DOCSLIB.ORG

Eagle Crest Energy Gen-Tie and Water Pipeline Environmental

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. FERC prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the entire FERC Project including the BLM-managed lands. The BLM prepared an EA in fulfillment of its separate responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and to address the CDCA Plan Amendment. The BLM is issuing an errata documenting revisions to the EA and associated CDCA PA. The EA will not be reprinted. Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project The Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project (FERC Project) is licensed by the FERC pursuant to requirements of the Federal Power Act (FPA). Upon application for a FERC License, the federal land managed by BLM included within the FERC Project boundary was withdrawn under Section 24 of the FPA for the purposes of the FERC Project. Eagle Crest Energy Company (Eagle Crest) submitted an SF 299 “Application for the Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands” to BLM for a ROW for the gen-tie line on federal lands, a water supply pipeline, and for federal lands within the Central Project Area. USDOI Bureau of Land Management April 2017Page 3 Eagle Crest Energy Gen-Tie and Water Pipeline EA and Proposed CDCA Plan Amendment Portions of the FERC Project and Proposed Action are located on BLM-managed federal lands within the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) area, which amended the CDCA in 2016. The gen-tie line and water supply pipeline routes approved in the FERC License are only partially within a designated corridor and therefore require a CDCA PA. The CDCA Plan, as amended, requires that newly proposed utilities that are not already located in an existing designated utility corridor be considered through the PA process. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Environmental Impact Statement for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project On January 30, 2012, FERC issued a Final EIS (FEIS) for the FERC Project. The FERC Project was licensed, as proposed and modified by FERC conditions, on June 19, 2014. After FERC issued the License for the hydropower project, the Department of Interior, Kaiser Eagle Mountain LLC, and the Desert Protection Society filed requests for rehearing of the License Order. Kaiser subsequently withdrew its request for rehearing. The remaining requests for rehearing were denied by FERC (FERC, “Order Denying Rehearing and Denying Stay,” October 15, 2015). FERC found, based on the information reviewed during the NEPA process, that the FEIS contained sufficient analysis and mitigation measures to support the licensing decision. FERC reaffirmed that the sources of information used to develop the EIS were adequate to support the NEPA process and FERC’s decision-making. In addition, FERC found that the required mitigation plans are enforceable License conditions, and can be modified as necessary to ensure adequate protection of the affected resources. This decision was not challenged. BLM participated in the FERC licensing process and filed comments on the Draft EIS and FEIS. On May 8, 2013, FERC staff held a public meeting in Palm Desert, California with BLM to discuss and resolve BLM’s comments on the FEIS and issues associated with land withdrawals under Section 24 of the FPA. A summary of the meeting is included in FERC’s public record for the proceeding, available at the FERC eLibrary (available using Internet Explorer) and the case file for this Proposed Action. BLM Jurisdiction The BLM and FERC each play a distinct, but related role in authorizing a nonfederal hydroelectric project on federal lands. Under the FPA, FERC has the sole authority to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of nonfederal hydroelectric developments. Under Section 24 of the FPA, FERC has the authority to withdraw or “reserve” federal lands for FPA purposes so that an application for a hydroelectric project results in automatic withdrawal of the land to preserve its use for power purposes. Pursuant to a 1992 amendment to FLPMA Title V, BLM has specific ROW permitting authority, not limited to reservations, over FPA projects on federal lands. BLM is authorized to grant, issue, or renew ROWs over, upon, under or through public lands. BLM’s permitting authority is limited to its USDOI Bureau of Land Management April 2017Page 4 Eagle Crest Energy Gen-Tie and Water Pipeline EA and Proposed CDCA Plan Amendment FLPMA ROW jurisdiction over the surface and subsurface resources on public lands. The BLM is not authorized to revisit FERC’s FPA licensing decision for the FERC Project. BLM Tiering to the FERC FEIS The FERC FEIS analyzed the Proposed Action on federal lands and made a decision to issue the License. The Council for Environmental Quality NEPA regulations, and the BLM’s NEPA Handbook encourage BLM to tier to existing NEPA documents to reduce redundant analysis and “…to narrow the scope of subsequent analysis, and focus on the issues that are ripe for decision- making” (BLM NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1, 2008, Section 5.2). As explained in BLM’s NEPA Handbook, “…tiering is using the coverage of general matters in broader NEPA documents in subsequent narrower NEPA documents” (NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1, 2008, Section 5.2.2). Further, “…an environmental assessment prepared in support of an individual proposed action can be tiered to a programmatic or other broader-scope environmental impact statement” (43 CFR 46.140(c)). BLM prepared this EA in support of its ROW and PA decisions, and it tiers to the entirety of a broader-scope FEIS. In the tiered document (EA), BLM focuses on those issues and mitigation measures specifically relevant to the narrower action (ROW Grant) but not analyzed in the larger document (FERC FEIS) in sufficient detail to support BLM’s ROW and PA decisions. Additionally, the BLM, National Park Service (NPS), and state agencies play a continuing consulting role with respect to the implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures through technical teams and consultation on resource protection plans. In addition to the FERC FEIS, BLM has also considered relevant information developed by the California State Water Resources Control Board in its formulation of water quality protection measures; issues raised by NPS in its request for rehearing; and has updated baseline information in the FERC FEIS. The BLM (and NPS) has also engaged in extensive review and consultation on FERC License-required resource protection plans, and biological and cultural issues related to the recently adopted DRECP. BLM has undertaken additional analyses and complied with other procedural responsibilities to include: • NHPA Section 106 Consultation. BLM completed its own NHPA Section 106 consultation process for the ROW and PA with interested Tribes and SHPO in August of 2015 which included a review of the existing HPMP and Programmatic Agreement with SHPO for the FERC-licensed project. • ESA Section 7 Consultation with USFWS. BLM, in an ESA Section 7 informal consultation process, consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on the requirements of the USFWS Biological Opinion (2012) for the FERC-licensed project. Consultation activities have included: USDOI Bureau of Land Management April 2017Page 5 Eagle Crest Energy Gen-Tie and Water Pipeline EA and Proposed CDCA Plan Amendment o A site tour of the Central Project Area was conducted with BLM staff, Eagle Crest, and USFWS, on April 13, 2016. o A detailed work plan for the desert tortoise surveys was developed in consultation and in agreement with BLM biologists, and USFWS. The work plan included a description of the survey methods, locations, and staff resumes of the proposed surveyors. The surveys covered areas of the Central Project Area both inside and outside the FERC Project boundary which could potentially be habitat for desert tortoise in order to take into consideration the unlikely, but possible, scenario of desert tortoises entering the FERC Project boundary from adjacent areas. The survey also included a re-survey of all BLM lands on the linear features of the Proposed Action. o The work plan for biological surveys for desert tortoise was implemented in May, 2016.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 G1:Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
    Appendix G1 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION CADIZ VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND STORAGE PROJECT Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Prepared for November 2011 Santa Margarita Water District 26111 Antonio Parkway Rancho Santa Margarita, CA Draft CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION CADIZ VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND STORAGE PROJECT Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Prepared for November 2011 Santa Margarita Water District 26111 Antonio Parkway Rancho Santa Margarita, CA Prepared By: ESA 626 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Project site location: Cadiz, Cadiz Summit, Cadiz Lake NW, Cadiz Lake NE, Calumet Mine, Chubbuck, Milligan, East of Milligan, Danby Lake, Sablon, and Arica Mountains (CA) USGS 7.5’ Topographic Maps T1S R19E, 20E; T1N R18E, 19E; T2N R17E, 18E; 3N R16E, 17E; 4N R15E, 16E; 5N R14E, 15E Principal Investigator: Monica Strauss, M.A. Report Authors: Madeleine Bray, M.A, Candace Ehringer, M.A., Brian S. Marks, Ph.D. Keywords: San Bernardino County, Cadiz, Milligan, Archer, Freda, Chubbuck, Ward, Siam, Saltmarsh, Sablon, Fishel, Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, Parker Cutoff, General George Patton Desert Training Center, Railroad Siding, Archaeological Survey 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 www.esassoc.com Oakland Olympia Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 210324 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery,
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey and A. M. Leszcykowski and J. D. Causey U.S
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP MF-1603-A UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF THE COXCOMB MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (CDCA-328), SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA SUMMARY REPORT By J. P. Calzia, J. E. Kilburn, R. W. Simpson, Jr., and C. M. Alien U.S. Geological Survey and A. M. Leszcykowski and J. D. Causey U.S. Bureau of Mines STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976) requires the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines to conduct mineral surveys on certain areas to determine their mineral resource potential. Results must be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress. This report presents the results of a mineral survey of the Coxcomb Mountains Wilderness Study Area (CDCA-328), California Desert Conservation Area, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California. SUMMARY Geologic, geochemical, geophysical, and mineral surveys within the Coxcomb Mountains Wilderness Study Area in south­ eastern California define several areas with low to moderate potential for base and precious metals. Inferred subeconomic re­ sources of gold at the Moser mine (area Ha) are estimated at 150,000 tons averaging 1.7 ppm Au. The remainder of the study area has low potential for other mineral and energy resources including radioactive minerals and geothermal resources. Oil, gas, and coal resources are not present within the wilderness study area. INTRODUCTION Hope (1966), Greene (1968), and Calzia (1982) indicate that the wilderness study area is underlain by metaigneous and The Coxcomb Mountains Wilderness Study Area metasedimentary rocks of Jurassic and (or) older age intruded (CDCA-328) is located in the Mojave Desert of southeastern by granitic rocks of Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous age.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring Guide
    National Park Service Joshua Tree National Park U.S. Department of the Interior The offi cial newspaper February – May 2017 Spring Guide Brittlebush blooms on rocky slopes near Cottonwood Springs Oasis. NPS/Brad Sutton The Desert Unsung IT’S BEEN THIRTY YEARS SINCE THE BAND U2 RELEASED THE JOSHUA Desert, and roughly half of the park’s 792,510 acres Tree in March 1987. It was this album that catapulted lie in the hotter, drier, and lower-elevation Colorado the four Irishmen to international stardom; it was this Desert—a subsection of the Sonoran Desert. album that drew the curious eyes of a generation to the otherworldly landscapes of the Southern California One great way to round out your park visit is to make desert. The iconic back cover photo by Anton Corbijn, sure you spend time in both the Mojave and the Colorado showing the band standing near a lone Joshua tree, Deserts. Even if you have only a short time in the park, cemented the association between the park and the head for the Pinto Basin and stop at one of the pullouts album—even though the picture was taken off Highway along the road. Step out of your car. Soak in the silence 190 near Death Valley, about 200 miles north of here. and admire the immensity of the vista before you. Welcome to your park. Many of the 2 million people who come to Joshua Tree From the Turkey Flats backcountry board, for example, National Park each year are specifi cally looking for Joshua you can look across vast sweeps of undeveloped I just wanted to take a moment and trees.
    [Show full text]
  • The Imperial Valley Is Located About 150 Miles Southeast of Los Angeles
    The Imperial Valley is located about 150 miles southeast of Los Angeles. It is a section of a much larger geologic structure -- the Salton Trough -- which is about 1,000 miles in length. The structure extends from San Gorgonio Pass southeast to the Mexican border, including the Gulf of California and beyond the tip of the Baja California Peninsula. The surrounding mountains are largely faulted blocks of the Southern California batholith of Mesozoic age, overlain by fragments of an earlier metamorphic complex. The valley basin consists of a sedimentary fill of sands and gravels ranging up to 15,000 feet in thickness. The layers slope gently down-valley, and contain several important aquifers. The valley is laced with major members of the San Andreas Fault system. Minor to moderate earthquake events are common, but severe shocks have not been experienced in recorded history. The entire trough, including the Gulf is an extension of the East Pacific Rise, a zone of separation in Earth's crust. Deep sea submergence instruments have observed many phenomena of crustal formation. The axis of the Rise, hence of the Salton Valley as well, is a great transform fault that is having the effect of separating an enormous slab of North America, consisting of the Baja Peninsula and coastal California away from the mainland, with movement to the northwest and out to sea as a terranne. Table of Contents Chapter 1 The San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains Chapter 2 The Eastern Mountains Chapter 3 San Gorgonio Pass Chapter 4 The Hills Chapter 5 Desert Sand
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Study Areas
    I ___- .-ll..l .“..l..““l.--..- I. _.^.___” _^.__.._._ - ._____.-.-.. ------ FEDERAL LAND M.ANAGEMENT Status and Uses of Wilderness Study Areas I 150156 RESTRICTED--Not to be released outside the General Accounting Wice unless specifically approved by the Office of Congressional Relations. ssBO4’8 RELEASED ---- ---. - (;Ao/li:( ‘I:I)-!L~-l~~lL - United States General Accounting OfTice GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-262989 September 23,1993 The Honorable Bruce F. Vento Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Committee on Natural Resources House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: Concerned about alleged degradation of areas being considered for possible inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (wilderness study areas), you requested that we provide you with information on the types and effects of activities in these study areas. As agreed with your office, we gathered information on areas managed by two agencies: the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLN) and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Specifically, this report provides information on (1) legislative guidance and the agency policies governing wilderness study area management, (2) the various activities and uses occurring in the agencies’ study areas, (3) the ways these activities and uses affect the areas, and (4) agency actions to monitor and restrict these uses and to repair damage resulting from them. Appendixes I and II provide data on the number, acreage, and locations of wilderness study areas managed by BLM and the Forest Service, as well as data on the types of uses occurring in the areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Promise Beheld and the Limits of Place
    Promise Beheld and the Limits of Place A Historic Resource Study of Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks and the Surrounding Areas By Hal K. Rothman Daniel Holder, Research Associate National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office Series Number Acknowledgments This book would not be possible without the full cooperation of the men and women working for the National Park Service, starting with the superintendents of the two parks, Frank Deckert at Carlsbad Caverns National Park and Larry Henderson at Guadalupe Mountains National Park. One of the true joys of writing about the park system is meeting the professionals who interpret, protect and preserve the nation’s treasures. Just as important are the librarians, archivists and researchers who assisted us at libraries in several states. There are too many to mention individuals, so all we can say is thank you to all those people who guided us through the catalogs, pulled books and documents for us, and filed them back away after we left. One individual who deserves special mention is Jed Howard of Carlsbad, who provided local insight into the area’s national parks. Through his position with the Southeastern New Mexico Historical Society, he supplied many of the photographs in this book. We sincerely appreciate all of his help. And finally, this book is the product of many sacrifices on the part of our families. This book is dedicated to LauraLee and Lucille, who gave us the time to write it, and Talia, Brent, and Megan, who provide the reasons for writing. Hal Rothman Dan Holder September 1998 i Executive Summary Located on the great Permian Uplift, the Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns national parks area is rich in prehistory and history.
    [Show full text]
  • Target Species Mapping for the Green Visions Plan
    Target Species Habitat Mapping California Quail and Mountain Quail (Callipepla californica and Oreortyx pictus) Family: Phasianidae Order: Galliformes Class: Aves WHR #: B140 and B141 Distribution: California quail are found in southern Oregon, northern Nevada, California, and Baja California, and have been introduced in other states such as Hawaii, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, and Utah (Peterson 1961). In California, they are widespread but absent from the higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada, the Cascades, the White Mountains, and the Warner Mountains, and are replaced by the related Gambel’s quail (C. gambelii) in some desert regions (Peterson 1961, Small 1994). In southern California, they are found from the Coast Range south to the Mexican border, and occur as far east as the western fringes of the Mojave and Sonoran deserts, such as in the Antelope Valley (Garrett and Dunn 1981, Small 1994). California quail range from sea level to about 5000 ft (1524 meters; Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) Mountain quail are resident from northern Washington and northern Idaho, south through parts of Oregon, northwestern Nevada, California, and northern Baja California (Peterson 1961). In southern California, mountain quail are found in nearly all of the mountain ranges west of the deserts, including the southern Coast Ranges, from the Santa Lucia Mountains south through Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, and the Peninsular Ranges south to the Mexican border (Garrot and Dunn 1981, Small 1994). In the Transverse Ranges, a small population occurs in the western Santa Monica Mountains, and larger populations occur in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains (Small 1994). Mountain quail are found at elevations from below 2000 ft (610 meters) to over 9000 ft (2743 meters; Stephenson and Calcarone 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Palen Solar Project, Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR/LUPA
    Palen Solar Project 4: Introduction *Please refer to tables 4.1-1 Existing Projects t:J ROW Boundary Joshua Tree National Park and 4.1-2 for Existing and f.:··::r:::·I Wilderness Area Foreseeable Projects 0 /V C] ~ Section 368 Energy Corridors Figure 4.1-1 e r-----, Area of Critical Environmental Foreseeable Projects DRECP Development Focus Areas L___J Concern Cumulative Projects: 0 4 8 Bureau of Land Management Land Miles 0 ,,,,,; CJ National Landscape Existing and Foreseeable Conservation System Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR/LUPA Palen Solar Project 4.10-1: Paleontolo ical Resources I I - ' D ROW Boundary Geologic Unit and Paleontological Sensitivity Figure 4.10-1 8 ( ~ Fenceline Qya/Qal; Class 5 - Low to High Sensitivity (increasing with depth) Paleontological Sensitivity of 0 0.5 1 - Qoa; Class 3 - Moderate Sensitivity Miles Project Area Geologic Units Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR/LUPA Palen Solar PV Project 3.16: Transportation and Public Access ,,. I ; ; ;-· ,,.. I -- ; / .,,/,,..-­-· .... ........ .... ·, ................. --­ ------­ .... ''·,,,.,, -...._._ ............... -.... ...... _ '·.... __________ ---. ..... ­...._ ..... _ ............ .... ~~~~--1 -·­....__._ ...._ __ _ .... ......... _. ____ ........ .... .... Source: Owlshead GPS • / Off-Highway Vehicle Property Boundary Project, 2013 1 c:::::J " ' (OHV) Route 8 c:::::J Fenceline /'./ Gen-Tie Line Figure 4.12-1 BLM Land 0 0.25 0.5 Removed for OHV Road Miles Avoidance (29.3 ac.) Open Route Mitigation June 2017 Palen Solar Project 4.14: Soil Resources Zone Ill Zone II ' ~~---....:.:.::___r=:JFRUOW Boundary .---·1 Sand TransPort Zone L._ ___J L nd CJ Reduced Footprint Bureau of a d Figure 4.14-1 E:223 Alternative . Management Lan 1 Miles ~AVOI·dance Alternative rt Zone and Alternatives San d Transpo I mental EIS/EIR/LUPA Draft Supp e Palen Solar Project Visual Resources Proposed Gen-Tie Line 1 2 o__..1Miles i.
    [Show full text]
  • The California Desert CONSERVATION AREA PLAN 1980 As Amended
    the California Desert CONSERVATION AREA PLAN 1980 as amended U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Desert District Riverside, California the California Desert CONSERVATION AREA PLAN 1980 as Amended IN REPLY REFER TO United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT STATE OFFICE Federal Office Building 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825 Dear Reader: Thank you.You and many other interested citizens like you have made this California Desert Conservation Area Plan. It was conceived of your interests and concerns, born into law through your elected representatives, molded by your direct personal involvement, matured and refined through public conflict, interaction, and compromise, and completed as a result of your review, comment and advice. It is a good plan. You have reason to be proud. Perhaps, as individuals, we may say, “This is not exactly the plan I would like,” but together we can say, “This is a plan we can agree on, it is fair, and it is possible.” This is the most important part of all, because this Plan is only a beginning. A plan is a piece of paper-what counts is what happens on the ground. The California Desert Plan encompasses a tremendous area and many different resources and uses. The decisions in the Plan are major and important, but they are only general guides to site—specific actions. The job ahead of us now involves three tasks: —Site-specific plans, such as grazing allotment management plans or vehicle route designation; —On-the-ground actions, such as granting mineral leases, developing water sources for wildlife, building fences for livestock pastures or for protecting petroglyphs; and —Keeping people informed of and involved in putting the Plan to work on the ground, and in changing the Plan to meet future needs.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.1 Aesthetics
    4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.1 Aesthetics The purpose of this Section is to identify existing aesthetic resources within the Project area, analyze potential impacts to aesthetic resources associated with the development of the proposed Project, and identify mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the significance of any identified impacts. The aesthetics analysis identifies and evaluates key visual resources in the Project area and determines the degree of visual impacts that could occur from the proposed Project. The assessment is based on field observations of the proposed Project site, in addition to a review of topographic maps, Project drawings, and aerial and ground-level photographs of the Project area from representative viewing locations. Thresholds of significance for the impact analysis are derived from Appendix G of the 2011 CEQA Guidelines. 4.1.1 Environmental Setting Regional Setting The Project is located in a generally undeveloped region of the Mojave Desert within San Bernardino County, California (Figure 4.1-1). The Project area is approximately 10 miles south of the Mojave National Preserve and surrounded by federal lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for open space values. The visual character of the region is shaped by an arid landscape consisting of sparsely vegetated mountain ranges and broad valleys with expansive bajadas1 and scattered dry lakes.2 Land in the Project vicinity consists of open space and undeveloped natural areas, with scattered, isolated development including existing salt mining operations on the Bristol and Cadiz Dry Lakes, agricultural operations on Cadiz Property, scattered structures near Amboy and Cadiz, railroad lines, major roadways, dirt roads, and utility corridors crossing large expanses of the desert.
    [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]