1 

2 DRAFT 

3 

4 Environmental Assessment for the 

5 Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and 

6 Training Support Operations at 

7 Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

8 La Posta, California 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 August 2013 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 U.S. Department of the Navy 

24 Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

25 La Posta, California 

26 
1 This page intentionally left blank. 

2 
August 2013 Page 1

1 DRAFT 

2 Environmental Assessment 

3 

4 Lead Agency for the EA: U.S. Department of the Navy 

5 Title of the Proposed Action: Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training 

6 Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael 

7 Monsoor 

8 Affected Jurisdiction: San Diego County 

9 Designation: Draft Environmental Assessment 

10 

11 

12 Abstract 

13 The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) proposes to expand and improve existing 

14 facilities and construct new facilities at Camp Michael Monsoor, located in eastern San Diego 

County, California, within Parcel C and the Previously Withdrawn Parcel1 15 . Currently, land at 

16 Camp Michael Monsoor is administered by the Commanding Officer for Naval Base Coronado 

17 and is primarily used for Naval Special Warfare Group One (NSWG-1) training activities. Camp 

18 Michael Monsoor does not currently contain the infrastructure that is necessary to provide 

19 adequate military training to NSWG-1 personnel. The majority of assaults training is currently 

20 conducted at private facilities that are not controlled by NSWG-1 and do not offer privacy of 

21 training, primacy of facility use, and proximity to NSWG-1 personnel’s home station, Naval Base 

22 Coronado. The use of private facilities results in excessive travel time and expenses, and 

23 requires NSWG-1 personnel to compete with other armed services and federal, state, and local 

24 agencies for training time at private facilities. Implementation of the Proposed Action would 

25 provide a suitable alternative to training at private facilities and would provide a location that 

26 offers security, privacy, primacy, and proximity of training for NSWG-1. Implementation of the 

27 Proposed Action would also minimize the Navy’s travel time and training expenses. 

 

1

 Parcel C and the Previously Withdrawn Parcel are both public lands (United States Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management [BLM]) withdrawn from public access for exclusive military use by the Navy; therefore, it 

should be noted that the acquisition of public lands is not part of the Proposed Action and is not analyzed in this 

Environmental Assessment (EA). The acquisition of Parcel C was analyzed under the La Posta Mountain Warfare 

Training Facility Final EA which was completed in 2008 and addressed potential environmental impacts associated 

with implementation of a separate Military Construction [MILCON] Project, known as “MILCON P-781.” 
Environmental Assessment Abstract 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2

1 This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential environmental 

2 impacts associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed facilities 

3 at Camp Michael Monsoor. This EA evaluates the environmental consequences of the two 

4 action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Both action alternatives would expand and 

5 improve the Camp Michael Monsoor training ranges to meet Navy and joint training 

6 requirements. Alternative 1 is the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. Potential 

7 environmental impacts have been analyzed for air quality, biological resources, cultural 

8 resources, geology and soils, land use, noise, public health and safety, public services and 

9 utilities, socioeconomics, transportation and traffic, visual resources, and water resources and 

10 hydrology. There would be no significant impacts to any of the above listed resources from 

11 implementation of the Proposed Action. 

12 Prepared By: U.S. Department of the Navy 

13 Point of Contact: Kari Coler 

14 Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest 

15 2730 McKean Street, Bldg. 291 

16 San Diego, CA 92136-5198 

17 

18 

19 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential environmental impacts 

2 associated with the improvement of existing facilities (Range 110) and construction of new 

3 facilities (e.g., rifle and pistol ranges) on U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

4 Management (BLM) Withdrawn Lands administered by the Commanding Officer for Naval Base 

5 Coronado at Camp Michael Monsoor. This EA has been prepared in compliance with the 

6 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 

7 Section 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing 

8 the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] Parts 1500-1508 

9 [1997]), U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) Procedures Implementing NEPA (32 CFR Part 775 

10 [2004]), and the Navy Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual (Operational 

11 Navy Instruction 5090.1C Change 1 [2011]). The NEPA process ensures that the environmental 

12 impacts of proposed major federal actions, such as this project, are considered in the decision 

13 making process. 

14 The Proposed Action would take place within Camp Michael Monsoor’s Parcel C and the 

Previously Withdrawn Parcel2 15 . Both Parcel C and the Previously Withdrawn Parcel consist of 

16 BLM land withdrawn from public use by the Navy (refer to Section 1.1.1 for a discussion of land 

17 jurisdiction at Camp Michael Monsoor). 

18 Under the Proposed Action, the Navy would expand and improve existing facilities and 

19 construct new facilities at Camp Michael Monsoor to provide a local, Navy-controlled, dedicated 

20 Assaults Training Center of Excellence to support pre-deployment training of Naval Special 

21 Warfare Group One (NSWG-1) personnel and Naval Special Warfare Center Sea Air and Land 

22 (SEAL) Qualification Training. 

23 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDED UNDER MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

24 PROJECT P-888 

25  A fully enclosed Close Quarters Combat (CQC) two-story structure with ballistic walls 

26 and an elevated roof for cross-flow ventilation; 

27  Extending the existing access road from the Military Construction (MILCON) P-781 

28 Method of Entry structure to the MILCON P-888 CQC structure; 

 

2 The Previously Withdrawn Parcel includes the Range Complex and Range 110.
Environmental Assessment Executive Summary 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page ES-2 

 One fully baffled rifle range3 1 (baffles keep rounds contained within the range) with 

2 adjacent assaults and sight-in rifle ranges; 

 Four outdoor pistol ranges4 3 (linear, sight-in/fundamental, steel, and instinctive); 

4  Installing three water wells (two temporary exploratory wells and one permanent well) 

5 and associated water lines in Parcel C to provide for increased flow rates. A 12-foot (3.7-

6 meter) wide by 100-foot (30.5-meter) long road would be added to access the 

7 permanent well. All connections for the water line would be buried within the roadways at 

8 Parcel C; and, 

9  Installing an electrical line in the existing roadway at Parcel C. The electrical line would 

10 be collocated underground within the same trench as the proposed water line at Parcel 

11 C. 

12 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES NOT INCLUDED UNDER MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

13 PROJECT P-888: 

 A new shotgun range5 14 in Parcel C, including extending the access road from the 

15 MILCON P-888 CQC structure to the proposed shotgun range; 

16  An approximately 7,200-square-foot (669-square-meter) training storage building will be 

17 constructed near the P-888 CQC structure to house all of the doors and targets needed 

18 for use in the CQC structure. The storage building will include lighting and a service 

19 vehicle parking and drop-off area. Approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters) of land 

20 surrounding the building will be covered with gravel for fire protection. In addition, a 50-

21 foot-wide (15.2-meter-wide) fuel modification zone will be established around the 

22 building. 

23  New security facilities at the Main Gate, which would include: 

24 o A new Range Control Building west of the Main Gate, near the entrance on the main 

25 access road; 

26 o A new water tank to replace an existing water tank at the Main Gate entrance6; 

27 o Two 10-foot (3-meter) high block walls installed to 50 feet (15 meters) on either side 

28 of the Main Gate entrance; 

29  A small, concrete-paved visitor parking area adjacent to the Main Gate; 

30  A second security gate west of the proposed Range Control Building; and, 

 

3

 Includes all associated Surface Danger Zones for these ranges. 

4

 Includes all associated Surface Danger Zones for these ranges. 

5

 Includes all associated Surface Danger Zones for these ranges. 

6

 This replacement tank would store water for use at the proposed Range Control Building. 
Environmental Assessment Executive Summary 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page ES-3 

1  A reconfigured Main Gate entrance that would reduce traffic queuing from La Posta 

2 Road. 

 Replacement of an existing fence7 3 along La Posta Road, which would include: 

4 o Extending the 10-foot (3-meter) high fence line approximately 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) 

5 north and 0.5 mile (0.75 kilometer) south of the existing fence on La Posta Road; 

6 and, 

7 o Installing access gates at the north and south ends of the new fence along La Posta 

8 Road for emergency fire access. 

9  Improvement and realignment of Range 110, which would 

10 include: 

11 o Installing a new aboveground electrical distribution line 

12 from La Posta Road to Range 110 along the northern side 

13 of the existing access road; 

14 o Installing a 6-foot × 6-foot (2-meter x 2-meter) steel pole 

15 containing elevated solar panels on Range 110 in an area 

16 previously disturbed during construction of projects prior 

17 to P-781. 

18 o Realigning Range 110 and shifting the aspect of Range 

19 110 approximately 10 to 15 feet (3 to 4.5 meters) farther 

20 west so that the Surface Danger Zone would no longer 

21 cover the Hilltop Complex; 

22 o Widening the existing Range 110 access road and 

23 installing erosion control features along the Range 110 

24 frontage road; 

25 o Installing a wall for noise attenuation to be installed behind the firing line on an 

26 existing pad, and where no vegetation clearing would be required. The wall would be 

27 approximately 10 to 12 feet (3 to 4 meters) high; and, 

28 o Installing up to 10 lights on new poles for night shooting at Range 110. 

29  Upgrades to existing utilities and erosion control structures at the Range Complex, which 

30 would include: 

31 o Constructing a new underground water line and power line to pump water from the 

32 existing water well near the installation’s western boundary to a holding tank at the 

33 Range Complex, to be used for both potable water and fire suppression; and, 

 

7

 To be constructed in coordination with Naval Base Coronado Physical Security Department and NSWG-1. 

A Surface Danger Zone 

delineates the area 

designated within a 

training complex for 

vertical and lateral 

containment of debris, 

projectiles, fragments, and 

components resulting from 

the firing, launching, or 

detonation of weapons 

systems including 

ammunition, explosives, 

and demolition explosives. 

A Surface Danger Zone 

must be designed to be 

completely within Navy 

parcels and cannot fall into 

non-Navy lands. 
Environmental Assessment Executive Summary 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page ES-4 

1 o Installing a 6-foot × 6-foot (2-meter x 2-meter) steel pole containing elevated solar 

2 panels at the Range Complex in an area previously disturbed during construction of 

3 projects prior to P-781. 

4 o Installing erosion control structures for controlling channel incision, rill erosion, and 

5 uncontrolled discharge at the Range Complex, including the lower Range Complex, 

6 the sniper target area, and the “grand canyon” area downhill from the complex. 

7 In accordance with NEPA, the Navy performed a focused analysis of the resource areas 

8 potentially affected by implementation of the Proposed Action and alternatives. These resource 

9 areas include: 

10  Air Quality; 

11  Biological Resources; 

12  Cultural Resources; 

13  Geology and Soils; 

14  Land Use; 

15  Noise; 

16  Public Health and Safety (including hazardous materials and waste); 

17  Public Services and Utilities; 

18  Socioeconomics (including Environmental Justice); 

19  Transportation and Traffic; 

20  Visual Resources; and, 

21  Water Resources and Hydrology. 

22 Alternatives for improving and expanding training areas at Camp Michael Monsoor that 

23 meet the evaluation criteria for detailed analysis include: 

24  Alternative 1 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative): Ranges, training facilities, 

25 and operations at Camp Michael Monsoor would be improved and expanded at 

Parcel C and the Previously Withdrawn Parcel8 26 ; 

27  Alternative 2: This alternative is the same as Alternative 1, except for the following: 

28 the pistol range that is part of MILCON P-888 would be sited in an easterly firing 

 

8

 The Previously Withdrawn Parcel includes the Range Complex and Range 110. 
Environmental Assessment Executive Summary 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page ES-5 

1 direction, resulting in a reduced Surface Danger Zone; the shotgun range would not 

2 be constructed; and the Range Control Building and Gate Sentry House would be 

3 constructed to the south of the main entrance road rather than to the north of this 

4 road; and, 

5  No Action Alternative: Under this alternative, the Proposed Action would not be 

6 constructed; however, this alternative provides a description of the baseline 

7 conditions against which the impacts of the Proposed Action can be compared. 

8 Table ES-1 presents a comparison of the potential impacts for each resource area that 

9 could result from the two action alternatives carried forward in this EA and the No Action 

10 Alternative. Informed by the analysis presented, the Navy has identified Alternative 1 as the 

11 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

1 

Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Air Quality No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Construction activities would generate temporary (shortterm) emissions such as fugitive dust emissions (suspended particulate matter [PM10] and fine particulate matter [PM2.5]) 

from grading activities and exhaust emissions (nitrogen oxides [NOX], sulfur dioxide [SO2], carbon monoxide [CO], 

volatile organic compounds [VOCs], PM2.5, and PM10) from 

construction equipment and vehicles. Similar types of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions would be generated by the operation of ground vehicles and weapons firing. These would be long-term emissions. Incremental emissions of criteria pollutants associated with construction and operation of Alternative 1 would primarily occur on a localized basis within Camp Michael Monsoor, subject to dispersion due to wind mixing and other dissipation factors. Additionally, no sensitive receptors would be located within the proximity of areas of major localized impacts, and the Navy would implement recommended construction measures described in Section 2.6.2. With implementation of these measures, potential impacts to air quality from the implementation of Alternative 1 would be short-term, localized, and not significant. 

Alternative 2 would result in the same types of air quality impacts as those described for Alternative 1, except emissions of criteria pollutants generated during the construction of Alternative 2 would be slightly lower than those estimated for Alternative 1 since construction of the shotgun range would not occur. Impacts from implementation of Alternative 2 would still be within the same localized area, order of magnitude, and timeframe of impacts to air quality as those described for Alternative 1. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to air quality. 

WAlcoreThaisig

Biological Resources No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

With implementation of Alternative 1, direct permanent impacts to vegetation may include loss of vegetation due to construction. Additional direct permanent impacts to vegetation may occur from foot and possible vehicle traffic associated with training activities, periodic maintenance, and the repair of project facilities. However, none of the potentially affected plant species are rare plant species or 

Under Alternative 2, the permanent and temporary impacts to vegetation and wildlife communities that would occur from construction of the new shotgun range would not occur. All other impacts would be the same 

WAlcoreunTh
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

are federally listed as threatened or endangered. All avian species found within the project area are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. With implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 2.6.3.2, the construction phase of the project would have no direct impacts to nesting birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. With implementation of the proposed conservation measures, no significant direct or indirect operation impacts would occur to plant communities or wildlife species with implementation of Alternative 1. The Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB) is the only federally listed rare wildlife species potentially affected by Alternative 1. With implementation of pre-construction QCB surveys and the special conservation and construction measures agreed upon with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and described in Section 2.6.3, there would be no significant impacts to QCB during the construction phase of Alternative 1. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in vegetation impacts to 39.28 acres (15.89 hectares) of QCB habitat. Based on the minimal amount of habitat removal when compared to available habitat for this species, no significant impacts would occur to QCB during operation of Alternative 1. 

as those described for Alternative 1. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to plant communities or wildlife species. 

bibe 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Cultural Resources No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

There are previously recorded cultural resources in the project area; however, with the application of the avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 2.6.4, implementation of Alternative 1 would have “no adverse effect” on the known listed, contributing, or eligible cultural resources in the area of potential effect. 

The same effects to cultural resources that could occur under Alternative 1 could also occur under Alternative 2; however, application of the avoidance and minimization measures would ensure that implementation of Alternative 2 would have “no adverse effect” on the known cultural resources in the area of potential effect. 

WAlcoreunThresig

Geology and Soils No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

With implementation of the recommended avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 2.6.3.4 and Section 2.6.5, Alternative 1 would not have significant impacts to geological resources. Implementation of the erosion control improvements at Range 110 and the Range Complex would be a beneficial impact to the existing erosion problems at Camp Michael Monsoor. 

With the implementation of the recommended avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 2.6.3.4 and Section 2.6.5, Alternative 2 would not have significant impacts to geological resources. 

WAlcosounThimwo

Land Use No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would involve the installation and use of new small arms firing ranges at Parcel C. Public Land Order No. 7807 was issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on January 17, 2013 and withdrew BLM land at Parcel C from public use, transferring administrative jurisdiction to the U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) for exclusive military use. Unmaintained trails exist in the area; however, recreationists would be prohibited from entering Surface Danger Zones at 

The same impacts to land use that would occur under Alternative 1 would occur under Alternative 2. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to land use. 

WAlcoreThimoc
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Parcel C during controlled live-fire activities. The loss of recreational use at Parcel C was previously analyzed under the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final Environmental Assessment (EA). Additionally, while military use would limit recreationist use within this area, other local public lands would be available within the vicinity of Camp Michael Monsoor and other forms of recreation in the area would remain unaffected. Implementation of Alternative 1 would not have a significant impact on recreational uses, or any other land uses, in the area of Camp Michael Monsoor. 

Noise No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Alternative 1 would generate temporary construction noise. Due to the distance and terrain, construction noise levels at the nearest residences would be below the daytime ambient noise level and would not result in significant noise impacts. Alternative 1 would involve the use of noise-generating sources, including operational vehicles and firearms. Use of vehicles during operations would increase noise levels along La Posta Road by less than 1 dBA Leq (A-weighted decibel sound level equivalent) and would not represent an adverse increase in traffic noise in the project area. Further, the actual noise level from weapons firing activities would be approximately 30 dBA Leq, which would not adversely increase nighttime or daytime ambient noise levels at the nearest residences. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant noise impacts. 

Alternative 2 would differ from Alternative 1 in three ways: (1) the orientation of the pistol ranges would be different; (2) the shotgun range would not be constructed; and (3) the Range Control Building and Gate Sentry House would be constructed at an alternate location; however, noise impacts associated with development and operation of Alternative 2 would be equivalent to the impacts discussed for Alternative 1. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant noise impacts. 

WAlcoreThanto 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Public Health and Safety 

No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to public health and safety from the improper use, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials or unexploded ordnance The construction contractor would strictly follow measures in the project’s Environmental Protection Plan to prevent or control releases of contaminants into the air, soil, and water during construction. All disturbed soils would remain on site and any lead and metals found would be recycled, where feasible. The Range Maintenance Standard Operating Procedure guidelines would be strictly followed during project construction and operations to ensure that lead encountered onsite would be properly characterized and contained and would not migrate off the range site. Any hazardous materials that are encountered during Alternative 1 construction or operations would be removed from the site and disposed of at a landfill that is authorized to receive hazardous waste. Implementation of Alternative 1 would involve weapons firing at Parcel C, including the use of firearms at the proposed Close Quarters Combat (CQC) facility and small arms ranges. To ensure public safety, all proposed ranges would be constructed in accordance with Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) 1027/3B guidance on construction of firing ranges and rules regarding Surface Danger Zones. Additionally, range management practices (i.e., use of warning signs and flags) would continue to be implemented at Camp Michael Monsoor to ensure the ranges are properly maintained. Based on the continued implementation of established range management practices and proper hazardous waste management practices, no adverse environmental health 

The same impacts to public health and safety that would occur under Alternative 1 would occur under Alternative 2. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to public health and safety. 

WAlcoanunThsighe
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

and safety impacts would occur. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not have a significant impact related to public health and safety.

Public Services and Utilities 

No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Alternative 1 would not result in an increased need for police or fire services, and natural gas is currently unavailable and not required for project construction or operation. Solid waste from construction would be transported offsite and solid waste facilities in the area would have availability and adequate capacity to accept this waste. The installation of lights at Range 110 and the installation of an aboveground electrical distribution line along the existing access road between La Posta Road and Range 110 would have positive impacts on the mission at Camp Michael Monsoor by allowing night training, while also upgrading the electrical system as a whole. Alternative 1 would generate a small volume of wastewater during construction due to worker use of onsite portable toilets; this waste would be removed from the site and disposed of at a wastewater treatment facility that is available and has capacity to receive such waste. During operations, Alternative 1 would generate a small amount of liquid waste, resulting from use of the toilet room and kitchen in the proposed Range Control Facility; this facility would be equipped with a septic system, and a leach field would be installed across the street to receive and filter waste from the septic tank. None of the Alternative 1 facilities would contain toilet rooms or showers that would require a new connection to a wastewater treatment facility. The existing septic systems at Camp Michael Monsoor would remain 

The impacts to fire or police services, water, wastewater, solid waste services, and natural gas/petroleum from Alternative 2 would be the same as those under Alternative 1. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to public services and utilities. 

WAlcoanunThsigse
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

unchanged. Consequently, Alternative 1 would not impact existing wastewater treatment facilities. Water used during construction of Alternative 1 for slope dampening and for dust control at the pistol and rifle ranges would not significantly increase the amount of water used at Camp Michael Monsoor, and the increase would only be temporary. During operations, water for the bathroom and kitchen at Range Control Building would be supplied via an existing water line. Small quantities of water would also be used during Alternative 1 operations for landscaping maintenance purposes to water drought-tolerant native species. Therefore, there would be minimal water use related to implementation of Alternative 1, and significant adverse impacts to the potable water system would not occur. Additionally, the proposed P-888 water well located in Parcel C and the proposed water line from the existing well along the western boundary of the installation to the Range Complex would have positive impacts on water supply and availability. Groundwater usage would be minimal. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in an improvement to the existing power delivery system and water supply system at Camp Michael Monsoor. No significant adverse impacts to public services and utilities would occur. 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Socioeconomics (including Environmental Justice) 

No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to population, employment, or housing in the project area. Furthermore, there would not be any disproportionately high environmental or health impacts on low-income or minority populations or children. 

The impacts to population, employment, housing, environmental justice, and environmental justice to children from Alternative 2 would be the same as those under Alternative 1. Therefore, no significant impacts to population, employment, and housing would occur under this alternative. There would not be any disproportionately high environmental or health impacts on low-income or minority populations or children. 

WAlcowoThimsoIn anenimmch

Traffic and Circulation No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Construction of Alternative 1 would last one to six months and would not substantially affect the existing traffic on La Posta Road or the La Posta Truck Trail. Operation of Alternative 1 would result in a slight increase in vehicle traffic going to and from Camp Michael Monsoor via La Posta Road. However, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to traffic and circulation. 

The same impacts to traffic and circulation that would occur under Alternative 1 would also occur under Alternative 2. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to traffic and circulation. 

WAlcocirunThimcir
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Visual Resources No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would require installation of some permanent project features that would be seen by a low number of sensitive viewers. The project area and surrounding public lands are designated by the BLM as Visual Resource Management Class III, where the Visual Management Objective is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in an overall level of visual contrast to the surrounding landscape that is minimal to moderate; this would conform to the Visual Management Objective set for the area. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to visual resources. 

Under Alternative 2, less development would occur at Parcel C (e.g., the shotgun range would not be constructed) relative to the Alternative 1. In addition, the new Range Control Building and Gate Sentry House would be constructed to the south of the main road rather than to the north of this road. Impacts from Alternative 2 would be the same or similar to impacts from implementation of Alternative 1 since there is a low number of sensitive viewers in the area that would be affected by development at this location. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in an overall level of visual contrast to the surrounding landscape that is minimal to moderate; this is consistent with the Visual Management Objective set for the area. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to visual resources. 

WAlcoreunThimre
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Water Resources and Hydrology 

No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Surface-disturbing activities associated with implementation of Alternative 1 could potentially increase sedimentation in some surface water resources; however, the Navy would implement recommended avoidance and minimization measures (described under Section 2.6.5) to minimize soil erosion, and the desert conditions limit the potential for significant surface water runoff. The implementation of the erosion control improvements under Alternative 1 would correct many of the erosion problems currently occurring at Camp Michael Monsoor and would be a beneficial impact. These erosion control improvements would also help to minimize erosion from construction since they would already be in place. Compliance with the Range Maintenance Standard Operating Procedure guidelines would ensure that lead does not migrate off the range site and into the groundwater. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to water resources and hydrology. 

The same impacts to water resources and hydrology that would occur under Alternative 1 would occur under Alternative 2. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to water resources and hydrology. 

WAlcoanunThimrewo

1 2 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

1 This page intentionally left blank. 2 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page i 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

1 °C degrees Celsius 

2 °F degrees Fahrenheit 

3 APCD Air Pollution Control District 

4 BLM U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

5 Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

6 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

7 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

8 CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level 

9 CNPS California Native Plant Society 

10 CNRSW Commander, Navy Region Southwest 

11 CO carbon monoxide 

12 CO2 carbon dioxide 

13 CQC Close Quarters Combat 

14 dB decibel 

15 dBA A-weighted decibel 

16 EA Environmental Assessment 

17 EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

18 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

19 FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

20 INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

21 kph kilometers per hour 

22 kV kilovolt 

23 kVA kilovolt ampere 

24 Leq sound level equivalent 

25 MILCON Military Construction 

26 mm millimeter 

27 mph miles per hour 

28 MS Measurement Site 
Environmental Assessment Acronyms & Abbreviations 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page ii 

1 MSA Major Statistical Area 

2 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

3 NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

4 Navy U.S. Department of the Navy 

5 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

6 NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

7 NOX oxides of nitrogen 

8 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

9 NSW Naval Special Warfare 

10 NSWG-1 Naval Special Warfare Group One 

11 O3 ozone 

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

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

14 diameter 

15 QCB Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) 

16 Range Complex Ranges 111, 112, 113a and b, and 115a, b, and c 

17 SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments 

18 SARNAM Small Arms Noise Assessment Model 

19 SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric 

20 SEAL Sea Air and Land 

21 SIP State Implementation Plan 

22 SO2 sulfur dioxide 

23 SOF Special Operation Forces 

24 SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures 

25 SRA Subregional Area 

26 SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

27 ULT unit-level training 

28 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

29 U.S.C. United States Code 

30 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

31 USGS United States Geological Survey 

32 VOC volatile organic compound 

33 VRM Visual Resource Management 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page iii 

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

2 Section Page

3 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1-1

4 1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................... 1-1

5 1.1.1 Land Jurisdiction at Camp Michael Monsoor .......................................... 1-1

6 1.2 Current Operations and Existing Facilities .................................................... 1-9

7 1.2.1 Training Events Supported at Camp Michael Monsoor .......................... 1-9

8 1.2.2 Existing Facilities and Operations Areas .............................................. 1-11

9 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................ 1-12

10 1.4 Decision to be Made ....................................................................................... 1-14

11 1.5 Intergovernmental Coordination ................................................................... 1-14

12 1.6 Scope of the Analysis .................................................................................... 1-15

13 1.7 Public/Agency Involvement ........................................................................... 1-16

14 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES2-1

15 2.1 Criteria ............................................................................................................... 2-1

16 2.2 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................. 2-2

17 2.2.1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) ............................ 2-2

18 2.2.2 Alternative 2 .......................................................................................... 2-14

19 2.2.3 No Action Alternative ............................................................................ 2-14

20 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for Detailed 

21 Analysis ........................................................................................................... 2-26

22 2.3.1 Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton ................................................... 2-26

23 2.3.2 Camp Billy Machen ............................................................................... 2-26

24 2.3.3 Silver Strand Training Complex ............................................................ 2-27

25 2.4 Resource Areas Considered but Not Carried Forward for Detailed 

26 Analysis ........................................................................................................... 2-27

27 2.4.1 Airspace ................................................................................................ 2-27
Environmental Assessment Table of Contents 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page iv 

1 2.5 Resources Analyzed in Detail ....................................................................... 2-28

2 2.6 Special Conservation and Construction Measures ..................................... 2-28

3 2.6.1 Environmental Protection Plan ............................................................. 2-28

4 2.6.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................. 2-29

5 2.6.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................ 2-29

6 2.6.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 2-33

7 2.6.5 Geology ................................................................................................ 2-33

8 2.6.6 Public Health and Safety ...................................................................... 2-35

9 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

10 CONSEQUENCES ................................................................................ 3-1

11 Resources Analyzed in Detail ..................................................................................... 3-1

12 Terminology Used in the Environmental Impact Analysis to Define 

13 Impacts ............................................................................................................ 3-13

14 3.1 Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 3-14

15 3.1.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 3-14

16 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 3-20

17 3.2 Biological Resources ..................................................................................... 3-25

18 3.2.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 3-25

19 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 3-41

20 3.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 3-48

21 3.3.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 3-48

22 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 3-54

23 3.4 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 3-55

24 3.4.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 3-55

25 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 3-60

26 3.5 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 3-61

27 3.5.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 3-61

28 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 3-71

29 3.6 Noise ................................................................................................................ 3-73

30 3.6.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 3-73

31 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 3-79

32 3.7 Public Health and Safety................................................................................ 3-83

33 3.7.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 3-83
Environmental Assessment Table of Contents 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page v 

1 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 3-86

2 3.8 Public Services and Utilities ......................................................................... 3-89

3 3.8.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 3-89

4 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 3-91

5 3.9 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................. 3-93

6 3.9.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 3-93

7 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................ 3-100

8 3.10 Traffic and Circulation ................................................................................. 3-101

9 3.10.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3-101

10 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................ 3-103

11 3.11 Visual Resources ......................................................................................... 3-107

12 3.11.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 3-107

13 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................ 3-113

14 3.12 Water Resources and Hydrology ................................................................ 3-116

15 3.12.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 3-116

16 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................ 3-118

17 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS ................................................... 4-1

18 4.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts .................................................................... 4-1

19 4.2 Geographic Boundaries for Cumulative Impacts Analysis .......................... 4-1

20 4.3 Past, Ongoing, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ................................. 4-2

21 4.3.1 Construction of Military Construction Project P-781 Facilities at 

22 Camp Michael Monsoor .......................................................................... 4-6

23 4.3.2 Installation of a New Antenna Facility at Camp Michael 

24 Monsoor .................................................................................................. 4-6

25 4.3.3 Update of the 2002 Naval Base Coronado Integrated Natural 

26 Resources Management Plan ................................................................ 4-6

27 4.3.4 Update of the Naval Base Coronado Fire Management Plan ................. 4-7

28 4.3.5 Update of the South Coast Resource Management Plan ....................... 4-7

29 4.3.6 Border Patrol Range in Boulevard .......................................................... 4-7

30 4.3.7 Old Flying A Ranch/Vincent de Paul’s Boys Town (Children’s 

31 Village) .................................................................................................... 4-8

32 4.3.8 Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Line Project ......................................... 4-8

33 4.4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis .......................................................................... 4-9

34 4.4.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................. 4-9
Environmental Assessment Table of Contents 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page vi 

1 4.4.2 Biological Resources .......................................................................... 4-10

2 4.4.3 Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 4-12

3 4.4.4 Geology and Soils................................................................................. 4-12

4 4.4.5 Land Use .............................................................................................. 4-13

5 4.4.6 Noise .................................................................................................... 4-13

6 4.4.7 Public Health and Safety ...................................................................... 4-13

7 4.4.8 Public Services and Utilities .................................................................. 4-13

8 4.4.9 Socioeconomics.................................................................................... 4-14

9 4.4.10 Traffic and Circulation ........................................................................... 4-14

10 4.4.11 Visual Resources .................................................................................. 4-15

11 4.4.12 Water Resources and Hydrology .......................................................... 4-15

12 4.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 4-16

13 5 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................... 5-1

14 5.1 Possible Conflicts Between the Action and the Objectives of 

15 Federal, Regional, State, and Local Plans, Policies, and Controls .............. 5-1

16 5.2 Energy Requirements, Conservation Potential of Alternatives ................... 5-2

17 5.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Natural or 

18 Depletable Resources ...................................................................................... 5-2

19 5.4 Relationship Between Short-Term Environmental Impacts and 

20 Long-Term Productivity ................................................................................... 5-3

21 5.5 ProbablE Significant Environmental Impacts that Cannot Be 

22 Avoided and Are Not Amenable to Mitigation ............................................... 5-4

23 6 LIST OF AGENCIES CONSULTED ...................................................... 6-1

24 6.1 Federal Agencies .............................................................................................. 6-1

25 6.1.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................ 6-1

26 6.2 State Agencies .................................................................................................. 6-1

27 6.2.1 State Historic Preservation Officer .......................................................... 6-1

28 7 LIST OF NAMES, EXPERTISE, AND EXPERIENCE OF EA 

29 PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 7-1

30 7.1 Lead Agency - U.S. Department of the Navy .................................................. 7-1
Environmental Assessment Table of Contents 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page vii 

1 7.2 Prime Contractor Responsible for Preparation of the Draft 

2 Environmental Assessment ............................................................................ 7-2

3 8 REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 8-1

4 

5 

6 LIST OF APPENDICIES 

7 

8 A Public Participation 

9 B Air Emissions Calculations 

10 C Record of Non-Applicability 

11 D Biological Opinion 

12 E San Diego Metropolitan Area Programmatic Agreement 

13 F USACE Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report 

14 

15 
Environmental Assessment Table of Contents 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page viii 

1 This page intentionally left blank. 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page ix 

1 LIST OF TABLES 

2 

3 Table 1-1 Camp Michael Monsoor Parcel Description and Size ........................................ 1-7

4 Table 1-2 Applicable Guidance, Laws, and Regulations Considered ............................... 1-14

5 Table 2-1 Current and Proposed Level of Use ................................................................... 2-7

6 Table 2-2 Components of the Alternatives ....................................................................... 2-23

7 Table 3.1-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................... 3-14

8 Table 3.1-2 Ambient Air Quality Summary, San Diego Air Basin ........................................ 3-17

9 Table 3.1-3 de minimis Emissions for Nonattainment and Attainment/Maintenance 

10 Criteria Pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin .................................................. 3-19

11 Table 3.1-4 Estimated Construction Emissions ................................................................... 3-21

12 Table 3.1-5 Estimated Operations Emissions...................................................................... 3-23

13 Table 3.2-1 Vegetation Series and Land Cover Types within the Project Area (acres 

14 [hectares]) ........................................................................................................ 3-26

15 Table 3.2-2 Sensitive Plant Species Observed and/or Potentially Occurring within the 

16 Project Area ...................................................................................................... 3-33

17 Table 3.2-3 Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Vegetation Communities ..................... 3-42

18 Table 3.3-1 Previous Investigations within a 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) Radius of the 

19 Project Area ...................................................................................................... 3-49

20 Table 3.3-2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within a 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) 

21 Radius of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcels C, E, and G .............. 3-50

22 Table 3.3-3 Sites Documented on the 2004 Survey ............................................................ 3-52

23 Table 3.4-1 Erosion and Sediment Control Problems at Camp Michael Monsoor .............. 3-59

24 Table 3.5-1 Clover Flat Grazing Allotment Details............................................................... 3-64

25 Table 3.5-2 BLM ROW Permits Issued and Pending (Previously Withdrawn Parcel 

26 and Parcel C) ................................................................................................... 3-64
Environmental Assessment List of Tables 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page x 

1 Table 3.5-3 BLM ROW Permits Issued and Pending (Surrounding Parcels) ...................... 3-68

2 Table 3.6-1 San Diego County Sound Level Limits in Decibels (dBA) ................................ 3-73

3 Table 3.6-2 Existing Noise Level Measurements for Camp Michael Monsoor and 

4 Surrounding Areas ........................................................................................... 3-78

Table 3.6-3 Proposed CQC Complex Weapons and Ammunition1 5 ..................................... 3-81

6 Table 3.9-1 Population and Estimated Growth for San Diego County and Areas near 

7 the Project Area ................................................................................................ 3-95

8 Table 3.9-2 Total Housing Units and Estimated Growth for San Diego County and 

9 Areas near the Project Area ............................................................................. 3-95

10 Table 3.9-3 Total Employment and Estimated Growth for San Diego County and 

11 Areas near the Project Area ............................................................................. 3-96

12 Table 3.9-4 Population and Ethnicity for San Diego County and Areas near the 

13 Project Area ...................................................................................................... 3-97

14 Table 3.9-5 Median Household Income for Areas near the Project Area as Compared 

15 to San Diego County ........................................................................................ 3-98

16 Table 3.9-6 Age Breakdown for San Diego County and Areas near the Project Area ........ 3-99

17 Table 3.11-1 Designated Scenic Features .......................................................................... 3-110

18 Table 4-1 Projects Evaluated for Cumulative Impacts ........................................................ 4-3

19 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page xi 

1 LIST OF FIGURES 

2 

3 Figure 1-1 Camp Michael Monsoor – Regional Map ........................................................... 1-3

4 Figure 1-2 Camp Michael Monsoor – Existing Facilities ...................................................... 1-5

5 Figure 1-3 Construction Proposed under MILCONs P-781 and P-888 .............................. 1-17

6 Figure 2-1 Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................... 2-3

7 Figure 2-2 MILCON P-888 and Other Proposed Actions within Parcel C .......................... 2-15

8 Figure 2-3 Range Operations Building and Gate Sentry House ........................................ 2-17

9 Figure 2-4 Other Proposed Actions within the Previously Withdrawn Parcel .................... 2-19

10 Figure 2-5 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................... 2-21

11 Figure 3.2-1 Existing Vegetation Communities ..................................................................... 3-27

12 Figure 3.2-2 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB) Habitat ..................................................... 3-39

13 Figure 3.2-3 Proposed Action Vegetation Impacts ............................................................... 3-43

14 Figure 3.4-1 Erosion Problems at Camp Michael Monsoor .................................................. 3-57

15 Figure 3.5-1 BLM Grazing Allotments ................................................................................... 3-65

16 Figure 3.5-2 Conservation Easement ................................................................................... 3-69

17 Figure 3.6-1 Noise Measurement Locations ......................................................................... 3-75

18 Figure 3.9-1 Demographic Regions ...................................................................................... 3-94

19 Figure 3.10-1 Transportation and Traffic .............................................................................. 3-105

20 Figure 3.11-1 Visual Resource Features .............................................................................. 3-111

21 Figure 4-1 Cumulative Projects ........................................................................................... 4-5

22 
Environmental Assessment List of Figures 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page xii 

1 This page intentionally left blank. 

2 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 1-1 

1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

2 This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the U.S. Department 

3 of the Navy (Navy) in accordance with the following applicable law and regulations: 

4  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code 

5 [U.S.C.] Section 4321 et seq.); 

6  Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

7 Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508 [1997]); 

8  Navy Procedures Implementing NEPA (32 CFR Part 775 [2004]); and, 

9  Navy Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual (Operational Navy 

10 Instruction 5090.1C Change 1 [2011]). 

11 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION 

12 Camp Michael Monsoor is a special planning area of Naval Base Coronado, located 

13 south of Interstate 8, near Campo, California (Figure 1-1). The installation is bordered on the 

14 north by the Cleveland National Forest (U.S. Forest Service), and to the south, east, and west 

15 by U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Camp Michael 

16 Monsoor borders several privately-owned parcels to the southwest, southeast, and northeast. 

17 The project would take place entirely within Camp Michael Monsoor’s Parcel C, and the 

18 Previously Withdrawn Parcel, which includes the Range Complex (Ranges 111, 112, 113a and 

19 b, and 115a, b, and c) and Range 110 (Figure 1-2). On January 17, 2013, the BLM issued 

20 Public Land Order No. 7807, which withdrew these lands from public use for exclusive use by 

21 the Navy for a period of 20 years (refer to Section 1.1.1 for a discussion of land jurisdiction at 

22 Camp Michael Monsoor). 

23 1.1.1 LAND JURISDICTION AT CAMP MICHAEL MONSOOR 

24 This section describes the administrative rights of all lands in use by the Navy at Camp 

25 Michael Monsoor. Parcels currently in use by the Navy are either withdrawn for exclusive Navy 

26 use or are under a temporary right-of-way grant on lands administered by the BLM. All 

27 components of the Proposed Action and alternatives would be located on lands administered by 

28 the Commanding Officer for Naval Base Coronado. 
Environmental Assessment 1. Introduction 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 1-2 

1 Withdrawn Lands (Previously Withdrawn Parcel, Parcels C, E and G) 

2 On September 30, 1964, the BLM issued Public Land Order No. 3457, which withdrew a 

3 1,079-acre (437-hectare) parcel of land (hereafter referred to as the “Previously Withdrawn 

4 Parcel”) from public use at Camp Michael Monsoor for use by the Navy as a Microwave Space 

5 Relay Station. Beginning in 1998, the Naval Special Warfare (NSW) community began use of 

6 the parcel as a Mountain Warfare Training Facility (as opposed to its formally designated use as 

7 a Microwave Space Relay Station). In 2008, the Navy proposed that the designated use of the 

8 Previously Withdrawn Parcel be changed from Microwave Space Relay Station use to Mountain 

9 Warfare Training Facility use, and that the administrative jurisdiction of this parcel be transferred 

10 from BLM to the Navy to properly reflect NSW’s current use of the public land. 

11 The acquisition of the BLM lands at Camp Michael Monsoor and the associated Military 

12 Construction (MILCON) Project P-781 impacts were analyzed under the La Posta Mountain 

13 Warfare Training Facility Final EA, which was completed in 2008. Public Land Order No. 7807 

14 was issued by the BLM on January 17, 2013 and superseded Public Land Order No. 3457 

15 which was issued in 1964. Under Public Land Order No. 7807, a total of 3,385 acres (1,370 

16 hectares) of land (encompassing the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcels C, E, and G) 

were withdrawn from public use9 17 for exclusive use by the Navy as a Mountain Warfare Training 

18 Facility for a period of 20 years (BLM 2013a). For this 20-year period, administrative jurisdiction 

19 of lands at the Existing Withdrawal and Parcels C, E, G have been transferred from the BLM to 

20 the Navy, and the land is managed by Commanding Officer for Naval Base Coronado. 

21 Lands under Existing Right-of-Way Grant (Parcels A, B, D, F and H) 

22 In March 2013, the BLM issued a separate right-of-way grant/temporary use permit 

23 (CACA-53611) allowing for Navy training activities on 2,169 acres (878 hectares) of land 

24 encompassing five parcels (Parcels A, B, D, F and H) at Camp Michael Monsoor near the 

25 project area (Figure 1-1). Navy use of these lands under right-of-way authorization is 

26 nonexclusive, meaning that other compatible public uses of the land are allowed through 

27 coordination with the BLM (which has retained administrative jurisdiction over these lands). The 

28 right-of-way grant was issued contiguous to the transferred lands at Camp Michael Monsoor, 

29 and this action was also considered in the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final 

30 EA. The right-of-way grant is valid for a 30-year period and is due to expire on December 31, 

31 2043 (BLM 2013b). No improvements to these lands are proposed under the Proposed Action 

32 or alternatives. Future proposals for improvements, if any, on these parcels by the Navy or any 

33 other users would require authorization by the BLM. 

 

9

 Public uses including settlement, sale, location, and entry under the general land laws and United States mining 

laws. 
Campo

Navy-Managed Property

Existing ROW for Nonexclusive Use by Navy

City/Town

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

US Forest Service

Figure 1-1

Camp Michael Monsoor - Regional Map

San Diego County, California

Path: L:\SanDiego\Monsoor\Maps\mxds\20130730_EArevisions\Monsoor_1-1_070213.mxd

0 0.5 1 Miles

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

8

La Posta Road

80

Buckman Springs Road

94

94

Campo Reservation

Campo Reservation

La Posta Reservation

Cleveland National Forest

Cleveland National Forest

PREVIOUSLY 

WITHDRAWN

PARCEL

A

B

C

D

H

E

G F
This page intentionally left blank.
Existing Built Features

Navy-Managed Property

Existing ROW for Nonexclusive Use by Navy

Figure 1-2

Camp Michael Monsoor - Existing Facilities

San Diego County, California

Path: L:\SanDiego\Monsoor\Maps\mxds\20130730_EArevisions\Monsoor_1-2_073013.mxd

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road

PREVIOUSLY

WITHDRAWN

PARCEL

Parcel C

Patilla Road

Existing Well

Range 110

Parcel E

Parcel D

Parcel G

Range Complex

Beach Complex

Breaching Complex

Lower Barracks

Hilltop Complex

Main Entry
Existing Built Features

Navy-Managed Property

Existing ROW for Nonexclusive Use by Navy

Figure 1-2

Camp Michael Monsoor - Existing Facilities

San Diego County, California

Path: L:\SanDiego\Monsoor\Maps\mxds\20130730_EArevisions\Monsoor_1-2_073013.mxd

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road

PREVIOUSLY

WITHDRAWN

PARCEL

Parcel C

Patilla Road

Existing Well

Range 110

Parcel E

Parcel D

Parcel G

Range Complex

Beach Complex

Breaching Complex

Lower Barracks

Hilltop Complex

Main Entry
Environmental Assessment 1. Introduction 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 1-7 

1 The legal descriptions of parcels at Camp Michael Monsoor are provided in Table 1-1. 

2 The locations of these parcels are shown on Figure 1-1. 

Table 1-1 Camp Michael Monsoor Parcel Description and Size 

Parcel Legal Description 

Parcel Size 

acres 

(hectares) 

Lands Withdrawn from Public Use for Exclusive Navy Use by Public Land Order No. 7807 

Existing Withdrawal Township 17 South, Range 5 East, 

San Bernardino Meridian 

Section 23, lot 2, E1/2SW1/4, SE1/4 

Section 24, lots 20, 22, SW1/4SW1/4 

Section 25, W1/2 

Section 26, lots 1, 2, NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4, NE1/4SW1/4, 

N1/2SE1/4, SE1/4SE1/4. 

1,079 

(437)

C Township 17 South, Range 5 East, 

San Bernardino Meridian 

Section 14, W1/2 

Section 15, SE1/4NE1/4, S1/2SE1/4 

Section 22, lots 1 (37.8 acres [15.3 hectares]) & 2 (37.4 acres 

[15.1 hectares]), NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4, E1/2SW1/4, 

W1/2SE1/4, 

Section 23, lot 1 (8.3 acres [3.4 hectares]), N1/2 

Section 24, lots 4 (6.0 acres [2.4 hectares]) & 5 (6.3 acres 

[2.6 hectares]) 

Section 27, lots 1 (37.4 acres [15.1 hectares]), 9 (0.6 acre 

[0.2 hectare]) & 10 (6.6 acres [2.7 hectares]). 

1,300 

(526)

E Township 17 South, Range 5 East, 

San Bernardino Meridian 

Section 24, lots 24 (35.67 acres [14.44 hectares]) & 26 

(35.65 acres [14.42 hectares]), 

Section 25, E1/2. 

391 

(158)

G Township 17 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Meridian 

Section 34, lot 7, NE1/4SE1/4 

Section 35, lots 2, 3 & 4, NE1/4 S1/2NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, 

N1/2SE1/4. 

Township 18 South, Range 5 East, 

San Bernardino Meridian 

Section 2, NE1/4NE1/4. 

615 

(249)

Subtotal – Exclusive Use Withdrawal Lands 3,385

(1,370)
Environmental Assessment 1. Introduction 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 1-8 

Table 1-1 Camp Michael Monsoor Parcel Description and Size 

Parcel Legal Description 

Parcel Size 

acres 

(hectares) 

Lands used by the Navy Use under an Existing BLM ROW Grant (CACA-53611) 

A Township 17 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Meridian 

Section 21, NE1/4SW1/4, N1/2NW1/4SW1/4, 

S1/2SE1/4NW1/4SW1/4, NW1/4SE1/4. 

105 

(43)

B Township 17 South, Range 5 East, 

San Bernardino Meridian 

Section 21, SE1/4SE1/4. 

Section 22, W1/2SW1/4. 

Section 27, W1/2SW1/4, W1/2NW1/4, 

Section 28, E1/2NE1/4, SE1/4, 

Section 33, NE1/4NE1/4, 

Section 34, lot 3, NW1/4NW1/4. 

638 

(258)

D Township 17 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Meridian 

Section 13, lots 5 (33.3 acres [13.4 hectares]) & 14 (33.42 

acres [13.5 hectares]), NE1/4, NW1/4SE1/4, S1/2SE1/4 

Section 24, lots 1 (33.6 acres [13.6 hectares]), 7 (3.6 acres 

[1.5 hectares]), 10 (34.3 acres [13.9 hectares]), 11 (4.4 acres 

1.8 hectares]) & 14 (3.6 acres [1.5 hectares]), N1/2NE1/4. 

Township 17 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian, 

Section 18, W1/2NE1/4, NW1/4, E1/2SW1/4, NW1/4SE1/4. 

866 

(351)

F Township 17 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian 

Section 31, NW1/4NW1/4, S1/2NW1/4, SW1/4. 

280 

(113)

H Township 17 South, Range 6 East, 

San Bernardino Meridian 

Section 7, SE1/4NE1/4, E1/2SE1/4, 

Section 8, NW1/4SW1/4, N1/2NW1/4, SW1/4NW1/4. 

280 

(113)

Subtotal – ROW Lands 878

(2,169)

Grand Total Withdrawal and ROW Lands 5,554

(2,248)

1 
Environmental Assessment 1. Introduction 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 1-9 

1 1.2 CURRENT OPERATIONS AND EXISTING FACILITIES 

2 In 1998, the NSW community began using Camp Michael Monsoor for pre-deployment, 

3 readiness, sustainment, basic marksmanship, and assaults training. Since then, the secluded 

4 location and mountainous terrain have become critical in supporting Camp Michael Monsoor’s 

5 mission of providing assaults training and other specialized warfare training for NSW. Camp 

6 Michael Monsoor is unique for NSW training because the physical characteristics found at 

7 Camp Michael Monsoor are similar to the terrains of many foreign countries, thereby providing 

8 realism during training exercises. In addition, Camp Michael Monsoor’s proximity to military 

9 concentration areas in San Diego County allows for maximum training time, with limited 

10 associated travel time and expense (Navy 2012e). 

11 Ranges and facilities at Camp Michael Monsoor are administered by the Commanding 

12 Officer for Naval Base Coronado and operated by Naval Special Warfare Group One (NSWG-1) 

13 Training Detachment Range Department. The ranges and facilities are maintained by Naval 

14 Base Coronado Public Works and the NSWG-1 facilities department. 

15 Currently, land at Camp Michael Monsoor is primarily used for NSWG-1 and NSW 

16 Training Center training activities. NSW provides a multi-mission force with a comprehensive set 

17 of specialized capabilities that focus on neutralizing emerging or potential long-term threats of a 

18 scale and type that can be handled more effectively by small, highly trained, and sophisticated 

19 forces. NSW forces must be organized, trained, and equipped to respond to seven principal 

20 mission areas: 

21 1. Combating Terrorism; 

22 2. Counter Proliferation; 

23 3. Special Reconnaissance Direct Action; 

24 4. Direct Action; 

25 5. Unconventional Warfare; 

26 6. Psychological/Information Operations; and, 

27 7. Foreign Internal Defense and Civil Affairs. 

28 1.2.1 TRAINING EVENTS SUPPORTED AT CAMP MICHAEL MONSOOR 

29 Camp Michael Monsoor is comprised of existing range and training areas that are 

30 integral to NSW pre-deployment training, including unit-level training (ULT). Other training that 

31 regularly occurs at Camp Michael Monsoor includes Sea Air and Land (SEAL) Qualification 

32 Training and some other U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) training. During peak ULT and 

33 SEAL Qualification Training periods, there may be as many as 250 personnel training onsite at 

34 the same time. 
Environmental Assessment 1. Introduction 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 1-10 

1 Typical NSW operational training events that are supported at Camp Michael Monsoor 

2 are described below (Penwell 2012): 

3  Land Navigation. These events require multiple courses across a variety of terrain to 

4 include, as required, lake and riverine obstacles in an area greater than 50 square miles 

5 (130 square kilometers). Land navigation can be accomplished on non-range locations, 

6 when suitable, and the currently available areas satisfy training requirements; 

7  Weapons Training. Shooting and weapons skills are perishable and must be constantly 

8 honed. Basic qualification requirements and weapons proficiency training are required to 

9 maintain adequate combat skills. Weapons training is required for all NSW weapons, but 

10 personal weapons proficiency training with 9-millimeter (mm) pistols, shotguns, 7.62-mm 

11 assault rifles, and M-4 rifles require the greatest training frequency; 

12  Demolition Training. This specialized training requires infrastructure, a construction 

13 capability, and explosion-resistant facilities to accommodate breaching training with a 

14 variety of demolition weapons; 

15  Tactical Fire and Maneuver Training. This type of training is required to integrate basic 

16 weapons and combat skills that are learned as individuals and practiced at the unit level. 

17 This training couples combat stress with the ability to conduct coordinated target 

18 assaults, tactical ambushes, inserts/extracts, and patrolling exercises; 

19  Sniper Training. Sniper training is complex and requires a sequence of maneuver areas 

20 for land navigation and target observation, known distance ranges for sighting weapons 

21 and qualification, and unknown distance and elevation ranges, including elevated urban 

22 structures, to simulate a combat environment. These ranges require distances of both 

23 3,280 and 6,562 feet (1,000 and 2,000 meters); 

24  Reactive Plate Ranges. These ranges react with pop-up steel targets that provide 

25 instant feedback to the shooter. Automatic scoring is required; 

26  Close Quarters Combat (CQC). CQC facilities should be multi-story, have the ability to 

27 be reconfigured on the interior, and have ballistic walls and entry points, which allow full 

28 use of weapons and breaching materials. For optimal training, the CQC house should be 

29 adjacent to a tactical fire and maneuver area to train NSW units in ingress and egress 

30 from the objective; 

31  Air Operations Training. Air operations training should be conducted on or adjacent to 

32 the tactical training ranges. These air operations areas require an integrated battlespace 

33 of air, ground, and surface for extensive maneuver for helicopter landings and fast rope; 

34  Night Training. The nature of the NSW mission mandates a night training capability, 

35 including night capable instrumentation; and, 

36  Reconnaissance. Reconnaissance includes land, maritime, and riverine mounted or 

37 dismounted information gathering operations. This training may include military working 

38 dogs. 
Environmental Assessment 1. Introduction 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 1-11 

1 1.2.1.1 Sea Air and Land and Unit-Level Training Periods 

2 SEAL and ULT training events at Camp Michael Monsoor typically occur in three 

3 6-month long training blocks. The first 6-month training block (professional development 

4 training) for deploying SEAL teams includes basic and advanced individual skills training. The 

5 second 6-month training block (ULT) includes land warfare, close combat, special 

6 reconnaissance, and airborne infiltration. The third 6-month training block (interoperability 

7 training) combines a NSW squadron with deploying forces for scenario-based exercises and 

8 theater-specific focused training. Interoperability training also includes environmentally-specific 

9 training in, for example, cold weather, mountain warfare, and jungle and riverine warfare. 

10 The ULT focus at Camp Michael Monsoor is assault training. A portion of the assaults 

11 training can now be conducted at Camp Michael Monsoor, but the majority is conducted at a 

12 private training facility. The typical range of troop training is 45 to 60 personnel, but can be as 

13 high as 80. A Supertroop can be up to 120 personnel. Assaults training currently involves up to 

14 60 people, eight times a year, for 21 days. One week of assaults training is currently performed 

15 at Camp Michael Monsoor. In addition, SEAL Qualification Training is currently conducted at 

16 Camp Michael Monsoor while the CQC facility at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton is under 

17 repair. SEAL Qualification Training occurs up to six times per year for a duration of four weeks, 

18 with 67 personnel (including 12 instructors). This equates to 3,780 person days per year for ULT 

19 and 11,256 person days per year for SEAL Qualification Training. According to the La Posta 

20 Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final EA, Camp Michael Monsoor is used for 15,653 person 

21 days per year (1 person day equals an 8-hour training day). 

22 1.2.2 EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS AREAS 

23 Facilities used to support the critical mission of Camp Michael Monsoor are generally 

24 included in the following three base components: 

25 1. Training ranges inclusive of all live-fire areas, range support buildings, and the breaching 

26 instructional area; 

27 2. Training classrooms; and, 

28 3. Training areas used for field exercises that do not involve live-fire. 

29 Existing facilities at Camp Michael Monsoor are primarily located in three concentrated 

30 areas: the Hilltop Complex, the Beach Complex, and the Range Complex area (see Sections 

31 1.2.2.1 through 1.2.2.3 and Figure 1-2). The only existing facilities located outside of these 

32 areas include one sniper structure and three water wells. 

33 1.2.2.1 Operations at the Hilltop Complex 

34 Operations at the Hilltop Complex include general management functions, ready space, 

35 and some academic classroom support. The non-operational satellite dish is located north of the 

36 ready space and is currently off-limits for safety reasons. A small landing pad located near the 

37 satellite dish is used for air operations (i.e., emergency response and County Sheriff’s 
Environmental Assessment 1. Introduction 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 1-12 

1 operations). Ordnance and weapons are stored adjacent to the parking areas at the Hilltop 

2 Complex. 

3 1.2.2.2 Operations at the Beach Complex 

4 Operations at the Beach Complex include ready space and academic classroom 

5 instruction to support on-base training activities. An explosives breaching mock-up trainer is 

6 located northwest of the Beach Complex area. To the northeast of the Beach Complex is an 

7 area known as the Breaching Complex; this area is used to instruct Methods of Entry. 

8 Three Methods of Entry breaching techniques are taught at Camp Michael Monsoor: 

9 mechanical, explosive, and shotgun. Mechanical breaching techniques include the use of brute 

10 force, such as sledgehammers, to break through doors and windows. Explosive breaching 

11 techniques and shotgun breaching techniques include the application of explosives or the use of 

12 a shotgun to break the hinges off of a door, enabling forced entry into a building. 

13 1.2.2.3 Operations at the Range Complex 

14 Ranges located at Camp Michael Monsoor support developing, maintaining, and 

15 improving operators’ shooting proficiency and other skillsets. The Range Complex and Range 

16 110 focus on live-fire small arms training. Ranges 115a, b, and c and Range 112 (Sniper 

17 Range) employ horizontal ricochet reduction platforms, commonly called eyebrow bullet traps, 

18 which are installed over the tops of the targets. The eyebrow bullet traps allow for zero distance 

19 Surface Danger Zones behind the bullet traps. Ranges 113a and 113b are one-story live-fire 

20 shoothouses. Range maintenance and storage facilities are also located at the Range Complex. 

21 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

22 The Navy’s mission is to organize, train, equip, and maintain combat-ready naval forces 

23 capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas. This 

24 mission is mandated by federal law (10 U.S.C. Section 5062) and ensures the readiness of the 

25 nation’s naval forces. The Chief of Naval Operations meets this directive, in part, by establishing 

26 and executing training programs, including at-sea training and exercises, and ensuring naval 

27 forces have access to the ranges, operational areas, and airspace needed to develop and 

28 maintain skills for conducting naval operations. 

29 With anticipated Congressionally mandated growth of 25 percent in NSW within the next 

30 two years (Navy 2011), there is an increased demand for upgrades to range and training 

31 facilities to support Camp Michael Monsoor’s training mission and, thereby, support the growth 

32 of the NSW community. The preferred alternative (MILCON P-888 and other components) 

33 would expand the range, training facilities, and operations associated with Camp Michael 

34 Monsoor, specifically within Parcel C and the Previously Withdrawn Parcel, which includes the 

35 Range Complex and Range 110 (Figure 1-2). 
Environmental Assessment 1. Introduction 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 1-13 

1 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to develop a local Assaults Training Center of 

2 Excellence with NSWG-1 as the primary user, meet the training requirements of Fleet Exercise 

3 Publication 6, and minimize the Navy’s travel time and training costs. 

4 The Proposed Action is needed to provide a local, Navy-controlled, dedicated assault 

5 training center to support pre-deployment training of NSWG-1 personnel. Assault training is a 

6 requirement of Fleet Exercise Publication 6, which requires NSWG-1 personnel to be proficient 

7 in conducting assaults using the M-4 rifle and Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle 

8 Heavy. 

9 Assault training is currently conducted at private facilities that are not controlled by 

10 NSWG-1 and do not offer privacy of training, primacy of facility use, and proximity to NSWG-1 

11 personnel’s home station, Naval Base Coronado. The use of these facilities entail the 

12 transportation of up to 120 personnel and their equipment and ordnance approximately 1,800 

13 miles (2,900 kilometers) eight times per year for a 21-day training evolution, and results in travel 

14 expenses for NSWG-1. Because the private training facilities do not offer primacy of use, 

15 NSWG-1 has to compete with other armed services and federal, state, and local agencies for 

16 training time. Local (i.e., less than a 1-hour drive from NSWG-1 located at Naval Base 

17 Coronado) Navy-controlled facilities are needed to minimize travel time and associated travel 

18 costs, and would provide locations that offers a safe and secure training environment, and 

19 privacy, primacy, and proximity of training for NSWG-1. 

20 The use of local facilities is related to keeping SEALs at an adequate personnel tempo 

21 that does not require them to be away from their homes and families for extended periods to 

22 train and maintain their combat skills. The creation of the Navy’s Individual Personnel Tempo 

23 Program, in accordance with the congressionally mandated National Defense Authorization Act 

24 of 2000, limits the number of days in which training can be conducted away from home to 400 

25 days in the previous 2 years. This practice of keeping personnel tempo below an excessive 

26 level is a major factor driving training requirements. Thus, training must be conducted as much 

27 as possible at local facilities in the immediate area. Previously, the NSW community has had the 

28 benefit of conducting training at various locations and in a variety of environments. This 

29 diversified training has helped to shape the skills, fitness, and degree of readiness now 

30 exhibited by NSWG-1 forces. 

31 SEALs encounter this personnel tempo constraint due to their long-term deployments 

32 and shortened training cycles. Providing local training facilities helps keep personnel tempo 

33 down while still training SEALs for deployment. Facilities that allow for training to occur year34 round, independent of season, are necessary to meet this need. 

35 The Proposed Action must be sited at a facility that has the capacity to support the 

36 development of small arms ranges and other training mockups in a safe and secure training 

37 environment, and must provide a semi-remote/undeveloped location to support required Surface 

38 Danger Zones associated with live-fire ranges. It is essential that the Proposed Action is 

39 protected from encroachment by other uses. The Proposed Action also must be sited at a 
Environmental Assessment 1. Introduction 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 1-14 

1 facility that replicates rugged, mountainous terrain and extreme environmental conditions (i.e., 

2 diverse weather conditions). 

3 1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE 

4 The decision to be made as a result of the analysis in this EA is whether there will be a 

5 significant impact, and therefore, whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will need to 

6 be prepared. An EIS will need to be prepared if the Proposed Action would have significant 

7 impacts on the human or natural environment. If the analysis reveals that there would be no 

8 significant impacts on the human or natural environment, an EIS will not be required and this EA 

9 may result in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The alternative action that is selected 

10 for implementation from this EA will be documented in the FONSI. 

11 1.5 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 

12 The preparation of this EA is based on requirements including, but not limited to, the 

13 environmental requirements and guidance documents listed in Table 1-2. 

Table 1-2 Applicable Guidance, Laws, and Regulations Considered 

Law Agency Requirement Regulated Activity 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et 

seq.) 

Navy FONSI or preparation of an 

EIS 

Federal action 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended 

(16 U.S.C. Section 470 et 

seq. and amendments) 

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation 

California State Historic 

Preservation Officer 

Section 106 Consultation Federal undertakings that 

affect properties listed in or 

eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic 

Places 

Clean Air Act 

(42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et 

seq.) 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Conformity Determination or 

Record of Non-Applicability 

Federal implementation of a 

proposed action may result in 

air quality impacts that could 

exceed the levels noted in 40 

CFR Part 93.153 

Endangered Species Act 

(1973, as amended) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Section 7 Consultation 

Biological Opinion 

Federal action may affect a 

threatened or endangered 

species 

Clean Water Act U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers 

Section 404 Permit Fill or discharge into wetlands 

or Waters of the U.S. 

Key: 

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations 

EIS = Environmental Impact Statement 

FONSI = Finding of No Significant Impact 

U.S.C. = United States Code 
Environmental Assessment 1. Introduction 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 1-15 

1 1.6 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS 

2 As described in Section 1.1.1, the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final EA 

3 was completed in 2008 and analyzed the environmental impacts of the withdrawal of several 

4 parcels at Camp Michael Monsoor and the construction of MILCON P-781 facilities (including 

5 several facilities in Parcel C) (Navy 2008). Surveys for the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

6 (Euphydryas editha quino) (QCB) were conducted most recently in accordance with the 2003 

7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Recovery Plan. QCB were 

8 discovered at Camp Michael Monsoor in 2004 and 2010. Surveys for the QCB’s host plant 

9 (white snapdragon [Antirrhinum coulterianum]) were conducted in the spring of 2012. 

10 Several facilities that support training at Camp Michael Monsoor, including a CQC 

11 structure, a simulated residence for training, logistics and support facilities, and a Method of 

12 Entry structure, were included in MILCON P-781 and are already under construction. 

13 Construction of MILCON P-888 facilities and other components covered under the Proposed 

14 Action would further develop Camp Michael Monsoor (Figure 1-3). All proposed ranges at 

15 Parcel C would be constructed in accordance with Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

16 (NAVFAC) 1027/3B guidance on construction of firing ranges and rules regarding Surface 

17 Danger Zones. 

18 The pre-planning studies and documents listed above helped determine the resource 

19 areas to be evaluated in this EA, which include: 

20  Air Quality; 

21  Biological Resources; 

22  Cultural Resources; 

23  Geology and Soils; 

24  Land Use; 

25  Noise; 

26  Public Health and Safety (including hazardous materials and waste); 

27  Public Services and Utilities; 

28  Socioeconomics (including Environmental Justice); 

29  Traffic and Circulation; 

30  Visual Resources; and, 

31  Water Resources and Hydrology. 
Environmental Assessment 1. Introduction 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 1-16 

1 1.7 PUBLIC/AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

2 The public participation process will be initiated by publishing a Notice of Availability of 

3 the EA in the San Diego Union Tribune (Appendix A) for three consecutive days over a Friday, 

4 Saturday, and Sunday time period. Copies of the EA will be placed in the Campo Library for 

5 review and comment. In addition, the EA will be posted to the Commander, Navy Region 

6 Southwest (CNRSW) for public review. The public review comment period will last 15 calendar 

7 days. 

8 All applicable comments submitted during the comment period will be considered during 

9 the development of the Final EA. Appendix A of the Final EA will include a summary of the 

10 comments received and the Navy’s responses to comments. 

11 A Notice of Availability of the Final EA and FONSI, if applicable, will be published in the 

12 San Diego Union Tribune. The final documents will also be made available for public review at 

13 the Campo Library and on the CNRSW website. 

14 
13 12 11

5

23

4

1

6A 6B

7

7

8

9 10

Navy-Managed Property

MILCON P-888 Project Component

Other Proposed Action Features Not Covered Under MILCON P-888

MILCON P-781 Project Component

Erosion Improvement Area

Figure 1-3

Construction Proposed Under

MILCON P-781 and P-888

San Diego County, California

Path: L:\SanDiego\Monsoor\Maps\mxds\20130730_EArevisions\Monsoor_1-3_073013.mxd

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road

PREVIOUSLY

WITHDRAWN

PARCEL

Parcel C

Shotgun Range

P-888 CQC

Road Improvements

P-888 Rifle Ranges P-888 Pistol Ranges

Permanent Water Well

Underground Water Line

Main Gate Entrance

Improvements

Fencing

Electrical Distribution Line/

Access Road Widening/Culvert 

P-781 MOE

P-781 CQC

P-781 Small Residence

P-781 Shop & Logistics

Training Storage

Exploratory Water Well

Exploratory Water Well

Well Road

Fire Access Gate

Fire Access Gate

P-781 Pipeline

P-781 Water Tanks (2)

1

Water Tank

Replacement

Range 110 Reconfiguration/

Lights Mounted On New Poles
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-1 

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED 

ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

1 This chapter presents the reasonable range of alternatives for the expansion of range 

2 and training facilities and operations on lands maintained and operated by NSWG-1 at Camp 

3 Michael Monsoor, including a description of the Proposed Action and the alternatives carried 

4 forward for analysis. This chapter also includes a summary of alternatives that were considered 

5 but eliminated from further analysis and a summary of potential environmental consequences, 

6 organized by resource area, for the analyzed alternatives. In addition, this chapter provides 

7 special conservation and construction measures. 

8 2.1 CRITERIA 

9 To be considered reasonable, an alternative must meet the purpose and need as 

10 described in Section 1.3, and must be consistent with the following siting criteria: 

11  A facility that has the capacity to support the development of small arms ranges and 

12 other training mockups and provide a semi-remote/undeveloped location to support 

13 required safety zones associated with live-fire ranges that is protected from 

14 encroachment by other uses; 

15  A facility that provides rugged, mountainous terrain and extreme environmental 

16 conditions (i.e., diverse weather conditions); 

17  A facility that is located within 1 hour of NSWG-1, at Naval Base Coronado; and, 

18  A Navy-controlled area that allows for security, NSW primacy of use and Navy-controlled 

19 scheduling of training to meet the needs of units. 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-2 

1 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 

2 ALTERNATIVES 

3 The Proposed Action and alternatives that meet the evaluation criteria for detailed 

4 analysis are described below: 

5  Alternative 1 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative): Ranges, training facilities, and 

6 operations at Camp Michael Monsoor would be improved and expanded at Parcel C and 

the Previously Withdrawn Parcel10 7 ; 

8  Alternative 2: This alternative is the same as Alternative 1, except for the following: the 

9 pistol range that is part of MILCON P-888 would be sited in an easterly firing direction, 

10 resulting in a reduced Surface Danger Zone; the shotgun range would not be 

11 constructed; and the Range Control Building and Gate Sentry House would be 

12 constructed to the south of the main entrance road rather than to the north of this road; 

13 and, 

14  No Action Alternative: Under this alternative, the Proposed Action would not be 

15 constructed; however, this alternative provides a description of the baseline conditions 

16 against which the impacts of the Proposed Action can be compared.

17 2.2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 (PROPOSED ACTION/PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

18 Alternative 1 comprises the expansion of ranges, training facilities, and operations 

19 associated with Camp Michael Monsoor (Figure 2-1). More specifically, the Proposed Action 

20 would include the following: 

21 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDED UNDER MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

22 PROJECT P-888 

23  A fully enclosed Close Quarters Combat (CQC) two-story structure with ballistic walls 

24 and an elevated roof for cross-flow ventilation; 

25  Extending the existing access road from the Military Construction (MILCON) P-781 

26 Method of Entry structure to the MILCON P-888 CQC structure; 

 One fully baffled rifle range11 27 (baffles keep rounds contained within the range) with 

28 adjacent assaults and sight-in rifle ranges; 

29 

 

10 The Previously Withdrawn Parcel includes the Range Complex and Range 110. 11 Includes all associated Surface Danger Zones for these ranges. 
13 12 11

5

23

4

1

6A 6B

7

7

8

9 10

MILCON P-888 Project Component

Other Proposed Action Features Not Covered Under MILCON P-888

Erosion Improvement Area

Figure 2-1

Alternative 1

San Diego County, California

Path: L:\SanDiego\Monsoor\Maps\mxds\20130730_EArevisions\Monsoor_2-1_073013.mxd

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road

PREVIOUSLY

WITHDRAWN

PARCEL

Parcel C

Shotgun Range

P-888 CQC

Road Improvements

P-888 Rifle Range P-888 Pistol Ranges

Exploratory Water Well

Permanent Water Well

Underground Water Line

Main Gate Entrance

Improvements

Fencing

Electrical Distribution Line/

Access Road Widening/Culvert 

Training Storage

Exploratory Water Well

Well Road

Fire Access Gate

Fire Access Gate

1

Water Tank

Replacement

Range 110 Reconfiguration/

Lights Mounted On New Poles
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-5 

 Four outdoor pistol ranges12 1 (linear, sight-in/fundamental, steel, and instinctive); 

2  Installing three water wells (two temporary exploratory wells and one permanent well) 

3 and associated water lines in Parcel C to provide for increased flow rates. A 12-foot (3.7-

4 meter) wide by 100-foot (30.5-meter) long road would be added to access the 

5 permanent well. All connections for the water line would be buried within the roadways at 

6 Parcel C; and, 

7  Installing an electrical line in the existing roadway at Parcel C. The electrical line would 

8 be collocated underground within the same trench as the proposed water line at Parcel 

9 C. 

10 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES NOT INCLUDED UNDER MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

11 PROJECT P-888: 

 A new shotgun range13 12 in Parcel C, including extending the access road from the 

13 MILCON P-888 CQC structure to the proposed shotgun range; 

14  An approximately 7,200-square-foot (669-square-meter) training storage building will be 

15 constructed near the P-888 CQC structure to house all of the doors and targets needed 

16 for use in the CQC structure. The storage building will include lighting and a service 

17 vehicle parking and drop-off area. Approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters) of land 

18 surrounding the building will be covered with gravel for fire protection. In addition, a 50-

19 foot-wide (15.2-meter-wide) fuel modification zone will be established around the 

20 building. 

21  New security facilities at the Main Gate, which would include: 

22 o A new Range Control Building west of the Main Gate, near the entrance on the main 

23 access road; 

24 o A new water tank to replace an existing water tank at the Main Gate entrance14; 

25 o Two 10-foot (3-meter) high block walls installed to 50 feet (15 meters) on either side 

26 of the Main Gate entrance; 

27  A small, concrete-paved visitor parking area adjacent to the Main Gate; 

28  A second security gate west of the proposed Range Control Building; and, 

29  A reconfigured Main Gate entrance that would reduce traffic queuing from La Posta 

30 Road. 

 

12 Includes all associated Surface Danger Zones for these ranges. 13 Includes all associated Surface Danger Zones for these ranges. 14 This replacement tank would store water for use at the proposed Range Control Building. 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-6 

 Replacement of an existing fence15 1 along La Posta Road, which would include: 

2 o Extending the 10-foot (3-meter) high fence line approximately 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) 

3 north and 0.5 mile (0.75 kilometer) south of the existing fence on La Posta Road; 

4 and, 

5 o Installing access gates at the north and south ends of the new fence along La Posta 

6 Road for emergency fire access. 

7  Improvement and realignment of Range 110, which would include: 

8 o Installing a new aboveground electrical distribution line from La Posta Road to 

9 Range 110 along the northern side of the existing access 

10 road; 

11 o Realigning Range 110 and shifting the aspect of Range 

12 110 approximately 10 to 15 feet (3 to 4.5 meters) farther 

13 west so that the Surface Danger Zone would no longer 

14 cover the Hilltop Complex; 

15 o Installing a 6-foot × 6-foot (2-meter x 2-meter) steel pole 

16 containing elevated solar panels on Range 110 in an area 

17 previously disturbed during construction of projects prior 

18 to P-781. 

19 o Widening the existing Range 110 access road and 

20 installing erosion control features along the Range 110 

21 frontage road; 

22 o Installing a wall for noise attenuation to be installed 

23 behind the firing line on an existing pad, and where no 

24 vegetation clearing would be required. The wall would be approximately 10 to 12 feet 

25 (3 to 4 meters) high; and, 

26 o Installing up to 10 lights on new poles for night shooting at Range 110. 

27  Upgrades to existing utilities and erosion control structures at the Range Complex, which 

28 would include: 

29 o Constructing a new underground water line and power line to pump water from the 

30 existing water well near the installation’s western boundary to a holding tank at the 

31 Range Complex, to be used for both potable water and fire suppression; and, 

 

15 To be constructed in coordination with Naval Base Coronado Physical Security Department and NSWG-1. 

A Surface Danger Zone 

delineates the area 

designated within a 

training complex for 

vertical and lateral 

containment of debris, 

projectiles, fragments, and 

components resulting from 

the firing, launching, or 

detonation of weapons 

systems including 

ammunition, explosives, 

and demolition explosives. 

A Surface Danger Zone 

must be designed to be 

completely within Navy 

parcels and cannot fall into 

non-Navy lands. 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-7 

1 o Installing a 6-foot × 6-foot (2-meter x 2-meter) steel pole containing elevated solar 

2 panels at the Range Complex in an area previously disturbed during construction of 

3 projects prior to P-781. 

4 o Installing erosion control structures for controlling channel incision, rill erosion, and 

5 uncontrolled discharge at the Range Complex, including the lower Range Complex, 

6 the sniper target area, and the “grand canyon” area downhill from the complex. 

7 Upon implementation of Alternative 1, Camp Michael Monsoor would be able to 

8 accommodate the anticipated congressionally mandated growth of the NSW community by 

9 25 percent. Alternative 1 would result in an increase by three weeks in the amount of time ULT 

10 is conducted at Camp Michael Monsoor over the current duration (one week). This increase 

11 would occur up to six times per year. SEAL Qualification Training would decrease from four 

12 weeks to one week, six times per year. Other new training conducted by SOF and non-SOF 

13 units is shown in Table 2-1. This represents an increase in use of 9,125.5 person days annually. 

Table 2-1 Current and Proposed Level of Use

Training 

CURRENT PROPOSED 

# of Personnel # of Weeks # of times per Year 

Other information 

# of Personnel # of Weeks # of Times per Year 

Other information 

ULT 901 1 6 3,780 person days 901 4 6 15,120 person days

SEAL Qualification 

Training 672

 4 6 1 year period only 

11,256 person days 672

 1 6 2,814 person days

SEAL Team Usage 30 1 15 3,150 person days

Non-SEAL Team Usage 35 1 6 1,470 person days

Non-NSW Usage 45 0.5 10 225 person days

Foreign Use 30 1 2 420 person days

ATC 35 0.25 6 52.5 person days

FBP 65 1 2 910 person days

Total (person days) 15,036 24,161.5

Notes: 

1

 Includes 15 instructors. 

2

 Includes 12 instructors. 

Key: 

ATC = Advanced Training Command 

FBP = Final Battle Problem 

NSW = Naval Special Warfare 

ULT = Unit-Level Training

14 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-8 

1 2.2.1.1 Proposed Facilities 

2 Military Construction Project P-888

3 Under MILCON P-888, new facilities would be constructed, as described below (see 

4 Table 2-2 and Figure 2-2, presented at the conclusion of Subsection 2.2). 

5 Military Construction Project P-888 Close Quarters Combat Structure 

6 A new approximately 15,005-square-foot (1,394-square-meter) P-888 live-fire CQC 

7 structure would be constructed for use in conjunction with the proposed pistol and rifle live-fire 

8 ranges. The CQC structure would be constructed directly adjacent to the proposed training 

9 storage building which would house all of the doors and targets needed for use in the CQC 

10 structure. The MILCON P-888 CQC structure would be located north of the Method of Entry 

11 structure (part of MILCON P-781) and south of the proposed shotgun range (Figure 2-2). The 

12 MILCON P-888 CQC structure would have ballistic walls and an elevated roof for cross-flow 

13 ventilation, lighting, and an emergency vehicle access and service vehicle parking and drop-off 

14 area. Approximately 50 feet (15 meters) of land surrounding the MILCON P-888 CQC structure 

15 would be covered with gravel for fire protection. In addition, a Fuel Modification Zone would be 

16 established and maintained up to an additional 50 feet (15 meters) around the perimeter of the 

17 facility. Mechanical and explosive breaching would be conducted to gain entry to and to move 

18 throughout the inside of the facility. The road from the MILCON P-781 Method of Entry structure 

19 would be extended to the MILCON P-888 CQC structure.

20 Military Construction Project P-888 7.62-mm Rifle Range (Fully Baffled) 

21 As part of MILCON P-888, the Navy would construct a rifle range, including contiguous 

22 assault rifle and sight-in rifle lanes with 7.62-mm ammunition capabilities. The new ranges 

23 would be constructed south of the MILCON P-781 Method of Entry structure and northwest of 

24 the proposed pistol ranges at Parcel C. The rifle ranges would have a total of 30 lanes that 

25 would be 9 feet (2.75 meters) wide. The ranges would be fully baffled, limiting the associated 

26 Surface Danger Zone to only 150 feet (45 meters) in every direction extending out from the 

27 firing line towards the intended target. Range capabilities would include pneumatic resetting for 

28 dynamic targets that would be built into temporary building facades set at varying distances not 

29 to exceed 656 feet (200 meters). The firing positions would be constructed to simulate building 

30 facades with typical door, window, hatch, and porthole openings (Figure 2-2). An emergency 

31 vehicle access and service vehicle parking and drop-off area, ammunition preparation areas, 

32 and lighting would be included in the range design. Approximately 50 feet (15 meters) of land 

33 surrounding the rifle ranges would be covered with gravel for fire protection. 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-9 

1 Military Construction Project P-888 Pistol Range Complex 

2 A new Pistol Range Complex would be constructed as part of MILCON P-888, east of 

3 the proposed rifle range and CQC structure, in the valley of Parcel C. The Pistol Range 

4 Complex would consist of four separate ranges, each with a different purpose and capability. 

5 The pistol ranges would be unbaffled, requiring a full Surface Danger Zone. The firing line would 

6 face north, allowing the Surface Danger Zone to fall inside the boundaries of Parcel C (Figure 

7 2-2). The four pistol ranges would include the following: 

8  Sight-in/fundamental range; 

9  Steel range; 

10  Instinctive range; and, 

11  Linear range. 

12 Approximately 50 feet (15 meters) of land surrounding the pistol range would be covered 

13 with gravel. Lighting and an emergency vehicle access and service vehicle parking and drop-off 

14 area would also be provided. 

15 Military Construction Project P-888 Water Wells 

16 Three MILCON P-888 water wells (two temporary exploratory wells and one permanent 

17 well) would be drilled in Parcel C to provide for increased flow rates. A 12-foot (3.7-meter) wide 

18 by 100-foot (30.5-meter) long road would be added to access the permanent well. An 

19 underground water line, 4 to 6 inches (10 to 15 centimeters) in diameter, would be installed to 

20 transport water from the MILCON P-888 permanent well to an existing 10,000-gallon (37,900-

21 liter) water storage tank, which is also located at Parcel C (refer to Figure 1-3). The proposed 

22 wells would not have power or pipe connectivity; therefore, a 36-inch (0.9-meter) deep and 

23 5-foot (1.5-meter) wide trench would be required for installation of the water line and a 

24 collocated power line, and all connections for the water line and electrical power line would be 

25 buried within the roadways at Parcel C. 

26 Military Construction Project P-888 Underground Electrical Line at Parcel C 

27 As described above, an electrical power line would be collated underground within the 

28 same trench as the proposed MILCON P-888 water line in an existing roadway at Parcel C. 

29 Other Facilities Included Under the Proposed Action, but Not Part of Military 

30 Construction Project P-888 

31 The following new facilities would be constructed under the Proposed Action, but are not 

32 included as part of MILCON P-888 (see Table 2-2 and Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4, presented at 

33 the conclusion of Subsection 2.2). 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-10 

1 Shotgun Range 

2 A new unbaffled shotgun range would be constructed in the valley of Parcel C, north of 

3 the MILCON P-888 CQC structure, and oriented to the east. The range would have 30 firing 

4 points and provide multiple firing line options, as well as lighting and emergency vehicle access 

5 and a service vehicle parking and drop-off area. The location of the new shotgun range would 

6 provide immediate adjacency to the planned MILCON P-888 CQC structure, the training storage 

7 building, and the MILCON P-781 Method of Entry structure (Figure 2-2). Approximately 50 feet 

8 (15 meters) of land surrounding the shotgun range would be covered with gravel for fire 

9 protection. A new access road would be constructed, extending from the P-888 CQC structure 

10 to the proposed shotgun range to provide access. 

11 Training Storage Building 

12 An approximately 7,200-square-foot (669-square-meter) training storage building will be 

13 constructed near the P-888 CQC structure to house all of the doors and targets needed for use 

14 in the CQC structure. The storage building will include lighting and a service vehicle parking and 

15 drop-off area. Approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters) of land surrounding the building will be 

16 covered with gravel for fire protection. In addition, a 50-foot-wide (15.2-meter-wide) fuel 

17 modification zone will be established around the building. 

18 Main Gate 

19 Range Control Building and Gate Sentry House 

20 A new 1,904-square-foot (177-square-meter) Range Control Building and Gate Sentry 

21 House would be constructed west of the Main Gate (Figure 2-3). The new building would 

22 oversee incoming traffic to the compound to monitor personnel entering the installation. The 

23 building would serve as the command center for all ranges for the coordination and oversight of 

24 all training activities and would enhance safety and security on the range. All ranges would 

25 require direct-connect phone service to the Range Control Building. 

26 The new Range Control Building would include a bathroom and a kitchen. A small 

27 concrete-paved visitor parking area with 10 parking spaces would be constructed adjacent to 

28 the Main Gate to support the building. A leach field would be located across the street to receive 

29 and filter waste from the septic tank. Water for the bathroom and kitchen at the Range Control 

30 Building would be supplied via an existing water line, and the water would be stored in a water 

tank that would be constructed as part of the Proposed Action16 31 . Electrical power would be 

32 obtained from an existing electrical distribution line already located on Camp Michael Monsoor. 

33 A Fuel Modification Zone would be established and maintained up to 50 feet (15 meters) around 

 

16 The Proposed Action would require replacement of the existing water tank at the Main Gate entrance. 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-11 

1 the perimeter of the Range Control Building. Landscaping at the Main Gate would use native 

2 vegetation and employ xeriscaping techniques. 

3 Redesigned Main Gate Entry 

4 To further enhance base security and safety, the Main Gate would be reconfigured to 

5 remove traffic queuing from La Posta Road, and to provide a rejection turn-around lane for 

6 unauthorized vehicles and a holding area for vehicles to be inspected before proceeding 

7 through a proposed second security gate (Figure 2-3). The entry design would feature a double8 gated “corral” ingress which would provide incoming delivery trucks a safe traffic queuing area 

9 off of La Posta Road while the drivers request access to the compound. The existing first gate 

10 would remain open during regular business hours, while the proposed second gate would only 

11 be opened for approved visitors. The entry would have a roundabout prior to the second gate for 

12 easy egress in the event access to the compound is denied. In addition, a proposed block wall 

13 would extend 50 feet (15 meters) to the north and south of the Main Gate entrance. All 

14 proposed landscaping improvements (Figure 2-3) would include only native plants pre-approved 

15 by the Naval Base Coronado botanist and wildlife biologist. 

16 Fence and Fire Access Gates 

17 As part of MILCON P-781, a fence was constructed to replace a three-strand cattle 

18 fence on La Posta Road, extending 500 feet (150 meters) north and 500 feet (150 meters) south 

19 of the Main Gate entrance. The MILCON P-781 fence would be extended along La Posta Road, 

20 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) north to Parcel E and 0.5 mile (0.75 kilometer) south towards Range 

21 110. Gates would be installed at the north and south ends of the extended fence for emergency 

22 fire access. Per NAVFAC requirements, signs will be posted on the fence near the entrance to 

23 Range 110 to warn of hazards near the Surface Danger Zone. 

24 Realignment of Range 110 

25 The current orientation of Range 110 puts the Hilltop Complex within its Surface Danger 

26 Zone. Range 110 would be realigned, and the aspect of Range 110 would be shifted 10 to 15 

27 feet (3 to 4.5 meters) farther west so that the Surface Danger Zone would no longer cover the 

28 Hilltop Complex. Currently, only the firing line at Range 110 has been reoriented within the 

29 existing range pad. To reorient the range pad per regulations, the Navy would move existing 

30 earth to the northeast to level-out the area and fill in the valley. A maximum Surface Danger 

31 Zone that would be based on one-half the maximum range of a 7.62-mm ball round (i.e., one32 half of 13,450 feet [4,100 meters], or 6,725 feet [2,050 meters]) would be used for Range 110 

33 (Figure 2-4). After the range has been reoriented, training at Range 110 would resume and 

34 would generally occur between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-12 

1 Aboveground Electrical Distribution Line 

2 Currently, there is no electrical power supply to provide electronic targeting at Range 

3 110. A new aboveground electrical distribution line, including up to six San Diego Gas and 

4 Electric (SDG&E) 40-foot (12-meter) tall tubular steel poles, would be installed along the 

5 existing access road between La Posta Road and Range 110. The poles would be located 

6 within 5 feet (1.5 meters) north or south of the access road, but outside of the road right-of-way. 

7 SDG&E would interconnect the line to the SDG&E transmission line. 

8 Solar Panels 

9 A 6-foot × 6-foot (2-meter x 2-meter) steel pole containing elevated solar panels will be 

10 installed on Range 110 in an area previously disturbed during construction of projects prior to P11 781. 

12 Access Road Widening 

13 The existing access road from La Posta Road to Range 110 would be reoriented to 

14 accommodate the rotated range and widened (Figure 2-4). The access road improvement area 

15 would be primarily covered with decomposed granite or gravel. 

16 Range 110 Lighting 

17 Up to ten lights would be installed on new telephone poles at Range 110 as close to the 

18 roadway as possible to illuminate the range at night. The lights would be oriented towards the 

19 range and would not be used at all times. A transformer would provide power for the lighting. 

20 Sound Wall 

21 A sound wall would be installed for noise attenuation. The wall would be installed on an 

22 existing pad behind the firing line, and no vegetation clearing would be required. The wall would 

23 be approximately 10 to 12 feet (3 to 4 meters) high. 

24 Drainage Improvements 

25 To improve the drainage at Range 110, several improvements would be made. To 

26 correct cross drainage blow outs and rill erosion along the Range 110 Frontage Road, riprap 

27 would be installed at two locations along the westerly side of the road to reduce the velocity of 

28 the runoff. Several improvements would be made at Range 110, itself, and along the Range 110 

29 road. First, a natural release point for ponding runoff would be graded at the foot of Range 110, 

30 and the spillway would be lined with riprap, including a riprap apron at the toe of the slope. This 

31 solution would prevent runoff from ponding along the top of the slope (southerly end on Range 

32 110). A riprap lined spillway would allow runoff to drain without further erosion. The spillway 

33 would discharge runoff southerly towards the heavily vegetated, undeveloped area, as opposed 

34 to easterly (proposed roadside swale). Based on the proposed riprap, existing vegetation, and 

35 undeveloped nature of the southerly land, the proposed redirection of runoff would not adversely 

36 impact downstream areas. 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-13 

1 Stormwater Improvements 

2 Stormwater improvements, including grading a roadside swale along Range 110 Road, 

3 would also be made. The roadside swale would be lined with a rolled erosion control product 

4 (jute matting or similar) and include check dams (sand bags or equivalent). Four turn-outs would 

5 be installed along Range 110 Road to alleviate the sediment deposition occurring at the fire 

6 access point along La Posta Road. Each turn-out would be fitted with a riprap apron to prevent 

7 further downstream erosion south of Range 110 Road. Installation of the turn-outs would reduce 

8 the total flow at La Posta Road. Minimizing the amount of runoff at the fire access gate would 

9 significantly reduce sediment deposition along La Posta Road. The existing riprap and the fire 

10 access gate would be protected. Additional riprap would be placed at the downstream end of 

11 the proposed roadside swale. 

12 Upgrades at the Range Complex 

13 Water Pipeline and Electrical Line 

14 An underground water pipeline and electrical line would be constructed to transport 

15 water from an existing well located west of the Range Complex to a 10,000-gallon (37,900-liter) 

16 holding tank, used for potable water and fire suppression, on the west side of the block yard at 

17 the Range Complex. The water pipeline would be 4 to 6 inches (10 to 15 centimeters) in 

18 diameter, and the pipeline route would begin on the north side of the road, running parallel to 

19 the road, and would cross the road two times. Currently, the well does not have power or pipe 

20 connectivity. A 36-inch (0.9-meter) deep and 5-foot (1.5-meter) wide trench would be required 

21 for installation of the pipeline and power line. 

22 Erosion Control Measures 

23 To address the saturated subgrade along the sniper access road, the subgrade would 

24 be stabilized through installation of new Class II aggregate base material and raising the access 

25 road approximately 12 inches (0.3 meter) for a distance of approximately 140 feet (43 meters) 

26 within the lowest portion of the existing road. 

27 To address pavement failure and sediment deposition along Patilla Road, the existing 

28 Patilla Road would be repaired and the dirt parking lot and the dirt access road parallel to Patilla 

29 Road would be paved. 

30 To address the hydromodification and channel incision (known locally as the “grand 

31 canyon”), a concrete slope would be installed between the existing 18-inch (46-centimeter) pipe 

32 and the natural channel below. This new concrete slope would replace the existing concrete 

33 apron and prevent runoff from free-falling approximately 10 feet (3 meters) prior to reaching the 

34 natural channel below. Riprap would be required to reduce exit velocities at the toe of the 

35 concrete sloped channel. 

36 To address the rill erosion along the sniper target access road, a roadside swale would 

37 be graded along the road and immediately downstream. The swale would be lined with a rolled 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-14 

1 erosion control product (jute matting or similar) and include check dams (sand bags or 

2 equivalent). New rip rap stabilization would be required at the downstream end of the swale. 

3 Check dams would be installed every 10 feet (3 meters) along the sniper access road due to the 

4 steepness of the road. 

5 To address rill erosion, sediment deposition, and saturated subgrade along the lower 

6 road of the Range Complex, the natural release point for ponding runoff would be graded and 

7 the spillway would be lined with riprap, including a riprap apron at the toe of the slope. This 

8 solution would prevent runoff from ponding and the subsequent potential for a vector problem. A 

9 riprap lined spillway would allow runoff to drain without further erosion. The spillway is meant to 

10 discharge runoff southerly towards the heavily vegetated, undeveloped area, as opposed to 

11 westerly (proposed roadside swale). 

12 Solar Panels 

13 A 6-foot × 6-foot (2-meter x 2-meter) steel pole containing elevated solar panels will be 

14 installed at the Range Complex in an area previously disturbed during construction of projects 

15 prior to P-781. 

16 2.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 

17 Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1, with the exception that the pistol ranges, 

18 which are part of MILCON P-888, would be sited in an easterly firing direction (see Table 2-2 

19 and Figure 2-5, presented at the conclusion of Subsection 2.2). This would generate a reduced 

20 150-foot (45-meter) Surface Danger Zone that does not overlay operational facilities and 

21 roadways. To achieve this reduced Surface Danger Zone, the pistol ranges must be fully baffled 

22 to retain the Surface Danger Zone on property under the exclusive use of the Navy. Under 

23 Alternative 2, the shotgun range would not be constructed. The new 1,904-square-foot (177-

24 square-meter) Range Control Building and Gate Sentry House would be constructed within the 

25 fence line west of the Main Gate entrance, to the south of the main road rather than to the north 

26 of this road. 

27 2.2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

28 Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no expansion of the existing range, 

29 training facilities, or operations on lands maintained and operated by NSWG-1 at Camp Michael 

30 Monsoor, specifically within Parcel C and the Previously Withdrawn Parcel, which includes the 

31 Range Complex and Range 110 (Table 2-2). Training would continue to be conducted using 

32 current methods and locations. Assault training would continue to be conducted at a private 

33 facility that is not controlled by NSWG-1 and does not offer security, privacy, primacy, and 

34 proximity for training. NSWG-1 would continue to transport up to 120 personnel and their 

35 equipment and ordnance approximately 1,800 miles (2,900 kilometers) eight times per year for 

36 a 21-day training evolution. Because the private training facility does not offer primacy of use, 

37 NSWG-1 would continue to compete with other armed services and federal, state, and local 

38 agencies for training time. 
!( !(

!(

MILCON P-888 Project Component

Other Proposed Action Features Not Covered Under MILCON P-888

Shotgun SDZ

Rifle SDZ

Pistol SDZ

Figure 2-2

MILCON P-888 & Other Proposed Actions

Within Parcel C

San Diego County, California

Path: O:\NAVFAC SW Camp Monsoor\06 Figures\050213\Monsoor_2-2_070213.mxd

Ç 0 200 400 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

Parcel C

Shotgun Range

P-888 CQC

Road Improvements

P-888 Rifle Ranges

P-888 Pistol Ranges

Permanent Water Well

Training Storage

Exploratory Water Well

Exploratory Water Well

Well Road
This page intentionally left blank.
Proposed Landscape

Proposed Sidewalk

Proposed Asphalt Pavement

Proposed Fence; Fencing (500x5')

Proposed Range Control Building

Figure 2-3

Range Operations Building &

Gate Sentry House

San Diego County, California

Path: O:\NAVFAC SW Camp Monsoor\06 Figures\050213\Monsoor_2-3_070213.mxd

Ç

0 50 100 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

PREVIOUSLY

WITHDRAWN

PARCEL

La Posta Road

Water Tank

Replacement
This page intentionally left blank.
13

12 11

5

2 3

4

1

6A 6B

7

7

8

9

10

Other Proposed Action Features Not Covered Under MILCON P-888

Proposed Range 110 SDZ

Erosion Improvement Area

Figure 2-4

Other Proposed Actions 

Within the Existing Withdrawal

San Diego County, California

Path: L:\SanDiego\Monsoor\Maps\mxds\20130730_EArevisions\Monsoor_2-4_073013.mxd

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

PREVIOUSLY

WITHDRAWN

PARCEL

Underground Water Line

Main Gate Entrance

Improvements Fencing

Electrical Distribution Line/

Access Road Widening/Culvert 

Range 110 Reconfiguration/

Lights Mounted On New Poles

Fire Access Gate

1

Block Wall

Block Wall

Water Tank

Replacement
This page intentionally left blank.
13 12 11

5

23

4

1

6A 6B

7

7

8

9 10

MILCON P-888 Project Component

Other Proposed Action Features Not Covered Under MILCON P-888

Erosion Improvement Area

Figure 2-5

Alternative 2

San Diego County, California

Path: L:\SanDiego\Monsoor\Maps\mxds\20130730_EArevisions\Monsoor_2-5_073013.mxd

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road

PREVIOUSLY

WITHDRAWN

PARCEL

Parcel C

P-888 CQC

Road Improvements

P-888 Rifle Ranges

P-888 Pistol Ranges (Reoriented to the East; See Inset 1)

Underground Water Line

Main Gate Entrance Improvements

(Buildings to the South of Road; See Inset 2)

Fencing

Electrical Distribution Line/

Access Road Widening/Culvert 

Training Storage

P-888 Pistol Ranges 

(Reoriented to the East)

6A 6B

7

Main Gate Entrance Improvements

(Buildings to the South of Road)

Inset 2

Inset 1

Water Well

Fire Access Gate

Fire Access Gate

1

Water Tanks (2)

Water Pipeline

Range 110 Reconfiguration/

Lights Mounted On New Poles

Water Tank

Replacement
13 12 11

5

23

4

1

6A 6B

7

7

8

9 10

MILCON P-888 Project Component

Other Proposed Action Features Not Covered Under MILCON P-888

Erosion Improvement Area

Figure 2-5

Alternative 2

San Diego County, California

Path: L:\SanDiego\Monsoor\Maps\mxds\20130730_EArevisions\Monsoor_2-5_073013.mxd

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road

PREVIOUSLY

WITHDRAWN

PARCEL

Parcel C

P-888 CQC

Road Improvements

P-888 Rifle Ranges

P-888 Pistol Ranges (Reoriented to the East; See Inset 1)

Underground Water Line

Main Gate Entrance Improvements

(Buildings to the South of Road; See Inset 2)

Fencing

Electrical Distribution Line/

Access Road Widening/Culvert 

Training Storage

P-888 Pistol Ranges 

(Reoriented to the East)

6A 6B

7

Main Gate Entrance Improvements

(Buildings to the South of Road)

Inset 2

Inset 1

Water Well

Fire Access Gate

Fire Access Gate

1

Water Tanks (2)

Water Pipeline

Range 110 Reconfiguration/

Lights Mounted On New Poles

Water Tank

Replacement
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-23 

Table 2-2 Components of the Alternatives 

Component 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/ 

Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 2 

Parcel C Warfare Training Facility

P-888 CQC Structure Permanent Impact 

2.40 acres 

(0.97 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

0.50 acre 

(0.20 hectare) 

Permanent Impact 

2.40 acres 

(0.97 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

0.63 acre 

(0.25 hectare) 

MILCON P-888 Rifle Range 

(fully baffled)1

Permanent Impact 

9.00 acres 

(3.64 hectares)

Temporary Impact 

1.00 acre 

(0.4 hectare)

Permanent Impact 

9.00 acres 

(3.64 hectares)

Temporary Impact 

1.00 acre 

(0.4 hectare) 

MILCON P-888 Pistol Ranges2 Permanent Impact 

3.70 acres 

(1.50 hectares) 

Temporary Impact 

0.30 acre 

0.12 hectare 

Permanent Impact 

3.70 acres 

(1.50 hectares) 

Temporary Impact 

0.30 acre 

0.12 hectare 

Shotgun Range3 Permanent Impact 

1.55 acres 

(0.63 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

0.50 acre 

0.20 hectare 

Permanent Impact

None 

Temporary Impact 

None 

MILCON P-888 Permanent 

Water Well 

MILCON P-888 Test Wells 

(includes road to wells)4

Permanent Impacts 

0.39 acre 

(0.16 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

0.61 acre 

(0.25 hectare) 

Permanent Impacts 

0.39 acre 

(0.16 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

0.61 acre 

(0.25 hectare) 

Training Storage Permanent Impacts 

0.8 acres 

(0.32 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

None 

Permanent Impacts 

0.8 acres 

(0.32 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

None 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-24 

Table 2-2 Components of the Alternatives 

Component 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/ 

Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 2 

Parcel C Road Permanent Impacts 

4.02 acres 

(1.63 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

1.92 acres 

(0.78 hectare)

Permanent Impacts 

0.18 acre 

(1.63 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

1.92 acres 

(0.78 hectare)

Construction at the Main Gate

Structures at the Main Gate 

Entrance5

Permanent Impact 

4.57 acres 

(1.85 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

None 

Permanent Impact 

4.57 acres 

(1.85 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

None 

Replace Existing Water Tank Permanent Impact 

None 

Temporary Impact 

0.01 acre 

(0.01 hectare)

Permanent Impact 

None 

Temporary Impact 

0.01 acre 

(0.01 hectare) 

Extension of Fence on La 

Posta Road 

Permanent Impact 

0.17 acre 

(0.06 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

1.28 acres 

(0.52 hectare) 

Permanent Impact 

0.17 acre 

(0.06 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

1.28 acres 

(0.52 hectare) 

Realignment of Range 110 and Range 110 Structures

New Aboveground Electrical 

Distribution Line6

Tubular Steel Poles (x6)

Permanent Impact 

0.0006 acre 

(0.0002 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

None 

Permanent Impact 

0.0006 acre 

(0.0002 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

None 

Range 110 Access Road 

Widening7

 

Permanent Impact 

2.78 acres 

(1.13 hectares) 

Temporary Impact 

None 

Permanent Impact 

2.78 acres 

(1.13 hectares) 

Temporary Impact 

None 

Range 110 Lights8 (x10) Permanent Impact 

N/A 

Temporary Impact 

N/A 

Permanent Impact 

N/A 

Temporary Impact 

N/A 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-25 

Table 2-2 Components of the Alternatives 

Component 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/ 

Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 2 

Range 110 Structure 

Realignment 

Permanent Impact 

0.74 acre 

(0.30 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

0.54 acre 

(0.22 hectare)

Permanent Impact 

0.74 acre 

(0.30 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

0.54 acre 

(0.22 hectare) 

Upgrades at the Range Complex

New Underground Water 

Pipeline and Electrical Lines 

Permanent Impact 

None

Temporary Impact 

0.5 acre 

(0.2 hectare) 

Permanent Impact 

None 

Temporary Impact 

0.5 acre 

(0.2 hectare) 

Erosion Control Structures 

(e.g., revetment area)

Permanent Impact 

1.5 acres 

(0.61 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

0.61 acres 

(0.25 hectare) 

Permanent Impact 

1.5 acres 

(0.61 hectare) 

Temporary Impact 

0.61 acres 

(0.2.5 hectare) 

Total Permanent Impact 

31.62 acres 

(12.8 hectares) 

Temporary Impact 

7.66 acres 

3.09 hectares) 

Permanent Impact 

30.07 acres 

(12.17 hectares) 

Temporary Impact 

7.16 acres 

(2.89 hectares) 

Notes: 

1

 This includes adjacent 7.62-millimeter Rifle (Sight-In) Range and Rifle (Assaults) Ranges. Assumes there is a 

50-foot (15-meter) buffer around both. Assumes 5.55 acres (2.25 hectares) for the Sight-In Range and 0.85 acre 

(0.34 hectare) for the Assaults Range. 2 This includes Linear, Sight-In, Steel, Instinctive and Tactical pistol ranges. Assumes the pistol ranges are 

adjacent to each other with 10 feet (3 meters) between the ranges and a 50-foot (15-meter) buffer area around 

this area. 3

 This includes a 50-foot (15-meter) graveled buffer area around the shotgun range. 4

 Assumes that the water line connections located in Parcel C will be primarily within the existing road. 5

 This includes the entire paved area at Main Gate entrance (i.e., Range Control Building, paved Visitor Parking 

Lot, paved entrance, and security gate system). This includes a 50-foot (15-meter) Fuel Modification area 

around the Range Control Building and Gate Sentry House. 6

 Assumes the tubular steel poles would be located within 5 feet 1.5 meters) of the Range 110 access road. The 

permanent disturbance acreage would be approximately 0.0001 acre (5.57 x 10-5 hectare) for all six poles. 7

 Assumes that culverts would be installed as needed under the roadway and would be approximately 30 feet 

(9 meters) in length. 8

 Assumes the lights would be installed on new telephone poles at Range 110 within the already disturbed 

footprint. 

1 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-26 

1 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD 

2 FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS 

3 2.3.1 MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON 

4 The use of range and facilities for training and operations at Marine Corps Base Camp 

5 Pendleton, California was considered; however, this alternative was not carried forward for 

6 further analysis for the following reasons: 

7  While Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton is located within a 1-hour drive of Naval 

8 Base Coronado, it does not have all the facilities required by NSWG-1 collocated. 

9 SEALs could not seamlessly move from one training evolution to another with minimal 

10 transit time. SEALs and NSWG-1 staff would have to travel to different parts of the base 

11 to accomplish training; and, 

12  While Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton would offer privacy of training, NSWG-1 

13 does not have primacy of use at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Scheduling at 

14 Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton uses a priority system, which allows for 180 days 

15 of U.S. Marine Corps unit training and 90 days of Navy unit training. For this reason, 

16 NSWG-1 would not be able to control scheduling to meet the training needs of deploying 

17 units, and would not be guaranteed adequate range space to train at this installation 

18 prior to critical deployment dates. 

19 For these reasons, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton would not fulfill the purpose and 

20 need for the Proposed Action and this alternative was not carried forward for further analysis. 

21 2.3.2 CAMP BILLY MACHEN 

22 The use of Camp Billy Machen in Niland, California for training and operations was 

23 considered; however, it is not carried forward for further analysis for the following reason: 

24  Camp Billy Machen is approximately 154 miles (248 kilometers), or an approximately 

25 2.5-hour drive, from Naval Base Coronado. This distance would not allow NSWG-1 to 

26 meet their ITEMPO requirements; 

27  The current focus of training at Camp Billy Machen is predominantly Land Warfare 

28 training. Camp Billy Machen is already used by NSWG-1 units conducting up to eight 21-

29 day training evolutions per year. The redesign of the SWAT 4 and 5 areas at Camp Billy 

30 Machen will include some areas for "refresher tactical ground mobility training;" however, 

31 there is not enough physical space for an additional eight 21-day training evolutions per 

32 year; and, 

33  Camp Billy Machen is located within the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, a 

34 U.S. Marine Corps facility. NSW does not have primacy of use on the Chocolate 

35 Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range and does not have the ability to construct ranges or 

36 facilities. 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-27 

1 Camp Billy Machen does not have all the facilities required by NSWG-1 collocated. 

2 SEALs could not seamlessly move from one training evolution to another with minimal transit 

3 time. SEALs and NSWG-1 staff would have to travel to different parts of the base to accomplish 

4 training. In addition, the distance from Naval Base Coronado to Camp Billy Machen would not 

5 meet ITEMPO requirements. 

6 For these reasons, Camp Billy Machen would not fulfill the purpose and need for the 

7 Proposed Action and this alternative is not carried forward for further analysis. 

8 2.3.3 SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX 

9 The use of the Silver Strand Training Complex in Coronado, California for training and 

10 operations was considered; however, it is not carried forward for further analysis for the 

11 following reasons: 

12  The Proposed Action must be sited at a facility that has the capacity to support the 

13 development of multiple, collocated small arms ranges and other training mockups which 

14 would allow SEALs to seamlessly progress from one evolution to another. While the 

15 Silver Strand Training Complex does have the space for some small arms ranges, it 

16 does not have enough space for all the ranges required for assaults training to be 

17 collocated. In addition, firing ranges are incompatible with the location of the coastal 

18 campus due to the noise generated by the operation of the ranges and the proximity to 

19 sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, schools, and federally-listed nesting birds on the 

20 beach). Ranges would also need Surface Danger Zones which would either restrict the 

21 public’s access to the beach and coastal waters near to the range sites or require the 

22 ranges to be relocated indoors, which would be cost prohibitive. 

23  The Silver Strand Training Complex does not provide rugged, mountainous terrain and 

24 extreme environmental conditions (i.e., diverse weather conditions). The Silver Strand 

25 Training Complex is a coastal installation where weather conditions are very similar 

26 throughout the year; therefore, this installation is better suited for amphibious operations. 

27 For these reasons, the Silver Strand Training Complex would not fulfill the purpose and 

28 need for the Proposed Action and this alternative is not carried forward for further analysis. 

29 2.4 RESOURCE AREAS CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED 

30 FORWARD FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS 

31 2.4.1 AIRSPACE 

32 None of the proposed alternatives presented would affect the use of airspace. Therefore, 

33 impacts on airspace do not warrant detailed analysis in this EA. 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-28 

1 2.5 RESOURCES ANALYZED IN DETAIL 

2 For a detailed description of potential environmental consequences, refer to Chapter 3, 

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. The potential environmental 

4 consequences associated with implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 are 

5 presented and compared in Chapter 3, Table 3-1. 

6 2.6 SPECIAL CONSERVATION AND CONSTRUCTION MEASURES 

7 This section presents proposed measures designed to avoid and/or minimize potential 

8 significant impacts to air quality, natural resources including special-status plants and rare 

9 natural communities, common and rare wildlife, and other threatened and endangered species, 

10 cultural and geologic resources, and public health and safety. These conservation measures 

11 would be implemented as part of the selected alternative and would be implemented during the 

12 design, construction, and operation stages of the selected alternative to minimize and avoid 

13 potential significant impacts. These measures are presented in this portion of the document to 

14 allow them to be included as part of the impact analysis in Chapter 3. 

15 2.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN 

16 The construction contractor will submit an Environmental Protection Plan for approval by 

17 the Naval Base Coronado Environmental Department and the Contracting Officer prior to 

18 commencement of construction. Prior to submittal of the Environmental Protection Plan, the 

19 construction contractor will meet with the Naval Base Coronado Environmental Department and 

20 the Contracting Officer for the purpose of discussing the implementation of the initial 

21 Environmental Protection Plan, possible subsequent revisions and additions to the plan, 

22 including reporting requirements, and methods for administration of the plan. 

23 The plan will discuss measures the contractor will take to prevent or control releases of 

24 contaminants into the air, soil, and water during construction. Specifically, the plan will address: 

25  Weed control; 

26  Management and removal of trash and rubbish; 

27  Human waste management; 

28  Air pollution controls on equipment and operations; 

29  Dust control; 

30  Application of paints and coatings; 

31  Recycling of project waste or demolition debris; 

32  Contractor parking and laydown; 

33  Temporary utility services; 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-29 

1  Smoking plan; 

2  Limits on construction due to wildlife or habitat; 

3  Procedures if site contamination is discovered; 

4  Historical, archaeological, and paleontological preservation procedures; 

5  Clearing and grubbing; 

6  Equipment maintenance and fueling; 

7  Hazardous materials use; 

8  Hazardous waste storage and disposal; and, 

9  Fire prevention precautions. 

10 2.6.2 AIR QUALITY 

11 Particulate matter emissions from construction and operations activities would be 

12 minimized through dust abatement measures, including: 

13  Applying soil stabilizers to disturbed, inactive portions of the project area which will help 

14 bind soil together and make it less susceptible to erosion; 

15  Replacing ground cover in disturbed areas with appropriate native plant species; 

16  Watering exposed soil in disturbed areas with adequate frequency for continued moist 

17 soil; 

18  Suspending excavation and grading activities during periods of high wind activity; and, 

19  Cleaning (washing) all vehicles before they leave the project area. 

20 Additionally, construction contractors will be required to obtain their own air quality 

21 permits for generators from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD). 

22 2.6.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

23 The following avoidance and impact minimization measures are included in the selected 

24 alternative to reduce the potential for significant impacts to sensitive biological resources, 

25 including Endangered Species Act protected species (e.g., QCB). These measures were 

26 developed from existing plans, regulations, and coordination between the Navy and USFWS. 

27 2.6.3.1 Biological Monitor 

28 At the onset of construction, a Navy-approved biological monitor will conduct a site visit 

29 to ensure that designated work areas are clearly marked and to brief construction crews on 

30 sensitive resources and the prevention of wildfires. A biological monitor will be present during 

31 the initial phases of clearing for construction projects to ensure that construction sites are 

32 appropriately marked and to ensure adequate communication regarding conservation measures 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-30 

1 and the location of QCB habitat. The biological monitor shall review and approve all vegetation 

2 clearing for temporary off-road access. The biological monitor will be onsite, as needed, for the 

3 duration of construction. The biological monitor will be responsible for reporting all known takes 

4 of threatened or endangered species that occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed 

5 Action. Designated work area flagging and erosion control best management practices shall be 

6 checked regularly, including within 24 hours of any storm event, and maintained throughout the 

7 construction phase. 

8 All contractors or Navy construction personnel will be briefed regarding the presence of 

9 QCB and QCB habitat at Camp Michael Monsoor and the need to minimize the effective size of 

10 project footprints (including fire prevention). Briefings or range manuals distributed to Camp 

11 Michael Monsoor trainees will include material regarding QCB appearance and biology. The 

12 construction crew will be required to immediately report any suspected QCB take to the 

13 biological monitor; any dead butterfly specimens that are suspected to be QCB will be collected 

14 and provided to the biological monitor. 

15 2.6.3.2 Minimize Impacts to Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and its Habitat 

16 Because the QCB is known to exist within the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcel 

17 C, avoidance and impact minimization measures will be required to avoid/minimize direct 

18 impacts to the QCB and occupied QCB habitat. The Navy will be responsible for funding and 

19 implementing these requirements; however, additional requirements for Endangered Species 

20 Act compliance may be applicable once the USFWS issues the Biological Opinion for the 

21 proposed project: 

22  The Navy will conduct construction contractor training and require that contractors report 

23 any suspected take to the biological monitor (to include collection of any dead suspected 

24 QCB to provide to the biological monitor). Briefings or range manuals distributed to 

25 Camp Michael Monsoor trainees will include material regarding QCB appearance and 

26 biology. 

27 In addition to the measure listed above, direct impacts to QCB and QCB habitat 

28 associated with the construction and expansion of project facilities will be specifically 

29 avoided/minimized as follows: 

30  Larval clusters that occur within the proposed construction area in Parcel C, and in all 

31 other areas where facilities development or expansion is proposed, will be avoided, to 

32 the extent practicable. Specifically, the following actions will be followed: 

33 o Construction personnel will use existing roads or existing parking lots for staging 

34 areas whenever possible; 

35 o Botanical surveys will be conducted as close as possible to the flowering period of 

36 white snapdragon and Chinese houses (Collinsia concolor) and within 1 year prior to 

37 construction. Surveys will be conducted prior to grading activities to identify the 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-31 

1 locations of all primary and secondary host plants that are located within the clearly 

2 defined construction footprint; 

3 o Construction personnel will avoid host plants, when possible. This may be 

4 accomplished by slight modifications in construction boundaries, where possible, or 

5 by marking a buffer area around host plants. The USFWS acknowledges that, due to 

6 host plant distribution within the proposed construction footprint, in many instances, 

7 avoiding host plants will not be possible; and, 

8 o Existing host plant surveys in and around the MILCON P-888 area will provide the 

9 expected locations for host plants; however, the biological monitor should be able to 

10 identify host plants in the field; 

11  Vegetation clearing will occur outside of flight season. Vegetation clearing outside of the 

12 project area shall be reported to the Navy Project Manager within 24 hours of discovery. 

13 In addition to the above-listed avoidance/minimization measures, an annual report will 

14 be submitted to the USFWS that describes and summarizes the implementation of the proposed 

15 project, including a cumulative total of the amount of habitat affected in order to track takes, and 

16 associated conservation measures. The USFWS Division of Law Enforcement, San Diego, 

17 California (619-557-5063) and the USFWS Carlsbad Office (760-431-9440, ext. 274, 260, or 

18 243) will be immediately notified should any QCB adults or larvae be found sick, injured, or dead 

19 in the project area. Written notification to both offices will be made within 5 calendar days and 

20 will include the collection date and time, the location of the butterfly(s), and any other pertinent 

21 information. Care will be taken in handling dead specimens to preserve biological material in the 

22 best possible state. 

23 2.6.3.3 Non-Native Species Introduction Prevention 

24 The Navy will continue to monitor and address invasive species on Camp Michael Monsoor, 

25 as appropriate. The construction team will implement the following measures to prevent or 

26 minimize the spread of invasive plant species: 

27  Prior to surface disturbance activities, the biological monitor will conduct an Employee 

28 Environmental Awareness Program to educate all project personnel regarding invasive 

29 weed prevention and control and wildlife protection during construction; 

30  To prevent invasive plant seeds, roots, or other propagules from being transported off 

31 Camp Michael Monsoor to the project area as well as from the project area to other parts 

32 of Camp Michael Monsoor, all contractor vehicles and equipment will be cleaned of 

33 visible soil and debris in a contained location, within a designated cleaning station 

34 constructed in the project staging area; 

35  To control the spread of existing non-native species on base, projects will be 

36 implemented as appropriate in accordance with the general methodology described in 

37 the QCB Habitat Enhancement Plan; 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-32 

1  All project personnel will ensure that their boots and equipment are free of visible soil 

2 and debris before entering or leaving the project area; and, 

3  Any vehicle tires or construction equipment that have come in contact with vegetation or 

4 disturbed soil will be cleaned in a contained location, within a designated cleaning 

5 station, prior to leaving the project staging area. Plant material and seeds, or mud 

6 containing seeds, will be removed from the undercarriage of the vehicle or construction 

7 equipment. Vehicle cabs will also be swept out during the cleaning process to remove 

8 seed and plant materials. Seed and plant debris will be collected and disposed of 

9 properly to avoid dispersal to other areas. 

10 2.6.3.4 Erosion Control during Construction 

11 A grading plan will be prepared and approved by NAVFAC and the Naval Base 

12 Coronado Environmental Department. Erosion control measures will be implemented to control 

13 runoff and minimize erosion in sloped areas of construction. The contractor supervisor will be in 

14 charge of overseeing the installation and removal of erosion control measures, unless the 

15 device is designed to remain in place post-construction, such as erosion control fabric. Erosion 

16 control measures could include silt fencing, water breakers, erosion control fabric, or seed-free 

17 certified straw bales. Re-vegetation with native species will occur in areas of cleared vegetation. 

18 Re-vegetation efforts will be coordinated with and approved by the Naval Base Coronado 

19 botanist. 

20 2.6.3.5 Avoidance of Nesting Birds 

21 Mowing, clearing, and grading of vegetated areas will be conducted during the non22 breeding season (September through February), when feasible, to reduce the risk of take of 

23 nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If mowing, clearing, or grading of 

24 vegetation must occur during the breeding season (March through August), a nest search 

25 survey will be conducted no more than 72 hours prior to these activities. Any active nests found 

26 during the survey will be provided with a buffer (buffer size will be determined based on each 

27 situation by the Naval Base Coronado wildlife biologist) and avoided. No nighttime construction 

28 (including the use of lighting) will occur during the nesting season (March through August). 

29 2.6.3.6 General Biological Minimization Measures 

30 1. Vegetation clearing or grading outside of the approved project footprint shall be reported 

31 to the Navy Project Manager within 24 hours of discovery. The designated work area 

32 flagging and erosion control best management practices shall be checked regularly, 

33 including within 24 hours of any storm event, and maintained throughout the construction 

34 phase. Topsoil will be retained and re-used in re-vegetation of temporary disturbance 

35 areas. Seed collection will be conducted two years prior to start of construction. Plant 

36 surveys shall include Collinsia.

37 2. All light posts and permanent nighttime lighting associated with the project will be 

38 selected to provide the lowest illumination possible while still allowing for safe 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-33 

1 operations. To prevent disturbance to sensitive natural resources, the lighting will also 

2 be at the lowest height possible, and will be shielded so that it is directed only toward 

3 areas needing illumination;

4 3. To reduce perching by raptors and other birds, all light posts and tall structures will be 

5 designed to prevent perching and/or will be equipped with anti-perching material (e.g., 

6 nixallite);

7 4. All trash that may attract predators (e.g., corvids, opossums, raccoons) will be removed 

8 from the project area and disposed of, at least daily, in areas or in bins that wildlife 

9 cannot access;

10 5. To avoid attracting predators, the project area will be kept as clean of debris as possible;

11 6. No pets, specifically cats and dogs (except military working dogs), will be allowed at 

12 Camp Michael Monsoor or in the field as they may result in an increased level of 

13 predation or injury to sensitive natural resources;

14 7. All vehicle traffic will be restricted to construction areas and currently established dirt or 

15 paved roads. No off-road vehicle use will be permitted; and,

16 8. All expended training material generated during the course of training, such as blank 

17 ammunition cartridges, shall be policed, picked up, and removed after each training 

18 event to the greatest extent possible.

19 2.6.3.7 Biological Opinion Compliance 

20 All measures provided in the USFWS Biological Opinion that address potential impacts 

21 to the QCB will be complied with. 

22 2.6.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

23 Should potential subsurface archaeological deposits be detected in the course of 

24 construction, all work in the discovery area will cease until an archaeologist can provide input 

25 regarding the significance of the resource. 

26 All known cultural resources located within the area of potential effect will be protected 

27 with temporary fencing installed under the direction of the Naval Base Coronado Cultural 

28 Resources Program Manager. The fenced areas will be recognized as work exclusion zones, 

29 and no personnel or equipment will encroach on these areas. Once the work for the Proposed 

30 Action is complete, the fencing will be removed. 

31 2.6.5 GEOLOGY 

32 2.6.5.1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

33 The construction contractor will develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

34 (SWPPP), along with an erosion control plan, in accordance with applicable regulations and 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-34 

1 standards. The SWPPP will incorporate best management practices and will be submitted to the 

2 Contracting Officer and made available to state and local agencies, as required. 

3 Since the disturbed area would exceed 1.0 acre (0.4 hectare), the construction 

4 contractor will be required to prepare the Notice of Intent for the SWPPP and pay appropriate 

5 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) fees and surcharges to the state 

6 Regional Water Quality Control Board in order to obtain a waste discharge number for the 

7 selected alternative. At the completion of work, the construction contractor will prepare and file a 

8 Notice of Termination. 

9 2.6.5.2 Erosion Control 

10 Camp Michael Monsoor and its associated ranges are managed as federal property; 

11 therefore, operations are required to comply with the Federal Soil Conservation Act. Federal 

12 land owners are required to control and prevent erosion by conducting surveys and 

13 implementing conservation measures (Soil Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 5901). 

14 The Navy is in the process of identifying areas prone to erosion at Camp Michael 

15 Monsoor, and is completing a feasibility study on certain locations of concern. Erosion control 

16 practices, as outlined in the SWPPP, will be inspected and reviewed frequently and revised as 

17 required to accommodate current construction phasing and conditions. The construction 

18 contractor will submit Erosion and Sediment Control Inspection Reports (on a form provided at 

19 the preconstruction conference or included within the SWPPP) to the Contracting Officer once 

20 every 7 days and within 24 hours of a storm event producing 0.5 inch (1.3 centimeters) or more 

21 of rain. During construction, erosion and sediment in stormwater runoff will be controlled by 

22 utilization of best management practices by the construction contractor. The construction 

23 contractor will be required to prepare and implement a soil erosion and sedimentation control 

24 plan prior to commencement of land disturbance activities. The soil erosion and sedimentation 

25 control plan will incorporate structural erosion control measures such as silt fence, fiber rolls, 

26 and temporary construction entrances. 

27 Erosion control measures will be implemented to control runoff and minimize erosion in 

28 sloped areas of construction. The contractor supervisor will be in charge of overseeing the 

29 installation and removal of erosion control measures unless the device is designed to remain in 

30 place post-construction (e.g., erosion control fabric). Erosion control measures could include silt 

31 fencing, water breakers, erosion control fabric, or seed-free certified straw bales. 

32 Re-vegetation with native species will occur in areas of cleared vegetation. Re33 vegetation efforts will be coordinated with and approved by the Naval Base Coronado botanist. 

34 Top soil will be retained and re-used in re-vegetation of temporary disturbance areas. Seed 

35 collection will occur two years prior to re-vegetation. The Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat 

36 Enhancement Plan for Camp Michael Monsoor, Campo, California will be consulted during work 

37 plan development. 
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-35 

1 To minimize erosion potential during project construction, parking and driving will be 

2 restricted to designated areas, and no off-road vehicular traffic, including parking or driving in 

3 undisturbed areas, will be allowed. 

4 2.6.5.3 Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan 

5 The construction contractor will develop a Spill Prevention Control and 

6 Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan in accordance with applicable regulations and standards. The 

7 SPCC Plan will incorporate best management practices and will be submitted to the Contracting 

8 Officer and made available to state and local agencies, as required. The SPCC Plan will be 

9 prepared and maintained to prevent, control, and mitigate potential oil spills from diesel tanks at 

10 Camp Michael Monsoor (if tanks are used to store diesel onsite during construction of the 

11 project). 

12 2.6.6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

13 2.6.6.1 Hazardous Waste Management Plan 

14 The construction contractor will submit a Hazardous Waste Management Plan for 

15 approval by the Contracting Officer prior to commencement of construction activity. This plan 

16 may be included as part of the overall Environmental Protection Plan. Management and 

17 disposal of hazardous waste will comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 

18 Prior to shipment of any material offsite, the construction contractor, in consultation with 

19 the Contracting Officer, will evaluate whether the material is regulated as a hazardous waste in 

20 addition to being regulated as a hazardous material; this evaluation will be conducted for the 

21 purpose of determining proper shipping descriptions, labeling requirements, etc. 

22 The construction contractor will minimize the generation of hazardous waste to the 

23 maximum extent practicable. The construction contractor will take all necessary precautions to 

24 avoid mixing clean and contaminated wastes. The construction contractor will identify and 

25 evaluate recycling and reclamation options as alternatives to land disposal. All transportation 

26 related shipping documents will be provided to the Contracting Officer, including draft hazardous 

27 waste manifests, draft land disposal restriction notifications, draft asbestos waste shipment 

28 records, draft manifests for polychlorinated biphenyls, draft bills of lading for hazardous 

29 materials, waste profiles, and supporting waste analysis documents for review, a minimum of 14 

30 days prior to anticipated pickup. 

31 Packaging assurances will be furnished prior to transporting hazardous materials. 

32 “Generator copies” of hazardous waste manifests, land disposal restriction notifications, 

33 asbestos waste shipment records, “generator copies” of manifests used for initiating shipments 

34 of polychlorinated biphenyls, bills of lading, and supporting waste analysis documents will be 

35 furnished when shipments are originated. “Receipt copies” of hazardous waste manifests, 

36 polychlorinated biphenyls manifests, and asbestos waste shipment records at the designated 

37 disposal facility will be furnished no later than 35 days after acceptance of the shipment.
Environmental Assessment 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 2-36 

1 This page intentionally left blank. 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-1

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

1 RESOURCES ANALYZED IN DETAIL 

2 The potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed 

3 Action and alternatives are presented and compared in Table 3-1. Detailed descriptions of 

4 potential environmental consequences for each resource area are provided in the sections that 

5 follow: 

6  Air Quality (Section 3.1); 

7  Biological Resources (Section 3.2); 

8  Cultural Resources (Section 3.3); 

9  Geology and Soils (Section 3.4); 

10  Land Use (Section 3.5); 

11  Noise (Section 3.6); 

12  Public Health and Safety (Section 3.7) (including hazardous materials and waste); 

13  Public Services and Utilities (Section 3.8); 

14  Socioeconomics (Section 3.9); 

15  Traffic and Circulation (Section 3.10); 

16  Visual Resources (Section 3.11); and, 

17  Water Quality and Hydrology (Section 3.12). 

18 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Enviro

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 3-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Air Quality No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Construction activities would generate temporary (shortterm) emissions such as fugitive dust emissions (suspended particulate matter [PM10] and fine particulate matter [PM2.5]) 

from grading activities and exhaust emissions (nitrogen oxides [NOX], sulfur dioxide [SO2], carbon monoxide [CO], 

volatile organic compounds [VOCs], PM2.5, and PM10) from 

construction equipment and vehicles. Similar types of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions would be generated by the operation of ground vehicles and weapons firing. These would be long-term emissions. Incremental emissions of criteria pollutants associated with construction and operation of Alternative 1 would primarily occur on a localized basis within Camp Michael Monsoor, subject to dispersion due to wind mixing and other dissipation factors. Additionally, no sensitive receptors would be located within the proximity of areas of major localized impacts, and the Navy would implement recommended construction measures described in Section 2.6.2. With implementation of these measures, potential impacts to air quality from the implementation of Alternative 1 would be short-term, localized, and not significant. 

Alternative 2 would result in the same types of air quality impacts as those described for Alternative 1, except emissions of criteria pollutants generated during the construction of Alternative 2 would be slightly lower than those estimated for Alternative 1 since construction of the shotgun range would not occur. Impacts from implementation of Alternative 2 would still be within the same localized area, order of magnitude, and timeframe of impacts to air quality as those described for Alternative 1. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to air quality. 

WAlcoreThaisig

Biological Resources No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

With implementation of Alternative 1, direct permanent impacts to vegetation may include loss of vegetation due to construction. Additional direct permanent impacts to vegetation may occur from foot and possible vehicle traffic associated with training activities, periodic maintenance, and the repair of project facilities. However, none of the potentially affected plant species are rare plant species or 

Under Alternative 2, the permanent and temporary impacts to vegetation and wildlife communities that would occur from construction of the new shotgun range would not occur. All other impacts would be the same 

WAlcoreunTh
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Enviro

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 3-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

are federally listed as threatened or endangered. All avian species found within the project area are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. With implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 2.6.3.2, the construction phase of the project would have no direct impacts to nesting birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. With implementation of the proposed conservation measures, no significant direct or indirect operation impacts would occur to plant communities or wildlife species with implementation of Alternative 1. The Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB) is the only federally listed rare wildlife species potentially affected by Alternative 1. With implementation of pre-construction QCB surveys and the special conservation and construction measures agreed upon with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and described in Section 2.6.3, there would be no significant impacts to QCB during the construction phase of Alternative 1. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in vegetation impacts to 39.28 acres (15.89 hectares) of QCB habitat. Based on the minimal amount of habitat removal when compared to available habitat for this species, no significant impacts would occur to QCB during operation of Alternative 1. 

as those described for Alternative 1. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to plant communities or wildlife species. 

bibe 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Enviro

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 3-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Cultural Resources No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

There are previously recorded cultural resources in the project area; however, with the application of the avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 2.6.4, implementation of Alternative 1 would have “no adverse effect” on the known listed, contributing, or eligible cultural resources in the area of potential effect. 

The same effects to cultural resources that could occur under Alternative 1 could also occur under Alternative 2; however, application of the avoidance and minimization measures would ensure that implementation of Alternative 2 would have “no adverse effect” on the known cultural resources in the area of potential effect. 

WAlcoreunThresig

Geology and Soils No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

With implementation of the recommended avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 2.6.3.4 and Section 2.6.5, Alternative 1 would not have significant impacts to geological resources. Implementation of the erosion control improvements at Range 110 and the Range Complex would be a beneficial impact to the existing erosion problems at Camp Michael Monsoor. 

With the implementation of the recommended avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 2.6.3.4 and Section 2.6.5, Alternative 2 would not have significant impacts to geological resources. 

WAlcosounThimwo

Land Use No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would involve the installation and use of new small arms firing ranges at Parcel C. Public Land Order No. 7807 was issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on January 17, 2013 and withdrew BLM land at Parcel C from public use, transferring administrative jurisdiction to the U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) for exclusive military use. Unmaintained trails exist in the area; however, recreationists would be prohibited from entering Surface Danger Zones at 

The same impacts to land use that would occur under Alternative 1 would occur under Alternative 2. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to land use. 

WAlcoreThimoc
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Enviro

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 3-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Parcel C during controlled live-fire activities. The loss of recreational use at Parcel C was previously analyzed under the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final Environmental Assessment (EA). Additionally, while military use would limit recreationist use within this area, other local public lands would be available within the vicinity of Camp Michael Monsoor and other forms of recreation in the area would remain unaffected. Implementation of Alternative 1 would not have a significant impact on recreational uses, or any other land uses, in the area of Camp Michael Monsoor. 

Noise No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Alternative 1 would generate temporary construction noise. Due to the distance and terrain, construction noise levels at the nearest residences would be below the daytime ambient noise level and would not result in significant noise impacts. Alternative 1 would involve the use of noise-generating sources, including operational vehicles and firearms. Use of vehicles during operations would increase noise levels along La Posta Road by less than 1 dBA Leq (A-weighted decibel sound level equivalent) and would not represent an adverse increase in traffic noise in the project area. Further, the actual noise level from weapons firing activities would be approximately 30 dBA Leq, which would not adversely increase nighttime or daytime ambient noise levels at the nearest residences. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant noise impacts. 

Alternative 2 would differ from Alternative 1 in three ways: (1) the orientation of the pistol ranges would be different; (2) the shotgun range would not be constructed; and (3) the Range Control Building and Gate Sentry House would be constructed at an alternate location; however, noise impacts associated with development and operation of Alternative 2 would be equivalent to the impacts discussed for Alternative 1. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant noise impacts. 

WAlcoreThanto 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Enviro

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 3-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Public Health and Safety 

No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to public health and safety from the improper use, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials or unexploded ordnance The construction contractor would strictly follow measures in the project’s Environmental Protection Plan to prevent or control releases of contaminants into the air, soil, and water during construction. All disturbed soils would remain on site and any lead and metals found would be recycled, where feasible. The Range Maintenance Standard Operating Procedure guidelines would be strictly followed during project construction and operations to ensure that lead encountered onsite would be properly characterized and contained and would not migrate off the range site. Any hazardous materials that are encountered during Alternative 1 construction or operations would be removed from the site and disposed of at a landfill that is authorized to receive hazardous waste. Implementation of Alternative 1 would involve weapons firing at Parcel C, including the use of firearms at the proposed Close Quarters Combat (CQC) facility and small arms ranges. To ensure public safety, all proposed ranges would be constructed in accordance with Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) 1027/3B guidance on construction of firing ranges and rules regarding Surface Danger Zones. Additionally, range management practices (i.e., use of warning signs and flags) would continue to be implemented at Camp Michael Monsoor to ensure the ranges are properly maintained. Based on the continued implementation of established range management practices and proper hazardous waste management practices, no adverse environmental health 

The same impacts to public health and safety that would occur under Alternative 1 would occur under Alternative 2. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to public health and safety. 

WAlcoanunThsighe
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Enviro

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 3-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

and safety impacts would occur. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not have a significant impact related to public health and safety.

Public Services and Utilities 

No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Alternative 1 would not result in an increased need for police or fire services, and natural gas is currently unavailable and not required for project construction or operation. Solid waste from construction would be transported offsite and solid waste facilities in the area would have availability and adequate capacity to accept this waste. The installation of lights at Range 110 and the installation of an aboveground electrical distribution line along the existing access road between La Posta Road and Range 110 would have positive impacts on the mission at Camp Michael Monsoor by allowing night training, while also upgrading the electrical system as a whole. Alternative 1 would generate a small volume of wastewater during construction due to worker use of onsite portable toilets; this waste would be removed from the site and disposed of at a wastewater treatment facility that is available and has capacity to receive such waste. During operations, Alternative 1 would generate a small amount of liquid waste, resulting from use of the toilet room and kitchen in the proposed Range Control Facility; this facility would be equipped with a septic system, and a leach field would be installed across the street to receive and filter waste from the septic tank. None of the Alternative 1 facilities would contain toilet rooms or showers that would require a new connection to a wastewater treatment facility. The existing septic systems at Camp Michael Monsoor would remain 

The impacts to fire or police services, water, wastewater, solid waste services, and natural gas/petroleum from Alternative 2 would be the same as those under Alternative 1. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to public services and utilities. 

WAlcoanunThsigse
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Enviro

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 3-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

unchanged. Consequently, Alternative 1 would not impact existing wastewater treatment facilities. Water used during construction of Alternative 1 for slope dampening and for dust control at the pistol and rifle ranges would not significantly increase the amount of water used at Camp Michael Monsoor, and the increase would only be temporary. During operations, water for the bathroom and kitchen at Range Control Building would be supplied via an existing water line. Small quantities of water would also be used during Alternative 1 operations for landscaping maintenance purposes to water drought-tolerant native species. Therefore, there would be minimal water use related to implementation of Alternative 1, and significant adverse impacts to the potable water system would not occur. Additionally, the proposed P-888 water well located in Parcel C and the proposed water line from the existing well along the western boundary of the installation to the Range Complex would have positive impacts on water supply and availability. Groundwater usage would be minimal. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in an improvement to the existing power delivery system and water supply system at Camp Michael Monsoor. No significant adverse impacts to public services and utilities would occur. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Enviro

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 3-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Socioeconomics (including Environmental Justice) 

No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to population, employment, or housing in the project area. Furthermore, there would not be any disproportionately high environmental or health impacts on low-income or minority populations or children. 

The impacts to population, employment, housing, environmental justice, and environmental justice to children from Alternative 2 would be the same as those under Alternative 1. Therefore, no significant impacts to population, employment, and housing would occur under this alternative. There would not be any disproportionately high environmental or health impacts on low-income or minority populations or children. 

WAlcowoThimsoIn anenimmch

Traffic and Circulation No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Construction of Alternative 1 would last one to six months and would not substantially affect the existing traffic on La Posta Road or the La Posta Truck Trail. Operation of Alternative 1 would result in a slight increase in vehicle traffic going to and from Camp Michael Monsoor via La Posta Road. However, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to traffic and circulation. 

The same impacts to traffic and circulation that would occur under Alternative 1 would also occur under Alternative 2. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to traffic and circulation. 

WAlcocirunThimcir
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Enviro

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 3-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Visual Resources No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would require installation of some permanent project features that would be seen by a low number of sensitive viewers. The project area and surrounding public lands are designated by the BLM as Visual Resource Management Class III, where the Visual Management Objective is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in an overall level of visual contrast to the surrounding landscape that is minimal to moderate; this would conform to the Visual Management Objective set for the area. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to visual resources. 

Under Alternative 2, less development would occur at Parcel C (e.g., the shotgun range would not be constructed) relative to the Alternative 1. In addition, the new Range Control Building and Gate Sentry House would be constructed to the south of the main road rather than to the north of this road. Impacts from Alternative 2 would be the same or similar to impacts from implementation of Alternative 1 since there is a low number of sensitive viewers in the area that would be affected by development at this location. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in an overall level of visual contrast to the surrounding landscape that is minimal to moderate; this is consistent with the Visual Management Objective set for the area. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to visual resources. 

WAlcoreunThimre
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Enviro

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 3-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resource Area 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 

Water Resources and Hydrology 

No Significant Impacts No Significant Impacts No 

Surface-disturbing activities associated with implementation of Alternative 1 could potentially increase sedimentation in some surface water resources; however, the Navy would implement recommended avoidance and minimization measures (described under Section 2.6.5) to minimize soil erosion, and the desert conditions limit the potential for significant surface water runoff. The implementation of the erosion control improvements under Alternative 1 would correct many of the erosion problems currently occurring at Camp Michael Monsoor and would be a beneficial impact. These erosion control improvements would also help to minimize erosion from construction since they would already be in place. Compliance with the Range Maintenance Standard Operating Procedure guidelines would ensure that lead does not migrate off the range site and into the groundwater. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to water resources and hydrology. 

The same impacts to water resources and hydrology that would occur under Alternative 1 would occur under Alternative 2. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to water resources and hydrology. 

WAlcoanunThimrewo

1 2 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Enviro

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

1 This page intentionally left blank. 2 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-13

1 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 

2 TO DEFINE IMPACTS 

3 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations define the impacts and 

4 effects that must be addressed and considered by federal agencies in satisfying the 

5 requirements of the NEPA process. The potential environmental consequences of an action can 

6 either be direct or indirect. Further, direct and indirect impacts can be either permanent or 

7 temporary in duration. Terminology used in the environmental impact analysis relative to impact 

8 types are briefly described below: 

9 Direct Impacts: Direct effects or impacts are caused by the action and occur at the 

10 same time and place as the action (40 CFR Part 1508.8). For example, any alteration, 

11 disturbance, or destruction of biological resources that would result from project-related 

12 activities would be considered a direct impact. Examples include clearing vegetation and loss of 

13 individual species and/or their habitats. 

14 Indirect Impacts: Indirect effects or impacts occur later in time or are farther removed in 

15 distance but are still reasonably foreseeable and attributed to project-related activities (40 CFR 

16 Part 1508.8). Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to 

17 induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related 

18 effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (40 CFR Part 1508.8). 

19 Indirect effects and secondary effects are used interchangeably. Examples include elevated 

20 noise and dust levels, increased human activity, increased runoff and erosion, and the 

21 introduction of invasive wildlife and plant species. 

22 Permanent Impacts: Permanent impacts result in irreversible actions that modify the 

23 affected environment. Permanent impacts may include, but are not limited to, the removal or 

24 permanent modification of habitat, such as the replacement of natural habitat with an impervious 

25 surface (e.g., paved road), or the grading of an area, which would permanently alter the 

26 drainage, slope, and aspect of an area and, therefore, the type of habitat that could be 

27 supported. 

28 Temporary Impacts: Temporary impacts have reversible effects to the existing 

29 environment. Temporary impacts may include, but are not limited to, the generation of fugitive 

30 dust during construction activities, or the temporary damage, modification, or removal of existing 

31 habitat where the existing habitat can be replaced or rehabilitated successfully. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-14

1 3.1 AIR QUALITY 

2 3.1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3 The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, which covers the same area as 

4 San Diego County. In San Diego County, the San Diego APCD is the agency responsible for 

5 protecting public health and welfare through the administration of federal and state air quality 

6 laws and policies. Included in San Diego APCD’s tasks are the monitoring of air pollution, the 

7 preparation of the San Diego County portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and 

8 promulgation of rules and regulations. The SIP includes strategies and tactics to be used to 

9 attain and maintain acceptable air quality in San Diego County; this list of strategies is called the 

10 Regional Air Quality Strategy. The rules and regulations include procedures and requirements 

11 to control the emission of pollutants and prevent significant impacts. Table 3.1-1 provides the 

12 National and California ambient air quality standards.

Table 3.1-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Averaging Time 

NAAQS1 CAAQS2

Primary3 Secondary4 Concentration5

Ozone (O3)

6

1-Hour --- --- 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3

) 

8-Hour 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3) Same as Primary 

Standard 0.07 ppm (137 μg/m3

)

9

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO) 

1-Hour 35 ppm (40 mg/m3

) --- 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 

8-Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) --- 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2) 

1-Hour 0.1 ppm (188 μg/m3

) --- 0.18 ppm (338 μg/m3) 

Annual Average 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) Same as Primary 

Standard 0.03 ppm (56 μg/m3

) 

Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2)

7

1-Hour 0.075 ppm (196 μg/m3

) --- 0.25 ppm (715 μg/m3) 

3-Hour --- 0.5 ppm 

(1,300 μg/m3

) --- 

24-Hour --- --- 0.04 ppm (114 μg/m3) 

Suspended 

Particulate Matter 

(PM10) 

24-Hour 150 μg/m3 Same as Primary 

Standard 50 μg/m3

Annual 

Arithmetic Mean --- --- 20 μg/m3(8)

Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5) 

24-Hour 35 μg/m3 Same as Primary 

Standard --- 

Annual 

Arithmetic Mean 15 μg/m3 Same as Primary 

Standard 12 μg/m3(8)

Lead (Pb)9 Calendar 

Quarter 0.15 μg/m3 Same as Primary 

Standard 1.5 μg/m3
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-15

Table 3.1-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Averaging Time 

NAAQS1 CAAQS2

Primary3 Secondary4 Concentration5

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(H2S) 1-Hour 

No Federal Standards 

0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3

) 

Sulfates (SO4) 24-Hour 25 μg/m3

Visibility Reducing 

Particles 

8-Hour 

(10:00 a.m. to 

6:00 p.m. PST) 

In sufficient amount to 

produce an extinction 

coefficient of 0.23 per 

kilometer due to particles 

when the relative humidity 

is less than 70 percent. 

Vinyl chloride9 24-Hour 

0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3

) 

Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012b; California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board 

2009. 

Notes: 

1. NAAQS (other than O3, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be 

exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth-highest 8-hour concentration in a year, 

averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is not to be exceeded more 

than once per year on average over 3 years. The 24-hour standard is attained when the 3-year average of the weighted 

annual mean at each monitor within an area does not exceed 150 μg/m3. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 

98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, do not exceed 35 μg/m3

. The annual standard is attained 

when the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean at single or multiple community-oriented monitors does not exceed 

15 μg/m3. 

2. California Ambient Air Quality Standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, PM10 and visibility 

reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. 

3. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public 

health. 

4. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or 

5. Anticipated adverse impacts of a pollutant. 

6. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. In this table, ppm refers to ppm by volume or 

micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 

7. The federal 1-hour O3 standard was revoked for most areas of the United States, including all of California on June 15, 

2005. 

8. Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked in that same rulemaking. 

9. On June 5, 2003, the Office of Administrative Law approved the amendments to the regulations for the state ambient air 

quality standards for particulate matter and sulfates. Those amendments established a new annual average standard for 

PM2.5 of 12 μg/m3

 and reduced the level of the annual average standard for PM10 to 20 μg/m3. The approved amendments 

were filed with the Secretary of State on June 5, 2003. The regulations became effective on July 5, 2003. 

10. The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse

health impacts determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient 

concentrations specified for these pollutants. 

Key: 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 

CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter 

NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

ppm = parts per million 

PST = Pacific Standard Time 

1 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-16

1 3.1.1.1 Climate and Meteorology 

2 Southern California is classified as having a semi-arid climate, although it contains three 

3 distinct zones of rainfall with coinciding floristic patterns. The climatic zones may be roughly 

4 defined as being coincident with the broad geographic regions composed of coast, mountains, 

5 and desert. Subregions exist within these regions and consist of coastal valleys lying below the 

6 mountains, separated from the ocean shore by plateaus and low hills immediately behind the 

7 coastline. The main features that characterize the project area are inland mountains. 

8 The project area is best characterized by climatological data taken at Campo, California, 

9 which is located less than 3 miles (5 kilometers) from the project area. These data indicate a 

10 monthly average temperature range of 33 to 94 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (1 to 34 degrees 

11 Celsius [°C]). Annual average rainfall in this area is 14.8 inches (37.6 centimeters), with the 

12 greatest rainfall occurring between the months of November and April where average monthly 

13 rainfall exceeds 1 inch (2.5 centimeters) (Western Regional Climate Center 2012). 

14 3.1.1.2 Compliance with Air Quality Standards/Regional and Local Air Quality 

15 Specific geographic areas are classified as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” based 

16 on measured data compared with NAAQS and state standards. The San Diego Air Basin 

17 currently meets the federal standards for all criteria pollutants except ozone (O3) for the 8-hour 

18 standard, and meets state standards for all criteria pollutants except O3, fine particulate matter 

19 less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and suspended particulate matter less 

20 than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The San Diego Air Basin is classified as a 

21 “marginal” nonattainment area for O3. Marginal is the least severe of the five degrees of O3 

22 nonattainment. The San Diego APCD submitted the 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan to the U.S. 

23 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2007. The San Diego Air Basin is currently classified 

24 as a state nonattainment area for PM10. For PM2.5, the San Diego Air Basin is currently 

25 classified as a state nonattainment area. 

26 The closest San Diego APCD air quality monitoring station for O3 and nitrogen dioxide 

27 (NO2) in the San Diego Air Basin is the Alpine monitoring station, located at 2300 Victoria Drive, 

28 Alpine, California, approximately 23 miles (37 kilometers) northwest of the project area. The 

29 El Cajon-Redwood Avenue monitoring station, located at 1155 Redwood Avenue, El Cajon, 

30 California, approximately 44 miles (71 kilometers) southwest of the project area, has the 

31 observed data of PM2.5 and PM10. Table 3.1-2 summarizes the exceedances of standards and 

32 the highest pollutant levels recorded at these two stations for the years 2007 to 2011. 

33 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Enviro

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 3.1-2 Ambient Air Quality Summary, San Diego Air Basin 

Pollutant Averaging Time 

California Air Quality 

Standards 

Federal Primary 

Standards 

Maximum Concentrations1 Number of Days Exceeding Federal Standard2 Numb

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 

O3

1-hour 0.09 ppm --- 0.134 0.139 0.119 0.105 0.114 1 2 0 0 0 18 

8-hour 

(Federal) --- 0.75 ppm 0.92 0.109 0.097 0.88 0.093 23 31 22 12 10 --- 

8-hour 

(State) 0.07 ppm --- 0.092 0.11 0.098 0.088 0.093 --- --- --- --- --- 46 

NO2 1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.10 ppm 0.057 0.047 0.056 0.052 0.04 --- --- --- --- --- --- PM10 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 0.061 0.040 0.055 0.041 0.042 --- --- --- --- --- --- PM2.5 24-hour --- 35 μg/m3 0.0427 0.0307 0.0565 0.0277 0.0297 --- --- --- --- --- --- Sources: California Air Resources Board for O3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Monitor Values Report for NO2 and PM. Notes: 1 Concentration units are in ppm. 2 For federal and state standards, a value of 1 indicates that the standard has been exceeded. 

Key: 

 “–” = data not available or applicable μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 

mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter 

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

O3 = ozone PM2.5 fine particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 = suspended particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter 

ppm = parts per million 

1 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-18 

1 3.1.1.3 Local Sources of Pollutants 

2 Regional Sources 

3 The largest sources of O3, NO2, and carbon monoxide (CO) are automobiles and other 

4 on-road vehicles. O3 is formed by the atmospheric reaction, in sunlight, of volatile organic 

5 compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), which are combustion products from gas and 

6 diesel engines. Other sources of VOCs are paints, coatings, and process solvents. Combustion 

7 sources such as vehicles, diesel engines, and industrial facilities also emit fine particulate 

8 matter. 

9 Sources of PM10 are construction, demolition, and dust from paved and unpaved roads. 

10 Coarser particles are directly emitted from activities that disturb the soil including travel on roads 

11 and construction, mining, or agricultural operations. Other sources include wind-blown dust, 

12 pollen, salts, brake dust, and tire-wear. Although PM2.5 is a subset of PM10, it differs from PM10. 

13 While the majority of ambient PM10 results from direct emissions of the pollutant, ambient PM2.5

14 results not only from direct emissions but also from transformation of precursors and 

15 condensing of gaseous pollutants in the atmosphere. Other than direct PM2.5 emissions, the key 

16 pollutants contributing to PM2.5 concentrations in the atmosphere are sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, 

17 VOCs, and ammonia (EPA 2006). 

18 Odors 

19 In the previous La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility EA, odors were noticed in 

20 the project area during visits on March 3, 2004 and March 16, 2004, when firing weapons 

21 generated small amounts of sulfurous smells. These odors were not detectable beyond 200 feet 

22 (61 meters) from the weapons. No other odors were detected in the project area or at nearby 

23 properties. 

24 Sensitive Air Quality Receptors 

25 Sensitive receptors are those populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air 

26 pollution than the population at large. Sensitive receptors in proximity to localized sources of air 

27 emission and CO are defined as long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, 

28 convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, 

29 and athletic facilities. For air quality analysis, sensitive receptors within 0.25 mile (400 meters) 

30 of the project area have been identified. 

31 The nearest sensitive receptors to the project would be the single-family homes adjacent 

32 to and west of La Posta Road, approximately 400 feet (122 meters) south of the existing 

33 property boundaries and approximately 600 feet (183 meters) east of the boundary of Parcel C. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-19

1 3.1.1.4 Clean Air Act Conformity 

2 The following subsections address the application of the General Conformity Rule. 

3 Location in a Nonattainment Area 

4 Specific geographic areas are classified under the federal Clean Air Act as either 

5 “attainment” or “nonattainment” based on conformance with or violation of National Ambient Air 

6 Quality Standards (NAAQS). The General Conformity Rule applies to actions that generate 

7 emissions in nonattainment or maintenance areas. The project area is located within the San 

8 Diego Air Basin, which has been classified as a former Subpart 1 area for 8-hour O3. As of 

9 March 30, 2012, San Diego County is listed as a maintenance area in the EPA Green Book 

10 (EPA 2012). Therefore, the General Conformity Rule is applicable for the Proposed Action. 

11 Emission of Criteria Pollutants 

12 The General Conformity Rule requires analysis of emissions of criteria pollutants and 

13 their precursors for which an area is designated nonattainment or that are covered by a 

14 maintenance plan. The Proposed Action would include construction equipment and mobile 

15 sources that would emit VOCs, NOX, and CO. VOCs and NOX are the precursors of O3. 

16 Therefore, the General Conformity Rule is applicable to the Proposed Action emissions of CO, 

17 VOCs, and NOX. 

18 de minimis Exemption 

19 Per 40 CFR Parts 51.853(c)(1), 91.153(c)(1), 51.853(i), and 91.153(j) of the General 

20 Conformity Rule, conformity requirements shall not apply to an action where the total of all 

21 reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect emissions: (1) does not equal or exceed prescribed 

22 threshold levels, called “de minimis levels,” that trigger a formal conformity determination; and 

23 (2) would be less than 10 percent of the area’s annual emission budget. The de minimis

24 thresholds applicable to the San Diego Air Basin are shown in Table 3.1-3.

Table 3.1-3 de minimis Emissions for Nonattainment and 

Attainment/Maintenance Criteria Pollutants in 

the San Diego Air Basin

Criteria Pollutant – Precursor 

de minimis Emissions 

tons/year1

Ozone (O3) – Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 

Ozone (O3) – Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

100 

100 

100 

Note: 

1

 40 CFR Part 93. The affected air basin is classified as former Subpart 1 Area for 

ozone (O3) (8-hour) and maintenance for carbon monoxide (CO). 

25 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-20

1 3.1.1.5 National Environmental Policy Act Air Quality Analysis 

2 A NEPA analysis of potential air quality impacts may be broader than a General 

3 Conformity analysis in that the NEPA analysis should evaluate the potential impacts of 

4 attainment pollutants, as well as nonattainment pollutants, and whether emissions of such 

5 attainment pollutants might significantly impact the human environment. The attainment 

6 pollutants for the San Diego Air Basin are PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NO2, and lead. PM2.5 and PM10 are 

7 nonattainment pollutants by state standards. For the NEPA analysis, the General Conformity de 

8 minimis threshold is used to evaluate PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors (SO2, NOX, and VOCs), and PM10

9 impacts. This air quality analysis does not directly evaluate SO2 and lead because little to no 

10 quantifiable and foreseeable emissions of these substances would be generated by the 

11 Proposed Action. The typical stationary sources of SO2 and lead emissions, such as fossil fuel12 burning electrical utilities, industrial processes, and municipal solid waste incinerators, are not 

13 involved in this action. For the mobile sources associated with the Proposed Action, emissions 

14 of lead are virtually nonexistent due to regulations that banned lead as a gasoline additive in the 

15 1980s. NO2 emissions are analyzed within a broader category. NOX emissions indirectly include 

16 NO2, as the subscript “x” represents the sum of the NOX (NO, NO2, NO3, etc.). For the federal 

17 maintenance area pollutants, conclusions based on the evaluation of pollutants for General 

18 Conformity are applicable for the analysis of NEPA impacts. 

19 3.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

20 3.1.2.1 Alternative 1 

21 Air quality impacts associated with Alternative 1 are related to emissions that would 

22 occur during construction and subsequent operation of the proposed facilities. The principal 

23 sources of pollutants during construction would be construction equipment, construction crew 

24 commuting vehicles, weapons firing, and earth-moving activities. The sources of pollutants 

25 during operations would be the additional vehicles that would use the facility, as compared to 

26 the present use. 

27 Construction Activities 

28 Construction of Alternative 1 facilities could take one to six months to complete. 

29 Construction and improvement of the existing and proposed facilities would require grading and 

30 site preparation at previously disturbed areas as well as undisturbed areas for target sites, firing 

31 positions, and facility locations. For purposes of emissions calculations, it is assumed that a 

32 maximum area of 31 acres (12.6 hectares) would be disturbed and potentially graded during 

33 construction of the proposed facilities. Grading would result in the generation of fugitive dust, 

34 PM2.5, and PM10 from ground disturbance. Emissions have been estimated by use of an air 

35 emission modeling software package, URBEMIS 2007. The California state-wide data in the 

36 model is used for the San Diego Air Basin. For construction emission sources and operational 

37 (motor vehicle) emission sources, URBEMIS 2007 uses EMFAC 2007 California state-wide 

38 emission factors. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-21

1 Grading would require four crawler dozers, two rubber tired loaders, four back hoes, one 

2 off-highway truck, and two additional miscellaneous pieces of heavy equipment, such as 

3 generators or ground tampers. Grading would disturb an area of approximately 3.14 acres 

4 (1.27 hectares) per day with a worst-case dust generation factor of 20 pounds (9.08 kilograms) 

5 per acre per day. Construction of the training and operations facilities would require four rough6 terrain forklifts, four tractors, one crane, two dumpers, one welder, and eight miscellaneous 

7 pieces of diesel engine-driven equipment, such as concrete mixers, air compressors, and 

8 generators. Paving would be limited to paving of existing roadways. Paving would require one 

9 backhoe, one roller, one paver, two off-highway trucks, and four cement and mortar mixers. 

10 Grading would not occur simultaneously with construction of the facilities and, therefore, is 

11 analyzed separately from building and facilities construction. Table 3.1-4 compares the 

12 estimated annual construction emissions with the General Conformity thresholds. Emission 

13 calculations are included in Appendix B. As shown in Table 3.1-4, the total estimated 

14 construction emissions subject to General Conformity applicability would be less than the 

15 applicable de minimis thresholds for CO, VOCs, and NOX, and less than 10 percent of the 

16 regional emissions budget for these pollutants. 

Table 3.1-4 Estimated Construction Emissions 

Sources 

Pollutant (tons per year) 

VOCs NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

1

Paving - 12 months 

Paving Off-Road Diesel 0.5 3.7 1.6 0 0.2 0.2 

Paving Worker Trips 0.01 0.03 0.2 0 0 0 

Total Paving Emissions 0.5 3.7 1.8 0 0.2 0.2 

Building Construction - 12 months 

Building Off-Road Diesel, Vendor and 

Worker trips 1.5 12.5 12.3 0 0.7 0.6 

Total Building Construction Emissions 1.5 12.5 12.3 0 0.7 0.6 

Coating - 12 months 

Architectural Coating 5.7 0 0 0 0 0 

Coating Worker Trips 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 

Total Coating Emissions 5.7 0 0.06 0 0 0 

Fine Grading - 12 months 

Fine Grading Dust 0 0 0 0 15.9 3.3 

Fine Grading Off-Road Diesel 1.2 9.6 5.1 0 0.5 0.4 

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.4 0 0.01 0 

Total Fine Grading Emissions 1.27 9.6 5.5 0 16.4 3.7 

Total 2013 Emissions 8.9 25.8 19.7 0 17.3 4.5 

General Conformity de minimis

Thresholds1 100 100 100 100 100 100 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-22

Table 3.1-4 Estimated Construction Emissions 

Sources 

Pollutant (tons per year) 

VOCs NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

1

Exceed threshold? No No No No No No 

San Diego Air Basin forecast emissions 

for 20152 51,064 228,454 47,779 2,044 44,603 11,936 

Exceed ten percent of San Diego Air 

Basin emissions? No No No N/A N/A N/A 

Notes: 

1 de minimis thresholds for San Diego Air Basin: Former Subpart 1 Area O3 (8-hour) precursors VOC and NOX, and 

maintenance for CO. The basin is in federal attainment for PM2.5 and PM10; de minimis threshold for PM2.5, PM2.5

precursors, and PM10 nonattainment is used for NEPA significance determinations. 2

 Forecast emission from 2009 Almanac Emission Projection Data, http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php. 

Key: 

CO = carbon monoxide 

N/A = not applicable 

NOX = oxides of nitrogen 

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

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

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

VOCs = volatile organic compound

1 

2 As previously indicated, for the NEPA analysis, the General Conformity de minimis

3 thresholds are used to evaluate air quality impacts. As shown in Table 3.1-4, estimated 

4 construction emissions for Alternative 1 would be less than the applicable de minimis thresholds 

5 for VOCs, NOX, CO, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 and, thus, would not result in a significant impact to 

6 air quality under NEPA. 

7 For the Alternative 1, there would be a total direct emission of approximately 2,838 tons 

8 of carbon dioxide (CO2) from construction. This is below the reference value of 25,000 metric 

9 tons of direct CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions from CEQ guidance. Thus, no 

10 mitigation measures to reduce this emission are needed, and the emission would not generate a 

11 significant impact to air quality under NEPA. The emission calculation is included in Appendix B. 

12 Operational Activities 

13 Although operational schedules have not been defined for the proposed facilities, the 

14 increase in emissions associated with Alternative 1 has been estimated using the following 

15 assumptions, which are considered to be conservative: 

16  Increased operations at the new range would generate a maximum of 20 new vehicle 

17 trips daily; 

18  Increased operations for the Range Control Building and Gate Sentry House would 

19 generate a maximum of 10 new vehicle trips daily, as well as the Visitor Parking Lot; 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-23

1  Each support vehicle would travel an average of 30 miles (48.3 kilometers) per day at an 

2 average speed of 35 miles per hour (mph) (56.3 kilometers per hour [kph]); 

3  The majority (98 percent) of travel would be conducted on paved roadways; and, 

4  Operations of all the above vehicles would occur 250 days per year. 

5 Operations emissions were calculated using a vehicle mix of 20 percent light autos, 

6 5 percent light trucks less than 3,750 pounds (1,701 kilograms), 25 percent medium trucks 

7 within the weight range of 5,751 to 8,500 pounds (2,609 to 3,856 kilograms), and 50 percent 

8 light-heavy trucks within the weight range of 10,001 to 14,000 pounds (4,536 to 6,350 

9 kilograms). Emission calculations are included in Appendix B. The results of the calculations are 

10 shown in Table 3.1-5; the total estimated operations emissions subject to General Conformity 

11 applicability would be less than the applicable de minimis thresholds for VOCs, NOX, and CO, 

12 and less than 10 percent of the regional emission budget for those pollutants. These would be 

13 long-term emissions.

Table 3.1-5 Estimated Operations Emissions 

Pollutant – tons per year 

VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Total Operations Emissions 3.82 16.59 38.74 0.06 9.99 1.95 

General Conformity de minimis thresholds1 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Exceed threshold? No No No No No No 

San Diego Air Basin forecast emissions for 

20152 51,064 228,454 47,779 2,044 44,603 11,936 

Exceed 10 percent of San Diego Air Basin 

emissions? No No No N/A N/A N/A 

Notes: 

1 de minimis thresholds for San Diego Air Basin: Former Subpart 1 Area O3 (8-hour) precursors VOC and NOX, and 

moderate nonattainment for CO. The basin is in federal attainment for PM2.5 and PM10; de minimis threshold for 

PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, and PM10 nonattainment is used for NEPA significance determinations. 2 California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board, n.d. (Forecast emission from 2009). 

Key: 

CO = carbon monoxide 

N/A = not applicable 

NOX = oxides of nitrogen 

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

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

SOX = sulfur oxides 

VOCs = volatile organic compound 

14 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-24

1 With forecast construction and operations emissions less than the General Conformity 

2 de minimis levels and less than 10 percent of the forecast area emissions, Alternative 1 is 

3 presumed to conform to the SIP, and a formal conformity determination is not required. A 

4 Record of Non-Applicability (i.e., a memorandum required by Navy policy that sets out the facts 

5 and circumstances establishing that an action is exempt from a formal conformity determination) 

6 is included in Appendix C. 

7 As previously indicated, for the NEPA analysis, the General Conformity de minimis

8 thresholds are used to evaluate air quality impacts. As shown in Table 3.1-5, estimated 

9 operational emissions for Alternative 1 would be less than the applicable de minimis thresholds 

10 for CO, VOCs, NOX, PM2.5, and PM10 and, thus, would not result in significant impacts to air 

11 quality under NEPA. 

12 The CO2 emissions from operations would be 6,432 tons (5,835 metric tons) per year 

13 under the worst-case estimate (see Appendix B for emission calculations). This is far less than 

14 the reference level proposed by the CEQ. Thus, Alternative 1 would not generate a significant 

15 impact to air quality under NEPA. 

16 3.1.2.2 Alternative 2 

17 Alternative 2 would construct the same improvements as those discussed for 

18 Alternative 1; however, the shotgun range would not be constructed. As a result, permanent 

19 disturbance in Parcel C would be 1.55 acres (0.63 hectare) less under Alternative 2, and 

20 construction emissions under Alternative 2 would be slightly less since there would be less 

21 ground disturbance. Operational emissions under Alternative 2 would be the same as those for 

22 Alternative 1. Therefore, air emissions associated with Alternative 2 would have no significant 

23 impacts to air quality. 

24 3.1.2.3 No Action Alternative 

25 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and 

26 improvements and expansion to Camp Michael Monsoor would not take place. There would be 

27 no change in existing air quality conditions; therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no 

28 significant impacts on air quality. 

29 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-25

1 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

2 The following discussion is based on a review of available literature, existing natural 

3 resources background data, and the results of project-specific biological resources surveys. 

4 These resources include the following: 

5  Naval Base Coronado Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (Navy 

6 2002a); 

7  DD Form 1391 Fiscal Year 2019 Military Construction Project 8 (Navy 2012g); 

8  La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final Environmental Assessment (Navy 

9 2008); 

10  Recovery Plan for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) 

11 (USFWS 2003); 

12  2002 Designation of Critical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas 

13 editha quino) (USFWS 2002); 

14  Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Report, Camp Michael Monsoor, California (ICF 

15 International 2010); 

16  2007 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Post-Survey Report for La Posta Mountain 

17 Warfare Training Facility, Campo, California (RECON 2007); and, 

18  Post-Survey Report for Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Surveys on La Posta Mountain 

19 Warfare Training Facility, Campo, California (RECON 2006). 

20 The following biological resources surveys were conducted specifically for the Proposed 

21 Action: 

22  Avian surveys, conducted in February, April, and June 2012 (Navy 2012b, Navy 

23 2012c, Navy 2012d); and, 

24  Rare plant surveys, conducted in April and May 2012 (Navy 2012c). 

25 3.2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

26 This section describes the existing biological resources that occur within and adjacent to 

27 the project area. For purposes of biological resources, the project area is defined as the area 

28 where permanent and temporary impacts could occur from implementation of Alternative 1 or 

29 Alternative 2. This section also analyzes potential impacts to biological resources that occur with 

30 implementation of the alternatives, and discusses measures to reduce potential impacts, where 

31 necessary. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-26

1 3.2.1.2 Vegetation Communities 

2 Section 3.2.1.2 has been based on the Final La Posta Mountain Warfare Training 

3 Facility EA (Navy 2008). 

4 Based on the plant community classifications described by Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 

5 (1995), the vegetation alliances best matching those occurring in the project area include 

6 Birchleaf mountain-mahogany, California annual grassland, California buckwheat, California 

7 buckwheat-white sage, Chamise, Chamise-bigberry manzanita, Chaparral whitethorn, Holly-leaf 

8 cherry, Scrub oak, and Scrub oak-chamise. 

9 Figure 3.2-1 shows the 18 vegetation series and land cover types within the project area. 

10 Table 3.2-1 provides the acreage for the 18 vegetation series and land cover types within the 

11 project area. 

Table 3.2-1 Vegetation Series and Land Cover Types within the Project Area (acres [hectares]) 

Vegetation 

Existing 

Withdrawal Parcel C Total 

Big sagebrush series 7.74 (3.13) 10.45 (4.23) 18.19 (7.36) 

Birchleaf mountain-mahogany series 89.55 (36.24) 44.39 (17.96) 133.94 (54.20) 

California annual grassland series 7.95 (3.22) 45.27 (18.32) 53.22 (21.54) 

California buckwheat series 17.19 (6.96) 2.39 (0.97) 19.58 (7.92) 

California buckwheat-white sage series 12.68 (5.13) 15.08 (6.10) 27.76 (11.23) 

Chamise series 615.36 (249.03) 743.15 (300.74) 1358.51 (549.77) 

Chamise-bigberry manzanita series 73.95 (29.93) 47.52 (19.23) 121.47 (49.16) 

Chamise-Eastwood manzanita series 0 5.01 (2.03) 5.01 (2.03) 

Chaparral whitethorn series 17.36 (7.03) 150.99 (61.10) 168.35 (66.11) 

Coast live oak series 4.09 (1.66) 6.25 (2.53) 10.34 (4.18) 

Holly-leaf cherry series 122.57 (49.60) 150.93 (61.08) 273.5 (110.68) 

Mixed scrub oak series 1.91 (0.77) 0 1.91 (0.77) 

Native Grassland series 1.09 (0.44) 0 1.09 (0.44) 

Scrub oak series 2.22 (0.90) 7.91 (3.20) 10.13 (4.10) 

Scrub oak-chamise series 65.62 (26.56) 63.79 (25.81) 129.41 (52.27) 

Scrub oak-birchleaf mountain-mahogany series 16.00 (6.47) 0 16.00 (6.47) 

Scrub oak-chaparral whitethorn series 2.74 (1.11) 0 2.74 (1.11) 

Developed/disturbed habitat 25.58 (10.35) 6.39 (2.59) 31.97 (12.94) 

TOTALS 1,083.60 (438.52) 1,299.52 (525.90) 2,383. 12 (964.42) 

Source: Navy 2008 

12 
Navy-Managed Property

California Annual Grassland Series*

Birchleaf Mountain-Mahogany Series

Big Sagebrush Series*

Chamise Series*

Chamise-Bigberry Manzanita Series

Chamise-Eastwood Manzanita Series

California Buckwheat Series*

California Buckwheat-White Sage Series*

Coast Live Oak Series

Chaparral Whitethorn Series

Developed Area

Holly-Leaf Cherry Series

Mixed Scrub Oak Series

Native Grassland Series

Scrub Oak Series

Scrub Oak-Chamise Series

Scrub Oak-Birchleaf Mt. Mahogany Series

Scrub Oak-Chaparral Whitethorn Series

Disturbed Habitat

Figure 3.2-1

Existing Vegetation Communities

San Diego County, California

Path: O:\NAVFAC SW Camp Monsoor\06 Figures\050213\Monsoor_3_2-1_070213.mxd

Ç 0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road

*Suitable Quino Checkerspot butterfly habitat.
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-29

1 Big Sagebrush Series 

2 This series occurs along the upper edges of the valley floor, typically in areas of prior 

3 disturbance. Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) is the dominant species, but other species 

4 such as chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), white sage (Salvia apiana), and California 

5 buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum) may also be present (Navy 2008). 

6 Birchleaf Mountain-Mahogany Series 

7 This series occurs on some of the lower and upper slopes within the project area. This 

8 series is relatively open and dominated by birchleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus 

9 betuloides), though scattered chamise, chaparral whitethorn (Ceanothus leucodermis), and 

10 holly-leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) are also present. Because this series is so open, ripgut brome 

11 (Bromus diandrus) and red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens) are present in high 

12 numbers (Navy 2008). 

13 California Annual Grassland Series 

14 Annual grasses and herbs are dominant in the ground layer of this series. Within the 

15 project area, this series is present in the valleys and some of the slopes of adjacent hillsides. 

16 Ripgut brome and red brome are the two dominant species within this series. Cheat grass 

17 (Bromus tectorum), filaree (Erodium sp.), fiddleneck (Amsinkia sp.), and popcorn flower 

18 (Plagiobothrys sp.) are also present. California buckwheat is scattered throughout the areas of 

19 this series suggesting that, in the absence of disturbance, these areas may develop into scrub 

20 or chaparral communities (Navy 2008). 

21 California Buckwheat Series 

22 This series appears to be another disturbance-mediated community. Within the project 

23 area, California buckwheat is the dominant species along dirt roads. Other areas occur on some 

24 of the higher slopes that may be periodically burned. Ripgut brome and red brome are also 

25 present (Navy 2008). 

26 California Buckwheat-White Sage Series 

27 California buckwheat and white sage are the two dominant species within this series. 

28 This series occurs on lower slopes and is relatively open, allowing for the occurrence of annual 

29 grasses and herbs such as ripgut brome, red brome, popcorn flower, and white pincushion30 flower (Chaenactis artemisiaefolia) (Navy 2008). 

31 Chamise Series 

32 Chamise is the most common shrub within the project area and occurs on a variety of 

33 topographic features from the flat valleys to steep slopes. Generally, California peony (Paeonia 

34 californica) is the primary component of the understory. On the valley floors, big sagebrush, 

35 scrub oak, and sugar bush (Rhus ovata) may be associates. On the adjacent slopes, Eastwood 

36 manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa), bigberry manzanita (Arctostaphylos glauca), holly-leaf 

37 cherry, and chaparral whitethorn are associates. Openings in this series may support such 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-30

1 species as chia (Salvia columbariae), white pincushion-flower, and several spineflower species 

2 (Chorizanthe spp.) (Navy 2008). 

3 Chamise-Bigberry Manzanita Series 

4 This series is similar to the chamise series; the difference is that bigberry manzanita is 

5 much more conspicuous in these stands. This series appears to be more prevalent in areas of 

6 decomposing granite. Undisturbed stands of this series are usually very dense and have low 

7 plant species diversity, supporting very little understory species. Disturbed areas have a higher 

8 component of introduced grasses and forbs (Navy 2008). 

9 Chamise-Eastwood Manzanita Series 

10 This series is very similar in appearance to the chamise-bigberry series, only Eastwood 

11 manzanita replaces the bigberry manzanita as the major associate of chamise. This series is 

12 also very dense with little understory components. Understory species are only present in sandy 

13 openings, where chia, white pincushion-flower, and several spineflower species may be present 

14 or in areas of disturbance where ripgut brome and red brome are present (Navy 2008). 

15 Chaparral Whitethorn Series 

16 This series occurs on the slopes within the project area. Chaparral whitethorn is the 

17 dominant species, but chamise, holly-leaf cherry, California buckwheat, and birchleaf mountain 

18 mahogany may also be present. This series intergrades with the holly-leaf cherry series in 

19 rockier areas. Open areas support a dense cover of ripgut brome and red brome. Small islands 

20 of this community are also present on rock outcrops within the chamise series. On these rock 

21 outcrops, species such as monkeyflower (Mimulus aurianticus), onion grass (Melica imperfecta), 

22 silverleaf lotus (Lotus argophyllus ssp. argophyllus), and fringed spineflower (Chorizanthe 

23 fimbriata var. laciniata) may be present (Navy 2008). 

24 Coast Live Oak Series 

25 This series is best represented along the major north-south oriented valleys within the 

26 project area. Smaller, isolated stands are present along some of the narrower lateral canyons. 

27 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is the dominant species. Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) is a 

28 minor component in at least one of these stands. Shrub species such as chamise, big 

29 sagebrush, and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) are infrequent within this series, 

30 generally occurring along the outer edges of the canopy. Disturbance in this series has 

31 eliminated all but the most weedy understory species, such as ripgut grass, red brome, and 

32 horehound (Marrubium vulgare) (Navy 2008). 

33 Holly-Leaf Cherry Series 

34 This series occurs on the slopes within the project area and intergrades with the 

35 chaparral whitethorn and chamise series. Holly-leaf cherry is the dominant species, but 

36 chaparral whitethorn is a common associate. Chamise, California buckwheat, and birchleaf 

37 mountain-mahogany may also be present. Similar to the chaparral whitethorn series, open 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-31

1 areas support a dense cover of ripgut brome and red brome. Small islands of this community 

2 are also present on rock outcrops within the chamise series. On these rock outcrops, species 

3 such as monkeyflower, onion grass, silverleaf lotus, and fringed spineflower may be present 

4 (Navy 2008). 

5 Mixed Scrub Oak Series 

6 This series describes areas where scrub oak, bigberry manzanita, chaparral whitethorn, 

7 and chamise are all very common. This dense series does not have a conspicuous understory 

8 component. 

9 Native Grassland Series 

10 Giant stipa (Stipa gigantean) is the dominant species, with deerweed (Lotus scoparius) 

11 and California buckwheat as the common associates of this series. This series is likely a 

12 disturbance-mediated, early seral series that will develop into one of the shrub-dominated series 

13 over time with the absence of regular disturbances. This series is only found within the 

14 Previously Withdrawn Parcel. 

15 Scrub Oak Series 

16 Though scrub oak is present within and co-dominant in several series, areas dominated 

17 solely by scrub oak are uncommon within the project area and are represented by relatively 

18 small stands. Scrub oak is the dominant species and its dense cover precludes the presence of 

19 many understory species, though individuals of chamise and chaparral whitethorn may be 

20 present. This series is most common along some of the washes and mesic north-facing slopes 

21 within the project area (Navy 2008). 

22 Scrub Oak-Chamise Series 

23 This series occurs on some of the lower slopes within the project area. Though chamise 

24 is still the most common species, scrub oak is such a co-dominant that it is much more 

25 conspicuous than the chamise. Sugar bush and California peony are fairly common; however, 

26 because this is a relatively dense community, species diversity is low (Navy 2008). 

27 Scrub Oak-Birchleaf Mountain-Mahogany Series 

28 This series is very similar to the scrub oak series, only birchleaf mountain-mahogany is 

29 more common within this series. Similarly, this series is represented by small stands that are 

30 uncommon within the project area. The high cover and density of the overstory shrubs in this 

31 series preclude the presence of many understory species, except for the aforementioned non32 native annual grasses; thus, this series has a low diversity of species (Navy 2008). 

33 Scrub Oak-Chaparral Whitethorn Series 

34 This series is very similar to the scrub oak series, only chaparral whitethorn is more 

35 common within this series. Similarly, this series is represented by small stands that are 

36 uncommon within the project area. The high cover and density of the overstory shrub species of 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-32

1 this series preclude the presence of many understory species; thus, this series has a low 

2 diversity of species (Navy 2008). 

3 Developed/Disturbed Habitat Areas 

4 Areas mapped as unvegetated do not support permanent structures, but have been 

5 cleared and do not currently support vegetation. Some of the larger dirt roads have been 

6 included within the unvegetated habitat designation. Developed areas within the project area 

7 support permanent structures (Navy 2008). 

8 3.2.1.3 Federally Listed Plant Species 

9 No federally listed plant species were observed during the 2007 or 2012 surveys. No 

10 federally listed plants are known to occur within the vicinity of the project area. A California 

11 Natural Diversity Database search (Quick Viewer) was conducted for the United States 

12 Geological Survey (USGS) Cameron Corners quad (i.e., the project area) and the eight quads 

13 (Campo, Descanso, Live Oak Springs, Morena Reservoir, Mount Laguna, Potrero, Sombrero 

14 Peak, and Tierra Del Sol) surrounding the project area. 

15 No federally listed plant species are reported from Cameron Corners. The San 

16 Bernardino blue grass (Poa atropurpurea) is the only federally listed species reported from the 

17 surrounding quads (California Department of Fish and Game 2011). San Bernardino blue grass 

18 is restricted to montane meadows within coniferous forests. Neither of these communities 

19 occurs within the project area. Therefore, San Bernardino blue grass would not be expected to 

20 occur within the project area. 

21 3.2.1.4 Non-Federally Listed Rare Plant Species 

22 One state listed plant species, the endangered Parish’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes 

23 gracilis ssp. parishii) is not known from the Cameron Corners quad but is reported from one 

24 adjacent quad. Parish’s meadowfoam occurs in montane meadows with gabbro-derived soils; 

25 however, this community does not occur within the project area. 

26 A review of the County’s soil survey indicates that there are no gabbro-derived soils 

27 mapped in the project area or the right-of-way parcels, and no gabbro-derived soils were 

28 observed during the 2007 surveys. All the mapped soils are derived from the Mesozoic granitic 

29 rocks, either from the Mottsville-Calpine association (i.e., from granite and adamellite) or from 

30 the Tollhouse-LaPosta-Rock Land association (i.e., granodiorite) (Bowman 1973; State of 

31 California Division of Mines 1962). All the soils within the project area appear to be granitic. 

32 Therefore, Parish’s meadowfoam would not be expected to occur within the project area. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-33

1 Four species considered sensitive by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) were 

2 observed within the project area during the spring surveys conducted for the 2007 EA: 

3  Ramona spineflower (Chorizanthe leptotheca); 

4  Sticky geraea (Geraea viscida); 

5  Campo pea (Lathyrus splendens); and, 

6  Southern jewelflower (Streptanthus campestris). 

7 Table 3.2-2 lists these species, their sensitivity status, and their status within the project 

8 area, along with the other non-listed sensitive species that were not observed but could 

9 potentially occur within the project area.

Table 3.2-2 Sensitive Plant Species Observed and/or Potentially Occurring within the 

Project Area 

Species Name Sensitivity

Status Status within the Project Area

Sensitive Plant Species Observed within the Project Area

Ramona spineflower 

(Chorizanthe leptotheca) CNPS List 4 

A total of 15 localities totaling 1,515 individuals were observed 

within the project area. Ten localities of approximately 680 

individuals were observed within the Previously Withdrawn 

Parcel. Five localities of approximately 835 individuals were 

observed within Parcel C. 

Sticky geraea 

(Geraea viscida) CNPS List 2 

This species was the most widespread sensitive plant species 

observed within the project area. A total of 79 localities totaling 

approximately 644 individuals were observed in the project area. 

Twenty-eight localities totaling approximately 276 individuals 

were observed within the Previously Withdrawn Parcel. Fifty-one 

localities totaling approximately 368 individuals were observed 

within Parcel C. 

Campo pea 

(Lathyrus splendens) CNPS List 4 

This species was observed very infrequently in the project area. 

A total of five individuals were observed within the Project area. 

One individual was observed within the Previously Withdrawn 

Parcel. Four individuals were observed within Parcel C. 

Southern jewelflower 

(Streptanthus campestris) CNPS List 1B 

This species was extremely uncommon within the project area 

and, with the exception of one locality; all occurrences consisted 

of relatively few individuals. A total of nine localities totaling 61 

individuals were observed within the project area. Five localities 

totaling approximately 56 individuals were observed within the 

Previously Withdrawn Parcel. Four localities totaling five 

individuals were observed within Parcel C. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-34

Table 3.2-2 Sensitive Plant Species Observed and/or Potentially Occurring within the 

Project Area 

Species Name Sensitivity

Status Status within the Project Area

Sensitive Plant Species Not Observed but Potentially Occurring within the Project Area

Payson’s jewelflower 

(Caulanthus simulans) CNPS List 4 

Five localities of approximately 28 individuals of this species were 

observed within Parcel C. This species was not observed within 

the Previously Withdrawn Parcel. 

Jacumba milk-vetch 

(Astragalus douglasii var.

perstrictus) 

CNPS List 1B 

This species was not observed within the project area during the 

surveys, though surveys coincided with this species’ typical 

flowering period (April-June). Reported localities of this species 

occur all around the project area (i.e., Miller Valley, Cameron 

Corners, and Buckman Springs). The habitat (open, desert 

transitional chaparral) and the preferred soil type (La Posta 

loams) are also present within the project area. Despite the fact 

that this species was not observed during the surveys, it still has 

a moderate to high potential for occurrence within the project 

area due to the presence of suitable habitat and soils. 

Fremont barberry 

(Berberis fremontii var. 

fremontii) 

CNPS List 3 

This species was not observed within the project area during the 

surveys, though surveys coincided with this species’ typical 

flowering period (April-June). Reported localities of this species 

occur east of the project area (i.e., McCain Valley, Bankhead 

Springs, and Boulevard). The habitat is high desert chaparral and 

the species occurs on La Posta rocky loamy coarse sand, which 

is present within the project area. Despite the fact that this 

species was not observed during the surveys, it still has a 

moderate potential for occurrence within the project area due to 

the presence of suitable habitat and soils. 

Delicate clarkia 

(Clarkia delicate) CNPS List 1B 

This species was not observed within the project area during the 

surveys, though surveys coincided with this species’ typical 

flowering period (April-May). Most reported populations appear to 

be east of the project area. The closest unconfirmed report is 

from Potrero. This species occurs along the periphery of oak 

woodlands and chaparral. There is low to moderate potential for 

this species to occur within the project area given the presence of 

suitable habitat. 

Tecate tarplant 

(Deinandra floribunda) CNPS List 1B 

This species was not observed within the project area during the 

surveys; however, the surveys did not coincide with this species’ 

typical flowering period (September to October). This species 

grows in broad sandy washes in the high desert. No populations 

are known near the project area, but reported localities do occur 

to the east (i.e., Live Oak Springs, McCain Valley, Jewel Valley) 

and west (Potrero) of the project area. Despite the fact that the 

surveys did not coincide with this species’ typical flowering 

period, this species is not expected to occur within the project 

area due to the lack of appropriate habitat (broad sandy washes). 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-35

Table 3.2-2 Sensitive Plant Species Observed and/or Potentially Occurring within the 

Project Area 

Species Name Sensitivity

Status Status within the Project Area

San Diego sunflower 

(Hulsea californica) CNPS List 1B 

This species was not observed within the project area during the 

surveys, though surveys coincided with this species’ typical 

flowering period (April-August). This species is known from the 

vicinity of the project area, from Buckman Springs to Campo, and 

occurs in montane coniferous forests and disturbed chaparral 

habitats. This species is a known fire follower and occurs on 

Mottsville loamy coarse sands, which are present within the 

project area. Despite the fact that this species was not observed 

during the surveys, it still has a moderate potential for occurrence 

within the project area due to the presence of suitable habitat and 

soils. 

Desert beauty 

(Linanthus bellus) CNPS List 2 

This species was not observed within the project area during the 

surveys, though surveys coincided with this species’ typical 

flowering period (April-May). This species is known from the 

vicinity of the project area (i.e., McCain Valley, Live Oak Springs, 

Boulevard, and Bankhead Springs). This species occurs in sandy 

openings of high desert chaparral and occurs on Mottsville loamy 

coarse sand. Despite the fact that this species was not observed 

during the surveys, it still has a moderate potential for occurrence 

within the project area due to the presence of suitable habitat and 

soils. 

Moreno current 

(Ribes canthariforme) CNPS List 1B 

This species was not observed within the project area during the 

surveys, though surveys coincided with this species’ typical 

flowering period (February-June). A population is known from 

Lake Morena to the east. This species occurs in chaparral habitat 

on acid igneous rock land, which occurs within the project area. 

Despite the fact that this species was not observed during the 

surveys, it would still have a low to moderate potential for 

occurrence within the project area due to the presence of suitable 

habitat and soils. 

Southern skullcap 

(Scutellaria bolanderi ssp.

austromontana) 

CNPS List 1B 

This species was not observed within the project area; however, 

the surveys did not coincide with this species’ typical flowering 

period (June-July). A population of this species is reported from 

Lake Morena, just east of the project area, but this species 

typically occurs on the moist embankments of mountain streams 

and this habitat does not appear to be present within the project 

area. Despite the fact that the surveys did not coincide with this 

species’ typical flowering period, this species is not expected to 

occur within the project area due to the lack of appropriate 

habitat. 

Notes: 

CNPS List 1B – Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere 

CNPS List 2 – Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere 

CNPS List 3 – Plants About Which We Need More Information - A Review List 

CNPS List 4 – Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List 

Key: 

CNPS = California Native Plant Society 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-36

1 3.2.1.5 Federally Listed Wildlife Species and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird 

2 Species of Special Concern 

3 QCB is a federally listed wildlife species and is known to occur, or has the potential to 

4 occur, within the vicinity of the project area based on historical data for the region or the 

5 presence of suitable habitat onsite. This species, its associated plant communities, and the 

6 potential to occur within the biological study area are discussed in more detail in the subsection 

7 below. There is no critical habitat designated at Camp Michael Monsoor for this species. 

8 The arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) is another federally listed endangered wildlife 

9 species (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2013), known to occur in the project region. 

10 Parcel C is located within one mile of arroyo toad designated critical habitat Subunit 19a 

11 (USFWS 2011). This species has extremely specialized habitat needs, and the most favorable 

12 breeding habitat consists of slow-moving streams with shallow pools, nearby sandbars, and 

13 adjacent stream terraces (USFWS 2009). Outside of the breeding season, the species is 

14 essentially terrestrial and is known to inhabit sycamore-cottonwood woodlands, oak woodlands, 

15 coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland (USFWS 2009). Based on a query of the 

16 California Natural Diversity Database, the closest recorded population of arroyo toad is located 

17 approximately 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) from the project area in Upper Cottonwood Creek, 

18 extending along and east of Buckman Springs Road, at the south end of Cottonwood Valley 

19 (Navy 2008). There was no evidence of potential arroyo toad habitat (e.g., hydrological features 

20 required for this species breeding habitat) observed within the spring 2012 survey areas (Navy 

21 2012c); therefore, due to the lack of observed breeding habitat onsite and the large distance 

22 from recorded breeding locations, it is not expected that the arroyo toad would use the project 

23 area, and surveys for the arroyo toad were determined to be unnecessary for the project area. 

24 There are three bird species of special concern, black-chinned sparrow (Spizella 

25 atrogularis), brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), which 

26 are known to occur within the vicinity of the project based on 2012 biological surveys (California 

27 Department of Fish and Game 2011). A single male black-chinned sparrow, a USFWS species 

28 of conservation concern, was observed within the front fence and La Posta Road survey areas 

29 during the spring 2012 survey. Multiple male vocalizations were heard within the Range 110, 

30 West Utilities Road, and Parcel C survey areas during the spring 2012 surveys. Multiple male 

31 vocalizations were also heard in the Parcel C survey area during the summer 2012 survey. A 

32 single brewer’s sparrow, a USFWS species of conservation concern, was observed within the 

33 Parcel C survey area during the spring 2012 survey. A single northern harrier, a California 

34 Department of Fish and Game species of special concern, was observed within the Parcel C 

35 survey area during the spring 2012 survey. No Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) or golden 

36 eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) were observed during the winter, spring, or summer 2012 surveys at 

37 any of the survey locations (Navy 2012b, Navy 2012c, Navy 2012d). 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-37

1 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly 

2 Species Background 

3 A subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha), QCB is a federally 

4 listed endangered species. The QCB was listed as an endangered species by the USFWS on 

5 January 16, 1997 (62 Federal Register 2322). This listing status applies to the entire population 

6 of QCB. Critical habitat has been designated (USFWS 2002) and a recovery plan has been 

7 issued (USFWS 2003) for this species. 

8 QCB is generally found in clay soil meadows, open grasslands, coastal sage scrub, 

9 chamise chaparral, red shank chaparral, juniper woodlands, and semi-desert scrub where high 

10 densities of host plant species occur (BLM 2010a). QCB is also associated with clay soils that 

11 possess cryptogamic crusts and vernal pools (USFWS 2002). Figure 3.2-2 shows USFWS12 designated QCB critical habitat surrounding the project area. 

13 Adults have one flight period per year, which generally occurs between late January and 

14 mid-May, with peak activity between March and April. In the vicinity of Camp Michael Monsoor, 

15 this is typically late March to mid-May. This active period may vary depending upon weather 

16 conditions (BLM 2010a). Females lay egg masses on host plants, typically between mid17 February and April. A female may lay 20 to 75 eggs at one time and may produce up to 1,200 

18 eggs in her lifetime. Eggs hatch in about 10 days in favorable weather conditions, and the larvae 

19 begin to feed upon host plants immediately. 

20 QCB host plants are most commonly found within the big sagebrush series, California 

21 annual grassland series, California buckwheat-white sage series, California buckwheat series, 

22 chamise series (marginal and is dependent on density of canopy cover), and needlegrass 

23 series. 

24 One of the most common larval host plant species for QCB in the majority of San Diego 

25 County is dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta). Coulter’s snapdragon is thought to be a primary 

26 larval host plant species for QCB in parts of Riverside County and eastern San Diego County 

27 where dwarf plantain is absent (Navy 2008). Coulter’s snapdragon is a white to lavender annual 

28 that is native to California. This plant is found among shrubs in the desert and on burns, and 

29 generally flowers from April to July (Jepson Manual, n.d.[a]). Chinese houses (Collinsia 

30 concolor) and dark-tip bird’s beak (Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. setiguerus) are also common QCB 

31 host plants. Chinese houses is a bluish purple annual herb that is native to California and found 

32 near the openings and margins of chaparral, oak, or pinyon/juniper woodland. This plant grows 

33 to a height of 6 to 16 inches (15 to 40 centimeters) (Jepson Manual, n.d.[b]). Dark-tip bird’s beak 

34 is a yellow-green annual that is native to California and found in a wide range of habitats. This 

35 plant generally grows to a height of 12 to 59 inches (30 to 150 centimeters) (Jepson Manual, 

36 n.d.[c]). 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-38

1 In the project area, white snapdragon is the most commonly observed host plant (Navy 

2 2012b); Chinese houses were found along West Utilities Road at the Range Complex and in 

3 Parcel C, south of the road and the MILCON P-888 pistol ranges (Figure 3.2-2). Dark-tip bird’s 

4 beak was observed at the Main Gate entrance and Range 110 (Figure 3.2-2). No Plantain host 

5 plants (Plantago spp.) were observed in 2006 and 2012 (Navy 2008, 2012b). 

6 QCB Field Survey Results 

7 Two QCB observed in 2004 were within the project area (Figure 3.2-2). The butterflies 

8 observed within the Previously Withdrawn Parcel in April 2004 were near the edge of the 

9 existing firing range in open canopy shrub habitat in an area of gently and steeply sloping hills 

10 proximate to a relatively open hilltop area. The two individuals were observed in open canopy 

11 chamise chaparral within 1,020 feet (311 meters) and 2,040 feet (622 meters) from the nearest 

12 host plants (Navy 2005). The butterfly observed within Parcel C was in a low-lying valley in open 

13 canopy chamise shrubland lined with gently and steeply sloping hills. The chamise habitat 

14 included California buckwheat, patches of bare ground, and was proximate to unpaved roads 

15 and other areas of flat open-canopy vegetation. The nearest potential host plant detected was 

16 1,970 feet (600 meters) away (Navy 2005). 

17 No QCB were observed in subsequent protocol-level surveys conducted on portions of 

18 Camp Michael Monsoor during the spring 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 flight seasons (RECON 

19 2006, 2007). Three QCB individuals were observed in the western portion of Parcel C during 

20 2010 surveys, but not within the project area (ICF International 2010). 

21 3.2.1.6 Non-Federally Listed Wildlife Species 

22 Non-federally listed wildlife species include those listed under the California Endangered 

23 Species Act, California Species of Special Concern, and California Fully Protected species. The 

24 Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects migratory birds and their nests, eggs, young, and parts from 

25 possession, sale, purchase, barter, transport, import, export, and take. For the purposes of the 

26 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

27 or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.” (50 CFR Part 

28 10.12). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act applies to migratory birds that are identified in 50 CFR 

29 Part 10.13. 

30 The northern red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber ruber), a California Species of 

31 Special Concern, was observed on multiple occasions within the project area throughout the 

32 upland vegetation series of the parcels during the 2007 and 2012 field surveys. A single San 

33 Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii) was found alongside the southern edge 

34 of Parcel C during the 2012 summer bird migration survey. The lizard was found in a similar 

35 location to the San Diego horned lizards observed during the 2012 spring bird migration survey 

36 and 2004 spring surveys. San Diego horned lizard is a USFWS Species of Concern and a 

37 California Species of Special Concern (Navy 2012b, Navy 2012c, Navy 2012d). 
Navy-Managed Property

USFWS-designated QCB Critical Habitat

Coulter's Snapdragon (Concentrated Area)

QCB Sightings (2004-2010)

QCB Host Plants (2011-2012)

Coulter's Snapdragon (Antirrhinum coulterianum)

Chinese Houses (Collinsia concolor)

Dark-tip Bird's Beak (Cordylanthus rigidus ssp setigerus)

Coulter's Snapdragon (2004-2010)

Figure 3.2-2

Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB) and

Host Plant Survey Results

San Diego County, California

Path: L:\SanDiego\Monsoor\Maps\mxds\20130730_EArevisions\Monsoor_3_2-2_073013.mxd

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW (2011), USFWS (2010), Rocks (2012).

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-41

1 3.2.1.7 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. 

2 There are two potential U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Jurisdictional Waters of 

3 the U.S. in the project area, designated Stream 1 and Stream 2. 

4 Stream 1 is an ephemeral stream that originated within a swale in the central region of 

5 the Parcel C in the low-lying valley west of the merging point of two north-south dirt roads. 

6 Stream 1 has an ordinary high water mark of approximately one foot (0.3 meter) and flows south 

7 for approximately 813 feet (278 meters) before dissipating. The stream channel is then 

8 discontinuous for approximately 4.31 miles (6.94 kilometers) before merging with Campo Creek. 

9 In the northern (upstream) portion of the channel, Stream 1 is mostly barren of vegetation. 

10 Where present, vegetation was composed entirely of pine goldenbush (Ericameria pinifolia), big 

11 sagebrush, and California buckwheat (Navy 2012a). 

12 Stream 2 is an ephemeral stream that originates at the base of an unpaved road and 

13 flows into Stream 1. Stream 2 has an ordinary high water mark of approximately one foot (0.3 

14 meter) and a total length of approximately 93 feet (28 meters). The channel is mostly vegetated; 

15 however, there are trace amounts of big sagebrush (Navy 2012a). 

16 3.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

17 The following section describes the potential impacts on biological resources that would 

18 result from the implementation of either of the alternatives. Factors relevant to determining 

19 whether impacts would be significant include the severity of any impacts on individuals or 

20 habitats of threatened and endangered species. 

21 Impacts may result from construction or from the future use of facilities. Impacts may be 

22 either temporary (reversible) or permanent (irreversible). Temporary impacts include 

23 disturbances caused by construction. Removal of vegetation can be a temporary or permanent 

24 impact. If the vegetation is restored after construction, the impact would be temporary. If a 

25 permanent structure is built, the vegetation cannot be restored and the impact is permanent. 

26 Permanent impacts include direct mortality of species and alteration of the topography through 

27 grading. 

28 Impacts have been evaluated based upon an understanding of the Proposed Action’s 

29 configuration and components, construction methods, and equipment that would be used, and 

30 how the site would be used after it is developed. All impacts resulting from the alternatives are 

31 described as they would occur with implementation of the measures presented in Section 2.6.3. 

32 3.2.2.1 Alternative 1 

33 Plant Communities 

34 For Alternative 1, direct permanent and temporary impacts to native plant communities 

35 would occur (Table 3.2-3). Direct temporary impacts to plant communities adjacent to 

36 Alternative 1 may include impacts such as trampling and soil compaction. Indirect temporary 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-42

1 impacts may result from fugitive dust, sediment, and storm water pollution. Direct permanent 

2 impacts would occur from construction grading and maintenance of vegetation around the range 

3 features. Additional direct permanent impacts to vegetation may occur from foot and possible 

4 vehicle traffic associated with training activities, periodic maintenance, and the repair of project 

5 facilities. Indirect permanent impacts may include impacts such as invasive species introduction, 

6 erosion, and changes to hydrology. These impacts could result in the degradation of plant 

7 communities adjacent to the project area. Impacts to plant communities during operation would 

8 include foot and possible vehicle traffic associated with periodic maintenance and repair along 

9 the pipeline. 

Table 3.2-3 Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Vegetation Communities 

Vegetation Community 

Impacts (acres [hectares]) 

Permanent Temporary 

Big sagebrush series 0.71 (0.287) 0.37 (0.149) 

Birchleaf mountain-mahogany series 0.0 0.0 

California annual grassland series 9.89 (4) 2.43 (0.983) 

California buckwheat-white sage series 1.085 (0.44) 0.115 (0.05) 

California buckwheat series 0.74 (0.299) 0.08 (0.032) 

Chamise series 18.97 (7.67) 4.48 (1.81) 

Chamise-bigberry manzanita series 0.0 0.0 

Chamise-Eastwood manzanita series 0.0 0.0 

Chaparral whitethorn series 0.0 0.0 

Coast live oak series 0.0 0.0 

Holly-leaf cherry series 0.185 (0.074) 0.015 (0.006) 

Mixed scrub oak series 0.0 0.0 

Native grass series 0.0 0.0 

Scrub oak-chamise series 0.04 (0.016) 0.17 (0.068) 

Scrub oak series 0.0 0.0 

Scrub oak-birchleaf mountain-mahogany 

series 0.0 0.0 

Scrub oak-chaparral whitethorn series 0.0 0.0 

TOTALS 31.62 (12.79) 7.66 (3.09) 

10 

11 Figure 3.2-3 shows the vegetation communities as well as rare plants that could be 

12 impacted with the implementation of Alternative 1. 

13 
###

#

##

##

!# #

####

#

#

#######

!######### # ##

########

# #################

## ############### #####

##############

####

#######!

#

#

#

#

## # #

#

# # ## # # #

#

#

#

#

# ### #

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#################### ## #### #### ##

# ######### #####

#####

## ###

###### ######## # ######## ## #

#

###

####

###

#####

##########

#

##

##

###

#

###

#

###

##

##

#

!! !

!

!

!!

!

!!!! !!!!

!

!! !!!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !!!!!! !!!! ! !!!! !! !

!

! !!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

! !

!

!!

!! !!!!!

# # #

#

California Annual Grassland Series*

Birchleaf Mountain-Mahogany Series

Big Sagebrush Series*

Chamise Series*

Chamise-Bigberry Manzanita Series

Chamise-Eastwood Manzanita Series

California Buckwheat Series*

California Buckwheat-White Sage Series*

Coast Live Oak Series

Chaparral Whitethorn Series

Developed Area

Holly-Leaf Cherry Series

Mixed Scrub Oak Series

Native Grassland Series

Scrub Oak Series

Scrub Oak-Chamise Series

Scrub Oak-Birchleaf Mt. Mahogany Series

Scrub Oak-Chaparral Whitethorn Series

Disturbed Habitat

Figure 3.2-3

Proposed Action Vegetation Impacts

San Diego County, California

Path: O:\NAVFAC SW Camp Monsoor\06 Figures\050213\Monsoor_3_2-3_071013.mxd

Ç 0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road

Navy-Managed Property

MILCON P-888 Project Component

Other Proposed Action Features Not Covered Under MILCON P-888

# Coulter's Snapdragon (Antirrhinum coulterianum)*

# Chinese Houses (Collinsia concolor)*

# Dark-tip Bird's Beak (Cordylanthus rigidus ssp setigerus)*

! Sticky Geraea (Geraea viscida; CNPS 2.3)#

! Ramona Spineflower (Chorizanthe leptotheca; CNPS 4.2)#

! Southern Jewelflower (Streptanthus campestris; CNPS 1B.3)#

! Campo Pea (Lathyrus splendens; CNPS 4.3)#

Coulter's Snapdragon - Large Concentration

* QCB host plant/vegetation community.

# CNPS-designated rare plant.
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-45

1 Federally Listed Plant Species 

2 No federally listed threatened or endangered plant species are known to occur in the 

3 project area. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would have no significant impact on 

4 federally listed plant species. 

5 Non-Federally Listed Rare Plant Species 

6 During the 2012 spring rare plant survey, four CNPS listed rare plant species 

7 (Table 3.2-2) were recorded in the project area and could be affected by construction under 

8 Alternative 1 (Navy 2012c). All four sensitive plant species were found in Parcel C of the project 

9 area; however, only sticky geraea was found in the Previously Withdrawn Parcel. 

10 Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no significant impact on federally listed plant 

11 species. Impacts to non-federally listed plant species and rare plant communities would include 

12 removal of dark-tip bird’s beak, sticky geraea, Ramona spineflower, and white snapdragon for 

13 grading and construction of Alternative 1. Additional impacts to plant communities would include 

14 potential erosion, storm water pollution, dust, and trampling due to foot and vehicle traffic. 

15 Implementation of the special conservation and construction measures described in Section 

16 2.6.3 would help to offset impacts; therefore, there would be no significant impacts to vegetation 

17 communities as a result of the implementation of Alternative 1. 

18 Wildlife Species 

19 Federally Listed Wildlife Species 

20 Due to the lack of observed arroyo toad habitat onsite (Navy 2012c) and large distance 

21 from recorded breeding locations, it is not expected that the arroyo toad would use project area; 

22 therefore, the arroyo toad does not have the potential to be affected by Alternative 1. QCB has 

23 the potential to be affected by Alternative 1, as described below. 

24 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly 

25 Alternative 1 could result in incidental take of QCB. Potential impacts could be temporary 

26 or permanent. Potential impacts of Alternative 1 are as follows: 

27  Construction-caused mortality due to individuals being crushed in the work area 

28 (permanent); 

29  Harm in the form of disturbance, displacement, and/or behavior disruption due to noise 

30 and vibrations from construction activities (temporary); 

31  Harm in the form of disturbance, displacement, and/or behavior disruption due to noise 

32 and vibrations from ongoing use of facilities (permanent); 

33  Harm in the form of disturbance, displacement, and/or behavior disruption due to 

34 continued vehicle activity for maintenance and operation of facilities (permanent); and, 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-46

1  Habitat loss of QCB host plants (including Chinese houses, Coulter’s snapdragon, and 

2 dark-tip bird’s beak) due to development of the training facilities (permanent). 

3 It is likely that there is a stable population QCB in or near the project area because of the 

4 presence of host and nectar QCB plants and the observation of butterflies at multiple sites in 

5 2004 and 2010. QCB can remain in the larval stage for many years if environmental conditions 

6 are unfavorable. The number of QCB subject to take would depend on the density of butterflies 

7 in the project area; however, no QCB were observed during the 2006, 2007, or 2008 surveys, 

8 and only three extremely worn adults were observed during the 2010 QCB survey (RECON 

9 2006, RECON 2007, ICF International 2010). 

10 The Navy will conduct formal consultation with USFWS to determine the appropriate 

11 preventative actions that need to be taken to conserve QCB. Currently, Coulter’s snapdragon, 

12 Chinese houses, and dark-tip bird’s beak, all QCB host plants, are found within the project 

13 footprint. These plants are discussed in greater detail in Section 3.2.1.5 and illustrated on 

14 Figures 3.2.2 and 3.2-3. Alternative 1 may affect and is likely to adversely affect QCB within the 

15 project area. Effects could be significant at the individual level, but the observance or detection 

16 of mortality is highly unlikely because of the small body size and diapause life stage. The effect 

17 on the regional population is unknown because of the lack of data. Alternative 1 would 

18 permanently remove 21.54 acres (8.7 hectares) of non-excluded QCB habitat. With 

19 implementation of pre-construction QCB surveys and the special conservation and construction 

20 measures agreed upon with USFWS and described in Section 2.6.3, there would be no 

21 significant impacts to QCB during the construction phase of Alternative 1. Implementation of the 

22 Proposed Action would result in vegetation impacts to 39.28 acres (15.89 hectares) of QCB 

23 habitat.. Based on the minimal amount of habitat removal when compared to available habitat 

24 for this species, no significant impacts would occur to QCB during operation of Alternative 1.

25 Non-Federally Listed Rare Wildlife Species 

26 Non-federally listed rare wildlife species potentially affected by Alternative 1 include birds 

27 protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the San Diego horned lizard, northern red 

28 diamond rattlesnake, black-chinned sparrow, brewer’s sparrow, and northern harrier. Impacts to 

29 non-federally listed rare wildlife species include the removal of habitat due to vegetation clearing 

30 and grading, the addition of predatory bird perches, and increased noise and vibration. 

31 Additional impacts to non-federally listed rare wildlife species include potential disturbance to 

32 nesting birds within and surrounding the project area due to noise and vibration and loss of 

33 habitat due to foot and vehicle trampling and compaction. With implementation of pre34 construction breeding bird surveys, enforcement of speed limits, and all other special 

35 construction and conservation measures described under Section 2.6.3, there would be no 

36 significant impacts to non-federally listed rare wildlife, including avian species protected under 

37 the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, with implementation of Alternative 1. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-47

1 Wetlands and Waters of the United States 

2 Under Alternative 1, permanent impacts to potential Jurisdictional Waters of the United 

3 States could occur. The proposed rifle range would be constructed within a portion of Stream 1 

4 and Stream 2; however, the range would be baffled, limiting the associated Surface Danger 

5 Zone to only 150 feet (45 meters) in every direction extending out from the firing line towards 

6 the intended target. Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters of the United States may include stray shot 

7 entering the streams; however, the baffling would reduce the likelihood of this occurring. 

8 Additional impacts may include soil erosion and sedimentation due to foot and vehicle traffic 

9 surrounding the shotgun range. With implementation of the avoidance and minimization 

10 measures described in Section 2.6.3, such as the preparation of a SWPPP, there would be no 

11 significant impacts to USACE Jurisdictional Waters of the United States during the design, 

12 construction, and operation stages of Alternative 1. However, Section 401 and 404 permits will 

13 be required from USACE and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, respectively, per the 

14 Clean Water Act. 

15 3.2.2.2 Alternative 2 

16 Under Alternative 2, the shotgun range would not be constructed, resulting in the 

17 reduction of approximately 1.55 acres (0.63 hectare) of vegetation removal. If the shotgun range 

18 is not constructed, 1.53 acres (0.62 hectare) of permanent disturbance and 0.48 acre (0.19 

19 hectare) of temporary disturbance in the California annual grassland series and 0.02 acre 

20 (0.008 hectare) of permanent and temporary disturbance in the chamise series would not occur. 

21 Since the vegetation south of the road is generally the same as the vegetation on north of the 

22 road, constructing the Range Control Building and associated infrastructure would have a 

23 similar impact. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than those described for 

24 Alternative 1. Implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to plant 

25 communities, wildlife species, or Jurisdictional Waters of the United States. 

26 3.2.2.3 No Action Alternative 

27 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and 

28 improvements and expansion to Camp Michael Monsoor would not take place. There would be 

29 no change to existing biological resources conditions; therefore, the No Action Alternative would 

30 have no significant impacts to plant communities, wildlife species, and Jurisdictional Waters of 

31 the United States. 

32 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-48

1 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

2 The following discussion is based on a review of applicable land use plans and policies, 

3 available literature, and existing background data, including, but not limited to, the following 

4 resources: 

5  DD Form 1391 Fiscal Year 2019 Military Construction Project 8 (Navy 2012g); and, 

6  La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final Environmental Assessment (Navy 

7 2008). 

8 3.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

9 The NEPA process and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

10 Preservation Act and 36 CFR Part 800 require an assessment of the potential effects of a 

11 proposed action (an “undertaking” under Section 106) on historic properties that are within the 

12 proposed undertaking’s area of potential effect. In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800 16(d), an 

13 area of potential effect is defined as the geographic area(s) “within which an undertaking may 

14 directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such 

15 properties exist.” 

16 A Programmatic Agreement has been negotiated between the Navy and the California 

17 Office of Historic Preservation which specifies how cultural resource issues are to be handled 

18 and also streamlines the process. Following the direction provided in the San Diego 

19 Metropolitan Area Programmatic Agreement, the area of potential effect for cultural resources is 

20 defined as all areas of proposed ground disturbance and a 30-meter buffer around those areas. 

21 3.3.1.1 Pre-History and History of San Diego County and the Project Area 

22 The prehistory of southeastern San Diego County and the project area is rich. Three 

23 major divisions in the archaeological record are recognized: 

24  The first is the Paleoindian period, from approximately 11,500 to 8,500 years before 

25 present. During this period, hunting appears to have been a major emphasis; 

26  The Archaic period begins about 8,500 years before present and lasts until 

27 approximately 1,300 years before present. People during this period were adapted to 

28 collection resources and processing hard seeds; and, 

29  About 1,300 years before present, the Late Prehistoric period begins. Ending shortly 

30 after the coming of the Spanish in 1769, this period marks the introduction of the bow 

31 and arrow, ceramics, and cremation in the area. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-49

1 When Spanish colonists arrived in southern California in 1769, southern San Diego 

2 County was occupied by the Kumeyaay, a group of independent, territorial bands with patrilineal 

3 descent (Gifford 1918). During the Mission period, the Kumeyaay strongly resisted the Spanish 

4 (Luomala 1978). Numerous coastal Indian rancherias in the San Diego region were soon 

5 abandoned, and survivors retreated to more remote areas, such as the project area (Strong 

6 1929). 

7 Although the Spanish arrived in San Diego in 1769, settlement of the area by people of 

8 European descent did not begin until the 1850s. The area has a history of rural agricultural use. 

9 Ranching, mining, transportation, and military are all important themes in the local history. 

10 3.3.1.2 Previous Cultural Resources Investigations at the Project Area 

11 The 2004 cultural resources study for the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcels C, E, 

12 and G (Underwood and Gregory 2004) forms the basis for this analysis. A records search was 

13 conducted at the South Coastal Information Center, Department of Anthropology, San Diego 

14 State University, for the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcels C, E, and G, as well as a 

15 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) buffer (Underwood and Gregory 2004). Sixteen cultural resource 

16 investigations had been conducted in the area. These investigations are listed in Table 3.3-1.

Table 3.3-1 Previous Investigations within a 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) Radius of the Project Area 

Author Title

NADB 

Document No. Year

American Pacific 

Environmental 

Consultants, Inc. 

Morena Lake Development TPM 15326 EAD Log #78-

21-19 San Diego County, California 

1120060 1979 

Berryman, Stanley R. Archaeological Survey Report: Rattlesnake Acres 1120191 1975 

Berryman, Stanley R. Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Stallings Lot Split 

in Campo, California 

1120363 1980 

Crotteau, Karen Negative Archaeological Survey Report 11-SD-94, P.M. 

54.7-54.8 - Improving Drainage by Raising the Roadbed 

Out of the Floodplain 

1126524 1983 

Culbert, Jan and Cari 

Verplanck 

Morena Grazing Allotment Permit Renewal 1123256 1995 

DeCosta, Joan M. An Archaeological Survey Report of Route 94 from 0.5 

Mile East to 1.3 Mile East of La Posta Road, 

11-SD-94/P.M.56.1-56.8.(11209-194050) 

1120015 1981 

Fink, Gary R. A Cultural Resource Assessment for Three Roads in the 

Lake Morena Area: Lake Morena Drive, Oak Drive, 

Buckman Springs Road Project: UJ0171 

1120932 1979 

Pettus, Roy E. An Archaeological Survey for Proposed Utility Pole 

Relocation and Minor Roadway Realignment at Six 

Locations on Highway 94 in South San Diego County, 

California (11-SD-94 P.M. 20.85 to 54.25) 

1121300 1980 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-50

Table 3.3-1 Previous Investigations within a 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) Radius of the Project Area 

Author Title

NADB 

Document No. Year

Rosen, Martin Historical Property Survey Report for Old Highway 80, 

San Diego County, California 

1128282 2001 

Smith, Brian F. An Archaeological Survey of the 700-Acre Balian 

Subdivision, County of San Diego 

1121419 1989 

Smith, Brian F. An Archaeological Survey of the Stiles Lot Split Project 

Campo County of San Diego 

1122230 1991 

Smith, Brian F. Results of Archaeological Survey and the Evaluation of 

Cultural Resources at the Sanger Lot Split Project, 

Morena Village 

1122576 1992a 

Smith, Brian F. Result of an Archaeological Survey of the La Posta 

Recycling Center Project 

1125791 1992b 

Taylor, Clifford Final Report and Campo Indian Preservation-Cultural 

Resource Inventory 

1124365 1982 

U.S. Department of Navy A Cultural Resources Inventory Survey of the La Posta 

Astrophysical Observatory 

– 1996 

Wade, Sue Cultural Resource Survey Pacific Cove La Posta Road 

Property 

1127564 2000 

1 

2 A total of 38 cultural resources have been recorded within a 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) radius 

3 of the record search area. Of these, 31 resources are prehistoric and seven are historic period 

4 resources. Of the historic period resources, one cultural resource (the La Posta Astrophysical 

5 Observatory facility, consisting of seven buildings within the boundaries of the La Posta 

6 Microwave Space Relay Station) is located within the area being considered in this EA. The 

7 remaining six resources are within or very near Parcel G; however, Parcel G is not part of the 

8 project area. These previously recorded cultural resource sites are summarized in Table 3.3-2.

Table 3.3-2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within a 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) Radius of 

the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcels C, E, and G 

Permanent 

Trinomial 

(CA-SDI-)

Primary 

Number 

(P-37-) Site Description

Year

Recorded

5499 – Isolated quartz projectile point ND 

5500 – One rock cairn and duck, possible trail ND 

6746 – Lithic scatter with groundstone 1977 

6747 – Lithic and ceramic scatter with bedrock milling 1977 

6748 – Lithic and ceramic scatter with groundstone and hammerstone 1977 

9028 – Small lithic and ceramic scatter with bedrock milling 1977 

9029 – Small lithic and ceramic scatter with bedrock milling 1977 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-51

Table 3.3-2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within a 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) Radius of 

the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcels C, E, and G 

Permanent 

Trinomial 

(CA-SDI-)

Primary 

Number 

(P-37-) Site Description

Year

Recorded

10,848 – Habitation site with bedrock milling, lithics, and ceramics 1987 

12,306 – Extensive bedrock milling, a petroglyph, a cupule, and lithics 1991 

12,645 – Lithic and ceramic scatter with bedrock milling, groundstone, and a 

knife fragment 

1992 

12,646 – Lithic and ceramic scatter with bedrock milling 1992 

15,878 019192 Small lithic scatter 2000 

15,903 019248 Lithic and ceramic scatter with bedrock milling, a point tip, and a 

burned bone fragment 

2000 

15,904 019250 Ceramic scatter 2000 

15,905 019251 Five loci with bedrock milling, groundstone, lithics, and a ceramic 

scatter 

2000 

15,906 019252 Three granite rock rings 2001 

15,907 019253 Rock shelter with stacked cobble masonry wall 2000 

15,908 019254 Four loci with lithic and ceramic scatters, bedrock milling, 

groundstone, small and large mammal bones, and several tools 

2000 

15,909 019255 Lithic and ceramic scatter 2000 

15,910 019256 Ceramic scatter 2000 

15,911 019259 Sparse ceramic scatter and a rock ring 2001 

15,912 019260 Lithic and ceramic scatter and a groundstone fragment 2001 

15,915 019263 Lithic scatter 2001 

15,916 019264 Dispersed lithic and ceramic scatter 2001 

15,917 019266 Small lithic and ceramic scatter 2001 

15,918 019267 Moderate lithic and ceramic scatter 2001 

15,919 019268 Rock ring and lithic scatter 2000 

15,920 019269 Small lithic scatter 2000 

– 019249 1900s cabin 1996 

– 017130 Isolated bifacial mano 1999 

– 019257 Foundation and tractor parts adjacent to 1920s house and historic 

dump 

2000 

– 019265 Historic trash dump with sun-altered glass and soldered seam 

cans; also several 6-volt batteries and a segment of stovepipe 

2000 

15,921 019270 Small ceramic scatter of four brownware sherds 2000 

15,922 019271 One circular cupule 2000 

15,923 019272 One petroglyph (fertility figure) in the form of a natural fissure 2000 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-52

Table 3.3-2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within a 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) Radius of 

the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcels C, E, and G 

Permanent 

Trinomial 

(CA-SDI-)

Primary 

Number 

(P-37-) Site Description

Year

Recorded

enhanced by pecking 

– 024023 A 53-kilometer (33-mile) segment of old U.S. 80. A two-lane 

undivided highway with 10 associated bridges. The segment is 

located in the eastern part of San Diego county. 

2000 

– 024784 An early 20th century house with several cement foundations, two 

wells, cement pads, and barbed-wire fences. 

2001 

– – La Posta Astrophysical Observatory: Buildings 586, 587, 588, 589, 

591, 598, and 599 

1996-1997 

1 

2 Historic USGS maps housed at the South Coastal Information Center were examined for 

3 the 2004 survey and include an 1872 map of the Western Portion of San Diego County, a 1955 

4 map of Historic Stagecoach Routes of San Diego, the 1959 Campo USGS 15-minute 

5 quadrangle, and a 7.5-minute Cameron Corners quadrangle. In 1959, the roads identified within 

6 the vicinity of the project area are La Posta Road, Cameron Road, and La Posta Truck Trail. 

7 Cultural resources are found within the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcels C, E, 

8 and G. The sites and isolates found in the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcels C (the 

9 parcels in which the action alternatives would be located) are discussed below by parcel and 

10 are summarized in Table 3.3-3. 

Table 3.3-3 Sites Documented on the 2004 Survey 

Permanent

Trinomial

(CA-SDI-)

Primary

Numbers

(P-37-)

Temporary

Number Description

NRHP 

Eligibility1

Previously Withdrawn Parcel

CA-SDI-17,223H 025894 Historic period mining cairn Not Eligible 

CA-SDI-17,224H 025895 Historic period camp Eligible 

CA-SDI-17,228 025899 Prehistoric camp Eligible 

025900 Livestock watering tank and trough Not Eligible 

CA-SDI-17,231/H 025903 Prehistoric habitation area and 

historic period ranch features 

Eligible 

025909 New La Posta Road Not Eligible 

 LP-JU-I-1 Two isolated flakes Not Eligible 

 LP-JU-I-2 One isolated flake Not Eligible 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-53

Table 3.3-3 Sites Documented on the 2004 Survey 

Permanent

Trinomial

(CA-SDI-)

Primary

Numbers

(P-37-)

Temporary

Number Description

NRHP 

Eligibility1

Parcel C

CA-SDI-17,229H 025901 Historic period refuse deposit Not Eligible 

CA-SDI-17,230H 025902 Historic period refuse deposit Not Eligible 

CA-SDI-17,232H 025904 Historic period refuse deposit Not Eligible 

CA-SDI-17,233H 025905 Historic period refuse deposit Not Eligible 

025906 Concrete quail guzzler Not Eligible 

CA-SDI-17,235H 025910 La Posta Truck Trail Not Eligible 

025911 Drainage ditch and livestock trough Not Eligible 

Source: Underwood and Gregory 2004 

Note: 

1

 To be confirmed by the Navy.

1 

2 Previously Withdrawn Parcel 

3 The 2004 survey located eight previously unidentified cultural resources within the 

4 Previously Withdrawn Parcel. The resources consist of six sites and two isolates. Four of the 

5 sites are historic period resources (CA-SDI-17,223H, CA-SDI-17,224H, P-37-025900, and P-37-

6 025909). These, along with a site containing both prehistoric and historic period material (CA7 SDI-17,231/H), reflect the activities related to ranching, mining, and transportation. The 

8 prehistoric component of CA-SDI-17,231/H is a large habitation area with bedrock milling, flaked 

9 lithics, and ceramics. Site CA-SDI-17,228 is a rock ring with a scatter of prehistoric ceramics. 

10 LP-JU-I-1 consists of two isolated metavolcanic flakes. LP-JU-I-2 consists of one 

11 cryptocrystalline silicate flake. 

12 Parcel C 

13 This parcel contains seven previously unrecorded cultural resources. All of the sites date 

14 to the historic period. Four of these are refuse scatters (CA-SDI-17,229H, CA-SDI-17,230H, CA15 SDI-17,232H, and CA-SDI-17,233H) located along the La Posta Truck Trail (CA-SDI-17,235H). 

16 The two remaining sites are associated with game/hunting (P-37-025906) and ranching (P-37-

17 025911). 

18 3.3.1.3 Section 106 Compliance 

19 For the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility, compliance with Section 106 of the 

20 National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR Part 800 has been accomplished under the San 

21 Diego Metropolitan Area Programmatic Agreement, executed in February 2003 between 

22 CNRSW, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the California State Historic 

23 Preservation Officer. The San Diego Metropolitan Area Programmatic Agreement provides for 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-54

1 CNRSW determinations of an undertaking’s area of potential effect, identification of potentially 

2 affected historic properties, and assessment of “no historic properties affected” and “no adverse 

3 effect” without the further consultations with State Historic Preservation Officer normally 

4 required under 36 CFR Part 800. In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4 and 36 CFR Part 

5 800.16(d), and in conformance with Stipulation 6 of the Programmatic Agreement, CNRSW 

6 identified an area of potential effect as the geographic area within which the project could 

7 directly or indirectly affect historic properties, including considerations of ground disturbance, 

8 potential visible and audible effects, and possible indirect effects. 

9 Cultural resource studies (Navy 1996; Underwood and Gregory 2004) have identified 

10 archaeological and built resources at La Posta. The La Posta Astrophysical Observatory facility 

11 (Buildings 586 to 589, 591, 598, 599) non-eligibility determinations were reviewed and 

12 concurred with by State Historic Preservation Officer in 1996 (Navy 1996). Twenty-four sites 

13 and four isolated finds were documented as a result of the 2004 survey at La Posta (Underwood 

14 and Gregory 2004). Four of these sites were preliminarily assessed as eligible for the National 

15 Register of Historic Places: CASDI-17,224H, a historic camp; CA-SDI-17,228, a Late Prehistoric 

16 camp; CA-SDI-17,231/H, a Late Prehistoric village site; and CA-SDI-15,923, a Late Prehistoric 

17 rock art. This last site is in Parcel G, which is outside of the project area. 

18 3.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

19 Two cultural resources—La Posta Truck Trail (CA-SDI-17,235H) and New La Posta 

20 Road (P-37-025909)—are located within the area of potential effect; however, neither of these 

21 resources is recommend to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

22 In conformance with Stipulation 8A of the San Diego Metropolitan Area Programmatic 

23 Agreement, CNRWS has, therefore, determined that the Proposed Action at Camp Michael 

24 Monsoor would not adversely affect properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National 

25 Register of Historic Places, nor would the Proposed Action affect resources that are considered 

26 contributing properties to a listed or eligible historic district. Consistent with 36 CFR Part 

27 800.5(d)(1), CNRSW has accordingly made a determination of “no adverse effect” for the 

28 Proposed Action. Also in accordance with Stipulation 8A of the San Diego Metropolitan Area 

29 Programmatic Agreement, no further review or conformance with Section 106 of the National 

30 Historic Preservation Act or 36 CFR Part 800 is required. 

31 3.3.2.1 Alternative 1 

32 Based on investigations to date, two cultural resources are within the area of potential 

33 effect—La Posta Truck Trail (CA-SDI-17,235H) and New La Posta Road (P-37-025909). The 

34 proposed fencing and redesigned entrance and Range Control Building are adjacent to New La 

35 Posta Road (P-37-025909) to the east, and are close to an isolated tin can. Neither of these 

36 resources is recommended to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; therefore, 

37 neither qualifies as a historic property. The pistol ranges proposed in Parcel C are adjacent to 

38 the La Posta Truck Trail (CA-SDI-17,235H). Like the New La Posta Road finding, this resource 

39 is recommended as not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is, therefore, not 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-55

1 a historic property. Since there are no historic properties impacted by the Alternative 1, this 

2 alternative would have no significant impact on cultural resources. 

3 3.3.2.2 Alternative 2 

4 Alternative 2 would vary from Alternative 1 in that the shotgun range would not be 

5 constructed, the pistol range would be oriented from west to east, and the Range Control 

6 Building would be constructed on the south side of Patilla Road instead of the north side of the 

7 road. These changes would not affect any historic properties, as there are no historic properties 

8 within this area. Because no historic properties would be impacted, Alternative 2 would have no 

9 significant impact on cultural resources. 

10 3.3.2.3 No Action Alternative 

11 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and 

12 improvements and expansion to Camp Michael Monsoor would not take place. There would be 

13 no change to existing cultural resources condition; therefore, the No Action Alternative would 

14 have no significant impacts on historic properties and would not result in a significant impact to 

15 cultural resources. 

16 3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

17 The following discussion was based on information from the following resources: 

18  La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final Environmental Assessment EA (Navy 

19 2008); 

20  County of San Diego General Plan (County of San Diego 2011e); 

21  U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management LR2000 mining records 

22 (BLM 2012b); and, 

23  USGS Southern California Fault Map (USGS, n.d.). 

24 3.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

25 This section describes the existing geology and soils that occur within and adjacent to 

26 the project area. For the purposes of geology and soils, the project area is defined as the area 

27 where permanent impacts could occur from implementation of the project. 

28 3.4.1.1 Topography 

29 The project area lies within the geologic feature known as the Peninsular Ranges 

30 Batholith. The Peninsular Ranges Batholith includes a series of north-northwest trending 

31 mountain ranges (plutons) formed during subduction of the Farallon oceanic plate beneath the 

32 western margin of North America. It is divided on the basis of age into the older western zone 

33 (greater than 100 million years old) and the younger eastern zone (less than 100 million years 

34 old). Gabbro peaks (e.g., Los Pinos Mountain) are scattered in the western zone. The 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-56

1 topography in the project area consists of rugged, mountainous terrain with steep slopes, sheer 

2 rock cliffs, and frequent rock outcroppings. Elevations range between 3,200 and 4,000 feet (975 

3 and 1,220 meters) above mean sea level (Navy 2008). 

4 3.4.1.2 Geology 

5 The landforms of the project area are the result of the underlying geology. The rock 

6 outcrops found in the project area are primarily decomposing granite. The Peninsula Ranges 

7 have been faulted and eroded in-place longer than other California mountain systems, have not 

8 been significantly folded, and have erosional surfaces and drainage patterns quite different from 

9 the Transverse and Coast ranges. They also have fewer landslides than the San Gabriel and 

10 San Bernardino mountains. The Laguna and Cuyamaca mountains, both part of the Peninsula 

11 Ranges, cover the east side of the U.S. Forest Service Descanso Ranger District (north of the 

12 project area), with smaller peaks and ranges to the west. This district is dominantly granitic with 

13 scattered zones of gabbro intrusive and hybrid rocks (mixed granitic metamorphic rocks). A 

14 large zone of schist extends from north of Cameron Corners to north of Julian, California. The 

15 schist is of interest because of occurrences of gold-bearing veins (Navy 2008). 

16 3.4.1.3 Soils 

17 Soils in the project area primarily consist of Mottsville, Calpine, Tollhouse, and La Posta 

18 land associations with acid igneous rock formations interspersed (Figure 3.4-1). The Mottsville 

19 series is a deep, loamy, coarse sand, occurring in valleys and on alluvial fans. The Calpine 

20 series is also granitic and on alluvial fans, but it is on very deep coarse sandy loams. Tollhouse 

21 soils are excessively drained, shallow, or very shallow coarse sandy loams. About 10 percent of 

22 the surface is typically covered with rock outcrops, and 20 percent is covered with boulders. 

23 Permeability of these soils is rapid, runoff is medium to rapid, and the erosion hazard is 

24 moderate to high. The La Posta series consists of somewhat excessively drained loamy coarse 

25 sands. Rock outcrops cover 5 to 10 percent of the surface in some areas. The La Posta rocky 

26 loamy coarse sand is moderately sloping to moderately steep, and is 16 to 32 inches (41 to 81 

27 centimeters) deep. Permeability is rapid, runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is moderate 

28 (Navy 2008). 

29 Erosion and sediment control problems have been documented throughout Camp 

30 Michael Monsoor. A recent erosion study (Navy 2012f) evaluated erosion problems at 13 

31 separate areas (Figure 3.4-1) related to rill erosion, ponding, and sediment control, among 

32 others. This study developed recommended solutions for each of the problem areas identified in 

33 this report. These solutions are incorporated as part of the project description. The erosion 

34 problems are identified in Table 3.4-1. 

35 
13 12 11

5

23

4

1

6A 6B

7

7

8

9 10

Navy-Managed Property

MILCON P-888 Project Component

Other Proposed Action Features Not Covered Under MILCON P-888

Erosion Improvement Area

Figure 3.4-1

Erosion Problems at

Camp Michael Monsoor

San Diego County, California

Path: L:\SanDiego\Monsoor\Maps\mxds\20130730_EArevisions\Monsoor_3_4-1_073013.mxd

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road

PREVIOUSLY

WITHDRAWN

PARCEL

Parcel C

Shotgun Range

P-888 CQC

Road Improvements

P-888 Rifle Ranges P-888 Pistol Ranges

Permanent Water Well

Underground Water Line

Main Gate Entrance

Improvements

Fencing

Electrical Distribution Line/

Access Road Widening/Culvert 

Training Storage

Exploratory Water Well

Exploratory Water Well

Well Road

Range 110 Reconfiguration/

Lights Mounted On New Poles

Fire Access Gate

Fire Access Gate

1

Water Tank

Replacement
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-59

Table 3.4-1 Erosion and Sediment Control Problems at Camp Michael Monsoor 

Location Problem Comments 

Sniper Tower Access 

Road 

Ponding runoff at a low point The significance of this soggy ground is that 

maintenance and emergency vehicles are unable to 

access the Sniper Tower. 

Lower Range 115 

Complex 

Pavement failure, rill erosion, 

and sediment deposition 

Structural failure of the sniper targets, along with access 

safety are concerns associated with the driveway. 

Lower Range 115 

Complex 

Channel incision occurring 

downstream of a corrugated 

metal pipe (“grand canyon”) 

Over time, the structural integrity of the culvert could be 

undermined due to long-term erosion. Additionally, there 

are potential habitat and biological impacts associated 

with hydromodification. 

Main Gate Sediment deposition along 

Patilla Road and at the Main 

Gate 

Minor. 

Range 110 Frontage 

Road 

Cross drainage blowouts and rill 

erosion 

Without a controlled cross drainage location, runoff will 

continue to erode the road, eventually leading to access 

issues and traffic safety concerns. 

Range 110 and Range 

110 Road 

Erosion and sediment control at 

three locations 

Traffic safety along La Posta Road is a significant 

concern at this location as sediment and rock deposited 

on La Posta Road has the potential to impact the public. 

Lower Range Road Erosion and sediment control at 

three locations 

Undersized culvert. 

Source: Navy 2012f 

1 

2 3.4.1.4 Mining Activities 

3 All mining claims and patents in the project area are listed as forfeited or closed, 

4 according to BLM (BLM 2012b) and USGS records, with the exception of one series of claims 

5 that were subjected to a forfeiture appeal in the late 1990s. No mining is currently occurring in 

6 association with these claims (Navy 2008). 

7 3.4.1.5 Geologic Hazards 

8 The California Geological Survey, formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology, 

9 classifies faults as active or potentially active, according to the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies 

10 Zone Act of 1972. The California Geological Survey defines an “active fault” as a fault that has 

11 exhibited sediment displacement within the last 11,000 years (Holocene Epoch) and a 

12 “potentially active fault” as a fault that has exhibited sediment displacement during the 

13 Pleistocene Epoch (from about 1.6 million years before present to the beginning of the 

14 Holocene Epoch). 

15 Fault activity causes damage in a variety of ways. Hazards can include landslides, 

16 ground shaking, surface displacement and rupture, and the triggering of tsunamis. Generally 

17 speaking, the type of damage caused at a particular location depends on:
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-60

1  Proximity to an active fault; 

2  Frequency and severity of the earthquake; 

3  Potential for surface rupture; 

4  Composition of the surface and subsurface materials; and, 

5  Topography. 

6 Seismic Zone ratings, as defined in NAVFAC Design Manual Two (Navy 1992), establish 

7 building requirements for an area based on the probability of a high seismic event occurring in 

8 that region. San Diego County lies within an active seismic region capable of subjecting the 

9 area to earthquakes of Seismic Zone 4 rating. Seismic Zone 4 is the highest rating, indicating 

10 the strictest building requirements. The seismic shaking hazard rating for the project area is 20 

11 to 30 percent peak ground acceleration. 

12 Major fault lines in the San Diego area tend to run northwest to southeast. There are no 

13 faults near the project area, but the Elsinore fault, which is located approximately 9.3 miles (15 

14 kilometers) to the northeast, may cause seismic impacts. All regional faults have been 

15 historically active, and a major seismic event (6.2 or greater on the Richter scale) can 

16 reasonably be expected in San Diego County every 100 years (Navy 2008). 

17 3.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

18 3.4.2.1 Alternative 1 

19 Potential impacts from Alternative 1 would be limited to ground disturbance in areas of 

20 construction, off-road vehicle use, or increased intensity of training activities. Construction 

21 activities can disturb soils, which could result in increased erosion. However, the implementation 

22 of the erosion control improvements at Range 110 and the Range Complex under Alternative 1 

23 would correct many of the erosion problems currently being experienced by Camp Michael 

24 Monsoor and would be a beneficial impact. These erosion control improvements would also 

25 help minimize erosion that could occur from construction, since improvements would already be 

26 in place. This, coupled with the relatively low rainfall in the region, would make the rate of water 

27 erosion minimal. 

28 The geologic impacts of Alternative 1 would not be significant because only 31.62 acres 

29 (12.79 hectares) of permanent ground surface disturbance would occur and avoidance and 

30 minimization measures would be implemented (e.g., best management practices discussed in 

31 Section 2.6.5.2). All soil excavated for the realignment of Range 110 would be used at Range 

32 110, and no export or import of material would be required. 

33 No significant impacts would occur from seismic hazards or other geologic hazards, as 

34 facilities and structures are small and are un- or intermittently staffed and unlikely to sustain 

35 significant damage or cause injury to the occupants. Therefore, there would be no significant 

36 impacts to geology and soil resources from implementation of Alternative 1. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-61

1 3.4.2.2 Alternative 2 

2 Under Alternative 2, the amount of soil disturbance would not differ substantially from 

3 Alternative 1. The total amount of soil disturbance would be 1.55 acres (0.63 hectare) less than 

4 Alternative 1, since the shotgun range would not be constructed. The construction of the new 

5 Range Control Building and Gate Sentry House south of the road would not result in more soil 

6 disturbance than would be experienced under Alternative 1 and would not exacerbate the 

7 existing soil deposition problem which is minor. Thus, there would be no significant impacts to 

8 geology and soil resources from implementation of Alternative 2. 

9 3.4.2.3 No Action Alternative 

10 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and 

11 improvements and expansion to Camp Michael Monsoor would not take place. The erosion 

12 control improvements would not be implemented and the existing erosion problems on Camp 

13 Michael Monsoor would continue to occur. Safety and maintenance vehicles would continue to 

14 have difficulty accessing the Sniper Tower during wet weather, the sniper targets would 

15 eventually fail, and Patilla Road would eventually become unusable. La Posta Road would 

16 eventually be affected by erosion and soil deposition. Although these impacts would eventually 

17 occur, the workarounds and training as it currently exists would continue. Thus, the No Action 

18 Alternative would have no significant impacts on geology and soil resources. 

19 3.5 LAND USE 

20 The following discussion is based on a review of applicable land use plans and policies, 

21 available literature, and existing background data, including, but not limited to, the following 

22 resources: 

23  DD Form 1391 Fiscal Year 2019 Military Construction Project 8 (Navy 2012g); 

24  Public Land Order Number 7807 (BLM 2013a); 

25  South Coast Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994); 

26  Draft South Coast Resource Management Plan Revision and Draft Environmental 

27 Impact Statement (BLM 2011); 

28  Mountain Empire Subregional Plan (County of San Diego 2011a); 

29  San Diego County General Plan (County of San Diego 2011c); and, 

30  La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final Environmental Assessment (Navy 

31 2008). 

32 3.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

33 This section describes the existing and planned land uses at Camp Michael Monsoor 

34 and in the project area. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-62

1 3.5.1.1 Applicable Plans and Policies 

2 The following land use plans and policies, established by regulating authorities, are 

3 applicable to the project area. 

4 Naval Base Coronado Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

5 Two separate Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs) are used to 

6 manage Naval Base Coronado’s complex natural resources: the 2002 Naval Base Coronado 

7 INRMP and the San Clemente Island INRMP. The INRMPs provide for natural resource 

8 conservation, rehabilitation, and management in a manner consistent with military missions at 

9 Naval Base Coronado. Camp Michael Monsoor is a facility that falls under the jurisdiction of 

10 Naval Base Coronado, and the 2002 Naval Base Coronado INRMP applies to Camp Michael 

11 Monsoor. The INRMP summarizes baseline conditions at Naval Base Coronado facilities and 

12 agreements through which compliance with regulatory and planning processes are 

13 accomplished. The INRMP provides technical guidance for the planning and preparation of 

14 installation approvals, management actions, orders, instructions, guidelines, standard operating 

15 procedures, and other plans for integrating natural resource management efforts into the 

16 decision-making process. The 2002 Naval Base Coronado INRMP is currently being revised to 

17 address the changing needs for natural resource protection at Naval Base Coronado 

18 installations. 

19 South Coast Resource Management Plan 

20 The 1994 South Coast Resource Management Plan provides guidance for the 

21 management of approximately 300,000 acres (121,405 hectares) of BLM-administered public 

22 lands in the South Coast Planning Area, which includes portions of five Southern California 

23 counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) (BLM 1994); this 

24 area also includes Camp Michael Monsoor. Currently, the Palm Springs-South Coast Field 

25 Office is preparing a revised Resource Management Plan for the South Coast Planning area 

26 and an associated EIS to reflect the changed needs of the planning area. A Proposed Plan and 

27 Record of Decision are expected in 2013 or early 2014 (Hill 2012). Once adopted, the revised 

28 Resource Management Plan will replace the 1994 Plan (BLM 2011). 

29 San Diego County General Plan 

30 The San Diego County General Plan, adopted by the San Diego County Board of 

31 Supervisors on August 3, 2011, provides the blueprint for land use development, environmental 

32 protection, and accommodation of population growth in unincorporated areas of San Diego 

33 County (County of San Diego 2011c). The Plan designates the project area as Public Agency 

34 Lands (County of San Diego 2011d). While the County has no land use jurisdiction over 

35 federally owned public lands, including Camp Michael Monsoor, the San Diego General Plan 

36 influences land development on unincorporated lands surrounding the Proposed Action. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-63

1 3.5.1.2 Onsite Land Use 

2 Camp Michael Monsoor is primarily used for Navy SEAL training in mountain warfare 

3 sustainment and urban tactics training. Facilities at the Previously Withdrawn Parcel are 

4 generally clustered in three locations: at the Hilltop Complex, at the Beach Complex; and at the 

5 Range Complex (see Chapter 1, Figure 1-2). Facilities at these locations include: 

6  Eight buildings (offices, instructional classrooms, ready space, and a non-operational 

7 satellite dish); 

8  Helicopter landing pad; 

9  General purpose storage area; 

10  Breaching facility; 

11  Range Complex (three small arms ranges [Ranges 111, 112, and 115 a, b, and c]); 

12  Range Complex CQC structure (Ranges 113a and b); 

13  Range Complex paved parking lot; 

14  Three water wells; 

15  Simulated enemy missile site; 

16  Security fencing 500 feet (152 meters) in length along each side of the Main Gate 

17 entrance; and, 

18  Range 110. 

19 Existing Recreational Uses 

20 Recreation in the project area includes the use of an unmaintained biking trail north and 

21 west of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel near the La Posta Truck Trail (Mountain Bike Review 

2012), a Class III Trail17 22 along Buckman Springs Road (County of San Diego 2011b), and 

23 birding east of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel along La Posta Road (Birding San Diego 

24 County 2012). Although a BLM-maintained trail system does not exist, an informal trail network 

25 that is not authorized by the BLM or the Navy has developed in the area from regular public 

26 use. 

 

17 Class III Trails are bicycle trails that provide for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-64

1 BLM Leases 

2 Grazing Allotments 

3 The Previously Withdrawn Parcel (1,067 acres [432 hectares]) and a portion of Parcel C 

4 (1,086 acres [439 hectares]) are located within the BLM-managed Clover Flat grazing allotment 

5 (Navy 2008), which is shown on Figure 3.5-1 and summarized in Table 3.5-1. Portions of the 

6 allotment have been reduced due to the Navy withdrawals at Camp Michael Monsoor and the 

7 allotment has been grazed only once in the last ten years (BLM 2011). Additionally, the current 

8 lessee has no need or desire to graze their cattle on lands in the project area (Penwell 2013). 

Table 3.5-1 Clover Flat Grazing Allotment Details 

Allotment 

Name/ 

Number 

Season(s) 

of Use 

Total Acres 

(Hectares) 

Authorization 

Number(s) 

Authorization 

Issuance 

Date(s) 

Authorization 

Expiration 

Date(s) 

Total Permitted 

AUMs1 

Clover 

Flat/ 0712 

Year round 2,735 hectares 

(6,760 acres) 

0406617 03/01/2004 02/28/2014 715 (this is 

approximately 59 

head of cattle) 

Sources: BLM 2011, 2012a 

Note: 

1

 An animal unit month, or “AUM,” is the amount of forage needed to feed one cow, one horse, or five sheep for one month. 

9 

10 Other Existing and Planned Land Uses 

11 A BLM Legacy Rehost System (LR2000) database search conducted on March 21, 2012 

12 identified authorized uses and pending applications in the project area. Based on a review of the 

13 LR2000 geographic report results, the following uses are within the Previously Withdrawn 

14 Parcel or Parcel C, as shown in Table 3.5-2. 

Table 3.5-2 BLM ROW Permits Issued and Pending (Previously Withdrawn Parcel and 

Parcel C) 

Type of Permit 

Project Serial 

No. Owner Parcel 

Section, Township, and 

Range Status 

Right-of-Way for 

a Power Line 

CARI 2477 SDG&E Previously 

Withdrawn Parcel 

Lot 22 of Section 24, also, 

within the east 1⁄2 of the 

northwest 1⁄4 of Section 25, 

Township 17 South, Range 5 

East 

Authorized 

Right-of-Way for 

a Power Line 

CARI 6545 Mountain 

Empire Electric

Previously 

Withdrawn Parcel 

Lot 20 and the southwest 1⁄4 of 

the southwest 1⁄4 of Section 24, 

Township 17 South, 

Range 5 East 

Authorized 

Right-of-Way 

Application 

CACA 28407 San Diego 

County 

Parcel E and the 

Previously 

Withdrawn Parcel 

Sections 24 and 25, Township 

17 South, Range 5 East 

Pending 

Source: BLM 2012b 
Navy-Managed Property Clover Flat Grazing Allotment (within Proposed Action Area)

Figure 3.5-1

BLM Grazing Allotments

San Diego County, California

Path: O:\NAVFAC SW Camp Monsoor\06 Figures\050213\Monsoor_3_5-1_071013.mxd

Ç 0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-67

1 The BLM has no record of an authorization for the existing La Posta Road, which is a 

2 County-maintained road that extends south from Interstate 8 through the Previously Withdrawn 

3 Parcel and Parcel E, and continues south to State Route 94. This road may qualify as a 

4 statutory right-of-way under Reserved Statute 2477 (Navy 2008). 

5 Navy Planned Land Use at Parcel C 

6 Several facilities, including a CQC structure, a simulated residence for training, logistics, 

7 and support facilities, and a Method of Entry structure were included in MILCON P-781 and are 

8 under construction at Parcel C. These facilities would be used for base support and future Navy 

9 training activities. Additionally, the withdrawal of Parcel C for exclusive use by the Navy was 

10 previously analyzed in the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final EA, and Public 

11 Land Order No. 7807 was issued by the BLM on January 17, 2013, giving the Navy exclusive 

12 use to conduct mountain warfare training exercises at Parcel C. 

13 3.5.1.3 Surrounding Land Use 

14 The land surrounding the project area primarily consists of public lands administered by 

15 the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, private lands with a variety of owners, and portions of the 

16 Campo and La Posta Indian Reservations. A portion of the Descanso Ranger District of the 

17 Cleveland National Forest is north of the main portion of the project area (Navy 2008). 

18 Land surrounding the installation is primarily undeveloped and consists of rugged, 

19 mountainous terrain with steep slopes, sheer rock cliffs, and frequent rock outcroppings. Land 

20 uses in the region are primarily rural residential, agricultural, and recreation (Navy 2008), with 

21 concentrated recreational activities (e.g., water sports, use of the Pacific Crest Trail) occurring 

22 approximately 1.93 miles (3.1 kilometers) west of the project area near the Morena Reservoir. 

23 The nearest community, Cameron Corners, is located approximately 3.16 miles (5.08 

24 kilometers) southwest of the project area. 

25 Navy Training Activities in the Cleveland National Forest 

26 An interagency agreement between the Navy and the U.S. Forest Service allows Navy 

27 personnel to maneuver through the Cleveland National Forest, located north of the project 

28 area, to a training objective on another Navy facility on Mount Laguna. This provides Navy 

29 operators with the opportunity to train in a tactical manner for extended periods of time over 

30 large distances near Camp Michael Monsoor (Navy 2008). 

31 Conservation Easement 

32 A purchase of 220 acres (124 hectares) of land contiguous to the Previously Withdrawn 

33 Parcel was made by The Nature Conservancy from a private landowner using a combination of 

34 funding from the U.S. Department of Defense, the State of California, and The Nature 

35 Conservancy in accordance with an interagency agreement called the “Buffer Lands Initiative 

36 Memorandum of Understanding” (Figure 3.5-2). These parcels were purchased on February 

37 21, 2006 to act as a buffer from incompatible land use around Camp Michael Monsoor. The 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-68

1 intent of these parcels is that they not be used by the public or the military. The Navy has 

2 recently (FY 2012) acquired three other parcels through other entities with assistance from the 

3 U.S. Department of Defense’s Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration buffer 

4 program, which is implemented to preserve compatible land uses and sustain wildlife habitat 

5 near installations and ranges where the military trains, tests, and operates. These parcels are 

6 located immediately east and south of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and north of Parcel C. 

7 The Buffer Lands Initiative Memorandum of Understanding precludes the use of this acquisition 

8 land as compensation for military impacts within the boundaries of the installation (Navy 2008). 

9 BLM Leases on Surrounding Parcels 

10 Based on a review of the LR2000 geographic report results, the following authorized 

11 uses and pending applications are for lands surrounding the Proposed Action, as listed in 

12 Table 3.5-3. 

Table 3.5-3 BLM ROW Permits Issued and Pending (Surrounding Parcels) 

Type of Permit 

Project 

Serial No. Owner Parcel Section, Township, and Range Status 

Right-of-way for 

an access road 

CACA 

6804 

Carl Buchheim Parcel B Southeast 1⁄4 of the southeast 1⁄4 of 

Section 21, Township 17 South, 

Range 5 East 

Authorized 

Right-of-way for 

an access road 

CACA 

20294 

Dale Schutte Parcel H Northwest 1⁄4 of Section 8, 

Township 17 South, Range 6 East 

Authorized 

Right-of-way for a 

power line 

CACA 

42361 

SDG&E Parcel H Southwest 1⁄4 of Section 8, 

Township 17 South, Range 6 East 

Authorized 

Right-of-way for a 

telephone line 

CACA 

44408 

SBC Pacific Bell Parcel H Southwest 1⁄4 of Section 8, 

Township 17 South, Range 6 East 

Authorized 

Right-of-way for a 

site testing and 

monitoring wind 

energy project 

CACA 

45248 

Pacific Wind 

Development, 

LLC 

Parcel H Section 7, Township 17 South, 

Range 6 East 

Authorized 

Right-of-way 

application 

CACA 

041690 

AT&T 

Corporation 

Parcel H Section 7, Township 17 South, 

Range 6 East 

Authorized 

Right-of-way 

application for the 

Sunrise Powerlink 

Project 

CACA 

47658 

SDG&E Parcel A Sections 14, 15, 22, 27 and 28, 

Township 17 South, Range 5 East 

Authorized 

Right-of-way 

application 

CACA 

46885 

SDG&E Parcel D Section 18, Township 17 South, 

Range 6 East 

Pending 

Right-of-way 

application 

CACA 

44173 

Pacific Bell Parcel H Section 8, Township 17 South, 

Range 6 East 

Pending 

Application CACA 

53219 

Debenham 

Energy LLC 

Parcel H Section 7, Township 17 South, 

Range 6 East 

Pending 

Source: BLM 2012b

13 
Navy-Managed Property

Conservation Easement

Figure 3.5-2

Conservation Easements

San Diego County, California

Path: O:\NAVFAC SW Camp Monsoor\06 Figures\050213\Monsoor_3_5-2_071213.mxd

Ç 0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW (2011).

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-71

1 3.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

2 3.5.2.1 Alternative 1 

3 Compatibility with Plans, Policies and Objectives 

4 Alternative 1 is located within San Diego County, California on land that is owned by the 

5 federal government. All the ranges would be constructed in accordance with NAVFAC 1027/3B 

6 guidance on construction of firing ranges and rules regarding Surface Danger Zones. 

7 Consequently, implementation of Alternative 1 is inherently consistent with Naval Base 

8 Coronado planning policies and guidelines, and has been designed and sited to be compatible 

9 with the policies and objectives of these planning documents. Alternative 1 would not be subject 

10 to the policies and restrictions of San Diego County, and there would be no impact to the 

11 County’s adopted plans, ordinances, and policies. 

12 Compatibility with Existing and Planned Land Uses 

13 Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in construction of new training facilities 

14 (e.g., CQC structure, small arms ranges) and upgrades of infrastructure (e.g., wells, water lines, 

15 power lines) at Camp Michael Monsoor. Alternative 1 would be compatible with the current 

16 training activities at Camp Michael Monsoor as well as new training that would occur on at the 

17 proposed ranges at Parcel C. 

18 Existing Land Uses 

19 Implementation of Alternative 1 would involve installation and use of new small arms 

20 firing ranges at Parcel C. The public currently uses land near Parcel C for dispersed recreational 

21 use (e.g., biking near the La Posta Truck Trail). However, all of the proposed ranges at Parcel C 

22 would be constructed in accordance with NAVFAC guidance on construction of firing ranges 

23 and rules regarding Surface Danger Zones. The Navy has administrative jurisdiction at Parcel C 

24 for exclusive military use and recreationists would be prohibited from entering Surface Danger 

25 Zones at Parcel C during controlled live-fire activities (refer to Section 3.7 for information on 

public health and safety)18 26 . Further, the withdrawal of Parcel C from public use, including 

27 recreational use, was previously analyzed under the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training 

28 Facility Final EA, and other forms of recreation in the area would remain unaffected. Therefore, 

29 implementation of Alternative 1 would not have significant impacts on recreational uses in the 

30 area of Camp Michael Monsoor.

 

18 At Parcel C, a warning placard would be displayed on a metal fence post north of the shotgun range. During livefire, a red flag would be mounted on the post next to the warning placard to indicate that the range is in use, or “hot.” 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-72

1 As stated above, the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and a portion of Parcel C overlap the 

2 Clover Flat grazing allotment on BLM lands; however, the project area is closed to grazing due 

3 to the withdrawal of these lands for exclusive use by the Navy (BLM 2013b); this was analyzed 

4 under the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final EA. Additionally, the current lessee 

5 has no need or desire to graze their cattle on lands in the project area (Penwell 2013). 

6 Consequently, no grazing lands would need to be removed from the allotment as a result of 

7 Alternative 1, and no related significant impacts would result. 

8 No other existing authorized uses were identified for Alternative 1 that would be 

9 incompatible with military training at Camp Michael Monsoor. The existing rights-of-way for 

10 access roads and power lines at the Previously Withdrawn Parcel (refer to Table 3.5-2) would 

11 not be affected by implementation of the Alternative 1. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 

12 1 would have no significant impacts on recreational uses, or any other existing land uses. 

13 Planned Land Uses 

14 Alternative 1 was designed and sited to be compatible with Navy facilities currently being 

15 constructed under other MILCON projects (MILCON P-781) at Camp Michael Monsoor. Further, 

16 no pending applications with the BLM on lands in the vicinity of Alternative 1 were identified 

17 (refer to Table 3.5-2). Applications that are pending with the BLM on adjacent parcels (Parcels 

18 A, B, D, E, and H) (refer to Table 3.5-3) would not be affected by Alternative 1. The parcels that 

19 have been acquired by the Navy as conservation easements serve to prevent incompatible 

20 development adjacent to Camp Michael Monsoor. There would be no Navy activities on these 

21 conservation easement parcels (i.e., no Surface Danger Zones, no training); therefore, no 

22 planned land uses would be affected by implementation of the Alternative 1. 

23 Overall Impact 

24 Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no significant impacts on any applicable 

25 plans or policies or existing or planned land uses in the vicinity of Camp Michael Monsoor. 

26 3.5.2.2 Alternative 2 

27 As with Alternative 1, implementation of Alternative 2 would occur in an area that is 

28 already developed and planned for military use; therefore, no change in land use would occur 

29 and the impacts under Alternative 2 would be the same as those described for Alternative 1. 

30 Consequently, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to land 

31 use. 

32 3.5.2.3 No Action Alternative 

33 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and 

34 improvements and expansion to Camp Michael Monsoor would not take place. The existing 

35 environment for land use would not change; therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no 

36 significant impacts on applicable plans or polices, or planned land uses in the vicinity of Camp 

37 Michael Monsoor. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-73

1 3.6 NOISE 

2 Noise is generally defined as unwanted or annoying sound that is typically associated 

3 with human activity and that interferes with or disrupts normal activities. Although exposure to 

4 high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause hearing loss, the principal human response 

5 to environmental noise is annoyance. The response of individuals to similar noise events is 

6 diverse and influenced by the type of noise, the perceived importance of the noise and its 

7 appropriateness in the setting, the time of day and the type of activity during which the noise 

8 occurs, and the sensitivity of the individual. Therefore, the “A-weighted” noise scale, which 

9 weights the frequencies to which humans are sensitive, is used for measurements. Noise levels 

10 using A-weighted measurements are sometimes written dB(A) or dBA. 

11 In the United States, several noise metrics have been developed to describe noise levels 

12 depending on the character of the noise. Average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours 

13 are usually expressed as dB Leq (i.e., the equivalent noise level). The period of time average 

14 may be specified (i.e., Leq(3) would be a 3-hour average). The Lmax descriptor indicates the 

15 greatest sound level, in dBA, measured during the preset measurement period. For continuous 

16 noise sources, such as roadways, noise levels are often averaged over a period of 24 hours and 

17 are normally weighted to account for greater human sensitivity to noise in the evening and 

18 nighttime hours. These 24-hour noise metrics are the Community Noise Equivalent Level 

19 (CNEL) and the Day-Night level (DNL or Ldn). However, as the firing ranges at the Previously 

20 Withdrawn Parcel only operate until 8:00 p.m., the Leq is the most appropriate method for 

21 describing noise impacts due to the Proposed Action. 

22 In terms of human response, it is widely accepted that people are able detect sound 

23 level increases of 3 decibels (dB), while an increase in noise level of 10 dB is generally 

24 perceived as being twice as loud. However, a 5-dB change is generally considered to be a 

25 substantially noticeable change above the existing noise environment. Everyday sounds 

26 normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Sound level limits for San Diego 

27 County are presented in Table 3.6-1, although the Navy is not bound by them. 

Table 3.6-1 San Diego County Sound Level Limits in Decibels (dBA) 

Zone Time One-hour Average Sound 

Level Limits (dBA) 

Rural residential use with a 

General Plan Land Use 

Designation density of less than 

10.9 dwelling units per acre. 

7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50 

10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45 

28 

29 3.6.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

30 In addition to the San Diego County limits listed in Table 3.6-1, it shall be unlawful for 

31 any person to operate, or cause the operation of, construction equipment between 7:00 p.m. 

32 and 7:00 a.m. or on a Sunday or a holiday, excluding emergency work. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-74

1 3.6.1.1 Noise Sources 

2 The dominant noise sources in the project area are the various training operations at the 

3 existing weapons ranges. Other noise sources include ongoing facilities maintenance and 

4 construction, off-road vehicular traffic, vehicular traffic to and from the Hilltop Complex, aircraft 

5 flyovers, agricultural activities, and vehicles on La Posta Road. The project area is not located 

6 near an airport or rail operations. 

7 3.6.1.2 Sensitive Receptors 

8 Human noise-sensitive receptors are generally considered to be persons who occupy 

9 areas where noise is an important attribute of the environment. These areas often include 

10 residential dwellings, mobile homes, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, education 

11 facilities, and libraries. Noise-sensitive receptors may also include wildlife, such as certain 

12 songbirds. 

13 3.6.1.3 Project Area 

14 The project area is located in an area with primarily rural residential and agricultural land 

15 uses. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project area are located approximately 500 

16 feet (152 meters) north and 800 feet (244 meters) east of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and 

17 consist of single-family residential land uses. Both of these receptors are approximately 5,000 

18 feet (1,524 meters) from the existing small arms ranges. There are no sensitive noise receptors 

19 within the boundaries of the project area. 

20 3.6.1.4 Existing Noise Levels 

21 Existing noise level data were included in the 2008 Final La Posta Mountain Warfare 

22 Training Facility Final EA (Navy 2008). These data were collected at various locations on March 

23 3, 16, and 19, 2004 (Figure 3.6-1). 

24 Ambient noise measurements included the range (approximately 50 feet [15 meters] 

25 behind the firing line), existing property boundaries, and residential properties in the surrounding 

26 community. Noise meters used included two Larson-Davis Laboratories Model 712 Type 2 

27 sound level meters and one Larson-Davis Laboratories Model 720 Type 2 sound level meter. 

28 The meters were calibrated before and after use according to the manufacturer’s 

29 recommendations. 

30 The following parameters were used with all the sound level meters: 

31  Filter: A-weighted; 

32  Response: Fast; and, 

33  Time History Period: 1 second. 

34 
Previously

Withdrawn

Parcel

H

D

A

F

B

E

G

C

7, 8

11

10

1, 2, 3

9

4, 5, 6

12

Noise Monitoring Location

Navy-Managed Property

Existing ROW for Nonexclusive Use by the Navy

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

US Forest Service

Figure 3.6-1

Noise Measurement Locations

San Diego County, California

Path: L:\SanDiego\Monsoor\Maps\mxds\20130730_EArevisions\Monsoor_3_6-1_073013.mxd

0 0.5 1 Miles

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

California
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-77

1 During the measurement period on March 3, 2004, approximately 15 personnel were on 

2 the range firing a combination of 9-mm (M9) pistols and 5.56-mm (M-4) rifles. The temperature 

3 ranged from 49°F (9°C) in the morning to 57°F (14°C) in the afternoon, with a westerly wind 

4 constant throughout the day. Average wind speeds were 2 mph (3 kph), with gusts of up to 12 

5 mph (19 kph). Noise measurements at Measuring Sites (MS) 1, 4, 10, 11, and 12 were taken 

6 during this measuring period: 

7  MS 1 was located approximately 50 feet (15 meters) east of the firing line in a range 

8 area adjacent to the active range, with an intervening 10-foot-high (3.3-meter-high) 

9 earthen berm. Noise measurements at MS 1 represent noise levels in the range area 

10 with attenuation due to the existing berms; 

11  MS 4 was located approximately 150 feet (46 meters) west of La Posta Road, inside the 

12 fenced area of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel, and represents ambient noise levels at 

13 the western edge of this area; 

14  MS 10 was located 50 feet (15 meters) north of La Posta Road, across from 2460 La 

15 Posta Road, and is representative of ambient daytime noise levels in that area at the 

16 nearest residential land uses; 

17  MS 11 was located at the northern terminus of Campo Truck Trail, near the entrance to 

18 Wandering Springs Ranch, and is representative of ambient daytime noise levels in that 

19 area; and, 

20  MS 12 was located just south of the parking lot area for the Previously Withdrawn 

21 Parcel, and is representative of ambient noise levels at the onsite offices and facilities. 

22 On March 16, 2004, approximately 30 personnel were on range firing 9-mm pistols. The 

23 temperature ranged from 75°F (24°C) in the morning to 80°F (27°C) in the afternoon, with 

24 westerly winds constant throughout the measurement period. Average wind speeds were 3 mph 

25 (5 kph), with gusts of up to 18 mph (29 kph). Noise measurements at MS 2, 5, and 7 were taken 

26 during this measurement period: 

27  MS 2 was located directly behind the firing line, at approximately 50 feet (15 meters), 

28 and represents noise levels at the range during M9 firing; 

29  MS 5 was located in the same location as MS 4 and represents noise levels at the 

30 eastern property boundary, along La Posta Road, during M9 firing; and, 

31  MS 7 was taken at the western property boundary, approximately 1 mile (1.6 kilometer) 

32 south of the northern boundary of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel, and represents 

33 noise levels at the western property boundary with an active range. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-78

1 On March 19, 2004, approximately 30 personnel were on range firing 5.56-mm rifles, the 

2 most commonly used round. The temperature was 73°F (23°C) with no measurable wind. Noise 

3 measurements at MS 3, 6, 8, and 9 were taken during this measurement period: 

4  MS 3 was located behind the firing line, at approximately 50 feet (15 meters), and 

5 represents the noise levels at the range during M-4 firing; 

6  MS 6 was at the same location as MS 4 and MS 5 and represents noise levels along the 

7 eastern property boundary during M-4 firing; 

8  MS 8 was positioned in the same location as MS 7 and represents the ambient noise 

9 level along the western property line; and, 

10  MS 9 was located approximately 1,000 feet (304 meters) east of the firing range and is 

11 used to calculate the noise attenuation over distance at the Previously Withdrawn 

12 Parcel. 

13 Recorded noise level measurements for each MS are summarized in Table 3.6-2. 

Table 3.6-2 Existing Noise Level Measurements for Camp Michael Monsoor and 

Surrounding Areas 

MS 

No. Location Date Time Noise Level, dBA 

Leq Lmax Lmin 

1 Firing range, 50 feet (15 meters) north 

of firing line 

3 March 20041 10:30 – 11:29 80 96 36 

2 Firing range, 50 feet (15 meters) behind 

firing line 

16 March 20042 9:16 – 11:31 90 112 36 

3 Firing range, 50 feet (15 meters) behind 

firing line 

19 March 20043 7:49 – 9:00 87 112 36 

4 Eastern property boundary, 150 feet 

(46 meters) south of entrance gate 

3 March 2004 12:19 – 12:35 49 64 34 

5 Eastern property boundary, 150 feet 

(46 meters) south of entrance gate 

16 March 2004 9:22 – 10:17 54 76 34 

6 Eastern property boundary, 150 feet 

(46 meters) south of entrance gate 

19 March 2004 7:53 – 8:38 45 64 33 

7 Western property boundary 16 March 2004 10:34 – 11:19 54 78 33 

8 Western property boundary 19 March 2004 8:43 – 8:53 38 53 33 

9 1,000 feet (304 meters) east of firing 

range 

19 March 2004 7:56- 9:04 51 93 37 

10 Residential area along La Posta Road 

north of existing site 

3 March 2004 15:29 – 15:41 57 77 33 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-79

Table 3.6-2 Existing Noise Level Measurements for Camp Michael Monsoor and 

Surrounding Areas 

MS Location Date Time Noise Level, dBA 

11 Residential properties along Campo 

Truck Trail east of existing site 

3 March 2004 13:47 – 14:13 48 65 36 

12 Microwave Space Relay Station parking 

lot 

3 March 2004 16:14 – 16:19 41 54 34 

Source: Navy 2008 

Notes: 

1

 Temperatures ranged from 49°F (9°C) in the morning to 57°F (14°C) in the afternoon. Winds were from the west at 

2 mph (3 kph) gusting up to 12 mph (19 kph). 2

 Temperatures ranged from 75°F (24°C) in the morning to 80°F (27°C) in the afternoon. Winds were from the west at 

3 mph (5 kph) gusting up to 18 mph (29 kph). 3

 The temperature was 73°F (23°C) with no measurable wind.

1 

2 As shown in Table 3.6-2, the average noise level at the range area during firing 

3 exercises exceeds 80 dBA Leq and can vary by approximately 10 dBA Leq depending on 

4 location. Noise levels along the eastern property boundary are generally unaffected by weapons 

5 fire due to traffic noise generated by vehicles on La Posta Road. Noise levels along the western 

6 boundary show an increase of approximately 16 dBA Leq over ambient noise levels with the 

7 range active; however, during range activities, the observed Lmax increased by less than 2 dBA 

8 over ambient levels when weapons were fired. Measurements taken on March 16, 2007 for the 

9 La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final EA may have been influenced by wind gusts, 

10 as noise levels along the eastern and western property boundaries are similar for that day. Due 

11 to the similarity of noise levels recorded at MS 5 and MS 7, it can be assumed that noise levels 

12 at the eastern and western property boundaries from weapons firing at the existing ranges are 

13 of similar magnitude. As winds were calm during the March 19, 2004 measurements, it has 

14 been determined that the noise level readings taken at MS 6 are most representative of the 

15 actual influence of weapons fire at the property boundaries. 

16 Subsequent to the March 2004 noise level measurements being taken, new military 

17 training facilities have been constructed and are in operation at Camp Michael Monsoor; 

18 however, as concluded in the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final EA, the 

19 activities at the existing range facilities have not substantially changed as compared to the 

20 activities conducted during the 2004 noise surveys. 

21 3.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

22 3.6.2.1 Alternative 1 

23 Noise impacts associated with Alternative 1 would be related to noise generated during 

24 construction and subsequent operation of the proposed facilities. The principal sources of noise 

25 during construction would result from the use of construction equipment. New noise sources 

26 during operations would be the additional vehicles that would access the proposed range 

27 facilities and weapons firing activities during use of the proposed ranges. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-80

1 Construction Activities 

2 Construction equipment noise levels vary widely as a function of the equipment used, 

3 the activity level, or the duty cycle. For a typical construction project, the loudest short-term 

4 noise levels (for a few minutes during each cycle) occur during site preparation and grading, 

5 and noise levels from earth-moving equipment under full load (on the order of 90 dBA at a 

6 distance of 50 feet [15 meters] from the source). Construction equipment noise is usually 

7 considered as a point source, with attenuation within short distances at a rate of 6 dBA per 

8 doubling of distance (e.g., a noise level of 90 dBA at 50 feet [15 meters] will be 84 dBA at 100 

9 feet [30 meters], 78 dBA at 200 feet [60 meters], and 72 dBA at 400 feet [120 meters]). The 

10 nature of construction projects, with equipment moving from one point to another, work breaks, 

11 and idle time, is such that long-term noise averages are less than short-term noise levels. A 

12 maximum 1-hour average noise level of 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet (15 meters) from the 

13 construction area was assumed for the site preparation phase. 

14 After site preparation, noise would be generated by other diesel engine-driven and gas 

15 engine-driven equipment and by normal construction activities such as the use of power saws, 

16 drills, and hammers. Based on the projected construction activities, noise levels would average 

17 60 to 70 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet (15 meters). 

18 Construction of the proposed facilities would require heavy equipment operations for 

19 grading, excavating, filling, compacting, and paving. The nearest sensitive human receptors to 

20 the proposed range construction sites are residences approximately 0.87 mile (1.4 kilometers) 

21 and 0.63 mile (1 kilometer) east of the nearest point of roadway construction. At these 

22 distances, construction noise would be reduced by approximately 46 to 49 dBA. The resultant 

23 noise levels at these residences would be below the daytime ambient noise level, as measured 

24 at MS 10 on March 3, 2004 (Table 3.6-2). In addition, the line of sight between the receptors 

25 and the proposed construction site for the new CQC facilities is blocked by hills. With the 

26 distance and terrain, construction noise would not have a significant impact on ambient noise 

27 levels. 

28 Operational Activities 

29 Ongoing and proposed training activities would generate noise at the project area. The 

30 principal noise sources would be weapons firing, with additional noise from vehicles going to 

31 and from the existing and proposed facilities. Weapons firing noise levels were assessed in the 

32 2008 La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final EA (Navy 2008) using the Small Arms 

33 Noise Assessment Model (SARNAM) developed by the USACE Construction Engineering 

34 Research Laboratory. Inputs to SARNAM included range location, design, and orientation; 

35 number of active firing lanes; type of weapons fired; type of rounds fired; number of rounds fired 

36 over a 24-hour period; and the percentage of total rounds fired in rapid fire mode. The model 

37 does not include topography and project noise over flat terrain. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-81

1 Activities at the existing ranges would not substantially change from current conditions, 

2 as the proposed improvements to the existing facilities would provide enhanced training 

3 opportunities but would not increase operating capacity. Training operations within a CQC 

4 structure are intended to teach SEALs how to enter potentially occupied structures and clear 

5 them. These operations generally include explosive breaching, throwing flashbang grenades, 

6 and firing two short bursts from an M4 sporadically as rooms are entered and targets are 

7 engaged. The construction of the new CQC structure would not result in an increase in the 

8 number of weapons firing simultaneously; thus, use of the new CQC structure would be 

9 comparable to current conditions. 

10 It is estimated that the open air firing ranges would generate noise due to limited 

11 shielding within the range. The CQC structure would be partially enclosed and would not 

12 provide a direct line of sight from a shooter to an exterior location. Table 3.6-3 presents the 

13 anticipated amount of rounds that would be fired by various weapons. The data presented in 

14 Table 3.6-3 were used as input for the SARNAM. 

Table 3.6-3 Proposed CQC Complex Weapons and Ammunition1

Weapon Ammunition 

Rounds 

per 

Person 

Maximum 

Personnel per CQC 

Complex 

Maximum 

Rounds per 

24-hour Period 

Percent 

Rapid Fire 

Mode 

M4 5.56-mm (.223 caliber) 150 50 7,500 50 

12 gauge 12 gauge Magnum 100 50 5,000 0 

9-mm 9-mm 50 50 2,500 0 

1

 Note: 

Flashbangs and other breaching charges (C2/C4 explosive compound) would be utilized as part of training at the CQC 

structure. For impulsive noise, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration criterion for unprotected occupational noise 

exposure is an unweighted peak level of 140 dB. 140 dB would be exceeded for flashbangs out to a distance of 328 feet (100 

meters) and 1,148 feet (350 meters) for breaching charges (Blue Ridge Research and Consulting 2012). Flashbangs and 

breaching charges are infrequent single-event episodes which would lessen their impact to the noise environment. 

15 

16 The La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final EA determined that the overall 

17 noise levels in the local area would be greater than the noise levels occurring during the existing 

18 training activities when simultaneous training would occur at the proposed facilities being 

19 evaluated in the EA. Due to intervening topography, the noise generated at the existing ranges 

20 would not result in a combined noise increase with noise generated at the proposed ranges in 

21 Parcel C. These ranges are considered independent sources. It was assumed for the modeling 

22 that each CQC structure would accommodate a maximum of 57 personnel for training, plus five 

23 to ten instructors, and a maximum of two facilities in Parcel C would be in operation at any given 

24 time. As a worst-case scenario, the two CQC complexes closest to residences along La Posta 

25 Road were modeled at full activity (i.e., 50 personnel firing at once on each range (100 

26 personnel total), with 50 firing M4s, 25 firing shotguns, and 25 firing 9-mm pistols). 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-82

1 Noise levels calculated by the SARNAM for the existing operation of the two nearest 

2 proposed CQC complexes indicated hourly average noise levels of approximately 50 dBA Leq 

3 at the nearest residence. Weapons included in the assessment were the M4 rifle, shotgun, and 

4 Ruger 9-mm pistol. While sniper weapons produce louder single events but, due to the low 

5 number of weapon discharges, these weapons have almost no effect on the hourly average 

6 noise level. 

7 As stated previously, the modeled noise prediction of 50 dBA Leq at the nearest 

8 residence did not take into account the presence of topographic features such intervening hills. 

9 The CQC complexes are located in a valley and are surrounded by hills. The CQC complexes 

10 are at an average elevation of 3,200 feet (975 meters) above mean sea level. The nearest 

11 residence is located approximately 984 meters (3,230 feet) above mean sea level. The 

12 residences along La Posta Road and the CQC complexes are separated by hills that have a 

13 minimum elevation of 3,365 feet (1,025 meters) above mean sea level, which effectively provide 

14 a barrier over 100 feet (30 meters) high. This barrier would provide at least a 20-dBA noise 

15 reduction from range activities in Parcel C. Thus, the actual noise levels at the nearest 

16 residence from weapons firing activities would be approximately 30 dBA Leq, which would not 

17 substantially increase nighttime or daytime ambient noise levels. While these noise levels would 

18 not adversely increase the ambient noise level at nearby residences, it should be noted that, 

19 due to the distinct characteristics of weapons firing, these sounds would still be heard and may 

20 be considered annoying to local residents. 

21 The use of Range 110 would not increase under Alternative 1, although the installation 

22 of lights at Range 110 would allow nighttime shooting until 8:00 p.m. Under Alternative 1, a 

23 noise attenuation wall, approximately 10 to 12 feet (3 to 4 meters) high, would be installed at 

24 Range 110 behind the firing line, thereby blocking the line of sight to the nearest sensitive 

25 receptor. This noise attenuation wall would serve to reduce the noise level currently being heard 

26 by the nearest receptor to Range 110 (across La Posta Road) by 5 to 10 dB. Further design 

27 details would need to be developed to achieve this reduction. It should be noted that NSW 

28 coordinates with local residents when nighttime firing is scheduled. 

29 Alternative 1 would result in an increase by three weeks in the amount of time ULT is 

30 conducted at Camp Michael Monsoor over the current duration (one week). This increase would 

31 occur up to six times per year. SEAL Qualification Training would decrease from four weeks to 

32 one week, six times annually. Other new training conducted by SOF and non-SOF units is 

33 shown in Section 2.2, Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, Table 2-1. It can be 

34 assumed that each training group would arrive in a combination of light autos (vans), light 

35 trucks, medium trucks, and light heavy trucks. SEAL Qualification Training would have the most 

36 vehicles (13). During SEAL Qualification Training and all other training, it is assumed that, upon 

37 arrival, all vehicles would remain on Camp Michael Monsoor and would make one round-trip per 

38 week for arrival and departure and to pick up supplies. This would result in about 122 round39 trips (about two round-trips per day), which would double the existing traffic volume from units 

40 using Camp Michael Monsoor. Additional daily traffic would be related to range management 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-83

1 and maintenance personnel, anticipated to be up to 20 round-trips per day. This number of 

2 vehicles would increase noise levels along La Posta Road by less than 1 dBA Leq and would 

3 not represent a significant increase in traffic noise in the project area. 

4 Based on the preceding analysis, and given that activities at the existing ranges would 

5 not substantially change from current conditions (as the proposed improvements to the existing 

6 facilities would provide enhanced training opportunities, but would not increase operating 

7 capacity), development of the proposed ranges and proposed facilities would not have a 

8 significant impact on the existing noise environment. 

9 3.6.2.2 Alternative 2 

10 As with Alternative 1, implementation of Alternative 2 would occur in an area that is 

11 already used for military training operations. For Alternative 2, the easterly orientation of the 

12 pistol ranges, the elimination of the shotgun range, and the alternate location of the Range 

13 Control Building and Gate Sentry House would result in similar impacts to the existing noise 

14 environment as those discussed for Alternative 1, although impacts associated with 

15 Alternative 2 would be slightly lessened since the shotgun range would not be constructed. 

16 Therefore there would not be a significant impact from implementation of Alternative 2. 

17 3.6.2.3 No Action Alternative 

18 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and 

19 improvements and expansion to Camp Michael Monsoor would not take place. The No Action 

20 Alternative would have no significant impacts on the existing noise environment. 

21 3.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

22 The following discussion is based on a review of applicable land use plans and policies, 

23 available literature, and existing background data, including, but not limited to, the following 

24 resources: 

25  Draft South Coast Resource Management Plan Revision and Draft Environmental 

26 Impact Statement (BLM 2011); 

27  DD Form 1391 Fiscal Year 2019 Military Construction Project 8 (BLM 2013a); and, 

28  La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final Environmental Assessment (Navy 

29 2008). 

30 3.7.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

31 This section describes the existing public health and safety issues that occur within and 

32 adjacent to the project area. For purposes of public health and safety, the project area is defined 

33 as the area where permanent impacts could occur from implementation of the action 

34 alternatives. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-84

1 3.7.1.1 Hazardous Materials and Waste 

2 Various hazardous materials and oils are used to support weapons, target, and vehicle 

3 maintenance performed at Camp Michael Monsoor. Only the minimum amount of a hazardous 

4 material is obtained for a task in order to prevent disposing excess material as hazardous 

5 waste. Hazardous materials used on Camp Michael Monsoor are ordered through Naval Base 

6 Coronado and shipped via truck. Weapons cleaning solvents and residue are properly stored 

7 and disposed of. Solvent tanks are self-contained and solvent is filtered to extend its useful life. 

8 Lead from range maintenance activities is stored and properly disposed of (Navy 2008), in 

9 accordance with Naval Base Coronado guidelines and the EPA’s Best Management Practices 

10 for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges. Universal wastes, a subset of hazardous wastes that 

11 includes even household types of items such as alkaline batteries, all lamps except 

12 incandescent lamps, mercury-containing devices such as thermostats, cathode ray tubes, 

13 consumer electronic devices, and aerosol containers, are also present on the site and are 

14 currently being characterized, segregated, stored, managed, and properly disposed of in 

15 accordance with the current (2006) CNRSW Environmental Waste Management Plan. 

16 There are no active installation restoration sites on Camp Michael Monsoor (Navy 2008). 

17 There is lead in the soil berms from the continuous and extended use of firearms on the 

18 shooting ranges. 

19 3.7.1.2 Range Safety 

20 Depending on the weapon used at each range, a specific Safety Danger Zone is created 

21 to identify the area down range of the target where an errant round or ricochet might land. The 

22 existing Range Complex is bermed and configured to fire into a hillside. A Surface Danger Zone 

23 extending out to 2,102 yards (1,840 meters) from the firing position has been established. 

24 Range 110 is located within the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and is accessed through the Main 

25 Gate. Live firearm training also occurs on Range 110 where the Surface Danger Zone is 6,725 

26 feet (2,050 meters). Issuance of Public Land Order No. 7807 by the BLM on January 17, 2013 

27 withdrew BLM land at Parcel C from public use, transferring administrative jurisdiction to the 

28 Navy for exclusive military use through January 2033. 

29 Camp Michael Monsoor has a variety of range safety procedures in place to ensure 

30 human health and safety. All military personnel and visitors are required to schedule visits in 

31 advance as well as check in with the Officer in Charge prior to entering the facility. The firing 

32 ranges and Surface Danger Zones are actively controlled by a Range Safety Officer during any 

33 firing exercises. To further ensure public safety and deter civilians from entering the firing 

34 ranges, the Navy currently has plans to use a combination of warning placards and red flags at 

35 likely entry points to warn the public. The warning placards would be posted on existing fences 

36 and gates at the Main Gate entrance and at trail entrances. Where necessary, metal fence 

37 posts would be installed on or adjacent to the trails, where they enter the installation, to 

38 prominently display the warning placards. During live-fire activities, red flags would be posted on 

39 the fence at the Main Gate entrance and at the entrance to each individual “hot” range (i.e., a 

40 range that is being used for live-fire activity). Each placard would be 20 inches long by 14 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-85

1 inches wide (50.8 centimeters long by 35.56 centimeters wide) and would include "anti-bird' 

2 spikes to prevent against predatory birds. 

Signs similar to the one above will be posted at the 

entrance to Camp Michael Monsoor firing ranges. 

These signs will warn the public of potential dangers 

associated with fire arm use at these ranges. 

Example of a sign notifying the public that a red 

flag will be present when firing ranges are in use, or 

“hot.” 

3 

4 Additionally, the Navy has begun to acquire conservation easements. A purchase of 

5 220 acres (124 hectares) of land contiguous to the Previously Withdrawn Parcel was made on 

6 February 21, 2006 to act as a buffer from incompatible land use around Camp Michael 

7 Monsoor. The Navy has recently (FY 2012) acquired three other parcels through other entities 

8 with assistance from the U.S. Department of Defense’s Readiness and Environmental 

9 Protection Integration buffer program, which is implemented to preserve compatible land uses 

10 and sustain wildlife habitat near installations and ranges where the military trains, tests, and 

11 operates. The parcels are located immediately east and south of the Previously Withdrawn 

12 Parcel and north of Parcel C. These parcels would not be used by the public or the military. 

13 Fire prevention is a concern at the Range Complex. Due to the abundance of vegetation, 

14 fires that occur during high wind conditions could quickly exceed immediate suppression 

15 capabilities. There are currently no formal firebreaks onsite, other than existing roads and trails. 

16 To minimize range related fire risks, tracer rounds, which are a common ignition source, are not 

17 allowed on the facility at any time. Although a Draft Fire Management Plan has been prepared, 

18 the plan has not yet been approved or released. Under MILCON P-781, a fire suppression 

19 system will be constructed on Parcel C, including two 50,000-gallon (189-cubic-meter) water 

20 tanks 

21 There are three separate services that provide electricity to the Range Complex, 

22 including a 12-kilovolt (kV) service via overhead poles with three 167-kilovolt ampere (kVA) 

23 transformers, a 200-amp, 240/120-volt service, and an emergency generator. The risk of fire 

24 from these transmission lines is managed by the onsite fire protection water system. The 

25 system consists of a 5,000-gallon (18.9-cubic-meter) storage tank at the Range Complex in 

26 addition to several other storage tanks throughout Camp Michael Monsoor. All tanks and 

27 pumping systems are adequate for the present connected load. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-86

1 3.7.1.3 Unexploded Ordnance 

2 Unexploded ordnance is ordnance that fails to function as designed. This ordnance may 

3 remain capable of detonation, posing a physical risk to individuals in its vicinity. On lands 

4 controlled by the Navy, this risk is limited to military personnel who are trained in unexploded 

5 ordnance avoidance. Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel periodically remove unexploded 

6 ordnance from the range or conduct a blow-in-place operation to render it safe. Unexploded 

7 ordnance poses a risk to the public when ordnance lands off-range and is not immediately 

8 recovered, or when Navy training activities occur in areas accessible to the public (Navy 2008). 

9 No explosive projectiles are used at Camp Michael Monsoor; therefore, there is no unexploded 

10 ordnance on Camp Michael Monsoor that could pose a safety risk (Navy 2008). 

11 3.7.1.4 Ammunition Storage 

12 Temporary storage of pyrotechnics, flash-bang devices, and breaching charges occurs 

13 within the Previously Withdrawn Parcel but not in the right-of-way parcels (Navy 2008). The 

14 Navy has site approval to store Hazard/Division 1.3/1.4 munitions with a total net explosive 

15 weight of 300 pounds (136 kilograms). The Method of Entry structure, which is part of the indoor 

16 ranges used at Camp Michael Monsoor, must be an enclosed compound with facilities 

17 specifically capable of withstanding 1 pound (0.45 kilogram) of net explosive weight. The 

18 explosive safety quantity distance arc (i.e., the zone of permissible exposure) is 100 feet (30 

19 meters), which does not encumber the helicopter pad. There are no hazards of electromagnetic 

20 radiation to ordnance or unsafe munitions used at Camp Michael Monsoor (Navy 2008). 

21 3.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

22 3.7.2.1 Alternative 1 

23 A portion of Alternative 1 would be on land withdrawn for military purposes. Since 

24 withdrawn land would not be open to the general public, the potential for any members of the 

25 public to encounter health and safety hazards that would exist during construction and operation 

26 activities would be minimal. 

27 The construction of the shotgun, rifle, and pistol ranges, the CQC structure, and training 

28 storage facilities would all be in Parcel C on land that has been officially withdrawn for exclusive 

29 military use through January 2033, per Public Land Order No. 7807 (Withdrawal of Public Lands 

30 for the Camp Michael Monsoor Mountain Warfare and Training Facility, California). NEPA 

31 analysis has also been completed for the land withdrawal under the La Posta Mountain Warfare 

32 Training Facility Final EA. Construction and operational safety procedures and precautions 

33 would be implemented to prevent potential injury, such as exposure to hazardous materials or 

34 operations by workers and the public. Security fencing would be erected around the 

35 construction areas, and appropriate signage would be posted to prevent unauthorized personnel 

36 from accessing the site. Operations would be contained within the restricted construction zone 

37 and would not conflict with safe public use or military use of the surrounding areas. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-87

1 Per Naval Base Coronado guidelines and the EPA’s Best Management Practices for 

2 Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges, all disturbed soils should remain onsite and any lead or 

3 metals found should be recycled (EPA 2001). Any excavated soil removed from the site would 

4 require hazardous waste characterization prior to removal. This characterization would ensure 

5 that materials removed from the site are not hazardous. 

6 Implementation of Alternative 1 would involve live-fire operations at the CQC structure 

7 and small arms ranges involving the use of a variety of small arms. Range management 

8 practices would continue to be implemented to ensure the ranges are properly maintained. 

9 Compliance with Range Maintenance Standard Operating Procedure guidelines would ensure 

10 that lead does not migrate off the range site. Based on the continued implementation of 

11 established range management practices, no adverse environmental health and safety impacts 

12 would occur. 

13 Under Alternative 1, universal wastes would continue to be present onsite and would 

14 derive from materials and equipment that are employed for everyday use. As is the case under 

15 existing conditions, these wastes would continue to be segregated, stored, managed, and 

16 properly disposed of in a manner such that no adverse environmental health and safety impacts 

17 would occur as a result of the presence, handling, storage, and disposal of these wastes under 

18 Alternative 1. With the implementation of standard safety practices and procedures for 

19 Alternative 1, no significant impacts to public health and safety would occur. 

20 New Security Facilities 

21 The new security facilities under Alternative 1 include the construction of the Range 

22 Control Building, walls, a concrete-paved parking area, and a security gate. Although the 

23 construction of these facilities would generate universal waste, the waste would be properly 

24 managed and disposed of. The reconfiguration of the Main Gate would result in a positive 

25 impact, as it would provide a convenient turn-around lane for unauthorized vehicles, thus easing 

26 any potential traffic congestion that could be generated by traffic queuing from La Posta Road. 

27 Facility construction and operation would be performed in accordance with standard health and 

28 safety procedures; therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to public health 

29 and safety. 

30 Expansion of Range 

31 Expansion of the ranges and construction of the CQC structure would be within Parcel C 

32 and would not be enclosed by a fence. The area around Parcel C is part of the Cleveland 

33 National Forest, and most of the area west and north of Parcel C has unclassified roads. 

34 Although the closest trails (Pacific Crest and Kitchen Creek) are more than 3 miles 

35 (5 kilometers) away, bikers and hikers have used the unclassified roads, such as La Posta 

36 Truck Trail and Hyde Park Lane, for recreation. A portion of these roads go through Parcel C; 

37 however, this area would be restricted from public use. A warning placard would be displayed 

38 on a metal fence post north of the shotgun range. During live-fire, a red flag would be mounted 

39 on the post next to the warning placard to indicate that the range is “hot.” All proposed ranges 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-88

1 would be constructed in accordance with NAVFAC 1027/3B guidance on construction of firing 

2 ranges and rules regarding Surface Danger Zones. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 

3 would not result in significant impacts to public health and safety from activities associated with 

4 expansion of the range. 

5 Fence Replacement 

6 Extending the existing fence line on La Posta Road and installing access gates would 

7 generate universal wastes during construction which will be properly managed. Since the fence 

8 and access gates are static structures that do not pose significant risks, operation of these new 

9 security facilities would not have any impacts on public health and safety. As a result, both 

10 construction and operation of the proposed fence replacement would not have significant 

11 impacts on public health and safety with implementation of Alternative 1. 

12 Upgrades to Existing Utilities and Erosion Control Structures 

13 Construction of a new underground water line to pump water and the installation of 

14 erosion control structures would generate universal waste that would be properly managed and 

15 disposed of. Operating these structures would actually increase safety and control erosion. This 

16 would result in a positive public safety and environmental impact. Consequently, upgrading 

17 existing utilities and establishing erosion control structures would not have significant impacts 

18 on public health and safety under Alternative 1. 

19 Unexploded Ordnance 

20 Implementation of the Alternative 1 would not result in the introduction of explosive or 

21 dud-producing rounds. Inert or non-dud-producing ordnance would continue to be the only types 

22 of ordnance used for training. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in 

23 significant impacts to public health and safety from unexploded ordnance. 

24 3.7.2.2 Alternative 2 

25 Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the same impacts as those discussed for 

26 Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in no significant impacts to public health and 

27 safety. 

28 3.7.2.3 No Action Alternative 

29 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and 

30 improvements and expansion to Camp Michael Monsoor would not take place. The existing 

31 environment for public health and safety would not change; therefore, the No Action Alternative 

32 would have no significant impacts on public health and safety. 

33 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-89

1 3.8 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 

2 For this section, state and local law enforcement, fire protection, and utilities resources 

3 were consulted, including the San Diego County Sheriff, California Highway Patrol, California 

4 Department of Forestry, and SDG&E. Navy sources were consulted for specific water and 

5 wastewater related statistics. 

6 3.8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

7 This section describes the public services and utilities that are available within and 

8 adjacent to the project area and, thus, may be directly or indirectly affected by the Proposed 

9 Action. 

10 3.8.1.1 Police Protection 

11 Police service to the project area is provided by the San Diego County Sheriff’s 

12 Department, which maintains a substation in the community of Campo, California. Additional 

13 police services are provided by the California Highway Patrol, which maintains a station in El 

14 Cajon, California, and the U.S. Border Patrol, which maintains a station in Campo and 

15 Boulevard, California. 

16 3.8.1.2 Fire Protection 

17 Fire service to the project area is provided by the California Department of Forestry, 

18 which maintains stations in Campo, Dulzura, and Boulevard, California. The U.S. Forest Service 

19 maintains a fire station at Cameron Corners, California. Campo Fire and Rescue Service serves 

20 San Diego County Service Area 112, which includes the project area. MILCON P-781 includes a 

21 gravity fed system with two 50,000 gallon (189-cubic-meter) water tanks that can be used for 

22 fire protection in the project area. The Navy is currently in the progress of updating a Fire 

23 Management Plan for Camp Michael Monsoor. 

24 3.8.1.3 Water 

25 The domestic and fire protection water system at Camp Michael Monsoor starts at a well 

26 southwest of the main entrance. There is a 5,000-gallon (18.9-cubic-meter) storage tank near 

27 the well. Water is pumped from this tank to the 5,000-gallon (18.9-cubic-meter) storage tank at 

28 the Range Complex. Pumps supply water to the Range Complex and up to the Beach Complex. 

29 There are two storage tanks (3,000 and 5,000 gallons [11.4 and 18.9 cubic meters]) in 

30 the Beach Complex. Water is pumped to the Beach Complex facilities as well as up to the 

31 Hilltop Complex. The Hilltop Complex has two 5,000-gallon (18.9-cubic-meter) storage tanks, 

32 one 10,000-gallon (37.9-cubic-meter) storage tank, and one pump house. Additionally in the 

33 Hilltop Complex, Building 587, and Building 598 have their own 1,500-gallon (5.7-cubic-meter) 

34 storage tanks. All tankage and pumping systems are adequate for the present connected load. 

35 An additional well at Camp Michael Monsoor’s western boundary has been drilled, but the well 

36 does not have power or piping connectivity, and two new 5,000-gallon (18.9-cubic-meter) tanks 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-90

1 and one well are proposed in Parcel C under MILCON P-781. MILCON P-781 includes a 

2 gravity-fed system with two 50,000-gallon (189-cubic-meter) water tanks in Parcel C. 

3 3.8.1.4 Wastewater 

4 Each area at Camp Michael Monsoor employs the use of a septic system and leach field 

5 for sewage treatment; there is no public sewage system: 

6  The Hilltop Complex has two septic tank systems: one is a 2,000-gallon (7.6-cubic7 meter) two-compartment Jensen tank with a leach field, and the other is 1,500-gallon 

8 (5.7-cubic-meter) two-compartment Jensen tank; 

9  The Beach Complex employs a 1,500-gallon (5.7-cubic-meter) two-compartment Jensen 

10 tank; and, 

11  The Range Complex employs two 1,500-gallon (5.7-cubic-meter) two-compartment 

12 Jensen tanks. 

13 Tanks are periodically cleaned, and the all tanks and systems in the three areas are 

14 functioning properly and are adequate for the currently connected loads. MILCON P-781 

15 included installation of a septic system in Parcel C. 

16 3.8.1.5 Solid Waste 

17 Solid waste is currently taken offsite and disposed of in a solid waste landfill (Navy 

18 2008). 

19 3.8.1.6 Natural Gas/Petroleum Utilities 

20 Propane gas is used at the Hilltop Complex for heating units located in Buildings 587 

21 and 599. The system consists of two tanks for Buildings 587 and 599 (1,150 and 350 gallons 

22 [4.4 and 1.3 cubic meters], respectively) and underground piping from the tanks on the north 

23 side of Building 586 to Building 587 and Building 599. Tanks and piping are adequate for the 

24 present load. No petroleum infrastructure is currently in place. 

25 3.8.1.7 Electricity 

26 Electrical service is provided by SDG&E. There are three separate services provided for 

27 the facility: 

28  Service #1 is the main service to facility. A 12-kV service is fed via overhead poles to the 

29 main compound equipment yard with three 167-kVA transformers to step down power; 

30  Service #2 provides power to the Range Complex. Service is 200 amps, 240/120 volts, 

31 single phase; and, 

32  Service #3 provides power to a pump/well house near the gate entrance. Service is 200 

33 amps, 240/120 volts, single phase. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-91

1 There is an emergency generator outside of Building 586 that supplies emergency 

2 power to the Homeland Security communications station antenna. MILCON P-781 recently 

3 included construction of power poles from the Hilltop Complex(where the satellite dish is 

4 located) to Parcel C, and associated electrical distribution lines are routed underground at 

5 “villas” to support MILCON P-781 facilities. 

6 3.8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

7 3.8.2.1 Alternative 1 

8 Alternative 1 would construct additional facilities and infrastructure at Camp Michael 

9 Monsoor, create new Surface Danger Zones, and change the existing Surface Danger Zones; 

10 however, Alternative 1 would not create an increased need for police and fire protection. 

11 Therefore, Alternative 1 would not have a significant impact on police and fire protection. 

12 The installation of ten lights, mounted on new telephone poles at Range 110 and the 

13 installation of an aboveground electrical distribution line along the existing access road between 

14 La Posta Road and Range 110 would have positive impacts on the mission at Camp Michael 

15 Monsoor by allowing night training, while also upgrading the electrical system as a whole. 

16 None of the P-888 facilities would contain toilet rooms or showers that would require 

17 connection to a wastewater treatment facility, and Alternative 1 would not generate wastewater 

18 in quantities that would require additional wastewater treatment services. 

19 Small quantities of water would be required for Alternative 1 construction and operations. 

20 Water used during construction of Alternative 1, for slope dampening and for dust control at the 

21 pistol and rifle ranges, would not significantly increase the amount of water used at Camp 

22 Michael Monsoor, and the increase would only be temporary. During operations, water for the 

23 bathroom and kitchen at Range Control Building would be supplied via an existing water line, 

24 and the water would be stored in a water tank that would be constructed as part of the Proposed 

Action19 25 . Small quantities of water would also be used during Alternative 1 operations for 

26 landscaping maintenance purposes to water drought-tolerant, native species. Therefore, there 

27 would be minimal water use related to implementation of Alternative 1 and significant, adverse 

28 impacts to the potable water system would not occur. Additionally, the proposed MILCON P-888 

29 water well located in Parcel C, and the water line from the existing well along the western 

30 boundary of the installation to the Range Complex, would have positive impacts on water supply 

31 and availability. Groundwater usage would be minimal (Payne 2012). 

 

19 Alternative 1 would require replacement of the existing water tank at the Main Gate entrance. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-92

1 Alternative 1 would generate a small volume of wastewater during construction due to 

2 worker use of onsite portable toilets; this waste would be removed from the site and disposed of 

3 at a wastewater treatment facility that is available and has capacity to receive such waste. 

4 During operations, Alternative 1 would generate a small amount of liquid waste, resulting from 

5 use of the toilet room and kitchen in the proposed Range Control Building at the Main Gate 

6 entrance; this facility would be equipped with a septic system, and a leach field would be 

7 installed across the street to receive and filter waste from the septic tank. None of the 

8 Alternative 1 facilities would contain toilet rooms or showers that would require a new 

9 connection to a wastewater treatment facility. The existing septic systems at Camp Michael 

10 Monsoor would remain unchanged. Consequently, Alternative 1 would not impact existing 

11 wastewater treatment facilities. 

12 Construction of Alternative 1 would generate a small quantity of solid waste; construction 

13 waste and debris would be removed from the site by a licensed hauler and disposed of at a 

14 landfill that has sufficient capacity and is authorized to receive such waste. Any hazardous solid 

15 waste encountered during Alternative 1 construction or operations would be characterized and 

16 disposed of as described in Section 3.7.2.1. Solid waste generated by Alternative 1 would not 

17 have a significant impact. 

18 There would be no impact from Alternative 1 on natural gas/petroleum utilities. 

19 Overall, Alternative 1 would have no significant impacts on public services and utilities. 

20 3.8.2.2 Alternative 2 

21 Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the same impacts as those discussed for 

22 Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in no significant impacts on public services 

23 and utilities. 

24 3.8.2.3 No Action Alternative 

25 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and 

26 improvements and expansion to Camp Michael Monsoor would not take place. The existing 

27 conditions for public services and utilities would not change; therefore, the No Action Alternative 

28 would have no significant impacts on public services and utilities. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-93

1 3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

2 The following discussion is based on a review of applicable land use plans and policies, 

3 available literature, and existing background data, including, but not limited to, the following 

4 resources: 

5  San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Data Warehouse, 2010 (SANDAG 

6 2010b); 

7  SANDAG Regional Forecasts (SANDAG 2008, 2011a-c); 

8  U.S. Census Bureau 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010b); and, 

9  La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final Environmental Assessment (Navy 

10 2008). 

11 3.9.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 

12 This section discusses existing conditions for population, housing, employment, minority 

13 population trends, income, and environmental justice for children within the project area. 

14 3.9.1.1 Population 

15 The project area is located near La Posta, California, between Interstate 8 and State 

16 Route 94, which is within the southeastern unincorporated portion of San Diego County. San 

17 Diego County has been divided into six major statistical areas and 41 subregional areas. The 

18 project area is within East County Major Statistical Area (MSA) 6 and Mountain Empire 

19 Subregional Area (SRA) 62 (Figure 3.9-1). 

20 MSA 6 has 11 different SRAs and is the second largest MSA in the county. SRAs in San 

21 Diego County are based on census tracts and approximate Health and Human Service Agency 

22 region boundaries in order to represent small, community-level geographic units. The project 

23 area is within U.S. Census Tract 211, which is the tract that was used to establish SRA 62 (U.S. 

24 Census Bureau 2010b). Table 3.9-1 presents total 2010 population statistics, as well as 

25 population projections for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050, and the percent change for these 

26 statistical areas. As shown in Table 3.9-1, the total county population is projected to increase 

27 42 percent from 2010 to 2050. MSA 6 is estimated to experience a greater increase 

28 (71 percent) as is SRA 62 (59 percent). 

29 
San Diego County

P a c i f i c

O c e a n

M E X I C O M E X I C O

Riverside County

Imperial County

Figure 3.9-1

Demographic Regions

San Diego County, California

Path: O:\NAVFAC SW Camp Monsoor\06 Figures\050213\Monsoor_3_9-1_071213.mxd

Ç 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles

Source- ESRI (2010)

Navy-Managed Property Tract 211 / SRA 62

MSA 6
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-95

Table 3.9-1 Population and Estimated Growth for San Diego County and Areas 

near the Project Area 

Statistical Area 20101 2020 2030 2040 2050

2010-2050 

Change

San Diego County 3,095,313 3,131,552 3,870,000 4,163,688 4,384,867 42%

MSA 6 23,574 25,993 31,063 35,861 40,427 71%

SRA 62 7,589 7,122 9,012 10,657 12,079 59%

Sources: SANDAG 2011a, b, c 

Note: 

1

 From 2010 Census 

1 

2 3.9.1.2 Housing 

3 According to the 2010 Census, the housing stock in San Diego County was 1,164,786 

4 units. The largest portion of the total housing stock in 2010 was composed of single-family units 

5 (51 percent). In addition, multi-family units accounted for 36 percent of the housing stock in the 

6 county. As shown in Table 3.9-2, the number of housing units for the county is estimated to 

7 increase 31 percent from 2010 to 2050. A much greater increase (66 percent) is projected for 

8 MSA 6 over the same period. SRA 62 is estimated to experience an increase, as well 

9 (40 percent). 

Table 3.9-2 Total Housing Units and Estimated Growth for San Diego County 

and Areas near the Project Area 

Statistical Area 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

2010-2050 

Change

San Diego County1 1,164,786 1,262,488 1,369,807 1,457,545 1,529,090 31%

MSA 6 11,732 12,574 14,954 17,162 19,490 66%

SRA 62 3,3761 3,143 3,997 4,640 5,273 40%

Sources: SANDAG 2011a, b, c; 2010a 

Note: 

1

 From 2010 Census 

10 

11 Approximately 32 percent of the population, or 2,442 of the 7,589 people, who live in 

12 SRA 62 live in rented housing units, and 64 percent (4,841 people) of the total population live in 

13 owned housing units. Of the total 3,376 housing units available, 732 units were available for 

14 either sale or rent at the time the 2010 U.S. Census was taken. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-96

1 3.9.1.3 Employment 

2 The economy of the San Diego region is primarily based on the service, retail trade, 

3 government, and manufacturing sectors. As of January 2012, the county average 

4 unemployment rate was 9.3 percent, slightly below the state rate of 10.9 percent (State of 

5 California Economic Development Department 2012). 

6 The estimated total employment for San Diego County, MSA 6, and SRA 62 is shown in 

7 Table 3.9-3. The estimated total employment for the county is estimated to increase 8 percent 

8 from 2008 to 2020. MSA 6, which includes the project area, has a projected increase of 2 

9 percent. SRA 62 is projected to have an increase of 1 percent. 

Table 3.9-3 Total Employment and Estimated Growth for San 

Diego County and Areas near the Project Area 

Statistical Area 2008 2020

2008-2020 

Change

San Diego County1 1,501,080 1,619,615 8% 

MSA 6 7,725 7,909 2% 

SRA 62 2,182 2,201 1% 

Sources: SANDAG 2011a, b, c 

Note: 

1

 From 2010 Census 

10 

11 The unemployment rate in SRA 62 relative to the San Diego County is lower; 

12 unemployment in SRA 62 is 7 percent, and in San Diego County the unemployment rate is 

13 7.8 percent. However, while San Diego County has a steady unemployment rate (an average of 

14 6.4 percent for populations between 20 to 74 years), the unemployment rates vary considerably 

15 within SRA 62 (i.e., even though the average unemployment rate for those between 20 and 64 

16 years is 5.2 percent, the unemployment rate is much lower for the 25 to 44 year age group [only 

17 1.6 percent] and is also low for those between 65 and 74 years [2.8 percent]). In comparison, 

18 the rate increases in SRA 62 for the 55 to 64 year age group (9.6 percent), while it remains 

19 steady at 6.5 percent within San Diego County. SRA 62’s young professionals (20 to 24 year 

20 age group) also have a high unemployment rate of 23.9 percent, while the county shows an 

21 11.4 percent unemployment rate for this same group. The population within SRA 62 most likely 

22 to be looking for jobs is the 20 to 24 year age group, in addition to its 55 to 64 year age group 

23 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). 

24 3.9.1.4 Environmental Justice 

25 Executive Order 12898, 59 Federal Register 7629, Federal Action to Address 

26 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, signed in February 

27 1994, directs federal agencies “...to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by 

28 identifying and addressing...disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

29 effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority population and low-income population 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-97

1 in the [U.S.].” The aim of the Executive Order is to prevent low-income and minority populations 

2 from being subjected to disproportionately significant environmental impacts. 

3 The following provides information on the race and ethnicity of populations near the 

4 project area, as well as income levels. The goal is to identify whether there are minority or low5 income populations in the vicinity of the project area. To provide a context for considering these 

6 data, it is appropriate to compare the same categories for the local jurisdiction and larger region. 

7 Therefore, these data provide information on ethnicity and median income for the project area 

8 compared to the local jurisdiction and San Diego County. For this EA, the environmental justice 

9 affected environment is described in terms of minority and low-income populations in MSA 6 

10 and SRA 62. 

11 Minority Population Trends 

12 Table 3.9-4 presents the information on minority populations for San Diego County and 

13 the areas near the project area. As shown in this table, most of the individuals in the 

14 surrounding area are non-minority. MSA 6 and SRA 62 have lower minority population 

15 percentages than the county as a whole. 

Table 3.9-4 Population and Ethnicity for San Diego County and Areas near 

the Project Area 

Race/Ethnicity MSA 61 SRA 62 San Diego County1

White 15,689 4,139 1,500,047

African American 679 172 146,600

American India and Alaska Native 986 313 14,098

Asian 339 57 328,058

Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 54 25 13,504

Other 54 15 6,715

Identified by two or more 519 190 94,943

Hispanic2 6,193 2,678 991,348

Total Population 24,513 7,589 3,095,313

Total Minority 8,824 3,450 1,595,266

Percent Minority 36% 45% 52%

Source: U.S. Census 2010a 

Notes: 

1 From 2010 Census via SANDAG Data Warehouse. 2 The Hispanic category is an ethnic, rather than racial, distinction. These tables, therefore, include only 

non-Hispanic individuals in the black, white, and other categories to avoid double counting. 

16 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-98

1 Median Household Income 

2 Table 3.9-5 presents information on low-income populations for San Diego County and 

3 areas near the project area. As shown, most of the individuals in the surrounding area have an 

4 income less than the county median. The estimated MSA 6 median income ($47,185) and the 

5 SRA 62 median income ($55,484) according to the 2010 U.S. Census are both lower than the 

6 county’s median income ($63,069) (U.S Census Bureau 2012). Additionally, in 2011 (the last 

7 year for which data are available), 14.8 percent of all individuals in San Diego County were 

8 considered below poverty level, an increase of 72,401 additional people below the poverty line 

9 from the previous year (Center for Policy Initiatives 2011). 

Table 3.9-5 Median Household Income for Areas near the 

Project Area as Compared to San Diego County 

Area Median Income

Median Income for 

San Diego County

Percent of County 

Median

MSA 6 $47,185 $63,069 75% 

SRA 62 $55,484 $63,069 88% 

Sources: City Melt 2009; U.S. Census Bureau 2012 

10 

11 3.9.1.5 Environmental Health and Safety Risks to Children 

12 Executive Order 13045, Environmental Health and Safety Risks to Children (62 Federal 

13 Register 1988), was signed in 1997. The policy of the Executive Order states that: 

14 “A growing body of scientific knowledge demonstrates that children may suffer 

15 disproportionately more environmental health risks and safety risks. These risks 

16 arise because: children’s neurological, immunological, digestive, and other bodily 

17 systems are still developing; children eat more food, drink more fluids, and 

18 breathe more air in proportion to their body weight than adults; children’s size 

19 and weight may diminish their protection from standard safety features; and 

20 children’s behavior patterns may make them more susceptible to accidents 

21 because they are less able to protect themselves. Therefore, to the extent 

22 permitted by law and appropriate, and consistent with the agency’s mission, each 

23 federal agency: 

24 (a) shall make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental 

25 health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect 

26 children; and, 

27 (b) ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address 

28 disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health 

29 risks or safety risks.” 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-99

1 Under the definitions provided in Executive Order 13045, covered regulatory actions 

2 include those that may be “economically significant” (under Executive Order 12866) and 

3 “concern an environmental health risk or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may 

4 disproportionately affect children.” Further, Executive Order 13045 defines “environmental 

5 health risks and safety risks” [to] “mean risks to health or to safety that are attributable to 

6 products or substances that the child is likely to come in contact with or ingest (such as the air 

7 we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink or use for recreation, the soil we live on, and 

8 the products we use or are exposed to).” To comply with the Executive Order, this section of the 

9 EA discusses child-specific environmental health risk and safety risk issues associated with the 

10 Proposed Action. 

11 The Children's Environmental Health and Safety Inventory of Research in addition to the 

12 Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children were formed to 

13 recommend strategies for protecting children’s environmental health and safety. Informal guides 

14 are also available to implement the Executive Order. These sources help to summarize likely 

15 sources of environmental health and safety risks to children resulting from project alternatives, 

16 and to characterize the potentially impacted populations. 

17 Census 2010 demographic profiles were obtained from SANDAG for the project area. 

18 Demographic census data are broken down by age into 5-year increments up through age 19 

19 (Table 3.9-6). Because of this presentation of data, in this analysis, “children” are considered to 

20 be persons from the age of birth to 19 years old. 

Table 3.9-6 Age Breakdown for San Diego County and Areas near the Project Area 

Age MSA 61

Percent 

of total 

in MSA 6 SRA 62 

Percent of 

total in 

SRA 62 

San Diego 

County 

Percentage of 

Total in San 

Diego County 

Under 5 975 4% 472 6% 203,426 7%

5 to 9 930 4% 474 6% 194,029 6%

10 to 14 1,178 5% 580 8% 198,716 6%

15 to 19 1,722 7% 615 8% 225,095 7%

20 and older 19,708 80% 5,448 72% 2,274,050 73%

Total 24,513 100% 7,589 100% 3,095,316 100%

Source: U.S. Census 2010a 

Note: 

1 From SANDAG Data Warehouse 2010 Estimates 

21 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-100

1 The project area is located within the Mountain Empire Unified School District. The 

2 closest schools to the project area are Campo Elementary School and Preschool, Clover Flat 

3 Elementary School, Campo High Continuation School, and the Campo Band of Mission Indians. 

4 The nearest school (Campo Elementary School and Preschool) is located at 1654 Buckman 

5 Springs Road, in Campo, California, which is approximately 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) southwest 

6 of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel. 

7 3.9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

8 This section addresses impacts related to population, housing, employment, minority 

9 population trends, income, and environmental justice for children. 

10 3.9.2.1 Alternative 1 

11 Population, Employment, and Housing 

12 Due to the anticipated congressionally mandated 25 percent increase for NSW, there 

13 could be an increase in personnel requiring training at Camp Michael Monsoor. If another SOF 

14 or a non-SOF unit decides to use Camp Michael Monsoor, Alternative 1 would result in an 

15 increase of about 9,000 person days per year. The increase in personnel that would occur 

16 under Alternative 1 is presented in Section 2.2, Description of the Proposed Action and 

17 Alternatives, Table 2-1. Given the relatively small number of transient personnel and the short 

18 duration of their stay, no significant negative socioeconomic impacts would occur in the La 

19 Posta and Campo area economies as a result of implementing Alternative 1. Area populations, 

20 employment, and housing would not be affected by Alternative 1 because personnel and their 

21 families would not be permanently relocating to Camp Michael Monsoor. 

22 Implementing construction for Alternative 1 includes building a CQC structure, a rifle and 

23 shotgun range, pistol ranges, a Range Control Building, reconfiguring and modifications to the 

24 Main Gate, replacing the existing fence along La Posta Road, and upgrades to existing utilities 

25 and erosion control. Construction would likely result in short-term positive impacts from the use 

26 of area facilities including the Golden Acorn Casino, which is owned by the Campo Band of 

27 Kumeyaay Indians, and the purchase of goods and services from the regional economy. 

28 Environmental Justice 

29 The population surrounding the Alternative 1 project area is not considered a minority 

30 population, and the implementation of Alternative 1 would be conducted entirely within the 

31 boundaries of SRA 62. The population in SRA 62 is primarily non-Hispanic white (Table 3.9-4), 

32 and the area has a lower median income than San Diego County as a whole, with higher 

33 poverty levels than the county. However, the location of Alternative 1 would be within areas 

34 designated for military training use and would not be in proximity to any housing areas. 

35 Therefore, there would not be any disproportionately high environmental or health impacts on 

36 low-income or minority populations under Alternative 1. No significant impacts to populations in 

37 the vicinity of the Alternative 1 project area would result from implementation of Alternative 1. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-101

1 Environmental Health and Safety Risks to Children 

2 In SRA 62, 26 percent of the population is considered to be children (i.e., age 19 or 

3 younger). This is similar to the county average of 27 percent children. The nearest school 

4 (Campo Elementary School and Preschool) is located approximately 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) 

5 southwest of the Alternative 1 site. Therefore, there would not be any disproportionate risks to 

6 children. 

7 3.9.2.2 Alternative 2 

8 Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the same impacts as those discussed for 

9 Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in no significant impacts to population, 

10 employment, or housing. In addition, there would not be any disproportionately high 

11 environmental or health impacts on low-income or minority populations, and no disproportionate 

12 risks to children would result from Alternative 2. 

13 3.9.2.3 No Action Alternative 

14 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and 

15 improvements and expansion to Camp Michael Monsoor would not take place. The existing 

16 conditions for socioeconomics would not change, and there would be no significant changes to 

17 population, employment, housing, environmental justice, or risks to children from 

18 implementation of the No Action Alternative. In addition, there would not be any 

19 disproportionately high environmental or health impacts on low-income or minority populations, 

20 and there would be no disproportionate risks to children. 

21 3.10 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

22 The following discussion is based on a review of applicable land use plans and policies, 

23 available literature, and existing background data, including, but not limited, to the following 

24 resources: 

25  SANDAG, San Diego Traffic Forecast 2003-2060 (SANDAG 2008); and, 

26  La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final Environmental Assessment (Navy 

27 2008). 

28 3.10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 

29 This section describes the traffic and circulation conditions that occur within and 

30 adjacent to the project area and, thus, may be directly or indirectly affected by the project. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-102

1 3.10.1.1 Regional Roadways and Circulation 

2 Primary Roadways 

3 The principal east-west routes in the vicinity of the project area are Interstate 8 (the 

4 primary highway between San Diego, California and Yuma, Arizona, that passes north of the 

5 project area) and State Route 94 (the primary road between San Diego and Tecate, California, 

6 which passes south of the project area). La Posta Road, a two-lane rural connector road, 

7 connects Interstate 8 to State Route 94 and runs through the project area (Figure 3.10-1). 

8 According to SANDAG projections, La Posta Road was estimated to have an average daily 

traffic volume of 400 in 2010. This number is projected to increase to 700 by 203020 9 (SANDAG 

10 2008). 

11 Circulation Patterns 

12 La Posta Road provides access to the project area from either Interstate 8 to the north or 

13 State Route 94 to the south. From La Posta Road, the Previously Withdrawn Parcel can be 

14 accessed through a locked gate at the Main Gate. Additional access to Parcel C is via a dirt 

15 road through property owned by the Villarino family. 

16 Project Area Roadways and Circulation 

17 Primary access within the Previously Withdrawn Parcel is via a one-lane paved road 

18 approximately 1.6 miles (2.4 kilometers) in length. The road extends from La Posta Road to the 

19 non-operational satellite dish (Hilltop Complex) where the majority of the facilities are located. 

20 An approximately 2.5-acre (1-hectare) paved area provides parking and controls drainage 

21 around the existing buildings. This one-lane paved road also provides access to the Range 

22 Complex. An existing access road (dirt road) throughout Parcel C was recently upgraded to 

23 install engineering features along the road, such as rock-lined swales and rip-rap. The one-lane 

24 paved access road within the Previously Withdrawn Parcel was widened to install similar 

engineering features. Curves were straightened and culverts and Arizona crossings21 25 were also 

26 installed. Areas where excessive erosion was occurring and areas of steep grade were paved 

27 with concrete. 

28 The La Posta Truck Trail is an unpaved road that extends from La Posta Road towards 

29 the west and provides access to the eastern edge of Parcel C. The La Posta Truck Trail also 

30 continues east through the Villarino family property. 

 

20 Average calculated by taking the projected average daily traffic volume for each segment of La Posta (from 

Interstate 8 to State Route 94) and computing an average of the three average daily traffic volumes provided in 

SANDAG’s forecasts. 

21 An Arizona crossing is a type of road crossing that allows a waterway to run over a road. Man-made Arizona 

crossings include culverts that allow water to pass through a paved roadway. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-103

1 Parcel C can also be accessed from Buckman Springs Road. Buckman Springs Road is 

2 approximately 7 miles (11.3 kilometers) south of Interstate 8 and 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) west of 

3 Parcel C. Buckman Springs Road is intersected by Cameron Truck Trail, which connects to La 

4 Posta Truck Trail. This portion of La Posta Truck Trail provides access to the western side of 

5 Parcel C where some of the proposed ranges and the CQC structure would be built (Figure 

6 3.10-1). 

7 On the southeastern boundary of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel, where Range 110 is 

8 located, there is an access gate off La Posta Road that provides access to a short, unpaved 

9 access road. This access road is north of Campo Truck Trail and leads to Range 110. The 

10 access gate to Range 110 is approximately 5 miles (8 kilometers) south of Interstate 8 and 

11 about 2,500 feet (0.76 kilometer) south of the Main Gate (Figure 3.10-1). 

12 In addition, there are approximately 8 miles (13 kilometers) of unpaved roads and truck 

13 trails that provide access to the more remote areas of the facility. These roads are subject to 

14 severe erosion and washout during heavy rains. The traffic volume is extremely light and 

15 averages less than 10 vehicles per day (Navy 2008). In general, access to the project area is 

16 via dirt roads or trails off of Buckman Springs Road or La Posta Road. 

17 3.10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

18 3.10.2.1 Alternative 1 

19 Construction 

20 For Alternative 1, access to the project area would be primarily from La Posta Road. 

21 Construction traffic would include daily construction crew commutes and trucks bringing 

22 equipment and materials to the sites. Construction under Alternative 1 would take one to six 

23 months to complete, and all workers would commute in carpools. Construction equipment could 

24 include tractors, loaders, backhoes, forklifts, off-highway trucks, and rollers. Given the short 

25 duration of the construction period and the minor amount of equipment and personnel used, 

26 construction traffic would not have a significant impact on the existing traffic and circulation on 

27 La Posta Road or La Posta Truck Trail.

28 Operations 

29 Alternative 1 includes the reconfiguration of the Main Gate to remove traffic queuing 

30 from La Posta Road. Alternative 1 would ease entry to Camp Michael Monsoor and alleviate 

31 potential traffic generated on La Posta Road. The holding space created at the Main Gate would 

32 also increase security, as vehicles would be inspected before proceeding through the second 

33 security gate. This would result in positive impacts to existing traffic and would also improve 

34 security. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to traffic and circulation from 

35 implementation of Alternative 1. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-104

1 Under Alternative 1, it can be assumed that each training group would arrive in a 

2 combination of light autos (vans), light trucks, medium trucks, and light heavy trucks. SEAL 

3 Qualification Training would have the most vehicles (13). During SEAL Qualification Training 

4 and all other training, it is assumed that, upon arrival, all vehicles would remain on Camp 

5 Michael Monsoor and would make one round-trip per week for arrival and departure and to pick 

6 up supplies. This would result in about 122 round-trips (about two round-trips per day), which is 

7 a doubling of the existing traffic volume from units using Camp Michael Monsoor. Additional 

8 traffic on a daily basis would be related to range management and maintenance personnel, 

9 which can be anticipated to be up to 20 round-trips per day. Thus, An additional 20 vehicles per 

10 day could be using La Posta Road for these training events. As a result, there could be a slight 

11 increase in vehicle traffic going to and from the facility. The ranges, CQC structure, and Main 

12 Gate operations would not affect local traffic, and due to the low volume of traffic currently on 

13 roads and the rural nature of the area (low density of inhabited structures in the vicinity of the 

14 installation), implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in a significant impact to traffic and 

15 circulation. 

16 3.10.2.2 Alternative 2 

17 Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the same impacts as those discussed for 

18 Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in no significant impacts to traffic and 

19 circulation. 

20 3.10.2.3 No Action Alternative 

21 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and 

22 improvements and expansion to Camp Michael Monsoor would not take place. The existing 

23 traffic conditions would not change; therefore, there would be no significant changes or impacts 

24 to traffic levels and circulation with implementation of the No Action Alternative. 

25 
Navy-Managed Property

Cameron Truck Trail

La Posta Truck Trail

Interstate 8

State Highway 94

Old Highway 80

Buckman Springs Road

La Posta Road

Figure 3.10-1

Transportation and Traffic

San Diego County, California

Path: O:\NAVFAC SW Camp Monsoor\06 Figures\050213\Monsoor_3_10-1_071213.mxd

Ç 0 0.5 1 Miles

Source- ESRI (2010), NAVFAC SW 2011

Area of Figure

California

San Diego

County

La Posta Road

¬«94

Cameron Truck Trail

Buckman Springs Road

La Posta Truck Trail

§ ̈¦8

£¤80
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-107

1 3.11 VISUAL RESOURCES 

2 The following discussion is based on a review of applicable land use plans and policies, 

3 available literature, and existing background data, including the following resources: 

4  BLM Manual 8431 – Visual Resource Contrast Rating (BLM 1986); 

5  Draft South Coast Resource Management Plan Revision and Draft Environmental 

6 Impact Statement (BLM 2011); 

7  La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final Environmental Assessment (Navy 

8 2008); 

9  Mountain Empire Subregional Plan (County of San Diego 2011a); 

10  Mountain Empire Mobility Element Network Map (County of San Diego 2011b); and, 

11  California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highways Program Map 

12 (Caltrans 2012). 

13 3.11.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

14 Visual resources are defined as the natural and manufactured features that constitute 

15 an area’s scenic qualities. This section describes the existing visual resources on Camp 

16 Michael Monsoor and in the project area. 

17 3.11.1.1 BLM’s Visual Resource Management System 

18 Background 

19 The Federal Land Policy Management Act requires the BLM to protect the quality of 

20 scenic values on public lands (43 U.S.C. Section1701). In order to meet these requirements, 

21 the BLM has developed and uses the Visual Resource Management (VRM) system, which is 

22 an analytical process that identifies, sets, and meets objectives for maintaining scenic values 

23 and visual quality (BLM 2011). This standard protocol is used for the inventory and analysis of 

24 visual resource values. Since the project area is located on BLM land, the BLM’s VRM system 

25 is applicable to this analysis. 

26 The VRM system functions in two ways: first, in the inventory of visual resources; and 

27 second, in their management (BLM 2011). This methodology uses three factors to define the 

28 visual resources in an area: 

29 1. Scenic Quality. Based on features such as vegetation, water, topography, scenery, 

30 human modifications, and scarcity to determine the visual appeal of the area; 

31 2. Viewer Sensitivity. Measures public concern for scenic quality and is determined by 

32 factors such as level of public interest, adjacent land uses, types of users, and others; 

33 and, 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-108

1 3. Viewer Distance Zones. Divided into three zones relative to observation points or 

2 travel routes: 

3  Foreground-Middleground (details within 5 miles [8 kilometers]); 

4  Background (object outlines seen from 15 miles [24 kilometers]); and, 

5  Seldom Seen (beyond the background zone). 

6 VRM Classes 

7 Management objectives for visual resources on BLM land are typically identified through 

8 BLM’s land use planning process and entail classification of the landscape into one of four 

9 VRM classes ranging from Class I, the most restrictive, to Class IV, the least restrictive. The 

10 VRM class objectives are defined as follows (BLM 1986): 

11  Class I Objective. The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the 

12 landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not 

13 preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic 

14 landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. 

15  Class II Objective. The objective to this class is to retain the existing character of the 

16 landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. 

17 Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

18 observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture 

19 found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

20  Class III Objective. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character 

21 of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be 

22 moderate. Management activities may attract attention, but should not dominate the view 

23 of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the 

24 predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

25  Class IV Objective. The objective of this class is to provide for management activities 

26 which require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

27 change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may 

28 dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention; however, every attempt 

29 should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, 

30 minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements. 

31 When a specific project is proposed, the degree of contrast between the proposed 

32 activity and the existing landscape is measured (Contrast Rating). The Contrast Rating process 

33 compares the proposed activity with existing conditions element-by-element (form, line, color, 

34 texture) and feature-by-feature (land/water, surface, vegetation, structures). The Contrast 

35 Rating is compared to the appropriate VRM Class to determine if the level of contrast is 

36 acceptable. If the proposed project exceeds the allowable contrast level, a BLM decision is 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-109

1 made to (1) redesign, (2) abandon or reject, or (3) proceed, but with mitigation measures 

2 stipulated to reduce the levels of impacts. 

3 3.11.1.2 Viewscape 

4 The project area and surrounding public lands are designated by the BLM as VRM 

5 Class III (Hill 2012). The project area is located within eastern San Diego County, in the 

6 Mountain Empire Subregion (County of San Diego 2011a). This area is generally characterized 

7 by steep hills and slopes bisected by narrow ravines and a few broad valleys. The land is 

8 almost completely undeveloped, aside from some rural residential and agricultural land uses. 

9 The general viewscape of the project area consists of rugged, mountainous terrain with 

10 steep slopes, sheer rock cliffs, and frequent rock outcroppings. Camp Michael Monsoor lies 

11 within a series of north-northwest trending mountain ranges, and the elevation of the area 

12 ranges between 3,200 and 4,000 feet (975 and 1,219 meters) above mean sea level. 

13 Vegetation within the project area consists largely of scattered trees (primarily scrub oak), 

14 annual grasslands, chaparral, and sagebrush scrub. No permanent surface water bodies are 

15 located on the property, and the primary form of drainage includes several small canyon 

16 ravines throughout the site that feed into local streams outside of the installation. 

17 The most visually prominent landmark at Camp Michael Monsoor is the non-operational 

18 satellite dish, located on the Hilltop Complex, at an elevation of approximately 3,851 feet (1,174 

19 meters) above sea level. Portions of the satellite dish are visible for many miles outside of the 

20 project area due to its height and its strong contrast in color, form, and texture relative to the 

21 surrounding landscape. 

22 Access to the project area is from La Posta Road via a paved, single-lane road, and 

23 other limited portions of the project area are crossed by unimproved dirt roads. Other land 

24 development features within the Previously Withdrawn Parcel include a 40-acre (16-hectare) 

25 fenced area containing eight buildings (including the non-operational satellite dish) used for 

26 office, classroom, and ready space, a helicopter pad, a general purpose storage area, a paved 

27 access road with a metal gate, and the Range Complex (Navy 2008). 

28 3.11.1.3 Designated Scenic Features 

29 Several features within the region are either designated as scenic by state or local 

30 agencies, or are identified as eligible for designation. According to Caltrans, Interstate 8 is 

31 considered eligible for the State Scenic Highway designation (Caltrans 2012). In addition, there 

32 are three scenic corridors near the project area and identified in the County of San Diego 

33 General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element: 

34  Interstate 8, from State Route 79 east to the Imperial County Line; 

35  Buckman Springs Road, from Lake Morena Drive to State Route 94; and, 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-110

 Old Highway 80, from the Central Mountain Subregion22 1 to Interstate 8 (County of San 

2 Diego 2011a). 

3 The Pacific Crest Trail, a 2,650-mile (4,265-kilometer) national scenic trail that runs 

4 from Mexico to Canada through California, Oregon, and Washington (Pacific Crest Trail 

5 Association 2012), is also located west of the project area near the Morena Reservoir. Table 

6 3.11-1 provides the approximate distance and direction of these designated scenic features 

7 from the project area. These features are shown on Figure 3.11-1. 

Table 3.11-1 Designated Scenic Features 

Scenic Corridor 

Miles (kilometers) From 

Project Area 

Direction From Project Action 

Area 

Interstate 8, from State Route 79 east 

to the Imperial County Line1 2.4 miles (3.9 kilometers) North of Parcel C 

Buckman Springs Road, from Lake 

Morena Drive to State Route 941 2.6 miles (4.2 kilometers) Southwest of the Previously 

Withdrawn Parcel 

Old Highway 80, from the Central 

Mountain Subregion to Interstate 81 1.6 miles (2.5 kilometers) North of Parcel C 

Pacific Crest Trail2 1.9 miles (3.1 kilometers) West of Parcel C 

Sources: 

1

 County of San Diego 2011a 

2

 U.S. Forest Service 2011 

8 

9 3.11.1.4 Visibility from Land Surrounding the Project Area 

10 Land uses surrounding the project area are primarily rural residential or agricultural with 

11 some dispersed recreation (e.g., hiking and biking trails). Due to the distance from established 

12 communities such as Cameron Corners (3.2 miles [5.1 kilometers] southwest) and Campo 

13 (5 miles [8 kilometers]), most of the project area is not visible to nearby residences. Exceptions 

14 are the Microwave Space Relay Station, including the non-operational satellite dish and lights 

15 from the 40-acre (16-hectare) fenced compound, portions of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel, 

16 including the gate, access road, and pump house for the wells, and portions of the Range 

17 Complex (Navy 2008). 

 

22 The Central Mountain Subregion is a geographic area of San Diego located east of Alpine and Ramona, west of 

the Desert Subregion, south of Julian, and north of the Mountain Empire Subregion. Communities located within the 

Central Mountain Subregion include Cuyamaca, Descanso, Guatay, Pine Valley, and Mount Laguna (County of San 

Diego 2012). 
M E X I C O M E X I C O

Figure 3.11-1

Visual Resource Features

San Diego County, California

Path: O:\NAVFAC SW Camp Monsoor\06 Figures\050213\Monsoor_3_11-1_071213.mxd

Ç 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

Source- ESRI (2010), USFS (2009).

Major Roads

Pacific Crest Trail

Navy-Managed Property

Interstate 8 (Highway 79 to Imperial County)

Old Highway 80 (Central Mountain Subregion to Interstate 8)

Buckman Springs Road (Lake Morena Drive to State Route 94)
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-112

1 Views from the Pacific Crest Trail looking north and east towards the La Posta area and 

2 from Interstate 8 looking south towards the same area would generally be dominated by 

3 moderate to steep rocky hill slopes in the foreground and middleground. The color of power line 

4 poles and shrub massing in the area attenuate visual contrast. Adjacent rural ranchlands with 

5 moderate levels of disturbance and structures lie to the east of Camp Michael Monsoor. While 

6 surface disturbances in this setting have the potential to result in high color contrast and attract 

7 attention, the project area is generally surrounded by mountainous topography that screens the 

8 site from view from the Pacific Crest Trail. Motorists traveling east-to-west on Interstate 8 may 

9 experience brief views of the satellite dish as they travel through the area. 

10 Motorists traveling along La Posta Road between Old Highway 80 and State Route 94 

11 may view portions of the project area, where the road parallels the eastern boundary of Camp 

12 Michael Monsoor. This two-lane light collector (County of San Diego 2011b) passes through 

13 areas dominated by chaparral and sage scrub with some oaks. Vegetation found at the 

14 Previously Withdrawn Parcel is similar, creating an appearance of uniform terrain in the 

15 foreground for motorists traveling past Camp Michael Monsoor. While a passersby may 

16 momentarily view Navy facilities, including the access road extending from La Posta Road to 

17 Range 110, the Main Gate entrance, and some structures on the Hilltop Complex (i.e., the 

18 satellite dish), very little else of the installation is visible from this roadway. 

19 Recreation areas near the project area include an unmaintained biking trail north and 

20 west of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel near the La Posta Truck Trail (Mountain Bike Review 

2012), a Class III Trail23 21 along Buckman Springs Road (County of San Diego 2011b), and a 

22 birding area east of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel along La Posta Road (Birding San Diego 

23 County 2012); however, views of the project area are generally obscured from view by the 

24 terrain surrounding Camp Michael Monsoor. 

25 3.11.1.5 Viewer Sensitivity 

26 For this analysis, the sensitivity of viewer groups was considered to identify any 

27 important viewpoints. Scattered rural residences, recreationists (e.g., birders, bicyclists, and 

28 hikers), and motorists traveling along public roads (e.g., La Posta Road, Old Highway 80, and 

29 Interstate 8) may be able to view portions of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcel C. 

30 However, the project area is largely obstructed from public view by mountainous terrain 

31 situated between the viewers and the installation. Further, the closest location from which the 

32 project area may be viewed is La Posta Road, which is only lightly used by recreationists and 

33 motorists. For these reasons, the number of viewers would be low, the frequency of views of 

34 the proposed improvement areas (e.g., Main Gate entrance) would be low, and the duration of 

 

23 Class III trails are bicycle trails that provide for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-113

1 views would be brief. Because of the lack of sensitive receptors, no key observation points 

2 have been identified. 

3 3.11.1.6 Light and Glare 

4 Light sources in the project area consist of lights associated with existing buildings 

5 (administrative) and lighting for safety and security. The lighting is concentrated around the 

6 eight administrative buildings used for office, classroom, and ready space at the Hilltop 

7 Complex. Security lights may be on at night for security or training purposes at the Range 

8 Complex and at the Hilltop Complex (Navy 2008). 

9 Glare is reflective light that can be visually unpleasant or possibly unsafe due to the 

10 potential for temporary “blindness.” Glare is created by light (usually from the sun) bouncing off 

11 of smooth surfaces such as glass, metal, water, or polished stone. Development within the 

12 Previously Withdrawn Parcel consists of buildings and structures that were primarily designed 

13 and constructed for utility, rather than aesthetic, purposes. There is a lack of decorative 

14 surfaces, including those that could cause glare, with the exception of the non-operational 

15 satellite dish. The majority of buildings and structures have non-reflective surfaces; however, 

16 the metal siding used on some of the larger maintenance and storage buildings do have some 

17 potential for minor glare (Navy 2008). 

18 3.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

19 The existing visual quality and viewer sensitivity in the project area provides the baseline 

20 for determining impacts to visual resources from development of elements included in the 

21 Proposed Action. Visual impacts are assessed based on the level of contrast of these elements 

22 with existing conditions (i.e., landscape character and quality) and their visibility and proximity to 

23 sensitive receptors. Visual contrast is assessed based on a proposed action’s contrast in form, 

24 line, color, and texture with landscape features of topography, water, vegetation, and other 

25 structures. Visual sensitivity is based upon the degree of public awareness and concern for 

26 alteration of the existing visual resource. 

27 3.11.2.1 Alternative 1 

28 Alternative 1 would require the construction and operation of facilities in four distinct 

29 areas at Camp Michael Monsoor: 

30  Range Complex; 

31  Main Gate entrance; 

32  Range 110; and, 

33  Parcel C. 

34 No permanent structures would be developed outside of the installation. As described in 

35 Section 3.11.1, the majority of Camp Michael Monsoor is set back from areas containing 

36 sensitive viewers, including established communities, scenic corridors, and recreation areas, 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-114

1 and does not attract or dominate views. The addition of conservation easements by the Navy 

2 would also serve to limit the views of Alternative 1 from the public. 

3 Construction 

4 Short-term impacts to the viewshed in the Alternative 1 area would result from the 

5 presence of large trucks, bulldozers, and other equipment used during project construction. 

6 Primary access to the Alternative 1 area is provided via La Posta Road through the Main Gate 

7 entrance. Drivers on these roadways would be able to see construction vehicles accessing and 

8 exiting the installation; however, construction activities are anticipated to last between one and 

9 six months, and no long-term impacts on visual resources would occur as a result of 

10 construction. Therefore, visual impacts from construction activities would be less than 

11 significant with implementation of Alternative 1. 

12 Operations 

13 Range Complex 

14 Implementation of Alternative 1 would include installation of the following facilities at the 

15 Range Complex: 

16  A new underground water pipeline; and, 

17  Erosion control structures (e.g., revetment). 

18 Because the Range Complex is located near the center of Camp Michael Monsoor and 

19 is largely concealed by the surrounding mountainous terrain, these new features would not be 

20 visible to sensitive viewers. This level of change would result in minimal visual contrast, and 

21 introduction of these elements into the landscape would not dominate the view of the casual 

22 observer. Therefore, visual impacts from operations at the Range Complex would be less than 

23 significant with implementation of Alternative 1. 

24 Main Gate Entrance 

25 To enhance the security of Camp Michael Monsoor, several structures would be 

26 constructed at the Main Gate entrance, including a Range Control Building, a second gate for 

27 the redesigned Main Gate entrance, two concrete block walls, a replacement water tank, and 

28 replacement fencing along La Posta Road. Inspection lights would be placed at the second 

29 gate and the replacement gate for security. Motorists traveling along La Posta Road would be 

30 able to see some of these features from the roadway, particularly the block wall and 

31 replacement fencing. However, military structures (e.g., primary gate and fencing) already at 

32 the Main Gate entrance are similar in scale and composed of similar materials (e.g., metal); this 

33 would limit the overall visual contrast introduced to the viewshed by proposed project 

34 structures. As part of Alternative 1, the area surrounding the Range Control Building would also 

35 be landscaped to blend with the surrounding vegetation. Consequently, the overall visual 

36 change in this area would be minimal to moderate, and the visual impacts from operations at 

37 the Main Gate entrance would be less than significant with implementation of Alternative 1. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-115

1 Range 110 

2 Implementation of Alternative 1 would include reconfiguration of Range 110 and the 

3 existing access road, installation of 10 lights on new poles at Range 110, and installation of six 

4 40-foot-high (12-meter-high) galvanized steel electrical distribution line poles along the northern 

5 side of the existing access road. The distribution line poles would introduce vertical forms with 

6 straight lines and contrasting colors into the viewshed. These poles would be visible to a small 

7 number of sensitive viewers travelling on La Posta Road; however, the frequency and duration 

8 of views would be low. Additionally, the new lights that would be installed as part of Alternative 

9 1 would be oriented towards the interior of the range and away from the roadway, and would 

10 not contribute significantly to light pollution in the area. Lights would be used only when the 

11 range is in use. Consequently, these features would not substantially degrade the existing 

12 visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Visual impacts from operations at 

13 Range 110 would be minimal and less than significant with implementation of Alternative 1. 

14 Parcel C 

15 Implementation of Alternative 1 would include the installation of a rifle range, CQC 

16 structure, shotgun range, training storage, pistol ranges, and temporary and permanent water 

17 wells at Parcel C. The Navy is currently constructing similar structures at Parcel C under 

18 MILCON P-781, including a CQC structure, a Method of Entry structure, shop and logistics 

19 structures, and a water tank; these structures are similar to Alternative 1 structures in terms of 

20 color, line, form, and texture. Additionally, this area is screened from view by mountainous 

21 terrain to the north, west, and east, and would be visible to very few sensitive viewers (e.g., trail 

22 hikers and bikers). Due to the low number of sensitive viewers and low level of contrast with 

23 existing landscape features, no significant long-term change in the visual environment would 

24 occur at Parcel C. Therefore, visual impacts from operations at Parcel C would be minimal and 

25 less than significant with implementation of Alternative 1. 

26 Overall Impact 

27 As noted above, the project area and surrounding public lands are designated by the 

28 BLM as VRM Class III (Hill 2012), where the Visual Management Objective is to partially retain 

29 the existing character of the landscape (BLM 1986). Implementation of Alternative 1 would 

30 result in an overall level of visual contrast to the surrounding landscape that is minimal to 

31 moderate; this would conform to the Visual Management Objective set for the area. Therefore, 

32 implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to visual resources. 

33 3.11.2.2 Alternative 2 

34 With implementation of Alternative 2, the shotgun range would not be constructed. 

35 Impacts from Alternative 2 would be the same or similar to impacts from implementation of 

36 Alternative 1 since there is a low number of sensitive viewers in the area that would be affected 

37 by development at this location. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in 

38 significant impacts to visual resources. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-116

1 3.11.2.3 No Action Alternative 

2 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and 

3 improvements and expansion to Camp Michael Monsoor would not take place. The existing 

4 environment for visual resources would not change; therefore, the No Action Alternative would 

5 have no significant impacts on visual resources. 

6 3.12 WATER RESOURCES AND HYDROLOGY 

7 The following discussion is based on a review of available literature and existing 

8 background data, including, but not limited to, the following resources: 

9  La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Center Final Environmental Assessment (Navy 

10 2008); 

11  San Diego Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (San Diego Integrated 

12 Regional Water Management 2007); and, 

13  Preliminary Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report for the Proposed Action Area 

14 (Merkel and Associates 2012). 

15 3.12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

16 This section describes the water resources that occur within and adjacent to the project 

17 area. For purposes of water resources, this area is defined as the area where permanent 

18 impacts could occur from implementation of the action alternatives. 

19 3.12.1.1 Hydrology 

20 Composed of steep, naturally erosive mountains formed by dynamic geologic forces, the 

21 watersheds surrounding the project area provide a relatively direct delivery system for 

22 precipitation and sediment to reach streams. The project area’s hydrology is influenced by 

23 several factors, including those that are natural (topographic, geologic, climatic, etc.) and human 

24 influenced (land use, etc.). Proper management and stewardship of water resources are 

25 fundamental to natural resource and land use sustainability. 

26 The project area is within the Tijuana Hydrologic Unit. The Tijuana Hydrologic Unit is 

27 drained by Cottonwood and Campo creeks, which are tributaries of the Tijuana River. Runoff is 

28 primarily captured by Morena Reservoir and Barrett Lake on Cottonwood Creek. The Campo 

29 and Cameron hydrologic areas are two of eight hydrologic areas in the Tijuana Hydrologic Unit. 

30 The majority of the project area is in the Campo Hydrologic Area, with a small portion of Parcel 

31 C in the Cameron Hydrologic Area. 

32 The Previously Withdrawn Parcel is part of Naval Base Coronado and, therefore, the 

33 project area is covered by existing stormwater permits. Naval Base Coronado operates under 

34 NPDES Permit No. CA0109185 Order No. R9-2003-0008 and has submitted a Report of Waste 

35 Discharge (Navy 2002b) as part of the requirements for this permit. Stormwater discharges from 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-117

1 Camp Michael Monsoor are non-industrial and are not regulated pursuant to the General 

2 Industrial Storm Water Permit. There are no point source discharges at La Posta. Order No. 

3 R9-2003-0008 does not regulate any discharges from the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training 

4 Facility (Regional Water Quality Control Board 2002). 

5 3.12.1.2 Surface Water Drainage 

6 The project area exists within a Pacific montane environment, characterized by highland 

7 areas below the tree line, with temperatures ranging from below freezing in the winter to greater 

8 than 86°F (30°C) in the summer. Moderate amounts of snowfall are experienced in the winter, 

9 and rainfall averages 20 to 30 inches (51 to 76 centimeters) annually. Surrounding areas in the 

10 lower elevations experience a Mediterranean-type climate with moderate temperatures and 

11 rainfall amounts generally less than 10 to 12 inches (25 to 30 centimeters) per year. Urban 

12 development near and adjacent to the project area can have a dramatic effect on natural 

13 resources. Many stream channels downstream of the project area have been altered through 

14 flow management or channelization, which resulted in a break in the connectivity with natural 

15 streams that previously flowed through towns, cities, and farmland to the Pacific Ocean. Local 

16 flood peaks generally occur during major rainfall events, which threaten life and property during 

17 these periods. Large-scale and high-return-interval floods are associated with major sub-tropical 

18 events just north of the project area. Wildfire-related flood events are exacerbated by the large 

19 amounts of sediment released by the wildfires that “bulk” the flood flow volumes to double or 

20 triple their average volumes (Navy 2008). 

21 In March 2012, field biologists conducted an assessment (USACE Jurisdictional Wetland 

22 Delineation) of streams at Camp Michael Monsoor, the purpose of which was to determine the 

23 presence of wetlands or Waters of the United States under the jurisdiction of the USACE 

24 (Appendix F). The USACE Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation identified two ephemeral streams 

25 that flow through Parcel C as potential Waters of the United States. In addition, there were five 

26 streams and four erosional drainages delineated, including the erosional drainage flowing east 

27 from the Range Complex that is set for repair under the Proposed Action (Merkel and 

28 Associates 2012). These drainages were found to be isolated after going through a culvert 

29 under a railroad track berm south of the Previously Withdrawn Parcel. 

30 3.12.1.3 Water Quality 

31 There are no permanent surface water resources within the project area. The property 

32 drains via ephemeral channels, primarily to the south and west, and ultimately into the Tijuana 

33 River drainage basin. Most water produced in the Cleveland National Forest (adjacent to the 

34 project area to the north) meets or exceeds federal and state water quality standards. 

35 3.12.1.4 Floodplains 

36 Although Federal Insurance Rate Maps for the area were not available, due to the 

37 elevation and topography, it can be assumed that there are no 100-year floodplains within the 

38 project area. 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-118

1 3.12.1.5 Groundwater 

2 Groundwater, the water beneath the earth’s surface, is an integral part of the biological 

3 and physical ecosystem. Groundwater depends on precipitation as its source. Together with 

4 surface water, it defines the water balance within a watershed. It is estimated that the alluvial 

5 deposits that are potential aquifers cover roughly 2 to 3 percent of the Cleveland National Forest 

6 directly adjacent to the project area to the north. The quantity of groundwater available in the 

7 project area is unknown. Groundwater is extracted through springs, horizontal wells, and vertical 

8 wells. In California, the subsurface flow of a stream is considered surface water by the state and 

9 governed by the California State Water Resources Control Board with permitting and regulatory 

10 and statutory adjudicative authority. The right to use groundwater belongs to the overlying 

11 landowner, subject to the right of other landowners to use the same groundwater aquifer (Navy 

12 2008). Numerous wells and springs within the Cleveland National Forest have declining well 

13 levels or have gone dry in recent years, including Palomar horizontal well (spring development), 

14 Japatul Fire Station well, Oasis Spring, Cuyapaipe well, and Alpine Ranger Station well (Navy 

15 2008). Groundwater quality in the project area is generally good. 

16 3.12.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

17 3.12.2.1 Alternative 1 

18 Surface-disturbing activities could increase sedimentation in some surface water 

19 resources; however, the Navy contractor would be required to prepare a SWPPP, as described 

20 in Section 2.6.5.2, to minimize soil erosion. In addition, the implementation of the erosion control 

21 improvements under Alternative 1 would correct many of the erosion problems currently 

22 occurring at Camp Michael Monsoor and would be a beneficial impact. These erosion control 

23 improvements would also help to minimize erosion from construction since they would already 

24 be in place. Alternative 1 would not significantly increase existing groundwater demand or 

25 restrict the development of water sources. 

26 Alternative 1 would include the installation of a water line and well in Parcel C which 

27 would increase the water supply available at Camp Michael Monsoor. Construction of the rifle 

28 range would occur within a portion of Stream 1 and Stream 2. As a result, Section 401 and 404 

29 permits will be required from USACE and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, 

30 respectively, per the Clean Water Act. No other streams would be affected during construction 

31 or operation of the Alternative 1. Erosion controls would be implemented on the erosional 

32 feature near the Range Complex; however, the natural flow of the stream would not be 

33 interrupted in such a way that would alter the surficial hydrologic regime. Therefore, no 

34 significant impacts to water resources would be anticipated from implementation of Alternative 

35 1. 

36 Implementation of Alternative 1 would involve live-fire operations at the CQC structure 

37 and small arms ranges involving the use of a variety of small arms. Range management 

38 practices would continue to be implemented to ensure the ranges are properly maintained. 

39 Compliance with Range Maintenance Standard Operating Procedure guidelines would ensure 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-119

1 that lead does not migrate off the range site. Based on the continued implementation of 

2 established range management practices, no adverse water resource impacts would occur. 

3 Alternative 1 would not place any restrictions on the development of water sources and 

4 would not contribute to significant impacts to water resources. The Navy would continue to 

5 manage water resources in a manner consistent with state and federal laws and regulations. 

6 Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to water resources and hydrology from 

7 implementation of Alternative 1. 

8 3.12.2.2 Alternative 2 

9 Under Alternative 2, impacts to surface hydrology, water quality, groundwater, and water 

10 supply would not differ from those discussed under Alternative 1; therefore, no significant 

11 impacts to water resources and hydrology would occur with implementation of this alternative. 

12 3.12.2.3 No Action Alternative 

13 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and 

14 improvements and expansion to Camp Michael Monsoor would not take place. The existing 

15 environment for water resources and hydrology would not change. The No Action Alternative 

16 would have no significant impacts on water resources and hydrology. 

17 
Environmental Assessment 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 3-120

1 This page intentionally left blank. 

2 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-1 

4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS 

1 4.1 DEFINITION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

2 The approach taken for this cumulative impacts analysis follows the objectives of NEPA 

3 and CEQ regulations. CEQ regulations require that the analysis of cumulative impacts in an EA 

4 should consider the potential environmental impacts resulting from “the incremental impacts of 

5 the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

6 regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR Part 1508.7). 

7 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 

8 taking place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts may occur when there is a relationship 

9 between a proposed action and other actions that would occur in a similar geographic area or 

10 during a similar time period. Actions overlapping or in proximity to a proposed action can have 

11 more potential for cumulative impacts on “shared resources” than actions that are 

12 geographically separated. Similarly, actions that coincide temporally would tend to offer a higher 

13 potential for cumulative impacts. To the extent that details regarding such actions exist and the 

14 actions have a potential to interact with the Proposed Action outlined in this EA, these actions 

15 are included in the cumulative analysis. 

16 4.2 GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

17 ANALYSIS 

18 Geographic boundaries for analysis of cumulative impacts in this EA vary for different 

19 environmental resources. For example, the affected air basin may be the appropriate 

20 geographic extent for cumulative impacts on air quality, whereas the project area may be the 

21 appropriate boundary for other resources. The cumulative impacts analysis focuses on projects 

22 that directly overlap with the proposed alternatives (i.e., occur in similar locations and potentially 

23 impact similar resources).
Environmental Assessment 4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-2

1 4.3 PAST, ONGOING, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS 

2 Personal communications with NAVFAC Southwest, NSWG-1, and BLM staff assisted in 

3 identifying past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions near Camp Michael Monsoor. 

4 Projects within or in proximity to the project area that could directly or indirectly interact with 

5 Alternatives 1 and 2 are presented in Table 4-1 and are shown on Figure 4-1. These actions, 

6 which are in proximity to Camp Michael Monsoor, are not part of the Proposed Action described 

7 in this EA, nor are they dependent on it. Where applicable, environmental analyses of the other 

8 actions addressed in this section have been, or would be, conducted separately, with the results 

9 of those analyses incorporated into documents prepared specifically for those actions. Past, 

10 present, and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Table 4-1 are described in further detail 

11 below (refer to Sections 4.3.1 through 4.3.8). 

12 
Environmental Assessment 4. Cum

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 4-1 Projects Evaluated for Cumulative Impacts 

Project Name Location Status

Project 

Description 

1. Military Construction Project 

P-781 

Camp Michael Monsoor San Diego County, California 

An EA was completed in 2008. Currently under construction. 

See Section 4.3.1 

2. Demolition of the Existing 

Satellite Dish and Construction of a New Antenna Facility at Camp Michael Monsoor 

Camp Michael Monsoor San Diego County, California 

Environmental Review Status: TBD Demolition: TBD 

See Section 4.3.2 

3. Update of the 2002 Naval Base 

Coronado Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

Naval Base Coronado facilities, including Camp Michael Monsoor San Diego County, California 

An update to the current 2002 Naval Base Coronado Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan is currently in progress. 

See Section 4.3.3 

4. Update of the Naval Base 

Coronado Fire Management Plan 

Naval Base Coronado facilities, including Camp Michael Monsoor San Diego County, California 

A Draft Fire Management Plan is currently being developed. Final Fire Management Plan should be available in 2013 or early 2014. 

See Section 4.3.4 

5. Update of the South Coast

Resource Management Plan 

South Coast Planning Area, including portions of five Southern California counties

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement was completed in 2011. Record of Decision and approved Resource Management Plan should be available in 2013. 

See Section 4.3.5 
Environmental Assessment 4. Cum

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor August 2013 

Table 4-1 Projects Evaluated for Cumulative Impacts 

Project Name Location Status

Project 

Description 

6. Border Patrol Range in 

Boulevard 

North of I-8 in San Diego County, California 

Final Environmental Assessment was completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in February 2010. Construction: To be completed depending on available funding. 

See Section 4.3.6 

7. Old Flying A Ranch/Vincent de 

Paul’s Boys Town (Children’s Village) 

San Diego County, California 

Project approved by the County of San Diego in February 2008. 

See Section 4.3.7 

8. Sunrise Powerlink Transmission 

Line Project 

San Diego and Imperial counties 

Construction began in 2010 and the line went live in June 2012. 

See Section 4.3.8 

Key: TBD = to be determined 

1 
!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

1

2

3 & 4

5

6

7

8

Figure 4-1

Cumulative Projects

San Diego County, California

Path: O:\NAVFAC SW Camp Monsoor\06 Figures\050213\Monsoor_4-1_071213.mxd

Ç

012 3 Miles

Source- ESRI (2010)

La Posta Road

¬«94

§ ̈¦8

£¤80

!( Cumulative Project

Navy-Managed Property

Major Road

Buckman Springs Road
Environmental Assessment 4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-6

1 4.3.1 CONSTRUCTION OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT P-781 

2 FACILITIES AT CAMP MICHAEL MONSOOR 

3 The Navy is currently constructing and plans to operate the La Posta Mountain Warfare 

4 Training Facility project under MILCON P-781 at Camp Michael Monsoor. For this project, 

5 Public Land Order No. 7807 was issued by the BLM on January 17, 2013; this transferred 3,385 

6 acres (1,370 hectares) of public land (encompassing the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and 

7 Parcels C, E, and G) to the Navy for exclusive military use through year 2033 (BLM 2013a). The 

8 project is needed to support military training activities at Camp Michael Monsoor, and allows for 

9 construction and operation of the following training facilities within the transferred lands: 

10  MILCON P-781 CQC structure; 

11  Simulated residence for training; 

12  Logistics and support facilities; and, 

13  Method of Entry structure. 

14 The La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility Final EA was completed by the Navy 

15 for this project in 2008; the BLM issued a Record of Decision for this project in February of 2010 

16 (BLM 2010b). The Navy issued a memo to file in September 2011 covering changes to the 

17 project description. Construction of the project will be completed by 2013. 

18 MILCON P-781 facilities will be located at Camp Michael Monsoor within Parcel C and 

19 the Previously Withdrawn Parcel (Figure 4-1). 

20 4.3.2 INSTALLATION OF A NEW ANTENNA FACILITY AT CAMP MICHAEL 

21 MONSOOR 

22 The non-operational satellite dish, which is located at the Hilltop Complex north of the 

23 ready space at Camp Michael Monsoor, is currently off-limits for safety reasons. Consequently, 

24 demolition of the old satellite dish is under discussions, and the Navy may construct and 

25 operate a new antenna tower in the existing border patrol parking area at Camp Michael 

26 Monsoor. The new tower would be constructed as an interim step prior to the Navy’s demolition 

27 of the satellite dish for use by the Army and National Guard. The footprint of the new tower 

28 would occupy an approximately 100-square-foot (9-square-meter) area and would be located on 

29 previously disturbed land (Figure 4-1).

30 4.3.3 UPDATE OF THE 2002 NAVAL BASE CORONADO INTEGRATED NATURAL 

31 RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 

32 Two separate INRMPs are used to manage Naval Base Coronado’s complex natural 

33 resources: the 2002 Naval Base Coronado INRMP, and the San Clemente Island INRMP. The 

34 INRMPs provide for natural resource conservation, rehabilitation, and management in a manner 

35 consistent with military missions at Naval Base Coronado. Camp Michael Monsoor is a facility 
Environmental Assessment 4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-7

1 that falls under the jurisdiction of Naval Base Coronado, and the 2002 Naval Base Coronado 

2 INRMP applies to Camp Michael Monsoor. The INRMP summarizes baseline conditions at 

3 Naval Base Coronado and agreements through which compliance with regulatory and planning 

4 processes are accomplished. The INRMP provides technical guidance for the planning and 

5 preparation of installation approvals, management actions, orders, instructions, guidelines, 

6 standard operating procedures, and other plans for integrating natural resource management 

7 efforts into the decision-making process. The 2002 Naval Base Coronado INRMP is currently 

8 being revised and updated to address the changing needs for natural resources protection at 

9 Naval Base Coronado installations. 

10 4.3.4 UPDATE OF THE NAVAL BASE CORONADO FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

11 The Naval Base Coronado Fire Management Plan, which shapes fire-related policy, 

12 management, and related decisions at Naval Base Coronado facilities, including Camp Michael 

13 Monsoor, is being updated. The core elements of the Fire Management Plan include a Fire 

14 Danger Rating System, which is the first line of defense to prevent ignitions in conditions where 

15 suppression is difficult. Suppression assets are staged at increasing states of readiness as fire 

16 danger increases. The use of incendiary ordnance is conditioned upon appropriately staged 

17 suppression response teams. Other elements of the core strategy include prevention, fuels 

18 management, rapid-attack suppression, and burned habitat re-evaluation thresholds. These 

19 thresholds are proposed to manage the risks of extreme fire scenarios, which may be 

20 catastrophic to individual species, and NAVFAC’s overall goals of fire protection and natural 

21 resource protection at Naval Base Coronado facilities, including Camp Michael Monsoor. The 

22 Fire Management Protection Plan’s primary purpose is to provide for a full and complete range 

23 of training opportunities for military users, while complying with environmental laws and 

24 achieving sustainable ecosystem management. 

25 4.3.5 UPDATE OF THE SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

26 The 1994 South Coast Resource Management Plan provides guidance for the 

27 management of approximately 300,000 acres (121,405 hectares) of BLM-administered public 

28 lands in the South Coast Planning Area, which include portions of five Southern California 

29 counties: San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles (BLM 1994); this 

30 area also includes Camp Michael Monsoor. Currently, the Palm Springs-South Coast Field 

31 Office is preparing a revised Resource Management Plan for the South Coast Planning Area 

32 and an associated EIS to reflect the changed needs of the planning area. A Proposed Plan and 

33 Record of Decision is expected in 2013 (Hill 2012). Once adopted, the revised Resource 

34 Management Plan will replace the 1994 plan (BLM 2011).

35 4.3.6 BORDER PATROL RANGE IN BOULEVARD 

36 A new border patrol facility is proposed on the east side of Ribbonwood Road, just north 

37 of Interstate 8, in San Diego County, California. The project proposes construction, operation, 

38 and maintenance of an administration building, educational facility, detention center, 
Environmental Assessment 4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-8

1 maintenance garage, dog kennels, equine facilities, emergency helipad, a 160-foot (49-meter) 

2 communications tower, an indoor shooting range, and security fencing and lighting on a 32-acre 

3 (29-hectare) site (U.S. Customs and Border Protection 2009). A Final EA was prepared for this 

4 project by the USACE in February 2010, and construction is dependent on funding availability. 

5 The proposed project will be located approximately 9 miles (14.5 kilometers) east of 

6 Camp Michael Monsoor (Figure 4-1). 

7 4.3.7 OLD FLYING A RANCH/VINCENT DE PAUL’S BOYS TOWN (CHILDREN’S 

8 VILLAGE) 

9 The Children’s Village project will convert a former working cattle ranch in Campo (the 

10 Flying A Ranch) into a foster home for boys and girls. The project will be built on 118 acres (48 

11 hectares) off Lake Morena Drive in the East County backcountry. The Children’s Village will 

house 200 children in kindergarten through 12th 12 grade, as well as staff members and their 

13 families. The project will include 25 residences, a school, a dining hall, a gymnasium, and a 

14 540-seat chapel. About two-thirds of the property will remain open space and ranch land to keep 

15 the area's rural character intact, and geese, horses, and livestock will remain on the property. 

16 The project was approved by San Diego County in February 2008. 

17 The project will be located 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) west-southwest of Camp Michael 

18 Monsoor (Figure 4-1). 

19 4.3.8 SUNRISE POWERLINK TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 

20 SDG&E has recently constructed a new, 90-mile (145-kilometer), 500-kV transmission 

21 line from Imperial Valley Substation (in Imperial County, near the City of El Centro) to a new 

22 Suncrest Substation (near Alpine, California), and a new 27-mile (43-kilometer) 230-kV 

23 transmission line that includes both overhead and underground segments from the new 

24 Suncrest Substation to the existing Sycamore Canyon Substation (near Marine Corps Air 

25 Station Miramar). A Final Environmental Impact Report/EIS was prepared by the California 

26 Public Utilities Commission and the BLM, and was released to the public on October 13, 2008. 

27 The Commission voted on December 18, 2008 to approve the Final Environmentally Superior 

28 Southern Route, and the BLM issued a Record of Decision approving the same route in January 

29 2009 (BLM 2012c). Construction activities began in September 2010 and were completed in 

30 June 2012. 

31 The project is located in Parcel C north and west of the project area facilities at Camp 

32 Michael Monsoor (Figure 4-1). 
Environmental Assessment 4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-9

1 4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS 

2 This section addresses the potential impacts of implementing the action alternatives in 

3 combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The potential impacts 

4 resulting from implementation of the alternatives are associated with construction, rather than 

5 the operational phase; therefore, potential impacts would be localized and short-term in 

6 duration. Cumulative impacts for all resources presented in Chapter 3 are discussed in the 

7 following subsections.

8 4.4.1 AIR QUALITY 

9 Implementation of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would result in minor, local and regional 

10 increased emissions of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases. 

11 The geographic extent for cumulative impacts on air quality is defined as the San Diego 

12 Air Basin, which covers the same area as San Diego County, California, and is under the 

13 jurisdiction of the San Diego APCD. The San Diego Air Basin currently meets the federal 

14 standards for all criteria pollutants except O3 for the 8-hour standard, and meets state standards 

15 for all criteria pollutants except O3, PM2.5, and PM10. The San Diego Air Basin is classified as a 

16 “marginal” nonattainment area for O3. Construction would result in emissions of O3, PM2.5, and 

17 PM10. However, as shown in Table 3.1-4, the total estimated construction emissions subject to 

18 General Conformity applicability would be less than the applicable de minimis thresholds for 

19 CO, VOCs, and NOX, and less than 10 percent of the regional emissions budget for those 

20 pollutants. In addition, construction emissions would be short-term. 

21 Operational emissions would also result in emissions of O3, PM2.5, and PM10. While 

22 these emissions would be long-term, the total estimated operation emissions subject to General 

23 Conformity applicability would be less than the applicable de minimis thresholds for CO, VOCs, 

24 and NOX, and less than 10 percent of the regional emissions budget for those pollutants as 

25 shown in Table 3.1-5. 

26 Implementation of the projects listed in Table 4-1 would require compliance with Clean 

27 Air Act and state air quality permitting requirements. Construction of several cumulative projects 

28 (e.g., MILCON P-781, the Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Line Project, and the Border Patrol 

29 Range in Boulevard) would be completed by the time construction of Alternative 1 or Alternative 

30 2 would begin, and only minor air emissions from vehicle use would occur during operation and 

31 maintenance of related facilities. Construction of the New Antenna Facility at Camp Michael 

32 Monsoor would occur in a previously disturbed area sometime after Alternative 1 or Alternative 

33 2 is constructed and would generate minor air emissions. Updates to the 2002 Naval Base 

34 Coronado INRMP and Fire Management Plan and BLM’s South Coast Resource Management 

35 Plan would not result in new air emissions. 

36 Implementation of mitigation measures by the Navy, as part of its comprehensive air 

37 quality management program (e.g., fugitive dust control measures and maintenance, and 
Environmental Assessment 4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-10

1 compliance with state and federal requirements for combustion engines), would ensure that air 

2 emissions from Alternatives 1 and 2 would be minor. Therefore, since emissions from the 

3 identified cumulative projects in Table 4-1 would also comply with applicable federal and state 

4 requirements, there would be no significant cumulative impacts to air quality resulting from 

5 implementation of any of the alternatives. 

6 In response to U.S. Department of Defense directives, such as Executive Order 13221, 

7 Energy Efficient Standby Power Devices, and Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal 

8 Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management, the Navy has taken a number of steps 

9 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These actions include developing technologies and 

10 improving weapons systems, improving military and civilian truck efficiency, utilizing alternative 

11 fuel vehicles and electric vehicles, improving energy efficiency at Navy facilities, and installing 

12 solar panels and other renewable energy sources at Navy facilities.

13 The potential impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are, by nature, global and 

14 cumulative, as individual sources of greenhouse gas emissions are not large enough to have an 

15 appreciable impact on global climate change. An impact on global climate change would only 

16 occur when greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project alternatives are combined 

17 with greenhouse gas emissions from other man-made activities on a global scale. 

18 As described in Section 3.1.2, climate change reported for the State of California are 

19 approximately 427 million metric tons, and the project’s emissions would be less than 0.01 

20 percent of the statewide total. Therefore, when added to the minor impacts from the identified 

21 cumulative projects, no significant cumulative impacts to climate change would result from 

22 implementation of any of the alternatives. 

23 4.4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

24 The geographic extent for cumulative impacts on biological resources is defined as the 

25 project area and adjacent parcels at Camp Michael Monsoor (Parcels A, B, F, E, and G). 

26 Implementation of Alternative 1 or 2 would result in localized disturbances at Camp Michael 

27 Monsoor, including permanent impacts during construction from grading to 31.62 acres (12.79 

28 hectares) and temporary impacts to 7.66 acres (3.09 hectares) of habitat that would result from 

29 the removal of vegetation and the construction of proposed facilities at the Previously 

30 Withdrawn Parcel and Parcel C. Implementation of Alternative 1 or 2 would have no impact on 

31 federally listed plant species. Impacts to non-federally listed plant species and rare plant 

32 communities would include removal of dark-tip bird’s beak, sticky geraea, Ramona spineflower, 

33 and white snapdragon for the grading and construction of Alternative 1 or 2. 

34 During operations, impacts to plant communities would include potential erosion, storm 

35 water pollution, dust, and trampling due to foot and vehicle traffic. The project area, however, is 

36 already used by the Navy for training activities. 
Environmental Assessment 4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-11

1 Implementation of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 could result in incidental take of QCB. 

2 Potential impacts could be temporary or permanent. It is likely that there is a stable population 

3 QCB in or near the project area because of the presence of QCB host and nectar plants and the 

4 observation of butterflies at multiple sites in 2004 and 2010. The number of QCB subject to take 

5 would depend on the density of butterflies in the project area; however, no QCB were observed 

6 during the 2006, 2007, or 2008 surveys, and only three extremely worn adults were observed 

7 during the 2010 QCB survey (RECON 2006, RECON 2007, ICF International 2010). 

8 Implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2 may result in effects to QCB at the individual 

9 level, but the observance or detection of mortality is highly unlikely because of the small body 

10 size and diapause life stage. The effect on the QCB’s regional population is unknown because 

11 of the lack of data. Implementation of Alternative 1 or 2 would permanently remove 21.54 acres 

12 (8.7 hectares) of non-excluded QCB habitat. With implementation of pre-construction QCB 

13 surveys and the special conservation and construction measures agreed upon with USFWS and 

14 described in Section 2.6.3, there would be no adverse impacts to QCB during the construction 

15 phase. Implementation of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would result in vegetation impacts to 

16 39.28 acres (15.89 hectares) of QCB habitat. Based on the minimal amount of habitat removal 

17 when compared to available habitat for this species, no significant impacts would occur to QCB 

18 during operation of the Alternative 1 or Alternative 2.

19 Implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures for biological resources, as 

20 described in Section 2.6, would minimize potential impacts to nesting birds that are protected by 

21 the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or listed under the Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, the 

22 update and implementation of regional resource management plans, including the Naval Base 

23 Coronado INRMP and Fire Management Plan and the BLM’s South Coast Resource 

24 Management Plan, would have beneficial impacts on the QCB and its habitat and would partially 

25 offset cumulative impacts in the region. The projects listed in Table 4-1 have undergone or are 

26 undergoing separate environmental reviews under NEPA and the Endangered Species Act 

27 which will ensure that consultation with USFWS has occurred/would occur and that impacts to 

28 sensitive biological resources (i.e., the QCB and its occupied habitat) would be avoided, 

29 minimized, and/or compensated, to the extent practicable. Additionally, the acquisition of 

30 conservation easements around Parcel C and the Previously Withdrawn Parcel would serve to 

31 protect QCB habitat in the surrounding areas. 

32 In addition, construction of the New Antenna Facility at Camp Michael Monsoor would 

33 occur in a previously disturbed area and would not affect biological resources. Updates to the 

34 2002 Naval Base Coronado INRMP and BLM’s South Coast Resource Management Plan would 

35 not result in impacts to any biological resources. However, updates to the Fire Management 

36 Plan would likely result in some vegetation removal. This may actually be a benefit to QCB 

37 habitat. QCB habitat generally consists of low growing habitat, such as sub-shrubs and annuals, 

38 which may benefit from some minor, designed vegetation disturbance. Also, the Fire 
Environmental Assessment 4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-12

1 Management Plan would reduce the potential for large, catastrophic fires, which would result in 

2 far more damage to biological resources. 

3 When added to the minor impacts from the identified cumulative projects, no significant 

4 cumulative impacts to biological resources would result from implementation of any of the 

5 alternatives. 

6 4.4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

7 The geographic extent for cumulative impacts on cultural resources is defined as the 

8 Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcel C. None of the cultural resources within the area of 

9 potential effect are recommended to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; 

10 therefore, these resources do not qualify as historic properties. There would be no impacts to 

11 cultural resources and no cumulative impact to cultural resources from implementation of any of 

12 the alternatives. 

13 4.4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

14 The geographic extent for cumulative impacts on geology and soils is defined as the 

15 Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcel C. Potential impacts to geology and soils from the 

16 alternatives would be limited to ground disturbance in areas of construction, off-road vehicle 

17 use, or increased intensity of training activities during operations. Construction activities can 

18 disturb soils, which could result in increased erosion. However, the geologic impacts would not 

19 be significant because only 31.62 acres (12.79 hectares) of permanent ground surface 

20 disturbance would occur and avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented 

21 (e.g., best management practices discussed in Section 2.6.5.2). All soil excavated for the 

22 realignment of Range 110 would be used at Range 110, and no export or import of material 

23 would be required. Construction of the New Antenna Facility at Camp Michael Monsoor would 

24 occur in a previously disturbed area would not affect geology and soils. Updates to the 2002 

25 Naval Base Coronado INRMP and Fire Management Plan and BLM’s South Coast Resource 

26 Management Plan would not result in impacts to geology and soils. In addition, the 

27 implementation of the erosion control improvements at Range 110 and the Range Complex 

28 would correct many of the erosion problems currently being experienced by Camp Michael 

29 Monsoor and would be a beneficial impact. These erosion control improvements would also 

30 help to minimize erosion that could occur from construction, since the improvements would 

31 already be in place. This, coupled with the relatively low rainfall in the region, would make the 

32 rate of water erosion minimal. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact to geology and 

33 soils from implementation of any of the alternatives. 

34 Under Alternatives 1 and 2, no impacts would occur from seismic hazards or other 

35 geologic hazards, as facilities and structures are small and are un- or intermittently staffed and 

36 unlikely to sustain significant damage or cause injury to the occupants. Therefore, there would 

37 be no cumulative impact from seismic or geologic hazards from implementation of any of the 

38 alternatives. 
Environmental Assessment 4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-13

1 4.4.5 LAND USE 

2 The geographic extent for cumulative impacts on land use is defined as the Previously 

3 Withdrawn Parcel and Parcel C. The project alternatives would be compatible with existing and 

4 planned land uses in the area; therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impacts to 

5 land use from implementation of any of the alternatives. 

6 4.4.6 NOISE 

7 The geographic extent for cumulative impacts on noise is defined as the project area 

8 and adjacent parcels at Camp Michael Monsoor (Parcels A, B, F, E, and G). Projects listed in 

9 Table 4-1 would not occur in the same geographic area. Temporary construction noise 

10 associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in any permanent increase over existing 

11 ambient noise levels at Camp Michael Monsoor. Construction of several cumulative projects 

12 (e.g., MILCON P-781, the Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Line Project, and the Border Patrol 

13 Range in Boulevard) would be completed by the time construction would begin. Construction of 

14 the New Antenna Facility at Camp Michael Monsoor would occur sometime after the chosen 

15 alternative is constructed and would result in minor noise impacts. Updates to the 2002 Naval 

16 Base Coronado INRMP and Fire Management Plan and BLM’s South Coast Resource 

17 Management Plan would not result in new noise impacts. 

18 Operations would result in minimal noise. Cumulative noise sources in this area would, 

19 therefore, include intermittent weapons firing at Camp Michael Monsoor, traffic noise generated 

20 by vehicles traveling on La Posta Road, aircraft flyover (non-Navy aircraft), and agricultural 

21 operations. Operations would require weapons firing at Camp Michael Monsoor, which would 

22 generate noise on the site; however, the actual noise levels at the nearest residence from 

23 weapons firing activities would be approximately 30 dBA Leq, which would not substantially 

24 increase nighttime or daytime ambient noise levels over current conditions. Therefore, 

25 implementation of any of the alternatives, in conjunction with other past, present, and 

26 reasonably foreseeable projects in the area, would not result in significant cumulative noise 

27 impacts. 

28 4.4.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

29 The geographic extent for cumulative impacts on public health and safety is defined as 

30 the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcel C. No impacts to public health and safety were 

31 identified; therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts to public health and safety from 

32 implementation of any of the alternatives. 

33 4.4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 

34 The geographic extent for cumulative impacts on public services and utilities is defined 

35 as the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcel C. Small quantities of water would be required 

36 during construction of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 for slope dampening and for dust control at 

37 the pistol and rifle ranges. Small quantities of water would also be used during Alternative 1 or 
Environmental Assessment 4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-14

1 Alternative 2 operations for landscaping maintenance purposes (to water drought-tolerant native 

2 species). Groundwater usage would be minimal (Payne 2012). 

3 There would be no impact from the alternatives on natural gas/petroleum utilities or solid 

4 waste services. 

5 Overall, the potentially cumulative projects and Alternatives 1 and 2 would each have 

6 only minor impacts to public services and utilities. Therefore, implementation of the alternatives 

7 would not have significant cumulative impacts to public services and utilities. 

8 4.4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

9 The geographic extent for cumulative impacts on socioeconomics is defined as the East 

10 County MSA 6 and Mountain Empire SRA 62. No adverse socioeconomic impacts from the 

11 alternatives were identified. There would not be any disproportionately high environmental or 

12 health impacts on low-income or minority populations under the alternatives. No significant 

13 impacts to populations in the nearby area would result from implementation of the alternatives; 

14 therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts to socioeconomics from implementation of any 

15 of the alternatives. 

16 4.4.10 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

17 The geographic extent for cumulative impacts on traffic and circulation is defined as 

18 Interstate 8 (the primary highway between San Diego, California and Yuma, Arizona, that 

19 passes north of the project area) and State Route 94 (the primary road between San Diego and 

20 Tecate, California, which passes south of the project area). La Posta Road, a two-lane rural 

21 connector road, connects Interstate 8 to State Route 94 and runs through the project area. 

22 Construction under Alternatives 1 and 2 would take one to six months to complete, and all 

23 workers would commute in carpools. Construction equipment could include tractors, loaders, 

24 backhoes, forklifts, off-highway trucks, and rollers. Given the short duration of the construction 

25 period and the minor amount of equipment and personnel used, construction traffic would not 

26 have a significant impact on the existing traffic on La Posta Road or La Posta Truck Trail. 

27 Additionally, construction of several cumulative projects (e.g., MILCON P-781, the Sunrise 

28 Powerlink Transmission Line Project, and the Border Patrol Range in Boulevard) would be 

29 completed by the time construction of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would begin. Updates to the 

30 2002 Naval Base Coronado INRMP and Fire Management Plan and BLM’s South Coast 

31 Resource Management Plan would not result in impacts to traffic and circulation. 

32 Alternatives 1 and 2 would allow SOF or non-SOF units to use the rifle, shotgun, and 

33 pistol ranges and the CQC structure for training. This could result in an additional 120 personnel 

34 conducting training at Camp Michael Monsoor up to four times per year, or up to 12 additional 

35 days per year. An additional 20 vehicles per day could be using La Posta Road for these 

36 training events. As a result, there could be a slight increase in vehicle traffic going to and from 
Environmental Assessment 4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-15

1 the facility. However, construction of several cumulative projects (e.g., MILCON P-781, the 

2 Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Line Project, and the Border Patrol Range in Boulevard) would 

3 be completed by the time project operations would begin. Updates to the 2002 Naval Base 

4 Coronado INRMP and Fire Management Plan and BLM’s South Coast Resource Management 

5 Plan would not result in impacts to traffic and circulation. Therefore, there would be no 

6 cumulative impact to traffic and circulation from implementation of any of the alternatives. 

7 4.4.11 VISUAL RESOURCES 

8 The geographic extent for cumulative impacts on visual resources is defined as the 

9 Previously Withdrawn Area and Parcel C as well as surrounding public lands. Short-term 

10 impacts to the viewshed in the Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 area would result from the presence 

11 of large trucks, bulldozers, and other equipment used during project construction. Construction 

12 of several cumulative projects (e.g., MILCON P-781, the Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Line 

13 Project, and the Border Patrol Range in Boulevard) would be completed by the time 

14 construction of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would begin. Construction of the New Antenna 

15 Facility at Camp Michael Monsoor would occur in a previously disturbed area sometime after 

16 Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 is constructed. Updates to the 2002 Naval Base Coronado INRMP 

17 and Fire Management Plan and BLM’s South Coast Resource Management Plan would not 

18 result in visual impacts. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts to visual resources 

19 from implementation of any of the alternatives. 

20 4.4.12 WATER RESOURCES AND HYDROLOGY 

21 The geographic extent for cumulative impacts on water resources and hydrology is the 

22 Tijuana Hydrologic Unit. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, surface-disturbing activities could increase 

23 sedimentation in some surface water resources; however, the Navy contractor would be 

24 required to prepare a SWPPP, as described in Section 2.6.5.2, to minimize soil erosion. In 

25 addition, the implementation of the erosion control improvements under Alternatives 1 and 2 

26 would correct many of the erosion problems currently occurring at Camp Michael Monsoor and 

27 would be a beneficial impact. These erosion control improvements would also help minimize 

28 erosion from construction since the improvements would already be in place. Alternatives 1 and 

29 2 would not significantly increase existing groundwater demand or restrict the development of 

30 water sources. These alternatives would include the installation of a water line and well in 

31 Parcel C which would increase the water supply available at Camp Michael Monsoor. 

32 Construction of the rifle range would occur within a portion of Stream 1 and Stream 2. As a 

33 result, Section 401 and 404 permits would be required from USACE and the Regional Water 

34 Quality Control Board, respectively, per the Clean Water Act. No other streams would be 

35 affected during construction or operation of the Proposed Action. Erosion controls would be 

36 implemented on the erosional feature near the Range Complex; however, the natural flow of the 

37 stream would not be interrupted in such a way that would alter the surficial hydrologic regime. 

38 Only minor impacts to water resources would result from the potentially cumulative projects and 
Environmental Assessment 4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 4-16

1 Alternatives 1 and 2; therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impacts to surface 

2 water resources and hydrology from implementation of any of the alternatives. 

3 4.5 CONCLUSION 

4 The projects listed in Table 4-1 would only result in minor impacts to the environment. 

5 Appropriate regulatory requirements and conservation measures would be applied during 

6 proposed construction activities and would partially offset impacts. Not all of the projects would 

7 occur simultaneously or in the same geographic boundary. When viewed collectively, there is 

8 nothing inherently incompatible between these projects and the alternatives proposed for Camp 

9 Michael Monsoor, nor is there anything to indicate that the alternatives proposed for Camp 

10 Michael Monsoor would exacerbate or otherwise collectively increase the potential for impacts 

11 to the environment. Therefore, based on current information, implementation any of the 

12 alternatives for Camp Michael Monsoor would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts. 

13 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 5-1 

5 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS 

1 This chapter addresses additional considerations required by NEPA, including: 

2  Possible conflicts between the alternatives and the objectives of federal, regional, state, 

3 and local plans, policies, and controls; 

4  Energy requirements and conservation potential of alternatives; 

5  Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural or depletable resources; 

6  Short-term vs. long-term productivity; and, 

7  Any probable significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided and are not 

8 amenable to mitigation. 

9 5.1 POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE ACTION AND THE 

10 OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL, REGIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL 

11 PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS 

12 There are several land use plans, policies, and programs that address and guide land 

13 use for the project area and surrounding areas, including: 

14  2002 Naval Base Coronado INRMP (Navy 2002a); 

15  South Coast Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994); 

16  Mountain Empire Subregional Plan (County of San Diego 2011a); and, 

17  San Diego County General Plan (County of San Diego 2011c). 

18 There are no potential conflicts between the project and the land use plans and policies 

19 that address and guide uses within the project area. Since the site will continue to remain under 

20 federal ownership, it is not subject to the San Diego County General Plan or Mountain Empire 

21 Subregional Plan mentioned above. No off-base land uses would be affected by implementation 

22 of the project. The project would be completed in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

23 the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Clean Air Act. 

24 As described in Chapter 2, the Proposed Action would expand the existing range, 

25 training facilities, and operations associated with Camp Michael Monsoor, specifically within the 

26 Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcel C. Long-term military use of the site by the Navy does 
Environmental Assessment 5. Other NEPA Considerations 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 5-2

1 not pose any conflict between the Proposed Action and federal, state, regional, or local land 

2 uses. 

3 5.2 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS, CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF 

4 ALTERNATIVES 

5 Energy required to successfully implement the Proposed Action would include fossil 

6 fuels and electricity to power construction and demolition activities and, once constructed, fuel 

7 would be used by military vehicles and equipment onsite. Fuel for construction vehicles is 

8 currently available and in adequate supply from Navy-owned sources. The Proposed Action 

9 would include installation of a new above-ground electrical distribution line that would extend 

10 along the northern side of the existing access road between La Posta Road and Range 110; this 

11 new line would supply needed electricity to Range 110. Energy use between the alternatives 

12 would not differ substantially, and the No Action Alternative would not result in an increase of 

13 energy usage over existing usage. 

14 Direct energy requirements under the Proposed Action would include those necessary to 

15 operate vehicles and equipment as well as the electricity needs for operations at Range 110. No 

16 superfluous use of energy related to the Proposed Action has been identified, and proposed 

17 energy uses would be minimized to the greatest extent possible without compromising the 

18 integrity of the proposed facilities to be constructed. This would include carpooling to the ranges 

19 from the ready space. Proposed new construction would comply with applicable local, state, and 

20 federal codes that are designed to promote energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy 

21 resources. There are no conservation measures related to direct energy. 

22 5.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

23 NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCES 

24 Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are those that are 

25 used on a long-term or permanent basis. These include non-renewable resources, such as 

26 metal and fuel, and other natural or cultural resources. These resources are irretrievable in that 

27 they would be used for a project when they could have been used for other purposes or 

28 conserved. Human labor is also considered an irretrievable resource. Another impact that falls 

29 under this category is the unavoidable destruction of natural resources that could limit the range 

30 of potential uses of that particular environment. 

31 Implementation of the alternatives would involve an irreversible or irretrievable 

32 commitment of materials and environmental resources. Non-renewable resources, such as fuel, 

33 oil, and lubricants, would be consumed by vehicles and equipment during construction and by 

34 military vehicles and aircraft during operations. A small amount of building materials, such as 

35 metal (i.e., steel), wood, and concrete, would be irretrievably committed to construct the 

36 alternatives. Human labor would be required for project construction and engineering purposes. 
Environmental Assessment 5. Other NEPA Considerations 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 5-3

1 Implementation of the alternatives may also result in irreversible impacts on biological 

2 resources, including the removal of vegetation at Camp Michael Monsoor. When considered at 

3 the regional level, the quantities of the resources expended for construction and operation of the 

4 action alternatives would be relatively inconsequential. Therefore, implementation of the 

5 alternatives would not result in a significant commitment of irreversible or irretrievable 

6 resources. 

7 5.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL 

8 IMPACTS AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

9 NEPA requires an EA to address the relationship between short-term uses of the 

10 environment and the impact that such uses may have on the maintenance and enhancement of 

11 the long-term productivity of the environment. Impacts that would narrow the range of beneficial 

12 uses of the environment are of particular concern. This refers to the possibility that choosing 

13 one development option would lessen future flexibility in pursuing other options or that 

14 committing a parcel of land or other resource to a certain use would eliminate the possibility of 

15 other uses being implemented at that site. 

16 Implementation of the action alternatives would irreversibly dedicate equipment and 

17 other resources to a particular use during an extended period of time. However, these impacts 

18 are considered negligible, as the geographic areas associated with them have historically 

19 accommodated the types of military uses associated with the Proposed Action. 

20 The alternatives would include the construction of new training facilities (i.e., CQC 

21 structure, small arms ranges) and upgrades of infrastructure (i.e., wells, water lines, power 

22 lines) at the Previously Withdrawn Parcel and Parcel C. Permanent land uses at Camp Michael 

23 Monsoor would be located in an area already used by the Navy for training purposes. The short24 term impacts of the proposed improvements at Camp Michael Monsoor would include minor 

25 impacts to fauna and vegetation. The selected alternative would strive to reduce the amount of 

26 vegetation removed by using existing infrastructure and cleared areas as staging and lay-down 

27 areas. No other permanent land uses would be introduced or excluded as a result of the 

28 alternatives. Therefore, the alternatives would not result in any impacts that would permanently 

29 narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment. Further, the alternatives would not affect 

30 the long-term productivity of these resources at a regional level. 

31 
Environmental Assessment 5. Other NEPA Considerations 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 5-4

1 5.5 PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT 

2 CANNOT BE AVOIDED AND ARE NOT AMENABLE TO 

3 MITIGATION 

4 This Draft EA has determined that the alternatives would not result in any significant 

5 impacts; therefore, there are no probable significant environmental impacts that cannot be 

6 avoided or reduced by mitigation. 

7 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 6-1 

6 LIST OF AGENCIES CONSULTED 

1 As part of the EA processing, NSWG-1 and NAVFAC Southwest coordinated and 

2 consulted with several state and federal agencies. Details on the coordination and consultation 

3 are described below. 

4 6.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES 

5 6.1.1 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

6 Consultation was conducted with the USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered 

7 Species Act regarding potential impacts to the federally listed endangered QCB and USFWS8 designated QCB critical habitat. A Biological Assessment was prepared, and the USFWS issued 

9 a Biological Opinion (Appendix D). A list of USFWS persons consulted for this project is 

10 provided below. 

Name Title USFWS Office 

Tannika Engelhard Fish and Wildlife Biologist Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 

Carlsbad, CA 92008 

Sandy Vissman Wildlife Biologist Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 

Carlsbad, CA 92008 

11 

12 6.2 STATE AGENCIES 

13 6.2.1 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 

14 Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and conformance 

15 with 36 CFR Part 800 for this Draft EA has been previously accomplished under the San Diego 

16 Metropolitan Area Programmatic Agreement (Appendix E). Executed in February 2003 between 

17 the Commanding Officer, Naval Base Coronado, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

18 and the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the San Diego Metropolitan Area 

19 Programmatic Agreement provides for the CNRSW to make the determination of an 

20 undertaking’s area of potential effect, to identify potentially affected historic properties, and to 

21 make assessments of “no historic properties affected” and “no adverse effect” without further 
Environmental Assessment 6. List of Agencies Consulted 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 6-2 

1 consultations with the California State Historic Preservation Officer normally required under 

2 36 CFR Part 800. 

3 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 7-1 

7 LIST OF NAMES, EXPERTISE, AND 

EXPERIENCE OF EA PREPARERS 

1 7.1 LEAD AGENCY - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

2 Kari Coler, Project Manager, NAVFAC Southwest Coastal Integrated Project Team 

3 Arlene Arnold, Biologist, Naval Base Coronado 

4 Scott Penwell, Environmental Engineer, NSWG-1 

5 Robbie Robinson, Senior Chief, NSWG-1 

6 Connie Moen, NEPA Coordinator, CNRSW, N40 

7 Suzanne Smith, NEPA Coordinator, CNRSW, N40 

8 John Wooton, Planning and Real Estate Program Manager, NSWG-1 

9 Barry Francis, Range Director, NSWG-1 

10 Dennis Gilbert, Range Supervisor, NSWG-1 

11 Vicki Ngo, NEPA Coordinator, Naval Base Coronado 

12 Bryan Munson, Botanist, Naval Base Coronado 

13 Jose Navara, Construction Planner, Naval Base Coronado 

14 Brad Clark, Facilities Manager, NSWG-1 

15 LCDR Henderson Environmental Attorney, CNRSW 

16 
Environmental Assessment 7. List of Preparers 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 7-2 

1 7.2 PRIME CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARATION OF 

2 THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

3 Ecology and Environment, Inc. 

4 401 West A Street, Suite 775 

5 San Diego, California 92101

Team Member and 

Contribution 

Office Professional Degree Area of 

Professional 

Expertise 

Years of 

Experience

David McIntyre 

 Project Manager 

Tucson, AZ M.A., Geography 

M.S., Environmental 

Management 

B.S., History 

Environmental 

Management 

22 

Roya Compani-Tabrizi 

 Executive Summary 

 Abstract 

 Land Use 

 Visual Resources 

 Cumulative Impacts 

San Diego, CA B.S., Environmental Systems Environmental 

Planner 

8 

Bruce Wattle 

 Air Quality 

Buffalo, NY B.S., Atmospheric Science Air Quality 33 

Matthew Alexander 

 Biological Resources 

Portland, OR M.S. Biology 

B.S. Biology 

Biology 15 

Katie Duffield 

 Biological Resources 

San Diego, CA B.S., Biology Biology 2 

Tim Gross 

 Cultural Resources 

San Diego, CA Ph.D., Anthropology 

M.A., Anthropology 

B.A., Anthropology 

Cultural 

Resources 

30 

Travis Whitney 

 Geology and Soils 

 Public Services and 

Utilities 

 Water Quality and 

Hydrology 

 GIS 

San Diego, CA B.A., Geography Environmental 

Planner/GIS 

Specialist 

6 

Tom Siener 

 Noise 

Buffalo, NY B.S., Biological Science 

 Board Certified 

Industrial Hygienist 

Noise 40 
Environmental Assessment 7. List of Preparers 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 7-3 

Team Member and 

Contribution 

Office Professional Degree Area of 

Professional 

Expertise 

Years of 

Experience

Andrea Castillo 

 Public Health and 

Safety 

 Traffic and Circulation 

 Socioeconomics 

San Diego, CA M.A., Pacific International 

Affairs 

B.A., Business Administration 

Environmental 

Planner 

6 

Peggy Farrell 

 Quality Assurance 

Virginia Beach, 

VA 

M.S., Natural 

Sciences/Environmental 

Studies 

B.A., Environmental 

Studies/Biology 

Natural 

Sciences and 

Environmental 

Studies 

34 

Chrissy Ringo 

 Document Editing 

San Diego, CA B.A., English Technical 

Editing 

19 

1 

2 
Environmental Assessment 7. List of Preparers 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 7-4 

1 This page intentionally left blank. 

2 
Environmental Assessment 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor

August 2013 Page 8-1

8 REFERENCES 

1 Birding San Diego County. 2012. Easy Birder Driving Routes, La Posta Road. Available 

2 online: http://www.miriameaglemon.com/Birding%20Pages/San%20Diego%20 

3 Birding%20Pages/By%20Site/La%20Posta%20Road.html. Accessed on March 22, 

4 2012. 

5 Blue Ridge Research and Consulting. 2012. Environmental Noise Assessment for the 

6 Proposed Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC) in Nottoway County, 

7 Virginia. August 2012. 

8 Bowman, R. 1973. Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, California. Prepared for the U.S. 

9 Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service in cooperation 

10 with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station; the U.S. Department of 

11 the Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine 

12 Corps. 

13 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. CNDDB Quick Viewer. Available online: 

14 http://imaps.dfg.ca.gov/viewers/cnddb_quickviewer/app.asp. Accessed on March 14, 

15 2012. 

16 __________. 2011. Special Animals (898 taxa). January 2011. Available online: 

17 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf. Accessed on December 

18 11, 2012. 

19 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. State and Federally Listed Endangered and 

20 Threatened Animals of California. 2013. Available online: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ 

21 biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf. Accessed on July 4, 2013. 

22 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2012. State Scenic Highways Program 

23 Map of Officially Designated Scenic Highways and Eligible State Scenic Highways in 

24 San Diego County. Available online: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/ 

25 scenic_highways/sdiego.htm. Accessed on March 22, 2012. 

26 California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. 2009. California 

27 Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/ 

28 aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm. Updated November 24, 2009. Accessed on December 16, 2012. 

29 __________. No date. Almanac Emission Projection Data Query for 2009. Available online: 

30 http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php. Accessed on December 16, 2012. 
Environmental Assessment 8. References 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 8-2

1 Center for Policy Initiatives. 2011. Poverty. Available online: http://onlinecpi.org/wp2 content/uploads/2011/09/Poverty2010_web5.pdf. Accessed on March 22, 2012. 

3 City Melt. 2009. Mountain Empire CCD, California Complete Analysis. Available Online: 

4 http://www.citymelt.com/city/California/Mountain+Empire+Ccd-CA.html. Accessed on 

5 June 12, 2012. 

6 County of San Diego. 2012. Central Mountain Subregion. Available online: 

7 http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/gpupdate/comm/centralmtn.html. Accessed :April 1, 

8 2012. 

9 __________. 2011a. Mountain Empire Subregional Plan. Available online: 

10 http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/CP/MTN_Empire_CP.pdf. Accessed on March 22, 

11 2012. 

12 __________. 2011b. Mountain Empire Mobility Element Network Map. Available online: 

13 http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/gpupdate/docs/GP/ME_mtnempire.pdf. Accessed on 

14 March 22, 2012. 

15 __________. 2011c. San Diego County General Plan, Chapter 1 (Introduction) and Chapter 2 

16 (Vision and Guiding Principles). Available online: http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/ 

17 gpupdate/docs/GP/Cover_Intro_Vision.pdf. Accessed on March 22, 2012. 

18 __________. 2011d. San Diego County General Plan, Land Use Map for the Mountain Empire 

19 Community Planning Area. Available online: http://sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/GP/19-

20 Mountain_Empire.pdf. Accessed on March 22, 2012. 

21 __________. 2011e. County of San Diego General Plan – Safety Element. Adopted August 

22 2011. 

23 Gifford, E.W. 1918. Clans and Moieties in Southern California. University of California 

24 Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Volume 14: No. 2, p. 167. 

25 Hill, G. 2012. Personal Communication (email) between Greg Hill, Wilderness/NLCS 

26 Coordinator for the BLM California Desert District, and Roya Compani, Environmental 

27 Planner for Ecology and Environment, Inc. June 7, 2012. 

28 ICF International. 2010. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Report, Camp Michael Monsoor, 

29 California. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest. December 

30 2010. 

31 Jepson Manual. No date(a). Scrophulariaceae Figwort Family: Antirrhinum Snapdragon. 

32 Available online: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment. 

33 pl?7177,7178,7180. Accessed on December 11, 2012. 
Environmental Assessment 8. References 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 8-3

1 __________. No date(b). Scrophulariaceae Figwort Family: Collinsia. Available online: 

2 http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?7177,7269,7275. Accessed on 

3 December 11, 2012. 

4 __________. No date(c). Scrophulariaceae Figwort Family: Cordylanthus Bird’s-Beak. Available 

5 online: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi6 bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?7177,7295,7319. Accessed on December 11, 2012. 

7 Luomala, K. 1978. California: Tipai-Ipai. Volume 8: pp. 594-595. 

8 Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2012. La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility, San Diego 

9 County Final Preliminary Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report. Prepared for U.S. 

10 Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Division. 

11 March 2012. 

12 Mountain Bike Review. 2012. Description of unmaintained trail near the La Posta Truck Trail. 

13 Available online: http://trails.mtbr.com/cat/united-states-trails/california-trails/california14 san-diego/trail/thing-valley-la-posta-rd/prd_367397_4521crx.aspx. Accessed on March 

15 22, 2012. 

16 Pacific Crest Trail Association. 2012. Pacific Crest Trail FAQs. Available online: 

17 http://www.pcta.org/about_trail/faqs.asp. Accessed on June 7, 2012. 

18 Payne, C. 2012. Personal communication (email) between Colin Payne, Senior Design 

19 Manager/Senior Architect for the Coastal Integrated Products Team, Naval Base San 

20 Diego, and Kari Coler, Project Manager, NAVFAC Southwest, on December 17, 2012. 

21 Penwell,S. 2013. Personal communication (email) between Scott Penwell NEPA Coordinator 

22 for Naval Special Warfare Group 1(NSWG-1), and Kari Coler, Project Manager, 

23 NAVFAC Southwest. May 23, 2013.

24 __________. 2012. Communication (teleconference) between Scott Penwell, NEPA Coordinator 

25 for Naval Special Warfare Group 1(NSWG-1), and David McIntyre, Project Manager for 

26 Ecology and Environment, Inc. May 8, 2012. 

27 RECON. 2007. 2007 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Post-Survey Report for La Posta Mountain 

28 Warfare Training Facility, Campo, California. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering 

29 Command Southwest. November 2007. 

30 __________. 2006. Post-Survey Report for Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Surveys on La Posta 

31 Mountain Warfare Training Facility, Campo, California. Prepared for Naval Facilities 

32 Engineering Command Southwest. July 2006. 
Environmental Assessment 8. References 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 8-4

1 Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2002. Fact Sheet Order No. R9-2003-0008 NPDES 

2 Permit No. CA0109185. Waste Discharge Requirements for Naval Base Coronado 

3 Complex, San Diego County. 

4 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2011a. MSA 6 population estimate 

5 Growth Forecast. Available online: http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/est/ 

6 msa6est.pdf. Accessed on March 22, 2012. 

7 __________. 2011b. SA 62, Mountain Empire Growth Forecast. Available online: 

8 http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/fcst/sra62fcst.pdf. Accessed on March 22, 

9 2012. 

10 __________. 2011c. San Diego Region Growth Forecast. Available online: 

11 http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/fcst/reg999fcst.pdf. Accessed on March 22, 

12 2012. 

13 __________. 2010a. Population and housing estimates. Available online: 

14 http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/est/reg999est.pdf. Accessed on March 22, 

15 2012.

16 __________. 2010b. Data Warehouse, Census Population by Age and Race/Ethnicity. Available 

17 online: http://datawarehouse.sandag.org/Census/PopulationByAge/2010/3/6. Accessed 

18 on March 22, 2012. 

19 __________. 2008. Series 11 2030 Traffic Volume Forecast February 2008 Update. Available 

20 online: http://gis.sandag.org/tficsr11 

21 /f2030tfall/viewer.htm. Accessed on June 6, 2012.

22 San Diego Integrated Regional Water Management. 2007. San Diego Integrated Regional 

23 Water Management Plan. Adopted October 2007. Available online: 

24 http://www.sdirwmp.org/plan.html#Status. Accessed on June 8, 2012. 

25 Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. CNS Press. 

26 State of California Division of Mines. 1962. Geologic Map of California San Diego-El Centro 

27 Sheet. 

28 State of California, Employment Development Department. 2012. Overview – Labor Market 

29 Information. Available online: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/. Accessed on 

30 March 22, 2012. 

31 Strong, W.D. 1929. Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California 

32 Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Volume 26: p. 287. 
Environmental Assessment 8. References 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 8-5

1 U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. State & County QuickFacts, San Diego County, California. 

2 Available online: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06073.html. Accessed on 

3 June 6, 2012. 

4 __________. 2010a. American Fact Finder for San Diego County and Mountain Empire CCD. 

5 __________. 2010b. 2010 Census Interactive Population Search; San Diego County and 

6 Mountain Empire Minor Civil Division, 2010. Available online: 

7 http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=06. Accessed on March 22, 

8 2012. 

9 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2013a. Public Land 

10 Order No. 7807: Withdrawal of Public Lands for the Camp Michael Monsoor Mountain 

11 Warfare and Training Facility, California. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 12. January 17, 

12 2013. 3913-3914. 

13 __________. 2013b. Right-of-Way Grant/Temporary Use Permit: La Posta Mountain Warfare 

14 Training Facility. Issued March 8, 2013. 

15 __________. 2012a. Bureau of Land Management's Authorized Use by Allotment Report –

16 CA07012 Clover Flat Grazing Allotment. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/lr2000/. 

17 Accessed on June 12, 2012. 

18 __________. 2012b. Bureau of Land Management's Legacy Rehost System (LR2000). 

19 Geographic Report for the Proposed Action Area. Available online: 

20 http://www.blm.gov/lr2000/. Accessed on March 20, 2012. 

21 __________. 2012c. Website for the Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Project. Available online: 

22 http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa /sunrise.html. Accessed on June 12, 2012. 

23 __________. 2011. South Coast Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact 

24 Statement. Chapter 3: Affected Environment. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/ 

25 en/fo/palmsprings/Draft_Resource_Management_Plan_and_EIS.html. Accessed on 

26 March 16, 2012. 

27 __________. 2010a. Environmental Assessment: Issuance of 10-Year Grazing Lease for the 

28 Beauty Mountain Allotment. October 2010. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/ 

29 etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/palmsprings/general_-_pssc.Par.24427.File. Accessed on June 

30 25, 2012. 

31 __________. 2010b. Decision Record for the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility 

32 (CACA-43949). BLM, Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office, Available online: 

33 http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/palmsprings/nepa.Par.37357.File.dat/

34 LaPostaDR-fnl_1-29-10.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2012. 
Environmental Assessment 8. References 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 8-6

1 __________. 1994. South Coast Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. June 

2 1994. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/ 

3 pdfs/palmsprings_pdfs/sc_rmp.Par.24754.File.dat/South-Coast-RMP&ROD-1994.pdf. 

4 Accessed on March 16, 2012. 

5 __________. 1986. Visual Resource Contrast Rating, BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1. 

6 Washington, D.C. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/ 

7 Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.79462.File.dat/8431.pdf

8 Accessed on January 7, 2013. 

9 U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy). 2012a. Final Preliminary Jurisdictional Wetland 

10 Delineation Report. Prepared for NAVFAC Southwest. March 2012. 

11 __________. 2012b. Natural Resources Winter Bird Survey, Camp Michael Monsoor, La Posta, 

12 California. Prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc. February 27, 2012. 

13 __________. 2012c. Natural Resources Spring Bird Migration Survey and Quino Checkerspot 

14 Butterfly Host Plants and Rare Plants Survey, Camp Michael Monsoor, La Posta, 

15 California. Prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc. May 2012. 

16 __________. 2012d. Natural Resources Summer Breeding Bird Survey, Camp Michael 

17 Monsoor, La Posta, California. Prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc. June 2012. 

18 __________. 2012e. Naval Base Coronado: Mountain Warfare Training Camp Michael 

19 Monsoor. January 2012. Available online: http://www.cnic.navy.mil/Coronado/About/ 

20 Installations/MountainWarfareTrainingCampMichaelMonsoor/index.htm. Accessed on 

21 April 16, 2012. 

22 __________. 2012f. Erosion Study for Camp Michael Monsoor, La Posta, California. 100% 

23 Submittal. September 2012. 

24 __________. 2012g. DD Form 1391. Fiscal Year 2019 Military Construction Project 8. February 

25 2012. 

26 __________. 2011. Personal communication (meeting) between the Navy and Ecology and 

27 Environment, Inc., regarding the Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and 

28 Training Support Operations at NBC, Camp Michael Monsoor. November 29, 2011. 

29 __________. 2008. La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility, Final Environmental 

30 Assessment. February 2008. 

31 __________. 2005. Biological Assessment of Land Withdrawal and Operations at Naval Special 

32 Warfare La Posta MWTF, Campo, California. Prepared by EDAW, Inc. October. 98 pp. 
Environmental Assessment 8. References 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 8-7

1 __________. 2002a. Naval Base Coronado Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

2 (INRMP). Prepared by U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering 

3 Command, Southwest Division. May 2002. 

4 __________. 2002b. Report of Waste Discharge. October 2002. 

5 __________. 1996. A Cultural Resources Inventory of the La Posta Astrophysical 

6 Observatory. Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, 

7 California. 

8 __________. 1992. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Design Manual Two. 

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

10 Available online: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Updated December 14, 2012. 

11 Accessed December 16, 2012. 

12 __________. 2006. Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 65/Rules and Regulations, 703-17009, April 5. 

13 Available online: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a060405c.html. 

14 __________. 2005. Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges. EPA15 902-B-01-001. June 2005. Available online: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

16 documents/epa_bmp.pdf. Accessed on July 30, 2013. 

17 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Federal Register, Volume 76. No. 27. 

18 February 9, 2011. Part II. Fish and Wildlife Service-50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and 

19 Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad; Final Rule. 

20 Available online: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-1703.pdf. 

21 Accessed on: July 4, 2013. 

22 __________. 2009. Arroyo Toad 5 -Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Ventura Fish and 

23 Wildlife Office. Ventura, California. August 2009. Available online: 

24 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2592.pdf. Accessed on July 4, 2013. 

25 __________. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha 

26 quino). April 2003. 

27 __________. 2002. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly

28 (Euphydryas editha quino). April 2002. 

29 U.S. Forest Service. 2011. PCT KML file. Available online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/pct 

30 /home/?cid=stelprdb5322473. Accessed on June 7, 2012. 

31 Underwood and Gregory. 2004. Draft Cultural Resources of the La Posta Mountain Warfare 

32 Training Facility, San Diego County, California. September 2004. Prepared for 

33 Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 
Environmental Assessment 8. References 

Expansion of Range and Training Facilities and Training Support Operations at 

Naval Base Coronado, Camp Michael Monsoor 

August 2013 Page 8-8

1 United States Geological Survey (USGS). No date. Southern California Fault Map. Available 

2 online: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/sca/sca_faults.pdf. Accessed on June 29, 

3 2012. 

4 Western Regional Climate Center. 2012. Available online: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/ 

5 Climsmsca.html >Southern California>Campo. 

6