert Inert training version of the MK-84, 2,000-pound general purpose bomb filled with 

sand or concrete with an optional smoke-producing spotting charge.

CBU-16 (cluster bomb unit) Inert training version of a non-lethal chemical warfare cluster bomb with 40 

bomblets.

CBU-20 Same as MK-20.

CBU-58 HE version of an unguided, anti-personnel/anti-material cluster bomb with 650 

bomblets.

CBU-87 HE version of an unguided, light anti-armor/anti-personnel/anti-material cluster 

bomb with 202 bomblets. 

CBU-99 Same as MK-20.

CBU-100 Same as MK-20.

BDU-13 (bomb dummy unit) Inert practice bomb used for nuclear bomb delivery training.

BDU-16 Inert practice bomb used for nuclear bomb delivery training.

BDU-20 Inert practice bomb used for nuclear bomb delivery training.

BDU-24 Inert practice bomb used for nuclear bomb delivery training.

BDU-33 Inert 25 lb practice bomb used for general-purpose bomb delivery training.

BDU-45 Inert 500 lb practice bomb used for MK 82 bomb delivery training.

BDU-48 Inert 10 lb practice bomb used to simulate MK82 & MK 84 in a high drag 

configuration

BDU-87 Inert practice bomb used for CBU-87 cluster bomb training.

BDU-99 Inert practice bomb used for CBU-99 cluster bomb training.

GBU-10 (guided bomb unit) Laser-guided, 2,000 lb bomb with MK-84 warhead, Paveway I/II guidance kit, and 

airfoil steering kit.

GBU-12 Laser-guided, 500 lb bomb with MK-82 warhead, Paveway I/II guidance kit, and 

airfoil steering kit.

GBU-16 Laser-guided, 1,000 lb bomb with MK-83 warhead, Paveway II guidance kit, and 

airfoil steering kit.

GBU-23 Laser-guided, 1,000 lb bomb with MK-83 warhead, Paveway III guidance kit, and 

airfoil steering kit.
D-2

Ordnance Description

GBU-24 Low-level laser-guided, 2,000 lb bomb with MK-84/BLU-109/BLU-116 warhead, 

Paveway III guidance kit, and airfoil steering kit.

GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), 2,000 lb bomb with MK-84/BLU-109 

warhead, and GPS guidance kit.

GBU-40 285 lb Small Diameter Bomb with GPS guidance kit.

GBU-42 285 lb Small Diameter Bomb with GPS guidance kit.

GDU (guidance dummy unit) Inert training missile for AIM-9 training; AIM-9 is a supersonic, short-range, IR 

guided air-to-air missile with a high-explosive warhead.

TOW Missile (tube-launched, 

optically tracked, wire-guided)

TOW is an anti-armor weapon that is employed by helicopters and ground troops.

AGM-114 Hellfire Missile 

(air-to-ground missile)

AGM-114 (air-to-ground missile) is a missile employed by attack helicopters 

against heavy armored targets. 

AGM-122 Sidearm Missile

(AIM-9)

A small anti-radar missile, carried by attack helicopters for self defense against antiaircraft gun and surface-to-air missile radars.

AGM-88 HARM (high speed 

anti-radiation missile)

An air-to-ground tactical missile designed to seek and destroy radar-equipped air 

defense sites.

LGTR (laser-guided training 

round)

LGTR is an inert training device that replicates employment of Paveway GBU.

LUU-2 (illuminating unit) LUU-2 is an aircraft-dropped, ground-illumination, parachute flare.

LUU-19 LUU-19 is an aircraft-dropped, infrared, ground-illumination, parachute flare.

CHAFF Chaff is a radar countermeasure to hide aircraft from detection and/or attack by air 

defense systems. Chaff consists of small fibers that reflect and cloud radar signals.

Flares Self-defense flare ejected by aircraft to lure heat (infrared) seeking missiles away 

from the aircraft.

60mm WP/RP/SMK/ILL 60mm mortar projectile with a phosphorous (WP), red phosphorus (RP), smoke 

(SMK), or illumination (ILL) warhead.

60mm HE 60mm mortar projectile with a HE warhead.

81mm WP/RP/SMK/ILL 81mm mortar projectile with a WP, RP, SMK, or ILL warhead.

81mm HE 81mm mortar projectile with a HE warhead.

155mm WP/RP/SMK/ILL 155mm artillery projectile with a WP, RP, SMK, or ILL warhead.

155mm HE 155mm artillery projectile with a HE warhead.

M72A2 66mm HE LAW Lightweight, self-contained, anti-armor weapon consisting of a rocket packed in a 

shoulder-fired launcher. 

40mm HE Low- or high-velocity 40mm HE projectile fired from an infantry portable grenade 

launcher.

40mm Inert Low- or high-velocity 40mm inert training projectile fired from an infantry portable 

grenade launcher.

84mm HE 84mm HE projectile fired by the M3 shoulder-fired, recoilless rifle that serves as a 

multi-role, anti-armor, and anti-tank weapon.

84mm Inert 84mm inert training projectile fired by the M3 shoulder-fired, recoilless rifle that 

serves as a multi-role, anti-armor, and anti-tank weapon.

Demolition Charge Explosives, dynamite, and other training devices of varying weights and effects. 
APPENDIX E 

NAVY RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY FOR 

CLEAN AIR ACT CONFORMITY 
1 | Page

Preliminary draft, for discussion purposes only. Requires Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)  

review to determine availability for public release.

NAVY RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY FOR CLEAN AIR ACT CONFORMITY 

The proposed action falls under the Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) category and is documented 

with this RONA. 

Proposed Action: 

Action Proponent: Department of the Navy 

Location: Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR), 

 Imperial and Riverside Counties, California 

Proposed Action Name: Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 

Proposed Action & Emissions Summary: The CMAGR is a live-fire aviation training range that was 

initially established during World War II and has supported tactical military aviation training ever since. 

It is located to the east of the Salton Sea in Imperial and Riverside counties, California. The CMAGR 

provides more than 700 square miles of land and several thousands of square miles of overlying and 

adjacent Special Use Airspace (SUA) that continues to support training that is essential to the readiness of 

the nation’s Marine Corps and Naval air forces. 

The current withdrawal of Department of the Interior (DoI) public lands for the CMAGR, established 

through the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflight Act of 1994 (CMLWOA), is scheduled 

to expire in October 2014. There continues to be a military need for the CMAGR so the Proposed Action 

is the Department of the Navy’s (DoN’s) request that Congress renew the land withdrawal and military 

reservation. The DoN filed a land withdrawal application with the DOI Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) for public lands currently within the CMAGR as well as for some adjacent lands being considered 

to establish a more effective and identifiable range boundary. Land jurisdiction at the CMAGR resembles 

a checkerboard where roughly every other section (640 acres or approximately 1 square mile) falls under 

either DoN or DoI jurisdiction. About 232,116 acres of the checkerboard are Navy lands while the 

alternate sections (approximately 226,711 acres) are withdrawn DoI public lands managed by the BLM. 

Congressional approval is required for land withdrawals for national defense purposes that total more than 

5,000 acres in aggregate. 

The Proposed Action is a legislative proceeding and will not affect the current operations of the CMAGR, 

thus there will be no new air pollutant emissions as a result of the Proposed Action. 

Affected Air Basin(s): Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) 

Date RONA prepared: 03 October 2011 

RONA prepared by: DoN 

Proposed Action Exemption(s): Per 40 CFR 93.153, the conformity requirements do not apply to judicial 

and legislative proceedings that would result in no emissions increase. 

Attainment Area Status and Emissions Evaluation Conclusion: The Imperial County portion of the SSAB 

is classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone (O3) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS), and the western two-thirds of Imperial County is classified as a serious 

nonattainment area for particulate matter (PM10). The SSAB portion of Riverside County is classified as a 

severe nonattainment area for the 8-hour O3 NAAQS, and also is classified as a serious nonattainment 

area for PM10. The CMAGR attains all other NAAQS. 
2 | Page

Preliminary draft, for discussion purposes only. Requires Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)  

review to determine availability for public release.

As discussed above, a portion of the CMAGR lies within Imperial County and a portion lies within 

Riverside County. The Proposed Action emissions are presented with the conformity de minimis

thresholds for Imperial County and Riverside County in Table 1. 

Table 1 – Net Emissions and De Minimis Thresholds 

Criteria Pollutant

Net Emissions from 

Proposed Action 

(tons/year)

De Minimis 

Threshold 

(tons/year) 

Net Emissions 

above/below 

Threshold? 

Riverside County

PM10 0 70 below 

NOX 0 25 below 

ROG 0 25 below 

Imperial County

PM10 0 70 below 

NOX 0 100 below 

ROG 0 100 below 

PM10 – particulate matter of 10 microns or less 

NOX – nitrogen oxides 

ROG – reactive organic gases 

The proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal results in no emissions increase as presented in 

the Legislative Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Action. Therefore, the DoN concludes 

that the general conformity rule does not apply to the Proposed Action and a Conformity Analysis is not 

required, resulting in this documented RONA. 

RONA Approval: 

To the best of my knowledge, the information presented in this RONA is correct and accurate, and 

I concur in the finding that the Proposed Action does not trigger the General Conformity Rule. 

Signature: 

Name/Rank: Date: 

Position: Commanding Officer: Activity: 
APPENDIX F 

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

AMONG THE

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS,

THE ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS, AND 

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 

SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT FOR THE WEST 

COAST BASING AND OPERATION OF THE MV-22 OSPREY 

WHEREAS, the United States Marine Corps (Marine Corps), through Marine Corps Installations 

West (MCIWEST), proposes to base up to ten (10) MV-22 squadrons (120 aircraft) at two Marine 

Corps installations on the West Coast (MCAS Miramar and MCAS Camp Pendleton), including 

basing up to eight (8) MV-22 squadrons for employment by the Third (3rd) Marine Air Wing (MAW) 

to provide medium lift capability to the First (1st) Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) and basing of 

up to two (2) Fourth (4th) MAW MV-22 squadrons to provide a West Coast reserve component 

medium lift capability; and conduct training operations for those squadrons at existing Marine Corps 

training ranges, installations, and along selected Military Training Routes (MTRs) in Arizona and 

California, as shown in Figure 1 (Regional Map) and Figure 2 (Military Training Route Map); and

WHEREAS, the proposed basing of the MV-22 Osprey will require construction of new facilities and 

infrastructure and renovation of existing facilities and infrastructure at MCAS Miramar and MCAS 

Camp Pendleton in California, and will not require construction or renovation at Marine Corps Base 

Camp Pendleton (MCB Camp Pendleton), Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC), and 

the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR) in California, and the Barry M. Goldwater 

West (BMGR-West) in Arizona; and 

WHEREAS, MCIWEST has determined that the proposed activities listed above, hereinafter referred 

to collectively as the Undertaking, are subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 United States Code (U.S.C.) Part (§)470f, and its implementing 

regulations, 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §800; and

WHEREAS, MCIWEST has determined that the effects on historic properties cannot be fully 

determined before approval of the Undertaking, as provided in 36 CFR §800.146(b)(l)(ii); and 

WHEREAS, the Undertaking involves no new roads or access routes, and no change to the footprint 

of existing roads or access routes; and

WHEREAS, MCIWEST has notified and consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) per 36 CFR §800.6(a)(1)(i)(C) and the Arizona and California State Historic 

Preservation Officers (SHPOs) pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6(a), regulations implementing Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. §470f, and pursuant to such 

consultation, has developed this Programmatic Agreement (PA) in accordance with 36 CFR 

§800.14(b) to establish an efficient program alternative to comply with Section 106 that constitutes a 

departure from the normal Section 106 process (36 CFR §800.14(b)(1)(v)), and will execute this PA 

with ACHP’s participation per 36 CFR §800.14(b)(2)(ii); and
2

WHEREAS, forty-four (44) federally recognized tribes, as well as two (2) non-recognized tribes 

identified herein as “Concurring Parties” (see pgs. 23-29 of the PA) have been consulted on the 

Undertaking, including development of the PA, and have been invited to concur with the PA, per 36 

CFR §800.2(c)(2)(ii), 36 CFR §800.2(d), 36 CFR 800.14(b)(2), and 36 CFR §800.14(f), and 

WHEREAS, MCIWEST has allowed for comments from the general public and other interested 

parties through a series of phone calls, emails and face-to-face meetings in both a group setting and/or

on an individual basis and has taken into account additional comments via the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) process of public scoping meetings, an open public comment period and public 

hearings, as described in Stipulations XI, Public Participation; and

WHEREAS, both Arizona and California SHPOs have and will continue to participate in the 

implementation of this PA, and stipulations have been provided to address each state’s regulations and 

concerns; and

WHEREAS, execution of this PA by MCIWEST obligates them, as well as Base Commands, to 

comply with the stipulations contained herein; and

NOW, THEREFORE, MCIWEST, the Arizona and California SHPOs and the ACHP agree that 

MV-22 Osprey operation, maintenance, training, and related demolition, and construction activities 

(the Undertaking) shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations to satisfy the 

Marine Corps’ NHPA Section 106 responsibilities for all individual actions included in the 

Undertaking, or portion thereof.

STIPULATIONS 

MCIWEST shall ensure that the following measures are carried out as indicated:

I. APPLICABILITY/SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

A. This PA applies to all activities associated with training, readiness, and special exercise 

operations of the West Coast Basing of the MV-22 Osprey, collectively referred to as “the 

Undertaking” and as noted in Attachment D for Arizona and Attachments A-C and E for 

California.

B. Unless otherwise noted, this PA will utilize the definitions found at 36 CFR §800.16.

C. All Signatory Parties to this PA will be responsible for complying with the general 

provisions of the PA. When the Undertaking, or portion thereof, is located on a specific 

Marine Corps installation (e.g., MCAS Miramar or MCAS Camp Pendleton) or results in 

training activities being conducted on an installation (i.e., training, readiness and special 

exercise operations), then that installation’s Cultural Resource Manager (CRM) and/or 

appropriate Lands Manager and the Project Proponent (Aviation) and/or Action Sponsor 

(MCIWEST) will be responsible for complying with applicable project-specific 

stipulations of this PA, or as noted in Stipulation III. The installation’s CRM and/or Lands 

Manager shall ensure that the Project Proponent carries out the agreed upon stipulations for 
3

the Undertaking, or portion thereof, on property under their jurisdiction. The Project 

Proponent shall be responsible for funding and complying with the agreed upon 

stipulations and mitigations, if any.

II. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

A. All surveying, testing, and mitigation relating to archaeological resources will be carried 

out by, or under the direct supervision of, a person or persons meeting the professional 

qualification for Archaeology as found in “The Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Historic 

Preservation Professional Qualification Standards” (SOI Qualification Standards), per 36

CFR §61, Appendix A (Volume 48, No 190 dtd. September 29, 1983). 

B. All surveys and eligibility determinations for buildings, districts, sites, structures, and 

objects will be carried out by or under the direct supervision of a person or persons 

meeting the professional qualifications for History, Architectural History, Architecture,

and/or Historic Architecture, as defined in the SOI Qualification Standards per 36 CFR 

§61, Appendix A, as noted above.

C. Where MCIWEST utilizes contracts (and contractors/consultants) involving work 

governed by this PA that may affect historic properties (and archaeological resources),

MCIWEST will use appropriate contract performance requirements, and/or appropriate 

source selection criteria that shall include minimum qualifications for historic preservation 

experience and satisfactory prior performance, as appropriate to the nature of the work and 

the type of procurement, developed with the participation of Marine Corps professionals 

and contractors/consultants meeting the standards in Stipulation II.B for the Undertaking, 

or portion thereof, involving buildings, districts, sites, structures, and objects, and/or as in 

Stipulation II.A, for those portions of the Undertaking involving archaeological resources.

III. OTHER AGREEMENTS

When the Undertaking occurs on an installation with an approved Integrated Cultural Resources 

Management Plan (ICRMP) and a signed and executed PA for that installation (installation PA), the 

installation ICRMP and associated PA shall be used for the purposes of complying with 36 CFR §800,

including annual reporting, as appropriate. In those instances where the Undertaking, or portion

thereof, occurs on an installation with an approved ICRMP but not a signed and executed PA, the 

installation ICRMP will be used to guide the identification and evaluation requirement of the project 

per 36 CFR §800, and those applicable portion of this PA (MV-22 project PA) shall be used for the 

purposes of identifying effects, as well as the means for taking those effects into account. Where the 

Undertaking, or portion thereof, occurs on an installation where neither an ICRMP nor a signed and 

executed installation PA is in effect, the stipulations of this PA (MV-22 project PA) shall apply.

IV. IDENTIFICATION OF THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS 

Defining the APE. MCIWEST has established the area of potential effect (APE) for the Undertaking, 

or portion thereof, based on the project footprint, and as depicted in Attachments A-E. The APE 
4

encompasses the project area and outlines the recorded archaeological site limits. 

Amending the APE. Any consulting party to this PA may propose that the APE be modified. 

MCIWEST shall notify all the consulting parties of the proposal and consult with the Signatory Parties 

for no more than 30 days to reach agreement on the proposal. If MCIWEST and the Signatory Parties 

agree to the proposal, then MCIWEST will prepare a description and a map of the modification and 

provide them to all the consulting parties no later than 30 days following such an agreement. Mutual 

agreement to amend the APE according to these conditions will not require an amendment to the PA. 

If MCIWEST and the Signatory Parties cannot agree to a proposal for the modification of the APE, 

then they will resolve the dispute in accordance with Stipulation XIII, Dispute Resolution.

V. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION, DETERMINATION OF 

EFFECT, AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

MCIWEST will ensure that identification of recorded archaeological resource sites within the APE for 

this Undertaking is completed before initiation of any part of the Undertaking with the potential to 

affect historic properties.

MCIWEST shall assess any previously unevaluated properties within the APE for National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility, by or under the direct supervision of a CRM (or contractor /

consultant, where appropriate) meeting the applicable qualification standards noted under Stipulation 

II. The management of any such properties determined to meet NRHP eligibility will be incorporated 

into existing ICRMPs, as appropriate, as they are revised or updated, or when a new ICRMP is 

developed in consultation with the appropriate SHPO.

Any updates to the existing Geographical Information System cultural resource layers for the APE, 

such as shape files showing the locations of known archaeological sites and historic buildings and 

structures, will be shared with the appropriate SHPO. As addressed in 36 CFR §800.11(c), both

SHPOs recognize that these layers may contain sensitive information and agree not to disseminate or 

make such sensitive information available to the public without obtaining permission of the Marine 

Corps official (appropriate CRM, installation Commanding Officer, and/or MCIWEST) who has

jurisdiction over the historic property. MCIWEST and/or the installation CRM will be notified in 

advance in all instances where such information is to be made available to the public by the Arizona or 

California SHPO.

A. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION

1. Each part of the Undertaking’s APE shall be inventoried in accordance with the 

stipulations for identification enumerated below.

2. Installation CRM offices, acting on behalf of MCIWEST and the Marine Corps, in 

general, shall ensure that all identification activities conform to the Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Standards for 

Identification (48 FR §44716 at §44720-44723). The scope of identification efforts will 

depend on: existing knowledge about historic properties, including the age of previous 
5

surveys, if any; any identified goals for survey activities developed in the planning 

process; and current management needs. Critical steps in the identification process are: a 

literature review; Tribal Government consultation; field survey (as necessary); 

documentation of results; record keeping; and determinations of eligibility.

3. Where the Marine Corps proposes to carry out, or cause to be carried out, an 

intensive or sample survey of the Undertaking, or portion thereof, and its APE, regardless 

of the land ownership, the Marine Corps will consult with the appropriate SHPOs before 

any sample inventory is undertaken, and shall document the results of the inventory and 

any sample survey efforts approved by the SHPO and provide this documentation to the 

appropriate SHPO and all appropriate Tribal Governments for review and comment in 

accordance with Stipulation VIII, Reporting Requirements. An intensive and/or sample 

survey may be carried out by:

a) Professional archaeologists or historians, including those under contract, 

who meet the professional standards, as identified in Stipulation II; and

b) Tribal representatives, historians and archaeological technicians may 

participate in surveys so long as they are under the direct supervision of the 

professional archaeologist assigned to the survey team. Tribal representatives 

may also participate in such surveys in an advisory capacity, at the discretion of 

the Marine Corps.

4. All identified cultural resources shall be properly recorded on appropriate state 

historic resource inventory forms (i.e., AZSite form in Arizona and DPR 523 form in

California). Completion of these forms will follow the standards outlined in instructions 

provided by the respective state in which the survey is conducted. For example, in 

Arizona, guidance is provided by the State Museum’s “Procedures Manual for Arizona 

Antiquities Act Permits, Records Management / Repository Requirements, and 

Archaeological Records Access (2009)”. Completed AZSite forms will be submitted to 

the Arizona State Museum (ASM) for site number assignment. In California, guidance is 

provided by “Instructions for Recording Historic Resources (1995)”. Completed forms 

will be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center for trinomial assignment.

a) ASM site number and CA trinomial designations will be incorporated into 

the documentation submitted for review by the appropriate SHPO (note 

Stipulation V.A.5.d. below regarding ASM site cards).

b) If ASM site numbers or CA trinomial designations have been requested, but 

not received by the time the Marine Corps needs to submit documentation to the

SHPO, the Marine Corps will provide copies of the transmittal letters to the 

respective state information centers (e.g., Arizona State Museum and South 

Coastal Information Center in California) with its documentation as a temporary 

fulfillment of the requirement.

c) Archaeological site records and map information will be housed by 

installation CRM offices in a controlled access facility. 
6

5. A Survey Report (SR), and/or Archaeological Survey Reconnaissance Report 

(ASRR) shall be prepared for each part of the Undertaking or group of related parts of 

the Undertaking, before implementing the Undertaking’s activities. The standards to be 

followed include:

a) In Arizona, the CRM shall ensure that SRs conform to Arizona’s guidelines 

as described in:

i. AZ SHPO’s Policy for Standardized Survey Reports (1999);

ii. Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and 

Historic Preservation, Reporting Identification Results (48 FR §44716 at 

§44723);

b) In California, the CRM shall ensure that SRs conform to California’s

guidelines as described in:

i. State of California (CA) Department of Parks and Recreation guidelines 

“Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended 

Contents and Format (1989);

ii. Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and 

Historic Preservation, Reporting Identification Results (48 FR §44716 at 

§44723).

c) Other standards as may be mutually agreed to by the Marine Corps, the 

Arizona and California SHPOs, the ACHP and appropriate Tribal Governments.

d) SRs should include (within the text) individual site description summaries 

and site sketch maps, along with integrity assessments, evaluation of potential 

effects from MV-22 rotorwash, if any, and recommendations of site eligibility. 

In Arizona, ASM site cards shall not to be included within survey reports. In 

California, copies of the site record forms for sites identified within and/or 

immediately adjacent to the APE shall be included in the survey reports.

e) SRs shall include references to previous reports and property records if 

portion of the Undertaking have been subject to earlier survey and these reports 

have been previously submitted to the appropriate SHPO for review. Previously 

identified historic properties within an APE shall be updated to meet the 

documentation standards specified in this PA, and according to state standards, 

as appropriate.

f) SRs shall be completed before implementing the Undertaking or portions

thereof.

g) Unless survey findings are negative for sites, copies of the SRs will be 

submitted to the appropriate SHPO, ACHP and Concurring Parties (e.g., Tribal 

Governments), as appropriate, within each state for review and comment for a 

period of 30 calendar days. MCIWEST shall ensure that comments received 
7

within 30 calendar days of distribution of the reports are given ample 

consideration when revising and finalizing the SRs. Upon receipt of SHPO or 

ACHP comments, MCIWEST or the respective installation CRM will work 

with the SHPO to address and incorporate all appropriate comments within 30 

calendar days thereafter and provide the appropriate SHPO and/or the ACHP 

with a revised, finalized SR. If no comments are received within this period, 

MCIWEST may proceed with finalization of the SRs. This 30 calendar day 

review process will include determinations of eligibility, as well as findings of 

effect determinations.

6. No additional identification efforts are required before implementation of the 

proposed Undertaking, or portion thereof, if that part of the APE is entirely within an 

area that has been previously inventoried, and no historic properties and/or 

archaeological resources are present, and /or any evaluated sites have been previously 

determined not eligible pursuant to criteria outlined in 36 CFR §60.4 and the CRM, or 

qualified person(s) delegated by the CRM, determines that no additional inventory or 

consultation with the SHPO and Tribal Governments is required before implementation, 

provided the following conditions are met:

a) The installation CRM, or person delegated by the installation CRM, 

confirms that previous identification efforts meet current standards; and 

b) The Undertaking, or portions thereof, is documented in a manner agreed 

upon in advance by the appropriate SHPO and the Marine Corps, and this 

documentation is included in the Annual Report.

7. In Arizona, no surface collection will be conducted during survey efforts without 

prior written authorization from the SHPO. In California, surface collection may be 

permitted during survey efforts on an installation-by-installation basis so long as such 

activity will be carried out by, or under the direct supervision of, a person or persons 

meeting the professional qualifications identified in Stipulation II of this PA, or is 

covered (and authorized) under an existing PA (per Stipulation III), consistent with an 

approved ICRMP.

B. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

1. If the Undertaking, or any portion thereof, has the potential to affect a historic 

property, then MCIWEST will follow the provisions of 36 CFR §800 regarding 

evaluation and determination of effects, except as provided in Stipulation V.B.2.

2. If the CRM or a person designated by the CRM (e.g., contractor), determines that the 

nature and scope of the proposed Undertaking, or portion thereof is such that its effects 

cannot be reasonably predicted, but appropriate measures can be undertaken to ensure 

that the values of historic properties are not affected in any way, then these historic 

properties will be managed and maintained in a manner that ensures that their value(s) 

is/are preserved by using the proposed Standard Resource Protection Measures listed in 

Attachment F. Under these circumstances, no NRHP evaluation is required before 
8

implementing the Undertaking, or any portion thereof, with appropriate SHPO 

concurrence.

3. An Annual Report on the Undertaking, or portions thereof, subject to this PA will be 

delivered to the appropriate SHPO and Tribal Governments by December 1st of each 

calendar year, pursuant to Stipulation VIII.

C. IMPLEMENTATION

1. The Undertaking, or Portions Thereof, Resulting in a Finding of No Historic 

Properties Affected:

When no sites are identified following an intensive inventory or an approved sample 

inventory pursuant to Stipulation V.A.3, no consultation with the SHPOs or the ACHP is 

required before implementing that portion of the Undertaking. That portion of the 

Undertaking will be listed in the Annual Report (per Stipulation VIII) and copies of 

redacted SRs will be available for review by the public excluding information about the 

nature and location of archaeological and historic resources which is prohibited under 

Section 304 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. §470w-3) and Section 9 of the ARPA (16 U.S.C. 

§470hh).

2. The Undertaking, or Portions Thereof, Resulting in a Finding of No Adverse Effect 

and Where Management Measures Are Not Necessary for the Protection of Historic 

Properties:

When an intensive inventory or an approved sample inventory pursuant to Stipulation 

V.A.3 determines that historic properties will not be affected and the Undertaking, or 

portions thereof, can be implemented without the adoption of management measures to 

protect historic properties, then the Undertaking, or portions thereof, may be 

implemented without further review or consultation with the appropriate SHPOs and/or 

the ACHP. The Undertaking, or portions thereof, will be listed in the Annual Report (per 

Stipulation VIII) and copies of the SRs will be available for review by the appropriate 

SHPO in accordance with Stipulation VIII. Copies of redacted SRs will also be available 

for public review, excluding information about the nature and location of archaeological 

and historic resources which is prohibited under Section 304 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 

§470w-3) and Section 9 of the ARPA (16 U.S.C. §470hh).

3. The Undertaking, or Portions Thereof, Resulting in a Finding of No Adverse Effect 

and Where Implementation of Standard Resource Protection Measures Are Necessary for 

the Protection of Historic Properties:

a) When historic properties are identified following an intensive inventory or 

an approved sample recovery pursuant to Stipulation V, and Standard Resource 

Protection Measures (Attachment F) will be employed, review or consultation 

with the appropriate SHPO and/or the ACHP is required before implementing 

the Undertaking, or portion thereof.
9

i. The CRM of the installation where the Undertaking, or portions thereof, 

will occur, or MCIWEST acting on its behalf, will consult with the 

appropriate SHPO and Tribal Governments, pursuant to 36 CFR §800 on 

any part of the Undertaking covered by this PA where the use of the 

Standard Resource Protection Measures is proposed.

ii. At its discretion, and with the cooperation of MCIWEST, the 

appropriate SHPO may participate with MCIWEST or the CRM of an 

installation in review and/or consultation on a specific part or parts of the 

Undertaking where proposed Standard Resource Protection Measures are 

being used.

b) A list of the parts of the Undertaking where Standard Resource Protection 

Measures are being implemented shall be submitted with the Annual Report for 

review pursuant to Stipulation VIII.

c) SRs prepared to document newly surveyed or resurveyed parts of the APEs 

where management measures for the protection of historic properties are 

necessary must be reviewed by the appropriate SHPO before implementing the

Undertaking, or any portion thereof.

i. SRs for the Undertaking, or portion thereof, shall be submitted to the 

appropriate SHPO in accordance with Stipulation VIII.

ii. Copies of these SRs shall be submitted to the Arizona State Museum 

(ASM) and/or the Southern California Information Center (SCIC) for 

inclusion in the appropriate statewide inventory or inventories.

iii. Copies of these SRs shall also be submitted to appropriate Tribal 

Governments.

iv. Copies of SRs will be available for public review, excluding 

information about the nature and location of archaeological and historic 

resources, which is prohibited by Section 304 of the NHPA and Section 9 

of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA).

VI. CURATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS

Collections and associated records resulting from implementation of the Undertaking, or portion

thereof, will be curated at the Arizona State Museum (ASM) in Arizona or the South Coastal 

Information Center (SCIC) in California (for artifacts found within their respective state), as 

appropriate. Before submitting any collections, MCIWEST will contact ASM or SCIC regarding the 

transport of the collections and any special handling requirements by those organizations, unless such 

items are being properly curated at another approved facility meeting state requirements (e.g., on 

installation) pursuant to an approved ICRMP. Collections will be handled, packaged, and reported in 

a manner consistent with 36 CFR §79, “Curation of Federally-owned and Administered 
10

Archaeological Collections” (Federal Curation Regulations). 

VII. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT, 

AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

A. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION

1. Where architectural resources within the APE have been previously surveyed and 

have received SHPO concurrence, no further identification and evaluation efforts will be 

required and MCIWEST may proceed to the Determination of Effect step (Stipulation 

VII.B).

2. Where architectural resources within the APE have NOT been previously surveyed or 

have been surveyed but have NOT received SHPO concurrence, before the Undertaking 

may proceed in these specific portions of the APE:

a) MCIWEST will consult with the appropriate SHPO to receive concurrence 

on the determination(s) of eligibility for the architectural resources present in 

the APE by submitting survey documentation.

b) The appropriate SHPO will respond within 30 calendar days of receipt of 

the determination(s) of eligibility. If the SHPO does not respond within that 

period, MCIWEST may assume that the SHPO has no comment on the 

eligibility of those resources and proceed to the Determination of Effect step 

(Stipulation VII.B).

c) If the SHPO concurs with MCIWEST’s determination(s) of eligibility, 

MCIWEST may proceed to the Determination of Effect step (Stipulation 

VII.B).

d) If the SHPO does not concur with MCIWEST’s determination(s) of 

eligibility, the process outlined in Stipulation XIII will be followed to resolve 

the dispute.

3. Identification and evaluation efforts for architectural resources must be conducted by 

a person who meets the qualifications outlined in Stipulation II.B or under the direct 

supervision of someone who meets the qualifications outlined in Stipulation II.B. 

B. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

1. Where architectural resources within the APE have NOT been previously surveyed or 

have been surveyed but have NOT received SHPO concurrence, before the Undertaking 

may proceed in these specific Following SHPO concurrence on the determination of 

eligibility for architectural resources, MCIWEST will apply the criteria of adverse effect 

found at 36 CFR § 800.5(a)(1) and submit its assessment of effect to the appropriate 

SHPO for concurrence. 

2. The appropriate SHPO will respond within 30 calendar days of receipt of the 
11

assessment of effect. If the SHPO does not respond within that period, MCIWEST may 

assume that the SHPO has no comment and may proceed with implementation of the 

Undertaking, or parts thereof, within the APE that contains the architectural resources 

under consideration.

3. If the SHPO concurs that the Undertaking will result in one of the following findings

of effect, MCIWEST may proceed with implementation of the Undertaking, or parts 

thereof, within the APE that contains the architectural resources under consideration:

a) A Finding of No Historic Properties Affected will apply when the 

architectural resources have been determined to be not listed or not eligible for 

listing on the NRHP.

b) A Finding of No Adverse Effects to Historic Properties will apply when the 

architectural resources are listed or are eligible for listing on the NRHP and 

where the Undertaking, or portion thereof, consists of the alteration of that 

resource (or those resources) consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR §68) and applicable guidelines, and it 

is determined by a qualified cultural resource professional (one that meets the 

criteria specified in Stipulation II) that such alteration would not have an 

adverse effect on the historic property.

4. If the SHPO does not concur with MCIWEST’s Finding of No Historic Properties 

Affected or Finding of No Adverse Effect, the process outlined in Stipulation XIII will be 

followed to resolve the dispute.

5. Where the assessment of effect results in a Finding of Adverse Effect, MCIWEST 

will NOT implement the Undertaking, or parts thereof, within that portion of the APE 

that contains the architectural resources under consideration.

C. IMPLEMENTATION

All Identification and Evaluation and Assessments of Effect made for the Undertaking, or 

any portion thereof, in accordance with Stipulation VII.A and VII.B will be completed 

before implementation of the Undertaking, or any portion thereof. 

VIII. REVIEW OF THE UNDERTAKING, OR PORTIONS THEREOF, FOR 

POTENTIAL EFFECTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Where a proposed project within the Undertaking, or any portion thereof, is evaluated by or under the 

direct supervision of a person that meets Stipulation II, as applicable, and the project meets one or 

more of the following criteria, typically no further Section 106 review is required:

A. NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES AFFECTED

Where the Undertaking, or portions thereof, would not affect any historic properties.
12

B. NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Where the Undertaking, or portion thereof, consists of the alteration of a historic 

property consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR §68) and applicable guidelines, and it is determined by a qualified 

cultural resource professional (one that meets the criteria specified in Stipulation II)

that such alteration would not have an adverse effect on the historic property.

However, all determinations of potential effect made for the Undertaking, or any portion thereof, 

including both Stipulations VII.A and VII.B, will be documented and reported to the appropriate 

SHPO before implementation of the Undertaking, or any portion thereof, except for those instances 

noted in Stipulation V.C.3. The appropriate SHPO will provide their comments on all findings of 

effect made for the Undertaking, or portion thereof, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the report 

documenting the determination. If the appropriate SHPO does not respond within this period, 

MCIWEST may move forward with implementation per the guidelines established in this PA.

IX. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

A. MCIWEST shall submit Annual Reports for review to the appropriate SHPO for all work 

conducted, including but not limited to, all survey efforts currently underway, and any 

findings and/or determinations made with respect to archaeological resources and/or 

historic properties identified as part of the Undertaking. At a minimum, each report will 

contain the following information:

1. A summary of all studies conducted for the Undertaking, or portion thereof, covered 

by the PA, including information regarding:

a) The types of projects for which studies occurred;

b) Results of all survey and identification efforts (e.g., acres surveyed, newly 

recorded and updated historic properties), including those where no historic 

properties were identified within the project’s APE;

c) All projects within the Undertaking where part of the APE was adequately 

covered by previous survey, if any;

d) Management measures employed to protect any identified historic 

properties;

e) Findings from monitoring efforts;

f) Consultation with interested persons or any pertinent results obtained from 

public notification and participation processes described under Stipulation XI,

Public Participation; and

g) Submission of the SRs to the ASM or SCIC or a proposed schedule for 

submission to these organizations.
13

2. A description of all instances where proposed Standard Resource Protection 

Measures were prescribed but either not implemented or not fully implemented, and the 

mitigation measures taken to ensure protection of historic properties.

B. All reports that include identification or evaluation efforts will be provided to the 

appropriate SHPO and to the ASM or SCIC for integration into appropriate statewide 

databases. These reports may request concurrence from the appropriate SHPO regarding 

evaluations and subsequent findings of the studies. Within 30 days of receipt of the

report(s), the appropriate SHPO will review and provide their assessment of the findings 

(i.e., concur vs. not concur) associated with the report(s). If no comments are received 

within this period, MCIWEST may proceed with finalizing said report. All unresolved 

issues will be addressed according to the guidelines established in Stipulation XIII, Dispute 

Resolution.

C. Where Tribal Governments, Native American tribes, traditional leaders, or individuals 

specifically request that information about their cultural sites, if any, remain confidential, 

such records shall be maintained as confidential files at the respective installation CRM 

offices thereafter, following consultation with the appropriate SHPO.

D. The CRM of the installation where the Undertaking, or portion thereof, will occur, or 

MCIWEST acting on its behalf, shall submit Annual Reports to the appropriate SHPO, 

Tribal Governments, and the ACHP (should the ACHP request it) each year on or before 

December 1st throughout the life of the PA. The Annual Report shall describe all the 

Undertaking, and any portion thereof, implemented pursuant to this PA during the 

preceding federal fiscal year (1 October through 30 September). If MCIWEST is unable to 

submit the Annual Report by this date, it shall notify the appropriate SHPO and negotiate a 

mutually acceptable delivery date. Failure to meet the negotiated date can result in 

termination of this PA. Copies of the Annual Reports will be available for public review, 

excluding information about the location and nature of historic properties, which is 

prohibited by Section 304 of the NHPA and Section 9 of the ARPA. The Annual Reports 

will be submitted to the appropriate SHPO and other consulting parties, as appropriate, 

within each state for review and comment for a period not to exceed 90 calendar days. 

MCIWEST shall ensure that comments received within 90 calendar days of distribution of 

the reports are given ample consideration when revising and finalizing the Annual Report. 

If no comments are received within this period, MCIWEST may proceed with finalization 

of the report. All unresolved issues will be addressed according to the guidelines 

established in Stipulation XIII, Dispute Resolution.

E. If Post-Review Discoveries of historic properties are made, MCIWEST will record these 

instances in the Annual Report, including a description of how MCIWEST complied with 

Stipulation X. The Annual Report shall also describe instances where proposed Standard 

Resource Protection Measures were prescribed but either not implemented or not fully 

implemented, and the measures taken to ensure protection of such historic properties.
14

X. MANAGEMENT MEASURES

A. Monitoring Requirements 

Where no known historic properties have been identified in the APE following an intensive 

inventory, but uncertainty remains about the possible presence of historic properties 

because of observation limitations, information from the literature review or other sources, 

monitoring may be employed during the implementation of an Undertaking, or portion

thereof, if recommended by the CRM. The purpose would be to ensure that unidentified 

historic properties, if present, are not affected, damaged or destroyed. If any historic 

properties are identified, the provisions of Stipulation X shall be followed.

1. When proposed Standard Resource Protection Measures (Attachment F) have not 

been implemented and activities have occurred that may have affected an identified 

historic property, then mitigation of those effects is required during and/or after 

implementation of the Undertaking. 

a) If the Undertaking, or portion thereof, has not been completed when the 

CRM receives notification that said protection measures have not been 

followed, then all activities in the immediate vicinity of the historic property 

shall be suspended until a qualified cultural resource professional (one that 

meets the criteria specified in Stipulation II) and the CRM recommend 

appropriate measures that will protect it. The need for additional consultation 

will also be determined by the CRM before resumption of any suspended 

activities. If the property has not been affected, and proposed Standard 

Resource Protection Measures can be effectively employed for the remaining 

implementation period, then the CRM may decide that the Undertaking, or 

portions thereof, may resume without further consultation. 

b) If that portion of the Undertaking has been completed when the CRM 

receives notification that proposed Standard Resource Protection Measures have 

not been followed, then a field inspection of the respective historic properties 

will be initiated as soon as possible and the provisions of Stipulation X shall be 

followed, including but not limited to, notifying the appropriate SHPO 

immediately (within 24 hours or one business day of conducting a field 

inspection). The circumstances surrounding the installation’s failure to use the 

proposed protection measures will be described in a damage assessment report 

provided to the appropriate SHPO and then later discussed in the Annual 

Report.

2. If the CRM determines that use of the proposed protection measures might not 

provide adequate protection to the historic property because of the nature, scope, 

frequency, and/or duration of certain types of recurrent actions within the Undertaking,

or portions thereof (e.g., landings, take-offs, training operations), mitigation in a

manner prescribed by the CRM will be carried out to verify that said protection 

measures are adequate, after consultation with the appropriate SHPO.
15

3. A long term monitoring program shall be developed, as part of an approved 

ICRMP, in consultation with the appropriate SHPO, and shall be implemented by the 

installation CRM to ensure that any unforeseen effects to historic properties are 

identified and appropriately mitigated.

B. Management Measures Required for the Protection of Historic Properties

All protection measures implemented within the boundaries of historic properties shall be 

reviewed in consultation with the appropriate SHPO and then discussed in the Annual 

Report to assess continuation of and/or the need for changes in the protection measures.

C. Review of Projects 

Although no construction or related projects are anticipated at any of the landing areas 

(e.g., LZs, GSAs, PRTSSs, etc), should any future portion of the Undertaking involve 

unforeseen ground disturbing activities in previously unsurveyed areas, the procedures 

outlined below shall be followed:

1. Upon completion of survey(s) and advance notification to the appropriate SHPO,

subsurface archaeological testing and monitoring to identify and evaluate the presence 

and character of an archaeological resource to determine eligibility shall be conducted,

if necessary, in the area before construction commences. In some instances, subsurface 

archaeological testing may not be feasible due to a variety of factors (e.g., the area to 

be tested is located below an existing building/structure, or for proposed projects with 

long linear-shaped excavations such as utility replacements). In such cases, a

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) shall be jointly developed between the Marine 

Corps and the appropriate SHPO before commencement of construction in order to 

guide the archaeological monitoring and data recovery process, as necessary, in lieu of 

subsurface testing. In all such instances, the appropriate SHPO shall review relevant 

work plans (i.e., research design and data recovery plan) and provide comments within 

the timeframe indicated in Stipulation IX.C.

2. Before conducting subsurface archaeological testing or monitoring, the CRM shall 

submit a research design and data recovery plan to the appropriate SHPO. The SHPO 

shall have 30 calendar days from receipt of the plan to review and approve this plan. If 

the SHPO does not respond within this period, MCIWEST may proceed with the 

proposed plan. If the SHPO disagrees with the plan, the SHPO shall advise the CRM 

of the reasons for the disagreement in writing within 30 calendar days from receipt of 

the plan. The CRM shall consult with the appropriate SHPO to try and resolve the 

disagreement. If such consultation fails, the CRM shall request the ACHP to review 

the dispute in accordance with Stipulation XIII, Dispute Resolution.

3. If the CRM determines that high probability areas cannot be avoided, then data 

recovery shall be required before construction for areas that contain historic properties.

4. Before conducting any archaeological data recovery efforts, the CRM shall submit 

a research design and data recovery plan to the appropriate SHPO. The SHPO shall 

have 30 calendar days from receipt of the plan to review and approve this plan. If the 
16

SHPO does not respond within this period, MCIWEST may proceed with the proposed 

plan. If the SHPO disagrees with the plan within 30 calendar days from receipt of the 

plan, the SHPO shall advise the CRM of the reasons for the disagreement in writing.

The CRM shall consult with the appropriate SHPO to try and resolve the disagreement. 

If such consultation fails and no agreement can be reached, then the CRM shall request

the ACHP to review the dispute in accordance with Stipulation XIII.

5. If a research design and data recovery plan has already been approved by the SHPO 

for a prior project and the project is comparable in scope, involving similar resources 

affected in a similar way, the previously approved research design and data recovery 

plan can be cited with 30-day advanced notification to the appropriate SHPO. If the 

SHPO does not respond within this period, MCIWEST may proceed with the proposed 

plan. If the SHPO disagrees with the research design and data recovery plan within 30

calendar days from receipt of the plan, the SHPO shall advise the CRM of the reasons 

for the disagreement in writing. Thereafter, the research design and data recovery plan 

will be considered valid and the CRM may proceed in accordance with the approved 

research design and data recovery plan.

XI. POST-REVIEW DISCOVERIES

The SHPOs, Tribal Governments, and the ACHP shall be notified by the installation CRM or 

MCIWEST within 24 hours of discovery that a historic property has been affected by the Undertaking,

or portion thereof, implemented under this PA.

A. If the Undertaking, or portions thereof, has/have not been completed at the time the effect 

is discovered, all activities in the vicinity of the historic property shall cease and efforts 

shall be taken to avoid or minimize harm to the property until the following consultations

are completed. MCIWEST or the installation CRM shall initiate consultation with the 

appropriate SHPO and appropriate Tribal Governments for not more than fifteen (15)

calendar days after the discovery is reported to reach agreement on a mutually acceptable 

course of action (e.g., develop and implement a mitigation plan) regarding the historic 

property affected. If agreement cannot be reached within this time frame, the appropriate 

SHPO shall be afforded fifteen (15) calendar days thereafter to provide written comments 

to MCIWEST or the installation CRM. Thereafter, MCIWEST or the installation CRM 

shall consult with the ACHP for not more than fifteen (15) calendar days. If agreement 

cannot be reached within this timeframe, then MCIWEST or the installation CRM shall 

provide ACHP with summary documentation on the issues and feasible steps 

(recommendations) that might be taken to mitigate for the inadvertent effect and to avoid 

further effects to the historic property, and request comments from the ACHP before 

making a decision on whether and how to proceed with the Undertaking, or portion thereof.

The ACHP shall have fifteen (15) calendar days following receipt of the request to provide 

MCIWEST or the installation CRM with comments, which MCIWEST or the installation 

CRM shall take into account in reaching its decision regarding mitigation, avoiding further 

effect to the site and proceeding ahead with the Undertaking, or portion thereof.

MCIWEST or the installation CRM shall notify the ACHP, the appropriate SHPO, and any 

interested parties of its final decision within fifteen (15) calendar days thereafter.
17

B. If the Undertaking, or portion thereof, has already been concluded when an effect to an 

historic property has been discovered, MCIWEST or the installation CRM shall consult 

with the appropriate SHPO, Tribal Governments, and with the ACHP, if it chooses to 

participate, to agree on mutually acceptable mitigation measures that the installation CRM 

shall implement within a specified time period. This consultation shall not exceed 30 

calendar days. If agreement on mitigation measures is not reached within this timeframe, 

the installation CRM shall take all comments received into account. The installation CRM 

shall notify and submit appropriate documentation of its decision within fifteen (15) 

calendar days to the appropriate SHPO, the ACHP, appropriate Tribal Governments and 

any other consulting parties. 

C. Within six (6) months, but no later than the initiation of consultation under Stipulations 

X.A and X.B, the installation CRM or MCIWEST shall provide the appropriate SHPO, 

ACHP, Tribal Governments and other consulting parties with a report describing the 

Undertaking, or portion thereof, and the circumstances surrounding the effect(s). This 

report must include information regarding: the type of property affected; the property’s 

NRHP status; the nature of the effect(s); the date the effect(s) was identified; the location 

of the property; the condition of the property; and the actions taken to mitigate for the 

effect, if any, along with other pertinent information. If data recovery was implemented 

with SHPO approval, then a data recovery report shall also be prepared and submitted to 

the appropriate SHPO, ACHP, Tribal Governments and other consulting parties, as 

necessary.

D. If the Undertaking, or portion thereof, has been completed when the CRM receives 

notification that proposed Standard Resource Protection Measures have not been followed, 

then a field inspection of the respective historic properties will be initiated as soon as 

possible and the provisions of Stipulation X shall be followed, including but not limited to, 

notifying the appropriate SHPO immediately (within 24 hours or one business day of 

conducting a field inspection). The circumstances surrounding the installation’s failure to 

use the proposed protection measures will be described in a damage assessment report 

provided to the appropriate SHPO and then later discussed in the Annual Report.

XII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

A. MCIWEST has previously conducted public notification and participation for this 

Undertaking under the provisions of NEPA, and continues to do so, as indicated in the 

Attachment G (Tribal Consultation and Public Participation). However, for all future 

cultural resource survey and data recovery efforts for the MV-22 West Coast Basing 

project, installation CRMs shall continue to use the public notification process embodied in 

NEPA (40 CFR §1506.6) to comply with provisions for public notification, identification 

of interested persons, and public participation found in 36 CFR §800. This provision does 

not negate government-to-government consultation requirements between MCIWEST or 

the installation CRM and federally recognized Tribal Governments. Interested persons 

shall be afforded an opportunity to comment on the manner in which the effects of the 

Undertaking, or portion thereof,, implemented under the provisions of this PA are taken 

into account. Ann and Mark, pls check this entire section as there were conflicting opinion 

on edits suggested, as with the two items below.
18

1. The NEPA process allows individuals, organizations, or groups an opportunity to 

comment on MCIWEST and/or the installation’s Undertaking, or portion thereof, 

including those measures used for the identification, protection and management of 

historic properties, and the effects of the proposed Undertaking, or portion thereof, on

historic values. 

2. The NEPA scoping process shall be used to help fulfill 36 CFR §800

responsibilities to involve Native Americans, Tribal Governments, and other interested 

persons, to solicit information about identification of properties important for historic 

and cultural values, and to determine potential effects to these properties from the 

proposed Undertaking, or portion thereof.

B. If the installation CRM or person(s) delegated by the installation CRM determine that 

certain aspects of the proposed Undertaking would likely have significant, controversial, or 

unforeseen effect on historic properties or Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP), if any, 

based on known information or when requested by appropriate Tribal Governments, those

aspects of the Undertaking shall be excluded from implementation under the provisions of 

this PA. MCIWEST or the installation CRM shall ensure that Tribal Governments are 

provided opportunities to comment on the effects of the Undertaking, or portion thereof, 

that meet Stipulation V.A.5, and the guidelines established in Attachment G (Tribal 

Consultation and Public Participation). Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA for this 

Undertaking, or portion thereof, will follow 36 CFR §800.

XIII. REVIEW OF THE PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

Any of the Parties to this PA may elect to review activities carried out pursuant to this PA. 

MCIWEST, as well as installation CRMs, will cooperate with the Party or Parties in carrying out their 

review responsibilities.

XIV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

A. Should any Signatory Party to this PA object at any time to the manner in which the terms 

of this PA are implemented, or to any documentation prepared per and subject to the terms 

of this PA, MCIWEST and/or the installation CRM will immediately notify the other 

Signatory Parties of the objection, request their comments on the objection within fifteen 

(15) days following receipt of notification, and then proceed to consult with the objecting 

party for no more than 30 days thereafter to resolve the objection. MCIWEST and/or the 

installation CRM will honor the request of any other Signatory Parties to participate in the 

consultation and will take any comments provided by the other Signatory Parties into 

account. 

If at the end of the 30-day consultation period, MCIWEST or the installation CRM 

determines that the objection cannot be resolved through such consultation, MCIWEST 

and/or the installation CRM will forward all documentation relevant to the objection to the 

ACHP per 36 CFR §800.2(b)(2). Any comments provided by the ACHP within 30 calendar 

days after its receipt of all relevant documentation, and all other comments received, will 
19

be taken into account by MCIWEST and/or the installation CRM in reaching a final 

decision regarding the objection. MCIWEST and/or the installation CRM will notify all 

Signatory Parties and federally recognized and non-federally recognized tribal Concurring 

Parties in writing of its final decision within fifteen (15) calendar days after it is rendered. 

MCIWEST and/or the installation CRM shall have the authority to make the final decision 

resolving the objection.

B. MCIWEST and/or the installation CRM’s responsibility to carry out all actions under this 

PA that are not the subject of the objection will remain unchanged. The installation CRM 

may implement the Undertaking subject to objection under this stipulation after complying 

with Stipulation XIII.A and XIII. C.

C. At any time during implementation of the terms of this PA, should a member of the public 

raise an objection pertaining to the PA, MCIWEST and/or the installation CRM shall 

immediately notify the other Signatory Parties in writing of the objection and take the 

objection into account. The installation CRM shall consult with the objecting party and, if 

the objecting party so requests, with any or all of the other Signatory Parties, for no more 

than 30 calendar days. Within fifteen (15) calendar days following closure of the 

consultation period, MCIWEST and/or the installation CRM will render a decision 

regarding the objection and notify all parties of its decision in writing. In reaching its final 

decision, MCIWEST and/or the installation CRM will take into account all comments from 

the Signatory Parties regarding the objection. The installation CRM shall have the 

authority to make the final decision resolving the objection. Any dispute pertaining to the 

NRHP eligibility of cultural resources covered by the PA will be addressed by MCIWEST 

and/or the installation CRM per 36 CFR §800.4(c)(2).

XV. AMENDMENTS, NON-COMPLIANCE AND TERMINATION

A. If any Signatory Party believes that the terms of this PA are not being honored or cannot be 

carried out, or that an amendment to its terms should be made, that Signatory Party will 

immediately consult with the other Signatory Parties to consider and develop amendments 

to the PA per 36 CFR §800.6(c)(7) and §800.6(c)(8).

B. If this PA is not amended as provided for in this stipulation, MCIWEST and/or the 

installation CRM or the appropriate SHPO or ACHP may terminate this PA. The Signatory 

Party terminating this PA will provide all other Signatory Parties with a written 

explanation of the reasons for termination. 

C. If this PA is terminated and the installation CRM determines that the Undertaking, or 

portion thereof, will proceed, the installation CRM shall comply with 36 CFR 

§800.14(b)(2)(v).

XVI. DURATION OF THE PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

A. The Signatory Parties shall consult to reconsider the terms of this PA within two (2) years 

of the date this PA is executed, and subsequently within five (5) years after each date of 
20

reconsideration of this PA. Reconsideration may include continuation of the PA as 

originally executed, as amended, or termination. If this PA is terminated because the 

Undertaking carried out under this PA has been completed or the project no longer meets 

the definition of an “Undertaking, or portion thereof” as set forth in 36 CFR §800.16(Y), 

Stipulation V shall not apply. If this PA is not renewed within the reconsideration period 

(either the initial two (2) years or the subsequent five (5) year period), it is terminated and 

will have no further force or effect. If MCIWEST determines that the Undertaking, or 

portions thereof, will proceed, MCIWEST shall comply with 36 CFR §800.14(b)(2)(v).

B. This PA will be in effect through the installation’s implementation of the Undertaking, 

portions thereof, and will terminate and have no further force or effect when the 

installation CRM, in consultation with the other Signatory Parties, determines that the 

terms of the PA have been fulfilled in a satisfactory manner. MCIWEST and/or the 

installation CRM will provide the other Signatory Parties with written notice of its 

determination and of termination of this PA.

C. If the administration of all or part of the involved installation(s) is/are transferred to 

another branch of the military or another government agency, or if the property is disposed 

of by the United States, this PA shall be considered null and void and shall have no other 

force or effect. In this case, MCIWEST will be responsible for compliance with Section 

106 in accordance with 36 CFR 800 §B. 

D. This PA shall become effective upon execution by all Signatory Parties (i.e., Marine Corps, 

Arizona and California SHPOs and the ACHP) and shall remain in effect until all projects 

associated with the Undertaking, and portions thereof, are completed, unless the PA is 

terminated in accordance with Stipulation XIV.B or XV.

XVII. ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT

All requirements set forth in the PA requiring expenditure of Marine Corps funds are expressly subject 

to the availability of appropriations and the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 

§1341). No obligation undertaken by the Marine Corps, MCIWEST or its installations under the 

terms of this PA shall require or be interpreted to require a commitment to expend funds not 

appropriated for a particular purpose. If the Marine Corps, MCIWEST or its installations cannot 

perform any obligation set forth in this PA because of unavailability of funds, that obligation must be 

renegotiated among MCIWEST and the Arizona and/or California SHPOs, and the ACHP.

22

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
23

CONCURRING PARTIES

ARIZONA TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

1. Ak-Chin Indian Community

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Louis J. Manuel, Jr., Chairman

2. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Charles Wood, Chairman

3. Cocopah Indian Tribe

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Sherry Cordova, Chairwoman

4. Colorado River Indian Tribes

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Eldred Enas, Chairman

5. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Dr. Clinton M. Pattea, President

6. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Timothy Williams, Chairman

7. Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

William R. Rhodes, Governor
24

8. The Hopi Tribe

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Benjamin Nuvamsa, Chairman

9. Navajo Nation

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Joe Shirley, President

10. Quechan Indian Tribe (Ft. Yuma Indian Tribe)

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Mike Jackson, Sr., President

11. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Diane Enos, President

12. Tohono O’odham Nation

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Ned Norris, Chairman

CALIFORNIA TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

1. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Richard Milanovich, Chairman

2. Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Mary Ann Green, Chairwoman
25

3. Barona Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Rhonda Welch-Scalco, Chairman

4. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

John A. James, Chairman

5. Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Anthony Madrigal, Jr., Chairman

6. Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Monique La Chappa, Chairwoman

7. Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Robert Pinto, Sr., Chairman

8. Inaja-Cosmit Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Rebecca Maxcy-Osuna, Chairwoman

9. Jamul Indian Village – A Kumeyaay Nation (aka - Jamul Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians)

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Kenneth A. Meza, Chairman

10. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Larriann Musick, Chairwoman
26

11. La Posta Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Gwendolyn Parada, Chairwoman

12. Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Francine Kupsch, Chairwoman

13. Manzanita Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Leroy J. Elliott, Chairman

14. Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Mark Romero, Chairman

15. Morongo Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Robert Martin, Chairman

16. Pala Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Robert Smith, Chairman

17. Pauma Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Chris C. Devers, Chairman

18. Pechanga Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Mark MaCarro, Chairman
27

19. Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Joseph Hamilton, Chairman

20. Rincon Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Bo Mazzetti, Chairman

21. San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

James Ramos, Chairman

22. San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Allen E. Lawson, Chairman

23. Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Anthony Largo, Chairman

24. Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueño Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Johnny Hernandez, Chairman

25. Soboba Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Robert Salgado, Sr., Chairman

26. Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Daniel Tucker, Chairman
28

27. Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Mary L. Resvaloso, Chairwoman

28. Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Darrell Mike, Chairman

29. Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Bobby L. Barrett, Chairman

30. Juaneño Band of Mission Indians - Acjachemen Nation

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Anthony Rivera, Jr., Chairman

31. Kumeyaay Cultural Historical Committee

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Ron Christman

32. Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Steve Benegas

33. Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Carmen Lucas, Chairwoman

34. San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians

___________________________________________DATE:__________________

Mel Vernon, Chairman
APPENDIX G 

KEY OBSERVATION POINTS (KOP) 
Osborne Overlook

Watchable Wildlife Site
Ted Kief Road

Coachella Canal Road
Slab City

Cuff (Gas Line) Road
Bradshaw Trail North

Fountain of Youth Spa
Dietz Drive

Bradshaw Trail Kiosk
APPENDIX H

TRIBAL CONSULTATION
H-1

APPENDIX H

TRIBAL CONSULTATION

This appendix summarizes tribal consultation and coordination.

The consultation process began with a notification letter to 36 tribes advising them of the intent to prepare 

an LEIS and an invitation to participate in the scoping process. The invitation letter and list of addressees 

is included as Attachment 1. As the scoping process was drawing to a close, the tribes were contacted by 

telephone to (1) verify that the tribe had received the notification letter, (2) remind them that the formal 

public scoping period was ending on 23 December 2010 and request that any comments be provided

promptly, (3) inform them that additional information, including the public scoping meeting materials, 

was available on the website (chocolatemountainrenewal.com), and (4) provide them with points of 

contact at MCAS Yuma if additional information was needed. These points were made in voice mail 

messages when the tribal contact did not answer the call directly. A tracking sheet of these comments is 

included as Attachment 2.

Tribal coordination also occurred between the U.S. Marine Corps and the Native American Heritage 

Commission (NAHC), as well as with individuals listed by the NAHC as having an interest or otherwise 

possessing information pertaining to cultural resources and traditional cultural areas or properties. Letters 

were prepared to the individuals identified by the NAHC and sent by email or fax on 17 August 2011, and 

later by certified priority mail on 18 August 2011. Follow-up phone calls to all individuals listed by the 

NAHC, for whom telephone numbers were provided, were made on 30 August 2011. Messages were left 

for those individuals who were unavailable and comments received in response to letters and follow-up 

telephone calls were documented, including date of response, method of contact, and a description of 

comments received. This tracking log has been included as Attachment 3.

Follow-up calls resulted in the notification that Mr. Paul Cuero (Kumeyaay Cultural Heritage 

Preservation) no longer works at that location. Furthermore, some attempts to contact individuals listed 

by the NAHC resulted in the referral or transfer of calls to others within the various organizations. The 

follow-up call to Ms. Diana L. Chihuahua with the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians was 

transferred to Mr. Roland Ferrer, just as calls to Ms. Ginger Scott and Mr. George Ray with the Colorado 

River Indian Tribe were transferred to Ms. Lisa Swick; Ms. Swick is currently the Cultural Compliance 

Officer/Acting Director for the Colorado River Indian Tribe. 

At the time follow-up calls were made, three individuals were available or otherwise provided comment: 

Mr. Ferrer, Ms. Carmen Lucas (Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians), and Ms. Swick. Mr. Ferrer 

requested that a copy of the letter be sent to him and that, upon review, he would initiate contact should 

there be comments or questions. Ms. Swick indicated that she has not yet reviewed the letter but would 

send any comments or questions by 7 September 2011. Further response from Ms. Swick and Mr. Ferrer 

has not been received. On 30 August 2011, a return message was received by Ms. Lucas stating that her 

only comment is that the CMAGR is a remote area where prehistoric sites are more likely to occur and 

that she wants to encourage and ensure there is honest dialogue with the Coachella and Cocopah.

Multiple responses were received by traditional mail and email from representatives of the Agua Caliente 

Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI). On 20 September 2011 an email response was received from 

Ms. Rosalina Nava with the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), asking for acreage 

estimates for the CMAGR project and a response was sent on 27 September 2011. On 30 September 

2011, another email was received from the ACBCI Environmental Officer indicating that the Band “has 

no direct knowledge of cultural resources in the project vicinity; however, we are concerned about chance 

findings of materials.” The message also states that the project is outside the ACBCI Reservation but is 
H-2

within the Traditional Use Area. A request was made that the Tribe continue to be informed as the project 

progresses and that they receive project updates, as well as reports or any documentation regarding 

cultural resources generated as a result of the project. In addition to these emails, a response letter dated 

26 September 2011 was received from S. Milanovich with the ACBCI THPO, noting that a check of 

ACBCI THPO cultural resources records did not identify Native American archaeological sites within the 

project area; however, this search did indicate that known trails and traditional cultural places exist in the 

vicinity. Generally the Tribe has concerns and would like to comment once additional information is 

available. The Tribe requested copies of survey and cultural reports once the project is complete.
Attachment 1
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION BOX 99100 

YUMA, ARIZONA 85369-9100 

 

 In Reply Refer To 

November 4, 2010 

Mr. Richard M. Milanovich 

Chairman 

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 

600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way 

Palm Springs, CA 92262 

RE: Renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal 

On September 24, 2010, the Department of the Navy (DoN) published in the Federal Register a Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to prepare a legislative environmental impact statement (LEIS) for the renewal of the 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR) land withdrawal. A copy of the NOI is enclosed 

for your information. 

The CMAGR comprises approximately 459,000 acres in California’s Imperial and Riverside counties (see 

map below). Land jurisdiction at the CMAGR currently resembles a “checkerboard” pattern, where every 

other section (640 acres or approximately 1 square mile) falls under either DoN ownership 

(232,116 acres) or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) jurisdiction (226,711 acres of withdrawn public 

lands). The public lands administered by the BLM are reserved for military uses for 20 years under the 

terms of the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflight Act of 1994. The DoN and BLM lands 

are used in common to support the defense activities that occur at the range. Because the current 

withdrawal of public lands is scheduled to expire in October 2014 and there continues to be a military 

need for the CMAGR, the DoN is initiating the process to request that Congress renew the land 

withdrawal and military reservation for another 25 years (through 2039). 
The DoN has filed a land withdrawal application with BLM for public lands currently within the 

CMAGR as well as for some adjacent lands that may be considered for withdrawal to establish a more 

effective range boundary. The DoN also is preparing a Draft LEIS to address the potential environmental 

effects of extending the CMAGR land withdrawal. The BLM is serving as a cooperating agency for 

preparing the Draft LEIS. 

The LEIS will evaluate several alternatives that would modify the existing range boundary to follow 

prominent geographic features such as the Bradshaw Trail and Coachella Canal, enhancing safety through 

an improved boundary demarcation and efficiency in land management. The Draft LEIS also will explore 

land management alternatives to resolve challenges associated with the current pattern of split jurisdiction 

between the DoN and BLM; some of these challenges include unclear responsibilities that contribute to 

the duplication of efforts and other inefficiencies. There are four preliminary action alternatives and a noaction alternative that will be shared with the public for review and comment, as summarized in the table 

below. Additional alternatives may be considered as a result of scoping comments. 

Preliminary Alternatives 

Alternative Description of Alternative 

Alternative 1 Renewal of Status Quo – Renew the current withdrawal, with no boundary or jurisdictional 

changes, for a period of 25 years. 

Alternative 2 

Full Administrative Jurisdiction to DoN – Renew the land withdrawal for another 25 years 

with restructured boundaries and allocate full administrative jurisdiction for resource 

management to DoN, in addition to the military activities. 

Alternative 3 

Transfer of Title to DoN – Renew the withdrawal for another 25 years and transfer all custody 

and accountability for the real property within both the current withdrawal and the 

restructured boundaries to DoN. The DoN would assume all responsibility for resource 

management and use of the lands. 

Alternative 4 

Shared Administrative Jurisdiction – Renew the land withdrawal for another 25 years with the 

restructured boundaries; management of the military activities would remain with DoN and 

the resource management would remain with BLM. 

No-Action 

No Renewal of Withdrawal – The existing land withdrawal for the CMAGR would expire. The 

capability to support existing and future training activities at the CMAGR that rely on these 

lands would cease and these training activities would have to be relocated to ranges elsewhere 

in the country or curtailed. Range clean-up operations at CMAGR would be required. 

Publication of the NOI initiates a 90-day public comment period, during which time agencies and the 

public are encouraged to identify issues and concerns that should be considered in the Draft LEIS. Please 

submit comments by December 23, 2010, to ensure full consideration in the Draft LEIS. Comments 

may be provided at one of the following public scoping meetings. All meetings will be held in an open 

house format between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. 

Yuma, AZ El Centro, CA 

Monday, December 6, 2010 Tuesday, December 7, 2010 

Yuma County Library Holiday Inn Express 

2951 S. 21st Drive 350 Smoketree Drive 

 Palm Springs, CA San Diego, CA 

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 Thursday, December 9, 2010 

Holiday Inn San Diego Planning Commission 

1800 E. Palm Canyon 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B 

1 

This letter sent to: 

Mr. Richard M. Milanovich 

Chairman 

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 

600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way 

Palm Springs, CA 92262 

Mr. Richard Begay 

THPO 

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 

650 Tahquitz Canyon Way 

Palm Springs, CA 92262 

Ms. Delia M. Carlyle 

Chairwoman 

Ak-Chin Indian Community 

42507 West Peters & Nall Rd. 

Maricopa, AZ 85239-3940 

Ms. Maryann Martin 

Chairwoman 

Augustine Band of (Cahuilla) Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 846 

Coachella, CA 92236 

Ms. Karen Kupcha 

Tribal Administrator 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 846 

Coachella, CA 92236 

Ms. Rhonda Welch-Scalco 

Chairwoman 

Barona Band of Mission Indians 

1095 Barona Road 

Lakeside, CA 92040 

Mr. John A. James 

Chairman 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

84-245 Indio Springs Parkway 

Indio, CA 92203-3499 

Ms. Judy Stapp 

Director of Cultural Affairs 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

84-245 Indio Springs Parkway 

Indio, CA 92203-3499 

Mr. Anthony Madrigal, Jr. 

Interim Chairman 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 391760 

Anza, CA 92539-1760 

Mr. H. Paul Cuero, Jr. 

Chairman 

Campo Kumeyaay Nation 

36190 Church Road, Suite 1 

Campo, CA 91906 

Mr. Charles Wood 

Chairman 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe 

P.O. Box 1976 

Havasu Lake, CA 92363-1976 

Ms. Sherry Cordova 

Chairwoman 

Cocopah Indian Tribe 

Avenue G and County 15 

Somerton, AZ 85350 

Ms. Jill McCormick 

Historic Preservation Officer 

Cocopah Indian Tribe 

Avenue G and County 15 

Somerton, AZ 85350 

Mr. Daniel Eddy, Jr. 

Chairman 

Colorado River Indian Tribe 

Route 1, Box 23-B 

Parker, AZ 85344-9704 

Ms. Betty Cornelius 

Cultural Contact 

Colorado River Reservation 

Route 1, Box 23-B 

Parker, AZ 85344-9704 

Mr. Harlan Pinto, Sr. 

Chairman 

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office 

P.O. Box 2250 

Alpine, CA 91903-2250 
2 

Michael Garcia 

Vice-Chairman/EPA Director 

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office 

P.O. Box 2250 

Alpine, CA 91903-2250 

Mr. Raphael Bear 

President 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 

P.O. Box 17779 

Fountain Hills, AZ 85269-7779 

Ms. Nora McDowell 

Chairwoman 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 

500 Merriman Avenue 

Needles, CA 92363-2229 

Ms. Linda Otero 

Director 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 

AhaMaKav Cultural Society 

P.O. Box 5990 

Mohave Valley, AZ 86440 

Ms. Bridget Nash-Chrabascz 

Historic Preservation Officer 

Fort Yuma Indian Reservation – Quechan Tribe 

P.O. Box 1899 

Yuma, AZ 85366-1899 

Mr. Mike Jackson, Sr. 

President 

Fort Yuma Indian Reservation – Quechan Tribe 

P.O. Box 1899 

Yuma, AZ 85366-1899 

Ms. Pauline Jose 

Quechan Cultural Committee 

P.O. Box 72 

Winterhaven, CA 92283 

Mr. William R. Rhodes 

Governor 

Gila River Indian Community 

P.O. Box 97 

Sacaton, AZ 85247-0097 

Ms. Rebecca Osuna 

Spokesperson 

Inaja Band of Mission Indians 

309 S. Maple Street 

Escondido, CA 92025 

Mr. Leon Acevedo 

Chairman 

Jamul Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 612 

Jamul, CA 91935 

Mr. Paul Cuero 

Kumeyaay Cultural Heritage Preservation 

36190 Church Road, Suite 5 

Campo, CA 91906 

Mr. Ron Christman 

Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee 

56 Viejas Grande Road 

Alpine, CA 92001 

Mr. Steve Banegas 

Spokesperson 

Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee 

1095 Barona Road 

Lakeside, CA 92040-1541 

Ms. Carmen Lucas 

Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 775 

Pine Valley, CA 91962 

Ms. Gwendolyn Parada 

Chairwoman 

La Posta Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 1120 

Bouelvard, CA 91905 

Ms. Catherine Siva Saubel 

Chairperson 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño 

Indians 

P.O. Box 100 

Warner Springs, CA 92086 
3 

Mr. Leroy J. Elliott 

Chairman 

Manzanita Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 1302 

Bouelvard, CA 91905-0402 

Mr. Mike Linton 

Chairman 

Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 270 

Santa Ysabel, CA 92070-0270 

Mr. Robert Martin 

Chairman 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians 

11581 Potrero Road 

Banning, CA 92220 

Mr. Joseph Hamilton 

Representative 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 39137 

Anza, 92539 

Ms. Joni Ramos 

President 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

10005 East Osborn Road 

Scottsdale, AZ 85256-4019 

Mr. Russell Romo 

Chairman 

San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 

12064 Old Pomerado Road 

Poway, CA 92064 

Mr. Deron Marquez 

Chairman 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

26569 Community Center Drive 

Highland, CA 92346 

Mr. Allen E. Lawson 

Chairman 

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 365 

Valley Center, CA 92080 

Mr. Anthony Largo 

Chairman 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians 

325 N. Western Avenue 

Hemet, CA 92543 

Mr. Johnny Hernandez 

Spokesman 

Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians 

P.O. Box 130 

Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 

Mr. Danny Tucker 

Chairman 

Sycuan Band of Mission Indians 

5459 Dehesa Road 

El Cajon, CA 92021 

Mr. Ned Norris 

Chairman 

Tohono O’odham Nation 

P.O. Box 837 

Sells, AZ 85634-0837 

Mr. Peter Steere 

Tohono O’odham Nation 

P.O. Box 837 

Sells, AZ 85634-0837 

Mr. William J. Contreras 

Cultural Resources Coordinator 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

P.O. Box 1160 

Thermal, CA 92274-1160 

Mr. Alberto Ramirez 

Environmental Coordinator 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

P.O. Box 1160 

Thermal, CA 92274-1160 

Mr. Raymond Torres 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

P.O. Box 1160 

Thermal, CA 92274-1160 

Mr. Joseph R. Benitez 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

P.O. Box 1829 

Indio, CA 92201 
4 

Mr. Darrell Mike 

Chairman 

Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians 

46-200 Harrison Place 

Coachella, CA 92236 

Mr. Anthony R. Pico 

Chairperson 

Viejas Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 908 

Alpine, CA 91903 
Attachment 2
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range - Tribal Contact at Close of LEIS Scoping Period, December 2010

Native American Tribe Department Tribe Contact(s) Title Address1 State phone Record of Co

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Mr. Richard M. Milanovich 

Chairman 600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way CA Patty Tuck (T

requests go th

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Ms. Patricia Tuck THPO 650 Tahquitz Canyon Way CA

760-699-6907

Spoke with heletter because forwarded a cto provide com

Ak-Chin Indian Community Cultural Resources 42507 West Peters & Nall Rd. AZ

520-568-1365

Left message 9:15am)

Ak-Chin Indian Community Ms.Vicky Smith Council Secretary 42507 West Peters & Nall Rd. AZ 520-568-1000 Ms. Smith will 

resend copy oSent Fax on 1

Augustine Band of (Cahuilla) Mission Indians 

Chairwoman P.O. Box 846 CA 760-391-9500 Left voicemail 

Martin no longincluded all 3 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians 

Ms. Karen Kupcha Tribal Administrator P.O. Box 846 CA 760-365-1373 Left Voicemai

included all 3 

Barona Band of Mission Indians Mr. Edwin Romero Chairman 1095 Barona Road CA 619-443-6612 Offices Closed 

(12/22/10 10:2MCAS contac

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Mr. John A. James Chairman 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway CA 760-342-2593 Left Voicemai

am)The messinfo. 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Ms. Judy Stapp Director of Cultural Affairs 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway CA 760-342-2593 No comment Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians Mr. Anthony Madrigal, 

Jr.

Interim Chairman P.O. Box 391760 CA 951-763-2631 Left Voicemai

am)The messinfo. 

Campo Kumeyaay Nation Ms. Monique 

LaChappa

Chairwoman 36190 Church Road, Suite 1 CA 619-478-9046 Receptionist w

(12/22/10 10:5all 3 points as 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Ms. Lillian Parra Executive Secretary / Tribal 

Administration Office

P.O. Box 1976 CA 760-858-4219 Defer to conta

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Mr. Charles Wood Chairman P.O. Box 1976 CA 760-858-4219 Left Voicemai

am)The messinfo. 

Cocopah Indian Tribe Ms. Sherry Cordova Chairwoman Avenue G and County 15 AZ 928-627-4849 Contact made Cocopah Indian Tribe Ms. Jill McCormick Historic Preservation Officer Avenue G and County 15 AZ 928-530-2291 Contact made Colorado River Indian Tribe Mr. Eldred Enas Chairman 26600 Mohave Road AZ 928-669-1321 Defer to contaColorado River Reservation Mr. Rick Ench Planning Consultant 26600 Mohave Road AZ 928-669-1301 Call back at 1

12/22/10

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office Will Micklin Executive Director P.O. Box 2250 CA 619-445-6315 Left message 

general line reappropriate inas MCAS con

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office Michael Garcia Vice-Chairman/EPA Director P.O. Box 2250 CA 619-445-6315 Left message 

general line reappropriate inas MCAS con

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Mr. Ruben Balderas Council Member P.O. Box 17779 AZ 480-789-7000 No comment 

he and Dr. Paand instructed manger Ms. R

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Ms. Karen Ray Cultural Manager P.O. Box 17779 AZ 480-789-7190 Left message 

voicemail. Thcontact info. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range - Tribal Contact at Close of LEIS Scoping Period, December 2010

Native American Tribe Department Tribe Contact(s) Title Address1 State phone Record of Co

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Dr. Clinton M. Pattea President P.O. Box 17779 AZ 480-789-7000 No comment 

he and Dr. Paand instructed manger Ms. R

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Ms. Pamela MoragoPratt Community-at-large- Representative 500 Merriman Avenue CA 760-629-4591 Left message 

receptionist vodirectly to Ms. as well as MC

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe AhaMaKav Cultural 

Society 

Ms. Linda Otero Director P.O. Box 5990 AZ 928-768-4475 Spoke with he

conducting trithat the public to a close tom(tribal) consulcontact the baof the letter to comments/coon. I notified address as weShe said this projects. She 

Fort Yuma Indian Reservation – Quechan Tribe 

Ms. Bridget NashChrabascz Historic Preservation Officer P.O. Box 1899 AZ 760-572-24-23 Contact made 

Fort Yuma Indian Reservation – Quechan Tribe 

Mr. Mike Jackson, Sr. President P.O. Box 1899 AZ 760-572-0213 Contact made 

Quechan Cultural Committee Ms. Pauline Jose P.O. Box 72 CA Contact made Gila River Indian Community Mr. Deron Rafael Chairperson P.O. Box 97 AZ 520-796-4452 Left message 

points as well 

Inaja Band of Mission Indians Ms. Rebecca Osuna Spokesperson 309 S. Maple Street CA 760-737-7628 Left message 

as well as MC

Jamul Band of Mission Indians Mr. Leon Acevedo Chairman P.O. Box 612 CA 619-669-4785 left voicemail Kumeyaay Cultural Heritage Preservation

Mr. Paul Cuero? 36190 Church Road, Suite 5 CA 619-478-9046 left a voicema

12/22/10

Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee

Mr. Ron Christman 56 Viejas Grande Road CA 619-445-0385 No one is ans

Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee 

Ms. Gevan Miller Tribal Administrator 1095 Barona Road CA 619-478-2113 Left message 

voicemail. Thcontact info. 

Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians

Ms. Carmen Lucas P.O. Box 775 CA 619-709-4207 left voicemail 

La Posta Band of Mission Indians Ms. Gwendolyn 

Parada 

Chairwoman P.O. Box 1120 CA 619-478-2113 left voicemail 

AZ 12/22/10

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians 

Ms. Evelyn Duro Tribal Administrator P.O. Box 100 CA 760-782-0711 They are not i

Konopka URS 

Manzanita Band of Mission Indians Mr. Leroy J. Elliott Chairman P.O. Box 1302 CA 619-766-4930 Left message 

voicemail. Thcontact info. 

Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians

Mr. Mark Romero Chairperson P.O. Box 270 CA 760-782-3818 Left message 

the general voas MCAS condec.23 to jan.

Morongo Band of Mission Indians Mr. Robert Martin Chairman 11581 Potrero Road CA 951-849-4697 Left message 

of Ms. Christinmessage inclu
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range - Tribal Contact at Close of LEIS Scoping Period, December 2010

Native American Tribe Department Tribe Contact(s) Title Address1 State phone Record of Co

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians 

Mr. Joseph Hamilton Representative P.O. Box 39137 CA 951-763-4105 Left message 

the general voas MCAS con

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

Ms. Diane Enos President 10005 East Osborn Road AZ 480-362-7400 Left message 

general voiceMCAS contacto Sunday and 

San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 

Carmen Mojado Secretary of Government 

Relations 

12064 Old Pomerado Road CA No phone num

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

Mr. James Ramos Chairman 26569 Community Center Drive CA 909-864-8933 No one is ans

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

Ms. Ann Brierty Policy/Cultural Resource 

Department

26569 Community Center Drive CA 909-864-8933 ext 

3250

No one is ans

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians

Mr. Allen E. Lawson Chairman P.O. Box 365 CA 760-749-3200 Left message 

general voiceMCAS contac

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians 

Mr. Anthony Largo Chairman 325 N. Western Avenue CA 951-658-5311 Left message 

general voiceMCAS contac

Sycuan Band of Mission Indians Mr. Danny Tucker Chairman 5459 Dehesa Road CA 619-445-2613 Office is close

2:30pm

Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians

Mr. Clint Linton P.O. Box 130 CA 760-803-5694 Left message 

voicemail. Thcontact info. 

Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians

Mr. Virgil Perez Chairman P.O. Box 130 CA 760-765-0846 Left message 

voicemail. Thcontact info. 

Tohono O’odham Nation Mr. Ned Norris Chairman P.O. Box 837 AZ 520-383-2028 Left message 

of Ms. Robertmessage inclu

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Mr. Rolland Ferrer Cultural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 1160 CA 760-397-0300 Left message 

voicemail. Thcontact info. 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Mr. Alberto Ramirez Environmental Coordinator P.O. Box 1160 CA 760-397-0300 Left message 

general voiceMCAS contac

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Mr. Raymond Torres P.O. Box 1160 CA 760-397-0300 no longer wor

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Mr. Joseph R. Benitez P.O. Box 1829 CA 760-397-0300 Left message 

general voiceMCAS contac

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Ms. Mary Resvaloso Chairperson P.O. Box 1829 CA 760-397-8144 Left message 

the general voas MCAS con

Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians 

Mr. Jeffrey Smith EPA 46-200 Harrison Place CA 760-775-5566 Defer to comm

had already le

Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians 

Mr. Darrell Mike Chairman 46-200 Harrison Place CA 760-863-2444 Left message 

of Ms. Leana message inclu

Viejas Band of Mission Indians Mr. Anthony R. Pico Chairperson P.O. Box 908 CA 619-445-3810 Left message 

general voiceMCAS contac
Attachment 3
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range - NAHC NA Contact Tracking Log

Contact Person Tribe/Organization Address/Contact Information

Date Hard Copy 

Letter Sent to 

Tribes

Date Letter Faxed or 

Emailed to Tribes

Delivery Confirmed? 

(y/n)

Date Responded/Means 

of Response

Date of Follow-up 

Call 

Mr. David Singleton Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)

915 Capitol Mall, RM 364 Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 653-4082 (916) 657-5390 – Faxnahc@pacbell.net

8/18/2011 8/4/2011 (Email) Yes August 12, 2011 (Fax) ~/~

8/4/11 (9:29 am) - D. Singleton called to rerange, and section data so that they could Singleton on 8/5/11.8/12/11 - NAHC response received by fax; 

specified search area; provided recommenfor further information.

Mr. Will Micklin, Executive Director Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office

4054 Willows Road,Alpine, CA 91901(619) 445-6315 - voice(619) 445-9126 - faxwmicklin@leaningrock.net

8/18/2011 8/17/2011 (Email) Yes 8/30/11 8/30/11 (9:56 am) - Called; left message as

for Mr. Garcia.

Mr. Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office

4054 Willows Road,Alpine, CA 91901(619) 445-6315 - voice(619) 445-9126 - faxmichaelg@leaningrock.net

8/18/2011 8/17/2011 (Email) Yes 8/30/11 8/30/11 (9:56 am) - Called; left message as

for Mr. Garcia.

Mr. Charles Wood, Chairperson Chemehuevi Reservation

PO Box 1976, Chemehuevi Valley, CA 92363 (760) 858-4301 (760) 858-5400 - Fax chair1cit@yahoo.com

8/18/2011 8/17/2011 (Email) Yes 8/30/11 8/30/11 (10:17 am) - Called, left message f

Mr. Tim Williams, Chairperson Fort Mojave Indian Tribe

500 Merriman Avenue, Needles, CA 92363 (760) 629-4591 (760) 629-5767 - Fax 

8/18/2011 8/17/2011 (Fax) Yes 8/30/11 8/30/11 (10:20 am) - Called, left message f

if he had any questions or comments regar

Ms. Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson

La Posta Band of Mission Indians

P.O. Box 1120,Boulevard, CA 91905(619) 478-2113(619) 478-2125gparada@lapostacasino

8/18/2011 8/17/2011 (Email) Yes 8/30/11

8/17/11 (10:27) - Email Delivery Failure; me

8/30/11 - Called office, left message for Ms

comments

Mr. Leroy J. Elliott, Chairperson

Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation

P.O. Box 1302Boulevard, CA 91905 (619) 766-4930(619) 766-4957 (Fax)ljbirdsinger@aol.com

8/18/2011 8/17/2011 (Email) Yes 8/30/11 8/30/11 (10:35 am) - Called office, left mes

Ms. Linda Otero, Director AhaMaKav Cultural Society, Fort Mojave Indians

PO Box 5990, Mohave Valley, 

AZ 86440 

(928) 768-4475 (928) 768-7996 - Fax LindaOtero@fortmojave.com

8/18/2011 8/17/2011 (Email) Yes 8/30/11 8/30/11 (10:42 am) - Called office, Ms. Ote

call back if any questions or comments reg

Mr. Michael Contreras, Cultural Heritage Program

Morongo Band of Mission Indians

12700 Pumarra Road, Banning, CA 92220 (951) 201-1866(951) 922-0105 - Fax mconteras@morongo-nsn.gov

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/30/11 8/30/11 ( am) - Called office, left message 

Ms. Monique LaChappa, Chairperson Campo Kumeyaay Nation

36190 Church Road, Suite 1Campo, CA 91906(619) 478-9046(619) 478-5818 - Faxmiachappa@campo.nsn.gov

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/17/2011 (Email) Yes 8/30/11

8/17/2011 - Email Delivery Failure; messag

8/30/11 (4:04 pm) - Called office, transferre

back if any questions or comments

Mr. Paul Cuero Kumeyaay Cultural Heritage Preservation

36190 Church Road, Suite 1Campo, CA 91906(619) 478-9046(619) 478-9505(619) 478-5818 - Fax

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/30/11 8/30/11 (4:07 pm) - Called office; same num

Cuero no longer works there. 

Ms. Carmen Lucas Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 775, Pine Valley, CA 91962 (619) 709-4207 8/18/2011 (Priority Mail) 8/30/11

8/30/11 (4:08 pm) - Called number and left comments regarding the CMAGR project 8/30/11 (5:40 pm) - Ms. Lucas responded tother than it is a very remote area where prsure and to encourage honest dialogue wit

Ms. Mary Resvaloso, Chairperson

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

P.O. Box 1160,Thermal, CA 92274(760) 397-0300(760) 397-8146 (Fax)mresvaloso@torresmartinez.org

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/17/2011 (Email) 8/30/11 8/30/11 (4:11 pm) - Called office, left mess

Ms. Resvaloso who is out of the office toda

URS Corporation Printed on: 3/13/2012 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range - NAHC NA Contact Tracking Log

Contact Person Tribe/Organization Address/Contact Information

Date Hard Copy 

Letter Sent to 

Tribes

Date Letter Faxed or 

Emailed to Tribes

Delivery Confirmed? 

(y/n)

Date Responded/Means 

of Response

Date of Follow-up 

Call 

Mr. Darrell Mike, Chairperson

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (Chemehuevi)

46-200 Harrison PlaceCoachella, CA 92236(760) 775-5566(760) 808-0409 - cell - EPA(760) 775-4639 (Fax)tribal-epa@worldnet.att.net

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/17/2011 (Email) 8/30/11

8/30/11 - Called office, transferred to Ms. T

voicemail asking that Mr. Mike or herself cathe CMAGR project or the letter sent

Mr. Joseph R. Benitez (Mike) Chemehuevi P.O. Box 1829 Indio, CA 92201 8/18/2011 (Priority Mail) Yes ~/~ No Phone number provided for follow-up ca

Ms. Ginger Scott, Museum Coordinator;Mr. George Ray, Coordinator

Colorado River Indian Tribe (Mojave & Chemehuevi)

26600 Mojave Road,Parker, AZ 85344(928) 669-9211 - Tribal Office(928) 669-8970 ext 21(928) 669-1925 (Fax)crit-museum@yahoo.com

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/17/2011 (Email) Yes 8/30/11

8/17/2011 -Two separate emails sent to sa

delivered8/30/11 (4:19 pm) - Called Tribal office, the Called the museum phone number and was Officer/Acting Director). Ms. Swick stated thletter though makes every effort to respondWednesday (9/7/2011).

Mr. Michael Jackson, President

Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Nation

P.O. Box 1899,Yuma, AZ 85366(760) 572-0213(760) 572-2102 (Fax)qitpres@quechantribe.com

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/17/2011 (Email) Yes 8/30/11

8/30/11 (4:28 pm) - Called office, was trans

Martha asked what this was in regards to, uto Mr. Escalanti should he have questions o

Ms. Diana L. Chihuahua, Vice Chairperson, Cultural

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

P.O. Box 1160,Thermal, CA 92274(760) 397-0300, ext 1209(760) 272-9039 - cell (Lisa)(760) 397-8146 (Fax)dianac@torresmartinez.org

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/17/2011 (Email) 8/30/11

8/30/11 (4:33 pm) - Called office, was trans

entailed generally. Upon providing this gencomments though requested that a copy of would email a copy of the letter and invited 8/30/2011 (5:02 pm) - Email sent to Mr. Fe

Mr. Richard Milanovich, Chairperson

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

5401 Dinah Shore Drive,Palm Springs, CA 92262(760) 325-3400(760) 325-0593 (Fax)ltreogoz@aguacaliente-nsn.gov

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/17/2011 (Email)

9/16/11 (US Mail); 

9/20/11 (Email);

9/30/11 (Email)

~/~

8/17/11 - Email Delivery Failure; message 

8/30/11 - Left message with Ms. Garcia-Tufor Mr. Milanovich9/20/11 - Received an email request from Mestimates for the CMAGR project. K. Maeyand forwarded request to A. Garcia-Herbstwas requested and that K. Maeyama would 9/26/11 - Received a letter from the S. Milais not within the Reservation boundaries thoACBCI THPO cultural resources records dobeen identified within the APE but that knowresponse letter, including 100% cultural resactivities, the provision of copies of ANY cuefforts, the presence of an approved Native activities, and special action should human states that the AC do have concerns and wcopies of survey and cultural reports once p9/27/11 - Sent response to Rosalina on 27 directory.9/30/11 - Received email from the ACBCI Eknowledge of cultural resources in the projematerials." It also states that the project is oUse Area and they "request, as a courtesy, the project progresses" and that they be on and/or any documentation that might be ge"Approved Cultural Monitors be present on they become necessary" and the ACBCI ca

Ms. Patricia Tuck, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

5401 Dinah Shore Drive,Palm Springs, CA 92262(760) 699-6907(760) 699-6924 (Fax)ptuck@aguacaliente-nsn.gov

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/17/2011 (Email) Yes 8/30/11 8/30/11 (4:55 pm) - Called office, left mess

Ms. Jill McCormick, Tribal Archaeologist

Cocopah Museum/Cultural Resources Department

County 15th & Ave. GSommerton, AZ 85350(928) 530-2291 - cell(928) 627-2280 - Fax

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/17/2011 (Fax) Yes 8/30/11

8/17/11 - Fax did not connect; incorrect fax 8/30/11 (4: 42 pm) - Called cell, left messagquestions or comments regarding the CMA

URS Corporation Printed on: 3/13/2012 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range - NAHC NA Contact Tracking Log

Contact Person Tribe/Organization Address/Contact Information

Date Hard Copy 

Letter Sent to 

Tribes

Date Letter Faxed or 

Emailed to Tribes

Delivery Confirmed? 

(y/n)

Date Responded/Means 

of Response

Date of Follow-up 

Call 

Ms. Bridget NashChrabascz, THPO Quechan Indian Nation

P.O. Box 1899Yuma, AZ 85366(928) 920-6068 - CELL(760) 572-2423b.nash@quechantribe.com

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/17/2011 (Email) 8/30/11 8/30/11 ( 4:44 pm) - Called office, tried to le

message

Mr. Preston J. Arrowweed Ah-Mut-Pipa Foundation

P.O. Box 160Bard, CA 92222(928) 388-9456ahmut@earthlink.net

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/17/2011 (Email) 8/30/11

8/17/11 - Email delivery held as spam-cont

website to become an approved sender.8/30/11 (4:46 pm) - Called number; Left mequestions or comments regarding CMAGR 

Mr. Luther Salgado, Sr., Chairperson Cahuilla Band of Indians

P.O. Box 391760Anza, CA 92539(915) 763-5549tribalcouncil@cahuilla.net

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/17/2011 (Email) 8/30/11 8/30/11 (4:50 pm) - Tried to call number pro

signal. 

Ms. Bernice Paipa, Vice Spokesperson

Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee

P.O. Box 1120,Boulevard, CA 91905(619) 478-2113

8/18/2011

(Priority Mail) 8/30/11

8/30/11 (4:50 pm) - Called office, tried to coreceptionist list for La Posta Tribe). Left mecontact me should this be the correct depa

URS Corporation Printed on: 3/13/2012 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal Index-1 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Index

1 INDEX

2 affected environment .................................... ES-1, ES-7, 1-32, 1-37, 3-1, 3-104, 3-109, 3-117, 4-24

3 agency management...................................... ES-4, 1-8, 2-2, 4-2, 4-5, 4-11, 4-14, 4-26

4 agriculture ..................................................... 3-28, 3-52, 3-66, 3-82, 3-116, 5-2, 5-9, 5-12, 5-20, 5-23, 6-6

5 air defense systems ....................................... 1-9, 1-12

6 air quality...................................................... ES-6, 3-1, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 

7 3-65, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-58, 4-60, 5-1, 5-8, 5-18, 5-19

8 Area of Critical Environmental Concern...... 3-31

9 artillery firing area ........................................ 2-9, 3-14, 3-18, 3-97, 3-100, 3-105, 4-44

10 biological resources...................................... ES-6, 1-34, 3-1, 3-66, 4-27, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-58, 4-59, 

11 4-61, 5-8, 5-19, 5-20, 6-5

12 Bureau of Reclamation ................................. ES-1, 1-1, 6-6

13 California Department of Fish and Game..... 2-16, 2-21, 3-66, 3-77, 6-6

14 California Military Lands Withdrawal 

15 and Overflights Act (CMLWOA .................. ES-1, ES-6, 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 1-16, 1-27, 1-30, 1-31, 1-35, 1-37, 

16 2-2, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-10, 2-16, 2-20, 2-21, 2-23, 3-26, 4-3, 

17 4-36, 5-4

18 California Native Plant Society .................... 3-66, 3-77

19 civil aviation ................................................. 1-10, 3-6, 3-91, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-6, 4-58, 4-61, 5-2, 5-11

20 climate........................................................... 1-22, 1-25, 2-21, 3-57, 3-61, 3-63, 3-70, 5-19, 5-20

21 controlled firing area..................................... 1-13, 1-23, 4-8, 4-40

22 cooperating agency(ies)................................ ES-2, 1-33, 1-34, 5-1, 6-1, 6-2

23 criteria pollutants.......................................... 3-58, 3-64, 4-23

24 cultural resources.......................................... ES-6, 1-30, 1-31, 1-32, 1-37, 2-23, 3-1, 3-18, 3-37, 3-79, 

25 3-80, 3-81, 3-83, 3-84, 3-86, 3-87, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 

26 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-58, 4-59, 4-62, 5-8, 5-10, 5-11, 5-20, 

27 5-21, 6-4, 6-5

28 cumulative impacts....................................... 2-21, 3-61, 5-1, 5-19

29 desert bighorn sheep ..................................... 3-51, 3-70, 3-71, 3-78, 4-29, 4-30

30 Desert Wildlife Management Area ............... 4-30, 5-3

31 direct effects.................................................. 4-1, 4-12, 4-15, 4-16, 4-20, 4-25, 4-26, 4-36, 4-39

32 economy........................................................ 3-116, 4-52, 5-9

33 employment................................................... 1-23, 3-23, 3-110, 3-113, 3-114, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 5-6

34 Endangered Species Act (ESA).................... 1-35, 2-16, 3-66, 3-77, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 5-6
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal Index-2 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Index

1 energy (see also renewable energy).............. 1-24, 1-34, 1-35, 1-36, 3-28, 3-34, 3-36, 3-38, 3-41, 3-42, 

2 3-45, 3-52, 3-61, 3-86, 3-88, 3-89, 4-13, 4-15, 4-17, 4-18, 

3 4-19, 4-21, 4-22, 4-59, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-12, 5-13, 5-15, 

4 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22

5 environmental consequences ........................ ES-1, ES-6, 1-1, 2-3, 4-1, 5-12

6 environmental justice.................................... ES-6, ES-7, 1-35, 3-1, 3-2, 3-110, 3-117, 3-118, 3-120, 4-55, 

7 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 5-1

8 Federal Aviation Administration .................. 1-13, 1-18, 1-36

9 fixed-wing aircraft ........................................ 1-13, 1-21, 1-22, 2-8, 3-12, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10

10 floodplain...................................................... 3-82

11 geological resources...................................... ES-6, 1-32, 3-1, 3-38, 4-15, 4-19, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 5-16

12 grazing........................................................... 3-28, 3-30, 3-31, 3-36, 4-12, 4-17, 4-32, 4-54, 4-61

13 groundwater .................................................. 1-34, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-68, 3-104, 

14 3-105, 3-108, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22

15 guzzler(s) ...................................................... 3-51, 3-70, 4-28, 5-4

16 hazardous materials and waste...................... ES-6, 3-1, 3-104, 3-105, 3-106, 4-58, 4-60, 4-62, 5-23

17 housing.......................................................... 3-31, 3-93, 3-119, 4-52, 4-53, 5-13

18 hydrology ...................................................... 3-69, 4-19, 4-21

19 indirect effects .............................................. 4-1, 4-15, 4-25, 4-26, 4-28, 4-52, 4-59

20 jurisdictional waters...................................... 3-66, 3-67, 3-69

21 land use (see non-military land use) ............. ES-6, 1-9, 1-16, 1-27, 1-34, 2-5, 2-7, 2-11, 2-17, 2-18, 2-20, 

22 2-23, 3-2, 3-5, 3-17, 3-18, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 

23 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-88, 3-91, 3-92, 3-96, 3-108, 4-2, 

24 4-5, 4-6, 4-11, 4-12, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 

25 4-22, 4-33, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-45, 4-47, 4-52, 

26 4-54, 4-58, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 5-3, 5-4, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 

27 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 6-5

28 live-fire training (live ordnance training) ..... ES- 1, 1-1, 1-5, 1-13, 1-15, 1-16, 1-19, 1-21, 2-8, 3-6, 3-9, 

29 3-15, 3-17, 3-18, 3-22, 3-23, 4-4, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-60, 5-13, 

30 5-20

31 military operations area (MOA) ................... 1-13, 1-18, 1-19, 3-8, 3-9, 3-12, 3-13, 4-10, 5-12

32 military training route (MTR)....................... 1-19, 3-10, 5-14

33 mineral rights................................................ 2-21

34 mineral(s)...................................................... 1-2, 1-31, 1-34, 2-21, 2-22, 3-32, 3-34, 3-38, 3-42, 3-45, 

35 3-46, 4-15, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-59, 4-60, 

36 4-61, 5-8, 5-16, 5-17

37 minority......................................................... 1-35, 3-117, 3-118, 3-120, 3-121, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58

38 mitigation...................................................... 3-35, 3-36, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-91, 3-118, 4-29, 4-33, 4-34, 

39 4-58, 4-61, 5-18, 6-5
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal Index-3 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Index

1 monitoring..................................................... 1-28, 3-48, 3-57, 3-60, 3-63, 3-64, 3-89, 4-30

2 Naval Special Warfare.................................. ES-2, 1-1, 2-10

3 Noise ............................................................. 2-8, 3-1, 3-12, 3-31, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 3-92, 3-93, 3-95, 

4 3-101, 4-12, 4-29, 4-30, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 

5 5-4, 5-15, 5-21

6 Nonattainment............................................... 3-62, 3-64, 5-18

7 non-military land use .................................... ES-6, 1-30, 2-23, 3-1, 3-36, 4-11, 4-13, 4-30, 4-54, 4-58, 

8 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 5-10, 5-14, 5-15, 5-17, 5-18

9 ordnance........................................................ ES-6, 1-5, 1-11, 1-13, 1-15, 1-18, 1-19, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 

10 1-24, 1-26, 1-34, 1-37, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-16, 2-17, 

11 3-6, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-15, 3-17, 3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-23, 3-25, 

12 3-26, 3-35, 3-64, 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 3-92, 3-93, 3-101, 3-102, 

13 3-103, 3-104, 3-105, 3-106, 4-4, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-15, 

14 4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 

15 4-36, 4-40, 4-41, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-59, 4-60, 4-62, 

16 5-15, 5-18, 5-21

17 paleontological resources.............................. 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50

18 poverty .......................................................... 3-110, 3-118, 3-119, 3-120, 4-55

19 proposed action............................................. ES-1, ES-6, ES-7, 1-6, 1-32, 1-37, 2-1, 2-21, 3-1, 3-48, 3-62, 

20 3-64, 3-96, 3-118, 4-1, 4-36, 4-37, 4-39, 4-42, 4-55, 4-61, 

21 4-62, 5-1, 5-4, 5-18, 5-19, 6-4

22 public health and safety ................................ ES-6, 3-1, 3-100, 3-101, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-58, 4-60, 5-22

23 public meeting(s) .......................................... 1-6, 3-118, 6-3, 6-5, 6-7

24 purpose and need .......................................... 1-34, 1-35, 6-1, 6-4

25 race................................................................ 3-110, 3-117, 3-118, 3-120, 3-121, 4-56

26 range and airspace operations....................... ES-6, 3-1, 3-3, 4-2, 4-58, 4-60

27 Record of Non-Applicability ........................ 4-26

28 recreation (recreational opportunities) ......... 1-33, 1-34, 3-27, 3-28, 3-32, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-97, 

29 3-116, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-17, 4-21, 4-22, 4-48, 4-60, 

30 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-6, 5-10, 5-15, 5-18, 5-20, 5-22, 5-23, 6-5, 6-6

31 region of influence........................................ 3-27, 3-34, 3-96, 3-97, 3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 3-114, 3-119, 

32 3-120, 5-2, 5-8

33 renewable energy .......................................... 3-31, 3-33, 3-34, 3-45, 3-61, 4-11, 4-13, 4-14, 4-17, 4-48, 

34 4-60, 4-61, 5-1, 5-4, 5-6, 5-12, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-20, 

35 5-21, 5-22, 5-23

36 restricted area(s) ........................................... 1-13, 1-16, 1-18, 1-19, 1-24, 3-6, 3-9, 3-12, 3-101, 4-8, 4-10, 

37 4-60

38 riparian.......................................................... 3-73, 3-74, 3-75

39 roadless area.................................................. 3-20, 3-23, 3-24

40 rotary-wing aircraft (or helicopters) ............. 1-11, 1-13, 1-22, 2-8, 2-9, 3-14, 4-49, 4-60
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal Index-4 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Index

1 scenic quality ................................................ 3-96, 3-99, 3-100, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 5-21, 5-22

2 scoping.......................................................... ES-2, ES-6, 1-32, 1-33, 1-34, 1-35, 1-37, 2-1, 2-3, 2-21, 

3 4-38, 4-46, 4-47, 5-6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5

4 sensitive receivers......................................... 3-91, 3-92, 4-40

5 sensitive species............................................ 3-71, 4-31, 4-32

6 socioeconomic resources.............................. ES-6, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-58

7 soil(s) ............................................................ 1-32, 3-15, 3-21, 3-38, 3-41, 3-43, 3-48, 3-49, 3-51, 3-52, 

8 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-76, 3-77, 3-105, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 

9 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-59, 5-1, 5-9, 5-16, 

10 5-17

11 special status (species).................................. 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-72, 4-28, 4-29, 4-32

12 special use airspace....................................... 1-10, 1-13, 1-15, 1-16, 1-18, 1-23, 2-9, 3-3, 3-6, 3-8, 3-12, 

13 3-13, 3-17, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-10, 4-58, 5-2, 5-11, 5-14

14 surface danger zone (SDZ) ........................... 1-23, 3-15, 3-17, 3-19, 3-103, 4-4, 4-14, 4-46

15 surface water................................................. ES-7, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-69, 3-70, 

16 3-104, 3-108, 4-1, 4-15, 4-16, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-47, 

17 4-59, 5-17, 5-18

18 tactical aviation............................................. ES-2, ES-6, 1-6, 1-8, 1-15, 1-19, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 2-20, 

19 3-10, 4-7, 4-8, 4-42, 4-48, 4-50, 4-60

20 threatened species......................................... 4-30, 5-4

21 tilt-rotor aircraft ............................................ 1-13, 1-26, 2-9

22 tinajas............................................................ 3-51, 3-70, 4-28

23 topography .................................................... 1-32, 3-11, 3-51, 3-68, 3-70, 3-97, 4-16, 4-19

24 traditional cultural places.............................. 3-79

25 transportation ................................................ 1-9, 1-27, 1-36, 3-3, 3-20, 3-27, 3-30, 3-35, 3-37, 3-61, 3-82, 

26 3-104, 3-106, 3-116, 4-12, 4-14, 4-35, 4-61, 5-2, 5-9, 5-10, 

27 5-13, 5-18, 5-23, 6-6

28 tribal consultation/coordination.................... ES-2, 1-37, 6-1, 6-2

29 utility (utilities)............................................. 1-9, 1-34, 2-10, 3-18, 3-20, 3-27, 3-28, 3-30, 3-32, 3-33, 

30 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-46, 3-97, 3-100, 3-116, 4-11, 4-12, 

31 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 4-22, 4-48, 4-51, 

32 4-52, 4-53, 4-61, 5-2, 5-3, 5-6, 5-10, 5-23

33 vegetation...................................................... 3-21, 3-66, 3-68, 3-69, 3-73, 3-74, 3-78, 3-92, 3-96, 3-97, 

34 3-100, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 

35 4-33, 4-42, 4-44, 4-59, 4-61, 5-1

36 visual resources............................................. ES-6, 3-1, 3-96, 4-42, 4-44, 4-45, 4-58, 4-60, 5-21

37 water resources ............................................. ES-6, 1-36, 3-1, 3-50, 3-51, 3-57, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 

38 4-58, 4-60, 5-17, 5-18, 6-6

39 water rights ................................................... 3-57
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal Index-5 August 2012

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Index

1 weapons danger zone (WDZ) ....................... 3-17, 3-102, 4-4, 4-14, 4-46

2 weapons system ............................................ 1-8, 1-11, 1-12, 1-15, 3-10, 3-11, 3-25

3 wetlands........................................................ 1-36, 3-50, 3-69, 4-27, 4-31, 5-9

4 wilderness..................................................... 1-9, 3-2, 3-23, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-96, 3-99, 3-100, 4-1, 4-12, 

5 4-26, 4-39, 4-60, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-14, 5-15, 

6 5-16, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23

7 wildlife habitat.............................................. 3-52, 3-69, 3-70, 4-27, 4-28, 4-30, 4-32, 4-61, 4-62, 5-10, 

8 5-20

9