DOCSLIB.ORG

Desert Sunlight BO

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Desert Sunlight BO United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101 Carlsbad, California 92011 In Reply Refer To: FWS-ERIV-08B0789-11F0041 JUL 0 6 2.0t1 MEMORANDUM To: Field Manager, Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office, Bureau of Land Management Palm Springs, California From: Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, \(),/l Carlsbad, California \._. l Subject: Biological Opinion on the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project, Riverside County, California [CACA 48649] This memorandum transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion on the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) proposed issuance of a right -of-way (ROW) grant that would authorize the construction,operation, and maintenance of the proposed Desert Sunlight Solar Farm project (project or Solar Farm); the BLM also proposes to issue a ROW grant for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Southern California Edison (SCE) Red Bluff Substation and associated component. Both project components are located in Riverside County, California. This biological opinion analyzes the effects of the project on the threatened desert tortoise ( Gopherus agassizii) and its designated critical habitat in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your request for formal consultation, dated October 15, 2010, was received on October 20, 2010. Additional documents and revisions to the biological assessment were submitted on December 23, 2010. This biological opinion is primarily based on information provided in the following documents and communications: 1) BLM's Draft Environmental Impact Statement and California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment for the Proposed Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project (DEIS; BLM 2010); 2) Biological Assessment for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project (Ironwood Consulting 2010a); 3) Biological Resources Technical Report for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project (Ironwood Consulting 2010b); 4) draft revised Desert Tortoise Translocation Plan for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project (Ironwood Consulting and Woodard 2010); 5) draft revised Common Raven Management Plan for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project (Ironwood Consulting 2010c); 6) draft Habitat Compensation Plan for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project (First Solar 2011); 7) draft Integrated Weed Management Plan for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project (Ironwood Consulting 2010d); 8) BLM's Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS; BLM 2011); 9) consolidated list of conservation Field Manager, Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office (FWS-ERIV-08B0789-11F0041) 2 measures provided by the BLM; 10) supplemental materials provided during the consultation process; 11) electronic transmissions from BLM, First Solar, Ironwood Consulting, and SCE; and 12) pertinent literature contained in our files. The project file for this consultation is located at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO). CONSULTATION HISTORY Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC (Sunlight), a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc. initiated early coordination on this project in 2007; their consultant on the project, Ironwood Consulting, contacted the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Service to discuss wildlife survey protocols for the proposed project. Between 2007 and 2010, the consultant performed various biological surveys within the proposed project boundaries. During this time, the Service coordinated with the BLM, CDFG, and Sunlight and SCE (applicants) on the development of the measures contained in the biological assessment and BLM’s DEIS to avoid, minimize, and offset impacts to the desert tortoise. Between April and December 2010, when consultation was initiated, regularly scheduled conference calls between the applicants, Service, BLM, and CDFG were held to discuss issues related to potential impacts to desert tortoises and measures to avoid, minimize, and offset those impacts, translocation, schedules for consultation and project construction, and other topics, including changes to the proposed action. We also conducted several visits to the project site with these agencies and Ironwood Consulting. Prior to the release of the FEIS, the BLM and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) worked together to develop additional protective measures for various resources, including the desert tortoise, to be implemented as part of the proposed action. In preparing this biological opinion, we provided a draft biological opinion to the BLM for review and comment on June 17, 2011. BLM provided a copy of the draft to the CDFG and applicants, and provided us with the combined comments from those entities that BLM wished to be considered in our preparation of the final biological opinion. We have incorporated all comments received from the BLM, CDFG, and applicants into this biological opinion, as appropriate. BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The following description of the proposed action is a summary of the biological assessment (Ironwood Consulting 2010a), DEIS (BLM 2010), FEIS (BLM 2011), other supporting documents listed above (see pp. 1 and 2), subsequent language clarification via email, and further modifications based on comments received from the BLM on the draft biological opinion. Field Manager, Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office (FWS-ERIV-08B0789-11F0041) 3 Introduction The proposed action is the BLM’s issuance of two ROW grants that would authorize construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a commercial solar power generating facility and substation on approximately 7,600 hectares (ha) [19,000 acres (ac)] and 69.6 ha (172 ac) of BLM-managed lands, respectively. The proposed project is located in Riverside County approximately 9.7 kilometers (km) [6 miles (mi)] north of the rural community of Desert Center and approximately 10.3 km (6.5 mi) north of the Interstate 10 (I-10) corridor. The BLM’s authorization of the ROW grants for the proposed project would require a resource management land use plan amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan, as amended (BLM 1999). Appendix 1 contains all of the figures referenced herein and the tables not included in the body of this biological opinion. Project components generally include phased construction, operation, and maintenance of the Solar Farm site and the associated generation-tie transmission line (gen-tie) and construction, operation, and maintenance of the SCE Red Bluff Substation and related components (Figure 2 in Ironwood Consulting 2010a). The Service analyzes two gen-tie alignments (A-1 and A-2) in this biological opinion to allow for approval and construction of either alignment. The final alignment will be dependent upon the ability of the applicants to obtain necessary permissions to access private lands through which gen-tie A-2 would pass. Sunlight will construct, own, operate, and maintain the Solar Farm and gen-tie line, while SCE will construct, own, operate, and maintain the Red Bluff Substation and its associated elements. As a result, both Sunlight and SCE are considered the applicants under this biological opinion. The proposed project will permanently disturb up to 1,690 ha (4,176 ac) (Table 1), all of which is desert tortoise habitat on lands administered by the BLM, with the exception of approximately 1.8 km (1.1 mi) along Kaiser Road held by Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California 1 km (0.6 mi) and Riverside County 0.8 km (0.5 mi); this assumes that the gen-tie alignment would follow Kaiser Road (gen-tie A-1). Gen-tie alignment A-2 reduces project impacts by approximately 2.4 ha (6 ac); this alignment passes through abandoned agricultural fields on private lands. Any non-emergency expansion of construction, operation, or maintenance activities into locations outside of the areas considered in this biological opinion will require BLM approval and desert tortoise clearance surveys, and may require reinitiation of consultation with the Service. Construction: Sunlight and SCE Construction of the proposed Solar Farm and gen-tie is expected to be completed in phases over a period of at least 26 months. Construction of the proposed Red Bluff Substation is expected to take approximately 24 months. The Red Bluff Substation would be constructed on a schedule that allows interconnection and partial energization of the Solar Farm before overall project construction is complete. Field Manager, Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office (FWS-ERIV-08B0789-11F0041) 4 Table 1. Disturbance acreage for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm and SCE project components Area Gen-tie A-1 Gen-tie A-2 Sunlight Components 1,620.4 ha (4,004 ac) 1,618 ha (3,998 ac) Solar Farm site 1,583.1 ha (3,912 ac) 1,583.1 ha (3,912 ac) Total Gen-tie line 37.2 ha (92 ac)* 34.8 ha (86 ac)* Transmission erection and structure areas 17 ha (42 ac) 14.2 ha (35 ac) Access roads 9 ha (22 ac) 6.3 ha (15.5 ac) Splicing areas 2.4 ha (6 ac) 2 ha (5 ac) Stringing areas 12.5 ha (31 ac) 15.4 ha (38 ac) Guard structure areas 0.8 ha (2 ac) 0.8 ha (2 ac) SCE Components 69.6 ha (172 ac) Red Bluff Substation and staging areas 30.8 ha (76 ac) Drainage/side slopes 5.7 ha (14 ac) Access road 12.6 ha (31 ac) Same as gen-tie A-1 Transmission loop-in 13.4 ha (33 ac) Distribution line 3.2 ha (8 ac) Telecommunications site 0.4 ha (<1 ac) Laydown yard (temporary use area) 3.6 ha (9 ac) Total Project 1,690 ha (4,176 ac) 1,687.5 ha (4,170 ac) *The sum total does not account for 11 ac of overlap of features for gen-tie A-1 and 9.5 ac of overlap for gen-tie A-2. Solar Farm and Support Facilities: Sunlight The proposed project includes phased construction of a 550-megawatt (MW) commercial solar photovoltaic (PV) power-generating facility using First Solar’s technology for thin film cadmium telluride PV modules.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prn 198803.Pdf
    . the mere mention of the name brings forth railroad images larger than life. It wasn't just tracks and trains.It wasn't just an Indiana institution-though it MONON'certainly was that. Oh. my, no. What the Monon was ...well, it was every American railroad. every American hometown. every American underdog rolled into one. Why. the Monon was practically human. Its birth was a cause for . rejoicing. its operation a source of Hoosier pride. And when it died. a thousand legends lived on. Now, legend and fact are woven together in a brand-new, finely crafted illustrated history of the Monon. We take you from beginning to merger into the L&N. from Louisville to French Lick to Indianapolis to Michigan City to Chicago .•. from Hoosierland to hotshot. from 4-4-0 to Century 420. We're proud to announce the creation of Monon-The Hoosier Line by Gary and Stephen Dolzall. This book is in production and will be published by Interurban Press in the Fall of 1987. Its 'edit!o�r=is=;;�=:�; Roaring Fork Railroad Begins Private Car Service. We offer three levels of service: First class, Vistadome and coach starting as low as $99 one-way Denver to Glenwood Springs. Ticket price includes open bar and fine dining in our VistaDiner. Our route over the Continental Divide includes the famous tun­ nel district and its spectacular views of the Rocky Mountain wilderness. Departs Denver every Saturday through March for Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction and Salt Lake City. Returns each Sunday. CaD (303) 893-8922 collect for reservations and information.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.1 Introduction Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility
    4.1 Introduction Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility 4.1 Introduction This chapter assesses environmental consequences or impacts that would result from the implementation of the Proposed Action or the alternatives described in Chapter 2. These analyses consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives, including both short-term impacts during construction and decommissioning, and long-term impacts during operations. This chapter also identifies mitigation measures to address adverse impacts and summarizes the residual and unavoidable adverse impacts on an issue-by-issue basis. The scope of the impact analyses presented in this chapter is commensurate with the level of detail for the alternatives provided in Chapter 2, Proposed Action and Alternatives, and the availability and/or quality of data necessary to assess impacts. Baseline conditions for assessing the potential environmental impacts are described in Chapter 3. The methodology for this assessment conforms with the guidance found in the following sections of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA: 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Section 1502.24, Methodology and Scientific Accuracy; 40 CFR Section 1508.7, Cumulative Impact; and 40 CFR Section 1508.8, Effects. The CEQ regulations require agencies to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate” the impacts of the alternatives. The methodologies used in the impact assessment also conform to the requirements of the CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), including the Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA, Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 15000 et seq. 4.1.1 Analytical Assumptions The following impacts analysis was conducted with the following assumptions: The laws, regulations, and policies applicable to the BLM authorizing ROW grants for renewable energy development facilities would be applied consistently for all action alternatives.
    [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]
  • Final Data Collection for Rock Source Investigation
    SALTON SEA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN Final Follow-On Data Collection for Rock Source Evaluation April 2005 Table of Contents Items Page Follow-On Data Collection for Rock Source Evaluation................................................................ 1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1 Task Objective ................................................................................................................... 3 Site Visits ........................................................................................................................... 3 Mesquite Mine.................................................................................................................... 4 Site Description ..................................................................................................... 4 History........................................................................................................ 4 Site Ownership .......................................................................................... 4 Site Geology .............................................................................................. 4 Existing Infrastructure................................................................................ 6 Availability of Material/Rock....................................................................... 6 Existing Environmental Documentation and Permits/Plans....................... 7 Conceptual Plan to Obtain
    [Show full text]
  • BLM Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office
    Appendix I Traffic Study TRAFFIC STUDY FOR Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Desert Center, California Prepared for: Tetra Tech 301 East Vanderbilt Way, Suite 450 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Prepared by: Hernandez, Kroone & Associates 234 East Drake Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 June 2010 I-1 I. Introduction A. Purpose of the TIA and Study Objectives This analysis was prepared to identify traffic impacts and, if needed, propose mitigation, of those impacts of the construction of the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (Project) proposed by First Solar Development (First Solar). The Project includes a solar farm producing up to 550 MW of electrical power, approximately 12 miles of 230-kV transmission line and a 230 – 500 kV substation. The Project will provide renewable electrical power. “The purpose of this Project is to create a clean, renewable source of electricity that helps meet California’s growing demand for power and helps fulfill national and State renewable energy and GHG goals. Solar energy provides a sustainable, renewable source of power that helps reduce fossil fuel dependence and GHG emissions.”i (GHG stands for “Green House Gas”) “The Project will utilize First Solar’s proven thin film cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV technology, which is readily scalable to the Project’s size.”ii This traffic study was completed with generally accepted procedures and reflects the opinions of Hernandez, Kroone & Associates (HKA). The methods used are based on the Highway Capacity Manual. The traffic study follows the outline in the Riverside County Transportation Department “Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide”, dated April 2008. Measure of Impacts - The existing condition and the future conditions without project traffic is the yardstick to determine the magnitude of the project and its traffic impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Vermont Railway System Hosts 2015 NRHS
    Atlantic Division, TCA Spring Ahead Train Meet Sunday, March 8, 2015 Plumbers Union Hall 2791 Southampton Road Philadelphia, PA 19154 TABLE HOLDERS SETUP: 7:00 AM DOORS OPEN: 8:00 AM - 12:30 PM PUBLIC ADMITTED AT 9:00 AM - 12:30 PM FOOD SERVICE AVAILABLE AT HALL h KIDS ACTIVITIESh h TEST TRACKS h h DOOR PRIZES h h OPERATING LAYOUT h Atlantic Division’s Spring Ahead Drawing Lionel US Navy Set (6-11745) U.S. Navy Set NW2 Diesel Switcher with Headlight & Horn Box Car Gondola with Cannisters Crane Car with Swiveling Cab & Boom Flat Car with Submarine Illuminated Seachlight Caboose Track, Transformer Die-cast Tractor Trailer Display by Dick Heineman & Ed Kapuscinski: Cattle Cars RESERVATIONS: ALAN CRAIG (856) 784-0038 [email protected] INFORMATION: DICK HEINEMAN (215) 332-5028 [email protected] Visit our web site: www.ADTCA.COM REGISTER NOW - MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: ATLANTIC DIVISION, TCA You must enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope with your check for the return of your registration materials. NEXT MEET: CUT COUPON & MAIL TO: ALAN CRAIG, REGISTRATION CHAIRMAN PLUMBERS UNION HALL 507 ELMA AVE, LAUREL SPRINGS, NJ 08021 SEPTEMBER 27, 2015 SUNDAY, MARCH 8, 2015 ATLANTIC DIVISION TRAIN MEET ONE (1) MEMBER PER REGISTRATION FORM DUPLICATE THIS FORM AS NECESSARY MEMBER ________________________________________________________________ TCA # _______-_________________ ADDRESS _______________________________________________________________________________________________ CITY _____________________________________________________ STATE _________ ZIP
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Not a Drop Left to Drink Table of Contents Not a Drop Left to Drink: the Field Trip 5 Robert E
    Not a drop left to drink Robert E. Reynolds, editor California State University Desert Studies Center 2014 Desert Symposium April 2014 not a drop left to drink Table of contents Not a drop left to drink: the field trip 5 Robert E. Reynolds Ozone transport into and across the Mojave: interpreting processes from long-term monitoring data 30 Richard (Tony) VanCuren Stratigraphy and fauna of Proterozoic and Cambrian formations in the Marble Mountains, San Bernardino County, California 42 Bruce W. Bridenbecker Tertiary basin evolution in the Ship Mountains of southeastern California 48 Martin Knoll Ship Mountains mines 52 Larry M. Vredenburgh History of mining in the Old Woman Mountains 54 Larry M. Vredenburgh Chubbuck, California 57 Larry M. Vredenburgh Danby Dry Lake salt operations 60 Larry M. Vredenburgh Danby Playa: ringed with salty questions 63 Robert E. Reynolds and Thomas A. Schweich Vertebrate fossils from Desert Center, Chuckwalla Valley, California 68 Joey Raum, Geraldine L. Aron, and Robert E. Reynolds Population dynamics of the Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia): twenty-three-year analysis, Lost Horse Valley, Joshua Tree National Park 71 James W. Cornett A notable fossil plant assemblage from the Indio Hills Formation, Indio Hills, Riverside County, California 74 Joey Raum, Geraldine L. Aron, and Robert E. Reynolds Dos Palmas Preserve: an expanding oasis 78 James W. Cornett Width and dip of the southern San Andreas Fault at Salt Creek from modeling of geophysical data 83 Victoria Langenheim, Noah Athens, Daniel Scheirer, Gary Fuis, Michael Rymer, and Mark Goldman Records of freshwater bony fish from the latest Pleistocene to Holocene Lake Cahuilla beds of western Imperial County, California 94 Mark A.
    [Show full text]
  • COPS Letterhead with Logo
    Citizens' Oversight Projects (COPs) 771 Jamacha Rd #148 El Cajon, CA 92019 CitizensOversight.org 619-820-5321 May 30, 2018 To: San Onofre "Move the waste" Expert Team Fm: Ray Lutz Re: My comments on Holtec Eddy-Lea site & California Location Idea. Please accept the following information: 1. Citizens Oversight submitted comments regarding the Holtec Eddy-Lea site. That document is attached. 2. During the settlement negotiations period, I made numerous presentations to the community, and asked for feedback and ideas. One idea may have some merit, so I will provide it to you now. In our initial press release to the settlement, we suggested that the Expert Team consider, in addition to the Palo Verde nuclear plant location and eastern NM or west TX location (which appears to be coalescing around the Eddy-Lea site), we suggested two more options 1) in Camp Pendleton, but about three miles inland and much higher in elevation (which would move the SNF away from the coast, any tsunami threat, coastal inundation, and reduce many risks, and not require rail transportation, and could be transported using the transfer cask rather than the transportation overpack), and 2) "Somewhere along the rail line between San Onofre and Yucca Mountain." Regarding #2, a member of the public suggested Eagle Mountain, which is an abandoned iron mine. The location is north of I-10, just east of Joshua Tree National Park. A close up view shows that the area has already been disturbed due to the mining operation there. What looks like what might be a town is unoccupied.
    [Show full text]
  • S • P Trainline Index 1–137
    SOUTHERN PACIFIC HISTORICAL & TECHNICAL SOCIETY S • P Trainline Index 1–137 S•P7� --- ·- The Official Publication of the outhern Pacific Hi1torical & Technical Society SOUTHERN PACIFIC HISTORICAL & TECHNICAL SOCIETY S • P Trainline Index 1–137 6 Articles 14 Authors 34 Drawings 46 Maps 55 Railroad Equipment 94 Rosters 102 Structures The Southern Pacific Historical & Technical Society is an independent non-profit organization devoted to the preservation of the history of the Southern Pacific, its predecessor and successor railroad companies, and to the dissemination of information which documents that history. The Society is not supported by, nor affiliatedin any way with, the former Southern Pacific, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates. For S•P Trainline back issues contact: SPH&TS Company Store www.sphts.org Index by Mary Harper Access Points Indexing www.accesspointsindexing.com and Michael E. Bell S yndeticS ystems www.syndeticsystems.com S·P Trainline Index -- Volumes 1-137 Note: Formatting has been minimized for ease in viewing the index. Titles of books and journals are italicized, article titles are not. Page numbers are listed as “volume:page”, and indicated the first page of the article where the reference may be located. Multiple or contiguous page listings indicated photographs or other illustrative materials. Cities and towns are in California, unless otherwise noted. Locomotives and rolling stock are identified by reporting mark and number and/or italicized name under the Railroad Equipment heading. A A. Marchetti Vegetable Packing House, 82:21 Harvard (steamship) (1931), 130:13, 130:14 Abbey, Wallace, 128:10 near Hiland (1977), 118:19, 118:22 Abbott, Carlisle S., 103:17 Imperial Valley floods (1906), 111:9, 111:10, Abbott, L.E., 121:12 111:11 Accidents Island Mountain Tunnel (1978), 35:4 chart, Memorandum on Major Passenger Train Jackson, Utah (1904), 79:23 Accidents (1958), 63:11 Junction City, Ore.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Precision Gravity Stations for Monitoring Vertical Crustal Motion in Southern California
    United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey High-precision gravity stations for monitoring vertical crustal motion in southern California by Carter W. Roberts1 and Robert C. Jachens1 Open-File Report 86-44 1986 This report has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.G.S. 1. U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Primary base station 2 Base stations 3 Big Bear line - Cajon Pass to Lucerne Valley 8 California Aqueduct line 13 Regional stations 18 References 63 Index to maps showing gravity station locations 64 Maps showing gravity station locations 65-76 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRAVITY STATIONS ***************************** INTRODUCTION This report gives descriptions and values for 332 high precision gravity station pairs established begin­ ning in June 1976 in order to monitor gravity changes associated with the southern California uplift (Castle et al. 1976; Castle et al. 1977). Gravity values given in this report are based on a value of 979,498.692 mGal at the primary reference station PBB5 at Riverside, California, determined by multiple ties to an absolute gravity measurement at station 12172AA in San Francisco, California. The ties to 12172AA were made during 1978 (W. E. Strange, written communication, 1979). The absolute value at 12172AA was 0.080 mGal below the accepted IGSN71 value and 0.050 mGal below a later absolute measurement. Subsequent measurements at 3 absolute sites in southern California including one near our prime base at Riverside suggest our datum to be high by 0.012 to 0.022 mGal.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion and Conservation Review for Solar Energy Program
    Biological Opinion and Conservation Review Consultation History Discussions concerning consultation on the Solar Energy Program commenced in August, 2009. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and BLM met repeatedly in the following months to consider a strategy to complete programmatic consultation. On February 2, 2012, BLM requested initiation of consultation and later that month BLM and FWS signed a consultation agreement expressing expected outcomes and a schedule for completing consultation. Since then staff of the two agencies have convened teleconferences approximately once a week to discuss details of the consultation and progress toward completion. Our review and biological opinion rely upon those discussions, the programmatic Environmental Impact Statement prepared in connection with the program, and a Biological Assessment and Conservation Assessment provided by BLM. This document was prepared in the FWS Division of Consultation, Habitat Conservation Plans, Recovery, and State Grants based on materials provided by FWS Regions 2, 6, and 8. Programmatic Biological Opinion Description of the Proposed Action The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes establishing a Solar Energy Program by amending land use plans in 6 southwestern States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah). The amendments would exclude certain areas from availability for utility- scale solar energy development, identify Solar Energy Zones (SEZs) within which utility-scale solar energy development would be a priority use, and establish design features that would be applicable to all future utility-scale solar energy development on BLM-administered lands. Seventeen SEZs are currently proposed comprising 285,000 acres (1,153 km2). Scope As part of this consultation, the agencies have agreed to conduct a conservation review of the program pursuant to section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act and a formal consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act regarding the effects of designating the SEZs.
    [Show full text]
  • Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project Final EIS and CDCA Plan Amendment 3.1-1 Chapter 3: Affected Environment
    CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the affected environment (environmental setting) of the Project Study Area. It provides information on the physical, biological, cultural, socioeconomic, and other resources that have the potential to affect or be affected by activities related to implementing the Proposed Action or alternatives that are discussed in detail in Chapter 2. These resources include those that occur within the proposed Project area, or adjacent to or otherwise associated with the area. More detailed information for some resources (noise, air quality, biological resources, hydrology, geology, traffic, and hazardous waste) is provided in the technical reports or supporting information provided as technical appendices to this EIS. For the purpose of this document, the environmental setting, or “baseline,” used for the impact analysis reflects conditions at the time of issuance of the Notice of Intent (NOI) in January 2010. The following resources are evaluated in this EIS: • Air resources; • Vegetation; • Wildlife; • Climate change; • Cultural resources; • Paleontological resources; • Geology and soil resources; • Lands and realty; • Noise; • Public health and safety/hazardous materials (includes wildland fire); • Recreation; • Socioeconomics and environmental justice (includes public services); • Special designations; • Transportation and public access; • Visual resources; and • Water resources. The following resources would not be affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives and are
    [Show full text]