Final Outgrant Environmental Condition of Property for Chocolate

Transcription

Final
Outgrant Environmental
Condition of Property for
Chocolate Mountain Aerial
Gunnery Range Land Transfer
Imperial and Riverside
Counties, California
December 2015
Prepared for:
United States Department
of the Navy and United States
Marine Corps
Contract Number:
N62470-10-D-3008/FZN4
This page intentionally left blank.
Outgrant ECP for CMAGR Land Transfer
Final
December 2015
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACM
AST
ASTM
asbestos-containing material
aboveground storage tank
American Society for Testing and Materials
BLM
BRAC
Bureau of Land Management
Base Realignment and Closure
MC
MCAS
MEC
MD
mg/L
mm
MMRP
˚C
degrees Celsius
CDL
clandestine drug lab(s)
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cm
centimeter(s)
CMAGR Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range
CTT
MPPEH
MRP
NAVFAC SW
Closed, Transferring and Transferred
CWRCB California Water Resources Control Board
DMM
DoD
DoN
DTC/C-AMA
DTSC
ECP
EDR
EIS
ESA
˚F
ft
FUDS
GPS
Discarded Military Munitions
Department of Defense
Department of the Navy
Desert Training Center /
California-Arizona Maneuver Area
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Environmental Condition of Property
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
Environmental Impact Statement
Endangered Species Act
global-positioning system
ha
hectare(s)
I
IID
IR
IRP
Interstate
Imperial Irrigation District
Installation Restoration
Installation Restoration Program
km
kV
kilometer(s)
kilovolts
LBP
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range
OHV
ORC
Off-Highway Vehicle
operational range clearance
PCB
pCi/L
PLSS
POL
polychlorinated biphenyl
picocuries per liter
Public Land Survey System
petroleum, oil, lubricant
ROD
ROW
RWQCB
Range Activity Survey
Range Environmental Vulnerability
Assessment
Record of Decision
right-of-way
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SEAL
SoCalGas
SR
SWRCB
Sea, Air, Land
Southern California Gas Company
State Route
State Water Resources Control Board
TDS
U.S.
USACE
USEPA
USFWS
USGS
UST
UXO
WRCC
WWII
lead-based paint
m
NOV
NSW
Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Southwest
Notice of Violation
Naval Special Warfare
RAS
REVA
degrees Fahrenheit
foot/feet
Formerly Used Defense Site
meter(s)
A-i
munitions constituents
Marine Corps Air Station
munitions and explosives of concern
munitions debris
milligrams per liter
millimeter
Military Munitions Response
Program (DoD)
material potentially presenting
an explosive hazard
Munitions Response Program (DoN)
total dissolved solids
United States
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
underground storage tank
unexploded ordnance
Western Regional Climate Center
World War II
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Environmental Condition of Property (ECP) is to evaluate the environmental conditions
(past and present) of 49 properties encompassing 2,586.89 acres (1046.88 hectares [ha]) of real property
currently owned by the United States (U.S.), under control of the Department of Navy (DoN), managed by
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, and located along the northern boundary of the Chocolate
Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR), in Riverside and Imperial counties, California. The objective
of this ECP is to evaluate the 49 properties (separated into 34 parcels for purposes of analysis in the ECP)
located along the Bradshaw Trail designated for land transfer by way of outgrants (property transferred out
of DoN holdings). The outgranting of 2,586.89 acres (1,046.88 ha) of property would occur by the
combined process of non-renewal (1,929.99 acres [781.04 ha]), disposal to Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) (629.05 acres [254.57 ha]), and revert (return) to the State of California (27.85 acres [11.27 ha]).
This real estate transaction is needed to conform with the boundary realignment requirements set forth in
Subtitle E, Section 2961, of Public Law 113–66—Dec. 26, 2013, The National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Government Printing Office 2014). DoN guidance requires preparation of an ECP
for real estate actions to provide a baseline condition of the property at the time of the real estate transaction
and to determine and provide notice of the presence of contaminants that might pose a risk to human health
and the environment
This ECP has been prepared for the DoN in accordance with the provisions of the DoN Environmental
Policy Memorandum 06-06, Streamlined Environmental Procedures Applicable to Non-Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) Real Estate Actions (DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06) (DoN 2006).
The purpose of DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06, which requires preparation of an ECP for
real estate actions to document the condition of the property at the time of transfer and to determine the
presence of contaminants that might pose a risk to human health and the environment, is to streamline the
assessment, documentation, and disclosure of an ECP in support of Non-BRAC real estate actions,
including a determination regarding the environmental suitability of the action. The provisions require that
the investigation focus on records review, site inspections, and interviews. Accordingly, the evaluations
and conclusions contained herein are based on information available as of the date of this report. DoN
Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06 provides that the purpose of an ECP is to determine, discover,
and document the presence or likely presence of a release, or threat of release of any hazardous or solid
substance or waste, and any petroleum product. The analysis included in an ECP provides a baseline of the
environmental conditions present on the site at the time of the real estate transaction, and provides notice
to lessees, lessors, transferees, transferors, invitees, military members, trespassers and others entering the
site, of the presence of and potential exposure to hazardous and solid wastes and substances.
The area of investigation is situated along the Bradshaw Trail on the northern border of CMAGR (see
Chapter 1, Introduction; Figure 1-1). This investigation employed a targeted approach involving (1) review
of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) and other database search results; (2) analysis of maps and
high resolution aerial photography; and (3) interviews with MCAS Yuma and CMAGR staff, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command Southwest (NAVFAC SW) personnel, BLM representatives, U.S. Border
Patrol agents, counties of Riverside and Imperial staff, other municipal staff, and other federal and state
agency staff knowledgeable of activities and operations, past and present, at the subject transfer parcels as
a means to guide subsequent research and field efforts. This approach is described in detail in Chapter 2,
Survey Methodology, and supporting materials and results associated with this analysis, including a glossary
of terms, site photographs, and other materials are contained in Appendices A through H.
ES-1
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Based on the records review, site inspections, and interviews conducted for this ECP, it was determined
that the subject transfer parcels consist of predominantly undeveloped land used primarily for public
recreation and largely devoid of activities and land uses typically associated with the large-scale generation,
use, storage, transport, and/or release of petroleum products or hazardous materials. However, the
following findings and observations were noted:
Munitions and Explosives of Concern. Munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) are military
munitions that may pose unique safety risks, including unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military
munitions, or munitions constituents (MC) present in sufficient concentrations to pose an explosive hazard.
The CMAGR located to the south of the subject transfer parcels, has active range and impact areas. A
Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment (REVA) conducted for CMAGR did not indicate offinstallation releases of MC from operational ranges, nor an imminent threat to human health or the
environment (Arcadis 2015). However, it did indicate that munitions debris (MD) deposited in the training
areas have the potential to migrate beyond the installation boundaries, primarily via surface water transport.
A Range Activity Survey (RAS) conducted at the subject transfer parcels revealed that approximately 90
percent of the parcels surveyed contained some evidence of military activity, and approximately one-third
of the parcels surveyed contained UXO or material potentially presenting an explosive hazard (CB&I 2015).
Although military training has been conducted in the CMAGR area since the World War II, and historical
impact areas are located within subject transfer Parcels 16, 17, and 18 (refer to Figure 5-1), there are no
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) adjacent to the subject transfer parcels. Based upon the document
review (including the REVA and RAS) and the ECP team site visit, it has been determined that a MEC
hazard exists within and adjacent to the subject transfer parcels. As a result of the RAS, which determined
that munitions were present, the subject transfer parcels were incorporated into the Military Munitions
Response Program and will be remediated pursuant to the DoN’s authority pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S. Code 9601 et seq., 10 U.S.
Code 2701 et seq, Executive Order 12580.
Clandestine Drug Labs. By design, clandestine drug labs (CDLs) are difficult to identify. Although no
CDLs were identified within the subject transfer parcels, documented illicit drug manufacture in the
surrounding region suggests that drug-producing labs could exist on or in the vicinity of the subject transfer
parcels (EDR 2014). Drug laboratory operators are known to set up transient operations on public lands,
sometimes leaving a legacy of chemical contamination.
During the preparation of the ECP, no evidence was found to indicate the presence of CDLs within the
subject transfer parcels or adjacent areas. The EDR report identified several County Level Orphan Site
CDLs; however, the location information provided was non-specific, typically referenced by road or street
name only without an address. Using these available descriptions, the ECP team determined that the closest
CDL identified in the EDR report was approximately 9.5 miles (15.3 km) northwest of the subject transfer
parcels (EDR 2014).
Solid/Bio-Hazardous Waste. Small amounts of solid waste are currently generated at the subject transfer
parcels, in the form of trash from dumping, Off-Highway Vehicle use, and recreational activities within the
subject transfer parcels. No known bio-hazardous waste is generated or disposed at the subject transfer
parcels and no potential bio-hazardous waste was identified during the preparation of the ECP (EDR 2014).
No records were found to suggest that past or current landfill facilities are located within the subject transfer
parcels (EDR 2014).
ES-2
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
During the ECP field inspections, unauthorized dumping was noted at several locations within the subject
transfer parcels, including vehicles, appliances, tires, furniture, mattresses, electronics and electronic waste,
and metal cans from consumable provisions (i.e., food and drink containers) in various locations.
Additionally, an abandoned shack and associated debris was noted in the northeastern extent of Parcel 27
(refer to Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-3). Historical aerial photos indicate that a structure has likely existed at
this location since the 1950s (Google Earth 2015; Appendix E). In general, solid waste in the subject
transfer parcels is scattered, infrequently encountered, and generally small in size. Non-hazardous solid
waste (including some larger solid waste items such as vehicles or abandoned structures) will not be
removed by the DoN prior to completion of the real estate transaction.
Groundwater Quality. Groundwater quality beneath the subject transfer parcels is considered poor for
domestic use because of elevated fluoride and total dissolved solids concentrations and possibly for
irrigation use because of elevated boron contents (DoN 2013). Additional potential impacts to groundwater
quality may stem from surface range activities conducted at the CMAGR. The 2015 REVA indicates the
presence (in the vicinity of the Bradshaw Trail) of ecological receptors via surface water and sediment
transport from CMAGR surface range activities (which have the potential to affect groundwater), and also
future human receptors through a potential water supply well. However, the specific well was not
identified. The findings of the REVA conducted at CMAGR did not indicate off-installation releases of
MC from operational ranges, nor an imminent threat to human health or the environment (Arcadis 2015).
However, it did indicate that MD deposited in the training areas can migrate beyond the installation
boundaries. Additional study during the CERCLA process will provide additional information regarding
groundwater quality.
Utility and Natural Gas Easements and Rights-of-Way. The majority of land within the subject transfer
parcels is undeveloped. Accordingly, there is no demand for electricity or other utility service within the
subject transfer parcels and only minimal demand for these services in the adjacent properties.
Nevertheless, 12 unique encumbrances in the form of either easements or rights-of-way (ROW) are located
on the subject transfer parcels (NAVFAC SW 2014). All of these encumbrances provide for road, railway,
canal/water, electrical distribution, or gas lines.
The electrical distribution and natural gas easements that pass through the subject transfer parcels are:






22626: ROW for power line (Grantee is the Imperial Irrigation District [IID])
22655: Easement for power line purposes (Grantee is the IID)
22517: ROW for natural gas pipeline (Grantee is Southern California Gas [SoCalGas] Company)
22653: ROW for natural gas pipeline (Grantee is SoCalGas)
22654: Easement for natural gas pipeline cathodic protection and purposes (Grantee is SoCalGas)
The remaining easements are for the Eagle Mountain Railroad (no longer in operation), the Coachella
Canal, the Bradshaw Trail, and BLM (refer to Table 2-7). Easements are the same for properties
immediately adjacent to the subject transfer parcels. No potential hazards are anticipated relative to the
utility and natural gas lines; however, severe seismic and flooding events have the potential to expose or
compromise the natural gas transmission pipelines.
ES-3
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Although some potential hazards and areas of concern were identified during the preparation of the ECP,
in particular the presence of munitions in the subject transfer parcels, the implementation of remedial and/or
removal actions conducted under the Munititons Response Program (MRP), and appropriate internal
procedures and management controls are expected to minimize the exposure to hazards. The existing nonhazardous solid waste (including some large solid waste items such as vehicles or abandoned structures)
will not be removed by the DoN prior to completion of the real estate action. The remoteness of the area
surrounding the subject transfer parcels and low density of human and ecological receptors reduces the
potential for exposure to hazards.
If during the course of the real estate transaction process the DoN identifies additional potential areas of
environmental concern and/or concludes that more study is required (e.g., to provide further information
about the types of contaminants or to determine the potential exposure), the DoN will consider doing an
appropriate level of additional environmental study.
Results of the ECP did not indicate the potential for contamination from petroleum products, or from
hazardous materials with the exception of MEC and potentially MC. The property has been entered into the
MRP and the DoN will conduct a remedial process pursuant to CERCLA even after property transfer.
Therefore, no environmental conditions are identified that would prevent the real property transactions from
taking place.
ES-4
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION OF PROPERTY FOR
LAND TRANSFER AT CHOCOLATE MOUNTAIN AERIAL GUNNERY RANGE
YUMA, ARIZONA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ A-i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Organization of the Properties for Analysis in the ECP ............................................ 1-4
1.2
ORGANIZATION OF THE ECP .................................................................................................. 1-4
1.3
PARCEL IDENTIFICATION AND BOUNDARIES .......................................................................... 1-7
1.4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 1-7
1.5
PROPOSED LAND USE ............................................................................................................. 1-7
CHAPTER 2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 2-1
2.1
APPROACH AND RATIONALE .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.1 Documents Reviewed ................................................................................................ 2-2
2.1.2 Interviews .................................................................................................................. 2-7
2.1.3 Aerial Photograph Review ........................................................................................ 2-7
2.1.4 Field Inspections ....................................................................................................... 2-8
2.2
ECP RESOURCES .................................................................................................................... 2-9
2.3
RELATED RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 2-9
2.4
REAL ESTATE DOCUMENT REVIEW...................................................................................... 2-10
2.4.1 Chain of Title .......................................................................................................... 2-10
2.4.2 Easements and Rights-of-Way ................................................................................ 2-11
2.4.3 Utility Easements .................................................................................................... 2-14
2.4.4 Natural Gas Easements ............................................................................................ 2-14
2.4.5 Environmental Lien Reports ................................................................................... 2-15
CHAPTER 3 PAST AND CURRENT USE ...................................................................................... 3-1
3.1
PAST AND CURRENT LAND USE ............................................................................................. 3-1
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................ 4-1
4.1
CLIMATE ................................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2
TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY................................................................................................. 4-1
4.3
HYDROGEOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 4-5
CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 5-1
5.1
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE/WASTE MANAGEMENT ................................................................. 5-1
5.2
PETROLEUM CONTAMINATION ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.3
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION / INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITES ............................... 5-5
5.4
SOLID/BIO-HAZARDOUS WASTE ............................................................................................ 5-5
5.5
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS............................................................................................. 5-8
5.6
ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL ...................................................................................... 5-8
5.7
LEAD-BASED PAINT ............................................................................................................... 5-9
5.8
PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ................................................................................................. 5-9
i
MCAS Yuma
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
Final
December 2015
MUNITIONS AND EXPLOSIVES OF CONCERN .......................................................................... 5-9
STORAGE TANKS (UNDERGROUND AND ABOVEGROUND) ................................................... 5-14
RADON/RADIOLOGICAL MATERIAL ..................................................................................... 5-14
THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................................................. 5-15
CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ 5-18
NOTICES OF VIOLATION ....................................................................................................... 5-19
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS .................................................................................. 5-19
5.15.1 Mines ....................................................................................................................... 5-19
5.15.2 Clandestine Drug Labs ............................................................................................ 5-23
5.15.3 Criminal Activity..................................................................................................... 5-23
5.15.4 Groundwater Quality ............................................................................................... 5-23
5.15.5 Petroleum Pipelines ................................................................................................. 5-26
5.15.6 Oil/Water Separators ............................................................................................... 5-26
5.15.7 Wastewater .............................................................................................................. 5-26
5.15.8 Stormwater .............................................................................................................. 5-27
CHAPTER 6 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ....................................................................................... 6-1
6.1
PAST AND CURRENT LAND USE ............................................................................................. 6-1
6.1.1 Adjacent Property to the North, West, and East of the Subject Transfer Parcels...... 6-1
6.1.2 Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range ............................................................. 6-1
6.1.3 Adjacent Ownership and Right-of-Way Easements .................................................. 6-3
6.2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 6-3
6.2.1 Areas North of the Subject Transfer Parcels ............................................................. 6-3
6.2.2 Areas West of the Subject Transfer Parcels .............................................................. 6-3
6.2.3 Areas East of the Subject Transfer Parcels................................................................ 6-4
6.2.4 Areas South of the Subject Transfer Parcels ............................................................. 6-4
6.2.5 Environmental Restoration / Installation Restoration Program ................................. 6-4
6.2.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls ........................................................................................ 6-5
6.2.7 Munitions and Explosives of Concern ...................................................................... 6-5
6.2.8 Tanks (Underground and Above-Ground) ................................................................ 6-6
6.2.9 Other Environmental Concerns ................................................................................. 6-6
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 7-1
CHAPTER 8
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 8-1
CHAPTER 9
LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................... 9-1
CHAPTER 10 SIGNATURES ........................................................................................................... 10-1
ii
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
APPENDICES
(PROVIDED ON CD-ROM)
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
APPENDIX F:
APPENDIX G:
APPENDIX H:
GLOSSARY OF TERMS........................................................................................... A-1
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................. B-1
PARCEL BOUNDARIES AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION ..................................... C-1
FEDERAL AND STATE DATABASE SEARCH ................................................... D-1
HISTORICAL AERIALS .......................................................................................... E-1
HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS ............................................................ F-1
INTERVIEW FORMS ..............................................................................................G-1
RANGE ACTIVITY SURVEY..................................................................................H-1
List of Figures
Figure
1-1
1-2
4-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
6-1
Page
Regional Location of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range ........................................ 1-2
Subject Transfer Parcels ............................................................................................................... 1-5
Regional Topography, Hydrology, and Faults .............................................................................. 4-3
Environmental Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5-3
Petroleum Containers in Subject Transfer Parcels ........................................................................ 5-5
Solid Waste in Subject Transfer Parcels ....................................................................................... 5-6
Abandoned Habitation in Parcel 27 .............................................................................................. 5-7
Blast Craters in Parcel 16, 2012 and 1996 Aerial Imagery ......................................................... 5-10
Field Photos of Blast Craters in Parcel 16 .................................................................................. 5-11
Potential MD in Subject Transfer Parcels ................................................................................... 5-12
Desert Tortoise Evidence in Subject Transfer Parcels ................................................................ 5-18
Active and Inactive Mining Claims ............................................................................................ 5-21
Clemens Well between Parcels 6 and 7 ........................................................................................ 6-8
iii
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
List of Tables
Table
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
4-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
6-1
6-2
Page
Field Inspection Summary ............................................................................................................ 2-2
Summary of Documents Reviewed, Databases Searched, and Information Reviewed ................ 2-3
Federal, State, and Local Record Search Results.......................................................................... 2-5
List of Individuals Interviewed ..................................................................................................... 2-7
List of Aerial Photo Years Analyzed ............................................................................................ 2-8
Chain of Title .............................................................................................................................. 2-10
Encumbrances by Parcel ............................................................................................................. 2-11
CMAGR Soil Types and Characteristics ...................................................................................... 4-2
Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Subject Transfer Parcels ............. 5-16
Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Subject Transfer Parcels .................. 5-17
Summary REVA Analysis of Subwatersheds Intersecting the Subject Transfer Parcels ........... 5-24
Ownership Adjacent to Subject Transfer Parcels ......................................................................... 6-3
Active Mining Claims Adjacent to Subject Transfer Parcels ....................................................... 6-6
iv
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this Environmental Condition of Property (ECP) is to evaluate the environmental conditions
(past and present) of 49 properties encompassing 2,586.89 acres (1,046.88 hectares [ha]) of real property
currently owned by the United States (U.S.), under control of the Department of Navy (DoN), managed by
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, and located along the northern boundary of the Chocolate
Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR), in Riverside and Imperial counties, California. The objective
of this ECP is to evaluate these 49 properties (separated into 34 parcels for purposes of analysis in the ECP;
see Section 1.1.1, Organization of the Properties for Analysis in the ECP) located along the Bradshaw Trail
designated for land transfer by way of outgrants (property transferred out of DoN holdings). The
outgranting of 2,586.89 acres (1,046.88 ha) of property would occur by the combined process of nonrenewal (1,929.99 acres [781.04 ha]), disposal to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (629.05 acres
[254.57 ha]), and revert (return) to the State of California (27.85 acres [11.27 ha]). All 49 properties (34
parcels) consist primarily of undeveloped desert lands. This real estate transaction is needed to conform to
the boundary realignment requirements set forth in Subtitle E, Section 2961, of Public Law 113–66—Dec.
26, 2013, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Government Printing Office 2014).
The intent of the boundary realignment was twofold: (1) to align the new boundary so that the Bradshaw
Trail will be located entirely outside of the CMAGR and (2) to align the new boundary close enough to the
southern shoulder of the Bradshaw Trail so that the southern margin of the trail forms a more easily
recognizable physical line of demarcation for the public as the northern perimeter of the CMAGR.
Traditionally, the Bradshaw Trail has been used as the functional and physical (topographic) boundary
dividing CMAGR to the south from BLM and other property (e.g., state or private) to the north. Because
the administrative boundary of properties in the vicinity of the Bradshaw Trail, and the region in general,
follows the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), a situation has existed for many decades whereby DoN
and the BLM have been responsible for the management of, and liable for, property that lay within each
other’s functional and topographic boundaries. Therefore, a realignment of administrative boundaries is
needed to resolve the physio-functional deficiencies of the existing boundary, eliminate the need for DoN
to manage lands beyond the CMAGR mission support property, and reduce or eliminate the liability
incurred from being responsible for activities that occur beyond CMAGR. This ECP is one of two that
have been prepared to support the CMAGR Land Transfer boundary realignment. This ECP is referred to
as Outgrant ECP, and studies the parcels identified for outgrant. A separate document, referred to as Ingrant
ECP, studies the parcels identified for ingrant in support of the same realignment. Since the two ECPs
study land immediately adjacent to one another (separated by the Bradshaw Trail), some of the
supplementary documentation found in the ECP appendices is the same for both ECPs.
The CMAGR is an approximately 458,530 acres (185,561 ha) live-fire training range located in the Sonoran
Desert in Imperial and Riverside counties, California, approximately 100 miles (161 kilometers [km]) eastnortheast of San Diego and approximately 30 miles (48 km) northeast of El Centro (Figure 1-1).
1-1
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
RIVERS IDE COUNT Y
IMPER IAL COUNT Y
Bombay
Beach
(
!
Co
LA PAZ
COUNTY
lor
ado R iver
IMPERIA L COUNTY
Niland !
(
!
(
Calipatria
New
Al
a
R i ver
oR
m
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Chocolate
Mountain Aerial
Gunnery Range
Salton Sea
r
ive
Co
§
¦
¨
! !
! !
! !
! !
MEXICO
Yuma
!
(
Fortuna
Foothills
(
!
MCAS
Yuma
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
YUMA
COUNTY
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
al
an
NEVADA
!
!
!
!
40
State Border
!
River
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
International Border
! !
! !
City/Town
! !
!
!
!
0
5
!
10
! !
!
!
O
! !
Miles
! !
(
!
County Boundary
!
! !
! !
! !
8
Kilometers
! !
!
§
¦
¨
8
Other Regional
Military Installation
!
§
¦
¨
§
¦
¨
10
5
!
! !
0
15
! !
! !
PACIFIC
OCEAN
17
! !
§
¦
¨
§
¦
¨
Highway
!
§
¦
¨
10
ARIZONA
Canal
! !
CALIFORNIA
Figure 1-1
Regional Location of the Chocolate
Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range
!
15
CMAGR Boundary
!
§
¦
¨
!
§
¦
¨
!
5
!
!
! !
§
¦
¨
Legend
!
30
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
1-2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
MEXICO
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
eri
C
ca n
!
! !
! !
! !
l
! !
! !
! !
! !
na
! !
! !
! !
m
lA
Al
8
Calexico
(
!
! !
Ca
El Centro
!
(
NAF
El Centro
lla
he
ac
anal
East Hig hline C
Brawley
!
(
Source: NAVFAC SW 2015
!
! !
! !
! !
MCAS Yuma
! !
! !
Final
December 2015
The CMAGR is situated east of the Salton Sea and similarly follows a northwest-to-southeast alignment.
The southeastern boundary of the CMAGR extends to State Route (SR)-78, near the unincorporated
community of Glamis. The northwestern boundary of the installation extends to the inactive Eagle
Mountain Railroad where it approaches the Dos Palmas Oasis and Desert Air Sky Ranch, east of SR-111.
The northeastern boundary of the installation stretches approximately from the Orocopia Mountains
southeast between the Chocolate and Chuckwalla Mountains on down to Smoke Tree Valley south of the
Palo Verde Mountain Wilderness Area. The southwestern boundary of the installation follows the Union
Pacific Railroad in the south, and extends to the northwest as it approaches Slab City, where the boundary
continues to the northwest along the Coachella Canal up to the area near Dos Palmas Oasis.
This ECP has been prepared for the DoN in accordance with the provisions of the DoN Environmental
Policy Memorandum 06-06, Streamlined Environmental Procedures Applicable to Non-Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) Real Estate Actions (DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06) (DoN 2006).
The purpose of DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06 is to streamline the assessment,
documentation, and disclosure of an ECP in support of non-BRAC real estate actions, including a
determination regarding the environmental suitability of the action. The provisions require that the
investigation focus on records review, site inspections, and interviews. Accordingly, the evaluations and
conclusions contained herein are based on information available as of the date of this report. DoN
Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06 provides that the purpose of an ECP is to determine, discover,
and document the presence or likely presence of a release, or threat of release of any hazardous or solid
substance or waste, and any petroleum product. The analysis included in an ECP provides a baseline of the
environmental conditions present on the site at the time of the real estate transaction, and provides notice
to lessees, lessors, transferees, transferors, invitees, military members, trespassers and others entering the
site, of the presence of and potential exposure to hazardous and solid wastes and substances.
As the real estate action is occurring on currently owned DoN land, it is subject to the guidance of the DoN
Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06. As part of this ECP, the American Society for Testing
Materials (ASTM) E1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments is used as
supplemental guidance to the DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06. The ASTM E1527-13
guidance is used only to assist in directing the ECP and determining industry standards and expectations
for elements not specified or fully described by the DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06. Like
the ASTM E1527-13, the DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06 fully conforms to the All
Appropriate Inquiries Rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 312) established by United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in 2005.
The DoN has prepared this ECP to document inquiry into environmental conditions to support real estate
decisions, to protect DoN from future liability, to determine risk of exposure to grantees/government
employees, and to inform grantees of environmental conditions, restrictions, and land use controls
associated with the real property land transfer. Accordingly, this ECP employed a targeted approach
involving (1) review of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) and other database search results, (2)
analysis of maps and high resolution aerial photography, and (3) interviews with MCAS Yuma and
CMAGR staff, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest (NAVFAC SW) personnel, BLM
representatives, U.S. Border Patrol agents, counties of Riverside and Imperial, other municipal staff, and
other federal and state agency staff knowledgeable of activities and operations, past and present, at the
subject transfer parcels as a means to guide subsequent research and field efforts. This approach is
described in detail in Chapter 2, Survey Methodology and supporting materials and results associated with
1-3
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
this analysis, including a glossary of terms, site photographs, and other materials are contained in
Appendices A through G.
1.1.1
Organization of the Properties for Analysis in the ECP
The assessment of 49 properties, many of them non-contiguous, within a single document presented
numerous challenges for the ECP preparers. The area and shape of the 49 properties were each uniquely
varied and rarely followed the dominant land division standard of the area, the PLSS. A co-occurring
NAVFAC SW project in the same area had encountered these same challenges and organized the properties
by their PLSS Township and Range, which had the advantages of reducing the number of discrete
assessments from 49 to 34, and simultaneously connecting contiguous properties together for a more
homogeneous analysis (CB&I 2015). Using the experience of the other project as a model, the 49 properties
are separated into 34 subject transfer parcels for the purposes of analysis in this ECP (Figure 1-2). It is an
organizational measure for analytical purposes only.
1.2
ORGANIZATION OF THE ECP
This ECP is organized in accordance with DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06. This report
discusses the subject transfer parcels in separate chapters as follows:
Chapter 1. Introduction – provides an overview and organization of the ECP, including several figures
illustrating the subject transfer parcels.
Chapter 2. Survey Methodology – discusses the site-specific methodology employed to conduct the ECP,
including regulatory agency database review, existing documentation review, field inspection, and
interviews.
Chapter 3. Past and Current Use – summarizes past and current operations within the subject transfer
parcels.
Chapter 4. Environmental Setting – provides an overview of existing physical conditions and
characteristics of the subject transfer parcels and surrounding areas.
Chapter 5. Environmental Conditions – describes the environmental conditions of the subject transfer
parcels. This chapter also discusses other environmental concerns that are not specifically required, but
may be relevant for the conclusions.
Chapter 6. Adjacent Properties – discusses the environmental conditions adjacent to the subject transfer
parcels.
Chapter 7. Conclusions – summarizes the conclusions of the ECP.
Chapter 8. References – provides comprehensive list of references used to support the ECP.
Chapter 9. List of Preparers – lists the individuals and their affiliation involved with the preparation of the
ECP.
Chapter 10. Signatures – lists the environmental professionals responsible for approving the content,
conclusions, and recommendations of the ECP.
1-4
MCAS Yuma
$̀
"
!
Final
07
10
12
Br
14
13
18
08
15
16
17
10
21
20
19
9
17
23
8
19
24
22
29
25
26
27
28
29
28
30
27
16
11
10
26
12 20
13
13
29
23
22
21
14
28
30
25
27
16
33
31 32
34
3
2
1
6
4
5
TR
B R A D S H AW 06
06 05
04
32
33
31
34
Total Acres = 2,586.89
18
05
05
34
35
19
36
06
04
29
20
BRAD
15
32
19
28
21
33
22
23
SHA
WT
31 32
RA
04
IL
05
34 35
36
26
24
01
02
03
27
08
09
10
11
12
07
15
14
13
18
28
09
10
09
03
04
05
06
25
07
08
26
27
01
03 02
Parcel Number Township Range Section Acres
18
7S
14E
25
22.29
19
7S
15E
30
49.24
20
7S
15E
32
83.36
21
7S
15E
33
40.96
22
7S
15E
33
42.16
23
7S
15E
34
91.60
24
8S
15E
3
69.52
25
8S
15E
11
2.24
26
8S
15E
2
256.91
27
8S
15E
12
98.12
28
8S
16E
8
138.90
29
8S
16E
16
14.19
30
8S
16E
14
35.00
31
8S
16E
24
38.28
32
8S
16E
36
13.66
33
8S
17E
32
159.82
34
9S
17E
6
261.39
30
26
33
31
L
AI
24
25
17
7
36
35
Parcel Number Township Range Section Acres
1
8S
12E
6
30.16
2
8S
12E
5
182.13
3
8S
12E
4
63.55
4
7S
12E
34
33.94
5
8S
12E
2
0.14
6
7S
12E
36
30.03
7
7S
13E
32
3.72
8
7S
13E
28
30.96
9
7S
13E
21
3.99
10
7S
13E
22
75.05
11
7S
14E
19
20.97
12
7S
14E
20
7.69
13
7S
14E
29
108.79
14
7S
14E
28
284.26
15
7S
14E
33
0.91
16
7S
14E
27
146.02
21
20 17
7S
14E
26
146.94
ad
e Road
Gas Lin
11
aw
sh
d
a
Ro
December 2015
10
30
16
17
11
12
14
13
29
Co
15
ac
23
ll
he
aC
an
31
22
21
20
19
24
25
al
Chocolate Mountain
Aerial Gunnery Range
27
26
32
29
30
33
31 32
35
33
36
05
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
01
02
06
34
IMPERIAL COUNTY
08
07
$̀
"
!
Indio
RIVER SIDE
COUNT Y
Niland
A̧
Legend
$̀
"
!
Ù
A
LA PAZ
COUNTY
A̧
IMPERIAL
COUNT Y
SAN DIEGO
COUNT Y
CMAGR Boundary
Elevation (meters)
Outgrant: Fee Revert to State
Public Land Survey
System Section
High : 1371.55
Coachella Canal
Sea Level
Low : -46.4498
Highway
Outgrant: Navy Fee Disposal
Brawley
YUMA
COUNT Y
El Centro
$
_
"
!
Outgrant: Federal Land not Renewed
Yuma
$
_
"
!
Bradshaw Trail
0
2.5
5
Miles
Kilometers
Local Road
0
2.5
5
O
ME XICO
Figure 1-2
Subject Transfer Parcels
1-5
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
The ECP appendices provide relevant background information supporting material presented in the body
of the report, and are organized as follows:
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms (provided on CD-ROM) – includes definitions and descriptions for key
terms used throughout the ECP.
Appendix B: Site Photographs (provided on CD-ROM) – contains photographs taken onsite that are
provided to supplement the findings of this report.
Appendix C: Project Boundaries and Legal Description (to be provided by NAVFAC SW) – includes
parcel identification and boundary information and a complete legal description of the subject transfer
parcels.
Appendix D: Federal and State Database Searches (provided on CD-ROM) – includes the results of the
EDR and other agency searches of the subject transfer parcels.
Appendix E: Historical Aerials (provided on CD-ROM) – includes the available historical aerial photos
(from EDR searches) for the subject transfer parcels.
Appendix F: Historical Topographical Maps (provided on CD-ROM) – includes the available topographic
maps (from EDR searches) for the subject transfer parcels.
Appendix G: Interview Forms and Supplemental Information (provided on CD-ROM) – includes
documentation of interviews performed during the preparation of the ECP.
Appendix H: Range Activity Survey (provided on CD-ROM) – contains a range activity survey that was
performed (under a different contract than the ECP) to assess surface conditions related to range operations.
1.3
PARCEL IDENTIFICATION AND BOUNDARIES
Figure 1-2 presents the location and total acreage of the subject transfer parcels. Appendix C contains
parcel identification and boundary information.
1.4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The complete legal description for the subject transfer parcels are provided in Appendix C.
1.5
PROPOSED LAND USE
There is no proposed land use by the DoN associated with the subject transfer parcels as the parcel would
be transferred out of DoN holdings. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that the land use would remain the same
as before the proposed change of ownership, when it was managed even then as publicly accessible BLMadministered land.
1-7
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
1-8
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
CHAPTER 2
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
2.1
APPROACH AND RATIONALE
This ECP evaluates the past and present conditions at the subject transfer parcels based on governmentfurnished data, field inspections, previous studies, reports, and other documents, as described below. Given
the expansive nature of the subject transfer parcels and associated constraints, the following targeted
approach was employed as part of the ECP as a means to guide the research and site inspections: (1) review
EDR data search results, (2) conduct analysis of high resolution aerial photography, and (3) interviews with
MCAS Yuma and CMAGR staff, NAVFAC SW personnel, BLM representatives, U.S. Border Patrol,
agents, counties of Riverside and Imperial, other municipal staff, and other federal and state agency staff
knowledgeable of activities and operations, past and present, at the subject transfer parcels.
This information was then used to direct further interviews and site inspections performed by staff from the
DoN’s contractor, Cardno. Neither soil nor groundwater sampling was performed during the preparation
of the ECP. The evaluation and conclusions in the ECP are based on currently available information and
are subject to change if new or updated relevant information becomes available or if the proposed land use
changes. This ECP will assist the DoN in documenting existing conditions at the subject transfer parcels
and will serve as a basis for making a determination regarding the real estate transaction.
Conventional ECP methods (i.e., physical inspection of land and structures) were adapted to account for
the unusually large and undeveloped subject survey area. To document the environmental condition of the
2,586.89 acres (1,046.88 ha), the following methodology was employed:
Records Search – EDR searched publicly-accessible databases1 and other records to identify known
environmental conditions on the subject transfer parcels, including a 1-mile buffer around them. Listed
sites were prioritized for field inspection and subsequent agency record review. Data requested from EDR
included the following: area reports, well studies, EDR Data map searches, historical aerial photography
and historical topographical maps for properties.
Agency Record Review – Results from the EDR report were used to guide agency record requests. Files
and data from federal, state, and local agencies were requested. This effort involved contact with the
following agencies to obtain applicable records and data, if available:

Counties of Riverside and Imperial local fire departments pertaining to county-regulated site
cleanup efforts, and other pertinent sites of concern;

Riverside County Sheriff’s Departments pertaining to clandestine drug labs (CDLs);

State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Imperial Irrigation District
(IID), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) offices;
1 Including hazardous materials databases maintained by federal, state, and local entities, historical aerial photography and
historical topographic maps, chain of title, and environmental liens.
2-1
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015

Federal agencies including BLM, USEPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S.
Border Patrol; and

Regional utility providers.
Interviews – Key personnel from various federal, state and local government agencies, and other
appropriate organizations, were interviewed to identify potential environmental liabilities and to determine
past and present land uses. Personnel were asked to provide any knowledge of environmental hazards,
including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), potential asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based
paint (LBP), unexploded ordnance (UXO), mines, CDLs, spills, dumping or compliance violations. A
compilation of interview results is provided in Appendix G.
Aerial Photograph Review – Historical aerial photographs from the EDR search and high-resolution aerial
photo imagery from Google Earth were systematically reviewed to identify evidence of potential mining,
dumping, surface staining, abandoned structures, utilities, and/or UXO. Geographic coordinates for areas
of interest were provided to the field team for use during the field inspection.
Field Inspections – All of the materials resulting from the tasks described above were used to prioritize
areas of interest for the field inspection and site visit. The field inspection event is summarized in Table 21. One site visit was conducted by Cardno staff using a global-positioning system (GPS)-enabled field
computer and GPS-enabled camera to document the team’s route and photo locations.
Table 2-1. Field Inspection Summary
Date
19-22 December 2014
2.1.1
Location
Bradshaw Trail, Outgrant Parcels 1-34
Staff
Richard Stolpe (Cardno)
Shannon Brown (Cardno)
Documents Reviewed
Table 2-2 lists documents and databases reviewed during the preparation of the ECP, including the date of
the document, preparer, title, and summary of information provided. The various databases and other
sources searched by EDR provided the primary resources for the ECP document review. Appendix D
contains the EDR DataMapTM (i.e., area studies), including the list of searched databases (both those
required by ASTM E1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments, as well as
supplemental databases), database descriptions and results, dates of updates, approximate minimum search
distances, and maps. Other reports or documents supplied by EDR include historical aerial photos
(Appendix E) and historical topographical maps (Appendix F).
2-2
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Table 2-2. Summary of Documents Reviewed, Databases Searched, and Information Reviewed
Date
Preparer
6/2015
Arcadis
12/2013
ASTM
2/2015
BLM
2014
California
Department of
Water
Resources
5/2015
Cardno
10/2015
CB&I Federal
Services LLC
7/2006
DoN
1/2015
DTSC
Title
Range Environmental Vulnerability
Assessment Five Year Review,
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Standard Practice for Environmental
Site Assessments (Designation
E1527-13)
Summary of Information Reviewed
Review of munitions loading at CMAGR from
fiscal years 2007 through 2013 and the
relationship to surface and ground water.
Standards and guidelines for conducting
Environmental Site Assessments.
The Bureau of Land Management
LR2000 database
A searchable database for public reports on BLM
land and mineral use authorizations,
conveyances, mining claims, withdrawals and
classifications.
Interactive water data library.
Agency listing of state water quality information.
Environmental Assessment for
Proposed Range Redesign of Special
Warfare Training Areas 4 and 5
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery
Range, Imperial and Riverside
Counties, CA
Range Activity Survey. Chocolate
Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range,
California, Marine Corps Air Station,
Yuma, Arizona
DoN Environmental Policy
Memorandum 06-06 Streamlined
Environmental Procedures Applicable
to Non-BRAC Real Estate Actions
EnviroStor Interactive Map and
Database
EDR DataMapTM for CMAGR Land
Transfer Area, Riverside and Imperial
Counties, California
General area and resource information and
consistency with previous Cardno studies.
Range activity survey of 34 land parcels, totaling
approximately 2,587 acres, located along the
Bradshaw Trail.
Current guidance on performing an ECP in
support of agreements for use of DoN real
property by others.
An interactive map and database of cleanup sites
and hazardous waste permitted facilities within
the State of California.
Historical locations and activity for sites in
proximity to the subject transfer parcels with
potential to affect the site; database search results
for potential environmental hazards.
Present and historical aerial images; elevations
of, and distances to/from the subject transfer
parcels.
A searchable website containing information
about soil conditions.
The Riverside County Assessor website. An
assessor’s parcel number search engine for maps,
parcel history, value, and ownership.
12/2014
EDR
2014-15
Google Earth
1/2015
NRCS
11/2014
Riverside
County
2015
Southern
California Gas
Company
Interactive gas and pipeline locator
maps.
Identifies gas lines and pipelines owned/operated
by the Southern California Gas Company.
2015
SWRCB
GeoTracker Leaking Underground
Fuel Tank Website
Leaking underground storage tank site
information for the subject transfer parcels and
surrounding area.
Google Earth Interactive Software
and Database
Soil Series Database
Land Information System
2-3
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Table 2-2. Summary of Documents Reviewed, Databases Searched, and Information Reviewed
Date
Preparer
1/2015
USACE
Title
Formerly Used Defense Sites
Geographic Information System
Final Archives Search Report Marine
Corps Air Station Yuma Chocolate
Mountain Aerial Bombing and
Gunnery Range
Enforcement and Compliance History
Online
Summary of Information Reviewed
Website provides policy and guidance within
USACE for the planning, programming,
budgeting, execution, management, and reporting
of all activities associated with Formerly Used
Defense Sites properties and projects.
12/2001
USACE
Chemical, biological, and radiological activities.
10/2015
USEPA
1/2015
USEPA
EnviroMapper
1/2015
USEPA
MyEnvironment Interactive Database;
Enviromapper Interactive Database;
Final National Priorities List Site.
1/1985
USEPA
Aerial Photographic Analysis of
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery
Range, Riverside and Imperial
Counties, California.
Aerial photographic analysis of impact areas,
practice targets, unidentified objects, and bomb
craters.
10/2015
USGS
National Water Information System
Mapper
A website that provides access to water resources
data collected at approximately 1.5 million sites
in all 50 states, and United States territories.
Provides compliance and enforcement
information for facilities nationwide.
A web-based geographic information system
application that dynamically displays water
quality and other environmental information
about bodies of water in the United States
Public use websites with interactive maps for
information related to air, water, land, energy,
and health, and identification of emergency
incidents, Superfund, hazardous waste,
Brownfields, fuels, biennial reporting, and toxic
release sites.
Note: This table is a representative sample of applicable documents taken from a more exhaustive list of approximately 200 relevant
sources that were reviewed for potentially pertinent information.
Table 2-3 lists the ASTM-required databases and search radii, and the associated records from the EDR
reports for the subject transfer parcels. Properties within 1 mile (1.6 km) (i.e., buffer zones) of the land
transfer parcels were also investigated to determine their potential to affect the subject transfer parcels. The
properties were investigated at or beyond corresponding minimum search distances required by ASTM
Standard of Practice E1527-13 (ASTM 2013) and DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06 (DoN
2006).
As shown in Table 2-3, the search of federal, state, and local records identified one military installation
(i.e., CMAGR) within the ECP subject transfer parcel study area. See Chapter 5, Environmental Conditions
for a detailed discussion of environmental conditions.
2-4
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Table 2-3. Federal, State, and Local Record Search Results
Database
Search
Radius (miles)
Number of Sites Identified
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FEDERAL
NPL
Proposed NPL
Delisted NPL
NPL Liens
CERCLIS
CERCLIS-NFRAP
Liens 2
CORRACTS
RCRA-TSDF
RCRA-LQG
RCRA-SQG
RCRA-CESQG
RCRA-NonGen / NLR
US ENG CONTROLS
US INST CONTROL
ERNS
HMIRS
DOT OPS
US CDL
US BROWNFIELDS
DOD
FUDS
LUCIS
CONSENT
ROD
UMTRA
ODI
DEBRIS REGION 9
US MINES
TRIS
TSCA
FTTS
HIST FTTS
SSTS
ICIS
PADS
MLTS
RADINFO
FINDS
RAATS
RMP
US AIRS
LEAD SMELTERS
PCB TRANSFORMER
US HIST CDL
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
COAL ASH DOE
2020 COR ACTION
PRP
2-5
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Database
EPA WATCH LIST
US FIN ASSUR
FEDERAL FACILITY
COAL ASH
EPA FEMA UST
STATE AND LOCAL
HIST Cal-Sites
CA BOND EXP. PLAN
SCH
Toxic Pits
SWF/LF
UIC
NPDES
WDS
Cortese
HIST CORTESE
SWRCY
LUST
CA FID UST
SLIC
UST
HIST UST
LIENS
CUPA Listings
SWEEPS UST
CHMIRS
LDS
MCS
AST
Notify 65
DEED
VCP
DRYCLEANERS
WIP
ENF
CDL
RESPONSE
HAZNET
EMI
HAULERS
ENVIROSTOR
HWT
HWP
MWMP
PROC
WMUDS/SWAT
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV
INDIAN ODI
INDIAN LUST
Search
Radius (miles)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2-6
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
0
0
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Database
INDIAN UST
INDIAN VCP
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
EDR MGP
EDR US Hist Auto Stat
EDR US Hist Cleaners
RGA LUST
RGA LF
Search
Radius (miles)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: EDR 2014.
Note: See Appendix D for complete reports, including an explanation and description of acronyms that appear in
this table.
2.1.2
Interviews
Interviews with MCAS Yuma and CMAGR staff, NAVFAC SW personnel, BLM representatives, U.S.
Border Patrol agents, counties of Riverside and Imperial, other municipal staff, and other federal and state
agency staff were conducted. These individuals provided information on historical and current use of the
subject transfer parcels, easements and rights-of-way (ROWs), mines, water quality, notices of violation,
tanks, spills, releases of hazardous materials, and Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) activities. A list of
individuals contacted is provided in Table 2-4; documentation of each interview conducted is provided in
Appendix G.
Table 2-4. List of Individuals Interviewed
Name
Bill Sellars
David Rodriguez
Roderick Soule
Angela Wimberly
Chris Sowell
Eric Clayton
Hector Velazquez
Steve Bonillas
Louis Knight
Chris Hall
Not Provided*
George Kline
Sterling White
Brandon Anderson
Tony Rouhotas
Organization/Title
MCAS Yuma Range Director
MCAS Yuma Environmental Director
NAVFAC SW Range Activity Survey Project Manager
NAVFAC SW Remedial Project Manager for MCAS Yuma/CMAGR
Southern California Gas Pipeline Planner
Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
Criminal Information Technician
U.S. Border Patrol Agent
Imperial Irrigation District (North End Division)
Community of Bombay Beach Fire Department Chief
City of Calipatria Fire Department Chief
City of Brawley Fire Department Desk Sergeant
BLM, Cultural Resources Specialist, Palm Springs office
BLM, California Desert District, Abandoned Mines Program Lead
BLM, Realty Specialist, Palm Springs office
Imperial Fire Department, Head Fire Chief
Contact
Information
928-269-2405
928-269-2282
619-532-4249
619-532-4168
909-335-7801
951-955-2436
760-347-3658
760-482-9900
760-455-2759
760-348-4144
760-351-9110
760-833-7135
951-697-5239
760-833-7117
760-482-2420
Note: *Full interview was not conducted because the individual contacted did not have specific knowledge of the information
requested. However, other useful information or direction to alternate resources was provided; therefore, the individual is
included in the interview list.
2.1.3
Aerial Photograph Review
Historical and current aerial photographs of the land transfer parcels and adjacent areas were reviewed as
part of the ECP. Historical aerial photographs provided in the EDR reports (Appendix E), and historical
imagery available on Google Earth, were evaluated to help identify areas of interest. High-resolution aerial
2-7
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
photo imagery was systematically reviewed to identify evidence of potential mining, dumping, surface
staining, abandoned structures, utilities, and munitions operations. To accomplish this, an exhaustive study
and analysis was performed of maps, covering numerous years at multiple scales, to create the Table 2-5
below, and the index table of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) images provided in the beginning of
Appendix E. For digital map files, this process involved zooming in and out to varying scales and repeating
this analysis at multiple scales per image. In addition to the aerial photos provided in the EDR (Appendix
E), every year (at every scale possible) available on Google Earth was examined for anything with the
potential to affect the subject transfer parcels (Table 2-5; Google Earth 2015). The geographic coordinates
of areas of interest identified during this process were provided to the field team to prioritize for the field
inspection.
Table 2-5. List of Aerial Photo Years Analyzed
Year
Source
File Location
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2006
2005
2004
2003
Google Earth 2015 (Image NASA)
Google Earth 2015 (Image Digital Globe)
Google Earth 2015 (Image source unspecified)
Google Earth 2015 (Image Digital Globe/USDA)
Google Earth 2015 (Image Digital Globe/USDA)
Google Earth 2015 (Image USDA)
Google Earth 2015 (Image Digital Globe/USGS)
Google Earth 2015 (Image Digital Globe/USDA/USGS)
Google Earth 2015 (Image Digital Globe/USDA/USGS/NASA)
Google Earth 2015 (Image USGS/NASA)
USGS (via EDR)
USGS (via EDR)
USGS (via EDR)
USGS (via EDR)
USGS (via EDR)
USGS (via EDR)
USEPA
USGS (via EDR) and USACE
USGS (via EDR)
USGS (via EDR)
USGS (via EDR)
USGS (via EDR)
USGS (via EDR)
Online (Google Earth 2015)
Appendix E of this ECP
2002
1996
1995
1994
1992
1990
1989
1985
1984
1975
1972
1956
1954
1953
1948
Note: NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture; USGS =
U.S. Geological Survey.
2.1.4
Field Inspections
Information obtained from reports provided by EDR, agency file reviews, interviews, and aerial photo
reviews were used to prioritize areas of interest for property inspections. Areas of interest were evaluated
2-8
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
during the field inspection. The main objective was identification of visible evidence of potential
environmental contamination. Specifically, the ECP team looked for evidence such as:














Mines and related operations (pits, tailings, process operations);
Transformers and other potential indications of PCBs;
ACM;
Pipelines (gas, oil, or other utility type);
Aboveground storage tanks (AST), underground storage tanks (UST), piping, sumps, or other types
of impoundment structures;
CDLs;
Stained surface soils or distressed vegetation;
Disturbed surface soils or reclaimed areas;
Pools of liquid, residues, and discarded containers;
Electrical equipment such as transformers and capacitors;
Abandoned structures and associated utilities;
Solid waste disposal/dump sites;
UXO and munitions and explosives of concern (MEC); and
Drainage structures and direction of stormwater runoff on the subject transfer parcels and adjacent
areas.
The land use and environmental conditions in the subject transfer parcels were visually verified by the ECP
team during the field inspection. During the team’s field inspection, the areas were traversed by a fourwheel drive vehicle and on foot with the goal of visiting areas of interest identified during previous research
and analysis. Areas visited by the ECP team were recorded during the field inspection and are presented
along with key observations and a complete set of site photographs in Appendix B.
Properties within, and adjacent to, the 1 mile (1.6 km) buffer were also inspected during the field inspection.
Adjacent properties were observed to the extent possible, at the discretion of the field team within the
constraints of accessibility and ensuring personnel safety.
2.2
ECP RESOURCES
Resources used to conduct the ECP included interviews with MCAS Yuma and CMAGR staff, NAVFAC
SW personnel, BLM representatives, U.S. Border Patrol agents, counties of Riverside and Imperial, other
municipal staff, and other federal and state agency staff; analysis of historical and current aerial photos; site
inspections; review of available local, state, and federal government files; and a search of environmental
records pertaining to the subject transfer parcels. In addition, the ECP draws upon information contained
in highly applicable documents such as the CMAGR Land Withdrawal Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) (DoN 2013), CMAGR Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) (MCAS Yuma
2013), MCAS Yuma Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment [REVA] (Arcadis 2015), and CMAGR
Range Activity Survey (RAS) (CB&I 2015).
2.3
RELATED RESOURCES
A number of supporting references were consulted in the preparation of the ECP. These include references
on area history, mining claims, CDL activities and related law enforcement statistics, natural and cultural
resources, groundwater resources and groundwater quality, and recreational usage. All supporting
references are listed in Table 2-2 and supporting references cited are included in Chapter 8 of this document.
2-9
MCAS Yuma
Final
2.4
REAL ESTATE DOCUMENT REVIEW
2.4.1
Chain of Title
December 2015
The DoN Policy for Streamlining the Assessment, Documentation and Disclosure of ECP for Non-BRAC
Real Estate Actions requires review of all recorded chain of title, deed, or other available documents to
ascertain prior uses of the real property which may have involved hazardous substances or petroleum, or
otherwise contaminated the property, or created environmental risks (DoN 2006).
Review of chain of title is one method of identifying past uses of the property that may have created
environmental risk. ASTM E1527-13 requires that all obvious uses of the property be identified from the
present, back to the property’s first developed use, or sixty years, whichever is earlier. This task requires
reviewing only as many of the standard historical sources as are necessary, and both reasonably
ascertainable and likely to be useful.
EDR determined that recorded land title records and lien records that could be reviewed to identify
environmental liens or activity, and use limitations, recorded against the property were not reasonably
ascertainable or publicly available prior to 1976. Therefore, a chain of title for each of the outgrant parcels
was compiled based upon real estate records provided by NAVFAC SW (NAVFAC SW 2014) (Table 26). The name of each individual land owner was evaluated to ascertain prior uses of the real property which
may have involved hazardous substances. No obvious uses that may have created environmental risk were
identified. The majority of the outgrant parcels were acquired by the DoN either in fee from various owners
in 1942 or through a land withdrawal transaction from the BLM in 1945.
Table 2-6. Chain of Title
Outgrant Parcel
ID #
Total Acres
in
Acquisition
Date
Acquired
Grantor
Estate Type
1
95,755.00
5/29/1945
BLM
Overlapping
Withdrawal
2
501.27
4/20/1950
Southern
Pacific Land
Company
Fee
3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12,
14, 17, 19, 20, 23,
26, 27, 28, 30, 31,
33, 34
95,755.00
5/29/1945
BLM
Withdrawal
5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16,
18, 22, 24, 25
112,613.70
2/12/1942
Various
Owners
Fee
21
456.88
5/6/1953
BLM
Withdrawal
29, 32
11,342.60
2/12/1942
State of
California
Fee
Record Document
See FR 03-17927 (42128)
Bureau of Reclamation and
DoN
Deed Number 5818-R
P.L.O. 281 (Amended by
P.L.O. 2312/5759) and P.L.
103-443
Civil 2054-Y Declaration of
Taking, Book 1307, page 769
Official Records
P.L.O. 893/F.R. Document
53-4163 and P.L. 103-433
Civil 2054-Y (School Lands)
Declaration of Taking
Source: NAVFAC SW 2014.
Notes: FR= Federal Register; P.L.O. = Public Land Order; P.L. = Public Law.
2-10
MCAS Yuma
2.4.2
Final
December 2015
Easements and Rights-of-Way
The majority of land within the subject transfer parcels and adjacent areas is undeveloped. Accordingly,
there is minimal demand for electricity or other utility service in those areas. However, multiple
encumbrances in the form of either easements or ROWs are located on the subject transfer parcels. The
approximate location of all utility easements within and adjacent to the subject transfer parcels was plotted
on maps prepared by the NAVFAC SW and reviewed by the ECP team. The search located 12 different
encumbrances that are found in multiple parcels (for example, the easement for the Bradshaw Trail affects
all 34 of the parcels and is noted as Item 33 by NAVFAC SW). Table 2-7 provide a list of encumbrances
(ROW or easements) that are found on each parcel. All of these encumbrances are for the Bradshaw Trail
or railroad, canal/water, electrical distribution, or gas line purposes.
Table 2-7. Encumbrances by Parcel
Item
(Outgrant
ID #)
Parcel 1
Total Acres
in
Acquisition
Date
Acquired
Grantee
ROW
Estate Type
Item 13
(22514)
140.12
3/1/1945
Bureau of
Reclamation
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
Item 2
10,353.03
3/6/1912
Southern Pacific
Railroad Company
ROW
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
Item 23
(22659)
196.96
2/9/1998
Kaiser Eagle
Mountain Inc.
ROW grant
Item 16
(22526)
222.65
12/26/1961
Kaiser Steel
Corporation
Memorandum
/ROW
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
Item 2
10353.03
3/6/1912
Southern Pacific
Railroad Company
ROW
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
Purpose
Bureau of Reclamation
reserved ROW per
Department of Interior
memorandum.
Declared public highway by
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 2
200’ wide reservation for
RR purposes, ROW for
roads and right to use water.
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 3
Item 33
(22651)
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 4
Variable width ROW for
railroad, roads, dikes, and
drainage facilities.
200’ permanent ROW for
RR, roads, power lines, and
pipelines.
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 5
2-11
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Item
(Outgrant
ID #)
Parcel 6
Total Acres
in
Acquisition
Date
Acquired
Grantee
Estate Type
Item 2
10,353.03
3/6/1912
Southern Pacific
Railroad Company
ROW
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Item 2
10353.03
3/6/1912
Southern Pacific
Railroad Company
ROW
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
Item 2
10353.03
3/6/1912
Southern Pacific
Railroad Company
ROW
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
Item 2
10353.03
3/6/1912
Southern Pacific
Railroad Company
ROW
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
Purpose
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 7
Item 33
(22651)
Parcel 8
Item 33
(22651)
Parcel 9
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 10
Item 33
(22651)
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 11
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 12
Item 33
(22651)
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 13
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 14
Item 33
(22651)
2-12
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Item
(Outgrant
ID #)
Parcel 15
Total Acres
in
Acquisition
Date
Acquired
Grantee
Estate Type
Purpose
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Item 2
10353.03
3/6/1912
Southern Pacific
Railroad Company
ROW
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
10353.03
3/6/1912
Southern Pacific
Railroad Company
ROW
Item 33
(22651)
Parcel 16
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 17
Item 2
Item 15
(22626)
Item 22
(22517)
Item 17
(22653)
9.14
2/25/1960
IID
ROW
104.65
2/3/1994
SoCalGas
ROW
44.19
4/27/1966
SoCalGas
ROW
Item 18
(22657)
46.28
6/10/1963
SoCalGas
ROW
Item 19
(22654)
61.61
1/13/1964
SoCalGas
Easement
Item 20
(22655)
11.90
1/13/1964
IID
Easement
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
Item 2
10353.03
3/6/1912
Southern Pacific
Railroad Company
ROW
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
11/18/1903
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
10’ wide ROW for 12.5kV
power line.
50’ wide ROW for a 24”
gas pipeline.
50’ wide ROW for 10” gas
pipeline.
50’ wide ROW for 8” gas
pipeline; width varies for
cathodic protection anode
beds.
50’ wide easement for road,
gas line, ingress and egress
purposes; width varies for
cathodic protection anode
beds.
10’ wide easement for
power line purposes.
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 18
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcels 19 through 32
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
2-13
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Item
(Outgrant
ID #)
Parcel 33
Total Acres
in
Acquisition
Date
Acquired
Item 34
(22652)
5.75
12/19/2002
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
Grantee
BLM Northern and
Eastern Colorado
Desert Coordinated
Management Plan
Record of Decision
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
Estate Type
ROW (road)
ROW (road)
Purpose
BLM Northern and Eastern
Colorado Desert
Coordinated Management
Plan, Route Number
671918.
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Parcel 34
Item 34
(22652)
5.75
12/19/2002
Item 33
(22651)
57.06
11/18/1903
BLM Northern and
Eastern Colorado
Desert Coordinated
Management Plan
Record of Decision
County of Riverside
Public Highway
Designation
ROW (road)
ROW (road)
BLM Northern and Eastern
Colorado Desert
Coordinated Management
Plan, Route Number
671918.
Riverside Board of
Supervisors.
Source: NAVFAC SW 2014.
Notes: The original grantor of the easements is uncertain. SoCalGas = Southern California Gas Company; RR = railroad.
2.4.3
Utility Easements
The IID has a 10 foot (ft) (3 meter [m]) wide ROW originally supporting a 12.5 kilovolt (kV) distribution
line which passes through Parcel 17. The ROW now contains triple-string single-circuit overhead power
lines on wooden poles. The 161 kV “Gasline” transmission line is maintained by IID and crosses CMAGR
along the Gas Line Road alignment (DoN 2013). The transmission line shares right-of-way with the
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which delivers natural gas via a 24 inch wide natural gas
pipeline (see next section). Additional observations made of this power line during the site visit conducted
for this ECP are included in Section 5.5, Polychlorinated Biphenyls.
2.4.4
Natural Gas Easements
SoCalGas has several parallel adjacent linear easements for underground natural gas lines, cathodic
protection anodes, and access through outgrant Parcel 17. The combined width of the easements is
approximately 100 ft (31 m) but can vary due to cathodic protection valves that are needed for corrosion
protection. Within the easements there are two active and one inactive natural gas transmission lines. Line
416902-1 is a 24-inch diameter pipeline. Line 41-6001-1, located east of 416902-1, is 10 inches in diameter.
A third line (8 inches in diameter) is also present in the easement, but it is currently inactive. The two
active lines serve redundant functions for system stability and reliability (SoCalGas 2015a). These gas
lines are generally considered large diameter pipelines that operate at pressures above 200 pounds per
square inch and transport gas from supply points to the gas transmission system (SoCalGas 2015b, 2015c).
The easements and gas lines run north to south through the entire width of CMAGR. Construction of the
cathodic anode beds contained within the easements involves burying a magnesium or zinc anode in the
soil and connecting it to a pipeline by welding the copper wire running from the anode to the surface of the
2-14
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
pipeline. A pipeline may have one or many anodes connected to it. The sole purpose for installing an
anode bed is that it controls corrosion of an existing pipeline. Visual inspections of the gas lines by
SoCalGas occur within CMAGR during 1 week each year, in coordination with CMAGR Range Operations
Control (SoCalGas 2015a).
The natural gas supply originates on BLM land, approximately 11 miles (17.9 km) north of CMAGR, at
SoCalGas’s Mainline Valve 5 Station located north of Interstate (I)-10. It travels south from I-10, along
Gas Line Road to where it crosses the Bradshaw Trail and enters CMAGR. Approximately 100 ft (31 m)
south of the intersection of Gas Line Road and the Bradshaw Trail is an approximate 10 ft by 10 ft (4 m by
4 m) fenced area containing a concrete slab and valves. This is a SoCalGas control station where the two
gas lines are bridled together. Should one of the lines need to be shut down for maintenance, SoCalGas
technicians can cut off gas flow to portions of that transmission line and still provide service via the other
line (SoCalGas 2015a). The gas line continues in a relatively straight line, south, to where it exits CMAGR
at CMAGR’s southern boundary line near the Coachella Canal at Gas Line Road.
These natural gas transmission lines are the primary natural gas supply to the Calipatria, Brawley and El
Centro areas and are considered critical regional energy infrastructure. The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety
Act of 1968 authorizes the Department of Transportation to regulate pipeline transportation of flammable,
toxic, or corrosive natural gas and other gases as well as the transportation and storage of liquefied natural
gas. The Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration develops
and enforces regulations for the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of natural gas pipelines.
2.4.5
Environmental Lien Reports
Environmental lien reports were unable to be obtained through EDR. During the preparation of the ECP,
including during interviews, site inspections, document and other database reviews however, no
environmental liens nor Activity and Use Limitations were identified for any of the subject transfer parcels
(MCAS Yuma 2015a, NAVFAC SW 2015a, DoN 2013). Moreover, no records of spills, cleanups, or
environmental responses were identified in the subject transfer parcels (California DTSC 2015b, California
Water Resources Control Board [CWRCB] 2015, USEPA 2015a, 2015b, 2015c). This finding indicates
that there does not appear to be any reason to suspect potential non-MEC related contamination from
historical hazardous materials management practices at these locations. It should be noted however, that
the subject transfer parcels were incorporated into the DoN’s environmental restoration program in 2015
due to the presence of MEC observed within some of the parcels and will remain in the program until they
achieve clean closure (see Section 5.9, Munitions and Explosives of Concern) pursuant to direction in Public
Law 113-66, Section 2963 (b) and (c).
2-15
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
2-16
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
CHAPTER 3
PAST AND CURRENT USE
3.1
PAST AND CURRENT LAND USE
The subject transfer parcels align with the Bradshaw Trail from the Coachella Canal to the eastern extent
of the CMAGR. The Bradshaw Trail was the first road across Riverside County to the Colorado River.
The trail was constructed by William Bradshaw in 1862 as an overland stage route. Beginning in San
Bernardino, California, the trail was used extensively between 1862 and 1877 to haul miners and other
passengers to the gold fields at La Paz, Arizona. The Bradshaw Trail is now a 70-mile long dirt road that
is periodically graded by the Riverside County Transportation Department. Today the trail is primarily
used for OHV driving and hiking (BLM 2014a).
For a few years during World War II (WWII) (approximately 1942-1944), much of the region surrounding
the present day boundaries of CMAGR was occupied by the Desert Training Center/California-Arizona
Maneuver Area (DTC/C-AMA), with over 200,000 troops (at maximum occupancy) utilizing the land and
air within the DTC/C-AMA to conduct training and exercises in an area that stretched from the CaliforniaArizona-Mexico border confluence north to the lower part of Nevada (MCAS Yuma 2013).
The land south of the Bradshaw Trail has remained largely undeveloped and primarily used for military
training since WWII, when the CMAGR was established. As CMAGR is functionally considered to be
south of the Bradshaw Trail (and following the proposed real estate action, it will be entirely south of the
Bradshaw Trail), past and current operations at CMAGR will be discussed in Chapter 6, Adjacent
Properties. BLM and DoN lands in the CMAGR are generally interspersed in a checkerboard pattern of 1
square mile (640-acres) sections along the Bradshaw Trail.
Other land uses along the subject transfer parcels include the Coachella Canal, the construction of which
began in the 1930s. As with CMAGR, additional information about the Coachella Canal is provided in
Chapter 6, Adjacent Properties.
The abandoned Eagle Mountain Railroad occurs north and northwest of CMAGR and runs adjacent to the
Bradshaw Trail from approximately Parcel 4 to Parcel 11. It passes south through Parcel 4 before turning
and heading west, south of Parcels 1, 2, and 3. The Eagle Mountain Railroad was constructed in 1948 and
served iron mines in and around the Salton Sea. The railroad branches from the Union Pacific’s
transcontinental railroad near Niland, California. The last time a train utilized the tracks was in 1986
(Abandoned Rails 2014).
Gas Line Road bisects the Bradshaw Trail at Parcel 17 and continues north across BLM land and south into
CMAGR. There is a 161 kV electrical distribution line that is owned and operated by IID and runs along
Gas Line Road. The power line shares a ROW with SoCalGas, which delivers natural gas via a 24-inchwide natural gas pipeline (DoN 2013, SoCalGas 2015a). The road has existed in its current form since the
late 1950s (Appendix E) and the ROWs have been in place since the early 1960s (refer to Table 2-7).
3-1
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
3-2
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.1
CLIMATE
The subject transfer parcels are located in the Colorado Desert. The climate of the CMAGR is desert, with
low humidity, high summer temperatures, and moderate winter temperatures.
Data from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) are available for Eagle Mountain, California,
which is located to the west of the CMAGR near Joshua Tree National Park. Data from this location
indicate that July is the hottest month with an average maximum temperature of 104.9 degrees Fahrenheit
(°F) (40.5 degrees Celsius [°C]), and January is the coldest month with an average maximum temperature
of 64.5°F (18°C). Similarly, July is the month with the highest average minimum temperature at 82.6°F
(28.1°C), and the month with the lowest average minimum temperature is January at 44.4°F (6.8°C)
(WRCC 2014).
The driest months are from April through June, and August is the wettest month due to the influence of the
summer monsoon rain pattern (WRCC 2014). Average precipitation measured at the Eagle Mountain
meteorological station is 3.67 inches (9.32 centimeters [cm]) per year.
4.2
TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
The subject transfer parcels are located in the Colorado Desert and Salton Sea geomorphic provinces of
California, which are situated in the southwestern most portion of the Basin and Range physiographic
province. The Basin and Range province is characterized by generally steep, subparallel, discontinuous
mountain ranges that trend northwest to southeast separated by broad, gently sloping to nearly flat, deep
alluvial basins. The subject transfer parcels are characterized by the rugged Chocolate Mountains to the
south, a range that rises abruptly from broad alluvium-filled desert basins. Situated east of the Salton Sea,
the Chocolate Mountains stretch more than 60 miles (96 km) in a northwest by southeast direction, south
and west of the Chuckwalla Mountains and southeast of the Orocopia Mountains. Elevations within the
subject transfer parcels range from approximately 80 ft (24 m) near Coachella Canal Siphon 24 to 2,500 ft
(762 m) in Parcel 28.
The Chocolate Mountains are largely comprised of the southern California batholith and Orocopia Schist
of Mesozoic age (about 65 to 250 million years ago), overlain by thrust fragments of an older Precambrian
(greater than 540 million years ago) metamorphic complex, with minor Tertiary (about 3 to 65 million years
ago) volcanic and intrusive rocks. Except where exposed at the surface, Pliocene (about 3 to 5 million
years ago) and Pleistocene (about 2 to 3 million years ago) marine and non-marine sedimentary deposits
overlay much of the older metamorphic and volcanic layers. The subject transfer parcels are primarily
composed of a more recent Holocene (present-day to 10,000 years ago) alluvium, which occurs within the
adjacent basins to the east and west of the Chocolate Mountains (MCAS Yuma 2013).
The majority of the undisturbed ground surface within the subject transfer parcels consists of alluvial
materials from the Chocolate Mountains. The oldest and most stable of these alluvial materials are known
as desert pavement or desert varnish. These desert pavements can be consolidated and darkly-varnished
pebble surfaces or a mix of volcanic rhyolites, quartz, and some fine grained cryptocrystalline silicates,
variously described as chalcedony or jasper. More recent Holocene pavements generally exhibit a looser
4-1
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
and lighter colored angular gruss. This desert pavement is cut by ravines, stream channels, and flat washes
(DoN 2013).
No soil data exists for the subject transfer parcels. However, Table 4-1 presents the soil series that occur
at the CMAGR, are typical to the area, and are likely to occur within the subject transfer parcels. All of the
soils expected to occur in the subject transfer parcels are well drained to excessively well drained, do not
promote the ponding of water, and are easily eroded.
Table 4-1. CMAGR Soil Types and Characteristics
Soil Series
Cajon
Gunsight
Myoma
Rositas
Tecopa
Vaiva
Description
Drainage and Permeability
Very deep soils that formed in sandy alluvium from
dominantly granitic rocks. Cajons soils are on
alluvial fans, fan aprons, fan skirts, inset fans, and
river terraces.
Very deep, strongly calcareous soils that formed in
alluvium from mixed sources. Gunsight soils are on
fan terraces or stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to
60 percent.
Light olive gray, moderately alkaline fine and very
fine sands to a depth of about 31 inches (78 cm).
Below 31 inches (78 cm) they are strongly alkaline
very fine sands.
Very deep soils formed in sandy eolian material.
Rositas are on dunes and sand sheets. Slopes range
from 0 to 30 percent with hummocky or dune micro
relief.
Very shallow soils formed in residium and colluvium
weathered from quartzite, schists, and gneiss. Tecopa
soils are on low hills and low mountain side slopes.
Very shallow, formed in slope alluvium from granite
and gneiss. Vaiva soils are on hills and mountains
with slopes of 1 to 65 percent.
Somewhat excessively drained; negligible
to low runoff; rapid permeability.
Flooding is none to rare.
Somewhat excessively drained; very low
to high runoff; moderate or moderately
rapid permeability.
Somewhat excessively drained; very slow
runoff; rapid permeability.
Somewhat excessively drained; negligible
to low runoff; rapid permeability.
Well drained; medium to rapid runoff;
permeability is moderate.
Well drained; medium to rapid runoff;
moderate permeability.
Sources: Natural Resources Conservation Service 1997, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2009.
The subject transfer parcels are located in one of the most seismically active areas in California that
frequently experiences earthquakes due to local or regional faults (Figure 4-1). There are “active”2 faults
in the vicinity of the Bradshaw Trail that are capable of producing large earthquakes (California Geological
Survey 2010a and 2010b). The most prominent of these faults, capable of producing earthquakes in the 7.0
to 8.0 magnitude range, is the San Andreas Fault, located along the eastern shore of the Salton Sea, west of
the subject transfer parcels (Southern California Earthquake Data Center 2013). An inactive but
“potentially active”3 fault, the Salton Creek Fault, passes through the Bradshaw Trail (California
Geological Survey 2010a and 2010b). Compared to the San Andreas Fault, little is known about the activity
and magnitude potential of the Salton Creek Fault.
2 An "active fault" has had surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years).
3 A "potentially active fault" has shown evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (last 1.6 million years).
4-2
MCAS Yuma
Final
Pilot Mountain
$
1
ad
Ro
e Road
Gas Lin
Br
aw
sh
d
a
Orocopia Mountain
$
1
10
Middle Salt Creek 9
8
6
4
14
17
16
18
19
20
BRA
15
S-5-3
(Inactive)
5
3
2
13
lt
reek F au
C
n
o
t
l
a
S
7
1
11
12
13
10
December 2015
21
DSH
AW
181002040602
S-5-2
(Inactive)
22 23
26
24
TR
AI
Az
27
L
28
25
9N (Active)
t ec
Mi
ne
29
Wa
sh
Fa
30
ac
Co
l
he
la
Ca
Chocolate Mountain
ult
31
Po
n al
32
w
e
lin lt
er au
F
33
A
nd
re
as
Fa
ul
t
ul
Fa
gs
in
pr
tS
n
34
IMPERIAL COUNTY
Ho
Sa
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
t
Ù
A
(
!
$̀
"
!
Indio
RIVER SIDE
COUNT Y
Niland
A̧
Legend
$̀
"
!
Ù
A
Outgrant: Federal Land not Renewed Elevation (meters)
High : 1371.55
LA PAZ
COUNTY
A̧
IMPERIAL
COUNT Y
SAN DIEGO
COUNT Y
Brawley
YUMA
COUNT Y
El Centro
$
_
"
!
Yuma
$
_
"
!
CMAGR Boundary
Sea Level
Low : -70.2889
MC Loading Area
Ephemeral Drainage
Coachella Canal
Subwatershed
Highway
0
2.5
5
Miles
Kilometers
Bradshaw Trail
Local Road
0
2.5
5
O
ME XICO
Active Fault Zone
Figure 4-1
Regional Topography, Hydrology, and Faults
4-3
MCAS Yuma
4.3
Final
December 2015
HYDROGEOLOGY
Surface water features within the subject transfer parcels include ephemeral streams, dry washes, and playas
(refer to Figure 4-1). All naturally occurring surface water features within the subject transfer parcels are
ephemeral and contain water only during and after rainfall events. Rainfall events are infrequent but can
be locally intense and the majority of precipitation occurs as a result of summer and early fall monsoonal
thunderstorms.
During heavy rainfall events, water flows across the bedrock surface of the mountains into drainage
channels that lead toward the basin floor. Runoff from the western portion of the Bradshaw Trail flows
towards the Salton Sea primarily via Salt Creek and through Coachella Canal Siphon 23 and Siphon 24,
while runoff from the eastern portion of the Bradshaw Trail flows towards the Colorado River. A small
amount of the water flowing off the flanks of the mountains infiltrates across the bedrock-alluvial deposit
interface, migrating through quaternary deposits to recharge deep aquifers. Runoff from the Chocolate
Mountains carries sand, gravel, cobbles, and even boulder-sized rocks as part of the bedload transport.
Deposition of this bedload material across less steep terrain has resulted in the formation of alluvial fans
commonly observed in this region.
Due to the absence of perennial and intermittent surface water flows in the vicinity of the subject transfer
parcels (and generally in desert areas), groundwater infiltration is minimal; ephemeral surface waters
typically do not infiltrate to groundwater table depths. Groundwater depths in the project area range from
20 to 48 ft (6 to 14 m) in depth. Groundwater basins under the subject transfer parcels include the Chocolate
Valley Basin and near the Coachella Canal, the East Salton Sea Basin. The groundwater underlying the
subject transfer parcels is generally considered unusable for domestic and irrigation uses. Within the
irrigated portion of Imperial Valley, groundwater is shallow, often interfering with agricultural practices
due to saturation and elevated concentration of dissolved salts (California Department of Water Resources
2004).
4-5
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
4-6
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
CHAPTER 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
5.1
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE/WASTE MANAGEMENT
During preparation of the ECP, including interviews, site inspections, document and database reviews,
some evidence was found that suggested the potential of historical land uses and activities that may involve
potential physical and/or chemical hazards (which include hazardous substance and waste management
issues) relative to the subject transfer parcels. These hazardous material and waste management
environmental concerns primarily include sites of unauthorized waste dumping, abandoned vehicles,
temporary habitations or campsites, transient munitions debris (MD) (e.g., bullets and bullet casings), and
the potential for munitions constituents (MC) in transient surface water flows respectively, from CMAGR.
Figure 5-1 presents the locations of these and other potential environmental hazards within the subject
transfer parcels. Evidence of hazardous materials or hazardous waste activity was noted at the subject
transfer parcels during the visual site inspection conducted on 19-22 December 2014.
During the December 2014 field inspection, items potentially containing hazardous substances, including
a habitation, vehicles, appliances, tires, bullets and bullet casings, and various types of electronic waste
were identified (Figures 5-1). The electronic waste observed was infrequently encountered, and primarily
composed of scattered bits of electric wire, common household batteries (e.g., A, C, and D cell). There
were also a few discarded appliances, a television, and a few abandoned vehicles also encountered
infrequently and in small numbers. Most of these items appeared highly weathered and desiccated,
suggesting that they have been outdoors for years or decades. With the exception of MCs (which are
analyzed separately in Section 5.9, Munitions and Explosives of Concern), the waste was generally
scattered, infrequently encountered, and not acutely hazardous in nature. Therefore, it is unlikely that the
subject transfer parcels would be substantially affected by hazardous substances or waste management
conditions present onsite.
5.2
PETROLEUM CONTAMINATION
During the preparation of the ECP, including during interviews, site inspections, document and database
reviews, evidence was found that suggested the potential of isolated, minor releases of petroleum products
having occurred within the subject transfer parcels. The Bradshaw Trail is an established back country
byway that is frequently used for four-wheel driving, wildlife viewing, plant viewing, birdwatching, scenic
drives, rock collecting, hiking, camping (in designated areas), and other outdoor activities (BLM 2014b).
There are no commercial refueling services in this area and recreational users may bring their own fuel with
them. No records/reports were identified related to any reportable spills that may have occurred as a result
of these activities. During site inspection, isolated petroleum, oil, and/or lubricant (POL) containers and
stains were observed in the subject transfer parcels (Figure 5-2). The size of the containers varied, and
given the condition of the containers the size was often indeterminable; however, in general the containers
were consistent with non-industrial sized personal use. Since the volume of fuel and/or POL used as part
of these activities are typically relatively small, unreported spills can occur and go unnoticed. The POL
waste containers were scattered, infrequently encountered, and generally small in size. Therefore, it is
unlikely that the subject transfer parcels would be substantially affected by petroleum contamination.
5-1
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
5-2
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
O
Section 1
10
Coach
e
lla Ca
n
al
10
1
$
1
$
!$
!A
1
$
1
9
8
2
!
A
BR A D S
3
$
1 11
4
$
1!
H AW TR AI L
kA
j
6
5
7
!
C 11
!
C
$
1
12
13
O
$
1 11
Section 2
la C a
Coach el
e Road
Gas Lin
!
C 11
!
C
12
$
1
$
1$
1#
*
13
G
F
G
F
G
F
G 16
G
F
F
G
F
G
G
F
F
G
F
G
F
G
F
G
F
G
G
FG
FF
14
$
1
$
1$
1#
*
17
$
1$
1
$
1
1j
$
1Û
k
Ú $
$
1
18
19
!
C
*
BRAD S HA ¥
W TR
AI
W
X
nal
2
%
$
1$
1
15
20
L
X
4
21
j
k
28
Section 3
X
4
23
22
21
j
k
B R A D SH A
!
A
W TRAI
23
!
A
29
O
30
27
)
"
31
24
!
A
22
W
X
26
20
1
$
!
A
!
$
*
¥
#
*
L 25
TY
UN Y
O
C
NT
ID E C O U
S
ER AL
R IV E R I
P
IM
32
33
34
!
A
Legend
Subject Parcels
Se
1
ct i on
Section 2
Se c
tio
n3
SoCalGas Control Station
Historical Impact Area
G
F
Impact Crater
Solid Waste Pile
Bradshaw Trail
$
1
!
A
Electronic Waste
Metal Debris
Munitions Constiuents or
Munitions Debris (MC/MD)
!
C
Tire
Coachella Canal
Tortoise Burrow
Highway
Tortoise Shell
Local Road
Abandoned Vehicle
#
*
$
!
*
¥
Concrete Debris
X
4
)
"
2
%
Fire Ring
Guzzler
Habitation
j
k
Figure 5-1
Environmental Conditions
CMAGR Boundary
Field Data Points
Ú IID Utility Line
Û
W
X
W
X
POL Waste
0
1
2
Miles
Kilometers
0
2.5
5
5-3
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Figure 5-2. Petroleum Containers in Subject Transfer Parcels
Left: Parcel 4; Right: Parcel 22.
5.3
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION / INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITES
In accordance with DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06, a review was conducted of all
Installation Restoration (IR) Program sites or other documentation produced in accordance with procedures
being carried out at CMAGR under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA). The mission of the IR Program (IRP) is to identify and clean up contamination
resulting from past Department of Defense (DoD) use and disposal practices for the protection of human
health and the environment. There are seven IR sites on the CMAGR, all of which are closed and
considered by CWRCB to no longer present a threat of contamination (CWRCB 2015b). All seven of the
sites are located adjacent to Camp Billy Machen along the central-southwestern CMAGR property
boundary, and approximately 16 miles (26 km) away from the nearest subject transfer parcel. For this
reason, further discussion of CMAGR IR sites is provided in Chapter 6, Adjacent Properties. Until 2015,
no federal or state environmental restoration (i.e., CERCLA) sites had been identified at the subject transfer
parcels (MCAS Yuma 2015a, EDR 2014, California DTSC 2015b, CWRCB 2015b, USEPA 2015a, 2015b,
2015c; NAVFAC SW 2003). Because no environmental restoration or IR sites were identified at the subject
transfer parcels, no environmental restoration or IR site generated contamination was expected.
As previously noted however, due to the close proximity of CMAGR impact and training areas to the subject
transfer parcels, and due to the use of the region for training as part of the DTC/C-AMA, MEC and craters
from munitions detonations were found to exist within the subject transfer parcels. In 2015, a RAS was
conducted that determined there were munitions in the subject transfer parcels, and subsequently the
outgrant parcels were entered into the Navy’s Munititons Response Program (MRP) to be addressed by the
CERCLA process (see Section 5.9, Munitions and Explosives of Concern). In accord with CERCLA, the
DoN’s IRP program and the provisions of Public Law 133-66, the Navy will remediate the MEC sites.
5.4
SOLID/BIO-HAZARDOUS WASTE
Small amounts of solid waste are currently generated at the subject transfer parcels, in the form of trash
associated with dumping, OHV use, and recreational activities. During the December 2014 field inspection,
unauthorized solid waste dumping, abandonment, or other remnants were noted at several locations within
the subject transfer parcels, including a habitation, vehicles, appliances, tires, furniture, mattresses, bullets
and bullet casings, and various types of concrete, wood, metal, and electronic waste (Figures 5-1 and 5-3).
The solid waste items potentially containing hazardous waste (e.g. electronic waste, household items, and
5-5
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
abandoned vehicles) were previously discussed in Section 5.1 and are also shown on Figure 5-3. The
various solid waste items were observed infrequently and typically in small amounts. Additionally, metal
cans from consumable provisions (i.e., food and drink containers) were located occasionally throughout the
subject transfer parcels. These items are not likely to present a threat of contamination within the subject
transfer parcels.
Figure 5-3. Solid Waste in Subject Transfer Parcels
Top left: large storage tank in Parcel 6; Top right: television in Parcel 2; Bottom left: tire in Parcel 11; Bottom
right: mattress spring in Parcel 15.
During a subsequent visit by NAVFAC SW and BLM personnel on 20 February 2015, an abandoned shack
and associated debris was inspected near the northeast corner of Parcel 27 (Figure 5-1 [“habitation”] and
Figure 5-4). Historical aerial images of the location indicate the possible presence of a structure, although
likely not the same one, at the same location dating back to at least 1956 (Google Earth 2015) and possibly
even 1948 or earlier (EDR 2014; Appendix E). The existing structure and its surroundings were inspected
by the ECP team during a follow-up site visit on 18 May 2015.
The superstructure of the shack consisted of non-permanent construction materials such as aluminum siding
and wood (Figure 5-4). While appearing to have been a hand-built structure, its dimensions approximated
a standard 16-foot storage container. Rudimentary wiring and circuitry inside the shack suggested the
presence of electricity, and an exhaust pipe fashioned into the side of the shack suggested the use of a stove
or heating element.
5-6
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Figure 5-4. Abandoned Habitation in Parcel 27
Top left and right: abandoned shack or habitation and associated debris in Parcel 27; Middle left: debris pile
inside the shack; Middle right: pit (potential latrine) in ground; Bottom left: empty 55-gallon drum; Bottom
right: 6-volt battery pack.
Notable items outside of the shack were a concrete, wood, a metal-lined pit possibly used for a latrine; and
a rusted, empty 55-gallon drum. The only obvious signs of potentially hazardous waste were some
5-7
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
household batteries and scattered bullet casings. Periodically, CMAGR will dispatch the heavy machinery
and vehicles needed to clear large solid waste, including abandoned vehicles, structures, or larger debris
from the range (MCAS Yuma 2015b, NAVFAC SW 2015b). A non-hazardous solid waste clearing event
will not occur at the subject transfer parcels prior to transfer of ownership.
No known bio-hazardous waste is generated or disposed at the subject transfer parcels (BLM 2014b, EDR
2014) and no potential bio-hazardous waste was identified during the preparation of the ECP. Additionally,
no records were found to suggest that past or current landfill facilities are located within the subject transfer
parcels (BLM 2014b, EDR 2014).
In summary, the solid waste in the subject transfer parcels is scattered, infrequently encountered, and
generally small in size. There are no known bio-hazard or landfill waste sites on the subject transfer parcels.
And the remoteness of the area surrounding the subject transfer parcels, and low density of solid waste and
human and ecological receptors, makes it unlikely that the subject transfer parcels would be substantially
affected by solid or bio-hazardous waste contamination.
5.5
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
reviews, no evidence was found of the presence of PCBs in the subject transfer parcels. The EPA banned
the manufacture of PCBs in 1979, and a general rule is that transformers older than 1981 are likely to
contain PCBs whereas transformers newer than 1981 typically do not contain PCBs. No structures,
equipment, or materials are present on the subject transfer parcels that are known to contain PCBs. There
are triple-string single-circuit overhead power lines on wooden poles running parallel to- and alongside ofGas Line Road, which passes through Parcel 17. No transformers were observed along the portion of the
utility line that passes through Parcel 17; however, three small capacitors were observed mounted on a
utility pole north of the intersection of Gas Line Road and Bradshaw Trail. It is not yet known when the
capacitors observed in Parcel 17 were installed or last serviced. From previous ECPs and Phase I
Environmental Assessments, experience has shown that analytical data (e.g., database) typically does not
exists for the presence, absence, or quantities of PCBs in a utility provider’s transformers, and that
determinations of presence are made at the time of transformer servicing. If PCBs are present in the
observed capacitors, they would be unlikely to present a substantial threat of contamination because the
land slopes down and to the north away from the parcel, the sandy soils would not allow for pooling of the
liquid, no sensitive receptors were observed adjacent to the pole, and the amount of cooling liquid contained
within a capacitor is very small.
5.6
ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL
reviews, no evidence was found to indicate the presence of ACMs in the subject transfer parcels. Most
forms of ACMs in residential construction were discouraged per the initial "Asbestos Ban and Phase-out
Rule" (40 CFR 763 Subpart I, Sec. 762.160 - 763.179), issued in July of 1989 by the USEPA. The subject
transfer parcels are, and have historically been, undeveloped and there is no evidence to suggest the
presence of building materials containing ACMs.
During a 20 February 2015 visit by NAVFAC SW and BLM personnel, an abandoned shack and area of
habitation was noted at the northeastern corner of Parcel 27. This structure and its surroundings were
inspected by the ECP team during a follow-up site visit on 18 May 2015. It is unknown whether the shack
contains or has ever contained ACMs; however, no visible signs of ACMs were noted (Figure 5-4).
5-8
MCAS Yuma
5.7
Final
December 2015
LEAD-BASED PAINT
reviews, no evidence was found to indicate the presence of LBP. The Consumer Products Safety
Commission banned the sale of LBP for use in residences in 1978 per 16 CFR Part 1303. The subject
transfer parcels are, and have historically been, undeveloped and there is no evidence to suggest the
presence of building materials containing LBP.
During a 20 February 2015 visit by NAVFAC SW and BLM personnel, an abandoned shack and area of
habitation was noted at the northeastern corner of Parcel 27. This structure and its surroundings were
inspected by the ECP team during a follow-up site visit on 18 May 2015. The presence of paint was noted
on the shack; however, it is unknown what type of paint was used or whether the shack contains or has ever
contained LBP (Figure 5-4).
5.8
PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES
reviews, no evidence was found to indicate the presence of pesticides or herbicides, or their use, in the
subject transfer parcels. The subject transfer parcels are undeveloped and have no history of previous
agricultural use that would suggest past storage or usage of these products (EDR 2014, BLM 2014b, DoN
2013). Therefore, it is unlikely that the subject transfer parcels would be affected by pesticide or herbicide
contamination.
5.9
MUNITIONS AND EXPLOSIVES OF CONCERN
MECs are military munitions that may pose unique safety risks, including UXO, discarded military
munitions (DMM), and MC present in sufficient concentrations to pose an explosive hazard. Historical
impact and training areas are located within the proposed transfer parcels, in the vicinity of Parcels 16, 17,
and 18, and legacy blast craters remain in the landscape (CB&I 2015, NAVFAC SW 2015b, University of
California, Riverside 1992, USEPA 1985; Figures 5-1, 5-5, 5-6). During the ECP site inspection, the
subject transfer parcels were found to contain potential MD, such as complete and partial ordnance, outer
casings, and other shrapnel remains of expended ordnance (Figure 5-7). Additionally, 22 potential blast
craters were identified in aerial photos north of the Bradshaw Trail in the vicinity of Parcel 16; five of those
within the parcel itself. A recently completed RAS of the subject transfer parcels identified the same blast
craters in Parcel 16, and documented an additional crater in each of four more parcels: Parcel 14, Parcel 22,
Parcel 26, and Parcel 28 (CB&I 2015).
Even though the subject transfer parcels are DoD property, it is the area south of Bradshaw Trail that is
considered the functional CMAGR military facility. As it is a live-fire training range, the potential exists
for migration or wayward delivery of spent/unspent ordnance and other MD away from the facility. A
recently completed REVA found that MD deposited in the training areas can migrate beyond the installation
boundaries, primarily via surface water transport (Arcadis 2015).
The purpose of the aforementioned RAS was to identify any range related activities that took place, or MEC
present, on the subject transfer parcels. The findings of the RAS are summarized in this section and the
entire document is provided in Appendix H. A total of 730 miles of transects were traversed as part of the
RAS. There was no evidence that targets had been set up on any of the surveyed parcels. Approximately
90 percent of the parcels surveyed contained at least some evidence of military activities (CB&I 2015).
5-9
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Figure 5-5. Blast Craters in Parcel 16, 2012 and 1996 Aerial Imagery
Note: One of the five blast craters identified within Parcel 16 boundaries is not shown in the
image above. Source: Google Earth 2015.
5-10
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Figure 5-6. Field Photos of Blast Craters in Parcel 16
Top: this crater is fourth arrow from the top in both images of Figure 5-5; Bottom: this crater
is the bottom arrow in both images of Figure 5-5.
5-11
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Figure 5-7. Potential MD in Subject Transfer Parcels
Top left: BDU-45 500 pound practice bomb nose-down in the ground in Parcel 26; Top right: bomb fragment
in Parcel 17; Bottom left: undetermined MD in Parcel 17; Bottom right: 20mm MK5 shell casing in Parcel 23.
The ordnance-related density was low and consistent with what would be expected at the range (CMAGR)
boundary. Items observed included: empty .50 caliber and 20 millimeter (mm) shell casings and links, inert
bombs, high explosive bombs, flares, projectiles, large (greater than 4 inches) bomb fragmentation pieces,
munition debris, and range-related scrap. Most of the discovered ordnance was from the Vietnam era or
later (CB&I 2015).
Twelve of the 34 subject transfer parcels contained UXO or material potentially presenting an explosive
hazard (MPPEH). The highest concentration of modern ordnance was discovered along possible air to
ground run-in lines near Parcel 13, Parcel 16, Parcel 17, and Parcel 20. WWII era ordnance such as 37mm
projectiles were found in Parcel 2, Parcel 3, and Parcel 27. The firing positions and targets related to the
37mm rounds near Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 are unknown; however, it is possible the Orocopia Mountains were
used as a safety backstop. Most of the UXO and/or MPPEH items that were discovered in the outgrant
parcels were determined to be safe to move, and in conjunction with the operational range clearance (ORC)
program were removed from the subject transfer parcels and consolidated in the interior of the range for
later processing. Four UXO and MPPEH items discovered, consisting of a MK-82 bomb, two 37mm
projectiles, and one 20mm projectile, were cleared from the parcels by MCAS Yuma Explosive Ordnance
5-12
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Disposal personnel. Approximately 974 pounds of range-related scrap and debris were cleared and
transported to the Range Holding Area for later processing (CB&I 2015).
The RAS concluded that although all known ordnance items were removed from the subject transfer
parcels, the potential exists for an undetermined number of military munitions (including UXO and
MPPEH) to remain covered by sediment or concealed by vegetation on any of the subject transfer parcels.
Therefore, the risk of encountering UXO or MPPEH in the subject transfer parcels has been reduced but
not eliminated. The RAS also made the observation that there was no obvious visual evidence of adverse
environmental impacts to soil, surface water, or groundwater from munition constituents at the outgrant
parcels (CB&I 2015).
The RAS recommended informational signs be installed at the Bradshaw trailhead and along the Bradshaw
Trail in the area of the CMAGR to warn visitors of the dangers of encountering UXO. The RAS also
suggested that the BLM implement additional protective measures for intrusive activities, including UXO
avoidance measures and dig restrictions that are consistent with current BLM plans and agency policy
guidance. Finally, the RAS recommended that further assessment of the parcels be performed through the
MRP in order to reduce the risk of the public encountering MPPEH or UXO4. The DoN will remediate the
parcels pursuant to its CERCLA authority in accord with the DoD and EPA Management Principles for
Implementing Response Actions at Closed, Transferring and Transferred (CTT) Ranges (7 March
2000)(“DoD/EPA Principles”).
The DoD developed the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) in 2001 pursuant CERCLA and
the DoD/EPA Principles to addresses munitions-related concerns, including explosive safety,
environmental, and health hazards from releases of UXO, DMM, and MC found at locations other than
operational ranges on active and BRAC installations and Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) properties.
The MMRP addresses non-operational range lands with suspected or known hazards from MEC which
occurred prior to September 2002, but are not already included with an IRP site cleanup activity (ASAIE
2015). As a result of the findings of the RAS, which determined that there were munitions on the land, the
subject transfer parcels were incorporated into the DoN MRP as “MRP Site UXO 1 for Chocolate Mountain
Aerial Gunnery Range” (NAVFAC SW 2015c). Because the ECP outgrant parcels have been
administratively closed as a range, the MRP is the appropriate program for the CERCLA closure process.
Although the ECP outgrant parcels are traditionally considered as buffer zone from the functional CMAGR
boundaries, they are within the actual real estate boundaries of CMAGR and therefore considered “range”
land until administratively closed (NAVFAC SW 2015c, Marine Corps Installations Command 2015).
When the range is no longer used for its intended purpose and a need for closure identified, the range is
closed and then remediated in accordance with CERCLA. Once land is incorporated into the MRP program
it enters the CERCLA process. Based on the typical steps for remediation of land in the MRP, the process
for outgrant parcels includes the completion of a Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation; a Remedial
Investigation; a Feasibility Study; a Proposed Plan; achievement of a Record of Decision (ROD);
implementation of the ROD; possible development of a Land Use Management Plan; possible initiation of
Removal Action(s); and probable 5-year reviews (NAVFAC SW 2015c). The outgrant parcels will remain
in the MRP until they are considered “Clean/Closed”. Depending upon the remedy selected, clean closure
may not be obtained. However, responsibility for continuing actions such as maintaining Land Use Controls
and conducting Five-Year Reviews may not be funded by the DoN following issuance of a Remedial Action
4 The Military Munitions Response Program is designed to assess and clean up UXO at closed ranges.
5-13
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Complete Report by the regulatory agency. There is currently no estimated timeline for the ROD to be
achieved on the transfer land. Nevertheless, the outgrant parcels can be transferred out of DoN holdings
while in the MRP as DoN’s authority to remediate DoN contamination pursuant to CERCLA applies posttransfer.
Historical impact and training areas no longer in-use by the DoD also have the potential to be declared
FUDS if sufficient MEC or impacts remain. According to the USACE, FUDS are defined as properties
used by the military before October 1986 to train and support Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines, as
well as to test new weapons and warfare capabilities (USACE 2015a). When no longer needed, many of
these properties were cleaned up according to the best practices available at the time and then transferred
to other owners such as private individuals or federal, state, tribal, or local government entities. The DoD
is responsible for environmental restoration of FUDS properties (these are properties that were formerly
owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by the U.S. and under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Defense under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program), in accordance with CERCLA. The U.S.
Department of the Army is the executive agent for the FUDS program and the USACE manages and directs
the program’s administration (USACE 2015a). Along with USACE, the California DTSC also tracks the
status of FUDS (within its jurisdiction) that have been investigated for potential cleanup issues, including
lead and other potential contaminants of concern such as explosives (UXO, MC) and MD. Until the action
directed in Public Law 113-66, the outgrant parcels would not have qualified for CERCLA cleanup under
the FUDS program because they were considered part of an active range (the CMAGR) (USACE 2015b).
As previously noted, the outgrant parcels have now entered the CERCLA process by way of incorporation
into the MRP and the findings of the RAS are that the potential for UXOs may persist beneath the soil
surface in the former live-fire ordnance areas. Although military training has been conducted in and around
the CMAGR area since the WWII, there are no sites identified as “FUDS” within the subject transfer parcels
(EDR 2014, USACE 2015c, DoN 2013).
Additional discussion of MEC continues in Section 5.15.4, Groundwater Quality and in Chapter 6, Adjacent
Properties, Section 6.2.7, Munitions and Explosives of Concern.
5.10
STORAGE TANKS (UNDERGROUND AND ABOVEGROUND)
During the preparation of the ECP, including during interviews, site inspections, and document and
database reviews, no evidence was found indicating that USTs or ASTs are present within the subject
transfer parcels. One storage tank of approximately 30 gallon volume, was found empty and corroded near
the northern margin of Parcel 6 (refer to Figure 5-3). The tank was found in an area of recent flooding
debris within Salt Creek, and given its condition and location, appeared to be transient solid waste. There
was no way to determine its initial place of origin, potential insertion (dumping) into Salt Creek, or duration
at any point along its excursion. There are no records of active or closed USTs or ASTs on the subject
transfer parcels (MCAS Yuma 2015a, California DTSC 2015a, CWQCB 2015a, EDR 2014). Therefore, it
is unlikely that the subject transfer parcels would be affected by UST or AST contamination.
5.11
RADON/RADIOLOGICAL MATERIAL
Radon is not expected to pose a concern related to the location of the subject transfer parcels as they are
located within a Zone 2 area (Moderate Potential Designation) (EDR 2014, USEPA 2012a). The indoor
average radon level for Zone 2 areas is between 2 and 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) (USEPA 2012a). The
USEPA-recommended indoor action level is 4 pCi/L (USEPA 2013). Based on records review, there have
been 12 test sites at locations within Riverside County, all sites testing beneath the action level for
Basement, First Floor, and Second Floor living areas. Imperial County is considered a Zone 3 area (Low
5-14
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Potential Designation) (EDR 2014, USEPA 2012a). There have been two test sites within Imperial County,
and as with the Riverside County, all sites tested beneath the action level for Basement, First Floor, and
Second Floor living areas. The subject transfer parcels are, and have historically been, undeveloped and
there is no evidence to suggest the presence of buildings or structures5 within which indoor radon gas could
present a risk.
database reviews, no evidence found to indicate that radiological materials are likely to be present within
the subject transfer parcels. Limited searches for radiological sites within the subject transfer parcels was
provided in the EDR and no sites were identified (EDR 2014). No records or reports were identified to
indicate any radiological or nuclear munitions were used within or adjacent to the subject transfer parcels
(DoN 2013, Malcolm Pirnie 2008, USACE 2001).
Based on results of records and database reviews, no radon or radiological issues were identified in either
study area or the 1-mile buffer zone. Therefore, radon or radiological issues are unlikely to be encountered.
5.12
THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
The special status wildlife and plant species with the potential to occur on or in the vicinity of the subject
transfer parcels is presented in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. For the purpose of this ECP, special status species are
those species designated as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under
the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); those species designated as threatened or endangered by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife under the California ESA; and those species designated as BLM
sensitive species per the criteria in BLM Manual 6840 (BLM 2008). The ESA and California ESA mandate
that all native species and their habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant
decline which, if not halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will be protected or
preserved on federal and state lands, respectively. The BLM designates species as sensitive if they are
found to be at risk across all or a significant portion of their range, and they depend on ecological refugia
or specialized or unique habitats that occur on BLM-administrated lands, for which BLM has the capability
to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management (BLM 2008).
The only federally listed species known to occur on the subject transfer parcels is the Mojave population of
the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). In February 1994, the USFWS designated 6.4 million acres (2.6
million ha) as critical habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (USFWS 1994).
Approximately 2,026 acres of the total 2,586.89 acres within the subject transfer parcels are located within
desert tortoise critical habitat. The CMAGR is the primary military installation containing desert tortoise
habitat in the Colorado Desert of California (USFWS 1990, 1994). Suitable habitat occurs for the species
throughout CMAGR, and likewise the species is expected to occur in the subject transfer parcels (Figure 58).
The Nelson’s Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni), a BLM-designated sensitive species, also
occurs on the CMAGR. Desert bighorn sheep favor open, rocky, and steep terrain and avoid dense
vegetation that blocks visibility. Habitat used by desert bighorn also includes springs and plateaus. The
CMAGR subpopulation is part of a larger Sonoran meta-population. Historical movement corridors from
5 Notwithstanding, unauthorized, clandestine, and temporary (non-permanent) habitations, typically hastily erected
for illicit purposes, have the potential to be encountered on occasion.
5-15
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
the Chocolate Mountains to the Orocopia Mountains, Chuckwalla Mountains, and Palo Verde Mountains
remain intact because little or no development occurs between these mountain ranges (DoN 2013).
Additional and more comprehensive species information is available in the Final Legislative EIS for the
Renewal of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal (DoN 2013). This ECP should not be relied upon as the
authoritative source on species information in and around CMAGR.
Table 5-1. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Subject Transfer Parcels
Common Name
Scientific Name
USFWS Status
CDFW Status
BLM
American badger
Big free-tailed bat
California leafnosed bat
Crissal thrasher
Desert bighorn
sheep
Desert tortoise
Taxidea taxus
Nyctinomops macrotis
-
SSC
SSC
-
Macrotus californicus
-
SSC
Sensitive
Toxostoma crissale
-
SSC
-
Ovis canadensis nelsoni
-
FP
Sensitive
Gopherus agassizii
Threatened
Threatened
-
Elf owl
Ferruginous hawk
Flat-tailed horned
lizard
Golden eagle
Le Conte's thrasher
Loggerhead shrike
Merlin
Mountain plover
Micrathene whitneyi
Buteo regalis
BCC
BCC
Endangered
WL
Sensitive
-
Phrynosoma mcallii
-
SSC
Sensitive
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
FP
SSC
SSC
WL
SSC
Sensitive
Sensitive
Northern harrier
Pallid bat
Palm Springs
pocket mouse
Pocketed free-tailed
bat
Prairie falcon
Swainson’s hawk
Western mastiff bat
Western smallfooted myotis
Western yellow bat
Yuma mountain
lion
Circus cyaneus
Antrozous pallidus
-
SSC
SSC
Sensitive
Perognathus longimembris bangsi
-
SSC
Sensitive
Nyctinomops femorosaccus
-
SSC
-
Falco mexicanus
Buteo swainsoni
Eumops perotis californicus
BCC
BCC
-
WL
Threatened
SSC
Sensitive
Sensitive
Myotis ciliolabrum
-
-
Sensitive
Lasiurus xanthinus
-
SSC
-
Puma concolor browni
-
SSC
-
Aquila chrysaetos
Toxostoma lecontei
Lanius ludovicianus
Falco columbarius
Charadrius montanus
Sources: California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015a, California Natural Diversity Database 2015.
Notes: BCC = Bird of Conservation Concern; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; FP = Fully Protected;
SSC = Species of Special Concern; WL = Watch List.
5-16
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Table 5-2. Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Subject Transfer Parcels
Common Name
Scientific Name
USFWS
CRPR
BLM
Abrams' spurge
Alverson's foxtail cactus
California ayenia
Chamaesyce abramsiana
Coryphantha alversonii
Ayenia compacta
-
2B.2
4.3
2B.3
-
California ditaxis
California saw-grass
Chaparral sand-verbena
Cove's cassia
Deep Canyon snapdragon
Ditaxis serrata var. californica
Cladium californicum
Abronia villosa var. aurita
Senna covesii
Pseudorontium cyathiferum
Penstemon pseudospectabilis
ssp. pseudospectabilis
Selaginella eremophila
Teucrium cubense ssp.
depressum
Castela emoryi
Ditaxis claryana
Astragalus insularis var.
harwoodii
Colubrina californica
-
3.2
2B.2
1B.1
2B.2
2B.3
Sensitive
Sensitive
-
-
2B.2
-
-
2B.2
-
-
2B.2
-
-
2B.2
2B.2
-
-
2B.2
-
-
2B.3
-
Xylorhiza cognata
Cylindropuntia munzii
Euphorbia jaegeri
Salvia greatae
Calliandra eriophylla
Panicum hirticaule ssp.
hirticaule
Chylismia arenaria
Koeberlinia spinosa ssp.
tenuispina
Matelea parvifolia
Astragalus tricarinatus
-
1B.2
1B.3
1B.1
1B.3
2B.3
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
-
-
2B.1
-
-
2B.2
-
-
2B.2
-
Endangered
2B.3
1B.2
Sensitive
-
Desert beardtongue
Desert spike-moss
Dwarf germander
Emory's crucifixion-thorn
Glandular ditaxis
Harwood's milk-vetch
Las Animas colubrina
Mecca-aster
Munz's cholla
Orocopia Mountains spurge
Orocopia sage
Pink fairy-duster
Roughstalk witch grass
Sand evening-primrose
Slender-spined all-thorn
Spear-leaf matelea
Triple-ribbed milk-vetch
Sources: California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015b, California Natural Diversity Database 2015, California
Native Plant Society 2015.
Notes: CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank
Legend Key:
CRPR (California Native Plant Society 2015)
1B - Plants considered rare or endangered in California and elsewhere
2B - Plants considered rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.
3 - Plants for which more information is needed.
4 - Plants of limited distribution – a watch list.
CRPR Threat Codes
1 - Seriously endangered in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80 percent occurrences threatened)
3 – Not very endangered in California (<20 percent of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)
5-17
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Figure 5-8. Desert Tortoise Evidence in Subject Transfer Parcels
Top left: Tortoise shell pieces in Parcel 21; Top right: tortoise shell pieces in Parcel 11; Bottom left: tortoise
shell pieces in Parcel 23; Bottom right: potential tortoise burrow in Parcel 23. All photos taken during the 1922 December 2014 field inspection.
5.13
CULTURAL RESOURCES
A review of published archival research and archaeological surveys indicated that the 34 subject transfer
parcels have not been exhaustively examined for cultural resources. Only one known survey has been
completed in the proposed outgrant parcels. A 12-mile section of the Bradshaw Trail spanning from 2 miles
east to 10 miles west from Gas Line Road was surveyed in 1993 (LSA Associates 1994). This survey was
a vehicular survey that does not meet current California standards for intensive cultural surveys.
The historic Bradshaw Trail (CA-RIV-5191/H) runs along the southern border of all but one of the subject
transfer parcels. The Bradshaw Trail is a 101-mile-long road created in the early 1860s to move supplies
from San Francisco, California, to gold mining camps near La Paz, Arizona. Although the road retains the
integrity of location, it is heavily used by OHVs, is occasionally graded by the County of Riverside, and
lies within active alluvial and flood wash channels.
During the 19-22 December 2014 field inspection, no obvious surficial evidence of archaeological or
cultural sites or materials was found within the subject transfer parcels.
5-18
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
The field inspection performed for this ECP did not involve any formal surveys for cultural, historic, or
archaeological resource sites within or adjacent to the subject transfer parcels. Additional and more
comprehensive cultural resources information is available in the Final Legislative EIS for the Renewal of
the CMAGR Land Withdrawal (DoN 2013). Therefore, this ECP should not be relied upon as the
authoritative source on cultural resources information in and around CMAGR.
5.14
NOTICES OF VIOLATION
During the preparation of this ECP, including during interviews, site inspections, and document reviews,
no evidence was found of notices of violations having been issued against CMAGR or the subject transfer
parcels (EDR 2014, MCAS Yuma 2015a).
5.15
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
5.15.1 Mines
There is a long history of mining activity within the desert region. The process of establishing, operating,
and closing a mine is governed by federal, state, and local regulations, and is characterized by terms and
concepts that are unique to the mining industry. The ECP focused its search on mines that are described as
being either “active,” “idle,” “abandoned,” or “closed,” depending on their operational status and the
terminology of the administering agency (i.e., BLM or the State, as enforced by the County of Riverside or
County of Imperial). The ECP focused its search on these types of mines because they may include physical
hazards (e.g., open shafts or adits), chemical hazards (e.g., wastes from mining processes, on-site chemical
storage), or both. According to the BLM, there are records of 84 mining claims within or adjacent to a
PLSS Township that intersects the Bradshaw Trail (BLM 2015a; Appendix D). These 84 mining claims
are situated within 34 Sections (blue and orange boxes in Figure 5-9). However, a claim by itself does not
entitle the owner to commence mining operations that may result in potential physical or chemical hazards.
A claimant may engage in “casual use” activities6 on a claim and such activities by definition ordinarily
result in no or negligible disturbance of public lands or resources (43 CFR 3809.5). Casual use does not
include use of mechanized earth-moving equipment, truck-mounted drilling equipment, chemicals, or
explosives. Mining operations involving mechanized equipment, chemicals, and other processes (including
exploratory drilling) may begin only after plans and financial assurance have been submitted by the
applicant and approved by the administering agency. For mines located on BLM land, these requirements
include a plan of operations pursuant to 43 CFR 3809 and a reclamation plan to fulfill the requirements of
the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. According to the BLM, no such applications
or plans have been submitted for mining claims adjacent to the Bradshaw Trail (BLM 2015a).
Of the 84 mining claims noted above, only 2 of the claims are both active and located within a PLSS
Township Section that contains or is adjacent to the subject transfer parcels. Both of those mining claims
are located in a quarter-section that is not immediately adjacent to the subject transfer parcels (Township 7
South Range 12 East, Section 32, Northwest Quarter; refer to Figure 5-9 and Appendix D).
6 As defined in 43 CFR 3809.5, casual use includes “…the collection of geochemical, rock, soil, or mineral specimens using hand
tools; hand panning; or non-motorized sluicing. It may include use of small portable suction dredges. It also generally includes use
of metal detectors, gold spears and other battery-operated devices for sensing the presence of minerals, and hand and batteryoperated drywashers.”
5-19
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
5-20
MCAS Yuma
Final
Ro
ad
11
12
13
10
8
6
3
2
1
B
e Road
Gas Lin
w
sha
10 Brad
9
7S 15E
7S 14E
7S 13E
7S 12E
December 2015
13
14
15
7
17
16
18
19
B R A D S H AW T R A I L
20
21
22
8S 16E
H AW T R A IL
RAD S
8S 17E
26
23
4 5
27
24
28
25
29
30
ac
Co
l
he
31
la
Ca
n al
Chocolate Mountain
32
33
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
34
IMPERIAL COUNTY
Ù
A
(
!
$̀
"
!
Indio
RIVER SIDE
COUNT Y
Niland
A̧
Legend
$̀
"
!
Ù
A
LA PAZ
COUNTY
A̧
IMPERIAL
COUNT Y
SAN DIEGO
COUNT Y
Brawley
Active Mining Claim
Inactive Mining Claim
Township/Range/Section
YUMA
COUNT Y
El Centro
$
_
"
!
Yuma
$
_
"
!
CMAGR Boundary
Sea Level
Low : -70.2889
Bradshaw Trail
Coachella Canal
Highway
0
2.5
5
Miles
Kilometers
Local Road
0
2.5
5
O
Sources: BLM 2014, NAVFAC SW 2015
ME XICO
Elevation (meters)
High : 1371.55
Figure 5-8
Active and Inactive Mining Claims
5-21
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
The two active mining claims are outside of the boundaries of the subject transfer parcels, but within the 1mile buffer zone surrounding the parcels (approximately 0.9 mile [1.4 km] to the north). Therefore, they
are discussed in Chapter 6, Adjacent Properties portion of this document.
There are no open or closed mines in or immediately adjacent to the subject transfer parcels. Therefore, it
is unlikely that the subject transfer parcels would be affected by onsite mine-related contamination.
5.15.2 Clandestine Drug Labs
database reviews, no evidence was found to indicate the presence of CDLs on any of the subject transfer
parcels (EDR 2014, Riverside County Sheriff 2015, MCAS Yuma 2015b, BLM 2014b). The EDR
DataMapTM report identified 14 County Level Orphan Site CDLs; however, the location information
provided was non-specific, typically referenced by road or street name only without address. Using these
available descriptions, the ECP team determined that the closest CDL identified in the EDR report was
related to a 1997 traffic stop in the community of Chiriaco Summit, approximately 9.5 miles (15.3 km)
northwest of the closest of the subject transfer parcels (EDR 2014, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
2015).
The nature of CDLs is that they can appear virtually anywhere at any time; however, since there is no record
of CDLs within the subject transfer parcels, it can be assumed that the subject transfer parcels have not
been affected by CDL-related waste contamination.
5.15.3 Criminal Activity
database reviews, evidence was found to indicate criminal activity in the form of drug and human trafficking
occurs along the Bradshaw Trail. According to the U.S. Border Patrol, Indio Office, the Bradshaw Trail is
regularly used by criminals for the trafficking of drugs and people. The U.S. Border Patrol maintains a
nightly presence on the Bradshaw Trail, but does not go (further south) into the range. Most of the Border
Patrol actions along the Bradshaw Trail take place either on the trail or on BLM land (U.S. Border Patrol
2015).
The subject transfer parcels have been affected, and can be expected to continue to be affected, by criminal
activity and U.S. Border Patrol actions. However, effects of the criminal activity and the U.S. Border Patrol
actions in the subject transfer parcels are consistent with the surrounding properties.
5.15.4 Groundwater Quality
There are currently no active water supply wells on the CMAGR. Water for CMAGR activities is
transported to the range. As noted in Section 4.3, Hydrogeology, regional groundwater resources are
extremely limited. Little rainfall, high evaporation, and rapid runoff result in minimal groundwater
recharge.
According to the CMAGR Land Withdrawal EIS, the subject transfer parcels overlay the Chocolate Valley
Groundwater Basin (DoN 2013). Groundwater quality in this basin is considered poor for domestic use
because of elevated fluoride and total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations and possibly for irrigation use
because of elevated boron contents. Fluoride contents in Chocolate Valley groundwater range from 0.6 to
60.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and average about 5.5 mg/L. The maximum contaminant limit for fluoride
in drinking water is 4.0 mg/L. TDS contents range from about 460 to 24,500 mg/L, with an average
5-23
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
concentration of about 3,000 mg/L (California Department of Water Resources 2004). The secondary
drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/L. Boron concentrations range from 0.08 to 15.8 mg/L and
average about 2.2 mg/L (DoN 2013).
Additional potential impacts to groundwater quality may stem from range activities conducted at the
CMAGR. A REVA is conducted periodically to identify potential chemical hazards associated with the
ordnance used on operational ranges. The most recent REVA (Arcadis 2015) evaluated receptor locations
in two subwatersheds along the Bradshaw Trail with the potential to affect the subject transfer parcels. The
two subwatersheds are the “Middle Salt Creek” and the “181002040602” [also in Salt Creek] (refer to
Figure 4-1). The receptor locations were chosen because of their locations within subwatersheds having
surface or ground water connectivity to established MC Loading Areas, such as small arms ranges.
Therefore, the locations within the two subwatersheds were used to represent off-range MC migration
potential for the northern boundary of the CMAGR North portion of the installation. Only the portions of
the REVA pertaining to these two subwatersheds are discussed in this section.
The findings of the REVA indicate the presence of ecological receptors via surface water and sediment
transport in both subwatersheds and no human receptors via groundwater in the 181002040602 (Salt Creek)
subwatershed. Human receptor potential was identified at the Middle Salt Creek subwatershed however,
through a potential water supply well. The REVA does not identify the specific well but Clemens Well is
a known dry well within the Middle Salt Creek subwatershed (refer to Figure 6-1). Summary findings of
the REVA analysis of these two subwaterhseds are provided in Table 5-3.
According to the REVA, the screening-level assessment results do not indicate a current release of
perchlorate, high explosive, or lead to surface water, sediment, or groundwater at detectable concentrations
from the MC loading areas in the Middle Salt Creek subwatershed. Similarly, screening-level assessment
results do not indicate a current release of perchlorate, HE, or lead to surface water, or sediment from the
MC loading areas in the 181002040602 (Salt Creek) subwatershed at the installation boundary. Perchlorate
was predicted to reach the water table at detectable concentrations, but additional modeling was not
completed since downgradient receptors were not identified (Arcadis 2015).
Table 5-3. Summary REVA Analysis of Subwatersheds Intersecting the Subject Transfer Parcels
Middle Salt Creek
Analysis
MC Loading Areas
Identified Receptors
Surface water
screening-level
modeling
Sediment screeninglevel modeling
Groundwater screeninglevel modeling
Small arms ranges
within the subwatershed
Findings/Results
S-5-2, S-5-3 [Both of these loading areas became inactive in 2010] (refer to Figure 4-1)
 Surface Water/Sediment: Ecological
 Groundwater: Human (potential water supply well)
 Estimated MC concentrations in surface water runoff at the edge of MC loading areas
were predicted to be near 0.
 No additional surface water assessment is recommended at this time.
 Estimated annual edge-of-load-area MC concentrations in sediment were predicted to
be near 0.
 No additional sediment assessment is recommended at this time.
 Estimated MC concentrations in infiltrating water from the SR-10 MC loading area
were predicted to be below detectable concentrations.
 No additional groundwater assessment is recommended at this time.
None
 Total lead use within this subwatershed is moderate with approximately 3,293 lbs.
/year.
5-24
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Table 5-3. Summary REVA Analysis of Subwatersheds Intersecting the Subject Transfer Parcels
Sampling
Conclusion
None
The screening-level assessment results do not indicate a current release of perchlorate,
HE, or lead to surface water, sediment, or groundwater at detectable concentrations from
the MC loading areas in the Middle Salt Creek subwatershed.
181002040602 (Salt Creek)
Analysis
Findings/Results
MC Loading Area
9N (97 percent area in the subwatershed) (refer to Figure 4-1)
Identified Receptors
 Surface Water/Sediment: Ecological
 Groundwater: None
Surface water
 Predicted MC concentrations were below detectable concentrations at the
screening-level
downgradient receptor location.
modeling
 No additional surface water assessment is recommended at this time.
Sediment screening Predicted annual edge-of-loading-area MC concentrations in sediment were below
level modeling
detectable concentrations.
 No additional sediment assessment is recommended at this time.
Groundwater screening-  Perchlorate was predicted to reach the water table at detectable concentrations, but
level modeling
saturated zone modeling was not completed, as downgradient receptors were not
identified.
 No additional groundwater assessment is recommended at this time.
Small arms ranges
None
within the subwatershed  Total lead use within this subwatershed is approximately 129 lbs. /year.
Sampling
None
Conclusion
The screening-level assessment results do not indicate a current release of perchlorate,
HE, or lead to surface water, or sediment from the MC loading areas in the Salt Creek
subwatershed at the installation boundary. Perchlorate was predicted to reach the water
table at detectable concentrations, but additional modeling not completed since
downgradient receptors were not identified.
In general the REVA indicated minimal potential for environmental impacts off-range from surface water
runoff due to the lack of rainfall, evaporation rate, and distance to ecological receptors (Arcadis 2015). It
also determined that detected levels of MC contaminants were considered to have no effect on any existing
human receptors; however, there was potential risk to human receptors via an unspecified potential water
supply well (Arcadis 2015).
It is worth noting that the USEPA did not agree with this determination during its review of the Renewal
of the CMAGR Land Withdrawal Draft EIS and the conclusions carried forward in it from the 2008 REVA,
and expressed concern that loading rates of MCs at almost all of the target sites, as predicted by that REVA,
could present risks to offsite ecological receptors (DoN 2013). The USEPA also questioned conclusions
that off-range munitions migration is not occurring (Malcolm Pirnie 2008, USEPA 2012b), and requested
information about impacts from lead ammunition and munitions collected during range clearance, which
was not provided in the 2008 REVA. The USEPA requested the DoN and MCAS Yuma to provide
additional analysis supporting the claims of minimal affects on wildlife, groundwater, or surface waters,
and improved modelling and documentation of sub-surface migration of constituents of concern within the
groundwater (USEPA 2012b). The DoN updated the REVA document in 2015 (Arcadis 2015).
database reviews, only one well was noted within or adjacent to the Bradshaw Trail; the aforementioned
Clemens Well (between Parcels 6 and 7; refer to Figures 5-1) (DoN 2013, EDR 2014). Since the well is
not located within the subject transfer parcels, it will be discussed further in Chapter 6, Adjacent Properties.
5-25
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
5.15.5 Petroleum Pipelines
No liquid petroleum pipelines are known to exist beneath or immediately adjacent to the subject transfer
parcels. The SoCalGas Company has several linear easements parallel and adjacent to Gas Line Road for
underground natural gas lines, cathodic protection anodes, and access. The combined width of the
easements is approximately 100 ft (31 m) but can vary due to cathodic protection valves that are needed for
corrosion protection. Within the easement there are two active and one inactive natural gas transmission
lines. Line 416902-1 is a 24-inch diameter pipeline; Line 41-6001-1 is located east of 416902-1, is 10
inches in diameter; and a third line of 8 inches in diameter is also present in the easement, but it is currently
inactive. The two active lines serve redundant functions for system stability and reliability. The easement
runs north to south through the entire length of CMAGR (SoCalGas 2015a, 2015b, 2015c).
The gas supply originates at SoCalGas’s Mainline Valve 5 Station located north of I-10 and runs south
along Gas Line Road where it crosses the Bradshaw Trail and enters CMAGR. The gas line continues in a
relatively straight line, south, to where it exits CMAGR at CMAGR’s southern boundary line near the
Coachella Canal at Gas Line Road. These natural gas transmission lines are the primary natural gas supply
to the Calipatria, Brawley, and El Centro areas and are considered critical regional energy infrastructure
(SoCalGas 2015a, 2015b, 2015c).
Approximately 100 ft (31 m) south of the intersection of Gas Line Road and the Bradshaw Trail is an
approximate 10 ft by 10 ft (4 m by 4 m) fenced area containing a concrete slab and valves. This is a
SoCalGas control station where the two gas lines are bridled together. Should one of the lines need to be
shut down for maintenance, SoCalGas technicians can cut off gas flow to portions of that transmission line
and still provide service via the other line (SoCalGas 2015a, 2015b).
According to SoCalGas, visual inspections of the gas lines occur within CMAGR during 1 week per year.
Inspections must be coordinated with CMAGR Range Operations Control. There are instances when the
lines become exposed, even though they are supposed to be underground, due to the sandy soil conditions
and “wash outs” due to brief but intense desert rain and flooding events (SoCalGas 2015a). During the
preparation of the ECP, including during interviews, site inspections, and document reviews, no records
were found of accidents involving the SoCalGas pipelines along Gas Line Road.
As the natural gas lines are buried underground, annually maintained, and are not located in or adjacent to
range impact areas, the subject transfer parcels are unlikely to be affected by natural gas related
contamination. However, extreme seismic or flooding events have the potential to expose or compromise
the integrity of the natural gas lines.
5.15.6 Oil/Water Separators
During the preparation of the ECP, including during interviews, site inspections, and document reviews, no
evidence was found to indicate that oil/water separators have been or are currently located within the subject
transfer parcels (EDR 2014). Therefore, no oil/water separator related impacts are expected within the
subject transfer parcels.
5.15.7 Wastewater
The subject transfer parcels are undeveloped with no history of the type of military or industrial operations
that would indicate the presence or need for wastewater treatment facilities. During the preparation of the
ECP, including during interviews, site inspections, and document and database reviews, no evidence was
found of wastewater currently or historically being generated, treated, collected, or discharged at the subject
transfer parcels. Additionally, no evidence was found to indicate that wastewater pipelines have been or
5-26
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
are currently located within the subject transfer parcels (EDR 2014). Therefore, no wastewater related
impacts are expected within the subject transfer parcels.
5.15.8 Stormwater
The subject transfer parcels are undeveloped with no history of military or industrial operations requiring
stormwater discharge permits or implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Stormwater
related issues or concerns at the subject transfer parcels center around the potential for migration of MD
and MC off of CMAGR impact or training areas during infrequent but intense rain events. This issue is
integral to the REVA conducted periodically at CMAGR. For additional information about MEC, refer to
Section 5.9, Munitions and Explosives of Concern and 5.15.4, Groundwater Quality for the subject transfer
parcels, and Chapter 6, Adjacent Properties. Based upon the information provided in those sections;
however, there is a potential for stormwater related impacts to the subject transfer parcels as a result of MD
migration from CMAGR impact or training areas.
5-27
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
5-28
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
CHAPTER 6
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
6.1
PAST AND CURRENT LAND USE
6.1.1
Adjacent Property to the North, West, and East of the Subject Transfer Parcels
Review of available historical aerial photographs and historical maps indicate that in general, properties
adjacent to the subject transfer parcels had little previous development and no history of agricultural use,
as the photographs contain images of minimal structures and no field crops (EDR 2014).
The land north of the Bradshaw Trail has historically been undeveloped. According to the Land Use
Element of the Riverside County General Plan, the land north of the Bradshaw Trail is designated as rural
open space and conservation habitat (County of Riverside 2008). The conservation habitat is part of the
Chuckwalla Desert Wildlife Management Area, which was established in 2002 and contains approximately
820,100 acres (331,884 ha). The primary purpose of the Chuckwalla Desert Wildlife Management Area is
to provide habitat for the conservation of the federally-endangered desert tortoise.
To the west of the subject transfer parcels is the Coachella Canal, a 123-mile-long concrete-lined irrigation
channel that provides 280,000 acre-feet per year of water throughout the Coachella and Imperial Valleys
of California. Construction for the canal began in the 1930s, was interrupted during World War II, and
then finally completed in 1948 (Coachella Valley Water District 2015).
As noted in Section 3.1, Past and Current Land Use, the abandoned Eagle Mountain Railroad occurs north
and northwest of CMAGR and runs adjacent to the Bradshaw Trail from approximately Parcel 4 to Parcel
11. It passes south through Parcel 4 before turning and heading west, south of Parcels 1, 2, and 3. The
Eagle Mountain Railroad was constructed in 1948 and served iron mines in and around the Salton Sea. The
railroad branches from the Union Pacific’s transcontinental railroad near Niland, California. The last time
a train utilized the tracks was in 1986 (Abandoned Rails 2014).
Also noted in Section 3.1, Past and Current Land Use, Gas Line Road bisects the Bradshaw Trail at Parcel
17 and continues north across BLM land and south into CMAGR. There is a 161 kV electrical distribution
line is owned and operated by IID and runs along Gas Line Road. The power line shares a ROW with the
SoCalGas Company, which delivers natural gas via a 24-inch-wide natural gas pipeline (DoN 2013,
SoCalGas 2015a). The road has existed in its current form since the late 1950s (Appendix E) and the ROWs
have been in place since the early 1960s (refer to Table 2-7).
Finally, and as noted in Section 3.1, Past and Current Land Use, the region surrounding (north, south, west,
and east of) the subject transfer parcels was once part of the massive WWII-era DTC/C-AMA military
training and exercise area. Beginning in 1944, many of the activities and use areas that occurred in the
DTC/C-AMA were eliminated, reassigned elsewhere, or consolidated into what would become present day
CMAGR.
6.1.2
The land south of the Bradshaw Trail is comprised of the CMAGR active military facility. The CMAGR
is a live-fire training range that is essential for developing and maintaining the readiness of Marine Corps
and Navy aviators. The range is also vital for training select Marine Corps and Navy land combat forces;
including Naval Special Warfare (NSW) forces. The CMAGR was initially established during WWII and
6-1
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
has been indispensable for military aviation training ever since. Land combat training at the CMAGR also
began during WWII with the opening of a Marine Corps artillery school. The use of the range for training
NSW forces dates from 1966 and is oriented toward individual fighting skills and small team tactics. Since
the late 1970s, training of Marine land forces has typically emphasized integration with Marine air forces
but has also included training of infantry combat teams. The NSW and Marine Corps land warfare training
at the CMAGR typically involves battalion-sized or smaller units.
The CMAGR currently includes about 228,465 acres (nearly 357 square miles) of withdrawn federal public
land administered by the BLM and approximately 229,903 acres (359 square miles) of federal land
administered by the DoN. Approximately 162 acres (0.25 square miles) of land administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation is located inside of the CMAGR boundary; the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation land is
not withdrawn for military purposes.
The CMAGR is made up of withdrawn public land (primarily BLM) and reserved 7 for use as a military
range by the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-433).
The California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act states that the public lands in the CMAGR
are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws (including the mining laws and
the mineral leasing and the geothermal leasing laws) and are reserved for use by the Secretary of the Navy
for testing and training for aerial bombing, missile firing, tactical maneuvering and air support, and other
defense-related purposes. The BLM and DoN lands in the CMAGR are generally interspersed in a
checkerboard pattern of 1-square mile (640-acres) sections, but are used collectively and in common to
support the air combat training missions and other defense activities that occur at the range. The range
currently supports training by units of the DoN, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Reserve Components, and
U.S. National Guard; however, the U.S. Marine Corps is the primary user of this range. The authority
provided by the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 to use the BLM land
within the CMAGR terminated in October 2014. Congress has reserved the final authority for renewing
the CMAGR land withdrawal for itself through the Defense Withdrawal Act of 1958 (Public Law 103-433
§ 806(c)) and California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994. The CMAGR land
withdrawal and boundary realignment were finally set forth in Subtitle E, Section 2961, of Public Law 113–
66—Dec. 26, 2013, also known as The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Government Printing Office 2014). Local command for military operation and administration of the
CMAGR has been delegated by the Secretary of the Navy to the Commanding Officer, MCAS Yuma,
Arizona.
7 As provided by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S. Code 1702(j)) ― withdrawn federal
lands are those that are withheld from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws,
for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving
the area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than
― property governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended (40 U.S. Code 472) from
one department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency.
6-2
MCAS Yuma
6.1.3
Final
December 2015
Adjacent Ownership and Right-of-Way Easements
Ownership and use of properties adjacent to the subject transfer parcels are shown in Table 6-1 below.
ROW easements adjacent to the subject transfer parcels are the same as shown in Section 2.4.2, Easements
and Rights-of-Way, and Table 2-7. Land uses adjacent to the subject transfer parcels (expressed from their
orientation to the Bradshaw Trail) are listed in Table 6-1 and are described in the following sections.
Table 6-1. Ownership Adjacent to Subject Transfer Parcels
Direction
Ownership
North
BLM and State of
California
East
BLM and State of
California
South
DoD – MCAS Yuma
West
Bureau of
Reclamation, IID,
State of California,
BLM
Use
Designated Wilderness Area, used for recreation, camping, hiking and
other outdoor uses. Also an important set-aside for preservation of
natural landscape and ecology.
Designated Wilderness Area, used for recreation, camping, hiking and
other outdoor uses. Also an important set-aside for preservation of
natural landscape and ecology.
Aerial Gunnery Range, various target practice, Navy Sea, Air, Land or
“SEAL” training.
Primary land use west of subject transfer parcels is the Coachella Canal,
which provides irrigation water for agriculture in Coachella and Imperial
Counties.
Source: DoN 2013.
6.2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Adjacent properties containing uses that could potentially affect the subject transfer parcels were noted
during a review of the federal, state and county records (EDR 2014). Locations of properties listed by EDR
within a 1 mile (1.6 km) radius of the subject transfer parcels were observed to the extent possible during
field site reconnaissance. For the full database search results see Appendix D. Adjacent properties that
could potentially impact the environmental conditions of the subject transfer parcels are discussed below.
6.2.1
Areas North of the Subject Transfer Parcels
The area north of the Bradshaw Trail is undeveloped and as such is unlikely to present a threat from
development related or heavy-use related contamination. No records were found of accidents, spills,
releases, or FUDS north of the subject transfer parcels (EDR 2014). An RAS conducted on the subject
transfer parcels determined that munitions were present, which would suggest a high potential for munitions
to also be present in the land adjacent and north of the subject transfer parcels.
6.2.2
Areas West of the Subject Transfer Parcels
The Coachella Canal is 123 miles (198 km) in length and also forms the western boundary of the Bradshaw
Trail. With its incised canal, earthen dikes, tall concrete banks, and chain-link fencing on top of that, it is
a formidable physical barrier between everything east and west of it. The water in the canal is used
primarily for agriculture and is of generally good quality. There is very little development adjacent to the
canal and the land west of it slopes noticeably downward to the Salton Sea. As a result, the area west of
the subject transfer parcels is unlikely to pose a threat of contamination. No records were found of
accidents, spills, releases, or FUDS west of the subject transfer parcels (EDR 2014).
6-3
MCAS Yuma
6.2.3
Final
December 2015
Areas East of the Subject Transfer Parcels
The area east of the Bradshaw Trail is undeveloped and as such is unlikely to present a threat of
contamination. No records were found of accidents, spills, releases, or FUDS east of the subject transfer
parcels (EDR 2014).
6.2.4
Areas South of the Subject Transfer Parcels
The area south of Bradshaw Trail is the CMAGR active military facility. As it is a live-fire training range,
the potential exists for migration or wayward delivery of spent/unspent ordnance and other MD or MC
away from the impact or training areas. The CMAGR performs regular ORC program events in accordance
with Marine Corps Order 3550.12 (MCAS Yuma 2015b, DoN 2013) to maintain range safety and minimize
the accumulation of material that could impair training or be transported away from the facility. The
CMAGR also conducts periodic REVAs to determine the potential and level of exposure of sensitive
environmental receptors on- and off-range to MCs generated by CMAGR activities. Ordnance and MD
originating from CMAGR are known to be encountered within the subject transfer parcels, including by the
ECP site reconnaissance team. Therefore, CMAGR activities present a potential threat of contamination
from MD to the subject transfer parcels. No records were found of accidents, spills, releases, or FUDS
south of and immediately adjacent to the subject transfer parcels (EDR 2014). Based upon the findings of
the RAS, however; which determined munitions were present in the outgrant parcels (north of the Bradshaw
Trail), munitions presence should be assumed in parcels south of the outgrant parcels (south of the
Bradshaw Trail).
6.2.5
Environmental Restoration / Installation Restoration Program
In accordance with DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06, a review was conducted of all IRP
sites or other documentation produced in accordance with procedures being carried out at the CMAGR
under CERCLA. The mission of the IRP is to identify and clean up contamination resulting from past DoD
use and disposal practices for the protection of human health and the environment.
In 1992, the Navy conducted a Preliminary Assessment of the CMAGR to look for signs of hazardous waste
disposals or spills. Seven sites were identified, two of which were eliminated. Site 2, an open burn site
consisting of burnt scrap metal, was eliminated because it was located in an active live fire range, and the
DoD prohibits sampling due to safety concerns at active ranges. The scrap metal at the site was removed
through Range Operations and Maintenance. Site 3 (diesel fuel stain) consisted of a fuel spill area
approximately 10 ft in diameter beneath a 500-gallon AST. This site is not classified as an IR site because
petroleum spills are not addressed under the IR program. Site 3 was closed in 1994 after approximately 45
cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated and properly disposed. Groundwater sampling and analysis
was conducted and the results revealed that the groundwater had not been impacted from the spill (DoN
2013).
The remaining five IR sites on the CMAGR are closed and considered by CWRCB to no longer present a
threat of contamination (CWRCB 2015b). All seven of the sites identified in the 1992 Preliminary
Assessment are located adjacent to Camp Billy Machen, along the central-southwestern CMAGR property
boundary, and where Navy Sea, Air, Land (SEAL) training activities took place. The sites were formerly
used by the Navy for disposal of trash and debris such as empty storage drums, scrap metal, shell casings,
paint cans, glass bottles, old bombing vehicles, and construction materials. The Navy searched the records
of what was disposed of at each site and found no evidence of hazardous substances. Prior to closure, soil
samples were analyzed from each site and no chemical contamination from the debris was found. Debris
from the sites was consolidated and then properly disposed of offsite (DoN 2013, NAVFAC SW 2003).
6-4
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Because the sites are closed, there is no longer a threat of contamination, and the distance from the sites to
the Bradshaw Trail, the IR sites will not affect the subject transfer parcels.
6.2.6
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
database reviews, no evidence was found of the presence of PCBs adjacent to the subject transfer parcels.
No structures, equipment, or materials that are known to contain PCBs are present on properties adjacent
to the subject transfer parcels. There are triple-string single-circuit overhead power lines on wooden poles
running parallel to- and alongside of- Gas Line Road. The 161 kV electrical distribution line is owned and
operated by IID and bisects the Bradshaw Trail at Parcel 17. It is not known whether transformers observed
on some of the wooden poles contain PCBs. No transformers were observed along the portion of the utility
line adjacent to the subject transfer parcels. Therefore impacts to the subject transfer parcels from PCBs
on adjacent properties (if present) are unlikely.
6.2.7
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
As it is a live-fire training range, the potential exists for migration or wayward delivery of spent/unspent
ordnance and other MD or MC away from the CMAGR impact or training areas. The CMAGR performs
regular ORC program events in accordance with Marine Corps Order 3550.12 (MCAS Yuma 2015b, DoN
2013) to maintain range safety and minimize the accumulation of material that could impair training or be
transported away from the facility. The 2015 REVA found that MD deposited in the training areas can
migrate beyond the installation boundaries, primarily via surface water transport, and the REVA identified
ecological receptors within the watershed as a result of surface flows from the range (Arcadis 2015).
Although the area receives (on average) only 3.67 inches (9.32 cm) of rain per year, intense rainfall events
produce large volumes of water that rapidly run off the bedrock in mountainous areas and travel downslope
through ephemeral streams and dry washes (Arcadis 2015). Therefore, adjacent CMAGR activities present
a potential threat of contamination from MD to the subject transfer parcels.
As described in Section 5.9, Munitions and Explosives of Concern, a recently completed RAS for the 34
subject transfer parcels documented the presence of range-related scrap, debris, munitions, UXO and
MPPEH. Because the RAS determined that munitions were present, the subject transfer parcels were
incorporated into the MRP for cleanup under CERCLA process (NAVFAC SW 2015c). All encountered
ordnance items were removed from the outgrant parcels, but not from parcels adjacent to the subject transfer
parcels which were not surveyed (CB&I 2015).
Although military training has been conducted in the CMAGR area since the WWII, there are no FUDS
adjacent to the subject transfer parcels. The DTSC and CWRCB shared EnviroStor GeoTracker maps show
a FUDS record for both “Bomb Target #103” and “Desert Center Airport” near Bradshaw Trail and the real
estate transfer parcels (CWRCB 2015a, California DTSC 2015a). However, both records appear to be missmapped and are in actuality considerable distances away. The Defense Environmental Restoration Program
assessment of Bomb Target #103 determined that the site was exempt from FUDS status and mapped it
north of Plaster City, California, approximately 50 miles (80.5 km) southwest of the subject transfer parcels
(USACE 2015c, California DTSC 2015b). According to the USACE 2012 Annual Report to Congress, the
Desert Center Airport FUDS is located north of Desert Center, California, approximately 17 miles (27.4
km) north of the subject transfer parcels (USACE 2015c).
Due to these findings and their distances from the Bradshaw Trail, the Bomb Target #103 and Desert Center
Airport FUDS would not present an explosive threat or threat of contamination to the subject transfer
6-5
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
parcels. However, the findings of the RAS are that the potential for UXOs may persist beneath the soil
surface in the former live-fire ordnance areas.
6.2.8
Tanks (Underground and Above-Ground)
database reviews, no evidence was found of the presence of active or inactive ASTs or USTs within 1 mile
(1.6 km) of the subject transfer parcels. No records of accidents, spills, or releases on immediately adjacent
properties (CWRCB 2015b, USEPA 2015a, 2015b, 2015c; EDR 2014). Therefore, ASTs and USTs do not
present a threat of contamination to the subject transfer parcels.
6.2.9
Other Environmental Concerns
6.2.9.1
Cultural Resources
A review of published archival research and archaeological surveys indicated that the area around the 34
subject transfer parcels have not been exhaustively examined for cultural resources. As noted in Section
5.13, Cultural Resources, the historic Bradshaw Trail (CA-RIV-5191/H) runs along the southern border of
all but one of the subject transfer parcels. Although the road retains the integrity of location, it is heavily
used by OHVs, is occasionally graded by the County of Riverside, and lies within active alluvial and flood
wash channels. According to the BLM, there is lot of new cultural resource surveys and research occurring
in the general desert region of the subject transfer parcels, much of it precipitated by solar energy projects;
however, BLM is unaware of anything new in the Bradshaw Trail area (BLM 2015b). During the 19-22
December 2014 field inspection, no obvious surficial evidence of archaeological or cultural sites or
materials was found adjacent to the subject transfer parcels. The field inspection performed for this ECP
did not involve any formal surveys for cultural, historic, or archaeological resource sites within or adjacent
to the subject transfer parcels.
6.2.9.2
Mines
As noted in Section 5.15.1, Mines, there are 84 known mining claims within or adjacent to the subject
transfer parcels (refer to Figure 5-9). There are two active mining claims outside of the boundaries of the
subject transfer parcels, but within the 1-mile buffer zone (approximately 0.9 mile [1.4 km] to the north).
Both are sited in same location, have the same claimant, and appear to be related (Table 6-2).
Table 6-2. Active Mining Claims Adjacent to Subject Transfer Parcels
Serial
Number
CAMC186303
T7S, R12E,
Section 32,
NW Quadrat
CAMC259546
Claim Name
(and Claimants)
Case Type
Loc. Date
Last
Assessment
Kelton Holland
(Bertha Lou Holland &
Shirley Loutsenhizer)
Lode
18 OCT 1986
2015
Grayfeather 1
(Kelton Holland &
Shirley Loutsenhizer)
Lode
15 FEB 1993
2015
Location
Source: BLM LR2000 (BLM 2015a; Appendix D).
At the time of this report it is not yet clear what type of resource may be targeted by these two claims, or if
any resources have been recovered through mining efforts. Examination of aerial imagery of the mine
claim site(s) shows apparent earth movement (e.g., surface scraping); however, no tunnels, pits, shafts,
6-6
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
equipment, or facilities are visible. Even if the active claims were being actively mined, the apparent lack
of excavation or resource extraction equipment onsite suggests that the mines are unlikely to pose physical
hazards to the subject transfer parcels. The subject transfer parcels are downslope from the main claims
and intense rainfall events could connect the parcels and the claims via runoff. Runoff from this scenario
would be unlikely to remain on the subject transfer parcels for long, as the elevation drop to the west would
funnel through the passage of Coachella Canal Siphon 24 and towards the Salton Sea. Contamination, if
any, would be expected to be localized and the probability of surface or groundwater migration to the
subject transfer parcels is anticipated to be low due to the infrequent rainfall and well-drained soils.
6.2.9.3
Clandestine Drug Labs
database reviews, no evidence was found to indicate the presence of CDLs on any of the subject transfer
parcels (EDR 2014, Riverside County Sheriff 2015, MCAS Yuma 2015b, BLM 2014b). The EDR
DataMapTM report identified 14 County Level Orphan Site CDLs; however, the location information
provided was non-specific, typically referenced by road or street name only without address. Using these
available descriptions, the ECP team determined that the closest CDL identified in the EDR report was
related to a 1997 traffic stop in the community of Chiriaco Summit, approximately 9.5 miles (15.3 km)
northwest of the closest of the subject transfer parcels (EDR 2014).
The nature of CDLs is that they can appear virtually anywhere at any time; however, since there is no record
of CDLs adjacent to the subject transfer parcels, it can be assumed that the subject transfer parcels have not
been affected by CDL-related waste contamination.
6.2.9.4
Petroleum Pipelines
As noted in Section 5.15.5, Petroleum Pipelines, SoCalGas has several linear easements parallel and
adjacent to Gas Line Road for underground natural gas lines, cathodic protection anodes, and access. The
gas supply originates at a SoCalGas Mainline Valve Station located north of I-10 and runs south along Gas
Line Road where it crosses the Bradshaw Trail and enters CMAGR. The gas line continues in a relatively
straight line, south, to where it exits CMAGR at CMAGR’s southern boundary line near the Coachella
Canal at Gas Line Road. These natural gas transmission lines are the primary natural gas supply to the
Calipatria, Brawley and El Centro areas and are considered critical regional energy infrastructure
(SoCalGas 2015a, 2015b, 2015c).
Approximately 100 ft (31 m) south of the intersection of Gas Line Road and the Bradshaw Trail is an
approximate 10 ft by 10 ft (4 m by 4 m) fenced area containing a concrete slab and valves. This is a
SoCalGas control station where the two gas lines are bridled together (SoCalGas 2015a, 2015b). During
the preparation of the ECP, including during interviews, site inspections, and document reviews, no records
were found of accidents involving the SoCalGas pipelines along Gas Line Road.
As the natural gas lines are buried underground, annually maintained, and are not located in or adjacent to
range impact areas, properties adjacent to the subject transfer parcels are unlikely to be affected by natural
gas related contamination. However, extreme seismic or flooding events have the potential to expose or
compromise the integrity of the natural gas lines.
6.2.9.5
Accidental Spills/Releases
During the preparation of the ECP, including during interviews, site inspections, and document reviews, no
evidence was found to indicate accidental spills or releases have occurred on properties adjacent to the
6-7
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
subject transfer parcels (USEPA 2015a, 2015b, 2015c; California DTSC 2015a, CWQCB 2015a, EDR
2014). Therefore, properties adjacent to the subject transfer parcels are unlikely to have been substantially
affected by accidental spills/releases.
6.2.9.6
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater adjacent to the subject transfer parcels is situated within the Chocolate Valley Groundwater
Basin and is the basin groundwater quality is relatively homogeneous as a result. As discussed in Section
5.15.4, Groundwater Quality, there is potential for impacts to groundwater quality as a result of range
activities conducted at the CMAGR. The 2015 and 2008 REVAs conducted for CMAGR indicated
constituents of concern above action levels nearest the point of origin (e.g., impact areas), and lowering in
concentration with distance from those points (Arcadis 2015, Malcolm Pirnie 2008). Therefore, impacts to
groundwater quality from activities on CMAGR are likely to intensify with distance south away from the
subject transfer parcels. The REVA identifies potential human receptors as a result of groundwater through
a “potential water supply well” (Arcadis 2015). Although no further information is provided, it is possible
that the reference is to the Clemens Well.
The only permanent well feature adjacent to the subject transfer parcels is the Clemens Well. The Clemens
Well is located on the southern slope of the Bradshaw Trail, a few feet in elevation above the desert floor.
It is completely surrounded by metal chain link fencing, forming a square enclosure of approximately 12 ft
by 12 ft (Figure 6-1). Various historic topographic maps show it as a “dry well” (Appendix F). No other
information about the Clemens Well is provided in the various reports (EDR 2014, DoN 2013, URS 2011).
Figure 6-1. Clemens Well between Parcels 6 and 7
Above: Clemens “dry” well. Photo taken during the 18-21 May 2015 site visit.
6-8
MCAS Yuma
6.2.9.7
Final
December 2015
Wastewater
The properties adjacent to the subject transfer parcels are undeveloped with no history of industrial
operations that would indicate the presence or need for wastewater treatment facilities. During the
preparation of the ECP, including during interviews, site inspections, and document and database reviews,
no evidence was found of wastewater currently or historically being generated, treated, collected, or
discharged adjacent to the subject transfer parcels. Additionally, no evidence was found to indicate that
wastewater pipelines have been or are currently located adjacent to the subject transfer parcels (EDR 2014).
Therefore, no wastewater related impacts are expected immediately adjacent to the subject transfer parcels.
6.2.9.8
Stormwater
The properties adjacent to the subject transfer parcels are undeveloped with no history of industrial
operations requiring stormwater discharge permits or implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan. Stormwater related issues or concerns adjacent to the subject transfer parcels are limited to the
potential for migration of MEC off of CMAGR impact or training areas during infrequent but intense rain
events. This issue is integral to the REVA conducted periodically at CMAGR. The potential for migration
of MEC via surface water is discussed in Section 6.2.7, Munitions and Explosives of Concern. The potential
for migration of MEC constituents via groundwater is discussed in Section 6.2.9.6, Groundwater Quality.
6-9
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
6-10
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS
This ECP has been prepared for the DoN in accordance with the provisions of DoN Environmental Policy
Memorandum 06-06) (DoN 2006), which requires preparation of an ECP for real estate actions to document
the condition of the property at the time of transfer and to determine and provide notice of the presence of
contaminants that might pose a risk to human health and the environment, and in conformance with ASTM
E1527-13 standards. The purpose identified in the DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06 is to
streamline the assessment, documentation, and disclosure of an ECP in support of non-BRAC real estate
actions, including a determination regarding the environmental suitability of the action. The provisions
require that the investigation focus on record review, site inspection, and interviews. DoN Environmental
Policy Memorandum 06-06 provides that the purpose of an ECP is to determine, discover, and document
the presence or likely presence of a release, or threat of release of any hazardous or solid substance or waste,
and any petroleum product. The analysis included in an ECP provides a baseline of the environmental
conditions present on the site at the time of the real estate transaction, and provides notice to lessees, lessors,
transferees, transferors, invitees, military members, trespassers and others entering the site, of the presence
of and potential exposure to hazardous and solid wastes and substances.
Resources used to conduct the ECP included, but are not limited to, interviews with MCAS Yuma and
CMAGR personnel, NAVFAC SW personnel, BLM representatives, U.S. Border Patrol agents, counties of
Riverside and Imperial staff, other municipal staff, and other federal and state agency staff; field
inspections; review of available local, state, and federal government files; review of aerial photography;
and, a search of environmental records pertaining to the subject transfer parcels. Accordingly, the
evaluations and conclusions contained herein are based on information available as of the date of this report.
Real property land transfer of 49 properties encompassing 2,586.89 acres (1046.88 ha) would occur by way
of outgrants (property transferred out of DoN holdings) by the combined process of non-renewal (1,929.99
acres [781.04 ha]), disposal to BLM (629.05 acres [254.57 ha]), and revert to the State of California (27.85
acres [11.27 ha]). As discussed in Section 2.1, Approach and Rationale of this ECP, the expansive nature
of the subject transfer parcels and associated constraints, necessitated a targeted approach as a means to
guide the ECP research and site inspections. Therefore, given budget and schedule constraints, it was not
feasible to physically inspect all land and structures within the subject transfer parcels.
Based on the records review, field inspections, and interviews conducted for the ECP, it was determined
that the subject transfer parcels consist predominantly of undeveloped land used primarily for public
recreation and is largely devoid of activities and land uses typically associated with the large-scale
generation, use, storage, transport, and/or release of petroleum products or hazardous materials. However,
the following findings and observations were noted:
Munitions and Explosives of Concern. MEC are military munitions that may pose unique safety risks,
including UXO, DMM, or MC present in sufficient concentrations to pose an explosive hazard. The
CMAGR located to the south of the subject transfer parcels, has active range and impact areas. The 2015
REVA conducted for CMAGR did not indicate off-installation releases of MC from operational ranges, nor
an imminent threat to human health or the environment (Arcadis 2015). However, it did indicate that MD
deposited in the training areas have the potential to migrate beyond the installation boundaries, primarily
via surface water transport. A RAS was conducted at the subject transfer parcels revealed that
approximately 90 percent of the parcels surveyed contained some evidence of military activity, and
approximately one-third of the parcels surveyed contained UXO or MPPEH (CB&I 2015). Although
7-1
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
military training has been conducted in the CMAGR area since the WWII, and historical impact areas are
located within subject transfer Parcels 16, 17, and 18 (refer to Figure 5-1), there are no FUDS adjacent to
the subject transfer parcels. Based upon the document review (including the REVA and RAS) and the ECP
team site visit, it has been determined that a MEC hazard exists within and adjacent to the subject transfer
parcels. As a result of the RAS, which determined that munitions were present, and following the closure
of the range, the subject transfer parcels were incorporated into the MRP pursuant to the DoN’s CERCLA
authority. The DoN will remediate the sites in accordance with CERCLA and the DoD/EPA Principles.
Clandestine Drug Labs. By design, CDLs are difficult to identify. Although no CDLs were identified
within the subject transfer parcels, documented illicit drug manufacture in the surrounding region suggests
that drug-producing labs could exist on or in the vicinity of the subject transfer parcels. Drug laboratory
operators are known to set up transient operations on public lands, sometimes leaving a legacy of chemical
contamination.
During the preparation of the ECP, no evidence was found to indicate the presence of CDLs within the
subject transfer parcels or adjacent areas. The EDR report identified several County Level Orphan Site
CDLs; however, the location information provided was non-specific, typically referenced by road or street
name only without an address. Using these available descriptions, the ECP team determined that the closest
CDL identified in the EDR report was approximately 9.5 miles (15.3 kilometers) northwest of the subject
transfer parcels (EDR 2014).
Solid/Bio-Hazardous Waste. Small amounts of solid waste are currently generated at the subject transfer
parcels, in the form of trash from dumping, OHV use, and recreational activities within the subject transfer
parcels. No known bio-hazardous waste is generated or disposed at the subject transfer parcels and no
potential bio-hazardous waste was identified during the preparation of the ECP (EDR 2014). No records
were found to suggest that past or current landfill facilities are located within the subject transfer parcels
(EDR 2014).
During the ECP field inspections, unauthorized dumping was noted at several locations within the subject
transfer parcels, including vehicles, appliances, tires, furniture, mattresses, electronics and electronic waste,
and metal cans from consumable provisions (i.e., food and drink containers) in various locations.
Additionally, an abandoned shack and associated debris was noted in the northeastern extent of Parcel 27
(Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-3). Historical aerial photos indicate that a structure has likely existed at this
location since the 1950s (Google Earth 2015; Appendix E). In general, solid waste in the subject transfer
parcels is scattered, infrequently encountered, and generally small in size. Non-hazardous solid waste
(including some larger solid waste items such as vehicles or abandoned structures) will not be removed
prior to completion of the real estate transaction.
Groundwater Quality. The subject transfer parcels overlay the Chocolate Valley Groundwater Basin.
Groundwater quality in this basin is considered poor for domestic use because of elevated fluoride and TDS
concentrations and possibly for irrigation use because of elevated boron contents (DoN 2013). Additional
potential impacts to groundwater quality may stem from surface range activities conducted at the CMAGR.
The 2015 REVA indicates the presence (in the vicinity of the Bradshaw Trail) of ecological receptors via
surface water and sediment transport from CMAGR surface range activities (which have the potential to
affect groundwater), and also future human receptors through a potential water supply well. However, the
specific well was not identified. The findings of the REVA conducted at CMAGR did not indicate offinstallation releases of MC from operational ranges, nor an imminent threat to human health or the
7-2
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
environment (Arcadis 2015). However, it did indicate that MD deposited in the training areas can migrate
beyond the installation boundaries.
Utility and Natural Gas Easements and Rights-of-Way. The majority of land within the subject transfer
parcels is undeveloped. Accordingly, there is no demand for electricity or other utility service within the
subject transfer parcels and only minimal demand for these services in the adjacent properties.
Nevertheless, 12 unique encumbrances in the form of either easements or ROWs are located on the subject
transfer parcels (NAVFAC SW 2014). All of these easements are provided for road, railway, water,
electrical distribution, or gas lines.
The utility and natural gas easements that pass through the subject transfer parcels are:






22626: ROW for power line (Grantee is the IID)
22655: Easement for power line (Grantee is the IID)
22654: Easement for natural gas pipeline cathodic protection and purposes (Grantee is SoCalGas)
The remaining easements are for the Eagle Mountain Railroad (no longer in operation), the Coachella
Canal, the Bradshaw Trail, and the BLM (refer to Table 2-7). Easements are the same for properties
immediately adjacent to the subject transfer parcels. No potential hazards are anticipated relative to the
utility and natural gas transmission lines; however, severe seismic and flooding events have the potential
to expose or compromise the lines.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Although some potential hazards and areas of concern were identified during the preparation of the ECP,
in particular the presence of munitions in the subject transfer parcels, the implementation of remedial and/or
removal actions conducted pursuant to CERCLA and under the MRP, and appropriate internal procedures
and management controls are expected to minimize the exposure to hazards. The existing non-hazardous
solid waste (including some large solid waste items such as vehicles or abandoned structures) will not be
removed prior to completion of the real estate action. The remoteness of the area surrounding the subject
transfer parcels and low density of human and ecological receptors reduces the potential for exposure to
hazards.
If during the course of the disposal process the DoN identifies additional potential areas of environmental
concern and/or concludes that more study is required (e.g., to provide further information about the types
of contaminants or to determine the potential exposure), DoN will consider doing an appropriate level of
further environmental study.
Results of the ECP did not indicate the potential for contamination from petroleum products, or from
hazardous materials with the exception of MEC and potentially MC. The property has been entered into the
MRP and the DoN will conduct a remedial process pursuant to CERCLA even after property transfer.
Therefore, no environmental conditions are identified that would prevent the real property transactions from
taking place.
7-3
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
7-4
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
CHAPTER 8
REFERENCES
Abandoned Rails. 2014. The Eagle Mountain Railroad. Available at:
http://www.abandonedrails.com/Eagle_Mountain_Railroad. Accessed: 8 December.
Arcadis. 2015. Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment Five Year Review, Marine Corps Air
Station Yuma. June.
ASAIE. 2015. Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) Background. Webpage of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy & Environment. Available at:
http://www.asaie.army.mil/Public/ESOH/mmrp.html. Accessed: 30 November.
ASTM. 2013. Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments. Designation E1527-13. West
Conshohocken, PA. December.
BLM. 2008. Manual Transmittal Sheet 6840 – Special Status Species Management. 12 December.
BLM. 2014a. The Bradshaw Trail. Palm Springs – South Coast Field Office.
http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings/bradshaw.html. Accessed: 8 December.
BLM. 2014b. Personal interview conducted with Mr. Sterling White, BLM California Desert District
Abandoned Mines Program Lead, by Richard Stolpe and Stella Acuna of Cardno. 12 November.
BLM. 2015a. Personal communication between Brandon Anderson, Realty Specialist with BLM Palm
Springs Office, and Richard Stolpe and Stella Acuña of Cardno. 4 February.
BLM. 2015b. Personal communication between George Kline, Cultural Resources Specialist with BLM
Palm Springs Office, and Daniel Broockmann of Cardno. 3 February.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015a. Special Animals List, January 2015. Available at:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/spanimals.pdf. Accessed: 2 February.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015b. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens
List, January 2015. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/spplants.pdf.
Accessed: 2 February.
California DTSC. 2015a. EnviroStor Geotracker Interactive Mapping Database of Hazardous Waste
Permitted Facilities, Corrective Action Facilities, and Cleanup Sites. Search for “Bradshaw Trail”.
Available at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/mapfull.asp?global_id=&x=119&y=37&zl=18&ms=640,480&mt=m&findaddress=True&city=bradshaw%20trail&zip=&county
=&federal_superfund=true&state_response=true&voluntary_cleanup=true&school_cleanup=true&ca
_site=true&tiered_permit=true&evaluation=true&military_evaluation=true&school_investigation=tru
e&operating=true&post_closure=true&non_operating=true. Accessed: 12 January.
California DTSC. 2015b. Defense Environmental Restoration Program Formerly Used Defense Sites.
Exclusion categorization and map for Bomb Target #103 (J09CA017800). Dated 28 July 1993.
Available at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/7281400382/CA0178L1_Bomb
_Target_%23103.pdf. Accessed: 12 January.
California Department of Water Resources. 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118: Hydrologic
Region Colorado River, Imperial Valley Groundwater Basin. Available at:
8-1
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/7-30.pdf. Accessed: 5
December 2014.
California Geological Survey. 2010a. Fault Activity Map of California. Compilation and Interpretation
by Charles W. Jennings and William A. Bryant. California Department of Conservation. Available
at: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html. Accessed: 18 June 2015.
California Geological Survey. 2010b. An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of
California. Compilation and Interpretation by Charles W. Jennings and William A. Bryant.
California Department of Conservation. Available at:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/cgs_history/Documents/FAM_phamplet.pdf. Accessed: 18 June
2015.
California Native Plant Society. 2015. The California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants. Available at: http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/. Accessed: 2
February.
California Natural Diversity Database. 2015. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. RareFind 5.
Online data search through subscription. Available at:
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. Accessed: 30 January.
CB&I Federal Services LLC. 2015. Range Activity Survey. Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range,
California, Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona. Submitted to NAVFAC SW. Document
Control Number: CBI-4009-0110-2262. October.
Coachella Valley Water District. 2015. Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Homepage. Coachella
Canal information combined from two separate tabs on the CVWD Homepage: Frequently Asked
Questions (http://www.cvwd.org/FAQ.aspx?TID=16) and Where Does My Water Come From?
(http://www.cvwd.org/154/Where-does-my-water-come-from). Accessed: 12 November.
County of Riverside. 2008. Riverside County General Plan - Current. Updated online version showing
2014 updates, amendments, and effective dates. Available at:
http://planning.rctlma.org/ZoningInformation/GeneralPlan.aspx. Accessed: 6 February 2014.
CWRCB. 2015a. EnviroStor GeoTracker Interactive Website. Search of Bradshaw Trail. Available at:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=bradshaw+trail. Accessed:
12 January.
CWRCB. 2015b. EnviroStor GeoTracker Interactive Website. Cases Associated With Project:
Chocolate Mountain Naval Aerial Gunnery Range (13970002). Available at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/geotracker_sites.asp?global_id=13970002. Accessed: 16
February.
DoN. 2006. DoN Environmental Policy Memorandum 06-06: Streamlined Environmental Procedures
Applicable to Non-BRAC Real Estate Actions. Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Installations and
Environment, Washington DC. 5 July.
DoN. 2013. Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement for the Renewal of the Chocolate
Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal. April.
EDR. 2014. EDR DataMapTM Environmental Atlas for the Chocolate Mountain Gunnery Range Land
Transfer. Imperial, California. 18 December.
8-2
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Google Earth. 2015. Present and historical aerial imagery of subject transfer parcels and surrounding
areas. Historical imagery includes the years: 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2006,
2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1992, and 1956. Available at:
http://www.google.com/earth/.
Government Printing Office. 2014. Public Law 113–66—Dec. 26, 2013. National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Document title: PUBL066.PS. File: PLAW-113publ66.pdf.
Available at: https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ66/PLAW-113publ66.pdf. Accessed: 16 June
2015.
LSA Associates. 1994. Southern California Gas Company Natural Gas Line 6902 Project – The
Bradshaw Trail: Recommendation for National Register Eligibility Report. LSA Associates, Irvine,
CA. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2008. Final Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment Marine Corps Air
Station Yuma. November.
MCAS Yuma. 2013. Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan. 2013-2017. October.
MCAS Yuma. 2015a. Personal Communication between David Rodriguez, MCAS Yuma Environmental
Director, and Richard Stolpe of Cardno. 17 February.
MCAS Yuma. 2015b. Personal Communication between Bill Sellars, MCAS Yuma Range Director, and
Stella Acuña and Richard Stolpe of Cardno. 2 February.
Marine Corps Installations Command. 2015. Proposed Military Range Closure for Marine Corps Air
Station Yuma, Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range. Memorandum from Commander, MCIC,
5090 GF-5. 20 January.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. Myoma Series. Available at:
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/M/MYOMA.html. May. Accessed: 9 December
2014.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Tecopa Series. Available at:
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/T/TECOPA.html. November. Accessed: 9 December
2014.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2002. Cajon Series. Available at:
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/C/CAJON.html. January. Accessed: 9 December
2014.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Rositas Series. Available at:
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/R/ROSITAS.html. March. Accessed: 9 December
2014.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Vaiva Series. Available at:
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/V/VAIVA.html. September. Accessed: 9 December
2014.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Gunsight Series. Available at:
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/G/GUNSIGHT.html. April. Accessed: 9 December
2014.
8-3
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
NAVFAC SW. 2003. Proposed Plan/Draft Remedial Action Plan for Chocolate Mountain Aerial
Gunnery Range Installation Restoration Program Sites 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8. Public comment invitation
and outreach notification mailer. July. Available at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=13970002&doc_id=60289
769. Accessed: 16 February 2015.
NAVFAC SW. 2014. Real Estate and Encumbrance Maps and associated property data tables provided
by Navy Cadastral Office. August.
NAVFAC SW. 2015a. Personal communication between Marlyn Vasquez, Project Manager with
NAVFAC SW, and Stella Acuna of Cardno. Email stating that NAVFAC Real Estate and
Environmental are not aware of any environmental liens on the CMAGR out-grant parcels. 25
February.
NAVFAC SW. 2015b. Historical Site Compilation Map. Facsimile of undated USACE St. Louis
District map showing historical ranges and targets at CMAGR. Provided as an AMRDK file called
“YUMA Chocolate Mountain CADD”. Provided 11 February.
NAVFAC SW. 2015c. Personal communication between Angela Wimberly, NAVFAC SW Remedial
Project Manager for MCAS Yuma and CMAGR, and Stella Acuna and Richard Stolpe of Cardno.
Telephone call discussion regarding incorporation of the outgrant parcels into the MRP. 30
November.
Riverside County Sheriff. 2015. Personal communication between Hector Velazquez, Border Patrol
Agent with U.S. Border Patrol, and Richard Stolpe of Cardno. 9 February.
SoCalGas. 2015a. Personal communication between Chris Sowell, Pipeline Planner with SoCalGas, and
Stella Acuna of Cardno. 29 January.
SoCalGas. 2015b. Gas Transmission and High Pressure Distribution Pipeline Interactive Map Riverside County. Available at: http://www.socalgas.com/safety/pipeline-maps/riverside.shtml.
Accessed: 3 February.
SoCalGas. 2015c. Gas Transmission and High Pressure Distribution Pipeline Interactive Map - Imperial
County. Available at: http://www.socalgas.com/safety/pipeline-maps/imperial.shtml. Accessed: 3
February.
Southern California Earthquake Data Center. 2013. Significant Earthquakes and Faults: Fault Name
Index: San Andreas Fault Zone. Available at: http://scedc.caltech.edu/significant/sanandreas.html.
Accessed: 18 June 2015.
University of California, Riverside. 1992. Natural Resources Management Plan, Chocolate Mountains
Aerial Gunnery Range, California. Earth Sciences Department, Geography Program.
URS. 2011. Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range Renewal Preliminary Site Evaluation. 21
December.
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. 2015. Available at: http://www.dea.gov/clan-lab/clan-lab.shtml.
Accessed. 27 February.
U.S. Border Patrol. 2015. Personal communication between Hector Velazquez, Border Patrol Agent, and
Richard Stolpe of Cardno. 9 February.
8-4
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
USACE. 2001. Final Archives Search Report. Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Chocolate Mountain
Aerial Bombing and Gunnery Range. Imperial and Riverside Counties. December.
USACE. 2015a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Formerly Used Defense Sites Homepage. Available at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/Media/FactSheets/FactSheetArticleView/tabid/219/Article/475485/former
ly-used-defense-sites.aspx. Accessed: 12 January.
USACE. 2015b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Formerly Used Defense Sites Homepage. FUDS FAQ:
“How does it differ from the cleanup program on active installations?”. Available at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Environmental/FormerlyUsedDefenseSites/FrequentlyAskedQu
estions.aspx. Accessed: 3 December.
USACE. 2015c. USACE Formerly Used Defense Sites Geographic Information System. FUDS Public
GIS - 2012 Annual Report to Congress. Online interactive website. View parameters: Desert Center
Airport FUDS in the north; Salton Sea Bomb Target (10) (#51) FUDS in the south; Borrego Springs
in the west; and Blythe Army Airfield in the east. Available at:
http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/apex/f?p=516:2:0. Accessed: 17 February.
USEPA. 1985. Aerial Photographic Analysis of Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, Riverside
and Imperial Counties, California. EPA Region 9. Document #TS-AMD-84019/4560. January.
USEPA. 2012a. Map of Radon Zones, California. Indoor Air - Radon. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html. Accessed: 26 February 2015.
USEPA. 2012b. Letter from Kathleen Goforth, USEPA Region 9 Environmental Review Office (CED2) to Kelly Finn, CMAGR LEIS Project Manager. Subject: Draft Legislative Environmental Impact
Statement (DLEIS) for the Proposed Renewal of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range
Land Withdrawal, California (CEQ # 20120278). 29 November.
USEPA. 2013. A Citizen's Guide to Living With Radon: The Risk of Living With Radon. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html#risk. Accessed: 26 February 2015.
USEPA. 2015a. USEPA MyEnvironment Interactive Database. MyMaps Page for: Bradshaw Trail,
Desert Center, CA 92239. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/myenv/myenview2.html?minx=115.48940&miny=33.52430&maxx=-115.46558&maxy=33.53342&ve=15,33.52886,115.47750&pSearch=Bradshaw%20Trail,%20Desert%20Center,%20CA%2092239. Accessed: 12
January.
USEPA. 2015b. Enviromapper Interactive Database. Search Place: Bradshaw Trail, Desert Center, CA
92239. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/myem/efmap/index.html?ve=16,33.52885818481445,115.47750091552734&pText=Bradshaw%20Trail,%20Desert%20Center,%20CA%2092239.
Accessed: 12 January.
USEPA. 2015c. Final National Priorities List (NPL) Sites - by State. NPL Sites as of 9 February, 2015.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfin.htm#CA. Accessed: 19
February.
USFWS. 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for
the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 63.
USFWS. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for
the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise. Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 26.
8-5
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
WRCC. 2014. Eagle Mountain, California (042598) – Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary.
Period of Record: 9/1/1933 to 3/29/2013. Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2598. Accessed: 5 December.
8-6
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
CHAPTER 9
LIST OF PREPARERS
This ECP was prepared by Cardno under the direction of NAVFAC SW. Members of the professional staff
are listed below.
Project Management
Stella Acuna, ECP Project Manager
B.A., Environmental Design and Planning
Richard Stolpe, ECP Deputy Project Manager
M.A., Geography
Quality Assurance
Lisa Woeber, Quality Control/Quality Assurance Specialist
B.B.A., Business Administration
Technical Analysts
Teresa Rudolph, Cultural Resources Specialist
M.A., Anthropology
Shannon Brown, Geographic Information System Specialist
B.S., Environmental and Resource Science
Clint Scheuerman, Ecologist
B.S., Biological Sciences
Ian Todd, Health and Safety Coordinator
M.A., Environmental Law and Policy
Graphic Design
Jackie Brownlow
B.S., Business Administration
Document Management
Claudia Tan
A.A., Liberal Arts and Sciences
9-1
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
Certification Statement
Based on records reviews, site inspections, and interviews, the following environmental professionals
concur that the environmental conditions of the property are as stated in this document to the best of our
knowledge and belief. Additionally, we declare that to the best of professional knowledge and belief, we
meet the definition of Environmental Professionals as defined in 40 CFR 312.10. We have the specific
qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and
setting of the subject property.
______________________________
Stella Acuña
ECP Project Manager
14 December 2015
Date
_______________________________
Richard Stolpe
ECP Deputy Project Manager
14 December 2015
Date
9-2
MCAS Yuma
Final
December 2015
10-2
MCAS Yuma

Final Outgrant Environmental Condition of Property for Chocolate

Transcription

Similar documents

RARE OFFERING OF O`SHAUGHNESSY RESERVOIR

Department of City Planning

exclusive cardiocomfort™ treatment option the high

Parcel Group M - City of Corning

Fair price structure with volume measurements

Aerial Photography - Lakes Region Planning Commission

FOR SALE - Towne Center, Dynamic Regional Retail Tract, Pooler, GA

Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer (FOSET)

TERRASCAN Company Profile