DOCSLIB.ORG

Palen Solar Project Water Supply Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Palen Solar Project Water Supply Assessment Palen Solar Project Water Supply Assessment Prepared by Philip Lowe, P.E. February 2018 Palen Solar Project APPENDIX G. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Project Location and Description ...................................................................................... 1 3. SB 610 Overview and Applicability .................................................................................... 3 4. Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin .............................................................................. 4 4.1 Basin Overview and Storage ......................................................................................................... 4 Groundwater Management ............................................................................................................ 5 4.2 Climate .......................................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Groundwater Trends ...................................................................................................................... 5 4.4 Groundwater Recharge .................................................................................................................. 7 Subsurface Inflow ......................................................................................................................... 7 Recharge from Precipitation .......................................................................................................... 8 Irrigation Return Recharge ............................................................................................................ 9 Wastewater Return Flow ............................................................................................................... 9 Colorado River Aqueduct ............................................................................................................ 10 4.5 Groundwater Demand/Outflow ................................................................................................... 10 Subsurface Outflow ..................................................................................................................... 10 Groundwater Extraction .............................................................................................................. 10 Evapotranspiration at Palen Dry Lake ......................................................................................... 11 5. Groundwater Budget ......................................................................................................... 12 5.1 Baseline Groundwater Budget..................................................................................................... 14 Normal (Average) Year ............................................................................................................... 14 Dry Year ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Multiple Dry Years ...................................................................................................................... 19 5.2 Groundwater Budget with Palen Solar and Cumulative Projects ................................................ 20 Normal (Average) Year ............................................................................................................... 20 Dry Year ...................................................................................................................................... 28 Multiple Dry Years ...................................................................................................................... 28 Analysis Summary ...................................................................................................................... 36 5.3 Groundwater Budget Reliability Considerations......................................................................... 37 6. Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................................. 38 7. References ......................................................................................................................... 41 Tables Table 1 Subsurface Inflow Recharge Estimates for the Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin ........ 7 Table 2 Precipitation Recharge Estimates for the Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin ................. 8 Table 3 CVGB Inflow/Outflow Summary .......................................................................................... 13 Table 4 Estimated Baseline Groundwater Budget for the Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin ... 14 Table 5 Estimated Baseline Groundwater Budget for the Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin Using NPS Estimates of Precipitation and Subsurface Inflow. ............................................. 15 Table 6 Estimated Dry Year Groundwater Budget for the Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin .. 17 February 2018 i Final Supplemental EIS/EIR/LUPA Palen Solar Project APPENDIX G. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Table 7 Estimated Critical Dry Year Groundwater Budget for the Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin ...................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 8 Estimated Dry Year Groundwater Budget for the Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin Using NPS Estimates of Precipitation and Subsurface Inflow .............................................. 18 Table 9 Estimated Critical Dry Year Groundwater Budget for the Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin Using NPS Estimates of Precipitation and Subsurface Inflow ....................................... 18 Table 10 Baseline Multiple Dry Year Groundwater Budget in Acre Feet Using Adopted Estimates of Precipitation and Subsurface Inflow. ................................................................................. 19 Table 11 Baseline Multiple Dry Year Groundwater Budget in Acre Feet Using NPS Estimates of Precipitation and Subsurface Inflow. ..................................................................................... 20 Table 12 CVGB Groundwater 30-Year Budget in Acre Feet for Average Precipitation Year with Palen Solar Project in Place Using Adopted Estimates of Precipitation and Subsurface Inflow. .................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 13 CVGB Groundwater 30-Year Budget for Average Precipitation Year with Palen Solar Project in Place Using NPS Infiltration and Underflow Recharge Estimates ........................ 22 Table 14 Cumulative Projects – Water Use Summary ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 15 30-Year Projected CVGB Groundwater Budget in Acre Feet for Palen Solar Project Plus Cumulative Projects Using Adopted Precipitation and Underflow Recharge Estimates ....... 24 Table 16 30-Year Projected CVGB Groundwater Budget in Acre Feet for Palen Solar Project Plus Cumulative Projects Using NPS Precipitation and Underflow Recharge Estimates. ............ 26 Table 17 Multiple Dry Year Groundwater Budget in Acre Feet with Palen Solar Project and All Cumulative Projects in Place ................................................................................................. 28 Table 18 Multiple Dry Year Groundwater Budget in Acre Feet with Palen Solar Project and All Cumulative Projects in Place Using NPS Estimates of Precipitation and Underflow Recharge ................................................................................................................................ 29 Table 19 30-Year Projected CVGB Groundwater Budget in Acre Feet for Baseline (No Project) Conditions Using Adopted Precipitation and Underflow Recharge Estimates and Assuming a Repeat of the Driest 30 Years on Record at Blythe. .......................................... 30 Table 20 30-Year Projected CVGB Groundwater Budget in Acre Feet Using Adopted Precipitation and Underflow Recharge Estimates and Assuming a Repeat of the Driest 30 Years on Record at Blythe, with the Palen Solar Project in Place. ......................................................... 32 Table 21 30-Year Projected CVGB Groundwater Budget in Acre Feet Using Adopted Precipitation and Underflow Recharge Estimates and Assuming a Repeat of the Driest 30 Years on Record at Blythe, with all Cumulative Projects in Place. ........................................................ 34 Figures Figures appear at the end of the appendix Figure 1 Chuckwalla Valley Regional Groundwater Basins Figure 2a Regional Geology Figure 2b Regional Geology Legend Figure 3 Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin Bedrock Topography Figure 4 Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin Cross Section A-A Figure 5 Basin Wide Groundwater Hydrographs Figure 6 Annual Rainfall at Blythe, California February 2018 ii Final Supplemental EIS/EIR/LUPA Palen Solar Project APPENDIX G. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction The objective of this report is to provide a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) pursuant to the requirements of California Senate Bill (SB) 610/221, for the Palen Solar Project. This project was previously proposed as a solar trough project, the Palen Solar Power Project, and later as a solar power tower project, the Palen Solar Electric Generating System. SB 610, passed in 2002, amended the California Water Code to require detailed analysis of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eagle Crest Energy Gen-Tie and Water Pipeline Environmental
    Eagle Crest Energy Gen-Tie and Water Pipeline Environmental Assessment and Proposed California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment BLM Case File No. CACA-054096 BLM-DOI-CA-D060-2016-0017-EA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT California Desert District 22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos Moreno Valley, CA 92553 April 2017 USDOI Bureau of Land Management April 2017Page 2 Eagle Crest Energy Gen-Tie and Water Pipeline EA and Proposed CDCA Plan Amendment United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT California Desert District 22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos Moreno Valley, CA 92553 April XX, 2017 Dear Reader: The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has finalized the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed right-of-way (ROW) and associated California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA) Plan Amendment (PA) for the Eagle Crest Energy Gen- Tie and Water Supply Pipeline (Proposed Action), located in eastern Riverside County, California. The Proposed Action is part of a larger project, the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project (FERC Project), licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 2014. The BLM is issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the Proposed Action. The FERC Project would be located on approximately 1,150 acres of BLM-managed land and approximately 1,377 acres of private land. Of the 1,150 acres of BLM-managed land, 507 acres are in the 16-mile gen-tie line alignment; 154 acres are in the water supply pipeline alignment and other Proposed Action facilities outside the Central Project Area; and approximately 489 acres are lands within the Central Project Area of the hydropower project.
    [Show full text]
  • California Vegetation Map in Support of the DRECP
    CALIFORNIA VEGETATION MAP IN SUPPORT OF THE DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN (2014-2016 ADDITIONS) John Menke, Edward Reyes, Anne Hepburn, Deborah Johnson, and Janet Reyes Aerial Information Systems, Inc. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Renewable Energy Program and the California Energy Commission Final Report May 2016 Prepared by: Primary Authors John Menke Edward Reyes Anne Hepburn Deborah Johnson Janet Reyes Report Graphics Ben Johnson Cover Page Photo Credits: Joshua Tree: John Fulton Blue Palo Verde: Ed Reyes Mojave Yucca: John Fulton Kingston Range, Pinyon: Arin Glass Aerial Information Systems, Inc. 112 First Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 793-9493 [email protected] in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95811 and California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided by: California Energy Commission US Bureau of Land Management California Wildlife Conservation Board California Department of Fish and Wildlife Personnel involved in developing the methodology and implementing this project included: Aerial Information Systems: Lisa Cotterman, Mark Fox, John Fulton, Arin Glass, Anne Hepburn, Ben Johnson, Debbie Johnson, John Menke, Lisa Morse, Mike Nelson, Ed Reyes, Janet Reyes, Patrick Yiu California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Diana Hickson, Todd Keeler‐Wolf, Anne Klein, Aicha Ougzin, Rosalie Yacoub California
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix L, Bureau of Land Management Worksheets
    Palen‐Ford Playa Dunes Description/Location: The proposed Palen‐Ford Playa Dunes NLCS/ ACEC would encompass the entire playa and dune system in the Chuckwalla Valley of eastern Riverside County. The area is bordered on the east by the Palen‐McCoy Wilderness and on the west by Joshua Tree National Park. Included within its boundaries are the existing Desert Lily Preserve ACEC, the Palen Dry Lake ACEC, and the Palen‐Ford Wildlife Habitat Management Area (WHMA). Nationally Significant Values: Ecological Values: The proposed unit would protect one of the major playa/dune systems of the California Desert. The area contains extensive and pristine habitat for the Mojave fringe‐toed lizard, a BLM Sensitive Species and a California State Species of Special Concern. Because the Chuckwalla Valley population occurs at the southern distributional limit for the species, protection of this population is important for the conservation of the species. The proposed unit would protect an entire dune ecosystem for this and other dune‐dwelling species, including essential habitat and ecological processes (i.e., sand source and sand transport systems). The proposed unit would also contribute to the overall linking of five currently isolated Wilderness Areas of northeastern Riverside County (i.e., Palen‐McCoy, Big Maria Mountains, Little Maria Mountains, Riverside Mountains, and Rice Valley) with each other and Joshua Tree National Park, and would protect a large, intact representation of the lower Colorado Desert. Along with the proposed Chuckwalla Chemehuevi Tortoise Linkage NLCS/ ACEC and Upper McCoy NLCS/ ACEC, this unit would provide crucial habitat connectivity for key wildlife species including the federally threatened Agassizi’s desert tortoise and the desert bighorn sheep.
    [Show full text]
  • Recruitment of Desert Tortoises (Gopherus Agassizii and G
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 10(2):583–591. Submitted: 29 September 2014; Accepted: 7 April 2015; Published: 31 August 2015. RECRUITMENT OF DESERT TORTOISES (GOPHERUS AGASSIZII AND G. MORAFKAI): A SYNTHESIS OF REPRODUCTION AND FIRST-YEAR SURVIVAL STEVEN P. CAMPBELL1,2,3, ROBERT J. STEIDL1, AND ERIN R. ZYLSTRA1 1School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA 2Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission, Albany, New York 12205, USA 3Corresponding author, email: [email protected] Abstract.—Recruitment is integral to population persistence, therefore characterizing this process is essential for evaluating recovery actions for species in decline. We gathered all data available and used Bayesian analyses to quantify annual recruitment of Mojave Desert (Gopherus agassizii) and Sonoran Desert (G. morafkai) tortoises as the product of four components: proportion of females that reproduced, number of eggs produced per reproducing female, hatching success, and hatchling survival. For Mojave Desert Tortoises, the estimated proportion of females that reproduced (0.81 [95% Credible Interval: 0.52–0.99]) and number of eggs produced per year (6.90 [5.51–8.16]) were higher than for Sonoran Desert Tortoises (0.52 [0.07–0.94] and 5.17 [3.05–7.60], respectively). For Mojave Desert Tortoises, hatching success averaged 0.61 (0.25–0.90). Data on hatching success for Sonoran Desert Tortoises and hatchling survival for both species were sparse, therefore we represented these components with a range of plausible values. When we combined components, average recruitment for Mojave Desert Tortoises ranged from 0.51 females/female/y assuming that hatchling survival was 0.30 to 1.18 females/female/y with hatchling survival assumed to be 0.70.
    [Show full text]
  • Gypsum in California
    TN 2.4 C3 A3 i<o3 HK STATE OP CAlIFOa!lTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES msmtBmmmmmmmmmaam GYPSUM IN CALIFORNIA BULLETIN 163 1952 aou DIVl^ON OF MNES fZBar SDODSia sxh lasncisco ^"^^^^^nBM^^MMa^HBi«iaMa«NnMaMHBaaHB^HaHaa^^HHMi«nfl^HaMHiBHHHMauuHJin««aHiav^aMaHHaHHB«auKaiaMi^^M«ni^Maai^iMMWi^iM^ THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS STATE OF CALIFORNIA EARL WARREN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WARREN T. HANNUM, Director DIVISION OF MINES FERRY BUILDING, SAN FRANCISCO 11 OLAF P. JENKINS, Chief San Francisco BULLETIN 163 September 1952 GYPSUM IN CALIFORNIA By WILLIAM E. VER PLANCK LIBRARY UNTXERollY OF CAUFC^NIA DAVIS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To IIlS EXCELLKNCY, TlIK IIONORAHLE EauL AVaRREN Governor of the State of California Dear Sir: I have the lionor to transmit herewitli liuUetiii 163, Gyj)- sinn in California, prepared under tlie direetion of Ohif P. Jenkins, Chief of the Division of ]\Iines. Gypsum represents one of the important non- metallic mineral commodities of California. It serves particularly two of California's most important industries, aprieulture and construction. In Bulletin 163 the author, W. p]. Xev Phinek, a member of the staff of the Division of Mines, has prepared a comprehensive treatise cover- ing all phases of the subject : history of the industry, geologic occurrence and origin of tlie minoi-al, mining, i)rocessing and marketing of the com- modity. Specific g3'psum i)roperties Avere examined and mapped. The report is profusely illustrated by maps, charts and photographs. In the preparation of the report it was necessary for the author to make field investigations, laboratory and library studies, and to determine how the mineral is used in industry as Avell as how it occurs in nature and how it is mined.
    [Show full text]
  • Forwards DOI Request for LLNL Tritium Tests at Ward Valley
    - _ . - . - - . .. -_. - .. - - - * . March 19, 1996 NOTE T0: X. Stablein J. Austin ; C. Paperiello M. Bell ' J. Greeves J. Holonich M. Federline B. Reamer M. Weber C. Cameron P. Lohaus J. Kennedy P. Sobel FROM: Nelson,[[[ SUBJECT: DOE STAFF POSITION ON DOI REQUEST FOR LLNL TRITIUM TESTS AT WARD ! VALLEY ! The attached staff position paper was provided to us by Terry Plummer, ! DOE, last week and is forwarded FYI. ; Attachment: As stated | | l, i l ! ! 1 ! t l' 970 g;g,60pe, - 1 - , - - . - - - - - - 4 , ' . I 1 * , . i. > !. 4 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REQUEST FOR LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORA'IORY i 70 i PERFORM TRTITUM TF.STS AT WARD VALLEY, CALIFORNIA | f FACTS / BACKGROUND , i - On February 23,1996, John Garamendi, Deputy Secretary of the Depiu unent of the Interior, requested the participation of the De,partment of Energy in contracting with the Lawrence i Livermore National Laboratory to perform tntium tests at the State licensed low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility in Ward Valley, Califomia. * On Demhn 15,1995, Secretary O' leary denied a similar request dated June 8,1995, : from Senator Boxer, (D-CA). 'Ihe Secretary stated that,"We believe the State of California, in its ! licensing role as authorized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, should determine how to implement the National Academy of Sciences' recommendations. If the State Mermines that further testing is needed based on analytical services unique to the Departmw of Energy, we will consider such a request." l ! + In response to an earlier request of Senator Boxer, Secretary Babbitt asked the National ! Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine several key safety related issues of the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Rice Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118
    Colorado River Hydrologic Region California’s Groundwater Rice Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Rice Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 7-4 • County: Riverside, San Bernardino • Surface Area: 189,000 acres (295 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology This groundwater basin underlies Rice Valley in northeast Riverside and southeast San Bernardino Counties. Elevation of the valley floor ranges from about 675 feet above sea level near the center of the valley to about 1,000 feet along the outer margins. The basin is bounded by nonwater- bearing rocks of the Turtle Mountains on the north, the Little Maria and Big Maria Mountains on the south, the Arica Mountains on the west, and by the West Riverside and Riverside Mountains on the east. Low-lying alluvial drainage divides form a portion of the basin boundaries on the northwest and northeast, and the Colorado River bounds a portion of the basin on the east. Maximum elevations of the surrounding mountains range to about 2,000 feet in the Arica Mountains, about 3,000 feet in the Big Maria Mountains, and 5,866 feet at Horn Peak in the Turtle Mountains (Bishop 1963; Jennings 1967; USGS 1971a, 1971b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c). Annual average precipitation ranges from about 3 to 5 inches. Surface runoff from the mountains drains towards the center of the valley, except in the eastern part of the valley, where Big Wash drains to the Colorado River (USGS 1971a, 1971b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c). Hydrogeologic Information Water Bearing Formations Alluvium is the water-bearing material that forms the basin and includes unconsolidated Holocene age deposits and underlying unconsolidated to semi-consolidated Pleistocene deposits (DWR 1954, 1963).
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Assessment for Desert Stateline
    REGIONAL ASSESSMENT STATELINE SOLAR FARM PROJECT BLM CASE FILE NUMBER CACA-48669 Prepared for: Prepared by: Desert Stateline, LLC NatureServe 525 Market Street 4600 North Fairfax Drive 15th Floor 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Arlington, Virginia 22203 Date: 27 July 2012 Cover photo credit: Geoffrey Hammerson NatureServe Project Team Mary Harkness Patrick Crist Conservation Planner/Project Manager Director, Conservation Planning and Ecosystem Management Ian Varley Jacquie Bow Conservation Planner GIS Analyst Jon Hak Geoffrey Hammerson Ecologist/Senior GIS Analyst Research Zoologist Suzanne Young Conservation Biologist and Data Analyst Suggested citation: NatureServe. 2012. Regional assessment: Stateline solar farm project. Technical report prepared for Desert Stateline, LLC. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Regional Assessment: Stateline Solar Farm Project Page 2 of 94 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Purpose and overview of assessment ........................................................................................... 8 1.2 Assessment approach ................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Assessment areas and context ...................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Ivanpah Valley Watershed ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Preparation for a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
    COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR A DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Date: February 25, 2008 To: Responsible and Trustee Agencies/Interested Organizations and Individuals Project: Public Safety Enterprise Communication (PSEC) Project Lead Agency County of Riverside Department of Facilities Management P.O. Box 789 Riverside, CA 92502-0789 Email: [email protected] Project website: http://psec.co.riverside.ca.us Consultant Firm Preparing the Draft EIR Michael Brandman Associates 621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100 San Bernardino, CA 92408 This Notice of Preparation (NOP) includes a summary project description and a list of the environmental issues to be examined in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Public Safety Enterprise Communication (PSEC) project. The environmental determination in this Notice of Preparation is subject to a 30-day public review period per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21080.4 and CEQA Guidelines §15082. Public agencies, interested organizations, and individuals have the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and identify those environmental issues that they believe have the potential to be affected by the project and should be addressed by the County of Riverside (County) in the EIR. The public review period for this NOP is February 28, 2008 to March 31, 2008. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Project Purpose and Need The County of Riverside’s fire and law enforcement agencies currently utilize approximately 20 communication sites to provide voice and data transmission capabilities to assigned personnel in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Trough to Trough
    Trough to trough The Colorado River and the Salton Sea Robert E. Reynolds, editor The Salton Sea, 1906 Trough to trough—the field trip guide Robert E. Reynolds, George T. Jefferson, and David K. Lynch Proceedings of the 2008 Desert Symposium Robert E. Reynolds, compiler California State University, Desert Studies Consortium and LSA Associates, Inc. April 2008 Front cover: Cibola Wash. R.E. Reynolds photograph. Back cover: the Bouse Guys on the hunt for ancient lakes. From left: Keith Howard, USGS emeritus; Robert Reynolds, LSA Associates; Phil Pearthree, Arizona Geological Survey; and Daniel Malmon, USGS. Photo courtesy Keith Howard. 2 2008 Desert Symposium Table of Contents Trough to trough: the 2009 Desert Symposium Field Trip ....................................................................................5 Robert E. Reynolds The vegetation of the Mojave and Colorado deserts .....................................................................................................................31 Leah Gardner Southern California vanadate occurrences and vanadium minerals .....................................................................................39 Paul M. Adams The Iron Hat (Ironclad) ore deposits, Marble Mountains, San Bernardino County, California ..................................44 Bruce W. Bridenbecker Possible Bouse Formation in the Bristol Lake basin, California ................................................................................................48 Robert E. Reynolds, David M. Miller, and Jordon Bright Review
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Seasonal Movements of Bendire's Thrasher in California
    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 20, Number 3, 1989 DISTRIBUTION AND SEASONAL MOVEMENTS OF BENDIRE'S THRASHER IN CALIFORNIA A. SIDNEY ENGLAND, Departmentof Wildlifeand FisheriesBiology, University of California, Davis. California 95616 WILLIAM E LAUDENSLAYER,JR., U.S. D. A. ForestService, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,2081 E. SierraAvenue, Fresno, California 93710 The ecology and distribution of Bendire's Thrasher (Toxostorna bendirei)have been little studiedand are poorlyunderstood. Garrett and Dunn (1981:280) classifiedthe speciesas a "fairlycommon but very local summer resident on the Mojave Desert" in southern California. Californiabreeding populations are known primarily from the eastern Mojave Desert and scattered locations in and around Joshua Tree NationalMonument in the southernMojave Desert (Johnson et al. 1948, Miller and Stebbins1964, Garrett and Dunn 1981), areas frequently visitedby bird watchersand naturalists. However, recordsfrom other parts of the Mojave and Colorado deserts suggest that breeding populationsof Bendire'sThrasher may be more widely distributedthan currentlyrecognized. Also, the preferredbreeding habitat in Californiais relativelywidespread. This habitatis typicallydescribed as Mojavedesert scrubwith either JoshuaTrees (Yucca brevifolia), SpanishBayonet (Y. baccata), Mojave Yucca (Y. schidigera), cholla cactus (Opuntia acanthocarpa,O. echinocarpa,or O. rarnosissirna),or other succulents (Grinnelland Miller 1944, Bent 1948, Garrett and Dunn 1981). Remsen(1978) consideredthe total Californiabreeding population of Bendire'sThrasher to be under 200 pairs, and the specieshas been placedon the list of Bird Speciesof SpecialConcern by the California Departmentof Fishand Game (Remsen1978). It was placedon this list becausepopulations are smalland locallydistributed and believedto be threatenedby off-roadvehicle use, overgrazing,and harvestingof Joshua Treesand other speciesof yucca. In this paper, we report the resultsof a 2-year studyof the breeding- season distributionand movement patterns of Bendire's Thrasher in California.
    [Show full text]
  • Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project Draft License Application Exhibit E, Volume 1, Public Information Palm Desert, California
    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 Date: June 16, 2008 Project No. 080470 ©2008 Eagle Crest Energy DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION- EXHIBIT E 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
    [Show full text]