CHOCOLATE MOUNTAIN AERIAL GUNNERY RANGE 

DRAFT LEGISLATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE PROPOSED RENEWAL OF THE LAND WITHDRAWAL 

FINAL SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Marine Corps 

March 2011 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal i Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................... 3

1.3 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................. 3

2.0 SCOPING PROCESS ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPING PROCESS ............................................................... 5

2.2.1 Announcements ..................................................................................................... 5

2.2.2 Agency and Tribal Coordination ........................................................................... 7

2.2.3 Public Scoping Meetings ....................................................................................... 8

3.0 SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS ..................................................................................... 9

3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 9

3.2 COMMENT ORGANIZATION ......................................................................................... 9

3.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ......................................................................... 10

3.4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING SCOPING ................................................................... 11

3.4.1 Project Alternatives.............................................................................................. 12

3.4.2 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 12

3.4.3 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 13

3.4.4 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 13

3.4.5 Land Use .............................................................................................................. 13

3.4.6 Military Use ......................................................................................................... 14

3.4.7 Public Use: Recreation/Access ............................................................................ 14

3.4.8 Water Resource Impacts ...................................................................................... 15

3.5 ISSUES REGARDING LAND WITHDRAWAL SEGREGATION ............................... 15

3.6 ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE LEIS ............................................................. 15

4.0 SUMMARY OF FUTURE STEPS IN THE LEIS PROCESS ...................................................... 16

4.1 PUBLIC SCOPING AND IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES ........................................... 16

4.2 FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................... 16

4.3 PREPARE AND RELEASE DRAFT LEIS ..................................................................... 17

4.3.1 Data Collection and Data Gaps ............................................................................ 17

4.3.2 Assess Impacts ..................................................................................................... 17

4.4 PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT LEIS .............................................................................. 17

4.5 PREPARE FINAL LEIS ................................................................................................... 18
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal ii Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Newspaper Publication of Paid Advertisement ................................................................. 6

Table 2 Public Scoping Meeting Attendance .................................................................................. 8

Table 3 Summary of Total Issues Identified ................................................................................. 11

LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS 

Map 1 Existing Underlying Land Jurisdictions at the CMAGR .................................................... 2 

Figure 1 LEIS Process Flow Chart .................................................................................................. 16

LIST OF APPENDICES 

A Announcements 

 Notice of Intent 

 Government Officials Briefing Brochure 

 Newsletter 

 Interested Parties Distribution List 

 Newspaper Advertisement 

 

B Agency and Tribal Coordination and Consultation 

 Agency and Tribal Notification Letter 

 Tribal Contact List 

C Public Scoping Meeting Materials 

 Sign-in Sheets 

 Frequently Asked Questions 

 Comment Form 

 Presentation Boards 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal iii Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMAGR Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range 

CMLWOA California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 

CVWD Coachella Valley Water District 

DoI Department of the Interior 

DoN Department of the Navy 

EMLF Eagle Mountain Landfill 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

GIS Geographic Information System 

LEIS Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 

MCAS Marine Corps Air Station 

MCI WEST Marine Corps Installations WEST 

MCO Marine Corps Order 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOI Notice of Intent 

SUA Special Use Airspace 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 1 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

The Department of the Navy (DoN) is preparing a Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 

(LEIS), in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, to evaluate potential 

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

(CMAGR) land withdrawal. 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 CMAGR supports training in air combat maneuvering and tactics; close air support (where air-toground ordnance is fired to directly support friendly forces engaged in ground combat); airborne laser 

system operations; air-to-air gunnery; and air-to-ground bombing, rocketry, and strafing. Artillery, 

demolitions, small arms, and naval special warfare training are also conducted within the range. The 

CMAGR is a centerpiece in the much larger Bob Stump Training Range Complex that incorporates 

adjacent and nearby SUA and ranges in California and Arizona to support full-spectrum combat 

operations so that Marines can realistically train as they will fight. 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 DoN is initiating the process to request that 

Congress renew the land withdrawal and military reservation. 

To initiate this process, the DoN filed a land withdrawal application with the Department of the Interior 

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 (see Map 1). The withdrawal application triggers a temporary 

segregation of the affected lands from settlement, sale, location, or entry under some or all of the public 

land, mining, and mineral laws to allow time for the land withdrawal issue to be decided. Congressional 

approval is required for land withdrawals for national defense purposes that total more than 5,000 acres in 

aggregate. 
1

11

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad

Rive

rside

Cou

nty

Imperia

lCou

nty

P:\ENVPLANNING\NAVFAC\27690012

_

Choc

_

Mtn

_

LEIS\GIS\mxds\Scoping_Report\CMAGR_Scoping_Map.mxd (BLC 3/4/2011)

LegendEx

istingCMAGRBoundary

NavyLand

BureauofLandManagement

PrivateLand

BradshawTrail

CoachellaCanal

GasLine

TransmissionLine

City\Town

CountyBoundary

Highway

Railroad

ExistingUnderlying

LandJurisdictions

attheCMAGR

Map1

CMAGRLandWithdrawal

RenewalLEIS

02468

Miles

MapScale

1:260,000

02468

Kilometers

2

ThisMapisforReferenceUseOnly.

Althougheveryefforthasbeenmadetoensuretheaccuracyofthe

information,errorsandconditionsoriginatingfromphysicalsourcesto

developthedatabasemaybereflectedinthedatasupplied.The

usermustbeawareofdataconditionsandultimatelybear

responsibilityfortheappropriateuseoftheinformationwithrespect

tothepossibleerrors,originalmapscale,collectionmethodology,

currencyofthedata,andotherconditionsspecifictocertaindata.

Thisinformationdoesnotdepictallpossibleresources.Field

verificationofalldataisrequiredforsite-specificprojects.This

informationisdeemedreliable,butnotguaranteed.

Source:

RangeFeatures:IGI&S2010,YRMD2010

BaseMap:CASIL2010,ESRI2010,BLM2010

CoordinateSystem:WGS1984UTMZone11N

Projection:TransverseMercator

Datum:WGS1984

Units:Meter

FinalScopingReport

March2011

ProposedRenewaloftheCMAGRLandWithdrawal
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 3 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

Concurrently with the withdrawal application, the DoN began the NEPA process to assess the 

environmental impacts associated with the land withdrawal alternatives. The BLM will serve as a 

cooperating agency in the preparation of the NEPA documentation. One of the first steps of the NEPA 

process for the withdrawal was to initiate scoping, which is “an early and open process for determining 

the issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to proposed action” (Title 40 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1501.7). During scoping, DoN actively seeks to engage 

potentially affected or interested Federal, State, and local agencies; American Indian tribes; and the 

public. Scoping for the LEIS commenced on 24 September 2010, with publication of a notice of intent 

(NOI) to prepare an LEIS in the Federal Register, Volume 75, No. 185 (Appendix A), and concluded on 

23 December 2010. This report is a summary of the scoping process and results. 

The fundamental purpose of keeping the CMAGR fully in service beyond October 2014 is to preserve a 

component of the national defense training base that is indispensable to the continued and future readiness 

of Marine Corps and Navy air forces. Although military aircraft, weapons systems, and tactics have 

advanced and changed markedly since the 1940s, the CMAGR continues to be a critical military training 

asset and is expected to be used to support new aircraft including the MV-22 (also known as the Osprey) 

and the F-35 (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter). In addition, the CMAGR supports air combat 

training needed by Air Force, Army, National Guard, and land-based training by Navy special warfare 

units. 

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 proximity to existing air stations, favorable flying weather, sufficient land and airspace, 

diverse terrain, and developed training support facilities. 

Because the CMAGR comprises DoN lands 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 (FLPMA) for BLM land. The management goals and procedures of these acts differ, so 

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 DoN 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. 

A range of alternatives will be considered in the LEIS. In addition to the no-action alternative required 

under NEPA, four preliminary action alternatives were developed by the DoN. Scoping comments may 

result in revisions to these preliminary alternatives or the addition of new alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4 would include restructuring the CMAGR boundary to more closely follow, but not cross or 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 4 Final Scoping Summary Report 

 March 2011 

incorporate, certain prominent geographic features, such as the Bradshaw Trail and Coachella Canal. 

Benefits of a realigned boundary include enhanced safety through a better demarked boundary and 

improved range and land management effectiveness. 

The checkerboard pattern of DoN and DoI lands (see Map 1), coupled with guidance from the 

CMLWOA, creates divided jurisdictions and management responsibilities for these agencies at the 

CMAGR. The joint management scheme leaves the DoN and the DoI with a divided set of jurisdictions 

and responsibilities. As a consequence, management of the natural and cultural resources of the range has 

not been comprehensively planned, integrated, or implemented. The Draft LEIS will explore land 

management alternatives, including maintaining the status quo of split management versus transferring all 

natural and cultural resource management responsibilities to the DoN. The preliminary alternatives 

presented to the public during scoping were refined based on public scoping comments. 

1) Alternative 1 would renew the current withdrawal for another 20 years, with no boundary or 

jurisdictional changes. 

2) Alternative 2 would renew the land withdrawal for another 25 years, partially realign the 

boundary to conform to certain geographical features, and allocate full administrative jurisdiction 

for resource management to DoN. 

3) Alternative 3 would also renew the land withdrawal and realign the range boundary as described 

for Alternative 2. Alternative 3, however, would permanently transfer all custody and 

accountability for the real property within both the current withdrawal and the restructured 

boundaries for DoI public lands to DoN, which would have the effect of eliminating the 

checkerboard of DoI and DoN land jurisdictions and consolidating all management 

responsibilities for the CMAGR under the DoN. 

4) Alternative 4 would renew the land withdrawal for another 25 years and realign the range 

boundary as described for Alternative 2; however, land jurisdiction and management 

responsibilities would remain unchanged from the current condition. 

5) Under Alternative 5, the no-action alternative, the existing land withdrawal for the CMAGR, 

provided by the CMLOWA of 1994, would expire at the end of October 2014. The capability to 

support existing and future training activities at the CMAGR that rely on these lands would cease. 

No alternative range in the operational region of the CMAGR currently has the weapons training 

capacity to absorb the training missions assigned to the CMAGR. Consequently, other ranges in 

the operational region would have to be redeveloped to support CMAGR training, training would 

be moved to other regions, or training would be curtailed. Range clean-up operations at CMAGR 

would be required. The No Action Alternative does not meet the Marine Corps needs but is a 

required element of the LEIS. 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 5 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

This section provides a summary of the objectives of scoping and a description of the scoping process and 

agency coordination for the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal LEIS.

The objectives of the scoping process include: 

Coordinate with affected Federal, State, and local agencies, affected American Indian tribes, and 

other interested parties to: 

o Invite agencies to participate as cooperating agencies in the LEIS process 

o Establish a process to integrate and expedite environmental reviews 

o Establish the planning and decision-making schedule 

Determine the scope of the analysis, significant issues to be analyzed in detail in the LEIS, 

insignificant issues for which detailed analysis is not warranted, and the range of alternatives and 

impacts. 

Identify: 

o Issues that have been covered by prior environmental review and can be eliminated from 

detailed study 

o Cumulative actions and environmental assessments or environmental impact statements 

that are being or will be prepared that are related to but are not part of the scope of the 

LEIS under consideration 

o Other environmental review and consultation requirements (e.g., Endangered Species 

Act, Historic Preservation Act) so the required analyses and studies can be prepared and 

integrated with the LEIS 

Methods used to involve the public and facilitate exchange of updated project information throughout the 

planning process have included various types of announcements, agency and tribal coordination, and 

public scoping meetings. 

In September 2010, selected Congressional leaders were notified by letter that the Marine Corps planned 

to file a NOI to prepare an LEIS for renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal. Government leaders in 

Sacramento, California were briefed by Marine Corps Installations West (MCI WEST) on military 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 6 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

activities within the region and were provided with a short fact sheet about the proposed renewal action at 

the CMAGR (Appendix A). 

The public was notified of the intent to prepare a Draft LEIS and the dates and locations of scoping 

meetings through the NOI published in the Federal Register on 24 September 2010 (Appendix A). The 

NOI also provided project information including a description of the purpose and need, the preliminary 

alternatives, environmental issues and resources to be examined, information on how to submit 

comments, the DoN contact information, and highlights about other opportunities for public input in the 

LEIS process. 

A newsletter was distributed to approximately 281 people on 18 November 2010 to notify government 

agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other interested parties of the intent to prepare an LEIS 

and the scoping process (Appendix A). The newsletter mailing list included private property owners 

whose land could be affected by the boundary realignment proposed by Alternatives 2, 3, or 4; local 

elected or municipal officials; Federal and State agencies; potentially interested American Indian tribes; 

and other interested parties. 

The mailing list for future newsletters will be supplemented throughout the process as people notify the 

DoN of their interest in the project through direct requests to the DoN, participation in public meetings, or 

submission of comments. 

The public also was notified of the scoping meetings through paid advertisements published in 

newspapers local to the scoping meeting locations or the CMAGR as well as some of the communities 

near military installations that use the CMAGR for training. Table 1 lists the newspapers, publication 

area, and dates of publication. 

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
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 7 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

Newspaper Publication Area Dates of Publication

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

A camera-ready version of the advertisement is included in Appendix A. 

The public website for the project, located at: www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com, offers interested 

parties online information pertaining to the project background, preliminary alternatives, published 

documents, maps, and the LEIS schedule. Materials available at the public scoping meetings are available 

on the “Documents and Maps” page. This website is designed to encourage participation by offering 

online comment submissions and the option to be added to the mailing list; both located under the “Get 

Involved” page. 

The BLM is serving as a cooperating agency for the preparation of the Draft LEIS. Ongoing coordination 

with BLM has occurred through the land withdrawal application process. The Bureau of Reclamation has 

indicated that it has jurisdiction for lands along the Coachella Canal and has been invited to serve as a 

cooperating agency. 

In addition to sending the newsletter to agency and tribal representatives, notification letters were mailed 

to 49 agencies and 38 tribes expected to have an interest in the land withdrawal renewal or a regulatory 

review responsibility. In some cases, multiple persons within an agency or tribe received the letter so 

more than 100 notification letters were sent. The letter invited scoping comments and provided 

information on who to contact to request additional information or arrange for a meeting with project 

team representatives. 

Follow-up telephone calls were made to the American Indian tribes on 22 December 2010 in effort to 

assure they were aware of the LEIS activities and their opportunity to offer scoping comments, and to 

inquire if they needed additional information. 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 8 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

A sample of the coordination letters and a summary of the follow-up contacts with the tribes are included 

in Appendix B. 

Four public scoping meetings were held in an open house format to provide information to the public and 

request public input. Each open house began at 5:30 p.m. and continued until 8:00 p.m. Attendees were 

invited to register their attendance and each person was given a handout of Frequently Asked Questions 

and a comment form. Eight display boards were used to illustrate information, including the vicinity of 

the CMAGR, Federal land withdrawal and NEPA processes, military ranges in the operating region and 

how they are used, military features of the CMAGR, current land jurisdiction, proposed CMAGR 

boundary realignments, summary of preliminary alternatives, and LEIS study topics. Attendees could 

browse the information on the boards and speak informally to representatives from the project team. 

Questions and comments were discussed through one-on-one conversations between attendees and project 

team representatives during the open house. Attendees were invited to offer oral comments to a court 

reporter who recorded them verbatim. Transcripts of these comments were reviewed in conjunction with 

written comments to ensure that all issues were identified in this report (as discussed in Section 3.0). 

Comment forms were available at each meeting for attendees to provide written comments at the time of 

the meeting, or to return by mail. Locations, dates, and attendance of each public meeting are shown in 

Table 2. Copies of scoping meeting materials are provided in Appendix C. 

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
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 9 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

This section provides a summary of the method used to organize and analyze comments; a quantification 

of how many comments were received; how many issues were identified within those comments; and the 

issues identified during scoping. Although the DoN will continue to consider comments throughout the 

LEIS process, the scoping comments documented in this report were received during the formal scoping 

period that ended 23 December 2010. 

Comments regarding the proposed action alternatives will be considered by the DoN in refining the 

project description and alternatives that will serve as the basis for the impact assessment. The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA requires agencies to identify alternative 

ways of meeting their need for the action. Chapter 2 of the LEIS will describe the alternatives to be 

analyzed and the alternatives that were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis in the 

LEIS.

The (CEQ) regulations also require an analysis of the impacts of a proposed action on the environment. 

These impacts include effects on natural, human, and cultural resources. Discussions with affected public 

or agencies, such as those that have occurred through this scoping effort, help to define and evaluate 

effects of the different alternatives on the environment. Comments relating to environmental impacts will 

be considered by the DoN in developing the scope of LEIS technical studies. Chapters 3 (Affected 

Environment) and 4 (Environmental Consequences) of the LEIS will address the resource issues 

identified during scoping. Concerns about the LEIS studies and decision-making processes will be 

considered in refining and modifying these processes throughout the remainder of the LEIS preparation.

Some public comments may be considered outside the scope of this LEIS if the issue does not pertain to 

this project, is not within the jurisdiction of the DoN to resolve, cannot be reasonably addressed within 

the scope of this process or is being addressed through a separate NEPA process, or does not satisfy the 

project’s purpose and need. Those issues that are considered to be outside the scope of the LEIS are 

identified by issue or resource under Section 3.6. 

Mailed letters, electronic (e-) mail messages, project website submittals through 23 December 2010, and 

comment forms received at each scoping meeting, were reviewed, documented, and entered into a 

database to facilitate organization, sorting, analytical review, and management of the comments in several 

different ways. The database is structured to organize comments into separate issue categories, identify 

the type (e.g., letter, e-mail, comment form), and source of submittal (e.g., agency, special interest group, 

citizen), and tally the number of comments using various combinations of identifiers. 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 10 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

Using the experience and professional judgment of the study team, the comments were organized into 

17 major issue categories; on a broad scale, the categories pertain to process, purpose and need, 

alternatives, and environmental impacts. 

Process: Process comments regarding the methods used to implement NEPA and the process associated 

with the segregation of public lands to be considered as part of the land withdrawal. 

Purpose and Need: Comments regarding the purpose and need identified that lands proposed for 

inclusion in the withdrawal be clearly justified. 

Alternatives: Most comments about the preliminary alternatives included suggestions for and concerns 

about alternative boundary realignments, but there were also comments indicating support for or 

opposition to some of the preliminary alternatives. 

Environmental Impacts: Comments addressed the need to evaluate the potential impacts of the land 

withdrawal renewal on natural, human, and cultural resources, and about social and economic concerns. 

Topic categories include: 

Biological Resources 

Cultural Resources 

Hazardous Materials and Safety 

Land Use, Recreation, and Access 

Socioeconomics 

Water Resources 

A total of 26 comment submissions received from 22 persons were entered into the project database; 

some persons submitted more than one letter or commented using more than one media (such as a 

comment form at a meeting and a letter). Comments were parsed from the letters and other submissions 

into 17 main categories of issues, and subcategories when appropriate. For example, a comment regarding 

the effects on public recreation was categorized as Public Use with a sub issue assignment of Recreation. 

This organization allows the project team to identify, quantify, and analyze public concerns for this 

Scoping Report and for resource specialists to use in preparing the LEIS. It also allowed team members to 

identify issues at a very detailed level while maintaining the context of each comment. If a comment 

mentioned multiple issues, it was separated into single comments and categorized according to the 

individual issue. These comments and issues are summarized in Section 3.4 along with a sample of 

representative quotations. 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 11 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

Within the 26 comment submissions entered into the database, some individuals offered only a single 

comment, while others provided several comments related to a single or multiple categories. Due to 

submissions containing multiple comments, more than 75 issues were identified and categorized. Table 3 

summarizes the volume of comments received on each of the main issue categories. 

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%

As noted in Table 3, Alternatives was the most frequently mentioned main issue, accounting for 

39 percent of all comments received. Within this category, more than half of the comments identified 

suggestions for other alternatives to consider or variations on the preliminary alternatives. The second 

most frequently mentioned issue was Public Use, which included comments regarding recreation and 

access. 

Although quantifying comments and issues is helpful in summarizing comments for public review and 

helping to guide future LEIS studies, it is important to note that the level of importance of comments to 

the decision-making process is not influenced by the frequency of a specific issue. In some cases, for 

example, a person may have submitted more than one letter or mentioned the same issue several times in 

their letter; therefore, his or her issues may have been recorded several times. In contrast, if only one 

comment was made about a certain issue, it will have the same level of importance as any other comment.

NEPA requires Federal agencies to focus their analysis and documentation on the important issues related 

to a proposed action. These issues serve as the basis for developing and comparing alternatives. The 

following section provides a summary of the key issues identified during scoping, including a sample of 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 12 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

representative quotations from the comment submissions. These issues will be considered and analyzed in 

the LEIS. Those issues that will not be addressed in the LEIS are identified under Section 3.6. 

Most of the comments received on project alternatives concerned the proposed boundary realignments. 

Other comments provided support for continuing military use of the CMAGR, requested clarification of 

agency responsibilities for resource management, and suggested a shorter duration for the proposed 

withdrawal period. 

Representative Quotations 

“May I suggest that you look at the existing Southern boundary and consider extending it in a 

Westerly direction up to the [Union Pacific] railroad easement with no further alignment to the 

South.” 

“The land in the immediate vicinity of the training dikes should be withdrawn from the gunnery 

range and bombing activity eliminated to allow [U.S. Bureau of Reclamation/Coachella Valley 

Water District (CVWD)] to maintain these dikes.” 

“Boundary realignment to follow the railroad right-of-way would further enhance public safety 

by providing for very clear boundary demarcation.” 

“[T]he Sanitation Districts [of Los Angeles County] request that the CMAGR expansion 

alternatives evaluated in the Draft L-EIS be modified so that they do not overlap the [Mesquite 

Regional Landfill] Rail Spur [right of way].” 

“I support the US Marine Corps’ renewal of this withdrawal.” 

“I support one agency (USMC) being the primary overseer of natural and cultural resource 

management within the area.” 

“In a changing climate, and in support of effective stewardship, this assessment should occur 

more frequently than 25-year cycles.” 

“Modify the suggested boundary adjustment to the CMAGR to exclude the Eagle Mountain 

Railroad.” 

“I suggest full transfer of all right, title and interest to DoN and to keep the range open” 

Comments related to biological resources focused on threatened and endangered species and specifically 

protection of species and their habitat. 

Representative Quotations

“The DLEIS should discuss how the different management alternatives would likely impact the 

management and protection of the Mojave Desert Tortoise.” 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 13 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

“Sanitation Districts [of Los Angeles County] request that the current [Mesquite Regional 

Landfill] biological compliance programs (tortoise crossings and biological monitoring) remain 

unchanged.” 

A Tribe expressed interest in participating in the LEIS process with regard to survey and analysis of 

cultural resources. 

“The THPO [Tribal Historic Preservation Office] is concerned in regards to potential impacts to 

historic and natural resources and would like to participate in consultation regarding the Renewal of 

the Chocolate Mountain...” 

“...we have the following recommendations for the protection of resources: 1. The development 

of a Historic Preservation Management Plan in consultation with Tribes.” 

“...we request the following: 5. Approved Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) be 

present during all ground disturbing activities.” 

Evaluation of contamination and the responsibility for clean-up were main topics under this category. 

Representative Quotations 

“The DLEIS should thoroughly discuss the liability and responsibilities for contamination 

cleanup once the range is no longer being utilized. ... The alternatives analysis should evaluate the 

effectiveness, and financial and other capabilities of BLM versus DoN in carrying out the 

cleanup.” 

Of the comments submitted in this category, the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County and 

the Bureau of Reclamation provided substantive input. 

Representative Quotations 

“...the Sanitation Districts also request that the CMAGR be modified along its northwest 

boundary to remain south and east of the existing Eagle Mountain Railroad... The Sanitation 

Districts have entered into an agreement to purchase the Eagle Mountain Landfill (EMLF), 

including the railroad. The railroad and unhindered rail access are a critical part of the EMLF 

project.” 

“Address impacts to energy development and transmission.” 

“...any Alternative selected in the draft LEIS must allow full access to CVWD for continued 

operation and maintenance of all Canal facilities in the area.” 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 14 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

Comments related to Military Use were provided by agencies who share access to land in the withdrawn 

area. 

Representative Quotations 

“CVWD requests that military vehicles be prohibited from using the Canal roads except in 

defined limited locations for access to the Gunnery Range.” 

“The DLEIS should clearly indicate whether the level of training will increase, decrease, or 

remain the same under the different alternatives.” 

Most comments in this category regarded public use of existing BLM routes for recreation and off-road 

transportation, but comments also pertained to access for facilities in the area. More than 15 percent of all 

comments received fit this category and most of the comments were submitted by individuals who 

recreate in the area and desire to continue safe access to the designated routes. Additionally, access to the 

Mary Lode Mine was requested. 

Representative Quotations 

“CVWD needs to be able to access these facilities to ensure that the dikes can withstand a large 

flood to protect the canal and downstream property from severe flooding.” 

“In compliance with the MRL [Mesquite Regional Landfill] Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 

1036-91), the Sanitation Districts provided three at-grade crossings to facilitate public and 

military access to areas north and west of the MRL Rail Spur at BLM roads numbers 670006, 

670607, and 670604 that correspond to an Imperial County Public Works Gravel Pit, CP Bull 

Road, and old Highway 78, respectively. These at-grade crossings are also regulated by the 

CPUC [California Public Utilities Commission] as Crossing Numbers 00lB-1.l1-C, 001B-1.91-C, 

and 00IB-2.63-C, respectively. These routes connect the public on Hwy 78 with BLM lands on 

the other side of the MRL Rail Spur. Any changes to these public access routes will require 

appropriate modifications to the MRL Rail Spur and associated CPUC permits and UPRR [Union 

Pacific Railroad] agreements.” 

“My family uses the area near the BLM roads 606, 607,and 590 for recreation ...” 

“...it is also important to have the Bradshaw trail open for public use.” 

“Mine owners request right to access the Mary Lode Mine land for the possibility of activating 

it.” (Note: The BLM Mining Claim Geographic Index Report, dated 18 Feb 2011, indicates this 

claim was closed on 1 Feb 1985.) 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 15 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

Concerns about groundwater quality and watershed impacts were noted. 

Representative Quotations 

“Discuss groundwater quality and indicate whether there is evidence that groundwater is 

becoming contaminated with munitions constituents.” 

“The Sanitation District requests that watersheds upgradient of the MRL site remain unchanged.” 

Public notification materials also invited the public to comment on the land withdrawal application and 

the land segregation process. No comments specifically fit this category, but comments regarding the 

segregation process stated that BLM should issue a Notice of Segregation and hold one or more public 

meetings on this issue unless the NEPA scoping meetings were also held to comply with BLM’s 

procedural responsibilities. 

Some suggestions may be considered outside of the scope of this LEIS if the issue relates to facilities or a 

purpose and need that is not included in or defined for this project, is not within the jurisdiction of DoN to 

resolve, cannot be reasonably addressed within the scope of this process, or is being addressed through a 

separate NEPA process. Additionally, comments that offer opinions or position statements that are not 

based on anticipated environmental effects are not considered substantive and will not be addressed in the 

LEIS. The following selection of scoping comments is considered outside the scope of the LEIS and will 

not be addressed. 

Comments stating that the ownership and management actions at Glamis North KOA (also known as 

Imperial Hot Mineral Spa) are unsatisfactory, or that the Marines ought to say that there should not be an 

all-terrain vehicle park near the CMAGR are not germane to the proposed action, and therefore not 

included in the LEIS analysis. 

Some comments pertain to special use designations, such as designated wilderness beyond the CMAGR 

boundaries. An example is: “I’m concerned about all the desert closures; especially what Senator 

Feinstein wants to do. All the fee areas, that’s just another form of taxation.” The comments are beyond 

the jurisdiction of DoN authority. 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 16 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

The LEIS process requires a team of interdisciplinary resource specialists to prepare and review the 

analysis combined with additional opportunities for public input. An important part of the DoN planning 

process is engaging the public and relevant agencies from the earliest stages of and throughout the 

planning process to address issues, comments, and concerns. The steps of the planning process and 

agency authority and decisions to be made are described below; Figure 1 provides a summary of the LEIS 

process and schedule, and how this process correlates with the land withdrawal process. 

Issues were identified through the scoping process, which initiated the NEPA planning process. The 

scoping period and the issues identified are documented in this Scoping Report, which is also available on 

the Project website (www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com). 

The DoN and the Marine Corps conducted an evaluation of the actions that would satisfy the purpose of 

and need for the renewal of the land withdrawal and actions that might enhance range management and 

operations in the future. Preliminary alternatives were developed through this evaluation and were shared 

with the public during scoping so the public could offer comments. Several of the scoping comments 

indicated support for or opposition to the preliminary alternatives and several other scoping comments 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 17 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

offered suggestions to revise the preliminary alternatives or to consider additional alternatives. This input 

will be considered in the formulations of the alternatives that will be analyzed in the Draft LEIS. 

Much of the data and information, which form the baseline resource inventory, will be compiled and used 

from existing data on file at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, DoN offices, BLM El Centro and 

Palm Springs field offices, or through other local agencies. The public also is encouraged to provide any 

data or data sources that may be relevant to or assist with the EIS analysis. 

Data include published and unpublished reports, maps, and digital format files used in a geographic 

information system (GIS). Some of the data gaps identified during scoping regarded topics that were 

already expected to be addressed in the LEIS analysis. To help complete the analysis, the project team 

may conduct field surveys to verify local conditions and data collected from existing sources. 

The resources and resource uses to be addressed include the following: 

Biological resources 

Cultural resources 

Geology, soils, and mineral potential 

Ground- and surface-water resources 

Noise 

Air quality 

Safety 

Hazardous materials and waste 

Social and economic conditions 

Environmental justice 

The impacts that could result from implementing the alternatives will be analyzed. Where applicable, 

measures to mitigate those impacts will be identified. 

A summary of the scoping process, data collection efforts, and the findings of the impact assessment will 

be documented in a Draft LEIS. The Draft LEIS will be made available for public review, which is 

currently expected to be in Spring 2012. The availability of the Draft LEIS will be announced in the 
Proposed Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal 18 Final Scoping Summary Report 

March 2011 

Federal Register and advertised in local media. Public comments will be accepted for a minimum of 

90 days, during which time public meetings will be held to receive comments on the Draft LEIS. 

DoN will review comments received on the Draft LEIS and prepare responses to each. The LEIS may or 

may not be modified based on public comments; however, comments and responses will be incorporated 

into the Final LEIS. 

The Final LEIS also will be made available for the public to review and is estimated to be available in 

Spring 2013. The availability of the Final LEIS will be announced in the Federal Register and advertised 

in local media. 
APPENDIX A 

ANNOUNCEMENTS 

Notice of Intent 

Government Officials Briefing Brochure 

Newsletter 

Interested Parties Distribution List 

Newspaper Advertisement 
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
CHOCOLATE MOUNTAIN AERIAL GUNNERY RANGE

LAND WITHDRAWAL RENEWAL

Marine Corps Training Requirement

Marine Corps aviators must “train as they fight” in order to deploy effectively as members of the Air Combat 

Elements of Marine Air Ground Task Forces. Training as they fight ensures that Marines will have the greatest 

chance of success in fulfilling their missions, and returning home safely. Marine Corps aviators must be able to 

fulfill their essential training tasks, and the Marine Corps must be able to train all aviators efficiently to ensure that 

units are ready to deploy when needed.

Legislative Requirement

The California Desert Protection Act of 1994 withdrew public lands for the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery 

Range (CMAGR) for 20 years, expiring in 2014. The Act requires the Marine Corps to publicly distribute a Draft 

Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) in 2012 if it desires to retain the land for training purposes. 

Stakeholder Involvement

The publication of the Notice of Intent began a 90-day public comment period, which will include four public 

scoping meetings at which oral and written comments from stakeholders on the proposed renewal of the range will 

be recorded. Those comments, and of others submitting by mail or electronically, will help to shape the final set 

of alternatives for study in the LEIS.

Proposed Alternatives

There are five preliminary alternatives being proposed for study in the LEIS. These alternatives are subject to 

change based on public comments and analyses. Boundary adjustments have been proposed in order to enhance 

training efficiency, promote public safety and provide better management throughout the range. 

• Alternative 1 renews the current withdrawal with no boundary or jurisdictional changes. 

• Alternative 2 creates minor boundary adjustments, changes the jurisdictions for land management. 

• Alternative 3 creates minor boundary adjustments, changes the jurisdictions for land management and 

transfers title of the public lands to the DON. 

• Alternative 4 creates minor boundary adjustments. 

• Alternative 5 is the no action alternative and results in the loss of the CMAGR for military training. 

The primary objective of range management is to maintain and advance the training conditions of the CMAGR so 

that it continues to offer Marine and other service commanders the diversity and flexibility necessary to employ 

and exercise their units in all phases of tactical aviation training to the fullest extent and under conditions that 

realistically simulate combat.

For additional information, please visit: 

www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com
The above map depicts both the geographic context (top right inset) of the CMAGR, the current 

ownership of the parcels that make up the range, and the potential parcels that will be affected by 

the various alternatives that are being proposed. 

 

Current Schedule, Timeline and Milestones

September 2010 – Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS)

6-9 December 2010 – Public Scoping Meetings on the alternatives and issues for examination in the LEIS 

May 2012 – Draft LEIS published and available for public review and comment 

May/June 2012 – Public Meetings for review and comments on Draft LEIS 

May 2013 – Notice of Availability of Final LEIS, release to public

2013-2014 – Initiate land withdrawal renewal or other real estate actions
Military Need for Chocolate Mountain

Aerial Gunnery Range Continues

The Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR), 

located in Imperial and Riverside counties, California, was 

created during World War II to provide American aircrews 

with much needed training in aerial gunnery and bombing. 

The CMAGR provides more than 700 square miles of land and 

several thousands of square miles of overlying and adjacent 

special use airspace that continues to support training that 

is essential to the readiness of the nation’s Marine Corps and 

Naval air forces. Although military aircraft, weapons systems, 

and tactics have advanced and changed markedly since 

the 1940s, the CMAGR 

continues to be a critical 

military training asset and 

is expected to be used 

to support new aircraft 

including the MV-22 (also 

known as the Osprey) and 

the F-35 (also known as 

the Joint Strike Fighter). 

Land jurisdiction at the CMAGR resembles a checkerboard, 

where every other section (640 acres or approximately

1 square mile) falls under either Department of the Navy 

(DoN) or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) jurisdiction. 

The DoN owns about 232,116 acres of the checkerboard 

while the alternate sections (approximately 226,711 acres) 

are withdrawn public lands managed by the BLM. 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 (see map on page 3).

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.

Legislative Environmental

Impact Statement to be Prepared

The DoN is preparing a Draft Legislative Environmental 

Impact Statement (LEIS), in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, to evaluate potential 

environmental effects of the proposed renewal of the 

CMAGR land withdrawal. The BLM will serve as a cooperating 

agency for preparing the Draft LEIS. 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 withdrawal application triggers a 

temporary segregation of the affected lands 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. 

Proposed boundary adjustments would establish a range 

boundary that follows prominent geographic features such 

as the Bradshaw Trail and Coachella Canal. Benefits of a 

boundary adjustment include enhanced safety through 

a better demarked boundary and improved efficiency in 

land management. The current pattern of split jurisdiction 

between the DoN and BLM contributes to the duplication of 

management efforts, undefined responsibilities, and other 

inefficiencies. Consequently, the Draft LEIS will explore land 

management alternatives including maintaining the status 

quo of split management versus transferring all natural and 

cultural resource management responsibilities to the DoN. 

The following alternatives have been identified for the Draft 

LEIS; others may be added during the scoping process.

1. Alternative 1 proposes to renew the current 

withdrawal, with no boundary or jurisdictional 

changes, for a period of 25 years. 

2. Alternative 2 would renew the land withdrawal

for another 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 proposes to transfer all custody and 

accountability of 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. 

4. Alternative 4 would 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. 

5. Under Alternative 5, the No Action Alternative, 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.

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Newsletter 1 – November 2010

Imagery provided by MCAS Yuma Public Affairs Office
The Draft LEIS will evaluate the potential environmental 

effects associated with each of the alternatives and any 

additional alternatives developed during the scoping 

period. Environmental issues that will be addressed in 

the LEIS include, but are not limited to, public utilities, 

biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, 

hydrology, noise, air quality, safety, hazardous materials and 

waste, socioeconomics, and environmental justice. Relevant 

and reasonable measures that would avoid or mitigate 

environmental effects also will be analyzed.

As shown on the project schedule, it is anticipated that 

the Draft LEIS will be issued for public review in Spring to 

Summer 2012. The Final LEIS is anticipated in Spring 2013, 

after which Congress will decide whether or not to renew

the withdrawal.

Public Input Sought

A 90-day public scoping

period began on 

September 24, 2010, 

with the publication in 

the Federal Register of 

a Notice of Intent to 

prepare an LEIS. The DoN 

and BLM invite interested 

agencies, organizations, 

Native American tribes, 

and members of the public to submit comments and provide 

input into defining the scope of the proposed action and 

identifying pertinent environmental issues. This scoping 

period also provides the opportunity to submit comments on 

the temporary segregation and land withdrawal processes 

(see page 3 for more information). 

Comments may be submitted at the public scoping meetings. 

Written comments may be submitted electronically by 

completing the comment form on the “Get Involved” section 

of the project website, www.ChocolateMountainRenewal.

com. Or, mail comments to: 

Department of the Navy

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Southwest Region

Attn: Kelly L. Finn, NAVFAC Project Manager 

Building 1, Central IPT

1220 Pacific Highway

San Diego, CA 92132-5190

Written comments must be submitted

by December 23, 2010, to ensure full

consideration in the Draft LEIS.

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range – Land Withdrawal Renewal

2

Project Scoping

September 2010 to December 2010

Collect & Compile Resource Data

Winter to Spring 2011

Notice of Intent

September 2010

Assess Impacts, Plan Mitigation,

Prepare Draft LEIS

Summer 2011 to Winter 2012

Draft LEIS Available for Public Review

Spring to Summer 2012

Public Comment Period

Fall 2012

Respond to Comments & Prepare Final LEIS

Spring 2013

Congressional Decision

Summer to Fall 2013

Project Schedule

Imagery provided by MCAS Yuma Public Affairs Office
78

10

115

111

78

111

SALTON SEA

Southern

Pacific

Railroad

Union Pacific Railroad

Eagle Mountain Railroad

Niland

Riverside County

Imperial County

0 2 4

Miles

Bradshaw Trail

Cochella Canal

Legend

Current CMAGR Boundary

Bureau of Land Management

Navy Owned Lands

Cochella Canal

Bradshaw Trail

Lands to Consider in the

Boundary Adjustment

General Features

Highway

Road

Lake

Railroad

California

Mexico

Arizona

Yuma

Riverside

San Bernardino

Imperial

La Paz

San Diego

Mohave

Orange

Kern

Los Angeles

Chocolate Mountain

Aerial Gunnery Range

(CMAGR)

Map Created in the WGS 1984 UTM_Zone 11N Projection System.

Project Location Map

Newsletter 1 – November 2010

3

What is a land withdrawal?

Land withdrawals are a management tool used to transfer administrative jurisdiction (management authority) from 

one federal agency (in this case, BLM) to another (in this case, DoN) and restrict other uses on that land. As part of 

the withdrawal process, lands are segregated, or closed to the operation of all or some of the public land laws and/

or mineral laws. While there are different types of withdrawals, the CMAGR would be processed as a Congressional 

withdrawal, requiring a legislative action by Congress in the form of public law (Act of Congress).

National defense land withdrawals of more than 5,000 acres require Congressional approval. Before acting, Congress 

requires an assessment of the effects on land use and environmental resources. During this assessment period, the 

lands are temporarily segregated or closed to other competing uses until Congress makes a decision and takes action 

on the proposed withdrawal. During this segregated period, lands would remain 

under BLM jurisdiction and temporary land use authorizations could be allowed at 

the discretion of both the local BLM field office manager and with the concurrence 

of the DoN.

BLM is participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the LEIS. The 

public can submit comments on the land withdrawal and segregation process 

during the LEIS scoping period, which began September 24, 2010 and continues 

through December 23, 2010. Comments also will be accepted during the scoping 

meetings on December 6-9, 2010. Imagery from NAVY.mil 
Department of the Navy

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Region

Attn: Kelly L. Finn, NAVFAC Project Manager

Building 1, Central IPT

1220 Pacific Highway 

San Diego, CA 92132-5190

Newsletter 1 – November 2010 Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range – Land Withdrawal Renewal

Interested parties are invited to participate in the scoping process, to both help define

the environmental issues to be analyzed, and provide input into a reasonable range of alternatives.

All meetings will be held in an open house format between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.

at the following locations:

Monday,

December 6, 2010

Yuma County Library

Rooms B-C

2951 S. 21st Drive

Yuma, AZ 85364

Tuesday,

December 7, 2010

Holiday Inn Express –

El Centro

Conference Room B

350 Smoketree Drive

El Centro, CA 92243

Wednesday,

December 8, 2010

Holiday Inn

1800 E. Palm Canyon

Palm Springs, CA 92264

Thursday,

December 9, 2010

San Diego Planning 

Commission

Hearing Room 

5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B

San Diego, CA 92123

For more information on the project please visit www.ChocolateMountainRenewal.com.
Elected Officials Contact List

Agency/Organization Department Last Name First Name Title

Yuma County Supervisors Pickel Robert County Administrator

Yuma County Board of Supervisors Ferguson Greg Chair

US House of Representatives District 50 Bilbray Brian U.S. Congressman

US Senate Boxer Barbara U.S. Senator

US House of Representatives District 53 Davis Susan U.S. Congresswoman

US Senate Fienstein Dianne U.S. Senator

US House of Representatives District 51 Filner Bob U.S. Congressman

US House of Representatives District 7 Grijalva Raul U.S. Congressman

US House of Representatives District 52 Hunter Duncan U.S. Congressman

US Senate Kyl Jon U.S. Senator

US Senate McCain John U.S. Senator

City of Somerton Porchas Martin Mayor 

City of Wellton Deermer James Mayor

City of Yuma Krieger Alan Mayor 

Yuma City Hall

Governor's Office Urban & Military Affairs Anable Michael Policy Advisor

Governor's Office Military Affairs CommissioAtkins Lisa Co-Chair

Governor's Office Urban & Military Affairs Daniels Victor Policy Advisor

Governor's Office Military Affairs CommissioFinnegan Tom Co-Chair

Brewer Jan Governor of Arizona

California State Senate District 40 Ducheny Denise Senator 

California Assembly District 80 Perez Manuel Assemblymember

Schwarzenegger Arnold

Governor of 

California
Public Facilities and Special Interest

AgencyOrganization Department Last Name First Name Title PUBLIC/FACILITIESYuma County Library – Main BranchBrawley Public Library San Diego Public Library - San Ysidro BranchPalo Verde Valley Library

Imperial County LibraryNiland LibrarySPECIAL INTERESTThe Sonoran InstituteAudubon ArizonaNorthwest Watershed Council Earl EngelhardtWestern Resource AdvocatesCenter for Biological DiversityWestern Watersheds Projects Greta Anderson

The Grand Canyon Trust

Grand Canyon Wildlands CouncilFriends of Grand Canyon Dennis BrownridgeWild Earth Guardians Arizona Riparian Council Kris Randall

Arizona Sportsman

The Nature Conservancy Arizona Field Office

Arizona Audubon SocietyMohave Sportsman’s Club

Cerbat Ridge Runners Walapai 4 Wheelers

Bullhead 4 Wheelers, Inc.Desert Bighorn Council Arthur Fuller

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep SocietyArizona Mule Deer Society Ulrich Flach

Arizona Antelope Association

Arizona Wildlife Outfitters Don MartinArizona Wildlife FederationArizona Chapter of the Wildlife Society Brian Dykstra
Public Facilities and Special Interest

AgencyOrganization Department Last Name First Name Title 

Defenders of WildlifeSierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter Sandy BahrPublic Lands Advocacy Claire M. Moseley Executive DirectorKalamazoo MaterialsCO River Basin Salinity Control Forum Jack Barnett Executive DirectorYuma County Farm Bureau President

Defenders of WildlifeArizona Native Plant Society Tellman Barbara

Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage Clark James 

Center for Environmental Connections Kulakofsky Rob Executive Director

The Wilderness Society Waltman JimArizona Pilots Assoc. Martin BernardThe Wilderness Society Eaton Pam

Environmental Health Coalition Forbis, Esquire Paula

Yuma Chamber of Commerce Rosevear KenLeague of Arizona Cities and Towns Director

Paradise Valley Community CollegeAssociated Citrus Packers Inc. Spencer Mark CEO

Arizona Western College Chairperson

United Veterans Council Brunner Joe ChairmanLand and Water FundSan Diego Audubon SocietyYuma Valley Rod and Gun Club Fugate Jon Chairman, Legislative A

Dry Lands Institute Felger Richard

The Nature Conservancy Public Lands Protection Tucson Audobon Society Macys Sonja Executive Director

Forest Guardians Oliva John-Paul Conservation BiologistFlying High/Flying Low Scott KennethNorth Gila Irrigation DistrictUniversity Community Planning Group Colley Linda ChairPecan Grove Garden Club Colvin Valenia

Airport 2000 Mitchell George Tonopah Area Coalition Roetto Paul President

The Sierra Club - San Diego Chapter Owens Renee

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Gregor Carolina Senior Regional Planner
Public Facilities and Special Interest

AgencyOrganization Department Last Name First Name Title 

Southern CA Assoc. of Governments (SCAG)

Land Use & Env Planning Liu Huasha Director

SCAG

Imperial County Regional Office

SCAG

Riverside County Regional Office

Audubon Society, State OfficeYuma Nursery Supply Haile Mike

Arizona Volksvagen Club Desch Carol

Hia Ced O'odham Alliance Eiler Lorraine President

Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization Luckie Mack Executive Director

Frank Luke Chapter-Air Force Association Bailey Harry President

Arizona Wilderness Coalition Damp Stacy

Friends of Cabeza Prieta Huddy Paul

Economic Development Corporation

Sonoran Desert National Park Friends Broyles Bill

Conservation Committee

Rural Alliance Military Accountability Bukowski GraceNatural Resources Defense Council Wald Johanna H. Director, Land ProgramSky Island Alliance Barnes DavidYuma Association of RealtorsSonoran InstituteCalifornia Native Plant Society Landis Frank

Yuma Cary Audubon Society

Yuma Irrigation District Green Rex 

Airport Advisory Committee Galt Steven

Sonoran Desert National Park Friends Fitch KenArizona Native Plant Society Michel Kathryn 

Yuma Co. Water Users Association Pope Don

Yuma Audubon Society Meister Cary Conservation ChairmanInternational Sonoran Desert AllianceAZ State Association of 4WD Clubs Jones Brad

Desert Bighorn Council Rubin Esther

College of Sciences, San Diego State University Dept. of Biology Bauder Ellen 

YELLOW indicates info provided by URS
Private Citizen Contact List

Last Name First Name

Augustine Roger & Carolyn

Ballesio Joan

Balsamo Mary

Casey Wayne

Chau Kun

Cheung Susanna

Clem Helaine & Donald

Din Salah Ud

Do Son

Elsesser Dean

Faramarzi Behnam

Friends of the Desert Mountains

Gray D

Gutierrez Javier

KAISER EAGLE MOUNTAIN INC

Laitipaya Siriwan

LAKE TAMARISK DEV

Luper Olin

Miller Suzan

Paterno Pearl

RIVERSIDE LAND CONSERVANCY

Rodda George

Senapati Pramod

Shadid Albert

SMITH RIVER LUMBER CO

Swanson Anthony

THUNDERBOLT ENTERPRISES INC

Unis Frances

Vodhanel Michael

Voss William

Weintraub Peter

Westrope Kathie
Chocolate Mountain Mailing List 

 Federal_State Agencies: 78 

 Elected Officials: 23 

 Interested Parties (NGO): 

 Public/Facilities: 6 

 Special Interest 90 

 Tribal: 51 

 Other Interested Parties & Commentors: 32 

 Media: 1 

 281 Total 

APPENDIX B 

AGENCY AND TRIBAL COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 

Agency and Tribal Notification Letter 

Tribal Contact List 
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION BOX 99100 

YUMA, ARIZONA 85369-9100 

 

 In Reply Refer To 

November 4, 2010 

Jim Bartel 

Field Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Carlsbad Field Office 

6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101 

Carlsbad, CA 92011 

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 

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION BOX 99100 

YUMA, ARIZONA 85369-9100 

 

 In Reply Refer To 

November 4, 2010 

Amy Heuslein 

Environmental Protection Officer 

BIA 

Western Regional Office 

2600 North Central Avenue 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

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: 

Amy Heuslein 

Environmental Protection Officer 

BIA 

Western Regional Office 

2600 North Central Avenue 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Liz Easley 

BLM 

CA State Office 

2800 Cottage Way, W-1928 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Tom Zale 

Assoc. Field Manager 

BLM 

El Centro Field Office 

1661 S. 4 St. 

El Centro, CA 92243 

John Kalish 

Field Manager 

BLM 

Palm Springs Office 

1201 Bird Center Dr 

Palm Springs, CA 92262 

Dwight Hempel 

Military Programs Coordinator 

BLM 

1849 C Street, Suite LS 1000 

Washington, DC 20240 

Teresa Raml 

District Manager 

BLM California Desert District 

22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos 

Moreno Valley, CA 92553 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Yuma Area Office 

7301 Calle Agua Salada 

Yuma, AZ 85364 

U.S. Department of Agricultural/Forest Service 

10845 Rancho Bernardo Rd #200 

San Diego, CA 92127 

Christian Schoneman 

Refuge Manager 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Sono Bono Salton Sea NWR 

906 W. Sinclair Rd 

Calipatria, CA 92233 

Park Manager 

U.S. National Park Service 

Joshua Tree National Park 

74485 National Park Drive 

Twentynine Palms, CA 92277 

Karen Vitulano 

USEPA Region IX Environmental Review 

Office 

75 Hawthorne Street CED-2 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

General Manager 

Coachella Valley Water District 

P.O. Box 1058 

Coachella, CA 92236 

Richard Nitsos 

California Department of Fish and Game 

Environmental Services Division 

4949 Viewridge Ave 

San Diego, CA 92123 

Park Manager 

California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Anza Borrego Desert State Park 

200 Palm Canyon Drive 

Borrego Springs, CA 92004 

Milford Wayne Donaldson 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

California Department of Parks and Recreation 

1416 9th Street, Room 1442 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Intergovernmental Review Branch 

California Department of Transportation 

Transportation Planning Division 

4050 Taylor Street 

San Diego, CA 92110 
2 

Peter Michael 

California RWQCB - San Diego Region 

9174 Sky Park Court Ste 100 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Office of the Attorney General Env. Unit 

110 West A Street, Suite 600 

San Diego, CA 92101 

State of California Water Resources Control 

Board 

Division of Water Quality 

P.O. Box 944213 

Sacramento, CA 94244 
CMAGR Tribal Contact List

Native American Tribe Department Tribe Contact(s) Title Record of Conversation/Voicemail

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 

Indians 

Mr. Richard M. 

Milanovich 

Chairman Patty Tuck (THPO) instructed me to not contact him because all 

requests go through her. 

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 

Indians 

Ms. Patricia Tuck THPO Spoke with her and she informed me that she did not receive the 

letter because it was sent to the wrong address and person. I 

forwarded a copy of the letter to Ms. Tuck. She will review and try 

to provide comment prior to the close of public scoping (12/23/10).

Ak-Chin Indian Community Cultural Resources Left message on the voicemail- waiting for call back (12/22/10 

9.15am)

Ak-Chin Indian Community Ms.Vicky Smith Council Secretary Ms. Smith will relate to the Chairman Louis Manuel. Please 

resend copy of letter to fax no.520-568-1001 (12/22/10 - 9.30am) 

Sent Fax on 12/22/10 -11.13

Augustine Band of (Cahuilla) 

Mission Indians 

Chairwoman Left voicemail with information in general voicemail box- Maryann 

Martin no longer works there (12/22/10 10.15 am)The message 

included all 3 points as well as MCAS contact info. 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission 

Indians 

Ms. Karen Kupcha Tribal Administrator Left Voicemail with information (12/22/10 10.20 am)The message 

included all 3 points as well as MCAS contact info. 

Barona Band of Mission Indians Mr. Edwin Romero Chairman Offices Closed due to the flooding - left message for Mr. Romero 

(12/22/10 10.25am) The message included all 3 points as well as 

MCAS contact info. 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Mr. John A. James Chairman Left Voicemail for Mr. James with information (12/22/10 10.40 

am)The message included all 3 points as well as MCAS contact 

info. 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Ms. Judy Stapp Director of Cultural Affairs No comment - spoke to Ms. Stapp (12/22/10 10.36am)

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians Mr. Anthony Madrigal, 

Jr.

Interim Chairman Left Voicemail for Mr. Madrigal with information (12/22/10 10.48 

am)The message included all 3 points as well as MCAS contact 

info. 

Campo Kumeyaay Nation Ms. Monique 

LaChappa

Chairwoman Receptionist will relate message to Ms. La Chappa to call back 

(12/22/10 10.52 am) Left message with receptionist when through 

all 3 points as well as MCAS contact info (12/22/10. 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Ms. Lillian Parra Executive Secretary / Tribal 

Administration Office

Defer to contact below. 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Mr. Charles Wood Chairman Left Voicemail for Mr. Wood with information (12/22/10 10.56 

am)The message included all 3 points as well as MCAS contact 

info. 

Cocopah Indian Tribe Ms. Sherry Cordova Chairwoman Follow up contact by MCAS Yuma

Cocopah Indian Tribe Ms. Jill McCormick Historic Preservation Officer Follow up contact by MCAS Yuma

Colorado River Indian Tribe Mr. Eldred Enas Chairman Defer to contact below. 

Colorado River Reservation Mr. Rick Ench Planning Consultant Call back at 12-1 to discuss. Called at 1pm no one answered 

12/22/10

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office Will Micklin Executive Director Left message 10:22 am 12/22/10. Message left on on their 

general line requesting my message be forwarded to the 

appropriate individial. The message included all 3 points as well 

as MCAS contact info. 

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office Michael Garcia Vice-Chairman/EPA Director Left message 10:22 am 12/22/10. Message left on on their 

general line requesting my message be forwarded to the 

appropriate individial. The message included all 3 points as well 

as MCAS contact info. 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Mr. Ruben Balderas Council Member No comment - Spoke with Mr. Balderas and he informed me that 

he and Dr. Pattea did not deal with public comments to projects 

and instructed me to address these questions to the cultural 

manger Ms. Ray. 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Ms. Karen Ray Cultural Manager Left message 10:09 am 12/22/10. Message left on Ms. Ray's 

voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well as MCAS 

contact info. 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Dr. Clinton M. Pattea President No comment - Spoke with Mr. Balderas and he informed me that 

he and Dr. Pattea did not deal with public comments to projects 

and instructed me to address these questions to the cultural 

manger Ms. Ray. 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Ms. Pamela MoragoPrattCommunity-at-largeRepresentative

Left message 10:05 am 12/22/10. Message left on general 

receptionist voicemail because number provided did not go 

directly to Ms. Morago-Pratt. The message included all 3 points 

as well as MCAS contact info. 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe AhaMaKav Cultural 

Society 

Ms. Linda Otero Director Spoke with here 1:30 pm 12/22/10. She asked if the base was 

conducted tribal consultation on this project and I informed her 

that the public review and scoping period was ongoing but coming 

to a close tomorrow. With regards to additional govt to govt (tribal)

consultation I could not speak to that and that she should contact 

the base cultural specialist to discuss. I forwarded a copy of the 

letter to her as requested and let her know if she has any 

comments/concerns to please let me know and I will forward them 

on. I notifiy her of all the key points and website as well, which 

she was going to look at after my call. She said this base rarely 

consults with her regarding their projects. She provided no futher 

information 
CMAGR Tribal Contact List

Fort Yuma Indian Reservation – 

Quechan Tribe 

Ms. Bridget NashChrabasczHistoric Preservation Officer Follow up contact by MCAS Yuma

Fort Yuma Indian Reservation – 

Quechan Tribe 

Mr. Mike Jackson, Sr. President Follow up contact by MCAS Yuma

Quechan Cultural Committee Ms. Pauline Jose Follow up contact by MCAS Yuma

Gila River Indian Community Mr. Deron Rafael Chairperson Left message 11.20 am 12/22/10. The message included all 3 

points as well as MCAS contact info. 

Inaja Band of Mission Indians Ms. Rebecca Osuna Spokesperson Left message 9:32 am 12/22/10. Message included all 3 points as 

well as MCAS contact info. 

Jamul Band of Mission Indians Mr. Leon Acevedo Chairman left voicemail - David Konopka URS AZ 12/22/10

Kumeyaay Cultural Heritage 

Preservation

Mr. Paul Cuero? left a voicemail after being transferred- David Konopka URS AZ 

12/22/10

Kumeyaay Cultural Historic 

Committee

Mr. Ron Christman No one is answering the phone 

Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation 

Committee 

Ms. Gevan Miller Tribal Administrator Left message 12.23 pm 12/22/10. Message left on Ms. Miller's 

voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well as MCAS 

contact info. 

Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission 

Indians

Ms. Carmen Lucas left voicemail - David Konopka URS AZ 12/22/10

La Posta Band of Mission Indians Ms. Gwendolyn 

Parada 

Chairwoman left voicemail with the tribal administrator - David Konopka URS 

AZ 12/22/10

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and 

Cupeño Indians 

Ms. Evelyn Duro Tribal Administrator They are not interested because it is out of their jurisdiction- David 

Konopka URS AZ 12/22/10

Manzanita Band of Mission Indians Mr. Leroy J. Elliott Chairman Left message 12.23 pm 12/22/10. Message left on Mr. Elliott's 

voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well as MCAS 

contact info. 

Mesa Grande Band of Mission 

Indians

Mr. Mark Romero Chairperson Left message 12.36 pm 12/22/10. Message for Mr. Romero on 

the general voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well 

as MCAS contact info. Tribe office will be closed from Thursday 

dec.23 to jan.3

Morongo Band of Mission Indians Mr. Robert Martin Chairman Left message 12.46 pm 12/22/10. Left message on the voicemail 

of Ms. Christina Chartier - executive assitant for Mr. Martin . The 

message included all 3 points as well as MCAS contact info. 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission 

Indians 

Mr. Joseph Hamilton Representative Left message 12.56 pm 12/22/10. Message for Mr. Hamilton on 

the general voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well 

as MCAS contact info. 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community 

Ms. Diane Enos President Left message 12.59 pm 12/22/10. Message for Ms. Enos on the 

general voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well as 

MCAS contact info. Tribal office will be closed from Wed.22 1pm 

to Sunday and will re open 12/27.

San Luis Rey Band of Mission 

Indians 

Carmen Mojado Secretary of Government 

Relations 

No phone number available 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Mr. James Ramos Chairman No one is answering the phone 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Ms. Ann Brierty Policy/Cultural Resource 

Department

No one is answering the phone 

San Pasqual Band of Mission 

Indians

Mr. Allen E. Lawson Chairman Left message 2.17 pm 12/22/10. Message for Mr. Lawson on the 

general voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well as 

MCAS contact info. 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla 

Mission Indians 

Mr. Anthony Largo Chairman Left message 2.08 pm 12/22/10. Message for Mr. Largo on the 

general voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well as 

MCAS contact info. 

Sycuan Band of Mission Indians Mr. Danny Tucker Chairman Office is closed until 3/1/11, could not leave message 12/22/10 

2.30pm

Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno 

Indians

Mr. Clint Linton Left message 2.02 pm 12/22/10. Left message Mr. Linton's 

voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well as MCAS 

contact info. 

Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno 

Indians

Mr. Virgil Perez Chairman Left message 2.00 pm 12/22/10. Left message Mr. Perez' 

voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well as MCAS 

contact info. 

Tohono O’odham Nation Mr. Ned Norris Chairman Left message 1.54 pm 12/22/10. Left message on the voicemail 

of Ms. Roberta Harvey - executive assitant for Mr. Norris . The 

message included all 3 points as well as MCAS contact info. 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla 

Indians 

Mr. Rolland Ferrer Cultural Resources Coordinator Left message 1.26 pm 12/22/10. Message for Mr. Ferretr on his 

voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well as MCAS 

contact info. 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla 

Indians 

Mr. Alberto Ramirez Environmental Coordinator Left message 1.26 pm 12/22/10. Message for Mr. Ramirez on the 

general voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well as 

MCAS contact info. 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla 

Indians 

Mr. Raymond Torres no longer works there 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla 

Indians 

Mr. Joseph R. Benitez Left message 1.25 pm 12/22/10. Message for Mr. Benitez on the 

general voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well as 

MCAS contact info. 
CMAGR Tribal Contact List

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla 

Indians 

Ms. Mary Resvaloso Chairperson Left message 1.23 pm 12/22/10. Message for Ms. Resvaloso on 

the general voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well 

as MCAS contact info. 

Twentynine Palms Band of Mission 

Indians 

Mr. Jeffrey Smith EPA Defer to comment below. Decided to not leave message since I 

had already left it previously for Mr. Martin 12/22/10 1.19pm

Twentynine Palms Band of Mission 

Indians 

Mr. Darrell Mike Chairman Left message 1.16 pm 12/22/10. Left message on the voicemail 

of Ms. Leana Thomas - executive assitant for Mr. Martin . The 

message included all 3 points as well as MCAS contact info. 

Viejas Band of Mission Indians Mr. Anthony R. Pico Chairperson Left message 1.11 pm 12/22/10. Message for Mr. Pico on the 

general voicemail. The message included all 3 points as well as 

MCAS contact info. 
APPENDIX C 

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING MATERIALS 

Sign-in Sheets 

Frequently Asked Questions 

Comment Form 

Presentation Boards 

 
Sign‐in Sheets from CMAGR Public Meetings
Sign‐in Sheets from CMAGR Public Meetings
Sign‐in Sheets from CMAGR Public Meetings
Sign‐in Sheets from CMAGR Public Meetings
Sign‐in Sheets from CMAGR Public Meetings
Sign‐in Sheets from CMAGR Public Meetings
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement December 2010

What is the CMAGR, where is it located, and who “owns” the land?

Located on approximately 458,827 acres in southeastern California, the CMAGR is a component of the larger Bob Stump Training 

Range Complex (BSTRC). The BSTRC comprises approximately 1.2 million acres in southwest Arizona and southeast California and 

provides the training opportunities that take an airman from basic, individual training through complex exercises that integrate 

multiple ground and air force units, simulated enemy fire, and the chaos that may be encountered in combat. 

The Department of the Navy owns about half of the CMAGR land and the balance of the range is managed by the Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), but withdrawn from uses permitted under the public land laws and reserved for 

military training. The Navy delegated responsibility to manage the CMAGR to Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma in 1981.

What is the CMAGR land withdrawal and why is it being renewed now?

In accordance with Federal laws1, BLM lands may be made available for national defense purposes through a process that 

withdraws the land from settlement, sale, location, or entry under some or all of the public land, mining, and mineral laws. 

The withdrawal limits or prohibits activities that are normally permitted and reserves them for specified military purposes. 

Congressional legislative action is required for land withdrawals for national defense purposes that total more than 5,000 acres. 

The most recent land withdrawal legislation2 renewed the withdrawal of the about 226,711 acres of BLM lands within CMAGR for 

20 years, and expires in 2014. The current withdrawal legislation requires the Secretary of the Navy to publish a Draft Legislative 

Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) in 2012 if he finds that there will be a continuing military need for the CMAGR after 2014. 

The LEIS will address the proposed renewal of the CMAGR, and evaluate alternatives that propose adjustments to its boundary 

and changes to BLM and Department of the Navy management responsibilities for the range. A summary of the preliminary 

alternatives identified to date for the renewal of the CMAGR is provided on page 2.

The Draft LEIS will be published for public review and comment and the Final LEIS, which will address the comments on the draft, 

will be submitted to Congress as part of the Department of the Navy’s application to Congress for the renewal of the CMAGR. 

What training occurs and will occur in the future at the CMAGR?

The CMAGR is a live-fire tactical aviation training range that is of paramount importance to the Marine Corps for preparing its 

pilots and other aircrew to function, survive, and fight as individual warriors and as members of the Marine Air Ground Task 

Force. Training in all aspects of aerial warfare occurs at the CMAGR but, in particular, it is the premier Marine Corps range for 

air-to-ground attack training using live explosive ordnance. Aircrew training at the CMAGR includes air-to-air tactics; close air 

support of friendly ground forces; laser targeting system operations; air-to-air gunnery; 

and air-to-ground bombing, rocket, and strafing attacks. Ground troops that perform air 

defense, air control and communications, and other air-ground combat missions also train 

at the CMAGR. The only regularly occurring, land-based training that is not directly related 

to tactical aviation is conducted by Naval Special Warfare Group 1 for Navy SEALs (Sea Air 

Land). The SEALs use portions of the range for desert warfare training. 

Why is public access to the CMAGR prohibited? 

The fundamental purpose of the CMAGR is to provide a location where effective military training can occur without exposing the 

public or their property to dangerous activities or hazardous conditions. The public is also excluded from the range to prevent 

interference or disruption of training and support operations, and to provide appropriate security to government activities and 

property. Although not all of the CMAGR is directly used as weapons firing or target impact areas, hazards from unexploded 

ordnance, laser targeting operations, or other current or past military activities may be encountered almost anywhere in the range. 

Safety buffers are required so that malfunctioning, misdirected, or unintentionally released aircraft ordnance may impact without 

harm to persons or property.

1 Engle Act of 1958, Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976

2 California Desert Protection Act of 1994 

Imagery provided by MCAS Yuma Public Affairs Office
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES FOR RENEWING THE CMAGR

 ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 ALTERNATIVE 5

Terms of

Renewal

•	Renew range withdrawal

•	Retain split DoN-DoI 

management

•	Keep existing boundary

•	Renew range withdrawal

•	Consolidate management under DoN

•	Adjust boundary

•	Renew range withdrawal 

•	Transfer DoI lands and 

management to DoN 

•	Adjust boundary

•	Renew range withdrawal

•	Retain split DoN-DoI 

management

•	Adjust boundary

•	Take no action 

•	Allow range withdrawal 

to expire

•	Range not renewed

Duration and 

Means of Range 

Renewal 

Renew by land withdrawal 

and reservation for 25 

years

Same as Alternative 1 Renew by transferring DoI 

land to DoN—no expiration

Same as Alternative 1 Range not renewed

Military

Purposes

Range reserved for 

training, testing, and other 

related defense purposes; 

USMC responsible for

military operations

Same as Alternative 1 Range established for 

training, testing, and other 

related defense purposes; 

USMC responsible for

military operations

Same as Alternative 1 CMAGR military operations 

would end; planning begins 

for transfer of

training operations and 

range clean up

Other

Permitted Uses

Lands withdrawn from 

all forms of appropriation 

under the public land laws, 

but BLM may issue rightsof-way with DoN

concurrence

Lands withdrawn from 

all forms of appropriation 

under the public land laws, 

but DoN may authorize 

other uses compatible with 

military purposes

DoN assumes land

jurisdiction and may

authorize other uses 

compatible with military 

purposes

Same as Alternative 1 BLM may issue rights-ofway; concurrence of DoN 

would be required until 

range rendered safe for 

public use and disposition 

of DoN lands determined

Resources

Managed

by DoN

Natural and cultural

resources of DoN parcels 

managed per Sikes Act and 

other applicable law

Natural and cultural

resources of entire range 

managed per Sikes Act and 

other applicable law

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 until 

final disposition of DoN 

parcels determined 

Resources

Managed by 

BLM

Natural and cultural

resources of DoI parcels 

managed per FLPMA 

and other applicable law 

BLM not involved in active 

management role, but has 

underlying jurisdiction for 

DoI lands

BLM no longer has any 

management role or

underlying jurisdiction 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1

Range Boundary

Boundary remains

unchanged

Boundary adjusted and 

USMC assumes responsibility for managing acquired 

DoI lands and BLM

assumes responsibility for 

DoI lands not renewed

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 Boundary no longer defines 

an active military range, but 

demarcates a post-range 

planning and clean-up area

BLM = Bureau of Land Management

CMAGR = Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range

DoI = Department of the Interior

DoN = Department of the Navy

FLPMA = Federal Land Policy Management Act

USMC = United States Marine Corps

 
SCOPING COMMENT FORM

The Department of the Navy (DoN) is holding scoping meetings to help identify issues or concerns that should be

considered in the Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS). Comments regarding preliminary alternatives 

and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land withdrawal/segregation process also are encouraged. There are

several ways to submit comments, as noted below. Please provide comments no later than December 23, 2010.

Meeting Location: ___________________________________

Your Name: _________________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________

City/State/Zip: ______________________________________

Comments may be submitted

in several ways.

n Return comment form at this meeting

n Submit written comments to:

 Department of the Navy

 Naval Facilities Engineering Command

 Southwest Region

 Attn: Kelly L. Finn, NAVFAC Project Manager

 Building 1, Central IPT

 1220 Pacific Highway 

 San Diego, CA 92132-5190

	n Electronically on the project website:

 ChocolateMountainRenewal.com

 (click “Get Involved”)

 

Please check all that apply:

__ Add my name to the mailing list for this project

__ Withhold my name/address to extent allowed

by law (only for persons not representing

organizations)*

1. Please describe any issues or concerns that should be

addressed in the LEIS, and provide any other comments

you may have on the overall project. 

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

*

All comments received by DoN or BLM become part of the public record associated with this proposed project. Accordingly, your comments

(including name and address) will be available for review by any person who wishes to review the public record. At your request, we will

withhold your name and address to the extent allowed by the Freedom of Information Act or any other law. However, all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made 

available for public inspection in their entirety.

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement December 2010
Place 

stamp 

here

Fold, tape top of form, and mail your comments to the address below:

2. Please provide comments on the preliminary project alternatives that will be evaluated in the LEIS.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Department of the Navy

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Region

Attn: Kelly L. Finn, NAVFAC Project Manager

Building 1, Central IPT

1220 Pacific Highway 

San Diego, CA 92132-5190
Develop

Preliminary

Alternatives

Preapplication

Consultations

with BLM

Submit

Application for

Requested Land

Withdrawal

Federal Register

Notice of Land

Withdrawal

Proposal

LEGEND

Federal Statutory

Land Withdrawal Process

(43 CFR 2300)

BLM = Bureau of Land ManagementCFR = Code of Federal RegulationsCMAGR = Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery RangeDOI = Department of the InteriorLEIS = Legislative Environmental Impact StatementMCO = Marine Corps OrderNEPA = National Environmental Policy Act

National Environmental

Policy Act Process

(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and

MCO P5090.2A)

Public Involvement

Opportunity Congressional Action 

Segregation

Meeting/

Comments

Conduct Investigations

Studies, & Analyses

Required for

Processing Application

Finalize

Alternatives

Prepare &

Release

Draft LEIS

WE ARE HERE

Mar 2011 Spring 2012 

1 Sep 2010 Summer 2011

Federal Register

Notice of Intent

to Prepare LEIS

24 Sep 2010

LEIS

Public

Scoping

Dec 2010

FEDERAL LAND WITHDRAWAL AND NEPA PROCESSES FOR RENEWAL OF 
VICINITY MAP

111

Sonny Bono Salton

Sea National

Wildlife Refuge

SALTON

SEA

Glamis

Calipatria

Niland

Chocolate

Mountain Aerial

Gunnery Range

8 8

8

10

8

Riverside County

Imperial County

Riverside County

San Diego County

mI

p

e

ria

l 

C

o

u

n

ty

S

a

n 

D

eig

o C

o

unty

Joshua

Tree

Palen/McCoy

Joshua

Tree

Joshua

Tree

Chuckwalla

Mountains

Mecca

Hills

Orocopia

Mountains

Santa

Rosa

Little

Chuckwalla

Mountains

North

Algodones

Dunes

Fish Creek

Mountains

Sawtooth

Mountains

Coyote

Mountains

Carrizo

Gorge

Jacumba

Coachella Valley

Fringe-toed

Lizard

Desert Lily

Preserve

Corn

Springs

Dos

Palmas

San Sebastian

Marsh/San

Felipe Creek

North

Algodones

Dunes

Yuha

Basin

Palen

Dry Lake

Alligator

Rock

Lake

Cahuilla

- A

Lake

Cahuilla

- B

Sin

Geog

Chuckwalla

DWMA

Lake

Cahuilla

- C

East

Mesa

West

Mesa

Lake

Cahuilla - D

In-Ko-Pah

Mountains

Legend

Chocolate Mountain 

Aerial Gunnery Range

Bradshaw TrailCoachella CanalBLM Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern

Desert Tortoise 

Critical Habitat

Wilderness AreasU.S. Fish and Wildlife 

National Wildlife Refuge

City\TownRailroadInterstateHighwayCounty Line

Project 

Location

San Diego

Sacramento

Los Angeles

San Francisco 
Loom

Lobby

Range

Shade TreeRange

Inkey Barley

Range

MC Recruit

Depot San

Diego

CampPendleton

MCAGCC

Kitty

Baggage

Range

R2501E

R2501N

R2501S

R2501W

R2503A

R2503B

R2503C

R2503D

R2

R2507E

R2507N

R2507S

R2510A

R2510B

R2512

Laguna 

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

ChocolateMountain AerialGunnery Range

0 7.5 

3.75

LegendSpecial Use Airspace

Restricted AirspaceMilitary Operations Area / ATCAA

Military AirfieldBob Stump Training Range Complex Other Marine Corps RangesOther DoD Ranges

50 Miles Distance from CMAGR100 Miles Distance from CMAGR150 Miles Distance from CMAGR

Map Scale 1

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources todevelop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. Theuser must be aware of data conditions and ultimately bearresponsibility 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:

CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11NProjection: Transverse MercatorDatum: WGS 1984Units: Meter

U.S. Marine Corps Bob Stump Training Range Complex (BSTRC)1. Primary mission—training support for all aspects of Marine Corps tactical aviation 2. CMAGR and BMGRW provide the core training capabilities and capacities 3. ECR and YPG provide supplementary training capabilities and capacities4. Close to Marine and Navy air stations, Camp Pendleton, and aircraft carriers 5. Year-round flying weather

U.S. Marine Corps Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR)1. Primary mission—training in air-to-ground attack and air-to-air combat2. Premier Marine Corps range for air-to-ground training with live explosive ordnance3. Emphasis on training individual aircrews in flights of one, two, and four aircraft 4. Supports training with most types of conventional explosive and inert ordnance5. Realistic air-to-ground targets in diverse terrain settings6. Landing zones, observation posts, other ground sites that support air-ground training7. Supports large force-on-force aviation training exercises that use all of the BSTRC8. Hosts Navy SEAL desert training range

U.S. Marine Corps Barry M. Goldwater Range West (BMGRW)1. Primary mission—training in air-to-air, air-to-ground, and surface-to-air combat2. Instrumented air combat training range (Tactical Aircrew Combat Training System) 3. Numerous ground units deployment areas to support air combat training 4. Air-to-ground range supporting urban combat operations training 5. Realistic battlefield settings in diverse terrain – limited to inert ordnance6. Individual aircrew training as well as large-scale air-ground combat exercises7. Core range for large force-on-force aviation training exercises hosted at the BSTRC

U.S. Navy El Centro Ranges (ECR)1. Primary mission—training in air-to-air and air-to-ground combat2. Four small air-to-ground ranges with basic training capabilities 3. Limited to inert ordnance 4. Restricted airspace can be scheduled to support CMAGR missions

U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton1. Primary mission—training in amphibious and air assault and  ground combat2. Five amphibious assault landing beaches and inland ground  combat ranges3. Aviation training emphasis is on helicopter air assault and support of ground forces 4. MCAS Camp Pendleton is within the MCB

U.S. Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center atTwentynine Palms (MCAGCC)1. Primary mission—training combined elements of Marine Air Ground Task 2. Premier pre-deployment training range for Marine expeditionary forces3. Current training capacity – expeditionary units of up to 3,000 troops4. Proposed expansion would train expeditionary brigades of 15,000 troops5. Ranges support combined arms training of infantry, armored, air, and sup6. Fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters aircrews trained in support of ground 

Marine Corps Recruit Depot 1. Primary mission—basic training to make civilians into Marines 2. Individual and small unit training 

MILITARY RANGES IN THE CMAGR OPERATING REGION
111

Live/Inert Ordnance

Inert Ordnance Authorized Authorized

Camp Billy Machen

Siphon 8 Bivouac 

and Work Area

Siphon 8 

Field ASP

Speed Bag 

UAS Strip

Niland

Coachella Canal

Coachella Canal

Siphon 8

SWAT-4

Star

Assault

Star

Attack

Snake

SWAT-5

R2507N

R

R2510A

R2510B

R2512

0 1.5 3 6

Miles

Legend

Existing Boundary - 

Alternative 1

Adjusted Boundary - 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Transmission LineGas LineObservation PostArtillery Firing Area (AFA)Camp Billy MachenSiphon 8 Bivouac

and Work Area

Siphon 8 Field ASPSpeed Bag UAS StripLine Dividing Areas Authorized 

for Live/Inert Ordnance Versus

Inert Ordnance Only Areas

Special Use Airspace

Restricted AirspaceMilitary Operations Area / ATCAAControlled Firing AreaTarget or Target ComplexForward Arming and 

Refueling Point (FARP)

Landing ZoneSpecial Warfare 

Training Area (SWAT)

RoadBradshaw TrailCoachella CanalRailroad

Map Scale 1:100,000

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 bearresponsibility 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. Thisinformation is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Source:Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11NProjection: Transverse MercatorDatum: WGS 1984Units: Meter

TRAINING SUPPORT FACILITIES

Imagery provided by MCAS Yuma Public Affairs Office

Imagery provided by MCAS Yuma Public Affairs Office
Alternative 1

Existing Boundary

0 5 10 20

Miles

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Proposed Boundary Adjustment

Map Scale 1:300,000

0 1.5 3 

Inset Map Scale 1:75,000

0 1.5 3 6

Miles

Inset Map Scale 1:75,000

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Proposed Boundary Adjustment

0 1.5 3 6

Miles

Inset Map Scale 1:75,000

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 bearresponsibility 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 Management: BLM 2010

Base Map: ESRI 2010

Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11NProjection: Transverse MercatorDatum: WGS 1984Units: Meter

Legend

Existing Boundary - 

Alternative 1

Adjusted Boundary - 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Bradshaw TrailCoachella CanalRailroad

Bureau of Land ManagementBureau of ReclamationMilitary ReservationStatePrivateDepartment of the Navy

PROPOSED CMAGR BOUNDARIES

t Continues to support existing operationst Ends Marine Corps management 

responsibility for lands that are not effective for training operations

t Enhances safety through boundary 

demarked by prominent geographic features

t Improves access to boundary for 

maintaining warning signs 

t Improves access for patrol and monitoringt Provides some new lands under existing 

restricted airspace that may be used to directly support future training operations

t Consolidates Marine Corps jurisdiction 

for lands along the range-side of the Bradshaw Trail and Coachella Canal

Alternative 1 – Retain Existing Boundary Alternatives 2, 3, 4 – Realign the Boundary

t Continues to support existing operationst Accessibility to some portions of range 

boundary is limited to travel by foot, encumbering maintenance, patrol, and monitoring

t Retains “stair-step” boundary
CMAGR LAND JURISDICTIONS

111

Niland

0 1.5 3 6

Miles

Legend

Existing Boundary -

Alternative 1

Lands Proposed for ReleaseLands Proposed for AcquisitionNavy Owned LandsBureau of Land ManagementBradshaw TrailCoachella CanalGas LineTransmission LineCity\TownRailroadHighway

Map Scale 1:100,000

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 bearresponsibility 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:Base Map: CASIL 2010, ESRI 2010Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 11NProjection: Transverse MercatorDatum: WGS 1984Units: Meter
 ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 A

Terms of Renewal

v Renew range 

withdrawal

v Retain split DoN-DoI 

management

v Keep existing boundary

v Renew range 

withdrawal

v Consolidate management under DoNv Adjust boundary

v Renew range 

withdrawal 

v Transfer DoI lands and 

management to DoN 

v Adjust boundary

v Re

wi

v Re

m

v Ad

Duration and Means of Range Renewal 

Renew by land withdrawal and reservation for 25 years

Same as Alternative 1 Renew by transferring 

DoI land to DoN—no expiration

Sam

Military Purposes

Range reserved for training, testing, and other related defense purposes; USMC responsible for military operations

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Sam

OtherPermitted Uses

Lands withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, but BLM may issue rights-of-way with DoN concurrence

Lands withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, but DoN may authorize other uses compatible with military purposes under BLM oversight

DoN assumes all land jurisdiction and may authorize other uses compatible with military purposes

Sam

Resources Managedby DoN

Natural and cultural resources of DoN parcels managed per Sikes Act and other applicable law

Natural and cultural resources of entire range managed per Sikes Act and other applicable law

Same as Alternative 2 Sam

Resources Managed by BLM

Natural and cultural resources of DoI parcels managed per FLPMA and other applicable law 

BLM not involved in active management role, but has underlying jurisdiction for DoI lands

BLM no longer has any management role or underlying jurisdiction 

Sam

Range Boundary

Boundary remains unchanged

Boundary adjusted; USMC assumes responsibility for managing acquired DoI lands and BLM assumes responsibility for DoI lands not renewed

Same as Alternative 2 Bou

retaimannon-and relea(untidete

SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES FOR RENEWING THE CMAGR 

BLM = Bureau of Land ManagementCMAGR = Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery RangeDoI = Department of the Interior

DoN = Department of the NavyFLPMA = Federal Land Policy Management ActUSMC = United States Marine Corps
LEGISLATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT (LEIS) STUDIES

The LEIS Process includes analysis of potential impacts on the

environment. Topics to be addressed in the LEIS include:

Land Use

Social and

Economic Conditions/

Environmental Justice

Noise

Public Utilities

Air Quality

Geology/Soils

Range Operations

and Airspace

Water

Vegetation

Wildlife

Protected Species

Cultural Resources

Safety

Hazardous Materials 

and Waste

Imagery provided by MCAS Yuma Public Affairs Office