BFOP Final_EA_1-06.pdf

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

NAVFAC SOUTHWEST

Final

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Base-wide Fuel Optimization Program Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton California

January 2006

Acronyms and Abbreviations

24/7 24 hours per day, 7 days per week AC/S ES Assistant Chief of Staff, Environmental Security ABV Assault Breacher Vehicle AG annual grassland APE Area of Potential Effect AS/SVE air sparge and soil vapor extraction systems AST above-ground storage tank BA Biological Assessment BEAP Base Exterior Architecture Plan BFOP Base-wide Fuel Optimization Program Bldg. building BMPs Best Management Practices BO Biological Opinion CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAGN Coastal California gnatcatcher CARB California Air Resources Board CATEX Categorical Exclusion CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNG compressed natural gas CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide COCO Contractor-owned, Contractor-operated CS California sagebrush CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DD disturbed/developed DESC Defense Energy Support Center DoD Department of Defense DON U.S. Department of the Navy E Eucalyptus EA Environmental Assessment EBS Environmental Baseline Survey EFV Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle EO Executive Order ERS Ecological Restoration Service ESA Endangered Species Act FAS Fuels Automated System FSSG Force Service Support Group ft foot (feet) ft² square feet gal gallon(s) GOGO Government-owned, Government-operated ha hectare(s) HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Repsponse INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan IRP Installation Restoration Program JP- jet petroleum Kv kilovolts km kilometer(s) km² square kilometers L liter(s) LAV Light Armored Vehicle LUST leaking underground storage tank m meter(s) m2 square meter(s) MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MCAS Marine Corps Air Station MCB Marine Corps Base MCO Marine Corps Order ME Mexican elderberry MEF Marine Expeditionary Force MEFEX Marine Expeditionary Force Exercise mg/L milligrams per liter MG mixed grassland MLG Marine Logistics Group mi2 square mile(s) MOGAS motor gasoline MS mixed sage scrub MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NBC Nuclear Biological Chemicals NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NG native grassland NHPA National Historic Preservation Act CNPS California Native Plant Society NOx nitrous oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places O3 ozone OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OU operable unit PM2.5 particulate matter <2.5 microns in diameter PM10 particulate matter <10 microns in diameter ppm parts per million PWS Performance Work Statement RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROD Record of Decision ROI Region of Influence RWQCB San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board SCM Special Conservation Measure SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDFS San Diego fairy shrimp SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide SOx oxides of sulfur STP Sewage Treatment Plant SVE soil vapor extraction systems SWDIV Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Division SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS total dissolved solids TLB thread-leaved brodiaea µg/m³ micrograms per cubic meter USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USMC U.S. Marine Corps UST underground storage tank VOCs volatile organic carbon(s) VP vernal pool WG wet grassland yd yard(s) yd2 square yard(s)

Environmental Assessment for the

Base-wide Fuel Optimization Program Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California

Lead Agency: U. S. Marine Corps Title of Proposed Action: Base-wide Fuel Optimization Program (BFOP) at Marine Corps Base

Camp Pendleton, California Affected Region: San Diego County Designation: Final Environmental Assessment

ABSTRACT

The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S. Code §§4321-4370d, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500- 1508); DON Procedures for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR 775), and Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, Chapter 12, which establishes procedures for implementing NEPA. The Proposed Action consists of implementing a BFOP which would optimize the fuel distribution system on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. The Proposed Action evaluated in this EA includes various alternative sites within the six areas on MCB Camp Pendleton.

Specifically, the Proposed Action involves single site alternatives in the 21, 22, 43, and 52 Areas and multiple site alternatives in the 12/14 and 41 Areas. This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts to the following resource areas: geological resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, air quality, hazardous materials and wastes, public health and safety, and utilities.

Point of Contact:

Department of the Navy

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest ATTN: Ms. Rebecca Loomis

1200 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92132

January 2006

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

Base-wide Fuel Optimization Program EA Final January 2006

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 United States Code §§ 4321-4370d, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508, and the guidelines contained in the Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, Chapter 12, dated 10 July 1998, Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, which establishes procedures for implementing NEPA.

This EA describes the potential environmental consequences resulting from a proposal by the Defense Energy Support Center for a Base-wide Fuel Optimization Program (BFOP) at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton, California, which was initiated by a request from MCB Camp Pendleton. The BFOP would optimize the fuel distribution system on MCB Camp Pendleton resulting in a cost savings of approximately $4 million over a 20-year period. Based on results from an economic analysis, the fueling sites would change from the current Government-owned, Government-operated (GOGO) to Contractor-owned, Contractor-operated (COCO) sites to meet tactical fueling needs. The proposed fuel stations would be strategically located throughout MCB Camp Pendleton and would provide the following fuels for both tactical and non-tactical vehicles: jet petroleum (JP-8), motor gasoline (MOGAS), and bio-diesel.

The Proposed Action is to construct new fuel stations or modernize or replace existing fuel stations on MCB Camp Pendleton, resulting in an optimized fuel distribution system consisting of a maximum of six COCO fuel stations (two master service stations and four satellite service stations). The six fuel stations would be strategically located throughout the Base within six areas: 12 or 14, 21, 22, 41, 43, and 52 Areas. The areas for the master service stations were selected due to their central locations either within the headquarters areas of MCB Camp Pendleton or their central locations to northern base areas on MCB Camp Pendleton, and their ability to meet tactical fueling needs. Areas selected for satellite service stations were determined to be the optimal locations to provide the most efficient general fuel delivery and distribution services.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to optimize the fuel distribution system on MCB Camp Pendleton through construction of up to a maximum of six new, modernized, automated fueling stations to meet the Base’s tactical fueling needs at a reduced cost. These new sites would be located in geographically dispersed areas on MCB Camp Pendleton as analyzed in the Final Initial Review. As a result of the Revised Initial Review, seven areas (later reduced to six areas as discussed in Section 2.1) were recommended to be included in the BFOP based upon an operational strategy to determine the most efficient distribution of fueling points and master fuel station locations. The strategy revolved around the location of customer population centers and training areas. The placement of specific types of fuels (e.g., JP-8, bio-diesel, and MOGAS) at particular sites was designed to balance convenience to the customer with the efficiencies of fewer dispensing points.

The Proposed Action is needed to support training missions and on-going operations on MCB Camp Pendleton. MCB Camp Pendleton is widely used by tenant organizations, regional reserve, and active duty military organizations from all branches of the military for training and joint exercises. MCB Camp Pendleton primarily supports the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) which is comprised of the 1st Marine Division, 3rd Marine Air Wing (aircraft stationed at Marine Corps Air Station [MCAS] Yuma, ES-2

MCAS Camp Pendleton, and MCAS Miramar), 1st Marine Logistics Group (MLG), I MEF Command Element, and various attached battalions and detachments. I MEF is currently operating five tenant fuel service stations on board MCB Camp Pendleton, as well as functioning as the primary customer for ground and aviation fuel support. I MEF has over 3,580 tactical vehicles and equipment requiring approximately 1,018,000 gallons (gal) (3,853,550 liters [L]) of JP-8 annually. In addition, MCB Camp Pendleton currently has approximately 660 dedicated MOGAS (automotive gasoline) -powered vehicles.

Another 220 vehicles can, if necessary, use MOGAS instead of their primary fuel source of compressed natural gas (CNG). When E-85 Ethanol becomes readily available on MCB Camp Pendleton approximately 200 of these vehicles would shift their fueling requirement to E-85. Additionally, roughly 50 off-base customers use MCB Camp Pendleton fueling facilities on an irregular basis. In the course of a year, this accounts for several hundred more vehicles using a widely variable amount of MOGAS.

MCB Camp Pendleton has 545 bio-diesel powered vehicles that would require fueling support under the optimization program. MCB Camp Pendleton’s annual fuel requirement for its commercial equipment fleet is approximately 573,279 gal (2,170,097 L) of bio-diesel fuel and 568,640 gal (2,152,537 L) of

MOGAS.

The CEQ NEPA implementation regulations establish a number of policies for federal agencies, including “using the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that would avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions on the quality of the human environment” (40 CFR

1500.2 [e]). The CEQ NEPA implementation regulations require including analysis of the “No-Action” Alternative. Analysis of the No-Action Alternative provides a baseline against which to compare the impacts of the Proposed Action. Other alternatives were considered but eliminated from further analysis because they did not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action.

In compliance with NEPA, CEQ regulations, and DON and USMC procedures for implementing NEPA, the description of the affected environment focuses only on those resources potentially subject to impacts.

In addition, the level of analysis should be commensurate with the anticipated level of impact.

Accordingly, the discussion of the affected environment (and associated environmental analyses) focuses on topography, geology, and soils; water resources; biological resources; cultural resources; air quality;

hazardous materials and wastes; public health and safety; and utilities within the defined ROI for each resource. Conversely, the following resource areas were not carried forward for analysis in this EA, as potential impacts were considered to be negligible or non-existent: noise, socioeconomics and environmental justice, visual resources, transportation, and land use.

The potential environmental consequences associated with implementation of any of the six alternative site combinations (Alternatives A through F as listed below in Table ES-1) or the No-Action Alternative are presented in Table ES-2. For a detailed description and analysis, refer to Chapter 4.0, Environmental Consequences. As shown in Table ES-2, implementation of any of the action alternatives or the No- Action Alternative would not result in significant impacts to any resource area. The No-Action Alternative would, however, forego the opportunity for MCB Camp Pendleton to optimize its fuel distribution system and to provide the most efficient general fuel delivery and distribution services for the Base in order to support training missions and on-going operations. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative is not considered a reasonable alternative because it does not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. Based on the analysis presented in this EA, the USMC has identified that site combination alternative “D” as presented in Table ES-1 is the preferred alternative.

ES-3

Table ES-1. Summary of BFOP Service Station Site Combination Alternatives

Service Alternative Type Station Site A B C D E F

12 Area ● ● ● 14 Area ● ● ● Master 52 Area ● ● ● ● ● ● 21 Area ● ● ● ● ● ● 22 Area ● ● ● ● ● ● 43 Area ● ● ● ● ● ● 41 Area

Alternative 1 ● ●

41 Area Alternative 2 ● ●

Satellite

41 Area Alternative 3 ● ●

Table ES-2. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences by BFOP Site and Resource Master Service Station Satellite Service Station

Resource

Area

Area, Alt. 1

Area, Alt. 2

Area, Alt. 3

No

Action Geological Resources

Water Resources

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Air Quality Hazardous Materials and Wastes

Public Health and Safety

Utilities no significant impact less than significant impact

ES-4

i

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

BASE-WIDE FUEL OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................Inside Front Cover

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

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED....................................................................................................1-1

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

1.2 LOCATION...............................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................1-1

1.4 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................1-4

1.5 EA ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................................1-4

1.6 REGULATORY SETTING ..........................................................................................................1-4

CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................2-1

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................................2-1

2.2 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA .....................................................................................................2-3

2.3 PROPOSED MASTER AND SATELLITE SERVICE STATION SITES..............................................2-5

2.3.1 Master Service Stations .............................................................................................2-5

2.3.2 Satellite Service Stations ...........................................................................................2-9

2.4 SPECIAL CONSERVATION MEASURES (SCMS) .....................................................................2-16

2.4.1 General Avoidance and Minimization Measures ....................................................2-16

2.4.2 Species-specific Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation Measures .............2-16

2.5 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BFOP SERVICE STATION SITE COMBINATION ALTERNATIVES...2-19

2.6 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................................2-19

2.7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED..................................................................2-20

2.7.1 14 Area ....................................................................................................................2-20

2.7.2 22 Area ....................................................................................................................2-20

2.7.3 41 Area ....................................................................................................................2-20

2.7.4 43 Area ....................................................................................................................2-21

2.7.5 52 Area ....................................................................................................................2-22

2.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...............................................................2-22

2.9 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................................2-23

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

3.1 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................3-2

3.1.1 Definition of Resource ..............................................................................................3-2

3.1.2 Region of Influence (ROI) ........................................................................................3-2

3.1.3 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................3-2

3.2 WATER RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................3-6

3.2.1 Definition of Resource ..............................................................................................3-6

3.2.2 Region of Influence (ROI) ........................................................................................3-6 ii

3.2.3 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................3-6

3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................3-9

3.3.1 Definition of Resource ..............................................................................................3-9

3.3.2 Region of Influence (ROI) ......................................................................................3-10

3.3.3 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................3-10

3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................3-23

3.4.1 Definition of Resource ............................................................................................3-23

3.4.2 Region of Influence (ROI) ......................................................................................3-24

3.4.3 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................3-24

3.5 AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................................3-25

3.5.1 Definition of Resource ............................................................................................3-25

3.5.2 Region of Influence (ROI) ......................................................................................3-26

3.5.3 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................3-26

3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES...............................................................................3-29

3.6.1 Definition of Resource ............................................................................................3-29

3.6.2 Region of Influence (ROI) ......................................................................................3-29

3.6.3 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................3-30

3.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ..............................................................................................3-32

3.7.1 Definition of Resource ............................................................................................3-32

3.7.2 Region of Influence (ROI) ......................................................................................3-33

3.7.3 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................3-33

3.8 UTILITIES..............................................................................................................................3-34

3.8.1 Definition of Resource ............................................................................................3-34

3.8.2 Region of Influence (ROI) ......................................................................................3-34

3.8.3 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................3-34

CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES......................................................................4-1

4.1 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Master and Satellite Service Station Sites .................................................................4-1

4.1.2 No-Action Alternative...............................................................................................4-2

4.2 WATER RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................4-2

4.2.1 Master Service Station Sites......................................................................................4-2

4.2.2 Satellite Service Station Sites....................................................................................4-3

4.2.3 No-Action Alternative`..............................................................................................4-5

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................4-5

4.3.1 Master Service Station Sites......................................................................................4-5

4.3.2 Satellite Service Station Sites....................................................................................4-6

4.3.3 No-Action Alternative.............................................................................................4-10

4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................4-10

4.4.1 Master Service Station Sites....................................................................................4-10

4.4.2 Satellite Service Station Sites..................................................................................4-10

4.4.3 No-Action Alternative.............................................................................................4-11

4.5 AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................................4-11

4.5.1 Master and Satellite Service Station Sites ...............................................................4-11

4.5.2 No-Action Alternative.............................................................................................4-12 iii

4.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES...............................................................................4-12

4.6.1 Master and Satellite Service Station Sites ...............................................................4-12

4.6.2 No-Action Alternative.............................................................................................4-15

4.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ..............................................................................................4-15

4.7.1 Master and Satellite Service Station Sites ...............................................................4-15

4.7.2 No-Action Alternative.............................................................................................4-16

4.8 UTILITIES..............................................................................................................................4-16

4.8.1 Master and Satellite Service Station Sites ...............................................................4-16

4.8.2 No-Action Alternative.............................................................................................4-17

4.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...............................................................4-17

CHAPTER 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.............................................................................................5-1

5.1 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS .........................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) .....................................................................5-1

5.1.2 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Steam Generator

Replacement ..............................................................................................................5-1

5.1.3 North County Transit District (NCTD) Santa Margarita River Bridge

Replacement and Second Track Project ....................................................................5-3

5.1.4 Public-Private Venture (PPV) Projects .....................................................................5-3 5.1.5/6 Tertiary Treatment Plant at MCB Camp Pendleton ..................................................5-3

5.1.7 Pacific Marine Credit Union .....................................................................................5-4

5.1.8 Temporary Lodging Facility/San Jacinto Road Extension........................................5-4

5.1.9 Improvements around Combat Town........................................................................5-4

5.1.10 Improvements to Basilone Road ...............................................................................5-4

5.1.11 Road Improvements to Oscar 1 Training Area..........................................................5-4 5.1.12/13 Assault Breacher Vehicle ......................................................................................5-5

5.1.14 Hydrogen Fueling Station .........................................................................................5-5

5.2 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AREA ........................5-5

5.3 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................5-6

CHAPTER 6 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA ...............................................6-1

6.1 POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE OBJECTIVES OF

FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS ...6-1

6.1.1 Clean Water Act (CWA) ...........................................................................................6-1

6.1.2 Safe Drinking Water Act...........................................................................................6-1

6.1.3 California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986......................6-1

6.1.4 Basin Plan..................................................................................................................6-1

6.1.5 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit ........................................6-2

6.1.6 Other Permits.............................................................................................................6-2

6.1.7 Clean Air Act (CAA) ................................................................................................6-2

6.1.8 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) ..................................................................6-3

6.1.9 Endangered Species Act (ESA).................................................................................6-3

6.1.10 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal

Agencies To Protect Migratory Birds........................................................................6-3

6.1.11 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) .............................................................6-3 iv

6.1.12 EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations ................................................................6-3

6.1.13 EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ..........................................................................................................................6-4

6.2 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF ALTERNATIVES

INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALL MITIGATION MEASURES BEING

CONSIDERED...........................................................................................................................6-4

6.3 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE

RESOURCES.............................................................................................................................6-4

6.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM NATURAL RESOURCE

PRODUCTIVITY .......................................................................................................................6-4

6.5 MEANS TO MITIGATE AND/OR MONITOR ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..................6-5

6.6 ANY PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED AND

ARE NOT AMENABLE TO MITIGATION...................................................................................6-5

CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................7-1

CHAPTER 8 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED................................................................8-1

CHAPTER 9 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................9-1

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Record of Non-Applicability ......................................................................................A-1 APPENDIX B: Vernal Pool Survey Report......................................................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C: Agency Correspondence .............................................................................................C-1

List of Figures

Figure Page

1-1 Regional Location, MCB Camp Pendleton...................................................................................1-2 2-1 Proposed Project Locations, MCB Camp Pendleton ....................................................................2-2 2-2 12 Area and 14 Area Proposed BFOP Master Service Station Sites ............................................2-7 2-3 52 Area Proposed BFOP Master Service Station Site ..................................................................2-8 2-4 21 Area Proposed BFOP Satellite Service Station Site ..............................................................2-10 2-5 22 Area Proposed BFOP Satellite Service Station Site ..............................................................2-12 2-6 41 Area Proposed BFOP Satellite Service Station Site Alternatives..........................................2-14 2-7 43 Area Proposed BFOP Satellite Service Station Site ..............................................................2-15 3.1-1 Regional Fault Zones ....................................................................................................................3-4 3.3-1 Plant and Aquatic Communities and Sensitive Species within and in the Vicinity of the

Proposed 12/14 Area BFOP Sites...............................................................................................3-12 3.3-2 Plant and Aquatic Communities and Sensitive Species within and in the Vicinity of the

Proposed 52 Area BFOP Site......................................................................................................3-13 3.3-3 Plant and Aquatic Communities and Sensitive Species within and in the Vicinity of the

Proposed 21 Area BFOP Site......................................................................................................3-14 v

3.3-4 Plant and Aquatic Communities and Sensitive Species within and in the Vicinity of the Proposed 22 Area BFOP Site......................................................................................................3-15

3.3-5 Plant and Aquatic Communities and Sensitive Species within and in the Vicinity of the Proposed 41 Area-Alternative 1 BFOP Site ...............................................................................3-16

3.3-6 Plant and Aquatic Communities and Sensitive Species within and in the Vicinity of the Proposed 41 Area-Alternative 2 BFOP Site ...............................................................................3-17

3.3-7 Plant and Aquatic Communities and Sensitive Species within and in the Vicinity of the Proposed 41 Area-Alternative 3 BFOP Site ...............................................................................3-18

3.3-8 Plant and Aquatic Communities and Sensitive Species within and in the Vicinity of the Proposed 43 Area BFOP Site......................................................................................................3-19

3.5-1 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................3-27 5-1 Cumulative Impacts Project Locations, MCB Camp Pendleton...................................................5-2

List of Tables

Table Page

ES-1 Summary of BFOP Service Station Site Combination Alternatives.......................................... ES-3 ES-2 Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences by BFOP Site and Resource .................. ES-3 2-1 Site Selection Criteria for BFOP Master and Satellite Service Stations .......................................2-4 2-2 Area of Affected Vernal Pools within the 41 Area Site Alternatives ........................................2-18 2-3 Summary of BFOP Service Station Site Combination Alternatives...........................................2-19 2-4 Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences by BFOP Site and Resource ...................2-23 3.1-1 Major Active Faults within 60 miles (97 km) of MCB Camp Pendleton .....................................3-5 3.1-2 Soil Types at Alternative Site Locations.......................................................................................3-5 3.3-1 Biological Resources at Proposed and Alternative BFOP Sites .................................................3-11 3.3-2 Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring at Proposed BFOP Site .......................................3-20 3.5-1 Representative Air Quality Data for MCB Camp Pendleton (2002-2004) .................................3-28 3.5-2 Applicable Criteria Pollutant de minimis Levels (tons/year) ......................................................3-29 4.5-1 Estimated Emissions Resulting from Implementation of BFOP at MCB Camp Pendleton .......4-11 4.9-1 Summary of Environmental Consequences by Proposed BFOP Site and Resource...................4-18 vi

1-1

CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. This EA describes the potential environmental consequences resulting from a proposal by the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) for a Base-wide Fuel Optimization Program (BFOP) at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton, California, which was initiated by a request from MCB Camp Pendleton. The BFOP would optimize the fuel distribution system on MCB Camp Pendleton and, based on an economic analysis, the fueling sites would change from the current Government-owned, Government-operated (GOGO) to Contractor-owned, Contractor-operated (COCO) sites to meet tactical fueling needs. The contractor would construct canopies, access roadways, spill containment, utility extensions, structures for electronics and equipment, and install either above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) or underground storage tanks (USTs) and dispensers. The Blast Study being conducted for this project, along with the Base Exterior Architecture Plan (BEAP) will assist the design/build contractor in determining whether an AST or a UST will be included in the final design of each site. The proposed fuel stations would be strategically located throughout MCB Camp Pendleton and would provide the following fuels for both tactical and non-tactical vehicles: jet petroleum (JP-8), motor gasoline (MOGAS), and bio-diesel.

1.2 LOCATION

MCB Camp Pendleton is located within the northern portion of San Diego County, 40 miles (64 kilometers [km]) north of downtown San Diego (Figure 1-1). It extends approximately 17 miles (29 km) along the coast and 12 miles (19 km) inland, encompassing approximately 125,000 acres (50,586 hectares [ha]). The City of San Clemente and the Cleveland National Forest border MCB Camp Pendleton to the north and east, with the community of Fallbrook and the Naval Weapons Station–Seal Beach/Fallbrook Annex to the east, the City of Oceanside to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Regional access to MCB Camp Pendleton is provided by Interstate 5 and State Route 76, located south of MCB Camp Pendleton.

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to optimize the fuel distribution system on MCB Camp Pendleton through construction of up to a maximum of six new, modernized, automated fueling stations to meet the Base’s tactical fueling needs resulting in a cost savings of approximately $4 million over a 20-year period. These new sites would be located in geographically dispersed areas on MCB Camp Pendleton as analyzed in the Final Initial Review (MCB Camp Pendleton 2001a). As a result of the Revised Initial Review (MCB Camp Pendleton 2002), seven areas (later reduced to six areas as discussed in Section 2.1) were recommended to be included in the BFOP based upon an operational strategy to determine the most efficient distribution of fueling points and master fuel station locations. The strategy revolved around the location of customer population centers and training areas. The placement of specific types of fuels (e.g., JP-8, bio-diesel, and MOGAS) at particular sites was designed to balance convenience to the customer with the efficiencies of fewer dispensing points.

El Camino Real

Stu art M esa Road

Basilone R oad

Basilone Road

Basilone Road

Am munitio n Road

M ission

R oad

De Luz Road

Ro bl ar Ro ad

Va nd eg rif t

Bo ul ev ar d

Vandegrift B oulevard

Las Pu lga s

Ro ad

Ho rn o Can yo n Road

C ris tia nit os Road

Missi on R d.

Coast Highway

Oceanside Boulevar d

El C am ino

Rea l

Do ugla s

D riv e

North

River Road

San Mateo R oad

San Mate o Canyon Road

Ja rd i n e

C an yo n Road

Talega Road

Talega Road

C ase Springs Road

FALLBROOKFALLBROOK

OCEANSIDE

CARLSBAD

VISTA

SAN LUIS REY

SAN

CLEMENTE

FALLBROOK

OCEANSIDE

CARLSBAD

VISTA

SAN LUIS REY

SAN

CLEMENTE

Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach

Fallbrook Annex

O R A N G E C O U N T Y

R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y

S A N D I E G O

C O U N T Y

MCB CAMP PENDLETON BOUNDARY

P A C I F I C

O C E A N

1" = 30 MILES

P A C I F I C

O C E A N

San Diego

Escondido

Oceanside Carlsbad

Encinitas

Fallbrook

San Clemente

SAN DIEGO

COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

ORANGE

COUNTY

U.S.A.

MEXICO

MCAS

Miramar

MCB

Camp

Pendleton

Figure 1-1 Regional Location

MCB Camp Pendleton

1-2

Cantonment Area

LEGEND

0 3

0 4

Miles

Kilometers

1-3

The fuel storage capacity of the Consolidated Material Service Center bulk fuel terminal in the 22 Area is

1.5 million gallons (gal) (5.7 million liters [L]), but the bulk fuel terminal is currently only holding an average of less than 100,000 gal (378,541 L) of the three grades of fuels for tactical and base tanker trucks. The tenant service stations within the 21, 41, and 52 Areas require major modernization/upgrades to adequately and efficiently service tracked and armored vehicles as well as provide bulk fuel and services for the northern training areas. Currently, tenants and units in the middle to northern area of MCB Camp Pendleton, where most of the training and live fire ranges are located, must travel 10-16 miles (16-25 km) to the southern part of the Base for bulk issue of JP-8. Traversing this distance increases operational costs and creates a safety issue. The only north/south road (Basilone Road) has several dangerous curves and hills, and several accidents involving tactical fuel trucks have occurred on this road. In addition, tenant service stations are not automated, various methods for fuel accounting are being used at each location, and, as currently structured, are not capitalized.

In April 2001, in accordance with the Marine Corps JP-8 Fuel Conversion Policy, MCB Camp Pendleton tenants switched from bio-diesel to JP-8 as the primary fuel for tactical equipment and vehicles. The switch to JP-8 was in response to DoD Directive 4140.25 which states that the primary fuel for land-based air and ground forces in all theaters shall be JP-8. This is to minimize the types of fuels required in joint operations and to work towards a long-term goal of a single battlefield fuel to reduce the logistics burden of supplying gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation gasoline, and aviation kerosene (jet fuel). The objective of the policy is to convert or replace all existing fueled equipment (including trucks, tanks, light transport equipment, and aircraft) to operate on aviation kerosene. Using a single battlefield fuel is safer than using multiple fuels and the quality assurance process is improved, ensuring that stocks meet full specifications. It is also easier to identify fuel stored in unmarked containers and JP-8’s long-term storage stability makes JP-8 a more reliable and a safer alternative fuel for prepositioned vehicles and equipment.

Lastly, the policy will help to eliminate the potential for dispensing the wrong fuel.

In 2002, the Base began transitioning its low-sulfur diesel stocks to bio-diesel (B-20) in order to meet Executive Order (EO) 13149, Greening the Government through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency, for alternative fuel usage for their non-tactical fleet. Also, MCB Camp Pendleton has over 160 vehicles fueled by the ethanol-based E85 alternative fuel, and all future replacement General Services Administration leases would be E85 stocks; however, the Base’s current fueling facilities have not been upgraded to hold or dispense E85.

The Proposed Action is needed to support training missions and on-going operations on MCB Camp Pendleton in a more efficient, safe, uniform, and cost effective manner. MCB Camp Pendleton is widely used by tenant organizations, regional reserve, and active duty military organizations from all branches of the military for training and joint exercises. MCB Camp Pendleton primarily supports the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) which is comprised of the 1st Marine Division, 3rd Marine Air Wing (aircraft stationed at Marine Corps Air Station [MCAS] Yuma, MCAS Camp Pendleton, and MCAS Miramar), 1st Marine Logistics Group (MLG), I MEF Command Element, and various attached battalions and detachments. I MEF is currently operating five tenant fuel service stations on Base, as well as functioning as the primary customer for ground and aviation fuel support. I MEF has over 3,580 tactical vehicles and equipment requiring approximately 1,018,000 gal (3,853,550 L) of JP-8 annually.

MCB Camp Pendleton’s FY04 fuel requirement for its own and visiting unit's commercial equipment fleet was approximately 586,640 gal (2,152,537 L) of MOGAS and 573,270 gal (2,170,063 L) of bio-diesel.

1-4

1.4 BACKGROUND

Pursuant to a U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) request in 2001, DESC, Facilities and Distribution Management Directorate, Optimization Division (DESC-FL) conducted an Initial Review of MCB Camp Pendleton's fuel facility operations (MCB Camp Pendleton 2001a, 2002). The Initial Review outlined an optimization process of conducting short- and long-term research studies and planning to identify best-fit solutions to improve efficiency in the operation and maintenance of Department of Defense (DoD) petroleum storage and distribution systems.

The Optimization Team determined the most effective solution for MCB Camp Pendleton would be achieved with consolidation and privatization of the 15 currently operating fuel service stations into 2 centrally located master service stations (bulk/military retail) and 4 satellite service stations (military retail). MCB Camp Pendleton would receive modernized fueling facilities through the use of private capital as opposed to DoD capital, and environmental oversight would be transferred to the contractor, leaving Fleet Assistance Program personnel to return to their critical war fighting role. The new fueling sites would be a mix of modernized bulk and military retail facilities, some unmanned and automated, and all would be developed to meet applicable State of California and federal environmental standards.

In 2002, the potential areas for master and satellite service stations were identified through field visits and detailed coordination with MCB Camp Pendleton, Service Control Point, and DESC personnel. During 2003 and 2004, the areas were further refined and documented. Upon implementation of the BFOP, it is expected that the existing fuel stations would discontinue use. However, the potential cessation of existing fuel station operations is not part of the Proposed Action and is not covered within this EA.

1.5 EA ORGANIZATION

This EA is organized as follows: Chapter 1 defines the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action;

Chapter 2 contains a description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives and identifies the Preferred Alternative; Chapter 3 describes the affected environment; Chapter 4 analyzes the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative; Chapter 5 presents the cumulative impacts analysis; and Chapter 6 describes other NEPA considerations.

1.6 REGULATORY SETTING

This EA has been prepared pursuant to the following:

• NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S. Code [USC] §§ 4321-4370d), which requires an environmental analysis for federal actions having the potential to impact the quality of the natural and human environment;

• Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-

1508), which outline NEPA requirements;

• Department of the Navy (DON) procedures for implementing NEPA (32 CFR Part 775), which provides DON policy for implementing the CEQ regulations and NEPA; and

• Marine Corps Order (MCO) P5090.2A, Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, Chapter

12, which establishes procedures for implementing NEPA.

This EA has also been prepared in accordance with the following:

• National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 USC §§ 470-470x-6;

• Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 USC §§ 1251-1387;

• Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, 42 USC §§ 7401-7671p, including 1990 General Conformity Rule;

1-5

• Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 USC §§ 1451-1465;

• Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 USC §§ 1531-1544;

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 USC § 6901 et. seq., as amended;

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 USC §

9601 et. seq., as amended;

• EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations;

• EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks;

• EO 13101, Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition;

• EO 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management;

• EO 13134, Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy;

• EO 13148, Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management; and

• EO 13149, Greening the Government through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency.

1-6

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank}

2-1

CHAPTER 2

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action is to construct new fuel stations or modernize or replace existing fuel stations on MCB Camp Pendleton, resulting in an optimized fuel distribution system consisting of a maximum of six COCO fuel stations (two master service stations and four satellite service stations). The six fuel stations would be strategically located throughout the Base within six areas: 12 or 14, 21, 22, 41, 43, and 52 Areas (Figure 2-1). The areas for the master service stations were selected due to their central locations within the headquarters areas of MCB Camp Pendleton and their ability to meet tactical fueling needs.

Areas selected for satellite service stations were determined by the Initial Review that identified these areas to be the optimal locations to provide the most efficient general fuel delivery and distribution services.

The Proposed Action includes various alternative sites within the six areas. Specifically, the Proposed Action involves single site alternatives in the 21, 22, 43, and 52 Areas and multiple site alternatives in the 12 or 14 and 41 Areas.