Ferc/Feis-F-0238 Final Environmental Impact

Home , California Eagle, Coxcomb Mountains, Eagle Mountain Railroad

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Office of Energy Projects January 2012 FERC/FEIS-F-0238

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project—FERC Project No. 13123-002 California

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20426 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS To the Agency or Individual Addressed:

Reference: Final Environmental Impact Statement

Attached is the final environmental impact statement (final EIS) for the proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (No. 13123-002), which would be located in two mining pits in the largely inactive Eagle Mountain mine in Riverside County, California, near the town of Desert Center, California. This final EIS documents the view of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicant, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff. It contains staff evaluations of the applicant’s proposal and the alternatives for licensing the Eagle Mountain Project. Before the Commission makes a licensing decision, it will take into account all concerns relevant to the public interest. The final EIS will be part of the record from which the Commission will make its decision. The final EIS was sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the public on or about January 2012. Copies of the final EIS are available for review in the Commission’s Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington DC 20426. The final EIS also may be viewed on the Internet at www.ferc.gov/docs- filing/elibrary.asp. Please call (202) 502-8222 for assistance.

Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Statement 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

This page intentionally left blank. 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

COVER SHEET

a. Title: Licensing the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 13123-002 b. Subject: Final Environmental Impact Statement c. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) d. Abstract: On June 22, 2009, Eagle Crest Energy Company filed an application for an original license with the Commission for the proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, which would be located on the site of the largely inactive Eagle Mountain mine in Riverside County, California, near the town of Desert Center, California. The proposed project under current landownership would occupy 675.63 acres of federal lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and 1,545.63 acres of private lands owned by Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC. The estimated annual production from the proposed project would be a maximum of 4,308 gigawatt-hours of on-peak generation. The staff’s recommendation is to license the project as proposed, with certain modifications and additional measures recommended by the agencies and staff. e. Contact: Kenneth Hogan Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 (202) 502-8434 f. Transmittal: This final environmental impact statement to license the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project is being made available for public comment on or about January 2012, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 19691 and the Commission’s Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (18 CFR, Part 380).

1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, amended (Pub. L. 91-190. 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 1982).

iii

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

This page intentionally left blank.

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

FOREWORD

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA)2 and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act3 is authorized to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of non- federal hydroelectric development subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary conditions: That the project…shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in section 4(e)…4 The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the project.5 Compliance with such conditions during the licensing period is required. The Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure allow any person objecting to a licensee’s compliance or noncompliance with such conditions to file a complaint noting the basis for such objection for the Commission’s consideration.6

2 16 U.S.C. §791(a)-825r, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, Public Law 99-495 (1986) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (1992). 3 Public Law 95-91, 91 Stat. 556 (1977). 4 16 U.S.C. § 803(a). 5 16 U.S.C. § 803(g). 6 18 C.F.R. §385.206 (2009).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

This page intentionally left blank.

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER SHEET ...... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xi

LIST OF TABLES ...... xiii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... xix

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 APPLICATION ...... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER ...... 3 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ...... 3 1.2.2 Need for Power ...... 3 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ...... 5 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ...... 7 1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions ...... 7 1.3.1.2 Section 4(e) Conditions ...... 7 1.3.1.3 Section 10(j) Recommendations ...... 8 1.3.2 Clean Water Act ...... 8 1.3.2.1 Water Quality Certification ...... 8 1.3.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 8 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act ...... 9 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ...... 12 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act ...... 12 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION ...... 13 1.4.1 Scoping ...... 13 1.4.2 Interventions ...... 14 1.4.3 Comments on the License Application ...... 14 1.4.4 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ...... 15

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 17 2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...... 17 2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL ...... 17 2.2.1 Project Facilities ...... 17 2.2.2 Project Safety ...... 21 2.2.3 Project Operation ...... 21 2.2.4 Proposed Environmental Measures ...... 23 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ...... 29

vii 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS ...... 40 2.4.1 Eagle Crest Energy Company ...... 40 2.4.2 Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC ...... 41

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... 43 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA ...... 43 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ...... 44 3.2.1 Geographic Scope ...... 45 3.2.2 Temporal Scope ...... 45 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ...... 45 3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources ...... 46 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment ...... 46 3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects ...... 55 3.3.2 Water Resources ...... 64 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 64 3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects ...... 83 3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 110 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources ...... 115 3.3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 115 3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects ...... 144 3.3.3.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 169 3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 171 3.3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 171 3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects ...... 177 3.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 187 3.3.5 Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics ...... 189 3.3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 189 3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects ...... 204 3.3.5.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 228 3.3.6 Cultural Resources ...... 229 3.3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 229 3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects ...... 240 3.3.7 Socioeconomics ...... 245 3.3.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 245 3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects ...... 250 3.3.8 Air Quality and Noise ...... 253 3.3.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 253 3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects ...... 261 3.3.8.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 270 3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...... 270

viii 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... 271 4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT ... 271 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 276 4.2.1 No-action Alternative ...... 276 4.2.2 Eagle Crest’s Proposal ...... 276 4.2.3 Staff Alternative ...... 277 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES ...... 277

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 299 5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 299 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ...... 310 5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ...... 334 5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ...... 335

6.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 337

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 351

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS ...... 353

APPENDIX A—Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (Project No. 13123-002)

ix 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

This page intentionally left blank.

x 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project ...... 2 Figure 2. Transmission line routes ...... 10 Figure 3. Proposed facilities and reservoirs and existing features of the Eagle Mountain Project ...... 18 Figure 4. Profile of the proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project underground facilities ...... 20 Figure 5. Mountains and groundwater basins in the project area ...... 47 Figure 6. Eagle Mountain Project area geologic map ...... 49 Figure 7. Location of wells with long-term groundwater level records ...... 72 Figure 8. Existing and proposed wells for groundwater monitoring ...... 97 Figure 9. Vegetation in the project area and staff assessment of disturbance to native vegetation in the central project area ...... 116 Figure 10. Water sources in the project area identified in the NECO Plan ...... 124 Figure 11. Results of special-status plant surveys ...... 139 Figure 12. Results of special-status wildlife surveys ...... 140 Figure 13. Desert bighorn sheep ewe migratory routes in the central project area .... 142 Figure 14. Results of 2010, 2009, and 2008 desert tortoise surveys ...... 178 Figure 15. Recreation resources in the vicinity of the proposed project ...... 190 Figure 16. Land ownership in the vicinity of the proposed project ...... 193 Figure 17. Proposed phasing of the landfill project ...... 196 Figure 18. Land use near the applicant’s proposed and State Water Board’s and Interior’s preferred alternative substations locations and associated transmission routes ...... 210 Figure 19. Visual resources in the substation and transmission line areas ...... 220

xi 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

This page intentionally left blank.

xii 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the Eagle Mountain Hydroelectric Project ...... 6 Table 2. Summary of flow data (cfs) from USGS Gage No. 10253600 ...... 65 Table 3. Relevant beneficial use definitions for the Colorado River Basin ...... 67 Table 4. Applicable water quality objectives for waters potentially affected by the proposed project ...... 68 Table 5. Groundwater quality from the Upper Chuckwalla Well #1 ...... 69 Table 6. Applicable groundwater quality objectives for the Colorado River Basin ...... 70 Table 7. Summary of groundwater elevation trends in the Chuckwalla and adjacent groundwater basins as measured in wells with long-term records ...... 75 Table 8. Peak flow (cfs) during the probable maximum flood ...... 86 Table 9. Expected reverse osmosis concentrations ...... 89 Table 10. Description of factors that control acid rock drainage ...... 93 Table 11. Summary of existing and project pumping effects on groundwater storage in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin...... 98 Table 12. Maximum Allowable Changes proposed for water levels in the groundwater monitoring network ...... 105 Table 13. Summary of water wells in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin that would potentially experience project-induced drawdown in excess of 5 feet ...... 107 Table 14. Expected water usage by proposed solar plants in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin ...... 111 Table 15. Summary of cumulative pumping effects on groundwater storage in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin ...... 113 Table 16. Annual water use and energy production of different energy production facilities ...... 114 Table 17. Acreage of native habitats and disturbed areas in the Eagle Crest- proposed project area ...... 118 Table 18. Potential for special-status species ...... 126 Table 19. Acreage of desert tortoise habitat in the Eagle Crest project area ...... 173

xiii 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 20. Archaeological and historic resources within the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route ...... 236 Table 21. Archaeological and historic resources within the Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route ...... 238 Table 22. Population ...... 246 Table 23. Riverside County employment by sector, 2006 ...... 248 Table 24. Housing accommodations and characteristics ...... 249 Table 25. Selected California and federal ambient air quality standards ...... 256 Table 26. Project area designations in 2010 under NAAQS and California AAQS ...... 257 Table 27. South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds (pounds per day) ...... 258 Table 28. A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) sound levels of typical noise environments ...... 259 Table 29. Estimated annual construction emissions (tons) ...... 263 Table 30. Daily construction emissions (pounds) ...... 264 Table 31. Annual operational emissions (tons) ...... 265 Table 32. Annual electrical generation offset of CO2 emissions ...... 266

Table 33. Minimum distances and Lmax noise levels (in dBA) at sensitive land uses ...... 268 Table 34. Parameters for the economic analysis of the Eagle Mountain Project ...... 272 Table 35. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for the alternatives for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project ...... 276 Table 36. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in assessing the environmental effects of the proposed operation of the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project ...... 278 Table 37. Comparison of the proposed action and the staff alternative for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project ...... 299 Table 38. Summary of key differences in the potential effects of Eagle Crest’s proposal and the staff alternative for the route of the proposed transmission line ...... 323

xiv 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Advisory Council Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AIR Additional Information Request APE area of potential effects applicant or Eagle Crest Eagle Crest Energy Company AQMD Air Quality Management District Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin within California BLM U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management bsg below surface grade BMP best management practice CAISO California Independent System Operator California DFG California Department of Fish and Game California DWR California Department of Water Resources California GS California Geology Survey California SHPO California State Historic Preservation Officer CAMA California-Arizona Maneuver Area CARB California Air Resources Board CDCA California Desert Conservation Area CDNPA California Desert Native Plants Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act cfs cubic feet per second CH4 methane CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission County Sanitation District County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dBA A-weighted decibel scale DWMA Desert Wildlife Management Area Eagle Mountain Project Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project or project ECORP ECORP Consulting, Inc. EIR environmental impact report EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act

xv 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

°F degrees Fahrenheit FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service FPA Federal Power Act FWS U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service gpm gallons per minute GWh gigawatt-hour HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan Interior U.S. Department of the Interior JTNP Joshua Tree National Park and wilderness area Kaiser Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC kV kilovolt kW kilowatt LED light-emitting diode mg/L milligrams per liter Ma mega-anum, or million years ago Metropolitan Water District Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MOU Memorandum of Understanding msl mean sea level MW megawatt MWh megawatt-hour NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Register National Register of Historic Places NECO Plan Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 N2O nitrous oxide NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides O3 ozone OHV off-highway vehicle PA Programmatic Agreement Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Pb lead PGA peak ground acceleration PM2.5 particulate matter greater than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 particulate matter greater than 10 microns in diameter PMF probable maximum flood PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration REA Ready for Environmental Analysis Regional Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board ROW right-of-way

xvi 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison SCEDC Southern California Earthquake Data Center SD1 Scoping Document 1 SD2 Scoping Document 2 SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board TCP traditional cultural property THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office USGS U.S. Geological Survey WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program VOC volatile organic compound VRI visual resource inventory VRM visual resource management

xvii 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

This page intentionally left blank.

xviii 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This final environmental impact statement (final EIS) evaluates the environmental effects associated with licensing the proposed 1,300-megawatt (MW) Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (Eagle Mountain Project or project). The proposed project would be located on the site of the largely inactive Eagle Mountain mine, in Riverside County, California, near the town of Desert Center. The project would not be located on a perennial river and, therefore, would operate as a closed system.7 The project would supply system peaking capacity and transmission regulating benefits to the regional electrical grid. Under current land ownership, the proposed project would occupy 675.63 acres of federal lands managed by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 467 of state acres of land administered by the California State Lands Commission, and about 1,545.63 acres of private lands owned by Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC.8

Proposed Action The project as proposed by Eagle Crest Energy (Eagle Crest or applicant) would use reservoirs created from two largely inactive mining pits near the town of Desert Center, California. The project would consist of: (1) an upper and lower reservoir with surface areas of 191 and 163 acres, respectively;9 (2) an underground powerhouse with four reversible pump-turbine units each rated at 325 MW for a total generating capacity of 1,300 MW; (3) a 13.5-mile-long transmission line; and (4) groundwater supply facilities. Project facilities are described in more detail in section 2.2.1. The project would operate as a pumped storage facility that would pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir during periods of low energy demand and discharge water to the lower reservoir to generate electricity during periods of high demand. Eagle Crest proposes the following measures for the protection and enhancement of environmental resources during project construction and/or operation: (1) implement the Phase 1 Pre-Design Site Investigation Plan since access to the privately owned project site is currently limited; (2) implement the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; (3) develop and implement a water management plan; (4) develop a network of groundwater monitoring wells; (5) develop measures to prevent effects such as subsidence (from increased groundwater levels) on the operation of the Metropolitan

7 For the purposes of this project, the system is defined as closed because it would not have a surface water hydrological connection other than occasional stream flow from the ephemeral Eagle Creek. 8 The actual amount of federal land the project would occupy will depend on pending litigation associated with a land exchange that occurred in 1999. 9 As part of the project’s construction, Eagle Crest would need to install two saddle dams at the upper reservoir/mine site.

xix 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Water District of Southern California’s Colorado River Aqueduct (Colorado River Aqueduct); 10 (6) install a reverse osmosis desalination facility to maintain water quality in the reservoirs at the level of the source water; (7) implement the Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan; (8) implement the Revegetation Plan for disturbed areas during construction; (9) construct fencing for security and to exclude larger terrestrial wildlife from entering project areas; (10) implement the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan prior to and during construction; (11) implement the Predator Monitoring and Control Plan; (12) design, install, and maintain facility lighting to limit light pollution; (13) acquire land to mitigate for the desert tortoise habitat that may be disturbed by the project; (14) maintain recreational access to areas near the proposed project during construction; (15) implement the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) filed March 4, 2011; and (16) limit the effects of project construction and operation on air quality and noise. These and other proposed measures are described in detail in section 2.2.4.

Alternatives Considered This final EIS analyzes the effects of proposed project construction and operation and recommends conditions for any license that may be issued for the project. In addition to the applicant’s proposal, we consider two alternatives: (1) the applicant’s proposal with staff modifications (staff alternative); and (2) no action—whereby the project would not be constructed. In addition, we analyzed three transmission line routes: the applicant’s proposed transmission line route, the State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Water Board’s) preferred alternative route, and a transmission route endorsed by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior). As a result, the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route is included in the staff alternative. Under Eagle Crest’s proposal with staff modifications, the project would operate as proposed by Eagle Crest but would also include the following expanded or additional measures: (1) construct the project transmission line along the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route, rather than the applicant’s proposed route; (2) connect the project to the grid by terminating the transmission line at the State Water Board’s preferred substation location south of Interstate 10 about 6 miles east of Eagle Crest’s proposed substation location; (3 ) modify the stream channel along the ephemeral Eagle Creek; (4) monitor water quality and levels of the reservoirs, brine ponds, and leakage during project operation; (5) prepare a groundwater hydrologic budget and reports; (6) conduct a performance pumping test of the final seepage recovery system prior to reservoir filling to ensure that local control of the groundwater near the proposed reservoirs is possible; (7) decrease the filling rates of the reservoirs during the initial

10 Subsidence is the downward settling of the land surface caused by a lowering of the water table (such as by extensive water withdrawal) or an increase in the water table that causes the consolidation and settling of the soils.

xx 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

filling period if drawdown in groundwater levels exceed the Maximum Allowable Changes threshold; 11 (8) prevent groundwater levels from encroaching within 5 feet of the bottom of the landfill liners; (9) limit subsidence to less than 0.125 foot near the Colorado River Aqueduct; (10) modify the proposed Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan to include criteria for success and develop additional environmental measures if initial efforts are not successful; (11) install fencing to exclude most small mammals and reptiles from project reservoirs; (12) prevent the establishment of woody riparian vegetation along project reservoirs; (13) provide 1-mile buffers around active raptor nests; (14) initiate surveys for nesting migratory birds in January before beginning and during each year of construction; (15) monitor use of drinking water access areas for wildlife and consult with BLM, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and California Department of Fish and Game (California DFG) to develop additional water sources if proposed water access sites do not benefit bighorn sheep; (16) consult with BLM, FWS, and California DFG to develop and implement a burrowing owl relocation program, if pre-construction surveys detect active owl burrows in the disturbance zones, (17) modify the proposed avian protection plan to include measures to reduce avian collisions with the transmission line and monitor avian injury and mortality associated with the line; (18) survey for the spadefoot toad (a BLM sensitive species and a state of California species of special concern) before construction and, if found, implement measures to avoid disturbance to this species; (19) implement the Predator Monitoring and Control Plan included in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission’s) Biological Assessment issued on April 21, 2011; and (20) develop plans, in consultation with resource agencies for installing the water pipeline and, where on private lands, in the most desirable location for the landowner, to the extent possible. The recommended staff modifications include, or are based in part on, recommendations made by the federal and state resource agencies that have an interest in the resources that may be affected by the project’s construction and operation.

Public Involvement and Areas of Concern Before filing its license application, Eagle Crest conducted a pre-filing consultation process under the traditional licensing process. The intent of the Commission’s pre-filing process is to initiate public involvement early in the project planning process and encourages citizens, governmental entities, tribes, and other interested parties to identify and resolve issues before an application is formally filed with the Commission. After the application was filed, we conducted scoping to determine which issues and alternatives should be addressed. On December 17, 2008, we distributed Scoping Document 1 (SD1) to interested parties, soliciting comments, recommendations, and

11 The Maximum Allowable Change for ground water levels reductions are identified in table 12.

xxi 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

information about the project. We held public scoping meetings in Palm Desert, California, on January 15 and 16, 2009. In SD1, we requested clarification of preliminary issues concerning the Eagle Mountain Project and identification of any new issues that needed to be addressed in the EIS. Based on written comments filed with the Commission, we issued a revised scoping document (SD2) on June 5, 2009. On January 11, 2010, we requested conditions and recommendations from state and federal resource agencies in response to the Ready for Environmental Analysis notice. On December 23, 2010, we issued the draft EIS for licensing the proposed project. We conducted two public meetings regarding our draft EIS on February 3, 2011, in Palm Desert, California. Comments on the draft EIS were due by February 28, 2011, and we received comments from: the State Water Board; Center for Biological Diversity; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Jonny Coon; the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club; Metropolitan Water District; Philip R. Hu; JoAnn and Warren Dean; Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; Brenden Hughes; Eagle Crest; Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC; Mine Reclamation, LLC; Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (Park Service); and County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County. The primary environmental issues associated with licensing the project are the effects of the proposed project’s construction and operation on groundwater, water quality, and terrestrial species, including several state-sensitive bat species, the BLM sensitive desert bighorn sheep, and the threatened desert tortoise.

Project Effects

Geology and Soils Constructing the project would require the movement of about 3 million cubic yards of material for the construction of the two saddle dams and liners for the proposed reservoirs, additional surface excavation for the proposed water lines, and infrastructure associated with the proposed transmission line and substation. Under the applicant’s proposal, erosion and sediment transport would be controlled during construction through implementation of the proposed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

Water Resources Groundwater levels would be affected by withdrawals from a series of proposed wells in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin to fill the reservoirs and replace water lost to evaporation. After the reservoirs are filled, high evaporation rates could degrade the water quality in the reservoirs and seepage from the reservoirs could affect nearby groundwater quality. Changes to the current surface water flow patterns during the very rare rainfall events would be affected by construction of the proposed project. The reservoirs and other proposed infrastructure are designed to withstand the probable maximum flood inflow from Eagle Creek and smaller watersheds that would occasionally reach the proposed reservoirs. Under the applicant’s proposal, groundwater withdrawal

xxii 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

would be limited to less than the historical levels associated with agricultural irrigation. Monitoring wells and other methods would determine the amount of seepage from the proposed reservoirs, the water level change due to pumping, water quality effects due to project operations, and the potential for subsidence near existing key infrastructure, including the Colorado River Aqueduct. A proposed reverse osmosis system would remove salts and metals from the reservoirs to help maintain the water quality of the reservoirs and counteract degradation associated with evaporation. Under the staff alternative, additional monitoring and testing of the reservoirs, brine ponds, and wells would occur, and our modifications would provide more protection, warning, opportunities, and measures to rectify potential negative effects that could occur during construction and operation of the proposed project, including additional measures to protect the groundwater levels within the area, protect groundwater quality, and perform stream channel modifications along Eagle Creek.

Terrestrial Resources Construction of the proposed project would disturb lands within the footprint of the project facilities, including the reservoirs, access roads, substation, transmission lines, and other areas. The disturbance associated with filling the project reservoirs and creating a new source of drinking water for wildlife has the potential to affect bats that roost in rock crevices within the existing mine craters and alter migration movement for bighorn sheep. Under Eagle Crest’s proposal, Interior’s preferred alternative, and the staff alternative, construction of the proposed transmission line has the potential to disturb desert vegetation and associated wildlife habitat that is slow to regenerate within the desert ecosystem. This disturbance would be associated with grading of access roads, storage areas, and pull sites associated with construction of the proposed transmission line and water supply pipeline. Under the applicant’s proposal and the staff alternative, site-specific mitigation, monitoring, and compliance programs would be implemented during project construction and operation to limit invasive species colonization and environmental effects on special-status plant and animal species, but these measures could also be applied to Interior’s preferred route. Specifically, the applicant would implement measures in its Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP), Revegetation Plan, and Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan to limit potential effects on terrestrial resources. Security fencing is proposed to limit access to the majority of the central project area by bighorn sheep, deer, coyotes, foxes, and badgers. The fencing also is designed to provide safe access to the new source of drinking water for wildlife. Eagle Crest also proposes to develop and implement a transmission line design plan, based on industry and regulatory standards, to protect raptors from electrocution hazards. Under the staff alternative, the proposed Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan would be modified to include criteria for success, additional monitoring, and the development of environmental measures if initial efforts do not prove successful. Additionally, the reservoirs, water seepage areas, and areas disturbed during project

xxiii 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

maintenance would be monitored for invasive plants. The design of the exclusion fences around the reservoirs would be modified to also exclude small mammals and reptiles from the project reservoirs. The proposed Revegetation Plan would be modified to include use of certified weed-free materials and increased irrigation for transplanted plants. The transmission line design plan would also be modified to include avian protection measures that, in addition to the applicant’s proposed measures to prevent electrocutions, would also include measures to reduce potential for avian collisions with the transmission line and a protocol to monitor and report avian injury and mortality associated with the transmission line. Pre-construction surveys for the spadefoot toad would occur in all proposed construction areas not previously surveyed, and if this species is found, measures to avoid disturbance would be followed.

Threatened and Endangered Species Two federally listed species have the potential to occur in the project area: the endangered Coachella Valley milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) and the threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), but only the desert tortoise has been observed in the project area. Construction of the proposed transmission line and water pipeline, as well as components of the central project area, would occur within potential desert tortoise habitat. The operation of heavy machinery and grading in this area may adversely affect desert tortoise through vehicular collisions, burrow collapse, and vegetation removal. In addition, following construction, the transmission line could provide nesting and perching habitat for ravens and gulls and water access for coyotes and feral dogs, all potential desert tortoise predators. As a result, Eagle Crest would implement measures in its WEAP, Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/ Translocation Plan and Predator Monitoring and Control Plan to protect the threatened desert tortoise during construction and operation of the project. Additionally, Eagle Crest would purchase and protect land to compensate for desert tortoise habitat that would be disturbed during construction of the proposed project or lost as a result of the project. Under the staff alternative, Eagle Crest’s proposed plan to monitor and control desert tortoise predators would be modified to include specific survey methods for coyotes and wild dogs and would include mitigation and control measures for these additional species. The staff-modified Predator Monitoring and Control Plan would also include more frequent surveys during the early years of the project. Further, as discussed below, the staff alternative transmission line route would reduce effects within the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit for desert tortoise by up to 18.6 acres, as compared to the alternative routes considered.

Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics Construction and operation of the project could adversely affect recreation, land use, and aesthetics in the project area through increased nighttime sky lighting, limits to some access routes, and inundation of some of the remaining but currently non- economical ore reserves. Recreation resources in the region are primarily provided and

xxiv 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

managed by the Park Service and BLM. Much of the land in the proposed project area is public land managed by BLM or land associated with the Eagle Mountain mine. Under the applicant’s proposal, construction schedules would be coordinated with BLM for any temporary road and access closures. A directional lighting plan and other measures, including a night sky monitoring program, is proposed to limit the effects of the project lighting. Coordination of proposed project construction and operation with the possible landfill construction and operation is planned. During construction, visual effects would be limited and mitigated by these proposed measures.

Transmission Line Eagle Crest’s proposed 13.5-mile-long transmission line would parallel the existing Eagle Mountain Road for about 4.5 miles before crossing the Chuckwalla Valley in a southeasterly direction to connect to the proposed interconnection collector substation on the western edge of Desert Center. Eagle Crest’s proposed route would also result in the disturbance of about 19 acres of the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit for desert tortoise. In its draft environmental impact report for the Eagle Mountain Project, the State Water Board identified its preferred substation location and preferred alternative transmission line route. The State Water Board’s preferred substation location would be immediately south of Interstate 10 and about 6 miles east of the applicant’s proposed substation. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would diverge from the applicant’s proposed transmission line route after crossing the Colorado River Aqueduct. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would then parallel the existing 160-kilovolt Southern California Edison transmission line for about 10.5 miles going southeast to a point just north of the proposed substation, and then it would travel south about 2 miles to its preferred substation location. This route would result in the disturbance of about 0.4 acre of the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit for desert tortoise. In comments filed on the draft EIS (February 28, 2011), Interior clarified that its preferred alternative transmission line route is along Kaiser Road. This alternative route would follow the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route to Kaiser Road, turn south and parallel Kaiser Road for about 5.2 miles, and then turn east and travel about 0.9 mile, crossing over State Route 177. From here, this transmission line route would travel southeast for 0.8 mile and east for 3.7 miles, then turn south about 2 miles to the substation. In total, this alternative route would be 18.6 miles long and result in the disturbance of about 12.4 acres of the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit for desert tortoise. Under the staff alternative, the transmission line would be designed and constructed following the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route to the State Water Board’s preferred substation location that would be south of Interstate 10 and about 6 miles east of Desert Center. When compared to the proposed

xxv 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

transmission line route, the staff alternative transmission line route would be slightly longer; however, it would be largely co-located with an existing transmission line corridor outside of the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit for desert tortoise, affecting 0.4 acre and therefore minimizing effects on the threatened desert tortoise and its habitat.

Cultural Resources In addition to traditional use by Native Americans, the project area also was used historically for mineral exploration, military training during World War II, and large- scale iron ore extraction. Construction of the proposed project could affect cultural resources during excavation associated with the proposed water pipeline, construction of the proposed substation and transmission line, and construction of the proposed reservoirs in the largely inactive mining pits and the associated infrastructure. Under Eagle Crest’s proposal, cultural resources would be protected under provisions specified in its revised HPMP filed with the Commission on March 4, 2011. The Programmatic Agreement incorporates the revised HPMP.

Socioeconomics No residences or businesses would be displaced due to the construction and operation of the project. Operation of Eagle Mountain mine, which was, by far, the largest employer in the area, ended in 1983. Under Eagle Crest’s proposal, project construction would provide about 100 jobs during the peak construction period and would provide tax revenues to county and local governments. Project operation would provide about 30 jobs, as well as substantial property tax payments.

Air Quality and Noise Construction of the proposed project would include emissions from heavy equipment and dust and noise production. Under Eagle Crest’s proposal, air quality measures, including means to limit dust production and emissions from construction- related vehicles and equipment, would be implemented. Noise levels are proposed to be limited by compliance with applicable noise ordinances and equipping construction machinery with noise reduction measures.

Conclusions Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project as proposed by Eagle Crest with some staff modifications and additional measures, as described above under Alternatives Considered. In section 4.2 of the final EIS, we compare the total project cost to the cost of obtaining power from a likely alternative source of power in the region, for each of the alternatives identified above. During the first year of operation, under the applicant’s proposal, the project would produce power at a cost that is $134,052,480, or about $31.12/megawatt-hour (MWh), less than the cost of alternative power. Under the staff

xxvi 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

alternative, the project would produce power at a cost that is $133,131,500, or about $30.90/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power. Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be constructed and would provide no power. We chose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative because: (1) the project would provide a dependable source of electrical energy for the region (4,308,000 MWh annually); (2) the 1,300 MW of electric capacity would come from a renewable resource that would not contribute to atmospheric pollution; (3) pumped storage projects store power during off-peak periods that can be provided rapidly during on-peak periods and could provide a valuable addition to the stability of the regional electrical grid; and (4) the recommended environmental measures proposed by Eagle Crest, as modified by staff, would adequately protect and enhance environmental resources affected by the project. The overall benefits of the staff alternative would be worth the additional costs of the proposed and recommended environmental measures.

xxvii 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

This page intentionally left blank.

xxviii 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing Washington, DC

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 13123-002—California

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 APPLICATION On June 22, 2009, Eagle Crest Energy Company (Eagle Crest or applicant) filed an application for an original license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC). The proposed 1,300-megawatt (MW) Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (Eagle Mountain Project, or project) would be located in two largely inactive mining pits in the Eagle Mountain mine in Riverside County, California, near the town of Desert Center, California (figure 1). Under current land ownership, the proposed project would occupy 675.63 acres of federal lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 467 acres administered by the California State Lands Commission, and about 1,545.63 acres of private lands owned by Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC (Kaiser).12 The proposed project would generate an average of 4,308 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of energy annually. Eagle Crest proposes to construct and operate this pumped-storage project to provide system peaking capacity and transmission regulating benefits to regional electric utilities.

12 Portions of the lands that would be occupied by the project are part of a land exchange that occurred in 1999. This land exchange was an exchange of state-owned land for privately owned land or for other publicly owned land. As part of a nearby landfill proposal, BLM exchanged about 3,500 acres of public land within the area for off-site private lands to support the proposed landfill project in the mine area. The land exchange is the subject of past and possible future litigation and further review by Interior. If the land exchange is overturned, the project boundary for the proposed project would include nearly 1,059 acres of federal land managed by BLM. However, if the land exchange between BLM and Kaiser is upheld, the amount of federal lands affected by the proposed project would be 675.63 acres.

1 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Figure 1. Location of Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a, as modified by staff).

2 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER

1.2.1 Purpose of Action The Commission must decide whether to issue a license to Eagle Crest for the Eagle Mountain Project and what conditions should be placed on any license issued. In deciding whether to issue a license for a hydroelectric project, the Commission must determine that the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway. In addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued (such as flood control, irrigation, or water supply), the Commission must give equal consideration to: (1) energy conservation; (2) the protection of, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources; (3) the protection of recreational opportunities; and (4) the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. Issuing an original license for the Eagle Mountain Project would allow Eagle Crest to generate electricity for the term of that license, making electrical power from a renewable resource available to its customers. This final environmental impact statement (final EIS) assesses the effects associated with the construction and operation of the project and alternatives to the proposed project. It also includes recommendations to the Commission on whether to issue an original license, and if so, includes the recommended terms and conditions to become a part of any license issued. In this final EIS, we assess the environmental and economic effects of constructing and operating the project: (1) as proposed by the applicant, and (2) with staff-recommended measures. We also consider the effects of the no-action alternative. Important issues addressed are the effects of the proposed project’s construction and operation on groundwater, water quality, terrestrial species, and recreation activities.

1.2.2 Need for Power The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) annually forecasts electrical supply and demand nationally and regionally for a 10-year period. The Eagle Mountain Project would be located in the California-South subregion of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council region of NERC. According to NERC’s most recent 2010 forecast, summer peak demands and annual energy requirements for the United States’ portion of the California-South subregion are both projected to grow by 1.2 percent from 2010 through 2019 (NERC, 2010). NERC projects summer and winter resource capacity margins (generating capacity in excess of demand) will not drop below target reserve levels during the 2010–2019 period.

3 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

The 28,095 MW of future, planned generating resources that are projected to be constructed during the 2010–2019 period consist of 7.958 MW of conventional (fossil- fueled); 347 MW of hydro; 9,860 MW of wind; 9,881 MW of solar; and 49 MW of biomass facilities. California has enacted renewable resource goals to increase the percentage of renewable resource generation to 33 percent by 2020. The projected wind, solar, biomass, and small (under 30 MW) hydroelectric facilities would help to achieve these goals. However, the variable output of wind and solar facilities can create an imbalance in the stability of the electric grid if sufficient facilities are not available to balance the system. The two primary alternatives being considered in the region to address these imbalances are pumped storage facilities and gas-fired combustion turbines. The installation of pumped storage facilities for the purposes of system balancing would be supportive of California’s renewable resource goals because they do not require the burning of fossil fuels. While pumped storage facilities greater than 30 MW, such as the Eagle Mountain Project, are not directly eligible under California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) as generating facilities, these facilities can qualify under the RPS if the energy used to pump the water into the storage reservoir is provided by an eligible generating facility. Ancillary services would include spinning reserve, non-spinning reserve, frequency regulation, voltage support and regulation, load following capability, peak shaving and other services. The power benefits of pumped storage projects are discussed further in section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project. The Eagle Mountain Project, as proposed, includes a transmission line extending from the proposed Eagle Mountain switchyard to the proposed collector substation located north of Interstate 10 near Desert Center. The collector substation would be

4 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

interconnected with Southern California Edison’s (SCE) proposed Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 transmission line.13 We conclude that the Eagle Mountain Project would help provide energy, capacity, and ancillary services to the California-South subregion in both the short and long term, could provide benefits that support the integration of new renewable resources facilities to meet California’s RPS goals, and could be an eligible RPS facility if the pumping energy is derived from eligible renewable power generation.

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS A license for the Eagle Mountain Project is subject to numerous requirements under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and other applicable statutes. We summarize the major regulatory requirements in table 1 and describe them below.

13 SCE proposes to construct this transmission line to help to bring future renewable and non-renewable generation from areas in eastern Riverside County to the electric grid. As such, the Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 transmission line would assist California in meeting its aggressive goal of 33 percent of generation by renewable sources by 2020. Although the original Arizona portion of the Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 line was not approved and is no longer planned, SCE is actively pursuing the California portion of the proposed line. The transmission line would consist of: (1) a new 500/220- kilovolt (kV) Colorado River substation near Blythe, California; (2) a new 111-mile 500- kV transmission line, paralleling the existing Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 transmission line between SCE’s Devers substation near Palm Springs and the new Colorado River substation; and (3) a new 42-mile, 500-kV transmission line, also paralleling the existing Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 transmission line between the Devers substation and SCE’s Valley substation in Menifee, California. The Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 transmission line was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in November 2009. SCE applied to the CPUC for approval to expand the Colorado River substation in November 2010. SCE started construction of the Red Bluff substation in September 2011 and expects to start construction of the transmission line in January 2012. SCE expects to have the facilities complete and in service by the third quarter of 2013.

5 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the Eagle Mountain Hydroelectric Project (Source: staff). Requirement Agency Status Section 18 of the FPA U.S. Department of the No section 18 prescriptions (fishway prescriptions) Interior, Fish and Wildlife were filed. Service (FWS) Section 4(e) of the FPA BLM No section 4(e) conditions (land management were filed. conditions) Section 10(j) of the FPA FWS, California Department of No 10(j) recommendations Fish and Game (California were filed. DFG) Clean Water Act—water State Water Resources Control Eagle Crest filed its quality certification Board (State Water Board) application on September 22, 2009; it was received by the State Water Board on September 24, 2009. On October 8, 2009, the State Water Board determined that the application met the requirements for a complete application. However, on September 15, 2010, Eagle Crest simultaneously withdrew and resubmitted its application. Similarly on September 6, 2011, Eagle Crest simultaneously withdrew and resubmitted its application. The Water Board’s certification is pending.

6 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Requirement Agency Status Endangered Species Act FWS The Commission requested Consultation section 7 consultation with FWS on April 21, 2011. However based on a letter from the FWS dated September 1, 2011, formal consultation was initiated on July 20, 2011, and the Biological Opinion is due by January 31, 2012. Coastal Zone California Coastal Commission Eagle Crest filed consistency Management Act certification on March 26, Consistency 2009; in a letter dated April 28, 2009, the California Coastal Commission agreed that the project is outside of, and would not affect, a California coastal zone. National Historic California State Historic Eagle Crest consulted with Preservation Act Preservation Officer the California SHPO and (California SHPO) prepared a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) to address potential adverse effects on historic properties associated with the project.

1.3.1 Federal Power Act

1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission is to require construction, operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior). Neither the Secretary of Commerce nor the Secretary of the Interior filed section 18 prescriptions or requested that a reservation of authority to prescribe fishways under section 18 be included in any license issued for the project.

1.3.1.2 Section 4(e) Conditions Section 4(e) of the FPA provides that any license issued by the Commission for a project within a federal reservation will be subject to and contain such conditions as the Secretary of the responsible federal land management agency deems necessary for the

7 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

adequate protection and use of the reservation. BLM, which manages 1,059.26 acres of land that would be occupied by the project, did not file section 4(e) conditions.

1.3.1.3 Section 10(j) Recommendations Under section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. The Commission is required to include these conditions unless it determines that they are inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an agency recommendation, the Commission is required to attempt to resolve any such inconsistency with the agency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. No 10(j) recommendations were filed.

1.3.2 Clean Water Act

1.3.2.1 Water Quality Certification Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a license applicant must obtain certification from the appropriate state pollution control agency verifying compliance with the CWA. On September 26, 2008, Eagle Crest applied to the State Water Board for 401 water quality certification for the Eagle Mountain Project. The State Water Board received this request on September 26, 2008. Subsequently, on September 22, 2009, Eagle Crest simultaneously withdrew and resubmitted its request, which was received by the State Water Board on September 24, 2009. However, on September 15, 2010, Eagle Crest simultaneously withdrew and resubmitted its request. Similarly on September 6, 2011 Eagle Crest simultaneously withdrew and resubmitted its request. On September 7, 2011, the State Water Board determined that the application was acceptable for processing. The water quality certification is due by September 6, 2012.

1.3.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act14 The State Water Board prepared a draft environmental impact report (EIR), dated July 2010, to provide the public, governmental and/or responsible agencies, and other interested parties with information about the environmental effects of the proposed Eagle Mountain Project. The proposed action of developing and operating the pumped storage hydroelectric facility requires evaluation of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it requires discretionary approval by the

14 Information for this section is from the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Draft EIR (State Water Board, 2010).

8 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

State Water Board (State CEQA Guidelines §15357). The State Water Board is the state of California’s lead agency for implementing CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines §15367). State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 require that an EIR describe and evaluate the comparative merits of a range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible; however, State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(b) specify that the EIR evaluate alternatives capable of avoiding or substantially lessening significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives could impede to some degree attainment of project objectives, or impose additional costs. The alternatives evaluated in the draft EIR were identified based on a range of alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic project objectives and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects (State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(c)). Alternatives analyzed in the draft EIR included the proposed project, a no project alternative, a longer construction period to limit the daily emissions of nitrogen oxide, and different transmission line routes and substation locations. The State Water Board presented an alternative for the transmission route and substation location that is based on its analysis in the draft EIR, as shown in figure 2. The State Water Board’s preferred substation location would be immediately south of Interstate 10 and about 6 miles east of the applicant’s proposed substation and would be co-located with SCE’s planned Red Bluff substation. It would diverge from the applicant’s proposed transmission line after crossing the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (Metropolitan Water District’s) Colorado River Aqueduct (Colorado River Aqueduct) and would then parallel the existing 160-kilovolt (kV) SCE transmission line for about 10.5 miles going southeast to a point just north of the proposed substation. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route then would travel south about 2 miles to its substation. The State Water Board draft EIR states that this route was chosen because it would reduce biological, land use, and aesthetics impacts, although short-term air quality impacts and visual impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Our analysis of the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route and substation location is presented in section 3.3, Proposed Action and Action Alternatives, and our recommendations are presented in section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations.

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. Two federally listed species are known to occur in the Eagle Mountain Project vicinity: the Coachella Valley milkvetch and desert tortoise. There is also critical habitat for the desert tortoise in the proposed project boundary. Our analyses

9 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Figure 2. Transmission line routes (Source: Eagle Crest, 2010a, and ESRI, 2010, as modified by staff).

10 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

of project effects on threatened and endangered species are presented in section 3.3.4, Threatened and Endangered Species, and our recommendations in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Eagle Crest’s Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) and Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan would protect desert tortoise from construction-related effects, and the applicant-proposed compensation would mitigate the reduction in desert tortoise habitat. The staff-recommended Desert Tortoise Predator Control Plan would also help minimize any potential effects associated with increased predation risk. However, implementation of these plans would require transporting tortoises, which causes increased stress and could result in mortality. Additionally, construction of the staff-recommended transmission line route would permanently reduce available habitat within designated critical habitat for desert tortoise. Therefore, we conclude that licensing of the Eagle Mountain Project, as proposed with staff- recommended measures, may adversely affect the desert tortoise and modify critical habitat for this species. We also conclude the project would not affect Coachella Valley milkvetch because this species does not occur in areas of potential project effects. On December 23, 2010, we issued a Biological Assessment in the form of our draft EIS and requested formal consultation with FWS. On January 31, 2011, FWS submitted a request for additional information before initiating formal consultation. In response to the additional information request (AIR), we issued a final Biological Assessment on April 21, 2011. With the issuance of the final Biological Assessment, we initiated formal consultation and requested the filing of the Biological Opinion within 135 days (by September 3, 2011). On May 23, 2011, FWS responded by letter indicating that it had concerns relative to the lack of site access and site control of the central project area and that due to these circumstances, FWS recommended proceeding in accordance with the early consultation provisions under section 7(a)(3) of the ESA. In response, we met with the FWS and Eagle Crest on July 6 and July 20, 2011, to further discuss FWS’ proposed early consultation approach and to discuss our concerns with the proposed approach. As a result of the meetings, FWS withdrew its proposal to proceed in accordance with the early consultation provisions under section 7(a)(3) and agreed to initiate formal consultation. On September 9, 2011, FWS filed a letter indicating that it initiated formal consultation on July 20, 2011, stating it would issue the final Biological Opinion by December 2, 2011. However, on November 9, 2011, FWS requested a 30-day extension, moving the deadline to January 3, 2012. Eagle Crest agreed to this request on November 9, 2011. Subsequently, FWS requested an additional extension, noting that it plans to

11 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

issue the Biological Opinion by January 31, 2012. Eagle Crest agreed to the second extension on November 15, 2011. Currently, the Biological Opinion is past due.15

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. § 1456(3)(A), the Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a state’s coastal zone unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the license applicant’s certification of consistency with the state’s CZMA program, or the agency’s concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its receipt of the applicant’s certification. The project is not located within the state-designated Coastal Management Zone, and the project would not affect California’s coastal resources. Therefore, the project is not subject to the California coastal zone program review, and no consistency certification is needed for the action. By letter dated April 28, 2009, the California Coastal Commission concurred with this conclusion.16

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires that every federal agency “take into account” how each of its undertakings could affect historic properties. Historic properties are districts, sites, buildings, structures, traditional cultural properties (TCPs), and objects significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and culture that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). To meet the requirements of section 106, the Commission executed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the California SHPO on September 27, 2011, for the protection of historic properties from the effects of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Eagle Mountain Project. The terms of the PA ensure that Eagle Crest addresses and treats all historic properties identified within the project’s area of potential effects (APE) through the implementation of an HPMP filed March 4, 2011, with staff modifications. Compliance with the executed PA would be a condition of any order issuing a license.

15 While it is the FWS’ position that formal consultation was initiated on July 20, 2011, it is Commission staff’s assertion that formal consultation was initiated with the issuance of the final Biological Assessment on April 21, 2011, which provided the additional information requested by the FWS on January 31, 2011. As such, the Biological Opinion was due on September 3, 2011. 16 This record of the correspondence is from the license application, exhibit E, pages 1–8.

12 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION The Commission’s regulations (18 CFR, sections 4.38) require that applicants consult with appropriate resource agencies, tribes, and other entities before filing an application for a license. This consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the ESA, the NHPA, and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be complete and documented according to the Commission’s regulations.

1.4.1 Scoping Before preparing the draft EIS, we conducted scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. A scoping document (SD1) was distributed to interested agencies and others on December 17, 2008. It was noticed in the Federal Register on December 24, 2008. Two scoping meetings, both advertised in the Desert Sun, were held on January 15 and 16, 2009, in Palm Desert, California, to request oral comments on the project. A court reporter recorded all comments and statements made at the scoping meetings, and these are part of the Commission’s public record for the project. In addition to comments provided at the scoping meetings, the following entities provided written comments on SD1:

Commenting Entity Date Filed Metropolitan Water District February 10, 2009 Kaiser Ventures, LLC February 13, 2009 Mine Reclamation, LLC February 13, 2009 Citizens for the Chuckwalla Valley17 February 17, 2009 County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County February 17, 2009 (County Sanitation District) Riverside County Fire Department March 5, 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of March 24, 2009 Reclamation A revised scoping document (SD2), addressing these comments, was issued on June 5, 2009.

17 On October 26, 2011, the Citizens for the Chuckwalla Valley filed a letter with the Commission stating that it had been reorganized with a new name Desert Protection Society.

13 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

1.4.2 Interventions On January 14, 2010, the Commission issued a notice that Eagle Crest had filed an application to license the Eagle Mountain Project. This notice set March 15, 2010, as the deadline for filing protests and motions to intervene. In addition, the notice of availability of the draft EIS filed on December 23, 2011, invited comments and intervention. In response to these notices, the following entities filed motions to intervene:

Intervenor Date Filed Citizens for the Chuckwalla Valley March 1, 2010 State Water Board March 2, 2010 Metropolitan Water District18 March 10, 2010 Kaiser Eagle Mountain LLC18 March 10, 2010 Mine Reclamation, LLC18 March 10, 2010 County Sanitation District 18 March 12, 2010 Phillip R. Hu18 February 11, 2011 Interior18 February 25, 2011

1.4.3 Comments on the License Application A notice requesting conditions and recommendations was issued on January 11, 2010, and an errata notice19 was issued on January 14, 2010. The following entities commented:

Commenting Agency and Other Entity Date Filed Brendan Hughes March 1, 2010 Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC March 10, 2010 Mine Reclamation, LLC March 10, 2010 National Parks Conservation Association March 11, 2010 Joshua Tree National Park March 11, 2010

18 Intervention in opposition. 19 The errata corrected the deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests; comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, prescriptions; and reply comments. It also corrected the paragraph about who may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene and provided a procedural schedule.

14 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Commenting Agency and Other Entity Date Filed Metropolitan Water District March 11, 2010 Interior March 12, 2010 Johnney Coon March 12, 2010 County Sanitation District March 12 and 18, 2010 Timothy Anderson March 13, 2010 BLM August 23, 2010

Eagle Mountain filed reply comments on April 23, 2010.

1.4.4 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement On December 23, 2011, we issued a draft EIS for the proposed Eagle Mountain Project. Comments on the draft EIS were due by February 28, 2011. In addition, we conducted two public meetings on February 3, 2011, in Palm Desert, California. In addition to comments received at the public meetings, written comments on the draft EIS were filed by the following entities:

Commenting Entity Date Filed State Water Board March 1, 2011 Center for Biological Diversity March 1, 2011 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region March 1, 2011 9 (EPA) Johnney Coon March 1, 2011 San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club March 1, 2011 Metropolitan Water District March 1, 2011 Philip R. Hu February 8 and 15, 2011 JoAnn and Warren Dean February 14, 2011 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation February 17, 2011 (Advisory Council) Brendan Hughes February 23, 2011 Eagle Crest Energy Company (Eagle Crest) February 28, 2011 Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC and Mine February 28, 2011 Reclamation, LLC

15 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Commenting Entity Date Filed Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley February 28, 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park February 28, 2011 Service (Park Service) County Sanitation District February 28, 2011 Appendix A summarizes all comments received, includes our responses to those comments, and indicates where we made modifications to the EIS.

16 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The no-action alternative is license denial. Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be built, and the environmental resources in the project area would not be affected.

2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL

2.2.1 Project Facilities The proposed pumped storage project would consist of an upper reservoir, upper water conveyance system, powerhouse, a lower reservoir, lower water conveyance system, transmission system, water supply system, water treatment system, and miscellaneous facilities. Figure 3 shows the project area and proposed layout. The upper reservoir site would include: (1) a 191-acre reservoir (in the existing central mining pit) with a total storage capacity of 20,000 acre-feet and a useable storage of 17,700 acre-feet at an elevation of 2,485 feet; (2) one 1,300-foot-long, 120-foot-high saddle dam with a crest at elevation 2,490 feet on the south side of the reservoir and about 4,000 feet to the northwest, and another 1,100-foot-long, 60-foot-high saddle dam with a crest at elevation 2,490 feet on the western side of the reservoir; (3) a 100-foot- long spillway with a spillway crest at elevation 2,485 feet and a 100-foot-wide by 30- foot-long spillway stilling basin; (4) an upper reservoir spillway channel about 4,000 feet long; (5) a 14,000-foot-long section of Eagle Creek that would transport upper reservoir spillway flows to the lower reservoir; and (6) an upper reservoir inlet/outlet structure. The two saddle dams would be constructed of either roller-compacted-concrete, or a concrete faced with rock fill, although the final material would be selected during the final design process after onsite geology and soils testing has been performed. The upper water conveyance system (figures 3 and 4) would include: (1) a 29- foot-diameter by 3,963-foot-long upper pressure tunnel; (2) a 33-foot-diameter by 1,348- foot-long vertical tunnel shaft; (3) a 90-foot-diameter by 165-foot-high underground surge tank attached to the vertical tunnel shaft; (4) a 29-foot-diameter by 1,560-foot-long lower tunnel; and (5) a manifold that transitions from the lower tunnel to four 15 foot- diameter by 500-foot-long penstock tunnels. The powerhouse facility would consist of: (1) a 72-foot-wide, 130-foot-high, and 360-foot-long underground powerhouse; (2) four reversible pump-turbine units rated at 325 MW each, for a total installed capacity of 1,300 MW; and (3) a separate 46-foot-wide, 40-foot-high, and a 431-foot-long transformer gallery. The lower reservoir site would include: (1) a 163-acre reservoir (in the existing eastern mining pit) with a total storage capacity of 21,900 acre-feet and a useable storage of 17,700-acre-feet at elevation 1,092 feet; (2) a reservoir inlet/outlet structure; (3) a 15- foot-wide reservoir spillway with a spillway crest at elevation 1,094 feet; and (4) a

17 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Figure 3. Proposed facilities and reservoirs and existing features of the Eagle Mountain Project (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Figure 3. Proposed facilities and reservoirs and existing features of the Eagle Mountain Project (continued) (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Figure 4. Profile of the proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project underground facilities (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

reservoir spillway discharge channel extending 6,665 feet from the spillway to an alluvial fan in the Chuckwalla Valley. The lower water conveyance system would include: (1) four 17-foot-diameter by 75-foot-long draft tube tunnels; (2) a manifold that transitions from the draft tube tunnels to the tailrace tunnel; and (3) a 33-foot-diameter by 6,835-foot-long tailrace tunnel. The transmission system would include: (1) four 6,000-foot-long, 18-kV underground transmission cables that extend through the powerhouse access tunnel and a vertical transmission shaft to the ground surface and then 4,000 feet overhead to a switchyard; (3) a 500-foot-wide by 1,100-foot-long switchyard; (4) a 13.5-mile-long, double circuit 500-kV transmission line from the switchyard to a new interconnection collector substation; and (4) an interconnection collector substation located at the point of interconnection with SCE’s planned Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 500-kV transmission line at Desert Center. The water supply system would include: (1) three water supply wells with pumps; and (2) a underground water supply pipeline, ranging from 12- to 24-inches in diameter, totaling 15.3 miles, and extending from the wells to the lower reservoir. The water treatment system would include: (1) a reverse osmosis system; (2) pipelines from the upper and lower reservoirs to the reverse osmosis facility; and (3) desalination facilities with piping from the reverse osmosis facilities. The miscellaneous facilities would include: (1) a 28-foot-wide, 28-foot-high, by 6,625-foot-long access tunnel to the underground powerhouse (see figure 4); (2) about 6 miles of permanent construction and access roads; (3) staging, storage, and administration areas near the switchyard; and (4) appurtenant facilities.

2.2.2 Project Safety As part of the licensing process, the Commission would review the adequacy of the proposed project facilities. Special articles would be included in any license issued, as appropriate. Commission staff would inspect the licensed project both during and after construction. Inspection during construction would concentrate on adherence to Commission-approved plans and specifications, special license articles relating to construction, and accepted engineering practices and procedures. Operational inspections would focus on the continued safety of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications, efficiency and safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the license, and proper maintenance. In addition, any license issued would require an inspection and evaluation every 5 years by an independent consultant and submittal of the consultant’s safety report for Commission review.

2.2.3 Project Operation The proposed project, configured with the four reversible pump-turbine units and tunnels, would use off-peak energy to pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper

21 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

reservoir during periods of low electrical demand and generate peak energy by passing the water from the upper to the lower reservoir through the tunnels and generating units during periods of high electrical demand. The low demand periods are expected to be during weekday nights and throughout the weekend, and the high demand periods are expected to be in the daytime during week days, especially during the summer months. Eagle Crest hopes to use available power produced by existing and proposed wind and/or solar projects in the area to provide at least a portion of the pumping power to the project. The proposed project would also be able to provide ancillary services to the electric grid, including load following, system regulation through spinning and non-spinning reserve,20 and immediately available standby generating capacity.

The proposed project would normally function as a closed system21 once one reservoir is initially filled. The source of the water for initial filing and replacing water lost to evaporation is proposed to be from proposed groundwater wells located more than 10 miles away in the Chuckwalla Valley, which would be transported to the project via a buried pipeline. During normal operations, water would pass back and forth through the powerhouse between the two reservoirs. Emergency spillways at the reservoirs would be used only during very large and exceedingly rare rainfall events or during emergency circumstances.

The proposed energy storage volume would permit operation of the project at full capacity for up to 9 to 10 hours each weekday, with up to 12 to 14 hours of pumping each weekday night and additional pumping during the weekend to fully recharge the upper reservoir. The amount of daily fluctuation in the proposed upper and lower reservoir levels would be about 100 to 150 feet. The amount of active storage in the upper reservoir would be 17,700 acre-feet.

20 Spinning reserve is the online reserve capacity that is synchronized to the grid system and ready to meet electric demand within 10 minutes of a dispatch instruction by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). Spinning Reserve is needed to maintain system frequency stability during emergency operating conditions and unforeseen load swings. Non-spinning reserve is off-line generation capacity that can be ramped to capacity and synchronized to the grid within 10 minutes of a dispatch instruction by the CAISO and that is capable of maintaining that output for at least 2 hours. Non-spinning reserve is needed to maintain system frequency stability during emergency conditions. 21 For the purposes of this project, the system is defined as closed because it would not have a surface water hydrological connection other than occasional stream flow from the ephemeral Eagle Creek.

22 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

2.2.4 Proposed Environmental Measures Eagle Crest proposes the following mitigation, protection, and enhancement measures:

Geology and Soils  Implement the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan filed July 7, 2010, that describes the erosion and sediment control practices to minimize soil erosion in construction areas and prevent sediment transport into stormwater discharges away from the construction site (Measure GEO-1).

Water Quality/Water Quantity

23 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Maintain seepage from the upper reservoir at a groundwater level below the bottom of the elevation of the landfill liner and maintain seepage from the lower reservoir to prevent a significant rise in water levels beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct (Measure SR-4).  Use the network of groundwater monitoring wells proposed under Measure WS-1 to monitor groundwater levels on a quarterly basis for the first 4 years of project pumping; extend monitoring from quarterly to bi-annually or annually, depending on findings (Measure SR-5). Unlike measure WS-4, this measure would focus on assessing seepage conditions in the vicinity of the proposed reservoirs, rather than drawdown conditions as a result of project pumping in the Desert Center area.  Minimize drawdown in the vicinity of the Colorado River Aqueduct through management of reservoir seepage, pending the initial findings of measures SR- 1 and SR-5, and as determined through consultation with the State Water Board (Measure SR-1A).

Other Water Resources Measures  Replace four existing wells located within the site of the proposed reservoirs with wells located outside of the proposed reservoirs (Measure LF-1).  Release excess water from the reservoirs during large rainfall events, such as the 100-year event and up to and including the probable maximum flood (PMF).  Construct two extensometers—one in the upper Chuckwalla Valley near Observation Well 3 (OW-3) and the other in the Orocopia Valley near OW- 15—to measure potential subsidence that could affect the operation of the Colorado River Aqueduct (Measure WS-2).

24 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Terrestrial Resources  Develop a comprehensive site-specific mitigation and monitoring program after consultation with BLM, FWS, California DFG (Measure BIO-1).  Implement the WEAP filed October 27, 2009, to ensure that project construction and operation would be conducted within a framework of safeguarding environmentally sensitive resources (Measure BIO-3).  File reports documenting project activities, mitigation implemented, and mitigation effectiveness and providing recommendations, as needed (Measure BIO-4).  After consultation with BLM, FWS, and California DFG, prepare and file for Commission approval, a plan that details construction plans and limits of disturbance such that surface disturbance is restricted to the smallest area necessary to complete the construction; and new spur roads and improvements to existing roads are designed in a way that would preserve existing desert wash topography and flow patterns, and avoid disturbing or restricting flow to impoundments that could support Couch’s spadefoot toad (Measures BIO-5 and BIO-10).  Use pre-construction surveys to identify state special-status plant populations and species, and establish avoidance areas in construction zones for special plant resources. Where avoidance is not feasible, salvage and transplant any species that can be reasonably transplanted in an approved area (Measure BIO- 6).  For construction activities scheduled to occur between about February 15 and July 30 in vegetated habitat, survey all potential nesting sites for active bird nests. Active nests would be flagged and provided a buffer from construction activities (Measure BIO-11).  Develop a plan to manage evaporation ponds to minimize their attractiveness and access to migratory birds and establish a monitoring program to identify bird usage of the evaporation ponds, effectiveness of bird deterrents, and water quality (Measure BIO-12).  Conduct a pre-construction survey to further assess burrowing owl use of the project area and potential effects (Measure BIO-13). If burrowing owls are present, limit the construction to September 1 through February 1, to avoid disruption of breeding activities; avoid disruption of burrowing owl nesting activities; use a minimum of a 250-foot buffer to avoid active nests until fledging has occurred (Measure BIO-14).  Determine through pre-construction surveys if construction activities would occur within 0.25 mile of active prairie falcon or golden eagle nests (Measure BIO-15).

25 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Conduct pre-construction surveys for all burrows that might host badger or kit fox, avoiding active burrows where possible, and mark the perimeters of all avoidance areas with 3-foot-high and no more than 10-foot-apart, wooden stakes. Where avoidance is infeasible, encourage occupants to leave their burrows (Measure BIO-16).  Conduct pre-construction surveys to determine the existence, location, and condition of bat roosts and identify foraging habitat. Based on results of surveys, develop a mitigation plan to avoid roosting and foraging effects on resident bats, minimize disturbance, or, as an inescapable measure, evict bats (Measure BIO-17).  Construct security fencing around project reservoirs, collection substation, and evaporation ponds to exclude larger terrestrial wildlife, including bighorn sheep, deer, coyotes, foxes, and badger, from entering project areas that pose hazards (Measure BIO-18).  In areas without wildlife exclusion fencing or those areas that have not been cleared of tortoises, conduct construction activities only during daylight hours (Measure BIO-20).  Close, temporarily fence, or cover pipeline trenches each day. Conduct inspections of any open trenches at first light, midday, and at the end of each day to ensure animal safety (Measure BIO-21).  Design, install, and maintain facility lighting to prevent casting of light into adjacent native habitat (Measure BIO-22).  Develop, after consultation with FWS, a transmission line design plan that considers adequate separation of energized conductors, ground wires, and other metal hardware, adequate insulation, and any other measures necessary to protect raptors from electrocution hazards and design and construct raptor- friendly transmission lines in strict accordance with the industry standard guidelines set forth in Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006, by Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, Edison Electric Institute, and Raptor Research Foundation.

26 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

habitat compensation plan that identifies acres of disturbance and acreage and location of proposed compensation lands.  Implement the Predator Monitoring and Control Plan filed on March 11, 2011, and as modified by the Commission’s Biological Assessment issued on April 21, 2011, to monitor for and control effects of increased predator activity on desert tortoise. The modified plan includes: (1) surveys for canine activity in the project area; (2) surveys for canine predation on desert tortoise; (3) a survey schedule that includes two annual pre-construction baseline surveys, two annual surveys during construction; and surveys in years 1–5, 7, and 10 to be commenced following the initiation of reservoir filling (4) agency consultation following surveys; (5) development of mitigation measures to be implemented if surveys indicate increases in desert tortoise predator activity and increases in desert tortoise predation; and (6) development of a survey schedule for the remainder of the license term if surveys indicate a need for mitigation measures.

Recreation Resources  Coordinate construction schedules with BLM and provide posted notices of construction activity and any temporary road/access closure (Measure REC-1).

Aesthetic Resources  Incorporate directional lighting, light hoods, low pressure sodium bulbs or light-emitting diode (LED) lighting, and operational devices in final design to allow surface night-lighting in the central project area to be turned on as needed for safety. Also, a night sky monitoring plan during the post-licensing design period (to represent baseline conditions) and during construction and a trial operational period (Measure AES-1).  Combine and organize staging areas and areas needed for equipment operation and material storage and assembly within construction lands to the extent feasible to minimize total footprint needed (Measure AES-2).  For construction of the water pipeline, reduce, to the extent possible, side-cast soils to reduce color contrast with the surrounding landscape. Backfill the

27 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

pipeline disturbed zone and revegetate with native vegetation immediately following completion of pipeline construction (Measure AES-3).  Employ visual mitigation in the design of the transmission line to minimize visual effects such as specifying materials with a dull finish and background appropriate colors (Measure AES-4).  Use existing access roads and construction laydown areas to the extent feasible and revegetate with native vegetation (Measure AES-5).

Cultural Resources  Implement the HPMP, filed March 4, 2011.

Air Quality  Periodically water or apply suitable surfactant for short-term stabilization of disturbed surface areas and rock and soil storage piles (Measure AQ-1).  Prevent project-related trackout onto paved surfaces by using a variety of construction management strategies (Measure AQ-2).  Stabilize graded site surfaces upon completion of grading when subsequent development is delayed or expected to be delayed by more than 30 days, except when precipitation dampens the disturbed surface (Measure AQ-3).  Limit areas of active surface disturbance (such as grading) to no more than 15 acres per day (Measure AQ-4).  Reduce non-essential earth-moving activities during windy conditions, and cease clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities if winds exceed 25 mph averaged over a 1-hour duration (Measure AQ-5).  Promote ride sharing, shuttle transit and other measures for employees to reduce vehicle trips (Measure AQ-6).  Strictly abide by the applicable state law requirements for diesel truck idling (Measure AQ-7).  Use electrical drops in place of temporary electrical generators, and substitute low- and zero-emitting construction equipment and/or alternative fueled or catalyst-equipped diesel construction equipment wherever economically feasible (Measure AQ-8).  Obtain proper South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permits for electrical generators (Measure AQ-9).  Properly tune and maintain heavy-duty diesel trucks in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications to ensure minimum emissions under normal operations (Measure AQ-10).

28 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Use 2002 model or newer construction equipment, where feasible (Measure AQ-11).  Retrofit older off-road construction equipment with appropriate emission control devices prior to onsite use, where feasible (Measure AQ-12).  After consultation with the Park Service, implement air quality monitoring for 2 years after initiation of project construction.

Noise  Comply with the County of Riverside General Plan applicable noise ordinance codes during construction (Measure NOI-1).  Equip construction machinery with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers and intake silencers (Measure NOI-2).

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE Under the staff alternative, the project would include Eagle Crest’s environmental measures and would be constructed and operated as proposed with our additional measures and modifications to proposed measures. Our modifications to proposed measures are shown below in italicized text:

Project Facilities  Construct the project transmission line along the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route. This route would diverge from the applicant’s proposed route after crossing the Colorado River Aqueduct and would then parallel the existing 160-kV SCE transmission line for about 10.5 miles going southeast to a point just north of the proposed substation, then it would travel south about 2 miles to the State Water Board’s preferred substation location, SCE’s Red Bluff substation.

Water Quality/Water Quantity

29 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

historical pumping in the Chuckwalla Aquifer (Measure WS-1). Possibly extend monitoring from quarterly to bi-annually or annually, depending on findings and prepare annual reports for submittal to the Commission and State Water Board, confirming actual drawdown conditions (Measure WS-4). Include the adaptive management plan to reduce initial reservoir filling rates should it be found that drawdown exceeds the Maximum Allowable Changes thresholds in groundwater levels in select monitoring wells located throughout the groundwater basin. Additionally, as part of a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program, these measures should include the coordinated quarterly measurement and annual reporting of groundwater pumping production, water quality, and groundwater levels in the project water supply wells.  During the initial fill pumping period, monitor existing water supply wells on neighboring properties whose water production may be impaired by project groundwater pumping; if project pumping would adversely affect these wells, replace or lower the pumps, deepen the existing well, construct a new well, and/or compensate owner for increased pumping costs (Measure WS-3). Continue monitoring beyond the initial fill period (estimated 4 to 7 years, as estimated by Eagle Crest); the length of additional monitoring should be determined through consultation with the State Water Board and filed for Commission approval.

Measures for Seepage Monitoring and Control  To confirm aquifer characteristics and adequate pumping rates in the reservoir seepage recovery wells, perform aquifer tests during final engineering design (prior to project operations) (Measure SR-1). Include a performance pumping test of the final seepage recovery system (both lower and upper reservoir seepage recovery wells) prior to reservoir filling to ensure that hydraulic control of the local groundwater can be achieved. Submit the results of this test to the Commission and the State Water Board.  To effectively control seepage from the upper reservoir, use a separate set of seepage recovery wells, employ a testing program for these seepage recovery wells, and make drawdown observations in nearby observation wells to support final engineering design (Measure SR-2).  Use the groundwater level monitoring network to confirm that seepage recovery well pumping would be effective at managing groundwater levels beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct and in the Eagle Creek Canyon portion of the proposed landfill, and record groundwater levels, water quality, and production at the project seepage recovery wells (Measure SR-3). Manage artificially raised water levels to ensure that they are at least 5 feet below the bottom of the landfill liners.

30 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Maintain seepage from the upper reservoir at a groundwater level below the bottom of the elevation of the landfill liner and maintain seepage from the lower reservoir to prevent a significant rise in water levels beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct (Measure SR-4). Manage artificially raised water levels to ensure that they are at least 5 feet below the bottom of the landfill liners.  Use the network of groundwater monitoring wells proposed under Measure WS-1 to monitor groundwater levels on a quarterly basis for the first 4 years of project pumping; extend monitoring from quarterly to bi-annually or annually, depending on findings (Measure SR-5). Unlike measure WS-4, this measure would focus on assessing seepage conditions in the vicinity of the proposed reservoirs, rather than drawdown conditions as a result of project pumping in the Desert Center area.  Minimize drawdown in the vicinity of the Colorado River Aqueduct through management of reservoir seepage, pending the initial findings of measures SR- 1 and SR-5, and as determined through consultation with the State Water Board (Measure SR-1A).

Measures for Water Quality Monitoring and Control  Install and operate a reverse osmosis desalination facility and brine disposal ponds to remove salts and metals form reservoir water and maintain total dissolved solids concentrations at the level of the source water (Measure GQ- 1). Implement as part of a comprehensive water level and water quality monitoring plan for the reservoirs, seepage wells, monitoring wells, brine ponds, and water supply wells and include steps to be taken in the event of water quality degradation.  Monitor groundwater quality to assess and maintain groundwater effects at levels less than significant by sampling reservoirs, seepage recovery wells, and wells upgradient and downgradient of the reservoirs and brine disposal lagoon on a quarterly basis for the first 4 years (Measure GQ-2). Implement as part of a comprehensive water level and water quality monitoring plan for the reservoirs, seepage wells, monitoring wells, brine ponds, and water supply wells, and include steps to be taken in the event of water quality degradation.

31 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Construct and operate two extensometers22—one in the upper Chuckwalla Valley near Observation Well 3 (OW-3) and the other in the Orocopia Valley near OW-15—to measure potential subsidence that could affect the operation of the Colorado River Aqueduct (Measure WS-2). File a plan for Commission approval to reduce initial reservoir filling rates should it be found that subsidence exceeds the Maximum Allowable Changes threshold of 0.125 foot as measured by the extensometers.  During project construction, perform channel modifications and other measures, such as rip rap protection, to contain flows associated with the PMF to the Eagle Creek channel and direct these flows into the proposed lower reservoir and file a report with the Commission when measures are completed.  Develop a reservoir-level monitoring plan to ensure that the water levels are managed properly within operational restraints to ensure protection of terrestrial resources and file for Commission approval.  Develop a brine pond-level monitoring plan to ensure that the ponds are managed properly and help limit leakage through the lining of the ponds and file for Commission approval.  Develop a comprehensive monitoring well placement plan including partially horizontal monitoring wells and monitoring program around the proposed brine and solidification ponds to allow for the earlier detection of leaks in the lining of the ponds and file for Commission approval.  The applicant proposes groundwater monitoring under seven different measures—WS-1, WS-3, WS-4, GQ1, GQ-2, SR-3, and SR-5—that each have specific purposes. Coordinate the implementation of these separate measures as part of a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program to ensure that information collected as part of each measure is reported simultaneously for the purpose of better evaluating the project effects on the groundwater quality and levels in the Chuckwalla Aquifer. Use the comprehensive groundwater monitoring program results to develop a groundwater hydrologic budget and annually file the associated reports for review by the Commission along with any comments from the State Water Board.

22 An extensometer is a device that measures soil subsidence.

32 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Implement the WEAP filed October 27, 2009, to ensure that project construction and operation would be conducted within a framework of safeguarding environmentally sensitive resources (Measure BIO-3). Include information on Coachella Valley milkvetch in the training program.  File quarterly reports with BLM, FWS, California DFG, and the Commission, documenting project activities, mitigation implemented, and mitigation effectiveness, and providing recommendations, as needed (Measure BIO-4).  Prior to construction in native habitats, conduct surveys for spadefoot toads in any areas of construction not previously surveyed. After consultation with BLM, FWS, and California DFG, prepare and file for Commission approval, a plan that details construction plans and limits of disturbance such that surface disturbance is restricted to the smallest area necessary to complete the construction, ensures new spur roads and improvements to existing roads are designed in a way that would preserve existing desert wash topography and flow patterns, and avoid disturbing or restricting flow to impoundments that could support Couch’s spadefoot toad. If avoidance is not possible, construct a new pool as close as is feasible to replicate and replace each lost pool. If new pools are created, move all larvae from the disturbed pool to the new pool (Measures BIO-5 and BIO-10).  Use pre-construction surveys to identify state special-status and federally listed plant populations and species, and establish avoidance areas in construction zones for special plant resources. Where avoidance is not feasible, salvage and transplant any species that can be reasonably transplanted in an approved area (Measure BIO-6). Include location of sensitive plant resources, construction avoidance areas, and transplant locations on any construction plans filed with the Commission. Submit the plans to BLM, FWS, and California DFG for review and comment and file the plans with the Commission for approval.  After consultation with BLM, FWS, and California DFG, submit a revised final version of the Revegetation Plan, filed October 27, 2009, to the Commission for approval prior to any ground-disturbing activities in native vegetation. The final plan would include total acres of proposed disturbance, as identified in the final construction plan; the stipulation that any hay, straw, or topsoil brought to the site be certified weed-free; and success criteria. The plan should also include provisions for monthly irrigation of transplants for a 2-year period.  Modify the proposed Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan, filed October 27, 2009, and file for Commission approval, to include criteria for success and the development of environmental measures to be implemented if initial efforts do not prove successful. Include measures to mitigate for disturbance to soils that occur during project operation and maintenance, any

33 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

seepages areas, and any areas adjacent to project-related surfaces. Extend the monitoring period to 5 years for areas where disturbance or water additions are temporary, and annually in areas where disturbance or water additions occur during normal project operations.  For construction activities scheduled to occur between about January 15 and July 30 in vegetated habitat, survey all potential nesting sites for active bird nests. Active nests would be flagged and provided a buffer from construction activities (Measure BIO-11). After consultation with FWS and California DFG identify appropriate buffer distances for nesting migratory birds in the project area. Include evidence of consultation and final determination of buffer distances in a quarterly report submitted for Commission approval prior to any ground-disturbing activities.  Develop a plan to manage evaporation ponds to minimize their attractiveness and access to migratory birds and establish a monitoring program to identify bird usage of the evaporation ponds, effectiveness of bird deterrents, and water quality (Measure BIO-12). Include in the plan provisions to: (1) minimize attractiveness and access to migratory birds; (2) establish a monitoring program to identify bird usage of the evaporation ponds, effectiveness of bird deterrents, and water quality; (3) develop measures for more intensive hazing measures and ultimately exclusionary pond covers, if warranted; (4) develop proposed hazing and habitat modification techniques; (5) develop methods for measuring success, and thresholds for implementing exclusionary pond covering, if needed; and (6) develop an emergency response plan to address a potential breach in the pond berms or liners. Prepare the plan in consultation with FWS, BLM, and California DFG and file for Commission approval.  Conduct a pre-construction survey to further assess burrowing owl use of the project area and potential effects. Incorporate survey results and mitigation measures into the comprehensive mitigation and monitoring program (Measure BIO-13). If burrowing owls are present, limit the construction to September 1 through February 1, to avoid disruption of breeding activities; avoid disruption of burrowing owl nesting activities; use a minimum of a 250- foot buffer to avoid active nests until fledging has occurred (Measure BIO-14). Additionally, if burrowing owls are present, after consultation with FWS and California DFG, develop a burrowing owl relocation plan that includes construction of replacement burrows for any active burrows requiring collapse and file the plan for Commission approval. file for Commission approval.  Determine through pre-construction surveys if construction activities would occur within 1 mile of active prairie falcon or golden eagle nests. Provide survey results to FWS, BLM, and California DFG. Following consultation with the agencies, identify any necessary protection buffers, file them for

34 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Commission approval, and avoid construction activities in these areas during the nesting season (Measure BIO-15).  Conduct pre-construction surveys for all burrows that might host badger or kit fox, avoiding active burrows, where possible, and mark the perimeters of all avoidance areas with 3-foot-high and no more than 10-foot-apart, wooden stakes. Where avoidance is infeasible, encourage occupants to leave their burrows (Measure BIO-16).  Conduct pre-construction surveys to determine the existence, location, and condition of bat roosts and identify foraging habitat. Based on results of surveys, develop a mitigation plan to avoid roosting and foraging effects on resident bats, minimize disturbance, or, as an inescapable measure, evict bats (Measure BIO-17). Prepare the bat mitigation plan after consultation with FWS and California DFG and file for Commission approval. The plan should include: (1) baseline surveys during summer and winter; (2) measures to protect onsite bat roosting habitat; (3) measures for onsite replacement of roosting habitat removed by project development; (4) annual summer and winter bat surveys in years 1–5, 7, and 10 following initiation of reservoir filling; (5) criteria for success, and (6) measures for additional construction and/or protection of bat habitat to be implemented if success criteria are not met.  Construct security fencing around project reservoirs, collection substation, and evaporation ponds to exclude larger terrestrial wildlife, including bighorn sheep, deer, coyotes, foxes, and badger, from entering project areas that pose hazards. In addition, install a smooth metal, or similar barrier, along the bottom of the fence to prevent access to all terrestrial species. Monitor fences for digging activity and repair damaged fences sections within 24 hours. Monitor drinking areas to ensure desert bighorn sheep are using these areas. If such monitoring indicates desert bighorn sheep are not accessing these locations, Eagle Crest should consult with FWS, BLM, the Park Service, and California DFG to identify alternative measures that provide similar benefit to this species. (Measure BIO-18).  Remove woody riparian vegetation from around project reservoirs annually.  In areas without wildlife exclusion fencing or those areas that have not been cleared of tortoises, conduct construction activities only during daylight hours (Measure BIO-20).  Close, temporarily fence, or cover pipeline trenches each day. Conduct inspections of any open trenches at first light, midday, and at the end of each day to ensure animal safety (Measure BIO-21).  Design, install, and maintain facility lighting to prevent casting of light into adjacent native habitat (Measure BIO-22).

35 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Develop, after consultation with FWS and file for Commission approval, a transmission line design plan that considers adequate separation of energized conductors, ground wires, and other metal hardware, adequate insulation, a 1- mile buffer from golden eagle nests, and any other measures necessary to protect raptors from electrocution hazards and design and construct raptor- friendly transmission lines in strict accordance with the industry standard guidelines set forth in Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006, by Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, Edison Electric Institute, and Raptor Research Foundation. The plan should also include measures for reducing potential for avian collision injuries, methods for surveying and reporting project-related avian mortality, provisions for a worker education plan pertaining to avian and power line interactions, and procedures for managing nesting on power line structures.

Threatened and Endangered Species  Implement the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan, as filed on October 27, 2009, and modified by the Commission’s Biological Assessment issued on April 21, 2011, to protect desert tortoise from potential effects related to construction activities.  Following completion of final project design and interconnection plans, calculate projected-related effects on Category I and Category III desert tortoise habitat. Prepare and file for Commission approval a desert tortoise habitat compensation plan that identifies acres of disturbance and acreage and location of proposed compensation lands.  Implement the Predator Monitoring and Control Plan filed on March 11, 2011, and as modified by the Commission’s Biological Assessment issued on April 21, 2011, to monitor for and control effects of increased predator activity on desert tortoise.23 The modified plan includes: (1) surveys for canine activity in the project area; (2) surveys for canine predation on desert tortoise; (3) a survey schedule that includes two annual pre-construction baseline surveys, two annual surveys during construction; and surveys in years 1–5, 7, and 10 to be commenced following the initiation of reservoir filling (4) agency consultation following surveys; (5) development of mitigation measures to be implemented if surveys indicate increases in desert tortoise predator activity and increases in desert tortoise predation; and (6) development of a survey schedule for the remainder of the license term if surveys indicate a need for mitigation measures.

23 Implementation of the Raven Monitoring and Control Plan replaces Measure DT-5 as presented in the final license application.

36 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Recreation Resources  Coordinate construction schedules with BLM and provide posted notices of construction activity and any temporary road/access closure (Measure REC-1).

Land Use  Provide construction access to and from the substation site from the Eagle Mountain Road exit and follow the Frontage Road east to the site (Measure LU-1).  Two weeks prior to beginning construction, locally post notices stating hours of operation for construction near the Desert Center community and along State Route 177 (Measure LU-2).  Consult with agencies and file for Commission approval truck trip plans and traffic controls related to the removal of salts from the proposed desalination facilities.  Consult with resource agencies and file for Commission approval a construction plan for construction activities on or next to private properties. The plan should include measures to:  limit the hours during which noisier construction activities (such as drilling or boring) would occur within 250 feet of residences;  notify landowners prior to construction on their properties;  maintain access to the properties;  secure open ditches when there are no active construction activities taking place;  wait until the pipe is ready for installation before excavating the trench where residences would be within 25 feet of the construction right-of- way (ROW);  install safety fencing along the edge of the construction ROW that would extend at least 100 feet on either side of any residence;  preserve mature trees and landscaping where possible where they would not interfere with safe operation of equipment;  complete final grading and installation of permanent erosion controls;  restore all areas and landscaping within 10 days of backfilling the trench; and  discuss with landowners to locate the pipeline in the most desirable location for the landowner, to the extent possible.

37 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure for residents whose property would be affected by transmission line and water pipeline construction. The procedure would include simple, clear directions for identifying and resolving environmental mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the project and restoration of the ROW. Prior to construction, Eagle Crest would mail the complaint procedures to each landowner whose property would be crossed by the project. In its letter to affected landowners, Eagle Crest would:  provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with their concerns; the letter should indicate how soon a landowner should expect a response;  instruct the landowners that if they are not satisfied with the response, they should call Eagle Crest’s Hotlines; the letter should indicate how soon to expect a response;  instruct the landowners that if they are still not satisfied with the response from Eagle Crest’s Hotlines, they should contact the Commission’s Enforcement Hotline at (888) 889-8030, or at [email protected]; and  prepare and file with the Commission a monthly status report that includes a table with the following information for each problem/concern: (i) the date of the call; (ii) the identification number from the certificated alignment sheets of the affected property and approximate location; (iii) the description of the problem/concern; and (iv) an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved will be resolved, or why it has not been resolved.

Aesthetic Resources  Incorporate directional lighting, light hoods, low pressure sodium bulbs or LED lighting, and operational devices in final design to allow surface night- lighting in the central site to be turned on as needed for safety. Also, develop, after consultation with the Park Service, a night sky monitoring plan during the post-licensing design period (to represent baseline conditions) and during construction and a trial operational period (Measure AES-1). File the plan for Commission approval.  Combine and organize staging areas and areas needed for equipment operation and material storage and assembly within construction lands to the extent feasible to minimize total footprint needed (Measure AES-2).  For construction of the water pipeline, reduce, to the extent possible, side-cast soils to reduce color contrast with the surrounding landscape. Backfill the pipeline disturbed zone and revegetate with native vegetation immediately following completion of pipeline construction (Measure AES-3).

38 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Employ visual mitigation in the design of the transmission line to minimize visual effects such as specifying materials with a dull finish and background appropriate colors (Measure AES-4).  Use existing access roads and construction laydown areas to the extent feasible and revegetate with native vegetation within 3 months following completion of construction of the respective component (Measure AES-5).

Cultural Resources  Implement the HPMP, filed March 4, 2011.  Implement the measures contained in section 3.3 of the HPMP, filed March 4, 2011, if Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route is selected for construction.

Air Quality  Periodically water or apply suitable surfactant for short-term stabilization of disturbed surface areas and rock and soil storage piles (Measure AQ-1).  Prevent project-related trackout onto paved surfaces by using a variety of construction management strategies (Measure AQ-2).  Stabilize graded site surfaces upon completion of grading when subsequent development is delayed or expected to be delayed by more than 30 days, except when precipitation dampens the disturbed surface (Measure AQ-3).  Limit areas of active surface disturbance (such as grading) to no more than 15 acres per day (Measure AQ-4).  Reduce non-essential earth-moving activities during windy conditions, and cease clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities if winds exceed 25 mph averaged over a 1-hour duration (Measure AQ-5).  Promote ride sharing, shuttle transit and other measures for employees to reduce vehicle trips (Measure AQ-6).  Use electrical drops in place of temporary electrical generators, and substitute low- and zero emitting construction equipment and/or alternative fueled or catalyst equipped diesel construction equipment wherever economically feasible or if necessary to meet California Air Resources Board (CARB) or other applicable air quality standards (Measure AQ-8).  Properly tune and maintain heavy-duty diesel trucks in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications to ensure minimum emissions under normal operations (Measure AQ-10).

39 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Use 2002 model or newer construction equipment, where feasible or if necessary to meet CARB or other applicable air quality standards (Measure AQ-11).  Retrofit older off-road construction equipment with appropriate emission control devices prior to onsite use, where feasible or if necessary to meet CARB or other applicable air quality standards (Measure AQ-12).  After consultation with the Park Service, implement air quality monitoring for 2 years after initiation of project construction to ensure project meets CARB or other applicable or other applicable air quality standards.

Noise  Equip construction machinery with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers and intake silencers (Measure NOI-2).

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

2.4.1 Eagle Crest Energy Company Eagle Crest chose the proposed project location based on several factors. The proximity of the two largely inactive mining pits would greatly decrease the cost of dam construction, and the elevation difference (about 1,500 feet) between the pits is essential for a pumped storage facility. Furthermore, the proposed project site is only about 13 miles from a major transmission line and is in proximity to existing and proposed renewable energy generation facilities and the Chuckwalla aquifer, the proposed source for water. Before choosing its proposed reverse osmosis system, Eagle Crest considered several other water treatment alternatives, including thermal processes, conventional demineralization using IX resin, and electrical demineralization. These other measures were determined to be much more costly and impractical for the project. Eagle Crest also considered several other transmission alignments, but they were determined to be impractical. These alternatives include the following:  A connection at the Devers substation near Palm Springs that would require a route of 83 miles and was determined to be very expensive. This transmission alignment also would have had ROW issues and likely would have had substantial effects on the natural and human environment, including the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.  A connection to SCE’s proposed midpoint substation with a route that would have been slightly longer than 50 miles and would have crossed both the Chuckwalla Valley dune thicket, an area of critical environmental concern and

40 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

also Interstate 10. The length of the route and issues associated with crossing these two areas made this route impractical.  The addition of the proposed double circuit 500-kV line to the existing transmission towers owned by Metropolitan Water District was determined to be infeasible due to the size and weight of the proposed lines on the existing infrastructure.  A location of a possible substation near the intersection of Eagle Mountain Road and Interstate 10 was determined to be infeasible due to cultural resources concerns and the location of an existing high pressure gas line. Eagle Crest considered the possibility of using the Colorado River Aqueduct for its water supply, rather than the Chuckwalla aquifer. However, Eagle Crest determined that this option was infeasible because of the need to purchase replacement water (for the Colorado River Aqueduct water that Eagle Crest would use) from the San Joaquin Valley (which also supplies Los Angeles), so water from the heavily regulated and vital Colorado River Aqueduct could be used. This option would have been especially impracticable during drought years, and Metropolitan Water District stated that it would not agree to this proposal. Finally, quagga mussels are found in the Colorado River Aqueduct, and these organisms would be problematic for the proposed project.

2.4.2 Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC In the comment letter filed on February 28, 2011, Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC, and Mine Reclamation, LLC, recommended investigation of the use of another largely inactive mining pit (Black Eagle mine) for the proposed project. Black Eagle mine, is located about 1.5 miles northwest of the proposed upper reservoir associated with the proposed Eagle Mountain Project. Based on our analysis, the potential use of Black Eagle mine as one of the project reservoirs is negated by a couple of key factors. First, the mining pit is at a lower elevation at roughly halfway between the elevations of the upper and lower mining pits proposed for use by Eagle Crest. The deepest point of the Black Eagle mining pit is about 1,640 feet above mean sea level, and our calculations indicate that the smaller elevation difference would decrease the generation capacity of the project from 1,300 MW to about 600 MW. Second, Black Eagle mine is located on the same side of the Eagle Mountains as is the majority of the Joshua Tree National Park and wilderness area (JTNP), including the highly visited locations of the park, and its location is much closer to the park’s boundary; consequently, the effects of the proposed project with the Black Eagle mine as one of the reservoirs would be greater on the JTNP. Based on these key issues and since the Eagle Mountain mine area is already highly disturbed, we conclude that Kaiser’s alternative location does not possess the combination of attributes needed for a successful pumped storage project and, therefore, we will not analyze it further.

41 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

This page intentionally left blank.

42 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

In this section, we present: (1) a general description of the project vicinity; (2) an explanation of the scope of our cumulative effects analysis; and (3) our analysis of the proposed action and other recommended environmental measures. Sections are organized by resource area. Under each resource area, historic and current conditions are first described. The existing condition is the baseline against which the environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives are compared, including an assessment of the effects of proposed mitigation, protection, and enhancement measures, and any potential cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives. Our conclusions and recommended measures are discussed in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of this final EIS.24

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA The proposed project would be located at the edge of the Eagle Mountains in southeastern California in Riverside County in the western Sonoran Desert, commonly called the “Colorado Desert,” which includes the area between the Colorado River Basin and the Coast Ranges south of the Little San Bernardino Mountains and the Mojave Desert. The proposed project would be located south and east of JTNP, just about 1.5 miles from the closest JTNP boundary (see section 3.3.5, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, for more about the JTNP). Rainfall amounts are low, ranging from about 3 to 5 inches per year; however, the amount of precipitation is variable on a year-to-year basis with some years receiving almost no rainfall. Winter temperatures are mild with typical high temperatures in January in the mid-60sF and low temperatures near 40F. Summer temperatures are hot. Summer high temperatures are typically near or slightly above 105F and often exceed 110F, while low temperatures average near 80F. The period of extremely warm weather is also lengthy, extending from mid-spring through the fall. Evaporation in the area is quite high, and for open water sources has been estimated at about 7.5 feet per year. Gently sloping to undulating rocky slopes and valleys are found in the area of the proposed project’s linear features (i.e., water pipeline and transmission line). Elevations range from about 400 to 2,500 feet. No perennial streams or natural wetlands exist in the project vicinity. Drainages in this part of Riverside County are generally limited to high- energy runoff via desert washes that are usually dry. As water from these events quickly

24 Unless otherwise indicated, our information is taken from the application for license for this project (Eagle Crest, 2009a) and additional information filed by Eagle Crest (Eagle Crest, 2010a, 2009b–d) and the State Water Board EIR (State Water Board, 2010). Section 6.0, Literature Cited, presents all literature cited in the preparation of this document.

43 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

percolates into the surrounding soil or evaporates, the establishment of wetland vegetation is precluded. Drainage patterns reflect the local topography. Along the broad rocky slopes, drainage is primarily characterized by scattered, well-defined washes and networks of numerous narrow runnels. The runnels are several yards wide, sandy to cobbly drainages that carry periodic runoff to a regional drainage. They are often incised, from a half to several yards deep, and vegetated along the banks by shrubs and trees. By contrast, the more numerous, smaller and shallow runnels are typically only a yard or less wide, 1 to 3 inches deep, and irregularly vegetated by locally common shrub species. Soils generally range from soft sand to coarse-sand loams, with Aeolian patches of loose sand and intermittent incipient dunes. Boulders and cobbles are common in the upper bajadas and toeslopes, with smaller particles downslope. Desert pavement25 is intermittently present in the immediate area of the central project area. Numerous transmission lines and service roads cross the area south of the project site. The Colorado River Aqueduct extends through the Coxcomb Mountains northeast of the project area and continues in a southwesterly direction, passing the eastern portion of the project area as an open channel before converting into a tunnel to the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant.

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR §1508.7), a cumulative effect is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities. Based on review of the license application and agency and public comments, we identified water resources, terrestrial resources (including federally listed threatened and endangered species), land use, recreation, and air quality as having the potential to be cumulatively affected by the proposed project in combination with other past, present, and foreseeable future activities. These resources were selected because of the potential that they could be cumulatively affected by the development of this project in addition to other residential and agricultural groundwater uses, the Colorado River Aqueduct, the proposed Eagle Mountain landfill, proposed solar energy and wind energy developments, and other actions that we identify in our analysis.

25 Desert pavement, which occurs only in the drier parts of the Sonoran Desert, is a surface made up of a closely packed mosaic of stones that accumulate as the finer dust and sand particles are blown away by the wind.

44 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

3.2.1 Geographic Scope The geographic scope of the analysis defines the physical limits or boundaries of the proposed action’s effect on the resources. Because the proposed action would affect the resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary. The geographic scope for water resources would be the Chuckwalla Valley Aquifer and potentially adjacent, hydrologically connected aquifers, such as the Pinto Basin Aquifer. This geographic scope was selected because the groundwater to be used for this project, as well as other reasonably foreseeable projects, would be withdrawn from the Chuckwalla Valley Aquifer, and we may determine that cumulative groundwater-level effects may extend to adjacent basins. The geographic scope for terrestrial resources would be lands above the Chuckwalla Valley Aquifer and Pinto Basin Aquifer, which includes portions of JTNP. This broad area was identified to address the potential for subsidence related to groundwater withdrawal to cumulatively effect terrestrial plants and wildlife. Other project effects would also be limited to this geographic area. The geographic scope for recreation, land use, and aesthetics is the greater Chuckwalla Valley from the Coxcomb Mountains to the east, the Chuckwalla Mountains to the south and JTNP to the north and west. This area offers the recreation opportunities, landscapes, and the visual resources, which are typical of the region, and may also be cumulatively affected by other reasonably foreseeable projects. The geographic scope for other resources, including geological resources and soils; terrestrial and threatened and endangered species; cultural; socioeconomics; and air quality and noise, would be that portion of the Chuckwalla Valley and Interstate 10 corridor sufficient to encompass all project facilities, as well as construction and operation effects.

3.2.2 Temporal Scope The temporal scope of the cumulative effects analysis in the final EIS includes past, present, and future actions and their respective effects on each resource that could be cumulatively affected. Based on the potential term of an original license, the temporal scope will look 50 years into the future, concentrating on the effect on the resources from existing and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion will be limited, by necessity, to the amount of available information for each resource. We identified the present resource conditions based on the license application, agency comments, and comprehensive plans.

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES In this section, we discuss the effect of the project alternatives on environmental resources. For each resource, we first describe the affected environment, which is the

45 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

existing condition and baseline against which we measure effects. We then discuss and analyze the specific site-specific and cumulative environmental issues. Only the resources that would be affected, or about which comments have been received, are addressed in detail in this EIS. We present recommendations in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment

General Geologic Setting The proposed project site is located in the northeastern portion of the Eagle Mountains near the lower western edge of the Mojave Desert Physiographic Province of California, slightly east of the southern limits of the adjacent Transverse Ranges Physiographic Province. The Eagle Mountains are bounded on the northeast by the Coxcomb Mountains, the southeast by Chuckwalla Valley, and the north by Pinto Basin (figure 5). To the south are the Orocopia Mountains (west) and the Chuckwalla Mountains (east). A broad valley containing Smoketree Wash forms the edge of the Eagle Mountains to the west. The Cottonwood Mountains are to the southwest of the project area. The major rock units in the region include Jurassic- to Cretaceous-age plutonic intrusive rocks and Paleozoic and Precambrian metamorphic and meta-sedimentary rocks (Jennings, 1967). At the Eagle Mountain site, the meta-sedimentary rocks generally trend northwest and are surrounded and underlain by intrusive granitic rocks. The meta- sedimentary rock units have been folded into a northwest-trending anticline, which continues into the north-central Eagle Mountains. Iron ore deposits composed of magnetite and hematite are typically found along the northeast limb of this anticline. Localized outcrops of Tertiary-age volcanic rocks are found in the region, principally at the northern end of the Chuckwalla Valley. Younger Pleistocene-age basalt is present in the north-central portion of the Eagle Mountains. Deposits of Quaternary- age alluvium fill the Pinto Basin and Chuckwalla Valley, locally reaching depths of greater than 2,000 feet (Eagle Crest, 1994). Alluvial deposits include both cobbles/gravels and finer grained units that form alluvial fans at the mouths of major drainages from the adjacent highlands. Regional structural trends are reflected in the alignments of faults in and near the Eagle Mountain site. East-west trending faults are present at distances of about 5 miles, both to the north and south of the site, while northwest-trending faults are present locally along the eastern edge of the Eagle Mountains. The latter group of faults includes the Bald Eagle Canyon fault zone and several smaller faults that traverse the planned tunnel alignments. None of these faults have experienced deformation within the last 11,000 years as indicated by the unbroken alluvial deposits that overlie them (Eagle Crest, 1994).

46 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Figure 5. Mountains and groundwater basins in the project area (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

The proposed project site is cut by a series of northeast-trending dikes.26 The dikes have near-vertical dips and lie at nearly right angles to the northwest-trending faults. Where exposed, dikes that cross the northwest-trending faults are not offset by the faults (Eagle Crest, 1994). Range-front faulting has been recognized to the east of the Eagle Mountain site, along the eastern side of the Chuckwalla Valley parallel to the base of the Coxcomb Mountains. Vertical displacements along this fault zone may be up to several thousand feet, with the western side being displaced downward relative to the eastern side (Eagle Crest, 1994). Range-front faults do not appear to be present along the eastern side of the Eagle Mountains.

Project Area Geology Bedrock geologic units present at the site can be generally classified as either igneous or meta-sedimentary. In general, the younger igneous rocks intruded into the older meta-sedimentary rocks, leaving the meta-sediments as remnant roof pendants atop the plutonic rock. Areal near-surface exposures of the rock units in the project area are shown on figure 6. Unconsolidated alluvial deposits are found in several locations within the project site area (figure 6). The alluvial deposits include sands, silts, gravels, and debris-flow deposits (Eagle Crest, 1994). The most substantial alluvial deposits are found on the eastern edge of the site area, where they form a laterally extensive alluvial fan that extends and thickens to the east into the Chuckwalla Valley. The thickness of the alluvial fan is on the order of a few tens of feet near the mountain front and thickens steadily to the east. Some of these alluvial deposits are exposed in the east wall of the eastern mining pit, in an area that would underlie the lower reservoir (Eagle Crest, 1994). Elsewhere within the area of the proposed project, alluvial deposits are confined to laterally discontinuous, generally thin deposits along the bottoms of the canyons (Eagle Crest, 1994). These deposits are typically composed of sandy gravel, but may vary locally from sand and gravelly sand to gravel and generally range up to 50 feet in thickness. The thickest deposits are found near the mouths of canyons. Older alluvial deposits in the upper portions of the canyons may be locally cemented (Eagle Crest, 1994). An alluvial fan is exposed near the base of the north wall in the eastern mining pit of the largely inactive Eagle Mountain mine (Eagle Crest, 1994). At the base of this feature, and interbedded with some of the soils characteristic of the upper portions of the fan, are a series of debris flows. In the east wall of the eastern mining pit, debris flow deposits rest directly on bedrock (Eagle Crest, 1994).

26 A dike is an intrusive igneous body that normally has a thickness much smaller than its other two dimensions.

48 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Figure 6. Eagle Mountain Project area geologic map (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Mining byproducts generated by the former Eagle Mountain operations were deposited in numerous areas near the site. These byproducts include several distinctly different materials, including both bedrock and alluvial overburden, and tailings produced as a result of the mining and separation of iron ore bearing rock from host rock. The tailings include both fine and coarse varieties. The total amount of recoverable (i.e., not in-ground) iron ore reserves at Eagle Mountain mine has been estimated at 170 million tons, with about 23.5 million tons of this total amount (14 percent) reported to remain at the east end of the eastern mining pit (i.e., the proposed lower reservoir) (GeoSyntec, 1992, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994). The 23.5 million tons of iron ore reserves are specifically situated within the 467-acre parcel of land that is currently held by the California State Lands Commission. In its preliminary report, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that the total amount of iron ore possibly remaining in the underlying bedrock, or “in-ground” (i.e., not in the coarse tailings present in the pits or stockpiled elsewhere onsite), is up to 600 million tons and generally found within quartz monzonite-rich bedrock (Force, 2001), which is a sub-unit of the Mesozoic granitic rock unit that composes much of the Eagle Mountains (see figure 6). There are conflicting reports about the occurrence of recoverable precious metals (e.g., gold, silver, or any of the minerals of the platinum group) in the proposed project area. Investigations in 1990 (Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc., 1990, as cited in CH2M HILL, 1996) indicated that recoverable precious metals are not present in the project area. In contradiction to this finding, on February 28, 20011, Kaiser filed with the Commission, as part of its comments on the draft EIS, a document titled Conceptual Study of Kaiser Ventures Inc.’s Eagle Mountain Project for Recovery of Contained Mineral Values and dated 2000. This document states that there is “sufficient mineral grades and tonnage of gold, platinum, palladium, and iron” that “may exist in the process tailing to warrant a stand-alone 5,000 ton per day tailings recovery operation” (Behre Dolbear, 2000). Eagle Crest states that the tailings would be suitable for use in project construction. Historical information on mining activity at the Eagle Mountain mine is presented in section 3.3.6.1, Cultural Resources, Affected Environment.

Soil Resources

General Project Area The soils within the proposed project area are generally sandy and have developed in a mid-latitude, low desert environment at elevations ranging from 1,000 to 2,800 feet above mean sea level (msl). Slopes range from nearly level to extremely steep and include both north- and south-facing exposures as well as numerous intermediate aspects. Vegetation is Sonoran desert shrubland (Eagle Crest, 1994). Soils within the proposed project area can be divided into the following mapping units.

50 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

In areas of 2 to 5 percent slope, soils are very deep, excessively drained, sand and loamy sand horizons formed in alluvial fan deposits at the eastern foot and within valley bottoms of the Eagle Mountains. The water erosion hazard of these soils is moderate because of minimal vegetative protection. The less-steep soil unit is situated near the east side of the eastern mining pit and beneath the proposed lower reservoir spillway, while the slightly steeper soil unit is situated in part beneath the proposed desalination and staging, storage, and administration areas.

In areas of slopes greater than 15 to 75 percent, there are rock outcrops; shallow, excessively drained, very gravelly sand; and very gravelly loamy sand. These soils have formed on mountain slopes in colluvial deposits derived from crystalline bedrock. The water erosion hazard of these soils is severe because of steep slopes and minimal vegetative protection. This soil unit is found in various locations around the project area, including between the central and eastern mining pits and near the desalinization area.

Soils in areas of mine dumps and tailings consist of mixed cobbles and soil deposited by human activity. These deposits have not been stable long enough to develop characteristic soil profiles. This unit is found throughout the project area, particularly in areas immediately adjacent to the central and eastern mining pits.

The excavations of the central and eastern mining pits are characterized by disturbed rock outcrops or a thin mantle of mixed soil and cobbles deposited by human activities.

Desert pavement27 is known to be intermittently present in the central project area, as mapped as part of a geomorphic and soil-stratigraphic age assessment study conducted in support of the proposed landfill project (Shlemon, 1993).

Water Supply and Transmission Line Corridors

Specific areas of the water supply and transmission line corridors have not been mapped in detail according to the applicant, although limited soils mapping was performed by Kim (1993) in the Desert Center area, which is in the vicinity of the proposed linear feature corridors. The proposed water supply corridor extends through a desert basin environment crossed by numerous washes. The soils of this area are gravelly loamy sands with particle size decreasing with distance from the mountains. The soils have low runoff, with moderately rapid to rapid permeability. Soils, slopes, and vegetation coverage within the proposed transmission line route and the BLM utility corridor area are similar to those along the proposed water supply

27 Desert pavement, or armoring, is a natural concentration of wind-polished, closely packed rock fragments that mantle a desert surface and often protect the underlying finer-grained materials from further erosion.

51 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

corridor. Specifically, soils within the transmission line corridor have developed primarily on valley fill alluvium. The soils are excessively drained fine sands, sands, gravelly sands, and cobbly sands. In some areas, the soils are deep (5 to 6 feet deep) with a moderate water erosion hazard, are found on nearly level to moderately steep slopes, and have formed on alluvial fans and valley fill. In other areas, the soils are shallow, are found on nearly level to steep slopes, have formed on hill and mountainsides, and are subject to severe water erosion on steeper slopes. The Chuckwalla Valley experiences active wind-blown, or aeolian, sand migration and deposition that contribute to the formation of sand dunes on the valley floor. The general direction of the aeolian-driven sand migration is to the southeast and east, toward the Colorado River. The sand migration corridor situated within the upper Chuckwalla Valley has been designated as the “Palen Dry Lake–Chuckwalla” corridor, which runs past the central project area and to the north of Desert Center toward Palen Dry Lake (PWA, 2010).

Geologic Hazards Potential geologic hazards at the proposed project area include ground rupture from active faulting, strong ground motions from earthquakes, landslides or rockfalls (induced by earthquake, rainfall and saturation, or other triggers), and liquefaction and seismic settlement.

Seismicity There are numerous active28 and potentially active29 faults and fault zones located within 100 miles of the proposed project area (Eagle Crest, 1994; GeoSyntec, 1996). Based on the Fault Activity Map of California, the nearest active faults to the site are the Hot Springs fault and the paralleling San Andreas fault (Coachella segment), located about 30 miles and 33 miles southwest of the site, respectively. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act (Bryant and Hart, 2007) establishes zones around “sufficiently active and well-defined” faults in California wherein site- specific fault location studies are required to mitigate fault surface rupture hazards prior to construction intended for human occupancy. The closest “zoned” faults to the project

28 Active faults (Bryant and Hart, 2007) are defined as faults along which seismically induced (tectonic) displacement has occurred in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene epoch). The California Division of Safety of Dams criterion for active faults (Fraser, 2001) is noted displacement within the last 35,000 years. 29 Potentially active faults are defined as faults along which tectonic displacement has occurred between 11,000 and 1.6 million years before present (the Pleistocene epoch). Inactive faults are defined as faults along which tectonic displacement has not occurred in the past 1.6 million years (i.e., before the Quaternary period).

52 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

area are the Hidden Springs fault, located 29 miles to the southwest, the aforementioned Hot Springs fault, and the mid-east portion of the Pinto Mountain fault, located 32.5 miles to the northwest. Potentially active faults are also frequently considered in a seismic hazard assessment since they can represent active faults that have a greater (more than 11,000 years) recurrence interval. In addition to the aforementioned faults, potentially active late Quaternary faults considered capable of generating significant seismic events include the Blue Cut fault, with the nearest segment mapped about 4 miles north of the site; the Salton Creek fault, about 23.5 miles to the southwest; and eastern segments of the Pinto Mountain fault, located 30.5 miles northwest of the site. In addition to these fault- specific sources, previous investigations of seismic exposure at the project area (Eagle Crest, 1994; GeoSyntec, 1996) considered non-specific area sources including the Southeast Transverse Ranges, the San Bernardino Mountains, the Eastern Mojave, the Sonoran, and the Salton seismo-tectonic zones. Locally, six major structural lineaments have been found to trend across the proposed reservoir sites or are within 2,000 feet of the proposed project area (GeoSyntec, 1992, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994). Three of these are bedrock faults (Fault A, Bald Eagle Canyon fault, and eastern mining pit fault), two are intrusive dikes, and the last formed from differential erosion along prominent joints in the bedrock (see figure 6). Field investigations indicated that the lineaments trend northwest across the site in a direction consistent with a pattern of regional faulting believed to have existed since Miocene time (i.e., about 5 to 22 million years ago [Ma]) (Proctor, 1993, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994; Shlemon, 1993). Analyses performed as part of these investigations indicated that no displacement has occurred along these local faults in the past 40,000 to 100,000 years (GeoSyntec, 1996). Site mapping indicated that cross-cutting dikes of volcanic rock, dated as 124 million years or more in age (GeoSyntec, 1996), are not offset by Fault A and the Bald Eagle Canyon fault. This suggests that the most recent movement of these faults dates back to at least Mesozoic time (>65 Ma). The relationship of the cross-cutting dikes to the eastern mining pit fault is less certain, but the fault is readily exposed in the walls of the eastern mining pit beneath up to 270 feet of unbroken alluvium, estimated to be more than 100,000 years in age (Proctor, 1993, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994). Additional northwest-southeast fault segments were mapped; one in the western end of the eastern mining pit and another at western end of the proposed landfill footprint (GeoSyntec, 1996). Soil stratigraphic age dating of these features was hindered by lack of natural soil cover. However, GeoSyntec (1996,) concluded that, due to the echelon structure of the northwest-southeast system of site area faults, formation of all the northwest-trending faults at the site occurred within a similar geologic age and tectonic stress regime. Thus, these additional fault segments were also concluded to be at least pre-Holocene in age (<10,000 years). However, if the northwest-trending faults are collectively considered to be of similar age and origin, significant displacement has not occurred on these faults since the formation of the dikes more than 100 million years ago.

53 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

As such, these faults are considered inactive. Further details of the investigations for onsite faults, including information from the Proctor (1993, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994) and Shlemon (1993) studies, are contained in GeoSyntec (1996). The project site lies on the eastern edge of a region of high historical seismicity in southern California. Most seismicity in this area is associated with the San Andreas fault zone (southwest and west of the site), the San Jacinto fault zone (south and west of the site), or the Brawley fault zone (south of the site). Some seismicity is associated with the Pinto Mountain fault to the north of the site. The California Geology Survey (California GS) provides a database of all known historical earthquakes of magnitude greater than 4.0 within the project region for the period from 1769 to 2000 (California GS, 2001). Since 2000, no seismic events of a magnitude greater than 4.030 have occurred near the project area, and no previously unmapped faults have been identified in the vicinity, based upon review of the Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC) online database, which contains data between 1932 to present (SCEDC, 2011). According to the SCEDC database, numerous seismic events have been recorded in the central project area. These events, which had magnitudes up to about 3.0, were caused by mining- related blasting (termed “quarry blasts” in the online database). Upon review of recorded seismicity in the region, and using the attenuation relationship developed by Sadigh as reported by Joyner and Boore (1988), GeoSyntec (1992, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994) estimated that the strongest ground motion at the site from historical events was about 0.15 g,31 using mean attenuation rates, and 0.27 g using mean plus one standard deviation. Calculations of potential ground motion at the project site during an earthquake estimated the highest horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA)32 of 0.49 g that results from a magnitude 6.75 random event in the Southeast Transverse Ranges. A similar PGA of 0.48 g was estimated from a magnitude 7.5 event on the Blue Cut fault (Eagle Crest, 1994; GeoSyntec, 1996). Regional probabilistic studies on seismicity (Petersen et al., 2008) estimate that the site has a 2 percent probability of exceeding PGAs of between 0.35 and 0.46 g in the next 50 years. Analysis of probabilistic potential ground motions for the project area, based on USGS (Frankel et al., 2002) and California GS (2007) databases, indicates that, for return periods of 100 and 475 years, PGAs of 0.10 g and 0.19 g, respectively, are estimated.

30 With a seismic event of a magnitude below 4.0, structural damage is unlikely. 31 1 g is the acceleration due to gravity, where 1 g = 32.2 feet second-2; used to measure the peak ground acceleration during an earthquake. 32 PGA is a parameter used to measure the horizontal force experienced at a given location during an earthquake. This force has the potential to cause damage to structures depending on its magnitude and on how much horizontal force the structure can physically withstand.

54 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Liquefaction Liquefaction can occur when loose, saturated granular soils are subjected to strong ground motion, such as that induced by earthquakes. The ground vibrations cause a rise in pore-water pressure,33 which, if high enough, can cause the soil to lose strength and behave as a fluid. Liquefaction can result in settlements, lateral spreading, and other disruptions at the ground surface. The sandy sediments associated with the alluvial fan and valley floor features in the project area could have the potential for liquefaction and seismic settling. Groundwater conditions, which can affect the potential for liquefaction occurrence during an earthquake, are discussed in the Groundwater section. Landslides and Mass Movements In the proposed project area, there are potentially unstable slopes upon hillsides and mining pit walls due to their steepness and the nature of the underlying soil and rock types. Mass movements such as slope raveling and localized surficial slope failures and/or rock falls could occur here. To date, USGS and California GS have not published any soil-slip susceptibility or landslide inventor maps of the project region; therefore, detailed mapping information is not available for evaluating the potential for landslide and mass movement activity in the proposed project area.

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects

This section describes the potential project effects related to geology and soils resource issues deriving from construction and/or project operation activities. Prior to construction, the applicant proposes to conduct detailed subsurface investigations in the project area to support final project configuration and design. The details of these proposed site investigations are summarized by the applicant in section 12.6 of its license application (Eagle Crest, 2009a). In brief, these investigations would primarily involve soil/rock exploration boring34 and detailed geologic mapping efforts to further evaluate potential project-related reservoir seepage, hydrocompaction and subsidence, landslides and mass movements, liquefaction, and reservoir-triggered seismicity. The investigations would additionally consider the effects of project construction-related blasting and boring on existing geologic conditions; blasting and boring would be used to construct the underground tunnels, surge control facilities, and powerhouse. In its letter filed October 27, 2009, Eagle Crest states that the subsurface investigations would be initiated within

33 Pore-water pressure is the force exerted by groundwater contained within the voids, or pores, of a soil or rock substrate. Excessive pore-water pressures can lead to soil or rock instabilities. 34 The soil/rock borings would be drilled every 1,800 feet along the alignment of the proposed tunnel.

55 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

60 days of licensing and receipt of site access, field work would be completed within 4 months of the start of field investigations, and the results would be filed with the Commission 6 months after the start of the field investigations.

Effects of Project Construction and Operation Related to Seismic Issues

Earthquakes and Faults

There are no active faults in the proposed project area, based on the findings of past site-specific investigations (GeoSyntec, 1996). Therefore, the risk of surface rupture at the project area caused by local faulting is considered to be very low as these faults were determined to be inactive within the past 40,000 years or more. The project facilities would be designed to resist the anticipated ground shaking related to earthquake activity in the region. As mentioned above, prior to construction, Eagle Crest proposes to conduct subsurface investigations, which would also include a geotechnical study in order to modify, if needed, the existing project designs.

Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity

The proposed project would include constructing upper and lower reservoirs, which would occupy areas that are crossed by several inactive, northwest-trending faults. In general, reservoir impoundment or operation has the potential to activate fault movement, and hence produce earthquakes, which is a process defined as reservoir- triggered seismicity. This process occurs when reservoir impoundment alters the stress regime within the crust of the earth by increasing shear stress due to the weight of water, and reducing the shear strength (i.e., resisting force) by increasing pore-water pressures. While these changes are generally insufficient to generate failure in unfractured rock, it is possible that faulted rock under significant tectonic strain may be induced to slip by the compounding effects of reservoir impoundment (USCOLD, 1997). As such, zones of active faulting appear to be the most susceptible to reservoir-triggered seismicity. Further, the maximum credible earthquake for an area is not considered to change by reservoir filling actions, although the frequency of smaller earthquakes may be increased, at least on a temporary basis (FEMA, 2005).

To assess the actual occurrence of reservoir-triggered seismicity in the project area once implemented, Eagle Crest proposes to initiate a seismic monitoring program in the project area. Eagle Crest proposes to maintain the monitoring program before and after reservoir filling to assess whether these actions lead to reservoir-triggered seismicity.

Our Analysis

The proposed project area is crossed by several inactive faults and would be situated in a region with recorded seismic activity. The two proposed reservoirs would use the two largely inactive mining pits that were created by the excavation of vast

56 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

quantities of overburden and ore-bearing rock. When either the upper or lower reservoirs are filled to maximum operation level, the deepest column of water in each would be less than the depth of mining excavation. Total water storage projected for both reservoirs is estimated at about 24,200 acre-feet compared to a total storage capacity of 41,900 acre- feet.35 Considering that the weight of water is about 2 (overburden) to 2.5 (ore rock) times less than that of the excavated material, the loads applied by the reservoirs at high water would be substantially less than that originally imposed prior to mining. As such, Eagle Crest reasonably asserts that the reservoir load may tend to restore some of the equilibrium lost through the site excavations rather than imposing potentially destabilizing stresses that could lead to earthquakes.

Although the maximum depth of stored water in the reservoirs would characterize both reservoirs as being “shallow and small”36 (Baecher and Keeney, 1982), the initial filling of the reservoirs and the planned twice-daily movement of a relatively large mass of water could impose stress upon the underlying land surface. This stress could potentially trigger land movement, manifested either slowly via gradual earth movement or rapidly as a small earthquake. Several fault traces crossing beneath or close to the two proposed reservoirs could serve as the focus of these movements, despite the findings that these inactive faults have not experienced natural seismic activity within the past 40,000 years.

Based on the potential for naturally caused and reservoir-induced earth movements to occur in the project area during the operation of the proposed project, we see the benefits associated with Eagle Crest’s proposal to: (1) conduct a thorough subsurface investigation in the project area to better characterize existing conditions for the purpose of refining the final design of project features (i.e., implementation of a Geotechnical Study Plan as proposed in section 12.6 of Eagle Crest’s final license application [Eagle Crest, 2009a]), and (2) establish a seismic monitoring program per the general recommendations of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD, 2008) for reservoir projects. Continuing the applicant’s proposed seismic monitoring program through the initial operation and life of the project would help determine if there is the potential of reservoir-triggered seismicity within the area.

35 For generation at a pumped storage facility to occur, water storage at both reservoirs is normally slightly more than half of the total available storage. 36 “Shallow and small” reservoirs are considered by Baecher and Keeney (1982) to have a probability of reservoir-triggered seismicity that is “very near zero” and are defined as reservoirs having less than 302 feet of water depth and storing less than about 973,000 acre-feet of water volume.

57 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Effects of Project Construction and Operation on Liquefaction

The proposed pumped storage reservoirs and associated facilities would be constructed on a combination of bedrock and alluvium. As discussed in greater detail in the Groundwater section, groundwater levels in the project area are typically hundreds of feet below the ground surface, although in the eastern mining pit, the most recent available groundwater data (CH2M HILL, 1996) indicate a groundwater level that at times is about 20 feet below the lowest portions of the pit.

Liquefaction can occur when loose, saturated sandy soils are subjected to earthquakes. In its license application, Eagle Crest provides the screening criteria from the Southern California Earthquake Center for determination of liquefaction hazards (SCEC, 1999) and concludes that a liquefaction assessment is not required. The criteria are as follows: 1. the estimated maximum past, current, and future groundwater levels are determined to be deeper than 50 feet below the existing or proposed final site grade; 2. bedrock or other similar material that is considered to be non-liquefiable directly underlies the site; 3. the granular (i.e., sandy) soils underlying the site are all determined to be dense to very dense; and 4. the underlying soils have a clay content greater than 15 percent.

Eagle Crest further states that geologically mature alluvial fan and plain sediments, like those found on the eastern edge of the eastern mining pit, generally have a low potential for liquefaction based on their relatively high material density (Youd and Perkins, 1978).

To minimize the potential for a liquefaction hazard to occur, Eagle Crest proposes to maintain pre-project groundwater levels in areas influenced by reservoir seepage by installing a seepage recovery system as described in section 3.3.2, Water Resources, under the heading Groundwater. Eagle Crest indicates that the potential for liquefaction- induced settlements would be very low to non-existent because, coupled with implementation of the recovery system, the project would mostly lie on shallow bedrock, dense geologically mature sediments, or properly engineered and compacted fill.

Our Analysis

The project would include two reservoirs and associated facilities mostly built on bedrock with some portions of these structures (e.g., east side of the lower reservoir) built on alluvial sediments. Following the SCEC (1999) screening criteria, the proposed project fails to satisfy the first three of the four criteria, specifically for those project areas

58 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

near the east side of the eastern mining pit. Groundwater levels beneath the proposed lower reservoir are reportedly within 50 feet of the existing ground surface, or bottom of the eastern mining pit. Further, the soil densities and the clay content levels in sediments underlying portions of the project area are not wholly known. Therefore, a liquefaction assessment in the project area and in areas where project-induced groundwater levels could rise within 50 feet of the surface (e.g., from reservoir seepage) would provide needed information to address liquefaction concerns. Collecting data as part of Eagle Crest’s subsurface investigations would allow Eagle Crest to perform the liquefaction assessment.

Effects of Project Operation on Subsidence and Hydrocompaction

Subsidence of the ground involves the downward settling of the land surface and can occur over variable rates, time periods, and spatial area. Common triggers for subsidence may be natural or human-made. In alluvial soils, like those found in the Upper Chuckwalla Valley, subsidence can occur from substantial lowering of the water level in an aquifer.

Hydrocompaction is a process whereby oversaturation of the subsurface sediments by rising groundwater levels cause sediments to consolidate and settle, thereby leading to the subsidence of the land surface. This process can be triggered by the rising of the water table in alluvial sediments.

Because these processes primarily involve an alteration of groundwater levels, discussions of the effects of the project on subsidence and hydrocompaction in the project area and the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin are found in the Groundwater section.

Effects of Project Construction on Soils

Infrequent, short-duration, high-intensity rainfall events can mobilize large amounts of loose soil and sediment in the project area. Disturbed soils and mine tailings within the largely inactive mine area, as well as other disturbed surfaces such as dirt roads, supply the source material during runoff events, resulting in surface and channel erosion, material transport, and high turbidity in receiving waters. There would be some increases in soil erosion resulting from construction of the project, specifically related to development of the upper and lower reservoirs, access roads, power line towers, water supply pipeline, and surface facilities. Project-related effects on stream channel scour potential are addressed in section 3.3.2, Water Resources.

Eagle Crest prepared an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as part of its application (Measure GEO-1). The plan includes best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented during the construction process to control and minimize erosion and to stabilize disturbed lands after construction. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan conceptually describes the erosion and sediment control practices planned for

59 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

implementation during construction of the proposed project. These measures would minimize the erosion of soils in construction areas and prevent the transport of sediment and storm water discharges from the construction site. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan also includes the development of a storm water pollution and prevention plan prior to construction. The storm water pollution and prevention plan would include a monitoring and inspection plan with reporting to occur on a routine (unspecified) basis and after substantial storm events. Eagle Mountain also proposes to revegetate all areas disturbed by construction, including areas disturbed by the water pipeline and transmission line, with native plants.

The following BMPs are included in Eagle Crest’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, which would be implemented during construction to prevent or minimize erosion: (1) preserve existing vegetation where required and when feasible and initiate construction immediately following vegetation clearing to minimize the exposure of scarified soil to wind and water; (2) use temporary fencing, protective barriers, or other similar methods to protect vegetation not required, or authorized to be removed; (3) slope roadways and excavations away from washes and clear loose soils and pre-existing sediments in areas where haul roads would cross surface washes; (4) install riprap at the washes; (5) build small earthen embankments within washes to slow or divert surface water; (6) install silt fences in work areas near a wash to prevent sediment from entering the wash during rain storms; (7) apply water to disturbed soil areas of the project site, under the supervision of a monitor, to ensure excessive runoff does not occur and to control wind erosion and dust; and (8) implement complementary sediment controls to intercept and filter out soil particles mobilized by surface runoff. Prior to construction, Eagle Crest would prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan detailing the BMPs that would be implemented at the site, which are subject to updating as dictated by changes in construction and construction schedules. A monitoring plan would be prepared as part of the stormwater pollution prevention plan, detailing the inspection, documentation, and corrective action procedures for the BMPs. The proposed project’s transmission lines and water supply pipeline would be installed in the upper Chuckwalla Valley and adjacent to the valley’s sand transport corridor. This placement could potentially disrupt the aeolian-driven sand transport system and, in turn, dune formation and maintenance within the valley.

Our Analysis Although the proposed project site is highly disturbed, with massive quantities of mining substrate currently exposed to erosive processes, construction of the upper and lower reservoirs, access roads, power line towers, water supply pipeline, and other constructed facilities have the potential to further disturb these materials throughout the area. Increased amounts of disturbance would increase sediment mobilized during rain events, resulting in an elevated sediment load in runoff leaving the project site and, ultimately, causing high turbidity and long-term sediment deposition in low gradient

60 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

areas. Disturbance of desert pavement, where present, could potentially occur, thereby inducing soil erosion of the underlying finer-grained materials.

Eagle Crest’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, including BMP implementation and preparation of a storm water pollution and prevention plan and a monitoring plan, would address this potential project-related effect by adhering to industry standards. The measures outlined in the plan would minimize the potential of soil erosion of disturbed surfaces and of sediment transport in and near the construction areas.

The proposed project’s transmission lines and water supply pipelines in the upper Chuckwalla Valley would be situated to the west of the sand transport corridor. Because water supply pipelines would be installed underground and transmission lines would be suspended far above ground between towers spaced adequately far apart, minimal effects on the overall aeolian system that involves the wind-driven transport of predominantly sand-sized particles and maintains active sand dunes on the valley floor would be expected.

Effects of Project Construction and Operation on Landslides and Mass Movements

Some areas within the central and eastern mining pits have potentially unstable slopes because mining has exposed unstable fractures on the pit walls. Consequently, slope failures and/or rock falls could be expected in these slopes during project construction and operations.

Eagle Crest proposes to conduct detailed subsurface investigations to support final engineering designs and to further assess potential effects on geology and soils resources. During these site investigations, which would occur after site access is granted, Eagle Crest proposes to conduct geologic mapping to identify conditions of the overburden and bedrock exposed in the mine pits that may affect the stability of slopes during reservoir- level fluctuations. Mapping would identify the degree and orientation of jointing and fracturing, faulting, and weathering, and the dimensions of the benches excavated during past mining activities. The stability of the cut slopes and benches would also be assessed at this time. During construction activities, Eagle Crest proposes to remove loose and unstable rock blocks from slopes lying below an elevation of 5 feet above the proposed maximum water level in the reservoirs. Eagle Crest does not propose to modify existing cut slopes above these unless there is evidence of potential slope failure that could potentially affect project facilities. Eagle Crest also proposes to minimize slope failure potential by buttressing the lowermost slopes of each reservoir using mine tailings removed from potentially unstable areas above the reservoir water surface. Eagle Crest states that no mass soil or rock movements related to site construction in the central project area could occur that would affect off-site facilities existing and/or constructed upon the floor of the

61 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Chuckwalla Valley (e.g., the Colorado River Aqueduct, Kaiser’s water pipeline[s], and the Eagle Mountain town site).

Our Analysis Construction-related activities and on-going project operations have the potential to trigger slope failures and/or rock falls on unstable slopes within and possibly adjacent to the proposed reservoirs, facilities, and along linear features (e.g., roads) where construction involves earth moving. Eagle Crest’s proposed subsurface investigations would evaluate slope stability prior to the development of final engineering and designs, and its proposed measures to remove or grade the identified unstable slopes in the reservoirs would minimize slope failure potential. The investigations would additionally consider the potential effects of project-related blasting and borings on slope stability

Effects of Project Construction and Operation on Active and Largely Inactive Mines

The proposed project would use two of the four main mining pits at the largely inactive Eagle Mountain mine: the eastern mining pit and the central mining pit. The two western-most of the four main pits, the north and south Black Eagle pits, are outside the proposed central project area and would not be affected by construction and operation of the proposed facility, access roads, or transmission line. Located adjacent to the central project area, but outside of the proposed reservoir areas, are two mine adits37 (Eagle Crest, 1994). Eagle Crest does not plan to use or otherwise disturb these features as part of the proposed construction. The adits appeared to be stable at the time of previous evaluations conducted more than 15 years ago (Eagle Crest, 1994), although natural minor collapses are possible in the future.

The California State Lands Commission holds a 100 percent reserved mineral interest in a 467-acre parcel of land in the Eagle Mountain mine area, situated near the east end of the eastern mining pit (proposed lower reservoir). GeoSyntec (1992, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994) estimated that 23.5 million tons of iron-bearing placer (alluvium) deposits remain at the east end of the eastern mining pit. This amount is about 14 percent of the about 170 million tons of recoverable (i.e., not in-ground) iron ore reserves estimated to be remaining on the entire Eagle Mountain mine (Eagle Crest, 1994; Mine Reclamation Corporation, 1997). Kaiser held a California State Lands Commission- issued lease covering 145 acres of the mineral interest parcel. Since the lease expired in 2002, Kaiser applied to exchange the state’s reserved mineral interest on the entire 467- acre parcel for a partial interest in a nearby mineral estate owned by Kaiser. The U.S.

37 A mine adit is a horizontal shaft extending into the subsurface.

62 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a court ruling on November 10, 2009, that denied the proposed land exchange between Kaiser and BLM.38

Our Analysis

The project area would be situated upon two largely inactive mining pits used by Kaiser to extract iron ore from the underlying bedrock and alluvial deposits. Eagle Crest does not propose to evaluate the project’s potential effects on the structural integrity of the two abandoned mining adits adjacent to proposed project area. However, we conclude that the structural integrity of the two mining adits could be potentially affected by project-related activities by blasting and other activities proposed during construction. Evaluating the potential project effects on these adits, including the potential for adit collapse, as part of the Eagle Crest’s proposed subsurface investigations, would help clarify this issue and provide an opportunity for Eagle Crest to propose mitigation measures, if needed.

Reclamation of existing rock and ore materials from both recoverable and bedrock sources present within the proposed central project area would not be possible once the project is constructed and is in operation. The iron ore present beneath the project facilities, and specifically the reservoirs, would only become accessible for mining operations in the future if the project were decommissioned.

We estimate the potential economic value of recoverable iron ore at Eagle Mountain mine that would become inaccessible in the east and central pits once the project is constructed and operational would be between $8 and $13 billion. This estimate is based on the following assumptions: (1) the estimated monthly average value of iron ore in 2010 as published by USGS39 ($90 per dry metric tonne unit) and the International Monetary Fund40 ($146.72 per dry metric tonne unit); (2) that this price per iron ore unit would remain static in the coming decades because, despite the steady increases in price since about 2004, the price could potentially drop at any given point thereby making this price a conservative estimate with the available information; and (3) the amount of recoverable iron ore in the east and central pits to be about 33 and 64.6 million tons, respectively, as stated in Kaiser’s comment letter on the draft EIS.

38 See National Parks v. BLM and Kaiser Eagle Mountain, available at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/11/10/05-56814.pdf, accessed May 6, 2011. 39 USGS 2011 iron ore statistics and information website, available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_ore/mcs-2011-feore.pdf, accessed May 6, 2011. 40 IMF primary commodity process website, available at: http://www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.asp, accessed May 6, 2011.

63 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

However, given that the mining equipment once used to extract and process iron ore at the mine has since been removed, the extraction, processing, and shipment of any recoverable mineral resources from the mine is not currently feasible without significant investment to replace the mining equipment. Additional permitting in accordance with the County of Riverside would be required because, as stated in the proposed landfill’s draft EIS/EIR (CH2M HILL, 1996), the county has held that vested mining rights ceased to exist at the Eagle Mountain mine in 1983 when mining activities were stopped.

About 23.5 million tons of recoverable iron ore situated in the east end of the east pit is currently held by the California State Lands Commission and not owned or leased by Kaiser. Subtracting this 23.5 million tons from the estimated total amount of recoverable iron ore in the entire east pit (33 million tons) would reduce the amount of recoverable iron ore situated on Kaiser lands within the footprint of the proposed lower reservoir to be about 9.5 million tons, a value of between $0.9 and 1.4 billion, based on the cost assumptions we have outlined above. Finally, according to information contained within the proposed landfill project’s draft EIS/EIR (CH2M HILL, 1996), the County of Riverside has held that vested mining rights no longer exist at Eagle Mountain mine because iron ore mining ceased in 1983 and future mining of the site would require additional permitting in accordance with the mining ordinance of the county.

There is a potential for precious metals occurrence (e.g., gold, silver, or any of the minerals of the platinum group) within the process tailings presently located within the central project area; however, the precise locations and quantities are not wholly known (Behre Dolbear, 2000). Therefore, the effect of the proposed pumped storage project on limiting and/or preventing extraction of precious metals cannot be evaluated with confidence.

Any metals-enriched tailings or bedrock located beneath the footprint of the proposed landfill project would become inaccessible once the landfill is completed, unless removed from the footprint prior to and/or during landfill construction. The draft EIS/EIR of the proposed landfill project (CH2M HILL, 1996) does not provide an explicit estimate of the quantity of iron ore that would become largely inaccessible once the landfill is completed; however, it does show visually that the landfill would overlap with the known occurrences of iron ore (e.g., Phases 2, 3, and 5).

3.3.2 Water Resources

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment

Water Quantity The proposed project is located in the Eagle Mountains and Chuckwalla Valley of the arid Sonoran desert of southeastern California. On average, about 3 to 5 inches of rainfall occurs annually. August receives the most rainfall, although rainfall is also more predominate, but generally lighter, in the winter months of December, January, and

64 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

February. The region’s very low precipitation, high evaporation, and permeable soils preclude the existence of perennial streams. In rare large rainfall events, substantial runoff occurs in washes, causing flash floods with a great potential for erosion. Eagle Creek, which is normally a dry wash, flows out of the Eagle Mountains generally along the southern side of the proposed central project area. USGS operated a gage on Eagle Creek (Gage No. 10253600, Eagle Creek at Eagle Mountain) near the project area from October 1, 1960, to September 30, 1966. Records from this gage, which had a drainage area of 7.71 square miles, are summarized in table 2. Flows were recorded at this gage on only 4 days when the gage was operational. The flows at this gage, which are representative of streams in the area, indicate a very flashy flow regime as shown by the large difference between the daily mean and the peak flow data. The total volumes of the 1961 and 1965 flood events were about 40 and 15 acre-feet, respectively.

Table 2. Summary of flow data (cfs) from USGS Gage No. 10253600 (Source: USGS, 2010, as modified by staff). Water Year Date of Flow Daily Mean Peak Flow 1961 August 23 20 380 1962 None -- -- 1963 September 17 0.2 3 1964 November 1 0 2 1965 August 16 7.5 180 1966 None -- --

Under current highly disturbed conditions from the historical mining activities near the eastern mining pit, the majority of the flow in Eagle Creek enters the eastern mining pit where it accumulates and generally evaporates quickly. Eagle Crest estimates the total drainage area of Eagle Creek at 11.89 square miles. However, under current conditions, about 1.74 square miles currently flow into the central mining pit and about 2.85 square miles flow directly to the eastern mining pit and water is retained in both mining pits. The current drainage area of Eagle Creek at the point it flows into the eastern mining pit is about 7.3 square miles. Before mining activities altered the drainage pattern, Eagle Creek (with a drainage area of 11.89 square miles) discharged into the Chuckwalla Valley, with an abrupt change in gradient where the wash emerged from the Eagle Mountains. As the flow emerged at high velocities from the channeled wash area, the sediment bedload was deposited to braided alluvial fan where sheet flow and lower velocities occurred. The Colorado River Aqueduct is buried within the alluvial fan deposits of Eagle Creek to the east of the eastern mining pit.

65 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Chuckwalla Valley is a closed watershed with a total drainage area of about 663 square miles, with two central sinks that form the Palen Dry Lake and Ford Dry Lake. During substantial rainfall events, runoff from areas near the project area reaches the Palen Dry Lake bed, forming a surface water feature that may persist for several weeks until lost by percolation and evaporation. There are a few intermittent springs in the mountains within the northwest part of the Chuckwalla Valley. All of these springs appear to be hydrologically disconnected from the Chuckwalla groundwater basin since the springs are located in the mountains above the valley floors.

Water Quality Water quality in the area is influenced by the site geology, including steep mountainous terrain; unconsolidated deposits in the valleys; the disturbed mine area; and sparse vegetation. The combined effect of these conditions and the rare, but normally intense, short-duration rain events lead to high sediment loads during runoff events. Surface water quality has not been monitored during the rare runoff events and access limitations have not permitted sampling of the water that sometimes collects at the bottom of the existing mining pits. Eagle Crest states that there likely to be a still-active wastewater treatment plant with a treatment pond on the southeastern side of the largely abandoned town of Eagle Mountain. In the Chuckwalla Valley, wastewater disposal occurs primarily though residential septic systems and treatment ponds that allow infiltration to groundwater.

Water Quality Standards Water quality protection in the proposed project area is within the jurisdiction of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 7 (Regional Water Board). The Regional Water Board carries out these responsibilities through the Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin within California (Basin Plan). This Basin Plan provides guidelines and regulations for activities that fall within Regional Water Board jurisdiction. Water quality objectives are based on the water body’s beneficial use classification (table 3). Under existing conditions, surface water rarely occurs and there is no current use designation. The State Water Board would assign use designations for the proposed water within the reservoirs and would approve the water quality certification for the project. We anticipate that the proposed project would receive the Hydropower and Industrial use designations from the State Water Board.

66 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 3. Relevant beneficial use definitions for the Colorado River Basin (Source: Regional Water Board and State Water Board, 2006). Category Definition Hydropower generation Uses of water for hydropower generation

Industrial service supply Uses of water for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality including, but not limited to, mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection, and oil well pressurization.

Several water quality objectives applied to all water bodies within the Regional Water Board’s jurisdiction for the Colorado River Basin are relevant to the proposed isolated, groundwater fed pumped storage project (table 4). Parameters and the important water quality objectives of the proposed project are shown in the table 4.

Groundwater Quality Eagle Crest states that groundwater quality in the proposed project area is typical for desert areas of southern California. The pH ranges from about 7.4 to 8.5; total dissolved solids levels at 425–950 milligrams per liter (mg/L) are generally above the California maximum containment level of 500 mg/L (CH2M HILL, 1996); and sulfate and chloride are generally both below the maximum containment level of 250 mg/L (Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc., 1978). Boron, fluoride, and arsenic are commonly higher than recommended concentrations for drinking water. Samples from the wells in the Pinto and Chuckwalla groundwater basins had concentrations of boron at 600 and 938 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and concentrations of fluoride of 2.4 and 6.2 mg/L (Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc., 1978). While high, these concentrations seem typical for arid desert valleys in southern California. Human-induced groundwater pollution is low due to the undeveloped nature of the Chuckwalla Valley area, the limited infiltration of surface water, and the extreme depth to groundwater. Groundwater quality data from a well in the Upper Chuckwalla Valley are shown in table 5.

67 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 4. Applicable water quality objectives for waters potentially affected by the proposed project (Source: Regional Water Board and State Water Board, 2006). Parameter Objective Aesthetic qualities Free from substances attributable to wastewater of domestic or industrial origin or other discharges which adversely affect beneficial uses not limited to: settling to form objectionable deposits, floating as debris, scum, grease, oil, wax, or other matter that may cause nuisances, and producing objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity. Toxicity Free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. Acidity pH 6.0-–9.0 Suspended solids Discharges of wastes or wastewater shall not contain and settleable solids suspended solids or settleable solids which increase the turbidity of receiving waters, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that alteration in turbidity does not adversely affect beneficial uses. Total dissolved Discharges of wastes or wastewater shall not increase the solids total dissolved solids content of receiving waters, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such an increase in total dissolved solids does not adversely affect beneficial uses of receiving waters. Sediment The suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate to surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Turbidity Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

68 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 5. Groundwater quality from the Upper Chuckwalla Well #1 (Source: letter from Separation Processes, Inc., Carlsbad, CA, to G. Gillin, Senior Environmental Scientist, GEI Consultants, Inc., Sacramento, CA, June 10, 2008). Concentration Contaminant (mg/L) Calcium 16.5 Magnesium 1.2 Sodium 201 Potassium 3.2 Bicarbonate 74.3 Sulfate 240 Chloride 88 Fluoride 11 Nitrate (as N) 0.65 Arsenic 0.009 Boron 0.6 Silica <20 Total Dissolved Solids 660 Total Suspended Solids <20 Turbidity <100 (NTU) pH 8.5

Establishment of numerical objectives for groundwater quality involves complex considerations since the quality can vary with depth of well screening, existing groundwater levels, geology, hydrology, and other factors. In general, the stated objective of the Regional Water Board is to maintain the existing groundwater quality of all non-degraded groundwater basins. Table 6 provides the general groundwater quality objectives from the Basin Plan.

69 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 6. Applicable groundwater quality objectives for the Colorado River Basin (Source: Regional Water Board and State Water Board, 2006). Parameter Objective Taste and odor Groundwaters for use as domestic or municipal supply shall not contain taste or odor-producing substances in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses as a result of human activity. Bacteriological In groundwaters designated for use as domestic or municipal community supply, the concentration of coliform organisms shall not exceed the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 15, Article 3. Chemical and Groundwaters designated for use as domestic or municipal physical quality supply shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, title 22, chapter 15, article 4, section 64435, tables 2, 3, and 4 as a result of human activity. Brines Discharges of water softener regeneration brines, other mineralized wastes, and toxic wastes to disposal facilities which ultimately discharge in areas where such wastes can percolate to groundwaters usable for domestic and municipal purposes are prohibited.

Groundwater Resources

General Hydrogeologic Setting The central project area is located in and adjacent to the Eagle Mountains on a bedrock ridge along the northwestern margins of the Chuckwalla Watershed (see figure 5). The central portions of the watershed contain the Palen and Chuckwalla valleys, with thick accumulations of alluvial sediments that comprise the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. Most domestic and agricultural areas are located in the western portions of the basin near Desert Center, about 10 miles south of the central project area. This area has been historically referred to as the Upper Chuckwalla Valley, while the Lower Chuckwalla Valley includes the valley area situated farther east of Desert Center and along Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla groundwater basin receives both surface and subsurface inflow from the Orocopia groundwater basin to the west and from the Pinto groundwater basin to the north (California DWR, 2004a,b,c). The groundwater entering the Chuckwalla groundwater basin from the Pinto groundwater basin passes through a gap in the bedrock about 6 miles north of the project area. A portion of the Pinto groundwater basin is

70 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

within the JTNP, which is about 1.5 miles from the project area. The Chuckwalla groundwater basin drains east into the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin, which in turn drains into the Palo Verde groundwater basin. The Colorado River forms the eastern edge of the Palo Verde Valley groundwater basin. Although the Cadiz groundwater basin is adjacent to the north side of the Chuckwalla basin, it is hydrologically disconnected due to mountains that block the flow of surface and subsurface flow between the two basins. A few intermittent springs41 exist in the area of the northwest Chuckwalla Valley (see figure 5). None of the springs are documented as permanent, year-round springs (SCS Engineers, 1990, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a), and all are located in the mountains and not in the valley. Traversing these basins and surrounding mountains is the Colorado River Aqueduct, which carries water west to highly populated areas of southern California (see figure 5).

Wells There are more than 50 known wells in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin that provide water level data, as archived by USGS (2010), California Department of Water Resources ([California DWR] 2011), and USGS (2011) and as summarized in other studies (Eagle Crest, 1994; Eagle Crest, 2009a; CH2M HILL, 1996) (figure 7). Other agricultural or domestic wells may be present, but their locations are not known due to poor record-keeping, and some older wells dating back to the early 1900s may have been destroyed or abandoned (Eagle Crest, 1994; CH2M HILL, 1996). The depth of these existing wells range up to 2,000 feet and have pumping capacities up to 3,900 gallons per minute (gpm), with average pumping rates of 1,800 gpm. In the Desert Center area, groundwater wells range up to 900 feet deep; two of these wells are capable of producing 2,300 gpm each. In the JTNP, the Park Service owns one well in the southeastern portion of the Pinto groundwater basin (Pinto Well No. 2). The Metropolitan Water District reportedly owns two additional wells near the Park Service well, according to Park Service as stated in its comments on the draft EIS. There are also a few existing wells in the footprint of the proposed project near the eastern mining pit. Available water level measurements made in many of these wells42 have been used to construct historical groundwater level trends in the Chuckwalla and adjacent groundwater basins (see below).

41 A spring occurs where groundwater flows naturally from the subsurface onto the land surface due to the nature and relationship of rocks, the position of the water table, and the topography (Neuendorf et al., 2005). 42 Where possible, the identification number of a well referenced in this section is given in parenthesis, which is based on its geographic location within the local township, range, and section of the Public Land Survey System, San Bernardino Meridian (e.g., well 05S/16E-7P is located in Sec. 7, T5S, R16E).

71 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Figure 7. Location of wells with long-term groundwater level records in the Chuckwalla and adjacent groundwater basins (Source: State Water Board, 2010, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Wtabletableater-bearing Formations Water-bearing geologic units in the Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin include geologically young (<1.8 Ma) alluvium and continental deposits, which together has a maximum thickness of 1,200 and 2,000 feet in the central and eastern portions of the basin, respectively (see units Qs, Qal, Ql, and Qc in figure 6). However, California DWR (2004a) considers there to be only 1,200 feet of permeable sediments in the basin. These units are primarily composed of semi-consolidated coarse sand and gravel, clay, and some interbedded basalts. Well log information was used by Eagle Crest to develop geologic profiles (i.e., subsurface cross sections) of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin to show the types of sediments and their distribution. The profiles, in addition to geophysical surveys in the Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin (GeoPentech, 2003), suggest that the bedrock surface beneath the alluvial sediments forms a large bowl, where the southern edge of this bowl aligns with a narrow east-west trending bedrock ridge. The northern edge of the bowl is composed of a similar bedrock feature at the union of the Chuckwalla and Pinto basins. The profiles show that coarse-grained sediments are continuous throughout the Chuckwalla groundwater basin, and because these sediment layers appear to be hydraulically connected, there is only one aquifer in most of the valley. This aquifer appears to be unconfined43 based on the geology and measured groundwater levels. This aquifer may be semi-confined to confined44 in the central portion of the valley near Desert Center where layers of clays have accumulated.

Hydraulic Characteristics Information about hydraulic characteristics of the sediments in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin is derived from published reports and well log records. The key parameters of interest when evaluating an aquifer’s ability to store and transmit water are provided and defined below:  Hydraulic conductivity—The ability of the pore spaces or fractures in rock sediment to transmit water; typical values for well-sorted sand and gravel are from 3 to 180 feet per day (Fetter, 2001).

43 An unconfined aquifer contains continuous layers of permeable materials extending from the land surface to the base of the aquifer; also referred to as a water-table aquifer. 44 A semi-confined or confined aquifer is overlain by a confining layer, and therefore, does not have direct hydraulic connectivity with the land surface or the surficial aquifer. The impermeable layer is often composed of impermeable or semi- impermeable clays.

73 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Storativity—Or the storage coefficient, the volume of water an aquifer releases from or takes into storage per unit surface area or the aquifer per unit change in head. Storativity is equal to the specific yield in unconfined aquifers, like the Chuckwalla groundwater basin.  Specific yield—The percentage of the volume of water a substrate will yield by gravity drainage to the volume of the substrate. Hydraulic conductivity measurements of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin were obtained from historical records of aquifer tests for wells in the Desert Center area, the upper portions of the basin (east of the central project area) and in the Lower Chuckwalla groundwater basin. The measurements reveal that hydraulic conductivities in the upper portions of the basin (36 to 94 feet/day) are about half of those measured near Desert Center (111 to 139 feet/day). The bedrock portion of the project area near the proposed reservoirs has a much lower hydraulic conductivity because the bedrock is essentially impermeable, limiting groundwater movement to occur within faults, joints, and fractures. California DWR estimated the average specific yield of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin to be 0.10 for the upper 220 feet of saturated sediments (California DWR, 1979).

Groundwater Levels Eagle Crest developed a partial trend in groundwater levels over the past 50 years by combining records from multiple wells in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. These data represent historical water table elevations, extraction levels, and groundwater flow direction in the basin. A summary of groundwater level trends as recorded in water production wells in the basin is presented in table 7; the location of the wells are shown in figure 7. Groundwater levels in the Desert Center area were relatively stable until 1981. Between 1981 and 1986, thousands of acres were irrigated for the first time to support short-lived agricultural activities that resulted in groundwater level declines of about 130 feet. Groundwater levels between 1986 and 2002 have recovered by over 100 feet (wells 5S/16E-7P1 and -7P2), which is due in part to a large decrease in agricultural pumping. In addition, this recovery could be from increased groundwater inflows (from the steep gradients caused by or enhanced by the groundwater extraction) from the adjacent groundwater basins that contribute inflow. Full recovery of groundwater levels to pre-pumping conditions (i.e., before the 1960s) has yet to occur to date, and a slow recovery is likely because of continued, albeit lower, pumping in this area. Current trends in groundwater levels in the eastern portion of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin near the outflow to the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin are conflicting—one well (7S/20E-18H1) shows a trend similar to the wells near Desert Center while another well shows the groundwater level recovering during the overdraft period of the early 1980s (well 7S/20E-28C1). This apparent conflict in groundwater trends may reflect differences in local use and the fact that the groundwater levels in the eastern portion of the groundwater basin were rising and were not affected by pumping

74 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Table 7. Summary of groundwater elevation trends in the Chuckwalla and adjacent groundwater basins as measured in wells with long-term records (Source: USGS, 2011; California DWR, 2011). Earliest Groundwater Most Recent Change in Elevation Prior Minimum Groundwater Groundwater General to the Early Groundwater Elevation Since Level Since the Well IDa Location 1980sb Elevationb the Early 1980sb Early 1980s (feet) 1,076 1,073.6c 1,074 6S/11E-16E1 +0.4 Western end of (1933) (1981) (1994) Orocopia Valley 946 944c 945 6S/10E-N1 +1 (1952) (1981) (1985) Mouth of Pinto 931 909c 918d 3S/15E-4J1 +9 Valley (1954) (1981) (2007) 75 498 481 488 5S/15E-12N1 +7 (1961) (1992) (2000) 483 409 425 5S/16E-7M1 +16 Northeast of (1961) (1991) (1994) Desert Center in 490 348d 462 5S/16E-7P1/7P2 agricultural area +114 (1952) (1986) (2000) 477 426c 427 4S/16E-32M1 +1 (1961) (1984) (1985) 478 473 474 4S/17E-6C1 Palen Valley +1 (1932) (1982) (1985)

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Earliest Groundwater Most Recent Change in Elevation Prior Minimum Groundwater Groundwater General to the Early Groundwater Elevation Since Level Since the Well IDa Location 1980sb Elevationb the Early 1980sb Early 1980s (feet) 462 456 456 5S/17E-19Q1e NA East of Desert (1961) (1992) (1992) Center near Palen 466 461 461 5S/17E-30F1e Dry Lake NA (1961) (1992) (1992) Eastern end of 263c 293 7S/18E-14F1 Chuckwalla No data +30 (1982) (2000) Valley 276c 288

76 7S/18E-14H1 No data +12 (1983) (2011) 6S/19E- 280 293 No data +13 32K1/32K2 (1992) (2000) 272 273 6S/19E-28R1 No data +1 (1990) (1992) Eastern end of 289.7 279.5 7S/19E-4R1 Chuckwalla No data –0.2 (1990) (2000) Valley 258 257 6S/20E-33C1 No data –1 (1990) (1992) 285 285 8S/20E-28N1 No data 0 (1990) (2000) 281c 281 8S/20E-9K1 No data 0 (1984) (2000)

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Earliest Groundwater Most Recent Change in Elevation Prior Minimum Groundwater Groundwater General to the Early Groundwater Elevation Since Level Since the Well IDa Location 1980sb Elevationb the Early 1980sb Early 1980s (feet) 258c 270 7S/20E-28C1 No data +12 (1982) (2011) 247.8 248.1 7S/21E-5C2 No data +0.3 (2002) (2006) 275 259 259 7S/20E-18H1 –14 since 1981 (1961) (1992) (1992) Eastern end of 252 257 7S/20E-17K1 Chuckwalla No data +5 Valley at (1987) (1992) 77 Ironwood/ 251 251 7S/20E-16M1e No data NA Chuckwalla (1992) (1992) prisons 241 244 7S/20E-17G1 No data +3 (1987) (2000) Notes: NA – Not applicable due to lack of data. The early 1980s are representative of peak groundwater withdrawal for intensive agricultural activities. a Wells are generally listed in order of up-gradient to down-gradient location in the valley. b Elevation datum in NGVD29; year of measurement given in parenthesis. c Value indicates that the measurement was taken during the intensive agricultural water-use period of the early 1980s. d Source: State Water Board (2010). e No available data during the early 1980s; it is unknown whether groundwater elevation during the early 1980s was greater or less than the most recent measurement made after this period.

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

near Desert Center, but instead were more strongly influenced by pumping at the Ironwood/Chuckwalla state prisons located in that portion of the valley. Farther east in the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin, water levels showed little to no effects of pumping within the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. In the Pinto groundwater basin, water levels remained stable until about 1960 when pumping by Kaiser in the Pinto and Upper Chuckwalla valleys lowered water levels by about 15 feet between 1960 and 1981 (well 03S/15E-4J1). Thereafter, groundwater levels began to recover, potentially due to Kaiser’s greatly reduced pumping, even though groundwater levels near Desert Center declined in the early 1980s. Recent measurements taken in 2007 (Eagle Crest, 2009a), show that levels have continued to recover and are about 7 feet below the static water level measured in 1960, possibly due to withdrawals near Desert Center. These different groundwater level trends suggest that pumping in the Desert Center area does not substantially affect groundwater levels in the Pinto groundwater basin. There are no well data for the eastern portion of the Orocopia groundwater basin near where it discharges into the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. However, there are well data for the western, or upper, portion of the Orocopia basin that indicate water levels have remained relatively stable between the 1930s and 1990s, but no measurements have been made since 1994.

Groundwater Flow Direction Groundwater movement in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin is directed from the north and west toward the gap between the Mule and the McCoy mountains at the southeastern end of the basin and into the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin (California DWR, 2004a). More recent data near the central project area reveal that groundwater movement is both north and south from the Eagle Mountains toward Eagle Creek Canyon and then to the east until it reaches the basin aquifer, where it is then directed toward the southeast (CH2M HILL, 1996).

Groundwater Storage and Outflow The total storage capacity of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin was estimated to be between 9.1 and 15 million acre-feet (California DWR, 1979; California DWR, 1975, as cited in California DWR, 2004a). The estimated storage for just the northwestern portion of the Upper Chuckwalla near the project site is about 1 million acre-feet (Mann, 1986). This estimate is probably very conservative because only 100 feet of saturated sediments were considered in the calculation, and there are several hundred feet of saturated sediments remaining. Using geologic profiles to assess the saturated thickness (about 150 feet) and assuming a storage coefficient of 0.10, the storage capacity of the entire basin (areal extent of about 605,000 acres) in only the coarse-grained sediment portion of the aquifer is estimated to be about 10 million acre-feet, similar to California DWR’s 1979 estimate. This is probably another conservative estimate because it does not include water in the clay deposits nor does it account for additional water that may be

78 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

present in the confined or partially confined areas of the central portion of Chuckwalla groundwater basin. Outflow occurs only as groundwater movement, because no surface waters leave the basin. The groundwater basin discharge of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin to the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin is estimated to be about 400 acre-feet per year (California DWR, 1979). The total storage capacities of the contributing Orocopia and Pinto groundwater basins have been estimated to be 1.5 to 6.25 million acre-feet and 230,000 acre-feet, respectively (California DWR, 1975; LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1981, as cited in California DWR, 2004b).

Groundwater Pumping The amount of groundwater pumped from the Chuckwalla groundwater basin has been estimated from recorded data filed with the State Water Board and by the acres and types of crops grown multiplied by the evapotranspiration rates of the plants. The recorded pumping over the years has been erratic and may be incomplete; estimates based on agricultural land usage, or water duties (evaporation plus applied water losses), were made between 1986 and 2007 (Eagle Crest, 2009a). The highest pumping occurred in 1986, at about 20,780 acre-feet per year, but has decreased substantially since the majority of the production of jojoba and asparagus ended shortly thereafter. Only about 25 percent of land once devoted to agriculture continues to be farmed. Other pumping in the basin occurs for domestic and industrial use. Domestic use in the area is estimated at 50 acre-feet per year in Desert Center and 1,090 acre-feet per year at the Lake Tamarisk development. Southern California Gas Company uses wells to supply about 1 acre-foot per year to its natural gas pumping plant (from well 5S/16E- 7P2). Farther east in the basin are the Chuckwalla Valley and Ironwood State prisons that were opened in 1988 and 1994, respectively, and are located directly adjacent to each other about 30 miles east of Desert Center. The two prisons pumped 2,100 acre-feet per year of groundwater in 2007 and recharged about 800 acre-feet per year of treated wastewater. However, populations at the prisons are projected to reduce by about 35 percent by 2011 to alleviate overcrowding, which would reduce the prisons’ pumping to about 1,500 acre-feet per year and their recharge contribution to about 600 acre-feet per year.

Groundwater Recharge Sources and Perennial Yield The majority of groundwater contained within the Chuckwalla groundwater basin is of ancient origin that likely derived from precipitation that was trapped with sediments as they deposited upon the valley floor over the past million years (Nishikawa et al., 2004; Eagle Crest, 2009d). Therefore, the oldest water is typically found at the bottom of the aquifer and the youngest water is found closer to the ground surface. The Chuckwalla groundwater basin is recharged by percolation of runoff from the surrounding mountains (California DWR, 2004a). Average annual precipitation in the

79 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

basin is about 3 to 5 inches (California DWR, 2004a; PRISM Group, 2006). There are few measurements to quantify the amount of recharge from rain, and some studies estimated that only 5 to 10 percent of the rain falling on the watershed contributes to the groundwater, but recharge is generally limited to percolation of runoff from the surrounding mountains because rainfall does not infiltrate through the valley floor to the water table (Mann, 1986). The average recharge to the aquifer from precipitation was estimated at 5,400 to 5,600 acre-feet per year based on an assumed 5 to 10 percent infiltration rate into the surrounding mountains, which have a catchment area of about 255,370 acres (LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1981, as cited in State Water Board, 2010). The Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin is also recharged by groundwater inflow from the north by the Pinto groundwater basin. Inflow from the Pinto groundwater basin occurs as outflow through an alluvium-filled gap at the east end of the Pinto basin. The perennial yield of the Pinto groundwater basin is estimated at 2,500 acre-feet per year (Mann, 1986). Recent estimates using geophysical studies to define the area where groundwater leaves the Pinto basin suggest the inflow may be as much as 3,200 acre-feet per year (GeoPentech, 2003). Groundwater inflow to the Chuckwalla basin from the Orocopia basin has been conservatively estimated to be 1,700 acre-feet per year (LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1981, as cited in State Water Board, 2010), but has been estimated to be as high as 6,200 acre-feet per year (LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1981, as cited in California DWR, 2004b). Because there are no groundwater withdrawals in this basin, its outflow is considered to be all recharge to the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. Although not distinguished by groundwater basin, cumulative estimates of recharge from the Pinto and Orocopia groundwater basins are about 6,700 acre-feet per year (CH2M HILL, 1996), slightly lower than the average of the range of values stated above (i.e., 4,200 to 9,400 acre-feet per year). The current perennial yield,45 or natural recharge, of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin has been estimated as between about 8,900 and 20,000 acre-feet per year (Mann, 1986). Eagle Crest applied two methods to estimate recharge in the basin: the Maxey- Eakin method (Maxey and Eakin, 1949; Hevesi et al., 2002) and the Metropolitan Water District Review Panel method (State Water Board, 2010). The former method produced a low range of recharge values from 600 to 3,100 acre-feet per year, while the latter method, for which only mountainous areas of the basin were considered in keeping with the approach taken by the USGS in its study in the Joshua Tree groundwater basin (Nishikawa et al., 2004), resulted in recharge estimates between 7,600 and 17,700 acre-

45 Perennial yield is defined by the California DWR (2003) as: “the maximum quantity of water that can be annually withdrawn from a groundwater basin over a long period of time (during which water supply conditions approximate average conditions) without developing an overdraft condition.”

80 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

feet per year, with a mean of 12,700 acre-feet per year. The former method has been found by others, including the USGS as part of its study of recharge in Death Valley (located to the north in a similar climatic and physiographic setting as Chuckwalla Valley) (Hevesi et al., 2002), to underestimate recharge rates because it generally over- simplifies certain input parameters and spatial scales. Therefore, the results generated from applying this method is considered to underestimate recharge in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. The Metropolitan Water District Review Panel’s method resulted in recharge rates that compare well with previous estimates reported in other published studies (e.g., Mann, 1986; Hanson, 1992, as cited in State Water Board, 2010). Based on the above information, a summary of the annual groundwater recharge estimates in acre- feet per year follows: Precipitation: 5,400–5,600 Orocopia groundwater basin: 2,500–3,200 Pinto groundwater basin: 1,700–6,200 Total range: 9,600–15,000

In its comments on the draft EIS, the Park Service suggested that recharge rates in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin are substantially lower than Eagle Crest’s estimate of 12,700 acre-feet per year and, further, that the recharge is likely between 3,300 and 6,000 acre-feet per year. The Park Service derived this estimate by using recharge coefficients determined by the USGS in its groundwater recharge study in the Joshua Tree groundwater basin (Nishikawa et al., 2004), which the Park Service states is more appropriate for use in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin than the Metropolitan Water District’s Review Panel’s method (developed in the Fenner groundwater basin, which is located to the north of Cadiz groundwater basin) that Eagle Crest used in its recharge analysis. The Park Service also stated that its lower recharge estimate is supported by declining water levels in a well located near Desert Center (well 5S/16E-7P1 and -7P2). Overall, the Chuckwalla groundwater basin shares more physical similarities with the Fenner groundwater basin than with the Joshua Tree groundwater basin. For example, the total area of the Joshua Tree groundwater basin and contributing watershed (i.e., the surface-water drainage basin area) is a factor of five smaller than the Chuckwalla groundwater basin and contributing watershed—166,400 acres (Nishikawa et al., 2004) versus 860,368 acres (BLM, 2010c), respectively—whereas the area of the Fenner groundwater basin and contributing watershed is similar to the Chuckwalla basin and watershed—both are greater than 500,000 acres (California DWR, 2004e). Because average annual precipitation in all three basins is similar (about 3 to 5 inches; PRISM Group, 2006), this difference in areal size alone helps to explain much of the differences in groundwater recharge rates in the Joshua Tree and Chuckwalla groundwater basins.

81 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

The remainder of the difference in recharge rates in these two groundwater basins can be explained by considering that the Chuckwalla groundwater basin receives additional inflow from two adjacent sizeable groundwater basins (i.e., Orocopia and Pinto), while the Joshua Tree groundwater basin does not. The natural recharge to the Chuckwalla groundwater basin without the input from Orocopia and Pinto groundwater basins is about 5,400 to 5,600 acre-feet per year, which is closer to the recharge rate of 1,090 acre-feet per year for the Joshua Tree groundwater basin as estimated by the USGS in its 2004 study. Further, a comparison between recharge coefficients—the ratio of the total annual recharge estimate to the surface-water drainage basin area—for these two basins can be made. The Joshua Tree recharge coefficient equals 0.0068 foot per year (1,090 acre-feet per year divided by 159,801 acres) and the Chuckwalla recharge coefficient equals a similar value of 0.0064 foot per year (5,550 acre-feet per year divided by 860,368 acres). This agreement in recharge coefficient values for the two groundwater basins indicates that the analytical approach taken by Eagle Crest to estimate recharge in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin was as appropriate as the one taken by the USGS in its study of recharge in the Joshua Tree groundwater basin. The Park Service states that Eagle Crest overestimated recharge rates in the basin because groundwater levels in the Desert Center area have not sufficiently recovered since the intensive agricultural pumping ceased in the 1980s. However, the Park Service places some of its analysis on wells 5S/R16E-7P1 and -7P2 (see table 7), which may not accurately represent contemporary water levels and, in turn recharge rates, for the entire groundwater basin. As discussed above under Groundwater Levels, these well data, however, represent the substantial amount of water level recovery that has been occurring since the 1980s in areas that experienced the greatest amount of historical drawdown. This water production well (now used by the Southern California Gas Company to supply its natural gas pipeline pumping plant) is situated near several other water supply wells that have been active for some time (e.g., well 5S/16E-7M1). This and nearby water supply wells continue to withdraw groundwater, and they likely have cumulatively created a localized cone of depression in the Desert Center area. This cone of depression has therefore maintained a lower water level as compared to the presumably higher water levels throughout much of the remainder of the groundwater basin. These water levels are not being influenced by the pumping effects still present near this concentration of wells. Therefore, it appears that the lack of full recovery of groundwater levels in all wells situated near Desert Center is due to their overlapping cones of depression from current water withdrawal, rather than a lower recharge rate in the basin.

Fishery Resources No perennial streams are present in the project area. Intermittent surface water sources in the central project area and vicinity are Eagle Creek (a normally dry wash south of the central project area), other smaller unnamed washes, and temporary pools at the bottom of mine pits from stormwater runoff. Ephemeral springs within the vicinity of the central project area are Buzzard Spring, an unnamed spring near Buzzard Spring, and

82 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Eagle Tank Spring. All of these water sources are temporary and seasonal and are not capable of supporting fish. The Colorado River Aqueduct lies at the base of the largely inactive Eagle Mountain mine site. South of the central project area is a forebay (part of the aqueduct system) at the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant. The Colorado River Aqueduct diverts water from Lake Havasu on the Colorado River, and fish species that may be present in the aqueduct system are the same as those found in Lake Havasu and the Colorado River. These species consist primarily of introduced game species including largemouth bass, striped bass, catfish (whitehead, bullhead, flathead, and channel), threadfin shad, green sunfish, black crappie, warmouth, and carp. Native species that may be present in the aqueduct are razorback sucker, bonytail chub, and desert pupfish. Although the Colorado River Aqueduct may support game fish, it is not legally accessible to the public and Eagle Crest does not plan to use water from the Colorado River Aqueduct.

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects

Water Quantity

Effects of Operation on Water Quantity in the Reservoirs Construction of the project and operation would result in changes to the amount of flow that reaches Eagle Creek during the rare events that runoff occurs in the area. Under current conditions, both existing mining pits retain the stormwater runoff that is directed to their locations. Under operational conditions, this stormwater would be added to water in the reservoirs, creating a possible excess amount of water in the reservoirs, depending on operational conditions and the amount of inflow. In its letters filed April 27, 2009, responding to Deficiency No. 5 and AIR No. 4, Eagle Crest’s summarizes its plans to release excess water from the reservoirs during large rainfall events, such as the 100-year event and up to and including the PMF. These measures are summarized below:  During stormwater inflow to the lower reservoir, operations would be adjusted or curtailed to account for higher than normal water in storage. The amount of available energy storage space in the lower reservoir would be reduced from 17,700 acre-feet by the volume of runoff entering the lower reservoir in order to avoid spills at the upper reservoir due to pumping. The number of hours of on-peak generation would be reduced or curtailed during large (>200 acre-feet) runoff events.  For larger inflow volumes (>200 acre-feet), the lower reservoir spillway would be operated to release, by gravity, the extra water in storage. This would be accomplished by keeping the water level in the lower reservoir above the spillway crest level by about 3 feet (reservoir at elevation 1,098 feet) with

83 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

releases of water from the upper reservoir through the turbines to the lower reservoir.  During large inflow events, normal pumped storage operations would be interrupted until the excess water is removed from the reservoir system. Eagle Crest expects during this type of operation that one of the turbine units would be operated at its minimum flow rate (about 1,100 cubic feet per second [cfs]) for pre-arranged time periods. The attenuating effects of the reservoir would be adequate to maintain outflows close to 460 cfs on a continuous basis, with small reservoir storage level fluctuations above the spillway crest.  These operations would cause the spillway to discharge 460 cfs. With no inflow, the reservoir would be drawn down by 1 foot in about 5.2 hours (ending with 3 feet of head on the spillway). This drawdown would allow minimum generation flow (1,100 cfs) to be released for about 2.7 hours until the spillway is discharging 460 cfs once again and then the operating cycle would repeat. Eagle Crest states that this operational procedure after large flood events was designed based on a desire to have a relatively small amount of flow reach the alluvial fan balanced against the need to restore normal pumped storage operations in a reasonable amount of time following rare flood events.

Our Analysis Runoff events in the project area are very rare and normally are of short duration with a limited amount of volume, as indicated by the historical gaging on Eagle Creek. Eagle Crest estimates that events producing inflows less than 200 acre-feet could be stored in the reservoirs to reduce the amount of make-up water needed. The 200 acre-feet could be stored in the lower reservoir without overtopping the proposed spillway, so normal operations could continue with inflow volumes less than 200 acre-feet. The upper reservoir could accommodate about 1,000 acre-feet without overtopping the spillway crest. Eagle Crest estimated that a 100-year flood event would add about 2,000 acre-feet to the reservoir system. It would require about 2 days to remove this water from the two reservoirs following Eagle Crest’s proposed operational procedures. With the proposed storage capacity of the upper and lower reservoirs, our calculations indicate that 2,000 acre-feet is about 11 percent of the excess storage that is available in the combined reservoirs. A pumped storage facility has the advantage that normally about half of the total active storage is available in one or a combination of the reservoirs at any time. Even though the estimated runoff during the 100 year event is only 2,000 acre feet, it is likely that the majority of this runoff would reach the reservoir system within a few hours, but would likely be less than the proposed total pumping or generation capacity (11,600 cfs) of the project. However, the exact timing would be a function of travel time in natural channels and the effects of attenuation by storage in the reservoirs. So it is

84 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

likely that even with minor operational changes and spillways designed for larger events than the 100 year event, no major effects on the project area are likely. Eagle Crest estimated the PMF event would add an estimated 11,520 acre-feet to the reservoir system and estimated the recurrence interval of this event as about once every 10,000 years. In the event of a PMF type event, operational changes would be needed for about 12 days to discharge the excess that would accumulate in the reservoirs. The analyses discussed here are based on preliminary designs. The project design could change prior to construction, which would affect the parameters used in the analyses. To ensure that any design changes would not increase the environmental effects of releasing excess water from the reservoirs, the design flood determination would be included in the Supporting Design Report, which would be reviewed and commented on by the Commission prior to start of construction. A likely dam break analysis and analysis design of flood conditions would be included in the emergency action plan, which would be submitted at least 60 days prior to initial filling of the reservoir in accordance with Part 12, Subpart C of the Commission’s regulations.

Effects of Operation on Water Quantity in Eagle Creek and the Alluvial Fan Project construction and operation would result in changes to the amount of flow that reaches Eagle Creek and the alluvial fan during the rare flood events. Under current conditions, both existing mining pits retain the stormwater runoff, which is directed to their locations and limits the amount of flow that reaches Eagle Creek and the alluvial fan. Under proposed conditions, some of this stormwater could reach Eagle Creek, depending on operational conditions of the project. The addition of this water to Eagle Creek could create higher peak flows in Eagle Creek between the upper reservoir and the lower reservoir and downstream of the lower reservoir along the proposed overflow discharge location. Existing berms and other structures that exist along the lower reaches of Eagle Creek appear to have been constructed during the mining operations to direct flood water away from the Eagle Mountain town site and other structures. Eagle Crest’s response to Deficiency No. 6 summarizes its conceptual plans for channel modification to contain the PMF within the Eagle Creek channel. Included in these conceptual plans are berms and other modifications to direct flood water to the lower reservoir and away from other existing or proposed structures during the PMF and lesser flood events. However, based on Eagle Crest’s analyses of Eagle Creek, it does not currently propose any modifications to contain the PMF within the Eagle Creek channel. Eagle Crest has also designed the spillway and discharge channel of the lower reservoir and proposes an operational plan to limit the release from the lower reservoir to 460 cfs for a period of 13 days after a PMF event.

85 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Our Analysis Eagle Crest estimated that the peak PMF discharge in the Eagle Creek channel is 17,380 cfs, including 15,320 cfs of unregulated runoff from the main 7.3-square mile portion of the watershed and 2,050 cfs from spillway operation at the upper reservoir, assuming that the upper reservoir is full to its normal pool at the onset of the flood. This rate is based on an estimated peak PMF inflow to the upper reservoir of 4,640 cfs from its 1.7-square mile watershed, which would be attenuated to 2,050 cfs by storage above the spillway invert. Table 8 provides the estimated peak PMF flows at two locations under existing and proposed conditions.

Table 8. Peak flow (cfs) during the probable maximum flood (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009c). Existing Condition Proposed Condition Below the upper reservoir 0 2,050

Eagle Creek to lower reservoir 15,320 15,320 Total 15,320 17,370

Because of limited site access, Eagle Crest estimated hydraulic capacity at key locations of the Eagle Creek channel using available topographic mapping and aerial photos to provide estimated channel slopes and widths and to estimate flow depths and velocities at key locations. This analysis then used the two flow rates noted in table 8 for existing and proposed conditions in Eagle Creek. Based on the results provided by Eagle Crest from this analysis, the existing Eagle Creek channel should be adequate to convey PMF flows for existing and proposed conditions due to an increase in flow depth of about 0.4 foot and a velocity increase of about 0.9 foot per second, or about 5 percent. However, we note that especially in streams, such as Eagle Creek, substantial geomorphological changes are likely during large flood events, which could change the location and conveyance capacity of the channel. The flow velocities for Eagle Creek calculated by Eagle Crest indicate that during the PMF, velocities would range in the 16 to 18 feet per second range. Our calculations for smaller flood events indicate a flow velocity in Eagle Creek at more than 10 feet per second. Both of these ranges of flow velocities are capable of moving a large amount of sediment, gravel, and boulders and causing substantial erosion of existing and proposed structures and streambed conditions. The average grade of the alluvial fan (which contains the buried Colorado River Aqueduct) in the vicinity of the lower reservoir spillway channel discharge point is about 2 percent. The water from the overflow spillway, at a proposed maximum rate of 460 cfs, is proposed to be conveyed through a riprap channel then discharged and spread across the alluvial fan during and after very large storm events such as the PMF.

86 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Calculations by Eagle Crest indicate that the flow velocity in the unlined alluvial fan should be about 3 feet per second during the PMF. During a PMF type event within the watershed and the Chuckwalla Valley, the possible erosion downstream of the lower reservoir as a result of a flow of 460 cfs should be insignificant. More detailed analyses would be required during final design of the project. At that time, precise topographic mapping would be available and physical reconnaissance of the Eagle Creek and the overflow spill path from the lower reservoir could be performed. Once this information is collected and the final designs are complete, the parameters needed for channel capacity evaluation and design of channel improvements and/or armoring could be determined.

Reservoir Level Monitoring Operation of the reservoirs would cause water levels to substantially fluctuate on a daily basis. During peak electrical demand periods, water would be released from the upper reservoir to the lower reservoir, and during low demand periods, water would be pumped to the upper reservoir. Fluctuations of the reservoir levels would affect not only terrestrial issues but would also create operational and safety issues. Safety measures would include ensuring that over-pumping or over-generation does not occur, causing spillage from the reservoir’s emergency spillways. Safety and compliance associated with the water levels of the proposed project would fall under Part 12 of the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections regulations. Eagle Crest did not propose a reservoir monitoring program in its license application.

Our Analysis Eagle Crest proposes to transfer a maximum of 17,700 acre feet of water between the two reservoirs on a daily basis with the proposed hydraulic capacity of 11,600 cfs. Under proposed operations, the upper reservoir would fluctuate between a minimum water elevation of 2,349 feet and a maximum water level of 2,485 feet. The lower reservoir would fluctuate between a minimum level of elevation 925 feet and elevation 1,092 feet. The average amount of daily fluctuation would probably be less than the total variation between the minimum and maximum water levels. The elevation of the proposed spillway at the upper reservoir is also at elevation 2,485 and the spillway at the lower reservoir is at elevation 1,095 feet, 2 feet above the maximum water surface at the lower reservoir elevation.

Environmentally, the fluctuation of the reservoirs could have an effect on possible acid production from water interaction with the rocks surrounding the proposed reservoirs and the potential for water seepage from the reservoirs as discussed later in this section. In addition, the fluctuating water levels could affect the potential for invasive species occurrence in the reservoir areas, as discussed in section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, and the access to water for desert bighorn sheep as discussed in section 3.3.4, Threatened and Endangered Species.

87 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Project operations would require a dedicated and redundant system of monitoring to ensure that over pumping and over release of water for the proposed project would not occur and would need to follow regulations set by the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections prior to operation of the project. A reservoir monitoring program to address environmental issues would be less stringent and could include monitoring and documentation of reservoir levels at 15 to 30 minute and included in the project operation report.

Water Quality Construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of disturbed soils available for mobilization during rain events and could affect sedimentation and turbidity. These effects are addressed in section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soil Resources. Operation of the proposed project could also result in increased salinity and acid levels in the reservoirs as the result of evaporation and the exposure of mining materials to water. This could potentially affect multiple water quality parameters within the proposed project area, as described in the following section.

Effects of Seepage and Evaporation from the Reservoirs and Brine Ponds on Groundwater Quality Left untreated, the chemical components of the water lost to evaporation (dissolved minerals, nutrients, and other chemicals) would remain in the reservoirs, increasing dissolved mineral concentrations and decreasing water quality. Eagle Crest estimates evaporation losses from the reservoirs at 1,760 acre-feet per year. In addition, an estimated volume of up to 1,600 acre-feet of water per year would seep from the project reservoirs. Eagle Crest proposes to install a seepage recovery system to recover the vast majority of the seepage water. However, it is possible that due to interaction with native geological materials near the proposed reservoir sites, it is possible that the recovered seepage water would be of lower water quality than the replacement water that is expected from the pumping wells located near the town of Desert Center. To maintain water quality within the reservoirs, Eagle Crest proposes to use a reverse osmosis treatment system that would remove water from the reservoir at a rate of 2,055 gpm (Measure GQ-1). This system would be designed to remove sufficient total dissolved solids to maintain the in-reservoir total dissolved solids at the average concentration of the source groundwater. The design of the reverse osmosis treatment system would comprise several pretreatment elements, including dissolved air flotation, automatic backwash screens, and a microfiltration system, to optimize treatment by the reverse osmosis process. Water would be removed from the upper reservoir, and treated water would be returned to the lower reservoir, and the concentrated brine from the reverse osmosis process would be directed to the proposed evaporation ponds. These ponds would cover about 56 acres and Eagle Crest estimates the total brine production at about 270 acre-feet per year. The proposed design for the evaporation ponds divides the total required pond area into six ponds of varying levels of salinity and five solidifying ponds. Each evaporation pond would be about 8.3 acres in size and each solidifying

88 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

pond would be about 1.4 acres in size. The discharge from the reverse osmosis system would flow into one pond and be directed to another pond while the solution remaining in the first pond evaporates. Proposed pond design includes clay or membrane liners along the bottom and the 8-foot-high berms to protect against seepage. Eagle Crest proposes to use monitoring wells to help identify a potential liner failure (Measure GQ-2).

Our Analysis Without treatment, the water quality in the reservoirs would diminish because salinity levels would increase due to evaporative losses from the reservoirs. Reverse osmosis systems are capable of desalinating water and producing mineral-free water. Eagle Crest’s current proposed design would operate at a 90 percent recovery rate (see table 9), the final reverse osmosis treatment step would produce 1,560 gpm of permeate to be returned to the lower reservoir, and 174 gpm of brine would be sent to the evaporation ponds.

Table 9. Expected reverse osmosis concentrations (Source: letter from Separation Processes, Inc., Carlsbad, CA, to G. Gillin, Senior Environmental Scientist, GEI Consultants, Inc., Sacramento, CA, June 10, 2008). Reservoir Return Concentration RO Concentrate Contaminant (mg/L) (mg/L) Calcium < 1 170 Magnesium < 1 12 Sodium 10 1,910 Potassium 0.2 30 Bicarbonate 7.5 650 Sulfate 3.5 2,400 Chloride 6 930 Fluoride 1.2 100 Nitrate (as N) < 2 40 Arsenic < 0.01 0 Boron 0.6 1 Silica 1 195 Total dissolved solids 30 6,450 Total suspended solids 0 0 Turbidity < 0.5 < 5

89 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Eagle Mountain’s proposal to treat a sufficient volume of reservoir water to maintain water quality comparable to the source water should prevent degradation of water quality from salinity increases that would occur otherwise. To achieve this goal, Eagle Crest’s proposal includes treating 3,315 acre-feet of reservoir water each year. According to Eagle Crest, this procedure would result in the production of about 2,500 tons of dry salt in the brine ponds each year. It is anticipated that the time required to concentrate dissolved solids in the reservoir to levels considered a degradation of water quality would take longer than any reasonable reverse osmosis system downtime scenario involving maintenance or repair. We also discuss potential effects of salt management in section 3.3.5, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, in the subsection Land Use. In addition to removing salts from the water, most other contaminants (e.g., microbes), nutrients, and minerals would be removed as well. Therefore, eutrophication is not expected to occur because the water quality in the reservoirs would be maintained. The storage of brine in the surface ponds poses some risk to surface and groundwater quality. Brine pond leakage could pose a distinct threat to water quality. Failure of the pond wall or liner represent possible scenarios related to an accidental release of brine to the surrounding environment. Based on expected brine volumes and the surface areas of the six individual evaporation ponds and a wall height of 8 feet, it is expected that a maximum of about 45 acre-feet brine volume would be stored in each evaporation pond. In the event of a pond wall failure, concentrated brine could wash out of the pond, resulting in surface flow. This type of a failure would release the brine, with high concentrations of salts and other minerals onto the soil, potentially harming vegetation. We estimate that the brine from a possible pond wall failure would affect a limited area and would not reach the Colorado River Aqueduct, which is buried and about 2.4 miles downgradient from the proposed ponds. The exact amount of land that could be affected by an unlikely wall breach is difficult to estimate but would be determined by a number of variables, including the amount and height of liquid in the pond, the size and timing of the breach development, and the topography soil features down gradient of the pond. It is likely that after flowing a relatively short distance, the concentrated brine would percolate into the soil and eventually reach the groundwater as a plume after a largely vertical movement through the subsurface. However, the infiltration rate would be slow due to the low amount of infiltration from other sources, such as rain water. In addition, we expect that the percolation and movement of brine through the soil would be slowed by the effects of viscosity, density, and the attachment of brine particles to soil particles. In this area of the site, groundwater is about 500 feet below the surface with about 300 feet of alluvial deposits over bedrock. Eagle Crest has not specified the exact type of double liners it is proposing, other than stating that they would be a clay and or membrane liner and would be designed and

90 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

constructed in accordance with Title 2746 to prevent seepage. With a clay liner and concentrated brine, cation exchange47 might be likely and this interaction could slowly increase the permeability of the clay liner. In the event of a pond liner failure, there would probably be a somewhat slow, continuous concentrated brine solution leak, which we expect would move slowly to the groundwater table. Once the brine plume reaches the bedrock or the groundwater table, the plume would begin to move more horizontally downgradient where it might be intercepted by a proposed monitoring well. Eagle Mountain proposes to install monitoring wells around the brine ponds detect such a failure. However, due to the great depth to groundwater and the largely vertical expected movement of a possible brine plume, a leak would probably be observed in the monitoring well only months or years after the leak began. In addition, once a leak is detected in the monitoring wells, a large plume of brine would be moving through the unsaturated zone. With proper construction and maintenance performed on the evaporating ponds, the risk of such scenarios would be minimized. Because the opportunity to inspect and replace the pond liners would occur in association with salt removal (proposed every 10 years), it is anticipated that the ponds would reliably hold the concentrated brine solution during this time and that the risk of a wall or liner failure is considered small. Proposed monitoring methods for the brine ponds are analyzed under Water Quality Monitoring below. With Eagle Crest’s proposed reverse osmosis system in place, total dissolved solids levels in the reservoirs should be nearly the same as the source groundwater. Therefore, seepage of reservoir water into the groundwater aquifer would not degrade groundwater quality. Additionally, Eagle Crest proposes a series of seepage recovery wells to recovery the vast majority of possible seepage water from the reservoirs (Measure SR-2). Therefore, water lost by seepage from the reservoirs would not contribute to an increase in chemical component concentration in the reservoirs because water quality components of the reservoirs would be similar to the groundwater. Proposed monitoring methods for the reverse osmosis system and the reservoirs are analyzed under Water Quality Monitoring below.

Effects of Project Operations on Acid Production and Water Quality The interaction between water stored in the proposed reservoirs and the surrounding exposed mine pit material could affect water quality by exposing minerals to surface water and oxygen. When the common mineral iron disulfide or pyrite is exposed, it reacts with oxygen and water (oxidizes) to form sulfate and acidic conditions. Under these conditions,

46 California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Consolidated Regulations for Treatment, Storage, Processing, or Disposal of Solid Waste. 47 Cation exchange is the exchange of positively charged ions from the clay with the likely negatively charged brine solution.

91 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

the acidic solution can then interact with the surrounding earthen materials and leach out arsenic, copper, cadmium, silver, zinc, and other heavy metals. Acid rock drainage and acid mine drainage are terms that refer to the outflow of this water. Quantitative information to determine if acid production would occur during project operations does not exist. Eagle Mountain proposes to implement a Phase 1 Pre- Design Site Investigation Plan to address this issue prior to final project design and construction. Implementation of this plan would involve collecting field samples and conducting analyses to determine the site-specific acid production potential and the net neutralizing capacity. Once access to the site is granted, Eagle Crest (2009b) states that the plan would include the following steps: 1. Obtain samples from each pit from the different the stratigraphic zones. The thickness of each unit as exposed in the pit would be measured or estimated to determine the percentage contribution of each unit to acid production. 2. Perform analysis for pyrite, and total sulfur, and sulfate sulfur. 3. Calculate acid production potential (APP). 5. Determine the neutralization potential (NP). 6. Calculate the net neutralizing potential (NNP): NNP = NP – APP expressed as kg calcium carbonate/ton.

Our Analysis Depending on many site-specific factors, the interaction between proposed project water and mine pit materials could result in acid production. Table 10 provides the primary, secondary, and tertiary factors that control acid production in mine environments (EPA, 1994). Currently, the lack of water is the single biggest factor limiting acid production at the project site. Iron is the most important ore found in the mine pits and the primary minerals of this zone are magnetite and pyrite, and the secondary minerals are hematite and geothite (Dubois and Brummett, 1968, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994). Some mineralogy data exist for the Eagle Mountain site in historical survey records; however, the quantity of pyrite and other sulfide minerals (necessary for acid production) is not well defined. About 170 million tons of iron ore reserves, considered economically recoverable at the time the mine was closed, remain at the entire Eagle Mountain mine site (Mine Reclamation Corporation, 1997). According to Eagle Crest, iron ore reserves are magnetite mixed with pyrite, or magnetite and hematite with small amounts of pyrite. Eagle Crest (2009b) indicates that the lack of site access precluded it from sampling the central and eastern

92 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 10. Description of factors that control acid rock drainage (Source: EPA, 1994). Factor Type Description Primary Presence and type of:  sulfide minerals Presences of:  water  oxygen  ferric iron  bacteria to catalyze the oxidation reaction

Secondary Presence and type of:  minerals that react acid produced, such as calcite and dolomite which neutralize the acid, or metals that change the character of the resulting effluent

Tertiary  physical characteristics of the material  physical arrangement of acid producing and acid neutralizing materials  hydrologic regime

mining pits to calculate the amount of pyrite and acid rock drainage potential. Force (2001) reports that the lower ore zone of the central mining pit contains 10 to 50 percent platy pyrite, while earlier reports suggest pyrite ranges up to 10 percent, averaging 3 to 4 percent (Hadley, 1945). Because materials were removed during past mining operations, it is not clear what the composition of the remaining material is or the acid producing potential. The proposed project would exhibit several of the EPA-listed conditions that can lead to increased acid production (see table 10). Operation of the reservoirs would raise and lower water levels, resulting in a well-mixed and oxygenated water column. Mineral composition and the buffering capacity of the surrounding materials and the groundwater would dictate the potential for acid rock drainage. The buffering capacity of the surrounding materials and groundwater could offset the rate and concentration of acids generated in the reservoirs. The pH of groundwater proposed to fill the reservoirs is slightly basic (pH 7.4 to 8.5), which would help to neutralize acid production. According to Eagle Crest, historical mineralogy information from the site shows no evidence of high concentrations of toxic metals in the site

93 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

materials. However, specific measurements of the mineralogy and toxic metal content of the material that would come into contact with project waters have not been conducted. Without samples to determine the amount of pyrite and other sulfides in the largely inactive mine pits, the extent of acid production is speculative. Implementation of Eagle Crest’s proposed Phase 1 Pre-Design Site Investigation Plan would provide the data necessary to make quantitative determinations about the proposed project’s effect on this aspect of water quality. Existing data suggest that acid generation could be limited due to the lack of sulfide minerals onsite and buffering capacity of the site material and groundwater. Eagle Crest states that the proposed reverse osmosis system would not be designed for treating the pH of the water; however, in the event of an observed drop in pH, the system could be retrofitted to accommodate buffering agents to treat water returning to the lower reservoir. In addition, the permeable membranes in the reverse osmosis system would filter any metals, precipitates (solids separated out of solution as a result of a chemical reaction), and the microbes involved in the chemical reaction that results in acid production.

Water Quality Monitoring Any leakage from the reservoirs and brine ponds could adversely affect groundwater quality at the Eagle Mountain site and the Chuckwalla groundwater basin, depending on the water quality, amount of leakage, and infiltration rate. Eagle Crest proposes a number of surface and groundwater monitoring efforts throughout the proposed area to help identify and minimize any adverse effects (Measure GQ-2). It specifically identified a number of wells to monitor depth to groundwater and proposes to monitor groundwater quality near the proposed reservoirs and brine ponds. Eagle Crest proposes to develop a monitoring program using measurements from reservoirs, seepage recovery wells, monitoring wells, and brine ponds on a quarterly basis for the first 4 years of operation.

Our Analysis Monitoring the water quality of the reservoirs and groundwater quality throughout the area is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the reverse osmosis system and seepage recovery systems. It is also needed to ensure that the brine pond liners are not leaking and to provide supporting data related to seepage estimates. Figure 7 shows the network of existing and proposed wells that Eagle Crest proposes to use for groundwater monitoring. Monitoring the water quality of the groundwater seepage would allow for the assessment of groundwater quality effects on the aquifer surrounding the project in the event of water quality degradation in project waters. Eagle Crest proposes to monitor groundwater quality in seepage wells and in monitoring wells upgradient and downgradient of the reservoirs. Having these data would allow comparison of background water quality with any possible changes due to project operation. Quarterly monitoring of the reservoir water quality would ensure that Eagle Crest could determine

94 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

the effectiveness of the reverse osmosis system. This monitoring would also alert Eagle Crest to water quality issues before similar water quality levels could be observed at the downgradient seepage recovery wells. Sampling could occur at the water supply pipe that feeds the reverse osmosis system, prior to the water undergoing any treatment, or the water could be sampled directly from the reservoirs. It is likely that leakage from the brine ponds would not be measureable until months or years after the leakage starts due to the slow movement of the brine through the estimated 500-foot unsaturated zone above the groundwater table. Under these conditions, substantial brine pond leakage could occur before detection by the proposed groundwater monitoring wells. Partially horizontal monitoring wells that sample transects below the brine ponds and do not extend into the groundwater table could allow for early detection of any leakage by monitoring for a change in the moisture vapor content. Under typical circumstances, the moisture content in the monitoring well would remain low, except as the result of a brine pond leak. In addition to leakage, an inadvertent sudden release of brine pond water due to a breach in a pond wall could pose a threat to water quality. It would be useful for evaporation potential to be monitored to ensure that the release of brine into the ponds is occurring at the appropriate rates. Also, brine pond water levels could be monitored to protect the structural integrity of the pond walls and to prevent brine from overtopping the walls. Automatic brine pond-level monitoring devices could be designed to prevent the system from releasing brine into the ponds when water levels threaten or exceed the pond’s design capacity. Water quality protection could be enhanced if Eagle Crest prepared and implemented a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan for the reservoirs, seepage wells, monitoring wells, and brine ponds. The plan could be developed in consultation with the Regional and State Water Boards, and could include location, depth, monitoring frequency, methods, reporting practices, and other parameters for the proposed water quality monitoring. This plan could also include monitoring of evaporation potential and possibly dedicated brine pond monitoring wells. Parameters of interest that could be considered for measurement are salinity, total dissolved solids, pH, silica, nitrate as N, sulfate, sulfur (total), calcium, magnesium, sodium, neutralization potential, acid-base potential, aluminum, arsenic, boron, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, and zinc. These parameters are representative of baseline parameters of the groundwater in the area. A comprehensive water quality monitoring plan could also include steps to be taken in the event of water quality degradation in the reservoirs or groundwater. If the project had a detrimental effect on the quality of groundwater, the monitoring measures proposed by Eagle Crest, combined with the additional measures that could be included in a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan, would allow for surface and groundwater quality degradation and effects to be identified soon after they developed. Such a comprehensive plan could also identify procedures for Eagle Crest to follow to consult with agencies about additional measures that could be implemented to address any adverse effects on groundwater quality.

95 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Groundwater Resources This section focuses on project-related effects on groundwater quantity, primarily as they relate to the potential effects of the project pumping and existing water uses in the basin. Project-related effects to groundwater quality from the reservoirs and brine ponds are presented above under the heading Water Quality.

Effects of Project Operation on Groundwater Availability Pumping groundwater in excess of annual recharge would potentially result in lowering of the water table and reduction of groundwater outflow from the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. Eagle Crest developed a groundwater balance for evaluating the proposed project’s effect on groundwater supplies. Eagle Crest estimates that over the life of the project, initial pumping, in the assumed start year of 2014, along with existing water uses (e.g., agricultural and domestic water supply), would exceed recharge of the basin by about 4,600 acre-feet per year for the first 4 years. Following this initial period, recharge would exceed project pumping and existing water uses by about 1,700 acre-feet per year because project pumping would be reduced to only provide reservoir make-up water. Total groundwater use by the project over a 50-year period, including water use for project construction, is estimated at 109,620 acre-feet. Eagle Crest proposes two measures to minimize the effects of project pumping in the basin. These include:  Groundwater Level Monitoring (Measure WS-1)—establish a groundwater level monitoring network (shown in figure 8), consisting of both existing and new monitoring wells, to confirm that project pumping is maintained at levels that are in the range of historic pumping and assess changes in groundwater levels throughout the basins, beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct, and in the Pinto groundwater basin, and  Neighboring Wells (Measure WS-3)—monitor existing wells on neighboring properties to determine, in consultation with the State Water Board, whether project pumping during the initial reservoir filling period is adversely affecting those wells, and if so, replace or modify those wells and/or compensate the well owner for increased pumping costs. This measure was expanded in the State Water Board’s draft EIR to additionally state that the adjacent, existing wells would be considered adversely affected if and when project pumping resulted in lowering water levels in those wells by 5 feet or more (State Water Board, 2010). This modified measure is herein referred to as Measure MM GW-2. In its letter filed March 10, 2010, the Park Service recommends that Eagle Crest develop and implement a monitoring and mitigation plan to address the potential effects on groundwater resources in the upper Chuckwalla Valley and the Pinto groundwater basins.

96 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Figure 8. Existing and proposed wells for groundwater monitoring near the central project area and Upper Chuckwalla Valley (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Our Analysis The initial reservoir filling during the first 4 years of project operation would result in adverse effects on groundwater storage and water levels because project pumping is expected to exceed recharge rates during this period. However, in the long- term, the effect of groundwater withdrawal by the project should not cause the aquifer to approach depletion. Project withdrawals over 50 years of project operation would total about 109,620 acre-feet or about 1 percent of the recoverable water in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin (estimated to be between 9.1 and 15 million acre-feet [California DWR, 1979; California DWR, 1975, as cited in California DWR, 2004a]). At the end of the potential 50-year license period, the aquifer storage, or cumulative change, would increase by about 74,000 acre-feet because recharge of the basin would exceed groundwater withdrawals for the majority of this period (i.e., after the initial reservoir filling period; table 11).

Table 11. Summary of existing and project pumping effects on groundwater storage in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin (Source: State Water Board, 2010, as modified by staff). Cumulative Balance: Inflow Change at End Total Outflow Total Inflow Minus Outflow of Time Period (acre-feet per (acre-feet per (acre-feet per (acre-feet per Time Period year) year) year) year) Current (2008– 10,043 to 13,531 2,880 to 3,488 12,150 2011) 10,651 Construction 10,351 to 13,531 –4,589 to 3,180 976 and initial 18,120 reservoir filling (2012–2018) Normal 11,806 to 13,531 1,721 to 1,725 73,422 operations 11,810 (2019–2060)

Implementation of Measure WS-1 would effectively monitor groundwater levels in the Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin. The proposed locations of the monitoring wells would effectively surround the three proposed pumping wells that would be situated near Desert Center. The proposed monitoring wells would also monitor groundwater levels along the boundaries of the basin to evaluate changes to the adjacent Orocopia Valley, Pinto, and Palen Valley groundwater basins. The proposed monitoring wells would be located on both private and public lands; securing permission to install and/or operate the wells on these lands would be a necessary element of this measure.

98 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

The effects of modifying Measure WS-1 (and WS-4) for the purpose of including the project pumping wells with the groundwater monitoring actions are discussed the subsections Effects of Project Operations on the Regional and Local Groundwater Level and Flow Direction and Quality. Implementation of Measure WS-3 would allow Eagle Crest to use groundwater information from active wells on neighboring properties (thereby extending the monitoring network in the basin) and assess project-related effects on groundwater levels in those other wells. If Eagle Crest were to continue implementation of Measure WS-3 beyond the initial reservoir filling period, it would allow Eagle Crest to ensure that any longer term effects of continuously withdrawing groundwater from the basin during operation of the project would be identified. Measures WS-3 and MM GW-2 are discussed below under Effects of Project Operations on the Regional and Local Groundwater Level and Flow Direction and Quality. Both of these measures address the compensation of adjacent well owners who experience drawdown in their wells as a direct result of water withdrawals associated with the project.

Effects of Reservoir Seepage during Operations The two proposed reservoirs and other water storage and conveyance features have the potential to seep water into the surrounding rock and soil substrates. Jointing and fracturing of the underlying bedrock and the general permeability of the rock and alluvial deposits could route seeped water from the reservoirs and other unlined structures downgradient (generally toward the east) to the sediments in the adjacent Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin (Eagle Crest, 2009a). The eastern side of the lower reservoir would overlie alluvial sediments that have direct connectivity with the groundwater basin. Eagle Crest proposes to implement several measures to monitor and manage seepage into the subsurface. These include:  Seepage Recovery System from the Lower and Upper Reservoirs (Measures SR-1 and SR-2)—construct recovery wells downgradient from each reservoir and recover seeped water from the subsurface;  Groundwater Monitoring (Measure SR-3)—develop and install a groundwater level monitoring network (different monitoring wells from those implemented under Measures WS-1 and WS-4) to confirm that seepage recovery well pumping is effectively managing groundwater levels in the project area, especially beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct and the proposed landfill;  Groundwater Level Target (Measure SR-4)—maintain seepage from the upper reservoir below the bottom of the bottom liner of the proposed landfill and

99 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

from the lower reservoir to prevent a significant rise in water levels beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct; and  Groundwater Monitoring (Measure SR-5)—perform groundwater monitoring activities on a quarterly basis for the first 4 years of project pumping, and thereafter depending on the findings, and submit annual reports to interested parties. In addition to the described actions under Measure SR-1, Eagle Crest proposes to install one of the seepage recovery wells prior to project construction to perform an aquifer test. Eagle Crest proposes to conduct this test during the final engineering design to confirm the seepage recovery well pumping capacity and aquifer characteristics. With information from the aquifer test, Eagle Crest proposes to re-run the seepage recovery groundwater modeling48 to determine the optimal locations for the remainder of the recovery wells. These wells are proposed to capture seepage water from the upper and lower reservoirs to limit possible groundwater level increases beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct, the proposed landfill, and other sensitive facilities. Eagle Crest’s proposed adaptive management alternative to Measure SR-1 (i.e., SR-1A) is evaluated below under effects on the Colorado River Aqueduct. Eagle Crest further proposes to implement an adaptive management alternative (Measure SR-1A) involving the management of reservoir seepage to mitigate drawdown in the vicinity of the Colorado River Aqueduct, pending the initial findings of measures SR-1 and SR-5, and determination made through consultation with the State Water Board. The Park Service, in its letter filed February 28, 2011, recommends that Eagle Crest conduct a performance pump test of the final seepage recovery system prior to reservoir filling to ensure that hydraulic control of the local groundwater can be achieved and to validate the seepage recover modeling results. The Park Service also recommends

48 Details of the groundwater modeling that Eagle Crest performed to assess reservoir seepage rates and their effects on local groundwater levels, in addition to recovery via the seepage recovery wells, are described in the license application (Eagle Crest, 1994) and sections 12.5 and 12.6 of the State Water Board’s draft EIR (State Water Board, 2010). In brief, the seepage analyses used the two-dimensional, finite element program ©GeoStudio 2007, specifically the ©SEEP/W module to estimate seepage rates and groundwater levels at specific down-gradient points of concern (e.g., CWA, landfill). Modeling of seepage recovery down-gradient of the reservoirs was achieved through the use of a numerical model built in MODFLOW-2000 (version 1.18.00)—a three- dimensional, finite-difference groundwater model developed by USGS. For both modeling analyses, the site-specific hydraulic characteristics used were based on the detailed data published in support of the landfill (e.g., CH2M HILL, 1996) and Metropolitan Water District (e.g., GeoPentech, 2003) projects. Several seepage control scenarios were modeled for the purpose of determining the most effective seepage control liner and recovery system.

100 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

that the results of the performance pumping test should be documented in a report to the Commission, State Water Board, and interested stakeholders. In its letter filed February 28, 2011, the County Sanitation recommends that Eagle Crest develop either a target elevation for groundwater levels, performance standards, or an adaptive management approach to ensure that the expected reservoir seepage would not raise groundwater levels under the bottom of the proposed landfill and, specifically, that water levels do not come within 5 feet of the bottom of the landfill liners, per requirements of California State Code of Regulations 27 CCR § 20240(c).49

Our Analysis The proposed reservoirs would occupy two open, largely inactive mining pits that are underlain by bedrock and alluvium. As such, seepage from filled reservoirs is expected. Based on these hydrogeologic conditions in the project area, seepage could cause groundwater levels to locally rise, specifically beneath the nearby Colorado River Aqueduct and landfill. The rise of groundwater from seepage could potentially pose a subsidence risk from hydrocompaction50 in the project area and vicinity. Up to 1,600 acre-feet of water is estimated to potentially seep from the project facilities annually if only limited seepage control improvements were made (State Water Board, 2010). The seeped water would generally flow down-gradient in an eastward direction toward the Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin; however, it is possible that some of the water could follow bedrock fractures or fault traces that direct groundwater in other directions. Groundwater modeling results generated by Eagle Crest predict that groundwater levels beneath the lower reservoir would rise by about 4 to 12 feet, while levels in the vicinity of the Colorado River Aqueduct would increase by 3 to 6 feet. The proposed seepage control measures would consist of lining the reservoirs with fine tailings, lining the eastern portion (underlain with alluvium) with fine tailings and roller-compacted concrete, and installing a series of groundwater monitoring wells located downgradient from each reservoir for seepage monitoring and pump-back recovery. The water conveyance tunnels between the reservoirs would be lined with concrete and, in some locations, steel to prevent seepage from those features. Monitoring groundwater levels throughout the groundwater basin area, with emphasis on the areas downgradient from the proposed reservoirs and brine disposal pond, would allow Eagle Crest to measure direct project effects on local and regional groundwater resources. In addition, this information would help to evaluate whether project effects would adversely affect groundwater levels beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct and the proposed landfill and provide information to help determine if future mitigation procedures would be needed.

49 See http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Regulations/Title27/ch3sb2b.htm. 50 Hydrocompaction is the lowering of the land surface caused by consolidation and settling of soils under higher groundwater levels.

101 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

The construction and monitoring measures and mitigation measures proposed for the project are likely to be sufficient to control potential reservoir seepage effects on groundwater levels in the project area. However, if it is determined during onsite reconnaissance and subsurface investigations (to be conducted by Eagle Crest in support of its final engineering design) that the fine tailings available onsite are not suitable for lining the reservoirs alone (i.e., not sufficiently impermeable), Eagle Crest proposes to supplement the fine tailings used in the seepage blanket with imported materials, such as clay materials (e.g., bentonite) or even roller-compacted concrete or soil cement to further reduce permeability. Eagle Crest also proposes to grout bedrock fractures to further reduce seepage into these potential groundwater pathways, if needed. As part of the subsurface investigations, Eagle Crest plans to perform extensive laboratory analyses of samples taken of the fine tailings, including conducting geochemical analyses, which would help evaluate the effectiveness of these materials in controlling reservoir seepage. The results of the performance pump test of the final seepage recovery system (part of Measure SR-1) prior to reservoir filling should be documented and submitted for review by the State Water Board and filed with the Commission. The expected seepage from the reservoirs could artificially raise groundwater levels beneath the proposed landfill project. Results of Eagle Crest’s seepage modeling predict that in the absence of seepage recovery actions, groundwater levels could potentially come within about 100 feet of the existing ground surface (assumed condition: full reservoirs with applied 8-foot-thick liner with bedrock fracture grouting and/or rolled-compacted concrete treatment). Implementation of Measures SR-3 and SR-4 would greatly reduce the potential for artificially raised groundwater levels to come into contact with the existing ground surface, the Colorado River Aqueduct, and the deepest portions of the landfill. California State Code of Regulations 27 CCR § 20240(c), requires Eagle Crest to prevent artificially raised groundwater levels from encroaching within 5 feet of the bottom of the landfill liner.

Effects of Project Operations on the Regional and Local Groundwater Level and Flow Direction and Quality The proposed use of groundwater for initially filling the two reservoirs and maintaining water volumes during project operation has the potential to adversely affect groundwater levels in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. Depending on the extent of change in groundwater levels, changes could also affect the flow direction within the Chuckwalla groundwater basin and inflow and outflow from the connected areas of the adjacent groundwater basins. Eagle Crest proposes several measures to monitor and manage groundwater pumping and reservoir seepage rates and levels throughout the basin for the purpose of minimizing the effects of project groundwater pumping on regional and local aquifer levels. As stated above under the topics Effects of Project Operation on Groundwater Availability and Effects of Reservoir Seepage during Operations, Eagle Crest proposes to implement Measures WS-1, WS-3, SR-3, and SR-5 to monitor and manage groundwater

102 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

pumping and reservoir seepage rates and levels. Additionally, Eagle Crest proposes to implement Measures WS-4 and SR-4 to more specifically focus on project effects on local and regional groundwater levels and Measure LF-1 to replace four existing wells located within the proposed reservoir areas (P-1, MW-4, MW-5, and MW-10; see figure 8). These measures would involve monitoring groundwater levels on a quarterly basis for the first 4 years of project pumping, and thereafter depending on the findings, and submitting annual reports to both FERC and the State Water Board to confirm actual drawdown conditions. Eagle Crest further proposes to implement an adaptive management alternative (Measure SR-1A) involving the management of reservoir seepage to mitigate drawdown in the vicinity of the Colorado River Aqueduct, pending the initial findings of measures SR-1 and SR-5, and determination made through consultation with the State Water Board. Eagle Crest’s proposed Measure WS-3 would involve monitoring existing wells on neighboring properties to determine whether project pumping during the initial reservoir filling period would adversely affect those wells, and if so, replace or modify those wells and/or compensate the well owner for increased pumping costs. This measure was expanded in the State Water Board’s draft EIR Measure MM GW-2 to set a threshold of 5 feet or more when the adjacent, existing wells would be considered adversely affected. In its letter filed February 28, 2011, the Metropolitan Water District recommends that Eagle Crest annually report the static water elevation at each of the project’s production wells, along with a reference to either the Colorado River Accounting Surface, as proposed by the USGS in 2008 or to a valid accounting surface methodology set forth in future legislation, rulemaking, or applicable judicial determination. The purpose of this action would be to ensure that project pumping does not result in an unauthorized diversion of the Colorado River. The Metropolitan Water District additionally requests that Eagle Crest provide it all groundwater monitoring data and associated technical reports for its consideration.

Our Analysis The proposed project pumping would potentially cause temporary overdraft of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin, causing local and regional groundwater levels to drop and flow directions to locally change. Overall, the initial reservoir filling during the first 4 years of project operation would result in adverse effects on groundwater storage and water levels because pumping is expected to exceed recharge rates during this period.

103 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Eagle Crest’s groundwater modeling51 indicates a predicted maximum groundwater drawdown of 50 feet near the pumping wells during the initial 4 years, but the drawdown would level off at about 14 feet thereafter. Drawdown of about 6 feet would occur at distances of 1 mile from the pumping wells. Along the Colorado River Aqueduct in the Upper Chuckwalla and Orocopia valleys, the modeled drawdown was about 3.6 to 4.3 feet. Groundwater levels could be lowered by about 3 to 4 feet at the mouth of the Pinto groundwater basin, with the amount of drawdown being less than this farther from the project area in the interior of the Pinto groundwater basin. Eagle Crest’s modeling also estimated that after 50 years of project pumping, inflow from the Pinto groundwater basin would decrease by about 30 acre-feet per year compared to pre-project conditions. Compared to maximum historical drawdown levels (over 100 feet) near Desert Center or at the mouths of the Orocopia Valley (presumed to be minimal) and Pinto Valley (about 15 feet) (see table 7), the maximum drawdown caused by the proposed project supply wells would be less than historical conditions, especially in areas more than 1 mile from the supply wells. However, the drawdowns could potentially exceed maximum historical conditions specifically beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct by 5 feet in the Upper Chuckwalla Valley and by 4 feet in the lower Orocopia Valley. The USGS 2008 Colorado River Accounting Surface (Wiele et al., 2009) does not apply to the western portion of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin because: (1) this basin is not within the river’s floodplain; (2) groundwater flow in the basin is directed east toward the Palo Verde groundwater basin, the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin, and the Colorado River (which remained in this direction even during the historically high groundwater pumping in the early 1980s); and (3) groundwater levels in the vicinity of the project’s proposed pumping wells are currently around 450 feet above msl, making the levels about 200 hundred feet above the proposed accounting surface elevation of 240 feet above msl. Therefore, groundwater use by the project would not have an

51 Details of Eagle Crest’s groundwater modeling performed to assess drawdown effects in the groundwater basin are presented in its license application (Eagle Crest, 1994) and section 12.4 of the State Water Board’s draft EIR (State Water Board, 2010). In brief, a numerical model was employed that uses a Taylor, or infinite, series approximation of the Theis non-equilibrium well function (Theis, 1935; Fetter, 2001). The model assumes that the aquifer is homogeneous, isotropic, and infinite in nature. It simulates annually variable pumping rates at the project pumping wells and their effects on each observation point considered. Based on published data generated directly from the Chuckwalla groundwater basin, the aquifer characteristics incorporated in the analysis were hydraulic conductivity, saturated thickness, and storativity/storage coefficient, which spatially varied when modeling drawdown effects either near Desert Center, the Upper Chuckwalla Valley, or the Eagle Mountain mine.

104 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

adverse effect on the Colorado River Accounting Surface and, in turn, would not result in an unauthorized diversion of the Colorado River. Eagle Crest’s proposed measures include monitoring of groundwater levels throughout the basin, and Eagle Crest incorporates into Measure WS-1 additional components from the State Water Board’s similar measure, Measure MM GW-1. Specifically, groundwater levels would not exceed the Maximum Allowable Changes thresholds as proposed in the State Water Board’s draft EIR (table 12). Pumping rates for the initial fill of the reservoirs would be reduced to a level that avoids exceeding these thresholds if this is found to occur during groundwater monitoring activities. Eagle Crest estimates that the initial reservoir fill period could therefore be extended to a maximum of 6 years.

Table 12. Maximum Allowable Changes proposed for water levels in the groundwater monitoring network (Source: State Water Board, 2010, as modified by staff). Maximum Allowable Changes Threshholda Type of Well Well ID General Location (feet) Existing 3S/15E-4J1 Mouth of Pinto Valley 10b Existing C-9 Upper Chuckwalla Valley 11 near the Colorado River Aqueduct Existing 5S/16E-25F1 East of Desert Center near 13 Palen Dry Lake New monitoring well MW-109 Southeast of central project 14 area near the Colorado River Aqueduct New monitoring MW-110 Upper Chuckwalla Valley 12 near the Colorado River Aqueduct New monitoring MW-111 Palen Valley near the TBDc Colorado River Aqueduct New monitoring MW-112 Lower Orocopia Valley near 9 the Colorado River Aqueduct

105 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Maximum Allowable Changes Threshholda Type of Well Well ID General Location (feet) New water supply well WS-1 Desert Center 51 New water supply well WS-2 Desert Center 51 New water supply well WS-3 Desert Center 51 a Thresholds are subject to revision based on findings from the planned aquifer testing. b Equates to a minimum elevation of 909 feet, NGVD29. c Threshold has yet to be determined due to the likelihood of encountering bedrock above the water table and, therefore, depends on the depth of the monitoring well once completed.

Metropolitan Water District recommends modification of Measures WS-1 and WS-4 to include quarterly measurement and annual reporting of groundwater pumping production, water quality, and groundwater levels in the project pumping wells. This modification would revise these two measures to be more in-line with the similar measure (Measure MM GW-1) proposed in the State Water Board’s draft EIR (State Water Board, 2010). Eagle Crest’s proposed Measure WS-3 and its additional components in the State Water Board’s Measure MM GW-2 state that in the event that adjacent wells that are being monitored under Measure WS-3 experience a drawdown in their respective water levels by 5 feet or more, Eagle Crest would compensate the well owners. Based on the results of Eagle Crest’s groundwater modeling, as summarized above, numerous wells identified in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin would potentially experience drawdown in excess of 5 feet, both during the initial reservoir fill period and through project operation. The number of existing wells that would be potentially adversely affected by project pumping is summarized in table 13. This information was based on a review of water well records summarized in Eagle Crest’s final license application and the State Water Board’s EIR (State Water Board, 2010). Of the wells listed in table 13, it is not known how many are active water production wells intended to provide water for domestic, agricultural, and/or industrial purposes. The well records summarized in Eagle Crest’s final license application do indicate, however, that the majority of water production wells were installed during the brief agricultural boom period of the early 1980s in the Desert Center area when groundwater levels were substantially lower or were operational during that period. These well records also indicate that the majority of the monitoring wells were installed after the 1980s.

106 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 13. Summary of water wells in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin that would potentially experience project-induced drawdown in excess of 5 feet (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a, as modified by staff). Approximate Number of Existing Total Approximate Wells that would Potentially Number of Wells Experience Drawdown that would Potentially Project Pumping 10–20 Experience Time Period >20 feet feet 5–10 feet Drawdown >5 feet Initial reservoir fill 2 24 36 62 period (<4 years) After 50 years of 0 2 43 45 project operation

Adjacent wells that were active during or have remained active since the 1980s would likely not experience adverse production, requiring well modification or replacement as a result of the proposed project pumping. Project-induced drawdown, either during the initial fill period or during the continued project operation, would not exceed historical drawdown levels. In the event that groundwater monitoring implemented under Measure WS-3 confirms Eagle Crest’s modeling and shows that groundwater levels in these wells are being lowered by 5 feet or greater from present levels as a result of project pumping, Eagle Crest would compensate the owner of the affected well(s) for additional pumping costs or provide other mitigation measures, such as lowering the well pump or replacing the well. We note that the FPA, section 10(c), 16 U.S.C. 803, makes clear that a licensee of a hydropower project “shall be liable for all damages occasioned to the property of others by the construction, maintenance, or operation of the project works….” In addition to potential project effects on groundwater levels, the pumping- induced groundwater depression could locally alter groundwater flow directions. Currently, groundwater flow is generally from the west and north and toward the south and east (California DWR, 1979; CH2M Hill, 1996). The project pumping is expected to temporarily increase the pumping depression near Desert Center, particularly during the initial reservoir filling period; however, project effects are not expected to substantially alter groundwater flow directions throughout the Chuckwalla groundwater basin given the following: (1) the relatively large size of the basin (about 45 miles across) in comparison to the size of the pumping depressions that are predicted to form at the three pumping wells near Desert Center; and (2) the total volume of water in storage (about 10 million acre-feet) in comparison to the substantially smaller volume of water that would be pumped during the initial reservoir filling period (about 32,000 acre-feet).

107 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Modeling and detailed analyses have not been performed to investigate the possible changes in water chemistry due to the proposed pumping of supply wells for this project. However with the projected changes in groundwater levels and flow direction and the great depth to groundwater levels and limited natural infiltration, changes in the chemical or physical qualities of the groundwater are not expected due to the proposed withdrawal rates. In addition, the aquifer is unconfined and changes in the groundwater level would not cause a comingling of previously separated aquifers. The local springs in the Eagle Mountains are not hydrologically connected to the nearby groundwater basins. As such, project pumping from the Chuckwalla groundwater basin would not affect the local, perched groundwater systems that feed these springs. Implementing Measure WS-4, Groundwater Monitoring, Measure SR-4, Groundwater Level Target, and Measure LF-4, Well Replacement, would allow Eagle Crest to effectively evaluate groundwater levels and flow directions in the basin to confirm that project-induced drawdown and reservoir seepage do not exceed the Maximum Allowable Changes thresholds (table 13) during the initial reservoir filling period or adversely affect groundwater conditions in the basin following the initial reservoir filling. As stated in greater detail above under Effects of Reservoir Seepage during Operations, all groundwater monitoring data would be summarized into one annual report to be submitted to the Commission and the State Water Board. Eagle Crest would file the reports with the Commission, making them available to the public. Continued monitoring of groundwater conditions beyond the initial fill period would be decided upon through consultation with the State Water Board. Furthermore, active management of reservoir seepage to mitigate drawdown in the vicinity of the Colorado River Aqueduct (Measure SR-1A) would be decided pending the initial findings of measures SR-1 and SR-5 and determination made through consultation with the State Water Board.

Effects of Project Operations on Subsidence and Hydrocompaction Groundwater pumping from three proposed supply wells in the Desert Center area and seepage from the proposed reservoirs have the potential to locally and regionally alter groundwater conditions in the project area and nearby groundwater basins. Subsidence could potentially occur as a result of project pumping if drawdown levels are substantial, typically greater than historical levels, causing the subsurface stratum to collapse. Subsidence could also potentially occur as a result of hydrocompaction of sediments wetted from reservoir seepage. This process has the potential to occur beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct because portions are located downgradient from the proposed reservoirs. Eagle Crest proposes to implement Measure WS-2, Subsidence Monitoring, to measure the potential subsidence that could affect operation of the Colorado River Aqueduct. Two extensometers (measuring devices) would be installed along the Colorado River Aqueduct: one in the Upper Chuckwalla Valley (east of the proposed lower reservoir) and the other in the Orocopia Valley (southwest of the project area).

108 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Eagle Crest developed Measure WS-2 through consultation with the Metropolitan Water District, operators of the Colorado River Aqueduct (Eagle Crest, 2010b). In the event that data show inelastic subsidence in the project vicinity as a result of project pumping, Eagle Crest proposes to eliminate inelastic subsidence by: (1) redistributing pumping by constructing additional water supply pumping wells and modifying the pumping rates to reduce drawdown; (2) reducing pumping; or (3) by artificially increasing recharge in order to better match the net annual groundwater withdrawal to the net annual recharge.

Our Analysis There has been no reported evidence of subsidence in the project area (or along the Colorado River Aqueduct) to date; therefore, under proposed conditions, the potential for subsidence caused by project water supply pumping is low. Ground subsidence is not expected anywhere along the proposed the water tunnels between the proposed reservoirs because the tunnels would pass relatively deep below surface grade (bsg) within structurally competent bedrock and be lined with concrete and steel in some locations. The upper pressure tunnel would be at least about 100 feet bsg and the lower pressure tunnel would be at least about 950 feet bsg. Project-induced groundwater changes should not lead to subsidence risks in the project area or vicinity. However, monitoring of the groundwater conditions and actual subsidence levels through the implementation of several measures, namely WS-1, WS-2, WS-3, WS-4, SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4, and SR-5, would help demonstrate that effects are as expected or would signal the need for corrective action. Under recommendations made in the State Water Board’s draft EIR (2010), subsidence would not be allowed to exceed the Maximum Allowable Changes thresholds as gauged in the two extensometers. The threshold established for both extensometers is an eighth of a foot (0.125 foot). Through continued consultation with FERC and the State Water Board via the submission of final engineering designs and the annual groundwater monitoring reports, it may be determined that additional subsidence monitoring actions and/or active mitigation measures could be required to mitigate any predicted or measured subsidence risks in the project area and vicinity, especially those that could affect the Colorado River Aqueduct.

Fishery Resources There are no existing water bodies in the project area capable of supporting fish populations. The project reservoirs would be hydraulically disconnected from any standing fish populations that could provide a potential source for fish migrating into the reservoirs. Eagle Crest proposes to use groundwater sources for the initial filling of, as well as subsequent additions to, the reservoirs, and these groundwater sources should not introduce fish or other aquatic resources into the reservoirs. It is possible that fish could be introduced through other means, including transport by birds; however, these events are expected to be extremely rare and unlikely to result in a breeding population. No measures have been proposed to ensure that the project does not affect fisheries.

109 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Proposed project features, including the water pipeline, transmission line, and access roads, would cross several ephemeral washes. These streams are not federal jurisdictional waters under section 404 of the CWA, but do fall under the jurisdiction of California DFG. The state of California requires any person, state, or governmental agency or public utility to notify California DFG before beginning an activity that would affect fish and wildlife by (1) substantially diverting, obstructing, or changing the natural flow of the bed, bank, or channel of a river, stream, or lake, or (2) using material from or depositing material into a streambed. Such actions require a Streambed Alteration Agreement (Measure BIO-23). California DFG can issue a Streambed Alteration Agreement only after the CEQA process is complete. Following completion of this process and once Eagle Crest has surveyed and staked all project features, Eagle Crest proposes to hold an onsite, pre- construction meeting with California DFG to determine specific locations where Streambed Alteration Agreements would be required. To minimize effects of the project on ephemeral washes, Eagle Crest proposes to avoid any disturbance within these areas to the greatest extent possible. In areas where some disturbance is required, the Streambed Alteration Agreement would stipulate that all construction in these areas is completed while the washes are dry. During water line construction, Eagle Crest proposes to recontour wash topography using and implement erosion control measures to prevent construction materials from being deposited in the channels. Finally, during restoration/revegetation activities along the linear ROWs, Eagle Crest proposes to recontour and grade disturbed areas to ensure that existing drainage patterns remain unaffected.

Our Analysis Eagle Crest’s proposal to consult with California DFG following completion of the CEQA process and prior to project construction to obtain Streambed Alteration Agreements in all areas where the project would affect ephemeral washes is consistent with California DFG policies and would adequately protect these areas from potential project effects on fisheries and streambeds.

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects Groundwater use in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin for existing purposes (e.g., agricultural pumping and domestic water supply), the proposed project, the proposed landfill, and the proposed and potential future solar projects would have the potential to cumulatively reduce groundwater storage in the basin over the 50 years of the withdrawals for the proposed pumped storage project. Existing water use in the basin is expected to continue during the foreseeable future, with a total of about 9,640 acre-feet per year (State Water Board, 2010). These uses include agricultural pumping (6,400 acre-feet per year), aquaculture pumping and open water evaporation (600 acre-feet per year), Desert Center domestic water supply (50 acre-feet per year), Southern California Gas Company’s natural gas pumping plant water

110 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

supply (1 acre-foot per year), Desert Center raceway water supply (~3 acre-feet per year), Lake Tamarisk domestic water supply (1,090 acre-feet per year), Chuckwalla/Ironwood state prisons’ water usage (1,500 acre-feet per year) (State Water Board, 2010). Return flow from wastewater released back to the aquifer from the town of Lake Tamarisk wastewater and the Chuckwalla/Ironwood state prisons is expected to be about 36 and 600 acre-feet per year, respectively (after 2011). The proposed pumped storage project would require about 8,100 acre-feet per year during the initial reservoir filling period and about 1,800 acre-feet per year for reservoir replenishment water. Expected groundwater use of the proposed landfill project (and the Eagle Mountain town site) would range between 358 and 1,243 acre-feet per year. The water demand for the numerous solar power projects planned for the valley is estimated to be about 4,000 acre-feet per year and may reach 6,000 acre-feet per year during construction. Table 14 summarizes the expected water usage of the proposed solar power plants in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. Table 15 summarizes the water balance showing the cumulative effects on groundwater storage in the basin. Additional details on the development of the water balance are presented in the Groundwater Supply Pumping Technical Memorandum attached to the State Water Board’s draft EIR (State Water Board, 2010).

Table 14. Expected water usage by proposed solar plants in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin (Source: State Water Board, 2010, as modified by staff). General Location in Operation Chuckwalla Construction Water Use BLM Project Applicant Groundwater Planned Water Use (acre-feet Serial Number (Project Name) Basin Technology (acre-feet) per year)a First Solar Upper Photovoltaic 126 55 CACA 048649 (Desert Sunlight Chuckwalla Solar Farm) Valley Chuckwalla Desert Center Photovoltaic 60 40 Solar 1 CACA 048808 (Chuckwalla Solar 1) Solar East of Desert Solar thermal 1,560 300 Millennium/ Center CACA 048810 Chevron (Palen Solar Power) NextEra/ Ford Dry Lake Solar thermal 2,440 200 Boulevard CACA 048880b Association (Genesis/Ford

111 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

General Location in Operation Chuckwalla Construction Water Use BLM Project Applicant Groundwater Planned Water Use (acre-feet Serial Number (Project Name) Basin Technology (acre-feet) per year)a Lake Dry Lake) Bull Frog Green Lower Photovoltaic 85 12 Energy Chuckwalla CACA 049097 (Mule Valley Mountain) enXco, Inc. Ford Dry Lake Solar thermal 1,222 180 CACA 049488 (Little Ford Dry Lake) enXco, Inc. Ford Dry Lake Photovoltaic 20 5 CACA 049489 (Little Ford Dry Lake) enXco, Inc. North of Desert Solar thermal 1,222 180 CACA 049491 (Eagle Center Mountain) enXco, Inc. North of Desert Photovoltaic 20 5 CACA 049492 (Eagle Center Mountain) Solel, Inc. Palen Dry Lake Solar thermal 2,037 300 CACA 049493 (Palen/McCoy) Solel, Inc. Palen Dry Lake Solar thermal 2,037 300 CACA 49494 (Desert Lily) LightSource Lower Solar thermal 2,240 330 Renewables Chuckwalla CACA 050379 (Mule Mountain Valley II) CACA 050437c Unnamed Ford Dry Lake Solar thermal 2,037 300 CACA 051017c Unnamed Ford Dry Lake Solar thermal 2,037 300 Total 17,742 2,507 Note: Additional data source for applicant name, project location, and planned technology information: BLM and DOE (2010). a It is assumed that the majority of the proposed solar developments would use dry cooling technology, which requires substantially less water compared with wet cooling technology, due to the need to maintain water efficiency standards in the state of California (BLM and DOE, 2010).

112 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

b Project modified per CEC requirements to use dry cooling technology (CEC, 2010b). c Unnamed projects considered in State Water Board (2010), but not listed in BLM and DOE (2010); incorporated here to represent future solar projects without active applications at present.

Table 15. Summary of cumulative pumping effects on groundwater storage in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin (Source: State Water Board, 2010, as modified by staff). Balance: Cumulative Inflow Minus Change at End Total Outflow Total Inflow Outflow of Time Period (acre-feet per (acre-feet per (acre-feet per (acre-feet per Time Period year) year) year) year) Current (2008– 10,116 to 13,531 2,870 to 3,415 12,067 2011) 10,661 Construction 10,448 to 13,531 to –10,689 to –21,703 and initial 25,848 15,159 3,083 reservoir filling (2012–2018) Normal 14,677 to 15,159 –3,222 to 482 –88,577 operations 18,381 (2019–2060) Post-operations 10,043 to 13,531 2,245 to 3,488 38,513 (2060–2100) 11,286

In summary, future groundwater use in the basin would have the potential to cumulatively exceed recharge by up to 3,200 acre-feet per year over the 50 years of the withdrawals for the proposed pumped storage project (2012–2060). By 2046, the aquifer storage, or cumulative change, would have been reduced by about 95,300 acre-feet, equal to about 1 percent of the total groundwater in storage in the basin (9.1 to 15 million acre- feet [California DWR, 1979, 1975]). Other than electrical generation via wind power, which uses basically no water, existing and proposed electricity-producing facilities are located in nearby very arid areas that use or will use substantial amounts of water. About 45 miles east of the Eagle Mountains, near Palm Springs, the Sentinel gas-fired combustion turbine (a proposed peaking facility) has been approved. Combustion turbines use relatively small amounts of water, mainly for cooling the fuel/air inlet mix to produce the ideal conditions for maximum turbine power production. Functionally, combustion turbines are similar to the

113 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Eagle Mountain Project in that both types of projects are used sporadically to meet peak load. Thirty-five miles to the east of Desert Center is the Blythe I Combined-Cycle Plant, a moderate water-use technology that uses the hot exhaust gases of a combustion turbine to produce steam to produce electricity. The energy efficiency of combined cycle is greater than a combustion turbine, but the water use is also higher. The largest nuclear power plant in the nation, the 3,942-MW Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is located about 130 miles east of the project and uses reclaimed wastewater from the city of Phoenix for cooling. Water use by the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is about 78,000 acre-feet per year and is the only U.S nuclear plant not located on a large body of water. Table 16 shows that the water use per energy production for the Eagle Mountain Project is slightly lower than nearby natural gas facilities and much lower than the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

Table 16. Annual water use and energy production of different energy production facilities (Source: CEC, 2010a,b,c). Annual Rated Energy Water Use Power Acre-feet/ Production Acre-feet/ Project, Type (acre-feet/year) (MW) MW GWh GWh Eagle Mountain, 1,800 1,300 1.4 4,308 0.4 pumped storage Sentinel, combustion 1,100 850 1.3 2,383 0.5 turbine Blythe I, combined 2,943 520 5.7 4,327 0.7 cycle turbine Palo Verde, nuclear 78,000 3,942 19.8 29,250 2.7

Cumulative groundwater pumping in the basin is expected to cause about 5 feet of additional drawdown in the areas of the basin where pumping by the proposed pumped storage project would occur (State Water Board, 2010). Over the potential 50-year life of the project, the resulting cumulative drawdown is predicted to exceed the maximum historical drawdown by 7 feet beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct near the central project area, and 6 feet and 1 foot at the mouths of the Orocopia and Pinto valleys, respectively. Overall, the maximum historical drawdown would not be exceeded in the Desert Center area. Groundwater levels would recover following the potential 50-year project license period when project pumping has ceased, but the amount of recovery in the basin would depend on the magnitude and extent of continued pumping for other uses. Recharge rates to the aquifer have the potential to decrease in the future while cumulative water needs may increase as a result of climate change. BLM and DOE

114 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

(2010) recently stated in their draft Programmatic EIS for the Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States that desert regions of the U. S. Southwest are projected to have more severe periods of drought during the remainder of the twenty-first century. However, no data are available about forecasted precipitation or evaporation rates specifically for the Chuckwalla Valley, or greater Mohave-Sonoran Desert region, that could be used in revising the cumulative groundwater balance for this project. The subsidence potential remains low when considering the cumulative effects of pumping by the project, the existing groundwater users (e.g., agriculture), the proposed landfill, and the proposed and potential future solar projects in the region.

3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment During preparation of its license application, Eagle Crest conducted biological surveys along the proposed locations for the transmission line, water pipeline, and State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route and substation. These surveys, conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2010, included data collection on existing vegetation conditions and observations of state-sensitive and federally listed species. However, Kaiser did not permit Eagle Crest to access the central project area to conduct similar surveys. (The northern limit of the field surveys is depicted on figure 9.) Consequently, our assessments of the character of the affected environment within this part of the project are based on analysis of aerial photography and review of biological reports52 prepared for the Eagle Mountain Landfill EIS, as filed with the applicant’s license application and in response to the Commission’s AIR. In addition, we reviewed the license application filed in 1994 for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project (P- 11080-000) and conducted an analysis of aerial photographs from 1997, 1998, 2010, and 2011.

52 These biological reports prepared for the Eagle Mountain Landfill EIS include: Brown. 1990. A survey for bats at the Eagle Mountain Project Site, Riverside County, California. June 27, 1990; Brown. 1991a. A winter survey for bats at the Eagle Mountain Project Site, Riverside County, California. February 15, 1991; Brown. 1991b. A summer survey for bats of the Eagle Mountain Project Site, Riverside County, California. October 27, 1991; Brown. 1992a. A winter baseline survey for bats at the Eagle Mountain Project Site, Riverside County, California. January 12, 1992; Brown. 1992b. Summer baseline surveys for bats at the Eagle Mountain Project Site, Riverside County, California. August 26, 1996; Divine and Douglas 1996. Bighorn sheep monitoring program for the Eagle Mountain Landfill Project: Phase 1 Report. July 1996. FWS. 1992. Biological Opinion for the Eagle Mountain Landfill Project (1-6-92-F-39). September 10, 1992.

115 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

116

Figure 9. Vegetation in the project area and staff assessment of disturbance to native vegetation in the central project area (Source: State Water Board, 2010, and ESRI, 2010, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Vegetation The proposed project area lies in the California portion of the western Sonoran Desert, commonly called the “Colorado Desert.” This includes the area between the Colorado River Basin and the Coast Ranges south of the Little San Bernardino Mountains and the Mojave Desert. Rainfall amounts are low, about 3 to 5 inches per year. The project area is warmer and slightly wetter than the Mojave Desert and while rainfall may occur in the winter months, monsoon rains during the summer account for the majority of the rainfall. Winter temperatures average 54 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Ambient, daily summer temperatures are extreme, commonly reaching over 110°F for long periods with an average of 90°F. This period of hot weather normally extends from mid-spring through the fall. As a consequence of these climatic conditions, the vegetation is highly drought-adapted, but also contains subtropical elements. In general, species richness and density are low due to the low rainfall and high temperatures, compared to more moderate environments or other regions of the Sonoran Desert. In these hot and dry conditions, desert soils are generally slow to develop. In many areas, sand dunes limit species diversity. Crytobiotic crusts, consisting of microorganisms, including cyanobacteria and microfungi, help bind sand particles together and promote vegetation establishment. Cyanobacteria in the desert form filaments surrounded by sheaths. With summer or winter rains, these filaments become moist and active, moving through the soils, leaving behind a trail of the sticky sheath material. The sheaths stick to surfaces such as soil particles, forming an intricate webbing of fibers. In this way, loose soil particles are joined together, and otherwise unstable, highly erosion- prone surfaces become resistant to both wind and water erosion (Park Service, 2011a). When these areas are disturbed, soil mats can break back down to sand and blow away or be less suitable for vegetation. The extent to which these soil crusts are present within the project has not been quantified. However, they are likely to occur in most areas supporting native vegetation. Along the broad alluvial fan traversed by the project’s proposed linear facilities, drainage is primarily characterized by scattered, well-defined washes and networks of numerous narrow runnels (sheet flow). The former are several-yards-wide, sandy to cobbly drainages that carry periodic runoff and are often a half to several yards deep, and vegetated along the banks by both shrubs and trees. By contrast, the numerous, shallow runnels are typically only a yard or less wide, one-to-few inches deep, and irregularly vegetated by locally common shrub species. Where there is greater runoff into these runnels, arboreal elements commonly seen in the larger washes are also present, but in a stunted form. Sheet flow is evident across alluvial fans where overland flows result from a combination of heavy precipitation, low permeability surface conditions, and local topography; the substrates there tend to be more gravelly than non-sheeting habitats due to the hydrologic transport of materials. Two basic native plant communities exist in the proposed project area: Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub and Desert Dry Wash Woodland. Creosote bush and burro bush

117 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

dominate the variations of Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub that occur in the proposed project vicinity (figure 9). Other common species include brittlebush, white rhatany, several cholla species, indigo bush, and ocotillo. Desert Dry Wash Woodland occurs in broad plains of contiguous runnels (i.e., sheet flow) with intermittent, well-defined washes. For the latter, the wash banks and islands are densely vegetated with aphyllous (no leaves) or microphyllous (small leaves) trees, primarily ironwood and blue palo verde, with occasional to common smoke tree and catclaw. In the sheeting areas, the tree species are dominant elements of the landscape and appear to be homogeneous, forming a desert “woodland” (table 17). Other species commonly found in washes, including cheesebush, galleta grass, desert lavender, desert peach, chuparosa, and jojoba, grow in the arboreal drainages as well as the less distinct runnels.

Table 17. Acreage of native habitats and disturbed areas in the Eagle Crest-proposed project area (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a, as modified by staff following analysis of aerial photography from 2010). Sonoran Desert Dry Creosote Wash Project Element Total Area Bush Scrub Woodland Disturbed Central project area 1,101.5 44.7 15.4 1,041.4 (total acreage of reservoirs and constructed project features) Reservoirs 354 0 0 354 Switchyard 12.3 0 0 12.3 Reverse osmosis pumping 5.5 0 0 5.5 station Staging and storage area 26.1 0 0 26.1 Desalination area 56.4 38.0 10.4 8.0 Eagle Creek channel 5 0 5 0 modifications Construction road 6.7 6.7 0 0 Additional grading, 635.5 0 0 635.5 saddle dam construction, other activities Water pipeline (30-foot 55.6 20.9 0 34.7 ROW) (15.3 miles) (8.1miles) (0 miles) (7.2 miles)

118 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Sonoran Desert Dry Creosote Wash Project Element Total Area Bush Scrub Woodland Disturbed

Transmission line ROW (total area) Proposed 327 167 136 24 (13.5 miles) (6.9 miles) (5.6 miles) (1 mile) State Water Board’s 400.5 205.6 97.6 97.3 preferred alternative (16.4 miles) (8.4 miles) (4.0 miles) (4.0 miles) Interior’s preferred 454.0 177.0 258.9 18.1 alternative (18.6 miles) (7.3 miles) (10.7 miles) (0.7 miles)

Tower footprint plus construction area Proposed 4.6–5.7 2.1–3.3 1.8 0.4 (54–68 (26–40 (22 towers) (4 towers) towers) towers) State Water Board’s 5.5 2.8 1.3 1.3 preferred alternative (67 towers) (34 towers) (16 towers) (16 towers) Interior’s preferred 6.2 2.5 3.6 0.2 alternative (75 towers) (30 towers) (43 towers) (2 towers)

Access roads Proposed 32.7 17.7 13.6 2.4 State Water Board’s 26.7 14.7 9.7 2.3 preferred alternativea Interior’s preferred 45.4 20.5 9.8 9.7 alternativeb

Pulling/tensioning sites Proposed State Water Board’s Currently unknown (intended to fall within the transmission preferred alternative line ROW and substation site) Interior’s preferred alternative

119 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Sonoran Desert Dry Creosote Wash Project Element Total Area Bush Scrub Woodland Disturbed

Equipment laydown sites Proposed State Water Board’s Currently Assume preferred alternative Assume 0 Assume 0 unknown 100% Interior’s preferred alternative

Interconnection collector substation Proposed 25 25 0 0 State Water Board’s NA NA NA NA preferred alternative Interior’s preferred NA NA NA NA alternative

Total acreage (acres of project disturbance) Proposed ≥1428.5 ≥211.7 ≥151.4 ≥1065.4 (≥1,220.5) (≥111.6) (≥30.8) (≥1,078.9) State Water Board’s ≥1557.7 ≥271.2 ≥113.0 ≥1,173.4 preferred alternative (≥1,189) (≥83.1) (≥26.4) (≥1,079.7) Interior’s preferred ≥1611.1 ≥232.6 ≥274.3 ≥1,100.1 alternative (≥1,208.8) (≥88.6) (≥28.8) (≥1,086.0) a Disturbance areas associated with access roads along the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route were calculated based on Eagle Crest’s vegetation maps and under the assumption that the transmission line and water pipeline would share access roads where they are both within the 160-kV corridor. b Assumes the segment along Kaiser Road would be constructed on the west side of the road, inside of the Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA), and the segment along the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit boundary would be constructed to the south and inside of the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit in order to be on federal land.

120 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

The central project area (i.e., the area of the proposed reservoirs, switchyard, reverse osmosis system, brine ponds, and power plant) is located in the edge of the Eagle Mountains and on the adjacent gently sloping alluvial fan. Much of this area has been disturbed by prior iron ore mining activities and the related town site. Where vegetation is present, Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub is the dominant vegetation type. Some Desert Dry Wash Woodland is also present in the Eagle Creek channel (figure 9). The proposed transmission line would extend south from the central project area along the alluvial fan and over one very low mountain near the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant. The northern 2.8 miles segment of the proposed transmission line would lie on Kaiser property, which has not been field surveyed. However, based on aerial photos and surveys that were completed along the accessible portions of the transmission line ROW, about 1 mile of the ROW would be on land disturbed by mining and 6.9 miles (167 acres) would be in Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub. In the south, the proposed ROW traverses 5.6 miles (136 acres) of Desert Dry Wash Woodland (figure 9). The proposed water pipeline would run southeast on the alluvial fan from the central project area, about 4.6 miles along the east edge of the Kaiser Road ROW through Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub vegetation. The proposed water line then would run parallel to an existing 161-kV line ROW, initially through about 2 miles of Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub vegetation and then through abandoned jojoba fields to State Route 177. A dirt access road is present along this portion of the route between Kaiser Road and State Route 177. At State Route 17, the existing ROW splits, with one route running along State Route 177, mostly through agriculturally developed parcels, but also through about 0.3 mile of native Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub. The other ROW fork runs southeast along an existing dirt road, primarily through abandoned fields, but also through about 1.2 miles of Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub. The combined acreage of native Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub intersected by the proposed water pipeline ROWs is 20.9 acres (see table 17 and figure 9).

Noxious and Invasive Species Several non-native noxious or invasive species are known to occur in the project area. These species include three grasses—red brome, cheatgrass, and split grass—and two dicots—Tournefort’s mustard and filaree. These species frequently colonize disturbed soils associated with agricultural fields and roadsides. The occurrence of tamarisk (also called salt cedar) was also reported in the eastern mining pit in the 1990s, but it is not visible on recent aerial photography of the area. Tamarisk typically colonizes wet areas associated with invaded riparian areas, including springs, rivers, and canals, outcompeting native vegetation for available resources (Eagle Crest, 2009b). In comments on the draft EIS, the Park Service noted that soils in the Coachella Valley are above ambient nitrogen levels due to anthropogenic deposition from other areas in southern California. Therefore, this region may be more susceptible to invasion of noxious species because these species may be better adapted than native species to take advantage of the increased nitrogen levels.

121 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Wildlife Common wildlife species in the proposed project area are either migratory, and/or adapted to desert environments. In the habitats intersecting the proposed project, wildlife include ungulates, small and midsized mammals, birds, reptiles, and invertebrates. Common species include black-tailed hare, desert kit fox, coyote, bobcat, antelope ground squirrel, Merriam’s kangaroo rat, desert woodrat, California leaf-nosed bat, pallid bat, western pipistrelle, California myotis, black-throated sparrow, California horned lark, ash-throated flycatcher, mourning dove, cactus wren, lesser nighthawk, red-tailed hawk, and turkey vulture. Common species specifically associated with drainages include desert mule deer, verdin, black-tailed gnatcatcher, and phainopepla. The project area also supports a high diversity of migratory birds that travel though the area between summer breeding sites and wintering grounds. For example, more than 250 species of birds have been recorded in JTNP (Park Service, 2011b), adjacent to the project area. It is likely that many of these species also occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. Common reptiles include side-blotched lizard, desert iguana, zebra tailed lizard, western whiptail, desert horned lizard, gopher snake, and coachwhip. Amphibians are comparatively uncommon in the area due to lack of permanent water and unreliable ephemeral water. However, a few species of amphibians (red-spotted toad and Pacific treefrog) may breed in ephemeral water sources as they become available during summer or winter rains. Common invertebrates in the project area include spiders, beetles, true bugs, wasps, and ants. Operation of the Eagle Mountain mine created specialized habitats associated with the mine pits, surrounding mine shafts, and the Eagle Mountain town site. These habitats attract additional wildlife species that do not typically occur in undisturbed desert areas, or occur at much lower densities outside areas with human activity. Species occupying these areas include common raven, house sparrow, house finch, and European starling. Several bat species, including California leaf-nosed bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and pallid bat, may now use the mine structures, and are generally intolerant of human activity.

Human Subsidized Predators Increased human settlement in the arid southwestern United States is credited with an increased density of some predator species in this ecosystem, including ravens (Boarman et al., 2006; Knight et al., 1993) and coyote. Human settlement brings food and water subsidies to the desert environment and also adds new features to the landscape, like electricity and telephone line poles. These additions make the desert more habitable for wildlife species tolerant of human presence. While the increased density of these populations is dependent on human subsidies, their presence also creates increased predation rates on native wildlife including snakes, lizards, and the threatened desert tortoise.

122 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

During the last 50 years, human activities have substantially modified the desert environment in the vicinity of the proposed project. These modifications, in addition to the Eagle Mountain mine, include construction of the Eagle Mountain town site, the Colorado River Aqueduct, and the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant and ponds associated with the Lake Tamarisk community. Landscape features associated with these developments include permanent supplies of standing water, electric and other utility lines, and potential food subsidies. These conditions are likely to subsidize resident populations of ravens and coyote. Both species are known to occur in the project area with some regularity; however, Eagle Crest has not conducted surveys for these species, and little is known about the current size of these populations other than that they are somewhat common. The anthropogenic water resources in the project area are openly available to birds, and Lake Tamarisk is also available to mammals. However, the open water sections of the Colorado River Aqueduct and the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant are fenced to exclude large mammals. The water treatment plant at the Eagle Mountain town site is also likely fenced. Naturally occurring water is also present near the project. The Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (NECO Plan) identified six seeps, springs, or water catchments in the immediate vicinity of the project, all on or near the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant (figure 10). Four of these water sources—Buzzard Spring, Dengler Tank, Eagle Tank, and Cactus Spring—are outside the proposed project boundary by at least 2 miles (CH2M HILL, 1996). All may be intermittent. The NECO Plan identified two other springs (unnamed), one of which might be adjacent to, in, or on the borderline with the project. However, investigations of these sites for the project Pre-Application Document (Eagle Crest, 2008) were unsuccessful in locating any further details on these springs. A May 1994 helicopter survey of all water sources in the Eagle Mountains also did not locate them (Divine and Douglas, 1996), and it is possible that they no longer exist or were incorrectly mapped. In the past, precipitation and runoff collected in the mine pits and a tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) grove grew in the east pit (Kaiser and MRC, 1991). Such water pools were also known sources of water for the bighorn sheep that frequented the mine pits when water was available (Eagle Crest, 1994). Presumably other animals used this water source as well.

Sensitive Species Several species known to occur on or in the vicinity of the proposed project are accorded special status because of their recognized rarity or potential vulnerability to extinction. Frequently, they have an inherently limited geographic range and/or limited habitat. Some are state-listed as threatened or endangered and receive specific protection as defined in one or both of the federal ESA or California ESA. Candidate species for listing, species designated as “Species of Concern” or “Sensitive” by state or federal

123 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

124

Figure 10. Water sources in the project area identified in the NECO Plan (Source: State Water Board, 2010, and ESRI, 2010, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

agencies, and plant species from Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), are protected under CEQA. These species are referred to collectively as special-status species. While plant species from CNPS lists 3 and 4 are watchlist species and generally not included for special-status consideration, several species from these two lists have been included by the NECO Plan as species for which surveys must be completed where a project intersects the species ranges, as mapped in the NECO Plan. Therefore, these plants are also included in the list of special-status species for the proposed project. Similarly, any wildlife species listed by the NECO Plan as special-status, even if not otherwise considered special-status, is included. Finally, two species (burro deer and bighorn sheep) in the project area receive protection and management as game species, and burros are afforded protection by the Wild, Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Special-status plant and wildlife species that may occur or have been documented to occur in the project vicinity and have potential to be affected by project activities are listed in table 18. This list includes only those species with the potential to be found in the area of project components, not all special-status species that are regionally known. The list is based on: (1) records of the California Natural Diversity Data Base for special-status species that are known to occur in the project survey area; (2) CNPS records for special-status plants; (3) results from recent, relevant surveys and reviews; (4) the NECO Plan; and (5) known habitats in the area (i.e., experience of the consulting biologist). Eagle Crest conducted surveys in 2008 and 2009 for signs of these species in the project area. The results of these surveys are depicted on figures 11 and 12. Based on the results of these surveys and proposed project activities, we have identified several species that may experience concentrated project effects. These effects could result from anticipated disturbance to areas with special habitat value, high population density, or potential for the project to have concentrated effects on a population. As such, these species are discussed in more detail below. These species include Nelson’s bighorn sheep, burrowing owls, bats, and Couch’s spadefoot toad. Two federally listed species are included in the list of special-status species with the potential to be in the project area: Coachella Valley milkvetch and desert tortoise; see section 3.3.4, Threatened and Endangered Species, for full discussion of these species.

Nelson’s Bighorn Sheep Nelson’s bighorn sheep (also called desert bighorn sheep) are widely distributed from the White Mountains in Mono County to the Chocolate Mountains in Imperial County. They live most of the year close to the desert floor in canyons and rocky areas with ewe and ram populations generally occupying different areas and congregating during mating season. In summer, they move to better forage sites and cooler conditions in the mountains. Migration routes can occur across valleys between mountain ranges or along mountain ridges. For most of the year, ram and ewe populations are geographically

125 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Table 18. Potential for special-status species (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a). Likelihood of Status Occurrence on the Species Federal Statea CNPSb Habitat Project Site Plants -- -- 2 Sandy sites in Mojavean Possible along the Abrams’s spurge and Sonoran Desert scrubs water pipeline; fall (Chamaesyce in eastern California; 0– flowering abramsiana) 3,000 feet -- -- 2 Sandy flats in Sonoran Possible along the Arizona spurge Desert scrubs, below water pipeline; not (Chamaesyce arizonica) ~1,000 feet observed

126 Ayenia -- -- 2 Sand and gravelly washes Possible around the (Ayenia compacta) and canyons in desert central project area; scrubs, 450–3,600 feet not observed on 2008 or 2009 surveys California ditaxis -- -- 3 Sonoran Creosote Bush Observed on both (Ditaxis serrata var. Scrub from 100 to 3,000 linear ROWs californica) feet Coachella Valley E BLM -- 1B Loose to soft sandy soils, Highly unlikely—little milkvetch (Astragalus Sensitive often in disturbed sites; 100 to no habitat on project lentiginosus var. to 2,200 feet lands and local coachellae) reported populations appear to have been misidentified; not observed

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Likelihood of Status Occurrence on the Species Federal Statea CNPSb Habitat Project Site Coue’s cassia -- -- 2 Dry washes and slopes in Possible, especially on (Senna covesii) Sonoran Desert scrubs, the bajadas (compound 1,000 to 3,500 feet alluvial fans at the base of mountains) and on/near the central project area; species not observed in 2008, 2009 or on related surveys Crucifixion thorn -- -- 2 Mojavean and Sonoran Observed on the water

127 (Castela emoryi) Desert scrubs; typically pipeline associated with drainages Darlington’s blazing star -- -- 2 Mojavean and Sonoran Possible on the water (Mentzelia puberula) Desert scrubs; sandy or pipeline, in the valley, rocky soils; 300–4,200 feet or central project area Desert sand-parsley -- -- 2 Sonoran Desert scrub; Highly unlikely; not (Ammoselinum known from only one site, observed giganteum) near Hayfield Dry Lake, at 1200 feet; last seen in 1922 Desert unicorn plant -- -- 4 Sandy areas in Sonoran Observed near the well (Proboscidea Desert scrubs throughout sites; possible altheaefolia) southeastern California, throughout the valley below 3,300 feet

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Likelihood of Status Occurrence on the Species Federal Statea CNPSb Habitat Project Site Dwarf germander -- -- 2 Sandy soils, washes, playa Possible on the water (Teucrium cubense edges, and fields in pipeline, in the valley; depressum) Sonoran Desert scrubs, not observed below 1,300 feet Flat-seeded spurge BLM -- 1B Sandy flats and dunes in Possible on the water (Chamaesyce Sensitive Sonoran Desert scrubs; pipeline, in the valley; platysperma) below 350 feet; may be not observed extirpated in California Foxtail cactus -- -- 4 Primarily rocky substrates Observed on both (Coryphantha between 250 and 4,000 linear ROWs

128 alversonii) feet; Creosote Bush Scrub Glandular ditaxis -- -- 2 Sandy flats in Mojavean Possible; not observed (Ditaxis claryana) and Sonoran Creosote Bush scrubs in Imperial, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties; below 1,500 feet Harwood’s eriastrum -- -- 1B Range restricted to loose- Unlikely due to lack of (Eriastrum harwoodii) sandy areas of eastern habitat; not observed Riverside and San Bernardino counties Harwood’s milkvetch -- -- 2 Dunes, windblown sands, Unlikely, no apparent (Astragalus insularis and soft sands below habitat; not observed var. harwoodii) 1,200 feet, east and south of Desert Center

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Likelihood of Status Occurrence on the Species Federal Statea CNPSb Habitat Project Site Jackass clover -- -- 2 Sandy washes, roadsides, Unlikely due to lack of (Wislizenia refracta var. flats; 1,900 to 2,700 feet habitat; not observed refracta) Las animas colubrina -- -- 2 Sonoran Creosote Bush Possible on/near the (Colubrina californica) Scrub <3,300 feet central project area; not observed in 2008, 2009 or on related surveys Mesquite neststraw -- -- 1A Open sandy drainages; Highly unlikely; not (Stylocline sonorensis) known from one site near observed

129 Hayfield Spring; not seen since 1930 and presumed extinct in California Orocopia sage BLM -- 1B Mojavean and Sonoran Unlikely but possible (Saliva greatae) Sensitive Desert scrubs; near/on the central gravelly/rocky bajadas, project area; reported mostly near washes; below south of the central 3,000 feet; only known project area in earlier west of the Project surveys but not observed in 2008 and 2009 on the linear ROWs

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Likelihood of Status Occurrence on the Species Federal Statea CNPSb Habitat Project Site Parish’s club cholla -- -- 2 Flowering late spring to Possible habitat (Grusonia parishii) early summer (May to near/on the central July); Mojave and Sonoran project area deserts, silty, sandy, or gravelly flats, dunelets, hills; 950–3,000 feet Sand evening primrose -- -- 2 Sandy washes, rocky Possible; not observed (Camissonia arenaria) slopes, Sonoran desert scrubs; below 1,500 (3,500) feet

130 Slender woolly-heads -- -- 2 Dunes in coastal and No habitat; not (Nemacaulis denudate Sonoran Desert scrubs, observed var. gracilis) primarily in the Coachella Valley; below 1,500 feet Spearleaf -- -- 2 Rocky ledges and slopes, Possible habitat (Matelea parvifolia) 1,000 to 6,000 feet, in near/on the central Mojave and Sonoran Desert project area scrubs Spiny abrojo -- -- 4 Sonoran Creosote Bush Possible on/near the (Condalia globosa var. Scrub; 500 to 3,300 feet central project area; pubescens) not observed in 2008 or 2009 surveys Wiggins’ cholla -- -- 3 Eastern Riverside County, Observed in 2009 (Opuntia wigginsii) under about 3,000 feet surveys

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Likelihood of Status Occurrence on the Species Federal Statea CNPSb Habitat Project Site Invertebrates Cheeseweed owlfly ------Creosote bush scrub in Possible, especially (Oliarces clara) rocky areas near the central project area Amphibians Couch’s spadefoot BLM SSC -- Various arid communities Possible on entire (Scaphiopus couchii) Sensitive in extreme southeastern project area; no California and east, south artificial impoundments

131 Reptiles Chuckwalla ------Rock outcrops in Mojave Observed; also likely (Sauromalus ater) and Sonoran Desert scrubs on/near the central project area Desert rosy boa BLM -- -- Rocky uplands and Possible, especially (Charina trivirgata Sensitive canyons; often near stream near the central project gracia) courses area Mojave fringe-toed BLM SSC -- Restricted to aeolian sandy Does not occur on lizard Sensitive habitats in the Mojave and project area due to (Uma scoparia) northern Sonoran deserts lack of habitat Desert tortoise T T -- Most desert habitats below Observed on both (Gopherus agassizii) about 5,000 feet in linear ROWs in 2008 elevation and 2009; likely on central project area

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Likelihood of Status Occurrence on the Species Federal Statea CNPSb Habitat Project Site Birds American peregrine Delisted E Fully -- Dry, open country, Possible forager falcon BCC Protected including arid woodlands; onsite, may nest in (Falco peregrinus nests in cliffs adjacent mountains; anatum) not observed Bendire’s thrasher BCC BLM SSC ABC:WLBCC Arid to semi-arid brushy Possible; not observed (Toxostoma bendirei) Sensitive habitats, usually with yuccas, cholla, and trees Burrowing owl BCC SSC -- Open, arid habitats Observed on linear (Athene cunicularia) BLM ROWs; possible on 132 Sensitive central project area Crissal thrasher BCC SSC -- Dense mesquite and Unlikely, but possible (Toxostoma crissale) willows along desert on central project area streams and washes only; no habitat on linear ROWs and not observed Ferruginous hawk BCC BLM WL -- Arid, open country Possible winter (Buteo regalis) Sensitive resident only Gila woodpecker BCC E -- Desert woodland habitats Possible; not observed (Melanerpes uropygialis)

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Likelihood of Status Occurrence on the Species Federal Statea CNPSb Habitat Project Site Golden eagle BCC BLM WL Fully -- Open country; nests in Possible forager on (Aquila chrysaetos) Sensitive Protected large trees in open areas or site, may nest in cliffs adjacent mountains; observed in 2008. LeConte’s thrasher -- SSC -- Desert with scattered Possible; not observed (Toxostoma lecontei) shrubs and sandy and/or alkaline soil Loggerhead shrike BCC SSC -- Arid habitats with perches Common; observed (Lanius ludovicianus) Mountain plover BCC BLM SSC ABC:WLBCC Dry upland habitats, plains, Unlikely, but possible 133 (Charadrius montanus) Sensitive bare fields winter visitor to agricultural fields in the project area Northern Harrier -- SSC -- Open habitats; nests in Possible; not observed (Circus cyaneus) shrubby pen land and marshes Prairie Falcon BCC WL -- Dry, open country, Likely forager on site, (Falco mexicanus) including arid woodlands; may nest in adjacent nests in cliffs mountains; not observed Short-eared owl -- SSC ABC:WLBCC Open habitats: marshes, Possible winter visitor (Asio flammeus) fields; nests on ground and roosts on ground and low poles

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Likelihood of Status Occurrence on the Species Federal Statea CNPSb Habitat Project Site Sonoran yellow warbler BCC SSC -- Riparian habitats, Possible—no habitat (Dendroica petechia woodlands, orchards on linear ROWs and sonorana) habitat on the central project area is unknown; observed at the Eagle Mountain town site reservoir on previous survey; not observed during 2008 and 2009 surveys

134 Vermilion flycatcher -- SSC -- Wooded and shrubby sites Highly unlikely except (Pyrocephalus rubinus) near water, especially with as transient—no willows, mesquite and habitat on linear cottonwoods ROWs and unlikely to be habitat on the central project area; not observed

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Likelihood of Status Occurrence on the Species Federal Statea CNPSb Habitat Project Site Yellow-breasted chat -- SSC -- Dense streamside thickets, Highly unlikely except (Icteria virens) willows; brushy hillsides as transient—no and canyons habitat on linear ROWs and unlikely to be habitat on the central project area; transients observed in area on two previous surveys, but not observed during 2008 and 2009 surveys 135 Mammals American badger -- SSC -- Many habitats Observed in 2008 and (Taxidea taxus) 2009 Big free-tailed bat -- SSC WBWG:MH Cliffs and rugged rocky Possible forager on (Nyctinomops macrotis) habitats in arid, country, site, especially near also riparian woodlands mountains Burro deer -- Game -- Arboreal and densely Observed (Odocoileus hemionus species vegetated drainages eremicus) California leaf-nosed bat BLM SSC WBWG:H Lowland desert associate, Known from Eagle (Macrotus californicus) Sensitive found in caves, mines, Mountain mine so tunnels and old buildings possible near or on the central project area

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Likelihood of Status Occurrence on the Species Federal Statea CNPSb Habitat Project Site Colorado valley woodrat ------Under mesquite in creosote Possible (Neotoma albigula bush scrub; southeastern venusta) California Nelson’s bighorn sheep BLM Game -- In mountains and adjacent Likely near the central (Ovis canadensis Sensitive species (not valleys in desert Scrub project area; detected nelsoni) hunted in on previous surveys project area) Pallid bat BLM SSC WBWG:H Several desert habitats Possible, primarily (Antrozous pallidus) Sensitive near the central project area; detected on

136 previous surveys Pocketed free-tailed bat -- SSC WBWG:M Variety of arid areas in Possible near the (Nyctinomops pinyon-juniper woodland, central project area femorosaccus) desert scrubs, palm oases, drainages; always near rocky areas Spotted Bat BLM SSC WBWG:H Arid scrub and grasslands, Possible near the (Euderma maculatum) Sensitive to coniferous forests, roosts central project area in cliffs, forages along streams and in woodlands, fields

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Likelihood of Status Occurrence on the Species Federal Statea CNPSb Habitat Project Site Townsend’s big-eared BLM SSC WBWG:H Broad habitat associations. Possible, primarily bat Sensitive Roosts in caves and near the central project (Corynorhinus manmade structures; feeds area and transmission townsendii) in trees line; detected on previous surveys Western mastiff bat BLM SSC WBWG:H Cliffs, trees, tunnels, Highly likely near/on (Eumops perotis Sensitive buildings in desert scrub the central project californicus) area; detected on previous surveys a Source: California DFG, 2010, 2009 137 Applicable Status codes are as follows: E – Endangered T – Threatened Federal C – Candidate species for listing Federal SC – Species of Special Concern (species whose conservation status may be of concern to FWS, but have no official status [formerly C2 species]) Federal BCC –FWS Bird of Conservation Concern State SSC – California DFG Species of Special Concern (species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction) State Protected – Species that cannot be taken without a permit from California DFG State Fully Protected – Species that cannot be taken without authorization from the Fish and Game Commission State WL – Watchlist species: species that are not SSC, state-listed, or fully protected (Note: State WL species have not been included in this table if they have no other protection designation.)

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

BLM Sensitive – Species under review, rare, with limited geographic range or habitat associations, or declining. BLM policy is to provide the same level of protection as FWS candidate species b CNPS: List 1A – Plants presumed extinct in California List 1B – Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere List 2 – Plants rare and endangered in California but more common elsewhere List 3 – Plants about which CNPS needs more information List 4 – Plants of limited distribution (Note: CNPS lists 1 and 2 require CEQA consideration.) ABC:WLBCC – American Bird Conservancy United States Watchlist of Birds of Conservation Concern WBWG – Western Bat Working Group (http://wbwg.org): H – High Priority – These species should be considered the highest priority for funding, planning, and conservation

138 actions. M – Medium Priority – These species warrant closer evaluation, more research, and conservation actions of both the species and the threats L- Low Priority – Most of the existing data support stable populations of the species and that the potential for major changes in status is unlikely.

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

139

Figure 11. Results of special-status plant surveys (Source: State Water Board, 2010, and ESRI, 2010, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

140

Figure 12. Results of special-status wildlife surveys (Source: State Water Board, 2010, and ESRI, 2010, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

separated with rams being more dispersed and ewes more congregated. During the breeding season, or rut, rams travel to ewe populations, generally between August and November. The lambing season is from January to June with the majority of births occurring in February and April (Bighorn Institute, 2011). The BLM management plan for this species identifies eight metapopulations, two of which are included in the NECO Planning Area: the Southern Mojave and Sonoran metapopulations. These metapopulations are further divided into demes, or populations. The project is located in the Southern Mojave Metapopulation, adjacent to the Eagle Mountain population and near the Coxcomb population. The central project area is located in BLM’s Joshua Tree National Park Desert Bighorn Sheep Wildlife Habitat Management Area. Other populations in the project vicinity include the Little San Bernardino Mountain population, located north of Interstate 10 west of the project, and the Chocolate, Orocopia, and Chuckwalla Mountain populations south of Interstate 10. The movement of individuals between these populations contributes to gene flow and promotes genetic diversity of the metapopulation. The construction of barriers between these populations, including Interstate 10 and the Metropolitan Water District’s canal reduce this gene flow and could reduce fitness for populations that are isolated from the metapopulation (Epps et al., 2005). Researchers conducted a 2-year radio telemetry study of the Eagle Mountain bighorn sheep population (Divine and Douglas, 1996). This report provides maps showing locations of ewes and rams for the entire study period with locations mapped by season. Based on radio telemetry, Divine and Douglas (1996) identified two distinct ewe populations in the Eagle Mountains: one near the central project area and one to the southwest, about 15 miles from the central project area. During the study, these populations did not mix; and rams generally occupied the area between the two ewe populations. Throughout the year, the northern ewe population moved between Eagle Tank Spring, located northwest of the central project area, and Buzzard Spring, located south of the central project area. The Park Service identified Buzzard Spring as an important water source for sheep moving between the Coxcomb and Little San Bernardino Mountains. Maps of ewe locations during winter, spring, and summer show ewes dispersed across this area, with general congregations near Eagle Tank Spring in spring and near Buzzard Spring in summer. Winter locations, which were more dispersed though the majority of winter locations, were near Eagle Tank Spring (Divine and Douglas, 1996). The report does not provide data for the fall. In winter, ram locations were generally concentrated near Buzzard Spring but ranged from north of the central project area to the southern ewe population. In spring and summer, rams were increasingly concentrated near Buzzard Spring. Divine and Douglas state that sheep were seen crossing the haul road and appear to use the ridges leading from the extreme northern ridges to the hull road as crossing zones across the central project area. Sheep also use the northwestern section of the mine, as well as the area west of Placer Canyon to travel between the two water sources (figure 13).

141 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

142

Figure 13. Desert bighorn sheep ewe migratory routes in the central project area (Source: Commission staff interpretation of telemetry results in Divine and Douglas [1996]).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Divine and Douglas (1996) also observed that bighorn sheep in the Eagle Mountains were somewhat tolerant of human activity. A U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) mining engineer reported bighorn sheep watering within 180 feet of an Eagle Mountain mine office building. Other reports include bighorn sightings along roads that were constantly used by large industrial mining trucks. The researchers conclude that bighorn can tolerate some disturbance, especially if the disturbance is ongoing and not directed at the sheep. However, they do not conclude that such disturbance would necessarily have a null effect or that sheep would inevitably become accustomed to human activity. In the past, water access for bighorn sheep in the project area has been provided at the southern Eagle Mountain water tank, a developed system about 0.5 mile west of the proposed upper reservoir, a natural spring about 0.6 mile north-northwest of the upper reservoir, and in the mine pits where water collects following rains (TR-4). Potential for water runoff pooling in the mine pits is present in existing conditions; however, the status of the other water sources is unknown. Results of Divine and Douglas (1996) indicate presence of bighorn sheep around both the Eagle Mountain water tank and the natural spring and between the proposed reservoir locations. Additionally, surveys conducted in 1995 for the Eagle Mountain landfill observed bighorn scat in the central project area.

Burrowing Owl The burrowing owl is a BLM sensitive species that occurs in open arid areas. The owls generally occur in colonies and build nests in burrows, which are an essential component of burrowing owl habitat: both natural and artificial burrows provide protection, shelter, and nests for the owls. The burrows are typically constructed by other burrowing animals including kit fox, badger, and ground squirrel, but the owls also use human-made structures, such as cement culverts; cement, asphalt, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement (California Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993). Eagle Crest conducted Phase I habitat surveys (2008) and Phase II presence/absence surveys (2009). During the Phase II survey, biologists located two owl burrows—one active and one inactive. One burrow is located on the proposed water pipeline ROW, the other is on the proposed transmission line ROW near the southern terminus.

Golden Eagle and Other Raptors Several special-status raptor species, including golden eagle and prairie falcon, have the potential to occur in the central project area. Golden eagles nest in large trees in open cliff areas. Prairie falcon nest on vertical cliff faces. Foraging habitat for both species includes open areas where small and mid-sized animals are present. Nesting season for golden eagles in the southern part of their range (including the project area) can begin as early as late January and last through August (California Wildlife Habitats Relationship System, 2010a). Nesting season for the prairie falcon lasts from mid-

143 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

February through mid-September with peak season from April to early August (California Wildlife Habitats Relationship System, 2010b). As part of its July 7, 2010, filing (Eagle Crest, 2010a), Eagle Crest provided results from golden eagle surveys that took place in March and April 2010. The surveys covered mountainous areas within 10 miles of the proposed project. The surveyors located a total of 34 golden eagle nest sites distributed among nine active and five inactive eagle territories in the project region. Four of the territories identified overlap the Eagle Mountain Project area. Surveyors recorded one incubating golden eagle female within the nine active territories. Other raptor species encountered during the surveys include the American kestrel, barn owl, Cooper’s hawk, great horned owl, long-eared owl, northern harrier, osprey, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, red-tailed hawk and Swainson’s hawk.

Bats Several BLM sensitive bat species are known to occur in the project area. These species include big free-tailed bat, California leaf-nosed bat, pallid bat, pocketed free- tailed bat, spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and Western mastiff bat. These species all prefer roosting areas associated with caves, cliffs, or rocky outcrop habitat, which is present in the central project area. Foraging habitat for these species exists in desert scrub and desert riparian areas within the project area. Surveys conducted in the central project area in June and December of 1991, in preparation for the Eagle Mountain Landfill EIS, found the presence of Townsend’s big- eared bat, California leaf-nosed bat, and pallid bat in the central project area. Based on their results, the surveyors concluded that California leaf-nosed bats use an adit at the Eagle Mountain mine as a winter roost area and determined this is the main winter roosting area for this species in the Eagle Mountains. About 100 bats were observed exiting the adit. California leaf-nosed bats were also observed near the mill site at the mine.

Couch’s Spadefoot Toad Couch’s spadefoot toads spend their lives in proximity to ephemeral pools in the southern California desert. During dry periods the adults live buried under the surface. It is possible for the toads to survive these dry conditions for multiple years without emerging from their burrows. Following spring and summer rains, the toads emerge to feed and breed in the inundated pools. In portions of the project area where access was permitted, Eagle Crest conducted surveys for all ephemeral impoundments with the potential to support this species. No surveys were conducted in the central project area.

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects In its draft EIR for the Eagle Mountain Project, the State Water Board identified its preferred alternative substation location and transmission line route as the

144 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

environmentally superior interconnection alternative for the project. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line would interconnect with the electrical grid at the proposed Red Bluff substation (figure 2). SCE proposes to construct, own, and operate this substation as a component of the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project. SCE filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission for a permit to construct the substation in November 2010 and expects the substation to be operational by 2013. The SCE-proposed substation is located immediately south of Interstate 10 and about 6 miles east of the applicant’s proposed substation. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would diverge from the applicant’s proposed transmission line route after crossing the Colorado River Aqueduct. It would then run parallel to and on the northwest side of the existing 160-kV SCE transmission line route for about 10.5 miles going southeast to a point just north of the proposed substation, then it would travel south about 2 miles to the substation. In total, this alternative route would be 16.4 miles long. In comments filed on the draft EIS (February 28, 2011), Interior clarified that its preferred alternative transmission line route is along Kaiser Road. This alternative route would follow the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route to Kaiser Road, turn south and parallel Kaiser Road for about 5.2 miles, and then turn east and travel about 0.9 mile, crossing over State Route 177. From here, this transmission line route would travel southeast for 0.8 mile and east for 3.7 mile, then turn south about 2 miles to the substation. In total, this alternative route would be 18.6 miles long. In the discussion below, we compare the effects of the State Water Board’s and Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line routes with the applicant’s proposed route. The different transmission routes are depicted in figure 9 and other figures. Our discussion of environmental effects presented below is based on information provided in the final license application (Eagle Crest, 2009a), additional information filed by Eagle Crest (Eagle Crest, 2009b, 2009c), Eagle Crest’s response to comments on the final license application (Eagle Crest, 2009e), and Eagle Crest’s supplemental information filed on July 7, 2010 (Eagle Crest, 2010a). Our discussion of effects specific to construction and operation of the transmission line is based on the results of Eagle Crest’s 2008, 2009, and 2010 surveys and information provided in the State Water Board’s draft EIR (State Water Board, 2010).

Effects of Construction on Vegetation Construction of the project would permanently disturb lands within the footprint of project facilities including the Eagle Mountain switchyard, desalination area, administration buildings, access roads, transmission line support structures, reservoirs, and water supply pipeline. In response to the Commission’s AIR, Eagle Crest filed its WEAP on October 27, 2009. The WEAP includes the training of designated staff biological monitors that would be onsite during construction. The monitors would have the authority to halt construction

145 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

activities if they determine sensitive resources are at risk. These monitors would be responsible for clearing and designating safe work areas, flagging sensitive areas, and monitoring exclusion fencing. Construction crews would be instructed to only work in areas approved by the biological monitors. Desert animals frequently take refuge in shaded areas associated with parked vehicles. As such, the biological monitors would also be responsible for inspecting and clearing these areas prior to vehicle movement. During construction in native habitats, Eagle Crest proposes to restrict surface disturbance to the smallest area necessary to complete the construction (Measure BIO-5). Eagle Crest would design new spur roads and improvements to existing roads in a way that would preserve existing desert wash topography and flow patterns. In addition to the measures described above, Eagle Crest also proposes several measures specifically designed to reduce effects of project construction on local vegetation, including the revegetation of all temporarily disturbed areas. In response to the Commission’s AIR, Eagle Crest filed its Revegetation Plan on October 27, 2009 (Measure BIO-8). The plan includes developing a quantitative description of the existing vegetation community, so revegetation success can be measured. To increase potential for successful revegetation in the desert environment, Eagle Crest would retain topsoil removed during site clearing and return the soil to the site prior to planting. Eagle Crest’s plan also includes micro-site preparation and grading. This preparation would include vertical mulching and other techniques to increase germination potential and plant growth. Eagle Crest’s planned restoration techniques include (1) seeding and/or planting seedlings of colonizing species and (2) developing a soil micro-community by inoculating mycorrhizal fungi and planting species that develop a mycorrhizal net. Following planting, Eagle Crest would implement weed control and initial irrigation. Eagle Crest’s Revegetation Plan also includes a schedule for the expected regrowth of native species and remedial measures to be implemented if needed. In its comments on the draft EIS, the Park Service states that it has had success with revegetation and recommends irrigating transplants for 2 years. The Park Service states that low annual rainfall in this region requires the plants be maintained monthly for 2 years. As compared to the proposed route, the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would increase the length of the transmission line by 2.9 miles. The State Water Board’s preferred route would cross 205.6 acres of Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub; 97.6 acres of Desert Dry Wash Woodland; and 97.3 acres of developed land. Interior’s preferred alternative transmission route would increase the length of the transmission line by 5.1 miles and would cross 177.0 acres of Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub; 258.9 acres of Desert Dry Wash Woodland; and 18.1 acres of developed land.

Our Analysis Construction of the project would have unavoidable effects on local vegetation. Based on habitat mapping and current project design, we estimate activities associated

146 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

with the central project area and water supply pipeline would affect 65.6 acres of Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub and 15.4 acres of Desert Dry Wash Woodland. These areas of effect would be the same for the proposed project and the State Water Board’s and Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line routes. Additional disturbance would occur at transmission line support structures, lay down and staging areas, transmission line pull sites and substation.53 Specific effects of the pulling sites and laydown areas are not known because Eagle Crest would determine the exact location of these areas during final engineering design. This design stage would occur during the first 2 years of the license. However, Eagle Crest intends to locate these areas within previously disturbed areas whenever possible. For disturbance associated with these transmission facilities, the proposed project would affect about 46.0 acres of Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub, 15.4 acres of Desert Dry Wash Woodland, and 2.8 acres of disturbed areas. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would affect about 17.5 acres of Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub, 11.0 acres of Desert Dry Wash Woodland, and 3.6 acres of disturbed areas. Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route would affect about 23.0 acres of Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub, 13.4 acres of Desert Dry Wash Woodland, and 9.9 acres of disturbed areas. These activities have the potential to remove or disturb existing vegetation and alter soil characteristics through compaction, subsidence, erosion, changes in drainage patterns, or disturbance to soil crusts. While some of these effects are temporary, such as disturbance within lay down and storage areas and pull sites, the desert environment in which they occur is very slow to regenerate. Clearing of native vegetation in lay down areas, transmission line pulling sites, transmission line support tower footprints, waste spoil and salt disposal sites, brine ponds, and water pipeline would be a necessary component of constructing project facilities. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would require less new ROW development and cross a fewer acres of Dry Desert Woodland than either the proposed route or Interior’s preferred alternative route. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line ROW would still cross creosote bush scrub; however, unlike the proposed alternative and Interior’s preferred alternative transmission route, these lands generally would be outside the Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA) and desert tortoise critical habitat. Additionally, the State Water Board’s alternative would use a greater percentage of disturbed lands. Therefore, when compared to the proposed project and the Interior’s preferred alternative transmission route, the State Water Board’s alternative would have less effect on vegetation resources.

53 Only the proposed transmission line would require a new substation be built specifically as part of the proposed project; the State Water Board’s and Interior’s preferred transmission lines would connect at the planned Red Bluff substation.

147 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Implementation of Eagle Crest’s proposed WEAP would ensure the potential for inadvertent effects on sensitive species is reduced. Keeping state and federal resource management agencies appraised of construction activities and implementation of mitigation measures would provide the agencies oversight of these activities and ensure effects are minimized and mitigation is effective. Careful planning and design of construction areas and access roads to reduce the extent of disturbance in native habitats and maintain existing drainage patterns is also a necessary component of limiting project effects in these areas. Eagle Crest’s proposed measures would limit effects of construction on vegetation through revegetation plantings and control of invasive species. Yet, compared to non- desert areas, the duration of these effects would be much longer, with regeneration to existing conditions likely requiring several decades. However, these effects would be highly localized within the project footprint and would have minimal effect on areas immediately adjacent to the disturbance areas. The overall area of disturbance would also be small compared to the large extent of similar vegetation structure in the surrounding area and the project is not expected to cause any population level effects on vegetation species. This is true for all transmission line routes analyzed. Eagle Crest’s Revegetation Plan includes a variety of measures that would promote successful revegetation in a desert ecosystem. However, the plan does not include a stipulation that any straw, hay, or topsoil brought to the site be certified weed free. These materials may be used to prevent erosion and prepare planting sites. The use of weed-free materials brought to the site would reduce the potential for introducing invasive species into the project. We also concur with the Park Service and find that monthly irrigation of transplants for 2 years would increase likelihood of transplant survival. If Eagle Crest were to revise the proposed Revegetation Plan to include the use of weed-free materials and continued irrigation of transplants, the potential for revegetation success would increase.

Effects of Operation on Vegetation Operation of the project would include the addition of water to the project reservoirs, proposed generating operations, and maintenance of project facilities. These activities could affect vegetation by providing water subsidies or disturbing new lands as required for maintenance. In its comments filed on the draft EIS, the Park Service notes that if riparian vegetation develops around the project reservoirs, it could create an ecological trap54 for wildlife, potentially including threatened and endangered species. To reduce potential effects of project operations on vegetation, Eagle Crest’s WEAP requires that all maintenance activities potentially requiring ground disturbance occur in the presence of

54 The term ecological trap refers to wildlife species selecting poor quality habitat based on certain environmental cues created by human manipulation of the environment.

148 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

biological monitors. Additionally, in 2006 Eagle Crest entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with FWS, BLM, and Forest Service that provides guidelines for vegetation maintenance along transmission line ROWs on federal lands. This MOU also includes standards for revegetation practices in these areas.

Our Analysis Following construction, we expect operation of the transmission line and water pipelines would have little, if any, effect on vegetation. If any leaks are present in the pipeline, desert annuals are likely to colonize the localized areas. Specific soil conditions at the elevation of the normal high water line around both reservoirs are unknown since Eagle Crest was not given access to conduct surveys in these areas. However, past mining activities have removed any topsoil, and we expect current materials in these areas to have high mineral content and very low nutrient availability. Such areas typically require many decades to develop crypotobiotic crusts. Under these conditions, we expect vegetation establishment to occur very slowly. Operation of the project reservoirs would add water to areas currently void of vegetation. It is possible that vegetation would colonize these wetted areas, although any community development would be limited to the area near the normal high water line at each reservoir. Steep topography along the sides of the proposed reservoirs would limit the area of water availability to a narrow band around each reservoir. Other areas of the reservoir would be available for seed colonization during drawdown periods; however, these areas would then be inundated, normally on daily basis, as each reservoir is refilled during project operations. Proposed operations would involve daily water level fluctuations in both reservoirs of about 100 feet. Such frequent wetting and drying would greatly reduce the potential for any vegetation establishment below the high water lines. Desert riparian tree species, including cottonwood and willows, are adapted to these sorts of environments. These species typically colonize bare mineral sand bars deposited during the decline of spring flood pulses in desert streams (Stromberg, 1993). It is possible the wetted areas adjacent to the reservoir high water line would mimic these conditions. Seeds from these species are wind dispersed and have limited viability; they do not persist in the soil from one year to the next. To establish, the seeds need to land on wetted mineral soil, germinate, and develop sufficient root structure to maintain access to groundwater after water levels recede. If the water recedes too quickly, the seedlings will die (Stromberg, 1993). It is difficult to speculate how these species would respond to the daily wetting and drying along the sides of the proposed reservoirs. Over the course of the license, some limited establishment of these species should be expected. Creation of the project reservoirs could create an ecological trap for migratory birds and other wildlife. For example, wildlife may select nesting habitat based on the presence and structure of vegetation. In the past, these cues indicate a source of local water and associated aquatic insect communities that would provide a suitable food source. However, in the case of the proposed project, Eagle Crest proposes to implement

149 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

measures to maintain water quality using reverse osmosis membranes. This process would also limit productivity in the reservoirs by removing algae and microbial life forms that could provide a food base for aquatic insects. Therefore, in theory, there is potential for riparian vegetation to attract wildlife to low quality habitat associated with the project reservoirs. While we are not certain vegetation would develop due to frequent wetting and drying of soils, poor soil development, and reservoir liners, there is potential for vegetation establishment. Such establishment of trees and shrubs could result in damage to the reservoir liners, increased seepage from the reservoirs, and loss of water through evapotranspiration. In addition, there may be potential, probably limited, for such vegetation to attract wildlife to an otherwise infertile location, possibly creating an ecologic trap for birds and other wildlife as suggested by the Park Service. Preventing the development of substantial riparian vegetation, including trees and shrubs, would help prevent this possible attraction of wildlife, damage to the project liners, and water loss.

Effects of Construction on Noxious and Invasive Species Construction of the project would remove existing vegetation and disturb soils, creating conditions suitable for the establishment of noxious or invasive plants. Once the species establish, they compete with native species for resources, which are limited in the desert environment. Proliferation of these invasive species has the potential to alter the existing landscape structure and wildlife habitat. To prevent the establishment of noxious and invasive species, Eagle Crest proposes to implement its Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan (Measure BIO- 9). In response to the Commission’s AIR, Eagle Crest filed its plan on October 27, 2009. The plan includes pre-construction surveys to determine baseline conditions, followed with construction and post-construction surveys (to continue for 2 years post- construction) to identify any new populations of invasive species. If these surveys identify increases in weed species presence and/or frequency, Eagle Crest would implement control measures. Eagle Crest’s proposed control measures include manual and mechanical removal and application of EPA-certified herbicides. In their comments on the draft EIS, FWS, BLM, and the Park Service state that the current Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan, which calls for surveys for 2 years post construction is inadequate. FWS recommends amending the Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan to include a minimum of 5 years of surveys with minimum precipitation requirements for an accurate assessment and an adaptive management plan, including success criteria and contingencies in the event success criteria are not met.

Our Analysis Construction activities would create areas suitable for establishment of invasive weeds by removing existing vegetation and disturbing soil. These effects would be increased along the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route

150 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

because of the greater levels of soil disturbance associated with the additional length of the line. Eagle Crest’s proposed plan to monitor and control invasive species is scientifically sound and would decrease the potential for weed proliferation in areas disturbed during construction. The proposed plan would be equally applicable to all transmission line routes analyzed. The Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan identifies baseline conditions and biological triggers, indicating the need for implementation of control measures. However, the plan does not include criteria for determining success or adaptive management. If Eagle Crest amended the proposed Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan to include criteria for success and the development of environmental measures to be implemented if initial efforts do not prove successful, such as extended treatment periods or more frequent treatments, effects of noxious and invasive weeds could be further reduced.

Effects of Operation on Noxious and Invasive Species Operation of the project would include the addition of water to the project reservoirs, as well as operation and maintenance of project facilities. These activities could affect noxious and invasive weeds by providing water subsidies or disturbing new lands during maintenance. These conditions could create colonization potential for invasive species. Eagle Crest’s Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan calls for surveying for invasive species up to 2 years following project construction. No surveys are proposed for the remainder of the license.

Our Analysis Eagle Crest’s Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan appropriately concentrates transects in areas where soil disturbance is expected during construction; however, there is no mention of surveys near potential water subsidies associated with the project. These water subsidies could occur at well sites or in areas within and adjacent to the project reservoirs. The addition of water to desert soils, even in small amounts associated with leaks or seepage at well sites, would create microsites with greater vegetation growth than the surrounding areas. These microsites would provide ideal conditions for colonization by invasive species. Addition of water to the project reservoirs would also provide wetted soil conditions favorable for some plants. As discussed above, we expect low levels of available nitrogen, resulting from mining activities, to inhibit vegetation colonization around the project reservoirs. These conditions would also inhibit colonization of most invasive species known to occur in the project area. However, tamarisk has germination requirements similar to cottonwood and willow (Stromberg, 1993) and could colonize the perimeter of project reservoirs. Implementation of Eagle Crest’s Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan would not address these issues.

151 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

In particular, the plan does not address the potential for weeds to colonize the reservoir areas where water availability would increase. Water subsidies related to project operations would occur at any seepage areas associated with the proposed reservoirs and well sites. If Eagle Crest modified its proposed Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan to include the identification and monitoring of these areas, the potential for increased weed proliferation would be reduced. Additionally, the project reservoirs would continue to be a potential water source for invasive plants for the duration of the license. If soil conditions surrounding the high water line become suitable for vegetation establishment, noxious and invasive weeds are likely to be a component of the new vegetation growth. For reasons discussed above, we expect vegetation would be slow to establish in these areas. As such annual surveys for invasive and noxious weeds are not necessary. However, if Eagle Crest amended the proposed plan to include annual surveys around the project reservoirs, seepage areas, and any additional areas where the project creates frequent disturbance or wetting of soils, commencing once vegetation establishment is observed, the potential for weed proliferation would be further reduced. In addition, we concur with Interior that temporary disturbance associated with project maintenance could create potential colonization sites for invasive plants. If such areas were monitored for 5 years post disturbance, there would be high likelihood that Eagle Crest could identify and control any invasive species colonizing these areas. Similarly, if Eagle Crest conducted a project-wide monitoring and control effort on a 5-year basis, spread of invasive species would be further minimized.

Effects of Construction on Wildlife Construction effects on the vegetation community and habitat have the potential to affect wildlife through changing habitat characteristics. Construction of the proposed project would also require heavy vehicle traffic during the 4-year construction period, extended human presence, increased noise levels, and increased levels of artificial lighting. These factors have the potential to disturb and disorient wildlife, thereby increasing the susceptibility to predators, reducing foraging success, or disrupting breeding behavior. The potential for direct mortality associated with vehicular collisions would also increase. Many of Eagle Crest’s proposed measures associated with construction management discussed in the vegetation section would also apply to wildlife. In addition to those measures, Eagle Crest proposes several measures specific to the protection of local wildlife. To protect migratory birds, Eagle Crest would complete surveys in all potential nesting sites for active bird nests (Measure BIO-11). Eagle Crest would conduct these surveys in vegetated habitat during all construction activities that are scheduled to occur between about February 15 and July 30 (breeding season for migratory birds in the project area). In areas without wildlife exclusion fencing or those areas that have not been cleared of tortoises, Eagle Crest would limit construction activities to take place during daylight hours (Measure BIO-20). Additionally, Eagle

152 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Crest would close, temporarily fence, or cover pipeline trenches at the end of each day (Measure BIO-21). Biological monitors would inspect open trenches to ensure animal safety. Eagle Crest would construct ramps leading out of the trenches to encourage animals to escape on their own. In its comments on the draft EIS, Interior states that nesting for some bird species may begin as early as January 15 (and earlier, under favorable conditions). Interior recommends that Eagle Crest incorporate surveys for active nests starting after that date and that Eagle Crest develop an avian and bat protection plan to address potential effects on along with avoidance and minimization measures for migratory birds. Interior also states that the proposed 15-foot no-activity buffer is insufficient. Interior requests Eagle Crest and the Commission coordinate with FWS and California DFG on content and data required for quarterly reports and on species-specific needs to be included in a FWS- and California DFG-approved avian and bat protection plan. Interior also states it would like to have opportunity to provide technical assistance with the development of measures to assess and manage migratory bird access to brine evaporation ponds.

Our Analysis During construction, increased human presence and noise associated with vehicles and heavy machinery would have unavoidable effects on local wildlife. Construction activities would also create hazardous areas for wildlife, including open pits and trenches, and shade areas associated with vehicles and material stockpile locations. Additionally, clearing of vegetation and grading to prepare vegetated areas for project facilities have the potential to disturb nesting birds and disturb or destroy animal burrows. The proposed transmission line route would bisect the DWMA within about 5.8 miles of the route in the management area. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would be located outside the DWMA, although the route would border the management area for about 2.5 miles. Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route would border or be slightly inside the DWMA for about an additional 5.2 miles along Kaiser Road. As a result, the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would not bisect the DWMA and would reduce proximity of towers to the DWMA. Additionally, due to portions of the line traversing abandoned agricultural land, the quality of wildlife habitat along the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would be lower than that along the proposed transmission line route or Interior’s preferred alternative route. Therefore, the State Water Board’s preferred alternative route is expected to have the least effect on wildlife in the project area. Eagle Crest’s proposed measures, including the WEAP (discussed above), pre- construction surveys for breeding birds, and exclusionary measures to prevent animals from occupying hazardous areas would substantially reduce the construction effects. While it is not possible to completely eliminate all direct and indirect effects, the proposed measures would reduce disturbance to acceptable levels. Sufficient habitat exists in the areas immediately surrounding the project construction area such that the

153 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

majority of wildlife species are expected to temporarily disperse to less disruptive locations. Construction effects would also be temporary and would not create long- lasting detrimental effects or affect wildlife species at a population level and would be equally applicable to all of the transmission line routes. Initiating surveys for migratory bird nests on January 15 would more adequately protect these resources and avoid violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A 15-foot buffer may not be adequate to protect birds from disturbance associated with heavy machinery, excavations, vegetation clearing, or other construction activities. If Eagle Crest consults with FWS, BLM, and California DFG to develop suitable buffer distances from located nests, disturbance to these areas would be further minimized.

Effects of Project Reservoir Operation on Wildlife Operation of the project reservoirs would add about 254 acres of surface water to the project area. Given the arid nature of the surrounding area, it is likely the presence of this water would attract local wildlife. The steep terrain surrounding the reservoirs could pose a hazard for animals trying to reach the water edge, potentially resulting in serious injury or drowning. In addition, the water could attract predators, including ravens, gulls, coyotes, or feral dogs, increasing the density of predatory species in the project area and potentially increasing predation rates on local wildlife species. To prevent wildlife access to the upper and lower reservoirs in these areas, Eagle Crest would construct an 8- to 10-foot-tall exclusionary fence designed to be impassable to large mammals (including Nelson’s bighorn sheep, badger, fox, coyote, and deer) and desert tortoise (Measure BIO-18). Along the northern shore of the upper reservoir and in the northeast corner of the lower reservoir, a section of the fence (about 500 feet long) would be structured so that it would be inundated during high water, thereby providing wildlife access to high water but not allowing animals to enter the pit. Topography in these locations is less steep, providing easy access to drinking water for Nelson’s bighorn sheep. Eagle Crest proposes to maintain the fence for the life of the project. Eagle Crest would inspect all fences on a monthly basis and during/following all major rainfall events. Eagle Crest also proposes to temporarily repair any damage to the fencing immediately, followed by permanent repair within one week. To prevent effects of increased predation on wildlife, Eagle Crest developed a Predator Monitoring and Control Plan, filed on March 11, 2011. While this plan is specifically designed to reduce potential predatory effects on desert tortoise, it also would benefit other prey species, including small reptiles and mammals. Although predators could prey on other local wildlife in addition to sensitive species, we discuss this plan in more detail in section 3.3.4, Threatened and Endangered Species. During the NEPA scoping process, several entities commented that Eagle Crest’s proposed levels of groundwater pumping could affect regional aquifers or springs, depleting water resources available to wildlife. In response to these comments, Eagle

154 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Crest notes that the existing geologic and hydrologic conditions in the project area preclude interaction between groundwater pumping and surface water availability. In its letter in response to the Commission’s Ready for Environmental Analysis (REA) notice, dated March 11, 2010, the National Parks Conservation Association comments that pumping groundwater to fill the project reservoirs could cause ground subsistence. Such subsidence could create depressions that could fill with water, drowning burrowing wildlife. In response to the National Parks Conservation Association’s comment, Eagle Crest notes that based on the existing geologic conditions in the project area and its proposed levels of groundwater pumping, no subsidence is expected to occur and no wildlife would be affected by subsidence-related changes in the environment. In its comments on the draft EIS, Interior states that while fencing the reservoirs may be effective at excluding large wildlife species, it is concerned about small mammals and reptiles that may gain access to reservoirs, become trapped, and potentially drown. Interior states FWS would like to assist with the development of exclusion fencing to ensure the fence design excludes but does not entrap wildlife species. Interior recommends fitting the lower portion of exclusion fence with a material (e.g., smooth metal) that would prevent access to reservoirs to all terrestrial species.

Our Analysis The presence of the upper and lower reservoirs would provide tempting sources of water for local wildlife. Past mining activities created steep, rugged topography in areas adjacent to the proposed reservoirs. Most wildlife that use this habitat in the Eagle Mountains are adapted to traversing similar steep and rugged areas; however, attempts to access the waterline would prove hazardous and may cause injury or mortality to some individuals. Eagle Crest’s proposed construction of exclusionary fencing is a prudent measure to prevent these effects. The proposed fence design is suitable to prevent access to most species in the project area. Regular inspections and maintenance would ensure the fence is in effective operating condition and also reduce potential for animals to be trapped in small openings. With respect to Interior’s comments about improving the proposed fence around the project reservoirs and brine ponds to exclude smaller wildlife species, we agree that this low cost measure would benefit local wildlife species. Installing a solid barrier along the lower portion of the fence would prohibit most small mammals, and reptiles from accessing the project reservoirs, limiting potential injury or health effects on these species and reducing project effects on wildlife. If Eagle Crest were to consult with FWS to develop the specific design of the exclusion fence, effects on wildlife would be further reduced. Water quality in the project reservoirs would not pose a risk to wildlife. Instead, the reservoirs would provide a safe source of drinking water for bats and birds. The reservoir could also serve as a resting location for migratory birds. However, such use

155 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

would be limited because the reservoirs are not expected to develop much of a forage base for wildlife due to frequent turnover between the reservoirs and filtering associated with the reverse osmosis system. With respect to implementation of Eagle Crest’s proposed Predator Monitoring and Control Plan, the primary effects are discussed in section 3.3.4, Threatened and Endangered Species. Using desert tortoise as an indicator species, Eagle Mountain would implement predator control measures as necessary. These measures would also benefit local wildlife species. As discussed further in section 3.3.2, Water Resources, Eagle Crest’s proposed rate of groundwater withdrawal is not expected to cause subsidence, affect surface water availability, or affect vegetation. As such, we find that such groundwater withdrawal is unlikely to affect wildlife in the project area.

Effects of Project Brine Pond Operation on Wildlife As discussed in section 3.3.2, Water Resources, the project facilities would include a reverse osmosis system and brine ponds to remove salts and metals from reservoir water and maintain total dissolved solids concentrations within the reservoirs at the level of the source water. The salts and heavy metals removed during this process would be concentrated into the brine ponds. Specific water quality of the ponds is discussed in section 3.3.2, Water Resources; however, the predicted concentrations of these compounds would pose a risk to wildlife. These ponds would have the potential to attract wildlife seeking water, and the high mineral content in the brine could pose health risks to wildlife, potentially resulting in mortality or reduced reproductive success. To prevent wildlife interaction with the ponds, Eagle Crest proposes to erect exclusionary fencing around this area. The fence design and maintenance would be similar to that described above for the reservoir fencing. However, because the fences would not limit access to birds, Eagle Crest proposes additional measures (Measure BIO-12) to discourage access and use habitat modification techniques and hazing to make the ponds less attractive to birds. Eagle Crest would monitor the success of these measures and based on monitoring results, implement adaptive management as necessary to ensure that bird use of the ponds is minimized, including, if feasible, enhanced hazing or pond covering that does not impede the evaporation function.

Our Analysis Birds are likely to view the ponds as a safe source of drinking water or resting area. However, high total dissolved solids concentrations in these proposed ponds could be harmful or fatal to birds and other wildlife. Discouraging and/or preventing access to these areas is a necessary component of reducing project effects on avian species. Eagle Crest’s proposed measure to make this area less attractive to birds, monitor bird use, and if needed, implement exclusionary covering to prevent access would reduce these effects. However, Eagle Crest’s description of this measure does not provide enough detail to for us to fully analyze the effects. For example, the existing description does not indicate

156 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

what hazing methods would be used, or thresholds at which more extensive exclusionary devices would be implemented. If Eagle Crest developed and implemented more detailed brine pond management plan to reduce bird use of these areas, potential effects would be further reduced. Such a plan could include measures to: (1) minimize attractiveness and access to migratory birds; (2) establish a monitoring program to identify bird usage of the evaporation ponds, effectiveness of bird deterrents, and water quality; (3) incorporate adaptive management to include more intensive hazing measures or exclusionary pond covers, if warranted; (4) incorporate proposed hazing and habitat modification techniques; (5) incorporate methods for measuring success and thresholds for implementing exclusionary pond covering; and (6) develop an emergency response plan to address a potential breach in the pond berms or liners.

Effects of Transmission Line and Water Pipeline Operation on Wildlife The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Plan identifies the project area as an “essential connectivity area” that links large blocks of undisturbed Mojave Desert habitat in the Chocolate Mountains and JTNP. In its comments on the draft EIS, the Center for Biological Diversity comments that the proposed project could disrupt habitat connectivity for wildlife. It also states that the proposed project’s transmission line could provide perching habitat for predatory birds, thereby increasing predation on local wildlife species. To minimize effects of increased predatory pressure associated with the transmission line, Eagle Crest would implement the Predator Monitoring and Control Plan. This plan is discussed in more detail in section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, but would include measures to monitor and, if necessary, control raven populations.

Our Analysis The proposed project transmission lines and those preferred by the State Water Board and Interior would not provide any additional long-term barrier to wildlife movement beyond that which currently exists in the Chuckwalla Valley. The transmission lines would generally follow existing lines and would not prohibit wildlife from passing under them. The water supply pipeline would be buried and would not pose any barrier to wildlife movement.

Sensitive Species In general, the potential effects of the project on most sensitive species presented in table 18 are similar to the effects discussed above for general wildlife species. However, due to special habitat value within the project area, high population density in the project area, or potential for the project to have concentrated effects on a population, effects on some sensitive species are discussed in more detail below.

157 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Effects of Construction on Special-Status Plants Construction of the transmission line and water pipeline has the potential to affect sensitive plants species known to occupy the proposed ROW for these facilities. These species include California ditaxis, crucifixion thorn, desert unicorn plant, foxtail cactus, and Wiggins’ cholla. Potential effects include direct mortality of the plants during vegetation clearing activities and reduced survivorship or reproductive success caused by changes in soil characteristics, microtopography, or water supply. Construction of the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would increase potential for these effects due to the greater length of the route. Eagle Crest proposes several measures to minimize the potential for these effects. Eagle Crest would use pre-construction surveys to identify special-status plant populations and species protected by the California Desert Native Plants Act (CDNPA) (Measure BIO-6). Following surveys, Eagle Crest would establish avoidance areas in construction zones for special plant resources. Where avoidance is not feasible, Eagle Crest would salvage and transplant any species that can be reasonably transplanted in an approved area. Eagle Crest also proposes to comply with the CDNPA and consult with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner for direction regarding disposal of protected plants (Measure BIO-7).

Our Analysis As currently proposed, construction of the project transmission line and water pipeline would occur in areas populated with sensitive plant species. Failure to appropriately plan locations for equipment stockpiles, lay down sites, pull sites, and support tower footprints would create increased potential for direct effects on these species, likely killing numerous individuals and small populations. However, considerable flexibility exists in the specific locations of these project features. Eagle Crest’s proposal to conduct pre-construction surveys and designate avoidance areas would reduce potential effects on sensitive plants. Eagle Crest does not indicate how this information would be communicated to construction crews or to the Commission. Nonetheless, it is likely some disturbance would be unavoidable. This is especially true within the water pipeline ROW, where it is less feasible to make small adjustments to the disturbance area. In locations where disturbance is unavoidable, Eagle Crest’s proposal to allow salvage activities, transplant any reasonably movable species, and coordinate with the County Agricultural Commissioner for direction regarding disposal would further reduce project effects. These measures would be equally effective along all three transmission routes analyzed.

Effects of Operation on Special-Status Plants Maintenance activities that occur during project operations, including repair of transmission line support structures or the water pipeline, could require vegetation that would affect sensitive plants.

158 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

To reduce potential effects of project operations on special-status plants, Eagle Crest’s WEAP requires that all maintenance activities potentially requiring ground disturbance occur in the presence of biological monitors. Additionally, in 2006 Eagle Crest entered into an MOU with FWS, BLM, and the Forest Service that provides guidelines for vegetation maintenance along transmission line ROWs on federal lands. This MOU also includes standards for protecting special-status plants.

Our Analysis Maintenance of the project transmission line and water pipeline would occasionally require ground disturbance. We expect that the area of disturbance required for these activities over the life of the project would be small in relationship to the area disturbed during construction. Additionally, Eagle Crest would, to the greatest extent practical, site project features away from areas with high sensitive plant presence. Maintenance of these features is, therefore, unlikely to affect special-status plants. Eagle Crest’s biological monitors would ensure that these activities do not affect special-status plants. No further measures are needed to protect these species from effects of project operation.

Effects of Construction on Nelson’s Bighorn Sheep Under the proposed schedule, major construction activities in the central project area are expected to last 3 to 4 years. During this time extensive use of heavy machinery including earth movers, dump trucks, cement trucks, and tunnel boring equipment would increase noise levels and increase human presence in this area compared to current conditions. These activities could disturb bighorn populations that spend much of the year in the mountainous areas surrounding the central project area. Construction of project roads and desert tortoise exclusionary fencing, as well as increases in artificial lighting, also have the potential to disrupt migratory paths for Nelson’s bighorn sheep moving between available water sources and to breeding and lambing grounds. The potential for vehicular collisions is also a concern. Following construction, project operations would provide an additional water source accessible to Nelson’s bighorn sheep in the northeast corner of the lower reservoir. Other areas around the reservoir perimeters would be fenced to exclude Nelson’s bighorn sheep to prevent attempts to access water by traversing hazardous terrain. Eagle Crest notes that while the construction period would increase human presence and noise levels over current conditions, the central project area has been heavily mined over the past several decades. Eagle Crest does not expect disturbance levels related to project construction to be substantially greater than the noise and human presence associated with the past mining activities. Rather, Eagle Crest expects bighorn movements to continue as they had in the past. To reduce the effects of project construction on Nelson’s bighorn sheep, Eagle Crest’s desert tortoise exclusion fencing along project roads would be limited to 3 feet in height so as not prevent Nelson’s bighorn sheep movement. These fences would be removed following construction.

159 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Our Analysis Construction activities in the central project area would result in increased noise and human presence that could affect Nelson’s bighorn sheep populations in the area. Without more detailed information about the migratory pathways the bighorn sheep currently use to move from Eagle Tank to Buzzard Spring or to breeding and lambing areas, it is unclear how this disturbance would affect the current populations. However, we find it reasonable to assume that the proposed levels of disturbance would be similar to the historical mining operations. Given the topography in the mine area, it is probable that migration paths traverse the perimeter of the mine and have not changed in recent years when the mine has been mostly inactive. Under this scenario, project construction activities would not create a migratory barrier, and we expect effects of project construction on Nelson’s bighorn sheep populations would be minor and temporary.

Effects of Project Operations on Nelson’s Bighorn Sheep Operation of the project would include maintenance activities and fluctuating levels of standing water in the reservoirs. These conditions have the potential to attract Nelson’s bighorn sheep into the central project area to access drinking water, increasing the risk of drowning or collisions with vehicles. Project lighting could also disturb this species, potentially affecting migration patterns. During operations, Eagle Crest would reduce vehicle traffic to about one round trip per day. Wildlife exclusion fences would surround both reservoirs to prohibit Nelson’s bighorn sheep from accessing water in unsafe locations, but fence setbacks would permit access in the northeast corner of the lower reservoir. Project facilities would be lighted as a safety and security precaution, and the lights would include shields to focus light on the project interior and prevent light pollution to surrounding areas (Measure BIO-22). Eagle Crest also proposes to provide limited access to water at both the upper and lower reservoirs. Eagle Crest would provide access to each reservoir via fence set-backs that would provide water access during full pool conditions, but still prohibit animals from entering the reservoir. These set-backs would be located on the north shore of the upper reservoir, opposite the south saddle dam, and at the northeast corner of the lower reservoir. In their comments on the draft EIS, the Park Service, EPA, and Kaiser recommend additional study and post-construction monitoring of Nelson’s bighorn sheep to determine effects of the project on migration and of project-related water subsidies located at the lower reservoir. The Park Service states that if bighorn sheep currently access water near the proposed reservoirs, providing future access to water in these locations is appropriate. However, if bighorn sheep do not currently access water in these locations, Park Service recommends Eagle Crest, prior to providing water access, study the potential effects of these water subsidies on bighorn sheep populations in the Eagle Mountains.

160 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Our Analysis Following construction, vehicle trips in the central project area, facility lighting and equipment noise may create disturbance for local bighorn sheep. Additionally, filling the mine pits with water and fencing the perimeter would prohibit bighorn sheep from traversing these areas. A fence setback at the lower reservoir would provide access to drinking water throughout the year. This feature could attract animals to this part of the project. Water availability in this area could also reduce the need for bighorn to travel to Buzzard Spring to access water during summer months. Eagle Crest anticipates about one vehicle trip per day in the central project area during normal operations. During active mining operations, bighorn sheep were exposed to more frequent vehicle activity and were observed along roadways during these periods. Therefore, we do not expect vehicular activity or road maintenance to affect bighorn sheep safety or create barriers to movement in the project. Facility lighting is necessary to provide security for project facilities and increase safety for night workers. Eagle Crest’s proposed measures to limit effects of lighting by using light hoods, minimizing light sources, and using low-light bulbs would minimize such effects on bighorn sheep to minor levels. Project operations would create reservoirs in existing mine pits. Currently, the pits are open to bighorn sheep and these animals are known to enter the pits to access water following rains. It is also possible these areas are crossed during movement through the central project area. Installation of fences around the reservoirs as proposed by Eagle Crest would prohibit this access. However, the reservoirs themselves are small relative to distances bighorn sheep travel between watering sources or between populations within the metapopulation. Additionally, sheep traveling through the central project area are most likely to use undisturbed habitat between the upper and lower reservoir. The project would not create new disturbance in these areas and project activity centers near the powerhouse, switchyard, evaporations ponds, and administrative offices are unlikely to disturb sheep located in other parts of the central project area. Eagle Crest’s proposed fence set-backs would provide animals with access to drinking water along the north shore of the upper reservoir and the northeastern corner of the lower reservoir. The fence set-back at the upper reservoir is about 1.0 mile southeast of a natural spring, 0.7 mile west of a developed tank, and upslope from past water sources at the bottom of the pit. The fence set-back at the lower reservoir is about 1.0 mile from the developed watering tank associated with the Eagle Mountain water tank. Therefore, water has been available to bighorn sheep in the general location of the proposed fence set-back. These areas are removed from project facilities with heavy human presence. Other locations closer to more frequently occupied habitat or outside of disturbed areas would likely provide greater benefit to bighorn sheep. However, water resources are already present in areas sheep are most likely to congregate. Development of new water resources within undisturbed mountainous habitat would require significant costs for construction and maintenance and could

161 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

require additional disturbance for installation. The Eagle Mountain bighorn sheep population is known to cross areas disturbed by mining activities to access water in the mine pits. While the lower reservoir is somewhat removed from recorded bighorn sheep locations (Divine and Douglas, 1996), new water resources in this location could benefit bighorn sheep traveling from the Coxcomb Mountains to the Eagle Mountains or Little San Bernardino Mountains. Therefore, Eagle Crest’s proposed fence set-backs would provide a cost-effective mechanism to provide water subsidies for bighorn sheep in the Eagle Mountains and the benefits of this measure would offset potential disturbance associated with project construction and operation. The monitoring of the fence set-back as recommended by the Park Service could further ensure the measure provides suitable benefit for this species.

Effects of Construction on Burrowing Animals Several sensitive species known to occur in the project area use burrows to escape the desert heat, hide from predators, and raise young. These species include badger, kit fox, and burrowing owl. Proposed construction activities have the potential to collapse these burrows or block their entrances, trapping animals inside. To prevent these effects, Eagle Crest proposes to continue consultation with California DFG to determine appropriate survey needs for the burrowing owl. Upon California DFG’s request, Eagle Crest would conduct a Phase III survey for burrowing owl to further assess bird use of the project area and potential effects (Measure BIO-13). The Phase III survey would include a nesting season survey, followed by a winter survey if no burrows or owls are observed during the nesting season. Subsequently, Eagle Crest would conduct a pre-construction survey within 30 days of the start of project construction to assess species presence and the need for further mitigation. Because of the low observations of burrowing owls during the Phase I surveys, Eagle Crest notes that California DFG may not require the Phase III survey and only pre-construction surveys would be needed. If the Phase III or pre-construction surveys indicate burrowing owls are present, Eagle Crest would limit the construction period to September 1 through February 1 to avoid disruption of breeding activities (Measure BIO-14). Eagle Crest would avoid active nests by designating a minimum of a 250-foot buffer until fledging has occurred (February 1 through August 31). Following fledging, owls could be passively relocated away from construction activities. In its comments on the draft EIS, the Center for Biodiversity suggests that Eagle Crest create replacement burrows for any active owl burrows that are collapsed during construction or maintenance. The Center for Biodiversity also suggests that Eagle Crest acquire mitigation acreage for burrowing owl habitat. Interior recommends that following pre-construction surveys, Eagle Crest consult with FWS to determine the need to develop a relocation plan for burrowing owls. To protect other sensitive burrowing animals, Eagle Crest would conduct pre- construction surveys for all burrows that might host a badger or kit fox (Measure BIO-

162 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

16). Eagle Crest would avoid active burrows and all fox natal dens where possible. Biological monitors would mark the perimeters of all avoidance areas with wooden stakes, at least 3 feet high, and no more than 10 feet apart. Where avoidance is infeasible, biological monitors would determine occupancy of burrows and encourage occupants to leave their burrows. Biological monitors would fully excavate all burrows from which badgers or foxes have been removed and collapse these burrows to ensure that animals cannot return prior to or during construction.

Our Analysis If left unsurveyed or accounted for, project construction activities would likely cause injury or mortality to burrowing species through burrow collapse or entrapment. Given the low number of burrowing owls observed during project surveys, pre- construction surveys would provide adequate information necessary to develop mitigation measures for this species. Eagle Crest’s proposal to conduct pre-construction surveys for active burrows and either avoid such areas, or when necessary destroy unoccupied burrows, would reduce potential for injury or mortality. However, Eagle Crest’s proposal does not include any measures to relocate burrowing owls or construct replacement burrows. We do not expect the project to have permanent effects on burrowing owl habitat. This species commonly occurs in utility corridors and along road sides. There are no project facilities within burrowing owl habitat that would preclude future use for this species. Therefore, the purchase of mitigation lands would not be necessary to minimize effects on this species. We note, however, that Eagle Crest would purchase mitigation lands for desert tortoise and expect these lands would also provide suitable protection for burrowing owl habitat. In general, destruction of an unoccupied burrow does not pose an undue risk to the burrow’s occupant, which typically relocates to other vacant burrows in the vicinity. Destruction of unoccupied burrows is the best method of preventing injury in construction zones. However, when occupants are under additional stresses associated with nesting, birthing, or caring for young, burrow removal is not the appropriate option. Eagle Crest’s proposal to avoid active burrowing owl nests and natal kit fox dens would prevent additional effects on these species. These measures would be equally effective along all three transmission routes analyzed.

Effects of Operation on Burrowing Animals Maintenance activities that occur during project operations, including repair of transmission line support structures or the water pipeline, could require ground disturbance activities in areas with animal burrows. To reduce potential effects of project maintenance on burrowing animals, Eagle Crest’s WEAP requires that all maintenance activities potentially requiring ground disturbance occur in the presence of biological monitors. These monitors would follow

163 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

the same protocols discussed above for clearing burrows and ensuring special-status burrowing species are not affected.

Effects of Project Construction on Raptors Several sensitive raptor species, including prairie falcon and golden eagle, could suffer effects of project construction if there are active nests near activities proposed in the central project area. Loud staccato noises and vehicle noise could disrupt nesting activities or cause nest abandonment. In the final license application, Eagle Crest proposed to conduct pre-construction surveys in the central project area to determine whether any active golden eagle or prairie falcon nests are present (Measure BIO-15). If surveys identified active nests, Eagle Crest proposed to provide protective 0.25-mile-radius buffers around the nests and stated that no construction activities would occur within these buffer areas during the nesting seasons. In its letter filed on March 12, 2010, FWS recommends that Eagle Crest consult with FWS to determine the need for golden eagle surveys. In its reply to FWS, Eagle Crest notes that in response to new regulations and guidelines finalized subsequent to the filing of the final license application, Eagle Crest is engaging in consultation with FWS with regard to golden eagle surveys. Eagle Crest conducted surveys during the 2010 nesting season. In its July 7, 2010, filing, Eagle Crest provided a report documenting raptor surveys in the project area. A summary of the results of this study is presented in section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment. In its comments on the draft EIS, the Park Service recommends protection buffers for active golden eagle nests be extended to 1.0 mile, as found in Richardson and Miller (1997).

Our Analysis If carried out near active raptor nests, project construction activities in the central project area would disturb nesting pairs and potentially cause nest abandonment. The Eagle Crests raptor survey report presents maps showing the locations of golden eagle nests in the project vicinity. However, proposed project features are not included on these maps, and there is no discussion as to what distance these nests are from project components. Therefore, the report does not provide sufficient detail to determine the

164 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

need for protection buffers or time of year restrictions on construction activities. Eagle Crest’s proposed measures include pre-construction surveys and development of protective buffer areas as needed. The results of the summer 2010 raptor surveys indicate that further analysis and implementation of this measure are warranted. We also concur with Park Service that 1.0-mile protection buffers would be more appropriate than the proposed 0.25-mile buffers to protect golden eagles. If Eagle Crest consults with FWS, the Park Service, and California DFG during the final design engineering phase of the project to identify locations of active nests and implement protection buffers to limit disturbance in these areas, construction effects on raptors would be minimized. These measures would be equally appropriate along all three transmission routes analyzed.

Effects of Project Operation on Raptors The proposed project transmission line has potential to affect raptors due to in- flight collisions with conductors or electrocution. Additional perching or nesting sites associated with the transmission line could have beneficial effects on some raptor species, but could also cause increased predation on local wildlife. In its comment letter filed on March 12, 2010, FWS recommends that Eagle Crest ensure compliance with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) recommendations and develop an avian protection plan that meets FWS guidelines. FWS also recommends co-locating the new line with existing lines in the project area. FWS states that this would reduce the creation of new perching and nesting sites for desert tortoise predators. Eagle Crest filed a response to the FWS recommendations on April 23, 2010. In this response, Eagle Crest states that it would design and construct raptor-friendly transmission lines in strict accordance with the industry standard guidelines set forth in Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 (APLIC, 2006) (Measure BIO-24). In addition, prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, Eagle Crest would develop and file for Commission approval a transmission line design plan that would consider adequate separation of energized conductors, ground wires and other metal hardware, adequate insulation, and any other measures necessary to protect raptors from electrocution hazards.

Our Analysis Avian injuries and fatalities associated with electrocution or collision with power lines have been reported since the late 1800s, and as power lines have proliferated across the country, bird losses have increased dramatically. A recent report estimated that fatalities in the United States range from 3.5 million to 1.05 billion birds every year (Hunting, 2002). Most electrocutions are associated with lines carrying 69 kV or less because the spacing of hardware is often not sufficient to prevent birds from spanning between conductors or between a conductor and a ground (APLIC, 2006). The project would include a 13.5-mile double-circuit 500-kV line and a 4,000-foot-long 18-kV line from the powerhouse to the collector substation.

165 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Improper construction of project electric transmission facilities could pose increased risks to raptor injury and mortality. APLIC provides industry standards for electric transmission system design measures aimed at reducing effects on birds. These standards include spacing conductors such that they are beyond the wing span of large birds to prevent electrocution, as well as measures to increase line visibility to reduce potential for collisions. Eagle Crest proposes to construct the transmission line in compliance with these standards and to prepare a plan, for Commission approval, to protect raptors from electrocution hazards. However, Eagle Crest’s proposed measure does not address potential for avian collisions or procedures for monitoring and reporting avian injury or mortality resulting from interactions with the proposed project transmission line. Addressing these components, in addition to implementing measures related to potential electrocution, would be necessary to meet the APLIC/FWS guidelines for an avian protection plan. If Eagle Crest prepares an avian protection plan, in consultation with FWS, that includes design measures for reducing potential for electrocution and collision injuries, provides methods for surveying and reporting project related raptor mortality, incorporates a worker education plan pertaining to avian–power line interactions, and procedures for managing nesting on power line structures, effects of project operation on raptors would be minimized. Such a plan would assist Eagle Crest in meeting the requirements of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Constructing new transmission support towers would increase perching and nesting structures for birds, including desert tortoise predators. However, constructing these new towers in areas where similar towers already exist would limit the spatial distribution of these resources. While the new towers would still present potential nesting and perching structures, the proximity of these structures to the existing structures could limit their suitability. Both ravens and other raptors nest in defended territories and are not likely to nest near pre-existing nests. Therefore, constructing the new line adjacent to existing lines would limit the creation of new nest sites. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would be co-located with existing structures and removed from mountainous nesting habitat. This preferred route would address FWS concerns regarding the addition of new nesting habitat and is expected to have the lowest effect on raptors.

Effects of Construction on Bats Based on existing information, it is probable that some sensitive bat species use the rocks, crevices, or caves in the central project area as roosting habitat. If roosting locations are occupied during the filling of project reservoirs, these areas could be inundated, causing disturbance, injury, or mortality to sensitive species. To reduce the potential for project effects on sensitive bats, Eagle Crest proposes to conduct pre- construction bat surveys, using a qualified bat biologist, to determine the existence, location, and condition of bat roosts on the project site. The survey would also identify

166 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

foraging habitat in the project area. Based on the results of these surveys, Eagle Crest would prepare a mitigation plan to avoid roosting and foraging effects on resident bats, minimize that disturbance, or as an unavoidable measure, evict bats (Measure BIO-17).

Our Analysis Based on the data available for the central project area, we find that occurrences of bat roosts at the Eagle Mountain mine site are likely. Inundating these areas without implementing mitigation measures could affect bat roosting and foraging habitats. Eagle Crest’s proposal to conduct pre-construction surveys and, depending on the survey results, to develop and implement a bat protection and mitigation plan, would likely reduce these effects. However, Eagle Crest has not provided any details for avoiding roosting and foraging habitats, minimizing disturbance, addressing bat eviction, and monitoring and evaluating program success.

Effects of Operation on Bats Operation of the project would include lighting the central project area and fluctuating water levels in the reservoirs. The addition of lights and water would likely result in increases in insects in the area of the project reservoirs. These insects could provide a food source for bats. Fluctuation of the reservoir water levels associated with generation activities could result in suitable roosting areas being available at one time of day but then flooded later in the day. Bats using these roosts could be trapped by rising water levels. In its comments on the draft EIS, the Park Service states that water in the reservoirs would be available to bats that drink while flying and that it is likely that many of the bat species would be affected by this increased water subsidy. To reduce to potential for project effects on sensitive bats, Eagle Crest proposes to prepare a mitigation plan to avoid roosting and foraging effects on resident bats, minimize that disturbance, or as an unavoidable measure, evict bats (Measure BIO-17). Preparation of this plan would occur following surveys to determine bat presence in the central project area.

Our Analysis Inundation of roosting areas could affect bats, including sensitive bat species if these areas are left open and accessible during low water periods and then inundated during roosting periods. Adding lights to the central project area would attract insects to the areas. Bats are also likely to come to these areas to feed and drink, resulting in an increased likelihood that the available roosting habitat in the central project area would be occupied. Eagle Crest’s proposal to conduct pre-construction surveys and, based on the survey results, develop and implement a bat protection and mitigation plan would reduce these effects. If Eagle Crest were to prepare this as described above, it could ensure the bat protection and mitigation plan would be most effective.

167 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Effects of Construction on Couch’s Spadefoot Toad The project could affect Couch’s spadefoot toad if grading, construction of project roads, or construction of other project facilities alter topography or water availability to existing ephemeral pools that contain this species. Since small populations of these toads occur in isolated depressions that generally gather small amounts of water, small changes in topography and water availability has the potential to eliminate an entire population in an affected depression. To reduce potential for project effects on this species, Eagle Crest, in compliance with the NECO Plan, proposes to avoid effects on all ephemeral pools in the project area. Once access is permitted, Eagle Crest would conduct surveys for ephemeral pools in the central project area. If present, the pool would be avoided, if possible. If avoidance is not possible, then Eagle Crest would construct a new pool as close as is feasible to replicate and replace each lost pool. All larvae would be moved to the new pool (Measure BIO-10).

Our Analysis Eagle Crest’s surveys indicate that there are no ephemeral pools along the proposed transmission line or water pipeline ROWs. However, these surveys have not been conducted along the additional alternatives. Eagle Crest’s proposed measure to survey the central project area for ephemeral pools and avoid these areas or relocated toads to other suitable habitat would eliminate potential effects in this area. If the final transmission line is constructed in areas not previously surveyed for ephemeral pools, there is potential for effects on Couch’s spadefoot toad. If Eagle Crest conducted pre- construction surveys in all areas of proposed construction activity not previously surveyed in 2009, and implemented the same protection measures proposed for the central project area, then potential effects of the transmission line would be eliminated.

Effects of Operation on Couch’s Spadefoot Toad Maintenance activities that occur during project operations, including repair of transmission line support structures or the water pipeline, could require ground disturbance activities that have the potential to alter local patterns of surface runoff. There is potential for these activities to disturb Couch’s spadefoot toad habitat. To reduce potential effects of project maintenance on burrowing animals, Eagle Crest’s WEAP requires that all maintenance activities potentially requiring ground disturbance occur in the presence of biological monitors. These monitors would follow the same protocols discussed above for identifying and protecting sensitive habitat, including ephemeral pools.

Our Analysis Maintenance of the project transmission line and water pipeline would occasionally require ground disturbance. We expect that the area of disturbance required

168 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

for these activities over the life of the project would be small in relationship to the area disturbed during construction. Eagle Crest’s biological monitors would ensure these activities do not affect potential habitat for Couch’s spadefoot toad.

3.3.3.3 Cumulative Effects During project scoping several terrestrial resources were identified for which the Eagle Mountain Project, in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects, could have cumulative effects. These resources include desert bighorn sheep and raven populations. To analyze potential cumulative effects on these resources, we evaluated the combined effects of the proposed project, the proposed Eagle Mountain landfill, and solar projects proposed in the Chuckwalla Valley.

Nelson’s Bighorn Sheep Both the proposed project and the Eagle Mountain landfill (if constructed; see Land Use in section 3.3.5) would occupy lands in the central project area. As discussed above, desert bighorn sheep are known to occur in this area and to migrate between natural sources of drinking water located to the north and south of this area. Construction and operation of these projects could disturb bighorn sheep by increasing noise and human presence in the area. Combined, these projects are expected to occupy 6,875 acres, 47 percent of which would be associated with the pumped storage project. Construction of the two projects is not expected to occur simultaneously, so there would not be cumulative effects of construction at one time. However, construction of both projects could result in prolonged increases in noise-related stress that could affect bighorn sheep in the project area over the total construction period. Construction activities are expected to involve about 75 trucks per month for the project and 1,500 trucks per month for the landfill (see Land Use in section 3.3.5). Eagle Crest does not propose to develop any new access roads or conduct any road improvements within the central project area. For the landfill, Eagle Crest would construct 6 miles of new, paved access roads, and widen an additional 6 miles of existing road. During operation, Eagle Crest expects to require 2 truck trips per day, while the landfill operations, Eagle Crest would require between 50 to 100 trucks per day depending on the age of the project. Eagle Crest’s estimate of 75 trucks per month seems low for the amount of materials needed for the proposed project. However, even if this number is increased by a factor of 10, the contribution of the proposed project to total stress associated with construction noise would be small compared to that associated with construction of the landfill. Proposed solar projects would be located on the valley floor and are not expected to affect desert bighorn sheep. Based on these predicted use levels, we find that construction and operation of both the proposed project and the Eagle Mountain landfill could affect desert bighorn sheep in the central project area. However, the Eagle Mountain Project would constitute a small percentage of these effects and Eagle Crest’s

169 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

proposed measures to reduce effects on desert bighorn sheep would mitigate for its share of any cumulative effects.

Ravens Both the proposed project and the Eagle Mountain landfill (if constructed; see Land Use in section 3.3.5) would occupy lands in the central project area, and each project is expected to provide increased food availability to ravens. The proposed project would increase available drinking water associated with project reservoirs (254 acres) and nesting and perching habitat associated with the transmission line (13.5 miles). As discussed above, all of these resources are already present in the landscape surrounding the project, including power lines and Colorado River Aqueduct water. If proposed solar facilities are constructed in the Coachella Valley, additional transmission lines would be constructed, providing additional nesting and perching habitat. The Eagle Mountain landfill would increase available food sources associated with the importation of waste to the central project area. The closest similar type of food subsidies for ravens would be at the Desert Center Sanitary landfill. The Eagle Mountain landfill would include multiple mitigation measures to prevent ravens from accessing waste. These measures would include hourly burial of waste deposits, removal of potential perching areas, and experimental treatments with additions of chemical deterrents. The landfill would also monitor raven populations. If both projects are constructed, the combined effects of increased food sources would likely create conditions suitable for expansion of the raven populations. While transmission lines and water sources currently exist in the project vicinity, there is potential for the combination of water subsidies to be co-located with food subsidies, resulting in cumulative effects on raven populations. However, Eagle Crest’s proposed measures to study effects of the project on ravens and other desert tortoise predators and implement control measures as needed would ensure the collective effects on ravens with the landfill project are not substantially greater than the effects of the proposed landfill and solar facilities alone. Both the proposed project and the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (BLM, 2010a) would require construction of new transmission lines to interconnect with the electric grid. As proposed, Eagle Crest would construct a new substation near Desert Center and create a new 500-kV transmission corridor along Eagle Mountain Road. As a component of the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project, SCE would construct the Red Bluff substation about 6 miles east of Desert Center along the Interstate 10 corridor and construct a new 230-kV transmission line that would parallel the existing SCE 161-kV line. The State Water Board’s alternative for the proposed Eagle Mountain Project would use the same substation and transmission corridor for both the Eagle Mountain and Desert Sunlight Solar Farm projects, consistent with the California Public Utilities Commission environmentally preferred alternative for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (BLM, 2010a). Under this alternative, disturbance to terrestrial resources would be reduced by eliminating the need for a second substation and effects on ravens would be reduced by

170 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

minimizing the addition of new transmission structures that would create favorable nesting habitat. Co-locating transmission lines for the proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project and Desert Sunlight Solar Project within the same corridor would reduce potential effects on desert tortoise. The support structures for each transmission line would likely provide nesting areas for ravens, a desert tortoise predator. Ravens exhibit territorial nesting behavior and aggressively defend their nesting area from other large birds, including other ravens, are within a 2-mile radius from an active nest (FWS, 2008). Such territorial nesting behavior and limited geographical distribution of the proposed support structures could reduce the number of potential nest sites created by the new transmission lines. However, our analysis indicates that the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would have lesser effects on desert tortoise and other terrestrial resources. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would use an existing transmission corridor and cross areas disturbed by agriculture practices, requiring less disturbance to intact desert tortoise habitat in the DWMA and the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit. In analyzing the potential effects of the Desert Sunlight Solar Project, the California Public Utilities Commission cited similar reasons for selecting the existing transmission corridor as its environmentally superior alternative for the solar project. However, BLM identified the Kaiser Road route as its preferred alternative for the Desert Sunlight Solar Project. Given this discrepancy in the Desert Sunlight Solar Project Final EIS, and since the solar project has yet to initiate construction, we cannot be certain the California Public Utilities Commission transmission line would ultimately be located along Kaiser Road.55

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment Two special-status species with the potential to occur in the proposed project area are federally listed as threatened or endangered: Coachella Valley milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) is endangered and desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is

55 The Record of Decision for the Desert Sunlight Solar Project was issued in August 2011. BLM authorized two alternatives for the transmission line: gen-tie A1 parallels Kaiser Road to Desert Center then travels east to the proposed Red Bluff substation; gen-tie A2 parallels the existing 115-kV line from Kaiser Road before turning south to the proposed Red Bluff substation. The Record of Decision identified gen-tie A- 2 as the better route because it would have fewer effects on the desert tortoise and visual resources. However, the Record of Decision also approves gen-tie A-1 to be used in the event Desert Sunlight is not able to secure rights to the private lands located along the gen-tie A-2 transmission line route. Desert Sunlight would be required to relinquish rights to one route prior to construction of the transmission line. Construction of the solar arrays was initiated in September 2011.

171 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

threatened. In addition, the milkvetch is listed as sensitive by BLM and List 1B by CNPS and the desert tortoise is listed as threatened and protected by California DFG.

Coachella Valley Milkvetch This subspecies occurs primarily from the Coachella Valley east to Desert Center. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreational use is one of the greatest threats to this species, and many populations may no longer exist. The species is distinguished from other silky-haired milkvetch species by its strongly inflated, two-celled, papery, speckled seed pods. It is an herbaceous perennial whose aboveground portions die back during drought periods. While it is restricted to loose-sandy, including aeolian (wind-blown), soils, the substrate over the soil may be slightly gravelly. Microhabitat sites are often associated with disturbance, consistent with many legumes, and individuals are commonly found in road berms. FWS has designated several critical habitat units for this species along the Interstate 10 corridor between Indio and Palm Springs, California. No critical habitat is present in the project area. Eagle Crest conducted surveys for this species in concert with surveys for desert tortoise in spring 2008 and 2009.56 Surveyors did not encounter any Coachella Valley milkvetch in the project area.

Desert Tortoise The desert tortoise inhabits the Southwest in areas north of Baja California, with a current range extending from southwestern Utah, west to the Sierra Nevada Range in California, and south through Nevada and Arizona into Sonora, Mexico. The desert tortoise occupies arid habitats below 4,000 feet. In the Colorado and Sonoran deserts of southern California and Arizona, desert tortoises occupy somewhat lusher desert habitats, with increased bunch grasses, cacti, and trees. Because of the burrowing nature of tortoises, soil type is an important habitat component. In California, tortoises typically inhabit soft sandy loams and loamy sands, although they are also found on rocky slopes and in rimrock that provide natural cover sites in crevices. Hills with rounded, exfoliating granite boulders often host higher densities than the surrounding flats, especially in Arizona. Valleys, alluvial fans, rolling hills, and gentle mountain

56 In both 2008 and 2009, surveyors were not given access to Kaiser properties for surveying. The exclusion area included the proposed project water pipeline ROW west of the Colorado River Aqueduct and the transmission line ROW north of UTM 3745200N (North American Datum 83). As a result, Eagle Crest was unable to conduct onsite surveys of the mine pits that would form the reservoirs and other central project areas.

172 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

slopes are inhabited. The only areas tortoises typically avoid are intermittent lakes and steep, talus-covered slopes. In 1989, information on high mortality rates and the presence of an upper respiratory tract disease in populations of the desert tortoise resulted in a temporary emergency listing as endangered (FWS, 2010a). The Mojave population—which inhabits California (including the project area), Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona north of the Colorado River—was listed in the final rule on April 2, 1990, as threatened. The 1994 Recovery Plan identified six evolutionarily significant units of the desert tortoise in the Mojave Region, based on differences in tortoise behavior, morphology and genetics, vegetation, and climate. Within those recovery units, suggested DWMAs act as reserves in which recovery actions are implemented. The NECO Plan furthers this recovery goal by prescribing conservation and management measures for DWMAs. The DWMA intersects 17.7 acres of the project (table 19). By contrast, under the staff alternative, the project would affect 0.1 acre of DWMA (table 19).

Table 19. Acreage of desert tortoise habitat in the Eagle Crest project area (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a). Total in FWS BLM Desert Critical Category 3 Tortoise Project Element DWMA Habitat Habitat Habitat Central project area 0 0 60.1 60.1 (total acreage of reservoirs and constructed project features)a Desalination area 0 0 48.4 48.4 Roads 0 0 6.7 6.7 Eagle Creek channel 0 0 5.0 5.0 modifications Water pipeline 0 0 22.9 22.9 (30-foot ROW)

Transmission tower footprint plus construction area (3,600 square feet per tower) Proposed 2.1 2.4 1.6–2.7 4.0–5.1 (27 towers) (29 towers) (19–33 towers) (48–62 towers)

173 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Total in FWS BLM Desert Critical Category 3 Tortoise Project Element DWMA Habitat Habitat Habitat State Water Board’s 0.1 0.3 3.8 4.2 preferred alternative (1 tower) (3 towers) (46 towers) (51 towers) Interior’s preferred 2.6 1.5 2.1 6.2 alternative (31 towers) (18 towers) (26 towers) (75 towers)

Access road (20-foot ROW) Proposed 15.6 16.6 14.7 31.3 State Water Board’s 0.02 0.06 24.4 24.5 preferred alternativeb Interior’s preferred 18.9 10.9 15.3 45.1 alternativec

Equipment laydown sites Proposed 0 0 0 0 State Water Board’s 0 0 0 0 preferred alternative Interior’s preferred 0 0 0 0 alternative

174 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Total in FWS BLM Desert Critical Category 3 Tortoise Project Element DWMA Habitat Habitat Habitat

Proposed interconnection collector substation Proposed 0 0 25 25 State Water Board’s 0 0 0 0 preferred alternative Interior’s preferred 0 0 0 0 alternative

Total project acreage Proposed 17.7 19 125.4 144.4 State Water Board’s 0.1 0.4 111.3 111.8 preferred alternative Interior’s preferred 21.5 12.4 100.4 134.3 alternative a Our assessment of habitat presence in the central project area is based upon Eagle Crest and our review of current (2011) aerial photography within a GIS environment These estimates would be refined following preconstruction tortoise surveys. b Disturbance areas associated with access roads along the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route were calculated based on Eagle Crest’s vegetation maps and under the assumption that the transmission line and water pipeline would share access roads where they are both within the 160-kV corridor. c Assumes the segment along Kaiser Road would be constructed on the west side of the road, inside of the DWMA and the segment along the Critical Habitat Unit boundary would be constructed to the south and inside of the Critical Habitat Unit in order to be on federal land.

FWS designated critical habitat for desert tortoise in the Mojave Region in 1994 (50 CFR Part 17). The proposed project would cross portions of the Chuckwalla Unit, which encompasses 1,020,600 acres in Riverside and Imperial counties, California. This area provides nesting, sheltering, foraging, and dispersal habitat and contributes to species gene flow. During March and early April of 2008, 2009, and 2010, Eagle Crest conducted surveys for the desert tortoise along the project’s linear elements and at potential well sites. In 2008, the proposed project routes were preliminary, so surveys were conducted

175 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

both on areas where the project could ultimately occur and areas that were later eliminated from consideration in 2009. Because of the uncertain nature of the proposed routes in 2008, the extensive survey protocol required by FWS for desert tortoises was not used. Rather, Eagle Crest used the following procedures to collect evidence of desert tortoises:  Transmission Line ROW—Inside Wildlife Habitat Management Areas (WHMAs), surveyors walked four, 50-foot-wide, adjacent transects within the 200-foot transmission line ROW; outside WHMAs, surveyors walked two, 100-foot-wide, adjacent, meandering transects in the ROW.  Water Pipeline ROW—Where the proposed ROW was precise, surveyors walked a 30-foot-wide transect; where the ROW was imprecise, surveyors walked two, 100-foot-wide, adjacent, meandering transects.  Other ROWs—For ROWs through abandoned jojoba fields that had access roads, only the roadsides were surveyed.  Potential Well Sites—Surveyors examined all known commercial wells in the project area that had the potential to supply water to the project. In 2009, pedestrian transects were completed consistent with the FWS desert tortoise survey methodology. Per those protocols, 100 percent of the ROWs were surveyed using parallel, 30-foot-wide, pedestrian belt transects. The ROW for the proposed transmission line is 200 feet wide. Eagle Crest surveyed a 60-foot ROW associated with the proposed water pipeline to account for minor route shifts in the final 30-foot-wide ROW. In addition, Eagle Crest surveyed a 30-foot-wide zone-of-influence (i.e., both sides of the ROWs at 100, 300, 500, 1,200, and 2,400 feet from the outer edges of the ROWs). The exception to this occurred where the ROWs went through jojoba fields, which are not tortoise habitat, although it is recognized that a tortoise could enter these areas from adjacent native habitat, even if unlikely. In 2010, Eagle Crest completed FWS protocol surveys along the additional alternative transmission lines identified during preparation of the State Water Board EIR. These surveys included areas along the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route, the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project preferred route along Kaiser Road and the northern boundary of the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit, and the east and west Red Bluff substation alternatives. In all 3 years, all tortoise signs (e.g., individuals, dens, burrows, scat, tracks, pellets, skeletal remains) that surveyors encountered were measured, mapped and described relative to condition, size, and (where applicable) gender. Current and recent weather conditions were recorded to identify the potential for tortoise activity and the topography, drainage patterns, soils, substrates, plant cover, anthropogenic disturbances, and aspect-dominant, common, and occasional plant species were described and mapped. Surveyors used Global Positioning System (GPS) units to map sign and habitat features.

176 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

During 2008, surveyors encountered 3 tortoise burrows and 1 carcass in the project area that was surveyed. In 2009, following the FWS protocol, Eagle Crest’s surveyors encountered 34 burrows, 8 carcasses, 16 scat piles, and 2 live tortoises. The 2010 FWS protocol surveys along the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route recorded 6 burrows, 4 carcasses, 4 scat piles, 4 sets of tracks, and 1 live tortoise. Figure 14 depicts the results of the 2010, 2009, and 2008 desert tortoise surveys.

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects

Coachella Valley Milk Vetch Effects of the project on Coachella Valley milk vetch would occur only through direct disturbance to individuals present in the project area. Eagle Crest’s surveys indicate this species does not occur in the project area. The Park Service states that because the entire project area was not surveyed, there may be potential for this species to occur within the proposed project boundary. In its comments on the draft EIS, the Park Service recommends that the WEAP include training so that employees are able recognize Coachella Valley milkvetch. The Park Service also recommends Eagle Crest include this species in the pre-construction sensitive plant surveys. While the project area contains little, if any, potential habitat for this species, the inclusion of Coachella Valley milkvetch in the pre-construction plant surveys and training of employees to recognize this species would be low cost measures that would increase potential for identifying and protecting this species if it does occur in the area. With implementation of these measures, we find the project would not affect Coachella Valley milk vetch.

Effects of Construction on Desert Tortoise Construction of the project would involve the use of heavy machinery, road grading, vegetation removal, and heavy vehicle traffic in the project area. These activities have the potential to destroy desert tortoise burrows, increasing stress to individuals or potentially causing mortality if burrows are occupied at the time of collapse. Tortoises often seek shelter under vegetation or other structures that provide shade from the desert sun. Mechanized clearing of these structures could harm individual tortoises. Desert tortoises also seek shelter under parked vehicles and travel along road grades. Increased vehicle use in the area could create increased risk of collisions with tortoise, resulting in injury or mortality. In addition to measures already discussed, including the WEAP, Revegetation Plan, and Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan, which could help reduce effects on desert tortoise, Eagle Crest proposes the following measures to reduce the effects of construction on this species: pre-construction and clearance surveys; monitoring during construction; exclusion fencing; and the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan.

177 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

178

Figure 14. Results of 2010, 2009, and 2008 desert tortoise surveys (Source: State Water Board, 2010, and ESRI, 2010, 2010, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Within the central project area, construction of access roads, the brine ponds, and modifications to Eagle Creek channel would affect about 60.1 acres of desert tortoise habitat. The effects would be the same for both the proposed alternative and the staff alternative. In these areas, Eagle Crest would first conduct surveys to determine the presence of desert tortoise. Based on the results of these surveys, Eagle Crest would refine estimates of disturbed desert tortoise habitat. If there is any suggestion of tortoise presence, either due to the presence of tortoise habitat and/or tortoise sign, Eagle Crest would erect exclusion fencing and complete a clearance survey to remove tortoises from within the fenced area (Measure DT-3). Biological monitors would complete a minimum of two clearance passes inside this area with each survey occurring during periods with heightened tortoise activity, from mid-March to mid-April and during October. The applicant’s proposed transmission line would occupy about 82 acres of desert tortoise habitat. The proposed line includes 27 line support structures in the BLM DWMA, 29 structures in the Chuckwalla Unit of critical habitat, and 19-33 structures in other suitable habitat for desert tortoise. All of the structures within the BLM DWMA and critical habitat would be along a new transmission corridor and removed from existing transmission lines. For part of its length within the BLM DWMA and critical habitat (about 3.5 miles), the applicant’s proposed transmission line would run parallel to the existing Eagle Mountain Road and therefore occupy areas that are already disturbed. The remainder of the ROW would require clearing undisturbed areas that support desert tortoise habitat. The proposed substation would be outside the DWMA and the critical habitat area. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would occupy a total of about 28.7 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 0.4 acre within the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit. One line support structure would be located within the BLM DWMA, 3 structures within critical habitat, and 46 structures in other suitable habitat for desert tortoise. The majority of these structures would be adjacent to an existing transmission line. Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route would place structures in proximity to lands managed for desert tortoise protection, occupying a total of 51.3 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 21.5 acres within the DWMA and 12.4 acres within the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit. Thirty-one line support structures would be placed in the DWMA and 18 structures within the Critical Habitat Unit. Therefore, the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would affect less desert tortoise habitat. To reduce effects on desert tortoise, Eagle Crest would remove all tortoises from harm’s way during the construction period (Measure DT-1) following conditions and guidelines in the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan (discussed below). For linear facilities, Eagle Crest’s biological monitors would first survey for all desert tortoises that might be within construction zones or are likely to enter construction zones, immediately prior to the start of construction. The biological monitors would

179 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

identify active burrows, and insert a 3-inch stick into the floor of the runway to monitor tortoise use (as tortoises enter or exit the burrow, the stick would be displaced and point in the direction of movement). Biological monitors would map the locations of all tortoises so that those locations could be monitored for tortoise use during construction. Eagle Crest does not propose to conduct any activities within unfenced areas on the linear facilities without biological monitors present (Measure DT-2). This includes both construction monitoring and maintenance activities that require surface disturbance. Eagle Crest’s designated staff, meeting FWS and California DFG certification requirements, would remove all tortoises following FWS and California DFG guidelines. Eagle Crest would avoid active burrows and special-resource burrows where possible. Where avoidance of any burrow is infeasible, biological monitors would determine occupancy through the use of fiber optics, probes, or mirrors. Monitors would then excavate the burrow with hand tools in the method prescribed by Desert Tortoise Council (1999), Guidelines for Handling Desert Tortoises during Construction Projects. Any tortoises found would be removed from the construction area. Along the water pipeline, Eagle Crest would close, cover, or fence trenches at the end of each day. Biological monitors would survey open trenches at first light, midday, and at the end of each day to ensure tortoise safety. If necessary, Eagle Crest would install temporary fencing in the active work area to separate a tortoise from active construction to maximize protection. If a tortoise is injured or killed, Eagle Crest would cease all activities and contact Eagle Crest’s designated staff. All injured tortoises would be taken to a qualified veterinarian. FWS would determine if the tortoise can be returned to the wild, if it recovers. Following site clearance, Eagle Crest’s designated staff would prepare a report documenting the clearance surveys, construction monitoring, the capture and release locations of all tortoises found, individual tortoise data, and other relevant data. Eagle Crest would submit this report California DFG and FWS. With the exception of the project switchyard, reservoirs, and brine pond, Eagle Crest would remove all desert tortoise fencing following completion of construction activities. The Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan includes provisions for tortoise surveys during construction that would identify “fence walking” and implement measures to reduce effects of temporary habitat fragmentation. Once complete, the transmission line and water pipeline would not contribute to habitat fragmentation because tortoise would be able to cross the access roads and project ROWs free of impedance. Eagle Crest proposes to enclose the substation with a permanent tortoise exclusion fence to keep adjacent tortoises from entering the site. The fencing type would be 1- by 2-inch vertical mesh galvanized fence material, extending at least 2 feet above the ground and buried at least 1 foot. Where burial is impossible, the mesh would be bent at a right angle toward the outside of the fence and covered with dirt, rocks, or gravel to prevent the tortoise from digging under the fence. Eagle Crest would construct tortoise-proof

180 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

gates at site entry points. All fence construction would take place in the presence of biological monitors to ensure that no tortoises are harmed. Following installation, biological monitors would inspect the fencing monthly and during all major rainfall events and conduct any necessary repairs immediately. Such monitoring and maintenance would continue for the full term of the license. Any areas in the central project area that are determined through surveys to require fencing would be fenced as outlined above. Where a fence is discontinuous (between tailings piles for example), the fence ends would extend well up the slope of the piles to ensure that tortoises cannot go around the end. Alternative methods may be explored to ensure that the fences are functional at excluding tortoises. For both the central project area and the linear facilities, any necessary relocation of individual tortoises would require movement only to suitable habitat in the immediate vicinity (Measure DT-4). Following issuance of the draft EIS, Eagle Crest filed a revised Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan on March 14, 2011. This plan includes specific measures Eagle Crest would implement when relocating tortoises. These measures include:  Descriptions of acceptable habitat where tortoises can be placed;  Data to be collected from each capture/relocation event;  Procedures for protecting tortoises encountered along roadways;  Procedures for protecting tortoises encountered during periods with extreme high temperature (>43 degrees Celsius or 109°F);  Approved methods for carrying tortoises; and  Procedures for post-release monitoring. Finally, Eagle Crest proposes to offset effects on tortoise habitat with the purchase of a minimum of 160 acres of suitable tortoise habitat for conservation purposes (Measure DT-6). Eagle Crest would purchase this land in the habitat range for the same population of desert tortoises that occupy the project area. Eagle Crest would use the following criteria to identify suitable parcels for purchase:  Lands that are part of larger block of lands that are currently protected or able to be protected;  Lands that are not subject to intensive habitat degradation (e.g., recreational use, grazing use, agriculture);  Lands that have inherently moderate-to-good habitat that would naturally and ultimately regenerate when current disturbances are removed;  Lands that are bordered by native habitat suitable for tortoises; and  Lands that represent a buffer for a block of good habitat.

181 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Our Analysis As currently proposed, construction of the project would occur within both FWS- designated critical habitat and BLM DWMA. Additional habitat outside of these designated areas is also known to support this species. Therefore, construction of the project would be likely to affect desert tortoise through the removal and/or disturbance to occupied and protected habitat. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would be located adjacent to, but outside of the DWMA, and would cross only a small section of critical habitat immediately north of the substation. Additionally, the State Water Board’s preferred alternative route would comply with the FWS’ recommendation to co- locate the line with existing transmission lines, and, therefore, the State Water Board’s preferred route would have lesser effects on desert tortoise. Eagle Crest proposes measures that would provide multiple layers of protection from project effects including pre-construction surveys and clearance surveys to identify tortoises in unsafe locations, development of procedures for the safe relocation of these individuals, and development of measures to prevent tortoises for entering unsafe locations after they are cleared. These measures are consistent with FWS’ recommended measures for handling desert tortoise (FWS, 2010b). Additionally, Eagle Crest would only allow designated employees who meet FWS standards to handle tortoises. Eagle Crest’s proposed measures would substantially reduce the risk of project construction effects on desert tortoise. To increase consistency with FWS guidelines and provide additional clarity related to several measures, we revised the proposed Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan. Our revised version was issued with our final Biological Assessment on April 21, 2011. Our recommended modifications include the identification of recipient sites for desert tortoise relocations, specifying that all injured tortoises receive care from a qualified veterinarian, and stating that permanent exclusion fences would be maintained for the term of the license. The NECO Plan states that all lands within a DWMA would be designated as Category I Desert Tortoise Habitat, with required compensation of 5 acres for every acre disturbed. All lands outside a DWMA are considered Category III habitat, with a 1:1 compensation ratio. Eagle Crest’s proposed purchase of 160 acres of compensation lands is based on the proposed project disturbing 19 acres of Category I habitat and 65 acres of Category III habitat. However, construction of the project with the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route, as we recommend, would result in different levels of disturbance to Category I and Category III habitat. The proposed Eagle Mountain Project is likely to affect desert tortoise habitat associated with the following project facilities: central project area (60.1 acres of Class III habitat); transmission line (0.48 acre of Class I/Critical Habitat Unit habitat; 28.2 acres of Class III habitat); water pipeline (22.9 acres of Class III habitat). Eagle Crest would revise these calculations following surveys in the central project area and final design engineering. As per the NECO Plan, Eagle Crest would acquire desert tortoise habitat at a 5:1 ratio for

182 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

disturbed lands in Category I/Critical Habitat Unit habitat and at a 1:1 ratio for disturbed lands in Category III habitat. Based on these calculations, Eagle Crest would acquire a minimum of 113.7 acres of desert tortoise compensation lands (0.48 x 5 + 111.8).

Effects of Operation on Desert Tortoise Operation of the project would increase surface water availability to predatory species including ravens, gulls, and coyote. Additionally, the presence of the transmission line could provide additional perching and nesting area for predatory birds. By providing increases in these resources, the project could result in increases in the population size of these species in the vicinity of the project. Because these species are known to prey upon desert tortoise, such population increases could pose an increased risk of predation to this species and result in population reductions. Project maintenance activities would also pose a risk to the desert tortoise. These risks would depend on the specific activity required for project maintenance, but vehicle collisions would probably most likely. Finally, the proposed project would permanently occupy or disturb 144 acres of desert tortoise habitat, reducing habitat availability for this species. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route and substation location would occupy or disturb 88 acres of desert tortoise habitat. Interior, in its March 12, 2010, letter, recommends that Eagle Crest relocate the transmission line out of desert tortoise critical habitat. Interior recommends Eagle Crest co-locate the new line with existing transmission lines near the project site to reduce the addition of new perching areas for predatory birds within the critical habitat area. FWS also comments that where the new transmission line could not be co-located with existing lines, the new line would result in increased perching and nesting structure for desert tortoise predators. FWS recommends Eagle Crest avoid creating such an environment where predation rates on desert tortoise could increase. The Park Service filed comments on the final license application on March 11, 2010. In this filing, the Park Service comments that Eagle Crest’s management of desert tortoise predators should not be limited to ravens but should also include coyotes, wild dogs, gulls, and other potential predators. In response to this comment, Eagle Crest notes that the project reservoirs would not be the only water source in the area and that existing sources, including the Colorado River Aqueduct, Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant reservoir, wastewater treatment ponds, and agricultural irrigation systems, also would subsidize predator species. Eagle Crest contends that since water is constantly available from these sources, water supply is not a limiting factor for predator species population size in the project vicinity. To reduce the potential for project operations to result in increased predation on desert tortoise, Eagle Crest developed a Predator Monitoring and Control Plan. In response to the Commission’s AIR, Eagle Crest filed a completed draft of this plan on March 11, 2011. Specific components of the plan include the following:

183 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Identifying specific project components with potential to attract ravens;  Conducting raven surveys, using 10-minute point counts and vehicular/pedestrian surveys, searching all Joshua trees, landscape trees, utility poles, transmission towers, and human-made structures within the survey area, during project design (years 1 to 2) to determine baseline, pre-construction conditions of raven populations on project lands and within 1 kilometer of the proposed project boundary;  Recording incidental observations of coyotes, dogs, and gulls during raven surveys;  Conducting post-construction monitoring to detect changes in raven population size, nesting behavior, or evidence of tortoise predation (including initiation of post-construction surveys during the second year after project completion, followed by surveys once every 5 years for the duration of the license);  Development of a trash and food waste management program;  Hazing measures at project reservoirs and desalination ponds;  Procedures for removing raven nests, if determined necessary through consultation with FWS;  Procedures for reporting study results to management agencies; and  Thresholds for success or need for additional control measures. Finally, during project maintenance activities where ground disturbance would occur, Eagle Crest would ensure qualified biological monitors are present. These monitors would use methods and procedures described above to protect desert tortoise. In its comments on the draft EIS, FWS states that a survey frequency of once every 5 years for raven surveys does not provide many opportunities for adaptive management. FWS recommends more frequent surveys, particularly in early years of the license.

Our Analysis Operation of the project would increase available water sources for desert tortoise predators. The completed transmission line would provide additional perching and nesting locations for ravens and other predatory birds. However, since neither of these resources appear to be limiting factors (both are readily available in the project vicinity), the extent to which these additional resources would support increases in predator populations in not clearly evident. On the other hand, without successful implementation of mitigation for these effects, there is potential for adverse effects on the desert tortoise. Eagle Crest’s proposed measures include surveys to determine base line conditions for raven populations in the project area; and, a plan for follow up surveys to quantify the effects of project facilities on raven population size. Eagle Crests proposal to include

184 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

gulls in the raven surveys is appropriate because the survey methods are typical for avian surveys. Additionally, since gulls have not been recorded in the study area, limited survey effort is required to detect an increased presence of this species. However, although Eagle Crest notes that these surveys would also detect increases in coyote or wild dog (canine) populations, the mechanism for such detections limited in detail and has low probability of providing an accurate assessment of changes in activity for these species. Further, the proposed methods do not include any mechanism for evaluating canine predation on the desert tortoise. Surveys for large mammal activity are more commonly conducted using traps, scent stations, baited track plates, and/or motion sensing photography (Manley et al., 2006; Zielinski and Kucera, 1995). While such methods would not provide for an accurate estimate of population size or population density, these methods would provide data to analyze relative changes in activity levels in the project area. Estimates of relative levels of canine predation on desert tortoise could be based on transect surveys looking for excavated burrows or tortoise carcasses with evidence of bites or scratches. These surveys could be concentrated within the desert bajadas east of the central project area where, based on soil conditions, such activities are more likely to occur (Esque et al., 2010). These surveys, paired with bated track plates and motion sensing cameras, would provide better data to assess potential project related increases in canine predation on desert tortoise. Additionally, Eagle Crest’s proposed 5-year monitoring period would not provide many opportunities for adaptive management. There is potential for predator populations to respond slowly, with effects on desert tortoise not evident until 2 to 3 years following initiation of project filling and operation. Failing to detect these changes until 5 or 10 years later would increase effects on the desert tortoise. More frequent surveys during the early years of the project could detect increases in predators following initiation of project activities, resulting in a more timely implementation of predator control measures, thereby reducing potential effects on this species. A 5-year monitoring period may not provide many opportunities for adaptive management; more frequent surveys during the early years of the project would be more appropriate. Two years of preconstruction baseline surveys, annual surveys during construction, and post-construction surveys in years 1–5, 7, and 10 to be commenced the first year reservoir filling is initiated could be more appropriate. Upon the conclusion of each survey, Eagle Crest could file a report of results, conclusions, and any recommended mitigation measures. The report could be provided for agency comment and could require agency consultation to develop mitigation if surveys show increases in predator activity and desert tortoise predation. Following the year 10 post-reservoir filling, we expect predator populations would be in equilibrium with the additional water source. If the surveys do not indicate any substantial increase in predator activity and desert tortoise predation, surveys could be discontinued. If survey results indicate there are increases in predator activity and desert

185 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

tortoise predation, or have indicated a need for additional mitigation measures to control predator populations, surveys could continue for the term of the license on a schedule developed in consultation with resource agencies and approved by the Commission. The proposed transmission line would result in the creation of a new utility corridor removed from pre-existing transmission lines. Under these conditions, the transmission line structures would likely provide suitable perching and nesting habitat for ravens, potentially increasing predation risk to desert tortoise. Conversely, the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would parallel an existing 160-kV line supported with wooden H-frame structures. Any reasonable efforts Eagle Crest can make to locate the transmission line outside of desert tortoise critical habitat and co-locate with other transmission lines would be beneficial. Co-locating lines near existing lines would still add potential perching and nesting habitat; however, the quality of this habitat would be lower than habitat created by adding new structures to areas where transmission lines are not already present. This reduction in quality is related to territorial behavior in ravens. New towers built away from existing nesting habitat would increase the number of potential raven nest sites because the new nest sites would be outside of any pre-existing territories. Constructing a new transmission line adjacent to an existing line would not add to the number of potential nest sites in the corridor. On the other hand, Eagle Crest’s proposed lattice structures would provide better nesting opportunities than the existing H-frame structures associated with the 161-kV line. The lattice structures would provide additional shade and the angles of the lattice design provide favorable locations for nest support. Locating the line adjacent to the existing 161-kv transmission line would be better than locating the new line within a new transmission ROW. But the lattice structures would still increase nest habitat quality within the existing utility corridor over existing conditions. If Eagle Crest were to use monopole structures instead of lattice structures, increases in nesting quality would be limited. Implementation of the Revegetation Plan and Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan would provide beneficial effects on desert tortoise by restoring and maintaining habitat. However, these actions also pose a threat to desert tortoise due to potential use of herbicides, motorized vehicles, and excavation equipment. If Eagle Crest stipulates that all project-related activities within desert tortoise habitat, including revegetation, invasive species management, any additional surveys for sensitive species, or any other actions with potential to affect desert tortoise, would take place following the guidelines and procedures in the WEAP and Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan, potential effects on this species would be reduced. Eagle Crest’s proposed WEAP, Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan, Predator Monitoring and Control Plan, and proposed compensation for disturbance to desert tortoise habitat would reduce potential effects of construction and operation of the project on desert tortoise. However, surveys have

186 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

shown the project area to support a population of desert tortoise, with multiple live tortoises, tortoise scat, and tortoise remains observed along proposed project features. As such, it is likely encounters between desert tortoise and construction and/or maintenance crews would occur. These encounters would likely result in the need to handle tortoises for removal to other areas and disturbance to or destruction of tortoise habitat. Such interactions, even when conducted following FWS guidelines and with the best of intentions, would increase stress and potentially result in desert tortoise mortality. Additionally, permanent effects would occur within the Chuckwalla Unit of designated critical habitat. Therefore, we find the proposed project may adversely affect the desert tortoise and adversely modify the Chuckwalla Unit of critical habitat for desert tortoise.

3.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects The proposed project would not affect Coachella Valley milkvetch and would not contribute to any cumulative effects on this species in combination with other foreseeable actions in the vicinity. Construction and operation of the pumped storage project, the Eagle Mountain landfill, and multiple solar projects proposed in the Chuckwalla Valley all have the potential to affect desert tortoise. These effects include both direct disturbance and removal of suitable habitat. Both the proposed project and the Eagle Mountain landfill (if constructed; see Land Use in section 3.3.2) would occupy lands in the central project area. Construction and operation of these projects could disturb bighorn sheep by increasing noise and human presence in the area. Combined, these projects are expected to occupy 6,875 acres, 47 percent of which would be associated with the pumped storage project. Construction of the two projects is not expected to occur simultaneously, so there would not be cumulative effects of construction at one time. However, construction of both projects could result in prolonged increases in human presence and vehicular traffic in the project area. Both projects also have potential to subsidize desert tortoise predators. Construction activities are expected to involve about 75 trucks per month for the project and 1,500 trucks per month for the landfill. Eagle Crest does not propose to develop new access roads or conduct any road improvements within the central project area. For the landfill, Kaiser would construct 6 miles of new, paved access roads, and widen an additional 6 miles of existing road. During operation, Eagle Crest expects to require 2 truck trips per day, while the landfill operations would require between 50 to 100 trucks per day depending on the age of the project. Eagle Crest’s estimate of 75 trucks per month seems low for the amount of materials needed for the proposed project. However, even if this number is increased by a factor of 10, the contribution of the proposed project to total stress associated with construction noise would be small compared to that associated with construction of the landfill.

187 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Both the proposed project and the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project (BLM, 2010a) would require construction of new transmission lines to interconnect with the electric grid. The Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project would entail constructing the Red Bluff substation about 6 miles east of Desert Center along the Interstate 10 corridor and a new 230-kV transmission line that would parallel the existing SCE 160-kV transmission line. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route for the project would use the same substation and transmission corridor for both the Eagle Mountain and Desert Sunlight Solar Farm projects, consistent with the California Public Utilities Commission’s environmentally preferred alternative for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project (BLM, 2010a). The Eagle Mountain landfill would increase available food sources associated with the importation of waste to the central project area. The closest similar type of food subsidies for ravens is at the Desert Center sanitary landfill. The Eagle Mountain landfill proposes multiple mitigation measures to prevent ravens from accessing waste. These measures would include hourly burial of waste deposits, removal of potential perching areas, and experimental treatments with additions of chemical deterrents. The landfill would also monitor raven populations. If both projects are constructed, the combined effects of increased food sources would likely create conditions suitable for expansion of the raven populations. While transmission lines and water sources are already present in the project vicinity, there is potential for the combination of water subsidies co-located with food subsidies to result in cumulative effects on raven populations. However, Eagle Crest’s proposed measures to study effects of the project on ravens and other desert tortoise predators and implement control measures as needed would ensure the collective effects on ravens with the landfill project are not substantially greater than the effects of the proposed landfill and solar facilities alone. Currently, 11 solar projects, totaling about 123,600 (plus or minus 35,000) acres, are proposed in the Chuckwalla Valley. There is little certainty as to how many of these projects will be constructed. Similarly, it is not possible to ascertain the acreage of suitable desert tortoise habitat these projects would occupy. However, compared to the scale of these potential projects, the effects of the project on desert tortoise habitat in the Chuckwalla Valley (about 88.3 acres) would be negligible. Both the proposed project and the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project (BLM, 2010a) would require construction of new transmission lines to interconnect with the electric grid. The Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project would entail constructing the Red Bluff substation about 6 miles east of Desert Center along the Interstate 10 corridor and a new 230-kV transmission line that would parallel the existing SCE 160-kV transmission line. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route for the project would use the same substation and transmission corridor for both the Eagle Mountain and Desert Sunlight Solar Farm projects, consistent with the California Public Utilities Commission’s environmentally preferred alternative for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project (BLM, 2010a).

188 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Eagle Crest’s proposed monitoring and mitigation measures would ensure the project does not contribute to adverse cumulative effects on the desert tortoise. Co- locating project facilities with the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project, as the State Water Board prefers, would also reduce cumulative effects on desert tortoise.

3.3.5 Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment

Regional Recreation Resources Recreational resources in the region are primarily provided and managed by the Park Service and BLM and include some resources on lands owned by the state of California. Activities within the region include hiking, camping, backpacking, hunting, scenic/wildlife viewing, rock hounding, rock climbing, mountain biking, horseback riding, and OHV use.

Joshua Tree National Park and Wilderness Area The JTNP is the most visited public land for recreational resources in the project vicinity. The JTNP encompasses nearly 792,000 acres of land, of which 585,000 acres have been designated wilderness under the Wilderness Protection Act of 1964 (Park Service, 2010a). This 585,000-acre wilderness area surrounds the central project area on three sides (figure 15). At its closest point, the park boundary is located about 1.5 miles from the proposed project site within the largely inactive Eagle Mountain mine. The Park Service manages the JTNP, and there are trails that provide for motorized and non- motorized forms of access. No existing or proposed project features are located inside the park or wilderness area. Access to the JTNP is from Interstate 10 to the south and from State Route 62 to the north. The JTNP offers a variety of dispersed recreational activities and camping. Due to its unique geology and rock formations, this area is internationally known as a prime rock climbing destination. Massive boulders and rock outcrops provide some of the best rock climbing in the United States. Skilled and novice technical rock climbers from around the world are attracted to the challenging climbing routes (BLM and California DFG, 2002). The JTNP continues to be a popular destination for both local and non-local residents and has increased visitation steadily over the past several years, such that it is now considered a year-round destination. The wilderness area provides an opportunity for solitude in nature and for primitive recreation such as hiking, backpacking, and horseback riding. Opportunities abound for viewing, studying, and photographing a diversity of flora and fauna. Developed recreational facilities, including trails, camping, picnic, and day-use facilities, are more prevalent in the northwestern portion of the JTNP. In keeping with the management prescriptions of the wilderness area designation, recreational facilities in this segment of the park include a few backcountry roads and trails. Cottonwood Visitors

189 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

190

Figure 15. Recreation resources in the vicinity of the proposed project (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Center greets visitors at the southern access road to the JTNP, while the northern portion is accessible from the Oasis Visitor Center near Twentynine Palms, and the West Entrance Station south of the town of Joshua Tree. All but one of the nine campgrounds within the JTNP are located in the western half of the park. Backcountry hiking and camping are popular in the park. Trails and facilities are more limited in the eastern half nearest the proposed project area; however, this area of the JTNP is home to more than 30 abandoned mines, an attraction to some visitors. One backcountry unpaved road, Black Eagle Mine Road, traverses canyon areas within the park and exits toward the proposed project area. The Big Wash Hiking Corridor is a Park Service trail within JTNP that follows the Big Wash arroyo from Victory Pass just south of the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant, west into JTNP and gradually turning northwest, terminating at Black Eagle Mine Road about 2 miles west of the eastern park boundary. The JTNP Backcountry and Wilderness Plan (Park Service, 2001) identifies an overnight restriction area (day-use only) within the wilderness area, bordering the park boundary, and about 2 miles due south of the proposed reservoirs site. There are no roads, trails, or trail corridors identified in the plan that indicate there is access to this day use only area at the present time or planned for the future.

Bureau of Land Management The majority of recreational opportunities on BLM lands includes hiking and OHV use. BLM maintains an inventory of trails and areas open or closed to OHV activity. BLM also maintains several primitive campsites within the region.

Existing Recreation Resources in the Proposed Project Vicinity Recreational resources in the project area are primarily dispersed opportunities on public lands; however, there are a small number of developed amenities. Public lands in the vicinity of the Interstate 10 corridor and Chuckwalla Valley include Ford Dry Lake and Palen Dry Lake, which are managed by BLM. Additionally, BLM manages the Chuckwalla Valley Dune Thicket and Alligator Rock, both Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) located near Interstate 10. These areas are designated for the protection of wildlife and other resources. The Desert Lily Sanctuary is a 2,040- acre preserve adjacent to State Route 177 about 8 miles southeast of the proposed reservoir site. In addition to the JTNP and wilderness area, other designated wilderness areas in the vicinity include the BLM-managed Chuckwalla Mountains wilderness area south of Interstate 10 outside Desert Center; the Palen/McCoy wilderness area east of State Route 177; and the Orocopia Mountains wilderness area southwest of Desert Center. There are no developed facilities at any of these locations other than gravel parking and signage at the Desert Lily Sanctuary. BLM allows overnight (overflow) camping on a gravel lot north of Interstate 10 just outside the south entrance to JTNP.

191 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Developed recreational facilities in the area include a museum, golf course, and campground. The General Patton Museum is located just off Interstate 10 at Chiraco Summit. This facility also borders a large historic area known as Camp Young, which was established as a desert warfare practice area during World War II. The small community of Lake Tamarisk, located about 5 miles southeast of the proposed project area, has a 9-hole golf course (see figure 16). BLM operates the only developed campground outside JTNP in the vicinity of the proposed project, Corn Springs in the Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness, about 7 miles south of Desert Center. A private business has developed the Desert Center Airport off State Route 177 east of Lake Tamarisk into a motorsport facility that is currently being used as a race car driving school and site where racers can test drive their modified vehicles. According to the developer’s web site, they are currently looking for investors to develop grandstands, clubhouses, and other motorsport-related facilities.

Visitation The majority of recreation activity in the region occurs within the JTNP. The park, received almost 1.4 million visitors in 2008, with 3,895 recorded backcountry stays (2010b). Most of the park’s developed facilities lie to the west of the main, paved park road, with the exception of Cottonwood Springs Visitor Center and its associated facilities. Recreation facilities on the east side of the park are minimal and, as such, recreation use on the east side of the park is relatively sparse, as is information about the number of users in this portion of the park. The JTNP Management Plan notes that only about 0.5 percent of visitors to the park spend the night in the back country (Park Service, 2001). The backcountry wilderness registration board closest to the proposed project is located at Porcupine Wash on Pinto Basin Road just west of the intersection of Black Eagle Mine Road and Old Dale Road. Miscellaneous backcountry use in the southeastern portion of the park over the past 5 years has ranged from between 3,900 to 5,900 user- nights annually (Eagle Crest, 2009c). About 500 of these user-nights are estimated to be attributed to the eastern region of the Park (Eagle Crest, 2009c). Day use of the east side JTNP lands prior to its inclusion into the park/wilderness system in 1994 relied on 4-wheel drive access to many locations (Park Service, 2001). Four-wheel drive/OHV use is prohibited within wilderness areas. Black Eagle Mine Road, an unmaintained dirt road, traverses a non-wilderness corridor in this eastern section of the park, and continues beyond the park boundary to the Eagle Mountain mine and proposed project site. The park allows only road-licensed 4-wheel drive vehicles to access this road, and it is used by both locals and tourists; however, the Park Service does not maintain vehicle counters along the road. Based on its experience, Park Service staff estimated that the road may see about 1,000 day-use visits in a season (Eagle Crest, 2009c). The Black Eagle Mine Road is barricaded with a large boulder in the middle of the road about 3 miles east of the JTNP boundary. The road block is positioned at the apex of the saddle of the Eagle Mountains running north-south, precluding vehicular

192 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

193

Figure 16. Land ownership in the vicinity of the proposed project (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

access between the park and the Eagle Mountain mine site. About 5 to 10 abandoned mines are located short distances off of Black Eagle Mine Road along the route within the JTNP boundary. Outside of JTNP, OHV use is the primary dispersed recreational activity in the area. OHV use has long been a major part of the recreation in the area, and, nationally, OHV use has increased five-fold in the last 3 years (BLM, 2010b). As noted previously, BLM maintains an inventory of trails that indicates areas open or closed to OHV activity. There are no BLM OHV areas designated as “open” within Riverside County, where riding off designated routes is permitted. All BLM lands throughout the region are designated “limited use” for OHV purposes, meaning that all vehicles must remain on designated routes of travel. There are no estimates of the amount of recreational use these lands receive. Similarly, BLM does not keep records of visitor use at the few camping areas in the vicinity (e.g., Corn Springs campground, JTNP dispersed camping overflow area, general dispersed camping). BLM has noted as part of the review of the NECO Plan that this area receives little recreational use (Eagle Crest, 2009a).

Land Use

Land Use in the Project Area Much of the land surrounding the Eagle Mountain mine is public land managed primarily by the Park Service and BLM. Communities in the vicinity of the proposed project include the town of Eagle Mountain, Lake Tamarisk, and Desert Center. Kaiser developed the town of Eagle Mountain, which is located adjacent to the Eagle Mountain mine, to house mine workers. The town site consists of about 250 single-family dwellings, a store, café, two churches, a school, and a post office among other features. After the mine closed in 1986, the town became largely vacant; however, a few Kaiser employees maintain residences there and the school is still in use. California Department of Corrections contracted with private prison operators to house low-risk inmates in renovated facilities that occupied the old town shopping center between 1986 until its closing in 2003. The correctional facility included housing units in four pods. When operated as a state facility, the rated capacity was 436 minimum security beds. Riverside County board members studied the site as a potential county correctional facility; however, the 2007 feasibility study (DMJM Design/AECOM, 2007) recommended the County should not pursue this as an option. The California State Lands Commission holds a 100 percent reserved mineral interest in a 467-acre parcel of land within the east and central mine pits. Kaiser leased 145 acres of these lands until 2002, when the lease expired. Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center are located about 9 and 10 miles southeast of the Eagle Mountain mine, respectively. Both towns are small communities with fewer than

194 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

100 single-family dwellings combined. Both communities as well as Eagle Mountain are accessed by Kaiser Road, which connects to Interstate 10 at Desert Center.

Land Use Within and Adjacent to the Proposed Project Boundary Reservoir and Construction Laydown Areas—The site consists of mountainous, rocky terrain that has been extensively disturbed as a result of past mining activity. Inactive open pits, tailings piles, and remnant tailings ponds exist on site. Remnants of the structures associated with the previous mining, including railhead, haul roads, and ore processing/refining facilities, still exist, although most of the ore processing and refining facilities have been removed. The central project area occupies only a portion of the acreage encompassing the Eagle Mountain mine area. Kaiser has proposed to develop much of the area between the two open mine pits proposed as the upper and lower reservoirs for this project as a landfill.57 As part of the landfill proposal, BLM would exchange about 3,500 acres of public land within the area for offsite private lands to support the landfill project in the mine area. Figure 17 provides the phasing and layout of the proposed landfill project. If the land exchange were not to be consummated, the project boundary for the proposed project would include nearly 1,059 acres of federal land managed by BLM. If the land exchange is executed, 676 acres of the proposed project features would be on federal lands. However, the land exchange is the subject of ongoing litigation. The California State Lands Commission holds a 100 percent mineral interest on 467 acres surrounding the proposed lower reservoir site. Water Pipeline Corridor—Water for the proposed project would originate from three wells in the Chuckwalla Valley about 11 miles from the proposed reservoirs. Water from the wells would be conveyed to the lower reservoir via pipeline extending alongside existing roads and a Metropolitan Water District transmission line corridor within a proposed 60-foot-wide pipeline ROW. Land uses adjacent to the corridor consist primarily of undeveloped desert land. The southern third of the proposed route would cross several private parcels with inactive agricultural fields. The remainder of the route would consist of undeveloped federal land managed by BLM. As the proposed route approaches the Eagle Mountain area, it would cross the Colorado River Aqueduct and surrounding Metropolitan Water District lands and easement areas before reaching the lower reservoir (figure 16).

57 The Eagle Mountain landfill is proposed to be constructed in five phases, with each phase designed to accommodate about 100 to 200 million tons of refuse. Construction and operation of each phase of the landfill is designed to progress generally from west to east. Development within each phase would occur in sub-phases and progress from south to north. The landfill build-out (i.e., 2,164 acres) is estimated to occur about 100 years after start up (CH2M HILL, 1996).

195 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

196

Figure 17. Proposed phasing of the landfill project (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Transmission Line Corridor—The proposed route for the project’s double-circuit 500-kV transmission line would be located almost entirely on public lands managed by BLM. Exceptions include private lands within the proposed project boundary owned by Kaiser and a small crossing of land owned by the Metropolitan Water District as the route crosses the existing district’s aqueduct and transmission lines. Eagle Mountain proposes a 200-foot-wide corridor for construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line. The proposed route would extend about 13.5 miles from the proposed project switchyard south-southeast to a proposed interconnection collector substation that would interconnect with the proposed Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 transmission line located near Desert Center. The transmission line would exit the project switchyard and extend south to a point on the west side of the Eagle Mountain rail line. At this point, the route turns southeast to a location adjacent to existing SCE 161-kV wood pole transmission lines. Here, the line would turn to parallel the existing transmission lines and access road, crossing the Metropolitan Water District’s metal tower electric transmission structures and passing to the east of the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant. Most of this route segment from the mine to the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant would be located on public land managed by BLM, except for a small parcel of land around the Colorado River Aqueduct and Aqueduct Road owned by Metropolitan Water District. This area of the proposed transmission line is undeveloped except for a number of unpaved access roads, the paved Aqueduct Road, and existing transmission lines. East of the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant, the transmission line route would cross over a pass in the small hills near the Eagle Mountain railroad. At this point, the route would turn southwest for a short distance before turning south to parallel the existing Eagle Mountain Road. The route would continue to parallel Eagle Mountain Road for about 3 miles, then turn southeast and continue for another 2.5 miles to the proposed substation. Land use in the location of the proposed substation is undeveloped desert; rural open space as designated in the County’s General Plan. South of the proposed substation, low density residential development exists as a part of Desert Center.

Plans BLM is the primary land manager in the region. The entire proposed project area is located within the 25-million acre California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA), of which about 12 million acres are public lands. The California Desert Conservation Area Plan (BLM, 1980) is the BLM’s land use plan for the CDCA. The general goal of the CDCA Plan is to provide for the use and protection of the desert’s natural, cultural, and aesthetic resources. This plan specifies that activities on BLM-managed public lands must conform with the approved land use. Public lands under BLM management within the CDCA have been designated geographically into four Multiple Use Classes. The majority of the proposed project site

197 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

itself is not designated because it is largely or entirely private land and therefore not directly under BLM stewardship. The plan does provide Multiple Use Class designations for portions of the proposed project site and directly adjacent public land. Public lands are assigned a Multiple Use Class according to the following allowable level of multiple uses.  Class “C” (controlled use) designation is the most restrictive, and is assigned to wilderness areas;  Class “L” (limited use) lands are managed to provide lower intensity, carefully controlled multiple uses while ensuring that sensitive resource values are not significantly diminished;  Class “M” (moderate use) lands are managed to provide for a wider variety of uses such as mining, livestock grazing, recreation, utilities, and energy development, while conserving desert resources and mitigating damages that permitted uses may cause; and  Class “I” (intensive use) provides for concentrated uses of lands and resources to meet human needs (BLM and California DFG, 2002). The proposed reservoirs and surrounding area are included within one of six concurrent CDCA Plan amendments—the NECO Plan, a plan developed for a geographic subset of the larger CDCA. Public lands west of the Kaiser lands but east of the JTNP boundary are managed as Multiple Use Class-L, and public lands east of the Eagle Mountain mine are managed according to Multiple Use Class-M guidelines. The CDCA Plan identifies designated utility corridors targeted for transmission lines, pipelines, and related structures such as substations and compression stations and indicates that applications for utility ROWs will be encouraged by BLM management to use designated corridors (BLM, 1980). The plan states that sites associated with power generation or transmission not identified in the CDCA Plan will be considered through the plan amendment process (BLM, 1980). Routes within defined corridors and on BLM-managed lands require authorization of a ROW grant from BLM. Figure 16 identifies the current BLM Multiple Use Classes relative to the project and the CDCA Plan utility corridors. Riverside County—The project study area lies within Riverside County’s Desert Center Land Use Planning Area. The vast majority of the planning area is classified as Rural Open Space and zoned as Natural Assets. Within the Desert Center Land Use Planning Area, Riverside County has established two specific policy areas. Policy areas are specific geographic districts that contain unique characteristics that merit detailed attention and focused policies. The Eagle Mountain policy area encompasses the proposed project site and the Eagle Mountain town site. Outside this specific policy area boundary, “Rural Open Space” dominates the county land use designation, with the exception of an area of “Rural Open Space-Mineral Resources” to the north/northwest of

198 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

the proposed reservoirs area. Riverside County zoning and land use plans identify the Eagle Mountain mine site as a landfill site.58 The Desert Center policy area encompasses currently undeveloped land located adjacent to and north of the small, unincorporated community of Desert Center. The terminus of the proposed transmission line and substation would be included within this policy area. Joshua Tree National Park—The JTNP was established first as a national monument in 1936 and later changed to a National Park in 1994. As noted previously, the Eagle Mountain wilderness area is within the park boundary. The closest part of the JTNP is located about 1.5 miles from the proposed project area and is designated by the Park Service as backcountry transition or wilderness subzones. Lands within the backcountry transition subzone are managed to maintain the natural resources and processes that are unaltered by human activity except for approved developments essential for use and appreciation such as park roads, picnic areas, and backcountry parking areas. This designation applies to the Black Eagle Mine Road corridor. The remainder of the area outside the road corridor is designated as a wilderness subzone, and no development is allowed. The wilderness area designation allows only non-motorized, non-mechanized activities to occur within its boundaries, with minimal trail creation and maintenance.

Aesthetics The proposed project is located about 10 miles north of Desert Center, California, less than 60 miles from the Colorado River. This area of California is generally referred to as the western Sonoran Desert, or more commonly called the “Colorado Desert,” and includes the area between the Colorado River Basin and the Coast Ranges south of the Little San Bernardino Mountains and the Mojave Desert. The overall character of the area is a combination of arid and semi-arid landscapes alternating between basins and mountain ranges. Local elevations range from about 400 to 2,500 feet, while regionally

58 Specific Plan 305 was approved on September 8, 1997 (Riverside County, 1997). Specific plans are for land use for the development of large property holdings, which are otherwise eligible for development under the Riverside County General Plan. Specific Plan Zone will be applied only to property for which a specific plan of land use has been adopted; provided, however, that the Specific Plan Zone may be adopted concurrently with a specific plan. The zone will be applied only upon a finding that the specific plan of land use contains definitive development standards and requirements relating to land use, density, lot size and shape, siting of buildings, setbacks, circulation, drainage, landscaping, architecture, water, sewer, public facilities, grading, maintenance, open space, parking, and other elements deemed necessary for the proper development of the property.

199 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

the San Bernardino Mountains 100 miles west of the area rise up to about 11,500 feet and the Salton Sea, about 50 miles southwest of the area, is 227 feet below sea level. The proposed project components would be located in an area that is visually characterized by broad, flat desert valleys bordered by highly eroded mountain ranges. The arid environment and low lying, sparse vegetation provide long views across the desert landscape from key viewpoints. One of the visually striking features of this area is how abruptly the mountains rise above the valley. The proposed project would be located within a largely inactive iron-ore mine site within the Eagle Mountains with the transmission and water pipelines running across the Chuckwalla Valley. The valley is a mostly flat desert bordered by the Eagle Mountains to the west, the Coxcomb Mountains to the north east, and the Chuckwalla Mountains to the south. The small communities of Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center are located within this valley near Interstate 10 about 9 and 10 miles, respectively, south of the largely inactive mine.

BLM Visual Resource Management System The BLM’s Visual Resource Management (VRM) system is a management tool to assist BLM in carrying out its mandate to ensure that the scenic values of the public lands are considered before allowing uses that may have negative visual effects. The VRM system involves inventorying scenic values and establishing management objectives for those values through the resource management planning process, and then evaluating proposed activities to determine whether they conform with management objectives. The visual resource inventory (VRI) process provides BLM managers with a means for determining visual values. The inventory consists of a scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, and a delineation of distance zones. Based on these three factors, BLM-administered lands are placed into one of four VRI classes. These inventory classes represent the relative value of the visual resources. Classes I and II represent the most valued resources, Class III represents a moderate value, and Class IV represents resources of least value. VRM classes are categories assigned to public lands and serve two purposes: (1) an inventory tool that portrays the relative value of the visual resources, and (2) a management tool that portrays the visual management objectives. The VRM system evaluates the quality of existing scenery by accounting for the distance from which scenery is viewed and peoples’ sensitivity to changes in the landscape. According to the VRM system, resource management classes comprise the following objectives:  Class I—The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. ACECs are classified as VRM Class I.  Class II—The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low.

200 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Management activities may be seen but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.  Class III—The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.  Class IV—The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require major modifications of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the effect of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements. BLM and DOE have identified lands within the Chuckwalla Valley or Eagle Mountain areas as VRI classes II and III (BLM and DOE, 2010). The VRI classes for lands surrounding the proposed project are VRI Class II, indicating high relative visual values, and Class III, indicating moderate relative visual values. Within the project area, VRI Class II areas include lands adjacent to JTNP and the western half of the Chuckwalla Valley (not including the central mine area). VRI Class III areas include the Eagle Mountain mine and along the Interstate 10 corridor in the eastern portion through the Chuckwalla Valley.

Existing Site-specific Aesthetics Reservoir Area—The mountainous landscape of the proposed reservoirs site is dominated by the disturbances associated with major hard rock mining operations. Extensive pits created when the ore was removed are bounded by benched side walls and large tailing piles. Mined areas within the project area represent highly disturbed, human-modified landscapes consisting of large open pits, tailing piles and ponds, and the remains of ore processing facilities and mining equipment. The massive amounts of tailing piles surrounding the mine exhibit regular terraces with some eroded qualities. The Eagle Mountain mine extends into the mountain slopes and presents a distinctly different visual character from the surrounding undisturbed portions of the mountains. The area around the mine is of considerable magnitude, and the contrast generated from the exposed tailing piles and storage of the excavated materials is visible from most areas within the Chuckwalla Valley north of Interstate 10. These piles contrast in shape, texture, and color with the surrounding unmodified landscape. Adjacent to the mine, the town of Eagle Mountain is largely composed of deserted homes and vacant buildings.

201 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Views beyond the largely inactive mine site include the Eagle Mountain backdrop, which precludes views into JTNP from lower elevation points. Views across the Chuckwalla Valley from the mine site are relatively unobstructed, providing long sight lines to the Coxcomb Mountains in the distance. Human-made disturbances that visibly stand out from the natural landscape include: roads, a railroad, transmission lines for the Colorado River Aqueduct, and wood distribution poles supplying electricity to the Eagle Mountain town site. High voltage transmission lines also parallel Interstate 10; however, about 11 miles away, the definition and contrast the lines provide against the natural surroundings is muted. Transmission Line and Pipeline—Access to the Eagle Mountain mine site and the proposed transmission line and water pipeline corridors are through the Chuckwalla Valley. The valley is representative of desert basin features and consists of relatively flat to gently sloping topography that visually separates and accents the adjacent mountain ranges. The Chuckwalla Valley, like others in the region, is dominated by colors of the physical landscape: exposed rocks, sand, gravel, and sparse vegetation. After winters with above-normal precipitation, desert wildflowers provide a colorful ground cover. Overall, the visual characteristics are created by the combinations of alluvial washes, wind-blown landforms, and vegetation. The natural features of the Chuckwalla Valley are modified by residential and commercial developments, including the Eagle Mountain town site, Lake Tamarisk, and Desert Center. Linear landscape elements within this landscape unit include roads, transmission lines, railroads, OHV tracks, the Colorado River Aqueduct, numerous stormwater draining dikes for the interstate, and the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant and related facilities. Primary transportation corridors within the unit include Interstate 10 and State Route 177. Kaiser Road is the main paved road from Desert Center to the proposed project site, Eagle Mountain Road is an alternative route, and other maintained and unmaintained dirt roads cross the valley. The expansive scale and flat topography of the valley offers panoramic views of the surrounding mountain ranges from many locations. The relatively flat and uniform landscape character is typical of the regional landscape setting.

Key Viewpoints Associated with the Project Many of the features associated with constructing the proposed project would be visible from public roads or lands that adjoin the proposed project site. Changes to the landscape would be most visible to people who use Kaiser Road, Eagle Mountain Road, Interstate 10, and State Route 177. Other important areas with views of the proposed project features include the small residential communities of Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center. Backcountry hikers in JTNP could also potentially see proposed project features from ridge tops at the park boundary. Kaiser Road—Kaiser Road is the main travel route connecting Desert Center with the Eagle Mountain mine site. The road is about 9 miles long running north for two-

202 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

thirds of the route before turning northwest and directly toward the mine for the final one-third of the route (figure 15). Kaiser Road is also the main travel route from Interstate 10 at Desert Center to Lake Tamarisk. The road runs primarily through the middle of the valley and views along the road are the low lying areas in all directions in the foreground with the various mountain ranges as the backdrop, depending on the direction. From Kaiser Road in Desert Center (about 10 miles away from the proposed reservoirs), the existing mining operations are visible on the Eagle Mountains as contrasting colors and lines from the exposed and stockpiled mine tailings. Similarly, from Lake Tamarisk (about 9 miles away from the proposed reservoirs), the view is similar in that the contrast of the mine tailings is visible in the distance in the middle of Eagle Mountain while the sparse desert vegetation covers the foreground and valley. Views from Kaiser Road closer to Eagle Mountain mine show that the modified landscape surrounding the mine (e.g., flat tops or terraced tailing piles) is the most visible modification in the area. The human-modified landscape also includes visible grading for the Colorado River Aqueduct, the old mine railroad, and the transmission towers to the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant nearby. Eagle Mountain Road—Eagle Mountain Road is a paved, two-lane asphalt road that parallels Kaiser Road about 3 miles west of Desert Center. The road provides access to the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant, and an alternative (dirt road) route to Eagle Mountain mine via Interstate 10, but the road is gated before reaching the pumping plant to prevent public use. Views from the road looking north toward the mine site from near Interstate 10 are similar to views from Kaiser Road in that the foreground is dominated by low-lying desert vegetation, framed by the Eagle Mountains on the western flank and the taller Coxcomb mountains in the far distance about 20 miles away. Interstate 10 near Desert Center—Interstate 10 is a federal interstate highway that runs adjacent to Desert Center and receives heavy commercial and non-commercial travel use. Riverside County designated this portion of Interstate 10 as an Eligible County Scenic Highway. Similar to views from Kaiser and Eagle Mountain roads, the most visible human-made feature on the mountains is the contrast created by the Eagle Mountain mine tailing piles. The distance to the mine reduces the effect because the surrounding mountains are striking compared to the relatively flat valley floor. Because this desert setting with interspersed mountains and valleys covers hundreds of miles, drivers on Interstate 10 may be visually saturated with the regional landscape and would likely not notice the largely inactive mine while traveling at high speeds along the highway. Features in the foreground include the small commercial and residential buildings that comprise Desert Center, the small road network, and various transmission and distribution towers. Desert vegetation has been cleared in more areas surrounding the developed areas, showing a greater amount of the ground surface than in other locations further from town. State Route 177 East and West of Lake Tamarisk—SCE maintains a transmission ROW that cuts across perpendicular to State Route 177 about 3 miles northwest of Lake

203 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Tamarisk. The ROW includes a maintained dirt road between a single wood pole distribution line and a taller double wood pole transmission line that runs directly toward the Eagle Mountain mine and proposed reservoirs site. Similar to the other viewpoints within the basin, the foreground is low lying vegetation with unobstructed views to the mountains that rise from the valley floor in the distance. Historical agricultural fields are adjacent to the highway, with the existing power lines in the foreground. The majority of these fields are not currently under cultivation; however, the remnants of the row cropping technique are still evident. The wood pole electric transmission system dominates the views in this area and is clearly visible, with little in the way of either natural or human-made structures to block their view, aside from the fact that the transmission system features are of similar color to the surrounding environment. Joshua Tree National Park—The JTNP surrounds the proposed reservoirs site on three sides, with the park boundary about 1.5 miles away at the closest point. The historical iron ore mining operations extended away from the pits for some considerable distance in order to stockpile the mine tailings, and evidence of the greater mine footprint (extent of operations) is visible in aerial photography and comes within 1,000 feet of the park boundary at its closest point on the north side of the mine. Generally, this eastern park edge has very few visitor amenities. The Black Eagle Mine Road, within a non- wilderness corridor, provides vehicular access to the Eagle Mountains and connects the JTNP with the Chuckwalla Valley via the Eagle Mountain mine. Complete access is currently precluded by placement of a large boulder in the middle of the road about 2 miles outside the JTNP boundary. The mine area and the proposed reservoirs would be clearly visible from the ridge tops within the JTNP because the views would be unobstructed and the proposed facilities would be in the foreground. This area of JTNP has some historical mines, which may draw hikers exploring the rugged terrain; however, the number of visitors to the entire southeastern portion of the park is low, and few people venture to the ridge tops near the proposed project site.

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects

Recreation

Effects of Construction on Recreation Resources Within the Chuckwalla Valley, construction activity would occur within the Eagle Mountain mine area (proposed reservoirs, intake/outlet structures, and other infrastructure necessary to operate the project); along Eagle Mountain Road (proposed transmission line); near Desert Center (proposed interconnect substation); and across the valley (water pipeline) from near the Desert Center airport to the Eagle Mountain mine area. The proposed reservoirs and appurtenant facilities would be constructed within the existing Eagle Mountain mine, which uses private lands, precluding public access to the area. There are no existing developed recreation facilities. Public access restrictions are

204 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

proposed to continue during the construction period and during operations. The proposed landfill project, discussed in more detail in Land Use, could potentially share other adjacent mine pits, which would also preclude public access to these areas. According to maps developed by the applicant, about 2 miles of the water pipeline would cross BLM lands, and public access to these lands during construction activities would be precluded. The proposed route is adjacent to an existing transmission line ROW with wood pole towers under which is a maintained dirt access road. For about the last 3 miles, the pipeline would parallel Kaiser Road to the reservoir site. Eagle Crest proposes to use the existing road network for access and construction laydown areas. Eagle Crest proposes to coordinate construction schedules with BLM and provide posted notices of construction activity and any temporary road/access closure. According to the proposed construction schedule, these activities would take place over a period of about 4 years (Measure REC-1). Eagle Crest proposes to use Eagle Mountain Road as the primary route for construction related traffic to and from the proposed reservoir site, as well as for construction of the proposed transmission line.

Our Analysis Construction of the proposed transmission line would use Eagle Mountain Road as the main artery for the majority of related traffic (e.g., transporting materials, workers). Access for the construction between the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant and the former town of Eagle Mountain via the road would need to be developed in consultation with Metropolitan Water District (for any access beyond its gate and potential conflicts with its operations) and Kaiser (for access to Eagle Mine Road if the landfill project is granted final approval, including the assignment of road ROWs to Kaiser). Although the transmission line would use the Eagle Mountain Road as access to minimize unnecessary effects on the desert ecosystem from additional spur roads, construction traffic volumes and moving machinery on site to install transmission towers could result in road closures or substantial travel delays. The road does supply access to a number of dirt roads that provide access to the existing Metropolitan Water District transmission lines just outside the JTNP boundary. Hikers wishing to use the Big Wash Hiking Corridor, which connects Black Eagle Mountain Road in JTNP with Eagle Mountain Road near Victory Pass, would be inconvenienced by the presence and activities associated with installing the transmission line outside the park. However, Eagle Mountain Road is not a through road and the number of recreation users expected to be affected by construction activities would be low. Under the applicant’s proposal, posted notices would inform visitors wanting to use this road as access into JTNP or other dispersed areas in the vicinity about construction schedules and potential closures. The volume of motorists affected by potential road closures due to water pipeline construction along Kaiser Road would be minimal and limited to vehicles traveling to the mine site where the road terminates. In addition to restricted access to the existing road under the existing transmission line, OHV and other dispersed recreation users, both

205 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

north and south of the proposed pipeline, would see and hear the construction activity associated with trenching and installing the underground pipeline. No developed recreation facilities are located in the vicinity of the proposed interconnect substation; therefore, construction would not affect existing developed recreational facilities. The site’s proximity to Desert Center suggests dispersed recreation would not exist on these lands because better options exist elsewhere in the area. Aesthetic effects of construction such as hearing noise associated with construction and seeing construction equipment and vehicles are discussed later in this section under Aesthetics. Any aesthetic effects associated with the construction vehicles would not continue beyond the project’s 4-year construction phase.

Effects of Operation on Recreation Resources Eagle Mountain states that the reservoirs would be fenced, and access to the reservoirs and other nearby project features would be controlled through security gates and enforced with onsite personnel. The two proposed reservoirs and appurtenant facilities would occupy the Eagle Mountain mine site, which does not have any public recreation facilities and does not allow public access.

Our Analysis Because recreation was precluded prior to the proposed project, operations associated with the reservoirs, powerhouse, switchyard, brine pools, etc. would not affect existing developed or dispersed recreation activities within this area. Comments received during scoping indicated concern that the proposed project may affect recreational use of nearby Chuckwalla Valley Dune Thicket ACEC (closest project feature is more than 20 miles away). No proposed project features would cross or displace lands within any ACEC within the region. This also includes the Desert Lily Preserve ACEC and Alligator Rock ACEC, which are closer to the project (closest project feature is less than 2 miles away). No developed recreation facilities are located in the vicinity of the proposed interconnect substation; therefore, operation of the substation would not affect existing developed recreational facilities.

Effects of Construction on Recreation in Joshua Tree National Park Construction activities would require blasting, heavy machinery, and security lighting, and would produce associated noises and air emissions during construction. The proposed reservoirs and portions of the transmission lines would be within about 1.5 miles of the JTNP boundary (see figure 15). Eagle Crest proposes to implement night sky monitoring in collaboration with the Park Service during construction and a trial operational period (to measure changes from baseline conditions and adjust project lighting if needed). Eagle Crest proposes that final lighting designs would incorporate directional lighting, light hoods, and operational

206 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

devices that allow to be turned on as needed for safety. Eagle Crest also identifies low pressure sodium or LED lighting as potential light source types (Measure AES-1).

Our Analysis Although the proposed project would be located outside the park, construction activities would be noticeable from points within the park. The degree to which this would degrade the values of solitude and lack of human influence must be weighed within the overall context of the setting. Human influences, including an extensive open pit mine, already exist adjacent to the JTNP and are visible from the same locations within the park from which proposed project features would be visible. The proposed reservoir area would use the mining area on the eastern slope of the mountains, and, if viewers were to reach ridge-top vistas at the extreme eastern boundary of the park, they would also see the larger, pre-existing impacts from historic mining operations and other human modifications to the landscape throughout the Chuckwalla Valley. This would be true for all points on the eastern slope of the Eagle Mountains within the park and these areas that are not easily accessible or normally popular with JTNP visitors. Given the challenges and limited locations of possibly viewing or hearing construction activities, points off Black Eagle Mine Road, within JTNP, would provide visitors a vantage point to see into the proposed reservoirs. We estimate that the annual number of park users potentially affected by daytime construction would be in the low hundreds59. Construction effects would begin in the first year and continue throughout the remaining period of construction, estimated by Eagle Crest to be 4 years. Construction of the proposed transmission line would occur within less than 1 mile at its closest point to JTNP, and slightly farther under the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route. Construction may cause delays or conflict with visitors wanting to access the Big Wash Hiking Corridor on the eastern slope of the mountains near Victory Pass. These construction effects would last 4 years according to the Eagle Crest’s proposed construction schedule. Construction security lighting or possible nighttime lighted construction activity would introduce additional artificial light sources to the Chuckwalla Valley; these effects could be minimized through design specifications. Backcountry campers seeking the remote nature of the eastern portion of the JTNP may experience a decrease in nighttime dark sky conditions, and the dark sky monitoring should quantify and guide design and product selection to help offset these conditions.

59 Based on an estimated 1,000 visitors to the entire region in a year and only a fraction of those who would climb to the peaks for a view.

207 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Effects of Operation on Recreation in the Joshua Tree National Park Although the proposed project would be located outside the park, project features and night lighting would be noticeable from vantage points within the park. As noted previously, Eagle Crest proposes to implement night sky monitoring with the Park Service to help guide lighting product selection and design alternatives to minimize the amount of light pollution originating from the proposed project (Measure AES-1).

Our Analysis Implementation of design techniques to minimize light pollution from security lighting surrounding the reservoirs and switchyard would concentrate light where it would be needed, reducing the amount of light contributed to the general surroundings and potentially visible from sensitive resources or locations. Techniques such as directional lighting, light hoods, and motion sensors are common in landscape design to balance the amount of light for a specific task and the light emanating away from an area. Light pollution is a byproduct of the amount of light, typically measured in lumens or candles, rather than the type of source (e.g., low pressure sodium or LED). Energy efficient lights can be used as proposed by Eagle Crest; however, thoughtful design and product selection should provide sufficient task lighting with reduced pollution. Lighting techniques would be further refined during the project’s late design and early operations phases based on information developed through dark sky monitoring to be conducted by Eagle Creek and the Park Service. This monitoring would help identify and refine lighting techniques to reduce the amount of potential lighting the proposed project would contribute to the erosion of dark night skies in the area and help to identify methods to mitigate these effects. Development of a monitoring plan prepared in consultation with the Park Service that includes specific study methodology, results, recommendations, conclusions and a plan for how lighting design or equipment changes would be implemented after the findings are posted would ensure that night sky conditions are protected and potentially improved over past conditions when the town of Eagle Mountain or state penitentiary were active and provided substantial night lighting to the area. Seeing project features and night lighting would contribute to the degradation of the values of solitude and night sky conditions for visitors using that area.

Land Use

Effects of Construction and Operation of Project Facilities The Eagle Mountain mine site is a historical industrial use area and operation of a pumped storage project would be consistent with the historical, industrial type use of the area; however, the details of securing rights to develop on the property are complex and could be tied to the outcome of the pending land exchange appeal discussed in more detail later in this section. The proposed types of land use, intensive utility or solid waste landfill, are similar to the historical land use activities associated with mining. As proposed, the pumped storage project would operate side-by-side with the proposed

208 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

landfill project (if constructed) within the existing open mine pits. Private landowners, agencies, and others have expressed concerns about the effects of degradation of existing wells based on the proposed groundwater withdrawals for this project. These concerns are discussed in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, and section 3.3.2.3, Water Resources, Cumulative Effects. BLM’s CDCA Plan identifies uses that are considered suitable for each land use zone. Utility features and structures, such as switch yards, transmission lines and towers and outbuildings, alter the setting and may conflict with the intended condition of some of the land use zones. Construction of two reservoirs within existing open mine pits could conflict with existing BLM CDCA Plan. Further, new transmission lines can add visual elements to the landscape away from the existing open pit mines that contrast with traditional land uses. The proposed storage area and desalinization ponds would be located adjacent to the Eagle Mountain town site in an area south of the now-closed state penitentiary. Depending on the exact location of the ponds, construction of the ponds may require demolition of some portion of the structures associated with the now-closed state penitentiary. The town site is largely vacant; however, according to the license application, a small number of residences remain occupied. The proposed project features, including the transmission line, would be sited just a few hundred feet outside the west and south sides of the Eagle Mountain town site. Eagle Crest proposes to use existing access roads surrounding the proposed reservoir sites, also indicating that construction access to/from the proposed interconnect substation site would be from the Eagle Mountain Road exit off Interstate 10 and following the Frontage Road east to the site (Measure LU-1). Two weeks prior to beginning construction, the applicant proposes to post notices locally stating the hours of operation for construction near the Desert Center community and along State Route 177 (Measure LU-2). Eagle Crest’s proposed 13.5-mile-long transmission line would parallel the existing Eagle Mountain Road for about 4.5 miles before crossing the Chuckwalla Valley in a southeasterly direction to connect to the proposed interconnection collector substation on the western edge of Desert Center. The proposed water pipeline that would supply the reservoirs with water would be buried near an existing transmission line or road ROWs from near the Desert Center Airport to the Eagle Mountain mine. Interior, in response to the REA notice, states its preference that the proposed transmission lines be co-located with existing transmission lines near the project site. As described in section 1.3.2.2, California Environment Quality Act, and section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, the State Water Board’s preferred substation location, along with the proposed substation near Desert Center, is shown in figures 2, 16, and 18.

209 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

210

Figure 18. Land use near the applicant’s proposed and State Water Board’s and Interior’s preferred alternative substations locations and associated transmission routes (Source: Eagle Crest, 2010a, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

In comments filed on the draft EIS, Interior clarified that its preferred alternative transmission line route is along Kaiser Road. This alternative route would follow the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route to Kaiser Road, turn south and parallel Kaiser Road for about 5.2 miles, and then turn east and travel about 0.9 mile to a crossing over State Route 177. From here, the route would travel southeast for 0.8 mile and east for 3.7 miles, and turn south about 2 miles to the substation. In total, this alternative route is 18.6 miles long. Figure 18 shows land ownership and use in the applicant’s proposed, and the State Water Board’s and Interior’s preferred substation locations and associated transmission line routes. In its comments on the draft EIS, Metropolitan Water District states that to avoid potential conflicts with its ROWs, Metropolitan Water District requires entities to submit design plans for any activity in the area of its pipelines or facilities for its review and written approval. This requirement also apply to Eagle Crest’s accessing the Eagle Mountain mine site via Eagle Mountain Road, which is gated just south of Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant. In his comments on the draft EIS, Mr. Phillip Hu states that construction and operation of the proposed transmission and water pipelines would compromise his ability to pursue his business goals for his property outside Desert Center. Mr. Hu states that placement of the lines across his property would disrupt future development plans by reducing the amount of usable land for the large-scale type of development envisioned there. The proposed water pipeline would cross undeveloped public (BLM) and some previously farmed privately owned lands. Proposed pipelines would be tunneled underneath State Route 177 and the Colorado River Aqueduct.

Our Analysis As with other construction effects, noise and dust would likely affect the few residents of the town site; however, these activities are not uncommon to the historic and much larger operations that occurred during construction of the penitentiary and normal operations of the mine. The heavy construction activity required to build the two reservoirs and associated facilities would be consistent with prior activities of the mine site (blasting, truck traffic, and heavy machinery use). These activities would also be consistent with the activities associated with proposed landfill operations. Construction effects are estimated to be finished within 4 years. Development of the proposed lower reservoir would present a potential conflict with certain mineral reserve interests, because the area would be inundated upon implementation of the proposed project. There are no plans to recover these reserves at this time due to the current economics associated with the remaining reserves. These mineral reserves are under the control of the California State Lands Commission. The use of the eastern mining pit as a reservoir would restrict the recovery of these mineral reserves during the life of the project.

211 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

The proposed transmission route would cross BLM lands that are managed as Multiple Use Class designations “Limited” and “Moderate” (defined above in section 3.3.5.1, Land Use, Affected Environment) as part of the NECO Plan, including crossing about 6 miles of the DWMA. After crossing the Colorado River Aqueduct southeast of the reservoirs, 4.5 miles of the proposed route would be sited within a designated BLM utility corridor identified in the NECO Plan. The remaining 9 miles of the proposed route would be located outside the corridor. Consequently, BLM would need amendment to the CDCA Plan prior to issuing a ROW grant to construct within the corridor. Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route, which would parallel Kaiser Road, would lengthen the transmission line by about 5 miles and cross a total of 109.1 acres of private lands within the 200-foot-wide ROW. Of those private lands outside the Eagle Mountain town site area, the land is currently undeveloped, and aerial imagery shows no disturbances to the desert landscape. Construction of this alternative route could require the development of temporary access roads; however, most of the route could be developed via the existing road network. A BLM ROW access permit would be required along with a request to amend the NECO Plan to accommodate the almost 6 miles of proposed lines outside the NECO Plan’s utility corridor. Three road crossings would be required—Kaiser Road, State Route 177, and Interstate 10. Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route would require additional coordination and permitting with the California Department of Transportation for the crossing of Interstate 10. Under Interior’s preferred alternative, 5.3 miles (128.5 acres of ROW) of the transmission line (paralleling Kaiser Road) would be located within the DWMA, and 4.5 miles (109.1 acres of ROW) would go through designated critical habitat. Construction of Interior’s preferred route along Kaiser Road would affect the residents of Lake Tamarisk with increased construction traffic, noise, dust, and delays along the road with construction of the lines within 100 feet of the entrance to the community. Effects of Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route and the other routes on wildlife are discussed in section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, subsection Wildlife. Under the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route, about 86 percent of the 12.5-mile-long transmission line would be located on the north side of an existing 161-kV wood H-frame transmission line owned by SCE. This alternative route would pass near several residences near the existing SCE line north of the Kaiser Road crossing. East of the Kaiser Road crossing, the remainder of the route would be, at a minimum, more than 0.5 mile from existing residences. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would cross 203.7 acres of private land (compared with 92.9 acres for the proposed transmission line route) and would avoid, for the most part, the region’s DWMA and designated desert tortoise critical habitat (<0.1 mile of DWMA compared with 5.9 miles for the proposed route and 5.3 miles in

212 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Interior’s preferred route and 1.0 mile of critical habitat compared with 6.160 miles for the proposed route and 4.5 miles in Interior’s preferred route). Again, under this alternative route, three road crossings would be required—Kaiser Road, State Route 177, and Interstate 10. Similar to Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route, the State Water Board’s preferred route would require additional coordination and permitting with the California Department of Transportation for the crossing of Interstate 10. Under the State Water Board’s preferred alternative, the line would pass within about 0.75 mile of the Chuckwalla Valley Raceway (the former Desert Center Airport). Several abandoned agricultural fields would be crossed by this alternative route where it would parallel the existing H-frame ROW between Kaiser Road and several miles south of State Route 177. Overall, this alternative transmission line route would be about 3 miles longer than the applicant’s proposed route.

Eagle Crest’s proposed interconnection collector substation would convert about 25 acres of currently vacant public land managed by BLM to project facilities, and the State Water Board’s preferred substation location would convert about 75 acres of land also managed by BLM. A planned transmission line (Devers-Palo Verde No. 2) is expected to be constructed by SCE paralleling the south side of Interstate 10 and to which the State Water Board’s preferred substation would be directly connected. Construction of the applicant’s proposed project transmission line and substation would have short- term effects (e.g., noise, dust, and traffic) on the nearby residences of Desert Center, but the State Water Board’s preferred substation location would be in a remote area without any nearby residences. Construction activities would be consistent with the Multiple Use Class Moderate land designation and would last less than 4 years.

Operation of Eagle Crest’s proposed substation or other substation would change the current vacant nature of the site with utility uses, permanently altering the land use. The applicant’s proposed substation and the State Water Board’s preferred substation would also preclude the public from dispersed recreation uses on the public lands, although the sites are likely less desirable than other locations within the Chuckwalla Valley, as described elsewhere in this section under Recreation Resources. Use of the Eagle Mountain Mine Road exit off Interstate 10 and Frontage Road into Desert Center as proposed by the applicant would minimize construction-related traffic in the residential community of Desert Center. The Desert Center exit off of Interstate 10 serves Desert Center, Lake Tamarisk, and motorists traveling State Route 177. Use of the proposed route (Eagle Mountain Mine Road) would minimize the amount of road damages, dust, traffic congestion and delays and other nuisances associated with construction traffic near the residential center. Eagle Crest would be required to secure use of Eagle Mountain Road for project purposes if the road becomes private under the landfill project proposal. Truck traffic congestion associated with

60 A total of 5.9 miles of this length is also included in the DWMA.

213 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

operation of both projects would be minimal because of the proposed use of Eagle Mountain railroad for hauling trash to the central mine area. Construction activities and the staging of materials could temporarily obstruct access to small portions of Metropolitan Water District lands, easements, facilities, transmission lines, and water conveyance facilities. Additionally, construction vehicle traffic over the Colorado River Aqueduct could damage sensitive infrastructure. Consultation with Metropolitan Water District about design plans, such as construction access for activities in the area of its pipelines or facilities including the Colorado River Aqueduct, would avoid conflicts or obstructions with Metropolitan Water District’s facilities and operations. Publically posting the proposed construction schedule and potential closures or delays would be a courtesy to local residents and motorists passing through the area. Construction of the State Water Board’s and Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line routes and substation location would result in more construction traffic in the Desert Center area as compared with the applicant’s proposed transmission line route and substation location. Twenty-nine acres of agricultural lands would be affected during construction of the water pipeline, while about 3 acres would be required for operations in new pipeline ROW. Review of recent aerial photography indicates that the farmlands in which the proposed water pipeline would be sited have not recently been used for agriculture purposes. The proposed open-cut, sidecast construction method would have temporary short-term effects on any active cropland. There are no structures, residential or otherwise, within 500 feet of the proposed water pipeline through the agricultural lands. Construction activities would not last more than 4 years, after which farming activities could resume, assuming appropriate settling of the restored surface has occurred. Even though very few residential structures would be affected, construction and operation of the water pipelines could reduce or limit land use opportunities, including those currently proposed and those yet to be conceived, in the currently undeveloped private parcels they would cross. However, a current landowner, Phillip Hu, has tentative plans to convert some of the land he owns into recreational vehicle and mobile home parks. According to Eagle Crest, effects on private lands would be minimized to the extent practicable during construction. Typically, the principal measures that would help mitigate effects would be ensuring that construction proceeds quickly and minimizing the nuisance effects of noise and dust. However, Eagle Crest has provided minimal information beyond the mitigation measures it would use to regrade sidecast materials, minimize disturbance, address effects of construction, and revegetate the disturbed areas with native plants.

214 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Effects of Construction on Proposed Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center Issues surrounding the compatibility of the two proposed projects sharing the same general area and adjacent footprints are complex. The proposed pumped storage project was designed to be constructed and operated simultaneously with the approved landfill project, but the landfill project was not designed, planned, or permitted to operate simultaneously with another project. Both project concepts have moved through various stages of regulatory permitting over the last 20 years, and the anticipated start date for the landfill project is further complicated by the U.S. Supreme Court denial (March 28, 2011) to hear Kaiser’s appeal of the 9th District Court of Appeals upholding of an earlier decision that the proposed land swap between Kaiser and BLM is illegal. Eagle Crest suggested that the pumped storage project would be constructed first, which may cause problems for construction of the landfill as currently designed. Additionally, the pumped storage project proposes to use mine tailings in securing the mine pits and dams during reservoir construction; materials also proposed for use for landfill operations. The proposed project would be constructed at the now non-operational Eagle Mountain mine, and certain facilities would be located on lands that also have been designated for the municipal landfill operation. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved the landfill project in 1992. The proposed 4,659-acre landfill would be constructed in phases over a period of many decades. Construction and operation of each phase of the landfill would progress from west to east as shown in figure 17. Initiation of the landfill is contingent on the landfill operator owning all the fee lands included in the proposal. To achieve this prerequisite, the landfill business venture and BLM had agreed on a land exchange; however, that decision was brought to court, where the exchange was overturned. This decision was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 10, 2009.61 BLM has decided not to appeal this decision; however, Kaiser has decided to pursue an appeal, continuing the legal procedures to construct the landfill. According to Eagle Crest, the proposed pumped storage project is designed to be operationally compatible with the proposed landfill should the land exchange be consummated and both projects move forward. Due to circumstances outside this proceeding, it is unclear if the proposed landfill project would be permitted. Although this issue is unresolved, we discuss the potential effects of the landfill if constructed.

61 National Parks v. Kaiser Eagle Mountain, No. 05-56908 D.C. No. CV-99- 00454-RT Opinion, available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/11/10/05-56814.pdf, accessed May 6, 2011.

215 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Our Analysis Eagle Crest’s application was developed assuming construction of the project would precede construction of the landfill and there would be no overlapping construction activities. Construction of the pumped storage project first would allow the energy infrastructure to be developed without construction congestion from two major projects. Because the approval process for both projects is out of the developer’s hands at this time, calculating the timing of construction schedules is not possible. If the past is any indication of the potential timing, the landfill project is still a couple of years away from a court decision, and additional time might be needed to secure any expired permits prior to starting construction. Similarly, regulatory approval and securing financing could delay the pumped storage project and theoretically the two could start construction simultaneously. Construction of both projects simultaneously would pose challenges and necessitate strong communication between parties to ensure the projects are designed and constructed to operate in such proximity. Although the two projects are proposed for the same general area, the proposed pumped storage project facilities would be constructed and operated either underground or away from the proposed initial landfill footprint, while the proposed landfill would operate on the land surface. Although the proposed powerhouse would be underground, the land surface above this feature would, during Phase 3 of the landfill project, receive waste material for permanent storage and burial in the landfill. The proximity of these two projects may be suitable from a land use perspective because they would both be contained within the greater footprint of the historic mine operations; however, the technical details are beyond the scope of this analysis at this time. Other proposed pumped storage project facilities such as the substation, staging, storage and administration area and the reverse osmosis system and desalination ponds would be constructed south of the proposed landfill.

Effects of Operation on Proposed Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center During the first four phases62 of the proposed landfill project, no overlap would occur between the landfill disposal areas and lands required for the proposed pumped storage project except for use of the primary access road into the site. The pumped storage project reservoirs would use the central and eastern mining pits, areas that are not proposed to be used during Phases 1 through 4 of the landfill. The project powerhouse and water conveyance tunnels would be constructed underground. Landfill compatibility plans submitted by Eagle Crest show that both proposed project features would be constructed to operate simultaneously with both projects within feet of each other in

62 The proposed landfill project would be constructed over 4 phases that would proceed over 50 years, depending on volume of waste delivered. The phases would proceed using the existing open mine pits from the west (near the proposed upper reservoir) to the east (toward the central mine pit).

216 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

some places. For example, Phase 1 of the landfill would abut the proposed south saddle dam of the upper, (central mining pit) reservoir. Proposed Phase 5 of the landfill is projected to begin in about year 84 of operations, and it could include overlapping uses in the vicinity of the eastern mining pit, the lower reservoir for the pumped storage project.

Our Analysis The landfill was approved by Riverside County for a 50-year operation. However, Phase 5 is not a part of the County-approved landfill project. Solid waste management has changed dramatically since the landfill project was originally proposed (e.g., implementation and increasing participation rates of recycling programs and other existing and new landfill sites currently available) and the need to permit Phase 5 could be pushed back beyond the original 50-year estimate. Eagle Crest states that its proposed project is designed to minimize the areas of overlap to avoid potential conflict among the two proposed projects. Such design provisions include the location of staging areas, realignment of the proposed transmission line, and use of fine tailings for components of the dam structure. Comparison of the extent of visible historical earth work and modifications throughout the Eagle Mountain mine property show that there is sufficient room to design and construct these two different projects in the same general location separated by both vertical and horizontal spacing, depending on the specific location and based on Eagle Crest’s proposal; however, the landfill project has not developed a design for the technical details of such a working relationship.

Effects of Construction and Operation of Project Desalinization Ponds on Land Use Eagle Crest proposes to initially fill the reservoirs and maintain the water level in the project reservoirs from groundwater wells in the Chuckwalla Valley. Groundwater quality in combination with evaporative losses would increase the salinity, posing a risk of accelerated wear on the project structures and possible groundwater leakage. To maintain salinity and total dissolved solids levels within the reservoirs equal to that of the groundwater, the applicant proposes to construct and use a reverse-osmosis system to treat water supply in the reservoir system. Water for treatment would be drawn from the upper reservoir while treated water would be returned to the lower reservoir and the concentrated brine from the reverse-osmosis process would be directed to about 56 acres of evaporation and solidifying ponds.

Our Analysis Eagle Crest estimates that about 2,500 tons of salt would be removed from the reservoirs each year and that these solids produced from the evaporation and solidifying ponds would need to be removed once every 10 years. Eagle Crest does not provide

217 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

information on the fate of these solids. We determined that the weight of salt is about 75 pounds/cubic foot or about 1 ton per yard, and each highway-approved haul truck is capable of carrying about 20 yards. We estimate that the removal of 1 year of salt (2,500 tons) would require about 125 truck trips. If removal were scheduled in 10-year intervals as proposed, the disposal would require about 1,250 truck trips, or substantially fewer train trips if the privately owned Eagle Mountain Railroad is used to move the salt. Until potential uses and destinations are developed, Eagle Crest would have sufficient space within the proposed brine ponds to store this material for decades; however, it is not clear if this would significantly alter the utility of the remaining space within the ponds if they were used as storage for long periods. Eagle Crest would be responsible for the appropriate disposal of these solids, which could include transport to the proposed neighboring landfill or yet-to-be-determined, market-based opportunities (e.g., use in molten fluids for proposed concentrated solar projects throughout the region). The potential effects of brine water seeping into groundwater and surface waters are discussed in sections 3.3.2, Water Resources.

Aesthetics

Effects of Construction on Viewsheds Construction and operation of the proposed project would use the existing iron ore mine, a substantially disturbed area within the Eagle Mountains, and would also introduce new visual elements in the viewsheds of BLM land throughout the Chuckwalla Valley, adjacent JTNP, and the small communities of Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center. These views would include the reservoirs, dams, power lines, water pipeline ROW, fences, brine ponds, graded and revegetated landscapes, and buildings. Construction of the proposed reservoirs and associated facilities (e.g., powerhouse, reverse-osmosis facility, brine ponds, substation, switch yard, storage area, and surge tank) would occupy lands previously disturbed by historical Eagle Mountain mining operations. No new roads would be developed to access the mine site because access to the site would use the existing Kaiser Road; however, additional access roads to proposed project facilities would be required. These new roads would provide access to the upper reservoir dams, inflow and outflow structures, the upper surge chamber and the access tunnel portal, and the storage/administration area. The road to the access tunnel portal and the storage/administration would be paved with asphaltic concrete; the other roads would be gravel surfaced. Construction of the proposed 13.5-mile transmission line would occur within a 200- foot ROW, resulting in effects on a total of 327 acres required for the lines. The transmission lines would connect to a new interconnection collector substation that would be built on 25 acres near Desert Center. The buried water pipeline would run in an almost straight line from the well fields northwest to the proposed lower reservoir, a distance of about 16 miles.

218 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

During construction, Eagle Crest proposes to reduce the sidecast material to minimize the contrast that the excavated material would pose to the surrounding landscape and revegetate the fill material with native vegetation after construction. As described in section 1.3.2.2, California Environment Quality Act, and section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, the State Water Board has presented its preferred alternative transmission line route and substation location. Figure 19 provides the applicant-prepared VRM classes in the proposed and preferred alternative substation locations and associated transmission line routes. Eagle Crest proposes a number of design elements and construction methods that are aimed at reducing the potential effects of construction activities of the proposed project on the aesthetic resources, including the following:  Incorporate directional lighting, light hoods, low pressure sodium bulbs or LED lighting, and operational devices in final design to allow surface night- lighting in the central site to be turned on as needed for safety and fund night sky monitoring to be conducted in collaboration with the Park Service during the post-licensing design period, construction and a trial operational period (AES-1).  Combine and organize staging areas and areas needed for equipment operation and material storage and assembly with construction lands to the extent feasible to minimize total footprint needed (AES-2).  For construction of the water pipeline, reduce, to the extent possible, side-cast soils to reduce color contrast with the surrounding landscape. Backfill the pipeline disturbed zone and revegetate with native vegetation immediately following completion of pipeline construction (AES-3).  Employ visual mitigation in the design of the transmission line to minimize visual effects (AES-4).  Use existing access roads and construction laydown areas to the extent feasible and revegetate with native vegetation immediately following construction (AES-5). Interior, in response to the REA notice, recommended the proposed transmission lines be co-located with existing transmission lines near the project site. In comments filed on the draft EIS, Interior clarified that its preferred alternative transmission line route is located along Kaiser Road. This alternative route would follow the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route to Kaiser Road, turn south and parallel Kaiser Road for about 5.2 miles, then turn east and travel about 0.9 miles to a crossing over State Route 177. From here the route would travel southeast for 0.8 mile and east for 3.7 mile, the turn south about 2 miles to the substation. In total, this alternative is 18.6 miles long. The three transmission routes are depicted in figure 19 and other figures.

219 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

220

Figure 19. Visual resources in the substation and transmission line areas (Source: State Water Board, 2010, as modified by staff).

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Our Analysis Construction of the proposed project would require using on- and off-road construction vehicles, machinery, and equipment to move earth; transport and place fill; grade the proposed project footprint; drill, blast, and excavate tunnel sites; store and move raw materials; and develop other infrastructure (e.g., new roadways and underground utilities). As proposed by Eagle Crest, making efficient use of construction staging areas; using existing roads, ROWs, and construction lay-down areas to the fullest extent possible; and revegetating areas that are disturbed and unnecessary for operations would help limit the introduction of visual elements to the viewshed (AES-2, AES-3 and AES-5). The most common views of the construction activity and the resulting changes in landscape would be from public roads. To most viewers, construction within the existing footprint of the mine would be similar to past mining operations with active heavy machinery and earth moving equipment associated with developing the new hydro structures at the site. Because of its location on the mountain side and unobstructed setting, a portion of construction activities at the mine site would be visible from parts of the Chuckwalla Valley and potentially from as far away as Interstate 10. Activities would be most visible to people traveling along the local roads in the Chuckwalla Valley; however, the overall anticipated number of viewers is expected to be small given that both Kaiser and Eagle Mountain roads are not through routes and the overall sparsely populated nature of the area results in low traffic volume on State Route 177. Motorists travelling on Interstate 10 in the vicinity of Desert Center represent the largest number of viewers potentially affected by construction, and view durations would likely be short because of the high travel speeds (posted 70 mph speed limit) through this area and because the long viewing distances would obscure any details of the activity. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would cross Interstate 10 and result in the motorists being able to see construction activity from Interstate 10. Construction, especially of the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route, could compromise the County’s designation of this portion of Interstate 10 as an Eligible County Scenic Highway. Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route would be the same as the State Water Board’s preferred route to Kaiser Road, then parallel the road toward Desert Center. After routing around Desert Center, the transmission line route would parallel Interstate 10 for about 5 miles before crossing the interstate to the State Water Board’s preferred substation location. This route would position the transmission lines in proximity to the interstate and provide the longest duration views to motorists because it would run parallel the interstate. Similarly, construction of this route would be clearly visible to motorists on Kaiser Road, the residents of Lake Tamarisk and areas around Desert Center (e.g., residences and the frontage road paralleling Interstate 10). Construction of Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route could compromise

221 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

the County’s designation of this portion of Interstate 10 as an Eligible County Scenic Highway. Construction activities would conflict with the existing aesthetics experienced by hikers venturing to the mountains surrounding the mine site from within JTNP since operations at the mine have essentially ceased; however, construction would be confined to an area previously disturbed during past mining activities. These effects would last for the duration of the construction activities (about 4 years). Proposed construction within the largely inactive mine area would be consistent with the applicant-prepared “Class IV” VRM scenery rating. Transmission line construction activities would introduce heavy machinery into the area to construct the tower pads, erect the poles, and string the lines. Additionally, construction of the interconnection collector substation would require grading the site and building a series of transformers and associated electrical equipment that would be stored in a chain-link fence area. Although Eagle Crest proposes to use existing roads and access routes, additional access spurs may be required in areas where the alignment is proposed to be located away from existing road network. Constructing the additional road spurs would cause visible scars within the desert landscape. These new spurs would introduce new linear elements into the landscape. Construction of the proposed transmission alignment across BLM land would introduce new cultural modification into the landscape, but not enough of a modification to justify lower VRM class ratings. Construction of the 54 to 68 towers, or more for the longer State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route, would introduce new structures, adding human development into the viewshed. The vegetation, which is generally low, brush type shrubs, would provide only marginal screening for these tall and linear features. Views of the proposed transmission alignment within the Chuckwalla Valley, except for locations near the proposed transmission alignment, would generally be in the middle ground and foreground views to most viewers (residential centers or major roads). Segments of the proposed transmission alignment would be close to both the Eagle Mountain Road and Interstate 10, but the proposed transmission line would cross only Eagle Mountain Road. Consequently, there are numerous points where the transmission towers and corridors would be visible in the foreground, middle ground, and background. Aligning the transmission line to cross Eagle Mountain Road at an approximate 90 degree angle would slightly reduce its visual effect on road users (AES-4). Excavation of the pipeline within the Chuckwalla Valley would be visible from motorists on most travel routes in the valley including State Route 177, Kaiser Road, and Eagle Mountain Road. Excavation of the pipeline that crosses State Route 177 and the section that parallels Kaiser Road would be clearly visible; however, the expected number of motorists on Kaiser Road in this vicinity would be minimal. Construction would introduce a visible scar across the desert valley and revegetation without assistance (e.g., watering) may take years for the site to fully recover, during which OHV use would pose a risk to the recovery process.

222 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Effects of Operation on Viewsheds Eagle Crest proposes to construct two saddle dams surrounding the existing central mine pit that is proposed as the upper reservoir. At its maximum normal water level, the upper reservoir would have a surface area of 191 acres at an elevation of 2,485 feet. This proposed reservoir requires two dams, one 1,100 feet long with a height of 60 feet and the other 1,300 feet long with a height of 120 feet. The proposed lower reservoir would occupy what is now referred to as the eastern mine pit of the Eagle Mountain mine. Other than preparation of the earthen materials within the pit, no new dam would be constructed at this location. At its normal full water level, the reservoir would have a surface area of 163 acres at an elevation of 1,092 feet. The proposed reservoir areas would include storage buildings, a substation, reverse-osmosis facilities, brine ponds, lighting, and security fencing around the entire area. The entire proposed project area near the reservoirs would be fenced and public access would be precluded. Eagle Crest indicates that facilities would have security lighting. Eagle Crest proposes that lighting would be designed to minimize light pollution through the use of directional lighting, lower intensity lights (e.g., low pressure sodium bulbs or LEDs), and operational devices to allow surface night-lighting surrounding the proposed project facilities to be turned on as-needed (e.g., motion detection). The lighting design and product selections contribution to light to the night sky would be monitored for a trial operational period. The presence of between 54 and 68 steel lattice towers, or more for the State Water Board’s preferred transmission line route, ranging in height from 175 to 235 feet with new electrical transmission wires, would introduce new, vertical human infrastructure into the Chuckwalla Valley. Towers would be spaced about 1,000 feet apart (depending on the local topography). North of the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant, the proposed route would cross and parallel existing wood pole transmission lines and the Kaiser railroad, adding another human-made element into the landscape. South of the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant, the proposed transmission line route would parallel the existing Eagle Mountain Road for about 4 miles before turning southeast to the interconnection collector substation site. The transmission line would introduce a new feature into the landscape and create a new vertical visual contrast that parallels the existing road. This line segment would be within the middle ground viewing distance to the greatest number of viewers (all of the lower Chuckwalla Valley, including Lake Tamarisk, Desert Center, and Interstate 10). Eagle Crest proposes to site the tower structures so that they would not be positioned on the highest topographical points along the route to minimize their effect on the desert landscape. As described in section 1.3.2.2, California Environment Quality Act, and section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, the State Water Board’s preferred substation location would be east of Desert Center. Figure 19 provides visual resources

223 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

in the proposed and State Water Board’s and Interior’s preferred substation locations and the associated transmission line routes. The proposed interconnection collector substation is proposed to have security fencing and lighting to prohibit trespass. This substation would be located less than a quarter mile west of Desert Center and would be clearly visible to residents and motorists on Interstate 10. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative substation location would be on the south side of Interstate 10 and slightly closer to Interstate 10 than the proposed substation location near Desert Center. During the evening public scoping meeting for the draft EIS on February 3, 2011, Renee Castor, chairman of the Desert Center Chamber of Commerce stated that the town is in favor of the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route and substation location. The reasons stated for this preference included the negative effects of the other substation locations and transmission routes on the only viable commercial property in the town and the effects on the visual resources for the residents of Desert Center.

Our Analysis Under Eagle Crest’s proposal, the reservoirs, dams, spillway, fencing, substation, reverse osmosis plant, brine ponds, and storage area would introduce new and different uses into the historical Kaiser iron ore mine. Proposed project features near the reservoirs would be visible from areas within the Chuckwalla Valley; however, the details would be difficult to ascertain because the features would be in the viewers’ middle ground and within the already disturbed Eagle Mountain mine site. These structures would supplement additional lines and structures into the already heavily manipulated landscape within the mine footprint. The presence of water within the two proposed reservoirs would introduce a new visual feature absent from previous operations and completely different from the surrounding desert landscape. Because of the site’s setting in the Eagle Mountains, views of the water would be possible only from higher vantage points, which in the local area is limited to the peaks mostly within the JTNP. Recreation estimates mentioned in section 3.3.5, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, indicate that the mountains in the southeastern portion of the park receives very low use levels (tens of people per day). Locations within the JTNP that provide views of the proposed project features would also include views of the Chuckwalla Valley, which includes in the foreground the existing disturbed setting surrounding the mine from historical mining operations as well as existing transmission lines, the Eagle Mountain town site, and Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant. From within Chuckwalla Valley, the reservoirs would be most visible in the foreground and middle ground distance, with diminished visibility proportional to the observer’s distance. Views of the proposed facilities, most notably the flat top of the upper reservoir dam, could be visible from Kaiser Road and State Route 177; however, the flat lines would be consistent with the existing terraced look of the tailings piles, and

224 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

given the distances, topographical obstructions would mask the new facilities to most viewers. Given the distance to Interstate 10 still further southeast, it is unlikely that the majority of the public would be able to discern the features associated with the reservoirs as separate or unique from the existing features related to the historical mining operations. Operation of the proposed reservoirs would not justify any change to the BLM VRM Class C designation. Implementation of night sky monitoring, as requested by the Park Service, would help gather the data necessary to understand the potential changes to the night sky due to proposed project security lighting. Development of a specific night sky monitoring study and plan in consultation with the Park Service, as described above, would ensure that findings from the monitoring result in design or product selection that minimizes light pollution from project sources. Incorporation of low-light emitting policies and design elements would prevent further degradation of the dark night sky in close to the JTNP, thereby preserving wilderness qualities in areas out of direct sightlines of the proposed facilities. Visibility of transmission lines within the Chuckwalla Valley would be greatest to motorists on Eagle Mountain Road near the town site and Kaiser Road (both of which have low traffic volumes) because this section would be in the middle ground. This transmission line section would also be visible to hikers on or near the ridge tops in the JTNP designated wilderness area and lower elevations within the park within the wilderness buffer zone. From these vantage points the proposed transmission alignment would be in the foreground and middle ground viewing distances. Because there are existing wood pole transmission lines, rail lines, an abandoned air strip, the existing Colorado River Aqueduct switchyard and forebay associated with the pumping plant, and a small cluster of residential buildings in the view, the proposed transmission line would be incremental to the existing visual conditions within this portion of the alignment. Towers built with dull finish and carrying conductors with qualities that reduce glare and visual contrast as proposed by Eagle Crest, would be consistent with construction trends designed to minimize visual contrast from new transmission lines. At its closest point, the proposed transmission line route that parallels the existing Eagle Mountain Road, would be less than a mile from the JTNP boundary; however, visual contrast observed from locations within the JTNP currently includes the existing power line to the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant, numerous dirt roads in the area, and the railroad in the foreground. As previously discussed, the southeast area of JTNP receives a very little amount of visitor use. This segment of the line would parallel Eagle Mine Road, minimizing the amount of disturbances required in developing access spur roads to construct and maintain the towers. This section of the proposed line would not justify a lower VRM class rating (existing Class III). Visual contrasts of the proposed access and spur roads and towers would become greater as the route leaves the Eagle Mountain Road and crosses to the proposed interconnection collector substation site 2.5 miles away. This segment would be clearly

225 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

visible in middle- and foreground viewsheds from key viewpoints, notably Interstate 10, Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center. Visual contrast would be high due to increased visibility of a new utility structure and details introduced into the natural landscape. Although views from Interstate 10 are of short duration, they sweep across the proposed route due to the bend in the interstate alignment, providing panoramic views of the Chuckwalla Valley. Visual effects of the proposed line would be greatest for this segment because it would run across most of the western portion of the lower valley and be located in the foreground of the greatest number of potential viewers, motorists on Interstate 10. Operating the lines as along Kaiser Road as preferred by Interior would add new linear features independent of existing features (Colorado River Aqueduct transmission line, SCE transmission line, and railroad) at the eastern toe of the Eagle Mountains. Continuing the route south along Eagle Mountain Road across Interstate 10 to a new western substation would introduce a new overhead element visible to all highway traffic. Positioning the substation to the south of Interstate 10 reduces the visual contrast of the feature by minimizing its presence in the overall panoramic view; however, the substation’s location would intrude on views of Alligator Rock from east-bound travelers on Interstate 10. This effect would be limited to views within a few miles of the site because the intervening topography blocks direct sightlines of the substation area until it is within the foreground view. Operation of the new substation may result in a new source of light and glare from night lighting. Use of non-reflective materials, designs that minimize light glare (such as shielding and directional light hoods) may reduce these effects. Most of the transmission line would be within middle ground and background view zones. The visual change here would be high and would not meet VRM Class II or III objectives. The State Water Board’s preferred substation location would be to the south of Interstate 10 on lands classified by BLM as VRM Class III. This location is remote and more than 5 miles from the population center of Desert Center. The location is also on the periphery of segments along Interstate 10 that provide maximum panoramic views of the Chuckwalla Valley. The substation’s size and discordant mass of equipment at varying heights would create a strong contrast to the surrounding natural features that would dominate views from Interstate 10 due to its location within foreground distance zones. The substation structures would intrude into views of Alligator Rock. Such views, however, would be brief; the substation becomes most visually apparent about 2 miles out, which at 70 mph would be visible for 2 minutes or less. Planting of desert vegetation at strategic locations and treatment of features (e.g., color, nonspecular material) would reduce visual contrast but not sufficiently within foreground view zones to avoid appearing in the skyline or to meet VRM Class III designations. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would connect with the applicant’s proposed transmission line route north of the Metropolitan Water District’s pumping plant, then parallel SCE’s existing 160-kV wood H-frame transmission line. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route

226 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

would continue to parallel the existing line southeast for about 10 miles before turning south and leaving the existing H-frame line to cross Interstate 10 to the State Water Board’s preferred substation location. This route is also preferred by the Desert Center Chamber of Commerce because it would avoid the town more than the other routes, thus avoiding the effects on commercial property in the town while also limiting the viewing of the substation and transmission lines. More than 60 percent of the route would cross through BLM managed lands with VRM Class III designations while the remainder is Class IV. Some of these lands are currently proposed to be used for large-scale solar projects. The State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line would be located adjacent to an existing transmission line ROW for 10 of its 12.5 miles. The vertical forms of the lattice towers would be visible, but difficult to discern in middle-and background view distances as a result of the scale, existing towers and variable texture of the valley landscape. The route would affect foreground views of travelers on State Route 177 but these would be in addition to the existing SCE 160-kV line along the road sides. With the exception of the Interstate 10 crossing, the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route would create an incremental increase of the visual effect caused by the existing transmission line and would not dominate the view of the casual observer. The level of change created by this alternative would be moderate and would continue to meet the spirit of VRM Class III and IV objectives. About 2 miles from Interstate10, the State Water Board’s alternative transmission line route would turn south and leave the existing transmission line ROW. The vertical form and lines of the lattice towers would become more visible as the route approaches the foreground view zone of Interstate 10. The route’s perpendicular alignment and crossing of Interstate10 would minimize the extent and time the line would be visible from Interstate10 travelers, but the overall change in the foreground view zone caused by the towers and the proposed east substation would be high. Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route would parallel the State Water Board’s preferred route to Kaiser Road where it would turn south, paralleling Kaiser Road to an area near Desert Center turning east and paralleling Interstate 10. More than 60 percent of Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route would parallel existing road ways with half of that along Interstate 10. Interior’s preferred route would also be located independently of other transmission lines already in operation within the Chuckwalla Valley from Kaiser Road to the State Water Board’s preferred substation location. The towers would be located in the foreground and clearly visible to motorists along Kaiser Road and Interstate 10. The level of change by Interior’s preferred alternative route would be moderate and would continue to meet the spirit of VRM Class III and IV objectives. Revegetation of the disturbed areas from installing the underground water pipeline and unneeded construction laydown areas and transmission line access roads is proposed, using native plants that may take decades to mature given the rate at which desert

227 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

ecosystems respond. After the initial filling of the reservoirs, only a single groundwater well is proposed to be retained to provide replacement water to the reservoirs. Although Eagle Crest has not disclosed plans for the exact location or how the well site would be secured (e.g., fencing, building), the site would likely occupy a small footprint.

3.3.5.3 Cumulative Effects Participants in scoping identified concerns about the proposed project’s cumulative effects on recreation and land uses within the Chuckwalla Valley. The proposed project is one of numerous proposed projects for the Chuckwalla Valley that would contribute to past, ongoing, and future effects on future land uses, wilderness values, and dark night sky conditions. Future, planned developments within the Chuckwalla Valley, including additional transmission line projects, the potential landfill, and numerous solar projects are likely to contribute effects on these resources. Recent legislation (California Senate Bill 107, Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard and Executive Order S-14-08) requires that 33 percent of all electricity generated in California originate from renewable sources. This in combination with the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus funding) has resulted in a number of renewable energy proposals to be constructed in the California deserts. In the Desert Center area, five large-scale solar projects have been proposed, totaling more than 30,500 acres, with many more solar energy projects proposed for the greater Mojave Desert. These projects would contribute to the conversion of the rural desert landscape to one potentially filled with utility-grade solar projects and appurtenant facilities including transmission lines. Construction and operation would result in increased traffic and possibly a long-term demand for more services in the Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center areas, further contributing pressure for more land use conversions. Additional congestion and human development in the area would put additional pressure on the dispersed recreation opportunities throughout the area. Development of the proposed project would contribute to conversion of the landscape to one filled with more human-made energy infrastructure; however, the proposed project could also have positive effects on the growing renewable energy industry due to its energy storage capabilities. For example, energy generated from other renewable sources (e.g., wind) at night could be stored and substituted for non-renewable sources when other renewable sources may not be as reliable. Eagle Crest would not be able to choose where its electricity would originate to move the water to the upper reservoir; however, there is a growing concern related to the need for large-scale energy storage systems to better balance the electrical grid. Development and operation of the proposed project in addition to other potential projects, including the landfill and solar projects, may have an effect on the wilderness experiences of visitors to the remote eastern margins of JTNP. As described in the discussion of Aesthetics earlier in this section, these projects would be most noticeable to park visitors near the eastern boundaries. Development of the proposed landfill would

228 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

increase rail and truck traffic in the Eagle Mountain mine area as solid waste is prepared and stored. Hauling of salt produced as part of this project would contribute additional truck traffic to local roads. Utility-scale solar projects are another human development that has the potential to be more visible to JTNP users in the reasonably foreseeable future. Thousands of solar panels or reflection mirrors are proposed to be constructed in the Chuckwalla Valley, which could reflect the sunlight and catch the attention of JTNP users. Currently, there are no solar projects within the Chuckwalla Valley. The development of these projects and the associated security lighting would also contribute to the degradation of night-sky conditions to JTNP visitors to the area overlooking the valley. Construction of the transmission line would add to the cumulative effects on land use because the construction of 13.5 miles of line and dozens of towers would contribute additional energy infrastructure into the Chuckwalla Valley. Siting the line outside the existing BLM utility corridor as proposed would contribute to incremental erosion of the large open spaces the utility corridors are designed to preserve.

3.3.6 Cultural Resources

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the NHPA as amended requires the Commission to take into account the effects of licensing a hydropower project on any historic properties and allow the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment if any adverse effects on historic properties within the hydropower project’s APE are identified. If Native American properties have been identified, section 106 also requires that the Commission consult with interested Native American tribes that might attach religious or cultural significance to such properties. Historic properties are defined as any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. In this document, we also use the term “cultural resources” to include properties that have not been evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register. In most cases, cultural resources less than 50 years old are not considered eligible for the National Register. Cultural resources need enough internal contextual integrity to be considered historic properties. For example, dilapidated structures or heavily disturbed archaeological sites may not have enough contextual integrity to be considered eligible. TCPs are a type of historic property that are eligible for the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that: (1) are rooted in that community’s history; or (2) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (Parker and King, 1998).

229 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Area of Potential Effects Pursuant to section 106, the Commission must take into account whether any historic property could be affected by the issuance of a license within a project’s APE. The APE is determined in consultation with the California SHPO and is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. In this case, the APE for the Eagle Mountain Project includes lands within the proposed project boundary, plus lands outside the proposed project boundary where project operations may affect the character or use of historic properties and/or TCPs. In its AIR response filed December 22, 2009, Eagle Crest states that the APE is identical to the proposed project boundary and includes:  the spillway from the upper reservoir, which would flow into Eagle Creek;  Eagle Creek from the spillway to the lower reservoir;  the spillway from the lower reservoir; and  the access road to the West Saddle dam and to the elevator shaft. The California SHPO stated that it did not object to how the APE was defined (letter from M.W. Donaldson, California SHPO, Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, CA, to Russ Kaldenberg, Principal, ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, CA, December 22, 2009). Several transmission line routes were later considered for the project. As indicated in the HPMP, filed March 4, 2011 (Eagle Crest, 2011), the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route has been included in the APE.

Cultural History Overview

Prehistoric Background The prehistory of Southern California is divided into three temporal periods: Paleo-Indian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric. The Paleo-Indian period dating from 10,000–6,000 B.C. is typified by non-ceramic stone tool assemblages, rock features, and cleared circles in the Colorado Desert, which have been assigned to the San Dieguito pattern (10,000–6,000 B.C.). The San Dieguito pattern represented a hunter-gatherer adaptation by which small, mobile bands exploited small and large game and collected seasonally available wild plants. The Archaic period (6,000 B.C.–A.D. 500) in southern California is typified by the Pinto and Amargosa patterns (6,000 B.C.–A.D. 500), which are considered regional specializations within the widespread hunting-gathering adaptations that characterized the Archaic period. Information suggests that the California deserts were less hospitable during the Archaic period, and that the mobile hunter-gatherers were forced to concentrate around limited locations or move to more habitable regions. The small

230 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

quantity of artifacts at some sites suggests strategically stored food and seed processing equipment that was used by small mobile groups. The Late Prehistoric period (A.D. 500–1900) is typified by the Patayan pattern and innovations such as the introduction of pottery making by the paddle-and-anvil technique, bow-and-arrow technology, and the introduction of floodplain agriculture. Agriculture and ceramics were probably introduced either from northwestern Mexico or from the Hohokam culture on the Gila River in present day Arizona. Between A.D. 1000 and 1700, desert peoples of this region appear to have extended their focus somewhat away from the Colorado River floodplains to a more mobile, diversified resource procurement pattern, with increased travel between the river and Lake Cahuilla to the southwest). Long-range travel to special resource collecting zones and ceremonial locales, trading expeditions, and possibly warfare are reflected by the numerous trail systems seen throughout the Colorado Desert. Pot drops, trailside shrines, and other evidence of transitory activities are often associated with these trails, including within the Chuckwalla Valley and at springs and other water sources in the surrounding mountains and washes. The final recession of Lake Cahuilla by about A.D. 1700 resulted in a return to reliance on the Colorado River floodplain and increasing population growth in the Coachella Valley and San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountains.

Ethnohistoric Background Ethnographically (Post A.D. 1540), the project vicinity was occupied by the Colorado River People, the Desert Cahuilla, and the Chemehuevi. The Colorado River People, known as the Halchidhoma, were a Yuman-speaking group who lived along the Palo Verde Valley of the lower Colorado River Valley, in the vicinity of modern Parker and Blythe. Although somewhat distant from the project area, they are likely to have traveled between their homeland and the Coachella Valley via the Chuckwalla Valley. Foods were procured by seasonal rounds of hunting, fishing, and gathering supplemented by small-scale agricultural practices. The primary source of dietary animal protein came from fish caught in the Colorado River. Residential bases were centered on the Colorado River but conformed to a seasonal pattern. Spring and summer houses were located near agricultural fields, but on the mesas, where they would be safe from floods, open-air ramadas were constructed on the floodplains adjacent to the fields. During the winter season, Colorado River People relocated to residential bases on Colorado River terraces and the lower mountain slopes Likewise, while the principal residential locations of the Desert Cahuilla were in the Coachella Valley and the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto mountains, they were also known to have traveled and maintained cultural contact with Colorado River peoples. The Chuckwalla Valley would have been one of their principal travel corridors for this purpose. A dozen or more independent landholding Cahuilla clans lived within the region. In addition to each lineage’s residential area and other locations within a clan territory, ownership rights to various food-collecting, hunting, and other areas were

231 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

claimed by the various lineages. While villages were occupied year-round, a large number of their inhabitants would leave at specific times to exploit seasonally ripening foods in different environmental zones. Temporary camps would be established in these food-collecting areas, and surpluses would be transported back to the main village. Many animal resources were also hunted. Cahuilla clans were arranged so that each community was placed in an area near water and food resources. Throughout the area there were sacred places used primarily for rituals, inter-clan meetings, caching sacred materials, and shamans’ activities. European diseases probably began to affect the Cahuilla in the early1800s and became particularly severe in the 1860s. In 1876 and 1877, the United States government set aside small reservations for all groups classified as “Mission Indians.” These reservations were established in a checkerboard pattern encompassing 48 sections, spread across the eastern edge of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto mountains and the Coachella Valley. With various additions and withdrawals over time, these lands have remained the permanent land base of the Cahuilla to the present. The Chemehuevi occupied desert areas west of the Mohave and north of the Cahuilla probably in the period between A.D. 1200 and 1500. The Chemehuevi lived in smaller and more mobile groups than the Cahuilla or the Yuman-speakers, in order to adapt to the sparser and more widely distributed and scarcer resources of their desert. The Chemehuevi were great travelers and regularly visited many of their neighbors and may have brought them into the general project area more often than other groups. They subsisted primarily on small game and a wide variety of seasonally available wild plants. The Chemehuevi have distinguished themselves from their Yuman neighbors by their very different mythology, worldview, religious practices, kinship system, and political organization. Between 1865 and 1871 some indigenous groups began moving south to inhabit the newly created Colorado River Reservation. Additional land was added to the Colorado River Reservation in 1874 to encourage the Chemehuevi to move there from areas near Blythe, Needles, Beaver Lake, and Chemehuevi Valley; however, not until the early 1900s did the Chemehuevi agree to move.

Historic Background Extensive mineral exploration in the project vicinity began in the early 1860s. In 1881–1882, Jack Moore staked a claim and with his father and two other partners founded the Eagle Mountain Mining District for the exploitation of iron, gold, and silver. They failed to maintain the necessary assessment work to validate the claim and the area was abandoned for mineral development until 1895. That year L.S. Barnes began to consolidate the claims within the area. He completed his consolidation by 1912 and sold the package to Henry E. Harriman, CEO of the Southern Pacific Railroad. World War II saw an enormous demand for steel, but shortly prior to the war in 1936, the Joshua Tree National Monument was formed, and the boundary included the Eagle Mountain claims, thus protecting the ore bodies from mining. Henry J. Kaiser then took interest in the Eagle Mountain claims. He purchased the Eagle Mountain claims from the Harriman heirs and succeeded in having the Joshua Tree Monument boundaries

232 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

shifted to exclude the Eagle Mountain properties. He then began work in 1944 to survey a new railroad route between Eagle Mountain and the Southern Pacific Railroad. Construction on the railroad began in 1947 and was completed on June 23, 1948, as the Kaiser Industrial Railroad (Eagle Mountain Industrial Railroad). Ore shipment from the mine began immediately, and by 1971 the Eagle Mountain iron mine was producing 90 percent of California’s total iron output. More than 4,000 people were employed in the operation, making the Eagle Mountain mine Riverside County’s largest employer. The company town of Eagle Mountain included schools, fire and police departments, civic facilities, 416 rental houses, 185 trailers, 383 dormitory rooms, and 32 apartments. As a result of establishing the Eagle Mountain mine and employing thousands, Kaiser provided his workers with a comprehensive medical plan, which later became known as Kaiser Permanente. Competition from abroad and other economic factors caused the mine to close in 1983 after 35 years in operation. Much of the housing stock was either removed, left vacant, or vandalized. By 1994, a school, a new low-security prison, and some rental properties remained at Eagle Mountain, but it is largely a ghost town today. The town of Desert Center was founded in 1925 by Stephen Ragsdale and his wife after buying a homestead that was developed about 10 years earlier. The town remains as a waypoint on Interstate 10, which runs near the southern edge of the project area and is a major transportation artery connecting the Los Angeles area with Arizona. The route may have been used prehistorically because it represented a relatively low (but dry) corridor for travel between the lower Colorado River in Palo Verde Valley and the Coachella Valley. During the early twentieth century, as the region’s highway system was gradually developed, the route was known under a succession of different designations, including Legislative Route 64 and U.S. Route 60. Interstate 10 was completed in 1968. The Colorado River Aqueduct runs through the study area. The aqueduct was constructed between 1931 and 1941 by Metropolitan Water District as one of the major Colorado River water delivery public works projects, which also included the construction of Hoover dam and other canals supplying water to southern California. These projects are recognized as pivotal components that allowed the enormous growth of the Los Angeles area during World War II and in the following decades. In 1955 and 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recognized the Colorado River Aqueduct as one of the “Seven Engineering Wonders of American Engineering” (ASCE, 2010). The deserts of southern California and western Arizona became the focus of important military training exercises during World War II. The project area is located near what was once the Desert Training Center, a 10- to 130-square-mile area that was opened on April 30, 1942, as the largest military training installation ever created. This facility had General George S. Patton, Jr., as its first commanding officer and served the vital purpose of training troops for desert warfare conditions and tactics in preparation for

233 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

the North African Campaign. After the Allied victory in North Africa in 1943, an emphasis on desert warfare was no longer necessary. The name of the Desert Training Center was changed to the California-Arizona Maneuver Area (CAMA) on October 20, 1943, and its purpose was expanded to serve as a simulated theater of operations emphasizing large-scale logistics and not exclusively desert warfare training and tactics. The facility provided training for combat troops, service units, and staff under conditions similar to a combat theater of operations until its closure in May 1944. Divisional camps that may have deployed troops into the project area include Camp Desert Center, Camp Iron Mountain, Camp Granite, and Camp Coxcomb, all of which are located north of Desert Center. A network of railroads and roads connected all the divisional camps and depots. Many smaller camps, bivouacs, firing ranges and other facilities were constructed throughout the Desert Training Center/CAMA. The divisional camp nearest the project area was Camp Desert Center; it was located between Camp Young and Desert Center and extended immediately east of Eagle Mountain Road and north of the old highway that preceded Interstate 10. Very little documentary information is currently known for Camp Desert Center, and its specific history and range of functions are not clearly understood. BLM did not include Camp Desert Center in its interpretive plan for the major camps of the Desert Training Center/CAMA, although the interpretive plan includes preservation and interpretive goals for the other major sites. The 34,000-acre area included a barracks area with tent housing, an observer’s camp, an ordinance camp, an evacuation hospital, a quartermaster truck site, and an extensive maneuver area.

Previous Cultural Resources Investigations Eagle Crest conducted a search of cultural resource records housed at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historic Resources Information System at the University of California, Riverside, and at the BLM Palm Springs Field Office. This search was supplemented by a review of reports available at ASM Affiliates. This record search was augmented by additional information provided by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP), a firm that had conducted a recent survey in the project area but had not yet provided a report to the California Historic Resources Information System. The background research identified 56 previous reports within a 1-mile radius of the project APE, of which 27 included portions of the project area proper (ASM Affiliates, 2010, 2009a). As cited by ASM Affiliates (2010, 2009a), previous studies that were found to have addressed significant portions of the project’s APE include Cowan and Wallof (1977; RI-00220), Wallof and Cowan (1977; RI-00222), Carrico et al. (1982; RI-00221), Bull et al. (1991; RI-03321), Love (1994; RI-03949), ASM Affiliates (2003), and the ECORP study (no reference provided). During these previous studies, a total of 123 cultural resource sites were recorded within a 1-mile radius of the project area. Of these, only six sites are located at least

234 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

partially within the project APE: an underground portion of the Colorado River Aqueduct (site P-33-06726), which is crossed by the proposed transmission line route and the proposed and alternative water line corridors; the Eagle Mountain mine and town site (site P-33-006913), two resources associated with the Desert Training Center 36th Evacuation Hospital (P-33-015971, P-33-017642), and two prehistoric sites (P-33- 015091, P-33-015093). The Eagle Mountain town site record includes the railyard and in at least two locations, the project alignment intersects the Eagle Mountain Industrial Railroad, which is considered part of the Eagle Mountain mine and town site complex.

Identified Resources

Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources In March 2009, Eagle Crest conducted an intensive archaeological survey of the accessible portion of the project APE, encompassing 620 acres. A final report titled A Class III Field Inventory for the Proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Riverside California (ASM Affiliates, 2009b) was prepared that presented the results of the fieldwork. The survey area included the 200-foot-wide State Water Board-preferred alternative transmission line route, Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route, other routes, the 60-foot-wide proposed and alternative water line routes, two proposed collection substation locations, and four potential water supply well locations. Access to lands within the APE owned by Kaiser was not granted; these lands, including the Eagle Mountain mine and town site and associated railroad, were not surveyed. In section 6 of its July 2010 supplemental information filing, Eagle Crest presents the preliminary results of ASM Affiliates’ recent archaeological survey of the applicant’s proposed and the State Water Board and Interior’s preferred alternative transmission routes or substation locations (Eagle Crest, 2010a). A summary of the survey results were provided in a letter report titled Results of Class I Record Search and Class III Field Inventory of Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Alternative Transmission Line Corridors and Substations (ASM Affiliates, 2010). In this letter report, ASM Affiliates states that the report only provides the preliminary results of the survey and that an addendum to the original project survey report prepared by ASM Affiliates would be forthcoming. The addendum (ASM Affiliates, 2011) was provided as an appendix to the revised HPMP filed with the Commission on March 4, 2011.

State Water Board’s Preferred Alternative Transmission Line Route The cultural resources survey report (Eagle Crest, 2010a) states that for the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route and substation, cultural resources data were based on the recent survey information provided by ECORP (no reference provided). Based on the records search, the information provided by ECORP, as cited by ASM Affiliates (2011), and the subsequent archaeological survey and HPMP, a total of six archaeological sites were identified within the surveyed portion of the APE as defined

235 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

above, including the Eagle Mountain mine and town site. Table 20 provides a summary of all archaeological sites identified within the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route to date.

Table 20. Archaeological and historic resources within the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route (Source: ASM Affiliates, 2011, 2010, 2009a, as modified by staff). Primary Number/ Temporary National Register Designation Description Date Eligibility P-33-000626 Colorado River 1931–present Unevaluated; assumed Aqueduct eligible P-33-006913 Eagle Mountain 1947–1983 Previously determined not mine and town site eligible (1996); pending (including railroad) re-evaluation DS-326 Two Historic rock 1940s Unevaluated but features (cairns) recommended not eligible DS-327 Historic mining 1950s–1960s Unevaluated but claim marker recommended not eligible DS-330 Historic rock feature Unknown Unevaluated but recommended not eligible DS-495 Historic Desert 1940s Unevaluated Training Center/ California-Arizona Maneuver Area refuse deposit

Although it has not been formally evaluated, Eagle Crest assumes that the Colorado River Aqueduct (P-33-006726) is eligible for listing on the National Register. In the area of the proposed crossings, the aqueduct occurs as a deeply buried, massive, underground pipeline where the transmission line and waterlines would cross the aqueduct route. It is virtually invisible on the surface except for a road and earthen berm. The California SHPO agreed that assuming eligibility of this structure was acceptable (letter from M.F. Donaldson, California SHPO, Office of Historic Preservation Sacramento, CA, to R. Kaldenberg, ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, CA, December 22, 2009). Both the Eagle Mountain mine and the town site are recorded as P-33-006913. This property also includes features associated with the Eagle Mountain Railroad. In a previous consultation, BLM and the California SHPO concurred that this property was

236 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

not eligible for the National Register (letter from C. Widell, California SHPO, Sacramento, CA, to H.R. Bisson, District Manager, BLM, California Desert District, Riverside, CA, December 12, 1996). However, at the time of the original 1996 determination and SHPO consultation, the property did not meet the 50-year age requirement for listing on the National Register. Because it now meets that requirement, the California SHPO subsequently requested re-evaluation of the resource (letter from M.F. Donaldson, California SHPO, Office of Historic Preservation Sacramento, CA, to R. Kaldenberg and J. Schafer, ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, CA, October 26, 2009). Four additional historic-era resources were also recorded within the APE (DS-326, DS-327, DS-330, and DS-495). Site DS-327 is a standing wooden post that appears to be associated with a nearby mining claim but has no documented mine patent or record. In its HPMP, filed March 4, 2011, Eagle Crest recommends that this feature is not eligible for the National Register. Site DS-330 is a historic rock feature that was determined by an ECORP archaeologist to be less than 50 years old (personal communication, E. Denniston, 2010, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2011). In the HPMP, Eagle Crest states that site DS-326, which consists of two historic-era rock cairns, and site DS-495, a moderately dense refuse scatter dating to the World War II-era Desert Training Center/CAMA, require National Register evaluation; however, these two sites have also been recommended to be ineligible (ASM Affiliates, 2011, 2009b). The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians expressed concern with regard to prehistoric trails that may pass through the area (letter from S. Milanovic, Tribal Historic Preservation Office [THPO] Intern, Department of Historic Preservation, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Palm Springs, CA, to G. Gillin, Project Manager, GEI Consultants, Rancho Cordova, CA, August 26, 2008). Such trails may be archaeological in nature and may also be considered TCPs. Eagle Crest responded that it was aware of previously recorded trail segments and associated sites that would have served as alternate travel routes to the Cocomaricopa Trail connecting the Colorado River to the Coachella Valley (letter from R. Kaldenberg, Principal, ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, CA, to Sean Milanovich, THPO Intern, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Palm Springs, CA, September 10, 2009). However, Eagle Crest stated that no evidence of prehistoric or ethnohistoric trails was found within the project APE and that existing records indicated that the trail system was located elsewhere.

Interior’s Preferred Alternative Transmission Line Route Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route would follow the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route to Kaiser Road but would turn south and parallel Kaiser Road for about 5.2 miles, then turn east and travel about 0.9 mile to a crossing over State Route 177. From there, the route would travel southeast for 0.8 mile and east for 3.7 mile, and turn south about 2 miles to the substation. This area is not currently depicted on maps contained within the HPMP as lying within the project APE, but it would be included in the APE if this alternative is ultimately selected for construction.

237 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

A total of 23 cultural resources properties are located within Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route (ASM Affiliates, 2011) (table 21). These properties include the Colorado River Aqueduct and the Eagle Mountain mine and town site that are also located State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route, plus 13 historic refuse deposits, four prehistoric lithic scatters, three historic mining sites, and one prehistoric habitation site. In addition to the Eagle Mountain mine and town site and the Colorado River Aqueduct, only the prehistoric habitation site was recommended as potentially eligible for listing on the National Register because it could provide information relevant to prehistoric use and travel routes within the Chuckwalla Valley.

Table 21. Archaeological and historic resources within the Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route (Source: ASM Affiliates, 2011, as modified by staff). Primary Number/ Temporary National Register Designation Description Date Eligibility P-33-000626 Colorado River 1931–present Unevaluated; assumed Aqueduct eligible P-33-006913 Eagle Mountain 1947–1983 Previously determined not mine and town site eligible (1996); pending (including railroad) re-evaluation P-33-015091 Prehistoric lithic Unknown Recommended not eligible scatter/rock ring P-33-015093 Prehistoric lithic Unknown Recommended not eligible scatter P-33-018104 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-115 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-120 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible (Desert Center Dump) DS-123 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-124 Historic mining Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-125 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-132 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-137 Historic mining Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-178 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible

238 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Primary Number/ Temporary National Register Designation Description Date Eligibility DS-179 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-195 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-239 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-240 Prehistoric Unknown Recommended potentially habitation eligible DS-245 Prehistoric lithic Unknown Recommended not eligible scatter DS-313 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-314 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-315 Prehistoric lithic Unknown Recommended not eligible scatter DS-703 Historic refuse Unknown Recommended not eligible DS-705 Historic mining Unknown Recommended not eligible

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians concerns with regard to prehistoric trails that may pass through the area (letter from S. Milanovic, THPO Intern, Department of Historic Preservation, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Palm Springs, CA, to G. Gillin, Project Manager, GEI Consultants, Rancho Cordova, CA, August 26, 2008) would also apply to Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route.

Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites Contact with Native Americans that have traditional ties to the Eagle Mountain Project vicinity began in September 2007. On April 16, 2008, Eagle Crest’s consultant requested a records search of the California Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC’s) Sacred Lands File. A response was received on April 30, 2009, stating that no sacred lands were known within the proposed project area. Since September 2007, Eagle Crest and/or the Commission have requested input on the proposed project from the following Native American tribes:  Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,  Barona Band of Mission Indians,  Cabazon Band of Mission Indians,

239 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians,  Chemehuevi Indian Reservation,  Colorado River Indian Reservation,  Fort Mojave Indian Tribe,  Morongo Band of Mission Indians,  Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and  Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians requested a meeting to discuss the proposed project. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians also expressed an interest in the proposed project area. However, to date, no potential TCPs have been identified within the project APE.

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects

Effects of Project Operations on Cultural Resources Cultural resources can be disturbed by any action (natural, animal, or human) that disturbs soils or ground surfaces on which they occur. Archaeological and historic-era sites are particularly susceptible to damage as a result of construction activity. Eagle Crest has identified six cultural resource properties that are located within the APE, including the APE encompassing the applicant’s proposed and the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route and substation (see table 20). Including the Colorado River Aqueduct and the Eagle Mountain mine and town site, Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route contains 23 documented cultural resource sites. The Colorado River Aqueduct has not been evaluated for the National Register, but will be treated as eligible. In its application, Eagle Crest states that because the Colorado River Aqueduct is buried where it would be crossed by proposed project transmission and water pipelines, construction activities are unlikely to affect the qualities of the property that could make it eligible for the National Register. In its application, Eagle Crest cites the California SHPO’s 1996 letter concurring that the Eagle Mountain town site and mine are not eligible for the National Register. Further, the last sentence in section 1, Overview and Executive Summary, of the HPMP also implies that this resource is not a historic property. However, in the HPMP, Eagle Crest correctly acknowledges that the site and its associated railroad may now meet National Register eligibility criteria and that project construction and subsequent operation and maintenance activities have the potential to affect this resource. Because the project also could potentially affect previously unidentified cultural resources and human remains, the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (letter from S.

240 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Milanovic, THPO Intern, Department of Historic Preservation, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Palm Springs, CA, to G. Gillin, Project Manager, GEI Consultants, Rancho Cordova, CA, August 26, 2008) and the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (Eagle Crest, 2009c) both recommend the presence of cultural resources monitors during construction activities. In its HPMP, Eagle Crest proposes to treat sites DS-326, DS-327, and DS-495 within the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route as eligible for the National Register and states that these sites can be avoided during through project design to mitigate potential effects. No measures are proposed for DS-330 because the HPMP states that it does not meet the age requirement for National Register eligibility. The HPMP does not discuss, or provide specific measures for resources located along Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route.

Our Analysis Construction and operation activities of the proposed Eagle Mountain Project would have the potential to affect known cultural resource properties, including the Colorado River Aqueduct, which remains unevaluated but is considered to be eligible for the National Register; the Eagle Mountain mine and town site (P-33-006913) and its associated railroad; and the 39 unevaluated sites identified within the applicant’s proposed and the State Water Board’s preferred transmission line routes and substation locations or the 21 unevaluated sites within Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route. Project construction and operation activities also could potentially affect potential TCPs, unanticipated discoveries, and human remains that may be identified in the future. In its June 2009 final license application and subsequent HPMP, filed March 4, 2011, Eagle Crest proposes measures to address sites potentially subject to adverse project effects. We analyze and discuss these proposed measures in Management of Historic Properties below.

Management of Historic Properties In its June 2009 final license application, Eagle Crest proposed several measures to address potential project effects to cultural resources. These are:  CLT-1—Evaluate cultural sites for their National Register eligibility;  CLT-2—Monitor sensitive areas during construction; and  CLT-3—In the event that historic properties or human remains are identified during construction of the project, develop an HPMP in consultation with BLM, the California SHPO, and Native American tribes. These measures would apply only to lands within the APE outside of the Kaiser property. In December 2009, Eagle Crest filed an HPMP (referred to herein as CLT-4) that contains measures for the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line

241 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

route, including measures for potential project effects on cultural resources located on Kaiser lands. A revised HPMP, filed March 4, 2011, addresses requirements contained within the Commission’s draft EIS. The HPMP contains and replaces Measures CLT-1 through CLT-3 referred to in the final license application. The HPMP was developed in consultation with the California SHPO, BLM, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Chemehuevi Indian Reservation, Colorado River Reservation, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (Eagle Crest, 2009e). The HPMP would be used by Eagle Crest staff to ensure that the management goals for the preservation or appropriate treatment of historic resources are achieved. The HPMP was prepared in consideration of a document prepared in consultation with the Commission titled, Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects (FERC and Advisory Council, 2002). In its HPMP, Eagle Crest Energy proposes to undertake a variety of general measures for implementing the HPMP and managing cultural resources, including:  Appointment of a historic properties management coordinator, who would be responsible for overseeing implementation of the HPMP.  Preparation of an annual implementation report during project construction and over the license term. These reports would be provided to agencies and tribes and describe all activities associated with the HPMP that were undertaken during that reporting period.  Preparation of a plan to review the effectiveness of the HPMP every 6 years in consultation with the California SHPO, BLM, Riverside County, interested tribes, the Commission, and other consulting parties.  Pre-action review of planned actions involving ground disturbance conducted by the historic properties management coordinator in consultation with the California SHPO, interested tribes, and appropriate land management agencies, as specified in the HPMP.  Implementation of protocols for future cultural resources field investigations (i.e., field survey, archaeological testing, data recovery or other alternative mitigation measures), which include consultation with the California SHPO, agencies, and interested tribes.  Implementation of a plan and procedures to address the inadvertent discovery of previously unknown cultural resources or human remains. This plan would provide for the development of an as-needed monitoring program for sensitive areas.  Development of a cultural resources element for a project WEAP that would ensure that Eagle Crest employees are familiar with cultural resource laws and

242 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

regulations, instructions on HPMP protocols and requirements, and other information regarding historic properties. This plan would be developed in consultation with Native American tribes.  Development of interpretive signage that would be placed outside the main gate of the proposed facility and would provide the public with information about the prehistory and history of the project area, the Native Americans who inhabited the area, and background information on the functioning of the Eagle Mountain Project. Public interpretation would be developed in consultation with Native American tribes.  Development of a plan to address curation of any recovered archaeological materials.  Implementation of measures to address handling of paleontological resources that could be identified on federal lands in the future. The HPMP also includes measures specific to potential historic properties identified within the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route. Eagle Crest proposes to design project transmission lines and water pipes to avoid direct or indirect effects on buried portions of the Colorado River Aqueduct and archaeological sites DS-326, DS-327, and DS-495 and archaeological sites DS-326, DS-327, and DS- 495. Inspections would be undertaken every 2 years to determine whether conditions are stable or if any disturbances or deterioration has occurred. If project effects on these resources are unavoidable, a formal National Register evaluation program would be implemented. No measures are proposed for site DS-330 because it does not reach the 50-year threshold for National Register-eligibility. Further, upon license issuance, Eagle Crest proposes to prepare a phased work plan to document the Eagle Mountain mine and town site and associated railroad, including the potential for a historic district, upon gaining legal access to the lands. Upon completion of documentation of the site and any other cultural resources within the Kaiser property in the APE, Eagle Crest would consult with the California SHPO, BLM, and the Commission to evaluate National Register eligibility. If any resources are determined to be eligible, the HPMP calls for avoidance or mitigation measures to be developed, and consultation with the California SHPO with regard to potential project effects. Finally, in the event that interested tribes identify potential TCPs within the project APE, Eagle Crest’s proposed HPMP includes a plan to document and evaluate such properties and to resolve project adverse effects on TCPs that are eligible for the National Register.

In its draft EIR, the State Water Board (2010) comments that the construction would have potentially significant effects on the Colorado River Aqueduct (P-33-06726), resources located in the central project area (e.g., the Eagle Mountain mine and town site and associated railroad, P-33-006913), and unknown or buried cultural resources. However, the State Water Board concluded that these effects would be reduced to less than significant, if the measures proposed within the HPMP are implemented.

243 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Our Analysis Eagle Crest’s proposal to appoint a historic properties management coordinator would ensure that the requirements of the HPMP are followed. Additionally, annual reporting to agencies and affected tribes on the status of overall cultural resources management would provide a forum for parties to discuss the HPMP and provide recommendations about management of cultural resources. Such reporting would ensure that consulting parties are regularly informed of project activities and any cultural resources issues that may arise over the license term. The frequency of reporting could be decreased in the future if the Commission and other consulting parties agree that annual reporting is no longer warranted. Eagle Crest proposes to review the HPMP every 6 years. Affording appropriate federal land-management agencies the opportunity to comment, along with the California SHPO and tribes, on proposed revisions to the HPMP would ensure that those with an interest in the management of cultural resources would be able to contribute their views. Such a review process is typically undertaken every 5 years under FERC hydroelectric project licenses. However, Eagle Crest’s plan to review the HPMP every 6 years concurrent with the Licensed Hydropower Recreation Report (FERC Form 80) would likely provide comparable protection to cultural resources. If consulting parties wish to request an earlier review based on the results of the annual HPMP implementation report, Eagle Crest could include a clause in the HPMP to allow for an earlier review. As specified in the HPMP, Eagle Crest’s implementation of review procedures prior to ground-disturbing activities and protocols for future cultural resources field investigations would ensure that cultural resources are considered during project planning and that appropriate studies are undertaken. Further, the HPMP, Appendix A, contains protocols to be followed if previously unknown cultural resources or human remains are identified during project activities. Implementation of these measures would ensure that new discoveries are treated appropriately. The HPMP also discusses the need for archaeological monitoring during construction activities and states that if archaeological monitoring is required, it would be conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist and by a designated Native American monitor. A monitoring protocol has been provided in the HPMP that indicates the circumstances under which monitors would be required, the roles and authorities of monitors, monitoring documentation, and other requirements. Implementation of the monitoring protocol would ensure that monitoring is undertaken appropriately both during construction and over the license term. Eagle Crest’s proposal to include a cultural resources element to its WEAP program would ensure that its staff is regularly informed about issues, procedures, and protocols regarding cultural resource management in the project area. Additionally, Eagle Crest’s proposal to install interpretive signage regarding cultural resources would enable the public to become aware of the cultural importance of the project area. The inclusion on the signs of information pertaining to site protection and applicable laws

244 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

would provide an effective vehicle for educating the public about vandalism, its effects, and its potential legal consequences. Eagle Crest proposes to consult with interested Native American tribes during the development of the training sessions and afford them with an opportunity to provide input on the interpretive signs would contribute toward staff and public understanding of Native American perspectives on cultural resources. Implementation of the measures for the identification, management, and treatment of resources associated with the Colorado River Aqueduct and the Eagle Mountain town site, mine, and associated railroad that are contained within Eagle Crest’s proposed HPMP would ensure that the potential effects of either the State Water Board’s or Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line routes upon these resources are properly addressed in accordance with section 106. Additionally, the measures proposed for sites DS-326, DS-327, and DS-495 are also appropriate. Because DS-330 does not reach the 50-year National Register threshold for eligibility, no further measures for this resource are required. Section 3.3 of the HPMP provides measures to ensure cultural resources are appropriately addressed for our recommended transmission line corridor and substation. However, if Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route were selected for construction, implementation of the same measures under section 3.3 of the HPMP would ensure that the 23 cultural resources located within the corridor’s APE would be addressed appropriately under section 106. Finally, we find that Eagle Crest’s proposed plan (in the HPMP) to address newly discovered paleontological resources that may be identified on federal lands63 satisfies the recent paleontological law enacted by Congress in March of 2009. Although we recognize that section 106 has no provisions for protecting paleontological resources, such resources should be protected in any case, and it is appropriate to use an HPMP to reference the protection of such resources because they are similar in nature to archeological resources.

3.3.7 Socioeconomics

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment Riverside County is located in southern California and stretches from the Colorado River and Arizona border in the east to Orange County and within 14 miles of the Pacific

63 See Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Public Law 111-011. P.L. 111-011, Title VI, Subtitle D on Paleontological Resources Preservation (123 Stat. 1172; 16 U.S.C. 470aaa). This statute requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land using scientific principles and expertise. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act -Paleontological Resources Preservation includes specific provisions addressing management of these resources by BLM, the Park Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, FWS, and the Forest Service.

245 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Ocean to the west. The county encompasses about 7,200 square miles. The socioeconomic study area is defined as the unincorporated areas of eastern Riverside County (Eagle Mountain, Lake Tamarisk, and Desert Center) and cities within about 60 miles of the project (Blythe, Coachella, Indio, Palm Desert, Cathedral City, and Palm Springs). This description of the socioeconomic environment relies upon statistics at the county level, with local details provided where data are available.

Population The population of Riverside County grew 35 percent from the 2000 census of 1,545,387 to an estimated 2,088,322 in 2008 (California Department of Finance, 2008, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a). The county’s population ranks fourth of California’s 58 counties and is more than the population of 15 states in the United States. The city of Riverside, which is the county seat and is located about 100 miles west of the project site, had an estimated 2008 population of 296,842, equaling 14 percent of the county’s residents. Population trends for the study area towns are shown in table 22. Most have grown more rapidly than the county as a whole, although some of that growth was in the population of inmates in the Chuckwalla Valley State Prison and Ironwood State Prison. The inmates are counted in the city of Blythe’s population for state tax purposes.

Table 22. Population (Source: Riverside County Economic Development Agency, 2004, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a). Area 1980 1990 2000 2007 Blythe 6,805 8,428 20,465 22,625 Cathedral City a 30,085 42,647 52,115 Coachella 9,129 16,896 22,724 38,486 Indio 21,611 36,793 49,116 77,146 Palm Desert 11,081 23,252 41,155 49,752 Palm Springs 32,359 40,181 42,805 46,858 Riverside County 663,166 1,170,413 1,545,387 2,031,625 a Incorporated in 1981.

Eagle Mountain is located in an 802-square mile Census block group that had a population of 738 people in 1990 and 977 people in 2000, giving it a population density of 1.2 people per square mile. The project site is located about in the center of the Census block group. The Eagle Mountain town site population peaked at 3,700 residents (CH2M HILL, 1996, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a), and was listed as having 2,453 people in 1970 and

246 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

1,890 people in 1980 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2008, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a). The closing of the mine in 1983 also led to the closing of the private town of Eagle Mountain, and also slowed or stopped growth in nearby communities such as Desert Center and Lake Tamarisk. Riverside County is expected to double its population between 2000 and 2020, reaching an estimated population of 2.9 million people in 2020 (Riverside County, 2003, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a). The county grew in total population by 31.5 percent between 2000 and 2007, while the state of California grew by only 7.6 percent during the same time period. The county has an average of 214.4 people per square mile in 2006 but much higher in the urbanized west and much lower (1.2 people per square mile) in the project region and similar low densities in surrounding open spaces of the central and east portions of the county.

Employment and Income The Riverside County Economic Development Agency (2009, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a) states that the unemployment rate within Riverside County from 1990 to 2006 has been above the state and national averages. The agency’s data show a civilian labor force of 910,400 residents with 845,700 employed and an unemployment rate of 7.1 percent in February 2008. The County experienced an unemployment rate of between 5.1 percent and 6.7 percent from 1998 to 2007. Riverside County employment by sector for 2006 is depicted in table 23. The United States Census states that the median household income in 2006 was $53,508 for Riverside County, which was below the state median of $56,645. The California Department of Finance shows that in 2005 the per capita income for Riverside County was $27,167, which was 73.6 percent of the California average. The United States Census shows that 12.2 percent of people were below the poverty level in 2006, down from 14.2 percent in 2000 and up from 10.8 percent in 1990 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2008, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a). The Riverside County Economic Development Agency (2006, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a) shows the taxable sales within the County were $29,816,237 in 2006, up from the 2001 total of $18,231,555. The tax rate for Riverside County including state, local, and district tax is 7.75 percent.

247 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 23. Riverside County employment by sector, 2006 (Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2008, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a). Industry Individuals Percentage Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and 13,824 1.6% mining Construction 112,297 12.7% Manufacturing 90,885 10.3% Wholesale trade 32,279 3.7% Retail trade 119,795 13.6% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 40,334 4.6% Information 16,973 1.9% Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and 58,680 6.7% leasing Professional, scientific, management, 80,500 9.1% administrative Educational, health and social services 147,594 16.7% Arts, entertainment, recreation and food services 90,159 10.2% Public Administration 35,430 4.0% Other Services 42,553 4.8% Total 881,303

Infrastructure and Accommodations

Housing The California Department of Finance’s (2008, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a) data indicate that there were about 773,331 housing units in the county in 2008, compared to 584,674 units in 2000. The figures for 2008 include 559,169 units of single family housing and 127,740 multiple family units. The median home price for the County stood at $234,105 in January 2009. Housing accommodations for towns in the project region are depicted in table 24.

248 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 24. Housing accommodations and characteristics (Source: Riverside County Economic Development Agency, 2008, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a). Median Median Home Rental Owner Price Price Total Units Vacancy Rate Occupied 2000 2008 2000 2000 2008 2000 2008 2000 Blythe $90,800 $187,000 $501 4,851 5,444 16.2% 16.1% 57% Cathedral $125,500 $226,500 $695 17,813 21,561 21.7% 21.1% 65% City Coachella $83,700 $215,500 $470 4,807 8,814 4.4% 4.4% 61% Indio $99,000 $272,500 $579 16,899 26,464 18.0% 18.0% 56% Palm $189,100 $382,500 $744 28,071 34,120 31.5% 31.0% 67% Desert Palm $157,000 $295,000 $631 30,979 33,479 33.3% 33.4% 61% Springs Riverside $146,500 $275,000 $660 584,674 773,331 13.4% 13.0% 69% County

In 2008, the vacancy rate for all housing units (single family, multiple family, and mobile homes) within the County was 13 percent. Within the project region, Palm Springs accounted for the highest vacancy rate at 33.4 percent or 11,192 units in 2008. The City of Coachella experienced the lowest rate at 4.4 percent or 386 units. The combined total number of vacant housing units for the six towns within the project region is 28,021, with 100,533 vacant units county-wide (California Department of Finance, 2008, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a). The U.S. Census 2005-2007 Community Survey shows 193,931 renter-occupied housing units with 12,818 vacant rental units and a rental vacancy rate of 6.2 percent. Within the cities in the project region, there are about 257 hotels/motels accounting for 11,599 rooms. Palm Springs contains the highest number with 187 hotels and motels and 6,400 rooms (Riverside County Economic Development Agency, 2004, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a).

Community, Municipal, and Social Services Community and social services available in the County include educational facilities, churches, libraries, hospitals, and nursing homes. All major municipalities within the project region provide basic municipal services. Within unincorporated areas, services are provided by Riverside County.

249 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Within the project region and specifically the Eagle Mountain area, water and sewer systems are adequate to meet the communities’ existing needs. In addition to the basic services provided in the Eagle Mountain area, the County also provides enhanced services through County Service Areas (CSA). CSA 51, which includes the Eagle Mountain area, provides water, sewer, and trash disposal services. The Eagle Mountain town site has water and sewer services provided by Kaiser’s wastewater collection and treatment system and two Kaiser-owned wells. Enrollment of students in the Riverside County K-12 schools for 2006/2007 is 413,059. In addition, there are 23 school districts within the County. These districts contain 265 elementary schools, 74 middle schools and 65 high schools, 11 charter schools and 50 continuing education/adult education schools. The school districts employed 21,663 certified staff members with 11.8 average years of teaching experience and 17,105 classified staff. Riverside County and local municipalities within the project region maintain law enforcement departments. Riverside County currently employs 1,879 patrol officers and a total of 3,865 funded positions. The nearest County Sheriff station to the project site is the Colorado River Station located in Blythe (Riverside County Sheriff's Department, 2008, as cited by Eagle Crest, 2009a), more than 40 miles from the proposed project site. The major municipalities within the project region maintain fire departments. Riverside County operates 93 stations with 952 career and 1,100 volunteer personnel for unincorporated and sixteen contract cities. Riverside County station #49 at Lake Tamarisk is the closest station with #45 Blythe Air Base and #43 Blythe being the next nearest stations. All three stations are staffed full time, 24 hours a day, 7 days per week with a minimum 3-person crew, including paramedics. Municipalities within the project region provide emergency medical services in addition to fire protection. The nearest hospitals to the project site are located at Indio and Blythe, each more than 40 miles away. Riverside County has about 18 licensed hospitals with 3,134 beds. Within the project region, there are four licensed hospitals with 816 beds. Within the County there are 24 community clinics, 35 surgical clinics, and 3 rehabilitation clinics.

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects

Effects of Construction on Socioeconomics Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over a period of 4 years and to generate about 4,674 person-months of employment during that time. Peak monthly employment of 209 workers would occur in Year 2. Eagle Crest estimates the total construction workforce payroll cost for the project to be $58 million. Additionally, project construction is estimated to require $39 million in design engineering, $49 million in construction administration and engineering, and $3 million in legal and administrative costs. The distribution of this payroll would

250 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

fluctuate over time and would parallel the fluctuations in employment. Labor expenditures would be highest in Year 2. Eagle Crest does not propose any mitigation measures related to socioeconomic parameters such as employment, income, or local government services.

Our Analysis Project construction would have a beneficial effect on local employment and income. Eagle Crest expects that most of the general labor required during construction would be available from the labor pool within the County and project region, indicating that as much as 50 percent of the skilled trades and management and support personnel could also be provided by regional labor. There would be some need for non-local workers to meet the project manpower requirements. Current estimates of the peak construction work force and the expected percentage of non-local workers suggest that during the peak period about 105 workers would require short-term (2 years or less) housing accommodations. Eagle Crest is not proposing to use the Eagle Mountain town site for employee housing, but expects that workers needing short-term housing would find lodging in the available houses, rental units, or hotel/motel rooms that are locally abundant. This includes 28,021 vacant housing units and 12,818 vacant rental units within the County, as well as about 11,600 hotel/motel rooms within the communities of Blythe, Cathedral City, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Indio. Primary and secondary schools within the project region have room for additional students if any school age children accompany the construction workers who temporarily relocate to the area. Medical facilities also appear to be adequate, with one bed per about 645 people within the County. In addition, Riverside County operates a full-time fire station in Lake Tamarisk. Eagle Crest would be required to follow the Development Impact Fee Program as adopted by Riverside County to assess fees for the fire district. Because no new housing construction is anticipated, it is expected that existing public services (water, sewer, waste) would meet the requirements of the project-related workforce. Because of the anticipated small effect on municipal services and infrastructure, the effect on local municipal costs during construction is expected to be insignificant; further, as described below, it would be offset by anticipated tax revenues. The project would contribute to the revenues of County and local governments primarily through the payment of property taxes and sales and use taxes. With respect to property taxes, the assessed valuation of the project and the associated property tax payments would rise on an annual basis, in proportion to the work completed. Based upon on the construction cost estimate and tax schedule, Eagle Crest estimates that property taxes would rise to about $8,390,000 (2008 dollars) per year by the time construction is complete. Sales tax, at a rate of 7.75 percent, is imposed on the sale of

251 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

tangible personal property and specified services. With an estimated construction cost of $1,171 million (2009 dollars), the project could generate substantial sales tax revenue through the purchase of material and equipment within the county, although the amount of those purchases has not been estimated. Project construction would also have indirect effects on employment, income, and government revenues associated with the construction workforce and the purchase of materials and supplies. For construction activity of this type, gross output multipliers often range from 1.0 to 1.5. This means for every dollar spent in the county on materials and supplies, the indirect effect would account for an additional $1.00 to $1.50 in spending. Employment multipliers also generally range from 1.0 to 1.5 for construction projects. This means for every construction job created, another 1.0 to 1.5 job(s) would be created in the retail, service, and non-basic employment sectors.

Effects of Operations on Socioeconomics An estimated 30 persons would manage, operate, and maintain the project, working in two 15-person shifts. The total staff requirement per shift includes three management personnel, seven engineers, two power plant operators, one maintenance technician and two administrative staff. Energy Crest estimates the annual labor cost (operations staff plus home office administration) at $2.3 million (2009 dollars). Eagle Crest does not propose any mitigation measures related to socioeconomic parameters such as employment, income, and local government services.

Our Analysis The socioeconomic effect of the project during the operation phase would be much less than during the construction phase, although the project estimates an annual operating budget of $28.3 million (2009 dollars). The annual O&M budget for project supplies and parts would be $2.5 million. Purchase of supplies and parts within the region would add annual local economic benefits. The project would not have any substantial ongoing effects on local/County government costs. The relatively small labor force is unlikely to create any effects on housing, schools, and other public services within the project area. Eagle Crest estimates that the project would generate about $7.67 million per year in property tax revenue at the completion of construction. Sales tax revenue would decrease during the project’s operational phase compared to the construction phase, but Eagle Crest estimates that about $187,500 in annual sales tax revenue could be generated from the purchasing of plant supplies and parts. Eagle Crest may also be required to pay taxes on the tangible personal property on the facility (equipment, inventories, etc.).

252 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

The ongoing expenditures for materials, services, and payroll would also generate indirect benefits within the region. The typical multiplier for utilities operations is 1.5 for employment. Therefore, the operations workforce of 30 personnel may generate up to an additional 15 indirect or secondary jobs. There would be no displacement of residences or business establishments due to construction and operation of the project.

Environmental Justice The proposed location of this project was chosen due to the availability of two largely inactive mining pits separated by a relatively short distance with an elevation difference of about 1,400 feet. Both elements are key to the viability of a pump storage facility as are the proximity to transmission lines and existing and proposed energy generation facilities that could be used to supply energy to pump the water back to the upper reservoir during non-peak energy demand periods. Therefore, we do not find that Eagle Crest targeted the project area due to the economic status of the surrounding rural community. Eagle Crest’s site selection did not discriminate against the community in the project area due to its economic status. Additionally, earlier in this section, we conclude that the project would confer economic benefits on the surrounding communities, by bringing jobs and increased economic activity to the area. We discuss key issues that may raise the environmental justice concerns throughout the final EIS. Specifically, we discuss contamination and drawdown effects on existing wells in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects. We discuss air quality, noise, and vibration in section 3.3.8.2, Air Quality and Noise, Environmental Effects. Access and safety issues are discussed in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, Environmental Effects. The effects on local businesses are discussed in section 3.3.7.2, Socioeconomics, Environmental Effects.

3.3.8 Air Quality and Noise

3.3.8.1 Affected Environment

Air Quality The CARB, part of the California EPA and one of the entities, along with local air districts, responsible for achieving and maintaining healthful air in California, reports that air pollution is one of the state’s most serious problems (CARB, 2010). The reasons for the state’s air quality problems include: (1) a large population (about 37 million and growing), which translates into a high number of vehicle miles traveled and associated vehicle emissions; (2) a geography with the most heavily populated areas of the state being valleys or basins surrounded by mountains; and (3) a climate of hot, stagnant summer air that traps air pollutants in heavily populated valleys and basins. Sources of air emissions in California include stationary sources (e.g., commercial facility operations), area-wide sources (e.g., fugitive dust, residential fireplaces), mobile sources

253 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

(e.g., on-road vehicles and trucks, aircraft, boats, trains), and natural sources (e.g., biogenic and geogenic hydrocarbons, natural windblown dust, wildfires).

State and National Air Quality Standards To maintain acceptable ambient air quality and protect public health, both California and the federal government have adopted ambient air quality standards (AAQSs) for criteria or indicator air pollutants. An AAQS establishes the concentration above which the pollutant is known to cause adverse health effects on sensitive groups within the population, such as children and the elderly. The goal is for localized project effects not to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the standards. AAQSs are classified as either “primary” or “secondary” standards. Primary standards define levels of air quality, including an adequate margin of safety, necessary to protect the public health. National secondary AAQSs define levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. The criteria pollutants for which standards have been established are carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter (PM10 [particulate matter greater than 10 microns in diameter] and PM2.5 [particulate matter greater than 2.5 microns in diameter]), and sulfur dioxide. Brief descriptions for the four criteria pollutants of most relevance to the proposed project are provided below.

Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is directly emitted as a byproduct of combustion. The principal sources of carbon monoxide emissions are motor vehicles, and the highest concentrations of this gas occur under cold, stagnant weather conditions. Carbon monoxide is harmful because it is absorbed through the lungs into the blood stream and reduces the ability of the blood to transport oxygen. As a result, the blood supply to the heart, lungs, and other tissues is reduced, with potentially critical consequences for the sick and elderly.

Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) Particulate matter is a mixture of different substances, including metals, carbon, nitrates, sulfates, organic compounds, and complex mixtures such as diesel exhaust and soil. Particulate matter has been classified as either PM10 or PM2.5 material. PM10 particulates, which have an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or smaller, are referred to as “respirable” material because they are small enough to penetrate into inner regions of the lungs where they can be harmful to human health. PM2.5 particulate matter, which is even finer (aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or smaller), can deposit deeper in the lungs when inhaled. Exposure to particulate matter aggravates respiratory illnesses and is

254 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

especially harmful to people with pre-existing heart and lung diseases. Particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5) can either be directly emitted (e.g., dust or soot) or formed in the atmosphere from precursor gaseous emissions, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and ammonia. Based on EPA estimates, the largest contributor to PM10 levels nationwide is fugitive dust, which accounts for 89 percent of the total particulate matter. EPA also estimates that about 14 percent of fugitive dust is attributable to construction activities and 9 percent to re-suspension on paved roads.

Ozone Ozone is a colorless, odorless gas that constitutes the main component of urban smog. Ozone is not directly emitted as a pollutant, but is formed when precursor hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxides emissions react photochemically in the presence of sunlight. Stagnant air or low wind speeds and warm temperatures provide optimum conditions for ozone formation. Ozone irritates the lungs and damages the respiratory system.

Sulfur Dioxide

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a combustion product of sulfur or sulfur–containing fuels, such as coal and diesel. SO2, which is also a precursor to the formation of atmospheric sulfate and particulate matter, contributes to potential atmospheric sulfuric acid formation that could precipitate downwind as acid rain. For most of the criteria air pollutants, California State standards are more stringent than federal standards because of inferences from different health effects studies and incorporation of a higher margin of safety to protect sensitive individuals. California and federal (i.e., EPA) AAQSs for criteria pollutants are presented in table 25.

Under the federal Clean Air Act, each state must identify non-attainment areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). For any nonattainment designation, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is developed to define actions to be taken to achieve attainment of the applicable NAAQS. In summary:

 An attainment area is any area that meets the NAAQS,  A non-attainment area is any area that does not meet the NAAQS, and  A maintenance area is any area previously designated non-attainment that is in transition back to attainment.

255 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 25. Selected California and federal ambient air quality standards (Source: CARB, 2010; EPA, 2010). Federal Standards Averaging California Pollutant Time Standards Primary Secondary

Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm Same as (180 µg/m3) (235 µg/m3) primary 8 hour 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm standard (157 µg/m3) Respirable 24 hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as particulates Annual mean 20 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 primary (PM10) standard Fine 24 hour No standard 65 µg/m3 Same as particulates Annual mean 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 primary (PM2.5) standard Carbon 8 hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) None monoxide 1 hour 20 µg/m3 35 µg/m3 (CO) (23 mg/m3) (40 mg/m3) 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm (472 µg/m3) Sulfur dioxide Annual mean -- 0.03 ppm -- 3 (SO2) (80 µg/m ) 24 hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm -- (105 µg/m3) (365 µg/m3) 3 hour -- -- 0.5ppm (1,300 µg/m3) 1 hour 0.25 ppm -- -- (655 µg/m3)

As shown in table 26, the area surrounding the proposed project site is currently designated as attainment for all criteria pollutants subject to NAAQS, but is designated by CARB as nonattainment for ozone and PM10 under the California AAQSs.

256 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 26. Project area designations in 2010 under NAAQS and California AAQS (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a).

Designation by: CO PM10 PM2.5 O3 NO2 SO2 Pb NAAQSa A A A A A A A California AAQSb U N U N A A A

Notes: A – attainment PM2.5 – fine particulate matter

CO – carbon monoxide PM10 – respirable particulate N – non-attainment matter

NO2 – nitrogen dioxide SO2 – sulfur dioxide

O3 –ozone U – unclassified (treated as Pb – lead attainment) a EPA (2010) b CARB (2010)

General Conformity is the federal process used to ensure that the air quality effects of federal actions not related to motor vehicle transportation plans are also considered in the air quality planning of nonattainment and maintenance areas. Because the area surrounding the proposed project site is currently designated as attainment/unclassified for all NAAQS, although it is nonattainment for the California AAQS for ozone and PM10, General Conformity is not applicable and a General Conformity Determination is not required for the Eagle Mountain Project. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations were first promulgated by the EPA (40 CFR part 52) to prevent air quality degradation in those areas where criteria air pollutant concentrations are below (within) the ambient standards (i.e., attainment areas). Exceedance of a PSD trigger level requires a demonstration by pollutant dispersion modeling that the emissions will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS at the point of maximum effect and would not cause an exceedance of a PSD increment.

South Coast Air Quality Management District To better manage common air quality problems, California is divided into 15 air basins, each of which is associated with an Air Quality Management District (AQMD). The project site is located within the Mojave Desert Air Basin, which is within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD The SCAQMD acts as the primary reviewing agency for environmental documents addressing potential air quality impacts, and it develops regulations that must be consistent with, or more stringent than, federal and state air quality policies. The SCAQMD is responsible for developing attainment plans for the region for inclusion in California’s SIP, as well as establishing and enforcing air pollution control rules and regulations. The attainment plans must demonstrate compliance with

257 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

federal and state AAQSs, and must first be approved by CARB before inclusion into the SIP. The SCAQMD regulates, permits, and inspects stationary sources of air pollution, while the state is responsible for emission standards and controlling actual tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles. The relevant rules and regulations for the project follow:  Rule 402—requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site, and  Rule 403—requires use of best available technologies to reduce the amount of particulate matter (dust) entrained in ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human-made, e.g. construction) activities. Because the project site is in California, the potential effects on air quality are determined based on CEQA guidelines, SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants, and other relevant considerations. These guidelines identify certain thresholds that may be pertinent in determining whether an effect is significant. Using these thresholds, the project would be examined to determine whether it would:  Result in a cumulative increase in ambient concentrations or emissions of any criteria pollutant that is designated as in non-attainment for the project area under an applicable federal or state AAQS and emission thresholds,  Create new sensitive receptors to be affected by substantial increases of pollutant concentrations, and  Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. With respect to criteria pollutants, the SCAQMD provides quantitative guidance regarding thresholds for both construction and operational activities. These thresholds, listed in pounds per day, are presented in table 27 for construction and operations.

Table 27. South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds (pounds per day) (Source: SCAQMD, 2009).

Source VOC NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SOx Construction 75 100 550 150 55 150 Operation 55 55 550 150 55 150 Notes: CO – carbon monoxide NOx – nitrous oxides

PM2.5 – particulate matter greater than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 – particulate matter greater than 10 microns in diameter SOx – sulfur oxide VOC – volatile organic compounds

258 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Noise Noise (defined as unwanted sound) is emitted from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles. The magnitude of noise is described by its sound pressure. Because the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, the decibel. Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels. To describe noise environments and to assess effects of noise on sensitive areas, a frequency weighting measure called A-weighting, which simulates human perception, is commonly used. It has been found that this measure of sound levels best reflects the human ear’s reduced sensitivity to low frequencies and correlates well with human perceptions of the annoying aspects of noise. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) is cited in most noise criteria. Decibels are logarithmic units that compare the wide range of sound intensities to those that the human ear is most sensitive to. Table 28 identifies dBA levels of typical noise environments.

Table 28. A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) sound levels of typical noise environments (Source: FICON, 1992, as modified by staff). dBA Overall Level Noise Environment 120 Uncomfortably Loud Military jet takeoff at 50 feet (32 times as loud as 70 dBA) 100 Very loud Jet flyover at 1,000 feet (8 times as loud as 70 dBA) 80 Loud Propeller plane flyover at 1,000 feet; diesel truck (2 times as loud as 70 dBA) 40 mph at 50 feet 70 Moderately loud Freeway at 50 feet from pavement edge; vacuum cleaner (indoor) 60 Relatively quiet Air condition unit at 10 feet; dishwasher at 10 feet (1/2 as loud as 70 dBA) (indoor) 50 Quiet Large transformers; small private office (indoor) (1/4 as loud as 70 dBA) 40 Very quiet Bird calls; lowest limit of urban ambient sound (1/8 as loud as 70 dBA) 10 Extremely quiet Just audible (1/64 as loud as 70 dBA) 0 Threshold of hearing Notes: dBA – A-weighted decibel scale mph – miles per hour

259 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Several time-averaged scales represent noise environments and consequences of human activities. The most commonly used noise descriptors are as follows:  Leq—the equivalent A–weighted sound level over a given period;  Ldn—average day–night 24–hour average sound level; and  Lmax—the maximum sound level measured over the measurement period.

Regulatory Setting Most local jurisdictions have noise exposure standards designed to ensure that noise does not excessively affect the quality of life of citizens. Noise is regulated in the proposed project area through general plan policies and noise ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan (Riverside County, 2003, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) identifies policies and standards intended to direct planning associated with the effects of new developments, while the county’s noise ordinances establish standards and procedures for addressing specific noise sources. For the state of California, noise intensity is also discussed in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level, which describes a weighted average noise level that increases the relative significance of evening and nighttime noise. The Community Noise Equivalent Level descriptor is used to evaluate community noise levels, which includes a 5 and 10 dBA penalty added to evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) sound levels, respectively, in consideration of people’s increased sensitivity to noise during those periods. Riverside County General Plan—Riverside County identifies land use compatibility noise levels to ensure acceptable noise environments for each land use within unincorporated Riverside County. As part of the general plan, the noise element also identifies noise compatibility, noise mitigation strategy, stationary noise, and temporary construction policies that may be applicable to the proposed project.

Riverside County Noise Ordinance—Riverside County Ordinance 847, Regulating Noise, identifies general noise level standards that are not to be exceeded within the county (Riverside County, 2009, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a). For example, the maximum noise level standards that would be applicable to sensitive receptor locations in the project vicinity (i.e., rural residences) are 55 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The ordinance also regulates noise from the operation of power tools or equipment and motor vehicles.

Ambient Noise Levels The general project area is remote, with relatively low noise levels that are estimated to average between 35 and 45 dBA. The main noise source in the area is vehicle noise on nearby roads, including Interstate 10, Eagle Mountain Road, and Kaiser

260 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Road. Vehicle noises can range up to 80 dBA, depending on the distance of the receptor from the source. Ambient Leq noise measurement data were last collected in the project area for the review of the proposed Eagle Mountain landfill project (Riverside County, 1996, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a). Although these data are more than 13 years old, the ambient conditions in the study area are largely the same, with the exception that at the time of the measurements, a state-run correctional facility used some of the buildings at the Eagle Mountain town site. That correctional facility has since relocated from the site. Ambient Leq noise levels at the Eagle Mountain town site were measured to be between 38 and 63 dBA, depending on the distance of the measurement locations from Kaiser Road. Now that the correctional facility is not located at the site, existing average ambient noise levels likely would be closer to the lower level of the measured range. Ambient Leq noise levels in the vicinity of the communities of Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center were measured to be moderately higher than those in the immediate project area, ranging between 54 and 60 dBA and 66 and 70 dBA, respectively. The ambient Leq noise level near Interstate 10 at Kaiser Road was measured to be 73 dBA.

Sensitive Receptors For noise analyses, sensitive receptors are generally defined as land uses that are sensitive to noise, such as residential areas, schools, convalescent and acute care hospitals, some parks and recreational areas, and churches and other religious facilities. Even though the Eagle Mountain town site is largely abandoned, according to Kaiser, a few occupied buildings and a school remain in this area. Also, private residences are located a few miles to the south-southeast and southeast of the site, along Eagle Mountain Road/Phone Line Road and Kaiser Road, respectively. However, these sensitive receptors are within about 200 feet of the proposed location of the electric transmission line route along Eagle Mountain Road and the water supply line route that would be along Kaiser Road. In addition, the general project vicinity is located about 1.5 miles from the closest JTNP boundary.

3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects

Air Quality For the purposes of air quality analyses, sensitive areas are generally defined as land uses where the public has continuous access and with population concentrations that would be particularly susceptible to disturbance from dust and air pollutant concentrations associated with project construction and/or operation. These sites generally include schools, day-care centers, libraries, hospitals, residential-care centers, parks, and churches. Some locations are considered more sensitive to air pollutants than

261 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

others, including places with concerns of pre–existing health issues, proximity to emissions sources, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. In addition to the mostly abandoned Eagle Mountain town site, the two small communities of Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center are located about 9 and 10 miles southeast of the proposed reservoirs, respectively. The proposed site is also about 1.5 miles from the southeastern boundary of JTNP at its nearest point and about 30 miles from the more developed sections of JTNP. National Parks and wilderness areas are designated as Class I areas, and afforded protection through the federal PSD program. Visibility and air concentrations due to fugitive dust emissions during construction are the main issue for air quality.

Effects of Construction on Air Quality Air emissions associated with construction activities would be temporary and variable, depending on project location, duration, and level of activity. These emissions would be predominantly associated with the exhaust generated by operating construction equipment, but could also be attributed to fugitive dust (PM2.5 and PM10) produced by materials staging, demolition, and earthworks activities, as well as concrete processing operations.

In its license application, Eagle Crest proposes measures derived from South Coast AQMD Rule 403 to limit dust sources from grading, trenching, wind erosion, and truck filling/dumping at the site (see section 2.2.4, Proposed Environmental Measures, for a description of proposed Measures AQ-1 through AQ-12). In addition, Eagle Crest proposes measures to reduce effects from engine exhaust, including developing and implementing a transportation management plan, using 2002 and newer equipment and emission control devices for older equipment to reduce exhaust from diesel equipment, and using electrical drops from an existing electrical service in lieu of installing temporary electrical generators. Eagle Crest also proposes to work collaboratively on a cost-share basis with the Park Service to complete a 2-year air monitoring study.

Our Analysis Two categories of construction equipment would generally be used at the site:

 On-road trucks and vehicles for the transport and delivery of supplies, materials, and equipment to and from the site, as well as the employee vehicles; and  Non-road equipment operated exclusively on site for construction activities such as paving, utility installation, site clearing and fill operations, earth moving, earth loading and unloading, structure installation, and tunnel boring. Eagle Crest developed activity levels and vehicle assignments for non-road and on-road construction vehicles based on requirements and projected construction schedules. Non-road exhaust emissions factors were calculated using the current version

262 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

of the CARB OFFROAD2007 model, while on-road emissions factors were computed using county-specific data processed by the CARB EMFAC2007 model. Based on the construction equipment assignments, usage schedules and engine exhaust factors determined from the models described above, Eagle Crest estimated air emissions.

Eagle Crest also estimated fugitive dust PM emissions from soil disturbance, wind erosion of stockpiles, traffic on unpaved surfaces, blasting, and demolition using the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollution Emissions Factors (i.e., AP-42), and other accepted guidance. Eagle Crest applied a 75 percent control efficiency pertaining to fugitive dust and relevant emissions based on implementation of the proposed mitigation techniques. Table 29 provides the annual construction-related emissions associated with the proposed project identified by project year and pollutant type. Based on the current construction schedule, annual construction-related emissions would be highest in 2013 or 2014, depending upon the pollutant. Table 29 also shows that the proposed project would represent a very small percentage (less than 0.06 percent) of the forecasted annual emissions within the Mojave Desert Air Basin.

Table 29. Estimated annual construction emissions (tons) (Source: Eagle Crest, 2010a).

Year CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO2 N2O CH4 2012 59.0 7.46 54 2.83 2.54 0.08 7,998 0.05 0.68 2013 57.8 7.86 57 2.95 2.64 0.09 9,021 0.05 0.71 2014 60.2 7.67 51 2.79 2.49 0.09 9,297 0.07 0.72 2015 15.8 1.66 10 0.61 0.54 0.025 1,931 0.03 0.15 Maximum 60.2 7.86 57 2.95 2.64 0.09 9,297 0.07 0.72 Percent of 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.004 0.02 0.003 NA NA NA Mojave Desert Air Basin regional emissions Notes: CH4 – methane CO – carbon monoxide

CO2 – carbon dioxide NA – not available

N2O – nitrous oxide NOx – nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 – particulate matter greater than 2.5 microns in diameter

263 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

PM10 – particulate matter greater than 10 microns in diameter

SO2 – sulfur dioxide VOC – volatile organic compound

Table 30 provides the estimated daily construction-related emissions associated with the proposed project before applying any of the mitigation measures proposed by Eagle Crest. These estimated emissions are less than the SCAQMD CEQA thresholds for all pollutants except NOx, where the estimated emissions exceed the threshold in 3 out of 4 years. Eagle Crest proposes Measures AQ-1 through AQ-12, development and implementation of a transportation management plan, use of 2002 and newer equipment, use of emission controls on older equipment, and use of electrical drops in place of temporary generators to reduce construction-related emissions. Levels of NOX might still exceed CEQA standards, but the monitoring during construction proposed by Eagle Crest would determine whether standards are exceeded and whether additional measures are needed.

Table 30. Daily construction emissions (pounds) (Source: Eagle Crest, 2010a).

Year CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 2012 454 57 417 21.7 19.6 0.62 2013 444 60 436 22.7 20.3 0.71 2014 464 59 392 21.4 19.1 0.73 2015 121 13 74 4.7 4.2 0.16 Maximum 464 60 436 22.7 20.3 0.73 CEQA threshold 550 75 100 150 55 150 Exceed CEQA No No Yes No No No

Notes: CO – carbon monoxide NOx – nitrous oxides

PM10 – particulate matter greater than 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 – particulate matter greater than 2.5 microns in diameter

SO2 – sulfur dioxide VOC – volatile organic compound

Air emissions related to the off-highway trucking movement of nearly 3 million cubic yards of onsite materials were included in the above emission calculations. Eagle Crest anticipates that there is an extensive stock of mine tailings available on site that Eagle Crest plans to use for facility construction. In the unlikely event that these materials are not usable and equivalent materials must be brought from off-site sources,

264 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

the annual construction emissions would increase by about 1, 10, 17, and 1 tons of reactive organic gases, CO, NOX, and PM10, respectively, during the worst case year, and the daily construction emissions would increase by about 7, 75, 138, and 8 pounds per day, respectively. This would increase the daily construction emissions, but not to a level that would exceed the CEQA threshold (except for NOX). Thus, the use of off-site fill material instead of onsite fill material would not change the overall effects related to the proposed project and air quality. Eagle Crest also proposes to work collaboratively on a cost-share basis with the Park Service to complete a 2-year air monitoring study. As requested by the Park Service, the monitoring results would be used to adjust the construction workload if any exceedances are observed.

Effects of Operations on Air Quality Project operation would have minimal direct effects on air quality. The indirect effects could be beneficial if power from the pumped storage project replaces or supplements fossil-fueled peaking generation facilities.

Our Analysis During operations, air pollutant emissions associated with project maintenance activities would be minimal, and according to Eagle Crest, would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for operation. Table 31 provides the estimated operation-related annual emissions associated with maintenance of the proposed project.

Table 31. Annual operational emissions (tons) (Source: Eagle Crest, 2009a).

CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO2 N2O CH4 0.57 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 102 0.00 0.01

Notes: CO – carbon monoxide VOC – volatile organic compounds NOx – nitrous oxides

PM10 – particulate matter greater than 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 – particulate matter greater than 2.5 microns in diameter

SO2 – sulfur dioxide

CO2 – carbon dioxide

N2O – nitrous oxide

CH4 – methane

The maximum energy requirement to refill the proposed upper reservoir would be about 1,600 MW, generally consumed during off-peak periods. Eagle Crest states that this energy would normally be provided by wind (typically with excess generation during

265 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

nighttime conditions) and solar facilities during off-peak hours (generally on weekend days) and by general base-load electrical generation during the nighttime hours. In this manner, the project would act like a storage system for the energy generated during the off-peak hours. During peak energy demand periods, about 1,300 MW of generation would occur. In this manner, the project would eliminate the need for up to 1,300 MW of simple-cycle natural gas (fossil-fueled) peaking facilities during peak periods, and decrease emissions associated with the fossil-fueled facilities.

Table 32 provides overall emission of CO2, comparing power generation and pump-back power. The pump-back power that would be required would be greater than the power that would be generated by the facility, however, due to the timing and source of power from which pump-back power (generally from plants with low air emissions) is derived, and the displacement of other peak power sources (generally peaker plants with higher emissions). Overall, emissions of CO2 would be reduced by the overall system operation. Table 32 compares two scenarios for maximum and minimum displacement scenarios. The difference in the scenarios is that pump-back power is assumed to be generated by renewable sources in the maximum displacement scenarios and by combined-cycle power plants in the minimum displacement scenarios. This table shows that overall emissions of CO2 would be reduced by the overall system operation. Table 32. Annual electrical generation offset of CO2 emissions (Source: State Water Board, 2010). Pump-back Renewable sources GWh/year 2,883 power used

Annual CO2 0 (metric tons) Combined cycle GWh/year 2883

Annual CO2 1,065,796 (metric tons) Generation Simple cycle GWh/year 2,278 Displaced

Annual CO2 1,115,751 (metric tons)

Noise Our analysis of potential noise effects that could result from the short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed project is discussed below. The noise analysis considers Riverside County noise regulations and ordinances and Federal Transit Administration guidelines.

266 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Effects of Project Construction on Noise Levels Construction of the project would have a temporary effect on ambient noise levels. Although a few intermittent activities such as rock drilling or pavement breaking would be louder, engine noise would be the dominant source of noise from most construction equipment. Eagle Crest proposes to comply with the County of Riverside’s General Plan and its applicable noise ordinance codes during construction (Measure NOI-1). Eagle Crest also plans to equip all construction equipment with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers and intake silencers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards (Measure NOI-2).

Our Analysis Aerial photographs of the region show that there limited sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools/churches, or parks located in the general project vicinity, which includes the proposed Eagle Mountain upper and lower reservoir sites, the proposed pressure and tailrace tunnel locations, and the proposed powerhouse, switchyard, and reverse osmosis treatment sites. However, there are a few remaining occupied structures and a school at the Eagle Mountain town site. The majority of the portion of the central project area where construction would occur (upper and lower reservoir sites, the proposed pressure and tailrace tunnel locations, and the proposed powerhouse, switchyard, and reverse osmosis treatment sites) lies largely within the mined lands where there are no sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools/churches, or parks. These sites are in or beneath mountainous terrain and mine tailings and are about 1.5 to 4 miles from the nearest sensitive receptors such as the few occupied residences and the school at the Eagle Mountain town site and the rural residences along Kaiser Road and Eagle Mountain Road. The central project area is about 1.5 miles from the closest boundary of JTNP. As noted earlier in this section, sensitive receptors would be within about 200 feet of the proposed locations of the electric transmission line along Eagle Mountain Road and the water supply line along Kaiser Road. Based on the assumed noise levels at 50 feet from the construction equipment, a standard acoustical equation was used to estimate the attenuation of noise based on the distance from the construction site to the nearest JTNP boundary and the nearest sensitive receptors. The equation uses a noise attenuation rate of about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance to account for the absorption of noise waves due to ground surfaces such as soft dirt and bushes (Caltrans, 1998, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a). Table 33 shows estimated construction noise levels that would affect people at the nearest sensitive land uses to the proposed reservoir sites and the proposed pipeline/transmission line routes. These estimated noise levels represent the worst-case scenario because the estimates do not account for noise attenuation due to the presence of natural sound barriers. Noise levels associated with construction activities at the reservoir sites would be expected to be at least 5 to 10 dBA less at the nearest sensitive receptors because most of the work

267 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

would be completed at the bottom of the proposed reservoir sites where the line of sight between the construction activities and the receptors would be blocked.

Table 33. Minimum distances and Lmax noise levels (in dBA) at sensitive land uses (Source: State Water Board, 2010).

Lmax at Closest Lmax at 50 feet Residence Closest Distance to the (rock drill/dump (rock drill/dump Project Component Sensitive Land Use truck) truck Reservoir sites 4 miles (residences) 98/88 32/22 Reservoir sites 2 miles (JTNP) 98/88 43/33 Pipeline/transmission 200 feet (residences) 98/88 83/73 line Notes: JNTP — Joshua Tree National Park and wilderness area

Lmax — the maximum sound level measured over the measurement period

As indicated in table 33, maximum estimated construction noise from the vicinity of the reservoir sites at the nearest residences would be 32 dBA during rock drilling and 22 dBA for dump trucks and other construction activities. These noise levels would likely not be audible at the nearby residences. The same construction activities would generate noise levels at the boundary of JTNP that would be up to 43 dBA during rock drilling and 33 dBA during other construction activities. However, rock drilling, if necessary, would generate loud noises only during early stages of the construction and the noise would be substantially attenuated when excavation for the project tunnels and other facilities proceeds deep into the ground. Thus, rock drilling activities could be audible at the boundary of JTNP, but the effect would be temporary and not substantial. Construction of the proposed tunnels and powerhouse facilities would occur underground. Therefore, noise effects associated with construction of these facilities would be limited. Maximum construction noise at the nearest sensitive receptors to the transmission line and water pipeline would be adverse; however, it is anticipated that construction of the facilities would proceed in a linear fashion, and construction noise effects at any one location along the pipeline or transmission line route would last for no more than several weeks. Construction of the project would also create increased traffic on local roads. Increased traffic would be generated from the movement of workers, materials, and equipment to the site. The primary routes used to access the project site would be Interstate 10 and Kaiser Road, and workers coming to the site would use these routes. Given the existing low volumes of traffic levels along Kaiser Road, construction traffic would result in an increase in noise levels at residences along the road, an adverse

268 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

temporary effect. Based on aerial photographs, about 20 residences would be affected by the increased traffic noise along Kaiser Road. Compliance with the applicable County of Riverside noise ordinance codes during construction would minimize the effects of noise levels during construction. Eagle Crest’s other proposed measures would lower the noise level during construction by equipping all construction equipment with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers and intake silencers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.

Effects of Project Operations on Noise Levels Normal operation of the proposed project would result in a minimal increase in road traffic but would not substantially increase ambient noise levels along Kaiser Road. The proposed underground powerhouse would not affect above-ground noise levels. Noise could be generated from the transmission lines in some situations. Eagle Crest has not proposed any measures to limit noise levels during project operation.

Our Analysis During project operation, the increase in traffic along the access roads north of Interstate 10 would be minimal due to the low number of employees expected to be employed at the site. One exception would be related to salt removal operations from the evaporation and solidification ponds. Removal of the expected salt volume from onsite locations to an unspecified and likely off-site location would require about 280 truck trips per year if the removal were done on an annual basis. Because Eagle Crest proposes to implement the salt removal process at 10-year intervals, resulting in almost 3,000 truck trips in a short period, the truck noise related to this operation would be noticeable. Under wet weather conditions, high-tension transmission lines may generate audible noises known as corona discharge. The degree or intensity of the corona discharge and the resulting audible noise (normally a low-level hissing or crackling noise) are affected by humidity, air density, wind, and water in the form of rain, drizzle, and fog. Humidity levels increase the conductivity of the air and therefore increase the intensity of the discharge. Also, irregularities on the conductor surface, such as nicks or sharp points and airborne contaminants, can increase the corona activity. The higher voltages at which modern transmission lines operate have increased the noise problem, and the power industry designs, constructs, and maintains transmission lines so that during dry conditions they would operate below the corona-inception voltage. This means that the proposed line would generate a minimal amount of corona-related noise during the vast majority of the time in the very dry desert location of the proposed transmission line. However, during rare foul weather conditions, corona discharges could be produced by water droplets and fog. Eagle Crest estimates that the corona noise at the edge of the proposed 500-kV transmission line ROW (i.e., 100 feet from the centerline of the transmission line) would range from 45 to 50 dBA. At 200 feet from the transmission line, this would equate to a

269 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

noise level range of about 37 to 43 dBA. This low-level noise would be noticeable only close to the line during the very rare wet weather conditions.

3.3.8.3 Cumulative Effects The air quality cumulative effects analysis considers whether the project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable local and regional developments, would create a significant cumulative effect. The other potential developments include several solar projects and the proposed Eagle Mountain landfill. In general, the cumulative air quality analysis can consider applicable planning documents that guide development at, or in the vicinity of, the project and within the region; under CEQA this is considered a plan-based approach. The cumulative contribution of the proposed project to criteria pollutants is considered in the ongoing planning by the SCAQMD to meet the state and federal regulatory AAQSs into the future. This planning is based on inventories of emissions anticipated from development in accordance with each of the county general plans within the air basin. Given the progress and locations of other projects, Eagle Crest concluded that construction of the solar projects would be removed from cumulative actions due to their locations and distances from the proposed project; while construction of the Eagle Mountain landfill project would also be removed due to its time schedule (construction would probably not occur simultaneously with construction of the proposed project). Because construction of the proposed project would result in a temporarily significant construction-related effect for NOX in construction years 2013 and 2014, the proposed project would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact for NOX, as a precursor to ozone formation, in those years. However, because of the temporary nature of construction activities and implementation of Eagle Crest’s proposed measures, the severity and frequency of these effects would be limited. Furthermore, Eagle Crest’s proposal to work collaboratively on a cost-share basis with the Park Service to complete a 2-year air monitoring study would provide data to adjust the construction workload if any exceedances are observed.

Based on the location and timing of the project, the CO, PM10, and PM2.5 effects are not likely to be cumulatively significant.

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the no-action alternative, the Eagle Mountain Project would not be constructed. There would be no changes to the physical, biological, or cultural resources of the area and electrical generation from the project would not occur.

270 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS

In this section, we look at the Eagle Mountain Project’s use of environmental resources for hydropower purposes to see what effect various environmental measures would have on the project’s costs and power generation. Under the Commission’s approach to evaluating the economics of hydropower projects, as articulated in Mead Corp.,64 the Commission compares the current project cost to an estimate of the cost of obtaining the same amount of energy and capacity using the likely alternative source of power for the region (cost of alternative power). In keeping with Commission policy as described in Mead Corp., our economic analysis is based on current electric power cost conditions and does not consider future escalation of fuel prices in valuing the hydropower project’s power benefits. For each of the licensing alternatives, our analysis includes an estimate of: (1) the cost of individual measures considered in the EIS for the protection, mitigation and enhancement of environmental resources affected by the project; (2) the cost of alternative power; (3) the total project cost (i.e., for construction, operation, maintenance, and environmental measures); and (4) the difference between the cost of alternative power and total project cost. If the difference between the cost of alternative power and total project cost is positive, the project produces power for less than the cost of alternative power. If the difference between the cost of alternative power and total project cost is negative, the project produces power for more than the cost of alternative power. This estimate helps to support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest with respect to a proposed license. However, project economics is only one of many public interest factors the Commission considers in determining whether, and under what conditions, to issue a license.

4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT Table 34 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. This information was provided by Eagle Crest in its license application. We find that the values provided by Eagle Crest are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); estimated future capital investment required to maintain and extend the life of plant equipment and facilities; relicensing costs; normal operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees.

64 See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC ¶ 61,027 (July 13, 1995). In most cases, electricity from hydropower would displace some form of fossil- fueled generation, in which fuel cost is the largest component of the cost of electricity production.

271 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Table 34. Parameters for the economic analysis of the Eagle Mountain Project. Parameter Value Source Period of analysis (years) 30 Staff Taxes and insurance (%) 2.1 Eagle Crest, 2009a, Exhibit D Federal income tax rate (%) 35 Staff Net investment, $ 0 Staff Operation and maintenance, $/year $29,473,000 in Eagle Crest, 2009a, Exhibit D (includes property taxes, makeup years 1-3 and water pumping costs, land leases, $28,310,000 water treatment costs, property each year insurance, FERC fees, and thereafter administrative fees) Energy value ($/MWh) $40 Estimated by staff based on Eagle Crest, 2009b Capacity value ($/kW-year) $154 Staff based on Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook Ancillary services value ($/kW-year) $95 Estimated by staff based on Eagle Crest, 2009b Pumping ratio (MWh pumping/MWh 1.25 Eagle Crest, 2009a, Exhibit D generating) Pumping energy cost ($/MWh) $20 Estimated by staff based on Eagle Crest, 2009b Interest rate (%) 6 Eagle Crest, 2009a, Exhibit D Discount rate (%) 6 Eagle Crest, 2009a, Exhibit D Notes: kW kilowatt MW – megawatt MWh – megawatt-hour

A pumped storage generating facility includes an upper reservoir, a lower reservoir, and a reversible pump-turbine unit in between the two reservoirs. In generating mode, water from the upper reservoir flows through the reversible unit to the lower reservoir. The water turns the turbine, which is attached to a generator, producing electricity that is transmitted to the electric grid. In pumping mode, power is drawn from the electric grid to “motor” the unit in reverse to act as a pump, pushing water from the lower reservoir back up to the upper reservoir. Therefore, pumped storage facilities are net energy consumers. The amount of energy produced as water passes from the upper

272 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

reservoir to the lower reservoir through the turbines is less than the amount of energy required to pump water back up to the upper reservoir and provide station service power. However, one of the benefits of pumped storage facilities is realized when the price of power for pumping is less than the value of generation. Typically, there are projects that can provide power at lower rates during nighttime or low-demand hours, compared to rates during daytime, high-demand hours. Such facilities can include base-load nuclear, coal, and fossil-fueled facilities, as well as renewable resource facilities powered by solar, wind, biomass, and other sources. Base-load units are typically brought online and remain operational through the course of the day because it is inefficient to bring them online and offline due to the lengthy start-up time required, and because they operate at optimum efficiency at higher loads. Therefore, the pumped storage facility can provide higher priced power during the day when energy demands are high and can use lower cost power from other facilities during the night and other periods when energy demand is low. Pumped storage facilities can also be used to store the energy produced by facilities during low-demand periods by pumping water into the upper reservoir during those periods so that it can be used for generation during higher-demand periods. If the source of pumping energy is an eligible source under the RPS, the Eagle Mountain pumped storage facility would qualify for the RPS.

In its draft EIR for the Eagle Mountain Project, the State Water Board considered alternative routes for the proposed project’s primary transmission line and presents an alternative route that would interconnect the Eagle Mountain Project to the existing Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 transmission line at SCE’s proposed Red Bluff substation (State Water Board, 2010). SCE is pursuing the construction of this new substation, which would be located along the existing Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 transmission line south of Interstate 10 and about 6 miles east of Desert Center. The purpose of the substation would be to provide a point of interconnection for the renewable and non-renewable resource facilities proposed and planned for the eastern portion of Riverside County with the electric grid. The proposed Red Bluff substation would include: (1) construction of a new 500/220-kV substation on about 75 acres of land; and (2) two new parallel transmission line segments to connect the new substation to the existing Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 transmission line. SCE filed its application for approval with the CPUC in November 2010. SCE expects that substation will be complete and in service by the third quarter of 2013..

Both interconnection points, if and when completed, are projected to be in service before the proposed Eagle Mountain Project would be operational. The environmental effects associated with each alternative interconnection point and the various potential project transmission line routes are considered later in this document under the various resource areas.

A substantial number of wind and solar generation facilities are planned or proposed near the proposed Eagle Mountain Project that could provide power to pump

273 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

water to the upper reservoir during nighttime (i.e., low demand) periods including weekends.

The ability of pumped storage facilities to be switched from pumping to generating and back again very quickly, as needed, provides unique benefits to the electric grid. Pumped storage facilities can provide a number of ancillary services to the grid and therefore generate additional revenues in the electric market. Among these services are spinning reserve, non-spinning reserve, frequency regulation, voltage support and regulation, load following capability, peak shaving, and black-start capability. The following discussion provides more detail of these various services.  Spinning reserve is the extra generating capacity that is available by increasing the power output of generators that are already connected to the power system. Non-spinning reserve or supplemental reserve is the extra generating capacity that is not currently connected to the system but can be brought online after a short delay.  Grid frequency is a system-wide indicator of overall power imbalance. These imbalances are removed by requesting generators to operate in frequency control mode, altering their output continuously to keep the frequency near the required value.  System voltage levels vary over the course of a day due to a variety of factors, including: (1) the location of the local distribution line; (2) proximity to large electricity consumers; (3) proximity to utility voltage regulating equipment; (4) seasonal variations in overall system voltage levels; and (5) load factor on local transmission and distribution systems.  Pumped storage facilities can operate as base load, load following, or peaking power facilities and change operating modes seasonally and daily. Most hydroelectric facilities have the ability to start within minutes, if not seconds, depending upon available water supply. When in load following mode, the output of the pumped storage facility can be adjusted as necessary to meet widely varying load requirements.  Pumped storage facilities can be operated at a generating level that is much lower than a base load facility and can therefore avoid the need to run a base load unit at low efficiencies below the minimum loading rating of the base load unit.  A pumped storage facility can generate electricity during peak periods when demand is high and available generating output is near its limits and then pump during off-peak periods when demand is low when available generating output is lower.

274 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Black-start is the procedure to recover from a total or partial shutdown of the transmission system, which has caused an extensive loss of supplies. This entails isolated power stations being started individually and gradually being reconnected with each other in order to form an interconnected system again. The national emphasis on the development of renewable resources and the reduction in the use of fossil-fueled facilities has resulted in the planning and development of numerous large wind and solar power facilities across the country, and especially in southern California. Several large wind and solar facilities have been proposed in the vicinity of the proposed Eagle Mountain Project, which was a factor in the selection of the Eagle Mountain site. As stated in section 1.2.2, Need for Power, there are 9,860 MW of wind power projects and 9,881 MW of solar power projects planned and forecast to be developed in the California-South subregion in which the Eagle Mountain Project is proposed. The variability of the output of these facilities can be problematic to the electric grid because they can create system imbalances by themselves. Such facilities typically work best when they are located close to generating facilities that can provide system balancing capabilities, such as those provided by pumped storage facilities and gas-fired combustion turbines installed specifically to work in concert with solar and wind farms to provide system stability. The pumped storage facilities can provide an added benefit in that power produced by solar and wind facilities in low-demand periods can be “stored” by using it to pump water to the upper reservoir, making it available to produce hydroelectric generation during high-demand periods. Pumped storage facilities are designed to be able to change modes rapidly and can fill gaps due to wind and solar power variability. We used a value of $95 per kilowatt (kW) per year for ancillary services, representing the average of the estimated revenues that Eagle Crest estimated it would receive for providing ancillary services to the grid ($40 to $150 per kW per year) as discussed in Eagle Crest’s response to AIR No. 7, filed October 26, 2009. The project is expected to provide various ancillary services, including spinning and non-spinning reserves and regulating reserves (up and down services), as well as black-start capabilities. At that rate, ancillary services revenues could contribute about $120,000,000 toward offsetting pumping and other costs of the project during a 30-year period.

275 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Table 35 compares the installed capacity, annual generation, cost of alternative power, estimated total project cost, and difference between the cost of alternative power and total project cost for the two action alternatives considered in this final EIS: Eagle Crest’s proposal and the staff alternative. Table 35. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for the alternatives for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project (Source: staff). Eagle Crest’s Proposal Staff Alternative Installed capacity (MW) 1,300 1,300 Annual generation (MWh) 4,308,000 4,308,000 Dependable capacity (MW) 1,276 1,276 Annual cost of alternative power $493,872,000 $493,872,000 ($/MWh) 114.64 114.64 Annual project cost $359,819,520 $360,740,500 ($/MWh) 83.52 83.74 Difference between the cost of $134,052,480 $133,131,500 alternative power and project cost ($/MWh) 31.12 30.90 Notes: MW – megawatt MWh – megawatt-hour

4.2.1 No-action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be constructed as proposed and would not produce any electricity.

4.2.2 Eagle Crest’s Proposal Eagle Crest proposes to develop the Eagle Mountain Project using two existing largely inactive mine pits as upper and lower reservoirs. The project would require substantial civil modifications and additions to the site for use as a generating facility. Eagle Crest proposes various environmental measures to protect existing environmental resources in the vicinity of project features.

276 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Under Eagle Crest’s proposed alternative, the project would generate an average of 4,308,000 MWh annually. The annual cost of alternative power under Eagle Crest’s proposed alternative would be $493,872,000, or $114.64/MWh. The average annual project cost would be $359,819,520, or $83.52/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost that is $134,052,480, or $31.12/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power.

4.2.3 Staff Alternative The staff alternative includes all of Eagle Crest’s proposed environmental measures. The staff alternative would have the same capacity and energy attributes as Eagle Crest’s proposed project. Table 36 shows the staff-recommended additions, deletions, and modifications to Eagle Crest’s proposed environmental protection and enhancement measures and the estimated cost of each. Among those modifications was the relocation of the transmission line route and interconnection with a proposed SCE substation that would connect to the existing Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 transmission line, as opposed to the proposed transmission line route that would connect to a new collector substation on the SCE’s proposed Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 transmission line. The staff- recommended route and interconnection was intended to reduce environmental effects. Under the staff alternative, the average annual cost of alternative power would be $493,872,000, or $114.64/MWh. The annual project cost would be $360,740,500, or $83.74/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost that is $133,131,500, or $30.90/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power.

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES Table 36 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period of analysis to give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost.

277 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Table 36. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in assessing the environmental effects of the proposed operation of the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project (Source: staff). Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) Geologic and Soils Resources 1. Implement the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Eagle Crest, staff $1,650,000 $0 $108,820 filed July 7, 2010, that describes the erosion and sediment control practices to minimize soil erosion in construction areas and prevent sediment transport into stormwater discharges away from the construction site (Measure GEO-1). 278 Water Resources 1. Develop a groundwater level monitoring network Eagle Crest, staff $698,000 $0 $46,030 (including existing and new monitoring wells) to confirm that project pumping would be maintained at levels in the range of the historical pumping (Measure WS-1). Include the project water supply wells in this monitoring network. 2. During the initial fill pumping period, monitor wells on Eagle Crest $75,000 $1,000 $5,600 neighboring properties whose water production may be impaired by project groundwater pumping; if project pumping would adversely affect these wells, replace or lower the pumps, deepen the existing well, construct a new well, and/or compensate the owner for increased pumping costs (Measure WS-3).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 3. Monitor wells on neighboring properties whose water State Water Board $75,000a $100,000a $69,950 production may be impaired by project groundwater pumping during the initial fill pumping period. If it is determined that project pumping is lowering water levels in those wells by 5 feet or more, replace or lower the pumps, deepen the existing wells, construct a new well, and/or compensate the well owner for increased pumping costs to maintain water supply to those neighboring properties (Measure MM GW-2).

279 4. Monitor groundwater on a quarterly basis for the first 4 Eagle Crest, staff $0 $19,100 $12,420 years of project pumping; possibly extend monitoring from quarterly to bi-annually or annually, depending on findings and prepare annual reports for submittal to the Commission and the State Water Board, confirming actual drawdown conditions (Measure WS-4). Include the quarterly measurement and annual reporting of groundwater pumping production, water quality, and groundwater levels in the project water supply wells. Initial reservoir filling rates would be lowered if groundwater levels measured in the monitoring network are found to exceed the proposed Maximum Allowable Changes thresholds. 5. Perform aquifer tests during final engineering design to Eagle Crest, staff $2,428,000 $155,000 $260,880 confirm the seepage recovery well rates and aquifer characteristics (Measure SR-1).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 6. Conduct performance pumping test of the final seepage Staff $200,000 $0 $13,190 recovery system (both upper and lower reservoir seepage recovery wells) prior to reservoir filling to ensure that hydraulic control of the local groundwater can be achieved. Submit the results to the Commission and the State Water Board. 7. Minimize drawdown in the vicinity of the Colorado (only presented by $0 $0 $0 River Aqueduct through management of reservoir Eagle Crest as an seepage, pending the initial findings of measures SR-1 alternative measure

280 and SR-5, and as determined through consultation with to Measure SR-1 if the State Water Board (Measure SR-1A). SR-1 is unacceptable) 8. Control seepage from the upper reservoir by using a Eagle Crest, staff $3,279,000 $297,000 $409,300 separate set of seepage recovery wells, employ a testing program for these seepage recovery wells and make final drawdown observations in nearby observation wells to support final engineering design (Measure SR-2).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 9. Develop a groundwater level monitoring network Eagle Crest, staff $0b $0 $0 (including existing and new monitoring wells) to confirm that seepage recovery well pumping would be effective at managing groundwater levels beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct and in the Eagle Creek Canyon portions of the proposed landfill, and record groundwater levels, water quality, and production at the project seepage recovery wells (Measure SR-3). Ensure that seepage does not artificially encroach within 5 feet below the bottom of the landfill liner. 281 10. Maintain seepage from the upper reservoir from Eagle Crest, staff $0c $0c $0 encroaching within 5 feet below the bottom of elevation of the landfill liner and maintain seepage from the lower reservoir to prevent a significant rise in water levels beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct (Measure SR-4). 11. Monitor groundwater on a quarterly basis for the first Eagle Crest, staff $0 $28,600 $18,590 4 years of project pumping; possibly extend monitoring from quarterly to bi-annually or annually, depending on findings (Measure SR-5). 12. Install a reverse osmosis desalination facility and Eagle Crest, staff $45,400,000 $715,000 $3,458,930 brine disposal lagoon to remove salts and metals from reservoir water and maintain total dissolved solids concentrations at the level of the source water, as part of project design (Measure GQ-1).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 13. Implement a monitoring program to measure Eagle Crest, staff $753,000 $50,800 $82,680 groundwater quality to assess and maintain groundwater effects less than significant by sampling reservoirs, seepage recovery wells, and wells upgradient and downgradient of the reservoirs and brine disposal lagoon on a quarterly basis for the first 4 years (Measure GQ-2). 14. Replace wells located within the reservoir with wells Eagle Crest, staff $981,000 $0 $64,700 located outside of reservoirs (Measure LF-1). 15. Implement measures to release excess water from the Eagle Crest, staff $10,000,000d $0 $659,510 282 reservoirs during large rainfall events, such as the 100- year event and up to and including the probable maximum flood, or PMF. 16. Construct two extensometers—one in the upper Eagle Crest, staff $368,000 $0 $24,270 Chuckwalla Valley near OW-3 and the other in the Orocopia Valley near OPW15—to measure potential inelastic subsidence that could affect the operation of the Colorado River Aqueduct; subsidence is not to exceed 0.125 foot (Measure WS-2). 17. Develop and implement a reservoir-level monitoring Staff $20,000 $5,000 $4,570 plan to ensure that the water levels are managed properly within operational restraints and to help determine possible water level effects on terrestrial resources.

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 18. Develop and implement a brine pond-level Staff $10,000 $12,000 $8,460 monitoring plan to ensure that the brine levels of the ponds are managed properly and to help determine if a leak has developed in the linings of the ponds. 19. Develop and implement a more comprehensive Staff $75,000 $6,000 $8.850 monitoring well placement and monitoring program around the proposed brine and solidification ponds to allow for the earlier detection of a possible leak in the lining of the ponds. 283 20. Develop a groundwater hydrologic budget report Staff $2,000 $2,000 $1,430 which combines the data from groundwater monitoring, pumpage, seepage recovery, precipitation and evaporation and groundwater flow direction. 21. Perform channel modifications and other measures to Staff $4,000,000 $0 $263,800 contain flows associated with the PMF to the Eagle Creek channel and to direct these flows into the proposed lower reservoir.

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) Fisheries Resources 1. Obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement, which Eagle Crest, staff $60,000 $0 $3,960 would identify the condition and location of all state jurisdictional waters, effects, and mitigation measures, including the acreage assessment of washes that may be affected, construction requirements associated with working on or near the washes, and compensation for lost or damaged acreage (Measure BIO-23). Terrestrial Resources 284 1. Concurrent with final design engineering, develop a Eagle Crest, staff $15,000 $25,000 $17,240 comprehensive site-specific mitigation and monitoring program in consultation with the Biological Technical Advisory Team (Measure BIO-1). 2. Designate a staff member who would be responsible Eagle Crest, staff $0 $25,000 $16,250 for implementing and overseeing the biological compliance program (Measure BIO-2). 3. Implement the WEAP to ensure that project Eagle Crest, staff $100,000 $0 $6,600 construction and operation would be conducted within a framework of safeguarding environmentally sensitive resources and restrict construction and maintenance activities to minimize project effects (Measures BIO-3 and BIO-19).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 4. Regularly submit reports to the relevant resource Eagle Crest, staff $80,000 $8,000 $10,480 agencies, documenting project activities, mitigation implemented, and mitigation effectiveness and providing recommendations, as needed (Measure BIO-4). 5. During construction in native habitats, restrict Eagle Crest, staff $0c $0c $0 disturbance to the smallest area necessary to complete the construction; design new spur roads and improvements to existing roads in a way that would preserve existing desert wash topography and flow patterns (Measure BIO-5). 285 6. Conduct pre-construction surveys to identify special- Eagle Crest, staff $15,000 $0 $990 status plant populations and species protected by the CDNPA, and establish avoidance areas in construction zones for special plant resources. Where avoidance is not feasible, salvage and transplant any species that can be reasonably transplanted in an approved area (Measure BIO-6). 7. In compliance with CDNPA, consult with the County Eagle Crest, staff $5,000 $0 $330 Agricultural Commissioner for direction regarding disposal of protected plants (Measure BIO-7). 8. Implement the Revegetation Plan, dated October 27, Eagle Crest, staff $45,000 $5,000 $6,220 2009, for areas that are temporarily disturbed during construction (Measure BIO-8).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 9. Implement the Invasive Species Monitoring and Eagle Crest, staff $15,000 $5,000 $4,240 Control Plan, dated October 27, 2009, to minimize the spread of invasive non-native vegetation (Measure BIO- 9). 10. Implement requirements of the Northern and Eastern Eagle Crest, staff $3,000 $0 $200 Colorado Desert Coordinated Management (NECO) Plan to avoid disturbance of impoundments and restrict surface flow to impoundments. If avoidance is not possible, construct a new impoundment as close as feasible to

286 replicate and replace each lost impoundment (Measure BIO-10). 11. For construction activities scheduled to occur Eagle Crest $5,000 $0 $330 between about January 15 and July 30 in vegetated habitat, survey all potential nesting sites for active bird nests and provide no activity buffer around active nests (Measure BIO-11). 12. Develop and implement a plan to manage evaporation Eagle Crest, staff $200,000 $40,000 $39,190 ponds to minimize their attractiveness and access to migratory birds and establish a monitoring program to identify bird usage of the evaporation ponds, effectiveness of bird deterrents, and water quality. Based on monitoring results, implement adaptive management (Measure BIO- 12).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 13. If requested, complete a Phase III survey, including a Eagle Crest, staff $7,000 $0 $460 nesting season survey, followed by a winter survey if no burrows or owls are observed during the nesting season survey, and a pre-construction survey, to further assess burrowing owl use of the project area and potential effects. (With California DFG approval, the pre- construction survey may obviate the need for the Phase III survey) (Measure BIO-13). 14. Limit the construction to September 1 through Eagle Crest, staff $10,000 $0 $660

287 February 1, if burrowing owls are present, to avoid disruption of breeding activities; avoid disruption of burrowing owl nesting activities; use a minimum of a 250- foot buffer to avoid active nests until fledgling has occurred (Measure BIO-14). 15. Determine through pre-construction surveys if 1.0- Eagle Crest $2,000 $0 $130 mile construction buffers would be required during prairie falcon or golden eagle nesting seasons (Measure BIO-15). 16. Conduct pre-construction surveys for all burrows that Eagle Crest, staff $15,000 $0 $990 might host badger or kit fox, avoid active burrows, where possible, and mark the perimeters of all avoidance areas with 3-foot-high, and no more than 10-foot-apart, wooden stakes. Where avoidance is infeasible, encourage occupants to leave their burrows (Measure BIO-16).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 17. Conduct pre-construction surveys to determine the Eagle Crest, staff $15,000 $5,000 $4,240 existence, location, and condition of bat roosts and identify foraging habitat. Based on results of surveys, develop a mitigation plan to avoid roosting and foraging effects on resident bats, minimize disturbance, or as an inescapable measure, evict bats (Measure BIO-17). 18. Construct security fencing around portions of the Eagle Crest, staff $0c $0c $0 central project area to exclude terrestrial wildlife, including bighorn sheep, deer, coyotes, foxes and badger,

288 small mammals, and reptiles from entering project areas that pose hazards (Measure BIO-18). 19. In areas without wildlife exclusion fencing or those Eagle Crest, staff $0c $0c $0 areas that have not been cleared of tortoises, conduct construction activities only during daylight hours (Measure BIO-20). 20. Close, temporarily fence, or cover pipeline trenches Eagle Crest, staff $0c $0c $0 every day. Conduct inspections (by an approved biological monitor) of any open trenches at first light, midday, and at the end of each day to ensure animal safety (Measure BIO-21). 21. Design, install, and maintain facility lighting to Eagle Crest, staff $0c $0c $0 prevent casting of light into adjacent native habitat (Measure BIO-22).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 22. Amend the Revegetation Plan (Measure BIO-8 Staff $940 $0 $610 above) to include additional irrigation of transplanted vegetation on a monthly basis for 2 years following transplanting. 23. Amend the proposed Invasive Species Monitoring FWS, staff $2,000 $3,230 $2,230 and Control Plan (Measure BIO-9 above) to include: (a) adoption of criteria for success and implantation of an adaptive management plan if initial efforts do not prove successful; (b) inclusion of the reservoirs and water

289 seepage areas with other areas to be monitored for invasive plants; (c) monitoring of water seepage and reservoirs on an annual basis following vegetation establishment; and (d) provision of additional monitoring in years 3 through 5 following construction, in years 1 through 5 following temporary disturbance associated with project maintenance, and project-wide surveys once every 5 years. 24. Replace the proposed bird nesting survey measure Interior, staff $2,000 $0 $130 (Measure BIO-11 above) with the following measure: For all construction activities scheduled to occur between about January 15 and July 30 in vegetated habitat, survey all potential nesting sites for active bird nests and provide “no activity” buffer areas around active nest sites. Consult with California DFG and FWS to determine appropriate buffer distances.

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 25. Amend the proposed Phase III survey (Measure BIO- FWS, staff $5,000 $0 $330 13 above) to include: following pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls, if burrowing owls are present in areas affected by construction activities, consult with FWS and California DFG to develop a burrowing owl protection plan. 26. Replace the proposed construction buffer measure for FWS, Park $8,000 $0 $530 prairie falcons and golden eagles (Measure BIO-15 above) Service, staff with the following measure: Determine through pre-

290 construction surveys whether or not 1.0-mile construction buffers would be required during prairie falcon or golden eagle nesting seasons. If construction activities would occur within 1.0 mile of active nests, consult with FWS and the Park Service to determine appropriate restrictions on construction activities in these areas. 27. Remove all woody riparian species around the Staff $0 $5,000 $3,250 reservoirs prior to construction and annually for the term of the license.

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 28. Develop and implement a transmission line design Staff $20,000 $5,000 $4,570 plan that includes avian protection, prepared in consultation with FWS, and design measures for reducing potential for electrocution and collision injuries; provides methods for surveying and reporting project-related raptor mortality; incorporates a worker education plan pertaining to avian–power line interactions; and includes procedures for managing nesting on power line structures.

Threatened and Endangered Species 291 1. Remove tortoises from harm’s way during the Eagle Crest, staff $100,000 $0 $6,600 construction period (Measure DT-1). 2. Ensure that no construction or maintenance that Eagle Crest, staff $200,000 $0 $13,190 requires surface disturbance in unfenced areas on the linear facilities would occur without biological monitors (Measure DT-2). 3. Enclose the substation and other hazardous areas with Eagle Crest, staff $200,000 $5,000 $16,440 permanent tortoise exclusion fence to keep adjacent tortoises from entering the site (Measure DT-3). 4. Implement the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Eagle Crest, staff $40,000 $0 $2,640 Relocation/Translocation Plan dated April 21, 2011 (Measures DT-4 and DT-7). 5. Implement the Predator Monitoring and Control Plan Eagle Crest, staff $0 $8,000 $5,200 dated March 11, 2011 (Measure DT-5).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 6. Purchase about 90 acres of land to compensate for the Eagle Crest, staff $780,000 $0 $51,440 Category I and Category III desert tortoise habitat that would be disturbed (Measure DT-6). 7. Conduct pre-construction surveys for the spadefoot Staff $10,000 $0 $660 toad in all areas of proposed construction activity not previously surveyed in 2009, and implement the same protection measures proposed for the central area. 8. Amend the Predator Monitoring and Control Plan FWS, staff $40,000 $6,650 $6,960 (Measure DT-5 above) to include staff-recommended 292 surveys for canine activity and canine-related desert tortoise predation. Include a 2 years of baseline surveys, annual construction surveys and post-construction surveys in years 1–5, 7, and 10, to be commenced during the first year reservoir filling is initiated. Recreation Resources 1. Coordinate construction activities with BLM and Eagle Crest, staff $0c $0c $0 provide posted notices of construction activity and any temporary road/access closure (Measure REC-1). Land Use 1. Provide construction access to and from the substation Eagle Crest, staff $0c $0c $0 site from the Eagle Mountain Road exit and follow the Frontage Road east to the site (Measure LU-1).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 2. Two weeks prior to beginning construction, locally Eagle Crest, staff $20,800 $0 $1,370 post notices stating hours of operation for construction near the Desert Center community and along State Route 177 (Measure LU-2). 3. Consult and coordinate with the Metropolitan Water Staff $10,000 $1,000 $1,310 District about the design, construction, and maintenance of project features that would cross its facilities, including power lines, roads, and the Colorado River Aqueduct, and about access to and across these Metropolitan Water

293 District facilities for the construction, operation, and maintenance of project facilities. 4. Develop construction plan for construction activities on Staff $50,000 $0 $3,300 or next to private properties. 5. Develop and implement an environmental complaint Staff $15,000 $920 $1,590 resolution procedure Aesthetic Resources 1. Incorporate directional lighting, light hoods, low Eagle Crest, staff $180,000 $6,000 $15,770 pressure sodium bulbs or LED lighting, and operational devices in final design to allow surface night-lighting in the central site to be turned on as needed for safety (Measure AES-1). 2. Combine and organize staging areas and areas needed Eagle Crest, staff $0c $0c $0 for equipment operation and material storage and assembly within construction lands to the extent feasible to minimize total footprint needed (Measure AES-2).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 3. For construction of the water pipeline, reduce, to the Eagle Crest, staff $0c $0c $0 extent possible, side-cast soils to reduce color contrast with the surrounding landscape. Backfill the pipeline disturbed zone and revegetate with native vegetation immediately following completion of pipeline construction (Measure AES-3). 4. Employ visual mitigation in the design of the Eagle Crest, staff $0c $0c $0 transmission line to minimize visual effects (Measure AES-4). 294 5. Use existing access roads and construction laydown Eagle Crest, staff $0c $0c $0 areas to the extent feasible and revegetate with native vegetation immediately following construction (Measure AES-5). 6. Design and construct the transmission line along the Staff $9,072,000e $0 $598,310 State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route. 7. Consult with the Park Service to develop and Staff $95,000 $0 $6,270 implement a formal night sky monitoring study plan that includes descriptions of monitoring methods and number and types of sampling events. The plan should also include a process for incorporating study findings into design and lighting product selection that would minimize light pollution from project sources. The anticipated night sky study would incorporate measures proposed by Eagle Crest in Measure AES-1.

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) Cultural Resources 1. Implement the project’s HPMP, filed March 4, 2011, Eagle Crest, staff $312,500 $6,500 $22,860 including Measures CLT-1, -2, -3. Air Quality and Noise 1. Periodically water or apply suitable surfactant for Eagle Crest, staff $461,250 $0 $30,420 short-term stabilization of disturbed surface areas and storage piles (Measure AQ-1). 2. Prevent project-related trackout onto paved surfaces by Eagle Crest, staff $25,000 $0 $1,650 295 using a variety of construction management strategies (Measure AQ-2). 3. Stabilize graded site surfaces upon completion of Eagle Crest, staff $92,500 $0 $6,100 grading when subsequent development is delayed or expected to be delayed by more than 30 days, except when precipitation dampens the disturbed surface (Measure AQ-3). 4. Limit areas of active surface disturbance (such as Eagle Crest, staff $30,750 $0 $2,030 grading) to no more than 15 acres per day (Measure AQ- 4). 5. Reduce non-essential earth-moving activities during Eagle Crest, staff $30,500 $0 $2,010 windy conditions, and cease clearing, grading, earth- moving, or excavation activities if winds exceed 25 mph averaged over a 1-hour duration (Measure AQ-5). 6. Develop and implement a transportation management Eagle Crest, staff $20,000 $0 $1,320 plan for employees (Measure AQ-6).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 7. Strictly abide by the applicable state law requirements Eagle Crest $10,000 $0 $660 for diesel truck idling (AQ-7). 8. Use electrical drops in place of temporary electrical Eagle Crest, staff $10,000 $0 $660 generators, and substitute low- and zero-emitting construction equipment and/or alternative fueled or catalyst equipped diesel construction equipment wherever economically feasible (Measure AQ0-8). 9. Obtain proper South Coast Air Quality Management Eagle Crest $10,000 $0 $660 District permits for electrical generators (Measure AQ-9). 296 10. Properly tune and maintain heavy-duty diesel trucks Eagle Crest, staff $20,000 $0 $1,320 in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications to ensure minimum emissions under normal operations (Measure AQ-10). 11. Use 2002 model or newer construction equipment, Eagle Crest, staff $80,000 $0 $5,280 where feasible (Measure AQ-11). 12. Retrofit older off-road construction equipment with Eagle Crest, staff $50,000 $0 $3,300 appropriate emission control devices prior to onsite use, wherever feasible (Measure AQ-12). 13. Establish an air quality study design for two years of Eagle Crest, staff $40,000 $0 $2,640 air quality monitoring (Measure AQ-13). 14. Comply with the County of Riverside General Plan Eagle Crest $30,000 $0 $1,980 applicable noise ordinance codes during construction (Measure NOI-1).

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement/Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) 15. Equip construction machinery with properly Eagle Crest, staff $20,000 $0 $1,320 operating and maintained noise mufflers and intake silencers (Measure NOI-2). a Based on very limited, available information, we estimated that the cost to compensate a single well owner for increased pumping costs per well over a 30-year period could be as high as $60,000. About 50 wells could experience a drawdown in excess of 5 feet due to proposed groundwater withdrawals associated with the project. b In the revised table 4-1, submitted with Eagle Crest’s December 22, 2009, additional information response filing, Eagle Crest (2009c) states that the costs for this measure are included in the costs presented for Measure WS-1 above; therefore, we have shown no cost here. 297 c Eagle Crest did not provide specific costs to implement this measure; therefore, we assume that the cost is included in the base construction cost of the project. d This measure would also include the cost to install the lower reservoir spillway and discharge channel proposed to add after the license application was filed. Eagle Crest did not provide an estimate for the cost to install the spillway and channel, so we have conservatively estimated the cost of this measure at $10,000,000. e We estimated that the implementation of this measure would increase the length of the transmission line by about 3.0 miles. The cost shown represents only the incremental cost to extend the line based on Eagle Crest’s estimated cost for the proposed 13.5-mile-long route of $40,824,000 ($3,024,000 per mile). The cost of Eagle Crest’s proposed 13.5-mile- long route is included in the base construction cost of the project

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

This page intentionally left blank.

298 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES In this section, we compare the development and non-developmental effects of Eagle Crest’s proposal, Eagle Crest’s proposal as modified by staff, and the no-action alternative. We estimate the annual generation of the project under the three alternatives identified above. Our analysis shows that the annual generation would be 4,308 GWh for the proposed action; 4,308 GWh for the staff alternative; and 0 GWh for the no-action alternative. We summarize the environmental effects of the different alternatives below.65 We present the effects of the proposed and staff alternative transmission line and substation in table 37 and also discuss it in section 5.2.

Table 37. Comparison of the proposed action and the staff alternative for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project (Source: staff). Resource Proposed Action Staff Alternative Project Construct the proposed substation Recommend construction of the Facilities location near Desert Center, as substation about 6 miles east of shown in figure 2. Desert Center and south of Interstate 10, as shown in figure 2.

Construct the proposed Recommend construction of the transmission line, as shown in transmission line along the State figure 2. Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route, as shown in figure 2.

Geology and Implement the Erosion and Same as proposed. Soils Sediment Control Plan filed July 7, 2010.

Water To evaluate effects of project Same as proposed, but include in the Resources operations on groundwater levels recommended comprehensive and ensure that levels are groundwater monitoring program maintained at historical values, that would include development of develop a groundwater level an annual groundwater hydrologic monitoring network and monitor budget report. Additionally include during project operations the quarterly measurement and

65 Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be built.

299 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Resource Proposed Action Staff Alternative (including reservoir filling) annual reporting of groundwater initially on a quarterly basis and pumping production, water quality, possibly extending to bi-annual or and groundwater levels in the annual monitoring depending on project water supply wells. Initial findings and prepare annual reservoir filling rates should be reports. decreased if drawdown exceeds the Maximum Allowable Changes thresholds in groundwater levels in select wells positioned throughout the groundwater basin, as also suggested by the State Water Board.

To limit the effects of project Include the monitoring aspect in the groundwater pumping during the recommended comprehensive initial fill pumping period, monitor groundwater monitoring program. existing wells on neighboring Regarding the replacement, or properties whose water production alteration of new wells, and may be impaired if project compensation for increased pumping would adversely affect pumping costs, we note that the these wells, replace or lower the FPA, section 10(c), 16 U.S.C. 803, pumps, deepen the existing well, makes clear that a licensee of a construct a new well, and/or hydropower project “shall be liable compensate owner for increased for all damages occasioned to the pumping costs. property of others by the construction, maintenance, or operation of the project works….”

To effectively control seepage Include the monitoring aspect in the from the upper and lower recommended comprehensive reservoirs, install an array of groundwater monitoring program. seepage recovery wells outside the Additionally, conduct a performance downgradient end of each of these pumping test of the final seepage two reservoirs. A testing program recovery system prior to reservoir would be initially employed filling to ensure that hydraulic during final engineering (prior to control of the local groundwater can project operations) to confirm the be achieved; document and submit assumed hydrogeologic conditions results to the Commission and the (e.g., aquifer characteristics and State Water Board. bedrock fracture interconnectedness) and seepage recovery well pumping rates.

300 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Resource Proposed Action Staff Alternative To ensure that seepage recovery Same as proposed, but include as via pumping wells would be part of the recommended effective at managing groundwater comprehensive groundwater levels beneath the Metropolitan monitoring program. Water District’s Colorado River Aqueduct and in the Eagle Creek Canyon portion of the proposed landfill, develop a groundwater level monitoring network (including existing and new monitoring wells) and record groundwater levels, water quality, and production at the project seepage recovery wells.

To limit the effects of seepage Same as proposed, but include as from the reservoirs, maintain part of the recommended seepage from the upper reservoir comprehensive groundwater below the bottom of the elevation monitoring program. Additionally of the landfill liner and maintain prevent artificially raised seepage from the lower reservoir groundwater levels from to prevent a significant rise in encroaching within 5 feet of the water levels beneath the Colorado bottom of the proposed landfill River Aqueduct. liners.

Monitor groundwater levels by Same as proposed, but include as using the network of proposed part of the recommended groundwater monitoring wells on comprehensive groundwater a quarterly basis for the first monitoring program. 4 years of project pumping; possibly extend monitoring from quarterly to bi-annually or annually, depending on findings. This measure would focus on assessing seepage conditions in the project vicinity, rather than drawdown conditions as a result of project pumping in the Desert Center area.

To remove salts and metals from Same as proposed. the reservoir water and maintain

301 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Resource Proposed Action Staff Alternative total dissolved solids concentration at the level of the source water, install a reverse osmosis desalination facility and brine disposal lagoons.

Assess effects on groundwater Implement a reservoir and brine quality by sampling reservoirs, pond-level monitoring plan and a seepage recovery wells, and wells more comprehensive monitoring upgradient and downgradient of program of monitoring wells for the the reservoirs and brine disposal proposed brine and solidification lagoons, and implement a ponds. monitoring program for groundwater quality on a quarterly basis for the first 4 years.

Replace the four existing wells Same as proposed. located within the proposed reservoir area with wells located outside of reservoirs.

Release excess water from the Same as proposed, but also reservoirs to Eagle Creek during recommend modifications and other large rainfall events, such as the measures to Eagle Creek, if 100-year event and up to and necessary, to contain the flow within including the PMF. Eagle Creek and direct the flow to the proposed lower reservoir.

To ensure that potential Same as proposed, but also specify subsidence would not affect the that subsidence is not to exceed Colorado River Aqueduct, 0.125 foot. construct two extensometers.

Terrestrial Consult with a Biological Same as proposed, and file for Resources Technical Advisory Team Commission approval. (including Eagle Crest, BLM, FWS, and California DFG) to develop a comprehensive site- specific mitigation and monitoring plan.

302 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Resource Proposed Action Staff Alternative Implement the Worker Same as proposed but include Environmental Awareness information about Coachella Valley Program, filed October 27, 2009, milkvetch. to provide oversight of construction activities by designated staff and train construction crews to recognize biologically sensitive resources.

Prepare status reports for resource File quarterly reports with BLM, agencies during construction FWS, California DFG, and the period. Commission.

Limit construction activities in File pre-construction plans that native habitats and preserve delineate the limits of disturbance existing desert wash topography and limits of existing washes or and flow patterns. impoundments.

Conduct pre-construction surveys Include results of surveys, for state special-status plants and designated avoidance areas, and establish avoidance areas where transplant locations in pre- possible. When avoidance is not construction plans filed with BLM, possible, implement transplant or FWS, California DFG, and the salvage measures. Commission.

Implement the Revegetation Plan Include 2 years of monthly filed October 27, 2009. irrigation for transplants and stipulate use of certified weed-free straw.

Implement the Invasive Species Revise plan to incorporate success Monitoring and Control Plan filed criteria and adaptive management October 27, 2009. that would be implemented if success criteria are not achieved, including extended treatment periods or increased treatment frequency. Extend the plan’s scope to include project reservoirs and water seepage areas. These areas should be monitored on an annual basis following vegetation establishment.

303 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Resource Proposed Action Staff Alternative Implement measures to avoid Conduct pre-construction surveys disturbance or restrict flow to for such impoundments in any areas impoundments that could support of construction activity not already Couch’s spadefoot toad. surveyed.

Prior to any construction activities Modify survey period to extend occurring in vegetated areas from January 15 to July 30. Consult between February 15 and July 30, with FWS, BLM, the Park Service, conduct surveys for active and California DFG to identify migratory bird nests and provide a appropriate buffer distances and file 15-foot no-activity buffer around with the Commission for approval active nests. as part of a quarterly report.

Develop and implement an Revise plan to include proposed evaporation pond management hazing and habitat techniques, plan to limit effects on birds. success criteria, and thresholds for implementing exclusionary pond covering.

Conduct Phase III or pre- Conduct pre-construction surveys, construction surveys for but no Phase III surveys. burrowing owls. Incorporate results of pre- construction surveys into development of site-specific comprehensive mitigation plan.

If needed (based on survey Same as proposed. results), limit construction from September 1 through February 1 in areas with burrowing owls and provide protection buffer for active nests.

Based on pre-construction Extend protection buffer to 1 mile. surveys, determine need for and implement 0.25-mile construction buffers around active golden eagle or prairie falcon nests.

Conduct pre-construction surveys Same as proposed. for all burrows that could host badger or kit fox and implement

304 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Resource Proposed Action Staff Alternative measures to avoid causing injury to animals.

Conduct pre-construction surveys Include: (1) baseline surveys during for bat roosts and foraging areas. summer and winter; (2) measures to Develop and implement avoidance protect onsite bat roosting habitat; and mitigation measures based on (3) measures for onsite replacement survey results. of roosting habitat and hibernacula removed by project development; (4) annual summer and winter bat surveys in years 1–5, 7, and 10 following initiation of reservoir filling; (5) criteria for success, and (6) an adaptive management plan that includes additional construction and/or protection of bat habitat to be implemented if success criteria are not met.

Construct security fencing around Include solid barrier along the project reservoirs, collection bottom of the fence to exclude substation, and evaporation ponds terrestrial species, including small to exclude large mammals, such as mammals and reptiles. Monitor badger, fox, deer, coyote, and fences for digging activity. Monitor bighorn sheep. Design fence to drinking areas to see if they are used provide access to drinking water in by desert big horn sheep. If such the lower reservoir. monitoring indicates desert bighorn sheep are not accessing these locations, Eagle Crest should consult with FWS, BLM, the Park Service, and California DFG to identify alternative measures that provide more benefit to this species.

In construction areas without Same as proposed. wildlife exclusion fencing or those areas that have not been cleared of tortoises, conduct construction activities only during daylight hours.

Implement measures to ensure Same as proposed.

305 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Resource Proposed Action Staff Alternative animals are not trapped in pipeline trenches during construction.

Design lighting to prevent casting Same as proposed. light into adjacent native habitat.

Develop and implement a Include measures in plan to reduce transmission line design plan to risk of avian collisions, protocols for reduce potential for avian monitoring and reporting electrocutions and design lines in avian/power line interactions, and accordance with industry worker education measures. guidelines.

Threatened Implement the Desert Tortoise Implement the final Desert Tortoise and Clearance and Relocation/ Clearance and Relocation/ Endangered Translocation Plan filed October Translocation Plan that includes: Species 27, 2009. (1) maintenance of permanent fences for the term of the FERC license; (2) a description of potential relocation recipient sites; and (3) a provision that all injured tortoises would be taken to a qualified veterinarian.

Purchase and manage for Upon completion of final project conservation about 160 acres of design and construction plans, desert tortoise habitat to calculate acres of project-related compensate for effects on desert disturbance to Category I and tortoise. Category III desert tortoise habitat and determine appropriate compensation acreage based on NECO Plan compensation ratios.

Implement the Predator Modify the plan to include baseline Monitoring and Control Plan filed surveys and post-construction March 11, 2011. monitoring methods for coyotes, wild dogs, and gulls. Include mitigation measures to be implemented if increases in population levels are detected following construction. Include a monitoring schedule that would

306 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Resource Proposed Action Staff Alternative begin the second year and include annual surveys in years 1 through 5, 7, and 10.

Recreation Coordinate construction schedules Same as proposed. Resources with BLM and provide posted notices of construction activity and any temporary road/access closure.

Land Use Provide construction access to and Same as proposed for access to the from the substation site from the site, but consult with agencies and Eagle Mountain Road exit and file for Commission approval truck follow the Frontage Road east to trip plans and traffic controls related the site. to the transportation of salts from the proposed desalination facilities.

Two weeks prior to beginning Same as proposed. Additionally, construction, locally post notices develop and implement a stating hours of operation for construction plan for construction construction near the Desert activities next to or across private Center community and along State properties and an environmental Route 177. complaint resolution procedure that includes clear and simple directions for identifying and resolving environmental mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the project and restoration of the ROW. Lastly, file a monthly report with the Commission summarizing resident complaints and solutions related to pipeline construction.

Aesthetics Incorporate lighting measures in Same as proposed. Additionally, the central project area to file the results of the modeling and minimize the effect on monitoring and any changes to the surrounding areas outside of the project lighting design, including project; also conduct night sky consultation with the Park Service. modeling and monitoring after consultation with the Park Service to determine effectiveness of the

307 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Resource Proposed Action Staff Alternative design in minimizing effects on night skies and guide modifications to project lighting.

Combine and organize staging Same as proposed. areas and areas needed for equipment operation and material storage and assembly within construction lands to the extent feasible to minimize the total footprint needed.

For construction of the water Same as proposed. pipeline, reduce color contrast with the surrounding landscape and revegetate with native vegetation.

Employ visual mitigation in the Same as proposed. design of the transmission line to minimize visual effects.

Use existing access roads and Same as proposed. construction laydown areas to the extent feasible and revegetate with native vegetation.

Cultural Implement the project’s HPMP, Same as proposed. Resources filed March 4, 2011.

Air Quality Prevent project-related trackout Same as proposed, and include in onto paved surfaces by using a the Erosion and Sediment Control variety of construction Plan. management strategies.

Provide measures and standards to Same as proposed, and include in stabilize graded site surfaces upon the Erosion and Sediment Control completion of grading. Plan.

Limit areas of active surface Same as proposed. disturbance (such as grading) to no more than 15 acres per day.

308 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Resource Proposed Action Staff Alternative Reduce non-essential earth- Same as proposed. moving activities during windy conditions.

Develop and implement a Same as proposed. transportation management plan for employees.

Use electrical drops in place of Same as proposed. temporary electrical generators, and substitute low- and zero emitting construction equipment and/or alternative fueled or catalyst-equipped diesel construction equipment wherever economically feasible.

Properly tune and maintain heavy- Same as proposed. duty diesel trucks in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications to ensure minimum emissions under normal operations.

Use 2002 model or newer Same as proposed. construction equipment.

Retrofit older off-road Same as proposed. construction equipment with appropriate emission control devices prior to onsite use.

Implement a 2-year air monitoring Same as proposed. study after consultation with the Park Service.

Noise Equip construction machinery Same as proposed. with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers and intake silencers.

309 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to the power development purposes and to the purposes of energy conservation; the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; the protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. Any license issued shall be such as in the Commission’s judgment will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses. This section contains the basis for, and a summary of, our recommendations for licensing the Eagle Mountain Project. We weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against other proposed measures. Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed on this project and review of the environmental and economic effects of the proposed project and its alternatives, we selected the staff alternative, as the preferred option. We recommend this option because: (1) issuance of an original hydropower license by the Commission would allow Eagle Crest to operate the project as an economically beneficial and dependable source of electrical energy during high demand hours; (2) the 1,300 MW of electric energy capacity would come from a renewable resource that does not contribute to atmospheric pollution; (3) the majority of the power used to pump water to the upper reservoir during low demand hours is expected to come from renewable sources or available base-load sources; (4) the public benefits of this alternative would exceed those of the no-action alternative; and (5) the recommended measures would help protect water, wildlife, recreation, land use, aesthetics, cultural, air quality and noise resources during construction and operation. In the following section, we make recommendations as to which environmental measures proposed by Eagle Crest or recommended by agencies and other entities should be included in any license issued for the project. In addition to Eagle Crest’s proposed environmental and mitigation measures, we recommend additional environmental measures to be included in any license issued for the project. We also discuss which measures we do not recommend including in the license.

Measures Proposed by Eagle Crest Based on our environmental analysis of Eagle Crest’s proposal discussed in section 3.0 and the costs discussed in section 4.0, we recommend including the following environmental measures proposed by Eagle Crest in any license issued for the project. Our recommended modifications to Eagle Crest’s proposed measure are shown in italics.

Geology and Soils  Implement the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan filed July 7, 2010, that describes the erosion and sediment control practices to minimize soil erosion in

310 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

construction areas and prevent sediment transport into stormwater discharges away from the construction site (Measure GEO-1).

Water Quality/Water Quantity

Measures for Drawdown Monitoring and Control  Develop a groundwater level monitoring network (including existing and new monitoring wells [see figure 8]) to confirm that project pumping throughout the project operations would be maintained at levels that are in the range of historical pumping in the Chuckwalla Aquifer (Measure WS-1). Possibly extend monitoring from quarterly to bi-annually or annually, depending on findings and prepare annual reports for submittal to the Commission and State Water Board, confirming actual drawdown conditions (Measure WS-4). Include the adaptive management plan to reduce initial reservoir filling rates should it be found that drawdown exceeds the Maximum Allowable Changes thresholds in groundwater levels in select monitoring wells located throughout the groundwater basin. Additionally, as part of a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program, these measures should include the coordinated quarterly measurement and annual reporting of groundwater pumping production, water quality, and groundwater levels in the project water supply wells.  During the initial fill pumping period, monitor existing water supply wells on neighboring properties whose water production may be impaired by project groundwater pumping; if project pumping would adversely affect these wells, replace or lower the pumps, deepen the existing well, construct a new well, and/or compensate owner for increased pumping costs (Measure WS-3). Continue monitoring beyond the initial fill period (4 to 7 years, as estimated by Eagle Crest); the length of additional monitoring should be determined through consultation with the State Water Board and filed for Commission approval.

311 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Use the groundwater level monitoring network to confirm that seepage recovery well pumping would be effective at managing groundwater levels beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct and in the Eagle Creek Canyon portion of the proposed landfill and record groundwater levels, water quality, and production at the project seepage recovery wells (Measure SR-3). Manage artificially raised water levels to ensure that they are at least 5 feet below the bottom of the landfill liners.  Maintain seepage from the upper reservoir at a groundwater level below the bottom of the elevation of the landfill liner and maintain seepage from the lower reservoir to prevent a significant rise in water levels beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct (Measure SR-4). Manage artificially raised water levels to ensure that they are at least 5 feet below the bottom of the landfill liners.  Use the network of groundwater monitoring wells proposed under Measure WS-1 to monitor groundwater levels on a quarterly basis for the first 4 years of project pumping; extend monitoring from quarterly to bi-annually or annually, depending on findings (Measure SR-5). Unlike measure WS-4, this measure would focus on assessing seepage conditions in the vicinity of the proposed reservoirs, rather than drawdown conditions as a result of project pumping in the Desert Center area.  Minimize drawdown in the vicinity of the Colorado River Aqueduct through management of reservoir seepage, pending the initial findings of measures SR- 1 and SR-5, and as determined through consultation with the State Water Board (Measure SR-1A).

Measures for Water Quality Monitoring and Control  Install and operate a reverse osmosis desalination facility and brine disposal ponds to remove salts and metals form reservoir water and maintain total dissolved solids concentrations at the level of the source water (Measure GQ- 1). Implement as part of a comprehensive water level and water quality monitoring plan for the reservoirs, seepage wells, monitoring wells, brine ponds, and water supply wells and include steps to be taken in the event of water quality degradation.  Monitor groundwater quality to assess and maintain groundwater effects at levels less than significant by sampling reservoirs, seepage recovery wells, and wells upgradient and downgradient of the reservoirs and brine disposal lagoon on a quarterly basis for the first 4 years (Measure GQ-2). Implement as part of a comprehensive water level and water quality monitoring plan for the reservoirs, seepage wells, monitoring wells, brine ponds, and water supply wells and include steps to be taken in the event of water quality degradation.

312 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Other Water Resources Measures  Replace four existing wells located within the site of the proposed reservoirs with wells located outside of the proposed reservoirs (Measure LF-1).  Release excess water from the reservoirs during large rainfall events, such as the 100-year event and up to and including the PMF.  Construct and operate two extensometers—one in the upper Chuckwalla Valley near Observation Well 3 (OW-3) and the other in the Orocopia Valley near OW-15—to measure potential subsidence that could affect the operation of the Colorado River Aqueduct (Measure WS-2). File a plan for Commission approval to reduce initial reservoir filling rates should it be found that subsidence exceeds the Maximum Allowable Changes threshold of 0.125 foot as measured by the extensometers.

Terrestrial Resources  Develop a comprehensive site-specific mitigation and monitoring program after consultation with BLM, FWS, California DFG (Measure BIO-1) to protect state sensitive, BLM sensitive, and federally listed plant and wildlife species and file for Commission approval.  Implement the WEAP filed October 27, 2009, to ensure that project construction and operation would be conducted within a framework of safeguarding environmentally sensitive resources (Measure BIO-3). Include information on Coachella Valley milkvetch in the training program.  File quarterly reports with BLM, FWS, California DFG, and the Commission, documenting project activities, mitigation implemented, and mitigation effectiveness, and providing recommendations, as needed (Measure BIO-4).  Prior to construction in native habitats, conduct surveys for spadefoot toads in any areas of construction not previously surveyed. After consultation with BLM, FWS, and California DFG, prepare and file for Commission approval, a plan that details construction plans and limits of disturbance such that surface disturbance is restricted to the smallest area necessary to complete the construction, ensures new spur roads and improvements to existing roads are designed in a way that would preserve existing desert wash topography and flow patterns, and avoids disturbing or restricting flow to impoundments that could support Couch’s spadefoot toad. If avoidance is not possible, construct a new pool as close as is feasible to replicate and replace each lost pool. If new pools are created, move all larvae from the disturbed pool to the new pool (Measures BIO-5 and BIO-10).  Use pre-construction surveys to identify state special-status and federally listed plant populations and species and establish avoidance areas in construction

313 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

zones for special plant resources. Where avoidance is not feasible, salvage and transplant any species that can be reasonably transplanted in an approved area (Measure BIO-6). Include location of sensitive plant resources, construction avoidance areas, and transplant locations on any construction plans filed with the Commission. Submit the plans to BLM, FWS, and California DFG for review and comment and file the plans with the Commission for approval.  For construction activities scheduled to occur between about January 15 and July 30 in vegetated habitat, survey all potential nesting sites for active bird nests. Active nests would be flagged and provided a buffer from construction activities (Measure BIO-11). After consultation with FWS and California DFG identify appropriate buffer distances for nesting migratory birds in the project area. Include evidence of consultation and final determination of buffer distances in a quarterly report submitted for Commission approval prior to any ground-disturbing activities.  Develop a plan to manage evaporation ponds to minimize their attractiveness and access to migratory birds and establish a monitoring program to identify bird usage of the evaporation ponds, effectiveness of bird deterrents, and water quality (Measure BIO-12). Include in the plan provisions to: (1) minimize attractiveness and access to migratory birds; (2) establish a monitoring program to identify bird usage of the evaporation ponds, effectiveness of bird deterrents, and water quality; (3) develop measures for more intensive hazing measures and ultimately exclusionary pond covers, if warranted; (4) develop proposed hazing and habitat modification techniques; (5) develop methods for measuring success, and thresholds for implementing exclusionary pond covering, if needed; and (6) develop an emergency response plan to address a potential breach in the pond berms or liners. Prepare the plan in consultation with FWS, BLM, and California DFG and file for Commission approval.  Conduct a pre-construction survey to further assess burrowing owl use of the project area and potential effects. Incorporate survey results and mitigation measures into the comprehensive mitigation and monitoring program (Measure BIO-13). If burrowing owls are present, limit the construction to September 1 through February 1, to avoid disruption of breeding activities; avoid disruption of burrowing owl nesting activities; use a minimum of a 250- foot buffer to avoid active nests until fledging has occurred (Measure BIO-14). Additionally, if burrowing owls are present, after consultation with FWS and California DFG, develop a burrowing owl relocation plan that includes construction of replacement burrows for any active burrows requiring collapse and file the plan for Commission approval.  Determine through pre-construction surveys if construction activities would occur within 1 mile of active prairie falcon or golden eagle nests. Provide survey results to FWS, BLM, and California DFG. Following consultation

314 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

with the agencies, identify any necessary protection buffers, file them for Commission approval, and avoid construction activities in these areas during the nesting season (Measure BIO-15).  Conduct pre-construction surveys for all burrows that might host badger or kit fox, avoiding active burrows where possible, and mark the perimeters of all avoidance areas with 3-foot-high and no more than 10-foot-apart wooden stakes. Where avoidance is infeasible, encourage occupants to leave their burrows (Measure BIO-16).  Conduct pre-construction surveys to determine the existence, location, and condition of bat roosts and identify foraging habitat. Based on results of surveys, develop a mitigation plan to avoid roosting and foraging effects on resident bats, minimize disturbance, or, as an inescapable measure, evict bats (Measure BIO-17). Prepare the bat mitigation plan after consultation with FWS and California DFG and file for Commission approval. The plan should include: (1) baseline surveys during summer and winter; (2) measures to protect onsite bat roosting habitat; (3) measures for onsite replacement of roosting habitat removed by project development; (4) annual summer and winter bat surveys in years 1–5, 7, and 10 following initiation of reservoir filling; (5) criteria for success; and (6) measures for additional construction and/or protection of bat habitat to be implemented if success criteria are not met.  Construct security fencing around project reservoirs, collection substation, and evaporation ponds to exclude larger terrestrial wildlife, including bighorn sheep, deer, coyotes, foxes, and badger, from entering project areas that pose hazards. In addition, install a smooth metal, or similar barrier, along the bottom of the fence to prevent access to all terrestrial species. Monitor fences for digging activity and repair damaged fences sections within 24 hours. Monitor drinking areas to ensure desert bighorn sheep are using these areas. If such monitoring indicates desert bighorn sheep are not accessing these locations, Eagle Crest should consult with FWS, BLM, the Park Service, and California DFG to identify alternative measures that provide similar benefit to this species (Measure BIO-18).  In areas without wildlife exclusion fencing or those areas that have not been cleared of tortoises, conduct construction activities only during daylight hours (Measure BIO-20).  Close, temporarily fence, or cover pipeline trenches each day. Conduct inspections of any open trenches at first light, midday, and at the end of each day to ensure animal safety (Measure BIO-21).  Design, install, and maintain facility lighting to prevent casting of light into adjacent native habitat (Measure BIO-22).

315 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Develop, after consultation with FWS and file for Commission approval, a transmission line design plan that considers adequate separation of energized conductors, ground wires, and other metal hardware; adequate insulation; a 1- mile buffer from golden eagle nests; and any other measures necessary to protect raptors from electrocution hazards and design and construct raptor- friendly transmission lines in strict accordance with the industry standard guidelines set forth in Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006, by Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, Edison Electric Institute, and Raptor Research Foundation. The plan should also include measures for reducing potential for avian collision injuries, methods for surveying and reporting project-related avian mortality, provisions for a worker education plan pertaining to avian–power line interactions, and procedures for managing nesting on power line structures.

Threatened and Endangered Species  Implement the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan, as filed on October 27, 2009, and modified by the Commission’s Biological Assessment issued on April 21, 2011, to protect desert tortoise from potential effects related to construction activities.  Following completion of final project design and interconnection plans, calculate projected-related effects on Category I and Category III desert tortoise habitat. Prepare and file for Commission approval a desert tortoise habitat compensation plan that identifies acres of disturbance and acreage and location of proposed compensation lands.  Implement the Predator Monitoring and Control Plan filed on March 11, 2011, and as modified by the Commission’s Biological Assessment issued on April 21, 2011, to monitor for and control effects of increased predator activity on desert tortoise. The modified plan includes: (1) surveys for canine activity in the project area; (2) surveys for canine predation on desert tortoise; (3) a survey schedule that includes two annual pre-construction baseline surveys, two annual surveys during construction; and surveys in years 1–5, 7, and 10 to be commenced following the initiation of reservoir filling (4) agency consultation following surveys; (5) development of mitigation measures to be implemented if surveys indicate increases in desert tortoise predator activity and increases in desert tortoise predation; and (6) development of a survey schedule for the remainder of the license term if surveys indicate a need for mitigation measures.

Recreation Resources  Coordinate construction schedules with BLM and provide posted notices of construction activity and any temporary road/access closure (Measure REC-1).

316 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Aesthetic Resources  Incorporate directional lighting, light hoods, low pressure sodium bulbs or LED lighting, and operational devices in final design to allow surface night- lighting in the central project area to be turned on as needed for safety. Also, develop, after consultation with the Park Service, a night sky monitoring plan during the post-licensing design period (to represent baseline conditions) and during construction and a trial operational period (Measure AES-1). File the plan for Commission approval.  Combine and organize staging areas and areas needed for equipment operation and material storage and assembly within construction lands to the extent feasible to minimize the total footprint needed (Measure AES-2).  For construction of the water pipeline, reduce, to the extent possible, side-cast soils to reduce color contrast with the surrounding landscape. Backfill the pipeline disturbed zone and revegetate with native vegetation immediately following completion of pipeline construction (Measure AES-3).  Employ visual mitigation in the design of the transmission line to minimize visual effects, such as specifying materials with a dull finish and background appropriate colors (Measure AES-4).  Use existing access roads and construction laydown areas to the extent feasible and revegetate with native vegetation within 3 months following completion of construction of the respective component (Measure AES-5).

Cultural Resources  Implement the HPMP, filed March 4, 2011.

317 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 Stabilize graded site surfaces upon completion of grading when subsequent development is delayed or expected to be delayed by more than 30 days, except when precipitation dampens the disturbed surface (Measure AQ-3).  Limit areas of active surface disturbance (such as grading) to no more than 15 acres per day (Measure AQ-4).  Reduce non-essential earth-moving activities during windy conditions and cease clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities if winds exceed 25 mph averaged over a 1-hour duration (Measure AQ-5).  Promote ride sharing, shuttle transit, and other measures for employees to reduce vehicle trips (Measure AQ-6).  Use electrical drops in place of temporary electrical generators and substitute low- and zero-emitting construction equipment and/or alternative fueled or catalyst-equipped diesel construction equipment wherever economically feasible or if necessary to meet CARB or other applicable air quality standards (Measure AQ-8).  Properly tune and maintain heavy-duty diesel trucks in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications to ensure minimum emissions under normal operations (Measure AQ-10).  Use 2002 model or newer construction equipment, where feasible or if necessary to meet CARB or other applicable air quality standards (Measure AQ-11).  Retrofit older off-road construction equipment with appropriate emission control devices prior to onsite use, where feasible or if necessary to meet CARB or other applicable air quality standards (Measure AQ-12).  After consultation with the Park Service, implement air quality monitoring for 2 years after initiation of project construction to ensure project meets CARB or other applicable or other applicable air quality standards.

Noise  Equip construction machinery with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers and intake silencers (Measure NOI-2).

Additional Measures Recommended by Staff In addition to Eagle Crest’s proposed measures listed above, we also recommend including the following measures in any license issued for the Eagle Mountain Project:

318 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Water Resources  During project construction, perform channel modifications and other measures, such as rip rap protection, to contain flows associated with the PMF to the Eagle Creek channel and direct these flows into the proposed lower reservoir and file a report with the Commission when measures are completed.  Develop a reservoir-level monitoring plan to ensure that the water levels are managed properly within operational restraints to ensure protection of terrestrial resources and file for Commission approval.  Develop a brine pond-level monitoring plan to ensure that the ponds are managed properly and help limit leakage through the lining of the ponds and file for Commission approval.  Develop a comprehensive monitoring well placement plan including partially horizontal monitoring wells and monitoring program around the proposed brine and solidification ponds to allow for the earlier detection of leaks in the lining of the ponds and file for Commission approval.  The applicant proposes groundwater monitoring under seven different measures—WS-1, WS-3, WS-4, GQ1, GQ-2, SR-3, and SR-5—that each have specific purposes. Coordinate the implementation of these separate measures as part of a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program to ensure that information collected as part of each measure is reported simultaneously for the purpose of better evaluating the project effects on the groundwater quality and levels in the Chuckwalla Aquifer. Use the comprehensive groundwater monitoring program results to develop a groundwater hydrologic budget and annually file the associated reports for review by the Commission along with any comments from the State Water Board.

Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species  After consultation with BLM, FWS, and California DFG, submit a revised final version of the Revegetation Plan, filed October 27, 2009, to the Commission for approval prior to any ground-disturbing activities in native vegetation. The final plan would include total acres of proposed disturbance,

319 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

as identified in the final construction plan; the stipulation that any hay, straw, or topsoil brought to the site be certified weed-free; and success criteria. The plan should also include provisions for monthly irrigation of transplants for a 2-year period.  Modify the proposed Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan, filed October 27, 2009, and file for Commission approval, to include criteria for success and the development of environmental measures to be implemented if initial efforts do not prove successful. Include measures to mitigate for disturbance to soils that occur during project operation and maintenance, any seepages areas, and any areas adjacent to project-related surfaces. Extend the monitoring period to 5 years for areas where disturbance or water additions are temporary, and annually in areas where disturbance or water additions occur during normal project operations.  Remove woody riparian vegetation from around project reservoirs annually.  Conduct pre-construction surveys for the spadefoot toad in all areas of proposed construction activity not previously surveyed in 2009 or 2010, and implement the same protection measures proposed for the proposed project reservoir areas.

Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics  Consult with agencies and file for Commission approval truck trip plans and traffic controls related to the removal of salts from the proposed desalination facilities.  Consult with resource agencies and file for Commission approval a construction plan for construction activities on or next to private properties. The plan should include measures to:  limit the hours during which noisier construction activities (such as drilling or boring) would occur within 250 feet of residences;  notify landowners prior to construction on their properties;  maintain access to the properties;  secure open ditches when there are no active construction activities taking place;  wait until the pipe is ready for installation before excavating the trench where residences would be within 25 feet of the construction ROW;  install safety fencing along the edge of the construction ROW that would extend at least 100 feet on either side of any residence;  preserve mature trees and landscaping where possible where they would not interfere with safe operation of equipment;

320 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 complete final grading and installation of permanent erosion controls;  restore all areas and landscaping within 10 days of backfilling the trench; and  discuss with landowners to locate the pipeline in the most desirable location for the landowner, to the extent possible.  Develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure for residents whose property would be affected by transmission line and water pipeline construction. The procedure would include simple, clear directions for identifying and resolving environmental mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the project and restoration of the ROW. Prior to construction, Eagle Crest would mail the complaint procedures to each landowner whose property would be crossed by the project. In its letter to affected landowners, Eagle Crest would:  provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with their concerns; the letter should indicate how soon a landowner should expect a response;  instruct the landowners that if they are not satisfied with the response, they should call Eagle Crest’s Hotlines; the letter should indicate how soon to expect a response;  instruct the landowners that if they are still not satisfied with the response from Eagle Crest’s Hotlines, they should contact the Commission’s Enforcement Hotline at (888) 889-8030, or at [email protected]; and  prepare and file with the Commission a monthly status report that includes a table with the following information for each problem/concern: (i) the date of the call; (ii) the identification number from the certificated alignment sheets of the affected property and approximate location; (iii) the description of the problem/concern; and (iv) an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved will be resolved, or why it has not been resolved.

Cultural Resources  Implement the measures contained in section 3.3 of the HPMP, filed March 4, 2011, if Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route is selected for construction.

321 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Discussion of Key Issues Following is a discussion of the key issues and basis for our additional recommended measures.

Transmission Line Route Eagle Crest’s proposed 13.5-mile transmission line route (see figure 2) would generally follow existing access roads and Eagle Mountain Road from the central project area to an intersection with the Colorado River Aqueduct. Along this segment, the line would parallel existing transmission lines. After crossing the Colorado River Aqueduct, the proposed line would continue to follow Eagle Mountain Road to a point about 2 miles north of Interstate 10. There are no existing utility structures such as towers or power lines along this segment. At this location, the line would turn to the southeast toward the Desert Center substation. This 2.5-mile section of the line would require a new ROW and would not follow existing landscape features. Of the total 13.5 miles, about 4.5 miles would be within BLM’s designated utility corridor.

The staff alternative transmission line route is consistent with the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route. It would diverge from the applicant’s proposed route along Eagle Mountain Road and follow the existing SCE transmission line ROW and proposed water pipeline southeast to a point directly north of the proposed eastern substation southeast of the Desert Center airstrip, where it would turn south to connect to the substation. Unlike the applicant’s proposed route, the staff alternative transmission line route would result in the construction of new structures closer to existing transmission line structures, thus reducing incremental effects on biological, visual, and land use resources.

As summarized in table 38, our analysis shows that the staff alternative for the transmission line route would have lower environmental effects than the applicant’s proposed route or Interior’s preferred alternative route. The majority of the applicant’s proposed measures to reduce effects associated with the construction of the transmission line are applicable to both routes. However, because the staff alternative: (1) would be located outside of the desert tortoise critical habitat area, (2) would not bisect and would be outside the DWMA, and (3) would parallel an existing transmission line, it is our recommended alternative transmission line route.

322 20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Table 38. Summary of key differences in the potential effects of Eagle Crest’s proposal and the staff alternative for the route of the proposed transmission line (Source: staff). Staff-Recommended Transmission Route (State Applicant’s Proposed Interior’s Preferred Water Board’s Preferred Resource Transmission Line Transmission Line Alternative Route) Vegetation A Revegetation Plan for Due to a longer route (additional Due to a longer route (additional disturbed areas would be 5.1 miles) revegetation measures 2.9 miles) but use of existing implemented. For the would be needed on about 52 ROW access roads (which would transmission line, this plan would acres reduce length), revegetation cover about 38 acres. measures would need to cover about 32 acres. 323 Desert tortoise Desert tortoise protection The same protection measures The same protection measures measures would be conducted, would be implemented. would be conducted, but co- including surveys, relocation, Interior’s preferred alternative locating the line within an and exclusion fencing for areas route assumes the Desert existing transmission corridor, under construction. About 2.4 Sunlight Solar transmission line consistent with Interior’s miles would be within designated would be built along Kaiser preferred alternative route, would critical habitat. Road. If that is the case, co- result in less disturbance to locating the line within another sensitive tortoise habitat and line would result in less lower predation risks associated disturbance to sensitive tortoise with perching and nesting habitat and lower predation risks habitat. Not within designated associated with perching and critical habitat. nesting habitat. About 1.5 miles would be within designated critical habitat.

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Staff-Recommended Transmission Route (State Applicant’s Proposed Interior’s Preferred Water Board’s Preferred Resource Transmission Line Transmission Line Alternative Route) Raptors The transmission line would be The same protection measures The same protection measures constructed according to APLIC would be implemented, but it is would be implemented, but new guidelines and an avian assumed that new structure structure locations would be less protection plan would be locations would be less attractive attractive to raptors due to prepared. to raptors due to proximity to proximity to existing structures. planned structures. Couch’s The proposed corridor was Additional surveys would be Additional surveys would be spadefoot toad surveyed and no suitable habitat needed for areas not previously needed for areas not previously

324 was identified. surveyed. surveyed. Recreation The transmission line would be The transmission line would be The transmission line would be about 2 miles from the JTNP farther from the National Park farther from the National Park boundary. boundary. boundary. Aesthetics The transmission line could be The transmission line would be The transmission line would co-located with existing lines, co-located with existing lines. follow Eagle Mountain Road and depending on final location of The transmission line would then cut across the Chuckwalla the Desert Sunlight Solar cross Interstate 10. Valley directly to Desert Center. transmission line. The The transmission line would not transmission line would cross cross Interstate 10. Interstate 10.

20120130-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)01/30/2012

Staff-Recommended Transmission Route (State Applicant’s Proposed Interior’s Preferred Water Board’s Preferred Resource Transmission Line Transmission Line Alternative Route) Land use The transmission line would be The transmission line would The transmission line would located outside the BLM CDCA cross 1.2 miles of private land. cross 4.9 miles of private land. utility corridor and would cross 0.4 mile of private land. Cultural The transmission line would The transmission line would The transmission line would resources avoid most potential project avoid most potential project avoid most potential project effects. effects. effects. 325

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Water Resources Project effects on groundwater and water resources are key issues associated with the proposed project. Major proposed project facilities and measures, which would limit the environmental effects on the surrounding environment from groundwater withdrawal, seepage of groundwater from the reservoirs, degradation of water quality in the reservoirs due to evaporation, and potential water releases from the reservoirs, include the following:  Groundwater monitoring, aquifer testing, and seepage control measures,  Construction of the reverse osmosis facility, and  Development of a water release system for the reservoirs. Aquifer tests and groundwater level monitoring, along with adjustment of pumping rates as needed, would help ensure that the effects of the proposed water withdrawal for project facilities do not exceed the historical drawdown levels of about 130 feet near Desert Center. This amount of drawdown occurred in the 1980s during a period of much more intensive irrigation for agricultural fields near Desert Center, which are now mostly abandoned. Nearer to the proposed reservoirs, the aquifer tests and seepage control measures would help ensure that the seepage amounts do not raise groundwater levels and affect nearby users and infrastructure, such as the Colorado River Aqueduct and landfill. The reverse osmosis system, which also includes evaporation ponds and other facilities, would address water quality degradation, such as increased salt content from high evaporation rates, by removing salts and other particles. The water release procedures to emergency overflow structures on the reservoirs would ensure that following a rare high inflow event, excess water would be released in a manner that ensures that the nearby infrastructure and the Colorado River Aqueduct facility, located down gradient of the lower reservoir, would not be affected. Construction and operation of the proposed Eagle Mountain Project without adequate surface and especially groundwater quality and quantity protection measures could adversely affect the dry desert environment where water is a limited and valuable resource. Onsite investigations, once access is possible, should help determine if acid production is likely to result from filling the existing mining pits with water for the proposed pumped storage project, which could affect water quality degradation in the reservoirs. The likelihood of acid production when the mineral deposits of the existing mining pits are exposed to water is very dependent on the characteristics of the ore deposits, and reliable information is currently not available due to the lack of site access. While we find Eagle Crest’s proposed measures to be largely adequate, we recommend additional monitoring and associated measures to limit the extent of effects of the proposed project. We recommend a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program to ensure that information collected as part of each groundwater level and quality measure is incorporated together for the purpose of better evaluating the project effects on the groundwater quality and levels in the project area within the Chuckwalla

326 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Aquifer. The results from the comprehensive groundwater monitoring program would also be used to develop a groundwater hydrologic budget. Under the staff alternative, reservoir level monitoring would be implemented not only for operational compliance and safety issues, which would largely be covered under Part 12 of the Commission’s regulations for safety of water power projects and project works, but also to provide information on the extent of, availability of, and access to water in the lower reservoir for terrestrial resources. In addition, we recommend a possible reduction in the initial reservoir filling rates if the drawdown in the water supply wells exceed the Maximum Allowable Changes thresholds (see table 12) in select monitoring wells in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. Similarly, we also recommend performance of a pumping test of the final seepage recovery system prior to reservoir filling to ensure that the proposed seepage system can control the likely seepage from the reservoirs. We also recommend that the seepage recovery system prevent groundwater levels from encroaching within 5 feet of the landfill liner, if the landfill project is constructed and that subsidence does not exceed 0.125 foot in the area of the Colorado River Aqueduct. We recommend reducing these filling rates if these thresholds become exceeded. Similarly, we recommend modifying the Eagle Creek channel to ensure that it is capable of conveying water from large storm events without affecting existing or proposed infrastructure. However, it is possible that once future access to the site is allowed and more detailed investigations and hydraulic calculations are possible, this measure may not be needed depending on the filing of the investigative report with the Commission. As noted above, Eagle Crest proposes to install a reverse osmosis system to maintain the water quality of the reservoirs in the high evaporation desert environment to be similar to the quality of the groundwater used to fill and operate the project. Eagle Crest proposes to direct brine from the reverse osmosis system to evaporation and drying ponds where it would be removed, likely in 10-year intervals. While maintenance and monitoring of these ponds, including the installation of monitoring wells to help identify leaks, was proposed by Eagle Crest, additional monitoring should occur to allow for corrective action to occur sooner than under Eagle Crest’s proposal. Eagle Crest should file a brine pond-level monitoring plan to ensure that the ponds are not overfilled and that the water level fluctuations are representative of the evaporation rate. If water levels in a brine pond decrease faster than expected, it could be an indication that the pond liner has failed and a leak has developed. In the area of the proposed brine ponds, the groundwater level is several hundreds of feet below the surface, and the Eagle Crest-proposed monitoring wells would be placed in the groundwater to monitor for possible leakage of the brine ponds. Our analysis indicates that brine leakage could take months or years to reach the groundwater table before it could be detected in the monitoring wells. Therefore, we recommend that in addition to the planned conventional monitoring wells, Eagle Crest should investigate whether partially horizontal monitoring wells extending beneath the evaporation ponds could detect a change in water vapor (an indication of a likely leak in the brine ponds) much more rapidly than normal groundwater monitoring. Due to a depth to groundwater of several hundred feet below the surface, it could take

327 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

many years for leakage from the brine ponds to be detectable in conventional groundwater monitoring wells. We estimate that implementation of the water resources measures proposed by Eagle Crest would have an annualized cost of $5,042,910. The majority of this cost is due to the cost and operation of the reverse osmosis system, which is a key component to maintaining water quality in a closed system (i.e., it would not have a surface water hydrological connection) located in a very high evaporation environment. We estimate that the additional measures described above would increase the annualized cost of measures by $300,300. Considering the extent of limited water resources in the area and the possible project effects on water resources, we consider the benefits and protection of water resources to be worth the cost.

Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species Construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Eagle Mountain Project without adequate protection measures could adversely affect terrestrial resources. Eagle Crest, as part of its license application, filed numerous monitoring and mitigation measures to protect the existing terrestrial resources. These proposals include measures to protect desert tortoises, including a Predator Monitoring and Control Plan and the purchase of 160 acres of land to compensate for desert tortoise habitat that would be disturbed during construction of the proposed project. We find that Eagle Crest’s proposed measures are largely suitable for the proposed project; however, we recommend several additions. Control of Riparian Vegetation—Establishment of riparian vegetation around the project reservoirs, especially woody species, has potential to damage the reservoir liners, and attract wildlife to the area. Vegetation could also increase water loss from the reservoirs through evapotranspiration. Several entities in comments on the draft EIS expressed concern about attracting wildlife to the reservoirs. Concerns were related to safety for wildlife species, potential for increased predation on desert tortoise, and potential for wildlife to be attracted to low quality nesting habitat. To address these concerns, we recommend that Eagle Crest prevent the establishment of riparian shrublands or woodlands around the reservoirs by annually controlling woody riparian species that may establish in these areas. Invasive Species—The proposed pumped storage project would introduce water to the dry desert environment, potentially increasing suitable habitat for invasive plants. The applicant’s Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan includes monitoring and treatment of areas disturbed during project construction to reduce potential encroachment of invasive species. However, operation of the project would increase soil moisture surrounding the project reservoirs and any water seepage areas, which could create suitable conditions for invasive weed establishment. To avoid potential increases in invasive weeds in these areas, we recommend modifying the proposed Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan to include the reservoir shorelines and areas near the

328 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

proposed water supply wells. Consistent with FWS recommendations, we recommend that Eagle Crest implement monitoring and control measures for invasive species for the following durations: annually for 5 years following disturbance in areas disturbed by construction or maintenance activities; annually, for the term of the license, along project reservoirs, seepage areas, or other areas at which normal project operations create recurring disturbance that could benefit invasive species; and project wide once every 5 years. Burrowing Owls—Construction of the project transmission lines and water supply pipeline would occur in potential burrowing owl habitat. Eagle Crest would conduct pre- construction surveys to determine if owls are present in areas disturbed during construction activities. If owls are present, Eagle Crest proposes to avoid construction activities during the breeding season and avoid active burrows. In addition, if owls are present, Interior recommends that Eagle Crest consult with FWS to develop and implement a burrowing owl relocation program. Implementation of such a plan would include proper removal methods and construction of replacement burrows for any active burrows requiring collapse. We conclude Eagle Crest should implement these measures to avoid take of burrowing owls and associated violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Avian Protection Plan—Construction of the project transmission lines would create potential electrocution and collision hazards for raptors and other avian species in the Chuckwalla Valley. Although Eagle Crest’s proposed transmission line design plan would address potential effects of electrocution, the proposed plan does not include measures to reduce potential for avian collisions with power lines, provide monitoring and reporting protocol to track avian and power line interactions, or include a worker education program. Therefore, Eagle Crest should modify, in consultation with FWS, its proposed transmission line design plan to include avian protection. This plan should (1) meet the APLIC/FWS guidelines for an avian protection plan; (2) present designs to reduce the potential for avian electrocution and collisions; (3) provide methods for surveying and reporting project-related raptor mortality and managing nesting on the proposed transmission lines; and (4) include a workers education program. Bats—Eagle Crest was not able to access the project site to conduct surveys for bats. However, prior surveys indicate that the mine adit provides winter hibernacula for a large number of local bats. Additional roosting habitat is likely to occur in rocks surrounding the mine pits. Construction of the project could affect these species. Eagle Crest proposes to conduct pre-construction surveys to identify bat habitat, and based on the survey results, it would prepare a bat mitigation plan. To ensure all bat habitat is identified and to minimize project effects on bats, we recommend that Eagle Crest develop and implement a plan that includes: (1) baseline surveys during summer and winter; (2) measures to protect onsite bat roosting habitat; (3) measures for onsite replacement of roosting habitat removed by project development; (4) annual summer and winter bat surveys in years 1–5, 7, and 10 following initiation of reservoir filling; (5) criteria for success, and (6) an adaptive management plan that includes additional

329 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

construction and/or protection of bat habitat to be implemented if success criteria are not met. Spadefoot Toads—Eagle Crest conducted surveys for the spadefoot toad in many areas near the project in 2009. However, as a result of site access limitation and modifications to the proposed project’s footprint(including our recommended transmission line route), not all areas were surveyed for the spadefoot toad. As a result, we recommend pre-construction surveys for spadefoot toad in areas not previously surveyed and where project construction, operation, and maintenance activities would occur. We also recommend the same protection measures for the spadefoot toad as those proposed for the central project area, including avoidance of potential habitat or if avoidance is not possible, construction of a new pool as close as is feasible to replicate and replace each lost pool. If new pools are created, all larvae should be moved to the new pool from the disturbed pool. Predator Monitoring and Control Plan—Ravens are a known predator of the threatened desert tortoise. However, the proposed Predator Monitoring and Control Plan does not address other desert tortoise predators that may increase in numbers as a result of the construction and operation of the project. Therefore, we recommend that Eagle Crest develop a desert tortoise predator control plan in addition to the proposed Predator Monitoring and Control Plan. This plan should include: (1) surveys for canine activity in the project area; (2) surveys for canine predation on desert tortoise; (3) a survey schedule that includes two annual pre-construction baseline surveys, two annual surveys during construction; and surveys in years 1–5, 7, and 10 to be commenced following the initiation of reservoir filling (4) agency consultation following surveys; (5) development of mitigation measures to be implemented if surveys indicate increases in desert tortoise predator activity and increases in desert tortoise predation; and (6) development of a survey schedule for the remainder of the license term if surveys indicate a need for mitigation measures. Eagle Crest should implement surveys for ravens, raven nests, and raven predation on desert tortoise as proposed in its Predator Monitoring and Control Plan filed March 11, 2011. Eagle Crest should include incidental sightings of gulls and gull predation on desert tortoise, as proposed in its plan. To monitor canine activity in the project area, Eagle Crest should implement surveys consisting of baited or scented track plates and motion-sensing cameras. To monitor for project-related canine predation on desert tortoise, Eagle Crest should conduct surveys for evidence of burrow excavation and desert tortoise carcasses exhibiting evidence of canine predation. Purchase of Desert Tortoise Compensation Lands—Eagle Crest proposes to purchase and conserve about 160 acres of desert tortoise habitat to compensate for project-related disturbance in Category I habitat (within the DWMA) and Category III (suitable habitat outside the DWMA) desert tortoise habitat. Development of this measure was based on the design of the proposed project and the NECO Plan guidelines

330 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

for 1:1 compensation in Category III habitat and 5:1 compensation within DWMA. Based on Eagle Crest’s field surveys and our interpretation of 2010 aerial photography in the central project area, where surveys were not permitted, we estimate that under the staff alternative, 0.5 acre of Category I habitat and 87.8 acres of Category III habitat would be disturbed. Therefore, by following the NECO Plan compensation ratios, Eagle Crest should purchase and conserve 90.3 acres of desert tortoise habitat. However, specific compensation related to the staff alternative would depend on final project design and results of surveys for desert tortoise habitat in the central project area. As such, to ensure the purchase of compensation lands is appropriately based on project effects, we recommend Eagle Crest prepare a desert tortoise compensation plan following completion of the final project design. The plan should identify acreage of project disturbance within Category I and Category III desert tortoise habitat and identify the proposed acreage and location of compensation lands. The plan should be prepared in consultation with FWS and BLM and filed with the Commission for approval. We estimate that implementation of the terrestrial and threatened and endangered resources measures proposed by Eagle Crest would have an annualized cost of $204,190. We estimate that these additional measures would increase the annualized cost of measures by $17,820. Considering the possible project effects on these resources, we consider the benefits to and protection of terrestrial and threatened and endangered resources to be worth the cost.

Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics Construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Eagle Mountain Project could adversely affect recreation, land use, and aesthetics in the project area. Likely effects include increased nighttime sky lighting, limits to some access routes, and inundation of some of the remaining but currently non-economical ore reserves. Most of the effects, other than those from the proposed transmission lines and substation, would be similar to or lesser than effects that occurred during the historical operation of the Eagle Mountain mine. Construction and operation of the proposed project would be designed to occur within historical mining pits also proposed for landfill development. Eagle Crest’s proposal would be designed to co-exist with the proposed landfill if the two developments are constructed. In addition to designing the project to limit effects on the proposed landfill, Eagle Crest proposes measures to limit the effects of construction on recreation, land use and aesthetics by coordinating planned road closures and other schedules with the public. Other measures proposed by Eagle Crest would address lighting of the proposed central project area and construction activities throughout the proposed project to limit the effects on dark sky conditions. Other measures include design features and route selection that would avoid causing visual degradation during the construction of the water pipeline, transmission line, and substation. The staff alternative would include plans related to the transportation of salts from the proposed desalination facilities and construction of the transmission line and water pipeline on or next to privately owned properties. Eagle Crest estimates that about 2,500

331 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

tons of salt would be removed from the reservoirs each year and that these solids produced from the evaporation and solidifying ponds would need to be removed once every 10 years. The analysis in section 3.3.5.2, Environmental Effects, concluded that the removal of 1 year’s accumulation of salt would require about 125 truck trips, whereas the removal in 10-year intervals, as proposed, would require about 1,250 truck trips. Substantially fewer train trips could be called upon if the privately owned Eagle Mountain Railroad were used to move the salt. Because the fate of these solids is unknown, a transportation plan developed in consultation with resource agencies and filed for Commission approval would ensure the transport of this quantity of material does not negatively affect other resources (e.g., noise levels and air quality) on a recurring basis. Development of a construction mitigation plan for construction on or next to private properties would further minimize disturbance to residents and protect public safety. Including measures, such as limiting the hours during which noisier construction activities would occur close to residences, notifying landowners prior to construction, maintaining access to the properties, securing open ditches when there is no active construction activities occurring, preserving mature vegetation and landscaping, providing for safety fencing near residences, completing final grading, implementing permanent erosion control measures, and revegetating within 10 days of backfilling the trench, would help protect the private residences and public safety during the construction process. A process that considers private property owner recommendations to the extent practicable regarding the siting of the pipelines across their property would retain the owners’ preferred areas for their future interests. Development and implementation of an environmental complaint resolution procedure would provide residents with a structured way to comment on routing concerns specific to their properties. Eagle Crest could provide landowners with simple, clear directions for identifying and resolving their environmental mitigation problems/concerns during siting of the pipeline, construction of the project, and restoration of the ROW. By implementing this process, Eagle Crest would provide landowners with information about the proposed construction schedule and contact information, as well as a process for accommodating private landowner recommendations to the exact location of the pipeline. An environmental complaint resolution procedure would also provide a means of tracking and resolving landowner complaints. Regular monthly reporting to the Commission during the pipeline construction period about the nature of each complaint and how Eagle Crest addressed it would ensure that the private residents’ recommendations regarding where to locate the pipelines on their properties and complaints that may arise are considered and addressed to the extent practical. These plans would be used to develop measures including adjustments to the extent practicable to the route of the water pipeline developed in consultation with each affected landowner. Such adjustments could include routing the pipeline along property lines so the majority of the construction and disturbance would occur within property line

332 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

setbacks to limit the effects on current and future uses of the properties. Property owners would retain discretion as to the preferred location of the pipelines within their property to the extent practical for pipeline efficiency. We estimate that implementation of the recreation, land use, and aesthetics resources measures proposed by Eagle Crest would have an annualized cost of $17,140. We estimate that these additional measures would increase the annualized cost of measures by $610,780. This cost difference is largely the result of the incremental cost increase of our recommended transmission line route and substation, as compared with the applicant’s proposed route. Our recommended route would protect a wide range of resources, including terrestrial and threatened and endangered species, aesthetics, and cultural resources. Considering the possible project effects on these resources, we consider the protection of these resources to be worth the cost.

Cultural Resources Construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Eagle Mountain Project without adequate protection measures could adversely affect properties that are eligible for listing on the National Register. Eagle Crest filed an HPMP in September 2009 for the purpose of protecting and interpreting historic properties. The HPMP was revised in December 2009 and again in February 2011 (filed March 4, 2011). We find that the HPMP adequately identifies the APE, describes the cultural resources inventories that were conducted within the APE, identifies potential disturbances to historic properties, and provides for the appropriate treatment of the Colorado River Aqueduct, Eagle Mountain mine and town site, and potentially eligible archaeological sites and TCPs that may be identified in the future. The HPMP also provides procedures for annual reporting and consultation with agencies and tribes, cultural resources monitoring, curation, handling of unanticipated discoveries, and the proper treatment of human remains and sacred objects, if they are encountered. Further, the HPMP provides measures for the treatment of paleontological resources if they are identified on federal lands. Implementation of the HPMP would ensure that potential adverse effects on historic properties as a result of project operation and maintenance or other project- related activities would be addressed over the term of a license. Additionally, if Interior’s preferred alternative transmission line route were selected for construction, implementation of the measures contained in section 3.3 of the HPMP would ensure that the 23 cultural resources located within that corridor’s APE would be addressed appropriately under section 106. We anticipate that any license issued for the project would include a condition to implement the PA executed among the Commission, the California SHPO, and the Advisory Council, if the Council chooses to participate. Eagle Crest, BLM, and others have been invited to sign the PA as concurring parties. The PA includes a measure to implement the HPMP, filed March 4, 2011, with our additional measures.

333 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

We estimate that implementation of the protective measures proposed in Eagle Crest’s HPMP would have an annualized cost of $24,840. Considering the extent of cultural heritage that is present in the project area, we consider the benefits to cultural resources to be worth the cost.

Socioeconomics Under Eagle Crest’s proposal, project construction would provide about 100 jobs during the peak construction period and would provide revenues to county and local government through property, sales, and use taxes. Project operation would provide about 30 jobs, as well as substantial property tax payments. During both construction and operation, we anticipate tax payments would more than compensate for any increase in the need for government services. No residences or businesses would be displaced due to construction and operation of the project.

Air Quality and Noise The vehicles and machinery used for the project construction would result in substantial amounts of emissions. However, most emissions are expected to remain below the state air quality levels except for nitrogen oxide. Eagle Crest proposes to consult with the Park Service to develop and implement a 2-year air monitoring study. Monitoring results would be used to adjust the construction workload if any air quality exceedances are observed during the later portions of the construction. During operation of the project, the annual offset of emissions by the proposed project is estimated at about 1,443,260 tons of carbon dioxide as compared to a conventional fossil fueled peaking generation facility of the same size. Compliance with the applicable county noise ordinance codes during construction would minimize the effects of noise levels during construction. Eagle Crest’s proposed measures would lower the noise level during construction by equipping all construction equipment with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers and intake silencers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.

5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS Unavoidable adverse effects are those that cannot be reversed except in the extreme long term. Unavoidable adverse effects within the project area are the following:  Reclamation of existing rock and ore materials from both recoverable and bedrock sources present within the central project area would not be possible once the project is constructed and is in operation.  Project pumping to initially fill the reservoirs would exceed natural recharge rates in the groundwater basin by about 4,600 acre-feet for each of those four years causing temporary overdraft of the aquifer and drawdown of groundwater levels.

334 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

 About 1,700 acre-feet per year of the groundwater used to fill and maintain the reservoirs would evaporate.  Visual impacts of the project structures, especially the transmission line and substation, would be irreversible but would be limited by mitigation measures and the recommended route and location.  Construction of the project would eliminate between 142.4 acres (under Eagle Crest-proposed conditions and 109.5 acres (under our recommended conditions) of currently undisturbed desert habitat.  The proposed use of private lands for portions of the project could limit the feasibility of that land for other uses.

5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C.§803(a)(2)(A), requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with the federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. We reviewed 13 comprehensive plans that are applicable to the Eagle Mountain Project, located in California. No inconsistencies were found.

California California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1998. Public opinions and attitudes on outdoor recreation in California. Sacramento, California. March 1998. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1980. Recreation outlook in Planning District 2. Sacramento, California. April 1980. 88 pp. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1980. Recreation outlook in Planning District 3. Sacramento, California. June 1980. 82 pp. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1994. California outdoor recreation plan (SCORP) - 1993. Sacramento, California. April 1994. 154 pp. and appendices. California Department of Water Resources. 1983. The California water plan: projected use and available water supplies to 2010. Bulletin 160-83. Sacramento, California. December 1983. 268 pp. and attachments. California Department of Water Resources. 1994. California water plan update. Bulletin 160-93. Sacramento, California. October 1994. Two volumes and executive summary. California State Water Resources Control Board. 1995. Water quality control plan report. Sacramento, California. Nine volumes. California - The Resources Agency. Department of Parks and Recreation. 1983. Recreation needs in California. Sacramento, California. March 1983. 39 pp. and appendices.

335 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

State Water Resources Control Board. 1999. Water quality control plans and policies adopted as part of the State Comprehensive Plan. April 1999.

United States U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May 1986.

336 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on power lines: the state of the art in 2006. Available at: http://www.aplic.org/SuggestedPractices2006(LR).pdf, accessed May 12, 2008. PIER Final Project Report CEC-500-2006-022. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, Edison Electric Institute, and the California Energy Commission. Washington, DC and Sacramento, CA. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2010. Seven Engineering Wonders of American Engineering web page. Available at: http://www.asce.org/Content.aspx?id=2147485194, accessed May 3, 2010. American Society of Civil Engineers. ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM Affiliates). 2011. Addendum to a class III field inventory for the proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, CA. ASM Affiliates. 2010. Results of class I record search and class III field inventory of Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project alternative transmission line corridors and substations. Prepared for Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, CA. ASM Affiliates. 2009a. A Class I cultural resources investigation for the proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, CA. ASM Affiliates. 2009b. A class III field inventory for the proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, CA. ASM Affiliates. 2003. A class II cultural resources assessment for the desert-southwest transmission line, Colorado Desert, Riverside and Imperial counties, California. ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, CA. (not seen, as cited by ASM Affiliates, 2010, 2009a) Baecher, G.B. and R.L. Keeney. 1982. Statistical examination of reservoir-induced seismicity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 72:553–569. Behre Dolbear (Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc.). 2000. Conceptual study of Kaiser Ventures Inc.’s Eagle Mountain Project for recovery of contained mineral values. Confidential and Privileged Draft – for discussion purposes only. Prepared for Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden, LLP, San Bernardino, CA. Prepared by Behre Dolbear, Denver, CO. June 2000.

337 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Bighorn Institute. 2011. Facts about bighorn sheep. Available at: http://www.bighorninstitute.org/faq.htm#faq8. Accessed April 5, 2011. Bighorn Institute, Palm Desert, CA. BLM (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2010a. Draft environmental impact statement for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings/Solar_Projects/Desert_Sunlight.html. Accessed September 9, 2010. BLM. 2010b. BLM off-highway vehicle riding web page. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings/ohvinfo.html. Accessed April 19, 2010. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs – South Coast Field Office, Palm Springs, CA. BLM (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2010c. Plan amendment/final EIS for the Genesis Solar Energy Project. U.S. Bureau of Land Management Palm Springs, South Coast Field Office, Palm Springs, CA. August 2010. BLM. 1980. California Desert Conservation Area Plan, as amended. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. BLM and California DFG (U.S. Bureau of Land Management and California Department of Fish and Game). 2002. Northern & Eastern Colorado Desert coordinated management plan and final environmental impact statement. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/news/pdfs/neco2002/Table%20of%20Contents.pdf. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, and California Department of Fish and Game, Inland, Desert and Eastern Sierra Region. July 2002. BLM and CEC (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and California Energy Commission). 2010. Staff assessment and draft environmental impact statement for the Palen Solar Power Project. March 2010. BLM and DOE (U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy). 2010. Draft programmatic environmental impact statement for solar energy development in six Southwestern states. Volumes 1 through 8. Available at: http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/dpeis/index.cfm. DES 109-59. DOE\EIS-0403. Accessed May 10, 2011. Boarman, W.I., M.A. Patten, R.J. Camp, S.J. Collis. 2006. Ecology of a population of subsidized predators: Common ravens in the central Mojave Desert, California. Journal of Arid Environments 67(2006) 248–261. Brown, P.E. 1992a. A winter baseline survey for bats at the Eagle Mountain Project Site, Riverside County, California. Prepared for RECON, San Diego, CA. January 12, 1992.

338 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Brown, P.E. 1992b. Summer baseline surveys for bats at the Eagle Mountain Project Site, Riverside County, California. Prepared for RECON, San Diego, CA. August 26, 1996. Brown, P.E. 1991a. A winter survey for bats at the Eagle Mountain Project Site, Riverside County, California. Prepared for RECON, San Diego, CA. February 15, 1991. Brown, P.E. 1991b. A summer survey for bats of the Eagle Mountain Project Site, Riverside County, CA. Prepared for RECON, San Diego, CA. October 27, 1991. Brown, P.E. 1990. A survey for bats at the Eagle Mountain Project Site, Riverside County, California. Prepared for RECON, San Diego, CA. June 27, 1990; Bryant, W.A. and E.W. Hart. 2007. Fault-rupture hazard zones in California. Special Publication 42 (Interim Revision 2007). California Geological Survey. Bull, C.S., S.A. Wade, and M. Davis. 1991. Cultural resource survey of the Eagle Mountain Mine and the Kaiser industrial railroad, cultural resource permit #CA881916. RECON, San Diego, CA. (not seen, as cited by ASM Affiliates, 2010, 2009a) California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/docs/boconsortium.pdf, accessed May 3, 2010. California Burrowing Owl Consortium. California Department of Finance. 2008. Demographic, economic, and financial research 2008: E-2 California County Population Estimates and Components of Change E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 2008. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) California DFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2010. Natural diversity database: special vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens list. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPPlants.pdf, accessed May 18, 2010. Quarterly publication. 71 pp. California Department of Fish and Game. April 2010. California DFG. 2009. Available at: Natural diversity database: special animals. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf, accessed May 18, 2010. California Department of Fish and Game. July 2009. California DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2011. Water data library web page. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/index.cfm. Accessed May 19, 2011. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. California DWR. 2004a. California’s groundwater: Bulletin 118: Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin. Available at:

339 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/7- 5.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2011. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. California DWR. 2004b. California’s groundwater: Bulletin 118: Orocopia Valley groundwater basin. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/7- 31.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2011. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. California DWR. 2004c. California’s groundwater: Bulletin 118: Pinto Valley groundwater basin. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/7- 6.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2011. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. California DWR. 2004d. California’s groundwater: Bulletin 118: Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/7- 39.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2011. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. California DWR. 2004e. California’s groundwater: Bulletin 118: Fenner Valley groundwater basin. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/7- 2.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2011. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. California DWR. 2003. California’s groundwater: Bulletin 118, updated 2003. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/bulletin118update2003.cfm. Accessed May 19, 2011. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA California DWR. 1979. Sources of power plant cooling water in the desert area of Southern California – Reconnaissance Study. Bulletin 91–24. California DWR. 1975. California’s groundwater: Bulletin 118. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/california's_ground_wate r__bulletin_118-75_/b118-1975.pdf, accessed May 19, 2011. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. CEC (California Energy Commission). 2010a. Blythe Energy Project Commission Decision. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-800- 2010-009/CEC-800-2010-009-CMF.PDF. Accessed on May 5, 2011. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. September 2010.

340 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

CEC. 2010b. Genesis Solar Energy Project Commission Decision, Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-800-2010-011/CEC-800-2010- 011-CMF.PDF. Accessed on May 5, 2011. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. September 2010. CEC. 2010c. CPV Sentinel Energy Project Commission Decision. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-800-2010-016/CEC-800-2010- 016-CMF.PDF. Accessed on May 5, 2011. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. December 2010. California GS (California Geological Survey). 2007. California historical earthquake online database. Available at: http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/quakes/historical/index.htm. Accessed December 3, 2010.

California GS. 2001. Downloadable California earthquake catalog: Updated magnitude 4 and greater earthquakes, compiled from various sources (1769–2000). Available at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/quakes/Documents/cgs2000_fnl.txt. Accessed December 3, 2010.

California Wildlife Habitats Relationship System. 2010a. Golden eagle. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx, accessed May 11, 2010. California Department of Fish and Game California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitats Relationship System. 2010b. Prairie falcon. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx, accessed May 11, 2010. California Department of Fish and Game California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Caltrans. 1998. Technical Noise Supplement, 1998. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2010. Area designations maps/state and national web page. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed May 27, 2010. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. Carrico, R.L., D.K. Quelled, and D.R. Gallegos. 1982. Cultural resource inventory and National Register assessment of the Southern California Edison Palo Verde to Devers Transmission Line corridor (California Portion). WESTEC Services, San Diego, CA. (not seen, as cited by ASM Affiliates, 2010, 2009a) CH2M HILL. 1996. Draft environmental impact statement/environmental impact report Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center Project. State Clearinghouse No. 95052023. 3574 pp. Prepared for County of Riverside Planning Department and U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

341 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Cowan, R.A. and K. Wallof. 1977. Field work and data analysis: Cultural resource survey of the proposed Southern California Edison Palo Verde-Devers 500 kV Power Transmission Line. Interim Report. Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside, CA. (not seen, as cited by ASM Affiliates, 2010, 2009a) Desert Tortoise Council. 1999. Guidelines for handling desert tortoises during construction projects. Desert Tortoise Council, Wrightwood, CA. Revised July 1999. Divine, D.D. and C.L. Douglas. 1996. Bighorn sheep monitoring program for the Eagle Mountain Landfill Project. Submitted to Mine Reclamation Corporation. Prepared by Cooperative Studies Unit, National Biological Service, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. July 1996. DMJM Design/AECOM. 2007. County of Riverside Department of Facilities Management, Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility Adaptive Reuse Review & Assessment. DMJM Design/AECOM. July 24, 2007. Dubois, R.L. and R.W. Brummett. 1968. Geology of the Eagle Mountain Mine area. In: Ore Deposits of the United States, 1933–1967. Ridge, J.D. (ed.). American Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Engineers. 2(76). (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994) Eagle Crest (Eagle Crest Energy Company). 2011. Working draft Historic Properties Management Plan, California Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project Number 13123-002. Prepared for Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, CA. Eagle Crest. 2010a. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 13123, supplemental information. Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. July 7, 2010. Eagle Crest. 2010b. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 13123, response to comments on FERC’s Ready for Environmental Analysis notice. Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. April 23, 2010. Eagle Crest. 2009a. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project No. 13123, final license application, volumes 1 through 6. Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. June 22, 2009. Eagle Crest. 2009b. California Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project No. 13113-002, responses to deficiency of license application and additional information request of July 29, 2009. Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. October 26, 2009.

342 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Eagle Crest. 2009c. California Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project No. 13113-002, response to November 25, 2009, requests for clarification additional information requests. Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. December 22, 2009. Eagle Crest. 2009d. Responses to requests for additional studies, FERC Project No. 13123-002—California Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project. Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. September 17, 2009. Eagle Crest. 2009e. Working draft Historic Properties Management Plan, California Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project Number 13123-002. Prepared for Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, CA. Eagle Crest. 2008. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Pre-Application Document. Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. January 2008. Eagle Crest. 1994. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, application for license for a major unconstructed project (FERC No. 11080-00). (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. The Green Book nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants web page. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/. Accessed May 27, 2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA. 1994. Technical document: Acid mine drainage prediction. Document number EPA530-R-94-036. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Epps, C.W., P.J. Palsboll, J.D. Wehausen, G.K. Roderick, R.R. Ramey II, and D.R. McCullough. 2005. Highways block gene flow and cause a rapid decline in genetic diversity of desert bighorn sheep. Ecology Letters 8:1,029–1,038. Esque, T.C., K.E. Nussear, K.K. Drake, A.D. Walde, K.H. Berry, R.C. Averill-Murray, A.P. Woodman, W.I. Boarman, P.A. Medica, J. Mack, J.S. Heaton. 2010. Effects of subsidized predators, resource variability, and human population density on desert tortoise populations in the Mojave Desert, USA. Available on line at: http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2010/12/n012p167.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2011. Endangered Species Research 12:167–177. ESRI. 2010. ESRI Resource Center GIS imagery layer. Available at: http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/World_Imagery. Accessed September 7., 2011. ESRI, Redlands, CA. FERC and Advisory Council (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). 2002. Guidelines for the development of historic properties management plans for FERC hydroelectric projects. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, DC.

343 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2005. Federal guidelines for dam safety—earthquake analyses and design of dams. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Fetter, C.W. 2001. Applied hydrogeology. Fourth edition. Prentice Hall, NJ. FICON (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, August 1992. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) Force, E.R. 2001. Eagle Mountain mine—Geology of the former Kaiser Steel operation in Riverside County, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Tucson, AZ. Frankel, A.D., M.D. Petersen, C.S. Mueller, K.M. Haller, R.L. Wheeler, E.V. Leyendecker, R.L. Wesson, S.C. Harmsen, C.H. Cramer, D.M. Perkins, and K.S. Rukstales. 2002. Documentation for the 2002 update on the national seismic hazard maps. USGS Open-File Report 02-420. Fraser, W.A. 2001. California Division of Safety of Dams fault activity guidelines. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/docs/fault.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2010. California Department of Water Resources. January 26, 2001.

FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit noise and vibration impact assessment, May 2006. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) FWS (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010a. Desert Tortoise Recovery Office: Threats to the desert tortoise web page. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/nevada/desert_tortoise/dt_threats.html. Accessed May 12, 2010. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, NV. FWS. 2010b. Translocation of desert tortoises (Mojave population) from project sites: Plan development guidance. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/ventura/species_information/protocols_guidelines/index.html, accessed January 24, 2012. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, NV. August 2010. FWS. 2008. Environmental assessment to implement a desert tortoise recovery plan task: Reduce common raven predation on the desert tortoise. Final. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS. 1992. Biological Opinion for the Eagle Mountain Landfill Project (1-6-92-F-39). September 10, 1992. GeoPentech (GeoPentech, Inc.). 2003. Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin storage. Draft Report. Prepared for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Prepared by GeoPentech, Inc., Santa Ana, CA. (Filed as response to AIR No. 18)

344 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

GeoSyntec Consultants. 1996. Seismic information summary report: Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center, Riverside County, California. Mine Reclamation Corporation, Palm Springs, CA. GeoSyntec Consultants. 1992. Report of Waste Discharge: Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center. Mine Reclamation Corporation, Palm Springs, California. 8 volumes. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994)

Hadley, J.B. 1945. Iron ore deposits in the eastern part of the Eagle Mountains, Riverside County, California. California Division of Mines Bulletin 129A. Hanson, J.C. 1992. Letter of Geothermal Surveys, Inc., groundwater conditions–Eagle Mountain area. (not seen, as cited in State Water Board, 2010) Hevesi, J.A., A.L. Flint, and L.E. Flint. 2002. Preliminary estimates of spatially distributed net infiltration and recharge for the Death Valley region, Nevada– California. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024010/, accessed May 19, 2011. Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4010. U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA. Hunting, K. 2002. A roadmap for PIER research on avian collisions with power lines in California. Commission Staff Report P500-02-071F. Prepared for the California Energy Commission, Energy Related Environmental Research. December 2002. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2002-12-24_500-02-071F.PDF, accessed May 11, 2010. ICOLD (International Commission on Large Dams). 2008. Reservoirs and seismicity: State of knowledge. Bulletin 137.

Jennings, C.W. 1967. Geologic map of California, Salton Sea sheet. California Geologic Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology).

Joyner, W.B. and D.M. Boore. 1988. Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion. In: Proceedings, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II—Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation. Von Thun, J. Lawrence (ed.). Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20. American Society of Civil Engineers. (not seen as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994)

Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc.. 1990. Amendment to Reclamation Plan No. 107. Eagle Mountain Iron Ore Mine. Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc., Riverside, CA. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994)

Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc. 1978. Surface mining reclamation plan, Eagle Mountain mine. Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc., Riverside, CA.

345 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Kaiser and MRC (Mine Reclamation Corporation). 1991. Draft environmental impact statement/environmental impact report for the Eagle Mountain Landfill Project. Specific Plan #252, St. Clearinghouse No. 8908413. BLM-CA-PT-91-015-2200. 636 pp. (not seen, as cited by Eagle Crest, 1994) Kim, C. 1993. Soil survey of the Desert Center Area. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Fresno, CA.

Knight, R.L., H.A. Knight, and R.J. Camp. 1993. Raven populations and land-use patterns in the Mojave Desert, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:469–471. LeRoy Crandall and Associates. 1981. Report of Phase II investigation, feasibility of storing Colorado River water in desert groundwater basins. Prepared for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Prepared by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, Los Angeles, CA. (not seen as cited by California DWR, 2004b and State Water Board, 2010) Love, B. 1994. Addendum cultural resources reconnaissance: Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Transmission Corridor, Riverside County. CRM Tech, Riverside, CA. (not seen, as cited by ASM Affiliates, 2010, 2009a) Manley, P.N., B. Van Horne, J.K. Roth, W.J. Zielinski, M.M. McKenzie, T.J. Weller, F.W. Weckerly, and C. Vojta. 2006. Multiple species inventory and monitoring technical guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-73. U.S. Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, D.C. 204 p. Mann, J.F. Jr. 1986. Groundwater conditions in the Eagle Mountain Area. Maxey, G.B. and T.E. Eakin. 1949. Groundwater in White River Valley, White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln counties, Nevada. Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin No. 8. Available at: http://images.water.nv.gov/images/publications/water%20resources%20bulletins/ Bulletin8.pdf, accessed May 19, 2011. Nevada Division of Water Resources, Carson City, NV. Mine Reclamation Corporation. 1997. Revision to Surface Mine Reclamation Plan No. 107, Eagle Mountain Mine, Riverside, California. Prepared for Kaiser Eagle Mountain Inc., Ontario, CA. NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation). 2010. 2010 long-term reliability assessment to ensure the reliability of the bulk power system. 2010– 2019. North American Electricity Reliability Corporation, Princeton, NJ. October 2010.

Neuendorf, K.K.E., J.P. Mehl, Jr., and J.A. Jackson (eds.). 2005. Glossary of geology. Fifth edition. American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA.

346 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Nishikawa, T., J.A. Izbicki, J.A. Hevesi, C.L. Stamos, and P. Martin. 2004. Evaluation of geohydrologic framework, recharge estimates, and ground-water flow of the Joshua Tree area, San Bernardino County, California. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5267/. Accessed May 10, 2010. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5267. U.S. Geological Society, Sacramento, CA. Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service). 2011a. Joshua Tree National Park: Cryptobiotic crusts. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/archive/jotr/nature/plants/crust/crusts.html. Accessed May 4, 2011. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Park Service. 2011b. Joshua Tree National Park: Birds. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/birds.htm. Accessed May 10, 2011. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Park Service. 2010. National Park Service Joshua Tree National Park: Wilderness web page. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/wilderness.htm, accessed May 10, 2010. National Park Service. Park Service. 2010b. Superintendents annual report FY2010, Joshua Tree National Park. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/jotr/parkmgmt/upload/FY10SuperReport.pdf, accessed January 25, 2010. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Joshua Tree National Park. Park Service. 2001. Joshua Tree National Park and Wilderness Area, Backcountry and Wilderness Plan, Amendment to the 1995 General Management Plan, Record of Decision, January 2000. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Joshua Tree National Park. Parker, P.L. and T.K. King. 1998. National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for documenting and evaluating traditional cultural properties. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, History and Education, National Register of Historic Places, Washington, DC. Petersen, M.D., A.D. Frankel, S.C. Harmsen, C.S. Mueller, K.M. Haller, R.L. Wheeler, R.L. Wesson, Y. Zeng, O.S. Boyd, D.M. Perkins, N. Luco, E.H. Field, C.J. Wills, and K.S. Rukstales. 2008. Documentation for the 2008 update of the national seismic hazard maps. Open-File Report 2008-1128. U.S. Geological Survey.

PRISM Group (PRISM Climate Group). 2006. Average annual precipitation data: 1971–2000. Available at: http://prism.oregonstate.edu. Accessed May 19, 2011. PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Proctor, R.J. 1993. Faults and micro-seismicity investigations and conclusions, proposed Eagle Mountain Landfill Site, Riverside County, California. Mine Reclamation Corporation, Palm Springs, California. 21pp. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994)

347 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

PWA (Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd.). 2010. Appendix A (Soil & Water Report), geomorphic assessment of Palen Solar Project site. Appendix of the Bureau of Land Management’s SA/DEIS Palen Solar Power Project, docket 09-AFC-7.

Regional Water Board and State Water Board (California Regional Water Quality Control Board and California State Water Resources Control Board). 2006. Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin – Region 7. Available at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb7/publications_forms/publications/docs/basinplan _2006.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2010. Richardson, C.T. and C. K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: A review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):634–638. Not seen, as cited by Park Service. Riverside County. 2009. County of Riverside, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors’ ordinance website. Available at: http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/ords.htm. Accessed April 11, 2009. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) Riverside County. 2003. General plan. October 2003. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) Riverside County. 1997. Specific Plan 305—Eagle Mountain landfill approved land use map, adopted September 8, 1997. Available at: http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/planning/content/splans/sp_docs.html, accessed May 18, 2010. Riverside County Planning Department, Riverside, CA. Riverside County and Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Draft environmental impact statement/environmental impact report for the Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Project. July 1996. Riverside County Economic Development Agency. 2009. Annual Labor Force and Employment Averages, County of Riverside. March 2009. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) Riverside County Economic Development Agency. 2008. Average Home Price Report. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) Riverside County Economic Development Agency. 2006. Taxable Sales Riverside County Annual Report, 2006. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) Riverside County Economic Development Agency. 2004. Community Economic Profile for Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Indio, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, 2004. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. 2008. Sheriff’s Department Budget Presentation 2007/2008. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a)

348 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2009. South Coast air quality significance thresholds. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf. Accessed on June 10, 2010. SCEC (Southern California Earthquake Center). 1999. Recommended procedures for implementation of DMG Special Publication 117–Guidelines for analyzing and mitigating liquefaction hazard in California. University of Southern California.

SCEDC (Southern California Earthquake Data Center). 2011. Southern California Earthquake Data Center web site. Available at: http://www.data.scec.org/index.html. Accessed March 28, 2011. Southern California Earthquake Data Center, Pasadena, CA. SCS Engineers. 1990. Background Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program. Eagle Mountain California. Cited in Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center EIS/EIR. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) Shlemon, R.J. 1993. Updated report: Geomorphic and soil-stratigraphic age assessments, alluvial deposits, proposed Eagle Mountain Landfill Site, Riverside County, California. Mine Reclamation Corporation, Palm Springs, CA.

State Water Board (State Water Resources Control Board). 2010. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project draft environmental impact report, State Clearinghouse No. 2009011010, FERC Project No. 13123. Prepared by GEI Consultants, Rancho Cordova, CA. Prepared for State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA. July 2010. Stromberg, J.C. 1993. Fremont cottonwood-Goodding willow riparian forest: a review of their ecology, threats, and recovery potential. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 27:97–110. Theis, C.V. 1935. The lowering of the piezometer surface and the rate and discharge of a well using ground-water storage. Transactions, American Geophysical Union 16: 519–524. URS (URS Corporation). 1999. Fenner Basin precipitation and recoverable water estimates. (not seen, as cited in State Water Board, 2010) U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Fact Finder. 2008. State of California: 1990 Census, 2000 Census, 2006 American Community Survey. Riverside County: 1990 Census; 2000 Census; 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 American Community Survey. (not seen, as cited in Eagle Crest, 2009a) USCOLD (United States Committee on Large Dams). 1997. Reservoir triggered seismicity. Prepared by United States Society on Dams, Earthquakes Committee, Denver, CO.

349 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2011. National Water Information System web page: Water data for the nation. Available at: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Accessed May 19, 2011. U.S. Geological Survey. USGS. 2010. USGS surface-water for California web page. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/sw. Accessed on March 5, 2010. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Wallof, K., and R.A. Cowan. 1977. Cultural resource survey of the proposed Southern California Edison Palo Verde-Devers 500 kV Power Transmission Line. Final Report. Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside, CA. Schaefer, J. 2003. A Class II cultural resources assessment for the Desert- Southwest Transmission Line, Colorado Desert, Riverside and Imperial counties, California. ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, CA. (not seen, as cited by ASM Affiliates, 2010, 2009) Wiele, S. M., S. A. Leake, S.J. Owen-Joyce, and E. H. McGuire. 2009. Update of the accounting surface along the lower Colorado River. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5113/. Accessed May 11, 2011. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5113, version 1.1. U.S. Geological Survey, Tucson, AZ. Youd, T.L. and D.M. Perkins. 1978. Mapping liquefaction induced ground failure potential. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 104(4):433–446 pp. American Society of Civil Engineers. Zielinski, W.J. and Kucera, T.E., (eds.). 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: Survey methods for their detection. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-157. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 163 p.

350 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Ken Hogan—FERC Project Coordinator; Fisheries Resources, Socioeconomics, Air Quality, Developmental Analysis (Fishery Biologist; B.T., Fisheries Management and Aquaculture) Mary Greene—Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics (Environmental Biologist; B.S., Biology) Joe Hassell—Need for Power, Geomorphology, Hydrology, Water Quantity and Quality, Groundwater, Engineering and Developmental Analysis (Environmental Engineer; B.S. and M.S., Agricultural Engineering) Shana Murray—Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics (Outdoor Recreation Planner; M.S., Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management) Carolyn Templeton—Geology and Soil Resources/Geomorphology, Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species, (Environmental Biologist; B.S., Biology; M.S., GeoEnvironmental Science) Frank Winchell—Cultural Resources (Archeologist; B.A., M.A., Ph.D., Anthropology) Louis Berger Group John Hart—Task Manager; Hydrology and Noise (Hydrologist; B.A., Physics) Ellen Hall—Senior Technical Review; Socioeconomic Resources (Environmental Planner/Resource Economist; Ph.D., Resource Economics; M.Ag., Agricultural Economics; B.A., History/Economics) James Hamski—Water Resources (Hydrologist; B.S., Environmental Science) Kenneth Hodge—Need for Power, Engineering, and Developmental Analysis (Senior Engineer; B.S., Civil Engineering) Coreen Johnson—Editorial Review (Technical Editor; B.A., English/Education) Alison Macdougall—Cultural Resources (Senior Environmental Manager; B.A., Anthropology) George Perng—Air Quality (M.S., Environmental Engineering; B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering) Tyler Rychener—Fisheries, Terrestrial, Threatened and Endangered Species (Environmental Scientist/GIS; M.S., Plant Biology; B.S., Biology) Denise Short—Noise (Technical Editor; M.S., Agriculture, Food, and the Environment; B.A., English)

351 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Jot Splenda—Senior Review of Water Quality; Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics (Environmental Planner; M.E.S.M, Water Resource Management; B.S., Ecology and Evolution) Subcontractor Staff Stillwater Sciences Glen Leverich—Geology and Soils/Geomorphology (Geologist/Geomorphologist; M.S., Geology; B.S., Environmental Studies)

352 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS

Eagle Crest Energy Company Terry L. Cook 3000 Ocean Park BLVD, Suite #1020 Kaiser Ventures, LLC Santa Monica, CA 90405 3633 Inland Empire Blvd, Suite 480 Ontario, CA 91764 California Department of Water Resources Kristine Wilson Division of Safety of Dams Attorney at Law P.O. Box 942836 Perkins Coie LLP Sacramento, CA 94236 10885 NE 4th Ave., Suite 700 Bellevue, WA 98004 California Office of Planning & Research Peter VonHaam CA Planning & Research Office Sr. Dep. Gen. Counsel P.O. Box 3044 Metropolitan Water District of Southern Sacramento, CA 95812 California P.O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054-0153 Donna Charpied Matthew D Hacker Executive Director P.O. Box 54153 Desert Protection Society Los Angeles, CA 90054-0153 P.O. Box 397 Desert Center, CA 92239-0397 Robert Perdue Matthew Bullock Executive Officer Office of Chief Counsel Colorado River Regional Water Quality State Water Resources Control Board Control Board P.O. Box 2000 73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95812 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Daniel Hyde Paul Murphey Lewis, Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP Division of Water Rights 221 N Figueroa St, Suite 1200 State Water Resources Control Board Los Angeles, CA 90012-2639 P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812 Stephen Maguin Jennifer Watts Chief Engineer & Gen. Manager Environmental Scientist County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los California State Water Resources Control Angeles County Board P.O. Box 4998 1001 I Street Whittier, CA 90607 Sacramento, CA 95814

353 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Kimberly A Huangfu Dramy Saechao County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles Hearings and Special Programs County, CA State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 4998 1001 I Street Whittier, CA 90607 Sacramento, CA 95814 Donald Clarke, Partner Nathan Jacobsen GKRSE Law Staff Counsel 1500 K Street NW, Suite 330 State Water Resources Control Board Washington, DC 20005 1001 I Street, 22nd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Markham Quehrn Randy C. Baysinger Attorney Assistant General Manager Perkins Coie LLP Turlock Irrigation District 10885 N.E. Fourth St., Suite 700 P.O. Box 949 Bellevue, WA 98004-5579 Turlock, CA 95381-0949 Alexis Strauss John R. Kalish, Field Manager Director, Water Division U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Land Management 75 Hawthorne Street 1201 Bird Center Drive San Francisco, CA 94105 Palm Springs, CA 92262-8001 FERC Contact Cherilyn E. Widell California Fish & Game Commission State Historic Preservation Officer Attn: Environmental Services Division California Office of Historic Preservation 1416 9th Street 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5511 Sacramento, CA 95814 Water Users Association Michael Tsosie P.O. Box 31 Colorado River Indian Reservation El Nido, CA 95317 26600 Mojave Road Parker, AZ 85344 County Clerk Governor of California County of Siskiyou RE: FERC Projects 510 N Main Street Office of the Governor of California Yreka, CA 96097-2525 State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Pete Sorensen Senior Environmental Scientist Division Chief Water Resources Control Board U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1001 I St Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office Sacramento, CA 95814 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, suite 208 Palm Springs, CA 92262

354 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Metropolitan Water District San Francisco District Office P.O. Box 54153 1455 Market St, #1760 Los Angeles, CA 90054 San Francisco, CA 94103 Spindale Top Bayou Farm Inc. North Star Capital Development P.O. Box 642 6382 Klamath Drive Brenham, TX 77834 Westminster, CA 92683 Warren and Joanne Dean Om Garg 92 Rio Vista 39 Hidden Tr Solvang, CA 93463 Irvine, CA 92603 Benjamin and Laura Hugo Richard Vlowers and Hector and Maria Centalana 31722 Railroad Canyon Rd 12928 Ocaso Ave Canyon Lake, CA 92587 La Mirada, CA 90638 Hope Halkum and Eleanor Mortenson Fernando and Juanita Gonzalez 3539 S. Carolina Street 82290 Ocotillo Avenue San Pedro, CA 90731 Indio, CA 92201 Riverside Jejoba Income Corporation Eagle Crest Mg. Company 103 N. Lake Drive 74199 El Paseo, No. 204 Ormond Beach, FL 32174 Palm Desert, CA 92260 John and Joseph Draskobisch Catherine and Philip Hu 2201 Whyte Park Ave 5215 E. Chapman Ave, No. 45 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Orange, CA 92869 Patricia Sanderson Port Douglas S. McPherson U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Office of Environmental Policy and Reclamation Compliance 27708 Jefferson Ave, Suite 202 1111 Jackson Street, Suite 520 Temeccula, CA 92590-2628 Oakland, CA 94607 Brendan Hughes Curt Sauer, Superintendent 61093 Prescott Trail Joshua Tree National Park Joshua Tree, CA 92252 74485 National Park Drive Twentynine Palms, CA 92277-3597 Mike Cipra Ileene Anderson California Desert Program Manager Center for Biological Diversity National Parks Conservation Association 8033 Sunset Blvd. #447 61325 29 Palms Highway, Suite B Los Angeles, CA 90046 Joshua Tree, CA 92252

355 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

LaShavio Johnson Marion Ashley Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Chairman Board of Supervisors 110 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 803 4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor Washington, DC 2000 Riverside, CA 92501

Abraham Wubishet Salam A Nassir 19184 June St 17914 Los Tiempos Hesperia, CA 92345 Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Albino Cantu Sea View PO Box 845 1630 Adams Ave SPC 12 Indio, CA El Centro, CA92243

Harris Ahmed State School Lands 5905 Old Wheeler Road 1807 13TH ST La Verne, CA 91750 Sacramento, CAL 95814

Butler Deville Robert H Cook 301 Maryknoll Dr 8778 Dufferin Ave Colton, CA 92324 Riverside, CA 92504

Todd C Draskovich State of California 2201 Whyte Park Ave 464 W Fourth St 6th Floor Walnut Creek , CA 94595 San Bernardino, CA 92401

Homer Lesihau Suzanne Ragsdale PO Box 5618 1212 Hexem Ave Salton City,CAL 92275 Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Krystyna Cieslar Northstar Capital Dev 134 E 450 N 6382 Klamath Drive Shoshone, ID 83352 Westminster, CA 92683

Lakeview Ranch Lowell L Ball 755 S Lincoln Ave 2333 Tigertail Drive Monterey Park, CA 91755 Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403

Lloyd Allen Foreman James E Iverson PO Box 252 PO Box 603 Victorville,CA Pauma Valley,CA 92061

Robert R Freedlander14 Blessing Isidro Orozco Irvine, CA 92612 3818 Alsace Ave Los Angeles, CA 90008

356 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Rogelio B Banaga Huan Phan 12228 Windcliff Rd 595 Dimaio Way Strongsville, OH 44136 Escpmdido, CA 92027

Hope M Holcomb Philip Hu 3539 S Carolina St 14069 Collins Ranch Place San Pedro, CA 90731 San Diego, CA 92130 Danny K Harrell Annie Manji 5658 Caladonia Ave Statewide FERC Coordinator Las Vegas, NV 89110 California Department of Fish and Game Water Branch 9684 Sutton Pointe Ct Elk Grove, CA 95757-8343 County of Riverside Jim Canaday 3133 7th Street Senior Environmental Scientist Riverside, CA 92501 California Department of Water Resources 1001 I St Sacramento, CA 95814 Jit and Nirmal Mann Director, Water Projects 5215 E Chapman Ave. No 45 PO Box 942836 Orange, CA 92869 Sacramento, CA 94236 Kendle Trust Director 143 N Harvard Ave. No E PO Box 100 Claremont, CA Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 Peter E. Godfrey H. Paul Friesema U.S. Depart. of the Interior (Bureau of Land Professor Man.) Environmental Policy and Culture Program 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos 227 Scott Hall, Northwestern University Moreno Valley, CA 92553-9046 601 University Place Evanston, IL 60208-1006

357 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Markham A Quehrn Kevin Tanaka Attorney Attorney Perkins Coie LLP U.S. Department of the Interior Suite 700 2800 Cottage Way Ste E1712 10885 N.E. Fourth St Department of The Interior - Solicitor's Bellevue, WASHINGTON 98004-5579 Office Sacramento, CA 95825 Barbara Goodyear Stephen Bowes Field Solicitor Planner U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service 1111 Jackson Street Suite 735 1111 Jackson Street Oakland, CA 94607 Oakland, CA 94607

Kerry O'Hara Pete Sorensen Office of Regional Solicitor Field Supervisor U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way,, W2605 6010 Hidden Valley Road Sacramento, CA 95825 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Sacramento Nisa Marks US Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 777 E. Tahquitz Cyn Wy. #208 Palm Springs, CA 92262

358 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

APPENDIX A

Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project Project No. 13123-002

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

This page intentionally left blank.

20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

APPENDIX A

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE EAGLE MOUNTAIN PUMPED STORAGE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT NO. 13123-002

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the licensing of the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (project) on December 23, 2010. The Commission requested comments be filed by February 28, 2011. In addition, the Commission conducted two public meetings on February 3, 2011, in Palm Desert. In this appendix, we summarize the written comments received on the draft EIS; provide responses to those comments; and indicate, where appropriate, how we have modified the text of the final EIS. We grouped the comment summaries and responses by topic for convenience. The following entities filed comments on the draft EIS:

Commenting Entity Filing Date JoAnn and Warren Dean February 14, 2011 Philip R. Hu February 15, 2011 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation February 17, 2011 Brendan Hughes February 23, 2011 Eagle Crest Energy Company (Eagle Crest) February 28, 2011 Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC, and Mine Reclamation, LLC February 28, 2011 (Kaiser) Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley February 28, 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior), National Park Service February 28, 2011 (Park Service) County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County (County February 28, 2011 Sanitation District) Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan March 1, 2011 Water District) Kim Floyd of the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club March 1, 2011 Johnney Coon March 1, 2011 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 (EPA) March 1, 2011

A-1 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Commenting Entity Filing Date Center for Biological Diversity March 1, 2011 State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) March 1, 2011

GENERAL G 1 Comment: Several entities made comments of an editorial nature on the EIS. Response: We have revised the text of the EIS, as appropriate, in response to these comments. G 2 Comment: Kaiser states that section 5.3 of the draft EIS should provide an exhaustive list of unavoidable consequences of the project and should include impacts on the wilderness experience, impacts on the desert tortoise, and the loss of the potential to construct the proposed landfill and for future mining opportunities at Eagle Mountain.

Response: In section 3.3.5, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, we describe the effects on the wilderness experience as limited because the majority of the central project area encompasses largely inactive mining pits and spoil piles from historical mining operations. As described in the same section, the construction and operation of the proposed landfill and the proposed hydroelectric project should be largely compatible. We have revised section 5.3, Unavoidable Adverse Effects, to add information about the potential loss of some mining opportunities and effects on desert tortoise.

G 3 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS does not undertake any study of the impacts associated with decommissioning the project, including closure and post-closure impacts.

Response: A project’s decommissioning would be its own proceeding before the Commission and a separate federal action. Therefore, that proceeding would include its own National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, including the preparation of either an environmental assessment (EA) or an EIS to analyze the effects of the decommissioning and develop any recommended measures to mitigate those effects. As such, decommissioning is beyond the scope of this final EIS.

G 4 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS (pages 11 and 12) did not identify Mine Reclamation, LLC, as an intervening and commenting party.

Response: Mine Reclamation, LLC, is now listed as a joint commenter on Scoping Document 1, as a joint intervener, and as a joint commenter on the draft EIS with Kaiser. However, we note that, in all three documents, Mine Reclamation, LLC, filed joint documents with Kaiser and asked to be referred to as Kaiser in those documents.

A-2 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

G 5 Comment: Kaiser states that the following sentence found in the draft EIS on page 47 does not makes sense and should be corrected as appropriate: “The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed Eagle Crest’s license application, and on November 10, 2009, denied the land exchange between Kaiser and BLM.”

Response: We revised this sentence to read: “The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a court ruling on November 10, 2009, that denied the proposed land exchange between Kaiser and BLM.” For consistency, we have revised section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soil Resources, as well as other sections in the final EIS.

G 6 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS is misleading in its characterization of certain Kaiser-owned lands that are subject to outstanding litigation. For example, footnote 8 on page 1 of the draft EIS inaccurately describes the status of Kaiser’s land exchange. Kaiser states that all references, maps, figures, and other items that purport to depict the ownership of lands should reflect that Kaiser currently owns about 1,545.63 acres of land that would be directly taken and occupied by the project.

Response: We have revised section 1.1, Application, to indicate that the proposed project would occupy both federal and private lands, some of which are disputed and are the subject of past and possible future litigation and further review by Interior.

G 7 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS does not provide any information regarding what access would be necessary or what equipment would be used to maintain and repair the proposed transmission lines, either inside the central project area or offsite, to determine the potential impacts of repair and maintenance activities, particularly with respect to any foreseeable disruption of rail service. The County Sanitation District also states that the draft EIS does not discuss the compatibility issue regarding the route for the project’s proposed transmission line that runs parallel to a long section of the Eagle Mountain railroad, crossing the railroad in several locations, and it states that these impacts should be discussed.

Response: Detailed measures to limit disturbance to other facilities during construction and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines would be part of the project’s final engineering design and approval process. While the railroad is predicted to be used if the landfill is built in the future, it has not been in regular use since the 1980s, and the last use was for two shipments of iron ore in March 1993. Near the mine, the transmission line would cross the railroad several times, but the route proposed by Eagle Crest does not closely parallel the railroad for any sizable distance. To ensure the transmission line does not affect railroad or interstate operations or safety, Eagle Crest would consult with the County Sanitation District and the California Department of Transportation during the final engineering process. Eagle Crest would construct the transmission line in accordance with all federal and state standards for transmission lines in road and railroad corridors.

A-3 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

G 8 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS does not properly establish the environmental setting for the project and, therefore, proposes mitigation measures for unknown impacts. The County Sanitation District also states that the defects in the draft EIS are so significant that they can only be adequately addressed in a revised and recirculated draft EIS. Similarly, Kaiser states that without this critical information on baseline conditions, there can be no meaningful development and review of appropriate mitigation measures. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley comments similarly that all analysis for the dams, water containment, geology, historic properties, and flora and fauna are speculative and states that the draft EIS does not take a “hard look” as required by NEPA.

Response: Because Kaiser has not granted Eagle Crest and others access to the site, we used other available information, such as prior environmental documents, historical information, mining studies, and information from nearby and similar areas, to prepare the EIS. Additionally, in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, we recommend that Eagle Crest conduct numerous surveys and develop and/or implement appropriate mitigation measures before any ground-disturbing activities begin, and these surveys would help refine the design and proposed measures prior to construction of the project. Therefore, the available information about the project area is sufficiently summarized in the draft and final EISs and our recommended protection and mitigation measures, including additional surveys after license issuance and before construction begins, would provide an appropriate level of environmental protection.

G 9 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS does not provide mitigation measures or license terms and conditions that would prevent or lessen the significance of environmental impacts.

Response: In the EIS, we recommend several mitigation measures to address the effects of construction and operation of the proposed project on all resource areas. However, it is important to note that NEPA does not require that all potential impacts be eliminated or lessened. Finally, our NEPA document only provides our recommended measures (see section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations) for the Commission to consider in its licensing decision.

G 10 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that no specific mitigation measure is identified for each impact. No discussion is provided from which to measure the impact of any available mitigation measure or the basis by which the lead agency may select from mitigation measures. There is no discussion of any specific performance standards or ways in which a specific mitigation measure may be accomplished. It also states that there is no discussion of the impacts from implementation of mitigation

A-4 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

measures, such as impacts on air emissions. The County Sanitation District does not believe that the draft EIS meets the requirements of 40 CFR §1502.1.

Response: 40 CFR §1502.1 requires that an EIS provide a full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts to inform decision makers and the public of reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. Throughout the EIS, we discuss measures proposed by Eagle Crest and recommended measures by Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and others. A summary of the measures proposed by Eagle Crest is provided in section 2.2.4, Proposed Environmental Measures, and our additional measures are provided in section 2.3, Staff Alternative. These measures are discussed in detail in section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, the effects of these measures on the cost and generation of the project are analyzed in section 4.0, Developmental Analysis, and our recommendations are provided in section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations.

G 11 Comment: The Park Service and the County Sanitation District state that the detail necessary to determine impacts or appropriate mitigation measures is lacking in the draft EIS. BLM requests that “all relevant plans, as they pertain to public lands or may indirectly affect public lands, be accomplished to the same degree of development that has been required of large-scale solar projects in vicinity and that have been accepted by [the] partner agencies.”

Response: Based on recently filed information on nearby projects, the State Water Board’s environmental impact report (EIR), and information provided in comments on our draft EIS, we have added information about effects, mitigation measures, and plans, particularly as they pertain to public lands, throughout the final EIS. Since issuing the draft EIS, several of the proposed plans were updated and revised and included in our Biological Assessment issued on April 21, 2011.

G 12 Comment: Interior states that the draft EIS lists approximately 16 plans necessary to address construction impacts, including biological resources, subsidence, invasive weeds, and translocation of tortoise. BLM, the Park Service, and FWS find that many of these plans are not sufficiently developed in order to reach many of the stated conclusions in the draft EIS.

Response: Eagle Crest provided sufficient detail related to the intent and feasibility of these plans such that we could include the expected benefits of their implementation in our analysis. Additionally, since issuance of the draft EIS, Eagle Crest filed revised versions of the Raven Monitoring and Control Plan (now titled Predator Monitoring and Control Plan) and the Desert Tortoise Removal and Translocation Plan (now titled Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan). During preparation of our Biological Assessment, we further developed the Predator Monitoring and Control Plan

A-5 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

to include specific survey methods for coyote and dogs and increase survey frequency during the early years of the project. We also improved upon the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan to include identification of recipient sites for desert tortoise relocations, specify that all injured tortoises receive care from a qualified veterinarian, and state that permanent exclusion fences would be maintained for the term of the license. Further discussion of these plans is described in section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects. As discussed in section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations, we also recommend modifications to the Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP); Revegetation Plan; Invasive Species Plan; the proposed plan to manage the evaporation ponds; and proposed measures to minimize effects on wildlife species, including migrating birds, raptors, bats, small mammals, and reptiles.

G 13 Comment: Interior states that the following technical appendices should be incorporated into the final EIS either directly or by reference: Revegetation Plan, Weed Control Plan, Desert Tortoise Translocation or Removal Plan, Raven Monitoring and Control Plan, WEAP, Bighorn Sheep Report, Biological Assessment for Desert Tortoise, and Golden Eagle aerial surveys.

Response: These plans have been included in the Biological Assessment for this project, issued April 21, 2011, and are part of our recommended alternative in the final EIS.

G 14 Comment: The Park Service states that general conclusions such as, “There would be no changes to the physical, biological and cultural resources of the area…” are unsupported by any analysis or data in the draft EIS.

Response: This statement only occurs in section 3.4, No-Action Alternative, which describes conditions if the proposed project were not built. This statement does not imply that changes in the area would not result from other proposed projects or even in the event that this project is not built.

G 15 Comment: Interior states that page 47 of the draft EIS states that there are about 193.5 million tons of recoverable iron-bearing placer at the mine. This statement contradicts information provided in the Executive Summary that states this is a depleted mine.

Response: We have removed the term depleted to describe the mine area, and we have revised section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soil Resources, Environmental Effects, to add information about the estimated recoverable iron-bearing deposits.

G 16 Comment: Joanne and Warren Dean state that Eagle Crest’s proposed water usage would most certainly affect their water table and cause problems with their wells, both on their parcel and on the parcel where the Deans reside during part of the year.

A-6 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: As described in section 3.3.2, Water Resources, lowering of the groundwater table would likely occur near the proposed water supply wells, which would be used to fill and maintain the reservoirs. However, in most areas, the decline in the groundwater is predicted to be small. We further discuss the proposed project’s effects on groundwater resources in section 3.3.2.2.

G 17 Comment: The Park Service states that technical appendices were provided in the July 2010 California Water Quality Control Board’s draft EIR pertaining to the proposed project and should be included and delineated in this project. Specifically, the Park Service is interested in the re-vegetation plan, weed control plan, desert tortoise plan, raven monitoring and control plan, bighorn sheep report, biological assessment for desert tortoise and golden eagle aerial survey report.

Response: These plans are included in the Biological Assessment for this project, which was issued by the Commission on April 21, 2011, and are discussed and analyzed in section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, and section 3.3.4, Threatened and Endangered Species, in the final EIS.

G 18 Comment: Joanne and Warren Dean state that figure 9 (page 134) of the draft EIS is incorrect. The Deans state that their parcel 811-141-011 is indicated as BLM land but that is incorrect. The Deans state that this parcel should be indicated as private land, along with the parcels to the north and west of the Dean’s parcel. In addition, Interior comments that this figure inaccurately depicts its preferred alternative transmission line route. Interior recommends that transmission for this and other projects in the vicinity be co-located and follow Kaiser Road.

Response: We have revised the figure to correctly display private land boundaries. Our recommendation is for the transmission line to be co-located with the proposed transmission line for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project along the California Public Utilities Commission’s environmentally superior route identified in the draft EIS for the solar project. This route follows the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 161- kilovolt (kV) line, avoiding Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA) lands and affecting less desert tortoise habitat.

G 19 Comment: Interior comments that the description of measures in section 5.2 should provide much more detail so that reader can easily determine how they will be implemented and effectively avoid and minimize impacts on various resources. Interior also requests consistency in measures cited in other chapters, in table 27, and those described in this section (e.g., page 20 of the draft EIS identifies Measure BIO-2, but there is no description of this measure in this section).

A-7 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: Section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, provides a summary of both Eagle Crest’s proposed measures and additional measures that we recommend for inclusion in the license. Table 27 (table 37 in the final EIS) provides the cost of the environmental mitigation and enhancement measures proposed by Eagle Crest, the State Water Board, and staff. Because we do not recommend all of Eagle Crest’s proposed measures in their entirety, there may be inconsistencies between section 5.2 and table 27 (table 37 in the final EIS). Measure BIO-2, which includes Eagle Crest’s proposal to designate a project biologist, is not included in this section because we incorporated a similar measure into the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan and WEAP. We recommend the license include implementation of the WEAP filed October 27, 2009. This plan includes designation of Eagle Crest staff responsible for ensuring compliance with measures to protect biological resources. The WEAP outlines both requisite skills for these positions and their duties and responsibilities. Additionally, we recommend that any license include implementation of the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan issued with the Commission’s Biological Assessment on April 21, 2011. This plan includes further descriptions of experience, duties, and responsibilities of the designated staff as specifically related to desert tortoise. Sufficient detail on the effects of these measures is provided in section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, to analyze the costs and benefits of the mitigation measures.

G 20 Comment: The Park Service requests better quantification of the potential effects associated with the no-action alternative for all of the resource areas of concern in the draft EIS. The discussion for each resource area of concern should have a thorough, stand-alone evaluation and discussion on the potential impacts on each resource associated with implementing the no-action alternative.

Response: Under the no-action alternative, the license application would be denied, the project would not be built, and the environmental resources in the project area would not be affected by the proposed project.

G 21 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the Commission too narrowly construed the project purpose and need such that the draft EIS did not consider an adequate range of alternatives to the proposed project. The Center for Biological Diversity states that alternatives analysis is inadequate because it only includes three alternatives—the no-action alternative, the applicant’s alternative, and the staff alternative. Additional feasible alternatives should be considered which would avoid all of occupied desert tortoise habitat as well as alternatives that would have looked at alternative sites for the substation to avoid impacts on the DWMA and critical habitat. The Center for Biological Diversity states that other alternatives should have considered alternative types of energy that would provide the same and/or more efficient amounts of energy. The Center for Biological Diversity adds that the Commission should have also looked at alternative siting closer to the site of energy consumption that would have

A-8 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

reduced the impacts associated with transmission line gen-tie, the new substation, and transmission.

Response: The nature of the proposed project requires certain physical attributes that are not readily available close to sites of energy consumption. These attributes include existing topography to hold the upper and lower reservoirs, sufficient elevation difference between the reservoirs to create a substantial hydraulic head, and minimal distance between the reservoirs to limit costs associated with development of infrastructure. The project would also need to be located within sufficient proximity to high-voltage transmission corridors with sufficient capacity to exchange energy used and produced by the project. The mining pits at the largely inactive Eagle Mountain mine meet these physical conditions. In addition, the extensive disturbance associated with the mining activities reduces the environmental effects of the proposed project as compared to some other locations with less historical disturbance. Therefore, we find it unlikely that another project location exists that would meet the physical requirements and have lower environmental effects. The EIS is for the project as proposed in the license application, and no specific action alternatives have been proposed or recommended.

However, we did identify alternative measures to reduce the environmental effect of the proposed project. As compared to Eagle Crest’s proposed project, our alternative greatly reduces disturbance within the DWMA by co-locating the transmission facilities with existing facilities and requiring the project to connect at a planned substation rather that creating an additional substation specifically for the project. Therefore, under the staff alternative, there would be substantially less effect on the desert tortoise and its critical habitat than under Eagle Crest’s proposal.

G 22 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the draft EIS does not provide a full analysis of possible mitigation measures to avoid or lessen the impacts of the proposed project and therefore the Commission cannot properly assess the likelihood that such measures would actually avoid the impacts of the proposed project.

Response: Section 2.2.4, Proposed Environmental Measures, and section 2.3, Staff Alternative, summarize the measures that are analyzed in section 3.0, Environmental Analysis. Specific measures are presented in section 3.0 with sufficient detail to analyze the costs and benefits of the measures. Where detail is lacking, we recommend that any project license include specific articles requiring Eagle Crest to consult with agencies and develop site-specific plans prior to initiating any land-disturbing activities. These plans would be available for public review and comment and would require Commission approval prior to implementation. As discussed in section 3.0, and provided for in section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations, we find that while our recommended measures would not avoid all of the effects of the project, they would adequately protect and enhance the environmental resources affected by the project.

A-9 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

G 23 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the draft EIS does not adequately consider potential alternatives that would protect the most sensitive lands within the proposed right-of-way from all future industrial development. The Center for Biological Diversity states that alternative siting and alternative technologies (including solar energy, which was erroneously referred to as being able to provide power at low rates during nighttime or low-demand hours, compared to rates available during daytime, high-demand hours [draft EIS at page 4]—solar energy projects actually act as peaking plants only during sunlight hours) should have been considered in the EIS.

Response: The staff alternative would result in the majority of the transmission and water lines in existing rights-of-way associated with existing infrastructure. We have revised section 1.2.2, Need for Power, to clarify that power from solar energy projects could be used to provide a portion of the pump-back power during off-peak weekday and weekend hours.

G 24 Comment: The Metropolitan Water District states that, as a result of the project's potential effects on Metropolitan facilities and rights-of-way, the final EIS should identify Metropolitan as an agency whose approval is required. All areas requiring Metropolitan's review and approval shall be clearly identified in the document.

The Metropolitan Water District recommends that the Commission coordinate with the Metropolitan Water District’s Real Property Development and Management Team, Substructures Team, and others to facilitate the planning process. The Metropolitan Water District is concerned the proposed project may adversely impact its ability to deliver water if the proposed project disrupts the Metropolitan Water District’s electric system. Construction activities and operation of any new facilities resulting from the proposed project should not impede or increase the cost of any electrical operation or maintenance activities on the Metropolitan Water District’s Colorado River Aqueduct (Colorado River Aqueduct) and its related transmission system. The final EIS should identify mitigation measures to prevent such disruptions.

The Metropolitan Water District states that it will need at least 1 year notice prior to any shutdown to coordinate this event with project construction. The final EIS should identify the transmission standards and a work plan for construction and operation of the proposed 500-kV transmission line, as well as identifying the shutdown coordination requirements as indicated above. The Metropolitan Water District goes on to state that shutdown plans should include SCE, whose transmission system is interconnected with the Metropolitan Water District’s 230-kV transmission system at its pumping plant.

The Metropolitan Water District states that the proposed 500-kV transmission line would cross its 230-kV transmission system. To avoid any clearance issues, both during construction and operation, Metropolitan Water District states that the proposed 500-kV transmission line should meet all applicable Institute of Electrical and Electronics

A-10 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Engineers’ and utility standards and requirements, including California State General Orders 95 and National Electrical Safety Code C2, regarding separation requirements of the two systems. It goes on to state that the most current and updated edition of these standards should be used in the design specifications. The 500-kV transmission line should also be in compliance with the requirements of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) electric reliability standards.

Finally, the Metropolitan Water District states that while it will attempt to provide advanced notice of any scheduled maintenance, there could be times when unscheduled maintenance or repair is required that may also necessitate the de-energizing of the 500-kV transmission line. The final EIS should identify these events, as well as the mitigation/planning measures, to ensure safe operation and maintenance of both transmission line systems.

Response: Consultation and coordination between Eagle Crest and Metropolitan Water District on a number of plans, as well as on the design, construction and operation of project facilities that would be located close to Metropolitan Water District facilities, would be appropriate. We have identified in section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations, all plans in which Eagle Crest’s consultation with the Metropolitan Water District is appropriate and recommend that Eagle Crest document its consultation with the Metropolitan Water District in any plans filed for Commission approval.

PURPOSE AND NEED PN 1 Comment: Kaiser states in reference to the statement on page 3 of section 1.2.1 of the draft EIS, “In deciding whether to issue a license for hydroelectric project, the Commission should determine that the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for developing a waterway,” that no waterway is discussed in the draft EIS. Kaiser and the Park Service request a description of the waterway and a justification for concluding that there is a waterway.

Response: The comment raises a legal question; whether the Commission has jurisdiction to license the proposed project. The purpose of the environmental review process is to take a hard look at environmental issues, not to address legal issues; however, any order issued by the Commission will address the basis of the Commission’s jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act (FPA).

PN 2 Comment: Kaiser states that section 1.3 of the draft EIS does not discuss NEPA and what is required in the preparation of a legally sufficient EIS and that such a discussion should be included.

A-11 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: NEPA requires that the Commission take a hard look at the environmental effects of the proposed action and any reasonable alternatives, and if there is a significant effect on the human environment, to prepare an EIS. The final EIS meets the requirements of NEPA. The final EIS meets the requirements of NEPA.

PN 3 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS provides inadequate analysis of the reason for the project, only that the project could have positive effects on the growing renewable energy industry due to its energy storage capacities. Kaiser states that there is no assurance that any of the proposed major solar and wind projects will actually be built. Kaiser states that solar power already coincides to the day-and-night cycle of on-peak and off-peak value. Interior asks that the EIS identify energy sources to be used if adjacent renewable energy projects are not constructed, and because the project would deplete the limited and valuable groundwater in the area, Interior asks that it not be considered a renewable energy project.

Response: Several large wind and solar facilities have been approved and are planned or under construction in the vicinity of the proposed Eagle Mountain Project and elsewhere in the southern California region. In addition to energy storage, pumped storage facilities provide other benefits to the electric grid including ancillary services, such as spinning and non-spinning reserves and voltage regulation, which can be important due to the variability in operations of wind and solar installations. California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) state: A pumped storage hydroelectricity may qualify for the RPS if: … 2) the energy used to pump the water into the storage reservoir qualifies as an RPS eligible source and the amount of energy that may qualify for the RPS is the amount of electricity dispatched from the pumped storage facility.

Pumped storage facilities qualify for the RPS in the basis of the renewable energy used for pumping water into the storage reservoir, but the storage facilities will not be certified for the RPS as separate or distinct renewable facilities. A facility certified as RPS-eligible may include an electricity storage device if it does not conflict with other RPS eligibility criteria.

We discuss the benefits of pumped storage facilities in more detail in section 1.2.2, Need for Power, and section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project. We discuss the project’s effects on groundwater in section 3.3.2, Water Resources. Additionally, we have revised section 3.3.2.3, Water Resources, Cumulative Effects, to include an analysis of the annual water use of the proposed project and other nearby electrical generation facilities, including nuclear, natural gas, and solar plants.

PN 4 Comment: Kaiser states that the project is not aligned with the need for both on and off-peak power in California or California Independent System Operator’s

A-12 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

(CAISO’s) Southern California local capacity requirements. Kaiser states that there should be sufficiently detailed independent studies that demonstrate that there is a need for the project so that there can be a realistic analysis of the benefits of the project versus the detriments of the project, which will be a substantial net user of power. Kaiser states that with the ability to integrate renewable resources into the electrical grid already being met, the need for the project is questionable. Kaiser also comments that as justification for the project, the draft EIS states that the proposed project “would also be able to provide ancillary services to the electric grid, including load following, system regulation through spinning and non-spinning reserve, and immediately available standby generating capacity.” These ancillary services are not sufficiently quantified in the draft EIS or anywhere else in the record.

Response: The benefits offered by the project would not be limited to providing on-peak and off-peak energy and generating capacity. It would provide energy storage and system stabilization through the various ancillary services that pumped storage facilities provide and are important to the successful integration of solar and wind-powered facilities into the electric grid. We have revised section 1.2.2, Need for Power, and section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project, to describe the project’s benefits in meeting regional resource goals and providing various ancillary services.

PN 5 Comment: Kaiser states that Eagle Crest indicates that the project would serve as a necessary battery for the storage of wind and solar energy and that there are substantial wind and solar facilities planned near the project that could help provide power to pump water to the upper reservoir (see e.g., draft EIS page 212). However, Kaiser states that this is not necessarily true because the draft EIS also states that Eagle Crest “would not be able to choose where the electricity would originate to move the water to the upper reservoir” (draft EIS, page 167). Similarly, the Sierra Club, Brendan Hughes, and the Citizens for the Chuckwalla Valley state that describing the project as using renewable resources and thus reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is inaccurate because coal powered plants may be used to provide energy for the project.

Response: As stated above, Eagle Crest does not have firm contracts in place for either the sale of power generation or purchase of pumping power, thus the actual source of pumping power (renewable or non-renewable) that would be used cannot be predicted at this time. We have revised section 1.2, Need for Power, and section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project, to reflect the various sources of pumping power. The air quality analysis in the EIS discusses potential emission offsets, and the final EIS includes some additional information provided by the State Water Board in its comments on the draft EIS; therefore, we revised the analysis in the final EIS to incorporate this additional information.

PN 6 Comment: Kaiser states that the economic analysis of the project is deficient and that an accurate and complete discussion of the economics and financial context of the

A-13 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

project is required. It also states that the project is not economically viable because there is not a large deferential between peak and off-peak prices and states that the draft EIS does not accurately explain many material aspects of the financial context and effects of the project.

Response: The economic value of a pumped storage project is not limited to the differential between on-peak and off-peak energy prices, although the differential is important. Pumped storage facilities also provide ancillary services, such as spinning and non-spinning reserve, voltage regulation, and black start capabilities. The value of these services also helps to offset the cost of pumping water to the upper reservoir and other operational costs of the project. We have revised section 1.2.2, Need for Power, and section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project, to describe the project’s benefits in meeting regional resource goals and providing various ancillary services.

PN 7 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS does not adequately address serious transmission constraints that impact the project, as the project currently has no capacity to deliver the power it may generate to market. A full explanation of the availability and timing of transmission capacity and the impacts of any delay in being able to connect the power grid should be made in the EIS. Kaiser states that the lack of discussion of the transmission line capacity and availability are necessary to ensure NEPA compliance and for a credible general estimate of the potential power benefits and costs of the project.

Response: Eagle Crest proposes an interconnection with the proposed Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 transmission line, and we recommend an alternative route that would interconnect with the existing Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 transmission line. Each of these alternatives would depend on transmission projects that are currently proposed by SCE and are currently in the approval process. The approval process for these projects is proceeding, and SCE expects the projects that would make either interconnection point a possibility would be completed and be in service in 2013, prior to the completion of the Eagle Mountain Project. We have revised section 1.2.2, Need for Power, and section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project, to include further discussion of the transmission line interconnections.

PN 8 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS provide evidence of a guaranteed source of renewable energy (e.g., contractually binding agreement) for pumping and that the project would be replacing non-renewable-fueled peaking generation. Similarly, Brendan Hughes states that the draft EIS does not include proof that any of the electricity providers in Southern California wants or needs the proposed project and asks if Eagle Crest has a power purchase agreement.

Response: Eagle Crest has stated that it does not yet have a firm contract for pumping energy or a firm power sales contract for the project. The Commission does not require an applicant to have a binding power purchase agreement for sale of power generated by

A-14 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

the project (or in the case of a pumped storage facility, a binding power purchase agreement for purchase of pumping power) prior to issuance of a license.

PN 9 Comment: EPA recommends that the Purpose and Need statement in the final EIS be broad enough for analysis and consideration of a full range of reasonable alternatives for addressing the underlying need. EPA recommends serious consideration of a broader range of alternatives for addressing the needs for peaking capacity, transmission regulation, and use of renewable energy generation (e.g., onsite distributed generation, improvements in efficiency, power conservation). Similarly, the Sierra Club and the Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley state that the draft EIS did not include a clear statement of purpose as required by NEPA and that any good alternatives that would meet the need for power should be identified and considered in the EIS.

Response: The proposal before the Commission is to construct a pumped storage facility as configured in the license application. The project is located to use two existing open pits on the site that are configured in such a way that with the proposed modifications they could feasibly function as upper and lower reservoirs. The consideration of alternatives applies to the pumped storage project and any alternative configurations that would potentially reduce environmental effects. The matter before the Commission is not to decide whether to construct a pumped storage project or to construct an alternative project that operates using an alternative fuel source. The alternatives considered by the Commission, given the limited options to reconfigure the project on the site, are to construct the project as proposed, construct the project as proposed with additional staff recommendations, or not construct the project as evaluated in the EIS. We have, however, revised section 1.2.2, Need for Power, and section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project, to improve our discussion about the need for the project and the ability to provide ancillary services, such as spinning and non-spinning reserve, voltage regulation, and black start capabilities.

PN 10 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS further explain how the project meets renewable energy generation needs in the context of the many renewable energy project applications in the desert southwest and California. EPA recommends that the final EIS include a summary of other energy projects being planned for the region to meet the same purpose and need.

Response: As discussed in the EIS, several large solar and wind facilities are proposed, planned, and/or under construction in the vicinity of the proposed Eagle Mountain Project, including several along the Interstate 10 corridor. In addition, many such projects are proposed, planned and/or under construction throughout southern California and the desert southwest. We have revised section 1.2.2, Need for Power, and section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project, to explain that pumped storage facilities can provide energy storage and voltage regulation benefits to the system and

A-15 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

that these benefits dovetail with the variable output of the solar and wind developments to help provide balanced power production and electrical grid stability.

PN 11 Comment: The Park Service states in section 1.2.2 that estimates of power generation indicate that the proposed project would have a net loss of power annually. The Park Service states that the NERC projects that current generating capacity will not fall below target reserves during the from period 2009–2018. The Park Service asks that the final EIS clarify why this is a necessary project for providing energy during peak delivery periods.

Response: The need for generating capacity is not the only consideration. California has a very aggressive mandate to increase its percentage of generation from renewable resources that are mostly variable in terms of generation and reduce the percentage of generation produced by fossil fuels. Pumped storage facilities can stabilize variable renewable generation and provide ancillary services, like operating reserves and frequency regulation, to support the reliable integration of large-scale solar and wind power projects proposed near the Eagle Mountain Project. We have revised section 1.2.2, Need for Power, and section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project, to provide additional information about the role that the project could play in meeting California’s RPS goals.

PROCEDURAL P 1 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS makes no provision for public review and comment on the preliminary design of the project or on the environmental impacts disclosed at that post-final EIS (final EIS) approval stage. Also, that there has been no meaningful environmental review by the Commission. The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS improperly asks the public to comment on a project that currently lacks critical design features and has a lack of technical and engineering information.

Response: Public review and comment on publically accessible documents and design information has been available throughout the process. State and federal resource agencies and other stakeholders will have opportunities to comment on any post-license study information, and final design plans would undergo detailed review by the Commission. The EIS represents our environmental review of the license application, our analysis of proposed and recommended measures, and the effects of the proposed project.

P 2 Comment: Interior states that the draft EIS needs to further develop a Pre-Design Site Investigation Plan because access to the project site is currently limited; this would include having an approved Plan of Development as part of a Record of Decision.

A-16 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: In the draft and final EIS, we analyzed and recommend adopting the Phase 1 Pre-Design Site Investigation Plan, and this plan would likely be part of a possible license issued by the Commission.

P 3 Comment: The Sierra Club and the Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley state that a number of the documents in the Commission’s eLibrary for P-13123 contain the designation “Availability CEII.” The Sierra Club and the Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley state that the rationale invoked by the Commission is that protection from the threat of terrorism requires some degree of government censorship, but that they are not content to accept designation of Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) without justification. These entities also state that they would like to know the particulars directly associated with this project relevant to CEII designation and that NEPA guidelines indicate that these groups and the general public should be allowed to obtain this information.

Response: Any member of the public can file a request to access CEII information; the instructions to do so are available at: http://www.ferc.gov/legal/ceii-foia/ceii.asp.

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES PAA 1 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS should analyze the option of what additional design modifications would be necessary if the construction of both the proposed landfill and the pumped storage projects proceed simultaneously.

Response: The project as proposed by Eagle Crest assumed that both projects could proceed simultaneously, and our analysis in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, indicates that this is feasible.

PAA 2 Comment: Kaiser states that alternative pumped storage project locations were not sufficiently analyzed in the draft EIS, including the possible use of the Black Eagle Mine site and that these sites should be evaluated in the draft EIS. Additionally, no evaluation of other potential pumped storage sites in other parts of California or in other locations has been undertaken.

Response: We have revised section 2.4, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis, to analyze the use of the Black Eagle Mine as one of the reservoirs in the proposed pumped storage project. Based on our analysis and for reasons discussed in section 2.4, we have determined that the use of Black Eagle Mine is not a reasonable alternative to the proposed project location.

PAA 3 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS does not evaluate what other type of projects and facilities may provide the ancillary services that the draft EIS states the

A-17 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

project would provide. It states that there are other alternative options that can provide ancillary services that have not been studied.

Response: Some other facilities can provide some of the ancillary services that pumped storage facilities can provide, but none can provide all of them. As discussed in section 1.2.2, Need for Power, and section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project, one of the benefits of a pumped storage facility is its ability to quickly change modes to provide ancillary services to the market, including spinning and non-spinning reserve, voltage regulation, and black start capability. The project is able to store water for use at any time so that it can produce energy at any given time. These benefits are becoming more important as renewable energy facilities, which have significant variability over the course of the day due to the availability of the resources that fuel them (wind and sunlight), are coming online. In addition to pumped storage facilities, California is seeing an increase in the number of applications to construct “peakers,” which are typically natural gas-fired units that are not installed to act as base load units but to function solely as standby units until circumstances arise when their capacity and output is immediately needed to provide power during peak periods or to provide ancillary services. Obviously, natural gas-fired units have their own environmental effects and produce greater greenhouse gas emissions than those associated with a pumped storage facility, such as the Eagle Mountain Project. As discussed in section 1.2.2, Need for Power, if the power to pump water to the upper reservoir can be obtained from a qualified renewable resource, the pumped storage facility can be considered to be an eligible facility under the California RPS, another unique aspect of a pumped storage facility.

PAA 4 Comment: Kaiser states that renewable projects should be considered at this location (e.g., expanded wind and solar projects) because these projects could avoid many of the adverse impacts associated with the proposed project. Also, Kaiser states that the net energy balance of other renewable energy projects should be analyzed and compared to the net energy balance of the project.

Response: This EIS analyzes the effects of constructing and operating the proposed pumped storage hydropower project proposed at this site. While renewable projects, such as wind and solar projects, avoid some of the effects of the proposed project, they do not provide the reliable grid support and demand response for when generation for other projects, such as wind and solar, are low or unavailable. In addition, a solar array to supply 1,300 megawatts of energy demand would require an area many times larger than the acreage of the proposed pumped storage project, could not be placed on the highly disturbed Eagle Mountain mine site, and would probably require flat and most likely relatively undisturbed terrain similar to the majority of the nearby proposed solar projects. Further, these nearby solar or wind projects would not have the ability to store energy for use during peak demand periods or provide immediate response to grid fluctuation or black start capability as the pumped storage project would. We have

A-18 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

revised section 1.2.2, Need for Power, and section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project, to fully describe the benefits of a pumped storage facility.

PAA 5 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS include a table comparing the life-cycle costs of the different alternatives. The table should include information on the cost of the land, different project design criteria that would be required, acquisition effort, scheduling effects, and the cost of mitigation.

Response: The proposal before the Commission is for constructing a pumped storage facility as configured in the license application. The matter before the Commission is not to decide whether to construct a pumped storage project or to construct an alternative project that operates using an alternative fuel source, which would be outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction under the FPA. However, we did consider, but eliminated from detailed analysis, an alternative location for one of the reservoirs, the Black Eagle Mine as discussed in section 2.4.2 of the final EIS. Therefore, we respectfully decline EPA’s recommendation.

PAA 6 Comment: The Citizens of Chuckwalla Valley states that jojoba plantings need to be part of the Alternative Actions section of the environmental documents and that its members are experts in the field and will be happy to provide further information about the use of jojoba as an energy source. The Citizens of Chuckwalla Valley also states that jojoba is native to the area, and the infrastructure is already in place to re-start the industry, thus providing an alternative energy source from the region that is desired to develop alternative energy projects.

Response: We appreciate the Citizens of Chuckwalla Valley’s suggestion of jojoba as an alternative energy source; however, the most recent literature on jojoba suggests the oils in a potential energy context are best suited for use as biofuel. Biofuel crops are currently being harvested throughout the country predominately for vehicle fueling uses instead of electrical energy generation fuels. Additionally, the scale of the proposed project is many magnitudes larger than the possible energy that could be delivered after processing jojoba from historical or potential jojoba crop coverage in the Chuckwalla Valley. In addition, the proposed project would use a much smaller amount of water than the irrigation required to produce an equal amount of biofuel that could be used to generate and equal amount of electricity. The proposed pumped storage project would also provide ancillary services as discussed in section 1.2.2, Need for Power, and section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project.

PAA 7 Comment: Interior comments that the system cannot be considered to be closed given losses to evaporation that are anticipated to occur from the reservoirs. It would be more appropriate to say that system is designed to minimize water losses.

A-19 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: We revised section 2.2.3, Project Operation, to add a footnote that provides our definition of a closed loop system. This footnote defines the system as closed because it is not located on a perennial waterway as are the majority of existing conventional and pumped storage hydropower projects. Evaporation losses are discussed in section 3.1, General Description of the Project Area, and section 3.3.2, Water Resources.

PAA 8 Comment: Interior comments that another criterion that should be considered when selecting project sites is proximity to load centers; minimizing transmission distances would reduce energy losses as well as impacts on remote landscapes and biological resources.

Response: Although we agree that the proposed site is located in a remote area, it is mostly situated on a highly disturbed, largely inactive open pit mine with a substantial elevation difference between the two proposed reservoirs. These key factors, along with the proximity to existing transmission corridors, the proximity to existing and proposed renewable energy sources, and the need for energy storage projects, were considered when Eagle Crest selected the site.

PROJECT SAFETY PS 1 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS does not adequately address the potential impacts and health hazard of electromagnetic fields from transmission lines for the project. Kaiser states that the draft EIS analysis is deficient in analyzing potential hazards and health effects to residents, sensitive receptors, and potential impacts on wildlife.

Response: Review of the available scientific literature indicates that there is considerable uncertainty concerning whether, and how, exposure to electromagnetic fields might adversely affect human health. The most authoritative assessment of the effects of electromagnetic fields on humans and animals was issued in June 1999 by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. After Congressionally mandated research, it concluded that the evidence for a risk of cancer and other human disease from the electromagnetic fields around power lines is “weak.”

The findings of the scientific community suggests that electromagnetic fields associated with this proposed transmission line would not likely affect the health of residents in the area if any live close to the proposed 500-kV transmission line corridor. Therefore, we do not analyze this issue in the final EIS.

PS 2 Comment: Kaiser and the County Sanitation District comment that they are concerned that that the draft EIS provides inadequate information about the saddle dams and the risk and consequences of a dam break. These entities state a dam break analysis

A-20 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

is required to have a complete understanding of the potential environmental consequences and public safety considerations of the project due to potential catastrophic consequences to the landfill, the town of Eagle Mountain, the Colorado River Aqueduct and other infrastructure if the dam breaks or fails.

Response: Eagle Crest has provided information regarding flood routing in Exhibit F (CEII) of the license application in its response to deficiencies and additional information requests (AIRs) dated October 26, 2009 (AIR 3) and in its clarification letter dated December 22, 2009 (Deficiency 5, AIR 14, Deficiency 6, AIR 3). As discussed in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, if the upper reservoir were full (and thus the lower reservoir were at its lowest level), flood inflows would pass over the upper reservoir spillway, down the Eagle Creek channel, and into the lower reservoir. If necessary, flows would then pass over the lower reservoir spillway and lower spillway channel to the Chuckwalla Valley. Details are contained in the aforementioned filings. Additional reviews and approvals the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections and California regulatory agencies related to dam safety concerns would occur after Eagle Crest completes its final engineering design.

PS 3 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS include an emergency response plan and a description of what mitigation measures would be taken, and by whom, if monitoring reveals groundwater contamination or if a catastrophic event occurs.

Response: The final EIS was revised to state that Eagle Crest would be responsible for mitigation in the event of groundwater contamination from project related events.

GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES GS 1 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS does not accurately describe the status of the Eagle Mountain mine and the Eagle Mountain site. Rather than being depleted, the mining pits that Eagle Crest proposes to use contain economically valuable minerals including iron ore and mining on a limited basis has continued since 1983. Also, Kaiser states that the town of Eagle Mountain is not inactive or “largely a ghost town.” Thus, to refer to Eagle Mountain mine or Eagle Mountain site as inactive is incorrect and this inaccuracy also translates to a misunderstanding as to the lack of sensitive receptors such as nearby residences.

Response: We discuss the history of mining operations in the project area in section 3.3.6, Cultural Resources. Based on available reports, including those published by proposed landfill proponents (e.g., CH2M HILL, 1996) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Force, 2001), mining operations at Eagle Mountain Mine ceased in 1983 after 35 years in operation. Further, the ore processing and refining facilities have been removed since this time, as reported in the draft EIS/EIR for the proposed landfill project

A-21 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

(CH2M HILL, 1996); however, this document states the following in section 1.1.1, Historical Mining Activity:

Although full-time operation of the mine was curtailed in 1983, Kaiser continues to engage in mining-related activities, including the sale and shipment of overburden as crushed rock and mixed rock product, the maintenance of equipment and roads, and the administration of Kaiser’s mining claims. Kaiser’s Eagle Mountain rail line was used for two shipments of iron ore in March 1993.

Based on available information on mining-related activities at the Eagle Mountain site, no further extraction, removal, and/or shipments of iron ore from the site are known to have occurred since 1993. The County of Riverside states that vested mining rights no longer exist at the Eagle Mountain mine because iron ore mining ceased in 1983, so future mining of the site would require additional permitting in accordance with the mining ordinance of the county.

GS 2 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS does not adequately discuss and analyze the project’s impacts on the mineral resources at Eagle Mountain and, specifically, does not consider the mining of iron ore to be economical or the potential project effects on reactivation of large-scale iron ore mining. Kaiser states that it estimated in 1983, when extractive iron ore mining ceased, that there was up to 336 million tons of in-ground iron ore still available at the mine and that a 2001 USGS study (Force, 2001) published a higher amount of up to 550 million tons of in-ground iron ore. Kaiser states that in addition to the in-ground iron ore, there is an estimated 135 million tons of coarse and fine tailings remaining onsite that can likely be economically extracted. Additionally, Interior comments that the draft EIS states that there are about 193.5 million tons of recoverable iron-bearing place at the mine, which contradicts information provided in the Executive Summary that states this is a depleted mine.

Response: We discuss the effects of project construction and operation on the Eagle Mountain mine in section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soil Resources, Environmental Effects. We state the total amount of estimated “recoverable” iron ore (i.e., not in-ground) in the central project area is estimated at 170 million tons (e.g., Eagle Crest, 1994; Mine Reclamation Corporation, 1997), with about 23.5 million tons reported to remain at the east end of the eastern mining pit (i.e., the proposed lower reservoir) (GeoSyntec, 1992, as cited in Eagle Crest, 1994). The 23.5 million tons of recoverable iron ore reserves are located within the 467-acre parcel of land that is currently held by the California State Lands Commission. We have revised this section to add information about the estimated amount and location of iron ore from the USGS study (Force, 2001). However, it is important to note that the USGS study’s estimate of iron ore present at the Eagle Mountain mine refers only to iron ore likely to be present in the underlying bedrock, or “in-ground” (i.e., not in the coarse tailings present in the pits or stockpiled elsewhere

A-22 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

onsite). We have also revised the Executive Summary to replace the term depleted with largely inactive to provide a more accurate description of the existing conditions in the project area.

To further address potential effects on the existing mineral resources in the project area, we have added information about the potential for reactivation of large-scale iron ore mining and the economical value of recoverable iron ore at the Eagle Mountain mine that would become inaccessible in the eastern and central pits once project construction begins. In summary, full-time operation of the mine ceased in 1983 and shipment of ore ceased in 1993, as summarized in the landfill project’s draft EIS/EIR (CH2M HILL, 1996). There is currently no plan by either Kaiser or others to recover the remaining ore; however, we do acknowledge that about $10 billion worth of iron ore could potentially remain beneath the footprints of the proposed reservoirs. This ore could become accessible again for mining operations if the project were decommissioned. The proposed landfill project, once completed, would greatly hinder mining of iron ore beneath the landfill footprint. The draft EIS/EIR of the proposed landfill project (CH2M HILL, 1996) does not provide an explicit estimate of the quantity of iron ore that would become largely inaccessible once the landfill is completed; however, it does show visually that the landfill would overlap with the known occurrences of iron ore (e.g., Phases 2, 3, and 5). We have revised section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soils Resources, Environmental Effects, to add this information to our discussion.

GS 3 Comment: Kaiser comments that the statement that recoverable precious metals are not present at Eagle Mountain is in error and that the EIS should include information about improved mining and recovery technology and current market conditions. Kaiser includes an executive summary from a conceptual study for the recovery of contained mineral values.

Response: This information in the draft EIS was derived from the draft EIS/EIR prepared for the proposed landfill project (CH2M Hill, 1996), which specifically states:

Following suspension of iron ore mining, the mine was examined for precious metals. No significant quantities or precious metals were detected in the mine area (Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc., 1990).

Kaiser’s attached document entitled Conceptual Study of Kaiser Venture Inc.’s Eagle Mountain Project for Recovery of Contained Mineral Values finds that there is “sufficient mineral grades and tonnage of gold, platinum, palladium, and iron” that “may exist in the process tailing to warrant a stand-alone 5,000 ton per day tailings recovery operation.” Because this document was considered confidential and was not available to us prior to Kaiser’s filing, we were not able to consider its findings until now. We have revised section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soil Resources, Environmental Effects, to reference this abridged document. Although there is the potential for precious metals to occur in the

A-23 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

process tailings currently located within the central project area, the precise locations are not wholly known and neither are the quantities. Additionally, neither Kaiser nor any other entity currently has plans to recover the remaining precious metals.

Any metals-enriched tailings located beneath the footprint of the proposed landfill project would become inaccessible once the landfill is completed, unless removed from the footprint prior to and/or during landfill construction.

GS 4 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the revised or supplemental draft EIS should identify the extent of the cryptobiotic soils onsite and analyze the potential impacts on the essential desert ecosystem components as a result of this project.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, to discuss cryptobiotic soils. Because of the undisturbed nature of portions of the project area, we expect cryptobiotic soils to be present. However, these microbiotic soil communities can require decades to develop, so we do not expect them to be present in previously disturbed areas in the central project area. Effects of the project on cryptobiotic soils would be limited to areas of disturbance in previously undisturbed soils, which we estimate to be less than 100 acres. Eagle Crest would mitigate these effects as part of the revegetation plan, which includes inoculation of soils with microorganisms that contribute to the formation of cryptobiotic soils. We acknowledged the presence of desert pavement soils in the central project area in section 3.1, General Description of the Project Area. We have revised section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soil Resources, to add information about this known occurrence of desert pavement. Desert pavement is known to be intermittently present in the central project area, as mapped as part of a geomorphic and soil-stratigraphic age assessment study conducted in support of the proposed landfill project (Shlemon, 1993). Potential impacts on these soils and any underlying soil layers would be avoided and/or minimized through implementation of Eagle Crest’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Measure GEO-1), as discussed in greater detail in sections 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soil Resources, Environmental Effects; 4.3, Cost of Environmental Measures; and 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations.

GS 5 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the impacts of the proposed project on the sand transport corridor and the down-wind sand dune habitat which supports the Mojave fringe-toed lizard (a BLM sensitive species and a California Department of Fish and Game [DFG] species of special concern) could be significant and that analysis should be done in a revised or supplemental draft EIS.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soils Resources, to add information about the location of the sand transport corridor. The sand transport corridor is generally situated within the Chuckwalla Valley where only the proposed water supply pipelines and electrical transmission lines would cross it and only very minor effects

A-24 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

would occur as a result of the proposed project. We note that the Mojave fringe-toed lizard is a BLM sensitive species and a California DFG species of concern. However, no habitat for this species exists in the project area, and the project would not affect sand transport to a degree that would affect this species.

GS 6 Comment: The County Sanitation District and Kaiser state that the draft EIS does not discuss or describe any mitigation measures that may minimize the project’s impacts on soils located in the central project area and, by extension, on the landfill.

Response: Section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soil Resources, discusses geology and soil conditions known to exist within the proposed project area, which includes the central project area and the potential project-related effects on soils in this area. Implementation of Eagle Crest’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Measure GEO-1) would result in the avoidance and/or minimization of potential project-related effects on soils throughout the project area, including the central project area. Prior to project construction, Eagle Crest would conduct detailed subsurface investigations in the proposed project area (including the central project area) to support final engineering designs.

GS 7 Comment: Kaiser asks for clarification and explanation of the basis of the following statement and conclusion: “Eagle Crest states that no mass soil or rock movements related to site construction could occur that would affect offsite facilities (i.e., those facilities existing and/or constructed on the valley floor).” Kaiser states that this cannot be true with regard to the landfill and its related facilities and that it is unclear what is meant by reference to the “valley floor.” It asks if this statement is meant to indicate that Eagle Crest has concluded that there are no possible mass soil or rock movement impacts on the Colorado River Aqueduct, Kaiser’s water pipeline serving Eagle Mountain, and the Eagle Mountain town site, etc.

Response: We discuss the effects of project construction and operation on landslides and mass movements in section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soil Resources, Environmental Effects. In this discussion, the “valley floor” refers to the lowland areas of the Chuckwalla Valley. We have revised this section to clarify that existing facilities in the valley would not be affected by any potentially occurring mass soil or rock movements originating in and around the central project area. The central project area is located in the Eagle Mountains, which are above and adjacent to (but not within) the Chuckwalla Valley. The types of existing facilities present upon the floor of the Chuckwalla Valley include, but are not limited to, the Colorado River Aqueduct, Kaiser’s water pipeline(s), and the Eagle Mountain town site.

GS 8 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS’ discussion of the project impacts on the excavation of the landfill is inadequate and the draft EIS does not discuss the potential impacts of the project on landfill stability. Specifically, the discussion should have included consideration of potential impacts results from the back cut excavation for each

A-25 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

phase of the landfill’s development, upgradient and downgradient landfill monitoring wells, and landfill perimeter gas probes that may abut, conflict, and impinge on the proposed facilities.

Response: We discuss compatibility with the proposed landfill project and the potential effects on the landfill project in section 3.3.5, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics. We discuss Eagle Crest’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Measure GEO-1) in section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soils Resources, which includes best management practices to be implemented during the construction process to control and minimize erosion and stabilize disturbed lands after construction. Destabilization of steep slopes in the central project area would be limited to those areas within the east and central pits (proposed lower and upper reservoirs), with some potential disturbance of existing slopes occurring along linear features (e.g., roads, transmission line, and pipelines), rather than within the areas of the landscape between the pits where the landfill would be constructed. Therefore, no geotechnical issues related to the stability of the landfill are expected to occur as a result of project construction or operation.

GS 9 Comment: The County Sanitation District and Kaiser state that the discussion of geological conditions in the central project area does not include a detailed physical examination of the site, an analysis of project design, or site-specific geological studies regarding proposed project facilities. These entities state that site-specific data are critical to determine the true “baseline conditions” at the site and thereby consider the actual environmental impacts of the project. Additionally, the County Sanitation District states that the proposed site investigation program does not consider the project impacts on the static and seismic stability of the landfill’s slopes and that such studies cannot be deferred until after the certification of the final EIS and licensing of the project.

Response: We discuss the baseline geological conditions of the project area in section 3.3.1.1, Geologic and Soil Resources, Affected Environment, for which we relied upon the detailed accounts of surveyed geological conditions in the project area and vicinity, as reported by numerous available information sources. These sources include the California Geological Survey (e.g., Hadley, 1945; Jennings, 1967), USGS (e.g., Force, 2001), and environmental studies conducted in support of the proposed landfill project (e.g., Shlemon, 1993; GeoSyntec, 1996). As discussed in section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soil Resources, Environmental Effects, Eagle Crest proposes to conduct detailed subsurface investigations in the project area prior to construction to support final project configuration and design.

We discuss geologic hazards, which include reservoir-triggered seismicity, in sections 3.3.1, Geologic and Soil Resources. Here, we also discuss compatibility with the proposed landfill project and the potential effects on the landfill project in section 3.3.5, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics. Our analysis of reservoir-triggered seismicity found that the initial filling of the reservoirs and the planned twice-daily movement of a

A-26 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

relatively large mass of water could impose stress upon the underlying land surface. This stress could potentially trigger land movement, even though there is no evidence that any local faults have exhibited seismic activity within the past 40,000 years. Consequently, we recommend Eagle Crest’s proposal to: (1) conduct a thorough subsurface investigation in the project area to better characterize existing conditions and (2) establish a seismic monitoring program per the general recommendations of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD, 2008) for reservoir projects.

GS 10 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the discussion of the extent and location of borings proposed for the geotechnical investigation plan is insufficient because it does not consider the landfill. Eagle Crest’s proposed Phase 1 geotechnical investigation plan shows approximately one boring for each 1,800 feet of tunnel. This entity states that the draft EIS should have also explained how such widely spaced borings will provide sufficient information for the design and construction of the tunnels. The County Sanitation District further states that in accordance with 18 CFR §380.12(h)(3), the draft EIS should have incorporated expanded site investigation studies to establish existing geologic conditions, as a baseline prior to blasting, then assess and mitigate any changes that result from the blasting associated with project construction. Kaiser states that the draft EIS is deficient with regard to its discussion on the impacts of blasting and a detailed and complete study and analysis of the impacts of blasting on the landfill and biological resources is required and should not be deferred.

Response: We referenced Eagle Crest’s proposed site investigations (from section 12.6 of its license application [Eagle Crest, 2009a]) in section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soil Resources, Environmental Effects. We have revised section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soil Resources, Environmental Effects, to add information about the location and purpose of the borings, and we discuss compatibility with the proposed landfill project and the potential effects on the landfill project in section 3.3.5, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics.

We also discuss the effects of construction and operation of project facilities in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, which includes information about the expected occurrences of and effects of blasting related to project construction activities. In section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soil Resources, Environmental Effects, we discuss the potential effects of blasting on the two mining adits in the central project area and the need for Eagle Crest to evaluate the potential for these activities to destabilize these features as part of its subsurface investigations. We have revised the text in section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soils Resources, to clarify information about the proposed locations of blasting associated with project construction activities and its potential effects on existing geologic conditions. The proposed blasting activities would occur in conjunction with drilling/boring during construction of the subsurface facilities (e.g., tunnels, surge control, and powerhouse). Once site access is granted and prior to construction, Eagle Crest would conduct its subsurface investigations, including

A-27 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

considering the effects of blasting on existing geologic conditions and proposing modifications to its final designs and/or mitigation measures, if needed. The results of these investigations and the project’s final designs would be reviewed and critiqued by the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections, which would authorize the project’s construction and operation.

GS 11 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that the draft EIS should analyze how the crumbling slopes will be prevented from filling in the reservoirs, which in turn could cause massive flooding caused by displaced water. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that the draft EIS should contain mapping of the flooding, damage estimates, and mitigation measures if this type of emergency situation were to occur.

Response: Reviews and approvals by the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections related to dam safety concerns such as those mentioned above would occur after Eagle Crest completes its final engineering design.

GS 12 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley requests that information be obtained from Cal Tech regarding seismic activity in a 15-mile radius of Eagle Mountain from 1994 until present and that the data should exclude blasting for mining. This entity states that the Blue Cut fault is capable of a 7.2 magnitude earthquake and that many faults that were not identified 20 or more years ago have been identified because of new seismic activities. It also states that Kaiser allows law enforcement agencies to detonate bombs at the Eagle Mountain site without permits and that this is an ongoing activity. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that these topics need to be included in the EIS.

Response: We present information about the recorded seismic history of the project area and vicinity and discuss the potential effects of these seismic events on project facilities, as well as the potential effects of the project on triggering seismic events in section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soil Resources. In the Affected Environment section, we make reference to the California Geological Survey’s database of all known historical earthquakes of magnitude greater than 4.0 within the project region for the period from 1769 to 2000 (California Geological Survey, 2001). The threshold of magnitude 4.0, for which the USGS defines all magnitudes less than this value to be “minor,” is used by the California Geological Survey in its database because data on smaller events is sparse prior to the 1940s. Additionally, the USGS defines all events less than magnitude 4.0 to be “minor” and to rarely cause damage to structures. We show locations of known faults within the project vicinity in figures 6 and 7, and we have added labels to the major faults shown in figure 6.

We queried the Southern California Earthquake Data Center online database for the period of 1932 to the present to evaluate the occurrence and magnitude of more recent

A-28 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

seismic events in the vicinity. Our evaluation reveals that there have been no new seismic events of a magnitude greater than 4.0 near the central project area and that there has been no identification of previously unmapped faults occurring in the vicinity. There have been numerous recorded seismic events in the central project area not attributed to fault movement but, instead, caused by mining-related blasting (termed “quarry blasts” in the online database). These blast-caused events had magnitudes up to about magnitude 3.0. We have revised section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soil Resources, to add, by reference, this new information. As described in the final EIS, as part of the proposed Phase 1 Pre- Design Site Investigation Plan but prior to the final project design, Eagle Crest would investigate the site to determine the site-specific geologic stability of the mining pits, as well as collecting and analysis of site samples. The results of this investigation will be used to develop the final engineering design for the proposed project. The stability of the slopes and design of the dams and other structures would be reviewed and evaluated by the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections, which would authorize the project’s construction and operation.

WATER RESOURCES Groundwater GW 1 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the seepage analysis included in the draft EIS relating to groundwater is insufficient in many respects. The County Sanitation District lists the following elements of the seepage analysis that it interpreted to be based on information incorporated into the draft EIS from the State Water Board’s draft EIR: (1) seepage analysis modeling; (2) specific model output figures; and (3) other estimated values of seepage rates and recovery pumping rates.

Response: The information that the County Sanitation District cites is part of the State Water Board’s draft EIR but was not included the draft EIS. We have revised section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, to include information in the final EIS about the pertinent components of Eagle Crest’s groundwater modeling and analysis.

GW 2 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS’ discussion of ground subsidence impacts in connection with the project does not address potential subsidence impacts associated with tunneling activities during construction. Specifically, the draft EIS does not describe any procedure or design for lining the pressure tunnel for seepage control.

Response: We discuss the proposed project facilities in section 2.2.1, Project Facilities, and potential reservoir seepage and ground subsidence effects in section 3.3.2, Water Resources. We have included additional information to our discussion in this latter section that describes the general construction specifications of the water conductor tunnels that would be implemented to minimize seepage. Ground subsidence is not

A-29 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

expected anywhere along the course of the water conductor tunnels as they will pass relatively deep below surface grade within structurally competent bedrock.

GW 3 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS does not discuss regulatory interference with the development of the landfill, which could potentially occur as a consequence of reservoir seepage resulting in groundwater levels rising to an elevation that is within 5 feet of the deepest part of the landfill, which would violate requirements of California State Code of Regulations 27 CCR § 20240(c).66

Response: We have included additional discussion on reservoir seepage in section 3.3.2, Water Resources. Additionally, we have modified Measures SR-3 and SR-4 to specifically take into account the requirements of California State Code of Regulations 27 CCR § 20240(c) that would require Eagle Crest to prevent artificially raised groundwater levels from encroaching within 5 feet of the bottom of the landfill. In summary, the project has the potential to artificially raise groundwater levels in the vicinity of the reservoirs, and in turn beneath the landfill, due to reservoir seepage. As discussed in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, results of Eagle Crest’s seepage modeling predict that in the absence of seepage recovery actions, groundwater levels could potentially come within about 100 feet of the existing ground surface. In section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, we recommend that Eagle Crest implement a seepage mitigation program based on additional information to be obtained in support of final engineering design (Measures SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4, and SR-5). Seepage recovery via the proposed wells would greatly reduce the potential for artificially raised groundwater levels to come into contact with the existing ground surface, the Colorado River Aqueduct, and the deepest portions of the proposed landfill. Ongoing review of the groundwater monitoring and seepage recovery activities by the Commission through annual reports submitted by Eagle Crest would further ensure that corrective actions would be undertaken should groundwater levels become too shallow beneath critical facilities in the project area. We therefore find that our recommended mitigation measures are likely to control potential reservoir seepage effects on groundwater levels in the project area and, specifically, to prevent groundwater levels from encroaching within 5 feet below the deepest portions of the landfill.

GW 4 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS contains no discussion of the potential off-site disposal of salts other than the estimated amount of truck traffic and that this is inadequate.

Response: Eagle Crest has not proposed a method of transport or destination for the disposal of salts that the proposed reverse osmosis system would generate. In the draft EIS, our analysis was limited to the proposed facilities that would generate salts and the

66 Source: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Regulations/Title27/ch3sb2b.htm.

A-30 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

onsite storage until they can be removed. The removal of these materials would result in additional truck traffic in the area.

GW 5 Comment: Kaiser states that a number of potential regional projects use groundwater from the Chuckwalla Groundwater Basin. Kaiser states that it would be beneficial to the public and the Commission if the draft EIS included a review of all the recently published groundwater analyses for the Chuckwalla Basin and provide a report and summary table showing material differences used in each respective analysis.

Response: We discuss the cumulative effects on groundwater resources from the proposed project and others in the Chuckwalla Valley (both existing and proposed) in section 3.3.2.3, Water Resources, Cumulative Effects. We have included additional background information (i.e., a summary table) on the planned groundwater usage in Chuckwalla Valley.

GW 6 Comment: Kaiser states that the analysis and accounting of the groundwater balance for the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin does not sufficiently document and explain the basis for its assumptions that the pumping effects of the project will actually result in a water surplus by the end of the assumed 50-year operation period. Kaiser states that the model used to support the groundwater analysis does not include typical model components, as well as an appropriate explanation of the model components used.

Response: In our analysis of the effects of project operations on the regional and local groundwater levels, presented in section 3.3.2, Water Resources, we do not state that the pumping effects of the project would result in a water surplus in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. Referring to the more detailed information provided in Eagle Crest’s license application (Eagle Crest, 2009a,b) and the State Water Board’s draft EIR (2010), the groundwater balance over the 50-year duration (with consideration of cumulative uses from other existing and planned projects in the valley) reveals that project pumping would exceed recharge during the initial 4-year reservoir filling period. Recharge would then exceed pumping during the remaining years because project pumping would be reduced to only provide reservoir make-up water. During this period, groundwater levels would begin to recover as a result of inflow exceeding outflow. We have added more specific details about the groundwater balance, in addition to information about pertinent components of the groundwater modeling and analysis, to sections 3.3.2, Water Resources, including section 3.3.2.3, Cumulative Effects.

GW 7 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS does not adequately address the possibility of drilling and pumping only two groundwater wells and that a long fill period should not be rejected just because it may take more time and/or be more expensive than the preferred alternative.

A-31 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: With the use of three pumping wells as proposed, the reservoirs would be filled to a minimum operating capacity in about 1.3 years and full operating capacity in about 4.1 years. We revised section 3.3.2, Water Resources, to indicate that if only two wells were used at the same proposed pumping rates, it would take about 6 years to reach full operating capacity. In addition, a smaller number of pumping wells would not limit the amount of groundwater lowering over the term of the license.

GW 8 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS should have addressed other areas of analysis, including the applicability of deterministic and probabilistic calculations used to evaluate the dam and reservoir design; representative wave boundary conditions; technical properties, such as those for required strength of foundation and side slope materials, particularly under oblique wave attack and wave overtopping, wave transmission at oblique wave attack, and wave growth under extreme winds.

Response: Reviews and approvals by the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections related to dam safety concerns such as those mentioned by the County Sanitation District would occur after Eagle Crest completes its final engineering design and before project construction would commence.

GW 9 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS is missing a discussion of the materials to be used in constructing the dams and the methods or designs for controlling seepage. Specifically, it believes that the draft EIS lacks site- specific information regarding the design of foundation grouting controlling seepage or discussion regarding the likelihood of this construction method’s success. The details of the design may significantly impact the economics of the project and have resulting environmental consequences that should have been disclosed in the draft EIS. The County Sanitation District further states that the proponent’s plan to use mine tailings to help control seepage, as described in the draft EIS, is inconsistent with site-specific observations of the properties of the tailings and, accordingly, detailed geotechnical characterizations of the actual existing materials should have been discussed. Kaiser has similar comments and states that proposing potential methods for mitigating project seepage is speculative in nature without sufficient geotechnical studies.

Response: Site-specific information about the materials proposed to control seepage and the overall potential reservoir seepage effects comes from published studies of existing geologic and hydrogeologic conditions in the central project area. Most of these studies have been published by scientific and regulatory agencies and by others in support of the proposed landfill project (e.g., CH2M HILL, 1996). Together, these information sources provide a comprehensive account of existing conditions in the central project area where the reservoirs and related infrastructure are proposed to be constructed and operated. We discuss the existing hydrogeologic conditions of the central project area and within the Chuckwalla Valley, along with seepage control measures (both reservoir lining

A-32 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

approaches and seepage recovery actions) in section 3.3.2, Water Resources. In our analysis of these measures, we conclude that lining the portions of the two reservoirs underlain by bedrock with fine tailings and lining the east end of the lower reservoir (underlain by alluvium) with fine tailings and roller-compacted concrete would be suitable in minimizing seepage. However, if it is determined by the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections following Eagle Crest’s onsite reconnaissance and subsurface investigations that the fine tailings available onsite are not suitable for lining the reservoirs alone (i.e., not sufficiently impermeable), we recommend that Eagle Crest supplement the fine tailings used in the seepage blanket with imported materials, such as clay materials (e.g., bentonite) or even roller-compacted concrete or soil cement, and/or grouting of bedrock fractures to further reduce permeability, as may be required by the Commission. We have revised section 3.3.2, Water Resources, to provide additional information to our discussion.

We have revised section 2.2.1, Project Facilities, to provide additional information about the materials that Eagle Crest plans to use to construct the dams. However, Eagle Crest will provide much more detailed information based onsite investigations and design details in its final engineering design, which will require review and approval by the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections. As described in section 3.3.2, Water Resources, Eagle Crest’s proposed seepage control measures would consist of lining the reservoirs and installing a series of groundwater monitoring wells located downgradient from each reservoir for seepage monitoring and pump-back recovery. We recommend these measures in section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations.

GW 10 Comment: Kaiser states that the evaluation of potential impacts on groundwater at the Eagle Mountain site is limited to document and photographic review, rather than actual studies by Eagle Crest at the central project site. Kaiser states that deferring necessary studies and analysis deprive the Commission, other governmental agencies, and the public of meaningful information that is necessary for analysis of water impacts and other project impacts.

Response: Eagle Crest has not been able to conduct on-the-ground data collection efforts in the central project area due to Kaiser’s access limitation; however, Eagle Crest and others were able to use a comprehensive data set that characterizes hydrogeologic conditions throughout the central project area. Much of this data set was collected and compiled by others in support of the landfill environmental permitting process (e.g., CH2M Hill, 1996). Additionally, several other published studies on groundwater conditions in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin and adjacent basins were used in the groundwater analyses and modeling efforts conducted specifically by Eagle Crest for this project. We discuss the findings of these studies and our analyses in sections 3.3.2, Water Resources. Eagle Crest would conduct additional site reconnaissance and subsurface investigations (including aquifer tests) in support of its final engineering designs. We therefore conclude the analyses of potential project effects on groundwater

A-33 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

resources in the area is technically sound, based on the sufficient volume of available data considered, the appropriateness of the analytical methods employed, and the plan to conduct additional site investigations and analyses when site access conditions are resolved.

GW 11 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS does not contain adequate discussion related to the technical and permitting criteria that would be required for the proposed south and west saddle dams. The draft EIS provides no technical explanation as to how the “normal freeboard” and similar parameters for the dams and reservoirs was estimated or calculated.

Response: We have revised section 2.2.1, Project Facilities, to provide additional information about the elevation of the proposed dams at the upper reservoir and the invert of the spillways at both proposed reservoirs. Information about the maximum water elevation in the proposed reservoirs is available in figure 4 of the EIS. Eagle Crest would provide more detailed information based onsite investigations and design details in the final engineering design, which would require review and approval by the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections.

GW 12 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS does not provide any real, site-specific basis for its discussion of Eagle Creek’s capacity to handle a flooding event. It comments that the draft EIS should have determined the capacity of the existing drainage features, the project’s capacity for providing drainage for the nearby watershed, the potential project overflows or flooding, and related environmental effects.

Response: Eagle Crest provided information about these issues in its Exhibit F (CEII) of the license application; response to deficiencies and AIRs dated October 26, 2009 (AIR 3); and clarification letter dated December 22, 2009, (Deficiency 5, AIR 14, Deficiency 6, AIR 3). This information was summarized as part of our analysis of these topics in section 3.3.2.2, Water Quantity, Environmental Effects. As recommended in the EIS, additional investigation, design, and the Commission’s review and approval would ensure sufficient capacity of Eagle Creek channel to protect existing and proposed infrastructure.

GW 13 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS does not provide a sufficient analysis of the impacts of seepage and other byproducts of the operation of the project on groundwater levels. Similarly, EPA recommends that the final EIS include more definitive information on the amount and flow direction of reservoir seepage. The County Sanitation District further states that the draft EIS does not assess whether seepage flows are a risk to the upper liner on the landfill (backslopes), the base liner (bottom grade), or both. The County Sanitation District states that because the draft EIS does not characterize groundwater movement on the site, the ability of the proposed monitoring to offer protection of the landfill’s liners cannot be evaluated.

A-34 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: We discuss the potential effects of reservoir seepage and related mitigation measures in section 3.3.2, Water Resources. Groundwater levels that may become artificially raised due to reservoir seepage would be controlled during project operations through the use of seepage recovery wells that would be installed along the downgradient sides of each reservoir. Other related measures would involve initial confirmation of aquifer characteristics and appropriate seepage recovery pumping rates (Measures SR-1 and SR-2). These measures would also include monitoring of groundwater levels in the project area to record and allow for the assessment of seepage conditions for the purpose of managing groundwater levels below critical facilities, including the bottom of the landfill and the Colorado River Aqueduct (Measures SR-3, SR-4, and SR-5). We have modified Measures SR-3 and SR-4 to specifically take into account the requirements of California State Code of Regulations 27 CCR § 20240(c) that would require Eagle Crest to prevent artificially raised groundwater levels from encroaching within 5 feet of the bottom of the landfill. We have revised section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, to provide additional clarification about potential reservoir seepage effects on the proposed landfill.

GW 14 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the reservoir level monitoring plan recommended by the Commission should be integrated into a comprehensive water balance program and monthly monitoring of the seepage wells to ensure an adequate response is available if pumping at some point did not prevent groundwater levels from rising in the central project area.

Response: We discuss the need for a reservoir level monitoring plan in sections 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, and 4.3, Cost of Environmental Measures. We have clarified our recommendation in sections 5.1, Comparison of Alternatives, and 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, to integrate the reservoir level monitoring plan into a comprehensive water balance and water quality monitoring program.

GW 15 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that with respect to specific mitigation measures for seepage regarding the landfill, the draft EIS should have included either a target elevation for groundwater levels, performance standards, or an adaptive management approach to make sure that the expected seepage from the reservoir, once an expected level is determined, will not raise groundwater levels under the landfill’s liners. To support these measures, the draft EIS should have included a pre-design field investigation to determine the characteristics of the project site.

Response: As discussed in our responses to similar comments above, Eagle Crest has not been able to conduct on-the-ground data collection efforts in the central project area due to access limitation; however, it was able to use a comprehensive dataset that characterizes hydrogeologic conditions throughout the project area. Eagle Crest proposes and we recommend additional site reconnaissance and subsurface investigations

A-35 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

(including aquifer tests) to be conducted in support of the final engineering designs. Eagle Crest would additionally confirm aquifer characteristics and adequate pumping rates in the seepage recovery wells as part of aquifer testing during these investigations (Measures SR-1 and SR-2).

GW 16 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS include a groundwater basin balance analysis for cumulative effects on the Pinto Basin, as well as the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin. The final EIS should include a more robust groundwater cumulative impacts analysis that considers impacts from the proposed Eagle Mountain landfill, renewable energy projects, climate change, drought, and growth. The significance and potential implications of the project’s cumulative impacts and level of groundwater depletion should be described. The Park Service also requests that a more thorough evaluation and discussion on how the values reported in the current cumulative effects discussion were determined.

Response: We have elaborated on our discussion of cumulative effects of groundwater depletion in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin in section 3.3.2.3, Water Resources, Cumulative Effects, with additional discussion about related potential effects on the Pinto groundwater basin. We have created a table and added other information showing the groundwater balance of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin and incorporated the cumulative effects of existing groundwater usage, the proposed pumped storage hydroelectric project, the proposed landfill, and the proposed and potential future solar projects in the basin.

GW 17 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS describe the effectiveness of, and commitments to, the mitigation and monitoring plans proposed in the draft EIS.

Response: We discuss the mitigation measures proposed to minimize potential project- related effects on groundwater resources in sections 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects; 4.3, Cost of Environmental Measures; 5.1, Comparison of Alternatives; and 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. We make reference to FPA, section 10(c), 16 U.S.C. 803, which makes clear that a licensee of a hydropower project “shall be liable for all damages occasioned to the property of others by the construction, maintenance, or operation of the project works….” We additionally recommend a modification to the proposed mitigation measures in the draft EIS to include a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program. As part of this program, annual reports would be submitted to both the Commission and the State Water Board for their review of groundwater conditions during project operations.

GW 18 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS address what mitigation measure would be taken, and by whom, if groundwater resources in the basin become overextended to the point that further curtailment is necessary due to, for example,

A-36 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

additional growth, the influx of large-scale solar projects, drought, climate change, and the use of existing or pending water rights in the basin.

Response: We discuss the potential project-related and cumulative effects on groundwater supply in the Chuckwalla Valley in sections 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, and 3.3.2.3, Cumulative Effects. We note that as a condition of Measures WS-1, WS-3, and WS-4, Eagle Crest would monitor groundwater levels throughout the valley using a groundwater monitoring network in addition to monitoring groundwater levels in existing water production wells located on neighboring properties in the vicinity of the project pumping wells. Quarterly groundwater monitoring would be conducted as part of a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program and annual reports would be submitted to both the Commission and the State Water Board. As a condition of project pumping during the initial reservoir fill period (i.e., when pumping and drawdown rates would be greatest), Eagle Crest would not exceed historical drawdown levels.

To provide specificity to these levels, in the final EIS, we incorporated drawdown thresholds for the monitoring wells that would be installed and used as part of the comprehensive groundwater monitoring program. These thresholds are based the Maximum Allowable Changes proposed in the State Water Board’s 2010 draft EIR (i.e., Measure MM GW-1). We revised section 3.3.2, Water Resources, to add a table (table 12) that lists the Maximum Allowable Changes. Measure WS-3 in this section of our EIS would ensure that any owners operating water production wells on neighboring properties in the vicinity of the project pumping wells would be compensated by Eagle Crest if it is determined through monitoring that these wells have become adversely affected during the initial reservoir filling period.

GW 19 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS include a full description of the cost, energy consumption, and feasibility of the reverse osmosis system to buffer the potential maximum amount of acid drainage. For instance, EPA states that the final EIS should provide a short description of the buffering technology and information demonstrating that it is a proven technology for treating acid drainage.

Response: As part of our recommended Phase 1 Pre-Design Site Investigation Plan, prior to the final project design, Eagle Crest would collect and analyze site samples to determine the site-specific acid production potential and the net neutralizing capacity. We added text in section 3.3.2.2, Water Quality, Environmental Effects, about the ability of reverse osmosis systems to modify the pH of water.

GW 20 Comment: The Metropolitan Water District states that groundwater production by the project could result in an unauthorized diversion of the Colorado River. The Metropolitan Water District proposes that as a mitigation measure, the project annually report the static water beneath each of the project’s production wells, along with a

A-37 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

reference to either the accounting surface as proposed by USGS in 2008 or to a valid accounting surface methodology set forth in future legislation, rule making, or applicable judicial determination. Interior also requests that the final EIS acknowledge the USGS accounting surface methodology and express groundwater elevations in feet above mean sea level, vertical datum of 1929.

Response: The USGS 2008 Colorado River Accounting Surface (Wiele et al., 2009) does not apply to the western portion of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin because: (1) this basin is not within the river’s floodplain; (2) groundwater flow in the basin is directly east toward the Palo Verde groundwater basin, the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin, and the Colorado River (which remained in this direction even during the historically high groundwater pumping in the early 1980s); and (3) groundwater levels in the vicinity of the project’s proposed pumping wells are currently several hundred feet above the proposed accounting surface elevation. Therefore, we find that groundwater use by the project would have no adverse effect on the Colorado River Accounting Surface and, in turn, would not result in an unauthorized diversion of the Colorado River. We have added this information to our discussion in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects.

We agree with Metropolitan Water District’s recommendation and have modified Measures WS-1 and WS-4 to include the quarterly measurement and annual reporting of groundwater pumping production, water quality, and groundwater levels in the project pumping wells. This modification revises these two measures to also be more in line with the similar measure (Measure MM GW-1) proposed in the State Water Board’s draft EIR (2010).

GW 21 Comment: The Park Service believes the results presented in tables 1–5 of its filing indicate that use of Eagle Crest’s total average annual recharge estimate of 12,700 acre-feet per year results in a substantial underestimation of the potential effects of project pumping on groundwater storage in the basin. Eagle Crest’s recharge estimate and water balance analysis is not supported by the historical water level trends provided in the State Water Board’s draft EIR. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley also questions our recharge analysis and state that it is based on incorrect numbers and data. The Park Service contends that the total average annual recharge to the basin is much lower (3,000 acre-feet or less) than Eagle Crest’s estimate which is supported by the Park Service’s revised water balance analyses, and the historical pumping volumes and resulting water level trends provided in the State Water Board’s draft EIR. The Park Service contends that Eagle Crest’s method of estimating the total natural recharge and inflow for the Chuckwalla, Orocopia, and Pinto valleys has biased the estimate upward and that other analysis methods used in the region by the USGS indicate a substantially lower recharge rate for these basins. As a result, Eagle Crest may have underestimated the potential impact on groundwater storage in the Chuckwalla Valley that might result from the pumped storage project. The Park Service requests that the Commission and the State

A-38 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Water Board give fair consideration to the 2004 USGS recharge study for the Joshua Tree groundwater basin (Nishikawa et al., 2004) because they believe it presents one of the more thorough, peer-reviewed recharge studies in the area. Additionally, the Park Service states that Eagle Crest’s claim that the basin will recover to pre-project levels by 2094 cannot be substantiated by the historically declining water level trends observed in the valley, which strongly suggest much lower recharge conditions exist than those used by Eagle Crest. The Park Service states that additional pumping from the proposed project and other foreseeable projects will only exacerbate the depletion of groundwater storage and decline in water levels in the valley.

Response: In section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, we discuss how groundwater levels in the basin have been recovering steadily since the 1980s based on a review of historical well data. We acknowledge that groundwater levels in the Desert Center area of the Chuckwalla Valley have not fully recovered from the intensive groundwater pumping in the 1980s to support the short-term agricultural activities. Groundwater pumping that is attributable to continued, albeit lower, withdrawals in the area. We also independently evaluate recharge in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin using best available information on existing precipitation and hydrogeologic conditions published by state and federal agencies and others. We found recharge to be about 12,700 acre-feet per year, which is consistent with Eagle Crest’s estimated recharge rate. When considering the proposed groundwater use to support project operations and other reasonably foreseeable groundwater use projects (e.g., solar and landfill), we found that the groundwater withdrawal rate would not exceed the recharge rate, except during the initial 4 years of reservoir filling. We conclude that of the about 10 million acre-feet of groundwater currently stored in the basin, the project’s proposed use of groundwater to fill and maintain water levels in the reservoirs would result in the total extraction of about 1 percent of the recoverable water in the aquifer. In response to the Park Service’s extensive comments and information contained in its tables 1–5, we have revised section 3.3.2, Water Resources, to include additional support for our analyses. We have made reference to the Park Service’s findings in our discussion; however, we have not modified our findings because the analysis in the draft EIS of groundwater recharge is technically sound based on the use of appropriate analyses that represent basin-specific conditions.

GW 22 Comment: The Park Service’s storage depletion estimate represents approximately a 6.6 percent decline of the estimated 9,100,000 acre-feet in storage (as summarized in table 6; attached to the Park Service’s comment letter). This is substantially different from Eagle Crest’s estimated maximum decrease in groundwater storage (95,300 acre-feet in 2046) and corresponding water level decline (9 feet) over this same period of time. It should also be noted that Eagle Crest’s estimate of a 9-foot decline appears to be incorrect, as it is not consistent with the decline predicted by its maximum storage depletion estimate (i.e., 95,300 acre-feet / 15,000 acre-feet/foot = 6.3 feet).

A-39 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: We provided a response regarding the effects of differences in recharge estimates, which in turn influences the predicted magnitude of project-induced aquifer depletion and water level changes, in our response to Comment GW 25. Here, we stated that the total reduction in recoverable groundwater from the basin would be about 1 percent over 50 years of project operation.

Drawdown throughout the Chuckwalla groundwater basin would not be uniform as is suggested by the Park Service in its comment. Rather, drawdown would be focused at and near the various water supply wells already in use and those proposed for use in the foreseeable future. Our analysis has found that the maximum drawdown would be much greater near the pumping wells, as they create a cone of depression, and the effects would be much less in areas farther away. Therefore, our drawdown estimate of 9 feet appears to be a reasonably conservative estimate of cumulative drawdown given the spatial heterogeneity of water levels expected to occur during the operations of all proposed projects.

GW 23 Comment: The Park Service disagrees with the magnitude of the cumulative pumping effects that will result over the life of the project. The Park Service states that Eagle Crest has underestimated the potential cumulative effects on groundwater storage and water level declines in the Chuckwalla Valley that may result from existing pumping, the pumped storage project, and pumping by other foreseeable projects in the basin.

Response: When using the groundwater recharge estimates provided by the Park Service, it would appear that we have underestimated the potential cumulative effects on groundwater storage. However, as discussed our response to Comment GW 25 and in section 3.2.2, Water Resources, of the final EIS, the Park Service appears to have underestimated recharge in the basin as compared to our estimate, which we determined from several reliable information sources (e.g., Mann, 1986; California Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2004a; Nishikawa et al., 2004). .Therefore, our draft and final EIS provides an appropriate estimate of the magnitude of the cumulative effects of pumping on groundwater storage.

GW 24 Comment: The Park Service asks for more consistency in the discussion of proposed mitigation measures so that the reader can fully comprehend these measures and when they will be applied.

Response: We discuss the proposed mitigation measures related to groundwater resources in sections 2.2.4, Proposed Environmental Measures; 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects; 4.3, Cost of Environmental Measures; 5.1 Comparison of Alternatives; and 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

GW 25 Comment: The Park Service states that the discussion under the groundwater resources subsection is incomplete with respect to potential effects on groundwater

A-40 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

availability and/or groundwater levels and flow directions related to consumptive evaporative losses from the storage reservoirs. The Park Service requests including discussion on potential mitigation measure(s) that can be implemented to substantially reduce the consumptive evaporative losses that will occur from the surfaces of the two storage reservoirs. If Eagle Crest cannot propose a workable mitigation measure to address a consumptive evaporative loss of groundwater, the evaporative loss from the reservoirs should be considered an unavoidable, adverse impact on the groundwater resources in the basin, and the State Water Board and the Commission should consider denying the operating permit for the proposed pumped storage project.

Response: We agree with the Park Service and conclude in section 5.3, Unavoidable Adverse Effects, that the evaporative losses from the reservoirs (1,700 acre-feet per year) would be an unavoidable adverse effect of the proposed project. However, project pumping to replace reservoir water lost to evaporation would be offset by the natural recharge of groundwater to the basin (about 12,700 acre-feet per year), thereby avoiding overdraft of the aquifer during project operations.

GW 26 Comment: The Park Service states that the discussion in the second paragraph on page 77 of the draft EIS is incomplete with respect to evaluating possible changes in groundwater flow directions resulting from project pumping and that general statements are made without any supporting data.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, to add more detailed information presented in the State Water Board’s draft EIR (2010). In summary, project effects are not expected to substantially alter flow directions throughout the basin given the following: (1) the relatively large size of the basin (about 45 miles across) in comparison to the much smaller size of the cumulative cone of depression that is expected to form around the three pumping wells near Desert Center (less than 10 miles across); (2) the total volume of water in storage (about 10 million acre-feet); and (3) the volume of water to be pumped during the initial reservoir filling period (about 32,000 acre-feet).

GW 27 Comment: The Park Service states that in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Effects of Project Operations on the Regional and Local Groundwater Level and Flow Directions and Quality, Our Analysis, the discussion in the second paragraph on page 76 makes reference to “maximum historic drawdown” in several of the valleys, but no numerical values are provided. The Park Service asks for the historic drawdown values for each of the valleys and areas of interest and a discussion on how they were derived to provide better context for the modeling results.

With respect to Eagle Crest’s reported maximum historic drawdown of 15 feet for the Pinto Valley, the Park Service requests changing this value to 8 feet based on information in its comment letter. The Park Service states that project pumping will occur only in the

A-41 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Chuckwalla Valley so drawdown in Pinto Valley that can be directly related to historic pumping in the Chuckwalla Valley should be the measure.

Response: We discuss the historical drawdown magnitude in the Pinto groundwater basin in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, Groundwater Resources. We have included additional information about historic drawdown in the Orocopia groundwater basin in this section, per the request of the Park Service.

With respect to the Park Service’s preference of using 8 feet, versus 15 feet, for the maximum historic drawdown magnitude of the Pinto groundwater basin, we respectfully disagree and support the value of 15 feet to represent the maximum drawdown of the basin, which is based on historical water level measurements made in well 3S/15E-4J1 situated at the mouth of the basin between 1960 and 2007. The drawdown of 8 feet referenced by the Park Service occurred after pumping by Kaiser in the upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin caused drawdown of about 7 feet. Because pumping by Kaiser and others together caused the maximum drawdown of 15 feet, we consider this to represent the “historic drawdown magnitude” in the Pinto groundwater basin.

At the recommendation of the Park Service, we have included numerical values and additional discussion to better characterize the historical drawdown magnitude in all wells located in the Chuckwalla, Orocopia, and Pinto basins having long-term measurement records. This additional information is presented in section 3.3.2, Water Resources, of the final EIS in table 7.

GW 28 Comment: The Park Service states that in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Effects of Project Operations on the Regional and Local Groundwater Level and Flow Directions and Quality, Our Analysis, the discussion on the modeling results is lacking a summary discussion of the type of model that was used and why it was chosen, the input parameters that are required (hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storage coefficient, recharge, discharge rates, etc.), the parameter values used in the model, the modeling runs performed, and the limitations of the model results. Additionally, the discussion is lacking any figures of the drawdown results. Inclusion of such discussion and figures will provide context to the reader and help them to better understand the modeling effort and the results of the impact analysis.

Response: We have included additional information in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, Groundwater Resources, that further supports our discussion of potential impacts on water resources. We have included details about the Eagle Crest’s groundwater modeling approach, assumptions (i.e., hydraulic parameters), and results. This additional information is presented in the final EIS in the form of new and/or revised tables, figures (i.e., maps), and text.

A-42 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

GW 29 Comment: The Park Service states that in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Effects of Project Operations on the Regional and Local Groundwater Level and Flow Directions and Quality, Our Analysis, the Park Service disagrees with the first part of the Commission’s opening statement that the proposed project could cause temporary overdraft of the Chuckwalla Groundwater Basin. In several previous comments to the State Water Board’s draft EIR and the Commission’s draft EIS, the Park Service has provided compelling evidence that the potential impact to the basin overdraft from the proposed project pumping should be considered significant as it will exacerbate groundwater storage depletion and declining water levels already occurring in the basin.

Response: See response to Comment GW 25; we provided a response to the previous comments issued by the Park Service with regard to the potential discrepancies between Eagle Crest’s recharge estimate and the Park Service’s estimate, as supported by the long-term decline of water levels in a well situated within a grouping of active wells near Desert Center (see above). In section 5.3, Unavoidable Adverse Effects, we note that the project’s continued use of groundwater to make up water losses to evaporation would be an unavoidable adverse effect. In consideration of the Park Service’s comment, we have modified our analysis discussion in sections 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, Groundwater Resources, and 3.3.2.3, Cumulative Effects, to state that the initial reservoir filling during the first 4 years of project operations would result in adverse effects on groundwater storage and water levels because pumping is expected to exceed recharge rates during this period. Various mitigation measures are therefore proposed to monitor, manage, and mitigate these effects during this period.

GW 30 Comment: The Park Service states that in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Effects of Project Operations on the Regional and Local Groundwater Level and Flow Directions and Quality, the second paragraph mentions that Eagle Crest proposes several measures to minimize the effects of project groundwater pumping on regional and local aquifer levels in the basin. Most if not all of the measures mentioned in this paragraph are monitoring or management measures, not mitigation measures. The Park Service comments that monitoring or management should not be portrayed as a mitigation measure.

Response: Because “management measures” would be implemented to mitigate project effects, we have adopted the Park Service’s recommendation and revised this section to more clearly describe which measures (or aspects of certain measures) that Eagle Crest proposes and we recommend serve to “monitor,” “manage,” and/or “mitigate” groundwater resources.

GW 31 Comment: The Park Service states that in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Effects of Reservoir Seepage during Operations, Our Analysis, the Commission mentions some additional actions that could be taken to

A-43 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

ensure the protection of groundwater supplies. The current wording suggests there is some uncertainty related to requiring Eagle Crest to implement these actions. It requests clarification on whether the Commission (and/or the State Water Board) will require these actions to be taken by Eagle Crest. The Park Service states that the proposed operational hydrologic budget may hold promise in understanding the actual water gains and losses related to operating the project, but should also include an accounting of evaporative losses from the reservoirs and brine pond for completeness.

Response: We discuss our staff alternative to these reservoir seepage measures in section 5.1, Comparison of Alternatives. Here, we state that those actions described in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, should be undertaken with the associated measures (e.g., a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program to include a hydrologic budget). We have adopted the Park Service’s recommendation to clarify the wording used in section 3.3.2, and section 5.2 to state that Eagle Crest would be required to implement the additional actions.

GW 32 Comment: The Park Service states that in the last paragraph under the Groundwater Resources subsection (page 74 of the draft EIS), the Commission mentions that preliminary groundwater modeling has been conducted by Eagle Crest to aid in the design of the seepage recovery well system. It requests more discussion in the EIS on the details and results of this modeling effort (in tabular form, figures, and/or an appendix) so that the reader can see how the preliminary seepage recovery well field design was derived. The Park Service recommends taking this a step further and requiring Eagle Crest to conduct a performance pump test of the final seepage recovery system prior to reservoir filling to assure that hydraulic control of the local groundwater can be achieved and to validate the modeling results. The results of this performance pumping test should be documented in a report to the Commission, the State Water Board, and interested stakeholders.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, to add detail about Eagle Crest’s preliminary groundwater modeling, which is based, in part, on information presented in the State Water Board’s draft EIR (2010).

We added a discussion of proposed measures to gage aquifer characteristics, potential seepage conditions, and well pumping capacity in this section (Measures SR-1 and SR-2). We have included additional elements of the proposed measure based on the Park Services’ recommendation for Eagle Crest to conduct a well performance test. In summary, the aquifer tests would be performed by constructing one of the seepage recovery wells and pumping that well while observing the drawdown in at least two seepage recovery or monitoring wells (as also described in the State Water Board’s draft EIR [2010], Measures GW-4 and GW-5). Additionally, a well capacity, or performance, test would be undertaken in conjunction with the aquifer tests.

A-44 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

GW 33 Comment: The Park Service asks for clarification about the difference in the monitoring proposed for Measures SR-3 and SR-5. Measure SR-3 appears to be proposing water level monitoring, while Measure SR-5 appears to propose water quality monitoring similar to Measure GQ-2 (see page 70).

Response: We discuss these measures in sections 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects; 4.3, Cost of Environmental Measures; 5.1, Comparison of Alternatives; and 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. We note that Measure SR-3 would involve the development of a groundwater level monitoring network for the purpose of monitoring seepage rates and seepage recovery success. Measure SR-5 would involve the quarterly monitoring of these wells and the annual reporting to the Commission and State Water Board for their review and input. Measure GQ-2 would involve the monitoring of water quality conditions in these wells, in addition to those monitoring wells to be installed in the valley to assess pumping effects on water levels (i.e., Measure WS-4). Our recommended alternative would involve a comprehensive groundwater quantity and quality program that implements these measures together in a coordinated manner.

GW 34 Comment: The Park Service states that in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Effects of Project Operations on Groundwater Availability, the Park Service recommends revising the discussion in the first paragraph to correct a couple of inconsistencies. Examination of Eagle Crest’s water balance (presented in the State Water Board’s draft EIR) indicates that recharge would exceed project pumping by 1,700 acre-feet per year, not vice-versa. Additionally, the Park Service states that in examination of this same water balance indicates that about 108,700 acre-feet of groundwater would be used by the project over the simulated 50- year operating period, not 96,600 acre-feet as reported.

Response: We have corrected these two inconsistencies. This section now correctly states that: (1) recharge would exceed cumulative pumping by the proposed pumped storage hydroelectric project and other proposed projects in the project area (e.g., the landfill and solar power facilities) by about 1,700 acre-feet per year; and (2) the project would require about 109,620 acre-feet of groundwater over a 50-year operating period.

GW 35 Comment: The Park Service states that in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Effects of Project Operations on Groundwater Availability, the discussion in the first paragraph mentions that Eagle Crest developed a groundwater balance for evaluating the proposed project’s effect on groundwater supplies, but no water balance is presented to support the discussion of the results in the EIS. The Park Service requests that the water balance be provided in tabular form or in an appendix, along with a more detailed discussion of how the water balance was derived and what the water balance results indicate so that the reader can better understand what the potential effects will be from the proposed project pumping. The Park Service further

A-45 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

states that this information is critical in evaluating whether or not the proposed project has a substantial impact on the perennial yield and the amount of groundwater in storage and communicating the evaluation results to the public.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2, Water Resources, to add information and new tables to summarize the water balance under existing conditions and under project (and cumulative) pumping conditions, as recommended by the Park Service.

GW 36 Comment: The Park Service recommends including an introductory discussion at the beginning of section 3.3.2.2 describing the water resource-related impact issues that have been identified by the Commission’s staff as they relate to the proposed project. Additionally, the Park Service recommends providing a related discussion on the various methodologies that were used by the Commission’s staff to evaluate the potential impact issues, along with establishing threshold limits by which to gage the degree of potential impact. The Park Service states that this is a common discussion element, which is normally presented in an EIS document, but is absent from the draft EIS.

Response: In section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, we opted not to present an introductory discussion but, instead, discuss and analyze issues separately, which also includes discussion on the methodologies we employed to evaluate project effects on groundwater resources. However, in the Executive Summary and in section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations, we provide summary discussions of the effects on water and other resources as they relate to the proposed project with our recommended measures.

GW 37 Comment: The Park Service states that, in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Perennial Yield, the Commission mentions in the last sentence in this subsection that in Eagle Crest’s April 23, 2010, letter, Eagle Crest states that its estimate (12,700 acre-feet/year) compares well against a re-calculation of the basin’s perennial yield using a recent USGS method that was developed for the nearby Joshua Tree aquifer (Nishikawa et al., 2004). The Park Service requests that identification of the methodology from the 2004 USGS study (as there were several) that was used to calculate the recharge to the Chuckwalla Valley aquifer and provide the calculations and supporting data as part of the EIS and the EIR for this project.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, to add more detail about the analytical methods we used in evaluating groundwater recharge rates in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. In summary, the approaches included the modified Maxey-Eakin method (Hevesi et al., 2002) and an empirical methodology recommended by Metropolitan Water District’s Review Panel for the nearby Fenner Valley groundwater basin (URS, 2009, as cited in State Water Board, 2010). As part of this re-evaluation, Eagle Crest only considered recharge inputs from the basin’s

A-46 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

surrounding mountain areas, which is based on the approach taken by the USGS in its 2004 study of recharge rates in the Joshua Tree groundwater basin.

GW 38 Comment: The Park Service states that in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Perennial Yield, the title of this section leads the reader to believe that the discussion will focus on the perennial yield estimate of the basin. However, there is no definition of the perennial yield presented to aid the public’s understanding of the discussion. The Park Service asks that Eagle Crest update the current discussion to address this deficiency.

Response: In the EIS, we provide a brief definition of perennial yield to mean the “natural recharge” of the groundwater. We have revised section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, to elaborate on this definition to clarify our discussion of perennial yield. Perennial yield is defined by California DWR (2003) as: “The maximum quantity of water that can be annually withdrawn from a groundwater basin over a long period of time (during which water supply conditions approximate average conditions) without developing an overdraft condition.”

GW 39 Comment: The Park Service states that in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Groundwater Recharge Sources, several references are made in the second, , and fourth paragraphs to several recharge estimates, but there is no indication of the sources of these estimates. The Park Service requests the sources for these recharge estimates.

Response: We have provided additional citations to the published sources of information referenced in this subsection on Groundwater Recharge Sources. We have additionally provided new estimates of groundwater recharge made in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin that were presented in related documents, such as the solar power project environmental permitting documents and the 2004 USGS study of recharge in the Joshua Tree groundwater basin (Nishikawa et al., 2004).

GW 40 Comment: The Park Service states that, in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Groundwater Pumping, the statement is made that annual pumping at the two prisons is expected to be reduced 35 percent by 2011, from 2,100 acre-feet per year to 1,500 acre-feet per year. The Park Service states that, if this is true, then Eagle Crest’s wastewater recharge estimate of 800 acre-feet per year should be reduced proportionately to reflect the lower amount of wastewater that will be produced, and therefore, recharged back to the aquifer. The Park Service states that the wastewater recharge estimate after 2011 remains unchanged in Eagle Crest’s water balance estimates presented in section 12.4 of the State Water Board’s draft EIR and should be changed to reflect a proportional decrease in the production of wastewater after 2011.

A-47 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2, Water Resources, to reflect the expected decrease in wastewater recharge from the subject prison facilities.

GW 41 Comment: The Park Service asks that the Commission provide more detail in the EIS about the parameter estimates that were used to derive the groundwater storage volume for the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Groundwater Storage and Outflow. The storage volume presumably required an estimate of the saturated volume (i.e., saturated area x saturated thickness x drainable porosity) of the sediments in the basin. In addition, the Park Service requests that the EIS please provide an estimate of the groundwater storage volume for the Pinto and Orocopia valleys, as existing project and reasonably foreseeable project pumping all have the potential to affect groundwater levels and storage volumes in these basins as well. Finally, the Park Service states that the statement that the storage estimate for the valley “is probably another conservative estimate because it does not include water in the clay deposits” is misleading as economical quantities of water from saturated clay deposits cannot be reasonably expected and therefore, should not be considered as part of the overall storage volume estimates. Any discussion on storage estimates should focus on the volume of water that can be economically recovered. The Park Service asks this statement be corrected.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, to provide more detail about calculating the storage capacity of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin in. In summary, the storage capacity estimate of about 10 million acre-feet was calculated by multiplying the areal extent of the groundwater basin (~600,000 acres) by the average saturated thickness of the aquifer (150 feet; as determined by evaluation of available well logs) and by the storage coefficient (10 percent). This estimate compares well to the range published by California DWR (2003) of 9.1 to 15 million acre-feet calculated based on similar parameter assumptions. We have included additional information on the groundwater storage capacity of the two adjoining and contributing groundwater basins based on information published by California DWR (2003). In summary, the storage capacity of the Orocopia groundwater basin has been estimated to be between 1.5 and 6.25 million acre-feet and of the Pinto groundwater basin to be 230,000 acre-feet (California DWR, 2003). We respectfully have not modified our statements on the groundwater storage capacity being potentially a “conservative” estimate because we have presented a discussion on the “total storage capacity” of the Chuckwalla aquifer.

GW 42 Comment: The Park Service states that recent draft EISs for the Palen Solar Power Project and the Genesis Solar Energy Project in Chuckwalla Valley presented additional hydrographs of wells that appear to indicate a long-term decline in water levels is occurring in parts of the study area that are more distant from the historic pumping centers that occurred in the Desert Center area. Declining water levels in the valley are

A-48 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

an indication that natural recharge may be much lower than is proposed by Eagle Crest and that depletion of groundwater storage may be occurring.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2, Water Resources, to add information about the groundwater levels and groundwater recharge rates from the proposed Genesis Solar Energy Project (BLM, 2010) and the draft EIS for the proposed Palen Solar Power Project (BLM and CEC, 2010). In summary, the hydrographs presented in these two documents for the two proposed solar power projects indicate that water level changes over the past several decades in the vicinity of the proposed project’s pumping wells (just north of Desert Center) generally exhibit recovery toward historic levels, with a few exceptions likely caused by local pumping activities.

GW 43 Comment: The Park Service states that in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Groundwater Levels, reference is made to various wells with water level records that were evaluated in the draft EIS and discussion is presented on selected wells. The Park Service asks that the EIS provide a table that summarizes the historic water level information for all of the wells in the study area that have water level measurements and clarify whether the various wells were pumping during the period of record or whether they were inactive and acted as monitoring wells. Additionally, the Park Service asks that the EIS provide a figure showing all known wells in the valley and label those with water level data so that the reader can cross-reference them to the table.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, to provide additional detail about the water production and monitoring wells referenced in our discussion. This additional information is in the form of new and/or revised tables, figures (i.e., maps), and text. Specifically, figure 7 has been updated with clearer labels of the various wells.

GW 44 Comment: The Park Service states that Eagle Crest contends that pumping by Kaiser in the Pinto Valley and upper Chuckwalla Valley lowered water levels in the Pinto Valley by 15 feet and that the water level has recovered to about 7 in 1960. The Park Service states that the draft EIS indicates that the water level recovery is being slowed in part by pumping effects related to current pumping occurring in the Desert Center area. The Park Service states that the discussion about Groundwater Levels in the Commission’s draft EIS lacks any mention of this and; therefore, should be revised to address this issue and recognize that much of this residual decline could be explained as a result of groundwater storage depletion occurring from the earlier pumping by Kaiser in the Pinto Valley and upper Chuckwalla Valley.

Response: In section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, we discuss groundwater levels and how these levels have changed historically, based on available records. We specifically cite the information provided in the first paragraph of this

A-49 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

comment in our discussion in this section and, further, acknowledge that the cause for the present-day water level still being about 7 feet below the static water level measured in 1960 could possibly be due to withdrawals near Desert Center. Based on consideration of the information provided in this comment, we have included additional details on historic and existing groundwater conditions, presented in the form of new and/or revised figures, tables, and text, to clarify information presented in this section. However, we have not modified our findings as presented in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, based on these additional details.

GW 45 Comment: The Park Service states that in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Groundwater Levels, the discussion in the first paragraph focuses on a water level recovery of about 100 feet in the Desert Center area from 1986 to 2002, and based on 2007 data that indicate water levels are still about 17 feet lower than the static water level in 1980 before heavy pumping began. The Park Service suggests that the 2007 residual drawdown levels may be partially explained by drawdown created by current reduced pumping in the area. The Park Service recommends the discussion should be revised to also recognize that some of this residual decline is likely the result of groundwater storage depletion occurring from historic agricultural pumping and earlier pumping by Kaiser. The Park Service states that, given that current agricultural pumping is approximately three times lower than it was in 1986, some of the water level decline could be explained by depletion of groundwater storage in the aquifer.

Response: We discuss the reduction of groundwater stored in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin as caused by the historically high groundwater pumping in the 1980s in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment. Based on consideration of this and other related comments, we have included additional details on historic and existing groundwater conditions, presented in the form of new and/or revised figures, tables, and text, to clarify the information presented in this section. However, we have not modified our findings as presented in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, based on these additional details.

GW 46 Comment: The Park Service states that, in the subsection on groundwater resources under the discussion about Hydraulic Characteristics, the EIS should provide all available hydraulic characteristic data (in tables or an appendix) to provide support for the discussion presented to the reader. The Park Service states that the discussion cites ranges of values for hydraulic conductivity, porosity, etc. but the reader cannot easily confirm these ranges because supporting data are missing in the draft EIS.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2, Water Resources, Affected Environment, to include additional information on reported hydraulic characteristics of the sediments in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. This information has been presented in the form of a new table supported with additional text in the section.

A-50 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

GW 47 Comment: The Park Service states that the draft EIS should provide additional figures and tables to support the discussion in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment. Specifically, figures showing the groundwater basins being discussed, the location of known wells in the Chuckwalla Valley, geologic cross-sections showing the type and continuity of subsurface lithologies, groundwater surface elevations and flow directions, and hydrographs showing historic water level trends of wells throughout the valley should be included.

Response: In figures 5, 6, and 7, we show the Chuckwalla and adjacent groundwater basins, regional geology, and existing and proposed well locations, respectively. We have included additional information on hydrogeologic attributes of the project area and region in the form of new and/or revised figures, tables, and text to clarify our discussion.

GW 48 Comment: Regarding the statement in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, Groundwater Resources, “In the JTNP, the Park Service owns one well in the Pinto groundwater basin (Pinto Well No. 2), and Kaiser owns two additional wells near the Park Service well in the southeastern portion of the Pinto groundwater basin,” the Park Service states that this sentence should be edited to indicate that the Metropolitan Water District owns the two additional wells (not Kaiser) located on an inholding within the boundary of the Joshua Tree National Park and wilderness area.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, to reflect this correction.

GW 49 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that although no express reservation of rights has been made for many of the other public lands in the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA), the draft EIS should have addressed the federal reserved water rights afforded to the public to protect surface water sources on all public lands that would be affected by the proposed project. Pursuant to Public Water Reserve 107 (PWR 107), established by Executive Order in 1926, government agencies cannot authorize activities that will impair the public use of federal reserved water rights.

Response: We conclude that licensing the proposed project with our recommended measures would not substantially adversely affect the availability or quality of water in the area. We consider water rights issues to be within the jurisdiction of the State Water Board, not the Commission.

GW 50 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the Commission should examine the federal reserved water rights within the area affected by the proposed project and other proposed and recently approved projects in this area that will use significant amounts of groundwater. It states that this examination should include a survey of the water sources potentially affected by the proposed project. It also states

A-51 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

that the Commission should ensure that any springs, seeps, creeks, or other water sources on public land and particularly within the wilderness areas are not degraded by the proposed projects’ use of water and continue meet the needs of the existing wildlife and native vegetation that depend on those water resources.

Response: We revised section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, to provide additional information about springs and other water sources near the proposed project. However, all of the nearby natural water sources are those located in the Eagle Mountains at elevations above the project or those not connected hydrologically to the groundwater in the project area and therefore would not be affected by groundwater withdraws in the Chuckwalla Valley or proposed project operations.

GW 51 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the draft EIS does not identify which wells will be used for groundwater pumping. Figure 7 shows the “existing wells,” “existing wells to be used for monitoring,” “proposed new monitoring wells,” and “seepage recovery wells.” It is unclear if all existing wells will be used for pumping or if additional wells will be needed. It is unclear if the existing wells are on private or public lands.

Response: The location of the three wells proposed to supply water to the reservoirs during project operations would be constructed by Eagle Crest in the upper Chuckwalla Valley, near Desert Center; their proposed locations are discussed in section 3.2.2, Water Resources, and shown in figures 3 and 6 of the draft EIS. As proposed by Eagle Crest, these three wells would serve as the sole water supply source for the reservoirs in section 2.2.1, Project Facilities. Figure 7 of the draft EIS shows the locations of the existing wells (previously or currently used by others), existing wells to be used for groundwater monitoring, proposed new monitoring wells (to be constructed), and proposed extensometers near the central project area. We discuss the function of these existing and proposed wells as part of groundwater monitoring and seepage recovery measures in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects. The locations of these wells are shown on figures 3 and 8 of the final EIS.

GW 52 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that The California Desert Protection Act (CDPA) expressly reserved water rights for wilderness areas that were created under the act (16 U.S.C. § 410aaa- 76.34). Therefore, the Center for Biological Diversity states that, at minimum, the Commission should ensure that use of water for the proposed project (and cumulative projects) over the life of the proposed projects will not impair those values in the wilderness that depend on water resources (including perennial, seasonal, and ephemeral creeks, springs and seeps as well as any riparian dependent plants and wildlife).

Response: The proposed project would withdraw groundwater from the Chuckwalla Valley located in excess of 100 feet below the surface and therefore is not available to

A-52 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

riparian plants and animals. All of the natural springs, seeps, and other water sources are those located in the mountains at elevations above the project or those not connected hydrologically to the groundwater in the project area and therefore would not be affected by groundwater withdrawals in the Chuckwalla Valley or proposed project operations.

GW 53 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the draft EIS does not provide an evaluation of the existence of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional waters occur on site and that the draft EIS also does not provide an evaluation of the existence of Waters of the State.

Response: We discuss the presence of intermittent and ephemeral streams in the project area in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, Fishery Resources. We note that there are no U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional streams in the project area. We also note that these streams may qualify as Waters of the State. We find that Eagle Crest’s proposals to (1) consult with California DFG to obtain any necessary Streambed Alteration Agreements and (2) prepare and file construction plans that show the project would not alter desert wash topography or flow patterns would adequately protect these resources. These proposals would also answer any of the legal jurisdictional ambiguities.

GW 54 Comment: Brendan Hughes states that the exact recharge rates of groundwater in the Chuckwalla basin are unknown, and that mining desert groundwater, a non- renewable resource, should not occur to support a for-profit venture as proposed in the draft EIS. Brendan Hughes also states that the proposed project will leave an estimated groundwater deficit in the Chuckwalla basin of 100,000 acre-feet over a 50-year project period. Hughes states that, since 1,700 acre feet/year (85,000 acre feet over the life of the project, and probably more) will be lost to evaporation, if the project moves forward Eagle Crest should cover the upper and lower reservoirs to prevent evaporation. Brendan Hughes states that Eagle Crest could put photovoltaic solar panels on these covers to produce energy, if the project moves forward.

Response: As addressed in GW 25, we discuss natural recharge rates and uses of groundwater (for both domestic and for-profit purposes) in the Chuckwalla Valley in section 3.3.2, Water Resources. We provide background information about reported rates of recharge to the groundwater basin and region based on various information sources, including the California DWR and USGS. Recharge rates were also considered from those reported in the landfill’s draft EIS/EIR (CH2M Hill, 1996). In summary, the Chuckwalla groundwater basin is recharged by precipitation falling on the valley and surrounding mountains and by surface and subsurface inflow from the adjacent Pinto and Orocopia valleys. We have revised section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, Groundwater Resources, by adding a table to summarize the existing recharge sources and their estimated rates. We have also added a table and additional discussion summarizing the anticipated project-related and cumulative effects on the

A-53 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

perennial yield of the aquifer in sections 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, Groundwater Resources, and 3.3.2.3, Water Resources, Cumulative Effects.

Mr. Hughes is correct that the project would pump about 110,000 acre-feet of water from the Chuckwalla groundwater basin—an equivalent of about 1 percent of the recoverable groundwater in storage— and that covering of the upper and lower reservoirs could decrease evaporation. However, under proposed operation of this pumped storage project, both reservoirs would have daily water level fluctuations of about 100 vertical feet. The surface area at the daily maximum water level is also about 2.5 times or more the surface area at the daily low water level. These daily fluctuations in both the water levels and surface areas would make any covering the reservoirs, especially one with solar panels, very problematic and expensive, and a rigid cover of the reservoirs would also be very expensive.

GW 55 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that the final EIS should analyze the impacts from filling the pits with water where various activities took place, such as training with firearms and explosives, because the area is highly fractured and poisonous contaminants from conventional weaponry will flow into the underground aquifer. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley asks what will happen when the water starts to rise from leakage, and what will prevent these contaminants from entering the undermined Colorado River Aqueduct.

Response: We discuss measures intended to intercept groundwater potentially seeped from the reservoirs in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, Groundwater Resources. These measures include the installation of seepage recovery and groundwater monitoring wells that would serve to limit effects on existing groundwater levels and quality, particularly beneath the Colorado River Aqueduct. Further, the Colorado River Aqueduct traversing the upper Chuckwalla Valley east of the project area is built slightly below ground level and lined with concrete, which would prevent entrance of groundwater into this waterway.

GW 56 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley, Brendan Hughes, and Johnney Coon state landowners are concerned about a lower water table resulting from the project, which would require landowners to drill deeper wells. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that despite the mitigations offered to landowners by Eagle Crest if the project results in lower water table levels, including (1) pay to lower pumps, (2) drill well deeper or replace well, and (3) compensate for increased cost of pumping, there is no guarantee in the draft EIS that such mitigations would be provided for private well owners. Further, the Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that lowering the wells is not possible once the water table is below the pump. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley and Johnney Coon state that the draft EIS should include a development agreement with the host community (Eagle Mountain/Desert Center/Lake Tamarisk) well owners that would preclude litigation. Otherwise, the Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley and Johnney

A-54 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Coon are concerned that landowners would have to go through litigation to ensure that they receive these proposed mitigation measures. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley further states that Eagle Crest may not accept responsibility for lower water levels if it is determined that the impact is derived from cumulative use of the aquifer’s groundwater, specifically by the project operations of Eagle Crest, the landfill, agricultural practices, and solar companies. Johnney Coon states that he would like specifics on what would be done to help landowners if the water table is lower because of the project operations.

Response: Determination of whether water production wells on neighboring properties are being adversely affected by project pumping near the Desert Center area would be achieved through implementation of Measures WS-1, WS-3, and WS-4. These measures would involve the monitoring of groundwater levels in a newly established groundwater monitoring network (consisting of existing and new monitoring wells positioned throughout the project area and upper Chuckwalla Valley [see figure 7]) and in water production wells on neighboring properties, such as those that may be impaired by project pumping. Monitoring would be conducted on a quarterly basis during the initial 4 years of reservoir filling but may be extended beyond this period, depending on findings that would be summarized for and reviewed by the Commission and the State Water Board for the purpose of confirming actual drawdown conditions (Measures WS-1, WS- 3, and WS-4). In the event it is determined that the proposed project is negatively affecting neighboring wells (under Measure WS-3), the FPA, section 10(c), 16 U.S.C. 803, provides that a licensee of a hydropower project “shall be liable for all damages occasioned to the property of others by the construction, maintenance, or operation of the project works….” We have modified Measure WS-1 (develop a groundwater level monitoring network) to be more in line with a similar measure proposed in the State Water Board’s draft EIR (Measure MM GW-1), where Eagle Crest would be responsible for recording groundwater levels, water quality, and production at the project pumping wells. We have revised sections 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects; 5.1, Comparison of Alternatives; and 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, Water Quality/Water Quantity, and Additional Measures Recommended by Staff.

GW 57 Comment: The Metropolitan Water District is concerned about structural, water quality, and operational effects of the discharge channel flow and conveyance atop or immediately adjacent to the Colorado River Aqueduct. Metropolitan Water District states that the draft EIS should provide greater detail of the discharge channel and associated flows, proposed design and proximity to the Colorado River Aqueduct, and the specific mitigation measures to prevent any impacts on the Colorado River Aqueduct.

Response: Greater details of the proposed discharge channel in the area of the Colorado River Aqueduct will be available after Eagle Crest prepares the final engineering design of the project. As part of the design process, Eagle Crest would consult with the Metropolitan Water District about the Colorado River Aqueduct, regarding the design of

A-55 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

the proposed discharge channel from the lower reservoir, and seek approval from the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections.

GW 58 Comment: The Metropolitan Water District believes that impacts on groundwater quality may not necessarily be evident during the first 4 years. It is not clear within the draft EIS whether continued monitoring (potentially on a less frequent basis) would continue past the 4 years indicated. According to the Metropolitan Water District, the State Water Board maintains regulatory authority over the water quality of the groundwater basin; the final EIS should clearly indicate that any reduction in the monitoring frequency (from quarterly) would require specific approval of the State Water Board. In addition, the Chuckwalla basin has previously been considered by Metropolitan, and may be considered in the future, for a conjunctive use water resource project and the maintenance of existing groundwater quality would be critical for future projects. The Metropolitan Water District also requests that the final EIS specify that all groundwater monitoring data and associated technical reports should be provided to the Metropolitan Water District, if requested, in the future for assessment of the Chuckwalla basin groundwater quality.

Response: We have revised sections 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects; 5.1, Comparison of Alternatives; and 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, to add more detail about groundwater monitoring programs. All groundwater monitoring would include quarterly measurement and annual reporting and results would be filed on eLibrary and would be available to the public and the Metropolitan Water District.

GW 59 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that it disagrees with the draft EIS statements that groundwater recharge will not be exceeded within 4 years of pumping, and that by 2065, recharge will be increased by 75,000 acre-feet, with no depletion of the aquifer. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that rainfall estimates in the draft EIS are incorrect, and that the area has gone from 4 to 7 years with no rainfall, with an average of 4 inches of rainfall a year, based on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that these rainfall amounts would not recharge the aquifer, and that the draft EIS is incorrect in this conclusion.

Response: We addressed groundwater recharge in response to Comment GW 25 where, briefly, we stated that groundwater recharge would be exceeded during the first 4 years of reservoir filling, but because pumping would be smaller than recharge rates thereafter through the remainder of project operation, the amount of groundwater in storage would be increased by about 75,000 acre-feet by 2065, without depletion of the aquifer. We discuss precipitation and groundwater recharge conditions in the Chuckwalla Valley and potential project-related effects on the groundwater supply in sections 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, Water Quantity, and 3.3.2.2, Water Resources,

A-56 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Environmental Effects, Groundwater Resources. We state that the average annual rainfall in the Eagle Mountains and Chuckwalla Valley is between 3 and 5 inches. This range represents the average annual total amount of rainfall that was recorded in rain gauges (and interpolated in between) in the mountains and valley over several decades. It is presumed that some years had more rainfall and some years had less than the reported average. This information is based on long-term precipitation records for the region published by various scientific agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s official climatological data center—the PRISM Climate Group—provides freely available data sets on its web site67 that show average annual precipitation contours across the entire state of California, including the subject area, between 1971 and 2000. The California DWR’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 for the Chuckwalla groundwater basin also states that the average annual precipitation in the valley is 4 inches. We have provided supporting citations in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, Water Quantity, that specifically reference these two information sources (i.e., California DWR, 2003; PRISM Group, 2006).

GW 60 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that water does not flow from the Cadiz and Palo Verde basins, and thus amount of recharge stated in the draft EIS is incorrect. Further, the Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that the draft EIS statement that water flows in the Chuckwalla aquifer from Hayfield is speculative, and that previous tests have been unable to trace flows of groundwater in the area. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley requests further clarification on the draft EIS’ finding that the project’s proposed use of groundwater would have less of an impact on groundwater levels in the Chuckwalla Valley than the groundwater use in the 1980s had on water levels.

Response: The Chuckwalla groundwater basin is recharged by percolation of runoff from the surrounding mountains, precipitation to the valley floor, and surface and subsurface inflow from the adjacent Pinto and Orocopia valleys, situated immediately to the north and west of the Chuckwalla Valley, respectively, based on information contained in the California DWR Bulletin 118 (2003). The Cadiz Valley is not hydrologically connected with the Chuckwalla Valley (due to bedrock barriers), and subsurface water from the Chuckwalla groundwater basin drains east to the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin. We discuss this information in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment. Although we do not specifically discuss Hayfield Lake in this section, we do cite available information (e.g., California DWR, 2003) that states that the Chuckwalla Valley receives both surface and subsurface water from Orocopia Valley, within which Hayfield Lake is located.

67 Web site available at: http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/.

A-57 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

We discuss historical groundwater pumping and the project effects on regional and local groundwater levels in section 3.3.2, Water Resources. We state that the highest rates of pumping reached up to nearly 21,000 acre-feet per year, which resulted in a groundwater level declines of about 130 feet. At the proposed pumping wells of the project, groundwater levels are expected to decline by about 50 feet during the initial 4 years (during reservoir filling), but the drawdown would level off at about 14 feet thereafter.

GW 61Comment: Interior states that the description of the groundwater resources mitigation measure in section 2.2.4, Proposed Environmental Measures, that will entail installation and use of monitoring wells “to confirm that wells would be maintained at historical levels” needs to provide a definition of “historical levels.” Further, Interior asks how limiting groundwater pumping to a range of historic volumes pumped determines significance of effects considering that historic levels may not have been sustainable and may have resulted in significant impacts that were not subject to any regulatory controls at that time. Interior, therefore, requests that a monitoring and mitigation plan should be required of Eagle Crest that addresses the actual groundwater levels and their effects, not just magnitude relative to historic levels.

Related to these statements, Interior also states that any groundwater network monitoring efforts should be extended beyond the initial fill period and be coordinated with other applicants in the surrounding area to ensure consistent data collection that can be used to evaluate cumulative impacts on the groundwater basin. Further, Interior states that measures to compensate adversely affected well owners should include options that would maintain sustainability of existing uses in the long term, rather than being focused solely on various forms of financial compensation.

Response: We discuss historic and existing groundwater pumping activities in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin and the potential effects of project operations on groundwater levels in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment. Here, we explain that the “historic levels” refer to the maximum drawdown that occurred during the early 1980s in support of relatively intensive agricultural activities in the Desert Center area. As a condition of project pumping during the initial reservoir fill period (i.e., when pumping and drawdown rates would be greatest), we find that Eagle Crest would not exceed historical drawdown levels.

We have included a table in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, Groundwater Resources, that lists the Maximum Allowable Changes established for the monitoring wells to be installed and used as part of the comprehensive groundwater monitoring program.

We discuss the potential project effects on neighboring wells and the associated mitigation measure (Measure WS-3) in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects.

A-58 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

GW 62 Comment: Interior requests clarification on the seemingly contradictory statements made in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, Groundwater Quantity, related to groundwater input from the adjacent Orocopia and Pinto groundwater basins. Specifically, Interior requests that we provide a basis for the use of the term “subsequent estimate” used in this section.

Response: In this section, we presented a range of published rates of recharge to the Chuckwalla groundwater basin from the two adjacent groundwater basins: Orocopia and Pinto. We have modified our use of the term in question to clarify that we are presenting a range of recharge estimates.

GW 63 Comment: Interior states that the project’s proposed groundwater use is outside federal purview provided that static groundwater elevations in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin are maintained over 240 feet above mean sea level, vertical datum of 1929. Interior requests that the Commission require of Eagle Crest, as a section 10(a) license condition, that the Bureau of Reclamation be provided copies of any reports prepared under Measures WS-1, WS-2, and WS-4, or pursuant to the comprehensive groundwater monitoring program that is recommended in the staff alternative. Interior further requests that the Commission and Eagle Crest coordinate with the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure that the location of and the static water elevations for wells used to fill the reservoirs and make up losses are included in the Bureau of Reclamation’s inventory of wells.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2, Water Resources, to provide additional detail about groundwater levels under existing conditions and under expected conditions during project operations (see our response to Comment GW 23 related to the USGS accounting surface). In section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations, of the final EIS, we recommend filing copies of these reports with Interior. These reports also would be on the Commission’s eLibrary system, available to the public, and thus to the Bureau of Reclamation and others.

SURFACE WATER SW 1 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS does not specifically discuss potential impacts on surface water including sedimentation and metals, but instead asserts that mitigation of these impacts will be through, among other things, the Erosion and Sediment plan filed as part of the license application, which is incomplete due to inadequate studies and baseline conditions.

Response: Because Kaiser has not allowed access to the site, Eagle Crest has been forced to rely on other sources, such as the landfill EIR/EIS and other available information, for baseline information and the analysis of some of the effects associated

A-59 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

with the proposed project. As mentioned earlier, several key investigative plans would be required before the final engineering plans are prepared and before construction would begin. Information obtained during the onsite investigations would help refine effects on surface water, such as the potential of acid production and other concerns, prior to final engineering design and construction.

SW 2 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS is deficient with regard to evaluation of stormwater impacts. There is insufficient analysis of Eagle Creek since there has not been any actual onsite studies related to the channel capacity of the creek (draft EIS, page 63); therefore, hydraulic capacity was estimated. Kaiser states that the draft EIS does not adequately discuss how debris and sediment loading from any one storm and from cumulative storms will impact the lower reservoir, the project’s operations, and the landfill. Kaiser also states that the draft EIS does not analyze potential impacts from an overflow of Eagle Creek prior to stormwater being discharged into the lower reservoir. Kaiser states that there is inadequate discussion in the draft EIS of the impacts resulting from the discharge of water near the town of Eagle Mountain.

Response: Eagle Crest estimated channel capacities using the best available data. In the draft and final EIS, we recommend that prior to construction and if necessary after additional studies with detailed onsite information are completed, Eagle Crest perform channel modification and other measures to contain flows associated with the probable maximum flood (PMF) to the Eagle Creek channel and direct these flows to the proposed lower reservoir.

SW 3 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that, according to the document, drawdown of the aquifers would not be expected to affect local springs. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley does not agree with this conclusion and suggest requiring additional studies to analyze the potential impacts on local springs. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that the springs in the area surrounding the project are important water sources for local wildlife including desert bighorn sheep, and that there is a deficiency in reliable data and observations on the existing springs in the area. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that there are times during droughts when Buzzard Springs is dry, but after year of rainfall the spring flows and that when the Desert Protection Act was enacted, Buzzard Springs was included in the new boundaries of the Joshua Tree National Park and wilderness area.

Response: It is unlikely that the springs are hydrologically connected with the Chuckwalla groundwater basin because the springs are located in the mountains above the valley floors (SCS Engineers, 1990). The project would obtain its water supply from the Chuckwalla groundwater basin; therefore, it would not have any adverse effect on the springs. We discuss the springs in sections 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, Water Quantity, and Groundwater Resources, and 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environment Effects, Groundwater Resources.

A-60 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

SW 4 Comment: The Park Service states that a discussion on climate setting for the study area is missing from the Affected Environment section. The Park Service asks for a discussion on the climate records of the study area basins, including tabulations of temperature extremes (daily and monthly), precipitation extremes (monthly and annual), and estimated evaporation rates (monthly) for climatic stations in the vicinity of the project study area. It states that this information is important in understanding the potential amount of recharge to these basins, as well as evaporative losses from the project reservoirs.

Response: We provide general climate information, including temperature and precipitation extremes in section 3.1, General Description of the Project Area. Additionally, we have revised section 3.3.2, Water Resources, to add information about recharge and related parameters.

SW 5 Comment: Interior requests clarification on whether the lack of proposed modifications to the Eagle Creek channel to contain the PMF mean that the channel is believed to accommodate the PMF with the reservoir system in place. Interior further seeks clarification on whether there is any commitment on the part of Eagle Crest that flow in the channel below the lower reservoir during a PMF will be limited through any channel improvements to below a level of significant (identified in the draft EIS as 4,000 cubic feet per second [cfs]).

Response: Eagle Crest estimated the flow capacity of Eagle Creek and provided conceptual plans for channel modification to contain the PMF within the Eagle Creek. Eagle Crest’s analyses indicate that, by using the available storage in the reservoirs and the pump-back capability during the PMF, the outflow from the lower reservoir would be limited to 460 cfs. Eagle Crest also provided conceptual plans for a riprap channel to convey this flow to the alluvial fan below the Colorado River Aqueduct. However, the final design of these plans and structures would require approval of the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections.

SW 6 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS does not analyze a likely operating condition where the lower reservoir is full or even partially full during a PMF. Given the possibility that this condition may well exist while the project is operating, the draft EIS should have considered: flow volumes that exceed the capacity of the existing Eagle Creek and the resulting sediment load down gradient; a flood that exposes and discharges refuse from the landfill to surface water; and uncontrolled discharge of storm waters from the lower project reservoir.

Response: Analyses such as those referenced above will be reviewed and approved by the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections. However, at this time, available information from Eagle Crest and our analyses, as summarized in the draft and

A-61 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

final EIS, indicate a peak flow from the upper reservoir of 17,370 cfs reaching the lower reservoir during the PMF. This inflow is greater than the proposed pump-back capacity to the upper reservoir of 11,600 cfs. As summarized in section 3.3.2.2, Water Quantity, Environmental Effects, Eagle Crest’s preliminary calculations indicate that because of the pump-back capability, the available storage in the reservoirs, and the volume of the PMF, the maximum discharge from the lower reservoir would be 460 cfs.

High levels of sediment inflows are likely during the very rare surface water flow events in the area. However, during most years, there would be no sediment inflow to the reservoirs and limited amounts in most other years.

WATER QUALITY WQ 1 Comment: Kaiser with assistance from its consultant GeoSyntec reviewed the proposed reverse osmosis system and provided comments with respect to such system, which are set forth in the GeoSyntec letter.

Response: We have reviewed the comment letter and have added additional discussion about the reverse osmosis system in section 3.3.2, Water Resources.

WQ 2 Comment: Kaiser states that the reservoir seepage risks are not sufficiently analyzed and seepage from the proposed project could adversely affect the proposed landfill project. Kaiser (through its consultant GeoSyntec) comments that sufficient information has not been presented regarding the schedule for additional investigation and a conceptual design for some seepage control measures. Additionally, seepage from the brine ponds and its potential impacts on groundwater are inadequately studied and discussed in the draft EIS. Specifically, Kaiser states that, while the potential problem is identified, there is no detailed analysis of the impacts of such a brine leak.

Response: We recognize the complexities associated with constructing two proposed projects in proximity and operating them simultaneously. Landfill regulations are strict with respect to the liners and the control of seepage from the landfill into the surrounding environment. We recommend that Eagle Crest develop a groundwater monitoring network and install a separate set of seepage recovery wells to address potential seepage from the reservoirs. This system could be redundant to the system associated with the landfill project. We have revised section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, to address concerns related to seepage releases to groundwater and potential effects on the landfill.

Although Eagle Crest has provided an expected schedule to begin construction, the details of proposed and recommended comprehensive sampling and monitoring plans would be filed for Commission approval as part of any license condition. Regarding Kaiser’s comments on potential impacts of a brine leak, we have revised section 3.3.2,

A-62 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Water Resources, Water Quality, to supplement our existing analysis of the brine ponds and their potential failure.

WQ 3 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS does not address the potential impacts of significant seepage from the dams and reservoirs for the project upon the environment and the landfill.

Response: As described in the draft EIS, Eagle Crest proposed and we recommend measures (SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4, and others) to investigate and control seepage from the reservoirs and greatly limit the effect of seepage of the proposed landfill and the environment.

WQ 4 Comment: Eagle Crest suggests that the determination of best technology for monitoring the evaporation ponds be determined in consultation with the State Water Board during development of the comprehensive water quality monitoring plan because horizontal monitoring wells may not be the best monitoring strategy for the conditions found in the project environment.

Response: We understand that the local site conditions play an important role in determining the best monitoring strategy for early detection of potential brine pond leaks and recognizes this type of detail would likely be included during the consultation process with the State Water Board in developing a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan. However, we also recognize that part of the challenge in preventing a larger effect on groundwater resources is early detection and that traditional vertical groundwater wells may not detect potential leaks until after substantial volumes of brine solution have reached the groundwater table where it would be detected by the wells. We have retained the discussion of horizontal wells as a monitoring strategy but also have amended the analysis to include other appropriate technologies developed in consultation with the State Water Board, including the ability to refine this recommended measure after onsite investigations occur.

WQ 5 Comment: The Park Service asks for additional clarification in the EIS in the subsection on water quality under the discussion about Water Quality Monitoring. The Park Service states that the discussion under Our Analysis focuses mainly on monitoring procedures and is lacking discussion on specific mitigation measures that would be instituted if downgradient water quality impacts are detected.

Response: The development of the proposed project would result in direct, indirect, potential, and cumulative impacts on the environment, which are analyzed in the EIS. The deployment of monitoring equipment for the overall project and would detect indirect effects (e.g., brine leakage into the water table and reservoir leakage). If monitoring shows there a leak, measures would be taken to prevent additional damage and mitigate the damage already done. Details of mitigation approaches could be

A-63 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

developed as part of a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan that could include protocols and emergency action measures to address the unintended consequences of the project failing in its operations. One of the key water quality measures is the maintenance of the water quality in the reservoir by the proposed reverse osmosis system, at a level equal to the groundwater used to fill and maintain the reservoir and the proposed seepage recovery system. This measure would help to limit the effects on water quality from the proposed reservoirs.

WQ 6 Comment: The Park Service asks for clarification of first paragraph under the Water Quality Monitoring discussion, where the draft EIS states that Eagle Crest proposes a monitoring program to be conducted on a quarterly basis for the first 4 years of operation. The Park Service asks if this monitoring program would continue throughout the life of the project and if so, under what frequency of sampling. The Park Service recommends that the water quality monitoring program be conducted throughout the life of the project in order to determine if impacts occur and additional mitigation measures are needed.

Response: We understand the Park Service’s concerns related to operations beyond the first 4 years of monitoring as proposed by Eagle Crest. Section 3.3.2.2, Water Quality, includes analysis of measures to develop a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan in consultation with the State Water Board and should include action items if water quality monitoring wells indicate that water of poorer quality has reached the wells from proposed project sources. This plan has yet to be developed; however, it is our recommendation that the plan be developed in consultation with the State Water Board and filed with the Commission for approval.

WQ 7 Comment: The Park Service states that if Eagle Crest is still planning on using fine-grained tailings material at the mine site to line the reservoirs for seepage control, the sampling program should be expanded to include collecting a sufficient number of tailings samples for analysis. As the Park Service noted in previous comments, EPA’s technical document (EPA530-R-94-036) indicates that the finest particles expose more surface area to oxidation [and acid mine drainage generation potential], for example from leaking oxygenated reservoir water. The Park Service states that, therefore, tailings material that might be high in pyrite concentration is another potential source for acid mine drainage that should be evaluated.

Response: As discussed in the draft EIS, Eagle Crest proposes to use a combination of onsite, fine-grained tailing materials and roller-compacted concrete based on site-specific investigations. Our recommendation to implement Eagle Crest’s proposed Phase 1 Pre- Design Site Investigation Plan would provide data on the suitability of the fine-tailing materials for use as liner for the reservoirs and the potential for acid generation during proposed project operations. The results of the investigations that would be used for the final design should be filed with and the Commission.

A-64 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

WQ 8 Comment: The Park Service asks for clarification about the current site access situation and the likelihood for Eagle Crest to obtain site access in the future so that the sampling program can be implemented. The Park Service states that site access problems are mentioned a couple of other times in the water resource section as it relates to obtaining information and/or implementing a plan or program. The Park Service asks if the owner(s) of the property is unwilling to allow Eagle Crest access to the site, then how can the project be licensed.

Response: Eagle Crest has stated in its filings with the Commission that it does not have access to the proposed site at this time, and we have analyzed the proposed project as such. Federal regulations allow an applicant to develop its hydropower applications without access to the site as a prerequisite for a license. However, if the Commission determines that the project is in the public interest and the project is licensed, the applicant would gain access to the site by either mutual consent or by adjudicated imminent domain. Access would need to be secured to develop the project at the owners’ discretion. Once access to the site is obtained, the applicant would be required to complete our recommended site investigations and analyses to refine its current analyses and estimates and provide data for engineering design.

WQ 9 Comment: The Park Service asks for clarification about the timing of the sampling program relative to issuing a license for the project. The Park Service asks whether the completion of the sampling plan and evaluation of the results is a condition for receiving the license. Consistent with EPA’s protocols and procedures, it has been the Park Service’s contention that additional testing for acid mine drainage-generating potential should be conducted prior to licensing and not after licensing, as previously proposed by Eagle Crest.

Response: Eagle Crest has not been granted access to the site to conducting sampling, as recommended by the Park Service. Therefore, the analysis of acid mine drainage- generating potential would occur under the proposed and recommended Phase 1 Pre- Design Site Investigation Plan if a license is granted, but before any ground-disturbing activities occur or the final engineering designs are completed. However, as described in the license application, the initial estimates of acid mine drainage generation were based on previous reports and observations made during a reconnaissance visit to the mine during the 1992 to 1994 time frame, using analytical data from five samples collected from the site.

WQ 10 Comment: The Park Service states that the Commission makes the statement in the second paragraph (page 66) that Eagle Crest’s proposal includes treating 3,315 acre- feet of reservoir water each year to maintain water quality comparable to the source water, but no supporting information is provided in the document indicating how treatment of this volume of water would maintain the native water quality. Please

A-65 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

provide additional supporting information and discussion (in tabular form or an appendix) showing how Eagle Crest arrived at this treatment volume. The Park Service asks: does this treatment volume account for possible water quality differences that might be associated with water collected from the seepage control system, which supposedly will be re-introduced back to the reservoirs? The Park Service states that the last sentence in this discussion (see page 67) indicates that the Commission does not believe that seepage recovery water would contribute to an increase in chemical component concentration in the reservoirs because the water components of the reservoirs would be similar to the groundwater. The Park Service asks for additional information or calculations about degradation of seepage water quality (e.g., by acid drainage generation) and its occurrence in the subsurface.

Response: The first part of this comment mistakenly mentions that the reverse osmosis system would maintain the native water quality. The proposed reverse osmosis system would treat reservoir water so that the quality of the water in the reservoirs would be equal to that of the groundwater pumped in to make up for evaporative losses. Our recommended goal of the reverse osmosis system would be to maintain water quality levels in the reservoirs comparable to the existing groundwater quality. The reverse osmosis treatment system would remove water from the upper reservoir and remove sufficient total dissolved solids to maintain the in-reservoir total dissolved solids at the same average concentration of the source water.

To address uncertainty surrounding the reverse osmosis system and its consideration of the potential volume of water collected via the seepage control system, we have revised section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, to enhance our discussion of the reverse osmosis system and specific design considerations or circumstances. Similarly, we now include the discussion on the potential for seepage water to be inferior in quality to the make-up water in the final EIS and our recommendation of possible methods to address neutralization of increased acidity.

WQ 11 Comment: The Park Service states that in the subsection on water quality under the discussion about Effects of Seepage and Evaporation from the Reservoirs and Brine Ponds on Groundwater Quality, the Commission presents Eagle Crest’s estimates of annual evaporative loss and seepage loss from the reservoirs, but provides no supporting data showing how these estimates were derived. Please provide more details and discussion on how these estimates were derived (in tabular form or an appendix) to help the reader to understand where these values come from. The Park Service states that these water losses also have implications on the amount of replacement water that is needed to remain operationally efficient, which potentially translates into impacts on groundwater levels and storage volumes.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, to provide additional information about how the evaporative losses were calculated based

A-66 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

on expected site conditions and how these calculations are reasonable. Eagle Crest through implementation of our recommended Measure SR-1 would evaluate aquifer characteristics and adequate pumping rates in the proposed reservoir seepage recovery wells prior to construction of the project as part of the final engineering design of the project and would require review and approval from the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections.

WQ 12 Comment: The Park Service states that, in the subsection on water quality under the discussion about Groundwater Quality, the EIS should provide all available water quality data (in tables or an appendix) that supports the discussion presented to the reader. The Park Service states that statements such as “Human-induced groundwater pollution is low….” are unsupported by any water quality data in the draft EIS.

Response: Although limited groundwater quality data from the Desert Center area are available, we have revised section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, to add information about groundwater quality to the final EIS. As stated in the draft EIS, human-induced groundwater pollution is limited due to the relatively undeveloped nature of Chuckwalla Valley, limited infiltration of surface water, and the extreme depth to groundwater.

WQ 13 Comment: The Park Service states that in section 3.3.2.2, on page 65 under the heading Water Quality-Effects of Seepage and Evaporation from the Reservoirs and Brine Ponds on Groundwater Quality, in the absence of geotechnical analysis for all rock types and a detailed mapping of the central pit, the potential for seepage may be greatly understated. Additionally, the Park Service states that the lower reservoir is not fully situated on basement rock. The eastern portion of the lower (east) pit is underlain by alluvial deposits. The proposal to use onsite derived clay or fine material for an impermeable liner poses many issues. The finest materials proposed as an impermeable layer also likely represent the most soluble onsite material. Chemical analysis to determine the amount sulfide bearing particles, in addition to the potential for heavy metals needs to be conducted prior to their use as an impermeable layer.

The Park Service also states that cation exchange between clayey material and brine solution will likely breakdown the impermeability of a clay liner over time, and that, if the aforementioned situation should occur, seepage will likely occur at an uncontrollable rate. The Park Service states that environmental impacts from a catastrophic failure or unforeseen conditions/events (and mitigations for such an event) should be included in the analysis. The Park Service states that chemical analysis and feasibility study should occur prior to licensing to fully determine the environmental impacts.

Response: We, along with Eagle Crest, recognize the need for onsite sampling and collecting technical field data prior to advancing the technical designs of the proposed project. Eagle Crest proposes to undertake sampling once a license is granted and access

A-67 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

has been secured. Our recommendation in the EIS is that, prior to construction, Eagle Crest would analyze acid mine drainage potential using existing soil, which would address the Park Service’s concerns that the amount of sulfide-bearing particles (including the potential for heavy metals) needs to be analyzed prior to their use as an impermeable layer. The concern that this analysis (and feasibility) should be refined prior to licensing is unnecessary and not possible due to lack of site access. However, we have revised section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, to indicate that the proposed onsite lining materials may not be suitable for use as impermeable layer or may need to be augmented with other materials to the discussion in the final EIS. The final determination as to whether or not the onsite materials are suitable would be based on field sampling and consultation with Eagle Crest’s submittal of a final request for approval from the Commission as part of final engineering designs.

WQ 14 Comment: The Park Service states that draft EIS section 3.3.2.2, on page 67, under the heading Water Quality-Effects of Project Operations on Acid Production and Water Quality, cites several reports relating to the mineralogy of the Eagle Mountain mine site. All the reports commonly refer to the presence of magnetite and pyrite. Force (2001) indicates that the lower zone of the central pit (upper reservoir) contains 10 to 50 percent platy pyrite. The Park Service states that the potential for acid mine drainage is an environmental issue associated with this project. In the absence of analytical data relating to the mineral makeup of all stratigraphic zones, the potential environmental effect relating to seepage of acid mine drainage is difficult to fully assess. The Park Service states that acid mine drainage potential and/or effective means of mitigation needs to be determined prior to licensing.

Response: As discussed in the prior comment, we, along with Eagle Crest, recognize the need for onsite sampling and collecting technical field data prior to advancing the technical designs of the proposed project. Eagle Crest proposes to undertake sampling once a license is granted and access has been secured. The proposed sampling would be conducted as part of Phase 1 Pre-Design Site Investigation Plan, which would occur before Eagle Crest’s submittal of its final engineering design.

WQ 15 Comment: The Park Service states that an issue relating to acid mine drainage is with decommissioning of the site. The Park Service states that, with the increasing efficacy of renewable energy resources, the possibility of obsolescence may become an issue with a power generating facility that operates at a net loss of power. In addition to a net loss of power by pumping the water back to its potential state, a reverse osmosis high pressure pump will need to continuously operate to filter the impounded water. It is not clear if the operation of the reverse osmosis system was included into the net power loss equation. However, as previously stated, if the efficiency of this technology renders this project obsolete prior to or after the 50-year license, the Park Service asks how the site is to be decommissioned. The Park Service also asks where the contaminated water will be disposed.

A-68 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: Eagle Crest’s estimate for operating the proposed reverse osmosis system is 3.7 gigawatt-hours of energy annually. The draft and final EIS are for the initial licensing of the proposed project. It is not the Commission’s policy to analyze issues that might occur during a future decommissioning of a hydroelectric project, especially prior to the issuance of an initial license. However, when a Commission-licensed project is proposed to be decommissioned, a full NEPA process, including the preparation of an EA or an EIS, is normally required and could involve the remediation of acid mine drainage and other issues associated with decommissioning.

WQ 16 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that the containment system proposed for the project does not meet EPA standards for protection of the environment. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley also states that monitoring wells will not detect leakage because leaks from the lined facility would escape in straight line trails, and monitoring wells would have to be in a straight line trail from the pits to detect these leaks. The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that monitoring by horizontal wells is required to detect leaks from the proposed facility.

Response: One of the key and expensive measures proposed by Eagle Crest and recommended in the EIS is the operation and monitoring of the reverse osmosis system to insure that the water quality of the reservoirs remain equal to the source water. Other measures include extensive aquifer tests that would determine the design and operation of seepage recovery wells around the reservoirs to capture and monitor water quality downstream of the proposed reservoirs. We agree that in some geological situations seepage from the reservoirs could bypass the recovery wells if the monitoring wells are not placed in suitable locations. However, the exact design of the seepage recovery and monitoring wells, as well as monitoring wells around the proposed evaporation and brine ponds would be reviewed by the State Water Board and require approval from the Commission.

WQ 17 Comment: Interior states that having a groundwater quality monitoring program limited to 4 years appears to be problematic because seepage problems, particularly from the brine disposal lagoon, may develop after this time. Interior therefore recommends that water quality monitoring, at least for seepage from the brine disposal lagoon, should continue throughout the term of the license.

Response: This was somewhat unclear in the draft EIS. In the final EIS, we revised section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, Additional Measures Recommended by Staff, to indicate that the length and frequency of monitoring past the initial fill period for all of the groundwater monitoring programs, would be determined through consultation with the State Water Board and filed for Commission approval but should continue through the life of the project.

A-69 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

WQ 18 Comment: Interior asks why the wastewater treatment pond on the southeastern side of the largely abandoned town of Eagle Mountain is considered to be likely still active, as noted in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment.

Response: In its license application, Eagle Crest states, “The townsite is fenced with controlled access and is currently vacant except for a few dwellings still reportedly occupied by Kaiser Ventures employees. The town site is serviced by public utilities, and a wastewater treatment plant is located southeast of the town.” In Kaiser’s comment letter (dated February 28, 2011) on the draft EIS, Kaiser states that there are still four occupied homes, additional homes are occupied at times, and the elementary school is still used for students from the greater Chuckwalla Valley. Therefore, based on these statements and because aerial imagery from 2011 indicates that there is water in the treatment pond, we expect that wastewater treatment pond is still active.

WQ 19 Comment: In the discussion on the failure of the brine pond wall potentially affecting a “limited area,” Interior requests clarification on the meaning of a “limited area.” EPA also recommends the development of an emergency response plan to address a potential breach in the pond berms or liners. The final EIS should describe the process and identify the responsible party for responding to detection of contaminated groundwater.

Response: The project would include six evaporation ponds (about 8.3 acres each) and 5 solidifying ponds (about 1.4 acres each); every pond would have a maximum wall height of about 8 feet. Based on our analyses of the relatively small volume of the individual evaporation ponds (about 45 acre-feet), in the very unlikely event of a brine pond wall failure, surface flow would probably not reach the Colorado River Aqueduct, which is buried and located about 2.4 miles down gradient. We did not attempt to estimate the exact surface area that could be affected before the brine would percolate into the soil, but we do expect the area to be limited due to percolation and the relatively small volume of water flow. The bottom and walls of the ponds would be double lined with clay or human-made membranes liners, and the design, materials, and construction would require approval and inspection by the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections. We present our analysis of this topic in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects.

WQ 20 Comment: Interior requests that a clear statement of what will be required of Eagle Crest to ensure that risk associated with the brine pond leakage is small and, further, that a definition of “small” is provided.

Response: Eagle Crest has stated that the brine ponds would be double lined but has not defined the exact liners that might be used. In addition, Eagle Crest proposes monitoring the groundwater down gradient of the brine ponds. In our draft and final EIS, in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects we analyze additional brine pond-level

A-70 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

monitoring and the installation of possible partially horizontal monitoring wells to allow for earlier detection of possible leakage through the lining of the ponds. The proper design of the brine ponds and their monitoring would not totally eliminate, but would greatly decrease, the risk of leakage, and the design and construction would require approval and inspection by the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections.

WQ 21 Comment: Interior states that it cannot draw any conclusions on the extent of the potential effects associated with acid mine drainage production because of a lack of site access by Eagle Crest.

Response: We agree that the potential for acid mine drainage is difficult to determine with the lack of site access. However, Eagle Crest’s license application contained data about samples collected from the site and the Phase 1 Pre-Design Site Investigation Plan would require field sampling and determination to refine the potential effects associated with project operation.

AQUATIC RESOURCES AQ 1 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the draft EIS does not evaluate the impact of the proposed project on the ephemeral and intermittent streams and the ecosystem processes that they provide both on and off of the proposed project site. The Center states that the revised or supplement draft EIS will need to include an analysis of these important issues.

Response: We discuss potential effects of the project on water quantity within Eagle Creek and the alluvial fan in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, Effects of Operation on Water Quantity in the Reservoirs. We note that, under current conditions, the upper mine pit collects water that formerly contributed to flows in Eagle Creek. With creation of the upper reservoir, there would be the potential during extremely large, but very rare, storm events (such as the PMF) to increase flows into Eagle Creek if water levels in the upper reservoir prevent the flows from being contained (as would occur under the existing condition). We recommend channel modifications to Eagle Creek to ensure the channel would be capable of containing these flows.

We discuss additional potential effects on ephemeral washes in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, Fishery Resources. We note the project water pipeline, transmission line, and access roads would cross ephemeral washes. We recommend that Eagle Crest consult with California DFG to obtain any necessary Streambed Alteration Agreements for these areas. Additionally, the license would require that prior to any ground-disturbing activities, the licensee prepare a construction plan that identifies wash crossings and shows how the designs would preserve existing desert wash topography and flow patterns (see section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, Terrestrial Resources). As such, we conclude the project

A-71 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

would not affect ephemeral or intermittent streams in the project area or ecological processes associated with those streams.

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES T 1 Comment: FWS and EPA state that they are concerned that Kaiser has not granted site access for biological resource surveys or any other investigations necessary to characterize site and evaluate feasibility of project engineering. They are also concerned that details on specific project impacts within this portion of project site have not been articulated. The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS improperly defers analysis of the impacts of the project on terrestrial resources because the draft EIS relies on delayed analysis and deferred mitigation rather than a comprehensive, contemporaneous analysis.

Response: As mentioned in sections 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, and 5.1, Comparison of Alternatives, we recognize that additional surveys and preparation of mitigation activities would be necessary prior to project construction. However, the project record contains sufficient information, including reports prepared for the landfill EIS, the landfill biological opinion, and our analysis of historical and recent aerial photography, to adequately describe the affected environment and potential project effects on terrestrial resources in the central project area. Additionally, if the Commission were to grant a project license, Eagle Crest would initiate a 2-year period of final design engineering. During this period, Eagle Crest would conduct thorough, on-the-ground surveys within portions of the project previously inaccessible. These surveys would include surveys for sensitive plant species, bats, desert tortoise, and desert tortoise predators. During this period, Eagle Crest would consult with resource agencies and prepare reports detailing the results of these surveys. Based on the results of these surveys and prior to any ground-disturbing activities, Eagle Crest would prepare and/or amend mitigation plans for kit fox, badger, bats, raptors, desert tortoise, and desert tortoise predators. Development of these plans would occur in consultation with resource agencies and require Commission approval before any ground- disturbing activities could commence.

T 2 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS inaccurately describes landfill operations. Kaiser states that as a result of these factual inaccuracies, there are incorrect conclusions that have resulted in little analysis of the project’s potential impacts with regard to increasing predator population.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, Cumulative Effects, to better describe the proposed landfill operations that would limit food resources for ravens, and we have revised our analysis of cumulative effects associated with increasing predator populations.

A-72 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

T 3 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS omits any assessment of the impacts of the creation of a new water supply in the reservoirs on the population of ravens and other desert tortoise predators and the impacts that these increased populations would have on local wildlife, including the desert tortoise. The draft EIS does not establish an ongoing monitoring and management program for dealing with ravens and coyotes during construction and throughout any subsequent operation and maintenance of the project area.

Response: We discuss the effects on the population of ravens and other desert tortoise predators from the creation of the reservoirs that would provide new water sources in section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, Human Subsidized Predators. In section3.3.4.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, we discuss our recommended and Eagle Crest’s proposed Predator Monitoring and Control Plan (with our modifications). We revised these sections to further discuss historical water availability in the central project area. Water availability in this location is not unprecedented. We discuss the projects potential effects on ravens and other desert tortoise predators in section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, Effects of Operation on Desert Tortoise, including the potential for additional water sources to subsidize ravens, gulls, coyotes, and feral dogs. To address these potential effects, we recommend that Eagle Crest implement the Predator Monitoring and Control Plan. The details of the plan are presented in section 3.3.4.2 and were issued with our Biological Assessment on April 21, 2011.

T 4 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS does not explain why the mitigation measures proposed for the evaporation ponds should not also be applied to the reservoirs, or why no mitigation measures are assessed for the reservoirs. The County Sanitation District states that an appropriate mitigation plan, along with reporting of monitoring results and adaptive management responses for all mitigation plans would need to be provided to the BLM and FWS for review and comment. EPA recommends that the final EIS describe the potential quality of the brine solution and potential risk of wildlife exposure to selenium, heavy metals, and salts. EPA states that the final EIS should describe what mitigation measures would be taken, and by whom, if management practices prove insufficient in avoiding wildlife exposure.

Response: The reverse osmosis system would maintain water quality in the reservoirs so that it is not hazardous to wildlife. Therefore, mitigation measures proposed for the evaporation ponds are not needed for the reservoirs.

We discuss the potential effects of the project evaporation ponds on wildlife in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Effects of Project Brine Pond Operation on Wildlife. We revised this section to increase the detail of this analysis. Additionally, we recommend Eagle Crest prepare and file, for Commission approval, a brine pond management plan. The plan would identify Eagle Crest as the responsible

A-73 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

party for responding to detection of contaminated groundwater. If initial fencing and hazing measures prove inadequate to prevent wildlife access to the brine ponds, Eagle Crest would implement exclusion measures, including installation of nets over the ponds. Eagle Crest would be responsible for maintaining these measures and ensuring the brine ponds do not adversely affects wildlife. Eagle Crest would develop the plan in consultation with FWS, BLM, and California DFG.

T 5 Comment: FWS states that conducting raven monitoring only once every 5 years does not appear to be adequate to address this potential issue. FWS states that these methods do not provide many opportunities for adaptive management and recommends more frequent surveys, particularly in early years of the license. Interior and the County Sanitation District state that methods described in the draft EIS would not provide suitable baseline data for ravens or coyotes. They also recommend the collection of baseline data before any project-related activities are conducted.

Response: We discuss our recommended and Eagle Crest’s proposed Predator Monitoring and Control Plan (with our modifications) in section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, Effects of Operation on Desert Tortoise. We have amended the Desert Tortoise Predator Monitoring and Control Plan to include pre-construction baseline surveys. Our amended plan was issued with our Biological Assessment on April 21, 2011. Baseline surveys would occur during the 2 years of final project design, before any construction activities begin. Surveys would continue annually during construction and in years 1 through 5, 7, and 10 following the initiation of reservoir filling. Based on the results of these surveys, Eagle Crest, in consultation with FWS, Park Service, BLM, and California DFG, would determine the need for additional surveys and appropriate survey schedules. A strategy for the continuation of the plan would be filed for Commission approval.

T 6 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the project would permanently affect the onsite plant communities and habitat for wildlife, despite revegetation because the agency’s regulations based on the Northern and Eastern Colorado Plan’s rehabilitation strategies only requires 40 percent of the original density of the dominant perennials and only 30 percent of the original cover. It recommends the final EIS include a detailed reclamation plan and a cost estimate. Interior states that Eagle Crest should develop and implement a revegetation plan for disturbed areas in a manner consistent with other large-scale solar projects. The Park Service recommends irrigating transplants monthly for 2 years.

Response: We discuss our recommended and Eagle Crest’s proposed Revegetation Plan (with our modifications) in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Effects of Construction on Vegetation. This plan would be prepared in consultation with FWS, BLM, and California DFG and would need to receive final Commission approval before Eagle Crest initiates any land-disturbing activities. The costs for this plan are

A-74 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

presented in table 27 of the draft EIS. We note that unlike large-scale solar projects that could occupy large expanses of native vegetation, covering thousands of acres, the proposed project is expected to affect less than 100 acres of native desert vegetation.

T 7 Comment: The Park Service states that in footnote 33, page 120, of the draft EIS, environmental resource surveys are identified as having been conducted on only part of the lands in 2008 and 2009 (i.e., excluding the Kaiser lands). The Park Service states that less than one-half of the project area has been surveyed for resources to assess impacts and the remainder of impacts has been extrapolated based on this assessment. It states that this should be expanded and identified more prominently earlier in the document. The County Sanitation District expressed similar concerns.

Response: We revised section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, to clearly state that access was not permitted in the central project area and that descriptions of that area are based on analysis of aerial photography and previously published reports. We also added graphic representation on figures indicating where on-the-ground field surveys took place and where surveys were not permitted.

T 8 Comment: Interior, FWS, BLM, and the Park Service state that the 2-years of surveys proposed in the current invasive species monitoring plan is inadequate. FWS recommends a minimum of 5 years of surveys, minimum precipitation requirements for an accurate assessment, and an adaptive management plan including success criteria, and contingencies if success criteria are not met. The Park Service recommends surveys for the life of the project. Interior states that the plan should also include areas that may be subsidized by project-related surface water and/or seepage. The Park Service also states that while mining activities may not increase the available nitrogen, recent studies have shown this region to be well above ambient nitrogen levels due to anthropogenic deposition from other areas in southern California. The Park Service notes that invasive annuals have been shown to disproportionally take advantage of these additions versus native plants.

Response: We discuss our recommended and Eagle Crest’s proposed Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan (with our modifications) in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Effects of Operation on Noxious and Invasive Species. We have revised this section to incorporate information about increased nitrogen levels.

T 9 Comment: The Park Service comments that the statement, “As such, operation of the project would provide some benefit to the bighorn population, counteracting any temporary negative effects associated with construction” is vaguely supported. The Park Service suggests that this line be removed from the section or that the effects should be considered as unknown.

A-75 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: We revised section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, to add support for our analysis.

T 10 Comment: The Park Service asks for the name of the management plan referred to on page 111 of the draft EIS.

Response: We revised section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, to state that the new source of drinking water is one of two measures to protect bighorn sheep. We removed reference to a management plan for this species.

T 11 Comment: The Park Service asks to please expand/explain the statement, “The addition of the new water source is likely to disrupt the migration of the northern ewe population to Buzzard Spring.” The Park Service is very interested in this spring and its importance to sheep movement from the Coxcomb Mountains across the Eagle Mountains and to the Little San Bernardino Mountains. It suggests that the bighorn sheep population in question be monitored and their movement patterns be formally addressed through scientific study.

Response: We revised section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, to provide more discussion about desert bighorn sheep migration in the region and more details about past and current water presence near the project site. In response to this comment, we conducted additional analysis on bighorn sheep migration and existing water resources in the project area. We conclude that our original statement was in error and do not find the project is likely to disrupt bighorn sheep movements. We revised section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, to address migration corridors between the project area and Buzzard Spring. The additional analysis was based on review of Divine and Douglas (1996) and Epps et al. (2005). This report describes the results of a 2-year radio telemetry study of rams and ewes in the Eagle Mountains. The size of the proposed reservoirs is small in relationship to the distance from the Coxcomb Mountains to the Little San Bernardino Mountains or from the project area to Buzzard Spring and would not create a physical barrier preventing movement between these areas. Perennial water sources have been present in the project area in the past, including a bighorn sheep watering tank at the Eagle Mountain water tank, which did not prevent movement of bighorn sheep between the local subpopulations. Additionally, the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (NECO Plan) recommends creating water sources in the Eagle Mountains to increase summer habitat for bighorn sheep. By designing the perimeter fencing at the lower reservoir to provide access to surface water, the project would provide a positive effect on bighorn sheep. As such, we do not recommend the addition of monitoring surveys for this species.

T 12 Comment: The Park Service asks for a reference for the statement on page 111 “This migration occurs outside of the breeding and lambing period and does not result in

A-76 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

increased interaction with other ewe populations.” The Park Service asks if this conclusion is from a multiple year dataset or just from casual observation.

Response: We added a citation for Divine and Douglas (1996) following the referenced statement. This study was a 2-year telemetry study on desert bighorn sheep in the Eagle Mountains.

T 13 Comment: The Park Service states that with increased water from the reservoir available to bats (drink while flying), it is likely that many of the bat species would be affected by this increased water subsidy.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Effects of Operations on Bats, to add information to our discussion. We concur with Park Service that bats could benefit from drinking water associated with the project reservoirs.

T 14 Comment: The Park Service asks if it is known if water is currently available to bighorn sheep near the proposed fence set back. If so, the Park Service states that this would seem like a reasonable action; however, as the lower pond is likely to be affected by human activity for the duration of the project, it may be reasonable to locate the access to water in a remote location within the natural habitat of the bighorn sheep. The Park Service states that if water is not currently being provided to the sheep in or near the project area, then the effects of providing subsidized water to bighorn sheep and its related population should be examined (through scientific study) before it is provided. Kaiser has similar comments.

Response: We revised section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, Sensitive Species, to include additional discussion of water availability for sheep in the project area. In section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations, we recommend that Eagle Crest monitor wildlife use at the water access locations. If monitoring indicates bighorn sheep are not using these areas, we recommend that Eagle Crest consult with FWS, BLM, the Park Service, and California DFG to develop alternative water sources.

T 15 Comment: The Park Service, the Center for Biological Diversity, Kaiser, and FWS state that the document describes a potential disruption of migratory paths for bighorn sheep but does not adequately address these impacts. The Park Service notes Buzzard Spring is an important resource for sheep movement from the Coxcomb Mountains across the Eagle Mountains and to the Little San Bernardino Mountains. The Park Service and EPA suggest that the bighorn sheep population in question be monitored and their movement patterns be formally addressed through scientific study.

Response: In section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Sensitive Species, we state that, while the project reservoirs may disrupt movement from the

A-77 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

project area to Buzzard Spring, we conclude that this movement does not occur during the breeding and lambing season. The movement to Buzzard Spring occurs in summer when water is less available near the project. The addition of water to the project area is consistent with recommendations in the NECO Plan and would reduce the need for sheep to travel to Buzzard Spring and would provide a perennial water source closer to the breeding and lambing areas northwest of the project. We have revised section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, Sensitive Species, to provide more discussion of bighorn sheep movements in the project area, habitat connectivity, and observed tolerance of local bighorn sheep to mining activities. We also have revised section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Sensitive Species, to discuss potential for the project to disrupt these movements, measures to reduce injury and disturbance to bighorn sheep, and our evaluation of the severity of these effects. Given the project area’s history of extensive mining activity, local tolerance of these activities, and recommended mitigation measures, we conclude that project construction activities would not impede migratory movements.

T 16 Comment: FWS would like clarification on section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, Nelson’s Bighorn Sheep, page 98 of the draft EIS. FWS asks: Is Divine and Douglas (1996) the most recent telemetry study in this area for this species?

Response: To our knowledge, Divine and Douglas (1996) is the most recent telemetry study of bighorn sheep in the Eagle Mountains. We have revised section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, Nelson’s Bighorn Sheep, to discuss habitat connectivity and movements of sheep between the Coxcomb, Eagle, and Little San Bernardino mountains.

T 17 Comment: Brendan Hughes states that both power line alignments would impact desert tortoise habitat and require the blading of several acres within the Chuckwalla DWMA. Brendan Hughes states that the survival of the desert tortoise is already threatened by predation, disease, off-road vehicles, urban sprawl, and renewable energy development, and that pumped storage development would have further adverse impacts.

Response: We discuss the effects of the project on desert tortoise in section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, Desert Tortoise. We discuss that the project would have adverse effects on desert tortoise habitat. Eagle Crest proposed and we recommend several measures to reduce and mitigate these effects including the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan, the Desert Tortoise Predator Monitoring and Control Plan, the Revegetation Plan, and purchase of compensation lands to preserve desert tortoise habitat. As discussed in our Biological Assessment, which was issued on April 21, 2011, and in section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, Desert Tortoise, of the EIS, we conclude that these plans with staff-recommended additions would minimize project effects on this

A-78 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

species. However, we also conclude that the project is likely to adversely affect desert tortoise and have initiated formal consultation with FWS.

T 18 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the entire project area is located within an area identified as an “essential connectivity area” for wildlife identified by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. The Center states that additional data need to be provided on the wildlife movement and linkage areas in and adjacent to the proposed project and then an analysis of the impacts from the proposed project on those resources needs to be included in the revised or supplemental EIS.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, to discuss project- related effects on habitat connectivity. We conclude that the project reservoirs are not likely to affect connectivity because it is unlikely the mine pits were part of common movement corridors. The transmission line would not preclude movement and the water supply pipeline would be buried. The project would not result in permanent fence lines, roads, railroads, urban areas, canals, agricultural fields, or other types of barriers to habitat connectivity identified by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project.

T 19 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the draft EIS does not adequately describe the environmental baseline and that many species and habitats have incomplete and/or vague onsite descriptions that make determining the proposed project’s impacts difficult at best. It states that a revised or supplemental EIS should include all rare species, including insects, a discussion of their occurrence on site and avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. The County Sanitation District expresses similar concerns.

Response: In table 10 of the draft EIS, we summarize habitat characteristics and potential for occurrence within the project for all California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)-identified species known to occur within USGS 1:24,000 quads where project activities are proposed. We updated this list to include LeConte’s thrasher, Darlington’s blazing star, and Parish’s club cholla. The CNDDB does not identify any rare insect species in the project area. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to protect sensitive species are discusses in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Sensitive Species.

T 20 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that mitigation acquisition to offset the habitat that will no longer be available to desert bighorn sheep should be required to be included in the draft EIS to offset impacts on this species.

Response: We discuss the projects effects on bighorn sheep in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Sensitive Species. We revised this section to discuss bighorn sheep movements and habitat use in the central project area. We conclude the project would have minimal effects on habitat connectivity and would offset

A-79 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

removed access to water in the mine pits with access to water in the lower reservoir. The project would not remove access to quality habitat. Therefore, we do not recommend Eagle Crest acquire mitigation lands to offset effects to this species.

T 21 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the EIS needs to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project on the regional distribution of burrowing owls. The Center for Biological Diversity also states that mitigation acreage is required and should be calculated using the mean foraging area of burrowing owls and be within native habitats on undisturbed lands. The Center for Biological Diversity states that the final EIS should also require a plan for long-term monitoring of passively relocated birds in order to evaluate survivorship of passively relocated birds and eliminate possible “take” of owls. The Center for Biological Diversity also states the final EIS should include a requirement for constructed burrows as mitigation for the destruction of burrows.

Interior states that FWS should be consulted on needs of burrowing owls, in addition to the California DFG. Interior notes that the burrowing owl is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is a federal trust resource. According to Interior, depending on outcome of future surveys, appropriate mitigation for this species may require more than avoidance of burrow during breeding season and eviction once owls have fledged. If the project site or any of facilities are occupied by burrowing owls, Interior recommends that a burrowing owl relocation plan be developed and implemented to minimize and mitigate effects.

Response: We discuss presence of burrowing owls in the project area in section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, Sensitive Species. We discuss potential effects on burrowing owls in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Sensitive Species. We have revised this section to include information regarding the construction of replacement burrows for any occupied burrows that are to be collapsed. The project would not result in a substantial removal of burrowing owl habitat or deter use of occupied habitat. Burrowing owls commonly occur along road sides and within utility corridors. Therefore, we do not recommend acquisition of mitigation lands specifically for burrowing owls. However, Eagle Crest would acquire desert tortoise habitat, which also would likely to be suitable for owls. We have revised section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, and section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, to recommend that Eagle Crest consult with FWS, BLM, and California DFG following pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls to determine mitigation needs and, if needed, to develop a burrowing owl relocation plan for Commission approval.

T 22 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the revised or supplemental draft EIS should identify the density of kit foxes on the proposed project site, including natal and other dens. If passive relocation is identified as an avoidance

A-80 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

strategy, the Center for Biological Diversity states that the EIS should evaluate if suitable habitat occurs nearby and is not already occupied by existing kit foxes.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, Sensitive Species, to provide results of Eagle Crest surveys for kit fox. We address potential effects on kit fox in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Effects of Projection Construction on Burrowing Animals.

T 23 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that badgers were documented on the project site in 2008 and 2009 (draft EIS, table 10). It states that literature on the highly territorial badger indicates that badger home territories range from 340 to 1,230 hectares. Therefore, the proposed project could impact at least one badger territory. It also states that even passive relocation of badgers into suitable habitat may result “take” and that excluding badger from the site is likely to cause badgers to move into existing badger’s territory; therefore, the EIS needs to include an actual analysis of impacts to badgers from the proposed project.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, Sensitive Species, to provide results of Eagle Crest surveys for badgers. We address potential effects on badger in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Effects of Projection Construction on Burrowing Animals.

T 24 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley, the Center for Biological Diversity, FWS, and the Park Service state that the EIS should address potential impacts on golden eagles. Interior requests a specific discussion of golden eagles in the sensitive species section and other relevant sections of the final EIS. The Center for Biological Diversity states that FWS issued new guidance March of 2010 with regards to surveying and impact analysis to golden eagles and recently released a draft Eagle Conservation Plan because of significantly declining populations of golden eagles. The Center for Biological Diversity states that the EIS should incorporate these golden eagle guidance documents into the analysis for this proposed project. The Park Service recommends increasing protection buffers to 1,600 meters (1 mile) during the nesting season as found in Richardson and Miller (1997). Interior requests inclusion of the results of Eagle Crest’s 2010 raptor surveys in the final EIS. FWS would like to work with the Commission and Eagle Crest to develop appropriate means to assess potential effects on raptor species using the project area.

Response: We discuss potential effects of the project on golden eagles in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Sensitive Species. We recommend conducting pre-construction surveys and using 1.0-mile buffers around active nests to protect eagles form construction noise. We have modified our recommendation to include consultation with FWS and California DFG during identification of the locations and extent of protection buffers for raptors and preparation of an avian protection plan.

A-81 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

We also recommend Eagle Crest implement its avian protection plan, with our recommended modifications, to reduce potential for eagle collisions or electrocutions associated with power lines. We note that the draft Eagle Conservation Plan document referenced in the Center for Biological Diversity’s comment is aimed at development of a programmatic eagle take permits for wind generation facilities; however, the proposed project does not include any wind turbines.

T 25 Comment: Interior states that nesting for some bird species may begin as early as January 15 (and earlier, if conditions are appropriate). Interior recommends that surveys for active nests should be incorporated into activities starting after that date and an avian and bat protection plan should be developed to address potential impacts on and avoidance and minimization measures for migratory birds, raptors, and bats. Interior also states that the proposed 15-foot no activity buffer is insufficient. Interior requests Eagle Crest and the Commission coordinate with FWS and California DFG on content and data required for quarterly reports and on species-specific needs to be included in a FWS- and California DFG-approved avian and bat protection plan. Interior also states it would like to have opportunity to provide technical assistance with the development of measures to assess and manage migratory bird access to brine evaporation ponds.

Response: We revised section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, Wildlife, to provide baseline information about the potential for migratory birds to occur in the project area. We discuss potential project effects on migratory birds in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Effects of Construction on Wildlife. We have revised our recommendations in this section to include initiation of surveys for nesting birds on January 15 and consultation with FWS and California DFG to determine appropriate protection buffer distances for migratory birds, raptors, and bats.

We have revised section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, to provide additional analysis on potential effects on migratory birds. We discuss our recommended measures to deter wildlife from accessing the brine ponds, including the use of exclusion netting if other measures prove unsuccessful in section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations. The project reservoirs would not pose a risk to migratory birds because the reverse osmosis system would maintain water quality. We have modified our recommendation to include consultation with FWS, BLM, and California DFG during preparation of the management plan for the brine ponds.

T 26 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the draft EIS does not appear to provide the specific language for a proposed amendment to the CDCA Plan.

Response: The CDCA Plan states that transmission routes that do not conform to the BLM’s adopted corridor system may be allowed within Moderate and Limited Use areas after NEPA requirements are met. The draft EIS and final EIS act as the mechanisms for complying with those NEPA requirements.

A-82 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

T 27 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley and Johnney Coon state that they believe the pumping associated with the proposed project would lower the water table so that plants would no longer be able to access water. This would result in denuding and eutrophication of the desert.

Response: The project would pump water from areas where the depth to groundwater is more than 100 feet. This depth is far below any rooting depth for desert vegetation. Rather, desert plants obtain their water from precipitation events and intercept water as it moves down through the soil towards the groundwater. As such, there is no interaction between desert vegetation and water located in the aquifer, and groundwater pumping would not result in denuding the desert.

T 28 Comment: The Park Service and Kaiser state that eutrophication of the desert from an additional water source and associated additional resources could alter ecosystem processes. Kaiser states that this concern is incorrectly dismissed in the draft EIS. Kaiser states that the introduction of two large bodies of water could impact wildlife behavior, and that the draft EIS is inadequate in its consideration of the proliferation of nutrients, the potential increase in plants, including invasive plant species, and the possible impacts to biodiversity in the sensitive desert environment.

Response: Human-made lakes are abundant in the desert southwest where water retention and storage are critical components to the high degree of human settlement in these otherwise constraining environments. Human-made lakes in the desert vary in scale from the order of several hundred square miles (Lake Mead and Lake Powell) to 20 to 30 square miles (Salt River Project reservoirs) to several acres (ponds at Lake Tamarisk). Many of these systems have been in place for 50 to 100 years. Although these systems certainly create ecological changes in their associated aquatic environments, we have not identified any evidence that they create ecosystem level affects modifying adjacent desert habitats. Along the Salt and Verde rivers in Arizona, diverse, functional sonorant desert plant and wildlife communities thrive adjacent to multiple reservoirs larger in scale than the proposed project. The proposed project would be disconnected from any surface hydrology and would not affect any existing aquatic community because no such community is currently present. Further, in addition to removing salt, the reverse osmosis water treatment system would remove microorganisms, including algae, which would decrease the likelihood of algal blooms and eutrophic conditions in the reservoirs.

T 29 Comment: Johnney Coon and the Citizens for Chuckwalla state that they believe impacts on wildlife from the project and cumulative impacts from other proposed projects, including the dump and solar energy developments, would range from moderate to extreme and are concerned about adverse project impacts on wildlife.

A-83 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: Unlike the solar projects, the proposed project would not occupy large expanses of undisturbed desert habitat. Unlike the landfill, the project would result in minimal traffic across desert habitats to the central project area. Therefore, we do not expect the proposed project to be a major component of cumulative effects on wildlife in the Coachella Valley. The large majority of project related disturbance would occur in areas that have already been disturbed by mining activities and existing transmission lines. Within the central project area, the project is only expected to disturb about 62 acres of previously undisturbed wildlife habitat. The project would disturb about 28 acres of undisturbed habitat along the transmission line and water pipeline. Our recommended mitigation measures are discussed in section 5.2, Comprehensive Analysis and Recommended Alternative. With implementation of these measures, project effects on wildlife would likely be minimal.

T 30 Comment: Interior requests that the final EIS include more detail for conservation measures. Interior states descriptions contained in the general discussion of mitigation measures and in section 5.2 require more specific details to demonstrate how these measures will minimize impacts on various resources and how they will be implemented.

Response: We included full detail of measures in the WEAP, Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan, Desert Tortoise Predator Control Plan, Revegetation Plan, and Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan, all of which are included as appendices to our Biological Assessment issued on April 21, 2011.

T 31 Comment: Interior states that, while fencing the reservoirs may be effective at excluding large wildlife species, it is concerned about small mammals and reptiles that may gain access to reservoirs, become trapped, and potentially drown. Interior states FWS would like to assist with the development of exclusion fencing to ensure the fence design excludes but does not entrap wildlife species. Interior recommends the lower portion of exclusion fence be fitted with a material (e.g., smooth metal) that will prevent access to reservoirs to all terrestrial species.

Response: We agree that additional fencing to exclude all terrestrial wildlife from the reservoirs would be beneficial. We have revised section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, and section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, to incorporate this recommendation.

T 32 Comment: Interior requests that the final EIS use citations to support information put forth in section 3.3.3.1. Interior states that because surveys were limited for this project, identification of information sources is important for our analysis of the project. Interior requests the final EIS also provide details relative to species-specific surveys (i.e., number of individuals observed, proximity to project components, and number of acres of habitat and vegetation types identified during surveys).

A-84 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: Unless otherwise noted, our source for information about the affected environment is Eagle Crest’s license application. We have revised section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, to include results of Eagle Crest’s surveys and have included figures depicting these results.

T 33 Comment: Interior recommends that section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, quantify total number of acres to be impacted under preferred alternative by each project component and vegetation type (i.e., proposed water line, transmission lines and tower pads, access roads, and other project features) with an explanation as to how these acres were calculated. Interior also requests that the Commission ensure that figures provided in the final EIS are consistent throughout the document. Interior requests the final EIS provide specific details when comparing alternatives and their impacts.

Response: We have added tables 17 and 19 in section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, and 3.3.4.1, Threatened and Endangered Species, Affected Environment, respectively, to provide the total number of acres expected to be affected under our recommended alternative and have incorporated this quantitative analysis into the text.

T 34 Comment: Interior asks whether vegetation around reservoirs would be controlled, and if so, how? Interior requests that the final EIS discuss potential impacts to wildlife and native plants from control activities.

Response: In the draft EIS, we recommended modification of the filed Invasive Species Monitoring and Control Plan to include the proposed reservoir areas and water seepage areas. In the final EIS, we have revised section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, and section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, to include additional information about our recommendation that Eagle Crest control growth of invasive species, trees, and shrubs around the reservoirs. In the final EIS, we recommend Eagle Crest, in consultation with FWS, BLM, and California DFG, develop a vegetation control plan to identify methods for vegetation control and protection of native plants and wildlife.

T 35 Comment: Interior notes that the State Water Board’s recommended transmission line route is longer, but that it goes through more lands that have already been disturbed. Interior asks whether this was considered in the assessment of these impacts.

Response: This was included in our analysis of the effects of construction on wildlife in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, and elsewhere in the draft EIS.

A-85 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

T 36 Comment: Interior notes that the draft EIS states that upgrading transmission infrastructure from 161 kV to 500 kV would not result in additional subsidies for raven and other avian predators; however, Interior states that the lattice tower necessary for a 500-kV line would provide significantly more nesting and perching opportunities for avian predators than currently available from wooden poles supporting a 161-kV line. Interior recommends constructing all new transmission infrastructures according to Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidelines.

Response: Our conclusion is that the addition of a 500-kV line adjacent to the existing 161-kV line would not create additional nesting areas for ravens (note the 500-kV line would not replace the existing 161-kV line). This conclusion is not based on availability of suitable structures for nests, but on territorial behavior exhibited by ravens. The common raven actively defends its nest territory from other ravens, usually up to a distance of 2 miles (FWS, 2008). Therefore adding new nest structures within an occupied nesting territory would not result in higher nest density because the current residents would not tolerate construction of another nest. We revised section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, to clarify this information. In the draft and final EIS, we recommend Eagle Crest prepare an Avian Protection Plan, in consultation with FWS and California DFG, that meets the APLIC guidelines.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES TES 1 Comment: The County Sanitation District states that the draft EIS conclusion that the 2,164 acres included in the landfill would provide food sources for ravens is not factual, and not based on analysis in the landfill’s EIS/EIR from 1996. Also, the draft EIS assumes that the landfill would not commence until long after the project is operating, so potential impacts from the project alone should be considered. As per the draft EIS, impacts of the project on desert tortoise would occur without study or consideration in the interim, causing potentially irreversible environmental degradation. Kaiser had similar comments and states that the evaluation and study of the project’s potential impacts on the predator population is deficient because the evaluation is based on inaccurate understandings with regard to landfill operations.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.4.3, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, Cumulative Effects, to incorporate Kaiser’s proposed mitigation measures to limit landfill effects on ravens. We do not agree that impacts of the project on desert tortoise would occur without study or consideration. Kaiser did not permit Eagle Crest to conduct surveys during preparation of the application. However, we did evaluate analysis presented in Kaiser’s EIS for the proposed landfill and analyzed historical and recent aerial imagery that provide information about the level of vegetation development in the central project area. Additionally, the license would require Eagle Crest to conduct on the ground surveys to refine understanding of characteristics in the central project area. Following these surveys, Eagle Crest would develop mitigation

A-86 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

plans, and Commission approval of mitigation plans would be required prior to any project-related disturbance could occur.

TES 2 Comment: The Park Service states that habitat either intentionally or inadvertently created from the proposed actions may create an ecological trap where the habitat attracts additional listed species but, due to the dynamics of the area, would limit their reproductive success. Consider the additional listed species that could be affected by this habitat growth in the future (e.g., Least Bell’s vireo, Southwestern willow flycatcher).

Response: We added additional text to section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Vegetation, to indicate that Eagle Crest should prevent development of riparian vegetation along the upper and lower reservoirs.

TES 3 Comment: FWS states the draft EIS incorrectly identifies the FWS- recommended alignment. FWS clarifies its intent was to recommend the Kaiser Road alignment identified in the EIR, not the State Water Board’s preferred alternative along an existing 161-kV line. In addition, FWS states the preferred location of SCE’s substation are inconsistent between the draft EIR and draft EIS. Any discrepancies between these documents relative to preferred alternative and various project components should be reconciled prior to release of final EIR and EIS.

Response: In its comment letter in response to the ready for environmental analysis notice on March 12, 2010, FWS states: “Desert tortoise designated critical habitat occurs within Project footprint. Currently, the project proposes to locate a 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line within designated critical habitat for desert tortoise. FWS would prefer that the transmission line be relocated out of critical habitat and co-located with existing transmission lines near project site. We appreciate FWS’ clarification and have revised section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects to include its recommendation in our analysis.

TES 4 Comment: Interior states that Eagle Crest should acquire land to mitigate for desert tortoise habitat that may be disturbed by project utilizing the same agreed-to protocols that have been developed by BLM, FWS, and California DFG. Kaiser has similar comments and stated that the draft EIS does not adequately describe the measures to be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts on the desert tortoise for each aspect of the project.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, Desert Tortoise, to clarify our discussion about habitat compensation for desert tortoise. Our intent is for Eagle Crest to be accountable for all project-related disturbances to desert tortoise habitat and compensate for such disturbance with the purchase of desert tortoise habitat following protocols identified in the NECO

A-87 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Plan. We make this recommendation in our Biological Assessment issued on April 21, 2011, and in section 5.2 of the final EIS.

TES 5 Comment: Interior states that section 3.3.4.2, Environmental Effects, Effects of Operation on Desert Tortoise, focuses on potential predation on desert tortoises. Interior asks Eagle Crest to include a discussion of other activities associated with operations and maintenance that may impact desert tortoises and their habitats, such as weed control, access road, and transmission infrastructure maintenance.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, Desert Tortoise, to note that all project-related activities, including weed control, biological surveys, and maintenance activities that occur within potential desert tortoise habitat would take place under the protocols stated in the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan (which replaces the Desert Tortoise Removal and Translocation Plan described in the draft EIS) and the WEAP, and under the general supervision of Eagle Crest-designated staff. Similar discussions are provided in our Biological Assessment issued on April 21, 2011.

TES 6 Comment: Interior comments that the statement in section 3.3.4.2, Environmental Effects, Effects of Construction on Desert Tortoise: “Staff finds construction of project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect desert tortoise,” conflicts with determination submitted in the Commission’s letter requesting consultation with FWS on this project.

Response: We have revised this statement to read: “We find construction of project may adversely affect desert tortoise and modify critical habitat for this species.”

TES 7 Comment: Interior states that the desert tortoise translocation plan and raven management plan are being revised; therefore, much language in this section should be revised accordingly in the final EIS. Interior states that any activities associated with desert tortoises, such as surveys, handling, and translocation, should follow most recent guidance from FWS and California DFG.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, to be consistent with final versions of the desert tortoise predator monitoring and control plan and the desert tortoise clearance and relocation/translocation plan. These plans were submitted to FWS on April 21, 2011, with the Commission’s final Biological Assessment.

TES 8 Comment: Interior states that data from 2010 desert tortoise surveys should be incorporated into document either directly or by reference to consultant’s survey report. The estimates of number of individuals expected to be impacted by the proposed action should be articulated.

A-88 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: We have revised section 3.3.4.1, Threatened and Endangered Species, Affected Environment, Desert Tortoise, to include results of Eagle Crest’s 2010 tortoise surveys.

TES 9 Comment: Interior states that all injured tortoises should be taken to a qualified veterinarian as it is not appropriate for field personnel to make determination as to whether “tortoise is expected to survive.” Kaiser had similar comments and states that the draft EIS does not discuss who would make the determination and how the determination would be made if a tortoise is expected to survive and would be transported to a qualified veterinarian.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, Desert Tortoise, to indicate that all injured tortoises should be taken to a qualified veterinarian. We make the same recommendation in our final Biological Assessment, issued on April 21, 2011.

TES 10 Comment: FWS recommends that all measures that will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to desert tortoise for each project component, including desert tortoise translocation, and their effects on species be described more clearly and specifically. FWS recommends the final EIS clarify whether all “permanent” avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented as described for life of any license issued for the project. Kaiser had similar comments and asked that the client provide a chart showing the studies and conclusions reached for each component of the project.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, Desert Tortoise, to analyze all project-related activities. These activities include weed control, biological surveys, and maintenance activities that would occur within potential desert tortoise habitat, take place under the protocols stated in the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan and the WEAP, and occur under the general supervision of Eagle Crest-designated staff. We find effects on desert tortoise would be minimized. We also clarify that all “permanent” avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented as described, for term of any license issued for the project.

TES 11 Comment: Interior states that Eagle Crest should develop and implement a Desert Tortoise Removal and Translocation Plan in coordination with BLM and other agencies in a manner consistent with large-scale solar projects.

Response: In section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, , we recommend Eagle Crest implement the Desert Tortoise Clearing and Relocation/Translocation Plan, with our recommended modifications. We note that the

A-89 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

scale of potential effects of the project on desert tortoise, desert tortoise habitat, and habitat connectivity much less than that associated with the large scale solar projects.

TES 12 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS demonstrate that the approved project site is consistent with the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) for Mojave and Colorado Desert Regions.

Response: The DRECP is under development by the state of California. The Renewable Energy Action Team, which was formed to oversee the implementation of the DRECP, once completed, consists of several state and federal resource agencies. The plan would provide binding, long-term endangered species permit assurances and facilitate renewable energy project review and approval processes for the development of renewable resource projects in the Mojave and Colorado deserts. The plan would apply only to the following types of renewable resource facilities: solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass; therefore, the plan is not applicable to the Eagle Mountain Project.

TES 13 Comment: FWS states that table 11 in the draft EIS should be annotated to reflect that there is no current information on the amount of habitat available, rather than stating that there is no habitat available in that area. FWS also states that, without data to substantiate zero occupancy (i.e., no effect) determination, Eagle Crest is unable to analyze potential impacts on desert tortoises and their habitats in the project area.

Response: We have added a footnote to table 11 to indicate that our estimates of desert tortoise habitat within the central project area are based upon Eagle Crest and staff review of current (2011) aerial photography within a Geographic Information Systems environment and that these estimates would be refined following preconstruction tortoise surveys.

TES 14 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the recovery unit for desert tortoises in the proposed project site (including the Red Bluff substation) is documented as having the second highest declines in population over the last two years – 37 percent decline. The Center states that the draft EIS does not identify and consider the localized impact to this recovery unit that is already in steep decline.

Response: We have revised our assessment of project effects to the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit in section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, Desert Tortoise. The proposed project would have minimal effects on the Critical Habitat Unit. However, we have analyzed those effects in section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, and recommend in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, that Eagle Crest compensate for any disturbance to critical habitat at a 5:1 ratio.

A-90 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

TES 15 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that determination of home ranges for the onsite tortoises is not provided, and that no impacts on tortoises are analyzed regarding home range impact and that the Desert Tortoise Removal and Translocation Plan not available for public review. It states that it is unclear if desert tortoise exclusion fencing will be used, where it will be used, how much, and how it would affect connectivity. Kaiser had similar comments and states that the draft EIS does not analyze if there are any impacts to the connectivity of desert tortoise habitats by the project and any habitat fragmentation resulting from the project. The Center for Biological Diversity and Kaiser also comment that the draft EIS does not provide estimates of tortoise density or number of tortoise expected to be effected. They ask that the final EIS clearly indicate which tortoise surveys followed FWS protocol.

Response: Our recommended proposed Desert Tortoise Removal and Translocation Plan and proposed locations for desert tortoise exclusion fencing were filed by Eagle Crest as part of the Commission’s public record on July 27, 2010. We revised the plan (now titled the Desert Tortoise Clearance and Relocation/Translocation Plan), which was included in our Biological Assessment issued on April 21, 2011. We have revised section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, Desert Tortoise, to clarify this issue. We discuss Eagle Crest’s proposed measures during construction to reduce effects of temporary fencing on habitat connectivity. Following construction, the exclusion fences would be removed and habitat connectivity restored. We also clarify that Eagle Crest conducted FWS protocol surveys for desert tortoise in 2009 and 2010 and provide density estimates and construction encounter estimates based on the results of these surveys.

TES 16 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the preferred transmission line route is located within the DWMA. It states that the draft EIS does not identify that this part of the DWMA is also the proposed “recipient site” for the desert tortoises that will be translocated from the Desert Sunlight project, if that project is permitted and constructed. It states that translocated tortoises will increase the density of tortoises in the project area, and the draft EIS does not address this issue.

Response: As depicted on figure 11 in the draft EIS, our recommended transmission line route would be adjacent to the northern boundary of the DWMA, but it would be outside of the management area and does not cross the DWMA. The three preferred recipient site for the Desert Sunlight Solar Project are identified in the draft EIS for that project (BLM, 2010, appendix H). None of these three sites overlap any of the proposed project features or the project’s proposed recipient sites for desert tortoise.

TES 17 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the mitigation ratio for habitat acquisition of 2:1 is too low and that a ratio of 5:1 should be required to mitigate impacts at the proposed project site.

A-91 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: The draft EIS does not recommend a 2:1 habitat mitigation ratio. Consistent with the NECO Plan and our recommendation, the project would compensate for disturbance to Class I and Critical Habitat Unit habitat at a 5:1 ratio and for Class III habitat at a 1:1 ratio.

TES 18 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that while the draft EIS recognizes that impacts from the proposed project would occur to desert tortoise, the significance of those impacts is not analyzed.

Response: We recognize the project has potential to adversely affect desert tortoise and modify critical habitat for this species. We recommend that Eagle Crest implement mitigation to limit effects on this species. These recommended mitigation measures include implementation of the Desert Tortoise Clearance Relocation/Translocation Plan, the WEAP, the Predator Monitoring and Control Plan, and the purchase of compensation lands. We have initiated formal consultation with FWS under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

TES 19 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that desert tortoise numbers at the project site may be underestimated because desert tortoises may not be evenly distributed across the landscape and may occur in pockets of density.

Response: Eagle Crest’s 2009 and 2010 desert tortoise surveys covered 100 percent of the disturbance area for project facilities where surveys were possible. The objectives of these surveys were to determine desert tortoise presence and estimate desert tortoise density within the project area and zone of influence related to project activities. The surveys were conducted following FWS standards to meet this objective. Based on this information, we conclude desert tortoise density is about 1.2 tortoises per square mile in areas surveyed. Surveys in the central project area were not possible due to land access restrictions. However, we estimate that density in this area would be no greater than that recorded in the survey areas because the central project area contains lower quality habitat. Following the possible issuance of the license, Eagle Crest would conduct field surveys in the central project area to refine these estimates.

TES 20 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the proposed project will significantly impact occupied desert tortoise habitat both outside of DWMA and within DWMA and the draft EIS should have considered alternatives to relocate all of the project elements to minimize these impacts.

Response: Our analysis indicates that while there is potential for some effects on desert tortoise in the central project area, the highly disturbed nature of this area makes the proposed location more favorable than other sites in the vicinity. As such, we do not recommend relocating the proposed reservoirs. We do analyze alternative locations for the transmission line. To deliver energy generated at the project to the electrical grid, the

A-92 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

project would need to connect with the existing Devers-Palo Verde 500-kV transmission line or similar high-voltage line. The majority of previously undisturbed areas between the central project area and existing high-voltage lines are potential desert tortoise habitat. However, to reduce effects on desert tortoise habitat, we recommend the transmission line be co-located with an existing line and therefore in a previously disturbed corridor. We also recommend the project use a proposed substation associated with another project to eliminate the need for two new substations in the area.

TES 21 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that the draft EIS should include cumulative impacts from the proposed project to the desert tortoise—both impacts from train and truck traffic from the proposed dump and impacts from the construction of transmission lines and the pipeline across the Chuckwalla Valley to the site of the project. Kaiser had similar comments.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.4.3, Threatened and Endangered Species, Cumulative Effects, to add detail to our discussion and analysis regarding the proposed project and other planned activities such as the proposed extensive solar facilities within the valley.

TES 22 Comment: The Citizens for the Chuckwalla Valley states that desert tortoise habitat occurs only a short distance from the project area and that an increase in number of predators from the artificial lake will have a detrimental effect on desert tortoise numbers inside the Joshua Tree National Park and wilderness area. It states that augmented populations of coyote, gulls, wild dogs, and other potential predators of the desert tortoise from the project were not addressed in the draft EIS. The Citizens for the Chuckwalla Valley suggests the creation of a desert tortoise predator control plan to address the likely increased predation pressure on the desert tortoise.

Response: As stated in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, we recommend a desert tortoise predator monitoring and control plan. We revised this section to recommend additional components for inclusion in the plan, such as baseline surveys for predator activity and desert tortoise predation levels, annual surveys during the first 5 years of the project, specific methodology for dog and coyote activity surveys, and canine predation on tortoise estimates.

TES 23 Comment: The Park Service states that it agrees that this project will add to already existing water sources available to desert wildlife near the project area. However, it disagrees with the statement, “water supply is not a limiting factor on predator species population size in the project vicinity” and that this statement can only be determined through scientific monitoring and study (e.g., home-range study, habitat use profiles). The Park Service is concerned about the effect of additional water sources on potential predators.

A-93 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: We do not agree that scientific study is necessary to evaluate whether water is a limiting resource in the project area. For water to be a limiting factor to populations, it would need to be unavailable to some individuals. As discussed in section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, multiple constant sources of water can be found in the project vicinity, and they are readily available to any individuals in the area. While there may be the potential for the reservoirs to attract additional individuals, we do not expect a large increase in population size. As stated in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, we recommend a desert tortoise predator monitoring and control plan. We revised this section to recommend including additional components in the plan, such as baseline surveys for predator activity and desert tortoise predation levels, annual surveys during the first 5 years of the project, specific methodology for dog and coyote activity surveys, and canine predation on tortoise estimates.

TES 24 Comment: The Park Service states that the two surveys conducted for the Coachella Valley milkvetch were done in conjunction with tortoise surveys, and the entire area was not surveyed. The Park Service states that it is possible that Coachella Valley milkvetch plants were missed either spatially or temporally and recommends additional surveys throughout the construction phase of this project. Additionally, the Park Service recommends adding this species to the WEAP, as well as developing mitigation measures in the case that this species is discovered. It also recommends having mitigation measures in place if the species were to be found during construction activities.

Response: We have included identification of Coachella Valley milkvetch into the WEAP and added this species to the recommended pre-construction surveys for sensitive plants. As part of the WEAP, if this species is identified during construction, Eagle Crest-designated staff would be notified and construction activities would be suspended in the immediate area. All efforts would be made to avoid disturbance to this species. If avoidance is not possible, the Eagle Crest-designated staff would contact FWS for guidance.

RECREATION AND LAND USE

R 1 Comment: Interior states that the description of the off-highway vehicle (OHV) areas in section 3.3.5.1, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, subsection Existing Recreation Resources in the Proposed Project Vicinity, of the draft EIS is incorrect. Ford and Palen Dry lakes are not OHV use areas because they are limited to designated routes per the NECO Plan. There are no OHV use areas (i.e., OHV open areas) on BLM lands in Riverside County. Response: We have revised section 3.3.5.1, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, Affected Environment, to state that OHV use is restricted in Ford and Palen Dry lakes.

A-94 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

R 2 Comment: The Metropolitan Water District states that the draft EIS indicates (section 3.3.5.1, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, subsection Land Use Within and Adjacent to the Proposed Project Boundary) that the proposed project site is accessible via Eagle Mountain Road, approximately 11 miles south of the site. The final EIS should clarify that Eagle Mountain Road is open to the public between Interstate 10 and the Eagle Mountain Pumping Plant, at which point the road stops at the closed gate to Metropolitan's Eagle Mountain Pumping Plant; there is no through access to the proposed project site through the Eagle Mountain Pumping Plant.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.5.1, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, Affected Environment, and figure 18 to indicate that Eagle Mountain Road is gated near the Eagle Mountain pumping plant, prohibiting public access beyond this point and therefore, blocking access to the proposed project site.

R 3 Comment: Kaiser states that the draft EIS does not discuss that the Eagle Mountain Road will become a private road as a part of the landfill project and how that may impact land ownership and other items related to the project.

Response: Eagle Crest would need to secure the use of Eagle Mountain Road to access the central project area, just as it would need to secure the land on which the proposed project would be constructed and operated. We have revised section 3.3.5, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, to clarify our discussion of use (construction and operation) of Eagle Mountain Road and effects on existing land uses.

R 4 Comment: The Metropolitan Water District states that the final EIS should clarify that no private or public entity currently has entitlement to build over its fee-owned rights-of-way or properties (page 143, section 3.3.5.1, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, subsection Land Use Within and Adjacent to the Proposed Project Boundary). It comments that appropriate rights will need to be acquired from Metropolitan Water District to facilitate crossing its fee property. Metropolitan Water District's facilities and fee-owned or permanent easement rights-of-way should be considered in planning and in the final EIS, and the project should avoid potential impacts that may occur due to implementation of the project. Any new facilities related to the project should not impact accessibility or use of existing Metropolitan Water District facilities. Development associated with the proposed project should not restrict any of Metropolitan Water District's day-to-day operations or access to its facilities. Metropolitan Water District should be able to maintain its rights-of-way, which requires unobstructed access to its facilities and properties at all times in order to repair and maintain its system.

Response: The draft EIS considers the proposed project and the lands that the various linear project facilities (e.g., transmission lines and water conduits) of the project would cross. Specifically, the EIS discloses that the water conveyance pipeline and the

A-95 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

transmission lines would potentially cross Metropolitan Water District lands and/or easements. As such, we have revised section 3.3.5.2, Recreation, Land Use and Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, to provide additional analysis covering the potential effects of constructing the proposed project facilities across Metropolitan Water District lands to the final EIS.

R 5 Comment: The Metropolitan Water District states that, in order to avoid potential conflicts with its rights-of-way, it requires that any design plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan Water District's pipelines or facilities be submitted for its review and written approval. It requests that the final EIS note that Metropolitan Water District's approval of the project where it could impact Metropolitan Water District's property will be contingent on such review and approval of design plans for the project.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.5.2, Recreation, Land Use and Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, to incorporate Metropolitan Water District’s suggestion for consultation prior to final design and construction to the proposed measures section of the EIS and solicit its expertise relative to proposed design elements that may interfere with their facilities.

R 6 Comment: The Metropolitan Water District states that its Colorado River Aqueduct conduit was not designed for American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) H-20 loading in this area, and any vehicle crossings should be restricted to the existing paved roadways that have protective slabs in place to distribute this loading away from the pipeline. The final EIS should note that any vehicle or equipment that would likely cross the conduit as part of the construction operation of the proposed project will be subject to review and approval by Metropolitan Water District.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.5.2, Recreation, Land Use and Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, to supplement the discussion relative to the potential effects on Metropolitan Water District facilities and address the use of Eagle Mountain Road, staging areas, and construction vehicle traffic crossing the Colorado River Aqueduct.

R 7 Comment: Mr. Phillip Hu expresses concerns that the proposed water pipeline would be constructed through his property, which was purchased as an investment to build and operate recreational vehicle and mobile home parks and that the proposed project would result in portions of his land becoming unusable for his business venture.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.5.2, Recreation, Land Use and Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, to supplement the discussion relative to the potential effects on private land associated with construction of the proposed water pipeline. As a result, in the final EIS, we recommend that Eagle Crest:

A-96 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Develop a construction plan for construction activities on or next to private properties including adjustments, to the extent practicable, to the route of the water pipeline developed in consultation with each affected landowner; and Develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure with directions for identifying and resolving environmental mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the project and restoration of the right- of-way including monthly reporting to the Commission. R 8 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the draft EIS does not explain how the proposed substation relates to the Red Bluff substation (which is needed for the proposed Desert Sunlight project to interconnect to the Devers Palo Verde 1 transmission line), and relates to earlier review by BLM for the Devers Palo Verde 2 transmission line right-of-way and the yet-to-be-completed review for the Colorado River substation “expansion” which may also be a connected action that is part of the Devers Palo Verde 2 transmission line. The Center for Biological Diversity states that it is unclear if the “State Water Board Recommended Substation” is the same as the proposed Red Bluff Substation Alternative A as presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment for the Proposed First Solar Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project, Riverside County, California BLM Case File Number CACA #48649, issued by BLM.

Additionally, the Center for Biological Diversity states that it is unclear if any of the proposed transmission footprint alternatives in this draft EIS are the same as the transmission line alternatives proposed in the Desert Sunlight draft EIS. Because it is unclear if multiple transmission lines will be coming from the same general area (this proposed project and the proposed Desert Sunlight project), the Center for Biological Diversity is very concerned about the proliferation of separate transmission lines for each project, when they could easily be consolidated, and the additional road and infrastructure that will exacerbate the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts including landscape level fragmentation.

Response: Eagle Crest proposes to construct a substation near Desert Center to connect its proposed transmission line to the Devers Palo Verde 2 transmission line proposed by SCE. Figure 11 of the draft EIS and figure 18 of the final EIS provide the location of the proposed substation and the State Water Board’s preferred (Eastern Red Bluff) substation. Transmission line Alternative A-1 for the Desert Sunlight Project appears to be mostly along the same route as the State Water Board’s preferred alternative transmission line route, both of which would interconnect at the Eastern Red Bluff substation.

AESTHETICS RESOURCES A 1 Comment: The Park Service agrees with the State Water Board’s draft EIR that the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the aesthetics, i.e.,

A-97 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

viewshed. The State Water Board draft EIR states that the viewshed would be significantly impacted by proposed project as well as other renewable energy projects in the vicinity (cumulative impacts). However, the Park Service comments that the draft EIS does not adequately address effects on the park experience to those visiting for recreational purposes, and the final EIS should strengthen the discussion of comparisons between current conditions, proposed future conditions, and potential impacts on those park visitors who do use the area. While exact numbers are unknown, potential impacts should not be dismissed or minimized.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.5.2, Recreation, Land Use and Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, to clarify the discussion relating to the proposed project’s potential effects on aesthetics. In particular, we enhanced the discussion related to potential visitors who use the Joshua Tree National Park and wilderness area; however, we respectfully disagree with the Park Service on the extent of the difference of visitation. The potential effects would not be substantially different than the existing uses of the central project area (open pit ore mines and alleged explosive-related training grounds). We considered the Park Service’s comment related to the proposed renewable energy projects in the greater Chuckwalla Valley and their bearing on cumulative effects; we have revised section 3.3.5.3, Recreation, Land Use and Aesthetics, Cumulative Effects, to provide additional discussion of these potential effects in the final EIS.

A 2 Comment: Interior states that the draft EIS does not include visual simulations for proposed project, or adequately discuss mitigation or design techniques in terms of BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) contrast rating system.

Response: In section 3.3.5.2, Recreation, Land Use and Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, we evaluate the proposed project effects on the aesthetic resources in the area and disclosed the potential effects in the EIS. Eagle Crest provided sufficient description and photographs for us to evaluate the proposed project’s effects on visual resource through our NEPA analysis. Additionally, Eagle Crest provided a visual resource inventory (VRI), using BLM methods. Eagle Crest has proposed, and we recommend, a dark night sky conditions study and the use of lights that minimize the impacts on dark sky conditions as a mitigation measure. Additional measures include using existing materials on site whenever possible to retain the aesthetic character in the central project area. We also recommend mitigation measures for the transmission and water conveyance pipeline features.

A 3 Comment: BLM states that figure 12 on page 142 does not take into account visual resource inventory conducted for the area as part of draft programmatic EIS for the Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States (December 2010). BLM states that the Eagle Crest visual resource analysis does not meet BLM standards and should have included a VRI, which would lead to proposed interim (not surrogate) VRM Classes, to be approved by authorized officer (see BLM WO IM 2009-167). BLM raises issue that

A-98 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

use of Eagle Crest’s visual resources work as a surrogate is unnecessary given the new work published in the draft programmatic EIS for Solar Energy Development (BLM and DOE, 2010). The inventory conducted for the draft programmatic EIS for Solar Energy Development assigned VRI Class II and III for the project area. BLM also states that the key observation points (KOPs) for the Eagle Crest draft EIS were not selected in conjunction with the BLM field office (however, KOPs appear to be adequate).

Response: We have revised section 3.3.5, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, as suggested by BLM, to include information from the draft programmatic EIS for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States (BLM and DOE, 2010) that assigns VRI Class II and III for the proposed project area. Because BLM conducted a VRI and developed VRI Classes for the area as part of the programmatic EIS, these classes replace the applicant-prepared VRI Classes. The BLM VRI Classes are considered to be superior to those prepared by Eagle Crest because the inventory and classes were prepared by staff with special training and experience in VRM on BLM lands. Because the BLM VRI Classes replace the previous work by Eagle Crest, we have also enhanced the discussion related to land uses to incorporate information from the draft programmatic EIS, which was not yet available at the time this draft EIS was prepared.

SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE S 1 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley comments that this project violates environmental justice because it targets a poor, rural community to benefit urban areas. Further the Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that obtaining land from citizens in the area by eminent domain would remove the possibility of these citizens helping form a viable economic base for the valley. Also, this entity states the scoping meetings were held 50 miles away from the host community and during work hours, making it difficult for most citizens to attend and violating NEPA environmental justice stipulations.

Similarly, EPA recommends that the final EIS define the reference community, as well as the affected community, and analyze whether there are disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts by comparing the impacts to the affected population with the impacts to the reference community. The reference community (or comparison group) is generally defined as the population that will benefit from the proposed project. An environmental justice section of the final EIS should briefly summarize the affected community and reference community, and provide the source of the demographic information.

Response: Environmental justice as defined by Executive Order 12898 applies to the agencies specified in section 1-102 of that Order, and the Commission is not one of the specified agencies. Consequently, the provisions of Executive Order 12898 are not binding on the Commission, and the Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley and EPA are mistaken in its assertion to the contrary. However, it is current Commission practice to

A-99 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

address environmental justice in its NEPA document when raised. Therefore we have included this discussion in the final EIS in section 3.3.7.2, Socioeconomics, Environmental Effects.

Regarding the Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley’s comments that scoping meetings were held 50 miles away from the host community and during work hours, making it difficult for most citizens to attend, the project is located in a remote, sparsely populated area, and the nearest suitable facility, readily accessible to the public, was chosen for both scoping meetings and public meetings on the draft EIS. For both of these meetings, we had one meeting during normal working hours for agency personnel and a meeting during the evening for the convenience of the public.

S 2 Comment: Interior states that the draft EIS also does not address economic loss to Kaiser if eminent domain were to be exercised on private property or the economic effect on Kaiser employees or other private land owners.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soil Resources, to provide more detail on the value of the iron ore that remains at the site. However, as stated in the landfill EIS in 1996, the full time mining at the Eagle Mountain mine was curtailed because the ore deposits were no longer considered economically feasible to mine. As described in the draft and final EIS, Kaiser currently employs a limited number of people at the mine, and the vast majority of other private land owners who would experience effects would be those affected by either the proposed transmission or water lines and the drawdown in the groundwater table near Desert Center.

S 3 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS determine whether there are disproportionately high and adverse impacts as detailed in the CEQ’s Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. EPA also recommends that if these impacts are high and diverse on minority populations or low-income populations, the final EIS should propose appropriate mitigation of environmental impacts on minority populations or low-income populations are likely to result from the proposed action and any alternatives.

Response: As stated earlier, in our response to Comment S 1, the Commission is not bound by Executive Order 12898. However, the Commission has considered environmental justice issues during specific phases of the NEPA process through: scoping, public participation, analysis, mitigation, and other measures. In addition, while the project is located in an area that has lower income than some other parts of Riverside County, the project location was selected based on its unique suitability as a pumped storage project, according to a set of objective parameters described in an earlier response. In addition, in section 3.3.7.2, Socioeconomics, Environmental Effects, we conclude that the project would confer economic benefits on the surrounding communities by bringing jobs and increased economic activity to the area.

A-100 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

S 4 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS define the potential environmental justice concerns. EPA states that the final EIS should include a discussion of any environmental justice issues raised during scoping meetings and discuss the key issues that may raise environmental justice concerns, such as contamination or drawdown of domestic wells, air quality, noise, vibration, access to property, local business (e.g. tourism), and personal safety.

Response: All of these topics are discussed and analyzed throughout the draft and final EIS but not explicitly in an environmental justice context as discussed in earlier comment responses. Specifically, we discuss contamination and drawdown effects on existing wells in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects. We discuss air quality, noise, and vibration in section 3.3.8.2, Air Quality and Noise, Environmental Effects. Access and safety issues are discussed in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, Environmental Effects. The effects on local businesses are discussed in section 3.3.7.2, Socioeconomics, Environmental Effects.

AIR QUALITY AND NOISE AQN 1 Comment: Kaiser comments that the statement on page 205 of the draft EIS, “Aerial photographs of the region show that there are no sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools/churches, or parks located in the general project vicinity” is incorrect. It states that the draft EIS does not account for these sensitive receptors and does not analyze the potential environmental impacts of sensitive receptors and that this should be corrected.”

Response: We have revised section 3.3.8, Air Quality and Noise, to include the low number of remaining occupied buildings at the Eagle Mountain town site. We have also revised the analysis in the final EIS to indicate that there are a few additional rural residences closer to the central project area than previously indicated in the draft EIS. However, we maintain that there are a very limited number of sensitive receptors in proximity to the project area, and during construction and especially during operation of the proposed project, noise levels would be lower than during the former mining operations.

AQN 2 Comment: The Park Service states that mitigation measures should be implemented to maintain natural soundscape during both construction and operation for the life of the project (e.g., timed periods of minimal visitor use in the Joshua Tree National Park). The Park Service also states that it could work with Eagle Crest to measure current levels of ambient noise using state-of-the-art acoustical monitoring equipment and to develop a monitoring program. The Park Service states that current soundscape and ambient noise levels should be maintained for the life of the project during construction and operations.

A-101 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: The central project area is about 2 miles from the nearest park boundary, and noise levels indicated in table 34 in section 3.3.8.2, Air Quality and Noise, Environmental Effects, are worst case scenarios. During rock drilling at the reservoir sites, the noise levels are estimated at 43 A-weighted decibel scale (dBA). As indicated in the EIS, most of the loud construction noise would occur near the bottom of the proposed reservoir sites or underground for the proposed tunnels and powerhouse. Noise levels from both of these locations would be attenuated by the presence of natural sound barriers. We recommend that the construction machinery be equipped with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers and intake silencers and compliance with applicable County of Riverside noise ordinance codes. Because the proposed powerhouse would be located underground during project operation, there would be minimal noise increases, mostly from the slight increase in traffic on Kaiser Road and from corona discharge near the proposed transmission lines. However, during both project construction and operation, noise levels are expected to be lower than during past mining operations.

AQN 3 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS include a section evaluating project greenhouse gas emissions, including detailed estimates of emissions from construction and operation of the project. In addition, provide information detailing the impacts that climate change may have on the project, its sources of groundwater, and reclamation and restoration efforts after construction and decommissioning. EPA states that the final EIS should also discuss how climate change may exacerbate or otherwise alter the impacts of the project, particularly with regard to sensitive species and groundwater construction.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.8, Air Quality and Noise, to add information about CO2 emissions. However, it is out of the scope of this analysis to provide detailed effects that climate change may have on this project during its proposed operation. If the project were built and subsequently decommissioned, that proceeding would require the preparation of a separate EA or EIS to analyze any effects associated with decommissioning. If a license is issued for this project, it will contain reopener procedures to be used if conditions change that might change the effects of this proposed project.

AQN 4 Comment: EPA recommends that the final EIS should discuss whether mitigation measures beyond changes in construction scheduling to limit emission levels and standard Best Management Practices are needed, or if the project would affect the ability of other foreseeable projects to be permitted.

Response: As discussed in section 3.3.8, Air Quality and Noise, our recommended measures with regard to emission levels associated with the proposed project are suitable for the proposed project. In the cumulative effects sections of the EIS, we analyze the effects of planned nearby projects. Further, we find that based on the available

A-102 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

information, our recommended measures are suitable for the proposed project and not inconsistent with any of the reasonably foreseeable projects, as discussed in the cumulative effects discussions in section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, of the final EIS.

AQN 5 Comment: EPA states that the final EIS should provide technical justification for the determination regarding that the proposed project is too far from the other proposed projects to contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. EPA also recommends that, in the final EIS, the cumulative emissions from the proposed project combined with proposed solar and transmission line projects that would affect the same air basin. In consultation with the local air quality management agency, EPA recommends that these cumulative emissions data be used to develop an incremental construction schedule that would not result in any violations of local, state, or federal air quality regulations. EPA recommends incremental construction to ensure air quality impacts are limited and are sufficiently staggered.

Response: As described in EIS, the proposed project could have temporary exceedances in nitrogen oxide (NOx) levels during 2 years of the planned construction schedule. However, it is unknown if these 2 years would overlap with construction of the other projects, and the Commission does not have regulatory control or oversight on the other projects. The solar projects proposed in other areas of the Chuckwalla Valley are in various stages of the approval process and might be built before the proposed pumped storage project, but the timing of these proposed projects is purely speculative at this point. In addition, Eagle Crest has proposed to work collaboratively on a cost share basis with the Park Service to complete a 2-year air monitoring study to provide data to adjust construction workload if NOx exceedances are observed.

AQN 6 Comment: The Park Service states that the proposed transmission utility corridor and other new proposed corridors are within a few miles of the park which is a Class I area for meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Park Service states that monitoring should include particulate monitoring (PM10) in addition to localized monitoring for ozone near transmission lines. The Park Service will collaboratively develop a monitoring plan to complete a 2-year monitoring study, aimed at maintaining air quality standards for the life of the project.

Similarly, the Center for Biological Diversity states that the draft EIS does not adequately address air quality issues such as PM10 both during construction and operation, which is of particular concern in this area because it is a nonattainment area for PM10 and ozone. The Center for Biological Diversity states that it is clear that construction grading would result in significant amounts of bare soils, and increased PM10 may be introduced into the air by wind. It goes on to state that the use of the area during construction and operations would lead to additional PM10 emissions from the site. The Center for Biological Diversity states that although some mitigation measures are suggested, they are not specific and enforceable.

A-103 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: The development of a 2-year air quality monitoring study with for PM10 is part of the staff-recommended alternative in the draft and final EIS; however, we do not recommend monitoring for ozone near the transmission lines. Based on this monitoring plan for PM10, Eagle Crest proposes and we recommend that the results of the monitoring could be used to adjust the construction work schedule if exceedances are observed. Ozone can be produced as a result of corona discharges near transmission lines, but ozone produced by transmission lines is typically insignificant when compared to natural variations or ozone production by other sources.

AQN 7 Comment: The Park Service and Interior states that impacts on air quality related to decommissioning of the project are also an environmental concern. Impacts related to decommissioning of the project have not been addressed in the draft EIS. Decommissioning of the project due to higher efficacy alternatives or at the expiration of the license (50 years) will result in impacts to air quality. During decommissioning, the impoundment will lose water due to evaporation and seepage; evaporates will begin to form and will likely become airborne during periods of high winds. The Park Service states that decommissioning of the project and full analysis of the environmental impacts needs to be addressed in this EIS.

Response: While the Commission normally issues a license for 30 to 50 years, there is no guarantee that the project would be decommissioned after the expiration of the initial license. In addition, in the event of a future decommissioning of the project, a full NEPA review would be required, including an EA or an EIS, based on the applicable environmental conditions and regulatory standards then in effect. Therefore, it is not necessary to include the effects of decommissioning in an EA or EIS during a licensing proceeding for a proposed project.

AQN 8 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the Commission does not identify any significant greenhouse gas emissions and therefore does not provide for avoidance, minimization, or mitigation. The Commission has also does not include the loss of carbon sequestration from soils in its calculations or to provide a lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions that include manufacturing and disposal. The Center states that the Commission does not consider any alternatives to the project that would minimize such emissions or to require that these near-term emissions be off set in any way.

Response: The draft EIS provided information on the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that would be emitted during construction and operation. In addition, the draft EIS also provided estimates of the sizable amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that would be offset from the operation of this project as compared to generation from natural gas peaking facilities. In the EIS, we conclude that the proposed project would have a net benefit to the state with regard to CO2 emissions, similar to conclusions

A-104 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

in the draft EIR. We have revised section 1.2, Need for Power, and section 4.1, Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project, to reflect the various sources of pumping power that could include renewable sources from existing and proposed nearby projects.

AQN 9 Comment: The State Water Board recommends that the Commission acknowledge its analysis of greenhouse gas emissions as a more conservative approach. Under both minimum and maximum displace scenarios as determined by the State Water Board, the proposed project would have a net benefit to the state with regard to generation of CO2 pollutant emissions. The State Water Board states that over the long term, as more renewable energy sources are integrated into the system, these types of energy may be used in increasing amounts for pump-back at the proposed project, but for purposes of this analysis, it cannot reasonably assume that will be the case.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.8, Air Quality and Noise, to include similar CO2 emissions values to those presented in the State Water Board’s draft EIR. These values are slightly lower than the values presented in our draft EIS and are based on updated and slightly different calculations. We have revised this section to include these values because of the uncertainty involved with the source of power for pump-back power.

AQN 10 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that the draft EIS does not discuss greenhouse gas emissions either from construction or operation and that the revised or supplemental EIS will need to include these data and an analysis of the “carbon footprint” for the proposed project and means to avoid, minimize or off-set these emissions.

Response: In section 3.3.8.2, Air Quality, Environmental Effects, we estimated amount of CO2 that would occur during construction and operation of the project. In table 20 of the draft EIS, we supplied an estimated total emission during construction of about 28,247 tons of CO2. In table 22 in the draft EIS, we estimated about 102 tons of CO2 would be emitted during project maintenance during operation of the project. In table 23 of the draft EIS, we stated that the annual offset of emission by the proposed project is estimated at about 1,443,260 tons of CO2 as compared to a fossil fueled peaking generation facility of the same size. However, based on information provided in a comment letter from the State Water Board and information in the EIR, we have revised section 3.3.8.2, Air Quality, Environmental Effects, to indicate that the annual offset value would be 1,229,892 tons (1,115,751 metric tons).

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS CE 1 Comment: Kaiser states that a more robust analysis of cumulative air impacts is required. Particular care should be taken to analyze all air impacts of the project, particularly during construction along with the air impacts of other projects, including the air impacts of resumed mining.

A-105 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

Response: Because proposed solar projects would be located a substantial distance from the proposed Eagle Crest Project, we revised section 3.3.8.3, Air Quality and Noise, Cumulative Effects, to remove the cumulative effects of these projects. The solar projects are in various stages of the approval and design processes, but it is likely that most of these projects could be constructed before the hydroelectric project, based on current, but relatively speculative, information. We also removed the effects of constructing the proposed landfill because it would probably be constructed after the proposed Eagle Mountain Project. Further, because the issue of resuming large-scale iron ore mining is not planned, we did not analyze this issue in the EIS.

CE 2 Comment: Kaiser states that groundwater conjunctive use analysis is required. The Park Service states that the current cumulative effects discussion on water resources presents little or no information about the reasonably foreseeable projects that were considered. Both entities state that the cumulative effects analysis should be expanded to ensure that both supply and water quality would not be adversely affected in the long term.

Response: We revised section 3.3.2, Water Resources, to add information about effects on groundwater availability and quality, and, in particular, we have revised section 3.3.2.3, Cumulative Effects, to provide additional details about potential effects on water resources.

CE 3 Comment: The Sierra Club and Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley state that the cumulative impacts of the proposed Eagle Mountain Project and Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage (LEAPS) Project should be analyzed together because both projects would draw pumping power from the same sources and provide power to essentially the same load. The Sierra Club states that the Commission should consider LEAPS and the proposed Eagle Mountain Project as alternatives to each other and that the LEAPS Project should be included in the analysis for Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage.

Response: The Commission accepted the LEAPS Project application and issued the final EIS in January 2007, but thus far the project has not received a water quality certificate that is required for construction to begin. Furthermore, the LEAPS Project has some unique environmental issues that do not apply to the Eagle Mountain Project.

CE 4 Comment: The Park Service is concerned that this project, and others proposed for this area, will adversely affect the wilderness experience for visitors by adding substantial evidence of humans and their works within landscape view. Impacts of this proposal and currently structured mitigations and cumulative impacts of other development of any sort located near wilderness may adversely affect the wilderness experience for visitors and resource values dependent upon isolation. The Park Service requests identification reassessment of all potential effects on the congressionally

A-106 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

designated Wilderness in the final EIS. Kaiser states that the draft EIS incorrectly concludes that the impact on wilderness would be less than significant. Kaiser states that the landfill EIR concluded that impacts on wilderness from the landfill were significant, so this impact should be listed as an unavoidable adverse impact in the draft EIS.

Response: We did not use the words “less significant” in the draft EIS to describe the effects of the proposed project on a congressionally designated Wilderness. However, we recognize that the proposed project would introduce new features and uses into the existing landscape. As described in section 3.3.5.1, Recreation Land Use and Aesthetics, Affected Environment, the proposed central project facilities would occupy lands previously disturbed by decades of mining activity resulting in mountains of spoil piles terraced into straight forms that already conflict with the surrounding landscape. New facilities associated with the dams, spillways, transmission lines, brine ponds, and other features would be similar to existing facilities surrounding the mine in the town of Eagle Mountain. We recognize that the greatest difference would be the visual presence of water within the reservoirs; however, the presence of water is often perceived as a desirable visible feature, and the reservoirs would be visible only from the very sparsely visited section of the park from portions of the eastern Eagle Mountains. The construction and operation of the transmission lines would add linear features to the area, increasing the linear features already in place, which include the Colorado River Aqueduct and transmission lines, SCE transmission lines, and the rail lines and existing network of roads. The potential effects of these features and the potential cumulative effects associated with other proposed projects in the area are discussed throughout section 3.3.5.

As for conclusions in the landfill EIR, the proposed landfill project is a separate project with a separate set of operations that would contribute to the effects. Potential effects from that project, which would be different from the proposed project, include continual grading of the site with heavy machinery (e.g., bull dozers), regular train and truck traffic from off-loading the trash at the transfer area, and the potential for wind-blown trash to be distributed throughout the area. As analyzed in section 3.3.5, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, we determined the potential effects of constructing and operating a pumped storage hydroelectric project, including transmission lines and water conveyance systems, may result in limited effects on the wilderness values for visitors in the sparsely used far eastern portion of the park. The proposed utility scale solar projects in the Chuckwalla Valley have the potential to be more visible to park users as described in section 3.3.5.3, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, Cumulative Effects.

CE 5 Comment: The Park Service states that the sentence, “Although seeing project features and night lighting would contribute to the degradation of the values of solitude and night sky conditions, few people would be annually exposed to those conditions,” should be altered to read “Seeing project features and night lighting would contribute to the degradation of the values of solitude and night sky conditions for the visitors using that area.” The Park Service states that while the number of visitors who use that area is

A-107 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

unknown, those that do likely highly value the current night skies for their pristine qualities.

Response: As discussed in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics; Environmental Effects, we understand the Park Service’s concerns related to potential effects of night sky conditions from the additional security lighting proposed around the central project area of the proposed project. Concurrently, we must balance the proposed new features with the existing environment, which includes the largely inactive ore mine, as well as a few buildings and residences that are still occupied at the Eagle Mountain town site. We estimated that annually about 1,000 people might visit the far eastern area of the park and maybe 100 of them would climb high enough to see project features. Taken in isolation, the proposed project would likely contribute less nighttime light pollution than historical conditions that included the mining operations, the town of Eagle Mountain, and the state penitentiary because the proposed facilities require less lighting and the design and materials would be mitigated through collaborative study efforts. To address the degradation of night sky conditions from the other proposed projects (e.g., landfill, solar projects, and associated growth in the Chuckwalla Valley), we have added night sky degradation to the cumulative effects discussion in section 3.3.5.3, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, Cumulative Effects.

CE 6 Comment: Interior, the Center for Biological Diversity, and FWS state their concern that the draft EIS does not adequately address the proposed Eagle Mountain Project in the context of other connected projects, especially pertaining to cumulative impacts. Interior and the Center for Biological Diversity state that the draft EIS demonstrates direct conflict with the draft programmatic EIS for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States that was jointly produced by DOE and BLM, as well as six other EISs that were recently approved and currently are being finalized. BLM states that a closer review of draft programmatic EIS and nearby solar EISs pertaining to methodologies and reasonable foreseeable development scenarios would allow for a more consistent analysis so that cumulative effects can be more accurately presented in the final EIS. FWS recommends that additional coordination with other project applicants, BLM, and appropriate utilities and local jurisdictions to ensure transmission, for this and other proposed projects nearby, are consolidated to maximum extent possible to minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts in area. The Center for Biological Diversity, the Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley, and Johnney Coon also state that the cumulative effects, including effects from light pollution, of proposed 30,000 acres associated with proposed solar projects within the Chuckwalla Valley, plus an additional 200,000 acres proposed in the Solar PEIS, should be analyzed.

Response: We analyzed cumulative effects of the proposed projects in the Chuckwalla Valley in the draft EIS and expanded the cumulative effects analysis in the final EIS. In section 3.3.2.3, Water Resources, Cumulative Effects, we analyzed the effects on

A-108 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

groundwater and determined that future water use would be exceeded by recharge, but would result in only about a 1 percent decrease in the aquifer storage volume during a 50- year period. In section 3.3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, Cumulative Effects, we analyzed the effects on bighorn sheep and predators to the desert tortoise. We recommend measures to reduce the effects on bighorn sheep and recommend co-locating the transmission line and substation with the proposed facilities for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project would limit effects on and terrestrial resources and limit additional nesting habitat for ravens. In section 3.3.4.3, Threatened and Endangered Species, Cumulative Effects, we analyzed the effects on desert tortoises but found that in comparison to the effects of the proposed solar projects, effects of the project would be negligible. We have revised section 3.3.5.3, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics, Cumulative Effects to incorporate potential light pollution from other proposed projects. In section 3.3.8.3, Air Quality and Noise, Cumulative Effects, we determined that the construction of the solar projects would be at a distance that would limit the cumulative effects associated with their project construction and the timeline associated with the proposed landfill would occur later than the likely construction associated with the hydroelectric project.

CE 7 Comment: Interior states that project-related and cumulative effects from other projects in the area on wildlife movement and habitat connectivity should be addressed in appropriate section(s) of the draft EIS because the effects of this and adjacent solar energy projects may significantly impact movement and population (genetic) connectivity of desert tortoises and other species in project and surrounding areas.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, Cumulative Effects, to address this issue. We conclude the project would not impede wildlife movement of habitat connectivity because wildlife would be able to move past the linear features and around the reservoirs. Compared to the scale of disturbance associated with the large-scale solar projects, which would cover thousands of acres of open land, the project contribution to cumulative effects on wildlife habitat would be minimal.

CE 8 Comment: The Park Service states that, with respect to the discussion in section 3.2, it is concerned that the scope of the cumulative effects analysis is incomplete because several resource areas have been excluded from the cumulative effects analysis. Specifically, a cumulative effects analysis has not been conducted for geologic and soil resources, cultural resources, or socioeconomics. The Park Service believes there is nothing in the NEPA regulations that allows the lead federal agency in the preparation of an EIS to predetermine which resource areas are to be analyzed for potential cumulative impacts. This entity states that the Commission has selectively decided which resource areas to analyze based on its review of the license application materials and agency and public comments received for the project. It believes that the NEPA regulations specifically require it to analyze potential cumulative effects for all resource areas of concern, no matter how inconsequential the impacts initially may appear to the lead

A-109 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

agency or the public, and requests that the Commission evaluate and discuss the potential cumulative impacts associated with these neglected resource areas, unless it can be shown that the NEPA regulations grant such discretion. If it is shown that the regulations do allow such discretion, the Park Service requests that the current discussion be expanded to include a summary of the specific information that led the Commission to conclude that potential cumulative impacts on these particular resource areas would not be significant and therefore, required no further analysis.

Response: The NEPA regulations regarding scoping allow an agency to identify and eliminate from detailed study, issues that are not significant. As summarized in Scoping Document 2, after reviewing of the draft license application and the written and oral comments on Scoping Document 1, we identified the following resources that could be cumulatively affected by the proposed project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions: water resources, terrestrial resources (including federally listed threatened and endangered species), land use, recreation, and air quality. We analyzed the cumulative effects of all of these resources in the draft and final EIS. However during the preparation of the EIS, we determined that during the construction of the proposed project, there would be a temporary exceedance of the NOX levels as the result of emissions of construction equipment. With the progress and locations of other projects in the Chuckwalla Valley, we concluded that construction of the solar projects should be removed from cumulative actions due to their locations and distances from the proposed project, while construction of the Eagle Mountain landfill project should also be removed due to its time schedule (construction would probably not occur simultaneously with construction of the proposed project).

CE 9 Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity states that it is concerned that the Commission’s EIS did not include adequate information regarding the impacts on resources and the failure to fully examine the impact of the proposed project to the CDCA Plan along with other energy projects and their proposed plan amendments. It states that as a result of the current piecemeal process of energy projects, especially in the area of this proposed project site, approval of industrial sites appears to be on track, which will result in sprawl across the California desert generally, and the Chuckwalla Valley in particular, within habitat that should be protected to achieve the goals of the bioregional plan as a whole. The Center for Biological Diversity states that this approach maximizes (rather than minimizes) the indirect and cumulative impacts of each of the projects and will cause extensive habitat fragmentation.

Response: We respectfully disagree. The draft and final EIS include extensive analyses on resources that would be affected and cumulatively affected by the proposed project and other proposed projects such as the large solar facilities in the Chuckwalla Valley.

A-110 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

CE 10 Comment: The Citizens for Chuckwalla Valley states that the cumulative impact analysis should include the loss of rainfall recharge due to solar development, and the impacts that lack of percolation will have on groundwater.

Response: We have revised section 3.3.2.3, Water Resources, Cumulative Effects, to add information about the cumulative effects associated with the possible decrease of rainfall recharge.

A-111 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012

This page intentionally left blank.

A-112 20120130-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2012 Document Content(s) Eagle_Mountain_EIS _camera ready_1-27-12.PDF...... 1-502