ft \ Cb > \ o ¥ t n jf?f?apnn pi DEC 2 3 1992 ' UlteisEtnrn; Volume I Draft j WANSPORTATION LMW FE B 1993 northwestern university ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FORT ORD DISPOSAL AND REUSE December 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ORGANIZATION This environmental impact statement (EIS) addresses the disposal and reuse of Fort Ord. It provides the analysis of specific base realignment and closure actions and their environmental effects as required by Army Regulation 200-2, National Environmental Policy Act, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality regulations. Volume I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY summarizes the EIS but is not meant to replace the detailed evaluations contained in the EIS. Section 1.0 PURPOSE, NEED, and SCOPE describes the relevant background information on the proposed action and summarizes its objectives and scope of the analyses required in the EIS. Section 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION includes a thorough description of the Army's proposed action analyzed in this EIS. Section 3.0 ALTERNATIVES examines the reuse alternatives analyzed in this EIS. Section 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT describes existing biophysical and socioeconomic conditions. Section 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES contains the environmental and socioeconomic effects of the proposed action and alternatives, including a summary comparison of reuse alternatives. Section 6.0 REFERENCES contains information to assist the reader in easily locating any reference cited in the report. Section 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS identifies all persons involved in preparing this document and describes their qualifications. Section 8.0 PERSONS CONSULTED lists persons and agencies who provided information to the preparers of this report. Section 9.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST includes public agencies, public interest groups, organizations, and individuals from whom review and comment of the draft EIS is requested. An INDEX is provided at the end of Volume I that alphabetically lists the types of environmental effects induced by the different alternatives. An ACRONYM LIST (fold-out) is provided immediately following the list of referenced material. A LIST OF REFERENCED MATERIAL not included in the EIS or technical appendices is available for review at the information repository established at Seaside Branch Library, 550 Harcourt Avenue, Seaside, CA 93955, 408/899-2055. Volume II DETAILED ANALYSIS OF DISPOSAL AND REUSE contains the scientific and analytic basis for the summary of comparisons of environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives contained in Volume I, Section 5.0. This section consists of information that substantiates the analyses fundamental to the EIS and relevant to the decision makers. Volume III TECHNICAL APPENDICES consist of material that substantiates the analyses fundamental to the EIS and relevant to the decision makers. Copies of Volumes I, II, and III are available for review at the information repository or upon request. This document is printed on recycled paper Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume III Environmental Impact Statement Organization December 1992 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 3 5556 0 210389 LEAD AGENCY: Department of the Army, Forces Command (FORSCOM) TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION: Disposal and Reuse of Fort Ord, California AFFECTED JURISDICTION: State of California: Monterey County; Cities of Marina and Seaside PREPARER: Laurence R. Sadoff, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, California 95814-2922 REVIEWED BY: C. G. Marsh, Major General, General Staff, Chief of Staff, FORSCOM PROPONENT APPROVED: Edwin H. Burba, Jr., General, Commander in Chief, FORSCOM RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: Thomas M. Montgomery, Major General, General Staff, Director of Management, Office of the Chief of Staff, Department of the Army APPROVED BY: Mr. Lewis D. Walker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health) ABSTRACT : The proposed Army actions supported by this document include establishing an approximately 1,500-acre Presidio of Monterey (POM) annex on Fort Ord to provide operations support to the military services remaining in the Monterey area; retaining a 12-acre reserve center complex on Fort Ord to support local reserve units; and disposing of excess property at Fort Ord. Other Army actions associated with closure of Fort Ord are discussed in this document but are not analyzed in detail. These actions are closing Fort Ord and placing the installation in a caretaker status before disposal decisions are made. Actions of other federal, state, and local entities following disposal are analyzed in reuse discussions, although this document does not fully support these subsequent actions. Alternative actions are analyzed in the document, including a modified POM annex proposal developed by the City of Seaside and a proposal to have no annex or reserve center on Fort Ord. The Army, in cooperation with local planning entities, developed land reuse alternatives. A wide range of reuse alternatives including high-, medium- and low-density mixed-use alternatives; an alternative composed primarily of institutional uses (educational, governmental, and public/quasi-public); an open space alternative; and an anticipated reuse plan are compared to 1991 baseline conditions. The disposal and reuse actions described in this document would result in impacts on federally protected plant and wildlife species and sensitive plant communities and wildlife habitat, loss of soil resources and accelerated erosion, loss of federal protection for, and impacts on, historic structures, deterioration of infrastructure from reduced maintenance, risks to public health from reduced security, social and economic disruptions to Monterey Bay area communities, development in floodplains and increased urban runoff to surface waters, need for expansion of infrastructure, exposure of additional people and property in a seismically active area, elimination of a large tract of open space, visual degradation of the Monterey coastline; increased violations of state and federal air quality standards; and creation of substantial congestion on Fort Ord area roadways. REVIEW COMMENT DEADLINE: Comments must be received within 45 days from the publishing date of this document. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Draft Environmental Impact Statement December 1992 This document is printed on recycled paper. This document should be cited as: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. 1992. Fort Ord disposal and reuse environmental impact statement. Draft. December 1992. Sacramento, CA. Technical assistance from Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. (JSA 90-214), Sacramento, CA. Executive Summary INTRODUCTION The Department of the Army is reducing its force structure in response to changing global security requirements, resulting in fewer Army installations needed to station the smaller force. The process to determine the installations that would be closed and/or realigned was established in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (1990 Base Closure Act), Public Law 101-510. The Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission's 1991 recommendations for base realignments and closure, commonly referred to as BRAC 91, require Fort Ord, California, to be closed and the 7th Infantry Division (Light) (IDL) to be relocated to Fort Lewis, Washington. The 1990 Base Closure Act specifies that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is applicable to base closures during the process of property dis- posal. The act does not require nor specify a time limit for disposing of the excess Fort Ord land. The Conference Report for House Resolution 2100 (HR 2100) the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993, directed the Army to proceed immediately with an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the disposal and reuse of Fort Ord specifically addressing socioeconomic effects of the Army relocating from the Monterey Bay area. These two legislative actions (1990 Base Closure Act and HR 2100) have helped define the proposed action for this EIS and the level of impact analysis required to support the action. PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action analyzed in this EIS is the disposal of excess property made available by the closure of Fort Ord, with the retention of the U.S. Army Reserve Center and establishment of a Presidio of Monterey (POM) annex. The socioeconomic impacts of relocating the active Army from the Fort Ord community are analyzed in this EIS, following the language of the conference report for HR 2100. Reasonable alternative uses of the property after disposal are identified and evaluated. Fort Ord is operated as a permanent installation of Headquarters, Department of the Army, Forces Command. The primary mission of Fort Ord is to train troops, but it also provides command, administration, and logistical support and other functions necessary to operate and maintain facilities at Fort Ord and its subinstallations, the Presidio of Monterey, and Fort Hunter Liggett. It also supports active Army tenant units and other activities as assigned, attached, or stationed, including satellite activities off the installation. Fort Ord is an Army installation located along the Pacific Ocean in northern Monterey County, California, approximately 100 miles south of San Francisco. Fort Ord occupies approximately 28,000 acres adjacent to Monterey Bay (a national marine sanctuary) and the Cities of Marina, Seaside, Sand City, Del Rey Oaks, and Monterey. The Southern Pacific Railroad and State Highway 1 (also known as State Route 1) cross the western section of Fort Ord, separating the beachfront from the majority of the installation. Fort Ord is bordered on the east by undeveloped land. Of the total Fort Ord acreage, 73% (approximately 20,000 acres) is in unincorporated Monterey County, 15% (approximately 4,100 acres) is within the Seaside city limits, and 12% (approximately 3,400 acres) is within the Marina city limits. As the 7th IDL realigns from Fort Ord, the Army will place structures, utilities, and operation and maintenance systems into a caretaker status until property disposal decisions are implemented. If environmental restoration is not accelerated, the Army may retain segments of the lands remaining outside the POM annex and reserve center in a caretaker status until restoration is complete. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Executive Summary Draft EIS Volume I ES-1 December 1992 Remediation and cleanup of contaminated sites are ongoing activities. All sites known to be contaminated shall be remediated by the Army to levels that meet federal, state, and local regulations and protect human health and the environment, and shall be certified clean by proper authorities before they are reused, transferred, or sold. Unexploded ordnance also will be cleared to appropriate levels, considering available technology, cost, environmental factors, and interim and future land uses. A real estate screening process is being used to determine other governmental agencies' interest and requirements for lands excess to Army needs, as well as Stuart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act requirements. After interest in lands has been identified, applicable real estate procedures will be used at the Army's discretion to determine the appropriate disposition of available lands. Approximately seven federal agencies, five California state agencies, and 14 local agencies and organizations have expressed interest in Fort Ord lands. The processes associated with disposal and reuse are shown in Figure ES-1. Approximately 26,500 acres, or 95% of the installation, will be available for disposal. The remainder of the installation will be retained as a POM annex and reserve center. The Army will dispose of the property as governed by the 1990 Base Closure Act; the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended; and federal property management regulations. The Army plans to establish a POM annex of approximately 1,500 acres to provide support to the Presidio of Monterey. The Army also plans to retain, under military control, a 12-acre parcel of land with a 21,000-square-foot reserve center, located at Imjin Gate near Reservation Road. The primary focus of this EIS is to evaluate the environmental impacts of disposing of excess Fort Ord property after closure. Reuse of the property, which is an action to be taken by others, is analyzed in this document as an indirect or secondary effect of executing the proposed action. The reuse development process is evolving, plans are continuously being revised, and new plans may be forthcoming. The Army has identified five levels of development intensity to categorize foreseeable reuse alternatives. These categories are sufficiently defined to identify planning-level effects for consideration by the public and Army decision makers. This EIS presents a range of reuse alternatives, which represent the range of options presented to the Army through scoping and public involvement. The environmental effects of those alternatives are qualitatively and, in some cases, quantitatively described. The Army plans no further analysis of future uses of the excess property. The future use of the Fort Ord property, as ownership changes from the Army to a yet unknown owner, is an issue of significant interest to the affected communities. The Army acknowledges its responsibility to ensure, within the limits of its authority, that succeeding uses do not lessen the quality of the community life or degrade the environment. The Army will take steps to ensure that succeeding owners protect historic or cultural resources, endangered species, wetlands, and other valuable resources to the extent possible. The Army has been working cooperatively with federal, state, and local agencies and the Fort Ord Task Force to determine a broad range of reasonably foreseeable reuse alternatives for inclusion in the draft EIS. « Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I ES-2 Executive Summary December 1992 iOO d3S 1 onv nnr Nnr AVW UdV HVH aid Nvr 030 AON IOO d3S onv inr Nnr AVh UdV uvn 83d 030 AON IOO d3S onv inr Nnr AVW UdV 1-8 o Ll^8 Q 2t "22 ui ^ ~cz ~ ol \ - -&!_ u © (AS ► to"? —UJ © - C 3 t-se- •*Qo fil —uj « - . ii- mo ~S" •C o -8-H © _ _ot • 2. -55 2 ► «2 a E 8 n ^ —<8° "8 ► 10 M C H E £ SF TJ .8 .. 8 <„ a3> 2csi r|- TJ " "D cn O) c - c - 0 - rt - 01 -I- > . c _ 5= " » A © a is O lO 2- «► N I v— ■8 (A O 5 • C -8™ .o aj -| § 2 TJ C a "5® is 8* M o •- ± •) > .t sr "8*- «o £|8 c c o < C g OT3 CC •—'>"> o < ° c c " CL Cp ® ® 12 m o r - ° c B 5 c 8 azQili (/> O w o z © oS If g? S) o « 81 -> £ < ^ a i §3 2 ID ? 5 rr tn o w z o ii 3 j= U- P Q ~ < I Q_ c 2 1 U. O O g- s J UJ C 2 £ > ^ o UJ o -J o a a o h cc o UJ s CL o -J UJ > UJ a > o £ < c & >• o z UJ UJ o < 3 8§ ES-3 This EIS analyzes the proposed action of disposing of excess Fort Ord property in the following reuse alternatives: ■ Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use, ■ Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use, ■ Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use, ■ Alternative 4: Institutional Use, ■ Alternative 5: Open Space, and ■ Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse. Each reuse alternative inherently includes the Army's proposed action, which includes retaining Fort Ord lands to establish a POM annex, retaining a reserve center, and disposing of excess Fort Ord property not retained by the Army. For some of the reuse alternatives, subalternatlves that do not include the Army's proposed POM annex also are considered and include: ■ Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center, ■ Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center, and ■ Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Use. The No Action Alternative, or not disposing of excess Fort Ord property and retaining it in caretaker status, is also analyzed. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES Proposed Action Pre-Disposal and Disposal Caretaker actions will include modifying buildings, changing infrastructure, and altering land management and installation operations. Some areas of Fort Ord may be in long-term caretaker status or until contaminated sites can be cleaned. Analysis of the closure actions leading to downsizing the installation and placing it in caretaker status is not within the scope of this EIS. Disposal of Fort Ord property may entail transferring land and changing the property from exclusively federal legislative jurisdiction to state and local jurisdiction. A positive effect of disposal on the local communities would be the addition of real estate to private interests into the state and local tax base. Economic activity would increase from the hazardous and toxic waste remediation actions, unexploded ordnance disposal, and infrastructure modifications. A potential negative effect of disposal of large areas of land include temporarily saturating some segments of the local real estate market and reducing sales prices, losing land currently leased from the Army, and altering existing traffic and circulation patterns. Additionally, the transition from federal ownership or management may increase the demand for some municipal services and could result in the loss of federal protection for biological and cultural resources. Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Office has been initiated for the proposed action, and a biological assessment will be prepared and used to obtain the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Additionally, during the caretaker period and before property disposal, the Army will conduct cultural resource investigations and coordination as required by the BRAC cultural resource Programmatic Agreement to meet its Section 106 responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I ES-4 Executive Summary December 1992 Establishment of Presidio of Monterey Annex and Retention of Reserve Center The POM annex would employ approximately 1,000 civilian employees. This would include a caretaker force; administrative support staff; and employees of the commissary, post exchange, child care center, and other facilities at the annex. The existing 340-person Army reserve center would remain as it presently exists. Establishing the Army's POM annex and retaining the reserve center would not require new construction or development in currently undeveloped areas. Establishing the Army's POM annex could result in impacts from building modifications, public service systems, infrastructure modifications, traffic accessibility, security conflicts, and loss of emergency services. Building modifications and renovations of 14 buildings would include demolition and repairs that could result in noise, air emissions, and hazardous materials impacts. Establishing the POM annex would include the need for access to the annex. Approximately 20,000 daily trips would be generated, and Light Fighter Drive would accommodate this but would have little additional capacity for other users. A need would remain for additional access routes to and from the POM annex. Access would also need to be retained to and from the reserve center. Establishing Seaside's recommended POM annex would require the City of Seaside to replace all developed facilities that would be lost from the Army's proposed POM annex in the Main Garrison area, except for the two Army golf courses, which would become part of the City of Seaside. This would result in various impacts on watershed hydrology and water quality within the installation; loss of vegetative cover, including rare plant habitat; and changes in basin hydrology. Water demand would decrease to approxi- mately 2,900 acre-feet per year because of the elimination of 400 acre-feet per year of nonpotable water requirements for the golf courses. The construction of new buildings and roads east of North-South Road would require archeological surveys, new infrastructure, generate traffic, and create air emissions from several sources. Construction and traffic noise impacts would also result. Buildout of Seaside's recommended POM annex would result in the loss of coastal coast live oak woodland and coastal scrub habitats. Species of special concern and special-interest wildlife species would be adversely affected by habitat losses and potential direct mortality during construction. Highly sensitive views along the coast would be adversely affected by construction of new buildings, renovation of existing buildings, and infrastructure modifications. This could result in a substantial reduction in visual quality for views from State Route 1 and other important visitor use areas in and around Monterey Bay. Reuse Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use. Alternative 1 generally represents the Fort Ord Economic Development Authority (FOEDA) vision for the Cities of Marina and Seaside, the City of Sand City vision, information provided by the Cities of Del Rey Oaks and Monterey, and Monterey County's vision for remaining unincorporated areas. Under this alternative, approximately 65% of the undeveloped land would be developed, with dense urban uses over all of the installation except the far eastern portion. The buildout population would be approximately 250,000. • Alternative 1 would have severe impacts on most environmental resources. The large populations, great expanse of dense urban development, large water and wastewater requirements, endangered species impacts, and conflicts in land use and transportation plans for the region would make this alternative unlikely to be implementable as it is now formulated. Changes would need to be made to be more compatible with physical and environmental constraints and be economically feasible for development and operation within Fort Ord and in the region. It would need to comply with federal laws and policies concerning air quality, endangered species, floodplains, the California coastal zone, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, historic preservation, and noise. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I T ES-5 Executive Summary December 1992 Alternative 1, Subalternative C represents the FOEDA vision for the Cities of Marina and Seaside and Monterey County's vision for remaining unincorporated areas. Under this subalternative, approximately 70% of the undeveloped land would be developed, with dense urban uses over all of the installation except the far eastern portion. The buildout population would be approximately 282,600. The primary difference between Alternative 1 and Subalternative C is that Subalternative C includes substantial new development in the coastal zone and, therefore, would result in additional impacts on the coastal zone. Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use. Alternative 2 generally represents the county vision in all of the unincorporated areas and the FOEDA vision in the incorporated areas of the Cities of Marina and Seaside. Under this alternative, approximately 40% of the undeveloped land would be developed, with dense urban uses over the western and northern portions of the installation and much less density in the central and eastern portions. The buildout population would be approximately 112,800. Alternative 2 would have severe impacts on many environmental resources. The population increases, great expanse of new development, large water and wastewater requirements, endangered species impacts, and conflicts in land use and transportation plans for the region would require substantial revisions and mitigation to be implementable. Changes would need to be made to make this alternative more compatible with physical and environmental constraints and be economically feasible for development and operation within Fort Ord and in the region. It would need to comply with federal laws and policies concerning air quality, endangered species, floodplains, the California coastal zone, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, historic preservation, and noise. Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use. Alternative 3 generally represents the Fort Ord Task Force recommendation. Under this alternative, approximately 15% of the undeveloped land would be developed, primarily in the north-central portion of the installation, except for a small portion of low-density development in the southern portion. The buildout population would be approximately 82,900. Alternative 3 would have significant impacts on many environmental resources. The population increases, location and extent of new development, new water and wastewater requirements, endangered species impacts, and conflicts in land use and transportation plans for the region would require revisions and mitigation to be implementable. Changes would need to be made to make this alternative more compatible with physical and environmental constraints and be economically feasible for development and operation within Fort Ord and in the region. It would need to comply with federal laws and policies concerning air quality, endangered species, floodplains, the California coastal zone, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, historic preservation, and noise. Alternative 4: Institutional Use. Alternative 4 generally represents preliminary proposals received from other federal, state, and local agencies and incorporates institutional uses from the vision plans proposed by the local agencies and the Fort Ord Task Force. Under this alternative, approximately 10% of the undeveloped land would be developed, primarily in the north-central portion of the installation, except for a small portion of low-density development in the southern portion. The buildout population wpuld be approximately 31,000. This alternative would have significant impacts on many environmental resources. The location and extent of new development, new water and wastewater requirements, endangered species impacts, and conflicts in land use and transportation plans for the region would require revisions and mitigation to be implementable. Changes would need to be made to make this alternative more compatible with physical and environmental constraints and be economically feasible for development and operation within Fort Ord and in the region. It would need to comply with federal laws and policies concerning air quality, water quality, endangered species, floodplains, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, historic preservation, and noise. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I ES-6 Executive Summary December 1992 Alternative 5: Open Space. Alternative 5 represents preliminary open space proposals from other federal and state agencies and incorporates open space uses from the vision plans proposed by the local agencies and the Fort Ord Task Force. Under this alternative, approximately 1% of the undeveloped land would be developed, primarily in the southern portion of the installation. The buildout population would be approximately 4,800. This alternative would not have significant impacts on most environmental resources. The large amount of open space and recreation resources would be a significant environmental benefit. Operation of this alternative would be costly. The economic effects of the closure of Fort Ord would be significant in the region and would not be offset by this alternative. Modifications to this alternative would be possible to allow development within previously developed areas and the inland range area (impact area) after unexploded ordnance is removed without destroying key biological resources. This would allow a combination of open space and economic backfill uses that would have many of the same environmentally positive effects while allowing for substantial economic recovery or expansion. Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse. Alternative 6 represents a reuse scenario based on the U.S. Department of Defense and federal screening and preliminary indication of interest by state and local agencies, as well as market and community factors. This alternative does not reflect Army decisions nor final configurations of ail federal, state, and local requests for property. Under this alternative, approximately 20% of the undeveloped land would be developed, primarily in the north-central portion of the installation, except for some low-density development in the far eastern edge and southern portion of the installation. The buildout population would be approximately 127,500. This alternative would have significant impacts on many environmental resources. The large populations, locations of new development, large water and wastewater requirements, endangered species impacts, and conflicts in land use and transportation plans for the region would make this alternative difficult to implement as formulated. Changes would need to be made to make this alternative more compatible with physical and environmental constraints and be economically feasible for development and operation within Fort Ord and the region. Additionally, this alternative would need to comply with the federal laws and policies concerning air quality, water quality, endangered species, floodplains, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, historic preservation, and noise. No Action The No Action alternative represents 1991 baseline conditions and is not a reasonable alternative because of the BRAC 91 directive to realign the 7th IDL to Fort Lewis, Washington. "No action" also refers to the retention of the Fort Ord installation by the Army in a caretaker status. Mitigation Responsibility Mitigation that could be implemented by the Army and additional mitigation that could be implemented by other federal, state, or local agencies and private entities responsible for development is identified. Examples of potential Army mitigation include implementation of deed encumbrances, restrictions, and cooperative agreements; creation of habitat conservation plans; and coordination with agencies to develop avoidance measures and disclose key information. The majority of mitigation is related to reuse, which is not the Army's action, and would need to be implemented by non-Army entities. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I ES-7 Executive Summary December 1992 Fort Ord Disposal arid Reuse Executive Summary Draft EIS Volume I ES-8 December 1992 Volume I Table of Contents Executive Summary ES-1 Section 1.0 Purpose, Need, and Scope 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1 1.2 SCOPE 1-1 1.3 ACTIONS ANALYZED 1-2 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 1-2 1.4.1 Notice of Intent 1-2 1.4.2 Scoping Process 1-5 1.4.3 Public Workshops 1-6 1.4.4 Coordination with Reuse Committees 1-7 1.4.5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 1.4.6 Public Hearing 1-7 1.4.7 Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 1.4.8 Contaminated Site Remediation 1-7 Section 2.0 Proposed Action 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1 2.1.1 Mission 2-1 2.1.2 Location 2-2 2.1.3 Realignment of Personnel and Functions 2-2 2.2 PRE-DISPOSAL ACTIONS 2-2 2.2.1 Caretaker (No Action Alternative) 2-2 2.2.2 Contaminated Site Cleanup 2-6 2.2.3 Interim Uses 2-8 2.3 DISPOSAL 2-11 2.3.1 Real Estate Disposal Process 2-11 2.3.2 Parcels 2-13 2.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY ANNEX 2-13 2.5 RETENTION OF RESERVE CENTER 2-15 2.6 REUSE 2-15 2.6.1 Reuse Development Process 2-15 2.6.2 Agency/Task Force Involvement 2-18 2.6.3 Development of Reuse Alternatives 2-18 2.7 LOCAL REUSE PLANNING STATUS 2-20 2.7.1 Introduction 2-20 2.7.2 Monterey County 2-20 2.7.3 City of Marina 2-21 2.7.4 City of Seaside 2-21 2.7.5 Fort Ord Task Force 2-21 2.7.6 Fort Ord Reuse Group 2-21 2.7.7 San Jose State University 2-22 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Table of Contents Draft EIS Volume I 1 December 1992 Volume I Section 3.0 Alternatives 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1 3.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY ANNEX 3-1 3.2.1 Army's Proposed Presidio of Monterey Annex 3-1 3.2.2 Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex 3-1 3.3 RETENTION OF RESERVE CENTER 3-2 3.4 REUSE 3-2 3.4.1 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 3-3 3.4.2 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 3-5 3.4.3 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use 3-6 3.4.4 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 3-6 3.4.5 Alternative 5: Open Space 3-7 3.4.6 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 3-8 3.5 NO ACTION 3-8 Section 4.0 Affected Environment 4-1 4.1 LAND USE 4-3 4.1.1 Installation Land Uses 4-3 4.1.1.1 Developed 4-3 4.1.1.2 Undeveloped 4-3 4.1.2 Adjacent Land Uses 4-3 4.1.2.1 Residential 4-3 4.1.2.2 Commercial 4-3 4.1.2.3 Industrial 4-4 4.1.2.4 Office/Business Park 4-7 4.1.2.5 Institutional 4-7 4.1.2.6 Agriculture 4-7 4.1.2.7 Grazing/Rangelands 4-7 4.1.2.8 Parks and Recreation 4-7 4.1.2.9 Undeveloped Open Space 4-7 4.1.3 Relevant Plans and Policies 4-7 4.2 SOCIOECONOMICS 4-9 4.2.1 Population and Housing 4-9 4.2.1.1 Population 4-9 4.2.1.2 Housing 4-12 4.2.2 Regional Economy 4-18 4.2.2.1 Employment 4-19 4.2.2.2 Output 4-21 4.2.2.3 Personal Income 4-21 4.2.2.4 Fiscal Conditions 4-22 4.2.3 Social Services 4-24 4.2.3.1 County Support Services 4-24 4.2.3.2 Job Development 4-24 4.2.3.3 Homeless Services 4-25 4.2.3.4 Military Retiree Benefits 4-25 4.2.3.5 Military Medical Care 4-25 4.2.4 Schools 4-29 4.2.4.1 Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 4-29 4.2.4.2 Salinas Union High School District 4-29 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Table of Contents Draft EIS Volume I " December 1992 Volume I 4.2.4.3 Salinas Elementary School Districts 4-29 4.2.4.4 North County Unified School District 4-29 4.2.4.5 Monterey Peninsula College 4-29 4.2.4.6 Golden Gate University 4-30 4.2.5 Recreation 4-30 4.2.5.1 Undeveloped Recreational Opportunities 4-30 4.2.5.2 Developed Recreational Activities 4-30 4.3 SOILS, GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SEISMICITY 4-31 4.3.1 Soil and Geologic Ecosystem Relationships 4-31 4.3.2 Erosion 4-31 4.3.2.1 Coastal Erosion 4-31 4.3.2.2 Wind Erosion 4-34 4.3.2.3 Water Erosion 4-34 4.3.3 Topography 4-38 4.3.4 Agriculture/Horticulture 4-38 4.3.5 Engineering Uses 4-38 4.3.6 Seismic Hazards 4-43 4.3.7 Toxic Contaminants and Live Ordnance 4-43 4.4 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 4-45 4.4.1 Wastewater 4-45 4.4.2 Solid Waste 4-45 4.4.3 Telephone Service 4-46 4.4.4 Gas and Electric Service 4-46 4.4.4.1 Transmission Lines 4-46 4.4.4.2 Regulation/Substations 4-46 4.4.4.3 Distribution 4-50 4.4.5 Cable Television 4-50 4.4.6 Storm Drain System 4-50 4.4.7 Water Distribution System 4-51 4.5 WATER RESOURCES 4-53 4.5.1 Hydrology and Water Quality 4-53 4.5.1.1 Surface Water 4-53 4.5.1.2 Groundwater 4-53 4.5.1.3 Water Rights 4-55 4.5.1.4 Water Quality 4-55 4.5.2 Water Supply and Demand 4-56 4.6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 4-61 4.6.1 Law Enforcement 4-61 4.6.2 Fire Protection 4-61 4.6.3 Medical Services 4-61 4.6.3.1 Fort Ord 4-61 4.6.3.2 Fort Ord Vicinity 4-62 4.6.3.3 Natividad Medical Center 4-62 4.6.3.4 Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula 4-62 4.6.3.5 Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital 4-62 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I iii Table of Contents December 1992 Volume I 4.6.4 Emergency Medical Services 4-63 4.6.4.1 Ambulance and 911 Emergency Services 4-63 4.6.4.2 Air Transport and Rescue Services 4-63 4.6.5 Seismic Safety 4-63 4.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 4-65 4.7.1 Definition of Terms 4-65 4.7.2 Analysis Approach 4-67 4.7.3 Level of Service Standards 4-68 4.7.4 Existing Volumes and Level of Service 4-68 4.8 AIR QUALITY 4-71 4.9 NOISE 4-77 4.10 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE SITE REMEDIATION 4-83 4.10.1 Regulation of Hazardous Materials and Waste 4-83 4.10.2 Historic Storage and Disposal of Hazardous Waste 4-83 4.10.3 Source Areas of Hazardous and Toxic Waste 4-84 4.10.3.1 Source Areas of Regional Concern 4-84 4.10.4 Site Characterization and Remedial Investigations 4-87 4.10.4.1 Current Status of Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies 4-88 4.10.4.2 Schedules for Completion of Remedial Action 4-93 4.11 VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND WETLAND RESOURCES 4-96 4.11.1 Overview of the Biological Resources at Fort Ord 4-96 4.11.2 Biological Communities 4-96 4.11.2.1 Coastal Strand and Dune Communities 4-96 4.11.2.2 Chaparral and Coastal Scrub Communities 4-97 4.11.2.3 Coast Live Oak Woodland and Savanna Communities 4-98 4.11.2.4 Grassland Communities 4-98 4.11.2.5 Riparian Communities 4-98 4.11.2.6 Wetland and Open Water Communities 4-99 4.11.3 Special-Status Biological Resources 4-99 4.11.3.1 Special-Status Plant Species 4-99 4.11.3.2 Special-Status and Special-Interest Wildlife Species 4-100 4.11.3.3 Special Native Biological Communities 4-112 4.11.3.4 Preserves and Significant Natural Areas 4-113 4.11.3.5 Marine Environment 4-114 4.11.4 Vegetation Management Programs 4-117 4.11.4.1 Fire Management 4-117 4.11.4.2 Livestock Grazing 4-117 4.12 VISUAL RESOURCES 4-133 4.12.1 Introduction 4-133 4.12.2 Methodology 4-133 4.12.3 Visual Resources and Character 4-135 4.12.3.1 Region 4-135 4.12.3.2 Study Area 4-136 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I iv Table of Contents December 1992 Volume I 4.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-140 4.13.1 Base Realignment and Closure Programmatic Agreement 4-140 4.13.2 Background 4-140 4.13.3 Summary of Fort Ord Cultural Resource Investigations 4-141 4.13.4 Base Realignment and Closure Cultural Resource Studies 4-142 Section 5.0 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 PRE-DISPOSAL ACTIONS 5-2 5.2.1 Caretaker 5-2 5.2.1.1. Utility System Deterioration 5-2 5.2.1.2. Building Demolition 5-2 5.2.1.3. Reduced Levels of Security 5-3 5.2.1.4. Reduced Levels of Maintenance and Emergency Services 5-3 5.2.2 Contaminated Sites 5-3 5.2.2.1 Potential Remedial Measures 5-3 5.2.2.2 Environmental Considerations 5-5 5.2.3 Interim Use 5-9 5.2.3.1 Land Use Incompatibilities 5-10 5.2.3.2 Ground-Disturbing Activities 5-10 5.2.3.3 Public Service Infrastructure Modifications 5-10 5.2.3.4 Need for Public Safety and Emergency Services 5-11 5.2.3.5 Traffic Accessibility and Security Conflict 5-11 5.2.3.6 Air Quality Effects 5-11 5.2.3.7 Noise Effects 5-12 5.2.3.8 Socioeconomic Effects 5-12 5.2.3.9. Cultural Resources Effects 5-12 5.3 DISPOSAL PROCESS 5-12 5.3.1 Public Service Infrastructure Modifications 5-13 5.3.2 Need for Public Safety and Emergency Services 5-13 5.3.3 Traffic Accessibility and Security Conflict 5-13 5.3.4 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Remediation Effects 5-13 5.3.5 Biological Resources Effects 5-14 5.3.6 Socioeconomic Effects 5-14 5.3.7 Cultural Resources Effects 5-15 5.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY ANNEX 5-15 5.4.1 Army's Presidio of Monterey Annex 5-15 5.4.1.1 Building Modifications 5-16 5.4.1.2 Socioeconomic Effects 5-16 5.4.1.3 Public Service System and Infrastructure Modifications ... 5-16 5.4.1.4 Need for Public Safety and Emergency Services 5-18 5.4.1.5 Traffic Accessibility and Security Conflict 5-18 5.4.1.6 Air Quality Effects 5-19 5.4.1.7 Noise Effects 5-19 5.4.1.8 Visual Effects 5-19 5.4.1.9 Cultural Resources Effects 5-20 5.4.2 City of Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex 5-20 5.4.2.1 Socioeconomic Effects 5-20 5.4.2.2 Public Services Infrastructure Modifications 5-20 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I v Table of Contents December 1992 Volume I 5.4.2.3 Need for Public Safety and Emergency Services 5-21 5.4.2.4 Traffic Accessibility and Security Conflict 5-22 5.4.2.5 Air Quality Effects 5-22 5.4.2.6 Noise Effects 5-22 5.4.2.7 Biological Resources Effects 5-23 5.4.2.8 Visual Effects 5-23 5.4.2.9 Soils, Geologic and Seismic Effects 5-24 5.4.2.10 Recreation Effects 5-24 5.4.2.11 Cultural Resources Effects 5-24 5.4.3 No Presidio of Monterey Annex 5-25 5.5 RETENTION OF RESERVE CENTER 5-25 5.6 REUSE ALTERNATIVES 5-25 5.6.1 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 5-26 5.6.1.1 Land Use 5-26 5.6.1.2 Socioeconomics 5-31 5.6.1.3 Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity 5-33 5.6.1.4 Public Services and Utilities 5-33 5.6.1.5 Water Resources 5-38 5.6.1.6 Public Health and Safety 5-38 5.6.1.7 Traffic and Circulation 5-41 5.6.1.8 Air Quality 5-41 5.6.1.9 Noise 5-44 5.6.1.10 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation 5-47 5.6.1.11 Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources 5-47 5.6.1.12 Visual Resources 5-52 5.6.1.13 Cultural Resources 5-52 5.6.1.14 Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center 5-53 5.6.1.15 Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center 5-56 5.6.1.16 Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Use 5-59 5.6.1.17 Impact Summary 5-62 5.6.1.18 Mitigation Summary 5-66 5.6.2 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 5-66 5.6.2.1 Land Use 5-66 5.6.2.2 Socioeconomics 5-67 5.6.2.3 Geology, Soils, Topography, and Seismicity 5-68 5.6.2.4 Public Services and Utilities 5-68 5.6.2.5 Water Resources 5-68 5.6.2.6 Public Health and Safety 5-69 5.6.2.7 Traffic and Circulation 5-69 5.6.2.8 Air Quality 5-70 5.6.2.9 Noise 5-70 5.6.2.10 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation 5-71 5.6.2.11 Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources 5-71 5.6.2.12 Visual Resources 5-73 5.6.2.13 Cultural Resources 5-73 5.6.2.14. Subalternative A No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center 5-74 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I vi Table of Contents December 1992 Volume I 5.6.2.15. Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center 5-77 5.6.2.16. Impact Summary 5-80 5.6.2.17. Mitigation Summary 5-83 5.6.3 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use 5-84 5.6.3.1 Land Use 5-84 5.6.3.2 Socioeconomics 5-84 5.6.3.3 Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity 5-85 5.6.3.4 Public Services and Utilities 5-85 5.6.3.5 Water Resources 5-86 5.6.3.6 Public Health and Safety 5-86 5.6.3.7 Traffic and Circulation 5-87 5.6.3.8 Air Quality 5-87 5.6.3.9 Noise 5-88 5.6.3.10 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation 5-88 5.6.3.11 Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources 5-89 5.6.3.12 Visual Resources 5-90 5.6.3.13 Cultural Resources 5-91 5.6.3.14 Impact Summary 5-91 5.6.3.15 Mitigation Summary 5-94 5.6.4 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 5-94 5.6.4.1 Land Use 5-94 5.6.4.2 Socioeconomics 5-95 5.6.4.3 Soils and Geology 5-96 5.6.4.4 Public Services and Utilities 5-96 5.6.4.5 Water Resources 5-96 5.6.4.6 Public Health and Safety 5-97 5.6.4.7 Traffic and Circulation 5-97 5.6.4.8 Air Quality 5-98 5.6.4.9 Noise 5-98 5.6.4.10 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation 5-99 5.6.4.11 Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources 5-99 5.6.4.12 Visual Resources 5-101 5.6.4.13 Cultural Resources 5-101 5.6.4.14 Impact Summary 5-101 5.6.4.15 Mitigation Summary 5-104 5.6.5 Alternative 5: Open Space 5-105 5.6.5.1 Land Use 5-105 5.6.5.2 Socioeconomics 5-105 5.6.5.3 Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity 5-106 5.6.5.4 Public Services and Utilities 5-106 5.6.5.5 Water Resources . 5-107 5.6.5.6 Public Health and Safety 5-107 5.6.5.7 Traffic and Circulation 5-108 5.6.5.8 Air Quality 5-108 5.6.5.9 Noise 5-108 5.6.5.10 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation 5-109 5.6.5.11 Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources 5-109 5.6.5.12 Visual Resources 5-110 5.6.5.13 Cultural Resources 5-111 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Table of Contents Draft EIS vii Volume I December 1992 Volume I 5.6.5.14 Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/ No Reserve Center 5-111 5.6.5.15 Impact Summary 5-114 5.6.5.16 Mitigation Summary 5-116 5.6.6 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 5-116 5.6.6.1 Land Use 5-116 5.6.6.2 Socioeconomics 5-116 5.6.6.3 Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity 5-118 5.6.6.4 Public Services and Utilities 5-118 5.6.6.5 Water Resources 5-119 5.6.6.6 Public Health and Safety 5-119 5.6.6.7 Traffic and Circulation 5-119 5.6.6.8 Air Quality 5-120 5.6.6.9 Noise 5-120 5.6.6.10 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation 5-121 5.6.6.11 Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources 5-122 5.6.6.12 Visual Resources 5-123 5.6.6.13 Cultural Resources 5-123 5.6.6.14 Impact Summary 5-124 5.6.6.15 Mitigation Summary 5-127 Section 6.0 References 6-1 Section 7.0 List of Preparers 7-1 Section 8.0 Persons Consulted 8-1 Section 9.0 Distribution List 9-1 Index List of Acronyms Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I viii Table of Contents December 1992 Volume I List of Tables Table Page 2-1 Proposed Presidio of Monterey Annex 2-15 3-1 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 3-10 3-2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center 3-13 3-3 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center 3-17 3-4 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High Intensity Mixed Use 3-20 3-5 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 3-23 3-6 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center 3-26 3-7 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex 3-29 3-8 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use 3-32 3-9 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 3-33 3-10 Alternative 5: Open Space 3-37 3-11 Alternative 5: Open Space Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center 3-38 3-12 Alternative 6: Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 3-41 4.1-1 Existing Land Uses on Fort Ord 4-4 4.2-1 Historical and Projected Population of Monterey County and Cities within Monterey County 4-11 4.2-2 Residence Locations of Retired Military Personnel within a 60-Mile Radius from Fort Ord 4-13 4.2-3 Distribution of Existing Occupied Monterey County Housing by Type and Tenure 4-14 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Tables Draft EIS ix Volume I December 1992 Volume I 4.2-4 Inventory of Existing Housing at Fort Ord 4-15 4.2-5 Vacancy Status of Existing Monterey County Housing Units (1990) 4-17 4.2-6 Ownership and Rental Affordability in Monterey County 4-18 4.2-7 Jobs/Housing Ratios and Housing Costs in Monterey County in 1990 4-19 4.2-8 Estimated Number of Jobs by Industry in Monterey County, 1980-1990 4-20 4.2-9 Monterey County Civilian Labor Force Employment and Unemployment . 4-18 4.2-10 Monterey County Output by Industry Aggregations 4-21 4.2-11 Distribution of Monterey County Earnings by Industry in 1988 4-22 4.2-12 City Budget Revenue Information for Fiscal Year 1992-1993 4-23 4.2-13 Beneficiary Population Residing in the Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital Catchment Area 4-26 4.2-14 Utilization of Medical Services at Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital during Fiscal Year 1990 4-27 4.2-15 Size and Occupancy Data for Hospitals Available to Military Medical Beneficiaries 4-28 4.5-1 Water Quality of Fort Ord Wells 4-57 4.5-2 Local Contributions to Groundwater Recharge and Pumpage in the Vicinity of Fort Ord 4-58 4.7-1 Level of Service Description for Roadway Segments at Fort Ord 4-65 4.7-2 Summary of Existing Roadway Segment Levels of Service 4-69 4.8-1 Total Criteria Pollutant Emissions - All Sources 4-72 4.8-2 Total Criteria Pollutant Emissions - Permitted Sources 4-74 4.8-3 Permitted versus Total Existing Fort Ord Emissions 4-75 4.9-1 Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response 4-78 4.10-1 Identified Investigation Sites for Hazardous Materials at Fort Ord, California 4-90 4.11-1 Habitat Acreage at Fort Ord 4-97 4.11-2 Special-Status Plant Species Identified at Fort Ord During 1992 Surveys and the Relationship of Fort Ord to Known Distributions 4-101 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Tables Draft EIS X Volume I December 1992 Volume I 4.11-3 Acres of Habitat Occupied by Special-Status Plant Species at Fort Ord 4-106 4.11-4 Special-Status Terrestrial and Freshwater Wildlife Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring at Fort Ord, California 4-107 4.11-5 Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Marine Environmental in Monterey Bay 4-114 4.12-1 Visual Quality Ratings for Land Cover Types at Fort Ord 4-134 4.13-1 Fort Ord National Register of Eligible Buildings 4-145 5-1 Infrastructure and Utilities Required to Serve the Presidio of Monterey Annex 5-17 5-2 Criteria Used in Determining Significance of Impacts 5-27 5-3 Comparison of Net, Incremental Socioeconomic Changes at Buildout by Reuse Alternative 5-32 5-4 Schools and Recreation Impacts by Reuse Alternative 5-34 5-5 Public Services and Utilities Impacts by Reuse Alternative 5-35 5-6 Summary of Estimated Water Demand for Each Reuse Alternative 5-39 5-7 Public Health and Safety Impacts by Reuse Alternative 5-40 5-8 Comparison of Traffic Impacts - Fort Ord Reuse Alternatives 5-42 5-9 Comparison of Air Emissions by Reuse Alternative 5-43 5-10 Comparison of Reuse Alternatives Relative to Noise 5-46 5-11 Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Impacts by Reuse Alternatives 5-48 Summary Table List of Impacts by Reuse Alternative for Each Issue Area 5-128 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Tables Draft EIS x j Volume I December 1992 Volume I List of Figures Figure Page ES-1 Processes Associated with Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse ES-3 1 -1 Processes Associated with Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse 1-3 1-2 Environmental Impact Statement Public Involvement Process 1-4 2-1 Regional Location 2-3 2-2 Location of Cities Surrounding Fort Ord 2-4 2-3 Local Jurisdictional Boundaries Surrounding Fort Ord 2-5 2-4 Installation Locator Map 2-7 2-5 Areas Defined as Potentially Clean at Fort Ord 2-9 2-6 Process for Identifying Parcels for Remediation 2-10 2-7 Block Diagram of Real Property Disposal Process 2-12 2-8 Army's Proposed Presidio of Monterey Annex and Reserve Center 2-16 3-1 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 3-9 3-2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center 3-12 3-3 City of Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex 3-15 3-4 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center . 3-16 3-5 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Reuse Alternative 3-19 3-6 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 3-22 3-7 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center 3-25 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Figures Draft EIS Volume I x ''' December 1992 Volume I 3-8 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex 3-28 3-9 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use 3-31 3-10 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 3-34 3-11 McKinney Homeless Assistance Act Proposed Areas of Interest 3-35 3-12 Alternative 5: Open Space 3-36 3-13 Alternative 5: Open Space Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center 3-39 3-14 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 3-40 4.1-1 Fort Ord Existing Land Use Map 4-5 4.1-2 Fort Ord Existing Land Use Map 4-6 4.2-1 Historical Projected Population of Monterey County and Affected Cities 4-10 4.2-2 Historical Vacancy Rates in Monterey County 1980-1990 4-16 4.3-1 Surficial Geology and Fault Lines of Fort Ord 4-32 4.3-2 Major Soil Series and Types at Fort Ord 4-33 4,3-3 Water and Coastal Erosion Potential at Fort Ord 4-35 4.3-4 Erosion on Cutbank and Downslope of a Roadway, Aromas Formation on Fort Ord 4-36 4.3-5 Extensive Stream Channel Gullying, Paso Robles Formation on Fort Ord 4-36 4.3-6 Result of Stream Channel Gullying in Conjunction with a Road, Paso Robles Formation on Fort Ord 4-37 4.3-7 Existing Landslide, Paso Robes Formation on Fort Ord 4-37 4.3-8 Slope Map of Fort Ord 4-39 4.3-9 Soils with Low Strength at Fort Ord 4-40 4.3-10 Soils with High Shrink-Swell Potential at Fort Ord 4-41 4.3-11 Soils with Excavation Caving and Piping Potential at Fort Ord 4-42 4.4-1 PG&E Gas and Electricity Transmission Lines and Storm Drain Outfalls through Fort Ord 4-47 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Figures Draft EIS xiv Volume I December 1992 Volume I 4.4-2 Primary Gas Transmission Lines and Metering Stations/PG&E Service Areas at Fort Ord 4-48 4.4-3 Primary Electric Transmission Lines and Metering Stations/PG&E Service Areas at Fort Ord 4-49 4.5-1 Hydrogeologic Conditions in the Fort Ord Vicinity 4-55 4.7-1 Fort Ord Traffic Study Area 4-66 4.9-1 Noise Impact Zones at Fort Ord 4-79 4.9-2 Monterey Peninsula Airport Noise Contours 4-80 4.10-1 General Types of Operations Associated with Hazardous Waste and Unexploded Ordnance 4-85 4.10-2 Expected Locations of Unexploded Ordnance at Fort Ord 4-86 4.10-3 Site Map for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 4-89 4.10-4 Comparison of Federal Facilities Agreement Schedule and proposed Accelerated Schedule 4-94 4.11-1 Biological Communities at Fort Ord 4-118 4.11-2 Jurisdictional Wetlands at Fort Ord 4-119 4.11-3 Known Distribution of Sand Gilia ( Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria) at Fort Ord 4-120 4.11-4 Known Distribution of Sand Gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria) at Fort Ord 4-121 4.11-5 Known Distribution of Monterey Spineflower ( Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) at Fort Ord 4-122 4.11-6 Known Distribution of Monterey Spineflower ( Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) at Fort Ord 4-123 4.11-7 Known Distribution of Robust Spineflower ( Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta) at Fort Ord 4-124 4.11-8 Known Distribution of Robust Spineflower ( Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta) near Fort Ord 4-125 4.11-9 Known Distribution of Seaside Bird's-Beak (Cordylanthus rigidus var. littoralis) at Fort Ord 4-126 4.11-10 Known Distribution of Seaside Bird's-Beak (Cordylanthus rigidus var. littoralis) at Fort Ord 4-127 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I xv List of Figures December 1992 Volume I 4.11-11 Known Locations of Special-Status Wildlife Species at Fort Ord 4-128 4.11-12 Known Locations of Plant and Butterfly Reserve Areas at Fort Ord 4-129 4.11-13 General Locations of Significant Natural Areas at Fort Ord 4-130 4.11-14 Principal Sea Otter, Seal, and Sea Lion Areas of Concentration and Seabird Nesting Areas in Monterey Bay Area 4-131 4.12-1 Visual Distance Zones 4-137 4.12-2 Visual Quality 4-138 4.12-3 Visual Impact Sensitivity 4-139 4.13-1 Fort Ord Geophysical Strata 4-143 4.13-2 Fort Ord 100 Percent Coverage High Probability 4-144 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Figures Draft EIS ^ Volume I December 1992 Volume II Table of Contents Detailed Analysis of Disposal and Reuse 1 INTRODUCTION 1 11.1 LAND USE 3 11.1.1 Introduction 3 11.1.2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 8 11.1.3 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 14 11.1.4 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use 16 11.1.5 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 17 11.1.6 Alternative 5: Open Space 18 11.1.7 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 18 11.1.8 Cumulative Effects 19 11.1.9 Summary Comparison of Reuse Alternatives 19 11.2 SOCIOECONOMICS 21 11.2.1 Introduction 21 11.2.2 Population and Housing 23 11.2.3 Regional Economy 39 11.2.4 Social Services 52 11.2.5 Schools 62 11.2.6 Recreation 69 11.2.7 Cumulative Effects 75 11.2.8 Summary Comparison of Reuse Alternative 76 11.3 SOILS, GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SEISMICITY 83 11.3.1 Introduction 83 11.3.2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 83 11.3.3 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 89 11.3.4 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use 89 11.3.5 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 89 11.3.6 Alternative 5: Open Space 90 11.3.7 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 90 11.3.8 Cumulative Effects 90 11.3.9 Summary Comparison of Reuse Alternatives 90 11.4 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 91 11.4.1 Wastewater 91 11.4.2 Solid Waste 98 11.4.3 Telephone Service 103 11.4.4 Gas and Electric Service 107 11.4.5 Cable Television 112 11.4.7 Storm Drainage System 115 11.4.8 Water Distribution Infrastructure 118 11.4.9 Cumulative Effects 121 11.4.10 Summary Comparison of Reuse Alternatives 122 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume II xvii Table of Contents December 1992 Volume II 11.5 WATER RESOURCES 125 11.5.1 Hydrology and Water Quality 125 11.5.2 Water Supply and Demand 129 11.5.3 Cumulative Effects 135 11.5.4 Summary Comparison of Reuse Alternatives 136 11.6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 137 11.6.1 Law Enforcement 137 11.6.2 Fire Protection 140 11.6.3 Medical Services 145 11.6.4 Emergency Medical Services 149 11.6.5 Seismic Safety 153 11.6.6 Cumulative Effects 156 11.6.7 Summary Comparison of Reuse Alternatives • 157 11.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 159 11.7.1 Introduction 159 11.7.2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 160 11.7.3 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 164 11.7.4 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use 166 11.7.5 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 168 11.7.6 Alternative 5: Open Space 170 11.7.7 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 172 11.7.8 Cumulative Effects 174 11.7.9 Summary Comparison of Reuse Alternatives 174 11.8 AIR QUALITY 175 11.8.1 Introduction 175 11.8.2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 183 11.8.3 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 188 11.8.4 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use .... 189 11.8.5 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 189 11.8.6 Alternative 5: Open Space 189 11.8.7 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 190 11.8.8 Cumulative Effects 190 11.8.9 Summary Comparison of Reuse Alternatives 190 11.9 NOISE 193 11.9.1 Introduction . 193 11.9.2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 193 11.9.3 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 205 11.9.4 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use 208 11.9.5 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 210 11.9.6 Alternative 5: Open Space 214 11.9.7 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 215 11.9.8 Cumulative Effects 218 11.9.9 Summary Comparison of Reuse Alternatives 219 11.10 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE SITE REMEDIATION 221 11.10.1 Introduction 221 11.10.2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 221 11.10.3 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 223 11.10.4 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use 223 11.10.5 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 223 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume II xviii Table of Contents December 1992 Volume II 11.10.6 Alternative 5: Open Space 223 11.10.7 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 223 11.10.8 Cumulative Effects 223 11.10.9 Summary Comparison of Reuse Alternatives 224 11.11 VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND WETLAND RESOURCES 225 11.11.1 Introduction 225 11.11.2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 230 11.11.3 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 259 11.11.4 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use 274 11.11.5 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 286 11.11.6 Alternative 5: Open Space 298 11.11.7 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 307 11.11.8 Cumulative Effects 319 11.11.9 Summary of Reuse Alternatives 321 11.12 VISUAL RESOURCES 323 11.12.1 Introduction 323 11.12.2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 323 11.12.3 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 329 11.12.4 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use 331 11.12.5 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 331 11.12.6 Alternative 5: Open Space 333 11.12.7 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 333 11.12.8 Cumulative Effects 336 11.12.9 Summary Comparison of Reuse Alternatives 336 11.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES 339 11.13.1 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 339 11.13.2 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use 341 11.13.3 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use 340 11.13.4 Alternative 4: Institutional Use 342 11.13.5 Alternative 5: Open Space 343 11.13.6 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse 343 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume II xix Table of Contents December 1992 Volume II List of Tables Table Page 11.1-1 Policy Categories for Potentially Inconsistent Land Use Policies 3 11.2-1 Population and Housing Estimates at Buildout for Installation Property, by Reuse Alternative 24 II.2-2 Major Impact Threshold Criteria for Economic Variables 25 II.2-3 Projected Movement of Military Personnel, Civilian Personnel, and Supported Population from Fort Ord 27 II.2-4 Number of Off-Installation Housing Units Expected to Be Vacated at Closure 28 II.2-5 Projected Countywide Population and Housing Estimates for Reuse Alternative 31 II.2-6 Projected Countywide Employment, Output, and Personal Income Estimates for Reuse Alternatives 41 II.2-7 Effects of the Closure of Fort Ord on the Regional Economy (in dollars) 44 II.2-8 Incremental Public Revenue Effects of Fort Ord Closure (in Dollars) 45 II.2-9 Estimated Additional Student Capacity Needed per Reuse Alternative 64 11.2-10 Required Developed Park Acreage by Alternative 70 11.2-11 Proposed Developed and Undeveloped Recreational Area by Alternative 71 11.4-1 Estimated Total Wastewater Flow and Necessary Capacity 92 11.5-1 Summary of Estimated Water Demand for Each Reuse Alternative 130 11.7-1 Comparison of Traffic Impacts - Fort Ord Reuse Alternatives 161 11.8-1 Construction Emissions by Reuse Alternative 176 II.8-2 Total Operational Emissions Associated with Each Reuse Alternative 177 II.8-3 Predicted Worst-Case Carbon Monoxide Levels in Parts Per Million 179 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume II xxi List of Tables December 1992 Volume II 11.8-4 Fort Ord Population Projections 182 11.9-1 Land Use Compatibility Criteria Used in Evaluation of Noise Impacts 194 II.9-2 Land Uses Potentially Containing Sources of Noise 195 II.9-3 Distance Attenuation for Noise Near a Construction Site 197 II.9-4 Comparison of Noise Impacts of Reuse Alternatives 219 11.11-1 Acreage of Habitat Affected by Alternative 234 11.11-2 Loss of Occupied Habitat of Special-Status Plant Species by Reuse Alternative 238 11.11-3 Approximate Habitat Losses for Special-Status and Special-Interest Wildlife Species by Reuse Alternative 242 11.11-4 Loss of Perennial and Intermittent Streams and Potential Waters of the United States by Reuse Alternative 254 11.12-1 Visual Impact Potential Rating of Various Proposed Land Uses at Fort Ord 324 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume II xxii List of Tables December 1992 Volume II List of Figures Figure Page 11.2-1 Summary Comparison of Population Effects at Fort Ord 77 II. 2-2 Summary of Comparison of Housing Supply Effects at Fort Ord 78 II. 2-3 Summary of Comparison of Employment Effects at Fort Ord 79 II. 2-4 Summary of Comparison of Output Effects at Fort Ord 80 II. 2-5 Summary of Comparison of Personal Income Effects at Fort Ord 81 11.9-1 Forecast Year 2010 CNEL 65dB Noise Contour for Monterey Peninsula Airport .... 202 11.11-1 Biological Resources of Concern to USFWS at Fort Ord 226 11.12-1 Visual Impact Potential of Alternative 1 326 11.12-2 Visual Impact Potential of Alternative 2 330 11.12-3 Visual Impact Potential of Alternative 3 332 11.12-4 Visual Impact Potential of Alternative 4 334 11.12-5 Visual Impact Potential of Alternative 5 335 11.12-6 Visual Impact Potential of Alternative 6 337 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume 2 xxiii List of Figures December 1992 Volume II Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Figures Draft EIS Volume 2 ■ December 1992 Volume III Table of Contents Page Appendix A. Notice of Intent A-1 Appendix B. Scoping Meeting Announcements B-1 Appendix C. Scoping Meeting Participants C-1 Appendix D. Presidio of Monterey Annex D-1 Appendix E. Community Vision Package Used in Development of EIS Alternatives E-1 Appendix F. Other Federal, State, and Local Agency Reuse Proposals F-1 Appendix G. Local Reuse Planning Status G-1 Appendix H. Land Use Definitions H-1 Appendix I. Methodology Used to Evaluate Regional Socioeconomic Effects of Reuse Alternatives 1-1 Appendix J. Public Services and Utilities J-1 Appendix K. Water Resources K-1 Appendix L. Public Health and Safety L-1 Appendix M. Traffic and Circulation M-1 Appendix N. Air Quality N-1 Appendix 0. Noise 0-1 Appendix P. Amended Programmatic Agreements P-1 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume III xxv Table of Contents December 1992 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Table of Contents Draft EIS Volume III XXVI December 1992 Volume III List of Tables Table Page 1-1 Master Impact Analysis for Planning Sector List I-4 I-2 Employment Generation Estimates by Land Use 1-17 I-3 National Average Output (1985 Dollars) per Employee 1-19 I-4 Conversion of Changes in Employment and Output to Changes in Final Demand I-20 I-5 Type III Multipliers for Impact Analysis for Planning Sectors I-24 I-6 Direct and Total Changes in Employment, Personal Income, and Output by Land Use I-25 J-1 Wastewater Generation Rates for Each Reuse Alternative J-1 J-2 Solid Waste Generation and Decrease in Landfill Life under Each Reuse Alternative J-2 J-3 Landfill Life Calculations J-3 J-4 Methodology of Determining the Consumption of Gas and Electricity J-6 K-1 Estimated Water Demand for Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use K-6 K-2 Estimated Water Demand for Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center K-7 K-3 Estimated Water Demand for Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex K-8 K-4 Estimated Water Demand for Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Use K-9 K-5 Estimated Water Demand for Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use K-10 K-6 Estimated Water Demand for Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center K-11 K-7 Estimated Water Demand for Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex K-12 K-8 Estimated Water Demand for Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use K-13 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Tables Draft EIS Volume III xxvii December 1992 Volume III K-9 Estimated Water Demand for Alternative 4: Institutional Use K-14 K-10 Estimated Water Demand for Alternative 5: Open Space K-15 K-11 Estimated Water Demand for Alternative 5: Open Space Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center K-16 K-12 Estimated Water Demand for Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse K-17 M-1 Summary of Land Uses by Traffic Analysis Zone Reuse Alternative 1 M-21 M-2 Summary of Land Uses by Traffic Analysis Zone Reuse Alternative 2 M-22 M-3 Summary of Land Uses by Traffic Analysis Zone Reuse Alternative 3 M-23 M-4 Summary of Land Uses by Traffic Analysis Zone Reuse Alternative 4 M-24 M-5 Summary of Land Uses by Traffic Analysis Zone Reuse Alternative 5 M-25 M-6 Summary of Land Uses by Traffic Analysis Zone Reuse Alternative 6 M-26 M-7 Assumptions Used in Preparing Land Use Inputs to Traffic Model M-27 M-8 Screenline Analysis - Reuse Alternative 1 M-28 M-9 Screenline Analysis - Reuse Alternative 2 M-29 M-10 Screenline Analysis - Reuse Alternative 3 M-30 M-11 Screenline Analysis - Reuse Alternative 4 M-31 M-12 Screenline Analysis - Reuse Alternative 5 M-32 M-13 Screenline Analysis - Reuse Alternative 6 M-33 M-14 Summary of Roadway Segment Levels of Service - Reuse Alternative 1 M-34 M-15 Summary of Roadway Segment Levels of Service - Reuse Alternative 2 . M-36 M-16 Summary of Roadway Segment Levels of Service - Reuse Alternative 3 M-38 M-17 Summary of Traffic Impacts - Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 4 M-39 M-18 Summary of Roadway Segment Levels of Service - Reuse Alternative 5 .... M-41 M-19 Summary of Roadway Segment Levels of Service - Reuse Alternative 6 M-42 N-1 Weighted Composite Carbon Monoxide Emission Rates for Future Conditions N-11 N-2 Summary of Traffic-Related Ozone Precursor Emissions, 1992 Conditions N-15 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume III xxviii List of Tables December 1992 Volume III N-3 Summary of Traffic-Related Ozone Precursor Emissions, Buildout of Alternative 1A - High Intensity Development N-17 N-4 Summary of Traffic-Related Ozone Precursor Emissions, Buildout of Alternative 1B - High Intensity Development N-18 N-5 Summary of Traffic-Related Ozone Precursor Emissions, Buildout of Alternative 1C - High Intensity Development N-19 N-6 Summary of Traffic-Related Ozone Precursor Emissions, Buildout of Alternative 2 - Medium Intensity Development N-20 N-7 Summary of Traffic-Related Ozone Precursor Emissions, Buildout of Alternative 2A - Medium Intensity Development N-21 N-8 Summary of Traffic-Related Ozone Precursor Emissions, Buildout of Alternative 2B - Medium Intensity Development N-22 N-9 Summary of Traffic-Related Ozone Precursor Emissions, Buildout of Alternative 3 - Low Intensity Development N-23 N-10 Summary of Traffic-Related Ozone Precursor Emissions, Buildout of Alternative 4 - Institutional Use N-24 N-11 Summary of Traffic-Related Ozone Precursor Emissions, Buildout of Alternative 5 - Open Space Use N-25 N-12 Summary of Traffic-Related Ozone Precursor Emissions, Buildout of Alternative 5A - Open Space Use N-26 N-13 Summary of Traffic-Related Ozone Precursor Emissions, Buildout of Alternative 6 - Anticipated Reuse N-27 N-14 Fort Ord Population Projections Used to Determine Consistency with 1991 Air Quality Management Plan N-28 0-1 Comparison of Noise Impacts of Reuse Alternatives 0-1 0-2 Summary of Noise Modeling for Alternative 1 0-2 0-3 Summary of Noise Modeling for Alternative 2 0-3 0-4 Summary of Noise Modeling for Alternative 3 0-4 0-5 Summary of Noise Modeling for Alternative 4 0-5 0-6 Summary of Noise Modeling for Alternative 5 0-6 0-7 Summary of Noise Modeling for Alternative 6 0-7 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Tables Draft EIS Volume III XXIX December 1992 Fori Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Tables Draft EIS Volume III XXX December 1992 Volume III List of Figures Page M-1 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 1 Traffic Zones M-3 M-2 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 2 Traffic Zones M-4 M-3 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 3 Traffic Zones M-5 M-4 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 4 Traffic Zones M-6 M-5 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 5 Traffic Zones M-7 M-6 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 6 Traffic Zones M-8 M-7 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 1 Traffic Model Roadway Network M-9 M-8 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 2 Traffic Model Roadway Network M-10 M-9 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 3 Traffic Model Roadway Network M-11 M-10 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 4 Traffic Model Roadway Network M-12 M-11 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 5 Traffic Model Roadway Network M-13 M-12 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 6 Traffic Model Roadway Network M-14 M-13 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 1 Location of Screenlines M-15 M-14 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 2 Location of Screenlines M-16 M-15 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 3 Location of Screenlines M-17 M-16 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 4 Location of Screenlines M-18 M-17 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 5 Location of Screenlines M-19 M-18 Fort Ord Reuse Alternative 6 Location of Screenlines . M-20 N-1 Alternative 1 Road Network and Receptors Used for Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Modeling N-5 N-2 Alternative 2 Road Network and Receptors Used for Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Modeling N-6 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Figures Draft EIS Volume III December 1992 Volume III N-3 Alternative 3 Road Network and Receptors Used for Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Modeling N-7 N-4 Alternative 4 Road Network and Receptors Used for Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Modeling N-8 N-5 Alternative 5 Road Network and Receptors Used for Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Modeling N-9 N-6 Alternative 6 Road Network and Receptors Used for Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Modeling N-10 0-1 Construction Equipment Noise Ranges 0-8 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Figures Draft EIS Volume III xxxii December 1992 Section 1.0 Purpose, Need, and Scope 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED The Department of the Army is reducing its force structure in response to changing global security requirements, resulting in fewer installations needed to station the smaller force. By 1995, the Army will be reduced to approximately 535,000 active forces and 567,000 reserve components (i.e., Reserve and National Guard). As the Army reduces in size, activities are being realigned and consolidated to the most efficient installations with maximum readiness that are capable of projecting and sustaining combat power in support of national military objectives. The process to determine installations for closure and/or realignment was established in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (1990 Base Closure Act), Public Law 101-510. The military services used criteria established by the Secretary of Defense and approved by Congress and a force struc- ture plan provided by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to recommend closure and realignment actions. The criteria evaluated military value, return on investment from cost savings, and environmental and socioeconomic impacts. A consolidated Department of Defense list of recommended actions was submitted by the Secretary of Defense to a bipartisan commission appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (Commission) evaluated the recommendations and sent the findings to the President, who approved and forwarded the recommendations to Congress on July 11, 1991. The Commission's recommendations for base realignments and closure made in 1991 are commonly referred to as BRAC 91. The 1990 Base Closure Act stipulated that the recommendations would be implemented unless Congress disapproved. Congress considered the actions but did not disapprove, and the recommendations are being implemented as required by the act. The 1990 Base Closure Act requires the closure of Fort Ord, California, and the relocation of the 7th Infantry Division (Light) (7th IDL) to Fort Lewis, Washington. 1.2 SCOPE The 1990 Base Closure Act specifies that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not apply to actions of the President, the Commission, or the Department of Defense, except, "(i) during the process of property disposal, and (ii) during the process of relocating functions from a military installation being closed or realigned to another military installation after the receiving installation has been selected but before the functions are relocated." The 1990 Base Closure Act further specifies that in applying the provisions of NEPA to the process, the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments concerned shall not have to consider: "(i) the need for closing or realigning the military installation which has been recommended for closure or realignment by the Commission, (ii) the need for transferring functions to any military installation which has been selected as the receiving installation, or (iii) military installations alternative to those recommended or selected." Thus, NEPA does not apply to the BRAC 1991 deliberation and decision process nor to the closing action itself, but does apply to disposal and reuse of property and to impacts at installations receiving realignments. The Base Closure Act did not specify a time requirement for disposal of excess Fort Ord land. Following the direction of the Conference Report for House Resolution 2100 (H.R. 2100), the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993, the Army is proceeding with an Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 1-1 Purpose, Need, and Scope December 1992 environmental impact statement (EIS) for the disposal and reuse of excess property, which addresses the socioeconomic effects of relocating the Army from the Fort Ord community. This conference report does not affect the Army requirement to proceed with the realignment of the 7th IDL to Fort Lewis. The Army's environmental assessment evaluating impacts of receiving the 7th IDL at Fort Lewis, Washington, is available. 1.3 ACTIONS ANALYZED The proposed action and alternatives described in Sections 2.0 and 3.0, respectively, include the disposal of excess property made available by the closure of Fort Ord, with the retention of a reserve center and establishment of the Presidio of Monterey (POM) annex; the socioeconomic impacts of relocating the active Army from the Fort Ord community; and identification and evaluation of reasonable uses of the property after disposal. The processes associated with disposal and reuse are shown in Figure 1-1. 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Preparation of the EIS is designed to involve the public in the federal decision making process. In preparing this EIS, comments from concerned individuals, agencies, and organizations are welcome at any time throughout the process, but formal opportunities to comment and participate have been established as outlined in the following sections. In addition, a public involvement plan has been established as an integral part of the EIS process to disseminate accurate and timely information to the community about the disposal and reuse process at Fort Ord, develop ongoing two-way communication with the community, encourage community involvement, and monitor and respond to community concerns. The EIS public involvement process is shown in Figure 1-2. Methods to involve the public in this EIS process include the following: ■ Designate contact persons to respond to requests for EIS study documents. ■ Establish and provide access to technical information in the public repository. ■ Conduct periodic public meetings with community members to discuss ongoing activities and provide a forum for expression of concerns; this includes conducting several workshops for local elected officials, representatives of public agencies, public interest groups and associa- tions, and the Fort Ord Task Force (described in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action") and additional workshops for the general public. ■ Provide the required public comment period. ■ Publish public notice of hearings; mail public announcements; and coordinate media coverage, press releases, and feature articles. ■ Create and update a mailing list to disseminate information. ♦ ■ Prepare and distribute progress reports to parties on the mailing list. 1.4.1 Notice of Intent The public was notified of the Army's intent to prepare this EIS by publishing a notice of intent (Volume III, Appendix A) in the February 13, 1992 issue of the Federal Register. A public notice was published in two local newspapers; press releases were sent to 65 news media; and announcements were sent to public agencies, public interest groups, and individuals known or thought to have an interest in the disposal and reuse of Fort Ord (Volume III, Appendix B). At that time, local, state, and federal legislative Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 1-2 Purpose, Need, and Scope December 1992 iOO das onv inr Nnr avw HdV hvh | 83d | Nvr | oaa AON ■LOO das onv inr Nnr AVW HdV Hvn 03d 1 Nvr | oao AON O) CO -8 CO O — C ® o> <0 ■§ —o ±2 Q Sim "CO " UJ c 1 "el' 01 O a - -in* K a> o o o - m ™ <0 — xi a — ® -JS e: 3 -= £ T3 C <0 H ° 5 «> J 2 ■= ® 2 -c c 5 « I! o «- ~ .t: gj-i S = ,? *c CC CO CO CC CL o y. Ill uj co a) PI u h I »ij a Sit So I CL . .8- o Q < ® 5- 5 C W c UJ X « O Q) 5 CC w « *= -= 2 c "D ^ 0 0 S S CO A3 Q Q. Q.^ ~.E .ig iS iS c c c o 0 0 (j) c c 5d O O -O o CO o 2 § 2 c f= B < .£ 2j .8 8F ° Q. Z CO UJ > > o C C _ 0 0 if ~ — O s 2 8 Q LL CC CO z 0 5 CC UJ o CO z o o -J < o & 2 m t! cS = 55 0 c m ° 5 o s <0 v,« 3: o 0 CL ro I 55 52- CO z 0 Is 3 £ P Q X 1 I UJ -J -J ^ 0. c: O 2 Uj .<£ a u. Q O &■ SI UJ C Si > ^ o E Q UJ CO o -J o o cc o £ o UJ s a o -J UJ > UJ Q > o < oc >- o z UJ o < -I < o o 1-3 Figure 1-2 Environmental Impact Statement Public Involvement Process February 1992 Environmental Baseline Studies Notice of Intent February-March 1992 March 1992 May 1992 July 1992 Receive Final Input on Local Reuse Alternatives December 1992 December 1992 - February 1993 Agency/Public Review and Comment Public Hearing Army Preparation of Final EIS January-August 1993 Final EIS, including Responses to Comments Public Review on Final EIS I Record of Decision Note: The EIS is required to be completed by August 13, 1993. Opportunity for public input 1-4 bodies were contacted by mail to notify them of the planned EIS preparation (663 notices were mailed). The notices announced a planned scoping meeting in Monterey, California, and invited written scoping comments. 1.4.2 Scoping Process The first step in the preparation of the EIS is to scope, or identify, the issues to be addressed in the analysis and documentation. At the beginning of the analysis, often little is known about the impacts and public and agency participation are solicited to assist in identifying the critical issues to be analyzed as early as possible. A public scoping meeting was held on March 5, 1992, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Monterey, California, to receive public input on critical issues to be addressed in this EIS. The meeting was recorded by a court reporter, in the form of a public transcript, and on audio and video tape. Comment letters were subsequently received, which were accepted after the established response period had ended. Approximately 78 individuals, including Army representatives, various media representatives, and members of the public, attended (Volume III, Appendix C). Twenty-two individuals registered to comment and 22 attendees spoke. The major concerns and questions raised at the scoping meeting centered on the following: ■ socioeconomics (regional): concerns about socioeconomic impacts and adequate documentation of impacts; analysis of socioeconomic impacts on businesses, such as theaters, bowling alleys, and health clubs that provide recreational activities; documentation of the supply of housing that will become available; adequate documentation of impacts in economic base of the community; concerns about impacts on schools; and concerns about impacts on water supply and wastewater service; ■ direct and indirect effects of changes to support the POM annex and reserve center: concerns about the configuration of the POM annex and reserve center; analysis of full impacts of POM annex and reserve center; concerns about impacts on water supply; request for EIS to include maps of boundaries of communities, spheres of influence, water districts, and groundwater contamination sites; discussion of use of nonpotable or reclaimed water for the golf course and landscaping; and analysis of capacity of and impacts on the wastewater system; ■ issues associated with disposal of real property: concerns about the objectives and methodology of disposal; concerns about disposal and protection of Stilwell Hall; analysis and consideration of mitigation and protection of plant and wildlife species and sensitive habitat; identification of cultural resources and impacts; documentation of potential risks of hazardous sites; statement of when remedial investigation/feasibility statement will be complete; concerns about vandalism and lack of weekend patrols; Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 1-5 Purpose, Need, and Scope December 1992 analysis of loss of recreational facilities at installation; and concerns about disposal of Army-owned utilities. ■ issues associated with reuse alternatives: impacts on federally protected plants and wildlife; disturbance to sensitive plants and wildlife; comments of concern for and adequate documentation of protection of plants and wildlife; discussion of impacts on vegetation from sheep grazing; discussion of lead pollution of plants and wildlife in the dunes area; assessment of erosion damage and rates; degradation of water quality and changes in hydrology; analysis of effects on seawater intrusion project; consideration of reclamation and ponding; discussion of what measures should be taken to protect groundwater from contamination; changes in circulation patterns and traffic congestion on communities; concerns about related effects on bus, rail, and air traffic; general concerns about air quality impacts; evaluation of consistency with air quality management plan; concerns about noise parameters; documentation of potential impacts of soil and water contamination from hazardous waste; concerns about safety and cleanup of contaminated areas; restoration of dunes and wildlands; impacts on cultural resources; consideration of federal, state, and local agency requirements; consideration of impacts on all public services; description of impacts on schools, especially effects on enrollment; documentation of potential additional landfill capacity; evaluation of sewage and storm drain outfall along coastal zone; discussion of potential conversion to individual meters for installation houses; concern about impacts, including outpatient and pharmacy services; changes in population, housing, and employment; concerns about impacts, assumptions, and methodology changes in population, housing, and employment; documentation of changes in local jobs/housing balance (and any imbalance), assumptions, and methodology; and clear analysis and documentation of the impacts on regional economy. All agency and individual comments are contained in the Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Report Disposal and Reuse of Fort Ord, California (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992f), available for review at the information repository located at Seaside Branch Library, 550 Harcourt Avenue, Seaside, California 93955, 408/899-2055. The Secretary of Defense proposed closing of Fort Ord in January 1990. The Army held a scoping meeting in September 1990. This closure action was discontinued when the 1990 Base Closure Act established a new commission. This EIS considers comments received in the 1990 scoping meeting. 1.4.3 Public Workshops On July 7, 1992, the Army conducted a public workshop at Oldemeyer Center in Seaside, California. The purpose of the workshop was to present the EIS timeframe, provide an overview of the environmental baseline studies that were prepared to provide baseline information for various resource categories and Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 1-6 Purpose, Need, and Scope December 1992 identify environmental issues to be analyzed in the EIS, discuss disposal and real estate issues, and present the Army action and alternatives. The workshop was a participatory session with an information presentation followed by a breakout session in which the workshop attendees were given the opportunity to ask questions of the workshop participants. The workshop was announced in the local newspaper; a press release was released to 65 media organizations; and 663 notices were mailed to agencies, organizations, and interested individuals. The workshop was recorded by video camera. 1.4.4 Coordination with Reuse Committees The reuse development process is described in detail in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action". From February to November 1992, 10 meetings were conducted by the Army with representatives of Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission; Monterey County; the Cities of Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Sand City, and Seaside; and the Fort Ord Task Force. These meetings were used to work cooperatively with the surrounding local agencies and the task force to develop a reasonable range of reuse alternatives for the Army to analyze in the draft EIS, as well as brief the local agencies and task force on the EIS status. The local agencies and task force reviewed and provided local input on the EIS. The meetings provided an update on federal screening decisions, presented real estate leases and outgrants and discussed the effect on them because of the Army disposal process, and discussed vision plans or changes to existing vision plans of surrounding local jurisdictions and conflicts with existing vision plans of surrounding jurisdictions. 1.4.5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement The public, along with concerned organizations and agencies, are invited to review and comment on this draft EIS. A notice of availability was published in the Federal Register and in the local news media. This period provides opportunity for the public to review the issues addressed in the impact analysis, as well as offer appropriate comments on any aspect of the process. 1.4.6 Public Hearing During the period of public review and comment of the draft EIS, a public hearing will be held early 1993 to formally receive oral and written comments and recommendations. The location and time of the hearing will be announced in the local news media. The hearing record will be held open for 10 days following the hearing to receive written comments from individuals and organizations unable to attend. 1.4.7 Final Environmental Impact Statement A final EIS that incorporates and responds to comments received on the draft EIS, will be furnished to all who comment on the draft document and will be made available to anyone requesting a copy. A notice of availability will be published in the Federal Register. 1.4.8 Contaminated Site Remediation Remediation or cleanup of contaminated sites under the Army's Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Waste Program includes public involvement. This program is separate from, but often confused with, the EIS process because the actions usually occur simultaneously. Studies and reports for remediation actions Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 1-7 Purpose, Need, and Scope December 1992 are made available at the public information repository located at the Seaside Branch Library. Remedial actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act include formal opportunities for public participation in reviewing documents and public hearings. This EIS analysis addresses the sites under investigation by describing the nature and extent of the contamination in an overall environmental context and referring to the remedial studies. (Refer to Sections 4.10 and 5.10, "Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation" and Volume II.) The public will be informed about the studies as they become available and will be invited to participate in public meetings for those actions. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 1-8 Purpose, Need, and Scope December 1992 Section 2.0 Proposed Action 2.1 INTRODUCTION The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (1990 Base Closure Act) directs the closure of Fort Ord, California, and the relocation of the 7th Infantry Division (Light) (IDL) to Fort Lewis, Washington, by October 1,1997. As indicated in Section 1.2, the 1990 Base Closure Act exempted the closure decision and action from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. Subsequently the Conference Report for House Resolution 2100 (HR 2100), for the National Defense Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993, directed the Army to proceed immediately with an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the disposal and reuse of Fort Ord specifically addressing socioeconomic effects of the Army relocating from the Monterey Bay area. These two legislative actions have helped define the proposed action for this EIS and the level of impact analysis required to support the action. The proposed action analyzed in this EIS is the disposal of excess property made available by the closure of Fort Ord, with the retention of the Reserve Center and establishment of a Presidio of Monterey (POM) Annex. The socioeconomic impacts of relocating the active Army from the Fort Ord community are analyzed in this EIS, following the requirements of the conference report for HR 2100. Reasonable alternative uses of the property after disposal are identified and evaluated. 2.1.1 Mission Fort Ord is operated as a permanent installation of Headquarters, Department of the Army, Forces Command (FORSCOM). The primary mission of Fort Ord is to train troops, but it also serves to provide command, administration, and logistical support on the installation, and other functions necessary to operate and maintain facilities at Fort Ord and its subinstallations, the Presidio of Monterey, Fort Hunter Liggett, and Camp Roberts. It also supports active Army tenant units and other activities as assigned, attached, or stationed, including satellite activities off the installation. The principal unit assigned to Fort Ord is the 7th IDL. The major function of the Fort Ord mission is to maintain the 7th IDL in a state of readiness that ensures that national defense requirements will be fulfilled. Other components of Fort Ord's mission include the following: ■ Organize, train, and equip all assigned and attached units and individuals to perform assigned duties. ■ Provide for the operation, safety, security, administration, education and training, procurement support, service, maintenance and supply of all individuals, units, and activities assigned, attached, or under the command of the installation. * ■ Support Army reserve components in conducting training and mobilization. ■ Plan for accomplishment of domestic emergency missions as directed. ■ Support the Test and Experimentation Command Center on Fort Ord, FHL, and the Defense Language Institute (DLI) on the Presidio of Monterey. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-1 Proposed Action December 1992 2.1.2 Location Fort Ord is an Army installation located along the Pacific Ocean in northern Monterey County, California approximately 100 miles south of San Francisco (Figure 2-1). Fort Ord occupies approximately 28,000 acres or 43 square miles adjacent to Monterey Bay (a national marine sanctuary) and the Cities of Marina, Seaside, Sand City, Del Rey Oaks, and Monterey (Figures 2-2 and 2-3). Figure 2-4 is a locator map for the installation. The Southern Pacific Railroad and State Highway 1 (also known as State Route 1) cross the western section of Fort Ord, separating the beachfront from the majority of the installation. Fort Ord is bound on the east by undeveloped land. Of the total Fort Ord acreage, 73% (approximately 20,000 acres) is in unincorporated Monterey County, 15% (approximately 4,100 acres) is within the Seaside city limits, and 12% (approximately 3,400 acres) is within the Marina city limits. Refer to Section 4.0, "Setting", for more detail. 2.1.3 Realignment of Personnel and Functions The Army plans to make the following realignment of personnel and functions to implement requirements of the 1990 Base Closure Act at Fort Ord: ■ The 7th IDL will relocate to Fort Lewis, Washington, the Army will transfer responsibility of all off-installation properties and area support, tenants will relocate, and the Army will dispose of excess property. ■ Fort Hunter Liggett will become a subinstallation of Fort Lewis, Washington. ■ The Presidio of Monterey will become a U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) installation. ■ Forces Command will retain the reserve center complex located on 12 acres of Fort Ord at the corner of Reservation and Imjin Roads. Fort Lewis will become the owner. ■ A portion of Fort Ord will be retained by the Army to provide operations support to the remaining military services in the Monterey area. This enclave is referred to as the POM annex because its major recipient of support is the Presidio of Monterey. The POM annex and its resources will be transferred to TRADOC on closure of Fort Ord. 2.2 PRE-DISPOSAL ACTIONS 2.2.1 Caretaker (No Action Alternative) As the 7th IDL realigns from Fort Ord, the Army will place structures, utilities, and operation and maintenance systems into a caretaker status until property disposal decisions are implemented. Caretaker status is defined by Army regulation as "the minimum required staffing to maintain an installation in a state of repair that maintains safety, security, and health standards." If environmental restoration is not accelerated and complete disposal is not possible, the Army may retain segments of the lands remaining outside the POM annex and reserve center in a caretaker status. The transition from current conditions at Fort Ord to a caretaker condition and eventually to disposal is a continuum that is not easily separated into distinct components. This is especially true when a specific Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-2 Proposed Action December 1992 Figure 2-1 Regional Location utMDOO 'lO ruACtn YOLO •OlAMO J% TUOLUUHl • AM JOAOUIM COM T M A V COiTA CLAM A Pacific Ocean OREGON mOOOC IHAIT A Fort Ord 2-3 Figure 2-2 Location of Cities Surrounding Fort Ord Castro ville Pacific Marina \\\ Carmel Valley Village Pacific Ocean Monterey Bay ^§5 J) Sand City^; Pebble Beach Moipre^se^idgji^fv JJ • ' l_ Cti :,f )Carmel-by-^ ,/N the-Sea Del Rey' Oaks 1 Salinas MILES 2-4 Figure 2-3 Local Jurisdictional Boundaries Surrounding Fort Ord MONTEREY BAY Fort Ord Boundary City Limit Lines Sphere of Influence (SOI) Lines Coastal Zone Boundary Marina City Limits and SOI Seaside City Limits and SOI Monterey City Limits and SOI Sand City City Limits and SOI Del Rey Oaks City Limits and SOI Monterey County (unincorporated) 8,000 ' \ ■ MONTEREY SOI';'. • • 2-5 disposal action has not been determined and the effects of ongoing remediation on the timing of disposal are not known. Actions planned to implement the caretaker operation include: ■ All utility systems (i.e., water, wastewater, electric, natural gas, telecommunications, roads, and storm drainage) will be left intact and will receive periodic inspection and maintenance to the extent necessary to avoid irreparable deterioration; periodic use of these systems will occur as necessary to avoid deterioration. ■ Unoccupied structures will be stabilized as appropriate for the anticipated period of vacancy. ■ Landscape maintenance around unoccupied structures will continue periodically as necessary to protect the structure from fire or prevent nuisance conditions. ■ Access will be maintained onto the installation to service and maintain publicly or privately owned utility or infrastructure systems. ■ Public access onto the installation will be severely restricted; fishing, hunting and woodcutting programs will cease; and occasional public access onto the installation for large-scale events, such as dog trials, bicycle races, trail rides, and scouting jamborees, will cease. ■ Installation security patrols and maintenance of security systems will continue; perimeter fences will be maintained and additional interior fencing around toxic and hazardous waste sites may be added, depending on the length of time that Fort Ord is in caretaker status. ■ A fire department will be maintained and a fire control program will continue, including maintenance of perimeter and interior fire breaks, periodic controlled burns, and an annual fire training program. ■ Grazing leases and outgrants for telecommunications equipment will continue on a year-to-year basis. ■ Land management programs, such as pest control, erosion control, tree removal, and protection of threatened or endangered species, will continue as needed to support the reduced level of installation activity. ■ Public access through the installation for occasional events at Laguna Seca Raceway will continue. ■ Occasional public access for passive recreational events, such as birding and nature tours, will continue. 2.2.2 Contaminated Site Cleanup Significant steps in preparing lands for disposal are the certification that lands are suitable for disposal and the cleanup of contaminated sites to the degree required by the proposed future use. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-6 Proposed Action December 1992 Figure 2-4 Installation Locator Map ASP Ammunition Supply Point MOUT Military Operations on Urban Terrain Developed Areas (excludes firing ranges) Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,0 00 feet 1 3 kilometers The entire Fort Ord installation is listed on the National Priorities List as a Superfund site. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992 (CERFA), requires the Army to identify clean parcels and to expedite the remedial investigation, feasibility study, and cleanup of potentially contaminated lands. CERFA requires that the Army, in cooperation with local communities, identify real property that offers the greatest opportunity for reuse and redevelopment where operations are terminating. The Army must identify uncontaminated property within 18 months through a process that includes record and title searches, inspection of the property and aerial photographs, interviews, and sampling if appropriate. The identification of clean parcels is complete when the concurrence of the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is obtained. This process is underway at Fort Ord, and 17 parcels have been identified as potentially clean parcels (Figure 2-5). This process will be completed by April 1994. A remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) is underway and is being expedited to facilitate transfer of real estate and reuse of the lands. As shown in Figure 2-6, land at Fort Ord will be placed into one of two categories: potentially contaminated or potentially uncontaminated. Potentially uncontaminated parcels are evaluated for historical use to demonstrate to the lead regulatory agency EPA) that the parcels are clean. With concurrence of the EPA, the parcels can be released for disposal. An environmental assessment is conducted on potentially contaminated lands to confirm presence or absence of hazardous and toxic waste contamination. If the environmental assessment demonstrates that the parcel is clean or no threat to human health or the environment is present, an ROD is prepared and the land is made available for disposal. If contamination is present, the remedial process is completed culminating in a remedial action and potential deed restriction before land disposal. The remedial action is considered taken when the construction and installation of an approved remedial design has been installed and the remedy has been demonstrated to the EPA administrator to be operating properly. Long-term pumping and treating or operation and maintenance after the remedial action is operating properly and successfully would not preclude transfer of the property with appropriate restrictions. Remedial actions, including preparation of RI/FSs and corrective actions are being expedited to facilitate environmental protection and the sale or transfer of real property to mitigate adverse economic effects on the surrounding community. Fort Ord has prepared an action plan describing actions to be taken to expedite the processes described above. The action plan is a document incorporating CERFA and Rl/FS activities. 2.2.3 Interim Uses Predisposal use of real property by a non-Army entity is accomplished through real estate documentation, such as leases, licenses and permits (outgrants). The Army is conducting an analysis regarding "interim leasing", which will allow use of excess land before disposal. Organizations interested in interim use should apply directly to the installation and identify their requirements. Approval for such use will be staffed through the Army. The term of the lease will be for no more than 1 year, but may be renewed annually at the option of the Army. Interim leases will not be granted until the ROD on the EIS is signed and the Army no longer has a need for property requested. Interim use cannot foreclose any future Army options and cannot irrevocably Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-8 Proposed Action December 1992 Figure 2-5 Areas Defined as Potentially Clean at Fort Ord PattorK, Housing 's. Area fib rams * -lousing AreaNap^l ~~- TTi Inte Frederick Housing Area Fitch Housing Area Skyline Barloy Road Thorsen Housing Area Note: This does not consider unexploded ordnance potential Source: Harding Lawson Associates 1992 Potential clean parcels Areas having installation approval for clean parcel assessment Fritzsche Army Airfield Main Garrison Main Entrance Stilwell t Housing Area f City of Manna \ \ SchoO nover Inter-Garrison ( Road"* Gamson VS Crescent Bluff Hayes Housing Area City of Sand City City of Monterey 2-9 Figure 2-6 Process for Identifying Parcels for Remediation Process under Community Environ- mental Response Facilitation Act of 1992 (CERCLA). (Congress approved amendment to CERCLA to expedite identification of clean parcels and remediation of property to facilitate reuse.) Identify potentially contaminated or uncontaminated property CERCLA Potentially Contaminated Process CERCLA Clean Parcel Process Conduct environmental assessment to confirm presence or absence of contamination Evaluate potentially clean parcels with no prior evidence of HTW use or storage or Environmental assessment and screening risk assessment to verify clean or protective of human health and enviroment 1 Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study and Remediation Plan for units with contaminants Identification of clean parcels is completed with EPA concurrence EPA approves assessment and holds public hearing f No adverse assessment Record o T somments on ; EPA signs Decision Public hearing ROD for EPA concurrence on proposed remedial actions Conduct remediation actions Demonstrate remedial actions are operating properly and incorporate deed or administrative restrictions Property available for disposal CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency HTW = Hazardous and Toxic Waste ROD = Record of Decision 2-10 or irreversibly commit resources. Interim uses could range from leasing buildings for residential office or storage purposes, to issuing permits for military and nonmilitary use of firing ranges and training areas. 2.3 DISPOSAL 2.3.1 Real Estate Disposal Process After closure of Fort Ord, the Army plans to dispose of approximately 26,000 acres, or 95% of the installation. The remainder of the installation will be established as a POM annex and retained as a reserve center. The process for disposal of Army properties involved in BRAC is governed by the 1990 Base Closure Act; the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended; and federal property management regulations. In disposing of property, the Army also must comply with the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney Act) and other laws and regulations (including Title 10 of the U.S. Code and Army regulations) affecting the disposition of federal real property. A block diagram of the real estate process is shown in Figure 2-7. In general, the first step in the process is to screen real property no longer required by the Army with other departments and instrumentalities within DOD. The U.S. Coast Guard is considered in this step by special legislative authority. If no military requirements exist for the property, the second step is to offer the property to other federal agencies. If there is no federal need, the property is determined surplus. The third step is to screen the property for use by the homeless under provisions of the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. The property is reported to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a determination of suitability for homeless assistance purposes. Upon a finding of suitability, availability of the property is determined by the Army. The Army must submit annual and quarterly reports to HUD on the status of the property. The Department of Housing and Urban Development publishes suitability and availability determinations in the Federal Register on a quarterly basis. Each time suitable/available property is published in the Federal Register , 60-day "holding period" is triggered for homeless providers to express interest in the property. During these holding periods, the property is not available for any purpose other than to assist the homeless. If no homeless requirement exists for the property, the next step is to screen the property with state and local governments. If no state or local government requirements exist for the property, the Army can then make the property available for sale to the general public. Sale is usually accomplished competitively by auction or sealed bids. 2.3.1.1 Real Estate Disposal Actions After screening but before disposal, EPA must approve the proposal to dispose of clean parcels rather than Fort Ord as a whole. The Army must then determine the availability of clean parcels considering: ■ management and protection of natural and cultural resources, ■ clearing of live ordnance, ■ hazardous and toxic waste cleanup, and ■ decision regarding level of cleanup required for limited use parcels as opposed to unlimited use for clean parcels. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-11 Proposed Action December 1992 >- CD > CD C o i- o A k D 03 w O > 0) 2 «> ® 0) s 11 > c~ TO E o o 0) O Q. o -C o =t T3 03 s ® O CO o _J O LO CO J2 s ° CD o tr o U_ 3 3 CL O 2-12 2.3.1.2 Real Estate Disposal Methods Methods used by the Army to dispose of real estate properly are: ■ Transfer to Other Federal Agency. The Army would transfer administrative or jurisdictional control to another federal agency. ■ Assignment Pursuant to McKinney Act. The Army would assign the property to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which would convey or lease the property to homeless providers. ■ Public Benefit Discount Conveyance. State or local government entities may obtain property at less than fair market value when sponsored by a federal agency for uses that would benefit the public (i.e., health and education, parks and recreation, wildlife conservation, public health, and airport). ■ Negotiated Sale. The Army would sell the property by negotiation to state and local agencies at fair market value. A sale could also be negotiated with private entities (i.e., existing third party leases). ■ Competitive Sale. Sale to the public could occur through either an invitation for bids or an auction. 2.3.2 Parcels As described in Section 2 .2, there are at least two processes that might allow for early disposal of individual parcels at Fort Ord. Based on the assumption that one of these processes will be available, the Army is reviewing plans to initiate preparation of an Environmental Baseline Study for Transfer (EBST) and a Finding of Suitability for Transfer (FOST) for at least the 17 areas identified in Figure 2-5. This early identification of clean parcels for accelerated disposal does not include any resource-based analyses and is not limited to the above areas. To expedite preparation of a FOST and an EBST, the Army will conduct preliminary assessment screenings at the selected areas. 2.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY ANNEX The Presidio of Monterey is located approximately 8 miles south of Fort Ord. Because it cannot accommodate all operations support functions onsite, many support facilities are housed on Fort Ord. The residual portion of Fort Ord retained by the Army needed to continue to provide support to the Presidio of Monterey is referred to as the POM annex. To meet the goals identified above, the Army will retain control of the following elements at Fort Ord: ■ Presidio of Monterey support: Includes the combined supporting engineer, maintenance, utilities, logistics, legal, information management, medical, contracting, and finance activities (requires 246,000 square feet [sf]). ■ Area support: Includes the supporting logistics, legal, finance, and education activities for the area other than Fort Hunter Liggett, Presidio of Monterey, and residual Fort Ord (area requirement included in previous item). Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft E1S Volume I 2-13 Proposed Action December 1992 ■ Fort Hunter Liggett support: Includes the legal, finance, supply, troop, and transportation supports required by Fort Hunter Liggett (area requirement included in "Presidio of Monterey Support" described above). ■ Army family housing requirement: Involves Army and DOD activities in the areas that have continuing requirement for 1,590 units of family housing; this would support the DLI school requirement. ■ Morale-welfare-recreation requirement: Provides recreation facilities (e.g., youth centers, child development center, library, and recreation center) to the active and retired military population; few facilities in the area are accessible to the military (requires 329,000 sf). ■ Defense Language Institute School Support: The DLI cannot support the entire requirement with existing facilities; administrative, housing, classroom, and dining facilities are required for an additional 500 students (requires 786,000 sf). ■ Local Department of Defense Requirements: Army and DOD activities in the area are in leased space; they include Defense Manpower Data Center, Personal Security Research and Education Center, Army Research Institute, Logistics Assistance Office, and the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (requires 129,000 sf). The DOD's proposed plans are to establish a POM annex of approximately 1,500 acres (5% of Fort Ord's approximately 28,000 acres) east and south of the installation's main entrance under military control (Figure 2-8). This does not include land and easements that will be required for access and utilities. The proposed POM annex includes the following facilities, which are summarized in Table 2-1, with further detail contained in Appendix D in Volume III: 1,590 housing units, including Fitch Park, Marshall Park, Stilwell Park, and Hayes Park housing areas; two schools (Marshall and Stilwell); post exchange/commissary complex; two 18-hole golf courses; and various other support facilities identified in Figure 2-8. The housing will be retained to house Navy, Coast Guard, and DLI students. New construction is not proposed as part of establishing the POM annex. The Army will execute a project to renovate or convert 14 existing buildings, on the proposed POM annex. These facilities will house relocated installation operations activities for the Presidio of Monterey. This work will include renovation of administrative buildings, warehouses, maintenance shops, chemical storage areas, and cold storage areas. (Appendix D in Volume III contains a list of facilities involved in the renovation and conversion project.) The following 14 buildings are to be renovated: 4463, 4481, 4489, 4488, 4499, 4499A, 4512A, 4512B, 4418, 4448, 4490, 4491, 4423, and 4450. These buildings range in size from 1,883 to 19,354 square feet, totaling 134,400 square feet. Major effects of building modification activities, such as demolition and construction, could include generation of noise, air emissions, and hazardous waste. It has not been determined whether the Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital would be retained. For purposes of this EIS, the hospital will not be retained within the POM annex. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-14 Proposed Action December 1992 Table 2-1. Proposed Presidio of Monterey Annex Name Square Footage Administration 60,723 Barracks 327,754 Bachelor Officer Quarters 162,414 Classroom 162,268 Dining 22,798 Administration 151,371 Maintenance 45,148 Storage 63,097 MWR/QOL 289,378 Local DOD Requirement Logistics assist OFC (LAO) 5,627 Army Research Institute 128,271 Vacant buildings: 45,338 Total 1,458,560 2.5 RETENTION OF RESERVE CENTER The DOD's proposed plans are to retain, under military control, a 12-acre parcel of land with a 21,000-square foot reserve center, located at Imjin Gate near Reservation Road, under military control (Figure 2-8). The reserve center provides support functions to reservists (Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines) for training. The reserve center operates during standard hours during the week and operates only on those weekends when training occurs. Access to the reserve center is through Imjin Gate. Many camouflage trucks are parked in the reserve center parking lot. The reserve center is not contiguous with the proposed POM annex. 2.6 REUSE 2.6.1 Reuse Development Process The primary focus of this EIS is evaluation of the action required by Congress, which is disposal of excess Fort Ord property after closure, an action to be taken by the Army. Reuse of the property, which Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-15 Proposed Action December 1992 Figure 2-8 Army's Proposed Presidio of Monterey Annex and Reserve Center mi " m ,Cf1e ^LO p/' :V . 3 f ' I Monterey (POM) Annex/. - DESCRIPTION LOCATION i ADJUTANT GENERAL P 2798 21A DIR PLANS. TNG AND MOB T-2843 • 3B HEADQUARTERS (HQS CMO) P-4463 • 58 OPTICAL CLINIC P-4385 P-4380 79 STOCKADE (CONFINEMENT FACILITY P-4953 2 AIRLINE TICKET OFFICE (SATO) T-2988 21B DIR OF LOGISTICS T-2786 • 39 HEADQUARTERS (1st BDE) P-4423 59 PACKAGE STORE T 2531 P-4250 80 SWIMMING POOL T 2237 • 3 AUTO CRAFT SHOP P-4492 » 21C DIR HEALTH SVC P-4385 40 HEADQUARTERS (2nd BDE) P-4570 60 PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER P 3560 81 TSC "ONE STOP" T 2450 ■ 4 BANK OF AMERICA P-3880 21D DIR DENTAL SVC P-4573 40A HEADQUARTERS (3rd BDE) P-4810 • 61 POST EXCHANGE P-4235 82 TAXI STANDS T 1895 • 5 BANK OF AMERICA (ATM) P-4450 21E DIR ENGR AND HOUSING P-4899 • 40B HEADQUARTERS (AVN BDE) P-4489 62 POST HEADQUARTERS T-2859 • 83 TELEGRAPH (WESTERN UNION) P 4235 • 6 BOWLING ALLEY P-3895 • 21F DIR OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT P-4251 41 HORSE STABLES T-3142 63 POST LAUNORY T-2700 84 TENNIS COURTS P-1778 P-3095 7 BUS DEPOT T-1917 21G DIR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT T-2788 P-4385 • 64 POST OFFICE P-4226 • 85 THEATERS T 1061 P-4230 • 8 CAR WASH 21H OIR OF CONTRACTING T2342 43 ■u ISSUE T-2355 65 POST VET CLINIC T-3140 P-3702 S CENTRAL ISSUE FACILITY T2073 22 DRILL SERGEANT FIELO • 43A in OFFICE S 4228 66 PROVOST MARSHAL T-1026 85A THRIFT SHOP T 3016 10 CENTRAL RECEIVING POINT T-2071 23 EDUCATION CENTER T 1010 44 INSPECTOR GENERAL T-2863 67 RANGE SUPPLY T-2066 86 TOY STORE T-1777 • 11 CHAPEL (DURHAM ROAD) P-4483 23A EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER \P 2798 • 45 LAUNOROMATS P-4227 T 1434 68 STILWELl HALL P-2075 87 TRANSIENT BILLETING OFFICE T 2798 12 CHAPEL (BAY VIEW] P-4426 24 EM SERVICE CLUB P.-3703 T-2180 69 RED CROSS P-2662 • 88 VEHICLE REGISTRATION OFFICE T 4214 13 CHAPEL (6th AVE) P-3701 25 FAMILY HOUSING OFFICE T2798 T-2795 • 46 LIBRARIES P-4275 P 3703 70 REPLACEMENT OET T-2562 • 89 VISITORS INFORMATION CENTER T 4214 14 CIVILIAN PERSONNEL T-3007 • 26 FAST FOOD P4405 46A LIBRARY (MOS) T-2233 71 SANITARY FILL 90 WELCOME CENTER (MARTINEZ HALL P 2798 15 CLOTHING SALES STORE T-1957 27 FINANCE T-2437 47 MAIN CAFETERIA P-2047 • 72 SCHOOL (MARSHALLI P-3798 • 91 YOUTH CENTER P 4283 P 3115 • 16 COMMISSARY P-4240 ■ 28 FIRE STATION P-4400 • 48 MAIN CHAPEL P-4280 • 72A SCHOOL (STILWELL) P-4290 17 COMMUNITY SERVICES T-3010 • 29 FOOTBALL STADIUM P-3892 49 MAIN PARADE FIELD 72B SCHOOL (FITCH) P 5060 18 COURTROOM T-2117 « 30 GOLF COURSES P-4101 50 MARTINEZ HALL P-2798 72C SCHOOL (HAYES) P 5000 • 19 CREDIT UNION P-4242 31 G 1 T-2335 • 51 MEDICAL CENTER (TROOP) P-3723 • 73 SELF HELP SHOP T-3803 * 19A DAY CARE CENTER P-3070 P-7693 32 G • 2 T-2847 52 MILITARY POLICE STATION T 1049 • 74 SERVICE STATIONS T 1060 P 4220 T-3025 33 G 3 T-2875 53 MUSEUM T-2880 P 7850 P 6160 20 DENTAL CLINIC (STONE) P-3700 34 G-4 T 2793 • 54 NCO CLUB P-4260 •75 SHEA GYMNASIUM P-4480 * 20A DENTAL CLINIC (BURKE) P-4399 35 G 5 T-2834 55 NURSERY (DAY CARE CENTER) P-3070 P-3045 • 76 SOUTH PARADE FIELD 20B DENTAL CLINIC (BEITER) P-3599 36 HEADQUARTERS (DISCOM) T-1920 56 NURSERY (PLANT) T-3828 77 SPORTS ARENA P 2236 21 DIR PER AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITES T 2785 37 HEADQUARTERS IDIV ARTYI P 3719 57 OFFICERS' CLUB P-4368 78 STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE T 2791 = Within POM Annex is an action to be taken by others, is analyzed in this document as an indirect, or secondary, effect of executing this legislated action. The reuse development process is evolving and plans are continuously being revised, and new plans may be forthcoming. The Army has identified five levels of development intensity to categorize foreseeable reuse alternatives. These categories are sufficiently defined to identify planning-level effects for consideration by the public and Army decision makers. The five categories are: ■ high-intensity mixed use, ■ medium-intensity mixed use, ■ low-intensity mixed use, ■ institutional use, and ■ open space use. The process used to identify and develop foreseeable reuse alternatives is described in this section. Section 3.0, "Alternatives", defines the reuse alternatives analyzed. Development and refinement of reuse proposals will be a continuing process over the next few years. This EIS presents a range of reuse alternatives, which represent the range of options presented to the Army through scoping and public involvement. The environmental effects of those alternatives are qualitatively, and in some cases quantita- tively, described. Followup environmental documentation may be required as appropriate by future users as details of reuse proposals become more specific. The Army plans no further analysis of future uses of the excess property. The future use of the Fort Ord property as ownership changes from the Army to a yet unknown owner is an issue of significant interest to the impacted communities. The Army acknowledges its responsi- bility to assure, within the limits of its authority, that succeeding uses do not lessen the quality of the community life or degrade the environment. In so far as possible, steps will be taken to assure that succeeding owners protect historic or cultural resources, endangered species, wetlands, and other valuable resources. The local governments are the zoning authorities of the future uses of the property, and may at any time change their decisions to meet the formulating and evolving goals of the community. This EIS presents a qualitative impact analysis of potential future uses without recommendation. The final decision will be made in the context of establishing legal requirements receiving a fair market value or providing maximum public benefit. The Army looks to the local communities to take the lead in formulating and developing reuse proposals that satisfy local zoning, plans and requirements. The Office of Economic Adjustment of the DOD is presently working with the local committees to accomplish these goals. Regardless of the use intended by the succeeding owner, the Army will seek a fair market value for the excess land. With the exception of a POM annex and a reserve center, the land within Fort Ord will be disposed of by DOD making it available for reuse. Major factors that have influenced the range of reuse alternatives considered in this EIS include the 1990 Base Closure Act, federal property management regulations, existing use of the facility, extent of environmental contamination, National Historic Preservation Act requirements, other environmental restrictions or constraints, zoning, and the real estate market. Ultimate reuse of the installation will depend on the result of the interaction of these factors. The Army has been working cooperatively with federal, state, and local agencies and the Fort Ord Task Force to determine a broad range of reasonably foreseeable reuse alternatives for inclusion in the draft Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-17 Proposed Action December 1992 EIS. Following is a general description of the process used in developing the reuse alternatives analyzed in this EIS. Details of the development and definition of each reuse alternative are described further below and in Section 3.0, "Alternatives". 2.6.2 Agency/Task Force Involvement 2.6.2.1 Local Agency/Task Force Meetings As described in Section 1.0, "Purpose, Need, and Scope", meetings were conducted by the Army from February to November 1992 as part of this effort. The agencies and organizations involved in these reuse meetings included Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (U\FCO) and Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department; Cities of Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Sand City, and Seaside; the Fort Ord Task Force (described below); and the Army. The purpose of the reuse meetings was to work with the local agencies and task force to develop a wide range of reuse alternatives and define land uses and assumptions based on input contained in their vision plans. (Appendix E in Volume III contains the original vision plan maps of Monterey County; the Cities of Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Sand City, and Seaside; and the task force). 2.6.2.2 Fort Ord Task Force The task force was originally commissioned by Congressman Leon Panetta to report on the reasons for closing Fort Ord and the likely impacts of closure on Monterey County. It includes federal, state, county, city, private sector, and general public representatives. The task force began meeting in February 1991 to oppose the closure and determine the conse- quences of closure. After testifying at a regional hearing in San Francisco in May 1991, the task force began studying reuse and redevelopment of Fort Ord. By July 1991, an office in the City of Marina (supported by Monterey County) and seven advisory groups were established. The task force is a consensus and advisory organization, not a decision-making organization, with the ultimate goal of developing a strategy for the reuse and redevelopment of Fort Ord. The strategy of the task force is to develop "a statement of community consensus regarding the reuse and redevelopment of Fort Ord to induce a series of prioritized alternatives with evaluations". The strategy will be used to develop an installation reuse plan, which contains the best use of the property, including the highest dollar value; ensures environmental considerations; and contains other implementation details. 2.6.2.3 Federal and State Agency Involvement Because the federal and state real estate screening process would not be completed for inclusion in the draft EIS, the Army distributed a letter on April 17, 1992 to all federal agencies in the western United States and to all California state agencies to solicit potential interest in reusing portions of Fort Ord. Reuse proposals, support of other federal or state reuse proposals, or federal or state agency public-benefit sponsor proposals were received from eight federal agencies, six California state agencies, and seven other agencies. The agencies that submitted reuse proposals are listed below under Section 2.6.3.5, "Alternative 4: Institutional Use", and in Appendix F in Volume III. 2.6.3 Development of Reuse Alternatives This section describes the methodology and assumptions used to develop each reuse alternative. Local agencies and the Fort Ord Task Force were encouraged to submit vision plans for Fort Ord to the Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-18 Proposed Action December 1992 Army by May 27, 1992. From February to May 1992, the Army worked with the local agencies and the task force to present baseline information on land use, air quality, soils, and other physical attributes. Because the endangered species surveys had not been completed, the Army presented preliminary baseline information on biological resources. The Army outlined assumptions needed from the local agencies to develop the reuse alternatives (i.e., land use map and summary; population, housing, and employment generation; circulation network; infrastructure plan; public service generation rates; roadway levels of service; and other information necessary to conduct the impact analysis). During this period, the county and the five cities worked cooperatively to develop common assumptions for use in the Army's EIS. During development of the reuse alternatives, Monterey County LAFCO, in agreement with all of the local agencies and task force served as the liaison between the local agencies and the Army. By mid-May 1992, Monterey County LAFCO submitted to the Army a package containing the vision plans of the county, five cities, and the task force. This package contained the visions that resulted in the development of Alternatives 1, 1C, 2, and 3 and portions of Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 analyzed in this EIS (Appendix E in Volume III). To develop the alternatives analyzed in this EIS, the Army examined each local alternative and formulated consistent land use categories. Because the land use categories received from the local agencies were specific in some alternatives but general in others, specific land uses were grouped into various broad land use categories by the Army to provide consistent land use designations for purposes of analysis. In developing the reuse alternatives, the Army replaced specific reuse proposals with general land use categories (i.e., California State University expansion campus is designated as "university"); therefore, the alternatives do not indicate jurisdictional boundaries or other federal, state, or local agencies' proposals. The following describes the agencies represented by reuse alternative. 2.6.3.1 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use This alternative generally represents the Fort Ord Economic Development Authority (FOEDA) vision for Cities of Marina and Seaside, the vision for the City of Sand City, information provided by the Cities of Del Rey Oaks and Monterey, and the county's vision for the remaining unincorporated area. 2.6.3.2 Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Use This subalternative generally represents the FOEDA vision for the Cities of Marina and Seaside, which extends beyond the cities' existing jurisdictional boundaries, and the county's vision for remaining unincorporated area in the far eastern portion of the installation. 2.6.3.3 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use This alternative generally represents the county's vision in all of the unincorporated area and the FOEDA vision in the incorporated areas of the Cities of Marina and Seaside. 2.6.3.4 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use This alternative generally represents the task force recommendation. Fori Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-19 Proposed Action December 1992 2.6.3.5 Alternative 4: Institutional Use This alternative generally represents preliminary proposals received from other federal and state agencies, including federal agencies (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Parks Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), state agencies (California Coastal Conservancy; California Department of Fish and Game; California Department of Parks and Recreation; California Department of Transportation; California State University, San Jose; and University of California, Santa Cruz), and other agencies (Goodwill Industries Vocational Rehabilitation Unit, Monterey County Housing Authority, Monterey County Parks Department, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey Peninsula College, Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, and York School). This alternative also incorporates institutional uses from the vision plans proposed by the local agencies and task force. Some proposals for reuse of undeveloped land did not specify a location. Most of these proposals could be classified as institutional and have been included with other institutional proposals. The locations of these reuse proposals were determined by avoiding areas specified in other proposals for institutional uses and by considering known environmental constraints. 2.6.3.6 Alternative 5: Open Space This alternative represents preliminary open space proposals from other federal and state agencies and also incorporates open space uses from the vision plans proposed by the local agencies and task force. 2.6.3.7 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse This alternative was developed by the Army in response to real estate interests expressed through preliminary screening and market and community factors. 2.7 LOCAL REUSE PLANNING STATUS 2.7.1 Introduction This section describes the status of local community reuse planning for Fort Ord at the time of printing of this EIS. (Appendix G in Volume III contains information pertaining to recent developments.) The reuse alternatives analyzed in this EIS are based on the alternatives defined in May 1992. Because of the Congressionally mandated 18-month EIS preparation timeframe, refinements in the ongoing, continually evolving reuse planning process have not been incorporated into and analyzed in this report. The EIS timeframe required that reuse planning occur rapidly to develop alternatives to be analyzed in the Army's EIS. At the time that the reuse alternatives were being developed, neither the endangered species surveys or the infrastructure planning study had been completed; therefore, several known environmental constraints were not considered in development of reuse alternatives by local agencies. 2.7.2 Monterey County In September 1992, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors directed the county planning staff to revise the Fort Ord Interdepartmental Committee Schematic Plan (Monterey County's vision plan for Fort Ord) to reflect the open space criteria of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The following actions were approved by the board of supervisors to: Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-20 Proposed Action December 1992 ■ create a habitat/open space/recreation overlay on interior Fort Ord territory, covering the inland range area and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management area of interest; ■ continue to meet with federal and state agencies that have jurisdiction over rare and endangered species to develop an installationwide natural resource mitigation program; and ■ officially recognize that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management plays a role in the process; the county will work with the bureau to see that its role is fulfilled so as to be beneficial to all parties. Appendix G in Volume III contains a copy of the revised county schematic plan. 2.7.3 City of Marina The Marina City Council held a "Fort Ord Issues Workshop" so that the community could help define and work through key issues arising from possible alternatives regarding Fort Ord's future. The workshop was held on September 26, 1992, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m, in the Marina City Hall Council chambers. Copies of the public announcements and a copy of the adopted City Council minutes are contained in Appendix G in Volume III. 2.7.4 City of Seaside During the preparation of the EIS analysis, the City of Seaside's recommended POM annex footprint changed so that boundaries of the proposed annex fit within the Seaside sphere of influence. The footprint, analyzed as Subalternative B in this EIS, includes undeveloped lands outside the Seaside city limits. The revised footprint is coterminous with the city limit. Because the revised Seaside POM annex footprint was received late in the analysis process, the original Seaside proposed annex is analyzed in this EIS. On November 20, 1992, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Housing) announced that the Army would continue to evaluate the POM annex briefed to the communities in February 1992 and analyzed in this EIS as the Army's proposed POM annex. This will not preclude future consideration of an alternative proposal from the City of Seaside. The City of Seaside was invited to discuss Army issues relating to Seaside's recommended POM annex. 2.7.5 Fort Ord Task Force In July 1992, the Fort Ord Task Force issued a request for qualifications for a project coordinator to manage the Fort Ord Reuse Planning Committee and to coordinate the preparation of the Initial Base Reuse Plan. As identified in Figure 1-1 in Section 1.0, the Initial Base Reuse Plan was scheduled for completion in November 1992 (Fort Ord Task Force pers. comm.). 2.7.6 Fort Ord Reuse Group The Fort Ord Reuse Group (FORG) was established by Monterey County and the Cities of Marina, Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, and Sand City on October 1, 1992, to begin the next step in implementing the June 1992 Fort Ord Task Force strategy. The FORG was established to supersede the Fort Ord Task Force because the staff coordinator was retiring. (Refer to Section 2.6.2.2 "Fort Ord Task Force" for further discussion of the intent and organizational structure of the task force. A cooperative planning committee composed of the county and five cities, FORG is working closely with the Army to review proposed "vision" Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-21 Proposed Action December 1992 and land use plans. An Initial Base Reuse Plan will be produced for review by local governments by mid- November (Fort Ord Reuse Group pers. comm.). 2.7.7 California State University California State University is working with the Army to revise its boundaries for the proposed new university campus so that it is compatible with DOD and Army requirements for POM annex functions and facilities. The university is also adjusting its proposal to reflect a phased plan to not conflict with ongoing hazardous and toxic waste site remediation. 2.7.8 State Route 68 Project On November 5, 1992, the Federal Highway Administration issued a notice of intent to advise the public that an EIS will be prepared in cooperation with Caltrans on a proposal to make improvements to State Route (SR) 68. The project will study several alternatives to alleviate traffic congestion along an 11-mile portion of SR 68. These alternatives include a No-Build Alternative, a Transportation Systems Management Alternative, an In-Corridor Alternative, and a South Fort Ord Alternative. The South Fort Ord Alternative proposes realignment of 7.1 miles of SR 68 between the junction of SR 218 and the Toro Park Interchange; by realigning this portion to the north, SR 68 will be routed through the southern part of the installation. The SR 68 project is being prepared separately from this EIS. The reuse alternatives developed in cooperation with the local agencies and the Fort Ord Task Force do not include improvements to SR 68. 2.7.9 Salinas Westside/Fort Ord Multimodal Transportation Corridor Study On November 25, 1992, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County issued a request for proposal to conduct a corridor study for a new multimodal transportation corridor connecting the west side of the City of Salinas with the Monterey Peninsula via Fort Ord. The new corridor will be multimodal; consider and incorporate highway, rail, high-occupancy vehicle lanes and bicycle and pedestrian uses; and include a multimodal terminal in the vicinity of the Main Gate to Fort Ord. The corridor study is being prepared separately from this EIS. The reuse alternatives developed in cooperation with the local agencies and the Fort Ord Task Force did not include a multimodal corridor or terminal. In addition, when the EIS reuse alternatives were formulated, FORG had not been established. The selected consultant will be required to work closely with FORG to forecast future transportation needs. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 2-22 Proposed Action December 1992 Section 3.0 Alternatives 3.1 INTRODUCTION The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (1990 Base Closure Act) mandates the closure of Fort Ord. The Army plans to dispose of excess property through the process described in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action"; establish a Presidio of Monterey (POM) annex; and retain the existing reserve center. This section describes the alternatives considered to establish the POM annex and retain the reserve center and describes the reuse alternatives identified and analyzed in this document. 3.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY ANNEX 3.2.1 Army's Proposed Presidio of Monterey Annex The location of the POM annex is based on the need to: ■ establish a contiguous facility, ■ retain minimum facilities and functions, ■ maintain quality of life for residual military and families, ■ support retirees where possible, ■ enhance morale factors, and ■ accommodate other Department of Defense (DOD) activities where possible. Alternatives to establishing the POM annex considered new construction, leasing of installation lands, and use of other military installations and various sites or facilities located throughout the installation. New construction, leasing, and other military installations were eliminated because of high cost and disruption. A major consideration in establishing the POM annex is locating the housing; administrative support; and the morale, welfare, recreation (MWR) facilities in the same areas as the Defense Language Institute. Various combinations of sites and facilities were evaluated throughout the installation, but the alternative selected was the only solution to the contiguous requirement. No other alternative provided contiguous housing, administrative support, and MWR facilities. 3.2.2 City of Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex The City of Seaside is proposing a land exchange with the Army that locates the POM annex east of North-South Road. In the proposal, the city would receive the golf course and contiguous areas west of North-South Road. Implementation of Seaside's recommended POM annex would result in new construction of all facilities west of North-South Road located within the Army's proposed POM annex footprint. The details of the City of Seaside proposal are discussed further in this section. Impacts of establishing Seaside's recommended POM annex at this location are included with the reuse analysis of Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use, Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Use and Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use in Section 5.0, "Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences" and in Volume II, respectively. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Alternatives Draft EIS Volume I 3_1 December 1992 3.3 RETENTION OF RESERVE CENTER A reserve center must meet the Army requirements of mission, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness and must be accessible and visible. Consideration was given to new construction, leasing of installation lands, and use of other facilities located throughout the installation. Leasing was not cost-effective and the cost of new construction of a replacement center exceeds the estimated revenue from sale of the existing property. No other facilities within the boundaries of the installation meet the requirements of the reserve center. Therefore, no alternative to retaining the existing reserve center is feasible. 3.4 REUSE Reuse alternatives analyzed in this environmental impact statement (EIS), developed through the processes described in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action", are as follows: ■ Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use ■ Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use ■ Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use ■ Alternative 4: Institutional Use ■ Alternative 5: Open Space Use ■ Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse The level of detail describing the alternatives in this EIS is based on the best information available, provided by federal, state, and local agencies and the Fort Ord Task Force regarding proposed land uses and assumptions. The community vision package used to develop Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are contained in Appendix E in Volume III. The specific land uses proposed in each reuse alternative have been placed in one of the following general land use categories: open space, parks and recreation, tourism, agriculture, commercial/business park, industrial, institutional/public, residential, and other. "Other" includes the POM annex; reserve center; and areas with no proposed use (NPU), which is defined as "caretaker status", or the minimum required staffing to maintain safety, security, and health standards in a state of repair. The land use definitions are contained in Appendix H in Volume III. Additionally, the following subalternatives are analyzed relative to the reuse alternatives: ■ Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center ■ Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center ■ Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Use * Subalternative A is analyzed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5. Alternative 3 generally represents the Fort Ord Task Force recommendation, which includes the Army's proposed February 14 POM annex;, therefore, no alternatives to the POM annex are analyzed under this alternative. Alternative 4 represents DOD and other federal, state, and local institutional proposals. Because the POM annex was requested as a result of the screening process, no alternatives to the POM annex are analyzed under this alternative. Alternative 6 represents the likely results of the screening process and the anticipated reuse and, therefore, includes the Army's proposed POM annex. Subalternative B is analyzed under Alternatives 1 and 2 because these alternatives were developed based on local input and because portions of these alternatives are based on the City of Seaside's vision plan. These alternatives, therefore, include Seaside's recommended POM annex. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume 1 3-2 Alternatives December 1992 Subalternative C is analyzed as a subalternative to Alternative 1 because proposed land uses vary only along the coastline and in the southern portion of the installation; therefore, the subalternative analysis focuses only on the differences in those areas. Because the real estate screening process for the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney Act) is ongoing and will not be completed before completion of this EIS, preliminary McKinney Act proposals are included only as part of Alternative 4. However, any reuse combination ultimately adopted could include McKinney Act proposals. As a result of the screening process, the U.S. Department of Education has submitted a proposal for a California State University expansion campus. Each of the alternatives analyzed in this EIS include a university; however, only Alternative 4 incorporates an approximately 2,000-acre, 22,000 to 30,000-student campus, as proposed in the May 7, 1992 Department of Education letter. The land use summary tables and figures referenced under each alternative are included at the end of this section. 3.4.1 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use This alternative is based on input provided from Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commis- sion (LAFCO), Monterey County, and the Cities of Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Sand City, and Seaside. It generally represents the Fort Ord Economic Development Authority (FOEDA) vision for the Cities of Marina and Seaside; the vision for the Cities of Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, and Sand City; and the county's vision for remaining unincorporated areas. Alternative 1 includes a variety of land uses and represents the most intense reuse alternative analyzed (Figure 3-1). Approximately 65% of the undeveloped land would be developed with dense urban uses (Table 3-1). Following is the land use division of this reuse alternative by land use category: 25.4% Residential 9.7% Institutional/Public 14.1% Tourism 7.3% Industrial 12.5% Parks and Recreation 5.8% Other 10.8% Commercial/Business Park 3.9% Agriculture 10.5% Open Space Implementation of this alternative would result in the development of approximately 83,100 dwelling units resulting in a buildout population of approximately 250,000. This population increase would increase the countywide population by 69%. This increase does not, however, include population growth in other portions of the county. Under this alternative, the Fort Ord area would represent the largest city-equivalent in the region and the largest city-equivalent between the City of San Jose and Los Angeles County. Under this alternative, a 614-acre university is proposed. This alternative proposes substantially less acreage (1,508 acres) than that proposed by the Department of Education. In addition, the proposed univer- sity under this alternative would not use existing buildings and would require conversion of undeveloped land and development of new infrastructure. 3.4.1.1 Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Under this subalternative, the Army would not establish a POM annex nor retain a reserve center as described in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action" (Figure 3-2, Table 3-2). The land uses underlying the Army's Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 3-3 Alternatives December 1992 POM annex footprint are generally based on uses contained in the FOEDA vision plan. Following is the land use division of Alternative 1 with Subalternative A by land use category: 26.2% Residential 9.7% Institutional/Public 14.2% Tourism 7.3% Industrial 14.0% Parks and Recreation 3.9% Agricultural 11.4% Commercial/Business Park 2.8% Other 10.5% Open Space Implementation of this subalternative would result in the development of approximately 86,500 dwelling units, resulting in a buildout population of approximately 256,900. This population increase would increase the countywide population by 71%. This increase does not, however, include population growth in other portions of the county. Under this subalternative, the Fort Ord area would represent the largest city- equivalent in the region and the largest city-equivalent between the City of San Jose and Los Angeles County. 3.4.1.2 Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Under this subalternative, the Army would retain an area recommended by the City of Seaside to establish its POM annex (Figure 3-3), but would not retain a reserve center (Figure 3-4, Table 3-3). Following is the land use division of Alternative 1 with Subalternative B by land use category: 25.6% Residential 8.8% Institutional/Public 14.0% Parks and Recreation 6.6% Industrial 13.9% Tourism 5.3% Other 11.4% Commercial/Business Park 3.9% Agricultural 10.5% Open Space Implementation of this subalternative would result in the development of approximately 83,100 dwelling units, resulting in a buildout population of approximately 247,500. This population increase would increase the countywide population by 68%. This increase does not, however, include population growth in other portions of the county. Under this subalternative, the Fort Ord area would represent the largest city- equivalent in the region and the largest city-equivalent between the City of San Jose and Los Angeles County. Under this alternative, a 530-acre university is proposed. This alternative proposes substantially less acreage (1,592 acres) than that proposed by the Department of Education. In addition, the proposed univer- sity under this alternative would not use existing buildings and would require conversion of undeveloped land and development of new infrastructure. 3.4.1.3 Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Use This subalternative is based on input provided from Monterey County LAFCO, Monterey County, and the Cities of Marina and Seaside. It generally represents the FOEDA vision for the Cities of Marina and Seaside and the county's vision for remaining unincorporated areas. This subalternative represents a partial variation of Alternative 1 and would also result in development of approximately 70% of the undeveloped land with dense urban uses. The primary difference is the proposed land uses in the coastal zone and southern portion of the installation (Figure 3-5, Table 3-4). Following is the land use division of Alternative 1 with Subalternative C by land use category: 27.1% Residential 9.2% Open Space 15.3% Tourism 7.1% Industrial Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 3-4 Alternatives December 1992 14.5% Parks and Recreation 10.8% Commercial/Business Park 9.8% Institutional/Public 3.8% Agricultural 2.4% Other Implementation of this subalternative would result in the development of approximately 95,000 dwelling units, resulting in a buildout population of approximately 282,600. This population increase would increase the countywide population by 78%. This increase does not, however, include population growth in other portions of the county. Under this subalternative, the Fort Ord area would represent the largest city- equivalent in the region and the largest city-equivalent between the City of San Jose and Los Angeles County. Under this alternative, a 614-acre university is proposed. This alternative proposes substantially less acreage (1,508 acres) than that proposed by the Department of Education. In addition, the proposed univer- sity under this alternative would not use existing buildings and would require conversion of undeveloped land and development of new infrastructure. 3.4.2 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use This alternative is based on input provided from Monterey County LAFCO, Monterey County, and the Cities of Marina and Seaside. It generally represents the county's vision in the unincorporated area and the FOEDA vision in the incorporated areas of the Cities of Marina and Seaside. Alternative 2 also includes a variety of land uses, but the amount of open land that would be developed would be less than that under Alternative 1 (Figure 3-6). Approximately 40% of the undeveloped land would be developed (Table 3-5). Following is the land use division of this reuse alternative by land use category: Implementation of this alternative would result in the development of approximately 37,600 dwelling units, resulting in a buildout population of approximately 112,800. This population increase would increase the countywide population by 31%. This increase does not, however, include population growth in other portions of the county. Under this alternative, a 38-acre university is proposed. This alternative proposes substantially less acreage (2,084 acres) than that proposed by the Department of Education. Because of its limited size, this site would serve primarily as an extension campus. 3.4.2.1 Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Under this subalternative, the Army would not establish a POM annex or retain a reserve center as described in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action" (Figure 3-7, Table 3-6). The land uses underlying the Army's POM annex footprint are generally based on uses contained in the FOEDA vision plan. Following is the land use division of Alternative 2 with Subalternative A by land use category: 17.6% Open Space 22.5% Residential 18.5% Institutional/Public 11.5% Commercial/Business Park 6.6% Industrial 14.7% Other 5.4% Parks and Recreation 3.2% Tourism 17.6% Open Space 23.4% Residential 18.5% Institutional/Public 12.0% Commercial/Business Park 6.9% Parks and Recreation 6.6% Industrial 3.4% Tourism 11.6% Other Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 3-5 Alternatives December 1992 Implementation of this subalternative would result in the development of approximately 41,300 dwelling units, resulting in a buildout population of approximately 123,600. This population increase would increase the countywide population by 34%. This increase does not, however, include population growth in other portions of the county. 3.4.2.2 Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Under this subalternative, the Army would retain an area recommended by the City of Seaside to establish its POM annex (Figure 3-3) but would not retain a reserve center (Figure 3-8, Table 3-7). Following is the land use division of Alternative 1 with Subalternative B by land use category: Implementation of this subalternative would result in the development of approximately 40,800 dwelling units, resulting in a buildout population of approximately 122,300. This population increase would increase the countywide population by 34%. This increase does not, however, include population growth in other portions of the county. 3.4.3 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use Alternative 3 generally represents the Fort Ord Task Force recommendation. It contains a mix of land uses, but the uses are not as varied as those under Alternatives 1 and 2. Most reuse development is confined to the portions of the installation already developed, with the east and south portions of the installation remaining primarily undeveloped (Figure 3-9). Approximately 15% of the currently undeveloped land would be developed low-density uses (Table 3-8). Following is the land use division of this reuse alternative by land use category. Implementation of this alternative would result in the development of approximately 30,100 dwelling units, resulting in a buildout population of approximately 82,900. This population increase would increase the countywide population by 23%. This increase does not, however, include population growth in other portions of the county. Under this alternative, a 1,995-acre university is proposed. This alternative proposes less acreage (127 acres) than that proposed by the Department of Education. 3.4.4 Alternative 4: Institutional Use This alternative represents preliminary proposals from other federal and state agencies and incorporates institutional uses from the vision plans proposed by the local agencies and task force. For other federal or state proposals that were received with unspecified locations, locations were determined by avoiding areas specified in other proposals for institutional uses and by considering known environmental constraints. 17.6% Open Space 22.3% Residential 17.3% Institutional/Public 12.0% Commercial/Business Park 6.8% Parks and Recreation 6.6% Industrial 14.2% Other 3.2% Tourism 35.1% Open Space 10.2% Residential 7.9% Institutional/Public 33.0% Other 5.6% Parks and Recreation 2.8% Commercial/Business Park 2.6% Agriculture 2.5% Industrial 0.3% Tourism Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 3-6 Alternatives December 1992 Alternative 4 includes institutional-type reuse proposals, with most of the south and southeast portions of the installation remaining undeveloped (Figure 3-10). Institutional uses generally include educational, governmental, and public/quasi-public uses. No residential uses, with the exception of the POM annex, are proposed under this alternative. Approximately 10% of the currently undeveloped land would be developed (Table 3-9). Following is the land use division of this reuse alternative by land use category: Implementation of this alternative would result in the development of approximately 14,000 housing units from establishment of the POM annex, and other units that would generate population (i.e., university, prison), resulting in a buiidout population of approximately 31,000. This population increase would increase the countywide population by 8.6%. This increase does not, however, include population growth in other portions of the county. Alternative 4 includes the preliminary McKinney Act reuse proposals (Figure 3-11). The specific land uses have not been incorporated into Figure 3-10 and Table 3-9 because the screening process is not yet complete and most of the proposals are for existing buildings in the developed Main Garrison. 3.4.5 Alternative 5: Open Space This alternative represents preliminary open space proposals from other federal and state agencies and incorporates open space uses from the vision plans proposed by the local agencies and task force. Alternative 5 includes little reuse development and, like Alternative 3, most reuse is confined to the developed portions of the installation. The east and south portions of the installation would remain primarily undeveloped as natural open space (Figure 3-12). Approximately 1% of the undeveloped land would be developed. Development is limited to providing public access for public use. Under this alternative, it is assumed all existing developed areas are designated as NPU or caretaker. This alternative does not propose a university, residential (with the exception of the POM annex), employment-generating uses, or other development to provide economic backfill (Table 3-10). Following is the land use division of this reuse alternative by land use category: 38.7% Open Space 57.7% Other 3.6% Parks and Recreation Implementation of this alternative would result in the development of approximately 1,600 dwelling units (as a result of establishing the POM annex) and in a buiidout population of approximately 4,800. This population increase would increase the countywide population by 1.3%. This increase does not, however, include population growth in other portions of the county. This alternative represents the Department of Education's 2,122-acre university proposal. 3.4.5.1 Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Under this subalternative, the Army would not establish a POM annex or retain a reserve center as described in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action" (Figure 3-13, Table 3-11). Following is the land use division of Alternative 5 with Subalternative A by land use category: Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Alternatives 24.1% Open Space 29.0% Institutional/Public 40.4% Other 3.4% Industrial 3.1% Parks and Recreation Draft EIS Volume 1 3-7 December 1992 38.7% Open Space 57.6% Other 3.7% Parks and Recreation Under this subalternative, no dwelling units are proposed; therefore, no population would be generated. 3.4.6 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse Alternative 6 represents a mixture of land uses that was developed from the indications of interest from DOD; federal, state, and local agencies; and a preliminary screening process and consideration of real estate market conditions. The physical limitations along with present access to the property were considered. Development of the alternative took into consideration the likelihood that large portions of Fort Ord will require long-term remedial actions for unexploded ordnance and contaminated sites. Alternative 6 is a mix of land uses similar to those in Alternative 3. Most of the development is near the Main Garrison, with the east and south portions of the installation remaining primarily undeveloped (Figure 3-14). Approximately 20% of the undeveloped land would be developed. A land use summary with acreages is contained in Table 3-12. Following is the land use division of this reuse alternative by land use category: 61.8% Open Space 4.7% Parks and Recreation 13.5% Residential 4.0% Industrial 9.4% Institutional/Public 1.1% Commercial/Business Park 5.5% Other Implementation of this alternative would result in the development of approximately 45,700 dwelling units, resulting in a buildout population of approximately 127,500. This population increase would increase the countywide population by 35%. This increase does not, however, include population growth in other portions of the county. Under this alternative, a 1,630-acre university is proposed. This alternative proposes less acreage (492 acres) than that proposed by the Department of Education. 3.5 NO ACTION National Environmental Policy Act documents refer to continuation of existing (baseline) conditions, without implementation of the proposed action, as the No Action Alternative. Inclusion of the No Action Alternative is prescribed by the President's Council on Environmental Quality to provide a baseline against which federal actions can be evaluated. The 1990 Base Closure Act requires the closure of Fort Ord. The baseline conditions against which this action is evaluated are the 1991 conditions at Fort Ord as a full and active installation, as described in Section 4.0, "Affected Environment". The 1991 conditions were selected for the baseline since 1991 represents the most current data available on Fort Ord as a full and active installation. The no action alternative relating to the 1991 baseline conditions is not a reasonable alternative because of the Base Realignment and Closure 91 (BRAC) directive to realign the 7th Infantry Division (Light) to Fort Lewis, Washington. No action also refers to the retention of the Fort Ord installation by the Army in a caretaker status. This no action alternative is described in Section 2.2.1 and is analyzed in Section 5.2.1. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Alternatives Draft EIS Volume I 3_8 December 1992 Mtzscrte Airfield East Garrison RESV / 233 ■Garrison ftoi Light/igfitiij .WIIW"""' TPRK 570 JUllllBlll"' RPRK 407 'llllllllllll^ jBtl""* CPRK 'GOVT 1 >WI IMI tiiai in, rill j inivijm u I j m i I Mil I |K1 ll llll IIIUII Ml I Hill Iw/lllllllWll Monterey Bay Blanco 12 St Gate Main Garrison Main Entrance Monterey Peninsula Airport Monterey Figure 3-1 . - Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use AIR Airport AMP Arrphitheater AQ Aquacutture ARMY Army Proposed Presidio o( Monterey Annex ATF Asilomar Type Facility BG Botanical Garden CBUS Central Business District CDZ Coastal Dunes Zone CEM Cemetery CHO Corporate Headquarters COMM Commercial Center CONF Conference Center CORO Corporate Offices CPRK Community Park CULT Cultural Center EV Ethnic Village FAIR Fairgrounds FILM Film Complex FP Festival Plaza FT Fire Training GHF Goll Flail of Fame/Smithsonian West GOLF Golf GOVT Government Center HAB Habitat Preserve HR High Residential HS High School LI Light Industry LR Low Residential MPAC Museum/Performing Arts Center MR Medium Residential MRE Marine Research NAE Natural Area Expansion NPU No Proposed Use (Caretaker Status) NIC National Innovation Center NRMA Natural Resource Management Area OP Office Park PA Police Academy RAE Recreational Area Expansion RC Reserve Center RESV Reservoir RET Retail RH Resorl Hotels RMC Regional Medical Center RPRK Regional Park RR Rural Residential RSC Regional Shopping Center RV RV Park/Campground SCEN Sports Center SCOM Sports Complex SPF Sports Field TC Transit Center TPRK Theme Park TS Trade Schools UNIV University VINE Vineyards VLR Very Low Residential WILD Wildlife Park zoo Zoo Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 mites 2,600 5.000 7.500 10,0 00 feet 1 2 3 kilometers Table 3-1 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Land Use Category Specific Land Use Acreage I Open Space 2,915 Coastal Dunes Zone 433 Habitat Preserve 223 Natural Area Expansion 50 Natural Resource Management Area 2,209 Parks and Recreation 3,469 Fairgrounds 285 Golf Course 682 Park Community 537 Regional 774 Recreation Area Expansion 166 Reservoir 233 RV Park/Campground 255 Sports Center 192 Sports Complex 199 Sports Field 146 Tourism 3,910 Ampihtheater 203 Botanical Garden 336 Cultural Center 209 Ethnic Village 132 Festival Plaza 167 Film Complex 333 Golf Hall of Fame/Smithsonian West 99 Museum/Performing Arts Center 254 National Innovation Center 401 Resort Hotel 522 Theme Park 570 Wildlife Park 261 Zoo 423 Agriculture 1,072 Vineyards 1,072 Commercial/Business Park 2,992 Asilomar-Type Facility 123 Central Business 332 Commercial Center 506 Conference Center 283 Corporate Headquarters 427 Corporate Offices 357 Office Park 559 Regional Shopping Center 145 Retail 260 Industrial 2,014 Airport 451 Aquaculture 35 Light Industry 1,528 3-10 Table 3-1 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use - Continued Land Use Cateaorv Specific Land Use Acreaae I Institutional/Public 2,696 Cemetery 164 Fire Training 417 Government Center 96 High School 36 Marine Research 219 Police Academy 252 Regional Medical Center 208 Trade Schools 533 Transit Center 157 University 614 Residential 7,040 Rural (RR) 1,301 Very Low (VLR) 358 Low (LR) 1,186 Medium (MR) 1,297 High (HR) 2,898 Other 1,475 Army-Proposed POM Annex 1,463 Reserve Center 12 No Proposed Use 142 Total* 27,725 * There are slight differences in the total acreage for each alternative and subalternative due to rounding of individual acreages. The acreage total for Alternative 1, Subalternative C, is greater because it includes the proposed marina and cruise ship pier that extend off the installation. Note: This table corresponds with Figure 3-1. 3-11 r-rltesctie Airfield COMM £19 Cast Garrison •Garrison ftoa( CI | mi /""•t-i. i laiiymiiun TPRK 570 GOLF 404 nay tnii4»i»nim"" \ RPRK " 'GOVT RPRK 367 !*"" Monterey Bay Bianco Road 12 St Gate Main Garrison Main Hntranse 427 M : "" „„ / m. V, / | IH 1 Igg * ■"■nmn.l., ^Ki^i|ipi»aiii7i5iiiinn«iiii^i«iiiwjiiioiii»iiiiiiiii«uiiiiiwii»iiiii«Uiiiii»ii«iiiii»iiif Monterey 1 / Paninsula \ ! I CONF / Airport \ VN " I 283 ! Monterey Figure 3-2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center AIR Airport AMP Amphitheater AQ Aquaculture ATF Asilomar Type Facility BG Botanical Garden CBUS Central Business District CDZ Coastal Dunes Zone CEM Cemetery CHQ Corporate Headquarters COMM Commercial Center CONF Conference Center CORO Corporate Offices CPRK Community Park CULT Cultural Center EV Ethnic Village FAIR Fairgrounds FILM Film Complex FP Festival Plaza FT Fire Training GHF Golf Hall of Fame/Smithsonian West GOLF Golf GOVT Government Center H Hotel HAB Habitat Preserve HR High Residential HS High School LI Light Industry LR Low Residential MP AC Museum/Performing Arts Center MR Medium Residential MRE Marine Research NAE Natural Area Expansion NPU No Proposed Use (Caretaker Status) NIC National Innovation Center NRMA Natural Resource Management Area OP Office Park PA Police Academy RAE Recreational Area Expansion RESV Reservoir RET Retail RH Resort Hotels RMC Regional Medical Center RPRK Regional Park RR Rural Residential RSC Regional Shopping Center RV RV Park/Campground SCEN Sports Center SCOM Sports Complex TC Transit Center TPRK Theme Park TS Trade Schools UNIV University VINE Vineyards VLR Very Low Residential WILD Wildlife Park ZOO Zoo Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 2,600 5.000 7.500 10,0 00 feet 12 3 kilometers Table 3-2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Land Use Cateaorv Specific Land Use Acreaae I Open Space 2,915 Coastal Dunes Zone 433 Habitat Preserve 223 Natural Area Expansion 50 Natural Resource Management Area 2,209 Parks and Recreation 3,873 Fairgrounds 285 Golf Course 1,086 Park Community 537 Regional 774 Recreation Area Expansion 166 Reservoir 233 RV Park/Campground 255 Sports Center 192 Sports Complex 199 Sports Field 146 Tourism 3,948 Ampitheater 203 Botanical Garden 336 Cultural Center 209 Ethnic Village 132 Festival Plaza 167 Film Complex 333 Golf Hall of Fame/Smithsonian West 99 Hotel 38 Museum/Performing Arts Center 254 National Innovation Center 401 Resort Hotel 522 Theme Park 570 Wildlife Park 261 Zoo 423 Agriculture 1,072 Vineyards 1,072 Commercial/Business Park 3,157 Asilomar-Type Facility 123 Central Business 481 Commercial Center 519 Conference Center 283 Corporate Headquarters 427 Corporate Offices 360 Office Park 559 Regional Shopping Center 145 Retail 260 Industrial 2,014 Airport 451 Aquaculture 35 Light Industry 1,528 3-13 Table 3-2 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subatternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center - Continued Land Use Cateaorv Specific Land Use Acreaae Institutional/Public 2,696 Cemetery 164 Fire Training 417 Government Center 96 High School 36 Marine Research 219 Police Academy 252 Regional Medical Center 208 Trade Schools 533 Transit Center 157 University 614 Residential 7,278 Rural (RR) 1,301 Very Low (VLR) 358 Low (LR) 1,186 Medium (MR) 1,297 High (HR) 3,136 No Proposed Use 773 Total* 27,726 * There are slight differences in the total acreage for each alternative and subatternative due to rounding of individual acreages. The total acreage for Alternative 1, Subalternative C, is greater because it includes the proposed marina and cruise ship pier that extend off the installation. Note: This table corresponds with Figure 3-2. 3-14 Fort Ord m DESCRIPTION LOCATION 1 ADJUTANT GENERAL P-2798 21A DIR PUNS. TNG AND MOB T-2843 • 38 HEADOUARTERS (HQS CMO) P4463 • 58 OPTICAL CLINIC P-4385 P-4380 79 STOCKADE (CONFINEMENT FACILITY P-4953 2 AIRLINE TICKfT OFFICE (SATO) T29S8 21B DIR OF LOGISTICS T2786 • 39 HEAOQUARTERS (1st BDE) P-4423 59 PACKAGE STORE T-2531 P-4250 80 SWIMMING POOL T 2237 3 AUTO CRAFT SHOP P-4492 • 21C DIR HEALTH SVC P-4385 40 HEADQUARTERS (2*4 BOE) P-4570 60 PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER P 3560 81 TSC "ONE STOP" T-2450 4 BANK OF AMERICA P 3880 21D DIR DENTAL SVC P-4573 40A HEAOQUARTERS (3rd BDE) P-4810 • 61 POST EXCHANGE P-4235 82 TAXI STANDS T 1895 5 BANK OF AMERICA (ATM) P-4450 21E DIR ENGR AND HOUSING P-4899 • 408 HEADOUARTERS (AVN BOE) P-4489 62 POST HEAOQUARTERS T 2859 • 83 TELEGRAPH (WESTERN UNIONI P-4235 6 BOWLING ALLEY P 3895 • 21F OIR OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT P-4251 41 HORSE STABLES T-3142 63 POST UUNDRY T-2700 84 TENNIS COURTS P 1778 P-3095 7 BUS DEPOT T 1917 216 DIR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT T 2788 • 42 HOSPITAL P-4385 • 64 POST OFFICE P-4226 • 85 THEATERS T1061 P4230 1 CAR WASH 21H DIR OF CONTRACTING T-2342 43 ID ISSUE T-2355 65 POST VET CLINIC T-3140 P 3702 9 CENTRAL ISSUE FACILITY T2073 22 DRILL SERGEANT FIELD • 43A ITT OFFICE S-4228 66 PROVOST MARSHAL T 1026 85A THRIFT SHOP T 3016 10 CENTRAL RECEIVING POINT T-2071 23 EDUCATION CENTER T 1010 44 INSPECTOR GENERAL T-2863 67 RANGE SUPPLY T-2066 86 TOY STORE T-1777 11 CHAPEL (DURHAM ROAD) P-4483 23A EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER P-2798 • 45 UUNDROMATS P4227 T 1434 68 STIlWEll HALL P-2075 87 TRANSIENT BILLETING OFFICE T-2798 12 CHAPEL (BAY VIEW) P-4426 24 EM SERVICE CLUB P-3703 T-2180 69 REO CROSS P-2662 •8B VEHICLE REGISTRATION OFFICE T4214 13 CHAPEL (6th AVE) P-3701 25 FAMILY HOUSING OFFICE T 2798 T2795 • 46 LIBRARIES P-4275 P-3703 70 REPUCEMENT DET T-2562 • 89 VISITORS INFORMATION CENTER T 4214 14 CIVILIAN PERSONNEL T-3007 • 26 FAST FOOD P-4405 46A LIBRARY (MOS) T-2233 71 SANITARY FILL 90 WELCOME CENTER I MARTINEZ HALL P-2798 15 CLOTHING SALES STORE T1957 27 FINANCE T-2437 47 MAIN CAFETERIA P-2047 • 72 SCHOOL (MARSHALL) P-3798 • 91 YOUTH CENTER P42B3 P 3115 16 COMMISSARY P-4240 • 28 FIRE STATION P-4400 • 48 MAIN CHAPEL P-4280 • 72A SCHOOL (STILWELL) P-4290 17 COMMUNITY SERVICES T-3010 • 29 FOOTBALL STADIUM P-3892 49 MAIN PARAOE FIELD 72B SCHOOL (FITCH) P-5060 IB COURTROOM T-2117 • 30 GOLF COURSES P-4101 50 MARTINEZ HALL P-2798 72C SCHOOL (HAYES) P-5000 19 CREDIT UNION P-4242 31 G- 1 T-2335 •51 MEDICAL CENTER (TROOP) P-3723 • 73 SELF HELP SHOP T 3803 19A day care C enter P-3070 P-7693 32 G 2 T-2847 52 MILITARY POLICE STATION T 1049 • 74 SERVICE STATIONS T 1060 P-4220 T-3025 33 G 3 T 2875 53 MUSEUM T-2880 P 7850 P 6160 20 DENTAL CLINIC (STONE) P-3700 34 G 4 T-2793 • 54 NCO CLUB P-4260 •75 SHEA GYMNASIUM P-4480 20A DENTAL CLINIC (BURKE) P-4399 35 G 5 T2834 55 NURSERY (DAY CARE CENTER) P-3070 P-3045 • 76 SOUTH PARADE FIELD 208 DENTAL CLINIC (BEITER) P 3599 36 HEADQUARTERS (OISCOM) T 1920 56 NURSERY (PLANT) T-3828 77 SPORTS ARENA P-2236 21 DIR PER AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITES T-2785 37 HEADQUARTERS IOIV ARTY) P 3719 57 OFFICERS' CLUB P-4368 78 STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE T-2791 = Within Annex 1600 Source: City of Seaside pers Part of Army's Proposed Presidio of Monterey Annex Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex Expansion Figure 3-3 City of Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex !■ r -rtescne Airfield Monterey Bay COMM «1» MPAC 264 '""•IB llnililll 1 ''" Cast Qarrison Main Garrison Miliar ■Qarrlaon Roa< ^0/0- "" 11 llll iSi | "II, llll I I ill 1 "J 1 ' '^Hit W^lHl Nll' Main lintrarvse CBUS 431 RPRK 407 ihihiibH"" iiii ii mi inn iiyinrf'iiiili^i'iwiiSwaiiw GOVT GOLF 682 RPRK 367 'HMimimniiiJimiiiijj iiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiniiHil|iniiiiigmiiiiiiiiiiF "'"I'Miwiaiiiliii MorUarey Peninsula Airport Monterey Figure 3-4 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center AIR Airport AMP Amphitheater AQ Aquaculture ATF Asilomar Type Facility BG Botanical Garden CBUS Central Business District CDZ Coastal Dunes Zone CEM Cemetery CHQ Corporate Headquarters COMM Commercial Center CONF Conference Center CORO Corporate Offices CPRK Community Park CULT Cultural Center EV Ethnic Village FAIR Fairgrounds FILM Film Complex FP Festival Plaza FT Fire Training GOLF Golf GOVT Government Center H Hotel HAB Habitat Preserve HR High Residential HS High School LI Light Industry LR Low Residential MPAC Museum/Performing Arts Center MR Medium Residential MRE Marine Research NAE Natural Area Expansion NPU No Proposed Use (Caretaker Status) NIC National Innovation Center NRMA Natural Resource Management Area OP Office Park PA Police Academy RAE Recreational Area Expansion RESV Reservoir RET Retail RH Resort Hotels RPRK Regional Park RR Rural Residential RSC Regional Shopping Center RV RV Park/Campground SCEN Sports Center SCOM Sports Complex SEAS Seaside Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex SPF Sports Field TC Transit Center TPRK Theme Park TS Trade Schools UNIV University VINE Vineyards VLR Very Low Residential WILD Wildlife Park ZOO Zoo Scale 1:60,000 0 1 2 3 miles 0 2,600 6,000 7,500 10,0 00 feet 0 1 2 3 kilometers Table 3-3 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternatrve B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Land Use Cateqorv Specific Land Use Acreage I Open Space 2,915 Coastal Dunes Zone 433 Habitat Preserve 223 Natural Area Expansion 50 Natural Resource Management Area 2,209 Parks and Recreation 3,874 Fairgrounds 285 Golf Course 1,086 Park Community 538 Regional 774 Recreation Area Expansion 166 Reservoir 233 RV Park/Campground 255 Sports Center 192 Sports Complex 199 Sports Field 146 Tourism 3,848 Ampitheater 203 Botanical Garden 336 Cultural Center 209 Ethnic Village 132 Festival Plaza 167 Film Complex 332 Hotel 38 Museum/Performing Arts Center 254 National Innovation Center 401 Resort Hotel 522 Theme Park 570 Wildlife Park 261 Zoo 423 Agriculture 1,072 Vineyards 1,072 Commercial/Business Park 3,157 Asilomar-Type Facility 123 Central Business 481 Commercial Center 519 Conference Center 283 Corporate Headquarters 427 Corporate Offices 360 Office Park 559 Regional Shopping Center 145 Retail 260 Industrial 1,838 Airport 451 Aquaculture 35 Light Industry 1,352 3-17 Table 3-3 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center - Continued Land Use Cateaorv Specific Land Use Acreaae Institutional/Public 2,431 Cemetery 164 Fire Training 417 Government Center 96 High School 36 Marine Research 246 Police Academy 252 Trade Schools 533 Transit Center 157 University 530 Residential 7,107 Rural (RR) 1,301 Very Low (VLR) 358 Low (LR) 1,186 Medium (MR) 1,297 High (HR) 2,965 Other 1,486 Seaside-Recommended POM Annex 1,428 No Proposed Use 58 Total* 27,728 * There are slight differences in the total acreage for each alternative and subalternative due to rounding of individual acreages. The total acerage for Alternative 1, Subalternative C, is greater because it includes the proposed marina and cruise ship pier that extend off the installation. Note: This table corresponds with Figure 3-4. 3-18 Frtttscitt Airfield '""■■IWlWlHl)' 1 ' East Garrison Muter aarriaon fto»< ,fc*"* fc, ,, " l|nn I Pi I MI I tin'"'•'•JkwMfltll Light iightei Urivf J / iiniiiiAiMlUliiiniiiiiiLfiiiitin ( fli i l, Bt s TPRK 570 I '•III l( Mil I 111 11 GOVT RPRK \ 251 I Monterey Aenlnsuia Airport , Monterey Monterey Bay Bianco 1? St. Gate Main Garrison i lintrarvae Figure 3-5 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Use AIR Airport AMP Amphitheater BG Botanical Garden CBUS Central Business District CDZ Coastal Dunes Zone CEM Cemetery CHQ Corporate Headquarters COMM Commercial Center CORO Corporate Offices CPRK Community Park CULT Cultural Center EV Ethnic Village FILM Film Complex FP Festival Plaza FT Fire Training GHF Goli Hall o( Fame/Smithsonian West GOLF Golf GOVT Government Center H Hotel HR High Residential HS High School LI Light Industry LR Low Residential MP AC Museum/Performing Arts Center MR Medium Residential MRA Marina MRE Marine Research NPU No Proposed Use (Caretaker Status) NIC National Innovation Center NRMA Natural Resource Management Area OP Office Park PA Police Academy PIER Cruise Ship Pier RAE Recreational Area Expansion RESV Reservoir RET Retail RH Resort Hotels RMC Regional Medical Center RPRK Regional Park RR Rural Residential RSC Regional Shopping Center RV RV Park/Campground SCEN Sports Center SCOM Sports Complex SPF Sports Field TC Transit Center TPRK Theme Park TS Trade Schools UNIV University VINE Vineyards VLR Very Low Residential WILD Wildlife Park WS Weather Station ZOO Zoo Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles I ' I I =3 2,500 5,000 7.500 10.0 00 feet 3 kilometers Table 3-4 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subaltemative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Use Land Use Cateaory Specific Land Use Acreaae Open Space 2,563 Coastal Dunes Zone 354 Natural Resource Management Area 2,209 Parks and Recreation 4 ,053 Park Community 537 Regional 658 Golf Course 1,740 Recreational Area Expansion 166 Reservoir 233 RV Park/Campground 182 Sports Center 192 Sports Complex 199 Sports Field 146 Tourism 4,298 Ampitheater 203 Botanical Garden 336 Cruise Ship Pier 35 Cultural Center 161 Ethnic Village 132 Festival Plaza 167 Film Complex 333 Golf Hall of Fame/Smithsonian West 99 Hotel 38 Marina 247 Museum/Performing Arts Center 254 National Innovation Center 401 Resort Hotels 638 Theme Park 570 Wildlife Park 261 Zoo 423 Agriculture 1,072 Vineyards 1,072 Commercial/Business Park 3,037 Central Business 328 Commercial Center 519 Corporate Headquarters 942 Corporate Offices 361 Office Park 482 Regional Shopping Center 145 Retail 260 Industrial 1,979 Airport 451 Light Industry 1,528 Institutional/Public 2,749 Cemeter 164 Fire Training 417 Government Center 96 High School 36 Marine Research 219 Police Academy 252 Regional Medical Center 208 Trade Schools 533 Transit Center 71 University 614 Weather Statton 139 3-20 Table 3^ Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Use - Continued Land Use Cateqory Specific Land Use Acreaae Residential Rural (RR) Very Low (VLR) Low (LR) Medium (MR) High (HR) 7,575 1,301 358 1,111 1,276 3,529 No Proposed Use 679 Total* 28,005 * There are slight differences in the total acreage for each alternative and subalternative due to rounding of individual acreages. The total acreage for Alternative 1, Subalternative C, is greater because it includes the proposed manna and cruise ship pier that extend off the installation. Note: This table corresponds with Figure 3-5. 3-21 r-rtescns Airfield Monterey Bay COMM 371 CULT 161 MPAC 253 last Garrison Main Garrison ■Garrison Road Main Entrance /' rw s. CPRK VI33 'IIHI llll I III! II llll I Montursy Paninsula Airport Monterey Figure 3-6 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use AGRI Agricenter AIR Airport AQ Aquaculture ARMY Army Proposed Presidio of Monterey Annex ATF Asilomar Type Facility CBUS Central Business District CDZ Coastal Dunes Zone CHQ Corporate Headquarters COMM Commercial Center CORO Corporate Offices CPRK Community Park CULT Cultural Center FT Fire Training GHF Golf Hall of Fame/Smithsonian West GOVT Government Center HAB Habitat Preserve HR High Residential HS High School LI Light Industry LR Low Residential MED Medical Research MPAC Museum/Performing Arts Center MRE Marine Research NPU No Proposed Use (Caretaker Status) NIC National Innovation Center NRMA Natural Resource Management Area OP Office Park PA Police Academy RAE Recreational Area Expansion RC Reserve Center RMC Regional Medical Center RPRK Regional Park RR Rural Residential RV RV Park/Campground SE School Expansion SPF Sports Field TC Transit Center TECH High Tech Business Park TS Trade Schools UNIV University VLR Very Low Residential Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 2.600 6.000 7.500 10,0 00 feet 12 3 kilometers Table 3-5 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Land Use Cateaorv Specific Land Use Acreaae Open Space 4,884 Coastal Dunes Zone 727 Habitat Preserve 1747 Natural Resource Management Area 2,410 Parks and Recreation 1,493 Park Community Park 144 Regional Park 201 Recreation Area Expansion 936 RV Park/Campground 128 Sports Fields 84 Tourism 902 Cultural Center 191 Golf Hall of Fame/Smithsonian West 57 Museum/Performing Arts Center 253 National Innovation Center 401 Commercial/Business Park 3,185 Asilomar-Type Facility 68 Central Business 329 Commercial Center 371 Corporate Headquarters 350 Corporate Offices 361 High Tech Business Park 285 Office Park 1,421 Industrial 1,831 Agri-Center 756 Airport 451 Aquaculture 38 Light Industry 586 Institutional/Public 5,131 Fire Training 1,098 Government Center 96 High School 36 Marine Research 888 Medical Research 260 Police Academy 2,382 Regional Medical Center 116 School Expansion 30 Trade Schools 57 Transit Center 130 University 38 Residential 6,239 Rural (RR) 2,618 Very Low (VLR) 360 Low (LR) 2,470 High (HR) 791 3-23 Table 3-5 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use - Continued Land Use Cateaorv Specific Land Use Acreaae . . , Other Army-Proposed POM Annex Reserve Center 1,475 1,463 12 No Proposed Use 2,589 Total* 27,729 * There are slight differences in the total acreage for each alternative and subalternative due to individual acreages. The total acreage for Alternative 1, Subalternative C is greater because proposed marina and cruise ship pier that extend off the installation. rounding of it includes the Note: This table corresponds with Figure 3-6. 3-24 Figure 3-7 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center AGRI Agricenter AIR Airport AQ Aquaculture ATF Asilomar Type Facility CBUS Central Business District CDZ Coastal Dunes Zone CHQ Corporate Headquarters COMM Commercial Center CORO Corporate Offices CPRK Community Park CULT Cultural Center FT Fire Training GHF Golf Hall of Fame/Smithsonian West GOLF Golf GOVT Government Center HAB Habitat Preserve HR High Residential HS High School LI Light Industry LR Low Residential MED Medical Research MPAC Museum/Performing Arts Center MRE Marine Research NPU No Proposed Use (Caretaker Status) NIC National Innovation Center NRMA Natural Resource Management Area OP Office Park PA Police Academy RAE Recreational Area Expansion RH Resort Hotels RMC Regional Medical Center RPRK Regional Park RR Rural Residential RV RV Park/Campground SE School Expansion SPF Sports Field TC Transit Center TECH High Tech Business Park TS Trade Schools UNIV University VLR Very Low Residential Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 2.500 6.000 7,500 10.0 00 feet 12 3 kilometers Prtecht Airfield Monterey Bay Bunco Soil) East Garrison Main Garrison •Garrison Road h* Main linlrance GOVT ,, Monterey Fanlnsula Airport Monterey Table 3-6 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Land Use Cateaorv Specific Land Use Acreaae 1 Open Space 4,884 Coastal Dunes Zone 727 Habitat Preserve 1747 Natural Resource Management Area 2,410 Parks and Recreation 1,897 Golf Course 404 Park Community Park 144 Regional Park 201 Recreation Area Expansion 936 RV Park/Campground 128 Sports Fields 84 Tourism 940 Cultural Center 191 Golf Hall of Fame/Smithsonian West 57 Museum/Performing Arts Center 253 National Innovation Center 401 Resort Hotel 38 Commercial/Business Park 3,337 Asilomar-Type Facility 68 Central Business 481 Commercial Center 371 Corporate Headquarters 350 Corporate Offices 361 High Tech Business Park 285 Office Park 1,421 Industrial 1,831 Agri — Center 756 Airport 451 Aquaculture 38 Light Industry 586 Institutional/Public 5,131 Fire Training 1,098 Government Center 96 High School 36 Marine Research 888 Medical Research 260 Police Academy 2,382 Regional Medical Center 116 School Expansion 30 Trade Schools 57 Transit Center 130 University 38 Residential 6,489 Rural (RR) 2,618 Very Low (VLR) 360 Low (LR) 2,482 High (HR) 1,029 3-26 Table 3-6 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center - Continued Land Use Category Specific Land Use Acreage No Proposed Use 3,220 Total* 27,729 There are slight differences in total acreage for each alternative and subalternative due to rounding of individual acreages. The total acreage for Alternative 1, Subalternative C, is greater because it includes the proposed marina and cruise ship pier that extend off the installation. Note: This table corresponds with Figure 3-7. 3-27 r-fltzscne Airfield Monterey Bay Banco Rok COMM 371 TECH 285 fast Garrison CORO 361 Main Garrison -jifer-Qsiraon RoM Light Rghtet Drive ) Main Lntrance Mm ibiWI 'fltiimiwiianiiiiMiiiMiii f"' Wl M »H " w 11 "III I" 11 »"*'•! law- l CPRK ¥133 GOVT IIUHIM'""" J ±U.LL1 ijnniaHllaillllHUll' Monlsray Panlnsula Airport Monterey Figure 3-8 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex AGRI Agricenter AIR Airport AQ Aquaculture ATF Asilomar Type Facility CBUS Central Business District CDZ Coastal Dunes Zone CHQ Corporate Headquarters COMM Commercial Center CORO Corporate Offices CPRK Community Park CULT Cultural Center FT Fire Training GOLF Golf GOVT Government Center HAB Habitat Preserve HR High Residential HS High School LI Light Industry LR Low Residential MP AC Museum/Performing Arts Center MRE Marine Research NPU No Proposed Use (Caretaker Status) NIC National Innovation Center NRMA Natural Resource Management Area OP Office Park PA Police Academy RAE Recreational Area Expansion RH Resort Hotels RPRK Regional Park RR Rural Residential RV RV Park/Campground SE School Expansion SEAS Seaside Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex SPF Sports Field TC Transit Center TECH High Tech Business Park TS Trade Schools UNIV University VLR Very Low Residential Scale 1:60,000 , ] | 2 3 miles 0 2.500 6.000 7,500 10.0 00 feet 0 1 2 3 kilometers Table 3-7 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex Land Use Cateaorv Specific Land Use Acreaqe Open Space 4,884 Coastal Dunes Zone 727 Habitat Preserve 1747 Natural Resource Management Area 2,410 Parks and Recreation 1,897 Golf Course 404 Park Community Park 144 Regional Park 201 Recreation Area Expansion 936 RV Park/Campground 128 Sports Fields 84 Tourism 883 Cultural Center 191 Museum/Performing Arts Center 253 National Innovation Center 401 Resort Hotel 38 Commercial/Business Park 3,337 Asilomar-Type Facility 68 Central Business 481 Commercial Center 371 Corporate Headquarters 350 Corporate Offices 361 High Tech Business Park 285 Office Park 1,421 Industrial 1,831 Agri-Center 756 Airport 451 Aquaculture 38 Light Industry 586 Institutional/Public 4,782 Fire Training 1,098 Government Center 96 High School 36 Marine Research 915 Police Academy 2,382 School Expansion 30 Trade Schools 57 Transit Center 130 University 38 Residential 6,172 Rural (RR) 2,618 Very Low (VLR) 360 Low (LR) 2,451 High (HR) 743 3-29 Table 3-7 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex - Continued Land Use Cateaorv Specific Land Use Acreaae Other Seaside-Recommended POM Annex 1,428 1,428 No Proposed Use 2,513 Total 27,727 * There are slight differences in total acreages for each alternative and subalternative due to rounding of individual acreages. The total acreage for Alternative 1, Subalternative C, is greater because it includes the proposed marina and cruise ship pier that extend off the installation. Note: This table corresponds with Figure 3-8. 3-30 l-rltI3Ctl6 Airfield Monterey Bay //jrf Blanco flow r„H.. East Garrison UNIV 1995 Inlnr GatTlson Road Main Garrison |l« ,,T Ni».H UgitJFightni Drhff J Main Entrance '""llinii,. i\ /" "a? Ma iHIWf l H | in H M '■"» it r im i«l """ i rim i ii* 1 ' hMiwuw 1 I m i am 11 mi i Hi tt,. Monterey Faninsula Airport Monterey 3-31 Figure 3-9 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use AG General Agriculture AGRI Agricenter AIR Airport AQ Aquaculture ARMY Army Proposed Presidio of Monterey Annex CBUS Central Business District CDZ Coastal Dunes Zone CSA Contact Station Area DHZ Disturbed Habitat Zone FCEN Financial Center HAB Habitat Preserve INTL International Studies LR Low Residential MPAC Museum/Performing Arts Center NPU No Proposed Use (Caretaker Status) NRMA Natural Resource Management Area OP Office Park RAE Recreational Area Expansion RC Reserve Center RMC Regional Medical Center RV RV Park/Campground SA Service Area TC Transit Center TECH High Tech Business Park UNIV University Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 2.500 6,000 7,500 10,0 00 feet 3 kilometers Table 3-9 Alternative 4: Institutional Use Land Use Cateqorv Specific Land Use Acreaae Open Space 6,694 Coastal Dunes Zone 421 Natural Resource Management Area 6,273 Parks and Recreation 856 Contact Station Area 17 Disturbed Habitat Zone 530 Multi-Use Area 29 Recreation Area Expansion 269 Service Area 11 Industrial 953 Agri- Center 322 Airport 621 Storage 10 Institutional/Public 8,037 Cemetery 187 Correctional Facilities 435 High School 50 Hospital 81 International Studies 93 Medical Research 244 POST Academy 301 School Expansion 611 University/Science Office 286 Trade Schools 153 Transit Center 32 University 2,122 University Research Area 3414 Weather Station 28 Other 1,475 Army-Proposed POM Annex 1,463 Reserve Center 12 No Proposed Use 9,711 Total* 27,726 * There are slight differences in total acreages for each alternative and subalternative due to rounding of individual acreages. The total acreage for Alternative 1, Subalternative C, is greater because it includes the proposed marina and cruise ship pier that extend off the installation. Note: This table corresponds to Figure 3-10. 3-33 — Figure 3-10 Alternative 4: Institutional Use AGRI Agricenter AIR Airport ARMY Army Proposed Presidio of Monterey Annex CDZ Coastal Dunes Zone CEM Cemetery CFAC Correctional Facility CSA Contact Station Area DHZ Disturbed Habitat Zone HOS Hospital HS High School INTL International Studies MED Medical Research MUA Multi Use Area NPU No Proposed Use (Caretaker Status) NRMA Natural Resource Management Area POST Post Academy RAE Recreation Area Expansion RC Reserve Center S Storage SA Service Area SE School Expansion TC Transit Center TS Trade Schools UNIV University URA University Research Area USO University/Science Office WS Weather Station Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 2,600 6.000 7,500 10,0 00 feet 3 kilometers 3-34 FrtUscne Airfield Monterey Bay Blanco floltf East Garrison Main Garrison Main Entrance ; % . , m, l»iiil», l|t i a iijimaiiili>H«iiiBMi 2 = J ' ' /""iiitimf- ^WiHiji iwt lafK IMS l«l it l«lr» S)H (W « «• tin tj '►"♦(Millie 1 mill n imi ! ARMY 1463 ntl? wiL, jUlb. • ! y"» Ill' 1 ''"lllilllllli Montsrsy Paninjula Airport Sinrfinii 1 '" Monterey Figure 3-11 schnoover park frederick park preston park LIMIT '-'vi & abflamp park fitch park x :*< c 4300 m ?<$> 2'Ahj^m ®k"imarshal U park Sss^-fer f »J'r-il, P ATT ON PARK • i v!f> * i •-* brostrom park Z'kf/'' S""\ /iyas w, hayes p/^kjp ~"=Ss5g=s?. *v> «jc\ H Marina McKinney Homeless Assistance Act Proposed Areas of Interest 1 Shelter Plus 2 Rehabilitation Services of Northern California/ Valley Center 3 Door-to-Hope 4 Door-to Hope, 2nd choice 5 Housing Authority 6 Housing Authority, 3rd choice 7 Housing Authority, 2nd choice 8 YWCA, 2nd choice 9 Shelter Plus 10 YWCA 11 Vietnam Veterans of Monterey County 12 John XXIII AIDS Ministry, 2nd choice 13 Peninsula Outreach 14 Rehabilitation Services of Northern California/ Valley Center 15 Housing Authority 16 Shelter Plus, 2nd choice 17 Peninsula Outreach, 2nd choice 18 Food Bank 19 Salvation Army, 2nd choice 20 Peninsula Outreach, 2nd choice 21 Salvation Army, 3rd choice 22 John XXIII AIDS Ministry, 2nd choice 23 Peninsula Outreach 24 Salvation Army 25 Interim, Inc. Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1991 3-35 ARMY CDZ CSA DHZ EQC HAB MUA NAE NPU NRMA RAE RC RV SA Figure 3-12 Alternative 5: Open Space Army Proposed Presidio of Monterey Annex Coastal Dunes Zone Contact Station Area Disturbed Habitat Zone Equestrian Center Habitat Preserve Multi Use Area Natural Area Expansion No Proposed Use (Caretaker Status) Natural Resource Management Area Recreational Area Expansion Reserve Center RV Park/Campground Service Area Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 2,600 5,000 7,500 10,0 00 feet 1 3 kilometers 3-36 Table 3-10 Alternatives: Open Space Land Use Cateaorv Specific Land Use Acreage Open Space 10,718 Coastal Dunes Zone 421 Natural Area Expansion 29 Natural Resource Management Area 9,544 Habitat Preserve 724 Parks and Recreation 1,014 Contact Station Area 17 Disturbed Habitat Zone 558 Equestrian Center 28 Multi-Use Area 29 Recreation Area Expansion 269 RV Park/Campground 102 Service Area 11 Other 1,475 Army-Proposed POM Annex 1,463 Reserve Center 12 No Proposed Use 14,518 Total 27,725 * There are slight differences in total acreages for each alternative and subalternative due to rounding of individual acreages. The total acreage for Alternative 1, Subalternative C, is greater because it includes the proposed marina and cruise ship pier that extend off the installation. Note: This table corresponds with Figure 3-12. 3-37 Table 3-11 Alternatives: Open Space Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Land Use Cateqorv Specific Land Use Acreaae Open Space 10,730 Coastal Dunes Zone 421 Habitat Preserve 736 Natural Area Expansion 29 Natural Resource Management Area 9,544 Parks and Recreation 1,014 Contact Station Area 17 Disturbed Habitat Zone 558 Equestrian Center 28 Multi-Use Area 29 Recreation Area Expansion 269 RV Park/Campground 102 Service Area 11 No Proposed Use 15,981 Total* 27,725 * There are slight differences in total acreages for each alternative and subalternative due to rounding of individual acreages. The total acreage for Subalternative 1, Subalternative C, is greater because it includes the proposed marina and cruise ship pier that extend off the installation. Note: This table corresponds with Figure 3-13. 3-38 frtescns Airfield Monterey Bay Bunco flojd Cast Uartlson Main Ujrrison Inter Samson R pa<1 l ight Fightf Drive Main entrance «• 11 m 'ty*, ( 3200. !> 2900 %' g.TsMs g-«te a: ;r ,© -o-ts ■* 4\n^o?i0%s'. ^2o, 7»j stilwell park > 7 '^ l X V %»>-«. "" r*# r > * >. 0 — (' thorson village / / 51/1^ ffi VAV", v v -'• -v S im brostrom park hayes park marina. jaf^TWeLFTM^ ^rf street a&rr Figure 4.1-2 Main Garrison Map DESCRIPTION LOCATION 1 ADJUTANT GENERAL P 2798 2 AIRLINE TICKET OFFICE (SATO) T 2988 3 AUTO CRAFT SHOP P4492 4 BANK OF AMERICA P 3880 5 BANK OF AMERICA (ATM) P-4450 6 BOWLING ALLEY P 3895 7 BUS DEPOT T1917 8 CAR WASH 9 CENTRAL ISSUE FACILITY T 2073 10 CENTRAL RECEIVING POINT T 2071 11 CHAPEL (DURHAM ROAD) P4483 12 CHAPEL (BAY VIEW) P-4426 13 CHAPEL (6th AVE) P 3701 14 CIVILIAN PERSONNEL T 3007 15 CLOTHING SALES STORE T 1957 16 COMMISSARY P 4240 17 COMMUNITY SERVICES T 3010 18 COURTROOM T 2117 IS CREDIT UNION P4242 ISA DAY CARE CENTER P 3070 P 7693 T 3025 20 DENTAL CLINIC (STONE) P 3700 20A DENTAL CLINIC (BURKE) P4399 20B DENTAL CLINIC (BEITER) P 3599 21 DIR PER AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITES T 2785 21A DIR PLANS. TNG AND MOB T 2843 21B DIR OF LOGISTICS T-2786 21C DIR HEALTH SVC P-4385 210 DIR DENTAL SVC P-4573 21E DIR ENGR AND HOUSING P 4899 21F DIR OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT P-4251 21G DIR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT T 2788 21H DIR OF CONTRACTING T 2342 22 DRILL SERGEANT FIELD 23 EDUCATION CENTER T 1010 23A EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER P-2798 24 EM SERVICE CLUB P-3703 25 FAMILY HOUSING OFFICE T-2798 T-2795 26 FAST FOOD P-4405 27 FINANCE T-2437 28 FIRE STATION P-4400 29 FOOTBALL STADIUM P-3892 30 GOLF COURSES P 4101 31 G 1 T 2335 32 6-2 T-2847 33 G 3 T 2875 34 G 4 T 2793 35 G 5 T 2834 36 HEADQUARTERS (OISCOM) T 1920 37 HEAOQUARTERS fOIV ARTY) P 3719 38 HEADQUARTERS (HQS CMD) P 4463 39 HEAOQUARTERS (1st BOE) P4423 40 HEAOQUARTERS (2nd BOE) P-4570 40A HEADQUARTERS (3rd BOE) P-4810 408 HEADOUARTERS (AVN BDE) P4489 41 HORSE STABLES T-3142 42 HOSPITAL P-4385 43 ID ISSUE T 2355 43A ITT OFFICE S-4228 44 INSPECTOR GENERAL T-2863 45 LAUNDROMATS P-4227 T-1434 T 2180 46 LIBRARIES P-4275 P 3703 46 A LIBRARY (MOS) T 2233 47 MAIN CAFETERIA P 2047 48 MAIN CHAPEL P-4280 49 MAIN PARADE FIELD 50 MARTINEZ HALL P 2798 51 MEDICAL CENTER (TROOP) P-3723 52 MILITARY POLICE STATION T 1049 53 MUSEUM T-2880 54 NCO CLUB P-4260 55 NURSERY (DAY CARE CENTER) P 3070 P 3045 56 NURSERY (PLANT) T 3828 57 OFFICERS CLUB P-4368 58 OPTICAL CLINIC P 4385 P4380 59 PACKAGE STORE T 2531 P-4250 60 PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER P-3560 61 POST EXCHANGE P-4235 62 POST HEADQUARTERS T 2859 63 POST LAUNDRY T 2700 64 POST OFFICE P-4226 65 POST VET CLINIC T-3140 66 PROVOST MARSHAL T 1026 67 RANGE SUPPLY T-2066 68 STILWELL HALL P2075 69 RED CROSS P '>662 70 REPLACEMENT DET T-2582 71 SANITARY FILL 72 SCHOOL (MARSHALL) P 3798 72A SCHOOL (STILWELL) P 4290 72B SCHOOL (FITCH) P 5060 72C SCHOOL (HAYES) P 5000 73 SELF HELP SHOP T3803 74 SERVICE STATIONS T 1060 P4220 P 7850 P 6160 75 SHEA GYMNASIUM P-4480 76 SOUTH PARADE FIELD 77 SPORTS ARENA P 2236 78 STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE T 2791 79 STOCKADE/CONFINEMENT FACILITY P 4953 80 SWIMMING POOL T 2237 81 TSC "ONE STOP" T 2450 82 TAXI STANDS T 1895 83 TELEGRAPH (WESTERN UNION) P-4235 84 TENNIS COURTS P 1778 P3095 85 THEATERS T 1061 P 4230 P 3702 85A THRIFT SHOP T 3016 86 TOY STORE T 1777 87 TRANSIENT BILLETING OFFICE T-2798 88 VEHICLE REGISTRATION OFFICE T-4214 69 VISITORS INFORMATION CENTER T-4214 90 WELCOME CENTER I MARTINEZ HALL P-2798 91 YOUTH CENTER P-42B3 P 3115 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1991. 4-6 4.1.2.4 Office/Business Park The only office/business parks adjacent to Fort Ord are the Ryan Ranch industrial park in Monterey and an office park in the county, both located at the southern tip of the installation. 4.1.2.5 Institutional Schools. Two schools are adjacent to Fort Ord. York School, a nonprofit secondary day school, is located at the southern tip of the installation just east of the Monterey city limits. Seaside High School, which serves students in Seaside as well as on Fort Ord, is located at the southwest corner of the installation just outside the Monterey Road gate. Monterey Peninsula Airport. Monterey Peninsula Airport is located southwest of Fort Ord, just south of SR 218. 4.1.2.6 Agriculture Agriculture is the primary land use adjacent to Fort Ord on the northeast, between the installation and the Salinas River. The most productive agricultural lands in the vicinity are extremely fertile lands along the Salinas River. The primary type of agricultural production in this area is irrigated row crops. 4.1.2.7 Grazing/Rangelands Grazing or rangelands are located to the north, adjacent to Fritzsche Army Airfield, and to the east and southeast, south of SR 68 and near Laguna Seca Recreation Area. Cattle are the primary grazing animals around Fort Ord. 4.1.2.8 Parks and Recreation Two major recreational areas border Fort Ord: the 500-acre Laguna Seca Recreation Area to the south and a small part of the 4,789-acre Toro Regional Park to the southeast. Additionally, several golf courses and smaller parks are located around Fort Ord, primarily to the south. 4.1.2.9 Undeveloped Open Space Other than agriculture, grazing/rangelands, and parks, undeveloped open space adjacent to Fort Ord includes the Marina State Beach north of the Fort Ord coastal zone in Marina; vacant coastal land south of the Fort Ord coastal zone in Sand City; the Frog Pond Natural Area, an undeveloped nature park to the southwest in Del Rey Oaks; vacant land to the south in Del Rey Oaks and Monterey; and a horse ranch area to the south, west of Laguna Seca Recreation Area. 4.1.3 Relevant Plans and Policies The following documents were reviewed to determine project consistency with relevant plans and policies: ■ California Coastal Act of 1976, Chapter 3; ■ Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Final Environmental Impact Statement; ■ Monterey County General Plan; ■ Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan; ■ Monterey County Local Coastal Program, North County Land Use Plan; ■ Monterey County Growth Management Policy; ■ City of Marina General Plan Land Use Element; ■ City of Seaside General Plan Update Program - Issues, Goal, and Policies Report; Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-7 Affected Environment Land Use December 1992 ■ Sand City Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan; ■ City of Del Rey Oaks General Plan Land Use Element; ■ City of Monterey Land Use Element Policies; and ■ Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Regional Land Use Element. The documents and relevant policies are described briefly in Volume II, Section 11.1, Table 11.1-1. The entire text of these policies is contained in the appendices of the land use baseline study. It is important to note that the plans and policies were developed before it was known that Fort Ord would be closed. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-8 Affected Environment Land Use December 1992 4.2 SOCIOECONOMICS This section describes the regional socioeconomic setting and Fort Ord's contribution to the regional economy in 1991. This setting constitutes baseline conditions for the analysis of socioeconomic effects of closure, disposal, and reuse effects discussed in Section 5.0, "Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences", Volume II, Section 11.2. For the purposes of this analysis, Monterey County has been established as the region of influence for evaluating the regional economic effects of the reuse alternatives. This treatment of Monterey County as an individual economic unit is based on the movement of goods and services, labor and money flows, and pattern of transactions within the county and larger region. In addition, Monterey County has been designated by the federal government as a metropolitan statistical area. A metropolitan statistical area is defined as an integrated economic and social unit with a recognized population center that includes a city of specified population and the county in which it is located (California Employment Development Department 1991). Because Monterey County is designated as a metropolitan statistical area, it can be viewed as a geographically defined economic unit. For some issue areas, the cities of Marina and Seaside, which are within and contiguous to the boundaries of Fort Ord, are singled out for concentrated study because of the expected severity of impacts on these communities (Figure 2-2). 4.2.1 Population and Housing 4.2.1.1 Population Recent Trends and Projected Population Growth. In 1991, Monterey County contained 361,560 residents, most of whom lived in cities on the Monterey Peninsula, including Monterey, Carmei-by- the-Sea, and Pacific Grove, and cities within the Salinas Valley. Much of Fort Ord lies within the unincorporated portion of the county, but the westernmost portions lie within the incorporated boundaries of the Cities of Marina and Seaside. Population growth, and forecasts of future population levels, within Monterey County and its communities are depicted in Figure 4.2-1 and Table 4.2-1. The population forecasts were prepared by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments prior to the announcement of Fort Ord closure. Between 1980 and 1990 the county's population grew at an average annual rate of 2.2%, which lagged behind the state average growth rate of 2.6% during the same period. The county's population growth rate is projected to slow to an average annual rate of nearly 1.0% between 1988 and 2010. (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1990.) Salinas is the largest city in the county with a population of 110,675, accounting for about 31% of total county population. Between 1980 and 1990 the city grew faster than the county average at a rate of 3.5%, and is projected to be the growth center of the county between 1990 and 2010. * The City of Monterey has maintained a steady growth rate over the past decade of about 1.6%. With a population of 31,818 in 1991, Monterey is projected to grow by 0.4% each year between 1990 and 2010. Pacific Grove contained a population of 16,166 in 1991. Growth between 1980 and 1990 was slow and averaged 0.2% each year. Projections show Pacific Grove will grow at a similar rate, 0.4% each year, between 1990 and 2010. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-9 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 Figure 4.2-1 Historical Projected Population of Monterey County and Affected Cities 500,000 400,000 § 300,000 JS 3 Q. £ 200,000 100,000 1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 Marina Monterey Salinas Seaside Monterey County 2005 Sources: 1980 and 1990 county and city population - U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990. 2000 and 2010 Monterey County population projections - U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1990. 2000 and 2010 city population projections - Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments 1988. 4-10 Table 4.2-1 Historical and Projected Population of Monterey County and Cities within Monterey County Estimated Population Average Annual Average Annual Growth Rate Growth Rate 1980-1990 1990-2010 County Area 1980® 1990® 2000 b ' c 2010 bc (%) (%) Ail Monterey County 290,444 355,660 406,000 443,000 2.25 0.98 Carmel-by-the-Sea 4,707 5,160 5,740 4,800 0.96 -0.28 Del Rey Oaks 1,557 1,661 1,840 1,840 0.67 0.43 Gonzales 2,891 5,180 6,020 6,510 7.92 1.03 Greenfield 4,181 7,290 8,466 11,300 7.44 2.20 King City 5,495 8,581 13,176 11,140 5.62 1.19 Marina 20,647 26,436 42,613 31,330 2.80 0.74 Monterey 27,558 31,954 37,070 35,300 1.60 0.42 Pacific Grove 15,755 16,117 18,839 17,700 0.23 0.39 Salinas 80,479 108,777 122,530 175,000 3.52 2.44 Sand City 182 200 836 970 0.99 15.40 Seaside 36,567 38,893 42,370 41,500 0.64 0.27 Soledad 5,928 8,090 9,331 22,200 3.65 6.98 Unincorporated County 83,914 103,095 119,269 114,760 2.29 0.45 ® Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990 (1980 and 1990 county and city population). b Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1990 (2000 and 2010 projections for Monterey County). c Source: Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments 1988 (2000 and 2010 projections for cities). Del Rey Oaks supported a population of 1,648 in 1991. Del Rey Oaks grew at an annual rate of 0.7% between 1980 and 1990, and is projected to grow at an annual rate of 0.4% between 1990 and 2010. Sand City is the smallest city in the county with a population of 194 in 1991, up from 182 in 1980. The growth of this community is expected to substantially increase between 1990 and 2010, with annual population growth projected at 15.4% each year; however, this large annual growth rate is related more to the small existing population of the community than to the level of absolute growth expected in Sand City. By 2010 the population is projected to grow to 970. Seaside and Marina are the second and fourth largest cities in the county, respectively. Both communities have city limits that extend onto the Fort Ord installation. Seaside supported a population of 40,288 and Marina a population of 26,830 in 1991. Marina grew faster than Seaside between 1980 and 1990 with an average annual growth rate of 2.8%. Seaside grew at an average rate of 0.6% during that period. Projections indicate that population growth within both cities may slow to less than 1 % annually between 1990 and 2010 (Table 4.2-1). Fort Ord's permanent military population during fiscal year (FY) 1991 totaled 14,372 personnel, including 1,281 officers, 267 warrant officers, and 12,824 enlisted personnel. The installation's civilian personnel totaled 3,855 comprised of 1,550 civilian employees, 879 Army-Air Force exchange service employees, 524 nonappropriated fund employees, 136 commissary employees, 68 other U.S. Department of Defense employees, 585 medical and dental department employees, and 113 information management employees. Fort Ord also supported a total of 18,283 people, including 1,026 transient military personnel, 219 other active military personnel, and 17,038 family members of active-duty personnel. The resident population of Fort Ord totaled 31,270 during FY 1991. Approximately 85% of the permanent military personnel and transient military and military family members resided on the installation. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-11 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 Almost 20% of Fort Ord's civilian work force is comprised of military spouses who also likely live on the installation. The largest number of Fort Ord personnel residing off-installation live in Marina and Monterey. During FY 1991, 1,251 Fort Ord military personnel lived in Marina, 1,351 lived in Monterey, and 231 lived in Seaside. These individuals represented 33%, 30%, and 6% respectively, of all Fort Ord military personnel residing off-installation. Similarly, 22% of Fort Ord's civilian personnel reside in Marina, while 24% live in Monterey and 13% live in Seaside. Almost 17% of Fort Ord military personnel living off-installation and almost 24% of civilian personnel live in Salinas. On-installation and off-installation military and civilian personnel represent a substantial portion of the total population of local cities. Over 50% of Marina's population, 25% of Seaside's population, and 5% of Monterey's population is comprised of Fort Ord military and civilian personnel and their families. Over 10,000 retired military live within a 60-mile radius of Fort Ord (Table 4.2-2). Fort Ord personnel estimate that about 8,000 of those retirees and 12,000 of their family members continue to use facilities such as the commissary and post exchange at Fort Ord. 4.2.1.2 Housing Existing Housing Supply and Characteristics. Between 1980 and 1990, Monterey County's housing supply grew from 103,557 units to 121,224 units, an increase of 17.1%. During that time the county's population grew by 22%, indicating that housing availability declined during the last decade. This is evidenced by county residential vacancy rates that have declined from 7.5% in 1980 to 6.8% in 1990 (Table 4.2-2) and by the increase in population per household from 2.85 to 2.96 during that period. (California Department of Finance 1992.) The most apparent result of the county's housing shortage is the sharp increase in housing costs. The median price of a home in Monterey County increased by 130.5% between 1980 and 1990 while the median income increased by only 73.5% during that time (U.S. census data from Sedway & Associates 1992). By comparison, the statewide median price of a home rose by 94%, growing from $99,760 in 1980 to $194,010 in 1990 (Bay Area Council 1991). Just over half (51%) of the county's housing supply is owner occupied and 49% is renter occupied. By comparison, 55.62% of total housing within the state was owner occupied in 1990. Within the county, the distribution of owner-occupied and renter-occupied units varies widely (Table 4.2-3). Fort Ord has the largest on-installation family housing supply in the Department of the Army. Fort Ord currently supports 23,716 housing units. This includes 6,365 family housing units, 515 of which are provided by private contractors. The unaccompanied personnel housing consists of 9,745 barracks spaces, including 117 units for bachelor officers and senior enlisted personnel. Additionally, 290 units are intended for transient use (i.e., quarters for visiting officers, enlisted personnel, and distinguished visitors). On-installation housing units located within the City of Seaside total 8,076 and within the City of Marina total 14,387. Another 1,253 on-installation units are located within the unincorporated county area. Seaside supports a larger portion of the family housing areas and Marina supports more of the barracks facility units. Of the 6,365 family housing units located on the installation, 3,005 are located within the City of Seaside, 2,107 within the City of Marina, and 1,253 within the unincorporated county area. Other housing areas, including barracks, visiting officer and enlisted personnel quarters, bachelor officer quarters, and guest housing, total 10,142 units and are spread throughout the installation. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed half of these units (5,071) are located in Seaside and half are located in Marina. Distinguished visitor quarters, World War II barracks, and senior enlisted personnel quarters total 7,209 and are all located within the City of Marina. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-12 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 Table 4.2-2 Residence Locations of Retired Military Personnel within a 60-Mile Radius from Fort Ord Residence Number of Percentage Location County Retirees of Total Aptos Santa Cruz 189 1.77 Aromas Monterey 10 0.09 Capitola Santa Cruz 65 0.61 Carmel-by-the-Sea Monterey 457 4.28 Carmel Valley Monterey 102 0.96 Fort Ord Monterey 65 0.61 Gilroy Santa Clara 137 1.28 Hollister San Benito 121 1.13 King City Monterey 61 0.57 Los Gatos Santa Clara 237 2.22 Marina Monterey 1,045 9.79 Monterey Monterey 630 5.90 Morgan Hill Santa Clara 140 1.31 Moss Landing Monterey 19 0.18 Pacific Grove Monterey 335 3.14 Pebble Beach Monterey 227 2.13 Salinas Monterey 1,519 14.22 San Jose Santa Clara 3,951 37.00 San Juan Bautista San Benito 19 0.18 San Martin Santa Clara 14 0.13 Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 60 0.56 Seaside Monterey 1,004 9.40 Soledad Monterey 15 0.14 Watsonville Santa Cruz 257 2.41 Total 10,679 100.00 Note: This table includes retirees who live within and outside of the 40-mile catchment area of Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital. These retirees may, or may not, use facilities at Fort Ord. Retiree locations have been determined based on zip codes and may, or may not, be in the cities listed above. Data were compiled from the Retired Military Personnel Data Base on April 1,1992. Retiree counts do not match retiree numbers in Table 4.2-13 because the counts reflect different periods. Table 4.2-13 reflects only those retirees residing within the 40-mile catchment area. Military personnel are required to reside in installation housing, if vacant units are available. If no housing is available, military personnel are placed on a waiting list and paid a basic allowance for quarters variable housing allowance to compensate for the cost of obtaining housing off the installation. Fort Ord's housing supply is summarized in Table 4.2-4. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-13 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 Table 4.2-3 Distribution of Existing Occupied Monterey County Housing by Type and Tenure Single-Family Units Multifamily Units Total Units Type of Unit by City Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage of Units of Total of Units of Total of Units of Total Marina Owner-occupied units 2,253 Renter-occupied units 2,014 Total units 4,267 52.80 47.20 36 1.251 1,287 2.80 97.20 2,728 5.180 7,908 34.50 65.50 Monterey Owner-occupied units 4,106 63.53 158 5.83 4,539 35.76 Renter-occupied units 2,357 36.47 2,554 94.17 8,154 64.24 Total units 6,463 2,712 12,693 Salinas Owner-occupied units 13,646 70.63 130 2.07 15,430 46.25 Renter-occupied units 5.674 29.37 6.152 97.93 17,930 53.75 Total units 19,320 6,282 33,360 Seaside Owner-occupied units 3,716 47.48 Renter-occupied units 4,110 52.52 7 683 1.01 98.99 4,042 6.599 37.99 62.01 Total units 7,826 Unincorporated County Owner-occupied units 19,098 Renter-occupied units 6.131 Total units 25,229 75.7 24.3 690 65 527 592 11.0 89.0 10,641 21,589 9.670 31,259 69.1 30.9 County Total Owner-occupied units 50,930 Renter-occupied units 24.151 Total units 75,081 67.83 32.17 501 12.823 13,324 3.76 96.24 57,202 55.763 112,965 50.64 49.36 Note: Duplex-nineplex, mobile home, and other housing categories are part of total but not detailed here. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-14 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 Table 4.2-4 Inventory of Existing Housing at Fort Ord Total Number Housing Area of Units Family Housing Areas General Officer Area 2 Schoonover Park 787 Frederick Park 466 Preston Park 385 Abrams Park 942 Patton Park 780 Stilwell Park 1,009 Hayes Park 676 Brostrom Park (third-party lease) 219 Marshall Park 353 Fitch Park 450 Thorson Village (third-party lease) 296 Subtotal 6,365 Other Housing Areas Barracks 9,745 Visiting Officer and Enlisted Quarters 204 Bachelor Officer Quarters 112 Distinguished Visitor Quarters 5 WWII Barracks 7,029 Senior Enlisted Quarters 175 Guest Housing Quarters £1 Subtotal 17,351 Total Housing Units 23,716 Vacancy Rates. Recent vacancy rates for Monterey County and select cities within the county are presented in Table 4.2-5. Historic vacancy rates in Monterey County are illustrated in Figure 4.2-2. Vacancy rates in many cities within the county are generally too low to provide opportunities for household mobility and turnover. As stated in a recent study of the housing effects of Fort Ord downsizing: The industry standard for an optimum overall vacancy level is 4.5% to ensure the market operates effectively and efficiently. A 6% vacancy rate for rental units and a 2% effective vacancy level for- sale units are considered optimal. Although the county's overall vacancy level was reported to range between 6.5 and 7.5% throughout the past decade, the "real vacancy rate" is considerably lower when seasonal units are deducted from the equation. Subtracting seasonal and recreational units, Monterey County's 1990 vacancy rate for rental and for-sale units was 1.8 and 1.1%, respectively. (Sedway & Associates 1992.) Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-15 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 Figure 4.2-2 Historical Vacancy Rates in Monterey County 1980-1990 14%' 12% B CC >. O c cu o ro > 10%: 8% b 6% t- 4% 2% + + 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Monterey County Marina Monterey Salinas Seaside Unincorporated Source: California Department of Finance 1992. 4-16 Table 4.2-5 Vacancy Status of Existing Monterey County Housing Units (1990) Percentage of Number Number of Overall City of Units Vacant Units Vacancy Rate Marina 8,261 353 4.3 Monterey 13,497 804 6.0 Salinas 34,577 1,217 3.5 Seaside 11,238 597 5.3 Unincorporated County 34,350 3,091 _&0 Total 121,224 8,259 6.8 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990. Approximately 2.9% of the housing units located at Fort Ord were vacant during 1991. Most of these vacancies were the result of the need to perform preventive maintenance on certain units. Affordability. Median housing prices on the Monterey Peninsula have historically been higher than median prices elsewhere in Monterey County and the state. For example, in 1990 the median price of a single-family home in the City of Monterey was $266,600 compared to $198,200 countywide. Median prices varied considerably elsewhere in the county, as the following 1990 median home prices indicate: Marina, $172,500; Salinas, $161,500; Pacific Grove, $262,000; Seaside, $150,100; and Carmel-by- the-Sea, $434,700. As shown by Table 4.2-6, the median value of a home in Monterey County increased from $86,000 in 1980 to $198,200 in 1990, a 130% increase. This increase far outpaced the 73% growth in county median income during that same period. Interestingly, home ownership affordability, the percentage of the population able to afford the median priced home, rose from 8.8% in 1980 to 12.8% in 1990. This resulted primarily from relative decreases in monthly mortgage costs caused by substantially declining mortgage interest rates. As indicated by Table 4.2-6, the relative affordability of rental housing in Monterey County remained stable during the 1980s, even though the median contract rent more than doubled over the 10-year period. Jobs-to-Housing Balance. A balance between the number of jobs and housing units available in a specific area is often a stated goal of local government jurisdictions. Achieving a jobs-housing balance is felt to reduce excessive commute distances, reduce automobile-related air pollution, reduce traffic congestion, and decrease upward pressure on housing prices. A jobs/housing ratio is often used to evaluate the balance between local jobs and housing, even though income distribution and housing prices play an important role in achieving a realistic balance. Jobs/housing ratios, however, provide an indication of whether a local area provides a sufficient supply of housing to meet the needs of the local workforce. Communities are generally considered to be in balance when the ratio of jobs to housing units lies within the range of 0.75 to 1.25. (Sedway & Associates 1992.) Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-17 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 Table 4.2-6 Ownership and Rental Affordability in Monterey County Year Median Income Median Home Value Percentage of Ownership Affordability Median Contract Rent Percentage of Rental Affordability* 1980 1990 $17,661 $30,634 $86,000 $198,200 8.80 12.80 $262 $566 92.30 93.70 Note: Ownership affordability refers to the percentage of households in a region that would be able to purchase the median-priced home assuming a 20% downpayment and prevailing interest rates on a 30-year term loan. Payments must not exceed 30% of the median gross income. * Rental affordability represents the percentage of occupied rental units that were renting at or below the affordable rental rate that is calculated as 30% of the county median income. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, National Association of Realtors, Sedway & Associates 1992. Table 4.2-7 provides a summary of jobs/housing ratios for the greater Monterey Peninsula housing market area, the greater Salinas housing market area, and the county as a whole. As indicated by these ratios, Marina and Seaside do not achieve balances. These two communities have traditionally provided housing for military personnel and civilians working at Fort Ord. Salinas and Monterey serve as employment centers within the county, as indicated by their high ratios of jobs to housing. The overall county jobs/ housing ratio of 1.36, based on 165,000 jobs and 121,224 housing units within the county in 1990, indicates a somewhat imbalanced housing market where demand exceeds supply, and helps explain relatively high housing costs within the county. Future Housing Development Potential. Based on an analysis of existing zoning in each jurisdiction within Monterey County, the maximum residential development potential in the entire county is estimated at 26,842 units. Accounting for environmental and infrastructure capacity constraints, the actual residential buildout potential is most likely 50% to 75% of the allowable building capacity. Residential development is primarily constrained by lack of available land zoned for residential uses, insufficient water supply, insufficient sewer capacity, traffic congestion, and environmental issues. (Sedway & Associates 1992.) 4.2.2 Regional Economy Economic variables used to measure effects on the regional economy in Section 5.0, "Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences", Volume II, Section II.2, include employment, personal income, total output, and public revenue levels. Existing conditions for these measures of economic activity are described below. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-18 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 4.2.2.1 Employment Monterey County's economy has historically relied on three main employment sectors: tourism, agriculture, and the military. This economic structure is illustrated by the distribution of employment among industrial sectors, as shown by Table 4.2-8. Table 4.2-7 Jobs/Housing Ratios and Housing Costs in Monterey County in 1990 Housing Market Area Jobs/Housing Ratio Median Single-Family Housing Value Average Rent Greater Monterey Peninsula Housing Market Area Marina Monterey Seaside Greater Salinas Housing Market Area Salinas Total Monterey County 0.13 1.35 0.55 1.54 1.36 $172,500 $266,600 $150,100 $161,500 $607 $654 $565 $528 Note: Jobs/housing ratios for Monterey County were calculated based on 165,008 jobs and 121,224 housing units located in Monterey County in 1990. Source: Jobs/housing ratios for cities and housing cost data - Sedway & Associates 1992. The government, including federal, state and local agencies, accounts for almost 20% of countywide employment (Table 4.2-8). Not included in government employment shown by Table 4.2-9 are an estimated 21,600 military (noncivilian) positions at Fort Ord, Camp Roberts, Fort Hunter Liggett, the Defense Language Institute, the Naval Postgraduate School, the Presidio of Monterey, and the County of Monterey (Sedway & Associates 1992). Other large employment sectors include the agricultural sector (21%), the services sector (20%), and the retail trade sector (17%). Monterey County's civilian labor force expanded steadily during the last decade from 142,400 in 1983 to 160,000 in 1990. At the same time, the county's unemployment rate declined from 12.6% to 8.8% but has remained an average of 3% higher than the state average (Table 4.2-9). The relatively high unemployment rate is partially explained by the seasonal nature of the county's economy which experiences high unemployment in the winter when agriculture, food processing, and tourist-oriented industries are at a lull. (California Employment Development Department 1991.) Seaside's labor force participation rate was just over 58% in 1990. Of the city residents in the labor force in 1990, over 38% were members of the armed forces, 22% were employed within the retail trade sector, and 13% were employed in the personal services sector. The city's unemployment rate stood at 4.4% in 1990, with 989 individuals considered unemployed. (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990). Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-19 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 Table 4.2-8 Estimated Number of Jobs by Industry in Monterey County, 1980-1990 Number of Workers (in thousands) Industry 1980 1985 1990 Agricultural 21.7 24.2 30.2 Mining and Construction 3.7 4.3 4.9 Manufacturing 8.9 9.0 10.4 Transportation and Public Utilities 5.2 4.9 4.7 Wholesale Trade 3.3 3.6 5.3 Retail Trade 19.4 23.9 24.9 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 4.4 4.8 6.3 Services 19.6 24.0 28.7 Federal Government" 7.3 8.6 9.0 State and Local Government 16.6 17.2 mi Total 110.0 124.3 143.3 a Does not include military (noncivilian) positions. Noncivilian military employment totaled 21,608 in 1990 (Sedway & Associates 1992). Source: California Employment Development Department 1991. Table 4.2-9 Monterey County Civilian Labor Force Employment and Unemployment 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Labor Force 148,100 150,000 154,400 160,000 164,400 160,600 Number Employed 132,400 134,400 141,100 146,500 151,100 146,500 Number Unemployed 15,700 15,600 13,300 13,500 13,300 13,500 Unemployment Rate 10.6 10.4 8.6 8.4 8.1 8.8 (percentage of total) Note: Number of employed residents of Monterey County. The jobs are not necessarily located in the county. Source: California Employment Development Department 1991. According to 1990 census data, almost 57% of Marina's population, 15,041 men and women, comprise the city's labor force. Of those, almost 36% are in the armed forces, over 25% are employed in the retail trade sector, and 15% are employed in the public administration sector. Unemployed civilians totaled 526 in 1990, resulting in an unemployment rate of 3.5%. (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990.) Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-20 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 Fort Ord employed a total workforce of 18,227 in FY 1991, including 14,372 permanent military personnel, 3,855 civilian personnel, and a varying number of contractual workers. Fort Ord's mission and organization have remained fairly stable over the last decade. No major tenants were gained or lost during this period. Military spouses hold an estimated 20% of the installation's civilian jobs and work primarily in non- professional white-collar jobs. 4.2.2.2 Output Industrial output is a general measure of the economic activity of an area. Output, as used in this study, is defined as gross industry sales from production, and is measured as the total value of all goods and services produced by all industries within the county. Baseline output levels by industry within Monterey County are shown in Table 4.2-10. The industrial output levels shown in Table 4.2-10 represent 1985 levels, presented in 1991 dollars. As shown, output in Monterey County totaled $12.2 billion in 1985. The largest output sectors include government, services, agriculture, and manufacturing. Together, these four sectors generated approximately 66% of total industrial output within Monterey County. Table 4.2-10 Monterey County Output by Industry Aggregations Total Output Industry Aggregation (in millions of 1991 dollars) Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing $1,565 Construction and Mining 676 Manufacturing 1,448 Transportation and Public Utilities 1,113 Wholesale Trade 353 Retail Trade 827 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 1,229 Services 2,490 Government 2.545 Total $12,246 Note: 1985 dollars were converted to 1991 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Source: Impact Analysis for Planning Computer Model database 1985. 4.2.2.3 Personal Income Personal income is another measure of economic activity within an area. The personal income of an area is defined by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (1989) as the income received by, or on behalf of, all the residents of an area. The most recent personal income data for Monterey County was published in 1989 and reflects 1988 personal income levels. In 1991 dollars, personal income within Monterey County totaled approximately $6.8 billion in 1988, resulting in per capita personal income of $19,500 (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1989). Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-21 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 Earnings are a subset of total personal income, representing approximately 71% of personal income in Monterey County. Earnings by industry are shown in Table 4.2-11, presented in 1991 dollars. Three sectors (government, services, and agriculture) accounted for 65% of the $4.8 billion in earnings generated within Monterey County in 1988. Earnings are used throughout the remainder of this document as a measure of personal income because the two economic models used to evaluate economic effects measure changes in earnings rather than total personal income. 4.2.2.4 Fiscal Conditions Fort Ord closure and reuse will directly and indirectly affect levels of public costs and revenues for jurisdictions within Monterey County. The evaluation of fiscal effects presented in Section 5.0, Section II.2, focuses on changes in the revenue stream for affected agencies; therefore, the following summarizes baseline review data for affected jurisdictions. Table 4.2-11 Distribution of Monterey County Earnings by Industry in 1988 Earnings (in millions of Industry 1991 dollars) Agriculture $ 950 Mining 19 Construction 270 Manufacturing 327 Transportation and Public Utilities 202 Wholesale Trade 168 Retail Trade 486 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 182 Services 1,004 Government and Government Enterprises 1.201 Total $4,809 Note: Earnings represented approximately 71 % of the $6.8 billion in personal income received in Monterey County in 1988. Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1989. Table 4.2-12 summarizes baseline revenue data for FY 1991 -92 for Monterey County and cities within the county. For purposes of the impact analysis presented in Section 5.0, "Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences", Volume II, Section II.2, revenues have been allocated among three categories: local revenues, subvention-related revenues, and other population-related revenues. Local revenues, including property tax, sales tax, and transient occupancy tax revenues, typically represent almost half of a jurisdiction's total revenues. Property tax revenues fluctuate based on assessed property values and development levels. These revenues can change because of increases or decreases - Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-22 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 in economic development and property values within a jurisdiction. Sales tax revenues fluctuate with increases or reductions in the resident population, but are greatly influenced in Monterey County by changes in tourist-related activity. Transient occupancy tax is collected based on hotel and motel occupancy, which is generally dependent on tourist and visitor activity. (RKG Associates 1992) Table 4.2-12 City Budget Revenue Information for Fiscal Year 1992-1993 Seaside and Pacific Del Rey Sand City Marina Monterey" Grove Oaks Salinas City Revenues Property Tax 1,341,000 942,000 3,296,000 1,770,275 181,800 6,661,000 Sales Tax 2,650,000 740,000 4,950,000 1,510,000 115,000 11,850,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 375,000 415,000 7.542.000 1.678.039 900.000 Subtotal $4,366,000 $2,097,000 $15,788,000 $4,958,314 $296,800 $19,411,000 State Subvention Revenues Cigarette Tax 55,000 40,000 17,000 6,000 200,000 Motor Vehicle In-lieu 1,450,000 1,004,249 1,482,900 608,899 62,800 4,010,000 Gas Tax (2105, 2106, 2107) 631,715 451.911 842,267 205,773 32.300 1,901,700 Subtotal $2,137,565 $1,496,160 $2,325,167 $831,672 $101,100 $6,111,700 Other Population-Related Revenues Franchise Utility Tax 1,611,000 195,000 940,500 880,470 28,000 5,422,000 Business License Tax 256,000 35,000 787,500 235,000 69,000 1,200,000 Other Licenses 84,100 20,000 2,977 5,900 724,100 Fine Forfeitures 130,000 92,000 267,000 20,600 135,000 Interest on Money 154,000 750,000 188,000 24,000 1,636,800 Other State (Peace Officer 30,000 7,500 40,000 1,300 100,000 Standard Training) Charges for Services 658,200 44,200 1,401,420 240,550 32,415 4,311,700 Other Revenues 50 69,125 336,409 11.500 225.000 Subtotal $2,923,300 $393,800 $3,948,545 $2,190,406 $192,715 $13,754,600 Total $9,426,865 $3,986,960 $22,061,712 $7,980,392 $590,615 $39,277,300 Per Capita-Subvention $54.95 $56.60 $72.77 $51.60 $60.87 $56.19 Revenues Per Capita-Other Revenues $75.15 $14.90 $123.57 $135.91 $116.02 $126,45 a City of Monterey "Other Population-Related Revenues" is reduced to one-third the amount shown on the 1991/1992 Budget. This reduction is due to the large tourist-related business creating these revenue sources. The one-third budget amount reflects the population-related revenues. Source: RKG Associates 1992. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-23 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 State subvention revenues include cigarette tax, motor vehicle in-lieu tax, and gas tax sources. These revenues are returned by the state to jurisdictions in proportion to their resident population. State subvention revenues received by each county or city are based on the higher of the 1990 U.S. Census population count or the latest California Department of Finance population estimate. Because of this, state subvention revenues would not decrease due to population reductions until a new census count documents the decline. (RKG Associates 1992) Many other county and city revenue sources are directly or indirectly related to population levels. These sources include franchise or utility taxes, business licenses, fines, and fees that tend to reflect the size of the local population. Per-capita levels of these revenues are depicted in Tables 4.2-12. 4.2.3 Social Services Social services provided by the county, local organizations, and the Army could be affected by closure and reuse of Fort Ord. The following sections summarize these programs. The discussion of services provided by the Army focuses on medical services because other services would not be substantially affected by closure. 4.2.3.1 County Support Services Family-related services provided by Monterey County include basic subsistence, emergency services, services for adults and the elderly, services for children, family planning, and financial planning. These services are funded primarily by state and federal transfer payments; funds are increased with caseload and Monterey County historically has not experienced problems with receiving additional funds to cover increased caseloads. Over 55,000 county residents (about 15.5% of total county population) were considered economically disadvantaged in 1990. Economically disadvantaged persons are defined as those persons whose income or family income was below the Federal Poverty Guideline and/or below 70% of the Lower Living Standard Income Level which varies by county of residence. In May of 1990, almost 17,000 people within the county (about 5% of total county population) received basic assistance in the form of Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Of those, almost 12,000 were children. Almost 20,000 individuals received food stamps, 367 received general relief, and 22 received refugee cash assistance. (California Employment Development Department 1991) Support services available in Monterey County include substance abuse services, senior systems, suicide prevention, armed services retiree services, and disability services. The primary support organization for seniors(retired military) is Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital. Specific numbers of individuals in substance abuse treatment were not available. Between 10% and 15% of the clients serviced by Adult Services are retired military, and 10% are family members of retired military. Support services are funded by the state and federal government but funds have not increased with the caseload in recent years and the county has had to appropriate money to this department to compensate for the lack of funding. Almost 39,000 retired military, 23,286 active military, and 40,226 military families use some type of family-related services, according to responses to a human services survey conducted by the Fort Ord Community Task Force (1992). 4.2.3.2 Job Development A variety of job development and job placement resources exist within Monterey County. The Private Industry Council (PIC) has resources to assist both expanding businesses and new businesses. The PIC administers the Job Training Partnership Act, providing training and employment services to disadvantaged or dislocated workers in Monterey County. The PIC is a nonprofit corporation of private- Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft E1S Volume I 4-24 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 sector business people and representatives of education, labor, rehabilitation, job service, and economic development organizations. Programs available from the PIC include classroom or on-the-job training, job applicant assessment and training, and special customized services. Other job development services available in the county include the Center for Employment Training, Joblink, Mission Trails ROP, and the county Office of Employment Training. 4.2.3.3 Homeless Services About 250 emergency shelter bed spaces in Monterey County are currently available for the homeless. Of these, only 30 are located on the Monterey Peninsula. There are currently no transitional housing programs for the homeless in Monterey County. (Fort Ord Community Task Force 1992) The Northcutt Report (1989), a data base and needs assessment of the Monterey County homeless population, revealed that an estimated 1,300- 2,200 homeless adults and 370-630 homeless children reside in Monterey County. This translates to between 1,670 and 2,830 homeless adults and children in Monterey County on any given night. The following represents the approximate distribution of the homeless popula- tion in the county: Salinas area 47%, Monterey Peninsula area 22%, North County area 8%, South County 15%, and unknown 8%. The study identified the need for additional emergency shelter beds, particularly on the Monterey Peninsula and in the rural areas of the county. 4.2.3.4 Military Retiree Benefits Access to free or low-cost medical treatment on a space-available basis at Silas B. Hays Army Com- munity Hospital is an important service available to retired military personnel. Other major services available to retirees at Fort Ord include the commissary, post exchange, library, athletic facilities, and social clubs. The commissary is a retail store comparable to a large supermarket. Foods and related consumer goods are the principal items sold. The commissary serves active-duty personnel, reservists, and their family members, in addition to retirees. It serves an estimated 8,000 retirees and 12,000 of their family members in the local area. The exchange service provides a broad range of consumer products, including automotive fuel and services. The main exchange is comparable to a department store; it features clothing, appliances, sports equipment, and numerous other product lines. As with the commissary, the post exchange serves active military, reservists, and family members, in addition to retirees. Unlike the commissary, it is supported entirely by nonappropriated, patron-supplied funds. Other facilities are available at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, which offers an officer's club and an installation exchange, together with several small branch exchanges. No standards exist for a minimum level of service that should be provided to military retirees by the Department of Defense. Retirees may need to travel long distances to obtain certain benefits. *4.2.3.5 Military Medical Care Medical services available to military retirees and their family members residing within Monterey County are provided by Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital and 10 medical clinics located at Fort Ord, other military medical facilities located inside and outside of Monterey County, and by a variety of private providers accessible through medical care reimbursement programs offered by the federal government. Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital is a 367,000-square-foot acute care facility licensed to provide 440 beds. In practice, the hospital usually maintains 125 beds for patient use. The primary purpose of Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital is to provide medical support to military personnel in times of Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-25 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 war and to provide peacetime care to active duty military personnel and their family members. In addition, the hospital provides medical benefits to retirees and their family members, and to survivors of deceased service members on a space-available basis. Healthcare is provided at no charge to qualified beneficiaries, including retirees and their family members. Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital is the only military hospital in Monterey County. The 10 adjunct medical clinics located at Fort Ord provide outpatient services on a similar basis. All eligible patients who reside within a 40-mile radius of a military medical facility (catchment area) must seek in-patient service at that facility before they can qualify for treatment at other military facilities or for partially or fully reimbursable treatment at civilian medical facilities. Eligible patients residing outside of a catchment area may seek healthcare at a military medical facility of their choice or through civilian providers. An estimated beneficiary population of 64,623 resided within the Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital catchment area during FY 1992 (Table 4.2-13). Approximately 45% of the beneficiary population were members of the 7th Infantry Division (Light) and their family members; 28% were other active-duty personnel within the catchment area and their family members; and the remaining 27% of the population, or 17,515 beneficiaries, were military retirees and their family members. Table 4.2-13 Beneficiary Population Residing in the Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital Catchment Area Beneficiary Category Sponsor® Family Member Total 7th Infantry Division 12,564 16,333 28,897 Other Active Duty 7,918 10,293 18,211 Retiree 7,298 10.217 17,515 Total 27,780 36,843 64,623 Note: The catchment area includes the area within a 40-mile radius of the hospital, as defined by zip codes. ® The sponsor includes current and retired active-duty personnel. In addition to eligible beneficiaries within its catchment area, Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital serves eligible patients, primarily retirees and their family members, residing outside the catchment area, including elsewhere in Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Santa Clara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. The exact number of retirees and their family members residing outside of the catchment area that use Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital is not known; however, estimates of this population have ranged from approximately 7,000 (Fort Ord Community Task Force 1992) to 11,000. The average occupancy (average number of beds occupied by patients on a given day) of Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital during FY 1990 was 57.9% (American Hospital Association 1990). The demand for in-patient services at Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital is characterized by admissions and bed days. As shown in Table 4.2-14, retirees and their family members accounted for approximately 32% of the 10,635 admissions and 33% of the bed days at Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital during FY 1990. The demand for out-patient services is characterized by clinic visits. Retirees and their family members accounted for approximately 42% of the 378,445 clinic visits in FY 1990 (Table 4.2-14). Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-26 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 Table 4.2-14 Utilization of Medical Services at Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital during Fiscal Year 1990 Hospital Bed Average Length Clinic Beneficiary Category Admissions Days of Hospital Stay Visits" Active Duty and Family Members 7,279 24,419 3.35 219,951 Retirees and Family Members 3,356 12,053 3.59 158.494 Total 10,635 36,472 3.43 378,445 a Includes out-patients and in-patients who were seen in the clinic during hospitalization. Because active-duty personnel receive treatment on a higher priority basis at military medical facilities than other eligible patients, family members and retirees sometimes need to obtain medical treatment at civilian facilities. If in-patient medical services are not available at Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital, or if the patient load is at the hospital's capacity, eligible patients can (after obtaining a Statement of Non-Availability) be treated at civilian hospitals through the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), a medical benefits program of the federal government. Generally, CHAMPUS requires patients to pay 20-25% of treatment costs plus an annual deductible amount of up to $150 for individuals and $300 for families. Retirees and their family members over 64 years of age are transferred to the Medicare system. California is part of a demonstration program that includes two CHAMPUS-related programs: CHAMPUS/PRIMEand CHAMPUS/EXTRA. CHAMPUS/PRIME is essentially a health maintenance organiza- tion model. Enrollees in the CHAMPUS/PRIME program select a physician from a list of participating physicians. Costs to enrollees are $5.00 per office visit and $8.00 per hospital day (slightly higher for family members). CHAMPUS/EXTRA is essentially a plan modeled after a preferred provider plan, where beneficiaries have greater choice in selecting healthcare providers. No enrollment costs are required under either program, but patient co-payment costs are higher under CHAMPUS/EXTRA than under CHAMPUS/ PRIME. The PRIME and EXTRA demonstration programs are scheduled to end July 31, 1993; however, these programs or variations of these programs may be permanently implemented following federal review of their effectiveness (Fort Ord Community Task Force 1992). Some physicians in Monterey County accept standard CHAMPUS patients; however, many physicians and healthcare providers are reluctant to accept CHAMPUS patients because of relatively low reimbursement rates for medical services. Three hospitals within the county, including Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula in Monterey, Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital in Salinas, and Natividad Medical Center in Salinas, accept CHAMPUS patients. Natividad Medical Center recently signed a contract to accept military beneficiaries enrolled in the CHAMPUS/PRIME and EXTRA programs. Size and occupancy data for the three local CHAMPUS hospitals are presented in Table 4.2-15. Patients represented by CHAMPUS were a relatively small percentage of total patients at Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital, and Natividad Medical Center in 1990. These patients accounted for an estimated 2.7% of Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula's total bed days in 1990 (Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula pers. comm.). Similarly, CHAMPUS patients generated approximately 1% of Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital's total revenues during the same year (Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital pers. comm.). No CHAMPUS patient data was available for Natividad Medical Center (Natividad Medical Center pers. comm.). Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-27 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 Table 4.2-15 Size and Occupancy Data for Hospitals Available to Military Medical Beneficiaries Hospital Percentage of Beds® Admissions" Occupancy" CHAMPUS Hospitals Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula Natividad Medical Center" Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital 170 114 223 11,144 5,844 10,226 84.7 50.0 65.0 Military Hospitals Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital Naval Hospital Oakland Travis Air Force Base 159 263 245 10,126 N/A 9,709 57.9 N/A 73.5 Notes: CHAMPUS = Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services. N/A = data not available. Data represents information derived from a 1990 survey of hospitals. " Number of beds, cribs, and pediatric and neonatal bassinets regularly maintained for inpatients. b Number of patients admitted for in-patient service during a 12-month period ending in 1990. c Ratio of the average number of inpatients received each day to the average number of beds maintained during the 1990 reporting period. d Data for Natividad Medical Center excludes activity related to the hospital's nursing home-type facilities. Sources: American Hospital Association 1990. Rather than use local CHAMPUS hospitals for in-patient services, medical beneficiaries may travel outside of the region to seek healthcare at other military hospitals. Naval Hospital Oakland and David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield are the closest military hospitals for retirees in the Monterey region. Size and occupancy data for Naval Hospital Oakland and David Grant Medical Center are presented in Table 4.2-15. In addition to in-patient and out-patient services potentially available at Naval Hospital Oakland and David Grant Medical Center, out-patient services are also available at two PRIMUS clinics located in Salinas and at the Presidio of Monterey in Monterey. The PRIMUS clinics are administered by the Sisters of Charity of the Immaculate Word through a contract with the government. The clinics serve the military beneficiary population at no cost to patients. The PRIMUS clinics in Salinas and Monterey serve an average of 140 and 260 patients per day, respectively (Fort Ord Community Task Force 1992). Based on operating the clinics 250 days per year, the Salinas and Monterey clinics annually absorb 35,000 and 65,000 outpatient visits from beneficiaries, respectively. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Socioeconomics Volume I 4-28 December 1992 4.2.4 Schools 4.2.4.1 Monterey Peninsula Unified School District The Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) serves Fort Ord and the Monterey Peninsula. Current districtwide enrollment is 14,152, with a capacity of 17,606. The MPUSD operates five schools at Fort Ord on land leased from the Army. More than half of the students at two elementary schools in the City of Marina are from military fami- lies. Seaside High School's students are predominantly from military families (Fort Ord Task Force 1992). Approximately one-third of all enrolled students are children of military personnel or civilians who work at Fort Ord. The MPUSD receives reimbursement from the federal government for each child of a Fort Ord military or civilian family that attends a MPUSD school ($1,400 for resident child, $14 for nonresident child). 4.2.4.2 Salinas Union High School District The Salinas Union High School District currently averages 33% above capacity enrollment. Approximately 300 students from Fort Ord families attend a Salinas Union High School District facility (RKG Associates 1992). By 2000, the district expects to more than double its enrollment. Growth plans include the addition of Alvarez High School. This facility would increase the district's capacity by 2,000 students. However, even if the district begins construction on Alvarez High School within the next 3 years, the district will still need another high school (Jones & Stokes Associates 1991). 4.2.4.3 Salinas Elementary School Districts The City of Salinas has four elementary school districts: Salinas City, Alisal, Santa Rita, and Washington. All four districts are currently operating above capacity. There are plans to construct several facilities within the districts to increase capacity and decrease overcrowding, but funding has not been available. The City of Salinas is currently asking voters to authorize a bond measure to assist with construction costs for the proposed facilities (Salinas Elementary School District pers. comm.). Even if the bond measure passes and construction commences, the elementary school districts in Salinas would still be operating at greater-than- capacity levels because of the city's accelerated growth rate. Through interdistrict agreements, approximately 185 students from Fort Ord families attend classes in one of the elementary school districts in Salinas. 4.2.4.4 North County Unified School District With an enrollment of approximately 4,900 students, the North County Unified School District (NCUSD) has a capacity of approximately 200 additional students. The district consists of eight schools: four elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school, and one continuation school (Jones & Stokes Associates 1991). According to a NCUSD survey conducted in 1990, 207 students from Fort Ord families attend a NCUSD facility (RKG Associates 1992). This number is considered high by the NCUSD's current administration. They estimate that a maximum of approximately 75 students attending NCUSD facilities are from Fort Ord families (North County Union School District pers. comm.). 4.2.4.5 Monterey Peninsula College Monterey Peninsula College offers a comprehensive set of courses in 8-week cycles at its Fort Ord campus. At least one-third of the students enrolled are not military personnel or their families but attend that campus because of its convenient location (Fort Ord Community Task Force 1992). Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft E1S Volume I 4-29 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 4.2.4.6 Golden Gate University Approximately 20% of Golden Gate University's student body is military personnel or their family members (Fort Ord Community Task Force 1992). 4.2.5 Recreation This section incorporates by reference information from the Other Physical Attributes Baseline Study of Fort Ord, California, which is available at the public information repository established at the Seaside Branch Library (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992e). 4.2.5.1 Undeveloped Recreational Opportunities Undeveloped recreational opportunities exist in areas that remain in their original natural state with few or no developed facilities. These opportunities include trails and paths, beaches, open space areas, and natural habitat preserves. Many undeveloped recreational opportunities on the installation are available to the public and military or civilian Fort Ord personnel. Through the Directorate of Personnel and Community Activities, the public can receive permission to use a majority of the installation area for various recreational opportunities, including, bicycling, equestrian activities, woodcutting, and hiking. Approximately 14,500 acres of the installation is available for undeveloped recreational activities. These areas include all of the undeveloped portions of the installation except for the 8,000-acre inland range area, which is used for live ordnance exercises and is considered very hazardous at present. Additionally, hunting and fishing are popular recreational opportunities on the installation. These two activities draw the highest visitation of any of the undeveloped recreational activities. Fishing for rainbow trout, bluegill, channel catfish, and bass occurs at the East Garrison Pond and surf fishing occurs on the coastline of the installation. Hunting for California blacktail deer, cottontail rabbit, California valley quail, and mourning dove is permitted in the oak woodland areas in the central portion of the installation. Persons hunting and fishing on the installation must possess state and installation permits to participate in these activities. 4.2.5.2 Developed Recreational Activities Developed recreational opportunities exist in or on developed recreational facilities. These may be indoor or outdoor facilities, depending on the activity. These opportunities include gymnasiums, indoor and outdoor playing fields and courts, parks, campgrounds, visitor service facilities, and community centers offering recreational activities. Fort Ord has several developed recreational areas for numerous activities. These recreational opportunities are primarily available to on-installation personnel, but some are available to the public with appropriate permits from the Directorate of Personnel and Community Affairs. The developed recreational facilities include a youth center with gymnasium, three additional gymnasiums, a bowling center, two championship 18-hole golf courses, a 17-acre campground ("travel camp") and 8-acre pistol range, an outdoor football and track and field stadium, an indoor olympic-size pool, four theaters, the Stilwell Hall community center, an auto hobby shop, and an equestrian center. These facilities are located in the Main Garrison area (approximately 440 of the total 470 acres of developed recreation area) except for the Travel camp" and pistol range, located in the East Garrison area; Stilwell Hall, which is located on the coast; and the equestrian center, located north of the Main Garrison area. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-30 Affected Environment Socioeconomics December 1992 4.3 SOILS, GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SEISMICITY This section incorporates by reference information from the Flora and Fauna Baseline Study of Fort Ord, California; the Soils Baseline Study of Fort Ord, California; and the Other Physical Attributes Baseline Study of Fort Ord, California, which are available at the public information repository established at the Seaside Branch Library (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992a, 1992d, and 1992e). 4.3.1 Soil and Geologic Ecosystem Relationships Three of the soil types or geologic features underlying Fort Ord are of limited extent and support unique botanical relationships. Recent and relict sand dunes, which cover roughly two-thirds of the facility (Figure 4.3-1), occur in only limited areas of the California coast. Oceano, Baywood, and Arnold soil series developed on the dunes (Figure 4.3-2). The sand dune soils show a generally increasing elevation, age, and soil profile development gradient from the coast to the inland areas. The low fertility and low water-holding capacity of the soils, together with the foggy coastal climate, provide the unusual conditions that restrict habitat to plant communities of limited range and support special-status plant species (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992a). Interspersed in depressions between some of the dunes are small, localized vernal pool wetlands (refer to Section 4.11, "Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources", for a further discussion of wetlands). The wetland substrate may be relict lagoon deposits. These areas are mapped by the Monterey County soil survey as the Antioch series or Santa Vnez series inclusion within the Arnold mapping unit (Figure 4.3-2) (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1978a). Based on a preliminary reconnaissance survey of the area, this mapping is incomplete and does not fully describe the actual pedoiogic (soil) and botanic diversity. The third soil and geologic feature of limited extent is the Arnold series and Xerorthent soil type formed on the Aromas formation. The distinctive red color of the oxidized iron in the sandstone formation is the result of a pedogenic (soil-forming) process and may be a relict paleosol (i.e., reexposed fossil soil). Such soil types are very rare and important for research in soil formation processes that exist under various climatic conditions and landscape ages. In addition, the Aromas formation soils support a rare maritime chaparral community (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992a). In general, the soil/geologic landscape and correlation with vegetation communities are more complex than existing mapping indicates. 4.3.2 Erosion 4.3.2.1 Coastal Erosion The severe coastal erosion at Fort Ord, which has been occurring for at least several thousand years, is a natural process resulting from the postglacial sea level rise, wave patterns and geomorphic structure of Monterey Bay. The erosion rate has accelerated in this century from about 1.5 feet per year up to 7.0 feet per year in 1983 because of reduced sediment supply (from sand mining along the coast and sediment trapping in reservoirs in the Salinas River watershed) and loss of vegetation on shoreline dunes. A rubble revetment to preserve Stilwell Hall was repaired in 1983 but has since continued to erode on the south side and slip into the ocean. Engineering works proposed in the 1983 U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center Report (Smith 1983) have not been implemented because of the high cost. Pillars supporting storm drainage pipes opening to the ocean are exposed and are likely to collapse. Although the erosion rate has slowed in the last 6 years from a lack of large winter storms, erosion is likely to resume at the previous accelerated rate with suitable storm conditions. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-31 Affected Environment Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity December 1992 Figure 4.3-1 Surficial Geology and Fault Lines of Fort Ord Sources: Defense Mapping Agency Hydrographic/Topographic Center 1980; Jenkins 1971. 4-32 Figure 4.3-3 Water and Coastal Erosion Potential at Fort Ord Erosion Potential / // / / / / / / Moderate to High High ^ High to Very High MILE Sources: Defense Mapping Agency 1980; U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1978 4-35 Figure 4.3-4 Erosion on cutbank and downslope of a roadway, Aromas formation on Fort Ord. Figure 4.3-5 Extensive stream channel gullying, Paso Robles formation on Fort Ord. 4-36 Figure 4.3-6 Result of stream channel gullying in conjunction with a road, Paso Robles formation on Fort Ord. Figure 4.3-7 Existing landslide, Paso Robles formation on Fort Ord. 4-37 Erosion on the Paso Robles formation is causing considerable downstream sedimentation, particularly in Toro Creek, which runs partially on Fort Ord or adjacent to the southeast boundary. The upstream erosion contributes to a potential flooding hazard for existing residences along Toro Creek. Historic heavy cattle grazing, beginning when Monterey was the capitol of California in the Spanish and Mexican periods, may have caused rangeland deterioration and initiated the severe erosion now evident on the grasslands in the southeast quadrant of Fort Ord. In addition, cattle grazing in the old dunes area after the establishment of Fort Ord caused severe wind erosion problems until the grazing was discontinued. An ongoing sheep grazing program may be contributing to the erosion problem because of areas of overgrazing from sheep preferential grazing habits. A new grazing environmental assessment is being prepared. Efforts have been made to control, or at least retard, the active areas of erosion. The installation of drop inlets and planting of willow trees has slowed the deepening of the lower channel gullying, but the headward, upslope gully advance continues. Water erosion is not a problem on the sandy soil types identified above as susceptible to wind erosion, with three exceptions: the high infiltration rate of the sandy soils may be exceeded if runoff or drainage from developed areas is sufficiently concentrated, in which case erosion is rapid; areas of the Arnold soil series on the Aromas formation are susceptible; and the coastal dune cliffs are subject to wave erosion, as well as concentrated runoff or drainage erosion. 4.3.3 Topography Extensive areas of Fort Ord have slopes in excess of 15-30% (Figure 4.3-8). Limited areas have slopes approaching vertical. At present, very little development has occurred in these areas. A slope greater than 15% is considered a severe limitation on almost all development (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1978a) due to the hazard of erosion and landslides. 4.3.4 Agriculture/Horticulture Before Fort Ord was established, only limited agriculture was practiced on the property. Tomatoes and other vegetables were grown on the alluvial flats along Toro Creek; dryland spring peas were grown on the dunes at the north end of Fort Ord; and hay may have been grown on the grassy flats amidst the sand dunes. Almost all the soils on Fort Ord are generally unsuitable and severely limited for agriculture (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1978a). The sandy, droughty soils of Fort Ord limit landscaping and make lawns difficult and expensive to maintain. 4.3.5 Engineering Uses Different soil types may have various limitations as substrates for engineering or construction purposes. In addition to limitations caused by erosion, slope, landslides, and sedimentation, some soils on Fort Ord have limitations of low strength, shrink-swell potential, excavation caving, and piping (Figures 4.3-9, 4.3-10, and 4.3-11). Two soil series with high clay contents are rated as having severe limitations for low strength: Diablo for buildings, and both Diablo and Santa Ynez for roads, streets, and embankments. The same two soil series have a severe limitation of shrink-swell potential for buildings and roads and streets. Three poorly aggregated sandy soil series, Baywood, Oceano, and Arnold, have severe limitations for shallow excavation caving and for piping in embankments. Severe piping was observed in areas mapped as the Santa Ynez soil series. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume / 4-38 Affected Environment Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity December 1992 Figure 4.3-8 Slope Map at Fort Ord Figure 4.3-9 Soils with Low Strength at Fort Ord Sources: Defense Mapping Agency 1980, U S Soil Conservation Service 1978. 4-40 Figure 4.3-10 Soils with High Shrink-Swell Potential at Fort Ord * Marina > \ IMPACT AREA I o * , MILE Sources: Defense Mapping Agency 1980; U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1978. 4-41 Figure 4.3-11 Soils with Excavation Caving and Piping Potential at Fort Ord Sources: Defense Mapping Agency 1980: U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1978. 4-42 A severe limitation exists for reservoir construction on Oceano, Baywood, and non-Aromas formation Arnold soil series because of very high permeability and seepage and piping potential in earthen dam embankments. 4.3.6 Seismic Hazards Several inferred or concealed earthquake faults (i.e., the Reliz or Gabilan, Chupines, Ord Terrace, and Seaside faults) either cross or are adjacent to Fort Ord (Figure 4.3-1). The first has possibly been active in the last 0.7 million years, and the latter three have possibly been active in the last 1.6 million years. None show activity in the last 10,000 years, but the potential cannot be ruled out (California Division of Mines and Geology 1992). The San Andreas fault, historically active in the last 200 years, is within 25 miles of Fort Ord. The potential of earthquake damage from ground shaking is moderate to very high, with the highest potential in the coastal dune zone. Only minor earthquake damage was sustained at Fort Ord in the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989. Cracks appeared in the concrete between Stilwell Hall and the dune cliffs because of the unstable condition of the cliffs, and a few cracks occurred in the Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital because of ground shaking. Approximately 8,000 buildings exist on Fort Ord. Most buildings on Fort Ord were not constructed to comply with current local building codes relating to seismic safety because most were built before modern seismic safety provisions were incorporated into California building codes and Department of the Army technical manuals. Seismic safety provisions of California building codes focus on buildings that receive concentrated public use or house sensitive uses, such as schools and hospitals. Schools on Fort Ord are owned and operated by the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District on land leased from the federal government, and are required to be in compliance with current building codes relating to seismic safety. The Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital, which was completed in 1971, would require extensive modifications to comply with local and state seismic safety building codes required of in-patient healthcare facilities. The Army has conducted extensive studies of the modifications that would be required to bring this building into compliance with current regulations and has estimated the cost of such modifications to be greater than $50 million. Other buildings, such as theaters, recreational facilities, and community centers, were generally constructed before 1973 and may also require substantial modifications to comply with current seismic regulations. Other earthquake hazards of concern include liquefaction and landslides. High to very high liquefaction potential exists on recent alluvial sediments along Toro Creek. The same potential may exist in other small, localized areas along creeks; near existing ponds and reservoirs; and in isolated, water- retaining basins amidst the sand dunes. Landslide potential as an earthquake effect is present in the landslide-prone areas described above, including the Aromas formation and the shoreline dune cliffs. Past studies have indicated that tsunamis and seiches (California Division of Mines and Geology 1980), large seismically induced and potentially destructive open ocean and bay waves, are of relatively minor concern in Monterey Bay (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992e) and would add only a somewhat increased hazard of coastal erosion at Fort Ord. 4.3.7 Toxic Contaminants and Live Ordnance The known sites of toxic contamination and live ordnance are found on the sandy soils of the Dune Lands and the Oceano, Baywood, and Arnold soil series. These soils are characterized by their high permeability and infiltration rates, low fertility and water-holding capacity, and high susceptibility to wind erosion if vegetation is removed or the surface is otherwise disturbed. (Refer to Section 4.10, "Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation", for further discussion.) Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-43 Affected Environment Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity December 1992 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Soils Volume I 4-44 December 1992 Figure 4.3-2 Major Soil Series and Types at Fort Ord LEGEND Coastal Beaches Dune Land Oceano Baywood Arnold Antioch Santa Ynez Xerorthents Diablo Seaside MILE Sources: Defense Mapping Agency 1980; U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1978. 4-33 4.3.2.2 Wind Erosion The portion of Fort Ord comprised of Dune Land and the Oceano, Baywood, and Arnold soil series (Figure 4.3-2) is susceptible to wind erosion if vegetation is removed and the surface is disturbed. Organic matter accumulation or development of soil structure in the surface horizons of the Oceano, Baywood, and Arnold soils retards wind erosion and lowers the erosion hazard unless the topsoil is disturbed or removed. Loose sand, such as in the Oceano, Baywood, and Arnold subsoils, has a wind erosion potential of up to 310 tons per acre per year in open, unvegetated areas, the highest wind erosion potential of any soil type in the Wind Erosion Equation rating system. Wind erosion is a continuing problem at Fort Ord particularly in areas under development, such as during the construction of Fritzsche Army Airfield. Sand blows from the exposed soil surface, damaging existing and replanted vegetation and accumulating in areas from which it must be removed. Wind erosion continues until the source areas are stabilized and revegetated. Removing trees that act as windbreaks increases the wind erosion potential. 4.3.2.3 Water Erosion Two regions of Fort Ord are highly susceptible to water erosion: the Arnold and Xerorthent soils on the Aromas formation and the Santa Ynez and Diablo soils on the Paso Robles formation (Figures 4.3-1, 4.3-2, and 4.3-3). The red sandstone layer distinguishing the Aromas formation is 3-15 feet thick and 0-15 feet deep below the soil surface. The sandstone layer is especially evident in ridgetop edge outcrops, which although somewhat resistant, are slowly eroding. Rill and gully erosion sufficient to produce palisade or badland-like features is a naturally occurring process. Although the sandstone layer is weakly consolidated, it is relatively impervious to water compared with the unconsolidated soil; water drains rapidly through the soil profile until it is impeded by the oxidized iron-cemented sandstone layer. Excavations or cuts in this profile produce immediate springs above the sandstone layer where it is exposed. Such induced surface runoff accelerates the natural erosion process. Slopes where eroded material collects are additionally subject to landslides (Dupre 1990). Erosion on the Aromas formation is exacerbated by disturbance, such as roadcuts. Figure 4.3-4 shows eroded areas on the cutbank and downslope of a roadway. Problems in drainage were also encountered in the construction of the new ammunition supply point. A ditch for an electric line pipe conduit formed a gully breakout where it was excavated below the sandstone layer, and a drainage structure conveying runoff partly downslope from the ridgetop facility induced erosion in spite of riprapping . The Paso Robles formation also has a high potential erosion hazard. The Santa Ynez soil series mapping unit may include an infiltration-impeding layer of clay accumulation as described in the existing Monterey County soil survey or may be underlain by unconsolidated alluvial deposits and weakly calcium carbonate-cemented sandstone. The Diablo soil series has a clay particle-size class throughout the profile with a consequent low infiltration and high runoff rate. This readily erodible landscape actually formed a more stable, rounded topography under natural conditions, held in place by a nearly continuous grass cover. In contrast, the soils of the Aromas formation are more susceptible to erosion under natural conditions because the native chaparral vegetation cover is noncontinuous. Under disturbed conditions on the Paso Robles formation, such as road or toeslope cuts and grazing pressures, especially when concentrated in stream channels, induced erosion is even more extensive and dramatic than on the Aromas formation. Figure 4.3-5 shows the typical pattern of extensive stream channel gullying that characterizes nearly every stream channel on the Paso Robles formation on Fort Ord. Figure 4.3-6 shows the result of stream channel gullying in conjunction with a road placement (the original roadway is now virtually obliterated). This area of severest erosion has additional complications. The hillside above, although seemingly intact, is laced with piping or internal, subsurface erosion tunnels that open to the surface, indicating widespread slope instability. The Paso Robles formation is highly susceptible to landslides, as indicated by both recent (Figure 4.3-7) and geomorphically identifiable past landslides (Dupre 1990). Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-34 Affected Environment Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity December 1992 4.4 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES This section incorporates by reference information from the Other Physical Attributes Baseline Study of Fort Ord, California, which is available at the public repository established at the Seaside Branch Library (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992e). 4.4.1 Wastewater Wastewater is collected on Fort Ord by a system of mains and pump stations owned and operated by the Army and is treated by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency's (MRWPCA's) regional treatment plant and the East Garrison sewage treatment plant. Much of the Main Garrison and East Garrison collection system facilities were installed in the 1940s and 1950s when the installation was being expanded. Some renovations were conducted in the 1960s and again in the 1970s, but many of the facilities remain in their originally constructed condition, especially pump stations. The Fritzsche Army Airfield collection system is separate from the Main Garrison and East Garrison systems and mainly collects wastewater generated from aircraft maintenance. Maintenance of all wastewater collection facilities has been hampered by a lack of telemetry equipment to monitor pump station operation and pipe condition and by insufficient maintenance staff. Fort Ord is within the sen/ice boundary of MRWPCA and transports nearly all of its wastewater to the MRWPCA's regional treatment plant, which is located north of Marina. This plant has a design capacity of 29.6 million gallons per day (mgd), is permitted to treat 27 mgd, and receives average flows of 20 mgd. Fort Ord is allocated 3.3 mgd of capacity at this plant, of which it consumes an average of approximately 2.4 mgd. The East Garrison sewage treatment plant treats up to 0.03 mgd; treating more than these low flows may not allow the plant to comply with Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. Other treatment plants, including the Ord Village, Main Garrison, and Fritzsche Army Airfield wastewater treatment plants exist on the installation but have been closed. 4.4.2 Solid Waste Solid waste generated on Fort Ord is collected by Monterey Disposal Company and is deposited in the Monterey Regional Waste Management District's (MRWMD's) Marina Landfill. In June 1992, the Army's contract with Monterey Disposal Company was scheduled to expire and the Army requested bidders. After receiving no adequate bids, the Army extended its agreement with Monterey Disposal Company for 6 months. (Monterey Regional Waste Management District pers. comm.) The Army will contract with a solid waste hauling company for future solid waste collection service. A transfer station is operated on the installation by the Directorate of Engineering and Housing with a permitted capacity to store approximately 100 cubic yards of material. The Marina landfill has a capacity of approximately 32 million tons and accepts 1,000 tons of refuse per day. Approximately 94 tons per day of this amount originates at Fort Ord. Incorporating anticipated growth and waste reduction measures, the landfill life is estimated at 100 years (Monterey Regional Waste Management District pers. comm.). Recyclable materials are also collected and stored at the landfill. • Some unauthorized dumping of solid wastes occurs at Fort Ord. Unauthorized disposal of waste concrete and asphalt occurs on the installation, and tree trimmings from Toro Park, a subdivision located adjacent to the eastern boundary of Fort Ord, have been dumped onto adjacent Fort Ord property. There have been no known incidences of any hazardous waste dumping. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-45 Affected Environment Public Services and Utilities December 1992 4.4.3 Telephone Service Fort Ord maintains its own telephone system, which is networked into the Pacific Bell telephone system. The Army's switching center on North-South Road (Building 4250) is served by underground copper cables delivered from the Pacific Bell Seaside station. Installation infrastructure consists of approximately 405 miles of overhead, buried, and ducted cables. The lines and poles servicing the wooden barracks, weapon ranges, and training areas are substandard (Beach-Philpot Associates 1984). Pacific Bell also provides substantial support to portions of the installation through a lease signed in 1976, which allows for the reciprocal use of telephone infrastructure. Service is provided under a modified version and extension of this lease (Pacific Bell pers. comm.). Pacific Bell is awaiting disposal before renegotiating this contract. Pacific Bell provides direct telephone service to the following areas from two switching centers: the Seaside switching center serves Hayes Park, Stilwell Park, Fitch Park, Thorson Village, Brostrom Mobile Home Park, Marshall Park, two child development centers, and the Fort Ord Credit Union. The Marina switching center serves Patton Park, Abrams Park, Frederick Park, Schoonover Park, and a mini- mart post exchange. Pacific Bell leases poles and conduit to serve portions of the residential areas and the Army switching center. No Pacific Bell facilities are In the East Garrison area or at Fritzsche Army Airfield. (Fort Ord Community Task Force 1992.) 4.4.4 Gas and Electric Service Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides gas and electric service to Fort Ord under a general services agreement that expires December 1995. In addition, two modifications to the general services agreement cover gas service to the Army's commercial-type uses (noncore uses) at Fort Ord. These two modifications extend until August 1993 and cover the Presidio of Monterey (POM) annex and Fort Ord. The facilities serving Fort Ord are divided into three categories: transmission, regulation/substation, and distribution. (Pacific Gas and Electric Company pers. comm.) 4.4.4.1 Transmission Lines Transmission of gas occurs through two PG&E lines that traverse the installation and serve Fort Ord and city areas within the Monterey Bay area. The current rate of consumption of gas on the installation is 146 thousand cubic feet per hour (146 MCFH). Two electric transmission line systems traverse Fort Ord. A two-line 60-kilovolt (kV) system, known as the Salinas/Del Monte 60-kV 1 and 2, serves Fort Ord and city and county areas within the greater Monterey Bay area. A two-line 115-kV system, known as the Moss Landing/Del Monte 115 kV 1 and 2, serves the city and county areas within the greater Monterey Bay area but does not serve Fort Ord. Service to a majority of the base is from the 60-kV line that is stepped down to a 12-kV line. An easement for a future "Neponset" tower line exists adjacent to the easement for the 60-kV line. Actual annual electricity consumption on the installation in 1991 was approximately 105,000 megawatts (MW) (1,000 kW = 1 MW). The electric and gas transmission lines in the study area are identified in Figure 4.4-1. The gas and electric transmission systems in the Main Garrison area are shown in Figures 4.4-2 and 4.4-3, respectively. 4.4.4.2 Regulation/Substations Gas to the installation is regulated at metering stations located at Engineer Road, 2nd Avenue and 8th Street, Gigling Road at State Route (SR) 1, Coe Avenue at SR 1, and at the gas transmission regulator located at 1st and 8th Streets. The distribution lines are Army owned (except for the lines to Bayview Park, North Bayview Park, Thorson Village, and the schools), and condition of the lines varies depending on the age and composition of gas mains. Some of the lines do not meet California Public Utility Commission standards. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-46 Affected Environment Public Services and Utilities December 1992 Figure 4.4-1 PG&E Gas and Electricity Transmission Lines and Storm Drain Outfalls through Fort Ord LEGEND Electricity Transmission Lines Natural Gas Transmission Lines Storm Drain Outtalls kV Kilovolt HP High Pressure i 2600 6000 7800 100 00 Imt 4-47 §||^ D Coastal >1 N? Subbasin 0 / Groundwater Northern Inland Subbasin Basin Monterey Peninsula Airport S "bbasfi Figure 4.5-1 Hydrogeologic Conditions in the Fort Ord Vicinity ■ *—m Fort Ord boundary Fault. Dashed where approximately located. Queried where unknown. D=down; U=up. Anticline. Dashed where approximately located. Queried where unknown. * • ? • • Boundary of Salinas Valley Aquiclude Queried where unknown. Direction of groundwater flow "A" aquifer. ^ 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers in Area 1. Paso Robles and Santa Margarita Form- ations in Area 2. Buried bedrock ridge or anticline that WtyM forms a barrier to groundwater flow. Queried where unknown. /^p\ Hydrogeologic area within Fort Ord. Area 3 shaded. Locations of known groundwater contam- ination on Fort Ord Main landfill (|3) Main Garrison sewage treatment plant (6) Fritzsche Army Airfield burn pit o Municipal supply wells (well number indicated for Fort Ord wells) Source: Harding Lawson Associates pers. comm. Scale 1:60,000 0 12 3 miles 0 2,500 6,000 7,600 10,0 00 feet 0 12 3 kilometers promising for groundwater development and probably does not contribute substantial amounts of groundwater inflow to the western part of Fort Ord. 4.5.1.3 Water Rights Water supplies under which Fort Ord currently operates are from groundwater sources, which could continue to be used or could be passed to the new property owner. Each owner has the right to drill and pump on their property; however, the locations, timing, and amounts to be pumped could be limited or controlled by state and local regulatory agencies. There are no transferable water rights to groundwater in California. The groundwater overdrafts and seawater intrusion make the value of the rights to these groundwater sources questionable. 4.5.1.4 Water Quality Surface water quality data within Fort Ord are minimal because surface waters are not used for domestic supply but are used to a limited extent for stock watering. In general, surface water quality of drainage channels within the installation varies with the seasons. During the first strong rains of the season, ditches and storm drainage systems draining the urban areas of the installation receive the highest concentration of urban pollutants. Urban pollutants are variable but generally consist of oils, grease, heavy metals (lead, copper, cadmium), pesticide residues, and coliform bacteria. Surface soils sampled at onshore storm drain discharges to swales indicated a presence of urban pollutants. Pesticides and organics, hydrocarbon products and their breakdown components, and metals were found. It is not yet known whether a human or environmental health risk exists because of the pesticides or organics or whether the concentration of metals exceeds background levels Gas samples were also analyzed and no volatile organic compounds were detected. Urban stormwater runoff discharging into the ocean may also locally impair coastal water quality. Results of water quality monitoring by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) through its State Mussel Watch Program indicate that resident mussels from parts of Monterey Bay contain high levels of lead, pesticides, and petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1990). Permits have not been required in the past to discharge urban runoff within the installation. However, Section 6217 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 requires local entities that discharge any stormwaters into the ocean to participate in the future in a non- point-pollution control plan developed by the California Coastal Commission and the SWRCB. The plan must then be submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for approval. The SWRCB must then have an enforceable plan through the local governments no later than 3 years after the plan is approved. The SWRCB also adopted a General Industrial Storm Water Permit in November 1991, which will require that all storm drain outfalls classified as industrial apply for a permit for discharge. This permit applies to stormwater discharges into open areas, streams, or the ocean. On September 21,1992, Monterey Bay was officially designated a national marine sanctuary. Under this designation, resource protection is assigned the highest priority among research and education programs and visitor use. The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, and its implementing regulations (15 CFR 922) requires a management plan to protect the sanctuary's resources. Regulations established for this purpose have adopted best management plans to control non-point-source runoff; they do not, however, alter or change existing SWRCB non-point-source runoff regulations discussed above. However, the Marine and Estuarine Management Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reserves the right to regulate any substance that enters the sanctuary from outside sources and injures sanctuary resources. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-55 Affected Environment Water Resources December 1992 Winter storms contribute to erosion and gullying in some areas, particularly the drainages of the eastern half of the installation. Surface erosion can cause high concentrations of suspended sediment loading in streams causing increased siltation, turbidity, and accompanying high total dissolved solids. In general, the surface waters of this region are hard and high in total dissolved solids. Streams may contain elevated levels of sulfates, bicarbonates, calcium, magnesium, and sodium depending on localized conditions (Defense Mapping Agency 1980). Groundwater quality within Fort Ord is variable depending on the location and depth of the well. Saltwater intrusion from groundwater pumping has reduced water quality in most wells in the Main Garrison area so that these waters are unacceptable for drinking because of high chloride content. Recent water quality data for the three active potable supply wells (wells 29, 30, and 31), the standby potable supply wells (wells 17 and 24), and the golf course well are shown in Table 4.5-1. Water from standby well 24 and the golf course well have occasionally had concentrations of dissolved solids greater than 500 milligrams per liter, which is the recommended limit for drinking water. Concentrations probably have not exceeded 1,000 milligrams per liter, which is the maximum concentration allowed under secondary drinking water standards. During periods of high salinity, water from these wells could be blended with water from the other wells to meet drinking water standards. Use of water from either of these two wells for potable purposes may require approval from the California Department of Health Services. 4.5.2 Water Supply and Demand Wells provide the sole source of water supply for Fort Ord. A total of 29 wells have historically been used at various times for water supply, but only five have recently been in regular use. These include three active potable supply wells near East Garrison (wells 29, 30, and 31), a standby potable supply well near the east end of Marina (well 24), and the golf course well, which is used only for irrigation. In August 1992, the casing of well 32 collapsed, rendering the well permanently inoperable. A replacement well will be drilled in the near future. One additional standby well (well 17) has recently been removed from standby status because of electrical problems at the pump house. Well 17 may be reestablished as a standby source with some effort. Excessive sand production and the advance of seawater intrusion into the 180-foot and 400- foot aquifers forced older wells in the Main Garrison area to be abandoned in favor of deeper wells farther inland. The potable supply wells are all located in the Salinas Valley groundwater basin, and the golf course well is located in the Seaside basin. The Cities of Marina and Seaside have active water supply wells near the northwest and southwest corners of Fort Ord, respectively. Because of seawater intrusion in the 150-foot aquifer, the City of Marina presently obtains all of its water from one well completed in the 400-foot aquifer and three wells perforated in the 900-foot aquifer. The City of Seaside uses a combination of local groundwater and surface water from the Carmel River system distributed by the Cal-Am Water Company. Groundwater pumpage by Fort Ord and other nearby users is shown in Table 4.5-2. Monthly aver- age consumption rates for the Fort Ord potable supply system have ranged from 3.49 million gallons per day (mgd) to 9.41 mgd, or 77%-207% of the average annual consumption rate (Ace Pacific Company 1988). Per capita consumption for the Fort Ord potable supply system averaged 143 gallons per capita per day during 1986-1989, when the effective population (including the effects of visitors and employees who live off the installation) was 31,986 people. This consumption rate was substantially lower than the rate in the early 1980s (209 gallons per capita per day) because of water conservation measures implemented during the current drought, which began in 1987. Annual water consumption decreased from a high of 6,600 acre-feet in 1984 to an average of 5,100 acre-feet during 1986-1989. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-56 Affected Environment Water Resources December 1992 Table 4.5-1 Water Quality of Fort Ord Wells Source Name and Date Sampled Golf Public Course Health Well 17EG Well 24 Well 29 Well 30 Well 31 Well 32 Well Standard Constituents 4/90 6/11/92 6/11/92 6/11/92 6/11/92 11/85 6/11/92 (maximum) Constituents in mg/L Dissolved solids 650 s 410 390 320 410 431 320 500 b Hardness 430 200 240 260 240 142 130 None Calcium 90 33 37 32 45 64 26 None Magnesium 28 13 13 9.1 15 22 6.9 None Sodium 50 45 33 24 36 47 45 None Chloride 63 74 67 33 66 43 86 250 b Sulfate 170 29 77 68 92 101 25 250 b Fluoride 0.45 <0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.27 <.10 1.4 to 2.4' Nitrate <1 35 3.3 11 1.6 0.4 10 45 c Constituents in um/L Iron <10 510 <100 <100 <100 <110 <100 300 b Manganese 520 <30 <30 <30 40 95 <30 50 b Arsenic <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <5 <10 50 c Barium <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 58 <100 1,000 c Cadmium <1 1.7 <1.0 <1 <1 <0.5 <1.0 10 c Chromium <5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <25 <10 50 c Lead 16 7.4 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 50 c Mercury <0.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <0.2 <1.0 2 C Selenium <10 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5.0 10 c Silver <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <25 <10 50 c Note: Allowable fluoride varies with temperature between 0.8 and 2.4 mg/L. Optimum is about 1.0 mg/L. 8 Exceeds recommended standard. b Secondary (recommended) drinking water regulation. c Primary (mandatory) drinking water regulation. Source: Well water quality from annual reports to the California State Health Department and standards from Driscoll 1986. Safe yield is the amount of groundwater that can be pumped annually on a long-term basis without causing undesirable effects, the greatest of which in the Fort Ord area are excessive drawdown and seawater intrusion. The concept of safe yield is meaningful only when applied to an entire groundwater basin. The amount of yield available to individual users within the basin depends on the amounts and locations of pumping by other users. In the Salinas Valley groundwater basin, present pumpage in and near Fort Ord exceeds safe yield in the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers, as indicated by continuing seawater Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-57 Affected Environment Water Resources December 1992 intrusion and water levels below sea level in those aquifers. This indicates that the yield from the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers for Fort Ord is less than its present pumpage, assuming that pumping by other users remains unchanged. Conditions in the 900-foot aquifer are uncertain, but the Marina wells currently producing from this zone have not experienced seawater intrusion. Seawater intrusion has not affected wells in the Seaside basin (except for one shallow well near the shoreline) although water levels near the coast are sometimes slightly below sea level. This indicates that yield available to Fort Ord and other Seaside basin users may be less than the present total pumpage of 4,700 acre-feet per year. Table 4.5-2 Local Contributions to Groundwater Recharge and Pumpage in the Vicinity of Fort Ord Salinas Valley Seaside Groundwater Basin Groundwater Basin Fort Ord Marina Fort Ord All others Groundwater Flow Item (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) Recharge Rainfall 2,500 1,200 1,800 880 Pipe leaks 760 320 60 430 Irrigation return flow 760 320 200 e$o Total 4,020 1,840 2,060 1,960 Pumpage Total 5,100 2,100 400 4,300 Notes: Recharge from rainfall assumed to equal 2.75 inches per year (Staal, Gardner, and Dunne 1987) over areas 1 and 2 in Figure 4.5-1. Irrigation return flow assumed to equal 15% of total water use, except equals 50% of golf course irrigation. Pipe leaks assumed to equal 15% of total water use. Fort Ord pumpage equals measured average for 1986-1989. Golf course pumpage equals 400 acre-feet per year (Hurst 1992). Marina pumpage equals 1989 measured pumpage (similar to 1990 and 1991). Other pumpage and recharge in Seaside basin from Stall, Gardner, and Dunne (1988, 1990). One acre-foot equals 325,800 gallons. Fort Ord's contribution to groundwater supply (recharge) and demand (pumpage) is very different for the two groundwater basins, as shown in Table 4.5-2. Contributions by Marina, Seaside, and other users Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-58 Affected Environment Water Resources December 1992 in the basins are also shown for comparison. These itemizations are not complete groundwater budgets. The budgets are balanced by other items, including seawater intrusion, possibly recharge from Area 3 (Figure 4.5-1), and groundwater inflow from adjacent areas in the Salinas Valley and the El Toro Creek Valley. The amounts of recharge to the Salinas Valley groundwater basin shown for Fort Ord and Marina are the amounts that occur within the boundaries of these two jurisdictions. For the Seaside basin, all recharge and pumpage for the entire basin is included in the table. Fort Ord's contribution to pumpage in the Salinas Valley groundwater basin is greater than its contri- bution to recharge. The opposite is true in the Seaside basin, where Fort Ord recharge is five times greater than its pumpage. However, much of the existing groundwater use in Seaside depends on recharge from Fort Ord. Any increase in pumpage in the southern part of Fort Ord could cause total pumpage to exceed the basin's safe yield. These comparisons of pumpage and recharge ignore the fact that most recharge accrues to shallow aquifers and may not be readily available to wells pumping from deeper aquifers. The occurrence or threat of seawater intrusion has prompted local agencies to pursue water conser- vation measures and development of new supplies. Supply options currently receiving the most active consideration include Monterey County Water Resources Agency's seawater intrusion project, the New Los Padres Reservoir in the Carmel River basin, and a 3-mgd desalination plant in Sand City. The seawater intrusion project could mitigate for increased water demand resulting from reuse of Fort Ord. It is described in greater detail in Section 5.5 and in Volume II, Section II.5, "Water Resources". Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-59 Affected Environment Water Resources December 1992 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Water Resources Volume I 4 _gQ December 1992 4.6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY This section incorporates by reference information from the Other Physical Attributes Baseline Study of Fort Ord, California, which is available for review at the public information repository established at the Seaside Branch Library (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992e). 4.6.1 Law Enforcement Law enforcement service on Fort Ord is provided by the Army's Law Enforcement Command. Law Enforcement Command employs 144 federal civilian and 10 military patrol personnel who respond to crimes on the installation. The Law Enforcement Command uses 34 vehicles to patrol Fort Ord. Other law enforcement agencies in the vicinity of Fort Ord include the Monterey County Sheriff's Department, the Marina Public Safety Department, and the Seaside Police Department. 4.6.2 Fire Protection Fire protection service to Fort Ord is mainly provided by the Fort Ord Fire Prevention and Protection Division, Directorate of Engineering and Housing, which operates two fire stations and a total of 12 fire vehicles. These fire vehicles include four Class A pumpers, four brush/grass fire trucks, one ladder truck, two crash/rescue trucks, and one rescue vehicle. The two fire stations are staffed by 40 firefighters. The fire department responds to an average of 2,243 calls per year. Incidence of wildfires on the installation has increased since 1986, when 98 wildfires occurred, to 155 in 1991 and 178 as of July 31, 1992. Approximately 70% of these fires have occurred in the 8,000-acre inland range area, while the other 30% occurred elsewhere on the installation. The size of the fires has averaged 30 acres, ranging from 0.25 acre to several hundred acres. A portion of eastern Fort Ord lies within the Salinas Rural Fire Protection District, which maintains an automatic aid agreement with Fort Ord for fire response. The Salinas Rural Fire Protection District operates three fire stations; the closest to Fort Ord is located in the Toro area. Other fire protection agencies in the vicinity of Fort Ord include the Marina Public Safety Department and the Seaside Fire Department. 4.6.3 Medical Services The following is a brief summary of medical services provided in the study area. (Refer to 4.2.3, "Social Services", above for a detailed discussion of medical services provided at Fort Ord and its vicinity and of military retiree benefits.) 4.6.3.1 Fort Ord Fort Ord has 10 medical clinics without beds; four dental clinics; and a full-service hospital, the Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital. The hospital has 125 beds but is licensed to provide up to 440 beds. Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital is the only military hospital in the Monterey area. In 1990, Sj|as B. Hays Army Community Hospital had 57.9% occupancy. Occupancy is the average percentage of beds that is expected to be occupied at any time. (American Hospital Association 1990.) If active duty personnel need medical services that can not be provided at Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital, they are transported to the nearest military facility: either David Grant U.S. Air Force Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield or Naval Hospital Oakland. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-61 Affected Environment Public Health and Safety December 1992 4.6.3.2 Fort Ord Vicinity The Monterey Peninsula and western Monterey County are served by three nonmiiitary hospitals; all are Civil Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) providers. These are Natividad Medical Center and Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital in Salinas, and the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula in Monterey. 4.6.3.3 Natividad Medical Center Natividad Medical Center has 166 beds, of which 52 are part of the hospital's nursing home facility. The hospital provides all types of medical care, including emergency room, general medicine, surgery, intensive care, and obstetrics. The number of births at Natividad has substantially increased in recent years (Jones & Stokes Associates 1991). In 1990, there were 6,025 admissions and an occupancy of 63.3% (American Hospital Association 1990). 4.6.3.4 Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula The Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula offers general medical and surgical facilities and has 170 beds. In 1990, there were 11,144 admissions and 84.7% occupancy (American Hospital Association 1990). The Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula is unique in its high occupancy rate and its proximity to the retirees living on the Monterey Peninsula. Until September 1992, the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula was the first referral from Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital in its capacity as a CHAMPUS provider. As of September 1,1992, Natividad Medical Center is the first referral for CHAMPUS/PRIME and CHAMPUS/EXTRA subscribers. The Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula still provides CHAMPUS services for CHAMPUS/STANDARD subscribers. 4.6.3.5 Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital offers a wide variety of medical services, including open heart surgery and neurosurgery. The existing structure has 223 beds with 10,226 admissions in 1990 and an occupancy of 65% (American Hospital Association 1990). The hospital obtains funding from patient fees and the Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital District, which obtains a portion of property tax revenues collected from residents living in Salinas, Gonzales, Castroville, and surrounding unincorporated areas (Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission 1991). Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital is a CHAMPUS/ Standard provider similar to the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula. The Natividad Medical Center is the CHAMPUS/PRIME and CHAMPUS/EXTRA provider for the area, effective September 1, 1992, and is the first referral for overflow from Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital. According to Foundation Healthcare projections, Natividad Medical Center is expecting an average of five inpatients per day. Natividad Medical Center has indicated that they have ample capacity to treat existing inpatients and outpatients following closure of Hays Hospital. (Long, Natividad Medical Center, Patient Financial Services pers. comm.) The Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital, and Natividad Medical Center served an estimated population of 270,000 and had admissions totaling approximately 27,400 during 1990. Based on population served, number of admissions, and occupancy rate, it is estimated that the three hospitals have a reserve capacity of approximately 11,000 admissions. Using the 1990 proportion of admissions to population served, it is estimated that at 100% occupancy the hospitals have an ability to Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-62 Affected Environment Public Health and Safety December 1992 serve an additional maximum population of approximately 110,000. Some constraints in services provided may occur before reaching 100% occupancy. 4.6.4 Emergency Medical Services Emergency medical services are provided by ambulance coverage, 911 emergency services, and air transport and rescue services. 4.6.4.1 Ambulance and 911 Emergency Services Fort Ord currently provides its own ambulance coverage and its own emergency telephone service. Hays Hospital has three ambulances that serve the installation; no off-installation emergency responses are made, although patients are transferred occasionally. In 1990, Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital had 994 ambulance responses on the installation. The average response time was 8 minutes. Emergency room services at Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital currently serve approximately 30,000 persons a year; approximately 1,500 of these patients have life- or limb-threatening emergencies. Monterey County Communication Center coordinates off- installation 911 calls in the study area, which includes police, fire, and emergency medical services (first responder services). Second response is hospital services. Peninsula Paramedics, a private ambulance firm, operates both emergency and transfer services in the surrounding communities. Peninsula Paramedics makes approximately 1,200 ambulance responses per year. 4.6.4.2 Air Transport and Rescue Services Monterey County uses a private company, CALSTAR, for air transport services in the north Monterey County area. CALSTAR has two helicopters stationed in Gilroy, which do not have winch-lift capability and are limited to one or two patients. In the south county area and for rescue operations, the county uses Military Assistance to Safety and Traffic (MAST) emergency services. (Monterey County Communication Center pers. comm.) This MAST program has provided the central coast area with search, rescue, and air ambulance service since the 1970s and responds to more than 100 emergencies a year. These services are used by several public service providers, including sheriff, fire, and county agencies, under a letter of agreement. MAST missions are flown out of Fort Hunter Liggett and Fort Ord; each have a Medical Evacuation (MEDIVAC) operation that includes a helicopter that can transport three litters and four ambulatory patients. The MEDIVAC helicopters also have winch-lift capability that allows rescues in remote areas and water rescues. Total MAST missions are approximately five to seven per month from Fort Hunter Liggett and once a month from Fort Ord. Hours of operation at Fort Ord are 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 a.m., with a response time of 20 minutes maximum from notification to takeoff. On weekends and holidays, Fort Ord personnel are on standby, which increases response time to 40 minutes from notification to takeoff. Fort Hunter Liggett personnel are usually called on during weekends and holidays, even though they are a backup, because of their quicker response time. For most coastal rescues the U.S. Coast Guard from the San Francisco Air Station is used. They have winch-lift capability and on-board medics. 4.6.5 Seismic Safety Affected environment information for seismic safety can be found under 4.3, "Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity", discussed above. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-63 Affected Environment Public Health and Safety December 1992 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Affected Environment Public Health and Safety December 1992 4.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION This section incorporates by reference information from the Other Physical Attributes Baseline Study of Fort Ord, California, which is available for review at the public information repository established at the Seaside Branch Library (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992e). This section describes existing conditions in the traffic study area. The study area, which includes Fort Ord and the surrounding communities, is shown in Figure 4.7-1. This section begins by providing definitions for the traffic terms used both in this section and in Section II.7, "Traffic and Circulation". This is followed by a brief discussion of the approach used to describe traffic conditions, a discussion of service standards for roadway operations, and finally an analysis of current traffic conditions and problems in the traffic study area. 4.7.1 Definition of Terms Several technical terms are used in this traffic analysis that may be unfamiliar to most readers or that may have specific meanings in the context of this analysis. A definition of each of these terms is provided below to assist the reader in understanding the analyses in this section, in Section 5.7, and in Section II.7 in Volume II. ■ Level of Service - the operation of a roadway or intersection in terms of the level of congestion or delay that would be experienced by a person using the facility. Level of service (LOS) Is stated as a letter between A and F, with A representing the least congestion and F the worst. Table 4.7-1 describes the driving conditions that would be experienced while driving on a roadway operating at each LOS. Table 4.7-1 Level of Service Descriptions for Roadway Segments at Fort Ord Level of Service Definition A Represents unrestricted operation B Generally may be described as smooth and stable C Although still stable, approaches range where instability can occur because of small changes in flow D Vehicles must frequently adjust their speed to avoid conflicts E Represents capacity operation; considerable delay is experienced and speeds are greatly reduced F # Represents overcapacity flows with heavy congestion and considerable reductions in speed ■ Capacity - the maximum number of vehicles that can use a facility under normal operating conditions. Capacity can be expressed either as a daily capacity or a peak-hour capacity. The analyses in this report are based on daily capacities. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-65 Affected Environment Traffic and Circulation December 1992 Figure 4.7-1 Fort Ord Traffic Study Area - Multilane Highway - Urban Arterial - Rural 2-Lane 4-66 ■ Volume-to-Capacity Ratio - a number representing the proportion of a facility's total capacity occupied by existing or projected traffic volumes. A volume-to-capacity (V/C) of 1.00 indicates that a facility is or would operate at its capacity (LOS F). Ratios less than 1.00 indicate facilities operating below their capacity. Ratios greater than 1.00 indicate facilities operating above their capacity that would be exposed to severe congestion and delays. ■ Critical Roadway Segments - those facilities included in the traffic analysis. Inclusion of segments in the analysis was based on proximity to the installation, existence of current congestion problems on the facility, or likelihood that the facility would be affected by the proposed action and alternatives. ■ Freeway - a high-speed multilane facility providing travel between communities with access restricted to grade-separated interchanges. The capacity of a freeway is approximately 20,000 vehicles per lane per day. ■ Multilane Highway - a moderately high-speed facility with a limited number of cross streets. Traffic on the cross streets is typically controlled by stop signs to allow high volumes of traffic to travel along the highway with infrequent stops. The capacity of a multilane, access- controlled highway is approximately 16,000 vehicles per day per lane. ■ Urban Arterial - a moderate-speed facility typically with more than one lane of travel in each direction. Travel along the facility requires stops at traffic lights at intervals of approximately 1 mile or less. The capacity of an urban arterial is approximately 7,500 vehicles per lane per day. ■ Rural Two-Lane Highway - a moderately high-speed facility with few cross streets. Speeds and capacities are often determined by the extent to which trucks and other heavy vehicles restrict the speeds of other vehicles unable to pass them. Typically, the capacity of a two-lane rural highway is 14,000 vehicles per lane per day. ■ Screenline - a method for measuring large-scale changes in travel demand. Using this method, a line that crosses all facilities serving travel in a particular direction is drawn on a map. By counting the volume of travel or projected travel on all of these facilities, the total demand for travel in a particular direction can be measured. For instance, a circular screenline surrounding Fort Ord would measure the total travel between Fort Ord and the surrounding communities, as well as travel through Fort Ord between communities. 4.7.2 Analysis Approach Four principal methods are used to determine the LOS on roadway facilities. In order of decreasing precision they are operational-level analyses of critical intersections, planning-level analyses of critical intersections, V/C ratio analyses of critical roadway segments, and screenline analysis of major movements. • Operational level analyses are most appropriately used in refining intersection operations and in measuring the impacts of small changes in travel demand under existing conditions. Planning level analyses are most appropriately used where moderate changes in traffic are expected and where future scenarios are being analyzed. Roadway segment analyses are most appropriately used where traffic changes are expected to be quite large and where impacts are likely to occur many years in the future but where the proposed project and future improvements to the roadway network are well defined. Screenline analyses are typically conducted where details concerning individual roadways are not important or where the relative differences between alternative projects are more important than absolute impacts. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-67 Affected Environment Traffic and Circulation December 1992 Given the factors discussed above, the use of the screenline analysis was determined to be the most appropriate tool for this analysis. Because the reuse alternatives and future roadway improvements are speculative and conceptual in nature, impacts are most appropriately measured by gross changes in travel demand as reflected in the screenline analysis. A further consideration in this decision was the focus of this analysis, which is to identify the impacts of each alternative relative to the others rather than to identify the precise impacts of each alternative. 4.7.3 Level of Service Standards The traffic study area includes facilities under the jurisdiction of five different governmental bodies: the Cities of Seaside and Marina, Monterey County, U.S. Department of Defense, and California Department of Transportation. In addition, standards for some roadways have been established by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, which is responsible for congestion management planning in Monterey County under state Assembly Bills 1791 and 471. Each of the agencies has established its own standards for LOS. In some cases, standards have been established for individual roadway segments. Applying all of these standards would be confusing because it would be difficult to determine which portions of new roads in the proposed reuse areas were under the jurisdiction of which agency, especially because it has not been determined which entities would receive lands since the screening process, as described in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action", has not been completed. Therefore, a single standard was established against which all roadways would be measured. That standard is LOS C. The analysis in the Other Physical Attributes Baseline Study of Fort Ord, California (U S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992e) was based on the individual standards of local agencies, so the analysis in this report is not directly comparable to the one in the baseline study. 4.7.4 Existing Volumes and Level of Service Table 4.7-2 shows the existing number of lanes and LOS on each critical roadway segment in the traffic study area. The sources of these data are provided in the table. The data in this table indicate that 10 of the critical roadway segments currently operate below LOS C (i.e., D, E, or F). Another useful measure of travel demand is the screenline count. In January 1992, traffic counts were taken at all five active gates to Fort Ord. The total of those counts represents a screenline that measures the daily travel on and off the installation. This measure is compared to estimates of travel across this screenline for each of the reuse alternatives analyzed in Section 5.7 and in Volume II, Section II.7. The 1992 counts indicate that approximately 58,000 trips are made to and from Fort Ord each day. The LOS for roadways on Fort Ord could not be determined. This information was not believed to be important, however, because each reuse alternative would require the construction of a new roadway system to serve its land uses. A general description of the deficiencies of the Fort Ord traffic system is provided in a 1986 traffic engineering study conducted by the Military Traffic Management Command - Transportation Engineering Agency. This study examined the transportation system at Fort Ord, identified deficiencies, and recommended improvements to the system. The report indicated that two factors, insufficient capacity on several major roads and an overall street pattern that is too circuitous, have led to excessive safety and delay problems on the installation. None of the recommendations made in that report have been implemented to date. A description of these deficiencies is provided in the Other Physical Attributes Baseline Study of Fort Ord, California (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992e). A more detailed discussion of these problems is provided in the 1986 study. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-68 Affected Environment Traffic and Circulation December 1992 Table 4.7-2 Summary of Existing Roadway Segment Levels of Service Number Level of Segment of Lanes Facility Service State Routes SR 1 - SR 68 interchange to Del Monte Avenue interchange 4 Freeway C SR 1 - Del Monte Avenue interchange to SR 218 interchange 4 Freeway C SR 1 - SR 218 interchange to Fremont Boulevard interchange 4 Freeway D SR 1 - Fremont Boulevard interchange to .5 mile north 4 Freeway E SR 1 - .5 mile north of Fremont Boulevard to Main Gate 6 Freeway C SR 1 - Main Gate to south Marina interchange 6 Freeway C SR 1 - south Marina interchange to Reservation Road 4 Freeway B SR 218 - SR 1 to Fremont Boulevard 4 UA F SR 218 - Fremont Boulevard to SR 68 2 UA E SR 68 - SR 1 interchange to SR 218 interchange 2 Rural E SR 68 - SR 218 to Toro Park 2 Rural E SR 68 - Toro Park to Spreckels Boulevard 4 Freeway B SR 68 - Spreckels Boulevard to Blanco Road 4 MLH B County Roads Reservation Road - Salinas Street to Blanco Road 4 UA C Reservation Road - Blanco Road to East Garrison Gate 4 UA A Reservation Road - East Garrison Gate to SR 68 2 Rural C Davis Road - Reservation Road to Blanco Road 2 Rural F Davis Road - Blanco Road to Market Street 2 UA F Blanco Road - Reservation Road to Davis Road 2 Rural E City of Marina Roads Del Monte Avenue - SR 1 to Reservation Road 4 UA C Reservation Road - Del Monte Avenue to Salinas Street 4 UA C City of Seaside Roads Fremont Boulevard - SR 218 to Broadway Avenue 4 UA D Fremont Boulevard - Broadway Avenue to SR 1 4 UA B Broadway Avenue - Del Monte Boulevard to Fremont Boulevard 4 UA A Broadway Avenue - Fremont Boulevard to North-South Road 4 UA A Del Monte Boulevard - SR 218 to Broadway Avenue 4 UA B Del Monte Boulevard - Broadway Avenue to Fremont Boulevard 4 UA A Notes: # Freeway = controlled-access, grade-separated interchange. MLH = divided multilane highway, controlled access at grade. UA = urban arterial roadway with signalized intersections. Rural = rural two-lane highway. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-69 Affected Environment Traffic and Circulation December 1992 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft E1S Volume I Affected Environment Traffic and Circulation December 1992 4.8 AIR QUALITY This section incorporates by reference information from the Air Quality Baseline Study of Fort Ord, California, which is available for review at the public information repository established at the City of Seaside Branch Library (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992c). That report describes the existing climate in and around Fort Ord, existing air quality in the Fort Ord area, air quality management in the Monterey Bay area, emissions associated with Fort Ord, and potential emission credits that would result from closure of Fort Ord. The following discussion summarizes the most salient aspects of the baseline study. Fort Ord is located in the North Central Coast Air Basin, which is contiguous with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD). The North Central Coast Air Basin consists of Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito Counties. The MBUAPCD is responsible for air quality management throughout the North Central Coast Air Basin. The North Central Coast Air Basin currently is In attainment for the federal PM 10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) standards and state and federal nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide standards. The North Central Coast Air Basin is classified as a nonattainment area for the state and federal ozone standards and the state PM 10 standards. The nonattainment designation means that the MBUAPCD does not meet ambient air quality standards and therefore must prepare air quality plans. Those plans must show the steps that will be taken to come into attainment with the state and federal standards. The MBUAPCD prepared the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan, which is designed to bring the North Central Coast Air Basin into attainment with state ozone standards. That plan, required by the California Clean Air Act of 1988, describes the steps needed to achieve the state ozone standards by 1997. Although the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan includes measures for reducing PM 10 emissions, a plan designed to achieve the PM 10 standard will not be prepared until 1994. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require that the MBUAPCD prepare a revised state implementation plan by 1993 showing the steps that would be taken to attain the federal ozone standards. Revisions to the California Air Act (Assembly Bill 2783) were signed into law in September 1992. Those revisions require the MBUAPCD to submit more frequent reports to the California Air Resources Board on progress in attaining the state ozone standards. These revisions also change the MBUAPCD's ozone nonattainment status to nonattainment-transitional, and require the MBUAPCD to evaluate the need for the stationary-source control measures included in the MBUAPCD's 1991 Air Quality Management Plan. Table 4.8-1 summarizes the total existing (1992) criteria pollutant emissions from all sources at Fort Ord. It contains several revisions to Table 13 included in the Air Quality Environmental Baseline Study, including corrections to range burning emissions, new motor vehicle emissions based on the most recent California Air Resources Board emissions model (EMFACSCF), and changes that account for Phase I vapor recovery emission controls on underground storage tanks. Table 4.8-2 summarizes emissions from Fort Ord's permitted sources (i.e., sources for which the Department of the Army holds a permit to operate from the MBUAPCD). Total pollutant emissions and total permitted emissions are compared in Table 4.8-3. For each criteria pollutant, permitted emissions are a small percentage of total pollutant emissions. During closure, the Army will be eligible to obtain emission reduction credits as Fort Ord's emission sources are shut down. Emission reduction credits are surplus emission reductions that represent a permanent, enforceable, and quantifiable decrease in emissions. Emission reduction credits are important to the reuse of Fort Ord lands because credits may be needed to offset emissions associated with future economic growth. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-71 Affected Environment Air Quality December 1992 Table 4.8-1 Total Criteria Pollutant Emissions - All Sources Emissions (pounds per day) Pollutant Sources NO, SO, CO PM 10 ROG Stationary Combustion Sources Boilers - distillate 21,177 7,517 5,294 910 360 Boilers - natural gas 44,869 259 9,259 865 2,190 Boilers - propane 0 0 0 0 0 I.C. engine 243 15 1,356 17 83 Steam cleaner 418 27 90 30 33 Ceramic kiln 0 0 0 0 0 Incinerator 1 Q 2 2 2 Total stationary combustion 66,708 7,821 15,999 1,825 2,666 emissions Solvent Sources Surface coating/offset printing/ 0 0 0 0 12,105 miscellaneous Pesticides 0 0 0 0 3 Laboratories J2 J2 .9 -Q 2.492 Total solvent emissions 0 0 0 0 14,600 Fuel Storage Emission Sources Fuel storage tanks -Q -Q -Q 1I 16.778 Total fuel storage emissions o Q 2 Q 15.778 Subtotal - Stationary Source Emissions Pounds per year 66,708 7,821 15,999 1,825 34,044 Tons per year 33 4 8 1 17 Area Sources Nonindustrial natural gas 72,814 484 14,277 2,727 0 "combustion Range burning 31,105 0 827,464 90,120 102,409 Range munitions 0 0 25,970 0 0 Residential stationary sources 39,327 5,272 399,985 33,753 569,399 Subtotal - Area Source Emissions Pounds per year 143,246 6,756 1,177,697 126,600 671,709 Tons per year 72 3 589 63 336 Mobile Sources Mobile source combustion 1,923,915 4•{, • VUUtVfl " <» v » »» W Beach Trainfire Ra 4-89 Table 4.10-1 Identified Investigation Sites for Hazardous Materials at Fort Ord, California Site Number Site Name Status Fiscal Year 93 Activity 1 2 « 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12® 13 14 . 15 16 Ord Village sewage treatment plant Main Garrison sewage treatment plant Beach trainfire ranges Beach stormwater outfalls Range 36A Range 39 (abandoned car dump) Range 40 and 41 (fire demonstration area) Range 49 (Molotov cocktail range) Site characterization ongoing Site characterization complete, remedial investigation ongoing No data Investigation as part of basewide storm sewer study Site characterization complete Site characterization complete No data Limited soil data collected Range 39 (FFE training area) Site characterization ongoing Burn pit Army and Air Force Exchange Service fueling station Lower meadow, Directorate of Logistics automotive yard, and parts salvage yard Railroad right-of-way 707th maintenance facility Directorate of Engineering and Housing yard Directorate of Logistics maintenance yard, Pete's Pond Site characterization complete Site characterization complete Site characterization complete, remedial investigation ongoing Site characterization complete Site characterization complete Site characterization complete Initial site characterization complete Groundwater monitoring and site risk assessment Proposed for operable unit 3 status Site characterization ongoing Site deleted Proposed for inclusion into site 39 SEA b proposed History review ongoing SEA proposed Additional characteriza- tion, site proposed for inclusion in site 39 Soil SEA soil, additional groundwater characteriza- tion SEA proposed Proposed for operable unit 3 status No further action Groundwater monitoring with a soil SEA Additional pesticide characterization Additional characterization of Pete's Pond required Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation Volume I 4 qq December 1992 Table 4.10-1 Continued Site Number Site Name Status Fiscal Year 93 Activity 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 1400 block motor pool 1600 block motor pool 2200 block facility South parade grounds 3800 motor pool, and 519th motor pool 4400/4500 motor pool, east block 4400/4500 motor pool, west block 3700 motor pool Old Directorate of Engineering and Housing yard Former Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office site Sewage pump stations - Buildings 5871 and 6143 Army Reserve motor pool Barracks and main garrison area Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Driver training area Former dump site East Garrison sewage treatment plant Golf course Site characterization ongoing Site characterization complete Site characterization complete Site characterization complete at all three sites Initial site characterization complete Site characterization complete Site characterization complete Site characterization complete Site characterization complete Site eliminated Site characterization complete, SEA complete Site characterization complete Initial site characterization complete Site characterization complete Initial characterization complete Site characterization complete No data Additional landfill characterization required Soil SEA with groundwater monitoring Additional pesticide characterization Soil SEA with groundwater monitoring Additional soil characterization Soil SEA Soil SEA Additional pesticide characterization SEA ongoing No further action No further action SEA ongoing Additional characterization with soil SEA SEA ongoing Additional characterization Groundwater monitoring with a SEA Site characterization ongoing Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Affected Environment Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation 4-91 December 1992 Table 4.10-1 Continued Site Number Site Name Status Fiscal Year 93 Activity 34 Fritzsche Army Airfield fueling facility 35 Aircraft cannibalization yard 36 Fritzsche Army Airfield sewage treatment plant 37 Trailer park maintenance shop 38 Army and Air Force Exchange Service dry cleaners 39 Impact area 40 RCRA/CRCLA integration OU1 Operable Unit 1 Fritzsche Army Airfield Burn pit OU2 Operable Unit 2 Main landfill OU3 Operable Unit 3 Main Garrison Sewage Treatment Plant and Directorate of Logistics automotive and parts salvage yards Site characterization complete Initial site characterization complete Site characterization complete Site characterization complete, SEA complete Site characterization and SEA complete Research ongoing Research ongoing Research ongoing RI/FS complete Rl ongoing SEA proposed SEA ongoing SEA proposed No further action No further action Additional characterization Site identification and characterization Remediation with cleanup verification FS review and final ization Proposed plan preparation Additional characterization Notes: a Sites 2 and 12 combined into Operable Unit 3 b SEA = site elimination action, as proposed by the Fort Ord Action Plan for Environmental Restoration Acceleration. Installation-wide programs include background soil and groundwater investigation, installation-wide hydrogeologic characterization, installation-wide surface water investigation, installation-wide storm drainage and sanitary sewer system investigation, and installation-wide biological inventory. Site characterization activities are conducted in accordance with the RI/FS work plan (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1991). Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Affected Environment Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation 4-92 December 1992 Future activities planned for characterization sites include installing additional monitoring wells and soil borings, sampling new and existing monitoring wells, and removing contaminated soils. Interim data evaluation and recommendation reports will be prepared as necessary for these sites. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Sites. Remedial investigations are being conducted at five contaminated sites on the installation. Fieldwork completed to date for RI/FS sites includes drilling 39 soil borings; collecting 68 soil gas saples; installing 10 new groundwater monitoring wells and sampling 20 monitoring wells; drilling pilot soil borings and piezometers for measurement of groundwater levels; and conducting geophysical, trenching, and soil gas explorations at one suspected landfill. Future activities planned in conjunction with the RI/FS process include installing additional monitoring wells, pilot borings, and piezometers; sampling new and existing monitoring wells; removing contaminated soil; and conducting aquifer tests and treatability studies to perform feasibility studies. Interim data evaluation and recommendation reports and RI/FS reports will be prepared as necessary for these sites (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pers. comm.). Refer to Section 5.2.2, "Contaminated Sites", for a discussion of removal of unexploded ordnance. 4.10.4.2 Schedule for Completion of Remedial Action The schedule for completing remedial actions at Fort Ord is presented in the federal facilities agreement. The installation developed an acceleration schedule in May 1991 to address base realignment and closure concerns. Figure 4.10-4 presents a comparison of the federal facilities agreement schedule and the proposed acceleration schedule. The acceleration schedule has not been formally negotiated or approved by the federal facilities agreement parties; the schedule presented in the federal facilities agreement is in effect and binding (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992g). Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Affected Environment Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation 4_93 December 1992 CO o CM O o CD o o o> CD CO o> r- o> o o CO -O _0 "O ® < .E 0 . © 0 : : ."ti 0 : COO -4- C x CD x '0 x 0 x D « i .y 8>! - > -o & ® TO Is i s CD £ "55 2 0 D Q 0 _ 0 TO < ~o >> 0 E 0 DC 0 3 O it ii < cc Q CC o o o Cvi CD CD c 0 E 0 k_ O 0 co 0 0 C CD c LL) O 0 Q. k_ O o E L_ < CO z> D <8 2 o 0 c 2 a o § ■D 0 0 1 cc 0 -C -O 0 8 o 8- o 0 .0 1 0 0 0 0 i£ •52 q, V) CL S ^ •■§ TO ^ "5 ^ Q) 2 s •6 t3 0 C g 0 0 0 ■*_ c o to 11 II c o o O 5 Q "0 0 0 0 TO Q C ^ .o - 0 : 8-t o "e £ s CD ( c ^ 0 ^ 4 -94 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation Volume I 4.95 December 1992 4.11 VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND WETLAND RESOURCES This section incorporates by reference information from the Flora and Fauna Baseline Study of Fort Ord. California, which is available at the public information repository established at the Seaside Branch Library (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992a). Detailed descriptions of survey methods, the biological resources, and management programs associated with these resources (i.e., grazing, woodcutting, hunting, and fishing) are contained in the baseline study. The woodcutting, hunting, and fishing programs are discussed in 4.2.5 "Recreation". This section contains a summary of biological resources at Fort Ord. Information was derived from published and unpublished reports, personal communications with local experts, Jones & Stokes Associates file data, and field surveys conducted in spring and summer 1992. The data were digitally entered into a computerized geographic information system. Botanical field surveys were conducted in April, May, June, and August 1992. The objectives of the surveys were to map vegetation types, identify the locations of special-status plants and communities, and expand the existing list of plant species at Fort Ord. Wildlife surveys were conducted in January, March, April, and May 1992. Small mammals were captured in live traps, direct observation was used to identify reptiles and birds, and amphibians and invertebrates were captured with dip nets in wetlands. Figures 4.11-1 thorugh 4.11-14 are located at the end of this section. 4.11.1 Overview of the Biological Resources at Fort Ord Fort Ord is located on California's central coast, a biologically diverse and unique region. The wide range and unusual combinations of climatic, topographic, and soil conditions at Fort Ord support unique biological communities and locally endemic species (Stebbins and Major 1965). Botanical surveys have identified over 450 plant taxa at Fort Ord. Ten species of plants known from Fort Ord are endemic to north coastal Monterey County and adjacent coastal Santa Cruz County. A total of 146 plant species reach their most southern and a total of 156 plant species reach their most northern distributional limits in Monterey County (Howitt and Howell 1964, 1973). The diverse habitat conditions at Fort Ord support a broad array of wildlife species. Ongoing wildlife surveys have identified over 260 vertebrate species at Fort Ord, including 24 species of reptiles and amphibians, 209 species of resident and migratory birds, and 28 species of terrestrial mammals (U.S. Department of the Army, Directorate of Facilities and Engineering 1975; Natural Diversity Data Base 1992; Fort Ord Parklands Group 1992). Several of these species are adapted to specific habitat conditions on the central coast. Three terrestrial mammals and one reptile found at Fort Ord occur primarily on California's central coast and one federally listed endangered butterfly found at Fort Ord occurs almost exclusively in Monterey County. 4.11.2 Biological Communities Plant and wildlife species associated with the biological communities at Fort Ord are described below* The distribution of general biological communities are identified in Figure 4.11-1, and acreages for specific habitat types are presented in Table 4.11-1. 4.11.2.1 Coastal Strand and Dune Communities Coastal strand and dune communities occur adjacent to Monterey Bay and west of State Route 1. Five communities are recognized on Fort Ord: beaches, bluffs and blowouts; disturbed dunes; coastal strand; dune scrub; and ice plant mats. The beaches, bluffs and blowouts adjacent to Monterey Bay and Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-96 Affected Environment Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources December 1992 disturbed dunes are communities generally devoid of vegetation. The coastal strand and dune scrub communities support native vegetation and wildlife but occur only as small, isolated patches. Extensive mats of African ice plant, the most widespread community, have been planted to stabilize the shifting dunes. Table 4.11 -1 Habitat Acreage at Fort Ord Habitat Acreage Beaches, Bluffs, and Blowouts 199 Disturbed Dune 101 Ice Plant Mats 638 Dune Scrub 8 Native Coastal Strand 89 Coastal Scrub 572 Maritime Chaparral 12,596 Coastal Oak Woodland 2,972 Inland Oak Woodland 1,435 Oak Savanna 308 Annual Grassland 4,323 Valley Needlegrass Grassland 388 Blue Wildrye Grassland 74 Mixed Riparian Forest 191 Oak Riparian 42 Vernal Pool 34 Ponds and Freshwater Marsh 30 Total Area of Natural Habitats 24,000 Area of Developed Nonhabitat 3.726 Total 27,726 Common wading birds, such as sanderlings, plovers, and godwits, occur along the beaches; California ground squirrels, deer mice, and red foxes occur in the disturbed dune, coastal strand, and dune scrub communities. The extensive mats of African ice plant provide marginal wildlife habitat because they provide little forage for native wildlife. 4.11.2.2 Chaparral and Coastal Scrub Communities Chaparral and coastal scrub communities cover approximately 50% of Fort Ord and are character- ized by moderate to low-growing evergreen and drought-deciduous shrubs adapted to shallow soils and periodic fires. Three types of chaparral and scrub communities occur at Fort Ord; sand hill maritime chaparral, Aromas formation maritime chaparral, and coastal scrub. # The two types of maritime chaparral occur on different soils and have different characteristic plants. Toro manzanita and Hooker's manzanita are rare on sand hill maritime chaparral, but are common on Aromas formation chaparral; sandmat manzanita is common on sand hill chaparral but uncommon on Aromas chaparral. Brittleleaf manzanita and chamise are dominant shrubs in both maritime chaparral types. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume I December 1992 4-97 Coastal scrub occurs near the coast on sandy soils and on inland hills on shallow soils. Common plant species include coyote brush, California sagebrush, and black sage. Common species of wildlife in the chaparral and coastal scrub communities include western fence lizard, orange-crowned warbler, California thrasher, California quail, brush rabbit, Heerman's kangaroo rat, black-tailed deer, gray fox, and coyote. 4.11.2.3 Coast Live Oak Woodland and Savanna Communities The coast live oak is the dominant tree of woodlands and savannas at Fort Ord. The live oak woodland is an open-canopied to nearly closed canopied community with a grass or sparsely scattered shrub understory. Coastal forms of this community are characterized by short, wind-pruned trees exposed to persistent salt spray, which grow on sandy soils. Inland coast live oaks grow tall because they are protected by topographic position from the coastal weather influences. Common wildlife species in coast live oak woodlands include black-tailed deer, California mouse, raccoon, California quail, scrub jay, and Nuttall's woodpecker. Red-tailed hawks and great-horned owls nest and roost in the inland coast live oaks, but probably make little use of the coastal oaks because the tightly spaced branches discourage them from entering the tree canopies. Coast live oak savanna occurs in drier areas than woodlands and supports widely spaced trees and an understory of annual grasses. Common species of wildlife include western bluebird, mourning dove, and olive-sided flycatcher. Declines in oak woodland and savanna in California have resulted from firewood harvesting, land clearing for agriculture and range, and urban development. The conservation of these resources has been identified as an important issue by state agencies and conservation groups (California Senate Resolution Chapter 100). 4.11.2.4 Grassland Communities Grasslands occur in the southeastern portion of Fort Ord and around Fritzsche Army Airfield. Annual grasslands dominated by introduced species, such as slender wild oats, soft chess, and ripgut brome, are the most common grassland community at Fort Ord. Perennial grasslands are of two types at Fort Ord: valley needlegrass grassland and blue wildrye. Valley needlegrass grassland, dominated by native purple needlegrass, is scattered throughout the southeastern portion of the installation. Small patches of blue wildrye grassland occur sporadically in the southeastern portion of the installation. Common wildlife species include California ground squirrel, Heerman's kangaroo rat, narrow-faced kangaroo rat, western meadowlark, and kestrel. 4.11.2.5 Riparian Communities Riparian communities occur on the banks of seasonal or permanent creeks and drainages. There are approximately 37,170 linear feet of creeks and drainages total and 7,660 linear feet of creeks and drainages with riparian habitat. Riparian habitats at Fort Ord are limited to the Salinas River, Toro Creek, Pilarcitos Canyon, and Merrill Ranch Canyon. The riparian communities along the Salinas River and Toro Creek are mixed riparian forests supporting a variety of tree species. The communities in Pilarcitos and Merrill Ranch Canyons are oak riparian forests dominated by coast live oaks with a dense understory of annual grasses. Riparian corridors are important wildlife habitat because they usually support the highest diversity of wildlife and provide movement corridors between different communities. Common wildlife species that occur in riparian communities include Pacific tree frog, California slender salamander, Wilson's warbler, dark- eyed junco, striped skunk, coyote, and black-tailed deer. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-98 Affected Environment Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources December 1992 4.11.2.6 Wetland and Open Water Communities Four major types of wetland and open water communities are scattered throughout Fort Ord: vernal pools, freshwater marshes, stream channels, and ponds. The locations of wetlands and open water communities are identified in Figure 4.11-2 and brief descriptions of these communities are provided below. Vernal Pools. Vernal pools are small, seasonally flooded basins in grasslands. Plant and wildlife species in these pools are specially adapted to live through winter and spring flooding and summer and fall drought. Common plant species include common spike-rush, hyssop loosestrife, and Vasey's coyote thistle. Common wildlife species include western spadefoot toad, garter snake, and northern rough-winged swallow. Freshwater Marshes. Freshwater marshes are characterized by perennial, emergent plants that thrive in areas permanently flooded or saturated by fresh water. This community is usually found around freshwater ponds and perennial stream channels. Common plants include water smartweed and broad- leaved cattail. Common wildlife species include mallard, red-winged blackbird, and marsh wren. Stream Channels. Fort Ord supports several intermittent and perennial streams. The amount of channel vegetation varies depending on the size of the channel and the amount of time that water is present in the stream. Wildlife species found in stream channels are similar to those occurring in vernal pools and freshwater marshes. Ponds. Artificial ponds have been constructed throughout Fort Ord to provide water for livestock and wildlife. Most of the ponds, however, occur in the southeastern portion of the installation and are associated with the livestock grazing lease. Wildlife species found in ponds are similar to those found in vernal pools and freshwater marshes. 4.11.3 Special-Status Biological Resources Special-status biological resources are those resources that receive various levels of protection under local, state, or federal laws, regulations, or policies. Special-status biological resources include special-status plant and wildlife species, special native biological communities, native plant and butterfly reserves, significant natural areas, and habitats of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Definitions and occurrences of these resources are discussed below. 4.11.3.1 Special-Status Plant Species Special-status plants are species in the following categories: ■ plants listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.12 [listed plants] and various notices in the Federal Register [proposed species]); ■ plants that are Category 1 or 2 candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endan- gered under the federal Endangered Species Act (55 Federal Register 6184, February 21,1990); ■ plants listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (14 CCR 670.5); ■ plants listed under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.); Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-99 Affected Environment Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources December 1992 ■ plants that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380); ■ plants considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be "rare, threatened, or endangered in California" (Lists 1b and 2 in Smith and Berg 1988 as updated by California Native Plant Society pers. comm.); and ■ plants listed by CNPS as plants about which more information is needed to determine their status and plants of limited distribution (Lists 3 and 4 in Smith and Berg 1988, as updated by California Native Plant Society pers. comm.), which may be included as special-status species on the basis of local significance or recent biological information. Botanical surveys during spring 1992 identified populations of 22 special-status plant species at Fort Ord (Tables 4.11-2 and 4.11-3). Four of the species are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal or state endangered species acts: sand gilia, Monterey spineflower, robust spineflower, and Seaside bird's-beak. Sand Gilia. Sand gilia occurs in scattered populations over much of Fort Ord in maritime chaparral and coastal scrub (Figures 4.11-3 and 4.11-4). The largest populations are at Fritzsche Army Airfield. Sand gilia is federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened. Many of the sand gilia populations at Fort Ord support a mix of sand gilia, its more common relative slender-flowered gilia, and plants of intermediate form (California Academy of Sciences, California Academy of Sciences and San Jose State University pers. comms.). Monterey Spineflower. Populations of Monterey spineflower occur over most of the western half of Fort Ord in maritime chaparral, coastal scrub, coastal oak woodland, annual grassland, and coastal strand and dune communities (Figures 4.11-5 and 4.11-6). Monterey spineflower is proposed for federal listing as endangered (56 Federal Register 206, October 24, 1991). Monterey spineflower is similar in appearance to cuspidate spineflower (Zoger and Pavlik 1987). Populations of Monterey spineflower at Fort Ord may support a mix of these two species. Robust Spineflower. One individual of robust spineflower was identified on the coastal dunes south of Stilwell Hall. A population of robust spineflower was reported from near this site previously, but only one plant of this annual species appeared in 1992 (Figure 4.11-7 and 4.11.8). Robust spineflower is proposed for federal listing as endangered (56 Federal Register 206, October 24, 1991). Seaside Bird's-Beak. Scattered, localized populations of Seaside bird's-beak occur in maritime chaparral and coastal oak woodland in central portions of Fort Ord (Figure 4.11-9 and 4.11-10.) Seaside bird's-beak is state listed as endangered and is a candidate (Category 1) for federal listing as threatened or endangered. 4.11.3.2 Special-Status and Special-Interest Wildlife Species Special-status animals are species in the following categories: ■ animals listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11 [listed animals] and various notices in the Federal Register [proposed species]); ■ animals that are Category 1 or 2 candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endan- gered under the federal Endangered Species Act (54 Federal Register 554, January 6, 1989); Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-100 Affected Environment Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources December 1992 ■ animals that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380); ■ animals listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (14 CCR 670.5); ■ animal species of special concern to the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) (Remsen 1978 [birds] and Williams 1986 [mammals]); and ■ animals fully protected in California (California Fish and Game Code, Section 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], and 5050 [reptiles and amphibians]). Special-interest species are species that have been identified as rare or declining in the region but have no formal legal status.Twenty-three special-status wildlife species are known to occur or have potential to occur in terrestrial and freshwater environments at Fort Ord. Four special-interest wildlife species have been identified at Fort Ord. The names, legal status, habitat requirements, and distribution of these species are given in Table 4.11-4. Two species, Smith's blue butterfly and American peregrine falcon, are federally listed as endangered (Natural Diversity Data Base 1992, Fort Ord Parklands Group 1992), the California linderiella has been proposed for endangered status by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (57 Federal Register 19856, May 8, 1992), and coastal populations of the western snowy plover have been proposed for threatened status (57 Federal Register 144, January 14, 1992). Known locations of special-status wildlife species are shown in Figure 4.11-11. Table 4.11-2 Special-Status Plant Species Identified at Fort Ord During 1992 Surveys and the Relationship of Fort Ord to Known Distributions Listing Status Approximate Percent of RED Range at Plant Species F/S/C* Code Fort Ord Importance of Fort Data Distribution Ord Population Source® Federally Listed or Proposed Species Sand Gilia E/l/tb Gilia tenurflora ssp. are n aria Monterey Spineflower PE/~/1b Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens 3-3-3 50-70 3-3-3 75-95 Coastal dunes and scrub around Monterey Bay, Salinas River Beach, Asilomar State Beach, from Point Pinos to Point Joe, and Fort Ord Along the coast of southern Santa Cruz and northern Monterey Counties and inland to the coastal plain of the Salinas Valley Fort Ord provides 1, 2, suitable habitat for sand 9 gilia and constitutes a substantial portion of its range (at least half) Fort Ord supports the 1, 4, largest populations of 7, 8 Monterey spineflower known Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume 1 December 1992 4-101 Table 4.11-2 Continued Listing Status Approximate Percent of RED Range at Plant Species F/S/C* Code Fort Ord Importance of Fort Data Distribution Ord Population Source 8 Robust Spineflower Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta PE/-/4 1-1-3 <1 State-Listed Species Seaside Bird's-beak Cordylanthus rigidus var. littoralis C1/E/1b 2-3-3 30-50° Historically from Alameda and San Mateo Counties south to Santa Cruz County and near the coast from southern Santa Cruz County to northern Monterey County, much of which is now developed Monterey and Santa Barbara Counties, including Fort Ord, Monterey Airport, and between Carmel and Elkhorn Slough in Monterey County, and on Burton Mesa in Santa Barbara County Only several plants of robust spineflower were found at one site on Fort Ord; Fort Ord does not provide important habitat for this species A substantial portion of the range of Seaside bird's-beak is found at Fort Ord 4, 5, 7,8 1, 2 Federal Candidate Species Toro Manzanita Arctostaphylos montereyensis Sandmat Manzanita Arctostaphylos pumila Hickman's Onion Allium hickmanii C2/-/1b 3-2-3 70-90 C2/-/1b Cl/-/1b 3-2-3 70-90 2-2-3 <5 Monterey Ceanothus Ceanothus rigidus C2/-/4 1-2-3 50-70 Maritime chaparral in Monterey County includ- ing Fort Ord, Toro Regional Park, and Monterey Airport Scattered locations around Monterey Peninsula and an exten- sive area on Fort Ord Monterey Peninsula, Fort Ord, Monterey Airport, and San Luis Obispo County Monterey County along the coast and Fort Ord, Toro Regional Park, Monterey Airport, and near Prunedale Fort Ord supports the 1,3 largest expanse of Toro manzanita in existence A large and important 1,3 part of the range of sandmat manzanita is found on Fort Ord Some suitable habitat for 1 Hickman's onion is found on Fort Ord (e.g., Machine Gun Flats), but this species has many occurrences outside Fort Ord The most abundant and 3, 6 probably most vigorous population of Monterey ceanothus is found on Fort Ord Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume I December 1992 4-102 Table 4.11-2 Continued Listing Status Approximate Percent of RED Range at Plant Species F/S/C* Code Fort Ord Importance of Fort Data Distribution Ord Population Source® Eastwood's Ericameria Ericameria fasciculata C2/-/1b 3-3-3 70-90 Coast Wallflower Erysimum ammophilum C2/-/!b 2-2-3 10-30 Wedge-leaved Horkelia Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea C2/-/1b 3-3-3 <10 Yadon's Piperia Piperia yadoni - e /-/ib N/A <1 Coastal scrub, chaparral, and closed-cone conifer forest in Del Monte Forest, Monterey Airport, Toro Regional Park, near Prunedale, and Fort Ord Coastal dunes of Monterey Bay and Santa Rosa Island, and coastal scrub on Fort Ord Sandy and gravelly places in coastal scrub, maritime chaparral, and closed-cone coniferous forest along coast from Sonoma County to Santa Barbara County Chaparral and coastal scrub in coastal Monterey County Fort Ord supports most 1, 3 of the remaining individuals of Eastwood's ericameria Fort Ord provides a 10, moderate amount of suit- 11 able habitat for coast wallflower and may constitute an important portion of its range because of the limited extent and high degree of disturbance to its habitat in California Wedge-leaved horkelia is 10 widely distributed; Fort Ord likely comprises only a small part of its range Less than 1% of the individuals of Yadon's piperia are found on Fort Ord; it is noteworthy that its habitat on Ford Ord is intermediate between that of its occurrence in chaparral and pine forest habitats CNPS-Usted Species Hooker's Manzanita Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. hookeri -/-/1b 3-2-3 15-35 Hillsides and open pine woods of Del Monte Forest, Monterey Peninsula, near Prunedale, Fort Ord, and the Larkin Valley Fort Ord supports large populations of Hooker's manzanita; although it is more common on the Monterey Peninsula and near Prunedale than on Fort Ord, Fort Ord pro- vides important habitat for Hooker's manzanita 3, 6 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume I December 1992 4-103 Table 4.11-2 Continued Listing Status Approximate Percent of RED Range at Plant Species F/S/C* Code Fort Ord Importance of Fort Data Distribution Ord Population Source® Pajaro Manzanita Arctostaphylos pajaroensis Monterey Indian Paintbrush Castilleja latrfolia -/-/A 1-2-3 <1 -/-/A 1-1-3 ? Douglas' Spineflower Chorizanthe douglasii -/-/A 1-1-3 <1 Lewis' Clarkia Clarkia lewisii -/-/A 1-1-3 <5 Virgate Eriastrum Eriastrum virgatum Small-leaved Lomatium Lomatium parvifolium -/-/A - H A 1-1-3 ? 1-2-3 ? Sandy hills in Monterey County south of the Pajaro River; especially important in the Prunedale Hills Coastal dunes of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties Gravelly or sandy slopes of southern coast ranges from San Benito and Monterey Counties to San Luis Obispo County Coastal scrub and oak woodland in Monterey County Sand hills and mesas in Monterey, San Benito, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties Chaparral and open pine forests in Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo Counties One Pajaro manzanita 6 plant was found on Fort Ord (probably planted); Fort Ord does not sup- port important habitat for Pajaro manzanita Fort Ord may constitute 10 an important part of the range of Monterey Indian paintbrush because of the limited extent and high degree of distur- bance to coastal dunes in central California Has a large range on Cal- 10, ifornia's central coast; the 11 small number of indivi- duals at Fort Ord indicates that the installa- tion does not constitute a large portion of Douglas' spineflower habitat Few individuals were 12 found at Ford Ord; Fort Ord probably does not constitute an important part of the species' habi- tat, although more invest- igation is needed to determine the actual range and number of individuals Fort Ord provides a large 10, area of suitable habitat, 11 but this species has a rel- atively wide distribution Fort Ord provides a large 10, amount of suitable habi- 11 tat for small-leaved lomatium, but this species appears to have a wide distribution on the central California coast Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-104 Affected Environment Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources December 1992 Table 4.11-2 Continued Listing Status Approximate Percent of RED Range at Plant Species F/S/C* Code Fort Ord Importance of Fort Data Distribution Ord Population Source 8 Santa Cruz Monkeyflower Mimulus rattanii var. decurtatus Curly-leaved Monardella Monardella undulata var. undulata —/—/4 1-1-3 <1 Purple-flowered Piperia Piperia elongata ssp. michaelii -HA 1-1-3 <5 /—/4 1-2-3 < 1 Chaparral and conifer forest in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties Chaparral and coastal dunes and scrub near the coast from Marin to northern Santa Barbara County Coastal scrub and chaparral in Humboldt and Alameda Counties and from Marin to San Luis Obispo County Only one small popula- 10, tion of Santa Cruz 11 monkeyflower was found at Fort Ord; Fort Ord probably does not provide important habitat for this species Curly-leaved monardella 10, has a wide, scattered 11 distribution along the central California coast; the Fort Ord occurrence is probably a small por- tion of its total numbers Purple-flowered piperia is 10, characterized by a wide, 11 scattered distribution; Fort Ord comprises a small part of its range but supports large areas of suitable habitat Notes: * = Federal/State/CNPS. ? = unknown. RED Code: Rarity (R) 1 = Flare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction is low at this time 2 = Occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended population. 3 = Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported. Endangerment (E) 1 = Not endangered. 2 = Endangered in a portion of its range. 3 = Endangered throughout its range. Distribution (D) 1 = More or less widespread outside California. 2 = Rare outside California. 3 = Endemic to California. Status explanations (see the "Definitions of Special-Status Species" section above for citations): Federal E = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume I December 1992 4-105 Table 4.11-2 Continued PE = proposed for federal listing as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. C1 = Category 1 candidate for federal listing. Category 1 includes species for which USFWS has on file enough substantial information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them. C2 = Category 2 candidate for federal listing. Category 2 includes species for which USFWS has some biological information indicating that listing may be appropriate but for which further biological research and field study are usually needed to clarify the most appropriate status. Category 2 species are not necessarily less rare, threatened, or endangered than Category 1 species or listed species; the distinction relates to the amount of data available and is therefore administrative, not biological. - = no designation. Data sources: Natural Diversity Data Base 1992. Hillyard 1992. Griffin 1976. Reveal and Hardham 1989. Thomas 1961. Griffin 1978. Morgan 1992. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991. U.S. Fish and Wldlife Service 1992. Munz and Keck 1968. Abrams 1940. Matthews 1992. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 State T = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. California Native Plant Society 1b = List 1b species: rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 4 = List 4 species: plants of limited distribution. b This estimate incorporates locations of Seaside bird's-beak in Santa Barbara County, which may have formed as a result of hybridization; the estimate based on Monterey County above would increase the percent of range at Fort Ord to 60-80%. c Listing package is in preparation by USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wldlife Service pers. comm.). Table 4.11-3 Acres of Habitat Occupied by Special-Status Plant Species at Fort Ord • Species Listing Status Density" Total Acreage Federal/State/CNPS a Low Medium High Sand Gilia E/T/1B 3,285 309 162 3,756 Monterey Spineflower PE/--/1B 5,941 3,535 980 10,456 Seaside Bird's-beak C1/E/1B 625 16 641 1,282 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Affected Environment Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources December 1992 4-106 Table 4.11-3 Continued Listing Status Density" Total Species Federal/State/CNPS" Low Medium High Acreage Toro Manzanita C2/--/1B 2,320 2,174 1,948 6,442 Sandmat Manzanita C2/--/1B 2,133 3,207 3,448 8,788 Hickman's Onion C1/-/1B 273 121 0 394 Monterey Ceanothus C2/-/4 2,469 6,836 2,484 11,789 Eastwood's Ericameria C2/--/1B 3,566 2,279 23 5,868 Coast Wallflower C2/--/1B 494 226 51 771 Wedge-leaved Horkelia C2/--/1B 2,438 1,202 0 3,640 Yadon's Piperia —/—/1B 14 0 0 14 California Native Plant ~/~/3 or 4 - - - 14,870 Society List 3 and 4 Species with No Federal or State Status 8 See Table 4.11-2 for status definitions. b Occupied habitat refers to survey polygons in which plants of the given species occur. Low density is estimated at one to hundreds of plants per acre for herbaceous species and one to tens of plants per acre for shrub species. Medium density is estimated at hundreds to thousands of plants per acre for herbaceous species and tens to hundreds of plants per acre for shrub species. High density is estimated at thousands to over ten-thousands of plants per acre for herbaceous species and hundreds to over thousands of plants per acre for shrub species. Low density could indicate that a species is either sparsely and evenly distributed throughout the survey polygon or occurs as one to a few small, dense patches in the survey polygon. High density could indicate that a species is densely populated throughout the survey polygon or densely populated over a large portion of the survey polygon. Table 4.11-4 Special-Status Terrestrial and Freshwater Wildlife Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring at Fort Ord, California Common and Scientific Name Legal Status® Habitat Distribution in California and at Fort Ord Monterey Ornate Shrew Sorex omatus salarius ~/C2 Found in a variety of riparian, woodland, and upland communities where there is thick duff or downed logs Restricted to the Monterey Bay region; historical occurrences at the mouth of the Salinas River and Moss Landing in Monterey County May occur at Fort Ord b Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume I December 1992 4-107 Table 4.11-4 Continued Common and Scientific Name Legal Status 8 Habitat Distribution in California and at Fort Ord Monterey Dusky-Footed Woodrat Neotoma fuscipes luciana American Badger Taxidae taxus -/C2 ssc/- Sharp-Shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus SSC/- Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperi SSC/- Norther Harrier Circus cyaneus SSC/- Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos SSC/- Uses habitats with moderate to dense cover and abundant dead wood for nest construction; mari- time chaparral and costal live oak woodland at Fort Ord Uses open, grassy areas with scattered shrubs or trees for cover and loose soil for digging Found in riparian forests, conifer forests, and oak woodlands Marshes and grasslands Nests in cliffs and large oaks; forages in annual grasslands, chaparral, and oak woodlands with abun- dant medium-sized and large mammals for prey Restricted to Monterey County and northern San Luis Obispo County Nests in riparian forests and dense canopy oak woodlands; forages in open woodlands Found throughout Califor- nia except in parts of Del Norte, Humboldt, and Siskiyou Counties; wide- spread throughout the United States west of the Mississippi River Permanent resident in the Sierra Nevada, Cascade, Klamath, and north Coast Ranges, as well as along the coast in Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties; winters over the rest of the state except at high elevations; breeds and winters throughout North America Found in all parts of California except high altitudes in the Sierra Nevada; winters in the Central Valley, south- eastern desert regions, and the plains east of the Cascade Range; perma- nent resident throughout the lower 48 states Majority of breeding popu- lation is concentrated in ungrazed portions of Cali- fornia and federal wildlife refuges; rare breeder in the lower Salinas Valley; winters and breeds throughout North America Inhabits inland valleys and mountains of Coast Ftanges and Sierra Nevada of California; occurs throughout the United States except along the eastern coastal states Found in maritime chaparral and coastal coast live oak wood- land habitats through- out Fort Ord c Uses grasslands, oak savannas, and coastal live oak woodland habitats throughout Fort Ord c May winter at Fort Ord using oak woodland or riparian habitats b Occurs in riparian forests of Toro Creek and inland oak woodland canyons at Fort Ord C| d ; probably also occurs along the Salinas River May winter at Fort Ord Forages over open areas throughout Fort Ord and may nest in inland oak savannas and woodlands c Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume I December 1992 4-108 Table 4.11-4 Continued Common and Scientific Name Legal Status® Habitat Distribution in California and at Fort Ord Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum SE/FE Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus SSC/- Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus SSC/FPT nivosus Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia SSC/- Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus ~/C2 California Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris actia -/C2 Nests and roosts on protected ledges on high cliffs, usually adjacent to water sources that support large bird populations Nests in cliffs and escarp- ments; forages in grass- lands, pastures, savannas, and desert scrub Found along beaches above the high tide limit; also uses shores of salt ponds and alkali or brackish inland lakes Nests in abandoned ground squirrel burrows in dry, flat grasslands, deserts, and agricultural areas Prefers open woodland habitats with scattered trees, shrubs, posts, fences, or other perches Grasslands, rangelands, and other open habitats with low, sparse cover Permanent resident on the north and south Coast Flanges; winters in the Central Valley south through the Transverse and Peninsular Flanges and the plains east of the Cascade Flange; occurs along both coasts of the United States and parts of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, and the borders of Idaho Inhabits inland valleys and foothills of the Coast Flanges and Sierra Neva- da, Modoc Plateau, and southern deserts of Califor- nia; widespread west of Nebraska and into Mexico Intermittent nesting sites along the Pacific Coast from Washington to Baja California Permanent resident throughout California valleys and lowlands; summer range includes Siskiyou, Lassen, Plumas, and Sierra Counties Permanent populations throughout California except in the Sierra Neva- da, Cascade, and Klamath Ranges, and the north Coast Range north of Men- docino County; some indi- viduals winter along the coast from Sonoma to Del Norte Counties; uncom- mon in Monterey County; occurs from southern Canada into Mexico Resident along the California coast range from Humboldt to San Diego County and the San Joaquin Valley May forage on Fort Ord beaches and passes through Fort Ord during seasonal migration® Forages at Fort Ord® Nests along the beaches at Fort Ord north of Stilwell Hall' Found in grassland habitats at Fort Ord 9 Uncommon at Fort Ord; occurs at Fritszche Army Air- field and in maritime chaparral, coastal, and scrub habitat® Observed at Fritszche Army Airfield at Fort Ord® Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume I December 1992 4-109 Table 4.11-4 Continued Common and Scientific Name Legal Status® Habitat Distribution in California and at Fort Ord Coast Horned Lizard Phrynosoma coronatum SSC/- Occurs areas with sandy soils and moderate cover Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia SSC/- Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor SSC/C2 California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum califomiense California Red-Legged Frog Ran a aurora draytoni SSC/C2 (LP) SSC/C1 (LP) Nests in riparian areas dominated by willows, cottonwoods, sycamores, or alders; may also use oaks, conifers, and urban areas if they are near stream courses Nests in freshwater marshes with heavy growths of cattails and tules; other forms of dense vegetation may also be used for nesting; nesting areas must be large enough to support a colony of at least 50 pairs; birds forage in grasslands and fields surrounding the colony Favors open woodlands and grasslands; requires water for breeding and burrows or cracks in the soil for summer dormancy Requires cold water ponds with emergent and submer- gent vegetation and riparian vegetation at the edges Uses Central Valley from Tehama County south to Tulare County and Coast Ranges from Sonoma County south to San Diego County Nests throughout Califor- nia except the Central Valley, the Mojave Desert region, and high altitudes in the Sierra Nevada; win- ters along the Colorado River and in parts of Imperial and Riverside Counties; also has small permanent populations in San Diego and Santa Barbara Counties; occurs throughout North America except in the southeast states Occurs only in California; resides permanently in the Central Valley from Butte through Kern Counties, on the south Coast and Peninsular Ranges, and in parts of San Diego, Los Angeles, Alameda, Sonoma, and Lake Counties; breeding colo- nies are in Siskiyou and Lassen Counties, around the San Francisco Bay from Marin to Santa Cruz Counties, and east through the Delta to Solano County; Occurs only in California from the coastline to the Sierra Nevada crest and from Sonoma to Santa Barbara Counties Found along the coast and coastal mountain ranges from Humboldt to San Diego Counties, and in the Sierra Nevada from Butte to Fresno Counties Occurs in appropriate habitat (primarily coastal scrub and maritime chaparral) throughout Fort Ord 0, 9 Nests in inland oak woodland canyons and possibly riparian forests at Toro Creek and the Salinas River d One nesting colony is known approximately 2 miles northeast of Laguna Seca at Fort Ord c Occurs in ponds and vernal pools through- out Fort Ord 0, k May occur at Fort Ord Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume I December 1992 4-110 Table 4.11-4 Continued Common and Scientific Name Legal Status® Habitat Distribution in California and at Fort Ord Southwestern Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata pallida SSC, C1 (LP) California Black Legless Lizard Anniella pulchra nigra Smith's Blue Butterfly Euphilotes enoptes smithi California Linderiella Linderiella occidentalis Salinas Harvest Mouse Rerthrodontomys megalotis distichlis Greater Roadrunner Geoloccyx cairfomiaus Swainson Thrush Catharus ustulatus SSC/C2 (LP) -/FE -/FPE None (special- interest species) None (special- interest species) None (special- interest species) Flequires aquatic habitats such as ponds, marshes, or streams, with rocky or muddy bottoms and vege- tation for cover and food Flequires moist, warm habitats with loose soil for burrowing and prostrate plant cover; may be found on beaches, in chaparral, pine oak woodland, or riparian areas Uses coastal dunes and hillsides that support seacliff buckwheat ( Eriogo- num parvifolium) or coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium)-, these plants are used as a nectar source for adults and host plant for larvae Ephemeral freshwater habitats such as vernal pools, rock outcrop pools, swales, and ponds Inhabits freshwater and saltwater marshes, annual grasslands, scrub, and oak woodlands Arid, brushy habitats such as deserts, coastal scrub, and chaparral Riparian habitats and dense shrubs In California, occurs along the central coast east to the Sierra Nevada, and along the south coast, inland to the Mojave and Colorado Deserts; occurs in southwestern California and northwestern Baja California Restricted to small populations along the coast in Monterey County Restricted to localized populations along the coast of Monterey County; single populations reported in Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties Found in the Central Valley from Tehema to Madera Counties, and the central and south Coast Flanges from Lake to Riverside County Known to occur near the mouth of the Salinas River Occurs in California throughout the Central Valley, south coast and transverse ranges, and the southeastern deserts; occurs throughout the southwestern United States to central Mexico In California nests in the Cascade, Klamath, north and south Coast, and Transverse Flanges, also the eastern Sierra Nevada Occurs at Merrill Ranch just off base, known previously at Mudhen Lake; two turtles were trans- planted to East Garri- son Lake 9 ; may occur at the Salinas Fliver Found in stabilized dunes and maritime chaparral with sandy soils at Fort Ord 0,1 Known to occur near the northern bound- ary of Fort Ord and from Giggling Siding to the southern base boundary' Known from five vernal pools at Fort Ord c Flare at Fort Ord c The only coastal Monterey population occurs in maritime chaparral and inland live oak woodlands at Fort Ord' Occurs in riparian corridors at Fort Ord; declining in the Monterey Bay area' Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume I December 1992 4-111 Table 4.11-4 Continued Common and Scientific Name Legal Status" Habitat Distribution in California and at Fort Ord Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas None (special- interest species) Ftiparian habitats and marshlands Nests throughout Califor- nia except in the Sierra Nevada and the southeast- ern deserts; widespread across North America Occurs in riparian corridors at Fort Ord; declining in the Monterey Bay area' 8 Status definitions: FE = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. FT = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. FPE = federally proposed for listing as endangered FPT = federally proposed for listing as threatened. LP = listing package being reviewed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. C1 = Category 1 candidate for federal listing. Category 1 includes species for which USFWS has on file enough substantial infor- mation on biological vulnerability and threat to support proposals to list them. Species that are possibly extinct are indicated with an asterisk (*). C2 = Category 2 candidate for federal listing. Category 2 includes species for which USFWS has some biological information indicating that listing may be appropriate but for which further biological research and field study are usually needed to clarify the most appropriate status. Species that are possibly extinct are indicated with an asterisk (*). Category 2 species are not necessarily less rare, threatened, or endangered than Category 1 species or listed species; the distinction relates to the amount of data available and is therefore administrative, not biological. SE = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. ST = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. SSC = California Department of Fish and Game species of special concern. Not found during field surveys. Encountered during field surveys. Source: Audubon Society pers. comm. Source: California Department of Fish and Game; University of California, Santa Cruz pers. comms. Source: pers. comm. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pers. comm. Source: Bury 1985. Source: Arnold 1983. Source: Fort Ord Parklands Group 1992. Source: University of California, Davis pers. comm. 4.11.3.3 Special Native Biological Communities Special native biological communities are habitats considered important because of their high species diversity, high productivity, unusual nature, limited distribution, declining status, or some combina- tion of these qualities. These habitats are recognized by state and federal agencies as of high value to wildlife. California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) (1992) maintains a Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume I December 1992 4-112 list of rare natural communities and this list was used to develop the list of special native biological communities at Fort Ord. Seven special native biological communities occur at Fort Ord. These communi- ties and the reasons for their recognition by agencies are identified below: ■ native coastal strand - native coastal strand communities have been reduced by dune distur- bance and coastal development to remnants of what were once more extensive communities, ■ dune scrub - dune scrub has been reduced by coastal development to remnants of what were once more extensive communities, ■ maritime chaparral - the type on Fort Ord is known to occur only in the Monterey Peninsula area, ■ valley needlegrass grassland - less than 1% of the historic range remains in California, blue wildrye grassland - this community has been greatly reduced in extent from its historic range in California, ■ riparian forest - over 90% of California's riparian forests have been eliminated, ■ vernal pool - vernal pools are wetlands and over 90% of California's wetlands have been lost, and ■ freshwater marsh - freshwater marshes are wetlands and over 90% of California's wetlands have been lost. 4.11.3.4 Preserves and Significant Natural Areas Specific sites at Fort Ord have been designated as biologically important by federal and state agencies and private organizations. These sites are the CNPS native plant reserves, Smith's blue butterfly reserve, and DFG significant natural areas. Native Plant and Butterfly Reserves. Fort Ord's mosaic of biological communities creates a unique set of conditions for several special-status plants and wildlife. Recognizing that large portions of these unique and declining biological resources occur at Fort Ord, the Army, with assistance from CNPS, has identified and agreed to protect 11 native plant reserves and one butterfly reserve (Figure 4.11-12). Under the agreement with CNPS, the Army affords protection to them as long as there is no overriding military need for the sites (Griffin 1976). Plant reserves 6, 7, 11, and 12, were included as mitigation sites for impacts resulting from construction of the ammunition supply point on Barloy Canyon Road. Significant Natural Areas. The California Significant Natural Areas Program is administered by DFG and designed to encourage recognition of the state's most significant natural areas and seek perpetuation of these areas (California Fish and Game Code 1930-1932). Significant natural areas have no legal status, but they have been identified in response to a legislative mandate (California Assembly Bill 1039) to raise the level of awareness about California's natural diversity and to identify opportunities where cooperative efforts can conserve important biological resources. DFG has recognized the unique biological resources at Fort Ord and identified three significant natural areas. The California Department of Fish and Game has used only the NDDB to identify significant natural areas, and the exact boundaries of significant natural areas have not been established because thorough field surveys have not been completed. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-113 Affected Environment Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources December 1992 The California Department of Fish and Game has identified three significant natural areas on Fort Ord (Figure 4.11-13): ■ Marina Dunes (MNT-026). This significant natural area includes the Marina Dunes along the northern boundary of Fort Ord. In addition to a part of Fort Ord, this area includes private lands and lands belonging to the City of Marina and the California Department of Parks and Recreation's Marina State Beach. This significant natural area is reported by NDDB to contain eight rare elements, including the federally listed endangered Smith's blue butterfly, sand gilia, and Menzie's wallflower and Monterey spineflower and western snowy plover, which are federally proposed for listing as endangered and threatened. The other elements are Salinas harvest mouse, black legless lizard, and central dune scrub habitat. ■ West Eucalyptus Road (MNT-040). This significant natural area encompasses a general area along Eucalyptus Road directly east of the developed area of Fort Ord. It is reported by NDDB to contain one rare element: sandmat manzanita. ■ Central Eucalyptus Road (MNT-050). This significant natural area encompasses a general area centered about 1.5 miles east of the West Eucalyptus Road significant natural area. The site is reported by NDDB to include the rare central maritime chaparral habitat and two rare plant species, Eastwood's ericameria and sandmat manzanita. 4.11.3.5 Marine Environment The marine environment of Monterey Bay is widely recognized as important habitat for an array of marine wildlife and has been approved for federal protection as part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1992). Approximately 27 species of marine mammals and 94 species of seabirds are known to occur in the Monterey Bay region, including nine special-status mammals, 17 special-status birds, and three endangered sea turtles (Table 4.11-5). Most species occur as nonbreeding residents or spring and fall migrants. All the special-status birds may fly over the marine inland range area at Fort Ord or float in the open water, and southern sea otters may feed in the marine inland range area; however, no important marine mammal haul-out (resting) or breeding areas or seabird nesting colonies occur at Fort Ord (Figure 4.11-14). Table 4.11-5 Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Marine Environment in Monterey Bay Common and Scientific Name Legal Status 8 Occurrence Northern Sea Lion Eumentopis jubatus FT Nonbreeding resident/visitor Guadalupe Fur Seal Arctocephalus townsendi FT, ST Rare seasonal transient Southern Sea Otter Enhydra lutris nereis FT Breeding year-round resident Gray Whale Eschrictius robustus FE Seasonal migrant Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-114 Affected Environment Vegetation, IVildlife, and Wetland Resources December 1992 Table 4.11-5 Continued Common and Scientific Name Legal Status 8 Occurrence Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus Hump-Backed Whale Megaptera novaeangliae Pacific Right Whale Balaena glacialis japponica Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Forster's Tern Stern forteri Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Rhinocerus Auklet Cerohinea monocerata Tufted Puffin Frater cut a cirrhata Common Loon Gavia immer Wetern Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis California Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus California Gull Larus californicus Elegant Tern Sterna elegans Xantus' Murrelet Synthliboramphus hypoleucus Ashy Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma homochroa FE FE FE FE FE SSC FPT, SE SSC SSC SSC FE, SE SSC C2, SSC SSC Seasonal migrant Seasonal migrant Seasonal migrant Rare seasonal migrant Rare seasonal migrant Breeding Breeding Breeding Breeding Breeding Breeding Nonbreeding resident/visitor Nonbreeding resident/visitor Nonbreeding resident/visitor Nonbreeding resident/visitor Nonbreeding resident/visitor Nonbreeding resident/visitor Nonbreeding resident/visitor Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume I December 1992 4-115 Table 4.11-5 Continued Common and Scientific Name Legal Status 8 Occurrence Laughing Gull SSC Seasonal migrant larus atricilla California Least Tern SE, FE Seasonal migrant Sterna antillarum browni Short-Tailed Albatross FE Rare visitor Diomedea albatrus Black Skimmer SSC Rare visitor Rynchops niger Green Turtle FE Rare visitor Chetonia mydas Leatherback Turtle FE Rare visitor Dermochelys coriacea Pacific Ridley Turtle FE Rare visitor Lepidochelys olivacea 8 Status explanations (see the "Definitions of Special-Status Species" section above for citations): FE = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. FT = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. C2 = Category 2 candidate for federal listing. Category 2 includes species for which USFWS has some biological information indicating that listing may be appropriate but for which further biological research and field study are usually needed to clarify the most appropriate status. Species that are possibly extinct are indicated with an asterisk (*). Category 2 species are not necessarily less rare, threatened, or endangered than Category 1 species or listed species; the distinction relates to the amount of data available and is therefore administrative, not biological. SE = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. ST = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. FPT = proposed as threatened by the federal government. SSC = California state species of special concern. * = Taxa that fall into one or more of the following categories: taxa that are biologically rare, very . restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range; populations in California that may be peripheral to the major portion of a taxon's range, but which are threatened with extirpation within California; taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at an alarming rate (e.g., wetlands, riparian, old-growth forests). Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-116 Affected Environment Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources December 1992 4.11.4 Vegetation Management Programs Fire management and livestock grazing are used to manage vegetation at Fort Ord. These activities can change habitat conditions for vegetation and wildlife on the installation. 4.11.4.1 Fire Management Fire management includes maintenance of fuel breaks and fire roads, controlled burning, and fire suppression. Fuel and fire breaks are maintained over the entire installation. Maintaining fuel breaks results in conditions that provide favorable habitat for species that require early successional stages, such as sand gilia and Monterey spineflower. Prescribed burning is primarily used in the inland range area to reduce fuel levels before training exercises. These activities result in favorable habitat conditions for most chaparral species that are adapted to periodic disturbance from fires. The mosaic of sites of different successional stages (i.e., different ages from the last burn) favors special-status plants that thrive in young and intermediate-aged stands, such as sandmat manzanita, Hooker's manzanita, Eastwood's ericameria, and Monterey ceanothus. The mosaic of successional stages resulting from fire management practices also improves habitat value for many wildlife species. 4.11.4.2 Livestock Grazing Approximately 7,500 acres are leased for sheep grazing in the grasslands in the southeastern portion of Fort Ord. Approximately 2,700 head of sheep graze this area between February and June. Grazing leases are selected through a sealed bid process, with the lease awarded to the highest bidder. The annual lease fee is based on grazing capacity of the range. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-117 Affected Environment Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources December 1992 Figure 4.11-1 Biological Communities at Fort Ord Coastal Strand and Dune Chaparral and Coastal Scrub ^ Coast Live Oak Woodland and Savanna Grasslands Riparian |H Wetland and Open Water Developed - Nonhabitat Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 2.600 5.000 7.500 10,0 00 feet 1 2 3 kilometers 4-118 Figure 4.11-2 Jurisdictional Wetlands at Fort Ord Vernal Pools Freshwater Marsh and Ponds $ Intermittent and Perennial Streams Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 2.600 5.000 7,600 10,0 00 feet 12 3 kilometers 4-119 Figure 4.11-3 Known Distribution of Sand Gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria) at Fort Ord Monterey Monterey Density of Occurrence Low Density | | Medium Density High Density l -j-| Specific Population Location 0 1 i-i i-i i-i- kilometers 2 3 4 1 2 miles 4-120 Figure 4.11-4 Known Distribution of Sand Gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria) near Fort Ord Watsonviile Castro vi Ue Pacific v Grove Marina Carmel Carmel Valley Village Pacific Ocean Monterey Bay Salinas San Juan Bautista Sunt*) Sua Beach ▲ NDDB 1992 H—«j F.R. 57 (120) June 22. 1992

f Specific Population Location kilometers 0 12 3 i—ii—ii—i t 1 1 2 miles 4-126 Figure 4.11-10 Known Distribution of Seaside Bird's-Beak (Cordylanthus rigidusvar. littoralis) near Fort Ord — LEGEND ▲ CNPS 1992 DFG 1992 • NDDB 1992 Jones & Stokes Assoc. 1992 Surveys Watsonville Monterey Bay Castroville Pacific > Grove San Juan • Bauttsta larina Carmel Salinas Also found at 9 sites in Santa Barbara County, although these plants exhibit unique characteristics and may be hybrid populations Carmel Valley Village MILES 4-127 Figure 4.11-11 Known Locations of Special-Status Wildlife Species at Fort Ord [<>] California linderiella j~+] California tiger salamander Salinas harvest mouse Q Monterey dusky footed woodrat Black leg/ess lizard American badger H Yellow warbler a Smith's blue butterfly Tricolored blackbird Coast horned lizard Loggerhead shrike f Golden eagle Western snowy plover Cooper's hawk Note: Refer to Table 4 11-4 for sources. Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 2,600 5,000 7,500 10,0 00 feet 1 3 kilometers 4-128 Figure 4.11-12 Known Locations of Plant and Butterfly Reserve Areas at Fort Ord Monterey Bay FntaCha Airfield Blanco Road East Garrison Main Samson Main Entrance toter-Qarrtson Road Area 11 Ai Area 8 Area 9 Area 12 Area 4 !f Area 1 Montsrep Psnlnsiia Airport Monterey 4-129 Figure 4.11-13 General Locations of Significant Natural Areas at Fort Ord Source: Natural Diversity Data Base 1992 . MNT-026, MNT-040, MNT - 050 = California Department of Fish and Game designation numbers for significant natural areas in Monterey County 4-130 Figure 4.11-14 Principal Sea Otter, Seal, and Sea Lion Areas of Concentration and Seabird Nesting Areas in Monterey Bay Area Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 1990. 4-131 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Affected Environment Draft EIS Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Volume I December 1992 4-132 4.12 VISUAL RESOURCES 4.12.1 Introduction This section incorporates by reference information from the Other Physical Attributes Baseline Study of Fort Ord, California, which is available at the public information repository established at the Seaside Branch Library (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992e). In addition, information has been generated using geographic information system computer technology. This information is a refinement of baseline study information on the visibility, visual quality, and visual sensitivity of the affected environment for Fort Ord. The approach for analyzing visual resources for the affected environment of Fort Ord is based on principles and established procedures developed and used by federal agencies including the Federal Highway Administration (1983), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1984, Smardon et al. 1986), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1980), the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1978a), and the U.S. Forest Sen/ice (1974). Figures 4.12-1 through 4.12-3 are located at the end of this section. 4.12.2 Methodology The methodology for analyzing visual resources involved collecting visual resources information for the region and study area for Fort Ord, identifying the visual character of the region and study area, identifying important zones of visibility for the study area, identifying the visual quality of Fort Ord's physical resources, and evaluating visual sensitivity of Fort Ord based on combining data for visual resource quality and visibility. Data on visual resources were collected using ground-level field reconnaissance and interpretation of topographic maps, aerial photography, and general site photographs and videotape. Defining regional visual character provides a frame of reference for identifying the visual character and quality of the study area. Visual character for the region and study area is described using Federal Highway Administration methodology and terminology (Federal Highway Administration 1983). Vividness refers to the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in visual patterns. Intactness refers to the visual integrity of the natural and built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements; this factor applies in urban and rural settings, as well as more natural landscapes. Unity refers to the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole and frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the artificially made landscape. (Federal Highway Administration 1983.) Distance zones refer to divisions of a particular landscape viewshed based on the spatial separation between observer and subject (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1984). Distance zones are generally categorized as foreground, middleground, and background, with precise distances for each zone varying with terrain and atmospheric and other conditions (U.S. Forest Service 1974, U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1980). Visibility refers to the geographic extent and legibility of features of a visual resource that can be seen by an observer from a particular location (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1984). Important zones of visibility (Figure 4.12-1) were identified for the study area by identifying all areas visible from primary and secondary roads. The area of Monterey Bay located about 1 /2-2 miles from the Fort Ord shoreline was also identified as an area with important views of Fort Ord. Views from the bay are considered important because of the bay's high use by recreationists and status as a national marine sanctuary. Important areas of Fort Ord visible from the bay extend inland approximately 2 miles from the coastline. Distance zones were identified from the various roads, with the foreground zone identified as 0- Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-133 Affected Environment Visual Resources December 1992 1 /2 mile from the viewing location and the middleground zone identified as 1 /2-3 miles from the viewing location. These distance zones are derived from criteria developed by the U.S. Forest Service (1974) and used at the nearby Los Padres National Forest and other national forests throughout the nation. These distance zone criteria are appropriate to apply at Fort Ord based on the generally high level of visibility of landscape features in the region and study area. Visibility was identified using only available topographic data; tall vegetation and small changes in relief could screen views from portions of viewing locations. The visual quality of Fort Ord's physical resources (Figure 4.12-2) was identified by evaluating the visual quality of attributes of land cover (Table 4.12-1). Visual quality ratings for land cover types for Fort Ord were identified as high, moderate, or low based on an assessment of the visual characteristics of dominant vegetation cover, land use, topography, surface water, and structures of scenic importance. Visual quality ratings were identified for each land cover type based on its relative degree of vividness, intactness, and unity; relative scarcity in the region and study area; native plant species composition; and distinctiveness with regard to topographic features and constructed elements. Table 4.12-1. Visual Quality Ratings for Land Cover Types at Fort Ord Land Cover Type Visual Quality Rating Beaches, Bluffs, and Blowouts High Disturbed Dunes Medium Native Coastal Strand High Dune Scrub High Ice Plant Mats Medium Maritime Chapparral High Coastal Scrub High Coast Oak Woodland High Inland Oak Woodland High Oak Savanna High Annual Grassland Low Mixed Riparian Forest High Vernal Pools High Ponds and Freshwater Marsh High Oak Riparian Forest High Perennial Grassland Medium Golf Course Medium Important Historic Structures East Garrison High Stilwell Hall High Martinez Hall High Other Developed Areas Low Visual sensitivity (Figure 4.12-3) was determined by combining information on visibility and visual resource quality. Generally, areas visible from and within 3 miles of important viewing locations and are of high to moderate visual quality are ranked as having high to moderate visual sensitivity, and areas more than 3 miles from important viewing locations are ranked as having low visual sensitivity. Cultural resources (e.g., Stilwell Hall and Martinez Hall) of scenic importance are ranked as having high visual sensitivity regardless Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-134 Affected Environment Visual Resources December 1992 of their distance from important viewing locations. The visual sensitivity analysis indicates that most of the perimeter and virtually all of the coastal portions of Fort Ord are highly sensitive. Maps of important viewsheds (i.e., seen areas) and visual sensitivity for the study area were generated using GIS technology. Various state and local government policies that address the visual resources of Fort Ord and the surrounding region are listed below. These policies address the importance of protecting and carefully managing the visual resources of lands that include portions or all of Fort Ord. California Coastal Act of 1976 planning and management policies applicable to the Fort Ord coastal zone are contained in Appendix C of the Land Use Baseline Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1992b). Section 30251 of the coastal act, "Scenic and Visual Qualities", states: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Preservation and Recreation Plan by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. Various goals, objectives, and policies of the Monterey County General Plan (Monterey County 1982) address the importance of preserving unique and important visual resources and the visual character of the county. Goals, objectives, and policies for preserving visual resources are identified in the plan in sections for open space conservation (Goal 1, Objective 1.1, Policy 1.1.2), general land use (Policies 26.1.5, 26.1.6, 26.1.8, 26.1.9, 26.1.10, and 26.1.12), watershed areas (Goal 35), scenic highways (Goal 40; Objectives 40.1, 40.2, and 40.3; Policies 40.1.1, 40.2.1, 40.2.2, 40.3.1, and 40.3.2), park and recreation facilities (Goal 51), and public utilities (Objective 56.2, Policies 56.2.1 and 56.2.2). 4.12.3 Visual Resources and Character 4.12.3.1 Region Fort Ord is located in a region of diverse, sensitive, and high-quality visual resources. The region contains some of the most vivid and important aesthetic images in California: the Monterey Peninsula, with its rocky cliffs and shores, windswept cypress trees, cove beaches, rolling sand dunes, Fisherman's Wharf, Cannery Row, and mission; Monterey Bay, with its changing colors, sunsets, sailboats, fishing boats, and migrating whales; the broad pastoral and scenic Salinas Valley, with its agricultural fields, meandering streams and river, and shifting fog; and rugged coastal hills and ranges, with their steep slopes and drainages and diverse patterns of oak woodlands, chaparral, and grasslands. Fort Ord contributes substantially to the region's highly valued visual character and quality. It provides a major area of open space and has a mostly natural appearance and unified development character. The high visual quality, visibility, and sensitivity of its coastal and other areas contribute substantially to the region's character and quality. In recognition of the aesthetic importance of the region, the State of California and Monterey County have designated some roads and highways as scenic and the county has identified some areas as highly visually sensitive. Roads are the principal vantage points from which tourists, recreationists, and residents view the diversity of visual environments in the region. Views from roads are an important means by which people gain their impressions of an area. The bay also is an important vantage point for viewing the region because of its status as a national marine sanctuary and because of high use by recreationists and tourists. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-135 Affected Environment Visual Resources December 1992 4.12.3.2 Study Area Fort Ord's visual character is comprised of its visual uniqueness within its regional setting, visual sensitivity, and visual quality. Within its regional context, much of Fort Ord is visually unique because it contains vast areas of natural and diverse vegetative cover, its shoreline appears relatively undisturbed, and it is mostly undeveloped. Most of the installation's development, largely confined to the Main and East Garrisons and associated residential areas, consists of one- or two-story buildings. Mature landscaping surrounding these buildings partially conceals them from view, softens their appearance by helping blend them with their surroundings, and contributes to the natural character of the landscape. With the exception of a few areas near State Route 1 and in the north and northeast portions of the study area, Fort Ord appears preserved as a vestige natural area surrounded by intensively farmed land and increasing urban development. Important zones of visibility for the Fort Ord area include viewsheds from primary and secondary roads and the area of Monterey Bay located about 1 /2-2 miles from the installation's shoreline. Primary roads in the Fort Ord study area are heavily used by tourists and recreationists and include State Route 1, a proposed state scenic highway, and state-designated scenic highway State Route 68. Views from State Route 1 include expansive, highly vivid, and intact views of Monterey Bay; important views of adjacent coastal dunes and shoreline; views of Stilwell Hall; and views of developed lands mostly east of the highway. Views of Fort Ord from State Route 68 generally consist of low, rolling hills and moderately steep slopes covered mostly with grazed annual grasslands interspersed with areas of oak woodland and riparian vegetation. Secondary roads include important paved roads within and near Fort Ord that are traveled most often by local area workers and residents. Views from Fort Ord's secondary roads include views of developed areas, such as the Main and East Garrisons; residential areas; and hillsides covered with maritime chaparral, oak woodlands, and savanna, which characterize most of the installation's interior. Views of Monterey Bay from Fort Ord range from expansive vistas encompassing the Monterey Peninsula to distant views of the bay meeting the western horizon. High-quality, expansive views of Monterey Bay and the Fort Ord coastline can be seen best from Stilwell Hall and the tops of the coastal dunes. Factors that contribute to Fort Ord's high visual quality are its strong characteristics of vividness, intactness, and unity Vividness of the study area, particularly when viewed from the Salinas Valley; the bay; and heavily used tourist areas, such as Fisherman's Wharf in Monterey, is high because of its generally undeveloped appearance in contrast to nearby developed urban areas. The study area exhibits a high level of visual intactness because of its extensive natural vegetation cover and generally low amount of development; few constructed elements encroach on its natural character. Although some built elements (e.g., the Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital and water towers) contrast strongly in form with other elements in the Fort Ord landscape, the visual unity of the study area is high. Constructed elements are generally consistent in architectural style, low in height, and surrounded by a nearly continuous cover of mature vegetation that helps blend the elements with their surroundings; these factors combine to produce a high degree of visual coherence and the appearance of compositional harmony of individual components within the study area as a whole. Much of Fort Ord is visually sensitive because large portions of it are of high visual quality and are highly visible from surrounding areas and features of importance (e.g., residences, roads, tourist areas, and the bay). The bay and nearby beaches and visitor attractions afford important views of Fort Ord's visually sensitive beaches, sand dunes, coastal bluffs, and interior hills. Important views of the study area are gained from the south and east from State Route 68 and from the west from State Route 1, and much of the study area is visible from important secondary travel routes. In addition, Fort Ord is a highly important visual resource for the region because it is a large, relatively undeveloped area that is highly intact and vivid. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-136 Affected Environment Visual Resources December 1992 Figure 4.12-1 Visual Distance Zones FOREGROUND VIEWS MIDDLEGROUND VIEWS BACKGROUND VIEWS Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 2,600 6,000 7,500 10,000 feet 3 kilometers 4-137 Monterey Bay Gil HIGH MEDIUM LOW Figure 4.12-2 Visual Quality Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 2,500 5,000 7,600 10,0 00 feet 1 3 kilometers 4-138 Figure 4.12-3 Visual Impact Sensitivity HIGH MEDIUM LOW Scale 1:60,000 1 2 3 miles 0 2.500 5,000 7.5 00 10,000 feet 0 1 2 3 kilometers 4-139 4.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.13.1 Base Realignment and Closure Programmatic Agreement Since Fort Ord has not yet finished its installation Inventory of National Register eligible properties and it is not possible to complete this inventory within the time frame of this EIS, the Army will utilize the provisions of a programmatic agreement concluded in anticipation of this situation. The following paragraphs describe how the Army will meet the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act for this Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) action. A Programmatic Agreement was executed on 17 July 1992 between the Department of the Army, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers concerning investigations of cultural resources associated with BRAC activities (Appendix P in Volume III). This agreement allows the Army to complete analysis and documentation required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), when necessary, for BRAC actions prior to fulfilling its responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA). The agreement does not relieve the Army of its NHPA obligations, in those instances where it is infeasible to complete the actions required by Sections 106 and 110(f) of the NHPA prior to the NEPA decision, the Army will stipulate in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or the Record of Decision (ROD) the specific areas of non-compliance. The FONSI or ROD will further specify that new BRAC construction, renovation, land disposal, or training exercises will not be undertaken until the actions necessary to inventory, assess, and take into account the effects on historic properties have been completed consistent with the terms of the Programmatic Agreement. 4.13.2 Background Archeological evidence and radiocarbon dates establish human occupation of the California Coast dating back at least 10,000 years. Evidence from coastal areas of Monterey County suggests settlement of this area by at least 5,000 B.C., and possibly earlier. Two major patterns have been defined archeoiogically which describe the cultural sequence. The Sur Pattern, which probably represents Hokan speaking, proto-Esselen peoples, is first seen archeoiogically dating to 5,000 B.C. This pattern persisted until about 500 B.C. when the Monterey Pattern made its appearance. The two patterns are differentiated predominately by changes in their subsistence strategies. It has been suggested that the Monterey Pattern represents the appearance of proto-Coastanoan peoples, which either displaced or absorbed the earlier proto-Esselen foragers. The Monterey Pattern persists up to the Historic Period. Fort Ord is located within lands historically occupied by the Rumsen Indians. This group, which may have numbered only 800 individuals before Euro-American contact, inhabited the southern half of Monterey Bay, the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and some of Carmei Valley, and the coastal area south to Big Sur. The Rumsen belonged to a branch of the Costanoan (or Ohlone) language family. Their sociopolitical organization was based on the triblet, each of which consisted of a primary village and several satellite settlements. The triblet center closest to Fort Ord was located at present day San Carlos. Rumsen/Ohlone traditional lifeways were largely destroyed when Euro-Americans began colonizing their territory in the 1770s. The introduction of foreign disease and the effects of acculturation severely reduced their populations. European contact began with the arrival of Spanish explorers in the 16th century. However, it was not until 1770 that the Portola expedition arrived in Monterey Bay and established the first mission and Royal Presidio. In 1771, the Mission was moved to the Carmel Valley, 5 miles to the south,adjacent to arable land. With the Mission, a period of intense Native American conversion to Catholicism was initiated. By 1778, most of the Rumsen and Esselen Indians in Carmei and Monterey were baptized and settled around the Mission to farm church lands. This resettlement marks the beginning of the disintegration of Native American traditional lifeways in this area. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-140 Affected Environment Cultural Resources December 1992 In 1820, Mexico gained independence from Spain, and a period of secularization ensued. The remaining Indian groups were employed as ranch hands and domestic servants, and by 1840, the Mission was in a state of ruin. Many Indians returned to pre-Spanish food collecting and hunting practices. Some hunted livestock instead of native elk and antelope, and were punished severely as livestock thieves. Whole triblets disappeared from this interaction. With the arrival of Anglo settlers, this process was accelerated as competition for land increased. By the turn of the century, vestigial Indian communities disappeared, and by 1935 the Ohlone language was extinct Fort Ord was created in 1917 from land designated as City of Monterey Tract No. 1 and several ranches. The installation was originally called Gigling Reservation and was a subinstallation of the Monterey Presidio. The reservation was renamed Camp Ord in 1933 after Major General Edward Ord, an important figure in California military history. During the early years, the reservation was used to drill the 11th Cavalry which was stationed at the Presidio of Monterey. Before 1938, the only improvements at Camp Ord were a caretakers house and a few bivouac sites. Beginning in 1940, many facilities were built at Camp Ord using funds from the Work Progress Administration, these include the East Garrison buildings and Stilwell Hall. In that same year the camp was renamed Fort Ord and the 7th Infantry Division was reactivated and stationed there. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Fort Ord was expanded and construction increased dramatically. Fort Ord was an important staging area for units deployed to the Pacific theater of operations during World War II and was used as a processing center for deactivated personnel when the war ended. During the Korean War, Fort Ord was used primarily as a basic and advanced training facility. In 1953, the areas of Camp Roberts and Hunter Liggett were placed under the command of Fort Ord as subinstallations. Fort Ord has been an active military installation for the housing and training of Army troops since its reactivation just before World War II. 4.13.3 Summary of Fort Ord Cultural Resource Investigations Fort Ord does not have a Historic Preservation Plan for the management and inventory of its cultural properties. The inventory of Fort Ord cultural properties is incomplete at this time. At present Fort Ord has no agreements with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or the Advisory Council concerning the management of cultural resources. Three archeoiogical surveys have been conducted within the boundaries of Fort Ord (A. S. Peak and Associates 1978; Johnson 1975; Swernoff 1982). The Swernoff survey examined the largest area, 1047.5 acres, and made preliminary recommendations on high, medium, and low probability areas for prehistoric site locations. Only two archeological sites, CA-MNT-416 and CA-MNT-933H,have been located on Fort Ord by these surveys. A cultural resource overview was conducted of Fort Ord in 1980 by Zahnizer and Roberts. This study identified several historic resources that were recommended as being potentially eligible for listing in the National Register. These included Whitcher Cemetery, Stilwell Hall, Martinez Hail, and the East Garrison Mess Hall complex. Swernoff (1982) also recommended Stilwell and Martinez Halls and 11 of the East Garrison Mess Hall buildings as being potentially eligible for the National Register. No determinations of eligibility for these resources have been made by the SHPO. After determining that many ofjhe World War II temporary buildings across the country mandated for removal by Congress were eligible for listing in the National Register, the Department of Defense (DOD) entered into a Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory Council and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers in 1986 (Appendix P in Volume III). In compliance with this agreement the DOD has conducted studies to document the World War II mobilization and construction effort. The Programmatic Agreement was amended in 1991 to extend its expiration date. The Fort Ord World War II temporary buildings were examined as part of this nationwide effort in August 1991 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction, Engineering, and Research Laboratory 1991). All Fort Ord World War II temporary Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-141 m Affected Environment Cultural Resources December 1992 buildings were found to be standard types erected at numerous other installations and no additional recordation studies were recommended specifically for them. The overall DOD mitigation study for World War II temporary buildings is scheduled for completion by December 1992. Fort Ord has no cultural resource properties that are on or have been formally determined to be eligible for the National Register. No National Historic Landmarks are located on Fort Ord lands. Fort Ord, in the past, has not formally coordinated with Native American groups to determine whether culturally sensitive traditional properties are present on Army lands. 4.13.4 Base Realignment and Closure Cultural Resource Studies The Army is undertaking several studies to determine the effect that disposal of Fort Ord lands will have on cultural resources and Native American traditional properties. The only lands that may be retained by the Army are the proposed Presidio of Monterey annex and the reserve center. An architectural inventory is now being conducted of Fort Ord permanent buildings constructed prior to 1947. The semi-permanent buildings found at Fort Ord are World War II temporary buildings that have been modified and upgraded in status. Tentative recommendations, subject to agreement by the California SHPO, suggest that 33 East Garrison buildings, and 2 buildings in the main cantonment may be eligible for the National Register (Table 4.13-1). All other permanent buildings have been extensively modified or do not possess the historical or architectural significance necessary for nomination to the National Register. A report of these findings is now being prepared for submission to the California SHPO (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction, Engineering, and Research Laboratory 1992). An archeological research design is now being prepared for Fort Ord (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction, Engineering, and Research Laboratory 1992). This design has divided Fort Ord into five strata based on landforms: 1) beach strand, 2) active (unstabilized) dunes, 3) younger (early-mid-Holocene) stabilized dunes, 4) older (Late Pleistocene) stabilized dunes, and 5) dissected uplands (Figures 4.13-1 and 4.13-2). The research design recommends that the active beach strand has no archeological potential, the unstabilized active dunes have low potential for possessing prehistoric archeological resources, and the stabilized dunes that make up strata 3 and 4 have medium potential with the exception of the wet cycle lakes. These lakes have a high potential for possessing archeological resources around their peripheries. The dissected uplands, stratum 5, have a high potential for prehistoric archeological resources along the streams that connect with the Salinas River floodplain through Pilarcitos and Impossible Canyons. Lands within the dissected uplands that have less than 15% slope are thought to have a moderate potential for archeological resources. The benches and terraces adjacent to the Salinas River and El Toro Creek along the northeastern boundary of the installation are considered to have a high potential for possessing archeological resources. The research design also proposes to test for buried landforms that may be associated with a post-Pleistocene estuary under the dunes in strata 3 and 4. If present, these buried landforms have the potential to possess Paleo-lndian occupations. The Fort Ord artillery impact area (inland range area) and the cantonment areas will be excluded from archeological survey. Fort Ord areas defined as having a high probability for possessing archeological resources are recommended for 100% survey coverage. It has been proposed to randomly sample areas with low and medium archeological potential at a 10% level. Recommendations for future surveys will be contingent on the results of these initial efforts. Consultation has been initiated with the California SHPO concerning the identification and protection of Fort Ord National Register eligible properties during the land disposal process. The California Native American Heritage Commission will be contacted to identify specific California Native American points of contact for this region. All Fort Ord cultural resource investigations and consultations will be conducted in accordance with the amended BRAC Cultural Resource Programmatic Agreement. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-142 Affected Environment Cultural Resources December 1992 □ Beach strand □ Active dunes HH Younger stabilized dunes S3 Older stabilized dunes IB dissected uplands Figure 4.13-2 Fort Ord 100% Coverage High Probability 0 2000 Meters 4-144 Table 4.13-1 Fort Ord National Register of Eligible Buildings Building Number Function 12 Lavatory Building 13 Applied Instruction Building 14 General Purpose Administration Building (formerly Officers Dining Hall) 16 Officers Dining Hall 17 Lavatory Building 27 Enlisted Dining Hall 29 Enlisted Dining Hall 30 Learning Resource Genter (formerly Enlisted Dining Hall) 33 Enlisted Dining Hall 34 Enlisted Dining Hall 35 Enlisted Dining Hall 36 Enlisted Dining Hall 37 Enlisted Dining Hall 38 General Purpose Administration Building 74 Lavatory Building 75 Storehouse (formerly Lavatory Building) 76 Lavatory Building 77 Lavatory Building 78 Lavatory Building 79 Lavatory Building 80 Lavatory Building 81 Lavatory Building 82 Lavatory Building 83 Lavatory Building 91 Exchange Branch 111 Warehouse 112 Warehouse 113 Warehouse 115 Warehouse 116 Warehouse 117 Warehouse 118 Warehouse 124 Rod and Gun Club (formerly Dispensary) 2075 Stilwell Hall, Community Center (formerly Soldiers Club) 2425 Maintenance Shed Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 4-145 Affected Environment Cultural Resources December 1992 Section 5.0 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences 5.1 INTRODUCTION This section describes the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of implementing the proposed action at Fort Ord (described in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action") or implementing an alternative to the proposed action (described in Section 3.0 "Alternatives"). This section is organized parallel to Section 2.0 to facilitate tracking the impacts of the various segments of the proposed action. The impact discussion is divided into five major categories as follows: ■ predisposal actions, ■ disposal process, ■ establishment of Presidio of Monterey (POM) annex, ■ retention of reserve center, and ■ reuse alternatives. Predisposal actions include placing the installation in a caretaker status, remediating contaminated sites, and issuing interim leases. These actions are independent of the disposal process and, except for interim uses, are exempt from National Environmental Policy Act evaluation as indicated in Section 2.0. Nonetheless, the implications of undertaking these predisposal actions are described briefly to provide the reader with an understanding of conditions that exist before disposal. The Army's principal actions analyzed in this section are implementing the land disposal process, establishing the POM annex, and retaining the reserve center. Each of these actions is analyzed independently below, with alternatives to these actions comparatively analyzed. Mitigation is described previously when measures have been identified that may be appropriate for Army implementation. Other mitigation is described in Volume II, "Detailed Analysis of Disposal and Reuse". Reuse of disposed land at Fort Ord will not be an Army action; however, the impacts of reuse are considered indirect effects of the Army's disposal action and are analyzed in the environmental impact statement (EIS). Land uses proposed for the POM annex and the reserve center have been included in each reuse alternative so that these analyses represent a cumulative impact analysis of establishing the POM annex and retaining the reserve center. Each of the reuse alternatives in Section 3.0, "Alternatives", is considered separately in this section so that the reader can understand the overall effect of the various reuse schemes, as well as the mitigation that has been identified as being potential mitigation for Army implementation. The reuse impacts are described in greater detail in Volume II, "Detailed Analysis for Disposal and Reuse", where the analysis is organized by resource category rather than by alternative. Detailed descriptions of potential mitigation measures are provided in these resource discussions for each alternative, including mitigation that could be implemented by other agencies, local governments, and future owners and managers of the lands. This separate appendix allows this section of the main body of the EIS to focus on the key elements of the federal action of disposal and maintain the readability of the document. * Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Introduction 5-1 December 1992 5.2 PRE-DISPOSAL ACTIONS 5.2.1 Caretaker (No Action Alternative) Caretaker actions will include building modifications, changes in infrastructure, and alterations in land management and installation operations. These actions are necessary to account for the reduced force and availability of operation and maintenance funding at Fort Ord following movement of the 7th Infantry Division (Light) (7th IDL). The length of time parcels will be in caretaker status vary, depending on the time needed to complete remediation or certify that parcels are clean and available for disposal. Some areas of Fort Ord may be in a caretaker condition for up to 10-15 years. Funding available for Fort Ord operation and maintenance has decreased in recent years because of the general trend in force reductions and decreased budgets throughout the Army. Decreases in funding are expected to continue through the closure and caretaker periods, reducing the Army's ability to adequately maintain all utility systems at Fort Ord. The Army is committed to a minimum level of funding and staffing that maintains safety, security, and health standards, but some system deterioration is likely. Placing Fort Ord in caretaker status could result in the following effects: utility system deterioration, building demolition, reduced levels of security, and reduced levels of maintenance and emergency services. 5.2.1.1. Utility System Deterioration Utility system deterioration during the caretaker period could lead to environmental damage at Fort Ord. This damage could include a decrease in drinking water quality because of stagnant water conditions in water lines, localized flooding from failure to locate and clear clogged or broken storm drain pipes, and spills of untreated wastewater where collector pipelines or pump stations are not adequately maintained. Other infrastructure systems may deteriorate during prolonged caretaker conditions, including electrical lines, gas pipelines, water supply pipelines, telephone lines, cable television lines, and paved and unpaved roadways. Deterioration of roadways could ultimately lead to unsafe driving conditions on Fort Ord. System deterioration during caretaker status will increase costs to upgrade and reestablish use of infrastructure in the future, when new uses are developed at Fort Ord. 5.2.1.2. Building Demolition As buildings are vacated by the 7th IDL, each will be stabilized to the level appropriate for its anticipated future use. Some may be demolished rather than stabilized. The demolition process will generate waste to be disposed of in the Marina landfill. If asbestos-containing materials are present, there will be a health risk to workers and perhaps occupants of nearby structures. The asbestos materials would have to be disposed of in a properly permitted disposal site. The demolition process will also temporarily increase noise levels in the area; noise impacts on humans could occur if occupied structures or recreational areas are adjacent to the construction site. The potential impacts on historic structures, sites, objects, and districts must be considered in placing the installation in caretaker status and of maintenance and operation of Fort Ord until disposal. If buildings are stabilized or demolished, features with historic significance could be adversely affected. Removing or damaging windows and doors, interior fixtures, and other elements of architectural style could be considered adverse effects if the structures are determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Effects on the settings of contributing elements and on supporting utilities and Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5-2 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Pre-Disposal Actions December 1992 fire protection and police could be adverse. The amended Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cultural Resource Programmatic Agreement will be followed in considering these potential effects (Appendix P in Volume III). 5.2.1.3. Reduced Levels of Security Reduced staffing and funding for installation operations will affect land management activities and security. Although public access to the installation will be restricted during caretaker conditions, a much lower military presence will be on the undeveloped and unused portions of the installation. Increased illegal entry by of off-road vehicle users, especially in the grassland areas of the southern portions of the installation, could increase soil erosion, visual blight, and loss of sensitive vegetation. Illegal access in other areas could result in vandalism of structures (including vandalism of historically significant structures, sites, and districts), illegal dumping, poaching of wildlife, and public safety risks to residents and workers in the POM annex. 5.2.1.4. Reduced Levels of Maintenance and Emergency Services A reduced maintenance force will mean less frequent grounds maintenance in unoccupied residential and office areas, resulting in degraded views. Grounds maintenance activities such as erosion control may also be reduced, leading to increased sedimentation and loss of soil resources. Emergency medical services, including ground ambulance service and helicopter medical evacuation, will be lost or reduced in the caretaker condition at Fort Ord. Fire protection services will also decline, leading to a reduced ability to respond to wildland and structural fires on Fort Ord and a reduced ability to respond to calls for mutual aid in areas surrounding Fort Ord. The Army recognizes these potential effects associated with reducing forces and placing lands in a caretaker status and is committed to minimizing effects to the extent funds and staff are available during the period between closure and disposal of excess land. An environmental planning guide is being prepared for Fort Ord as a directory for Garrison personnel with the responsibility to properly maintain the facility in this interim period. This guide will identify legal and regulatory programs and environmental requirements that must be considered as the land is managed in the future. The guide will also identify staffing and equipment needs to fulfill the Army's land stewardship responsibilities. 5.2.2 Contaminated Sites Cleanup of contaminated sites is an ongoing process at Fort Ord, independent of the decision to close and dispose of the property. Evaluation of the extent of contamination has been underway since before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed Fort Ord on the National Priorities List on February 21, 1990. Efforts are now proceeding to identify the appropriate remedial actions necessary to clean up land for future use. The cleanup process, described in Section 2.0, is dictated by the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act; the process includes its own public involvement program and environmental review. The following discussion indicates the range of remedial measures likely to be used at Fort Ord and generally describes the environmental implications of the cleanup process. A more specific analysis of impacts will be possible after the full extent of contamination has been documented and remedial measures are selected. 5.2.2.1 Potential Remedial Measures The selection of remedial measures will consider cost and anticipated future use of the land. The Army is already undertaking cleanup where sites are fully characterized and remedial measures have been determined. Specific cleanup measures for other sites will be selected after the remedial Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Pre-Disposal Actions 5-3 December 1992 investigation/feasibility study is complete and more is known about future uses. In some cases, remediation may proceed to the level needed to fully protect human health and the environment before a future use or disposal action has been determined. Additional measures may be needed after a particular reuse is established. As proposed in the Fort Ord Environmental Restoration Acceleration Action Plan, a remedial technology screening document will be prepared to evaluate potential remedial measures that may be applicable for contaminated soil or groundwater. The following measures are typical of what is expected to remediate sites at Fort Ord. Potential remedial measures to treat contaminated soils include four general alternatives: no action, excavation and onsite treatment, in situ treatment, and encapsulation with impermeable high-density polyethylene liners (primarily used in landfill areas). Specific proven remedial options will be selected to sufficiently remediate the different types and combinations of contaminants present at Fort Ord. Under no action, a screening-level risk evaluation would be required to ensure that concentrations of contaminants remaining in the soil do not pose unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. Excavation and onsite treatment may involve bioremediation to enhance microbial degradation of organic matter and soil aeration or low-temperature thermal treatment to volatilize organic compounds. Bioremediation involves placing microorganisms in the groundwater treatment system effluent and applying the effluent to contaminated soil stockpiles to enhance biodegradation. Stockpiles are then tilled periodically to ensure thorough microorganism distribution. To enhance volatilization through aeration, stockpiled soil is distributed into uniform lifts and left uncovered; low-temperature thermal treatment enhances volatilization by thermal oxidation. In situ treatment may occur by extracting and treating soil vapors, in situ bioremediation (injecting nutrients into the unsaturated soil), or injecting steam to thermally oxidize volatile organic compounds or petroleum hydrocarbons. The proposed treatment location for petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soils excavated during remediation activities is the existing treatment facility in the Fritzsche Army Airfield fire drill area. The Army will upgrade the existing facility to meet regional water quality control board requirements for a Class II waste treatment facility (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1992b). The amount of soil excavated from each location and treated in this area could be up to several thousand cubic yards; the size of excavations will be determined by the extent of contamination and the level of remediation, which will be commensurate with possible land reuse. Soils contaminated with pesticides or dissolved metals generally cannot be treated using bioremediation, aeration, or other volatilization techniques. Soils containing these types of contaminants would likely be excavated and disposed of offsite, excavated and incinerated onsite or offsite, or encapsulated to prevent leaching or future contact with other soils. Soils in training ranges and other sites containing spent ammunition would likely be excavated, screened to remove spent projectiles, and treated for dissolved compounds associated with ordnance explosive waste. Potential remedial actions for contaminated groundwater at Fort Ord include three alternatives: no action, pump and treat, and containment. A screening-level risk evaluation to ensure the protection of human health and the environment would be required under no action; continued groundwater monitoring also may be required. Pump and treat remediation involves pumping groundwater into onsite treatment systems that may include carbon filtration, ultraviolet oxidation, use of bioreactors, or use of air strippers. Containment methods include installing a slurry wall or collection trenches to prevent migration of contaminated groundwater. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume 1 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Pre-Disposal Actions December 1992 Implementation of pump and treat groundwater systems involves installing one or more groundwater extraction wells to pump contaminated groundwater into an onsite treatment system. Carbon filtration treats water through a series of granular-activated carbon filters in aboveground holding tanks; ultraviolet oxidation uses mercury vapor lamps to inactivate organic compounds; and air strippers force streams of clean air through streams of contaminated groundwater in a series of cooling towers and basins. As the air and water come in contact, volatile compounds are removed from the groundwater. Groundwater remediation will occur in several areas at Fort Ord, requiring several onsite treatment systems. The locations and design specifications of groundwater treatment systems will be determined after the type of remedial action has been selected for each contaminated area. The Army will continue to use the existing groundwater treatment system in the Fritzsche Army Airfield fire drill area (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1992b). U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Standard 6055.9-STD addresses land disposal of former impact areas to non-DOD agencies. Chapter 12 of this standard contains policies to reduce human health and safety risks caused by the presence of unexploded ordnance. Surface clearance of unexploded ordnance may involve conducting selective vegetation removal, possibly including the burning of vegetation to clear the ground surface (dense vegetation in some areas of the inland range area may render burning infeasible); locating unexploded ordnance by visual and electromagnetic means (metal detectors); identifying unexploded ordnance; and disposing of any unexploded ordnance located. During the location process, inert ordnance and ordnance scrap will be collected and properly disposed of. Identification and disposal may require excavating soil from around the unexploded ordnance. Excavations could range in size from a single square foot to several square feet, depending on the type of unexploded ordnance, its location, and its position. The preferred method of disposal of unexploded ordnance is in situ detonation, which would increase the amount of soil disturbed. Subsurface investigation and clearance activities may be conducted in areas that historical record reviews and interviews indicate the possible presence of buried ammunition or in impact areas where the velocity, trajectory, and momentum of munitions are likely to cause them to penetrate the ground's surface. Subsurface unexploded ordnance is located by using metal detectors, ground-penetrating radars, or other appropriate methods, and then excavating to determine the source of the magnetic anomaly. Depending on the type and means of delivery, excavations could reach depths in excess of 10 feet and have surface areas ranging in size from several square feet to tens of square feet. The preferred method of disposal of unexploded ordnance is in situ detonation, which would increase the amount of soil disturbed. During caretaker status, the Army would take appropriate action to protect safety and property. Considering the urban vicinity of the installation, it is likely that a surface clearance would be done to remove unexploded ordnance. The unexploded ordnance clearing process involves reviewing historical records and interviewing installation officials; conducting representative site investigations to confirm the existence of and types and densities of unexploded ordnance; performing computer modeling to estimate the quantities, densities, and distribution of unexploded ordnance in various areas; conducting surface clearances of unexploded ordnance; and possibly conducting subsurface clearances. The unexploded ordnance clearance process would be conducted throughout the installation to ensure that no unexploded ordnance remains outside designated areas. 5.2.2.2 Environmental Considerations Predisposal remediation activities at Fort Ord are likely to have substantial effects on the following: ■ vegetation and wildlife resources, ■ soil erosion rates, Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Pre-Disposal Actions 5-5 December 1992 ■ surface water quality, ■ air quality, ■ noise-sensitive activities, and ■ possibly cultural resources. Removal of Unexploded Ordnance. Surface and subsurface clearance of unexploded ordnance poses the greatest threat to vegetation and wildlife resources. Surface clearance from the inland range area and other live fire areas could result in the loss of portions of sand gilia and Monterey spineflower populations. Sand gilia and Monterey spineflower plants would be removed by vegetation burning and cutting, whole plant excavation, crushing or trampling from movement of excavation equipment and removal team foot traffic, and onsite ordnance detonation. The maritime chaparral habitat that supports these species would be removed by burning and cutting. Surface clearance of unexploded ordnance could occur in areas supporting approximately 75% of the occupied habitat of sand gilia and Monterey spineflower at Fort Ord. The number of individuals and amount of habitat affected cannot be determined because the locations and amount of unexploded ordnance is not known. Fort Ord covers approximately 50-70% of the entire range of sand gilia and about 75-95% of the entire range of Monterey spineflower. Removal of individuals or populations of sand gilia is prohibited by the Federal Endangered Species Act. If the Monterey spineflower becomes federally listed as threatened or endangered, its removal would also violate the Endangered Species Act. A rotational vegetation management plan could be developed and implemented with ordnance clearing. Controlled burning of maritime chaparral vegetation could be conducted in a random pattern of patches ranging from 25 to 75 acres. The amount of maritime chaparral burned in remediation sites each year could be large enough to support an average rotation (the time period between fires at a given site) of 20 years. Clearing of ordnance could be conducted at controlled burn sites following the burn. Removal of sand gilia and Monterey spineflower, if Monterey spineflower becomes listed as threatened or endangered, would require consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. A habitat conservation plan could be developed and implemented to preserve and restore populations and habitats of these plant species. California linderiella occur in ephemeral, freshwater aquatic habitats, such as vernal pools, swales, and ponds. Eggs laid by adults when water bodies are full remain in the soil after vernal pools and ponds have dried until the following rainy season. The excavation necessary for removal of subsurface unexploded ordnance could fill or severely disrupt six ponds and 10 vernal pools considered California linderiella habitat. If unexploded ordnance is found inside a vernal pool or pond, in situ detonation of the ordnance may disrupt a significant portion of the soil in the area and potentially destroy habitat and eggs in the soil. Soil disruption during excavation or in situ detonation could also cover California linderiella eggs with sufficient soil to prevent them from hatching, resulting in direct mortality. California linderiella have been proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered. If this species becomes listed before reuse, direct mortality or loss of habitat would be prohibited by the federal Endangered Species Act. Disturbance of occupied California linderiella habitat (if the California linderiella is listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act) may result in take and would require Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat restoration plans would be developed and implemented for California linderiella to compensate for losses of habitat. A habitat restoration plan for California linderiella could involve restoration Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5-6 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Pre-Disposal Actions December 1992 of ponds and vernal pools onsite after removal of subsurface unexploded ordnance. Restored ponds and vernal pools could comprise the same acreage and provide the same functions as they did before clearing of ordnance. Topsoil at affected sites in the vernal pools could be set aside during excavation and replaced during restoration to salvage California linderiella eggs. The six ponds and 10 vernal pools described above constitute wetland habitat. Unexploded ordnance that must be detonated onsite could adversely alter the hydrological functioning of these wetlands. The exact amount of surface clearing that will occur in wetlands is unknown. Vernal pools and freshwater marshes potentially are jurisdictional wetlands regulated under the Clean Water Act. Placing dredged or fill material in wetlands would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If avoidance of wetlands is infeasible, a plan to restore wetlands onsite could be developed and implemented. After restoration, wetlands could comprise the same acreage and provide the same functions as they did before surface clearance of unexploded ordnance. Surface clearance of unexploded ordnance could result in the loss of portions of populations and habitat of federal candidate plant species occurring at Fort Ord. Potential impact mechanisms are the same as those described above for federally protected species. Surface clearance could result in the loss of individual plants and reduction of suitable habitat for Seaside bird's-beak, Eastwood's ericameria, coast wallflower, wedge-leaved horkelia, Toro manzanita, sandmat manzanita, Monterey ceanothus, and Hickman's onion. The amount of loss of these species cannot be estimated because the amount of buried ordnance has not been determined. Large reductions in numbers and habitat for Seaside bird's-beak, Eastwood's ericameria, Toro manzanita, sandmat manzanita, and Monterey ceanothus could result in their eligibility for federal listing as threatened or endangered. The rotational vegetation management plan described above regarding federally protected plants would reduce effects on the candidate plants listed above. Surface removal of unexploded ordnance in the inland range area and other live firing areas could result in adverse effects on the habitat of special-status wildlife species at Fort Ord, and direct mortality to terrestrial and burrowing species. The loss of habitat associated with intensive remediation of the inland range area and other areas of Fort Ord suspected of containing unexploded ordnance, and direct mortality during remediation could result in substantial losses of known populations of and habitat for the black legless lizard and Monterey dusky-footed woodrat. The black legless lizard is present in areas of loose sandy soils supporting native dune, coastal scrub, or maritime chaparral vegetation. The range of the black legless lizard is restricted to the Monterey Bay region. Intergrades between black and silvery legless lizards have been found elsewhere along the California coast from the east side of San Francisco Bay to San Luis Obispo County, but the status and distribution of these varieties are not resolved. Monterey dusky-footed woodrats are present at Fort Ord in maritime chaparral and coast live oak woodlands. The range of the species is limited to Monterey County and northern San Luis Obispo County; Fort Ord is in the northern limits of its range. Because of the limited ranges of the black legless lizard and the Monterey dusky-footed woodrat and the scarcity of suitable habitat in northern Monterey County and the Monterey Bay region, loss of habitat and individual animals at Fort Ord would substantially reduce the range of both species and could result in state or federal listing as threatened or endangered. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Pre-Disposal Actions 5.7 December 1992 The initial burning or removal of vegetation before ordnance removal in maritime chaparral habitat could cause Monterey dusky-footed woodrats to abandon affected areas and could reduce direct mortality during remediation. In areas of black legless lizard habitat (i.e., dunes, coastal scrub, and maritime chaparral) legless lizards could be trapped and relocated to restored or enhanced habitat areas before remediation occurs to prevent mortality to individual animals. Surface clearance of unexploded ordnance could result in the long-term loss of extensive areas of habitat occupied by maritime chaparral. Approximately 80% of the maritime chaparral on Fort Ord may contain unexploded ordnance. The amount of vegetation removed for surface clearing, however, cannot be estimated because the specific location and amount of ordnance in the ground is not known. The rotational vegetation management plan described above would also reduce the effects of ordnance clearing on maritime chaparral. Ground disturbance and burning of vegetation needed to clear ordnance could also accelerate soil erosion; the eastern portion of the inland range area is especially susceptible because of the steep slopes and highly erosive soils. Clearing in training areas J and K (Figure 4.10-2) would have the same potential. Accelerated erosion not only results in loss of soil resource but also causes sedimentation in drainages and increased suspended solids in surface waters. Land that will undergo ordnance clearing are within the watersheds of both the Salinas River and Canyon Del Rey; these waterways are tributary to Monterey Bay. Establishing a rotational program for vegetation burning or removal that would limit the size of the area denuded at any one time will minimize erosion. Mulching and reseeding excavated sites will also limit the amount of soil loss and offsite sedimentation. Ordnance clearing by detonation has a potential for noise impacts. If clearance activities extend over a number of years, interim uses and perhaps even longer term reuse could place noise-sensitive receptors near the inland range or training area J or K. This concern does not exist for present land uses surrounding the ranges because they have been exposed to detonation of explosive rounds for many years. As the Army receives and considers requests for interim leasing or long-term reuse, it will consider the potential for noise conflicts with ordnance removal in the inland range areas. Ground disturbance for ordnance clearing has a low potential for disturbing unrecorded archeological resources. Excavations could encounter buried resources, but the archeological sensitivity of the inland range areas is considered low. Professional archaeologists can be consulted if cultural materials are unearthed during remediation. Contaminated Soils Treatment. Remediation of soils contaminated with hydrocarbons, pesticides, or dissolved metals could have similar but less extensive effects on vegetation and wildlife resources, soil erosion rates, and water quality. Most of the soil contamination is located in the developed Main Garrison area where natural vegetation has been mostly removed, slopes are more gentle and most of the land has been previously disturbed. The biggest risk to sensitive plant species exists at the Fritzsche Army Airfield soil remediation site, where contaminated soils are spread and aerated to remove organics. Significant populations of sand gilia and Monterey spineflower exist in this area. The sand gilia is a federally protected plant and the Monterey spineflower is proposed for federal protection. If the area used for soil remediation requires further expansion, a plant survey can be conducted to determine the presence of protected plant species or sensitive wildlife species. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Pre-Disposal Actions 5-8 December 1992 Excavation to remove contaminated soils in the Main Garrison area has some potential for disturbing unrecorded archeological resources and damaging historic structures, landscapes, or related features. This potential is greatest in the northwest portion of the Main Garrison, which is dominated by wood structures from the World War II era. Contaminated Ground water Treatment. Treatment of contaminated groundwater isalready occurring at Fort Ord. Additional pump and treat facilities may be needed. These facilities would be constructed in the Main Garrison area, so the potential for loss of sensitive biological resources is small. The major concern with this remediation process is release of volatile organics to the atmosphere. Volatile organics are a precursor to the formation of ozone and a concern for the maintenance of local air quality. Air stripping facilities used to remove volatile organics are also a source of high noise levels. Constructing these facilities, therefore, could affect noise-sensitive land uses, depending on their location and design. Site selection of pump-and-treat facilities can consider adjoining land uses to avoid adverse noise impacts. Similar consideration can be made when issuing interim leases or outgrants or disposing of property in the vicinity of a treatment facility. Air quality concerns will be addressed through the remedial investigation/feasibility study process; new treatment facilities must be approved by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. Landfill Remediation. Remediation for Fort Ord's main landfill site in the northern portion of the Main Garrison has the potential to affect sensitive plants. Capping the landfill at the west end of Inter- Garrison Road would result in the loss of populations of sand gilia and Monterey spineflower. Placing fill material would bury sites supporting medium- and low-density occupied habitat of these two plant species. Vehicle traffic bringing fill to the site could remove individuals of sand gilia and Monterey spineflower at sites adjacent to the landfill. Loss of the sand gilia is a violation of the Federal Endangered Species Act. If the Monterey spineflower becomes federally listed, its loss would also violate this act. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act before undertaking the landfill remediation. To reduce the effects of remediating the landfill, capping could begin in midsummer following seed production of sand gilia and Monterey spineflower. Seeds could be collected from mature plants and stored. Topsoil could be salvaged at sites supporting dense populations of these plants to recover part of the soil seed bank. After landfill capping, a sandy top layer could be added and the seeds and soil containing seeds be redistributed over the landfill site. Additionally, remediation activities would have beneficial effects on the local economy. Substantial temporary increases would occur in economic activity during the remediation by direct and indirect expenditures for the contracts for remediation actions (up to $750 million) and by the remediation crews spending money on lodging, meals, recreation, and other services. This could lessen the adverse economic impacts. The construction of the infrastructure changes needed for disposal would also have positive effects on the local economy. 5.2.3 Interim Use Interim use is the use of real property through real estate documentation, such as leases, licenses, and permits (outgrants), before disposal is accomplished. Interim uses could include new leasing of office space, storage space, housing, other developed facilities and training facilities and continued leasing of schools, infrastructure facilities, and grazing land by non-Army entities. Use permits are also possible for scientific and cultural uses. Additional information on interim use is contained in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action". After the Army signs the record of decision, interim leasing could occur until the land is disposed. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Pre-Disposal Actions 5-9 December 1992 Potential impacts resulting from interim use include many of the impacts described in detail for reuse, except that no major development would be associated with interim use. Minor modifications to buildings, facilities, and utilities systems may be needed to accommodate users. Interim uses could result in the following effects: ■ land use incompatibilities, ■ ground-disturbing activities, ■ public service infrastructure modifications, ■ need for public safety and emergency services, ■ traffic accessibility and security conflict, ■ air quality effects, ■ noise effects, ■ socioeconomic effects, and ■ cultural resources effects. 5.2.3.1 Land Use Incompatibilities Land use incompatibilities could result from remediation action occurring before disposal and the absence of land use planning when determining interim uses. Remediation activities could expose adjacent land uses to hazardous materials, noise, or other elements associated with cleanup. Granting leases, licenses, or permits for new uses without recognition of existing uses could result in incompatible adjacent land uses, such as a noise-generating land use next to a noise-sensitive land use. Additionally, building modifications or new construction could have a negative effect on existing resources or be incompatible with existing land uses. For example, constructing parking facilities to support an interim use could conflict with existing land uses or biological resources. The compatibility of proposed interim uses and associated building or ground modifications with existing remediation activities and existing/proposed adjacent uses could be considered on a case-by-case basis to ensure land use compatibility. The remedial investigation/feasibility study will consider compatibility of the construction activities during remediation with adjacent land uses. 5.2.3.2 Ground-Disturbing Activities Minor ground-disturbing activities could be associated with preparing lands and facilities for interim use and conducting the interim use. Ground disturbance could result from modifying utility connections, installing meters, and changing access and parking to interim uses separate from Army uses. Grazing uses could continue in the open undeveloped portions of the installation. Construction and modification activities on undisturbed ground could have impacts similar to the impacts described in detail for the reuse alternatives in Volume II. Interim leases would be limited to uses that are compatible with existing structures and facilities without significant disturbance of undisturbed ground or disturbance of facility assets. 5.2.3.3 Public Service Infrastructure Modifications Interim use could result in inadequate provision and maintenance of services, effects on available utilities, potential modifications to present utility systems, need for new utility systems or connections to utilities outside Fort Ord. Public service infrastructure would remain intact during interim uses. The infrastructure would be maintained through interim use and would not deteriorate in those buildings and areas that have been leased by the Army. If the Army were to lease substantial amounts of the developed portion of the installation, the Fori Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Pre-Disposal Actions 5-10 December 1992 infrastructure would continue to be used and reduce operation and maintenance costs. The existing infrastructure, except for the existing Fort Ord telephone system, would be adequate to provide services to most of the potential interim uses. This telephone system could be inadequate to provide service to interim uses because of the system's poor condition. In some cases, tenants may be required to supply their own utilities. This could occur with the Army metering available utilities from existing systems, or by the tenants arranging for municipal and commercial utilities. Construction and modification of utilities could have impacts similar to the impacts described in detail for the reuse alternatives in Volume II. In areas that have not been leased or outgranted, the infrastructure could deteriorate from lack of use and periodic maintenance. The lack of use of portions of the water distribution system may result in water quality problems. The water remaining in unused portions of the system could stagnate in these distribution lines and lead to water quality problems if these lines are used again for reuse. A utilities study is currently being conducted to identify the problems of abandoning or modifying services and related infrastructure to serve the POM annex. This study will also look at the existing infrastructure and systems to determine whether these systems could continue to provide services to interim uses as well as eventual reuse with the current system configuration. To mitigate these effects, the telephone facilities could be upgraded or replaced as needed to provide adequate telephone service for interim uses. 5.2.3.4 Need for Public Safety and Emergency Services The Army provides law enforcement, emergency medical services, and fire protection for the entire installation. These services will be downsized dramatically, increasing the potential for trespassing and vandalism and the need for law enforcement and fire protection for the interim uses. Law enforcement, emergency medical services and fire protection for interim use could be provided by maintaining security patrols in all areas supporting interim uses until the property is transferred to non- Army entities; arranging for municipal or contract provision of these services; or establishing cooperative or mutual-aid agreements with local jurisdictions, until the land is disposed. Conditions for law enforcement, emergency medical services, and fire protection should be considered and written into the lease. Additionally, abandoned buildings could be sealed and appropriate signs posted to discourage access. 5.2.3.5 Traffic Accessibility and Security Conflict Security and accessibility conflicts could occur from the need to provide security for continuing Army (POM annex) uses and the need to provide convenient access to interim civilian uses. Closing or blocking access points and roadways could result in inaccessibility to interim uses and circulation problems at and around the interim uses. There would be a need to define which access points and roadways would be abandoned or blocked to prevent unwanted encroachment, determine which access points and roadways would be required to serve the interim uses, and to ensure that no direct conflicts occur. 5.2.3.6 Air Quality Effects Minor amounts of air emissions would be associated with the preparation of real estate for interim use Operation of interim uses and related traffic would also result in air emissions, although the extent Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Pre-Disposal Actions 5*11 December 1992 would be less than under existing conditions. Some permitted air emission sources may not be required during interim periods. Traffic and population levels would be lower and would result in temporarily lower emissions as lands are being made ready for transfer and long term reuse. 5.2.3.7 Noise Effects Continued use of the firing and training areas could occur on an interim basis from other DOD, other federal, state, and local agencies and organizations, such as local law enforcement agencies. Noise impacts would be similar to existing conditions but frequency of events would be much less than under Army use. Noise would also be associated with traffic and construction activities related to the interim uses. 5.2.3.8 Socioeconomic Effects Beneficial effects would occur as a result of employment and business activities related to interim uses, facilities made available to public and private interests, and vacant housing units used by non-Army residents. Interim use would have some economic benefit to the military and surrounding communities because the property would not be used, and some employment and income could be generated by interim uses. The cost to the Army for maintenance and operation of vacant facilities would be reduced by having tenants provide some of these requirements or participate in paying for these costs. The lands would remain off the local tax roles and no real property taxes would be generated. 5.2.3.9 Cultural Resources Effects Effects to potentially eligible National Register historic buildings, archeological resources, and Native American traditional cultural properties could occur through the inappropriate use or maintenance of these properties could occur during this interim period. Adverse impacts on National Register-eligible buildings could be avoided by conducting Historic American Building Survey recordation procedures for historic buildings and including clauses in leases that require compatible use and protection as a condition of the lease. Adverse impacts on archeological resources could be avoided by including lease clauses that require compatible use and protection as conditions and determining whether remediation sites have been surveyed for archeological resources and conducting surveys where determined necessary and safe to do so. Adverse impacts on Native American traditional cultural properties could be avoided by inventorying all resources and sites of importance to Native Americans and including clauses in leases to require compatible use and protection as a condition of the lease. 5.3 DISPOSAL PROCESS Disposal of Fort Ord property would entail the transfer of land and the change from exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction to state and local jurisdiction. For interim uses and leases, concurrent legislative jurisdiction may be used until the segment of Fort Ord that includes these lease and outgrant areas are permanently disposed, and state and local legislative jurisdiction is established. Disposal could result in the following effects: ■ public sen/ice infrastructure modifications, ■ need for public safety and emergency services, Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Disposal Process 5-12 December 1992 ■ traffic accessibility and security conflict, ■ hazardous and toxic waste remediation effects, ■ biological resources effects, ■ socioeconomic effects, and ■ cultural resources effects. 5.3.1 Public Service Infrastructure Modifications Disposal could result in public service systems and infrastructure effects, including inadequate provision and maintenance of services, effects on available utilities, potential modifications to present utility systems, and need for new utility systems or connections to utilities outside Fort Ord. Disposal has the potential to adversely affect public service systems and infrastructure by creating inadequate access to maintain facilities and the need to expand local services and utility systems. The Army will provide for public utilities easements and is working with local communities and service providers to prepare for reuse of lands being disposed. Refer to Section 5.6, "Reuse Alternatives", and Volume II, "Public Services and Utilities." 5.3.2 Need for Public Safety and Emergency Services The burden of providing services (e.g., law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services) would become the responsibility of the state and local agencies. The impacts and mitigation for these potential impacts are described under the reuse impact descriptions. Refer to Section 5.6, "Reuse Alternatives", and Volume II, "Public Health and Safety". 5.3.3 Traffic Accessibility and Security Conflict Disposal has the potential to change existing traffic and circulation by making portions of Fort Ord that are now restricted to entry as part of the security for the closed post, open to use by new owners and the public. A comprehensive safety, security, and access study could address these issues after the configuration of the POM annex is available. 5.3.4 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Remediation Effects The investigation and remediation of hazardous and toxic material sites or ordnance and explosive waste is an ongoing activity at Fort Ord that will continue after the installation is closed as an active installation and placed into a caretaker status. In some locations, the activity will continue up to and beyond disposal of property. Toxic and hazardous materials cleanup may be required beyond the remediation appropriate to protect the human health and the environment under caretaker status where the Army chooses to dispose of property for non-Army uses. The remedial investigation/feasibility study process will identify specific alternatives for clean up and will include impact analyses and a public involvement program. Air quality may be temporarily affected by remedial actions leading to disposal. Asbestos emissions during demolition and emissions of particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ) and hazardous air pollutants are possible. These impacts would be avoided or mitigated by implementing EPA asbestos cleanup procedures to limit public exposure to asbestos and by implementing dust-reducing measures during preparations for disposal to limit PM 10 emissions. Portions of the installation would remain in a caretaker status while remediation actions are completed for them and other portions of the installation are available for disposal. The potential Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Disposal Process 5-13 December 1992 incompatibility of remediation action with leases of property or with adjacent property to remediation sites would be considered in determining the appropriate parcels to be made available for disposal and the sequence of actions needed to complete the remediation of all sites and disposal of the lands in excess of DOD requirements. Disposal may result in parcels being used by people who would be subjected to air and noise impacts from nearby construction and remediation actions. Implementing the remediation actions will include consideration of noise-reducing practices that could be used to avoid remediation-related noise impacts, including the following: ■ Determine noise levels generated by remediation activities and establish minimum operating distances between remediation activities and noise-sensitive land uses. The minimum operating distance should be defined as the distance the activity must be so that noise from the activity is equal to the existing ambient noise level. ■ Restrict noise-generating remediation activities located in the minimum operating distance of residences to daytime hours. No remediation activities should be performed within the minimum operating distance of an occupied dwelling unit on Sundays or legal holidays, or after 8:00 p.m. and before 8:00 a.m. on other days. ■ Require equipment to have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No internal combustion engine should have an unmuffled exhaust. ■ Require equipment to comply with pertinent equipment noise standards set by federal, state, and local agencies. ■ Require the remediation contractor to implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures, including changing the location of stationary equipment, shutting off motors or idling equipment, rescheduling the remediation activity, notifying adjacent residents before remediation work, installing acoustic barriers around stationary remediation noise sources, or rerouting circulation patterns of heavy trucks to avoid roads with nearby noise-sensitive land uses. The federal government will retain responsibility for any hazardous toxic waste or ordnance and explosive waste remediation that was caused by military use of the property even if it is not discovered by the intensive investigation and remediation actions and is discovered after disposal. 5.3.5 Biological Resources Effects Disposal could result in the loss of federal protection for biological resources. The Army could include reservations in the real estate transfer documents or develop cooperative agreements among the Army, local governments, resource agencies, and the future land managers to avoid and mitigate these effects. Refer to Section 5.6, "Reuse Alternatives", and Volume II, "Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources". 5.3.6 Socioeconomic Effects Positive effects of disposal on the local communities could include placing real estate disposed to private interests into the state and local tax base A substantial temporary increase would result in economic activity during the hazardous toxic waste remediation actions in the area by the direct expenditures for the contracts for remediation actions and remediation crews spending money on lodging, meals, recreation, and other services, which would lessen the adverse economic impacts. The construction of the infrastructure changes needed for disposal would also have positive effects on the local economy. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Disposal Process 5-14 December 1992 The disposal of large areas of land would have the potential negative effect on the local economy of placing real estate on the market in greater quantities than the market could absorb or at rates that may temporally saturate some segments of the local market and temporarily reduce sale prices. The Army real estate disposal plan will consider these factors in determining how to dispose of Fort Ord property. Additionally, the disposal would have potential adverse effects on schools, including the potential loss of Monterey Peninsula Unified School District schools and the land currently leased from the Army. The disposal also could result in the loss of Monterey Peninsula College's lower division general education program facilities. To avoid or mitigate these impacts, the Army could transfer ownership of schools needed for continued use after disposal; or assist Monterey Peninsula College in relocating their programs and Monterey Peninsula Unified School District in consolidating schools. 5.3.7 Cultural Resources Effects Effects to potentially eligible National Register historic buildings, archeological resources, and Native American traditional cultural properties could occur through the loss of federal protection when buildings and lands are sold and by splitting of proposed National Register districts. Adverse impacts on National Register-eligible buildings could be avoided by not splitting historic districts, conducting Historic American Building Survey recordation procedures for historic buildings, and by imposing restrictive covenants as a condition of sale on historic properties. Adverse impacts on National Register archeological resources could be avoided by imposing restrictive covenants as a condition of sale on lands possessing significant archeological sites, avoiding splitting properties that make up archeological districts, determining whether remediation sites have been surveyed for archeological resources and conducting surveys when determined necessary and safe to do so. Adverse impacts on Native American traditional cultural properties could be avoided by inventorying all resources and sites of importance to Native Americans and by imposing restrictive covenants as a condition of sale on important properties. 5.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY ANNEX Establishing a POM annex would require approximately 1,500 of the approximately 28,000 acres of Fort Ord land. This annex would provide support services for the Presidio of Monterey and the Defense Language Institute (DLI), as well as for other military facilities and other active-duty and retired military personnel in the region. The specific requirements of the POM annex are described in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action". 5 .4.1 Army's Presidio of Monterey Annex The Army's proposed POM annex is illustrated in Figure 2-8 in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action". The Army's proposed POM annex would employ approximately 1,000 civilian employees. This would include a caretaker force of approximately 100 persons, with functions similar to the present Directorate of Engineering and Housing. Approximately 400 persons in administrative support positions would occupy offices in the POM annex. Approximately 500 other people would be employed at the POM annex, including a few military personnel. Most of these would be Army Air Forces Exchange Service and Non-Appropriated Fund employees operating the commissary, post exchange, child care center, and other facilities at the POM Annex. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5-15 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Establishment of Presidio of Monterey Annex December 1992 Establishing the Army's proposed POM annex would not require new construction or new development in currently undeveloped areas. Major effects of establishing the annex would be: ■ building modifications, ■ socioeconomic effects, ■ public service infrastructure modifications, ■ need for public safety and emergency services, ■ traffic accessibility and security conflicts, ■ air quality effects, ■ noise effects, ■ visual effects, and ■ cultural resources effects. 5.4.1.1 Building Modifications Although no new buildings are proposed for the POM annex, building modifications and renovations to 14 buildings would occur to upgrade buildings and accommodate other uses (i.e., classrooms). The buildings to be renovated include existing battalion classrooms, battalion headquarters, regimental headquarters, operations-supply, warehouses, and maintenance shops. The following 14 buildings are to be renovated: 4463, 4481, 4489, 4488, 4499, 4499A, 4512A, 4512B, 4418, 4448, 4490, 4491, 4423, and 4450. These buildings range in size from 1,883 to 19,354 square feet, totaling 134,400 square feet. Major effects of building modification activities, such as demolition and construction, could include generation of noise, air emissions, and hazardous waste. 5.4.1.2 Socioeconomic Effects The POM annex would employ approximately 1,000 persons in administrative, operations and maintenance, law enforcement, emergency medical and firefighting, and service positions. The 1,590 housing units would house a population of approximately 4,800 persons. The DLI would have space for approximately 500 students within the POM Annex and have a teaching and support staff of approximately 100 persons. Direct employment of approximately 1,000 persons with a payroll of approximately $4 million would be attributed to the POM annex. Approximately 1,100 students from the housing units would attend local schools. Local services would be required to support the population within the POM annex, but the extent of these services would be less than existing amounts. The renovation of 14 buildings and the modifications in the infrastructure to support the POM annex will include expenditures of several million dollars. 5.4.1.3 Public Service Infrastructure Modifications With establishment of the POM annex, the Army's demand for public services and utilities would be substantially less than at present. Excess utility capacity could be transferred to new users or sold by the Army. Service providers would continue to provide necessary services. Table 5-1 presents information on the capacity, existing usage, and requirements for water, wastewater, stormwater, and other major elements of the infrastructure to support the POM annex. Infrastructure data from three ongoing studies will be used to refine the EIS discussion as the new information becomes available. These studies will identify the services and infrastructure required to serve the POM annex. The studies are evaluating those utility systems and will evaluate how utilities should be Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Establishment of Presidio of Monterey Annex 5„-jg December 1992 Table 5-1 Infrastructure and Utilities Required to Serve the Presidio of Monterey Annex Public Service or Utility Existing Fort Ord Usage* Estimate of Future Presidio of Monterey Annex Usage b Water Supply system (potable) Active wells Reservoir/trunks Pump stations Supply system (nonpotable) Active well Reservoir/trunks Wastewater Treatment systems East Garrison (onsite) Main Garrison (MRWPCA) Storm Sewer Monterey Bay outfalls Dune and beach outfalls Salinas River area outfalls Electricity Supply system Main transformer Distribution system Natural Gas Telephone Service Trunk lines (Seaside) Solid Waste Disposal Collection Cable Television 6,600 acre-feet per year 3 13 (10.3 million gallons per day) 6 (9,100 gallons per minute) 400 acre-feet per year 1 1 (2 million gallons) 30,000 gallons per day 3,500 acre-feet per year (3.3 million gallon per day allowance) 1,800 acre-feet per year 4 outfalls 3 outfalls 3 outfalls 105,000 megawatts 60-kilovolt system PG&E owned 12-kilovolt system 146 million cubic feet per hour 405 miles of cable 94 tons 94 tons Approximately 6,500 customers Approximately 3,300 acre-feet per year 3 13 (10.3 million gallons per day) 6 (9,100 gallons per minute) 400 acre-feet per year 1 1 (2 million gallons) 1,800 acre-feet per year (3.3 million gallon per day allowance) Approximately 800 acre-feet per year 4 outfalls 3 outfalls 0 outfalls Approximately 40,000 megawatts 60-kilovolt system PG&E owned 12-kilovolt system Approximately 70 million cubic feet per hour Retain existing Army telephone system Approximately 45 tons Approximately 45 tons Approximately 1,600 customers * Includes all of Fort Ord, including areas outside the Presidio of Monterey annex. b These are approximate infrastructure and utility requirements and measures to provide infrastructure and supply utilities, based on information provided by Fort Ord. Ongoing studies are being conducted, and additional information will be included in the final EIS. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS 5-17 Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Table 5-1 December 1992 provided to the POM annex. The Army may retain existing wells, water treatment and distribution systems, and other utility systems. The potential to obtain needed utilities from municipalities, special service districts, and private suppliers will also be evaluated. Overall, the decreased demand for public services and utilities would be a beneficial effect. There would be less demand for potable water, which is a limited resource in the region. Water demand for the Army's proposed POM annex was estimated at approximately 3,300 acre- feet per year including nonpotable water used for irrigation, or about 50% of existing water use. There could be a need to modify the existing infrastructure facilities because of substandard conditions from age and because of the need to accommodate the decreased demand. Additionally, the decreased demand would result in less use of some infrastructure systems. The lack of use could have adverse effects on these systems, causing the infrastructure to rust and deteriorate. Infrastructure modification could generate noise, air emissions, and hazardous materials which were discussed previously in this section under "Building Modifications". The infrastructure modifications determined as necessary by the infrastructure study and water study could be implemented to minimize adverse effects. The results of these ongoing studies will be incorporated into the final EIS. 5.4.1.4 Need for Public Safety and Emergency Services Law enforcement and fire protection services would continue to be provided within the POM annex. There would be a requirement for approximately 41 law enforcement personnel. Approximately five firefighters and emergency medical personnel would also be needed as part of the employees to be stationed at the POM annex. Approximately 140 fire calls and 70 emergency medical calls from the POM annex annually are anticipated. People in the POM annex would continue to be subjected to risks from seismic events. Hazardous materials including asbestos and lead-based paint may exist in the buildings to be renovated for the POM annex. Building debris also could be classified as hazardous waste. Generation and disposal of hazardous waste would need to comply with federal laws and regulations to avoid public health impacts. 5.4.1.5 Traffic Accessibility and Security Conflict The POM annex will need to retain access, as it will support the following traffic-generating populations: ■ 1,000 civilian employees not living on the installation; ■ 100 DLI teachers not living on the installation; ■ 500 DU students living on the installation; * the residents of 1,590 family housing units most of whom would work off the installation; ■ active-duty military, dependents, and military retirees who would use the commissary and post exchange; and ■ two 18-hole golf course for use by active military, dependents, and retirees. These uses are estimated to generate approximately 20,000 daily trips, 2,900 of which would occur during the p.m. peak hour. Light Fighter Drive currently has only two lanes in each direction past the guard station, providing a peak-hour capacity of approximately 3,000 vehicles in each direction. Light Fighter Drive could carry approximately 2,400 vehicles at level of service (LOS) C. Because the trips from the housing units would be inbound during the p.m. peak hour and the trips from on-installation employees would be outbound, approximately 1,600 trips would be inbound and 1,300 outbound. There would, therefore, be enough capacity to satisfy this demand at LOS C. This analysis does not consider the constraint to the Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Establishment of Presidio of Monterey Annex 5-18 December 1992 entrance capacity that may occur at the intersection of Light Fighter Drive and 1st Avenue, which is signalized. No mitigation is necessary. Light Fighter Drive does not have a great deal more capacity than would be needed to support the POM annex at LOS C, and access to other portions of Fort Ord may need to be from other entrances or from additional roadway capacity established for other than POM annex traffic. There would remain a need for more than one access route for the POM annex. Light Fighter Drive would serve as the main access route for the POM annex. The provision of a second access is needed to ensure that police, fire, and other emergency vehicles would have access to the POM annex in the event that Light Fighter Drive becomes inaccessible. The Army could undertake a study to determine the best possible second access route for the POM annex. This could be done as part of a comprehensive safety, security, and access study that needs to be undertaken once the final configuration of the POM annex is available. Candidates for a second route would include existing access points such as the 12th Street, Coe Avenue, and Broadway gates. The need for traffic accessibility and the need for security at the POM annex could cause a conflict. The POM annex may need to be secured from open public access; however, military retirees and personnel from the Presidio of Monterey and other military facilities in the region would need to access the POM annex to use the post exchange, commissary, and other support services. The need to provide adequate access to the POM annex versus the need to ensure security should be considered in establishing interim uses in the POM annex or uses requiring access via the annex. Measures could include establishing security gates at the POM annex, where a guard would allow only people with passes or permits to enter; establishing automated security gates with electronic cards as passes; or limiting the hours that entrances would be open if general public access without security checkpoints is desired. The Army's proposed POM annex does not include the housing area (kidney shaped), which is located immediately south of the post exchange, commissary, and NCO club and north of Stilwell School. However, the configuration of the POM annex would result in no access to the housing area other than through the POM annex. 5.4.1.6 Air Quality Effects Minor amounts of air emissions would be generated, primarily PM 10 dust and possibly ozone precursors if heavy-duty construction equipment is used during the renovations. The measures described for reuse could be used. Refer to Section 5.6, "Reuse Alternatives", and Volume II, "Public Services and Utilities." 5.4.1.7 Noise Effects Noise impacts would occur from renovation near noise-sensitive land uses such as the hospital, offices, and residential areas The noise-reducing measures described for reuse could be used, especially during late evening and at night. Refer to Section 5.6, "Reuse Alternatives", and Volume II, "Public Services and Utilities." 5.4.1.8 Visual Effects Substantial renovation of buildings and modification of infrastructure could produce short-term visual impacts. These impacts would occur from construction activities, including development of equipment storage areas and removal of vegetation. Long-term visual impacts could occur from vegetation removal and alteration of the appearances of buildings. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Establishment of Presidio of Monterey Annex 5-19 December 1992 5.4.1.9 Cultural Resources Effects None of the buildings proposed for renovation as part of the POM annex are considered to be eligible for listing in the National Register. Lands within the cantonment area are generally considered to be highly disturbed and are not recommended for archeological survey. 5.4.2 City of Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex As described in Section 2.0, "Proposed Action", the City of Seaside has proposed an alternative to the Army's proposed POM annex (Figure 3-3 in Section 3.0 "Alternatives"). Seaside's proposal would relocate the military enclave to a contiguous area east of North-South Road. This area includes some lands proposed by the Army for military enclave and other lands that the Army intends to declare excess. Seaside would assume ownership of the lands west of North-South Road, remove most of the existing structures, and redevelop the area. Funds for redevelopment would be used to construct replacement facilities for the Army, including military family housing, the commissary, post exchange, and other facilities. Seaside would retain a master developer to design and develop the area. The development of new facilities for the Army would occur over approximately 15 years in a phased transition. Approximately 700 acres of undeveloped land would be modified in the process. Establishing Seaside's recommended POM annex would require new construction and new development in currently undeveloped areas. Major effects of establishing the annex would be: ■ socioeconomic effects, ■ public service infrastructure modifications, ■ need for public safety and emergency services, ■ traffic accessibility and security conflict, ■ air quality effects, ■ noise effects, ■ biological resources effects, ■ soils, geologic, and seismic effects, ■ recreation effects, and ■ cultural resources effects. 5.4.2.1 Socioeconomic Effects The number of people employed and the number of families and students housed in the POM annex would not change from the Army's proposal; only the locations would change. Also, the need to renovate existing structures to support the POM annex students would remain. Therefore, the economic implications would be similar. The principal difference would be that the construction of new facilities and demolition of old Army structures would provide a number of additional local jobs during the POM annex development phase. This effect is beneficial. 5.4.2.2 Public Service Infrastructure Modifications Establishment of Seaside's recommended POM annex would reduce the demand for most local services as described for the Army's proposed annex. Existing systems would likely need modification because of the smaller size and altered configuration of the military annex. The biggest difference between the Army and Seaside proposals is that the Seaside plan requires an extension of all infrastructure into undeveloped land. The extension could have major implications, as new systems would be connecting to older systems. The feasibility of extending these older systems has not been investigated. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Establishment of Presidio of Monterey Annex 5-20 December 1992 Another significant problem could arise as individual parcels of Army land west of North-South Road are turned over to Seaside through the phased transition process. This transition of ownership would also require a transition of infrastructure provision, operation, and maintenance. Without careful planning, the potential for interrupted or inefficient service due to a checkerboard pattern of responsibility would exist. The Army's ongoing studies of providing service to the POM annex are not considering solutions to the Seaside's recommended POM annex configuration. Water demand for Seaside's recommended POM annex would be less than the 3,300 acre-feet predicted for the Army POM annex because the golf courses would no longer be a part of the annex. This change would reduce the Army's demand by about 400 acre-feet annually (this demand is for nonpotable water only). The regional demand would not be altered, however, because the City of Seaside would continue to irrigate the golf courses. The potential for serious infrastructure problems as Seaside's recommended POM annex is established could be reduced by conducting a thorough facilities master planning effort. Detailed information on the condition of existing Army infrastructure would need to be collected and the long-term needs of both the Army and the surrounding communities would have to be addressed. This study would have to be undertaken by the City of Seaside. 5.4.2.3 Need for Public Safety and Emergency Services Seaside's recommended POM annex would generate the same general level of demand for public safety and emergency services as would the Army's annex, including police and fire protection and emergency medical services. The location of the demand would be slightly different, and the military community might be slightly more fragmented during the phased transition from its current configuration to the Seaside configuration. The fragmentation might cause occasional confusion over responsibility for responding to emergency calls. The construction of new homes and service facilities further to the east in steeper terrain creates a greater risk of fire damage than would exist for the Army's proposed POM annex. The coastal oak woodland and coastal scrub vegetation on this portion of the installation creates a significant fire hazard, especially in areas of steep slopes. Establishment of Seaside's recommended POM annex would involve construction in previously developed areas of the installation with known land use and hazardous waste histories and in areas that have been investigated as part of the Superfund cleanup process. Construction also would occur in undeveloped areas or areas that may not have been characterized as part of the Superfund cleanup process at Fort Ord. The potential for development on unidentified hazardous waste or unexploded ordnance in these areas would be slight because of the cleanup and certification process required by the Army and EPA for land transfer. Establishment of Seaside's recommended POM annex also would involve modifying existing structures and demolishing of numerous other structures. The majority of buildings at Fort Ord contain asbestos; some buildings may contain lead-based paint and other potentially hazardous materials. Infrastructure and building modifications necessary to establish the Seaside's recommended POM annex would release asbestos into the environment; building debris from these modifications could be classified as hazardous waste. Generation and disposal of hazardous waste during building demolition would require compliance with federal and state laws and regulations regarding the handling of hazardous wastes and materials. In response to the additional fire hazard to residents along the eastern portion of the annex, the Army would Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Establishment of Presidio of Monterey Annex 5-21 December 1992 have to retain structural and wildland fire fighting capabilities within the POM annex or develop cooperative agreements with existing or new fire districts to provide this protection. 5.4.2.4 Traffic Accessibility and Security Conflict The establishment of Seaside's annex would have traffic generation impacts similar to those described above for the Army's proposed POM annex. The significant difference would be that the Seaside's recommended POM annex would be more removed from the existing Light Fighter Drive and Broadway access points. This circumstance would require additional planning to ensure adequate access for Seaside's recommended POM annex employees; it would also require different security measures to ensure at least two access and egress points for Seaside's recommended POM annex in case of fire or other emergency evacuation situations. The current circulation system would require modification to provide access to the new construction areas east of North-South Road. Street capacities and geometries would have to be analyzed to ensure that the new and existing systems would be compatible. During the phased construction of the new portions of Seaside's recommended POM annex, there may be dislocations of facilities that make travel within the annex less efficient for military personnel and retirees. The checkerboard pattern of Seaside and Army property west of North-South Road will also make it more difficult and less efficient to provide security for both military and civilian residents. It would be necessary to prepare an access, security, circulation and safety plan to anticipate the various concerns described above for establishment of Seaside's recommended POM annex. The infrastructure study recently prepared for the Army's proposed POM annex did not address the special transportation and security needs of the Seaside configuration. 5.4.2.5 Air Quality Effects Air quality effects related to building modification would be essentially the same for Seaside's recommended and Army's proposed POM annexes. Land grading associated with new building construction, and demolition of older structures, however, would create additional impacts for the Seaside proposal. The increase in local particulate levels and ozone precursors would be greater under this option. This situation would continue throughout the 15-year transition period. Standard construction and demolition mitigation measures designed to control dust and internal combustion engine emissions would need to be implemented to minimize air quality impacts, 5.4.2.6 Noise Effects Noise effects associated with establishing Seaside's recommended POM annex would be substantially greater than those of establishing the Army's proposed POM annex. Construction of new buildings and demolition of old structures would create short-term impacts in the vicinity of the activity. Noise-sensitive land uses that would be affected include the golf courses, the hospital, residential areas, and possibly newly established classrooms serving DLI students. Several schools may also be affected. Construction and demolition specifications for work on Seaside's recommended POM annex would have to include design and construction methods that reduce sound transmission. Types of equipment, hours of operation, use of temporary sound barriers, and preservation of buffer areas could be specified for areas adjacent to noise-sensitive activities. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Establishment of Presidio of Monterey Annex 5_22 December 1992 5.4.2.7 Biological Resources Effects Establishing Seaside's recommended POM annex would have negative effects on vegetation and wildlife resources because new construction would be required in undeveloped open space. No such open space development is required for the Army's proposed POM annex. The size of the area affected is relatively small however, totaling approximately 700 acres. Buildout of this annex would result in the loss of coastal coast live oak woodland, and coastal scrub habitats. Occupied habitat of Monterey spineflower would also be lost. Should the Monterey spineflower become listed as threatened or endangered, the loss of individuals or populations would violate the federal Endangered Species Act. Construction for Seaside's recommended POM annex would not affect any federally listed or proposed wildlife species; however, several federal candidate wildlife species, California species of special concern, and special-interest wildlife species would be adversely affected by habitat losses and potential direct mortality during construction. Species potentially affected include the Monterey ornate shrew, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, black legless lizard, coast horned lizard, and Salinas harvest mouse. Construction for Seaside's recommended POM annex would also result in the loss of occupied habitat of plant species that are candidates (Category 1 or 2) for federal listing as threatened or endangered, or species for which listing packages are in preparation: sandmat manzanita, Monterey ceanothus, Eastwood's ericameria, and wedge-leaved horkelia. Loss of habitat would also occur for two other special- status plant species: Hooker's manzanita (California Native Plant Society [CNPS] List 1b) and virgate eriastrum (CNPS List 4). Plant preserve 3 occurs near the east boundary of Seaside's recommended POM annex and could be removed under buildout. A small portion of habitat in significant natural area 040 may be lost. No wetlands would be affected by buildout of Seaside's recommended POM annex. Mitigation for loss of vegetation and wildlife resources is described in detail in the reuse portion of this section and in Volume II, "Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources". The City of Seaside would need to participate in the preparation of habitat conservation plans (HCP) for the sensitive plants and animals that occupy the eastern portion of the proposed annex. Loss of the oak woodland and coastal scrub habitats should be minimized through design of the newly developed area; islands of habitat should be preserved where feasible and replacement implemented as dictated by the HCP. 5.4.2.8 Visual Effects Establishing an approximately 1,500-acre Seaside recommended POM annex east and south of the installation's main entrance could substantially reduce the visual quality of some highly sensitive views from State Route 1, which is proposed as a state-designated scenic highway and is heavily used by recreationists and tourists. The Seaside's recommended POM annex would be located entirely east of North-South Road. Some of the proposed annex area is visible from Monterey Bay, which receives heavy use by recreationists. Although most of the area designated for Seaside's recommended POM annex is classified as low visual quality, most of it is highly visible from important visitor-use areas and has high visual unity based on generally consistent architectural styles for buildings located there. Creating Seaside's recommended POM annex would require construction of a substantial number of buildings, renovation of existing buildings, and modification of infrastructure. These activities would produce short-term visual impacts and could produce long-term visual impacts. Short-term visual impacts would occur from construction activities, including location of equipment storage areas, removal of vegetation, and infrastructure modifications. Long-term visual impacts could occur from removal of vegetation; construction of new buildings; alteration of the appearances of buildings and other structures; and construction of improvements such as recreation facilities, parking areas, lighting standards, and fences. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Establishment of Presidio of Monterey Annex 5-23 December 1992 The activities described above could result in a substantial reduction in visual unity and intactness for some visually sensitive areas for views from State Route 1 and other important visitor use areas in and around Monterey Bay. The resulting visual impacts would be inconsistent with Policy 30251 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 concerning the protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas. Visual resource management standards should be developed for the portions of Fort Ord clearly visible from State Route 1 and other major public access points in the Monterey Bay area before development proceeds in the upland portions of the Seaside's recommended POM annex. Interruptions in scenic context and natural vegetation patterns should be limited, and colors and architectural style should blend with the existing patterns of development in this portion of the bay area. 5.4.2.9 Soils, Geologic, and Seismic Effects Implementation of Seaside's recommended POM annex proposal would create soils and geologic concerns not present with the Army's proposed POM annex. Construction of replacement buildings and infrastructure east of the existing developed Garrison area would destabilize soils and slopes in an area of relatively steep slopes (10-30%). Wind and water erosion would increase, as would resulting sedimentation in local drainages. The soil resource that supports the limited areas of coastal oak and scrub vegetation in the Monterey Bay area would also be permanently diminished. Housing construction on the steeper terrain of Fort Ord would increase the risk of property damage and create a greater public safety hazard when compared to the Army's proposed POM annex proposal. Damage to and loss of soils and increased risk of property damage could be reduced by minimizing construction on the steeper slopes in the new construction area. Where steeper slopes are modified, significant erosion control measures should be written into construction specifications. A non-point-source pollution control permit under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act will be needed to implement the construction project. Erosion and sediment control measures must be specified in this permit. 5.4.2.10 Recreation Effects Establishing Seaside's recommended POM annex rather than the Army's proposed POM annex would remove the two existing golf courses from Army control and, therefore, from exclusive access by military personnel. This loss of recreation opportunity is considered a significant factor by the Army. Other developed recreation facilities lost by switching to Seaside's recommended POM annex would eventually be replaced in the new construction area by the City of Seaside These facilities include the football stadium, bowling alley, theaters, and noncommissioned officers' club. Undeveloped recreation areas would not be lost to the Army by switching from the Army POM annex to Seaside's recommended POM annex. An agreement between the Army and the City of Seaside for continued access to the golf courses by military personnel could be worked out before transfer to limit the loss of recreational opportunity for military personnel and retirees. 5.4.2.11 Cultural Resources Effects Adverse impacts on archeological resources could occur with implementation of Seaside's POM annex. Archeological surveys will be necessary for construction projects undertaken on the undeveloped land areas as proposed by the City of Seaside. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Establishment of Presidio of Monterey Annex 5-24 December 1992 5.4.3 No Presidio of Monterey Annex If no POM annex is established, the approximately 1,500-acre area would remain in caretaker status; the implications are described under Section 5.2.1 "Caretaker". Eventually, the land would be disposed. There would no longer be adequate support services for the Presidio of Monterey and the DLI, other military facilities, and other active-duty and retired military personnel in the region. The beneficial effects of having no POM annex would include a substantial reduction in the demand for public services and utilities (i.e., 3,300 acre-feet per year less demand for water). Table 5-1 presents the estimated requirements to serve the POM annex and, therefore, the amount the demand would be reduced with no POM annex. 5.5 RETENTION OF RESERVE CENTER The Army would retain the approximately 12-acre reserve center located at Imjin Gate near Reservation Road. Although it would be north of and separate from the proposed POM annex, the reserve center would remain under military control and continue its current use. The number of personnel authorized to participate in the reserve program is 340; however, only a portion of that total would be at the reserve center at any given time. No new structures are proposed at the reserve center. Minor utility and boundary fence modifications may be required as the adjacent lands are disposed of. Major effects of retaining the reserve center could include land use incompatibilities resulting from activity at the reserve center and the need to modify the existing public service systems or infrastructure because of substandard conditions from age, or to acquire public services from an outside entity because the reserve center would be isolated from the POM annex. Because of the proximity to Reservation Road and Imjin Road, new infrastructure could be located in the road right-of-way. The infrastructure needs of the reserve center will be defined in three ongoing studies, as described previously in this section under "Establishment of Presidio of Monterey Annex". These studies will identify the services and infrastructure needs of the reserve center, which could then be implemented. The results of these ongoing studies will be incorporated into the final EIS. 5.6 REUSE ALTERNATIVES This section describes the impacts or consequences of reusing Fort Ord. Each of the reuse alternatives analyzed in this EIS inherently includes the Army's proposed POM annex and reserve center to provide the cumulative effects of the Army's action with total buildout of each reuse alternative. This document analyzes the impacts of the following six reuse alternatives and three subalternatives. As described in Section 3.0, "Alternatives", not all of the reuse alternatives include subalternatives. ■ Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Use ■ Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Retention of Reserve Center 5-25 December 1992 ■ Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use ■ Alternative 4: Institutional Use ■ Alternative 5: Open Space Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center ■ Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse The impact analysis is organized by reuse alternative and by issue area within each alternative so that the impacts of each reuse alternative can be evaluated individually. Following the discussion of each alternative is a discussion of the applicable subalternatives. A summary of impacts and conclusions per alternative by resource area is presented at the end of each reuse alternative A mitigation summary follows the discussion of the impact summary, identifying mitigation that could be implemented by the Army. Additional mitigation that could be implemented by other federal, state, or local agencies and private entities responsible for development is described in Volume II, "Detailed Analysis of Disposal and Reuse". A summary table is provided that quantifies the impacts of each reuse alternative and its subalternatives is provided by resource area. Although the summary table is referred to in each reuse alternative discussion, the table appears only after the first reference to it under Alternative 1. All of the other alternatives and subalternatives reference that table; the table is not duplicated within each reuse alternative. Criteria used in determining the significance of impacts for each resource area are described in Table 5-2. The methods of comparison for the discussions of air quality and noise impacts are described under Alternative 1. However, this methodology applies to all the alternatives and subalternatives. The summary table located at the end of this section lists all the impacts by reuse alternative for each issue area. The detailed analysis by issue area is contained in Volume II, "Detailed Analysis of Disposal and Reuse". 5.6.1 Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use 5.6.1.1 Land Use Of the six reuse alternatives, the most intensive reuse of the installation is proposed under Alternative 1. Approximately 80% of the currently undeveloped portion of the installation is proposed for development under Alternative 1. The major land use impacts of Alternative 1 relate to incompatibilities between proposed and existing land uses, incompatibilities between proposed land uses, and inconsistencies with relevant state and local plans and policies. Several land uses are proposed that would be incompatible with existing land uses in the area. Residential areas are proposed adjacent to agricultural lands in the eastern and southeastern portions of the installation. These agricultural lands are of all classifications, including prime agricultural land, the highest classification of agricultural land. Several land uses are also proposed that would be incompatible with other proposed land uses. These include placement of a light-industrial use adjacent to a recreational vehicle park/campground, a university, and a community park. Additional land use incompatibilities include conflicts between a proposed amphitheater and a proposed residential area, and conflicts between a proposed office park and a proposed natural area expansion. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1 5-26 December 1992 Table 5-2. Criteria Used In Determining Significance of Impacts Issue Area Significance Criteria Land Use Substantial conflicts between proposed land uses or substantial conflicts between proposed and existing adjacent land uses. Socioeconomics Population Schools Recreation Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity Substantial change in population (increases or decreases). The need for the expansion or substantial alteration of the existing school system. The need for substantial additional developed parks to conform to acceptable local standards or a substantially decreased quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. Destruction of any unique soil type or geologic feature, decreased permeability and increased runoff substantially accelerating water- induced soil erosion on land surfaces and in stream channels, substantial construction in a zone of high beach or coastal erosion, substantial accelerated sedimentation of water bodies or land by transported sediment, substantial degradation of a soil type that is an ecosystem component of a critical or sensitive natural habitat, or substantial increased landscape instability or landslides through topographical or slope alterations. Public Services and Utilities Wastewater » Solid Waste Telephone System Gas or Electrical System Need for substantial expansion of wastewater treatment plant and collection capacity or alteration of the existing system; substantial disruption to existing wastewater service; or violation of national, state, or local wastewater standards. Generation of a substantial amount of additional solid waste or substantial decrease in landfill life. None. Substantial increase in energy consumption or energy waste. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5-27 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Table 5-2 December 1992 Table 5-2. Continued Issue Area Significance Criteria Cable Television Storm Drainage System Water Distribution Infrastructure None. Substantial increased runoff peaks over existing conditions because any increase in site runoff could exacerbate local or downstream flood-prone area or location of any structures in the Federal Emergency Management Area- approved 100-year floodplain. None. Water Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Water Supply and Demand ■ Substantial degradation of water quality such that it would not meet water quality criteria or objectives identified in the basin plans of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board's Water Quality Control Plan; ■ any substantial alteration of surface waters on the installation and in Monterey Bay, including temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity, that would cause conflicts with standards as identified in federal or state law; or m disturbance of existing channel banks and channel beds to the extent that erosion and siltation could occur upstream or downstream. ■ Substantial interference with groundwater recharge or potential depletion of groundwater resources used for other beneficial uses. Public Health and Safety Law Enforcement Fire Protection Medical Services Emergency Medical Services Seismic Safety ■ Need for substantial additional law enforcement staff and equipment to mainta acceptable service ratios. ■ Substantially intensified fire hazard or ■ need for substantial additional fire protection staff and equipment to maintain acceptable service standards. ■ Need for substantial expansion of or substantial alteration to the medical services system or substantial disruption of medical services. ■ Need for substantial expansion of or substantial alteration to the emergency medical services system, or ■ substantial disruption of existing services ■ None. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5-28 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Table 5-2 December 1992 Table 5-2. Continued Issue Area Significance Criteria Traffic and Circulation ■ Generation of traffic levels requiring the expansion of existing roadways or construction of new facilities. Air Quality ■ Violation of any ambient air quality standard, contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or exposed sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; ■ generation of emissions exceeding levels in the MBUAPCD emission thresholds contained in the 1991 MBUAPCD Air Quality Management Plan of 150 pounds per day for ROG and NO x , and 86 pounds per day for PM 10 (Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District 1991; Monterey Bay Air Pollution Control District pers. comm.); or ■ conflict with the federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990; the California Clean Air Act of 1988; or federal, state, or local air quality plans or associated guidance. Noise ■ Generation of noise that would conflict with applicable noise regulations, ■ exposure of people to severe noise levels, or ■ land uses that are incompatible because of noise. Hazardous and Toxic ■ None Waste Site Remediation Vegetation, Wildlife, ■ The reduction of a fish or wildlife population dropping below self-sustaining and Wetland Resources levels; a possible elimination of a plant or animal community; b substantial affect on reduction of the number, or restriction of the range of unique, rare, or endangered species of animals or plants, or the habitat of the species; a substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; a introduction of new species of plants or animals into an area or introduce a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species, a adverse effect on riparian habitat, wetlands, or other special-status biological communities; a conflict with federal or state policies, such as those regarding wetlands and oak woodland; Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Table 5-2 December 1992 Table 5-2. Continued Issue Area Significance Criteria Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources (Continued) substantial conflict with special ecological areas; or substantial conflict with special-status species as defined as follows: - plants and animals listed or proposed for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.12 [listed plants] and 50 CFR 17.11 [listed animals] and various notices in the Federal Register [proposed species]); - plants and animals that are Category 1 or 2 candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (55 FR 6184, February 21, 1990, for plants and 54 FR 554, January 6, 1989, for animals); or - plants and animals listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (14 CFR 670.5). Visual Resources ■ None. Cultural Resources ■ Adverse effect on properties that are on or considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or ■ adverse effect on Native American traditional cultural properties. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Draft EIS g^g Table 5-2 Volume I December 1992 Development patterns that would be inconsistent with relevant state and local plans and policies are also proposed under Alternative 1. These inconsistencies include the expansion of development in areas without adequate infrastructure; development in areas not designated for growth; disregard for infill; inadequate provision of open space; land use incompatibilities; inadequate protection of sensitive environments and habitats; development in areas of 30% or greater slope; and inconsistencies with policies that relate to hazardous waste abatement, groundwater resources, preservation of visual resources, and balanced development. 5.6.1.2 Socioeconomics Population and Housing. Implementation of Alternative 1 would directly increase the population and housing stocks of Monterey County and the Cities of Marina and Seaside. As shown in Table 5-3, the countywide population would increase by an estimated 212,200 (59%), and the housing stock would grow by 67,600 units (56%). This growth, when annualized over the assumed 50-year buildout period, would not exceed significance thresholds established for population and housing effects. After accounting for the effects of closure, Marina's population would increase by approximately 3,000 residents, and its housing stock would increase by 1,350 units. Seaside's population would grow by about 32,000 residents, and its housing stock would increase by 8,500 units under this alternative. The ratio of jobs to housing within Monterey County would incrementally decrease from 1.36 to 1.10. This effect is considered beneficial because it would bring the jobs/housing ratio within the 0.75-1.25 range that is generally considered to be optimal. Regional Economy. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in the development of employment-generating land uses that would create an estimated 69,700 direct jobs and 46,300 secondary jobs within Monterey County. Subtracting the effects of closure would result in a net increase of approximately 89,000 jobs (Table 5-3), representing a 54% increase in countywide employment. An estimated 13,000 of the direct jobs would be located in Marina, and 20,000 jobs would be located in Seaside. After accounting for closure reductions, total output in Monterey County is estimated to increase by $7.2 billion, a 59% increase over baseline conditions. Similarly, personal income is estimated to increase by $2.4 billion in Monterey County, a 50% increase over baseline conditions. Social Services. Economic activity generated by implementation of Alternative 1 could benefit social services programs provided by Monterey County and nonprofit organizations, including welfare services and jobs training and placement programs, by increasing employment opportunities, decreasing unemployment, and generating increased income in the county. As currently defined, Alternative 1 would result in no housing set aside for the homeless. Based on the current need for housing for the homeless in Monterey County, implementation of Alternative 1 would increase the need for housing for the homeless and lower income households. The availability of healthcare services for military retirees and their family members would likely be reduced under Alternative 1 with the closure of Silas B, Hays Army Community Hospital. The regional medical center developed under this alternative would presumably not be a Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS)-contract hospital. Population growth generated by development under Alternative 1 would increase the regional demand and competition for healthcare services in Monterey County. Military retirees and their family members could use the new medical center and other facilities in the region and could apply for partial reimbursement of costs through CHAMPUS or Medicare; however, out-of-pocket costs, and possibly travel costs, to receive healthcare would increase for military retirees and their family members. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1 December 1992 Table 5-3 Comparison of Net, Incremental Socioeconomic Changes at Buildout by Reuse Alternative Personal Jobs/ Output Income Reuse Housing Housing (millions of (millions of Alternative Population® Units 6 Ratio 0 Employment" 1991 dollars)® 1991 dollars)' Alternative 1 Subaltemative A Subalternative B Subaltemative C Alternative 2 Subalternative A Subalternative B Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Subalternative A Alternative 6 212,200 67,600 226,900 71,000 212,800 67,700 252,700 79,600 78,000 22,200 93,600 25,800 87,600 25,400 48,200 14,700 (3,770) (1,500) (30,000) (13,900) (30,000) (13,900) 92,800 30,300 1.10 89,000 1.08 88,000 1.33 150,500 1.31 167,000 1.52 107,500 1.50 109,400 1.40 86,600 1.31 35,100 1.43 22,800 1.32 (22,900) 1.29 (26,800) 1.40 47,600 $7,170 $2,390 7,230 2,430 11,300 4,170 12,590 4,680 7,880 2,840 8,130 2,934 6,930 2,460 3,260 860 1,800 280 (290) (510) (400) (540) 3,770 920 Notes: ( ) denotes a net, incremental decrease. a Represents the direct, incremental change in population less closure effects. Monterey County population totaled 361,560 in 1991. b Represents the direct, incremental change in housing units less closure effects. Monterey County's housing stock totaled 1,211,224 housing units in 1991. c Represents the ratio of jobs to housing units within Monterey County with additions of jobs and housing under the reuse alternatives less closure effects. The estimated 1991 jobs/housing ratio in the county was 1.36. d Represents the net, incremental change in direct and secondary employment less closure effects. Estimated employment in Monterey County totaled 64,900 in 1991. 9 Represents the net, incremental change in direct and secondary industrial output less closure effects. Estimated baseline output totaled $12,250 million in Monterey County. f Represents the net, incremental change in direct and secondary personal income less closure effects. Estimated baseline personal income totaled $4.8 billion in Monterey County. Please note that future reuse estimates are based on output from the IMPLAN model that incorporates national labor productivity data for individual industrial sectors. Local data was used for existing Monterey County conditions, which may have higher per capita income than the national averages indicate. The comparison of existing per capita income with reuse estimates tends to indicate a slight underestimate of reuse personal income estimates. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Table 5-3 December 1992 Schools. Alternative 1 would generate the need for additional school capacity for up to approximately 54,200 students in kindergarten through 12th grade (Table 5-4). This would result in a demand for additional school facilities and staff. Recreation. Alternative 1 proposes 2,885 acres of land for undeveloped recreational opportunities and 3,900 acres for developed recreational opportunities (Table 5-4). This would result in the loss of approximately 12,000 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational activities, including fishing and hunting. Alternative 1 would, however, result in an additional 3,400 acres of developed recreational opportunities, including parks and sports facilities. 5.6.1.3 Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity The extensive development of natural areas proposed under Alternative 1 would result in the nearly complete destruction of the soil component of the natural ecosystem. The unusual characteristics of the soil substrate covering most of Fort Ord support rare plant communities and threatened and endangered plant species. Habitats affected would be most of those formed on ancient lagoonal deposits, the Aromas formation areas, and nearly all the recent and relict sand dune areas. Of equally severe impact would be the acceleration of existing coastal, wind, and water erosion, further affecting the natural ecosystem and threatening proposed developments. Construction of new facilities near a rapidly eroding shoreline would subject these facilities to future loss. Further development of the coastal sand dunes would be subject to wind erosion once the protective vegetation and surface soil horizon are disturbed by development activities. Water erosion could form badland-like features on the Arnold and Xerorthent soils on the steep slopes of the Aromas formation if the soils are disturbed by development and runoff is redirected and concentrated. This process would result in severe gullying in the Santa Ynez and Diablo soils on the Paso Robles formation. The latter area is also prone to landslides and is a source of sedimentation that affects Toro Creek, causing an increased flooding hazard. Severe limitations would be encountered in the use of inappropriate soil types for engineering or agricultural and horticultural purposes. Santa Ynez and Diablo soils have severe limitations because of low strength and high shrink-swell properties. Oceano, Baywood, and Arnold soils have limitations of excavation caving, embankment piping potential, and very high water infiltration rates. Use of the same soil types for agricultural or horticultural purposes could result in increased erosion and non-point-source water pollution. New development would increase the exposure of people and property to various seismic hazards, such as ground shaking, landslides, and liquefaction. 5.6.1.4 Public Services and Utilities Table 5-5 quantifies public service and utility impacts for Alternative 1. Wastewater. The development proposed under Alternative 1 would generate up to 18.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. This 670% increase over the existing 2.4 mgd generated at Fort Ord would require 15.2 mgd of additional treatment capacity to accommodate the proposed land uses. The consistency of the reuse alternatives with the air quality management plan of the Monterey Bay region is discussed in Section 5.6.1.8., "Air Quality". If a project is inconsistent with this plan, wastewater treatment allocation cannot be approved. Solid Waste. Alternative 1 would generate up to 1,010 tons per day of solid waste, a 974% increase from the existing generation rate of 94 tons per day. This amount of solid waste would reduce the life of the Marina Landfill by approximately 48 years. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1 5.33 December 1992 Table 5-4 Schools and Recreation Impacts by Reuse Alternative Reuse Alternative Schools Recreational Opportunities Alternative 1 Subaltemative A Subaltemative B Subaltemative C Alternative 2 Subaltemative A Subaltemative B Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Need for additional school capacity for approximately 54,200 students Need for additional school capacity for approximately 57,960 students Need for additional school capacity for approximately 54,600 students Need for additional school capacity for approximately 65,000 students Need for additional school capacity for approximately 19,500 students Need for additional school capacity for approximately 24,060 students Need for additional school capacity for approximately 22,440 students Need for additional school capacity for approximately 7,100 students Need for additional school capacity for approximately 9,700 students No impact Subaltemative A No impact Alternative 6 Need for additional school capacity for approximately 17,800 students Loss of approximately 12,000 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities. Increase of approximately 3,400 acres of developed recreational opportunities Loss of approximately 12,000 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities. Increase of approximately 3,400 acres of developed recreational opportunities Loss of approximately 12,000 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities. Increase of approximately 3,400 acres of developed recreational opportunities Loss of approximately 12,400 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities. Increase of approximately 3,500 acres of developed recreational opportunities Loss of approximately 1,930 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities. Increase of approximately 1,500 acres of developed recreational opportunities Loss of approximately 1,930 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities. Increase of approximately 1,500 acres of developed recreational opportunities Loss of approximately 1,930 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities. Increase of approximately 1,500 acres of developed recreational opportunities Increase of approximately 2,800 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities and 1,500 acres of developed recreational opportunities Loss of approximately 450 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities. Increase of approximately 1,500 acres of developed recreational opportunities Increase of approximately 4,200 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities and 1,000 acres of developed recreational opportunities Increase of approximately 4,200 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities and 440 acres of developed recreational opportunities Increase of approximately 2,650 acres of land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities and 1,300 acres of developed recreational opportunities Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5 34 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Table 5-4 December 1992 Table 5-5 Public Services and Utilities Impacts by Reuse Alternative Water Reuse Solid Telephone Gas Electric Cable Distribution Alternative Wastewater Waste Service Service Service Television System Alternative 1 Increased wastewater to 18.5 mgd (670%) Increased solid waste to 1,010 tons per day (974%) Reduce landfill life by 48 yrs Expanded existing service by 21,400 acres (425%) Increased demand of 5,650 MCFH (3,900%) Increased demand of 545 MW (3,100%) Expanded existing service by 21,400 acres (425%) Expanded existing infra- structure by 21,400 acres (425%) Subalternative A Increased wastewater to 18.9 mgd (686%) Increased solid waste to 1,070 tons per day (1,038%) Reduce landfill life by 50 yrs Expanded existing service by 21,860 acres (435%) Increased demand of 5,850 MDFH (4,000%) Increased demand of 550 MW (3,100%) Expanded existing service by 21,860 acres (435%) Expanded existing infra- structure by 21,860 acres (435%) Subalternative B Increased wastewater to 18.4 mgd (660%) Increased solid waste to 1,016 tons per day (981%) Reduce landfill life by 48 yrs Expanded existing service by 21,170 acres (420%) Increased demand of 3,950 MCFH (2,700%) Increased demand of 440 MW (2,500%) Expanded existing service by 21,170 acres (420%) Expanded existing infra- structure by 21,170 acres (420%) Subalternative C Increased wastewater to 19.9 mgd (730%) Increased solid waste to 1,180 tons per day (1,156%) Reduce landfill life by 53 yrs Expanded existing service by 22,000 acres (435%) Increased demand of 4,120 MCFH (2,800%) Increased demand of 440 MW (2,500%) Expanded existing service by 22,000 acres (435%) Expanded existing infra- structure by 22,000 acres (435%) Alternative 2 Increased wastewater to 12.4 mgd (416%) Increased solid waste to 460 tons per day (389%) Reduce landfill life by 27 years Expanded existing service by 18,760 acres (370%) Increased demand of 3,695 MCFH (2,500%) Increased demand of 392 MW (2,200%) Expanded existing service by 18,760 acres (370%) Expanded existing infra- structure by 18,760 acres (370%) Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5-35 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Table 5-5 December 1992 Table 5-5 Continued Reuse Alternative Wastewater Solid Waste Telephone Service Gas Service Electric Service Cable Television Water Distribution System Alternative 2 (continued) Subalternative A Increased wastewater to 12.9 mgd (436%) Increased solid waste to 527 tons per day (460%) Reduce landfill life by 31 years Expanded existing service by 19,400 acres (385%) Increased demand of 3,885 MCFH (2,650%) Increased demand of 402 MW (2,250%) Expanded existing service by 19,400 acres (385%) Expanded existing infra- structure by 19,400 acres (385%) Subalternative B Increased wastewater to 12.4 mgd (416%) Increased solid waste to 501 tons per day (433%) Reduce landfill life by 29 yrs Expanded existing service by 18,530 acres (370%) Increased demand of 3,730 MCFH (2,550%) Increased demand of 366 MW (2,050%) Expanded existing service by 18,530 acres (370%) Expanded existing infra- structure by 18,530 acres (370%) Alternative 3 Increased wastewater to 8.2 mgd (240%) Increased solid waste to 252 tons per day (168%) Reduce landfill life by 14 yrs Expanded existing service by 8,120 acres (160%) Increased demand of 1,278 MCFH (875%) Increased demand of 130 MW (730%) Expanded existing service by 8,120 acres (160%) Expanded existing infra- structure by 8,120 acres (160%) Alternative 4 Increased wastewater to 6.6 mgd (175%) Decreased solid waste to 132 tons per day (-41%) Reduce landfill life by 4 yrs Expanded existing service by 9,830 acres (195%) Increased demand of 807 MCFH (550%) Increased demand of 141 MW (790%) Expanded existing service by 9,830 acres (195%) Expanded existing infra- structure by 9,830 acres (195%) Alternative 5 Decreased wastewater to 0.7 mgd (-73%) Decreased solid waste to 19 tons per day (-80%) Deterioration of infra- structure Deterioration of infra- structure Deteriora- tion of infrastruc- ture Deteriora- tion of infra- structure Deterioration of infra- structure Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Draft EIS Table 5-5 Volume I ' December 1992 Table 5-5 Continued Water Reuse Solid Telephone Gas Electric Cable Distribution Alternative Wastewater Waste Service Service Service Television System Alternative 5 (continued) Extend landfill life by 8 yrs Subalternative A Decreased wastewater to 0.02 mgd (-83%) No impact No impact 95% reduc- tion of demand 96% reduction of demand No impact No impact Alternative 6 Increased wastewater to 8.7 mgd (263%) Increased solid waste to 545 tons per day (480%) Reduce landfill life by 31 years Expanded existing service by 8,170 acres (162%) Increased demand of 1,729 MCFH (1,185%) Increased demand of 171 MW (960%) Expanded existing service by 7,780 acres (155%) Expanded existing infra- structure by 9,760 acres (195%) Note: (%) indicates percent increase or decrease from existing conditions. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5-37 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Table 5-5 December 1992 Telephone Service. Telephone service exists only in the developed portions of the installation, and additional or upgraded infrastructure would be required to serve future development. Alternative 1 would require the expansion of telephone service to approximately 21,400 acres, a 425% increase in service area. Gas and Electric Service. Gas and electric service exists only in the developed portions of the installation. Alternative 1 would result in the demand for approximately 5,650 million cubic feet per hour (MCFH) of gas and 545 megawatts (MW) of electric service, an increase of 3,900% more gas and 3,100% more electricity than existing levels. Cable Television. Cable television service exists only in the developed portions of the installation. Alternative 1 would result in the need for additional cable television service to approximately 21,400 acres, a 425% increase in service area. Storm Drainage System. Alternative 1 would require new storm drainage infrastructure for approximately 24,810 acres, in addition to upgrades and expansions to existing storm drainage infrastructure that may continue to be used with the new systems. Water Distribution Infrastructure. Alternative 1 would require that the water distribution infrastructure be upgraded or expanded to provide service to approximately 21,400 acres, a 425% increase in service area. 5.6.1.5 Water Resources Hydrology and Water Quality. Alternative 1 would convert land from open space to urban development, which would increase watershed runoff and peak floodflows. Approximately 18,000 acres would be converted from open space to urban land uses, which would result in a 65% increase in urban area over existing conditions. Alternative 1 would not only increase watershed runoff but would also contribute to watershed water quality degradation due to the generation of additional urban pollutants associated with urban runoff. Surface runoff containing urban pollutants would contribute to water quality degradation on the installation and in Monterey Bay (Table 5-6). Water Supply and Demand. Total water demand under Alternative 1 would be about 36,626 acre-feet per year (Table 5-6). This is over six times greater than existing water use, which already exceeds the safe yield of the groundwater system in the vicinity of Fort Ord. 5.6.1.6 Public Health and Safety Table 5-7 quantifies the impacts of this alternative on the following services: Law Enforcement. Alternative 1 would require up to 495 law enforcement officers and equipment to provide service to the proposed uses. This is a 244% increase over the existing Fort Ord law enforcement staff of 144. Fire Protection. Alternative 1 would require up to 247 firefighters and equipment and approximately 62 firefighting companies to provide service to the proposed land uses. This is a 517% increase over the existing Fort Ord fire protection staff of 40 Medical Services. Alternative 1 would result in the need for additional medical services for approximately 70,000 residents. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1 5-38 December 1992 Table 5-6 Summary of Estimated Water Demand for Each Reuse Alternative Water Demand® (acre-feet per year) Presidio of Reuse Alternative Seaside Marina County Monterey Annex/ Reserve Center 13 Total Alternative 1 7,300 7,700 18,400 3,300 36,600 Subalternative A 9,700 7,700 18,000 0 35,400 Subalternative B 8,700 7,700 17,400 2,900 36,600 Subalternative C 9,300 7,700 20,800 0 37,700 Alternative 2 5,600 6,700 7,400 3,300 23,000 Subalternative A 7,800 6,700 7,400 0 22,000 Subalternative B 6,600 6,700 7,100 2,900 23,400 Alternative 3 2,900 7,600 3,800 3,300 17,600 Alternative 4 1,300 5,600 3,200 3,300 13,400 Alternative 5 0 0 0 3,300 3,400 Subalternative A 0 0 0 0 100 Alternative 6 3,200 5,300 5,600 3,300 17,400 a Water demand estimates are in acre-feet per year (af/yr) and are subtotaled by geographic area. Totals may not add because of rounding. b The estimated water demand for the Presidio of Monterey (POM) annex and reserve center was provided by Fort Ord. Supporting documentation is contained in Volume III, Appendix K. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Draft EIS Table 5-6 Volume I December 1992 Emergency Reuse Law Fire Medical Medical Seismic Alternative Enforcement Protection Services Services Safety Alternative 1 Subalternative A Subalternative B Subalternative C Alternative 2 Subalternative A Subalternative B Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Subalternative A Alternative 6 Demand for up to 495 officers (244%) Demand for up to 515 officers (257%) Demand for up to 496 officers (244%) Demand for up to 566 officers (293%) Demand for up to 228 officers (58%) Demand for up to 249 officers (73%) Demand for up to 246 officers (71%) Demand for up to 170 officers (18%) Demand for 65 officers (-55%) Demand for 13 officers (-91%) Demand for up to 4 officers (-97%) Demand for up to 258 officers (168%) Demand for up to 247 firefighters (517%) Demand for up to 257 firefighters (542%) Demand for up to 248 firefighters (519%) Demand for up to 283 firefighters (606%) Demand for up to 113 firefighters (182%) Demand for up to 124 firefighters (209%) Demand for up to 122 firefighters (206%) Demand for up to 83 firefighters (107%) Demand for 31 firefighters (-22%) Demand for 5 firefighters (-89%) No impact Demand for up to 128 firefighters (219%) Demand for services for 70,000 residents Demand for services for 99,500 residents Demand for services for 157,800 resi- dents Demand for services for 127,500 residents Surplus services for 64,000 residents Surplus services for 31,600 residents Surplus services for 33,000 residents Surplus services for 94,000 residents Surplus services for 56,000 residents No impact No impact Demand for services for 27,000 to 38,000 residents Demand for addi- tional service to 160,000 residents Demand for addi- tional service to 189,500 residents Demand for addi- tional service to 247,800 residents Demand for addi- tional service to 217,500 residents Demand for addi- tional service to 26,000 residents Demand for addi- tional service to 58,400 residents Demand for addi- tional service to 52,000 residents Surplus service available for 28,000 residents Demand for addi- tional service to 31,000 residents No impact No impact Demand for addi- tional service to 63,000 to 128,000 residents Exposure of up to 283,000 people to seismic events and tsunamis Exposure of up to 250,000 people to seismic events and tsunamis Exposure of up to 240,000 people to seismic events and tsunamis Exposure of up to 275,000 people to seismic events and tsunamis Exposure of up to 124,000 people to seismic events Exposure of up to 125,000 people to seismic events Exposure of up to 120,000 people to seismic events Exposure of up to 83,000 people to seismic events Exposure of up to 31,000 people to seismic events No impact No Impact Exposure of up to 128,000 people to seismic events Note: (%) indicates percent increase or decrease from existing conditions. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Draft EIS Table 5-7 Volume I _ December 1992 5-40 Emergency Medical Services. Alternative 1 would result in the need for additional emergency medical services for approximately 160,000 residents. Seismic Safety. Alternative 1 would expose approximately 283,000 people to potential seismic events and expose coastline development to potential damage caused by tsunamis in Monterey Bay. 5.6.1.7 Traffic and Circulation Implementation of Alternative 1 would generate approximately 1.1 million daily trips at full buildout (Table 5-8). This alternative would also generate travel demand of: ■ approximately 750,000 trips between Fort Ord and the surrounding communities, creating the need for between 47 and 125 lanes of roadway; ■ approximately 218,000 vehicle trips in the north-south direction on the installation, creating the need for between 14 and 36 lanes of roadway; and ■ and approximately 270,000 vehicle trips in the east-west direction on and through the installation, creating the need for between 17 and 45 lanes of roadway. By providing transit service and implementing aggressive measures to reduce single-occupant driving, the need for roadways could be reduced approximately 10%. To describe the number of lanes of roadway that would be needed to fulfill the travel demand created by this alternative, ranges are presented rather than a single number. The lower end of the range describes the number of freeway lanes needed to meet the demand, and the upper end describes the number of lanes, including arterial roadways. In reality, the capacity would likely be provided by an unknown combination of freeways, arterials, collector streets, and transit facilities. The roadway and transit improvements needed to support Alternative 1 are not proposed in local general plans. This situation could be resolved by updating local general plans to include the roadway and transit improvements needed to accommodate the proposed reuse of Fort Ord. 5.6.1.8 Air Quality The air quality analysis compares each reuse alternative using the following four methods (Table 5-9): ■ Construction emissions exceeding thresholds. Construction emissions are a function of the acreage that would be actively disturbed by construction equipment. Construction equipment emission estimates assume that full buildout of each alternative would be completed by 2010 and that a uniform rate of construction would occur between 1995 and 2010. Emissions of reactive organic compounds, nitrogen oxide (NO„), carbon monoxide (CO), and PM, 0 were estimated to determine whether they exceeded thresholds established by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD). ■ Operational emissions exceeding thresholds. Operational emissions would be produced by motor vehicles, area sources, and stationary sources. Operational emission estimates assume that full buildout would occur by 2010. For each alternative, emissions of PM 10 , NO*, and volatile organic compounds were compared to existing Fort Ord emissions to determine emission increases. These net emission increases (compared to existing emissions) were then compared to the MBUAPCD thresholds. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1 5-41 December 1992 Table 5-8 Comparison of Traffic Impacts by Reuse Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Existing Daily Trips Number Daily of Lanes Trips Required* Number Daily of Lanes Trips Required* Number Daily of Lanes Trips Required* Daily Trips Generated North-South Screenline East-West Screenline Encircling Screenline" - 1,100,000 - 570,000 - 305,000 218,000 14-36 81,000 5-14 32.000 2-6 270,000 17-45 103,000 7-17 93,000 6-16 58,000 750,000 47-125 307,000 19-51 285,000 18-48 Alternative 4 Existing Number Daily Daily of Lanes Trips Trips Required* Alternative 5 Number Daily of Lanes Trips Required* Alternative 6 Number Daily of Lanes Trips Required® Daily Trips Generated North-South Screenline East-West Screenline Encircling Screenline" 58,000 172,000 16,000 50,000 188.000 1-3 3-9 12-31 15,000 6,000 24,000 48,000 1-2 2-4 3-8 320,000 20,000 113,000 259,000 2-4 8-19 17-44 Note: - = data not appropriate. * Lanes required to achieve LOS C. " Measures travel to and from Fort Ord. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Draft EIS Table 5-8 Volume I December 1992 Table 5-9 Comparison of Air Emissions by Reuse Alternative Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Operational Emissions (Compared to Existing) (lbs/day) Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations Consistent with Air Quality Plans? Reuse above 1991 1982 Alternative ROG NO x CO PM 10 ROG NO„ PM 10 Standards AQMP SIP Alternative 1 36 486 175 256 6,844 6,660 3,357 Yes No No Subalternative A 35 463 166 243 7,661 7,215 3,569 Yes No No Subalternative B 36 478 172 252 7,147 7,098 3,531 Yes No No Subalternative C 36 471 169 247 8,578 7,186 3,531 Yes No No Alternative 2 28 368 132 194 -818 729 1,209 No No Ye8 Subalternative A 27 353 127 186 -21 1,142 1,366 No No Yes Subalternative B 28 368 132 194 -327 993 1,312 No No Yes Alternative 3 16 212 76 111 -4,344 -2,806 -31 No No Yes Alternative 4 16 212 76 111 -7,353 -4,129 -506 No Yes Yes Alternative 5 3 39 14 21 -8,135 -5,698 -1,094 No Yes Yes Subalternative A 1 8 3 4 -8,229 -5,997 -1,156 No Yes Yes Alternative 6 16 206 74 108 -2,381 -1,895 291 No No Yes Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Table 5-9 December 1992 ■ CO concentrations exceeding state and federal ambient standards. For each alternative, operational emissions of CO produced by motor vehicles were modeled to determine ambient concentrations at sensitive receptors. Those concentrations were then compared to the state and federal 1 -hour and 8-hour ambient CO standards. ■ Consistency with the MBUAPCD 1991 Air Quality Management Plan and the 1982 State Implementation Plan. The population increases associated with each alternative were compared to the population forecasts used to prepare the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the 1982 State Implementation Plan (SIP). Alternatives were considered consistent with the respective plans if their associated population growth was less than or equal to the population estimates used to prepare the 1991 AQMP and the 1982 SIP. Values for each comparison method under each alternative are summarized in Table 5-9. Alternative 1 includes the construction and use of 78,751 residential units and 15,128 acres of commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional development. Both construction and operation of these land uses would generate air emissions. The air quality analysis assumes that construction would occur from 1995 through 2010 and that by 2010, all land uses would be fully developed. The operational emissions estimates, which assume buildout by 2010, focus on motor vehicle and residential area emission sources. Construction and operation of Alternative 1 would result in substantial increases in PM 10 , CO, and ozone precursors. These increases would exceed the MBUAPCD's emission thresholds for PM 10 and ozone precursors (reactive organic gases and NO,,) and would contribute to violations of the CO ambient standards near congested intersections. Alternative 1 is inconsistent with the MBUAPCD's 1991 AQMP (designed to meet California's ambient ozone standards) and the MBUAPCD's 1982 SIP (designed to meet federal ozone standards). This inconsistency results because population growth associated with Alternative 1 exceeds the population forecasts used to prepare the respective air plans. 5.6.1.9 Noise Noise-related issues for each reuse alternative are compared using aggregate comparison parameters. The following is a discussion of each comparison parameter used. ■ Acres of Construction-Related Land Disturbance. Although the types of construction-related impacts would generally be the same for each alternative, this parameter is an indicator of the duration and extent of construction-related noise impacts. ■ Logarithmic Sum in Decibels of Calculated Day-Night Average Sound Level Values for 30 Existing Roadway Segments. This parameter is an aggregate indicator of the relative amount of traffic noise that is occurring under existing conditions or would occur under each alternative. The value of this parameter has no absolute meaning. ■ Number of Existing Roadway Segments Where Traffic Noise Increases Are Greater than 5 Decibels or Greater Relative to Existing Conditions. This parameter identifies the number of roadway segments where substantial traffic noise increases would occur and is an indicator of both direct and cumulative impacts. ■ Number of Existing Roadway Segments Where Traffic Noise Increases Are Greater than 0 Decibels and Less than 5 Decibels Relative to Existing Conditions. This parameter identifies the number of roadway segments where traffic noise increases of less than 5 decibels Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1 5-44 December 1992 (dB) would occur. Given that existing traffic noise levels along all existing roadway segments analyzed are close to or exceed the 60-dB day-night average sound level (L^) standard for residences, any increase in noise along these roadway segments can be considered a substantial cumulative effect. This parameter is thus an indicator of cumulative impacts. ■ Number of Existing Roadway Segments Where Traffic Noise Decreases Relative to Existing Conditions. This parameter is an indicator of the beneficial effects of an alternative in reducing traffic noise. ■ Number of Substantial Noise-Related Land Use Compatibility Impacts Identified Substantial noise-related land use compatibility impacts have been identified for each alternative. This parameter is the number of substantial impacts identified and is an indicator of the relative amount of compatibility problems that may occur under each alternative. Values for each comparison parameter under each reuse alternative are summarized in Table 5-10. Under Alternative 1, proposed development of Fort Ord would result in approximately 23,000 acres of construction-related land disturbance and would require the construction of new major arterials and freeways within the bounds of the installation. This construction would result in increased noise levels around construction sites and along access roads to construction sites. These increased noise levels have the potential to adversely affect residences and other noise-sensitive land uses near these sites or roads. Ambient noise levels may be substantially increased or local noise standards may be exceeded. Traffic noise levels have been evaluated along existing roadway segments and other roadway segments proposed under Alternative 1 that would be within the boundaries of Fort Ord. Noise-sensitive land uses (primarily residential uses) are adjacent to all of the existing roadway segments evaluated. Other noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to these roadways include educational, religious, and healthcare facilities. Residential land uses range from rural residential land uses with scattered houses adjacent to roadways to high-density urban residential development. Commercial, industrial, and recreational land uses also are adjacent to some of the roads. However, impacts are evaluated based on the most sensitive land use adjacent to a given roadway segment. Under Alternative 1, the noise criterion for residential land uses of 60-dB would be exceeded within 100 feet of all of the existing roadway segments evaluated. In most cases, this is also true under existing conditions. However, implementing Alternative 1 would substantially increase noise (5 dB or greater relative to existing conditions) along nine of the existing roadway segments evaluated or would increase noise levels along roads where local noise standards are already exceeded. The combination of local noise standards being exceeded and substantial increases in traffic noise along several roadway segments would have a substantial adverse effect on existing residences. Major arterials and freeways would cross or be adjacent to all of the noise-sensitive land uses proposed under Alternative 1. These noise-sensitive uses include residential, educational, wildlife park, botanical garden, and cemetery uses that would be exposed to noise levels that exceed local noise standards for these uses. Under Alternative 1, land uses that may support activities that are sources of noise would be located adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses. Substantial noise impacts could occur as a result of these adjacent uses. The following noise-sensitive land uses are adjacent to land uses that may support noise-generating activities: ■ low-density residential land use, a botanical garden, a cemetery, and a wildlife park would be located adjacent to an outdoor amphitheater; Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1 5-45 December 1992 Table 5-10. Comparison of Reuse Alternatives Relative to Noise Parameter Existing Alternative 1 Subaltern alive A Subaltern alive B Subalternative C Alternative 2 Subaltern alive A Subaltern at rve B Acres of construction related land disturbance Logarithmic sum In dB of calculated Ldn values for 30 existing roadway segments Number of existing roadway segments where traffic noise increase are 5 dB or greater Number of existing roadway segments where traffic noise Increases are greater than 0 dB and less than 5 dB relative to existing conditions Number of existing roadway segments where traffic noise decreases relative to existing conditions Number of substantial noise-related land use compatibility impacts Identified N/A 84.6 N/A N/A 23,000 87.4 22,000 23,000 22,400 17,700 85.5 16,700 17,500 14 N/A N/A Parameter Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Subalternative A Alternative 6 Acres of construction related land disturbance Logarithmic sum in dB of calculated Ldn values for 30 existing roadway segments Number of existing roadway segments where traffic noise increase are 5 dB or greater Number of existing roadway segments where traffic noise increases are greater than 0 dB and less than 5 dB relative to existing conditions Number of existing roadway segments where traffic noise decreases relative to existing conditions Number of substantial noise-related land use compatibility Impacts identified 10,000 86 1 10,000 85.3 1,900 85.0 400 9,700 85.7 17 N/A Not applicable. - These parameters were not quantitatively analyzed for subalternatives because differences in traffic noise levels would be small. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5-46 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Table 5-10 December 1992 ■ a high school, a trade school, a university, and an Asilomar-type facility would be located adjacent to a transit center; ■ high-density residential land uses would be located adjacent to sports fields and a sports complex; ■ a resort hotel would be located adjacent to a film complex and theme park; ■ a police academy would be located adjacent to low-density residential land uses; noise from activities at the academy, primarily use of rifle and pistol ranges, could be incompatible with adjacent residential areas; and could adversely affect adjacent residential land uses under this alternative; and ■ a commercial center would be located adjacent to an airport where Fritzsche Army Airfield is currently located. 5.6.1.10 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation Implementing Alternative 1 would result in high-density development on remediated toxic waste sites, formerly used trainfire ranges, and remote areas of the installation that may not be characterized as part of hazardous waste or unexploded ordnance cleanup activities. Risks to human health and safety from development on unidentified hazardous waste or unexploded ordnance would increase with development intensity. The cleanup and certification process required by the EPA and the Army for land transfer reduces the potential for unidentified hazardous waste and unexploded ordnance to remain on the installation. In addition, under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program for Formerly Used Defense Sites, the Army is responsible for cleanup of contamination or unexploded ordnance discovered following land transfers. Most buildings at Fort Ord would be demolished under Alternative 1. Many of these buildings contains asbestos; some may contain lead-based paint and other potentially hazardous materials. Demolition activities would release asbestos to the environment; building debris generated during these activities could be classified as hazardous waste. Generation and disposal of hazardous waste during building demolition could affect compliance with federal and state laws and regulations regarding the handling of hazardous waste and materials. 5.6.1.11 Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Common and Special Native Biological Communities. Alternative 1 would result in the removal of approximately 7,790 acres (75%) of common biological communities, including beaches, bluffs and blowouts, ice plant mats, disturbed dune, coastal scrub, coast live oak woodland and savanna, and annual grassland. The following habitat losses would occur to special native biological communities: approximately 6 acres (6%) of native coastal strand and dune scrub, 12,120 acres (95%) of maritime chaparral, 230 acres (50%) of perennial grassland, and 210 acres (90%) of riparian forest. Losses of biological communities by alternative are shown in Table 5-11. Special-Status Plant Species. Alternative 1 would result in the loss of approximately 11,060 acres of habitat occupied by sand gilia, a federally listed endangered species, and Monterey spineflower, a species proposed for federal listing as endangered. Combined habitat losses for all special-status plant species are shown in Table 5-11. Approximately 14,130 acres of habitat occupied by one or more plant species that are federal candidates for listing as threatened or endangered would be lost under Alternative 1. The species affected Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1 5^47 December 1992 Table 5-11 Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Impacts by Reuse Alternative Reuse Alternative Loss of Common Biological Communities Loss of Special Native Biological Communities Loss of Habitat for Federally Listed and Proposed Rants* Loss of Habitat for Candidate Rants" Loss of Other Special-Status Rants® Vegetation Alternative 1 Approximately 7,790 acres (75%) Approximately 12,570 acres Approximately 11,060 acres Approximately 14,130 acres Approximately 11,800 acres Subalternative A Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Subalternative B Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Subalternative C Similar to Alternative 1 but to a greater extent Similar to Alternative 1 but to a greater extent Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Approximately 6,350 acres (60%) Approximately 6,710 acres Approximately 6,620 acres Approximately 7,680 acres Approximately 11,950 acres Subalternative A Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 2 Subalternative B Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Approximately 4,230 acres (40%) Approximately 1,820 acres Approximately 3,450 acres Approximately 2,740 acres Approximately 11,800 acres Alternative 4 Approximately 3,150 acres (30%) Approximately 1,290 acres Approximately 2,230 acres Approximately 1,890 acres Approximately 1,220 acres Alternative 5 Approximately 770 acres (10%) Approximately 30 acres Approximately 110 acres Approximately 45 acres Approximately 45 acres Subalternative A Similar to Alternative 5 Similar to Alternative 5 Similar to Alternative 5 Similar to Alternative 5 Similar to Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Approximately 4,360 acres (40%) Approximately 1,520 acres Approximately 3,170 acres Approximately 2,220 acres Approximately 1,580 acres Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5-48 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Table 5-11 December 1992 Table 5-11 Continued Loss of Habitat for Loss of Habitat Loss of Habitat Available Loss of Habitat Federally Listed for Federal for Wildlife Species that Available for Special- Reuse and Proposed Candidate are California Species Interest Wildlife Species Alternative Wildlife Species d Wildlife Species* of Special Concern with No Legal Status Wildlife Alternative 1 Approximately 22% of available habitat for Smith's blue butterfly, approximately 92% for California linderiella Subalternative A Similar to Alternative 1 Subalternative B Similar to Alternative 1 Subalternative C Similar to Alternative 1 but to a greater extent Approximately 83-96% for Approximately 86-97% for Approximately 94-100% seven species and 41- four species and 67-77% 65% for two species for five species Alternative 2 Approximately 14-23% Subalternative A Similar to Alternative 2 Subalternative B Similar to Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Approximately 1-6% Alternative 4 Approximately 8-14% Alternative 5 Approximately 1 % Subalternative 5 Similar to Alternative 5 Alternative 6, Approximately 1-15% Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Approximately 91% for one species, 51-70% for four species, and 23-33% for four species Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 2 Approximately 50% for one species, 20-37% for four species, and 6-7% for four species Approximately 22-33% for three species, 7-17% for five species, and 1% for one species Approximately 1-6% for six species and no impact for three species Similar to Alternative 5 Approximately 51% for one species, 15-33% for five species, and 9-10% for three species Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Approximately 89% for two species, 51-65% for six species, and 21% for one species Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 2 Approximately 29-44% for four species, 18-20% for two species, 3% for one species, and no loss for two species Approximately 26-34% for four species, 5-15% for three species, and no loss for two species Approximately 1-7% for seven species and no loss for two species Similar to Alternative 5 Approximately 78% for two species, 30-41% for four species, and 13-17% for three species Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Approximately 83-100% for three species and 49% for one species Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 2 Approximately 71% for one species, 14% for one species, and no loss for two species Approximately 46% for one species, 10% for one species, and no loss for two species Approximately 1-8% for two species, and no loss for two species Similar to Alternative 5 Approximately 81-95% for three species and 10% for one species Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Draft EIS Table 5-11 Volume I December 1992 5°49 Table 5-11 Continued Reuse Alternative Loss of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States Loss of Plant and Butterfly Preserves and Significant Natural Areas Conflict with Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Wetlands Alternative 1 Approximately 55 acres of Ail except preserve 2 and SNA 026 wetlands and 96,400 linear feet of adversely affected to some extent streams Subalternative A Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Subalternative B Similar to Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 1 Subalternative C Similar to Alternative 1 All areas lost Construction of marina and cruise ship pier conflicts with regulations proposed for the sanctuary Alternative 2 Approximately 15 acres of wetlands and 71,400 linear feet of streams Similar to Alternative 1 but to a lesser extent Subalternative A Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 1 but to a lesser extent Subalternative B Similar to Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 1 but to a lesser extent Alternative 3 Approximately 4 acres of wetlands Portions of preserves 3 and 7 and and 4,000 linear feet of streams portion of SNA 040 lost Alternative 4 Approximately 7 acres of wetlands Preserve 11 and portions of pre- and 10,500 linear feet of streams serves 2 and 12 lost Alternative 5 No wetlands, approximately 2,200 linear feet of streams Subalternative A Alternative 6 Approximately 8 acres of wetlands Portions of preserve 3 and SNA and 22,800 linear feet of streams 040 lost Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Table 5-11 5_50 December 1992 would be Seaside bird's-beak, Toro manzanita, sandmat manzanita, Hickman's onion, Monterey ceanothus, Eastwood's ericameria, coast wallflower, and wedge-leaved horkelia. Approximately 15 acres of habitat occupied at low density by Yadon's piperia would be removed for development. This species will soon be proposed for federal listing as endangered (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pers. comm.). Yadon's piperia is considered rare and endangered by CNPS. Alternative 1 would result in the loss of approximately 11,800 acres of habitat occupied by the following nine plant species that have no federal or state status but occur on CNPS List 1 b or 4: Hooker's manzanita, Monterey Indian paintbrush, Douglas' spineflower, Lewis' clarkia, virgate eriastrum, small-leaved lomatium, Santa Cruz County monkeyflower, curly-leaved monardella, and purple-flowered piperia. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in losses of Seaside bird's-beak, Toro manzanita, sandmat manzanita, Monterey ceanothus, Eastwood's ericameria, coast wallflower, and Hooker's manzanita so extensive that these species could become eligible for federal listing as threatened or endangered. Special-Status Wildlife Species. Alternative 1 would result in the loss of approximately 40 acres (22%) of Smith's blue butterfly habitat and 60 acres (92%) of California linderiella habitat, including five known California linderiella breeding sites. Smith's blue butterfly is federally listed as endangered, and California linderiella is federally proposed for endangered status. Nesting success of western snowy plovers, a species proposed for federal listing as threatened, would be adversely affected by activities associated with coastal development and increased public use of beaches. Increased public use of dune habitats could also degrade habitat occupied by Smith's blue butterfly and black legless lizard. Habitat losses for all special- status wildlife species are shown in Table 5-11. Between 83% and 96% of the habitat available at Fort Ord for seven federal candidate wildlife species would be eliminated under Alternative 1 black legless lizard, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, Monterey ornate shrew, loggerhead shrike, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and southwestern pond turtle. All eight known tiger salamander breeding sites would be lost. Because of the limited ranges of the black legless lizard, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, and Monterey ornate shrew, habitat losses under Alternative 1 could result in all three species being elevated from Category 2 federal candidate status to threatened or endangered species status. Approximately 65% of the available California horned lark habitat and roughly 41 % of the tricolored blackbird habitat at Fort Ord would also be eliminated. The one known tricolored blackbird nesting colony would be disturbed by activities associated with proposed residential land uses. Under Alternative 1, 86-97% of the available habitat at Fort Ord for four California species of special concern would be eliminated: Cooper's hawk, yellow warbler, golden eagle, and coast horned lizard. Burrowing owl, northern harrier, sharp-shinned hawk, prairie falcon, and American badger, which are also California species of special concern, would lose 64-77% of their available habitat. From 94% to 100% of the available habitat for four special-interest species would also be eliminated under Alternative 1: Salinas harvest mouse, greater roadrunner, Swainson's thrush, and common yellowthroat. Special-interest species have no legal status but may be rare or declining in the region. Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States. Alternative 1 would result in the degradation or removal of all vernal pools, approximately 80% of the freshwater marsh and ponds, and about 96,400 linear feet of streams at Fort Ord. Vernal pools and freshwater marsh are potentially jurisdictional wetlands and stream channels and ponds are potentially other waters of the United States protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1 5-51 December 1992 Plant and Butterfly Preserves and Significant Natural Areas. Under Alternative 1 , all natural habitat would be eliminated in preserves 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12, and approximately 20% of preserve 1 and 25% of preserve 10 would be removed (Figure 4.11-12). In addition, the habitat in significant natural areas 040 and 050 would be removed (Figure 4.11-13). 5.6.1.12 Visual Resources Alternative 1 proposes extensive high-density development for the western portion of the installation, west of Barloy Canyon Road. This level of development would introduce numerous buildings, parking lots, roads, and other built elements into the Fort Ord viewshed. The forms, lines, colors, and textures of the built elements would differ substantially from those of the existing landscape, which is mostly natural in appearance. Extensive vegetation removal and regrading would occur to facilitate development. Proposed development would substantially reduce the vividness, intactness, and unity of the region's visual resources and would result in substantial impacts on regional visual quality. This level of development would also alter the visual character and reduce the visual quality of Fort Ord's coastal area. This alternative would be inconsistent with Policy 30251 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 concerning the protection of scenic and visual qualities of the coastal area. Views of Fort Ord from primary and secondary travel routes would be reduced in visual quality by encroaching land uses of potentially high visual impact. Viewed from State Route 1, the vividness and intact- ness of the coastal area would be reduced. Additionally, built elements would be highly visible in areas of high visual sensitivity and quality east of State Route 1, outside the coastal area. Land uses of potentially high impact located in the middleground of views of Fort Ord from State Route 68, a state-designated scenic highway, would reduce the visual quality of this scenic corridor. Impacts on sensitive areas visible from secondary roads would also be substantial. Viewed from Monterey Bay and other important tourist and recreation areas along the Monterey Peninsula, the vividness and intactness of Fort Ord's visual resources would be substantially reduced by proposed development. In the northern and northeast portions of the installation, impacts resulting from development in visually sensitive areas would be visible from the Salinas Valley. 5.6.1.13 Cultural Resources This alternative has the potential to affect National Register-eligible historic buildings by loss of federal protection and by splitting proposed National Register districts. The high-intensity land uses proposed by Alternative 1 have the greatest potential to affect National Register eligible archeological sites within archeologically sensitive areas at Fort Ord. The areas of greatest archeological sensitivity include all terraces and benches adjacent to the Salinas River and El Toro Creek, the peripheries of the wet cycle lakes, and lands adjacent to the streams that flow through Pilarcitos and Impossible Canyons. All other installation lands are recommended as having low to medium potential for possessing archeological resources. The high-intensity land uses proposed by Alternative 1 also have the greatest potential to cause loss of access, damage to or destruction of sites or resources important to Native Americans. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1 5-52 December 1992 5.6.1.14 Subalternative A: No Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Land Use Land use impacts of Subalternative A would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. Socioeconomics ■ Population and Housing. Direct population and housing growth countywide would be slightly greater under Subalternative A than under Alternative 1 (Table 5-3). Population and housing growth in Marina would be similar to levels under Alternative 1, while population and housing levels in Seaside would be higher than those under Alternative 1. The jobs/housing ratio would be similar to the ratio under Alternative 1. ■ Regional Economy. Employment, output, and personal income growth under Subalternative A would be similar to growth under Alternative 1 (Table 5-3). ■ Social Services. Implementation of Subalternative A would result in social services impacts similar to those described for Alternative 1, with the increased loss of military retiree benefits. Under this subalternative, the installation's commissary, post exchange, and recreational areas currently available to military retirees in the region would be closed. Loss of these services could place an additional financial burden on the region's military retirees, who rely on the commissary and post exchange for reduced retail prices for consumer products. ■ Schools. Impacts on schools under Subalternative A would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that the number of students generated under this subalternative would increase by approximately 2,000 (Table 5-4). ■ Recreation. In addition to the impacts described under Alternative 1, implementation of this Subalternative A would also result in the loss of recreational opportunities in the Main Garrison area (Table 5-4). Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity Impacts of Subalternative A would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. Public Services and Utilities Table 5-5 quantifies public service and utility impacts for Subalternative A. ■ Wastewater. Impacts on wastewater would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative A would generate up to 18.9 mgd, a 686% increase over existing levels. An estimated 15.6 mgd of wastewater treatment capacity would be needed under this subalternative. ■ Solid Waste. Impacts on solid waste would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 except that Subalternative A would generate up to 1,070 tpd, a 1,038% increase over existing levels. This would reduce the life of the Marina Landfill by 50 years. ■ Telephone Service. Impacts on telephone service would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative A would require the expansion of the telephone service area to approximately 21,860 acres, a 435% increase in service area. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume / Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1, Subalternative A 5-53 December 1992 ■ Gas and Electric Service. Impacts on gas and electric service would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative A would require up to 5,850 MCFH of gas and 550 MW of electricity, an increase of 4,000% more gas and 3,100% more electricity than existing levels. ■ Cable Television. Impacts on cable television service would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 except that Subalternative A would require the expansion of the cable television service area to approximately 21,860 acres, a 435% increase in service area. ■ Storm Drainage System. Subalternative A would have the same impacts as those described under Alternative 1. ■ Water Distribution Infrastructure. Impacts on the water distribution system would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative A would require that the water distribution system's service area be expanded approximately 221,860 acres, an increase of 435% in service area. Water Resources ■ Hydrology and Water Quality. Subalternative A would convert land from open space to urban development, which would increase watershed runoff and peak floodflows. Subalter- native A would not only increase watershed runoff but would also degrade water quality by generating additional urban pollutants Surface runoff containing urban pollutants would degrade water quality on the installation and in Monterey Bay. ■ Water Supply and Demand. Water demand under Subalternative A would be about 35,386 acre-feet per year. This amount is within 9% of the water demand for Alternative 1 (Table 5-6). Public Health and Safety Table 5-7 quantifies the impacts of Subalternative A on the following services: ■ Law Enforcement. Impacts on law enforcement for Subalternative A would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative A would require up to 515 law enforcement officers and equipment, a 257% increase over existing levels. ■ Fire Protection. Impacts on fire protection for Subalternative A would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative A would require up to 257 firefighters and equipment and approximately 64 firefighting companies, a 542% increase over existing levels. ■ Medical Services. Impacts on medical services for Subalternative A would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative A would result in the need for additional medical services for approximately 99,500 residents. ■ Emergency Medical Services. Impacts on emergency medical services for Subalternative A would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative A would result in the need for additional emergency medical services for approximately 189,500 residents. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1, Subalternative A 5=54 December 1992 ■ Seismic Safety. Seismic safety impacts for Subalternative A would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that approximately 250,000 people would be exposed to potential seismic events. Traffic and Circulation The reuse impacts of Subalternative A would be similar to, but greater than, those described under Alternative 1 (Table 5-8). Subalternative A proposes land uses, such as a resort hotel and a larger central business district, to replace the POM annex and reserve center. These uses would generate more daily traffic than the POM annex and reserve center. The large-scale development proposed for each land use would mean that the difference in impacts of each proposal would be small and localized. Air Quality Subalternative A would result in approximately the same amount of construction emissions as those generated under Alternative 1. However, Subalternative A has moderately higher emissions of PM 10 and ozone precursors because of a higher level of high-density residential development (Table 5-9). Like Alternative 1, Subalternative A would result in violations of the CO ambient standards and is inconsistent with both the MBUAPCD's 1991 AQMP and the 1982 SIP. Noise The absence of the POM annex and the reserve center would not substantially affect traffic noise levels or the degree to which proposed noise-sensitive land uses are affected by noise. Refer to Table 5-10 for a comparison of reuse alternatives relative to noise. Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation No additional effects on hazardous and toxic waste site remediation would be caused by implementing this subalternative. Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Under Subalternative A, impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 (Table 5-11). However, without development of the POM annex and reserve center, some areas within the proposed POM annex footprint would be converted to new land uses (i.e., university and resort hotel). Small areas of native vegetation may be removed to allow for construction of new facilities associated with these land uses. Small populations or individuals of the following special-status plant and wildlife species could be affected: Monterey spineflower, sandmat manzanita, Monterey ceanothus, purple-flowered piperia, Monterey ornate shrew, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, black legless lizard, coast horned lizard, and Salinas harvest mouse. Monterey spineflower is proposed for federal listing as endangered. Should it become listed, the loss of individuals or populations of the species would be a violation of the federal Endangered Species Act. Future land uses for the no proposed use area are unknown. Visual Resources Visual impacts resulting from Subalternative A would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. However, impacts would be less for some areas near North-South Road that are designated for no proposed use and golf course. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1, Subalternative A 5-55 December 1992 Cultural Resources All buildings recommended for the National Register are located outside of, and will not be affected by, the Subalternative A locations proposed for the POM annex and the reserve center. Lands within the cantonment area are generally considered to be highly disturbed and are not recommended for archeological survey. 5.6.1.15 Subalternative B: Seaside's Recommended Presidio of Monterey Annex/No Reserve Center Land Use Land use impacts resulting from Subalternative B would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. In addition, implementation of Subalternative B would result in incompatibilities between Seaside's recommended POM annex and the existing natural habitat where this annex is proposed to be built. Socioeconomics ■ Population and Housing. Direct population and housing growth countywide under Subalternative B would be similar to levels that would occur under Alternative 1 (Table 5-3). Population and housing growth in Marina would be similar to levels under Alternative 1, while population and housing levels in Seaside would be lower than those under Alter- native 1. The countywide jobs/housing ratio would be greater than the ratio under Alternative 1, but similar to the existing jobs/housing ratio within Monterey County. ■ Regional Economy. Employment, output, and personal income growth under Subalternative would be substantially greater than those under Alternative 1 (Table 5-3). ■ Social Services. Implementation of Subalternative B would result in social services effects similar to those described under Alternative 1. ■ Schools. Impacts on schools resulting from Subalternative B would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that the number of students generated by Subalternative B would increase by a few hundred (Table 5-4). ■ Recreation. In addition to the impacts described under Alternative 1, implementation of this subalternative would also result in the loss of recreational opportunities in the Main Garrison area (Table 5-4). Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity Impacts for Subalternative B would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. Public Services and Utilities Table 5-5 quantifies public service and utility impacts for Subalternative B. ■ Wastewater Impacts on wastewater would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative B would generate up to 18.4 mgd, a 660% increase over existing levels. An estimated, 14.9 mgd of wastewater treatment capacity would be needed for this subalternative. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1, Subalternative B 5-56 December 1992 ■ Solid Waste. Impacts on solid waste would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative B would generate up to 1,016 tpd, a 981% increase over existing levels. This would reduce the life of the Marina Landfill by 48 years. ■ Telephone Service. Impacts on telephone service would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 except that Subalternative B would require the expansion of the telephone service area to approximately 21,170 acres, a 420% increase in service area. ■ Gas and Electric Service. Impacts on gas and electric service would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 except that Subalternative B would require up to 3,950 MCFH of gas and 440 MW of electricity, an increase of 2,700% more gas and 2,500% more electricity than existing levels. ■ Cable Television. Impacts on cable television service would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 except that Subalternative B would require the expansion of the cable television service area to approximately 21,170 acres, a 420% increase in service area. ■ Storm Drainage System. Subalternative B would have the same impacts as those described under Alternative 1. ■ Water Distribution Infrastructure. Impacts on the water distribution system would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative B would require that the water distribution system's service area expand approximately 21,170 acres, an increase of 420% in service area. Water Resources ■ Hydrology and Water Quality. Subalternative B would convert land from open space to urban development, which would increase watershed runoff and peak fioodflows. Subalter- native B would not only increase watershed runoff but would also degrade watershed water quality by generating additional urban pollutants. Surface runoff containing urban pollutants would degrade water quality on the installation and in Monterey Bay. ■ Water Supply and Demand. Water demand under Subalternative B would be about 36,633 acre-feet per year. This amount is similar to the water demand for Alternative 1 (Table 5-6). Public Health and Safety Table 5-7 quantifies the impacts of Subalternative B on the following services: ■ Law Enforcement. Impacts on law enforcement for Subalternative B are similar to those described under Alternative 1, except that Subalternative B would require up to 496 law enforcement officers and equipment, a 244% increase over existing levels. ■ Fire Protection. Impacts on fire protection for Subalternative B are similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative B would require up to 248 firefighters and equipment and approximately 62 firefighting companies, a 519% increase over existing levels. ■ Medical Services. Impacts on medical services for Subalternative B are similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative B would result in the need for additional medical services for approximately 157,800 residents. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1, Subalternative B 5-57 December 1992 ■ Emergency Medical Services. Impacts on emergency medical services for Subal- ternative B are similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative B would result in the need for additional emergency medical services for approximately 247,800 residents. ■ Seismic Safety Seismic safety impacts for Subalternative B are similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that approximately 240,000 people would be exposed to potential seismic events. Traffic and Circulation The reuse impacts of Subalternative B would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 because the land uses would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 (Table 5-8). The scale and conceptual nature of the proposed land uses would obscure any differences. Air Quality Subalternative B would result in approximately the same amount of construction emissions as Alter- native 1. However, Subalternative B would have slightly higher emissions of PM 10 and ozone precursors because of higher levels of residential and nonresidential development (Table 5-9). Like Alternative 1, this subalternative would result in violations of the CO ambient standards and is inconsistent with both the MBUAPCD's 1991 AQMP and the 1982 SIP (Table 5-9). Noise The presence of Seaside's recommended POM annex and the absence of a reserve center would not substantially affect traffic noise levels or the degree to which proposed noise-sensitive land uses are affected by noise. Refer to Table 5-10 for a comparison of reuse alternatives relative to noise. Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation No additional effects on hazardous and toxic waste site remediation would be caused by implementing Subalternative B. Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Under Subalternative B, impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. However, buildout of Seaside's recommended POM annex would slightly increase the amount of habitat eliminated by development compared to Alternative 1 because Seaside's recommended POM annex would adversely affect areas currently designated as open space. Approximately 3% of additional coastal scrub and approximately 1% of additional coastal coast live oak woodland would be eliminated under this Subalternative B (Table 5-11). Small populations or individuals of the following special-status plant and wildlife species could be affected: Monterey spineflower, sand mat manzanita, Monterey ceanothus, Eastwood's ericameria, wedge-leaved horkelia, Hooker's manzanita, virgate eriastrum, Monterey ornate shrew, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, black legless lizard, coast horned lizard, and Salinas harvest mouse. Monterey spineflower is proposed for federal listing as endangered. Should it become listed, the loss of individuals or populations of the species would be a violation of the federal Endangered Species Act. Small areas of native vegetation could also be lost because of changes in land use within the Army's proposed POM annex footprint (i.e., university and hotel) proposed under Subalternative B. Small populations or individuals of the following special-status plant and wildlife species could be affected: Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1, Subalternative B 5-58 December 1992 Monterey spineflower, sand mat manzanita, Monterey ceanothus, purple-flowered piperia, Monterey ornate shrew, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, black legless lizard, coast homed lizard, and Salinas harvest mouse. Visual Resources Visual impacts resulting from Subalternative B would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. However, impacts would be less for an area to the west of North-South Road that is designated for a golf course. All buildings recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register are located outside of, and will not be affected by, the Subalternative B locations proposed for the POM annex and reserve center. Archeological surveys will be necessary for construction projects undertaken on undeveloped land areas as part of Seaside's recommended POM annex under Subalternative B. 5.6.1.16 Subalternative C: Partial Variation of High-Intensity Mixed Use Land use impacts of Subalternative C would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. In addition, implementation of Subalternative C would result in approximately 800 acres of proposed land uses in the coastal zone that would be incompatible with the coastal zone designation and an inconsistency with a California Coastal Act policy protecting against fuel spills. Socioeconomics ■ Population and Housing. Direct population and housing growth would be greater under Subalternative C than under Alternative 1 (Table 5-3), but would not exceed significance thresholds established for population and housing effects. Population and housing growth in Marina would be similar to levels under Alternative 1, while population and housing levels in Seaside would be higher than levels under Alternative 1. The countywide jobs/housing ratio would greater than the ratio under Alternative 1 but similar to the existing jobs/housing ratio in Monterey County. ■ Regional Economy. Employment, output, and personal income growth under Subalter- native C would be substantially greater than those under Alternative 1 (Table 5-3). ■ Social Services. Implementation of Subalternative C would result in social services effects similar to those described under Alternative 1. ■ Schools. The impacts would be similar under Subalternative C to those under Alternative 1 except that the number of students generated would be much greater, increasing by approximately 8,000 (Table 5-4). ■ Recreation. In addition to the impacts described under Alternative 1, the implementation of Subalternative C would also result in the loss of recreational opportunities in the Main Garrison area and an additional 100-acre increase in developed recreational opportunities (Table 5-4). Cultural Resources Land Use Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1, Subalternative C December 1992 Volume I 5-59 Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity Impacts for Subalternative C would be similar to those under Alternative 1, with the additional potential for increased coastal effects due to shoreline and off-shore development. Public Services and Utilities Table 5-5 quantifies public service and utility impacts on Subalternative C. ■ Wastewater. Impacts on wastewater would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative C would generate up to 19.9 mgd, a 730% increase over existing levels. An estimated 16.6 mgd of wastewater treatment capacity would be needed for Subalternative C. ■ Solid Waste. Impacts on solid waste would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative C would generate up to 1,180 tpd, a 1,156% increase over existing levels. This would reduce the life of the Marina Landfill by 53 years. ■ Telephone Service. Impacts on telephone service would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 except that Subalternative C would require the expansion of the telephone service area to approximately 22,000 acres, a 435% increase in service area. ■ Gas and Electric Service. Impacts on gas and electric service would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative C would require up to 4,120 MCFH of gas and 440 MW of electricity, an increase of 2,800% more gas and 2,500% more electricity than existing levels. ■ Cable Television. Impacts on cable television service would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative C would require the expansion of the cable television service area to approximately 22,000 acres, a 435% increase in service area. ■ Storm Drainage System. Subalternative C would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that 25,442 acres of storm drainage infrastructure would need to be upgraded or expanded. ■ Water Distribution Infrastructure. Impacts on the water distribution system would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative C would require that the water distribution system's service area expand approximately 22,000 acres, an increase of 435% in service area. Water Resources ■ Hydrology and Water Quality. Subalternative C would convert land from open space to urban development, which would increase watershed runoff and peak fioodflows. Subalter- native C would not only increase watershed runoff but would also degrade watershed water quality by generating additional urban pollutants. Surface runoff containing urban pollutants would degrade water quality on the installation and in Monterey Bay. m Water Supply and Demand. Water demand under Subalternative C would be about 37,732 acre-feet per year. This amount is higher than the water demand for Alternative 1 (Table 5-6). Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1, Subalternative C 5-60 December 1992 Public Health and Safety Table 5-7 quantifies the impacts of Subalternative C on the following services: ■ Law Enforcement. Impacts on law enforcement for Subalternative C are similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative C would require up to 566 law enforcement officers and equipment, a 293% increase over existing levels. ■ Fire Protection. Impacts on fire protection for Subalternative C are similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative C would require up to 283 firefighters and equipment and approximately 71 firefighting companies, a 606% increase over existing levels. ■ Medical Services. Impacts on medical services for Subalternative C are similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative C would result in the need for additional medical services for approximately 127,500 residents. ■ Emergency Medical Services. Impacts on emergency medical services for Subalter- native C are similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative C would result in the need for additional emergency medical services for approximately 217,500 residents. ■ Seismic Safety. Seismic safety impacts for Subalternative C are similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that approximately 275,000 people would be exposed to potential seismic events. Also, because of the increased coastline development proposed in Subalternative C, coastline development would be exposed to increased potential for damage caused by tsunamis in Monterey Bay. Traffic and Circulation The reuse impacts of Subalternative C would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 because the land uses for Subalternative C would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 (Table 5-8). The scale and conceptual nature of the proposed land uses would obscure the differences. Subalternative C would result in approximately the same amount of construction emissions as Alternative 1. It would have slightly higher emissions of PM 10 and ozone precursors because of higher levels of residential development (Table 5-9). Like Alternative 1, Subalternative C would result in violations of the CO ambient standards and is inconsistent with both the MBUAPCD's 1991 AQMP and the 1982 SIP (Table 5-9). Under Subalternative C, the reuse impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 except that Subalternative C would not result in the exposure of educational facilities to noise from a transit center (Table 5-10). No additional effects on hazardous and toxic waste site remediation would be caused by implementing Subalternative C. Air Quality Noise Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5-61 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1, Subalternative C December 1992 Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Under Subalternative C, impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 1, except for increased impacts on coastal and marine resources (Table 5-11). Approximately an additional 28% of dune habitats would be lost, including an additional 61% of native coastal strand relative to Alternative 1. The proposed golf course and weather station would also eliminate habitat preserves 2 and 10 along the coast. Approximately 45% of additional Smith's blue butterfly habitat and an additional 5% of black legless lizard habitat would also be eliminated. Disturbance to nesting western snowy plovers would also increase under Subalternative C. Smith's blue butterfly is listed as endangered and the western snowy plover is proposed for listing as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Development of the proposed cruise ship pier and marina could disturb southern sea otters and would conflict with regulations associated with the designated Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The southern sea otter is listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Visual Resources The visual impacts under Subalternative C would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. However, impacts would be less for some areas near North-South Road, greater for an area in the south part of the study area, less for some portions of the coastal area, and substantially greater for other portions of the coastal area. Visual quality in the coastal area would be affected by the addition of a marina, cruise ship pier, weather station, hotels, and a golf course. Although a golf course is a low-intensity land use, its presence in the highly sensitive coastal area would substantially alter the existing visual character and quality by altering the natural vegetation patterns, landforms, colors, textures, and lines of the area. The intactness, vividness, and unity of the coastal area would be substantially reduced by the addition of the land uses proposed in this area as part of Subalternative C. Cultural Resources Subalternative C has the potential to affect National Register-eligible historic buildings by splitting proposed National Register districts. The high-intensity land uses proposed under Subalternative C are nearly identical to those under Alternative 1. Both have a great potential to affect National Register-eligible archeological sites within archeologically sensitive areas at Fort Ord. The areas of greatest archeoiogical sensitivity include all terraces and benches adjacent to the Salinas River and El Toro Creek, the peripheries of the wet cycle lakes, and lands adjacent to the streams that flow through Pilarcitos and Impossible Canyons. All other installation lands are recommended as having low to medium potential for possessing archeological resources. The high-intensity land uses proposed by Subalternative C also have a great potential to cause loss of access to, damage to, or destruction of sites or resources important to Native Americans. 5.6.17 Impact Summary ■ Land Use. Most of the approximately 23,000 acres of existing Army training areas and undeveloped open space would be converted to high-density developed urban uses. Only approximately 14% of Fort Ord would remain in open space and agricultural land uses. Approximately 60% of the 7,040 acres of residential development would be medium- and high-density residential areas, with only 2,825 acres in lower density rural, very low- and low-density residential. Some of the proposed urban uses would conflict with adjacent land uses, agricultural operations, or land use policies. Urban development would occur in areas that would be unsuitable for development because of hazardous conditions or physical constraints or because Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1, Impact Summary 5-62 December 1992 they contain significant habitat for rare and endangered plant and wildlife species. Proposed urban development could be inconsistent with the policy of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The resulting growth pressure could eventually jeopardize the natural resources of the Monterey Bay coastline. Extensive development is proposed under Alternative 1 where infrastructure is inadequate. Unbalanced residential and commercial development would result in the need for residents of the proposed residential areas to travel out of their areas for commercial services and employment. Extensive growth in remote or peripheral areas instead of in existing urban areas may result in blighted infill areas. ■ Socioeconomics. Alternative 1 would increase resident population by approximately 212,200 persons to a buildout population of approximately 247,000 persons and 83,100 housing units. Regional economic activity, as measured by countywide employment, personal income, and industrial output, would increase substantially over 1991 conditions, with increases of approximately 54% in employment, 59% in direct output, and 50% in personal income. Approximately 89,000 new jobs would occur, with an increase in personal income of $2.4 billion. Total output within Monterey County also would increase by $7.2 billion. Military retirees would be affected by the loss of medical services currently available at Fort Ord. Alternative 1 would increase the need for school capacity through the 12th grade by 54,200 students. Alternative 1 would decrease the land available for undeveloped recreational opportunities by 12,000 acres, and provide 3,900 acres of developed recreational opportunities. ■ Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity. The extensive development proposed under Alternative 1 would disturb or destroy the soil component that supports rare plant communities. Development in currently undeveloped portions of the installation would remove vegetation, disturb the soil surface, and accelerate erosion and sedimentation. Developments along Toro Creek would be subjected to an increased flood hazard and to a high to very high potential for liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. Constructing facilities in the coastal zone would subject these facilities to eventual loss because of the coastal erosion in the area. ■ Public Services and Utilities. Extensive upgrade and expansion of the utility system would be required to provide service under Alternative 1. An increase of up to 1,000% over that currently available would be required. Telephone, cable television, gas and electricity, storm drainage, and water supply infrastructure would require public or private utility companies to upgrade, replace, and expand the infrastructure to provide service to the expanded developments. Additional wastewater treatment facilities would need to be constructed and additional landfill capacity secured, and the collection and delivery systems would need to be upgraded, replaced, and expanded. « Water Resources. Increases in impervious surfaces under Alternative 1 would cause additional surface runoff that could contribute to watershed flood problems. Areas within existing FEMA 100-year floodplains are particularly sensitive to flood damage from increased runoff and generally contribute to water quality degradation in the area and potentially in Monterey Bay, a designated national marine sanctuary. Alternative 1 would increase water demand from approximately 5,400 acre-feet at Fort Ord to about 36,626 acre-feet. The existing supply consists entirely of groundwater and already exceeds the safe yield of the groundwater basin in the vicinity of Fort Ord, as evidenced by seawater intrusion. Local groundwater could not supply the water needed for this development. Water demand could be met by constructing a desalination facility for brackish or saline water or by importing water from areas farther inland. The seawater intrusion project proposed by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency would provide water to the Fort Ord area from Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1, Impact Summary 5-63 December 1992 a pipeline and wellfield to be built inland near the Salinas River. Local reservoirs could be built on Fort Ord and used to store excess runoff from the Salinas River or to store rediverted water released from Nacimiento and San Antonio Reservoirs. A dam could be built on the Arroyo Seco, a large tributary of the Salinas River, and stored water could be delivered to Fort Ord by pipeline or by the Salinas River. ■ Public Health and Safety. Alternative 1 would require up to 495 law enforcement officers, 247 firefighters or 62 firefighting companies and equipment, and emergency medical services for many institutions and businesses and for approximately 280,000 persons. Ambulance service and related medical technician emergency response could be supplied by local government agencies or by private companies. The installation is in a seismic and tsunami risk area, and people would be exposed to these risks and to risks from buildings subjected to ground shaking. ■ Traffic and Circulation. Alternative 1 would generate approximately 1.1 million daily trips at full buildout. To serve this demand, up to 36 lanes of north-south roadways and 45 lanes of east-west roadways would need to be built. To serve travel between Fort Ord and surrounding communities, up to 125 lanes of roadway would need to be built. These estimates should not be combined because one roadway could satisfy both on- and off-installation travel. Providing transit service and implementing aggressive measures to reduce single-occupant driving could reduce the need for roadways by approximately 10%. m Air Quality. Exposure to asbestos is possible if asbestos is not removed from buildings before demolition. Hazardous air pollutants and PM 10 could be emitted during hazardous waste cleanup and recovery of unexploded ordnance. Construction activities during reuse would generate substantial increases in NO x , ROG, CO, and PM 10 emissions. Alternative 1 would create excessive levels of CO at three locations where people live or work. Substantial increases in air emissions would result in increased NO x , ROG, CO, and PM 10 emissions, lowering air quality and conflicting with plans to bring the air basin into compliance with state and federal air quality standards. Alternative 1 would not be consistent with the MBUAPCD's 1991 AQMP due to the increases in population. ■ Noise. Noise impacts from Alternative 1 would include traffic noise impacts on existing and new noise-sensitive land uses and the noise impacts of incompatible land uses. The traffic noise impacts on existing and new noise-sensitive land uses would exceed the 60-dB L dn criterion for all evaluated road segments that would have noise-sensitive land uses. Other noise sources, such as the airport, amphitheater, and police academy, would also have noise levels that exceed the criterion for noise-sensitive land uses. Sensitive land uses, such as residences, campgrounds, and resort hotels, are projected to be located adjacent to such noise-generating land uses as an amphitheater, transit center, sports fields, sports complex, film complex, theme park, police academy, and airports. Cumulative noise impacts would result from the intensity of the reuse development on Fort Ord combined with other noise-producing development outside Fort Ord. Approximately 29 roadway segments are projected to have noise increases with substantial cumulative effects under Alternative 1. ■ Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation. After hazardous and toxic waste remediation activities are complete at Fort Ord, reuse of former hazardous and toxic waste sites would pose slight risks to public health and safety. Development could occur on unidentified hazardous waste or unexploded ordnance. Additional hazardous waste would be generated on the installation by demolishing buildings that may contain asbestos and other potentially hazardous materials. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5-64 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Alternative 1, Impact Summary December 1992 ■ Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources. Substantial numbers of special-status plant and wildlife species, including federally listed endangered species, and their habitats would be affected by remediation activities (i.e., surface clearance and removal of unexploded ordnance and potential removal of lead projectiles at the small arms firing ranges) necessary to accommodate the intensive land development proposed after disposal of Fort Ord lands. Vegetation management conducted in concert with remediation and implementation of habitat conservation plans, developed under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, could be the means for mitigating Impacts. Biological resources would lose federal protection if lands are transferred to nonfederal entities. Land development proposed for reuse under Alternative 1 would result in the loss of over 85% of common and special-status biological resources at Fort Ord. Impacts include the loss of large portions of the ranges of federally listed and proposed and state-listed threatened and endangered species and reduction in the ranges of numerous special-status plant and wildlife species to the point that they would likely become eligible for federal or state listing as threatened or endangered. It would result in the loss of 95% of the Fort Ord maritime chaparral, comprising of over one-half of all known central maritime chaparral habitat, and nearly complete loss of wetlands and riparian habitats at Fort Ord. ■ Visual Resources. The development in important view areas under Alternativel would greatly decrease the amount and diversity of natural vegetation cover and distant views. Development would alter the visual character and reduce the visual quality of the coastal area of Fort Ord. Views from and toward Monterey Bay and views from state212,000 78,000 48,000 (4,000) (30,000) 93,000 Direct increase of number of housing units to the Monterey County housing supply 68,000 >68,000 22,000 15,000 25,000 - 30,000 Reduced demand for housing - - - - - X - Change in the countywide jobs/housing ratio (from 1.36 to ) 1.10 1.31 1.52 1.31 1.43 1.32 1.40 Regional Net increase (decrease) of jobs 100,000 >100,000 108,000 48,000 36,000 (23,000) 48,000 Economy Net increase (decrease) in total county output $7.2 billion >$7.2 billion $8 billion $3.3 billion $1.8 billion ($3 billion) $3 billion Net increase (decrease) in county personal income $1 billion >$1 billion $1.3 billion $200 million $100 million ($500 million) $300 million Social Services Decreased demand for community services X X X X X X X Decreased demand for job development programs X X X X X X X Reduction in homeless services X X X X X X X Reduction in the availability of healthcare X X X X X X X services for military retirees Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Draft EIS Summary Table Volume I December 1992 5-129 Summary Table. Continued Page 3 of 9 Reuse Alternatives Issue Area General Description of Impact 1C Social Services (Cont'd.) Increase in costs for medical care to retirees and their family members Increased demand for community services X X Schools Potential loss of Monterey Peninsula Unified School District land Potential loss of Monterey Peninsula College's lower division general education program facilities Insufficient Monterey Peninsula Unified School District staff to maintain facilities on the installation Demand for additional school capacity (for up to students) Potential closure of schools due to lack of students Competition between new and exising colleges and universities X X X X X X X X 54,200 64,830 19,500 7,100 9,700 X X 17,800 Recreation Loss of land available for undeveloped recreational oppportunities (acres) Increase of developed recreational opportunities (acres) 12,000 3,400 >12,000 >3,400 7,200 2,800 450 1,500 1,500 800 4,200 1,000 2,650 1,300 SOILS, GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SEISMICITY Loss of natural soil ecosystem component X X Long-term loss of soil fertility due to fire X X suppression Potential increase from existing rate in coastal - X erosion Potential loss of existing facilities from X X existing erosion Accelerated wind erosion X X Accelerated water erosion X X Increased landslide susceptibility X X Increased sedimentation and flood hazard X X Use of unsuitable soil types for agriculture X X Severe engineering limitations on use of soils X X Severe substrate limitation to water storage X X Susceptibility of existing and new structures X X to damage from ground shaking Susceptibility of new development to liquefac- X X tion and landslides X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Draft EIS Summary Table Volume I December 1992 5-130 Summary Table. Continued Page 4 of 9 Reuse Alternatives Issue Area General Description of Impact 1 1C 2 3 4 5 6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Wastewater Inadequate access to maintain wastewater collection facilities X X X X X X X Need for expansion of the wastewater collection system X X X X X < X Potential degradation of wastewater service to areas outside of the Presidio of Monterey annex and reserve center X X X X X X X Increased generation of wastewater from the existing 2.4 million gallons per day of waste- water generation (million gallons per day/% increase) 18.5 670% 19.9 730% 12.4 416% 8.2 240% 6.6 175% 0.7 73% 87 263% Need to upgrade and expand the wastewater collection system X X X X X - X Inadequate access to maintain wastewater collection facilities X X X X X X X Solid Waste Generation of solid waste from existing 94 tons per day [tons per day/% increase (decrease)] 1,010 974% 1,180 1,156% 460 389% 252 168% 132 41% 19 (41%) 545 480% Need for additional solid waste hauling service X X X X X - X Generation of demolition waste X X X X X - X Telephone Service Inadequate telephone facilities to provide service to interim uses outside the Presidio of Monterey annex X X X X X X X Need for additional telephone service outside of the Presidio of Monterey annex (for _ acres/% increase of the existing service area) 21,400 425% 22,000 435% 18,760 370% 8,120 160% 9,830 195% - 8,170 162% Lack of utility corridors or restriction of access to existing utility corridors X X X X X - X Disruption of service because of construction X X X X X - X Restricted access to telephone infrastructure caused by lack of clear ownership of infrastructure X X X X X X Deterioration of telephone infrastructure - - - - - X - Gas and Electric Service Inadequate electric and gas facilities to provide service to the Presidio of Monterey Annex X - X X X X X Potential service continuity problems resulting from the Army-operated system X - X X X X X Increased demand for gas (million cubic feet per hour/% increase from exising demand) 5,650 3,900% 4,120 2,800% 3,695 2,500% 1,278 875% 807 550% - 1,729 1,185% Increased demand for electric service (mega- watts/% increase above existing demand) 545 3,100% 440 2,500% 392 2,200% 130 730% 141 790% - 171 960% Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume / 5-131 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Summary Table December 1992 Summary Table. Continued Page 5 of 9 Reuse Alternatives Issue Area General Description of Impact 1 1C 2 3 4 5 6 Gas and Electric Service (Cont'd.) Deterioration of gas and electric infrastructure Lack of utility corridors or restriction of access to existing utility corridors Disruption of service because of construction X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Cable Television Potential loss of cable service to the Presidio of Monterey annex, reserve center, Main Garrison, and barracks around the Silas B. Hays Army Community Hospital X X X X X X Need for additional cable service (for acres/% increase of the existing service area) 21,400 425% 22,000 435% 18,760 370% 8,120 160% 9,830 195% — 7,780 155% Deterioration of cable infrastructure - - - - - X - Lack of utility corridors or restriction of access to existing utility corridors X X X X X - X Storm Drainage System Increased site runoff Deterioration of storm drainage system infrastructure X X X X X X X Segmentation of storm drainage system management X X X X X - X Water Supply Distribution Infrastruc- ture Need for additional water distrubution infrastructure outside of the Presidio of Monterey annex (for acres/% increase of the existing service area) Deterioration of water distribution infrastructure 21,400 425% 22,000 435% 18,760 370% 8,120 160% 9,830 195% X 9,760 195% Disruption of service due to construction X X X X X - X WATER RESOURCES Hydrology and Water Quality Increases in site runoff Risk of flood damage from development in the 100-year floodplain X X X X X X X X X X - X X Water quality degradation from urban runoff X X X X X - X Water quality degradation from increased erosion during construction X X X X X - X Water quality degradation from hazardous material spills during construction X X X X X - X Water Supply and Demand Total demand for water (approximate acre- feet per year) 36,626 37,732 23,022 17,582 13,360 3,356 17,439 Changes in groundwater recharge X X X X X X X Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5-132 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Summary Table December 1992 Summary Table. Continued Page 6 of 9 Reuse Alternatives Issue Area General Description of Impact 1 1C 2 3 4 5 6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Law Enforce- ment Need for additional law enforcement to support interim leases and outgrants Increased potential for trespassing and vandalism X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Need for law enforcement officers and equipment [up to officers needed/% increase (decrease) from the existing staff of 144] 495 244% 566 293% 228 58% 170 18% (65) (55%) (13) (91%) 258 168% Fire Protection Increased wildland and structural fire hazards following disposal of property by the Army X X X X X X X Need for firefighters and equipment [(up to _ firefighters needed/% increase (decrease) from existing staff of 40 247 517% 283 606% 113 182% 83 107% (31) (22%) (4) (89%) 128 219% Medical Services Need for additional medical services for users of leased space X X X X X X X Need for additional medical services (for approximately residents) 70,000 127,500 - - - - 38,000 Exposure of people to Lyme disease hazards X X X X X X X Emergency Medical Services Need for additional emergency medical services (for approximately residents) 160,000 217,500 26,000 - 31,000 - 128,000 Potential for increased response times for emergency services at Fort Ord X X X X X - X Seismic Safety Exposure of people to seismic events through issuance of interim leases of outgrants X X X X X X X Exposure of people to seismic events (approximately people) 283,000 >283,000 124,000 83,000 31,000 - 128,000 Exposure of coastline development to tsunamis - X - - - - - TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Increased travel demand between Fort Ord and the surrounding communities (to approximately _ trips per day) 750,000 >750,000 307,000 285,000 188,000 48,000 259,000 North-south daily travel demand on Fort Ord (of approximately vehicles) 218,000 >218,000 81,000 32,000 16,000 6,000 20,000 East-west daily travel demand on Fort Ord (of approximately vehicles) 270,000 >270,000 103,000 93,000 50,000 24,000 113,000 Incompatibility between the existing local X X X X X X X general plans and the reuse plans for Fort Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 5 133 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Summary Table December 1992 Summary Table. Continued Page 7 of 9 Reuse Alternatives Issue Area General Description of impact 1 1C 2 3 4 5 6 AIR QUALITY NOISE Asbestos emissions during demolition XX X X X X X Emissions of PM 10 and hazardous air XXXXXXX pollutants exceeding Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control district thresholds Generation of NO x and PM 10 that exceeds the 486 471 368 212 212 - 206 emission thresholds during construction (NO x 256 247 194 111 111 - 108 pounds per day/PM 10 pounds per day) Carbon monoxide emissions and concentra- XX X X X - X tions exceeding the federal and California 8-hour ambient air quality standards from intersection congestion Net increases of reactive organic compounds, 6,844 8,578 _____ NO x , and PM 10 that exceed the emission 6,660 7,186 729 _ _ _ _ thresholds from reuse (ROG/NO X /PM 10 in 3,358 - 1,210 - 292 pounds per day) Population increases exceeding Association ofX X XX - - X Monterey Bay Area Governments projections Excessive noise from remediation activities XX X < < < X Excessive noise from construction activities X X X < < < X Increased and excessive noise from traffic on XXX < < 7,790 6,350 4,230 3,150 770 4,360 (acres/%) (75%) (>75%) (60%) (40%) (30%) (10%) (40%) Loss of special native biological communities 12,570 >12,570 6,710 1,820 1,290 30 1,520 (acres) Loss of habitat occupied by plant species that 11,060 X 6,620 3,450 2,230 100 3,170 are federally listed as endangered or proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered (acres) Loss of habitat occupied by plant species that 14,130 X 7,680 2,740 1,890 45 2.220 are federal candidates for listing as threated or endangered (acres) Loss of other special-status plant species with 11,800 X 11,950 11,800 1,220 45 1,580 no federal or state status (acres) Loss of habitat available for wildlife species XXX X X XX that are federally listed as threatened or endangered or proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered Loss of habitat available for wildlife species XXX X X XX that are federal candidates for listing as threatened or endangered Loss of habitat available for wildlife species XXX X X XX that are California species of special concern Loss of habitat available for special interest XXX X X XX wildlife species with no legal status Loss of wetlands and other waters of the 55 55 15 4 7 0 8 United States (acres of wetlands/linear feet of 96,400 96,400 71,400 4,000 10,500 2,200 22,80 streams) 0 Loss of plant and butterfly preserves and XXX X X - X significant natural areas Conflict with Monterey Bay National Marine - X - - - - Sanctuary VISUAL RESOURCES Reduced regional visual quality XXX X X - X Reduced visual quality of the Fort Ord coastal XXX - X - - area and of seen areas from State Route 1 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Summary Table 5-135 December 1992 Summary Table. Continued Page 9 of 9 Reuse Alternatives Issue Area General Description of Impact 1 1C VISUAL RESOURCES (Cont'd.) Improved visual quality of coastal areas X X X X Reduced visual quality of areas seen from X X X X X - X important tourist and recreation areas Reduced visual quality of areas seen from State Route 68 Reduced visual quality of areas seen from important secondary travel routes Reduced visual quality of areas seen from the Salinas Valley CULTURAL RESOURCES Potential effects on National Register-eligible historic buildings and potential archeological sites within archeologically sensitive areas Potential loss of access to, damage to, or destruction of sites or resources important to Native Americans Notes: X = Impact applies to this alternative. Refer to text in this section and in Volume II, "Detailed Analysis of Disposal and Reuse", for the extent of the impact. - = Impact not applicable to this alternative. () = Indicates a decrease Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences Draft EIS Summary Table Volume I 5-136 December 1992 Section 6.0 References Abrams, L 1940. Illustrated flora of the Pacific states. Stanford University Press. Stanford, CA. Ace Pacific Company. 1988. Final engineering report regarding the permit application for the Fort Ord water supply. April 22, 1988. San Francisco, CA. Prepared for U.S. Army, Fort Ord, CA. Acoustical Society of America. 1978. American national standard method for the calculation of the absorption of sound by the atmosphere. (ANSI S1.26-1978, ASA 23-1978.) New York, NY. Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments. 1988. 1987 regional population and employment forecast. Monterey, CA. . 1990. Regional housing needs plan. Monterey, CA. 1992. 1991 interim population forecast: Monterey County disaggregation summary. Monterey, CA. Bay Area Council. 1991. Bay area housing data compendium. June. 3rd edition. San Francisco, CA. Boyle Engineering Corporation. 1989. Salinas Valley seawater intrusion program. Final EIR/EIS: groundwater analyses. Lanewood, CO. Prepared for Monterey County Rood Control and Water Conservation District. Salinas, CA. Brown & Caldwell Consulting Engineers. 1989. City of Davis water system management plan. Sacramento, CA. Davis Public Works Department, Davis, CA. Bury, B. R. 1985. Status report: Anniella pulchra nigra Fischer, black legless lizard (Aniellidae: Sauria) in Central California. Ecosystems Studies Section, Denver Wildlife Research Center. Fort Collins, CO. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species, Portland, OR. California. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1980. Geology for planning: Marina and Salinas 7.5-minute quadrangles, Monterey. California. (DMG Open-File Report 80-7.) Sacramento, CA. . Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1992. Preliminary fault activity map of California. (DMG Open-File Report 92-03.) Sacramento, CA. . Department of Finance. 1991. Report E-6. Department of Finance table 1: total, military, and civilian population and crude rates. January. Demographic Research Unit. Sacramento, CA. ♦ . Department of Finance. 1992a. Report E-5. Monterey County population and housing estimates, January 1, 1991. Demographic Research Unit. Sacramento, CA. . Department of Finance. 1992b. Report E-8090CITY. California annual population and housing data, April 1, 1980 to April 1,1990 for cities, counties, and the state. Demographic Research Unit. Sacramento, CA. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I ♦ 6-1 References December 1992 • Department of Fish and Game. 1987. Badger distribution study. July 1,1986-June 30,1987. (Nongame Wildlife Investigation: W-65-R-4. Sacramento, CA. • Department of Transportation. 1989. 1989 annual average daily truck traffic on the California state highway system. September. Division of Traffic Engineering. Sacramento, CA. . Department of Water Resources. 1975. Vegetative water use in California, 1974. (Bulletin 113-3.) Sacramento, CA. . Department of Water Resources. 1983. Urban water use in California. October 1983. (Bulletin 166-3.) Sacramento, CA. . Department of Water Resources. 1990. Irvine office tower planners use of reclaimed water from municipal source. July 4-5, 1990. . Employment Development Department. 1989. Annual planning information. Salinas-Seaside- Monterey metropolitan statistical area. San Francisco, CA. . Employment Development Department. 1991. Annual planning information: Salinas-Seaside- Monterey metropolitan statistical area (Monterey County). San Francisco, CA. Clark, W. 1970. Gold districts of California. (Bulletin 193.) California Division of Mines and Geology. San Francisco, CA. Defense Mapping Agency. 1980. Fort Ord, California, terrain analysis. Washington, DC. Prepared for the Terrain Analysis Center, U.S. Army Engineers Topographic Laboratories, Fort Belvoir, VA. Dupre, W. 1990. Geology, liquefaction susceptibility of quaternary deposits, Monterey, Seaside, Carmel Valley quads, California. (Map MF-2096.) U.S. Geological Survey. Menlo Park, CA. Dyer, A. 1992. Seawater - a new source of water for Santa Barbara and south coast. Water Conservation News May: 1992. EIP Associates. 1990. The sands of Monterey project final EIR. San Francisco, CA. City of San City, CA. Farwell, L 1992. Graywater guidelines proposed uniform plumbing code. Water Conservation News January: 1992. Federal Highway Administration. 1983. Visual impact assessment for highway projects. (Contract DOT-FH- 11-9694.) Washington, DC. Finsterbusch, K. 1980. Understanding social impacts: assessing the effects of public projects. Sage Publications. Beverly Hills, CA. Folsom, City of. Community Development Department. 1992. American River Bridge crossing project. Draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement. Folsom, CA. Fort Ord Community Task Force. 1992. Strategy report. Fort Ord, CA. Fort Ord Parklands Group. 1992. Fort Ord Parklands: A vision statement. Carmel, CA. Foundation Health. 1992. CHAMPUS extra provider directory: coastal region. Sacramento, CA. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 6-2 References December 1992 Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. 1986. Hydrogeologic update, Fort Ord military reservation and vicinity, Monterey County, California. July 1986. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Sacramento, CA. Gharabegian, A., K. M. Cosgrove, J. R. Pehrson, and T. D. Trinh. 1985. Forest fire fighters noise exposure. Noise Control Engineering Journal 25(3):96-111. Gover, N. 1992. Casa del Agua: Tucson's conservation showcase. Divining Rod (New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute) XV(2):4-6. Griffin, J. R. 1976. Native plant reserves at Fort Ord. Fremontia 4(2):25-28. . 1978. Maritime chaparral and endemic shrubs of the Monterey Bay region, California. Madrofio 25:65-112. Gudde, E. G. 1969. California place names. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. Hatano, M„ P. Benson, and K. Pinkerman. 1989. CALINE4 - a dispersion model for predicting air pollution concentrations near roadways. California Department of Transportation. Sacramento, CA. Heizer, R. F. (ed.). 1978. Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 8: California. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC. Howitt, B. F., and J. T. Howell. 1964. The vascular plants of Monterey County, California. The Wasmann Journal of Botany 22(1):1-60. . 1973. Supplement to the vascular plants of Monterey County, California. The Pacific Grove Museum at National History Association. Pacific Grove, CA. Huppertz and K. Bloomquist. 1991. Economic impact forecast system (EIFS) 4.1: user's manual. U.S. Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. Champaign, Illinois. Hurst, W. F. 1992. Report to Fort Ord Task Force on Fort Ord water supply system. March 11, 1992. Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Subcommittee, Fort Ord Task Force. Salinas, CA. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1991. Trip generation: An informational report. 5th edition. Washington, DC. James, T., and A. Webster. 1992. Hi-desert, hi-tech, saves national park in winter. Water Conservation News May: 15. JHK & Associates. 1991. Intersection LOS analysis. Prepared for City of Marina Department of Public Works, Marina, CA. Johnson, P. 1975. Archaeological Survey: Fort Ord. Manuscript on file. Fort Ord Plans Division, Fort Ord, CA. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1990. Salinas Valley seawater intrusion program. Draft EIR/EIS. December 14,1990 (JSA 88-136.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Salinas, CA. . 1991. Rancho San Juan area of development concentration feasibility study. Phase I - Constraints analysis; Phase II - Land use alternatives; Phase III - Comparative impacts assessment; Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 6-3 References December 1992 Phase IV - Preferred alternative. July 31, 1991. (JSA 89-196.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department Salinas, CA. . 1991. Rancho San Juan area of development concentration feasibility study (JSA 89-196). Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Monterey County Planning and Building inspection Department. Salinas, CA. Kasover, S. 1992. Water recycling: a viable alternative now and for the 21st century. Water Conservation News July: 1992. Kuhn, R. E. 1992. Monterey County's water resources. E.H.P. Directories. Monterey, CA. Kyle, D. E. 1990. Historic spots in California. Fourth edition. Stanford University Press. Stanford, CA. Larsen, C. J. 1987. Badger distribution study. (W-65-R-4) California Department of Fish and Game Non- game Wildlife Investigations. Sacramento, CA. Logan, J. 1982. Hydrogeology of the Seaside area, preliminary draft. March. Carmel, CA. Prepared for Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Monterey, CA. Loper, D. R. 1989. Monterey County: 1989 - solid waste management plan. Salinas, CA. Matthews, M. A. 1992. An illustrated key to the vascular plants of Monterey County. 6th Draft. McGrath, L 1990. Massachusetts businesses boast conservation. Water Conservation News September: 1990. Merey, C. 1992. Fort Ord seismic reflection survey testing phase draft report. February 21,1992. Harding Lawson Associates, Novato, CA. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA. Military Traffic Management Command - Transportation Engineering Agency. 1986. Traffic engineering study: Fort Ord, California. (MTMC Report TE 85-6a-4D.) Newport News, VA. Mintier, J. Laurence & Associates, Jones & Stokes Associates, B. W. Kelley & Associates, and Water Resource Associates. 1990 Water allocation program. Final EIR. Volume 1: Administrative Draft. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey, CA. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. 1991. 1991 air quality attainment plan for the Monterey Bay region and Appendix A: Technical documentation. Monterey, CA. Monterey, County of. Planning Department. 1980. Monterey County general plan. Salinas, CA. Monterey County Congestion Management Agency. 1991. 1991 congestion management program. Salinas, CA. Prepared by Transportation Agency for Monterey County, Salinas, CA. Monterey County Homeless Task Force. 1990. The many faces of the homeless: Monterey County homeless services plan. Monterey, CA. Muir, K. S. 1982. Groundwater in the Seaside area, Monterey County, California. September. (Water- Resources Investigations 82-10.) U.S Geological Survey. Sacramento, CA. Munz, P. A., and D. D. Keck. 1968. A California flora and supplement. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 6-4 References December 1992 Nadeau, Renni. 1965. Ghost towns and mining camps of California. The Ward Ritchie Press. Los Angeles, CA. Natural Diversity Data Base. 1992. Computer database search for Monterey, Seaside, and Marina. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Palermo, S., and D. Berkhart. 1992. Water agency-sanitation district reach agreement on recycled water. Water Conservation News January: 1992. Papenfuss, T., and V. Harris. 1990. Black legless lizard. November. Chapter VII in Marina Dunes plan supporting technical studies. March. Thomas Reid Associates and the Planning Collaborative, Inc. Palo Alto, Inc. Peak, A. S. and Associates. 1978. Cultural resource assessment of the proposed effluent disposal system, Fort Ord, Monterey County, CA. April 20, 1978. Porter, V. 1991. Master-metered residential complex realizes dramatic savings. Water Conservation News July: 1991. Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Reveal, J. L, and C. B. Hardham. 1989. A revision of the annual species of Chorizanthe (Polygonaceae eriogonoideae). Phytologia 66(2):98-198. RKG Associates, Inc. 1992. Economic impact analysis of the downsizing of Fort Ord on Monterey County. Durham, NH. Prepared for County of Monterey Administrative Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Salinas, CA. Roberson, D. 1985. Monterey birds: Status and distribution of birds in Monterey County, California. Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society. Carmel, CA. Roberts, L J., and J. L Zahniser. 1980. Cultural resources literature search and overview, Fort Ord, California. Prepared for the Department of the Army, U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA. San Jose, City of, Brown and Caldwell Consultants, and California Department of Water Resources. 1990. Case studies of industrial water conservation in the San Jose area. February. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. Seaside, City of. 1990. Seaside general plan update/existing data report. Volume I. October. Seaside, CA. Sedway & Associates. 1992. Housing impact analysis of Fort Ord downsizing. Monterey, CA. Smardon, R. C., J. F. Palmer, and J. P. Fellerman (eds ). 1986. Foundation for visual project analysis. John Wiley & Sons New York, NY. Smith, O. 1983. Reconnaissance report on coastal erosion at Fort Ord, California. (Miscellaneous Paper CERC-83-10.) Coastal Engineering Research Center. Vicksburg, MS. Staal, Gardner, & Dunne, Inc. 1987. Hydrogeologic investigation, Seaside coastal ground water basin, Monterey County, California. May. Ventura, CA. Prepared for Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey, CA. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 6-5 References December 1992 . 1988. Phase II hydrogeologic investigation, Laguna Seca subarea, Monterey County, California. September. Ventura, CA. Prepared for Monterey County Department of Public Health, Salinas, CA. . 1990. Hydrogeologic update, Seaside coastal groundwater basins, Monterey County, California. August. Ventura, CA. Prepared for Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey, CA. Stebbins, G. L, and J. Major. 1965. Endemism and speciation in the California flora. Ecological Monographs 35(1):1-35. Swernoff, Michael. 1982. A reconnaissance cultural resources survey of Fort Ord, California. Professional Analysts. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Army, Sacramento Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA. Toth, W. J. 1979. Noise abatement techniques for construction equipment. (HS-803 293; DOT-TSC- NHTSA-79-45: PB-300 948.) U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Washington, DC. Transportation Research Board. 1985. Highway capacity manual. (Special Report 209.) National Research Council. Washington, DC. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. Visual impact assessment procedures for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prepared by the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Syracuse, NY. . 1986. Long-range water supply development for Fort Ord, California. February. Sacramento District. Sacramento, CA. . 1991a. Work plan remedial investigation/feasibility study, Fort Ord, California. Novato, CA. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacramento, CA. . 1991b. Remedial investigation/feasibility study, draft final work plan, Fort Ord, California. August 1991. Novato, CA. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of engineers, Sacramento District. Sacramento, CA. . 1975. Hydrogeology of Fort Ord and vicinity, Monterey County, California. Final report. May. Sacramento District. Sacramento, CA. . 1986. Long-range water supply development for Fort Ord, California. February. Sacramento District. Sacramento, CA. . 1992a. Land use baseline study of Fort Ord, California. Sacramento District. Sacramento, CA. . 1992b. Air quality environmental baseline study of Fort Ord, California. Sacramento District. Sacramento, CA. . 1992c. Land use environmental baseline study of Fort Ord, California. Sacramento District. Sacramento, CA. . 1992d. Soils baseline study of Fort Ord, California. Sacramento District. Sacramento, CA. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 6-6 References December 1992 . 1992e. Other physical attributes baseline study of Fort Ord, California. Sacramento District. Sacramento, CA. . 1992f. Environmental impact statement scoping report - disposal and reuse: Fort Ord, CA. . 1992g. Action plan, environmental restoration acceleration, Fort Ord, California. Draft. June 19, 1992. Sacramento, CA. . 1992h. A Fort Ord success story: a Fort Ord soil treatment system. Seaside, CA. Prepared for U .S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Ord Environmental Office. Fort Ord, CA. . 1992i. AB2588 biennial update report for 1991, air toxic emissions, Fort Ord, California. Novato, CA. U.S. Bureau of Census. 1989. County business patterns 1987 California. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. . 1990. Statistical abstract of the United States: 1990. Washington, DC. 1990. 1990 census of population and housing summary tape file. Washington, DC. . 1991. 1990 census data. Washington, DC. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1989. Local area personal income 1983-88. Washington, DC. . 1990. BEA regional projections to 2040. Volume 2: Metropolitan statistical areas. October. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1991. Output, price, and employment data. Office of Employment Projections, U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, DC. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Visual resource management program. (Stock No. 024-011- 00116-6.) U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. 1970. Environmental quality: The first annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of the Army. 1975. Fort Ord natural resources program: 1975 report. Directorate of Facilities Engineering. Ford Ord, CA. . Real property contaminated with ammunition and explosives. Pages 12-1 and 12-4 in Department of Defense Standard 6055.9. Sacramento, CA. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1983. Standards and guidelines for archaeology and historic preservation. September 29, 1983. 190 FR 4B. Washington, DC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Noise from construction equipment and operations, building equipment, and home appliances. (NTID300.1.) Arlington, VA. Prepared by Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Boston, MA. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. . 1974. Information on levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. (EPA-550-9-74-004.) Arlington, VA. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 6-7 References December 1992 . 1985. Compilation of air pollutant emission factors. Volume I: Stationary point and area sources and Volume II: Mobile sources. 4th edition. Research Triangle Park, NC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen/ice. 1984. Smith's blue butterfly recovery plan. Portland, OR. U.S. Forest Service. 1974. National forest landscape management. Volume 1. (Agricultural Handbook No. 434.) U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1990. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Environmental impact statement/management plan. Draft. Marine and Estuarine Management Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service. Washington, DC. . 1992. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Final environmental Impact statement/ management plan. Washington, DC. Marine and Estuarine Management Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service. Washington, D.C. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1978a. Procedure to establish priorities in landscape architecture. (Technical Release No. 65.) U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. . 1978b. Soil survey of Monterey County. Washington, DC. Irvine office tower pioneers use of reclaimed water from municipal source. 1991a. Water Conservation News July:4-5. . 1991b. 10,000 toilets replaced in Santa Monica. Water Conservation News October. . 1992. California Men's Colony inmates conserve water. Water Conservation News. January;20-22. Williams, D. F. 1986. Mammalian species of special concern in California. (Administrative Report 86-1.) California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division. Sacramento, CA. Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc. 1992. Fort Ord economic adjustment plan. Belmont, CA. Zahnizer, J. L., and L. J. Roberts. 1980. Cultural resources literature search and overview, Fort Ord, California. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Army, Sacramento Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA. Zeiner, D. C., W. F Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California's wildlife. Volume II: Birds. The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Zoger, A., and B. Pavlik. 1987. Marina Dunes rare plant survey, including delineations of actual and potential habitat. Mills College, Department of Biology. Oakland CA. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 6-8 References December 1992 Section 7.0 List of Preparers This environmental impact statement was prepared under the direction of the U.S. Department of the Army, Forces Command. A list of persons who participated in the preparation of this document is presented below. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Bob Verkade Wandeil Carlton Harvey Don Jones Bob Koenigs Greg Mitchell Patricia Roberson Sannie Osborn Teresa Pacheco Elizabeth Davis Mike Hoover Lori Copeland Leslie Lew Ken Fox Captain Norm Grady Neil Robison Michael D. Rushton Francine Demos-Petropoulos Kathryn E. Giberson ♦ Ron Bass Sean Bechta Bruce Boyd David M. Buehler, P.E. Tracye Cantrell B.S.LA., Landscape Architecture B.S.C.E., Civil Engineering B.S.C.E., Civil Engineering Ph.D., Ecology M.S., Anthropology B.A., Business Economics A.A., Social Science B.S., Biology B.S., Civil Engineering B.S.LA., Landscape Architecture B.A., Business Administration and Real Estate B.S., M.S.E. - Computational Mechanics Ph.D., Anthropology Technical Expertise LdW Wildlife Biology Mathematics and Computer Science Civil Engineering Environmental Sciences Project Management Infrastructure and Utilities Contaminated Sites Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality, and Noise Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources; Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity Report Review Socioeconomics Schools, Socioeconomics Geographic Information System Geographic Information System Land Use and Visual Resources Real Estate Disposal Process Water Supply Cultural Resources il-in-Charge Manager it Project Manager NEPA Review Wildlife Geographic Information System Noise Geographic Information System M.S., Resource Geography B.A., Environmental Studies JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES M.A., Physical Geography Principa B.A., Environmental Studies Project M.A., Urban Geography Assistar J.D., B.S., B.S., B.S., B.A., Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse List of Preparers Draft EIS Volume I December 1992 7-1 Christopher Cate B.A., History Land Use, Public Services and Utilities, Public Health and Safety Paul D. Cylinder Ph.D., Botany Vegetation and Wetland Resources Nick Dennis Ph.D., Forest Economics Socioeconomics Joe Donaldson M.L.A., Landscape Architecture Visual Resources Kathryn E. Giberson M.A., Urban Geography Land Use Steve Holl M.S., Vertebrate Biology Wildlife Vicki Keresztury B.S., Biological Studies Vegetation and Wetland Resources Pam Neath B.A., Economics Socioeconomics Natalie Nielsen M.S., Geology Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation Brad Norton B.S., Environmental Policy Gas, Electricity, Telephone, Analysis and Planning Cable, Medical Services William F. O'Leary, P.E. M.S., Hydraulic Engineering Hydrology, Drainage, Water Quality Debra Percy B.S., Range Ecology Visual Resources Angie Raygani B.S., Civil Engineering Traffic and Circulation Edward T. Rimpo M.S., Economics Air Quality Robert Sculley M.S., Ecology Air Quality Wayne Shijo B.S., Environmental Planning and Traffic and Circulation Management Alan G. K. Solbert M.S.. Wildlife Sciences and Public Services and Utilities Ecology Erik Spiess B.S., Environmental Planning and Wastewater, Solid Waste, Management Police and Fire Service Craig Stevens B.S., Renewable Natural Traffic and Circulation Resources Roger Trott M.A., Agricultural Economics Socioeconomics Wayne Verrill B.S., Soil and Water Science Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity Steve Whiting B.S., Resource Planning Geographic Information System Gus Yates M.S., Water Sciences Water Supply, Groundwater Public Involvement Francine Demos-Petropoulos Public Involvement Kathryn E. Giberson Public Involvement Judy Be}! Project Assistant Cynthia Casanova Public Involvement Cynthia Ervin Database Management Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 7-2 List of Preparers December 1992 Christy Anderson Judy Bell Cynthia Casanova Christopher Cate Cynthia Ervin Susan Fotter Dave Haining Nancy Hartwick Nick Kroska Jane Palik Monica Parkhurst Tony Rypich Fern Weston Document Production Graphic Artist Project Assistant Editor Coordinator Database Management Lead Word Processing Operator Lead Word Processing Operator Desktop Publishing Editor Word Processing Operator Lead Editor Graphic Artist Word Processing Operator Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 7-3 List of Preparers December 1992 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft ElS Volume I List of Preparers December 1992 7-4 Section 8.0 Persons Consulted Addington, Steve. Resources staff chief. U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Hoilister Resource Area, Hollister, CA. September 4, 1992 - telephone conversation. Ailayaud, Bill. California Coastal N on point Pollution Control Program coordinator. California Coastal Commission, Sacramento, CA. September 3,1992 - telephone conversation about the program for coastal non-point-source pollution control. Ambriz, Raymond. Operations coordinator. Sacramento Fire Department, Sacramento, CA. October 21, 1992 - telephone conversation about typical staffing levels of fire stations in Sacramento. Arsinas, Ray. Business manager. Salinas City Unified School District, Salinas, CA. August 21, 1992 - telephone conversation about school district enrollments and capacities. Barran, Frank. Planner. Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Marina, CA. July 2, 1992 - tele- phone conversation. Bischoff, Pat. Administrator. Seaside School District, Seaside, CA. August 20,1992 - telephone conversation. Bishop, Will. Vice president of finance. Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, Monterey, CA. September 1, 1992 - telephone conversation. Bittner, Mike. Engineer. City of Seaside Department of Public Works/Engineering, Seaside, CA. January 7, 1992 - facsimile transmittal of traffic count data to Craig Stevens. Blackie, Jim. Maintenance supervisor. Magic Mountain Theme Park, Valencia, CA. August 25,1992 - tele- phone conversation. Brennan, Janet. Air quality planner. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Monterey, CA. July 2 and August 19, 1992 - telephone conversations. Cavanaugh, Joe. Project coordinator. Fort Ord Task Force, Marina, CA. October 1992 - telephone conversation. Cook, Jim. Executive officer. Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission, Salinas, CA. February-October 1992 - letters, meetings, memoranda, and telephone conversation. Crawford, Alan. Building manager. Moscone Convention Center, San Francisco, CA. September 9,1992 - telephone conversation. Davies, Dan. Division manager. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Monterey, CA. August 14, 1992 - telephone conversation regarding electric capability, financing, and reuse. Day, Alva. Research botanist. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA. August 3 and 10, 1992 - telephone conversations; August 10, 1992 - letter. Dillon, Ellen. Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. October 22, 1992 - meeting. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 8-1 Persons Consulted December 1992 Dorrell, Joey. Botanist (graduate student). San Jose State University, Carmei, CA. May 20 and October 9, 1992 - letter; August 6, 1992 - telephone conversation. Feather, Tim. Senior analyst. Planning and Management Consultants, Inc., Carbondale, IL October 8, 1992 - telephone conversation with Gus Yates of Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Foster, John. Project manager. Ryan Ranch Office Park, Monterey, CA. July 8, 1992 - telephone conversation. Fraier, Marsha. Controller. Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital, Salinas, CA. September 1,1992 - telephone conversation. Furst, Dawby. Water resources planner. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey, CA. August 27, 1992 - telephone conversation. Gamdy, Curt. Aircraft mechanic. Fort Ord Task Force, Education Committee, Monterey, CA. March 5, 1992 - meeting. Gerosek, Mark. Assistant director for operations. San Francisco Zoo, San Francisco, CA. August 18, 1992 - telephone conservation. Granger, Wendy. Assistant director. Monterey-County Department of Social Services, Salinas, CA. September 29, 1992 - telephone conversation regarding caseload and funding of social services in the county. Graziano, Francesca. Water use analyst. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey, CA. July 15, 1992 - telephone conversation. Griffith, Jim. Public works superintendent. City of Seaside Public Works Department, Seaside, CA. August 10 and 11, 1992 - telephone conversations regarding Fort Ord Task Force report. Hernandez, Juan. Engineer. County of Monterey Department of Public Works, Salinas, CA. January 9, 1992 - telephone conversation with Craig Stevens. Hillyard, Deborah. Regional plant ecologist. California Department of Fish and Game, Aromas, CA. August 6, 1992 - letter; October 22, 1992 - meeting. lacopi, Tony. General manager. Coastside Cable, Fort Ord, CA. August 19,1992 - telephone conversation regarding hardware, contracts, and level of service. imai, Roy. Administrator. Sacramento County Parks and Recreation Department, Sacramento, CA. September 3,1992 - telephone conversation regarding employment requirements of park and open space land uses. Israel, Keith. Agency manager. Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, Pacific Grove, CA. August 21,1992 - telephone conversation; October 20,1992 - telephone conversation about contract with Army and MRWPCA; October 21, 1992 - telephone conversation about termination of contract between MRWPCA and Army. Jurek, Ron. Biologist. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. March 13 and May 13, 1992 - telephone conversations. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft ElS Volume I 8-2 Persons Consulted December 1992 Kay, Rebecca. Engineer. Pacific Bell, Salinas, CA. August 12, 1992 - telephone conversation; August 17, 1992 - letter. Littlefield, Mark. Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. June 18, 1992 - telephone conversation. Long, Bob. Director of out patient services. Natividad Medical Center, Patient Financial Services, Salinas, CA. September 2, 1992 - telephone conversation. Lopez, Ralph. Pacific regional manager. U .S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC. July 7 and 30, 1992 - telephone conversations. Luallen, Connie. Major account representative. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Coast Valleys Division, Salinas, CA. August 13, 1992 - telephone conversation regarding consumption at Fort Ord; August 14, 1992 - telephone conversation requesting map of gas and electric lines; August 17 and 18, 1992 - letters regarding consumption at Fort Ord. September 1, 1992 - telephone conversation. Mallone, Mike. Senior hydrogeologist. Harding Lawson Associates, Novato, CA. September 4, 1992 - meeting. Martin, Bill. Emergency services coordinator. Monterey County Communication Center, Salinas, CA. September 8, 1992 - telephone conversation. McLean, Rodger. Operations manager. Marina Water and Sewer Department, Marina, CA. August 28, 1992 - telephone conversation. Mercy, Carlene. Senior geophysicist. Harding Lawson Associates, Novato, CA. February 21, 1992 - draft letter to the Corps describing preliminary geophysical data. Meyers, David. General manager. Monterey Regional Waste Management District, Marina, CA. August 21, 1992 - telephone conversation. Mick, Mickey. Office assistant. Monterey Fire Department. Monterey, CA. October 21, 1992 - telephone conversation about typical staffing levels of fire stations in Monterey. Morgan, Randall. Botanist. Soquel, CA. August 18, 1992 - telephone conversation. Mullone, Mike. Senior hydrogeologist. Harding Lawson Associates, Novato, CA. September 4, 1992 - meeting to review Fort Ord hydrogeology. Petrowski, Joseph. Assistant general manager. Monterey Peninsula Airport, Seaside, CA. July 15, 1992 - telephone conversation. Posten, Don. Division chief. Gavilan Conservation Camp, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Soledad, CA. September 4, 1992 - telephone conversation. Pugmire, Bob. Director. Private Industry Council. Salinas, CA. September 29, 1992 - telephone conversation regarding JPTA funded programs. Quetin, Douglas. Division chief. Administration, Planning, and Technical Services. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Monterey, CA. December 17, 1991 - telephone conversation. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 8-3 Persons Consulted December 1992 Richer, Michael. Water demand analyst. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey, CA. September 3, 1992 - meeting. Roberson, Don. Biologist. Monterey Chapter of the Audubon Society, Pacific Grove, CA. March 2 and 12, 1992 - telephone conversations; June 1, 1992 - telephone conversation and letter. Schurr, Alan. Major accounts project manager. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Economic Develop- ment, San Francisco, CA. August 13,17, 18, and 19,1992 - telephone conversations; August 19, 1992 - facsimile transmittal of estimated energy consumption. Senate, Christine. Vice president. Peninsula Paramedics, Pacific Grove, CA. August 21, 1992 - telephone conversation regarding service and response times. Skinner, Mark. Botanist. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. April 17, 1992 - letter. Smith, Chris. Principal hydrogeologist. Harding Lawson Associates, Novato, CA. March25,1992-facsimile transmittal of remedial investigation feasibility status for Fort Ord; August 31, 1992 - facsimile transmittal to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. St. John, Leo. Superintendent. North County Unified School District, Castroville, CA. August 21, 1992 - telephone conversation about school enrollments and capacities. Stanley, Scott. Graduate student. University of California, Davis. Department of Zoology, Davis, CA. January 2, 1992 - telephone conversation and facsimile of information on California tiger salamander. Stedman, William. Gas and electric operations manager. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Salinas, CA. August 13, 1992 - telephone conversation regarding Army systems. Taketomo, Amy. Air quality planner. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Monterey, CA. August 12 and 19, 1992 - telephone conversation. Townsend, Bob. Battalion Chief, Monterey Peninsula. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Pacific Grove, CA. September 4, 1992 - telephone conversation. Walton, Brian. Biologist. University of California, Santa Cruz, Predator Bird Research Group, Santa Cruz, CA. March 12, April 28, 1992, and August 28, 1992 - telephone conversations. Watson, Karen. Information specialist. University of California, Davis Public Relations Department, Davis, CA. September 3, 1992 - telephone conversation regarding University of California, Davis personnel. Wilcer, Bruce. Senior geologist. Harding Lawson Associates. Novato, CA. Octobers, 1992 - letter to Gus Yates transmitting Marina pumpage data. Wilson, Larry. Plant operations supervisor. U.S. Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA. August 21,1992 - telephone conversation. Zaman, Mohammed. Water resources analyst. Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Salinas, CA. August 20 and 21, 1992 - telephone conversations. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Persons Consulted December 1992 Section 9.0 Distribution List FEDERAL AND STATE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES The Honorable Rusty Areias, California State Assembly, 28th District The Honorable Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator The Honorable Thomas Campbell, U.S. Representative, District 12 The Honorable Gary Condit, U.S. Representative, District 15 The Honorable Ronald Deiiums, U.S. Representative, District 8 The Honorable Don Edwards, U.S. Representative, District 10 The Honorable Sam Fan, California Slate Assembly, 27th District The Honorable Vic Fazio, U.S. Representative, District 4 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator The Honorable Mike Huffington, U.S. Representative, District 22 The Honorable Tom Lantos, U.S. Representative, District 11 The Honorable Ken Maddy, California State Senate, 14th District The Honorable Robert Matsui, U.S. Representative, District 3 The Honorable Henry Mello, California State Senate, 15th District The Honorable George Miller, U.S. Representative, District 7 The Honorable Norman Mineta, U.S. Representative, District 13 The Honorable Leon Panetta, U.S. Representative, District 16 The Honorable Andrea Sea strand, California State Assembly, District 33 The Honorable Fortney Pete Stark, U.S. Representative, District 9 The Honorable Pete Wilson, Governor of California FEDERAL AGENCIES ADAM HA, NIDA/HHS, Property Management Office Coast Guard Group Monterey, Division of Health Facilities Planning Public Health Service Federal Aviation Administration Real Estate & Utilities Branch Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission, Engineering Division Federal Energy Management Agency Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration, Property & Services Branch, HMS-21 Federal Highway Administration, Regional 9 General Services Administration National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Region 9 Federal Facilities Logistics Division National Park Service National Science Foundation Naval Postgraduate School Office of Cultural Resource Preservation Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Office of Economic Adjustment Office of the Solicitor Pacific Southwest Region U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft ElS Volume I 9-1 Distribution List December 1992 U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Bureau of Prisons Western Region U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region U.S. Coast Guard (G-EVC-4) U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection San Benito-Monterey Ranger Unit U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Navy Marine Corps U.S. Economic Development Administration U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Navy, Western Division Naval Facilities, Engineering Command U.S. Office of Acquisition & Property Real Property Division U.S. Soil Conservation Service Western Area Power Administration, Sacramento Area Office STATE AGENCIES California Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service California Air Resources Board California Assembly Committee on Agriculture California Assembly Committee on Natural Resources California Assembly Committee on Water, Parks & Wildlife California Assembly Office of Research California Chamber of Commerce California Coastal Commission California Department of Commerce California Department of Conservation California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Food and Agriculture California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Environmental Office California Department of General Services California Department of Housing and Community Development California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development California Department of Parks and Recreation California Department of Transportation, District 5 California Department of Water Resources California Energy Commission California Environmental Affairs Agency California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control California Native American Heritage Commission California Office of Emergency Services Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 9-2 Distribution List December 1992 California Office of Historic Preservation California Public Utilities Commission Energy Branch California Solid Waste Management Board California State Clearing House Office of the Governor California State Coastal Conservancy California State Lands Commission California State University, San Jose California State Water Resources Control Board California Water Commission California Wildlife Conservation Board Economic Development Administration REGIONAL AGENCIES Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region County of Monterey Local Agency Formation Commission County of Monterey Water Resources Agency County of Santa Cruz, Regional Transportation Commission Marina County Water District Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Monterey Coast Resource Conservation District Monterey Peninsula Airport District Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Monterey Regional Waste Management District Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Monterey Salinas Transit Northern Salinas Valley Mosquito Abatement District Salinas Rural Fire District Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital District Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District LOCAL AGENCIES City of Capitola City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City of Del Rey Oaks City of Gonzales City of Greenfield City of Hollister City of King City City of Marina City of Monterey City of Pacific Grove City of Salinas City of San Juan Bautista City of Sand City City of Santa Cruz City of Seaside City of Soledad Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 9-3 Distribution List December 1992. City of Watsonville County of Monterey County of Monterey, Aromas Branch Library County of Monterey, Big Sur Branch Library County of Monterey, Board of Supervisors County of Monterey, Bradley Branch Library County of Monterey, Carmel Valley Branch Library County of Monterey, Castroville Branch Library County of Monterey, Free Libraries County of Monterey, Gonzales Branch Library County of Monterey, Greenfield Branch Library County of Monterey, Harrison Memorial Library County of Monterey, King City Branch Library County of Monterey, Marina Branch Library County of Monterey, Monterey Public Library County of Monterey, Pacific Grove Public Library County of Monterey, Pajaro Branch Library County of Monterey, Park Branch Library County of Monterey, Parkfield Library County of Monterey, Prunedale Branch Library County of Monterey, Salinas Public Library County of Monterey, San Lucas Branch Library County of Monterey, Santa Lucia Branch Library County of Monterey, Soledad Branch Library County of Monterey, Steinbeck Library County of San Benito County of San Luis Obispo, Armas Branch Library County of San Luis Obispo County of San Luis Obispo, Morro Bay Public Library County of San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles Public Library County of Santa Cruz San Luis Obispo Public Library Seaside Branch Municipal Public Library Steinbeck Library, Salinas Public Library ORGANIZATIONS A-1 Ambulance Service, Inc. A.F G R. Local 2082 Monterey Green Party American Cetacean Society Audubon Society of Monterey B & V-Waste Science and Technology Corporation Biosystems Analysis Breon, O'Donnell, Miller, Brown & Dannis California Preservation Foundation California-American Water Company California Native Plant Society Carmel Valley Historical Society Carmel Valley Trails Association Center for Natural Lands Management, Inc. Church of the Oaks Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 9-4 Distribution List December 1992 Citizens For A State Seashore Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula Conference of California Historical Society Region 21 Crown Packing Company, Inc. Dames & Moore Defenders of Wildlife Empire West Companies Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Law Services Fort Ord Federal Credit Union Fort Ord Task Force Friends of the Sea Otter Foundation Health Golden State Wildlife Federation Goodwill Industries Public Relations & Development Greater Victory Temple Gromax HMH, Inc. Harding Lawson Associates Johnson Municipal Engineering League of Women Voters Mid-Coast Health Systems Agency Monterey Bay Dunes Coalition Monterey Bay Search Dogs, Inc. Monterey County Cattleman's Association Monterey Culinary Insurance & Pension Funds Monterey Institute of International Studies Monterey Mountain Bike Association Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society Monterey Peninsula College Monterey Velo Club National Audubon Society Natividad Medical Center Pacific Bell Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Grove Eco-Corps Parsons Brinckerhoff Peace Coalition Peninsula Paramedics Pozzi Brothers Public Affairs Management RKG Associates, Inc. Seaside Task Force Sierra Club, Ventana Chapter Southern Pacific Transportation Company Surfrider Foundation The Carriage House University Advancement The Cleaning Machine The Nature Conservancy The Rancho Buena Vista Coalition The York School University of California, Santa Cruz Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 9-5 Distribution List December 1992 Wallace Holm Architects, Inc. Wilbur Smith Associates Window to the West MEDIA Carmel Pine Cone/Carmel Valley Outlook Carmel Valley Sun Casey Newspapers Community Spirit El Sol Spanish Newspaper Exchange Coast Weekly Free Lance Newspaper Gonzales Tribune Greenfield News KAZU 90.3FM Public Radio Monterey Bay Tribune Monterey Peninsula Herald Paso Robles Daily Press Salinas Californian San Luis Obispo Tribune/Telegram Seaside Post News Sentinel Soledad Bee The Paper The Rustler Watsonville Register-Pajoronian Weststar Cable INDIVIDUALS Albert, Dan Ansel, R. M. Atkins, Thomas Baker, Vivian Barich, Marion Bausch, Lagier Jennifer Beahan, Violet Beavers, Charles Bloomer, Steve Bradshaw, Patti Carillo, Joan Cendroski, Catherine Da-Aton, Mark Davis, Daniel Davis, John Davis, Paul Davis, Dennis Davis, E. C. De La Paz, Marjory Degrom, Tom Del Piero, Marc Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 9-6 Distribution List December 1992 Domingo, Carmen Dondero, Debbie Edmonds, Jr. Jay Eskridge, Charlie Ferguson, Mark Fernandez, Lei Figueroa, Jose Fisher, Paul Fisher, Morris Foster, Larry M. Freedman, Ralph Friedrich, Pat Garcia, Pam Gaytan, Charlyne Goding, Joe Grothe, Georgia Hansen, George Happs, Robert Harris, Samuel E. Hatcher, Robert Haws, John Helton, Ria Hohn, Cynthia Horning, Linda Hulquist, Lee Huston, Kathy Joesten, Glenn Johnson, Patricia Kaisavage, Anthony Kawamoto, Paul Kerr, Laura Kilakalua, Vincent Krotzer, Ruth Lajeunesse, Robert Larsen, Robert Larson, Carl Lauritson, P. I. Lawrence, Gary Lindogan, Lindy Lindstrom, Kris Lockwood, Inez Lowe, Glen Lyon, Yvonne Marcus, Larry Marquardt, Grace Mast, Mike Mickelson, Debra J. Miles, Richard Miner, Barbara Moore, Thomas P. Myers, Candy Nakagawa, Gordon Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 9-7 Distribution List December 1992 Nee, Maxine Nichols, Renee Nishi, Ken Norman, Ann Owen, Mike Parker, Douglas Pendergrass, David K. Phillips, Daniel Reber, Annette Rice, Heidi Righello, Charles Rinehart, Dawn Roach, Douglas S. Rubin, Harry Schoening, Rosemarie Schutzler, Don Shroeder, Steve Silva-Santella, Grace Singh, Richard Swibies, Gerald Thompson, Neil Thornmeyer, Carl Tiernan, Robert Tomlin, Mike Tower, Ann Truscott, Wes Vagnini, Stephen Vaughn, Bedford Vega, Nelson Vercoe, Mel Vocelka, James L. Walker, David Washburn, G. L. Wilkinson, Georgine Wilmot, John Wright, Norma Note: A complete distribution list is available upon request. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I 9-8 Distribution List December 1992 Index Discussed in: Actions Analyzed Vol. I, Sec. 1 Adjacent Land Uses Vol. I, Sec. 4 Agency/Task Force Involvement Vol. I, Sec. 2 Agriculture/Horticulture Vol. I, Sec. 4 Air Quality Vol. I. Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Air Quality Appendix Vol. Ill, Appendix N Alternative 1: High-Intensity Mixed Use Vol. I, Sec. 3 Alternative 2: Medium-Intensity Mixed Use Vol. I, Sec. 3 Alternative 3: Low-Intensity Mixed Use Vol. I, Sec. 3 Alternative 4: Institutional Use Vol. I, Sec. 3 Alternative 5: Open Space Vol. I, Sec. 3 Alternative 6: Anticipated Reuse Vol. I, Sec. 3 Amended Programmatic Agreements Vol. ill, Appendix P Biological Communities Vol. I, Sec. 4 Cable Television Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5 Caretaker Vol. I, Sec. 2, 5 Chaparral and Coastal Scrub Communities Vol. I, Sec. 4 Coast Live Oak Woodland and Savanna Communities Vol. I, Sec. 4 Coastal Strand and Dune Communities Vol. I, Sec. 4 Community Vision Package Used in Development of EIS Alternatives Vol. Ill, Appendix E Contaminated Sites Voi. I, Sec. 5 Contaminated Site Cleanup Vol. I, Sec. 2 Contaminated Site Remediation Vol. I, Sec. 1 Coordination with Reuse Committees Vol. I, Sec. 1 Cultural Resources Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Disposal Effects Vol. I, Sec. 5; Vol. II Disposal Process Vol. I, Sec. 2 Emergency Medical Services Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5 Erosion Vol. I, Sec. 4 Fire Protection Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Gas and Electric Service Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Grassland Communities Vol. I, Sec. 4 Groundwater Vol. I, Sec. 4 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site Remediation Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Historic Storage and Disposal of Hazardous Waste Vol. I, Sec. 4 Hydrology and Water Quality Vol. I, Sec. 4, 6; Vol. II Installation Land Uses Vol. I, Sec. 4 Interim Use Vol. I, Sec. 2, 5 Land Use Definitions Vol. Ill, Appendix H Land Use Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Law Enforcement Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Livestock Grazing Vol. I, Sec. 4 Local Reuse Planning Status Vol. I, Sec. 2; Vol. Ill, Appendix G Location Vol. I, Sec. 2 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Index Draft EIS Volume I December 1992 Medical Services Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Mission Vol. I, Sec. 2 Mitigation Summary Vol. I, Sec. 5 Monterey Peninsula College Vol. I, Sec. 4 Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Vol. I, Sec. 4 No Action Vol. I, Sec. 3 No Presidio of Monterey Annex Vol. I, Sec. 5 Noise Vol. I. Sec. 4. 5; Vol. II Noise Appendix Vol. Ill, Appendix O North County Unified School District Vol. I, Sec. 4 Notice of Intent Vol. I, Sec. 1; Vol. Ill, Appendix A Other Federal, State, and Local Agency Reuse Proposals Vol. Ill, Appendix F Overview of the Biological Resources at Fort Ord Vol. I, Sec. 4 Parcels Vol. I, Sec. 2 Population and Housing Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Potential Remedial Measures Vol. I, Sec. 5 Pre-Disposal Actions Vol. I, Sec. 2, 5 Preserves and Significant Natural Areas Vol. I, Sec. 4 Presidio of Monterey Annex, Appendix Vol. Ill, Appendix D Presidio of Monterey Annex, Army's Proposed Vol. I, Sec. 2, 3, 5 Presidio of Monterey Annex, City of Seaside's Recommended Vol. I, Sec. 3, 5 Presidio of Monterey Annex, Establishment of Vol. I, Sec. 2, 3, 5 Proposed Action Vol. I, Sec. 2 Public Health and Safety Appendix Vol. Ill, Appendix L Public Hearing Vol. I, Sec. 1 Public Involvement Vol. I, Sec. 1 Public Services and Utilities Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Public Services and Utilities Appendix Vol. Ill, Appendix J Public Workshops Vol. I, Sec. 1 Public Health and Safety Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Purpose and Need Vol. I, Sec. 1 Real Estate Disposal Process Vol. I, Sec. 2 Realignment of Personnel and Functions Vol. I, Sec. 2 Recreation Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Regional Economy Vol. I, Sec. 4 Regulation of Hazardous Materials and Waste Vol. I, Sec. 4 Relevant Plans and Policies Vol. I, Sec. 4; Vol. Ill Retention of Reserve Center Vol. I, Sec. 2, 3, 5 Reuse Vol. I, Sec. 2, 3 Reuse Alternatives Vol. I, Sec. 5; Vol. II Reuse Alternatives Appendix Vol. Ill, Appendix I Reuse Development Process Vol. I, Sec. 2 Riparian Communities Vol. I, Sec. 4 Salinas Elementary School District Vol. I, Sec. 4 Salinas Union High School District Vol. I, Sec. 4 Schools Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Scope Vol. I, Sec. 1 Scoping Meeting Participants * Vol. Ill, Appendix C Scoping Meeting Announcements Vol. Ill, Appendix B Scoping Process Vol. I, Sec. 1 Seismic Safety (Public Health) Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Seismic Hazards (Soils) Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Site Characterization and Remedial Investigations * Vol. I, Sec. 4 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Index December 1992 Social Services Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5, Vol. II Socioeconomics Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Soils, Geology, Topography, and Seismicity Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Solid Waste Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Source Areas of Hazardous and Toxic Waste Vol. I, Sec. 4 Special Native Biological Communities Vol. I, Sec. 4 Special-Status Biological Resources Vol. I, Sec. 4 Special-Status Plant Species Vol. I, Sec. 4 Storm Drainage System Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Subalternatives Vol. I, Sec. 3, 5; Vol. II Surface Water Vol. I, Sec. 4 Telephone Service Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Topography Vol. I, Sec. 4 Toxic Contaminants and Live Ordnance Vol. I, Sec. 4 Traffic and Circulation Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Traffic and Circulation Appendix Vol. Ill, Appendix M Transmission Lines Vol. I, Sec. 4 Vegetation, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Vegetation Management Programs Vol. I, Sec. 4 Visual Resources Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Wastewater Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Water Supply and Demand Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Water Quality Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Water Resources Vol. I, Sec. 4, 5; Vol. II Water Distribution System Vol. I, Sec. 4 Water Resources Appendix Vol. Ill, Appendix K Wetland and Open Water Communities Vol. I, Sec. 4 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Index December 1992 Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Draft EIS Volume I Index December 1992 a List of Acronyms 7th IDL 7th Infantry Division (Light) FOPD AAFES Army-Air Force exchange service FORG ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation FORSCOM at acre-feet AMBAG Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments FOST AQMP air quality management plan FSI ARB California Air Resources Board FY Army U.S. Department of the Army GIS BAQ/VHA Basic allowance for quarter/ HCP variable housing allowance HUD BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CAD computer-aided design iMPLAN CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency IWR Caltrans California Department of Transportation JTPA CCRWQCB Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control kV Board kW CEQ Council on Environmental Quality LAFCO CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Ldn Compensation, and Liability Act CERFA Community Environmental Response Facilitation LOS Act of 1992 MBUAPCD CERL U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction, Engineering, and Research Laboratory MCFH CHAMPUS Civilian Health and Medical Program MCWRA of the Uniformed Services CNEL community noise equivalent level MEDIVAC CNPS California Native Plant Society MW CO carbon monoxide MGE Commission Defense Base Closure and Realignment mgJ Commission MPWMD CRMP Coordinated Ftesource Management Plan CRP community relations plan MPUSD dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel scale MRWPCA DERAAP Draft Environmental Restoration Acceleration Action Plan MWR DFG California Department of Fish and Game NAD DLI Defense Language Institute NAF DOD U.S. Department of Defense NCUSD DOHS California Department of Health Services NDDB EAC economic adjustment committee NF.PA EBS environmental baseline study NHL EBST Environmental Baseline Study for Transfer NHPA EDC Economic Development Corporation NOAA EIFS Economic Impact Forecast System EIS environmental impact statement NOI EMFACSCF California Air Resources Board emission model NFU EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NRHP EPNA enhanced preliminary assessment OEA FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency PA FHWA Federal Highway Administration PCB FFA federal facilities agreement PG&E FOEDA Fort Ord Economic Development Authority PL FOFPPD Fort Ord Fire Prevention and Protection PM 10 Division Fort Ord Police Department Fort Ord Reuse Group U.S. Department of the Army, Headquarters, Forces Command Rnding of Suitability for Transfer Forecast Significance of Impacts fiscal year geographic information system habitat conservation plan U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Impact Analysis for Planning Army Institute of Water Resources Job Training Partnership Act kilovolt kilowatt Monterey County Local Agency Commission day-night average sound level equivalent noise levels level of service Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District million cubic feet per hour Monterey County Water Resources Agency Medical evacuation megawatt MicroStation GIS Environment million gallons per day Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Morale, welfare, recreation facilities North American Datum nonappropriated fund North County Unified School District Natural Diversity Data Base National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Landmark National Historic Preservation Act National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration notice of intent no proposed use National Register of Historic Places Office of Economic Adjustment Programmatic Agreement polychlorinated biphenyis Pacific Gas and Electric Company public law particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Preliminary Draft EIS Volume I List of Acronyms December 1992 I POM annex Presidio of Monterey annex POST Peace Officer Standards and Training PTAM Peninsula Transportation Analysis Model RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study RKG RKG Associates ROI region of influence ROD record of decision ROG reactive organic gases SCS U.S. Soil Conservation Service SECDEF Secretary of Defense sf square feet SHPO California State Historic Preservation Officer SIP State Implementation Plan SNA significant natural area SOI sphere of influence SPRR Southern Pacific Railroad SR state route SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board TAZ traffic analysis zone TOM transportation control measure TEC Test and Experimentation Command Center TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command USATHAMA U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank USTF uniformed services treatment facility V/C volume-to-capacity ratio WKA Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates Fori Ord Disposal and Reuse Preliminary Draft EIS Volume I List of Acronyms December 1992