Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 

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

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

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

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

Title of the Proposed Action: Renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land 

Withdrawal 

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

For Additional Information Ms. Kelly Finn 

Contact: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest 

1120 Pacific Highway 

Building 1, Central IPT 

San Diego, CA 92132 

Decision Authority: United States Congress 

ABSTRACT 

This Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) addresses the proposed renewal of the 

military land withdrawal and reservation of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR) in 

Imperial and Riverside counties, California. The Final LEIS consists of two volumes. The first volume 

contains public comments on the Draft LEIS, responses to comments, and errata and additions to the 

Draft LEIS and the second volume is the Draft LEIS. When combined, the two volumes make up the 

Final LEIS. Further, this LEIS is the detailed statement required by law that will be included in a 

legislative proposal to Congress and will serve as the basis for public and Congressional debate. Because 

this is an LEIS and the decision lies with Congress, no Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued. 

To support a continuing military need for the CMAGR, renewal of the land withdrawal is required by the 

California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 (Public Law [P.L.] 103-433) for the 

approximately 228,465 acres of public land in the CMAGR administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). The remaining federal land in the range (approximately 229,903 acres) is 

permanently administered by the Department of the Navy (DoN). The renewal of the CMAGR is 

essential for developing and maintaining the readiness of Marine Corps and Naval aviation forces. The 

CMAGR also supports the training of Marine Corps and Navy land combat forces; including naval 

special warfare forces. This LEIS addresses four renewal alternatives in detail. With Alternative 5, the 

no-action alternative, Congress would not renew the CMAGR land withdrawal. As a consequence, the 

current withdrawal of BLM land in the CMAGR would expire at the end of October 2014, the BLM land 

would no longer be available for military purposes, and the remaining DoN land would not provide an 

adequate restricted land-base to continue tactical aviation training. The effects of the alternatives on 

range and airspace operations, non-military land use, geological resources, water resources, air quality, 

biological resources, cultural resources, noise, visual resources, public health and safety, hazardous 

materials and waste, socioeconomic resources, and environmental justice are discussed. 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal i April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND.......................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT LEIS................................................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Announcements and Publicity........................................................................... 1-2

1.2.2 Public Meetings................................................................................................. 1-4

1.2.3 Distribution of the Draft LEIS........................................................................... 1-4

2. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT LEIS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ..................... 2-1

3. ERRATA AND ADDITIONS ................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 SPECIFIC CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT LEIS ............................ 3-1

3.2 SPECIFIC CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT LEIS APPENDICES ... 3-13

4.0 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING FINAL LEIS.................. 4-1

LIST OF TABLES

1 Paid Newspaper Advertisements Announcing the Draft LEIS and Public Meetings...................1-3

2 Comment and Response Page Number.........................................................................................2-2

LIST OF UPDATED AND ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

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

Appendix I Federal Register Notices for Draft LEIS
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal ii April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use Zone

BO Biological Opinion 

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly called California Department of 

Fish and Game)

CVWD Coachella Valley Water District

MDAQMD Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District

MRL Mesquite Regional Landfill

PPV peak particle velocity 

RAICUZ Range Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-1 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 1.0 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) has been prepared by the Department of 

the Navy (DoN) and the U.S. Marine Corps (hereafter, Marine Corps), in accordance with the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 4321-

4370h), to address the potential environmental consequences of renewing an existing withdrawal of 

approximately 228,465 acres of public land for the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range 

(CMAGR) in southern California. Renewal of the land withdrawal is needed to support continuing 

military training at the CMAGR by the DoN, Marine Corps, and other branches of the U.S. armed 

services. The proposal to renew the land withdrawal also includes sub-proposals for:

realigning some segments of the CMAGR boundary

increasing the duration of the proposed land withdrawal compared to the current 20-year duration

redefining DoN/Marine Corps and U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) responsibilities for managing the CMAGR

disposing and managing DoN land that may be released from the CMAGR 

The U.S. Congress has reserved the authority for renewing the CMAGR land withdrawal for itself, 

through the Defense Withdrawal Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. §§ 155-158)1and the California Military Lands 

Withdrawal and Overflights Act (CMLWOA) of 1994 (Public Law [P.L.] 103-433 § 806(c)), and will 

make the final decision as to whether or not to renew the CMAGR land withdrawal. This Final LEIS is 

the detailed environmental statement required by law that will be included in the legislative proposal for 

the land withdrawal, including the aforementioned sub-proposals. The legislative proposal will be 

submitted to Congress for consideration and action. The DoN and Marine Corp are requesting that 

Congress renew the CMAGR land withdrawal, but, because the decision-making authority for this action 

rests solely with Congress, this Final LEIS does not identify a preferred alternative from among the four 

alternatives studied that would renew the land withdrawal. Congress will express its decision through its

legislative procedures and no administrative Record of Decision will be issued by the DoN.

The DoN/Marine Corps served as the lead agency and the BLM and Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) served as reviewing and cooperating agencies for preparing this Final LEIS and the 

preceding Draft LEIS, which was published in August 2012. The Final LEIS consists of two volumes

prepared in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the 

NEPA at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1503.4(c). The first volume includes the Final LEIS 

cover, cover sheet, and abstract; an introduction to the Final LEIS; the comments submitted on the Draft 

LEIS with lead and cooperating agency responses to those comments; errata and additions to the Draft 

LEIS prompted by the review comments; and the list of agencies, organizations, and persons receiving the 

Final LEIS. The second volume is the Draft LEIS. The Draft LEIS that comprises Volume 2 is the August 

2012 edition, but that edition is revised in accordance with the list of errata and additions that is provided 

in Chapter 3 of Volume 1.

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

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

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

combat forces; including Naval Special Warfare (NSW) forces. The CMAGR was initially established 

during World War II and has been indispensable for military aviation training ever since. The range 

 

1 Also referred to as the Engle Act of 1958.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-2 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 1.0 Introduction

currently supports training by units of the DoN, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Reserve Components, 

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

for military operation and administration of the CMAGR has been delegated by the Secretary of the Navy 

to the Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona. 

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

public land administered by the BLM and about 229,903 acres (359 square miles) of federal land 

administered by the DoN. Approximately 162 acres (about 0.25 square mile) of land administered by 

Reclamation is located inside of the CMAGR boundary. The withdrawn public land (hereafter BLM land) 

in the CMAGR is currently withdrawn and reserved for use as a military range by the CMLWOA. The 

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

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

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

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

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

proposes that the CMAGR land withdrawal be renewed. 

The Draft and Final LEISs both address the same four alternatives, numbered 1 through 4, for renewing 

the CMAGR land withdrawal. No comments on the Draft LEIS were received that indicated that changes 

or revisions to the alternatives were necessary. Alternatives 1 through 4 vary from each other by offering 

three variations on the alignment of the range boundary, three withdrawal duration choices, and three 

options for assigning management responsibilities between the DoN/Marine Corps and BLM. All four 

alternatives, however, share the same basic purpose of and need for renewing the land withdrawal for the 

CMAGR. With Alternative 5, the no-action alternative, Congress would not renew the CMAGR land 

withdrawal. As a consequence, the current withdrawal of BLM land in the CMAGR would expire at the 

end of October 2014, the BLM land would no longer be available for military purposes, and the 

remaining DoN land would not provide an adequate restricted land-base to continue military training. 

Military training at CMAGR would end and planning to decommission, cleanup, and potentially reuse the 

range for non-military purposes would begin. Planning would also have to be initiated to forego training 

displaced by the closure of the CMAGR or support it at other ranges.

Following the release of the Draft LEIS in August 2012, there was a 90-day comment period in which 

comments on the Draft LEIS and land withdrawal application were invited from government agencies, 

private organizations, and the public. Comments received during this 90-day period are addressed in this 

Final LEIS and will be used by Congress in its decision to renew or not renew the CMAGR land 

withdrawal.

1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT LEIS

1.2.1 Announcements and Publicity

The Notice of Public Meetings for the Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed Renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal, California and 

the Notice of Availability for EIS No. 20120278, Draft EIS, USN, CA, Legislative—Renewal of the 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal were published in the Federal Register,

Vol. 77/No. 170, on Friday 31 August 2012 at pages 53189 and 53198, respectively (Appendix I). The 

Federal Register notices announced the availability of the Draft LEIS for public review and comment, the 

beginning and end of the 90-day period for receiving comments on the Draft LEIS, locations where 

copies of the Draft LEIS could be obtained or viewed, the time and locations of the four public comment 

meetings on the Draft LEIS, summary and supplemental information on the Draft LEIS and the proposed 

renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal, and a point of contact for requesting additional information. A 

subsequent Notice of Change of Public Meeting Location for the Draft Legislative Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal, 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-3 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 1.0 Introduction

California was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 77/No. 195, on Tuesday 9 October 2012 at page 

61401 (Appendix I) to announce a change in the location of the 25 October 2012 public meeting 

previously announced in the 31 August Federal Register notice.

In addition to the Federal Register notices, information on the availability of the Draft LEIS and on the 

public comment process, period, and meetings was also publicly distributed through the project website, 

the third project newsletter sent to all parties on the project mailing list, paid advertisements published in 

seven newspapers from locations near the public meeting sites, and letters to Native American tribes and 

bands.

The public project website—located at: http://www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com—allowed visitors to 

view or download the Draft LEIS and the materials available at the Draft LEIS public meetings, and to 

submit comments on the Draft LEIS. The website also informed visitors of the public review and 

comment schedule and the full LEIS project schedule, and provided information on the scoping process, 

other project events, published documents, and project maps. Interested visitors could add their names to 

the project mailing list through the website.

The third project newsletter was mailed on 31 August 2012 to 421 recipients to notify interested parties 

about the availability of the Draft LEIS and the upcoming public comment process, period, and meetings. 

The newsletter mailing list included elected officials; Federal, State, and local agencies; American Indian 

tribes; private property owners whose land could be affected by boundary realignments proposed by 

Alternatives 2, 3, or 4; persons who participated in the project scoping process; and other interested 

parties.

Paid advertisements that announced the availability of the Draft LEIS and the locations and times of the 

upcoming public comment meetings were placed in each of seven newspapers two or three different dates 

before the public meetings (Table 1). 

Table 1. Paid Newspaper Advertisements Announcing the Draft LEIS and Public Meetings

Newspaper Circulation Area Publication Dates

Yuma Sun Arizona: Yuma, Somerton, San Luis,

Gadsden, Roll, Dateland, Wellton, 

and Tacna

California: Winterhaven

31 August 2013

4 September 2013

15 October 2013

Desert Warrior Arizona: Marine Corps Air Station 

Yuma

6 September 2013

4 October 2013

Imperial Valley Press California: Imperial Valley—

including: Mexicali, Baja, and San 

Diego County

Arizona: Yuma

31 August 2013

7 September 2013

16 October 2013

Baja El Sol Arizona: Yuma County—Spanish 

Language Newspaper

31 August 2013

4 September 2013

19 October 2013

Palo Verde Valley Times California: Blythe

Arizona: Quartzsite

31 August 2013

5 September 2013

17 October 2013

Desert Sun California: Palm Springs 31 August 2013

4 September 2013

16 October 2013

San Diego Union Tribune California: San Diego County 31 August 2013

4 September 2013

17 October 2013
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 1-4 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 1.0 Introduction

Native American tribes and bands that had expressed interests in CMAGR issues were notified of the 

availability of the Draft LEIS, as well as the public comment process, period, and meetings by letter from 

the Commanding Officer of MCAS Yuma. A copy of the Draft LEIS was enclosed with each letter. A 

copy of the letter sent by MCAS Yuma to the California State Historic Preservation Officer to initiate 

consultation in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

§ 470f as amended) on the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal was also enclosed with the 

letters to the tribes and bands. Letters were sent to 53 contact persons at 36 tribes and bands.

1.2.2 Public Meetings

Public review and comment meetings on the Draft LEIS were held in four cities, including on:

22 October 2012 at the Yuma County Library, 2951 South 21st Drive, Yuma, AZ

23 October 2012 at the Southwest High School, 2001 Ocotillo Dr., El Centro, CA

24 October 2012 at the Mizell Senior Center, 480 South Sunrise Way, Palm Springs, CA

25 October 2012 at the City Council Chambers and Lobby, 330 North Coast Highway, 

Oceanside, CA

The meetings were conducted in an open house format with display boards illustrating the key features 

and findings of the Draft LEIS. LEIS project team members were present to provide additional 

information or clarifications to attendees. Court reporters and language interpreters were available at each 

meeting to record oral comments on the Draft LEIS that individual attendees wished to submit for 

consideration in the preparation of the Final LEIS or to facilitate communications. Public attendance at 

the meetings included 16 at Yuma, 1 at El Centro, 2 at Palm Springs, and 3 at Oceanside.

1.2.3 Distribution of the Draft LEIS

Electronic and/or hard copies of the Draft LEIS were distributed to 10 federal agencies, 36 Native 

American tribes or bands, 2 Arizona and 8 California state agencies, the U.S. Senators and Governors of 

Arizona and California, 53 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from California, and 

8 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from Arizona (see Section 6.5 of the Draft LEIS). As 

already noted, the Draft LEIS was available for viewing or downloading from the project website. Hard 

copies of the Draft LEIS were also made available for public review at five public libraries including at:

Yuma County Library, 2951 South 21st Drive, Yuma, AZ

El Centro Community Center Branch Library, 375 South 1st Street, El Centro, CA

Brawley Public Library, 400 Main Street, Brawley, CA

Palo Verde Valley Library, 125 West Chanslor Way, Blythe, CA

San Diego Public Library (San Ysidro Branch), 101 West San Ysidro Boulevard, San Diego, CA
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-1 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 2.0 Comments on the Draft LEIS and

Responses to Comments

2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT LEIS AND

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

During the 90-day public review and comment period, which concluded 30 November 2012, written 

comments on the Draft LEIS were received in the forms of letters, submissions through the project 

website comment application, and comment forms distributed at the public meetings and either submitted 

at the meetings or later through the mail. Although a court reporter was available at each public meeting 

to record verbal comments, none were received. Comments were received from 1 federal agency, 

1 Native American commission, 1 member of the Arizona House of Representatives, 1 Arizona public 

college, 2 regional utility agencies in California, 2 California-based nongovernmental organizations, 

23 individuals from Arizona, 13 individuals from California, 1 individual from Nevada, and 1 individual 

from Oregon for an aggregate of 46 comment submissions. Comments were received from these 

46 sources via 13 letters, 12 comment forms distributed at the public meetings, and 21 submissions 

through the project website comment application. 

Comments were determined to be either substantive or non-substantive in nature (40 CFR 1503.4 and 

46 Federal Register 18026). A standard methodology was used to identify substantive and nonsubstantive comments. Substantive comments were defined as those that do one or more of the following: 

 question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the Draft LEIS 

 question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the environmental analysis 

 cause changes or revisions to the proposed action or alternatives 

Non-substantive comments were judged to be comments that offered only opinions, provided information 

not directly related to project issues or the impact analyses, or showed general opposition to or support of 

the proposed action. Non-substantive comments were considered by the planning team, but no response 

was deemed to be necessary other than to note the comment in the project record.

All substantive comments were reviewed by appropriate resource specialists and provided a response. In 

appropriate cases, comments prompted corrections, additions, or other clarifications to the LEIS analysis. 

Each of the comment letters, forms, and web submissions received on the Draft LEIS is published in this 

chapter in its original form. Some of the submissions contained only 1 individual comment, some 

contained between 2 and 10 individual comments, and a few contained more than 10 individual 

comments. Each individual comment in each submission has been identified with a bracket and a 

comment number in the margin of the submission. A response to each individual comment has been 

prepared and coded with the same number as the comment. Each comment submission and the responses 

to that submission appear together (see Table 2 for a list of the comment numbers and corresponding 

response page numbers). The comment submissions are provided in the following order:

 federal agency comments

 elected official comments

 Native American comments

 regional agency comments

 educational institution comments

 nongovernmental organization comments

 individual comments
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 2-2 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 2.0 Comments on the Draft LEIS and

Responses to Comments

Table 2. Comment and Response Number

Letter 

Number Commenter / Agency Name

Response 

Number

Response Page 

Number

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX 1-1 – 1-7 2-5 – 2-6

2 Lynne Pancrazi, Arizona State Representative District 24 2-1 – 2-1 2-7

3 California Native American Heritage Commission 3-1 – 3-2 2-8 – 2-12

4 Imperial Irrigation District 4-1 – 4-4 2-13 – 2-14

5 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 5-1 – 5-4 2-15 – 2-18

6 Office of the President, Arizona Western College 6-1 2-19

7 Riverside Land Conservancy 7-1 2-20

8 Southwest Defense Alliance 8-1 2-21

9 Floyd Ashbaugh 9-1 – 9-2 2-22

10 Wayne Benesch 10-1 2-23

11 James Blackwell 11-1 – 11-19 2-24 – 2-32

12 Julia Clark 12-1 – 12-73 2-33 – 2-44

13 Theron Dunaway 13-1 2-45

14 Walter Eason 14-1 2-46

15 Julie Engel 15-1 2-47

16 John Everett 16-1 – 16-6 2-48

17 Greg Ferguson 17-1 2-49

18 Makayia Garcia 18-1 – 18-2 2-50

19 Sharon Gardner 19-1 2-51

20 Albert Gerbarer 20-1 2-52

21 Larry A. Gould, PhD 21-1 2-53

22 Stanley Gourley 22-1 2-54

23 Gea Grosse 23-1 – 23-3 2-55 – 2-56

24 Peter Hekman 24-1 2-57

25 Douglas Holbert 25-1 2-58

26 James Howell 26-1 – 26-49 2-59 – 2-64

27 Robert Ingold 27-1 2-65

28 Arthur Jones 28-1 2-66

29 Andrea Lopez 29-1 2-67

30 Russell McCloud 30-1 2-68

31 Lynne Pancrazi, Arizona State Representative 31-1 2-69

32 Barbara Ransehousen 32-1 2-70

33 Ron Rice 33-1 2-71

34 J. Ross 34-1 2-72

35 Robert Schell 35-1 2-73

36 Katherine Scott 36-1 2-74

37 Kenneth Scott 37-1 2-75

38 Nancy Slaff 38-1 2-76

39 William Slaff 39-1 2-77

40 Jim Slater 40-1 2-78

41 Greg Smith 41-1 2-79

42 Michael J. Stafford 42-1 – 42-9 2-80 – 2-83

43 Craig Williams 43-1 2-84

44 Mark Workman 44-1 – 44-2 2-85

45 (no name submitted) 45-1 2-86

46 (no name submitted) 46-1 2-87
November 29, 2012

Ms. Kelly Finn

CMAGR LEIS Project Manager

NAVFAC Southwest

1220 Pacific Highway, Building 1 Central IPT 

San Diego, CA 92132-5190

Subject: Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (DLEIS) for the Proposed Renewal of the 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal, California (CEQ # 20120278)

Dear Ms. Finn:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the above-referenced document 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and our NEPA review authority under Section 309 of the Clean 

Air Act. Our detailed comments are enclosed. 

The Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (DLEIS) evaluates the potential environmental 

consequences of renewing the withdrawal of approximately 228,465 acres of public land for continued 

use as part of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR) in Imperial and Riverside 

Counties, California. Public lands in the CMAGR are currently reserved for use by the Secretary of the 

Navy for testing and training for aerial bombing, missile firing, tactical maneuvering and air support, 

and other defense-related purposes. 

Based on our review, we have rated the DLEIS’s Proposed Actions as Environmental Concerns –

Insufficient Information (EC-2) (see enclosed “Summary of Rating Definitions”). We are concerned 

that the potentially significant loading rates of munitions constituents at almost all of the target sites, as

predicted by the Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment (REVA), could present risks to offsite 

ecological receptors. The DLEIS does not provide sufficient information to support conclusions that 

off-range munitions migration is not occurring. The DLEIS does not disclose impacts from lead 

ammunition and munitions collected during range clearance. Our detailed comments also include 

recommendations for improving the impact assessment for the desert tortoise, a species that is 

experiencing significant pressures from large-scale solar energy development. Half of the CMAGR is 

designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise.

EPA appreciates the opportunity to review this DLEIS. When the Final LEIS is released for public 

review, please send one copy to the address above (mail code: CED-2). Please note that, as of October 

1, 2012, EPA Headquarters no longer accepts paper copies or CDs of EISs for official filing purposes. 

Submissions on or after October 1, 2012, must be made through the EPA’s new electronic EIS submittal 

tool: e-NEPA. To begin using e-NEPA, you must first register with the EPA's electronic reporting site –

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

LETTER 1 Letter 1 Continued 

2-3
Letter 1 Continued 

SUMMARY OF EPA RATING DEFINITIONS

This rating system was developed as a means to summarize EPA's level of concern with a proposed action.

The ratings are a combination of alphabetical categories for evaluation of the environmental impacts of the

proposal and numerical categories for evaluation of the adequacy of the EIS.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ACTION

"LO" (Lack of Objections)

The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impactsrequiring substantive changesto the

proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be

accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.

"EC" (Environmental Concerns)

The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the

environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of

mitigation measuresthat can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency

to reduce these impacts.

"EO" (Environmental Objections)

The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide

adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the

preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative

or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.

"EU" (Environmentally Unsatisfactory)

The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are

unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intendsto work

with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at

the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ.

ADEQUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEMENT

Category 1" (Adequate)

EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and

those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection is

necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information.

"Category 2" (Insufficient Information)

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impactsthatshould

be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably

available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analysed in the draft EIS, which could reduce

the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion

should be included in the final EIS.

"Category 3" (Inadequate)

EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the

action, or the EPA reviewer hasidentified new,reasonably available alternativesthat are outside ofthe spectrum

of alternatives analysed in the draft EIS, which should be analysed in order to reduce the potentially significant

environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions

are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the

draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally

revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the

potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.

*From EPA Manual 1640, “Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment.”

Letter 1 Continued 

1

EPA DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT LEGISLATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DLEIS) 

FOR THE PROPOSED RENEWAL OF THE CHOCOLATE MOUNTAIN AERIAL GUNNERY RANGE LAND 

WITHDRAWAL, RIVERSIDE AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, NOVEMBER 29, 2012

Contamination with Munitions Constituents

Assessment of Off Range Impacts

The DLEIS does not provide sufficient information to support conclusions that off-range munitions 

migration is not occurring. The Marine Corps uses the Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment 

(REVA), a fate and transport modeling/analysis of munitions constituents (MC), which is based on site 

environmental conditions and estimated loading rates. According to the DLEIS, the REVA performed 

in 2008 concluded that MC loading rates at 12 of the sites in the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery 

Range (CMAGR) North and all 15 of the sites in CMAGR South were found to be potentially 

significant (greater than 1 milligram per square meter per year)(p. 3-108). Despite this conclusion, no 

follow-up sampling or analysis was conducted; instead, the Marine Corps concluded that “because 

surface water in the washes draining from the CMAGR is not used as a potable water source, as an 

irrigation water source, or for any contact activity, either on range or off range, no human or ecological 

receptors were identified in the baseline” (p. 3-108). The pathways evaluated for the REVA included

both surface water and groundwater. Since no complete exposure pathway was identified, it was 

assumed that there was no potential risk to human health or the environment.

The DLEIS does not provide any additional information regarding the REVA analysis, so it is unclear

how ecological receptors were evaluated and conclusions regarding exposure pathways were 

determined. The DLEIS identifies a number of wildlife species that utilize desert washes in the area,

including the threatened Mojave desert tortoise, the hoary bat, and many others1

, and indicates that

numerous ephemeral surface water drainages occur throughout the CMAGR (p. 3-68), flow seasonally,

and discharge to the Salton Sea and Colorado River. Figure 3-9 shows military bombing targets located 

directly in drainages. The Salton Sea appears to be less than 5 miles downstream from bombing targets 

and contains diverse wildlife, including bird species in the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife 

Refuge.

The DLEIS states that CMAGR Explosives Ordinance Disposal (EOD) staff has reportedly observed 

submunitions (individual components of ordnance) along various washes within the installation 

boundary (p. 4-47). It also states that EOD clearances have not demonstrated that any “substantial”

migration of MCs has occurred, but does not disclose the extent of migration that has been documented 

(p. 4-20). There is no discussion of the likely fate and transport properties for the indicator MCs2

evaluated. RDX, HMX and perchlorate can persist in the environment for long periods of time and,

because they are mobile within the environment, have the highest potential to migrate off range3

. The 

1 The DLEIS states that a relatively large number of wildlife species utilize dry desert wash woodlands, including the side 

blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western whiptail lizard, zebra-tailed lizard, sidewinder, red-tailed hawk, Gambel‘s quail 

(Callipepla gambelli), mourning dove, ladder-backed woodpecker (Picoides scalaris), verdin (Auriparus flaviceps), western 

flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus burnneicapillus), warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), Wilson‘s 

warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), black-tailed gnatcatcher, white-crowned sparrow 

(Zonotrichia leucophrys), canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus), coyote (Canis latrans), kit fox, mule deer, white-tailed antelope 

squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus), black-tailed jack rabbit, and desert cottontail (p. 3-70). 2 Indicator MCs selected for the REVA program include octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX), hexahydro1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), trinitrotoluene (TNT), and perchlorate. 3 Headquarters Marine Corps, REVA Reference Manual for Baseline Assessments, May 2009. p. 51

2-4
Letter 1 Continued 

2

DLEIS does not disclose the MC concentrations at the range boundary predicted by the REVA, nor 

include monitoring data that confirm the lack of migration of MCs offsite. The DLEIS’ conclusion that 

stormwater and sediment loads are not likely to be transported off range is based primarily on the low 

precipitation that occurs in the area (p. 4-16). However, while average rainfall amounts are low in the 

desert, when precipitation does occur, it often results in high velocity flows which are capable of 

significant sediment and water transport. The DLEIS states that “in most areas”, sediment loads from 

ephemeral drainages do not appear to reach off-range receiving waters (p. 4-20), implying that there are 

some areas where this does appear to be occurring. Since deposition of munitions has been occurring at 

CMAGR since World War II, it appears that off range transport of MCs is not an improbability.

Recommendations: The FEIS should include more information to support its conclusions that 

off-range contamination by MCs is not occurring. Include details regarding the migration of 

MCs that has been documented, and the locations where sediment loads are reaching receiving 

waters. Identify the type and frequency of monitoring activities that occur at CMAGR and will 

occur in the future under the proposed actions. 

Details of the REVA should be included in the FEIS and should address the specific wildlife 

species that utilize the range as ecological receptors. We note that the REVA procedure does not 

limit ecological receptors to only protected species. EPA recommends that the REVA model 

conclusions be validated with environmental sampling to confirm that off-range migration of 

MCs is not occurring, since loading rates were found to be potentially significant and there are 

valuable biological resources downstream.

Lead and small arms ranges

Potential for increased lead contamination was not assessed in the DLEIS. The CMAGR includes two 

special warfare training areas (SWAT-4 and SWAT-5) with small arms ranges, and there are rifle and 

pistol ranges adjacent to Camp Billy Machen (p. 2-9, p. C-3). Lead is the most prevalent (by weight) 

potentially hazardous constituent associated with small arms ammunition and has the potential to 

migrate in surface water pathways and be carried off range. Lead is geochemically specific regarding its 

mobility in the environment and lead migration should be assessed using site-specific conditions (i.e., 

geochemical properties) obtained by sampling. The DLEIS does not include even a qualitative 

assessment of lead migration. Lead and lead compounds are used for range activities and reported by 

the military under the Toxics Release Inventory, with over 40,000 lbs of lead used at CMAGR in 

reporting year 2010 alone (p. 3-107).

Recommendation: Include an assessment of the potential for off range lead contamination in the 

FLEIS. Discuss current lead management and disposal procedures and the environmental

impacts of these activities.

Disposal of Range Clearance Munitions

The DLEIS lists the amounts of munitions and range clearance debris cleared from target areas in 2009 

through 2011 when funding was made available for these activities (p. 3-27). Over 3,300 tons of 

munitions and range debris were cleared during this period. The DLEIS does not characterize this waste 

nor indicate its final disposition, which is necessary in order to determine if the material is still subject to 

off range migration. 

Recommendation: Indicate the process for classifying recovered material and the final 

disposition of the 3,300+ tons of cleared munitions from 2009 through 2011, as well as the plan 

1-1

1-2

1-3

1-4

RESPONSES

[1-1] We do not agree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA‘s) extrapolation that munitions constituents 

(MC) may reach off-range water sources just because sediment in some ephemeral drainages might reach off-range receiving 

waters (Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement [DLEIS] page 4-20). The Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 

(LEIS) analysis of water resources was discussing the potential for indirect effects (sedimentation) from training activities that 

disturb soil structure. 

The Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment (REVA) update has been contracted and scheduled for Fall 2013, and will 

further evaluate the potential for off-range contamination. As discussed in Draft LEIS Section 3.12.3.2, the REVA program 

evaluates whether there has been a release or substantial threat of a release of MC from an operational range to off-range 

areas. The 2008 REVA at the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR) was the first comprehensive report on MCs 

associated with the CMAGR. The 2008 REVA report can be accessed at: www.denix.osd.mil/sri/upload/MCAS-Yuma-2.pdf. 

The REVA program uses conservative (e.g., no decay) screening-level transport analyses to predict the potential for off-range 

transport of MC. The results of the conservative transport analysis are first compared to REVA trigger values, which were 

developed by the Marine Corps to provide an internal decision point for additional site evaluation. Importantly, the REVA trigger 

values selected by the Marine Corps represent a median value of analytical method detection limits, indicating if a chemical 

could be detected during sampling and analysis and representing an extremely low decision threshold. The REVA trigger values 

are not associated with any actual regulatory or other screening values. Modeling results that exceed a REVA trigger value may 

warrant further investigation to determine if a release or threat of a release may actually be present, whether there are potential 

receptors to these chemicals and whether or not they may pose a risk to human health and the environment. 

If a REVA trigger value is exceeded and further investigation is deemed necessary, the results are compared to Department of 

Defense (DoD) Operational Range Assessment Screening Values, which represent a higher decision threshold than REVA 

trigger values. These screening values are used by all DoD services in their individual range assessment programs to compare 

their surface water, groundwater and sediment sampling data and assess their meaning. Screening values were selected by a 

DoD working group from a hierarchy of sources with recognized authority, acceptance and applicability, to include the EPA. 

Screening values are established for both human and ecological receptors. If sampling exceeds DoD Operational Range 

Assessment Screening Values, further action may be necessary, to include the potential for further testing and investigation, and 

possibly cleanup.

[1-2] Section 3.12.3.2 of the Draft LEIS was revised to include specific wildlife species that utilize the range as ecological 

receptors. ‖ These revisions have been added to Chapter 3 of this Final LEIS.

With regard to the recommendation to validate REVA model conclusions, the Marine Corps REVA model has been validated with 

environmental sampling results at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort, South Carolina, as described in the REVA 

Reference Manual, available on DENIX at: www.yuma.usmc.mil/services/environmental/support%5Creva.pdf. 

Also see response to Comment 1-1.

[1-3] The REVA update that has been contracted and scheduled for Fall 2013 will include a detailed assessment of the 

potential for off-range lead contamination at small arms ranges operated by the Navy SEALs (Sea, Air and Land) within special 

warfare training areas (SWATs) 4 and 5. 

Routine management and disposal of lead on active DoD ranges are not specifically addressed in any single Federal regulation. 

However, portions of different Federal regulations can become applicable and are considered under certain situations. On active 

ranges, lead-containing bullets are fired and eventually fall to the ground at or near the range. Under the Military Munitions Rule, 

the act of firing ammunition does not, by itself, generate a solid waste under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

because the ammunition is being used for its intended purpose (i.e., it has not been ―discarded‖). The removal of lead-containing 

bullets or bullet fragments off-range would be "discarding" and result in the generation of a solid waste subject to RCRA. Leadcontaining munitions fragments that would typically be reclaimed/recycled are exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste 

under the RCRA scrap metal provision found in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 261.6 (a)(3)(ii).

[1-4] All material recovered from the range is handled in accordance with the Military Munitions Rule, applicable sections of 

the RCRA and governing DoD guidance and policy. All material from the range is segregated, inspected, certified and recycled to 

the greatest extent practical.

2-5
Letter 1 Continued 

3

to characterize, manage and dispose of munitions cleared in the future. The FEIS should include 

a commitment to meet Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements for 

managing these materials in the future.

Biological Resources

Impacts to Desert Tortoise

The DLEIS does not provide a complete assessment of impacts to the federally threatened desert 

tortoise. Designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise occupies about half of the CMAGR (p. 3-78). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion for military activities at the range in 

1996 (p. 4-29). The DLEIS lists the desert protection measures prescribed by the 1996 BO, which 

include “take” reporting, annual reports, and the establishment of a wildlife management area with 

limited use zones where military activity is excluded. The DLEIS does not provide any information that 

was presumably collected pursuant to these protection measures to reflect actual impacts on the tortoise.

This information, especially take reporting, is essential to assess impacts to this resource. 

The DLEIS concludes that, in aggregate, military use within the low impact part of the range has 

provided important conservation benefits to desert tortoise and other native species, citing to an article

by Stein et al. 20084

. This article is an overview of the benefits that some military installations provide 

endangered species in general. CMAGR is not mentioned, nor is the desert tortoise; therefore, it does 

not appear to be an appropriate basis for this site-specific conclusion.

The DLEIS does not discuss cumulative impacts to the desert tortoise. This species is experiencing 

significant cumulative impacts from multiple utility-scale renewable energy projects in the Mojave 

desert. The site-specific impacts identified for the proposed action should also be disclosed and 

evaluated in the context of the species as a whole (i.e. cumulative impacts), using an appropriate 

geographic boundary, such as the species’ recovery plan area. 

Recommendation: In the FLEIS, disclose the results of the desert protection measures prescribed 

by the 1996 BO, including take reporting and monitoring results. Base the impact assessment 

conclusions on these data and discuss the project impacts to the desert tortoise in the context of 

the cumulative impacts this species is experiencing and expected to experience from the many 

renewable energy projects proposed in the Mojave Desert. We recommend consulting with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as appropriate. 

Wildlife Guzzlers

It is not clear whether or not the Marine Corps will continue to maintain or allow the maintenance of the 

wildlife guzzlers if an alternative that transfers management or ownership of the land to DoD is pursued. 

Recommendation: Clarify the commitment and intentions of the Marine Corps regarding the 

wildlife guzzlers.

4 Stein, et al. 2008. “Federal Lands and Endangered Species: The role of military and other federal lands in sustaining 

biodiversity”. BioScience Vol 58 No. 4

1-6

1-7

1-4

1-5

Responses Continued

[1-5] The Military Munitions Rule defines when military munitions become waste and how RCRA applies to waste munitions 

when they are removed from an active range. DoD Manual 6055.09 (DoD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards: Criteria 

for Unexploded Ordnance, Munitions Response, Waste Military Munitions, and Material Potentially Presenting an Explosive 

Hazard, February 29, 2008) provides broad guidance for management of munitions. Section V7.E3.3 (Disposition of UXO and of 

Other Military Munitions Being Managed as UXO) states ―DoD response actions to address UXO must comply with these 

standards and other applicable DoD policies and with applicable Federal, State, interstate, and local laws and regulations, and 

any enforceable agreements.‖ Although not explicitly stated, applicable Federal laws and regulations would include RCRA. See 

also the response to Comment 1-4.

[1-6] No take has been reported in recent years at CMAGR and take has not exceeded the 1996 Biological Opinion (BO) 

allowance. The renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal in accordance with Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4 would continue existing 

military operations and would not expose desert tortoises or their habitat at the range to impacts or threats of impacts that differ 

from the existing baseline conditions, which are the baseline conditions addressed by the 1996 BO and 2003 revision. The 

existing BO elaborates fully on the effects of current military operations on desert tortoises. Recent survey and monitoring results 

are available in the Range-Wide Monitoring of the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise 2010 Annual Report. Reported 

density estimates at CMAGR were unusually high compared to other sample sites at 13.8 tortoises per square kilometer. Military 

training at CMAGR has been shown to be compatible with maintaining a viable, high density tortoise population. The Marine 

Corps is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), but the conclusion of the LEIS is that renewal of the 

CMAGR land withdrawal would have little or no direct effects on the desert tortoise and that those effects that may occur would 

be non-adverse for the continued existence and health of this species‘ population. In fact, as discussed in Section 5.3.6 of the 

Draft LEIS, the cumulative indirect effect of continuing military use of the CMAGR on desert tortoise, tortoise habitat, and other 

biological resources is to provide a reservoir population and habitat reserve for the desert tortoise in contrast with the total loss of 

habitat and tortoise populations at energy development sites.

[1-7] As indicated in Section 3.7.4 of the Draft LEIS, the wildlife guzzlers are managed by the California Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (CDFW ) (formerly called the California Department of Fish and Game). The Marine Corps has supported and would 

continue to fully support the wildlife guzzler program at the CMAGR if the land withdrawal for the range is renewed. Renewal of 

the land withdrawal would not be anticipated to affect either the existing or proposed guzzlers.

2-6
LETTER 2

2-1

2-2

2-3

2-7

RESPONSES

[2-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.

[2-2] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.

[2-3] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 3

3-1

2-8

RESPONSES

[3-1] Compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is noted in Section 1.7 and 

discussed in Section 3.8.4.1 of the Draft LEIS. California State regulations are not applicable to the proposed renewal of the 

CMAGR land withdrawal, which is a Congressional legislative action.
Letter 3 Continued

3-2

2-9

Responses Continued

[3-2] Appendix H of the Draft LEIS describes the tribal consultation process conducted for the proposed renewal of the 

CMAGR land withdrawal. Section 3.8, Inventory Methods at page 3 79 of the Draft LEIS describes the various methods used to 

find existing records and data to identify potential historic properties within the range. As described, the inventory methods 

included a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) search for the proposed boundary change areas. Also 

note that an internal geographic information system (GIS) database of recorded sites is maintained for the CMAGR, which was 

used as part of the analyses completed for this LEIS.
Letter 3 Continued Letter 3 Continued

2-10
Letter 3 Continued Letter 3 Continued

2-11
Letter 3 Continued

2-12
LETTER 4

4-1

4-2

2-13

RESPONSES

[4-1] Existing utility easements and access to utility service roads would be unaffected by renewal of the land withdrawal in 

accordance with any of the action alternatives.

[4-2] See the response to Comment 4-1.
Letter 4 Continued

4-2

4-4

4-3

2-14

Responses Continued

[4-3] Existing rights-of-way at the CMAGR would not be affected by the renewal of the land withdrawal with any of the action 

alternatives (see Section 4.3 of the Draft LEIS and the addition to Section 2.7.3 in Chapter 3 of this Final LEIS).

[4-4] The Department of the Navy (DoN) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) both granted rights-of-way for the 

utility and gas lines within the CMAGR, and the errata and additions section in Chapter 3 of this Final LEIS clarifies this. Under 

the existing land jurisdictions, the DoN does not have the authority to grant rights-of-way across BLM land and the BLM does not 

have the authority to grant rights-of-way across DoN land.
LETTER 5

5-1

2-15

RESPONSES

[5-1] Your comment to increase visibility of the range boundary is noted. Sign placement for any new acquisition that would 

be outside of the perimeter of that acquisition, such as on the south side of the Mesquite Regional Landfill (MRL) Rail Spur, 

could only be implemented with the approval of the responsible land management authority. The DoN would consult the 

appropriate land management authority for permission to post signs on the south side of the MRL Rail Spur should Congress 

select Alternative 2.
Letter 5 Continued

5-2

5-3

5-4

2-16

Responses Continued

[5-2] The proposed alternatives would neither prohibit use of the future Eagle Mountain Railroad nor modify the current 

rights associated with the future repair, maintenance, or operation of the railroad. Also see the addition to Section 2.7.3 on 

Page 2-23 of the Draft LEIS, which is provided in Chapter 3 of this Final LEIS.

[5-3] The proposed alternatives would neither prohibit use of the future Eagle Mountain Railroad nor modify the current 

rights associated with the future repair, maintenance, or operation of the railroad.

[5-4] See response to Comment 5-3.
Letter 5 Continued Letter 5 Continued

2-17
Letter 5 Continued

2-18
LETTER 6

6-1

2-19

RESPONSES

[6-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 7

7-1

2-20

RESPONSES

[7-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 8

8-1

2-21

RESPONSES

[8-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 113 

Names

First Name: Floyd Last Name: Ashbaugh 

Title: Organization: Portolla Hills 

Address: 19445 Highridge Way 

City: Trabuco 

Canyon State: CA 

Zip: 92679 Country: 

Email: floyd.a@cox.net Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: 

Other 

Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 11/19/2012 Date Received: 11/19/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

I have studied the renewal plan and attended one of the open house events, and 

have concluded that the Chocolate Mountains should be returned to the people 

of California, and the Proposed Land Withdrawal should not be renewed. The 

Navy has two other large ranges in the area including Yuma and 29 Palms, and 

this desert land should be restored and returned to public use. If congress 

decideds to renew this withdrawal, the conditions should be as follows: 1)The 

range should be cleared of all ordance and debris. 2)The land should be a 

shared resource where the Navy gets 6 months a year, and the public gets 6 

months use a year, similar to the proposal for the Johnson Valley expansion of 

29 Palms. Also the shared public time should not include the hot summer 

months. This beautiful public resource should not be squandered on a place to 

just explode bombs. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #26-- ALT-2 Oppose Land Withdrawal

232-- ...the Chocolate 

Mountains should be 

returned to the people of 

California, and the 

Proposed Land 

Withdrawal should not be 

renewed.' 

-- --

Category #29-- ALT-5 Other actions to consider

233-- If congress 

decideds to renew this 

withdrawal, the conditions 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 2

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/3/2013

LETTER 9

9-1

9-2

2-22

RESPONSES

[9-1] Comment is noted. The withdrawn land at the CMAGR is federal public land and is not California state land.

[9-2] The suggested conditions are inconsistent with the ongoing need to continue air-to-ground ordnance training at the 

CMAGR, as described Section 1.2 of the Draft LEIS. Training requirements demand that the CMAGR be available on a full-time 

basis. In addition, as described in Section 4.11 of the Draft LEIS, the safety hazards associated with the CMAGR are 

inconsistent with shared public use.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 77 

Names

First Name: wayne Last Name: benesch 

Title: Organization: via de 

coronado 

Address: 12172 e. via loma vista #9 

City: Yuma State: AZ 

Zip: Country: 

Email: Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: 

Other 

Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/17/2012 Date Received: 10/17/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

I recommend that Proposal No. 3 be adopted. We must protect our ranges so our 

military forces may continue to train properly for combat. Thank you. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #27-- ALT-3 Transfer Title to DoD

106-- I recommend that 

Proposal No. 3 be 

adopted.' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 10

10-1

2-23

RESPONSES

[10-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 11

11-1

2-24

RESPONSES

[11-1] There is no new equipment associated with the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal, and no change in 

training activities. As such, there would be no new emissions and the action alternatives are well below all applicable de minimis

levels. If Congress decides not to renew the range, additional planning and analysis would be conducted to include future Clean 

Air Act requirements.
Letter 11 Continued

2-25
Letter 11 Continued

11-2

11-3

11-4

11-5

2-26

Responses Continued

[11-2] The Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD ) does not have jurisdiction over the CMAGR. As 

described in the Draft LEIS in the State and Local Requirements subsection of Section 3.6.2, Project Setting, the CMAGR is 

under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District (ICAPCD). No facilities would be constructed as part of any of the action alternatives.

[11-3] As described in the response to Comment 11-2, MDAQMD does not have jurisdiction over the CMAGR. There is no 

new equipment, and therefore no new emissions, associated with this specific project. The existing equipment and activities do 

comply with Imperial County and South Coast dust control regulations.

[11-4] As the subject action is legislative in nature and does not itself contribute to an increase in emissions, the federal 

General Conformity regulations do not apply. See also response to Comment 11-1.

[11-5] Section 3.9.1.1 of the Draft LEIS does describe noise descriptors that are relevant for the discussion of noise. Others 

are referenced in documents such as the F-35B West Coast Basing Final EIS (DoN 2010). Draft LEIS Table 3-16 provides a 

―scale‖ of A-weighted decibel values or ranges and corresponding sample outdoor and indoor noises that those values/ranges 

might describe. Section 3.9.1.2 summarizes applicable regulations and standards, including specific mention of noise elements 

from general plans for Riverside and Imperial counties. A brief discussion of vibration has been added to Sections 3.9.1.1, 

3.9.1.2 and 3.9.2.2 (page 3-90 to 3-92), and 4.9 (page 4-40); these additions are found in Chapter 3 of this Final LEIS.
Letter 11 Continued Letter 11 Continued

2-27
Letter 11 Continued

11-6

11-7

2-28

Responses Continued

[11-6] Please refer to response to Comment 11-5. Additionally, the current CMAGR ordnance operations do not exceed 

62 C-weighted decibel (dBC) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) with respect to off-range receivers, which is below the 

noise levels represented by 65 A-weighted decibel (dBA) Day-night sound level (Ldn) or CNEL due to fact that the C weighting 

curve includes more low-frequency sound than the A-weighting curve.

[11-7] See response to Comment 11-5.
Letter 11 Continued

11-8

11-9

11-10

11-11

2-29

Responses Continued

[11-8] See response to Comment 11-5.

[11-9] Ground-borne vibration can be a source of human annoyance or potential building damage, but the impacts (and 

significance) depend largely on proximity of vibration sources to sensitive receivers as well as the applicability of recognized 

laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards. Current ordnance detonations at the CMAGR can generate local ground-borne 

vibrations, but, as similarly described in Section 4.9 of the Draft LEIS for potential noise impacts, the distances between these 

CMAGR operations and the existing receivers are so large that no new direct or indirect vibration impacts are expected to occur. 

Renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal in accordance with Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4 would not change the occurrence or 

distribution of activities at the range that may produce vibrations.

[11-10] The referenced Caltrans reports and criteria pertain to transportation or construction projects and corresponding 

transportation or construction activity sources of vibration and are not applicable to military activities (i.e., ordnance delivery, etc.) 

at the CMAGR.

[11-11] See response to Comment 11-9.
Letter 11 Continued

11-11

11-12

11-13

11-14

2-30

Responses Continued

[11-12] See responses to Comments 11-6 and 11-9.

[11-13] See response to Comment 26-37.

[11-14] As noted in Section 3.4.5.3, no fossils have been reported from the CMAGR. Section 3.4.5.2 of the Draft LEIS, 

however, does provide an overview of the BLM Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system and a description of geologic 

units at the CMAGR (see Figure 6 6) and the PFYC classifications for these units.
Letter 11 Continued

11-15

11-16

2-31

Responses Continued

[11-15] The extent to which paleontological resources at the CMAGR have been impacted by military or other activities cannot 

be determined because no data are available for the range that reports the actual occurrence, distribution, or abundance of 

fossils of any type at the range. However, Section 3.4.5.2 of the Draft LEIS describes the BLM PFYC system and reports the 

PFYC classification for geologic units that occur at the CMAGR. These geologic units are depicted in Figure 3-6. In response to 

this comment, an additional assessment has been performed to identify the occurrence and extent of active and inactive 

weapons impact areas in potential fossil yielding geologic units at the range. See the additions to Pages 3-50 and 4 16 of the 

Draft LEIS, which is provided in Chapter 3 of this Final LEIS.

[11-16] See responses to Comments 11-14 and 11-15.
Letter 11 Continued

11-17

11-18

11-19

2-32

Responses Continued

[11-17] Section 4.3 indicates that the proposed actions would not conflict with BLM or county plans.

[11-18] There will be no extension to the comment period on the Draft LEIS. Also see response to Comment 16-1.

[11-19] Public meetings on the Draft LEIS were held October 22-25, 2012 in Yuma, El Centro, Palm Springs, and Oceanside.
LETTER 12

12-1

12-2

12-3

12-6

12-7

12-8

12-4

12-5

2-33

RESPONSES [12-1] A summary of the concerns and issues raised during scoping is provided in Section 1.6.3 of the Draft LEIS. The final 

Scoping Report for the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal is available at the project website: 

www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com/. The index in the Draft LEIS is a standard subject index, which is typical for EIS 

documents. These features meet the requirements for EISs provided by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 

(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Marine 

Corps Order (MCO) P5090.2A, change 2, dated 21 May 2009, Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, which 

establish procedures for implementing NEPA; and Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5090.8A, Policy for Environmental 

Protection, Natural Resources, and Cultural Resources Programs. [12-2] The training requirements underlying the future need for the CMAGR are based on Congressional directives including 

the authority provided to the Secretary of the Navy by the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 

(CMLWOA) (Public Law [P.L.] 103-433) to use the BLM land within the CMAGR for military purposes. This authority would 

terminate in accordance with the CMLWOA at the end of October 2014. However, the CMLWOA also provides that the Secretary 

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

(P.L. 103-433 § 806(a)). As discussed in Section 1.1.2 of the Draft LEIS, the Notice of Intent (NOI) published in the Federal 

Register on September 24, 2010 constituted the Secretary of the Navy‘s finding of a continuing military need for the CMAGR. 

The training requirements that definitively support the continuing military need for the CMAGR and, hence, need to renew the 

land withdrawal for the range are thoroughly delineated and explained in Section 1.2 of the Draft LEIS. [12-3] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary. [12-4] The current owners of the Eagle Mountain Railroad—Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC and Mine Reclamation, LLC

—

requested that an alternative be studied that would place the railroad outside of the CMAGR. The proposed alternative was not

consistent with the purpose of and need for the renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal and consequently was not evaluated in 

detail in the Draft LEIS. Also see the response to Comment 5-2 and the addition to Page 2-23 of the Draft LEIS, which is 

provided in Chapter 3 of this Final LEIS. [12-5] The referenced public comment noted an apparent inconsistency between the proposal to realign the southwestern 

boundary of the CMAGR to conform with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and the proposal to realign the northern boundary to 

conform with the Bradshaw Trail. Four segments of the CMAGR boundary were proposed for realignment in the Draft LEIS. The 

purpose of and need for each proposed realignment is described in Section 1.3. The introduction to Section 1.3 of the Draft LEIS 

relates that the four realignment proposals are functionally independent from each other, which reflects the fact that each of the 

proposed realignment proposals would address the specific circumstances at its particular range boundary location. The current 

range boundary near the UPRR is not serviced by an access road and no designated or unauthorized roads or other readily 

visible and accessible geographic features occur between the current boundary and the railroad that could be used to demarcate 

the boundary. Thus, realigning the CMAGR boundary to parallel the UPRR was the only existing reasonable alternative as a 

boundary realignment proposal in the southwestern part of the range. 

The circumstances at the northern end of the CMAGR are different. The Bradshaw Trail provides a readily visible and accessible 

geographic feature that would work well as the range boundary. Using the southern side of the Bradshaw Trail corridor as the 

range boundary would both retain areas of the CMAGR north of the Eagle Mountain Railroad that support military training 

operations and exclude public use of these same areas. The Eagle Mountain Railroad would be retained within the range, but 

this facility has not been used for 26 years and is in a seriously deteriorated and inoperable condition along much of its length in 

the CMAGR. The Eagle Mountain Railroad, which was built and previously served to haul iron ore from the Eagle Mountain Mine, 

is now considered to be potentially useful in the future for hauling solid waste to a landfill that would be established at the now 

closed Eagle Mountain Mine. Restoration of the railroad and solid waste hauling rail operations would not conflict with military 

activities in this area and would not subject its operators or the public to hazardous military training operations. The Eagle 

Mountain Railroad has never been used for public passenger service nor does it link locations that would require passenger 

service. Although the railroad could be used as a readily visible boundary, it is inside of current range property that is needed for 

training. Accordingly, the alternative was not considered to be reasonable and not evaluated in detail. Also see the response to 

Comment 5-2 and the addition to page 2-23 of the Draft LEIS, which is provided in Chapter 3 of this Final LEIS.

[12-6] The dikes are Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) maintained structures on land currently withdrawn from public 

access and located within the CMAGR. As described in Section 1.2.2.1 of the Draft LEIS and as represented in Figures 1-2, 1-5, 

3-2, and 3-3, there is a demonstrated purpose of and need for including the scattered dike parcels in the range to provide an 

uninterrupted land base to support ongoing and continuing ground-based training. Aerial bombing does not occur in the dike 

areas and none is proposed. Military training activities performed in this area do not compromise or degrade the integrity of the 

dikes. The DoN and Reclamation are currently preparing a Memorandum of Understanding to formalize the process by which 

Reclamation would be able to continue to access the CMAGR to conduct maintenance activities on the dikes.
Responses Continued

[12-7] In the near term, military use of the CMAGR likely would be unaffected by the assignment of management 

responsibilities for natural and cultural resources between the Marine Corps and the BLM. Military use would continue to be the 

priority at the CMAGR and most other types of public land use would be precluded by the land withdrawal for the range. Military 

use of the CMAGR would likely benefit in the long-term if all responsibilities for natural and cultural resources throughout the 

CMAGR are consolidated with the Marine Corps alone. Marine Corps management, which would be in accordance with the 

Sikes Act and other applicable law, would not only provide a high degree of stewardship for natural and cultural resources at the 

CMAGR, but would also be responsible for maintaining the condition of those resources such that there would be no net loss of

the capacity of the range environment to support the military purposes for which the range was established. The Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) does not provide equivalent mandates to guide BLM management of a military 

reservation. Consolidating natural and cultural resource management with the Marine Corps would also benefit resources and 

management efficiency by eliminating overlapping, redundant, and missed responsibilities/actions between the Marine Corps 

and BLM. Further, as the military operator of the CMAGR, the Marine Corps would have an advantage for coordinating adequate 

and timely access to the range by resource specialists to monitor resource conditions, identify management requirements, and 

implement management actions to the benefit of both environmental stewardship and support of the military mission without 

conflicting with training schedules.

[12-8] EPA Region 9 suggested that a land withdrawal with a duration of only 15 years be considered as a tool for assessing 

the effects of the proposed renewal of the CMAGR because ecosystems are experiencing effects from climate change, and the 

cumulative impacts from climate change may combine with training impacts to affect resources in a shorter time frame than has

been the case in the past. The Navy shares the EPA‘s concern that climate change has the potential to impact ecosystems, but, 

as explained in Section 2.7.1 of the Draft LEIS, rejected the contention that assessing an alternative that would renew the 

CMAGR land withdrawal for a duration of less than 20 years would illuminate how potential cumulative effects of climate change 

and military training would impact ecosystems. The rational for the rejection includes:

A withdrawal duration of 15 years would not come close to meeting the foreseeable continuing military need for the 

CMAGR, which extends to at least 40 years if not more (see Section 1.4 of the Draft LEIS).

Although climate change might result in the Southwest enduring hotter average temperatures and decreasing average 

rainfall over the next several decades, these trends cannot be forecasted at this time with the precision necessary to 

assess how resources might be affected within a 15 year withdrawal. 

Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the Marine Corps would prepare an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

(INRMP) in cooperation with the USFWS and CDFW, and update the INRMP no less than every five years. The 

INRMP‘s adaptive management strategy would respond to potential impacts from climate change over a shorter time 

frame and is consistent with the EPA comment.

Therefore, a land withdrawal alternative with a duration of 15 years would not be useful as a tool for determining the potential 

climatic effects of the proposed range renewal action and was not carried forward for detailed analysis.

2-34
Letter 12 Continued

12-9

12-10

12-11

12-15

12-14

12-16

12-18

12-17

12-12

12-13

2-35

Responses Continued

[12-9] The Draft LEIS fully addresses the likely impacts of the alternatives on Mojave desert tortoise in Section 4.7. As 

discussed in Section 4.7, there would be no change in training activities from any of the action alternatives, and therefore no 

direct impacts on individual desert tortoise or their habitat. Regarding potential change in management responsibilities, the 

effects of Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4, which would each renew the CMAGR land withdrawal, on desert tortoise would be largely 

indistinguishable from each other and from current conditions. A 1996 BO issued by the USFWS for military activities at the 

CMAGR determined that these activities were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tortoise, nor were

they likely to result in the significant destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for the desert tortoise. Current and 

projected operations at the CMAGR continue to be consistent with the 1996 BO and critical habitat for this species. Alternatives 

2, 3, or 4 would each result in transfers of land designated as critical habitat into and/or out of the CMAGR. Between about 

2,300 acres (Alternative 4) and 2,600 acres (Alternatives 2 or 3) of critical habitat would be transferred out of the range and 

almost 1,000 acres would be transferred into the range (Alternatives 2 or 3). The critical habitat released from the range would 

be managed by the BLM and the newly incorporated critical habitat would be managed by the Marine Corps. Both agencies 

would continue to manage critical habitat in accordance with the recovery plan for the desert tortoise and applicable biological 

opinions. Closure of the CMAGR, which would occur as a result of Alternative 5, would end military training activities at the range 

and begin processes for decommissioning and decontaminating the range and planning for its future use. Post-range activities 

would likely affect the desert tortoise, but neither of these activities or their potential effects can be reliably or reasonably 

forecasted at this time as the planning for post-range actions cannot begin unless Alternative 5 is implemented.

[12-10] The letter received from the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County during scoping requests consideration of the 

biological areas and monitoring requirements described in the BO for the MRL. In consideration of this request, the DoN's 

proposed range boundary shown and analyzed in the Draft LEIS does not conflict with the biological areas and monitoring 

requirements for the MRL. Additionally, none of the proposed alternatives result in the need to change the MRL's biological 

compliance program. [12-11] Habitat fragmentation was not specifically raised as an issue during scoping. However, wildlife habitat and habitat 

conditions, including habitat fragmentation, are considered in the Draft LEIS in Sections 3.7, 4.7, and 5.2. Although military use 

has had some adverse effects on habitat at the CMAGR, the analysis reported in Section 3.2.4.6 shows that only a small 

proportion of the range, likely between about 2 and 5 percent, supports surface uses that cause or may cause moderate to 

complete levels of physical disturbance to the ground surface, vegetative communities, and surface drainages. Section 4.7 of the 

Draft LEIS states: ―At a landscape scale, the CMAGR and the general region east of the Coachella Canal and UPRR function as 

a relatively intact Sonoran Desert ecosystem....The CMAGR and the nearby wilderness areas offer large tracts of land that are 

relatively unfragmented, allowing wildlife to maintain movement patterns.‖ Because 95 percent or more of the range serves 

principally as weapons or surface danger zones or laser hazard areas in which there is almost no other land use, management of 

this land area as a range has actually had the effect of protecting wildlife habitat, including critical habitat, from activities that 

would cause adverse modification, destruction, fragmentation, or other harm. [12-12] Responsibilities for management of flora and fauna at the CMAGR are currently split between the DoN/Marine Corps

and the BLM as described in Sections 1.5 and 2.2.3 of the Draft LEIS. In accordance with the Sikes Act, Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), and other applicable law, the DoN and Marine Corps have long- and well-established programs for the management, 

conservation, and protection of natural and cultural resources. The Marine Corps currently conducts surveys for threatened and 

endangered species annually, which provides adequate basis for managing these animals, in accordance with the 1996 BO for 

operations at the CMAGR. Future management planning and funding and resource management responsibilities between the 

DoN/Marine Corps and the BLM will be determined by Congress from among the four management alternatives proposed by the 

Draft LEIS (see Sections 1.5, 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.3.2, and 2.4). Under all action alternatives, the Marine Corps would develop an 

updated INRMP for the range. Although subject to potential new guidance provided by Congress in the renewal of the CMAGR 

land withdrawal, the BLM currently has no plans to update the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management 

Plan for the range. [12-13] No U.S. Air Force noise impact studies were used in the preparation of the LEIS. Draft LEIS Section 4.7.1.1 

acknowledges that ―Noise from aircraft overflights, ordnance delivery, or other military activities can disturb wildlife.‖ Aircraft 

noise effects on wildlife are discussed in several places in the Draft LEIS including Sections 3.9 and 4.7.1.1. There is no 

evidence that noise associated with any of the action alternatives would jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tortoise 

or any other species at the CMAGR. This is the finding reached by the USFWS in both the 2009 BO for the West Coast basing of 

the MV-22 and the 2010 BO for the West Coast basing of the F-35B. None of the alternatives for the proposed renewal of the 

CMAGR land withdrawal would change the ongoing or projected aircraft noise conditions at the range from those addressed in 

the EISs or BOs for the West Coast basing of the MV-22 and F-35 aircraft.
Responses Continued

[12-14] Reintroduction of mule deer, bighorn sheep or antelope or other species at CMAGR was not raised as an issue during 

scoping, is not anticipated to be significant issues related to the proposed action and, therefore, is not analyzed in depth (40 CFR 

1501.7). As noted in Section 3.7.4 of the Draft LEIS, mule deer and bighorn sheep are already year-round residents of the 

CMAGR. The CMAGR is situated at or possibly beyond the western margin of the historic range of the Sonoran pronghorn (also 

referred to as an antelope), but wild populations of this highly endangered animal have long been restricted to limited portions of 

southwestern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. The CMAGR is not identified as a potential reintroduction site for this 

species in the Supplement and Amendment to the Final Revised Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan published by the USFWS in 

January 2002.

[12-15] Consideration of partnerships for maintaining guzzlers for wildlife at CMAGR was not raised as an issue during 

scoping. However, Section 3.7.4 of the Draft LEIS reports that CDFW currently manages 26 existing guzzlers within the CMAGR 

(see Figure 3 12), principally to provide supplemental water for desert bighorn sheep and mule deer, and plans to install five 

additional guzzlers in the future. The Marine Corps supports CDFW in this program. None of the alternatives that would renew 

the CMAGR land withdrawal would affect the wildlife waters program, which would be incorporated in the INRMP that would be 

developed for the range following renewal of the land withdrawal.

[12-16] Most of the portion of the range that underlies R-2507S is within the about 386,000-acre Chocolate-Mule Mountains 

Herd Area (HA), which was defined by the BLM as a geographic area in which wild burros were found when the Wild FreeRoaming Horses and Burros Act was enacted in 1971 as shown on the figure located at: 

www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro/hma-main/HMA-CA-671.html. A sub-area of the HA outside of the CMAGR 

and to the east of State Route 78 was designated in 1980 by the BLM as the Chocolate-Mule Mountains Herd Management Area 

(HMA) in which burros are managed to ensure the maintenance of a healthy herd and as integral and balanced components of 

the ecosystem in accordance with the 1984 Colorado River Herd Management Area Plan. The Northern and Eastern Colorado 

Desert Coordinated Management Plan (NECO Plan) reports that the CMAGR has never been managed for burros and that it 

was not within the scope of that plan, which otherwise is applicable to the CMAGR, to initiate burro management within the 

military reservation. Although low numbers of burros continue to occur within the CMAGR, BLM management for the CMAGR 

assumes that the burro population is zero and proceeds without objectives to either establish or maintain burros on the range. 

Section 1.7 of the Draft LEIS references the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, but, as noted in Section 3.7 of 

the NECO Plan, the provisions of that Act are not applicable to the portions of the CMAGR managed by the DoD, which includes 

the approximately 50 percent of the range that is comprised of DoN land (see Figure 1 2 in the Draft LEIS).

[12-17] The carrying capacity of the CMAGR for wild burros has not been determined; however, determination of such a 

carrying capacity is not required by the provisions of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act or other law or regulation. 

Also see response to Comment 12-16.

[12-18] As detailed in Sections 3.8 and 4.8 and Appendix H of the Draft LEIS, the Marine Corps has provided project 

information to and initiated consultations with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and potentially affected 

Native American tribes regarding the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal. This contact was made pursuant to both 

NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process. The Marine Corps will continue its ongoing consultations

with the SHPO and representatives of the affected Native American tribes to develop a Programmatic Agreement implementing 

the Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICMRP) completed for the CMAGR in 2011.

2-36
Letter 12 Continued

12-19

12-20

12-21

12-22

12-23

12-24

12-25

12-26

12-27

12-28

2-37

Responses Continued

[12-19] As noted in Section 3.8.1 of the Draft LEIS, an ICRMP for the CMAGR was implemented in May 2011. The ICRMP is a 

Historic Preservation Management Plan and provides guidance and recommendations to all agencies that have management 

responsibilities within the CMAGR. [12-20] The LEIS does not propose new ground disturbing projects or activities and is not the appropriate planning document 

for the consideration of the use of cultural resource monitors as the alternatives for renewing the CMAGR land withdrawal do not 

propose new ground-disturbing actions at the range. The potential applicability of cultural resource monitors for managing 

proposed future ground-disturbing actions is a concept that must be considered through further consultations with the tribes and 

SHPO and, if warranted, addressed in the range ICRMP. [12-21] The need for the Draft LEIS to disclose the responsibilities and liabilities of the BLM and DoN for post

-range cleanup 

was raised in scoping by EPA Region 9. The responsibilities and liabilities of the BLM and DoN that would arise under 

Alternatives 1 through 4, which would renew the CMAGR land withdrawal, are addressed in Section 2.2.2 of the Draft LEIS. The 

responsibilities and liabilities of these agencies that would arise under Alternative 5, which would result in the closure of the 

CMAGR, are addressed in Section 2.6. [12-22] Renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal in accordance with Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4 or closure of the range as a result 

of Alternative 5 would have no effect on the potential future use of the Eagle Mountain Railroad. Also see the response to 

Comment 5-2 and the addition to page 2-23 of the Draft LEIS, which is provided in Chapter 3 of this Final LEIS.

[12-23] See the response to Comment 12-6.

[12-24] As indicated in the response to Comment 12-6, issues concerning the operation of the CMAGR and Coachella Valley 

Water District (CVWD) access to and maintenance of the canal dikes will be resolved administratively to meet the needs of the 

DoN and the CVWD. [12-25] Renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal is sought to preserve existing capabilities and capacities at the range. 

Alternatives 1 through 4 each provide terms for renewing the land withdrawal. Each alternative proposes terms to define a range 

land boundary and land withdrawal area, either a finite duration for the proposed land withdrawal with an option for requesting a 

subsequent renewal or a land withdrawal without a termination date, delineation of DoN and BLM management responsibilities, 

and provisions for the disposal and management of land released from the range. Alternatives 1 through 4 do not include 

proposals that would either introduce new training activities or terminate or alter existing activities at the CMAGR. The 

capabilities and capacities of the range, which are described in detail in the Draft LEIS in Sections 1.2.2 and 2.2.4, would all be 

continued as they currently exist under all of the renewal alternatives (Alternatives 1 through 4). The types of training operations 

that occur at the CMAGR and the tempos of those operations are described in Section 3.2.3 of the Draft LEIS. Training at the 

CMAGR would be expected to continue in a manner similar to that described for current operations regardless of which of the 

alternatives is selected as the basis for the renewing of the terms of the land withdrawal. [12-26] With one exception, no public access is currently permissible at the CMAGR because of the dual needs to prevent 

interference with ongoing training operations and protect public safety (see Section 1.2.2.1 of the Draft LEIS). The exception is 

that public travel on the Bradshaw Trail through certain parcels along the northern periphery of the range is permissible (see 

Section 1.3.2 of the Draft LEIS). The Bradshaw Trail is located outside of the areas of the CMAGR that are used to contain 

hazards associated with weapons or laser use and/or otherwise support training operations (see Section 3.2.4 of the Draft LEIS). 

Alternative 1 would continue public use of the Bradshaw Trail through the northern periphery of the range unchanged from the 

current condition. Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 would each realign the boundary of the CMAGR such that the Bradshaw Trail would be 

located outside of the range and remain open to public use (see Sections 2.3.1, 2.3, and 2.4 of the Draft LEIS). [12-27] According to the BLM Mining Claim Geographic Index Report dated 18 February 2011, the mining claim for the Mary 

Lode Mine was closed on 1 February 1985. Therefore, there is no access right to the abandoned mining claim. The Marine 

Corps‘ application to BLM to renew the withdrawal precludes establishing or relocating such mining claims because access to 

mining claims would be inconsistent with requirements for both protecting public safety and conducting military training without 

disruption or interference. [12-28] The DoN and Reclamation are cooperating to develop procedures to ensure that Reclamation has appropriate access 

to the CMAGR to conduct maintenance activities on the dikes. Also see the response to Comment 12-6.
Letter 12 Continued

12-28

12-29

12-30

12-33

12-34

12-35

12-37

12-36

12-31

12-32

2-38

Responses Continued

[12-29] Alternative 2 would include the realignment of the CMAGR boundary to conform with the east side of the UPRR right-

of-way, the north side of the MRL Rail Spur right-of-way, and, north of the spur, the west sides of designated BLM Routes 606 

and 607. Route 604 is located almost 10 miles to the east of the easternmost boundary of the CMAGR and is in no way related 

to or affected by the MRL Rail Spur or the CMAGR. The boundary realignment proposed by Alternative 2 would not affect any at-

grade crossings of the spur or the alignments or use of any designated BLM routes. Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would not include

this realignment of the range boundary and would also not affect any at-grade crossings of the spur or the alignments or use of 

any designated BLM routes. [12-30] Alternative 2, which would realign the CMAGR boundary as described in the response to Comment 12

-29, would not 

affect designated BLM Routes 606, 607, or 590 or public use of these routes. There are no designated BLM routes for motorized

travel within the BLM land that would be added to the range, but, as disclosed in Section 4.3.2.2 of the Draft LEIS, non-motorized 

public access would be precluded by the inclusion of this area in the CMAGR. Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would not include this 

realignment of the range boundary and would not affect any existing motorized or non-motorized public access to BLM land.

[12-31] As noted in Section 3.5.3 of the Draft LEIS, there are no active water supply wells in the CMAGR and water required 

for military activities at the range is carried in from external sources. MCAS Yuma conducted a REVA, in accordance with DoD 

Directive 4715.11 Environmental and Explosives Safety Management on Operational Ranges within the United States and DoD 

Instruction 4715.14 Operational Range Assessments, to gauge the potential that off-range impacts are occurring as a result of 

military munitions use at the CMAGR. The REVA identified potential chemical hazards associated with ordnance use on 

operational ranges. This baseline assessment indicated minimal environmental impacts occur off-range at the CMAGR from 

surface water runoff due to the lack of rainfall, evaporation rate, and distance to potential ecological receptors. The detected 

levels of contaminants are considered to have no or minimal effect on wildlife, groundwater, or surface waters. Because no 

ground or surface waters discharge from the range to any human receptors, there is no anticipated risk to human health (see 

Sections 3.11.4.2 and 3.12.3.2 of the Draft LEIS). There are no wells to monitor groundwater quality near the CMAGR. [12-32] The potential for groundwater contamination at the CMAGR is the same for each of the action alternatives, which 

would each renew the land withdrawal, because military use of the range would continue in essentially the same manner under 

each of these alternatives. Also see response to Comment 12-31.

[12-33] The watersheds in the CMAGR that are upstream of the MRL site encompass a relatively small portion of the range as 

shown in Figure 3-9 of the Draft LEIS. As shown in Figures 1 5 and 3-2, military land use that occurs within these watersheds is 

currently limited to occasional vehicle travel on a limited road network and operations at a forward arming and refueling point 

(FARP) site. As described in Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of the Draft LEIS, the alternatives that would renew the range land 

withdrawal each share these same land uses and no proposals have been identified either to change the existing land use or 

introduce new land uses to this area in the foreseeable future. Potential effects on downstream land uses would be considered in 

a future planning process should a proposal for modified or new land uses at the CMAGR be developed in the future. [12-34] As noted in Section 3.5.3 of the Draft LEIS, there are no active water supply wells in the CMAGR and all water required 

for on-range military activities is carried in from external sources. There are no existing cooperative groundwater management 

agreements between the Installation and participating water purveyors. [12-35] See responses to Comment 12-31. There are no active water supply wells in the CMAGR, and no proposals have 

been identified that would use groundwater resources. Water required for military activities at the range is carried in from external 

sources. [12-36] Storm

-water-related impacts, including post-construction hydrologic impacts, were not raised as an issue during 

scoping. No projects that involve or require construction are proposed in the Draft LEIS; hence, there is no need to discuss best 

management practices associated with construction in the LEIS. [12-37] Recycled water use and discharge at the CMAGR were not raised as issues during scoping. Recycled water is not 

used at the CMAGR and the water requirements of Navy SEAL personnel at Camp Billy Machen or SEALs, Marines, or other 

personnel deployed in the field at the range for training are met by water that they carry in from potable off-range sources. 

Management of hazardous substances is discussed in Section 4.12 of the Draft LEIS. The only mention of recycling in the Draft

LEIS is in reference to the Operational Range Clearance Program, which is designed to prevent an excess accumulation of 

ordnance scrap, unexploded ordnance (UXO), and target debris within active target complexes (see Section 2.2.4.2 of the Draft

LEIS). Non-hazardous ordnance scrap that has been rendered safe and demilitarized for removal and other range-related debris, 

such as target scrap, that is qualified for off-range recycling or sanitary disposal are the only materials removed from the range.
Letter 12 Continued

12-38

12-39

12-41

12-42

12-43

12-44

12-45

12-46

12-47

12-40

2-39

Responses Continued

[12-38] The BLM participated in the scoping and public meetings for the Draft LEIS. A Notice of Segregation was issued 

27 March 2013. A public meeting is scheduled for 25 April 2013. [12-39] Agencies such as theUSFWS typically do not participate as Cooperating Agencies because such a role could be 

perceived as being in conflict with their regulatory oversight role. Although the threatened Mojave desert tortoise occurs on the 

CMAGR and about 40 percent of the range is designated as critical habitat for this species, theUSFWS has no land management 

role at the range. Land management at the CMAGR is the responsibility of the DoN/Marine Corps and BLM. Each of the action 

alternatives for renewing the CMAGR land withdrawal would support the continuation of ongoing military operations and land use 

at the range without notable distinction from each other. Also, none of the renewal alternatives would alter the designated critical 

habitat from its current status or affect it in a way that would be different from the current condition. The Marine Corps is

consulting with the USFWS. Should Congress decide to renew the CMAGR land withdrawal, and based on the terms of the 

withdrawal, additional consultations would be conducted. Also see response to Comment 12-9.

[12-40] The commenter has misread the statement in Section 4.7.2.2 of the Draft LEIS. The full statement with supporting 

context reads: "It is anticipated that most of the acquired land areas would predominantly function only as buffer zones in which 

there would be little or no direct military surface use. The UPRR realignment may provide an exception to this prognosis as 

sufficient land space with overlying restricted airspace would be acquired to potentially support some military activities, but there 

are currently no proposals for surface use of that area." Properly interpreted, the statement indicates that the proposed UPRR 

realignment provides an opportunity to acquire some BLM land over which restricted airspace already exists. The restricted 

airspace in question is R-2507S and the BLM land over which it is located that is proposed for acquisition by Alternative 2 is 

depicted in Figure 2-2 of the Draft LEIS. No changes in airspace are proposed by Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.

[12-41] The methodology used for the cumulative effects analysis is described in Section 5.1 of the Draft LEIS. Each resource 

area also discusses the cumulative effects methodology for that resource. See also response to Comment 26-15.

[12-42] Range and Airspace Operations are discussed in Section 4.2 and Non-military land use is discussed in Section 4.3 of 

the Draft LEIS. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the Draft LEIS, there would be no change in training activities from any of the 

action alternatives, and therefore no impacts from military overflights. [12-43] See response to Comment 12-18. [12-44] No interruption of Native American access to sacred sites at the CMAGR would result from any of the renewal 

alternatives. Although the Draft LEIS does not explicitly describe access to Native American cultural sites, it does reference the 

federal laws and regulations that provide the legal authority and guidance on which the current access program is based (see 

Section 1.7). Among other laws that address Native American rights and cultural resources management at the CMAGR, the 

Draft LEIS references the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)(P.L. 95-341; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1996 and 1996a), which 

established a policy to protect and preserve for American Indians the inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise 

their traditional religions, including but not limited to access to religious sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and freedom 

to worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. Discussion of the potential effects of renewing the CMAGR land withdrawal 

on the continuing implementation of the AIRFA at the range is provided in the Draft LEIS in Section 4.8 at page 4-36. The Draft 

LEIS also incorporates the ICRMP for the CMAGR by reference (see Section 3.8.1 at page 3-80). The purpose of the ICRMP is 

to inform the Commanding Officer of the CMAGR of the necessary procedures to manage cultural resources (archaeological and 

historical sites and sites of cultural or religious concern to Native Americans) while meeting the military mission of CMAGR and 

taking into account the kinds of military activities that are carried out at the range. The ICRMP describes the regulatory 

environment that is applicable to the management of cultural resources at the range and, in particular, references Executive 

Order (EO)13007 and MCO 5090.2A, Chapter 8 as important sources of guidance that protect Native American access to sacred 

sites on military ranges. EO13007 requires federal agencies to provide Native Americans with access to and ceremonial use of 

sacred sites and MCO 5090.2A, Chapter 8 requires DoN offices to protect and accommodate access to Native American sacred 

sites located on property owned or controlled by the agency. One of the defined objectives of the ICRMP is to support tribal 

requests for access to places of traditional cultural and religious significance. Responsibility for implementing the ICRMP is 

assigned to the MCAS Yuma Range Management Office and the MCAS Yuma Cultural Resources Manager. [12-45] The Native American tribes are listed as concurring parties to the Programmatic Agreement (PA). The signatory parties 

to the agreement include the Marine Corps, the Arizona and California SHPOs, and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. Concurring parties are not required to sign the PA in order to implement it. The tribes listed in the PA are, however, 

welcome to sign the PA at any time. [12-46] The PA provided in Appendix F, which was incorporated in the ICRMP for the CMAGR, is for the West Coast basing 

and operation of the MV-22 Osprey aircraft and demonstrates the Marine Corps‘ continued commitment to consult with SHPOs, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and tribes regarding operational changes. The tribes listed in Appendix H were
Responses Continued

those that were consulted in regard to the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal. Consultations with two additional 

tribes were warranted for the MV-22 project because of the widely dispersed basing and far reaching flight activities that were 

proposed.

[12-47] The occurrence of petroglyphs at recorded cultural sites in the CMAGR is disclosed in the Draft LEIS in Section 3.8.1.3 

at page 3-84 and in Section 3.8.3 at page 3-86. Native American access to these sites may be provided in accordance with 

established procedures referenced in the ICRMP. Also see the response to Comment 12-44.

2-40
Letter 12 Continued

12-48

12-51

12-52

12-53

12-54

12-55

12-56

12-49

12-50

2-41

Responses Continued

[12-48] The scope of the Draft LEIS is limited to the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal, which would be a 

Congressional decision as described in Section 1.1 and in Section 1.1.1 at page 1-2 and in Section1.1.2 at page 1-6. No 

projects, including construction of new facilities that would require administrative decision making by the DoN/Marine Corps are 

proposed in the Draft LEIS. [12-49] See response to Comment 12

-18.

[12-50] The Draft LEIS adequately addresses the potential for munitions constituents to contaminate air, water, and land. See 

Sections 3.6.4, 3.11.4.2, 3.12.3.2, 4.5.1, 4.7.1.1, and 5.3.5. [12-51] Spill prevention and response were not raised as issues during scoping, are not anticipated to be significant issues 

related to the proposed action and, therefore, are not analyzed in depth (40 CFR 1501.7). The regulatory frame work that the 

Marine Corps operates under for hazardous materials and waste management is provided in the Draft LEIS in Sections 3.12.1 

and 3.12.2. As described in Section 3.2.3 at page 3-14, the standard operating procedures for ground-based training operations 

at the CMAGR, such as bivouac sites or forward arming and refueling points, require preemptive measures to prevent and, if 

necessary, contain spills of materials such as fuels or lubricants. The fact that MCAS Yuma maintains an up-to-date hazardous 

materials response plan and team to respond immediately to any spills is also disclosed in Section 3.2.3 of the Draft LEIS. The 

proposed action does not require any change to the existing spill prevention and response action plan; thus, no additional 

mitigation is needed or proposed. [12-52] For all the action alternatives, the renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal would allow for the continued use of ordnance, continuation of the current use of hazardous materials, and management of waste conditions as described in 

Section 3.12.3 of the Draft LEIS due to the continuation of existing military operations in the CMAGR. Additionally, as described 

in Sections 4.12.1 through 4.12.4 of the Draft LEIS, there would be no distinguishable differences in environmental effects 

between action alternatives. However, these effects could be distinguished from those resulting from the no-action alternative, 

which would terminate military use and create the potential for civilian use. Selection of the no-action alternative would likely 

trigger extensive cleanup procedures and would require separate planning efforts to determine the extent and significance of 

risk. Section 4.12.5 of the Draft LEIS indicates that such an undertaking would result in significant environmental effects. The 

DoN/Marine Corps have no RCRA Corrective Action obligations at the CMAGR. [12-53] Section 2.6 of the Draft LEIS discusses the framework for how range closure and a determination of remediation would 

occur should Congress decide not to renew the range. As indicated in Section 4.12.5 of the Draft LEIS, a separate environmental 

analysis and other Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)-related studies would 

be required to determine the extent of environmental hazards and appropriate remedial actions if Congress decides to close the 

CMAGR. Until Congress makes such a decision, and likely provides additional guidance about how the range would be reused 

and decontaminated, the CERCLA-related analyses could not be scoped, funded, or performed. Consequently, it would be 

unreliably speculative at this point to attempt to define specific closure and remediation costs. It is anticipated, however, estimate 

that clean up procedures could exceed $1 billion, and would be subject to Congressional authorization and project prioritization. 

Any cleanup efforts would include DoN-owned land, as well as Reclamation and BLM-withdrawn land.

[12-54] The socioeconomic region of influence (ROI) and conditions associated with the CMAGR are detailed in Section 3.13 

of the Draft LEIS. This description includes the socioeconomic conditions at both the range and its vicinity as well as at the 

military bases within the CMAGR operating area from which training missions at the range are generated. Although an 

assessment of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives is provided in Section 4.13 of the Draft LEIS, its principal 

findings are summarized here. The assessment found that renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal in accordance with 

Alternatives 1 through 4 would each continue the range in a manner so similar to the current conditions that there would be no 

direct or indirect impacts to existing communities, employment, housing, fiscal resources, populations, schools, police, fire, 

utilities, or public services. There would be no indirect effects to communities within the ROI that would induce growth, change 

land use patterns, adversely affect quality of life, or increase population and growth rates. Renewal of the range under 

Alternatives 1 through 4 also would continue the direct, indirect, and induced beneficial economic effects that occur under the 

current conditions. As explained in Section 2.6 of the Draft LEIS, the conditions that would emerge if Congress decides to close 

the CMAGR (Alternative 5) including the extent to which the range would need to be decontaminated, how the range may be 

reused, and the effects of range closure on existing training missions and military bases in the CMAGR operating area cannot be 

forecasted with any reasonable specificity before Congress issues such a decision. Thus and although closure of the CMAGR 

would likely trigger measurable socioeconomic effects within the current ROI of the range and possibly at ranges and military 

bases outside of the ROI, it was not possible to generate an analysis of these effects for inclusion in the Draft LEIS. [12-55] The cost of continuing the proposed CMAGR land withdrawal was not raised as a scoping issue. The Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA provide that a cost-benefit analysis be incorporated, by reference, in 
Responses Continued

or appended to an EIS only if the analysis is relevant for making a choice from among environmentally different alternatives 

(40 CFR § 1502.23). In accordance with the CMLWOA, Congress clearly set the degree to which there is a continuing military 

need for the CMAGR as the primary benchmark for reviewing proposals to renew the land withdrawal for the range (see 

Section 1.1, Page 1-2 of the Draft LEIS). Nevertheless, the Draft LEIS does provide quantitative considerations of costs among 

the action alternatives for land and resource management and the different outcomes that would occur as a result of closing the 

CMAGR under Alternative 5. In general, there would be only minor cost differences among Alternatives 1 through 4 as each of 

these alternatives would allow for essentially the same continued military operation of the CMAGR. Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 would 

offer improvements in management efficiencies by vesting all management responsibility with one agency, DoN/Marine Corps, 

rather than splitting it between two, DoN/Marine Corps and BLM, as per Alternative 1. The cost benefits of the projected increase 

in efficiency could not be quantified in advance of the management planning that would follow renewal of the land withdrawal.

Post-renewal planning would define the scope and intensity of the follow-on management programs upon which range 

management costs would be based. The qualitative differences in management efficiencies offered by Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4 

are addressed in the Draft LEIS in Table ES-2 and in Sections 1.4, 1.5, 4.2.1, and 4.2.2. As described in Table ES-2 and in 

Sections 2.6, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, 4.12.5, 4.13.5, and 5.3.12 of the Draft LEIS. The closure of the CMAGR under Alternative 5 would 

trigger needs to relocate the air- and ground-based training displaced from the range, initiate range decommissioning and 

cleanup programs, plan for land and possibly airspace reuse, and, possibly, realign or close air stations or other bases as a

result of displaced training. These actions would generate large, but unquantifiable, costs, adverse impacts, and some 

nonmilitary use benefits that would not occur under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4. At this point in time, planning and analyses to 

quantify the scope and details of changes that would be wrought by Alternative 5 cannot be conducted and it is too speculative to 

estimate the relative costs or benefits that would be associated with these potential outcomes other than to note that they would 

be dramatically different from those that would occur if the CMAGR land withdrawal is renewed and the range continues in 

operation.

[12-56] The effects of military activities at the CMAGR on local and regional traffic and circulation are negligible, were not 

issues raised during scoping and, therefore, are not analyzed in depth (40 CFR 1501.7). With few exceptions, the railroads, 

federal and state highway systems, and local road networks in the CMAGR area, which were all in place before the range was 

established, have not been impeded or disrupted by the range or range operations (see Sections 3.3.4 and 5.2.1.1, and 

Table 5-1 of the Draft LEIS). The Niland-Blythe Road, which crosses the CMAGR, was in service before the range was 

established, but this unpaved road has since been supplanted by State Route 78 as a connector between the Blythe-GlamisImperial Valley areas. Although the Niland-Blythe Road has been closed to general public travel for decades, it continues to 

serve as access for maintaining an Imperial Irrigation District transmission line. Another non-public use road that traverses the 

range, the Gasline Road, supports utility company access for serving a buried natural gas pipeline and another transmission line. 

The Bradshaw Trail, which is an historic public use road, traverses portions of the northern periphery of the CMAGR, but remains 

open to public use. The CMAGR is principally an aviation training range and the off-range traffic loads generated in support of 

infrequent and limited ground-based operations at the range have almost no effect on the traffic conditions on federal and state 

highways or local roads.

2-42
Letter 12 Continued

12-57

12-58

12-61

12-63

12-62

12-60

12-59

2-43

Responses Continued

[12-57] The rationale for prohibiting public access to the CMAGR is provided by Section 1.2.2.1 of the Draft LEIS. As described 

in detail in Section 3.2.4, range safety buffers, or containment areas, are required so that malfunctioning, misdirected, or 

unintentionally released aircraft ordnance may impact without harm to persons or property. [12-58] The Community Planning and Liaison Office at MCAS Yuma reports that two noise complaints related to CMAGR 

military operations have been received since 1995, which indicates that noise has not been an issue for communities in the 

vicinity of the range. [12-59] An Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) study is an information document intended to achieve compatibility 

between military air installations and neighboring communities. Since the CMAGR is not an air installation, an AICUZ is not 

appropriate. A Range Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (RAICUZ) is prepared for military ranges. A RAICUZ has not been 

completed for the CMAGR. The DoN RAICUZ program is designed to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to prevent 

encroachment from degrading the operational capabilities of air-to-ground ranges. The RAICUZ program includes range safety 

and noise analyses, and provides land use recommendations that will be compatible with range compatibility zones and noise. In 

the absence of an available RAICUZ study, the land use, noise, and safety impact assessments provided by the Draft LEIS were 

developed by using the existing and up-to-date noise analysis for the CMAGR that was prepared for the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the West Coast Basing of the F-35B (DoN 2010b) (see Section 3.9.4), an inventory of military surface use 

at the range (see Section 3.2.4), a review of weapons and surface danger zones at the range (see Section 3.2.4.2), and a survey 

of non-military land use adjacent to the perimeter of the range (see Section 3.3). The findings from these assessments show that 

aircraft and ordnance delivery operations at the CMAGR do not generate off-range noise that would be considered to be 

incompatible with potentially noise sensitive receivers or land uses such as residences, transient lodging, classrooms, or medical 

facilities. Similarly, the inventory of military surface use and review of weapons and surface danger zones at the range showed 

that the range land area adequately separates on-range military activities from off-range land use and there are no off-range land 

or airspace safety effects resulting from ordnance or laser use. These favorable noise, safety, and land use compatibility findings 

would not be affected by any of the alternatives that would renew the CMAGR land withdrawal. [12-60] The BLM prepared the NECO Plan in 2002 for the CMAGR, as reported in Section 1.5 of the Draft LEIS. The NECO 

Plan is a resource management plan available from the BLM at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd/neco.html. [12-61] The conclusion is that the alternatives that would renew the CMAGR land withdrawal would not increase emissions 

from military activities at the range over the current baseline because the range renewal alternatives do not include any proposed 

increases in air or ground training tempos. Although air training tempos have been relatively stable over the last six years and 

are reduced from those of a decade earlier, new training requirements could emerge in the future that would once again increase 

the volume of training at the range. At this time, a change in training tempo is not foreseeable. [12-62] The conclusion reached in the Draft LEIS for each of the Alternatives 1 through 4, which would renew the CMAGR land 

withdrawal, is that civil aviation access to airspace in the CMAGR region and civil flight operations would be unchanged from

current conditions by the renewal. As described in Section 3.2.1 of the Draft LEIS, the National Airspace System in the CMAGR 

region has evolved since the World War II era in consideration of the requirements of the three major airspace user groups—

general aviation, commercial air carriers, and DoD. The development of the civil airway system in the region preceded the advent 

of military flight training in the area and the special use airspace eventually allocated in support of DoD requirements generally 

has not curtailed or limited the further development of an effective civil airway system. The current geographical and temporal 

patterns of airspace to civil and military uses in the region are long-standing and would not be altered from current conditions by 

renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal. This conclusion from the Draft LEIS is substantiated and valid. [12-63] No issues pertaining to general aviation air traffic were raised during scoping. As indicated in the response to 

Comment 12-62 and explained in Section 3.2.1 of the Draft LEIS, the renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal in accordance with 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4 would not change airspace use, or affect the existing access of general aviation or commercial air

carriers to airspace in the CMAGR region. Renewal of the range land withdrawal would not cause any rerouting of general 

aviation air traffic.
Letter 12 Continued

12-65

12-66

12-67

12-68

12-70

12-71

12-72

12-73

12-69

12-64

2-44

Responses Continued

[12-64] Draft LEIS Section 1.2.2 describes the role of the CMAGR in training air and ground forces of the Marine Corps, Navy, 

and other armed services. Section 1.2.2 details how the CMAGR is used as an individual range as well as how the CMAGR is 

related to and integrated with other ranges within both the Bob Stump Training Range Complex and the greater regional complex

of ranges (see Figure 1-4). China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station generally lies outside of the training and support arc of the 

CMAGR and most of the other ranges within its sphere of activity. In all, the Draft LEIS explains how seven ranges and range 

complexes, including the CMAGR, in southern California and southwest Arizona are used individually and together to train both 

individual aviators and ground troops and integrated units of up to the size of a Marine Air Ground Task Force. The cumulative 

effects analysis provided in Chapter 5 of the Draft LEIS examines past, present, and reasonably foreseeable land use, including 

military land use, across a substantial area of southeastern California, which can be defined as a landscape ecologically linked or 

otherwise associated with the commitment of the CMAGR to national defense purposes and activities. The size of the landscape 

considered varied in accordance to the spatial relationships of the resource examined. With the exceptions of airspace, air 

quality, and socioeconomics, the assessments did not consider locations as far away as the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat 

Center at Twentynine Palms because it was unlikely that there would be additive or interactive effects between the impacts that 

would likely occur as a result of the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal. It is important to note that renewal of the 

CMAGR land withdrawal would result in very few environmental effects that could be differentiated from the existing background 

conditions. [12-65] As indicated in the response to Comment 12

-65, the Draft LEIS adequately addresses indirect impacts. Presenting the 

cumulative effects analysis in Chapter 5 rather than dispersing it throughout the individual resource impact analyses provided in 

Chapter 4 was the best approach for developing a comprehensive and integrated impact assessment at both the individual 

resource and aggregate landscape levels. The Draft LEIS adequately addresses indirect and cumulative impacts as indicated in 

Chapters 4 and 5, respectively.

[12-66] See the response to Comment 12-12.

[12-67] No issues pertaining to consideration of a joint NEPA/California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document were 

raised during scoping. The analysis is an LEIS because renewal of the range is a decision to be made by the U.S. Congress. 

CEQA is not applicable to the preparation of the Draft LEIS for the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal. [12-68] See the response to Comment 12-59. [12-69] See the response to Comment 12-59. The NECO Plan is available from the BLM at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd/neco.html. [12-70] No comments were received during scoping requesting that a rationale be provided for the BLM not assuming the lead 

role in the preparation of the Draft LEIS. As described in Section 1.1 of the Draft LEIS and as provided by the CMLWOA, the 

Secretary of the Navy (not BLM) was directed to prepare a Draft LEIS concerning the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land 

withdrawal if the Secretary determined that there is a continuing military need for the range. [12-71] The alternatives for assigning administrative and management responsibilities to the DoN and the BLM are described 

in Sections 2.2.3, 2.3.2, 2.4, and 2.5 of the Draft LEIS. No additional BLM management responsibilities beyond those described 

in the alternatives are anticipated. As described in Sections 1.1.3 and 1.5 of the Draft LEIS, the assignment of federal 

administrative and management responsibilities for more than 5,000 acres of BLM land in aggregate withdrawn for national 

defense purposes is a matter that Congress has reserved in law for itself. The necessity of promulgating or updating agreements 

between DoN and BLM, specific requirements for amending or otherwise preparing resource management plans, and the ability 

to estimate the cost of management cannot be resolved until Congress assigns administrative and management responsibilities 

for a renewed CMAGR (if any). At this time, the BLM does not foresee a need to revise or amend the NECO Plan as a result of 

renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal. [12-72] In accordance with the FLPMA (43 CFR 2310.3

-2(b)(3)(iii)), the DoN has prepared a mineral resource analysis for the 

CMAGR that includes information on general geology, known mineral deposits, past and present mineral production, mining 

claims, mineral leases, evaluation of future mineral potential, and present and potential market demands. The report containing 

this analysis has been submitted to the BLM as part of the application package for the proposed renewal for the CMAGR land 

withdrawal. Section 3.4 of the Draft LEIS includes much of the same information as the report. The DoN has determined that 

opening the CMAGR to entry under the mining laws and the mineral and the geothermal leasing laws would be inconsistent with 

safety hazards that occur at the range as a result of ordnance delivery training, expended but unexploded ordnance, and laser 

use and the need to prevent interference or disruption of training activities (see Draft LEIS Sections 1.2.2.1 and 3.2.4).

[12-73] Electronic copies of the Final LEIS were distributed to all persons that requested it or commented on the Draft LEIS. 

Hard copies are available on request.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 85 

Names

First Name: Theron Last Name: Dunaway 

Title: Organization: 

Address: 11366 S. Cassidy Dr. 

City: Yuma State: AZ 

Zip: 85367 Country: 

Email: Mailing List: False 

Entity Type: 

Other 

Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/23/2012 Date Received: 10/23/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

Renew the CMAGR land withdrawal for 20 years (without boundary 

realignments). Management would remain unchanged from current conditions; 

Department of Navy would manage DoN land per Sikes Act and Bureau of Land 

Management would manage withdrawn land. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #25-- ALT-1 Support Land Withdrawal

115-- Renew the CMAGR 

land withdrawal for 20 

years (without boundary 

realignments). ' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 13

13-1

2-45

RESPONSES

[13-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 69 

Names

First Name: Walter Last Name: Eason 

Title: Organization: 

Address: 39565 Terwilliger Road 

City: Anza State: CA 

Zip: 92539 Country: 

Email: wheasonjr@hotmail.com Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: Other Interested Parties 

& Commentors Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 9/18/2012 Date Received: 9/18/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

Have spent a lot of time around the area starting in 1969 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #2-- Comment Acknowledged

98-- Have spent a lot of 

time around the area 

starting in 1969' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 14

14-1

2-46

RESPONSES

[14-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 15

15-1

2-47

RESPONSES

[15-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 16

16-1

16-2

16-3

16-4

16-5

16-6

2-48

RESPONSES

[16-1] There will be no extension to the comment period on the Draft LEIS. In accordance with the Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations for implementing the NEPA at 40 CFR § 1506.10(c), federal agencies must not allow less than 45 days for 

comments on draft EISs, but may allow for longer review and comment periods. The DoN/Marine Corps exceeded this minimum 

requirement by providing a 90-day comment period, which is the same period that the BLM allows for public comment on draft 

EIS for proposed land use plans or land use plan amendments (see BLM H-1601-1 – Land Use Planning Handbook – (Public) at 

page 17—available at: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/aktest/planning/

planning_general.Par.65225.File.dat/blm_lup_handbook.pdf. 

[16-2] Public meetings were held October 22, 2012, at the Yuma County Library, October 23 at the Southwest High School in 

El Centro, October 24 at the Mizell Senior Center in Palm Springs, and October 25 at the City Council Chambers and Lobby in 

Oceanside.

[16-3] In accordance with 40 CFR § 1506.6(c), lead federal agencies are to hold public hearings or meetings on draft EISs 

whenever appropriate. The DoN/Marine Corps determined that adequate public opportunities to review and comment on the 

Dralft LEIS would be provided by the four public meetings, notices, and other public involvement procedures described in 

Chapter 1 of the Final LEIS.

[16-4] We did not receive a scoping letter from you nor did you register your attendance at a scoping meeting. We do not 

have a record that you requested a printed copy of the Draft LEIS. Printed copies were sent to the persons for whom we have a

record that a request for a copy was made.

[16-5] See the response to Comment 16-1.

[16-6] In accordance with 40 CFR § 1502.9(c), preparation and circulation of second, or supplemental, Draft LEIS is not 

necessary and will not be issued. Also see response to Comment 16-1. 
LETTER 17

17-1

2-49

RESPONSES

[17-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 18

18-1

18-2

2-50

RESPONSES

[18-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.

[18-2] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 92 

Names

First 

Name: Sharon Last Name: Gardner 

Title: Organization: Rancho 

Serena 

Address: 3366 W 12th Lane 

City: Yuma State: AZ 

Zip: 85364 Country: 

Email: sgardner@yumaregional.org Mailing List: True 

Entity

Type: 

Other Interested Parties & 

Commentors Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/25/2012 Date Received: 10/25/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

I support Alternate 3 and to keep Chocolate Mountain range open for military 

use. This is vital to our community. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #27-- ALT-3 Transfer Title to DoD

121-- I support Alternate 

3 and to keep Chocolate 

Mountain range open for 

military use.' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 19

19-1

2-51

RESPONSES

[19-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 20

20-1

2-52

RESPONSES

[20-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 21

21-1

2-53

RESPONSES

[21-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 78 

Names

First Name: Stanley Last Name: gourley 

Title: Organization: 

Address: 8291 E Topeka Pl 

City: Yuma State: AZ 

Zip: 85365 Country: 

Email: stan_marsha@q.com Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: 

Other Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/21/2012 Date Received: 10/21/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

I support the request and option #3 is the best in the long term. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #27-- ALT-3 Transfer Title to DoD

107-- I support the 

request and option #3 is 

the best in the long term.' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 22

22-1

2-54

RESPONSES

[22-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 23

23-1

2-55

RESPONSES

[23-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.

[23-2] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.

[23-3] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
Letter 23 Continued

23-2

23-3

2-56

RESPONSES

[23-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.

[23-2] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.

[23-3] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.

RESPONSES

[23-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.

[23-2] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.

[23-3] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 88 

Names

First Name: Peter Last Name: Hekman 

Title: Organization: 

Address: 5021 Via Papel 

City: San Diego State: CA 

Zip: 92122 Country: 

Email: phekman1@san.rr.com Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: Other Interested 

Parties & Commentors Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/23/2012 Date Received: 10/23/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

As a retired Vice Admiral and member of the Board of the Southwest Defense 

Alliance, I strongly recommend Alternative 3 - renew for an indefinite period of 

time, with realignments, and transfer all to DON management. This eliminates 

gaps and redundancies and a possible need to revisit this issue in a short period 

of time. Area is absolutely vital to Defense training, readiness, and testing. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #27-- ALT-3 Transfer Title to DoD

118-- I strongly 

recommend Alternative 3 

- renew for an indefinite 

period of time, with 

realignments, and 

transfer all to DON 

management.' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 24

24-1

2-57

RESPONSES

[24-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 90 

Names

First Name: Douglas Last Name: Holbert 

Title: Organization: 

Address: 2828 West Cindy Lou Lane 

City: Yuma State: AZ 

Zip: 85365-8040 Country: 

Email: yumadlh@gmail.com Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: 

Other Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/24/2012 Date Received: 10/24/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

Alternative 3 appears to be the best option. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #27-- ALT-3 Transfer Title to DoD

120-- Alternative 3 

appears to be the best 

option.' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 25

25-1

2-58

RESPONSES

[25-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 26

26-1

26-2

26-5

26-6

26-3

26-7

26-8

26-4

2-59

RESPONSES

[26-1] MCO P5090.2A, change 2, dated 21 May 2009, Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, Chapter 12, is the 

agency‘s applicable NEPA procedures (see Draft LEIS Section 1.6.1). Standard Operating Procedures for MCAS Yuma Range 

and Training Areas, Station Order 3710.6I, is referenced on page 1-36, 2-9, 3-101, C-1, C-3, and C-4 of the Draft LEIS.

[26-2] 40 CFR 1502.12 indicates that the summary will normally not exceed 15 pages, but also states the summary shall 

adequately summarize the statement.

[26-3] The major conclusions are presented in Table ES-2, Comparison of Environmental Effects by Alternative.

[26-4] Public issues identified in scoping are listed in Section 1.6.3 of the Draft LEIS. 

[26-5] No areas of public controversy were identified.

[26-6] Section 1.2 of the Draft LEIS states that the purpose for renewing the CMAGR land withdrawal is to retain the training 

range. In the introduction to the description of the alternatives (Section 2.1), the Draft LEIS states that the action and no-action 

alternatives combined represent the reasonable range of alternatives as indicated by the continuing military need for the range, 

government and public input received during scoping, and guidance provided by the CMLWOA. Each of the action alternatives 

supports the need to retain the training range.

[26-7] The CEQ‘s ―Forty Frequently Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations,‖ Question #7, provides further 

clarification on the difference between the EIS sections on alternatives, affected environment, and environmental consequences 

(http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/1-10.HTM#7): ―The  ̳alternatives‘ section is the heart of the EIS. This section rigorously 

explores and objectively evaluates all reasonable alternatives including the proposed action [Section 1502.14]. It should include 

relevant comparisons on environmental and other grounds. The  ̳environmental consequences‘ section of the EIS discusses the 

specific environmental impacts or effects of each of the alternatives including the proposed action [Section 1502.16]. In order to 

avoid duplication between these two sections, most of the  ̳alternatives‘ section should be devoted to describing and comparing 

the alternatives. Discussion of the environmental impacts of these alternatives should be limited to a concise descriptive 

summary of such impacts in a comparative form, including charts or tables, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear 

basis for choice among options [Section 1502.14]. The  ̳environmental consequences‘ section should be devoted largely to a 

scientific analysis of the direct and indirect environmental effects of the proposed action and of each of the alternatives. It forms 

the analytic basis for the concise comparison in the  ̳alternatives‘ section.‖

[26-8] The Draft LEIS addresses the full range of alternatives that address the guidance of the CMLWOA and that were 

identified through the scoping process (see Section 1.6.3 and Chapter 2 of the Draft LEIS).
Letter 26 Continued

26-9

26-12

26-13

26-14

26-15

26-16

26-17

26-18

26-10

26-11

2-60

Responses Continued

[26-9] No comments were received from the public, tribes, or government agencies during scoping or any other time before 

publication of the Draft LEIS that suggested that an integrated training area with the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps should 

be studied as an alternative. Nevertheless, Sections 1.2.2.2 and 1.2.2.3 of the Draft LEIS provide substantial detail about the 

unique and essential training capabilities and capacities of the CMAGR and how the CMAGR is related to and integrated with 

other ranges within both the Bob Stump Training Range Complex and the greater regional complex of ranges (see Figure 1-4). In 

all, the Draft LEIS explains how seven ranges and range complexes, including the CMAGR, in southern California and southwest 

Arizona are needed individually and together to train both individual aviators and ground troops and integrated units of up to the 

size of a Marine Air Ground Task Force. [26-10] See response to Comment 26

-8.

[26-11] Renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal would not result in adverse impacts compared to the existing environmental 

baseline. Consequently, there are no impacts to mitigate. [26-12] The Draft LEIS contains the level of information needed to decide whether or not to renew the CMAGR land 

withdrawal. [26-13] The Draft LEIS addresses all relevant issues raised during public scoping, deemphasizes insignificant issues, and 

provides the appropriate effort and attention to each issue. [26-14] Renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal would not result in adverse impacts that are substantially different from the 

existing environmental baseline. Although the no-action alternative, which would result in the closure of the CMAGR, would likely 

result in both direct and indirect environmental effects that, in some cases, would differ widely from the current baseline, the 

ability to reliably foresee the specific character and magnitude of those effects is beyond the analytical reach of the LEIS. Table 

ES-2 and Chapters 4 and 5 of the Draft LEIS adequately report the effects of the alternatives.

[26-15] Significance thresholds are not a requirement of NEPA. Direct and indirect effects and their significance are factually 

presented and quantified in the Draft LEIS Chapter 4 and 5. [26-16] Renewal of the long-established CMAGR would not conflict with BLM or county plans, as noted in Section 4.3 of the 

Draft LEIS. Renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal would be consistent with applicable law including, but not limited to, the 

Defense Withdrawal Act of 1958, FLPMA, and CMLWOA, which provide the authority and procedures for requesting the renewal 

from Congress. Renewal of the land withdrawal would be a legislative action by Congress that principally would have 

administrative rather than environmental effects as compared to the existing environmental baseline. 

Congressional action on the proposed renewal would impose no new requirements for energy expenditures at the CMAGR. 

Renewal of the land withdrawal would allow ongoing military operations at the range to continue, but the energy requirements of 

the continuing operations would not be distinguishable from those of the existing baseline. Realignment of the CMAGR boundary

would lead to a reposting of the range boundary warning and prohibited entry signs, but the energy requirements for this activity 

would basically be equivalent to a one-time inspection and maintenance of the existing perimeter signs, which already occurs on 

a periodic basis. 

Ongoing use of the airspace and land surface of the CMAGR, which would be continued if the land withdrawal is renewed, is 

described in in Sections 2.2.4 and 3.2 of the Draft LEIS. Section 3.2.4 in particular, details the spatial commitments of land 

resources to support ongoing military operations and provides a comprehensive inventory of the extent to which the range 

surface has been depleted or conserved in support of those operations. Renewal of the land withdrawal would not affect the 

commitments of land resources within the range or alter the extent to which these resources may be depleted as compared to 

the existing environmental baseline. 

As described in Section 3.2.4.6 of the Draft LEIS, about 95 percent of the range surface has experienced a substantial, long-

standing, and beneficial conservation effect as a result of both historic and ongoing military use. The proposed action is not 

within an urban or built environment. Historical and cultural resources are addressed in Sections 3.8 and 4.8. 

Renewal of the land withdrawal is a legislative action that would not result in new physical impacts to resources. Consequently, 

there are no impacts to mitigate. 

Section 2.3.1 of the Draft LEIS indicates that inclusion of private or state land within the external boundary of the CMAGR would

authorize the DoN and Marine Corps to potentially acquire the included private and state property through existing real estate 

acquisition authorities. No military use of the affected private or state land could occur without prior permission from the owner(s) 

or state or until such time that the property is acquired. 
Responses Continued

Section 3.11.3.1 of the Draft LEIS describes the ongoing signing and law enforcement programs at the CMAGR that protect 

public safety. These programs would be continued if Congress renews the range land withdrawal. The purpose of and need for 

realigning certain segments of the range boundary to facilitate the efficiency and effectiveness of the perimeter signing program 

and enhance public safety are described in Section 1.3. See also response to Comment 26-15.

[26-17] Lines 34-36 of Table 5-1 in the Draft LEIS list the reasonably foreseeable renewable energy projects. The cumulative 

effects analysis is based on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable effects and is not required to address foregone 

opportunities (see the January 1997 CEQ publication Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy 

Act).

[26-18] There are eight uses of the word "will" within Chapter 4 of the Draft LEIS and none of those instances are referring to 

potential impacts.

2-61
Letter 26 Continued

26-19

26-20

26-21

26-22

26-23

26-24

26-25

26-26

26-27

26-28

2-62

Responses Continued

[26-19] The appendices in the Draft LEIS are specific to supporting the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal.

[26-20] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.

[26-21] The Notice of Availability of the Draft LEIS and the Notice of Public Meetings has been added as Appendix I.

[26-22] The target complex polygons, which tend to be rectangular in shape and are shown in Draft LEIS Figure 1-5, include 

those CMAGR locations in which the placement and construction of targets is currently approved in accordance with current 

approved range operating procedures and safety and environmental clearances. The weapons impact areas depicted in 

Figure3-2 represent the cumulative effects of ordnance deliveries over the many years of use at the targets within the target 

complex polygons. The shapes of the impact areas result from the diverse types of ordnance delivered and the wide variety of 

aircraft, delivery tactics, and directions of delivery employed against each target. The weapons impact areas shown in Figure3-2 

were never expected to conform to the target complex polygons. As indicated in Figure 3-2, the entire combined interior of the 

CMAGR restricted land and airspace area is a designated weapons containment area, which means that this entire area is 

approved for weapons impacts. The purpose of training is to teach aircrews how to attack and hit targets so weapons deliveries 

will always be directed at designated targets, but the rest of the weapons containment area serves to protect the safety of the 

public and military personnel by providing an area in which errant rounds and fragments of rounds are contained. Targets could 

be placed and constructed in locations outside of the existing target complex polygons, but not without prior safety and 

environmental compliance review in accordance with applicable law and regulations. [26-23] The aircraft that deliver ordnance at the CMAGR are regularly armed at and launched from several Marine and Naval 

air stations, Air Force bases, and aircraft carriers for a wide diversity of training purposes (see Figure 1-4 in the Draft LEIS). All 

ordnance must be delivered at the CMAGR in accordance with established range safety procedures and at designated targets in 

accordance with Station Order 3710.6I, but expenditures at the range coming from these dispersed points of origin are not 

routinely tracked. As indicated in Section 3.2.6 of the Draft LEIS, an estimate of ordnance expenditures at the CMAGR in Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2004 was developed for the preparation of the EIS for the West Coast Basing of the F-35 aircraft. Section 3.2.6 also 

explains that ordnance expenditures at the range vary widely in type and quantity depending on the types of training missions

performed, the availability of ordnance for training, and training tempos. The FY 2004 data, with some indicated updates, was 

found to still be representative of the expenditures that currently occur at the CMAGR and that would generally occur in the 

foreseeable future. Both live and training practice ordnance is delivered at the CMAGR. Ordnance types, such as the GBU-39, 

that are not listed in Table 3-8 may be delivered in accordance with the standard operating procedures provided in Station Order 

3710.6I, but all munitions are limited to conventional explosives and projectiles. For the purposes of decision-making about the 

proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal, the updated FY 2004 data provide an appropriate and adequate 

representation of current and projected ordnance delivery activity at the range. [26-24] The Clean Air Act Title 40, CFR, Part 93.153(c)(2) does not require a Record of Non

-Applicability (RONA). 

§ 93.153 Applicability.

(c) The requirements of this subpart shall not apply to the following Federal actions:

(2) Actions which would result in no emissions increase or an increase in emissions that is clearly de minimis:

(i) Judicial and legislative proceedings.

(ii) Continuing and recurring activities such as permit renewals where activities conducted will be similar in 

scope and operation to activities currently being conducted. 

Typically, a Record of Decision would adopt the RONA as part of the decision; however, Congress, not the DoN is the decision 

maker for the renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal. Therefore, the RONA would not be signed. An updated Appendix E is 

included in Chapter 3 of the Final LEIS. [26-25] The Programmatic Agreement provided in Appendix F is for the W Coast basing and operation of the MV

-22 Osprey 

aircraft. The tribes listed in Appendix H were those that were consulted in regards to the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land 

withdrawal. The Native American tribes are listed as concurring parties to the PA. The signatory parties to the agreement include 

the Marine Corps, the Arizona and California SHPOs, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Concurring parties are 

not required to sign a PA in order to implement it. The tribes listed in the PA are welcome to sign the agreement at any time, 

should they decide to do so. [26-26] Section 3.10.2.3 describes the Key Observation Points (KOPs) used to evaluate visual resources in the CMAGR. 

Page3-99 of the Draft LEIS states that a representative photograph from each KOP is included in Appendix G.

[26-27] The Programmatic Agreement provided in Appendix F is for the West Coast basing and operation of the MV-22 Osprey 

aircraft. The tribes listed in Appendix H were those that were consulted in regard to the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land 

withdrawal. Consultations with two additional tribes were warranted for the MV-22 project because of the widely dispersed basing 

and far reaching flight activities that were proposed. [26-28] The only sources cited in the appendices that did not appear in the List of References cited in the Draft LEIS were 

selected data sources referenced in map graphics in Appendix C. These citations have been added to the List of References 

(see Chapter 3 of this Final LEIS).
Letter 26 Continued

26-28

26-29

26-30

26-32

26-37

26-38

26-33

26-34

26-35

26-36

26-31

2-63

Responses Continued

[26-29] Chapter 3 of the Draft LEIS contains the level of information needed to decide whether or not to renew the CMAGR 

land withdrawal. Additionally, the commenter made no mention of the specific data in Chapter 3 that he believes would be more

suited for an appendix. No changes were made to the LEIS in response to this comment. [26-30] Section 6.5 of the Draft LEIS lists the entities that were provided a copy of the Draft LEIS. [26-31] The Draft LEIS, excluding appendices, is approximately 338 pages in length and contains the level of information and 

analysis appropriate to determine whether or not to renew the CMAGR land withdrawal. No changes were made to the LEIS in 

response to this comment. [26-32] In accordance with the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1506.5, the Marine Corps is responsible for the scope and contents 

of the LEIS. The federal government often employs contractors to support the preparation of NEPA documents. The contractors 

that supported preparation of the Draft LEIS were qualified for their tasks by virtue of education, training, and experience. All 

contractor work was managed and reviewed by DoN and Marine Corps personnel with appropriate training and experience; 

these reviewers are listed in Table 7-2 of the Draft LEIS.

[26-33] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary as it does not, with reasonable basis, either question the 

accuracy or adequacy of information or analysis in the Draft LEIS or indicate a need for changes to the proposed action, 

alternatives, or preferred alternative. [26-34] Limitations in available data for the CMAGR and assessments of those limitations are disclosed at many locations in 

the Draft LEIS. Among others, examples include:

potential limitations of data depicted in all map graphics are noted in the figure legends

Section 2.2.2 discloses that preliminary assessments, to determine whether closed range lands would pose threats to 

human health or the environment, would be based on limited data

Section 3.2.6 discloses that the best available ordnance expenditure data are from FY 2004, but explains that these 

data, with some updates, provide a reasonable perspective of current and foreseeable expenditures 

Section 3.4.5.2 discloses the limits of existing data for determining management concerns for paleontological 

resources

Section 3.5.3 discloses that available groundwater data are insufficient for developing potentiometric contours of 

groundwater quality at the CMAGR

Section 3.5.3 discloses that National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) findings have not been validated by ground surveys 

and that it may overestimate the occurrence of wetlands within the CMAGR

Regarding the example cited in the comment that no data are available to assess specific ordnance delivery impacts on tinajas at 

the CMAGR, the immediately following assessment in Section 4.7.1.1 states that the potential for impacts would appear to be 

low as tinajas are typically located in upland locations away from designated targets in low to negligible disturbance areas and 

that no change in the conditions of wildlife waters or tinajas would be expected to occur as a result of the renewal of the CMAGR. 

Likewise, the example cited by the commenter that the Draft LEIS declares that similar baseline economic data are not available 

for MCAS Miramar does not include the immediately following assessment in Section 4.13 that direct military spending in the 

region in 2009 equaled $30.5 billion and sustained approximately 354,627 jobs with total earnings of $16.3 billion. Although the 

Draft LEIS discloses either gaps or limitations in available data at numerous locations, the document nevertheless contains the 

level of information needed to make a reasoned choice among alternatives to renew or not renew the CMAGR land withdrawal. [26-35] The quantity of energy production and recreation use that could occur on the CMAGR if the withdrawal was not 

renewed (Alternative 5) is too speculative to evaluate in detail at this time. An extensive scope of planning, which would need to 

include public participation to be realistic, would be necessary before realistic scenarios regarding potential reuse of a closed

CMAGR could be assessed to produce meaningful forecasts of possible recreation, socioeconomic benefits, or environmental 

impacts. Many factors would have to be evaluated in the development of reuse scenarios including—but not limited to—the 

distribution and quantity of UXO contamination, the scope of and procedures for range decontamination to be implemented, the 

implications of the checkerboard distribution of BLM (public) land and DoN land for reuse, and resource potentials. As a result, 

there was no way to qualify or quantify potential range reuse scenarios in the Draft LEIS let alone assess the environmental 

consequences of reuse. Similarly, it was not possible to develop realistic forecasts as to how the DoD would be able to 

compensate for the training capabilities and capacities that would be lost as a result of closing the CMAGR. If Congress selects 

Alternative 5, then follow on planning and studies would be necessary to address the reuse of the CMAGR and displacement of 

training missions. Potential energy production and recreation use are also not potentially significant environmental issues See 

also response to Comment 26-15.

[26-36] See the response to Comment 26-31.
Letter 26 Continued

26-39

26-41

26-43

26-44

26-45

26-46

26-47

26-48

26-49

26-42

26-40

2-64

Responses Continued

[26-39] The methodologies and scientific sources used to prepare the Draft LEIS are adequately referenced.

[26-40] None of the alternatives analyzed in the LEIS represent a change in the current use or management of the CMAGR 

and its cultural and natural resources. The only surveys conducted were on lands that would be affected by the proposed 

boundary changes. The results of those surveys are discussed in Sections 3.7, and 3.8 of the Draft LEIS. The SHPO concurred 

with our approach (see SHPO letter dated 3 October 2012 in the public record) and suggested that the Marine Corps prepare a 

draft Programmatic Agreement detailing proposed identification efforts associated with this undertaking in addition to a Historic 

Properties Treatment Plan. The SHPO notes that the entire undertaking is dependent upon actions of Congress and that once a 

path forward has been determined, the Marine Corps would notify the SHPO of their preferred course of action. Should Congress

decide to renew the CMAGR and withdrawal, and based on the terms of the withdrawal, additional consultations would be 

conducted with the USFWS.

[26-41] The EOs are adequately addressed in the Draft LEIS. EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) is addressed on page 3-69, 

4-27, 4-28, and 4-31. EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) is discussed on pages 3-69. Additionally surface water is extremely 

scarce at the CMAGR. EO 12898 (Environmental Justice) is evaluated on pages 3 117 to 3-118 and 4-55 to 4-57. No sacred 

sites are known to occur on the CMAGR, and none have been identified through consultation with Tribal entities on this LEIS 

(see Appendix H). Therefore, EO 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) is not applicable to the Draft LEIS.

[26-42] The current glossary, list of acronyms, and index are sufficient.

[26-43] See response to Comment 26-37. See also response to Comment 26-15.

[26-44] There is no new equipment associated with the proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal, and therefore New 

Source Performance Standards and/or National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants are not applicable.

[26-45] See response to Comment 26-40.

[26-46] Renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal would not affect biodiversity or the ecosystem in any way that could be 

differentiated from the existing baseline. Renewal would pose no risk of genetic isolation; therefore, there would be no impact to 

genetic diversity. Following the proposed renewal, the same habitat types that currently occur on the CMAGR would still be 

available to support a similar level of biodiversity. See also response to Comment 26-15.

[26-47] The analysis in the Draft LEIS addresses the acres of habitat that would be affected by range boundary exchanges. 

The Draft LEIS characterizes the effects of existing targets, roads, etc. on habitat, but renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal 

would not affect habitat types, quality, or quantity or other ecosystem elements in any way that could be differentiated from the 

existing baseline. See also response to Comment 26-15.

[26-48] The range segregates military training operations from the public for safety. With one exception, no public access is 

currently permissible at the CMAGR because of the need to prevent interference with ongoing training operations and protect 

public safety (see Draft LEIS Section 1.2.2.1). The exception is that public travel on the Bradshaw Trail through certain parcels 

along the northern periphery of the range is permissible (see Section 1.3.2). The Bradshaw Trail is located outside of the areas 

of the CMAGR that are used to contain hazards associated with weapons or laser use and/or otherwise support training 

operations (see Section 3.2.4). Alternative 1 would continue public use of the Bradshaw Trail through the northern periphery of 

the range unchanged from the current condition. Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 would each realign the boundary of the CMAGR such that 

the Bradshaw Trail would be located outside of the range and remain open to public use (see Sections 2.3.1, 2.3, and 2.4).

[26-49] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 27

27-1

2-65

RESPONSES

[27-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 73 

Names

First Name: Arthur Last Name: Jones 

Title: Organization: 

Address: 1920 Lexington Drive 

City: Sierra Vista State: AZ 

Zip: 85635 Country: 

Email: luego@cox.net Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: 

Other 

Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/12/2012 Date Received: 10/12/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

I believe alternative number three would best serve the needs of the country's 

defense. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #27-- ALT-3 Transfer Title to DoD

100-- I believe alternative 

number three would best 

serve the needs of the 

country's defense' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 28

28-1

2-66

RESPONSES

[28-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 29

29-1

2-67

RESPONSES

[29-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 30

30-1

2-68

RESPONSES

[30-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 31

31-1

2-69

RESPONSES

[31-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 87 

Names

First 

Name: Barbara Last Name: Ransehousen 

Title: Organization: 

Address: 13196 E 54th St 

City: Yuma State: AZ 

Zip: 85367 Country: 

Email: brmovingon@yahoo.com Mailing List: True 

Entity 

Type: 

Other Interested Parties 

& Commentors Anonymous: True 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/23/2012 Date Received: 10/23/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

I vote to keep the Chocolate Mountains Range completely open for military 

training. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #25-- ALT-1 Support Land Withdrawal

117-- I vote to keep the 

Chocolate Mountains 

Range completely open 

for military training' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 32

32-1

2-70

RESPONSES

[32-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 33

33-1

2-71

RESPONSES

[33-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 67 

Names

First Name: J Last Name: Ross 

Title: Organization: 

Address: Loredo Dr 

City: Roseburg State: OR 

Zip: 97471 Country: 

Email: rossjoe@hotmail.com Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: 

Other Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 9/7/2012 Date Received: 9/7/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

Hello Kelly, You have the Federal Register NOI on your project website but 

haven't uploaded the DLEIS Notice of Availability Notice yet (as of today 7 Sept 

2012). Pls add the NOA to the website at: 

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

also want to clearly show that you are in a public comment period (thr 30 Nov) on 

the project's homepage, as well as list the upcoming public meetings there too. 

Congrats on getting this DLEIS out in a timely manner. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #2-- Comment Acknowledged

96-- You might also want 

to clearly show that you 

are in a public comment 

period (thr 30 Nov) on the 

project's homepage, as 

well as list the upcoming 

public meetings there too' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 34

34-1

2-72

RESPONSES

[34-1] The Notice of Public Meetings for the Draft LEIS for the Proposed Renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

Range Land Withdrawal, California and the Notice of Availability for EIS No. 20120278, Draft EIS, USN, CA, Legislative—

Renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal were published in the Federal Register, Vol. 77/No. 

170, on Friday 31 August 2012 at pages 53189 and 53198. These have been posted to the project website.

The project website was updated when this comment was received to include the public comment period, public meeting 

schedule, and other information about the public review for the Draft LEIS on the home page. In addition to the Federal Register 

notices, information on the availability of the Draft LEIS and on the public comment process, period, and meetings was also 

publicly distributed through the third project newsletter sent to all parties on the project mailing list, paid advertisements 

published in seven newspapers from locations near the public meeting sites, and letters to Native American tribes and bands.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 68 

Names

First Name: Robert Last Name: Schell 

Title: Organization: 

Address: 40024 Grand Ave 

City: Cherry Valley State: CA 

Zip: 92223 Country: 

Email: Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: 

Other 

Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 9/11/2012 Date Received: 9/11/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

In light of the Navys attempt to remove thousands of acres of land from the 

general public in the Lucerne Valley area, I would like to see this land returned to 

public use. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #54-- Public Use-Accessibility

97-- In light of the Navys 

attempt to remove 

thousands of acres of 

land from the general 

public in the Lucerne 

Valley area, I would like 

to see this land returned 

to public use.' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 35

35-1

2-73

RESPONSES

[35-1] In accordance with the CMLWOA and as described in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft LEIS, the Secretary of the Navy has 

determined that there is a continuing military need for the CMAGR. The Secretary has also determined that the need for the 

CMAGR is independent of and in addition to the requirements for other military ranges, including the Marine Corps Air Ground 

Combat Center at Twentynine Palms and plans to expand the combat center in the Lucerne Valley.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 75 

Names

First Name: Katherine Scott Last Name: Scott 

Title: Organization: Tierra Mesa 

Address: 3448 E. Cuervo Ln. 

City: Yuma State: AZ 

Zip: 85365 Country: 

Email: corvette78@aol.com Mailing List: False 

Entity Type: 

Other Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/15/2012 Date Received: 10/15/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

Please renew Alternative 3. We need the training area. We need thr military here 

in Yuma, AZ. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #27-- ALT-3 Transfer Title to DoD

102-- Please renew 

Alternative 3' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 36

36-1

2-74

RESPONSES

[36-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 74 

Names

First Name: Kenneth Last Name: Scott 

Title: Organization: Tierra Mesa 

Address: 3448 E. Cuervo Ln. 

City: Yuma State: AZ 

Zip: 85365 Country: 

Email: n12707@aol.com Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: 

Other Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/15/2012 Date Received: 10/15/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

Please renew the agreement. We need the range for training our troops. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #25-- ALT-1 Support Land Withdrawal

101-- Please renew the 

agreement.' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 37

37-1

2-75

RESPONSES

[37-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 110 

Names

First Name: Nancy Last Name: Slaff 

Title: Organization: 

Address: 1815 Marc Trail 

City: Campo State: CA 

Zip: 91906 Country: 

Email: book1@aabol.com Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: 

Other Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 11/3/2012 Date Received: 11/3/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

I do NOT oppose the Chocolate Mountain activities. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #25-- ALT-1 Support Land Withdrawal

125-- I do NOT oppose 

the Chocolate Mountain 

activities. ' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/3/2013

LETTER 38

38-1

2-76

RESPONSES

[38-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 108 

Names

First Name: William Last Name: Slaff 

Title: Organization: 

Address: 1815 Marc Trail 

City: Campo State: CA 

Zip: 91906 Country: 

Email: books2@hughes.net Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: 

Other Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 11/3/2012 Date Received: 11/3/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

I live near the Seals Nanvy Warfare facility and I do not oppose their activities. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #25-- ALT-1 Support Land Withdrawal

123-- I live near the Seals 

Navy Warfare facility and 

I do not oppose their 

activities.' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/3/2013

LETTER 39

39-1

2-77

RESPONSES

[39-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 89 

Names

First 

Name: jim Last Name: slater 

Title: Organization: 

vista del 

villa

townhouses 

Address: 2045 s 14th av #20 

City: yuma State: AZ 

Zip: 85364 Country: 

Email: jmlslater1@roadrunner.com Mailing List: True 

Entity 

Type: 

Other Interested Parties & 

Commentors Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/24/2012 Date Received: 10/24/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

This area is vital to the training of or marines and thier equiptment, use it. JMS 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #25-- ALT-1 Support Land Withdrawal

119-- This area is vital to 

the training of or marines 

and thier equiptment, use 

it.'

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 40

40-1

2-78

RESPONSES

[40-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 86 

Names

First Name: Greg Last Name: Smith 

Title: Organization: Brawley, 

CA

Address: 633 Terrace Circle 

City: Brawley State: CA 

Zip: 92227 Country: 

Email: insure@smithkandal.com Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: Other Interested Parties 

& Commentors Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/23/2012 Date Received: 10/23/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

Please keep CMAGR open. We need this range to support the training of military 

pilots.

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #25-- ALT-1 Support Land Withdrawal

116-- Please keep 

CMAGR open. We need 

this range to support the 

training of military pilots.' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 41

41-1

2-79

RESPONSES

[41-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
LETTER 42

42-1

42-2

42-3

42-4

42-5

42-6

42-7

2-80

RESPONSES

[42-1] In accordance with the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 and as described in Section 

1.2.2 of the Draft LEIS, the Secretary of the Navy has determined that there is a continuing military need for the CMAGR.

[42-2] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary as it does not, with reasonable basis, either question the 

accuracy or adequacy of information or analysis in the Draft LEIS or indicate a need for changes to the proposed action, 

alternatives, or preferred alternative.

[42-3] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary as it does not, with reasonable basis, either question the 

accuracy or adequacy of information or analysis in the Draft LEIS or indicate a need for changes to the proposed action, 

alternatives, or preferred alternative.

[42-4] The role of the CMAGR as an installation in southern California that is used for training of air and ground forces of the 

Marine Corps, Navy, and other armed services is disclosed and discussed in detail in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft LEIS. This 

section of the Draft LEIS notes how each of seven ranges and range complexes, including the CMAGR, in southern California 

and southwest Arizona are used individually and together to train both individual aviators and ground troops and integrated units 

of up to the size of a Marine Air Ground Task Force (see Figure 1 4). Each of these ranges/complexes provide unique sets of 

training capabilities and diverse tactical training settings and they complement and supplement each other in terms of 

contributing to the overall range capacity that is needed for training the Nation's armed forces.

[42-5] Comment is noted. The Secretary of the Navy has determined that there is a continuing military need for the CMAGR.

[42-6] See the responses to Comments 26-9 and 42-4.

[42-7] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
Letter 42 Continued

42-7

42-8

42-9

2-81

Responses Continued

[42-8] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.

[42-9] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
Letter 42 Continued

42-9

2-82
Letter 42 Continued Letter 42 Continued

2-83
LETTER 43

43-1

2-84

RESPONSES

[43-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 81 

Names

First Name: Mark Last Name: Workman 

Title: Organization: Parkway 

Place

Address: 3524 W 26th Place 

City: Yuma State: AZ 

Zip: 85364 Country: 

Email: workmanm10@gmail.com Mailing List: False 

Entity Type: Other Interested Parties & 

Commentors Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/22/2012 Date Received: 10/22/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma is the Marine Corps premier aviation training 

installation. It supports approximately 80% of the Marine Corps aviation training 

and is the busiest air station in the Marine Corps. In 2011, The Air Station 

provided an economic impact to the local community of $1,362,891,007. Marine 

Corps Air Station Yuma exists because of the Special Use Airspace such as the 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range. It is imperative to the Marine Corps 

and the local community that the Land Withdrawl for the CMAGR be renewed. I 

support this renewal and specifically Alternative 3. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #27-- ALT-3 Transfer Title to DoD

111-- It is imperative to 

the Marine Corps and the 

local community that the 

Land Withdrawl for the 

CMAGR be renewed. I 

support this renewal and 

specifically Alternative 3.' 

-- --

Category #48-- Socio

110-- Marine Corps Air 

Station Yuma is the 

Marine Corps premier 

aviation training 

installation. It supports 

approximately 80% of the 

Marine Corps aviation 

training and is the busiest 

air station in the Marine 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 2

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 44

44-1

44-2

2-85

RESPONSES

[44-1] Comment is noted. The economic impact to the local community surrounding MCAS Yuma is documented in 

Section 4.13 of the Draft LEIS.

[44-2] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 66 

Names

First Name: Last Name: 

Title: Organization: 

Address:

City: State: CA 

Zip: Country: 

Email: Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: 

Other 

Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 9/7/2012 Date Received: 9/7/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: True 

Submission Text

Hello Kelly, You have the Federal Register NOI on your project website but 

haven't uploaded the DLEIS Notice of Availability Notice yet (as of today 7 Sept 

2012). 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #2-- Comment Acknowledged

95-- You have the 

Federal Register NOI on 

your project website but 

haven't uploaded the 

DLEIS Notice of 

Availability Notice yet (as 

of today 7 Sept 2012). ' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 45

45-1

2-86

RESPONSES

[45-1] The Notice of Public Meetings for the Draft LEIS for the Proposed Renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

Range Land Withdrawal, California and the Notice of Availability for EIS No. 20120278, Draft EIS, USN, CA, Legislative—

Renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal were published in the Federal Register, Vol. 77/No. 

170, on Friday 31 August 2012 at pages 53189 and 53198. These have been posted to the project website.
SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Submission ID: 82 

Names

First Name: Last Name: 

Title: Organization: 

Address:

City: State: CA 

Zip: Country: 

Email: Mailing List: True 

Entity Type: 

Other 

Interested 

Parties & 

Commentors 

Anonymous: False 

Submission Information

Date

Submitted: 10/23/2012 Date Received: 10/23/2012 

Submission 

Format:

Web Comment 

Form Venue:

File name: Possible

Duplicate: False 

Submission Text

Renew the CMAGR land withdrawal for 20 years (without boundary 

realignments). Management would remain unchanged from current conditions; 

Department of Navy would manage DoN land per Sikes Act and Bureau of Land 

Management would manage withdrawn land. 

Comments & Responses 

Comment Comment Summary Response 

Category #25-- ALT-1 Support Land Withdrawal

112-- Renew the CMAGR 

land withdrawal for 20 

years (without boundary 

realignments). ' 

-- --

View Submission Summary Page 1 of 1

http://www.phxurs2.com/ChocolateMtnLEIS/admin/CASy_DLEIS/common/viewsubmissio... 4/2/2013

LETTER 46

46-1

2-87

RESPONSES

[46-1] Comment is noted, but no further response is necessary.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-1 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

3.0 ERRATA AND ADDITIONS

3.1 SPECIFIC CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT LEIS

Based on input received during the public comment period and new information received since the Draft 

LEIS was released, the following corrections and additions have been identified. The page numbers listed 

correspond to the page numbers of the Draft LEIS. Specific word additions/changes are noted below.

Page ES-2, inserted after line 32, new paragraph: The issue that generated the most interest with the 

public and agencies during scoping pertained to how the proposed boundary realignments may impact 

recreational access. 

Page 1-1, revised lines 36-38: Approximately 162 acres (about 0.25 square mile) of land administered by 

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is located inside of the CMAGR boundary.

Page 2-23, inserted after line 18 a new Section 2.7.3: 

2.7.3 Realign CMAGR Boundary Along the Southern Side of the Eagle Mountain Railroad

An approximately 9.8-mile-long segment of the Eagle Mountain Railroad traverses the northern and 

northwestern portion of the CMAGR south of and roughly parallel to a segment of the Bradshaw Trail 

(see Figure 2-1). The current owners of this railroad—Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC and Mine 

Reclamation, LLC (hereafter Kaiser)—requested that an alternative be studied that would place their 

railroad outside of the CMAGR. Kaiser noted that the prominence of the Bradshaw Trail was an attribute 

that was used to qualify that geographic feature as an alignment along which an alternative to realign a 

segment of the CMAGR boundary was developed. Kaiser believes that the Eagle Mountain Railroad is a 

prominent geographic feature that could also be used to clearly demarcate the CMAGR boundary with 

little additional loss of current range land. 

The Eagle Mountain Railroad is about 52-miles long and was completed and placed into service in 1948 

to haul iron ore from the Eagle Mountain Mine, which is located about 22 miles north of the CMAGR and

about 11 miles north of Interstate 10, to the Ferrum Junction. The Ferrum Junction connects the Eagle 

Mountain Railroad with the mainline of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). Operations on and 

maintenance of the Eagle Mountain Railroad ceased in 1986 and much of this line within the CMAGR is 

currently in a severely dilapidated and inoperable condition. Kaiser and the Sanitation Districts of Los 

Angeles County (hereafter Sanitation Districts) have entered into an agreement that would allow the 

Sanitation Districts to purchase the Eagle Mountain Railroad. The Sanitation Districts propose to restore 

the railroad to an operable condition and use it to convey solid waste from Los Angeles County to a 

proposed new landfill to be developed and operated by the Sanitation Districts at the now closed Eagle 

Mountain Mine.

The Kaiser request that an alternative be developed that would use the south side of the Eagle Mountain 

Railroad right-of-way as a new alignment for the CMAGR boundary was considered, but was not carried 

forward for detailed study for three reasons:

The Eagle Mountain Railroad would provide a visually clear range boundary to the public, but 

that alignment lacks a service road that would make it readily accessible to the Marine Corps for 

boundary posting, maintenance, and patrol.

Although realignment of the CMAGR boundary to conform with the Eagle Mountain Railroad 

would not affect a large area of land, the range areas north of the railroad are needed as access, 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-2 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

assembly, and training areas by Navy SEALs using special warfare training areas SWATs 4 and 5 

(see Figure 1-5).

The Eagle Mountain Railroad right-of-way, BLM Serial Number CACA-25594, is currently valid 

and would be unaffected by either the proposed renewal or non-renewal of the CMAGR land 

withdrawal. If the Sanitation Districts acquire the railroad, the right-of-way would remain in 

effect and the railroad could be re-constructed, repaired, and maintained for non-passenger 

carrying, industrial service. Operation of the railroad for the purposes proposed by the Sanitation 

Districts would be compatible with existing and future military operations at the CMAGR.

Page 3-30, line 22, updated citation date: (BLM 2007).

Page 3-34, line 19, updated citation date: (BLM 2012).

Page 3-35, line 2, updated citation date: (BLM 2013).

Page 3-35, inserted after line 21, new paragraph: The Eagle Mountain Railroad, which has not 

operated since 1986, is a privately-owned rail line that traverses the northern and northwestern portion of 

the CMAGR and is south of and roughly parallel to a segment of the Bradshaw Trail (see Figure 2-1). The 

approximately 52-miles-long railroad was placed into service in 1948 to haul iron ore from the Eagle 

Mountain Mine, which is located about 22 miles north of the CMAGR, to the Ferrum Junction with the 

UPRR (see Figure 3-5). The Sanitation Districts have proposed to acquire the railroad to convey solid 

waste from Los Angeles County to a proposed new landfill at the now closed Eagle Mountain Mine. The 

landfill project, which was first proposed more than 20 years ago and remains stalled in the planning 

phase by adverse court decisions, currently lacks the land resources and authorities needed to proceed. 

Much of the about 9.8-mile long segment of the Eagle Mountain Railroad within the CMAGR is currently 

in a severely dilapidated and inoperable condition, although the railroad right-of-way, CACA-25594,

remains valid. If the Sanitation Districts acquire the railroad, it could be restored and maintained for the 

proposed non-passenger carrying, industrial service. Operation of the railroad would be compatible with 

existing and future military operations at the CMAGR.

Page 3-45, line 44, inserted letter to citation date at end of first sentence under 3.4.4.3: No active 

mines or locatable mineral claims are currently reported on the CMAGR (U.S. Navy 2011a).

Page 3-50; inserted after line 25, new paragraph, new Section 3.4.5.4, and new Table 3-10a: The 

extent to which paleontological resources at the CMAGR have been impacted by military or other 

activities cannot be determined because no data have been collected on the occurrence, distribution, or 

abundance of fossils. However, an assessment has been performed to identify the occurrence and extent 

of active and inactive weapons impact areas in potential fossil yielding geologic units at the range as 

defined by the BLM PFYC system. The weapons impact areas, which are the areas around designated airto-ground and ground-to-ground targets in which most ordnance impacts occur, represent almost 

94 percent of the locations at the CMAGR where the ground surface is subject to moderate to high levels 

of disturbance as a result of military use (see Table 3-6). Two classes of weapons impact areas—core and 

secondary weapons impact areas—have been defined based on the level of ground disturbance that results 

at the range. Ground surfaces have been substantially or completely disrupted from natural conditions

within core weapons impact areas, which include the locations closest to target features, by the aggregate 

volume of ordnance that impacts in the area over time. Secondary weapons impact areas extend outward 

from the outer limit of core weapons impact areas to the farthest extent of ordnance impacts that can be 

readily attributed to deliveries on a target. Ordnance impacts at the inner perimeter of a secondary 

weapons impact area are relatively concentrated but the surface 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-3 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

Table 3-10a Occurrence of Active and Inactive Weapons Impact Areas in Potential Fossil Yielding Geologic Units at the CMAGR

Geologic Unit1

BLM 

PFYC2

Geologic 

Unit 

Area3in 

CMAGR

Geologic 

Unit Area 

as 

Percentage 

of 

CMAGR 

Area

Current Active Weapons Impact Areas Historic Inactive Weapons Impact Areas

Core 

Impact 

Area3in 

Geologic 

Unit

Core 

Impact 

Area as

Percentage

of 

Geologic 

Unit Area

Secondary 

Impact 

Area3in 

Geologic 

Unit

Secondary 

Impact 

Area as

Percentage

of Geologic 

Unit Area

Core 

Impact 

Area3in 

Geologic 

Unit

Core 

Impact 

Area as

Percentage

of Geologic 

Unit Area

Secondary 

Impact 

Area3in 

Geologic 

Unit

Secondary 

Impact Area

as Percentage

of Geologic 

Unit Area

Quaternary 

Alluvial Deposits 

(Q)

3 143,057 31.2 326 0.2 4,201 2.9 386 0.3 3,063 2.1

Quaternary 

Nonmarine 

Deposits (Qoa)

4a 90,641 19.8 585 0.6 4,245 4.7 46 <0.1 800 0.9

Plio-Pleistocene 

Nonmarine 

Deposits (QPc)

4a 29,953 6.5 295 1.0 1,156 3.9 0 0 109 0.4

Miocene 

Nonmarine 

Deposits (Tc)

4a 88 <0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tertiary Volcanic 

Rocks (Tv) 1 26,013 5.7 138 0.5 529 2.0 0 0 541 2.1

Tertiary Volcanic 

Rocks (Tvp) 1 5,116 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tertiary Volcanic 

Rocks (Ti) 1 8,530 1.9 42 0.5 336 3.9 0 0 72 0.8

Mesozoic 

Sedimentary and 

Metasedimentary

Rocks (sch)

2 25,008 5.5 9 <0.1 307 1.2 0 0 0 0

Mesozoic mixed 

Rocks (gr-m) 1 38,114 8.3 32 0.1 534 1.4 2 <0.1 119 0.3

Mesozoic 

Plutonic Rocks 

(gr + grMz10 )

1 3,999 0.9 35 0.9 94 2.4 0 0 0 0

Pre-Cambrian 

Rocks (pC, pCc, 

grpC13 )

2 87,505 19.1 8 <0.1 2,585 3.0 97 0.1 704 0.8

1

See Figure 3-6.

2

Potential Fossil Yield Classification, see Section 3.4.5.2 for detailed explanation: 1 = geologic units not likely to contain recognizable fossil; 2 = sedimentary geologic units not 

likely to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils; 3 = fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in significance, 

abundance, and predictable occurrence or sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential; and 4a = geologic units containing a high occurrence of scientifically important fossils.

3 Area in acres.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-4 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

disturbance effects of impacts in this area are less pronounced than those observed in the core weapons 

impact area. On the average, ordnance impact effects diminish sharply in secondary weapons impact area 

with distance from the target to the point at the outer limit of this area beyond which ordnance impacts

attributable to that target cease to be detectable. There is a high likelihood that fossils located within core 

weapons impact areas would be subject to damage or be destroyed as a result of the aggregate effects of 

ordnance impacts and detonations over time. Fossils located in the inner perimeter of a secondary 

weapons impact area would also likely be subject to a high risk of damage or destruction, but that risk 

would diminish rapidly with increasing distance from the target. Core weapons impact areas are estimated 

to encompass approximately 0.5 percent of the range surface in aggregate. In addition, secondary 

weapons impact areas encompass approximately 4.2 percent of the range surface (see Table 3-6 and 

Figure 3-2).

3.4.5.4 Results

The occurrence of active and inactive core and secondary weapons impact areas within 15 geologic units 

with surface exposures at the CMAGR was determined using a GIS intersection analysis. Core and 

secondary weapons impact areas were found to occur in 11 of the 15 geologic units (Table 3-10a). One of 

the 11 geologic units that are affected by core and/or secondary weapons impact areas is rated as Class 3 

in BLM PFYC system, which indicates an overall moderate potential to yield fossils. Another 3 of the 

11 geologic units that are affected by core and/or secondary weapons impact areas are rated as Class 4a, 

which indicates an overall high potential to yield fossils. The remaining 7 geologic units have a low to 

unlikely potential to yield fossils.

Page 3-60, Table 3-11, just above line 1, updated date of table source: Source: California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) 2012.

Page 3-65, line 24, inserted letter to citation date at end of paragraph: (DoN 2011b).

Page 3-65, line 26, inserted letter to citation date at end of sentence: (DoN 2011b).

Page 3-83, line 45, first paragraph under heading Eastern Information Center Results, added 

citation to end of sentence: Results of the record search completed by the EIC were received on 

17 August 2011 (CHRIS 2011).

Page 3-90, lines 26 and 27, text was indented in bullet format:

Noise Induced Permanent Threshold Shift (NIPTS) expresses, in terms of average dB, 

potential hearing loss.

Page 3-90, inserted after line 27, new paragraph: Like sound propagating through the air, groundborne vibration energy traveling through soils and rock strata loses amplitude as it propagates away from 

a source; thus, ground-borne vibration is not generally considered a potential impact or significant 

environmental effect (manifested as either human annoyance, an impairment of a process or activity, or 

possible structural damage) unless the distance between a source of vibration and a sensitive receiver is 

small.

Page 3-91, line 1, heading was updated: 3.9.1.2 Applicable Regulations and Standards

Page 3-91, inserted after line 18, new paragraph: There are no federal regulations that describe 

vibration level limits at sensitive receivers that would apply to CMAGR for this LEIS. Federal guidance 

relating to potential vibration impacts from ground transportation sources, such as what one may find in 

Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006), discusses thresholds for human perception, 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-5 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

human annoyance and potential damage to structures and buildings, but these would not be considered 

applicable to CMAGR operations that lack bus, rail or light rail facilities in proximity to potentially 

sensitive receivers. Similarly, for the State of California, guidance documents from the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) describe peak particle velocity (PPV) (expressed as inches per 

second) thresholds associated with human perception, human annoyance and damage risk to structures 

due to vibration from ground transportation sources and construction activity. PPV is “the maximum 

instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal” generally considered “appropriate for 

evaluating the potential of building damage” (FTA 2006) but has also been used to evaluate human 

annoyance. PPV thresholds associated with human perception, human annoyance, and damage risk to 

structures due to vibration from ground transportation sources and construction activity do not relate to 

the proposed alternative changes in CMAGR boundaries and the proposed continuation of CMAGR 

operations.

While the Imperial County General Plan Noise Element does not include discussion of vibration, the 

Riverside County General Plan Noise Element (Riverside County Integrated Project 2003) refers to 

Caltrans-based PPV levels and level ranges for describing various human reactions to vibration.

Page 3-92, inserted after line 9, new paragraph: Due to the distances that separate them from CMAGR 

operations within the CMAGR boundary, these closest off-range receivers are not currently expected to 

be affected by air- or ground-borne vibration. These receivers are also currently exposed to existing 

sources of man-made and natural vibration, such as surface transportation routes and seismic activity.

Page 3-105, line 17, added citation at the end of the last sentence in section 3.12.1.2: Debris from the 

sites was consolidated and then properly disposed of off-site (DoN 2003).

Page 3-107 and 3-108, replaced current Section 3.12.3.2 with new Section 3.12.3.2 Range 

Environmental Vulnerability Assessment:

3.12.3.2 Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment (REVA)

Hazardous constituents contained in munitions delivered to the CMAGR air-to-ground ranges are usually 

consumed in a series of chemical reactions that occur upon detonation. Occasionally the munitions do not 

fully detonate or do not detonate at all. If EOD teams do not recover these undetonated munitions and the 

munitions case is damaged or eventually corrodes, the (Munitions Constituents) MCs could be available 

to the environment and cause an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.

The U.S. Marine Corps REVA program meets the requirements of the current DoD Directive 4715.11 

Environmental and Explosives Safety Management on Operational Ranges within the United States and 

DoD Instruction 4715.14 Operational Range Assessments. The purpose of the REVA program is to 

identify whether there is a release or substantial threat of a release of MCs from the operational range or 

range complex areas to off-range areas. This is accomplished through an assessment of operational range 

areas, development of conceptual site model (CSM), and, where applicable, screening-level fate and 

transport modeling of the REVA indicator MCs. Indicator MCs selected for the REVA program include 

octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX), hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), 

trinitrotoluene (TNT), and perchlorate.

The REVA program uses conservative (e.g., no decay) screening-level transport analyses to predict the 

potential for off-range transport of MCs. The results of the conservative transport analysis are first 

compared to REVA trigger values, which were developed by the Marine Corps to provide an internal 

decision point for additional site evaluation. Importantly, the REVA trigger values selected by the Marine 

Corps represent a median value of analytical method detection limits, indicating if a chemical could be 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-6 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

detected during sampling and analysis and representing an extremely low decision threshold. The REVA 

trigger values are not associated with any actual regulatory or other screening values. Modeling results 

that exceed a REVA trigger value may warrant further investigation to determine if a release or threat of a 

release may actually be present, whether there are potential receptors to these chemicals, and whether or 

not they may pose a risk to human health and the environment.

If a REVA trigger value is exceeded and further investigation is deemed necessary, the results are 

compared to DoD Operational Range Assessment Screening Values, which represent a higher decision 

threshold than REVA trigger values. These screening values are used by all DoD services in their 

individual range assessment programs to compare their surface water, groundwater, and sediment 

sampling data and assess their meaning. Screening values were selected by a DoD working group from a 

hierarchy of sources with recognized authority, acceptance and applicability, to include the EPA.

Screening values are established for both human and ecological receptors. If sampling exceeds DoD 

Operational Range Assessment Screening Values, further action may be necessary, to include the 

potential for further testing and investigation, and possibly cleanup.

To identify whether there was a release or substantial threat of a release of MCs from CMAGR 

operational range or range complex areas to off-range areas, an initial REVA was conducted in 2008. The 

2008 REVA for the Bob Stump Training Range Complex, which includes the CMAGR, was the first 

comprehensive report on MCs associated with the CMAGR. The 2008 REVA report can be accessed at: 

www.denix.osd.mil/sri/upload/MCAS-Yuma-2.pdf.

The 2008 REVA evaluated 35 range areas in CMAGR North and 15 range areas in CMAGR South. 

Loading rates for MCs were calculated for each area. The conservative modeling results indicated that 

MC loading rates at 12 of the sites in CMAGR North and all 15 of the sites in CMAGR South were 

greater than 1 milligram per square meter per year and, therefore, warranted further analysis. 

The pathways evaluated in the 2008 REVA include both surface water and groundwater. The REVA 

indicates that groundwater pathway and receptors are unlikely to result in any exposure to MC. Infrequent 

ephemeral surface water transport is a potential pathway for MC migration from CMAGR MC loading 

areas. If the potential pathway is complete, the REVA indicates that any MCs that may be present would 

be very low (at or below laboratory method detection limits).

Because surface water in the washes draining from the CMAGR is not used as a potable water source, as 

an irrigation water source, or for any contact activity, either on range or off range, no human receptors 

were identified in the baseline. Potential receptors for MC dissolved in surface water are limited to 

ecological receptors, which include a federally-listed threatened species—Mojave desert tortoise—and 

other common wildlife species endemic to habitat areas on range and within or near microphyll 

woodlands associated with the major washes outside the range boundary. The potential for Mojave desert 

tortoise at the CMAGR to be exposed to MC dissolved in surface water would be restricted to infrequent 

periods of short duration and relatively low numbers of individual animals because of the very limited 

distribution of target impact areas within tortoise habitat, the infrequent and limited presence of surface 

water, and the life history characteristics of this animal. 

Habitat for the Mojave desert tortoise is found in the roughly northeastern half of the CMAGR where 

about 183,419 acres (about 40 percent) of the range have been designated as critical habitat for this 

species (see Figure 3-12). The CMAGR areas inside of the designated critical habitat perimeter that are 

designated as target complexes no longer exhibit the constituent elements that would qualify tortoise 

habitat as critical and are not designated as critical habitat (USFWS 1994b) (compare Figures 3-2 and 3-

12). However, about 95 percent (177,000 acres) of the critical habitat at the CMAGR encompasses areas 

of negligible to low military surface use and is outside of the core and secondary weapons impact areas 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-7 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

associated with ordnance delivery training where MC are most likely to be located. Thus, less than 5 

percent of the critical habitat at the CMAGR is likely to be subject to elevated concentrations of MC. 

The potential for surface water to come in contact with soluble MC would generally be limited to the core 

and secondary weapons impact areas. Surface water is present on the range only in direct response to 

infrequent rainfall. Rainfall averages less than 5 inches per year and is often unevenly distributed locally. 

With a pan evaporation rate of 100 inches per year and rainfall that rarely occurs with an intensity or 

duration sufficient to generate runoff, desert washes at the CMAGR are dry most of the year and some 

may not flow for multiple years. Surface flow in washes occurs most often in response to intense summer 

Monsoon thunderstorms, but can also be generated in the winter season by less-intense frontal storms of 

longer duration. Comparing Figure 3-9 and 3-12 shows that target areas encompassed within desert 

tortoise critical habitat are drained by only a few of the many washes that occur within this habitat. The 

potential for dissolved MC to be present in surface water flow in drainage channels would be limited to 

these washes and their smaller tributaries that drain weapons impact areas. Dissolved MC may also be 

present in non-flowing surface water that collects and temporarily persists in internally-drained 

depressions within core and secondary weapons impact areas.

The potential for Mojave desert tortoise at the CMAGR to consume MC dissolved in surface water is also 

likely to be limited by their behaviors. These animals cope with long periods of scant rainfall and forage 

by spending much of their lives in burrows during which their metabolic, water loss, and food 

consumption rates are greatly reduced (USFWS 2011). Tortoises at the CMAGR typically emerge from 

their burrows to feed on annual vegetation that sprouts after both summer and winter rains. In years with 

average or higher amounts of rainfall, these animals may have little requirement for surface water. When 

necessary, their life cycle and metabolic strategies can permit adult desert tortoises to survive for more 

than a year without access to free water (USFWS 2011). Still, desert tortoise have the ability to drink 

surface water if it is available and this opportunistic capability may be critical to their survival if surface 

water becomes temporarily available during extended drought periods (USFWS 2011). Therefore, it is 

possible that some individual tortoises at the CMAGR may consume dissolved MC under these infrequent 

and short-term circumstances if they are located either within core or secondary weapons impact areas or 

washes that drain these areas when rainfall is sufficient to generate surface water.

Potential receptors utilizing surface water washes within the installation boundaries were not considered 

because the REVA program is limited to the assessment of off-range MC releases. MCAS Yuma 

maintains other programs to minimize the impacts of training to on-range wildlife and natural resources. 

All operational ranges are reassessed every 5 years to ensure both long-term sustainability to the ranges 

and protectiveness to human health and the environment. The REVA update for the CMAGR has been 

contracted and scheduled for Fall 2013, and will further evaluate the potential for off-range migration of 

MCs.

Page 3-108, line 9, inserted after “no potential risk to human health or the environment.”: 

Ecological receptors are the only potential surface water receptors. Even though no threatened or 

endangered species habitats have been delineated in the area outside the range boundary potentially 

affected by runoff, the toxicity threshold for threatened and endangered ecological receptors that could 

potentially interact with surface water outside the range boundary is several orders of magnitude above 

the estimated MC concentrations reaching the range boundary.

Page 3-114, line 5, corrected citations: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012, 2011.

Page 3-119, line 10, changed “Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000a, 2000c.”: Sources: U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000c, 2000d.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-8 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

Page 4-12, line 8, inserted after “Transportation corridors would not be impacted.”: Existing utility 

easements would be unaffected by renewal of the land withdrawal.

Page 4-15, line 3, inserted after “Alternatives 1 through 5 (No Action).”: None of the alternatives 

would be expected to have an effect on seismicity in the region so this issue is not further addressed.

Page 4-16, inserted after line 22, new paragraphs: Paleontological resources may have been affected 

by past military activities at the CMAGR and may be subject to further impacts by ongoing or future 

activities. The specific extent to which these resources may have been or could be affected by military 

activities cannot be determined, however, because there are no data on the occurrence, distribution, or 

abundance of fossils. The best estimate of the potential for military activities to affect paleontological 

resources is provided by an intersection analysis of military use areas at the CMAGR with potential fossil 

yielding geologic units as defined by the BLM PFYC system. As reported in Section 3.4.5.4, the largest 

potential for military activities to affect paleontological resources likely would occur within the weapons 

impact areas associated with ordnance delivery training targets, which represent almost 94 percent of the 

locations at the CMAGR where the ground surface is subject to moderate to high levels of disturbance.

The results shown in Table 3-10a show that weapons delivery activities may be affecting fossils at the 

CMAGR, but also that potential effects are limited to small proportions of geologic units with moderate 

to high potentials to yield fossils as defined by the BLM PFYC system. Active core weapons impact areas 

affect only 1.0 percent or less of the areas of two of the three geologic units that are classified as having a 

high potential to yield fossils and 0.3 percent or less of the area of the geologic unit that is classified as 

having a moderate potential to yield fossils. Secondary weapons impact areas are larger than core impact 

areas and not surprisingly affect larger areas of the geologic units with moderate or high potentials to 

yield fossils. The affected areas are not extensive, however, and vary between less that 0.1 and 

4.7 percent. The implications of these findings are mitigated somewhat by the fact that concentrated 

ordnance impacts within the secondary impact areas generally occur only at the closest distances to the 

targets. Ordnance impact and detonation effects sharply diminish with increasing distance from the targets 

and, at the outer perimeter fall essentially to zero. There likely would be no differences among 

Alternatives 1 through 4, which would all renew the CMAGR land withdrawal, in terms of the potential 

for ongoing or future military activities to impact paleontological resources as the range renewal 

alternatives would all support the same patterns and intensities of military use.

Page 4-40, line 22, inserted after line 22 as new paragraph: Potential ground-borne vibration impacts 

are not assessed for each alternative with respect to this LEIS for the following reasons:

There are no applicable regulations and standards with respect to vibration at off-range receivers 

and CMAGR operations;

Vibration was not identified as an issue during scoping; and

As suggested in Section 3.9.2.2, due to distances between off-range receivers and CMAGR 

operations, what might be considered potential vibration-sensitive receivers are not currently 

expected to be impacted. The source-to-receiver distance alterations caused by CMAGR 

boundary realignments would not affect this baseline condition.

Page 4-48, line 26, inserted after “4.11.5 Alternative 5”: (No Action)

Page 4-50, line 21, inserted after “4.12.5 Alternative 5”: (No Action)

Page 5-8, line 38, corrected citation: ...most of these operations would play out (Shumway, 

Vredenburgh, and Hartill 1981). The effects of historic...
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-9 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

Page 5-12, line 44, added citation to this paragraph: ... municipal, or industrial activities or are 

adjacent to such activities (see Figure 5-1) (Imperial County Planning & Development Services 2011). 

Although each of...

Page 8-1, lines 16-18, updated reference:

Apple, Rebecca McCorkle and James Cleland. 2001. Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection 

(HARP) Plan for the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range, Imperial County, California. In

Cleland and Wahoff, 2006. Regional Archaeological Research Design for Chocolate Mountain Aerial 

Gunnery Range, Imperial and Riverside Counties, California.

Page 8-2, lines 24-25, removed the letter after the date of this reference:

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Employment and Unemployment by County, July. Accessed on 30 

August 2011 at http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables.

Page 8-2, lines 26-27 updated reference:

Bureau of labor Statistics. 2012. Local Area Unemployment Statistics for selected Arizona cities, 2008-

2012. Accessed on 26 February 2013 at http://www.bls.gov/.

Page 8-2, lines 29-30, updated access date:

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics. Accessed on 8 

February 2013 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/.

Page 8-2, line 31, updated reference (changed dates) for California Air Resources Board:

. 2012. “Ambient Air Quality Standards” (table). Accessed on 7 June 2012 at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.

Page 8-2, line 33, added reference: 

California Department of Conservation. 2002. Geothermal Map of California. California Division of Oil, 

Gas, and Geothermal Resources and California Geological Survey Map S-11. 1:1,500,000 scale. 2 pp.

Page 8-3, line 7: Put Caltrans reference into correct alphabetical order just above Cassiliano on page 8-4.

Page 8-3, line 24, added reference: 

California Department of Water Resources. 2010. Groundwater Basing Maps. GIS data downloaded 

August 2011. Accessed at 

http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/gwbasin_maps_descriptions.cfm.

Page 8-3, line 24, corrected the author reference:

California Employment Development Department. 2011a. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and 

Census Designated Places, June 2011—Preliminary (Data not Seasonally Adjusted). Accessed on 30 

August 2011 at http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/.

Page 8-4, line 2, updated reference access date:

California Herps. n.d. Scaphiopus couchii. Accessed on 29 January 2013 at 

http://www.californiaherps.com/frogs/pages/s.couchii.html.

Page 8-4, line 3, added reference:

California Historical Resources Information System. 2011. Cultural Resources Records Search for the 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Project (URS Project Number: 23446096.10004). Letter sent 

by Michael P. Loyd, Information Officer, on 17 August. Riverside, California.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-10 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

Page 8-4, line 10, added reference: 

California Spatial Information Library. 2010. GIS data downloaded May 2010. Accessed at 

http://atlas.ca.gov/download.html.

Page 8-4, lines 23-25, updated reference:

Cleland, J.H., D. Earle, and T. Wahoff. 2010. Cultural Affiliation Study for the Chocolate Mountain 

Aerial Gunnery Range. In AECOM 2011. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan for the 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, California.

Page 8-5, line 24, added reference: 

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2010. GIS data provided as a part of ArcGIS 10.0.

Page 8-6, line 7, corrected citation:

Gutierrez, C., W. Bryant, G. Saucedo, and C. Wills. 2010. 2010 Geologic Map of California. California 

Geological Survey. Geologic Data Map No. 2. Includes geographic information system data for mapping 

purposes. Geologic Data Map No. 2. Includes geographic information system data for mapping purposes. 

Page 8-6, lines 18-19, updated reference:

Imperial County Planning and Development Services. 2011. Mount Signal Solar Farm. Accessed at 

ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/mount-signal-solar/final/08project-description.pdf.

Page 8-6, line 21, updated accessed date for reference: 

Imperial Irrigation District (IID). 2011. Solar Project. Imperial Irrigation District. 2011. Accessed on 7 

February 2013 at http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=447.

Page 8-6, lines 24-27, updated reference: 

Jefferson, G.T. 2010. Chocolate Mountains Bureau of Land Management Geothermal Leases: 

Paleontologic Resources Record Search and Estimate of Formation Sensitivity. Unpublished manuscript, 

Stout Research Center, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, pp. 1-4. on file at the Sanberg Group, Inc., 

Whittier. We thank the California Department of Parks and Recreation for access to unpublished 

documents from the Stout Research Center.

Page 8-6, line 28, corrected reference date:

[Jefferson] . 2007. Salton Sea SRA, Paleontological...

Page 8-6, lines 28-30, updated reference:

. 1995. Salton Sea SRA, Paleontological Resources Inventory and Management 

Recommendations. Unpublished manuscript, Stout Research Center, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. pp. 

1-6. We thank the California Department of Parks and Recreation for access to unpublished documents 

from the Stout Research Center.

Page 8-7, line 28, inserted after reference:

Accessed at www.denix.osd.mil/sri/upload/MCAS-Yuma-2.pdf.

Page 8-8, line 15, added reference: 

Microsoft Corporation. 2010. Microsoft Aerial Bing Photography accessed using ArcGIS 10.0 for 

mapping purposes.

Page 8-7, lines 32-33, deleted reference:

Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar Annual Report 2011. Accessed on 15 December 2011 at 

http://www.miramar.usmc.mil/documents/SHR.pdf.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-11 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

Page 8-8, lines 9-11, deleted reference:

Meilinger, P.S. 2007. Lowering Risk Air Power Can Reduce Civilian Casualties. Armed Forces Journal. 

Army Times Publishing Company, Gannett Company, Inc. July. Accessed on 12 March 2011 at 

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/07/4079006/

Page 8-8, line 20, deleted reference:

National Climate Data Center (NCDC). 2011. Annual Climate Summary, El Centro California, 2010.

Page 8-9, line 6, updated reference:

Nussear, K.E., T.C. Esque, R.D. Inman, Leila Gass, K.A. Thomas, C.S.A. Wallace, J.B. Blainey, 

D.M.Miller, and R.H. Webb. 2009. ―Modeling habitat of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the 

Mojave and parts of the Sonoran Deserts of California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2009-1102,” 18 p. Includes geographic information system data for mapping 

purposes.

Page 8-9, line 27, added reference: 

Riverside County Integrated Project. 2003. County of Riverside General Plan—Hearing Draft. Chapter 7 

Noise Element, Vibration. Accessed on 20 March 2013 at http://www.rcip.org/general_plan_07_toc.htm.

Page 8-11, line 21, added reference: 

URS Corporation. 2011-2012. Geographic information system data developed for mapping purposes.

Page 8-11, lines 33-34, updated reference:

. 2000b. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1)—100-Percent Data, Race and Hispanic or Latino: 

2000 (Tables P3 and P4). Accessed on 29 August 2011 at 

http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. 

Page 8-11, lines 35 -36, updated reference:

. 2000c. Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3)—Sample Data, Income in 1999 by Selected 

Household, Family, and Individual Characteristics: 2000 (Table-P53). Accessed on 29 August 2011 at 

http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. 

Page 8-12, lines 1-2, updated reference:

. 2000d. Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3)—Sample Data, Poverty Status in 1999 by Age 

(Table-P87). Accessed on 29 August 2011 at http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. 

Page 8-12, lines 3-5, updated reference:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. U.S. General Soil Map, 

State Soil Geographic (STATSGO2) Geographic Information System Database. United States 

Department of Agriculture. Accessed on 1 November 2011 at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov.

Page 8-12, lines 16-17, deleted reference:

. 1997. Environmental Effects of Self Protection, Chaff and Flares. Final Report, Headquarter Air 

Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.

Page 8-12, line 20, added reference:

. 2012. Geographic Information System data provided by Range Safety and Design Branch/ 

Range Training Area Management.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-12 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

Page 8-12, line 20, added reference:

. 2010-2012. Geographic Information System data provided by the MCAS Yuma Range 

Management Department (YRMD).

Page 8-12, line 20, added reference:

. 2010-2011. Geographic Information System data provided by MCAS Yuma Installation 

Geospatial Information and Services (IGI&S) Department.

Page 8-12, line 28, added reference: 

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2005. Geographic information system data 

accessed at http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html.

Page 8-12, lines 28-29, deleted reference:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2012. Palm Springs-South Coast 

Field Office. Accessed in January 2012 at http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings.html.

Page 8-12, line 30, updated access date for a reference of the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management:

. 2011. Chuckwalla-Palen Mountains Wilderness Area. Accessed on 7 February 2013 at 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings/chuckwalla_palen.html.

Page 8-12, lines 34-36, updated reference:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2012. West Chocolate Mountains 

Renewable Energy Evaluation Area (REEA). U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land 

Management, El Centro Field Office. 19 December 2012. Accessed on 7 February 2013 at 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/wcm.html.

Page 8-13, lines 1-4, corrected all dates for this reference:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2013. California Renewable Energy 

Projects and Utility Corridors. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Desert 

District, California. 7 January 2013. Accessed in February 2013 at 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/pa/energy/

application_maps.Par.30605.File.dat/CDD_Application_Map.pdf.

Page 8-13, line 16, added reference:

. 2008-2011. GIS data downloaded and accessed at http://www.blm.gov/ca/gis/.

Page 8-13, lines 30-32, corrected the dates for this U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management reference:

. 2007. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Bureau of 

Land Management, Desert District, California. September 2007. Accessed on 25 September 2011 at 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings/coachella_valley.html.

Page 8-14, line 3, added letter to date and corrected reference title:

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2011a. Preliminary Site Evaluation, Chocolate Mountain Aerial 

Gunnery Range Proposed Boundary Realignment....

Page 8-14, line 7, added reference:

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2011b. Email correspondence from Ms. Marie Stewart CIV 

regarding CMAGR Withdrawal Renewal LEIS Data Call, as forwarded by Michael P. Ouellett CTR. 14 

July.
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 3-13 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 3.0 Errata and Additions

Page 8-14, lines 25-26, deleted reference:

. 2003. Proposed Plan/Draft Remedial Action Plan for Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

Range, Installation Restoration Program Sites 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8. July.

Page 8-14, line 31, added reference: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2011. Geographic information 

system data downloaded at 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/

2011/index.html.

Page 8-15, line 5, added date of access to reference:

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2010. National Scenic 

Byways Program, Official Designations, Bradshaw Trail. Accessed on 7 February 2013 at 

http://www.byways.org/explore/byways/2172/designation.html.

Page 8-16, line 3, deleted the letter after the date of this U.S. Geological Survey reference:

. 2008. Assessment of Moderate- and High-Temperature Geothermal Resources of the United 

States. U. S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3082. 4 pp.

Page 8-16, line 5, deleted this U.S. Geological Survey reference:

. 2004. Earthquakes Hazards Program/Quaternary Fault and Fold Database.

Page 8-16, line 6, corrected the reference authors:

Shumway, G.L., L. Vredenburgh, and R.D. Hartill. 1981. Desert Fever, An Overview of the Mining 

History in the California Desert Conservation Area. Accessed on 15 January 2012 at 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/cdd/aml.Par.54155.File.dat/Desert%20Fever%20-

%20History%20of%20Mining%20in%20the%20CDCA.pdf.

Page 8-16, line 6, added reference: 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2010c. National Hydrography Dataset, GIS data, downloaded in December 2010.

Accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html.

Page 8-16, lines 22-24, updated reference (changed dates):

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2012. “Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Eagle 

Mountain, California (042598), Period of Record: 9/1/1933 to 9/30/2012.” Accessed in February 2013 at 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2598.

3.2 SPECIFIC CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT LEIS APPENDICES

Page D-2, inserted updated Appendix E, Navy Record of Non-Applicability for Clean Air Act 

Conformity, after page D-2:

Page H-2, inserted Appendix I, Federal Register Notices for Draft LEIS, after page H-2: 
APPENDIX E

NAVY RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY FOR 

CLEAN AIR ACT CONFORMITY
1 | P a g e

NAVY RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY FOR CLEAN AIR ACT CONFORMITY

The proposed action falls under the Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) category and is documented 

with this RONA.

Proposed Action:

Action Proponent: Department of the Navy 

Location: Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR), 

Imperial and Riverside Counties, California

Proposed Action Name: Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal

Proposed Action & Emissions Summary: The CMAGR is a live-fire aviation training range that was 

initially established during World War II and has supported tactical military aviation training ever since. 

It is located to the east of the Salton Sea in Imperial and Riverside counties, California. The CMAGR 

provides more than 700 square miles of land and several thousands of square miles of overlying and 

adjacent Special Use Airspace (SUA) that continues to support training that is essential to the readiness of 

the nation’s Marine Corps and Naval air forces.

The current withdrawal of Department of the Interior (DoI) public lands for the CMAGR, established 

through the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflight Act of 1994 (CMLWOA), is scheduled 

to expire in October 2014. There continues to be a military need for the CMAGR so the Proposed Action 

is the Department of the Navy’s (DoN’s) request that Congress renew the land withdrawal and military 

reservation. The DoN filed a land withdrawal application with the DOI Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) for public lands currently within the CMAGR as well as for some adjacent lands being considered 

to establish a more effective and identifiable range boundary. Land jurisdiction at the CMAGR resembles 

a checkerboard where roughly every other section (640 acres or approximately 1 square mile) falls under 

either DoN or DoI jurisdiction. About 232,116 acres of the checkerboard are Navy lands while the 

alternate sections (approximately 226,711 acres) are withdrawn DoI public lands managed by the BLM. 

Congressional approval is required for land withdrawals for national defense purposes that total more than 

5,000 acres in aggregate.

The Proposed Action is a legislative proceeding and will not affect the current operations of the CMAGR, 

thus there will be no new air pollutant emissions as a result of the Proposed Action.

Affected Air Basin(s): Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB)

Date RONA prepared: 03 October 2011

RONA prepared by: DoN 

Proposed Action Exemption(s): Per 40 CFR 93.153, the conformity requirements do not apply to judicial 

and legislative proceedings that would result in no emissions increase. 

Attainment Area Status and Emissions Evaluation Conclusion: The Imperial County portion of the SSAB 

is classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone (O3) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS), and the western two-thirds of Imperial County is classified as a serious 

nonattainment area for particulate matter (PM10). The SSAB portion of Riverside County is classified as a 

severe nonattainment area for the 8-hour O3 NAAQS, and also is classified as a serious nonattainment 

area for PM10. The CMAGR attains all other NAAQS. 
2 | P a g e

As discussed above, a portion of the CMAGR lies within Imperial County and a portion lies within 

Riverside County. The Proposed Action emissions are presented with the conformity de minimis

thresholds for Imperial County and Riverside County in Table 1.

Table 1 – Net Emissions and De Minimis Thresholds

Criteria Pollutant

Net Emissions from 

Proposed Action

(tons/year)

De Minimis 

Threshold 

(tons/year)

Net Emissions 

above/below 

Threshold? 

Riverside County

PM10 0 70 below

NOX 0 25 below

ROG 0 25 below

Imperial County

PM10 0 70 below

NOX 0 100 below

ROG 0 100 below

PM10 – particulate matter of 10 microns or less

NOX – nitrogen oxides

ROG – reactive organic gases

The proposed renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal results in no emissions increase as presented in 

the Legislative Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Action. Therefore, the DoN concludes 

that the general conformity rule does not apply to the Proposed Action and a Conformity Analysis is not 

required, resulting in this documented RONA.
APPENDIX I 

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES FOR DRAFT LEIS 

Department of Defense Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of DLEIS 

Vol. 77, No. 170, Page 53189 

Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability of DLEIS 

Vol. 77, No. 170, Page 53198 

Department of Defense Notice of Public Meeting Location Change 

Vol. 77, No. 195, Page 61401 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 / Notices 53189 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Public Meetings for the Draft 

Legislative Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Renewal of 

the Chocolate Mountain Aerial 

Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal, 

California 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

Cooperating Agencies: Bureau of 

Reclamation and Bureau of Land 

Management, Department of the 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321– 

4370h); the Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations for implementing 

the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 

CFR 1500–1508); Department of the 

Navy (DoN) Procedures for 

Implementing NEPA (32 CFR Part 775); 

and Marine Corps NEPA directives 

(Marine Corps Order P5090.2A), the 

DoN, in cooperation with the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) and Bureau of 

Reclamation, has prepared and filed 

with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency a Draft Legislative 

Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) 

that evaluates the potential 

environmental consequences that may 

result from renewing the withdrawal of 

approximately 228,465 acres of public 

land for continued use as part of the 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

Range (CMAGR) in Imperial and 

Riverside counties, California. 

With the filing of the Draft LEIS, the 

United States Marine Corps (USMC) is 

initiating a 90-day public comment 

period and has scheduled four public 

meetings to receive oral and written 

comments on the Draft LEIS. Federal, 

state, and local agencies; Native 

American tribes; and interested parties 

are encouraged to provide comments in 

person at any of the public meetings, or 

in writing anytime during the public 

comment period. This notice announces 

the dates and locations of the public 

meetings and provides supplementary 

information about the environmental 

planning effort. These public meetings 

also meet the requirement set forth in 

Section 806 of the California Desert 

Protection Act for the Secretary of the 

Navy to hold a public hearing in the 

State of California to receive public 

comments on the Draft LEIS. 

DATES AND ADDRESSES: The Draft LEIS 

public review period will begin on 

August 31, 2012 and end on November 

30, 2012. All comments regarding the 

Draft LEIS must be received by 

November 30, 2012 to ensure full 

consideration in the Final LEIS. Each of 

the four public meetings will be 

conducted in an open house meeting 

format. The public meetings will be 

held from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on the 

following dates and at the following 

locations: 

1. October 22, 2012 at the Yuma 

County Library, 2951 S. 21st Drive, 

Rooms B–C, Yuma, AZ. 

2. October 23, 2012 at the Southwest 

High School, 2001 Ocotillo Dr., El 

Centro, CA. 

3. October 24, 2012 at the Mizell 

Senior Center, 480 South Sunrise Way, 

Palm Springs, CA. 

4. October 25, 2012 at the Oceanside 

Public Library, 330 North Coast 

Highway, Oceanside, CA. 

Public 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, the 

USMC, and Department of the Interior 

representatives; and submit public 

comments. 

Availability of the Draft LEIS: The 

Draft LEIS is available at the project 

Web site, 

www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com 

and at the following local libraries: 

1. County Library (Main Branch): 

2951 S. 21st Drive, Yuma, AZ. 

2. Public Library: 400 Main Street, 

Brawley, CA. 

3. Public Library (San Ysidro Branch): 

101 W. San Ysidro Blvd., San Diego, 

CA. 

4. Palo Verde Valley Library: 125 

West Chanslor Way, Blythe, CA. 

5. Community Center Branch Library: 

375 South 1st Street, El Centro, CA. 

Comments: Attendees will be able to 

submit written comments at the public 

meetings. A court reporter will be 

available to accept oral comments. 

Equal weight will be given to oral and 

written statements. Comments on the 

Draft LEIS may be submitted by: (1) 

Attending one of the public hearings 

and providing oral or written comments, 

(2) completing the comment form on the 

project’s public Web site at www.

chocolatemountainrenewal.com/

Comment/Default.aspx, or (3) by 

sending a letter to the CMAGR LEIS 

Project Manager (Attn: Ms. Kelly Finn), 

NAVFAC Southwest, 1220 Pacific 

Highway, Building 1 Central IPT, San 

Diego, CA 92132–5190. All comments 

must be postmarked or electronically 

dated no later than November 30, 2012 

to ensure they become part of the public 

record. All statements (oral 

transcription and written) submitted 

during the public review period will 

become part of the public record on the 

Draft LEIS and will be addressed in the 

Final LEIS. 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

CMAGR LEIS Project Manager (Attn: 

Ms. Kelly Finn), NAVFAC Southwest, 

1220 Pacific Highway, Building 1 

Central IPT, San Diego, CA 92132–5190; 

phone 619–532–4452. Additional 

supplementary information regarding 

the CMAGR Draft LEIS is available at 

www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com. 

Please submit requests for special 

assistance, sign language interpretation 

for the hearing impaired, or other 

auxiliary aids needed at the public 

meetings to the LEIS Project Manager at 

least five business days before the 

meeting date. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice 

of Intent to prepare the Draft LEIS was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 24, 2010 (Vol. 75, No. 185, p. 

58370). 

Purpose and Need: The CMAGR has 

served as an aerial bombing and 

gunnery training range since the 1940s, 

and currently provides approximately 

458,530 acres (about 716 square miles) 

of land to support military training. 

Training at the CMAGR is also 

supported by overlying and adjacent 

special-use airspace that extends 

laterally for several thousands of square 

miles. The CMAGR is needed to provide 

live-fire training that is essential for 

developing and maintaining the 

readiness of USMC and Navy aviators. 

The range is also vital for training select 

USMC and Navy land combat forces; 

including Naval Special Warfare (NSW) 

forces. Among other activities, the 

CMAGR and associated airspace 

supports training in air combat 

maneuvering and tactics; close air 

support (where air-to-ground ordnance 

is delivered directly in support of 

friendly forces); airborne laser system 

operations; air-to-air gunnery; and airto-ground bombing, rocketry, and 

strafing. Ground-based artillery, 

demolition, small arms, and NSW 

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 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

3-15
53190 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 / Notices 

support full-spectrum combat 

operations so that Marines can 

realistically train as they will fight. 

The purpose of renewing the CMAGR 

land withdrawal is to retain the training 

range. The U.S. military is fully invested 

in the principle that high quality 

training is essential to the success and 

survival of its forces in combat; the 

CMAGR is needed to provide the quality 

training that provides a realistic 

approximation of the conditions that 

Marines, sailors, airmen, and soldiers 

will face in combat as individuals and 

in small or large units. Access to ranges 

that offer flexible, diverse, and realistic 

training is essential to preparing tactical 

forces of the highest possible quality. 

Thus, the necessity of keeping the 

CMAGR fully in service can best be 

understood from two main perspectives: 

(1) The necessity of providing high 

quality training and (2) the superlative 

qualities of the CMAGR for supporting 

that training. 

Proposed Action: The Proposed 

Action is to renew the military land 

withdrawal and reservation of the 

CMAGR. The Proposed Action includes 

four elements: (1) Defining a proposed 

range boundary and land withdrawal 

area; (2) either a set duration for the 

proposed land withdrawal with an 

option for requesting a subsequent 

renewal, a land withdrawal without a 

termination date, or transferring the 

land to the DoN; (3) proposals for 

redefining DoN and BLM management 

responsibilities for the CMAGR; and (4) 

provisions for the disposal and 

management of land that is not included 

in the renewal. 

Alternatives Considered in the Draft 

LEIS: A range of alternatives for the 

proposed renewal and administration of 

the CMAGR land withdrawal were 

developed in consideration of 

comments received from the public, 

Native American tribes, and government 

agencies during the scoping process. 

Four action alternatives (Alternatives 1 

through 4) would renew the land 

withdrawal and keep the CMAGR 

available to support military training. 

The no-action alternative (Alternative 5) 

would allow the current land 

withdrawal to expire in October 2014, 

which would result in the closure of the 

CMAGR for military training. 

The Draft LEIS evaluates realigning 

the CMAGR boundary in three 

locations: South of the Niland-Blythe 

Road on the eastern side of the range, 

along the Bradshaw Trail at the northern 

end of the range, and along the Union 

Pacific Railroad (UPRR) at the 

southwestern side of the range. The 

Bradshaw Trail and UPRR realignments 

are proposed to align the CMAGR 

boundary with these prominent 

geographic features, which would 

increase public awareness of the 

location of the range boundary and 

facilitate maintenance of prohibited 

entry and hazardous area warning signs 

along the CMAGR perimeter. 

Two parcels of currently withdrawn 

BLM land located south of the NilandBlythe Road, which are not needed for 

military purposes, are proposed to be 

excluded from the withdrawal renewal. 

Two alternatives for realigning the 

CMAGR boundary along the south side 

of the Bradshaw Trail are considered in 

the Draft LEIS. The full Bradshaw Trail 

realignment would align the CMAGR 

boundary along the southern side of the 

trail for the entire 36 miles over which 

it intersects the range. The full 

realignment would (1) release about 647 

acres of DoN land and about 1,924 acres 

of currently withdrawn BLM land, 

including the Bradshaw Trail National 

Backcountry Byway, north of the 

realigned boundary from the CMAGR 

and (2) require the first-time withdrawal 

of about 530 acres of BLM land and 

potential acquisition of about 455 acres 

of private and 10 acres of State land to 

the interior of the new boundary. The 

land proposed for release is not needed 

for military purposes. The partial 

Bradshaw Trail realignment would align 

the CMAGR boundary along the 

southern side of an aggregate of about 20 

miles of segments of the Bradshaw Trail 

that traverse either DoN or currently 

withdrawn BLM land. This action 

would release about 647 acres of DoN 

land and about 1,640 acres of currently 

withdrawn BLM land from the ranges 

that are not needed for military 

purposes. The boundary would not be 

realigned from its present locations 

where BLM, State, or private land south 

of the Bradshaw Trail is not presently 

part of the CMAGR. 

The proposed UPRR realignment on 

the southwestern side of the CMAGR 

would follow the eastern side of the 

UPRR right-of-way, the northern side of 

the Mesquite Regional Landfill Rail 

Spur right-of-way, and an existing road. 

This action would include (1) the firsttime withdrawal of about 11,903 acres 

of BLM land that are not currently in the 

CMAGR and (2) the potential 

acquisition of about 658 acres of State 

land. 

The boundary realignment proposals 

create four boundary and land 

withdrawal alternatives: 

1. Renew the CMAGR boundary and 

land withdrawal area without change 

from the existing condition (Alternative 

1). 

2. Renew the CMAGR boundary and 

land withdrawal area per the existing 

conditions except incorporate the full 

Bradshaw Trail, UPRR, and south of 

Niland-Blythe Road realignments 

(Alternative 2). 

3. Renew the CMAGR boundary and 

land withdrawal area per the existing 

conditions except incorporate the full 

Bradshaw Trail and south of NilandBlythe Road realignments (Alternative 

3). 

4. Renew the CMAGR boundary and 

land withdrawal area per the existing 

conditions except incorporate only the 

partial Bradshaw Trail realignment 

(Alternative 4). 

The boundary realignment and land 

withdrawal area proposals of 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would each 

release some BLM and DoN land from 

the CMAGR. Alternatives considered for 

the disposal and management of land 

released from range include: 

1. Released DoN land would be 

transferred to BLM; BLM would manage 

transferred DoN and formerly 

withdrawn BLM land per FLPMA 

(Alternative 2). 

2. Released DoN land would be 

disposed of through existing General 

Services Administration (GSA) 

authorities and procedures; DoN would 

manage released land per the Sikes Act 

until disposal is complete and BLM 

would manage formerly withdrawn 

BLM land per FLPMA (Alternatives 3 

and 4). 

Three options are proposed for the 

duration of the renewed CMAGR land 

withdrawal: 20 years (Alternative 1, 

existing condition); 25 years 

(Alternatives 2 and 4); or indefinite 

(Alternative 3). 

Three options are proposed for 

administering federal land management 

responsibilities for the DoN and BLM 

lands within the current CMAGR 

boundary and for BLM land that may be 

included in the range for the first time 

as a part of a proposed boundary 

realignment. The options include: 

1. Retain the existing DoN and BLM 

management assignments within the 

renewed CMAGR, which provide that 

the DoN is responsible for managing 

DoN land in accordance with the Sikes 

Act and the BLM is responsible for 

managing BLM land in accordance with 

the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) (Alternative 

1, existing condition). 

2. Transfer management responsibility 

for BLM land within the renewed 

CMAGR to the DoN for the duration of 

the land withdrawal, which would 

make the DoN responsible for managing 

both the DoN and withdrawn BLM 

lands within the range in accordance 

with the Sikes Act (Alternatives 2 and 

4). 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

3-16
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 / Notices 53191 

3. Transfer jurisdiction for the BLM 

land within the renewed CMAGR to the 

DoN, which would make the DoN 

responsible for managing all land within 

the range in accordance with the Sikes 

Act until such time that the need for the 

range may end and it is deactivated and 

closed (Alternative 3). 

The no-action alternative (Alternative 

5) would result in the closure of the 

CMAGR for military training. Selection 

of this alternative would trigger 

planning and actions to compensate for 

the displacement of training from the 

range and planning and actions for the 

decommissioning, decontamination and 

cleanup, and potential reuse of at least 

portions of the range. The BLM would 

resume full administrative 

responsibility for about 226,825 acres of 

currently withdrawn BLM land, with 

the possible exception of parcels that 

the Secretary of the Interior may not be 

able to accept because of potential 

expended ordnance contamination. The 

Secretary of the Navy would be 

responsible for custodial management of 

parcels with unacceptable levels of 

expended ordnance contamination. The 

Secretary of the Navy would also retain 

administrative responsibility for about 

229,256 acres of DoN land from the 

closed CMAGR until such time as a 

portion or all of that land could be 

transferred to another federal agency, 

the State of California, or otherwise 

disposed of through existing GSA 

authorities and procedures. The State of 

California holds reversionary rights for 

about 11,311 acres of DoN land in the 

CMAGR that were acquired in fee from 

the State. California also holds some or 

all mineral rights on an additional 

10,981 acres of the DoD land. 

Dated: August 24, 2012. 

C.K. Chiappetta, 

Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge 

Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Federal 

Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21465 Filed 8–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, 

Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting of the Ultra-Deepwater 

Advisory Committee. The Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public 

notice of this meeting be announced in 

the Federal Register. 

DATES: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 

8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. (CST). 

ADDRESSES: Hyatt North Houston, 425 

North Sam Houston Parkway East, 

Houston, TX 77060. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elena Melchert, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, 

Washington, DC 20585. Phone: (202) 

586–5600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Committee: The 

purpose of the Ultra-Deepwater 

Advisory Committee is to provide 

advice to the Secretary of Energy on 

development and implementation of 

programs related to ultra-deepwater 

architecture; and to provide comments 

and recommendations and priorities for 

the Department of Energy Annual Plan 

per requirements of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005, Title IX, Subtitle J, Section 

999D. 

Tentative Agenda 

September 26, 2012 

7:30 a.m.–8:00 a.m. Registration. 

8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Call to Order, 

Welcome, Introductions, Opening 

Remarks, Overview of the Oil and Gas 

Ultra-Deepwater Research Portfolio. 

1:00 p.m.–4:45 p.m. Overview of Draft 

2013 Annual Plan. 

4:45 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Public 

Comments, if any. 

5:00 p.m. Adjourn. 

Public Participation: The meeting is 

open to the public. The Designated 

Federal Officer and the Chairman of the 

Committee will lead the meeting for the 

orderly conduct of business. If you 

would like to file a written statement 

with the Committee, you may do so 

either before or after the meeting. If you 

would like to make oral statements 

regarding any of the items on the 

agenda, you should contact Elena 

Melchert at the telephone number listed 

above. You must make your request for 

an oral statement at least three business 

days prior to the meeting, and 

reasonable provisions will be made to 

include all who wish to speak. Public 

comment will follow the three minute 

rule. 

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting 

will be available for public review and 

copying within 60 days at the following 

Web site: www.fossil.energy.gov/ 

programs/oilgas/advisorycommittees/ 

UltraDeepwater.html. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on August 27, 

2012. 

LaTanya R. Butler, 

Acting Deputy Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21547 Filed 8–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Unconventional Resources 

Technology Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of 

Fossil Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting of the Unconventional 

Resources Technology Advisory 

Committee. The Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 

770) requires that public notice of this 

meeting be announced in the Federal 

Register. 

DATES: Tuesday, September 25, 8:00 

a.m.–5:00 p.m. (CST). 

ADDRESSES: Hyatt North Houston, 425 

North Sam Houston Parkway East, 

Houston, TX 77060. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elena Melchert, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, 

Washington, DC 20585. Phone: (202) 

586–5600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Committee: The 

purpose of the Unconventional 

Resources Technology Advisory 

Committee is to provide advice to the 

Secretary of Energy on development and 

implementation of programs related to 

onshore unconventional natural gas and 

other petroleum resources; and to 

provide comments and 

recommendations and priorities for the 

Department of Energy Annual Plan per 

requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, Title IX, Subtitle J, Section 999D. 

Tentative Agenda 

September 25, 2012 

7:30 a.m.–8:00 a.m. Registration. 

8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Call to Order, 

Welcome, Introductions, Opening 

Remarks, Overview of the Oil and Gas 

Unconventional Research Portfolio 

(Unconventional Resources, Small 

Producers, and NETL Complementary 

Research). 

1:00 p.m.–4:45 p.m. Overview of Draft 

2013 Annual Plan. 

4:45 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Public 

Comments, if any. 

5:00 p.m. Adjourn. 

Public Participation: The meeting is 

open to the public. The Designated 

Federal Officer and the Chairman of the 

Committee will lead the meeting for the 

orderly conduct of business. If you 

would like to file a written statement 

with the Committee, you may do so 

either before or after the meeting. If you 

would like to make oral statements 

regarding any of the items on the 

agenda, you should contact Elena 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

3-17
53198 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 / Notices 

the EPA registration numbers of the 

Amrep, Inc., MGK 264/Pyrethrins/ 

Pyriproxyfen/Permethrin product 

affected by the cancellation order. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie Weyrauch, Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division, (7508P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–0166; email address: 

weyrauch.katie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The Agency included in the notice a 

list of those who may be potentially 

affected by this action. 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The docket for this action, identified 

by docket identification (ID) number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–1017, is available 

at http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory 

Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. What does this correction do? 

1. FR Doc. 2011–29990 published in 

the Federal Register of November 23, 

2011 (76 FR 72405) (FRL–9327–2) is 

corrected as follows: 

On page 72407, Table 1, under the 

heading Registrations with Pending 

Requests for Cancellation, in the first 

column, registration number ‘‘010807– 

00448’’ is corrected to read ‘‘010807– 

447.’’ On page 72407, in Table 1, in the 

second column, correct product name 

‘‘Country Vet Flea & Tick Fogger with 

Growth Inhibitor’’ to read ‘‘Purge 

Insecticide.’’ On page 72407, in Table 1, 

in the third column, correct active 

ingredients ‘‘MGK 264 Pyrethrins 

Pyriproxyfen Permethrin’’ to read 

‘‘Piperonyl butoxide Pyrethrins.’’ 

2. FR Doc. 2012–2982 published in 

the Federal Register of February 15, 

2012 (77 FR 8863) (FRL–9336–3) is 

corrected as follows: 

On page 8863, Table 1, under the 

heading Product Cancellations, in the 

first column, registration number 

‘‘010807–00448’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘010807–447.’’ On page 8863, in Table 

1, in the second column, correct product 

name ‘‘Country Vet Flea & Tick Fogger 

with Growth Inhibitor’’ to read ‘‘Purge 

Insecticide.’’ On page 8863, in Table 1, 

in the third column, correct active 

ingredients ‘‘MGK 264 Pyrethrins 

Pyriproxyfen Permethrin’’ to read 

‘‘Piperonyl butoxide Pyrethrins.’’ 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Pesticides 

and pests. 

Dated: August 21, 2012. 

Jeffrey S. Billingslea, 

Acting Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21433 Filed 8–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–9004–8] 

Environmental Impacts Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements 

Filed 08/20/2012 Through 08/24/2012 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

Notice 

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that EPA make public its 

comments on EISs issued by other 

Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters 

on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.

gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Starting 

October 1, 2012, EPA will not accept 

paper copies or CDs of EISs for filing 

purposes; all submissions on or after 

October 1, 2012 must be made through 

e-NEPA. While this system eliminates 

the need to submit paper or CD copies 

to EPA to meet filing requirements, 

electronic submission does not change 

requirements for distribution of EISs for 

public review and comment. To begin 

using e-NEPA, you must first register 

with EPA’s electronic reporting site—

https://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp. 

EIS No. 20120276, Final EIS, BLM, CA, 

Bakersfield Proposed Resource 

Management Plan, Madera, San Luis 

Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, 

Kings, Tulare, Fresno, and Kern 

Counties, CA, Review Period Ends: 

10/01/2012, Contact: Sue Porter 661– 

391–6067. 

EIS No. 20120277, Final EIS, NPS, 00, 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail, 

Delaware Water Gap National 

Recreation Area, Middle Delaware 

National Scenic and Recreational 

River, Susquehanna to Roseland 

500kV Transmission Line Right-ofWay and Special-Use-Permit, NJ and 

PA, Review Period Ends: 10/01/2012, 

Contact: Morgan Elmer 303–969– 

2317. 

EIS No. 20120278, Draft EIS, USN, CA, 

LEGISLATIVE—Renewal of the 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

Range Land Withdrawal, Imperial and 

Riverside Counties, CA, Comment 

Period Ends: 11/30/2012, Contact: 

Kelly Finn 619–532–4452. 

EIS No. 20120279, Draft EIS, VA, CA, 

San Francisco Veterans Affairs 

Medical Center (SFVAMC) Long 

Range Development Plan, 

Implementation, Fort Miley, San 

Francisco County, CA, Comment 

Period Ends: 10/16/2012, Contact: 

Allan Federman 415–221–4810. 

EIS No. 20120280, Draft EIS, BIA, FL, 

Seminole Tribe of Florida Fee-toTrust, Development of a Hotel/Resort 

and Retail Center of the Site, Coconut 

Creek, Broward County, FL, Comment 

Period Ends: 10/15/2012, Contact: 

Chester McGhee 615–564–6830. 

EIS No. 20120281, Final EIS, USFWS, 

CA, Santa Clara Valley Habitat 

Conservation Plan, Issuance of an 

Incidental Take Permit, Santa Clara 

County, CA, Review Period Ends: 10/ 

01/2012 Contact: Mike Thomas 916– 

414–6600. 

EIS No. 20120282, Final EIS, NRC, NM, 

Fluoride Extraction Process and 

Depleted Uranium Deconversion 

Plant, License Application to 

Construct, Operate, and 

Decommission Phase 1, Lea County, 

NM, Review Period Ends: 10/01/2012, 

Contact: Asimios Malliakos 301–415– 

6458. 

EIS No. 20120283, Final EIS, FRA, VA, 

Richmond and the Hampton Roads 

Passenger Rail Project, Tier I Proposed 

Higher Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

Service Improvements, VA, Review 

Period Ends: 10/01/2012, Contact: 

John Winkle 202–493–6067. 

EIS No. 20120284, Draft EIS, USFS, CO, 

White River National Forest Oil and 

Gas Leasing, Eagle, Garfield, 

Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat, Pitkin, Rio 

Blanco, Routt, and Summit Counties, 

CO, Comment Period Ends: 10/30/ 

2012, Contact: David Francomb 970– 

963–2266, ext. 3136. 

EIS No. 20120285, Draft Supplement, 

FHWA, CA, Interstate 5 North Coast 

Corridor Project, Construction of 

Improvements, from La Jolla Village 

Drive in San Diego to Harbor Drive in 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

3-18
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 / Notices 53199 

Oceanside/Camp Pendleton, New 

Information, San Diego County, CA, 

Comment Period Ends: 10/15/2012, 

Contact: Manuel E. Sanchez 619–699– 

7336. 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20120274, Draft EIS, USFS, AZ, 

Prescott National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan, Yavapai 

and Coconino Counties, AZ, 

Comment Period Ends: 11/28/2012, 

Contact: Mary C. Rasmussen 928– 

443–8265. Revision to FR Notice 

Published 08/24/2012; Change 

Comment Period Ending 10/08/2012 

to 11/28/2012. 

EIS No. 20120275, Draft EIS, USFS, MT, 

Wild Cramer Forest Health and Fuels 

Reduction Project, Swan Lake Ranger 

District, Flathead National Forest, 

Flathead County, MT, Comment 

Period Ends: 10/09/2012, Contact: 

Richard Kehr 406–837–7500. Revision 

to FR Notice Published 08/24/2012; 

Change Comment Period Ending 10/ 

08/2012 to 10/09/2012. 

Dated: August 28, 2012. 

Cliff Rader, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21568 Filed 8–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[AMS–FRL–9724–4] 

California State Motor Vehicle 

Pollution Control Standards; Advanced 

Clean Car Program; Request for 

Waiver of Preemption; Opportunity for 

Public Hearing and Public Comment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Opportunity for Public 

Hearing and Comment. 

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it 

has developed an Advanced Clean Car 

program (ACC) which combines the 

control of smog and soot causing 

pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions into a single coordinated 

package of requirements for passenger 

cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles (and limited 

requirements related to heavy-duty 

vehicles). The ACC program includes 

revisions to California’s Low Emission 

Vehicle (LEV) program as well as its 

Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program. 

By letter dated June 27, 2012, CARB 

submitted a request that EPA grant a 

waiver of preemption under section 

209(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 

U.S.C. 7543(b) for the revisions to the 

LEV program. CARB also seeks 

confirmation that the amendments to 

the ZEV program are within-the-scope 

of prior waiver decisions issued by EPA, 

or in the alternative requests a waiver 

for these revisions. This notice 

announces that EPA has scheduled a 

public hearing concerning California’s 

request and that EPA is accepting 

written comment on the request. 

DATES: EPA has scheduled a public 

hearing concerning CARB’s request on 

September 19, 2012, beginning at 9:00 

a.m. Any party planning to present oral 

testimony should notify EPA by 

September 14, 2012, expressing its 

interest. EPA will hold the public 

hearing at EPA’s offices at 1310 L Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Any party 

may submit written comments by 

October 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0562, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: dickinson.david@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 343–2804. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West (Air 

Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Room B108, Mail Code 6102T, 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0562. Please include a total of two 

copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. Instructions: Direct your 

comments to Docket ID No EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0562. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. Docket: All documents in the 

docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. 

EPA will make available for in person 

inspection, at the Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, written 

comments received from interested 

parties, in addition to any testimony 

given at the public hearing. The official 

public docket is the collection of 

materials that is available for public 

viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket 

in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) 

EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA Docket Center Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 

566–1743. The reference number for this 

docket is EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0562. 

EPA will make available an electronic 

copy of this Notice on the Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality’s 

(OTAQ’s) homepage (http://www.epa.

gov/otaq/). Users can find this 

document by accessing the OTAQ 

homepage and looking at the path 

entitled ‘‘Regulations.’’ This service is 

free of charge, except any cost you 

already incur for Internet connectivity. 

Users can also get the official Federal 

Register version of the Notice on the 

day of publication on the primary Web 

site: (http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/

EPA-AIR/). 

Please note that due to differences 

between the software used to develop 

the documents and the software into 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

3-19
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2012 / Notices 61401 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Change of Public Meeting 

Location for the Draft Legislative 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Proposed Renewal of the 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

Range Land Withdrawal, California 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The location of one of the four 

public meetings on the Draft LEIS is 

being changed. The October 25, 2012 

public meeting will now be held at the 

Oceanside City Council Chambers and 

Lobby, 330 North Coast Highway, 

Oceanside, CA. Each of the four public 

meetings will be conducted in an open 

house meeting format from 5:30 p.m. to 

8 p.m. A Notice of Public Meetings 

(NOPMs) for the Draft LEIS was 

published in the Federal Register on 

Friday, August 31, 2012 (Federal 

Register/Vol. 77, No. 170, page 53189). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

CMAGR LEIS Project Manager (Attn: 

Ms. Kelly Finn), NAVFAC Southwest, 

1220 Pacific Highway, Building 1 

Central IPT, San Diego, CA 92132–5190; 

phone 619–532–4452. Additional 

supplementary information regarding 

the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

Range (CMAGR) Draft LEIS is available 

at 

www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of the Navy, in cooperation 

with the Bureau of Land Management 

and Bureau of Reclamation, has 

prepared and filed with the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency a 

Draft Legislative Environmental Impact 

Statement (LEIS) that evaluates the 

potential environmental consequences 

that may result from renewing the 

withdrawal of approximately 228,465 

acres of public land for continued use 

as part of the CMAGR in Imperial and 

Riverside counties, California. A Notice 

of Availability and NOPMs for the Draft 

LEIS were published in the Federal 

Register on Friday, August 31, 2012 

(Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 170, 

pages 53189 and 53198). 

Each of the four public meetings will 

be conducted in an open house meeting 

format. The public meetings will be 

held from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. on the 

following dates and at the following 

locations: 

1. October 22, 2012 at the Yuma 

County Library, 2951 S. 21st Drive, 

Rooms B–C, Yuma, AZ. 

2. October 23, 2012 at the Southwest 

High School, 2001 Ocotillo Dr., El 

Centro, CA. 

3. October 24, 2012 at the Mizell 

Senior Center, 480 South Sunrise Way, 

Palm Springs, CA. 

4. October 25, 2012 at the City 

Council Chambers and Lobby, 330 

North Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA. 

Please submit requests for special 

assistance, sign language interpretation 

for the hearing impaired, or other 

auxiliary aids needed at the public 

meetings to the LEIS Project Manager at 

least five business days before the 

meeting date. 

Attendees will be able to submit 

written comments at the public 

meetings. A court reporter will be 

available to accept oral comments. 

Equal weight will be given to oral and 

written statements. Comments on the 

Draft LEIS may be submitted by: (1) 

Attending one of the public hearings 

and providing oral or written comments, 

(2) completing the comment form on the 

project’s public Web site at 

www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com/ 

Comment/Default.aspx, or (3) by 

sending a letter to the CMAGR LEIS 

Project Manager (Attn: Ms. Kelly Finn), 

NAVFAC Southwest, 1220 Pacific 

Highway, Building 1 Central IPT, San 

Diego, CA 92132–5190. All comments 

must be postmarked or electronically 

dated no later than November 30, 2012 

to ensure they become part of the public 

record. All statements (oral 

transcription and written) submitted 

during the public review period will 

become part of the public record on the 

Draft LEIS and will be addressed in the 

Final LEIS. 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. 

Dated: September 28, 2012. 

D.G. Zimmerman, 

Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge 

Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Federal 

Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–24749 Filed 10–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Availability of GovernmentOwned Inventions; Available for 

Licensing 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below 

are assigned to the United States 

Government as represented by the 

Secretary of the Navy and are available 

for domestic and foreign licensing by 

the Department of the Navy. 

The following patents are available for 

licensing: Patent No. 7,603,251: 

MAGNETIC ANOMALY SENSING 

SYSTEM FOR DETECTION, 

LOCALIZATION AND 

CLASSIFICATION OF A MAGNETIC 

OBJECT IN A CLUTTERED FIELD OF 

MAGNETIC ANOMALIES//Patent No. 

7,621,410: REMOVABLE EXTERNALLY 

MOUNTED BRIDGE CRANE FOR 

SHIPPING CONTAINERS//Patent No. 

7,637,224: COMMAND INFLATABLE 

BOAT STOPPING BARRIER//Patent No. 

7,654,262: SYSTEM FOR REDUCING 

HYDROSTATIC LOAD IMBALANCES 

IN A DRIVERS’ OPEN-CIRCUIT 

BREATHING APPARATUS//Patent No. 

7,688,072: PORTABLE MAGNETIC 

SENSING SYSTEM FOR REAL-TIME 

POINT-BY-POINT DETECTION, 

LOCALIZATION AND 

CLASSIFICATION OF MAGNETIC 

OBJECTS//Patent No. 7,712,727: AIR 

CUSHION VEHICLE BOW SKIRT 

RETRACTION SYSTEM//Patent No. 

7,712,429: LAUNCH AND RECOVERY 

SYSTEM FOR UNMANNED 

UNDERSEA VEHICLES//Patent No. 

7,721,666: HULL-MOUNTED LINE 

RETRIEVAL AND RELEASE SYSTEM// 

Patent No. 7,721,669: COMMON 

PAYLOAD RAIL FOR UNMANNED 

VEHICLES//Patent No. 7,726,497: 

REMOVABLE EXTERNALLY 

MOUNTED SLEWING CRANE FOR 

SHIPPING CONTAINERS//Patent No. 

7,730,843: HULL-MOUNTED LINE 

RETRIEVAL AND RELEASE SYSTEM// 

Patent No. 7,735,781: METHOD AND 

SYSTEM FOR DEPLOYMENT OF 

ORDNANCE FROM AN AIRCRAFT IN 

MID-FLIGHT//Patent No. 7,753,319: 

ADJUSTABLE CABLE HANGER FOR 

SECURING CABLES EXTERNALLY// 

Patent No. 7,760,438: AIR-TO-WATER 

DE-ANAMORPHOSER AND METHOD 

OF AIR-TO-WATER DEANAMORPHOSIS.// 

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the 

patents cited should be directed to 

Office of Counsel, Naval Surface 

Warfare Center Panama City Division, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

3-20
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-1 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 4.0 Agencies, Organizations, and

Persons Receiving Final LEIS

4.0 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND

PERSONS RECEIVING FINAL LEIS

The Final LEIS for the renewal of the CMAGR land withdrawal was sent to the agencies, organizations, 

and individuals listed in this chapter. This list includes the recipients of the Draft LEIS plus organizations 

or individuals that submitted substantive comments on the Draft LEIS, but that were not listed in the 

original distribution for the Draft LEIS. The Final LEIS was also sent to the five public libraries that 

received the Draft LEIS, which included:

Yuma County Library, 2951 South 21st Drive, Yuma, AZ 

El Centro Community Center Branch Library, 375 South 1st Street, El Centro, CA

Brawley Public Library, 400 Main Street, Brawley, CA

Palo Verde Valley Library, 125 West Chanslor Way, Blythe, CA

San Diego Public Library (San Ysidro Branch), 101 West San Ysidro Boulevard, San Diego, CA

Additionally, the Final LEIS is available for downloading at the project website at: 

www.chocolatemountainrenewal.com/. 

The Final LEIS was provided directly to the following agencies, organizations, and elected officials, 

which were included on the Draft LEIS distribution list:

FEDERAL

Army National Guard Readiness Center

Federal Highway Administration

Natural Resources Conservation Service, San Diego 

Office

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Yuma Field 

Office

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. National Park Service

TRIBAL

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

Ak-Chin Indian Community

Augustine Band of (Cahuilla) Mission Indians

Barona Band of Mission Indians

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians

Campo Kumeyaay Nation

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe

Cocopah Indian Tribe

Colorado River Indian Tribe

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe

Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Quechan Tribe

Gila River Indian Community

Inaja Band of Mission Indians

Jamul Band of Mission Indians

Kumeyaay Cultural Committee

Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians

La Posta Band of Mission Indians

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians

Manzanita Band of Mission Indians

Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians

Morongo Band of Mission Indians

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians

Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians

Sycuan Band of Mission Indians

Tohono O’odham Nation

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians

Viejas Band of Mission Indians

STATE OF ARIZONA

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Arizona Game and Fish Department
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal 4-2 April 2013

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 4.0 Agencies, Organizations, and

Persons Receiving Final LEIS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

California Air Resources Board

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

(California Department of Fish and Game before 

2013)

California Department of Parks and Recreation

California Department of Transportation

Office of the Attorney General

State Department of Health Services

State Department of Water Resources Control Board

State Historic Preservation Office

FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES 

Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator, California

Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, California

John Kyl, U.S. Senator, Arizona

John McCain, U.S. Senator, Arizona

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from 

California (53)

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from 

Arizona (8)

Jerry Brown, Governor of California

Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona

The following list of agencies, elected officials, organizations, and individuals, which commented on the 

Draft LEIS but that were not included on the distribution list for that document, were provided with a 

copy of the Final LEIS:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

California Native American Heritage Commission

CALIFORNIA LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County

ELECTED OFFICIALS

Lynne Pancrazi, Arizona House of Representatives, 

District 24

Greg Ferguson, Yuma County Board of Supervisors

CALIFORNIA LOCAL UTILITY

Imperial Irrigation District

ARIZONA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Arizona Western College

NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Southwest Defense Alliance

Riverside Land Conservancy

INDIVIDUALS

Floyd Ashbaugh

Wane Benesch

James Blackwell

Julia Clark

Theron Dunaway

Walter Eason

Julie Engle

John Everett 

Makayia Garcia

Sharon Gardner

Albert Gerhard

Larry A. Gould

Stanely Gourley

Gea Grosse

Peter Hekman

Douglas Holbert

Jim Howell

Robert Ingold

Arthur Jones

Andrea Lopez

Russell McCloud

Lynne Pancrazi

Barbara Ransehousen

Ronald Rice

J. Ross

Robert Schell

Kenneth Scott

Katherine Scott

William Slaff

Nancy Slaff

Jim Slater

Greg Smith

Michael Stafford 

Craig William

Mark Workman

 

Representative Pancrazi submitted comments from both her office as a Member of the Arizona House of 

Representatives and as an attendee to the public meeting on the Draft LEIS held in Yuma, AZ.