Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Draft License Application Exhibit E, Volume 1, Public Information Palm Desert, California

Submitted to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Submitted by: Eagle Crest Energy Company

Table of Contents

1 General Description 1-1 1.1 Project Description 1-1 1.2 Project Area 1-2 1.2.1 Existing Land Use 1-4 1.3 Compatibility with Landfill Project 1-5 1.3.1 Land Exchange 1-5 1.3.2 Landfill Operations 1-6 1.3.3 Landfill Permitting 1-6 1.3.4 Compatibility of Specific Features 1-7 1.3.4.1 Potential Seepage Issues 1-8 1.3.4.2 Ancillary Facilities Interferences 1-9

2 Water Use and Quality 2-1 2.1 Surface Waters 2-1 2.1.1 Instream Flow Uses of Streams 2-1 2.1.2 Water quality of surface water 2-1 2.1.3 Existing lakes and reservoirs 2-1 2.1.4 Impacts of Construction and Operation 2-1 2.1.5 Measures recommended by Federal and state agencies to protect surface water 2-1 2.2 Description of Existing Groundwater 2-1 2.2.1 Springs and Wells 2-3 2.2.2 Water Bearing Formations 2-3 2.2.3 Hydraulic Characteristics 2-4 2.2.4 Groundwater Levels 2-5 2.2.5 Groundwater Flow Direction 2-6 2.2.6 Groundwater Storage 2-7 2.2.7 Groundwater Pumping 2-7 2.2.8 Recharge Sources 2-8 2.2.9 Outflow 2-9 2.2.10 Perennial Yield 2-9 2.3 Potential Impacts to Groundwater Supply 2-9 2.3.1 Proposed Project Water Supply 2-9 2.3.2 Perennial Yield 2-10 2.3.3 Regional Groundwater Level Effects 2-12 2.3.4 Local Groundwater Level Effects 2-15 2.3.5 Groundwater Flow Direct Effects 2-15 2.3.6 Subsidence Potential 2-15 2.3.7 Hydrocompaction Potential 2-16 2.3.8 Cumulative Projected Effects to Water Supply 2-16

2.4 Groundwater Quality 2-19 2.4.1 Description of Environment 2-19 2.4.1.1 Groundwater 2-19 2.4.1.2 Surface Water Resources 2-23 2.4.2 Potential Impacts to Water Quality 2-24 2.4.2.1 Groundwater Quality Effects 2-24 2.4.2.2 Surface Water Quality Effects 2-25 2.4.3 Existing or Proposed Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Activities 2-30 2.5 Summary Potential Groundwater Impacts 2-30 2.6 Groundwater Mitigation Measures 2-31 2.6.1 Higher Groundwater Levels 2-32 2.6.2 Lower Groundwater Levels 2-32 2.6.3 Subsidence 2-33 2.6.4 Loss of Facilities 2-33 2.7 Groundwater Mitigation Monitoring 2-33 2.8 Monitoring Network 2-33 2.8.1 Water Production 2-33 2.8.2 Water Levels and Quality 2-34 2.8.3 Subsidence 2-34

3 Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources 3-1 3.1 Fish and Aquatic Resources 3-1 3.2 Description of Existing Plant and Wildlife Communities 3-2 3.2.1 Plant Communities 3-2 3.2.2 Wildlife Communities 3-4 3.2.3 Recent Biological Surveys in the Project Area 3-4 3.3 Special-Status Species and Biological Resources 3-5 3.3.1 Listed Species in the Project Area 3-6 3.3.2 Non-Listed Special-Status Species 3-16 3.4 Special Habitats 3-16 3.4.1 Wetlands, Seeps and Springs, and Jurisdictional Waters 3-16 3.4.2 Artificial Water Impoundments 3-17 3.4.3 Other Special-Status Habitats in the Project Area 3-22 3.4.3.1 Desert Dry Wash Woodland 3-22 3.4.3.2 Sand Dunes 3-22 3.4.4 Other Biological Considerations in the Project Area 3-22 3.4.4.1 Biological Soil Crusts 3-22 3.4.4.2 Invasive Species 3-23 3.5 Potential Impacts to Biological Resources 3-23 3.5.1 General Potential Impacts to Biological Resources 3-23 3.5.2 Construction 3-24 3.5.3 Operation and Maintenance 3-25 3.5.4 Specific Potential Impacts to Biological Resources 3-26 3.5.2.1 Terrestrial Plants and Animals 3-26

3.5.4.1 Birds and Bats 3-26 3.5.4.2 Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species 3-27 3.5.4.3 Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters 3-27 3.6 Recommended Mitigation Measures 3-27 3.6.1 General Mitigation Measures 3-27 3.6.2 Species-Specific Mitigation Measures 3-29 3.6.2.1 Special-Status Plants 3-29 3.6.2.2 Special-Status Animals 3-30 3.6.2.3 Special-status Species 3-30 3.6.2.4 Special-status Natural Communities 3-35

4 Historic and Archaeological Resources 4-1 4.1 Discovery Measures Recommended by State and Federal Agencies 4-1 4.1.1 Statement of applicants position on these recommendations 4-1 4.2 Results of inventories 4-1 4.2.1 Methods 4-1 4.2.2 Previous Reports 4-2 4.2.3 Explanation of variations from survey procedures recommended 4-7 4.3 Historic and archeological sites in the Project Area 4-7 4.3.1 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources 4-7 4.3.2 Prehistoric Cultural Resources 4-13 4.3.3 Historic Cultural Resources 4-16 4.4 Direct or Indirect Impacts of Project 4-18 4.5 Management Plan 4-19 4.5.1 Schedule and Cost for Implementing Mitigation 4-20 4.5.2 Sources and Extent of Financing 4-20

5 Socio-Economic Impacts 5-1 5.1 Description of the Study Area 5-1 5.2 Identification of the Area Potentially Impacted by the Project 5-2 5.3 Description of Study Area Demographics 5-2 5.3.1 Population Size and Growth Trends 5-2 5.3.2 Urban and Rural Distribution 5-4 5.3.3 Distribution of Residents by Age and Sex 5-5 5.3.4 Distribution of Residents by Race 5-7 5.3.5 Education 5-7 5.3.6 Citizenship and Birthplace 5-7 5.3.7 Language Spoken 5-7 5.3.8 Housing Characteristics 5-8 5.3.9 Housing Costs 5-8 5.3.10 Household Income 5-8 5.3.11 Commuting to Work 5-8 5.4 Summary of Study Area Employment and Income 5-9 5.4.1 Employment 5-9 5.4.2 Wages and Income 5-10 5.4.3 County Sales Tax 5-12

5.5 Description of Study Area Activity 5-12 5.5.1 Agricultural Sector 5-12 5.5.2 Mining Sector 5-12 5.5.3 Construction Sector 5-13 5.5.4 Manufacturing Sector 5-13 5.5.5 Trade, Transportation and Public Utilities Sector 5-13 5.5.6 Service Sector 5-13 5.5.7 Government Sector 5-13 5.6 Description of Study Area Infrastructure 5-14 5.6.1 Accommodations 5-14 5.6.1.1 Housing 5-14 5.6.1.2 Temporary Accommodations 5-14 5.6.1.3 Community and Social Services 5-15 5.6.1.4 Municipal Services 5-15 5.6.1.5 Emergency Services 5-16 5.6.1.6 Transportation Systems 5-16 5.7 Project Impacts During Construction 5-17 5.7.1 Onsite Employment and Labor Income 5-17 5.7.2 Impacts on Community Infrastructure 5-22 5.7.3 Impacts on Adjacent Properties 5-23 5.7.4 Impacts on Local Government Finances 5-23 5.7.4.1 Costs 5-23 5.7.4.2 Revenues 5-23 5.7.5 Indirect and Induced Impacts of Project Construction 5-24 5.8 Impacts During Operating Phase 5-24 5.8.1 Direct Employment and Labor Income 5-24 5.8.2 Purchases of Materials 5-25 5.8.3 Impacts on Local Government Finances 5-25 5.8.4 Indirect and Induced Impacts on Ongoing Expenditures 5-25 5.9 Displacement of Residences and Business Establishments 5-25

6 Geological and Soil Resources 6-1 6.1 Description of geological features 6-1 6.1.1 General Geologic Setting 6-1 6.1.2 Project Area Geology 6-2 6.1.2.1 Formational Rock Stratigraphy 6-2 6.1.2.2 Surficial Deposits 6-4 6.1.2.3 Geologic Structures 6-6 6.1.2.4 Mineral Resources 6-7 6.2 Description of soils 6-8 6.2.1 Soil Resources 6-8 6.2.1.1 Proposed Generating Facility Area 6-8 6.2.1.2 Water Supply Corridor 6-9 6.2.1.3 Transmission Line Corridor 6-10 6.3 Description of existing and potential geological and soil hazards 6-10

6.3.1 Earthquakes and Faults 6-10 6.3.1.1 Regional Faults 6-10 6.3.1.2 Regional Seismicity 6-13 6.3.1.3 Local Faulting 6-17 6.3.2 Reservoir Seepage 6-17 6.3.3 Ground Subsidence 6-18 6.3.4 Active and Inactive Mines 6-18 6.4 Erosion, mass soil movement and other impacts on the geological and soil resources 6-19 6.4.1 Soil Erosion 6-19 6.4.2 Landslides and Mass Movements 6-19 6.5 Proposed measures or facilities for the mitigation of impacts on soils and geology. 6-19 6.5.1 Mineral Resources 6-19 6.5.2 Earthquakes and Faults 6-19 6.5.3 Reservoir Seepage 6-19 6.5.4 Ground Subsidence 6-21 6.5.5 Active and Inactive Mines 6-21 6.5.6 Soil Erosion 6-21 6.5.7 Landslides and Mass Movements 6-21

7 Recreational Resources 7-1 7.1 Regional Recreation Setting 7-1 7.2 Nationally Designated Areas 7-1 7.3 Existing Recreational Resources and Use in the Project Vicinity 7-2 7.4 Project Impacts on Existing and Planned Recreation Resources 7-4 7.5 Recreation Plan 7-5 7.6 Agency Recommendations 7-5

8 Aesthetic Resources 8-1 8.1 Introduction 8-1 8.1.1 Project Background 8-1 8.1.2 Assessment Approach 8-1 8.2 Aesthetic Character of Project Area 8-2 8.2.1 Regional Landscape Setting 8-2 8.2.2 Scenic Quality Assessment 8-2 8.2.2.1 Central Project Area 8-2 8.2.2.2 Transmission Corridor 8-3 8.2.3 Visual Sensitivity Analysis and Key Observation Points 8-4 8.2.3.1 Joshua Tree National Park 8-4 8.2.3.2 Residential/Commercial Areas (Townsite, Lake Tamarisk, Desert Center) 8-4 8.2.3.3 Travel Routes 8-5 8.2.4 Visual Resource Classifications of Project Area 8-5 8.2.4.1 VRM Class I 8-5

8.2.4.2 VRM Class II 8-5 8.2.4.3 VRM Class III 8-6 8.2.4.4 VRM Class IV 8-6 8.3 Description of Potential Aesthetic Resource Impacts 8-6 8.3.1 Central Project Site 8-6 8.3.2 Transmission Corridor 8-7 8.3.3 Colorado River Substation 8-8 8.3.4 Water Pipeline Corridor 8-8 8.3.5 Summary of Aesthetic Resource Impacts 8-8 8.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures 8-8

9 Land Use 9-1 9.1 Project Setting 9-1 9.2 Description of Project Area Land Uses 9-1 9.2.1 Town of Eagle Mountain 9-2 9.2.2 Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center Communities 9-2 9.2.3 Roads, Utilities, and Miscellaneous Facilities 9-2 9.2.4 Agricultural Areas 9-3 9.2.5 Joshua Tree National Park and Wilderness 9-3 9.2.6 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 9-3 9.3 Description of Project Boundary Land Uses and Ownership 9-4 9.3.1 Central Project Site 9-4 9.3.2 Water Pipeline Corridor 9-5 9.3.3 Transmission Line Corridor 9-5 9.4 Coordination with Relevant Land Use Plans, Policies and Proposed Projects 9-6 9.4.1 CDCA Plan and BLM Land Management Classifications 9-6 9.4.2 Landfill Project - Riverside County Eagle Mountain Policy Area 9-7 9.4.3 Riverside County 9-7 9.4.4 Joshua Tree National Park and Wilderness 9-8 9.4.5 CVMSHC Plan 9-8 9.4.6 Area Alternative Energy and Transmission Line Projects 9-8 9.5 Proposed Land Use Changes 9-9 9.5.1 Central Project Site 9-9 9.5.2 Transmission Line Corridor 9-11 9.5.3 Water Pipeline Corridor 9-11 9.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures 9-12

10 Alternative Locations, Designs, and Energy Sources 10-1 10.1 Pumped Storage Location Alternatives 10-1 10.2 Alternative Facility Designs, Processes, and Operations 10-2 10.2.1 Transmission Alternatives 10-2 10.2.2 Water Supply Alternatives 10-3 10.2.3 Powerhouse Location 10-3 10.3 Alternative electrical energy sources 10-4 10.4 The overall consequences if the license application is denied 10-4

11 List of Literature 11-1

12 Documentation of Consultation 12-1 12.1 Description of consultation process 12-1 12.1.1 Preparation of the Pre-application Document 12-1 12.1.2 Request to use Traditional Licensing Process 12-2 12.1.3 Joint meeting and site visit 12-2 12.2 Letters from agencies, Indian tribes, and public 12-4 12.2.1 Letters received during comment period ending June 9, 2008 12-4 12.2.2 Response to comments and requests for studies 12-4 12.3 Remaining disagreements 12-11 12.4 Compliance with comprehensive plans 12-11 12.4.1 FERC Approved Plans 12-11 12.4.2 Other Comprehensive Plans 12-13 12.5 Consultation List 12-16

13 Appendix A – Details of Sensitive Species 13-1 13.1 Plants 13-1 13.2 Invertebrates 13-6 13.3 Amphibians 13-6 13.4 Reptiles 13-7 13.5 Birds 13-8 13.6 Mammals 13-12

14 Appendix B- Species List 14-1

Tables Table 1-1. Landfill Phasing 1-6 Table 2-1. Alluvial Aquifer Characteristics in the Eagle Mountain Area 2-5 Table 2-2. Chuckwalla Valley Agricultural Water Use Summary 2-8 Table 2-3. Estimated Overdraft in A-F/Yr for 1981 to 1986 – Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin 2-10 Table 2-4. Groundwater Balance 2-11 Table 2-5. Palo Verde Mesa Outflow Estimates – At Maximum Overdraft 2-13 Table 2-6. Pinto Basin Outflow Estimates 2-14 Table 2-7. Estimated Effects on Storage in Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin 2-17 Table 2-8. Upper Chuckwalla and Palen Valley Groundwater Quality 2-20 Table 2-9. Potential beneficial uses that could apply to surface water and groundwater resources in Region 7 (RWQCB, 2007a) 2-21 Table 2-10. Springs located in the Northwest Chuckwalla Valley 2-22 Table 2-11. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 7 (CRWQCB, 2007a) and EPA numeric standards for inorganic

chemical constituents that apply to waters designated for domestic or municipal supply use 2-23 Table 2-12: Results of 1993 geochemical analyses. Bolded values exceed domestic or municipal supply MCLs 2-29 Table 3-1. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Potential for Special- Status Species1 3-7 Table 3-2. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Results of Spring 2008 Surveys for Special-Status Species 3-13 Table 3-3. Wells Investigated in the Project Area During Spring 2008 Surveys 3-19 Table 4-1. Previous Cultural Resource Studies in or near the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Transmission Line Project Area 4-3 Table 4-2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resource in or near the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Transmission Line Project Area 4-7 Table 4-3. Previously Recorded Prehistoric Sites, by Generalized Types 4-14 Table 4-4. Previously Recorded Historic Sites, by Generalized Types 4-18 Table 5-1. Population 5-3 Table 5-2. Riverside County Population Analysis 5-4 Table 5-3. Riverside County Population Age Analysis 5-6 Table 5-4. Race Distribution 5-7 Table 5-5. Riverside County Projection 5-9 Table 5-6. Riverside County’s Largest Employers 5-10 Table 5-7. Income Characteristics 5-11 Table 5-8. Income Measure By Family – Riverside County 5-11 Table 5-9. Yearly Wages Paid By Industry – Riverside County 5-11 Table 5-10. Riverside County Employment Analysis 5-12 Table 5-11. Housing Accommodations and Characteristics 5-14 Table 5-12. Educational Attainment 5-15 Table 5-13. Employment Projections By Year 5-18 Table 5-14. Employment Projections Total 5-21 Table 6-1. Significant Seismic Sources Within 100 km of the Eagle Mountain Site 6-12 Table 6-2. Fault Parameters and Established Ground Motions Eagle Mountain Project 6-15 Table 6-3. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 6-16 Table 7-1 Summary of Recreational Facilities in Project Vicinity 7-3 Table 8-1. Applicant Proposed Visual Resource Mitigation Measures 8-9 Table 12-1. List of Studies Identified by ECE in the PAD, and Their Status 12-4 Table 12-2. ECE Response Summary 12-6 Table 12-3. Comments Received by June 9, 2008 on the Pre-application Document 12-7 Table 12-4. Consultation List, Email Addresses 12-16

Table 12-5. Consultation List, Street Addresses 12-20

J:\Eagle Crest Energy\Project\080470 License Application\Exhibit E drafts\Exhibit E 080612-xtal ggg.doc

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AF acre-feet AFY afre-feet per year AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department APE area of potential effect BLM United States Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practices CAISO California Independent System Operator CDCA California Desert Conservation Area CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDNPA California Desert Native Plants Act CEII Critical Energy Infrastructure Information CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act cfs cubic feet per second CHU critical habitat unit CNPS California Native Plant Society Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers CRA Colorado River Aqueduct CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments DSOD California Division of Safety of Dams DTC Desert Training Center DWMA Desert Wildlife Management Areas DWR California Department of Water Resources

EIC Eastern Information Center California ECE Eagle Crest Energy Company El. Elevation FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FOIA Freedom of Information Act gpm gallons per minute GWh gigawatt hour IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals I/O Inlet/Outlet ILP Integrated Licensing Process ISO Independent System Operator JOTR Joshua Tree National Park Kaiser Kaiser Steel Corporation KOPs key observation points MCE maximum credible earthquake MCL maximum contaminant level MGD million gallons per day Mg/L milligrams per liter msl mean sea level MUC multiple use class MW megawatt MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWh megawatt hour NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NECO Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGA next generation attenuation NOI Notice of Intent NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OHV off-highway vehicle PAD Pre-Application Document PGA peak ground acceleration PMF probable maximum flood PPM parts per million Project Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project PV-D SCE Palo Verde-to-Devers RCC roller-compacted concrete RO reverse osmosis ROD Record of Decision SCE Southern California Edison SMARA California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TBM tunnel boring machine TDS total dissolved solids TLP Traditional Licensing Process USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WBWG Western Bat Working Group WHMA Wildlife Habitat Management Area WUS Waters of the United States ybp years before present

1 General Description

1.1 Project Description The Eagle Crest Energy Company proposes to develop the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project near the town of Eagle Mountain in Riverside County, California (Figure E.1-1). The proposed project is a hydroelectric pumped storage project that will provide system peaking capacity and system regulating benefits to southwestern electric utilities. Unlike most hydroelectric projects, this project will involve no existing rivers or streams, hence no aquatic impacts to native stream or lake environments. The project will require initial filling and replenishing of evaporative losses and these sources will be groundwater or contracted water transferred to the site using the Metropolitan Water District’s canal system, or both sources.

The Project will use off-peak energy to pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir during periods of low electrical demand and generate valuable peak energy by passing the water from the upper to the lower reservoir through the 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. The Project will provide an economical supply of peaking capacity, as well as load following, electrical system regulation through spinning reserve, and immediately available standby generating capacity. These latter benefits are expected to increase stability of the electrical system and provide improved reliability.

The Project will have 1300 MW of generating capacity, using reversible pump-turbine units, four units of 325 MW each. The project reservoirs will be formed by filling existing mining pits with water. The mining pits are currently empty and unused (Figure E.1-2). There is an elevation difference between the reservoirs that will provide an average net head of 1410 feet. The proposed energy storage volume will permit operation of the Project at full capacity for 9 hours each weekday, with 8 hours of pumping each weekday night and additional pumping during the weekend to fully recharge the upper reservoir. The amount of active storage in the upper reservoir will be 17,700 acre-feet, providing 18.5 hours of energy storage at the maximum generating discharge. Water stored in the upper reservoir will provide approximately 22,200 megawatt hours (MWh) of on-peak generation. Tunnels will connect the two reservoirs to convey the water and the generating equipment will be located in an underground powerhouse. Thus much of the project will be invisible from the ground surface. A 500 kV transmission line proposed along or adjacent to existing rights of way for other transmission lines will convey power to and from the Project through the proposed Southern California Edison (SCE) Colorado River substation to be located near Blythe,

California. Other transmission connection upgrades may be necessary to service nearby markets. These markets will be investigated during the upcoming system analysis performed by Southern California Edison and the California Independent System Operators (CAISO).

As noted above, the Project will be located off-stream. Neither the upper nor lower reservoirs will be located on a surface water course. The reservoirs will receive only incidental runoff from small surrounding tributary runoff areas. Water to initially fill the reservoirs (24,200 acre-feet) and annual make-up water (2,300 acre-feet) will either be pumped from groundwater within the Chuckwalla Valley or will be purchased from outside the basin and transferred to the project through the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA). If the groundwater source is used, the applicant proposes to utilize either existing wells or new wells to be installed within or adjacent to a central collection pipeline corridor. The proposed conceptual locations of the wells and the proposed water pipeline corridors are shown on Figure E.1-3.

Currently, site access is planned to be provided by Kaiser Road, a public county road, to the entrance of property owned and leased from Kaiser Ventures Inc.

Plans are currently being developed by Mine Reclamation Corporation (MRC), a division of Kaiser Ventures Inc., to use portions of the inactive mine site for a major landfill serving the Southern California urban areas. The pumped storage project has been formulated with the assumption that the landfill will exist as proposed by the landfill developers. The landfill and pumped storage are compatible in that neither would materially interfere with the construction or operation of the other. A detailed description of the compatibility of the landfill and the pumped storage project is found in Section 1.3.

The characteristics and description of the major features of the Project are described in Exhibit A. The layout, dimensions, equipment characteristics, and ratings may change during the detailed design phase of the Project. However, any such changes are not expected to have a material impact upon the concept of the Project nor upon the environmental impacts that will result from its construction and operation.

1.2 Project Area The Project 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, approximately 2.8 to 5.4 inches per year (Turner and Brown, 1982). Winter temperatures average approximately 54°F (Turner and Brown, 1982) and summer temperatures are extreme, commonly reaching 110+°F for long periods. This period of extremely warm weather is also lengthy, extending from mid-spring through the fall.

The project is located at the edge of the Eagle Mountains. Gently sloping to undulating bajadas and valleys are found in the area of the proposed linear features (water pipeline and transmission line). Elevations range from approximately 400 to 2500 feet.

There are no perennial streams in the Project vicinity. No natural wetlands occur in the Project vicinity. Drainages in this part of Riverside County are generally limited to high- energy runoff via washes that are usually dry. As water from these runoffs quickly percolates into the surrounding soil, the establishment of wetland vegetation is precluded.

There are several highly disturbed habitats in the Project area. The reservoirs are proposed to be constructed in inactive mining pits from the Eagle Mountain Mine (Figure E.1-4). Eagle Mountain Mine was operated by Kaiser Steel Corporation from 1948-1982 for the mining and concentrating of iron ore through excavation of four open pits located on the property (Kaiser Steel Resources, 1990). In Chuckwalla Valley, the Project intersects several abandoned jojoba farms and a few active agricultural parcels (jojoba and asparagus farms).

Common wildlife species in this region are adapted to arid conditions and/or are migratory. In the habitats intersecting the Project, taxa include ungulates, small and midsized mammals, birds, reptiles, and invertebrates.

Soils generally range from soft sand to coarse-sandy 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 pavement is intermittently present in the immediate area of the Central Project Site.

Three basic native plant communities (after Holland, 1986) are intersected by the Project. The reservoir area of the Central Project Site is largely heavily disturbed by prior mining activities, but is bordered by Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub (County of Riverside and UBLM, 1996). A typical view of the project area in the Chuckwalla Valley near the proposed transmission corridor is shown in Figure E.1-5. From the reservoir area east, the plant community is characterized by variations of Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub. Throughout Chuckwalla Valley and in bajadas to the east, the Project also intersects broad plains of contiguous to intermittent, arboreal washes (Desert Dry Wash Woodland). From the Colorado River Substation west to about three miles west of Wiley Well Road is Stabilized and Partially Stabilized Dunes, dominated by creosote bush, galleta grass, and white bursage.

1.2.1 Existing Land Use The project site lies almost entirely within the Eagle Mountain Mine, an idle iron ore mine encompassing approximately 4,700 acres in eastern Riverside County. Mining operations were suspended in 1982, and although Kaiser Steel maintains a management office at Eagle Mountain, ore crushing and concentrating facilities have been dismantled for salvage, mining equipment sold and infrastructure required to support mining activity essentially abandoned in 1986 when mining activity ceased.

The Eagle Mountain Mine is located south and east of the Joshua Tree National Monument (JTNM). The project site is located about one and one-half miles from the closest JTNM boundary. The JTNM encompasses approximately 558,000 acres of land of which 467,000 have been designated wilderness. The JTNM attracts over 1 million visitors annually.

The Town of Eagle Mountain is a 460-acre townsite, fenced with controlled access, is owned by Kaiser Steel Resources (Figure E.1-6). It is located adjacent to the project site, and while access to the project site goes through the townsite, it is not considered to be part of the project. The town was developed by Kaiser to house mine workers and consists of 250 single-family dwellings, a store, café, two churches, a school, and a post office, among other features. After the mine closed the town became largely vacant. A State-run correctional facility utilized some of the features, but has since been relocated. The townsite is fenced with controlled access and is currently vacant. The townsite is serviced by public utilities, and a wastewater treatment plant is located southeast of the town. A landing strip, granted to Metropolitan Water District under a fee right-of-way in 1990, is located adjacent to the townsite to the southeast.

The townsite and the mine are accessed by Kaiser Road, a two-lane county maintained roadway. Numerous dirt roads intersect Kaiser Road, leading to scattered residences and agricultural fields. Agricultural activities near the project site include irrigated cropland producing primarily jojoba and asparagus. These crops are irrigated by pumping groundwater within the Chuckwalla Valley. None of the area is mapped as Important Farmland by the State Department of Conservation.

Two other small communities of Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center are located approximately nine and ten miles southeast of the central project area. Lake Tamarisk consists of approximately 70 single family dwellings, an executive golf course, a recreational vehicle park, 150 undeveloped lots, and two small lakes.

Desert Center is located at the junction of Interstate 10 and State Route 177. Desert Center consists of a few small single-family dwellings, a mini-market, café, and bar. The community included gas stations at one time, but they are now closed. Public facilities include a county fire station, branch library, post office, and several churches.

Both communities, as well as the Eagle Mountain Townsite are accessed by Kaiser Road, which connects to Interstate 10 at Desert Center.

Numerous transmission lines and service roads crisscross 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 mine site as an open channel before passing into a tunnel to the MWD Eagle Mountain pumping facility south of the Eagle Mountain townsite.

1.3 Compatibility with Landfill Project An issue raised by one intervener, Kaiser Eagle Mountain, Inc. (Kaiser), is that the proposed Eagle Mountain pumped storage project may conflict with Kaiser’s plans to operate a long- term municipal landfill on substantial portions of the previously mined lands. Plans for the Eagle Mountain Landfill have been developed by Mine Reclamation Corporation and others to use portions of the previous Eagle Mountain mine site for a landfill serving the Southern California urban areas. The Eagle Mountain pumped storage project has been formulated with the assumption that the landfill will exist, as currently proposed by the landfill developers. As described below, the landfill and pumped storage projects are compatible in that neither would materially interfere with the construction or operation of the other.

1.3.1 Land Exchange One component of the landfill proposal was an exchange of lands between Kaiser and the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). On September 25, 1997, BLM issued a Record of Decision approving the land exchange between itself and Kaiser, which was appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”). On September 20, 1999 the IBLA issued an order denying the appeal and affirming the land exchange. This decision was subsequently appealed to District Court who decided that “The subject land exchange and grants of rights of way and reversionary interest are set aside and the Defendants are enjoined from engaging in any action that would change the character and use of the exchanged properties…” until they complied with the changes requested by the decision. Donna Charpied et al., v. United States Dept. of Interior et al., ED CV99-0454 RT (Mcx) (Sept. 20, 2005); Nat’l Parks and Conservation Assoc., v. Bureau of Land Mgmt, et al., ED CV 00-0041 RT (Mcx) (Sept. 20, 2005).

This case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and oral argument was heard on December 6, 2007. To date, there has been no decision on this case. Consequently, until the Ninth Circuit issues a decision, the owners have no property rights to proceed with construction on the landfill. Depending on the decision, further proceedings may be required prior to any land exchange.

Permitting for the landfill is contingent upon Kaiser being the fee owner of the property (See Development Agreement No. 64 Section 2.2; California Integrated Waste Management

Board resolution 1999-624 (revised); and California Integrated Waste Management Board, Board Meeting Summary December 14-15, 1999). Therefore, until the land exchange is effectuated, the landfill is not a formally permitted operation.

1.3.2 Landfill Operations In the event that the land exchange is confirmed and all the necessary landfill permits are issued, construction of the landfill could commence. The landfill is designed to be constructed in five phases over a period of many decades. Construction and operation of each phase of the landfill is designed to progress from west to east. During the first four phases, no overlap occurs between the landfill disposal areas and lands required for the proposed pumped storage project. The pumped storage project will use the Central and East Pits to store water, areas that are not proposed to be used during Phases 1-4 of the landfill. The powerhouse and water conveyance tunnels will be underground and will not affect the landfill.

Phase 5 of the landfill – expected to commence in about year 84 of operations – does include overlapping uses in the vicinity of the East Pit which would form the lower reservoir for the pumped storage project (Figure E.1-7). It is important to this discussion to note that the landfill was approved by Riverside County for a 50-year operation, and Phase 5 is not a part of the County approved landfill project. Likewise, the FERC license for the pumped-storage project would only be granted for 50-years, so that this perceived question of conflict between the two projects in year 84 of the landfill operations appears to be a moot point. It should also be understood that the landfill has not begun operations and does not expect to for a decade or more even if all approvals are secured, so the actual timing of a possible conflict between the two projects would occur only if both projects were still in operation nearly a century from now.

1.3.3 Landfill Permitting The Solid Waste Facility Permit for the Eagle Mountain Landfill (Permit 33-AA-0228, issued January 14, 2000) specifically approved Phases 1 – 4 of the landfill, with 1,864 acres for disposal (Table 1-1). Phase 5 of the landfill was not included in this permit.

Table 1-1. Landfill Phasing Phase Life Span Acres Net Waste Volume (million (years) tons)

1 23 319 83

2 11 312 71

3 31 703 195

Phase Life Span Acres Net Waste Volume (million (years) tons)

4 19 534 121

Total 84 1868 470

(Phases 1 – 4)

Phase 5 39 239 238

Sources: Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center EIS/EIR and California Integrated Waste Management Board, Board Meeting Summary December 14-15, 1999.

Riverside County approved Development Agreement No. 64 with Mine Reclamation Corporation, and others, for development of the Eagle Mountain Landfill. This development agreement (Section 2.3.1) states that, “in no event that the term of this Agreement be extended … beyond November 30, 2088.” Therefore, the development agreement only allows for development of Phases 1 – 4. Phase 5 would not be scheduled to occur until after Development Agreement No. 64 expires.

Mine Reclamation’s lease of the landfill site from Kaiser Eagle Mountain, Inc. expires in 2088, prior to the time when Phase 5 would be scheduled for development. Therefore, landfill use of the East Pit is proposed only in a future, and speculative phase, which is not currently permitted.

The pumped storage project’s use of the East Pit does not exclude the East Pit’s use as a landfill in perpetuity. In the event that, at some future date many decades from now, decision-makers determine that the landfill use of the East Pit has greater value than the pumped storage project use of the East Pit, the water could be drained and the East Pit used as a component of the landfill.

1.3.4 Compatibility of Specific Features If both of the projects are constructed, there will be a number of potential compatibility or interference issues that will need to be addressed during the design and construction phases for both projects. For purposes of illustration of these issues and possible mitigation measures, we have assumed that the pumped-storage project will be constructed before the landfill project and that these measures to maintain compatibility of the two projects will be implemented by ECE rather than the landfill developer. The assumption that the pumped- storage project will be constructed before the landfill project appears to be reasonable based on our understanding of the landfill needs in Southern California and the current landfill implementation schedule.

1.3.4.1 Potential Seepage Issues The pumped-storage project will involve storing water in the central and east mine pits and moving water between the two reservoirs through underground tunnels to generate power and to refill storage in the upper reservoir (east pit). Seepage from the upper reservoir and from the water conveyance tunnels could potentially impact the landfill.

Studies by GeoSyntec (1996) indicate that the natural groundwater flow is initially to the south from the area of the central pit. Those studies also indicated that because of fractures in the bedrock, seepage will occur, particularly if the reservoir is not treated to control the rate of seepage. Therefore, the proposed pumped-storage operations may artificially raise groundwater levels in this local area. In the case of consistently high reservoir levels and efficient interconnectivity of bedrock fractures to the south, there is likelihood that this groundwater could exit on the hillside south of the upper reservoir rather than staying beneath the existing ground surface and the landfill. With the landfill proposed to be constructed south (down-gradient) of the upper reservoir, this groundwater could potentially encounter the lining of the landfill.

The potential and timing for groundwater to migrate to the southern slope is dependant on the local hydraulic conductivity of the rock and project operations. Assuming a hydraulic conductivity of 650 feet per mile, suggested by GeoSyntec’s earlier work, it appears that seepage could intersect the southern slope under long-term steady-state assumptions. The fact that the reservoir will be filled and drained on a weekly basis will have a dampening effect on the rate of seepage.

The following mitigation measures will be undertaken to determine the actual potential for seepage and to control its rate from the upper reservoir:

• The upper reservoir (east pit) will be thoroughly investigated during final design of the pumped-storage project to identify a program for seepage control. This investigation will include geologic mapping to identify the locations and extent of faults, cracks, fractures, and discontinuities in the rock formations and subsurface explorations to characterize the hydraulic conductivity of the rock formations. The mapping will identify locations that will tend to be the areas where seepage into the bedrock will be most pronounced. A seepage model will then be developed to characterize the flow patterns and potential seepage rates through the bedrock with the upper reservoir at its maximum normal pool (El. 2,485). • Based on the above studies, a seepage mitigation program will be developed. This program is likely to include: o Curtain grouting beneath the footprints of the two upper reservoir dams. (Foundation grouting typically is performed for dam safety reasons as a means of uplift control). o Grouting and/or shotcrete treatment of the surface features identified in the reservoir as likely locations for seepage to concentrate.

o Installation of monitoring wells and piezometers so that seepage amounts and flow patterns can be understood and addressed as necessary over the long term. o Installation of seepage recovery well(s) to capture seepage and prevent significant quantities of water from encountering the landfill liner. o Other measures, such as use of impervious blanketing on portions of the reservoir bottom and sides, may also be used depending on results of detailed studies during design.

Portions of the tunnels and shaft of the pumped-storage project will experience very high water pressures. Current plans are based on lining of the tunnels with concrete, and in some locations steel liners will be installed. This was assumed primarily for hydraulic efficiency reasons. However, these liners will effectively block seepage from occurring. During final design, further field studies will be performed to determine whether lining of the tunnels is required to control seepage. If not, tunnel lining may not be performed throughout the entire project.

1.3.4.2 Ancillary Facilities Interferences Both projects will include a number of ancillary facilities (roads, fences, drainage, storage areas, etc.) required for construction and/or permanent use. As shown on Figures E.1-7 and E.1-8, the primary locations of potential concern are likely to be:

In the southeastern portion of the landfill development where the proposed powerhouse access tunnel portal, switchyard, and R.O. facility of the pumped-storage project currently coincide with a proposed equipment washing and repair/maintenance facility of the landfill. At the northeast corner of the landfill facility area where the currently proposed staging and storage area for the pumped-storage project coincides with the railroad siding for the landfill. Along the center of the proposed landfill facility area where the R.O. brine line appears to overlap temporary haul roads and crosses an existing road that will be used by the landfill.

Existing roads in the vicinity of the upper reservoir and along the northeastern edge of the lower reservoir appear to require realignment to accommodate the pumped-storage development. ECE has included roads needed for the Project in the project boundary. However, ECE will make provision for the landfill to use roads in the Project boundary as needed for their operation.

We believe that the potential interferences between the two projects are minor and can be readily addressed as plans for both projects proceed through final design. ECE has the ability to adjust the location of certain facilities, identified above, to accommodate the landfill and not encumber landfill development plans.

The landfill site will be very active in terms of large truck and machinery traffic during operation, whereas the pumped-storage facilities will only require infrequent access by large equipment and truck for maintenance once construction is completed. Normal traffic to and from the pumped-storage facilities will be smaller vehicles to the access tunnel portal and to the upper and lower reservoir intake/outlet facilities. If both projects are constructed at the same time – which does not appear to be likely, it will be necessary to develop a detailed plan for managing the flow of construction traffic.

2 Water Use and Quality

2.1 Surface Waters

2.1.1 Instream Flow Uses of Streams There are no streams in the project area, therefore there are no instream flow uses that would be affected by the construction and operation of the project. No water will be discharged from the proposed project. Project waters will not be used for irrigation, domestic water supply, industrial or any other purpose other than power generation. The Project proposes to be established as a closed system where the working fluid will be re-used for power generation, and replenished as necessary to replace losses to evaporation and seepage.

2.1.2 Water quality of surface water There are no surface waters in the project area other than small springs fed by groundwater in the surrounding mountains. Quality of the groundwater in the project area is discussed in the following sections.

2.1.3 Existing lakes and reservoirs There are no existing lakes or reservoirs in the project area. The project proposes to create reservoirs in existing mining pits. The anticipated water quality of the newly created reservoirs is discussed in the following sections.

2.1.4 Impacts of Construction and Operation Springs that are fed by groundwater in the Eagle Mountains appear hydrologically disconnected to the Pinto or Chuckwalla Valley basin aquifers since they are located in the mountains above the Pinto and Chuckwalla basins. Rather, they appear to be fed by local groundwater systems that would be unaffected by the proposed project (NPS, 1994). Therefore, construction and operation of the Project will have no impact on existing surface water.

2.1.5 Measures recommended by Federal and state agencies to protect surface water No specific measures have been recommended by any state or Federal agency for protection of water quality or stream flows.

2.2 Description of Existing Groundwater The Project site is located in the Eagle Mountains on a bedrock ridge along the northwestern margins of the Chuckwalla watershed which extends across portions of Riverside and Imperial

counties. The central portions of the watershed contain the Palen and Chuckwalla Valleys, with thick accumulations of alluvial sediments that comprise the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin (DWR, 2003). Most domestic and agricultural areas are located in the western portions of the basin near Desert Center, about three miles south of the Project site. This area has been historically referred to as the Upper Chuckwalla Valley. In the Lower Chuckwalla Valley, there is a large agricultural area of palm and citrus near the Corn Springs Exit off Interstate 10 and the Chuckwalla Valley and Ironwood State prisons 30 miles east of Desert Center.

There are five groundwater basins surrounding the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin. North of the Upper Chuckwalla Valley watershed is the Pinto Valley groundwater basin and north of the Palen Valley is the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin. To the west is the Orocopia Valley groundwater basin, which contains Hayfield Valley. About 45 miles east of the project site are the Palo Verde Mesa and Palo Verde Valley groundwater basins. Figure E.2-1 shows the locations of the groundwater basins.

Although the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin is adjacent to the Chuckwalla groundwater basin, mountains along the edge of the basin provide complete enclosure around the Cadiz valley so both surface flows and groundwater flows are internal or confined to the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin (B&V, 1998). Surface water and groundwater flows are from the edges of the basin toward Cadiz Lake (DWR, update 2003; B&V, 1998).

The western portion of the Orocopia Valley groundwater basin drains eastward into the Hayfield (dry) Lake and into the Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin. The Hayfield Valley is about 17 miles long. An artificial groundwater recharge site was constructed in the Hayfield Lake area of the basin, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) stored about 88,000 acre-feet of water in the basin in the late 1990s as part of a conjunctive use program.

The Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin receives both surface and groundwater inflow from the Pinto Valley groundwater basin. The water enters into the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin through a gap in the bedrock several miles north of the project site (B&V, 1998). A portion of Joshua Tree National Park (JTNP) overlies the Pinto Valley groundwater basin. The JTNP also lies within 2 to 3 miles of the Project lands and extends into the bedrock areas of the Chuckwalla watershed.

The Palo Verde Mesa and adjacent Palo Verde Valley groundwater basins are located east of the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin. A bedrock gap allows groundwater from the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin to flow into the Palo Verde Mesa aquifer. Because there is no distinct physical groundwater divide, the groundwater continues into the Palo Verde Valley groundwater basin. The two aquifers are generally distinguished by water quality differences, with the Palo Verde Mesa aquifer having TDS levels of 1,000 – 2,000 or greater, and the Palo Verde Valley aquifer having TDS levels of about 800 TDS, similar to the Colorado River, which forms the eastern edge of the Palo Verde Valley groundwater basin.

2.2.1 Springs and Wells Springs are present in the Eagle Mountains south of the Pinto Basin. Figure E.2-2 shows the location of the springs.

The first high-capacity well was drilled in the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin in 1958 (Mann, 1984). There are more than 60 wells in the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin (CH2M Hill, 1996). Figure E.2-2 shows the locations of some of these wells. Since 1986, additional pumping has begun, associated with agriculture in the Lower Chuckwalla Valley and water uses at the Chuckwalla Valley and Ironwood State prisons.

Wells in the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin range up to 2,000 feet in depth (B&V, 1998) and have pumping capacities up to 3,900 gallons per minute (gpm) (DWR, 2003). The average pumping rate is about 1,800 gpm. Groundwater wells in the Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin range up to 900 feet deep. Two wells in this portion of the valley near the Project site are capable of producing 2,300 gpm (Greystone, 1994).

The National Park Service (NPS) owns one well in the Pinto groundwater basin (Pinto Well No. 2). Kaiser Steel owns two additional wells near the NPS well in the southeastern portion of the Pinto Basin.

2.2.2 Water Bearing Formations Water bearing units include quaternary alluvium and continental deposits. The maximum thickness of these deposits is about 1,200 feet in the central portions of the basin and up to 2,000 feet in the eastern portions of the basin (B&V, 1998), although DWR only considers there to be 1,200 feet of permeable sediments (DWR, 2003).

The alluvium (Qal) consists of fine to coarse sand interbedded with gravel, silt, and clay. The alluvium likely comprises the most substantial aquifer in the area (DWR, 1963). Locally wind blown sand deposits (Qs) cover the alluvium.

The alluvium is underlain by Quaternary continental deposits (Qc) (Jennings, 1967). The continental deposits are exposed around the fringes of the basin, as shown on Figure E.2-3. These deposits are composed of semi-consolidated coarse sand and gravel (fanglomerates), clay and some interbedded basalts.

Geologic profiles of the valley were developed to show the types of sediments and their distribution. The well logs did not distinguish between the Qal and Qc so all contacts are approximate. The profiles were developed based on available well logs. Figure E.2-3 shows the location of the geologic profiles. Figure E.2-4 shows the sediments along the east-west axis of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin to have about 900 feet of sand and gravel with some thin clay and silt layers. In the central portion of the valley, near Palen (dry) Lake, a relatively thick layer of clay has accumulated. Near the eastern portion of the valley the coarse sediment increases to

up to 1,200 feet thick. Underlying the coarse grained sediment in the western portion of the valley is a thick accumulation of clay and silt that would be essentially non-water bearing.

Figures E.2-5 and E.2-6 show the sediments in the Upper Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin. There is about 400 feet of coarse grained sand and gravel in the valley opposite the project site. The thickness of these coarse sediments increases up to 900 feet, to the south, toward the central portions of the valley. Clay interbeds also increase but no continuous thick clay layers were detected within the coarse grained sediments other than at Well P-11. The coarse grained sediments rest on either an older thick accumulation of clay and silt or directly on the bedrock (granites).

The profiles show that the coarse grained sediments are continuous throughout the basin and because they appear to be hydraulically connected, there is only one aquifer in the valley. Groundwater levels from 1963 and 1964 were plotted on the geologic profiles to show the saturated sediments. Based on the geology the aquifer and the water levels the aquifer appears to be unconfined but within the central portion of the valley, where clays have accumulated, the aquifer may be semi-confined to confined.

Geologic profile C-C’, Figure E.2-6 shows the relationship of the sediments in the Chuckwalla and Pinto Valley groundwater basins. It appears that a subsurface volcanic dike may be at shallow elevation and limits the hydraulic connection of the aquifers in the Pinto and Chuckwalla Valley basins. It appears groundwater would have to flow over the top of the dike to enter the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin.

2.2.3 Hydraulic Characteristics Several terms are used to define the hydraulic characteristics of sediments and aquifers and their ability to store and transmit water. Hydraulic conductivity is the ability of the sediments to transmit water. Transmissivity, a term applied to aquifers, is the hydraulic conductivity multiplied by the thickness of the sediments capable of storing water. All sediments have some void space between the particles; this void space is reported as porosity. Water in the void spaces cannot be entirely removed. The storage coefficient is the percentage of water that can be removed from the pores by gravity drainage and is applied when describing unconfined aquifers. Storativity is similar to the storage coefficient, but is the percentage of water that can be released from the pores by a decrease in pressure. Storativity is used when referring to semi-confined or confined aquifers.

Limited information is available on the hydraulic characteristics of the sediments in the Chuckwalla basin. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) estimated the average specific yield (specific yield is approximately equal to the storage coefficient for unconfined aquifers) to be 0.10 for the upper 220 feet of saturated sediments (DWR, 1979).

Figures E.2-5 and E.2-6 shows that most wells in the Upper Chuckwalla Valley wells obtain water from the continental deposits. Table 2-1 summarizes the aquifer characteristics. Most

tests were performed using only the pumping well which does not provide a storage coefficient or storativity for the aquifer and could result in a greater uncertainty in the aquifer characteristics. Transmissivities range from 95 to 240,000 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft), but generally between 52,000 to 147,000 gpd/ft. The higher transmissivities are present where the thickest accumulations of sand and gravel are present in the basin. The lower transmissivities, between 95 and 2,700 gpd/ft could be related to the continental deposits being more consolidated or that they encounter the lower clayey unit of the continental deposits. The transmissivities of Wells # 1 and 2 are 240,000 and 147,000 gal/day/ft, respectively.

Table 2-1. Alluvial Aquifer Characteristics in the Eagle Mountain Area

Estimated Mean Assumed Aquifer Hydraulic Mean Storativity 1 Storativity 2 Flow Rate Thickness Conductivity Transmissivity Well No./Name (unitless) (unitless) (gpm) (feet) (ft/day) (gal/day/ft) MW-1 3 0.1 51 7 2,700 MW-2 3 0.1 65 0.02 95 CW-1 3 0.1 241 31 52,000 CW-2 3 0.1 196 31 45,000 CW-3 3 0.1 289 31 66,000 CW-4 3 0.1 330 31 77,000 Well 1 1 0.25 2300 300 107 240,000 Well 3 1 0.51 2350 300 66 147,000

Notes: 1 Greystone, 1994 2 GEI, 2008, based on lithologic logs 3 CH2M Hill, 1996

2.2.4 Groundwater Levels Groundwater levels are measured by the United States Geologic Survey in 12 wells within the basin. DWR also reports groundwater levels for several other wells; however, there are only a few scattered measurements. A partial trend in groundwater levels can be developed by combining records from several wells.

Groundwater levels in the Upper Chuckwalla valley near the project site are represented by wells 5S/16E-7P1, 5S/16E-7P2, and 4S/16E-32M1, have measurements with similar trends, and cover about a 50-year period. Figure E.2-2 shows the locations of these wells. Figure E.2-7 shows the water level measurements. Groundwater levels between 1950 and 1981 were relatively stable. Between 1981 and about 1986 thousands of acres were irrigated for the first time to produce jojoba and asparagus that ended in economic failure. During this period, the water levels declined locally by as much a 130 feet. The effects of the pumping were not as extreme at well 5S/15E-12N1, which is located about 1.5 miles to the west of 5S/16E-7P1. This relationship suggests the drawdown in 5S/16E-7P1 are potentially localized effects of pumping and that the aquifer is highly transmissive because of the small extent of the pumping depression. Groundwater levels between 1986 and 2002 have recovered by over 100 feet before any artificial recharge by MWD. The recovery is due in part to a large decrease in agricultural pumping and potentially increased subsurface inflows (steeper gradients) from the Pinto, Orocopia (Hayfield

Valley), and Cadiz Valley groundwater basins (Hanson, 1992). However, the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin is now not considered to be a recharge source to the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin (B&V, 1998). Assuming the groundwater level trend continues groundwater levels may fully recover between 2007 and 2011.

Groundwater levels in the eastern portion of the Chuckwalla valley near the outflow to the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin are conflicting. Well 7S/20E-18H1 shows a similar trend as the wells in the Upper Chuckwalla basin while well 7S/20E-28C1 shows the groundwater levels were recovering during the overdraft period. The conflicting results suggest the water levels may be affected by local use (7S/20E-18H1) and that the groundwater levels were actually rising and were not affected by pumping in the Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin. Figure E.2-2 shows the locations of these wells. Figure E.2-8 shows water level measurements in comparison to the Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin water levels.

Groundwater levels in the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin are flat lying (7S/21E-15A1) and show little to no effects of pumping within the Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin. Figure E.2-2 shows the location of this well. Figure E.2-8 shows water level measurements in comparison to the Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin water levels.

Groundwater levels in the Pinto Valley groundwater basin remained stable up until about 1962. Thereafter, groundwater levels in the basin began a slow decline until about 1982 when groundwater levels recovered, potentially due to the higher precipitation received that year, even though groundwater levels in the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin were declining. A recent 2007 measurement shows that levels have continued to recover and are currently similar to levels experienced in 1966. Figure E.2-9 shows the groundwater levels in both the Pinto and Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin. Because the groundwater levels have different trends it suggests pumping in the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin does not have a significant effect on groundwater levels in the Pinto Valley groundwater basin. Figure E.2-6 shows that there may be a volcanic dike and granite that is acting a subsurface dam and restricts outflow from the Pinto Valley. The dike may be causing greater than 400 feet of difference in water levels between the Chuckwalla and Pinto Valley groundwater basins. This subsurface dam could limit the effects of pumping in the Chuckwalla Valley on groundwater levels in the Pinto valley.

2.2.5 Groundwater Flow Direction Groundwater contours developed from 1974 groundwater level measurements for the Chuckwalla basin show groundwater movement from the north and west toward the gap between the Mule and the McCoy Mountains at the southeastern end of the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin (DWR, 1979) and into the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin. Figure E.2- 10 shows the groundwater contours and flow directions.

Groundwater contours were also developed for portions of the Upper Chuckwalla Valley and the project site and vicinity (CH2M Hill, 1996). Bedrock groundwater contours show the water is moving from the Eagle Mountains to the south and east until it intercepts the sediments in the

groundwater basin. Groundwater levels in the sediments within the basin show the groundwater movement is from the northwest toward the southeast in the vicinity of the project site. Figure E.2-11 shows these groundwater contours.

2.2.6 Groundwater Storage The total storage capacity of the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin was estimated to be about 9,100,000 acre-feet (DWR, 1975). Using the top 100 feet of saturated sediment, useable groundwater was estimated at about 900,000 acre-feet (DWR, 1975). A more recent analysis estimates that there are 15,000,000 acre-feet of recoverable water (DWR, 1979).

The groundwater storage estimate for just the northwestern portion of the Upper Chuckwalla Valley, near the project sites is about 1,000,000 acre-feet. This is a very conservative estimate because only 100 feet of saturated sediments were considered in the calculation and there are several hundred feet of saturated sediments remaining (Mann, 1986).

Using the geologic profiles shown on Figures E.2-4 through E.2-6 to assess the saturated thickness and assuming a storage coefficient of 0.10 the storage capacity of the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin, in just the coarse grained sediments, is estimated to be about 10,000,000 acre-feet, similar to DWR’s estimates. This is a conservative estimate as it does not include water in the clay deposits nor does it account for additional water that may be present due to confining conditions in the central portion of the valley.

2.2.7 Groundwater Pumping The amount of groundwater pumped from the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin could be estimated from recordation data filed with the SWRCB or by the acres and types of crops grown multiplied by the evapotranspiration rates of the plants. Since the recorded pumping over the years has been erratic and may be incomplete, estimates using agricultural land usage were made (Mann, 1986).

The estimates were made by using water duties (evapotranspiration plus applied water losses) for crops and planted acreages measured using aerial photographs and field confirmation. Estimates were made for 1986 (Mann, 1986), 1992 (Hanson, 1992), 1996, and 2005 (GEI/B-E). Figures E.2-12 through E.2-15 show the crops grown in the upper Chuckwalla Valley in these years. Table 2-2 summarizes the acreages and estimated volume of groundwater pumped. The highest pumping occurred in 1986, at about 20,778 AFY, mostly for jojoba and asparagus. Most of the jojoba and asparagus fields have since been abandoned and agricultural water usage has significantly decreased. Only about 25 percent of land continues to be farmed. More recent endeavors in palm farming have slightly increased groundwater use in the area from 5,587 AFY in 1992 to 6,707 AFY in 2005.

Other pumping in the basin occurs for domestic and industrial use. Domestic use in the area is estimated at 50 AFY in Desert Center (Mann, 1986), 3 AFY for the 20 people at the Eagle

Mountain School, and 1,200 AFY at the Lake Tamarisk development (Riverside County Service Area 51, pers. comm., 2008). Southern California Gas Company uses well 5S/16E-7P1 and -7P2 to supply about 1 acre-foot per year to its natural gas pumping plant. Further 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 used 2,100 acre-feet of groundwater in 2007 (California Department of Public Health, pers. comm., 2008). However, populations at the prisons are projected to be reduced by about 35 percent by 2011 to alleviate overcrowding, so for future projections it is assumed that 1,500 AFY will be used after that time.

Groundwater production can affect groundwater levels. Figure E.2-7 shows the plot of the groundwater levels versus estimates of groundwater pumping for agricultural, domestic, and industrial use. The figure shows that the decline of the water levels in the Upper Chuckwalla Valley between 1981 through 1986 is due to groundwater pumping locally exceeding the perennial yield of the basin.

Table 2-2. Chuckwalla Valley Agricultural Water Use Summary

Applied Water Area Area Area Area Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Crop Duty / Acre 1986 1992 1996 2005 1986 1992 1996 2005 (A.F.) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (A.F.) (A.F.) (A.F.) (A.F.) Upper Chuckwalla Valley Jojoba 2.2 4,005 1,351 1,768 120 8,811 2,972 3,889 264 Jojoba/Asparagus 4.6 457 0 0 0 2,102 0 0 0 Asparagus 8.3 1,157 200 110 0 9,603 1,660 914 0 Citrus 4.5 14 5 0 23 63 23 0 102 Dates 8.0 14 25 12 112 200 96 Dates/Palms1 6.7 188 1,260 Vines 4.5 5 5 33 9 23 23 147 39 Pasture 6.4 10 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 Peaches/Apples 4.5 0 80 0 0 0 360 0 0 Melons/Peppers 3.5 0 100 0 0 0 350 0 0 Greenhouses2 8.3 43 359 Row Crops2 8.3 11 94 SUBTOTAL (Upper Chuckwalla) 5,662 1,766 1,922 394 20,778 5,587 5,046 2,118

Lower Chuckwalla Valley Citrus 4.5 207 931 Dates/Palms1 6.7 106 546 710 3,658 SUBTOTAL (Lower Chuckwalla) 106 753 710 4,589

TOTAL 5,662 1,766 2,028 1,147 20,778 5,587 5,756 6,707

Notes: All water duties based on Mann, 1986 unless otherwise noted 1 Water duty based on Kc of 0.95 (FAO, 1998), ETo of 6.0ft/yr (CIMIS 1999), and application efficiency of 0.85 (Jensen, 1980) 2 Crop type unknown, so the largest possible water duty assumed

2.2.8 Recharge Sources The groundwater basin is recharged by percolation of runoff from the surrounding mountains and from precipitation to the valley floor (DWR, 1979). Average annual precipitation in the basin ranges up to 4 inches (DWR, update 2003). There are few measurements to quantify the amount of recharge from rain. It has been suggested that 5 to 10 percent of the rain falling on the

tributary desert mountain watersheds contributes to the groundwater basin (LC&A, 1981). The average recharge to the aquifer was estimated to be about 5,540 to 5,600 AFY based on an assumed 10 percent infiltration rate (BLM and County of Riverside, 1992; GeoSyntec, 1992).

The Upper Chuckwalla Valley is also recharged by subsurface inflow from the north by the Pinto Valley groundwater basin. Subsurface inflow from the Pinto Valley groundwater basin occurs as outflow through an alluvium-filled gap at the east end of the Pinto Valley (Kunkle, 1963). The perennial yield of the Pinto Basin is estimated as 2,500 AFY. If not intercepted by wells, this water would become subsurface inflow to the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin (Mann, 1986).

Subsurface inflow from the Hayfield Valley is estimated to be 1,700 AFY (LC&A, 1981). Since there has been no pumping, this is considered to be all recharge to the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin.

Although not separated by groundwater basin, subsequent estimates of recharge from up-gradient groundwater basins (i.e., Pinto and Orocopia) are about 6,700 AFY (CH2M Hill, 1996).

There may be some inflow from the Cadiz Valley but no studies have been made to determine the amount (Mann, 1986). Subsequent authors, because of its similar size and elevation to the Pinto Valley groundwater basin, have estimated inflow from Cadiz to the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin may be about the same as from Pinto Valley, or 2,500 AFY (CH2M Hill, 1996). More recent studies have indicated there is no groundwater outflow from Cadiz Valley (B&V, 1998).

2.2.9 Outflow Outflow is limited to the subsurface, as no surface waters leave the basin. Underflow from the Chuckwalla groundwater basin discharges to the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin at an estimated rate of 400 AFY (Metzger et al., 1973).

2.2.10 Perennial Yield The perennial yield of the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin is probably not less than about 10,000 AFY and not more than about 20,000 AFY (Hanson, 1992). The perennial estimate was refined to 12,200 AFY by CH2M Hill (1996) after Greystone’s (1994) estimate of 16,634 AFY.

2.3 Potential Impacts to Groundwater Supply

2.3.1 Proposed Project Water Supply The proposed project will require about 12,100 acre-feet of water each year for the two-year start-up period and 2,300 acre-feet per year of water for replenishment water. The proposed project is conceived to potentially rely on groundwater for this water supply using three to four

wells. The specific locations of these wells have not been determined, but testing of two wells in the area show the aquifer could produce 2,300 gpm (Greystone, 1994).

This analysis assumes the land and suitable wells can be purchased or leased for use by the project.

2.3.2 Perennial Yield When pumping exceeds the annual recharge, groundwater levels will decline and outflow from the basin may decrease. Over many decades, inflow from adjacent groundwater basins may increase, which could lead to a decrease in water levels in those basins.

Historically pumping exceeded the perennial yield of the basin between 1981 and 1986. During this 5-year period the cumulative pumping exceeded the perennial yield and resulted in a reduction in groundwater in storage by a cumulative total of 38,800 acre-feet. Table 2-3 shows these estimates. Figure E.2-7 shows the groundwater levels recovered to near historic water levels after pumping was reduced to below the perennial yield.

Table 2-3. Estimated Overdraft in A-F/Yr for 1981 to 1986 – Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin

Eagle Mountain Agricultural Aquaculture Sum of other Subsurface Subtotal Average Inflow minus Cumulative 1 1 2 3 4 4 Year Mine Pumping Pumping Pumping Outflow Outflow Inflow Outflow Change 1981 3,006 11,331 302 920 400 15,959 12,200 -3,759 -3,759 1982 1,200 13,220 302 920 400 16,042 12,200 -3,842 -7,601 1983 47 15,108 302 920 400 16,777 12,200 -4,577 -12,178 1984 790 16,997 302 920 400 19,409 12,200 -7,209 -19,387 1985 484 18,885 302 920 400 20,991 12,200 -8,791 -28,178 1986 450 20,774 302 920 400 22,846 12,200 -10,646 -38,824

Notes: 1 From Greystone 1994. 2 Pumping required to account for evaporation from open water bodies associated with fish ponds or tanks. Based on 1996 aerial photos. 3 Includes domestic, Lake Tamarisk, and So Cal Gas. 4 From CH2M Hill 1996.

A groundwater balance was developed to show the potential effects of groundwater pumping over the 50 year life of the project. Table 2-4 shows a summary of the balance. The pumped storage project is projected to start the initial fill of 12,100 acre-feet in 2014, with replacement pumping of 2,300 acre-feet starting in 2016 and continuing through the 50 year life of the project. Usage by the Chuckwalla and Ironwood State prisons is assumed to decrease by about 30 percent by 2011, in response to relief from overcrowding. Other than these exceptions, pumping rates are assumed to continue at the most recently recorded rate.

Table 2-4. Groundwater Balance

Year Subtotal Outflow Subtotal Inflow Inflow minus Outflow Cumulative Change 2008 11,060 12,236 1,176 1,176 2009 11,060 12,236 1,176 2,351 2010 11,060 12,236 1,176 3,527 2011 10,460 12,236 1,776 5,303 2012 10,460 12,236 1,776 7,079 2013 10,460 12,236 1,776 8,854 2014 22,560 12,636 -9,924 -1,070 2015 22,560 12,636 -9,924 -10,994 2016 12,760 12,836 76 -10,919 2017 12,760 12,836 76 -10,843 2018 12,760 12,836 76 -10,767 2019 12,760 12,836 76 -10,691 2020 12,760 12,836 76 -10,616 2021 12,760 12,836 76 -10,540 2022 12,760 12,836 76 -10,464 2023 12,760 12,836 76 -10,389 2024 12,760 12,836 76 -10,313 2025 12,760 12,836 76 -10,237 2026 12,760 12,836 76 -10,161 2027 12,760 12,836 76 -10,086 2028 12,760 12,836 76 -10,010 2029 12,760 12,836 76 -9,934 2030 12,760 12,836 76 -9,859 2031 12,760 12,836 76 -9,783 2032 12,760 12,836 76 -9,707 2033 12,760 12,836 76 -9,631 2034 12,760 12,836 76 -9,556 2035 12,760 12,836 76 -9,480 2036 12,760 12,836 76 -9,404 2037 12,760 12,836 76 -9,329 2038 12,760 12,836 76 -9,253 2039 12,760 12,836 76 -9,177 2040 12,760 12,836 76 -9,101 2041 12,760 12,836 76 -9,026 2042 12,760 12,836 76 -8,950 2043 12,760 12,836 76 -8,874 2044 12,760 12,836 76 -8,799 2045 12,760 12,836 76 -8,723 2046 12,760 12,836 76 -8,647 2047 12,760 12,836 76 -8,571 2048 12,760 12,836 76 -8,496 2049 12,760 12,836 76 -8,420 2050 12,760 12,836 76 -8,344 2051 12,760 12,836 76 -8,269 2052 12,760 12,836 76 -8,193 2053 12,760 12,836 76 -8,117 2054 12,760 12,836 76 -8,041 2055 12,760 12,836 76 -7,966 2056 12,760 12,836 76 -7,890 2057 12,760 12,836 76 -7,814 2058 12,760 12,836 76 -7,739 2059 12,760 12,836 76 -7,663 2060 12,760 12,836 76 -7,587 2061 12,760 12,836 76 -7,511 2062 12,760 12,836 76 -7,436 2063 12,760 12,836 76 -7,360 2064 12,760 12,836 76 -7,284 2065 12,760 12,836 76 -7,209 2066 10,460 12,836 2,376 -4,833 2067 10,460 12,836 2,376 -2,457 2068 10,460 12,836 2,376 -81 ce 2069 10,460 12,836 2,376 2,294

Some water will recharge the basin through recycling of the water through septic systems and could also occur from seepage from the reservoirs. However, as discussed below, seepage from the reservoirs will be monitored and captured to prevent its return to the groundwater basin. The amount, if any that the prisons recharge the basin with wastewater is unknown at this time.

Using 2008 as the start of the budget, recharge will exceed pumping until the start of the project in 2014 at which time pumping will exceed recharge by about 11,000 AFY for two years. After the initial fill recharge will exceed pumping by about 100 AFY and will continue for the remainder of the project life pumping. By the end of the project in 2065, over a 50 year period, the aquifer storage (cumulative change) will have been reduced by about 7,200 acre-feet, an amount less than the amount extracted during the 5-year period between 1981 and 1986. After the project ends in 2065 the pumping will be less than the perennial yield and the basin would recover to pre-project levels by 2069.

2.3.3 Regional Groundwater Level Effects There are about 9.1 to 15 million acre-feet of water in storage in Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin. Assuming a conservative storage of 9.1 million acre-feet and a conservative average saturated thickness of 600 feet, there is about 15,000 acre-feet per foot of saturated aquifer. Table 2-5 shows these estimates. The maximum overdraft will occur in 2015 after the initial fill and will be about 11,000 acre-feet and would lower groundwater levels regionally by about 0.7 feet. Thereafter the groundwater levels will rise and regional effects will be less.

Outflow to the Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basin has been estimated to be about 400 AFY (Metzger et al., 1973). Outflow is typically estimated by multiplying the hydraulic conductivity times the groundwater gradient times the area (saturated thickness of the sediments). Metzger estimated a hydraulic conductivity of .0510 feet per day, a groundwater gradient of 3 feet per mile, and an outflow area of 13,000,000 square feet. Table 2-5 shows the calculations. Reducing groundwater levels in the Chuckwalla Basin by 0.7 feet shows the outflow at the end of the project would be reduced to 399 AFY, a decrease of 1 AFY, which will not be a measureable change. This estimate is validated based on water levels during the overdraft period of the 1980s as shown on Figure E.2-8.

Table 2-5. Palo Verde Mesa Outflow Estimates – At Maximum Overdraft

Estimate of Change in Groundwater Levels Groundwater in storage 1 9,100,000 AF Basin surface area 605,000 acres Conservative Depth 600 feet Storage per Foot of Aqufier 15,167 AF/foot

Maximum Overdraft in 50-Year Period 10,984 AF Regional Decline in Water Levels 0.7 feet

Estimated Outflow 1973 Estimated Outflow with Project Gradient dl 5,280 feet 5,280 feet dh 3 feet 3 feet gradient 0.0006 ft/ft 0.0006 ft/ft

Hydraulic Conductivity 0.05 ft/day 0.05 ft/day

Outflow 400 AFY 399 AFY 17,407,110 cuft/yr 17,383,878 cuft/yr 47,691 cuft/day 47,627 cuft/day

Back Solved Area width 20,500 feet 20,500 feet depth 634 feet 633.3 feet area 13,000,000 sq ft 12,982,650 sq ft

Notes: 1 Groundwater subsurface outlfow estimates from Metzger et al, 1973 2 Basin storage estimates from DWR, 1975

Assuming there was an effect on the Pinto Valley groundwater levels caused by the Project pumping; calculations were made to estimate changes in the inflow using similar methods that were used to estimate the outflow from the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin. Historic groundwater contours are not available for the Pinto Valley. Groundwater contour maps were generated from the groundwater flow model and showed the groundwater gradient near the inflow from the Pinto Valley groundwater basin in 1979 was 0.003 ft/ft. Figure E.2-16 shows these contours. The groundwater contours were developed after two years of project pumping and showed the gradient was steeper, about 0.005 ft/ft. Figure E.2-17 shows these projected contours. The model projected the contours for a slightly lower initial fill volume of 18,900 acre- feet instead of the current estimate of 24,200 acre-feet for the first two years of pumping, but should provide a reasonable estimate for assessing potential impacts. Inflow from the Pinto Valley groundwater basin has been estimated to be about 2,250 AFY. Changing the groundwater gradient would increase the outflow to about 3,780 AFY for a period of two years. Thereafter, the groundwater gradient should flatten because of reduced pumping by the project. The effect of increasing the outflow from the Pinto Valley groundwater basin is estimated by comparing the

©2008 Eagle Crest Energy 2-13 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION – EXHIBIT E increased flow to the total groundwater in storage. The change in water levels in the Pinto Valley would be about 1.3 feet after two years of startup pumping as estimated from Table 2-6.

Table 2-6. Pinto Basin Outflow Estimates

Estimate of Change in Groundwater Levels Groundwater in storage 2 230,000 AF Basin surface area 183,000 acres Conservative Depth 100 feet Storage per Foot of Aquifer 2,300 AF/foot

Estimated 2-Year Outflow Increase 3,062 AF Regional Decline in Water Levels 1.33 feet

Estimated Outflow 1979 Estimated Outflow with Project Gradient dl 3,245 feet 1,931 feet dh 10 feet 10 feet 1 gradient 0.003 ft/ft 0.005 ft/ft

Hydraulic Conductivity 110 ft/day 110 ft/day

Inflow Area width 2,640 feet 2,640 feet depth 300 feet 300 feet area 792,000 sq ft 792,000 sq ft

Outflow 268,475 cuft/day 451,165 cuft/day 97,993,220 cuft/yr 164,675,298 cuft/yr 2,250 AFY 3,780 AFY

Notes: 1 Groundwater contours from Greystone, 1994 model results 2 Basin storage estimates from DWR, 2002

The effects of project pumping on the outflow from the Pinto Basin may less if the bedrock (volcanic dike and granite) is shallow and creating a subsurface dam. Inflow into the Chuckwalla basin would then be controlled by groundwater levels in the Pinto Valley which when high enough would flow over the top of the subsurface dam. Therefore, pumping in the Chuckwalla Valley should not change the gradient or affect the inflow rate.

These predictions of little to no effect are supported by groundwater levels in the Pinto and Palo Verde Mesa groundwater basins, Figures E.2-8 and Figure E.2-9, during 1981 through 1986 when the cumulative change in storage was almost three times greater than the projected effects of project pumping for the pumped storage project.

2.3.4 Local Groundwater Level Effects The local effects of pumping the project wells were projected to estimate the amount of drawdown at a distance. We used a transmissivity of 147,000 gallons per day per foot with a storage coefficient of 0.10 and assumed each well would pump a 2,300 gpm for the first two years of the project and that the wells would be spaced a sufficient distance away from each other as not to create well interference. The drawdown in each well would be about 40 feet. The drawdown would decrease away from the well and at a distance of 1,000 feet of each well the drawdown would be about 10 feet. Within 1,000 feet of the pumping well, the drawdown will be greater than 10 feet and could affect local well owners. At one mile distance away from the well the water level drawdown will only be about five feet.

After the initial fill the pumping will be reduced to about 1,500 gpm for the remaining life of the project (2,300 AFY). The drawdown in the well would be about 27 feet after 48 years of pumping. The drawdown would decrease away from the well and at a distance of 1,000 feet the drawdown would be about 10 feet at the end of 48 years. At one mile distance away from the well the water level drawdown will only be about six feet.

The effect of project pumping on springs in the Eagle Mountains is not expected to be significant. Based on limited available water resource information, it appears unlikely that these springs are hydrologically connected to the Pinto or Chuckwalla Valley basin aquifers since they are located in the mountains above the Pinto and Chuckwalla basins. Rather, they appear to be fed by local groundwater systems that would be unaffected by withdrawals from the proposed project (NPS, 1994).

2.3.5 Groundwater Flow Direct Effects The groundwater flow is generally from the west and north and flows towards the south and east. As shown on Figure E.2-17 startup pumping by the project will only locally change the local groundwater contours. Long-term pumping effects as shown on Figure E.2-18, generated from the groundwater flow model after 50 years of operations, also shows the groundwater levels and flow directions will not be significantly changed as a result of the project.

2.3.6 Subsidence Potential The potential of drawdown associated with pumping of the wells causing subsidence is typically associated with the lowering of confined aquifer groundwater levels below historic low levels. The aquifers in the Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin are unconfined and there has been no reported evidence of subsidence in the area. Because pumping will not exceed historic groundwater level lows (about 130 feet locally), the potential for inelastic subsidence due to groundwater pumping is low and is not considered to be significant.

2.3.7 Hydrocompaction Potential The potential for hydrocompaction is related to the types of sediments and how they were deposited. Fan deposits, such as those present near the project site, when deposited by flash flood type of events are highly susceptible to compaction when wetted either from above or below. If seepage from the reservoirs caused groundwater levels in the fangolomerates to rise they could experience some consolidation. Seepage monitoring and pump-back recovery is prepared to prevent this potential for hydrocompaction impact.

2.3.8 Cumulative Projected Effects to Water Supply There are several projects that are in planning and permitting stages within the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin. They include a potential landfill, solar generating facilities, and the existing groundwater banking program by MWD in the Hayfield Valley.

Several solar electric generating facilities are in planning stages but no information has been released regarding their potential water demand or potential source(s) of water. We understand they will be photovoltaic cells, which will have minimal water needs. The effects cannot be assessed at this time.

The proposed landfill intends to use portions of the Eagle Mine site to dispose of solid wastes. The landfill would potentially need about 700 AFY contributing to cumulative effects from the pumped storage project that could change the water balance.

The effects of the landfill use have not been included in the water balance shown on Table 2-4. Table 2-7 shows the results of the groundwater balance and potential effects of groundwater pumping over the life of the Project with the landfill. The landfill is projected to start using 700 acre-feet per year in about 2020. Using 2008 as the start of the budget, recharge will exceed pumping until the start of the project in 2014 at which time pumping will exceed recharge by about 10,000 AFY for two years. After the initial fill and before the start of the proposed landfill usage (2016 to 2019), recharge will exceed pumping by about 100 AFY, but for the remainder of the Project life pumping will exceed recharge by about 600 AFY. By the end of the Project in 2065, over a 50 year period, the aquifer storage (cumulative change) will have been reduced by about 39,400 acre-feet, equal to 0.43 percent of the total groundwater in storage. After the project ends the recharge is greater than the pumping and the basin will recover to pre-project levels.

The potential effects of the cumulative overdraft can be assessed using the known effects of pumping that caused the overdraft in the Upper Chuckwalla Valley between 1981 and 1986. Table 2-3 shows 38,800 acre-feet of cumulative overdraft was reached in five years between 1981 and 1986, just slightly less than the estimated cumulative overdraft over 50 years shown on Table 2-7.

Table 2-7. Estimated Effects on Storage in Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin

Year Subtotal Outflow Subtotal Inflow Inflow minus Outflow Cumulative Change 2008 11,060 12,236 1,176 1,176 2009 11,060 12,236 1,176 2,351 2010 11,060 12,236 1,176 3,527 2011 10,460 12,236 1,776 5,303 2012 10,460 12,236 1,776 7,079 2013 10,460 12,236 1,776 8,854 2014 22,560 12,636 -9,924 -1,070 2015 22,560 12,636 -9,924 -10,994 2016 12,760 12,836 76 -10,919 2017 12,760 12,836 76 -10,843 2018 12,760 12,836 76 -10,767 2019 12,760 12,836 76 -10,691 2020 13,460 12,836 -624 -11,316 2021 13,460 12,836 -624 -11,940 2022 13,460 12,836 -624 -12,564 2023 13,460 12,836 -624 -13,189 2024 13,460 12,836 -624 -13,813 2025 13,460 12,836 -624 -14,437 2026 13,460 12,836 -624 -15,061 2027 13,460 12,836 -624 -15,686 2028 13,460 12,836 -624 -16,310 2029 13,460 12,836 -624 -16,934 2030 13,460 12,836 -624 -17,559 2031 13,460 12,836 -624 -18,183 2032 13,460 12,836 -624 -18,807 2033 13,460 12,836 -624 -19,431 2034 13,460 12,836 -624 -20,056 2035 13,460 12,836 -624 -20,680 2036 13,460 12,836 -624 -21,304 2037 13,460 12,836 -624 -21,929 2038 13,460 12,836 -624 -22,553 2039 13,460 12,836 -624 -23,177 2040 13,460 12,836 -624 -23,801 2041 13,460 12,836 -624 -24,426 2042 13,460 12,836 -624 -25,050 2043 13,460 12,836 -624 -25,674 2044 13,460 12,836 -624 -26,299 2045 13,460 12,836 -624 -26,923 2046 13,460 12,836 -624 -27,547 2047 13,460 12,836 -624 -28,171 2048 13,460 12,836 -624 -28,796 2049 13,460 12,836 -624 -29,420 2050 13,460 12,836 -624 -30,044 2051 13,460 12,836 -624 -30,669 2052 13,460 12,836 -624 -31,293 2053 13,460 12,836 -624 -31,917 2054 13,460 12,836 -624 -32,541 2055 13,460 12,836 -624 -33,166 2056 13,460 12,836 -624 -33,790 2057 13,460 12,836 -624 -34,414 2058 13,460 12,836 -624 -35,039 2059 13,460 12,836 -624 -35,663 2060 13,460 12,836 -624 -36,287 2061 13,460 12,836 -624 -36,911 2062 13,460 12,836 -624 -37,536 2063 13,460 12,836 -624 -38,160 2064 13,460 12,836 -624 -38,784 2065 13,460 12,836 -624 -39,409

Figure E.2-19 shows the relationship between the known overdraft and water elevations in the 1980’s and uses this relationship to predict Year 2065 groundwater levels based on the predicted overdraft from Table 2-7. Since the cumulative overdrafts from 1986 and 2065 are similar, the water level drawdown should be similar. Water levels could decline by a maximum of 130 feet at well 5S/16E-7P1, assuming all of the pumping in the groundwater basin was occurring near this well. However, large citrus and palm growers and the State prisons are located in the central to eastern portions of the valley, seven miles from well 5S/16E-7P1. Therefore, the local groundwater level effects should be less than assumed based upon the 1980s event.

The effects of the cumulative pumping in the localized area of the Upper Chuckwalla Valley were assessed by extracting the citrus, palm grower, and the State prisons water uses from the total basin pumping. Assuming all of the pumping in the Upper Chuckwalla Valley occurred from well 5S/16E-7P1 the maximum predicted water level decline can be predicted. The effects of pumping wells in the Upper Chuckwalla Valley were projected to estimate the amount of drawdown at a distance. We used a conservative transmissivity of 147,000 gallons per day per foot with a storage coefficient of 0.10. The maximum drawdown in 5S/16E-7P1 would be about 80 feet as shown on Figure E.2-20. Drawdown would decrease at a distance from the well and at a distance of three miles from the well the drawdown would be less than 10 feet and would not be noticed by other well owners.

Regionally, and as a result of cumulative pumping for all uses, groundwater levels would decline in the entire Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin by about 3.4 feet. This would reduce the outflow into the Palo Verde Mesa Groundwater basin by about 46 acre-feet per year. Because the cumulative amount of change in storage in the future is similar to historic levels, and the historic events did not produce deleterious effects, no adverse changes in groundwater flow direction, water quality, or subsidence are expected.

MWD has placed about 88,000 acre-feet in Hayfield valley as part of a conjunctive use program. At some point MWD will want to extract the water, which should have a net overall effect on the water balance of zero. Due to the minimal geologic information, number and location of extraction wells, and the extraction duration (one or multiple years), it is unknown whether drawdown associated with pumping of MWD wells would extend to the Desert Center area and affect water levels; therefore, the cumulative effect could not be assessed. However, since water to be extracted will be limited to MWD’s artificial input, there should be no change to the system as modeled herein.

2.4 Groundwater Quality

2.4.1 Description of Environment

2.4.1.1 Groundwater The TDS content across the basin ranges from 274 to 12,300 mg/L (DWR, 1979). The best water quality is found in the western portion of the basin, where TDS concentrations range from 275 to 730 mg/L (DWR, 1979). In the northwest portions of the valley, arsenic concentrations have ranged from 9 to 25 mg/L (Greystone, 1994). Table 2-8 lists water quality results in the Upper Chuckwalla valley near the Project’s proposed pumping wells and in the Palen Valley, east of the Upper Chuckwalla Valley.

The water quality in the Upper Chuckwalla valley has concentrations of nitrate, boron, fluoride, arsenic and TDS that are higher than recommended levels for drinking water use (DWR, 1975). The water from well 5S/16E-7M2 has a TDS of 577 mg/L (Greystone, 1994). High concentrations of boron impair groundwater for irrigation use (DWR, 1975). TDS concentrations appear to have increased by about 160 mg/L between 1961 and 1994.

Groundwater quality to the east in Palen Valley is of poorer quality. TDS concentrations range from about 800 up to 4,200 mg/L.

Miscellaneous water quality results are reported by the Department of Public Health and co- operators for 10 wells in the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. Although the results from only one well were available, radiological, nitrate, pesticides, and volatile and synthetic organic chemicals have been below the maximum contaminant level for drinking water (DWR, 2003).

The water quality effects of runoff and groundwater inflow through fractures from the Eagle Mountain mine on the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin aquifers is unknown (B&V, 1998).

The proposed Project would be located in eastern Riverside County, within the Colorado River Basin - Region 7 of the California Water Quality Control Board. Potential beneficial uses that may be applied to surface water or groundwater resources within this Region are listed in Table 2-9.

Table 2-8. Upper Chuckwalla and Palen Valley Groundwater Quality

1 2 MCLs 500 6-8 250* 250* 10 10 2 50 WELL DATE TDS Ca Mg Na K CO3 HCO3 SO4 Cl NO3 as N As B F CaCO3 Se NAME SAMPLED (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (ug/L) mg/L mg/L (mg/L) (ug/L) Upper Chuckwalla Valley 5S/16E-7P1 18-May-59 420 7.6 8 0.6 141 2.6 0 88 105 78 12 0.3 7.8 23 5S/16E-7M2 (Well 3) 11-Jul-61 413 8.7 6 0 143 1.6 12 55 106 89 1.9 0.3 6.9 15 5S/16E-7M2 (Well 3) 3 12-Sep-94 577 8.4 14.1 0.69 157 2.8 <1.0 74.3 112 116 4.1 25 0.6 7.62 <5 5S/15E-12N1 18-May-61 424 7.9 14 0 129 2.7 0 88 115 74 8.7 0.3 8.7 35 4S/16E-30D1 (Well 1) 8-Mar-61 584 8.0 17 1 179 2.7 0 82 219 90 9.3 0.6 3.6 4S/16E-30D1 (Well 1) 23-Sep-94 567 8.5 16.8 1.21 201 3.2 <1.0 74.3 240 87.7 0.65 9 0.6 10.9 <5 4S/16E-32M1 10-Nov-61 532 8.2 12 0 16 16 0 43 162 124 3.7 0.7 7.4 30 CW#3 30-Apr-91 1170 8.0 74 4 350 7 0 195 490 185 17 <10 5.4 <5 CW#4 30-Apr-91 635 8.2 21 1 215 4 0 177 215 100 3 <10 10 <5 Kaiser Well#4 Deep 5-May-93 685 8.2 19 1 216 4 0 162 230 100 4 10 10 <5 Charpied Well 15-May-08 550 8.2 19 <1.0 160 2.6 <3.0 59 200 94 2.7 5.8 6 <5

Palen Valley 5S/16E-25F1 6-May-58 648 8.0 40 200 0 92 120 238 3.7 0.9 5S/16E-36M1 9-Nov-59 524 8.3 20 2 159 4.3 6 116 113 131 6.2 0.7 5.2 60 4S/17E-6C1 10-Sep-61 4160 7.4 393 14 1130 18 0 49 442 2100 9.3 1.8 2.9 1040

Notes 1 California Title 22 Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) 2 Recommended MCL 3 Iron exceeds MCL

Table 2-9. Potential beneficial uses that could apply to surface water and groundwater resources in Region 7 (RWQCB, 2007a) Category Definition Municipal and Uses of water for community, military, or individual water supply systems MUN domestic supply including, but not limited to, drinking water supply. Uses of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching including, but not limited to, irrigation, stock watering, or support of vegetation for range AGR Agriculture supply grazing. Uses of water for aquaculture or mariculture operations including, but not limited to, propagation, cultivation, maintenance, or harvesting of AQUA Aquaculture aquatic plants and animals for human consumption or bait purposes. Supply Uses of water for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality including, but not limited to, mining, cooling water Industrial service supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection, and oil IND supply well repressurization. Uses of water for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater for Groundwater purposes of future extraction, maintenance of water quality, or halting GWR recharge salt water intrusion into fresh water aquifers. Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and Water contact scuba diving, surfing, white water activities, fishing, and use of natural REC I recreation hot springs. Uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, Non-contact tidepool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic REC II water recreation enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities. Uses of water that support warm water ecosystems including, but not Warm freshwater limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, WARM habitat fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates. Uses of water that support cold water ecosystems including, but not Cold freshwater limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, COLD habitats fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates. Uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems including, but not limited to, the preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, WILD Wildlife habitat invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources Hydropower POW generation Uses of water for hydropower generation Freshwater Uses of water for natural or artificial maintenance of surface water PFRSH Replenishment quantity or quality Preservation of Uses of water that support habitats necessary, at least in part, for the rare, threatened survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species or endangered established under state or federal law as rare, threatened or RARE species endangered.

No permanent surface water presently exists on the proposed site; therefore, beneficial uses specific to surface waters, including standards for the protection of aquatic life, recreation, aquaculture, do not presently apply. Small pools of surface water may accumulate within the existing pits in response to heavy precipitation events; however, the region is very arid, averaging 3 to 4 inches annually (RWQCB, 2007a). This would indicate that water at the site is currently ephemeral in nature and would not be expected to persist for an extended period of time.

A few intermittent springs exist in the area of the northwest Chuckwalla Valley (Figure E.2- 1). None of the springs are documented as permanent, year round springs, (SCS, 1990). Available information on the springs is limited, at best, and dated (Table 2-10). None of these springs are identified by Region 7 as having site-specific use classifications; therefore, the default use classifications are assigned to miscellaneous unnamed tributaries (e.g., GWR, REC I, RED II, WARM, WILD, and RARE).

Table 2-10. Springs located in the Northwest Chuckwalla Valley Elevation Name Locations (ft) Dry/Flowing Eagle Tank 3S/13E-23 2040 Buzzard 4S/14E-16 2010 Dry (March/88) Unnamed 4S/14E-16 2400 Hayfield Summit 5S/14E-19 1900 Flowing Long Tank 6S/15E-2 1190 (June/61)

Waters of the State presently located at the proposed site include only groundwater resources. The primary groundwater resource in the Eagle Mountain area is the water table aquifer of the Chuckwalla Valley basin. Beneficial uses that apply to the groundwater in the Chuckwalla hydrologic unit include municipal and domestic supply, industrial service supply, and agriculture supply. By definition, all surface and groundwater is considered suitable or potentially suitable for municipal or domestic water supply, unless one or more of the following conditions applies (California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), 2005):

TDS exceeds 3,000 mg/L and it is not reasonably expected by the Regional Board to supply a public water system Contamination exists either by natural processes or by human activity that cannot reasonably be treated. The water source does not provide sufficient water to supply a single well capable of producing an average, sustained yield of 200 gallons per day. The aquifer is regulated as a geothermal energy producing source.

Historic groundwater quality TDS concentrations only occasionally exceed the 3,000 mg/L (Figure E.2-21) and none of the other exceptions would apply to the aquifer of the Chuckwalla Valley basin, reinforcing that the current municipal or domestic water supply classifications are generally appropriate. Therefore, the federally approved Region 7 water quality standards (Table 2-11) for groundwater, based on maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for use of the groundwater for drinking water, would apply to the Project waters, but only if substantial leakage to groundwater is expected, and the expected leakage to groundwater is still to be determined. Although California has not yet adopted a new MCL for arsenic, it is expected that it will be at least as stringent adopted EPA MCL for arsenic.

Table 2-11. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 7 (CRWQCB, 2007a) and EPA numeric standards for inorganic chemical constituents that apply to waters designated for domestic or municipal supply use Inorganic Chemical CA Region 7 EPA Constituent MCL MCL (mg/L) (mg/L) Arsenic 0.05 0.01 Barium 1.0 2 Cadmium 0.01 0.005 Chromium (total) 0.05 0.1 Lead 0.05 0.015 Mercury 0.002 0.002 Nitrate as N 10 10 Selenium 0.01 0.05 Silver 0.05 0.1

Historic water chemistry data for the Chuckwalla aquifer are variable, depending on the depth and location of the well (Figures E.2-21 – E.2-23), and suggest treatment would be necessary to maintain the water quality at levels below the concentrations listed in Table 2- 11. Selenium has not been detected at concentrations above the laboratory detection limits of 0.005 mg/L and therefore is not expected to accumulate in the reservoirs and require treatment. Annual sampling of the reservoirs is recommended to confirm selenium is not accumulating.

2.4.1.2 Surface Water Resources No surface water presently exists on site and therefore the presentation of existing water quality data for streams, lakes, or reservoirs normally required in a FERC license application is not applicable to this project.

The proposed pumped storage hydroelectric project will create surface water bodies through the construction of the two working fluid reservoirs. These reservoirs are strictly intended for use in hydropower production, which would carry industrial (IND) and power (POW)

©2008 Eagle Crest Energy 2-23 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION – EXHIBIT E beneficial use designations. The proposed source water for the project is groundwater. Operation of the proposed project requires large displacement of surface water in both water bodies on a daily basis precluding the development or support of a viable aquatic ecosystem.

2.4.2 Potential Impacts to Water Quality

2.4.2.1 Groundwater Quality Effects Limited groundwater quality analyses have been performed in the valley and are available for review. Samples were collected in 1960 at various locations throughout the valley. Samples were also collected in 1994 during pilot testing of groundwater wells for use by the project. These wells are the same or in close proximity to the previously sampled wells so a comparison of historic to present water quality can be made. Table 2-8 contains these analyses.

The water quality analyses show conflicting patterns. Wells 4S/16E-32M and -30D1 show there has been very little change even though the groundwater basin experienced overdraft during 1981 through 1991. However, wells 5S/16E-7P1 and -7M2 show their TDS has increased by about 160 mg/L. The increase appears to be related to irrigation return water. Nitrate concentrations increased by about 2 mg/L over the same time, presumably due to the use of fertilizers.

Although the Project and other pumping will cause temporary overdraft, the overdraft will be less than historic periods when little to no change in water quality occurred. Therefore, projected pumping is not expected to affect the water quality in the groundwater basin.

The effects of runoff from the Eagle Mountain mine on the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin aquifers and its water quality are unknown (B&V, 1998).

Seepage from the reservoirs is estimated to be 600 AFY. Unchecked, this seepage water would mix with down-gradient groundwater. Water quality of the water in the reservoirs will change over time due to evaporation, resulting in increasing levels of TDS. In order to maintain TDS at a level consistent with existing groundwater quality, a water treatment plant using Reverse Osmosis (RO) is proposed.

In order to plan the water treatment facility, water quality data from the northern Chuckwalla wells were used for assumptions about the source water quality. While the total replacement water need is estimated to be 2,360 AFY for evaporation and seepage, only the evaporation component (1,760 AFY) enters into the estimation of water treatment requirements. The RO treatment would remove water from the upper reservoir at a rate of 3 MGD and remove sufficient TDS to maintain the in-reservoir TDS at the same average concentration of the source water, approximately 660 PPM, based on available data for the Chuckwalla wells. Approximately 2,500 tons of salts would be removed from the reservoir each year.

Typically, the RO and other desalination methods produce a brine solution that concentrates the salts. In coastal projects, these are often mixed with industrial water and discharged back into the ocean. In an inland installation, the brine can be stored in lagoons where evaporation further concentrates the brine. In some cases, brine can be used for other commercial purposes. Recent advancements in technology address membrane fouling, temperature, pH, and contaminants.

RO desalination plants can require up to 25 percent less land area than competing desalination platforms, making them easier to site. The proposed Eagle Mountain project would develop environmentally safe storage lagoons to prevent off-site transport of the salts to either surface or groundwater environments.

The lagoons will be sized to accommodate 100 years of accumulated storage of brine and salts. Brines can sometimes be commercially harvested and that potential may be evaluated during later phases of project development. However, license application drawings and designs will assume no commercial ventures are active. Another potential to be explored as the Project progresses is integration of desalinization with proposed nearby solar power projects.

2.4.2.2 Surface Water Quality Effects As described in Section 2.1, there are no streams, lakes, or reservoirs in the project area at this time. The Project proposes to create two reservoirs in existing mining pits. Water quality in these two new reservoirs could be degraded through two processes. First, degradation would occur due to the evaporation of project waters, resulting in increased concentrations of salts. A reverse osmosis treatment plant is proposed to address this issue, as previously described.

Second, the contact of project waters with pit material could result in elevated metals concentrations. To access the potential impact of former iron mining activities on the quality of the water to be pumped between the upper and lower open pits for the purposes of storing energy and producing electricity, the following key factors were considered:

The mineralogy of the deposit – What metals or chemical complexes can be put into solution by interacting with surface or groundwater; are there minerals that can buffer the reactions, i.e. carbonates? The distribution of the minerals of interest (host rock, residual ore body, waste rock dumps, tailings) – How can the minerals interact with water (surface runoff, a brief event; groundwater or pooling in the pits, long term interaction)? The chemistry of the natural groundwater and how it affects mineral dissolution and acidity. The location of surface water bodies, ephemeral drainage structures, depth to groundwater.

2.4.2.2.1 Mineralogy The iron deposits at Eagle Mountain are contained within a low to medium grade metamorphosed series of sedimentary units consisting of quartzite, meta arkose, and marble. Locally the sediments are intruded by monzonite and granodiorite with minor mafic and andesitic dikes.

The Lower Quartzite, composed of 98-99 percent quartz has no significant oxide or sulfide minerals that could leach and impact water quality. This zone is most likely a zone formed by the hydrothermal replacement of an existing gneiss and marble.

The Meta-arkose, essentially a dirty sandstone with significant feldspar and some mafic minerals exhibits some iron oxide staining, possibly from the oxidation of biotite and “opaque” minerals which probably include magnetite. Some of the iron-bearing clays may also be oxidizing. This appears to be relatively minor with probably no impact on water quality other than some contribution of iron and manganese.

The Lower Marble is a metamorphosed limestone comprised of dolomite (Ca, Mg, Fe(CO3)2). It consists of hematite (Fe2O3) dolomite layers and contains ore horizons of magnetite (Fe3O4) and hematite with minor amounts of pyrite (FeS2), actinolite, tremolite, diopside, serpentine, calcite, gypsum, apatite, chalcopyrite , tourmaline, and garnet. Pyrite is reported to range up to 10 percent locally within the ore lenses, but averages 3 to 4 percent (Force, 2001). The presence of gypsum could be primary or it could be an indication of pyrite and the carbonates reacting to form the gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O). It seems that the mineralogy is primarily oxides with very minor sulfide, therefore, the probability of generating significant acidic metal leachate is low. Additionally, other than iron, calcium and magnesium, there do not appear to be any metals that would create notable toxicity.

The Middle Quartzite is mineralogically similar to the Lower Quartzite and appears to have no likelihood of significantly impacting water quality. The Upper Marble is mineralogically similar to the Lower Marble and does contain ore zones of hematite and magnetite with minor pyrite. It will react similarly. The Upper Quartzite is mineralogically similar to the other quartzites and appears to have no likelihood of significantly impacting water quality.

The mineralogy of the geologic units in the vicinity of the pits indicates that there is primarily oxide mineralization with minor pyrite and gypsum and therefore minor potential to generate acid leachate. Additionally there do not seem to be any oxide or sulfide minerals that contain significant toxic metals. Pyrite, which averaged 3-4 percent in the ore body (which has been mined from the pit areas) did contain 1.5-3 percent Co in some samples reported by Force (2001).

Cannon (1986) in a study of Lake Superior banded iron formations noted that the ore zones generally contained trace elements at concentrations below crustal averages and that while

the presence of pyrite could allow for some acid generation and enhanced leaching of metals, the trace amounts of carbonate present would provide fairly significant neutralization.

The greatest potential for impact to water quality would be some increase in the concentration of iron, magnesium, and calcium that could cause some iron oxide precipitation and scaling in equipment.

2.4.2.2.2 Mineral Distribution The original distribution of the ore minerals would be within the zones that were mined through the development of the pits. By design, most of the highest concentration of iron minerals would have been removed and processed in the mill.

Previous studies (Kaiser Steel Resources, 1991) indicate that approximately 195 million metric tons remain in the Central and East pits. Of the 99 million metric tons considered to be economically recoverable, approximately 65 million metric tons remain in the Central Pit and 34 million metric tons in the East Pit. The East Pit reserves include approximately 21.4 million metric tons of placer deposits (concentrated magnetite-rich sands)

Lower grade ore may also have been removed during pit development as waste rock and put on the waste rock dumps. Waste rock is typically dumped at the margins of the pits, usually on the down slope side (in this case to the south) to minimize haulage costs. Indeed, review of the air photographs of the site indicates that the pits are generally rimmed by dumps mostly to the south and that some may have been partially backfilled with waste rock.

After the ore is mined from the pit, it is hauled to the mill and processed. Here, the minerals of interest, in this case magnetite and hematite would be concentrated and the tailings that consist of non-ore minerals (quartz, dolomite, etc) and some fine-grained ore minerals that could not be effectively separated, would be conveyed (usually as a slurry) to the tailings pond where the water is decanted from the pond and recycled to the mill. The tailings eventually harden forming extensive, flat waste piles of very fine-grained material. The tailings ponds are located at a lower elevation than the mining pits and to the southeast.

Some impact on water quality could occur from interaction of ore left in the pit bottom or walls. The waste rock dumps and tailings ponds, given their location, are likely to have little impact on water quality in the pits used by the project.

Hendricksen (1966) gives water quality data for several mine shafts in Algoma-type iron deposits in Michigan. The pH ranged from 7.0 to 7.4 for the Iron Mountain and Norway Mines. Pyrite and carbonates are associated with this type of deposit and there seems to have been little acid generation.

2.4.2.2.3 Natural Waters There are no permanent surface water bodies at the site due to the low precipitation, high evaporation, and infiltration. Natural runoff flows rapidly toward the Chuckwalla Valley to the east, but much is lost to evaporation and infiltration. Some of the drainage over the Project area is directed to the East Pit where it pools before being lost to infiltration and evaporation.

Groundwater at the site is typically hundreds of feet below the ground surface, although in the Eastern pit, the pit bottom may be several feet below the groundwater table at times (CH2MHill, 1996). TDS ranged from 380 to 4560 mg/L, chloride from 33 to 860 mg/L, sulfate from 61 to 3,080 mg/L and pH from 7.4 to 8.6. In one well, MW10, it was suggested that a higher pH of 9.7 was due to the dissolution of carbonate veins in the ore horizon by the oxidation of the minor pyrite. Overall, the water in the region of the mine pits is alkaline and would have some capacity to buffer the minor amount of acid generated by the oxidation of pyrite.

Groundwater is located at considerable depth in the valley and is of reasonable quality. The pH ranges from approximately 7.4 to 8.5, TDS are generally above the California MCL of 500 mg/L (425-950 mg/L; CH2MHill, 1996), sulfate and chloride are generally below the MCLs of 250mg/L and 250 mg/L respectively (Kaiser Steel, 1978). Boron, fluoride, and arsenic are commonly higher than recommended concentrations for drinking water. Samples from the Pinto and Chuckwalla wells had concentrations of boron at 600 and 938 ug/L and concentrations of fluoride of 2.4 and 6.2 mg/L (Kaiser Steel, 1978). While high, these concentrations seem typical for arid desert valleys in Southern California. Concentrations reported for Death Valley were boron, 100 to 11,200 ug/L and fluoride, 2.4 to 6.2 mg/L, for Arroyo Seco, boron 100 to 5,000 ug/L, fluoride, 0.1 to 5.2 mg/L, and for Joshua Tree, fluoride up to 9 mg/L (Department of Water Resources, 2003).

Tourmaline (Na(Mg,Fe,Mn,Li,Al)3Al6(Si6O18)(BO3)3(OH,F)4 was noted as a minor constituent in the ore lenses (Force, 2001) and was most probably formed from boron present in the regional igneous intrusives and volcanics that was mobilized during the hydrothermal event that formed that mobilized iron and other minor metals to form the iron deposit. Tourmaline itself is relatively resistant to chemical weathering (Goldschmidt, 1958) and not likely to be the source of the slightly elevated boron detected in the valley wells.

2.4.2.2.4 Leachate Analysis In 1993, five samples were collected from the ore body material and were analyzed for standard soil analyses and water soluble leachate from saturate paste extracts. During this sampling, an effort was made to obtain a variety of rock types representative of the geologic formations present in the pits. Analytical tests followed procedures from the USDA Handbook 60 (USDA, 1954), where leachate is produced by adding distilled water to the

©2008 Eagle Crest Energy 2-28 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION – EXHIBIT E homogenized core samples that pass through a 2 mm sieve. Initial water quality of the distilled water was not reported with the lab reports.

We compared the results from these leachate analyses (Table 2-12) to standards that would apply to the MCLs in Table 2-11. Based on this comparison, leachate concentrations are generally within the range of historic groundwater quality concentrations. Potential seepage from the reservoirs has a low potential to exceed the MCLs for cadmium and mercury (Table 2-12). The potential for arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, selenium, and silver to exceed the MCLs is uncertain since detection limits for these analytes were higher than the MCL. For nitrate, one sample exceeded the 10 mg/L MCL, suggesting that potential seepage from the reservoirs may contain nitrate concentrations greater than the domestic MCL. Results for pH ranged from 6.5 to 9.8.

Table 2-12: Results of 1993 geochemical analyses. Bolded values exceed domestic or municipal supply MCLs Parameter Units Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Acid Base Potential (CaCO3) Tons/1000T 2 40 3 372 56 Sulfur, total percent 0.06 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.09 Neutralization Potential percent as CaCO3 0.4 4 0.4 37.2 5.9 Sulfur, organic percent 0.04 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 Sulfur, pyritic percent 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Sulfur, sulfate percent <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.09 Nitrate as N, soluble mg/kg 3.5 11.7 3.4 7.3 2 Calcium, soluble meq/L 5.94 2.5 9.08 0.7 26.8 Magnesium, soluble meq/L 2.47 1.81 3.13 3.62 3.37 Sodium, soluble meq/L 0.7 2.7 1 0.74 0.96 pH, Saturated paste units 6.8 8.5 6.5 9.6 8.5 Sodium Absorption Ratio 0.3 1.8 0.4 0.5 0.2 Conductivity, Saturated Paste mmhos/cm 0.86 0.82 1.22 0.51 2.25 Sulfate, soluble mg/kg 128 36 67 19 1597 Aluminum, extractable mg/L 0.3 0.9 <0.3 <0.3 1.9 Arsenic, extractable mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Boron, extractable mg/L 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 Cadmium, extractable mg/L <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Copper, extractable mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Iron, extractable mg/L 7 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Lead, extractable mg/L < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Parameter Units Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Manganese, extractable mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Mercury, extractable mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 Molybdenum, mg/L extractable <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Selenium, extractable mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Zinc, extractable mg/L <0.05 <0.05 0.08 0.21 0.12 Sand (2.0 - 0.062 mm) percent 98 96 98 93 99 Silt (0.062 - 0.002 mm) percent 1 3 1 4 0 Clay ( < 0.02mm) percent 1 1 1 3 1

2.4.2.2.5 Conclusions Overall, there are no notable factors related to the mining pits that should significantly impact the quality of the water stored in the pits compared to the naturally occurring groundwater. The mineralogy of the deposit is predominately magnetite and hematite with minor pyrite. The ability of the pyrite to oxidize and generate acidic solutions is somewhat limited by the alkaline nature of the groundwater and the presence of calcite and dolomite. Some of the cations and anions present could increase in concentration due to evaporation in the pits, but this can be offset by the addition of makeup water and RO treatment prior to running water through the generation and pumping equipment.

2.4.3 Existing or Proposed Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Activities The construction of a RO facility has been proposed to help manage project waters at acceptable levels of salinity. Designs for the RO water treatment facility will be refined during project development. The RO facility will conserve water, improve environmental protection, and maintain appropriate water quality standards.

2.5 Summary Potential Groundwater Impacts Potential groundwater impacts associated with the ECE project are related to seepage from the reservoirs and the brine disposal pond and from groundwater withdrawal effects. Potential groundwater impacts are:

Higher Groundwater Levels - The on-site facilities are located on bedrock. Jointing and fracturing of the bedrock has locally increased the permeability of the rock. Groundwater in the joints and fractures may discharge to the sediments in the adjacent Chuckwalla groundwater basin. The lower reservoir is located on bedrock but the eastern wall of the pit exposed about 400 feet of alluvium that is part of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin sediments. Residual seepage could cause

groundwater levels to rise in the sediments beneath the CRA and cause structural instability or subsidence. Hydrocompaction - The sediments around the fringes of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin were deposited as alluvial debris flows. These types of sediments are susceptible to subsidence if wetted. The CRA is constructed on these sediments at the base of the Eagle Mountains. Seepage from the reservoir or ponds could raise groundwater levels and consolidate the sediments leading to subsidence. Subsidence - Groundwater pumping in large alluvial basins may occur when there are thick accumulations of saturated clay. A thick clay layer is present in the central portions of the Chuckwalla Groundwater Basin. Lowering groundwater and removal of the groundwater can cause the clay structure to compact leading to inelastic subsidence. Lower Groundwater Levels - Groundwater pumping creates drawdown near the pumping well and may extend some distance away from the well. Groundwater pumping by ECE could cause local drawdown that could affect other agricultural and domestic wells. Water Quality (Metals) - The bedrock and, to a limited extent, the tailing piles contain metal ore that could be mobilized by the residual water seepage from the reservoirs. The water from the bedrock would migrate into sediments of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin and could affect water quality. Evaluations have shown that the metals are not very mobile but some could be transported into the groundwater basin. Water Quality (Salts) - Salt and metal laden water could seep through the engineered lined brine disposal ponds. Perched water, rise in groundwater levels, and degradation of water quality could affect the groundwater quality in the basin and could affect the concrete lining of the CRA. Loss of Facilities - The proposed landfill has many groundwater monitoring wells in the bedrock areas. Monitoring wells located within the upper and lower reservoirs may be affected.

2.6 Groundwater Mitigation Measures ECE has not received specific recommendations from state or Federal agencies for the protection of groundwater. Groundwater mitigation measures proposed by ECE consist of engineered structural features associated with project facilities and four mitigation components described below. In addition to these mitigation measures a monitoring program will be implemented to measure groundwater levels, quality and subsidence to provide the necessary data to assess and maintain groundwater effects at levels less than significant.

2.6.1 Higher Groundwater Levels Reservoir seepage could raise groundwater levels and cause hydrocompaction and affect the CRA structure. The rise could be produced by seepage from the reservoirs or brine pond. The water could contain salts or metals which could affect the CRA lining or water quality in the groundwater basin. Up to 600 acre-feet of water may seep from the project facilities.

Bedrock groundwater contours show the water is moving from the Eagle Mountains to the south and east until it intercepts the sediments in the groundwater basin. Groundwater levels in the sediments within the basin show the groundwater movement is from the northwest toward the southeast in the vicinity of the project site.

Seepage from the project site will be extracted through groundwater level control extraction wells between the project site and the CRA and roughly parallel to the CRA. A least one well will be targeted to intercept flows from the Bald Eagle fault zone, the East Pit Fault, the alluvial section exposed in the East Pit, and one near the brine disposal ponds. The proposed extraction well locations are shown on Figure E.2-24. The exact number and placement of the wells will be based on measured aquifer characteristics. The wells will be operated to maintain groundwater within historic levels or at a cooperatively agreed upon level. Target levels will be assigned to nearby monitoring wells.

Conceptually the groundwater extraction wells will be equipped with pumps and connected to a trunk line that will convey the water to water quality treatment plant or back to reservoirs where the water will be treated and reused.

The extraction wells address potential impacts associated with rising groundwater levels, water quality, and hydrocompaction; and are intended to avoid any significant effects.

2.6.2 Lower Groundwater Levels If groundwater is used to supply the Project, groundwater levels near the Project’s water supply wells will decline during the project pumping. The analysis shows the levels will still be above historic low levels within the basin. Local decline of groundwater levels, within the cone of depression, could affect nearby wells.

When and if the project wells are selected, a through hydrogeologic evaluation of the pumping wells will be made through aquifer testing to assess the extent of the potential area of drawdown. The area where drawdown will exceed ten feet will be canvassed for wells and the conditions at each well will be documented, in cooperation with the well owner.

Should project pumping adversely affect nearby wells ECE will select either an alternative well for use, provide water from its wells, pay for improvements to lower or resize the affected well, or construct a new deeper replacement well.

2.6.3 Subsidence Inelastic subsidence may occur when groundwater levels are lowered below historic levels. The potential for subsidence will be minimized by maintaining groundwater levels above historic low groundwater levels.

The most complete record of groundwater levels in the basin are at well 05S/16E-7P2. Groundwater levels in the basin will be maintained in well 05S/16E-7P2 above elevation 350 feet msl.

2.6.4 Loss of Facilities Three to four existing groundwater monitoring wells, constructed for the landfill, are located within the upper and lower reservoirs. These wells will have to be replaced. ECE will replace the monitoring wells at locations outside of the reservoirs as shown on Figure E.2-24.

2.7 Groundwater Mitigation Monitoring There are a number of dedicated groundwater monitoring wells in the area. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California constructed wells along the CRA alignment and within the upper portions of the Chuckwalla groundwater basin. The USGS monitors wells scattered throughout the Chuckwalla Groundwater basin and in a well located at the mouth of the Pinto Basin. The landfill constructed 11 groundwater monitoring wells in the bedrock and 21 monitoring wells in the sediments in the Chuckwalla Groundwater Basin. Also there are a few private water supply wells in the area. This monitoring network assumes that the owners will be willing to allow monitoring of these wells. Additional monitoring wells will be constructed by the Project, as needed.

2.8 Monitoring Network The area near the Project site will be monitored for water production, water levels, water quality, and subsidence. The network will consist of monitoring wells, extraction wells, and an extensometer as shown in Figure E.2-24. Combined, the network will provide the necessary data to assess and manage groundwater conditions around the project site. In addition to the monitoring network shown on Figure E.2-24, wells further from the site, in the Chuckwalla Valley groundwater basin, will be monitored for water production and levels associated with water supply for the Project. These supply wells will be located near Desert Center, but the precise locations have not yet been determined. Monitoring wells will be selected near these supply wells to assess any adverse changes in the groundwater levels, quality and flow direction.

2.8.1 Water Production Project pumping would be maintained within the estimated project demand. The pumping will be measured at the proposed five extraction wells and up to three project water supply

wells. If production levels exceed 25 AFY, data will also be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.

2.8.2 Water Levels and Quality If groundwater is used, groundwater levels and quality monitoring will be performed at monitoring wells and the projects extraction and water supply wells. Groundwater levels and water quality sampling will be performed as follows:

One up-gradient and three to five down-gradient wells around each reservoir and the brine disposal pond to detect seepage. Nine monitoring wells in the valley sediments to assess changes related to seepage or from project pumping. Two residential/municipal wells nearest the project to ensure safe drinking water. Extraction and project water supply wells and associated monitoring wells.

Groundwater levels will initially be made on a monthly basis which may then later be extended to quarterly or annually. Water quality sampling will be performed initially on a quarterly basis.

2.8.3 Subsidence A cable extensometer will be constructed adjacent to the CRA to monitor for either hydrocompaction or subsidence. Initially the measurement will be collected on an hourly basis but will be extended to monthly as baseline conditions are determined.

3 Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources

3.1 Fish and Aquatic Resources No perennial streams are present in the project area. Intermittent surface water sources in the central project site and vicinity are Eagle Creek (a wash just south of the central project site), other smaller unnamed washes, and temporary pools at the bottom of mine pits that form from stormwater runoff. Ephemeral springs within the vicinity of the central project site are Buzzard Spring, an unnamed spring near Buzzard Spring, and Eagle Tank Spring. All of these water sources are temporary and seasonal and are not capable of supporting fish.

The Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) lies at the base of the Eagle Mountain Mine site. South of the central project site is a forebay (part of the aqueduct system) at the MWD’s Eagle Mountain Pumping Plant. The CRA diverts water from Lake Havasu, and any fish species that may be present in the aqueduct system are likely to be the same as those found in the Lake. Most are 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 supports game fish, it is closed to the public for fishing.

No fish-related recreational opportunities exist in or near the project area, and there are no plans to introduce fish into the reservoirs which will be unsuitable for aquatic species due to daily cycling up and down for power generation. While it is possible that fish could be accidentally introduced to the proposed reservoirs by birds, it is very unlikely that they would survive the operational conditions.

Both reservoirs would be drawn down on a daily cycle. The upper reservoir will fluctuate between El. 2,343 feet and El. 2,485 feet. At minimum pool the surface area will be 48 acres, with 2,300 acre-feet of dead storage. At full pool the upper reservoir will be 191 acres and 20,000 acre-feet. The lower reservoir will fluctuate between El. 925 and El. 1,092 feet. At minimum pool, the lower reservoir will have a surface area of 63 acres, and will contain 4,200 acre-feet of dead storage. At full pool the upper reservoir will be 163 acres and 21,900 acre-feet. Fish introduced to the reservoirs would be subjected to over 140’ of vertical fluctuation on a daily. Entrainment rates would be high and fish habitat non-existent.

3.2 Description of Existing Plant and Wildlife Communities

3.2.1 Plant Communities The Project 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, approximately 2.8 to 5.4 inches per year (Turner and Brown, 1982). This is a warmer, wetter desert than the Mojave Desert and while substantial rainfall may occur in the winter months, there is a strong summer component, with warm, monsoonal rains emanating from the Gulf of Mexico. Winter temperatures average approximately 54°F (Turner and Brown, 1982). Ambient, summer temperatures are extreme, commonly reaching 110+°F for long periods and averaging approximately 90°F. This period of extremely warm weather is also lengthy, extending from mid-spring through the fall. As a consequence of these climatic conditions, the vegetation is highly drought-adapted, but contains subtropical elements. Where the summer rainfall is more reliable (extreme southeastern California), the arboreal community, largely consisting of microphyllous trees, is a primary component of the flora. But in general, species richness and density are relatively low due to the low rainfall and high temperatures, whether compared to more mesic environments or simply other regions of the Sonoran Desert.

The Central Project Site is located at the edge of the Eagle Mountains, but gently sloping to undulating bajadas and valleys dominate the remainder of the Project landscape. The presence of coarse particles in the substrate varies and is largely dependent on the proximity of the Project to mountains and attendant hydrologic forces. Hence, boulders and cobbles are common in the upper bajadas and toeslopes with smaller particles downslope. Desert pavement is intermittently present in the immediate area of the Central Project Site. Soils generally range from soft sand to coarse-sandy loams, with aeolian patches of loose sand and intermittent incipient dunes from west of Wiley Well Road to the proposed Colorado River Substation. Elevations range from approximately 400 to 2000 feet.

Drainage patterns reflect the local topography. Along the broad bajadas traversed by the Project’s linear facilities, drainage is primarily characterized both by scattered, well-defined washes and networks of numerous narrow runnels. The former 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 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, albeit in a stunted form. These small channels often fail to either flow or provide through-flow to larger drainages. Sheet flow is evident across those bajadas 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. Throughout the Project area, percolation into the plain or nearby playa occurs where slopes are negligible.

Three basic native plant communities (after Holland, 1986) are intersected by the Project: Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub (California Native Plant Society [CNPS] Element Code 33100), Desert Dry Wash Woodland (CNPS Element Code 62200), and Stabilized and Partially Stabilized Dunes (CNPS Element Code 22200). The Central Project Site is heavily disturbed by prior mining activities, but is bordered by Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub (County of Riverside and UBLM, 1996). From the Central Project Site east, the plant community is characterized by variations of Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub. This community is dominated by two species: creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) and burro bush (Ambrosia dumosa). However, common elements variously include brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), white rhatany (Krameria grayi), chollas (Cylindropuntia echinocarpa, C. ramosissima, and occasionally C. bigelovii), one to several species of indigo bush (Psorothamnus schottii, P. arborescens var. simplicifolius, and P. emoryi), and ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens).

Throughout Chuckwalla Valley and in bajadas to the east, the Project also intersects broad plains of contiguous to intermittent, arboreal washes (Desert Dry Wash Woodland). Where the drainages are well defined, the wash banks and islands are densely vegetated with aphyllous or microphyllous trees, primarily ironwood (Olneya tesota) and blue palo verde (Cercidium floridum), with occasional to common honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), smoke tree (Psorothamnus spinosus) and catclaw (Acacia greggii). Where the drainages are contiguous, with sheet flow occurring across broad, bajadal floodplains, the tree species typically found in arboreal drainages are, instead, aspect-dominant elements of the landscape and appear to be homogeneous across the landscape. Other common wash associates - cheesebush (Ambrosia [=Hymenoclea] salsola), galleta grass (Pleuraphis rigida), desert lavendar (Hyptis emoryi), desert peach (Prunus fasciculatum), chuparosa (Justicia californica), and jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis) grow in both the arboreal drainages as well as the less distinct runnels. (See Appendix B for a list of species observed in the Project Area.)

Vegetation in the Stabilized and Partially Stabilized Dunes from Colorado River Substation west to about three miles west of Wiley Well Road is dominated by creosote bush, galleta grass, and white bursage; Emory dalea (Psorothamnus emoryi) is occasional to common. Representative understory species include dune primrose (Oenothera deltoides), sand verbena (Abronia villosa), forget-me-not (Cryptantha angustifolia), Spanish needle (Palafoxia arida), and plantago (Plantago ovata); croton (Croton californica) is periodically common. Associated sinks are dominated by blue palo verde (Cercidium floridum), with understories of dense galleta grass, and Fendler globe mallow (Sphaeralcea angustifolia).

There are several highly disturbed habitats along the Project route. In Chuckwalla Valley, the Project intersects several abandoned jojoba farms and a few active agricultural parcels (jojoba and asparagus farms). The transmission line also crosses Interstate 10 and travels along

Chuckwalla Road for approximately eight miles. (See the Recreation and Land Use Sections for a detailed description of land uses in the Project vicinity.)

3.2.2 Wildlife Communities Common wildlife species in this region are adapted to arid conditions and/or are migratory. In the habitats intersecting the Project, taxa include ungulates, small and midsized mammals, birds, reptiles, and invertebrates. Common species include black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus), desert kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), antelope ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus), Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami), desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida), black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilenata), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), lesser nighthawk (Chordeiles acutipennis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Common species specifically associated with drainages include desert mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), verdin (Auriparus flaviceps), black-tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura), and phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens). Side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), zebra tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum) are commonly occurring reptiles. Amphibians are comparatively uncommon in the Project area due to lack of permanent water and unreliable ephemeral water. However, a few species are known from the area and may breed in ephemeral water sources as they become available during summer or winter rains. The most common species are red-spotted toad (Bufo punctatus) and Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris regilla). Commonly occurring invertebrate taxa include spiders (Class: Arachnidae), beetles (Order: Coleoptera), true bugs (Order: Hemiptera), and wasps and ants (Order: Hymenoptera).

The draft EIS/EIR for the Eagle Mountain Landfill (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996) also identified several common species that inhabit the disturbed Kaiser Eagle Mountain Mine and surrounding mine shafts as a result of that disturbance. These include common raven (Corvus corax), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and several bat species that use the mine structures, but are generally intolerant of human activity (Townsend’s big-eared bat [Plecotus townsendii], pallid bat [Antrozous pallidus], western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus], and Brazilian free-tail bat [Tadarida brasiliensis]).

3.2.3 Recent Biological Surveys in the Project Area During March and early April 2008, ECE conducted sensitive species surveys for the Project linear elements and potential wells. On the ground surveys in the area of the mine pits that will form the reservoirs and powerhouse were not conducted due to lack of access. The linear elements included the water pipeline and the transmission line. Two alternative transmission line routes were surveyed south of Interstate 10, one on the north side and one on the south side of the existing transmission corridor (Figure E.3-1), as the exact alignment of the transmission line

in this area has not been finalized pending analyses to be conducted by the California ISO and Southern California Edison. The intent of the surveys was to search for all special status species and biological concerns that could be associated with the linear elements and wells. An ancillary goal was to identify sensitive biological areas near the linear elements and wells in order to avoid those areas in the event of project design changes. Details of the survey methods can be found in Karl (2008).

Other recent biological surveys have been conducted on the Project Area. These reports were reviewed in the development of this license application:

Southern California Edison Devers-Palo Verde 2 - 1985 (Karl and Uptain 1985, BLM and E. Linwood Smith and Associates, 1987), 1993 (E. Linwood Smith and Associates, 1993), 2002 (Karl, 2002), 2003 (EPG, 2003), 2004 (Blythe Energy LLC, 2004; EPG, 2004), 2005 (Karl, 2005a and b; Tetra Tech EC, Inc, 2005)

FPL Energy Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line – 2004 (Blythe Energy LLC, 2004; EPG, 2004) and 2005 (Karl, 2005a and b; Tetra Tech EC, Inc, 2005)

District Desert Southwest Transmission Line Project– 2002 (BLM and IID, 2003) and 2005 (Karl, 2005a and b; Tetra Tech EC, Inc, 2005)

Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center – 1989-90 and 1995 (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996) and other supporting studies for the Eagle Mountain Landfill permits

3.3 Special-Status Species and Biological Resources Several species known to occur on or in the vicinity of the 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 federally- or state-listed as Threatened or Endangered and receive specific protection as defined in federal or state endangered species acts (FESA and CESA, respectively). Candidate species for listing, species designated as “Species of Concern” or “Sensitive” by state or federal agencies, and plant species from Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 of the CNPS (2007) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California are protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the statement that “a species not included in any listing in subsection (c) shall nevertheless be considered to be rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet the criteria in subsection (b)” (CEQA Guidelines §15380, Subsection d). These species and listed 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 NECO as species for which surveys must be completed where a project intersects the species ranges, as mapped in NECO. Therefore, these plants are also included in the list of special-status species for the Project. In addition, two species 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, game, and protected species that may occur the Project vicinity and have potential to be affected by Project activities are listed in Table 3-1. This list only includes those species

with the potential to be on the Project, not all special-status species that are regionally known. The list is based on (1) records of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for special-status species that are known to occur in the project survey area; (2) records from the CNPS for special-status plants; (3) results from relevant surveys (e.g., Karl 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes, Environmental Planning Group [EPG] 2004, Blythe Energy LLC, 2004; Tetra Tech EC, Inc., 2005) and reviews (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996); (4) the NECO Plan (BLM and CDFG, 2002); and (5) known habitats in the area (i.e., experience of the author).

Special status species detected during the spring 2008 survey are described in Table 3-2. A summary of the habitat and range of each special-status species is also discussed in Appendix A.

3.3.1 Listed Species in the Project Area Coachella Valley Milkvetch (FWS: Endangered; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 1B). This subspecies is found from the Coachella Valley, east to approximately Desert Center (NECO, 2002; CNPS, 2007). The strongly inflated, two-celled, papery, speckled pods of this silky-haired milkvetch easily distinguish it from other milkvetches. It is an herbaceous perennial whose above-ground portions die back during drought periods. While it is restricted to loose- sandy, including aeolian, soils, the substrate over the soil may be slightly gravelly. Microhabitat sites are often associated with disturbance, consistent with many legumes, and in a 1987 survey of the Southern California Edison (SCE) Palo-Verde Devers II Transmission Line, individuals were commonly found in road berms (Karl and Uptain, 1985). It has been found throughout the Coachella Valley (Karl and Uptain, 1985; NECO, 2002; CNPS, 2007), but many of these populations are threatened by Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) recreational use and may no longer exist. A population was also allegedly found in the aeolian areas of Chuckwalla Valley, along SR 177 (Figure E.3-2; BLM and CDFG, 2002; CNPS, 2007). However, it is likely that this sighting was mistakenly identified and is actually a population of Astragalus lentiginosus var. variabilis instead (N. Fraga, Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Gardens, pers. comm. to K. Hughes, 2008). During Spring 2008 surveys for the EMPS Project, all of the plants found in the aforementioned population keyed to A. l. var. variabilis.

Coachella Valley milkvetch is unlikely to be found on the Project due to lack of habitat. It was not seen on the Spring 2008 surveys nor on several previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM and IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, 2003, and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

Table 3-1. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Potential for Special-Status Species1 Species Status2 Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence on the Project Site

Federal State CNPS3

Plants

Abrams’s Spurge Sandy sites in Mojavean and Sonoran Desert Population near the northern (Chamaesyce abramsiana) scrubs in eastern California; 0-3000 ft transmission line alternative at Ford Dry Lake exit. Possible — — 2 north of I-10 in Chuckwalla Valley and east of Graham Pass Rd

Arizona Spurge Sandy flats in Sonoran Desert scrub, below Possible north of I-10 in (Chamaesyce arizonica) — — 2 ~1000 ft Chuckwalla Valley and east of Graham Pass Rd

Ayenia Sand and gravelly washes and canyons in Possible primarily around the — — 2 (Ayenia compacta) desert scrubs, 450-3600 ft Central Project Site

California Ditaxis Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub from 100 to Observed south of the (Ditaxis serrata var. californica) — — 3 3000 ft hydropower plant; possible elsewhere in Chuckwalla Valley

Coachella Valley Milkvetch Loose to soft sandy soils, often in disturbed Highly unlikely due to lack of E (Astragalus lentiginosus var. — 1B sites; 100 to 2200 ft habitat and documented nearby BLM Sensitive coachellae) populations

Cove’s Cassia Dry washes and slopes in Sonoran Desert Possible at hydropower plant. (Senna covesii) Scrub, 1000 to 3500 ft Habitat exists on entire linear — — 2 routes, but species has not been observed on related surveys

Crucifixion Thorn Movavean and Sonoran Desert scrubs; Possible at the hydropower plant (Castela emoryi) typically associated with drainages and. Previously observed on bajada south of the mine and NECO records for the species — — 2 are scattered throughout the plan area. Not seen in 2008 or on previous surveys of linear routes.

Desert Sand-parsley Sonoran Desert Scrub; known from one site, Highly unlikely; not observed — — 2 (Ammoselinum giganteum) near Hayfield Dry Lake, at 1200 ft

Desert Unicorn Plant Sandy areas in Sonoran Desert scrub Possible throughout the Project (Proboscidea althaeifolia) — — 4 throughout southeastern California, below area although not observed in 3300 ft. 2008 Project surveys

Species Status2 Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence on the Project Site

Federal State CNPS3

Flat-seeded Spurge Sandy flats and dunes in Sonoran Desert Possible north of I-10 in — (Chamaesyce platysperma) — 1B scrub; below 350 ft Chuckwalla Valley and east of BLM Sensitive Graham Pass Rd

Foxtail Cactus Primarily rocky substrates between 250 and Observed on the bajada south of (Coryphantha alversonii) 4000 ft. Creosote Bush Scrub the Central Project Site; not — — 4 found east of SR 177 along the transmission route on several surveys

Glandular Ditaxis Sandy flats in Mohavean and Sonoran Possible, especially north of I-10 (Ditaxis claryana) Creosote Bush scrubs in Imperial, San in Chuckwalla Valley and east of — — 2 Bernardino, and Riverside counties; below Graham Pass Rd 1500 ft

Harwood’s Milkvetch Dunes and windblown sands below 1200 ft., Observed and/or habitat from (Astragalus insularis var. — — 2 east and south of Desert Center Graham Pass Rd east harwoodii)

Jackass Clover Sandy washes, roadsides, flats; 1900 to 2700 Unlikely due to lack of onsite — — 2 (Wislizenia refracta var. refracta) ft habitat

Las Animas Colubrina Sonoran Desert Creosote Bush Scrub, <3300 Possible at near the Central (Colubrina californica) ft Project Site. Habitat exists on — — 2 entire linear routes, but species has not been observed on related surveys

Mesquite Neststraw Open sandy drainages; known from one site Highly unlikely (Stylocline sonorensis) — — 1A near Hayfield Spring; presumed extinct in California

Orocopia Sage Mohavean and Sonoran Desert scrubs; Observed on bajada south of (Saliva greatae) — gravelly/rocky bajadas, mostly near washes; Central Project Site but not — 1B BLM Sensitive below 3000 ft observed on EMPSP linear routes

Slender Woolly-heads Dunes in coastal and Sonoran Desert scrubs, Possible in incipient dunes from (Nemacaulis denudate var. — — 2 primarily in the Coachella Valley; below 1500 west of Wiley Well Rd. to gracilis) ft Colorado River

Spearleaf Rocky ledges and slopes, 1000 to 6000 ft, in Only potential habitat is on or — — 2 (Matelea parvifolia) Mojave and Sonaran Desert scrubs around the Central Project Site

Species Status2 Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence on the Project Site

Federal State CNPS3

Spiny Abrojo Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub; 500 to 3300 ft Possible around the Central (Condalia globosa var. — — 4 Project Site; not observed on pubescens) surveys for linears

Invertebrates

Cheeseweed Owlfly Creosote bush scrub in rocky areas Possible, especially near the — — — (Oliarces clara) Central Project Site

Amphibians

Couch’s Spadefoot Various arid communities in extreme Possible on entire Project , — (Scaphiopus couchii) SC — southeastern California and east, south including several artificial BLM Sensitive impoundments

Reptiles

Chuckwalla Rock outcrops Likely in all suitable rocky areas (Sauromalus ater) — — — near the Central Project Site and along the transmission line

Desert Rosy Boa — Rocky uplands and canyons; often near Possible, especially near Central — — (Charina trivirgata gracia) BLM Sensitive stream courses Project Site

Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard Restricted to aeolian sandy habitats in the Known from aeolian areas — (Uma scoparia) SC — Mojave and northern Sonoran deserts between Graham Pass Rd. and BLM Sensitive Colorado River Substation

Desert Tortoise Most desert habitats below approximately Known from the project area (Gopherus agassizii) 5000 ft in elevation west of approximately the T T — Chuckwalla Valley Dune Thicket ACEC

Birds

American Peregrine Falcon Delisted E Dry, open country, including arid woodlands; Possible forager onsite, may — (Falco peregrinus anatum) BCC Fully Protected nests in cliffs nest in adjacent mts.

Bendire’s Thrasher BCC Audubon Arid to semi-arid brushy habitats, usually with Possible SC (Toxostoma bendirei) BLM Sensitive Watchlist yuccas, cholla, and trees

Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Desert washes Observed — — — (Polioptila melanura)

Burrowing Owl BCC SC Open, arid habitats Likely

Species Status2 Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence on the Project Site

Federal State CNPS3 (Athene cunicularia) BLM Sensitive

California Horned Lark Open desert habitats Likely — SC — (Eremophila alpestris actia)

Cooper’s Hawk Woodlands and forests, possibly desert oases Possible near the Central (Accipiter cooperii) SC Project Site and lushly vegetated arboreal washes

Crissal Thrasher Dense mesquite and willows along desert Possible BCC SC (Toxostoma crissale) streams and washes

Ferruginous Hawk — Audubon Arid, open country Possible winter resident only SC (Buteo regalis) BLM Sensitive Watchlist

Gila Woodpecker Desert woodland habitats Possible if habitat is present BCC E (Melanerpes uropygialis)

Golden Eagle BCC SC Open country; nests in large trees in open Possible forager on site, may

(Aquila chrysaetos) BLM Sensitive Fully Protected areas or cliffs nest in adjacent mts. Observed.

LeConte’s Thrasher Audubon Mohavean and Sonoran Desert Scrub Likely (Toxostoma lecontei) BCC Watchlist SC BLM Sensitive USBC Watchlist

Loggerhead Shrike Arid habitats with perches Observed BCC SC — (Lanius ludovicianus)

Merlin Open country; nests in trees, cliffs, and on Possible as winter resident — SC — (Falco columbarius) ground only

Mountain Plover Audubon Dry upland habitats, plains, bare fields Unlikely, but possible winter (Charadrius montanus) BCC Watchlist visitor to agricultural fields in the SC BLM Sensitive USBC Project area Watchlist

Northern Harrier Open habitats; nests in shrubby pen land and Possible — SC — (Circus cyaneus) marshes

Prairie Falcon Dry, open country, including arid woodlands; Likely forager on site, may nest BCC SC — (Falco mexicanus) nests in cliffs in adjacent mts.

Short-eared Owl Audubon Open habitats: marshes, fields; nests on Possible winter visitor (Asio flammeus) — SC Watchlist ground and roosts on ground and low poles USBC

Species Status2 Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence on the Project Site

Federal State CNPS3 Watchlist

Sonoran Yellow Warbler Riparian habitats, woodlands, orchards Unlikely, but possible in the (Dendroica petechia sonorana) more densely vegetated riparian BCC SC — areas or on the Central Project Site. (Observed)

Vermilion Flycatcher Wooded and shrubby sites near water, Highly unlikely due to probable (Pyrocephalus rubinus) — SC — especially with willows, mesquite and lack of habitat cottonwoods

Yellow-breasted Chat Dense streamside thickets, willows; brushy Possible transient (observed); (Icteria virens) — SC — hillsides and canyons gnerally unlikely due to probable lack of habitat

Mammals

American Badger Many habitats Observed — SC — (Taxidea taxus)

Arizona Myotis Lowlands of the Colorado River and in the Possible; identified by NECO — SC WBWG:M (Myotis occultus) adjacent mountains

Big Free-tailed Bat Cliffs and rugged rocky habitats in arid, Possible forager on site, — SC WBWG:MH (Nyctinomops macrotis) country, also riparian woodlands especially near mountains

Burro Deer Arboreal and densely vegetated drainages Observed — Game Species — (Odocoileus hemionus eremicus)

California Leaf-nosed Bat — Lowland desert associate, found in caves, Possible near the Central SC WBWG:H (Macrotus californicus) BLM Sensitive mines, tunnels and old buildings Project Site

Colorado Valley Woodrat Under mesquite in creosote bush scrub; Possible — — — (Neotoma albigula venusta) southeastern California

Nelson’s Bighorn Sheep — In mountains and adjacent valleys in desert Likely near Central Project Site — — (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) BLM Sensitive Scrub

Pallid Bat — Several desert habitats Possible, primarily near the SC WBWG:H (Antrozous pallidus) BLM Sensitive Central Project Site

Pocketed Free-tailed Bat Variety of arid areas in pinyon-juniper Possible near the Central (Nyctinomops femorosaccus) — SC WBWG:M woodland, desert scrubs, palm oases, Project Site drainages; always near rocky areas

Southwestern Cave Myotis SC SC WBWG:M Caves, mines and buildings in lower desert Unlikley

Species Status2 Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence on the Project Site

Federal State CNPS3 (Myotis velifer brevis) BLM Sensitive scrub habitats; also near the Colorado River

Spotted Bat Arid scrub and grasslands, to coniferous Possible, especially near the — (Euderma maculatum) SC WBWG:H forests, roosts in cliffs, forages along streams Eagle and Chuckwalla BLM Sensitive and in woodlands, fields mountains

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat — Broad habitat associations. Roosts in caves Possible, primarily near the SC WBWG:H (Corynorhinus townsendii) BLM Sensitive and manmade structures; feeds in trees Central Project Site

Western Mastiff Bat — Cliffs, trees, tunnels, buildings in desert scrub Possible, especially near Central SC WBWG:H (Eumops perotis californicus) BLM Sensitive Project Site

Yuma Puma Colorado River bottomlands Possible — SC — (Puma concolor browni)

1/ See text for method of determination of those species potentially in project area. 2/ Source: California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals (2007) 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 the USFWS, but have no official status [formerly C2 species]) Federal BCC USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern State SC CDFG Species of Special Concern (species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction) State Protected Species that cannot be taken without a permit from the CDFG Fully Protected Species that cannot be taken without authorization from the Fish and Game Commission 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 USFWS candidate species 3/ 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.) USBC = United States Bird Conservation List WBWG = Western Bat Working Group (http://wbwg.org) H – High Priority – These species should be considered the highest priority for funding, planning, and conservation 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

Table 3-2. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Results of Spring 2008 Surveys for Special-Status Species Species Type of Sign Location (NAD 83) Comments Zone Easting Northing Plants California Ditaxis Individual 11 S 648100 3736724 California Ditaxis Individual 11 S 650953 3737484 Foxtail Cactus Individual 11 S 643894 3745288 Foxtail Cactus Individual 11 S 643877 3745261 Foxtail Cactus individuals 11 S 641619 3745840 Harwood's Milkvetch Individual 11 S 685969 3720331

Reptiles Chuckwalla Scat 11S 646095 3742669 Desert Tortoise Burrow 11 S 656191 3733160 Class 3, 240 mm wide Desert Tortoise Burrow 11 S 648196 3741316 Bone fragments, more than 4 Desert Tortoise Carcass 11 S 643262 3743984 years old Desert Tortoise Burrow 11 S 656191 3733160 Class 5, 230 mm wide Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard Individual 11 S 696283 3718636 Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard Individuals 11 S 701875 3718494 Common Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard Individuals 11 S 702844 3718442 Common Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard Individuals 11 S 699920 3719213

Birds Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Individual 11 S 653554 3734695 Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Individual 11 S 700038 3721357 Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Individual 11 S 643705 3745413 Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Individual 11 S 668066 3725165 Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Pair 11 S 642271 3745116 Golden Eagle Individual 11 S 656436 3733422 Loggerhead Shrike Individual 11 S 696854 3721243 Raven Nest 11 S 694094 3721191 Active nest in Tower 135-1 Red-tailed Hawk Nest 11 S 669622 3723844 Active nest in Tower 150-1 Red-tailed Hawk Nest 11 S 692321 3718695 Active nest in Tower 135-1 Red-tailed Hawk Nest 11 S 695698 3721214 Active nest in Tower 124697 Red-tailed Hawk Nest 11 S 692278 3718972 Active nest in Tower 135-1 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 654147 3734217 In Tower 169095E Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 671301 3722672 In Tower 148-3 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 672205 3722149 In Tower 148-1 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 674778 3720409 In Tower 146-1 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 682475 3718949 In Tower 141-1 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 679832 3718990 In Tower 142-3 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 679300 3719014 In Tower 143-1 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 683513 3718930 In Tower 140-3 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 684030 3718912 In Tower 140-1 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 685055 3718878 In Tower 139-2 Species Type of Sign Location (NAD 83) Comments Zone Easting Northing

Species Type of Sign Location (NAD 83) Comments Zone Easting Northing Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 685584 3718865 In Tower 139-1 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 686095 3718857 In Tower 138-3 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 688193 3718813 In Tower 137-2 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 690283 3718745 In Tower 136-1 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 697119 3718676 In Tower 132-1 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 696007 3718631 In Tower 132-3 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 698126 3718549 Two stick nests in Tower 131-2 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 699746 3718508 In Tower 130-2 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 676032 3719556 In Tower 145-2 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 676756 3719088 In Tower 144-3 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 679300 3719025 In Tower 143-1 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 678791 3719027 In Tower 143-2 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 701355 3718513 In Tower 129-2 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 700829 3718525 In Tower 129-3 Stick Nest (Raptor or Raven) 11 S 654147 3734217

Mammals American Badger Den 11 S 648076 3738819 American Badger Den 11 S 668256 3725053 American Badger Den 11 S 669403 3724012 American Badger Den 11 S 670938 3723272 American Badger Den 11 S 673926 3721297 American Badger Skull 11 S 664915 3727090 Burro Deer Scat 11 S 668438 3724601 Burro Deer Scat 11 S 674643 3720471 Burro Deer Tracks 11 S 687942 3718806 Burro Deer Tracks 11 S 668408 3724481 Burro Deer Tracks 11 S 696867 3718819 Burro Deer Tracks 11 S 697605 3718815

Desert Tortoise (United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Threatened; California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG): Threatened; Protected). The desert tortoise is one of five species of North American tortoises, four of which belong to the genus Gopherus: G. agassizii (desert tortoise), G. berlandieri (Texas tortoise), G. flavomarginatus (bolson tortoise), and G. polyphemus (gopher tortoise). A fifth species, Xerobates lepidocephalus (scaley- headedtortoise) is known from southern Baja California, Mexico, and may be a relict descendent of the desert tortoise (Ottley et al., 1989). Only the desert tortoise inhabits the southwest 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 and northern Sinaloa, Mexico (Ernst et al., 1994; Germano et al., 1994).

The desert tortoise occupies arid habitats below approximately 4,000 ft in elevation (Karl, 1983; Weinstein, 1989). Common vegetation associations in the Mojave Desert include creosote bush scrub, saltbush scrub, Joshua tree woodland, and Mojave yucca communities. 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; thornscrub is occupied in the Sinaloan Desert. Because of the burrowing nature of tortoises, soil type is an important habitat component (Karl 1983, Weinstein et al., 1986). 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. In portions of Nevada and elsewhere, where a near- surface durapan limits digging, tortoises often occupy caverns in the exposed caliche of wash banks. 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 slopes are inhabited; only playas and steep, talus-covered slopes are avoided.

The USFWS emergency-listed the desert tortoise as endangered on August 4, 1989 (USFWS, 1989]). The Mojave population - the species in California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona north of the Colorado River - was listed in the final rule on April 2, 1990 as threatened (USFWS, 1990). The Sonoran population, the species in the remainder of Arizona, is not listed and does not have protected status under the ESA. On June 22, 1989, the California Fish and Game Commission listed the species as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (State of California Fish and Game Commission, 1989). On February 8, 1994, the USFWS designated critical habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (USFWS, 1994b), encompassing approximately 6,446,200 acres (2,608,741 ha). One critical habitat unit (CHU), the Chuckwalla CHU, intersects the project area.

Desert tortoises have been observed on all previous surveys in the Project area (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996; Karl, 2002; BLM and IID, 2003; EPG, 2004; TetraTech EC, Inc., 2005) and on Spring 2008 Project surveys (Table 3-2, Figure E.3-3). Habitat for this species exists on the Project from approximately four miles west of Wiley Well Road (Karl, 2002) west to the Central Project Site (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996). (While not on the Project site proper, areas outside the Project that could be affected by Project construction and/or operation also patchily occur east of Wiley Well Road.) Generally, sign counts were relatively low on the

alignment coinciding with the Project transmission line (Karl, 2002 and 2004; BLM and IID, 2003; TetraTech, Inc., 2005).

The Chuckwalla Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMA) intersects the Project from Wiley Well Rd, approximately five miles west of Colorado River Substation, to approximately 12.5 miles west (Figure E.3-4). Designated critical habitat overlaps the project area from approximately 1.3 miles east of Wiley Well Rd. for approximately 20 miles to the west (Figure E.3-4).

American Peregrine Falcon (USFWS: Delisted, Bird of Conservation Concern; CDFG: Endangered, Fully Protected). This is a falcon of open country, cliffs, and occasionally cities. It breeds from Alaska south to Baja California, wintering in Baja California, the Gulf of California, and extreme southern California. The nest is a scrape on a high cliff ledge and, as such, this species may forage on the Project, but nest offsite.

No peregrine falcons have been observed on previous surveys in the Project area. The Project only offers foraging habitat for this species, although nesting could occur in the mountains adjacent to much of the Project, especially the Central Project Site.

Gila Woodpecker (USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern; CDFG: Endangered). The Gila woodpecker inhabits desert scrub and washes, saguaros, river groves, and woodlands, including residential shade trees. Its range extends from the Imperial Valley to the southern tip of Nevada, southern and central Arizona, extreme southwestern New Mexico, all of Baja California, and much of western and central Mexico.

Although not observed on previous surveys in the Project area, Gila woodpecker could occur in the far eastern portion of the Project.

3.3.2 Non-Listed Special-Status Species Details of non-listed special status species and their potential presence in the project area are found in Appendix A.

3.4 Special Habitats

3.4.1 Wetlands, Seeps and Springs, and Jurisdictional Waters There are no perennial streams, or associated riparian habitats, in the Project vicinity.

No natural wetlands occur in the Project vicinity. Drainages in this part of Riverside and Imperial County are generally limited to high-energy runoff via washes that are usually dry. As water from these runoffs quickly percolates into the surrounding soil, the establishment of wetland vegetation is precluded. The additional soil moisture during these brief periods is enough to allow the growth of aphyllous or microphyllous trees (see above), but the lack of

residual soil moisture and less importantly, the scouring action from the high-energy, intermittent flow, prohibits the growth of most species of plants.

Six seeps, springs, or water catchments were identified by the Proposed Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management (NECO) Plan (BLM and California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG], 2002) in the immediate vicinity of the project, all on or near the pumping facility (Figure E.3-5). Four of these – Buzzard Spring, Dengler Tank, Eagle Tank, and Cactus Spring are outside the Project boundary by at least two miles (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996). The NECO Plan identified two other springs (unnamed), one of which might be adjacent to, in, or borderline with the Project. However, investigations of these sites for the Project Pre-Application Document could not find details on these springs. A May 1994 helicopter survey of all water sources in the Eagle Mountains also did not note them (Devine and Douglas, 1996). During project design, a water source survey will determine the presence any springs, their quality, and value for wildlife.

3.4.2 Artificial Water Impoundments It is reasonable to assume that temporary pools could accumulate in the mine pits as a result of precipitation and runoff. The condition of these potential pools and any other water sources is currently unknown. Further, although unclear without further investigation, there may be standing water currently associated with water treatment facilities for the Eagle Mountain townsite.

There are two well sites that may supply water to impoundments, Well Numbers 05 and 16 (Table 3-3). These impoundments can have value as a site for breeding amphibians. Well Number 05 is at the site of a former fish farm. There are numerous cement tanks approximately one meter deep, as well as excavated basins that are several hundred meters long and into which native and non-native vegetation has partially invaded (Figure E.3-6). Well No. 16 is part of a very large, former agricultural operation with many residences and outbuildings. There are basins that were probably sewage treatment ponds, a few cement fish tanks, and a cement swimming pool whose base has broken (Figure E.3-7). Palm trees are now growing out of the pool.

Figure E.3-6. Cement fish tanks and partially revegetated basins associated with Well Number 05.

Figure E.3-7. Abandoned cement swimming pool on former agricultural operation associated with Well Number 16.

Table 3-3. Wells Investigated in the Project Area During Spring 2008 Surveys Well Number Location Description Potential Biological Issues* (NAD 83) Small active farm with irrigated area and livestock; 01 0653957E 3737442N approximately 0.5-acre pond None** In a small, abandoned agricultural operation; surrounding habitat is disturbed and experiencing Atriplex polycarpa 02 0654244E 3738633N (allscale) regrowth; two palm trees suggests regular or near- None surface water.

Well is in previously cleared, now ruderal, area surrounded by 03 0654242E 3739021N abandoned agriculture None

Part of active grape farm surrounded by abandoned 04 0654233E 3739688N agriculture and ruderal areas None

Former fish farm; many cement ponds and excavated basins; Possible temporary impoundments for undisturbed native creosote bush scrub immediately north amphibian breeding; possible desert 05 0652739E 3739778N tortoises and other wildlife in adjacent native habitat In abandoned jojoba field; undisturbed native creosote bush Possible desert tortoises and other 06 0652614E 3740583N scrub 40 m to the west wildlife in adjacent native habitat At northwestern corner of abandoned jojoba farm; undisturbed native creosote bush scrub to the west Possible desert tortoises and other 07 0652613E 3741370N wildlife in adjacent native habitat

Old abandoned homestead; ruderal to south; depositional, Possible Mojave fringe-toed lizard, but aeolian sand to north and east; one small basin that may unlikely due to disturbed origin of 08 0652612E 3742158N briefly hold rainwater aeolian condition

In middle of abandoned jojoba farms 09 0650528E 3736933N None

Well Number Location Description Potential Biological Issues* (NAD 83) Active agriculture, with native creosote bush scrub to south. 10 0649647E 3737310N None Well could not be located without trespassing. 11 0648448E 3737310N Residence; signed private property None Active residential area; well not located due to private 12 0652025E 3735447N property None Appears to be abandoned; in southwestern corner of 13 0651797E 3735754N abandoned jojoba field None

Approximately at McGoo's store; could not locate actual well 14 0650979E 3734456N None In abandoned agricultural field, surrounded by agriculture or 15 0652120E 3734907N barren land; some ruderal habitat to north None

Old cement swimming pool and former water treatment ponds Possible temporary impoundment for in large, abandoned agricultural operation; native habitat amphibian breeding and ephemeral 16 0651814E 3734202 immediately south use by migratory birds; possible desert tortoises and other wildlife in adjacent native habitat Part of airport; mostly piles of debris and abandoned 17 0654217E 3736058N buildings; many asphalt pads; some regrowth None

Possibly not a well but piped water from Well 17; 20 x 30 m 17A 0654598E 3735097N basin; no evidence of standing water None

On north side of former jojoba farm; habitat immediately north is previously bladed cresote bush-allscale scrub; water collects briefly against dike, but probably not long enough for Probably none; possible tortoises 18 0656160E 3735408N amphibian breeding north of dike that could enter site

Actual well not obvious; abandoned jojoba farm to north, northeast and south; native creosote bush scrub habitat to Tortoises in adjacent habitat could 19 0656220E 3733820N southeast enter site

Well Number Location Description Potential Biological Issues* (NAD 83) Well is in southwestern corner of former jojoba farm, bordered by native creosote bush habitat to west and south Tortoises in adjacent habitat could 20 0658287E 3733498N enter site

In northern portion of large cleared area with abandond orchard to south; area has been invaded by adjacent dunes and is well-vegetated with native annuals; loose-sandy and or Mojave fringe-toed lizard likely (none 21 0658343E 3735058N dune habitat to west and north observed)

* Value is for estimated site condition during well use by EMPSP, including retirement of existing uses ** Note: While not observed, burrowing owls could establish nests or burrows at any of the inactive, abandoned sites.

3.4.3 Other Special-Status Habitats in the Project Area

3.4.3.1 Desert Dry Wash Woodland The arboreal washes that are common in the landscape traversed by the Project are considered biologically significant habitat features to which biodiversity in the Colorado Desert is strongly linked (see review in National Research Council, 1995). These assemblages provide critical breeding, refuge, and foraging habitat for a variety of birds, amphibians, and invertebrates and many local species concentrate their activities in these lush drainages. Because of its value to wildlife and natural processes, Desert Dry Wash Woodland is considered sensitive by the California Resources Agency (BLM and CDFG, 2002).

Desert Dry Wash Woodland is located on the Project intermittently throughout Chuckwalla Valley to Colorado River Substation.

3.4.3.2 Sand Dunes Dunes are uncommon habitats in the desert. A rich plant and animal community occupies this habitat and there are several associated species that are largely or entirely found in the loose sand of the dunes proper or in the surrounding sandy habitat (e.g., dune primrose [Oenothera deltoides], desert lily [Hesperocallis undulata], Coachella Valley milkvetch [Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae], croton [Croton californica], sand verbena [Abronia villosa), and Mojave fringe-toed lizard [Uma scoparia]). This habitat primarily occurs in valleys or lower bajadas with slopes under approximately one percent. Drainage is largely by percolation with occasional arboreal washes and sinks.

On the Project, low, sparsely to moderately vegetated dunes and hummocks are present from Colorado River Substation west to about three miles west of Wiley Well Road (Chuckwalla Valley Dune Thicket Area of Critical Environmental Concern). This habitat is also present along Interstate 10 from approximately two miles west of the Ford Dry Lake exit, east to two miles east of the Wiley Well Road exit. Aeolian soils dominate the landscape on the approximately four mile right-of-way connection from the SCE 161 kV line to the Colorado River Substation at the eastern end of the proposed transmission line.

3.4.4 Other Biological Considerations in the Project Area

3.4.4.1 Biological Soil Crusts Biological crusts, also variously known as crytobiotic, cryptogamic, microbiotic, and micryphytic crusts, form in the upper layers of soils. These soil crusts include a community of microscopic bacteria, fungi, algae, and other microorganisms that function mechanically, chemically, and biologically to stabilize soils against erosion; provide nutrients and water for

plant growth; and modify ambient temperatures (West, 1990; Belnap et al., 2001). Their function in arid systems has only relatively recently been addressed, especially as it relates to crust disturbance (Rowlands, 1980; Belnap et al., 1998; Evans and Belnap, 1999). Crusts are highly susceptible to crushing, especially when dry, which can occur via a number of mechanisms, including grazing, vehicular traffic, surface grading, and hiking. Not only do crushed crusts lose their function, but crushed crusts release a flush of nutrients that support the growth of exotic annual species (e.g. Bromus spp., Schismus arabicus) (Pendleton et al., 2004).

3.4.4.2 Invasive Species Several species of exotic plants have been introduced to the southwestern deserts. Tamarisk (Tamarix. spp.), a medium-sized tree, was introduced to the United States as an ornamental and windbreak. Brought to the United States in the early 1800s (Allen, 2002), old hedges of tamarisk are still common along farms and railroads in many areas of the desert. It has especially invaded riparian areas, including springs, rivers, and canals, outcompeting native vegetation for available resources. On the Project, a tamarisk grove was identified in the East Pit (Kaiser and MRC, 1991). The condition of that grove or the existence of tamarisk elsewhere on the Central Project Site remains unevaluated until surveys can be conducted on the site.

Highly successful annual exotics in the desert include three grasses - red brome (Bromus madritensis rubens), cheatgrass (B. tectorum), and split grass (Schismus spp) – and two dicots – Tournefort’s mustard (Brassica tournefortii) and filaree (Erodium cicutarium). Most were established in the desert in the mid-twentieth century primarily via grazing and agriculture (Allen, 2002), but also by road-building and other anthropogenic activities that disturb soil surfaces and/or use equipment capable of transporting exotic seed from sources elsewhere. Brooks (2007) also cited nitrogen deposition from vehicle exhaust as potentially promoting plant invasions.

Exotic species use available resources, thereby competing with native plant species and altering species composition and evenness. This, in turn, alters the availability of resources (e.g., cover, forage) to wildlife, which may alter species diversity in the affected wildlife community. Lack of native vegetation may also be implicated in the inability of species that are periodically stressed by drought – a normal and relatively frequent phenomenon in the desert - to withstand that stress. Furthermore, exotic annuals are responsible for promoting wildfires in the desert (Brown and Minnich, 1986; Brooks, 1998; and Allen, 2002).

3.5 Potential Impacts to Biological Resources

3.5.1 General Potential Impacts to Biological Resources Project issues and impacts to biological resources are analyzed in two phases; the construction phase and the operation and maintenance phase.

The potential project impacts discussed below are analyzed prior to the implementation of mitigation and compensation measures. Incorporation of mitigation measures as part of the project can permit those measures to be included in the analysis of Project impacts, thereby reducing the Project impacts.

3.5.2 Construction Construction activities associated with the Project include (1) renovation of the Eagle Mountain Mine to accommodate the reservoirs and generating facilities, (2) construction of the transmission line, and (3) construction of the water pipeline.

Equipment required for construction would include bulldozers, backhoes, graders, air compressors, man lifts, generators, drill rigs, truck-mounted augers, flatbed trucks, boom trucks, rigging and mechanic trucks, small wheeled cranes, concrete trucks, water trucks, crew trucks, and other heavy equipment. Soil and construction materials may be temporarily stored or stockpiled.

Construction associated with the Project would include construction of shafts, tunnels, the powerhouse, administration/storage area, and any necessary Kaiser and MRC touring of the pits. For the most part, Project construction would take place in a highly disturbed, heavily mined area. However, there may be some areas that have biological resources, either because they were not disturbed during mining, or, more likely, because they have regenerated naturally.

Construction of the transmission line would include:

Preparation of staging/laydown areas Access road and spur road construction/improvement Clearing and grading of pole sites Foundation preparation and installation of poles Wire stringing and conductor installation Temporary parking of vehicles outside the construction zone on sites that support sensitive resources (sites not designated as construction material yards) Cleanup and site reclamation

Construction of the water pipeline collection system would include activities similar to those of the transmission line, although the surface disturbance would probably be greater to accommodate both pipeline installation and any necessary new access road.

Depending on the schedule of construction (timing and length of the construction period) and the presence of special biological resources, direct impacts from construction could include loss of individuals and habitat. Special habitat resources, such as specific burrowing sites, may be lost during project construction. For species with relatively limited mobility – i.e., those that are underground during most of the day or year, or those that have a life stage in

©2008 Eagle Crest Energy 3-24 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION – EXHIBIT E the soil or on plants (e.g., insects, nesting birds) - individual losses are more likely than for more mobile species. Some birds may be temporarily disturbed by construction activities and abandon the area, although others will become easily habituated to human activity (e.g., loggerhead shrike).

Population impacts to those species that may be affected by habitat loss on the linear facilities are generally expected to be minor due to the small footprint of habitat physically disturbed relative to the surrounding available habitat. Animals displaced due to the project would be able to return to the area once construction activities have ceased.

Loss of native habitat for the sole purpose of construction (as opposed to maintenance) is temporary, but should be considered semi-permanent for the Colorado Desert. Natural regrowth is constrained by limited and unpredictable precipitation and can require several decades to approach pre-disturbance conditions. During this time, the habitat is unavailable for use by native wildlife. As such, all surface disturbances during construction that results in the removal or displacement of vegetation and soil should be considered semi-permanent.

In addition to the semi-permanent loss of habitat, wildlife may experience temporary disruption of normal movements to achieve feeding, breeding, sheltering, and dispersal. This could occur if mitigation associated with construction of any Project component includes erecting temporary exclusion fencing.

Indirect impacts could include dust deposition on neighboring vegetation. This is expected to be temporary, however, and thus have no lasting impacts.

3.5.3 Operation and Maintenance The primary direct impacts to species from operation of the Project could include the loss of individuals that move onto the site and the loss of use of special biological resources (e.g., springs or seeps) due to the proximity and operation of the facility. Based on the existing high level of disturbance on the Central Project Site and minimal expected habitat loss due to the linear facilities, it is anticipated that there will be negligible loss of resources to most species.

The presence of another transmission line could result in the losses of birds through collisions or electrocution, even if a transmission line of equal stature is already present in the adjacent right-of-way. Finally, maintenance of tower pads and spur roads on the transmission line would perpetuate the vegetation loss of tower pads and roads and, potentially, increase erosion. Because of the existence of many roads in the area of the water pipeline, it is not anticipated that any new recreational access, with concomitant habitat degradation and potential species loss, will be provided by the water pipeline right-of-way.

Wildlife outside of areas of Project-associated surface disturbance and Project operation may also experience indirect, adverse effects. Such effects could include:

Loss of dispersal areas and connectivity to other areas. Altered home ranges and social structure. Increased depredation by predators attracted to the site. Altered plant species composition due to the introduction of exotic vegetation. It is unlikely that the water pipeline or transmission line will restrict animal movement. However, the current use of the Eagle Mountain Mine by bighorn sheep and other species is unknown. It is conceivable that the normal movements of some species to achieve feeding, breeding, sheltering, and dispersal or migration may be indirectly affected by the Project. This could affect both individuals and populations. Faunal community structure may be altered if predators are attracted to the landfill due to available water or lights. Plant community structure and resulting fauna may also be altered if non-native species introduced during construction and/or maintenance activities increase in both abundance and distribution.

3.5.4 Specific Potential Impacts to Biological Resources

3.5.2.1 Terrestrial Plants and Animals Impacts to terrestrial species are discussed above. Following the final siting of the transmission line, wells, pipeline, and any other Project facilities, specific impacts to each taxon will be evaluated, including the specific acreage that may be affected by the Project.

3.5.4.1 Birds and Bats It is anticipated that migratory waterfowl, migratory and resident shorebird species, other birds, and resident bats may use the evaporation ponds at the Project that are associated with the reverse osmosis system for the hydropower project and the reservoirs. The ponds and reservoirs would comprise a rare water source in the region, and one located in the Pacific Flyway for migrating waterfowl. The reservoirs would probably not constitute an impact because they will not be consistently filled. By virtue of their collection and evaporative function, the ponds may concentrate naturally occurring arsenic, sodium, and other harmful elements. Arsenic has been found in some water quality samples of the groundwater at levels above detection. All water quality samples to date have found selenium levels below detection (see Exhibit E Section 1.3). Exposure to arsenic and/or other harmful elements may be exacerbated by bioaccumulation. This occurs when in the harmful elements accumulate in plants (including phytoplankton, algae, and rooted plants) and invertebrates and then successively higher trophic levels in the food chain (e.g., bacteria, phytoplankton, algae, rooted plants, invertebrates, fish, waterfowl). Solute concentrations can also “biomagnify” (Lemly, 1977; Ohlendorf, 1989). Sodium toxicity to waterfowl may also occur and is dependent not only on the water salinity, but on ambient temperatures and exposure time.

3.5.4.2 Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species Based on the previous finding that no fish inhabit the site, it is not anticipated that there will be impacts to fish resources. Without further investigation at the site, it is questionable whether there are any springs on or in the site. This ambiguity suggests that any spring there, if present, is not sufficiently large to host amphibians. In addition, the effect of pumping on seeps and springs in the Eagle Mountains is not expected to be significant.

Other artificial impoundments, such as described in Exhibit E Section 3.4.2, may provide breeding habitat for amphibians. These impoundments may be affected by the Project if the Project uses the adjacent wells and thereby reduces water supply to the impoundments.

3.5.4.3 Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Since there are no wetlands in the Project vicinity, there will be no impact to wetlands.

The effect of pumping on seeps and springs in the Eagle Mountains is not expected to be significant. Based on limited available information, it appears unlikely that these springs are hydrologically connected to the Pinto or Chuckwalla Valley basin aquifers since they are located in the mountains above the Pinto and Chuckwalla basins. Rather, they appear to be fed by local groundwater systems that would be unaffected by withdrawals from the proposed project (NPS, 1994). Since flow from the springs is unlikely to be affected by the project, the vegetation supported by these springs is also unlikely to be affected by the project.

There are no Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. present on the project site. There are many small washes crossed by the pipeline and transmission line that will be regulated by the CDFG under Section 1602. Impacts may include degradation or loss of wash habitat.

3.6 Recommended Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures presented in this section are those that are commonly and specifically recommended by resource agencies and/or are necessary to minimize impacts to special-status species, wildlife, and habitat. They are anticipated to be the basis for the final suite of mitigation measures identified in permitting documents for the Project.

3.6.1 General Mitigation Measures General recommendations for wildlife and habitat are discussed below.

Avoidance and Minimization of Habitat Degradation. In general, disruption of ecological processes and biological resources should be avoided, where possible, or minimized. Habitat degradation should be limited to essential areas only and, where practical, previously disturbed areas should be used for driving, parking, and storing equipment. A plan can be developed to ensure that vegetation removal and damage to soil surfaces is minimized

©2008 Eagle Crest Energy 3-27 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION – EXHIBIT E through pre-construction surveys, delineation, and staking/flagging of avoidance areas. Where avoidance is infeasible, the plants may be salvaged and planted in an adjacent, undisturbed site. Plant salvaging is described in the Project Restoration Plan.

Wildlife Exclusion Fencing. Exclusion fencing will be erected around any facilities that may result in harm to special-status wildlife species. This will include, at a minimum, the pits and administration and parking areas. Temporary fencing associated with construction may also be constructed around high-use construction areas (e.g. local staging areas) or other Project features where fencing would optimize the protection of special-status species. All fencing will be adequate to exclude the targeted wildlife (e.g. eight-foot chain link for deer and bighorn sheep, tortoise fence fabric to exclude tortoises).

Pre-Construction Surveys. Pre-construction surveys of the potential disturbance areas, including access roads, tower pad sites, pulling sites, equipment storage sites, and all use areas that are not fenced by wildlife exclusion fencing, would be conducted to ensure that special-status species are avoided or mitigated. Areas fenced by wildlife exclusion fencing would be searched for special species following fencing, and special-status would be removed according to permits for the Project.

Construction- and Operations-Related Environmental Protection. Prior to the start of construction, activities and contingencies related to construction, operation, and environmental protection must be delineated in a comprehensive mitigation and monitoring plan. Issues addressed should include, but not be limited to, designated working areas and equipment storage, stream protection, equipment maintenance and cleaning, fueling and accidental fuel spills, removal of all debris, hazardous waste, other construction-related materials, and worker education. The worker education program for Project personnel should include measures for desert tortoises and all special-status species, as well as general working procedures (e.g., minimization of habitat degradation, garbage control, vehicular speed limits, and working with biological monitors).

Designation of a Project Biologist. A Project biologist should be assigned to ensure successful monitoring of construction activities, implementation of the worker education program, and successful implementation of all other mitigation measures. The Project biologist would be approved by the agencies and would be responsible for reporting to the agencies.

Weed Control. A weed control program would be developed prior to construction that identifies (1) existing weed populations on the Project and in the surrounding area, (2) methods to quantify weed invasion, (3) methods for minimization of weed introduction, and (4) methods and a schedule for weed eradication, should populations invade the Project.

Restoration Program. A detailed revegetation program should be developed prior to surface disturbance that will ensure realistic and adequate restoration of semi-permanently disturbed sites. The program would include:

Quantitative identification of the baseline annual, herbaceous perennial and woody perennial plant community Soil salvage and preparation Plant salvage during construction Soil testing and appropriate amendments and/or inoculation of mycorrhizal fungi to develop a healthy soil micro-community Seeding and/or planting of seedlings of colonizing species and mycorrhizal net builders Test plots Plant protection Erosion and weed control Irrigation alternatives, as necessary A realistic set of success measures

Reporting. During construction, the Project biologist would provide progress reports at regular intervals to the BLM and other relevant agencies to describe the Project progress, mitigation measures implemented, mitigation successes or difficulties, and recommendations. Any harassment or mortality take of listed species, with suggestions for mitigation improvement, would be documented.

Adaptive Management. When data show that alterations in techniques, mitigation measures or permits are required to adequately protect wildlife and habitats, then these should be analyzed with the relevant agencies and changes implemented.

3.6.2 Species-Specific Mitigation Measures

3.6.2.1 Special-Status Plants In general, impacts to special-status plants can be minimized by avoidance of individuals of these species. Populations can be flagged during surveys prior to construction. Where avoidance is infeasible, the plants may be salvaged and planted in adjacent, undisturbed sites; other options include salvaging seed for revegetation. NECO requires the following mitigation measures:

Conduct surveys in a proposed project area for any special-status plants with ranges mapped in the NECO Plan and at all species locations in the Plan area. Avoid plant populations during construction. Where avoidance is not practical, Project effects on the species and population must be assessed. Disturbance of a listed species will not be allowed. Require mitigation of project impacts in suitable habitat within the range of the impacted species, using commonly applied mitigation measures.

Surveys were already completed on the transmission line alternatives and pipeline for special plants in 2008 and there is ample data from other related surveys. Should routes change, then

further surveys will need to be conducted. Surveys will need to be conducted on the Central Project Site.

3.6.2.2 Special-Status Animals NECO requires the following mitigation measures:

Conduct surveys for any proposed project that occurs in a Multi-species Conservation Zone and at all species locations that occur in the project area. Require mitigation of project impacts in suitable habitat within the range of the impacted species using commonly applied mitigation measures.

In addition, in areas without wildlife exclusion fencing or those areas that have not been cleared of tortoises, construction activities would only take place during daylight hours. This will avoid construction-related mortalities of fossorial, diurnal species such as the desert tortoise, or nocturnally active species, such as the desert rosy boa.

Surveys were already completed on the transmission line alternatives and pipeline for special animals in 2008 and there is ample data from other related surveys. Should routes change, then further surveys will need to be conducted. Surveys will need to be conducted on the Central Project Site site.

3.6.2.3 Special-status Species Desert Tortoise. The most important protection measures for desert tortoises include habitat compensation and a thorough construction-associated clearance and monitoring program to minimize tortoise injuries and loss.

Designated critical habitat overlaps the proposed transmission corridor from approximately 1.3 miles east of Wiley Well Rd. for approximately 20 miles to the west (Figure E.3-4). A formal consultation with FWS will be necessary to “take” critical habitat, as well as desert tortoise.

The Chuckwalla DWMA intersects the transmission corridor from Wiley Well Rd, approximately five miles west of Colorado River Substation, to approximately 12.5 miles west (Figure E.3-4). NECO (BLM and CDFG, 2002) states that all lands within a DWMA will be designated as Category I Desert Tortoise Habitat1 (Figure E.3-8) with required

1 BLM habitat categories, ranging in decreasing importance from Category I to Category III, were designed as management tools to ensure future protection and management of desert tortoise habitat and its populations. These designations were based on tortoise density, estimated local tortoise population trends, habitat quality, and other land-use conflicts. Category I habitat areas are considered essential to the maintenance of large, viable populations.

compensation of five acres for every acre disturbed. NECO considers all land outside a DWMA as Category III habitat. Category III habitats receive a 1:1 compensation ratio (USDI BLM, 1988).

This Project has very little land disturbing activity proposed outside of the very disturbed area of the Eagle Mountain Mine. Therefore, compensation acreage needs are expected to be minimal.

In order to minimize losses of, or injuries to, desert tortoises and habitats, the development of an adequate protection program is essential. The program must include both pre-construction and operational measures. The following list outlines elements of this program that represent tested and successful protection measures; these would be elucidated in substantial detail in a project’s protection program. This list includes all of the NECO recommendations not previously identified in Section 3.6.1 General Mitigation Measures, above, as well as other measures commonly requested by FWS and CDFG.

Designated Persons - This includes a project lead biologist2, experienced with both construction monitoring and desert tortoise behavior and ecology and biological monitors. All biological monitors must be approved by BLM, FWS, and/or CDFG. A Field Contact Representative is designated as the liaison from the project to the agencies, is responsible for compliance and must be on the project site during all project activities.

Adequate Monitoring - An adequate number of trained and experienced monitors2 must be present, depending on the various construction tasks, locations, and season.

Tortoise Exclusion Fencing – Permanent tortoise exclusion fencing shall enclose large and long-term project areas to keep tortoises out of work areas. Temporary fencing may be used in very short-term situations. No hazards (e.g., open trenches, pits, auger holes) may present an unmonitored or unfenced hazard to tortoises. All trenches must be closed at night. When fences are erected, an adequate fence monitoring program must be implemented to ensure fence integrity.

2 NECO uses the terms “Authorized Biologist”, and “Qualified Biologist” to distinguish between levels of experience and tasks for which the biologist may be approved. FWS currently uses the terms “Authorized Biologist” and “Biological Monitor” in place of NECO’s terms, respectively. (http://www.fws.gov/ventura/sppinfo/protocols/deserttortoise_monitor-qualifications-statement.pdf).

Pipeline Trenches – Trenches may not remain open for longer than one week and must be inspected at least once daily by the Authorized Biologist. (Note: This NECO requirement is contradictory to their requirement to close all trenches each night.)

Pre-construction Surveys and Clearance – A pre-construction survey immediately in advance of earth-moving equipment will search for and remove any tortoises in harm’s way. Avoidance is desirable, if possible. Any areas fenced with tortoise exclusion fencing will be cleared prior to construction-related work in those areas.

Presence of Monitors – Between March 15 and November 1, a Qualified Biologist must accompany all construction and operation activities where tortoises might be present.

Seasonal Restrictions – NECO suggests that activities occur when tortoises are inactive – November 1 to March 15 – where possible.

Dogs – Dogs must be confined in project areas to ensure that tortoises are not harmed.

Raven Control - Proposed projects on federal lands that may result in increased raven populations must incorporate mitigation to reduce or eliminate the opportunity for raven proliferation. Mitigation will include, at the least, a monitoring program to identify changes in site use by ravens.

Injured Tortoises – If a tortoise is injured or killed, all activities must cease and the Authorized Biologist contacted. Injured tortoises should be taken to a qualified veterinarian if their survival is expected. FWS will determine if the tortoise can be returned to the wild, if it recovers.

Couch’s Spadefoot. In order to meet NECO mitigation requirements, the following measures must be followed:

Survey for potential ephemeral impoundments in any area that might be affected by a project. Survey for Couch’s spadefoot at ephemeral and permanent (e.g., springs) water sources. Avoid disturbance of impoundments and restriction of surface flow to impoundments. Close all routes within ¼-mile of any known occurrence of Couch’s spadefoot.

In addition, should ephemeral pools develop in response to intense rainfall showers from early spring through fall; these should be examined for larvae of Couch’s spadefoot. If larvae are present, the pools should be flagged and avoided by construction activities.

All Birds. Surveys must be completed in all potential nesting sites for active bird nests, prior to any construction activities occurring between approximately March 15 and July 30. If an active bird nest is located the nest site shall be flagged or staked a minimum of five yards in all directions, and this flagged zone will not be disturbed until the nest becomes inactive, unless otherwise directed by the CDFG.

Techniques will be incorporated to minimize avian mortalities by electrocution and collision with the transmission line.

Evaporation ponds and other permanent artificial water bodies will be monitored initially to identify both bird use and the concentrations of potentially harmful elements. If it is determined that the ponds present an “attractive nuisance” to birds, than a bird deterrent program will be established. This will consist of making resources provided by the ponds less available (i.e., habitat modification) and/or less attractive (i.e., hazing). Mechanical techniques of habitat modification may include covering the ponds and removal of nesting habitat for shorebirds by eliminating vegetation and raising the water level. Raising the water level would also render the sediment less available to wading species for foraging, as well as potentially dilute the concentrations of harmful elements. In addition to removing habitat from use by birds, an integrated system of negative visual and auditory stimuli might be established to haze birds from the area.

Burrowing Owls. The Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993) outlines a set of surveys to determine if burrowing owls might be on a project site; CDFG supports these guidelines:

Phase I Survey – Habitat assessment of the project footprint, plus 150 meter buffer. Phase II Survey – If burrowing owl habitat occurs on the site, a survey must be completed on the site and buffer zone to search for owl signs. Phase III Survey – If burrows that could be occupied are found on the Phase II survey, nesting season surveys must be completed, followed by winter surveys if no burrows or owls are observed during the nesting season. Each of these surveys spans several visits and days. PKaiser and MRCstruction Survey - A survey may be required within 30 days of project construction to assess species presence and the need for further mitigation.

CDFG (1995) has recommended several onsite mitigation measures for resident owls. Disruption of burrowing owl nesting activities or nesting activities of other special-status bird species should be avoided. In fact, NECO limits the construction period to September 1 through February 1 if burrowing owls are present, to avoid disruption of breeding activities. If owls are nesting during construction, nests should be avoided by a minimum of a 250-foot

©2008 Eagle Crest Energy 3-33 DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION – EXHIBIT E buffer until fledging has occurred (February 1 through August 31). Following fledging, owls may be passively relocated. CDFG (1995) also recommends off-site compensation for loss of occupied habitat. This consists of a minimum of 6.5 acres of lands, approved by CDFG and protected in perpetuity, for each pair of owls or unpaired resident bird. In addition, existing unsuitable burrows on the protected lands should be enhanced (i.e., cleared of debris or enlarged) or new burrows installed at a ratio of 2:1.

Raptors. NECO recommends the possible closure of any route within ¼-mile of a prairie falcon or golden eagle aerie.

Thrashers. NECO recommends limiting the construction period to July 1 through December 1 if crissal thrashers are present. In addition, harvesting of live vegetation in the Wildlife Habitat Management Areas (WHMA), especially cactus and yucca, is prohibited in order to protect perches and nest sites for thrashers

Nelson’s Bighorn Sheep. NECO recommends fencing potential hazards to bighorn sheep and constructing new water developments to expand usable habitat for bighorn sheep. Based on observations of sheep use, Divine and Douglas (1996) suggested that Eagle Spring be enhanced and an artificial water source be installed as mitigation for the proposed landfill. A sheep monitoring program to identify current uses and uses following Project implementation is appropriate.

Desert Mule Deer. NECO recommends constructing new water developments to expand usable habitat for deer.

Bats. The following measures are required by NECO:

Survey for bat roosts within one mile of a project, or within five miles of any permanent stream or riparian habitat on a project site.

Projects authorized within one mile of a significant bat roost site would have applicable mitigation measures, including, but not restricted to seasonal restrictions, light abatement, bat exclusion, and gating of alternative sites. Any exclusion must be performed at a non-critical time, by an authorized bat biologist.

All riparian habitat within five miles of a maternity roost of Townsend’s big-eared bat would have a riparian proper functioning condition analysis and receive an annual inspection, followed by a monitoring report. Those riparian sites degraded by use or exotic plants, or otherwise not functioning properly, would receive treatment and/or protection to restore them to proper functioning condition.

In addition, the monitoring program for the evaporation ponds would be extended to include bats, as deemed necessary.

3.6.2.4 Special-status Natural Communities NECO requires compensation for disturbance of Desert Dry Wash Woodland and Desert Chenopod Scrub at the rate of 3:1. In addition to compensation and, in general, minimizing disturbance (see Section 3.6.1 General Mitigation Measures, above), new spur roads and improvements to existing access roads should be designed to preserve existing hydrology. All disturbed washes should be restored to eliminate erosion and encourage the reestablishment of the drainage to its pre-construction condition.

Seeps and Springs. NECO requires the following mitigation measures:

Avoid construction disturbance of any seep or spring for the duration of a project.

Close any routes within ¼-mile of any seep, spring, or guzzler.

Improve seeps and springs that may be in need of rehabilitation, including but not limited to, removing exotic vegetation (e.g., tamarisk), planting native species, excluding livestock and burrows, eliminating water diversions, and controlling bird pests (e.g., starlings).

Jurisdictional Waters. There are many small washes crossed by the pipeline and transmission line that will be regulated by the CDFG under Section 1602. Avoidance will be urged where possible, and construction of the water pipeline across large washes may require horizontal directional boring. Mitigation will include 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. Generally, such compensation is included in the habitat compensation for special-status species.

Mitigation measures will be finalized based on surveys of the hydropower plant and permitting requirements. Costs will vary based on final measures approved for the EMPS and cannot be determined without further information. It is anticipated that the costs of initial mitigation measures and compensation for habitat loss will be under $2,000,000.

4 Historic and Archaeological Resources

4.1 Discovery Measures Recommended by State and Federal Agencies The BLM, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians made comments on cultural resources during the consultation process. These entities requested cultural resource surveys be conducted in the project area. The BLM advised ECE on the status of previous cultural resource surveys that have been done in the general area of the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project.

No requests for specific study methodologies or research designs for Class III inventories have been received to date.

4.1.1 Statement of applicants position on these recommendations ECE accepts the recommendation to conduct Class III cultural resource inventories, and has conducted a Class I inventory on the proposed transmission line corridor as the first step.

4.2 Results of inventories

4.2.1 Methods The Class I study involved requesting information on previously identified cultural resources and studies on record at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) and with the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento. Two areas were considered: the provisional “project area proper” plotted by geographic information system (GIS) mapping as a route varying in width from about 400 to 800 ft.; and a broader study corridor extending out 1 mile on each side of the project area proper.

The data were used to assess:

The extent of previous studies of cultural resources completed within the project area proper and within the study corridor. The number and character of previously recorded cultural resources within the project area proper and within the study corridor. The likelihood of additional cultural resources being present in portions of the study corridor that have not yet been systematically inventoried, and the probable character of such unidentified resources. The additional inventories, evaluation studies, and mitigation measures that are likely to be needed to treat cultural resources as the development of the project advances.

A search of cultural resource records at the EIC was performed on April 25, 2008, supplemented by reports available at ASM Affiliates. The search identified 40 previous reports that had addressed portions of the study corridor, of which 21 are mapped as including a portion of the project area proper. A total of 146 cultural resources had been recorded within the study corridor; of these 48 fall at least in part within the project area proper.

4.2.2 Previous Reports As noted, 40 reports addressing portions of the study corridor have been identified (Table 4- 1). Of these, just over half addressed the project area proper. The study corridor amounts to approximately 62,000 acres. Because many of the previous reports have addressed small linear corridors or irregularly shaped areas, it is not possible to give a precise estimate as to how much of either the project area proper or the larger corridor has previously been systematically inventoried for cultural resources. Based on an impressionistic inspection of the coverage maps (Exhibit E, Volume 2, Privileged), it appears that the portion of the study corridor that has been systematically inventoried is unlikely to have exceeded 5 percent.

A larger portion of the project area proper may have been covered. Several of the previous reports represent linear studies that extended within or ran closely parallel to the project area proper along about 60 percent of its length. Previous studies that are likely to be found to have addressed significant portions of the project’s ultimate 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), and Schaefer (2003):

Cowan and Wallof (1977) and Wallof and Cowan (1977) reported a 1976 archaeological survey of 200 linear miles. This study area overlapped or closely paralleled a substantial portion of the present project area proper from west of Ford Dry Lake nearly to the project area’s eastern terminus. The 1976 survey corridor was 400 ft. wide and was surveyed intensively, in 12-m interval transects. However, standards for recording sites were relatively restrictive: resources classified as isolates included lithic scatters with less than 15 items per 10 m2; ceramic scatters with less than 5 items per 10 m2; prehistoric trails, rock rings, and other isolated features; and historic remains except for pre-1950 scatters with more than 10 items per 10 m2, structures, military encampments, and mine buildings. Most of these would be classified as sites under today’s standards. These “isolates” were not recorded by Cowan and Wallof at the Eastern Information Center and only appear as tabular listings in their report. Some may have been recorded during subsequent surveys along the same corridor.

Table 4-1. Previous Cultural Resource Studies in or near the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Transmission Line Project Area Survey Report No. RI- Title Author(s) Year (acres)

00002 Miscellaneous field notes – Riverside County Malcolm J. Rogers 1953 --

A Cultural Resources Assessment of a Proposed Prison Site 00010* Daniel F. McCarthy 1986 960 near Blythe in Riverside County, California

Letter Report: Addendum to “A Cultural Resources Assessment 00011* of a Proposed Prison Site near Blythe in Riverside County, Philip J. Wilke 1986 15 California

Archaeological and Paleontological Impact Evaluation: American Telephone and Telegraph Company’s Oklahoma Thomas F. King, G. T. 00092 1973 -- City/Los Angeles “A” Cable Route, between the Colorado Jefferson, and M. Gardner River and Corona, California

Archaeological Survey of Proposed County Dump 4 1/2 Miles 00099 S. R. McWilliams 1973 160 North of Desert Center

Archaeological Resources Survey – West Coast-Mid-Continent 00160 Roberta S. Greenwood 1977 133 Pipeline Project, Long Beach to Colorado River

Paleontological, Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural 00161 Resources – West Coast-Midwest Pipeline Project, Long Beach Roberta S. Greenwood 1975 -- to Colorado River

Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Safety Project on Interstate Route 10 between Chiriaco Summit and Willey’s 00190* Stephen R. Hammond 1981 750 Well Overcrossing, Riverside County, California (P.M. 85.7/135.1)

Interim Report – Field Work and Data Analysis: Cultural Richard A. Cowan and 00220* Resource Survey of the Proposed Southern California Edison 1977 -- Kurt Wallof Palo Verde–Devers 500 Kv Power Transmission Line

Cultural Resource Inventory and National Register Assessment Richard L. Carrico, 00221* of the Southern California Edison Palo Verde to Devers Dennis K. Quillen, and 1982 6120 Transmission Line Corridor (California Portion) Dennis R. Gallegos

Final Report: Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Kurt Wallof and Richard 00222* Southern California Edison Palo Verde-Devers 500 Kv Power 1977 -- A. Cowan Transmission Line

Jay von Werlhof and H. 00243 Archaeological Examinations of Mesa Drive into Sundesert Site 1977 11 Pritchett

00284* Cultural Resource Identification – Sun Desert Nuclear Project Richard A. Weaver 1977 --

00617 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Central Mojave & Colorado Dennis Gallegos, J. Cook, 1979 1360 Desert Regions, CA: Cultural Resources Inventory of the Turtle E. L. Davis, G. Lowe, E.

Survey Report No. RI- Title Author(s) Year (acres)

Mountains, Bristol/Cadiz & Palen Planning Units Norris, and J. Thesken

Eastern Riverside County Geothermal Temperature Gradient Bureau of Land 00813 1980 -- Holes Management

An Archaeological Survey of Geothermal Drilling Sites in 00982* Harvey L. Crew 1980 -- Riverside County

Gary L. Shumway, Larry Desert Fever: An Overview of Mining in the California Desert 01090 Vredenburg, and Russell 1980 -- Conservation Area Hartill

Elizabeth von Till Warren, Robert H. Crabtree, A Cultural Resources Overview of the Colorado Desert 01211 Claude N. Warren, Martha 1980 -- Planning Units Knack, and Richard McCarthy

California Desert Program: Archaeological Sample Unit Bureau of Land 01249* 1978 5280 Records for the Big Maria Planning Unit Management

01276 Archaeological Assessment of PM 16455 Mary Brown 1980 320

American Pacific A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Ford Dry Lake Known 01279 Environmental 1981 1440 Geothermal Resource Area Consultants

Cultural Resource Inventory of Seisdata Services Chuckwalla 01664* WESTEC Services 1982 85 Geophysical Test Corridor, Riverside County, California

Preliminary Cultural Resources Survey Report the the US J. Underwood, J. Cleland, 02210* Telecom Fiber Optic Cable project, from San Timoteo Canyon C. M. Wood, and R. 1986 -- to Socorro, Texas: The California Segment Apple

Beth Padon, S. Cultural Resources Assessment, Southern California Gas 03029 Crownover, J. Rosenthal, 1990 -- Company Proposed Line5000, Riverside County, California and R. Conard

Cultural Resource Survey of the Eagle Mountain Mine and Charles S. Bull, Sue A. 03321* Kaiser Industrial Railroad, Cultural Resource Permit Wade, and McMillan 1991 4659 #CA881916 Davis

Alligator Rock Area of Critical Environmental Concern: Final 03372 James D. Swenson 1986 -- Management Plan and Environmental Assessment

Letter Report: Memorandum for Cheni Gold Mines Plan of 03427 Gale Broeker 1991 18 Operation for Limited Testing, Wiley Wells Area

03914* Cultural Resource Investigation of Eagle Mountain Townsite James Schmidt 1995 404

Survey Report No. RI- Title Author(s) Year (acres)

Cultural Resources Kaiser and MRCnaissance: Eagle Mountain 03948* Pumped Storage Transmission Corridor, Riverside County, Bruce Love 1993 -- California

Addendum Cultural Resources Kaiser and MRCnaissance: 03949* Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Transmission Corridor, Bruce Love 1994 -- Riverside County

Cultural Resources Inventory of 1,542 Acres of Palo Verde Meg McDonald and Jerry 04061* Mesa and Palo Verde Valley Catellus/Bureau of Land 1998 1542 Schaefer Management Land Exchange Area

Cultural Resources Kaiser and MRCnaissance, Eagle Mountain 04452* Pumped Storage Transmission Corridor, Riverside County, Bruce Love 1993 -- California

Recording of Historical Resources Adjacent to the Proposed 05157 Cocopah Nursery Natural Gas Pipeline APE, Hell, Riverside Brian K. Glenn 2003 2 County, CA

Negative Archaeological Survey Report: Southern California 05245* Edison Company, Blythe-Eagle Mountain 161 kV Deteriorated James Schmidt 2005 -- Pole Replacement Project

Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment of Approximately 05272 40 Acres: Fraternal Order of Eagles #4455 Kaiser Road Project, Mark Robinson 2003 40 North of Desert Center, Riverside County, CA

Alex Kirkish, Rebecca Cultural Resources Overview and Survey for the Proposed McCorkle Apple, Jackson 06186 2000 714 Alignment of the North Baja Gas Pipeline Underwood, and James H. Cleland

Rebecca McCorkel Apple, Christy Dolan, Jackson 06187* Cultural Resources Evaluation for the North Baja Gas Pipeline 2001 -- Underwood, and James H. Cleland

Cultural Resources Surveys of Alternative Routes within Dennis P. McDougall, 06707* California for the Proposed Devers-Palo Verde 2 Transmission Joan George, and Susan 2006 -- Project K. Goldberg

Cultural Resource Assessment: AT&T Wireless Services, 07192 Curt Duke 2002 -- Facility No. 06003, Riverside County, California

Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for T- Mobile Telecommunications Facility Candidate IE24133A Wayne Bonnery and 07315 2006 -- (ATC Colo at Wiley Well Rd.) Wiley Well Road and Interstate Marnie Aislin-Kay 10, Desert Center, Riverside County, California

Survey Report No. RI- Title Author(s) Year (acres)

Andrew R. Pigliolo, John Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Niland to Blythe Dietler, Michael Baksh, --* Powerline Replacement Project, Imperial and Riverside County, 2000 -- Sara Frazier, and Matt California Murray

A Class II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Desert- --* Southwest Transmission Line, Colorado Desert, Riverside and Jerry Schaefer 2003 600 Imperial Counties, California

* Asterisks indicate reports that are mapped as specifically addressing portions of the present project area proper.

Carrico et al. (1982) reported a 1980 survey of the same alignment as the 1976 survey. The 1980 survey also included a corridor that was 400 ft. wide and was surveyed in 12-m intervals. Criteria for distinguishing sites from isolates were less restrictive than in the 1976 study: isolates were defined as five or fewer prehistoric or historic artifacts within a 25-m distance. Schaefer (2003) reported a Class I and II study for 527 linear mile of alternative routes for a power transmission line, including 16.5 mile of new surveys. The alignments addressed were generally the same as those previously addressed in the reports by Cowan and Wallof (1977), Wallof and Cowan (1977), and Carrico et al. (1982). Additional fieldwork in 2002 consisted of surveying 16.5 mile of generally 1- mile long, 150-m (500 ft.) wide sample units with transects at 20 m (65 ft.) intervals. Three of these transects (ASM Survey Transects C, E, and F) in Chuckwalla Valley coincide with the present project area proper. Bull et al. (1991) reported a 1990 survey of several thousand acres, overlapping most of the initial 2 mile at the extreme western end of the present project area proper at Eagle Mountain. This area is generally characterized by relatively rugged terrain, and the 1990 survey coverage in this area was not systematic, but was focused on ridge lines, saddles, and drainages. Scatters of more than three items within a 25-m radius were classed as sites. Love (1994) reported a negative 1994 Kaiser and MRCnaissance of a 14-mile corridor, approximately 2 mile of which coincided with the present project area proper, southeast of Eagle Mountain at the western end of Chuckwalla Valley. The study area “was visually inspected by driving on existing roads and doing on-foot spot checks” (Love, 1994:2). Based on how the project’s APE is subsequently refined, these studies may (or they may not) eliminate the necessity of additional inventory work within a significant fraction of the APE.

Previous studies have been most extensive at Eagle Mountain (at the western end of the study corridor) and in the eastern half of the study corridor, in areas extending from south of Ford Dry Lake to Palo Verde Mesa. Somewhat fewer investigations have addressed the intermediate area in the western half of the study corridor, between Eagle Mountain and Ford

Dry Lake. Although the locations of previous studies have not been chosen randomly, but they appear to constitute a reasonably representative sampling of the terrain that is present in the study corridor as a whole, the great majority of which is almost flat desert.

4.2.3 Explanation of variations from survey procedures recommended No specific recommendations for survey procedures have been received.

4.3 Historic and archeological sites in the Project Area

4.3.1 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Records from EIC document the presence of 146 previously recorded cultural resources within the study corridor (Table 4-2; Exhibit E, Volume 2, Privileged). Ninety-six of the resources are prehistoric, 47 are historic, and three contain both prehistoric and historic components. Sixty of the resources (41 percent) are isolated artifacts. At least portions of 48 of the resources (33 percent) fall within the project area proper, as it is presently defined; the remaining 98 resources lie within the 1-mile buffer.

Table 4-2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resource in or near the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Transmission Line Project Area Site Within

Project P-33- CA-RIV- Area? Description

000187 187 no Historic Gruendike Well homestead, road, trees

000650 650T no Prehistoric trail segment

000673 673T no Two trail segments, one aboriginal and one historic (military)

000695 695 no Prehistoric lithic scatter

000768 768 no Prehistoric ceramic scatter

000772 772T no Prehistoric trail segment

Prehistoric Mule Tank Discontiguous Rock Art District (together with RIV-504); listed on the 000773 773 no National Register of Historic Places

000775 775T yes Prehistoric trail segment

000893 893T no Prehistoric trail segment

001101 1101 no Prehistoric ceramic scatter

001120 1120 no Prehistoric lithic scatter (core, hammerstones, flakes)

Site Within

Project P-33- CA-RIV- Area? Description

001126 1126 no Prehistoric lithic scatter (biface, mano/hammerstone, flakes)

Historic World War II Desert Training Center outpost; prehistoric lithic workshop (graver, 001172 1172 no chopper, hammerstones, flakes); rock alignment, rock ring, cairn, quarry

001265 1265 no Prehistoric isolated flake

001266 1266 no Prehistoric isolated pot drop with 2 sherds

001473 1473 no Prehistoric fire-affected rock, ceramics, ground stone, core(s), flakes, bone

001476 1476 no Prehistoric fire-affected rock, ceramics, metates, manos, chopper, core(s), flakes, bone

001477 1477 no Prehistoric temporary camp (ground stone, core, potsherds, burnt bone, fire-affected rock)

001481 1481 no Prehistoric ceramic scatter

001495 1495 no Historic Teague Well, corral, cans, wire, nails, wood, glass, leather

001543 1543 no Prehistoric lithic scatter (metates, core, flake)

Prehistoric ceramic scatter; proposed as not eligible for the NRHP without subsurface testing 001817 1817 yes (Carrico et al. 1982)

001818 1818 no Prehistoric ceramic scatter

Prehistoric lithic scatter (chopping and pounding tools, scraper, cores, flakes), ceramic scatter; 001819 1819 yes tested and proposed as not eligible for the NRHP (Carrico et al. 1982)

001820 1820 yes Prehistoric lithic scatter (cobble tool, hammerstones, cores, flakes)

Prehistoric hearths, lithic scatters (scraper, choppers, cores, flakes), ceramic scatters, calcined 001821 1821 yes bone, associated trails; tested and proposed as not eligible for the NRHP (Carrico et al. 1982)

Prehistoric hearths, lithic scatter (biface, flakes), ceramic scatter, associated with a trail 001822 1822 yes segment)

001823 1823 no Prehistoric lithic scatter (choppers, flakes), ceramic sherd

003801 3801 no Prehistoric ceramic pot drop of 5 sherds

003802 3802 no Prehistoric campsite with metate, hammerstone, flakes

Prehistoric habitation site with metates, projectile points, unifacial tool, hammerstones, core, 003807 3807 no flakes, ceramic sherd

003809 3809 no Prehistoric ceramic pot drop of 7 sherds

Site Within

Project P-33- CA-RIV- Area? Description

Prehistoric habitation site with possible hearths, metate, mano, projectile point preform, 003810 3810 no scrapers, hammerstones, flakes, ceramic sherds

005816 5545H yes Historic dirt road

005964 -- no Prehistoric isolated ceramic sherd

005965 -- no Prehistoric isolated quartzite core

006418 -- no Prehistoric isolated metate

006825 -- yes Historic well, boiler, reservoir

006829 -- no Historic Sunkist Trail

006836 -- no Historic concrete slabs from World War II Desert Training Center buildings, cistern

006913 -- yes Historic Eagle Mountain mine and community

006914 -- no Historic aqueduct pumping station

008131 6041H no Historic well, trash dump

008132 6042 no Prehistoric ceramic scatters

008133 6043 no Prehistoric lithic scatter (bifacially worked flakes, debitage)

008578 -- no Prehistoric isolated ceramic sherds (2)

008579 -- no Prehistoric isolated metate and ceramic sherd

010821 6534 no Prehistoric lithic scatter (tested cobbles, flakes)

010822 6535 no Prehistoric trail segments

010823 6536 no Prehistoric lithic scatter (hammerstone, core, flakes)

010906 -- no Prehistoric isolated flakes (2)

010907 -- no Prehistoric isolated tested cobble

011110 -- yes Historic transmission line

011112 -- no Prehistoric isolated ceramic sherd

011175 6721/H no Prehistoric trail, lithic scatter (unifacial tools, flakes), historic cans

Site Within

Project P-33- CA-RIV- Area? Description

011582 6900 no Prehistoric lithic scatter (metate, mano, flakes), ceramic scatter

012532 7127H yes Historic transmission line

012820 -- no Prehistoric isolated flake

012925 -- no Prehistoric isolated flake

012926 -- no Prehistoric isolated flake

012927 -- yes Prehistoric isolated ceramic sherd

012928 -- yes Prehistoric isolated flake

012929 -- no Prehistoric isolated ceramic sherds (3)

012930 -- no Prehistoric isolated flake

013367 -- yes Historic isolated potsherd

013438 -- yes Historic isolated glass bottle fragment

013439 -- no Prehistoric isolated scraper

013440 -- no Prehistoric isolated flake

013441 -- no Historic isolated can

013442 -- no Prehistoric isolated flake

013445 -- no Prehistoric isolated flakes (2)

013473 -- no Prehistoric isolated scraper

013514 -- no Prehistoric isolated flake

013517 -- no Prehistoric isolated core tool

013518 -- no Prehistoric isolated flakes and shatter

013519 -- no Prehistoric isolated utilized flake

013520 -- no Prehistoric isolated flake

013521 -- no Prehistoric isolated ceramic sherds (5)

013522 -- no Prehistoric isolated core tool, flakes (2)

Site Within

Project P-33- CA-RIV- Area? Description

013583 -- no Prehistoric isolated ceramic sherd, chopper, core

013584 -- yes Prehistoric isolated flake

013585 -- yes Prehistoric isolated core and flakes (2)

013591 -- no Prehistoric isolated biface

013592 -- no Historic scatter of cans, automotive parts

013593 -- yes Historic scatter of cans, other debris

013594 -- yes Historic bottle scatter

013595 -- yes Prehistoric isolated ceramic sherd

013596 -- yes Historic scatter of cans

013597 -- yes Historic scatter of cans

013598 -- yes Historic World War II Desert Training Facility debris

013599 -- yes Prehistoric isolated flakes (2)

013611 -- no Prehistoric isolated flakes (2)

013612 -- no Prehistoric isolated ceramic sherd

013613 -- no Prehistoric isolated core

013614 -- yes Prehistoric isolated scrapers (2), flakes(3)

013615 -- yes Prehistoric isolated cobble tools (4), flake

013616 -- yes Prehistoric isolated projectile point

013645 -- yes Prehistoric lithic scatter (flakes)

013646 -- yes Prehistoric lithic scatter (cores, flakes)

013647 -- yes Prehistoric lithic scatter (core, flakes)

013652 -- no Historic service station, associated debris

013653 -- no Historic concrete and cobble masonry

013657 -- no Prehistoric isolated hammerstone

Site Within

Project P-33- CA-RIV- Area? Description

013658 -- no Historic service station, associated debris

013659 -- no Prehistoric lithic scatter

013660 -- no Prehistoric temporary camp with hearths, lithic scatter

013672 -- no Prehistoric lithic scatter

013681 -- no Historic isolated cans

013682 -- yes Historic isolated glass fragments (4)

013683 -- yes Prehistoric isolated ceramic sherd

014146 -- yes Historic trash scatter

014147 -- no Historic isolated communication wire

014148 -- no Historic trash scatter

014149 -- no Historic World War II-era scatter of military hardware

014150 -- no Historic road, associated debris

014151 -- no Prehistoric ceramic scatter

014152 -- yes Historic metal objects

014153 -- yes Historic World War II-era trash scatter

014154 -- yes Historic World War II-era camp or bivouac site, associated debris

014156 -- yes Historic isolated bottle

014157 -- yes Historic trash dump

014158 -- yes Historic isolated can

014159 -- yes Historic isolated communication wire

014160 -- yes Prehistoric isolated ceramic sherds (2)

014161 -- yes Historic isolated periscope

014169 -- yes Historic can scatters

014170 -- yes Historic trash scatter

Site Within

Project P-33- CA-RIV- Area? Description

014171 -- no Historic dirt road

014172 -- yes Historic isolated bottle

014175 -- no Prehistoric ceramic pot drop

014176 -- yes Prehistoric ceramic scatter

014177 -- no Prehistoric rock ring feature

014178 -- yes Historic trash scatter

014196 -- no Prehistoric isolated flake

014197 -- no Prehistoric ceramic scatter

014198 -- no Historic trash scatter

014199 -- no Historic dirt road

014200 -- no Prehistoric isolated flake

014204 -- no Historic trash scatters

014205 -- yes Prehistoric isolated core

014206 -- no Prehistoric ceramic scatter

014208 -- no Prehistoric lithic scatter (core/hammerstone, flakes)

014385 -- no Historic isolated ammunition shell casings

014386 -- no Prehistoric isolated core, flake

014387 -- no Prehistoric lithic scatter (tested cobbles, flakes)

014388 -- no Prehistoric ceramic scatter, lithic scatter (tested cobbles, flakes)

4.3.2 Prehistoric Cultural Resources Prehistoric resource types represented in the sample include a rock art site, temporary camps (9), a rock ring feature, trails (6), features in association with lithic scatters (2), lithic scatters (15), ceramic scatters (13), combined lithic and ceramic scatters (4), and isolates (48) (Table 4-3).

Table 4-3. Previously Recorded Prehistoric Sites, by Generalized Types Feature / Lithic / Rock Temporary Rock Lithic Lithic Ceramic Ceramic Art Camp Ring Trail Scatter Scatter Scatter Scatter

P-33- RIV-773 RIV-1473 RIV-650T RIV-1172 RIV-695 RIV-768 RIV-1819 014177

RIV-1821 RIV-673T RIV-6721/H RIV-1120 RIV-1101 RIV-1823

RIV-1822 RIV-772T RIV-1126 RIV-1481 RIV-6900

RIV- RIV-3802 RIV-1543 RIV-1817 P-33-014388 775T

RIV-3807 RIV-893T RIV-1820 RIV-1818

RIV-3810 RIV-6535 RIV-6043 RIV-3801

RIV-1476 RIV-6534 RIV-3809

RIV-1477 RIV-6536 RIV-6042

P-33- P-33-013660 P-33-014151 013645

P-33- P-33-014175 013646

P-33- P-33-014176 013647

P-33-013659 P-33-014197

P-33-013672 P-14206

P-33-014208

P-33-014387

Resources in bold are located at least partially within the project area proper. Prehistoric isolates (48) are not listed.

The rock art site (RIV-773) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as the Mule Tank Discontiguous Rock Art District. It lies nearly 1 mile from the project area and would not be subject to any direct impacts from the transmission line project. Temporary camps are informally distinguished from artifact scatters by the greater diversity of artifact types, often including fire-affected rock, that are observed to be present at the former. Because temporary camps contain more

complex patterns of prehistoric remains, they are more likely than simple scatters to be determined to constitute significant resources. Two previously recorded temporary camps, RIV-1821 and RIV-1822, both on Palo Verde Mesa, are located within the project area proper. Typically, in order to evaluate temporary camps, it is necessary to test for the presence or absence of any substantial subsurface cultural deposits or features and, if a deposit is found to be present, to excavate and analyze a sample of it in order to determine whether the site possesses significant additional scientific research potential and whether sensitive materials, such as human remains, are likely to be present. The single rock ring feature (P-33-014177) is located about .75 miles from the project area proper. It would not be subject to any direct impacts from the transmission line project. One trail, RIV-775T, impinges on the project area proper. It was originally recorded in 1980; however, it could not be relocated during a survey in 2004. Trails tend to possess little information potential beyond what can be gleaned from basic surface observations, and they may be unlikely to be determined significant unless they area associated with specific historic events or important cultural practices. Two sites contain lithic scatters associated with features: a rock alignment, a rock ring, and a cairn, in the case of RIV-1172; and a trail, in the case of RIV-6721/H. Both of these sites also contain historic-period materials, and some or all of the features may actually be historic rather than prehistoric. Neither of these sites is located as close as .5 mile from the project area proper, and they would not be subject to any direct impacts from the transmission line project. Lithic scatters range from small clusters of lithic flakes that are only slightly more complex than isolates to very extensive areas of stone tool manufacturing, reworking, or discard. The lithic scatters included in the present sample appear to be generally small. Four of the previously recorded lithic scatters (RIV-1819, P- 33-013645, P-33-013646, and P-33-013647) lie within the project area proper. Each of these four sites is a small lithic reduction locale. Typically, the surface artifacts from such sites might be collected, and limited subsurface testing would be done to confirm that they do not represent merely surface exposures of more extensive and potentially significant subsurface deposits. Similarly, a ceramic scatter may range from a few sherds representing a single pot drop to a much more extensive scatter. Most of the ceramic scatters previously recorded in the present study area appear to be relatively small. Two small scatters (RIV-1817 and P-33-014176) are located within the project area proper. The procedures for evaluating such scatters are likely to be similar to those applied to lithic scatters. Sites recorded as containing both lithic and ceramic scatters may also be very simple, and they may contain no more than limited archaeological information potential. However, the presence of at least two functionally distinct artifact categories of artifacts at such sites may increase the likelihood that more

extensive deposits might also be present. One lithic/ceramic scatter (RIV-1819) is located within the project area proper. This site’s lithic artifacts were also more diverse than those reported at other lithic scatters, perhaps warranting reclassification of RIV-1819 as a temporary camp. Prehistoric isolates consist of single artifacts or very small groups of artifacts. Twelve of the 48 previously recorded prehistoric isolates in the study corridor are located within the project area proper. Normally, isolates are treated as categorically ineligible for the NRHP and do not require any further treatment or consideration. A likelihood of special ethnic importance for contemporary Native Americans is not evident at any of the resources previously identified in the study corridor, with the possible exception of the Mule Tank Discontiguous Rock Art District. However, the limited work done so far in the study corridor certainly cannot suffice to rule out the possibility that sensitive remains, such as human burials or Traditional Cultural Properties, may be present. Ongoing consultation with local Native American groups is likely to be required as the development of the project progresses.

Known prehistoric sites occur most densely on Palo Verde Mesa, at the eastern end of the study corridor. This does not appear to be merely a consequence of more intensive previous inventory work in that area. More likely, it is a consequence of proximity to the lower Colorado River and its more extensive natural resources. Other prehistoric sites and isolates are scattered throughout the study corridor where previous studies have occurred, and there are no obvious topographic, hydrologic, or other contexts that appear to account for their specific locations. From this, it is safe to predict that further inventory work in areas that have not previously been studied will identify significant numbers of additional prehistoric sites and isolates

4.3.3 Historic Cultural Resources Historic-period cultural resources that have previously been identified in the study corridor include residential areas, businesses, or wells (8); trails or roads (6); World War II military training features (7); an aqueduct; transmission lines (2); trash deposits or scatters (14); and historic isolates (12) (Table 4-4). In large measure, evaluating the significance of such resources is likely to be based on archival background research used to determine whether the archaeological remains can be linked to interpretable historic contexts and whether they possess either significant research potential or historic preservation values. In some cases, surface collections or test excavations may be required.

The category of residential areas, businesses, and wells includes resources ranging from the large mining community of Eagle Mountain to wells associated with residence or ranching and to simple service station foundations. Two of these resources fall within the project area proper: P-33-6825, an 1880s mining site with a

well, boiler, and reservoir; and the Eagle Mountain community and mine (P-33- 006913), also dating from the 1880s through the 1980s. One of the historic road segments, RIV-5545H, crosses the project area proper. The road extends westward from the edge of Palo Verde Mesa and appeared on a 1917 General Land Office plat map. Military features and deposits in the study corridor relate to the World War II Desert Training Center/California-Arizona Maneuver Area. Four such sites are in the project area proper: P-33-013598, P-33-014146, and P-33-014153, which are debris scatters; and P-33-014154, which is a temporary camp or bivouac area. An aqueduct feature, the Eagle Mountain Pumping Station (P-33-006914), is located 1 mile from the project area proper and would not be subject to any direct impacts from the transmission line project. One of the two recorded transmission lines, the Niland-Blythe 161 kV Transmission Line (RIV-7127H), constructed in the 1940s or 1950s, crosses the project area proper on Palo Verde Mesa. Nine historic trash deposits have been recorded within the project area proper. All of these deposits appear to date from the early to middle twentieth century. Most of the sites are small informal scatters of cans and/or bottles, but two of them (P-33-01457 and P-33-14178) represent more organized episodes of mixed trash disposal. Some of these sites may also relate to military use of the region during World War II. Eight historic isolates have been recorded within the project area proper. As is the case with prehistoric isolates, such resources are normally treated as categorically ineligible for the NRHP and do not require any further consideration or treatment.

Table 4-4. Previously Recorded Historic Sites, by Generalized Types WWII Residence / Aqueduct Transmission Business / Well Trail / Road Military Features Line Trash Deposit

RIV-187 RIV-673T RIV-1172 P-33-006914 P-33-011110 RIV-6721/H

RIV-1495 RIV-5545H P-33-006836 RIV-7127H P-33-013592

P-33-006825 P-33-006829 P-33-013598 P-33-013593

P-33-006913 P-33-014150 P-33-014146 P-33-013594

RIV-6041H P-33-014171 P-33-014149 P-33-013596

P-33-013692 P-33-014199 P-33-014153 P-33-013597

P-33-013653 P-33-014154 P-33-014148

P-33-013658 P-33-014152

P-33-014157

P-33-014169

P-33-014170

P-33-014178

P-33-014198

P-33-014204

Resources in bold are located at least partially within the project area proper. Historic isolates (12) are not listed.

4.4 Direct or Indirect Impacts of Project The large number of cultural resources previously recorded within the study corridor, based on moderately limited amounts of inventory work, indicates the general archaeological sensitivity of the area and the likely presence there of substantial numbers of additional resources. Historic remains are most notable at Eagle Mountain; prehistoric sites are most abundant on Palo Verde Mesa. However, sites and isolates are scattered throughout the flat study corridor. There are no evident topographic or hydrologic contexts for these resources that would make it practicable to predict specific locations as being either especially likely to contain presently undocumented cultural resources or especially likely to lack such resources.

A large majority of the previously recorded resources are either isolates or small artifact scatters, and these are likely to require only minimal treatment in connection with the project. However, a few more substantial prehistoric and historic sites have also been documented. Such sites are likely to require consideration of measures to avoid impacts to them or else

more extensive testing and possibly mitigation measures if they are determined to be historic properties eligible for the NRHP.

4.5 Management Plan Archaeological isolates or relatively small, simple sites make up the largest portion of the previously recorded cultural resources. Such resources as these will require minimal efforts to manage, in connection with the project. However, several potentially more significant sites are also present in the study corridor and in the project area proper, and some additional sites of similar character may be anticipated when systematic inventory data become available. These resources will require further consideration. In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the next step will be to define the project area APE (the 200-ft. right-of-way and any other areas of potential project impacts) more closely and to do a systematic archaeological survey of the portions of this APE that have not previously been adequately surveyed. Where sites are present and project impacts to them cannot easily be avoided, it will be necessary to evaluate their potential NRHP eligibility, for instance through background research and/or archaeological field-testing. Further measures may be required to mitigate project impacts to sites that are found to be NRHP-eligible. However, disturbance to most sites should be avoidable through tower siting and minor alignment adjustments. A substantial portion of the 200-ft. right-of-way and any associated areas that together will ultimately define the project’s APE will probably lie in areas that have not yet been systematically inventoried for cultural resources. A complete archaeological survey of previously unsurveyed areas in the APE will be an essential first step that will be required by the Bureau of Land Management.

Both previously and newly recorded cultural resources that are identified within the project’s APE will need to be evaluated for their potential eligibility for the NRHP, if avoiding them does not appear feasible. Evaluation is likely to involve such methods as archival research; surface observation, mapping, and collection; subsurface test excavations; and laboratory analyses.

If resources are determined to be eligible for the NRHP and project impacts to them cannot be prudently avoided, archaeological data recovery or other mitigation measures may be required.

If inventory or testing work identifies particular locations with a high potential to contain significant buried cultural resources, archaeological monitoring of ground-disturbing activities may be required during the construction of the project.

4.5.1 Schedule and Cost for Implementing Mitigation Inventory and testing can be completed in the Project area after the FERC license is issued and access to the project site is obtained.

The estimated cost of the survey is $100,000. We have also estimated the cost for field testing and data recovery of a sample of site types would cost. Many of these sites might be mitigated by avoidance or their research potential would be expended in the testing phase. Others might require full data recovery. We expect a mix of treatments once project effects are better defined and project design is modified to minimize effects.

Our cost estimate for testing and data recovery would be $150,000. based on an assumption of the total number of sites including10 lithic scatters, 5 ceramic scatters, 3 temporary camps, 5 trail segments, 10 misc prehistoric features, 5 historic trash scatters, 3 WWII sites, 8 other historic sites.

4.5.2 Sources and Extent of Financing Project financing is discussed in Exhibit D. The cost of the proposed measures to protect, mitigate, and enhance cultural and historical resources will be a minor component of the overall project cost.

5 Socio-Economic Impacts

5.1 Description of the Study Area The study area for the socioeconomic analysis of the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project is defined as including all of Riverside County. Through tax revenues generated and workforce requirements from project construction and operation, Riverside County will be affected both directly and indirectly.

Riverside County was formed in 1893 from parts of San Bernardino County and San Diego County. 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 Ocean to the west.

Riverside County is the fourth largest county in California with an estimated population of 2,073,571 people in 2007 (Census). The 2003 Riverside County General Plan (RCGP, 2003) provides a summary of existing and proposed land use patterns within the County. The county encompasses approximately 7,300 square miles. In 2007, 89.5 percent of the county was unincorporated (Riverside County GIS). Much of the central and eastern portions of the county are contained within open space and protected areas. Government agencies such as the BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, US Forest Service, Department of Defense, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation own large parts of Riverside County. There is a large portion of land in government and non-government ownership that is contained within many different preserves. There is a National Park (Joshua Tree), two National Forests (Cleveland and San Bernardino), a National Wildlife Refuge (Coachella Valley), a National Monument (Santa Rosa/San Jacinto Mountains), the California Desert Conservation Area, several state parks, and many Wilderness Areas and areas designated by the BLM as ACECs.

The urban areas within Riverside County are concentrated in the western portion of the county. Centrally located is the urban area of the Coachella Valley consisting of Bermuda Dunes, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage. The City of Blythe is located on the eastern edge of the county along the Colorado River and had a population of 22,625 in 2007. The rest of the county is mainly open space with small rural communities dispersed among the large open areas.

Riverside County has seen large growth in land use for public utility and facilities dealing with renewable energy. Many wind energy generation facilities are located in the San Gorgonio Pass and Coachella Valley and there is interest being shown in solar power facilities in the eastern part of the county.

5.2 Identification of the Area Potentially Impacted by the Project For the purposes of this study, the area potentially impacted is distinctive from the study area. The study area is general in scope whereas the area potentially impacted is more focused thereby reflecting the socioeconomic impacts associated specifically with the project. This area is defined as the unincorporated areas of eastern Riverside County (Eagle Mountain, Lake Tamarisk, and Desert Center) and cities within approximately 60 miles of the project (Blythe, Coachella, Indio, Palm Desert, Cathedral City, and Palm Springs).

The rationale for this delineation is that potential socioeconomic impacts (population, housing, infrastructure, schools, etc.) will likely occur in this area as opposed to the larger study area. Construction workers (non-local) from outside the area potentially impacted will likely reside close to the project. Thus, population and the associated impacts thereof will occur in the cities and unincorporated areas near the project. Construction workers within the area potentially impacted will likely commute.

5.3 Description of Study Area Demographics The following sections characterize the study area demographics. Trends in population size, age distributions, race distributions, and household characteristics are presented.

5.3.1 Population Size and Growth Trends The population of Riverside County in the 2000 census is 1,545,387 and estimated to be 2,073,571 in 2007 (Census). 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, has an estimated population in 2006 of 293,761, with 14 percent of the County’s residents (Census).

Population trends for cities within the area potentially impacted by the project from 1980 to 2007 indicate positive increases in population and are shown in Table 5-1. Not shown in the table is census tract 458 which includes Eagle Mountain, Desert Center and surrounding areas has seen. Census tract 458 has seen a population increase from 4,579 in 1990 to 11,127 in 2000. A large portion of the population, 8,744 people (78.6 percent) of this census tract is institutionalized in prisons such as the Chuckwalla Valley State Prison and Ironwood State Prison (Source: Census).

Table 5-1. Population Area 1980 1990 2000 2007 Blythe 6,805 8,428 20,465 22,625 Cathederal City1 - 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 Source: Riverside County Economic Development Agency 1Incorporated in 1981

The project area has seen a fluctuation in population in past years. The area is relatively sparsely populated. The Eagle Mountain Town site that is associated with the Eagle Mountain Mine was once a city of almost 4,000 people before the mine was closed. The private town associated with the mine has since been closed. The closing of the mine also slowed or stopped growth in nearby communities such as Desert Center and Lake Tamarisk. The project site is located approximately in the center of a Census block group that is approximately 802 square miles. The Census block group had a population of 738 people in 1990 and 977 people in 2000 giving a population density of 1.2 people per square mile (Source: Census).

Riverside County is expected to double its population between the years 2000 to 2020, adding an additional 1.4 million people for an estimated population of 2.9 million people in 2020 (RCGP, 2003). The county has seen large urban growth patterns and grew in total population by 31.5 percent between 2000 and 2007, while the State of California only grew by 7.6 percent during the same time period, see Table 5-2. According to the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research, between 1991 and 2006 the county added an average of 26,000 people annually due to births while only losing 11,700 people per year in the same period. While the original growth of the county was attributed to agricultural opportunities, it currently sees growth due to commerce, construction, manufacturing, transportation, and tourism.

Table 5-2. Riverside County Population Analysis Year Population Percent Change 1900 17,897 - 1910 34,696 94% 1920 50,297 45% 1930 81,024 61% 1940 105,524 30% 1950 170,046 61% 1960 306,191 80% 1970 459,074 50% 1980 663,166 44% 1990 1,170,413 76% 2000 1,545,387 32% 2010¹ 2,239,053 45% 2020¹ 2,904,848 30% 2030¹ 3,507,498 21% 2040¹ 4,103,182 17% 2050¹ 4,730,922 15% Source: Bureau of the Census, Riverside County General Plan ¹California Department of Finance

Riverside County Population Analysis 5,000,000 4,730,922 4,500,000 4,103,182 4,000,000 3,507,498 3,500,000 2,904,848 3,000,000 15%

2,500,000 2,239,053 17%

Population 2,000,000 1,545,387 21% 1,500,000 1,170,413 30% 1,000,000 663,166 459,074 45% 500,000 306,191 32% 44% 76% 0 50% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010¹ 2020¹ 2030¹ 2040¹ 2050¹ Year

5.3.2 Urban and Rural Distribution The vast majority of the population within the county lives within urban areas and has seen a trend towards further urbanization. In 1990, 13.7 percent lived in rural areas, which was reduced to 6.9 percent in 2000 (Census). The same period showed a total decline in the rural population by almost 54,000 people, 33.6 percent less than in 1990. The county has a population density of

214.4 people per square mile in 2006 that is skewed by the more dense urban cities in the west and vast open spaces in the central and east portions of the county.

5.3.3 Distribution of Residents by Age and Sex

The median age of the population in 2006 was 31.8 in Riverside County and 34.4 for California (Census). The age distribution within Riverside County is reflected in Table 5-3. The County has seen some shifts in the median age of the population, in 2000 it was 33.1, and in 1990 it was 31.5. The County had an almost even split in 2006 of 49.96 percent male and 50.04 percent female.

Table 5-3. Riverside County Population Age Analysis 1990 2000 2006 Age group Individuals Percentage Individuals Percentage Individuals Percentage under 5 104805 8.95% 121629 7.82% 149350 7.37% 5 to 9 99032 8.46% 139468 8.97% 146396 7.22% 10 to 14 84110 7.19% 133886 8.61% 161806 7.98% 15 to 19 77542 6.63% 119725 7.70% 157945 7.79% 20 to 24 82962 7.09% 96374 6.20% 157212 7.76% 25 to 34 211944 18.11% 204223 13.13% 337841 16.67% 35 to 44 164720 14.07% 242170 15.57% 292375 14.43% 45 to 54 101119 8.64% 176022 11.32% 243421 12.01% 55 to 59 42657 3.64% 61880 3.98% 83441 4.12% 60 to 64 46849 4.00% 54046 3.47% 69596 3.43% 65 to 74 92958 7.94% 103154 6.63% 109282 5.39% 75 to 84 48878 4.18% 71726 4.61% 86524 4.27% 85 and over 12837 1.10% 31084 2.00% 31614 1.56% Total 1170413 100.00% 1555387 100.00% 2026803 100.00% Source: Bureau of the Census

Riverside County Age Distribution (Population) 400000 1990 350000 2000 300000 2006 250000

200000

Population 150000

100000

50000

0 104805 121629 149350 99032 139468 146396 84110 133886 161806 77542 119725 157945 82962 96374 157212 211944 204223 337841 164720 242170 292375 101119 176022 243421 42657 61880 83441 46849 54046 69596 92958 103154 109282 48878 71726 86524 12837 31084 31614 r 5 9 4 9 4 4 4 4 9 4 4 4 e r 1 4 v e 1 2 3 5 5 6 7 8 o d to to to to to to to to to to to n 5 u 0 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 nd 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 a 5 8 Age group

Riverside County Age Distribution (Percentage) 20% 1990 18% 16% 2000 14% 2006 12% 10% 8% 6%

Percentage of Population Percentage 4% 2%

0% 8.95% 7.82% 7.37% 8.46% 8.97% 7.22% 7.19% 8.61% 7.98% 6.63% 7.70% 7.79% 7.09% 6.20% 7.76% 18.11% 13.13% 16.67% 14.07% 15.57% 14.43% 8.64% 11.32% 12.01% 3.64% 3.98% 4.12% 4.00% 3.47% 3.43% 7.94% 6.63% 5.39% 4.18% 4.61% 4.27% 1.10% 2.00% 1.56%

r 5 9 4 9 4 4 4 4 9 4 4 4 r 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 e to v e o o o o o o o o o o o d 5 t t t t t t t t t t n 0 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 d u 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 n a 5 8 Age group

5.3.4 Distribution of Residents by Race

The largest group of residents within the study area is Caucasian (White) with 44.9 percent in 2005, down from 64.4 percent in 1990. The Hispanic population has been significantly on the rise and represents approximately 41.2 percent in 2005, up from 26.3 percent in 1990. The African American population was at 5.5 percent in 2005 and 5.1 percent in 1990. The Asian/other population has also seen large increases as it represented 8.4 percent in 2005 and only 4.1 percent in 1990. Table 5-4 depicts these distributions. In 1980 the percentages were 74 percent (White), 19 percent (Hispanic), 4.5 percent (African American), and 2.5 percent (Asian/other).

Table 5-4. Race Distribution Hispanic White African American Asian/Other Area 1980 1990 2005 1980 1990 2005 1980 1990 2005 1980 1990 2005 Blythe 2,711 3,909 9,650 3,648 3,738 6,785 356 657 3,102 90 124 926 Cathederal City 1,116 11,197 21,312 2,926 17,134 17,908 14 618 1,049 74 1,136 2,378 Coachella 8,148 16,107 22,132 782 546 363 90 69 61 109 174 168 Indio 12,152 25,068 37,028 8,024 9,983 9,586 950 1,158 1,199 485 584 1,303 Palm Desert 1,094 3,196 41,155 10,422 19,359 31,919 61 197 446 224 500 1,759 Palm Springs 2,894 7,504 10,155 26,978 29,406 28,474 1,414 1,729 1,621 985 1,542 2,557 Riverside County 124,417 307,514 787,148 490,144 754,140 857,769 30,088 59,966 105,465 18,517 48,793 160,899 Source: Bureau of the Census, Riverside County Economic Development Agency

5.3.5 Education In 2006, 1,254,094 (62 percent) of Riverside County residents were over 25 years old, with 78.2 percent having graduated high school and 18.9 percent having a bachelor’s degree or higher. Nursery school, preschool, and kindergarten enrollment was at 55,221 individuals; elementary and high school enrollment was 381,333 individuals; and college or graduate school enrollment was 125,458 individuals.

5.3.6 Citizenship and Birthplace The United States Census 2006 estimates for Riverside County show that 1,559,091 (76 percent) of the residents in the County were born within the United States and of the foreign-born population, 299,962 (64 percent) are not United States citizens. Of the foreign-born population in 2006, 372,319 (79 percent) entered the United States before 2000, and 348,103 (74 percent) are from Latin America, 75,754 (16.2 percent) from Asia, 27,811 (5.9 percent) from Europe, 10,409 (2.2 percent) from North America, 4,606 (1.0 percent) from Africa, and 1,029 (.2 percent) from Oceania.

5.3.7 Language Spoken The spoken language at home in 2006 for residents over the age of 5 was 61.3 percent English- only, 38.7 percent was language other than English, and of the total, 18.3 percent of the residents spoke English less than “very well.” The predominant language spoken at home other than

English is Spanish, with 608,706 (32.4 percent) residents, and 299,108 (15.9 percent) of the residents speaking English less than “very well.”

5.3.8 Housing Characteristics In 2006 the United States Census estimated Riverside County had a total of 732,433 housing units with 12.2 percent being vacant compared to 584,674 housing units with 13.4 percent being vacant in 2000. Of the total housing units 65.6 percent are classified as being 1-unit detached, 10.2 percent mobile homes, 6.4 percent 1-unit attached, and the rest 2 units or more. Heating for homes supplied by utility gas serviced 75.8 percent of the occupied units with 18.0 percent being served by electricity. Of the total housing inventory 20.7 percent had been built since 2000 and 39.3 percent since 1990. Of the households within the county, 65.1 percent have moved into the current residence since 2000 and 87.4 percent since 1990. Of the total occupied units 69.2 percent were owner-occupied with 30.8 percent renter-occupied. Of the occupied units, 4.4 percent had no vehicles available with 64.5 percent having access to 2 or more vehicles.

5.3.9 Housing Costs The 2006 median owner-occupied unit value was $414,000, which is below the California median of $535,700 and above the national median value of $185,200. The median monthly gross rent for rental units within the county was $1,015, with the median monthly owner cost of a unit with a mortgage of $2,012 and without a mortgage of $421 (Census). The Riverside County Economic Development Agency shows home prices falling in 2007 and continuing in 2008. The average home price in 2006 was $454,932 and fell to $437,328 in 2007. Information for March, 2008 shows price drops of 24.2 percent from the previous year and average home price of $350,337. The volume of home sales has also fallen significantly as it declined 19.3 percent in 2006, 53.4 percent in 2007 and continues to fall as there where 53.1 percent fewer home sold in March, 2008 than a year earlier.

5.3.10 Household Income The United States Census states the median household income in 2006 was $53,508 for Riverside County, which is 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 and was 73.6 percent of the California average. The United States Census shows in the percent of total people below the poverty level in 2006 was 12.2 percent, down from 14.2 percent in 2000 and up from 10.8 percent in 1990.

5.3.11 Commuting to Work The United States Census figures show that in 2006, 73.8 percent of Riverside County residents drove to work alone, 16.7 percent carpooled, 1.4 percent used public transportation, 1.9 percent walked, 1.5 percent used other means, and 4.6 percent worked at home. The mean travel time to work was 31.4 minutes.

5.4 Summary of Study Area Employment and Income

5.4.1 Employment

The Riverside County Economic Development Agency shows the civilian labor force was 910,400 residents with 845,700 employed and an unemployment rate of 7.1 percent in February 2008. The employment data for 2007 shows a civilian workforce of 909,800 residents with 853,800 employed and an unemployment rate of 6.2 percent. The County has seen an unemployment rate of between 5.1 and 6.7 percent from 1998 to 2007 with higher percentages of 7.6-12.2 percent between 1990 and 1997. The Riverside County Economic Development Agency states that the unemployment rate within Riverside County from 1990-2006 has been above the state and national averages. The County has seen positive employment growth rate from 1990 through 2007 with fluctuating unemployment and has been above the state average between 1991-2005 with the state losing jobs between 1991-1993 and 2002-2003 (RCCDR). The Riverside County Center for Demographic Research projects the County to more than double the number of jobs between 2005 and 2035 (RCCDR). The Riverside County employment projections are depicted in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5. Riverside County Projection Year Employment/Jobs 2005 650,319 2010 784,998 2015 911,381 2020 1,042,145 2025 1,168,769 2030 1,295,487 2035 1,413,522 Source: Riverside County Economic Development Agency The study areas largest employers are depicted in Table 5-6. The largest public employer is Riverside County with 19,595 employees and the largest private employer is Stater Bros. Markets with 6,425 employees.

Table 5-6. Riverside County’s Largest Employers Rank Name Employees Type of Business Year Established 1 County of Riverside 19,595 Government 1893 2 March Air Reserve Base 8,400 Military 1918 3 U.C. Riverside 6,657 Education 1954 4 Stater Bros. Markets 6,425 Grocery 1936 5 Pechanga Resort & Casino 4,800 Casino 1995 6 Abbott Vascular 4,500 Manufacturer 1994 7 Riverside Unified School District 4,041 Education 1871 8 Riverside Community College 3,753 Education 1916 9 Kaiser Permanente 3,200 Healthcare 1953 10 Temecula Valley 2,952 Education - 11 City of Riverside 2,600 Government 1870 12 Palm Springs Unified School District 2,500 Education 1948 13 Morongo Casino Resort & Spa 2,360 Casino 1984 14 Hemet Unified School District 2,270 Education - 15 Eisenhower Medical Center 2,218 Healthcare 1971 16 Alvord Unified School District 2,000 Education 1896 16 Fleetwood Enterprises Inc. 2,000 Manufacturer 1963 16 Riverside County Office of Education 2,000 Education 1893 19 Riverside Community Hospital 1,600 Healthcare 1901 20 La Quinta Resort & Club PGA West 1,500 Resort 1926 21 Watson Pharmaceuticals 1,299 Manufacturer 1987 22 Ironwood State Prison 1,248 Correctional Facility 1994 23 Fantasy Springs Resort Casino 1,200 Casino 1980 24 California Rehabilitation Center 1,169 Correctional Facility 1928 25 Corona Regional Medical Center 1,155 Healthcare 19992 26 City of Corona 1,000 Government 1896 27 The Press-Enterprise Co. 975 Media 1878 28 Chuckwalla Valley State Prison 898 Correctional Facility 1988 29 Naval Surface Warfare Center, Corona Division 850 Government 1962 30 Fender Corp. 800 Manufacturer 1985 31 Perris Union High School District 733 Education 1897 32 Verizon 691 Telecommunications 1952 33 Skanska USA Civil West 615 Construction 1917 34 National RV 610 Manufacturer 1964 35 Renaissance Esmerelda Resort & Spa 600 Resort 1989 36 Banning Unified School District 500 Education 1906 36 Sierra Aluminum 500 Manufacturer 1984 38 Augustine Casino 400 Casino - Source: Inland Empire Business 2008

5.4.2 Wages and Income

Per capita income for the study area increased 21.6 percent from 2000 to 2006. Table 5-7 also provides the median household income for the study area. Household income increased 24.7 percent from 2000 to 2006. Table 5-8 shows the income measures by families within Riverside County.

Table 5-7. Income Characteristics Per Capita Income Median Household Income 1990 2000 2006 1990 2000 2006 Riverside County $14,510 $18,689 $22,737 $33,081 $42,887 $53,508 Source: Bureau of the Census Table 5-8. Income Measure By Family – Riverside County Income Group Number of Families % of Total less than $10,000 16,731 3.6% $10,000 to $14,999 13,297 2.8% $15,000 to $24,999 43,935 9.3% $25,000 to $34,999 47,657 10.1% $35,000 to $49,999 70,526 15.0% $50,000 to $74,999 100,249 21.3% $75,000 to $99,999 65,016 13.8% $100,000 to $149,999 74,058 15.7% $150,000 to $199,999 22,382 4.8% $200,000 or more 17,274 3.7% Total 471,125 100.0% Source: Bureau of the Census 2006

The annual wages for 2000 and 2006 paid by industry sectors are delineated in Table 5-9. The figures represent total wages paid by industry sector. Construction experienced the largest percentage increase from 2000 to 2006 at 116.1 percent. In contrast, Natural Resources and Mining experienced the lowest increase during the same period at 10.4 percent (California Employment Development Department, 2008).

Table 5-9. Yearly Wages Paid By Industry – Riverside County Industry 2000¹ 2006¹ Percent Change All Industries $10,571,949 $17,728,820 67.7% Goods-Producing $3,645,571 $6,098,270 67.3% Natural Resources and Mining $323,071 $356,716 10.4% Construction $1,556,033 $3,362,037 116.1% Manufacturing $1,766,466 $2,379,517 34.7% Service-Providing $6,926,378 $11,630,550 67.9% Trade, Transportation, Utilities $2,270,364 $4,013,060 76.8% Information $201,602 $333,574 65.5% Financial Activities $565,996 $1,136,231 100.7% Professional and Business Services $1,074,341 $2,179,103 102.8% Educationion and Health Services $1,392,029 $2,075,320 49.1% Leisure and Hospitality $1,015,122 $1,295,724 27.6% Other Services $399,768 $596,437 49.2% Unclassified - $1,102 - Federal Goverenment $311,087 $416,181 33.8% State Government $355,637 $510,592 43.6% Local Government $2,487,458 $4,325,361 73.9% Source: California Employment Development Department ¹In $1,000

5.4.3 County Sales Tax

The Riverside County Center for Demographic Research shows the taxable sales within the county were $28,256,491 in 2005, up from the 2001 total of $18,231,555. The tax rate for Riverside County including state, local, and district tax is 7.750 percent.

5.5 Description of Study Area Activity The population of Riverside County has increased at a fast pace, totaling 32 percent from 2000 to 2007 and reaching 2,031,625 people, according to the Riverside County Economic Development Agency. The County ranks as the second fastest growing and has climbed from seventh in 1990 to fourth largest county in the state (California Department of Finance). The demand from a fast increasing populace will help to generate strong expansion in the services, retail trade, government, and construction industries. The Riverside County employment analysis for 2006 is depicted in Table 5-10.

Table 5-10. Riverside County Employment Analysis Industry Individuals Percentage Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 13824 1.6% Construction 112297 12.7% Manufacturing 90885 10.3% Wholesale trade 32279 3.7% Retail trade 119795 13.6% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 40334 4.6% Information 16973 1.9% Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 58680 6.7% Professional, scientific, management, administrative 80500 9.1% Educational, health and social services 147594 16.7% Arts, entertainment, recreation and food services 90159 10.2% Public Administration 35430 4.0% Other Services 42553 4.8% Total 881303 Source: Bureau of the Census 2006

5.5.1 Agricultural Sector Agricultural employment within the study area was at 14,200 in 2006 and has steadily fallen from the high of 17,600 people in 2000 (California Employment Development Department). This represents a decrease in employment of 19.3 percent. The California Employment Development Department projects that the Riverside and San Bernardino Counties had a combined agricultural employment of 18,700 in 2004 and project 17,200 in 2014.

5.5.2 Mining Sector Mining represents a very small percentage (1 percent) of the total nonagricultural employment within Riverside County. In 2006 the mining industry employed 600 people in Riverside

County. The California Employment Development Department projects that the Riverside and San Bernardino Counties had a combined mining employment of 1,200 in 2004 and project 1,600 in 2014.

5.5.3 Construction Sector The construction sector has shown increasing gains in employment since 1993 when 21,200 where employed to 2006 when 83,000 where employed. The California Employment Development Department projects that the Riverside and San Bernardino Counties had a combined construction employment of 111,800 in 2004 and project 145,300 in 2014 a 30 percent increase. A possible slowdown in construction growth could be seen since 2006 as the housing market has slowed significantly. Riverside County had 30,350 single family and 4,023 multi- family building permits in 2005 and only 9,587 single-family and 903 multi-family building permits in 2007 (Riverside County Economic Development Agency)

5.5.4 Manufacturing Sector The manufacturing sector has seen slow gains in employment since 1991 with a small decrease in 2001 and 2002. The manufacturing sector in Riverside County employed 56,100 people in 2006 and accounts for 9.2 percent of the nonagricultural employment. The California Employment Development Department projects that the Riverside and San Bernardino Counties had a combined manufacturing employment of 120,100 in 2004 and project 129,000 in 2014 a 7.4 percent increase.

5.5.5 Trade, Transportation and Public Utilities Sector The trade, transportation and public utilities sector has shown increasing gains in employment since 1994 when 63,700 where employed to 2006 when 123,800 where employed. The rapid population growth propelled the need for intra city and county transportation. In addition, bus transportation should increase at a fast pace, reflecting the population growth trend. The California Employment Development Department projects that the Riverside and San Bernardino Counties had a combined trade, transportation and public utilities sector employment of 254,900 in 2004 and project 334,200 in 2014 a 31.1 percent increase.

5.5.6 Service Sector By far the largest source of jobs is the services sector with 470,600 jobs in 2006. The service provider sector accounts for 77.1 percent of the nonagricultural employment. Major sources of new jobs will occur at health care facilities, in hotels and lodging services, and business and other services such as social and membership services.

5.5.7 Government Sector The government sector has seen steady gains in employment since 1990. The government sector in Riverside County employed 105,100 people in 2006 and accounts for 17.2 percent of the

nonagricultural employment. This trend follows the increase in population as more services are required. The California Employment Development Department projects that the Riverside and San Bernardino Counties had a combined manufacturing employment of 212,500 in 2004 and project 256,600 in 2014 a 20.8 percent increase.

5.6 Description of Study Area Infrastructure

5.6.1 Accommodations

5.6.1.1 Housing Within the study area, approximately 773,331 housing units exist based on 2008 data from the California Department of Finance. This compares to 584,674 units in 2000. Single family housing accounted for a majority of these units consisting of 559,169 units in 2008. Multiple family housing accounted for 127,740 in 2008.

The medium home price for the study area stood at $350,337 in March 2008. Housing accommodations for cities the area potentially impacted are depicted in Table 5-11.

Table 5-11. Housing Accommodations and Characteristics Median Home Price Median RentalTotal Units Vacancy Rate Owner Occupied Area 2000 2007 Price 2000 2000 2007 2000 2007 2000 Blythe $90,800 $236,250 $501 4,851 5,376 16.2% 16.1% 57% Cathederal City $125,500 $355,000 $695 17,813 21,511 21.7% 21.6% 65% Coachella $83,700 $350,000 $470 4,807 8,018 4.4% 4.8% 61% Indio $99,000 $366,000 $579 16,899 26,464 18.0% 18.4% 56% Palm Desert $189,100 $429,000 $744 28,071 33,394 31.5% 31.0% 67% Palm Springs $157,000 $380,000 $631 30,979 33,250 33.3% 33.4% 61% Riverside County $146,500 $410,000 $660 584,674 753,797 13.4% 13.4% 69% Source: Bureau of the Census, Riverside County Economic Development Agency

In 2008, the vacancy rate for all housing units (single family, multiple family, and mobile homes) within the study area was 13.23 percent. Within the area potentially impacted, Palm Springs accounted for the highest vacancy rate at 33.43 percent or 11,192 units in 2008. The City of Coachella experienced the lowest rate at 4.38 percent or 386 units. The combined total number of vacant housing units for the six cities within the impacted area is 26,633. (Source: California Department of Finance, 2008)

5.6.1.2 Temporary Accommodations Within the cities which comprise the area potentially impacted, there exist approximately 257 hotels/motels accounting for 11,599 rooms. Palm Springs contains the highest number of hotels and motels with 187 and 6,400 rooms (Source: Riverside County Economic Development Agency, 2004).

5.6.1.3 Community and Social Services Community and social services available in the study area include educational facilities, churches, libraries, hospitals and nursing homes. Identified churches cover the full range of major religions, including Protestant and Catholic.

Public libraries are also present in the large communities within the study area. There are 35 public libraries operated by the County/City of Riverside. In addition, seven libraries are operated by either municipalities or special districts within the study area (Source: Riverside County, 2008).

Enrollment of students in the study areas' K-12 schools for 2006/2007 is 413,059. In addition, there are 23 school districts within the study area. 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 (Source: Riverside County Office of Education)

Educational attainment for persons 25 and over within the study area is depicted in Table 5-12.

Table 5-12. Educational Attainment 1990 2000 2006 25 Years and Over 724,705 936,024 1,254,094 Less than 9th Grade 74,027 99,024 129,826 9th-12th Grade, No Diploma 113,988 135,449 143,258 High School Graduate 191,492 230,867 364,854 Some College, No Degree 185,634 250,890 285,917 Associates Degree 54,034 64,118 93,295 Bachelor's Degree 69,900 100,221 154,861 Graduate or Professional Degree 35,630 55,455 82,083 Percent High School Graduate or Higher 74.1% 75.0% 78.2% Percent Bachelor's Degree or Higher 14.6% 16.6% 18.9% Source: Bureau of the Census

5.6.1.4 Municipal Services All major municipalities within the study and impacted area provide basic municipal services. Within unincorporated areas, services are provided by the county of Riverside. Within the impacted area 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 to the area residents.

A landfill to be located at the Eagle Mountain, Kaiser Mine has been proposed. Staffing requirements for operations is estimated at 163 employees. The proposed landfill intends to service Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties.

5.6.1.5 Emergency Services Within the study area, local governments and the county provide law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services.

5.6.1.5.1 Law Enforcement Riverside County and local municipalities within the impacted area maintain law enforcement departments. Riverside County currently employs 1,879 patrol officers and a total of 3,865 funded positions. The closest County Sheriff station to the project site is the Colorado River Station located in Blythe (Riverside County Sheriff's Department, June 2007).

5.6.1.5.2 Fire The major municipalities within the impacted area maintain fire departments. Within the study area, Riverside County operates 93 stations with 952 career and 1,100 volunteer personnel for unincorporated and sixteen contract cities. There is a County fire station operated at Lake Tamarisk (Riverside County Fire Department, May 2008).

5.6.1.5.3 Medical Emergency medical services and care are available within the study area. Municipalities within the impacted area provide emergency medical services in addition to fire protection. Emergency medical care is available at study and impacted area hospitals. The closest hospitals to the project site are located at Indio and Blythe. Medical facilities are present throughout the study area. There are approximately 18 licensed hospitals consisting of 3,134 beds. Within the area potentially impacted by the project, there are four licensed hospitals consisting of 816 beds. Within the study area there are 24 community clinics, 35 surgical clinics, and 3 rehabilitation clinics (Source: California Department of Health Services - 2007).

5.6.1.6 Transportation Systems The study area and impacted area are served by a variety of transportation systems. These include highways, air service, rail service, and motor carriers.

5.6.1.6.1 Highways Several interstate highways pass through the study area. I-15 and I-215 are the major north- south freeways. I-10 and State Highways 60 and 91 provide direct access to the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and Orange Counties as well as joining national highways at California's border with Arizona.

Within the impacted area, the project site is easily accessible via Interstate 10, Kaiser Road, and Eagle Mountain Road.

5.6.1.6.2 Air Service There are numerous commercial and general aviation airports within the study area. Within the impacted area, the closest commercial airports to the project site are at Palm Springs and Blythe.

5.6.1.6.3 Rail Service Business and industry within the study area are served by major rail carriers including Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe, Southern Pacific and Union Pacific (Riverside County Economic Development Agency). The project could be served by the Eagle Mountain rail line, depending on its condition.

5.6.1.6.4 Motor Freight A variety of motor carriers serve the communities within the study area and the area potentially impacted.

5.7 Project Impacts During Construction

5.7.1 Onsite Employment and Labor Income Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over a period of four to five years and generate an approximate 1,410 man-years of employment. For this analysis, ECE made the conservation assumption the construction would require five years. Table 5-13 contains a breakdown of the man-power requirements for the project by labor category and year. Table 5- 14 provides a summary of the manpower requirements for the project. Of the total, approximately 18.2 percent would be general labor, 68.6 percent would be skilled trades, and the remaining 13.2 percent would be supervisory and support staff.

Table 5-13. Employment Projections By Year YEAR ONE TOTAL CATEGORY 1 2 3 45678 9 101112MAN MONTHS Carpenters 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 Masons 000000000000 0 Electricians 033333333333 33 Engineers 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 69 Equipment Operators 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 16 16 16 133 Iron Workers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Laborers 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 230 Managers 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 115 Management Support 3 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 168 Mechanics 5 5 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 105 Millwrights 000000000000 0 Miners 103030303030303030606060 430 Painters 000000000000 0 Pipefitters 222222000000 12 Sheetmetal Workers000000000000 0 Surveyors 0 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 10101010 73 Teamsters 2 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 152 Welders 000000000000 0 TOTAL 45 106 108 113 128 128 126 126 131 177 177 177 1,542 YEAR TWO TOTAL CATEGORY 1 2 3 45678 9 101112MAN MONTHS Carpenters 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 24 Masons 002222222222 20 Electricians 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 78 Engineers 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 72 Equipment Operators353535353535353535353535 420 Iron Workers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 20 Laborers 30 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 580 Managers 151515151515151515151515 180 Management Support222222222222222222222222 264 Mechanics 202020202020202020202020 240 Millwrights 000000000000 0 Miners 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 1,440 Painters 000000000000 0 Pipefitters 000000000000 0 Sheetmetal Workers000000000000 0 Surveyors 202020202020202020202020 240 Teamsters 252525252525303030303030 330 Welders 000000000000 0 TOTAL 298 318 320 320 320 320 332 332 332 332 342 342 3,908

YEAR THREE TOTAL CATEGORY 1 2 3 45678 9 101112MAN MONTHS Carpenters 30 30 30 30 30 30 35 35 35 35 35 35 390 Masons 225555555555 54 Electricians 10 10 10 10 10 10 30 30 30 45 45 45 285 Engineers 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 72 Equipment Operators404040404040353535353535 450 Iron Workers 303030303030303535353535 385 Laborers 70 70 70 70 70 70 90 90 90 90 90 90 960 Managers 202020202020202020202020 240 Management Support303030303030303030303030 360 Mechanics 2020201010105 5 5 5 5 5 120 Millwrights 2 2 2 4 4 4 101010141414 90 Miners 606060606060303030301515 510 Painters 000000000000 0 Pipefitters 6 6 6 6 6 6 121212181818 126 Sheetmetal Workers000000000000 0 Surveyors 202020202020202020202020 240 Teamsters 404040404040404040404040 480 Welders 151515151515153 3 3 3 3 120 TOTAL 401 401 404 396 396 396 413 406 406 431 416 416 4,882

YEAR FOUR TOTAL CATEGORY 1 2 3 45678 9 101112MAN MONTHS Carpenters 45 45 45 45 45 45 30 30 30 15 15 15 405 Masons 777777555222 63 Electricians 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 720 Engineers 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 72 Equipment Operators 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 130 Iron Workers 454545454545404040202020 450 Laborers 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 90 90 60 60 60 1,050 Managers 202020202020202020202020 240 Management Support303030303030303030303030 360 Mechanics 555555555555 60 Millwrights 181818202020202020161616 222 Miners 000000000000 0 Painters 000044444444 32 Pipefitters 363636363636363636181818 378 Sheetmetal Workers101010101010101010101010 120 Surveyors 202020202020202020202020 240 Teamsters 404040404040303030303030 420 Welders 000000000000 0 TOTAL 462 462 462 454 458 458 416 416 411 321 321 321 4,962

YEAR FIVE TOTAL CATEGORY 1 2 3 45678 9 101112MAN MONTHS Carpenters 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 0 0 0 36 Masons 220000000000 4 Electricians 30 30 30 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 210 Engineers 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 72 Equipment Operators 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 60 Iron Workers 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Laborers 40 40 40 20 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 260 Managers 1515151010101010107 7 7 126 Management Support222222151515151515101010 186 Mechanics 333333333333 36 Millwrights 121212444222222 60 Miners 000000000000 0 Painters 444444222000 30 Pipefitters 181818666666333 99 Sheetmetal Workers101010000000000 30 Surveyors 202020202020202020202020 240 Teamsters 151515151515101010101010 150 Welders 000000000000 0 TOTAL 212 212 210 138 138 138 111 111 101 86 86 86 1,629

Table 5-14. Employment Projections Total

The majority of required manpower is needed during the middle three years of the construction period with considerably less needed in the first and last year. Year 4 would be the peak year of construction with an average of 414 employees per month. Peak monthly employment occurs in Year 4 with a high of 462.

It is expected that most of the general labor required during construction would be available from the labor pool within the area potentially impacted. As much as 50 percent of the skilled trades and management and support personnel could also be provided by local labor. Therefore, there would be an immigration of non-local workers to meet the project manpower requirements. It is expected that many of these employees will utilize local housing.

Current estimates of peak construction work force and the expected percentage of non-local workers suggest that approximately 200 workers, during the peak period, will require short- term housing accommodations.

Total construction payroll costs for the project are estimated to be approximately $128,614,800. The distribution of this payroll would fluctuate over time and would parallel the fluctuations in employment. Labor expenditures would be highest in Year 4.

5.7.2 Impacts on Community Infrastructure Because of the available infrastructure capacity within the potentially impacted area and specifically Eagle Mountain, it is not anticipated that any significant impacts to local infrastructure would be realized. To support this, the population of Eagle Mountain in 1980 was 1,859 with 579 dwelling units. Presently, the privately owned town of Eagle Mountain is not used for housing. Therefore, it has likely excess capacity in both housing and infrastructure, although the condition of these units is unknown. Also, within the area potentially impacted there exists 32,224 vacant housing units (single family, multiple family, and mobile homes). In addition, there are approximately 11,599 hotel/motel rooms within this same potentially impacted area. Thus, there exists sufficient housing to accommodate the non-local construction work force. Primary and secondary schools, within the area potentially impacted, also have room for any additional students that will be both minimal and short term. Medical facilities also appear to be adequate with one bed per approximately 645 people within the study area. In addition, the County of Riverside operates a fire station in Lake Tamarisk. Station personnel have basic life support capabilities. Because no new housing construction is anticipated, it is expected that the public services (water, sewer, waste) would be adequate to accommodate the project-related workforce population.

The project will create increased traffic on local roads during the construction phase. Increased traffic will be generated from the movement of workers, materials, and equipment to the site. The primary route will be Interstate 10 and Kaiser Road. Workers coming to the site would utilize this route.

The construction work force will be divided approximately into three shifts. However, much of the management and management support personnel would operate during the day shift. Therefore, construction workforce traffic will be significantly reduced, in contrast to one shift, as a result of the three shifts. Due to the existing infrastructure and the work shifts, no significant transportation impacts are anticipated.

5.7.3 Impacts on Adjacent Properties The primary impacts to adjacent or nearby properties would occur as a result of project- related traffic. The noise, dust and traffic along the primary access routes using Kaiser Road may be an inconvenience to area property owners. However, the existing transportation infrastructure previously accommodated a population at Eagle Mountain of 1,859 in 1980 along with mining-related traffic. Therefore, impacts resulting from project-related traffic are expected to be minimal.

Joshua Tree National Park lies to the north, west, and south of the proposed project site. To the east, west, and south are Bureau of Land Management lands set aside for mining, agriculture, and natural resource management. It is not anticipated that any significant impacts on the proposed Eagle Mountain landfill will result from the project. Potential impacts to these lands are described in Section E.9 - Land Use.

5.7.4 Impacts on Local Government Finances

5.7.4.1 Costs Because of the anticipated minimal impact on municipal services and infrastructure, the impact on local municipal costs during construction is expected to be relatively insignificant.

Riverside CSA 51 consists of the communities of Desert Center, Lake Tamarisk, and Eagle Mountain. CSA 51 provides water, sewer, and trash disposal to these communities. Keeping in mind that non-local construction workers may opt to relocate to any of several cities within the area potentially impacted further supports this claim. It is unlikely that the project-related construction workforce will place any significant drain on this budget.

5.7.4.2 Revenues The project will contribute to the revenues of the county and local governments. This would be accomplished primarily through the collection of property tax and sales and use tax.

Construction of the project would increase property tax revenues to Riverside County. The assessed valuation of the project would rise on an annual basis, in proportion to the work completed. Property tax revenues would increase accordingly. Based upon the construction cost estimate and tax schedule, the property taxes are expected to rise to approximately $8 million per year at the time of project completion.

The sales tax rate for Riverside County is 7.75 percent. Sales tax is imposed on the sale of tangible personal property and specified services. Much of the materials and equipment for the project could fall into this category. Therefore, substantial sales tax revenues could be generated from the project.

Other minor sources of revenue would also be realized by the County. These would include permit fees and other operational/administrative costs.

5.7.5 Indirect and Induced Impacts of Project Construction Associated with the direct impacts of the project on employment, income and government revenues are secondary economic impacts. These include the indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation workforce and the purchase of materials and supplies. Measurements of this additional indirect impact are applied to an employment and gross multipliers.

For construction activity of this type, gross output multipliers often range from 1.0 to 1.5. This means for every dollar spent on materials, supplies, etc. on the project, the spin-off indirect impact accounts for an additional $1.00 to $1.50. However, should a substantial amount of purchases be made outside of the region, it is likely that this multiplier may be lower.

Employment multipliers 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) will be created in the retail, service, and non-basic employment sectors.

5.8 Impacts During Operating Phase The socioeconomic impact of the project during the operation phase will be much less than the during construction phase. Nevertheless, these impacts, particularly the property taxes, will be significant to the County and local municipalities. The following sections discuss the project's impacts in terms of annual employment, labor income, purchases of materials, tax revenues, and public service costs over its operating life.

5.8.1 Direct Employment and Labor Income An estimated 24 persons will be required to manage, operate, and maintain the proposed project. The total staff requirements include three management personnel, nine operating personnel, and twelve maintenance personnel.

Total annual payroll, including fringe benefits is estimated at $1.32 million, based on 1993 wage levels.

5.8.2 Purchases of Materials The annual budget for plant supplies and parts is $2.5 million. The purchase of these supplies and parts within the region will provide an economic benefit to the area.

5.8.3 Impacts on Local Government Finances The project will not have any significant ongoing impacts on local/county government costs. The relatively small labor force is unlikely to create any significant impacts on housing, schools, and other public services.

Tax revenues from property tax will escalate relative to the value of the project during construction. At completion, the project will generate approximately $8 million per year in property tax revenue. Sales tax will decrease following completion. However, sales tax revenue will be generated from the operation and maintenance of the facility. Using the Riverside County sales tax of 7.75 percent, approximately $193,000 in annual sales tax revenue could be generated from the purchasing of plant supplies and parts.

The applicant will also be liable for taxes on the tangible personal property on the facility (equipment, inventories, etc.).

5.8.4 Indirect and Induced Impacts on Ongoing Expenditures The ongoing expenditures for materials, services, and employment will generate indirect impacts within the region in the same manner as described under construction stage impacts. The multipliers applicable to employment and expenditures on the operation of an energy storage project are likely to be quite different from those associated with expenditures and employment or construction. The multiplier impacts are likely to be similar to those associated with the operation of utilities.

The typical multiplier for utilities operations is 1.5 for employment. Therefore, the operations workforce of 24 personnel will generate an additional 36 indirect or secondary jobs.

5.9 Displacement of Residences and Business Establishments There will be no displacement of residences or business establishments due to construction and operation of the project.

6 Geological and Soil Resources

6.1 Description of geological features Extensive geologic investigations have been performed for the Eagle Mountain Site. Mineralogical studies were conducted prior to and during operation of the iron ore mining activities at the site. In the early 1990s, comprehensive site investigations were performed during landfill siting studies. The results of those investigations were summarized in the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Application for FERC License (EMEC, 1994), which was based largely on the Report of Waste Discharge for the Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center by GeoSyntec Consultants (GeoSyntec) in 1992. Additional summary site investigations were performed by GeoSyntec in 1996. The descriptions of geology and geologic hazards provided in this report are primarily a re-presentation of information contained in those original documents for potential site development.

6.1.1 General Geologic Setting The project site is located in the northeast 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 E.6-1). 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. 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 are typically found along the northeast limb of this anticline. The iron ore deposits are comprised of magnetite and hematite, which were formed by the replacement of carbonate meta-sedimentary rocks.

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 (EMEC, 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 approximately five miles, both to the north and south of the site, while northwest-trending faults are present 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 Holocene deformation as indicated by the unbroken alluvial deposits that overlie them (EMEC, 1994).

The site is cut by a series of northeast-trending dikes. The dikes have near-vertical dips and lie at approximately right angles to the northwest-trending faults. Where exposed, dikes that cross the northwest-trending faults are not offset by the faults (EMEC, 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 (EMEC, 1994). Range- front faults do not appear to be present along the eastern side of the Eagle Mountains.

6.1.2 Project Area Geology Bedrock geologic units present at the site can be generally classified as either igneous or meta-sedimentary. The igneous rocks are principally comprised of Mesozoic-age quartz monzonite. The meta-sedimentary units include quartzites, meta-arkoses, and marbles formed by metamorphosis and/or hydrothermal-alteration or sandstones, conglomerates, arkoses, and carbonate rocks deposited in the Paleozoic or Precambrian age. 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 E.6-2.

6.1.2.1 Formational Rock Stratigraphy

6.1.2.1.1 Meta-Sedimentary Rock Units The meta-sedimentary units dip to the northeast in the site area, with dips ranging from 30 to 60 degrees (EMEC, 1994). The meta-sedimentary units can be subdivided into six distinct units, which include three quartzite units, two marbles, and a schistose meta-arkose. These units, beginning with the oldest and proceeding to the youngest, are described by GeoSyntec (1992) [in EMEC, 1994] as follows:

Lower Quartzite: This unit consists of a vitreous white to light-gray quartzite that is very coarse-grained and massive with bedding obscured or obliterated. This quartzite is compositionally supermature, commonly consisting of 98 to 99 percent quartz. The thickness of the unit is 1,000 feet (300 m) or more.

Schistose Meta-arkose: This unit consists of a gray, medium-grained, meta-arkose with schistose structure. Iron oxide staining throughout the unit has locally produced reddish-and purplish-brown colors. The unit has high percentages of quartz, feldspar, sericite, and clay, with minor amounts of chlorite, biotite, apatite, and opaque minerals. The thickness of the unit ranges from 20 to 200 feet (6 to 60 m).

Lower Marble: This unit consists of marble that is white, very coarse-grained with ferriferous layers of hematite-dolomite. The unit thickness ranges from 20 to 200 feet (6 to 60 m). The minerals magnetite and hematite are abundant in the iron ore zone, and gangue minerals associated with the ore are mainly pyrite, actinolite, and tremolite. Other associated minerals include diopside, serpentine, calcite, gypsum, and garnet.

Middle Quartzite: This unit consists of quartzite that is green and dark gray, fine- to medium-grained, vitreous, and banded. Conglomerate containing pebbles and cobbles of quartz and quartzite occurs in layers and lenses up to 10 feet (3 m) thick that are interbedded with cross-bedded quartzite near the base of this rock unit. Hematite imparts a characteristic rusty-brown stain to weathered rock in this unit. The thickness of the unit ranges from 150 to 400 feet (45 to 120 m). Banded varieties of quartzite are also present primarily due to the presence of diopside.

Upper Marble: This unit consists of dolomite marble that is white to light-gray on fresh surfaces and grayish orange to buff on weathered surfaces. The rock is a very coarse-grained, recrystallized dolomitic marble with grains up to 1 cm across, and is thin- to thick-bedded to massive. The thickness of the unit ranges from 50 to 400 feet (15 to 120 m). An iron ore zone has formed within the unit as a function of hydrothermal replacement of host rocks. The metallic mineralization in the ore zone is magnetite and hematite. Gangue minerals associated with the ore are pyrite, actinolite, and tremolite.

Upper Quartzite: This unit consists of quartzite that is mottled gray and bluish gray, vitreous, fine-to coarse-grained, medium-bedded to massive with low-angle sets of tangential planar cross-laminations. This unit is compositionally mature, consisting of 95 percent or more quartz. The rock contains thin interbeds of meta-arkose and conglomeratic lenses comprised of pebbles and cobbles of quartzite. The thickness of the unit is several hundred feet.

6.1.2.1.2 Igneous Rock Units Igneous rocks at the Eagle Mountain site include several varieties of granitic rocks including porphyritic quartz monzonite, diorite, monzonite porphyry, granodiorite, and granite (EMEC, 1994). These rock types are collectively referred to as "granitic rocks." In addition to the granitic rocks, two discrete sets of igneous dikes cut across the site. GeoSyntec (1992) [in EMEC, 1994] described the igneous rocks units as follows:

Granitic Rocks: This generalized rock unit consist of subunits including, from youngest to oldest: 1) biotite monzonite that is coarse-grained and typically contains 25 to 35 percent quartz; 2) biotite monzonite that is coarse-grained and porphyritic with abundant quartz and alkali feldspar; 3) sphene-biotite-hornblende granodiorite that is medium-grained; 4) quartz-poor monzonite that is coarse-grained; and 5) hornblende-biotite, quartz-poor, monzonite that is coarse-grained and porphyritic. Some subunits exhibit gneissic banding.

Dikes: Two systems of dikes were mapped within the proposed project site. One system consists of mafic dikes oriented in a general northwest-southeast direction. The other comprises light- to medium-gray andesite and andesite porphyry dikes that trend northeast-southwest. Andesite dikes in the Chuckwalla/Chocolate Mountains, to the southeast of the proposed site, were dated at 25 to 29 million years old.

Age dating of the mafic dikes was completed as part of the fault investigations completed by Proctor (1993) [in EMEC, 1994]. Two samples were collected for radiometric dating. Results of these tests indicated ages of 124±3 MY and 234±6 MY (EMEC, 1994).

6.1.2.2 Surficial Deposits

6.1.2.2.1 Natural Alluvial Deposits Surficial geology of the Eagle Mountain area is shown on Figure E.6-1. Unconsolidated alluvial deposits are found in several locations within the site area. The alluvial deposits include sands, silts, gravels, and debris-flow deposits (EMEC, 1994). The most significant 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. Some of these deposits are exposed in the east wall of the east pit, in an area that would underlie the lower reservoir (EMEC, 1994). Elsewhere within the area of the pumped storage project, alluvial deposits are confined to laterally discontinuous, generally thin deposits along the bottoms of the canyons (EMEC, 1994).

Extensive investigations of the alluvial deposits were completed by GSi/water (GeoSyntec, 1992) [in EMEC, 1994]. Investigations included analysis of aerial photography, surface mapping, trenching, geophysical surveys, and drilling. The following four alluvial units were identified by GSi/water:

Unit I: This unit is composed predominantly of flat elongate cobbles (85 percent), boulders (5-10 percent), and fines (silt and clay-size particles), sand, and gravel (±5 percent). This unit forms an extensive dark red-brown to nearly black desert pavement that is nearly devoid of vegetation.

Unit II: This unit is similar to Unit I, but has more fines, sand, and gravel (15 percent) with some desert pavement. This unit is reddish-brown and supports low- lying desert shrubs.

Unit III: This unit contains greater percentages of sand and fines than Units I or II. The clasts are typically more angular in shape. This unit has little or no desert pavement and supports moderately dense desert vegetation.

Unit IV: This unit is similar to Unit III, but is located in stream-bed channels and supports thicker floral growth, including shrubs and palo verde.

These units are irregularly layered on top of one another within the alluvial wedge east of the mountain front. Individual units are typically elongated in an east-west direction and reflect the location of the primary depositional channel at the time of deposition. The total thickness of the alluvial fan is on the order of a few tens of feet near the mountain front. It thickens steadily to the east, reaching a maximum thickness of more than 2,000 feet in the eastern part of the Chuckwalla Valley (EMEC, 1994).

Alluvial deposits in the western portion of the site are confined to the canyon bottoms (EMEC, 1994). These deposits are typically composed of sandy gravel, but may vary locally from sand and gravelly sand to gravel. These deposits are discontinuous and range in thickness from 0 to 50 feet. The thickest deposits are found near the mouths of canyons. Older alluvial deposits in the upper portions of the canyons may be locally cemented (EMEC, 1994).

An ancient alluvial fan is exposed near the base of the north wall in the East Pit of the Eagle Mountain Mine (EMEC, 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 East Pit, debris flow deposits rest directly on bedrock (EMEC, 1994).

6.1.2.2.2 Mining By-Product Deposits Mining by-products generated by the former Kaiser operations were deposited in numerous areas near the site (Figure E.6-2). These by-products 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 mining waste materials are described below:

Overburden: Overburden materials removed during mining operations were stockpiled at several locations in the site area. The largest piles of overburden are located on the eastern edge of the site, to the northeast of the East Pit, along the northern rim of the East Pit, adjacent to the former haul road about midway between the Central and East Pits, and to the southeast of the Central Pit. The total volume of overburden materials on-site is estimated to be in excess of 100 million cubic yards

(EMEC, 1994). Grain-size testing on these materials indicated a locally variable mix of sands, gravels, cobbles, and boulders, with up to 26 percent silt and clay.

Fine Tailings: The hydraulically placed fine tailings were placed in six separate settling ponds to the southeast of the Central Pit. Total volume of these materials is estimated to potentially be over 19 million cubic yards (EMEC, 1994). Laboratory testing (GeoSyntec, 1992) [in EMEC, 1994] indicated the fine tailings vary in composition, ranging from silty sand and sandy silt to clayey silt to silty clay. In general, soils with higher sand content are located near the slurry discharge point while finer grained soils are present in the distal portions of each pond. Based on available test results, the fine tailings are suitable for use as a reservoir liner or for construction of a low-permeability central core in embankments proposed for the upper reservoir site (EMEC, 1994).

Coarse Tailings: Coarse tailings were placed at several locations around the site, although the largest deposit lies immediately south of the East Pit. The total volume of coarse tailings in this stockpile is estimated to be about 50 million cubic yards (EMEC, 1994). A testing program for the coarse tailings (GeoSyntec, 1992) [in EMEC, 1994] indicated the majority were classed as clean gravels or sandy gravels containing significant percentages of cobbles and boulders and few fines. Based on the available test data, the coarse tailings were judged to be suitable for use in embankment construction (EMEC, 1994).

6.1.2.3 Geologic Structures Several steeply dipping, pre-Holocene faults have been mapped at the site. These faults were investigated in detail by Proctor (1993) and Shlemon (1993) during landfill siting studies completed by GeoSyntec (1992) [in EMEC, 1994]. The most prominent faults at the site are the Bald Eagle Canyon fault, which trends northwest-southeast along Bald Eagle Canyon, and an unnamed parallel fault about 4,600 feet (1,400 m) to the west. The faults do not cut overlying Quaternary sediments, or, in the case of the latter fault, a cross-cutting andesite dike (EMEC, 1994).

Several bedrock joint systems have been mapped at the site (EMEC, 1994). The most prominent joint set trends northwest-southeast, parallel to the trend of the Bald Eagle Canyon fault. A second joint set is oriented approximately perpendicular to the first, and trends northeast-southwest. Less-developed joint systems with east-west and north-south trends were also noted in the fault studies, as was a set of shallowly dipping joints of varying strike (EMEC, 1994).

6.1.2.4 Mineral Resources

6.1.2.4.1 Ore Deposits and Mining History The central project area occupies an ore mineral-rich zone of the Eagle Mountains. Iron is the most important ore found within both the primary minerals of this zone, magnetite and pyrite, and within the secondary minerals, hematite and geothite (DuBois and Brummett, 1968) [in EMEC, 1994].

The central project area occupies a portion of the inactive Eagle Mountain Mine. This facility began operations in 1948 to extract iron ore from these deposits. During the life of the mining operation, 940 million net tons of rock were mined from the pits. With the closure of Kaiser’s Fontana, California steel mill, the Eagle Mountain mine lost its principal market, forcing the mine’s closure as well (Mine Reclamation Corporation, 1997). Ore crushing and concentrating facilities were subsequently dismantled and the mining equipment sold. By 1986, most of the mine’s infrastructure had been abandoned (Kaiser and MRC, 1991) [in EMEC, 1994]. Investigations in 1990 (Kaiser, 1990) [in EMEC, 1994] indicated that recoverable precious metals are not present in the central project area.

The proposed project would utilize two of the three inactive pits at the Eagle Mountain Mine site: the East Pit and the Central Pit. The western-most of the three pits, the Black Eagle pit, is outside the proposed central project area and would not be affected by construction and operation of the pumped storage hydroelectric facility, access roads, or transmission line.

6.1.2.4.2 Iron Ore Resources Approximately 170 million short tons of iron ore reserves, considered economically recoverable at the time the mine was closed, remain on the entire Eagle Mountain Mine site (Mine Reclamation Corporation, 1997). Eagle Mountain iron ore reserves are magnetite mixed with pyrite, or magnetite and hematite with small amounts of pyrite. The grades of ore remaining on the site are not a salable, direct shipping ore grade, but would have to be crushed and concentrated to produce salable products (Mine Reclamation Corporation, 1997). Following suspension of mining operations, equipment and structures were removed from the mine site; consequently no means exists on site to convert ore into a salable product (Mine Reclamation Corporation, 1997). Thus, a new concentration facility would need to be built if large-scale mining activity were to resume at Eagle Mountain (Kaiser and MRC, 1991) [in EMEC, 1994].

The reserves located in the alluvial resource area in the East Pit are the best candidates for future iron ore mining at Eagle Mountain. Approximately 13 percent of the remaining open pit ore reserves are located in this area. These deposits contain low average iron content; the iron could be concentrated at a relatively inexpensive facility. However, iron ore mining at Eagle Mountain was completely dependent on the availability of rail transportation. The rail line has been inactive since 1986 (Mine Reclamation Corporation, 1997).

The placer deposits are contained within a parcel wherein the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has a 100 percent reserved mineral interest (EMEC, 1994). The mineral extraction lease permit granted to Kaiser by the CSLC expired in 2002. Kaiser’s application to exchange the State’s reserved mineral interest at Eagle Mountain for a nearby mineral estate owned by Kaiser remains in abeyance (CSLC, 2007). Nonetheless, activation of placer mining would be complicated by the present lack of equipment or a mining infrastructure at Eagle Mountain (EMEC, 1994).

6.2 Description of soils

6.2.1 Soil Resources Soils potentially impacted by the proposed project include those that would be affected by construction of the major project facilities within the proposed generating facility area, those that would be traversed by the proposed transmission line, and those crossed by the water supply corridor.

6.2.1.1 Proposed Generating Facility Area Detailed soils mapping within this area had not been conducted by 1994. The soils map (Figure E.6-3) produced by EMEC (1994) was based on soils mapping by the United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in the Desert Center area (Kim, 1993); a SCS soil survey for the Coachella Valley area (Knecht, 1980); and studies by EMEC, including August 1993 field observations, interpretation of 1:24,000 scale topographic maps, and aerial photo interpretation.

The soils within the project area have developed in a mid-latitude, low desert environment at elevations ranging from 1000 to 2800 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 (EMEC, 1994).

The referenced reports indicate that the proposed generating facility area has been divided into five soil mapping units (EMEC, 1994), which are described below:

Typic Torripsamments, sandy, mixed, hyperthermic, 2 to 5 percent slopes: These soils are very deep, excessively drained, sand and loamy sand horizons formed in alluvial fan deposits at the foot of the Eagle Mountains. The water erosion hazard of these soils is moderate because of minimal vegetative protection.

Typic Torripsamments, sandy, mixed, hyperthermic, 5 to 15 percent slopes: These soils are deep, excessively drained, sand and loamy sand horizons formed in alluvium within the valley bottoms of the Eagle Mountains. The water erosion hazard of these soils is moderate because of minimal vegetative protection.

Lithic Torripsamments, sandy skeletal, mixed - Rock Outcrop complex, 15 to 75 percent slopes: In addition to rock outcrops, this complex includes 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.

Mine Dumps/Tailings: Soils in these areas consist of mixed cobbles and soil deposited by human activity. These deposits have not been stable long enough to develop characteristic soil profiles.

Mine Pits: The pit excavations are characterized by disturbed rock outcrops or a thin mantle of mixed soil and cobbles deposited by human activities.

6.2.1.2 Water Supply Corridor Current published regional SCS soils surveys in eastern Riverside County are limited to the Coachella Valley Area (Knecht, 1980), located tens of miles southwest of the Eagle Mountain site, and the Palo Verde Area (Elam, 1974), similar distances east of the site near Blythe. Therefore, detailed soil mapping of the water supply corridor in the western Chuckwalla Valley has not been performed. The few areas that were examined along the route by EMEC (1994) were typically characterized by irrigated agriculture. In their report, EMEC (1994) also used site-specific mapping in the Desert Center Area by Kim (1993) [in EMEC, 1994] to provide a general picture of soils along the water pipeline corridor.

Soils within the water supply corridor have developed in a mid-latitude, low desert environment at elevations ranging from 500 to 2,500 feet MSL. The basin slopes gently from the northwest to the southeast. Vegetation is typically Sonoran desert shrubland, creosote bush shrub, with some desert dry wash woodland, and irrigated farmland (EMEC, 1994).

The proposed pipeline route follows an existing transmission line corridor (Figure E.6-4). Kim (1993) [in EMEC, 1994] described these soils as Carsitas gravelly loamy sand. The Carsitas series consists of excessively drained, very deep soils formed in alluvium from granitic parent material. These soils have low runoff, moderately rapid to rapid permeability.

The proposed water supply corridor meets Kaiser Road and proceeds through a desert basin environment crossed by numerous washes (EMEC, 1994). The soils of this area are gravelly loamy sands with particle size decreasing with distance from the mountains. Kim (1993) [in EMEC, 1994] suggests that the sandy surface horizon typically extends five to six feet in depth.

6.2.1.3 Transmission Line Corridor The proposed transmission line corridor extends to the southeast and east along the southern side of Chuckwalla Valley, ending short of Palo Verde Mesa near Blythe (see Figure E.6-4). Limited soils mapping was performed by Kim (1993) in the Desert Center Area, south of the western end of the corridor. EMEC’s (1994) review of this information suggested that soils near the water supply corridor, which parallels the transmission line corridor through the west end of Chuckwalla Valley, is overlain by Carsitas gravelly loamy sand formed in alluvium. The Carsitas series consists of excessively drained, very deep soils (five to six feet depth) with low runoff potential and moderately rapid to rapid permeability.

Soils along the transmission line corridor have developed in a mid-latitude, low desert environment at elevations ranging from 400 to about 1400 feet MSL. Slopes range from gently sloping to nearly level as the corridor extends southeast down into Chuckwalla Valley, where it generally follows the contour on the valley’s south side. This area is likely overlain by the same Carsitas series soils.

Regional geology maps (Figure E.6-1) indicate that the eastern nine miles of the corridor are underlain by dune sand. Dune sands are typically clean, fine to coarse sands, derived from recent alluvium, that are subject to eolian erosion/drift. Where migratory, these sands are excessively drained, have negligible runoff and rapid permeability, and are sparsely vegetated. Where sheets of dune sand are more stable, soils of the Rositas series can form. These soils are also excessively drained and have negligible to low runoff and rapid permeability but can support some Sonoran desert shrubland.

6.3 Description of existing and potential geological and soil hazards

6.3.1 Earthquakes and Faults Landfill siting studies completed by Kaiser and MRC (1991) [in EMEC, 1994] and GeoSyntec (1996) included seismic hazard assessments to evaluate the potential for surface ground displacement from movement of active and potentially active faults, and for strong shaking from active faults, potentially active faults, and from non-specific area sources of seismicity. Active faults (Bryant, et al., 2007) are defined as faults along which seismically induced (tectonic) displacement has occurred in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene epoch). Potentially active faults are defined as faults along which tectonic displacement has occurred between 11,000 and 1.6 million years before present (ybp) (the Pleistocene epoch). Inactive faults are defined as faults along which tectonic displacement has not occurred in the past 1.6 million years (since the beginning of the Quaternary period).

6.3.1.1 Regional Faults There are numerous active and potentially active faults and fault zones located within 100 miles (161 km) of the site (Figure E.6-5). Based on the Fault Activity Map of California

(Jennings, 1994), the nearest active faults to the Eagle Mountain site are the Hot Springs fault and the paralleling San Andreas fault (Coachella segment), located about 30 miles (48 km) and 33 miles (53 km) southwest of the site, respectively.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act (Bryant, et al, 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 Eagle Mountain site are the Hidden Springs Fault, located 29 miles (47 km) to the southwest, the aforementioned Hot Springs fault, and the mid-east portion of the Pinto Mountain fault, located 32.5 miles (52 km) to the northwest.

Potentially active faults from the late Quaternary 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 an enechelon segment located about 4 miles (6 km) north of the site; the Salton Creek fault, about 23.5 miles (38 km) to the southwest; and eastern segments of the Pinto Mountain fault, located 30.5 miles (49 km) northwest of the site. In addition to these fault-specific sources, previous investigations of seismic exposure at the Eagle Mountain site (EMEC, 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. Table 6-1 identifies the faults and non- specific source zones considered in the previous seismic assessment by GeoSyntec. The table includes the closest distance from each source to the site, the length of each fault or area of each non-specific source zone, and the maximum event magnitude.

Table 6-1. Significant Seismic Sources Within 100 km of the Eagle Mountain Site

Length Maximum Credible miles (km) Maximum Recurrence Interval Earthquake Closest or Credible Earthquake2 (years) Peak Fault or Distance Miles Area 1 Magnitude Horizontal Acceleration3 M ? 4.5 M ? (Mmax -0.50) Fault Zone (km) miles 2 (km2) (M max) g’s

Blue Cut Fault 4 (6) L – 52 (83) 7.5 39.5 12,500 0.48 Pinto Mountain Fault 28 (45) L – 50 (80) 7.2 7.2 2,290 0.10

Southeast Transverse 3 (5)4 A – 2,602 Ranges Zone (6,737) 6.75 2.3 166 0.49

San Bernardino 56 (90) A – 832 Mountains Zone (2,156) 7.0 6.2 778 0.03

Eastern Mojave Zone 7 (11) A – 8,500 (22,008) 7.5 1.9 573 0.41

Sonoran Zone 14 (22) A – 44,608 (115,487) 6.5 44.7 1,412 0.15

Salton Zone 34 (55) A − 12,464 7.0 1.2 73.6 0.07 (32,269) San Andreas Fault5 - Coachella Valley 33 (53) L – 27 (69) 8.0 69.5 695 0.14 Segment - San Bernardino 40 (65) L – 48 (125) 8.0 0.8 795 0.11 Segment

Notes: 1L – length and A – area. 2Maximum Credible Earthquake (MC) is the “maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the presently known tectonic framework” as defined by the California Geologic Survey. The MCE represents a seismic event more severe than the Maximum Probable Earthquake. The MCE is presented in this table as a means of indicating the relative differences in fault source characteristics. 3Using mean attenuation relationship of Sadigh as reported by Joyner and Boore (1988). 4Site is within S.E. transverse Range. Minimum site to source distance assumed to be five kilometers. 5Minimum magnitude equal to 6.5 for Coachella Valley Segment. Magnitude 8.0 maximum event assumes simultaneous rupture of Coachella Valley, San Bernardino, and Eastern Mojave Segments.

Source: EMEC, 1994

6.3.1.2 Regional Seismicity The California Geological Survey 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 (CGS, 2001). Figure E.6-6 is a plot of this earthquake activity in the project region. The data shown in Figure E.6-6 are only considered complete for the past 75 years, since establishment in 1932 of the Southern California Seismic Network jointly administered by the United States Geological Survey and California Institute of Technology. Prior to 1932, only events large enough and close enough to be felt in populated areas are known. Locations of these events are inferred, based upon either observations of surface rupture or report of observed shaking intensity.

Figure E.6-6 shows the site 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. Upon review of recorded seismicity in the region, and using the attenuation relationship developed by Sadigh as reported by Joyner and Bore (1988), GeoSyntec (1992) [in EMEC, 1994) estimated that the strongest ground motion at the site from historical events was about 0.15g (1g = acceleration due to gravity), using mean attenuation rates, and 0.27g using mean plus one standard deviation.

Based on the distances to recognized regional seismic sources and a “random earthquake” of Magnitude 6.75 located 3 miles (5 km) from the Eagle Mountain site, deterministic calculations of potential ground motion at the site were performed (EMEC, 1994; GeoSyntec, 1996). The calculations, which used the attenuation relationship developed by Sadigh (Joyner and Bore, 1988), estimated the highest horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.49g that results from a MW 6.75 random event in the Southeast Transverse Ranges. A similar PGA of 0.48g was estimated from a Magnitude 7.5 event on the Blue Cut fault (EMEC, 1994; GeoSyntec, 1996). Regional probabilistic studies on seismicity (Frankel, et al, 2002) estimate that the site has a 2 percent probability of exceeding PGAs of between 0.3 and 0.4g in the next 50 years.

Several new peer-reviewed deterministic attenuation relationships, introduced in 1997, are in common use at this time. In addition, next generation attenuation (NGA) deterministic models were introduced in 2006-2007. The NGA relationships are currently under review by regulatory agencies and the scientific community. However, many site investigators use the results from the NGA relationships as a comparison to those from the 1997 relationships in their estimates of seismic exposure.

For this investigation, GEI reviewed the fault parameters used in the previous site studies (EMEC, 1994; GeoSyntec, 1996) as presented in Table 6-1. Some of the information in Table 6-1 was updated based on more recent fault data, regulatory guidelines and

professional judgment. In particular, the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) for the Blue Cut fault, which produces the highest estimated ground motions at the site, was considered overly conservative since the fault has no known Holocene movement and enechelon movement with adjacent faults was assumed in the GeoSyntec (1996) evaluations. In addition, the random event in the Southeast Transverse Ranges was reduced from MW 6.75 to MW 6.25 in keeping with the State Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) guidelines (Frasier and Howard, 2002).

The revised fault information, as presented on Table 6-2, and newer attenuation relationships were used to update seismic exposure at the site using both the 1997 and NGA equations. The results of these analyses (Table 6-3) indicate that the highest seismic shaking at the site would again result from a maximum event on the Blue Cut fault. The maximum earthquake of MW 6.9 on the Blue Cut fault yields a mean PGA of 0.46 with the 1997 relationships, and a mean PGA of 0.36 using the NGA equations. If the higher magnitude used by GeoSyntec (MW 7.5) is employed, the mean PGAs increase to 0.56 and 0.40 for the 1997 and NGA relationships, respectively.

The random earthquake in the Southeast Transverse Ranges also contributes a high mean PGA (0.48g with 1997 relationships); at the site with the newer relationships, but only if the GeoSyntec value of MW 6.75 is used. Estimated potential ground motions from the random earthquake are reduced to a mean PGA of 0.15g for both the 1997 and NGA relationships when the preferred MW 6.25 is used.

Probabilistic potential ground motion are also presented on Table 6-3 for the Eagle Mountain site based on the California Geological Survey database (2007) and the U.S. Geological Survey database (2002). The results indicate that for return periods of 100 and 475 years, PGAs of 0.10g and 0.19g, respectively, are estimated for the site.

Table 6-2. Fault Parameters and Established Ground Motions Eagle Mountain Project

GEI Estimates Type GeoSyntec, 1996 1997 NGA [1] [2] [3] FAULT MMMw Length Slip Dist. PGA PGA PGA (low) (high) (used) (km) (mm/yr) (km) (g) (g) (g) Mean Mean Mean R.L. S/S Hot Springs -- -- 6.6 [4] 19 -- 48.0 -- 0.07 0.06 uncertain Hidden Springs -- -- 6.6 [4] 20 -- 47.0 -- 0.07 0.07 L.L. S/S Blue Cut 6.8 [a] 6.9 [b] 6.90 30-83? 1.0-2.5 6.0 0.46 0.36 (w/ rupture of parallel faults for GeoSyntec) 7.50 83 6.0 0.48 0.56 0.40 uncertain Eastern Mojave Fault Zone [d] 7.7 [a] 8.3 [f] 7.50 100-133 19-25 11.0 0.40 0.30 San Andreas Mojave segment for GEI) 7.50 -- 11.0 0.41 0.40 0.30 uncertain SE Transverse Ranges 6.0 6.5 6.25 [g] -- -- random 0.15 0.15 (random event for GeoSyntec) 6.75 -- 5.0 0.49 0.48 0.38 R.L. S/S San Andreas - Coachella [5] 6.8 8.0 7.60 600 20-30 53.0 0.11 0.10 San Andreas - San Bernardino 7.5 8 [e] 7.70 600 19-29 65.0 0.09 0.08 [6] (3 segment rupture for GeoSyntec ) 8.00 194 + ? 53.0 0.14 0.14 0.12 L.L. S/S [a] Pinto Mountain [c] 6.5 7.3 7.00 73-90 1.0-5.0 45-49? 0.09 0.08 7.20 45.0 0.10 0.11 0.09 L.L. (??) Salton Zone -- -- 6.75 18?? -- 38.0 0.10 0.08 (Salton Creek Fault for GEI) 7.4 7.00 55.0 0.07 0.08 0.06 -- Sonoran Zone [ random M? ] -- -- 6.50 -- -- 22.0 0.15 0.12 6.50 22.0 0.15 0.15 0.12 R.L. S/S San Bernardino Mtns. Fault Zone [d] -- -- 6.75 50?? -- 90.0 0.04 0.03 7.00 90.0 0.03 0.04 0.03

GEI preferred estimates are in bold case GeoSyntec, 1996 estimates are italicized

NOTES: [1] PGA estimates for GeoSyntec (1996) used Sadigh 1988 equation

[2] Average of mean using Adamson and Silva (1997), Boore, et al (1997), and Sadigh, et al (1997) equations

[3] Average of mean using Campbell and Bozorgnia (2007), Chiou and Youngs (2006), and Idriss (2007) NGA

[4] Estimated from mapped length (Jennings, 1994) and Wells and Coppersmith (1994) length/magnitude rela

[5] Includes Coachella and San Bernardino segments

[5] Previous magnitude 7.5 (Geosyntec, 1996) assumed en-echelon rupture of the Blue Cut and all adjacent f This assumption may be overly conservative as the Blue Cut Fault is not documented as Holocene active

REFERENCES: [a] Wesnousky (1986) [b] Anderson (1984) [c] Petersen and Wesnousky (1994) [d] WGCEP (1995) [e] OSHPD (1995) [f] Mualchin and Jones (1992) [g] Fraser and Howard (2002)

Table 6-3. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (Based On Seismic Hazard Mapping Programs) EAGLE MOUNTAIN SITE [ SOFT ROCK CONDITIONS ]

SITE COORDINATES DATABASE o LATITUDE: 33 52' 12" 2007 2002 ESTIMATED LONGITUDE: 115o 29' 38" T PGA PGA PGA 2002: USGS database (years) (g) (g) (g) 2007: CGS - soft rock database 50 -- -- 0.07 (both databases accessed 2008) 100 -- -- 0.10 200 -- -- 0.14 475 0.19 0.19 0.19 975 -- -- 0.25 T = Return Period 2,475 -- 0.35 0.35 PGA = Peak Ground Acceleration 5,000 -- -- 0.48 g = acceleration due to gravity 10,000 -- -- 0.75

USGS & CGS ESTIMATED RETURN PERIODS (PGA) 10,000

1,000

100 RETURN PERIOD ( years ) years ( PERIOD RETURN

10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 PGA ( Peak Ground Acceleration, g )

2007 CGS 2002 USGS Estimated 475-yr 100-yr

USGS - U.S. Geological Survey CGS - California Geological Survey

6.3.1.3 Local Faulting Field Kaiser and MRCnaissance and review of remote sensing data (GeoSyntec, 1992) by EMEC (1994) identified four ancient fault traces that trend across the site or are within 2000 feet (600 m) of site boundaries. These faults were investigated by Proctor (1993) and Shlemon (1993) to evaluate their activity or potential activity. The investigations included review of available geologic reports of the area, aerial photographs, high altitude infra-red imagery, gravimetric surveys, field mapping, trench excavating and logging, evaluation of local micro-seismicity, and soil-stratigraphic age dating.

The four ancient faults trend northwest across the site (EMEC, 1994), a direction consistent with a pattern of regional faulting believed to have existed in Miocene time (approximately 5 to 22 million years before present (ybp)). In at least one location, a dike of volcanic rock considered to be of Miocene age is not offset by these faults indicating that they may date to pre-Miocene time (EMEC, 1994). Traces of three of the ancient faults are exposed, and the East Pit provides exposure of some portion of the faults to depths of more than 500 feet (150 m). In some areas, however, tailings piles covered or obliterated the fault traces. Therefore, EMEC (1994) excavated and logged two trenches through the overburden, and reviewed stereoscopic air photos of the mining operations taken from 1944 to 1956. These studies enabled further evaluation of the relationship of these faults to site stratigraphy.

Exposures in the mine pit and trenches at the fault locations indicated unbroken alluvium, providing evidence that there had been no displacement along the ancient faults at the site during Holocene time (EMEC, 1994). The 1994 studies included evaluation of stereoscope air photos taken of the site during mining operations, which indicated no identifiable displacement of alluvium estimated to be at least 40,000 years old. Furthermore, evaluation of aerial photos taken prior to the start of mining operations, and field Kaiser and MRCnaissance within the East Pit and the general site area, indicated that no displacement has occurred along faults at the site in the past 100,000 years (EMEC, 1994).

Based upon geologic similarities, all four ancient faults were concluded to be of similar geologic age. Hence, it was concluded that significant displacement has not occurred since Miocene time (approximately 5 to 22 million ybp) and these faults are considered inactive (EMEC, 1994). Further details of the investigations for on-site faults, including information from the Proctor (1993) and Shlemon (1993) studies, are contained in GeoSyntec (1996). Their summary report on faulting and seismicity (GeoSyntec, 1996) supports the conclusion that these faults are pre-Holocene in age.

6.3.2 Reservoir Seepage Bedrock exposed in both the lower and upper reservoir areas is moderately to highly fractured (EMEC, 1994). Existing surface drainage in the Eagle Mountain mine is directed into the East Pit, where it ponds and evaporates or seeps into the ground. In addition to fractured bedrock, the east wall of the East Pit is made up of alluvial deposits. Studies

conducted by Kaiser and MRC (1991) [in EMEC, 1994] indicated that the horizontal permeability of these deposits is relatively high (EMEC, 1994). Given the relatively high permeability of the rock that underlies the Central Pit, and the rock and soil units that underlie the East Pit, seepage from the reservoirs during operation of the power project is likely. Seepage will not pose a hazard to any reservoir structures, but would require additional make-up water to replace the amount lost (EMEC, 1994).

6.3.3 Ground Subsidence Ground subsidence should not be a potential project hazard (EMEC, 1994). Poorly consolidated aquifers or petroleum reservoirs that could subside as a result of fluid withdrawals are not present in the project area. Abandoned or active mines in rock units susceptible to subsidence are not known to be present in the project area. Soil deposits that could be susceptible to hydro-compaction subsidence are also not present in the project area (EMEC, 1994). More information about subsidence risk is found in Section 2.

6.3.4 Active and Inactive Mines The proposed project would utilize two of the three main mining pits at the inactive Eagle Mountain Mine site: the East Pit and the Central Pit. The western-most of the three main pits, the Black Eagle Pit, is outside the proposed central project area and would not be affected by construction and operation of the pumped storage hydroelectric facility, access roads, or transmission line.

Two mine adits are located adjacent to the central project area. There are no current plans to use or otherwise disturb these features in conjunction with the proposed construction. The adits appeared to be stable at the time of previous evaluations (EMEC, 1994), although natural minor collapses are possible in the future.

The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) holds a 100 percent reserved mineral interest in a 467 acre parcel of land in the Eagle Mountain Mine area (Figure E.6-7). The CSLC had issued a lease to Kaiser in 1978 covering 145 acres of the 467-acre parcel. The lease expired in 2002. Kaiser has made application to exchange the State’s reserved mineral interest on a 467-acre parcel of school lands for a partial interest in a nearby mineral estate owned by Kaiser. This application remains in abeyance pending resolution of a ruling by a Federal District Court on the land exchange between Kaiser and the BLM (California State Lands Commission, 2007).

If the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project were to proceed, and the CSLC still held these mineral rights, the state’s ability to mine this parcel would be impeded during the life of the Project.

6.4 Erosion, mass soil movement and other impacts on the geological and soil resources

6.4.1 Soil Erosion There will be some increases in soil erosion resulting from construction of this project. These impacts will be related to development of the upper and lower reservoirs, access roads, power line towers, water supply corridor, and surface facilities.

6.4.2 Landslides and Mass Movements There are areas within the Central and East pits that have potentially unstable slopes because mining has exposed adversely oriented fracture sets on the pit walls. Consequently, slope raveling and localized, surficial slope failures and/or rock falls should be expected in these slopes.

6.5 Proposed measures or facilities for the mitigation of impacts on soils and geology.

6.5.1 Mineral Resources The loss of any economically recoverable mineral resources, including those held by the State of California, within the East and Central pits cannot be mitigated during the life of the project (EMEC, 1994). However, those mineral resources would remain on site and could be mined in the future if it was determined that the value of the minerals exceeded the value of the hydroelectric power.

6.5.2 Earthquakes and Faults Site-specific investigations in 1994 (EMEC, 1994) do not locate any active faults in the site area. Therefore, the risk of surface rupture at the site caused by faulting is considered very low. The project facilities will be designed to resist the anticipated ground shaking related to earthquake activity in the area.

6.5.3 Reservoir Seepage Seepage potential from the Lower Reservoir is expected to be more significant because the east end of the mine pit is in alluvial material. Studies conducted by Kaiser and MRC (1991) [in EMEC, 1994] indicated that the horizontal permeability of these alluvial deposits is relatively high (EMEC, 1994). Therefore, the eastern end of the pit will be treated with a seepage control blanket. Earlier design concepts envisioned placing a minimum blanket depth of three feet using fine mine tailings. This blanket would need to be placed at stable slopes for expected loading conditions. Most of the fine tailings that may be suitable for the seepage blanket would come from a large pile of tailings on the south bank of the pit, which will have to be moved in any case to accommodate the project. Depending upon the

impermeability of this material, it may also be necessary to top it with a layer of the finer tailings from the nearby fine tailings ponds or to mix the tailings with bentonite to further reduce permeability. In addition to this general blanketing at the eastern end of the pit, some localized blanketing may be required at other locations in the lower reservoir. Also, grouting and shotcrete placement may be required. Once access to the pit can be obtained, geologic mapping will be performed and seepage control methods will be defined with greater certainty.

The following mitigation measures will be undertaken to identify the potential for seepage and to control its rate from the upper reservoir (Central Pit):

The upper reservoir (Central Pit) will be thoroughly investigated during final design of the pumped-storage project to identify a program for seepage control. This investigation will include geologic mapping to identify the locations and extent of faults, cracks, fractures, and discontinuities in the rock formations and subsurface explorations to characterize the hydraulic conductivity of the rock formations. The mapping will identify locations that will tend to be the areas where seepage into the bedrock will be most pronounced. A seepage model will then be developed to characterize the flow patterns and potential seepage rates through the bedrock with the upper reservoir at its maximum normal pool (El. 2,485).

Based on the above studies, a seepage mitigation program will be identified and evaluated. This program is likely to include:

o Curtain grouting beneath the footprints of the two upper reservoir dams. (Foundation grouting typically is performed for dam safety reasons as a means of uplift control). o Grouting and/or shotcrete treatment of the surface features identified in the reservoir as likely locations for seepage to concentrate. o Installation of monitoring wells and piezometers so that seepage amounts and flow patterns can be understood and addressed as necessary over the long term.

Other measures, such as use of impervious blanketing on portions of the reservoir bottom and sides, may also be used depending on results of detailed studies during design.

6.5.4 Ground Subsidence Because of the density of the natural soil and rock formations at the reservoir site, and the engineering characteristics of the proposed construction, ground subsidence is not considered to be a potential hazard associated with this project.

The potential of drawdown associated with pumping of the wells causing subsidence is typically associated with the lowering of confined aquifer groundwater levels below historic low levels. The aquifers in the Upper Chuckwalla groundwater basin are unconfined and there has been no reported evidence of subsidence in the area. Because pumping will not exceed historic groundwater level lows (about 130 feet), the potential for inelastic subsidence due to groundwater pumping is low and is not considered to be significant.

6.5.5 Active and Inactive Mines The loss of mining access to the inactive East and Central pits of the Eagle Mountain mine cannot be mitigated during the life of the project.

6.5.6 Soil Erosion The problem of soil erosion would be minimized to the extent possible by limiting surface disturbance to only those areas necessary for construction. Where natural topsoil occurs, it would be salvaged and stockpiled prior to construction, and the piles would be stabilized with temporary vegetation or covered. Following construction, all areas of disturbed natural topsoil not occupied by permanent project facilities would be graded, re-top soiled, and seeded to reduce erosion potential. Additional soil stabilization best management practices (BMPs) will be undertaken as appropriate.

6.5.7 Landslides and Mass Movements During construction, areas within the pits that exhibit unstable slopes because of adverse fracture sets exposed in the pit walls would be scaled of loose rock and unstable blocks. Material scaled from the side slopes will be removed and disposed of outside the pit, or pushed downslope and buried in the bottom of the pit. Rock slopes within the East and Central Pits that lie below an elevation of 5 feet above the maximum water level will be scaled of loose and unstable rock during construction. Existing cut slopes that lie above these elevations will not be modified unless there is evidence of potential failure areas that could impact project facilities.

Slope raveling and localized, surficial slope failures and/or rockfalls will likely continue to occur, but will not have significant impacts on reservoir operations. Any such failures are expected to be no greater than a few tens of cubic yards in size (EMEC, 1994). Foreseeable damage that could be caused by such a failure would be to the reservoir lining or to the inlet/outlet structures. Lining damage would be repaired by placing new lining, while damage to the inlet/outlet structure could be mitigated by shaping the surrounding area to

deflect materials away from the structure. The potential for such failures to occur will be minimized by rock scaling and by the buttressing of the lowermost slopes of each reservoir by mine tailings removed from potentially unstable areas above the reservoir water surface (EMEC, 1994).

The 1994 studies concluded that no mass soil or rock movements related to site construction could occur that would affect off-site facilities. The potential mass soil or rock movements that could occur would be a slope failure within the upper or lower reservoir. Impacts associated with any such failure would be limited to the immediate failure area (EMEC, 1994).

7 Recreational Resources

7.1 Regional Recreation Setting The Eagle Mountain project is located within the Little San Bernardino Mountains and Colorado Desert of California, an area characterized by limited water and extremes in temperature. Though temperatures can be extreme in the summer months, recreational resources within the region provide for a variety of activities that attract visitors. Activities within the region include hiking, camping, backpacking, hunting, nature appreciation, rock hounding, rock climbing, mountain biking, horseback riding, jeep tours, and off-highway vehicles.

The most important public land for recreation in the region is the Joshua Tree National Park (JTNP) and Wilderness, which is described in more detail later. Recreation also occurs on public lands within the region managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as well as on some State lands. The majority of activity on BLM lands includes hiking and off- highway vehicle (OHV) use. The BLM maintains an inventory of trails and areas open or closed to OHV activity. The BLM also maintains several primitive campsites within the region, but keeps no records of visitor use (see Figure E.7-1).

7.2 Nationally Designated Areas The majority of recreation activity in the region occurs within the nearby Joshua Tree National Park and Wilderness (see Figure E.7-1). The Park encompasses unique geology, flora, and fauna as a result of two ecosystems - the higher elevation Mojave Desert and the lower elevation and dryer Colorado Desert – meeting in a relatively short distance.

The JTNP was established first as a national monument in 1936 and later changed to a National Park in 1994. Also at this time, an additional 234,000 acres of land was added and included as a Wilderness Area known as the Eagle Mountain Wilderness Area. Wilderness Area designation allows only non-motorized, non-mechanized activities to occur within its boundary, with minimal trail creation and maintenance.

Access to the JTNP is from Interstate 10 to the south and from California State Highway 62 to the north. The Park includes a variety of dispersed recreational activities and camping. Due to its unique geology and rock formations, the Park is internationally known as a prime rock climbing destination. The Park 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 the Park is now considered a year-round destination. Throughout the fall, winter, and spring, it is not uncommon for all of the Park’s campsites to be filled to capacity. In 1992, the Park had more than a million recreation visits.

Developed recreational facilities, including trails, camping, picnic, and day-use facilities, are more prevalent in the northwestern portion of the Park. Recreational facilities in this segment of the Park include a few back country roads and trails, in keeping with the management prescriptions of the Wilderness Area designation. Cottonwood Visitors Center greets visitors at the southern access to the Park, 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 Park are located in the high desert western half of the Park.

Back country hiking and camping are popular in the Park. Trails and facilities are more limited in the eastern half of the Park near the project site due to the greater amount of designated Wilderness, which restricts certain uses and access. One back country, unpaved road known as Black Eagle Mine Road, traverses canyon areas within the Park and exits towards the project area. Trail head use records were not available from the Park Staff.

7.3 Existing Recreational Resources and Use in the Project Vicinity Access to area recreation opportunities is provided primarily from Interstate 10. Private recreation adjacent to Interstate 10 and near the project includes the Patton Museum at Chiraco Summit. This facility also borders a large historic area known as Camp Young, which was established by Patton as a desert tank warfare practice area. This area is predominantly public land, managed by the BLM. Other public lands in the vicinity adjacent to I-10 include Ford Dry Lake and Palen Dry Lake, which are OHV use areas managed by the BLM. Additionally, the Chuckwalla Valley Dune Thicket and Alligator Rock ACECs (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) are resource areas located near I-10. The ACECs are managed by BLM, and are designated for the protection of wildlife and other resources.

The nearest BLM campground to the project site is Corn Springs, located approximately 15 miles southeast of the project. Overflow camping is also permitted by the BLM north of Interstate 10 just outside the south entrance to JTNP. There are no developed facilities at this location and camping is not permitted within 300 feet of the roadway.

Other nearby public lands open to day-use activity includes the Desert Lily Sanctuary located approximately 8 miles southeast of the project area adjacent to Highway 177. This area encompasses over 2,000 acres and is managed by the BLM. No developed facilities exist at this site other than signage and a graveled parking lot.

Table 7-1 summarizes the various recreational resources and facilities located within the project vicinity.

Table 7-1 Summary of Recreational Facilities in Project Vicinity # Site Jurisdiction Acreage Facilities Use Distance From Project

1 Joshua Tree National Park NPS 794,000 Campgrounds, 1.2 mill. < 1 mile & Wilderness Area Visitor Centers, Recreation Trails, Picnic visits* Areas

2 Desert Lily Preserve BLM Undeveloped unknown 9 miles

3 Alligator Rock ACEC BLM 7,726 Undeveloped unknown 11 miles

4 Chuckwalla Valley Dune BLM 2,273 Undeveloped unknown 35 miles Thicket ACEC

5 Chuckwalla Mountains BLM 84,614 Undeveloped unknown 12 miles Wilderness Area

6 Orocopia Mountains BLM 45,927 Undeveloped unknown 20 miles Wilderness Area

7 Corn Springs ACEC & BLM Primitive unknown 18 miles Campground Campsites,

8 Palen/McCoy Wilderness BLM Undeveloped unknown 17 miles Area

9 Palen Dry Lake ACEC BLM Undeveloped unknown 21 miles

10 Mule Mountain ACEC BLM 4,092 Undeveloped unknown 42 miles

11 Ford Dry Lake OHV Use BLM Undeveloped unknown 26 miles Area

12 Lake Tamarisk Community Private Golfcourse, unknown 8 miles Community Center

* 1992 Park Data

7.4 Project Impacts on Existing and Planned Recreation Resources No developed recreation sites occur within the project boundary or in the immediate vicinity. The proposed reservoir sites are within the fenced property of the inactive Kaiser Eagle Mountain Iron Mine and therefore inaccessible to the general public. One four-wheel drive trail, providing access to Joshua Tree National Monument, is located west of the proposed transmission line route. Accordingly, this route is very rugged and only utilized by the most adventurous visitor and is not a through road. Access to this trail is also controlled by its location through the Kaiser property and the Town of Eagle Mountain.

Several of the project’s facilities may be visible from higher elevations within the surrounding Eagle Mountain Wilderness Area. Access to these higher elevation ridge tops is difficult and most activity follows the lower elevations and existing trails. While the wilderness experience may be affected for the few that do traverse the ridge tops, such intrusion is tempered by the existing disturbed nature of the setting as a result of past mining activity.

The proposed transmission line and water transmission corridors cross lands managed by the BLM that are available for dispersed recreational use. The transmission route will parallel existing and planned additional transmission line routes, and will have no adverse effect on designated recreation lands or expected to have any noticeable adverse effect on dispersed recreational activities.

The proposed line will route through the Chuckwalla Valley Dune Thicket ACEC. This is not expected to have any significant adverse effect on recreational activities since the line will parallel existing lines and will utilize existing access for construction. Potential impacts to wildlife are discussed in more detail in Section E.3 of the License Application.

All three of the options being reviewed for the location of the proposed Colorado River Substation would be constructed west of the City of Blythe above the Colorado River floodplain terrace. The area is located in an area of open space that is managed by the BLM. The nearest recreation area would be the Mule Mountains ACEC, located approximately 1.3 miles to the southwest of the substation site closest to Blythe.

Similarly, the proposed water transmission routes will not adversely affect any designated recreation areas, and are not expected to have any noticeable adverse effect on dispersed recreational activities in the area.

Access to recreational facilities in the area, notably to the JTNP, will not be impacted by the project or project construction. The major southern access to the JTNP is located from I-10 at the Cottonwood Road exit several miles to the west of the Eagle Mountain and Desert Center exits, which will be used for project access. While traffic will certainly increase along Kaiser Road during the project’s construction period, this additional traffic is not

anticipated to hinder access to recreational areas, or noticeably affect dispersed recreational activities.

7.5 Recreation Plan Due to the nature of the pumped-storage project and the surrounding land uses, development of recreation facilities and activities are not well-suited or desired. No active recreation activities or facilities are currently being proposed for the project since such recreation is not conducive to the setting or desired by public agencies due to the potential for adverse impacts on area wildlife resources, and impacts to off-site National Park and Wilderness areas.

Provision for a shoreline buffer zone and management plan is not necessary since no recreational use will occur on the reservoirs. The project reservoirs will be fenced and access to the project controlled through security gates, fencing and staffing.

The applicant is proposing to work with the landowner and proponent of the landfill project to develop a small interpretive overlook facility, if feasible. The overlook would include educational and historical interpretive signage and provide a staging area for periodic guided tours. Site and design drawings for this overlook and provisions for public access would be developed in coordination with the current landowner. Should the overlook/interpretive facility prove feasible, detailed plans will be prepared and an agreement created between the applicant and the landowner regarding costs, operation, and maintenance.

Estimates of costs and a development schedule associated with the construction of an interpretive overlook are unknown at this time.

Estimates of existing and future recreational use at the project are not relevant due to the current public access limitations and general lack of recreational use at the site. Future recreation use may increase over current levels if an overlook is developed, but it is not considered to be significant given the site’s relatively remote location.

7.6 Agency Recommendations No recreation issues or concerns were identified during the project’s scoping meeting.

During consultation with the BLM, it was suggested that an overlook/interpretive facility might be desirable. Currently, the feasibility of this is being explored as noted previously. The development of such a facility would need to be determined in consultation with the applicant, landowner, and proposed landfill operator.

Joshua Tree National Park representatives expressed concern for OHVs accessing the Park from the project site, and for an increase in night lighting (Luke Sabala, NPS, pers comm.). Public access, including OHV use, will be controlled after project construction, as it presently is by the current landowner. Night lighting will be required for security reasons,

but can be controlled through selection of lighting types, location, hooding, and operation. Mitigation measures to reduce “light pollution” on surrounding areas will be incorporated into the final project design.

8 Aesthetic Resources

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 Project Background The proposed project will be located at an inactive iron mine site in the Eagle Mountains in eastern Riverside County, California, approximately 60 miles east of the city of Palm Springs. The general vicinity of the project site is visually characterized by broad flat desert valleys punctuated by north-south trending, highly eroded mountain ranges. The strong contrast between arid basins and rugged desert mountains provides high scenic quality. Two major deserts meet in the area, forming a transition zone between the high elevation Mojave Desert north and east of the site and the arid, lower elevation Colorado Desert to the east and south.

Locally, the mountainous landscape of the project 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 huge tailing piles. Berms surrounding the settling ponds on the eastern flank of the mine, along with the largely abandoned town of Eagle Mountain are visible upon a southern approach to the site.

8.1.2 Assessment Approach Plans are currently being developed by others to utilize the inactive mine site for a major landfill. As a consequence of these plans, an EIS/EIR was prepared (Kaiser and MRC, 1991). As lead agency for CEQA compliance, Riverside County has certified the EIR and, as lead federal agency for the EIS, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has issued a Record of Decision in connection with its approval of the EIS.

A detailed visual assessment, utilizing the BLM's Visual Resource Management System, was prepared as a part of the EIS/EIR effort. This system is based on a three- step process that involves an assessment of (1) scenic quality, (2) visual sensitivity, and (3) viewing distance zones.

Results of these three assessment categories are grouped into established Visual Resource Management Classes, which are used by the BLM to evaluate the significance of visual impacts from proposed projects. Under this system, key observation points (KOPs) are established and the visual sensitivity of an area determined based on defined landscape character types and scenic quality ratings. A summary of that study as it applies to this project area is included below. Similar existing visual resource studies have been referenced for the project’s transmission line segment.

8.2 Aesthetic Character of Project Area

8.2.1 Regional Landscape Setting The proposed project lies within a geographic area known as the Basin and Range Province (Fenneman, 1931). This area is characterized by a combination of arid and semi-arid landscapes set at the base of rugged mountain ranges including the San Jacinto, San Bernardino, Little San Bernardino, and Santa Rosa Mountains. These contrasting landforms with their varied colors and dappled vegetation patterns result in exceptional scenic quality and dramatic long views from key viewpoints. Elevations range from a high of 11,502 feet mean sea level (msl) at Mt. San Gorgonio Peak, to a low of -228 feet below msl at a water feature known as the Salton Sea.

The lower elevations include numerous alluvial fans, washes that form at the mouth of many of the canyons draining the mountains. These areas create a visually interesting transition between the mountains and the valley floor. The valley floor is comprised of a mix of sand dunes and sand fields that are often enhanced by the presence of mesquite hummocks that provide a vivid contrast of green against the lighter sand color. In the spring, particularly after an above average precipitation event, the dunes and sand fields are frequently covered with a profusion of annual plants that create a mosaic of color (CVMSHCP, 2007). Additional spots of dark vegetation create a strong visual contrast against the rocky terrain at the base of the Little San Bernardino Mountains. Here blocked groundwater from the San Andreas Fault creates seep areas that are populated by the native desert fan palms.

The mountainous portions of the project area give way to the lower Chuckwalla Valley and the small communities of Desert Center and Lake Tamarisk. To the east the Chuckwalla Valley gives way to the broad floodplain valley created by the Colorado River and the larger urbanized community of Blythe (see Figure E.8-1).

8.2.2 Scenic Quality Assessment

8.2.2.1 Central Project Area The Eagle Mountain Hydroelectric project site is proposed within an abandoned iron ore mine complex that is located along the eastern edge of the Eagle Mountain foothills and mountains. Mined areas within the project area represent highly disturbed, human-modified landscapes consisting of large open pits, tailing piles and ponds, the skeletons of ore processing facilities, and mining equipment areas. 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 disturbed slopes exhibit regular, curved terraces extending into the open pits. Tailing piles are smooth sloped and contrast in both texture and color with the natural topography. Some vegetation has invaded the idle mine areas, including both the open pits and the slopes of tailing piles.

Remnants of the ore processing facilities can be seen inside the fence which controls entry to the mine. Outside the fence, the town of Eagle Mountain is largely comprised of deserted homes and abandoned businesses. A few of the homes house Kaiser employees.

Though the mined area presents significant visual variety to the area, it is in strong disharmony with the surrounding natural landscape and its visual quality of the area is low.

The project site transitions from the mountains and foothills to the Chuckwalla Valley, to the south/southeast.

While the mine area itself is a highly disturbed, human-modified environment with common (low) scenic quality, the surrounding mountains, with their rugged, rocky and steep grades, sparse vegetation, and variety of colors create a very scenic backdrop. The nearby Coxcomb Mountains to the east, rise higher and are more rugged, and are considered higher in relative scenic quality. Overall scenic quality of the immediate project surroundings is considered moderate to high in scenic quality (BLM scenic quality class A&B).

Access to the project site is through the Chuckwalla Valley. The Valley is representative of desert basin features, as is the Pinto Basin, which is located to the north of the project on the other side of the Eagle Mountains and effectively out of the project viewshed. These expansive basins consist of relatively flat to gently sloping topography that visually separate and accent adjacent mountain ranges. The basins consist of a variety of colors 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 Townsite, Lake Tamarisk, and Desert Center. Linear landscape elements within this landscape unit include roads, transmission lines, railroad tracks, OHV tracks, and the Colorado River Aqueduct. Primary transportation corridors within the unit include Interstate 10 and Highway 177. Overall scenic quality of the Chuckwalla Valley within the viewshed of the project is considered common (SQ class C), due to the existing developments within it that detract from the natural qualities of the landscape. However, the relatively flat topography of this landscape serves to heighten the visual quality of surrounding mountain ranges through unobstructed panoramic view opportunities.

8.2.2.2 Transmission Corridor The proposed project 500 kV transmission line consists of two principal route segments. The first segment from the project site to Interstate 10 travels through the Chuckwalla Valley landscape unit. Scenic quality is rated common (class C) due to the landscape’s relative lack of landform contrast and existing level of man-made developments (roads, railroads, transmission lines). The proposed line will parallel an existing wood H-frame Southern California Edison (SCE) 161 kV transmission line ROW.

The second line segment turns southeast after crossing Interstate 10 and parallels the existing SCE 161kV transmission line and the Palo Verde - Devers (PV-D) transmission line corridor for approximately eight miles before it turns east and continues to parallel the existing PV-D transmission line for 17 miles. At this location the line turns southeast and continues to parallel the existing PV-D right-of-way for 5.5 miles where it will connect to a new substation site known as the Colorado River Substation. Visual character of this line segment is similar to the first segment. Landforms in this area include flat valley bottoms, dry lake beds, and low rolling terrain with few interesting or dominant landscape features. Overall, scenic quality along this transmission line segment is considered moderate to low, due to the relatively low contrast in landscape character and high degree of cultural (manmade) modifications.

8.2.3 Visual Sensitivity Analysis and Key Observation Points An analysis of visual sensitivity takes into account several elements. These include viewer activity and expectations, viewer numbers, view duration, and viewer distance. The following summaries reflect a combined analysis of these elements as evaluated from key observation points.

8.2.3.1 Joshua Tree National Park The Joshua Tree National Park surrounds the project on three sides. While the rugged terrain and focus on backcountry use limits viewer numbers, viewer expectations of natural landscapes and view durations from ridge top trails would be high. Additionally, the view distance from nearby ridgetops is relatively short (foreground/middleground views, ¼ - 3 miles). Consequently, visual sensitivity surrounding the project is considered high.

8.2.3.2 Residential/Commercial Areas (Townsite, Lake Tamarisk, Desert Center) Visual sensitivity of the various developed communities in the vicinity range from moderate- to-low. The Townsite’s view zone is close, but an Adult Detention Facility was recently closed, and currently no residents are known to occupy the site. The site may be utilized by construction workers on the project or by future landfill workers, but this population is not expected to be large, will be temporary, and as project workers, are expected to have a moderate sensitivity to the project’s visual setting.

While view durations from residents of Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center are long, the relatively low viewer numbers and long view distances (+/- 10-12 miles) creates a moderate - to-low visual sensitivity. Additionally, views of the mine site are partially blocked by intervening landforms, and viewers are familiar with the mine’s presence over the past thirty years.

8.2.3.3 Travel Routes Motorists traveling on I-10 in the vicinity of Desert Center represent the largest numbers of viewers in the project vicinity. Additionally, according to the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, this section of I-10 that passes by the project vicinity is designated as an Eligible County Scenic Highway. This is a result of the long, panoramic views of the surrounding mountains created by the flat landscape of the Chuckwalla Valley that I-10 travelers pass through. While off site views of the mountains are dramatic, view durations are relatively short as motorists are traveling this corridor at high rates of speed. Additionally, intervening landforms screen lower reaches of the project site from view, and the viewing distance is over 11 miles (background view zone). Due to the high viewer numbers and elevated significance of I-10 as an Eligible County Scenic Highway, the visual sensitivity is considered high.

While State Route 177 is similar in landscape setting, viewer numbers are much less and it has no scenic corridor designation. Consequently, visual sensitivity is rated moderate for Route 177.

Visual documentation of select KOPs are provided in Figures E.8-2 thru E.8-11.

8.2.4 Visual Resource Classifications of Project Area Combinations of scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distance zone ratings described previously form the basis for the visual resource classifications described in the BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) Program. These classifications help establish management objectives and provide a framework for characterizing the relative value of the visual resource and degree of acceptable change in visual character. Four VRM classifications exist. These are:

8.2.4.1 VRM Class I The objective 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.

8.2.4.2 VRM Class II The objective is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. 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.

8.2.4.3 VRM Class III The objective is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate or lower. 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.

8.2.4.4 VRM Class IV The objective is to provide for management activities that require major modification 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 impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements.

Although the most of the project site is in private ownership, the VRM classifications have been applied to provide a framework for assessment. VRM Class III designations generally apply to the higher slopes of the Eagle Mountains on the north edge of the project site. The majority of the project site falls within VRM Class IV, which allows for modification of the existing character of the landscape. Outside of the Central Project Site the transmission line crosses through the Chuckwalla Valley and VRM Classifications of Class III on public lands. Figure E.8-1 illustrates the project’s Visual Resource Management classifications for the central project site.

8.3 Description of Potential Aesthetic Resource Impacts

8.3.1 Central Project Site Most of the project site and proposed facilities fall into VRM Class IV categories, due to the highly disturbed setting of the mine site. Most views of the project site lie within background zones of KOPs. Intervening land forms block most of the project facilities from view, with exceptions being views from hikers on surrounding ridge tops from the Eagle Mountains, which are within foreground and middleground distance zones, and views of a few features (switchyard, access roads, and transmission line) from the Townsite.

As noted earlier, more sensitive VRM Class III designations encompass the higher slopes of the Eagle Mountains on the north edge of the project site. These slopes will not be disturbed by the proposed hydroelectric project. The majority of the project site falls within VRM Class IV, which allows for modification of the existing character of the landscape. Overall visual resource impacts within the project site are not expected to be significant given the highly disturbed nature of the existing landscape setting from past mining activities and abandoned facilities.

During meetings with agencies, the JTNP representatives noted that the backcountry portions of the JTNP (areas near the project site) are very light-sensitive areas and expressed concern regarding increases in night lighting. The proposed project is not expected to noticeably increase light pollution over existing conditions. Existing lighting from the Eagle Mountain Townsite, Desert Center, and Lake Tamarisk apparently is quite noticeable and visible throughout the Chuckwalla Valley. The proposed project may increase lighting over ambient levels temporarily during construction. After construction, lighting of facilities that may cause an increase in “night pollution,” such as the higher elevation reservoir and structures, is not anticipated to occur. Areas requiring lighting such as the switchyard will be located in lower elevation locations.

8.3.2 Transmission Corridor The proposed transmission line located within the Chuckwalla Valley will be visible from a number of view locations. The addition of new 500 kV transmission line towers with a different structure and shape will create a moderate contrast to the existing visual resource character. VRM Classifications range from Class III to Class IV depending on view distances. Specific tower designs and other mitigation measures may be necessary to ensure that facilities do not dominate the landscape, but overall, construction-related activities are expected to be consistent with the established management objectives for VRM Class III areas. Additionally, since the proposed transmission line will route in close proximity to the existing SCE 161 kV transmission line and the existing Palo Verde-Devers Transmission Line, visual impacts are expected to be less than significant and incremental to existing visual impacts presented by the existing facilities. The proposed crossing of Interstate 10 will create an unavoidable visual impact to motorists traveling past this location. Riverside County has designated the section of I-10 from Desert Center to Blythe as a scenic corridor. Construction of the transmission line at this location will be inconsistent with the County’s policy to protect the scenic highways. Visual impacts within this foreground view zone are adverse but incremental due to crossings of existing transmission lines in the area and are not considered to be inconsistent with the applicable VRM Class III designation and management objectives.

While the installation of project towers and conductors will result in long-term visual impacts, notably within foreground view zones from I-10, most of these impacts will be incremental to existing visual impacts from adjacent existing transmission lines and other utility and roadside infrastructure. These low-to-moderate levels of change are expected to meet the VRM Class III objectives. Lattice tower structures, which are proposed for the project, reduce visual contrast significantly as the view distance increases. Structures viewed from one mile or more appear indistinct against the mottled landforms in the background, as demonstrated by existing transmission lines in the area. Exceptions to this occur when the transmission line is above the KOP and viewed against the skyline.

8.3.3 Colorado River Substation The final location for the proposed Colorado River Substation will be determined in the near future. Three alternatives sites have been considered. All of these are within a few miles of each other. For the purpose of this analysis of aesthetic resources, we have assumed that the site closest to Blythe will be selected. The site is approximately 5 miles south of I-10, located at a point where the DPV transmission corridors intersect an existing transmission line from the south. The site is located some 8-10 miles west of the incorporated limits of the community of Blythe, and near an un-incorporated area known as Mesa Verde. The proposed substation would utilize existing transmission line construction access roads. Though its construction would present a new feature into the landscape, the existing visual character is dominated by existing transmission lines, and is well away from any prominent view locations.

8.3.4 Water Pipeline Corridor The proposed water pipeline system crosses lands visually dominated by undeveloped open desert areas, irrigated agricultural areas, road and utility rights-of-ways. The pipeline extending from wells that provide make up water will be buried, creating only short-term visual impacts during construction. If any pipelines are constructed for short term use (for the initial fill only) they may be located above ground and will be visually apparent to casual viewers within foreground view distances. The pipeline corridor routes through an area of VRM III classification. The pipelines’ relatively low profile and proximity to existing infrastructure and utility features is expected to meet the VRM Class III management objectives and will not present adverse visual impacts from key viewpoints within the region.

8.3.5 Summary of Aesthetic Resource Impacts Development of the proposed Eagle Mountain Hydroelectric Project will create low-to- moderate levels of visual change to its surrounding, which are considered to be consistent with VRM Class designations noted for the area. As concluded from this Aesthetic Resource Study, adverse or significant visual impacts resulting from this project are minimized by the fact that impacts to relatively high quality scenic resources are avoided, and linear project features parallel existing utilities, creating incremental but not incompatible visual contrast with their surroundings.

8.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures While the proposed project is expected to meet or exceed VRM Class III and Class IV objectives, the Applicant will work to minimize project-induced visual impacts upon the surrounding area throughout the construction and operation of the project. Table 8-1 presents a number of mitigation measures applicable to the project.

One specific area of potential visual impact includes concern for light pollution. As discussed earlier, JTNP representatives noted that the backcountry portions of the JTNP are very light-sensitive areas and expressed concern regarding increases in night lighting. During project final design and construction, the Applicant will coordinate with Park personnel regarding design and operational measures to reduce light impacts. Such measures may include directional lighting, hoods, low pressure sodium bulbs, and operational limits.

Finally, as part of the licensing process, an approved reclamation plan will be prepared in coordination with BLM relative to project facilities and construction activities on public lands.

Table 8-1. Applicant Proposed Visual Resource Mitigation Measures # Location Category Measure

1 Central Project Site Construction Minimize cut & fill slopes by a combination of benching & following natural topography. 2 Construction Ensure that fill side cast color matches surrounding landscape or apply color to reduce color contrast from distant views. 3 Design Minimize areas needed for equipment operation and material storage and assembly. 4 Design & Apply special light features to reduce night glare and Operation limit hours of operation as feasible. 5 Construction Reclaim temporary areas as soon as the need for location is completed. 6 Water Pipeline Construction Reduce side cast from open cut construction to reduce color contrast with surrounding landscape. 7 Construction Use appropriate coloring or pipe material to reduce color contrast with surrounding landscape for above ground conveyance system. 8 Transmission Line Design Cross roads as perpendicular as possible to minimize views up and down row corridors. 9 Design Apply non-specular conductors to reduce glare and visual contrast. 10 Construction Use existing access road and construction laydown areas as much as possible. 11 Construction Follow natural grades for construction of new access roads as much as possible 12 Design / Use steel lattice structures as much as possible to reduce Construction visual contrast. Utilize a dull galvanized steel finish to reduce visual contrast unless conditions call for different treatment. 13 Design / At all road crossings, place towers at the maximum Construction feasible distance from the row. 14 Design Avoid skyline situations that expose transmission towers to high visual contrast. 15 Design Place towers adjacent to existing towers as much as possible

9 Land Use

9.1 Project Setting The project site is located in northeastern Riverside County, California within an inactive open pit iron ore mine at Eagle Mountain. The location is approximately 10 miles north of the town of Desert Center along Interstate 10. Eagle Mountain Mine was operated by Kaiser Steel Corporation from 1948-1982 for the mining and concentrating of iron ore through excavation of four open pits located on the property (Kaiser Steel Resources, 1990).

The proposed project consists of three principal components. These include: (a) Project Site (b) Water Conveyance Corridor, and (c) Transmission Line Corridor. The following sections discuss land use issues as it relates to these three project components.

9.2 Description of Project Area Land Uses Much of the land surrounding the project site is public land, managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The project site and surrounding area is located within the 25-million acre California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA), of which approximately 12 million acres are public lands. Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the BLM is directed to prepare land use plans to provide guidance, with public input, on how the public lands are to be managed. The California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCAP, 1980) provides land use plan guidance for the CDCA. The general goal of the CDCAP is to provide for the use and protection of the Desert’s natural, cultural, and aesthetic resources. Subsequent activities on the BLM-managed public lands must be in conformance with the approved land use plan.

Public lands under BLM management within the CDCA have been designated geographically into four Multiple Use Classes (MUC). The majority of the project site itself is not designated because it is largely or entirely patented land and therefore not directly under BLM stewardship. The plan does provide Multiple Use Class designations for portions of the project site and land directly adjacent to it. Public lands are assigned a MUC according to the 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, 2002). A complete description of the BLM's MUC designations can be found in the CDCA Plan.

While the majority of surrounding lands are publicly owned and managed by the BLM, a number of specific land uses do exist (see Figure E.9-1). These are described below.

9.2.1 Town of Eagle Mountain The Town of Eagle Mountain is a 460-acre townsite owned by Kaiser Steel Resources. It is located adjacent to the project site, and while access to the project site goes through the townsite, it is not considered to be part of the project. The town was developed by Kaiser to house mine workers and consists of 250 single-family dwellings, a store, café, two churches, a school, and a post office, among other features. After the mine closed the town became largely vacant. A State-run correctional facility utilized some of the features, but has since been relocated. The townsite is fenced with controlled access and is currently vacant. The townsite is serviced by public utilities, and a wastewater treatment plant is located southeast of the town.

The deed grant that transferred ownership of the townsite land from the Federal Government to Kaiser included a reversionary clause that stated the title will revert to the BLM in the event that the townsite is not utilized in support of mining activities. All of the buildings in the townsite are owned and controlled by Kaiser Steel Resources (U.S. D.O.I.-BLM, 1993).

9.2.2 Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center Communities The small communities of Lake Tamarisk and Desert Center are located approximately nine and ten miles southeast of the central project area. Lake Tamarisk consists of approximately 70 single family dwellings, an executive golf course, a recreational vehicle park, undeveloped lots (150), and two small lakes.

Desert Center is located at the junction of Interstate 10 and State Route 177. Desert Center consists of a few small single-family dwellings, a mini market, café, and bar. The community included gas stations at one time, but they are now closed. Public facilities include a county fire station, branch library, post office, and several churches.

Both communities, as well as the Eagle Mountain Townsite are accessed by Kaiser Road, which connects to Interstate 10 at Desert Center.

9.2.3 Roads, Utilities, and Miscellaneous Facilities Numerous roads, utilities, and communication facilities are located in the desert areas surrounding the central project area. The Eagle Mountain Rail Line also runs through the area from Interstate 10 north to the project site. A 230 kV electrical transmission line (MWD line) crosses the Coxcomb Mountains from the northeast and continues through the Eagle Mountains to the south. A 160 kV transmission line, owned by SCE, runs southeast from the Eagle Mountain Townsite to the community of Blythe located approximately 50 miles to the east.

Two small airports exist in the vicinity. A single landing strip owned by Kaiser Industries is located to the south of the Eagle Mountain and west of Kaiser Road. Desert Center Airport is a larger development located approximately 10 miles southeast of the Central Project Site. While not used much, the airport may have been purchased recently by a private entity. One runway oriented northwest-southeast currently exists.

A small disposal site operated by Riverside County is located west of Kaiser Road between Desert Center and Eagle Mountain. This facility provides solid waste disposal for the small communities in the area.

The Colorado River Aqueduct, which is managed by MWD, passes within a few hundred feet of the central project area. The Aqueduct runs in a northeast-to-south route and varies between open channel and tunnel.

Some limited resource extraction appears to still be conducted west of the central project site as well as on smaller claims in the area. Several small gravel pits are located between Eagle Mountain and Desert Center.

9.2.4 Agricultural Areas Several small agricultural areas used for irrigated cropland are located southeast of the central project area. While the area is not mapped as Important Farmland by the State Department of Conservation or considered to be an important agricultural area as described in the Riverside County General Plan, approximately 994 acres within three areas are under California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act Contracts. Irrigated crops grown in these areas initially included jojoba, a seed crop, and asparagus. Approximately 5,000 acres of jojoba were grown in 1992 (Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, 1992). However, due to difficulty in harvesting the seed crop, this acreage has been decreasing. An evaluation of agricultural land use inventoried in 2005 (field verified in 2007) verifies this decrease in agricultural production. Currently, a small number of crop types exist in the area, including jojoba, asparagus, citrus, dates, and palms.

9.2.5 Joshua Tree National Park and Wilderness The Joshua Tree National Park and Wilderness Area surrounds the central project site on three sides (see Figure E.9-1). The JTNP and Wilderness encompasses nearly 792,000 acres of land of which approximately 700,000 acres have been designated Wilderness. The Park boundary is generally located about two to three miles from the central project area. A more detailed description of the JTNP is provided in Section E.7.

9.2.6 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Several ACECs exist within the vicinity of the project’s proposed transmission line corridor. ACECs are designated to protect specific natural, historic, and cultural resources and are managed by the BLM. Three ACECs within the project vicinity include Alligator Rock

ACEC, Chuckwalla Dune Thicket ACEC, and Mule Mountain ACEC. Of the three ACECs, only the Chuckwalla Dune Thicket ACEC will be directly affected by the project’s transmission line.

9.3 Description of Project Boundary Land Uses and Ownership

9.3.1 Central Project Site The central project site consists of mountainous, rocky terrain that has been disturbed extensively as a result of mining activity. The area consists of open pit and surface mines, tailings piles, and tailings ponds. Many of the structures associated with the mining, including railhead, haul roads, and ore processing/refining facilities still exist within the central project site, though most of the ore processing and refining facilities have been removed.

As part of the iron ore mining process, four principal areas were excavated between 1948 and 1982. The four excavated open pits are named the East Pit, Central Deposit, Black Eagle- North Pit, and the Black Eagle-South Pit. Each pit extends approximately one to two miles in length and is aligned in an east-west orientation (Kaiser and MRC, 1991). During the mining operation significant amounts of overburden was removed, much of which can be seen adjacent to the pits. The Central and East Pits are proposed for project reservoirs. The Central Project Site also includes all lands containing hydroelectric project structures and related support facilities. The location of this area is shown on Figure E.9-2.

Due to the extensive past mining activities and disturbed nature of the project area, including perimeter fencing and controlled access, existing recreational opportunities within the project site essentially do not exist.

The Central Project Site occupies a portion of the acreage within the Eagle Mountain Mine area. Approximately 3,500 acres of public land was exchanged to Kaiser Eagle Mountain, Inc. for private lands under the authority of Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) to support a sanitary landfill project in the mine area. This proposed landfill would exist between the two quarries proposed as upper and lower reservoirs for this project. Currently, the land exchange is the subject of pending litigation in U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Circuit). If the land exchange is completed, 1196 acres of the project features will be BLM land. If the land exchange is not completed, 1524 acres of the project features will be on BLM land.

The Central Project Site also contains nearly 467 acres of land where the State of California holds a 100 percent mineral interest, managed by the State Lands Commission. These lands are located in portions of Section 36, Township 3 South, Range 14 East, SB B&M (see Figure E.9-2).

9.3.2 Water Pipeline Corridor Water for the proposed project may originate from wells located in the Chuckwalla Valley. A pipeline corridor extending along an existing utility line and Kaiser Road will be used to convey necessary water to the lower reservoir in the central project area. The corridor extends in a northwest direction along an existing transmission line to its intersection with Kaiser Road. At this point, the corridor continues in a northwest direction paralleling Kaiser Road on the east side until reaching the Eagle Mountain Mine tailing ponds. From there, the corridor extends in a north and east direction to the lower reservoir location.

Land uses adjacent to the corridor consist primarily of agriculture and undeveloped desert land. The southern third of the route crosses through areas of irrigated cropland. The middle section of the route is generally undeveloped and consists of desert washes. As the route approaches the Eagle Mountain area, it crosses the Colorado River Aqueduct into the project boundary where it then turns north passing between the existing mine tailing ponds to the lower reservoir.

Land ownership along the route is generally split evenly between land under the management direction of the BLM and patented land (Figure E.9-1).

9.3.3 Transmission Line Corridor As indicated in Exhibit A, Project Description, power will be supplied to and delivered from the project by a single circuit 500 kV transmission line. This transmission line, as currently planned, will require a 200-foot wide corridor to be extended approximately 50.5 miles east from the project switchyard to a new substation west of Blythe.

The first section of this proposed transmission line route will originate from the project switchyard located on patented land in the Southeast quarter of Section 35, Township 3 South, Range 14 East, SB B&M, and extend south to a point on the west side of the sweeping approach curve of the Eagle Mountain Rail Line. At this point, the route turns southeast, crossing out the Central Project Site boundary and continues in a southeasterly direction passing to the north of the MWD Eagle Mountain Pumping Station where it crosses the Colorado River Aqueduct and an existing transmission line. This entire alignment from the patented land at the mine to the MWD pumping plant is located on public land managed by BLM and consists exclusively of undeveloped land.

Near the MWD pumping plant the transmission route continues in a southeast direction paralleling the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 161 kV transmission line. The route crosses road Route 177 and passes to the southwest of the Desert Center Airport where it continues for another 8 miles before crossing Interstate 10. South of I-10 the route begins to parallel the Palo Verde-Devers Transmission corridor in an adjacent 200-foot corridor. This right-of-way will be located adjacent to the existing 500 kV PV-D transmission line. The route will continue in an east-west direction for approximately 24.5 miles paralleling the PV-D corridor and I-10, which is located approximately a mile north of the route.

Several alternative locations are under review for the Colorado River Substation, each within several miles of the other. For this analysis, we assumed the substation will be located at the site closest to Blythe. If so, the transmission route will turn southeast and continue for approximately 5.5 miles to the new Colorado River Substation. This site for the new substation will be located in an undeveloped area approximately where the PV-D corridor crosses with the existing FPL transmission line (Section 26, Township 7 south, Range 21 east, Riverside County).

Land ownership and uses along this route are comprised mostly of undeveloped public and private rural open space land sections in a checkerboard pattern.

The proposed transmission line will cross through a wildlife management area known as Chuckwalla Valley Dune Thicket ACEC. This area is managed by the BLM and is located north of the Ironwood and Chuckwalla Valley State Prisons, which are operated by the California Department of Corrections. The proposed transmission line would be located approximately two miles north of these facilities and will not affect their operations. The proposed transmission line route is indicated on Figure E.9-1.

9.4 Coordination with Relevant Land Use Plans, Policies and Proposed Projects Numerous federal, state, local, and private plans will have a bearing on the final design, construction, operation, and management of the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project. Following is a brief summary of relevant plans, policies, and projects identified to date that may require project coordination.

9.4.1 CDCA Plan and BLM Land Management Classifications As noted earlier, the proposed project is located within the California Desert Conservation Area, a planning area under the management jurisdiction of the BLM. The Central Project Site and area is included within one of six concurrent CDCA plan amendments - the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (NECO). Recent plan amendments noted in NECO indicate that BLM changed some of its MUC designations for lands around the central project area.

Public lands west of the patented Kaiser lands were changed from MUC-Moderate, to MUC- Limited in order to protect and better manage habitat for the Desert Tortoise (pers. comm. M. Bennett, BLM). Public lands east of the Kaiser Specific Plan boundary are managed according to MUC-Moderate guidelines.

Regarding transmission line routing, the CDCA Plan identifies designated utility corridors in which more intensive utility development may occur. If segments of the final alignment of the transmission line fall outside this corridor defined by the BLM, an amendment to the CDCA Plan may be necessary. Routes within the defined corridor would require

authorization of a Right-of-Way Grant from the BLM. Figure E.9-3 identifies the current BLM Multiple Use Classes relative to the project.

9.4.2 Landfill Project - Riverside County Eagle Mountain Policy Area Pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 and Riverside County Ordinance 555, Reclamation Plan No. 107 was approved by the county for reclamation of the Eagle Mountain Mine. The East Pit and its adjacent overburden dumps were developed to their current limits prior to 1976 and are therefore largely exempted from reclamation. In conjunction with Specific Plan No. 252 for the proposed landfill, Kaiser submitted an amendment to Reclamation Plan No. 107 that proposes some reclamation activity to occur concurrently with the landfill development (Kaiser Steel Resources 1990).

The County of Riverside has established the Eagle Mountain Policy Area in their General Plan (Desert Center Area Land Use Plan). The Policy Area encompasses the Kaiser mine and town sites described in Specific Plans #305 and #306 respectively. The proposed Landfill Project encompasses over 4,600 acres of land covering some of the same area that is included in the Project. Approximately 2,280 acres of this land is currently under public ownership, administered by the BLM pending approval of a proposed land exchange with Kaiser Steel Resources Inc. pursuant to FLPMA.

This proposed land exchange involves exchanging approximately 3,512 acres of public land within the central project area for approximately 2,849 acres of private land owned by Kaiser Eagle Mountain, Inc. Figure E.9-2 indicates the proposed landfill boundary relative to the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project. Assuming approval of the hydroelectric project, Riverside County will require an amendment to their General Plan to incorporate the specifics of the project.

Outside the Specific Plan boundaries, County land use designations indicate most of the land is classified as “Rural Open Space” to the south and “Rural Open Space-Mineral Resources” to the north/northwest.

9.4.3 Riverside County The project site and area surrounding the project site are located within Riverside County's Chuckwalla Land Use Planning Area. The County's Open Space and Conservation Map indicates that the area surrounding Eagle Mountain is designated for Mineral resources, Desert Areas, Mountainous Areas, and Areas not designated as Open Space (ANDOS). Zoning consists of Mineral Resource and Related Manufacturing Zone (M-R-A) to the north, northeast and northwest, and Natural Assets Zone (N-A) to the south and southwest. Within the Chuckwalla planning area, power plant development is identified as a characteristic of the area. Additionally, highway commercial services, rail transportation, and the availability of water for irrigation are also cited as area characteristics. Constraints of the area are identified as remoteness, lack of infrastructure, BLM landholdings, and the closure of the Kaiser mine.

As noted earlier, the Eagle Mountain Hydroelectric Project will require an amendment to Riverside County’s General Plan to incorporate the specifics of the project. County encroachment permits will likely be required for construction of project transmission lines and water pipeline line within road right-of-ways, as well as site development permits for the project’s substation.

9.4.4 Joshua Tree National Park and Wilderness The JTNP was established first as a national monument in 1936 and later changed to a National Park in 1994. Also at this time, an additional 234,000 acres of land was added and included as a Wilderness Area known as the Eagle Mountain Wilderness Area. Wilderness Area designation allows only non-motorized, non-mechanized activities to occur within its boundary, with minimal trail creation and maintenance.

The part of the JTNP located in the vicinity of the project area is designated by the NPS as a Natural Environment and Wilderness Subzone. Lands within this Natural Environment Subzone are managed to largely maintain the natural resources and processes which are mainly unaltered by human activity except for approved developments essential for use and appreciation such as park roads, picnic areas, and backcountry parking areas. The majority of this area is designated as a Wilderness Subzone and no development is allowed (NPS, 1986).

Further descriptions and coordination with the JTNP is provided in Section E.7, Recreation and Section E.8, Aesthetic Resources.

9.4.5 CVMSHC Plan The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan represents a complex study prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The intent of the Plan is to provide protection for endangered species and establish a process for the issuance of permits that will allow the “Take” of species covered by the Plan (CVAG, 2007). The transmission line route will require coordination and compliance with the terms and conditions of this plan.

9.4.6 Area Alternative Energy and Transmission Line Projects BLM staff indicated during discussions that several solar energy projects are being proposed in the vicinity of the project area. One in particular, OptiSolar, abuts the project area to the east, includes over 14,000 acres of land, and proposes to utilize Kaiser wells for a water source. Coordination with this project will be desirable relative to construction and use of resources.

A number of transmission line projects currently are being proposed for the area. These include Southern California Edison’s Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 Project, the Desert Southwest Transmission Line Project, and the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line Modifications.

Close coordination will be required among all energy companies relative to the future routing and construction of transmission lines.

9.5 Proposed Land Use Changes The proposed project is not anticipated to cause any significant changes in land use to areas surrounding the central project area. The general level of activity (including traffic) in the area would increase during the construction phases of the project. While the Eagle Mountain townsite could potentially be utilized to house construction workers, it is not anticipated that any major changes in the land use of the townsite would occur. If a reestablishment of the townsite occurs, economic activity in nearby communities is likely to increase for the duration of the construction period, and beyond if the townsite is reestablished as part of the landfill project. Socioeconomic effects of the proposed project are described in detail in Section E.5.

Land use within the communities of Desert Center and Lake Tamarisk is not expected to change as a result of project implementation. Desert Center may see an economic benefit and increased activity during the construction period, but the relatively short-term construction period is not expected to be sufficient to cause a re-development of closed facilities, such as gas stations and stores.

The project is not expected to cause any land use changes to the nearby Joshua Tree National Park and Wilderness areas as a result of project construction. JTNP representatives have expressed concern regarding light pollution during project operation. Special lighting will be installed to address this issue.

Implementation of the proposed project will result in a change in the use of land within the Central Project Site from the existing inactive iron mine to a pumped storage hydroelectric facility. Additionally, this project could be operating in conjunction with the proposed Eagle Mountain Landfill, which would further change the existing land use character of the Central Project Site. Details of these proposed land use changes and their subsequent effects are described in the following sections.

9.5.1 Central Project Site The key components of the project include the upper and lower reservoirs, the power waterways, the powerhouse, the access tunnel, the cable tunnel and shaft, the switchyard, the transmission line, the water lines, and several access roads. A detailed description of the project and its features, including acreages and ownership is provided in Exhibit A.

The major change in land use which would occur with project implementation is the inundation of a portion of the Central deposit and the East Pit to form the upper and lower reservoirs of the project. These reservoirs are located in Sections 28, 29, 35, and 36, Township 3 south, Range 14 east, SB B&M, and encompass maximum surface areas of approximately 157 acres for the upper reservoir and 107 acres for the lower reservoir. Both reservoirs will be fenced and gated to prevent unauthorized access. No recreational use of the reservoirs is planned. Both reservoirs are located outside of the proposed landfill limits on patented lands.

The project's power waterways and powerhouse will be located entirely underground. While these tunnels pass beneath the boundaries of the proposed landfill, the subsurface shafts will not interfere with the proposed landfill operations. The only exposed structure between the two reservoirs is a surge chamber with a restricted orifice entrance located above grade.

Other project structures that will be located at surface level include the portal to the main access tunnel, located in the southwest quarter of Section 2, township 4 south, range 14 east, and the project switchyard, which is located in the southwest quarter of Section 35, township 3 south, range 14 east at approximately 1380 feet. The switchyard is located on an area of 500 x 800 feet (9.2 acres) and will be surrounded by a security fence. This facility, along with the access to the main tunnel, is also located outside of the landfill boundary.

A storage warehouse building and an administration building will be located near the main access tunnel portal. Once again, this facility is located outside of the active landfill boundary and is also outside of the landfill project area boundary. The proposed location of this facility is on patented land.

New access roads in the central project area are described in Exhibit A and consist of roads to reach the dams at the Central Deposit, both inlet/outlet structures, the upper surge chamber, and the access tunnel portal and storage and administration area. The road to the access tunnel portal and the storage and administration area is the only road located outside of the central project area on BLM managed land. This paved road will originate from a junction with the existing Kaiser Road and extend south of the Eagle Mountain townsite to the proposed administration area. The road is approximately three miles in length and has been aligned to prevent conflict with existing land uses in the Eagle Mountain townsite.

None of the facilities, structures, or general arrangement of the project are anticipated to have a significant effect on existing land use. The mine is currently inactive and there are no plans for resource extraction activity to resume. The major features of the project would not extend beyond the boundaries of the disturbed areas associated with the mine.

The project is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the uses proposed by the landfill project.

The County has taken the position that the project is not consistent with Riverside County Specific Plan No. 252 which amends the Riverside County Comprehensive Plan and provides policy guidance and appropriate land use designations to allow development and operation of the landfill. The county currently does not have designations allowing the development of a hydroelectric facility. As such, a code amendment and a General Plan amendment (specific plan) for the construction and operation of the project may be required.

The development of the project also presents a potential conflict with certain mineral reserve interest located within a portion of the East Pit which would be inundated upon implementation of the proposed project. These reserves are under the control of the State Lands Commission. The use of the East Pit as proposed by the project will restrict the recovery of these reserves during the Project’s life. It is anticipated that a formal appraisal of the values of these mineral

reserves will be conducted by the applicant, and subsequent negotiation for compensation will occur as a result of this appraised value.

9.5.2 Transmission Line Corridor The proposed transmission line and the associated corridor are not expected to effect land uses along or adjacent to the proposed route. The first 20.5 mile segment of the line which runs generally in a north-south /southeast orientation from the project switchyard to Interstate-10 is proposed for location adjacent to an existing transmission line. While an easement will be required, disturbance or displacement of any existing uses is not anticipated. Sharing and use of existing transmission line construction and maintenance access roads will be utilized as much as possible to reduce construction-related impacts. Special tower designs (compact, shorter heights) may be utilized in the vicinity of the Desert Center airport, but this is not expected to cause a change in land use or activity at the airport.

This proposed route is not however, located entirely within a utility corridor as indicated in the BLM's CDAC Plan (see Figure E.9-4). Several miles of the route heading to the southeast to I- 10 are located outside of the designated utility corridor. This may require an amendment to the CDAC Plan. Coordination with BLM staff will be required to determine if a deviation from an established utility corridor may be granted after a review of environmental considerations. A right-of-way granted by the BLM would be required in order to use the proposed transmission line corridor.

The second, 30-mile southeast-east segment of the transmission line alignment is not expected to have significant effects on land use along the route. The corridor is located adjacent to an existing corridor, and is within a BLM-designated Utility Corridor.

Approximately 1.5 miles of the Chuckwalla Valley Dune Thicket ACEC will be crossed by the extension of the transmission line corridor. An easement or right-of-way agreement would be required from the BLM for the use of this land. More detail on the crossing of this ACEC is provided in Section E.3.

Approximately 25 acres would be required for the site of the Colorado River Substation, the terminus of the project’s proposed transmission line. The proposed substation site would not be located on or across existing recreation areas. The nearest recreational areas area located more than a mile away from the site.

9.5.3 Water Pipeline Corridor The main water pipeline corridor is not expected to have a significant effect on existing land uses, create significant land use conflicts, or be determined inconsistent with existing land use plans or policies. These pipelines will be located in an existing utility corridor and county road right-of-way. The permanent pipelines will be buried, and associated land use impacts will be minimal.

9.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures As noted previously, none of the facilities, structures, or general arrangement of the project are anticipated to have a significant effect on existing land uses. If the proposed landfill project, as well as other alternative energy projects, becomes a reality, coordination with the owners and operators will occur regarding final project designs and operation.

An amendment to Riverside County’s General Plan and Specific Plan will be necessary to bring the project into conformance with County land use policies and ordinances. Coordination with County representatives will be necessary regarding a County policy action to create designations appropriate to allow a hydroelectric facility and subsequent amendment of the existing specific plan for the area.

As previously described, a short segment of the proposed transmission line is located outside of the designated utility corridor identified in the CDCA Plan. Coordination with BLM will be necessary to determine if an amendment to the CDCA Plan is required or if a deviation can be granted.

The proposed project will utilize existing construction laydown areas, access roads and spur roads from adjacent transmission line projects as much as possible to minimize construction related impacts of the project’s transmission line.

Impacts and mitigation measures for future mining activities are discussed in section 6.

10 Alternative Locations, Designs, and Energy Sources

10.1 Pumped Storage Location Alternatives The proposed project is located at the site of the former Kaiser Iron Mine, an open-pit operation that ceased production in the 1980s. The site is located near the Town of Eagle Mountain in Riverside County, CA, approximately 30 miles east of Indio, CA and 11 miles north of I-10 and the town of Desert Center.

The site was selected for pumped storage for the following reasons:

Two existing, abandoned mine pits are located within 14,000 feet of each other, with an elevation difference between the pits of approximately 1500 feet. The pits can be used for water storage, with the central pit serving as the upper reservoir and the east pit serving as the lower reservoir for a hydroelectric pumped-storage development. The storage space available in the two mine pits is about 28,000 acre-feet in total. Construction of dams to create this amount of storage could be cost up to $190 million at sites with similar topography that would require long dams.

The geology of the project area is dominated by rock formations comprised of good quality materials for construction of the dams, water conveyance tunnels, and underground chambers associated with a pumped-storage project.

The site is within about 10 miles of a major electrical transmission line corridor, the Palo Verde to Devers corridor, which extends from the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant in Arizona to the Devers Substation near Palm Springs. The site is within 40 to 50 miles of a planned new substation in that same transmission corridor.

The site is located close to potential sources of water to initially fill the reservoirs and to provide makeup for evaporation and seepage. Sources include the Chuckwalla Valley Aquifer (groundwater) and the Colorado River Aqueduct (surface water).

There are no other alternative sites for pumped-storage development with the above-noted attributes. Therefore, no other sites have been considered by ECE for developing the proposed pumped-storage project. In the past, ECE has considered the potential use of the west pit of the mine as a secondary upper reservoir for an expanded project. This option for expansion is not being proposed at this time.

10.2 Alternative Facility Designs, Processes, and Operations

10.2.1 Transmission Alternatives The most favorable transmission line route has been determined to be one that interconnects the proposed Project switchyard to the proposed Colorado River Substation, which will be adjacent to the existing Palo Verde-Devers 500-kV line owned by Southern California Edison (SCE). The approximate length of this line is 50.5 miles. The length of the line may decrease by a few miles depending on the final selected location for the Colorado River Substation. The existing Palo Verde-Devers 500-kV line is under the operational control of the California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO) as part of the restructured California electrical utility industry.

The proposed routing from the Project was selected as the one that would most economically supply power to, and receive power from, the southwestern grid. A second 500 kV line to be constructed by SCE, and located in the same corridor as the existing line, is currently in the planning stage. Load-flow and other studies are required to determine whether or not the combined capacity from Palo Verde to Devers is adequate to accommodate the 1300 MW flow from the Project with an interconnection at the proposed Colorado River Substation.

On May 16, 2008, ECE submitted an Interconnection Request (IR) application for the Eagle Mountain Pumped storage Project to interconnect the generating facility to the CAISO electrical grid at the Southern California Edison’s (SCE) proposed Colorado River Substation (previously named Midpoint Substation) as part of SCE’s proposed Devers-Palos Verdes #2 (DPV2) transmission line project. The Colorado River Substation will also loop in the existing Devers- Palos Verdes #1 (DPV1) transmission line. On May 30, 2008, ECE was notified by the CAISO that it has determined the IR is valid and has the effective queue date of May 16, 2008.

The interconnection of the Project at the Colorado River Substation will most likely require the construction of the DPV2 transmission line to order to enable the Project to access the California market. The CAISO has approved SCE to construct the DPV2 transmission line and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has reached similar conclusions in granting SCE a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct DPV2 in 2005. However, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) denied the necessary approvals for SCE to build in that state. SCE remains committed to obtaining permitting approval for DPV2 facilities in Arizona and is pursuing all available options, including applying for federal transmission line siting, per Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

SCE intends to seek authority from the CPUC to phase DPV2 construction by moving forward with California facilities first. This will include construction of a new “Colorado River (Midpoint) Substation” near the California/Arizona border that will loop in the existing DPV1 transmission line and provide the interim terminus for the DPV2 line. SCE’s decision to move forward with the new substation and the California facilities will allow the Eagle

Mountain Project to have access to the California market. The new substation with the looped-in existing DPV1 transmission line should be sufficient to allow the Project to access the Arizona and Nevada markets. These assumptions will be validated by the CAISO and the TO during a June 2008 scoping meeting and the interconnection studies.

The Eagle Mountain Project is targeting the California, Arizona, and Nevada markets to supply peaking generation and ancillary services to the investor owned utilities as well as the municipal utilities. As the peak load demand and the addition of intermittent generating resources in these markets continue to grow, peaking generation with load following capability resources will be an essential part of the Western region’s generating resource mix.

10.2.2 Water Supply Alternatives The alternatives for supply of the initial filling and for water to make up for evaporation and seepage are limited. The Project is not located on a natural stream nor would the small drainage area that would flow into either or both of the reservoirs provide nearly enough water to offset seepage losses and evaporation. Therefore, the water supply must come from either local groundwater, or through the Metropolitan Water District's (MWD) Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA).

Studies indicate that groundwater could be used as an initial filling source and for make-up water for the project, without causing ground water levels to be drawn down below historic levels attained during a previous period of heavier ground water withdrawals when jojoba production was at its peak in the Chuckwalla Basin.

Depending on costs, availability, and other factors, ECE may negotiate for a supply that could be obtained from the CRA as a “one-time” source for initial filling. This would require a purchase of water from a willing seller and “wheeling” the water to obtain a supply at the CRA. In this scenario, ground water would be used to provide the make-up water supplies. This arrangement has been discussed with MWD staff. The MWB Board would need to approve of any such wheeling or exchange agreement. Use of surface water supplies could also be used for annual make up water, but this alternative would require the development of long term contracts to supply water to the site.

10.2.3 Powerhouse Location The choice between a surface and underground powerhouse was studied early in Project development. The required depth of unit setting below minimum lower reservoir pool and the limited ground cover, which would result in a long length of steel-lined power tunnel, made the choice of a surface powerhouse uneconomical in comparison with the underground location. An underground powerhouse could be constructed closer to the lower reservoir; however, this arrangement would involve a longer high-head tunnel and there would be greater concerns about hydraulic transients and surge control.

The underground powerhouse could be located anywhere between the two reservoirs where suitable geologic conditions exist, at a depth that satisfies the unit submergence requirements. The proposed location was selected because of the expected existence of sound granitic rock away from fractured and diverse conditions associated with ore zones, a route for the power waterways that is near to a direct connection between the upper and lower reservoirs, a minimum length of steel lining of the power waterways, proximity to a suitable location for surge shafts and chambers, and a reasonable length of access tunnel at an acceptable grade from the surface to the powerhouse.

10.3 Alternative electrical energy sources Solar and wind generation are being developed in the southern California region, particularly in the area of Eagle Mountain. These sources of energy are unsuitable for providing electricity to meet peak demand. In addition, they cannot provide ancillary benefits such as black start capacity or load following.

Pumped storage is an ideal companion to these alternative energy sources, providing energy storage for peak demand periods. The Applicant believes the unique aspects of this project make it the most competitive pumped storage project available.

10.4 The overall consequences if the license application is denied If the Application is denied, other generating alternatives, predominately gas- or oil-fired combustion turbines, will be developed to meet the increasing demand for reliable peaking power generation. Consumers will likely increase additional loads shedding to the maximum level tolerable. There are dynamic benefits, which can be provided by the proposed pumped storage facility, that are not available when using conventional combustion turbines and would be foregone. This may result in earlier retirement of existing base load thermal facilities, rather than the extended life that is possible with a pumped storage facility in place.

11 List of Literature

11.2 Literature Cited in Section 2 Black & Veatch and Woodard-Clyde. 1998. Phase I Technical Feasibility Report for Offstream Storage on the Colorado River Aqueduct.

California Department of Water Resources. 1963. Data on Water Wells and Springs in the Chuckwalla Valley Area, Riverside County, California. Bulletin No. 91-7.

California Department of Water Resources. 1975. California’s Groundwater. Bulletin 118.

California Department of Water Resources. 1979. Sources of Powerplant Cooling Water in the Desert Area of Southern California – Reconnaissance Study. Bulletin 91-24.

California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California’s Groundwater. Bulletin 118 – update 2003.

California Region Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). 2007a. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/documents/RB7Plan.pdf

California Region Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). 2007b. Water Quality Limits for Constituents and Parameter. In A Compilation of Water Quality Goals.

Cannon, W. F. 1986. Descriptive Model of Superior Fe, in Cox, D. P. and Singer D. A. eds. Mineral Deposit Models. U.S.G.S. Bulletin 1693

CH2MHill. 1996. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center Project. State Clearinghouse No. 95052023. 3574p.

Force, E.R. 2001. Eagle Mountain Mine – Geology of the Former Kaiser Steel Operations in Riverside County, California. U.S.G.S. Open File Report 01-237. 17p.

GeoSyntec Consultants. 1996. Ground-Water Investigation and Monitoring Summary Report: Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center, Riverside County, California. Mine Reclamation. Corporation, Palm Springs, CA.

Goldschmidt, V. M. 1958. Geochemistry. Clarendon Press. 730p.

Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1994. Source, Anticipated Impacts, and Possible Mitigation Measures Associated with the Water Supply for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project.

Hanson, James C. 1992. Letter of Geothermal Surveys, Inc. Groundwater Conditions – Eagle Mountain Area.

Hendricksen, G.E. and Doonan, C.J. 1966. Groundwater Resources, Dickenson County, Michigan. State of Michigan Department of Conservation Water Investigation 5. 14p.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_standards_limits/w ater_quality_goals/limit_tables_2007.pdf

Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc. 1978, Surface Mining Reclamation Plan, Eagle Mountain Mine.

Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc. and Mine Reclamation Corp. 1991. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact report for the Eagle Mountain Landfill Project. Site Specific Plan 252. 636p.

Kunkle, F. 1963. Hydrologic and Geologic Reconnaissance of Pinto Basin, Joshua Tree National Monument, Riverside County, California. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1475-O.

LeRoy Crandall and Associates. 1981. Report of Phase II Investigation, Feasibility of Storing Colorado River Water in Desert Groundwater Basins. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Metzger, D.G., Loeltz, O.J., and Irelan, Burdge, 1973, Geohydrology of the Parker-Blythe- Cibola Area, Arizona and California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 486- G, 130 p.

Mann, John F. Jr., 1986. Groundwater conditions in the Eagle Mountain Area.

URS Corporation. 2000. Feasibility Assessment Hayfield Lake/Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Conjunctive-Use Project. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Volumes I-III.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1972. Inland Basins Projects, California-Nevada, Summary Report: Reconnaissance Investigations.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. Agriculture Handbook No. 60. L.A. Richards, editor. Soil and Water Conservation Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1994. Memorandum.

URS Corporation. 2000. Feasibility Assessment Hayfield Lake/Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Conjunctive-Use Project. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Volumes I-III.

Wilson, R. P., and Owen-Joyce, S. J. 1994. Method to identify wells that yield water that will be replaced by Colorado River water in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. United States Geologic Survey. Water Resources Investigation Report 94-4005.

11.3 Literature Cited in Section 3 Area. White paper to Richard Crowe, Bureau of Land Management. 3pp.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th Edition. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 829 p.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2003. Cheese-weed Owlfly (Oliarces clara). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/edits/documents/Oliaclar.d.pdf. 5 pp.

Baldwin, B. G., S. Boyd, B. J. Ertter, R. W. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2002. The Jepson desert manual: vascular plants of southeastern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 2002.

Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, 286 pp.

Bat Conservation International (BCI) Website. Bat Species: U.S.Bats: Euderma maculatum . http://www.batcon.org/

Belnap, J., K.T. Harper, and S.D. Warren. 1998. Surface disturbance of cryptobiotic soil crusts: nitrogenase activity, chlorophyll content, and chlorophyll degradation. Arid Soil and Rehabilitation 8:1-8.

---, J.H. Kaltenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological soil crusts: ecology and management. BLM/ID/ST-01/001+1730. Technical Ref. 1730-2. Denver, CO. National Science and Technology Center, Bureau of Land Management. 110 pp.

Benson, L. 1969. The Native Cacti of California. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA. 243 pp.

Blythe Energy, LLC. 2004. Blythe Energy Project Transmission Lines Biological Evaluation. Submitted to California Department of Fish and Game, Bermuda Dunes, CA, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management South Coast Field Office, North Palm Springs, CA. 34 pp.

Borror, S. J. and R. E. White. 1970. A Field Guide to the Insects of America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 404 pp.

Brooks, M.L. 1998. Ecology of a biological invasion: alien annual plants in the Mojave Desert. Ph.D. Diss., Univ. of California, Riverside. 186 pp.

---. 2007. Effects of land management practices on plant invasions in wildland areas. Chapter 9 in W. Nentwig (ed.) Biological Invasions. Ecological Studies Vol. 93. Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Brown, D.E. and R.A. Minnich. 1986. Fire and creosote bush scrub of the western Sonoran Desert, California. Am. Midl. Nat. 116(2):411-422.

Brown, P.E. 1996. Summer baseline surveys for bats of the Eagle Mountain Project Site, Riverside County, CA. Unpub. doc. submitted to CH2MHill, Santa Ana, CA. 4pp.

Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Unpub. doc. 13 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1983. California's Wildlife, Mammals, M038 Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus . California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/M038.html.

---. 1986. California's Wildlife, Mammals, Arizona Cave Myotis. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System.

---. 1995. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Unpub. doc. 8 pp.

---. 2005. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) web site. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab.

---. 2008. Request to CNDDB for special species locations on the Hopkins Well, Sidewinder Well, Palen Lake, East of Victory Pass, and Palen Mountains quadrangles.

California Native Plant Society. 2007. Inventory of rare and endangered plants (online edition, V6-05b, http://www.cnps.org/inventory). Sacramento, CA.

California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2001. Data base records for the project area.

Chung-MacCoubrey, A. 1995. Species Composition and Roost Requirements of Bats Using Water Sources in Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands. Unpublished. 7 pp.

Cockrum, E. L. 1956. The pocketed free-tailed bat, Tadarida femerosacca [sic], in Arizona. J. Mamm 37:282-3.

Constantine, D. G. 1998. Range extensions of ten species of bats in California. Bull. So. Cal. Acad. Sci. 97(2):49-75.

County of Riverside Planning Department and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report for the Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center Project. Prepared by CH2MHill. State Clearinghouse No. 95052023.

Davis, W. B. and Schmidly, D. J. 1994. Mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Online Edition.

Divine, D. and C. Douglas. 1996. Bighorn sheep monitoring program for the Eagle Mountain Landfill Project. Phase I report. Submitted to Mine Reclamation Corporation. 54 pp.

Dobkin, D. and S. Granholm. No date (a). B399 Crissal Thrasher. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/B399.html.

E. Linwood Smith and Associates. 1987. Palo Verde to Devers II 500kV Transmission Line 2 results of biological clearance studies. Rept. submitted to Southern California Edison Co.

Eagle Crest Energy and MDU Resources Group, Inc. 2001. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Riverside County, CA. FERC Project No.: 11862-000.

Easterly, D. A. 1973. Ecology of the 18 species of Chiroptera at Big Bend National Park, Texas. Northwest Missouri Stat Univ. Studies 34(2-3): 1-165.

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York. 785 p.

England, A.S. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1993. Bendire’s thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/071.

Environmental Planning Group. 2003. Devers – Palo Verde Transmission Line No. 2 Draft

Sensitive Biological Resources Inventory. Prepared for Southern California Edison,

July 2003.

---. 2004. Comparative Analysis of Sensitive Biological Resources for the Proposed 230kV Transmission Line from the Buck Blvd. Substation to the Julian Hinds Substation. Prepared for Southern California Edison, September 2004.

Ernst, C.H., J.E. Lovich, and R.W. Barbour. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Evans, R.D. and J. Belnap. 1999. Long-term consequences of disturbance on nitrogen dynamics in an arid ecosystem. Ecology. 80:150-160.

Faulkner, D.K. 1990a. Current knowledge of the biology of the moth-lacewing Oliarces clara Banks (Insecta: Neuroptera: Ithionidae). Pp. 197-203 in Mansell, M.W., and H. Aspock (eds.). Advances in Neuropterology. Proceedings of the third international symposium on neuropterology, Berg en Dal, Kruger National Park, Republic of South Africa, 1988. Pretoria, R.S.A. ---. 1990b. Phantom of the desert: biology of the little-known moth lacewing. Environment West 1(2):17-19. Felger, R. S. 2000. Flora of the Gran Desierto and Rio Colorado of Northwestern Mexico. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 673 p.

Findley, J.S., A.H. Harris, D.E. Wilson, and C. Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. xxii + 360 pp.

Germano, D.J., R.B. Bury, T.C. Esque, T.H. Fritts, and P.A. Medica. 1994. Range and habitats of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Pp. 73-84 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano (eds.) Biology of North American tortoises. National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.

Glinski, R.L., Ed. 1998. The Raptors of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press. 220 p.

Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 1400 pp.

Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 602 pp.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame-Heritage Program. 155 pp.,

Ingles, L. G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA. 506 pp.

Jameson, E.W. Jr. and H.J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of California Press. Berkeley, 403 pp.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. 255 pp.

Karl, A. E. 1983. The distribution, relative densities, and habitat associations of the desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, in Nevada. M.S. Thesis, California State Univ., Northridge. 111 pp.

---. 2002. Southern California Edison Palo Verde-Devers II 500kV Transmission Line. Survey of biological resources: California. Unpub. rept. submitted to EPG, Tucson, AZ. 85 pp.

---. 2004a. FPL Energy: Proposed Buck Substation to Julian Hinds Substation 230 kV Transmission Line. Desert tortoise impacts analysis. Unpub. rept submitted to EPG, Tucson, AZ. 39 pp.

---. 2004b. Drought: Acute effects and impacts to recovery of the desert tortoise. Paper presented at the 2004 Desert Tortoise Council Symposium, Las Vegas, Nevada.

---. 2005. Blythe Energy Transmission Project. Supplementary survey of special-status species. Draft. Submitted to TetraTech EC, Inc., Santa Ana, CA. 52 pp.

---. 2008. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project: summary of Spring 2008 special- status species surveys on the water pipeline and transmission line alternatives. Letter to ECE and GEI Consultants, Inc.

--- and C. Uptain. 1985. Southern California Edison Palo Verde-Devers II Transmission Line: survey of special-status species. Unpub. rept to E. Linwood Smith and Associates, Tucson, AZ

Knopf, F.L. 2006. Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/211.

Kumairi, A. and J. K. Jones, Jr. 1990. Nyctinomops femorosaccus. Mamm. Species (349):1- 5.

Kunz, T. H. and R. A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. Mamm. Species (175):1-6.

Lemly, A. D. 1977. Environmental implications of excessive selenium: a review. Biomedical and Environmental Sci. 10:415-435.

Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. 2004. Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, Volume III: Biological Assessment Final. December 17. (J&S 00450.00) Sacramento, CA..

Munz, P. A. and D. D. Keck. 1968. A California flora and supplement. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. 1905 pp.

National Geographic Society. 2002. Field Guide to Birds of North America. Fourth edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 480 pp.

National Park Service. 1995. General Management Plan, Development Concept Plan, Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by Joshua Tree National Park. Twentynine Palms, CA.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: characteristics and boundaries. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 308 pp.

NatureServe. 2003. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 1.8. Arlington, Virginia, USA: Association for Biodiversity Information. Internet site http://www.natureserveexplorer.org/. Accessed: April 2004.

Ohlendorf, H. M. 1989. Bioaccumulation and effects of selenium in wildlife. Chapter 8 in Selenium in Agriculture and the Environment. Soil Science Society of America and Amercan Society of Agronomy.

Ottley, J. R. and V. M. Velazques Solis. 1989. An extant, indigenous tortoise population in Baja California Sur, Mexico, with the description of a new specis of Xerobates (Testudines: Testudinidae). Great Basin Nat. 49(4):496-502.

Palermo, L. No date. R015 Mojave fringe-toed lizard Uma scoparia. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game: California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Internet site: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/ html/R015.html. Accessed June 2004.

Pendleton, R.L., B.K. Pendleton, G.L. Howard, and S.D. Warren. 2004. Effects of biological soil crusts on seedling growth and mineral content of four semiarid herbaceous plant species. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-31. 3pp.

Pierson E. D. and Rainey, W. E. 1998. Distribution, habitat associations, status, and survey methodologies for three Molossid bat species (Eumops perotis, Nyctinomops femorosaccus, Nyctinomops macrotis) and the Vespertilionid (Euderma maculatum). Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game. Final Report April 6 1998.

Rowlands, P.G. 1980. Soil crusts. Chapter 2 in P.G. Rowlands (ed.) Effects of disturbance on desert soils, vegetation and community processes with emphasis on off-road vehicles: a critical review. Unpub. rept. to Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, CA.

Schram, B. 1998. A birder’s guide to Southern California. American Birding Association, Inc. Colorado Springs, Colorado. 334 pp.

Small, A. 1977. The Birds of California. Collier Books, New York. 310 pp.

Tatarian, G. 2001. California Bat Management Plan: bats in structures. California Bat Working Group. Accessed at http://home.pacbell.net/tatarian/cbwgdoc.htm

Rosenfield, R.N. and J. Bielefeldt. 2006. Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/075.

Ryser, F. A. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin – a natural history. Univ. of Nevada Press, Reno, NV. 604 pp.

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. Western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY. 533 pp.

Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 1109 pp.

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 2005. Combined desert tortoise protocol survey report. Prepared by Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Irvine, CA.

Turner, R. M. and D. E. Brown. 1982. Sonoran desertscrub. In D. E. Brown, ed., Biotic

Communities of the American Southwest-United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-4): 181-221.

United States Department of the Interior. 1998. Guidelines for interpretation of the

biological effects of selected constituents in biota, water, and sediment. Selenium.

National Irrigation Water Quality Program Information Report No. 3.

United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management and California

Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Proposed northern and eastern Colorado

Desert Coordinated Management Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Two

volumes.

--- and Imperial Irrigation District. 2003. Desert Southwest Transmission Line Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report. Available online at http://www.ca.blm.gov/palmsprings/xmission line.html.

United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Proposed rule: endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; desert tortoise. FR 54(197):42270- 42278.

---. 1990. Final rule: determination of the threatened status for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise. FR 55(63):12178-12191.

---. 1994a. Desert tortoise (Mojave population) recovery plan. Portland, Oregon. 73 pp plus appendices.

---. 1994b. Final rule: determination of critical habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise. FR 59 (26):5820-5866.

Watkins, L. C. 1977. Euderma maculutum. Mamm. Species (77):1-4.

Weinstein, M. 1989. Modeling Desert Tortoise Habitat: Can a Useful Management Tool be Developed from Existing Transect Data? Ph.D.. Diss., Univ. of CA, Los Angeles. 121 pp.

West, N.E. 1990. Structure and function of microphytic soil crusts in wildlife ecosystems of arid to semiarid regions. Adv. in Ecol. Research 20:179-223.

Wiesenborn, W.D. 1998. High seasonal rainfall precedes Oliarces clara Banks (Neuroptera: Ithionidae) spring emergence. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 74(4):217-222.

Williams, D.F. 1986. Mammalian species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game. 112 pp.

Zeiner, D.C., et al., editors. 1990. Pp. 78-79 in California’s Wildlife, Volume III, Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 407 pages.

11.4 Literature Cited in Section 4 Barrows, David Prescott 1900 Ethno-Botany of the Cahuilla Indians. University of Chicago Press.

Bean, Lowell John 1972 Mukat’s People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575-587. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell John, and William Marvin Mason 1962 Diaries and Accounts of the Romero Expeditions in Arizona and California, 1823-26. Desert Museum, Palm Springs.

Bean, Lowell J., and Katherine Saubel 1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Bean, Lowell John, Jerry Schaefer, and Sylvia Brakke Vane 1995 Archaeological, Ethnographic, and Ethnohistoric Investigations at Tahquitz Canyon, Palm Springs, California. Cultural Systems Research, Menlo Park, California.

Bee, Robert L. 1981 Crosscurrents along the Colorado. University of Arizona, Tucson.

1983 Quechan. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 86-98. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1989 The Yuma. Chelsea House, New York.

Begole, Robert S. 1973 An Archaeological Survey in the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park: 1972 Preliminary Report. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 9(2):27-55.

---. 1976. A Continuing Archaeological Survey in the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park: 1975-1976 Report. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 12(2):1-24.

Bischoff, Matt C. 2000 The Desert Training Center/California-Arizona Maneuver Area, 1942-1944: Historical and Archaeological Contexts. Statistical Research Technical Series No. 75. Tucson, Arizona.

Bull, Charles S., Sue A. Wade, and McMillan Davis 1991 Cultural Resource Survey of the Eagle Mountain Mine and the Kaiser Industrial Railroad, Cultural Resource Permit #CA881916. RECON, San Diego.

Campbell, Elizabeth W. C., and William H. Campbell 1935 The Pinto Basin Site: An Ancient Aboriginal Camping Ground in the California Desert. Southwest Museum Papers No. 9. Los Angeles.

Carrico, Richard L., Dennis K. Quillen, and Dennis 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.

Castetter, Edward F., and William H. Bell 1951 Yuman Indian Agriculture. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Cole, Kenneth L. 1986 The Lower Colorado River Valley: A Pleistocene Desert. Quaternary Research 25:392-400.

Cowan, Richard A., and Kurt Wallof 1977. Interim Report – Field Work and Data Analysis: Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Southern California Edison Palo Verde- Devers 500 Kv Power Transmission Line. Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.

Crabtree, Robert H.1981. Archaeology. In A Cultural Resources Overview of the Colorado Desert Planning Units by Elizabeth von Till Warren, Robert H. Crabtree, Claude N. Warren, Martha Knack, and Richard McCarthy, pp. 25-54. California Desert District, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, California.

Cultural Systems Research 1983. Paniktum Hemki: A Study of Cahuilla Cultural Resources in Andreas and Murray Canyons. Menlo Park, California.

Curtis, Edward S. 1926. The North American Indian. Vol. 15. University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Davis, Emma Lou, Kathryn H. Brown, and Jacqueline Nichols. 1980. Evaluation of Early Human Activities and Remains in the California Desert. Great Basin Foundation, San Diego.

Drucker, Philip 1937. Culture Element Distributions: V., Southern California. Anthropological Records 1:1-52. University of California, Berkeley.

Ezell, Paul H. 1984. A New Look at the San Dieguito Culture. San Diego State University Casual Papers in Cultural Resource Management 3(2):103-109.

Ezzo, Joseph A. (editor) 1994. Recent Research along the Lower Colorado River. Statistical Research Technical Series No. 51. Tucson, Arizona.

Ezzo, Joseph A,. and Jeffrey H. Altshul 1993. Glyphs and Quarries of the Lower Colorado River Valley: The Results of Five Cultural Resources Surveys. Statistical Research, Tucson, Arizona.

Forbes, Jack D. 1965. Warriors of the Colorado: The Yumas of the Quechan Nation and Their Neighbors. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Forde, C. Daryll 1931. Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 28:83-278. Berkeley.

Gifford, Edward W. 1918. Clans and Moieties in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 14:155-219. Berkeley.

---. 1931. The Kamia of Imperial Valley. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 97. Washington, D.C.

Gobalet, Kenneth W. 1994. Additional Archaeological Evidence for Colorado River Fishes in the Salton Basin of Southern California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 93(1):38-41.

Golla, Victor 2007. Linguistic Prehistory. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 71-82. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Gunther, Jane Davies 1984. Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. Rubidoux Printing, Riverside, California.

Harwell, Henry O., and Marsha C. S. Kelly 1983. Maricopa. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 71-85. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Hastings, James R., and Raymond M. Turner 1965. The Changing Mile: An Ecological Study of Vegetation Change with Time in the Lower Mile of an Arid and Semi-Arid Region. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Hayden, Julian 1976 Pre-altithermal Archaeology in the Sierra Pinacate, Sonora, Mexico. American Antiquity 41:274-289.

Heizer, Robert F.1974 An Early Cahuilla Ethnographic Sketch. The Masterkey 48(1):14-21.

California. Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Henley, David 1989 “The Land that God Forgot...”: The Saga of Gen. George Patton’s Desert Training Camps. Lahontan Valley Printing, Fallon, Nevada.

Hinton, Leanne, and Lucille J. Watahomigie 1984 Spirit Mountain: An Anthology of Yuman Story and Song. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Hooper, Lucille 1920 The Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 16:315-380. Berkeley.

Howard, George W. 1985 The Desert Training Center/California-Arizona Maneuver Area. Journal of Arizona History 26:273-294.

Jaeger, Edmund C. 1965 The California Deserts. Fourth ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Jennings, Charles W.1967 Salton Sea Sheet. Geologic Map of California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento.

Kelly, Isabel T. n.d. Chemehuevi Field Notes: General Ethnological Information [1932-1933]. Unpublished manuscript (Book 17), on file, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

Kelly, Isabel T., and Catherine S. Fowler 1986 Southern Paiute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D'Azevedo, pp. 368-397. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

King, James E., and Thomas R. Van Devender 1977 Pollen Analysis of Fossil Packrat Middens from the Sonoran Desert. Quaternary Research 8:191-204.

Knack, Martha 1981 Ethnography. In A Cultural Resources Overview of the Colorado Desert Planning Units, by Elizabeth von Till Warren, Robert H. Crabtree, Claude N. Warren, Martha Knack, and Richard McCarty, pp. 55-82. California Desert District, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, California.

Koerper, Henry. 1979 The Question of the Chronological Placement of the Shoshonean Presence in Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 22(3):69-84.

Kroeber, A. L.1908 Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:29-68. Berkeley.

1920 Yuman Tribes of the Lower Colorado River. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 16:475-485. Berkeley.

1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78. Washington, D.C.

1948 Seven Mohave Myths. Anthropological Records 11:1-70. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Kroeber, Clifton B. 1980 Lower Colorado River Peoples: Hostilities and Hunger, 1850-1857. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 2:187-190.

Kroeber, Clifton B. and Bernard L. Fontana 1986 Massacre on the Gila. An Account of the Last Major Battle Between American Indians, with Reflections on the Origin of War. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Laird, Carobeth 1976 The Chemehuevis. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

1984 Mirror and Pattern: George Laird’s World of Chemehuevi Mythology. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Laylander, Don 2004 Geographies of Fact and Fantasy: Oñate on the Lower Colorado River, 1604-1605. Southern California Quarterly 86:309-324.

2007 Linguistic Prehistory and the Archaic-Late Transition in the Colorado Desert. Paper presented at the Conference on the Archaic-Late Transition in the Colorado Desert, Borrego Springs, California.

Love, Bruce 1994 Addendum Cultural Resources Reconnaissance: Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Transmission Corridor, Riverside County. CRM Tech, Riverside, California.

1996 Archaeology on the North Shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla. CRM TECH, Riverside, California.

Lynch, John S., John W. Kennedy, and Robert L. Wooley 1982 Patton’s Desert Training Center. Council on America’s Military Past, Fort Myer, Virginia.

McCarthy, Daniel 1982 The Coco-Maricopa Trail Network. In Cultural Resource Inventory and National Register Assessment of the Southern California Edison Palo Verde to Devers Transmission Line Corridor (California Portion), by Richard L. Carrico, , Dennis K. Quillen, and Dennis R. Gallegos, Appendix C. WESTEC Services, San Diego.

1993 Prehistoric Land-Use at McCoy Spring: An Arid-Land Oasis in Eastern Riverside County, California. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

McDonald, Alison Meg 1992 Indian Hill Rockshelter and Aboriginal Cultural Adaptation in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Southeastern California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

McGinnis, Samuel M. 1984 Freshwater Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

McGuire, Randall H., and Michael B. Schiffer 1982 Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona. Academic Press, New York.

Meller, Sidney L. 1946 The Army Ground Forces: The Desert Training Center and CAMA. Historical Section Study No. 15.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Patencio, Francisco 1943 Stories and Legends of the Palm Springs Indians. As told to Margaret Boynton. Palm Springs Desert Museum, Palm Springs.

Pendleton, Lorann 1984 Archaeological Investigations in the Picacho Basin. Wirth Environmental Services, San Diego.

Phillips, George Harwood 1975 Chiefs and Challengers: Indian Resistance and Cooperation in Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Rappaport, Roy A.1968 Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of A New Guinea People. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Rogers, Malcolm J. 1929 Report on an Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Mojave Sink Region. San Diego Museum of Man Papers No. 1.

1936 Yuman Pottery Making. San Diego Museum of Man Papers No. 2.

1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Areas. San Diego Museum of Man Papers No. 3.

1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1:167- 198.

1958 San Dieguito Implements from the Terraces of the Rincon-Pantano and Rillito Drainage System. The Kiva 24(1):1-23.

1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union Tribune Publishing, San Diego.

Ryan, R. Mark 1968 Mammals of Deep Canyon, Colorado Desert, California. Desert Museum, Palm Springs, California.

Schaefer, Jerry 1994a The Stuff of Creation: Recent Approaches to Ceramics Analysis in the Colorado Desert. In Recent Research along the Lower Colorado River, edited by Joseph A. Ezzo, pp. 81-100. Statistical Research Technical Series No. 51, Tucson, Arizona.

1994b The Colorado Desert. In Research Design for the Lower Colorado Region, by Jeffrey H. Altschul, pp. 21-38. Statistical Research Technical Report No. 93-19. Tucson, Arizona.

1994c The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16:60- 80.

2003 A Class II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Desert-Southwest Transmission Line, Colorado Desert, Riverside and Imperial Counties, California. ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California.

Schaefer, Jerry, and Don Laylander 2007 The Colorado Desert: Ancient Adaptations to Wetlands and Wastelands. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 247-257. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Schneider, Joan S. 1993 Aboriginal Milling-Implement Quarries in Eastern California and Western Arizona: A Behavioral Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

1994 Milling-Implement Quarrying and Production Bordering the Lower Colorado and Lower Gila Rivers: Archaeological, Ethnographic and Historical Evidence for an Aboriginal Industry. In Recent Research Along the Lower Colorado River, edited by Joseph A. Ezzo, pp. 101-117. Statistical Research Technical Series No. 51, Tucson, Arizona.

Schroeder, Albert H. 1975 The Hohokam, Sinagua and the Hakataya. Imperial Valley College Occasional Paper No. 3. El Centro, California.

1979 Prehistory: Hakataya. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 100-107. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Schroth, Adella B.1994 The Pinto Point Controversy in the Western United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Spier, Leslie 1933 Yuman Tribes of the Gila River. University of Chicago Press.

Steward, Julian H. 1955 Theory of Culture Change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Stewart, Kenneth M. 1983 Mohave. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 55-70. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Stone, Connie L. 1991 The Linear Oasis: Managing Cultural Resources Along the Lower Colorado River. Cultural Resource Series Monograph No. 6. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix.

Strong, William D. 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26:1-358. Berkeley.

Swarthout, Jeanne 1981a Final Report for an Archaeological Overview for the Lower Colorado River Valley, Arizona, Nevada, and California: Reach 1, Lee’s Ferry to Grand Wash Cliffs. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1981b Final Report for an Archaeological Overview for the Lower Colorado River Valley, Arizona, Nevada, and California: Reach 2, Grand Wash Cliffs to Davis Dam. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1981c Final Report for an Archaeological Overview for the Lower Colorado River Valley, Arizona, Nevada, and California: Reach 4, Lower Virgin River. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Swarthout, Jeanne, and Christopher E. Drover 1981 Final Report for an Archaeological Overview for the Lower Colorado River Valley, Arizona, Nevada and California: Reach 3, Davis Dam to the International Border. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Taylor, R. E., L. A. Payen, C. A. Prior, P. J. Slota Jr., R. Gillespie, J. A. J. Gowlett, R. E. M. Hedges, A. J. T. Jull, T. H. Zabel, D. J. Donahue, and R. Berger 1985 Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: None Older than 11,000 C-14 Years B.P. American Antiquity 50:136-140.

Thompson, Robert 1984 Past Environment. In Archaeological Investigations in the Picacho Basin, by Lorann Pendleton, pp. 10-15. Wirth Environmental Services, San Diego.

Van Devender, Thomas R.1990 Late Quaternary Vegetation and Climate of the Sonoran Desert, United States and Mexico. In Packrat Middens: The Last 40,000 Years of Biotic Change, edited by J. L. Betancourt, Thomas R. Van Devender, and Paul S. Martin, pp. 134-165. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Van Devender, Thomas R., and W. Geoffrey Spaulding 1983 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. In Origin and Evolution of Deserts, edited by Stephen G. Wells and Donald R. Haragan, pp. 131-156. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Vaughan, Sheila J. 1982 A Replicative Systems Analysis of the San Dieguito Component at the C. W. Harris Site. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Vredenburgh, Larry M, Gary L. Shumway, and Russell D. Hartill 1981 Desert Fever: An Overview of Mining In the California Desert. Living West Press, Canoga Park, California.

Wallof, Kurt, and Richard A. Cowan 1977 Final Report – Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Southern California Edison Palo Verde-Devers 500 Kv Power Transmission Line. Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.

Warren, Claude N.1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:168-185.

1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by Michael J. Moratto, pp. 339-430. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Warren, Claude N., and Delbert L. True 1961 The San Dieguito Complex and Its Place In California Prehistory. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeology Survey Annual Report 1960-1961:246-291.

Warren, Elizabeth von Till, Robert H. Crabtree, Claude N. Warren, Martha Knack, and Richard McCarthy 1981 A Cultural Resources Overview of the Colorado Desert

Planning Units. California Desert District, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, California.

Waters, Michael R. 1982a The Lowland Patayan Ceramic Tradition. In Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, edited by Randall H. McGuire and Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 275-298. Academic Press, New York.

1982b The Lowland Patayan Ceramic Typology. In Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, edited by Randall H. McGuire and Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 537-570. Academic Press, New York.

Weide, David 1974 Regional Environmental History of the Yuha Desert Region. In Background to Prehistory of the Yuha Desert Region, by Margaret L. Weide and James P. Barker, pp. 4-15. Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.

White, Chris 1974 Lower Colorado River Area. Aboriginal Warfare and Alliance Dynamics. In Antap, California Indian Political and Economic Organization, edited by Lowell J. Bean and Thomas F. King, pp. 111-136. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 2 Ramona, California.

Wilke, Philip J. 1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 38. University of California, Berkeley.

Wilke, Philip J., and Harry W. Lawton 1975 Early Observations on the Cultural Geography of the Coachella Valley. In The Cahuilla Indians of the Colorado Desert: Ethnohistory and Prehistory, pp. 9-43. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.

Woods, Clyde M. 1982 APS/SDG&E Interconnection Project Native American Cultural Resources: Miguel to the Colorado River and Miguel to Mission Tap. Wirth Associates, San Diego.

11.5 Literature Cited in Section 5 California Employment Development Department 2008 http://www.edd.ca.gov/default.htm

California Department of Finance http://www.dof.ca.gov/

Riverside County Economic Development Agency. 2004. http://www.rivcoeda.org/

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007, Census data. http://www.census.gov/

11.6 Literature Cited in Section 6 Adamson, N.A. and Silva, W.J. 1997. Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work in Ebel, J. (ed.), Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, January/February 1997.

Anderson, J.G. 1984. Synthesis of Seismicity and Geological Data in California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-424. Denver, Co.

Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E. 1997. Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra in Ebel, J. (ed.), Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, January/February 1997.

Bryant, William A. and Hart, Earl W. 2007. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California. Special Publication 42 (Interim Revision 2007). California Geological Survey.

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2001. Downloadable California Earthquake Catalog: Updated Magnitude 4 and Greater Earthquakes, Compiled from Various Sources (1769-2000). http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/quakes/Documents/cgs2000fnl. txt>. Accessed November 15, 2007.

CGS. Seismic Hazard Database. Accessed March 7, 2008. http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap.asp.

California State Lands Commission (CSLC). 2007. Annual Staff Report on the Management of State School Lands, Fiscal Year 2006-07.

Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y. 2007. Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Ground Motion Relations for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral Ground Motion Parameters. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

Chiou, B.S.-J. and Youngs, R.R. 2006. Choiu and Youngs PEER-NGA Emperical Ground Motion Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Acceleration and Pseudo-Spectral Acceleration for Spectral Periods of 0.01 to 10 Seconds. Interim Report for USGS Review.

DuBois, R. L. 1958. Report on Geologic Features Pertinent to Open Pit Design. Kaiser Steel Corporation, Eagle Mountain., CA. 81pp. [as referenced by EMEC, 1994].

--- and R. W. Brummett. 1968. Geology of the Eagle Mountain Mine Area in Ridge, J.D. (ed.), Ore Deposits of the United States, 1933-1967. American Institute of Mining,

Metallurgy and Petroleum Engineers. 2(76). pp 1592-1606. [as referenced by EMEC, 1994].

Eagle Mountain Energy Company (EMEC). 1994. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Application for License for a Major Unconstructed Project (FERC No. 11080-00).

---. 1998. Data Update of Volume I to May 15, 1998, Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Riverside County, California (FERC No. 11080-003).

---. 1999. Final Request to FERC Request for Additional Information Dated December 12, 1998, Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 11080- 003).

Elam, Noram E. 1974. Soil Survey of the Palo Verde Area, California. USDA Soil Conservation Service with University of California, Agricultural Experiment Station. 37pp.

Frankel, Arthur D., Petersen, Mark D., Mueller, Charles, S., Haller, Kathleen M., Wheeler, Russell L., Leyendecker, E.V., Wesson, Robert L., Harmsen, Stephen C., Cramer, Chris H., Perkins, David, M., and Rukstales, Kenneth S. 2002. Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps. Open-File Report 02-420. U.S. Geological Survey.

Fraser, W.A. and Howard, J.K. 2002. Guidelines for Use of the Consequence-Hazard Matrix and Selection of Ground Motion Parameters. California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams.

GeoSyntec Consultants. 1992. Report of Waste Discharge: Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center. Mine Reclamation Corporation, Palm Springs, CA. 8 vols. [as referenced by EMEC, 1994].

---. 1996. Seismic Information Summary Report: Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center, Riverside County, California. Mine Reclamation. Corporation, Palm Springs, CA.

Idriss, I.M. 2007. Emperical Model for Estimating the Average Horizontal Values of Pseudo- Absolute Spectral Accelerations Generated by Crustal Earthquakes, Volume 1, Sites with Vs30 = 450 to 900 m/s. Interim Report Issued for USGS Review.

Jennings, Charles, W. 1967. Geologic Map of California, Salton Sea Sheet. California Geologic Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology).

---. 1994. Fault Activity map of California and adjacent Areas. California Geologic Data Map Series Map No. 6. California Division of Mines and Geology (now California Geological Survey).

Joyner, W. B. and D. M. Boore. 1988. Measurement, Characterization, and Prediction of Strong Ground Motion in Von Thun, J. Lawrence (ed.), Proceedings, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II - Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20. American Society of Civil Engineers. [as referenced by EMEC, 1994].

Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc. (Kaiser). 1990. Amendment to Reclamation No. 107, Eagle Mountain Iron Ore Mine. Riverside, CA. [as referenced by EMEC, 1994].

--- and Mine Reclamation Corp (Kaiser and MRC). 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. 636pp. [as referenced by EMEC, 1994].

Kim, C. 1993 (unpublished). Soil Survey of the Desert Center Area. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Fresno, CA. [as referenced by EMEC, 1994].

Knecht, A. A. 1980. Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area. USDA Soil Conservation Service with University of California, Agricultural Experiment Station. 89pp. [as referenced by EMEC, 1994].

Mualchin, L. and Jones, A.L. 1992. Peak Acceleration from Maximum Crdible Earthquakes in California. Open-File Report 92-01. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (now California Geological Survey).

Mine Reclamation Corporation. 1997 Revision to Surface Mine Reclamation Plan No. 107, Eagle Mountain Mine, Riverside, California. Prepared for Kaiser Eagle Mountain Inc., Ontario, California.

OSHPD (Office of the Statewide Health Planning and Development). 1995. Reconciliation between OSHPD review and seismic hazard mapping approaches to probabilistic seismic hazard assessments. Division of Mines and Geology, Status Report, dated January 18, 1995

Peterson, M.D. and Wesnousky, S.G. 1994. Fault Slip Rates and Earthquake Histories for Active Faults in Southern California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 84, pp. 1608-1649.

Proctor, R.J. 1993. Faults and Micro-Seismicity Investigations and Conclusions, Proposed Eagle Mountain Landfill Site, Riverside County, California. Mine Reclamation Corporation, Palm Springs, CA. 21pp.

Sadigh,, K., Chang, C.Y., Egan, J.A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R.R. 1997. SEA96 – A New Predictive Relation for Earthquake Ground Motions in Extensional Tectonic Regimes

in Ebel, J. (ed.), Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, January/February 1997.

Shlemon, R. J. 1993. Updated Report: Geomorphic and Soil-Stratigraphic Age Assessments, Alluvial Deposits, Proposed Eagle Mountain Landfill Site, Riverside County, CA. Mine Reclamation Corporation, Palm Springs, CA.

USGS. 2008. Seismic Hazard Database. http://earthquake.usgs.gov.research/hazmaps/interactive/cmaps/custom2002_2006.ph p. Accessed March 7, 2008.

Wesnousky, S.G. 1986. Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, pp. 12,587-12,631.

Wells, D.L. and Coppersmith, K.J. 1994. New Empirical Relationships Among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 974-1002.

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP). 1995. Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994 to 2024. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.85, No.2, pp. 379-439.

11.7 Literature Cited in Section 7 CVMSHCP, 2007 Coachella Valley Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan. http://www.cvag.org/

Kaiser Steel Resources, 1990. Amendment to Reclamation Plan No. 107. Eagle Mountain Iron Ore Mine. Riverside, CA.

Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc. and Mine Reclamation Corp. 1991. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact report for the Eagle Mountain Landfill Project. Site Specific Plan 252. 636p.

12 Documentation of Consultation

12.1 Description of consultation process

12.1.1 Preparation of the Pre-application Document Agency consultation began in September 2007, when an initial contact letter was sent to all parties on the FERC initial consultation contact list and the project mailing list. This letter requested information about resources that may be found in the project area. A copy of this letter was provided in the Eagle Mountain Pre-application Document (PAD) and was followed with phone calls and meetings with a number of the project stakeholders. Notes from those contacts were included in the Eagle Mountain Project PAD.

On January 10, 2008, Eagle Crest Energy Company (ECE) filed with the FERC, a PAD, notice of intent to file a license application (NOI), and a request to use the traditional licensing process (TLP) for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project. A project website was established at that time, and the PAD and all subsequent meeting notices and public documents have been posted on this site, http://www.eaglemountainenergy.us/. In addition, hard copies of the PAD, NOI, and request to use the TLP were sent to libraries in Blythe, Desert Center, and Indio, California for public review. A letter (text below) was sent to everyone on the stakeholder mailing list notifying them that these documents were available for public review.

Dear Stakeholder:

On January 10, 2008, Eagle Crest Energy Company (“ECE”) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission” or “FERC”), a pre-application document (“PAD”), notice of intent to file a license application (“NOI”), and a request to use the traditional licensing process (“TLP”) for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project.

The Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, located in Riverside County, California, will use off-peak energy to pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir during periods of low electrical demand and generate on-peak energy by conveying water from the upper to the lower reservoir through the generating units during periods of high electrical demand. The upper and lower reservoirs will be formed from existing mining pits. The Project will nominally provide up to 1,300 MW of generating capacity, developed with four reversible pump-turbine units, with each unit rated at 325 MW under the maximum gross head (1,572 feet).

The NOI, PAD, and request to use the TLP are available for public viewing at the project website www.eaglemountainenergy.us. They will also be available in hard copy at the Indio Library, 200 Civic Center Mall, Indio, CA 92201, and the Palo Verde Valley District Library, 125 W. Chanslorway, Blythe, CA 92225.

Any member of the public may make requests for these documents by contacting GEI Consultants, Inc. (GEI), 10860 Gold Center Drive, Suite 350, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670, (916) 631-4500 ATTN: Ginger Gillin. Critical Energy Infrastructure Information documents are not in the Public Reference File and must be requested directly from FERC.

We look forward to working with you on this project.

Sincerely,

Ginger Gillin, Project Manager GEI Consultants, Inc. 10860 Gold Center Drive Suite 350 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 (916) 631-4555

12.1.2 Request to use Traditional Licensing Process As described above, ECE made a request to use the TLP on January 10, 2008. Comments on the request to use the TLP were submitted to FERC by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC and Mine Reclamation, LLC. On March 4, 2008, the FERC granted ECE’s request for authorization to use the TLP.

12.1.3 Joint meeting and site visit On March 7, 2008, the following letter was sent to all persons on the stakeholder mailing list:

Dear Stakeholder,

On January 10, 2008, Eagle Crest Energy Company (“ECE”) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission” or “FERC”), a Pre-Application Document (PAD), Notice of Intent to file a license application (NOI), and a request to use the traditional licensing process (TLP) for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project.

On March 4, 2008 the FERC granted ECE’s request to use the TLP.

The Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, located in Riverside County, California, will consist of two reservoirs at different elevations and will use off-peak energy to pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir during periods of low electrical demand and generate on-peak energy by conveying water from the upper to the lower reservoir through the generating units during periods of high electrical demand. The upper and lower reservoirs will be formed from existing mining pits. The Project will nominally provide up to 1,300 MW of generating capacity, developed with four reversible pump-turbine units, with each unit rated at 325 MW under the maximum gross head (1,572 feet).

The NOI, PAD, and request to use the TLP are available for public viewing at the project website www.eaglemountainenergy.us. They are also available in hard copy for viewing at the Indio Library, 200 Civic Center Mall, Indio, CA 92201; Lake Tamarisk Library, P.O. Box 260, 43-880 Tamarisk Drive, Desert Center, CA 92239; and the Palo Verde Valley District Library, 125 W. Chanslorway, Blythe, CA 92225.

A joint meeting will be held on April 8, 2008. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend the meeting and to assist ECE in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in our licensing proceeding. The time and location of this meeting is as follows:

When: April 8, 2008; 1:00 PM (PST)

Where: University of California, Riverside - Palm Desert Graduate Center

Room B-200

75-080 Frank Sinatra Drive

Palm Desert, California 92211

Meeting Objectives

At the meeting, the Applicant’s representatives will: 1) describe the proposed Project; 2) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for project licensing; and 3) provide an opportunity for stakeholders to view informational displays about the project. Following the presentation, we will: 4) provide an opportunity for stakeholders to ask questions and comment on the proposed project. As required by FERC, the presentation and all questions and comments at the April 8 meeting will be formally recorded by a court reporter and all statements, oral and written, will become part of the Commission’s official public record for this project.

Site Visit

ECE will conduct a site visit of the project on April 9, 2008, from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM. All participants should meet at the U.C. Riverside Palm Desert Graduate Center at 9:00 AM. From there, participants will drive out to the project area in their own vehicles. Carpooling will be encouraged. Due to the lack of access, ECE will provide the opportunity for on-the-ground viewing at a distance from Eagle Mountain. The April 9 site visit is informational only and will not be formally recorded.

Anyone with questions about the meeting or site visit should contact Ginger Gillin with GEI Consultants, Inc. at (916) 631-4555.

We look forward to working with you on this project.

Sincerely,

Ginger Gillin, Senior Environmental Scientist GEI Consultants, Inc. 10860 Gold Center Drive, Suite 350 Sacramento, CA 95670 (916) 631-4555 (916) 631-4501 Fax The “joint meeting” was held on April 8, 2008, at the University of California-Riverside, Palm Desert, California. Transcripts from this meeting were filed with the FERC May 5, 2008. In addition, a site visit for all interested parties was held on April 9, 2008.

In addition to the formal “joint meeting”, informal contacts have been made with the managing agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service.

12.2 Letters from agencies, Indian tribes, and public

12.2.1 Letters received during comment period ending June 9, 2008 Comments and requests for studies were accepted from any interested party until June 9, 2008. Comments were submitted by Joshua Tree National Park, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Kaiser Ventures, LLC., and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP.

12.2.2 Response to comments and requests for studies The PAD provided a list of studies that ECE anticipated would be needed for licensing of the project. The proposed sites for the reservoirs are located on privately owned lands not currently accessible to the applicant, preventing the conduct of certain site-specific investigations that would normally be a part of the FERC license process. This situation will be remedied when the project receives a FERC license and the land can be purchased or leased under provisions of the Federal Power Act. For purposes of the analyses conducted in support of this License Application, extensive site-specific information was obtained from recent environmental documents, including the EIS/EIR prepared for the proposed landfill operation. This information will be supplemented with detailed studies to be conducted post- licensing, and as a condition of project implementation as deemed appropriate by FERC.

The status of the studies recommended in the PAD and their status is described in Table 12- 1.

Table 12-1. List of Studies Identified by ECE in the PAD, and Their Status Study Status Comments Updated seismic analysis of site Completed Results in Exhibit E Section 6 Evaluation of surface water source In progress Discussions are ongoing with MWD and potential water vendors

Study Status Comments Identify specific well sites and well In progress Updated water quality information presented in Exhibit E yields, efficiency, and water quality Section 2 Assess water use at State Prisons Completed Results included in the revised groundwater analysis, presented in Exhibit E Section 2 Characterize potential for metal Completed Results in Exhibit E Section 2 contamination of project waters Further development of details of Completed The conceptual plans for the RO are in Exhibit F. Details reverse osmosis facility will be developed during the design phase. Site specific surveys of wildlife, Planned Will be completed when site access is secured botanical resources, and special status species in the central project vicinity Site specific surveys of wildlife, Partially Sensitive plant surveys along the transmission corridor botanical resources, and special completed and pipeline area were completed spring 2008. Results in status species in the along linear Exhibit E Section 3. Tortoise surveys are only valid for features one year, therefore they are planned for 2009. Identify construction and operation Completed Pre-construction site specific surveys will be completed details that may impact wildlife and once final design is completed. sensitive status species Consultation with stakeholders on In progress Coordination with BLM and other stakeholders is transmission line details ongoing and will continue through the FERC licensing process Comprehensive visual resource Completed Results in Exhibit E Section 8 survey Cultural resource inventory of Completed A Class I cultural resource survey has been completed for linear features the transmission line. Results included in Exhibit E Section 4. Cultural resource inventory of Planned Surveys of the central project area will be completed central project area when site access is obtained. Due to the high level of disturbance on this site, cultural resources are expected to be minimal in the central project area. Assessment of impacts to local Completed Results in Exhibit E Section 5 communities Consultation - National Historic Ongoing Will continue as a part of FERC licensing process Preservation Act Identify locations requiring Completed Results in Exhibit E Section 4 additional cultural resource surveys

Table 12 -2 summarizes the comments received during the joint meeting, and in the comment period following the joint meeting. This table also summarizes the ECE’s response to these comments.

Table 12-2. ECE Response Summary Agency/Person Comment Summary ECE Response Glen Question and concern about what Review of geology and level one Eastman/MWD chemicals may leach out of mining pits contaminant survey does not indicate concern. Water treatment via reverse osmosis is proposed to maintain water quality. See Exhibit E Section 2 Beth Questions about the mine ownership and ECE does not propose to conduct any surface Hendrickson/Office status of mine reclamation. Comment on mining or other activities subject to the of Mine the question of whether we need to amend Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Reclamation the mine reclamation plan (SMARA). If FERC grants the license and the lands are acquired under terms of the Federal Power Act, reclamation of those specific lands may be deemed complete and no further action pursuant to SMARA required. ECE will cooperate with the Office of Mine Reclamation and Riverside County to amend the mine reclamation plan if this is deemed to be required. Greg Pelka/ State of California owns mineral rights in During the life of the project, it will not be California State the project area. Concern about impact of possible to mine in the east pit. ECE will Lands Commission the project on the potential for future work with the State of California to reduce mining. Questions about timing of CEQA the economic impact, if any. CEQA will and who will be lead agency. take place after FERC issues their notice of ready for environmental analysis. ECE expects the State Water Resources Control Board to be the lead agency, because of their permitting authority for water quality certification under the Clean Water Act. Terry Cook/Kaiser Questions about the timing of the project ECE’s evaluation of compatibility with the Eagle Mountain and licensing, studies that have been landfill is included in Exhibit E section 1. LLC conducted and are being conducted, location of stops for the site visit and others. Comment that the EIS for the landfill said it was incompatible with this Project. Donna Charpied/ Concern about potential overdraft of the ECE has conducted a thorough Center for Chuckwalla Valley aquifer. Concern hydrogeologic investigation (see Exhibit E Community Action about transmission line route conflicting section 2) which concludes that there is and Environmental with wilderness areas. adequate groundwater to support the project Justice without adversely affecting the Chuckwalla Valley aquifer. In addition, ECE is evaluating the potential for alternative sources of water to meet some or all of the project’s water needs. Transmission line will not traverse designated wilderness areas. Larry Charpied/ Concerns: about impact of pumping on Additional studies of Mr Charpied’s well

Agency/Person Comment Summary ECE Response Citizens of the water quality, because project is a net user were undertaken in response to this Chuckwalla Valley of electricity, that global warming may comment. This information was used as a mean less recharge to aquifer, water part of the updating of the groundwater rights, need to identify well locations, evaluation contained in this license need updated data on water supply (and application (Exhibit E Section 2). The energy willing to let ECE test his wells). usage of the project and the need for the Commented that solar power for homes project is described in detail in this and warehouses will make this project application. unnecessary.

Comments received after the joint meeting and ECE’s responses are summarized in Table 12- 3.

Table 12-3. Comments Received by June 9, 2008 on the Pre-application Document Agency Comment Response

Joshua Tree Concern about introduction of non-native See Section Exhibit E Section 3 National Park species (JTNP)

JTNP Wildlife response to water subsidization See Section Exhibit E Section 3

JTNP Subsidization of ravens See Section Exhibit E Section 3

JTNP Predation on desert tortoise See Section Exhibit E Section 3

JTNP, Kaiser, Noise concerns, study noise Project facilities will be underground, LBBS will therefore be low noise. Evaluation of noise impacts will be done in NEPA and CEQA process

JTNP, LBBS Night sky degradation Project facilities will be underground, minimal lighting will be needed, will be directed downward.

JTNP Concerned with potential impacts to See Exhibit E Section 2. Water quality groundwater quality, violation of Clean certification will be needed Water Act

JTNP Project use of groundwater could impact NPS information indicates that springs groundwater in the Park boundary in the Park are not hydrologically connected to Chuckwalla aquifer. See Exhibit E Section 2

JTNP New seeps or springs pose a potential NPS information indicates that springs negative impact to JTNP in the Park are not hydrologically connected to Chuckwalla aquifer. See

Agency Comment Response

Exhibit E Section 2

JTNP Reservoirs will change ecology of the Proposed project is in a highly National Park disturbed site with a very different and less sensitive ecology than occurs in the Park, more than two miles away. See Exhibit E section 2

JTNP A series of studies should be done to A series of studies has been done, see determine the potential impacts Exhibit E. Further analysis will be conducted during NEPA and CEQA compliance

Kaiser Eagle PAD does not include enough specificity See Exhibits A-G for more specific Mountain, LLC and about the project details about the project configuration Mine Reclamation, LLC (Kaiser)

Kaiser Need to assess need for project See Exhibit D

Kaiser Assess sources of power for Project See Exhibit D

Kaiser Assess whether increases in peak electrical See Exhibit D demand will flatten

Kaiser, LBBS Concern about compatibility with the See Exhibit E Section 1 landfill

Kaiser Assess cumulative impacts with the See Exhibit E. Additional work to landfill assess cumulative impacts will be done during NEPA and CEQA compliance

Kaiser, LBBS Need assessment of impacts to See Exhibit E Section 2 groundwater

Kaiser Need description of desalinization facility See Exhibit F

Kaiser What will be the level of drawdown in the See Exhibit E Section 2 groundwater?

Kaiser Provide details about P,M & E measures See Exhibit E

Kaiser Concerns about overtopping of reservoirs See Exhibit F

Kaiser Assess seepage control and potential See Exhibit E Section 2 and Exhibit F impacts

Agency Comment Response

Kaiser Concern about conflicts with landfill from See Exhibit F. Additional material for use of fine tailings as a seepage control seepage control may be brought on site

Kaiser Undertake studies of permeability of See Exhibit F, further studies will be materials for seepage control conducted when access to the site is obtained

Kaiser Concerned about climate change as a result No suggestions have been made on of constructing reservoirs how to assess this highly speculative impact

Kaiser Concerns about ecosystem change See Exhibit E section 3

Kaiser, LBBS Request studies of air quality impacts Will be done during NEPA and CEQA compliance

Kaiser Assess impacts of energy use Will be done during NEPA and CEQA compliance

Kaiser, LBBS Study traffic and access issues See Exhibit E

Kaiser Need to acknowledge the ongoing land This discussion in the license uses at Eagle Mtn mine application could be enhanced with additional information from Kaiser on the current activities that are taking place on the site

Kaiser, LBBS Discuss potential impacts to rock See Exhibit E Geology resources, geology

Kaiser Discuss mine reclamation plan See Exhibit E amendments

Kaiser, LBBS Assess visual impacts See Exhibit E

Kaiser, LBBS Assess economic viability See Exhibit D

Kaiser Provide more project design details See Exhibit F

Kaiser Does ECE plan to use the railroad? No

Kaiser Assess the impact on military training Information on the use of the land as a military training facility has not been made available

Kaiser Assess electromagnetic fields This assessment will be made during NEPA and CEQA compliance

Agency Comment Response

Lewis Brisbois PAD is inadequate in details on the project The PAD was prepared with close Brisgaard & Smith, and its economics attention to regulations regarding the LLC (LBBS) required content of the PAD 18CFR § 5.6 (2008).

LBBS Study solid waste disposal capacity in The Project will have no impact on southern CA solid waste disposal capacity in southern CA

LBBS Assess impact to surface water drainage See Exhibit E

LBBS Assess impact to wildlife See Exhibit E Section 3

LBBS Assess impacts to local workers See Exhibit E

LBBS Describe the maintenance and operation of See Exhibit B the project

Center for Analysis of past, present, future projects See Exhibit E Section 2 Community Action for negative impacts on groundwater and Environmental quality/overdraft and proposed measures to Justice (CCAEJ) mitigate

CCAEJ Location of water wells serving project See Exhibit E Section 2 area?

CCAEJ Assess impact to wildlife See Exhibit E Section 3

CCAEJ Analysis of soils for contaminants from Need more information on military past mining/mock military base activities uses on the project site from the landowner. Detailed surveys will be done once access is granted.

CCAEJ Describe materials/installation proposed See Exhibit F. Detailed surveys will be grout curtains done once access is granted.

CCAEJ Will USGS be involved? They are on the project mailing list

CCAEJ Conduct seismic studies See Exhibit E

CCAEJ Biological assessments & mitigation See Exhibit E, Section 3 measures to protect Park resources

CCAEJ Completely cover reservoirs to minimize Mitigation measures to deter birds and evaporation, deter weedy species described in Exhibit E

Agency Comment Response

CCAEJ Pinto well went dry in 1960’s See figures for water level in Pinto Basin over time in Exhibit E section 2

CCAEJ No new recharging to aquifer Exhibit E Section 2.1.8 describes groundwater recharge

12.3 Remaining disagreements

No remaining disagreements are evident based the comments received. Study requests that were received by the Applicant were general in nature and have either been accomplished or will be a part of the National Environmental Policy Act compliance process, and no study requests were received that complied with the requirements of 18 C.F.R. § 4.38(b)(5) (2008). 12.4 Compliance with comprehensive plans

12.4.1 FERC Approved Plans Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Power Act requires the applicant to review applicable federal and state comprehensive plans, and to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with the federal or state plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. A list of existing FERC-approved State of California and federal comprehensive plans was obtained from FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects, Washington, D.C., 20426. List of Comprehensive Plans, Revised April 2008). Of the comprehensive plans listed, Eagle Crest Energy Company identified and reviewed, or attempted to review, nine plans that are relevant to the Project. These plans are listed in Table 12-3.

Table 12-3. Review of FERC-Approved Comprehensive Plans FERC Approved Plan Plan Reviewed by ECE Comment

California Department of Parks California Department of Parks The 1998 report was updated, and Recreation. 1998. Public and Recreation. 2002. Public most recently in 2003. The newer opinions and attitudes on outdoor opinions and attitudes on outdoor plan was reviewed and the Eagle recreation in California. recreation in California. Mountain Pumped Storage Sacramento, California. March Sacramento, California. project found to be compatible. 1998. December 2003. California Department of Parks California Department of Parks The specified FERC-approved and Recreation. 1980. Recreation and Recreation. 2005. plans could not be located. A call outlook in Planning District 2. California’s Recreation Policy. to the California Department of Sacramento, California. April Parks and Recreation suggested 1980. 88 pp. review of more current California Department of Parks documents available on the and Recreation. 1980. Recreation Internet. The newer policy was outlook in Planning District 3.

FERC Approved Plan Plan Reviewed by ECE Comment

Sacramento, California. June reviewed and the Eagle Mountain 1980. 82 pp. Pumped Storage project found to be compatible. California Department of Parks California Department of Parks The 2002 plan supersedes the and Recreation. 1994. California and Recreation. 2002. California 1993 plan. The newer plan was outdoor recreation plan (SCORP) outdoor recreation plan (CORP) - reviewed and the Eagle Mountain - 1993. Sacramento, California. 2002. Sacramento, California. 78 Pumped Storage project found to April 1994. 154 pp. and pp. and appendices. be compatible. appendices. California Department of Water California Department of Water The 2005 plan supersedes the Resources. 1983. The California Resources. 2005. The California 1983 plan. The newer plan was water plan: projected use and water plan: A Framework for reviewed and the Eagle Mountain available water supplies to 2010. Action. Bulletin 160-05. Pumped Storage project found to Bulletin 160-83. Sacramento, be compatible. California. December 1983. 268 pp. and attachments. California Department of Water California Department of Water The 2005 plan supersedes the Resources. 1994. California water Resources. 2005. The California 1994 plan. The newer plan was plan update. Bulletin 160-93. water plan: A Framework for reviewed and the Eagle Mountain Sacramento, California. October Action. Bulletin 160-05. Pumped Storage project found to 1994. Two volumes and be compatible. executive summary. California State Water Resources California Regional Water The 2006 regional plan Control Board. 1995. Water Quality Control Board, State supersedes the 1995 plan. The quality control plan report. Water Resources Control Board. newer plan was reviewed and the Sacramento, California. Nine 2006. Water quality control plan Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage volumes. report, Colorado River Basin, project found to be compatible. Region 7. California - The Resources California Department of Parks The specified FERC-approved Agency. Department of Parks and and Recreation. 2005. plan could not be located. A call Recreation. 1983. Recreation California’s Recreation Policy. to the California Department of needs in California. Sacramento, Parks and Recreation suggested California. March 1983. review of more current 39 pp. and appendices. documents available on the Internet. The newer policy was reviewed and the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage project found to be compatible. State Water Resources Control California Regional Water The 2006 regional plan Board. 1999. Water Quality Quality Control Board, State supersedes the 1999 plan. The Control Plans and Policies Water Resources Control Board. newer plan was reviewed and the Adopted as Part of the State 2006. Water quality control plan Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Comprehensive Plan. April 1999. report, Colorado River Basin, project found to be compatible. Region 7.

Based on a review of the above-listed comprehensive plans and the proposed operation of the Project, including all proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures, the Project will be consistent with these comprehensive plans.

12.4.2 Other Comprehensive Plans In addition to the FERC- approved comprehensive plans, ECE reviewed other comprehensive plans for consistency with the Project. A discussion of Riverside County land use planning, Joshua Tree National Park General Management Plan, and the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan is included in Section 9.

California Desert Conservation Area Plan (1980 as amended, reprinted 1999). In 1976, Congress designated the 25-million-acre California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA). The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed a management plan for the CDCA in 1980, but conditions relative to species status, conservation programs, wilderness and national park designations, and other land uses have changed since the original plan was developed. In 1994, Congress passed the California Desert Protection Act which established the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve in the California desert. In 1999, the BLM reprinted the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, and stated their intention to revise the plan after the completion of four ongoing bio-regional management plans. The proposed Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Plan is described below.

The Proposed Project is compatible with the CDCA Plan and also with the California Desert Protection Act of 1994. None of the areas proposed project features will be constructed on lands designated as wilderness or National Park. The Desert Protection Act specifically states that Congress did not intend for the designation of wilderness areas in section 102 of this Act to lead to the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around any such wilderness areas. The fact that non-wilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within a wilderness, “shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.”

More information on the CDCA Plan is included in Section 9.

Proposed Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management (NECO) Plan. The BLM has completed a series of regional plan amendments, among them NECO Plan (BLM and CDFG, 2002), which encompasses 5.5 million acres in the southeastern California Desert and the entire Project footprint.

The NECO Plan identified the following issues that underlie the plan’s conservation and management program:

Adopt standards and guidelines for public land health

Recover two threatened species: the desert tortoise and Coachella Valley milkvetch

Conserve approximately 60 special-status animals and plants and natural communities

Resolve management issues of wild horses and burros along the Colorado River

Designate recreational/routes of travel

Resolve issues of the land ownership pattern

Resolve issues of resource access and regulatory burden

Incorporate changes created by the 1994 California Desert Plant Act.

In addition to a number of specific objectives and actions to meet the goals of the above issues, the NECO Plan provides for conservation and management of several special-status species, in large part through a system of broad management areas: Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) for desert tortoises, and Wildlife Habitat Management Areas (WHMAs) for other special-status species and natural communities (Figures in Section E.3). In both types of management areas, habitat improvements are prescribed to enhance the species of concern; DWMAs feature a one percent surface disturbance limit as well.

The proposed Project is consistent with the NECO plan because the impacts, species, and mitigation measures identified in the NECO plan were addressed in this document.

Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan. In June 1994, the final Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan was released (USFWS, 1994a). The 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 (Figures in Section E.3). The recovery plan works in concert with Critical Habitat (Figures in Section E.3), designated for the tortoise in 1994 (USFWS, 1994b) by prescribing management actions to aid recovery, with Critical Habitat providing legal protection.

The proposed Project is consistent with the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan because the concerns and recovery measures identified in the recovery plan were addressed in the license application and will be further addressed during consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Joshua Tree National Park General Management Plan (1995). The California Desert Protection Act changed the Joshua Tree National Monument into the Joshua Tree National Park (JTNP), and designated much of the lands within the Park as wilderness.

Subsequently, the JTNP developed the General Park Management Plan for the purpose of defining the general preservation and management goals and strategies for the JTNP.

The proposed Project is consistent with the Joshua Tree National Park General Management Plan because the general preservation and management goals and strategies identified in the general management plan were addressed in this application document. Eagle Mountain Mine Reclamation Plan #107. In 1978, Kaiser Steel Corporation filed a reclamation plan with Riverside County for the Eagle Mountain Mine. This reclamation plan was approved by Riverside County, pursuant to Riverside County Ordinance 555, in 1980. A revision to the mine reclamation plan was prepared by Mine Reclamation Corporation for Kaiser Eagle Mountain, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kaiser Ventures, Inc. both as successors of Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc and Kaiser Steel Corporation) in 1997. The revision of Reclamation Plan 107 for the Eagle Mountain Mine site is contingent upon approval of all final operating permits for the proposed landfill.

One component of the landfill proposal was an exchange of lands between Kaiser and the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). On September 25, 1997, BLM issued a Record of Decision approving the land exchange between itself and Kaiser, which was appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”). On September 20, 1999 the IBLA issued an order denying the appeal and affirming the land exchange. This decision was subsequently appealed to District Court who decided that “The subject land exchange and grants of rights of way and reversionary interest are set aside and the Defendants are enjoined from engaging in any action that would change the character and use of the exchanged properties…” until they complied with the changes requested by the decision. Donna Charpied et al., v. United States Dept. of Interior et al., ED CV99-0454 RT (Mcx) (Sept. 20, 2005); Nat’l Parks and Conservation Assoc., v. Bureau of Land Mgmt, et al., ED CV 00-0041 RT (Mcx) (Sept. 20, 2005).

Permitting for the landfill is contingent upon Kaiser being the fee owner of the property (See Development Agreement No. 64 Section 2.2; California Integrated Waste Management Board Resolution 1999-624 (revised); and California Integrated Waste Management Board, Board Meeting Summary December 14-15, 1999).

Therefore, until the land exchange is effectuated, the landfill is not permitted. The revision of Reclamation Plan #107 does not take effect until the landfill is permitted, so the original reclamation plan (dated 1978, approved in 1980) is still in effect.

The 1978 Reclamation Plan gives this description of the ultimate condition of the site:

“At the completion of mining activities at Eagle Mountain, all machinery will be removed from the site. All shop and plant superstructure will be dismantled and removed. All visible man-made waste materials and scrap will be removed. All concrete foundations will be backfilled and leveled over with a minimum of one foot of gravel. Exposed utility lines will be removed. Access to all pits will be controlled with rock berms to prevent ingress by vehicular traffic. Pit bench slopes will be allowed to weather to their natural angle of repose. Rock waste dumps and tailings piles will remain at their natural angle of repose which has proven to support voluntary growth of vegetation.”

It is ECE’s intention to implement the terms of the reclamation plan within the project boundary if there are any measures (described above) that have not yet been completed. At that point, the land within the project boundary will be reclaimed, and will meet the requirements of the reclamation plan. ECE does not propose to conduct any surface mining or other activities subject to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). If FERC grants the license and the lands are acquired under terms of the Federal Power Act, reclamation of those specific lands may be deemed complete and no further action pursuant to SMARA required. ECE will cooperate with the Office of Mine Reclamation and Riverside County to amend the mine reclamation plan if this is deemed to be required.

12.5 Consultation List Contacts with stakeholders were made via email and the U.S. Postal Service. Table 12-4 contains a list of everyone contacted by email. This list was modified during the consultation period as new contacts were added and deleted. This is the list as of May 20, 2008.

Table 12-4. Consultation List, Email Addresses Name Email Agency

Peggy Bartels [email protected] USFWS

Richard Begay [email protected] Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Mike Bennett [email protected] BLM

John Beuttler [email protected] California Sportfishing Protection Alliance Gregor Blackburn [email protected] FEMA CFM Steve Bowes [email protected] NPS Julie Branchini [email protected] Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

Donald Bryce [email protected] USBR

Name Email Agency

Kelly Catlett [email protected] Friends of the River Donald Clarke [email protected] Law Offices of GKRSE Joan Clayburgh [email protected] Sierra Nevada Alliance Terry Cook [email protected] Kaiser Eagle Mountain/Mine Reclamation Tom Covey [email protected] S.P. Pazargad Jim Crenshaw [email protected] California Sportfishing Protection Alliance Thomas Davis [email protected] Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Paul DePrey [email protected] NPS

David DeRosa [email protected] Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

Renata DiBattista [email protected] City of Indio Donna Charpeid [email protected] Desert Communities Protection Campaign Jim Edmondson [email protected] California Trout Veronica Evans [email protected] Lake Tamarisk Library Michael Flores [email protected] Cal F&G

Brian Folsom [email protected] MWD Tom Gey [email protected] BLM Kit Gonzales [email protected] Cal Office of Mine Reclamation

Beth Hendrickson [email protected] Cal Office of Mine Reclamation ov Greg Hill [email protected] BLM Daniel Hyde [email protected] Lewis, Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP John Scott [email protected] USACE David Jones [email protected] Riverside County David Jump [email protected] Cathedral City John Kalish [email protected] BLM Claude Kirby [email protected] BLM

Curtis Knight [email protected] California Trout Arthur Lowe [email protected] Eagle Crest Energy Company Mark Massar [email protected] BLM Doug McPherson [email protected] USBR Richard Milanovich [email protected] Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Sean Milanovich [email protected] Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

Name Email Agency

G reg Pelka [email protected] California State Lands Commission Jim Porter [email protected] California State Lands Commission Michael Postar [email protected] Duncan Weinberg Genzer and Pembroke PC Nate Rangel [email protected] California Outdoors Rekha Rao [email protected] Law Offices of GKRSE Richard Roos- [email protected] Natural Heritage Institute Collins Perry Rosen [email protected] Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Steve Rothert [email protected] American Rivers Luke Sabala [email protected] NPS Curt Sauer [email protected] NPS Traci Sheehan Van [email protected] California Wild Heritage Campaign Thull Nicholas Sher [email protected] Cal PUC James Sheridan [email protected] Cal F&G Cheri Sprunck [email protected] Placer County Water Agency Eric Theiss [email protected] NOAA Fisheries Michael Vamstad [email protected] NPS Steve Wald [email protected] California Hydropower Reform Coalition Gary Watts [email protected] California State Parks Britt Wilson [email protected] Morongo Band of Mission Indians

Table 12-5 lists everyone who was contacted by letter during the consultation process. This list was modified during the consultation period as new contacts were added and deleted. This is the list as of May 20, 2008.

Table 12-5. Consultation List, Street Addresses First Last Title Organization Organization 2 Address City State Zip Name Name 1

John Rydzik Acting Director Bureau of Indian Palm Springs Field PO Box 2245 Palm Springs CA 92262 Affairs Office Ronald Jaeger Regional Director Bureau of Indian Pacific Regional Office 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento CA 95825 Affairs Tom Dang Regional Engineer Bureau of Indian Pacific Regional Office 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento CA 95825 Affairs Virgil Townsend Superintendent Bureau of Indian Southern CA Agency 2038 Iowa Avenue, Suite 101 Riverside CA 92507-0001 Affairs Director Bureau of Land CA STATE OFFICE 2800 Cottage Way Ste Sacramento CA 95825-1886 Management W1834 Ann McPherson Environmental Regional Office 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco CA 94105 Protection Agency Regional Engineer Federal Energy Portland Regional Office Portland CA 97204-3217 Regulatory 101 SW Main St., Ste 905 Commission National Marine Regional Office 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive La Jolla CA 92037-1508 Fisheries Service Regional Director National Marine 501 W Ocean Blvd, Ste 4200 Long Beach CA 90802-4221 Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps State District Office, 1325 J Street Sacramento CA 95814 of Engineers REGULATORY BRANCH/PERMITS

U.S. Army Corps Divisional Office 333 Market Street San Francisco CA 94105-2197 of Engineers Regulatory Branch

First Last Title Organization Organization 2 Address City State Zip Name Name 1

Mark Durham U.S. Army Corps State District Office, 911 Wiltshire Blvd, P.O. Box Los Angeles CA 90053 of Engineers REGULATORY 532711 BRANCH/PERMITS

U.S. Army Corps Southern CA Area 40015 Sierra Highway, Suite Palmdale CA 93550 of Engineers Office B145 Supervisor U.S. Fish and 2493 Portola Rd Ste B Ventura CA 93003-7726 Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Pacific Southwest 1323 Club Drive Vallejo CA 94592 Service Region District Chief U.S. Geological WATER RESOURCES PLACER HALL –6000 J Sacramento CA 95819-6129 Survey DIVISION STREET, SUITE 2012 Charlton Bonham Hydropower Trout Unlimited 1808B 5th Street Berkeley CA 94701 Coordinator Arthur Lowe PRESIDENT EAGLE CREST P.O. Box 2155 Palm Desert CA 92261 ENERGY COMPANY Larry Charpied CCV P.O. Box 321 Desert Center CA 92239 Terry Cook Kaiser Eagle 3633 Inland Empire Blvd., Ontario CA 91764 Mountain/Mine Suite 480 Reclamation Gary Johnson Mine 74924 Country Club Dr Ste Palm Desert CA 922601969 Reclamation, 150 LLC CA Air PO Box 2815 Sacramento CA 95812-2815 Resources Board CA Department Regional Office 3602 Inland Empire Blvd, Ontario CA 91764 of Fish and Suite C-220

First Last Title Organization Organization 2 Address City State Zip Name Name 1 Game Mike Meinz FERC Relicensing CA Department 1701 Nimbus Rd Ste A Rancho CA 95670-4503 Coordinator of Fish and Cordova Game WATER RIGHTS CA Department 1419 9th Street Sacramento CA 95814 & FERC of Fish and COORDINATOR Game

13 Appendix A – Details of Sensitive Species

13.1 Plants Abram’s Spurge (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 2). This prostrate annual (Family: Euphorbiaceae) is found on sandy flats in the Mohave and Sonoran Desert, at elevations below approximately 650 feet (Hickman, 1993). Possible locations on the Project would be the sandier soils in various parts of the Coachella Valley (primarily north of Desert Center) and also east of approximately Graham Pass Road, including the Ford Dry Lake area. There is an extant population near the transmission line, just east of the Ford Dry Lake exit (CNDDB 2008; Figure E.3-9) that was observed in 2008 Project surveys. This species was not seen elsewhere in the 2008 surveys or on several previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM and IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004). This may be largely due to its growth and flowering in the fall; most plant surveys are conducted in the spring, coincident with the growth and flowering of most California desert species.

Arizona Spurge (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 2). This prostrate to erect perennial (Family: Euphorbiaceae) is found on sandy flats of the Sonoran Desert, below approximately 1,000 feet (Hickman, 1993). While CNPS locations are restricted to the western portion of the desert (CNPS, 2002), the species’ range extends to Texas (Hickman, 1993). As such, possible populations could grow along sandier portions of the Project route, especially north of Desert Center and east of approximately Graham Pass Road. This species was not seen on several previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM and IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

Ayenia (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 2). This perennial herb (Family: Sterculiaceae) is known from rocky canyons in Mohavean and Sonoran desert scrubs, below 1,600 feet (Hickman, 1993). The range includes Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties, Arizona, Sonora (Mexico), and Baja California (CNPS, 2007). There are several records in the vicinity of the Project (CNPS, 2007). Potential locations along the Project would be the upper bajada and in the area around the Central Project Site. This species was not seen on several previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM and IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

California Ditaxis (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 3). This herbaceous perennial (Family: Euphorbiaceae) is found in sandy loam soils, especially associated with the edges and low islands of runnels and washes (Karl, field notes). It has been recorded from southern San Bernardino County through much of Riverside County, to Arizona, and into Sonora, Mexico (CNPS, 2007). California ditaxis was found to be relatively common in

Shavers Valley, south of the Project, in 1985 (Karl and Uptain, 1985) (Figure E.3-2). Recorded elevations are approximately 2,000 to 3,000 feet (CNPS, 2007). During 2008, California ditaxis was found on the bajada south of the hydropower plant (Table 3-2, Figure E.3-9) and is most likely to be found on the Project west of the eastern extent of the Chuckwalla Mountains. It has not been generally sought on recent project surveys along the transmission line routes because the species is a CNPS List 3 plant and is therefore not eligible for CEQA analysis. However, NECO has included this species as a special-status species, so we sought it in Spring 2008 Project surveys.

Cove’s Cassia (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 2). This subshrub (Family: Fabaceae) occupies sandy microsites (washes and slopes) in Sonoran Desert scrub habitats. It ranges from the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem in southeastern California (San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial counties) to Arizona, Baja California, and Sonora, Mexico. The elevational range is approximately 1,000 to 3,500 feet (CNPS, 2007). NECO records for this species are for the Chuckwalla Mountains and northeast in the Whipple Mountains (Figure E.3-10), but CNPS (2007) has records for Chuckwalla Valley as well as other sites. Based on the geographic range, habitat associations, and previous surveys on this line, Cove’s cassia could occur in Chuckwalla Valley. However, it was not seen in 2008 nor on several previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM and IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

Crucifixion Thorn (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 2). This much-branched, thorny shrub (Family: Simaroubaceae) is found on gravelly slopes in Mojave and Sonoran desert scrub vegetation, typically in association with drainages (Hickman, 1993). The species range is the southern Mojave and Sonoran deserts, from California east and south to Arizona and Sonora, Mexico.

One individual was found on the bajada south of the Central Project Site in the Eagle Mountain Landfill studies (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996; Figure E.3-2). NECO records this species at 13 scattered locations throughout the plan area. In 2002, this species was observed south of the Little Chuckwalla Mountains (BLM and IID, 2003). It has not been observed in 2008 or on previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM and IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

Desert Unicorn Plant (USFWS: None; BLM: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 4). This herbaceous perennial to subshrub (Family: Martyniaceae) is found throughout southern California deserts, east to Texas and south to Baja California and Sonora, Mexico (Baldwin et al., 2002; CNPS, 2007). It is associated with the warmer, wetter Sonoran desert scrubs and subtropical thornscrubs below approximately 3,300 feet. Associated soils are generally considered to be sandy (Baldwin et al., 2002; CNPS, 2007; Karl, field notes). The entire Project area is possible habitat for this species (Figure E.3-10’; NECO, 2002; CNPS, 2007) although it was not observed during 2008 Project surveys.

Desert Sand Parsley (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 2). Desert sand parsley (Family: Apiaceae) is an annual herb that is known only from one location, at Hayfield Dry Lake (CNPS 2007). The macrohabitat is Sonoran Desert scrub, at El.1,300 feet. The microhabitat is undescribed, with the exception that Hickman (1993) describes the occupied soils as heavy soil under shrubs. Since so little is known about this species, it has the potential, albeit unlikely, to occur along most of the Project. It was not observed during 2008 Project surveys.

Flat-seeded Spurge (USFWS: None; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 1B). This prostrate annual (Family: Euphorbiaceae) is found on sandy flats and dunes in the Sonoran Desert, at elevations below approximately 350 feet (CNPS, 2007). The range extends from the western boundaries of the Colorado Desert in California to western Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. It is known from only five sites in California, one of which (San Bernardino County) needs verification (CNPS, 2007). Possible locations on the Project would be the sandy soils in various parts of the Coachella Valley (primarily north of Desert Center) and east of approximately Graham Pass Road. This species was not seen in 2008 or on several previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM and IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

Foxtail Cactus (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 4). This cactus typically grows in clumps of several, cylindroid, unbranched stems 4 to 6 inches long and covered in white, dark-tipped spines, 1/2 to 5/8 inches long (Benson, 1969). It occupies sandy to rocky soils in creosote bush scrub habitats in southeastern California, between 250 and 4,000 feet in elevation (Hickman, 1993). Over 280 foxtail cacti were observed on the Central Project Site and bajada to the south in the Eagle Mountain Landfill studies (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996). NECO (2002) identifies much of the NECO planning area as the range of this species (Figure E.3-11) and several individuals were found on the bajada south of the Central Project Site during Spring 2008 Project surveys (Table 3-2, Figure E.3-2) and previous surveys (BLM and IID, 2003; Karl, 2002). The species has also been observed on previous surveys west of the Project transmission line route, just north of the Chuckwalla Mountains (BLM and IID, 2003; Karl, 2002).

Glandular Ditaxis (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 2). This herbaceous perennial (Family: Euphorbiaceae) is found from the Coachella Valley to Arizona and Sonora, Mexico at elevations below approximately 1,500 feet (Hickman, 1993; CNPS, 2007). Occupied habitats include sandy soils in Mojave and Sonoran creosote bush scrubs. This species is similar to other species of Ditaxis, but is thinly strigose and the leaf blades and sepals subtending female flowers are glandular-serrulate (Munz and Keck, 1968; Hickman, 1993). Aerial portions of the plant die back during dry periods; as such, it often is not evident during drought. One location near the Project is located south of Interstate 10 (Figures E.3-2 and E.3-9; NECO, 2002; CNDDB, 2008), so glandular ditaxis is possible on most of the Project site, with the exception of the upper bajadas near the Central Project Site. It was not observed during 2008 Project surveys.

Harwood’s Milk-vetch (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 2). This annual herb (Family: Fabaceae) grows in dunes and windblown sand in Mojave and Sonoran creosote bush scrubs, at El. 300 to 1200 feet (Munz and Keck, 1968; Hickman, 1993). Common associates include Chaenactis fremontii, Schismus arabicus, Plantago ovata, Abronia villosa, Oenothera deltoides, Cryptantha angustifolia, and Lotus strigosus.

The geographic range includes northwestern Mexico, northeastern Baja California, southeastern Arizona, and southeastern California (Hickman, 1993; Felger, 2000). In California, reported locations are eastern Riverside, Imperial, and San Diego Counties (CNPS, 2007). (See also Figure E.3-11 for the range in the NECO Planning Area.) During 2008 Project surveys, one Harwood’s milkvetch was observed just west of the Ford Dry Lake exit (Table 3-2, Figure E.3-9). On previous surveys in the Project, Harwood’s milkvetch was observed from east of Colorado River Substation west to approximately Graham Pass Road; it was also in the aeolian area between the 161 kV line and Colorado River Substation (EPG, 2004; Karl, 2005). While the surveys for the Desert Southwest Project along the existing 161 kV line did not identify any Harwood’s milkvetch populations near Ford Dry Lake (BLM and IID, 2003) there is ample habitat for the species along that route from approximately two miles west of the Ford Dry Lake exit to approximately two miles east of the Wiley Well Road Exit (Karl, 2004).

Jackass Clover (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 2). This annual herb in the caper family (Capparaceae) is an uncommon species of dunes, sandy washes, roadsides, and alkaline flats in Sonoran and Mojave Desert scrubs (Baldwin et al., 2002; CNPS, 2007). The range is southern California to Texas (Baldwin et al. 2002). Elevations are reported as 1,980 to 2,650 feet (Baldwin et al., 2002; CNPS, 2007), although CNDDB (2008) cites a record east of SR 177 in Chuckwalla Valley at 445 ft. There are no aeolian habitats or playas near the Central Project Site in this portion of Chuckwalla Valley, so the likelihood of the species on the project is highly unlikely. It was not observed in 2008 surveys. NECO cites a different variety of jackass clover, W. refracta var. palmeri for the dunes around Palen Dry Lake, north of the Project transmission line (Figure E.3-11).

Las Animas Colubrina (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 2). This medium-tall shrub (Family: Rhamnaceae) grows in Sonoran Desert Creosote Bush Scrub below 3,000 feet (Hickman, 1993; CNPS, 2007). It is known from Riverside County south and east to Arizona and Mexico. Near the ROW, this species is known from Chuckwalla Valley area and Chuckwalla Bench (Figure E.3-12). As such, the entire ROW, especially the upper bajadas near the Central Project Site, should be considered habitat. However, it was not observed in 2008 or on previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM and IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

Mesquite Nest Straw (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 1A). This annual herb (Family: Asteraceae) is known in California from a single 1930 collection at Hayfield Dry Lake. Its range also extends to southeastern Arizona and northeastern Sonora, Mexico

(CNPS, 2007). Known occupied habitat is open, sandy drainages below 1,200 feet (Hickman, 1933). The lack of distinctly identified habitat and range precludes identification of specific portions of the route where the species may be growing. As such, the entire Project should be considered as potential habitat. This species was not observed in 2008 or on previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM and IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

Orocopia Sage (USFWS: None; BLM: Sensitive CDFG: None; CNPS: List 1B). This species (Family: Lamiaceae) is known from Riverside and Imperial counties near the Chocolate and Orocopia mountains. The elevational range is approximately 100 to 2,800 feet (Hickman, 1993; CNPS, 2007). Habitat is varied Sonoran Desert scrubs, although known sites are gravelly to rocky alluvial fans and canyons.

This species is currently known only from the Orocopia Mountains (Figure E.3-10) and was observed during the Eagle Mountain Landfill studies along the Eagle Mountain Railroad, on the bajada south of the landfill site (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996). However, it was not observed during 2008 Project surveys nor on previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM [IID, 2003; Karl 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

Slender Woolly-heads (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 2). This annual herb (Family: Polygonaceae) grows in dune habitats in southern California, Arizona, and northwest Mexico (CNPS, 2007). Although the California observations for this species are all substantially west and south of the Project (CNPS, 2007), the geographic range and habitat associations of slender woolly-heads suggest that it may be found in the incipient dunes west of Wiley Well road to Colorado River Substation. It was not observed in 2008 or on previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM [IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

Spearleaf (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 2). Spearleaf (Family: Asclepiadaceae) is an herbaceous perennial occupying rocky desert scrub habitats from San Bernardino County south to Baja California and east to Texas (CNPS, 2007). Known elevations are approximately 1,400 to 3,600 feet (Baldwin et al., 2002; CNPS, 2007). Based on its habitat associations and geographic range, it is possible, albeit unlikely, on the upper bajada and ravines inside the Central Project Site (Figure E.3-12). It was not observed in 2008 or on previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM [IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

Spiny Abrojo (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; CNPS: List 4). This uncommon shrub (Family: Rhamnacea) is found in Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub (Munz and Keck, 1968; Baldwin et al., 2002) in Riverside and Imperial Counties, Arizona, and northern Mexico, at elevations of approximately 500 to 3,300 feet (CNPS, 2007). NECO reported that this species is most commonly associated with canyons and gravelly soils; 47 records were from

Chuckwalla Bench and the Chocolate Mountains (Figure E.3-11). Based on habitat requirements and range, this species is possible on the Project in the vicinity of the Central Project Site and on the upper bajada adjacent to the Chuckwalla Mountains, although it was not observed in 2008 nor on previous surveys of the transmission line corridor (BLM [IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

13.2 Invertebrates Cheeseweed Owlfly (USFWS: None; CDFG: None). This species occupies creosote bush scrub in rocky areas (Borror and White, 1970) and is often found near streams (CNDDB, 2001). O. clara has a larval stage that probably exceeds one year (AGFD, 2003), and an adult stage of roughly three to four days (Faulkner, 1990b; AGFD, 2003). The short-lived emergence of the adult in April or May appears to coincide with years of high winter precipitation (BOR no date). O. clara resides in scattered locations throughout the deserts of southeastern California, western Arizona, and southern Nevada [Faulkner, 1990a and b; Wiesenborn, 1998; Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2003; Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program [LCRMSCP], 2004]. It has been collected in Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, California; Yuma, La Paz, and Mohave Counties, Arizona; and Clark County, Nevada (Wiesenborn, 1998; LCRMSCP, 2004). The species is known from relatively few, perhaps less than 15, scattered populations (Faulkner, 1990a; Wiesenborn, 1998; AGFD, 2003); however, it undoubtedly has a more extensive distribution than is now known (Faulkner, 1990b). Given the limited knowledge about its distribution, this species could be present on the entire Project.

13.3 Amphibians Couch’s Spadefoot (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). This species is found from extreme southeastern California, to southwestern Oklahoma, and south across Texas into central Mexico and Baja California. Habitat includes shortgrass plains, mesquite savannah, creosote bush desert, thornforest, tropical deciduous forest, and other areas of low rainfall (Stebbins, 2003). These individuals remain in subterranean burrows for most of the year, emerging to breed in temporary pools after or during periods of rainfall, both winter rains and summer monsoons. Thus, breeding may occur from April or May to September. Breeding can also occur in slow streams, reservoirs, or ditches (Jennings and Hayes, 1994).

This species has the greatest potential to occur naturally along the eastern portion of the transmission line, based on its geographic range. However, the possibility that it may occur elsewhere on the Project should be considered. This may be especially true in the artificial impoundments that may also subsidize reproduction by providing breeding habitat. These include the temporary/permanent impoundments on the Central Project Site, such as the East Pit and other reservoirs and water treatment facilities. Larvae of red-spotted toad (a non- sensitive native species) was observed at the bottom of the East Pit and in the reservoir just south of the East Pit in May 1990 by Brown (1990). They were also observed in 1993 in a

pooled area of Eagle Creek Wash (ECE and MDU, 2001). Along the proposed transmission line/pipeline route, approximately two miles east of Kaiser Road, irrigation effluent has created temporary pools a few meters long and wide and approximately 15 centimeters deep, with sufficient algal growth to indicate that water stands sufficiently long to accommodate amphibian breeding. Whether this condition is present annually or in which seasons is unknown. Wells 05 and 16, should they become part of the Project, may offer breeding possibilities.

13.4 Reptiles Chuckwalla (USFWS: Species of Concern; CDFG: None). The range of this lizard includes Utah and Nevada south to the west coast of Sonora and most of the east coast of the Baja Peninsula in Mexico (Stebbins, 2003). (See Figure E.3-13 for the range of the species in the NECO Planning Area; BLM and CDFG, 2002.) Chuckwallas are relatively common in areas of rock outcroppings and large boulders and are often seen basking on rocks in the sun.

Chuckwalla were detected during 2008 Project surveys (Table 3-2, FigureE.3-9), during surveys for the Eagle Mountain Landfill (County of Riverside and BLM,1996) and in most suitable rock outcrops in the Project vicinity on previous surveys of the transmission line (BLM and IID, 2003; Karl, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and 2007 field notes; EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004).

Desert Rosy Boa (USFWS: Species of Concern; CDFG: None). Desert rosy boa inhabits primarily rocky sites in the southern Mojave and the Sonoran deserts of California and Arizona (Stebbins, 2003). While permanent water is not a requirement, this species can often be found near permanent or ephemeral streams. It is primarily a nocturnal species. On the Project, the most likely locations for desert rosy boa are near the Central Project Site (Figure E.3-22).

Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard (USFWS: None; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). This species can be found in the deserts of Inyo, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties in California (Palermo no date) at elevations from 300 to 3,000 feet (Stebbins, 2003). It inhabits Arizona in Yuma County south of Parker (Stebbins, 2003). (See Figure E.3-13 for the range of the species in the NECO Planning Area; BLM and CDFG, 2002.) This species is restricted to loose, windblown sand from dunes, flats, riverbanks, and washes, where vegetation, especially woody perennials, is often scant.

In the Project area, Mojave fringe-toed lizards have been observed from the Colorado River Substation west to approximately Graham Pass Road (EPG, 2004; Blythe Energy, 2004; Karl, 2005, and 2007 field notes). During 2008 Project surveys, several individuals were observed in that area (Table 3-2, Figure E.3-9). Mojave fringe-toed lizards have also been observed in the aeolian soils near the Ford Dry Lake exit (Karl, field notes). Habitat exists for the species in the aeolian and hummocky soils from Graham Pass Road to Colorado River

Substation, including the interconnect between the 161 kV line and Colorado River Substation (EPG, 2004; Karl, 2005).

13.5 Birds Bendire’s Thrasher (USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; Audubon: Watchlist). The breeding range of Bendire’s thrasher extends from Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico to Utah, New Mexico, and Inyo County, California. Although migratory, this species may be a year-round resident in the southern portions of its range (Sinaloa, Mexico) (England and Laudenslayer, 1993). Occupied habitat includes fairly open areas with substantial vertical structure, such as washes and woodlands with scattered shrubs and trees (CNDDB, 2001; National Geographic Society, 2002). Rarely is dense vegetation used (England and Laudenslayer, 1993). NECO cites desert succulent scrub (e.g., Yucca spp. and columnar cacti) and microphyll woodland with palo verde trees as occupied habitats in southeastern California.

There is a substantial amount of open desert dry wash woodland on the Project’s transmission line and Bendire’s thrasher may be present (Figure E.3-14).

Black-tailed Gnatcatcher (USFWS: None; CDFG: None; Audubon: Watchlist). The black- tailed gnatcatcher is a year-round resident in north-central and northwest Mexico, including Baja California, as well as southern California north to Inyo County and east to southwest Texas. It is normally found in arid lowland and montane scrub habitats, but is more typical of desert habitats, commonly among mesquite or creosote scrub, and particularly along washes or ravines (Terres, 1980; American Ornithologists’ Union [A.O.U.], 1998; National Geographic Society, 2002).

Black-tailed gnatcatcher is a common inhabitant of the arboreal washes of the region and is likely to be found on the entire Project site in appropriate habitat. It was observed on Spring 2008 surveys for the Project (Table 3-2, Figure E.3-15).

Burrowing Owl (USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). This is an owl of open grasslands, prairies, deserts, and farms. It is also common on golf courses, road cuts, and ruderal sites in arid habitats and is highly subsidized in the broad agricultural valleys (e.g., Palo Verde Valley, Imperial Valley). It breeds from southern Canada south throughout much of the United States west of the Mississippi and Mexico, typically wintering in warmer areas. Nesting occurs primarily in burrows built by other species, including ground squirrels, kit fox, badger, and desert tortoise.

Burrowing owl could be found throughout the Project site (Figure E.3-14).

California Horned Lark (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). This species is a common inhabitant of open habitats, including desert scrub, short-grass prairies, desert playas, and agricultural fields in stubble or cultivation (AOU, 1998; Terres, 1980). It

is a resident over much of the United States, breeding throughout North America (National Geographic Society, 2002).

Habitat for this species exists on the entire Project.

Cooper’s Hawk (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). Cooper’s hawk is a broadly distributed species, having a year-round residency through most of the continental United States and north-central Mexico, extending its breeding range into southern Canada and its non-breeding range to Central America (Rosenfield and Bielefeldt, 2006). It may breed at desert oases and has historically nested along the lower Colorado River, although habitat loss along the Colorado appears to have reduced the breeding population (Garrett and Dunn, 1981). Occupied habitats include deciduous, mixed and evergreen forests and deciduous riparian habitat (see review in Rosenfield and Bielefeldt, 2006).

This species was not observed during surveys in the Project area, although it may be found near the Central Project Site or in the more densely vegetated arboreal washes.

Crissal Thrasher (USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). The crissal thrasher is a resident of the southwestern United States at lower elevations from southern California north to southern Inyo County, southern Nevada, and extreme southwest Utah, and south into central Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico. It is also found locally in the Mexican Plateau as far as central Mexico (A.O.U., 1998). This species is fairly common in the Colorado River Valley, but has been in decline for decades in the Imperial, Coachella, and Borrego Valleys (Dobkin and Granholm, [no date]). (See Figure E.3-14) for the range of the species in the NECO Planning Area; BLM and CDFG, 2002.) The crissal thrasher is quite secretive by habit and may be found in riparian thickets and among dense vegetation, often mesquite or saltbush, in arid lowland and montane scrub (A.O.U., 1998; Ehrlich et al., 1988; National Geographic Society, 2002).

On the Project, it may be found in the more developed arboreal washes. If observed, it may be more likely to be a transient due to the lack of high quality vegetation.

Ferruginous Hawk (USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; Audubon: California Watchlist). This species is a winter resident in California and the southwest, into Mexico. It forages over open habitat, preying on rodents, rabbits, and other small prey.

This species has not been observed on other surveys in the Project area, although the entire Project constitutes winter foraging habitat for this species (Figure E.3-16).

Golden Eagle (USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: Species of Special Concern, Fully Protected). This species is a resident of foothill, mountainous, and open country, foraging over deserts, farmland, and prairies for small mammals, snakes, and

birds. It is a year-round resident throughout most of western North America. Nesting occurs in cliffs and large trees.

The entire Project constitutes foraging habitat for this species (Figure E.3-16). While no nesting habitat occur onsite, the mountains adjacent to much of the Project, especially near the Central Project Site, may provide nesting sites. One individual was observed during the Spring 2008 surveys near Well 20 (Table 3-2, Figure E.3-15).

LeConte’s Thrasher (USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; Audubon and USBC: Watchlist). LeConte’s thrasher is sparsely and locally distributed in southern California, western Arizona, southern Nevada, and extreme southwestern Utah (Schram, 1998; NatureServe, 2003). It is generally restricted to the lowest, hottest, and most barren desert plains, particularly in saltbush and creosote bush habitats (Terres, 1980). Le Conte’s thrasher prefers dense chollas for nesting but will also nest in palo verde, mesquite, ocotillo, and sagebrush (Terres, 1980).

Although not observed in 2008, one to several LeConte’s thrashers were observed during most of the previous surveys in the Project area (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996; Karl, 2002; BLM and IID, 2003; EPG, 2004; TetraTech EC, Inc., 2005). Habitat for this species exists on the entire Project (Figure E.3-14), although the most likely segments are dominated by blue palo verde and/or Mojave Yucca.

Loggerhead Shrike (USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). Loggerhead shrike is widely distributed across the United States (National Geographic Society, 2002) and is a fairly common resident of the southwestern deserts (Schram, 1998). It occupies many habitats, including both native habitats and agricultural parcels. In California it may be found in desert, piñon-juniper woodland, savannah, grassland, ranches, and agricultural land (Small, 1977).

In previous surveys in the Project area, several individuals of loggerhead shrike were observed during each of the surveys (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996; Karl, 2002; BLM and IID, 2003; EPG, 2004; TetraTech EC, Inc., 2005). Habitat for this species exists in the entire Project vicinity. One individual was observed during Spring 2008 surveys (Table 3-2, FigureE.3-15).

Merlin (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). This species is a winter resident in California and the extreme-southern United States into Mexico. It inhabits a variety of habitats, nesting in wooded sites in trees, cliffs, or on the ground. The entire Project site constitutes winter foraging habitat for this species.

Mountain Plover (USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; Audubon and USBC: Watchlist). The geographic range of the mountain plover includes the plains of the west-central United States (breeding range) and the lower

valleys and plains of central and southern California, Arizona, southern Texas, northern Mexico, and Baja California Norte (wintering range) (Knopf, 2006).

This species is associated with open, flat areas with low sparse vegetation, especially shortgrass prairies or sparse habitats with patches of bare ground. Most birds winter in California on alkaline flats, cultivated fields, burned or heavily grazed grasslands, or post-harvest alfalfa fields (Rosenberg et al., 1991; Knopf, 2006). The largest wintering population is in Imperial Valley, and the species has been described as an “uncommon transient and irregular winter resident” of the lower Colorado River basin (http://www.lcrmscp.org 1999). (See Figure E.3-16 for the range of the species in the NECO Planning Area; BLM and CDFG, 2002.)

This species is known from Palen Dry Lake (BLM and CDFG, 2002) but is unlikely to occur on the Project, except as winter visitor to agricultural fields.

Northern Harrier (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). This is a hawk of open habitats, with the habit of flying close to the ground. It is relatively uncommon in the desert and, in the area of the Project, is primarily a winter resident.

This species has a low likelihood of occurrence on the Project, although one individual was observed in surveys for the Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996).

Prairie Falcon (USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). This species is a year-round resident of the western United States. (See Figure E.3-16 for the range of the species in the NECO Planning Area; BLM and CDFG, 2002.) It inhabits open country, including deserts and prairies, occasionally hunting in woodlands. Nesting occurs in cliffs.

One prairie falcon was observed during area surveys (Karl, 2002), although the entire Project constitutes winter foraging habitat for this species. The mountains adjacent to much of the Project may provide nesting sites.

Short-eared Owl (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). This species is an uncommon winter resident of the southern United States into Mexico. It inhabits a variety of open-country habitats, including marshes, agricultural fields, deserts, and prairies. Short- eared owl also frequents areas intermixed with brush and woodland, provided there is ample open grassland to hunt (Glinsky, 1998). It both hunts over these habitats, chiefly at dawn and dusk, and roosts there during the day.

While not observed during surveys in the Project area, this species may be a winter resident on the entire Project.

Sonoran Yellow Warbler (USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). This species frequents willows, poplars, and other streamside trees and

shrubs, town shade trees, open woodlands, orchards, and moist thickets. The range for the species includes all of North America, south through Central America, and the West Indies to northern South America. The subspecies sonorana is confined to the Colorado River Valley from Nevada to Mexico, and possibly the Imperial Valley.

Habitat for this species on the Project is marginal. It may occur on the Central Project Site. One individual was observed at the Eagle Mountain townsite reservoir during 1990 surveys (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996).

Vermilion Flycatcher (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). Vermilion flycatcher occupies wooded or shrubby sites near water. Commonly associated trees are mesquite, willows, and cottonwoods. The species is mainly a resident from southern California to the southwestern tip of Utah, western and southern Texas, and south throughout Baja California, Mexico, Honduras, western South America, and the Galapagos Islands. (See Figure E.3-16 for the range of the species in the NECO Planning Area; BLM and CDFG, 2002.)

Habitat for this species on the Project is lacking except, perhaps, on the Central Project Site. Hence the species is unlikely to occur on the Project.

Yellow-breasted Chat (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). The breeding range for the species includes most of the United States, slightly extending into Canada and Mexico. Nesting habitat is composed of dense, nearly impenetrable thickets in riparian or foothill situations (Ryser, 1985).

On the Project, the species may be transient, but habitat is generally lacking. One individual was observed at the Eagle Mountain townsite reservoir during 1990 surveys (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996). Another was observed on the surveys for the Desert Southwest Transmission Line Project (BLM and IID, 2003).

13.6 Mammals American Badger (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). American badgers are found on the flats and alluvial fans next to desert mountains (Hoffmeister, 1986). They occupy a wide variety of habitats in California, but open, uncultivated land appears to be a requirement (CDFG, 1986b).

Habitat is available for American badgers throughout the Project. Badger signs were observed during 2008 Project surveys (Table 3-2, Figure E.3-15) and during 1989-90 and 1995 surveys for the Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996).

Arizona Myotis (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; Western Bat Working Group (WBWG): Medium Priority). Myotis occultus historically occurred in extreme

Southeastern California and Sonora, Mexico, to western Chihuahua, Mexico, and northward in Arizona and western New Mexico (Barbour and Davis, 1969). In California, this species occurred only along the Colorado River lowlands and in the adjacent desert mountain ranges (CDFG, 1997; BLM and CDFG, 2002). It has not been observed in California since 1969 and is likely extirpated from the state (although it is common elsewhere).

NECO (BLM and CDFG, 2002) identifies the range of this species in California as overlapping the eastern portion of the Project, near Colorado River Substation (Figure E.3- 17).

Big Free-tailed Bat (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; WBWG: Medium to High Priority). This species is distributed from extreme southern California east to far western Texas and south nearly to northeastern Argentina (Milner et al., 1990; Constantine, 1998). There are also some isolated occurrences along the coast of California to San Francisco (Constantine, 1998), British Columbia, Kansas, and Iowa (Milner et al., 1990). N. macrotis is primarily an inhabitant of rugged, rocky country and has been found in rock crevices of cliffs and under boulders and rock ledges (Barbour and Davis, 1969; Jameson and Peters, 1988); it will also roost in buildings and occasionally in trees (Milner et al., 1990). Documented plant associations have included riparian woodland, desert scrub, desert dry wash woodland, evergreen forest, and mixed tropical deciduous and thorn scrubs (Hoffmeister, 1986; see review in Milner et al., 1990). Jameson and Peters (1988) reported that it was an uncommon resident in pinyon-juniper regions of the arid parts of California. Elevations in the United States are generally below 1,800 meters (6,000 feet) (Milner et al., 1990).

On the Project site, this species will most likely be found near the Eagle and Chuckwalla mountains.

Burro Deer (USFWS: None; CDFG: Game Species). Burro deer are the desert subspecies of mule deer, occupying dense microphyll woodland habitat throughout the Colorado Desert where there are adequate water sources (Figure E.3-18). While not a special-status species, it is a managed game species.

This species was observed in 2008 Project surveys (Table 3-2, Figure E.3-15) and has been observed on other surveys in the Project area (EPG, 2004). It will be found throughout most or all of the Project in arboreal drainages. Many of the more well-developed drainages occur near the Chuckwalla and Eagle mountains, but there are also moderately dense microphyll drainages east of the Chuckwalla Mountains. California Leaf-nosed Bat (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; WBWG: High Priority). California leaf-nosed bat occurs from southern Nevada, southern California, and Western Arizona southward through Baja California Sur and Sonora, Mexico (Barbour and Davis, 1969). In California, it occupies the low-lying desert areas. It formerly inhabited the coastal basins of southern California, but populations have disappeared there due to loss of foraging habitat (CDFG, 1983). (Also see Figure E.3-19 for the range of the species in the

NECO Planning Area; BLM and CDFG, 2002.) Occupied habitats include manmade structures (deserted mine tunnels, deserted buildings, bridges, culverts (Tatarian, 2001), and caves (CDFG, 1983). NECO notes that the two largest roosts are in mines in extreme southeastern California (BLM and CDFG, 2002). Temperature requirements restrict roosts to mines with temperatures of approximately 80ºF (BLM and CDFG, 2002).

During surveys for the Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center, a population of California leaf-nosed bats was observed at Kaiser Mine between 1990 and 1993; none was found in any other locatable mines in the Eagle and Coxcomb Mountians (Brown, 1996). A maximum of 60 bats was found, all males. In 1996, a re-survey found a fewer animals but there was a maternity cluster and bats were found at Kaiser Mine, Black Eagle Mine, and a U-shaped tunnel at the scales (Brown, 1996).

Colorado Valley Woodrat (USFWS: None; CDFG: None). The Colorado Valley woodrat is a subspecies of the white-throated woodrat (N. albigula), inhabiting desert habitats in Imperial, San Diego, and Riverside counties. Occupied plant communities include creosote bush scrub, mesquite bosques, woodland, chaparral, and piñon-juniper, often where cholla (Cylindropuntia sp.) and prickly pear cacti (Opuntia spp.) are present (Hoffmeister, 1986).

Colorado Valley woodrat may be found throughout the Project, based on habitat associations (Figure E.3-19).

Nelson’s Bighorn Sheep (USFWS: None; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: None). Nelson’s or desert bighorn are widely distributed from the White Mountains in Mono County to the Chocolate Mountains in Imperial County (CNDDB, 2001). They live most of the year close to the desert floor in canyons and rocky areas (Ingles, 1965). In summer, they move to better forage sites and cooler conditions in the mountains. Migration routes can occur across valleys between mountain ranges.

BLM management of desert bighorn sheep is guided by the Mountain Sheep Ecosystem Management Strategy (EMS) in the 11 Western States and Alaska (BLM, 1995). The EMS goal was to “ensure sufficient habitat quality and quantity to maintain and enhance viable big game populations, and to sustain identifiable economic and social contributions to the American people” (BLM and CDFG, 2002). This management plan identified eight metapopulations, two of which are included in the NECO Planning Area: the Southern Mojave and Sonoran metapopulations. These metapopulations were further divided into demes, or populations. The Project is located in the Southern Mojave Metapopulation, adjacent to the Eagle Mountain deme and near the Coxcomb deme.

NECO further provides for enhancing the viability of these populations through maintenance of genetic variability, providing connectivity between demes, enhancing and restoring habitat, augmenting depleted demes, and re-establishing demes. To this end, a Bighorn Sheep Wildlife Habitat Management Area (WHMA) has been established that encompasses

and connects the Eagle Mountain and Coxcomb demes (BLM and CDFG, 2002) (Figure E.3- 20).

Bighorn scat was observed at Central Project Site site during 1989-90 and 1995 surveys for the Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center and during related project surveys (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996). A two-year study for the landfill project (Divine and Douglas, 1996) identified a reproductive population of 21±9 sheep overlapping the northern and western portion of the mine. Sheep were found within the landfill project boundaries in all four seasons, with ewes using the western end of the mine complex for lambing and other activities.

Pallid Bat (USFWS: None; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; WBWG: High Priority). The pallid bat is found in arid, low-elevation habitats from Mexico and the southwestern United States north through Oregon, Washington, and western Canada. It is found throughout most of California, where it is a yearlong resident (CDFG, 2005c). (See Figure E.3-17 for the range of the species in the NECO Planning Area; BLM and CDFG, 2002.) Antrozous pallidus occupies a wide variety of habitats, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. This species is most common in open, dry habitats below 200 meters (660 feet), with rocky areas for roosting (Findley et al., 1975; CDFG, 2005c). While rock crevices, caves, and mine tunnels are common roosts, roosts may also include the attics of houses, eaves of barns, hollow trees, and abandoned adobe buildings (Davis and Schmidly, 1994). Although it may be found in the absence of rocky terrain or water (Findley et al., 1975), water is important because of the high proportion of protein in this insectivorous bat’s diet and because of their high rates of evaporative water loss. Overall, accessible surface water, suitable maternity roost sites, and food are critical components of good habitat (Chung-MacCoubrey, 1995).

One pallid bat was captured and guano was observed at two adits west of the Project during 1990 surveys of the Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996). Based on available habitat, this species is possible near the Central Project Site.

Pocketed Free-tailed Bat (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; WBWG: Medium Priority). This species is found in arid lowlands of the southwest, ranging from Baja California and southwestern Mexico through southwestern Texas, southern New Mexico, south-central Arizona, and southern California (Kumairi and Jones,1990; Pierson and Rainey, 1998). One source (California Department of Health Services cited in Pierson and Rainey, 1998) suggested that pocketed free-tailed bats could be expected anywhere in southern California south of the San Bernardino Mountains. (See Figure E.3-21 for the range of the species in the NECO Planning Area; BLM and CDFG, 2002.) Reported elevational ranges include sea level to 2,250 meters (7,400 feet) (Kumairi and Jones, 1990).

Habitats used by the pocketed free-tailed bat include pinyon-juniper woodlands, desert scrub, desert succulent shrub, desert riparian, desert wash, alkali desert scrub, Joshua tree, and palm oasis (CDFG, 1983). In several collecting studies in Texas, Arizona, and northern Mexico, N. femorosaccus was collected in pine (Pinus) – oak (Quercus) forests, floodplains and low, arid valleys in desert scrubs (creosote bush, giant dagger [Yucca carnerosana], candelilla [Euphorbia antisyphilitica], sotol [Dasylirion leiophyllum]) and in river plain arroyo habitats (mesquite [Prosopis spp.] and sycamores [Platanus]). Cliffs or hills with rocky ledges were always adjacent to the trapping sites (see review in Kumairi and Jones, 1990). In California, this species has been found only in the Lower and Upper Sonoran life zones, associated with creosote bush and chaparral habitats (Pierson and Rainey, 1998). Pocketed free-tailed bat roosts primarily in rock crevices or under boulders on slopes and cliffs (Cockrum, 1956; Barbour and Davis, 1969); it has also been observed to roost in buildings and under roofing tiles (Barbour and Davis, 1969; Jameson and Peters, 1988).

On the Project site, this species may be found in association with the Central Project Site, near the Eagle Mountains.

Southwestern Cave Myotis (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; WBWG: Medium Priority). Myotis velifer brevis is distributed from extreme southeastern California eastward to western New Mexico and south to Guatemala (Williams, 1986). In California, it was historically known only from caves and buildings in the lowlands of the Colorado River and adjacent desert mountain ranges (Vaughan, 1959 in CDFG, 1986). NECO cites that the large colonies known from abandoned mines in the Riverside Mountains adjacent to the Colorado River are no longer inhabited by cave myotis, except for a few animals (BLM and CDFG, 2002). Only two maternity roosts along the Colorado River are known to currently exist.

M. velifer brevis uses a variety of temporary roosts: buildings, caves, and mine tunnels (CDFG, 1986; Williams, 1986). During breeding season, in spring and summer, they form large colonies in warm caves and mines and less often in buildings and other structures (Barbour and Davis, 1969). Surveys in 1959 found that, in the vicinity of the Riverside Mountains, M. velifer brevis foraged primarily over the floodplain of the Colorado River (Vaughn, 1959 in CDFG, 1986). Optimal foraging habitat included dense, linear stands of mesquite, tamarisk, and catclaw acacia bordering still water of oxbow ponds (Williams, 1986).

This species is unlikely to occur in the Project area (Figure E.3-17).

Spotted Bat (USFWS: None; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; WBWG: High Priority). Initially thought to be extremely rare, the spotted bat is now known to occupy a rather large range throughout central western North America from southern British Columbia to northern Mexico (Bat Conservation International, 2005) and possibly southern Mexico (Watkins, 1977). In the United States, it is most common in California, Arizona,

New Mexico, southern Colorado, and southern Utah (Barbour and Davis, 1969). Occupied habitats in California are broad, ranging from below sea level in arid desert regions, through grasslands, to montane coniferous forests (Watkins, 1977). The species is apparently dependent on rock crevices in cliffs for refugia (Easterly, 1973 in Watkins, 1977; Bat Conservation International, 2005). Foraging has been observed in forest openings, pinyon juniper woodlands, large riverine habitats, riparian habitat associated with small to mid-sized streams in narrow canyons, wetlands, meadows, and old agricultural fields.

Based on habitat associations, this species is most likely to occur near the Central Project Site or the Chuckwalla Mountains.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (USFWS: None; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; WBWG: High Priority). Townsend's big-eared bat is found throughout western North America, from British Columbia south to Oaxaca, Mexico. (See Figure E.3-21 for the range of the species in the NECO Planning Area; BLM and CDFG, 2002.) In California, C. t. townsendii inhabits the humid coastal regions of northern and central California and C. t. pallescens resides in the remainder of the State, including desert regions (Zeiner et al., 1990). The species is known from both mesic and desert habitats, coastal lowlands, cultivated valleys, and hills of mixed vegetation types (see review in Kunz and Martin, 1982). In California, the species has been encountered in every natural community in California except alpine and subalpine (Zeiner et al., 1990). Elevational limits range from sea level to above 3,160 m (10,000 feet) (see review in Kunz and Martin, 1982). The species has been found in limestone and gypsum caves, lava tubes, and human-made structures such as mine tunnels and buildings (Williams, 1986). Townsend’s big-eared bat requires roosting, maternity, and hibernacula sites and may use separate sites for each behavior (Williams, 1986; Zeiner et al., 1990b).

Evidence of Townsend’s big-eared bat was found at an Eagle Mountain underground adit during 1990 surveys of the Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996). Based on available habitat, this species is possible near the Central Project Site.

Western Mastiff Bat (USFWS: None; BLM: Sensitive; CDFG: Species of Special Concern; WBWG: High Priority). In the United States, western mastiff bat is found in California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Mexico. In California, it is widely distributed, including significant populations in northern California, the central and southern coast ranges, and many Sierra Nevada river drainages, as well as southern California (Los Angeles, Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties) (Constantine, 1998; Pierson and Rainey, 1998). (See Figure E.3-21 for the range of the species in the NECO Planning Area; BLM and CDFG, 2002.) It is a non-migratory resident of caves and buildings, but makes seasonal movements throughout the year (Jameson and Peeters, 1988). Mastiff bats prefer dry, open-country habitats, and because of their very large size appear to be unable to launch themselves from the ground. They require daytime roosts with crevices high enough to provide drop-off clearance for flight. These crevices can be in cliffs, trees, tunnels, or high

buildings, usually with a minimum vertical drop of at least 20 feet (Barbour and Davis, 1969). For raising young, tight, very deep crevices are required in rock faces or buildings (Zeiner et al., 1990). After young are independent, colonies often rotate among alternate day roost locations (Barbour and Davis, 1969) depending on temperature or other microclimate factors. The western mastiff bat is non-migratory and active year round (Zeiner et al., 1990).

No western mastiff bats were observed during 1990 bat surveys of the Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center (County of Riverside and BLM, 1996). But, based on available habitat, this species is possible near the Central Project Site.

Yuma Puma (USFWS: None; CDFG: Species of Special Concern). The puma is a large, uniformly colored, tawny to grayish cat with a brown-tipped tail. In the NECO planning area, it is found from JTNP to the Colorado River (Figure E.3-18), in direct association with burro deer populations (BLM and CDFG, 2002).

While not previously observed on area surveys, this species is possible throughout the Project area where microphyll woodland habitat supports burro deer. Many of the more well- developed drainages that may be inhabited by deer occur near the Chuckwalla and Eagle Mountains, but there are moderately dense microphyll drainages east of the Chuckwalla Mountains as well.

14 Appendix B- Species List

Table B-1. Wildlife and plant species observed in the Project area (Karl 2004). Scientific Name Common Name REPTILES Callisaurus draconoides Zebra-tail Lizard Cnemidophorus tigris Western Whiptail Crotalus cerastes Sidewinder C. mitchelli Speckled Rattlesnake Dipsosaurus dorsalis Desert Iguana Gambelia wislizenii Leopard Lizard Gopherus agassizii Desert Tortoise Masticophis flagellum Coachwhip Phrynosoma platyrhinos Desert Horned Lizard Sauromalus obesus Chuckwalla Sceloporus magister Desert Spiny Lizard Uma scoparia Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard Urosaurus graciosus Brush Lizard Uta stansburiana Side-blotched Lizard MAMMALS Ammospermophilus Antelope Ground Squirrel leucurus Canis latrans Coyote (scat) Dipodomys sp. Kangaroo Rat (burrows) Equus asinus Feral Burro Lepus californicus Black-tailed Hare Neotoma lepida Desert Woodrat (midden) Odocoileus hemionus Desert Mule Deer eremicus Thomomys bottae Pocket Gopher Spermophilus Round-tailed Ground tereticaudus Squirrel Sylvilagus audubonii Desert Cottontail Vulpes macrotis Desert Kit Fox (digs, scat) BIRDS Auriparus flaviceps Verdin Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Campylorhynchus Cactus Wren brunneicapillus Callipepla gambelii Gambel’s Quail Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture

Scientific Name Common Name Catherpes Mexicana Canyon Wren Chordeiles acutipennis Lesser Nighthawk Corvus corax Common Raven Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler Eremophila alpestris California Horned Lark Falco mexicanus Prairie Falcon Geococcyx californianus Greater Roadrunner Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Mimus polyglottos Mockingbird Myiarchus cinerascens Ash-throated Flycatcher Phainopepla nitens Phainopepla Piranga ludoviciana Western Tanager Polioptila melanura Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Salpinctes obsoletus Rock Wren Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Zonotrichia albicollis White-crowned Sparrow PLANTS Abronia villosa Sand Verbena Acacia greggii Catclaw Acacia Achyronychia cooperi Frost-mat Allionia incarnata Windmills Allysum fremontii Desert Allysum Ambrosia acanthicarpa Annual Bursage A. dumosa White Bursage A. (=Hymenoclea) Cheesebush salsola Argemone munita Chicalote Aristida purpurea Three-awn Arundo donax Giant Reed Asclepias albicans Buggy-whip Milkweed A. subulata Desert Milkweed Astragalus aridus Astragalus A. didymocarpus A. insularis var. Harwood’s Milkvetch harwoodii A. lentiginosus var. Coachella Valley coachellae Milkvetch Atrichoseris platyphylla Gravel-ghost Atriplex canescens Four-winged Saltbush A. hymenelytra Desert Holly A. lentiformis Quailbush A. polycarpa Allscale Baileya pauciradiata Desert Marigold

Scientific Name Common Name B. pleniradiata Woolly Marigold Bebbia juncea Chuckwalla Bush Bouteloua spp. Grama Grass Brandegea bigelovii Brandegea Brassica tournefortii Mustard Calyptridium monandrum Sand-cress Camissonia arenaria Sun Cup C. boothii decorticans Bottlebrush Primrose C. brevipes Sun Cup C. palmeri Palmer Primrose C. claviformis Brown-eyed Primrose Cercidium floridum Blue Paloverde (=Parkinsonia florida) Chaenactis carphoclina Pebble Pincushion C. fremontii Fremont’s Pincushion Chamaesyce polycarpa Spurge C. setiloba Bristle-lobed Sand Mat Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow Chorizanthe brevicornu Brittle Spine-flower C. rigida Rigid Spinyherb Croton californica Croton Cryptantha angustifolia Forget-me-not C. micrantha Purple-rooted Forget-me- not C. maritima White-haired Forget-me- not C. nevadensis Nevada Forget-me-not C. pterocarya Wing-nut Forget-me-not Cucurbita palmata Palmate-leaved Gourd Cuscuta sp. Dodder Cylindropuntia Staghorn Cholla acanthocarpa C. bigelovii Teddybear Cholla C. echinocarpa Silver Cholla C. ramosissima Pencil Cholla (C. wigginsii) Wiggins’s Cholla Dalea mollis Silk Dalea D. mollissima Silk Dalea Datura wrightii Jimsonweed Dicoria canescens Desert Dicoria Ditaxis californica California Ditaxis D. lanceolata Lance-leaved Ditaxis D. neomexicana Ditaxis D. serrata Saw-toothed Ditaxis Dithyrea californica Spectacle-pod

Scientific Name Common Name Echinocactus Cottontop Cactus polycephalus Echinocereus Hedgehog Cactus engelmannii Emmenanthe Whispering Bells penduliflora Encelia farinosa Brittlebush E. frutescens Rayless Encelia Ephedra californica Mormon Tea E. nevadensis Mormon Tea Eremalche rotundifolium Desert Five-spot Eriastrum diffusum Phlox Eriogonum deflexum Skeleton Weed E. inflatum Desert Trumpet Erioneuron pulchellum Fluff Grass Eriophyllum lanosum Woolly Eriophyllum Erodium cicutarium Filaree Eschscholtzia Gold-poppy glyptosperma E. minutiflora Small-flowered Gold- poppy Escobaria vivipera var. Foxtail Cactus alversonii Fagonia pachyacantha Chinese Lanterns Ferocactus cylindraceus Barrel Cactus Fouquieria splendens Ocotillo Funastrum Climbing Milkweed (=Sarcostemma) cynanchoides hartwegii Geraea canescens Desert Sunflower Galium proliferum Desert Bedstraw Gilia spp. Phlox Hesperocallis undulata Desert Lily Hibiscus denudatus Rock Hibiscus Hoffmannseggia Little-leafed microphylla Hoffmannseggia H. glauca Pig-nut Hordeum marinum Barley Hyptis emoryi Desert Lavender Isomeris arborea Bladderpod Justicia californica Beloperone Krameria grayi White Rhatany Langloisia setosissima Spotted Sunbonnet punctata Larrea tridentata Creosote Bush

Scientific Name Common Name Lepidium fremontii Desert Allysum L. lasiocarpum Pepper Grass Loeseliastrum schottii Schott Gilia Lotus strigosus Hairy Lotus Lupinus sp. Lupine Lycium andersonii Anderson Boxthorn L. brevipes Fruitilla Malacothrix glabrata Desert Dandelion Mammillaria tetrancistra Fish-hook Cactus M. grahamii var. grahamii Fish-hook Cactus (=milleri) Marina parryi Parry Dalea Mentzelia involucrata Sand Blazing Star Mentzelia sp. Blazing Star Mimulus bigelovii var. Monkeyflower bigelovii Mirabilis laevis Wishbone Bush (= bigelovii) Mohavea confertifolia Ghost Flower Monoptilon bellioides Mojave Desert-star Nama demissum Purple Mat Nicotiana obtusifolia (= Desert Tobacco trigonophylla) Oenothera deltoides Dune Primrose Oligomeris linifolia Mignonette Olneya tesota Ironwood O. basilaris Beavertail Cactus Palafoxia arida (= Spanish Needle linearis) Pectocarya penicillata Hairy-leaved Comb-bur P. recurvata Arch-nutted Comb-bur Perityle emoryi Emory Rock Daisy Petalonyx thurberi Sandpaper Plant Peucephyllum schottii Desert Fir Phacelia campanularia Campanulate Phacelia P. crenulata Notch-leaved Phacelia P. fremontii Yellow-throats P. tanacetifolia Heliotrope Phoradendron Desert Mistletoe californicum Physalis crassifolia Ground-cherry Plantago ovata Plantago Pleuraphis rigida Big Galleta Pluchea sericea Arrow-weed Polypogon sp. Rabbit’s Foot Grass

Scientific Name Common Name Porophyllum gracile Odora Proboscidea althaefolia Devil’s Claw Prosopis glandulosa Honey Mesquite P. pubescens Screwbean Mesquite Prunus fasciculatum Desert Peach Psathyrotes ramosissima Turpentine Plant Psorothamnus Indigo Bush arborescens var. simplicifolus P. emoryi Emory Dalea P. fremontii Indigo Bush P. schottii Indigo Bush P. spinosus Smoke Tree Rafinesquia Chicory neomexicana Salazaria mexicana Paperbag Bush Salsola tragus Russian Thistle Salvia columbariae Chia Schismus arabicus Arabian Grass Senna armata Desert Senna Simmondsia chinensis Jojoba Sisymbrium irio Mustard Sphaeralcea ambigua Desert Mallow S. angustifolia Fendler Globe Mallow Stephanomeria parryi Parry Rock-pink S. pauciflora Desert Straw Stillingia paucidentata Stillingia S. spinulosa Broad-leaved Stillingia Stylocline micropoides Desert Nest-straw Streptanthella longirostris Mustard Tamarix parviflora Tamarisk Tiquilia palmeri Palmer Coldenia T. plicata Plicate Coldenia Tidestromia oblongifolia Honey-sweet Tribulus terrestris Caltrops Trichoptilium incisum Yellow-head Xylorhiza tortifolia Mojave Aster Yucca schidigera Mojave Yucca Ziziphus obtusifolia var. Gray-leaved Abrojo canescens