Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Calico PMPD
Calico PMPD
SEPTEMBER 2010
CEC-800-2010-012-PMPD
CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor DOCKET NUMBER 08-AFC-13
CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/calicosolar/index.html
ANTHONY EGGERT
Presiding Committe Member
JEFFERY D. BYRON
Associate Committe Member
PAUL KRAMER
Hearing Officer
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by the California Energy Commission Calico Solar Project AFC Committee
as part of Calico Solar Project, Docket No. 08-AFC-13. The views and recommendations contained in
this document are not official policy of the Energy Commission until the report is adopted at an Energy
Commission Business Meeting.
BEFORE THE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1516 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
1-800-822-6228 – WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV
The Committee hereby submits its Presiding Member's Proposed Decision for the
CALICO SOLAR PROJECT (Docket Number 08-AFC-13). We have prepared this
document pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Commission's regulations.
(20 Cal. Code Regs., §§ 1749-1752.5.)
The Committee recommends that the Application for Certification be approved, subject
to the Conditions of Certification set forth herein, and that the Energy Commission grant
the Project Owner a license to construct and operate the Project.
ANTHONY EGGERT
Commissioner and Presiding Member
Calico Solar AFC Committee
JEFFREY D. BYRON
Commissioner and Associate Member
Calico Solar AFC Committee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
A. SUMMARY .... . ..............................................................................................1
B. SITE CERTIFICATION PROCESS ......................................................................2
C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................................................4
D. COMMISSION OUTREACH ...............................................................................6
E. PUBLIC COMMENT ........................................................................................7
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
PAGE
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
PAGE
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
iv
INTRODUCTION
On December 1, 2008, Stirling Energy Systems (SES) Solar Three, LLC and
Stirling Energy Systems Solar Six, LLC (Applicant), submitted an Application for
Certification (AFC) to the Energy Commission to construct a concentrated solar
thermal power plant facility approximately 37 miles east of Barstow, in San
Bernardino County. At the May 6, 2009, Business Meeting, the Energy
Commission deemed the project adequate beginning staff’s analysis of the
proposed project. The Energy Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to license
this project and is considering the proposal under a review process established
by Public Resources Code section 25540.6.
1
The Reporter’s Transcript of the evidentiary hearings is cited as “date of hearing RT page __.”
For example: 9/20/10 RT 77. The exhibits included in the evidentiary record are cited as “Ex.
number.” A list of all exhibits is contained in Appendix B of this Decision.
1 Introduction
of Victorville, and approximately 115 miles east of Los Angeles (straight line
distances). The Applicant has applied for a Right of Way (ROW) grant from the
United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct and operate the
CSP on BLM-managed public lands. CSP will use approximately 32 acre feet of
water per year, produce a nominal 663.5 MW of electricity, and operate for a
term of 40 years. The project is proposed for development in two phases. Phase
I is located on approximately 1,876 acres. Phase II is located on approximately
2,737 additional acres. About 26,450 SunCatchers, configured in 442 1.5 MW
groups of 60 SunCatchers will be constructed on the project site.
The Calico Solar Project and its related facilities are subject to Energy
Commission licensing jurisdiction. (Pub. Res. Code, § 25500 et seq.). During
licensing proceedings, the Commission acts as lead state agency under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 25519(c),
21000 et seq.) The Commission’s regulatory process, including the evidentiary
record and associated analyses, is functionally equivalent to the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.5.) The process is
designed to complete the review within a specified time period when the required
information is submitted in a timely manner; a license issued by the Commission
is in lieu of other state and local permits.
Introduction 2
present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Public participation is
encouraged at every stage of the process.
The initial portion of the certification process is weighted heavily toward assuring
public awareness of the proposed Project and obtaining necessary technical
information. During this time, the Commission staff sponsors public workshops
at which intervenors, agency representatives, and members of the public meet
with Staff and Applicant to discuss, clarify, and negotiate pertinent issues. Staff
publishes its initial technical evaluation of the Project in its Preliminary Staff
Assessment (PSA), which is made available for a 30-day public comment period.
Staff’s responses to public comment on the PSA and its complete analyses and
recommendations are published in the Final Staff Assessment (FSA, also Exhibit
300).
3 Introduction
triggers an additional public comment period. Finally, the full Commission
decides whether to accept, reject, or modify the Committee's recommendations
at a public hearing.
Throughout the licensing process, members of the Committee, and ultimately the
Commission, serve as fact-finders and decision-makers. Other parties, including
the Applicant, Commission staff, and formal intervenors, function independently
with equal legal status. An "ex parte" rule prohibits parties in the case, or other
persons with an interest in the case, from communicating on substantive matters
with the decision-makers, their staffs, or assigned hearing officer unless these
communications are made on the public record. The Office of the Public Adviser
is available to assist the public in participating in all aspects of the certification
proceeding.
C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 2, 2008, Stirling Energy Systems Solar One, LLC (SES Solar
Three LLC and SES Solar Six LLC) submitted an Application for Certification
(AFC) to construct and operate the Stirling Energy Systems Solar One Project
(SES Solar One), a solar dish Stirling systems project in San Bernardino County,
California. In January 2010, the project formally changed its name to the Calico
Solar Project. The Applicant, SES Solar Three LLC, was merged into SES Solar
Six LLC, and that surviving entity was re-named Calico Solar, LLC.
At the May 6, 2009, Business Meeting, the Energy Commission deemed the
project adequate, beginning staff’s analysis of the proposed project. The Energy
Commission assigned a Committee of two Commissioners to conduct
proceedings.
The formal parties included the Applicant, the Energy Commission staff (Staff),
and Intervenors: California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE); County of San
Bernardino; Defenders of Wildlife; Basin and Range Watch; Society for the
Conservation of Bighorn Sheep; The Sierra Club; Patrick C. Jackson; Newberry
Community Service District; and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation.
Introduction 4
On May 28, 2009, the Committee issued a Notice of Informational Hearing and
Public Site Visit and Bureau of Land Management Scoping Meeting. The Notice
was mailed to local agencies and members of the community who were known to
be interested in the project, including any owners of land adjacent to or in the
vicinity of the Calico Solar Project. The Public Adviser’s Office also advertised
the public hearing and site visit and distributed information to local officials and
sensitive receptors surrounding the project site. 2
On June 22, 2009, the Committee conducted a Site Visit to tour the proposed
Calico site and then convened a public Informational Hearing at the Barstow
Community College, Performing Arts Center, in Barstow, CA. At that event, the
Committee, the parties, interested governmental agencies, and other public
participants discussed issues related to development of the project, described
the Commission's review process, and explained opportunities for public
participation.
On July 29, 2009, the Committee issued an initial Scheduling Order. The
Committee Schedule was based on both Applicant and Staff’s proposed
schedules and related discussion at the Informational Hearing. On November 24,
2009, and February 2, 2010, the Committee issued Revised Committee
Scheduling Orders.
2
Sensitive receptors are people or institutions with people that are particularly susceptible to
illness, such as the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by illness (e.g.,
asthmatics), and persons engaged in strenuous exercise.
5 Introduction
In the course of the review process, the Energy Commission and BLM have held
additional joint Issue Resolution, alternatives identification, and data response
workshops which were announced and made available to the public. These
workshops were held on September 16, 2009 in Barstow, California, and on
December 22, 2009 in Sacramento, California. The purposes of the workshops
were to provide members of the community and governmental agencies
opportunity to obtain project information, and to offer comments they may have
had regarding any aspect of the proposed project.
The SA/DEIS for the Calico Solar Project (08-AFC-13) was published by the Energy
Commission on March 30, 2010. The SA/DEIS contained the California Energy
Commission staff’s and U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) environmental,
public health and engineering evaluation of the proposed Calico Solar Project. A
Supplemental Staff Assessment was published in two parts, the first issued on
July 21, 2010, and the second on August 9, 2010.
The Committee conducted a Prehearing Conference on July 30, 2010 and held
Evidentiary Hearings on August 4, 5, 6, 18 and 25, 2010. On September 3, 2010,
the Committee directed that the parties explore reduced size alternatives to the
6,215 acre proposal that was the subject of the hearings. The applicant
presented six proposals, which were reduced to two final proposals after
discussion at a September 9, 2010, staff-conducted workshop. Those two
proposals, labeled “Scenario 5.5” and “Scenario 6,” were the subject of an
additional evidentiary hearing on September 20, 2010. Both scenarios
significantly reduce the number of desert tortoises likely to be affected by the
project.
We note that staff (Ex. 317, p. ES-1) and the applicant (Ex. 114, p. 1 – 4) prefer
Scenario 5.5 over Scenario 6 because it would produce more renewable energy
power. We treat Scenario 5.5 as the new proposed project for purposes of this
Decision.
D. COMMISSION OUTREACH
Introduction 6
Office notices Committee-led events such as the informational hearing and site
visit, status conferences, the prehearing conference, and evidentiary hearings.
The Public Adviser’s Office provides additional outreach for critical events as well
as provides information to interested persons that would like to become more
actively involved in a power plant siting proceeding. Further, the Media Office
provides notice of events to local and regional press through press releases.
The public may also subscribe to the proceeding's e-mail List Server offered on
the web page for each project which gives an immediate notification of
documents posted to the project web page. Through the activities of these
entities, the Energy Commission has made every effort to ensure that interested
persons are notified of activities in this proceeding.
E. PUBLIC COMMENT
7 Introduction
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On December 2, 2008, Stirling Engine Systems Solar One, LLC (SES Solar
Three, LLC and SES Solar Six, LLC) submitted an Application for Certification
(AFC) to the California Energy Commission to construct and operate the Stirling
Energy Systems Solar One Project (SES Solar One) on public land managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in San Bernardino County, California.
On May 6, 2009, the Energy Commission accepted the AFC as complete. In
January 2010, the project formally changed its name to the Calico Solar Project
(CSP). The applicant, SES Solar Three, LLC, was merged into SES Solar Six,
LLC, and that surviving entity was re-named Calico Solar, LLC. Calico Solar is a
subsidiary of Tessera Solar™. The Calico Solar Project was originally filed as a
nominal 850 megawatt (MW) solar thermal power plant. In September, 2010, its
proposed output was reduced to 663.5 MW. (Exs. 300, p. B.1-1; 317, p. B.1-2.)
1. Project Location
The Calico Solar Project site is proposed to be located on public land managed by
the BLM. The project is proposed for development in two phases, with the first
phase further divided into subparts. Phase 1a is located on approximately 250
acres, Phase 1b is 1,626 acres and Phase 2 is 2,737 acres for a combined total
of 4,613 acres. (Ex. 114, p. 2)
The Calico Solar Project also includes a new 230-kilovolt (kV) Calico Solar
Substation, 2.0 miles of electrical transmission line, an administration building,
maintenance complex, onsite routes interior to the project boundaries, a site
access road, and a bridge over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks.
Approximately 739 feet of the 2-miles of single-circuit, 230-kV generation
interconnection transmission line would be constructed off the project site but still
on BLM managed land. The transmission line would connect the proposed Calico
Solar Substation to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) Pisgah
Substation. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-4.)
Project Description 1
arranged in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group, bringing the CSP
to its net nominal generating capacity of 663.5 MW. The Applicant expects that
construction would take approximately 44 months to complete. However, power
would be available to the grid as each 60-unit group of SunCatchers is
completed. (Ex. 114, p. 2; Ex. 300, pp. B.1-7 and B.1-19)
The overall footprint for the CSP, as well as the individual phases are depicted
on Project Description Figure 1, below.
Heavy construction for the project would be scheduled to occur between 0700
and 1900 Monday through Friday. Additional hours may be necessary to make
up schedule deficiencies or to complete critical construction activities. Some
activities would continue 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. These activities
include, but are not limited to, SunCatcher assembly, refueling of equipment,
staging of materials for the next day’s construction activities, quality
assurance/control, and commissioning. (Ex. 300, pp. B.1-19 to B.1-20.)
The entire project would be fenced for security, however the design of the
fencing is being determined in coordination with regulatory and resource
agencies to protect sensitive ecological areas and address storm flows in
washes. The project would have a laydown area on 14 acres adjacent to the
Main Services Complex. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-8.)
During project construction and operation, the main access to the project site
would be from the south, off of Interstate 40 from the Hector Road exit. The
applicant proposed the development of the following roadways on the project site:
approximately 25.2 miles of surface-treated roadways, approximately 168 miles of
north-south access routes, and approximately 102 miles of east-west access
routes. The access routes would be surface-treated to reduce fugitive dust while
Project Description 2
allowing full access to all dishes and infrastructure. Polymeric stabilizers will be
used in lieu of traditional road construction materials for paved roads and/or to
stabilize unpaved roads. All access to the project site would be through controlled
gates. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-8.)
It is expected that the CSP would be operated with a staff of approximately 182
full-time employees. The project would operate 7 days per week, generating
electricity during normal daylight hours when the solar energy is available.
Maintenance activities would occur 7 days a week, 24 hours a day to ensure
SunCatcher availability when solar energy is available. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-20.)
The applicant has applied for a right-of-way (ROW) grant for the project site from
the BLM Barstow Field Office. Although the project is phased, it is being
analyzed as if all phases would be operational at the same time. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-
7.)
Project Description Table 1 lists the major equipment and significant structures
required for the Calico Solar Project.
Project Description 3
Length Width Height
Description Quantity
(feet) (feet) (feet)
Power factor correction capacitor, 600V, 1,000kVAR, 567 2.5 6.67 7.5
switched in five, each 200kVAR steps
Open bus switch rack, 35kV, 7 bay with five 35kV, 6 105 20 30
1,200-A, 40kVA INT, circuit breakers, insulators,
switches, and bus work
Shunt capacitor bank, 34.5kV, 90 MVAR switched in 6 15 8 20
six each 15 MVAR steps
Dynamic VAR (DVAR) compensation system in 1 60 12 16
coordination with shunt capacitor banks – size to be
determined by studies
Disconnect switch, 35kV, 3,000 A, 200kV BIL, group- 6 3 11 16
operated
Power transformer, three phase, 100/133/167 mega 6 15 35 23
volt amp, 230/132.8-34.5/19.9kV, 750kV BIL, oil filled
Power circuit breaker, 242kV, 2000A, 40 kilo amp 7 12 20 16
interrupting capacity
Coupling capacitor voltage transformer for metering, 6 1 1 25
242kV, 900kV BIL, 60 Hertz, Potential Transformer
ratio 1,200/2,000:1
Disconnect switch, 242kV, 2000A 9 10 25 25
Source: Ex. 300, p. B.1-9
Notes: A = ampere (amp), BIL = basic impulse level, gpd = gallons per day, HP = horsepower, Hz = hertz, INT = international,
kA = kilo amps kV = kilovolt, kVA = kilovolt amps, Kvar = kilovolt amp reactive, kW = kilowatt, kWe = kilowatt-electric,
MVA = megavolt amps MVAR = megavolt amp reactive MW = megawatts, V = volts, VAR = volt amp reactive W = watts
The PCU converts the focused solar thermal energy into grid-quality electricity.
The conversion process in the PCU involves a closed-cycle, 4-cylinder,
35-horsepower reciprocating Stirling Engine utilizing an internal working fluid of
hydrogen gas that is recycled through the engine. The Stirling Engine operates
with heat input from the sun that is focused by the SunCatcher’s dish assembly
mirrors onto the PCU’s solar receiver tubes, which contain hydrogen gas. The
PCU solar receiver is an external heat exchanger that absorbs the incoming solar
thermal energy. This heats and pressurizes the hydrogen gas in the heat
exchanger tubing, the gas in turn powers the Stirling Engine.
Project Description 4
A generator is connected to the Stirling Engine to produce the electrical output of
the SunCatcher. Each generator is capable of producing 25 kW at 575 volts
alternating current (VAC)/60 hertz (Hz) of grid-quality electricity when operating
with rated solar input. Waste heat from the engine is transferred to the ambient
air via a radiator system similar to those used in automobiles.
Brush trimming would be conducted between alternating rows and would consist
of cutting the top of the existing brush while leaving the existing native plant root
system in place to minimize soil erosion. To minimize shading on SunCatchers
and prevent potential brush fire hazards, natural vegetation trimmings would be
cleared in the area of each SunCatcher as well as on either side of the surface-
treated arterial roadways. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-10.)
After brush has been trimmed, blading for roadways and foundations would be
conducted between alternating rows to provide access to individual SunCatchers.
Blading would consist of limited removal of terrain undulations. Although ground
disturbance would be minimized wherever possible, the applicant proposes that
localized rises or depressions within the individual 1.5-MW solar groups would be
removed to provide for proper alignment and operation of the individual
SunCatchers. Surface-treated roadways would be constructed as close to the
existing topography as possible, with limited cut-and-fill operations to maintain
roadway design slope to within a maximum of 10 percent. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-10.)
The layout of the proposed Calico Solar Project would maintain the local pre-
development drainage patterns where feasible, and water discharge from the site
would remain at the southern and western boundaries. The paved roadways
would have a low-flow, unpaved swale or roadway dip as needed to convey
nuisance runoff to existing drainage channels. It is expected that storm water
runoff would flow over the crown of the paved roadways, which are typically less
than 6 inches from swale flow line to crown at centerline of roadway, thus
maintaining existing local drainage patterns during storms. The applicant has
proposed that low-flow culverts would be used on emergency access routes and
all other roads would be at grade. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-10.)
Project Description 5
The Applicant has proposed localized channel grading on a limited basis to
improve channel hydraulics within the dry washes and to control flow direction
where buildings and roadways are proposed. The Main Services Complex would
be protected from a 100-year flood by berms or channels that would direct the
flow around the perimeter of the building site, if required. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-10.)
Building sites would be developed per San Bernardino County drainage criteria,
with provision for soft bottom storm water retention basins, if necessary. Rainfall
from paved areas and building roofs would be collected and directed to the storm
water retention basins. Volume on retention or detention basins should have a
total volume capacity for a 3-inch minimum precipitation covering the entire site.
Volume can be considered by a combination of basin size and additional volume
provided within paving and/or landscaping areas. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-11.)
The retention basins, if any are necessary, would be designed so that the
retained flows would empty within 72 hours after the storm to provide mosquito
abatement. This design can be accomplished by draining, evaporation,
infiltration, or a combination thereof. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-11.)
The post-development flow rates released from the project site are expected to
be less than the pre-development flow rates, thus complying with BMPs. The
expected flow reduction is based on the following factors.
Project Description 6
• Except for the building sites, roads, and two evaporation ponds, the majority of
the project site would remain pervious; only a negligible portion of the site
would be affected by pavement and SunCatchers foundations.
• The increased runoff expected from the building sites would be over-mitigated
by capturing 100 percent of the runoff in a retention basin, where the storm
runoff would be infiltrated and/or evaporated to the atmosphere.
• The proposed perforated risers to be constructed upstream of the roadway
culverts would provide for additional detention. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-11.)
5. Buildings
The Main Services Complex would be located within the project site in a central
location that provides for efficient access routes for maintenance vehicles
servicing the SunCatcher solar field. The main control room would be located at
the Main Services Complex.
Warehouse and shop spaces would provide work areas and storage for spare
parts for project maintenance. The Main Services Complex would contain
meeting and training rooms, maintenance and engineering offices, and
administrative offices.
The three assembly buildings will be located beside the Main Services Complex.
Assembly buildings will be decommissioned after the project’s SunCatchers are
assembled and installed.
A water treatment shade structure will be located next to the Main Services
Complex and to the northeast side of the Main Services Complex. The water
treatment structure will house water treatment equipment and safe storage areas
Project Description 7
for water treatment chemicals. A motor control center for the water treatment
equipment and pumps will be located within this structure. Two wastewater
evaporative ponds designed for water treatment wastewater containment will be
located just north of the water treatment structure. A control building will be
located near the project substation. This building will contain relay and control
systems for the substation in one room and the project operations control room in
another room or rooms. A diesel-powered fire water pump and a diesel operated
standby power generator will be located adjacent to the operation and
administration building on the north side.
Electric service for the Main Services Complex will be obtained from SCE.
Electric power will be provided via overhead service from an SCE overhead
distribution line located on the north side of I-40. Communications service for the
Main Services Complex will be obtained from the local phone company.
Communications service will be provided via an overhead service from existing
underground communications lines located on the north of I-40.
The exterior material for the assembly buildings would be a fire retardant vinyl
fluoride film with ultraviolet blocking characteristics and would be chemical and
weather resistant. The exteriors would be painted desert sand to match the other
structures.
Project Description 8
Transport trailer storage would be located adjacent to the assembly building. The
storage area would allow the project to maintain a supply of 3 to 5 days of
inventory of SunCatcher parts during the assembly phase of construction.
The following types of water would be required for the project: equipment
washing water; potable water; dust control water, and fire protection water.
When completed, the Calico Solar Project would require a total of approximately
36.2 acre-feet of raw water per year. SunCatcher mirror washing and operations
dust control under regular maintenance routines will require an average of
approximately 10.4 gallons of raw water per minute.
The applicant proposes the use of ground water from the Lavic Groundwater
Basin. The applicant initiated the drilling of four water wells adjacent to the
project site, within the Lavic Groundwater Basin. As wells are drilled the flow rate
(gallons per minute – gpm) were determined, concern over sufficiency of this
water supply lead to the identification of a new primary water supply from
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). Initially, the Lavic Ground Basin wells
were to be used as a backup water source since they were believed to lack the
capacity to provide for construction water needs. The applicant subsequently
discovered that one of the wells within the Lavic Groundwater Basin could
provide enough water for construction and operations of the proposed project
and has returned to well water from the Lavic Groundwater Basin as the primary
water source for the project.
The water from the Lavic Groundwater Basin well is characterized as raw water
and will require treatment to remove dissolved solids for SunCatcher mirror wash
water applications. The water will be required to be demineralized to prevent
mineral deposits forming on the SunCatcher mirrors. Processes available for
demineralization are Reverse Osmosis (RO) and ion exchange.
Mirror Washing and Fire Protection Water: The Main Services Complex will
include a location for an approximately 230,000-gallon tank that will be used to
Project Description 9
store water for SunCatcher mirror washing and fire protection applications. This
volume of water will meet all LORS, including fire protection water for the
Newberry Springs and the Harvard Station 46 (a County Fire Department staffed
station), and for the San Bernardino Fire Department.
Dust Control Water: The water will be conveyed to the Main Services Complex
via a 6 to 8-inch-diameter water line. The expected average well water
consumption for the project during construction is approximately 50 acre-feet per
year. Under normal operation (inclusive of mirror cleaning, dust control, and
potable water usage), water required will be approximately 36.2 acre-feet per
year. Emergency water may be trucked in from local municipalities. The
Applicant would seek agreements at the time of the emergency.
The Calico Solar Project water supply requirements are tabulated in Project
Description Table 2, Water Usage Rates for Operation. The table provides both
the expected maximum water usage rates and the annual average usage rates.
Project Description 10
Source: Ex. 300, p. B.1-14
1
Based on 34,000 SunCatchers requiring a monthly wash with an average of 14 gallons of demineralized water per spray
wash and a 5-day work week (21 work days per month).
2
During a 3-month period, all SunCatcher mirrors are given a scrub wash requiring up to three times the normal wash of
14 gallons per SunCatcher. Therefore, the Daily Maximum usage rate is based on 2/3 of the SunCatchers receiving a
normal wash and one third receiving a scrub wash.
3
Based on every SunCatcher having approximately 8 normal washes per year with one additional scrub wash.
4
Based on the maximum amount of demineralized water required for mirror washing and assumes a decrease in raw
water quality requiring an additional 20% of system discharge.
5 6
Assumes 30 gallons per person per day for 182 people. Max. amount assumes a 20% contingency over the Daily Avg.
7 8
Assumes a 6-day work week and average daily usage. Assumes 5,000 gallons per day.
9 10
Assumes up to 10,000 gallons per day. Assumes daily average dust control operations.
The water treatment wastewater generated by the reverse osmosis (RO) unit
would contain relatively high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS).
Wastewater or brine generated by the RO unit would be discharged to a polyvinyl
chloride (PVC)-lined concrete evaporation pond that meets the requirements of
the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Each pond would be
sized to contain 1 year of discharge flow, approximately 2.44 million gallons.
A minimum of 1 year is required for the water treatment waste to undergo the
evaporation process. The second pond would be in operation while the first is
undergoing evaporation. The two ponds would alternate their functions on an
annual basis.
After the brine has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at
the bottom of the evaporation pond will be tested by the applicant and disposed
of in an appropriate non-hazardous waste disposal facility. The solids would be
scheduled for removal during the summer months, when the concentration of
solids is at its greatest due to an increase in evaporation rates, in order to
achieve maximum solids removal.
Project Description 11
Bernardino County, California State Regional Water Quality Board, and the
Department of Health Services.
The general threshold limit for a standard approval process for septic tanks and
leach fields through the local RWQCB is 500 gallons per acre per day. The
expected daily sanitary wastewater flow from Calico Solar ranges from an
average of 5,500 gallons to a peak of 6,600 gallons; the required set aside area
given this flow is approximately 14 acres. Given the project site area is much
greater than 14 acres, the threshold limit for septic tank and leachfield
applications will be met. The required leachfield area is estimated to be
approximately 1,100 square-feet (0.025 acre).
9. Hydrogen System
The Applicant described the hydrogen use, supply and storage in the AFC, filed
in December 2008. In the original design, it was proposed that hydrogen would
be supplied to the SunCatchers through a distributed system. Each of the SCE,
within the SunCatcher unit, would contain 14 cubic feet of hydrogen gas, and
each SunCatcher unit would be equipped with a 196-scf k-bottle to replenish
hydrogen gas lost within the gas circuit. K-bottles would be provided by a
commercial hydrogen supplier. The Applicant responded to Energy Commission
and BLM Data Requests 57-60 in July 2009, updating the hydrogen system to
include a centralized hydrogen gas supply, storage and distribution system. (Ex.
5d.) The system included onsite generation of hydrogen through electrolysis and
the storage of that hydrogen in a 36,400 scf steel storage tank. From the storage
tank, the hydrogen would be piped to 95 individual compressor groups that
include a compressor, a high pressure supply tank and a low pressure dump tank
Project Description 12
used to recover hydrogen from non-operational PCUs through a return line. (Ex.
300, p. B.1-16.)
At this time, the applicant is evaluating the relative advantages between the
centralized hydrogen distribution system and a distributed system that utilizes k-
bottles on the PCUs of all SunCatchers. Therefore, both systems are described
below. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-16.)
If a centralized hydrogen system is used at the Calico Solar site, the hydrogen
gas would be produced through electrolysis by two redundant hydrogen
generators. Each proposed hydrogen generator would be capable of producing
1,820 scfh. Although the hydrogen generators could run full time if needed to
supply sufficient amount of hydrogen to the SunCatchers, the generators would
be operated at off-peak electric hours using grid power and generated hydrogen
would be stored onsite. Hydrogen gas produced by the onsite generators would
be stored in a steel storage tank. The hydrogen tank, at approximately nine feet
in diameter by 30 feet long, would be capable of storing approximately two-day
supply of hydrogen (i.e., approximately 36,400 scf). (Ex. 300, p. B.1-16.)
Project Description 13
Distributed Hydrogen System Description. If the distributed hydrogen supply
system utilizing k-bottles at each SunCatcher PCU is utilized at the Calico Solar
site, the system would use two redundant hydrogen generators and one steel
storage tank located at the Main Services Complex as described in the
centralized system. However, the system would not deliver hydrogen through
pipelines. In lieu of the distribution equipment, hydrogen would be filled from the
hydrogen storage tank to each individual SunCatcher through trucks. Each
SunCatcher would include an 82-scf high pressure supply tank, 28-scf low
pressure dump tank, and a 489-scf local storage tank. In addition, each
SunCatcher unit would contain a minimum of 11-scf of hydrogen at 580 psi at all
times, resulting in a total of around 610-scf of hydrogen in each SunCatcher. (Ex.
300, p. B.1-17.)
The k-bottles would be delivered back to each SunCatcher, utilizing the mirror-
washing truck trips. Hydrogen refilling and replacement trips are expected occur
approximately three times per year. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-17.)
The proposed project would include the construction of a new 230-kV Calico
Solar Substation approximately in the center of the project site. The proposed
project substation would consist of an open air bus with 15, 35-kV collection
feeder circuit breakers. Each feeder breaker would be connected to one of the
48-MW or 51-MW overhead collection lines. Additional 35-kV circuit breakers
would connect to power factor correction capacitor banks located in the
substation yard. This new substation would be connected to the existing SCE
Pisgah Substation via an approximately 2-mile, single-circuit, 230-kV
transmission line. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new
transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 275-MW
Phase I construction. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-17.)
For the 275-MW Phase I of the project, the first interconnection substation would
initially consist of two power transformers rated at 120/160/200 megavolt
amperes (MVA) each to convert the generation collection voltage from 34.5 kV to
the transmission tie voltage of 230 kV. The substation would ultimately contain 6
120/160/200-MVA, 34.5-kV to 230-kV step-up power transformers. Each power
transformer would serve 3 of the 15 overhead collection lines (one 48-MW line
and 2 51-MW lines). (Ex. 300, p. B.1-17.)
Project Description 14
MW with the addition of three power transformers in Phase II of the proposed
project. Each transformer would collect 150 MW of generation via three overhead
34.5-kV collection circuits, each protected by a 35-kV power circuit breaker. The
34.5-kV feeders would be terminated on outdoor circuit breakers. (Ex. 300, pp.
B.1-17 to B.1-18.)
Control, metering, and protection systems for the line, substation, and collection
systems would be contained within a control building located adjacent to the
Calico Solar Substation. The control building would also contain the necessary
communications equipment to meet owner, California Independent System
Operator (California ISO), and SCE requirements. Additional substation
equipment would include a 34.5-kV power-factor correction capacitor control
system designed to meet the power factor and zero and low-voltage ride-through
requirements of the Interconnect Agreement. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-18.)
Project Description 15
In the unforeseen event that the project is temporarily closed, a contingency plan
for the temporary cessation of operations will be implemented. The contingency
plan will be followed to ensure conformance with applicable LORS and to protect
public health, safety, and the environment. The plan, depending on the expected
duration of the shutdown, may include the draining of chemicals from storage
tanks and other equipment and the safe shutdown of equipment. Wastes will be
disposed of according to applicable LORS, as discussed in the Waste
Management section of this Decision. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-21.)
The planned life of the Calico Solar Project is 40 years. However, if the project is
still economically viable, it could be operated longer. It is also possible that the
project could become economically noncompetitive before 40 years have
passed, forcing early decommissioning. Whenever the project is permanently
closed, the closure procedure will follow a plan that will be developed as
described below. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-21.)
The removal of the project from service, or decommissioning, may range from
“mothballing” to the removal of equipment and appurtenant facilities, depending
on conditions at the time. Because the conditions that would affect the
decommissioning decision are largely unknown at this time, these conditions
would be presented to the Energy Commission, the BLM, and other applicable
agencies for review and approval as part of the decommissioning plan. The
decommissioning plan would discuss the following:
• proposed decommissioning activities for the project and appurtenant
facilities constructed as part of the project,
• conformance of the proposed decommissioning activities with applicable
LORS and local/regional plans,
• activities necessary to restore the project site if the plan requires removal
of equipment and appurtenant facilities,
• decommissioning alternatives other than complete restoration to the
original condition, and
• associated costs of the proposed decommissioning and the source of
funds to pay for the decommissioning.
In general, the decommissioning plan for the project would attempt to maximize
the recycling of project components. Calico Solar would attempt to sell unused
chemicals back to the suppliers or other purchasers or users. Equipment
containing chemicals would be drained and shut down to ensure public health
and safety and to protect the environment. Nonhazardous wastes will be
Project Description 16
collected and disposed of in appropriate landfills or waste collection facilities.
Hazardous wastes will be disposed of according to applicable LORS. The site will
be secured 24 hours per day during the decommissioning activities, and Calico
Solar will provide periodic update reports to the Energy Commission, the BLM,
and other appropriate parties. (Ex. 300, p. B.1-22.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Calico Solar LLC will own and operate the project, which will be located
within San Bernardino County on 4,613 acres of public land managed by
the BLM, 37 miles east of Barstow, California.
2. The project would be constructed in two phases, with the first phase
divided into subphases. Phase 1a would consist of 60 SunCatchers
configured in a single group and much of the support facilities. Phase 1b
and then Phase 2 would contain the remaining 26,390 SunCatchers
arranged in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group, bringing
the CSP to its net nominal generating capacity of 663.5 MW.
3. The primary equipment for the generating facility would include
approximately 26,450 SunCatchers, their associated equipment and
systems, and their support infrastructure.
4. The proposed Calico Solar Project also includes a new 230-kilovolt (kV)
Calico Solar Substation, 2.0 miles of electrical transmission line, an
administration building, maintenance complex, onsite routes interior to the
project boundaries, a site access road and bridge over the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks. Approximately 739 feet of the 2-miles of
single-circuit, 230-kV generation interconnection transmission line would be
constructed off the project site but still on BLM managed land. The
Project Description 17
transmission line would connect the proposed Calico Solar Substation to
the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) Pisgah Substation.
5. The Lavic Groundwater Basin will be used as the primary water source for
the project.
6. The proposed project would include the construction of a new 230-kV
Calico Solar Substation approximately in the center of the project site. This
new substation would be connected to the existing SCE Pisgah Substation
via an approximately 2-mile, single-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Other
than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or
off-site substations would be required for the 275-MW Phase I construction.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Project Description 18
Project Description 19
II. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the Energy
Commission’s regulations require an evaluation of the comparative merits of a
range of feasible site and facility alternatives which meet the basic objectives of
the proposed project but would avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
environmental impacts. [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15126.6(c) and (e); tit. 20, §
1765.]
1. Project Objectives
For our analysis, we will consider the following objectives, a reduction and
refinement of those proposed by the applicant:
1 Alternatives
• To locate the facility in areas of high insolation with ground slope of less
than 5%.
• To provide clean, renewable electricity to support California’s Renewable
Portfolio Standard Program (RPS);
• To assist in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions as required by the
California Global Warming Solutions Act;
• To contribute to the achievement of the 33% RPS target set by California’s
governor and legislature; and
• To complete the review process in a timeframe that would allow the
applicant to start construction or meet the economic performance
guidelines by December 31, 2010 to potentially qualify for the 2009 ARRA
cash grant in lieu of tax credits for certain renewable energy projects. (Ex.
300, p. B.2-9.)
2. Project Impacts
In this Decision, the Commission has found the following significant impacts.
Based on the evidence presented, the following impacts have been identified as
issues of concern for the CSP project.
• Land Use. The CSP project would permanently change the nature of land
use at the project site from Government Special Public Limited Use and
Moderate Use to an intensive utility use for the generation of power.
Therefore, the combined effect of the overall cumulative past, present, and
proposed and reasonably foreseeable projects, including the proposed
project, in the desert region of San Bernardino County would adversely
affect recreation and wilderness resources, resulting in a significant and
unavoidable impact under CEQA
Alternatives Table 1
Summary of Alternatives Retained and Eliminated
Alternative Rationale for Retention or Elimination
Proposed Project/Action Retained. Evaluated as the applicant’s proposal.
Presently:
- 663.5 MW
- 4,613 acres
26,450 SunCatchers
Formerly:
- 850 MW
- 6,215 acres
- 34,000 SunCatchers
Reduced Acreage Alternative Retained. Evaluated in the SSA because it would
6 substantially reduce impacts of the Calico Solar
-275 MW (up to 350 MW)
Project while meeting most or all of the project
-2,600 acres (41% of
objectives.
originally proposed)
- 11,000 SunCatchers
No Project/No Action Alternative Retained. Required under CEQA.
Private Land Alternative Retained. Would substantially reduce impacts of
the Calico Solar Project while meeting most
project objectives.
Public Land Alternatives
6
The Calico Solar Project as described in the SA/DEIS would require approximately 10 acres per
MW of power generated. Since publication of the SA/DEIS, the Calico Solar Project boundaries
have been revised and the project as currently proposed would require 7.3 acres per MW
generated. As such, the amount of energy generated by the Reduced Acreage Alternative could
be up to 350 MW.
3 Alternatives
Alternative Rationale for Retention or Elimination
Avoidance of Donated and Eliminated. Would not substantially reduce
impacts of the Calico Solar Project; it would create
Acquired Lands Alternative
the same general impacts to Mojave fringe-toed
- 850 MW lizard, Nelson big-horn sheep, and other wide-
- 7,050 acres (over 100 % of ranging species as the proposed Calico Solar
proposed) Project.
- 28,800 SunCatchers
Camp Rock Road (AS1) Eliminated. Would not substantially reduce
impacts of the Calico Solar Project; located in
Category I desert tortoise habitat, partially located
in the Johnson Valley OHV area and would
require use of LWCF acquisition lands.
Upper Johnson Valley (AS2) Eliminated. Would not substantially reduce
impacts of the Calico Solar Project; located
entirely within the Upper Johnson Valley OHV
Area and in study area for MCAGCC Twentynine
Palms expansion.
West of Twentynine Palms Military Eliminated. Would not substantially reduce
impacts of the Calico Solar Project; located
Base (AS3)
entirely within the Upper Johnson Valley OHV
Area and in study area for MCAGCC Twentynine
Palms expansion, would require use of LWCF
acquired lands.
I-40 South (AS4) Eliminated. Would not substantially reduce
impacts of the Calico Solar Project; located in
desert tortoise critical habitat, would impact
approximately 3 miles of the Pisgah Crater Lava
Flow, would potentially impact access to three
existing mines.
Broadwell Lake (AS5) Eliminated. Would not substantially reduce
impacts of the Calico Solar Project; potentially
located within proposed national monument;
pending right-of-way grant application for the site,
therefore not considered a viable alternative.
SES Solar Three Alternative Eliminated. Pending right-of-way grant application
for the site, therefore not considered a viable
alternative.
Technology Alternatives Evaluated
Parabolic Trough Technology Eliminated. Would not substantially reduce
impacts of the Calico Solar Project
Solar Power Tower Technology Eliminated. Would not substantially reduce
impacts of the Calico Solar Project
Linear Fresnel Technology Eliminated. Would reduce area required by 40%
but would not eliminate significant impacts of the
Calico Solar Project
Solar Photovoltaic Technology – Eliminated. Would not substantially reduce
impacts of the Calico Solar Project
Utility Scale
Alternatives 4
Alternative Rationale for Retention or Elimination
Distributed Solar Technology Eliminated. While it will very likely be possible to
achieve 850 MW of distributed solar energy over
the coming years, the limited numbers of existing
facilities make it difficult to conclude with
confidence that this much distributed solar will be
available within the timeframe required for the
Calico Solar Project. Barriers exist related to
interconnection with the electric distribution grid.
Solar PV is one components of the renewable
energy mix required to meet the California
Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements, and
additional technologies like solar thermal
generation, would also be required.
Wind Energy Eliminated. While there are substantial wind
resources in the region, environmental impacts
could also be significant so wind would not reduce
impacts in comparison to the Calico Solar Project.
Also, wind is one of the components of the
renewable energy mix required to meet the
California Renewable Portfolio Standard
requirements; additional technologies like solar
thermal generation, would also be required.
Geothermal Energy Eliminated. Despite the encouragement provided
by Renewable Portfolio Standards and ARRA
funding, few new geothermal projects have been
proposed in the California and no geothermal
projects are included on the Renewable Energy
Action Team list of projects requesting ARRA
funds. Therefore, the development of 850 MW of
new geothermal generation capacity within the
timeframe required for the Calico Solar Project is
considered speculative.
Biomass Energy Eliminated. Most biomass facilities produce only
small amounts of electricity (in the range of 3 to
10 MW) and so could not meet the project
objectives related to the California Renewable
Portfolio Standard. In addition, between 85 and
250 facilities would be needed to achieve 850 MW
of generation, creating substantial adverse
impacts.
Tidal Energy Eliminated. Tidal fence technology is
commercially available in Europe. However, it has
not been demonstrated and proven at the scale
that would be required to replace the proposed
project, particularly with Pacific tides. Therefore, it
would not substantially reduce impacts of the
Calico Solar Project.
5 Alternatives
Alternative Rationale for Retention or Elimination
Wave Energy Eliminated. Unproven technology at the scale that
would be required to replace the proposed project;
it may also result in substantial adverse
environmental impacts
Natural Gas Eliminated. Would not attain the objective of
generating renewable power meeting California’s
renewable energy needs
Coal Eliminated. Would not attain the objective of
generating renewable power meeting California’s
renewable energy needs and is not a feasible
alternative in California
Nuclear Energy Eliminated. The permitting of new nuclear
facilities in California is not currently allowable by
law
Conservation and Demand-side Eliminated. Conservation and demand-
management alone are not sufficient to address
Management
all of California’s energy needs, and would not
provide the renewable energy required to meet
the California Renewable Portfolio Standard
requirements
Ex. 300, pp. B.2-3 – B.2-6.
7
The Calico Solar Project as described in the SA/DEIS would require approximately 10 acres per
MW of power generated. Since publication of the SA/DEIS, the Calico Solar Project boundaries
have been revised and the project as currently proposed would require 7.3 acres per MW
generated. As such, the amount of energy generated by the Reduced Acreage Alternative could
be up to 350 MW.
Alternatives 6
The boundaries of the Reduced Acreage Alternative are shown in Alternatives
Figure 1. This area was designed to avoid sensitive cultural resources and areas
that were mapped as occupied tortoise habitat (live tortoise and/or active burrows
and sign). It also excludes all donated lands and lands acquired by BLM with
conservation funds. The boundaries of the Reduced Acreage Alternative do not
coincide with the Applicant’s Phase I project boundaries.
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Acreage Alternative would transmit
power to the grid through the SCE Pisgah Substation and would require
infrastructure including water storage tanks, a transmission line, road access, a
main services complex, and a substation (SES 2008a). However, as stated
above, the Reduced Acreage alternative would not require the 65-mile upgrade
to the SCE transmission line. SCE would complete system upgrades within
existing substation boundaries to accommodate the 275 MW, and the 220 kV
transmission line would be used. The main services complex, primary water well,
and substation and onsite transmission line for the Reduced Acreage Alternative
would remain at the location proposed for the proposed project.
While the Reduced Acreage Alternative would reduce many of the impacts of the
proposed project, it would also reduce the project’s benefits of replacing fossil
fuel fired generation and reducing associated criteria pollutant and greenhouse
gas emissions.
7 Alternatives
ALTERNATIVES FIGURE 1
Alternatives 8
ALTERNATIVES FIGURE 2
9 Alternatives
Alternatives 10
11 Alternatives
The applicant considered two alternatives in the AFC that included the use of
some private land (Upper Johnson Valley – AS2, and I-40 South – AS4). These
sites were eliminated from further consideration by the applicant because they
lacked railroad access and major highway access and conflicted with other uses.
There are limited areas where undeveloped contiguous private land exists within
the California desert with the slope and solarity requirements defined by the
applicant. The RETI Phase 2A Draft Final Maps (9/01/09) identified private,
disturbed land appropriate for solar development east of Barstow, bounded by
I-15 on the north and I-40 on the south. The Mojave River passes through this
region, and its floodplain ranges from about 2,000 feet to one mile wide. The river
parallels I-15 on a northeasterly trend.
Alternatives Figure 2 shows this area of private land and Alternatives Figures
3A and 3B illustrate the alternative in more detail. This alternative is made up of
two separate and unconnected sections. The Private Land Alternative northern
section has a total of approximately 64 parcels (27 separate landowners) making
up approximately 4,000 acres. The Private Land Alternative southern section has
a total of approximately 45 parcels (22 separate landowners), also comprising
approximately 4,000 acres. Because each section is approximately 4,000 acres,
the alternative would require two phases, each approximately 425 MW. The
alternative is considered viable as an alternative site because the Calico Solar
project defines construction of separate groups of SunCatchers. However,
because the alternative would not be one contiguous parcel, additional major
equipment and substations would be required for at this site, increasing the cost
of the project.
The Private Land Alternative northern section would be located on private land
with a few BLM parcels included, south of and adjacent to Interstate 15 in the
community of Harvard, north of Newberry Springs. The Private Land Alternative
northern section has appropriate insolation and minimal slope. The elevation of
the site is approximately 1,800 feet above mean sea level. The site would be
accessed via Harvard Road, off Interstate 15 at the Harvard Road exit. The
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) owns lands located just south
of the site boundary. Additionally, there are several existing structures and
residences on some of this private land, and removal of houses or other
structures may be required.
Alternatives 12
The Private Land Alternative southern section is located north of the National
Trails Highway and BNSF railroad. This land has appropriate insolation and
minimal slope and has been previously graded for agriculture use. Existing solar
thermal projects (SEGS I and II) are sited immediately south of the alternative
and the original U.S. DOE Solar Two project was located at this site; however, it
was decommissioned in November, 2009 and the site may potentially be
developed as a solar energy project. The elevation of the site is between sea
level and 20 feet below sea level. The site would be accessed via I-40 at the
Hidden Springs Road exit.
The Mojave River is located in between the Private Land Alternative northern
section and the Private Land Alternative southern section. The river is dry most
of the year and flows only during the largest rain events. The land use character
of the immediate alternative site area is open space, agriculture, and rural
residential. Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMA) for protection of desert
tortoise are located north and south of the alternative.
Approximately five residences are located within the Private Land Alternative
northern section. Existing agriculture structures are located on the Private Land
Alternative southern section. The Private Land Alternative would also be located
adjacent to low density residential areas near Daggett and Newberry Springs.
The Private Land Alternative southern section would be located adjacent to an
area zoned as regional industrial.
SCE Coolwater-Dunn Siding 115 kV transmission line runs through the Private
Land Alternative northern and southern sections. The Private Land Alternative
sites would require either an upgrade of the SCE Coolwater-Dunn Siding 115 kV
transmission line or the construction of a new 10-mile 230 kV transmission line
that would follow the existing corridor southwest to the Coolwater Substation.
Both the Private Land Alternative sections would require substations; however,
one transmission line could be used for both sites.
13 Alternatives
The Private Lands Alternative would have impacts similar to those of the
proposed site in many disciplines. However, because this alternative would be on
disturbed agricultural lands, the alternative site is likely to have less severe
cultural, visual, and biological resources impacts but greater noise and land use
(agricultural lands) impacts than the proposed site. The Private Land Alternative
presents an additional challenge: its northern section is made up of
approximately 64 parcels with 27 separate landowners and the southern portion
is made up of 45 parcels with 22 separate landowners. Due to the number of
parcels that would have to be acquired, obtaining site control would be more
challenging than at the proposed site where BLM is the only land management
entity. In addition, detailed site engineering and transmission interconnection
would require additional time for this site to be developed; as a result this
alternative would not meet the project objective requiring that a decision to be
made in 2010. (Ex. 300, p B.2-19 – B.2-49.)
6. No Project Alternative
If the “no project” alternative were selected, the construction and operational
impacts of the CSP project would not occur. There would be no grading of the
site, no loss or disturbance of approximately 4,600 acres of desert habitat, and
no installation of extensive power generation and transmission equipment. The
“no project” alternative would also eliminate contributions to cumulative impacts
in the project viewshed. It is the environmentally preferred alternative.
In the absence of the CSP project, however, other power plants, both renewable
and nonrenewable, would have to be constructed to serve the demand for
electricity. If the “no project” alternative were chosen, other solar renewable
power plants may be built, and the impacts to the environment would likely be
similar to those of the proposed project because solar renewable technologies
require large amounts of land and similar slope and solarity requirements as the
proposed CSP project. The “no project” alternative may also lead to development
Alternatives 14
of other non-solar renewable technologies to help achieve the California
Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Additionally, if the “no project” alternative were chosen, it is likely that additional
gas-fired power plants would be built or that existing gas-fired plants could
operate longer. If the project were not built, California would not benefit from the
reduction in greenhouse gases that this facility would provide. SCE would not
receive the 663.5 MW contribution to its renewable state-mandated energy
portfolio. (Ex. 300, p. B.2-14.)
Although eliminated from further consideration during the screening analysis, two
alternatives deserve additional discussion because they were specifically
advanced in testimony or comments as viable alternatives. They are distributed
solar generation and conservation and demand side management.
15 Alternatives
and reflect the heat to tower-mounted receivers that boil water to create
superheated steam.
Because most PV panels are black to absorb sun, rather than mirrored to reflect
it, glare would not create visual impacts as with the power tower, Fresnel, and
trough technologies. Additionally, the distributed solar PV alternative would not
require the additional operational components, such as dry-cooling towers,
substations, transmission interconnection, maintenance and operation facilities
with corresponding visual impacts. Solar PV panels would be visible to passing
residents and may be viewed by a larger number of people.
Alternatives 16
• Cost. The 2009 IEPR states that solar PV technology has shown dramatic
cost reductions since 2007, and is expected to show the most improvement of
all the technologies evaluated in the 2009 IEPR model, bringing its capital
cost within range of that of natural gas–fired combined cycle units. However, the
CPUC 33% Renewables Portfolio Standard Implementation Analysis
Preliminary Results considered a number of cases to achieve a 33% RPS
standard. The results of this study state that the cost of a high distributed
generation case is significantly higher than the other 33% RPS alternative
cases. The study explains that this is due to the heavy reliance on solar PV
resources which are more expensive than wind and central station solar.
• Tariffs. Additionally, the IEPR discusses the need to adjust feed-in tariffs to
keep downward pressure on costs. Feed-in tariffs should be developed based
on the size and type of renewable resources, given that the cost of generating
energy from a 100 MW wind farm is less than the cost of generating to ensure
a good mix of new renewable energy projects. According to the report,
differentiating feed-in tariffs by type and size can ensure a good mix of new
renewable energy projects and avoid paying too much for some technologies
and too little for others.
• Limited Installations. Examples of large scale distributed solar projects are
still limited. In the spring of 2008, SCE proposed 250 to 500 MW of rooftop
solar PV to be installed in 5 years. As of January 2010, SCE had installed
only 3 MW. As the 2009 IEPR points out, the potential for distributed
resources remains largely untapped and integrating large amounts of
distributed renewable generation on distribution systems throughout the State
presents challenges.
• Electric Distribution System. The State’s electric distribution systems are
not designed to easily accommodate large quantities of randomly installed
distributed generation resources at customer sites. Accomplishing this
objective efficiently and cost-effectively will require the development of a new
transparent distribution planning framework.
17 Alternatives
Conservation and demand-side management is important for California’s energy
future and cost effective energy efficiency is considered as the resource of first
choice for meeting California’s energy needs. However, with population growth
and increasing demand for energy, conservation and demand-management
alone is not sufficient to address all of California’s energy needs. Additionally, it
will not provide the renewable energy required to meet the California Renewable
Portfolio Standard requirements. (Ex. 300, p. B.2-84.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Alternatives 18
III. COMPLIANCE AND CLOSURE
Public Resources Code section 25532 requires the Commission to establish a post-
certification monitoring system. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that
certified facilities are constructed and operated in compliance with applicable laws,
ordinances, regulations, standards, as well as the specific Conditions of Certification
adopted as part of this Decision.
The record contains a full explanation of the purposes and intent of the Compliance
Plan (Plan). The Plan is the administrative mechanism used to ensure that the Calico
Solar Project is constructed and operated according to the Conditions of Certification. It
essentially describes the respective duties and expectations of the Project Owner and
the Staff Compliance Project Manager (CPM) in implementing the design, construction,
and operation criteria set forth in this Decision.
The Compliance Plan is composed of two broad elements. The first element
establishes the "General Conditions," which:
• set forth the duties and responsibilities of the Compliance Project Manager
(CPM), the project owner, delegate agencies, and others;
• set forth the requirements for handling confidential records and maintaining the
compliance record;
• set forth procedures for settling disputes and making post-certification changes;
• set forth the requirements for periodic compliance reports and other
administrative procedures necessary to verify the compliance status of all
Commission imposed Conditions; and
1 Compliance
The second general element of the Plan contains the specific “Conditions of
Certification.” These are found following the summary and discussion of each individual
topic area in this Decision. The individual Conditions contain the measures required to
mitigate potentially adverse Project impacts associated with construction, operation, and
closure to levels of insignificance. Each Condition also includes a verification provision
describing the method of assuring that the Condition has been satisfied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
2. The Compliance Plan and the specific Conditions of Certification contained in this
Decision assure that the Calico Solar Project will be designed, constructed,
operated, and closed in conformity with applicable law.
Compliance 2
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
DEFINITIONS
The following terms and definitions are used to establish when Conditions of
Certification are implemented.
CONSTRUCTION
Onsite work to install permanent equipment or structures for any facility.
Ground Disturbance
Construction-related ground disturbance refers to activities that result in the removal of
top soil or vegetation at the site beyond site mobilization needs, and for access roads
and linear facilities.
3 Compliance
START OF COMMERCIAL OPERATION
For compliance monitoring purposes, “commercial operation” begins after the
completion of start-up and commissioning, when each of the power plants has reached
reliable steady-state production of electricity at the rated capacity. At the start of
commercial operation, plant control is usually transferred from the construction manager
to the plant operations manager.
BLM’s AO is the contact person for BLM and will consult with appropriate responsible
agencies, Energy Commission, and Energy Commission staff when handling disputes,
complaints, and amendments. The CPM is the contact person for the Energy
Commission and will consult with appropriate responsible agencies, BLM, Energy
Commission, and Energy Commission staff when handling disputes, complaints, and
amendments.
All project compliance submittals are submitted to BLM’s AO and the CPM for
processing. Where a submittal required by a condition of certification requires BLM’s AO
and/or CPM approval, the approval will involve all appropriate BLM personnel, Energy
Commission staff and management. All submittals must include searchable electronic
versions (pdf or word files).
Compliance 4
1. Performing design review and plan checks of all drawings, specifications and
procedures;
2. Conducting construction inspection;
3. Functioning as BLM's and the Energy Commission's delegate including reporting
noncompliance issues or violations to the BLM Authorized Officer for action and
taking any action allowed under the California Code of Regulations, including issuing
a Stop Work Order, to ensure compliance;
4. Exercising access as needed to all project owner construction records, construction
and inspection procedures, test equipment and test results; and
5. Providing weekly reports on the status of construction to BLM's Authorized Officer
and the CPM.
BLM and Energy Commission staff and delegate agencies shall, upon request to the
project owner, be given unrestricted access to the files maintained pursuant to this
condition.
Compliance 6
1. Monthly and/or annual compliance reports, filed by the project owner or authorized
agent, reporting on work done and providing pertinent documentation, as required by
the specific conditions of certification;
2. Appropriate letters from delegate agencies verifying compliance;
3. BLM and Energy Commission staff audits of project records; and/or
4. BLM and Energy Commission staff inspections of work, or other evidence that the
requirements are satisfied.
Verification lead times associated with start of construction may require the project
owner to file submittals during the certification process, particularly if construction is
planned to commence shortly after certification.
A cover letter from the project owner or authorized agent is required for all compliance
submittals and correspondence pertaining to compliance matters. The cover letter
subject line shall identify the project by AFC number, the appropriate condition(s) of
certification by condition number(s), and a brief description of the subject of the
submittal. The project owner shall also identify those submittals not required by a
condition of certification with a statement such as: “This submittal is for information only
and is not required by a specific condition of certification.” When submitting
supplementary or corrected information, the project owner shall reference the date of
the previous submittal and BLM/CEC submittal number.
The project owner is responsible for the delivery and content of all verification submittals
to the BLM’s AO and CPM, whether such condition was satisfied by work performed by
the project owner or an agent of the project owner.
If the project owner desires BLM and/or Energy Commission staff action by a specific
date, that request shall be made in the submittal cover letter and shall include a detailed
explanation of the effects on the project if that date is not met.
Construction shall not commence until the pre-construction matrix is submitted, all pre-
construction conditions have been complied with, and BLM’s AO and the CPM has
issued a letter and BLM has issues a NTP to the project owner authorizing construction.
Various lead times for submittal of compliance verification documents to BLM’s AO and
the CPM for conditions of certification are established to allow sufficient BLM and
Energy Commission staff time to review and comment and, if necessary, allow the
project owner to revise the submittal in a timely manner. This will ensure that project
construction may proceed according to schedule.
Failure to submit compliance documents within the specified lead-time may result in
delays in authorization to commence various stages of project development.
If the project owner anticipates commencing project construction as soon as the project
is certified, it may be necessary for the project owner to file compliance submittals prior
to project certification. Compliance submittals should be completed in advance where
the necessary lead time for a required compliance event extends beyond the date
anticipated for start of construction. The project owner must understand that the
submittal of compliance documents prior to project certification is at the owner’s own
risk. Any approval by Energy Commission staff is subject to change, based upon BLM’s
ROW Grant and the Energy Commission Decision.
Compliance Reporting
There are two different compliance reports that the project owner must submit to assist
BLM’s AO and the CPM in tracking activities and monitoring compliance with the terms
and conditions of BLM’s ROW Grant and the Energy Commission Decision. During
construction, the project owner or authorized agent will submit Monthly Compliance
Reports. During operation, an Annual Compliance Report must be submitted. These
reports, and the requirement for an accompanying compliance matrix, are described
below. The majority of the conditions of certification require that compliance submittals
be submitted to BLM’s AO and the CPM in the monthly or annual compliance reports.
Compliance 8
The project owner shall provide the surety bond to the BLM AO for approval and to the
CPM for review with written evidence indicating that the surety bond is adequate to
cover the cost of decommissioning and removing the project features constructed,
allowing for site restoration. The written evidence shall include a valid estimate showing
that the amount of the bond is adequate to accomplish such work. The timing for the
submittal of the surety bond and approval of this document shall be coordinated with the
BLM AO and CPM. Over the life of the project, the surety bond will be updated as
necessary to account for any changes to the project description and/or
decommissioning costs.
During pre-construction and construction of each power plant, the project owner or
authorized agent shall submit an original and an electronic searchable version of the
Monthly Compliance Report within 10 working days after the end of each reporting
month. Monthly Compliance Reports shall be clearly identified for the month being
reported. The reports shall contain, at a minimum:
1. A summary of the current project construction status, a revised/updated schedule if
there are significant delays, and an explanation of any significant changes to the
schedule;
9 Compliance
2. Documents required by specific conditions to be submitted along with the Monthly
Compliance Report. Each of these items must be identified in the transmittal letter,
as well as the conditions they satisfy and submitted as attachments to the Monthly
Compliance Report;
3. An initial, and thereafter updated, compliance matrix showing the status of all
conditions of certification (fully satisfied conditions do not need to be included in the
matrix after they have been reported as completed);
4. A list of conditions that have been satisfied during the reporting period, and a
description or reference to the actions that satisfied the condition;
5. A list of any submittal deadlines that were missed, accompanied by an explanation
and an estimate of when the information will be provided;
6. A cumulative listing of any approved changes to conditions of certification;
7. A listing of any filings submitted to, or permits issued by, other governmental
agencies during the month;
8. A projection of project compliance activities scheduled during the next two months.
The project owner shall notify BLM’s AO and the CPM as soon as any changes are
made to the project construction schedule that would affect compliance with
conditions of certification;
9. A listing of the month’s additions to the on-site compliance file; and
10. A listing of complaints, notices of violation, official warnings, and citations received
during the month, a description of the resolution of the resolved actions, and the
status of any unresolved actions.
Compliance 10
with the condition it satisfies, and submitted as attachments to the Annual
Compliance Report;
4. A cumulative listing of all post-certification changes by the Energy Commission or
changes to the BLM ROW grant or approved POD by BLM , or cleared by BLM’s AO
and the CPM;
5. An explanation for any submittal deadlines that were missed, accompanied by an
estimate of when the information will be provided;
6. A listing of filings submitted to, or permits issued by, other governmental agencies
during the year;
7. A projection of project compliance activities scheduled during the next year;
8. A listing of the year’s additions to the on-site compliance file;
9. An evaluation of the on-site contingency plan for unplanned facility closure, including
any suggestions necessary for bringing the plan up to date [see Compliance
Conditions for Facility Closure addressed later in this section]; and
10. A listing of complaints, notices of violation, official warnings, and citations received
during the year, a description of the resolution of any resolved matters, and the
status of any unresolved matters.
Any information the ROW holder deems confidential shall be submitted to the BLM AO
with a written request for said confidentiality along with a justification for the request. All
confidential submissions to BLM should be clearly stamped “proprietary information” by
the holder when submitted.
11 Compliance
project representatives with questions, complaints or concerns. If the telephone is not
staffed 24 hours per day, it shall include automatic answering with date and time stamp
recording. All recorded complaints shall be responded to within 24 hours. The telephone
number shall be posted at the project site and made easily visible to passersby during
construction and operation. The telephone number shall be provided to BLM’s AO and
the CPM who will post it on the Energy Commission’s web page at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/power_plants_contacts.html.
Any changes to the telephone number shall be submitted immediately to BLM’s AO and
the CPM, who will update the web page.
FACILITY CLOSURE
At some point in the future, the project will cease operation and close down. At that
time, it will be necessary to implement the Closure, Revegetation and Restoration Plan
to ensure that the closure occurs in such a way that public health and safety and the
environment are protected from adverse impacts. Although the project setting for this
project does not appear, at this time, to present any special or unusual closure
problems, it is impossible to foresee what the situation will be in 30 years or more when
the project ceases operation. Therefore, provisions must be made that provide the
flexibility to deal with the specific situation and project setting that exist at the time of
closure. Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards (LORS) pertaining to facility
closure are identified in the sections dealing with each technical area. Facility closure
will be consistent with LORS in effect at the time of closure. Closure would be
conducted in accordance with Condition of Certification BIO-14 that requires the project
owner to develop and implement a Closure, Revegetation and Rehabilitation Plan.
There are at least three circumstances in which a facility closure can take place:
planned closure, unplanned temporary closure and unplanned permanent closure.
CLOSURE DEFINITIONS
Planned Closure
A planned closure occurs when the facility is closed in an anticipated, orderly manner,
at the end of its useful economic or mechanical life, or due to gradual obsolescence.
In the event that there are significant issues associated with the proposed facility
Closure, Revegetation and Restoration plan’s approval, or the desires of local officials
13 Compliance
or interested parties are inconsistent with the plan, BLM’s AO the CPM shall hold one or
more workshops and/or BLM and the Energy Commission may hold public hearings as
part of its approval procedure.
As necessary, prior to or during the closure plan process, the project owner shall take
appropriate steps to eliminate any immediate threats to public health and safety and the
environment, but shall not commence any other closure activities until BLM and the
Energy Commission approves the facility Closure, Revegetation and Restoration plan.
The project owner shall submit an On-Site Contingency Plan for BLM’s AO and CPM
review and approval. The plan shall be submitted no less than 60 days (or other time
agreed to by BLM’s AO and the CPM) after approval of any NTP or letter granting
approval to commence construction for each phase of construction. A copy of the
approved plan must be in place during commercial operation of the facility and shall be
kept at the site at all times.
The project owner, in consultation with BLM’s AO and the CPM, will update the On-Site
Contingency Plan as necessary. BLM’s AO and the CPM may require revisions to the
On-Site Contingency Plan over the life of the project. In the annual compliance reports
submitted to the Energy Commission, the project owner will review the On-Site
Contingency Plan, and recommend changes to bring the plan up to date. Any changes
to the plan must be approved by BLM’s AO and the CPM.
The On-Site Contingency Plan shall provide for taking immediate steps to secure the
facility from trespassing or encroachment. In addition, for closures of more than 90
days, unless other arrangements are agreed to by BLM’s AO and the CPM, the plan
shall provide for removal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, draining of all
chemicals from storage tanks and other equipment, and the safe shutdown of all
equipment. (Also see specific conditions of certification for the technical areas of
Hazardous Materials Management and Waste Management.)
In the event of an unplanned temporary closure, the project owner shall notify BLM’s AO
and the CPM, as well as other responsible agencies, by telephone, fax, or e-mail, within
24 hours and shall take all necessary steps to implement the On-Site Contingency Plan.
Compliance 14
The project owner shall keep BLM’s AO and the CPM informed of the circumstances
and expected duration of the closure.
If BLM’s AO and the CPM determine that an unplanned temporary closure is likely to be
permanent, or for a duration of more than 6 months, a Closure Plan consistent with the
requirements for a planned closure shall be developed and submitted to BLM’s AO and
the CPM within 90 days of BLM’s AO and the CPM’s determination (or other period of
time agreed to by BLM’s AO and the CPM).
In addition, the On-Site Contingency Plan shall address how the project owner will
ensure that all required closure steps will be successfully undertaken in the event of
abandonment.
In the event of an unplanned permanent closure, the project owner shall notify BLM’s
AO and the CPM, as well as other responsible agencies, by telephone, fax, or e-mail,
within 24 hours and shall take all necessary steps to implement the On-Site
Contingency Plan. The project owner shall keep BLM’s AO and the CPM informed of
the status of all closure activities.
To ensure that public health and safety and the environment are protected in the event
of an unplanned permanent closure, the project owner shall submit an On-Site
Contingency Plan no less than 60 days after a NTP is issued for each phase of
development.
It is the responsibility of the project owner to contact BLM’s AO and the CPM to
determine if a proposed project change should be considered a project modification
pursuant to section 1769. Implementation of a project modification without first securing
BLM and either Energy Commission or Energy Commission staff approval, may result in
enforcement action that could result in civil penalties in accordance with section 25534
of the Public Resources Code.
15 Compliance
A petition is required for amendments and for staff approved project modifications as
specified below. Both shall be filed as a “Petition to Amend.” Staff will determine if the
change is significant or insignificant. For verification changes, a letter from the project
owner is sufficient. In all cases, the petition or letter requesting a change should be
submitted to BLM’s AO and the CPM, who will file it with the Energy Commission’s
Dockets Unit in accordance with Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1209.
The criteria that determine which type of approval and the process that applies are
explained below. They reflect the provisions of Section 1769 at the time this condition
was drafted. If the Commission’s rules regarding amendments are amended, the rules
in effect at the time an amendment is requested shall apply.
Amendment
The project owner shall petition the Energy Commission, pursuant to Title 20, California
Code of Regulations, Section 1769(a), when proposing modifications to the project
(including linear facilities) design, operation, or performance requirements. If a proposed
modification results in deletion or change of a condition of certification, or makes
changes that would cause the project not to comply with any applicable laws,
ordinances, regulations or standards, the petition will be processed as a formal
amendment to the Energy Commission’s final decision, which requires public notice and
review of the BLM-Energy Commission staff analysis, and approval by the full Energy
Commission. The petition shall be in the form of a legal brief and fulfill the requirements
of Section 1769(a). Upon request, the CPM will provide you with a sample petition to
use as a template.
The ROW holder shall file an application to amend the BLM ROW grant for any
substantial deviation or change in use. The requirements to amend a ROW grant are
the same as when filing a new application including paying processing and monitoring
fees and rent.
Change of Ownership
Change of ownership or operational control also requires that the project owner file a
petition pursuant to section 1769(b). This process requires public notice and approval
by the full Commission and BLM. The petition shall be in the form of a legal brief and
Compliance 16
fulfill the requirements of Section 1769(b). Upon request, the CPM will provide you with
a sample petition to use as a template. The transfer of ownership of a BLM ROW grant
must be through the filing of an application for assignment of the grant.
Verification Change
A verification may be modified by BLM’s AO and the CPM without requesting an
amendment to the ROW Grant or Energy Commission decision if the change does not
conflict with the conditions of certification and provides an effective alternate means of
verification.
BLM and Energy Commission staff may also seek the cooperation of state, regional and
local agencies that have an interest in environmental protection when conducting
project monitoring.
ENFORCEMENT
BLM’s legal authority to enforce the terms and conditions of its ROW Grant is specified
in 43 CFR 2807.16 to 2807.19. BLM may issue an immediate temporary suspension of
activities it they determine a holder has violated one or more of the terms, conditions, or
stipulation of the grant. BLM may also suspend or terminate a ROW grant if a holder
does not comply with applicable laws and regulation or any terns, conditions, or special
stipulations contained in the grant. Prior to suspending or terminating a ROW grant,
BLM will provide written notice to the holder stating it intends to suspend or terminate
and will provide reasonable opportunity to correct any noncompliance.
The Energy Commission’s legal authority to enforce the terms and conditions of its
Decision is specified in Public Resources Code sections 25534 and 25900. The Energy
Commission may amend or revoke the certification for any facility, and may impose a
civil penalty for any significant failure to comply with the terms or conditions of the
Energy Commission Decision. The specific action and amount of any fines the Energy
Commission may impose would take into account the specific circumstances of the
incident(s). This would include such factors as the previous compliance history, whether
the cause of the incident involves willful disregard of LORS, oversight, unforeseeable
events, and other factors the Energy Commission may consider.
17 Compliance
ENERGY COMMISSION NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
Any person or agency may file a complaint alleging noncompliance with the conditions
of certification. Such a complaint will be subject to review by the Energy Commission
pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1237, but in many
instances the noncompliance can be resolved by using the informal dispute resolution
process. Both the informal and formal complaint procedure, as described in current
State law and regulations, are described below. They shall be followed unless
superseded by future law or regulations.
The Energy Commission has established a toll free compliance telephone number of
1-800-858-0784 for the public to contact the Energy Commission about power plant
construction or operation-related questions, complaints or concerns.
This process may precede the more formal complaint and investigation procedure
specified in Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1237, but is not intended to
be a substitute for, or prerequisite to it. This informal procedure may not be used to
change the terms and conditions of certification as approved by the Energy
Commission, although the agreed upon resolution may result in a project owner, or in
some cases the Energy Commission staff, proposing an amendment.
The process encourages all parties involved in a dispute to discuss the matter and to
reach an agreement resolving the dispute. If a dispute cannot be resolved, then the
matter must be brought before the full Energy Commission for consideration via the
complaint and investigation procedure.
Upon receipt of a request for informal investigation, the CPM shall promptly notify the
project owner of the allegation by telephone and letter. All known and relevant
information of the alleged noncompliance shall be provided to the project owner, BLM
and to the Energy Commission staff. The CPM will evaluate the request and the
information to determine if further investigation is necessary. If the CPM find that further
investigation is necessary, the project owner will be asked to promptly investigate the
matter. Within seven working days of the CPM’s request, provide a written report to the
CPM of the results of the investigation, including corrective measures proposed or
undertaken. Depending on the urgency of the noncompliance matter, the CPM may
Compliance 18
conduct a site visit and/or request the project owner to also provide an initial verbal
report, within 48 hours.
19 Compliance
PROJECT:
DOCKET #:
Compliance 20
COMPLIANCE TABLE 1
SUMMARY of COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
CONDITION
SUBJECT DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
COMPLIANCE-1 Unrestricted The project owner shall grant BLM and Energy
Access Commission staff and delegate agencies or
consultants unrestricted access to the power plant
site.
COMPLIANCE-2 Compliance The project owner shall maintain project files on-
Record site. BLM and Energy Commission staff and
delegate agencies shall be given unrestricted
access to the files.
COMPLIANCE-3 Compliance The project owner is responsible for the delivery
Verification and content of all verification submittals to BLM’s
Submittals Authorized Officer and the CPM, whether such
condition was satisfied by work performed or the
project owner or his agent.
COMPLIANCE-4 Pre- • Construction shall not commence until the
construction all of the following activities/submittals have been
Matrix and completed:
Tasks Prior to property owners living within one mile of the
Start of project have been notified of a telephone number
Construction to contact for questions, complaints or concerns,
a pre-construction matrix has been submitted
identifying only those conditions that must be
fulfilled before the start of construction,
all pre-construction conditions have been
complied with,
BLM’s Authorized Officer and the CPM have
issued a letter to the project owner authorizing
construction.
21 Compliance
COMPLIANCE TABLE 1
SUMMARY of COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
CONDITION
SUBJECT DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
COMPLIANCE-6 Compliance The project owner shall submit a compliance
Matrix matrix (in a spreadsheet format) with each
monthly and annual compliance report which
includes the status of all compliance conditions of
certification.
Compliance 22
COMPLIANCE TABLE 1
SUMMARY of COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
CONDITION
SUBJECT DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
COMPLIANCE-13 Unplanned To ensure that public health and safety and the
Temporary environment are protected in the event of an
Facility unplanned temporary closure, the project owner
Closure shall submit an On-Site Contingency Plan no less
than 60 days after a NTP is issued for each power
plant.
COMPLIANCE-14 Unplanned To ensure that public health and safety and the
Permanent environment are protected in the event of an
Facility unplanned temporary closure, the project owner
Closure shall submit an On-Site Contingency Plan no less
than 60 days after a NTP is issued for each power
plant.
23 Compliance
24
Project Name:
COMPLAINANT INFORMATION
Name: Phone Number:
Address:
COMPLAINT
DATE COMPLAINT RECEIVED: TIME COMPLAINT RECEIVED:
COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY: TELEPHONE IN WRITING (COPY ATTACHED)
DATE OF FIRST OCCURRENCE:
DESCRIPTION OF COMPLAINT (INCLUDING DATES, FREQUENCY, AND DURATION):
CORRECTIVE ACTION
IF CORRECTIVE ACTION NECESSARY, DATE COMPLETED:
DATE FIRST LETTER SENT TO COMPLAINANT (COPY ATTACHED):
DATE FINAL LETTER SENT TO COMPLAINANT (COPY ATTACHED):
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION:
Compliance 24
IV. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
A. FACILITY DESIGN
This review covers several technical disciplines including the civil, electrical,
mechanical, and structural engineering elements related to project design and
construction. It addresses consistency with applicable LORS, and does not
extend to the project’s environmental impacts under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
The Application for Certification (AFC) describes the preliminary facility design.
In considering the adequacy of the plans, the Commission reviews whether the
power plant and linear facilities are described with sufficient detail to assure the
project can be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable
engineering laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS). The review
also includes, as appropriate, the identification of special design features that are
necessary to deal with unique site conditions which could impact public health
and safety or the operational reliability of the project. (Ex. 300, p. D.1-1.)
Major structures, systems, and equipment are structures and their associated
components or equipment that are necessary for power production, costly or time
1 Facility Design
consuming to repair or replace, are used for the storage, containment, or
handling of hazardous or toxic materials, or could become potential health and
safety hazards if not constructed according to applicable engineering LORS.
(Ex. 300, p. D.1-3.) Table 2, contained in Condition GEN-2, lists the major
structures and equipment included in the initial engineering design for the
project. 1 Conditions GEN-3 through GEN-8 require that qualified individuals
oversee and inspect construction of the facility. Similarly, Conditions MECH-1
through MECH-3 address compliance of the project’s mechanical systems with
appropriate standards, and a quality assurance/quality control program assures
that the project will be designed, procured, fabricated, and installed as described.
Condition ELEC-1 provides assurance that design and construction of major
electrical features will comply with applicable LORS. Compliance with design
requirements will be verified through specific inspections and audits. (Ex. 300, p.
D.1-4.)
Certain structures in a power plant may be required, under the building codes, to
undergo dynamic lateral force (structural) analysis; others may be designed
using the simpler static analysis procedure. In order to ensure that structures are
analyzed according to their appropriate lateral force procedure, Condition of
Certification STRUC-1 requires the project CBO’s review and approval of the
owner’s proposed lateral force procedures before construction begins. (Ex. 300,
p. D.1-3.)
Overall, the evidentiary record conclusively establishes that the project will be
designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable LORS, and that these
activities will not negatively impact public health and safety.
1
The master drawing and master specifications lists described in Condition GEN-2 include
documents based on the project’s detailed design and may include supplemental materials for
structures and equipment not currently identified in Table 1.
Facility Design 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. We therefore conclude that implementation of the Conditions of
Certification listed below ensure that the Calico Solar Project will be
designed and constructed in conformance with the applicable LORS
pertinent to the engineering aspects summarized in this section of the
Decision.
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
GEN-1 The project owner shall design, construct, and inspect the project in
accordance with the 2007 California Building Standards Code (CBSC),
also known as Title 24, California Code of Regulations, which
encompasses the California Building Code (CBC), California Building
Standards Administrative Code, California Electrical Code, California
Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Energy Code,
California Fire Code, California Code for Building Conservation,
California Reference Standards Code, and all other applicable
3 Facility Design
engineering LORS in effect at the time initial design plans are
submitted to the CBO for review and approval (the CBSC in effect is
the edition that has been adopted by the California Building Standards
Commission and published at least 180 days previously). The project
owner shall ensure that all the provisions of the above applicable
codes are enforced during the construction, addition, alteration,
moving, demolition, repair, or maintenance of the completed facility. All
transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations and
substations) are covered in the Conditions of Certification in the
Transmission System Engineering section of this document.
In the event that the initial engineering designs are submitted to the
CBO when the successor to the 2007 CBSC is in effect, the 2007
CBSC provisions shall be replaced with the applicable successor
provisions. Where, in any specific case, different sections of the code
specify different materials, methods of construction or other
requirements, the most restrictive shall govern. Where there is a
conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the
specific requirement shall govern.
The project owner shall ensure that all contracts with contractors,
subcontractors, and suppliers clearly specify that all work performed
and materials supplied comply with the codes listed above.
Verification: Within 30 days following receipt of the certificate of occupancy,
the project owner shall submit to the CPM a statement of verification, signed by
the responsible design engineer, attesting that all designs, construction,
installation, and inspection requirements of the applicable LORS and the Energy
Commission’s decision have been met in the area of facility design. The project
owner shall provide the CPM a copy of the certificate of occupancy within 30
days of receipt from the CBO.
Once the certificate of occupancy has been issued, the project owner shall inform
the CPM at least 30 days prior to any construction, addition, alteration, moving,
demolition, repair, or maintenance to be performed on any portion(s) of the
completed facility that requires CBO approval for compliance with the above
codes. The CPM will then determine if the CBO needs to approve the work.
GEN-2 Before submitting the initial engineering designs for CBO review, the
project owner shall furnish the CPM and the CBO with a schedule of
facility design submittals, and master drawing and master
specifications lists. The schedule shall contain a list of proposed
submittal packages of designs, calculations, and specifications for
major structures and equipment. To facilitate audits by Energy
Commission staff, the project owner shall provide specific packages to
the CPM upon request.
Verification: At least 30 days (or a project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall
Facility Design 4
submit to the CBO and to the CPM the schedule, the master drawing and master
specifications lists of documents to be submitted to the CBO for review and
approval. These documents shall be the pertinent design documents for the
major structures and equipment listed in Facility Design Table 2, below. Major
structures and equipment shall be added to or deleted from the table only with
CPM approval. The project owner shall provide schedule updates in the monthly
compliance report.
5 Facility Design
Quantity
Equipment/System
(Plant)
Substation, Switchboards, Transformers, Buses and Towers 1 Lot
Electrical Breakers, Cables/Duct Banks 1 Lot
Prefabricated Assemblies 1 Lot
GEN-3 The project owner shall make payments to the CBO for design review,
plan checks, and construction inspections, based upon a reasonable
fee schedule to be negotiated between the project owner and the CBO.
These fees may be consistent with the fees listed in the 2007 CBC,
adjusted for inflation and other appropriate adjustments; may be based
on the value of the facilities reviewed; may be based on hourly rates;
or may be otherwise agreed upon by the project owner and the CBO.
Verification: The project owner shall make the required payments to the
CBO in accordance with the agreement between the project owner and the CBO.
The project owner shall send a copy of the CBO’s receipt of payment to the CPM
in the next monthly compliance report indicating that applicable fees have been
paid.
GEN-4 Prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall assign a
California- registered architect, or a structural or civil engineer, as the
resident engineer (RE) in charge of the project. All transmission
facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are
addressed in the Conditions of Certification in the Transmission
System Engineering section of this Decision.
The RE may delegate responsibility for portions of the project to other
registered engineers. Registered mechanical and electrical engineers
may be delegated responsibility for mechanical and electrical portions
of the project, respectively. A project may be divided into parts,
provided that each part is clearly defined as a distinct unit. Separate
assignments of general responsibility may be made for each
designated part.
The RE shall:
1. Monitor progress of construction work requiring CBO design review
and inspection to ensure compliance with LORS;
2. Ensure that construction of all facilities subject to CBO design
review and inspection conforms in every material respect to
applicable LORS, these Conditions of Certification, approved plans,
and specifications;
3. Prepare documents to initiate changes in approved drawings and
specifications when either directed by the project owner or as
required by the Conditions of the project;
Facility Design 6
4. Be responsible for providing project inspectors and testing agencies
with complete and up-to-date sets of stamped drawings, plans,
specifications, and any other required documents;
5. Be responsible for the timely submittal of construction progress
reports to the CBO from the project inspectors, the contractor, and
other engineers who have been delegated responsibility for
portions of the project; and
6. Be responsible for notifying the CBO of corrective action or the
disposition of items noted on laboratory reports or other tests when
they do not conform to approved plans and specifications.
The resident engineer (or his delegate) must be located at the project
site, or be available at the project site within a reasonable period of
time, during any hours in which construction takes place.
The RE shall have the authority to halt construction and to require
changes or remedial work if the work does not meet requirements.
If the RE or the delegated engineers are reassigned or replaced, the
project owner shall submit the name, qualifications and registration
number of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and
approval. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s
approval of the new engineer.
Verification: At least 30 days (or project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall
submit to the CBO for review and approval, the resume and registration number
of the RE and any other delegated engineers assigned to the project. The project
owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approvals of the RE and other
delegated engineer(s) within five days of the approval.
If the RE or the delegated engineer(s) is subsequently reassigned or replaced,
the project owner has five days to submit the resume and registration number of
the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The project
owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the new engineer within five
days of the approval.
GEN-5 Prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall assign at
least one of each of the following California registered engineers to the
project: a civil engineer; a soils, geotechnical, or civil engineer
experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering;
and an engineering geologist. Prior to the start of construction, the
project owner shall assign at least one of each of the following
California registered engineers to the project: a design engineer who is
either a structural engineer or a civil engineer fully competent and
proficient in the design of power plant structures and equipment
supports; a mechanical engineer; and an electrical engineer.
7 Facility Design
(California Business and Professions Code section 6704 et seq., and
sections 6730, 6731 and 6736 require state registration to practice as
a civil engineer or structural engineer in California). All transmission
facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are
handled in the Conditions of Certification in the Transmission System
Engineering section of this Decision.
The tasks performed by the civil, mechanical, electrical, or design
engineers may be divided between two or more engineers, as long as
each engineer is responsible for a particular segment of the project (for
example, proposed earthwork, civil structures, power plant structures,
equipment support). No segment of the project shall have more than
one responsible engineer. The transmission line may be the
responsibility of a separate California registered electrical engineer.
The project owner shall submit, to the CBO for review and approval,
the names, qualifications, and registration numbers of all responsible
engineers assigned to the project.
If any one of the designated responsible engineers is subsequently
reassigned or replaced, the project owner shall submit the name,
qualifications and registration number of the newly assigned
responsible engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The project
owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the new engineer.
9 Facility Design
F. The electrical engineer shall:
1. Be responsible for the electrical design of the project; and
2. Sign and stamp electrical design drawings, plans, specifications,
and calculations.
Verification: At least 30 days (or project owner and CBO approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall
submit to the CBO for review and approval, resumes and registration numbers of
the responsible civil engineer, soils (geotechnical) engineer and engineering
geologist assigned to the project.
At least 30 days (or project owner- and CBO-approved alternative time frame)
prior to the start of construction, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for
review and approval, resumes and registration numbers of the responsible
design engineer, mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer assigned to the
project.
The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO's approvals of the responsible
engineers within five days of the approval.
If the designated responsible engineer is subsequently reassigned or replaced,
the project owner has five days in which to submit the resume and registration
number of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The
project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the new engineer
within five days of the approval.
Facility Design 10
3. Furnish inspection reports to the CBO and RE. All discrepancies
shall be brought to the immediate attention of the RE for correction,
then, if uncorrected, to the CBO and the CPM for corrective action;
and
4. Submit a final signed report to the RE, CBO, and CPM, stating
whether the work requiring special inspection was, to the best of
the inspector’s knowledge, in conformance with the approved
plans, specifications, and other provisions of the applicable edition
of the CBC.
Verification: At least 15 days (or project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of an activity requiring special inspection,
the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval, with a copy to
the CPM, the name(s) and qualifications of the certified weld inspector(s), or
other certified special inspector(s) assigned to the project to perform one or more
of the duties set forth above. The project owner shall also submit to the CPM a
copy of the CBO’s approval of the qualifications of all special inspectors in the
next monthly compliance report.
If the special inspector is subsequently reassigned or replaced, the project owner
has five days in which to submit the name and qualifications of the newly
assigned special inspector to the CBO for approval. The project owner shall
notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the newly assigned inspector within 5
days of the approval.
GEN-8 The project owner shall obtain the CBO’s final approval of all
completed work that has undergone CBO design review and approval.
The project owner shall request the CBO to inspect the completed
structure and review the submitted documents. The project owner shall
notify the CPM after obtaining the CBO’s final approval. The project
owner shall retain one set of approved engineering plans,
11 Facility Design
specifications, and calculations (including all approved changes) at the
project site or at another accessible location during the operating life of
the project. Electronic copies of the approved plans, specifications,
calculations, and marked-up as-builts shall be provided to the CBO for
retention by the CPM.
Verification: Within 15 days of the completion of any work, the project owner
shall submit to the CBO, with a copy to the CPM, in the next monthly compliance
report, (a) a written notice that the completed work is ready for final inspection,
and (b) a signed statement that the work conforms to the final approved plans.
After storing the final approved engineering plans, specifications, and
calculations described above, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a letter
stating both that the above documents have been stored and the storage location
of those documents.
Within 90 days of the completion of construction, the project owner shall provide
to the CBO three sets of electronic copies of the above documents at the project
owner’s expense. These are to be provided in the form of “read only” (Adobe .pdf
6.0) files, with restricted (password-protected) printing privileges, on archive
quality compact discs.
CIVIL-1 The project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval the
following:
1. Design of the proposed drainage structures and the grading plan;
2. An erosion and sedimentation control plan;
3. Related calculations and specifications, signed and stamped by the
responsible civil engineer; and
4. Soils, geotechnical, or foundation investigations reports required by
the 2007 CBC.
Verification: At least 15 days (or project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of site grading the project owner shall
submit the documents described above to the CBO for design review and
approval. In the next monthly compliance report following the CBO’s approval,
the project owner shall submit a written statement certifying that the documents
have been approved by the CBO.
CIVIL-2 The resident engineer shall, if appropriate, stop all earthwork and
construction in the affected areas when the responsible soils engineer,
geotechnical engineer, or the civil engineer experienced and
knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering identifies
unforeseen adverse soil or geologic conditions. The project owner shall
submit modified plans, specifications, and calculations to the CBO
based on these new conditions. The project owner shall obtain
approval from the CBO before resuming earthwork and construction in
the affected area.
Facility Design 12
Verification: The project owner shall notify the CPM within 24 hours, when
earthwork and construction is stopped as a result of unforeseen adverse
geologic/soil conditions. Within 24 hours of the CBO’s approval to resume
earthwork and construction in the affected areas, the project owner shall provide
to the CPM a copy of the CBO’s approval.
CIVIL-3 The project owner shall perform inspections in accordance with the
2007 CBC. All plant site-grading operations, for which a grading permit
is required, shall be subject to inspection by the CBO.
If, in the course of inspection, it is discovered that the work is not being
performed in accordance with the approved plans, the discrepancies
shall be reported immediately to the resident engineer, the CBO, and
the CPM. The project owner shall prepare a written report, with copies
to the CBO and the CPM, detailing all discrepancies, non-compliance
items, and the proposed corrective action.
Verification: Within five days of the discovery of any discrepancies, the
resident engineer shall transmit to the CBO and the CPM a non-conformance
report (NCR), and the proposed corrective action for review and approval. Within
five days of resolution of the NCR, the project owner shall submit the details of
the corrective action to the CBO and the CPM. A list of NCRs, for the reporting
month, shall also be included in the following monthly compliance report.
13 Facility Design
drawings for project structures. Proposed lateral force procedures,
designs, plans and drawings shall be those for the following items
(from Table 2, above):
1. Major project structures;
2. Major foundations, equipment supports, and anchorage; and
3. Large field-fabricated tanks.
Construction of any structure or component shall not begin until the
CBO has approved the lateral force procedures to be employed in
designing that structure or component.
Facility Design 14
specifications, and calculations have been approved and comply with the
requirements set forth in applicable engineering LORS.
STRUC-2 The project owner shall submit to the CBO the required number of
sets of the following documents related to work that has undergone
CBO design review and approval:
STRUC-3 The project owner shall submit to the CBO design changes to the
final plans required by the 2007 CBC, including the revised drawings,
specifications, calculations, and a complete description of, and
supporting rationale for, the proposed changes, and shall give to the
CBO prior notice of the intended filing.
Verification: On a schedule suitable to the CBO, the project owner shall
notify the CBO of the intended filing of design changes, and shall submit the
required number of sets of revised drawings and the required number of copies
of the other above-mentioned documents to the CBO, with a copy of the
15 Facility Design
transmittal letter to the CPM. The project owner shall notify the CPM, via the
monthly compliance report, when the CBO has approved the revised plans.
MECH-1 The project owner shall submit, for CBO design review and approval,
the proposed final design, specifications and calculations for each
plant major piping and plumbing system listed in Facility Design
Table 2, Condition of Certification GEN-2, above. Physical layout
drawings and drawings not related to code compliance and life safety
need not be submitted. The submittal shall also include the applicable
QA/QC procedures. Upon completion of construction of any such
major piping or plumbing system, the project owner shall request the
CBO’s inspection approval of that construction.
The responsible mechanical engineer shall stamp and sign all plans,
drawings, and calculations for the major piping and plumbing systems,
subject to CBO design review and approval, and submit a signed
statement to the CBO when the proposed piping and plumbing
systems have been designed, fabricated, and installed in accordance
with all of the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and industry
standards, which may include, but are not limited to:
• American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B31.1 (Power Piping
Code);
• ANSI B31.2 (Fuel Gas Piping Code);
• ANSI B31.3 (Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping Code);
• ANSI B31.8 (Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Code);
• Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 5 (California Plumbing
Code);
Facility Design 16
• Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 6 (California Energy
Code, for building energy conservation systems and temperature
control and ventilation systems);
• Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2 (California Building
Code); and
• San Bernardino County codes.
The CBO may deputize inspectors to carry out the functions of the
code enforcement agency.
Verification: At least 30 days (or project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of any increment of major piping or
plumbing construction listed in Facility Design Table 2, Condition of Certification
GEN-2, above, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and
approval the final plans, specifications, and calculations, including a copy of the
signed and stamped statement from the responsible mechanical engineer
certifying compliance with applicable LORS, and shall send the CPM a copy of
the transmittal letter in the next monthly compliance report.
The project owner shall transmit to the CPM, in the monthly compliance report
following completion of any inspection, a copy of the transmittal letter conveying
the CBO’s inspection approvals.
MECH-2 For all pressure vessels installed in the plant, the project owner shall
submit to the CBO and California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal-OSHA), prior to operation, the code certification
papers and other documents required by applicable LORS. Upon
completion of the installation of any pressure vessel, the project owner
shall request the appropriate CBO and/or Cal-OSHA inspection of that
installation.
17 Facility Design
Verification: At least 30 days (or project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of on-site fabrication or installation of any
pressure vessel, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and
approval, the above listed documents, including a copy of the signed and
stamped engineer’s certification, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM.
The project owner shall transmit to the CPM, in the monthly compliance report
following completion of any inspection, a copy of the transmittal letter conveying
the CBO’s and/or Cal-OSHA inspection approvals.
MECH-3 The project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and
approval the design plans, specifications, calculations, and quality
control procedures for any heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC)
or refrigeration system. Packaged HVAC systems, where used, shall
be identified with the appropriate manufacturer’s data sheets.
The project owner shall design and install all HVAC and refrigeration
systems within buildings and related structures in accordance with the
CBC and other applicable codes. Upon completion of any increment of
construction, the project owner shall request the CBO’s inspection and
approval of that construction. The final plans, specifications and
calculations shall include approved criteria, assumptions, and methods
used to develop the design. In addition, the responsible mechanical
engineer shall sign and stamp all plans, drawings and calculations and
submit a signed statement to the CBO that the proposed final design
plans, specifications and calculations conform with the applicable
LORS.
Verification: At least 30 days (or project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of construction of any HVAC or
refrigeration system, the project owner shall submit to the CBO the required
HVAC and refrigeration calculations, plans, and specifications, including a copy
of the signed and stamped statement from the responsible mechanical engineer
certifying compliance with the CBC and other applicable codes, with a copy of
the transmittal letter to the CPM.
ELEC-1 Prior to the start of any increment of electrical construction for all
electrical equipment and systems 480 Volts or higher (see a
representative list, below), with the exception of underground duct
work and any physical layout drawings and drawings not related to
code compliance and life safety, the project owner shall submit, for
CBO design review and approval, the proposed final design,
specifications, and calculations. Upon approval, the above listed plans,
together with design changes and design change notices, shall remain
on the site or at another accessible location for the operating life of the
project. The project owner shall request that the CBO inspect the
installation to ensure compliance with the requirements of applicable
LORS. All transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations,
Facility Design 18
and substations) are handled in Conditions of Certification in the
Transmission System Engineering section of this Decision.
A. Final plant design plans shall include:
1. one-line diagrams for the 13.8-kV, 4.16-kV and 480 V systems;
and
2. system grounding drawings.
B. Final plant calculations must establish:
1. short-circuit ratings of plant equipment;
2. ampacity of feeder cables;
3. voltage drop in feeder cables;
4. system grounding requirements;
5. coordination study calculations for fuses, circuit breakers and
protective relay settings for the 13.8-kV, 4.16-kV and 480 V
systems;
6. system grounding requirements; and
7. lighting energy calculations.
C. The following activities shall be reported to the CPM in the monthly
compliance report:
1. Receipt or delay of major electrical equipment;
2. Testing or energization of major electrical equipment; and
3. A signed statement by the registered electrical engineer
certifying that the proposed final design plans and specifications
conform to requirements set forth in the Energy Commission
decision.
Verification: At least 30 days (or project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of each increment of electrical
construction, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and
approval the above listed documents. The project owner shall include in this
submittal a copy of the signed and stamped statement from the responsible
electrical engineer attesting compliance with the applicable LORS, and shall
send the CPM a copy of the transmittal letter in the next monthly compliance
report.
19 Facility Design
B. POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY
The evidence examines the efficiency of the Calico Solar project design and
compares project efficiency to that of other solar projects. (Ex. 300, pp. D.3-1 and
D.3-7.) There are no LORS that establish solar power plant efficiency criteria.
(Ex. 300, p. D.3-12.)
The Calico Solar Project is a solar thermal power plant that will produce a total of
663.5 MW (nominal net output) and will employ the Stirling Energy Systems
SunCatcher technology. The project would occupy approximately 4,613 acres of
land and would consist of 26,450 SunCatchers (Ex. 1 AFC §§ 1.1, 1.3, 2.2, 3.1,
3.3; Ex. 300, p. D.3-4; Ex. 317, p. B.1-2.).
Each SunCatcher is composed of a pedestal, a mirrored dish that tracks the sun,
and a power conversion unit (PCU) consisting of a solar receiver, a closed-cycle
Stirling engine, and a generator that captures the solar energy and converts it to
electricity. Each SunCatcher is capable of generating 25 kW of power. Power
would be routed from the SunCatchers to electrical transformers, then to a
switchyard located near the center of the project. ( Ex.1, AFC §§ 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.1,
3.4.3, 3.4.4.1, 3.4.4.2; Ex. 300, p. D.3-4.).
The project will not use fossil fuel to generate electricity. Each of the 26,450
Stirling engines is filled with hydrogen gas, which acts as a working fluid that
allows the engine to operate. During operation, hydrogen leaks from the engines
and must be continuously replenished from a centralized hydrogen system
connected to each SunCatcher., Some electricity consumption will result due to
the necessity of replacing hydrogen gas that leaks from the Stirling engines. The
1 Efficiency
project will produce hydrogen gas onsite through electrolysis of water, which will
consume 215 MW-hours of electrical energy per year. (Ex. 300, pp. D.3-4 to D.3-
5.)
The Stirling engine that is the heart of the SunCatcher technology is cooled by an
automotive-style cooling system. Waste engine heat is conducted via an
enclosed cooling loop to a radiator that dumps the waste heat to the atmosphere.
This is a dry cooling system; its only water consumption is that required to make
up any unintended leakage from the system. Thus, we concur with Staff’s
determination that the cooling technology selected for this project appears
optimum. (Ex. 300, p. D.3-8.)
The Calico Solar Project, if constructed and operated as proposed, will use solar
energy to generate all of its capacity, consuming no natural gas for power
production. The project will decrease reliance on fossil fuel, and will increase
reliance on renewable energy resources. The evidence establishes that the
project will not create significant adverse effects on energy supplies or resources,
will not require additional sources of energy supply, and will not consume energy
in a wasteful or inefficient manner. (Ex. 300, p. D.3-1.) Therefore, we find that
this project will present no significant adverse impacts on energy resources.
The evaluation of solar power plant efficiency includes land use efficiency
because of the large expanses of land covered by these facilities. To address
land use efficiency, solar efficiency must be determined by evaluating the
effectiveness of the specific technology used and the product of three key steps:
capture sun’s rays, convert energy to heat, and convert heat to electricity. The
greater the project’s solar efficiency, the less land the plant must occupy to
produce a given power output. Therefore, land use efficiency is expressed in
terms of power produced, or MW per acre. (Ex. 300, pp. D.3-2, D.3-7..)
Efficiency 2
The evidence includes a comparison of MWs per acre for the Calico Solar
Project and other solar projects currently under review by the Commission.
Efficiency Table 1 provides the power and energy output and the extent of the
land occupied for the Calico Solar Project and other solar projects under review.
For comparison purposes, the table also includes the solar land use efficiency for
a typical fossil fuel-fired (natural gas-fired) combined cycle power plant. (Ex. 300,
pp. D.3-2 and D.3-7.)
According to the Staff analysis, the Calico Solar project will produce power at the
rate of 850 MW net, and will generate energy at the rate of 1,840,000 MW-hours
net per year, while occupying approximately 6,215 acres (Ex. 1. AFC §§ 1.1, 1.3,
2.2, 3.1, 3.11.1.) 1 Staff calculations for the Calico project establish:
As seen in Efficiency Table 1 below, the Calico Solar Project, employing the
Stirling Energy Systems SunCatcher technology, will be less efficient in use of
land than the Beacon Solar, Ridgecrest Solar, Palen Solar, and Blythe Solar
projects, which will employ linear parabolic trough technology. Calico Solar is
more efficient in use of land than the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System
project, which will employ BrightSource power tower technology. (Ex. 300, p.
D.3-7.)
1
These results are also representative of the performance of the Scenario 5.5 that is certified in
this Decision due to a proportionate reduction in land used and project output. (Ex 317, p. D.3-1.)
3 Efficiency
Efficiency Table 1 — Solar Land Use Efficiency
Efficiency 4
Based on the uncontroverted evidence, we make the following findings and reach
the following conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Calico Solar Project will provide approximately 663.5 MW of electrical
power and employ Stirling Energy Systems SunCatcher technology, which
does not use fossil fuel to generate electricity.
2. The project will use hydrogen gas in the Stirling engines. Hydrogen gas
will be produced onsite by electrolysis of water, which will consume 215
MW-hours per year of the electricity generated by the facility.
5. The project will decrease reliance on fossil fuel and will increase reliance
on renewable energy resources. Consequently, the project will help in
reducing California’s dependence on fossil fuel-fired power plants.
7. The project will occupy approximately 7.3 acres per MW of power output,
a figure higher than many other solar power technologies.
8. The Calico Solar Project represents one of the least land use-efficient
solar technologies proposed among the projects currently in the Energy
Commission’s licensing process.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Calico Solar Project will not create adverse effects upon energy
supplies or resources, require additional sources of energy supply, or
consume energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
No Conditions of Certification are required for this topic area.
5 Efficiency
C. POWER PLANT RELIABILITY
In order to ensure safe and reliable operation of the Calico Solar Project, the
Commission must determine whether the project will be appropriately designed
and sited. [Pub. Res. Code, § 25520(b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1752(c)(2).]
However, there are no LORS that establish either power plant reliability criteria or
procedures for attaining reliable operation. (Ex. 300, pp. D.4-1 and D.4-8.)
The responsibility for maintaining system reliability falls largely to control area
operators such as the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) that
purchase, dispatch, and sell electric power throughout the State. (Ex. 300, p.
D.4-2.) Protocols to ensure sufficient electrical system reliability have been
established. For example, “must run” power purchase agreements and
“participating generator” agreements are two mechanisms that contribute to an
adequate supply of reliable power. (Ex. 300, p. D.4-2.) The California ISO’s
mechanisms to ensure adequate power plant reliability are based on the
assumption that the individual power plants that compete to sell power into the
system will each exhibit a level of reliability similar to that of power plants of past
decades. (Ex. 300, p. D.4-2.)
1 Reliability
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE
The Applicant proposes to operate the 663.5 megawatt (MW) (net power output)
Calico Solar Project, a solar thermal power plant facility employing advanced
solar power technology. The Applicant intends to provide dependable power to
the grid, generally during the hours of peak power consumption by Southern
California Edison (SCE), the interconnecting utility. This project would help serve
the need for renewable energy in California, as all its generated electricity will be
produced by a reliable source of energy that is available during hot summer
afternoons, when power is needed most. In the AFC, the Applicant indicated that
it expects the project to achieve an availability factor of 99%. The project is
anticipated to operate at an annual capacity factor of approximately 25% (Ex. 1,
AFC §§ 1.3, 3.1, 3.9.14, 3.11.1; Ex. 300, p. D.4-3.) However, as discussed below
in Plant Maintainability additional information has been provided on this issue.
(Ex. 300, p. D.4-4.)
1. Equipment Availability
2. Plant Maintainability
The Calico Solar Project will operate only when the sun is shining. Redundant
pieces of the equipment most likely to require service or repair will be kept on site
in order to allow repairs to be made at night when the plant is shut down or
during the day, when the plant is in operation. (Ex. 300, p.D.4-3.) The power
conversion unit (PCU), which contains the Stirling engine, is the component that
has required the most maintenance interventions at the Applicant’s Maricopa test
facility. The PCU on a SunCatcher will, when in need of maintenance or repair,
Reliability 2
simply be changed out and the removed PCU serviced in the shop. Change-out
is considered a normal part of plant operation and typically takes as little as 28
minutes. (8/4/10 RT 170.) During change-out, the affected SunCatcher will not
generate electricity, but this will not affect the other SunCatchers, which will
continue to operate. This modularity is expected to be beneficial to project
reliability. (Id.) The project owner will establish a maintenance program based on
the equipment manufacturers recommendations. Maintenance outages will likely
be planned for periods of low electricity demand. (Ex. 300, p. D.4-4.)
The Applicant predicts that each machine will leak its entire inventory of
hydrogen once a year, thus requiring constant replenishment of hydrogen. The
Applicant proposes a hydrogen electrolyzer and piping system that uses
electricity from the grid to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen, then
compresses the hydrogen and pipes it to each of the 26,450 SunCatchers. (Ex.
300, p. D.4-4.) Experience at the Applicant’s 1.5 MW Maricopa Plant (a pilot plant
using the Stirling Energy Systems SunCatcher units) has shown that Applicant’s
hydrogen leakage predictions are correct and its replenishment procedure is
functioning as expected. (8/4/10 RT 152, 160, 178.)
Staff expressed reluctance to predict the long-term availability factor for the
project. (Ex. 300, p. D.4-5.) However, all the evidence points to an ongoing
upward trend at the Maricopa facility. (8/4/10 RT 153.) The current 96.1 percent
is already within the range of typical power plant availability factors. Although
some individuals have expressed concern due to the fact that this will be the first
installation of SunCatchers on so large a scale (Exs. 300, p. D.4-1.), these
opinions do not take into account the performance of SunCatchers at the
Maricopa test facility. There is no evidence in the record that would tend to show
that the availability factor will decrease.
3 Reliability
The Applicant’s revised data from the Maricopa Plant demonstrates an
availability factor based on a limited number of operational hours. The long-term
availability factor will be determined only with more operational experience of this
technology. Staff proposed, and the Applicant has not contested, a condition
requiring periodic reports of the reliability and maintenance data from the
Maricopa plant, which we adopt as Condition of Certification REL-1, below.
For any power plant the long-term availability of fuel, and water for cooling or
process use, is necessary to ensure reliability. The Calico Solar Project will not
use natural gas or other fossil fuel. Therefore, there is no likelihood that
availability of natural gas will cause concern. (Ex. 300, p. D.4-4.)
The Calico Solar Project will use water from a groundwater well on private land
adjacent to the project site for mirror washing, for potable and fire protection
water, and in an electrolysis process to produce hydrogen gas to replenish the
hydrogen that leaks from the Stirling engines. (Ex. 1, AFC §§ 1.3, 1.4, 3.1.2,
3.5.6, 3.5.10, 3.7.) At the project site, the water will be pumped from the well,
conveyed in an underground pipe to a storage tank, treated and dispersed for
onsite use. Since the Stirling engines are air-cooled, no water will be required for
power plant cooling. (Ex. 300, p. D.4-4.)
To ensure the well can provide an adequate water supply, we adopt Condition of
Certification Soil & Water-9, which requires a Water Conservation and
Alternative Water Supply Plan, should groundwater monitoring indicate long-term
downward trends in water levels and storage. With the implementation of this
condition of certification, we find that the water supply will be adequate for the
project. For further discussion of water supply, see the Soil and Water
Resources section of this Decision.
4. Natural Hazards
The site lies within a seismically active region; see the “Faulting and Seismicity”
portion of the Geology and Paleontology section of this document. The project
will be designed and constructed to the latest applicable LORS. (Ex,1, AFC §
3.10.1.1.) Compliance with current seismic design LORS represents an
upgrading of performance during seismic shaking compared to older facilities
since these LORS have been continually upgraded. Because the solar project
will be built to the latest seismic design LORS, this project will likely perform at
Reliability 4
least as well as, and perhaps better than, existing plants in the electric power
system. We adopted conditions of certification to ensure this; see the Facility
Design section. The evidence provides no special concerns with the power
plant’s functional reliability during earthquakes. (Ex. 300, p. D.4-5.)
Portions of the site lie within the 100-year flood plain. (Ex. 1, AFC §§ 3.10.1.4.)
Project features will be designed and built to provide adequate levels of flood
resistance. Thus, the evidence provides no special concerns with power plant
functional reliability due to flooding. For further discussion, see the Soil and
Water Resources and Geology and Paleontology sections. (Ex. 300, p. D.4-5.)
High winds are common in this region of the site; project features will be built to
withstand winds over 90 miles per hour. However, at winds greater than 35 miles
per hour the SunCatchers will move to a stowed position. (8/4/10 RT 189.)
Design would be in accordance with applicable LORS, including the 2007
California Building Code (Ex. 1, AFC § 3.10.1.2). The evidence provides no
special concerns with power plant functional reliability due to wind. (Ex. 300, p.
D.4-5.)
Nevertheless, typical availability factors for gas-fired power plants range from 94
to 98 percent. See North American Electric Reliability Council 2005–2009
Generating Availability Report, available at <www.nerc.com/elibrary>. Given that
the evidence of limited performance history shows the Calico project will likely
achieve an availability factor within this range, we find that the project compares
favorably with industry norms for utility-scale electrical generation facilities.
5 Reliability
FINDINGS OF FACT
4. The technology used by the Calico Solar Project has certain potential
reliability advantages compared to other generating technologies including
its modularity and the ability to maintain and repair individual units without
materially affecting overall output, and certain disadvantages including a
relative lack of historical field data on commercial-scale installations.
8. The Applicant will use the water from a private well adjacent to the project
site to supply water for the project. The evidence includes additional
information regarding the Lavic Groundwater Basin, and with the
implementation of Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-9, the water
supply will be adequate for the project.
9. The project will meet or exceed reliability during seismic events, flooding
and high winds.
10. The project will incorporate an appropriate redundancy of function for its
equipment.
11. The project will provide renewable energy on hot summer days, when it is
most needed.
Reliability 6
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. We therefore conclude that the Calico Solar Project will meet or exceed
industry norms and not degrade the overall reliability of the electrical
system.
2. There are no LORS that establish either power plant reliability criteria or
procedures for attaining reliable operation.
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
REL-1 From the time of the Energy Commission’s adoption of this condition of
certification to the start of commercial operation of the Calico Solar
Project, or to the closure of the Maricopa Plant, whichever occurs
earlier, the project owner shall obtain and provide to the CPM quarterly
data sets of reliability and maintenance data from the Maricopa Plant,
including the following:
a) logs of equipment failure data and operational data for all major
equipment, including power conversion units, drive mechanisms,
and controls. These logs shall include major equipment and plant
availability factors, and major equipment and plant forced outage
rates, including their causes and durations
7 Reliability
D. TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING
The CAISO is responsible for ensuring electric system reliability for all
participating transmission owners and for developing the standards to achieve
system reliability. The power generated by the proposed Calico Solar Project will
be dispatched to the CAISO grid via SCE’s existing Pisgah 230 kV Substation.
Therefore, the CAISO will review the studies of the SCE system to ensure
adequacy of the proposed transmission interconnection. The California ISO
determines the reliability impacts of proposed transmission modifications on the
SCE transmission system in accordance with all applicable reliability criteria.
According to the California ISO tariffs, the California ISO will determine the need
for transmission additions or upgrades downstream from the interconnection
point to insure reliability of the transmission grid. (Ex. 300, p. D.5-2.)
The CAISO reviewed the System Impact Study prepared by SCE for the
proposed project and issued a preliminary approval to SCE. On completion of the
SCE Facility Study, the CAISO will review the study results and provide its
conclusions and recommendations. (Ex. 300, p. D.5-2.)
1 TSE
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE
The Calico Solar Project is a solar concentrating thermal power plant, based on
the proprietary SunCatcher technology of Sterling Energy System, Inc. Each
SunCatcher consists of a 25-kilowatt (kW) solar power generating system. The
project will consist of approximately 34,000 SunCatchers total for the two phases.
Each complete solar group will consist of 60 SunCatchers, which correlates to a
1.5 MW power block with a corresponding GSU (collector group step-up unit)
transformer. The 1.5 MW solar groups will be connected by underground
electrical cables to create the 3, 6, and 9 MW solar groups. MW groups will be
coupled through underground electrical cables and will ascend through a pole
riser to either a 48 MW or 51 MW overhead distribution collector line. The
overhead collector groups will deliver the solar electric generated power to a new
850 MW substation constructed on site as part of the project. (Ex. 1, Section 3.4,
pages 3-27 to 3-32 and Figure 3-1 to 3-45, Ex. 300, p. D.5-4.)
The substation will consist of six open-air bus segments with each segment
consisting of five 1,200A, 35 kV collection feeder circuit breakers. One 48 MW
and two 51 MW overhead collection lines will be connected to each of the six
34.5 kV bus segments via circuit breakers. Additionally, two 35 kV circuit
breakers in each segment will connect to capacitor banks in the substation yard.
For Phase 1 of the project, the first interconnection substation will consist of six
power transformers rated at 100/133/167 MVA each to convert the generation
collection voltage from 34.5 kV to the transmission tie voltage of 230kV. Each
power transformer will serve 3 of the 15 overhead collection lines. The high side
of each step up transformer will be connected to the 230kV bus segments via
2000A, 230kV circuit breakers. One common bus for each phase will be formed
by connecting the 230 kV bus segments through 2000A disconnect switches.
(Ex. 300, pp. D.5-4 to D.5-5.)
TSE 2
An approximately two-mile long 230-kV single circuit will be used to interconnect
the new Calico Solar Project substation to the existing Pisgah Substation. Each
circuit of the overhead line begins at a dead-end structure in the Calico Solar
Project substation, continues east and parallel to the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) railroad ROW, and south crossing the BNSF railroad to a point where
the line turns east leaving the site and undercrossing three SCE transmission
lines before it finally enters the SCE Pisgah substation from the south. The
transmission lines will start within the project site boundary but a 0.14 mile long
segment from the project site to the Pisgah Substation will be outside the project
site boundary. The off-site portion of the 230kV interconnect transmission line will
be routed under existing SCE transmission lines. Construction of that line will
include dead-end structures in the substation and 12 to 15 230 kV lattice steel
towers and/or tubular steel poles and new 1,590 kcmil ACSR conductors for each
phase of the circuit. (Ex. 300, p. D.5-5.)
Furthermore, SCE has proposed expanding and upgrading the existing 230kV
SCE Pisgah substation to a 230/500kV substation, increasing the voltage to
500kV, looping the Eldorado-Lugo 500kV line into the SCE Pisgah substation
and upgrading 65 miles of the existing Lugo-Pisgah number two 230kV
transmission line to 500kV. (Ex. 300, p. D.5-5.)
SCE prepared the System Impact Studies (SIS) at the request of the Applicant to
identify the potential impacts of the proposed Calico Solar Project on SCE’s
3 TSE
transmission system. The SIS included power flow, sensitivity, and short circuit
studies, and transient and post-transient analyses. The SIS modeled the
proposed project for a net output of 850 MW. The base cases included all CAISO
approved major SCE transmission projects, and major path flow limits of
Southern California Import Transmission (SCIT), East-Of-River, West-of-River
and upgraded 115kV phase shifting transformer at Inyo substation. The SIS
considered light load conditions with generation patterns and SCIT imports
maximized to identify the extent of potential congestion and to fully stress the
SCE system in the area where the project phases of the proposed Calico Solar
Project will be interconnected. (Ex. 300, pp. D.5-5 to D.5-6.)
The power flow studies were conducted with and without Calico Solar connected
to SCE’s grid at the existing Pisgah Substation, using 2009 heavy summer and
2009 light spring base cases. The power flow study assessed the potential
impacts of the proposed Calico Solar Project on thermal loading of the
transmission lines and equipment. Transient and post-transient studies were
conducted for Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed Calico Solar Project using the
2009 heavy summer base case to determine whether the project will create
instability in the system following certain selected outages. Short circuit studies
were conducted to determine if Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed Calico Solar
Project will overstress existing substation facilities. (Ex. 300, pp. D.5-5 to D.5-6.)
TSE 4
3. Cumulative Impacts
The impacts identified in the SIS will be mitigated with the identified
recommended measures and conditions of certification, which will minimize the
project’s contribution to cumulative impacts. The evidence also supports positive
impacts because the Calico Solar Project will supplement local solar generation
and import of power to the SCE system, and will meet the increasing load
demand in the San Bernardino County and Riverside County. (Ex. 300, p. D.5-
16.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
5 TSE
3. The System Impact Study considered power flow with implementation of
pre-project upgrades that will be made by projects in a higher-queue than
the Calico Solar Project and also considered power flow with pre-project
and project-initiated upgrades.
4. The System Impact Study performed by SCE demonstrates that the addition
of the Calico Solar Project will cause new normal (N-0) and single
contingency (N-1) overloads on the Lugo No. 1 & No. 2 500/230 kV
transformer banks and the Lugo-Pisgah 230 kV lines during heavy summer
peak and light spring conditions. However, with all pre-project upgrades and
project-related upgrades, the base overloads were eliminated.
5. The System Impact Study also evaluated transient and post transient
scenarios. The study determined the system remained stable with the
implementation of pre-project and proposed project-related system
upgrades.
6. The record contains analysis of required facilities the Applicant will need to
implement to mitigate project-related thermal overloads.
7. The Calico Solar Project will meet the requirements and standards of all
applicable LORS upon compliance with the recommended Conditions of
Certification.
8. The Calico Solar Project is a solar generation facility, which will provide clean
renewable energy that will help meet state mandates and goals.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
TSE-1 The project owner shall furnish to the Compliance Project Manager
(CPM) and to the Chief Building Official (CBO) a schedule of
transmission facility design submittals, a Master Drawing List, a Master
TSE 6
Specifications List, and a Major Equipment and Structure List. The
schedule shall contain a description and list of proposed submittal
packages for design, calculations, and specifications for major
structures and equipment. To facilitate audits by Energy Commission
staff, the project owner shall provide designated packages to the CPM
when requested.
Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of construction (or a lesser
number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and the CBO), the
project owner shall submit the schedule, a Master Drawing List, and a Master
Specifications List to the CBO and to the CPM. The schedule shall contain a
description and list of proposed submittal packages for design, calculations, and
specifications for major structures and equipment (see a list of major equipment
in Transmission System Engineering Table 1, Major Equipment List below).
Additions and deletions shall be made to the table only with CPM and CBO
approval. The project owner shall provide schedule updates in the Monthly
Compliance Report.
TSE-2 Prior to the start of construction, the project owner shall assign an
electrical engineer and at least one of each of the following to the
project: A) a civil engineer; B) a geotechnical engineer or a civil
engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils
engineering; C) a design engineer who is either a structural engineer
or a civil engineer fully competent and proficient in the design of power
plant structures and equipment supports; or D) a mechanical engineer.
(Business and Professions Code Sections 6704 et seq. require state
registration to practice as a civil engineer or structural engineer in
California.)
7 TSE
conformance with Facility Design Condition GEN-5, may be
responsible for design and review of the TSE facilities.
The project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval, the
names, qualifications, and registration numbers of all engineers
assigned to the project. If any one of the designated engineers is
subsequently reassigned or replaced, the project owner shall submit
the name, qualifications, and registration number of the newly
assigned engineer to the CBO for review and approval.
The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the
new engineer. This engineer shall be authorized to halt earthwork and
to require changes if site conditions are unsafe or do not conform to
predicted conditions used as a basis for design of earthwork or
foundations.
TSE 8
Verification: The project owner shall submit a copy of the CBO’s approval or
disapproval of any corrective action taken to resolve a discrepancy to the CPM
within 15 days of receipt. If disapproved, the project owner shall advise the CPM,
within five days, the reason for disapproval, and the revised corrective action
required obtaining the CBO’s approval.
TSE-4 For the power plant switchyard, outlet line, and termination, the project
owner shall not begin any increment of construction until plans for that
increment have been approved by the CBO. These plans, together
with design changes and design change notices, shall remain on the
site for one year after completion of construction. The project owner
shall request that the CBO inspect the installation to ensure
compliance with the requirements of applicable LORS. The following
activities shall be reported in the Monthly Compliance Report:
Receipt or delay of major electrical equipment;
Testing or energization of major electrical equipment; and
The number of electrical drawings approved, submitted for approval,
and still to be submitted.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of each increment of
construction (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner
and the CBO), the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval
the final design plans, specifications, and calculations for equipment and systems
of the power plant switchyard, outlet line, and termination, including a copy of the
signed and stamped statement from the responsible electrical engineer attesting
to compliance with the applicable LORS, and shall include a copy of the
transmittal letter in the next Monthly Compliance Report.
TSE-5 The project owner shall ensure that the design, construction, and
operation of the proposed transmission facilities conform to all
applicable LORS, including the requirements listed below. The project
owner shall submit the required number of copies of the design
drawings and calculations as determined by the CBO.
1. The Calico Solar Project shall be interconnected to the SCE grid via
a segment of 230kV, 1590 kcmil-ACSR, approximately 2 mile long
single circuit extending from the new substation on the project site
to the Pisgah SCE Substation.
2. The Calico Solar Project substation on the project site shall use
34.5kV, 1200A, 25 breakers and six, three phase, 100/133/167.7
MVA, 34.5kV/230 kV transformers.
3. The power plant outlet line shall meet or exceed the electrical,
mechanical, civil, and structural requirements of CPUC General
Order 95 and General Order 98 or National Electric Safety Code
(NESC), Title 8 of the California Code and Regulations (Title 8),
9 TSE
Articles 35, 36, and 37 of the “High Voltage Electric Safety Orders”,
California ISO standards, National Electric Code (NEC), and related
industry standards.
1
Worst-case conditions for the foundations would include for instance, a dead-end or angle pole.
TSE 10
description of equipment and the configurations covered by requirements
TSE-1 through 5 above.
TSE-6 The project owner shall provide the following Notice to the California
Independent System Operator (California ISO) prior to synchronizing
the facility with the California transmission system:
1. At least one week prior to synchronizing the facility with the grid for
testing, provide the California ISO a letter stating the proposed date
of synchronization; and
2. At least one business day prior to synchronizing the facility with the
grid for testing, provide telephone notification to the California ISO
Outage Coordination Department.
Verification: The project owner shall provide copies of the California ISO
letter to the CPM when it is sent to the California ISO one week prior to initial
synchronization with the grid. A report of the conversation with the California ISO
shall be provided electronically to the CPM one day before synchronizing the
facility with the California transmission system for the first time.
TSE-7 The project owner shall be responsible for the inspection of the
transmission facilities during and after project construction, and any
subsequent CPM and CBO approved changes thereto, to ensure
conformance with CPUC GO-95 or NESC; Title 8, CCR, Articles 35, 36
and 37 of the “High Voltage Electric Safety Orders”; applicable
interconnection standards; NEC; and related industry standards. In
case of non-conformance, the project owner shall inform the CPM and
CBO in writing, within 10 days of discovering such non-conformance
and describe the corrective actions to be taken.
Verification: Within 60 days after first synchronization of the project, the
project owner shall transmit to the CPM and CBO:
1. As-built engineering description(s) and one-line drawings of the electrical
portion of the facilities signed and sealed by the registered electrical engineer
in responsible charge. A statement attesting to conformance with CPUC
GO-95 or NESC; Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Articles 35, 36 and
37 of the “High Voltage Electric Safety Orders”; applicable interconnection
standards; NEC; and related industry standards, and these conditions shall
be provided concurrently with the submittal of the as-built plans.
2. An as-built engineering description of the mechanical, structural, and civil
portions of the transmission facilities signed and sealed by the registered
engineer in responsible charge or acceptable alternative verification. As-built
drawings of the electrical, mechanical, structural, and civil portions of the
transmission facilities shall be maintained at the power plant and made
available, if requested, for CPM audit as set forth in the “Compliance
Monitoring Plan.”
11 TSE
3. A summary of inspections of the completed transmission facilities, and
identification of any nonconforming work and corrective actions taken, signed
and sealed by the registered engineer in charge.
TSE 12
E. TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY AND NUISANCE
The Calico Solar, LLC, project’s transmission line must be constructed and
operated in a manner that protects environmental quality, assures public health
and safety, and complies with applicable law. This portion of the Decision
assesses the potential for the generation tie line to create the various impacts
mentioned below, as well as to determine whether mitigation measures are
required to reduce any significant adverse effects to insignificant levels. The
analysis of record takes into account both the physical presence of the line and
the physical interactions of its electric and magnetic fields. Evidence was
submitted by Applicant, Staff, and Intervenor BNSF. (8/25/2010 RT 8, 318-319;
Exs. 1; 300, C.12; 1200-1210.)
The proposed tie-in line system for the two project phases would consist of the
following individual segments:
• A new, single-circuit 230-kV overhead transmission line extending two
miles from the on-site project switchyard to SCE’s Pisgah Substation; and
• The project’s on-site 230-kV switchyard from which the conductors would
extend to the SCE Pisgah Substation.
The on-site segment of the proposed project line would be located within its own
unshared right-of-way as it extends from the on-site substation, crossing over
three SCE transmission lines of 230-kV and 500-kV as it extends to the
connection point within the Pisgah Substation. The proposed routing scheme
was chosen to minimize the length of the required line and to locate the line
within existing line corridors to the extent possible. To accommodate the power
from Phase 1 and later Phase 2, SCE has proposed expanding and upgrading
the 230-kV Pisgah Substation to 500-kV, looping the Eldorado-Lugo 500-kV line
into the Pisgah Substation and upgrading 65 miles of the existing Lugo-Pisgah
No.2 230 line to 500-kV. Modifications within SCE’s El Dorado and Lugo
Substations would also be necessary. These project-related line modifications
would be under CPUC and BLM jurisdiction and would thus be made according
to CPUC guidelines ensuring compliance with existing health and safety LORS.
(Exs. 1, pp. 3-27 to 3-36; 300, pp. C.12-1, C.12-4.)
1 TLSN
and electric and magnetic field (EMF) exposure. (Ex. 300, pp. C.12-5 to C.12-8.)
The evidence conclusively establishes the following:
1. Aviation Safety
Any potential hazard to area aircraft would relate to the potential for collision in
the navigable airspace. The LORS listed in the Supplemental Staff Assessment,
TLSN Table 1 (Ex. 300, p.C.12-2), require FAA notification in cases of structures
over 200 feet from the ground, or if the structure is less than 200 feet in height
but would be located within the restricted airspace in the approaches to public or
military airports. For airports with runways longer than 3,200 feet, the restricted
space is defined by the FAA as an area extending 20,000 feet from the runway.
For airports with runways of 3,200 feet or less, the restricted airspace would be
an area that extends 10,000 feet from this runway. For heliports, the restricted
space is an area that extends 5,000 feet.
The closest area airports are too far from the proposed project and related
facilities to pose a collision hazard to aircraft according to FAA criteria.
Furthermore, the maximum height of 110 feet for the proposed line support
structures would be much less than the 200-foot height that triggers the concern
over aviation hazard according to FAA requirements. (Exs. 1; p. 3-31 and Figure
3.4-39; 300, p. C.12-5.)
This potential impact is one of the indirect effects of line operation and is
produced by the physical interactions of the electric fields. It arises from corona
discharge and is primarily a concern for lines larger than 345-kV. When
generated, it is perceived as interference with radio or television signal reception
or interference with other forms of radio communication. The project’s 230-kV
line will be built and maintained according to standard SCE practices aimed at
minimizing any interference. Moreover, there are no nearby residential
receptors. Thus, no radio frequency interference or related complaints are likely.
(Ex. 300, pp. C.12-5 to C.12-6.)
TLSN 2
3. Audible Noise
4. Fire Hazards
Fire can be caused by sparks from the line’s conductors or by direct contact
between the line and nearby trees or other combustible objects. SCE’s standard
fire prevention and suppression measures, and compliance with the clearance-
related aspects of GO-95 as required in Condition of Certification TLSN-3,
ensure that appropriate fire prevention measures are implemented. (Ex. 300, pp.
C.12-6.)
5. Hazardous Shocks
These could result from direct or indirect contact between an individual and the
energized line. Adherence to minimum national safe operating clearances in
areas where the line might be accessible to the public assures safety.
Compliance with the CPUC’s GO-95, as required in Condition of Certification
TLSN-1, will ensure that adequate measures are implemented to minimize this
potential impact. (Ex. 300, p. C.12-6.)
6. Nuisance Shocks
Nuisance shocks are typically caused by direct contact with metal objects
electrically charged by fields from an energized line. They are effectively
minimized through grounding procedures for all metallic objects within the right-
of-way as specified by the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) as well as the
joint guidelines of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the
1
In fair weather, audible noise from modern transmission lines is generally indistinguishable from
background noise at the edge of a right-of-way 100 or more feet wide. (Ex. 300, p. C.12-6.)
2
Overall project noise levels are discussed in the Noise section of this Decision.
3 TLSN
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). This is required in
Condition of Certification TLSN-4. (Id.)
The railway line of Intervenor Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) bisects the
project site. To avoid the risk of inductive shocks related to the Calico
transmission lines, BNSF requested that Condition of Certification TLSN-4 be
modified to require a minimum clearance of 300 feet between the proposed
transmission lines and the edge of the right-of-way for the BNSF tracks. In
addition, in the location where the transmission line is proposed to cross the
tracks, BNSF argues that the transmission line should do so at a 90-degree
angle, and should travel 300 feet from the far side of the right of way before
returning to a parallel configuration. Applicant and Staff supported BNSF’s
proposed change. We have modified Condition of Certification TLSN-4 and
added a new TLSN-5 to incorporate the BNSF requests. (Exs. 300, pp. C.12-6
and C.12-8; 1200; 1209; 8/25/10 RT pp. 8, 318, 319.)
Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) occur whenever electricity flows. The
possibility of deleterious health effects from exposure to EMF has raised public
health concerns about living and working near high-voltage lines. Due to the
present scientific uncertainty regarding these potential health effects, CPUC
policy requires reduction of EMF fields in the design, construction, and
maintenance of new or modified lines, if feasible, without affecting the safety,
efficiency, reliability, and maintainability of the transmission grid. (Ex. 300, pp.
C.12-7 to C.12-8.)
TLSN 4
Applicant calculated the maximum electric and magnetic field intensities
expected along the Phase I line route. 3 Condition of Certification TLSN-2
requires that actual field strengths be measured, according to accepted
procedures, to insure that the field intensities are similar to those of other SC&E
lines. These measurements will reflect both the effectiveness of the field
reduction techniques used and the project’s potential contribution to area EMF
levels. (Ex. 300, p. C.12-10.)
Since there are no residences in the vicinity of the project’s line, there will not be
the long-term human residential EMF exposures primarily responsible for the
health concern of recent years. The only project-related EMF exposures of
potential significance are the short-term exposures of plant workers, regulatory
inspectors, maintenance personnel, visitors, or individuals in the immediate
vicinity of the lines. The evidence shows that these types of exposures are not
significantly related to an adverse health effect. (Ex. 300, p. C.12-16, C.12-19.)
Overall, the evidence shows that the tie line will be designed, constructed,
operated, and maintained in compliance with applicable LORS. Implementation
of the Conditions of Certification will ensure that any impacts are reduced to less
than significant levels. (Ex. 300, pp. C.12-16 to C.12-17.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
5 TLSN
2. The evidentiary record includes analyses of potential impacts from the
project’s generation tie line involving aircraft collisions, interference with
radio frequency communication, audible noise, hazardous shocks,
nuisance shocks, fire danger, and EMF exposure.
4. There are no residences along the route of the project’s new generation
tie line.
5. The available scientific evidence does not establish that EMF fields pose a
significant health hazard to humans.
6. The electric and magnetic fields generated by the project’s generation tie
line will be managed to the extent the CPUC considers appropriate, based
on available health effects information.
7. The project’s generation tie line will comply with existing LORS for public
health and safety.
9. The project owner will provide field intensity measurements before and
after line energization to assess EMF contributions from the project-
related current flow.
10. The new generation tie line will not result in significant adverse
environmental impacts to public health and safety or cause significant
direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts as a result of aviation collisions,
radio frequency communication interference, fire danger, nuisance or
hazardous shocks, or electric and magnetic field exposure.
11. The record addresses the impacts of a reduced acreage and various No
Project Alternatives in regard to this topic area.
TLSN 6
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
2. The Calico Solar, LLC project’s transmission line will not create a
significant impact due to tie line safety and nuisance factors.
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
TLSN-1 The project owner shall construct the proposed transmission line
(anywhere along the area identified by the Applicant as available for its
routing) according to the requirements of California Public Utility
Commission’s GO-95, GO-52, GO-131-D, Title 8, and Group 2, High
Voltage Electrical Safety Orders, sections 2700 through 2974 of the
California Code of Regulations, and Southern California Edison’s EMF
reduction guidelines.
Verification: At least 30 days before starting the transmission line or
related structures and facilities, the project owner shall submit to the Compliance
Project Manager (CPM) a letter signed by a California registered electrical
engineer affirming that the lines will be constructed according to the requirements
stated in the Condition.
TLSN-2 The project owner shall use a qualified individual to measure the
strengths of the electric and magnetic fields from the line at the points
of maximum intensity along the route for which the Applicant provided
specific estimates. The measurements shall be made before and after
energization according to the American National Standard
Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (ANSI/IEEE)
standard procedures. These measurements shall be completed no later
than 6 months after the start of operations.
Verification: The project owner shall file copies of the pre-and post-
energization measurements with the CPM within 60 days after completion of the
measurements.
TLSN-3 The project owner shall ensure that the rights-of-way of the proposed
transmission line are kept free of combustible material, as required
under the provisions of section 4292 of the Public Resources Code and
section 1250 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
Verification: During the first five years of plant operation, the project owner
shall provide a summary of inspection results and any fire prevention activities
7 TLSN
carried out along the right-of-way and provide such summaries in the Annual
Compliance Report on transmission line safety and nuisance-related
requirements.
TLSN-4 The project owner shall ensure that all permanent metallic objects
within the right-of-way of the project-related lines are grounded
according to industry standards regardless of ownership. A minimum
clearance of 300 feet shall be maintained between the proposed
transmission line and the edge of the right-of-way for BNSF Railroad
Company’s railroad tracks.
Verification: At least 30 days before the lines are energized, the project owner
shall transmit to the CPM a letter confirming compliance with this condition.
TLSN-5 Project owner’s transmission lines shall make any crossing of the BNSF
mainline at a 90-degree angle.
Verification: At least 30 days before the lines are energized, the project owner
shall transmit to the CPM a letter confirming compliance with this condition.
TLSN 8
V. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
There is wide scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that
human activity contribute to that change. Man-made emissions of greenhouse
gases, if not sufficiently curtailed, are likely to contribute further to continued
increases in global temperatures. Indeed, the California Legislature has found
that “[g]lobal warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public
health, natural resources, and the environment of California” (Cal. Health &
Safety Code, sec. 38500, division 25.5, part 1). (Ex. 300, p. C.1-64.)
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has promulgated regulations for
mandatory GHG emission reporting to comply with the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32 Núñez, Statutes of 2006, Chapter 488, Health and
Safety Code sections 38500 et seq.) (ARB 2008a). The Calico Solar Project,
which will solely generate electricity from solar power, is exempt from the
mandatory GHG emission reporting requirements for electricity generating
facilities [CCR Title 17 §95101(c)(1)]. However, the project may be subject to
future reporting requirements and GHG reductions or trading requirements as
these regulations become more fully developed and implemented. (Ex. 300, p.
C.1-63.)
1 GHG
The greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane
(CH4), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), and perflurocarbons
(PFC). CO2 emissions are far and away the most common of these emissions;
as a result, even though the other GHGs have a greater impact on climate
change on a per-unit basis, GHG emissions are often expressed in terms of
“metric tons of CO2-equivalent” (MTCO2e) for simplicity. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-63.)
The state has demonstrated a clear willingness to address global climate change
through research, adaptation, and inventory reductions. In that context, this part
of the Decision evaluates the GHG emissions from the proposed project,
presents information on GHG emissions related to electricity generation, and
describes the applicable GHG standards and requirements. (Id.)
The Legislature stated 35 years ago, “it is the responsibility of state government
to ensure that a reliable supply of electrical energy is maintained at a level
consistent with the need for such energy for protection of public health and
safety, for promotion of the general welfare, and for environmental quality
protection.” (Pub. Res. Code, § 25001.) Today, as a result of compelling
science showing a clear link between greenhouse gas emissions and negative
environmental impacts, the most recent addition to “environmental quality
protection” is the reduction of GHG emissions. Several laws and statements of
policy are applicable.
a. AB 32
Along with all other regulatory agencies in California, the Energy Commission
recognizes that meeting the AB 32 goals is vital to the state’s economic and
environmental health. The scoping plan adopted by ARB relies heavily on cost-
effective energy efficiency and demand response, renewable energy, and
GHG 2
prioritization of generation resources to achieve significant reductions of
emissions in the electricity sector by 2020. Even more dramatic reductions in
electricity sector emissions would likely be required to meet California’s 2050
greenhouse gas reduction goal. Facilities under our jurisdiction, such as Calico
Solar Project, must be consistent with these policies. 1
Senate Bill (SB) 1368 of 2006, and regulations adopted by the Energy
Commission and the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to the bill, prohibit
utilities from entering into long-term commitments with any base load facilities
that exceed an Emission Performance Standard (EPS) of 0.500 metric tonnes of
CO2 per megawatt-hour (this is the equivalent of 1100 pounds CO2/MWh). (Pub.
Util. Code, § 8340 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 2900 et seq.; CPUC
D0701039.) Currently, the EPS is the only LORS that has the effect of limiting
power plant GHG emissions. As noted earlier, Calico Solar must comply with this
requirement.
d. Loading Order
In 2003, the Energy Commission and the CPUC agreed on a “loading order” for
meeting electricity needs. The first energy resources that should be utilized are
energy efficiency and demand response (at the maximum level that is feasible
and cost-effective), followed by renewables and distributed generation, combined
heat and power (also known as cogeneration), and finally the most efficient
1
Of course, the Calico Solar Project and all other stationary sources will need to comply with any
applicable GHG LORS that take effect in the future.
3 GHG
available fossil fuel resources and infrastructure development. 2 CARB’s AB 32
Scoping Plan reflects these policy preferences. (California Air Resources Board,
Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008.)
The Applicant did not update the GHG emissions to reflect the changes to the
project. However, based on the evidence, we find that the GHG emissions are
expected to minimally decrease due to the proposed project modifications for the
same reasons as identified in the Air Quality section of this Decision. (Ex. 300,
p. C.1-67.)
2
California Energy Commission 2008, 2008 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, (IEPR)
(CEC-100-2008-008-CMF.)
GHG 4
GHG emissions are considered “significant” under CEQA. Nevertheless, there is
guidance from regulatory agencies on how the significance of such emissions
should be assessed. For example, the most recent guidance from CARB staff
recommends a “best practices” threshold for construction emissions. [CARB,
Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal, Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim
Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Oct. 24, 2008), p. 9]. Such an approach is also
recommended on an interim basis, or proposed, by major local air districts.
Staff concluded that the GHG emission increases from construction activities
would not be significant environmental impacts for several reasons. First, the
period of construction would be short-term and the emissions intermittent during
that period, not ongoing during the life of the proposed project. Second, “best
practices” control measures, such as limiting idling times and requiring, as
appropriate, equipment that meet the latest emissions standards, will further
minimize greenhouse gas emissions. The use of newer equipment will increase
efficiency and reduce GHG emissions and be compatible with low-carbon fuel
(e.g., bio-diesel and ethanol) mandates that will likely be part of the ARB
regulations to reduce GHG from construction vehicles and equipment. Lastly,
this renewable energy source will provide power with very low GHG emissions,
and the construction emissions will be offset by the reduction in fossil fuel fired
generation that would be enabled by the proposed project. If the proposed
project construction emissions were distributed over the 40 year life of the project
they would only increase the project life time annual facility GHG emissions rate
by 0.00056 MT CO2 eq per MW. (Ex. 300, pp. C.1-67 to C.1-70.)
Therefore, we find that the measures described above to directly and indirectly
limit the emission of GHGs during construction of the Calico Solar Project are in
accordance with current best practices. We also find the evidence shows that
the GHG emissions from construction activities will not be significant.
a. Anticipated Emissions
Operation of the proposed Calico Solar Project will cause GHG emissions from
the facility maintenance fleet and employee trips, emergency fire pump engine,
and sulfur hexafluoride emissions from new electrical component equipment. (Ex.
300, p. Air-1, C.1-67.) Greenhouse Gas Table 2 shows what the proposed
project could potentially emit in greenhouse gases on an annual basis.
5 GHG
Greenhouse Gas Table 2
Estimated Calico Solar Potential Operating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operating Element Annual CO2-Equivalent (MTCO2E)a
Onsite Stationary Equipment Combustion b 0.82
Onsite Vehicle Combustion b 1,635.51
Onsite Train for Water Delivery b 153.75
Offsite Vehicle Combustion b 1,174.54
Offsite Train for Water Delivery b 140.19
Equipment Leakage (SF6) 384.42
Total Project GHG Emissions – MTCO2E b 3,488.22
Facility MWh per year c 1,840,000
Facility GHG Performance (MTCO2E/MWh) 0.00190
Source: Ex. 300, p. C.1-68, Greenhouse Gas Table 3
a
One metric tonne (MT) equals 1.1 short tons or 2,204.6 pounds or 1,000 kilograms.
b
The vast majority of the CO2E emissions, over 99 percent, are CO2 from these two emission sources.
c
Approximately a 25 percent capacity factor.
The proposed project is estimated to emit, directly from primary and secondary
emission sources on an annual basis, nearly 3,500 metric tonnes of
CO2-equivalent GHG emissions per year. The Calico Solar Project, as a
renewable energy generation facility, is determined by rule to comply with the
Greenhouse Gas Emission Performance Standard requirements of SB 1368
(Chapter 11, Greenhouse Gases Emission Performance Standard, Article 1,
Section 2903 [b][1]). Regardless, the Calico Solar Project has an estimated
GHG emission rate of 0.00190 MTCO2E/MWh, well below the Greenhouse Gas
Emission Performance Standard of 0.500 MTCO2/MWh.
The Applicant did not update the GHG emissions to reflect the changes to the
project. However, based on the evidence, we find that the GHG emissions are
expected to minimally decrease due to the proposed project modifications for the
same reasons as identified in the Air Quality section this Decision. (Ex. 300, p.
C.1-68.)
GHG 6
California’s electricity system – which is actually part of a system serving the
entire western region of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico – is large and complex.
Hundreds of power plants, thousands of miles of transmission and distribution
lines, and millions of points of electricity demand operate in an interconnected,
integrated, and simultaneous fashion. Because the system is integrated, and
because electricity is produced and consumed instantaneously, and will continue
to be until large-scale electricity storage technologies are available, any change
in demand and, most important for this analysis, any change in output from any
generation source, is likely to affect the output from all generators (Committee
Guidance on Fulfilling California Environmental Quality Act Responsibilities for
Greenhouse Gas Impacts in Power Plant Siting Applications, CEC-700-2009-
004, pp. 20 to 22.) 3 (Hereinafter referred to as “Committee CEQA Guidance”)
3
The report was issued in March 2009 and is found on the Commission website at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-700-2009-004-CEC-700-2009-004.PDF
7 GHG
Greenhouse Gas Table 3
Estimated Changes in Non-Renewable Energy Potentially Needed to Meet
California Loads, 2008-2020
High GHG -emitting resources, such as coal, are effectively prohibited from
entering into new contracts for California electricity deliveries as a result of the
Emissions Performance Standard adopted in 2007 pursuant to SB 1368.
Between now and 2020, more than 18,000 GWh of energy procured by California
utilities under these contracts will have to reduce GHG emissions or be replaced;
these contracts are presented in Greenhouse Gas Table 4. (Ex. 300, C.1-71.)
GHG 8
Greenhouse Gas Table 4
Expiring Long-term Contracts with Coal-fired Generation 2009 – 2020
Contract Annual GWh
Utility Facility a
Expiration Delivered to CA
Misc In-state
PG&E, SCE 2009-2019 4,086
Qual.Facilities a
LADWP Intermountain 2009-2013 3,163 b
City of Riverside Bonanza, Hunter 2010 385
Department of Water
Reid Gardner 2013 c 1,211
Resources
SDG&E Boardman 2013 555
SCE Four Corners 2016 4,920
Turlock Irrigation District Boardman 2018 370
LADWP Navajo 2019 3,832
TOTAL 18,522
Source: Ex. 300, p. C.1-72, Greenhouse Gas Table 5
Notes:
a. All facilities are located out-of-state except for the Miscellaneous In-state Qualifying
Facilities.
b. Estimated annual reduction in energy provided to LADWP by Utah utilities from their
entitlement by 2013.
c. Contract not subject to Emission Performance Standard, but the Department of Water
Resources has stated its intention not to renew or extend.
This represents almost half of the energy associated with California utility
contracts with coal-fired resources that will expire by 2030. If the State enacts a
carbon adder 4, all the coal contracts (including those in Greenhouse Gas Table
4, which expire by 2020, and other contracts that expire beyond 2020 and are not
shown in Table 4) may be retired at an accelerated rate as coal-fired energy
becomes economically uncompetitive. Also shown are the approximate 500 MW
of in-state coal and petroleum coke-fired capacity that may be unlikely to contract
with California utilities for baseload energy due to SB1368 Emission Performance
Standard. As these contracts expire, new and existing generation resources will
replace the lost energy and capacity. Some will come from renewable
generation; some will come from new and existing natural gas fired generation.
All of these new facilities will emit substantially less GHG than the coal and
petroleum coke-fired generation, which average about 1.0 MTCO2/MWh without
4
A carbon adder or carbon tax is a specific value added to the cost of a project for per ton of
associated carbon or carbon dioxide emissions. Because it is based on, but not limited to, actual
operations and emission and can be trued up at year end, it is considered a simple mechanism to
assign environmental costs to a project.
9 GHG
carbon capture and sequestration, resulting in a net reduction in GHG emissions
from the California electricity sector. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-72.)
It must be noted, however, that a project like Calico Solar, located far from
coastal load pockets such as the Greater Los Angeles Local Capacity Area,
would more likely provide energy support to facilitate the retirement of some
aging and/or OTC power plants, but would not likely provide any local capacity
support at or near the coastal OTC units. We expect that local capacity and
voltage support will increasingly be provided by newer, more-efficient natural gas
and other forms of generation, including, to the extent practical, distributed
generation resources such as rooftop solar. These resources will also help
displace older, less-efficient generation and accelerate retirement of those units.
Regardless, due to its low greenhouse gas emissions, Calico Solar will serve to
reduce GHG emissions from the electricity sector. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-73.)
GHG 10
Greenhouse Gas Table 5
Units Utilizing Once-Through Cooling: 2008 Capacity and Energy Output a
Plant, Unit Name Owner Local Aging Capacity 2008 GHG
Reliability Plant? (MW) Energy Performance
Area Output (MTCO2/MWh)
(GWh)
Diablo Canyon 1, 2 Utility None No 2,232 17,091 Nuclear
San Onofre 2, 3 Utility L.A. Basin No 2,246 15,392 Nuclear
Broadway 3 b Utility L.A. Basin Yes 75 90 0.648
El Centro 3, 4 b Utility None Yes 132 238 0.814
Grayson 3-5 b Utility LADWP Yes 108 150 0.799
Grayson CC b Utility LADWP Yes 130 27 0.896
Harbor CC Utility LADWP No 227 203 0.509
Haynes 1, 2, 5, 6 Utility LADWP Yes 1,046 1,529 0.578
Haynes CC c Utility LADWP No 560 3,423 0.376
Humboldt Bay 1, 2 a Utility Humboldt Yes 107 507 0.683
Olive 1, 2 b Utility LADWP Yes 110 11 1.008
Scattergood 1-3 Utility LADWP Yes 803 1,327 0.618
Utility-Owned 7,776 39,988 0.693
Alamitos 1-6 Merchant L.A. Basin Yes 1,970 2,533 0.661
Contra Costa 6, 7 Merchant S.F. Bay Yes 680 160 0.615
Coolwater 1-4 b Merchant None Yes 727 576 0.633
El Segundo 3, 4 Merchant L.A. Basin Yes 670 508 0.576
Encina 1-5 Merchant San Diego Yes 951 997 0.674
Etiwanda 3, 4 b Merchant L.A. Basin Yes 666 848 0.631
Huntington Beach 1,
Merchant L.A. Basin Yes 430 0.591
2 916
Huntington Beach 3,
Merchant L.A. Basin No 450 0.563
4 620
Mandalay 1, 2 Merchant Ventura Yes 436 597 0.528
Morro Bay 3, 4 Merchant None Yes 600 83 0.524
Moss Landing 6, 7 Merchant None Yes 1,404 1,375 0.661
Moss Landing 1, 2 Merchant None No 1,080 5,791 0.378
Ormond Beach 1, 2 Merchant Ventura Yes 1,612 783 0.573
Pittsburg 5-7 Merchant S.F. Bay Yes 1,332 180 0.673
Potrero 3 Merchant S.F. Bay Yes 207 530 0.587
Redondo Beach 5-8 Merchant L.A. Basin Yes 1,343 317 0.810
South Bay 1-4 Merchant San Diego Yes 696 1,015 0.611
Merchant-Owned 15,254 17,828 0.605
Total In-State OTC 23,030 57,817
Source: Ex. 300, p. Air-1-13, Greenhouse Gas Table 6
a. OTC Humboldt Bay Units 1 and 2 are included in this list. They must retire in 2010 when the new Humboldt
Bay Generating Station (not ocean-cooled), currently under construction, enters commercial operation.
b. Units are aging but are not OTC.
11 GHG
The proposed Calico Solar Project promotes the state’s efforts to move towards
a high-renewable, low-GHG electricity system, and, therefore, reduce the amount
of natural gas used by electricity generation and greenhouse gas emissions. Its
use of solar power, resultant limited GHG emissions, and likely replacement of
older existing plant capacity, furthers the state’s strategy to promote generation
system efficiency and reduce fossil fuel use and GHG emissions.
Net GHG emissions for the integrated electric system will decline when new
renewable power plants are added to: 1) move renewable generation towards the
33 percent target; 2) improve the overall efficiency, or GHG emission rate, of the
electric system; or 3) serve load growth or capacity needs more efficiently, or
with fewer GHG emissions. We find that the Calico Solar Project furthers the
state’s progress toward achieving these important goals and is consistent with
the state policies we discussed in Section 2 of this chapter.
Cumulative impacts are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or . . . compound or increase other
environmental impacts.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15355.) “A cumulative impact
consists of an impact that is created as a result of a combination of the project
evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.”
(CEQA Guidelines § 15130[a][1].) Such impacts may be relatively minor and
incremental, yet still be significant because of the existing environmental
background, particularly when one considers other closely related past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
GHG 12
6. Closure and Decommissioning
Eventually the facility will close, either at the end of its useful life or due to some
unexpected situation such as a natural disaster or catastrophic facility
breakdown. When the facility closes, all sources of air emissions would cease to
operate and thus impacts associated with those greenhouse gas emissions
would no longer occur. The only other expected GHG emissions would be
temporary equipment exhaust (off-road and on-road) from the dismantling
activities. These activities would be of much a shorter duration than construction
of the project, equipment is assumed to have lower comparative GHG emissions
due to technology advancement, and would be required to be controlled in a
manner at least equivalent to that required during construction. Therefore, we
find that while there will be a temporary CEQA impact on GHG during
decommissioning, it will be less than significant. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-73.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The GHG emissions from the Calico Solar Project construction are likely
to be 41,571.01 MTCO2 equivalent (“MTCO2E”) during the 41-month
construction period.
3. The project owner will use best practices to control its construction-related
GHG emissions.
13 GHG
6. California utilities are obligated to meet whatever demand exists from any
and all customers.
8. The maximum annual CO2 emissions from Calico Solar operation will be
3,488.22 MTCO2e, which constitutes an emissions performance factor of
0.00190 MTCO2e / MWh.
10. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations that will reduce statewide GHG
emissions, by the year 2020, to the 1990 level. Executive Order S-3-05
requires a further reduction, by the year 2050, to 80 percent below the
1990 level.
11. The California Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires the state’s
electric utilities obtain at least 33 percent of the power supplies from
renewable sources, by the year 2020.
14. When it operates, the Calico Solar Project will displace generation from
less-efficient (i.e., higher-heat-rate and therefore higher-GHG-emitting)
power plants.
15. The Calico Solar Project will replace power from coal-fired power plants
that will be unable to contract with California utilities under the SB 1368
EPS, and from once-through cooling power plants that must be retired.
16. Calico Solar Project operation will reduce overall GHG emissions from the
electricity system.
GHG 14
17. The role of fossil fuel-fired generation will diminish as technology
advances, coupled with efficiency and conservation measures, make
round-the-clock availability of renewables generation feasible.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. The SB 1368 EPS applies to the Calico Solar Project. Calico Solar has an
estimated GHG emission rate of 0.00190 MTCO2E/MWh, well below the
Greenhouse Gas Emission Performance Standard of 0.500 MTCO2/MWh.
5. Calico Solar operation will help California utilities meet their RPS
obligations.
6. Calico Solar operation will be consistent with California’s loading order for
power supplies.
7. Calico Solar operation will foster the achievement of the GHG goals of AB
32 and Executive Order S-3-05.
8. The GHG emissions of any power plant must be assessed within the
system on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the project will be
consistent with the goals and policies enunciated above.
15 GHG
B. AIR QUALITY
This analysis evaluates the expected air quality impacts from the emissions of
criteria air pollutants from both the construction and operation of the Calico Solar
Project. Criteria air pollutants are air contaminants for which the state and/or
federal governments, per the California Clean Air Act and the federal Clean Air
Act, have established an ambient air quality standard to protect public health.
(Ex. 300, p. C.1-2.)
The criteria pollutants analyzed within this section are nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and particulate matter
(PM). Lead is not analyzed as a criteria pollutant, but lead and other toxic air
pollutant emissions impacts are analyzed in the Public Health section of this
Decision. Two subsets of particulate matter are inhalable particulate matter (less
than 10 microns in diameter - PM10) and fine particulate matter (less than 2.5
microns in diameter - PM2.5). Nitrogen oxides (NOX, consisting primarily of nitric
oxide [NO] and NO2) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions readily
react in the atmosphere as precursors to ozone and, to a lesser extent,
particulate matter. Sulfur oxides (SOX) readily react in the atmosphere to form
particulate matter and are major contributors to acid rain. (Id.)
The evidence establishes that with the adoption and implementation of the
recommended Conditions of Certification the Calico Solar Project will meet the
1 Air Quality
provisions of all applicable air quality laws and will not result in any significant
adverse air quality impacts. (Ex. 300, pp. C.1.1 to C-48.)
The Applicant modified the project boundary and significantly reduced the project
footprint from 8,230 acres to 6,215 acres. The revisions to the project do not
substantially change the worst-case onsite construction emissions and would
reduce onsite operation emissions due to the reduction in the project footprint
and vehicle travel requirements. Therefore, the modeling assessment conducted
for the project continues to be valid. However, the Applicant did provide
additional modeling analysis to show compliance with the new federal 1-hour
NO2 standard, which is included in the analysis. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-23.)
The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act both require the
establishment of standards for ambient concentrations of air pollutants, called
ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The state AAQS, established by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), are typically more protective than the
federal AAQS, which are established by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The standards consist of two parts: an allowable concentration of
a pollutant, and an averaging time over which the concentration is to be
measured. The averaging times are based on whether the damage caused by
the pollutant is more likely to occur during exposures to a high concentration for a
short time (one hour, for instance), or to a relatively lower average concentration
over a longer period (8 hours, 24 hours, or 1 month). Air Quality Table 1 lists
the state and federal AAQS. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-7.)
As shown in Table 1, the averaging times for the various air quality standards
and the times over which they are measured, range from one-hour to annual
averages. The standards are read as a concentration in parts per million (ppm),
or as a weighted mass of material per a volume of air in milligrams or
micrograms of pollutant in a cubic meter of air (mg/m3 or μg/m3, respectively.) (Id.)
Air Quality 2
another, or attainment under the federal standard and nonattainment under the
state standard for the same air contaminant. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-8.)
3 Air Quality
1. Existing Air Quality
The project site is located in the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB) under the
jurisdiction of the MDAQMD. The San Bernardino County portion of the MDAB
surrounding the project site is designated as non-attainment for the federal and
state ozone and PM10 standards, and the state PM2.5 standard. This area is
designated as attainment or unclassified for the state and federal CO, NOX, SOX,
and the federal PM2.5 standards. Air Quality Table 2 summarizes the area's
attainment status for various applicable state and federal standards. (Ex. 300, p.
C.1-9.)
The proposed project will be located on approximately 6,215 acres, and will
include the installation of 34,000 SunCatchers, operation of Solar Stirling Engine
Power Conversion Units (PCUs), administration building, the maintenance
building, and the substation building. The proposed project also includes the
construction of a project substation, water treatment infrastructure, and onsite
road construction. The project owner will use well water from the Lavic
Groundwater Basin for construction and operation of the project. Water will be
transported by a 0.51 mile long underground pipeline. (Ex. 300, pp. C.1-14 and
C.1-16.)
Air Quality 4
emissions come from construction equipment exhausts, such as vehicles and
heavy equipment/internal combustion engines. (Exs. 1, p. 5.10-16; 300, p. C.1-
14.)
Using estimated peak hourly, daily, and annual construction equipment exhaust
emissions, the Applicant modeled Calico Solar Project’s construction emissions
to determine impacts. The Applicant’s modeling analysis includes onsite fugitive
dust and vehicle tailpipe emissions sources and control measures proposed by
the Applicant. The modeling results are shown in Air Quality Table 4. 1 (Ex.
300, pp. C.1-21 to C.1-24.)
1
Staff evaluated construction impacts by adding the modeled impacts to the available highest
ambient background concentrations recorded during the previous three years from nearby
monitoring stations. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-27.)
5 Air Quality
Air Quality Table 4
Calico Solar Maximum Project Construction Impacts
Avg. Impacts Background Total Impact Standard Percent of
Pollutants
Period (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) Standard
1-hr. 68.1 154.4 222.5 339 66%
NO2
Annual 3.9 41.8 45.7 57 80%
24-hr 26.5 80 106.5 50 213%
PM10
Annual 3.2 29.8 33.0 20 165%
24-hr 4.1 28 32.1 35 92%
PM2.5
Annual 0.6 10.3 10.9 12 91%
1-hr 61 4,025 4,086 23,000 18%
CO
8-hr 32 1,367 1,399 10,000 14%
1-hr 0.07 47.2 47.3 665 7%
3-hr 0.05 42.4 42.5 1300 3%
SO2
24-hr 0.02 13.1 13.1 105 12%
Annual 0.004 2.7 2.7 80 3%
Source: Exs.1. Table 5.2-19 Revised; 300, p. C.1-24
As shown, with the exception of 24-hour and annual PM10 impacts, the Calico
Solar Project will not create new exceedances. The modeling analysis also
shows that with the exception of PM10 impacts, the project will not contribute to
exceedances for any of the modeled air pollutants. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-22.)
However, in light of the existing PM10 and ozone-nonattainment status for the
project area, Staff determined that the construction emissions of nonattainment
pollutants and their precursors (NOX, VOC, and PM emissions) are CEQA
significant and therefore, the off-road equipment and fugitive dust emissions
require mitigation. (Id.)
The Calico Solar Project will be a nominal 663.5 MW solar electrical generating
facility. While the direct air pollutant emissions from power solar generation are
negligible, there are required auxiliary equipment and maintenance activities
necessary to operate and maintain the facility. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-17.)
Air Quality 6
PM10 (100) and ozone precursors (NOX [100 tons] and VOC [100 tons]). Air
Quality Table 5 presents these estimates. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-20.)
2
Staff evaluated the operation impacts by adding the modeled impacts to the available highest
ambient background concentrations recorded during the previous three years from nearby
monitoring stations. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-27.)
7 Air Quality
As shown, with the exception of PM10 impacts, that the proposed project would
not create new exceedances. The table further shows that with the exception of
PM10 impacts, the proposed project will not contribute to existing exceedances
for any of the modeled air pollutants. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-25.)
In light of the existing PM10 and ozone non-attainment status for the project
area, Staff determined that the operating emissions of NOX, VOC, and PM
emissions are potentially CEQA significant and mitigation is required for the off-
road equipment and fugitive dust emissions. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-25.)
The record further shows that based on the modeling analysis and with
implementation of recommended mitigation measures, as adopted in the
Conditions of Certification below, project operations will not cause new
exceedances of NAAQS.
The record shows that the project’s operating emissions are well below the
General Conformity applicability thresholds for the federal PM10 and ozone
nonattainment pollutants. (Ex. 300, pp. C.1-24 and C.1-45.)
For a period of time, the construction and operation of the facilities will overlap
due to the staged construction and operation of the two phases. As discussed
above, the record discloses Applicant’s performance of various modeling
analyses for worst-case emissions. These analyses include modeling for the
worst-case onsite emissions associated with overlap between operation of Phase
I and construction of Phase II. Air Quality Table 7 presents the maximum
annual construction/operation overlapping emissions. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-18.)
Air Quality 8
Air Quality Table 7
Maximum Annual Construction/Operation Overlap Emissions (tons/year)
Construction
NOx SOx CO VOC PM10 PM2.5
Onsite Emissions
Onsite Combustion Emissions 31.74 0.04 36.78 6.39 2.11 1.92
Onsite Fugitive Dust Emissions -- -- -- -- 65.55 9.72
Subtotal of Onsite Emissions 31.74 0.04 36.78 6.39 67.65 11.64
Offsite Emissions
Offsite Combustion Emissions 53.36 0.12 65.33 13.17 3.56 3.11
Offsite Fugitive Dust -- -- -- -- 11.77 1.55
Subtotal of Offsite Emissions 53.36 0.12 65.33 13.17 15.33 4.65
Total Maximum Hourly Emissions 85.11 0.16 102.11 19.56 82.98 16.30
Operation
NOx
SOx CO VOC PM10 PM2.5
Onsite Emissions
Onsite Combustion Emissions 0.42 0.00 3.96 0.51 0.01 0.01
Onsite Gasoline Tank Emissions -- -- -- 0.09 -- --
Onsite Fugitive Dust Emissions -- -- -- -- 5.02 0.74
Subtotal of Onsite Emissions 0.42 0.00 3.96 0.60 5.03 0.75
Offsite Emissions
Offsite Combustion Emissions 0.16 0.00 0.89 0.03 0.02 0.01
Offsite Fugitive Dust -- -- -- -- 0.77 0.04
Subtotal of Offsite Emissions 0.16 0.00 0.89 0.03 0.79 0.05
Total Maximum Hourly Emissions 0.58 0.00 4.85 0.63 5.82 0.80
Construction/Operation Overlap Totals
NOx SOx CO VOC PM10 PM2.5
Construction/Operation Overlap Total 85.69 0.16 106.96 20.19 88.80 17.10
Source: TS 2010e, Table 2.2-6a, and Staff estimates for the gasoline tank. Ex. 300, p. C.1-21.
4. Cumulative Impacts
This analysis is concerned with criteria air pollutants. Such pollutants have
impacts that are usually (though not always) cumulative by nature. Rarely would
a project by itself cause a violation of a federal or state criteria pollutant standard.
However, a new source of pollution may contribute to violations of criteria
pollutant standards because of the existing background sources or foreseeable
future projects. (Ex. 300, C.1-41.)
The record includes extensive analysis of cumulative impacts to air quality. The
“Existing Ambient Air Quality” subsection describes the air quality background in
San Bernardino County, including a discussion of historical ambient levels for
9 Air Quality
each of the significant criteria pollutants. The construction and operation
subsections discuss the proposed project’s contribution to the local existing
background caused by project construction and operation. (Id.)
The record also contains a summary of projections for criteria pollutants by the
MDAQMD’s programmatic efforts to abate such pollution, an analysis of the
project’s localized cumulative impacts, and the project’s direct operating
emissions combined with other local major emission sources. (Ex. 300, pp. C.1-
41 to C.1-43.)
As a solar power generation facility, the direct air pollutant emissions from power
generation are negligible and the emission source would be limited to auxiliary
equipment and maintenance activities. The emissions from the proposed project
would be minimal compared to the other power generation facilities, and it is
unlikely that the proposed project would have significant impact on particulate
matter emissions. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-42.)
The applicable air quality plans do not outline any new control measures
applicable to the proposed project’s operating emission sources. Therefore,
compliance with existing District rules and regulations would ensure compliance
with air quality plans. (Id.)
The Applicant, in consultation with MDAQMD and San Bernardino County Land
Use Service Department, confirmed that there are no projects within a six-mile
radius from the Calico Solar Project site that are under construction or have
received permits to be built or operate in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we
find that no stationary sources requiring a cumulative modeling analysis exist
within a six-mile radius of the proposed project site. (Ex. 300, C.1-44.)
In addition to the projects determined through consultation with the District, there
are several pending solar and wind projects in the Newberry Springs/Ludlow
Area that would be located within a few miles of the Calico Solar Project site, and
there are dozens of other wind and solar projects that have applications pending
with BLM in the California Desert District. This potential for significant additional
development within the air basin and corresponding increase in air basin
emissions is a major part of Staff’s rationale for recommending Conditions of
Certification AQ-SC6 and AQ-SC7 that are designed to mitigate the proposed
project’s cumulative impacts by reducing the dedicated on-site vehicle emissions
and fugitive dust emissions during site operation. (Id.)
Air Quality 10
In addition, we find that because the project’s cumulative air quality impacts have
been mitigated to less than significant, there is no environmental justice impact
for air quality. (Id.)
MDAQMD Rules 403 and 403.2 limit fugitive dust emissions in the project area.
Implementation of Staff-recommended mitigation measures AQ-SC3, AQ-SC4,
and AQ-SC7, which we hereby adopt, will reduce the project’s contributions to
fugitive dust emissions to below the level of significance. (Ex. 300, p. C.1-46.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposed Calico Solar Project in the Mojave Desert Air Basin and is
under the jurisdiction of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.
2. The San Bernardino County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin area is
designated as nonattainment for federal and state ozone and PM10
standards, and the state PM 2.5 standard.
3. The project will not cause new violations of any NO2, SO2, PM2.5, or CO
ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the NOX, SOX, PM2.5, and CO
emission impacts are not significant.
4. The project’s NOX and VOC emissions can contribute to the existing
violations of the ozone standards. However, the required mitigation will
reduce the project’s impact to a level that is less than significant.
11 Air Quality
5. The project’s PM10 emissions can contribute to the existing violations of the
ozone PM10 air quality standards. However, the required mitigation will
mitigate the project’s impacts to a level that is less than significant.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
Staff conditions AQ-SC1 through AQ-SC4 and AQ-SC7 are both CEQA and
NEPA mitigation conditions. Staff Conditions AQ-SC5, AQ-SC6, and AQ-SC8
are CEQA-only conditions. Note that the term “CPM” refers to the Energy
Commission’s Compliance Project Manager.
Air Quality 12
site and linear facility construction. The on-site AQCMM may delegate
responsibilities to one or more AQCMM Delegates. The AQCMM and
AQCMM Delegates shall have full access to all areas of construction
on the project site and linear facilities, and shall have the authority to
stop any or all construction activities as warranted by applicable
construction mitigation conditions. The AQCMM and AQCMM
Delegates may have other responsibilities in addition to those
described in this Condition. The AQCMM shall not be terminated
without written consent of the Compliance Project Manager (CPM).
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the
project owner shall submit to the CPM for approval, the name, resume,
qualifications, and contact information for the on-site AQCMM and all AQCMM
Delegates.
AQ-SC2 Air Quality Construction Mitigation Plan (AQCMP): The project owner
shall provide an AQCMP, for approval, which details the steps that will
be taken and the reporting requirements necessary to ensure
compliance with Conditions of Certification AQ-SC3, AQ-SC4, and
AQ-SC5.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of any ground disturbance, the
project owner shall submit the AQCMP to the CPM for approval. The AQCMP
shall include effectiveness and environmental data for the proposed soil
stabilizer. The CPM will notify the project owner of any necessary modifications
to the plan within 15 days from the date of receipt.
13 Air Quality
B. All unpaved construction roads and unpaved operation and
maintenance site roads, as they are being constructed, shall be
stabilized with a non-toxic soil stabilizer or soil weighting agent that
can be determined to be both as efficient or more efficient for
fugitive dust control as ARB approved soil stabilizers, and shall not
increase any other environmental impacts including loss of
vegetation to areas beyond where the soil stabilizers are being
applied for dust control. All other disturbed areas in the project and
linear construction sites shall be watered as frequently as
necessary during grading (consistent with BIO-7); and after active
construction activities shall be stabilized with a non-toxic soil
stabilizer or soil weighting agent, or alternative approved soil
stabilizing methods, in order to comply with the dust mitigation
objectives of Condition of Certification AQ-SC4. The frequency of
watering can be reduced or eliminated during periods of
precipitation.
C. No vehicle shall exceed 10 miles per hour on unpaved areas within
the construction site, with the exception that vehicles may travel up
to 25 miles per hour on stabilized unpaved roads as long as such
speeds do not create visible dust emissions.
D. Visible speed limit signs shall be posted at the construction site
entrances.
E. All construction equipment vehicle tires shall be inspected and
washed as necessary to be cleaned free of dirt prior to entering
paved roadways.
F. Gravel ramps of at least 20 feet in length must be provided at the
tire washing/cleaning station.
G. All unpaved exits from the construction site shall be graveled or
treated to prevent track-out to public roadways.
H. All construction vehicles shall enter the construction site through
the treated entrance roadways, unless an alternative route has
been submitted to and approved by the CPM.
I. Construction areas adjacent to any paved roadway below the grade
of the surrounding construction area or otherwise directly impacted
by sediment from site drainage shall be provided with sandbags or
other equivalently effective measures to prevent run-off to
roadways, or other similar run-off control measures as specified in
the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), only when
such SWPPP measures are necessary so that this condition does
not conflict with the requirements of the SWPPP.
J. All paved roads within the construction site shall be swept daily or
as needed (less during periods of precipitation) on days when
Air Quality 14
construction activity occurs to prevent the accumulation of dirt and
debris.
K. At least the first 500 feet of any paved public roadway exiting the
construction site or exiting other unpaved roads en route from the
construction site or construction staging areas shall be swept as
needed (less during periods of precipitation) on days when
construction activity occurs or on any other day when dirt or runoff
resulting from the construction site activities is visible on the public
paved roadways.
L. All soil storage piles and disturbed areas that remain inactive for
longer than 10 days shall be covered, or shall be treated with
appropriate dust suppressant compounds.
M. All vehicles that are used to transport solid bulk material on public
roadways and that have potential to cause visible emissions shall
be provided with a cover, or the materials shall be sufficiently
wetted and loaded onto the trucks in a manner to provide at least 2
feet of freeboard.
N. Wind erosion control techniques (such as windbreaks, water,
chemical dust suppressants, and/or vegetation) shall be used on all
construction areas that may be disturbed. Any windbreaks installed
to comply with this Condition shall remain in place until the soil is
stabilized or permanently covered with vegetation.
Verification: The AQCMM shall provide the CPM a Monthly Compliance
Report to include the following to demonstrate control of fugitive dust emissions:
A. A summary of all actions taken to maintain compliance with this Condition;
B. Copies of any complaints filed with the District in relation to project
construction; and
C. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the, CPM or AQCMM to
verify compliance with this Condition. Such information may be provided via
electronic format or disk at the project owner’s discretion.
15 Air Quality
Step 1: The AQCMM or Delegate shall direct more intensive
application of the existing mitigation methods within 15
minutes of making such a determination.
Step 2: The AQCMM or Delegate shall direct implementation of
additional methods of dust suppression if Step 1, specified
above, fails to result in adequate mitigation within 30 minutes
of the original determination.
Step 3: The AQCMM or Delegate shall direct a temporary shutdown of
the activity causing the emissions if Step 2, specified above,
fails to result in effective mitigation within one hour of the
original determination. The activity shall not restart until the
AQCMM or Delegate is satisfied that appropriate additional
mitigation or other site conditions have changed so that visual
dust plumes will not result upon restarting the shutdown
source. The owner/operator may appeal to the CPM any
directive from the AQCMM or Delegate to shut down an
activity, if the shutdown shall go into effect within one hour of
the original determination, unless overruled by the CPM
before that time.
Verification: The AQCMM shall provide the CPM a Monthly Compliance
Report to include:
A. a summary of all actions taken to maintain compliance with this Condition;
B. copies of any complaints filed with the District in relation to project
construction; and
C. any other documentation deemed necessary by the CPM and AQCMM to
verify compliance with this Condition. Such information may be provided via
electronic format or disk at the project owner’s discretion.
AQ-SC5 Diesel-Fueled Engine Control: The AQCMM shall submit to the CPM,
in the Monthly Compliance Report, a construction mitigation report that
demonstrates compliance with the AQCMP mitigation measures for
purposes of controlling diesel construction-related emissions. The
following off-road diesel construction equipment mitigation measures
shall be included in the Air Quality Construction Mitigation Plan
(AQCMP) required by AQ-SC2, and any deviation from the AQCMP
mitigation measures shall require prior CPM notification and approval.
a. All diesel-fueled engines used in the construction of the facility shall
have clearly visible tags issued by the on-site AQCMM showing
that the engine meets the conditions set forth herein.
b. All construction diesel engines with a rating of 50 hp or higher shall
meet, at a minimum, the Tier 3 California Emission Standards for
Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines, as specified in California
Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2423(b)(1), unless a good
Air Quality 16
faith effort to the satisfaction of the CPM that is certified by the on-
site AQCMM demonstrates that such engine is not available for a
particular item of equipment. In the event that a Tier 3 engine is not
available for any off-road equipment larger than 50 hp, that
equipment shall be equipped with a Tier 2 engine, or an engine that
is equipped with retrofit controls to reduce exhaust emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and diesel particulate matter (DPM) to no
more than Tier 2 levels unless certified by engine manufacturers or
the on-site AQCMM that the use of such devices is not practical for
specific engine types. For purposes of this Condition, the use of
such devices is “not practical” for the following, as well as other,
reasons.
1. There is no available retrofit control device that has been
verified by either the California Air Resources Board or U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to control the engine in
question to Tier 2 equivalent emission levels and the highest
level of available control using retrofit or Tier 1 engines is being
used for the engine in question; or
2. The construction equipment is intended to be on site for 10 days
or less.
3. The CPM may grant relief from this requirement if the AQCMM
can demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with this
requirement and that compliance is not practical.
c. The use of a retrofit control device may be terminated immediately,
provided that the CPM is informed within 10 working days of the
termination and that a replacement for the equipment item in
question meeting the controls required in item “b” occurs within 10
days of termination of the use, if the equipment would be needed to
continue working at this site for more than 15 days after the use of
the retrofit control device is terminated, if one of the following
conditions exists :
1. The use of the retrofit control device is excessively reducing the
normal availability of the construction equipment due to
increased down time for maintenance, and/or reduced power
output due to an excessive increase in back pressure.
2. The retrofit control device is causing or is reasonably expected
to cause engine damage.
3. The retrofit control device is causing or is reasonably expected
to cause a substantial risk to workers or the public.
4. Any other seriously detrimental cause which has the approval of
the CPM prior to implementation of the termination.
d. All heavy earth-moving equipment and heavy duty construction-
related trucks with engines meeting the requirements of (b) above
17 Air Quality
shall be properly maintained and the engines tuned to the engine
manufacturer’s specifications.
e. All diesel heavy construction equipment shall not idle for more than
five minutes. Vehicles that need to idle as part of their normal
operation (such as concrete trucks) are exempted from this
requirement.
f. Construction equipment will employ electric motors when feasible.
Verification: The AQCMM shall include in the Monthly Compliance Report
the following to demonstrate control of diesel construction-related emissions:
A. A summary of all actions taken to control diesel construction related
emissions;
B. A list of all heavy equipment used on site during that month, including the
owner of that equipment and a letter from each owner indicating that
equipment has been properly maintained; and
C. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the CPM, or the AQCMM to
verify compliance with this Condition. Such information may be provided via
electronic format or disk at the project owner’s discretion.
AQ-SC7 The project owner shall provide a site Operations Dust Control Plan,
including all applicable fugitive dust control measures identified in the
verification of AQ-SC3 that would be applicable to minimizing fugitive
dust emission creation from operation and maintenance activities and
preventing all fugitive dust plumes that would not comply with the
performance standards identified in AQ-SC4 from leaving the project
site; that:
A. describes the active operations and wind erosion control
techniques such as windbreaks and chemical dust suppressants,
including their ongoing maintenance procedures, that shall be used
on areas that could be disturbed by vehicles or wind anywhere
within the project boundaries; and
Air Quality 18
B. identifies the location of signs throughout the facility that will limit
traveling on unpaved portion of roadways to solar equipment
maintenance vehicles only. In addition, vehicle speed shall be
limited to no more than 10 miles per hour on these unpaved
roadways, with the exception that vehicles may travel up to 25
miles per hour on stabilized unpaved roads as long as such speeds
do not create visible dust emissions.
The site operations fugitive dust control plan shall include the use of
durable non-toxic soil stabilizers on all regularly used unpaved roads
and disturbed off-road areas, or alternative methods for stabilizing
disturbed off-road areas, within the project boundaries, and shall
include the inspection and maintenance procedures that will be
undertaken to ensure that the unpaved roads remain stabilized. The
soil stabilizer used shall be a non-toxic soil stabilizer or soil weighting
agent that can be determined to be either as efficient or more efficient
for fugitive dust control as ARB approved soil stabilizers, and shall not
increase any other environmental impacts including loss of vegetation
to areas beyond where the soil stabilizers are being applied for dust
control.
The performance and application of the fugitive dust controls shall also
be measured against and meet the performance requirements of
condition AQ-SC4. The measures and performance requirements of
AQ-SC4 shall also be included in the operations dust control plan.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to start of commercial operation, the
project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval a copy of the site
Operations Dust Control Plan that identifies the dust and erosion control
procedures, including effectiveness and environmental data for the proposed soil
stabilizer, that will be used during operation of the project and that identifies all
locations of the speed limit signs.
Within 60 days after commercial operation, the project owner shall provide to the
CPM a report identifying the locations of all speed limit signs, and a copy of the
project employee and contractor training manual that clearly identifies that project
employees and contractors are required to comply with the dust and erosion
control procedures and on-site speed limits.
AQ-SC8 The project owner shall provide the CPM copies of all District issued
Authority-to-Construct (ATC) and Permit-to-Operate (PTO) documents
for the facility.
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval any
modification proposed by the project owner to any project federal air
permit. The project owner shall submit to the CPM any modification to
any permit proposed by the District or U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA), and any revised federal permit issued by the
District or U.S. EPA, for the project.
19 Air Quality
Verification: The project owner shall submit any ATC, PTO, and proposed air
permit modifications to the CPM within five working days of its submittal either
by 1) the project owner to an agency, or 2) receipt of proposed modifications
from an agency. The project owner shall submit all modified ATC/PTO
documents and all federal air permits to the CPM within 15 days of receipt.
DISTRICT CONDITIONS
DISTRICT FINAL DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS
(MDAQMD 2010a)
District conditions AQ-1 through AQ-15 are CEQA-only required Conditions.
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION:
ARB Certified Tier III engine, 399 bhp, fueled on ARB diesel, powering an
electrical generator.
AQ-2 This unit shall only be fired on ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, whose sulfur
concentration is less than or equal to 0.0015 percent (15 ppm) on a
weight per weight basis per ARB Diesel or equivalent requirements.
Verification: The project owner shall maintain the fuel sulfur content records
for diesel fuel deliveries on site as required in AQ-6 and shall make the site
available for inspection of records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the
Energy Commission.
Air Quality 20
Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-5 This unit shall be limited to use for emergency power, defined as in
response to a fire or when commercially available power has been
interrupted. In addition, this unit shall be operated no more than 50
hours per year, and no more than 0.5 hours per day for testing and
maintenance, excluding compliance source testing. Time required for
source testing will not be counted toward the 50 hour per year limit.
Verification: The project owner shall maintain engine use records on site as
required in AQ-6 and shall make the site available for inspection of records by
representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-6 The project owner shall maintain an operations log for this unit current
and on-site (or at a central location) for a minimum of five years, and
this log shall be provided to District, State and Federal personnel upon
request. The log shall include, at a minimum, the information specified
below:
a. Date of each use and duration of each use (in hours);
b. Reason for use (testing & maintenance, emergency, required
emission testing);
c. Calendar year operation in terms of fuel consumption (in gallons)
and total hours; and,
d. Fuel sulfur concentration (the project owner may use the
supplier's certification of sulfur content if it is maintained as part of
this log).
Verification: The project owner shall submit records required by this
Condition that demonstrating compliance with the sulfur content and engine use
limitations of Conditions AQ-2 and AQ-5 in the Annual Compliance Report
(COMPLIANCE-8), including a photograph showing the annual reading of engine
hours. The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of records
by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
21 Air Quality
Verification: The project owner shall submit the engine specifications at least
30 days prior to purchasing the engines for review and approval demonstrating
that the engines meet both ATCM and New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) subpart IIII emission limit requirements at the time of engine purchase.
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of records by
representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-8 This unit shall not be used to provide power during a voluntary agreed
to power outage and/or power reduction initiated under an Interruptible
Service Contract (ISC); Demand Response Program (DRP); Load
Reduction Program (LRP) and/or similar arrangement(s) with the
electrical power supplier.
Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION:
5,000 gallon capacity gasoline tank with Phase I and Phase II vapor recovery.
AQ-10 The project owner shall maintain a log of all inspections, repairs, and
maintenance on equipment subject to Rule 461. Such logs or records
shall be maintained at the facility for at least two years and shall be
available to the District upon request.
Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-11 Any modifications or changes to the piping or control fitting of the vapor
recovery system require prior approval from the District.
Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-12 The vapor vent pipes are to be equipped with pressure relief valves.
Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-13 The project owner shall perform the following tests within 60 days of
construction completion and annually thereafter in accord with the
following test procedures:
Air Quality 22
a. Static Pressure Decay Test per ARB test method TP-201.3B
(2-inch test);
b. Dynamic Back Pressure test per TP-201.4;
c. Liquid Removal Test (if applicable) per TP-201.6;
d. Fuel dispensing rate not to exceed 10 gpm, verified per EO
G-70-200-C Exhibit 4, and;
e. Emergency vents and manways shall be leak free when tested at
the operating pressure of the tank in accordance with ARB test
methods, as specified in Title 17, California Code of Regulations.
The District shall be notified a minimum of 10 days prior to performing
the required tests with the final results submitted to the District within
30 days of completion of the tests.
The District shall receive passing test reports no later than six weeks
prior to the expiration date of this permit.
Verification: The project owner shall notify the District at least 10 days prior
to performing the required tests. The test results shall be submitted to the District
within 30 days of completion of the tests and shall be made available to the CPM
if requested.
AQ-14 The annual throughput of gasoline shall not exceed 500,000 gallons
per year. Throughput Records shall be kept on site and available to
District personnel upon request. Before this annual throughput can be
increased the facility may be required to submit to the District a site
specific Health Risk Assessment in accord with a District approved
plan. In addition public notice and/or comment period may be required.
Verification: The project owner shall submit to the CPM gasoline throughput
records demonstrating compliance with this Condition as part of the Annual
Compliance Report .The project owner shall maintain on site the annual gasoline
throughput records and shall make the site available for inspection of records by
representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-15 The project owner shall; install, maintain, and operate this equipment
in compliance with ARB Executive Order G-70-200-C or Enhanced
Vapor Recovery (EVR) Phase I and EVR Phase II, and Standing Loss
requirements in affect at the time of construction.
Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
23 Air Quality
C. PUBLIC HEALTH
The public health analysis supplements the previous discussion on air quality
and considers the potential public health effects from project emissions of toxic
air contaminants. In this analysis, we review the evidence concerning whether
such emissions will result in significant public health impacts or violate standards
for public health protection. 1
Project construction and operation will result in routine emissions of toxic air
contaminants for which no ambient air quality standards have been established.
These substances are categorized as noncriteria pollutants. In the absence of
standards, state and federal regulatory agencies have developed health risk
assessment procedures to evaluate potential health effects due to these toxic air
contaminants.
• Identify the types and amounts of hazardous substances that the Calico
Solar Project could emit into the environment;
• Estimate worst-case concentrations of project emissions in the environment
using dispersion modeling;
• Estimate amounts of pollutants to which people could be exposed through
inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact; 2 and
• Characterize potential health risks by comparing worst-case exposure from
the project with the scientific safety standards based on known health
effects. (Ex. 300, p. C.6-3.)
Typically, the initial health risk analysis is performed at a “screening level,” which
is designed to estimate potential health risks. The risks for screening purposes
are based on examining conditions that would lead to the highest, or worst-case,
1
This Decision discusses other potential public health concerns under various topics. For
instance, the accidental release of hazardous materials is discussed in Hazardous Materials
Management and Worker Safety and Fire Protection. Electromagnetic fields are discussed in
Transmission Line Safety and Nuisance. Potential impacts to soils and surface water sources
are discussed in the Soil and Water Resources section of this Decision. Potential exposure to
contaminated soils and hazardous wastes is described in Waste Management section of this
Decision.
2
Exposure pathways, or ways in which people might come into contact with toxic substances,
include inhalation, dermal (through the skin) absorption, soil ingestion, consumption of locally
grown plant foods, and mother’s milk.
1 Public Health
risks and then modeling those conditions to analyze results. Such conditions
include:
• Using the highest levels of pollutants that could be emitted from the power
plant;
• Assuming weather conditions that would lead to the maximum ambient
concentration of pollutants;
• Using the type of air quality computer model which predicts the greatest
plausible impacts;
• Calculating health risks at the location where the pollutant concentrations
are estimated to be the highest;
• Assuming that an individual’s exposure to cancer-causing agents occurs
continuously for 70 years; and
• Using health-based standards designed to protect the most sensitive
members of the population (i.e., the young, elderly, and those with
respiratory illnesses). (Ex. 300, pp. C.6-3 to C.6-4.)
The risk assessment for the Calico Project addresses two categories of potential
health impacts: chronic (long-term) non-cancer effects and cancer risk (also long-
term). Chronic non-cancer health effects occur as a result of long-term exposure
(8 to 70 years) to lower concentrations of pollutants. For carcinogenic
substances, the health assessment considers the total risk of developing cancer
and assumes that continuous exposure to the cancer-causing substance occurs
over a 70-year lifetime. (Ex. 300, pp. C.6-4 – C.6-5.)
The analysis for chronic health effects compares the maximum project
contaminant levels to safe levels called Reference Exposure Levels or RELs.
These exposure levels are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in
the population such as infants, the elderly, and people suffering from illness or
disease, which make them more susceptible to the effects of toxic substance
exposure. The RELs are based on the most sensitive adverse health effects
reported in medical and toxicological literature, and include margins of safety.
The assessment considers risk from all cancer-causing chemicals from the
source of emissions. The calculated risk is not meant to predict the actual
expected incidence of cancer, but is rather a theoretical estimate based on worst-
case assumptions.
Cancer risk is expressed in chances per million and is a function of the maximum
expected pollutant concentration, the probability that a particular pollutant will
cause cancer, and the length of the exposure period. Cancer risks for each
Public Health 2
carcinogen are added to yield total cancer risk. The conservative nature of the
screening assumptions means that actual cancer risks due to project emissions
are likely to be considerably lower than those estimated. (Ex. 300, p. C.6-5.)
The evidence shows that both the Applicant and Staff independently performed
screening risk assessments and concluded that no adverse health effects are
expected from project construction or operation.
Construction of the Calico Solar Project is anticipated to take place over a period
of 48 months. Potential construction-phase health impacts could occur from
exposure to toxic substances in contaminated soil disturbed during site
preparation and to diesel exhaust from heavy equipment. Excavation, grading,
and earth moving activities also have potential to affect public health through
mechanisms such as windblown dust, soil erosion, and the uncovering of
hazardous substances. (Exs. 1, p. 5.16-1; 300, pp. C.6-10 – C.6-11.)
With respect to the air emissions from diesel-fueled engines, the Applicant
estimated worst-case emissions of 457 pounds per day of particulate matter less
3 Public Health
than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and 57.56 pounds per day and 71 pounds of
per day of fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5)
during construction. (Exs. 1, § 5.2, Table 5.2-2-0 Revised; 10, § 5.2.) Because
assessment of chronic (long-term) health effects assumes continuous exposure
to toxic substances over a period from eight to 70 years, the Applicant did not
estimate the health risks resulting from the short duration of the construction
activities. Similarly, Staff did not conduct a quantitative assessment of
construction impacts on public health given the distance from the site to the
sparsely populated area surrounding the site and based on its prior experience
using quantitative risk assessment tools showing that construction vehicle
emissions impacts are generally less than significant. (Exs. 1, p. 5.16-4; 300, p.
C.6-11.)
Even though the Applicant and Staff independently determined that the
construction impacts would be less than significant, they both proposed
mitigation measures to reduce the maximum calculated PM10 and PM2.5
emissions and further reduce any potential impacts. (Ex. 1, § 5.2; 300, p. C.6-
11.) We have adopted the recommended mitigation measures the Air Quality
section of this Decision. Included in these measures are requirements for use of
aggressive fugitive dust and diesel exhaust control measures. For instance,
these Conditions will reduce exposure to diesel emissions from construction
equipment by requiring the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and Tier 2 or Tier 1
California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine or the
installation of an oxidation catalyst and soot filters on diesel equipment.
The record shows that the only stationary source of toxic air contaminants (TAC)
that would be emitted from the Calico Solar Project would be diesel particulate
matter from the emergency generator which will be operated once a month for
about 20 minutes. (Ex. 300, pp. C.6-11-C.6-14.) Mobile sources of TAC
emissions during operations would include gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled
maintenance and delivery vehicles as well as visitor and staff traffic
The record includes the methodology used in identifying and quantifying the
emission rates of the toxic noncriteria pollutants that could adversely affect public
health. As shown in Public Health Table 1 below, both the chronic hazard index
and the cancer risk are below the level of significance indicating that no long-
term adverse health effects are expected.
Public Health 4
PUBLIC HEALTH Table 1
Operation Hazard/Risk at Point of Maximum Impact: Applicant Assessment
Type of Hazard Index/Risk Significance Level Significant?
Hazard/Risk
Acute Noncancer 0.062 1.0 No
The record shows that Staff performed an independent qualitative analysis of the
risk assessment results using the Applicant’s emission factors and considering
several specified aspects of facility operations. Staff’s results for acute hazard
index are lower than the results reported by the Applicant due to a change in the
acute REL for acrolein from the value used in the Applicant’s August 2009 report
(0.19 ug/m3) to the value published by OEHHA in their December 2008 guidance,
2.5 ug/m3. (Ex. 300, p. C.6-13.)
The point of maximum impact, PMI, was determined under the 70 year
residential scenario. Three nearby residences, the only residential receptors
located near the facility, were also modeled. Cumulative impacts were not
evaluated as there are no existing or proposed projects within sic miles of the
facility.
5 Public Health
LRU Staff &
Washing
Maintenance visitor cars, Diesel
Diesel Vehicle Total
Substance Truck van pool, Delivery
Generator (running & Emissions
(running & security Trucks
idling)
Idling) truck
Annual Emissions from all vehicles of each type (lb/yr)
DPM 0.18 13.40 13.58
Benzene 69.78 39.08 36.28 145.14
1,3-Butadiene 5.17 2.90 2.51 10.58
Formaldehyde 29.80 16.69 5.43 51.92
Acetaldehyde 13.45 7.53 4.27 25.25
Acrolein 2.29 1.28 0.30 3.87
Source: Ex. 302, p. C.6-15.
Note: Values listed are for emissions from all vehicles of each type
DPM = diesel particulate matter
The Applicant’s screening health risk assessment for the project resulted in an
acute Hazard Index (HI) of 0.062 and a chronic HI of 0.00000042 at the point of
maximum impact (PMI). The worst-case individual cancer risk was calculated to
be 0.000667 in 1 million at the PMI. As Public Health Table 1 shows, both the
acute and chronic hazard indices and the maximum cancer risk are below the
level of significance, indicating that no long-term or short-term cancer or non-
cancer health effects are expected. (Ex. 300, p. C.6-12.)
Public Health 6
(HARP), Version 1.4a. The HARP On-Ramp program was used to load the
AERMOD results into HARP. Local meteorological data were used and building
downwash effects were included for five buildings. Potential risks to 5,211 grid
receptors and 3 sensitive receptors were modeled. Exposure pathways
assessed include inhalation, ingestion of home-grown produce, dermal
absorption, soil ingestion and mother’s milk. (Ex. 300, p. C.6-13.)
3. Cumulative Impacts
A project may result in a significant adverse cumulative impact where its effects
are cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects (Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15130).
NEPA states that cumulative effects can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. (40 CFR
§1508.7.)
Cumulative impacts can occur if implementation of the Calico Solar Project could
combine with those of other local or regional projects. Cumulative impacts would
occur locally if Calico Solar Project impacts combined with impacts of projects
located within the same air basin. Cumulative impacts could also occur as a
result of development of some of the many proposed solar and wind development
projects that have been or are expected to be under consideration by the BLM
and the Energy Commission in the near future. Many of these projects are
located within the California Desert Conservation Area, as well as on BLM land in
Nevada and Arizona. The geographic extent for the analysis of local cumulative
impacts associated with the Calico Solar Project includes the Mojave Desert Air
7 Public Health
Basin (MDAB), which contains most of San Bernardino County and parts of
Riverside County and Kern County. (Ex. 300, p. C.6-22.)
Cumulative impacts of the proposed project and other projects within a six-mile
radius were not evaluated by the Applicant. However, there is a potential for
substantial future development in the project area and throughout the southern
California desert region, including several energy projects employing solar or
wind technologies. (Ex. 300, p. C.6-22.)
The maximum cancer risk for emissions from the Calico Solar Project is 2.7 in
one million at the point of maximum impact located at the project fenceline. The
maximum impact location occurs where pollutant concentrations from the Calico
Solar Project would theoretically be the highest. Even at this location, we do not
expect any significant change in lifetime risk to any person, and the increase
does not represent any real contribution to the average lifetime cancer incidence
rate due to all causes. Modeled facility-related residential risks are lower at more
distant locations, and actual risks are expected to be much lower since worst-
case estimates are based on conservative assumptions and thus overstate the
true magnitude of the risk expected. Therefore, we do not consider the
incremental impact of the additional risk posed by the Calico Solar Project to be
either individually or cumulatively significant. (Ex. 300, p. C.6-23.)
Public health impacts of the Calico Solar Project would not combine with impacts
of any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects to result in cumulatively
considerable local or regional impacts.
4. Public Benefits
The evidence shows that a solar electric generating facility such as the proposed
Calico Solar project would emit significantly fewer TACs than other energy
sources available in California such as natural gas or biomass, thereby reducing
the health risks that would otherwise occur with these non-renewable energy
sources. At the same time, the proposed Calico Solar Project would provide
Public Health 8
much needed electrical power to California residences and businesses at the
time of greatest load (hot afternoons). It is documented that during heat waves in
which elevated air-conditioning use has caused an electrical blackout,
hospitalizations and deaths due to heat stroke increased. (Ex. 302, p. C.6-24.)
The evidence reflects that the project will comply with all applicable LORS with
implementation of the Conditions of Certification we adopt in this Decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Construction and operation of the project will result in the routine release of
criteria and noncriteria pollutants that have the potential to adversely impact
public health.
7. Emissions of toxic air contaminants from the project will not cause acute or
chronic non-cancer adverse public health effects or long-term carcinogenic
effects at the points of maximum impact.
9 Public Health
8. The maximum cancer and non-cancer health risks associated with the
project are below the significance thresholds commonly accepted for risk
analysis purposes.
9. Since the project’s contributions to health risks are well below the
significance level, the project is not expected to contribute significantly to a
cumulative health impact.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3. The project will comply with the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards specified in the appropriate portion of Appendix A of this Decision.
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
Public Health 10
D. WORKER SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION
Worker safety and fire protection measures are mandated by federal, state, and
local laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS). Workers at industrial
facilities, such as this project site, routinely operate equipment and handle
hazardous materials. Such workers face hazards, including serious physical
injury, resulting from on-site accidents. Protection measures are employed to
eliminate these hazards or minimize their risk of harm through special training,
protective equipment, and procedural controls. The purpose of this section is to
determine whether the Applicant’s proposed health and safety plans are in
accordance with all applicable LORS and thus legally adequate for the protection
of industrial workers. This section addresses the availability and adequacy of fire
protection and emergency response services, as well as threats from wildland
fires. As required by CEQA, this section also addresses the project’s impacts on
local fire protection services. Under the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a
significant impact if it would adversely impact acceptable levels of service for fire
protection [Guidelines Appendix G]. (8/6/10 RT 122-219, Exs. 1, §5.17,
Appendix B; 300, §§ B.3, C.15; 113, 300; 310; 1100 – 1105.)
1. Worker Safety
The Calico Solar Project will present construction and operational risks to
workers typical of other solar power projects. In addition, the facility will pose
risks associated with use of 34,000 pounds of hydrogen as a working gas. The
risk to workers is minimized through onsite generation (which reduces storage of
1 Worker Safety
hydrogen) and through rigorous safety management practices required by
applicable LORS. (8/6/10 RT 162; Ex. 300, pp. C.15-5 - C.15-6.)
The project owner will prepare a Safety and Health Program to minimize worker
hazards during construction and operation of the project. (Exs. 1, pp. 5.17-2–
5.17-7, 5.17-7–5.17-12; 300, pp. C.15-5 – C.15-11.) The construction safety and
health program (Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, section 1502 et
seq) will incorporate the orders promulgated by Cal/OSHA and over 20 additional
state programs or requirements that address worker safety. The Applicant has
included outlines of these required programs in the AFC. (Exs.1, Appen. B; 300,
p. C.15-7.) Safety training will be an integral part of this worker safety program.
We adopt Condition of Certification WORKER SAFETY-1 to ensure that the
project owner implements these programs and plans prior to the start of
construction. (Ex. 300, pp. C.15-5 - C.15-7.)
The safety and health program for plant operation will include an injury and
illness prevention program, an emergency action plan, a fire prevention program,
and a personal protective equipment program. As with the construction program,
worker safety-training will be an essential element of the operation program. To
ensure that the programs will be in place before construction and operation
begin, we have adopted Conditions of Certification WORKER SAFETY-1 and -2.
(Ex. 300, pp. C.15-7 to C.15-11.)
This solar power plant will present a unique work environment that includes a
solar field located in the high desert. The area under the SunCatchers must be
kept free from weeds and thus herbicides will be applied as necessary. Worker
exposure to these herbicides by inhalation and ingestion of dusts containing the
herbicides poses a health risk. Workers will regularly inspect the SunCatchers
for broken or non-functioning mirrors, and will clean and service the mirrors on a
regular schedule. All these activities will take place year-round, including the
summer months of peak solar power generation, when outside ambient
temperatures routinely reach 115°F and above. (Ex. 300, p. C.15-10.) While the
Applicant has indicated that workers will be adequately trained and protected, the
Applicant has not included specific precautions to prevent heat stress and
exposure to herbicides. Therefore, to protect workers from these risks and
minimize their effects to less than significant levels, we have incorporated into
Conditions of Certification WORKER SAFETY-1 and WORKER SAFETY-2
requirements for heat illness prevention and management of herbicides. (Ex.
300, pp. C.15-10 – C.15-11.)
Worker Safety 2
Protecting construction workers from injury and disease is one of today’s greatest
challenges in occupational safety and health. (Ex. 300, pp. C.15-11 – C.15-13.)
These hazards increase in complexity in multi-employer worksites typical of
large, complex industrial projects like gas-fired power plants. There are no
OSHA or Cal-OSHA requirements that an employer hire or provide for a
construction safety officer, but doing so has become standard industry practice in
view of OSHA and Cal-OSHA regulations requiring an employer to provide
safety. To satisfy the intent of the Cal-OSHA regulations to provide for a safe
workplace during power plant construction, we adopt Condition of Certification
WORKER SAFETY-3, which requires the project owner to designate and provide
for a project site construction safety supervisor.
2. Valley Fever
The available scientific and medical literature on Valley Fever shows that there is
some potential for Valley Fever to impact workers during construction and
operation of the proposed project. However, the high number of cases reported
in Kern County indicates that the project site may have an elevated risk for
exposure. (Ex. 300, pp. C.15-13 - C.15-19.) To minimize exposure of workers
3 Worker Safety
and the public to VF during soil excavation and grading, the project owner must
employ extensive wetting of the soil prior to and during construction activities and
require the use of dust masks at certain times during these activities. The dust
(PM10) control measures set forth in the Air Quality section of this Decision
must be strictly adhered to in order to adequately reduce the risk of contracting VF.
Therefore, we adopt Condition of Certification WORKER SAFETY-9, which
supplements the dust control measures found in Conditions AQ-SC3 and AQ-
SC4 with additional requirements for development and implementation of a dust
control plan.
a. Fire Protection
Electrical sparks, combustion of fuel oil, natural gas, hydraulic fluid, mineral oil,
insulating fluid at the project power plant switchyard or flammable liquids,
explosions, and overheated equipment, are all potential sources of small fires on
the project site. (Ex. 300, p. C.15-18.) However, major structural fires, and fires
and explosions of natural gas or other flammable gasses or liquids, are rare at
most power plants. Indeed, according to the evidence, compliance with all LORS
is usually adequate to ensure protection from all fire hazards associated with the
project. (Id.)
Similarly, wildland fires that would use local vegetation as fuel are not likely to be
caused by this project, as the Applicant will remove all vegetation in the vicinity of
the solar power towers, substation and administration areas, and to cut and
maintain vegetation in the solar field. Also, the access road along the perimeter
fence lines of the project site will serve as a fire break. (Ex. 300, p. C.15-19.)
During construction and operation, the project will rely on both on-site fire
protection systems and local fire protection services. The on-site fire protection
system will provide the first line of defense for small fires. A major fire will require
support services from the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD),
including trained firefighters and equipment for a sustained response. (Ex. 300,
p. C.15-19.) If warranted, mutual aid might be sought from and provided by other
entities, including the Newberry Springs Fire Department. (8/6/10 RT 193, 211-
213, Ex. 300, p 15-22.)
Worker Safety 4
300, p. C.15-19.) During operation, the project owner shall meet the fire
protection and suppression requirements of the California Fire Code, all
applicable recommended National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards,
and all Cal-OSHA requirements. (Ex. 300, p. C.15-19.) The fire protection
system will be designed to protect personnel and limit property loss and plant
downtime in the event of a fire. The primary source of fire protection water will
be 175,000 gallons stored in the demineralized water tank. A diesel firewater
pump will increase the water pressure to the level required to serve all fire
fighting systems. In addition, the Applicant is expected to implement a number of
Applicant-proposed protective measures that would reduce the potential for harm
to plant personnel and damage to facilities, including removal of all vegetation in
the vicinity of the substation and administration areas. These measures are
detailed in the record. (Exs. 1, pp. 5.17-14 to 5.17-7; 300, p. C.15-19.)
In addition to the fixed fire protection system, smoke detectors, flame detectors,
high-temperature detectors, appropriate class of service portable extinguishers,
and fire hydrants must be located throughout the facility at NFPA-approved
intervals. These systems are standard requirements of the fire code and NFPA.
Implementation of these systems will ensure adequate fire protection and
Conditions of Certification WORKER SAFETY-1 and WORKER SAFETY-2 will
ensure adequate on-site fire protection. (Ex. 300, pp. C.15-19 to C.15-20.)
With respect to off-site emergency access to the project by SBCFD or any other
responder, the evidence establishes that two access gates and roads are
necessary. The Applicant identified only one access gate and one access road
coming from I-40. (Ex. 300, p. C.15-20.) But, based on the evidence, a
secondary access road is required to ensure access to both the northern and
southern solar fields, should the main access road with the above-grade crossing
be blocked or otherwise unavailable. With implementation of Condition of
Certification WORKER SAFETY-6, the project owner will provide secondary
access gates and roads and means of access that are deemed acceptable by the
SBCFD.
b. Emergency Response.
5 Worker Safety
some level of service in response areas that include fire response, hazmat spill
response, rescue, and emergency medical services. (Ex. 300, pp. C.15-20 to
C.15-22.) This data shows, however, that, excluding a major fire that occurred at
SEGS 8 in 1990, SBCFD responded to about 30 incidents and emergences at
the three solar facilities combined. Stated otherwise, the incident rate for all
three power plants would be 30 in 12 years or 2.5 emergency calls per year or
0.83 emergencies per solar plant per year. (Id.)
Staff nonetheless concluded that the Calico Solar Project poses unique risks for
fire response because it differs from the industrial, commercial, and residential
development in the San Bernardino County desert region and from the existing
solar plants located in the county. More particularly, the Calico plant will be
larger in scale than the existing power plants and will produce, use, and store a
large amount (34,000 pounds) of hydrogen gas. Staff opined that the use and
storage of this amount of gas, combined with the remote location of the site and
the potential for escalation of a small fire into a large conflagration enveloping the
entire site and perhaps beyond, presents an emergency response challenge for
SBCFD. Thus, according to Staff, the Calico Solar plant’s unique needs and
characteristics would pose significant added demands on local fire protection
services and cause significant direct impacts on SBCFD. (Ex. 300, pp. C.15 -20
to C.15-24.)
We are not persuaded that the Calico Project will result in direct significant
impacts to the physical environment or SBCFD’s provision of a variety of
emergency response services. Specifically with respect to EMS responses, the
evidence shows that incidents at power plants requiring such response are
infrequent and represent an insignificant impact on the local fire departments.
(Ex. 300, p. C.15-22.) Yet there may be rare instances where a rural fire
department with mostly volunteer fire-fighting staff may be insufficient to provide
the required response. While the potential for both work-related and non-work
related heart attacks exists at power plants, the evidence shows that many of the
responses for cardiac emergencies involved non-work related incidences. (Ex.
300, pp. C.15-25 to C.15-26.) The evidence also shows that the quickest
medical intervention would be achieved with the use of an on-site defibrillator
often called an Automatic External Defibrillator or AED because the response
from an off-site provider will take longer regardless of the provider location.
Given the availability of modern, cost-effective AED devices, we adopt Staff-
recommended Condition of Certification WORKER SAFETY-5, which requires
the project owner to maintain a portable AED on site, and train workers in its
proper use.
Worker Safety 6
And, as further shown by the evidence discussed above, it is an event such as a
major fire, and not routine plant operations, that cause concern for SBCFD. As is
also shown by the evidence, the likelihood of such an occurrence is low.
However, as discussed in the Cumulative Impacts section below, we find that
that the project has potential to result in adverse cumulative impacts and that
mitigation is required. (8/6/10 RT 193, 211-213, Ex. 300, p. C.15-22.)
4. Cumulative Impacts
A project may result in a significant adverse cumulative impact where its effects
are cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130.)
Under CEQA, there are two acceptable and commonly used methodologies for
establishing the cumulative impact setting or scenario: the “list approach” and the
“projections approach”. The first approach would use a “list of past, present, and
probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts.” [14 Cal Code
Regs §15130(b)(1)(A).] The second approach is to use a “summary of
projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document,
or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which
described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the
cumulative impact” [14 Cal Code Regs., § 15130(b)(1)(B)].
This evaluation uses the “list approach” for purposes of state law to provide a
tangible understanding and context for analyzing the potential cumulative effects
of a project. (Ex. 300, pp. B.3-2 to B.3-3.) Reasonably foreseeable future
projects in the Newberry Springs/Ludlow area of San Bernardino County,
including proposed nearby solar and wind projects are shown below in Worker
Safety and Fire Table 1. (See also Ex. 300, § B.3.) These are reasonably
foreseeable projects that may contribute to the cumulative effect because they
are in the immediate vicinity of the Calico Solar Project site (i.e., within a 15-20
mile radius). (Ex. 300, pp. B.3-2 to B.3-2.)
7 Worker Safety
Worker Safety and Fire Table 1
Future Foreseeable Projects in the Newberry Springs/Ludlow Area
Agency/
ID Project Name Location Status Project Description
Owner
A SES Solar T's. 8, 9N., R5E SES BLM received 914 MW Stirling solar
Three (CACA (Immediately Solar completed plant on 6,779-acre site.
47702) west of project Three, amended
site) LLC application June
2007. SES
withdrew the
application for
Solar Three in
December 2009.
As there was a
second-in-line
application, this
application
becomes the
project proposed
at this location. .
Worker Safety 8
Agency/
ID Project Name Location Status Project Description
Owner
D Pisgah-Lugo Pisgah Southern The proposed 850 MW
transmission Substation (SE California Calico Solar Project
upgrade side of project Edison would require removal
site) to Lugo of 65 miles of existing
Substation 220-kV transmission line
(near Hesperia) and reinstallation with a
500-kV line.
9 Worker Safety
Agency/
ID Project Name Location Status Project Description
Owner
F Solel, Inc. Southwest of Solel, Inc. BLM received 600 MW solar thermal
(CACA 04942 proposed site, application in July plant proposed on 7,453
4) immediately 2007, POD is acres.
north of under review.
Twentynine
Palms
MCAGCC
G Wind project Black Lava Oak BLM received Wind project on 17,920
(CACA 48629) T2N, R5E, Creek application acres
T1N, R5E Energy December 2006.
Issues with partial
location in ACEC.
I Wind project Troy Lake Power Pending review of Wind project on 10,240
(CACA 48472) T9N&10N, R4E Partners EA. acres
(In west SW
direction of (enXco)
project site)
K Solar thermal Stedman (in Solel, Inc. Application filed 600 MW solar project on
(CACA 49429) southeast with BLM. 14,080 acres. POD
direction of under review.
project site)
Worker Safety 10
Agency/
ID Project Name Location Status Project Description
Owner
L Proposed Between In December The proposed Mojave
National Joshua Tree 2009, Sen. Trails National
Monument National Park Feinstein Monument would protect
(former and Mojave introduced bill approximately 941,000
Catellus National S.2921 that would acres of federal land,
Lands) Preserve designate 2 new including approximately
national 266,000 acres of the
monuments former railroad lands
including the along historic Route 66.
Mojave Trails The BLM would be
National given the authority to
Monument. conserve the monument
lands and also to
maintain existing
recreational uses,
including hunting,
vehicular travel on open
roads and trails,
camping, horseback
riding and
rockhounding.
M BLM Along the I-10 BLM Proposed, under The DOE and BLM
Renewable corridor environmental identified 24 tracts of
Energy Study between Desert review land as Solar Energy
Areas Center and Study Areas in the BLM
Blythe and DOE Solar PEIS.
These areas have been
identified for in-depth
study of solar
development and may
be found appropriate for
designation as solar
energy zones in the
future.
Source: Projects were identified through a variety of sources including the project AFC (Section
5.18) and Applicant’s Submittal of CAISO Reports, SES 2010e and websites of the San
Bernardino County Land Use Services Department, BLM, CEC and individual projects.
11 Worker Safety
Worker Safety and Fire Figure 1
Cumulative Scenario
Worker Safety 12
We find that the Calico Project differs from the existing industrial, commercial and
residential development in the San Bernardino County desert region and existing
solar plants, given its size and proposed production, use and storage of
hydrogen. (Ex. 300, pp. C.15-22 to C.15-23.) The evidence further establishes
that the Calico Project may exacerbate existing fire station drawdown and, in the
event of a major detonation, may cause adverse physical and nonphysical
impacts to SBCFD’s ability to provide timely and adequate fire protection and
emergency services. (8/6/10 RT 198; Ex. 300, pp. C.15-19 to C.15-24.)
Specifically with respect to the project’s use of hydrogen, Asst. Chief Brierty
indicated that this facility will use an innovative system with several tanks and
pipes. (8/6/10 RT 176-177.) Even so, Asst Chief Brierty asserted that he did not
believe that there is any real plausible potential of an explosion with hydrogen.
Staff witness Alvin Greenberg also testified that the chances of a hydrogen
explosion are remote. (8/6/10 RT 179.) But SBCFD is nonetheless concerned
about the risk of fires, and the fires being close enough to the rail line or to some
other combustible material, such as grass or other off-the site materials, that
could cause a fire to escalate throughout the facility. (8/6/10 RT 177.)
Thus, based on the evidence, we find that the incremental impact of the Calico
Project, together with the environmental changes anticipated from past, present
and probable future projects, is cumulatively considerable with respect to fire and
emergency services. We are persuaded by Staff’s evidence (developed in
consultation with SBCFD) that these impacts can be fully mitigated to less than
significant levels if the Calico Project funds its proportionate share of SBCFD
mitigation activities. At some future time there may be need for SBCFD to
construct additional fire infrastructure or improve existing fire stations, related fire
equipment and staff, or related alternative mitigation measures. (Exs. 300, pp.
C.15-24 to C.15-25; 302.)
Staff specifically concludes that impacts attributable to the Calico Project will be
mitigated with the project’s payment to SBCFD of $1,187,000 for capital
improvements and annual payments of $1,095,000 for the life of the project.
(Exs. 300, p. C.15-25; 302.) In contrast, the Applicant maintains that any
payment for impacts should not exceed $62,000 per year. (8/6/10 RT 143.)
While both parties provided documentary evidence and testimony to support their
positions, neither party provided clear evidence that the assumptions and
methodologies underlying the respective funding recommendations adequately
focused on the Calico Project’s reasonable and proportionate contribution to the
identified cumulatively considerable impacts.
13 Worker Safety
Staff’s methodologies and conclusions may require mitigation from the project in
excess of its impacts, while the Applicant’s methodology and conclusions may
result in the project not providing its share of mitigation. For instance, the risk
matrix relied on by Staff and SBCFD appears to give little or no weight to Staff’s
evidence establishing that the combined incident rate for the SEGS VIII, IX, and
Kramer Junction solar facilities was 30 over a period of 12 years, which was
merely 2.5 emergency calls per year or 0.83 emergencies per solar plant per
year. (Ex. 300, pp. C.15-20 to C.15-22.) This evidence suggests that the
analysis proposed by Staff and SBCFD for the Calico Project’s cost allocation did
not properly consider the historical risks posed by solar facilities in San
Bernardino County.
The Applicant’s evidence suggests that under a worst case and unlikely scenario
a hydrogen-related conflagration would have an impact radius that does not
exceed 0.3 miles from the center of the explosion. (8/6/10 RT 135-136, 144.)
Moreover, because the 850 MW project would operate in 9 MW units, with each
SunCatcher connected to valves that would shut off with pressure changes, the
project’s potential impacts to fire and emergency services should result in the
project being viewed as a 9 MW project and not an 850 MW project. (8/6/10 RT
142-143, 166- 167.) However, this approach is overly simplistic and does not
adequately represent the potential for fire risk of the entire project.
Worker Safety 14
can provide adequate fire protection and emergency response as discussed
above. If agreement cannot be reached, the Condition requires preparation of a
study by an independent consultant subject to the specified protocols and
requirements. Plant operation shall not occur until the requirements of WORKER
SAFETY-7 are satisfied.
Staff received comments from the Applicant and Intervenor Patrick Jackson.
Staff’s responses to and our consideration of these comments are reflected in the
record (Ex. 300, p. C.15-35) and as, appropriate, incorporated into the discussion
above and elsewhere within this Decision (See, e.g., Conditions of Certification
HAZ-7 and WORKER SAFETY-2, WORKER SAFETY-7, and WORKER
SAFETY-8).
15 Worker Safety
Neither the public nor public agencies submitted comments.
FINDINGS OF FACT
5. The Calico Solar Project will include on-site fire protection and
suppression systems as the first line of defense in the event of a fire.
6. If required, the San Bernardino County Fire Department will provide fire
protection and emergency response services to the project.
7. The project will not have a significant direct or indirect impact on fire
protection and emergency services; however, it may result in significant
cumulative impacts. Implementation of the Conditions of Certification
below will reduce any potential project impacts to fire protection and
emergency service to less than significant levels.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Worker Safety 16
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
WORKER SAFETY-2 The project owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the
Project Operations and Maintenance Safety and Health Program
containing the following:
• An Operation Injury and Illness Prevention Plan;
• An Operation heat stress protection plan that implements
and expands on existing Cal OSHA regulations (8 CCR
3395);
• A Best Management Practices (BMP) for the storage and
application of herbicides;
• An Emergency Action Plan;
17 Worker Safety
• Hazardous Materials Management Program;
• Fire Prevention Program (8 CCR § 3221); and;
• Personal Protective Equipment Program (8 CCR §§ 3401-
3411).
The Operation Injury and Illness Prevention Plan, Emergency Action
Plan, the Heat Stress Protection Plan, BMP for Herbicides, and
Personal Protective Equipment Program shall be submitted to the CPM
for review and approval concerning compliance of the programs with all
applicable safety orders. These plans shall include programs to prevent
exposure of workers to the unusual hazard of high intensity reflected
light from the solar parabolic mirrors. The Fire Prevention Plan and the
Emergency Action Plan shall address special precautions and
responses to implement when a fire involves a SunCatcher or hydrogen
piping located within 200 feet of a fence line where a public access road
exists directly on the other side of the fence. The Fire Prevention Plan
and Emergency Action Plan shall also be submitted to the San
Bernardino County Fire Department and the BNSF railroad for review
and comment.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of operations, the project owner
shall submit to the CPM for approval a copy of the Project Operations and
Maintenance Safety and Health Program.
Worker Safety 18
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of site mobilization, the project
owner shall submit to the CPM the name and contact information for the CSS.
The contact information of any replacement CSS shall be submitted to the CPM
within one business day.
The CSS shall submit in the Annual Compliance Report documentation of
monthly safety inspection reports to include:
• Record of all employees trained for that month (all records
shall be kept on site for the duration of the project);
• Summary report of safety management actions and safety-
related incidents that occurred during the month;
• Report of any continuing or unresolved situations and
incidents that may pose danger to life or health; and
WORKER SAFETY-4 The project owner shall make payments to the Chief
Building Official (CBO) for the services of a Safety Monitor based upon
a reasonable fee schedule to be negotiated between the project owner
and the CBO. Those services shall be in addition to other work
performed by the CBO. The Safety Monitor shall be selected by and
report directly to the CBO, and will be responsible for verifying that the
Construction Safety Supervisor, as required in Worker Safety-3,
implements all appropriate Cal/OSHA and Commission safety
requirements. The Safety Monitor shall conduct on-site (including linear
facilities) safety inspections at intervals necessary to fulfill those
responsibilities.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of construction, the project
owner shall provide proof of its agreement to fund the Safety Monitor services to
the CPM for review and approval.
WORKER SAFETY-5 The project owner shall ensure that two or more portable
automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) are located on site during
construction and operations and shall implement a program to ensure
that workers are properly trained in its use and that the equipment is
properly maintained and functioning at all times. During construction
and commissioning, the following persons shall be trained in its use and
shall be on-site whenever the workers that they supervise are on-site:
the Construction Project Manager or delegate, the Construction Safety
Supervisor or delegate, and all shift foremen. During operations, all
power plant employees shall be trained in its use. The training program
shall be submitted to BLM’s authorized officer and the CPM for review
and approval.
19 Worker Safety
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of site mobilization the project
owner shall submit to BLM’s authorized officer and the CPM proof that a portable
AED exists on site and a copy of the training and maintenance program for
review and approval.
WORKER SAFETY-6 Prior to the start of site mobilization for Phase 1b, the
project owner shall:
a. Provide secondary access gates for emergency personnel to enter
the southern and northern portions of the site. These secondary
access gates shall be at least one-quarter mile from the primary
access points and may be restricted to emergency response
personnel.
b. Provide a second access road or roads that serve both the northern
portion of the site and the southern portion of the site. This road(s)
shall be treated with Soiltac or its equivalent with 80 percent
compaction, at least 20 feet wide. The secondary emergency
access road may cross the BNSF tracks at an at-grade crossing.
c. Maintain the main access road and the secondary access roads
and provide a plan for implementation.
d. Provide funding for a gate (with a lock allowing emergency
response access), posting to direct emergency responders to notify
BNSF operations before crossing, telephone box to allow BNSF
notification at the at-grade crossing of the BNSF rail line on the
secondary access road, and any road improvements required by
the San Bernardino County Fire Department.
e. Provide an at-grade crossing of the BNSF tracks between the
southern and northern portions of the site and provide funding for a
gate (with a lock allowing emergency response access), posting to
direct emergency responders to notify BNSF, a telephone box to
allow for notification to BNSF by emergency responders when
using the secondary access road, and any road improvements near
the crossing recommended by the SBCFD.
Plans for the secondary access gates, the method of gate operation,
secondary emergency access road(s), the above-grade crossing, and
to maintain the roads shall be submitted to the San Bernardino County
Fire Department for review and comment and to the CPM for review
and approval.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of site mobilization for Phase
1b, the project owner shall submit to the San Bernardino County Fire Department
and the CPM preliminary plans showing the location and dimensions of the
secondary access gates to both the southern and northern portions of the site, a
description of how the gates will be opened by the fire department, and a
description and map showing the location, dimensions, and composition of the
main road, location of the secondary emergency access road(s) to the southern
Worker Safety 20
and northern portions of the site, and the engineering drawings and precise
location of the above-grade crossing structure.
At least 30 days prior to the start of site mobilization, the project owner shall
submit final plans plus the road maintenance plan to the CPM review and
approval. The final plan submittal shall also include a letter containing comments
from the San Bernardino County Fire Department or a statement that no
comments were received.
21 Worker Safety
Compliance Protocols for the Fire Needs Assessment and Risk
Assessment shall be as follows:
(a) The study shall be conducted by an independent consultant
approved by the CPM. The project owner shall provide the CPM
with the names of at least three consultants, whether entities or
individuals, from which to make a selection, together with
statements of qualifications. The CPM shall approve one of the
three proffered consultants;
(b) The Fire Needs Assessment and Risk Assessment shall be fully
funded by the project owner. The independent consultant(s)
preparing the Fire Needs Assessment and Risk Assessment
shall work directly for the Energy Commission;
(c) The project owner shall provide the protocols for conducting the
independent fire needs assessment for review and comment by
the SBCFD and review and approval by the CPM prior to the
independent consultant’s commencement of the fire needs
assessment;
(d) The CPM shall be copied in any correspondence including
emails or letters and included in any conversations between the
project owner and consultant; and
(e) The CPM shall verify that the Fire Needs Assessment and Risk
Assessment are prepared consistent with the approved fire
needs assessment protocols and a risk assessment protocols.
Plant operation shall not occur until funding of mitigation occurs either
(i) pursuant to an agreement reached between the project owner and
the SBCFD, or (ii) pursuant to the independent Fire Needs and Risk
Assessments conducted by an independent consultant approved by the
CPM or (iii) as determined by the Energy Commission or its designee if
the project owner and SBCFD do not agree to the recommendations of
the independent consultant’s study. The Energy Commission or its
designee shall, based on the results of the study and comments from
the project owner and SBCFD, make the final determination regarding
the funding to be provided to the SBCFD to accomplish the above-
identified mitigation.
Verification: If Option 1 of Condition of Certification WORKER SAFETY-7 is
fulfilled prior to plant operation, then the project owner shall provide to the CPM a
copy of the individual agreement with the SBCFD. If option 2 of Condition of
Certification WORKER SAFETY-7 is selected, then prior to plant operation the
project owner shall provide to the CPM a protocol, scope and schedule of work
for the independent Fire Needs Assessment and Risk Assessment and the
qualifications of proposed contractor(s) for review and approval by the CPM; a
copy of the completed Fire Needs Assessment and Risk Assessment showing
the precise amount the project owner shall pay for mitigation; and documentation
Worker Safety 22
that the amount has been paid. If the Energy Commission or its designee
establishes the payment amount, then prior to plant operation, the project owner
shall provide the CPM with a copy of the order or decision and documentation
establishing that the amount has been paid
Annually thereafter, the owner shall provide the CPM with verification of funding
to the San Bernardino County Fire Department for required fire protection
services mitigation pursuant to the agreement with the Fire Department or the
CPM approved independent fire needs assessment.
WORKER SAFETY-8 In the event that the project owner has not satisfied the
conditions set forth in WORKER SAFETY-7 by the time the project
owner, in consultation with the CPM, determines construction must
commence, the project owner shall pay to SBCFD (a) $91,750 (250
acres x $367 per acre) prior to the start of construction for Phase 1a; (b)
$762,259 (2,077 acres x $367 per acre) prior to the start of construction
for Phase 1b; and (c) $1,426,896 (3,888 acres x $367 per acre) prior to
the start of construction for Phase 2. This funding shall off-set any initial
funding required by WORKER SAFETY-7 above until the funds are
exhausted. This offset will be based on a full accounting by the SBCFD
regarding the use of these funds.
Verification: At least 10 days prior to the start of site mobilization for Phase
1a, 1b and Phase 2, respectively, the project owner shall provide to the CEC
CPM either:
a. documentation that the payment described above has been made;
or
b. that payment has been made pursuant to a contractual agreement with the
SBCFD.
The CEC CPM shall adjust any payments initially required by WORKER
SAFETY-7 based upon the accounting provided by the SBCFD.
23 Worker Safety
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the commencement of site mobilization,
the enhanced Dust control Plan shall be provided to the CPM for review and
approval.
Worker Safety 24
E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
This analysis considers whether the construction and operation of the Calico
Solar Project will create significant impacts to public health and safety resulting
from the use, handling, transportation, or storage of hazardous materials. This
analysis does not address the potential exposure of workers to hazardous
materials used at the project site; the Worker Safety and Fire Protection
section of this Decision addresses this issue. Several site-specific factors affect
the potential for project-related hazardous materials to cause adverse impacts.
These include meteorological conditions, terrain characteristics, and the
proximity of population centers and sensitive receptors relative to the project. In
addition, sensitive subgroups such as the young, elderly, and those with existing
conditions may be at greater risk from exposure to emitted pollutants. (Ex. 300,
pp. C.5-1 to C.5-6.)
1. Potential Risks
The method used to assess risks posed by hazardous materials includes the
following elements:
1 HazMat
a. Small Quantity Hazardous Materials
Hydrogen is used as the working fluid in the Stirling cycle engines utilized by the
project. Hydrogen will be produced onsite, and distributed through pipes or by
truck in k-bottles to each SunCatcher engine. The Applicant is evaluating both
methods for providing hydrogen to the SunCatchers.
From experience gained at other solar facilities, the Applicant has changed its
original proposal for a hydrogen system and has increased the maximum amount
of hydrogen stored at each SunCatcher from 3.4 to 11 standard cubic feet (scf),
which would accommodate two full charges of the power conversion unit. For
both systems, the hydrogen would be generated by electrolysis using two
generators, each producing 1,820 scf per hour. Both systems would store up to
36,400 standard cubic feet in one tank. The currently proposed centralized
hydrogen system would distribute hydrogen from the central storage tank to 95
compressor groups and from there to each SunCatcher using piping. Each
compressor group would include a 29,333-scf high pressure supply tank and a
HazMat 2
9,900-scf low pressure dump tank. Hydrogen refilling of each SunCatcher supply
tank is expected to occur about three times per year. It would bring the on-site
hydrogen to over 20,000,000 scf. (Ex. 300, p. C.5-8.)
Phase II of the project would place SunCatchers and their stored hydrogen on
land only a few hundred feet from traffic in I-40 and within one fourth-mile of the
residence located to the south of I-40. This would result in traffic on I-40 and the
residence being located within the 0.54 mile of the worst-case overpressure
zone, thus indicating a potential for blast effects on traffic and the residence.
2. Risk Mitigation
The evidence indicates that a San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD)
hazmat response team is located at Station #322 in Adelanto, about a one-hour
drive from the project site. In the event of a large incident involving hazardous
materials, this station would provide backup support. This hazmat response unit
is capable of handling any incident at the proposed Calico Solar Project. (Ex.
300, p. C.5-12 and C.5-13.)
In order to address spill response, the project owner will prepare and implement
an emergency response plan that includes information on hazardous materials
contingency and emergency response procedures, spill containment and
prevention systems, personnel training, spill notification, on-site spill
containment, prevention equipment and capabilities, etc. Emergency procedures
will be established which include evacuation, spill cleanup, hazard prevention,
and emergency response. We find that, given the remote location, the
hazardous material response time is acceptable, and that the SBCFD is
adequately trained and equipped to respond to a hazardous materials spill
emergency at Calico Solar in a timely manner. (Ex. 300, p. C.5-12.)
5 HazMat
Liquid hazardous materials can be released during a transportation accident, and
the extent of their impact in the event of a release will depend on the location of
the accident and the rate of vapor dispersion from the surface of the spilled pool.
The evidence includes evaluation of the risk of accident and release during the
transportation of hazardous materials. The evidence establishes, and we find,
that the transport on I-40 and then for a short distance from I-40 on a dedicated
road in a remote area, will present a less than significant risk of accident and
release. (Ex. 300, p. C.5-13.)
4. Seismic Issues
The evidence indicates that after the January 1994 Northridge earthquake some
damage was caused to several large and small storage tanks at the water
treatment system of a cogeneration facility. The tanks with the greatest damage,
including seam leakage, were older tanks, while newer tanks sustained less
damage with displacements and attached line failures. Similar analysis of the
February 2001 Nisqually earthquake near Olympia, Washington, showed no
hazardous materials storage tanks were impacted by this quake. The
assessment also considered the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile and found
no evidence of impact on hazardous materials storage and pipelines. (Ex. 300,
C.5-14.) The Calico Solar Project will be designed and constructed to the
applicable standards of the 2007 California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4.
On the basis of damage experienced from the Northridge quake to older tanks
and the lack of failures during the Nisqually earthquake with newer tanks, the
evidence discloses, and we find, that tank failures during seismic events are not
likely and do not represent a significant risk to the public. (Ex. 300, pp. C.5-13 to
C.5-14.)
5. Site Security
The Calico Solar Project proposes to use hazardous materials that necessitate
special site security measures to prevent unauthorized access. The evidence
indicates that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published an
interim Final Rule to require facilities that use or store certain hazardous
HazMat 6
materials to conduct vulnerability assessments and implement certain specified
security measures. The rule lists hydrogen as a Chemical of Interest with a
threshold level of 10,000 lbs. The Calico Solar Project will have a maximum of
37,243 lbs of hydrogen on-site and therefore the rule will apply. The project
owner will need to submit a “Top Screen” assessment to the DHS consistent with
the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard (CFATS). (Ex. 300, pp. C.5-3 and
C.5-14.)
In order to ensure that this facility (or a shipment of hazardous material) is not the
target of unauthorized access, we adopt Conditions of Certification HAZ-4 and
HAZ-5 to address both construction security and operations security plans.
These plans would require the implementation of site security measures that are
consistent with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
Security Guidelines for the Electricity Sector in 2002 (NERC 2002), NERC
Critical Infrastructure Protection standard for cyber security, the U.S. Department
of Energy draft Vulnerability Assessment Methodology for Electric Power
Infrastructure in 2002 (DOE 2002), and Energy Commission guidelines. (Ex.
300, p. C.5-14.)
6. Cumulative Risks
The geographic area considered for cumulative impacts from the use of
Hazardous Materials is the area within one mile of the project boundary. The
record contains analysis of the potential for impacts due to a simultaneous
release of any of the hazardous chemicals from the Calico Solar Project with any
other nearby facilities. The Calico Solar Project would not be expected to
7 HazMat
contribute to the possible short-term, long-term, or decommissioning cumulative
impacts related to hazardous materials. The project will not be located in close
proximity to any other facility that might impact the same surrounding population
in the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials. Based on the
evidence that there are no nearby facilities using large amounts of hazardous
chemicals, we find there is minimal possibility for cumulative hazardous materials
impacts. (Ex. 300, pp. C.5-22 to C.5-23.)
A listing of Federal, State and Local LORS applicable to the proposed project is
set forth at Ex. 300, p. C.5-2. The evidence shows, and the Conditions of
Certification we have adopted herein require, that the project owner comply with
all applicable LORS.
Three comments were submitted regarding the Calico Solar Project’s use of
hazardous materials. Comments and responses are summarized below.
• Patrick C. Jackson, intervener, commented on the proposed project’s
impact on safety in the surrounding project area especially the use of
hydrogen Staff evaluated the Applicant’s Off-site Consequence Analysis
and determined that there will be no significant risk to nearby populations
as a result of the project.
HazMat 8
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Calico Solar Project will use hazardous materials during construction and
operation, including hydrogen.
2. The major public health and safety dangers associated with these hazardous
materials include the accidental release, fire, and potential explosion from
hydrogen gas.
3. The risk of explosion from hydrogen gas will be reduced to insignificant levels
through adherence to applicable codes, and the implementation of effective
safety management practices, and Conditions of Certification.
4. The project owner will submit an approved Safety Management Plan for
handling all hazardous materials and an approved Hazardous Materials
Business Plan prior to delivery of any hazardous materials to the site.
5. Hydrogen poses a fire risk but the evidence indicates that Conditions of
Certification HAZ-2, HAZ-7, and HAZ-8 will reduce the potential for fire to
escalate beyond the site boundaries. .
6. The record includes the evaluation of two options for distribution of hydrogen
gas for the Calico Solar Project. Hydrogen gas will be produced on site and
will be distributed either through a closed-cycle system (pipes) to the
SunCatchers engines or by truck as determined by the Applicant.
10. Other hazardous substances used on-site will be used in small quantities,
have low volatility, and/or are of low toxicity.
11. Tank failures during seismic events are not likely and do not represent a
significant risk to the public.
9 HazMat
12. Conditions of Certification HAZ-4 and HAZ-5 require both construction and
operational site security measures that include perimeter security, written
procedures, monitoring, and other measures to control site access and
prevent malicious mischief, vandalism, and terrorist attacks.
13. With implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, the Calico Solar
Project will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards related to hazardous materials management as identified in the
evidentiary record and in the pertinent portion of Appendix A of this Decision.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
HAZ-1 The project owner shall not use any hazardous materials not listed in
Appendix A, below, or in greater quantities than those identified by
chemical name in Appendix A, unless approved in advance by the
Compliance Project Manager (CPM).
Verification: The project owner shall provide to the CPM in the Annual
Compliance Report, a list of hazardous materials contained at the facility.
HazMat 10
At least 60 days prior to existence of any hydrogen on the site for commissioning
or operations, the project owner shall provide a copy of a final Risk Management
Plan (RMP) to the CPM for approval,
HAZ-3 The project owner shall develop and implement a Safety Management
Plan for delivery of liquid and gaseous hazardous materials. The plan
shall include procedures, protective equipment requirements, training
and a checklist. It shall also include a section describing all measures
to be implemented to prevent mixing of incompatible hazardous
materials. This plan shall be applicable during construction,
commissioning, and operation of the power plant.
Verification: At least 60 days prior to the delivery of any liquid or gaseous
hazardous material to the facility, the project owner shall provide a Safety
Management Plan as described above to the CPM for review and approval.
HAZ-5 The project owner shall prepare a site-specific Security Plan for the
operational phase and shall be made available to the CPM for review
and approval. The project owner shall implement site security
measures addressing physical site security and hazardous materials
storage. The level of security to be implemented shall not be less than
that described below (as per NERC 2002).
The Operation Security Plan shall include the following:
11 HazMat
1. Permanent full perimeter fence, at least 8 feet high around the
Solar Field;
2. Main entrance security gate, either hand operable or motorized;
3. Evacuation procedures;
4. Protocol for contacting law enforcement and the CPM in the event
of suspicious activity or emergency;
5. Written standard procedures for employees, contractors and
vendors when encountering suspicious objects or packages on-
site or off-site;
6. a. A statement (refer to sample, attachment “A”) signed by the
project owner certifying that background investigations have
been conducted on all project personnel. Background
investigations shall be restricted to ascertain the accuracy of
employee identity and employment history, and shall be
conducted in accordance with state and federal law regarding
security and privacy;
b. A statement(s) (refer to sample, attachment “B”) signed by the
contractor or authorized representative(s) for any permanent
contractors or other technical contractors (as determined by the
CPM after consultation with the project owner) that are present
at any time on the site to repair, maintain, investigate, or
conduct any other technical duties involving critical
components (as determined by the CPM after consultation with
the project owner) certifying that background investigations
have been conducted on contractor personnel that visit the
project site.
7. Site access controls for employees, contractors, vendors, and
visitors;
8. Closed circuit TV (CCTV) monitoring system, recordable, and
viewable in the power plant control room and security station (if
separate from the control room) with cameras able to pan, tilt, and
zoom, have low-light capability, and are able to view the outside
entrance to the control room, the two hydrogen generator locations
the front gate and emergency access gate(s), and all security
fence that directly abuts the public access road; and
9. Additional measures to ensure adequate perimeter security
consisting of either:
a. Security guard present 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, OR
b. Power plant personnel on-site 24 hours per day, 7 days per
week and one of the following:
Perimeter breach detectors; or
HazMat 12
CCTV able to view both site entrance gates and 100
percent of the power block area perimeter
The project owner shall fully implement the security plans and obtain
CPM approval of any substantive modifications to the security plans.
The CPM may authorize modifications to these measures, or may
require additional measures, such as protective barriers for critical
power plant components or cyber security depending on
circumstances unique to the facility or in response to industry-related
standards, security concerns, or additional guidance provided by the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of
Energy, or the North American Electrical Reliability Council, after
consultation with appropriate law enforcement agencies and the
applicant.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the initial receipt of hazardous materials
on-site, the project owner shall notify the CPM that a site-specific Operations Site
Security Plan is available for review and approval. In the Annual Compliance
Report, the project owner shall include a statement that all current project
employee and appropriate contractor background investigations have been
performed, and updated certification statements are appended to the Operations
Security Plan. In the Annual Compliance Report, the project owner shall include
a statement that the Operations Security Plan includes all current hazardous
materials transport vendor certifications for security plans and employee
background investigations.
HAZ-6 The holder (project owner) shall comply with all applicable Federal
laws and regulations existing or hereafter enacted or promulgated. In
any event, the holder(s) shall comply with the Toxic Substances
Control Act of 1976, as amended (15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.) with regard
to any toxic substances that are used, generated by or stored on the
right-of-way or on facilities authorized under this right-of-way grant.
(See 40 CFR, Part 702-799 and especially, provisions on
polychlorinated biphenyls, 40 CFR 761.1-761.193.) Additionally, any
release of toxic substances (leaks, spills, etc.) in excess of the
reportable quantity established by 40 CFR, Part 117 shall be reported
as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, Section 102b
Verification: A copy of any report required or requested by any Federal
agency or State government as a result of a reportable release or spill of any
toxic substances shall be furnished to the CPM concurrent with the filing of the
reports to the involved Federal agency or State government.
HAZ-7 The project owner shall ensure that whichever of the two proposed
hydrogen storage and handling systems is used in the project, the
system is reviewed, evaluated by a Mechanical Engineer registered in
California to ensure that it complies with all applicable ANSI, ASME,
13 HazMat
and NFPA design codes, and that the system is approved by this
person as shown by applying a professional “stamp” to the document
review page. No hydrogen will be transported over or under the BNSF
mainline or through the BNSF right-of-way.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the existence of stored hydrogen on site,
the project owner shall provide to the CPM for review and approval a copy of
design drawings, documentation, and specifications of the hydrogen storage and
handling system that has been reviewed, evaluated, approved, and stamped by a
Mechanical Engineer registered in the state of California.
HazMat 14
Appendix A:
Hazardous Materials Proposed for Use at Calico Solar
Hazardous Materials Usage and Storage During Operations
Storage
Chemical Use Storage Location/Type State Quantity
Insulating oil Electrical Electrical equipment Liquid 60,000 gallons
equipment (contained in transformers initial fill
and electrical switches)
Lubricating oil Stirling Engine/dish Equipment 150-gallon Liquid 40,000 gallons
drives PCU recycle tank located in initial fill with usage
Maintenance Building of 21 gallons per
month
Hydrogen PCU working fluid Generated on-site and Gas Either 4,140,000
stored in pressure vessel cubic feet or
20,800,000 cubic
feet depending on
hydrogen system
selected
Acetylene Welding Cylinders stored in Gas 1,000 cubic feet
maintenance buildings
Oxygen Welding Cylinders stored in Gas 1,000 cubic feet
maintenance buildings
Ethylene glycol PCU Radiator PCU radiator Maintenance Liquid 40,000 gal initial
Coolant, antifreeze Buildings fill with usage of
21 gallons per
month
Various solvents, Building Three (3) 55-gallon drums Liquid Ten (10) 55-gallon
detergents, paints, maintenance and and 1-gallon containers will drums
and other cleaners equipment cleaning be stored Maintenance Commercial
Buildings 1-gallon containers
Gasoline Maintenance 5,000 gallon AST at Liquid 5,000 gallons
vehicles refueling station with
containment
Diesel fuel Maintenance Firewater skid Liquid 100 gallons initial
Vehicles 5,000-gallon AST refueling fill
station with containment 5,000 gallons
Sodium Disinfectant for Water treatment structure Liquid 4 gallons
hypochlorite potable water
12.5% solution
(bleach)
Notes:
AST = aboveground storage tank
PCU = power conversion unit
Source: Ex. 300, Appendix A
15 HazMat
(Attachment A)
SAMPLE CERTIFICATION
I, _______________________________________________________________
(Name of person signing affidavit)(Title)
________________________________________________________________
(Company name)
________________________________________________________________
(Project name and location)
___________________________________________________
(Signature of Officer or Agent)
HazMat 16
(Attachment B)
SAMPLE CERTIFICATION
I, _______________________________________________________________
(Name of person signing affidavit)(Title)
________________________________________________________________
(Company name)
________________________________________________________________
(Project name and location)
___________________________________________________
(Signature of Officer or Agent)
17 HazMat
F. WASTE MANAGEMENT
The Calico Solar Project (formerly the Stirling Energy Systems Solar One
Project) will generate nonhazardous and hazardous wastes during construction
and operation. This section reviews the project’s waste management plans for
reducing the risks and environmental impacts associated with handling, storage,
and disposal of project-related nonhazardous and hazardous wastes.
Hazardous waste consists of materials that exceed criteria for toxicity, corrosivity,
ignitability, or reactivity as established by the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC). (See California Health and Safety Code, § 25100
et seq.; Hazardous Waste Control Act of 1972, as amended; and Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 22, § 66261.1 et seq.) State law requires hazardous waste generators
to obtain U.S. EPA identification numbers and contract with registered hazardous
waste transporters to transfer hazardous waste to appropriate Class I disposal
facilities. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 66262.10 et seq.)
The proposed Calico Solar Project site is approximately 4,613 acres of Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) managed public lands located in San Bernardino
County, California (Ex. 1, p. 3-3; 300, p. C.14-7.) The Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) railroad bisects the site from west to east. (Exs.1, p. 3-22; 300, p.
C.14-7.)
1 Waste Mgmt
A Phase I ESA prepared for the project identified a former rock crusher/ore
processing area in the northeastern corner of the site; the processing area was
once a part of the Logan Mine (Ex. 1, Appendix T and Data Response 88). The
Logan Mine produced primarily manganese and iron with trace production of
phosphorus-phosphates, silica, and sulfur (Ex. 1, Appendix T and Data
Response 89). The record indicates that Staff contacted the County of San
Bernardino and verified that manganese and iron ore production and processing
were not considered hazardous operations (Ex. 300, p. C.14-9). Therefore, the
ESA did not identify any Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) in
connection with historic or current site operations. A REC is the presence or
likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a
property under the conditions that indicated an existing release, past release, or
a material threat of a release of any hazardous substance or petroleum products
into structures on the property or in the ground, groundwater, or surface water of
the property. However, in the event that the project owner identifies
contamination during any phase of construction, we adopt Conditions of
Certification WASTE-1 and WASTE-2. These measures require an experienced,
qualified Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist be available if
contaminated soil is encountered, a determination of the nature and extent of the
contaminated soil, and a report that documents findings and recommended
actions. (Ex. 300, pp. C-14-9 – C.14-10.)
2. Construction
Site preparation and construction of the proposed project will last approximately
44 months and generate both non-hazardous and hazardous wastes in solid and
liquid forms. (Exs.1, p. 5.14-1; 300, p. C.14-10.) Before construction can begin,
the project owner will be required to develop and implement a Construction
Waste Management Plan per proposed Condition of Certification WASTE-3.
This plan must describe all waste streams and methods of managing each
waste. Implementation of this plan will ensure that the project owner manages
wastes in accordance with appropriate LORS. (Ex. 300, pp. C.14-10 to C.14-12.)
a. Nonhazardous Wastes
Waste Mgmt 2
(insulation, other plastics, food waste, roofing materials, vinyl flooring and base,
carpeting, paint containers, packing materials, etc.) will be disposed of at a Class
III landfill. Decommissioning and removal of the buildings will generate
approximately 80 cubic yards of waste consisting of surplus packing materials,
lumber, cardboard, lighting, gaskets, and wiring. (Exs. 1, Data Response 172;
300, C.14-10.) We adopt Condition of Certification WASTE-3 requires the
project owner/operator to identity all waste streams and the management method
used for each waste stream, which will ensure adequate treatment of these non-
hazardous wastes. (Ex. 300, p. C.14-10.)
b. Hazardous Wastes
Under state law, the project owner will be required to obtain a unique hazardous
waste generator identification number for the site prior to starting construction,
which will also be required for operation of the facility. Therefore, we adopt
Condition of Certification WASTE-4 to ensure compliance with California Code of
Regulation Title 22, Division 4.5.
The project owner will collect hazardous waste in accumulation containers and
store them in a lay down area, warehouse/shop area, or storage tank on
equipment skids for less than 90 days. Licensed hazardous waste collection and
disposal companies will manifest, transport, and dispose of accumulated wastes
3 Waste Mgmt
at a permitted hazardous waste management facility. We find that wastes will be
disposed of in accordance with applicable LORS. Should any construction waste
management-related enforcement action be taken or initiated by a regulatory
agency, the project owner will notify the Compliance Project Manager (CPM)
whenever the owner becomes aware of this action as required by the proposed
Condition of Certification WASTE-5. (Ex. 300, p. C.14-11.)
Further, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 [Assembly Bill (AB) 939,
Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989] set landfill waste diversion goals of 50
percent (by 2000) for local jurisdictions. While the Calico Solar Project is not
responsible to a local jurisdiction, we adopt Condition of Certification WASTE-6
to ensure the project owner/operator meets waste diversion goals of the
construction and decommissioning program, to ensure project wastes are
managed properly, and to further reduce potential impacts to local landfills from
project wastes. Therefore, we find that all construction wastes will be disposed
of in accordance with all applicable LORS. (Ex. 300, p. C-14-11.)
3. Operation
The Calico Solar Project will generate both non-hazardous and hazardous
wastes. To address waste generated during operation, we adopt Condition of
Certification WASTE-7. This Condition requires the project owner/operator to
maintain an accurate record of the project’s waste storage, generation, and
disposal, and requires compliance with waste regulations during operation. (Ex.
300, p. C-14-12.)
a. Nonhazardous Wastes
Waste Mgmt 4
p. C.14-12.) Such wastes will be recycled to the greatest extent possible, and
the remainder will be removed on a regular basis for disposal in a Class III
landfill. Non-hazardous oily rags (one 55-gallon drum per month) will be
laundered at an authorized recycle facility. Sanitary wastewater solids will be
treated with an onsite septic system, and sludge will be delivered to an off-site
disposal facility. (Ex. 300, p. C.14-12.)
The project will generate non-hazardous liquid wastes during facility operation as
discussed in the Soil and Water Resources section of this Decision. (Ex. 300,
p. C.14-12.)
b. Hazardous Wastes
Hazardous wastes generated during routine project operation include motor oil
and coolant from the Power Conversion Unit, batteries, oily absorbent and spent
oil filters, and used hydraulic fluid. (Exs. 1, p. 5.14-11; 300, p. C.14-13.) In
addition, spills and unauthorized releases of hazardous materials or hazardous
wastes may generate contaminated soils or cleanup materials that may require
management and disposal as hazardous waste. To ensure proper cleanup and
management of hazardous materials spills, we adopt Condition of Certification
WASTE-8. This measure requires the project owner/operator to document, clean
up, and properly manage and dispose of wastes from any hazardous materials
spills or releases in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local
requirements. The Hazardous Materials Management section of this Decision
provides more information on hazardous materials management spill reporting,
containment, and spill control and countermeasures plan provisions for the
project. (Ex. 300, p. C-14-13.)
The amount of hazardous wastes generated during operation of Calico Solar will
be temporarily stored on site, transported off site by licensed hazardous waste
haulers, and recycled or disposed of at authorized disposal facilities in
accordance with established standards (Title 22, CCR, §66262.10 et seq.). We
adopt Condition of Certification WASTE-5 that requires the project
owner/operator to notify the CPM if an enforcement action is initiated by a
regulatory agency. (Ex. 300, p. C-14-13.)
The Calico Solar Project will have more than 34,000 gallons of oil on site. A
Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which outlines hazardous materials
handling, storage, spill response, and reporting procedures, will be prepared
before construction activities begin. The Lahontan Regional Water Quality
5 Waste Mgmt
Control Board will require a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan
(SPCC) (Exs.1, Data Responses 170 & 17; 300, p. C.14-13)1) in accordance
with Title 40 CFR, Section 112. Also, Federal Code of Regulations (40 CFR 112
Subpart B) requires owners/operators of non-transportation-related bulk
petroleum storage facilities (depending on size) to prepare and maintain a site-
specific SPCC Plan. Refer to the Hazardous Materials Management section of
this Decision for more information. (Ex. 300, pp. C.14-13 to C.14-14.)
Construction will generate 41 cubic yards and operation will generate 10 cubic
yards per week of nonhazardous solid waste (wood, paper/cardboard, glass,
plastic, insulation, and concrete). The waste will be stored onsite for less than 30
days, and then recycled or disposed of in a Class III landfill. (Ex. 300, p. C.14-
14.)
Four waste disposal facilities in San Bernardino County could take the non-
hazardous construction and operation wastes generated by the Calico Solar
Project. These facilities have over 93 million cubic yards of remaining combined
capacity. (Exs.1, Table 5.14-1; 300, C.14-15.). The total amount of non-
hazardous solid waste generated from project construction is estimated to be
7,872 cubic yards (41 cubic yards per week for 48 months), and the total amount
from lifetime operations is estimated to be 20,800 cubic yards (10 cubic yards per
week for 40 years). These quantities include both recyclable and non-recyclable
wastes; Additional non-recyclable sanitary sludge (the non-liquid portion of 5,000
gallons of wastewater per month during operation) and saltcake (90,200 pounds
per year of operation) will also be disposed off-site (Exs.1, Table 5.14-3;. 300, p.
C.14-15.). The total non-recyclable solid waste will contribute much less than
one percent of the available landfill capacity. We find that disposal of the solid
wastes generated by the Calico Solar Project can occur without significantly
impacting the capacity or remaining life of any of these facilities. (Ex. 300, pp.
C.14-14 to C.14-15.)
b. Hazardous Wastes
Two hazardous waste (Class I) disposal facilities are currently accepting waste
and could be used to manage Calico Solar Project wastes: the Clean Harbors
Buttonwillow Landfill in Kern County and the Chemical Waste Management
Waste Mgmt 6
Kettleman Hills Landfill in Kings County. The Kettleman Hills facility also accepts
Class II and Class III wastes. In total, there is a combined excess of 16 million
cubic yards of remaining hazardous waste disposal capacity at these landfills,
with at least 30 years remaining in their operating lifetimes. In addition, the
Kettleman Hills facility is in the process of obtaining approval for additional
disposal capacity and the Buttonwillow facility has 40 years to reach its capacity
at its current disposal rate. (Ex. 300, pp. C.14-14 to C.14-15.)
The closure or decommissioning of the Calico Solar Project will produce both
hazardous and non-hazardous solid and liquid waste. The project’s General
Compliance Conditions of Certification, including Compliance Monitoring and
Closure Plan (Compliance Plan) have been established as required by Public
Resources Code section 25532. While we expect that there will be adequate
landfill capacity available to dispose of both non-hazardous and hazardous waste
from the closure or decommissioning of the proposed project, Conditions of
Certification WASTE-3 through WASTE-8 will continue to apply to the Calico
Solar Project during closure or decommissioning of the project. (Ex. 300, p.
C.14-14.)
5. Cumulative Impacts
Impacts of the Calico Solar Project will combine with impacts of past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects to result in a contribution to local and
regional cumulative impacts related to waste management. The amount of non-
hazardous and hazardous wastes generated during construction and operation of
the Calico Solar Project will add to the total quantity of hazardous and non-
hazardous waste generated in San Bernardino County. However, the project will
generate wastes in modest quantities, employ waste recycling wherever
practical, and several treatment and disposal facilities have sufficient capacity
7 Waste Mgmt
available to handle the volumes of wastes the project will generate. Therefore,
we find that the waste generated by the project will not result in significant
cumulative waste management impacts either locally or regionally. (Ex. 300, p.
C.14-25.)
6. Public Comment
FINDINGS OF FACT
Waste Mgmt 8
9. To reinforce this commitment, Condition of Certification WASTE-6
requires a reuse/recycling plan that addresses at least 50 percent of the
construction and demolition materials.
10. Condition WASTE-7 requires the Project Owner to develop and implement
an Operation Waste Management Plan to identify all waste streams and
the methods of managing each waste.
12. The disposal of the solid wastes generated by Calico Solar Project can
occur without significantly impacting the capacity or remaining life of any
of the facilities located in San Bernardino County, Kings County, or Kern
County.
13. Liquid wastes will be classified for appropriate disposal and managed in
accordance with the Conditions of Certification listed in the Soil and
Water Resources section of this Decision.
14. Disposal of project wastes will not result in any significant direct, indirect,
or cumulative impacts on existing waste disposal facilities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
2. The management of project wastes will comply with all applicable laws,
ordinances, regulations, and standards related to waste management as
identified in the pertinent portions of Appendix A of this Decision.
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
WASTE-1 The project owner shall provide the resume of an experienced and
qualified professional engineer or professional geologist, who shall
be available during site characterization (if needed), demolition,
excavation, and grading activities, to the CPM for review and
approval. The resume shall show experience in remedial
investigation and feasibility studies.
The professional engineer or professional geologist shall be given
authority by the project owner to oversee any earth moving
9 Waste Mgmt
activities that have the potential to disturb contaminated soil and
impact public health, safety and the environment.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of site mobilization, the project
owner shall submit the resume to the CPM for review and approval.
Waste Mgmt 10
Verification: The project owner shall submit the Construction Waste
Management Plan to the CPM for approval no less than 30 days prior to the
initiation of construction activities at the site.
WASTE-6 The project owner shall provide a reuse/recycling plan for at least
50 percent of construction and demolition materials prior to any
building or demolition. The project owner shall ensure compliance
and shall provide proof of compliance documentation to the CPM,
including a recycling and reuse summary report, receipts, and
records of measurement. Project mobilization and construction
shall not proceed until the CPM issues an approval document.
Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of any construction or
demolition activities, the project owner shall submit a reuse recycling plan to the
CPM for review and approval. The project owner shall ensure that project
activities are consistent with the approved reuse/recycling plan and provide
adequate documentation of the types and volumes of wastes generated, how the
wastes were managed, and volumes of wastes diverted. Project mobilization and
construction shall not proceed until CPM issues an approval document. Not later
11 Waste Mgmt
than 60 days after completion of project construction, the project owner shall
submit documentation of compliance with the diversion program requirements to
the CPM. The required documentation shall include a recycling and reuse
summary report along with all necessary receipts and records of measurement
from entities receiving project wastes.
Waste Mgmt 12
WASTE-8 The project owner shall ensure that all spills or releases of
hazardous substances, hazardous materials, or hazardous waste
are documented and cleaned up and that wastes generated from
the release/spill are properly managed and disposed of, in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local
requirements.
Verification: The project owner shall document management of all
unauthorized releases and spills of hazardous substances, hazardous materials,
or hazardous wastes that occur on the project property or related linear facilities.
The documentation shall include, at a minimum, the following information:
location of release; date and time of release; reason for release; volume
released; how release was managed and material cleaned up; amount of
contaminated soil and/or cleanup wastes generated; if the release was reported;
to whom the release was reported; release corrective action and cleanup
requirements placed by regulating agencies; level of cleanup achieved and
actions taken to prevent a similar release or spill; and disposition of any
hazardous wastes and/or contaminated soils and materials that may have been
generated by the release. A copy of the unauthorized release/spill documentation
shall be provided to the CPM within 30 days of the date the release was
discovered.
13 Waste Mgmt
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Project Description
The Cady Mountains north of the project site have been designated as a
Wilderness Study Area by the BLM. Wilderness Study Areas meet the criteria to
be considered Wilderness Areas, but have not been designated as such by
Congress. BLM is required to maintain the wilderness characteristics of a
Wilderness Study Area until a final decision is made by Congress as to whether
or not to include the area as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System
1 Biological Resources
(NWPS). A herd of Nelson’s bighorn sheep inhabit the Cady Mountains
Wilderness Study Area.
The Mojave Desert is located between the Great Basin Desert to the north and
the Colorado Desert to the south, and lies in the rain shadow of the Sierra
Nevada and Transverse Mountain ranges. It is generally a large alluvial-filled
basin with many isolated mountain ranges. The Mojave receives most
precipitation during winter months, although summer thunderstorms also occur.
The average annual precipitation at Daggett Airport, approximately 23 miles east
of the project site, is approximately 3.8 inches, and average monthly
temperatures range between 36 and 104°F.
2. Biological Setting
The project location includes several linear development features including I-40,
BNSF railway, and SCE transmission lines. Additionally, the area between the
BNSF railroad and I 40 is isolated by the highway and railroad and portions of the
site have been subject to repeated disturbance from pipeline development.
Besides these features, the project area is primarily open land ranging in
Biological Resources 2
elevation from approximately 1,925 to 3,050 feet (587 to 930 m) above mean sea
level. The site lies within a broad alluvial floodplain that transports runoff from the
Cady Mountains to the north. In addition, a collection of small to medium
channels intersects the project from the south and east. All of these drainages
generally collect and flow in a westerly direction.
Project site activities would impact three vegetation communities: desert saltbush
scrub, Mojave creosote bush scrub, and desert microphyll woodland. In addition,
there are 28 acres of developed land uses (e.g., roads, railroads, transmission
lines, and underground gas pipelines) on the site.
Mojave creosote bush scrub: The majority of the project site (approximately
5,946 acres) is Mojave creosote bush scrub. The dominant shrub species are
creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) and white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa). Other
common shrubs include desert senna (Senna armata), Nevada ephedra
(Ephedra nevadensis), encelia (Encelia farinosa, E. actoni, E. frutescens), and
range ratany (Krameria erecta, K. grayii. Shrubs are typically widely spaced and
support a diverse assemblage of annual and perennial herbs in years of
adequate seasonal precipitation.
Creosote bush is well known for forming “creosote rings,” which are very old
plants growing from slowly-spreading root crowns. Creosote rings are protected
under the San Bernardino County Plant Protection and Management Ordinance
and were not evaluated in the Biological Resources Technical Report or the AFC
In some cases, these rings are more than 10,000 years old and apparently
develop on the surfaces of very old bajadas. Staff did not observe creosote rings
at the project site and the project appears to be situated on younger alluvial
surface than the sites where creosote rings have been recorded. Staff also
reviewed aerial images of the proposed project site and did not observe any
indication of creosote rings.
Catclaw acacia thorn scrub (desert microphyll woodland): Within the mapped
creosote bush scrub, dry desert washes in the northern portion of the proposed
project site (i.e., foothills of the Cady Mountains and the upper bajada) support
catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii) at various densities, sometimes in equal or
greater cover and density than creosote bush. Scattered blue palo verde
(Parkinsonia florida) and smoke tree (Psorothamnus spinosus) are also found in
these washes.
3 Biological Resources
Catclaw acacia is a large, deep-rooted shrub or small tree, characteristic of
desert washes, occurring in habitats similar to other desert microphyllous wash
woodland species. It resprouts rapidly following disturbance by floods, and seed
dispersal and germination are apparently initiated by flooding. The seeds are
apparently important to small mammals and, historically, to Native Americans.
Catclaw acacia thorn scrub has no special conservation status ranking.
Lower elevation wash and sandfield vegetation: Areas mapped as creosote bush
scrub in the southern part of the project area, generally from about 0.25 mile
north of the BNSF railroad tracks and southward to the southern project area
boundary, include scattered smoke trees. These areas are characterized by
sandy soils, in deep sandy washes, open sandfields, and active windblown
sandfields.
Sand transport from desert mountain ranges downslope to bajadas and, in some
cases, dunelands, occurs throughout the deserts by fluvial and aeolian (i.e.,
water and wind) processes. Infrequent flooding transports sand downslope along
desert washes. Prevailing winds sort sands according to grain size and further
transport them downwind. Sediments from the Cady Mountains, upslope, are
transported by fluvial processes toward the southern part of the project site, and
redistributed by wind, particularly the southeastern part of the site, where fine
windblown sands spread across the lower bajada and small hills in a small dune
system, associated with active channels and partially stabilized sandfields.
Smoke tree is a shrub or small tree characteristic of desert washes and arroyos.
In some areas it may be the dominant or co-dominant species, often occurring
with other desert wash species (see catclaw acacia thorn scrub, above). Mixed
stands, where smoke trees occur with smaller creosote bush or white bursage,
may be classified as smoke tree woodland, even where smaller shrubs constitute
as much as twice the overall cover. On the project site, a few small smoke trees
occur in washes of the upper bajadas, and they are more common in lower
washes where they are conspicuous, but do not make up a substantial proportion
of total cover. Smoke tree is relatively short lived (to approximately 50 years),
and is strongly tied to active washes. Its stands regenerate following floods,
which abrade dormant seeds, permitting them to germinate. Smoke trees are
protected under the San Bernardino County Plant Protection and Management
Ordinance.
Biological Resources 4
sandy areas and around the margins of dunes in the southeastern portion of the
site. These areas are too small to map as separate units. In dune areas, it is
often interspersed with small stands of the desert sand verbena (Abronia villosa)
or desert panic grass (Panicum urvilleanum).
Desert saltbush scrub: The applicant mapped 242 acres of desert saltbush scrub
on the project site. It is strongly dominated by desert saltbush (Atriplex
polycarpa) with white burrobush (Hymenoclea salsola) and inkweed (Suadea
moquinii) at lower cover; generally occurring on fine-textured, poorly drained
saline or alkaline soils. On the project site, staff noted at least two Atriplex-
dominated shrubland types in relictual wash or bajada surfaces in the
southwestern part of the project site. None of the Mojave desert saltbush
shrublands have special conservation status.
Jurisdictional Waters
The project site is located on a large alluvial fan that supports numerous
drainages that flow from the Cady Mountains. This watershed consists of 43
square miles and is capable of producing substantial flood flows during the 100
year storm event. Because of the historic flow patterns, arid climate, and various
levels of soil development desert washes can vary substantially in their
characteristics.
Due to the arid conditions of the area, most of the surface waters that exist in the
region are ephemeral streams, typically dry washes that only flow in response to
precipitation. Regional storms, which generally occur in the winter months, are
typically of low intensity, but can create short-lived ephemeral streams and cause
significant flooding on the playa lake beds. Alternatively, intense summer
thunderstorms within the mountainous portions of the area can produce flooding
in the low-lying valleys. During summer months, ephemeral streams may only
last for a couple of hours. Conversely during the winter, flow within portions of
these drainages has the potential to last up to several days. The West Mojave
Plan (WMP) indicates the most important hydrologic features of these basins are
the alluvial fans.
A total of 282.8 acres of State Jurisdictional Waters exist within the original
Project Disturbance Area. Effected jurisdictional waters were reduced in the site
revised filed by the Applicant on September 10, 2010. The proposed Scenario
5.5 site will impact an estimated 155.2 acres of Jurisdictional Waters. (EX. 317,
p. C.2-12) All of these drainages are ephemeral and are largely characterized by
5 Biological Resources
sparse creosote bush scrub with small associations of microphyll woodland
species such as catclaw acacia thorn scrub, smoke tree woodland, and big
galleta shrub-steppe. In many locations the channels are largely devoid of
vegetation or support scattered populations of annual wildflowers and grasses.
The US Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the site does not support
waters meeting the definition of Waters of the United States. No wetlands are
present in the project footprint.
Wildlife
The project area supports a broad diversity of wildlife species. With the exception
of the areas surrounding the BNSF railroad and existing roads the majority of the
site consists of relatively undisturbed desert scrub communities. While the site
primarily supports creosote bush scrub, a number of unique features occur
throughout the site, including outcrops of black volcanic rock associated with lava
flows from Pisgah Crater and wind-blown sand dune habitats. Numerous sandy
washes also occur throughout the site. These features increase the biodiversity
of the site, as some habitat specialists use these areas exclusively, while other
generalist species are more wide-ranging in the region. For example, the Mojave
fringe-toed lizard is closely associated with sand dunes, sand sheets, and sandy
soils in the Mojave Desert. In addition, genetic variants of several reptile and
small mammal species have been recorded in association with the dark
substrates from the Pisgah lava flows, including melanistic (e.g., darker colored)
forms of desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos), side-blotched lizard (Uta
stansburiana), and long-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia wislizenii). In addition,
some mammal variation has been documented in this region including coat color
variation in desert woodrats (Neotoma lepida).
Biological Resources 6
Despite the moderate to low shrub density that occurs on the site the project area
provides forage, cover, roosting, and nesting habitat for a variety of bird species.
In addition, many species, such as golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), are known
to nest in the adjacent Cady Mountains and have been observed over the project
area. Common resident and migratory birds detected in and near the Calico
Solar Project site between 2007 and 2010 by the applicant include common
nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), white-
crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris),
black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata), and yellow-rumped warbler
(Dendroica coronata). Common raven (Corvus corax), house finch (Carpodacus
mexicanus), California quail (Callipepla californica), northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos), sage sparrow (A. belli), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis),
western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and violet-green swallow (Tachycineta
thalassina) were also observed. Raptors and owls detected at or near the site
include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), golden eagle, burrowing owl
(Athene cunnicularia), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), prairie falcon (Falco
mexicanus), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
3. Special-Status Species
Present: Species or sign of their presence observed on the site during surveys
conducted for the proposed project (species that are present are
noted in bold text in Biological Resources Table 3).
High: Species or sign not observed on the site, but reasonably certain to
occur on the site based on conditions, species ranges, and recent
records (within approximately 20 years and 10 miles of project site).
Moderate: Species or sign not observed on the site, but conditions suitable for
occurrence and/or an historical record (greater than 20 years old)
exists in the vicinity (within approximately 10 miles of project site).
Low: Species or sign not observed on the site, and conditions marginal for
occurrence.
7 Biological Resources
Not likely to occur: Species or sign not observed on the site, outside of the
known range, and conditions unsuitable for occurrence.
Biological Resources 8
Biological Resources Table 1
Special-Status Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence
at the Calico Solar Project Site
Potential For
Scientific Name Common Name Status Occurrence On-Site
PLANTS
Androstephium breviflorum Pink funnel-lily, Small-flowered CNPS 2.2 Present
androstephium
Astragalus jaegerianus Lane Mountain milk-vetch FE, Not likely to occur
CNPS:1B.1
Astragalus lentiginosus var. Borrego milk-vetch CNPS: 4.3 Low
borreganus
Blepharidachne kingii King’s eyelash grass CNPS: 2.3 Low
Calochortus striatus Alkali mariposa lily BLM S, CNPS: Not likely to occur
1B.2
Camissonia boothii var. boothii Booth’s evening primrose CNPS: 2.3 Moderate
Cassia – see Senna
Castela emoryi Emory’s crucifixion thorn CNPS: 2.3 Low
Cleomella brevipes Short-pedicelled cleomella CNPS: 4.2 Low
Coryphantha alversonii Foxtail cactus CNPS: 4.3 Present
[Escobaria vivipara var.
alversonii]
Coryphantha chlorantha [Escobaria Desert pincushion CNPS: 2.1 Low
vivipara var. deserti]
Coryphantha vivipara var. rosea Viviparous foxtail cactus CNPS: 2.2 Low
[Escobaria vivipara var. rosea]
Cryptantha holoptera Winged cryptantha CNPS: 4.3 Present (unconfirmed)
Cymopterus deserticola Desert cymopterus BLM S, CNPS: Low
1B.2
Cymopterus multinervatus Purple-nerve cymopterus CNPS: 2.2 Low
Cynanchum utahense Utah vine milkweed CNPS: 4.2 Present
Eriophyllum mohavense Barstow woolly-sunflower BLM S, CNPS: Low
1B.2
Escobaria – see Coryphantha
Gilia – see Linanthus
Linanthus maculatus Little San Bernardino Mountains BLM S, CNPS: Not likely to occur
linanthus 1B.2
Loeflingia squarrosa var. Sagebrush loeflingia CNPS: 2.2 Not likely to occur
artemisiarum
Lupinus sp. Undescribed lupine n/a Low
Mentzelia eremophila Solitary blazing-star CNPS: 4.2 High
Mentzelia tridentata Creamy blazing-star BLM S, CNPS: Low
1B.3
Mimulus mohavensis Mojave monkeyflower BLM S, CNPS: Low
1B.2
9 Biological Resources
Potential For
Scientific Name Common Name Status Occurrence On-Site
Muilla coronata Crowned muilla CNPS: 4.2 Present (unconfirmed)
Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis Slender woolly-heads CNPS: 2.2 Low
Pediomelum castoreum Beaver Dam breadroot CNPS: 4.3 Low
Penstemon albomarginatus White-margined beardtongue BLM S, CNPS: Present
1B.1
Phacelia coerulea Sky-blue phacelia CNPS: 2.3 Not likely to occur
Polygala acanthoclada Thorny milkwort CNPS: 2.3 Low
Senna covesii [Cassia covesii] Coves’ cassia CNPS: 2.2 Present (unconfirmed)
Sphaeralcea rusbyi var. eremicola Rusby’s desert mallow BLM S, CNPS: Low
1B.2
Tripterocalyx micranthus Small-flowered sand-verbena CNPS: 2.3 Present (unconfirmed)
Wislizenia refracta ssp. refracta Jackass-clover CNPS: 2.2 Moderate
REPTILES
Anniella pulchra pulchra Silvery legless lizard CSSC Low
Gopherus agassizii Desert tortoise FT, ST Present
Heloderma suspectum cinctum Banded gila monster BLM S, CSSC Low
Lichanura trivirgata Rosy boa n/a Moderate
Uma scoparia Mojave fringe-toed lizard BLM S, CSSC Present
BIRDS
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk CDFG WL Low
Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle BLM S, SP, Present
CDFG WL
Asio otus Long-eared owl CSSC High
Athene cunicularia Western burrowing owl BLM S, CSSC Present
Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk CDFG WL High
Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk BLM S, ST Present (not nesting)
Chaetura vauxi Vaux’s swift CSSC Low
Charadrius montanus Mountain plover BLM S, CSSC Moderate
Circus cyaneus Northern harrier CSSC Low
Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark CDFG WL Low
Falco columbarius Merlin CDFG WL High
Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon CDFG WL Present (not nesting)
Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike FBCC, CSSC Present
Polioptila melanura Black-tailed gnatcatcher n/a High
Toxostoma bendirei Bendire’s thrasher BLM S, CSSC Present
Toxostoma lecontei LeConte’s thrasher BLM S, CDFG Present
WL
MAMMALS
Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat BLM S, CSSC Moderate
Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat BLM S, CSSC Present
Euderma maculatum Spotted bat BLM S, CSSC Low
Biological Resources 10
Potential For
Scientific Name Common Name Status Occurrence On-Site
Eumops perotis Western mastiff bat BLM S, CSSC High
Ovis Canadensis nelsoni Nelson’s bighorn sheep BLM S, SP Present
Spermophilus mohavensis Mohave ground squirrel BLM S, ST Not Likely to Occur
Taxidea taxus American badger CSSC Present
Vulpes macrotis arsipus Desert kit fox n/a Present
FE = Federally listed Endangered
FT = Federally listed Threatened
FD = Federally Delisted
FC = Federal Candidate
FBCC = Federal Bird of Conservation Concern
BLM S = BLM Sensitive
SE = State listed Endangered
ST = State listed Threatened (wildlife)
SR = State listed Rare (plants)
CSSC = California Species of Special Concern (wildlife)
SP = State Fully Protected Species
CDFG WL = California Department of Fish and Game Watch List species
CNPS (California Native Plant Society) Designations:
List 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California
List 1B = Plants considered by CNPS to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California, and throughout their range
List 2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere in their range
List 3 = Plants about which we need more information – a review list.
List 4 = Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
CNPS Threat Rank:
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)
.3 = Not very endangered in California (20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)
(Ex. 300, pp. C.2-25 – C.2-27.)
a. Plants
11 Biological Resources
locations were documented on the site and it was reported as “ubiquitous”
throughout the southern part of the project site. (Ex. 300, pp. C.2-27 – C.2-28.)
This species is the only listed (endangered) plant species with potential to occur
in the project area. It was not found in or near the project site. Lane Mountain
milk-vetch is locally endemic in the central Mojave Desert, generally on and near
Fort Irwin. All known occurrences are about 25 miles northwest of the proposed
project site, and at higher elevations (3100, 4200 feet) than occur on the site.
The Calico Solar Project site is not within designated critical habitat or areas
formerly proposed for designation as Lane Mountain milk-vetch critical habitat. In
2004, the USFWS proposed four Critical Habitat Units, all to the north of the
proposed project site. In 2005, the USFWS finalized its critical habitat
designation rule, designating 0 acres of critical habitat.
Crucifixion thorn is known from only a few widely scattered occurrences in the
Sonoran Desert and southern Mojave Desert in eastern California, southwestern
Arizona, northern Baja California, and western Sonora (Mexico). Most
populations are fairly small, though one occurrence in Imperial County near the
Mexican border includes about a thousand plants. Crucifixion thorn is a leafless,
densely spiny shrub, about 6 to 20 ft. tall. It occurs along washes or other places
where water may accumulate on plains and bajadas. Its fruits are held on the
plant for several years, and the seeds are surrounded by a thick carpel wall
which must be eroded before germination occurs. Seeds may have historically
been dispersed by now-extinct Pleistocene grazing animals. The common name
“crucifixion thorn” is also used for two unrelated plant species, Koeberlinia
spinosa and Canotia holacantha.
Biological Resources 12
Emory’s crucifixion thorn was found at three locations on the formerly-proposed
project site. All three locations are near the toe slopes of the Cady Mountains,
outside of the amended project footprint. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-28.)
Foxtail cactus is typically found in sandy and rocky areas consisting of granitic
soils within Mojavean desert scrub habitat from 245 5000 feet in elevation. It is
recorded from the eastern Mojave and Colorado Deserts in Imperial, Riverside,
and San Bernardino Counties, California. It is a stem succulent that is a CNPS
List 4.3 species. It flowers from April through June (CNPS 2010). It was reported
on the Calico Solar Project site at one location during the 2008 surveys for the
proposed project, though the occurrence was not mapped in the applicant’s
Biological Resources Technical Report (SES 2009aa). It was not relocated on-
site during the follow-up surveys (TS 2010i). Suitable desert shrubland habitat
occurs throughout the site.
Utah vine milkweed is a perennial herb found in the Mojave Desert in San
Bernardino County and in the Colorado Desert in Riverside, Imperial, and San
Diego Counties. This species also occurs in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (CDFG
2010a). In California its habitat is sandy and gravelly soils, often in washes,
where it climbing up through shrubs. Utah vine milkweed is on CNPS List 4.2. It
in present on the Calico Solar Project site, as the applicant reported one location
onsite near I 40 (SES 2009aa). It was also reported in 2010 (TS 2010i) though its
13 Biological Resources
locations were not mapped or quantified. Additional suitable habitat is found in
washes throughout the project area. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-29.)
Several lupine specimens collected near the base of the Cady Mountains, north
of the present project boundary, do not appear to match any known species.
They are similar to bajada lupine (Lupinus concinnus) though they do not match
any of the several described varieties of that species. This is an annual species
with blue flowers. They are apparently distinct in several characters, particularly
the leaflet shape and width. James Andre has noted similar plants elsewhere in
the central Mojave Desert. In Andre’s experience, the plant appears to be
sufficiently rare and geographically restricted to warrant inclusion in either CNPS
List 1B or List 4, though he has not researched it enough to recommend such
listing. During 2010 field surveys, locations of the undescribed lupine species
were mapped throughout the larger project area originally proposed in the AFC.
All of these locations are north of the revised project boundary and no
occurrences were found within the revised project area. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-29.)
Crowned muilla is on CNPS List 4.2. It occurs in Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, San
Bernardino and Tulare Counties, and east into Nevada. It can be found in
chenopod scrub, Joshua tree woodland, Mojavean desert scrub, and pinyon and
juniper woodlands at elevations of about 2500 6400 feet. It is a bulbiferous herb
that blooms between March and April. Crowned muilla was reported in the
applicant’s list of plant species identified during surveys, though it was not
mapped or quantified in the applicant’s Biological Resources Technical Report
and was not relocated during 2010 field surveys. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-30.)
Biological Resources 14
known only from several populations southeast of the I 15 Freeway, between
Stateline and Las Vegas. These occurrences are threatened by a proposed new
construction project. In Arizona, white-margined beardtongue occurs at Dutch
Flat, east or southeast of Needles. In Arizona, as in California, it is regarded it is
“a rare species throughout its range” by the Arizona Rare Plant Committee.
Coves’ cassia, a CNPS List 2.2 species, occurs in scattered California locations
along the desert margin of the Peninsular ranges, interior desert ranges in
Riverside County, and in extreme southeastern San Bernardino County. It is
more common and widespread in Arizona and Baja California, and also occurs in
Nevada and mainland Mexico. It occurs in desert washes, below about 2000 ft.
elevation. It is a low shrub with velvety leaves and stems which distinguish it from
the more common Cassia armata. The flowers are yellow, appearing in spring in
racemes of few flowers each. Though Coves’ cassia was reported in 2009
surveys of the project site, the plant locations are not mapped and there is no
indication of numbers of plants or the extent of distribution across the project site.
If valid, that report would be the first record of Coves’ cassia in the central
Mojave Desert. It was not found during the 2010 survey. Staff concluded, and
we therefore find, that the original report was due to misidentification. Coves’
cassia is unlikely to occur on the project site. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-31.)
This CNPS List 2.3 species is a taprooted perennial herb of desert dunes and
sandy sites. It occurs in the eastern California deserts (where it has been
15 Biological Resources
reported from only two locations), eastward to the Rocky Mountain States. Its
elevational range is approximately 1,800 to 2,800 feet. The only reliable prior
reports in California are from the Kelso area and Eureka Valley in Inyo County.
Small-flowered sand-verbena was reported in 2009 surveys of CSP site, though,
as for Coves’ cassia, above, the locations were not mapped, nor was there an
indication of numbers of plants or extent of distribution across the project site. If
valid, this report would be the first record of small-flowered sand-verbena in the
central Mojave Desert. It was not found during the 2010 survey. We agree with
Staff’s assertion that small-flowered sand verbena is unlikely to occur on the
project site. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-32.)
b. Birds
The burrowing owl is a small, terrestrial owl of open country. Burrowing owls
favor flat, open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse shrubland ecosystems.
These owls prefer annual and perennial grasslands, typically with sparse, or
nonexistent, tree or shrub canopies. In California, burrowing owls are found in
close association with California ground squirrels. Owls use the burrows of
ground squirrels and other rodents for shelter and nesting. Ground squirrels
provide nesting and refuge burrows, and maintain areas of short vegetation
height, which provide foraging habitat and allow for visual detection of avian
predators by burrowing owls. Habitats lacking ground squirrel populations are
usually unsuitable for occupancy by owls, although owls can also use man-made
features as burrows (such as drain pipes, debris piles, etc). Burrowing owls are
semi-colonial nesters, and group size is one of the most significant factors
contributing to site constancy by breeding burrowing owls. The nesting season,
as recognized by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium, runs from 1 February
through 31 August.
Biological Resources 16
2010, and two burrowing owls and eleven burrows with sign were identified
approximately 0.5 miles north of the project boundary near the toe of the Cady
Mountains. (Ex. 300, pp. C.2-36 – C.2-37.)
The Swainson’s hawk was once one of the most common birds of prey in the
grasslands of California and nested in the majority of the lowland areas of the
state. Currently, the nesting range is primarily restricted to portions of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, northeast California, and the Western
Mojave, including the Antelope Valley. The Swainson’s hawk requires large
amounts of foraging habitat, preferably grassland or pasture habitats. Its
preferred prey includes voles (Microtus spp.), gophers, birds, and insects such as
grasshoppers. It has adapted to the use of some croplands, particularly alfalfa,
as well as grain, tomatoes, and beets. Crops such as cotton, corn, rice, orchards,
and vineyards are not suitable because they either lack suitable prey, or prey is
unavailable to the hawks due to crop structure. Swainson's hawks often establish
territories in riparian systems adjacent to suitable foraging habitats as well as
utilizing lone trees or groves of trees in agricultural fields.
Within the West Mojave Plan area, the nearest documented nesting attempts
have been recorded in Victorville, approximately 50 miles southwest of the
project site; nesting is not known from east of this location within the planning
area. Two Swainson’s hawks were observed by the applicant during project
surveys on March 30, 2008; thus the species is considered present within the
project area, though it is not expected to nest there. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-37.)
Prairie falcons breed throughout California, with the exception of the northwest
corner and along the immediate coast. This species is an uncommon resident
that ranges from the southeastern deserts northwest through the Central Valley
and along the inner Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada. It is primarily associated
with perennial grasslands, savannahs, rangeland, some agricultural fields, and
desert scrub areas. Prairie falcons were observed on the project site during
surveys conducted in 2010 and in off-site areas during helicopter surveys for
golden eagles. Nesting habitat for this species does not occur onsite; however,
suitable foraging habitat for this species occurs within the project site. This
species likely nests in the nearby Cady Mountains. Thus, the potential for
17 Biological Resources
occurrence of this species within the project area has been determined to be
high, though it is not expected to nest there. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-37.)
Golden eagles were observed flying over the project site during both the 2007
and 2008 surveys conducted by the applicant. Staff also observed a golden
eagle above the project site during a reconnaissance survey conducted on May
25, 2010. This species is considered present within the project area and nesting
was documented by the applicant in the vicinity of the project (within a 10 mile
buffer area). Nesting habitat does not occur onsite, and the observed birds likely
nest in the nearby Cady Mountains and forage over the project area. Information
provided by the BLM and the applicant indicate that up to six potential nesting
sites occur within a 10 mile radius of the site. To document potential nest sites for
golden eagles, the applicant conducted helicopter surveys for this species on
March 11th and 12th, 2010. This survey detected approximately 22 stick nests
including eight inactive, but potential golden eagle nests, and one active nest that
contained an incubating adult golden eagle. The active nest is located
approximately 3.5 miles east of the proposed project area. (Ex. 300, pp. C.2-37
– C.2-38.)
Biological Resources 18
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
This species can be found within lowland, open habitat types, including creosote
scrub and other desert habitats, sage scrub, non-native grasslands, chaparral,
riparian, croplands, and areas characterized by open scattered trees and shrubs.
Fences, posts, or other potential perches are typically present. In general,
loggerhead shrikes prey upon large insects, small birds, amphibians, reptiles,
and small rodents over open ground within areas of short vegetation, usually
impaling prey on thorns, wire barbs, or sharp twigs to cache for later feeding.
Suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike occurs throughout the scrub habitats within
the project area and loggerhead shrikes were observed in the project area
between the BNSF Railroad and the I 40 during the 2008 surveys and near the
BNSF railroad during the 2010 surveys. Thus, this species is considered present,
and it likely nests and forages onsite. (Ex. 300, pp. C.2-38 – C.2-39.)
19 Biological Resources
Bendire’s thrasher is present on the project site, as this species was observed
during surveys in an area adjacent to the project site, and suitable nesting and
foraging habitat occurs throughout the project area. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-39.)
This species inhabits some of the hottest and driest habitats in the arid
southwest, including the deserts of southeastern California where they occur
year-round. Preferred habitats include sparse desert scrub, alkali desert scrub,
and desert succulent scrub habitats with open desert washes. They seek gentle
to rolling slopes associated with dry desert washes, conditions found on alluvial
fans that are found in the project area. Nests are typically placed in prickly
vegetation such as cacti or thorny shrubs. The Le Conte’s thrasher population
densities are among the lowest of passerine (perching) birds, estimated at less
than five birds per square kilometer in optimal habitats. This low population
density decreases the probability of their detection during field surveys. The
population decline is due in part to the conversion of habitat to agriculture and
urbanization. Le Conte’s thrashers are also affected by off-highway use during
nesting season, which occurs on numerous unimproved roads throughout the
project site. This species requires areas with an accumulated leaf litter under
most plants as cover for its preferred arthropod prey; they also feed on seeds,
insects, small lizards, and other small vertebrates.
Le Conte’s thrasher is present on the project site. One individual was observed
within the project boundary during the 2008 surveys, and three were observed in
2010. This species may nest and forage on the project site. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-39.)
c. Mammals
Bighorn sheep are typically found on open, rocky, steep areas used for escape
cover and shelter, with available water and herbaceous vegetation for forage.
Bighorn sheep are agile in steep, rocky terrain, allowing them to escape
predators such as coyotes (Canis latrans), golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos),
and cougars (Felis concolor). Most of the bighorn sheep live between 300–4,000
feet in elevation where the annual precipitation is less than 4 inches and daily
high temperatures average 104°F in the summer.
Biological Resources 20
Bighorn sheep primarily browse shrubs and graze on native grasses throughout
the year. The pulp and fruits of various cacti are eaten during the dry season.
Bighorn sheep have a large rumen, relative to body size, which allows digestion
of grasses, even in a dry state. This gives them flexibility to select diets that
optimize nutrient content from available forage. Consequently, bighorn sheep
feed on a large variety of plant species and diet composition varies seasonally
and among locations. While diet quality varies greatly among years, it is most
predictably high in late winter and spring, and this period coincides with the peak
of lambing. The lambing season of Nelson’s bighorn sheep in the Mojave Desert
is typically between December and June.
The population of bighorn sheep in the Cady Mountains just north of the project
area is a native population (not reintroduced or augmented), and was estimated
to contain approximately 25 to 50 individuals in 1995. By 2007, this population
had grown to approximately 300 individuals. No Nelson’s bighorn sheep were
observed during the 2007 or 2008 Calico Solar Project surveys; however,
surveys conducted by helicopter in March 2010 observed 62 bighorn sheep (12
rams, 38 ewes, and 12 lambs) within 10 miles of the project site. In addition, two
bighorn sheep horns, two bighorn sheep skeletons and one occurrence of
bighorn sheep scat were detected during surveys conducted for desert tortoises
and botanical resources between April 5 and April 15, 2010. These occurrences
were observed north of the project detention basins between the Cady Mountains
and the proposed project. In addition, staff observed bighorn sheep scat on the
top of one of the large volcanic rock outcroppings that occur adjacent to the
proposed detention basin at the north boundary of the project. It is likely that
bighorn sheep use portions of the site for foraging and possibly inter-mountain
movement to some degree. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-40.)
21 Biological Resources
Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus)
The pallid bat is a light brown or sandy colored, long-eared, moderate-sized bat
that occurs throughout California with the exception of the northwest corner of
the state and the high Sierra Nevada. Pallid bats are most commonly found in
oak savannah and in open dry habitats with rocky areas, trees, buildings, or
bridges for roosting. Coastal colonies commonly roost in deep crevices in rocky
outcroppings, in buildings, under bridges, and in the crevices, hollows, and
exfoliating bark of trees. Colonies can range from a few individuals to over a
hundred. Usually this species occurs in groups larger than 20 individuals.
Although crevices are important for day roosts, night roosts often include open
buildings, porches, garages, highway bridges, and mines. Pallid bats may travel
up to several miles for water or foraging sites if roosting sites are limited. This bat
prefers foraging on terrestrial arthropods in open habitats and regional
populations and individuals may show selective prey preferences. They may also
occur in open coniferous forests. Pallid bat roosts are very susceptible to human
disturbance, and urban development has been cited as the most significant factor
contributing to their regional decline. Although roosting habitat does not appear
to exist onsite, there is a moderate potential for pallid bats to forage over the
entire project area. Roosting habitat occurs nearby in the Cady Mountains and
lava tubes associated with the Pisgah Crater. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-41.)
The Townsend’s big-eared bat is a colonial species that feeds primarily on moths
and other soft-bodied insects. Females aggregate in the spring at nursery sites
known as maternity colonies. Although the Townsend’s big-eared bat is usually a
cave-dwelling species, many colonies are found in anthropogenic structures such
as the attics of buildings or old, abandoned mines. Roost sites in California
include limestone caves, lava tubes, mine tunnels, buildings, and other
structures. Radiotracking studies suggest that movement from a colonial roost
during the maternity season is confined to within 9 miles of the nursery.
Townsend’s big-eared bats are very susceptible to human disturbance, and
females are known to completely abandon their young when disturbed. The loss
of maternity and hibernation roosts has been cited as the most significant factor
contributing to their decline throughout their range. In Southern California,
Townsend’s big-eared bat was once common in the coastal plains of Southern
California where mines or caves were prevalent. However, this species has
declined substantially in the region and is now primarily limited to the foothill and
mountain regions of Southern California. Townsend’s big-eared bat was detected
Biological Resources 22
onsite during surveys in 2008. Although roosting habitat does not appear to exist
onsite, Townsend’s big-eared bats are expected to forage over the entire project
area. Roosting habitat occurs nearby in the Cady Mountains and lava tubes
associated with the Pisgah Crater. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-41.)
American badger is present within the project area, and three burrows were
detected in 2010. Suitable foraging habitat and prey items for this species are
broadly distributed across the project site. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-42.)
The desert kit fox can be found in much of the same habitat as the badger in the
Mojave Desert. While the desert kit fox is not listed as a special-status species by
the State of California or the USFWS, it is protected under Title 14, California
Code of Regulations (Title 14, Section 460) from trapping and hunting. Kit foxes
are primarily nocturnal, and inhabit open level areas with patchy shrubs. Friable
soils are necessary for the construction of dens, which are used throughout the
year for cover, thermoregulation, water conservation, and rearing pups. Kit foxes
typically produce one litter of about four pups per year, with most pups born
February through April. Desert kit fox is present within the project site, as this
species was detected onsite during surveys. Surveys conducted by the applicant
for burrowing owls detected approximately 36 potential kit fox dens within the
proposed project area. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-42.)
23 Biological Resources
d. Reptiles
The desert tortoise is an herbivore that may attain a carapace (shell) length of 9
to 15 inches. The tortoise is able to live where ground temperature may exceed
140° F because of its ability to dig burrows and escape intense solar radiation. At
least 95% of its life is spent in burrows. The tortoise enters brumation (the
reptilian form of hibernation) during the period from September to November and
leaves the burrow during the period from February to April. In the spring this
species becomes most active above ground from March through May when
foraging opportunities are optimal. Tortoises remain active — though to a lesser
extent — between June and October. During the active period in the warmer
months of the year, tortoises retreat to burrows during periods of intense heat, to
rest at night, and to aestivate during extended periods of heat and dryness.
Tortoises may also utilize shady areas underneath bushes or rocks during the
hottest parts of the day. A single tortoise may have a dozen or more burrows
within its home range, and different tortoises may use these burrows at different
times.
Range wide, occupied habitats include desert alluvial fans, washes, canyon
bottoms, rocky hillsides, and other steep terrain. Tortoises are most common in
desert scrub, desert wash, and Joshua tree habitats, but occur in almost every
desert habitat except on the most precipitous slopes. Friable soils, such as sand
and fine gravel, are an important habitat component, particularly for burrow
excavation and nesting. The presence of soil suitable for digging burrows is a
limiting factor to desert tortoise distribution.
Plant species play a major role in defining desert tortoise habitat. Creosote bush,
burrobush (Ambrosia dumosa), Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera), and
blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima) generally distinguish desert tortoise habitat.
At higher elevations, Joshua tree and galleta grass are common plant indicators.
The desert tortoise’s range includes the Mojave Desert region of Nevada,
southern California, and the southwest corner of Utah and the Sonoran Desert
region of Arizona and northern Mexico. The desert tortoise range is divided into
Mojave and Sonoran populations. The desert tortoise in the vicinity of the Calico
Solar Project is part of the Mojave population, which is primarily found in
creosote bush-dominated valleys with adequate annual forbs for forage.
Biological Resources 24
Desert tortoises occur in the project area and are broadly distributed across the
proposed project site. Most of the desert tortoises detected during project
surveys were noted north of the BNSF railroad, primarily in the bajada near the
toe of the Cady Mountains. This area contains good quality habitat for desert
tortoise and has less obstructed connectivity to adjacent natural lands. The area
between the BNSF railroad and I 40 is isolated by the highway and railroad and
portions of the site have been subject to repeated disturbance from pipeline
development. Nonetheless, two tortoises were detected in this area and tortoise
sign was observed in low density near the center of this area by staff and the
applicant. While the railroad poses a substantial barrier to movement, access is
available through the many railroad trestles that span the drainages that flow
across the site.
The results of the 2010 protocol surveys conducted by the Applicant detected
104 tortoises (adult, subadult and juvenile) within the original 8,230-acre project
footprint. In response to staff and agency feedback, the applicant reduced the
project footprint to minimize impacts to desert tortoise linkages. The original
redesigned 6,215-acre project footprint consisted of approximately fifty-seven
(57) tortoises. Subsequent to the committee order, the project was reduced
further to 4,614 acres in Scenario 5.5. The applicant detected 10 tortoises on
this reduced acreage alternative. (EX. 317, p. C.2-4.) Biological Resources
Figure 3 shows the locations of desert tortoises detected during the 2010
surveys.
The nearest designated critical habitat for this species is located approximately
0.5 mile south of the project site within the Ord-Rodman Desert Wildlife
Management Area (DWMA). Interstate 40 and the BNSF Railroad pose barriers
to movement between that critical habitat and the Calico Solar Project area. (Ex.
300, pp. C.2-32 – C.2-33.)
The banded gila monster is considered rare in California with only 26 credible
records of the species documented within the past 153. This large and distinct
lizard is difficult to observe even in areas where they have been recently
recorded. As a result, little is known about this species’ distribution, population
status, and life history in California. Most of the historical observations in
California occurred in mountainous areas of moderate elevations with rocky,
incised topography, in large and relatively high ranges as well as riparian areas.
Despite the widespread distribution of potential habitat throughout the California
25 Biological Resources
desert, the few documented observations suggest the California populations may
be confined to the eastern portion of the California desert, and the current
distribution is apparently a function of summer rainfall. All California gila monster
observations except one (Mojave River) occurred east of the 116° longitude in
areas that received at least 25 percent of their annual precipitation during the
summer months. Throughout their range, gila monsters appear to be most active
during or following summer rain events.
Banded gila monsters were not detected onsite during surveys and the project is
avoiding many of the rocky outcrops and lava flows present onsite that could
provide habitat. Although this species is not known from the area and the closest
known sighting is an historic record from the Providence Mountains
approximately 50 miles to the east of the project site, this species is difficult to
detect due to its secretive nature and tendency to remain in underground
burrows for extended periods of time. Therefore, there is a low potential for this
species to inhabit the project area. (Ex. 300, pp. C.2-33 – C.2-34.)
Mojave fringe-toed lizards are known almost exclusively from California, primarily
in San Bernardino and eastern Riverside Counties, but are also found to the
north in southeastern Inyo County and historically to the west in eastern Los
Angeles County.
The Mojave fringe-toed lizard is a BLM sensitive species that is found in arid,
sandy, sparsely vegetated habitats, within the broader matrix of creosote bush
scrub, throughout much of its range. It is restricted to habitats where fine, loose,
aeolian sand is available. It burrows in the sand to avoid predators and to
thermoregulate, though it will also seek shelter in rodent burrows. Sand dunes
provide its primary habitat, although it can also be found in the margins of dry
lakebeds, washes, and isolated sand habitat, such as scattered hummocks or
wind-deposited “sand ramps” against hillsides.
The Mojave fringe-toed lizard is primarily insectivorous, but also eats plant food
including leaves, seeds, and buds (Stebbins 1944). It normally hibernates from
November to February, and emerges from hibernacula from March to April. The
breeding season is April to July, and adult Mojave fringe-toed lizards reach
sexual maturity two summers after hatching. Common predators include
burrowing owls, leopard lizards, badgers, loggerhead shrikes, roadrunners,
various snakes, and coyotes.
Biological Resources 26
The Mojave fringe-toed lizard is widespread geographically across the Mojave
and northern Colorado deserts, but its distribution is highly fragmented because it
is restricted to habitats containing loose sand, which is patchily distributed. Many
local populations occur on small or isolated patches of sand and are quite small.
This fragmented pattern of distribution leaves the species vulnerable to local
extirpations from additional habitat disturbance and fragmentation as well as
random events. The loose wind-blown sand habitat, upon which the Mojave
fringe-toed lizard is dependent, is a fragile ecosystem requiring the protection
against both direct and indirect disturbances. Environmental changes that
stabilize sand, affect sand sources, or block sand movement corridors will also
affect this species. Aside from the direct loss of land, development can also
affect Mojave fringe-toed lizards by increasing access by predators, such as the
common raven and small raptors, to their habitat. Raven numbers tend to
increase around developed facilities due to increased availability of water and
trash; other predators may increase in numbers due to availability of new perch
sites (e.g., fence posts, sign posts, structures) which allow them to hunt for
lizards in areas where no perches were previously available. Potential indirect
disturbances are associated with the disruption of the dune ecosystem source
sand, wind transport, and sand transport corridors.
The applicant reported that the Mojave fringe-toed lizard is present on the Calico
Solar Project site, and identified a partially stabilized dune complex located
between the BNSF Railroad and I 40, approximately 16.9 acres, as Mojave
fringe-toed lizard habitat. Staff conducted reconnaissance surveys of the site in
January and May 2010, during which times staff inspected the dune complex and
adjacent habitats. Four Mojave fringe-toed lizards were detected by staff during
the May surveys. These included one lizard within the dune area identified by the
applicant; one in soft windblown sand along the large primary drainage west of
the delineated habitat; and two in fine accumulated sands on the vegetated
windrow that borders the north side of the BNSF railroad. Mojave fringe-toed
lizard was also detected along a wash north of the BNSF railroad during the
applicant’s 2010 desert tortoise surveys. Fine-grained friable sand occurs in
many other areas adjacent to the identified dune complex, both within the
numerous drainages that cross the project site and in small patches of windblown
sand. Similarly, soft friable sands with small patches of micro dunes occur within
the creosote bush scrub habitat across much of the lower project site. In Staff’s
opinion, it is likely that Mojave fringe-toed lizard occurs in low densities across
much of the project site south of the BNSR railroad and within and around soft
sands associated with the drainages north of the BNSF railroad.
27 Biological Resources
Staff calculated the amount of Mojave fringe-toed lizard habitat on the project site
by adding the additional habitat it identified to the 16.9 acres identified by the
applicant and adding a 45-meter surrounding buffer area to account for species
traveling away from its primary habitat, yielding 164.7 acres of suitable habitat.
(Ex. 300, pp. C.2-34 – C.2-36.)
The CEQA Guidelines define direct impacts as those impacts that result from the
project and occur at the same time and place. Indirect impacts are caused by the
project, but can occur later in time or farther removed in distance while still
reasonably foreseeable and related to the project. The potential impacts we
consider here are those most likely to be associated with construction and
operation of the project.
Biological Resources 28
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP), Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other
approved local, regional, Federal, or State HCP. (CEQA Guidelines,
(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections
15000 et. seq, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form)
All of the CNPS List 1B and List 2 plants potentially occurring in the project area
are also included in the CDFG Special Plants List and are tracked by CDFG’s
CNDDB. The CNPS Inventory has been a broadly recognized and accepted
source of science-based information on the rarity, endangerment, and distribution
of California special-status plants since its first edition in 1974. The Energy
Commission’s regulations refer to CNPS Lists in the definition of “species of
special concern” (California Code of Regulations, Title 20, section 1702 (q) and
(v)), and the BLM has a policy of designating all CNPS List 1B plants, unless
specifically excluded by the BLM State Director, as BLM Sensitive. By CNPS’s
standards, the plants on CNPS Lists 1A, 1B and 2 meet the definitions of
Sections 2062 and 2067 (CESA) of the California Fish and Game Code, and are
eligible for State listing. The Energy Commission considers those plants
29 Biological Resources
appearing on CNPS List 1B or 2 to be potentially eligible, and evaluates project
impacts to each one known from the site, as explained below. (Ex. 300, pp. C.2-
56 – C.2-57.)
a. Construction Impacts
Construction of the Calico Solar Project would result in the permanent land use
conversion of native vegetation communities and the loss of special-status plant
and animal species and their habitat. Permanent loss as defined by staff involves
impacts that would not recover within 5 years (above). The Calico Solar Project
would have long-term impacts associated with project features (e.g.,
SunCatchers, expansion of the Pisgah Substatin, new transmission line towers,
new access roads, altered drainage features, evaporation ponds, and required
maintenance activities that would routinely disturb wildlife and vegetation) that
would continue throughout the life of the project, as well as habitat degradation
that would persist for decades following project closure.
Vegetation
Construction of the Calico Solar Project and associated facilities would result in
the permanent loss of native vegetation from the construction of new access
roads, SunCatcher footings, stormwater facilities, and various appurtenant
structures to support the project. In addition, the project would result in
disturbance to vegetation from mowing. The applicant indicated that prior to
SunCatcher installation, the SunCatcher Array area will be mowed to about 3
inches. During SunCatcher operation, if vegetation within the path of SunCatcher
movement reaches a height of 8 inches, it will likely be re-mowed to 3 inches.
The applicant indicates that re-mowing treatment would be applied to about 5%
of the SunCatcher array area. Vegetation not within the path of SunCatcher
movement or within the access road footprints would be allowed to re-generate.
Mowing is a permanent impact to native vegetation as mowing would likely result
in type conversion of re-mowed areas from creosote bush scrub to more
herbaceous vegetation, and degradation of untreated or once-treated vegetation
by introduction of new edge effects to remnant desert shrubland throughout the
proposed project site.
Direct mortality to vegetation could occur from construction activities that remove
vegetation, grade soils, or cause sedimentation or erosion. Clearing and grading
may also result in the alteration of soil conditions, including the loss of native
seed banks and changes to the topography and drainage of a site such that the
Biological Resources 30
capability of the habitat to support native vegetation is impaired. Indirect effects
could include soil compaction, disruption of the native seed bank, increased dust,
sediment transport, or colonization by invasive non-native species. These actions
may result in reduced habitat quality for upland plants. In addition, the removal of
vegetation cover and the disruption of soil crusts create possibilities for erosion,
dust, and weed invasion that can affect habitat in adjacent areas.
The vegetation present on the Calico Solar project site supports a diversity of
common and sensitive wildlife. The loss of existing vegetation and expected level
of disturbance from weeds and human disturbance (described below) will alter
the functional use of the remaining habitat. These direct and indirect construction
impacts to vegetation, unless mitigated, would be significant under CEQA.
Weeds, include species of non-native, invasive plants included on the weed lists
of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Invasive
Plant Council, or federally listed noxious weeds. The spread of invasive plants is
a major threat to biological resources in the Mojave Desert because these
invasive non-native plants can displace native plants, increase the threat of
wildfire, supplant wildlife foods that are important to herbivorous species, alter
the habitat structure and ecological function of wetland, riparian, and desert wash
communities, and invade or threaten special-status plant occurrences and
habitat.
Invasive plants, noxious weeds, and other invasive species on BLM lands will be
prevented, controlled, treated, and restored through an Integrated Pest
Management approach per the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM
Lands in 17 Western States, and the 2009 National Invasive Species
Management Plan.
31 Biological Resources
ecosystems. Invasive weeds generally spread most readily in disturbed, graded,
or cultivated soils, including disturbance by construction equipment. Thus, the
proposed Calico Solar project, including the solar generator construction and
associated Transmission line and other facilities, could introduce or facilitate the
spread of invasive non-native plants. Without control, weeds already present in
the area would increase their abundance in soils disturbed by project
construction throughout the project site and along the linear facilities, especially
where nitrogen deposition is an issue, and that construction equipment could
accidentally import new invasive species from off-site.
Biological Resources 32
b. Mitigation
33 Biological Resources
avoidance and
minimization measures
from various other
required plans; containing
maps depicting the
locations of sensitive
resources; state and
federal conditions;
descriptions of monitoring
methodologies and
frequencies; mitigation
performance standards
and remedial measures if
those standards are not
met
BIO 8 Specifies impact These measures avoid injuries to sensitive
avoidance and species and encouraging predators (ravens,
minimization measures etc.) to visit the area, thereby protecting
regarding disturbance tortoises
areas, perimeter fencing,
roads, traffic, juvenile
desert tortoise and other
wildlife entrapment,
minimize standing water
and dispose of road kill
Biological Resources 34
requirements for plants
found in the survey; off-
site compensatory
mitigation; measures to
obtain nursery stock
BIO 13 Requires compensatory Mitigates for the loss of habitat on the project
habitat, estimated at site by purchasing and protecting suitable off
approximately 208 acres, site habitat lands
to mitigate for loss of
Mojave fringe-toed lizard
habitat on the project site
BIO 14 Requires preconstruction Relocating the Gila monsters protects them
surveys for Gila Monsters from injury due to activities on the project site.
and removal and
relocation of any
individuals that are found
BIO 15 Specifies requirements for Protects tortoise during the process of clearing
desert tortoise surveys, the project site.
exclusion fences, tortoise
handling and other matters
relating to the removal for
tortoise from the project
site.
BIO 16 Requires a Desert Tortoise Provides for the protection of tortoise to be
Translocation Plan, relocated and tortoise occupying the relocation
compliant with recently sites. By testing the health of each,
revised guidelines from the transmission of disease will be minimized
US Department of Fish
and Game’s Tortoise
Recovery Office
BIO 17 Requires compensatory Mitigates for the loss of tortoise habitat on the
habitat, estimated at project site by purchasing and protecting
10,302 acres, to mitigate suitable off site habitat lands estimated at
for loss of Mojave desert 24,417 acres
tortoise habitat on the
project site
BIO 18 Requires design and Protects tortoise in the project vicinity by
implementation of a Raven managing the population of ravens, a tortoise
Monitoring, Management, predator
and Control Plan that is
consistent with the most
current USFWS-approved
raven management
guidelines and payment of
fees to support the
USFWS Regional Raven
Management Program
BIO 19 Requires pre-construction Mitigates potential impacts to migratory birds
nest surveys each year by protecting their nests from construction
during the construction activities.
phase if construction
activities will occur during
the breeding period (from
January 1 through August
1); specifies minimum
35 Biological Resources
requirements for such
surveys and establishment
of 500-foot buffer areas
where active nests are
found.
Biological Resources 36
of 153 acres of off-site
mitigation lands, which
may be combined
(“nested”) with desert
tortoise habitat obtained
under Condition BIO 17,
above, and best
management practices in
the construction and
operation of the project
BIO 27 Requires installation of Mitigates potential wildlife mortality at the
netting over project evaporation ponds to insignificant levels
evaporation ponds and
implement an Evaporation
Pond Design, Monitoring,
and Management Plan to
protect wildlife from
mortality in the ponds
BIO 28 Requires, at project Mitigates potential biological impacts due to
closure, implementation of closure of the project to insignificant levels
a Decommissioning and
Reclamation Plan to
remove the engineered
diversion channels,
detention basins, and
other sediment control
features from the project
site
BIO 29 Requires that the facility’s Mitigates potential biological impacts due to
closure plan include closure of the project to insignificant levels
measures and funding for
the decommissioning,
reclamation, and
revegetation of the project
site
BIO 30 Allows the project owner to Provides the same degree of mitigation as the
satisfy certain original requirement.
compensatory mitigation
obligations by paying an in
lieu fee to the Department
of Fish and Game
pursuant to Fish and
Game code sections 2069
and 2099.
37 Biological Resources
Dust
Five other plant species that are designated BLM sensitive and CNPS List 1B
species have low potential to occur within the project area:
Biological Resources 38
• Desert cymopterus (Cymopterus deserticola)
• Barstow woolly-sunflower (Eriophyllum mohavense)
• Mojave monkeyflower (Mimulus mohavensis) – Low potential
• Creamy blazing-star (Mentzelia tridentate) – Low potential
• Rusby’s desert mallow (Sphaeralcea rusbyi var. eremicola) – Low
potential
Two white-margined beardtongue locations on the project site are near project
area boundaries. One of these, where 17 individual plants were counted, is
outside the proposed disturbance area, due to the plants and other resource
concerns. Another location, where two plants were mapped, is on the eastern
project site boundary, adjacent to the Pisgah Crater ACEC. The proposed project
would avoid impacts to these plants and provide a 250 foot buffer area around
them. Surface hydrology at both locations would not be altered by proposed
project stormwater control structures. The other white-margined beardtongue
locations also would be surrounded by 250 foot buffer areas, but would be
subject to altered hydrology due to stormwater control as proposed by the
applicant.
39 Biological Resources
white-margined beardtongue locations; monitor and manage direct and indirect
project impacts and plant persistence within these areas; and monitor and
manage indirect project impacts to occurrences off-site to the east, in the BLM
Pisgah Crater ACEC.
Three CNPS List 2 taxa are reported on the project site, though only one of these
was confirmed by 2010 field surveys. The other two species remain unconfirmed,
and may have been misidentified in the original survey reports. An additional six
could occur on the site, with low potential. Most or all occurrences of CNPS List 2
species onsite, whether documented by prior surveys or not, would be lost or
substantially degraded due to grading; soil compaction during construction and
facilities operation; and the indirect effects of increased weed abundance, weed
control, and alterations to hydrology, soil temperatures, and windborne sand
transport.
Emory’s crucifixion thorn is reported from four individual plants at three locations
within the survey area (TS 2010h). All three locations are north of the proposed
project area, near the toe slopes of the Cady Mountains. The reduced project
footprint avoids direct or indirect effects to those occurrences. Emory’s crucifixion
thorn is a large and distinctive shrub; it is unlikely that additional plants will be
found on-site during future surveys.
Coves’ cassia and small-flowered sand-verbena were reported on the project site
in the Biological Resources Technical Report in 2009, but were not confirmed
during more thorough 2010 field surveys. Staff believes that the original reports
may have been erroneous and no impacts to either species are anticipated.
However, if either species is found on-site during follow-up field surveys required
Biological Resources 40
by Condition of Certification BIO 12, appropriate avoidance or off-site mitigation
measures would be required.
Six other CNPS List 2 species have low or moderate potential to occur within the
project area:
If any of the six species are found on-site during follow-up field surveys required
by Condition of Certification BIO 12, appropriate avoidance or off-site mitigation
measures would be implemented.
Wildlife
Construction of the Calico Solar Project would result in large scale direct and
indirect impacts to common wildlife. These effects could include mortality from
trampling or crushing; increased predation when wildlife is flushed from cover;
increased noise levels due to heavy equipment and SunCatcher engine noise;
light impacts from construction during low-light periods; increased vehicular and
human presence along access roads and desert washes; displacement due to
habitat modifications, including vegetation removal, alterations of existing soil
conditions; fugitive dust; and a modified hydrologic and sediment regime due to
the construction of the storm water management system.
More mobile species like birds and larger mammals are expected to disperse into
nearby habitat areas during construction. However, the dispersal of wildlife from
active construction zones would be hindered by the projects perimeter fencing
(i.e., the tortoise exclusion fence).
By design, the Calico Solar Project would include perimeter fencing to prevent
desert tortoise and bighorn sheep from entering the work area. Prior to
construction, tortoises inhabiting the project site would be translocated to suitable
41 Biological Resources
receptor sites. With the exception of birds this barrier would exclude or entrap
wildlife at the project site. Therefore, during construction, terrestrial wildlife
trapped within the perimeter fence would not be able to disperse from the project
area. This would subject any trapped wildlife to repeated disturbance from
construction and the use of roads to support maintenance activities. (Ex. 300, pp.
C.2-63 – C.2-64.)
Construction noise may affect birds in several ways, including annoyance which
causes birds to abandon nests that are otherwise suitable; raise the level of
stress hormones, interfering with sleep and other activities; cause permanent
injury to the auditory system; and interfere with acoustic communication by
masking important sounds or sound components. In general, 60 dBA Leq hourly
is considered the threshold for disturbance for many bird species, but some
species are less sensitive.
Noise from construction activities could also temporarily discourage wildlife from
foraging and nesting immediately adjacent to the project area. A maximum noise
level of 75 dBA Ldn is estimated to occur at a distance of 50 feet from the
acoustic center of the construction activity (most often the power block) and
attenuate to 40 dBA Ldn or less at project site boundaries. Assuming that
construction noise for this project would be relatively constant, the 40 dBA Ldn
estimated at the site boundaries for construction noise would be similar to levels
of ambient noise. The loudest noise likely to occur during construction is created
by the operation of construction equipment. Depending on the type of equipment
used, the noise produced can vary from 77 dBA to 90 dBA at 50 feet.
Noise impacts to nesting birds and other wildlife would be mitigated through
implementation of Conditions of Certification BIO 1 through BIO 9 and BIO 19.
These measures require buffer zones around active nests, which will sufficiently
attenuate construction noise levels at the nests. (Ex. 300, pp. C.2-64 – C.2-65.)
Biological Resources 42
Special Status Wildlife
Mojave fringe-toed lizards were observed by the applicant and staff at several
locations on the project site, and staff estimated that a minimum of 164.7 acres of
suitable habitat is found on the site. Direct project impacts to Mojave fringe-toed
lizards would include direct loss of habitat during site preparation and
construction for the SunCatchers, roads, and drainage channels; mechanical
crushing during site preparation, grading of access roads, preparation of staging
areas, disturbance by noise or vibrations from the heavy equipment and future
operations and maintenance activities; fugitive dust; and general disturbance due
to increased human activity. The cryptic nature of Mojave fringe-toed lizards
increases the likelihood that individuals could be injured or killed during ground-
disturbing activities, even if equipment operators have been trained to avoid
them.
Rather than attempt to preserve the pockets of habitat on the project site, staff
recommends, and we adopt, Condition of Certification BIO-13 requiring the
acquisition, protection and maintenance of 207.5 acres of suitable off-site habitat
for the species. If appropriate, that habitat may be combined or “nested” with
desert tortoise habitat obtained for the project. Implementation of that condition
will reduce impacts to Gila monsters and their habitat to less-than-significant
levels. (Ex. 300, pp. C.2-67 – C.2-70.)
Gila monsters were not observed during biological surveys conducted in 2007,
2008, or 2010. While there is a low potential for occurrence of this species in the
project area, this species occurs in low densities, is difficult to detect, and may be
overlooked during surveys. If present, direct impacts to this species could include
mortality during ground-disturbing activities; being hit by vehicles on access
roads; mechanical crushing during site preparation, grading of spur roads or
drainage features; fugitive dust; and general disturbance due to increased human
activity. Indirect impacts to this species include compaction of soils and the
introduction of exotic plant species.
43 Biological Resources
relocation of any individuals found to suitable habitat outside the project site.
Implementation of that condition will reduce impacts to Gila monsters and their
habitat to less-than-significant levels. (Ex. 300, p. C.2-70.)
Desert tortoises are present on the CSP project site and the adjacent desert
areas both east and west of the site. Protocol surveys conducted in 2010
detected 104 tortoises within the originally proposed project footprint. The highest
concentration of tortoises is located north of the Phase 1 boundary of the original
project footprint, located on the foothills and bajadas of the Cady Mountains.
Burrow density was also concentrated in this area; however, burrows were
present to some degree in most of the project area. Although habitat utilized by
desert tortoises is present across most of the site, only eight tortoises were
observed in the Phase I area. Tortoise densities in the portion of the Phase II
area now removed are well over the average tortoise density (4.7 tortoise/km2)
identified by the West Mojave Plan. Because of concerns presented by staff and
the wildlife agencies regarding the preservation of habitat near the toe of the
Cady Mountains to provide a linkage and movement corridor for desert tortoise,
the applicant modified the project footprint to provide approximately 4,000 feet
between the project boundary and the base of the mountains as a movement
corridor, as recommended by the USFWS Desert Tortoise Recovery Office
(DTRO). Subsequent to this modification, the Applicant reduced the project
further in response to the September 3, 2010 Committee Order. Scenario 5.5
substantially reduces the number of desert tortoise that will be impacted and
require translocation when compared to the previous proposed project
configurations. The reduced acreage would avoid some tortoises and would
preserve movement areas and occupied habitat for tortoises. Nonetheless, the
proposed reduced acreage project would result in the loss of high density tortoise
habitat. The 2010 surveys identified 10 tortoises in the reduced project footprint
which equates to an estimated 22 tortoises using the USFWS formula.
Implementation of Scenario 5.5 would require the translocation of approximately
13 desert tortoise (11 adults and subadults, and 2 juveniles) from the project site
compared to approximately 107 (93 adults and subadults and 14 juveniles) for
the proposed project. (Ex. 317, p. C.2-14)
Biological Resources 44
Desert Tortoise Impact Summary
During construction of the Calico Solar project desert tortoises could be harmed
during clearing, grading, and trenching activities or may become entrapped within
open trenches and pipes. Construction activities could also result in direct
mortality, injury, or harassment of individuals as a result of encounters with
vehicles or heavy equipment. Other direct effects could include individual
tortoises being crushed or entombed in their burrows, collection or vandalism,
disruption of tortoise behavior during construction or operation of facilities,
disturbance by noise or vibrations from the heavy equipment and the SunCatcher
engines, and injury or mortality from encounters with workers’ or visitors' pets.
Desert tortoises may also be attracted to the construction area by the application
of water to control dust, placing them at higher risk of injury or mortality.
Increased human activity and vehicle travel would occur from the construction
and improvement of access roads, which could disturb, injure, or kill individual
tortoises. Also, tortoises may take shelter under parked vehicles and be killed,
injured, or harassed when the vehicle is moved. The applicant has recommended
45 Biological Resources
impact avoidance and minimization measures to reduce these direct impacts to
desert tortoise, including installation of exclusion fencing to keep desert tortoises
out of construction areas, translocating the resident desert tortoises from the
Calico Solar site, reducing construction traffic and speed limits to reduce the
incidence of vehicles strikes and worker training programs. These
recommendations are included in our conditions of certification, including
Conditions BIO 1 through BIO 9, which apply to protect desert tortoise and other
biological resources in and near the project area, and Conditions of Certification
BIO 15 through BIO 17, which are specific to desert tortoise.
During our hearings, the draft Translocation Plan was criticized as inadequate on
various grounds. Among the criticism was that from CURE witness Scott
Cashen, who complained that the draft Plan failed to meet the recently released
guidelines from the USFWS Desert Tortoise Recovery Office entitled
Translocation of Desert Tortoises (Mojave Population) From Project Sites: Plan
Development Guidance (USFWS Guidance). We will not address the individual
Biological Resources 46
points of departure Mr. Cashen identified as the plan is a draft and is under
review, presumably for, among other things, conformance with the USFWS
Guidance. We note, however, that the USFWS Guidance specifies the following
steps:
The Guidance also specifies measures to protect the relocated, receiving area
and control area tortoises, such as disinfection of containers used to transport
them, hydration within 12 hours of release, release at an unoccupied shelter site
and reference to requirements contained in other protocols. In all, we find it to be
a comprehensive and thorough program to minimize harm to tortoises.
Condition BIO-16 requires compliance with the USFWS Guidance as well as any
additional guidance from USFWS and CDFG. Further, the plan must be
approved by the USFWS, CDFG, BLM’s wildlife biologist and our Compliance
Project Manager. Having established clear standards for the plan’s content in
Condition BIO-16, we do not need to wait to review the final plan prior to taking
action on the project as Mr. Cashen and others suggest.
47 Biological Resources
While there was some disagreement on the numbers, there is general consensus
that a substantial percentage of tortoise may perish as a result of the
translocation process. It is expected that 85 percent of the juvenile tortoise, by
their nature difficult to detect, will not be detected during the Clearance Surveys
and will remain on the site during construction, subject to the threats described
above. Translocation requirements from the USFWS and CDFG include blood
testing of both translocated tortoises and current residents of the receiving area
to avoid mixing diseased and healthy tortoises. While multiple efforts will be
expended to minimize tortoise mortality, translocated tortoise may still suffer
injury or die from the stress of handling, blood testing, predation and other
causes. USFWS guidelines require that, for every tortoise translocated, one
tortoise in the receiving area and one tortoise in a control area be tested and
radio-tagged for tracking. Those tortoises may suffer injury of die from the stress
of handling or blood testing and those in the receiving area from the additional
competition for food and shelter. A scenario postulated by Staff estimates that
the number of tortoise perishing due to the translocation effort may could be as
high as the number of tortoise that are relocated. (Ex. 317, pp. C.2-28 – C.2-29,
C.2-37 – C.2-38)
The concerns about tortoise mortality are based in large part on the preliminary
results of a tortoise translocation program on the Fort Irwin military base to the
north east of Barstow, where nearly 50 percent of translocated tortoises have
perished in two years following their translocation. (8/25/10 RT, pp. 90 – 92.)
Whether the same results will hold for this project is somewhat speculative. BLM
biologist Chris Otahal opined that tortoise density in the receiving area influenced
mortality and noted that the candidate receptor sites for this project had lower
tortoise densities than those in the Fort Irwin project. (8/25/10 RT, pp. 134 –
135.)
Habitat mitigation. The reduction in acreage for Scenario 5.5 would significantly
avoid areas currently supporting high concentrations of desert tortoise and their
burrows and would substantially increase the width of the linkage area that
occurs along the foothills of the Cady Mountains. Mitigation for the loss of 4,614
acres of desert tortoise habitat on the project site is not dependent on the
successful relocation of tortoise found on the site. Rather, Staff, the applicant,
representatives and the USFWS and CDFG, testified that the acquisition of and
enhancement of habitat compensation lands, required by Condition BIO-17,
serves as the mitigation for the habitat loss. Translocation of tortoises serves to
minimize harm, a requirement under the California Endangered Species Act,
discussed below.
Biological Resources 48
5. Cumulative Impacts
A project may result in a significant cumulative impact where its effects are
cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130).
Cumulative impacts must be addressed if the incremental effect of a project,
combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable” [14 Cal.
Code Regs., § 15130(a).] Such incremental effects are to be “viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects” [14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15164(b)(1).]
Waters of the State. The cumulative impacts of Scenario 5.5 on waters of the
state would be reduced from those of the original proposal, which staff testified
would not be significant after application of the mitigation measures required by
Condition BIO-26.
Golden Eagle. While the overall loss of foraging habitat for golden eagles within
the region is a cumulatively significant impact, the contribution of Scenario 5.5 to
that cumulative effect is less than significant after mitigation. Condition of
Certification BIO 20 requires focused nest surveys within 1 mile of project
activities and if nests are identified, the project owner would establish a
disturbance-free buffer around the nest. No construction activities would be
authorized within the 0.5 mile buffer pending the successful fledging of the nest.
Implementation of Condition of Certification BIO 17, the compensatory mitigation
plan for desert tortoise, would offset foraging habitat loss by the preservation of
similar plant communities.
49 Biological Resources
Burrowing Owl. Staff testified that Senario 5.5’s contribution to significant
cumulative effects on the burrowing owl will be less than significant when the
incremental effects of the project, after mitigation, are viewed in connection with
the effects of other projects. The incremental contribution to the cumulative
effects will not be cumulatively considerable because of required avoidance and
passive relocation in Condition of Certification BIO 21 and implementation of
Condition of Certification BIO 17, the compensatory mitigation plan for desert
tortoise, which will also benefit burrowing owls. The acquisition is expected to
prevent future losses of habitat by permanently protecting more habitat lands
than are being used for the project and further benefit the species by providing
funding for long-term maintenance and management activities on those lands.
Nelson’s Bighorn Sheep. Scenario 5.5 would not contribute significantly to the
loss of bighorn sheep habitat, as most occupied habitat for Nelson’s bighorn
sheep within the Cady Mountains does not overlap the northern portion of the
scenario’s development area. The scenario would avoid large open areas located
on the bajada below the Cady Mountains that could provide connectivity to
adjacent mountain ranges. Therefore, impacts of either scenario on bighorn
sheep are not cumulatively considerable.
Biological Resources 50
American Badger and Desert Kit Fox. Scenario 5.5’s incremental contribution to
the significant cumulative effects will be less than significant. Avoidance and
minimization measures in Condition of Certification BIO-24 combined with
Condition BIO-17’s habitat compensation mitigation plan for desert tortoise, will
reduce the impacts of habitat loss by the preservation of habitat for other
species, including the badger and kit fox.
51 Biological Resources
6. LORS Compliance
The CSP must comply with state and federal laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards (LORS) that address state and federally listed species, as well as
other sensitive species and habitats, and must secure the appropriate permits to
satisfy these LORS. Our analysis of compliance with Federal, State, and Local
LORS is summarized in Biological Resources Table 3, below, followed by
additional information on selected LORS.
Biological Resources 52
Biological Resources Table 3
Summary of Compliance with LORS
Applicable Law Description Rationale for Compliance
FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Designates and provides for protection of threatened and The applicant is currently undergoing consultation with the USFWS for project
Act (Title 16, United States endangered plant and animal species and their critical impacts to desert tortoise and a Biological Opinion will be issued for the proposed
Code, section 1531 et seq., habitat. “Take” of a federally-listed species is prohibited project. In addition, Conditions of Certification BIO-1 through BIO-9 and BIO-15
and Title 50, Code of Federal without an incidental take permit, which may be obtained through BIO-18 include measures to minimize and compensate for impacts to
Regulations, part 17.1 et through Section 7 consultation (between federal agencies) the federally listed desert tortoise.
seq.) or a Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plan.
Migratory Bird Treaty Makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory Condition of Certification BIO-19 includes preconstruction nest surveys, no-
(Title 16, United States Code, nongame bird (or any part of such migratory nongame bird) disturbance buffers around active nests, and monitoring of nests to minimize
sections 703 through 711) as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act unless impacts to nesting birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
permitted by regulation (e.g., duck hunting).
Clean Water Act (Title 33, Requires the permitting and monitoring of all discharges to Waters of the U.S. do not occur within the project area.
United States Code, sections surface water bodies. Section 404 requires a permit from
1251 through 1376, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a discharge
Code of Federal Regulations, from dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S.,
part 30, section 330.5(a)(26)) including wetlands. Section 401 requires a permit from a
regional water quality control board (RWQCB) for the
discharge of pollutants. By federal law, every applicant for a
federal permit or license for an activity that may result in a
discharge into a California water body, including wetlands,
must request State certification that the proposed activity
will not violate State and federal water quality standards.
Bald and Golden Eagle Provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden A recently issued Final Rule (September 2009) provides for a regulatory
Protection Act (Title 16, eagle by prohibiting, except under certain specified mechanism under the BGPA to permit take of bald or golden eagles
United States Code conditions, the take, possession, and commerce of such comparable to incidental take permits under the ESA. This rule adds a new
section 668) birds. The 1972 amendments increased penalties for section at 50 CFR 22.26 to authorize the issuance of permits to take bald
violating provisions of the act or regulations issued eagles and golden eagles on a limited basis. The BGPA defines the ‘‘take’’ of
pursuant thereto and strengthened other enforcement an eagle to include a broad range of actions, including disturbance. ‘‘Disturb’’ is
measures. Rewards are provided for information leading to defined in regulations at 50 CFR 22.3 as: ‘‘to agitate or bother a bald or golden
arrest and conviction for violation of the act. eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific
information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by
substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or
(3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding,
feeding, or sheltering behavior.’’
The proposed project may result in “take” of the golden eagle from disturbance
to nesting pairs as well as loss of foraging habitat, which may result loss of
53 Biological Resources
Applicable Law Description Rationale for Compliance
productivity for this species. Golden eagles are known to nest within a 10-mile
radius of the project and at least three pairs occur within 5-miles. Results of
golden eagle nesting surveys and foraging habitat assessment are required to
determine whether construction of the proposed project would result in take of
the species and therefore require a permit.
The USFWS Migratory Bird Division is in the process of developing guidance
regarding implementation of this final rule, including establishing take
thresholds within each Bird Conservation Region that must not be exceeded. If
it is ultimately determined that take of golden eagle would occur as a result of
the proposed project, an individual (non-programmatic) permit would be
required. Permit issuance will be conditioned on various criteria, the most
important of which is that the permitted take is compatible with the preservation
of the bald eagle and the golden eagle (i.e., consistent with the goal of stable or
increasing breeding populations). Staff encourages the applicant to coordinate
closely with USFWS as guidance becomes available regarding implementation
of the revised BGPA. At this time, staff is unable to determine whether the
proposed project would be in compliance with the BGPA.
Condition of Certification BIO-20 includes preconstruction nest surveys, no-
disturbance buffers around active nests, and monitoring of nests to minimize
impacts to nesting golden eagles.
California Desert Administered by the BLM, the CDCA Plan requires that Conditions of Certification BIO-1 through BIO-30 minimize, avoid, and
Conservation Area Plan proposed development projects are compatible with policies compensate for impacts to various biological resources covered by the CDCA
1980, as amended (reprinted that provide for the protection, enhancement, and Plan.
in 1999) sustainability of fish and wildlife species, wildlife corridors,
riparian and wetland habitats, and native vegetation
resources.
California Desert Protection An Act of Congress which established 69 wilderness areas, Conditions of Certification BIO-1 through BIO-30 minimize, avoid, and
Act of 1994 the Mojave National Preserve, expanded Joshua Tree and compensate for impacts to various biological resources covered by the
Death Valley National Monuments and redefined them as California Desert Protection Act of 1994.
National Parks. Lands transferred to the National Park
Service were formerly administered by the BLM and
included significant portions of grazing allotments, wild
horse and burro Herd Management Areas, and Herd Areas.
Biological Resources 54
Applicable Law Description Rationale for Compliance
West Mojave Plan As an amendment to the CDCA Plan, the BLM produced Conditions of Certification BIO-1 through BIO-30 minimize, avoid, and
the West Mojave Plan (WEMO) (BLM 2006). The WEMO is compensate for impacts to various biological resources covered by the West
a federal land use plan amendment that (1) presents a Mojave Plan.
comprehensive strategy to conserve and protect the desert
tortoise, the Mohave ground squirrel (MGS) and nearly 100
other plants and animals and the natural communities of
which they are part, and (2) provides a streamlined program
for complying with the requirements of the California and
federal Endangered Species Acts (BLM et al. 2005).
STATE
California Endangered Protects California’s rare, threatened, and endangered Conditions of Certification BIO-1 through BIO-9 and BIO-15 through BIO-19
Species Act of 1984 (Fish species. “Take” of a State-listed species is prohibited would ensure that the project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
and Game Code, sections without an Incidental Take Permit. of desert tortoise or Swainson’s hawk or result in the degradation of occupied
2050 through 2098) habitat for any State-listed species.
California Code of Lists the plants and animals of California that are declared Analysis of potential project impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species
Regulations (Title 14, rare, threatened, or endangered. is provided above, and Conditions of Certification are proposed that would
sections 670.2 and 670.5) minimize impacts to these species.
Fully Protected Species (Fish Designates certain species as fully protected and prohibits Golden eagle is designated as fully protected and has been observed in the
and Game Code, sections the take of such species or their habitat unless for scientific project area. However, Condition of Certification BIO-20 includes
3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515) purposes (see also California Code of Regulations, Title 14, preconstruction nest surveys, no-disturbance buffers around active nests, and
section 670.7). monitoring of nests to minimize impacts to golden eagles.
Nest or Eggs (Fish and Game Protects California’s birds by making it unlawful to take, Condition of Certification BIO-19 includes preconstruction nest surveys, no-
Code section 3503 and possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. disturbance buffers around active nests, and monitoring of nests to minimize
3503.5) impacts to nesting birds. Condition of Certification BIO-6 includes a Worker
Environmental Awareness Program to educate workers about compliance with
environmental regulations, including Fish and Game Code section 3503.
Migratory Birds (Fish and Protects California’s migratory birds by making it unlawful to Condition of Certification BIO-19 includes preconstruction nest surveys, no-
Game Code section 3513) take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated disturbance buffers around active nests, and monitoring of nests to minimize
in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such impacts to nesting birds. Condition of Certification BIO-6 includes a Worker
migratory nongame birds. Environmental Awareness Program to educate workers about compliance with
environmental regulations, including Fish and Game Code section 3513.
Significant Natural Areas Designates certain areas such as refuges, natural sloughs, Refuges, natural sloughs, riparian areas, and vernal pools do not occur on the
(Fish and Game Code riparian areas, and vernal pools as significant wildlife project site.
section 1930 et seq.) habitat.
55 Biological Resources
Applicable Law Description Rationale for Compliance
California Environmental CEQA defines rare species more broadly than the Implementation of Conditions of Certification BIO-1 through BIO-30 would
Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA definitions for species listed under the State and federal ensure that the project remains in compliance with CEQA.
Guidelines section 15380 Endangered Species Acts. Under section 15830, species
not protected through State or federal listing but
nonetheless demonstrable as “endangered” or “rare” under
CEQA should also receive consideration in environmental
analyses. Included in this category are many plants
considered rare by the California Native Plant Society
(CNPS) and some animals on the CDFG’s Special Animals
List.
Streambed Alteration Regulates activities that may divert, obstruct, or change the Condition of Certification BIO-26 includes measures to minimize and avoid
Agreement (Fish and Game natural flow or the bed, channel, or bank of any river, impacts to jurisdictional waters of the State.
Code sections 1600 et seq.) stream, or lake in California designated by CDFG in which
there is at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or
from which these resources derive benefit. Impacts to
vegetation and wildlife resulting from disturbances to
waterways are also reviewed and regulated during the
permitting process.
California Native Plant Designates State rare, threatened, and endangered plants. Conditions of Certification BIO-10 through BIO-12 include restoration and
Protection Act of 1977 (Fish compensation for impacts to native plant communities, a Weed Management
and Game Code section Plan, special-status plant surveys, and minimization and avoidance measures
1900 et seq.) to minimize impacts to special-status plants.
California Desert Native Protects non-listed California desert native plants from Condition of Certification BIO-12 includes a Protected Plant Salvage Plan,
Plants Act of 1981 (Food and unlawful harvesting on both public and private lands in which would minimize impacts to specific native desert plants.
Agricultural Code section Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mono, Riverside, San
80001 et seq. and California Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Unless issued a valid
Fish and Game Code permit, wood receipt, tag, and seal by the commissioner or
sections 1925-1926) sheriff, harvesting, transporting, selling, or possessing
specific desert plants is prohibited.
LOCAL
San Bernardino County Includes objectives to preserve water quality and open Implementation of Conditions of Certification BIO-1 through BIO-30 would
General Plan: space to benefit biological resources, and specific policies ensure that the project remains in compliance with the San Bernardino County
Conservation/Open Space and goals for protecting areas of sensitive plant, soils and General Plan.
Element of the County wildlife habitat and for assuring compatibility between
General Plan (County of San natural areas and development. Although the Calico Solar
Bernardino 2007) Project is not located on lands under county jurisdiction, the
general plan provides objectives which are consistent with
some of the LORS listed above.
Biological Resources 56
a. State
The Energy Commission has a one-stop permitting process for all thermal power
plants rated 50 MW or more under the Warren-Alquist Act (Pub. Res. Code §
25500). Under the act, the Energy Commission’s certificate is “in lieu of” other
state, local, and regional permits (Ibid.) The Commission’s streamlined permitting
process accomplishes a primary objective of the Renewable Energy Action
Team, as identified in the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 — to create a
“one stop” process for permitting renewable energy generation facilities under
California law. The adopted Conditions of Certification would satisfy the following
state LORS and take the place of terms and conditions that, but for the
Commission’s exclusive authority, would have been included in the following
state permits:
Incidental Take Permit: California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game
Code §§ 2050 et seq.) The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits
the “take” (defined as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”) of state-listed
species except as otherwise provided in state law. Construction and operation of
the CSP project will result in the take of desert tortoise, listed as threatened
under CESA. Condition BIO-17 specifies compensatory mitigation for desert
tortoise habitat loss at 5:1, 3:1, and 1:1 ratios, based on habitat quality, with BLM
“nesting” their 1:1 mitigation requirement within this framework. This funding and
mitigation approach provides full mitigation for desert tortoise.
b. Federal
The CSP project is located on federal land under BLM’s jurisdiction and is
therefore subject to the provisions of BLM’s California Desert Conservation Area
(CDCA) Plan (Revised 1999). As an amendment to the CDCA Plan, BLM
produced the Northern and Eastern Mojave (NEMO) Coordinated Management
Plan (BLM 2002). This document consists of proposed management actions and
alternatives for public lands in the NEMO Planning Area. The CSP project is
located in the southeastern portion of the NEMO Planning Area Boundary.
57 Biological Resources
The BLM has worked with the USFWS to develop a variety of land designations
as tools to protect sensitive biological resources, including the desert tortoise.
The siting of the CSP project considered the management direction of these
designations, as described below:
BLM provides management direction for species such as desert tortoise within
the NEMO, which include five geographical areas of tortoise habitat in the
planning area. These areas include an Ivanpah Valley and a North Ivanpah
Valley area, with the CSP project located within the Ivanpah Valley habitat area.
Current designations for both Ivanpah areas are as Category III desert tortoise
habitat. Category III management goals are to limit tortoise habitat and
population declines to the extent possible by mitigating impacts.
Potential take of the desert tortoise, listed as threatened by the USFWS, requires
compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC §§ 1531 et
seq.). “Take” of a federally-listed species is prohibited without an Incidental Take
Permit, which would be obtained through a Section 7 consultation between BLM
and the USFWS.
Biological Resources 58
In order to construct and operate the CSP on BLM managed lands, the applicant
has applied for a Right of Way Permit from BLM, which will address the project’s
compliance with federal law.
7. Public Comment
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
59 Biological Resources
those in other portions of this Decision, the project will not result in significant
direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to biological resources.
3. With implementation of the mitigation measures described in the evidentiary
record and incorporated into the Conditions of Certification, the CSP will
conform to all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards
related to biological resources as identified above.
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
BIO-1 The project owner shall assign at least one Designated Biologist to the
project. The project owner shall submit the resume of the proposed
Designated Biologist, with at least three references and contact
information, to the Energy Commission Compliance Project Manager
(CPM) and the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Wildlife Biologist
for approval in consultation with the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Biological Resources 60
(http://www.fws.gov/ventura/speciesinfo/protocols guidelines) and submit it to the
USFWS, BLM’s Wildlife Biologist, and the CPM for review and final approval.
The project owner shall submit the resume of the Designated Biologist to the
CPM and BLM within 7 days of receiving the Energy Commission Decision. No
construction-related ground disturbance, grading, boring, or trenching shall
commence until an approved Designated Biologist is available to be on site.
BIO-2 The project owner shall ensure that the Designated Biologist performs
the activities described below during any site mobilization activities,
construction-related ground disturbance, grading, boring, or trenching
activities. The Designated Biologist may be assisted by the approved
Biological Monitor(s) but remains the contact for the project owner,
BLM’s Wildlife Biologist, and the CPM. The Designated Biologist Duties
shall include the following:
61 Biological Resources
inactivity. Periodically inspect areas with high vehicle activity (e.g.,
parking lots) for animals in harm’s way;
6. Notify the project owner, the BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM
of any non-compliance with any biological resources condition of
certification;
BIO-3 The Designated Biologist shall submit the resume, at least three
references, and contact information of each of the proposed Biological
Monitors to BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM. The resume shall
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the
CPM, the appropriate education and experience to accomplish the
assigned biological resource tasks. The Biological Monitor is the
equivalent of the USFWS designated Desert Tortoise Monitor (USFWS
2008c).
Biological Resources 62
Biological Monitor(s) training by the Designated Biologist shall include
familiarity with the conditions of certification, BRM IMP, WEAP, and
USFWS guidelines on desert tortoise surveys and handling procedures
(http://www. fws.gov/ventura/speciesinfo/protocols guidelines).
Verification: The project owner shall submit the specified information to the
BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM for approval at least 30 days prior to the
start of any site mobilization or construction-related ground disturbance, grading,
boring, and trenching. The Designated Biologist shall submit a written statement
to BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM confirming that individual Biological
Monitor(s) has been trained including the date when training was completed. If
additional biological monitors are needed during construction, the specified
information shall be submitted to BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM for
approval at least 10 days prior to their first day of monitoring activities.
63 Biological Resources
1. Require a halt to all activities in any area when determined that
there would be an unauthorized adverse impact to biological
resources if the activities continued;
3. Notify BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM if there is a halt of any
activities and advise them of any corrective actions that have been
taken or would be instituted as a result of the work stoppage.
Biological Resources 64
protecting these resources; provide information to participants that
no snakes, reptiles, or other wildlife shall be harmed;
65 Biological Resources
Verification: Within 7 days of publication of the Energy Commission’s License
Decision, or the Record of Decision/ROW Issuance, whichever comes first, the
project owner shall provide to BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM a copy of the
final WEAP and all supporting written materials and electronic media prepared or
reviewed by the Designated Biologist and a resume of the person(s)
administering the program.
The project owner shall provide in the Monthly Compliance Report the number of
persons who have completed the training in the prior month and a running total of
all persons who have completed the training to date. At least 10 days prior to
construction-related ground disturbance activities the project owner shall submit
two copies of the BLM- and CPM-approved final WEAP. Training
acknowledgement forms signed during construction shall be kept on file by the
project owner for at least 6 months after the start of commercial operation.
Throughout the life of the project, the WEAP shall be repeated annually for
permanent employees, and shall be routinely administered within one week of
arrival to any new construction personnel, foremen, contractors, subcontractors,
and other personnel potentially working within the project area. Upon completion
of the orientation, employees shall sign a form stating that they attended the
program and understand all protection measures. These forms shall be
maintained by the project owner and shall be made available to BLM’s Wildlife
Biologist and the CPM upon request. Workers shall receive and be required to
visibly display a hardhat sticker or certificate that they have completed the
training.
Biological Resources 66
The BRMIMP shall be prepared in consultation with the Designated
Biologist and shall include accurate and up-to-date maps depicting the
location of sensitive biological resources that require temporary or
permanent protection during construction and operation. The BRMIMP
shall include complete and detailed descriptions of the following:
If any permits have not yet been received when the BRMIMP is first submitted,
these permits shall be submitted to BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM within
five days of their receipt, and the BRM IMP shall be revised or supplemented to
reflect the permit conditions within at least 10 days of their receipt by the project
owner. Ten days prior to site and related facilities mobilization, the revised BRM
IMP shall be resubmitted to BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM.
To verify that the extent of construction disturbance does not exceed that
described in this analysis, the project owner shall submit aerial photographs, at
an approved scale, taken before and after construction to the CPM and BLM’s
Wildlife Biologist. The first set of aerial photographs shall reflect site conditions
prior to any preconstruction site mobilization and construction-related ground
disturbance, grading, boring, and trenching, and shall be submitted at least 30
days prior to initiation of such activities. The second set of aerial photographs
shall be taken subsequent to completion of construction, and shall be submitted
to the CPM and BLM’s Wildlife Biologist no later than 90 days after completion of
construction. The project owner shall also provide a final accounting of the
acreages of vegetation communities/cover types present before and after
construction and a depiction of the approved project boundaries superimposed
on the post project aerial photograph. If final acreages and/or disturbance
footprints exceed those previously approved, the project owner shall coordinate
with staff, CDFG, and USFWS to determine appropriate mitigation for such
impacts. Such mitigation may exceed the requirements as outlined in these
Conditions of Certification (i.e., higher mitigation ratios may be imposed at the
discretion of the wildlife agencies).
Biological Resources 68
Construction Termination Report to fulfill its reporting requirements to be outlined
in the BRIMP.
BIO-8 The project owner shall undertake the following measures to manage
the construction site and related facilities in a manner to avoid or
minimize impacts to biological resources. All measures shall be subject
to review and approval by the CPM.
2. Minimize Road Impacts. New and existing roads that are planned
for construction, widening, or other improvements shall not extend
beyond the flagged impact area as described above. All vehicles
passing or turning around would do so within the planned impact
area or in previously disturbed areas. Where new access is
required outside of existing roads or the construction zone, the
route shall be clearly marked (i.e., flagged and/or staked) prior to
the onset of construction.
69 Biological Resources
disturb soil, vegetation, and wildlife. The Designated Biologist or
Biological Monitor shall walk immediately ahead of equipment
during brushing and grading activities. Any time over the life of the
project that a desert tortoise is found within the exclusion fencing,
the Designated Biologist shall immediately contact the CPM,
CDFG, BLM and USFWS; monitor the tortoise’s location and
activities; and implement translocation of the animal in accordance
with and the approved Desert Tortoise Translocation Plan and in
consultation with the USFWS, CDFG, BLM, and CPM.
Biological Resources 70
temporary desert tortoise exclusion fencing on either side of the
access road, unless otherwise authorized by the CPM, BLM Wildlife
Biologist, USFWS, and CDFG.
71 Biological Resources
Monitor shall report the special-status species record as described
in Conditions of Certification BIO-2 and BIO-26.
Biological Resources 72
16. Control and Regulate Fugitive Dust. To reduce the potential for the
transmission of fugitive dust the project owner shall implement dust
control measures. These shall include:
COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION
BIO-9 The project owner shall provide Energy Commission staff, BLM, CDFG,
and USFWS with reasonable access to the project site and mitigation
lands under the control of the project owner and shall otherwise fully
cooperate with the Energy Commission’s and BLM’s efforts to verify the
project owner’s compliance with, or the effectiveness of, mitigation
measures set forth in the conditions of certification. The project owner
shall hold harmless the Designated Biologist, the Energy Commission
and staff, BLM, and any other agencies with regulatory requirements
73 Biological Resources
addressed by the Energy Commission’s sole permitting authority for
any costs the project owner incurs in complying with the management
measures, including stop work orders issued by the CPM or the
Designated Biologist. The Designated Biologist shall do all of the
following:
Biological Resources 74
grading are completed and submit a monthly compliance report to
the CPM, BLM, USFWS, and CDFG. All observations of listed
species and their sign shall be reported to the Designated Biologist
for inclusion in the monthly compliance report.
75 Biological Resources
a. Injured Desert Tortoise. If a desert tortoise is injured as a result
of project-related activities during construction, the Designated
Biologist shall immediately take it to a CDFG-approved wildlife
rehabilitation and/or veterinarian clinic. Any veterinarian bills for
such injured animals shall be paid by the project owner.
Following phone notification as required above, the CPM, BLM,
CDFG, and USFWS shall determine the final disposition of the
injured animal, if it recovers. Written notification shall include, at
a minimum, the date, time, location, circumstances of the
incident, and the name of the facility where the animal was
taken.
8. Stop Work Order. The CPM/BLM may issue the project owner a
written stop work order to suspend any activity related to the
construction or operation of the project to prevent or remedy a
violation of one or more conditions of certification (including but not
limited to failure to comply with reporting, monitoring, or habitat
acquisition obligations) or to prevent the illegal take of an
endangered, threatened, or candidate species. The project owner
shall comply with the stop work order immediately upon receipt
thereof.
Verification: No later than two calendar days following the above-required
notification of a sighting, kill, injury, or relocation of a listed species, the project
owner shall deliver to the CPM, BLM, CDFG, and USFWS via FAX or electronic
communication the written report from the Designated Biologist describing all
reported incidents of the sighting, injury, kill, or relocation of a listed species,
identifying who was notified and explaining when the incidents occurred. In the
case of a sighting in an active construction area, the project owner shall, at the
same time, submit a map (e.g., using Geographic Information Systems) depicting
both the limits of construction and sighting location to the CPM, BLM, CDFG, and
USFWS.
No later than January 31st of every year the Calico Solar Project facility remains
in operation, provide the CPM and BLM an annual Listed Species Status Report
Biological Resources 76
as described above, and a summary of desert tortoise exclusion fence
inspections and repairs conducted in the course of the year.
1. Plan Details. The plans shall include at minimum: (a) locations and
details for top soil storage; (b) methods to salvage and replant
cacti, yucca or other species described in BIO-12 Section E, or to
plant out nursery stock of these species onto revegetation sites; (c)
seed collection guidelines; (d) a schematic depicting the mitigation
area; (e) time of year that the planting will occur and the
methodology of the planting; (f) a description of the irrigation
methodology if used; (g) measures to control exotic vegetation on
site; (h) performance standards (see below); and (i) a detailed
monitoring program. All habitats dominated by non-native species
prior to project disturbance shall be revegetated using appropriate
native species. This plan shall also contain contingency measures
for failed restoration efforts (efforts not meeting success criteria).
2. Topsoil Salvage. Topsoil shall be stockpiled from the project site for
use in revegetation of the disturbed soils. The topsoil excavated
shall be segregated, kept intact, and protected, under conditions
shown to sustain seed bank viability. The upper 1 inch of topsoil
which contains the seed bank shall be scraped and stockpiled for
use as the top-dressing for the revegetation area. An additional 6 to
8 inches of soil below the top 1 inch of soil shall also be scraped
77 Biological Resources
and separately stockpiled for use in revegetation areas. Topsoil
shall be replaced in its original vertical orientation following ground
disturbance, ensuring the integrity of the top one inch in particular.
All other elements of soil stockpiling shall be conducted as
described on pages 39-40 of Rehabilitation of Disturbed Lands in
California (Newton and Claassen 2003).
Biological Resources 78
without irrigation or remedial planting for a minimum of three years
prior to completion of monitoring.
No less than 30 days following the publication of the Energy Commission License
Decision or the Record of Decision/ROW Issuance, whichever comes first, the
project owner shall submit to the CPM and BLM’s Wildlife Biologist a final
agency-approved Revegetation Plan that has been reviewed and approved by
BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM. The Plan shall include a Plant Salvage
and Replacement Section as described in BIO-12 Section E. All modifications to
the Revegetation Plan shall be made only after approval from BLM’s Wildlife
Biologist and the CPM.
Within 30 days after completion of each year of project construction, the project
owner shall provide to the CPM for review and approval, a written report
identifying which items of the Revegetation Plan have been completed, a
summary of all modifications to mitigation measures made during the project’s
construction phase, and which items are still outstanding.
On January 31st of each year following construction until the completion of the
revegetation monitoring specified in the Revegetation Plan, the Designated
Biologist shall provide a report to the CPM and BLM’s Wildlife Biologist that
includes: a summary of revegetation activities for the year, a discussion of
whether revegetation performance standards for the year were met; and
recommendations for revegetation remedial action, if warranted, are planned for
the upcoming year.
BIO-11 The project owner shall revise and implement a Weed Management
Plan that meets the approval of BLM and CPM. The draft Noxious
Weed Management Plan submitted by the applicant shall provide the
basis for the final plan, subject to review and revisions from BLM,
USFWS, CDFG, and the CPM.
79 Biological Resources
The final plan shall include weed control measures with demonstrated
records of success, based on the best available information from
sources such as: The Nature Conservancy’s The Global Invasive
Species Team, Cooperative Extension, California Invasive Plant
Council http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/ management/plant profiles/index.php,
and the California Department of Food & Agriculture Encycloweedia:
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/encycloweedia/ encycloweedia
hp.htm. The methods shall meet the following criteria:
Biological Resources 80
as possible upon discovery, and before they go to seed, to
prevent further expansion.
(http://www.invasive.org/gist/products. html).
From the time construction begins and throughout the life of the
project, surveying for new invasive weed populations and the
monitoring of identified and treated populations shall be required
within the project area and surrounding 250-foot buffer area. See
also requirements for weed monitoring and treatment in the
adjacent Pisgah Crater ACEC described in Condition of
Certification BIO-12. Surveying and monitoring for weed
infestations shall occur annually. Treatment of all identified weed
populations shall occur at a minimum of once annually. When no
new seedlings or resprouts are observed at treated sites for three
consecutive, average rainfall years, the weed infestation at that site
81 Biological Resources
can be considered eradicated and weed control efforts, but not
annual monitoring, may cease for that impact site.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to start of any project-related ground
disturbance activities, the project owner shall provide the BLM’s Wildlife Biologist
and the CPM with the revised Weed Management Plan. The project owner shall
coordinate with the CPM and BLM’s Wildlife Biologist to revise and finalize the
Weed Management Plan. Any further modifications to the approved Weed
Management Plan shall be made only after consultation with the CPM and BLM’s
Wildlife Biologist , in consultation with USFWS and CDFG. Within 30 days after
completion of project construction, the project owner shall provide to the BLM’s
Wildlife Biologist and the CPM for review and approval, a written report
identifying which items of the Weed Management Plan have been completed, a
summary of all modifications to mitigation measures made during the project’s
construction phase, and which items are still outstanding. A summary report on
weed management on the project site shall be submitted in the Annual
Compliance Report during plant operations.
Biological Resources 82
Section E: Plant Salvage describes measures to include potted
nursery stock or salvaged specimens of certain cacti, yucca, and
other species listed in San Bernardino County plant protection
policies in revegetation plans, in conformance with BLM policy.
83 Biological Resources
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (defined below). The Plan shall
include the following elements:
a. Designate Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). Before
construction, designate ESAs to protect all known white-
margined beardtongue locations on the project site or within
250 feet of site boundaries. The ESAs shall include, at
minimum, the approximately 18 acres of white-margined
beardtongue occurrences as identified on Applicant’s Exhibit
57, Alternative Site Layout #2. The locations of ESAs shall
be clearly depicted on construction drawings, which shall
also include all avoidance and minimization measures on the
margins of the construction plans. The boundaries of the
ESAs shall provide a minimum of 250 feet buffer area
between white-margined beardtongue plant locations and
any ground-disturbing project activity. The ESAs shall be
clearly delineated in the field with permanent fencing and
signs prohibiting movement of the fence under penalty of
work stoppages and additional compensatory mitigation.
ESAs shall also be permanently marked (with signage or
other markers) to ensure that avoided plants are not
inadvertently harmed during construction, operation, or
closure.
b. Baseline data. Document baseline conditions, including
numbers and areal extent of white-margined beardtongue
and any other special-status plant occurrences within the
ESAs;
c. Success criteria. Specify success standards for protection of
special-status plant occurrences within the ESAs, and
identify specific triggers for remedial action (e.g., numbers of
plants dropping below a threshold);
d. Literature review. Describe and reference any available
information about microhabitat preferences and fecundity,
essential pollinators, reproductive biology, and propagation
and culture requirements for white-margined beardtongue
and any other special-status species within the ESAs;
e. Protection and avoidance measures. Describe measures
(e.g., fencing, signage) to avoid direct and indirect
construction and operation impacts to special-status plants
within the ESAs; these shall include but shall not be limited
to: (1) training components specific to protection of white-
margined beardtongue and surrounding habitat buffer area,
which shall be incorporated into the WEAP described in BIO-
6; (2) detailed specifications for avoiding herbicide and soil
stabilizer drift, and shall include a list of herbicides and soil
Biological Resources 84
stabilizers that may be used on the Project with
manufacturer’s guidance on appropriate use; the Plan shall
reference the Weed Management Plan (see Condition of
Certification BIO-11) and shall be consistent with provisions
of that Plan; (3) measures to ensure that erosion and
sediment control do not inadvertently impact special-status
plants located within an ESA (e.g., by using invasive or non-
native plants in seed mixes, introducing pest plants through
contaminated seed or straw, etc.). Where applicable, these
measures shall be incorporated in the Weed Management
Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Also,
designate spoil areas; equipment, vehicle, and materials
storage areas; parking; equipment and vehicle maintenance
areas, and; wash areas at least 100 feet from boundaries of
any ESAs;
f. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. The Designated
Botanist shall conduct weekly monitoring of the ESAs during
any construction or decommissioning activities within 100
feet of the ESAs, and quarterly monitoring for the remainder
of construction and during operations. For the life of the
project, the Project owner shall also conduct annual
monitoring of the avoided occurrences within ESAs on-site,
and off-site occurrences that are within 250 feet from the
project boundary and are located on public lands or on
private lands to which the Applicant has access. The project
owner shall make reasonable attempts to obtain permission
to enter adjacent private property for the purpose of rare
plant monitoring (see Verification, below).
g. Remedial Action Measures. Specify remedial action
measures to be implemented if success standards (above)
are not met at any time during the life of the project;
h. Seed Collection. Over the life of the project, the project
owner shall collect a small proportion of any available seed
produced by white-margined beardtongue plants protected
on-site within ESAs on an annual basis until propagation
research (below) is complete and seed bank curators agree
that sufficient seed has been placed into long-term storage.
Seed collection must only be done under permit from the
BLM; the project owner shall be responsible for obtaining
and complying with applicable permit(s). The collection
technique shall follow seed collection and storage guidelines
contained in (Wall 2009a; Bainbridge 2007). Collection of
seed shall be done by the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic
Garden (RSABG) Conservation Program staff or other
qualified seed or restoration specialist. The Project owner
85 Biological Resources
shall be responsible for all costs associated with seed
collection and storage. All seed storage shall occur at
RSABG or other qualified research institution and at least 40
percent of the collected seed shall remain in long-term
storage at RSABG Seed Conservation Program, San Diego
Natural History Museum, or other qualified seed
conservation program. In the event that construction
schedules or seed production prevent collection within ESAs
on-site, the applicant must substitute off-site seed collection
site as approved by the CPM in consultation with the BLM
State Botanist;
i. Propagation research. The project owner shall be
responsible for evaluating potential white-margined
beardtongue propagation and reintroduction methods with
the objective of developing horticultural techniques suitable
for eventual introduction of nursery-grown white-margined
beardtongue on-site or off-site as remedial action measures
if needed (paragraph g., above); a portion of seed
(paragraph h., above) shall be made available for
propagation research which may at some time inform
contingency propagation efforts on the project site or
elsewhere; propagation experimentation shall be funded by
the project owner and conducted by a qualified research
institution such as Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden and
the results shall not be subject to a non-disclosure
agreement. At minimum, propagation research shall include
germination and seedling establishment trials under a variety
of soil and humidity conditions reflecting the range of
seasonal conditions found in the plant’s natural habitat on
the project site; plant growth from seedling to nursery stock
size; and transplantation methods. These trials shall be
conducted in part within growth chambers where
temperature and humidity are controlled and in part on the
project site or adjacent Pisgah ACEC under natural
conditions.
j. Off-site sand transport monitoring and management. The
White-margined Beardtongue Impact Avoidance and
Minimization Plan shall include a sand transport monitoring
and management to document and manage project effects
to eastward sand transport to occupied white-margined
beardtongue aeolian sand habitat off-site to the east. At
minimum, the plan shall include the following elements (1)
quantify baseline eastward sand transport from the project
area into the adjacent BLM Pisgah Crater ACEC, following
methods described by Etyemezian et al. (2010); (2) specify
methods and schedule for annual sand transport monitoring
Biological Resources 86
throughout the first five years of the project’s life; (3)
identification of thresholds which would trigger remediation
requirements; and (4) development of adaptive management
strategies to supplement eastward sand transport into the
ACEC if needed. These strategies may include revisions to
project fencing design, importing sand from off-site or
transporting sand across the project site for further dispersal.
No sand transport remediation work would be permitted to
cause new land disturbance outside the project area as
analyzed in this SSA.
k. Off-site weed monitoring and management. The White-
margined Beardtongue Impact Avoidance and Minimization
Plan shall include methods and schedule to monitor and
manage weed abundance in occupied and suitable white-
margined beardtongue habitat to the east. At minimum, the
plan shall (1) quantify baseline weed abundance in the
portion of the ACEC adjacent BLM Pisgah Crater ACEC,
adjacent to and within 500 m of the eastern project
boundary, north of the BNSF railroad tracks; (2) weed
abundance monitoring schedule and methods to implement
throughout that area by collecting and analyzing quantitative
weed abundance during every year of average or greater
rainfall throughout the life of the project; (3) identify weed
abundance thresholds which would trigger remediation
requirements; and (4) specify weed control methods to be
implemented as needed in occupied and suitable white-
margined beardtongue habitat throughout the area described
above.
87 Biological Resources
species (below), based upon field visits to reference populations.
However, due to the undependable nature and scattered patterns
of summer and early fall rainfall, it is possible that no suitable rain
event will be documented in the area. Nevertheless, the project
own shall be responsible for conducting late-season botanical
surveys along washes and other lowland areas on-site due to the
possibility that rainstorms in the Cady Mountains may go
undetected, but may initiate summer or fall blooms. In 2010,
summer/fall late-season botanical surveys shall be completed
throughout the project areas designated as Phases 1a and 1b and
throughout washes and drainageways of project areas designated
as Phase 2. Additional surveys throughout all of the Phase 2 area
shall be completed during 2010 or a subsequent year, but prior to
construction of that phase.
2. Surveyor Qualifications and Training. Surveys shall be conducted
by a qualified botanist knowledgeable in the complex biology of the
local flora, and consistent with CDFG (2009) and BLM (2009)
protocols. The botanical survey crew shall be prepared to mobilize
quickly to conduct appropriately timed surveys. Each field botanist
shall be equipped with a GPS unit and record a complete tracklog;
these data shall be compiled and submitted along with the
Summer-Fall Survey Botanical Report (described below). Prior to
the start of surveys, all crew members shall, at a minimum, visit
target species reference sites (where available) and/or review
herbarium specimens to confirm detectability and obtain a search
image.
3. Target Species. Field surveys shall be designed and scheduled to
locate target species, defined as all BLM Sensitive plants, CNPS
List 1B or 2 (Nature Serve rank S1 and S2) or proposed List 1B or
2 taxa, and any newly reported or documented taxa. Because the
potential for range extensions is unknown, the list of potentially
occurring special-status plants shall include all special-status taxa
known from comparable habitats in the central portion of the
Mojave Desert in California. At a minimum, Tthe list shall include all
summer or fall-flowering species identified as potentially occurring
on the site in the applicant’s spring 2010 botanical survey report
(TS 2010i) and by Andre (2010, Intervenor Defenders of Wildlife
Rebuttal Testimony). Determination of flowering season shall be
based upon field visits to reference populations and data available
online from the Consortium of California Herbaria and California
Native Plant Society. Target species also shall include taxa with
bloom seasons that begin in fall and extend into the early spring as
many of these are reported to be easier to detect in fall, following
the start of the fall rains.
Biological Resources 88
4. Survey Coverage. At a minimum, the Applicant shall conduct
comprehensive surveys (i.e., 100 percent visual coverage) of the
washes, dune swales, and other lowlands within the project site. In
the intervening uplands (e.g., bajadas and rock outcrops) surveys
shall be conducted to ensure a 25 percent visual coverage. Other
special or unique habitats associated with rare plants (such as
dunes, washes, and chenopod scrubs) shall also be surveyed at
100 percent visual coverage. Transects shall be “intuitive
controlled” (per BLM 2009b) to ensure a focus on habitat most
likely to support rare plants (such as desert washes or dunes),
rather than on pre-defined, evenly-spaced survey grids.
5. Documenting Occurrences. If a special-status plant is detected, the
full extent of the population onsite shall be recorded using GPS in
accordance with BLM survey protocols. Additionally, the extent and
density of the occupied habitat within one mile of project
boundaries shall be assessed at least qualitatively to facilitate an
accurate estimation of the proportion of the occurrence affected by
the project. For occurrences that are very dense or very large, the
plant numbers may be estimated by simple sampling techniques
and the survey report must provide qualitative or quantitative data
describing the density and roughly mapping the extent on a
topographic map. All but the smallest populations (e.g., a
population occupying less than 100 square feet) shall be recorded
as area polygons; small populations may be recorded as point
features. All GPS-recorded occurrences shall include: the number
of plants, phenology, observed threats (e.g., OHV or invasive
exotics), and habitat or community type. The map of occurrences,
to be submitted with the final botanical report, shall be prepared to
ensure consistency with mapping protocol and definitions of
occurrences in CNDDB: occurrences found within 0.25 miles of
another occurrence of the same taxon, and not separated by
significant habitat discontinuities, shall be combined into a single
‘occurrence.’ The Project Owner shall also submit the raw GPS
shape files and metadata, and completed CNDDB forms to CNDDB
for each occurrence as defined by CNDDB.
6. Reporting. Raw GPS data, metadata, and CNDDB field forms shall
be provided to the CPM within two weeks of completion of each
survey. If field surveys take place during two or more phases (e.g.,
late summer and fall), then a summary letter shall be submitted
following each survey.
The Final Summer-Fall Botanical Survey Report shall be prepared
consistent with CDFG guidelines (CDFG 2009), and BLM
guidelines (2009) and shall include the following components:
89 Biological Resources
a. the BLM designation, NatureServe Global and State Rank of
each species or taxon found (or proposed rank, or CNPS
List);
b. the number or percent of the occurrence that will be directly
affected, and indirectly affected by changes in drainage
patterns or altered geomorphic processes;
c. the habitat or plant community that supports the occurrence
and the total acres of that habitat or community type that
occurs in the Project Disturbance Area;
d. an indication of whether the occurrence has any local or
regional significance (e.g., if it exhibits any unusual
morphology, occurs at the periphery of its range in
California, represents a significant range extension or
disjunct occurrence, or occurs in an atypical habitat or
substrate);
e. a completed CNDDB field form for every occurrence (i.e., the
summed locations of a given species within 0.25 mile
distance of another location, consistent with CNDDB
methodology), and;
f. two maps: one that depicts the raw GPS data (as collected
in the field) on a topographic base map with Project features;
and a second map that follows the CNDDB protocol for
occurrence mapping, which lumps two or more occurrences
of the same species within one-quarter mile or less of each
other into one occurrence.
Biological Resources 90
extent of contiguous occupied habitat on the site and on contiguous
public lands. Avoidance shall include protection of the ecosystem
processes essential for maintenance of the protected plant occurrence.
Plants located within the ESAs established pursuant to Section A
above shall be considered to be “avoided” to the extent that direct
impacts on the plants are avoided and that these processes would be
maintained. If special status plant occurrences are isolated by the
Project from natural fluvial, aeolian, or other processes known to be
necessary for their persistence or reproduction, these occurrences
shall not be considered “avoided.” This evaluation shall be made in
consultation among the project Botanist and the CPM, in consultation
with CDFG and BLM, on a case by case basis, dependent on the
species and its location on the site. The Project owner shall provide
compensatory mitigation as described below in Section D for Project
impacts to CNDDB Rank S1 and S2 plants that are not avoided. If,
after consultation among the project Botanist, CPM, CDFG, and BLM,
on-site avoidance is determined not to satisfy the long-term viability of
the plant occurrence(s), then compensatory mitigation may be
substituted for avoidance for up to 100% of impacts to Rank S1 and S2
plants on the site, as described below in Section D.
91 Biological Resources
Preservation of the Germplasm of Affected Special-Status Plants.
For all impacts to CNPS List 1 or List 2 plants, excluding small-
flowered androstephium, mitigation shall include seed collection from
the affected special-status plants on-site prior to construction to
conserve the germplasm and provide a seed source for restoration
efforts. Where construction schedules or seed availability prevents
seed collection from plant locations to be impacted during a given
season, seed must be collected from another portion of the project site
or, as approved by the CPM in consultation with BLM’s State Botanist,
from public lands off-site. Seed collection must only be done under
permit from the BLM; the project owner shall be responsible for
obtaining and complying with applicable permit(s). The seed shall be
collected under the supervision or guidance of a reputable seed
storage facility such as the Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Garden Seed
Conservation Program, San Diego Natural History Museum, or the
Missouri Botanical Garden. The costs associated with the long-term
storage of the seed shall be the responsibility of the Project owner.
Any efforts to propagate and reintroduce special-status plants from
seeds in the wild shall be carried out under the direct supervision of
specialists such as those listed above and as part of a Habitat
Restoration/Enhancement Plan approved by the CPM.
The Project owner shall comply with other related requirements in this
condition:
Biological Resources 92
I. Compensatory Mitigation by Acquisition: The requirements for the
acquisition, initial protection and habitat improvement, and long-term
maintenance and management of special-status plant compensation lands
include all of the following:
Selection Criteria for Acquisition Lands. The compensation lands selected for
acquisition may include any of the following three categories:
93 Biological Resources
other required compensation lands meets the criteria above for special-
status plant compensation lands, the portion of the other species’ or
habitat compensation lands that meets any of the criteria above may be
used to fulfill that portion of the obligation for special-status plant
mitigation.
Biological Resources 94
on the condition and location of the land acquired, but
may include trash removal, construction and repair of
fences, invasive plant removal, and similar measures to
protect habitat and improve habitat quality on the
compensation lands. The costs of these activities are
estimated to be $750 per acre ($250 per acre, using the
estimated cost per acre for Desert Tortoise mitigation as
a best available proxy, at a 3:1 ratio, but actual costs will
vary depending on the measures that are required for the
compensation lands). A non-profit organization, CDFG or
another public agency may hold and expend the habitat
improvement funds if it is qualified to manage the
compensation lands (pursuant to California Government
Code section 65965), if it meets the approval of the CPM
in consultation with CDFG, and if it is authorized to
participate in implementing the required activities on the
compensation lands. If CDFG takes fee title to the
compensation lands, the habitat improvement fund must
be paid to CDFG or its designee.
d. Property Analysis Record. Upon identification of the
compensation lands, the Project owner shall conduct a
Property Analysis Record (PAR) or PAR-like analysis to
establish the appropriate amount of the long-term
maintenance and management fund to pay the in-
perpetuity management of the compensation lands. The
PAR or PAR-like analysis must be approved by the CPM
before it can be used to establish funding levels or
management activities for the compensation lands.
e. Long-term Maintenance and Management Funding. The
Project owner shall provide money to establish an
account with non-wasting capital that will be used to fund
the long-term maintenance and management of the
compensation lands. The amount of money to be paid
will be determined through an approved PAR or PAR-like
analysis conducted for the compensation lands. Until an
approved PAR or PAR-like analysis is conducted for the
compensation lands, the amount of required funding is
initially estimated to be $4,350 for every acre of
compensation lands, using as the best available proxy
the estimated cost of $1,450 per acre for Desert Tortoise
compensatory mitigation, at a 3:1 ratio. This amount may
be revised by the CPM in consultation with DFG, BLM
and USFWS, based on further analysis of long-term
management and maintenance costs. If compensation
lands will not be identified and a PAR or PAR-like
analysis completed within the time period specified for
95 Biological Resources
this payment (see the verification section at the end of
this condition), the Project owner shall either: (i) provide
initial payment equal to the amount of $4,350 multiplied
by the number of acres the Project owner proposes to
acquire for compensatory mitigation; or (ii) provide
security to the Energy Commission under subsection (g),
“Mitigation Security,” below, in an amount equal to
$4,350 multiplied by the number of acres the Project
owner proposes to acquire for compensatory mitigation.
The amount of the required initial payment or security for
this item shall be adjusted for any change in the Project
Disturbance Area as described above. If an initial
payment is made based on the estimated per-acre costs,
the Project owner shall deposit additional money as may
be needed to provide the full amount of long-term
maintenance and management funding indicated by a
PAR or PAR-like analysis, once the analysis is completed
and approved. If the approved analysis indicates less
than $4,350 per acquired acre (at a 3:1 ratio) will be
required for long-term maintenance and management,
the excess paid will be returned to the Project owner.
The Project owner must obtain the CPM’s approval of the
entity that will receive and hold the long-term
maintenance and management fund for the
compensation lands. The CPM will consult with CDFG
before deciding whether to approve an entity to hold the
Project’s long-term maintenance and management funds.
The Project owner shall ensure that an agreement is in
place with the long-term maintenance and management
fund holder/manager to ensure the following
requirements are met:
Biological Resources 96
maintenance and management fund manager, to
ensure the continued viability of the species on the
compensation lands.
iii. Pooling Long-Term Maintenance and Management
Funds. An entity approved to hold long-term
maintenance and management funds for the Project
may pool those funds with similar non-wasting funds
that it holds from other projects for long-term
maintenance and management of compensation
lands for special-status plants. However, for reporting
purposes, the long-term maintenance and
management funds for this Project must be tracked
and reported individually to the CPM.
f. Other Expenses. In addition to the costs listed above, the
Project owner shall be responsible for all other costs
related to acquisition of compensation lands and
conservation easements, including but not limited to the
title and document review costs incurred from other state
agency reviews, overhead related to providing
compensation lands to CDFG or an approved third party,
escrow fees or costs, environmental contaminants
clearance, and other site cleanup measures.
g. Mitigation Security. The Project owner shall provide
financial assurances to the CPM to guarantee that an
adequate level of funding is available to implement any of
the mitigation measures required by this condition that
are not completed prior to the start of ground-disturbing
Project activities. Financial assurances shall be provided
to the CPM in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, a
pledged savings account or another form of security
(“Security”) approved by the CPM. The amount of the
Security shall be based upon staff’s estimate of per-acre
acquisition, transaction, and management costs as
described in Condition of Certification BIO-17 for each
acre of occupied habitat impacted using the estimated
cost per acre for Desert Tortoise mitigation as a best
available proxy, at a 3:1 ratio; see Revised Biological
Resources Tables 5 and 7) for every acre of habitat
supporting the target special-status plant species which
is significantly impacted by the project. The actual costs
to comply with this condition will vary depending on the
actual costs of acquiring compensation habitat, the costs
of initially improving the habitat, and the actual costs of
long-term management as determined by a PAR or PAR-
like analysis. Prior to submitting the Security to the CPM,
97 Biological Resources
the Project owner shall obtain the CPM’s approval of the
form of the Security. The CPM may draw on the Security
if the CPM determines the Project owner has failed to
comply with the requirements specified in this condition.
The CPM may use money from the Security solely for
implementation of the requirements of this condition. The
CPM’s use of the Security to implement measures in this
condition may not fully satisfy the Project owner’s
obligations under this condition, and the Project owner
remains responsible for satisfying the obligations under
this condition if the Security is insufficient. The unused
Security shall be returned to the Project owner in whole
or in part upon successful completion of the associated
requirements in this condition.
h. The Project owner may elect to comply with the
requirements in this condition for acquisition of
compensation lands, initial protection and habitat
improvement on the compensation lands, or long-term
maintenance and management of the compensation
lands by funding, or any combination of these three
requirements, by providing funds to implement those
measures into the Renewable Energy Action Team
(REAT) Account established with the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). To use this option, the
Project owner must make an initial deposit to the REAT
Account in an amount equal to the estimated costs (as
set forth in the Security section of this condition) of
implementing the requirement. If the actual cost of the
acquisition, initial protection and habitat improvements, or
long-term funding is more than the estimated amount
initially paid by the Project owner, the Project owner shall
make an additional deposit into the REAT Account
sufficient to cover the actual acquisition costs, the actual
costs of initial protection and habitat improvement on the
compensation lands, and the long-term funding
requirements as established in an approved PAR or
PAR-like analysis. If those actual costs or PAR
projections are less than the amount initially transferred
by the applicant, the remaining balance shall be returned
to the Project owner.
i. The responsibility for acquisition of compensation lands
may be delegated to a third party other than NFWF, such
as a non-governmental organization supportive of desert
habitat conservation, by written agreement of the Energy
Commission. Such delegation shall be subject to
approval by the CPM, in consultation with CDFG, BLM
Biological Resources 98
and USFWS, prior to land acquisition, enhancement or
management activities. Agreements to delegate land
acquisition to an approved third party, or to manage
compensation lands, shall be executed and implemented
within 18 months of the Energy Commission’s
certification of the Project.
II. Compensatory Mitigation by Habitat Enhancement/Restoration: As an
alternative or adjunct to land acquisition for compensatory mitigation the
Project owner may undertake habitat enhancement or restoration for the
target special-status plant species. Habitat enhancement or restoration
activities must achieve protection at a 3:1 ratio as described above, with
improvements applied to three acres of habitat for every acre of special-
status plant habitat directly or indirectly disturbed by the Project Disturbance
Area for annual species; or to habitat supporting three living plants for each
individual perennial plant directly or indirectly disturbed by the project.
Examples of suitable enhancement projects include but are not limited to the
following: i) control unauthorized vehicle use into an occurrence (or
pedestrian use if clearly damaging to the species); ii) control noxious weeds
that infest or pose an immediate threat to an occurrence; iii) exclude grazing
by wild burros or livestock from an occurrence; or iv) restore lost or degraded
hydrologic or geomorphic functions critical to the species by restoring
previously diverted flows, removing obstructions to the wind sand transport
corridor above an occurrence, or increasing groundwater availability for
dependent species.
99 Biological Resources
enhancement, restoration and monitoring. The implementation and monitoring
of the enhancement/restoration may be undertaken by an appropriate third
party such as NFWF, subject to approval by the CPM. The Habitat
Enhancement/Restoration Plan shall include each of the following:
a. The project owner shall inventory all plants subject to BLM and
County policies on the project site that would be removed or
damaged by proposed project construction.
The Project owner shall submit a monitoring report every year for the life of the
project to monitor effectiveness of protection measures for all avoided special-
status plants to the CPM and BLM State Botanist. The monitoring report shall
include: dates of worker awareness training sessions and attendees, an inventory
of the special-status plant occurrences and description of the habitat conditions, an
indication of population and habitat quality trends, and description of the remedial
action, if warranted and planned for the upcoming year.
No less than 30 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities the Project
owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval, in consultation with the
BLM State Botanist, the name and resume of the project’s Designated Botanist. If
a Designated Botanist needs to be replaced, the specified information of the
proposed replacement must be submitted to BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the
CPM as soon as possible prior to the termination or release of the Designated
Biologist. In an emergency, the project owner shall immediately notify the BLM’s
Wildlife Biologist and the CPM to discuss the qualifications and approval of a
short-term replacement while a permanent Designated Botanist is proposed to
BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM and for consideration. The 30 day limit may
be reduced by the CPM.
The Project owner shall submit a monitoring report every year for the life of the
project to monitor effectiveness of protection measures for all avoided white-
margined beardtongue ESAs to the CPM and BLM State Botanist. The
monitoring report shall include: dates of worker awareness training sessions and
attendees, an inventory of the special-status plant occurrences and description of
the habitat conditions, an indication of population and habitat quality trends, and
description of the remedial action, if warranted and planned for the upcoming
year. The project owner shall coordinate with the CPM and BLM’s Wildlife
Biologist to revise and finalize monitoring reports and all reports described in this
section, and shall specifically report any difficulties in meeting the protection
goals and cooperatively develop adaptive measures as needed.
Section B. Raw GPS data, metadata, and CNDDB field forms shall be submitted
to the CPM within two weeks of the completion of each survey. A preliminary
summary of results for the late summer/fall botanical surveys shall also be
submitted to the CPM and BLM’s State Botanist within two weeks following the
completion of the surveys. If surveys are split into more than one period, then a
summary letter shall be submitted following each survey period. The Final
Summer-Fall Botanical Survey Report, GIS shape files and metadata shall be
submitted to the BLM State Botanist and the CPM no less than 30 days prior to
the start of ground-disturbing activities. The Final Report shall include a detailed
accounting of the acreage of Project impacts to special-status plant occurrences.
Section C. The Project owner shall immediately provide written notification to the
CPM, CDFG, USFWS, and BLM if it detects a State- or Federal-Listed Species,
or BLM Sensitive Species at any time during its late summer/fall botanical
surveys or at any time thereafter through the life of the Project, including
conclusion of Project decommissioning.
Prior to construction, the project owner shall provide written verification that seed
of any special status plants on the project site have collected and conveyed to a
facility (as described in this measure) and that suitable long-term funding has
been provided by the project owner. As needed, the project owner shall consult
with the CPM and BLM’s State Botanist to identify appropriate seed collection
sites and dates.
The Project owner or an approved third party shall complete the acquisition and
all required transfers of the compensation lands, and provide written verification
to the CPM of such completion no later than 18 months after the start of Project
ground-disturbing activities. If NFWF or another approved third party is being
used for the acquisition, the Project owner shall ensure that funds needed to
accomplish the acquisition are transferred in timely manner to facilitate the
planned acquisition and to ensure the land can be acquired and transferred prior
to the 18-month deadline. If habitat enhancement is proposed, no later than six
months following the start of ground-disturbing activities, the Project owner shall
obtain CPM approval of the final Habitat Enhancement/Restoration Plan,
prepared in accordance with Section D, and submit to the CPM or a third party
approved by the CPM Security adequate for long-term implementation and
monitoring of the Habitat Enhancement/Restoration Plan.
Section E. The project owner shall coordinate with the CPM and BLM’s Wildlife
Biologist to revise and finalize all plans and reports named in this section.
Verification and reporting shall be as described in BIO-10 and shall be included
in reports described therein. Within 90 days after completion of each year of
project construction, the project owner shall provide to the CPM verification of the
numbers or acreage of plants covered in this Condition (i.e., species named in
BLM and County policies) which have been removed or salvaged over the course
of the year. Annual revegetation reports described in BIO-10 verification shall
include summaries of salvage and planting operations and monitoring results.
Compliance reports shall include summaries of written and photographic records
of the plan implementation described above. Compliance reports shall be
submitted annually for a period not less than 5 years to document irrigation,
maintenance, and monitoring results, including plant survival.
The actual costs to comply with this condition will vary depending on
the final footprint of the Project, the actual costs of acquiring
compensation habitat, the costs of initially improving the habitat, and
the actual costs of long-term management as determined by a
Property Analysis Report (below). The 207.5 acre habitat requirement,
and associated funding requirements based on that acreage, shall be
adjusted up or down if there are changes in the final footprint of the
project or the associated costs of evaluation, acquisition, management,
and other factors listed in Revised Biological Resources Tables 5
In the event that the project owner defaults on the Security, the
CPM may use money from the Security solely for implementation of
3. The project owner may elect to comply with some or all of the
requirements in this condition by providing funds to implement the
requirements into the Renewable Energy Action Team (REAT)
Account established with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
5. The project owner may request the CPM to provide it with all
available information about any funds held by the Energy
Commission, CDFG, or NFWF as project security, or funds held in
a NFWF sub-account for this project, or other project-specific
account held by a third party. The CPM shall also fully cooperate
with any independent audit that the project owner may choose to
perform on any of these funds.
Verification: The project owner shall provide the CPM with written notice of
intent to start ground disturbance at least 30 days prior to the start of ground-
disturbing activities on the project site.
If the mitigation actions required under this condition are not completed at least
30 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, the Project owner shall
provide the CPM and CDFG with an approved Security in accordance with this
condition of certification no later than 30 days prior to beginning Project ground-
disturbing activities. Prior to submitting the Security to the CPM, the project
owner shall obtain the CPM’s approval, in consultation with CDFG, BLM and the
USFWS, of the form of the Security. The project owner, or an approved third
party, shall complete and provide written verification to the CPM, CDFG, BLM
No later than 12 months after the start of any phase of ground-disturbing project
activities, the project owner shall submit a formal acquisition proposal to the CPM
describing the parcels intended for purchase, and shall obtain approval from the
CPM, in consultation with CDFG, BLM and USFWS, prior to the acquisition. If
NFWF or another approved third party is handling the acquisition, the project
owner shall fully cooperate with the third party to ensure the proposal is
submitted within this time period. The project owner or an approved third party
shall complete the acquisition and all required transfers of the compensation
lands, and provide written verification to the CPM, CDFG, BLM and USFWS of
such completion, no later than 18 months after the issuance of the Energy
Commission Decision. If NFWF or another approved third party is being used for
the acquisition, the project owner shall ensure that funds needed to accomplish
the acquisition are transferred in timely manner to facilitate the planned
acquisition and to ensure the land can be acquired and transferred prior to the
18-month deadline,
The project owner shall complete and submit to the CPM a PAR or PAR-like
analysis no later than 60 days after the CPM approves compensation lands for
acquisition associated with any phase of construction. The project owner shall
fully fund the required amount for long-term maintenance and management of
the compensation lands for that phase of construction no later than 30 days after
the CPM approves a PAR or PAR-like analysis of the anticipated long-term
maintenance and management costs of the compensation lands. Written
verification shall be provided to the CPM and CDFG to confirm payment of the
long-term maintenance and management funds.
No later than 60 days after the CPM determines what activities are required to
provide for initial protection and habitat improvement on the compensation lands
for any phase of construction, the project owner shall make funding available for
those activities and provide written verification to the CPM of what funds are
available and how costs will be paid. Initial protection and habitat improvement
activities on the compensation lands for that phase of construction shall be
completed, and written verification provided to the CPM, no later than six months
after the CPM’s determination of what activities are required on the
compensation lands.
The project owner, or an approved third party, shall provide the CPM, CDFG,
BLM and USFWS with a management plan for the compensation lands
associated with any phase of construction within180 days of the land or
easement purchase, as determined by the date on the title. The CPM, in
consultation with CDFG, BLM and the USFWS, shall approve the management
plan after its content is acceptable to the CPM.
BIO-15 The project owner shall undertake appropriate measures to manage the
construction site and related facilities in a manner to avoid or minimize
impacts to desert tortoise. Methods for clearance surveys, fence
specification and installation, tortoise handling, artificial burrow
construction, egg handling and other procedures shall be consistent
with those described in the USFWS’ 2009 Desert Tortoise Field Manual
http://www.fws.gov/ventura/speciesinfo/protocols_guidelines or more
current guidance provided by CDFG and USFWS. The project owner
shall also implement all terms and conditions described in the Biological
Opinion for the Project prepared by USFWS. These measures include,
but are not limited to, the following:
The actual costs to comply with this condition will vary depending on
the final footprint of the Project, the costs of acquiring compensation
habitat, the costs of initially improving the habitat, and the actual costs
of long-term management as determined by a Property Analysis
Report or similar analysis (below). The 4,614 acre habitat requirement,
and associated funding requirements based on that acreage, shall be
adjusted up or down if there are changes in the final footprint of the
project or the associated costs of evaluation, acquisition, management,
and other factors listed in Biological Resources Addendum Tables 5
5. The project owner may request the CPM to provide it with all
available information about any funds held by the Energy
Commission, CDFG, or NFWF as project security, or funds held in
a NFWF sub-account for this project, or other project-specific
account held by a third party. The CPM shall also fully cooperate
with any independent audit that the project owner may choose to
perform on any of these funds.
Verification: The project owner shall provide the CPM with written notice of
intent to start ground disturbance at least 30 days prior to the start of ground-
disturbing activities on the project site.
If the mitigation actions required under this condition are not completed at least
30 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, the Project owner shall
provide verification to the CPM and CDFG that an approved Security has been
established in accordance with this condition of certification no later than 30 days
No later than 12 months after the start of any phase of ground-disturbing project
activities, the project owner shall submit a formal acquisition proposal to the CPM
describing the parcels intended for purchase, and shall obtain approval from the
CPM, in consultation with CDFG, BLM and USFWS, prior to the acquisition. If
NFWF or another approved third party is handling the acquisition, the project
owner shall fully cooperate with the third party to ensure the proposal is
submitted within this time period. The project owner or an approved third party
shall complete the acquisition and all required transfers of the compensation
lands, and provide written verification to the CPM, CDFG, BLM and USFWS of
such completion, no later than 18 months after the issuance of the Energy
Commission Decision. If NFWF or another approved third party is being used for
all or part of the acquisition, the project owner shall ensure that funds needed to
accomplish the acquisition are transferred in timely manner to facilitate the
planned acquisition and to ensure the land can be acquired and transferred prior
to the 18-month deadline.
The project owner shall complete and submit to the CPM a PAR or PAR-like
analysis no later than 60 days after the CPM approves compensation lands for
acquisition associated with any phase of construction. The project owner shall
fully fund the required amount for long-term maintenance and management of
the compensation lands for that phase of construction no later than 30 days after
the CPM approves a PAR or PAR-like analysis of the anticipated long-term
maintenance and management costs of the compensation lands. Written
verification shall be provided to the CPM and CDFG to confirm payment of the
long-term maintenance and management funds.
No later than 60 days after the CPM determines what activities are required to
provide for initial protection and habitat improvement on the compensation lands
for any phase of construction, the project owner shall make funding available for
those activities and provide written verification to the CPM of what funds are
available and how costs will be paid. Initial protection and habitat improvement
activities on the compensation lands for that phase of construction shall be
completed, and written verification provided to the CPM, no later than six months
after the CPM’s determination of what activities are required on the
compensation lands.
Within 90 days after completion of all project related ground disturbance, the
project owner shall provide to the CPM, CDFG, BLM and USFWS an analysis,
based on aerial photography, with the final accounting of the amount of habitat
disturbed during Project construction. If this analysis shows that more lands were
disturbed than was anticipated in this condition, the project owner shall provide
the Energy Commission with additional compensation lands and funding
commensurate with the added impacts and applicable mitigation ratios set forth
in this condition. A final analysis of all project related ground disturbance may not
result in a reduction of compensation requirements if the deadlines established
under this condition for transfer of compensation lands and funding have passed
prior to completion of the analysis.
Verification: No later than 30 days prior to the start of construction, the project
owner shall provide written verification to the CPM that NFWF has received and
accepted payment into the project’s sub-account of the REAT Account to support
the USFWS Regional Raven Management Program.
Within 30 days after completion of Project construction, the Project owner shall
provide to the CPM for review and approval, a written report identifying which
items of the Raven Plan have been completed, a summary of all modifications to
mitigation measures made during the Project’s construction phase, and which
items are still outstanding.
BIO-19 Pre-construction nest surveys shall be conducted each year during the
construction phase of the project if construction activities will occur
during the breeding period (from January 1 through August 1). The
Designated Biologist or Biological Monitor conducting the surveys shall
be experienced bird surveyors who have demonstrated experience
conducting nest searches; are knowledgeable of the nesting habitats of
species that may nest on the site; and are familiar with standard nest-
locating techniques such as those described in Martin and Guepel
(1993). Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the following
guidelines. Nothing in this condition requires the project owner to
conduct burrowing owl surveys by entering private lands adjacent to the
project site when the project owner has made reasonable attempts to
obtain permission to enter the property for survey work but was unable
to obtain such permission. In this situation only, the project owner may
substitute binocular surveys for protocol field surveys.
1. Surveys shall cover all potential nesting habitat in the project site
and within 500 feet of the boundaries of the plant site and linear
facilities;
3. If active nests are detected during the survey, a 500 foot no-
disturbance buffer zone shall be implemented and a monitoring
plan shall be developed. This protected area surrounding the nest
may be adjusted by the Designated Biologist in consultation with
CDFG, BLM, USFWS, and CPM. Nest locations shall be mapped
using GPS technology and the location data provided in completion
reports (below) to the CPM and BLM Wildlife Biologist; and
BIO-20 The Project owner shall implement the following measures to avoid or
minimize Project-related construction impacts to golden eagles.
If an occupied nest is detected within one mile of the Project boundary during the
inventory, the Project owner shall contact staff at the USFWS Ventura Office and
CDFG within one working day of detection of the nest for interim guidance on
monitoring and nest protection. The project owner shall provide the CPM, CDFG,
and USFWS with the final version of the Golden Eagle Monitoring and
Management Plan within 30 days after detection of the nest. This final Plan shall
have been reviewed and approved by the CPM in consultation with USFWS and
CDFG.
BIO-21 The Project owner shall implement the following measures to avoid,
minimize and offset impacts to burrowing owls. Nothing in this condition
requires the project owner to conduct burrowing owl surveys by
entering private lands adjacent to the project site when the project
owner has made reasonable attempts to obtain permission to enter the
property for survey work but was unable to obtain such permission. In
this situation only, the project owner may substitute binocular surveys
for protocol field surveys.
BIO-21 The Project owner shall implement the following measures to avoid,
minimize and offset impacts to burrowing owls. Nothing in this condition
requires the project owner to conduct burrowing owl surveys by entering
private lands adjacent to the project site when the project owner has
made reasonable attempts to obtain permission to enter the property for
survey work but was unable to obtain such permission. In this situation
only, the project owner may substitute binocular surveys for protocol
field surveys:
1. Pre-Construction Surveys. The Designated Biologist or
Biological Monitor shall conduct pre-construction surveys for
burrowing owls no more than 30 days prior to initiation of
construction activities. Surveys shall be focused exclusively on
detecting burrowing owls, and shall be conducted from two
hours before sunset to one hour after or from one hour before to
two hours after sunrise. The survey area shall include the
Project Disturbance Area and surrounding 500 foot survey
buffer.
f. On January 31st of each year following construction for a period of five years,
the Designated Biologist shall provide a report to the CPM, USFWS, BLM and
CDFG that describes the results of monitoring and management of the
burrowing owl relocation area. The annual report shall provide an assessment
of the status of the relocation area with respect to burrow function and weed
infestation, and shall include recommendations for actions the following year
for maintaining the burrows as functional burrowing owl nesting sites and
minimizing the occurrence of weeds.
BIO-22 The project owner shall prepare and implement an Avian and Bat
The Avian and Bat Protection Plan shall include a Bird Monitoring Study
to monitor the death and injury of birds and bats from collisions with
facility features such as reflective mirror-like surfaces and from heat,
and bright light from concentrating sunlight. The study design shall be
approved by BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM in consultation with
CDFG and USFWS, and shall be incorporated into the project’s
BRMIMP and implemented. The Bird Monitoring Study shall be based
upon prior studies by McCrary et al. (1986) or other applicable literature
including the Region 8 Interim Guidelines for the Development of a
Project-Specific Avian and Bat Protection Plan for Solar Energy Plants
and Related Transmission Facilities (USFWS 2010), and shall include
detailed specifications on data and carcass collection protocol and a
rationale justifying the proposed schedule of carcass searches. The
study shall also include seasonal trials to assess bias from carcass
removal by scavengers as well as searcher bias and proposed
disposition of dead or injured birds.
Verification: No more than 30 days following the publication of the Energy
Commission License Decision or BLM’s Record of Decision/ROW Issuance,
whichever comes first, the project owner shall submit to the CPM, BLM’s Wildlife
Biologist, USFWS and CDFG a final Avian Protection Plan. Modifications to the
Avian Protection Plan shall be made only after approval from BLM’s Wildlife
Biologist and the CPM.
For one year following the beginning of power plant operation, the Designated
Biologist shall submit quarterly reports to BLM’s Wildlife Biologist , CPM, CDFG,
and USFWS describing the methods, dates, durations, and results of monitoring.
The quarterly reports shall provide a detailed description of any project-related
bird or wildlife deaths or injuries detected during the monitoring study or at any
other time. Following the completion of the fourth quarter of monitoring the
Designated Biologist shall prepare an Annual Report that summarizes the year’s
BIO-24 Prior to ground disturbance the project owner shall conduct pre-
construction surveys for American badgers and desert kit fox. These
surveys may be conducted concurrent with the desert tortoise surveys.
Surveys shall be conducted as described below:
BIO-25 The project owner shall conduct a survey for roosting bats prior to any
ground disturbance activities in all areas within 200 feet of rocky
outcrops or the existing BNSF railroad trestles. The project owner shall
BIO-26 The project owner shall implement the following measures to avoid,
minimize and mitigate for direct and indirect impacts to jurisdictional
waters of the State and to satisfy requirements of California Fish and
Game Code sections 1600 and 1607. Throughout this condition,
“jurisdictional” refers to streambeds or acreages of streambed meeting
CDFG criteria as waters of the State.
BIO-27 The project owner shall install netting over the evaporation ponds and
design and implement an Evaporation Pond Design, Monitoring, and
Management Plan (Evaporation Pond Plan) to be based upon the draft
Evaporation Pond Plan submitted by the applicant. The Plan shall meet
the approval of the USFWS, CDFG, BLM’s Wildlife Biologist, and the
CPM. The goal of the Evaporation Pond Plan shall be to avoid the
potential for wildlife mortality associated with the evaporation ponds.
The Evaporation Pond Plan shall include: a discussion of the objectives
of the Evaporation Pond Plan; a description of project design features
such as side slope specifications, freeboard and depth requirements,
covering, and fencing; a discussion on the placement of the evaporation
pond as to reduce the potential of collision or electrocution of wildlife
near the transmission line; avian, pond, and water quality monitoring for
selenium and other Title 20 compounds, management actions such as
bird deterrence/hazing and water level management, triggers for those
management actions; and annual reporting requirements.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to start of any project-related ground
disturbance activities, the project owner shall provide the CPM, BLM’s Wildlife
Biologist, USFWS, and CDFG with the final version of the Evaporation Pond Plan
that has been reviewed and approved by USFWS, CDFG, and staff. The CPM
and BLM’s Wildlife Biologist would determine the plan’s acceptability within 15
days of receipt of the final plan. All modifications to the approved Evaporation
Pond Plan must be made only after consultation the staff, USFWS, and CDFG.
The project owner shall notify the CPM and BLM’s Wildlife Biologist no less than
5 working days before implementing any BLM- and CPM-approved modifications
to the Evaporation Pond Plan.
BIO-28 Upon project closure, the project owner shall implement a final
Decommissioning and Reclamation Plan to remove the engineered
diversion channels, detention basins, and other sediment control
features from the project site. The goal of the plan shall be to restore
the site’s topography and hydrology to a relatively natural condition and
to establish native plant communities within the Project Disturbance
Area. The Channel Decommissioning and Reclamation Plan shall
include a cost estimate for implementing the proposed
decommissioning and reclamation activities. The plan and cost estimate
shall be consistent with the guidelines in BLM’s 43 CFR 3809.550 et
seq., subject to review and revisions from BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and
the CPM in consultation with USFWS and CDFG.
Verification: No less than 90 days from publication of the Energy Commission
Decision or the Record of Decision, whichever comes first, the project owner
shall provide to BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and the CPM an agency-approved final
Channel Decommissioning and Reclamation Plan. Modifications to the approved
Channel Decommissioning Plan shall be made only after approval from BLM’s
Wildlife Biologist and the CPM, in consultation with USFWS, and CDFG.
BIO-29 The project owner shall implement and incorporate into the facility
closure plan measures to address the local biological resources related
to facility closure. A funding mechanism shall be developed in
consultation with staff to ensure sufficient funds are available for
revegetation, reclamation, and decommissioning. The facility closure
plan shall address biological resources-related mitigation measures. In
addition to these measures, the plan must include the following:
Upon facility closure, the project owner shall implement measures in the
Biological Resources Element and provide written status updates on all closure
activities to the CPM and BLM Wildlife Biologist at a frequency determined by the
CPM and BLM Wildlife Biologist.
Only the phases identified as Phase 1a, Phase 1b, and Phase 2, as
described in this condition, in text and maps provided on September
10, 2010 by the Project Owner (tn: 58411, Applicant’s submittal of
Updated Reduced Project Boundary Scenarios 5.5 or Figures 17 and
18 [Scenario 5.5]) may be used for the phasing of mitigation and
security requirements. To the extent those sources are found to
contain conflicting information about Project phasing, the description in
this condition shall control. In particular, the Project Owner has divided
the project’s Phase 1 activities into two separate sub-phases, identified
as Phase 1a and Phase 1b, since the Supplemental Staff Assessment
was prepared. This condition presumes that the phases identified in
this condition are identical to the phases that the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) will authorize work on through issuance of “notices
to proceed”; if phases used by BLM are not identical to the phases as
described in this condition and the materials identified above, the
Project Owner shall obtain separate written authorization from the
CPM prior to beginning work on each of the three phases.
General Requirements
Even when security has been provided, the Project Owner shall
complete the acquisition, protection and transfer of all compensation
lands required in the Conditions of Certification listed above, as well as
all funding requirements associated with those lands, within the time
periods identified in those Conditions of Certification, except that the
Phase 1a
Phase 1b
Phase 2
BIO-31 Table 2.
Phase 2 Impacts and Compensation Acreage.
If all mitigation requirements, including habitat acquisition and protection, are not
completed for a Project phase at least 30 days prior to the start of ground-
disturbing activities for that phase, the Project Owner shall provide verification to
the CPM and CDFG that approved security (as described in Conditions of
Certification BIO-12 (Special-Status Plant Impact and Avoidance and
Minimization), BIO-13 (Mojave Fringe-Toed Lizard Mitigation), BIO-16 (Desert
Tortoise Translocation Plan), BIO-17 (Desert Tortoise Compensatory Mitigation),
BIO-21 (Burrowing Owl Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures), and BIO-
26 (Streambed Impact Minimization and Compensation Measures)) has been
established in accordance with these Conditions of Certification no later than 30
days prior to beginning ground-disturbing activities for each Phase. Prior to
submitting verification regarding the security to the CPM, the project owner shall
obtain the CPM’s approval of the security as required by the other Conditions
For Phase 1b, the Project Owner shall obtain the CPM’s approval of security and
shall provide verification that approved security has been established by
September 1, 2011 or 30 days prior to the start of Phase 1b construction,
whichever occurs first. The fixed deadline for Phase 1b security is necessary
because under terms of this Condition, compensation lands and associated
funding for both Phase 1a and Phase 1b will be due in the first half of 2012,
assuming Phase 1a construction begins as planned in late 2010, and security
must be in place well in advance of the mitigation obligations that are being
guaranteed.
The Project Owner shall provide written verification to the CPM, CDFG, BLM and
USFWS of the compensation lands acquisition, protection, and transfer
requirements and satisfaction of associated funding requirements as set forth in
BIO-17 and other conditions within the following time frames: (1) For Phase 1a
and Phase 1b mitigation, verification shall be provided no later than18 months
after the start of construction of Phase 1a, and (2) for Phase 2 mitigation, such
Within 90 days after completion of all project related ground disturbance for each
project phase or sub phase, the project owner shall provide to the CPM, CDFG,
BLM and USFWS an analysis, based on aerial photography, with the final
accounting of the amount of habitat disturbed during Project construction.
This section focuses on the soil and water resources associated with the Calico
Solar Project (Calico) as proposed by the Applicant in their reduced acreage
Scenario 5.5 on September 10, 2010, including the project’s potential to induce
erosion and sedimentation, adversely affect water supplies, and degrade water
quality. Mitigation measures are included in the Conditions of Certification to
ensure that the project will have no significant impacts on the environment and
that it will comply with all LORS.
//
//
The project site lies within the Lavic Valley Groundwater Basin. The basin is
approximately 159 square miles in area and is bounded by nonwater-bearing
rocks of the Cady Mountains on the north and east, the Bullion Mountains on the
south and east, the Lava Bed Mountains on the southwest, and the Pisgah fault
on the west. Parts of the eastern and northern boundaries are drainage divides.
The southern part of this basin lies within the Twentynine Palms Marine Corps
Base. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-11.)
In the northern part of the basin, which includes the project site, surface drainage
is westward toward the Mojave River. In the southern part of the basin, surface
drainage is toward Lavic (dry) Lake. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-11.)
The evidence indicates that groundwater flow at the project site appears to be to
the southeast, but not toward Lavic (dry) Lake which is a surface water playa
Water from a well in the southern part of the basin near Lavic Lake sampled in
1917 was sodium sulfate in character with total dissolved solids (TDS) content of
1,680 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Water from a well in the northeastern part of
the basin sampled in the 1950s was sodium sulfate in character with a TDS
content of 1,721mg/L. Water from a well in the northwestern part of the basin
near Hector Siding sampled in the 1950s was calcium-sodium bicarbonate in
character with a TDS content of 278 mg/L. The Applicant proposes to use
groundwater for project construction and operation obtained from Well #3, a new
community well located on private property adjacent to the project site which has
been deeded to the Applicant as of September 2010. Well #3 was originally
drilled in March 2010 and analytical test results conducted on water samples
collected from the well indicate groundwater contains 1,340 mg/L total dissolved
solids. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-12; Ex. 114 , Attachment A 4.)
1. Storm Water
The project site is in the southwest portion of the Mojave Desert, which is
characterized by broad alluvial fans and fluvial terraces, playas, and scattered
mountains. There are no perennial streams within the project site or in the area.
The site drains towards Troy (dry) Lake in the Mojave Valley, five miles west of
the site. The proposed site occupies a broad alluvial fan/plain with relatively little
topographic variation. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-12.)
The overall landform is relatively flat with shallow slopes trending from the north
to south and in some areas to the southwest. The ground generally slopes in a
northeast-to-southwest direction, ranging from two percent to five percent across
In general, drainage in Phase 1 (including 1A & 1B) of the project area flows
southwest from the Cady Mountains. However, along the southern boundary of
Phase 1, some flows are diverted by the railroad and flow straight west (see Soil
and Water Figure 2 through Soil and Water Figure 3 with the original project
footprint overlay). As shown, there is an offsite watershed area of nearly 20
square miles which drains either directly to the Phase 1 project site or drains to
the railroad tracks and is partially diverted into the Phase 1 site. The Phase 1
site is nearly 10 square miles, so the total watershed area for Phase 1 is
approximately 30 square miles. Several blue line streams pass through the
Phase 1 project area and all drain to the railroad at the southern boundary of the
Phase 1 site. The runoff from the Phase 1 site flows through the existing trestles
at the railroad. A 100-year flood will generally be conveyed along the railroad
and through the trestles along the railroad right-of-way. This right-of-way is
excavated and maintained by the BNSF Railroad Company to allow the water to
pond and flow at low velocities. The right of way is delineated along the north
line with a barbed wire fence. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-13.)
//
//
The offsite watershed impacting the Phase 1 site emanates from the Cady
Mountains which flank the northeast side of the project area. Washes are often
well incised near the base of the mountains. However, these same washes
transition into sheet flow and shallow concentrated flow areas which do not have
a well incised channel or a series of small channels which are braided, each of
which may carry a fraction of the total flow. Sheet flow areas appear to be more
Flows that traverse the site emanate from the Cady Mountains watershed, drain
through the trestles on the railroad and then continue west through the Phase 2
site. Upstream of the railroad trestles, the railroad embankment has diverted and
channelized much of the flow creating numerous ponding areas. The trestles
and ponding areas attenuate the peak flow and allow most of the sediment to
drop out on the upstream (north or east) side of the railroad embankment.
Additional drainage flows south from the Cady Mountains, west of the Phase 1
property limits, is diverted at the railroad tracks and then flows south in the Phase
2 area. In addition to the Cady Mountain watershed, a second watershed is
located south of the freeway and includes the Pisgah Crater and lava flow area.
Runoff from this watershed generally flows either north or west. It reaches I-40
and then continues north through numerous culverts and bridges into the Phase
2 project area. After flowing through the culverts at the highway, the runoff
commingles with the flow from the Cady Mountains and then flows west to the
outfall. As with the Cady Mountain watershed, the Pisgah watershed runoff is
diverted by the I-40 road embankment and associated dikes and berms and is
routed through culverts. Ponding occurs at these culvert locations and this
reduces the peak flow and sediment loads which pass through the culverts. (Ex.
300, p. C.7-14.)
Storm water flows on the project site are considered “waters of the State” by the
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and are subject to regulation
under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. As such, manipulation of
the “waters” (i.e., area of flow) on the site and installation of project facilities
within those areas would constitute “discharge of waste” subject to Waste
Discharge Requirements (Ex. 300, pp. C.7-89 – C.7-121, (Soil and Water
Appendices B, C and D). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined
that no “waters of the U.S.” exist on the project so no federal wetland permitting
is required. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-14.)
Potable Water
The Applicant proposes to use treated groundwater for potable needs. The
groundwater will first be demineralized, then stored in a designated storage
facility equipped with chemical dosage for disinfection. This treated potable
water will be available at the Main Services Complex. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-17.)
Construction Water
Water demands during construction of the project will be relatively light for a
project of this size. Site construction will be accomplished in primarily two
phases, Phase 1 (including both 1A & 1B) and Phase 2. Phase 1 construction will
require less than 92,107,331 gallons or approximately 282.67 AF. Phase 2 will
require less than 103,421,405 gallons or approximately 317.39 AF. The
Applicant estimates that during the 60 months of project construction, the water
demand for combined construction and dust suppression will be less than 600
AF. During construction, water use is expected to vary from approximately 3.108
million gallons (9.54 AF) per month (at the 18th month), to 4.046 million gallons
(12.42 AF) per month (after the 34th month). (Ex. 300, pp. C.7-17 to C.7-18. Ex.
Operations Water
Water use during electricity generation will be minimal due to the technology
proposed for the Calico Project (Stirling engines). The raw site groundwater will
require treatment to remove dissolved solids for SunCatcher mirror wash water
applications and additional treatment to meet drinking water quality standards.
Water treatment processes identified by the Applicant for demineralization are
Reverse Osmosis (RO) and ion exchange. Potable water consumption,
groundwater treatment, and SunCatcher mirror washing under average monthly
maintenance routines will require less than 15.6 gpm of water per day. A
maximum requirement of less than 41 gpm of water per day will be needed
during the months when each SunCatcher receives a scrub wash. (Ex. 300, p.
C.7-19. Ex. 317 p. C.7-10.) Condition SOIL&WATER-4 limits operational water
use to 21 AFY.
Water consumption during operation will be limited to mirror washing (10.3 AFY),
water treatment (5.2 AFY), potable use (2.2 AFY), and dust control (2.5 AFY).
Additionally, water will be used to generate hydrogen used in the SunCatcher
engines. The record indicates that for Scenario 5.5, less than 205 gallons per
day (0.23 AFY) of water will be required to produce a sufficient volume of
hydrogen for power plant use. The evidence shows that the total maximum
annual consumptive use of groundwater for operation of the reduced acreage
power plant will be less than 20.4 AFY. (Ex. 300, pp. C.7-17 to C.7-18. Ex. 317
pp. C.7-10 to C.7-11.)
a. Wastewater
Sanitary Wastewater
Initially, control of sanitary waste will be accomplished using portable chemical
toilets. No public or private entities manage sanitary wastewater in the vicinity of
the project site. Therefore, construction of a permanent onsite wastewater
disposal system consisting of a septic tank and leach field will be completed to
handle sanitary wastewater. According to the evidence, a facility of this type will
be designed to meet the requirements of the Lahontan RWQCB and the San
Bernardino County Public Health Department, and will meet operation and
maintenance guidelines required by the California Department of Public Health.
(Ex. 300, pp. C.7-20 to C.7-21.) SOIL&WATER-5 requires compliance with the
Construction Wastewater
Sources of wastewater will include equipment wash water and piping and vessel
hydrostatic test water. Improper handling or containment of construction
wastewater could cause a broad dispersion of contaminants to soil or
groundwater. Discharge of any non-hazardous construction-generated
wastewater will require compliance with discharge regulations. Equipment wash
water would be transported to an appropriate treatment facility. Hydrostatic test
water will be reused to the extent possible and, pending analytical results of the
water, will be discharged to land or trucked offsite to an appropriate treatment
and disposal facility. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-21.) SOIL&WATER-2 requires compliance
with Waste Discharge Requirements for any waste or storm water discharge by
the project. In addition, SOIL&WATER-10 will require the preparation and
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to protect
storm water from accidental releases of wastes or other pollutants.
Process Wastewater
Extracted groundwater will require treatment to remove dissolved solids for
SunCatcher mirror wash water applications and additional treatment will be
required to meet current drinking water quality standards. The water will be
demineralized to prevent mineral deposits forming on the SunCatcher mirrors.
Treatment processes proposed to remove TDS include reverse osmosis (RO)
and ion exchange. The wastewater generated by the RO unit will contain
relatively high concentrations of TDS. The Applicant proposes to discharge the
high TDS wastewater into two double-lined evaporation ponds. The wastewater
discharge is expected to be classified as a “designated waste” and will comply
with the requirements for Class II surface impoundments set forth in California
Water Code section 13173. Each pond will be designed to contain one-year of
discharge flow, estimated to total three million gallons. Discharge to the ponds
will alternate on an annual basis, allowing one pond to undergo evaporation while
the other receives the effluent. Treating the groundwater using demineralization
equipment to attain a concentration suitable for mirror washing will create a
waste water stream that will contain four to five times as much TDS as the
source water, or approximately 5,500-7,000 mg/L. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-2.1.)
SOIL&WATER-2 requires the project owner to comply with the Waste Discharge
Requirements regarding the design, construction and operation of the
Groundwater use will primarily be for dust suppression, hydrostatic testing of the
project’s pressure vessels, moisture conditioning compacted soil and mixing
concrete. Potential impacts to soils related to increased erosion or release of
hazardous materials are possible during construction. Potential storm water
impacts could result in an increase in flooding and sedimentation downstream if
there is an increase in runoff flow rates and volume discharges from the site.
Water quality could be impacted by discharge of hazardous materials released
during construction. Project water demand could decrease the quantity of
groundwater available. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-22.)
These construction activities can impact soil resources including increased wind
and water-related soil erosion, soil compaction, loss of soil productivity, and
disturbance of soils crucial for supporting vegetation and ephemeral water
dependant habitats. Activities that expose and disturb the soil leave soil particles
vulnerable to detachment by wind and water. Soil erosion results in the loss of
topsoil and increased sediment deposition downstream. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-24.)
The evidence analyzed the potential impacts to soil resources, including the
effects of construction activities that could result in erosion and downstream
transportation of soils and the potential contamination of soils and groundwater.
There are extensive regulatory programs in effect that are designed to prevent or
minimize these types of impacts. These programs are effective, and absent
unusual circumstances, an Applicant’s ability to identify and implement program-
approved Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion or
contamination is sufficient to ensure that these impacts will be less than
significant. In addition, soils will be protected by the development and
implementation of grading plans and a Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan (DESCP). The DESCP provides the plan for the use of BMPs to
mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts caused by site grading and other
construction activities. (Ex. 300, pp. C.7-24 to C.7-25.)
Due to the project’s large scale, numerous physical variables exist that could
affect the soil resources within the site boundaries. These variables are
associated with various site conditions (erodibility) and potential environmental
considerations (precipitation). In order to address possible outcomes given the
various site conditions and possible environmental factors, the record contains
mathematical calculations and probabilistic modeling to estimate anticipated
potential impacts. While modeling and calculations can be used in an attempt to
estimate future effects from a variety of environmental considerations, and they
provide a basis for structural design parameters, these methods are based on
assumptions and projections that are imprecise and untested in this environment.
Should these assumptions and calculations be inaccurate, the consequences of
flash flood damage or modified sedimentation and erosion rates could be
significant. (Ex. 300, pp. C.7-27 to C.7-28.)
Water used for construction of the Calico Solar Project will have a less than
significant impact on the groundwater balance and the availability of groundwater
to other basin users. The average annual water use during construction (150
AFY) is 38-75 percent of the estimated recharge to the Lavic Valley Basin (200 to
400 AFY), and average water use over the life of the project (31 AFY) is only six
to 13 percent of the estimated recharge. The record shows that no other local
users are known to rely on that recharge. The water use is less than one percent
of the yield of the Lavic-Broadwell-Bristol Lake groundwater system, given the
range of estimates of yield for the Bristol Lake Basin (5,000 AFY). (Ex. 300, p.
C.7-31; Ex. 317, p. C.7-8 and C.7-10.) Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-4
limits water use to less than 145 AFY during construction and less than 21 AFY
during operation and requires annual reporting of actual use to the Energy
Commission. In addition, Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-7 requires
continual groundwater monitoring and reporting by the Applicant.
The record further shows that project pumping will not affect groundwater levels
or flow at that location so any impact to groundwater salinity, if any, is therefore
less than significant. We find that construction impacts to groundwater levels will
be mitigated below significance.
Sources of waste water would also include equipment wash water and piping and
vessel hydrostatic test water. Equipment wash water will be transported to an
appropriate treatment facility. Hydrostatic test water will be reused to the extent
possible and, pending analytical results of the water, will be discharged to land or
trucked offsite to an appropriate treatment and disposal facility in accordance
with the SWRCB Water Quality Order No. 2003-003-DWQ as a discharge to land
with a low threat to groundwater and the requirements identified in Soil and
Water Appendices B, C, D and E that are referenced in Condition of
Certification SOIL&WATER-2. Compliance with these requirements will reduce
the potential impacts from release of wastewater to less than significant levels.
(Ex. 300, p. C.7-36.)
The record analyzed impacts from the operation of the Calico Solar Project that
could lead to accelerated soil erosion, increased storm water runoff, as well as
potential water quality and water supply impacts. Soils may be potentially
impacted through wind and water-related erosion or the release of hazardous
materials used in the operation of the proposed project. Storm water runoff from
the project could result in potential impacts if increased runoff flow rates and
volumes discharged from the project increase erosion of the soil and increase
downstream flooding. Water quality could be impacted by discharge of eroded
sediments from the project or discharge of hazardous materials released during
operation. Water supply used for dust suppression, SunCatcher mirror washing,
and fire protection could lead to potential quantity or quality impacts to
groundwater resources. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-36.)
Storm water flow volume and velocity is affected by several parameters, such as
surface infiltration rates and the roughness of the flow surface. Construction,
operation, and decommissioning of the proposed project may modify the
infiltration rate through several processes, including earthmoving, compaction,
and use of dust suppressants. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-37.)
Water quality could also be impacted if the storm water drainage pattern
concentrates runoff in areas that are not properly designed or protected with
BMPs or causes increased erosion and sediment discharge offsite. Project
components that could alter or concentrate existing drainage patterns could
include the installation of linear fences, access roads, buildings, SunCatchers,
and associated infrastructure. (Ex. 300, pp. C.7-37 to C.7-38.)
With concentrated flows, scour may transport sediment long distances. Scour
may occur under sheet flow conditions due to water depths, velocities, and soil
parameters. Scour of existing or future channelized flow paths can meander and
move during large flow events, which is common on alluvial fans. The proposed
reduced acreage Scenario 5.5 includes a total of 26,540SunCatchers supported
by a single metal fin-pipe foundation hydraulically driven into the ground.
Migration of channels and local scour caused by storm water flows could remove
sediment supporting individual poles and cause them to fall to the ground. Once
on the ground during a storm event, the broken glass associated with the mirrors
The record establishes that the effects of wind and water-related erosion and
storm water flow onto and off the proposed project will be mitigated through
implementation of Conditions of Certification SOIL&WATER-1, -2, -3, -8 and -11.
SOIL&WATER-1 requires the project Applicant to develop a DESCP to ensure
protection of water quality and soil resources. SOIL&WATER-2 requires the
Applicant to develop an Industrial SWPPP that meets the requirements for
discharges of storm water. Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-3 requires
the Applicant to develop a Storm Water Damage Monitoring and Response Plan
to monitor the SunCatchers and mitigate potential impacts from SunCatchers
damaged during storm events. SOIL&WATER 11 requires the Applicant to
comply with the RWQCB requirements for operational stormwater protection. All
of these plans and designs will be based on the results of analyses required by
Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-8 and maintained over the life of the
project. We find that Conditions of Certification SOIL&WATER-1, -2, -3, -8 and
11 mitigate these potential stormwater flow impacts below significance. (Ex. 300,
p. C.7-39; Ex. 317 p. C.7-12 through C.7.15.)
Although there are no known existing groundwater users near enough to the
project site to be substantially affected by project pumping, hydrogeologic
conditions are uncertain. The evidence shows that the Pisgah Fault likely
prevents drawdown from extending into the Lower Mojave River Basin and any
overdraft effects in the Lower Mojave River Basin from extending into the Lavic
Lake Basin. To confirm these findings, Condition of Certification
SOIL&WATER-7 will require the Applicant to comply with the County of San
Bernardino’s Desert Groundwater Management Ordinance and implement a
monitoring plan that would characterize baseline water levels in the project
vicinity, characterize aquifer materials, integrate water level measurement with
any existing monitoring network, and provide for analysis of the project effects on
water levels in the area. The Applicant will monitor static water levels quarterly in
the project water supply well and select dedicated wells located on either side of
the Pisgah Fault. The data will be made available to San Bernardino County and
agencies responsible for regional water level monitoring (i.e., DWR and USGS).
If monitoring data indicate downward trends in water levels and groundwater
water storage, Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-9 requires the project
owner develop and implement a Water Conservation and Alternative Water
Supply Plan to mitigate impacts. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-40.)
Project operation will produce three wastewater streams that are potential
sources of groundwater contamination: reject brine from the RO/demineralization
The Applicant proposes to discharge the waste water to one of two concrete-
lined evaporation ponds. Each pond will be sized to contain one year of
discharge flow or approximately three million gallons. A minimum of one year is
expected to be required for the waste water to undergo the evaporation process.
After the first year, the second pond will receive all treatment waste water while
the first pond is undergoing evaporation. The two ponds will alternate their
functions on an annual basis. After the brine has gone through the evaporation
process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond will be tested
by the Applicant and disposed of in an appropriate non-hazardous waste
disposal facility. The solids will be scheduled for removal during the dry summer
months. As indicated by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
(see Soil and Water Appendices B, C, D and E), the Applicant has not provided
information necessary to complete development of requirements for discharges
of brine waters to evaporation ponds or sanitary septic systems. This information
is needed to ensure that the ponds will be designed, constructed and operated to
prevent concentrated brine leaking and reaching the water table. However, the
requirements for the design, construction and operation of evaporation pond as
well as the restrictions on the waste water are very specific. The use of these
types of surface disposal facilities is well documented and is prevalent in power
plant siting cases. Impacts associated with the construction and operation of
A project may result in a significant adverse cumulative impact where its effects
are cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects (California Code Regulation, Title 14,
section 15130). NEPA states that cumulative effects could result from
individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of
Construction and operation of the Calico Solar Project will result in both
temporary and permanent changes to the soil and storm water drainage patterns
at the project site. Without the use of BMPs determined by the results of
analyses required by Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-8 that would be
incorporated into a final DESCP and construction SWPPP, these changes could
incrementally increase local soil erosion and storm water runoff. However, as
discussed above, these potential impacts would be prevented or reduced to a
level of less than significant through the implementation of BMPs, a final DESCP,
and construction SWPPP, and compliance with all applicable erosion and storm
water management LORS. Similarly, compliance with these LORS and
The record indicates that wet-cooling of parabolic trough solar power plants
requires an average of 930 gallons of water per megawatt-hour of electricity
generated. A wet-cooled parabolic trough plant the size of the Calico Solar
Project (850 MW) operating 2,500 hours per year would consume 6,000 AFY of
water, or 300 times more than the Calico Solar Project. Dry-cooled parabolic
trough plants typically consume 80 gallons per megawatt-hour of energy
produced, which is still 30 times larger than water use for the Calico Solar
Project. From the standpoint of efficient use of scarce water resources, the
incremental impact of the Calico Solar Project groundwater use is minute
compared to the potential impact of any wet-cooled projects. (Ex. 300, p. C.7-
61.)
If all four of the other solar projects are as water-efficient as the Calico Solar
Project, their combined consumptive use of groundwater (approximately 100 AFY
The proposed project would satisfy the requirements of the RWQCB with the
adoption of the following Conditions of Certification:
1) Development of the DESCP in accordance with SOIL&WATER-1;
2) Development of a Storm Water Damage Monitoring and Response Plan in
accordance with SOIL&WATER-3,
3) Compliance with wastewater discharge requirements in accordance with
SOIL&WATER-2 and as specified in Soil & Water Appendix B, C, and D. In
addition, the Applicant would be required to comply with California
Department of Fish and Game’s Streambed Alteration Agreement
requirements in accordance with Condition of Certification BIO-27.
California Constitution
California’s interest in conserving water is so important to our thirsty state that in
1928, the common law doctrine of reasonable use became part of the state
Constitution. Article X, Section 2 calls for water to be put to beneficial use, and
that “waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use be prevented.”
(Cal. Const., art. X, § 2; emphasis added.) The article also limits water rights to
reasonable use, including reasonable methods of use. (Ibid.) Even earlier in the
20th Century, a state Supreme Court case firmly established that groundwater is
subject to reasonable use. (Katz v. Walkinshaw (1903) 141 Cal. 116.) Thus, as
modern technology has made dry-cooling of power plants feasible, the
Warren-Alquist Act
Section 25008 of the Commission’s enabling statutes echoes the Constitutional
concern, by promoting “all feasible means” of water conservation and “all feasible
uses” of alternative water supply sources. (Pub. Res. Code § 25008.)
The Report also notes California’s exploding population, estimated to reach more
than 47 million by 2020, a population that will continue to use “increasing
quantities of fresh water at rates that cannot be sustained.” (IEPR, p. 39.)
In 1988, the Board determined that water with TDS concentrations of 3,000 mg/L
or less should be protected for and considered as potential supplies for municipal
or domestic use unless otherwise designated by one of the Regional Water
Quality Control Boards (Resolution 88-63.)
8. Public Comment
No public comment was received regarding the Calico Project effect on soil and
water resources.
3. The newly constructed Well #3 adjacent to the project site will provide all
water needs for the project.
4. Phase 1 construction will require less than 92,107,331 gallons or less than
282.67 AF.
5. Phase 2 will require less than 103,421,405 gallons or less than 317.39 AF.
12. The BMPs identified in the record and required by the Conditions of
Certification will avoid significant soil erosion and subsequent
sedimentation during construction.
16. Water used for construction and operation of the Calico Solar Project will
have a less than significant impact on the groundwater balance and the
availability of groundwater to other basin users.
17. Calico Solar Project pumping will not affect groundwater levels or flow so
any impact to groundwater salinity, if any, is therefore less than significant.
18. Potential on-site impacts from the risk of a leak or spill of hazardous
materials contaminating groundwater are less than significant due to
physical and administrative controls over the storage and use of these
materials imposed by measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5.
25. Calico Solar Project will annually alternate discharging waste water into
one of two concrete-lined evaporation ponds sized to contain one year of
discharge flow or approximately three million gallons.
27. The Calico Solar Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to soil and
water resources will not be cumulatively considerable.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
SOIL&WATER-6 The Project owner shall identify likely decommissioning
scenarios and develop specific decommissioning plans for each
scenario that will identify actions to be taken to avoid or mitigate long-
term impacts related to water and wind erosion after decommissioning.
Actions may include such measures as a decommissioning SWPPP,
revegetation and restoration of disturbed areas, post-decommissioning
maintenance, collection and disposal of project materials and
chemicals, and access restrictions.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of site mobilization, the project
owner shall submit decommissioning plans to BNSF for review and the CPM for
review and approval prior to site mobilization. The project owner shall amend
these documents as necessary, with approval from the CPM, should the
decommissioning scenario change in the future.
HYDROLOGY STUDY
The potential for impacts to cultural resources depends upon whether such
resources are present and whether they would actually be encountered during
project development and construction activities. Cultural resource materials such
as artifacts, structures, or land modifications reflect the history of human
development. Certain places that are important to Native Americans or local
national/ethnic groups are also considered valuable cultural resources. Analysis
in this topic area pertains to the structural and cultural evidence of human
development in the project vicinity, as well as appropriate mitigation measures
should cultural resources be disturbed by project excavation and construction.
Potential impacts to these resources from the proposed project may include, but
are not limited to, destruction of resources, alteration of a historical feature and
diminishment of the significance of a cultural resource caused by construction
and operation the facility. These impacts and the thresholds for determining the
significances of these impacts are discussed in this section.
The supporting evidence for this analysis is contained in the following exhibits:
8/18/10 RT 413-462, 8/25/10 RT 19-74, 113-118,Exs. 1, § 5.7, 57, 75,108, 129,
133, 300, §B.3, 309;§ C-2-2, 312, 441, 442.
1
Given that the proposed Calico Solar Project is located on lands managed by BLM and requires
BLM authorization, the proposed action is considered a federal undertaking, and must comply
with the NHPA and implementing regulations. NEPA addresses compliance with the NHPA, and
the required corresponding environmental documentation (whether it is an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement) must discuss cultural resources.
1 Cultural
Determining the Historical Significance of Cultural Resources
Three kinds of cultural resources, classified by their origins, are considered in
this assessment: prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic. Cultural resources are
categorized as buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts under both
federal law for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and the
National Historic Preservation Act), Section 106, and under California state law
for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Cultural 2
Under the CEQA Guidelines, a resource is generally considered to be historically
significant if it meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR. These criteria are
essentially the same as the eligibility criteria for the NRHP. In addition to being
at least 50 years old, a resource must meet at least one of the following four
criteria: (1) it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of our history (Criterion1); (2) it is associated with the lives
of persons significant in our past (Criterion 2); (3) the resource embodies the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that it
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3);
or, (4) the resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important
to history or prehistory (Criterion 4). (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1.) Historical
resources must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 4852(c); Pub.
Res. Code § 5020.1 (j), 5024.1).
Resources include historic district or landscapes. There are state and federal
guidelines for evaluating whether certain resources are historic districts. The
National Park Service defines a historic district as “a significant concentration,
linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically
or aesthetically by plan or physical development” (U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service 2002:5).For a grouping of cultural resources to be
considered eligible for listing in the NRHP as a “district,” those resources must be
historically or functionally related and visually convey a historical theme or
environment. In addition, the district must possess sufficient historical
significance and integrity.
3 Cultural
With respect to historic landscapes, the National Park Service provides the
following definition: “a geographical area that historically has been used by
people, or shaped or modified by human activity, occupancy, or intervention, and
that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of areas of land
use, vegetation, buildings and structures, roads and waterways, and natural
features” (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1999:1-2).
Historic landscapes exhibit evidence of human use or activities and typically are
one of the following types: agriculture (including various types of cropping and
grazing); industry (including mining, lumbering, fish-culturing, and milling);
maritime activities such as fishing; shell fishing, and shipbuilding recreation
(including hunting or fishing camps); transportation systems; migration trails;
conservation (including natural reserves), and sites adapted for ceremonial,
religious, or other cultural activities, such as camp meeting grounds (U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1999:3).
Although the National Park Service recognizes the cultural landscape categories
as descriptive terms, landscapes that are listed in or determined eligible for the
NRHP are officially classified as districts. Sites are small landscapes with no
buildings or structures as sites. Larger landscapes with numerous buildings,
structures, and sites are classified as districts.
Cultural 4
Section 106, the significance of any adversely affected cultural resource is
assessed and mitigation measures are proposed to resolve such effects.
Under NHPA (36 CFR Part 800), significant resources that might be affected by
the undertaking must be identified. Significant cultural resources (historic
properties) are those resources that are listed in or are eligible for listing on the
NRHP per the criteria listed at 36 CFR 60.4 (Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation 2000). Impacts to the resources must be identified and mitigation
measures must be developed an implemented to offset or eliminate adverse
impacts. All three steps require consultation with interested Native American
tribes, local governments, and other interested parties.
Value criteria for NRHP eligibility fall into the following categories:
1. Associate Value (Criteria A and B): Properties significant for their
association with or linkage to events (Criterion A) or persons (Criterion B)
important in the past.
Cultural resources deemed eligible for listing in the NRHP (with State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurrence), are termed “historic properties” under
Section 106, and are afforded the same protection as sites listed in the NRHP.
Guided by the requirements of CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106, we evaluated the
character of the effects or impacts that a proposed project may have on
historically significant cultural resources. The analysis takes into account three
primary types of potential impacts: 1) direct effects or impacts, (2) indirect effects
or impacts, and (3) cumulative effects or impacts. We discuss the character of
the potential impact, whether each such effect is significant, relative to specific
regulatory criteria under CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106, and feasible mitigation.
5 Cultural
subsurface disturbance of the ground, and direct impacts to archaeological
resources may result from the immediate disturbance of the deposits, whether
from vegetation removal, vehicle travel over the surface, earth-moving activities,
excavation, or demolition of overlying structures. Construction can have direct
impacts on historic built-environment resources when those structures must be
removed to make way for the project or when the vibrations of construction
impair the stability of historic structures nearby.
New structures can have direct impacts on historic structures when the new
structures are stylistically incompatible with their neighbors and the setting, and
when the new structures produce something harmful to the materials or structural
integrity of the historic structures, such as emissions or vibrations.
Cumulative Impacts
The concept of cumulative impacts applies under CEQA and NEPA. Although
each law has its own definition of cumulative impacts, both definitions
Cultural 6
encompass the idea that cumulative impacts reaches beyond the project area of
analysis or the area of potential effects. It is a consideration of how the effects of
a proposed or alternative action in those areas contributes or does not contribute
Section 106 regulation makes explicit reference to cumulative effects only in the
context of a discussion of the criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR § 800.5(a)(1)).
Cumulative effects are largely undifferentiated as an aspect of the potential
effects of an undertaking. Such effects are enumerated and resolved in
conjunction with the consideration of direct and indirect effects.
The project area of analysis (or “project area”) is the area within and surrounding
the Calico Solar project site, as well as all associated linear facility corridors. The
evidence shows that the area reflects the minimum standards set out in the
Energy Commission Power Plant Site Certification Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 20, § 1701 et seq., Appen. B, subd. (g)(2)) and is large and comprehensive in
geographic area to facilitate and encompass considerations of both direct and
indirect effects to archaeological, ethnographic, and built-environment resources.
The project area is a composite geographic area that allows for analysis of the
following resource types:
• For archaeological resources, the project area of analysis is minimally
defined as the project site footprint, plus a buffer of 200 feet, and all
project linear facilities routes, plus a buffer of 50 feet to either side of the
rights-of way for these linear routes.
7 Cultural
• For built-environment resources, the project area of analysis is confined to
one parcel deep from the project site footprint in urban areas, but in rural
areas is expanded to include a half-mile buffer from the project site and
above-ground linear facilities to encompass resources whose setting could
be adversely affected by industrial development.
• For a historic district or a cultural landscape, the project area of analysis is
based on the particular characteristics of each siting case (i.e., specific to
that project).
• For ethnographic resources, the project area of analysis is expanded to take
into account traditional use areas and traditional cultural properties which
may be far-ranging, including views that contribute to the significance of
the property. These resources are often identified in consultation with
Native Americans and other ethnic groups, and issues that are raised by
these groups may define the area of analysis. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-3 – C-2-
4.)
2. Physical Setting
The proposed Calico Solar project is located on 4,613 acres in eastern San
Bernardino County within the central Mojave Desert, approximately 115 miles
east of Los Angeles and 37 miles east of Barstow, California. Nearby
communities include Newberry Springs and Ludlow, both approximately 12 miles
to the west and east, respectively, of the project site.
The project site is situated on the north side of Interstate-40 (I-40), primarily east
of Hector Road. The southern project boundary borders I-40, the western
boundary borders undeveloped BLM land, the southeastern boundary borders an
existing transmission line; and the northern and eastern site boundaries border
the base of the Cady Mountain range.
The Cady Mountain Wilderness Study Area and the Sleeping Beauty Proposed
Wilderness Area are located north and northeast, respectively, of the project
area. Pisgah Crater, located within the Pisgah Area of Critical Environmental
Concern, is located south of the project site.
The project area is rural but there is evidence of prior land use activities in the
form of dilapidated mining-related structures, mining processing equipment,
corrals, water tanks, barbed wire fencing, and several underground and above-
ground utilities. The primary sources of previous disturbance within and adjacent
to the project area include cattle grazing, off-road vehicle use, historic mining
Cultural 8
activities, construction of a series of underground pipelines, construction and use
of the Southern California Edison (SCE) Pisgah Substation and associated
transmission lines, and the construction and use of a number of transportation
routes, including the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks, 2 the
National Old Trails Road, U.S. Route 66, and I-40.
3. Environmental Setting
The Project area is located within the geomorphic province of the Mojave Desert,
which occupies approximately 25,000 square miles of southeastern California
The Mojave Desert is a wedge shaped area largely bound by major faults and
structurally referred to as the Mojave Block.
The project area of analysis is within a broad valley between the Southwestern
and Southeastern Cady mountains, in the central portion of the Mojave Desert
Geomorphic Province. (Ex. 309, pp. C.2-21 – C.2-22.) More particularly, the
area is characterized by Holocene-age and Pleistocene-age alluvial deposition.
Alluvial deposits from the adjacent highlands are composed of silty sands and
gravels with localized gravel and cobble channels.
The Mojave River has been a significant factor affecting the geomorphology of
the Mojave region, and specifically the Calico Solar project area of analysis. This
river and its drainage system represent the largest present-day hydrological
system in the Mojave Desert. Climate changes and the changing path of the
Mojave River resulted in the formation of several freshwater lakes including Lake
Manix, which consists of several subbasins. It appears that at one point in time,
the Lake Manix shoreline reached an elevation of 557 meters. At this level, the
southern extent of the lake itself would have pushed east, potentially abutting the
westernmost Calico Solar project area of analysis. Extensive prehistoric remains
2
This railway was formerly known as the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad/Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe
Railroad.
9 Cultural
are found along the shores of Lake Manix, indicating that this lake was an
important element in a regional network involving the inhabitants of the project
area.
Desert pavements occur within the Calico Solar project area of analysis. In
particular, the pavements on the slopes of the Cady Mountains are broader and
better developed atop the older, up-slope Pleistocene fanglomerates as
compared to the younger surfaces at lower elevations. The older surfaces, and
likely the younger ones as well, predate the accepted presence of man in the
new world. The most stable pavements, and likely the oldest, lie atop Quaternary
alluvium woven among the fanglomerate hills and lava flows within the southern
portion of the project area of analysis. Buried cultural deposits are not likely to be
found beneath these stable surfaces. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-22 – C-2-23.)
b. Paleoecology.
The Calico Solar project is located within the Mojave Valley-Granite Mountains
ecological subsection (Subsection 322Ah) of the broader Mojave Desert. The
general environmental setting is that of a wide valley within arid desert, along
which is an expansive alluvial fan that is divided by numerous unnamed south-
southwest trending washes and ephemeral drainages.
The project area is composed of multiple Life Zones whose animal and plant
communities attracted and tempered the settlement and adaptations of a long
sequence of prehistoric and historic populations. The Life Zones are identified as:
Arctic/Alpine (10,000 feet and above), Canadian/Hudsonian (7,000 to 10,000
feet), Transition (5,000 to 7,000 feet), Upper Sonoran (3,300 to 5,000 feet), and
Lower Sonoran (3,300 feet and below). Most settlement and subsistence
activities were concentrated in the Transition, Upper Sonoran, and Lower
Sonoran Zones.d -227 feet in altitude (approximately a mile vertical distance).
The inhabitants of the project area are presumed to have lived primarily in the
Lower Sonoran Life Zone, when Troy Lake, Lavic Lake, and Broadwell Lake
were wet. During times when the lakes were dry, settlement and subsistence
were focused on the Upper Sonoran Life Zone in the Cady Mountains and
beyond. (Ex. 309, pp. C.2-23-24.)
Cultural 10
c. Geoarchaeological Investigation.
The Applicant’s boring and test pit activity is detailed in the record. According to
the Applicant, no archaeological materials were observed during any of the
geotechnical borings or test pits. (Exs. 1, 309, pp. C-2-24 to C-2-25.)
The Applicant also identified and described major landforms within the project
area. (Ex. 309, pp. C.2-25 to C.2-36.) Cultural Resources Table 1 below
summarizes the potential for these land forms to harbor buried archaeological
deposits. As shown by the Applicant’s investigatory results, there is a range of
no to low potential for all areas except the Axial Channel of the southern section,
which shows very low to moderate potential.
11 Cultural
Cultural Resource Table 2
Summary of Geoarcheological Sensitivity of Landforms within the
Calico Solar Project Study Area
Because the vast majority of the northern alluvial fan piedmont is represented by
a subsurface depositional environment that is too high-energy and coarse, with
no observed paleosols, to preserve buried archaeological deposits, buried
deposits are not expected in this portion of the project area. The lack of
depositional sensitivity together with an absence of economically viable lithic
resources and high-energy erosional contacts between buried paleo-surfaces
and overlying mantle deposits within the fan aprons, largely precludes the
Cultural 12
presence of buried archaeological deposits within in this portion of the project
area as well. (Id.)
Both the very old age and largely erosional nature of the major landforms in the
southern section of the project area indicate that buried archaeological sites (with
no surface manifestation) are very unlikely. It appears that the greatest potential
for site burial in the southern portion of the Calico Solar project area is in those
places where unconsolidated and active eolian sands have obscured alluvial
landforms. However, these eolian features appear to be so limited that they are
unlikely to obscure any significant portion of an archaeological site. (Id.)
The information obtained from the investigation further indicates that prehistoric
site location within the Calico Solar project area seems to be largely dictated by
the availability of raw lithic materials. The series of coalescing fans that make up
the alluvial fan piedmont north of the railroad tracks have their source in the Cady
Mountains.
The evidence indicates that the dominant material present above these fans is
granite to quartz monzonite, with more limited and likely more resistant outcrops
of basalt and andesite. For instance, the subsurface geoarchaeological
investigations of the alluvial fans show that the majority of material present is
coarse-grained granitic sands, gravels, and cobbles, with little utility for
prehistoric tool making. In comparison, the fanglomerate remnant alluvial fans
and inset alluvial fans, which are generally comprised of reworked fanglomerates
that make up the majority of the landforms south of the railroad tracks, have a
much more variable parent material and are more conducive to prehistoric tool
production. (Ex. 309, pp. C.2-36 to C.2-37.)
4. Historical Setting
a. Prehistoric Background
Human populations have occupied the California desert for at least 10,000 years.
The Paleo-Indian Complex (about 10,000–8000 cal B.C.) occurred during the first
half of the early Holocene. A common theme among nearly all North American
Paleo-Indian sites was tool assemblages of fluted projectile points. The Lake
Mojave Complex (ca 8000-6500 cal B.C.) occurred during the second half of the
early Holocene and is characterized Lake Mojave projectiles (leaf-shaped, long-
stemmed points with narrow shoulders) and Silver Lake projectiles (short-bladed,
stemmed pints with distinct shoulders), abundant bifaces, flaked stone crescents,
13 Cultural
and a variety of large, well-made scrapers, gravers, perforators, heavy core tools,
and ground stone implements. (Ex. 309, pp. C.2-37 to C.2-38.)
The Pinto Complex (ca. 6500-4000 cal. B.C.) spans portions of the early and
middle Holocene. Toolstone use, based on sites attributed to this complex, focus
upon use of flaked stone technology, including less reliance on obsidian and
cryptocrystalline silicates, as well as the prevalence of ground stone implements
in the material culture. Beginning roughly in 3000 to 2000 BC, conditions in the
Mojave Desert were warmer and drier and few archaeological sites date to this
period. This suggests population densities were very low and it is possible some
areas were largely abandoned. The Gypsum Complex (ca. 2000 cal B.C.–cal
A.D. 200), is characterized by medium to large stemmed and corner notched
projectile points, including Elke series, Humboldt Concave Base, and Gypsum.
During the Rose Spring Complex (ca cal. A.D. 200 - 1100), cultural systems
changed in the southern California deserts with the introduction of the bow and
arrow. During this time, a major increase in population appears to have occurred,
possibly resulting in part from a more efficient hunting technology. During the
Late Prehistoric Period (cal. A.D. 1100–Contact), horticultural practices and
pottery were introduced (most likely from the Anasazi in the southwest).
Characteristic artifacts of this Complex include Desert series projectile points,
Brownware ceramics, and unshaped handstones and millingstones. The use of
obsidian dropped off during this time with the increase used of cryptocrystallined
silicates. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-37 to C-2- 43.)
b. Ethnographic Background
During prehistoric times, there was a large movement of people across the
Mojave Desert and ethnographically, several groups are associated with the
project area of analysis and surrounding Mojave Desert region. (Ex. 309, p. C-2-
44.) The Kawaiisu, Kitanemuk, Southern Piute, Serrano, Chemhuevi, Tabtulabal,
and Panamint occupied the Mojave Desert region to the north, south, west, and
east of the project site. (Ex. 309, p. C-2-44.)
Cultural 14
The Serrano, Vanyume (Beñeme), and the Chemehuevi occupied the region in
which the project is located. However, the project area of analysis and
surrounding valleys were not conducive for large scale inhabitation based on the
fluctuating environmental conditions and overall arid nature of the region;
therefore, groups occupying and using the area would have been small and
nomadic. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-44 to C-2-48.)
Other groups who used and occupied the Mojave Desert included the Anasazi
and Mohave. The Anasazi of southern Nevada influenced cultures within the
region as they traveled to take advantage of turquoise deposits. The Mohave
similarly influenced the culture of the region even though they lived southeast of
the project area, along the east and west banks of the Colorado River, as they
traveled throughout southern California and northern Arizona spreading new
technologies, beliefs, and ideas throughout the desert southwest region. (Ex.
309, pp. C.2-47 to C-2-48.)
The major historical themes for the Mojave Desert region and the Calico Solar
vicinity in particular, are centered on the establishment of transportation routes,
water access, mineral exploitation, and military uses. (Ex. 309, pp. C.2-49 to C-
2-61.)
Soon after California was granted statehood in 1850, the government sought to
promote immigration to the state, facilitate trade and communication, and
develop routes of defense by recognizing all of the trails running through
California. (Ex. 309, p. C-2-50.) In the late 1850s the General Land Office in
California began the process of mapping the Mojave Desert areas. (Ex. 309, p.
C.2-51.) Beale’s Wagon Road was built in 1857 north of the project area and
was used through 1861. However, it appears that most of the traffic through the
Mojave Desert into Southern California took place via the Old Spanish Trail to the
west of the project area or the Mojave Road to the north.
After the Civil War ended, the Atlanta & Pacific Railroad (A & P) partnered with
the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad and the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe
Railroad to construct a transcontinental railroad that would include a railway from
the east to the California border. (Ex. 309, p. C.2-51.) The Southern Pacific
Railroad also constructed a rail line that ran between Mojave and Needles. (Ex.
309, p. C-2-52.)
15 Cultural
The Southern Pacific’s route through the Mojave Desert facilitated mining
operations. This railroad, which was later acquired by A&P, changed the course
of travel across the Mojave Desert in the project vicinity by facilitating the
transport of miners to the region.
By 1885, the California Southern Railroad and A&P joined to provide service
from Kansas City to San Diego. The junction of the lines was located at what is
now known as Barstow. This rail service brought more settlers and miners to the
area and was a popular line for freight and passenger service. (The A&P is now
known as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway). Specifically with respect to
mining, the desert region has produced a variety of mineral deposits, including
gold, silver, manganese, and copper. The period between 1900 and 1919 was
known as the “Great Years” for mining in northeastern San Bernardino County.
(Ex. 309, p. C.2-57.) Mining still occurs in the desert area, particularly around the
Kings Mountains in the vicinity of Interstate 15. (Id.)
Automobile travel across and within the Mojave Desert area first developed using
existing wagon roads. By the early twentieth century, the automobile became the
preferred means of transportation, and in 1916, Congress approved the Federal
Highway Aid Act to help fund rural roads. In 1926, the National Old Trails Road in
the Mojave Desert was redesignated as U.S. Route 66. The section of U.S.
Route 66 from Needles to Los Angeles was the most heavily traveled section of
the highway. While accommodations in the project area were limited to road-side
camping, the heavy use of U.S. Route 66 caused thousands of businesses to
emerge, such as grocery stores, service stations, restaurants, and motels, to
serve cross-country travelers. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-54 to C.2-55.)
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, U.S. Route 66 served as the primary road
between the midwest and west coast. It was eventually replaced by a newer
interstate highway system. (Id.)
In 1958, Interstate 15 opened between Victorville and Barstow and began the
modern highway era in the Barstow area. Thereafter, in 1961, the entire length
of Interstate 15 from Los Angeles to Las Vegas was opened. (Ex. 309, p. C-2-
56.) Interstate 40 begins at the junction of Interstate 15 with Interstate 40 in
Barstow. Interstate 40 runs through the Mojave Desert to Needles and into
Arizona. Interstate 40 is located along the southern edge of project area of
analysis. The segment of Interstate 40 in the project vicinity was not constructed
until 1968.
Cultural 16
In addition to transportation improvements, the region saw other development.
For instance, the Hoover Dam was constructed between 1931 and 1935 and
power production for use began in 1936. Furthermore, the SCE 220-kilovolt
North and South transmission lines, constructed between 1939 and 1941,
originate at the SCE switchyard at the Hoover Dam and terminate in Chino,
California. The lines were constructed to deliver power from the Hoover Dam to
SCE service areas in southern California. (Ex. 309, p. C-2-58.)
a. Records Searches
The Applicant performed a literature and records search including all known
cultural resources within a one-half-mile radius of the plant site, laydown area,
and appurtenant linear facilities. Sources checked included:
• The San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center (SBAIC), which is
the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) cultural
resources database repository for San Bernardino County;
• Previously documented cultural resources or archaeological studies in the
project area and a one-mile search radius;
• National Register of Historic Places (NHRP);
• California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR);
• California Landmarks; and
• California Places of Historical Interest (Ex. 309, p. C.2-62.)
The SBAIC/CHRIS literature research shows that cultural resources studies have
been conducted within the project footprint and a one-mile search radius. One of
these studies (Class II inventory–literature review) was prepared for the BLM on
behalf of the Applicant, and was submitted in August of 2006. This earlier report
provided a preliminary assessment of the project area and includes a cultural
resource record search results and background setting, but does not include a
pedestrian survey of the Calico project area. It appears that about 95 percent of
the Calico project area had not been previously investigated.
Nineteen of the previous survey reports within the record search radius were
positive for cultural resources, 10 of those reports pertain to the Calico Solar
project footprint. With the exception of a few recent studies, the majority of these
previous investigations were conducted more than 15 years ago. (Ex. 309, pp.
17 Cultural
C.2-63 to C.2-64.) The various survey reports are identified with particularity in
the record. (Id.)
Cultural 18
Resource Cultural Cultural Resource In Within Latest
Designation Resource Description Project the one- Update
Type Footprint mile
research
radius
silicate flake
Isolated cryptocrystalline
36-061432 Prehistoric X 1990
silicate flake
Two isolated cryptocrystalline
36-061433 Prehistoric X 1990
silicate flakes
Isolated cryptocrystalline
36-061434 Prehistoric X 1990
silicate flake
Isolated cryptocrystalline
36-061435 Prehistoric X 1990
silicate flake
Isolated cryptocrystalline
36-061436 Prehistoric X 1990
silicate flake
Isolated chert flake and one
36-064406 Prehistoric X 2001
piece of angular waste
Two isolated chalcedony
36-064407 Prehistoric X 2001
flakes
Isolated red jasper flake
36-064408 Prehistoric X 2001
fragment
36-064409 Prehistoric Isolated agate bifacial core X 2001
One isolated red jasper flake
36-064410 Prehistoric and a second flake with dorsal X 2001
scars
Small lithic test and quarry
CA-SBR-10649H Prehistoric X 2001
area with flakes and one core
Also known as EM-266, this is
CA-SBR-1585 Prehistoric X 1976
a Petroglyph Site
Pottery sherds, awl, two
CA-SBR-1793 Prehistoric X 1963
bifaces
Lithic scatter containing
CA-SBR-1889 Prehistoric metates, projectile points and X 1969
debitage
Also known as SBCM 674, this
site consists of two projectile
CA-SBR-1893 Prehistoric points, scrapers flakes and X 1963
bone which were collected at
time of recordation
Jasper quarry with sparse
CA-SBR-1905 Prehistoric scatters consists of flakes, X 1980
bifaces and scrapers
Large quarry area containing
CA-SBR-1907 Prehistoric X 1990
debitage, cores and bifaces
Low density; sparse cobble
testing/ quarry area consisting
CA-SBR-1908 Prehistoric X X 1979
of cryptocrystalline silicate,
basalt and rhyolite materials.
19 Cultural
Resource Cultural Cultural Resource In Within Latest
Designation Resource Description Project the one- Update
Type Footprint mile
research
radius
Cultural 20
Resource Cultural Cultural Resource In Within Latest
Designation Resource Description Project the one- Update
Type Footprint mile
research
radius
21 Cultural
Resource Cultural Cultural Resource In Within Latest
Designation Resource Description Project the one- Update
Type Footprint mile
research
radius
b. Consultations
Because the proposed Calico Solar project is located on land owned by the
federal government and managed by BLM, BLM took the lead in all Native
American Consultation in this project in accordance with the Memorandum of
Understanding between the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, California Desert District, and the California Energy Commission
Staff Concerning Joint Environmental Review for Solar Thermal Power Plant
Projects (http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/BLM_CEC_MOU.PDF).
Cultural 22
area of analysis. The response also included a list of local Native
American representatives who could be contacted regarding potential
concerns or knowledge of cultural resources that could be affected by the
project.
• In a letter dated November 5, 2008, the BLM initiated formal consultation
with the tribes as a part of its obligation under Section 106 of the NHPA.
Since that time, the BLM has maintained ongoing communications with
the local tribal organizations through letters, phone calls, and meetings.
It appears that to date, no Native American representatives have identified
specific cultural resources of concern to them within the project limits;
however, they have indicated an interest in the project and concerns for
the resources that the Applicant has identified as being in the project area.
• On April 29, 2010, Staff attended the BLM’s Cultural Resources
Programmatic Agreement (i.e., possible 36 CFR §§ 800.6 or 800.14(b)
agreement among agencies that include the Bureau of Land Management
or other Federal agencies, and the California State Historic Preservation
Officer), kick-off meeting for this project. Also present at that meeting were
representatives of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, who
expressed concerns for both cultural and biological resources that may be
affected by the project.
• On June 13, 2010, Staff participated in an onsite field visit with the BLM
and several members of the local Native American community including
representatives of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; the
Chemehuevi Tribe, the Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians; the
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, and the AhaMaKav Cultural Society. During the
field visit, the participants visited selected sites and expressed interest in
and concern with the cultural resources identified by the Applicant during
the cultural resource inventory.
• On July 26, 2010, in follow up to the June 13, 2010, site visit, Staff
attempted further contact with several tribal members. Staff’s discussions
with tribal members indicated that the tribes and/or members were not
necessarily aware or fully informed of the other remaining archaeological
sites in the project area beyond those identified on June 13, 2010.
23 Cultural
within a one-mile radius around the project footprint that had been listed pursuant
to ordinance or recognized by a local historical society or museum. According to
the evidence, no esponses were received from these agencies and entities.
In July and August 2010, Staff also consulted with the following organizations
regarding built-environment resources: Route 66 Corridor Preservation Progam
of the National Park Service; San Francisco Architectural Heritage; and the
Western Regional Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. (Ex. 309,
pp. C-2-70 to C-2-72.)
The evidence shows that several field surveys and inventories were conducted.
The Applicant conducted an initial cultural resource field inventory between
August 4 and October 31, 2008. Additional field surveys and more refined site
recordation took place between October 2009 and March 2010. The cultural
resource inventory discussed herein encompasses the initially-proposed 8,230-
acre project site (the project footprint was reduced to 6,215 acres in June 2010
and reduced again in September 2010 to 4,613 acres). ).
Included among the surveys was a Class III Intensive Field Survey. The
pedestrian survey covered the original 8,230-acres and an additional 200 feet
beyond the project site. The principal survey methods consisted of a systematic
walk-over in regularly spaced parallel transect intervals. With the exception of
certain caves and ridge tops situated within or atop steep terrain, the Applicant
did not survey areas of steep terrain (i.e., terrain at an angle greater than 45°),
where access was not feasible due to unsafe or unstable surfaces. The angle
and decomposition of volcanic rocks eroding downslope in these areas, which
total less than 11 acres and occur within the northeastern project area along the
south-southwest facing slope of the Cady Mountains, suggest that these areas
have an extremely low likelihood of containing cultural resources.
The Applicant reported that the archaeological data recorded during the Class III
intensive field survey represents a preliminary in-the-field assessment based
solely on observations of artifacts and other cultural components visible on the
surface. (Ex. 309, p. C.2-73.). BLM Barstow archaeologist Jim Shearer provided
the guidelines applied by the Applicant to field survey and its recordation of
cultural resources within the Project area of analysis. Based on this guidance
and previous archaeological investigations completed within or near the Calico
Solar project area, the Applicant developed 14 categories of archaeological site
Cultural 24
types that one could expect to encounter during the Class III intensive field
survey and which provide a framework for the definition and documentation of
resources identified in the project area. Each category type is described in the
record. (Ex.1,§5.7 309, p.C-2-74 –C-2-76.)
//
//
25 Cultural
Each of these archaeological resources is described in Cultural Resources
Table 3 below.
Cultural 26
27 Cultural
Cultural 28
29 Cultural
Cultural 30
31 Cultural
As shown, the archaeological sites comprise 94 prehistoric sites, eight historic-
era sites, 15 multi-component sites (containing both prehistoric and historic-era
components), and two rock cluster feature sites of indeterminate age.
In summary, results of the Applicant’s investigation show the overall potential for
buried archaeological resources to occur in the project area ranges from very low
to moderate, depending on the underlying landform and the degree of desert
pavement stabilization present on the project site. “Desert pavement” is defined
Cultural 32
in the Applicant’s analysis as a desert surface covered with closely packed,
interlocking angular or rounded rock fragments of pebble and cobble size.
Staff provided further explanation of the Applicant’s results. (Ex. 309, pp. C.2-84
— C.2-87.) According to Staff, it appears that the less stable or poorly developed
desert pavement surfaces exhibit more sediment visibility and are therefore more
likely to contain buried archaeological deposits. (As shown, the archaeological
sites include 94 prehistoric sites, eight historic-era sites, 15 multi-component
sites (containing both prehistoric and historic-era components), and two rock
cluster feature sites of indeterminate age. And, although a well-formed desert
pavement does not preclude the existence of a buried component to a site
located on that pavement, it does significantly decrease the likelihood that a
buried archaeological deposit not already evident on the surface is buried below
it.
The majority of archaeological sites identified during the survey were found in the
southern portion of the project area where the land surface is covered by varying
degrees of desert pavement. These areas contain an abundance of naturally
occurring cryptocrystalline silicate materials such as chalcedony and jasper,
which are suitable for the production of flaked stone tools. Thus, the locations of
the prehistoric sites observed within the project study area appear to be largely
dictated by the availability of these lithic raw materials that are constituents of the
desert pavements. (Id.)
Furthermore, according to the Applicant’s study, the most likely sources for
buried archaeological deposits within the archaeological sites are the Holocene
alluvial deposits within and adjacent to the landform identified as the east-west
Axial Channel. The Channel is in the southern portion of the project area.
Archaeological sites identified along this drainage contain a variety of artifact
types, including groundstone and other indications of, at the least, food
processing localities. The loose sandy matrix and the seasonal rain and flood
events are likely to have obscured portions of these deposits. (Id.)
The Applicant’s survey and prior research in the Calico Solar project area
revealed 21 temporally diagnostic prehistoric artifacts (one of which was
previously collected in 1990 for a different project), which indicate a broad time
span of regional site use. Of the total temporally diagnostic artifacts in the
project area, 18 occur at archaeological sites and three are isolated finds. The
record identifies each artifact. (Exs. 309, p. C.2-87, -
33 Cultural
d. Built Environment Survey
The Applicant also conducted site-specific and general primary and secondary
research using SBAIC/CHRIS and university resources, and initiated contact with
entities that included but were not limited to the San Bernardino County Land
Use Services, City of Barstow Community Development Department, and the
Mojave River Valley Museum, and SCE. The Applicant also obtained and
reviewed historic maps including 1955 15-minute U.S. Geological Survey
quadrangles, five maps depicting the Old National Trails Highway, Punnett
Brothers Map of San Bernardino County (1914), Kremmerer’s map of San
Bernardino County (1925), and Thomas Brothers Settlers and Miner’s Map of
San Bernardino County (1932). (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-87 – C-2-88.)
Phase 2
CA-SBR- National Old remnants of
1912 No and one half-mile
2910H Trails Road historic road
buffer
No/Yes
CA-SBR-
U.S. Route 66 1930s historic highway (conflicting One half-mile buffer
2910H
recommendation)
Atlantic & Pacific
historic railroad
CA-SBR- Railroad/Atchison,
1882-1883 and associated Yes One half-mile buffer
6693H Topeka, & Santa
bridge structures
Fe Railroad
pine T-post utility
CA-SBR- SCE 12-kilovolt
1961 pole transmission No One half-mile buffer
13114H power line
line
Cultural 34
Recommended
Year Description of
Trinomial Resource Name Eligible by Location
Constructed Resource
Applicant
35 Cultural
definitively draw conclusions regarding archaeological site significance. (Ex. 309,
p. C-2-91.)
BLM revisited seven of the 119 archaeological sites identified by the Applicant.
These sites appear to have been selected on following criteria: (1) the types of
surface artifacts observed during site recordation (all sites are classified as
Complex Lithic Scatters, with the exception of one); (2) the location of the sites in
proximity to the Axial Channel/Inset Fan (which is considered to have a moderate
sensitivity for subsurface archaeological deposits per the geoarchaeological
analysis); 3) the presence of rock cluster features or potential hearths (because
the rock cluster features are indeterminate and have not been formally evaluated,
the BLM is assuming them to be eligible for the NRHP); and (4) the low degree of
desert pavement development reported during the Applicant’s site recordation.
Although BLM did not prepare a formal report of its investigation, it submitted
informal data to Staff. BLM’s activities and conclusions regarding the seven sites
are summarized as follows:
• CA-SBR-13126/H – BLM excavated five “post-holes” (11-inch diameter) to
a depth of 70 centimeters. No cultural artifacts or organic staining
(midden) were observed from the post-hole excavation, but subsurface
remains may exist in the portion of the site that lies outside the project
area of analysis to the west. BLM determined that the portion of the site
within the project area of analysis is not eligible for nomination to the
NRHP.
• CA-SBR-13443/H – One “post-hole” (11-inch diameter) was excavated to
a depth of 70 centimeters. In-situ fire-affected rock was recovered from 50
to 70 centimeters below the surface. BLM concluded that subsurface
cultural remains exist in at least one portion of the site that also has
groundstone and flaked stone assemblages on the surface. BLM further
determined that this site is eligible for nomination to the NRHP.
• CA-SBR-13093/H –BLM determined, without engaging in subsurface
testing, that the portion of this resource that contains 37 rock cluster
features, is eligible for nomination to the NRHP. However, it also
determined that the remaining portions of the site, which contain complex
lithic scatter loci, are non-contributing elements to the rock features and
are, therefore, not eligible for nomination to the NRHP.
• CA-SBR-1908/H – BLM determined, without engaging in subsurface
testing, that the portion of this resource that contains 498 rock cluster
features is eligible for nomination to the NRHP. BLM has also determined
Cultural 36
that the remaining portions of the site, which contain lithic reduction
scatter loci, are non-contributing elements to the rock features and are,
therefore, not eligible for nomination to the NRHP.
• CA-SBR-13075 – The Department of Parks and Recreations (DPR) site
form prepared by the Applicant indicated that there was a near absence of
well-developed desert pavement surface. BLM concluded that the site is
covered by “moderate desert pavement development.” On this basis and
without engaging in subsurface testing, BLM concluded that there is no
potential for subsurface cultural artifacts and, therefore, determined that
the site is not eligible for nomination to the NRHP.
• CA-SBR-13007 – The DPR site form prepared by the Applicant indicated
that the soils throughout the site show no development of desert
pavement. BLM concluded that the site area is covered by “moderate
desert pavement development that has been disturbed throughout by
braided slope erosion.” On this basis and without engaging in subsurface
testing, the BLM concluded that there is no potential for subsurface
cultural artifacts to occur at this site and, therefore, determined that the
site is not eligible for nomination to the NRHP.
• CA-SBR-6528 – The DPR site form prepared by the Applicant indicated
that ten of the 27 loci are on poorly developed desert pavement surfaces,
one is on loose sands with no desert pavement, and the rest are on
moderately to well developed desert pavement. BLM concluded that “the
site area is covered by low to moderate desert pavement development.”
On this basis and without engaging in subsurface testing, BLM concluded
that there is no potential for subsurface cultural artifacts to occur here and,
therefore, determined that the site is not eligible for nomination to the
NRHP.
Thus, based on its own investigation, BLM determined that three of the 119
archaeological sites in the project area of analysis are eligible for nomination to
the NRHP (CA-SBR-13126/H, CA-SBR-13443/H, and CA-SBR-13093/H),
discussed above,) (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-91 – C-2-92.)
With respect to the remaining 116 sites, the Applicant applied NRHP and CRHR
eligibility criteria to each one and recommended that all are ineligible for NRHP
and CRHR. (Ex. 309, p. C-2-92.) The Applicant’s rationale is presented in the
record. (Id.)
37 Cultural
Guided by concerns about project impacts to biological and cultural resources,
the Applicant reduced the original 8,230-acre footprint to 6,215 acres and
reconfigured the portions of the southern project area to avoid all or portions of
the three archaeological sites identified as NRHP eligible. (Ex. 57 More
specifically, CA-SBR-13443/H has been entirely excluded from the project area
and the majority of the two other sites (i.e., the portions containing the rock
cluster features), CA-SBR-1908/H and CA-SBR-13093/H, have also been
excluded from the project footprint. In September 2010, the project site was
reduce again to 4,613 acres. Only the “non-contributing” (lithic scatter) portions
of these two sites remain within the project area of analysis. (Ex. 309, pp. C.2-91
– C.2-93.)
Ten additional archaeological sites are now also excluded from the project
footprint based on the alternative project layout. These sites were in close
proximity to the site areas targeted for avoidance and/or proximity to biological
resources being avoided, The ten additional archaeological sites now wholly
excluded from the project footprint include: CA-SBR-4558H; CA-SBR-13013; CA-
SBR-13028; CA-SBR-13029; CA-SBR-13030; CA-SBR-13054; CA-SBR-13105;
CA-SBR-13107; P36-014578; SM-S1-005. A portion of site CA-SBR-13126/H is
now also excluded from the project footprint. (Ex. 309, p. C.2-93.)
Thus, 108 archaeological sites are currently entirely or partially within the most
recent proposed project footprint and would be directly affected by the project.
Among the 108 remaining archaeological sites, 100 are prehistoric sites (14 of
which are multi-component sites with a minor historic component), seven are
historic sites, and one is indeterminate.
Cultural 38
formed artifacts were reported in the DPR forms for the sites in the project area;
(2) because the project will be on public land, there is a high likelihood that
unauthorized artifact collection (i.e., looting) has occurred in the project area,
which may have skewed the surface visibility of lithic materials (particularly
diagnostic artifacts) and correspondingly, any conclusions drawn about the sites
based on surface observations alone; (3) the geology of the area is such that a
sizable expanse of toolstone-quality material was available and actively exploited
by prehistoric inhabitants over an apparently broad expanse of time, and the
sites’ constituents reflect the importance of lithic raw material procurement and
initial treatment activities; and (4) while the project area of analysis was
predominantly a lithic raw material procurement/assaying area, there is also
evidence of other activities beyond primary lithic reduction (e.g.,
secondary/tertiary lithic reduction, late-stage bifacial tools, fire-affected rock, and
groundstone artifacts).
Furthermore, the sites in the project area suggest that activities were not limited
to basic toolstone procurement. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-95 to C-2-96.) Thus, given the
size and quantity of the pavement quarry area, attempts to more accurately
characterize the technology and reduction organization through further study of
the sites prior to their permanent destruction by the project’s construction are
warranted to more precisely determine archaeological site significance. (Ex. 309,
pp. C-2-94 – C-2-96, C-2-100, 8/18/10 RT 418-426.) We have adopted
Conditions of Certification CUL-4 and CUL-5 to accomplish this.
The Applicant and BLM on the one hand and Staff on the other hand, presented
different characterizations of the project area landscape. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-96 to
C-2-100.) In Staff’s view, the potential prehistoric archaeological landscape is a
subtle but potentially significant resource that may reflect underappreciated
patterns of prehistoric land use that were important to the economy and to the
maintenance of the regional social fabric during particular periods in prehistory.
The landscape retains sufficient integrity to convey this significance. As
explained by Staff, the landscape has potential to provide information necessary
to the reconstruction of those economic and social patterns, and may also
provide information important to the reconstruction of toolstone acquisition and
lithic production trajectories in prehistory. Staff is therefore concerned that the
project would permanently destroy a large portion of a prehistoric archaeological
landscape that may exist on the project site. (Ex. 309, p. C-2-96.)
39 Cultural
In contrast, the Applicant and BLM argue against the significance of the
landscape. The Applicant agrees that bolson in which the project area of
analysis is situated can be characterized as an archaeological landscape, but
suggests that in terms of a definable geographic area that can be distinguished
from surrounding properties by changes such as density, scale, type, age, or
style of sites, rich sources of tool stone are not confined to the project area, nor
are they unique. As a result, the tool stone source and landscape is not well
bounded and that similar formations occur throughout the southern California
deserts that were used prehistorically.
The Applicant further asserts that the characteristic theme of the archaeological
landscape cannot be dated and does not have the distinctive or significant
qualities required for eligibility under Criterion C/3. In addition, the lack of datable
material at the sites within the project area precludes their consideration for
eligibility under Criteria A/1 and B/2, as both criteria require information – which
is not known -that could link the landscape with particular events and trends, or
with historically significant people. The Applicant also asserts, based on
underlying data that the lithic reduction sites and landscape do not have sufficient
data potential to qualify for listing under Criterion D/4.
We find that the evidence shows that the project may result in the permanent
loss of important prehistoric landscape and this impact would be significant. (Ex.
309, pp. C-2-96 – C-2-102.) We concur with Staff’s recommendation that the
preparation of carefully crafted protcols is required before the start of ground
disturbance. These protocols shall facilitate the gathering and analysis of
information to further refine the assessment of the historical significance of the
archaeological resources in the project areas. We have adopted Condition of
Certification CUL-4 to require the project owner to prepare the protocols subject
to a suite of specified criteria and standards. Subsequent to the completion of the
implementation of each protocol, the project owner must prepare and submit for
the review and approval of the Compliance Program Manager, separate reports
on the results of the implementation of each protocol, on the analysis and
interpretation of that data, and on the CRHR evaluation of the resource type, type
group, or large-scale resource that a subject protocol addresses.
Cultural 40
excavation would be appropriate, CURE submitted an opposing view. According
to the testimony of CURE witness Dr. David Whitley, hand excavation is the only
acceptable method in this case (8/25/10 RT 62-71). Dr. Whitley was also
concerned that the criterion for eligibility for the subject sites is going to be based
primarily on whether subsurface archaeological deposits are present or are not
present. In his view, this is unsatisfactory as there are many examples of
archaeological sites that have provided very important scientific information even
though they are surface archaeological manifestations. (Id.) We have considered
the evidence and testimony and are persuaded that the proposed design and
methodology as set forth in CUL-4 are appropriate and adequate for this project.
After the Applicant reduced the project footprint from 8,230-acres to the current
6,215 acres, the total number of historical archaeological sites within the project
area of analysis was reduced to 19 sites. Among these 19 sites, 16 are
comprised of historical refuse deposits consisting of a sparse distribution of
domestic, commercial, construction, or industrial debris (e.g., cans, bottles,
ceramic tableware, milled lumber, machinery, and appliances) that predates
1963. The three remaining sites consist of a survey/mapping feature, mining
remains, and a trail, respectively. In September 2010, the project site was
reduced again to 4,613 acres to address biological resources concerns
associated with the northern portions of the site.
The Applicant applied the NRHP and CRHR criteria to each of the historical
archaeological sites and does not recommend any for NRHP or CRHR eligibility.
According to the Applicant, (1) the sites are not associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history and cultural
41 Cultural
heritage of the United States or California (Criterion A/1); (2) the sites are not
associated with the lives of persons significant to the nation's or California's past
(Criterion B/2); (3) the sites do not embody distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, region, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master,
or that possess high artistic values, or that represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion
C/3); and (4) based on the geology of the sites, there is low likelihood of buried
archaeological remains. Thus, according to the Applicant, research potential of
the 19 sites has been exhausted through recordation and they are not likely to
yield information important to the prehistory or history of the nation or of
California (Criterion D/4). (Ex. 309, pp. C.2-101 – C.2-102.) Based on its own
review of the site information, Staff concurs that these 19 historical
archaeological sites/components within the project area are not eligible for the
NRHP or CRHR. We find that the evidence supports the Applicant’s and Staff’s
conclusions.
Based on the historic context and evaluative considerations for NRHP and CRHR
eligibility as discussed above, the portions of Old National Trails Road in the
project area of analysis would not be considered a contributing element to the
potential significance of the entire Old National Trails Road alignment or
considered an individually significant segment of Old National Trails Road.
For instance, within the six-mile segment of the roadway within the project area,
there are no standing structures or architectural properties associated with Old
National Trails Road, such as businesses, roadside attractions, automobile
courts, and so on. Nor are there properties within the project area associated
with the theme of automobile transportation in the Old National Trails Road era.
Cultural 42
Further, the portion of the former roadway within the project area does not reflect
any important trend or accomplishment associated with road engineering,
highway design, or construction and there are no major or significant erosion-
control features or landscape modifications within the segment. Distinctive
engineering features are lacking and the general feeling of the open roadway
within the desert in this segment has been affected by the modern non-historic
visual and atmospheric intrusions, such as the multi-lane Interstate 40, wooden
and metal lattice tower power lines, transmission lines, and a fairly large
electrical substation with associated infrastructure.
These intrusions have diminished the property’s visual narrative, context, and
feeling. This portion of Old National Trails Road is not contiguous with rest of the
Old National Trails Road/U.S Route 66 system, and is not associated with events
which reflect the important land use activities, traditional cultural activities, and
development that has characterized (and is important) to San Bernardino County,
California, and the nation. There are no important people or events associated
with this segment of the roadway. In addition, the property does not have the
potential to yield important information.
The Applicant concluded that the portion of Old National Trails Road within the
project area of analysis does not appear to be a contributing element to the
significance of the entire National Old Trails Road/U.S. Route 66 system. And,
therefore, it does not appear to be individually eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, or
considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA.
We find that the evidence presented supports the conclusions reached by the
Applicant and Staff. (Ex. 309, pp.C.2- 102 - C.2-104.)
43 Cultural
roadside attractions that may be individually eligible for listing on the NRHP. In
order to be eligible as a Route 66 resource, a resource must be able to reflect its
association with the theme of automobile transportation in the Route 66 era.
Guided by eligibility criteria, the Applicant initially determined that that the portion
of Route 66 within the built-environment area of analysis does not appear to be a
contributing element to the significance of the entire U.S. Route 66 system, and
the segment within the one-half mile built-environment area of analysis does not
appear to be individually eligible for the NRHP, the CRHR, and would not be
considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA. (). However, at Staff’s
request, the Applicant considered whether three historic districts should be
defined within the area of analysis, including a “National Old Trials Road/U.S.
Route 66 Historic District.” As part of this evaluation, the Applicant concluded
that the segment of U.S. Route 66 in the project area of analysis retains historical
integrity and is considered eligible. This revised conclusion caused Staff to
further research the history, context and character-defining features of U.S.
Route 66. (Exs., 309, pp. C-2-104 to C.2-106).
The record discloses Staff’s independent evaluation of this segment of Route 66.
Unlike the Applicant who appeared to focus primarily on the architecture that
resulted from the establishment of Route 66 as a major travel route, Staff
considered the significance of Route 66 itself as a national highway. In so doing,
Staff consulted and presented evidence of the Route 66 Corridor Preservation
Program, established by National Park Service as a result of Public Law 102-
400, the Route 66 Study Act of 1990. This reference notes the significance of
Route 66 as the nation’s first all-weather highway linking Chicago and Los
Angeles and described in some detail, hallmarks of Route 66 including its
symbolizing the optimism that pervaded the nation’s post World War II economic
recovery. According to the evidence, the Route 66 Corridor Preservation
Program commissioned the Route 66 Corridor National Historic Context Study,
published in 2004, which details the national significance of Route 66, identifies
the period of significance (1926-1970), and identifies the historic and
architectural property types associated with it. The Route 66 Corridor National
Historic Context Study also identifies those features that a road segment must
retain in order to be considered eligible, including the original cross -section
template (cut banks, fill slopes, roadbed, grade); original alignment or later
realignment; and associated features such as bridges and culverts (even if they
have been modified or replaced). The context study also states that those
segments of road that have been widened after the end of the period of
significance may still be included if they link other significant sections of the
Cultural 44
route, and, notably, that pavement is “an inherently fragile feature of highways
and is routinely covered over and replaced.” (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-106 – C-2-108.)
Staff applied the information from the Route 66 Corridor National Historic Context
Study to Route 66 as described in the original evaluation in the project area of
analysis. Staff determined that this section would be a contributor to a larger U.S.
Route 66 historic district, should such a resource be determined eligible, and that
this section would therefore be considered a historic resource for the purposes of
CEQA based on factors such as the section of roadway being pristine; it is a
realigned section of the road to reduce sharp turns, steep grades and
accommodate higher speeds. And, while there is evidence that the road has
been resurfaced and widened since its construction at undetermined times, Staff
posits that these changes took place within the identified Route 66 period of
significance 1926-1970 to accommodate modern traffic. (Id.)
This section of road also retains those character-defining eligibility features noted
in the Route 66 National Historic Context Study: the original cross-section
template, later (1934) realignment, and four associated single-span bridges that
were constructed from 1939 to 1952. These bridges retain features that indicate
they are likely original features of Route 66, including the concrete decking, and
are in good state of preservation. (Id.).
Staff produced evidence that the Southern California Edison (SCE) 220-Kilovolt
North and South Transmission Lines and the Pisgah Substation were all
constructed between 1936 and 1941, beginning only two years after the
construction of Route 66 in 1934. Interstate 40 was constructed in 1968, also
within the national period of significance. The SCE 220 kV lines and the Pisgah
Substation have been determined to be NRHP- and CRHR-eligible resources for
their association with the Hoover Dam and their significance in the World War II
effort (Criterion A/1). These resources would have been part of the Route 66
travel experience and landscape across this section of the Mojave Desert, and
therefore would not compromise the integrity of Route 66. (Id.)
45 Cultural
currently being heard by Congress, one purpose of which is the preservation of
Route 66 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s2921/text). (Id.)
In light of the evidence presented, we concur with Staff’s determination that the
portion of Route 66 within the project area of analysis contributes to the
significance of Route 66, is potentially eligible for the NRHP and CRHR as a
contributing resource to the larger Route 66 system under Criterion A/1 for its
association as one of the first all-weather highways in the United States, and is
therefore it is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
The BNSF Railway is located within the one-half mile built-environment area of
analysis. In addition to the railroad track, associated historical artifacts include
glass, metal, track and train parts, and railroad tableware. The railroad has been
previously determined to be eligible for the NRHP and the CRHR under Criterion
A (Criterion 1) for its association with the history of transportation in California.
Although much of the railroad has been upgraded for continued use and few
historical materials remain in place, the Applicant states that it retains integrity of
location and the level of significance established by the previous recordings.
However, we agree that the evidence presented by Staff showing that the
replacement of railway and bridge historic materials with modern materials and
the resulting loss of integrity do not support a recommendation of NRHP or
CRHR eligibility for the BNSF Railway and five bridge structures within the
project buffer. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-109 to C-2-110.)
Cultural 46
foot-tall utility poles, which are each 0.75 foot in diameter. The poles have a
single T-post on the top with 3 ceramic insulators and 3 transmission lines. The
poles are creosote-treated pine and each pole features an identification tag and
an embossed nail on the left for height (40) and an embossed date nail (61) on
the right. There also is an associated 207-foot-long historic transmission road
and sparse historic trash in the vicinity of the transmission line.
The evidence shows that the 12-kv transmission line is not associated with any
distinctive or significant event, persons design or construction, and all data
potential has been accounted for during the recordation process. Thus, we
concur that based on site investigations and historic research, the SCE 12-
kilovolt transmission line is recommended not eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR
under any of the criterion for eligibility, and there is not a historic resource
pursuant to CEQA. (Ex. 309, p. C-2-110.)
The SCE 220-Kilovolt North Transmission Line was constructed between 1936
and 1939, using the same design and technology SCE had been using for its
existing high-voltage transmission lines in southern California (including its
Vincent 220-kilovolt line), and the design used by the Metropolitan Water District
for its Hoover Dam line. The transmission line began receiving power from the
Hoover Dam in 1939, after the completion of Hoover generating units A-6 and A-
7 (Myers 1983; Schweigert and Labrum 2001). When World War II began in
Europe, SCE planners anticipated an increase in demand for power in southern
California. SCE began construction on a second transmission line, the SCE
47 Cultural
South 220-Kilvolt South Transmission Line (SCE South or Hoover-Chino No. 2),
in 1939.
The lines are associated with the early operation of Hoover Dam and both played
a significant role in providing electricity essential to World War II industries
located in southern California. Both lines were previously recorded in Nevada
(site numbers 26CK6249 and 26CK6250) during the Boulder City/U.S. 93
Corridor Study, and were determined eligible for the NRHP by the Federal
Highway Administration and Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (Federal
Highway Administration 2005).Furthermore, both lines are in-use and regularly
maintained in the project area.
The evidence also establishes that the lines retain sufficient integrity to be
considered for listing on the NRHP and CRHR. (Ex. 309. pp. C-2-110 to C-2-
112.)
The evidence shows that the Pisgah Substation is not associated with distinctive
or significant person, is typical of the design of its era, and is not considered a
rare surviving example of its era. However, this switching station is associated
with the Southern California Edison 220-Kilovolt North and South Lines, which –
as discussed above -are recommended eligible for the NRHP and CRHR under
Criteria A/1. Because the Pisgah Substation is a component of the transmission
line, it is appropriate for an NRPH or CRHR eligibility recommendation under
Criterion A/1. It is also appropriately characterized as a historic resource under
CEQA. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-112 to C-2-113.)
Cultural 48
the project area of analysis. South of the interchange, Hector Road is a two-lane
paved roadway that extends south for a short distance to U.S. Route 66. North of
the Interstate 40 interchange, Hector Road is reduced to one-lane, graded, dirt
roadway. This segment of the roadway has been realigned since its original
construction, and much of the historic segment of the road between Interstate 40
and the BNSF is not within the project area of analysis. An improved railroad
crossing has been constructed at Hector Road, which remains locked with a gate
and padlock and is only used by local traffic with access permission. The
improved crossing includes crossing arms and slightly sloped asphalt ramps that
bring the road up to railroad grade and back down to road grade level.
From the BNSF Railroad, Hector Road continues northward about one mile to
the northwest corner of Section 3, Township 8 North, Range 6 East, and then
continues eastward along the section line for three miles. At the northeast corner
of Section 1, Township 8 North, Range 6 East, Hector Road turns to the
southeast and continues across sections 6 and 8 until its junction with the SCE
220-kV transmission line road. This segment of the road is a one-lane, graded
dirt road that appears to be maintained and frequently used. The route of Hector
Road from the railroad to the transmission line road has not been modified since
its original construction in the late 1930s or early 1950s. Sometime after 1955,
Hector Road was extended about one-half mile southeast to a road that leads to
the Black Butte manganese mine. Hector Road likely was constructed to provide
access to mines in the Project vicinity. The road also could have been used to
transport construction materials to the SCE 220-kV transmission line and the
Pisgah Substation from the railroad.
49 Cultural
road was extended sometime after 1955 because the map only depicts the road
between Pisgah Crater south of U.S. Route 66 and a small segment north of U.S.
Route 66 that terminates at the BNSF Railway. The segment of Pisgah Crater
Road that is 45 years old or older is paved with asphalt and is approximately 24
feet wide.
The Pisgah Crater currently is being mined for aggregate and is located on
private land. The road does not appear to be regularly maintained and likely is
only sporadically used to access the mine.
The evidence indicates that Pisgah Crater Road is not associated with any
distinctive or significant event, person, design, or construction, and the data
potential has been accounted for during the recordation process. The majority of
the road is located on private land and much of the crater has been destroyed by
mining.
As further explained by Staff, no records were found to indicate that the Pisgah
Crater was ever a well-known tourist destination for U.S. Route 66 travelers. The
road is representative of typical construction and design, which has been well-
documented in California and the west, and further study, is unlikely to yield
important information about the past.
We therefore find that Pisgah Crater Road is not eligible for listing in the NRHP
or the CRHR and is not a historical resource pursuant to CEQA. (Ex. 309, pp.
C.2-113 to C.2-114.)
Cultural 50
8. Ethnographic Resources
As discussed above, the SCE transmission lines originate at the SCE switchyard
at Hoover Dam. They terminate in Chino, California. Because of the association
of the transmission lines to Hoover Dam and their significance in the World War
II effort, the SCE 220-Kilovolt North and South Lines were evaluated as eligible
for the NRHP under Criterion A and the CRHR under Criterion 1. And, because
the Pisgah Substation is a component of the SCE 220-kV North and South
Transmission Lines, is also deemed eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and
for the CRHR under Criterion 1.
Both the National Park Service and State of California definitions indicate that
historic districts must have definable and precise boundaries and that these
boundaries rarely are defined by planning or management boundaries, or by
ownership parcels, but rather must be based upon the spatial locations of the
district’s contributing properties (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter
11.5, Section 4852(a)(5); U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
2002). Only about 4.7 miles of the transmission lines were recorded as part of
the Calico Solar project within the historic built environment one-half mile buffer.
51 Cultural
Because the entire route of the transmission line was not studied as part of the
project, the evidence does not allow for the delineation of a boundary that is not
arbitrarily defined. Therefore, based on the evidence, it appears inappropriate to
define a district based on these resources. (Ex. 309, pp. C.2-117 to C.2-118.)
Atlantic & Pacific (Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe) Railroad Historic District
Resources that could be included in a potential A&P Railroad historic district are
the railroad (CA-SBR-6693H) and seven nearby refuse deposits. The Atlantic &
Pacific Railroad was originally recorded as a historic resource in California in
1990. The railroad currently is used and maintained as the BNSF. In the project
area of analysis, the railroad has a double trackway on a raised, ballasted bed.
The railroad has been previously evaluated as eligible for the NRHP and CRHR
under Criterion A/1 for its association with the history of transportation in
California. Although much of the railroad has been upgraded for continued use
and few historical materials remain in place, the segment in the Project vicinity
retains integrity of location. Thirteen previously unrecorded bridges were
identified during the Class III intensive field survey along the railroad within the
Project area of analysis and the one-half mile built environment buffer. Five of
these retain sufficient integrity to be considered contributing elements to the
railroad.
As discussed above, both the National Park Service and State of California
definitions indicate that historic districts must have definable and precise
boundaries and that these boundaries rarely are defined by planning or
management boundaries. The railroad is a long, linear resource that extends
across seven states, and only about 10.5 miles of the railroad were recorded as
part of this Project within the historic built environment one-half mile buffer.
Because the entire route of the railroad was not studied as part of this Project,
we cannot delineate a boundary for a segment of the railroad in the Project
vicinity that would not be arbitrarily defined by the Project and buffer areas.
Therefore, it seems inappropriate to define a district.
With respect to the seven historic refuse sites located in the vicinity of the
railroad, including CA-SBR-13002/H, -13012H, -13014H, -13017H, -13023/H, -
13101, and -13108H, the evidence shows they have few temporally diagnostic
artifacts. It is therefore unclear whether these sites are contemporaneous. In
addition, the types of artifacts associated with these sites do not indicate clear
associations with the railroad. Three of these sites were evaluated as not eligible
for the NRHP and CRHR because of the low quantity of artifacts, lack of integrity,
low probability of subsurface artifacts and features, and little potential to yield
Cultural 52
important information. Four of these sites (CA-SBR-13002/H, -13012H, -13014H,
and -13017H) were recommended as eligible for the NRHP and CRHR for their
potential to yield important information although further testing is required to
determine if additional information can be obtained to support the hypothesis that
these sites are related to railroad activities or some other activity. Inclusion of
those properties in a historic district would not upgrade their status for
preservation purposes. (Ex. 309, pp.C-2-118 –C-119.)
National Old Trails Road and U.S. Route 66 are more fully discussed above. In
summary, the evidence shows National Old Trails Road in the project area of
analysis is represented by eight remnant segments of a batched mix oil road.
The condition of the road segments is poor—most of the road surface is
crumbled and cracked, and in places has eroded. Some segments buried by
sand may be partially intact.
In 1926, the National Old Trails Road was designated as U.S. Route 66, but in
the 1930s the segment in the project area of analysis was abandoned in favor of
a route to the south, which is the current alignment of historical U.S. Route 66.
Both the National Old Trails Road and 1930s alignment of U.S. Route 66 have
been recorded under site number CA-SBR-2910H, and previously evaluated as
eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A as one of the first all-weather highways in
the United States. The segment of U.S. Route 66 in the project area of analysis
retains historical integrity and is considered eligible. The National Old Trails Road
in the project area of analysis is isolated, segmented, in generally poor condition,
and is recommended as a non-contributing element of the highway.
Two rock clusters also were recorded (P36-014519 and P36-014520) along the
abandoned segment of the National Old Trails Road. However, no historical as-
built drawings of the highway have been located, and thus, a direct association
between the rock clusters and the highway remains ambiguous. The rock
clusters are recommended ineligible for the NRHP and not significant historical
resources eligible for listing in the CRHR.
53 Cultural
Segments of U.S. Route 66 and the National Old Trails Road have been listed in
the NRHP in several states. U.S. Route 66 related districts have been listed but
they include properties such as roadside businesses related to the development
of the highway within the boundaries of a specific town or locality. There are no
such properties in the project vicinity.
A statewide inventory of U.S. Route 66 has not been conducted for California. If
a historic district or multiple property listing of the highway was defined in
California, the segment of the 1930s U.S. Route 66 in the Project vicinity
probably would be considered a contributing element. However, defining a U.S.
Route 66 district at the project limits would be arbitrary for a highway that ran
through Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and
California. Further, because the other associated properties have little historic
value, there is no established justification for defining a National Old Trails
Road/U.S. Route 66 Historic District. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-119 to C-2-120.)
Research and site revisits have revealed no conclusive data to determine the
age of the surface disturbance (cleared area) along the National Old Trails Road
that occurs within the Project area of analysis. There have been several other
past Projects (historic and modern) that may be attributed to the surface
disturbance found within the Project area of analysis other than the National Old
Trails Road, such as the BNSF railroad and three pipelines within the same area
as the disturbances. Modern surface prospects also occur in the Project area of
analysis. These modern prospects are found on modern maps (1982 U.S.G.S.
7.5-minute topographic quadrangles), and are absent from historic maps (1955
U.S.G.S. 15-minute quadrangles). In addition, the majority of surface deposits
lack diagnostic material (documentation and/or datable cans/refuse). San
Bernardino County was responsible for route planning at the time the National
Old Trails Road was designated, and the route may or may not have been
professionally engineered. No historical as-built drawings of the highway have
been located, and thus, a direct association between surface disturbances
remains ambiguous.
Cultural 54
The National Park Service states that the boundaries of a district or landscape
“must be a definable geographic area that can be distinguished from surrounding
properties by changes such as density, scale, type, age, style of sites, buildings,
structures and objects, or by documented differences in patterns of historic
development or associations” (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service 2002:6). In this regard, the evidence indicates that while the spatial
relationship between historic road and surface gravel mining disturbance is
distinctive, the utilization of the surface for stone resources within the project
area of analysis cannot be well bounded. As a result, defining an early twentieth
century gravel mining landscape seems inappropriate because the activity lacks
sufficient data to be directly attributed to gravel mining for the construction and
maintenance of the National Old Trails Road. Additionally, the surface mining
activity cannot be clearly linked with the early twentieth century period because a
number of historic and modern ground disturbing related Projects have taken
place in this area over time, the lack of directly associated temporally diagnostic
artifacts, and the absence of historical documentation providing location and time
period for this specific activity. The lack of datable material also severely limits
the utility of cleared areas to address important research issues. Thus, there is
no basis for defining a landscape. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-120 to C-2-122.)
a. Construction Activities
After brush trimming, blading for roadways and foundations will be conducted
between alternating rows of SunCatchersTM to provide access to individual
SunCatchersTM. Blading would consist of removing terrain undulations and would
55 Cultural
be limited to 3 feet in cut and 3 feet in fill. The blading operations would keep
native soils within 100 feet of the pre-development location, with no hauling of
soils across the site.
With respect to materials and equipment staging, 100-acre lay down yard will be
cleared on the southeast corner of the project site where SunCatchers will be
assembled. Assembly buildings will be constructed adjacent to the Main Services
Complex for the onsite assembly of the SunCatchers. The assembly buildings
will be decommissioned and salvaged for re-use once all Calico Solar
SunCatchers have been installed. SunCatchers will be installed in the area
vacated by the removal of the construction laydown areas and assembly
buildings when construction is completed.
Cultural 56
b. Construction Impacts
As discussed above, the 6,215 acre footprint will avoid three sites identified by
BLM as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. As a result, BLM issued a finding of no
adverse effect to historic properties and sought concurrence from the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). (Ex. 309, p. C.2-26.) The SHPO concurred
with BLM’s determination that the sites deemed eligible are eligible for NRHP.
that BLM the SHPO neither concurred with nor objected to the BLM's
determination that the remaining sites within the area of potential effects were not
eligible. (8/25/10 RT .21.)
But, as also discussed above, Staff has produced evidence establishing that
construction of the project may wholly or partially destroy the majority of surface
archaeological resources in the project area, which were identified by the
Applicant. More particularly, it appears that 100 surface prehistoric
archaeological sites in the current project footprint have not yet been adequately
investigated or evaluated in terms of potential to yield data important to the study
of prehistory. It also appears that project construction has potential to destroy a
large portion of a potential prehistoric archaeological landscape that may exist in
the project area.
The evidence also establishes the potential for indirect effects to archeological
sites in the exclusion areas as a result of activities such as increased traffic
during project construction. Project area may also increase the amount of sheet
washing and water runoff during heavy rainfall and indirectly cause damage to
sites outside the project area.
The evidence presented does not identify precisely which of the different
archaeological resources are historically significant, leaving us unable to identify
with particularity the exact character of the effects that the construction of the
proposed facility would have on such resources. We can nonetheless draw a
reasonable inference from the evidence that the construction of the proposed
facility could have a significant effect on the environment that requires mitigation
under CEQA and that feasible mitigation measures can be implemented building
upon the analytical process that has already been initiated, documented, and
explained in the record.
More specifically, the Applicant, Staff, and BLM have defined an appropriate
geographic extent of the project area of analysis and they have collectively
contributed to the creation of an inventory of the known cultural resources within
57 Cultural
that area. With implementation of Conditions of Certification CUL-1 through
CUL-5 and CUL-7 through CUL-11, potential impacts to both known and
unknown resources will be avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels.
The Conditions of Certification require the project owner to collect the necessary
surface and subsurface data on the resources sufficient to develop formal
recommendations of historical significance, assess effects to significant
resources, and implement mitigation measures that meet the standards for the
resolution of significant effects to significant cultural resources. In addition,
Energy Commission licensing decisions and BLM right-of-way grant decisions
also typically identify the likelihood of encountering previously unknown
resources and contain provisions that require specific procedures to ensure that
any effects to these resources can be resolved.
SunCatcher mirror washing, operations dust control, potable water use, and
water treatment under regular maintenance routines will require an average of
33.4 gallons of raw water per minute, with a daily maximum requirement of 56.6
gallons of raw water per minute during the summer peak months each year,
when each SunCatcher receives a single mechanical wash. Road and
SunCatcher area long-term maintenance would include:
• Temporary soil stabilization (SS) techniques, such as scheduling construction
sequences to minimize land disturbance during the rainy and non-rainy
seasons and employing BMPs appropriate for the season; preserving existing
vegetation by marking areas of preservation with temporary orange propylene
fencing; using geotextiles, mats, plastic covers, or erosion control blankets to
stabilize disturbed areas and protect soils from erosion by wind or water;
Cultural 58
using earth dikes, drainage swales, or lined ditches to intercept, divert, and
convey surface runoff to prevent erosion; using outlet protection devices and
velocity dissipation devices at pipe outlets to prevent scour and erosion from
storm water flows; and/or using slope drains to intercept and direct surface
runoff or groundwater to a stabilized water course or retention area.
• Sediment Control (SC) techniques, such as using silt fences, straw bales,
and/or fiber rolls to intercept and slow the flow of sediment-laden runoff such
that sediment settles before runoff leaves the site.
• Wind Erosion (WE) control by applying water or dust palliatives, as required,
to prevent or alleviate windblown dust.
• Tracking Control (TC) techniques to limit track-out, such as using stabilized
points of entering and exiting the project site and stabilized construction
roadways on the site.
• Other measures, as appropriate, to comply with the regulations.
Many direct and indirect impacts described above as part of construction also
apply to the operation phase. During operation of the proposed power plant,
repair of a buried utility or other buried infrastructure could require the excavation
of a large hole. Such repairs have the potential to impact previously unknown
subsurface archaeological resources in areas unaffected by any original trench
excavation. Thus, Conditions of Certification CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-8 through
CUL-10 are equally applicable to project operations to mitigate impacts to known
and unknown archaeological resources. (Ex. 309, pp.C.2-129 to C-2-130.)
The evidence shows that there will be a direct visual effect to U.S. Route 66 from
the installation of the proposed 26,450 solar dishes. The installation of this large
number of SunCatchers, consisting of an approximate 40-foot diameter solar
concentrator dish that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets, will alter
the vast, open landscape that is a character-defining feature of this section of
Route 66, as well as of the rest of Route 66 in the Mojave Desert. The travel
experience of this section of Route 66—which has been substantially unchanged
since its construction—will be permanently impaired.
59 Cultural
Potential mitigation measures were proposed such a providing on-site and/or off-
site screening or eliminating the first few rows of solar dishes. Screening
measures are infeasible given that the area is relatively flat and consists only of
scrub vegetation. The significance of Route 66 in the Mojave is the view of the
vast, unobstructed, flat expanse of desert landscape which would be impeded by
any type of screening, either on the roadway itself or on the edge of the project
site. Furthermore, eliminating the first few rows of solar dishes would not lessen
the visual impact of the proposed project, as the views are unobstructed for
approximately 20 miles.
Cultural 60
Our focus here is on two possible upgrade scenarios:
(1) The 275 MW Early Interconnection Option – This includes upgrades to the
existing SCE system to result in 275 MW of additional latent system
capacity. The Pisgah Substation would be expanded adjacent to the
existing substation, one or two new 220kV structures would be
constructed to support the gen-tie line from the project into the Pisgah
Substation, and new telecommunications facilities would be installed
within existing rights of way.
(2) The 850 MW Full Build-Out Option – This include replacing a 67-mile 220
kV SCE transmission line with a new 500kV line, expanding the Pisgah
Substation at a new location and making other telecommunication
upgrades to allow for additional transmission system capacity to support
operation of the Calico Solar project. (Ex. 309, p. C.2-137.)
Environmental Setting
The upgrades would be within the Lugo-Pisgah project area located in the
western Mojave Desert where numerous large-scale inventory projects have
been conducted. In part, these projects have defined a cultural chronology for
the area that spans the last 12,000 years. Ethnographically, the project area is
centered on the traditional lands of the Serrano, a Numic speaking group related
to the Shoshone. Between these earliest and latest Native American periods is a
rich cultural history.
The Mojave Desert is suggested to have been the area of principal point of origin
for the migration of the Numic language group, which spread northeastward into
the Great Basin and eventually the northern Colorado Plateau. Many of the
distinctive projectile point types described for the Great Basin and Southwest
culture areas may have originated in the broad geographic area of the Mojave
Desert.
Native American history begins with the Clovis culture, the earliest substantively
established cultural period in the Western Hemisphere and the only “classic”
Paleo-Indian period represented in the project area. Dated from 10,000 to 8,000
61 Cultural
B.C., the Clovis period is represented by distinctive spear points with a central
flute or groove on either side of the point. These points are extremely well made
and have been found in association with extinct Pleistocene megafauna.
The evidence shows that the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene is
marked by significant environmental changes that resulted in equally significant
changes in human settlement and subsistence strategies. The Lake Mojave
Complex follows Clovis and subsumes several other named complexes,
including the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition and the San Dieguito Complex,
among others. Again, the Mojave Complex is represented by a distinct projectile
point that tapers to a rounded base. Dates of the complex are ca. 8000 to 6000
B.C. The period is associated with relatively wet conditions and periodic lake
recharge in the region. Material culture for the period is dominated by a stone
tool technology geared towards a forager-like subsistence strategy. Such a
strategy reflects the frequently changing environmental conditions and patchy
resources that would be available necessitating frequent settlement shifts.
The Late Prehistoric period extends from the close of the Rose Springs Complex
ca. A.D. 1100 and ends with the ethnographically described groups occupying
the area at contact in the 16th century. It is during this period that Ancestral
Puebloan groups are known to have exploited turquoise mines and probably
interacted with resident Numic speaking Paiute and Shoshone groups. It is
Cultural 62
during this period that the postulated Numic expansion took place out of the
Mojave Desert northeastward into the Great Basin. A return of warm and dry
conditions, coupled with linguistic evidence, suggest this expansion began
sometime before A.D. 1000 (SES 2008a).
Spanish settlement of southern California took place after the first mission was
established in 1769. The Serrano, a Shoshonean group, were the primary
inhabitants of the project area. Serrano lived in large square communal houses
and practiced an extensive trade network with the coast. Secularization of the
Spanish missions in 1834 led to the development of large ranchos that extended
into the interior from the coast. Ranchos often forced Native American groups
into a form of indentured servitude. These closed, fortified communal settlements
continued after non-Mexican immigrants entered the region. Upon statehood in
1850, industrialization began with the building of railroads, including the Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF), mining, and the development of military
installations ((Ex. 309, pp C.2-137-C.2-139.)
63 Cultural
be replaced by the new 500-kV line. If these resources meet the age criteria for
consideration then a qualified architectural historian must document the
resources on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and
assess the significance and potential impact to these resources. Other potential
historic resources include the crossing of the AT&SF Railroad (two locations) and
the California Aqueduct. Numerous other transmission lines would also be
crossed. (Ex. 309, p. C.2-139.)
Environmental Impacts
Impacts to cultural resources are unknown pending a formal file and literature
review and intensive inventory. Since the proposed 500 kV transmission line
corridor would follow an existing ROW for much of its proposed length, it is
possible that impacts to cultural resources would be lower due to prior impacts.
New construction would have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources
from ROW/access road construction, blading, equipment storage, pole
placement, substation expansion and line installation.
Ground disturbance, the presence of vehicles driving over the top of sites and the
installation of new towers could damage archaeological resources. After the work
area is defined and after archaeological and historic surveys are complete in any
areas that have not been protocol-level surveyed previously by SCE,
archaeological sites or historic resources within the built environment may be
identified. Depending on when they were built, if the existing SCE 220 kV line or
the Pisgah and Panoche/Lugo Substations are determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the upgrades and removal effort
would result in an impact to historical resources. Other potential historic
resources include the crossing of the AT&SF Railroad (two locations) and the
California Aqueduct. Whether the impact is significant would need to be
determined after the line, substations and/or other infrastructure are evaluated.
Some new lines would be installed in places where there were none previously,
and some existing overhead lines would have structures retrofitted and replaced
along existing lines. The trench for undergrounding for the Pisgah-Gale fiber
optic cable (under the 275 MW Early Interconnection) would normally be
excavated in an existing underground cable trench or in a new 600-foot-long
trench near the SCE Pisgah Substation, and trenching would not come within 12
inches from any existing fence, wall, or outbuilding associated with an adjacent
property. Therefore, there would be no potential to adversely impact the physical
condition of existing above-ground cultural resources. The only potential to
adversely impact existing above-ground cultural resources would arise from a
Cultural 64
change in the visual setting of the property due to the addition of taller poles or
new poles, new overhead lines, and new substation equipment depending on the
location in the project area.
Any potential for the project to impact cultural resources would be limited to
undiscovered below-ground cultural deposits. It is possible that buried cultural
deposits could be encountered during ground disturbing project activities including
trenching for the installation of underground fiber optic cables, during ground
disturbance associated with the removal or installation of transmission structures,
or ground disturbance associated with the expansion at the Pisgah Substation.
The 275 MW Early Interconnection upgrades would require substantially less
ground disturbance than the 850 MW Full Build-Out, and the chance of impacting
cultural resources would be reduced. (Ex. 309, p. C-2-140.)
Mitigation
Prior to the start of construction, cultural resources sites would be identified and
avoided by vehicles and construction activities. After the construction area has
been identified and after work for Section 106 has been completed, Staff
recommends that the archeological sites be evaluated for eligibility for listing in
the NRHP or CRHR if it appears that any would be affected by the project. Sites
that have been evaluated as “not eligible” would warrant no further consideration
and avoidance will be required.
Sites that have not been evaluated and sites that are considered “potentially
eligible” should be treated as eligible resources pending formal evaluation. If
found to meet age and significance criteria, the historic resources identified
above, including the substations and the existing 220 kV transmission line, would
require Level 1 Historic American Engineering Records (HAER) be completed in
order to mitigate adverse effects. The crossing of the AT&SF railroad, other
historic transmission lines, and the California Aqueduct would likely result in the
determination of no adverse effect.
65 Cultural
In the event of a site discovery during project implementation, all work shall stop
in the immediate area in order to afford time for documentation, evaluation, and
consultation between the lead federal agency, the California State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), and all consulting tribes if a discovery is aboriginal
in origin. Consultation with the above entities would ensue regardless of whether
the discovery is located on private or federal lands. If consultation determines
that the discovery is eligible for the NRHP, a consideration of effects should be
undertaken pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA, 1966, as amended). If consultation results in a determination of adverse
effects to a historic property, mitigation measures would be proposed and
implemented following consultation with the California SHPO, the lead federal
agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and all consulting
Tribes, if necessary. Avoidance would be the preferable mitigation measure in all
instances. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-140 to C-2-141.)
Staff’s analysis further indicates that while SCE would attempt to avoid effects to
known cultural sites, it is possible that the corridors have sensitive cultural
resources that may not be avoidable and could be affected. Thus, with
implementation of Conditions of Certification adopted herein, it would be possible
to mitigate all impacts to cultural resources to less than a significant level and to
implement recommended measures that apply to cultural resources. Known
sensitive areas would be avoided and construction activities would be monitored.
(Ex. 309, p.C.2-141.)
Cultural 66
Project Location
Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Air Morongo Basin (to the south of project
Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) site)
SEGS I and II Near Daggett (17 miles west of project
site)
CACTUS (formerly Solar One and Solar Near Daggett (to the west of project
Two) site)
Mine 2 miles west of project site along I-40
Mine 14 miles west of project site along I-40
According to the evidence, cultural resources in the geographic area have been
impacted by past and currently approved projects in the following ways:
67 Cultural
Wind project (CACA 48629)
Wind Project (CACA 48667)
Wind project (CACA 48472)
Twin Mountain Rock Venture
Solar thermal (CACA 49429)
Proposed National Monument (former Catellus Lands)
BLM Renewable Energy Study Areas
The construction of the Calico Solar Project and other foreseeable cumulative
projects will contribute to permanent long term, potentially unmitigable, adverse
impacts as a result of the physical degradation of and visual intrusion on
significant cultural resources on those sites and an overall net reduction in
cultural resources in the area.
Project operation may also result in similar impacts as a result of some or all of
the cumulative projects, as more people come into this area associated with
those new land uses. As a result, operation the Calico Solar Project and the
other cumulative projects may contribute to a cumulative adverse impact on
cultural resources as a result in increased access to the area and the potential
for increased vandalism, illegal collection of artifacts, and/or destruction of
resources during operation related activities. (Ex. 309, pp. C-2-141 to C-2-144.)
To minimize the region-wide, significant cumulative impacts to less than
significant levels, we adopt Conditions of Certification CUL-1 through CUL-10.
Cultural 68
15. Compliance with LORS
Specifically with respect to local LORS, the County of San Bernardino’s General
Plan has general language promoting the county-wide preservation of cultural
resources. The Conditions of Certification require specific actions to promote
and effect historic preservation and mitigate impacts to all cultural resources.
Thus, if the project owner implements the Conditions, its actions would be
consistent with the County’s historic preservation goals.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings and
reaches the following conclusions:
69 Cultural
1. Without mitigation, the Calico Solar project would have a significant direct
impact on historically significant archaeological resources.
2. Without mitigation, the Calico Solar project has the potential to have a
significant indirect impact on contributors to a historically significant
cultural landscape, including ethnographic resources.
3. There are resources within the proposed Calico Solar site footprint and
linear facilities corridor that are eligible or assumed eligible for listing in the
NRHP and the CRHR.
4. Tribal governments have been contacted for a Section 106 consultation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
Cultural 70
Specialist (CRS) and one or more alternate CRSs (at the project
owner’s option).
The CRS shall manage all cultural resources monitoring, mitigation,
curation, and reporting activities in accordance with the Conditions of
Certification (Conditions). The CRS may elect to obtain the services of
Cultural Resources Monitors (CRMs) and other technical specialists, if
needed, to assist in monitoring, mitigation, and curation activities. The
project owner shall ensure that the CRS makes recommendations
regarding the eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR) of any cultural resources that are newly discovered
or that may be affected in an unanticipated manner. No ground
disturbance shall occur prior to Compliance Project Manager (CPM)
approval of the CRS and alternates, unless such activities are
specifically approved by the CPM.
71 Cultural
satisfaction of the CPM that the CRS/alternate CRS has the appropriate
training and experience to implement effectively the Conditions.
Cultural 72
At least 10 days prior to any technical specialists, other than CRMS, beginning
tasks, the resume(s) of the specialists shall be provided to the CPM for review
and approval.
At least 10 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project owner shall
confirm in writing to the CPM that the approved CRS will be available for onsite
work and is prepared to implement the cultural resources conditions.
CUL-2 Prior to the start of ground disturbance, if the CRS has not previously
worked on the project, the project owner shall provide the CRS with
copies of the AFC, data responses, confidential cultural resources
reports (upon BLM approval), and the Energy Commission’s
Supplemental Staff Assessment Part II (SSA Part II) and the BLM’s
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project. The
project owner shall also provide the CRS and the CPM with maps and
drawings showing the footprints of the power plant, all linear facility
routes, all access roads, and all laydown areas. Maps shall include the
appropriate USGS quadrangles and a map at an appropriate scale
(e.g., 1:2400 or 1” = 200’) for plotting cultural features or materials. If
the CRS requests enlargements or strip maps for linear facility routes,
the project owner shall provide copies to the CRS and CPM. The CPM
shall review map submittals and, in consultation with the CRS, approve
those that are appropriate for use in cultural resources planning
activities. No ground disturbance shall occur prior to CPM approval of
maps and drawings, unless such activities are specifically approved by
the CPM.
If construction of the project would proceed in phases, maps and
drawings not previously provided shall be provided to the CRS and
CPM prior to the start of each phase. Written notice identifying the
proposed schedule of each project phase shall be provided to the CRS
and CPM.
Weekly, until ground disturbance is completed, the project construction
manager shall provide to the CRS and CPM a schedule of project
activities for the following week, including the identification of area(s)
where ground disturbance will occur during that week.
The project owner shall notify the CRS and CPM of any changes to the
scheduling of the construction phases.
Verification: At least 15 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the
project owner shall provide the AFC, data responses, confidential cultural
resources documents, the SSA Part II, and the FEIS to the CRS, if needed, and
the subject maps and drawings to the CRS and CPM. The CPM will review
submittals in consultation with the CRS and approve maps and drawings suitable
for cultural resources planning activities.Project owner shall submit confidential
information to the CPM, only after receiving approval from the BLM.
73 Cultural
At least 15 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, if there are changes to
any project-related footprint, the project owner shall provide revised maps and
drawings for the changes to the CRS and CPM.
At least 15 days prior to the start of each phase of a phased project, the project
owner shall submit the appropriate maps and drawings, if not previously
provided, to the CRS and CPM.
Weekly, during ground disturbance, a current schedule of anticipated project
activity shall be provided to the CRS and CPM by letter, e-mail, or fax.
Within 5 days of changing the scheduling of phases of a phased project, the
project owner shall provide written notice of the changes to the CRS and CPM.
Cultural 74
Verification: Upon the recognition that proposed changes to the project or to
the character of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project
would require the use of lands that were not a part of the original project area,
the project owner shall notify the CRS and CPM. The project owner shall then
provide, for CPM review and approval, documentation of any cultural resources
surveys five years or less in age that exist for the additional lands.
At least 105 days prior to the use of the new additional project area lands, in the
absence of any such cultural resources surveys or when the extant cultural
resources surveys do not cover the entirety of the lands to be added to the
project area, the project owner shall ensure that the CRS surveys the additional
lands for cultural resources, notifies the project owner and the CPM of the results
of the new cultural resources survey, and recommends further action.
No more than 15 days subsequent to the receipt of the information in verification
2, CUL-3, above, the CPM shall determine whether historical resources may be
present and whether any such resources may be subject to substantial adverse
changes in significance.
At least 60 days prior to the use of the new additional project area lands, if the
CPM determines that historical resources may be subject to substantial adverse
changes in significance, the project owner shall ensure that the CRS provides the
CPM with substantiated evaluations, based on archival and field research, on
whether each such resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR and
recommendations for the resolution of any potential significant effects.
For no longer than 15 days, the project owner, the CRS, and the CPM shall
confer about the above evaluations and recommendations, and, upon the
concurrence of the CPM with those evaluations and recommendations, the
project owner shall ensure that the CRS proceeds to resolve any significant
effects pursuant to the above recommendations prior to the use of the new
additional project area lands.
The project owner shall ensure that the CRS reports on the methods and the
results of all such work in the CRR (CUL-7).
Project owner shall submit confidential information to the CPM, only after
receiving approval from the BLM.
CUL-4 Prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project owner shall develop,
prepare, and implement a series of protocols the purposes of which will
be to gather and analyze information to refine the assessments of the
historical significance of the archaeological resources in the project
area of analysis. The project owner shall prepare and submit, for the
review and approval of the CPM and consistent with the guidance found
in the February 1990 “Archaeological Resource Management Reports
(ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format” and the February 1991
“Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs,” separate protocols
for the CRHR evaluation of each archaeological site type or site type
group in the CPM-approved, final archaeological resource taxonomy
75 Cultural
and for each archaeological district, landscape, or other large-scale
archaeological resource in the subject taxonomy. A field methodology
will be included in each protocol which outlines a representative sample
of 20% of each of the site types which would be selected for further
evaluation. Ground disturbance on or in the vicinity of sites selected for
evaluation may not commence until the evaluation reports have been
completed. Ground disturbance may begin on portions of the project
area which do not contain sites selected for further evaluation, subject
to the construction monitoring provisions of CUL-9. Among the large-
scale resources that the project owner shall explicitly are a prehistoric
archaeological landscape that encompasses the numerous and diverse
individual prehistoric archaeological sites across the desert pavements
in the southern portion of the project area, a potential historical
archaeological gravel mining district over roughly the western to west-
central portion of the project area, and the archaeological remnants of
the segment of the National Trails Road in the project area that may be
a contributing element to a National Trails Road historic district.
Each CRHR evaluation protocol shall include, at a minimum, the
following elements:
1. A background research section which develops interpretive
contexts germane to each protocol and which presents information
on previous research in the vicinity of the project area, generally,
and on previous research on the specific resource types under
consideration in the respective protocols.
2. An evaluation phase research design which, in the case of
protocols prepared for individual archaeological resource types or
type groups, should include a rationalized 20% sample of the
resources in a type or type group, rather than a protocol structured
to sample 100 percent of the population of a type or type group,
and which explicitly takes into account extant information on the
subject resources.
3. A detailed and explicit field methodology tailored to acquire the data
necessary to address specific research questions.
4. Provisions for specialists to be present on site and specialized
laboratory analyses of recovered cultural materials where feasible
and if determined necessary to complete CRHR evaluation.
5. Provisions for laboratory analyses of chronometric samples, and
organic remains and residues , where feasible and if determined
necessary to complete CRHR evaluation .
Where defensible relative to archaeological theory, the project owner
may submit documents that, within a single document, tier several
separate evaluation protocols from common background research. In
such documents, the project owner would develop and present
Cultural 76
germane prehistoric or historic contexts and present a general review of
previous archaeological research in the project area vicinity before
laying out the specific evaluation protocols for particular archaeological
resources by reviewing previous archaeological research specific to a
resource type, type group, or large-scale resource, and then developing
and presenting custom research designs for those particular resources.
Subsequent to the completion of the implementation of each protocol,
the project owner shall prepare and submit, for the review and approval
of the CPM, separate reports on the results of the implementation of
each protocol, on the analysis and interpretation of that data, and on
the CRHR evaluation of the resource type, type group, or large-scale
resource that a subject protocol addresses.
Each CRHR evaluation report shall include, unless otherwise
determined by the CPM , the following elements:
The project owner may lump the evaluation reports into report
documents that reflect any prior approved protocol documents that
contain more than one protocol.
77 Cultural
and the requirements set out above would have no further force or
effect.
Cultural 78
Resources Conditions of Certification from the Commission
Decision are contained in Appendix A.”
2. A proposed general research design that includes a discussion of
archaeological research questions and testable hypotheses
specifically applicable to the project area, and a discussion of
artifact collection, retention/disposal, and curation policies as
related to the research questions formulated in the research design.
The research design will specify that the preferred treatment
strategy for any buried archaeological deposits is avoidance.
Specific mitigation plans shall be prepared and submitted, for the
review and approval of the CPM, for any unavoidable significant
effects to archaeological resource types, type groups, or large-
scale archaeological resources determined by the process in CUL-
4 to be eligible for listing in the CRHR. Specific mitigation plans
shall also be prepared and submitted, pursuant to CUL-6, for the
review and approval of the CPM, for the unmitigable significant
effects that the project will have on U.S. Route 66, and for any
other significant effects that the project may have on other
significant built-environment resources. Prescriptive treatment
plans for construction-related discoveries may also be included in
the CRMMP for limited archaeological resource types.
3. Indication of how recovered materials and records will be
disposed, taking into account the expressed wishes of the
consulting Native Americans.
4. Inclusion of a schedule for providing the consulting Native
Americans with periodic updates on implementation of the
Treatment Plan.
5. Inclusion of a schedule for completing a final data recovery and
discovery report and specify when and to whom this report will be
distributed.
6. Inclusion of a curation agreement that ensures that all materials
(other than Native American human remains and grave-associated
materials) and records are maintained in accordance with 36 CFR
Part 79. Materials recovered from privately owned lands, other
than Native American human remains and grave-associated
materials, that are to be returned to their owners, will be maintained
in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79 until their analysis is completed.
7. Specification of the manner in which human remains and grave-
associated artifacts recovered during data recovery or discovered
during subsequent construction will be treated according to the
applicable laws and regulations, and in consultation with the wishes
of the consulting Native Americans.
79 Cultural
8. Specification of the implementation sequence and the estimated
time frames needed to accomplish all project-related tasks during
the ground-disturbance and post-ground–disturbance analysis
phases of the project.
9. Identification of the person(s) expected to perform each of the
tasks, their responsibilities, and the reporting relationships between
project construction management and the mitigation and monitoring
team.
10 A description of the manner in which Native American observers or
monitors will be included, the procedures to be used to select them,
and their role and responsibilities.
11. A description of all impact-avoidance measures (such as flagging or
fencing) to prohibit or otherwise restrict access to sensitive
resource areas that are to be avoided during ground disturbance,
construction, and/or operation, and identification of areas where
these measures are to be implemented. The description shall
address how these measures would be implemented prior to the
start of ground disturbance and how long they would be needed to
protect the resources from project-related effects.
12. A statement that all encountered cultural resources over 50 years
old shall be recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR) 523 forms and mapped and photographed. In addition, all
archaeological materials retained as a result of the archaeological
investigations (survey, testing, data recovery) shall be curated in
accordance with the California State Historical Resources
Commission’s Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological
Collections, into a retrievable storage collection in a public
repository or museum.
13. A statement that the project owner will pay all curation fees for
artifacts recovered and for related documentation produced during
cultural resources investigations conducted for the project. The
project owner shall identify three possible curation facilities that
could accept cultural resources materials resulting from project
activities.
14. A statement that the CRS has access to equipment and supplies
necessary for site mapping, photography, and recovery of any
cultural resource materials that are encountered during ground
disturbance and cannot be treated prescriptively.
15. A description of the contents, format, and review and approval
process of the final Cultural Resource Report (CRR), which shall be
prepared according to ARMR guidelines.
Cultural 80
Verification: Upon approval of the CRS proposed by the project owner, the
CPM will provide to the project owner an electronic copy of the draft model
CRMMP for the CRS.
At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project owner shall
submit the CRMMP to the CPM for review and approval.
At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, in a letter to the CPM,
the project owner shall agree to pay curation fees for any materials generated or
collected as a result of the archaeological investigations (survey, testing, and
data recovery).
Within 90 days after completion of ground disturbance (including landscaping), if
cultural materials requiring curation were generated or collected, the project
owner shall provide to the CPM a copy of an agreement with, or other written
commitment from, a curation facility that meets the standards stated in the
California State Historical Resources Commission’s Guidelines for the Curation
of Archaeological Collections, to accept the cultural materials from this project.
Any agreements concerning curation will be retained and available for audit for
the life of the project.
Project owner shall submit confidential information to the CPM, only after
receiving approval from the BLM.
CUL-6 Prior to the start of ground disturbance the project owner shall complete
Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) large-format photographs
(with negatives), sketch plan(s), and written documentation of the 9-
mile long segment of U.S. Route 66, including its landscape, viewshed,
and character-defining features within the project area from the
roadway. In total, no more than fifteen negatives will be prepared. The
written component shall be equivalent to HALS Level II documentation.
Photographs shall be keyed to a locational map, which shall also
include any bridges or culverts associated with the road.
The project owner shall ensure that archivally stable original
photographs and negatives (HALS Level III), written documentation
(HALS Level II) are submitted to the following repositories and agencies
for archival storage and public use: California Historical Resources
Information System (CHRIS) (to receive the original set), the County of
San Bernardino, California Energy Commission, and the Bureau of
Land Management. The project owner shall be responsible for any
associated curation fees. Documentation may also be submitted to the
HALS program for archival storage.
Documentation shall adhere to the established HALS recordation
guidelines and be undertaken and completed by a person meeting the
U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for
history or architectural history , as published in Title 36, Code of
Federal Regulations, part 61 (36 C.F.R., part 61) and a qualified
architectural photographer. The resumes of the qualified personnel
81 Cultural
and architectural photographer shall include the names and telephone
numbers of contacts familiar with their work on referenced projects and
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the CPM that the qualified personnel
and architectural photographer have the appropriate training and
experience to effectively implement this condition. The applicant may
undertake the HALS level-photographic and written recordation
activities prior to certification. The applicant undertaking such activities
would do so, at their own risk, as a means of advantaging their
schedule.
The project owner shall submit the final HALS level-photographic and
written documentation to the CPM for review and approval. The final
written report shall be provided in the format specified by the HALS
Level II guidelines and photographic documentation shall be provided
in the format specified by HALS Level III guidelines. The applicant
may undertake the HALS recordation activities prior to certification.
The applicant undertaking such activities would do so, at their own risk,
as a means of advantaging their schedule.
The HALS documentation shall be submitted to a local repository,
approved by the CPM, to be displayed in an area easily accessible by
the public. The display shall include photographs of the project site
and include a written history of Route 66 and its significance in the
eastern Mojave, to be reviewed and approved by the CPM prior to
submission.
Should an agreement document be executed in consideration of the
proposed action pursuant to 36 CFR §§ 800.6 or 800.14(b) among the
Bureau of Land Management or other Federal agencies, and the
California State Historic Preservation Officer, with or without the
participation of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and
should that document provide for more intensive HALS Level I or II
documentation than the requirements set out above, as determined by
the CPM, then the applicant shall adhere to the more stringent
requirements in the executed agreement document to mitigate the
significant effects of the proposed action on US Route 66. The
requirements as set out in the executed agreement document, as they
apply to US Route 66, shall supersede the lesser requirements set out
above and those lesser requirements would have no further force or
effect. Should the executed agreement document be amended in such
a manner that the mitigation measures for US Route 66 become less
stringent than those set out above, as determined by the CPM, or
should the agreement document be terminated prior to the complete
implementation of the US Route 66 mitigation measures set out in it,
then the project owner shall implement all of the above requirements, in
addition to any measures set out under the amended agreement
document and in addition to any measures that may have been partially
completed prior to the termination of said agreement.
Cultural 82
Verification: At least 25 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the
project owner shall submit the resume for the qualified personnel and
architectural photographer to the CPM for review and approval . CPM review will
take no longer than 5 days .
At least 15 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project owner shall
submit the draft HALS report to the CPM for review and approvalCPM review will
take no longer than 5 days.
Within 15 days after the CPM approval of the HALS report, the project owner
shall provide documentation to the CPM confirming that copies of the final report
have been provided to the CHRIS, and the HALS. CPM review will take no
longer than 5 days .
Within 10 days after CPM approval of the HALS report, the project owner shall
provide documentation to the CPM confirming that copies of the final report have
been provided to CHRIS, County of San Bernardino, and Bureau of Land
Management .
At least 60 days prior to the completion of Phase 1 construction, the project
owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval , the photographs of the
project site and written history that is to be submitted to the local repository.
At least 120 days after the completion of Phase 1 construction, the project owner
shall submit evidence that the photographs of the project site and written history
has been submitted to the local repository .
CUL-7 The project owner shall submit the final Cultural Resources Report
(CRR) to the CPM for approval. The final CRR shall be written by or
under the direction of the CRS and shall be provided in the ARMR
format. The final CRR shall report on all field activities including dates,
times and locations, results, samplings, and analyses. All survey
reports, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Series forms,
data recovery reports, and any additional research reports not
previously submitted to the California Historical Resource Information
System (CHRIS) and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
shall be included as appendices to the final CRR.
If the project owner requests a suspension of ground disturbance
and/or construction activities, then a draft CRR that covers all cultural
resources activities associated with the project shall be prepared by the
CRS and submitted to the CPM for review and approval on the same
day as the suspension/extension request. The draft CRR shall be
retained at the project site in a secure facility until ground disturbance
and/or construction resumes or the project is withdrawn. If the project is
withdrawn, then a final CRR shall be submitted to the CPM for review
and approval at the same time as the withdrawal request.
Verification: Within 30 days after requesting a suspension of construction
activities, the project owner shall submit a draft CRR to the CPM for review and
83 Cultural
approval . Project owner shall submit confidential information to the CPM, only
after receiving approval from the BLM .
Within 90 days after completion of ground disturbance (including landscaping),
the project owner shall submit the final CRR to the CPM for review and approval.
If any reports have previously been sent to the CHRIS, then receipt letters from
the CHRIS or other verification of receipt shall be included in an appendix.
Within 10 days after CPM approval of the CRR, the project owner shall provide
documentation to the CPM confirming that copies of the final CRR have been
provided to the SHPO, the CHRIS, the curating institution, if archaeological
materials were collected, and to the Tribal Chairpersons of any Native American
groups requesting copies of project-related reports.
CUL-8 Prior to and for the duration of ground disturbance, the project owner
shall provide Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
training to all new workers within their first week of employment at the
project site, along the linear facilities routes, and at laydown areas,
roads, and other ancillary areas. The training shall be prepared by the
CRS, may be conducted by any member of the archaeological team,
and may be presented in the form of a video. The CRS shall be
available (by telephone or in person) to answer questions posed by
employees. The training may be discontinued when ground disturbance
is completed or suspended, but must be resumed when ground
disturbance, such as landscaping, resumes.
The training shall include:
1. A discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the law;
2. Samples or visuals of artifacts that might be found in the project
vicinity;
3. A discussion of what such artifacts may look like when partially
buried, or wholly buried and then freshly exposed;
4. A discussion of what prehistoric and historical archaeological
deposits look like at the surface and when exposed during
construction, and the range of variation in the appearance of such
deposits;
5. Instruction that the CRS, alternate CRS, and CRMs have the
authority to halt ground disturbance in the area of a discovery to an
extent sufficient to ensure that the resource is protected from
further impacts, as determined by the CRS;
6. Instruction that employees are to halt work on their own in the
vicinity of a potential cultural resources discovery and shall contact
their supervisor and the CRS or CRM, and that redirection of work
would be determined by the construction supervisor and the CRS;
7. An informational brochure that identifies reporting procedures in the
event of a discovery;
Cultural 84
8. An acknowledgement form signed by each worker indicating that
they have received the training; and
9. A sticker that shall be placed on hard hats indicating that
environmental training has been completed.
No ground disturbance shall occur prior to implementation of the WEAP
program, unless such activities are specifically approved by the CPM.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance, the
CRS shall provide the training program draft text and graphics and the
informational brochure to the CPM for review and approval.
At least 15 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance, the CPM will
provide to the project owner a WEAP Training Acknowledgement form for
each WEAP-trained worker to sign.
Monthly, until ground disturbance is completed, the project owner shall provide in
the Monthly Compliance Report (MCR) the WEAP Training Acknowledgement
forms of workers who have completed the training in the prior month and a
running total of all persons who have completed training to date.
CUL-9 The project owner shall ensure that the CRS, alternate CRS, or CRMs
monitor full time all ground disturbance at the project site, along the
linear facilities routes, and at laydown areas, roads, and other ancillary
areas, to ensure there are no impacts to undiscovered resources and to
ensure that known resources are not impacted in an unanticipated
manner.
Full-time archaeological monitoring for this project shall be the
archaeological monitoring of ground disturbance for as long as the
activities are ongoing. An archaeological monitor shall be made
available to observe both the active ground-disturbance/excavation of
soils, as well as the disposal of any removed soils. The number of
monitors required shall be determined by the CRS. It is anticipated that
during the monitoring effort the archaeological monitors will be moving
in and around the construction equipment in order to meaningfully
inspect the soils. The archaeological monitors shall observe the ground-
disturbance and/or soil disposal activities within a close enough
distance to reasonably allow for the detection of cultural artifacts and/or
features that could potentially be unearthed during construction, no
farther away than 50 feet, or as otherwise directed by the CPM.
A Native American monitor shall be invited to monitor ground
disturbance , in the presence of an archaeological monitor, in areas
where Native American artifacts may be discovered. Contact lists of
interested Native Americans and guidelines for monitoring shall be
obtained from the Native American Heritage Commission. Preference in
selecting a monitor shall be given to Native Americans with traditional
ties to the area that shall be monitored. If efforts to obtain the services
of a qualified Native American monitor are unsuccessful, the project
85 Cultural
owner shall immediately inform the CPM. The CPM will either identify
potential monitors or will allow ground disturbance to proceed without a
Native American monitor.
The research design in the CRMMP shall govern the collection,
treatment, retention/disposal, and curation of any archaeological
materials encountered.
On forms provided by the CPM, CRMs shall keep a daily log of any
monitoring and other cultural resources activities and any instances of
non-compliance with the Conditions and/or applicable LORS. Copies of
the daily monitoring logs shall be provided by the CRS to the CPM, if
requested by the CPM. From these logs, the CRS shall compile a
monthly monitoring summary report to be included in the MCR. If there
are no monitoring activities, the summary report shall specify why
monitoring has been suspended.
The CRS or alternate CRS shall report daily to the CPM on the status of
the project’s cultural resources-related activities, unless reducing or
ending daily reporting is requested by the CRS and approved by the
CPM.
In the event that the CRS believes that the current level of monitoring is
not appropriate in certain locations, a letter or e-mail detailing the
justification for changing the level of monitoring shall be provided to the
CPM for review and approval prior to any change in the level of
monitoring.
The CRS, at his or her discretion, or at the request of the CPM, may
informally discuss cultural resources monitoring and mitigation activities
with Energy Commission technical staff.
Cultural resources monitoring activities are the responsibility of the
CRS. Any interference with monitoring activities, removal of a monitor
from duties assigned by the CRS, or direction to a monitor to relocate
monitoring activities by anyone other than the CRS shall be considered
non-compliance with these Conditions.
Upon becoming aware of any incidents of non-compliance with the
Conditions and/or applicable LORS, the CRS and/or the project owner
shall notify the CPM by telephone or e-mail within 24 hours. The CRS
shall also recommend corrective action to resolve the problem or
achieve compliance with the Conditions. When the issue is resolved,
the CRS shall write a report describing the issue, the resolution of the
issue, and the effectiveness of the resolution measures. This report
shall be provided in the next MCR for the review of the CPM.
Verification: At least 15 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the
CPM will provide to the CRS an electronic copy of a form to be used as a daily
monitoring log.
Cultural 86
Monthly, while monitoring is on-going, the project owner shall include in each
MCR a copy of the monthly summary report of cultural resources-related
monitoring prepared by the CRS and shall attach any new DPR 523A forms
completed for finds treated prescriptively, as specified in the CRMMP.
At least 24 hours prior to implementing a proposed change in monitoring level,
the project owner shall submit to the CPM, for review and approval, a letter or e-
mail (or some other form of communication acceptable to the CPM) detailing the
CRS’s justification for changing the monitoring level.
Daily, as long as no cultural resources are found, the CRS shall provide a
statement that “no cultural resources over 50 years of age were discovered” to
the CPM as an e-mail or in some other form of communication acceptable to the
CPM.
At least 24 hours prior to reducing or ending daily reporting, the project owner
shall submit to the CPM, for review and approval, a letter or e-mail (or some
other form of communication acceptable to the CPM) detailing the CRS’s
justification for reducing or ending daily reporting.
No later than 30 days following the discovery of any Native American cultural
materials, the project owner shall submit to the CPM copies of the information
transmittal letters sent to the Chairpersons of the Native American tribes or
groups who requested the information. Additionally, the project owner shall
submit to the CPM copies of letters of transmittal for all subsequent responses to
Native American requests for notification, consultation, and reports and records.
Within 15 days of receiving them, the project owner shall submit to the CPM
copies of any comments or information provided by Native Americans in
response to the project owner’s transmittals of information.
Project owner shall submit confidential information to the CPM, only after
receiving approval from the BLM.
CUL-10 The project owner shall grant authority to halt ground disturbance to the
CRS, alternate CRS, and the CRMs in the event of a discovery.
Redirection of ground disturbance shall be accomplished under the
direction of the construction supervisor in consultation with the CRS.
In the event that a cultural resource over 50 years of age is found (or if
younger, determined exceptionally significant by the CPM), or impacts
to such a resource can be anticipated, ground disturbance shall be
halted or redirected in the immediate vicinity of the discovery sufficient
to ensure that the resource is protected from further impacts. Monitoring
and daily reporting, as provided in other conditions, shall continue
during the project’s ground-disturbing activities elsewhere. The halting
or redirection of ground disturbance shall remain in effect until the CRS
has visited the discovery, and all of the following have occurred:
1. The CRS has notified the project owner, and the CPM has been
notified within 24 hours of the discovery, or by Monday morning if
87 Cultural
the cultural resources discovery occurs between 8:00 AM on Friday
and 8:00 AM on Sunday morning, including a description of the
discovery (or changes in character or attributes), the action taken
(i.e., work stoppage or redirection), a recommendation of CRHR
eligibility, and recommendations for data recovery from any cultural
resources discoveries, whether or not a determination of CRHR
eligibility has been made.
2. If the discovery would be of interest to Native Americans, the CRS
has notified all Native American groups that expressed a desire to
be notified in the event of such a discovery.
3. The CRS has completed field notes, measurements, and
photography for a DPR 523 “Primary” form. Unless the find can be
treated prescriptively, as specified in the CRMMP, the “Description”
entry of the DPR 523 “Primary” form shall include a
recommendation on the CRHR eligibility of the discovery. The
project owner shall submit completed forms to the CPM.
4. The CRS, the project owner, and the CPM have conferred, and the
CPM has concurred with the recommended eligibility of the
discovery and approved the CRS’s proposed data recovery, if any,
including the curation of the artifacts, or other appropriate
mitigation; and any necessary data recovery and mitigation have
been completed.
Verification: At least 15 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the
project owner shall provide the CPM and CRS with a letter confirming that the
CRS, alternate CRS, and CRMs have the authority to halt ground disturbance in
the vicinity of a cultural resources discovery, and that the project owner shall
ensure that the CRS notifies the CPM within 24 hours of a discovery, or by
Monday morning if the cultural resources discovery occurs between 8:00 AM on
Friday and 8:00 AM on Sunday morning.
Within 48 hours of the discovery of a resource of interest to Native Americans,
the project owner shall ensure that the CRS notifies all Native American groups
that expressed a desire to be notified in the event of such a discovery. Unless
the discovery can be treated prescriptively, as specified in the CRMMP,
completed DPR 523 forms for resources newly discovered during ground
disturbance shall be submitted to the CPM for review and approval no later than
24 hours following the notification of the CPM, or 48 hours following the
completion of data recordation/recovery, whichever the CRS decides is more
appropriate for the subject cultural resource.
Project owner shall submit confidential information to the CPM, only after
receiving approval from the BLM.
CUL-11: If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made necessary findings as to origin and disposition of the remains
Cultural 88
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The following actions must
be taken in the event that human remains are discovered on Federal, private or
State land:
1) Stop work immediately and contact the County Coroner must be notified
immediately of the find and the BLM archaeologist shall be notified concurrently.
2) The Coroner has two working days to examine human remains after being
notified by the responsible person. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric
of Native American origin, the BLM will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission,
3) The Native American Heritage Commission will immediately notify the person
it believes to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American.
With the permission of the landowner or agency or an authorized representative,
the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery; and
89 Cultural
D. GEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section summarizes the record concerning the project’s potential effects on
geological and paleontological resources. We evaluate whether project-related
activities could result in exposure to geological hazards, as well as whether the
facility can be designed and constructed so that any such hazard would not
impair its proper functioning. Hazards include volcanic eruptions, faulting and
seismicity, liquefaction, dynamic compaction, hydrocompaction, subsidence,
expansive soils, landslides, tsunamis, and seiches. Of these, dynamic
compaction, hydrocompaction, subsidence, and expansive soils are geotechnical
engineering issues but are not associated with public safety concerns. We also
assess whether the project will impact any geologic or mineralogical resources.
Finally, we examine whether fossilized remains or trace remnants of prehistoric
plants or animals are likely to be present at the site and, if so, whether the
project’s potential impacts to these resources are adequately mitigated. (Ex.
300, pp. C.4-1 and C.4-2.)
1. Geologic Hazards
The proposed site is located in the central portion of the Mojave Desert. The
Mojave Desert is a broad interior region of isolated mountain ranges, which
separate vast expanses of desert plains and interior drainage basins. The
potential site is located within the structurally defined Eastern California Shear
Zone (ECSZ). The property lies on the southwest flank of the Cady Mountains
on federal land managed by the BLM. Overall, the site slopes southwest toward
the local topographic low at the normally dry Troy Lake. (Ex. 300, p. C.4-7.)
1 Geo/Paleo
Earthquakes are the main geologic hazard at this site. (Ex. 300, p. C.4-7) Thirty-
two type A and B faults and fault segments lie within 80 miles of the site. 1 Of
these faults, the Lavic Lake and Pisgah-bullion fault zones are in close proximity
to the proposed project site. Both of these faults are designated Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zones. These faults are subparallel Type B fault systems that
extend beneath the southern portions of the site. Project site layouts do not
show any occupied structures within 50 feet (the required minimum setback) of
either fault. However, to address concerns about these faults, we adopt
Condition of Certification GEO-1 that requires evaluation of the Pisgah and Lavic
Lake faults by a qualified geologist. (Ex. 300, p. C.4-11.)
Two earthquakes have recently been recorded in or near the project area. The
Hector Mine Mw 7.1 earthquake (1999) occurred 18 miles south of the project site
and caused no damage to the project area, but some minor damage at Interstate
Highway 40. The unnamed Mw 5.1 earthquake (2008) occurred within the project
boundaries. These earthquakes show the proposed site could be subject to
intense levels of earthquake-related ground shaking in the future. (Ex. 300, p.
C.4-11.)
The site soil class is seismic Class C, and Applicant’s site-specific analysis
indicates that the estimated peak horizontal ground acceleration for the power
plant is 0.5 times the acceleration of gravity (0.5g) for bedrock acceleration
based on a two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. (Ex. 300, p. C.4-
11.)
The evidence establishes that, assuming compliance with the required design
standards set forth in the Facility Design section of this Decision, the potential is
low for geologic hazards to impact the project during its practical design life. (Ex.
300, pp. C.4-1, C.4-7.) Proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1 requires that
the Pisgah and Lavic Lake faults be located and evaluated in the field so that
proper setbacks can be assured for occupied structures. Further, the project
owner will implement additional fault and geologic hazards measures as part of
the final project design, as required by the California Building Code (CBC). (Ex.
300, p. C.4-7.) Therefore, we adopt Condition of Certification GEO-1 to address
the potential for geology related impacts.
1
These are identified in Exhibit 300, Table 2, p. C.4-9. Type A faults have slip-rates of >5
millimeters per year (mm/year) and are capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or
greater. Type B faults have slip-rates of 2 to 5 mm per year and are capable of producing an
earthquake of magnitude 6.5 to 7.0.
Geo/Paleo 2
The deep groundwater table (over 300 feet down) indicates no potential for
liquefaction. Because the proposed Calico Solar Project site is not subject to
liquefaction, there is no potential for lateral spreading during seismic events. (Ex.
300, p. C.4-12.) Site specific geotechnical investigation indicates that the site’s
underlying subsurface alluvial deposits are too dense to allow significant
hydrocompaction or dynamic compaction. (Ex. 300, p. C.4-12.)
The dense alluvial deposits and the absence of petroleum, natural gas, or water
withdrawals at the site minimize the possibility of subsidence. (Ex. 300, p. C.4-
12.)
The alluvium and volcanic rocks that form the site subsurface are not considered
to be expansive. However, expansive clays encountered at depth in soil borings
can be mitigated by standard engineering design. (Ex. 300, p. C.4-13.)
Landslides, tsunamis, and seiches similarly pose insignificant risks. (Ex. 300, p.
C.4-13.)
The proposed Calico Solar Project site is located immediately northwest of the
Sleeping Beauty volcanic area. The Sleeping Beauty area is part of the regional
Amboy Crater – Lavic Lake volcanic hazard area, an approximately 6,000 square
mile area within the Mojave Desert. The proposed Calico Solar Project lies in an
area, which has been and may again be subjected to ash and cinder falls
associated with nearby vents. However, a recurrence of these eruptions from
vents in the Amboy Crater – Lavic Lake hazard area has not been predicted, and
3 Geo/Paleo
is estimated to be in the range of 1,000’s of years or more. Therefore, based on
the evidence in the record, we find that there is a low likelihood of volcanic
activity that may affect operation of the proposed Calico Solar Project. Eruptive
activity would likely be limited to ash fall, which would have a minor, short-lived
affect on the project. This would involve having to shut down and probably cover
the generators to prevent damage from the abrasive ash and having to clean the
mirrors once the eruption was over. Mirrors will need to be cleaned periodically
as part of normal plant operation and maintenance. (Ex. 300, p. C.4-13.)
The proposed Calico Solar Project is not located within an established Mineral
Resource Zone and no economically viable mineral deposits are known to be
present. Several operating and closed mines and mineral prospects are present
within five miles of the proposed project boundaries. These have produced a
number of industrial minerals, primarily manganese, borates, clay, and talc. No
active mines are known to have existed within the proposed project boundaries
(Ex. 300, p. C.4-14).
Geo/Paleo 4
Based upon the literature and archives search, field surveys, and compliance
documentation for the Calico Solar Project, the Applicant has proposed
monitoring and mitigation measures to be followed during the construction of the
project. We find that the facility can be designed and constructed to minimize the
effect of geologic hazards and impacts to potential paleontological resources at
the site during project design life. (Ex. 300, p. C.4-15.)
Construction and Operation of the proposed new solar energy generating facility
will not have any adverse impact on geologic, mineralogic, or paleontological
resources. In addition, the future decommissioning and closure of the proposed
project will not negatively affect geologic, mineralogic, or paleontological
resources since the ground disturbed during plant decommissioning and closure
would have been already disturbed, and mitigated as required in this Decision.
(Id.)
3. Cumulative Impacts
5 Geo/Paleo
nearby similar projects, will be either neutral (no fossils encountered) or positive
(fossils encountered, preserved, and identified). (Ex. 300, p. C.4-28.)
Operation of the Calico Solar Project will not affect paleontological resources,
and will not increase potential cumulative effects on paleontological resources.
The longer the plant operates, however, the more likely it is to be damaged by
hazards, primarily earthquake-related ground shaking. Construction and
operation of the plant does not increase the potential for geological hazards at
the site. The decommissioning of the Calico Solar Project will also not result in
adverse geology or paleontology impacts. (Id.)
One agency comment was received relating to Geology and Paleontology. The
County of San Bernardino, Land Use Service Department, requested additional
discussion of the Lavic Lake fault that partially underlies the project site.
Additional descriptive information was added in the Staff Assessment to address
this comment. To further address this comment, Condition of Certification GEO-
1 was identified to require detailed geologic and field evaluation of both the
Pisgah and Lavic Lake faults.
FINDINGS OF FACT
2. Ground shaking, flash flooding, and volcanic activity are the main geologic
hazards, which could affect the Calico Solar Project.
Geo/Paleo 6
4. There is some potential for fault rupture along two mapped active faults that
underlie the project site. Condition of Certification GEO-1 requires that the
faults be located and evaluated so that occupied structures can be properly
setback from these faults and their splays.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Conditions listed below ensure that project activities will not cause
significant adverse direct or cumulative impacts to geological, mineralogical,
or paleontological resources.
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
GEO-1 The two Alquist-Priolo faults (Pisgah fault and the Lavic Lake fault)
shall be located (if actually present) by trenching or suitable
geophysical methods with sufficient accuracy and confidence to assure
that no occupied structures are placed within 50 feet, either side, of an
established fault trace or any identified splays. Other structures
deemed critical to the project, by the owner, may also be set back, as
practical, prudent and appropriate. [
Verification: At least 30 days prior to ground breaking (prior to final project
design) the project owner shall submit a fault evaluation report signed and
stamped by a geologist licensed in the state of California. The evaluation shall
7 Geo/Paleo
include sufficient field exploration to establish whether or not either or both faults
(or their splays) extend onto the project site. Surveyed locations shall be
obtained for any faults encountered and a map showing the fault locations in
relation to project structures shall be provided. Onsite faults shall be considered
active unless conclusive field evidence shows otherwise.
GEO-2 Because of the embankments on the downhill side, the proposed storm
water detention basins constitute detention dams, some of which may
be large enough to be under the jurisdiction of the State of California,
Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams. Each
detention dam site shall be characterized in a geotechnical
investigation to establish foundation conditions and assess geologic
hazards that affect embankment design. Appropriate geotechnical
recommendations shall be provided for use in design and construction
of the embankments and the associated storage area. All dams must
be designed by a California licensed geotechnical or civil engineer
familiar with design of small dams.
Verification: At least 60 days prior to ground breaking for the detention
basins, the project owner shall submit a geotechnical investigation report
covering each proposed detention basin. Appropriate geotechnical
recommendations and specifications shall be provided for use in design and
construction of the embankments and the associated storage area. All detention
facilities can be included in a single report or in the overall final project
geotechnical report. One set of stamped design drawings, typical of the detention
dams, must be submitted by the project owner, prior to starting detention dam
construction.
PAL-1 The project owner shall provide the Compliance Project Manager CPM
with the resume and qualifications of its paleontological resource
specialist (PRS) for review and approval. If the approved PRS is
replaced prior to completion of project mitigation and submittal of the
Geo/Paleo 8
Paleontological Resources Report, the project owner shall obtain CPM
approval of the replacement PRS. The project owner shall keep
resumes on file for qualified paleontological resource monitors (PRMs).
If a PRM is replaced, the resume of the replacement PRM shall also be
provided to the CPM.
The PRS resume shall include the names and phone numbers of
references. The resume shall also demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the CPM the appropriate education and experience to accomplish the
required paleontological resource tasks.
As determined by the CPM, the PRS shall meet the minimum
qualifications for a vertebrate paleontologist as described in the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines of 1995. The
experience of the PRS shall include the following:
1. Institutional affiliations, appropriate credentials, and college
degree;
2. Ability to recognize and collect fossils in the field;
3. Local geological and biostratigraphic expertise;
4. Proficiency in identifying vertebrate and invertebrate fossils; and
5. At least three years of paleontological resource mitigation and
field experience in California and at least one year of experience
leading paleontological resource mitigation and field activities.
The project owner shall ensure that the PRS obtains qualified
paleontological resource monitors to monitor as he or she deems
necessary on the project. Paleontological resource monitors (PRM)
shall have the equivalent of the following qualifications:
• BS or BA degree in geology or paleontology and one year of
experience monitoring in California; or
• AS or AA in geology, paleontology, or biology and four years’
experience monitoring in California; or
• Enrollment in upper division classes pursuing a degree in the fields
of geology or paleontology and two years of monitoring experience
in California.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the
project owner shall submit a resume and statement of availability of its
designated PRS for on-site work.
At least 20 days prior to ground disturbance, the PRS or project owner shall
provide a letter with resumes naming anticipated monitors for the project, stating
that the identified monitors meet the minimum qualifications for paleontological
resource monitoring required by the Condition. If additional monitors are obtained
during the project, the PRS shall provide additional letters and resumes to the
9 Geo/Paleo
CPM. The letter shall be provided to the CPM no later than one week prior to the
monitor’s beginning on-site duties.
Prior to the termination or release of a PRS, the project owner shall submit the
resume of the proposed new PRS to the CPM for review and approval.
PAL-2 The project owner shall provide to the PRS and the CPM, for approval,
maps and drawings showing the footprint of the power plant,
construction lay-down areas, and all related facilities. Maps shall
identify all areas of the project where ground disturbance is
anticipated. If the PRS requests enlargements or strip maps for linear
facility routes, the project owner shall provide copies to the PRS and
CPM. The site grading plan and plan and profile drawings for the utility
lines would be acceptable for this purpose. The plan drawings should
show the location, depth, and extent of all ground disturbances and be
at a scale between 1 inch = 40 feet and 1 inch = 100 feet. If the
footprint of the project or its linear facilities changes, the project owner
shall provide maps and drawings reflecting those changes to the PRS
and CPM.
If construction of the project proceeds in phases, maps and drawings
may be submitted prior to the start of each phase. A letter identifying
the proposed schedule of each project phase shall be provided to the
PRS and CPM. Before work commences on affected phases, the
project owner shall notify the PRS and CPM of any construction phase
scheduling changes.
At a minimum, the project owner shall ensure that the PRS or PRM
consults weekly with the project superintendent or construction field
manager to confirm area(s) to be worked the following week and until
ground disturbance is completed.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the
project owner shall provide the maps and drawings to the PRS and CPM.
If there are changes to the footprint of the project, revised maps and drawings
shall be provided to the PRS and CPM at least 15 days prior to the start of
ground disturbance.
If there are changes to the scheduling of the construction phases, the project
owner shall submit a letter to the CPM within 5 days of identifying the changes.
PAL-3 The project owner shall ensure that the PRS prepares, and the project
owner submits to the CPM for review and approval, a PRMMP to
identify general and specific measures to minimize potential impacts to
significant paleontological resources. Approval of the PRMMP by the
CPM shall occur prior to any ground disturbance. The PRMMP shall
function as the formal guide for monitoring, collecting, and sampling
activities and may be modified with CPM approval. This document
shall be used as the basis of discussion when on-site decisions or
Geo/Paleo 10
changes are proposed. Copies of the PRMMP shall reside with the
PRS, each monitor, the project owner’s on-site manager, and the
CPM.
The PRMMP shall be developed in accordance with the guidelines of
the SVP (1995) and shall include, but not be limited, to the following:
1. Assurance that the performance and sequence of project-related
tasks, such as any literature searches, pre-construction surveys,
worker environmental training, fieldwork, flagging or staking,
construction monitoring, mapping and data recovery, fossil
preparation and collection, identification and inventory, preparation
of final reports, and transmittal of materials for curation will be
performed according to PRMMP procedures;
2. Identification of the person(s) expected to assist with each of the
tasks identified within the PRMMP and the Conditions of
Certification;
3. A thorough discussion of the anticipated geologic units expected to
be encountered, the location and depth of the units relative to the
project when known, and the known sensitivity of those units based
on the occurrence of fossils either in that unit or in correlative units;
4. An explanation of why, how, and how much sampling is expected to
take place and in what units. Include descriptions of different
sampling procedures that shall be used for fine-grained and coarse-
grained units;
5. A discussion of the locations of where the monitoring of project
construction activities is deemed necessary, and a proposed plan
for monitoring and sampling;
6. A discussion of procedures to be followed in the event of a
significant fossil discovery, halting construction, resuming
construction, and how notifications will be performed;
7. A discussion of equipment and supplies necessary for collection of
fossil materials and any specialized equipment needed to prepare,
remove, load, transport, and analyze large-sized fossils or
extensive fossil deposits;
8. Procedures for inventory, preparation, and delivery for curation into
a retrievable storage collection in a public repository or museum,
which meet the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s standards and
requirements for the curation of paleontological resources;
9. Identification of the institution that has agreed to receive data and
fossil materials collected, requirements or specifications for
materials delivered for curation and how they will be met, and the
name and phone number of the contact person at the institution;
and
11 Geo/Paleo
10. A copy of the paleontological Conditions of Certification.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance, the project owner
shall provide a copy of the PRMMP to the CPM. The PRMMP shall include an
affidavit of authorship by the PRS and acceptance of the PRMMP by the project
owner evidenced by a signature.
Geo/Paleo 12
Verification: At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance, the project owner
shall submit the proposed WEAP, including the brochure, with the set of reporting
procedures for workers to follow.
At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance, the project owner shall submit the
script and final video to the CPM for approval if the project owner is planning to
use a video for interim training.
If the owner requests an alternate paleontological trainer, the resume and
qualifications of the trainer shall be submitted to the CPM for review and approval
prior to installation of an alternate trainer. Alternate trainers shall not conduct
training prior to CPM authorization.
In the monthly compliance report (MCR), the project owner shall provide copies
of the WEAP certification of completion forms with the names of those trained
and the trainer or type of training (in-person or video) offered that month. The
MCR shall also include a running total of all persons who have completed the
training to date.
PAL-5 The project owner shall ensure that the PRS and PRM(s) monitor
consistent with the PRMMP all construction-related grading,
excavation, trenching, and augering in areas where potential fossil-
bearing materials have been identified, both at the site and along any
constructed linear facilities associated with the project. In the event
that the PRS determines full-time monitoring is not necessary in
locations that were identified as potentially fossil bearing in the
PRMMP, the project owner shall notify and seek the concurrence of
the CPM.
The project owner shall ensure that the PRS and PRM(s) have the
authority to halt or redirect construction if paleontological resources are
encountered. The project owner shall ensure that there is no
interference with monitoring activities unless directed by the PRS.
Monitoring activities shall be conducted as follows:
1. Any change of monitoring from the accepted schedule in the
PRMMP shall be proposed in a letter or email from the PRS and
the project owner to the CPM prior to the change in monitoring and
will be included in the monthly compliance report. The letter or
email shall include the justification for the change in monitoring and
be submitted to the CPM for review and approval.
2. The project owner shall ensure that the PRM(s) keep a daily
monitoring log of paleontological resource activities. The PRS may
informally discuss paleontological resource monitoring and
mitigation activities with the CPM at any time.
3. The project owner shall ensure that the PRS notifies the CPM
within 24 hours of the occurrence of any incidents of non-
compliance with any Paleontological Resources Conditions of
13 Geo/Paleo
Certification. The PRS shall recommend corrective action to resolve
the issues or achieve compliance with the conditions of certification.
4. For any significant paleontological resources encountered, either
the project owner or the PRS shall notify the CPM within 24 hours,
or Monday morning in the case of a weekend event, where
construction has been halted because of a paleontological find.
The project owner shall ensure that the PRS prepares a summary of
monitoring and other paleontological activities placed in the monthly
compliance reports. The summary will include the name(s) of PRS or
PRM(s) active during the month; general descriptions of training and
monitored construction activities; and general locations of excavations,
grading, and other activities. A section of the report shall include the
geologic units or subunits encountered, descriptions of samplings
within each unit, and a list of identified fossils. A final section of the
report will address any issues or concerns about the project relating to
paleontological monitoring, including any incidents of non-compliance
or any changes to the monitoring plan that have been approved by the
CPM. If no monitoring took place during the month, the report shall
include an explanation in the summary as to why monitoring was not
conducted.
Verification: The project owner shall ensure that the PRS submits the
summary of monitoring and paleontological activities in the MCR. When feasible,
the CPM shall be notified 10 days in advance of any proposed changes in
monitoring different from the plan identified in the PRMMP. If there is any
unforeseen change in monitoring, the notice shall be given as soon as possible
prior to implementation of the change.
PAL-6 The project owner, through the designated PRS, shall ensure that all
components of the PRMMP are adequately performed including
collection of fossil materials, preparation of fossil materials for analysis,
analysis of fossils, identification and inventory of fossils, the
preparation of fossils for curation, and the delivery for curation of all
significant paleontological resource materials encountered and
collected during project construction.
Verification: The project owner shall maintain in his/her compliance file copies
of signed contracts or agreements with the designated PRS and other qualified
research specialists. The project owner shall maintain these files for a period of
three years after project completion and approval of the CPM-approved
paleontological resource report (see Condition of Certification PAL-7). The
project owner shall be responsible for paying any curation fees charged by the
museum for fossils collected and curated as a result of paleontological mitigation.
A copy of the letter of transmittal submitting the fossils to the curating institution
shall be provided to the CPM.
Geo/Paleo 14
PAL-7 The project owner shall ensure preparation of a Paleontological
Resources Report (PRR) by the designated PRS. The PRR shall be
prepared following completion of the ground-disturbing activities. The
PRR shall include an analysis of the collected fossil materials and
related information and submit it to the CPM for review and approval.
The report shall include, but is not limited to, a description and
inventory of recovered fossil materials; a map showing the location of
paleontological resources encountered; determinations of sensitivity
and significance; and a statement by the PRS that project impacts to
paleontological resources have been mitigated below the level of
significance.
Verification: Within 90 days after completion of ground-disturbing activities,
including landscaping, the project owner shall submit the PRR under confidential
cover to the CPM.
15 Geo/Paleo
Certification of Completion
Worker Environmental Awareness Program
Calico Solar Project (08-AFC-13)
This is to certify these individuals have completed a mandatory California Energy
Commission-approved Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The
WEAP includes pertinent information on cultural, paleontological, and biological
resources for all personnel (that is, construction supervisors, crews, and plant
operators) working on site or at related facilities. By signing below, the participant
indicates that he/she understands and shall abide by the guidelines set forth in the
program materials. Include this completed form in the Monthly Compliance Report.
Geo/Paleo 16
VII. LOCAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The effect of a power plant project on the local area depends upon the nature of
the community and the extent of the associated impacts. Technical topics
discussed in this portion of the Decision consider issues of local concern
including Land Use, Noise, Socioeconomics, Traffic and Transportation, and
Visual Resources.
A. LAND USE
Because the Calico Solar Project is subject to meet the requirements of both
NEPA and CEQA, the methodology used for determining environmental impacts
of the proposed project includes a consideration of guidance provided by both
laws and NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508).
Thresholds for determining significance in this section are based on Appendix G
of the CEQA Guidelines (CCR 2006) and performance standards or thresholds
identified by Energy Commission staff. In addition, environmental effects of the
proposed project on land uses (i.e., those listed below) includes an assessment
of the context and intensity of the impacts, as defined in the CEQA and NEPA
Regulations, 40 CFR Part 1508.27. Effects of the proposed project on the land
uses and the environment (and in compliance with both CEQA and NEPA) have
been determined using the thresholds listed below.
1 Land Use
Wilderness, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and Recreation
• Directly or indirectly disrupt activities in established federal, state, or local
recreation areas and/or wilderness areas.
• Substantially reduce the scenic, biological, cultural, geologic, or other
important factors that contribute to the value of federal, state, local, or
private recreational facilities or wilderness areas.
The majority of the Calico Solar Project site is located within the “Moderate Use”
category of the BLM’s CDCA Plan, with some areas designated as “limited”
(Class L). (Ex. 300, p. C.8-10.Z) LAND USE Table 1 provides a general
description of the land use LORS applicable to the proposed project.
Land Use 2
Applicable LORS Description
Public Rangelands Establishes and reaffirms the national policy and commitment to inventory and
Improvement Act (1978) identify current public rangeland conditions and trends; manage, maintain and
(PRIA 1978) improve the condition of public rangelands so that they become as productive as
feasible for all rangeland values in accordance with management objectives and the
land use planning process; and continue the policy of protecting wild free-roaming
horses and burros from capture, branding, harassment, or death, while at the same
time facilitating the removal and disposal of excess wild free-roaming horses and
burros which pose a threat to themselves and their habitat and to other rangeland
values.
Wild and Free-Roaming The BLM protects, manages, and controls wild horses and burros under the
Horse and Burro Act (1971) authority of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (Act) to ensure
(BLM 2009j) that healthy herds thrive on healthy rangelands. The BLM manages these animals
as part of its multiple-use mission under the 1976 Federal Land Policy and
Management Act. One of the BLM’s key responsibilities under the Act is to
determine the "appropriate management level" (AML) of wild horses and burros on
the public rangelands.
State
None
Local
County of San Bernardino The policies and programs of the County of San Bernardino General Plan, adopted
2007 General Plan (CSB March 13, 2007, are intended to serve as a blueprint for most land use decisions.
2007a) Preparing, adopting, implementing, and maintaining a general plan serves to:
identify the community’s land use, transportation, environmental, economic, and
social goals and policies as they relate to land use and development; form the basis
for local government decision-making, including decisions on proposed
development; provide residents with opportunities to participate in the planning and
decision-making processes of their community; and inform residents, developers,
decision makers, and other cities and counties of the ground rules that guide
development within the community.
County of San Bernardino San Bernardino County has adopted a “one-map approach” for both the General
2007 Development Code, Plan land use designations and zoning classifications to assure land use
Title 8 of the San consistency between the General Plan and Development Code. The Development
Bernardino County Code Code was adopted March 13, 2007, and amended August 20, 2009 and February
(CSB 2007b; CSB 2010d) 2010. The purpose of this Development Code is to implement the San Bernardino
County General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures
within unincorporated San Bernardino County. In particular, the purposes of the
Development Code are as follows: to provide standards and guidelines for
continuing orderly growth and development; to conserve and protect the County's
important agriculture, cultural, natural, open space and scenic resources; to create a
comprehensive and stable pattern of land uses upon which to plan transportation,
water supply, sewerage, energy, drainage/flood control and other public facilities
and utilities; to encourage the most appropriate uses of land in order to prevent
overcrowding of land and avoid undue concentration of population, and maintain
and protect the value of property; and to ensure compatibility between different
types of development and land use.
The Development Code was most recently amended on February 9, 2010, to
include Chapter 84.29 (Renewable Energy Generation Facilities) for the purpose of
establishing “...standards and permit procedures for the establishment, maintenance
and decommissioning of renewable energy generation facilities” (CSB 2010).
(Ex. 300, pp. C.684 to C.8-5.)
3 Land Use
1. The Site
The proposed Calico Solar site is approximately 4,613 acres and is located in
San Bernardino County approximately 37 miles east of Barstow. The site
consists primarily of public land administered by the BLM. Within the site
boundaries are 2,246 acres of undeveloped private land under the jurisdiction of
San Bernardino County; however, the private land would not be a part of the
proposed project. This private land, as well as non-BLM lands within 1 mile of the
project, is designated as Resource Conservation by county zoning. The southern
boundary of the proposed project site is adjacent to Interstate Highway 40 (I-40),
and the northern side of the project site borders the Cady Mountains. (Ex. 300, p.
C.8-6.)
The Calico Solar site primarily consists of undeveloped desert land. Existing
onsite land uses include the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-
of-way (ROW), which traverses the site from east to west; several underground
high pressure gas pipelines generally parallel to I-40 and the railroad; Hector
Road which enters the site from I-40 and traverses it for approximately 0.5 mile;
and Southern California Edison’s (SCE) Pisgah Substation and overhead
transmission line which are adjacent to the southeast border of the project site. In
addition, approximately 775 acres on the northeast portion of the original project
site (i.e., the original 8,230-acre project site proposed in the AFC) are designated
as Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) mitigation lands. Based on the
evidence, it appears that LWCF lands are located within the revised project site
boundary. However, the exact acreage of the affected LWCF lands within the
proposed project site boundary has not been provided by the applicant. (Ex. 300,
p. C.8-6.)
The proposed project would occur in two phases. Phase I would consist of the
construction of up to 11,000 SunCatchers and would require approximately
2,327acres of BLM land. Phase II would expand the project to a total of 34,000
SunCatchers and would require approximately an additional 3,888 acres of BLM
land. In addition to the proposed project site and construction areas, there are
other features and facilities associated with the proposed project (the majority of
which are located on the proposed project site or construction laydown areas),
including:
Land Use 4
• approximately 1 mile within the project site of twelve to fifteen 220-kV
transmission line structures (90 to 110 feet tall) from the proposed Calico
Solar Substation to SCE’s Pisgah Substation;
• a Main Services Complex including an administration building
(30,000 sq. ft.) and a maintenance building (45,000 sq. ft.);
• two 175,000-gallon water storage tanks (40 feet in diameter) and two
17,000-gallon water storage tanks (18 feet in diameter);
• main roads with a combination of roadway dips and elevated sections
across drainage features;
• a buried septic tank system with a dual sanitary leach field; and
• permanent access to the project site to be provided by a bridge over the
BSNF railroad along Hector Road.
2. Potential Impacts
Rangeland allotments are designated BLM pastures for wildlife and livestock.
The majority of the proposed project is located within the Cady Mountains
rangeland allotment. According to BLM’s online GIS mapping program
(Geocommunicator), the southwest boundary of this allotment follows the BNSF
railroad. As such, approximately 6,400 acres of the project site that is north of the
BNSF railroad is within the Cady Mountains rangeland allotment (BLM 2009c).
There is currently no grazing permit issued within the proposed project area. In
addition, the northern boundary of the Ord Mountain allotment is approximately
0.75 mile south of the project site. (Ex. 300, p. C.8-8.)
5 Land Use
Based on the lack of federal, state or local farmland/agricultural designations, the
proposed project would not convert important farmland, would not conflict with
agricultural zoning designations or Williamson Act contracts, and would not result
in a change in the existing environment that would lead to a conversion of
farmland. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely impact agricultural
land. (Ex. 300, p. C.8-11.)
The project would be located within the Cady Mountains grazing allotment. This
allotment consists of 177,293 acres which is designated by BLM as available for
grazing livestock. According to the West Mojave Plan, the allotment was
identified as an area that would benefit from voluntary relinquishment. Therefore,
grazing is not currently authorized on this allotment. The proposed project would
convert approximately 6,400 acres of the Cady Mountains rangeland allotment to
another use, which accounts for approximately 3 percent of the allotment.
Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in an adverse impact to
inactive livestock grazing. For discussion of impacts to the desert bighorn sheep,
please see the Biological Resources section of this Decision. (Ex. 300, p. C.8-
11.)
Land Use 6
Horses and Burros. The proposed project would not contain or traverse any
established BLM Herd Areas (HAs) or Herd Management Areas (HMAs). The
Granite-Providence HA is the closest HA, which is located approximately 32
miles east side of the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project
would not result in an interference with BLM’s management of an HMA or HA.
(Ex. 300, pp. C.8-9 to C.8-10.)
If the ROW and proposed land use plan amendment are approved by BLM, the
proposed solar thermal power plant facility on public lands would be authorized in
accordance with Title V of the FLMPA of 1976 and the Federal Regulations at 43
CFR Part 2800. The BLM’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) acts as the
mechanism for meeting NEPA requirements, and also provides the analysis
required to support a Plan Amendment identifying the site location within the
Plan. (Ex. 300, p. C.8-13.)
An additional LORS compliance issue was raised by the public during the
scoping process for this document. According to some private landowners, the
public and private landowners have been using Hector Road at the railway
crossing to access the land north of the BNSF railway for over fifty years. This
includes the private properties in Section 1, Township 8 North, Range 5 East,
and Section 36, Township 9 North, Range 5 East. However, according to these
private landowners, recently-placed gates and barricades at the crossing have
blocked access to these lands. Private landowners assert that Hector Road has
Land Use 8
been in use prior to the passage of the FLPMA, and therefore, is a county road,
and blocking access is a violation of the Unlawful Enclosures of Public Lands Act
of 1885 and the CDCA Plan, which classifies the project site as an “open area.”
(Ex. 300, p. C.8-13.)
4. Cumulative Impacts
A project may result in a significant adverse cumulative impact where its effects
are cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
9 Land Use
and the effects of probable future projects [Cal. Code Regs., title 14, §
15065(a)(3)].
Although, the proposed project by itself would not convert agricultural land to
nonagricultural uses, the conversion of lands due to past and present projects,
and the potential development of the approximately one million acres of land,
would all combine to result in adverse effects on agricultural lands (one of the
state’s most important resources) and rangeland. Therefore, although the
development of renewable resources in compliance with federal and State
mandates is important and required, this conversion would contribute to a
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to agricultural resources. (Ex. 300,
p. C.8-34.)
In addition to the proposed Calico Solar facility, there are many past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable future actions that contribute to impacts to recreation and
wilderness areas. Regionally, there have been both positive and negative
impacts to recreational and wilderness resources as a result of development
projects within San Bernardino County. Development of highway access to the
region has provided direct vehicular access to open desert scenery for residents
throughout southern California. This increased access has improved the
recreational experience for some users by making the area more accessible, but
has also detracts from the recreational experience for other users who prefer
remote camping, hiking, and hunting away from populated areas.
Land Use 10
the desert region of San Bernardino County would adversely affect recreation
and wilderness resources, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact under
CEQA. (Ex. 300, pp. C.8-36 to C.8-37.)
Although the proposed Calico Solar facility would not adversely impact horses or
burros, there are other present or reasonably foreseeable future actions that
could contribute to impacts to HMAs within the region. Authorized and
unauthorized vehicle use, and maintenance and construction of utility rights-of-
way can have a slight impact to burros by removal of vegetation utilized for
forage, and there is always a danger of vehicles colliding with burros. The impact
of the proposed and probable development projects would cumulatively remove
and isolate potential grazing sites for burros. However, in areas of close proximity
to HMAs, development projects would be required to consider impacts related to
wild horses and burros. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than
significant. (Ex. 300, p. C.8-38.)
Proposed developments near the project site that would have the potential to
induce cumulative impacts include solar and wind energy generation projects, and
the expansion of the existing military base. In consideration of cumulative land
use compatibility impacts, the implementation of renewable projects in southern
California would occur mostly in undeveloped desert lands or areas of rural
development and open space, and therefore, would not create physical divisions
of established residential communities. Nonetheless, as noted above,
approximately one million acres of land are proposed for solar and wind energy
development in the southern California desert lands. The conversion of these
lands would preclude numerous existing land uses including recreation,
wilderness, rangeland, and open space, and therefore, would result in a
significant cumulative land conversion impact. The proposed project’s conversion
of approximately 6,215 acres in an undeveloped portion of San Bernardino
County and on BLM lands in combination with the land conversion impacts of
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area would be
cumulatively considerable, and a significant and unavoidable impact under
CEQA. (Ex. 300, p. C.8-39.)
11 Land Use
5. Public Comment
Public comments made on August 4, 2010 on land use are listed below: (8/4/10
RT 214 – 216.)
Fred Stearn, Real Estate Agent representing landowners in Sections 1 and 36,
expressed concern about landowners being landlocked by the proposed project
and being subjected to potentially significant environmental impacts. His main
concern was access to the landowner’s properties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Land Use 12
reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic
values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Mojave
Desert and southern California desert region and therefore, would result in
a significant and unavoidable cumulative land use impact in this regard.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The record contains an adequate analysis of the land use laws, ordinances,
regulations, and standards that are relevant to the project and establishes
that the project will not create any unmitigated, significantly adverse direct
land use impacts as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. The Calico Solar Project would combine with other past and reasonably
foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness
areas and recreational resources in the Mojave Desert and southern
California desert region and therefore, would result in a significant and
unavoidable cumulative land use impact in this regard.
3. The project is consistent with all applicable LORS with the possible exception
of BLM LM Interim Policy Memorandum (CA 2009 020) regarding lands
donated to BLM or acquired with assistance from the federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund. As a federal policy, it is not subject to override by the
Energy Commission. The BLM, as the author of the policy, is best qualified to
interpret and apply it to this project and will do so as part of its decision on the
CSP’s Right of Way application. Our decision to approve the CSP is
therefore contingent upon the grant of the Right of Way application, which we
will interpret as a BLM determination that the Policy is satisfied.
13 Land Use
Land Use Table 2
Project Compliance with Adopted Land Use LORS
Applicable
LORS Description of Applicable LORS Consistent? Basis for Consistency
Federal
Federal Land Policy (a) The Secretary, with respect to the public lands YES The FLPMA authorizes the issuance of a right-
and Management … are authorized to grant, issue, or renew rights- of-way grant for electrical generation facilities
Act, 1976 – 43 CFR of-way over, upon, under, or through such lands and transmission lines. In addition, based on
1600, Sec. 501. [43 for: staff’s review of the Federal Power Act, the
U.S.C. 1761] (4) systems for generation, transmission, and requirements would not be applicable to the
distribution of electric energy, except that the proposed project as they are not related to
applicant shall also comply with all applicable renewable resources, and are otherwise related
requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory to administrative procedures. Therefore, the
Commission under the Federal Power Act, proposed project would be in compliance with
including part I thereof (41 Stat. 1063, 16 U.S.C. this policy.
791a-825r) [P.L. 102-486, 1992]
Farmland As required by section 1541(b) of the [Farmland YES As discussed above in detail in Section C.8.4.2
Protection Policy Protection Policy] Act, 7 U.S.C. 4202(b), Federal (under the subsection entitled “Agricultural
Act, Section 658.1 agencies are (a) to use the criteria to identify and Lands and Rangelands”), the farmland
take into account the adverse effects of their conversion impacts of the proposed project
programs on the preservation of farmland, (b) to would not be adverse. In addition, construction
consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that of the proposed project and its onsite linear
could lessen adverse effects, and (c) to ensure that facilities would be temporary, and the project
their programs, to the extent practicable, are would not involve other changes in the existing
compatible with State and units of local government environment that could result in conversion of
and private programs and policies to protect farmland, to non-agricultural uses. Therefore,
farmland. proposed project would be consistent with the
FPPA.
Land Use 14
Applicable
LORS Description of Applicable LORS Consistent? Basis for Consistency
Bureau of Land Chapter 2 – Multiple-Use Classes YES The proposed project site is administered by
Management – MULTIPLE-USE CLASS GUIDELINES (with BLM’s the BLM and is managed under multiple use
California Desert MULTIPLE-USE CLASS L (Limited Use) project-specific Class L (Limited Use) categories in conformance
Conservation Area 6. Electrical Generation Facilities – CDCA Plan with the CDCA Plan (SES 2008a). The proposed
(CDCA) Plan (BLM Electric generation may be allowed. (See Amendment) project consists of an electrical generating
1980) wind/solar/ geothermal, below) facility, a substation, a transmission line, and
ancillary facilities. As such, development of
– Wind/Solar
the proposed project is an allowed use under
May be allowed after NEPA requirements are met.
the Multiple-Use Class Guidelines.
7. Transmission Facilities –
New gas, electric, and water facilities and cables In addition, the CDCA Plan, while recognizing
for interstate communication may be allowed only the potential compatibility of solar generation
within designated corridors (see Energy Production facilities on public lands, requires that all sites
and Utility Corridors Element). NEPA requirements associated with power generation or transmis-
will be met. [#5,85] sion not identified in the Plan be considered
through the Plan Amendment process. There-
fore, the BLM would undertake a project-specific
CDCA Plan amendment along with the ROW
grant for the proposed Calico Solar Project.
Upon BLM’s amendment of the CDCA plan for
the Calico Solar Project, the proposed project
would be fully compliant with the CDCA Plan.
The BLM’s Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) acts as the mechanism for meeting
NEPA requirements, and also provides the
analysis required to support a Plan
Amendment identifying the facility within the
Plan.
15 Land Use
Applicable
LORS Description of Applicable LORS Consistent? Basis for Consistency
MULTIPLE-USE CLASS M (Moderate Use) YES The proposed project site is on lands adminis-
6. Electrical Generation Facilities (with BLM’s tered by the BLM, and is located within the
project-specific “Moderate” (Class M) use category of the BLM’s
All types of electrical generation plants may be
CDCA Plan CDCA Plan, with some areas designated as
allowed in accordance with State, Federal, and
Amendment) “Limited” (Class L). These lands are managed
local laws.
under the Multiple-Use Class M and Class L
—Wind/Solar categories in conformance with the CDCA Plan
May be allowed after NEPA requirements are met. (SES 2008a). The proposed project consists of
7. Transmission Facilities — an electrical generating facility, a substation, a
New gas, electric, and water facilities and cables transmission line, and ancillary facilities. As such,
for interstate communication may be allowed only development of the proposed project is an allowed
within designated corridors (see Energy Production use under the Multiple-Use Class Guidelines.
and Utility Corridors Element). NEPA requirements In addition, The CDCA Plan, while recognizing
will be met. [#5,85] the potential compatibility of solar generation
facilities on public lands, requires that all sites
associated with power generation or transmis-
sion not identified in the Plan be considered
through the Plan Amendment process. There-
fore, the BLM would undertake a project-specific
CDCA Plan amendment along with the ROW
grant for the proposed Calico Solar Project.
Upon BLM’s amendment of the CDCA plan for
the Calico Solar Project, the proposed project
would be fully compliant with the CDCA Plan.
The BLM’s Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) acts as the mechanism for meeting NEPA
requirements, and also provides the analysis
required to support a Plan Amendment identi-
fying the facility within the Plan.
Chapter 3 YES As noted in the “Setting and Existing Conditions”
Wild Horse and Burros Element subsection above, the proposed project site is
not in the vicinity of an HA or HMA; therefore,
Goal 2. Protect wild horses and burros on public
the project site and surrounding area are not
lands by conducting surveillance to prevent
notable for the presence of wild horses or burros.
unauthorized removal or undue harassment of
As such, the proposed project would not result
animals.
in any interference with BLM’s management
of an HMA, and would be consistent with this
Land Use 16
Applicable
LORS Description of Applicable LORS Consistent? Basis for Consistency
element of the CDCA Plan.
Chapter 3 YES The proposed project’s linear facilities would
Energy Production and Utility Element be within the project site, and would
Goal 1. Fully implement the network of joint-use interconnect at the SCE Pisgah Substation
planning corridors to meet projected utility needs to which is adjacent to the eastern boundary of
the year 2000. the project site. Therefore, the proposed
project would utilize existing ROWs, and
Specific electrical and natural gas right-of-way or
would be consistent with this element of the
power plant site applications made under the
CDCA Plan.
provisions of this element should be consistent
with adopted California Energy Commission
forecasts, which are reviewed biennially.
Decision criteria are to:
(1) Minimize the number of separate rights-of-way
by utilizing existing rights-of-way as a basis for
planning
corridors;
(2) Encourage joint use of corridors for
transmission
lines, canals, pipelines, and cables;
(3) Provide alternative corridors to be considered
during processing of applications;
(4) Avoid sensitive resources wherever possible;
(5) Conform to local plans whenever possible;
(6) Consider wilderness values and be consistent
with final wilderness recommendations;
(7) Complete the delivery-systems network;
(8) Consider ongoing projects for which decisions
have been made, for example, the Intermountain
Power Project; and
(9) Consider corridor networks which take into
account power needs and alternative fuel
resources.
17 Land Use
Applicable
LORS Description of Applicable LORS Consistent? Basis for Consistency
Addendum B: Interim Management Guidelines YES The non-impairment standard, directs that
Chapter III. Guidelines for Specific Activities “until Congress has determined otherwise” the
lands under review be managed so as not to
Lands Actions – Disposal, Rights-of-Way, Access
impair their suitability as wilderness (CRS
and Withdrawals
2004). As the proposed project would not
2. Rights-of-Way: Existing rights-of-way may be traverse an established Wilderness Area or
renewed if they are still being used for their Wilderness Study Area, the project would be
authorized purpose. New rights-of-way may be in compliance with this guideline of the CDCA
approved only for temporary uses that satisfy the Plan.
non-impairment criteria.
3. Right-of-Way Corridors: Right-of-way corridors
may be designated on lands under wilderness
review.
Federal Wilderness (a) Establishment; Congressional declaration of YES As the proposed project would not traverse an
Act, 16 U.S.C. policy; wilderness areas; administration for public established Wilderness Area, the project
§ 1131-1136 use and enjoyment, protection, preservation… would be consistent with this guideline.
provisions for designation as wilderness areas In
order to assure that an increasing population,
accompanied by expanding settlement and growing
mechanization, does not occupy and modify all
areas within the United States and its possessions,
leaving no lands designated for preservation and
protection in their natural condition, it is hereby
declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure
for the American people of present and future
generations the benefits of an enduring resource
of wilderness.
Public Rangelands Establishes and reaffirms the national policy and YES As noted in “Setting and Existing Conditions,”
Improvement Act commitment to inventory and identify current public the project site would be located within the
rangeland conditions and trends; manage, maintain Cady Mountains rangeland allotment. However,
and improve the condition of public rangelands so according the BLM’s Rangeland Specialist
that they become as productive as feasible for all from the Barstow Field Office, the land is
rangeland values in accordance with management currently permitted for grazing, and is identi-
objectives and the land use planning process; and fied in the West Mojave (WEMO) Plan, for
continue the policy of protecting wild free-roaming voluntary relinquishment (BLM 2009n). There-
horses and burros. fore, the proposed project would not interfere
with the Cady Mountains rangeland allotment.
Land Use 18
Applicable
LORS Description of Applicable LORS Consistent? Basis for Consistency
Wild and Free- Establishes BLM’s authority to protect, manage, YES As discussed above in detail in Section C.8.4.2,
Roaming Horse and and control wild horses and burros to ensure that the proposed project would not contain or
Burro Act healthy herds thrive on healthy rangelands. BLM traverse an established HMA. As such, the
determines the "appropriate management level" proposed project would be consistent with this
(AML) of wild horses and burros on the public Act.
rangelands.
LM Interim Policy • Lands acquired by BLM under donation agreements, INCONSISTENT As noted in the “Setting and Existing Conditions,”
Memorandum acquired for mitigation/ compensation purposes (for the proposed the proposed project site may still include
(CA-2009-020) and with LWCF funds, are to be managed as project) lands that have been acquired for mitigation/
avoidance/ exclusion areas for land use authori- compensation purposes by LWCF funds. The
CONSISTENT
zations that could result in surface disturbing applicant has not provided the exact acreage
(for Reduced
activities. of the affected LWCF mitigation lands that
Acreage
• Should BLM–California managers have use currently occur within the revised project site
Alternative)
authorizations applications pending, or receive boundary. Nonetheless, based on our review
new applications on lands that meet the above of the BLM’s Final Environmental Impact
criteria, they are required to notify the State Statement, it appears that some of the lands
Director and set up a briefing to address how to proposed for Scenario 5.5 may be LWCF
respond to those applications. lands. In an Interim policy dated May 28,
2009, the State Director of the BLM issued
• Should managers have inquiries related to pre-
an Instruction Memorandum regarding
application activities for any land use authorizations
management of donated land and lands
on lands that meet the above criteria, please notify
acquired by LWCF funds. As a result, LWCF
applicants regarding the location of these lands
lands are to be managed as
as soon as possible and advise them to avoid
avoidance/exclusion areas for land use
these lands or provide details on how they would
authorizations that could result in surface
plan to operate or mitigate their project in a manner
disturbing activities (BLM 2009a).
consistent with the values of the lands donated or
Construction and operation of the proposed
acquired for conservation purposes.
project may not be in compliance with this
policy, because even with the further revised
project boundary, these mitigation lands may
still be affected by the proposed project. We
encourage the parties to provide further
data and information in their comments on
the PMPD. In the interim, we may also
receive BLM’s decision on the Right of
Way permit and, in doing so, must address
the project’s status under the policy.
However, the Reduced Acreage Alternative,
which is smaller in size from Scenario 5.5 by
19 Land Use
Applicable
LORS Description of Applicable LORS Consistent? Basis for Consistency
roughly half is said to avoid LWCF lands, and
therefore, would not result in surface
disturbing activities in the avoidance/exclusion
areas. As such, this alternative would be
consistent with this BLM Interim Policy and its
requirements.
State
None
Local
San Bernardino COUNTYWIDE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE YES In May 2010, the applicant submitted a
County General LAND USE ELEMENT supplemental report for modifications to the
Plan (CSB 2007a) LU 1.2 The design and siting of new development primary water supply, which would require a
will meet locational and development standards to pipeline that would traverse two private
ensure compatibility of the new development with parcels (APNs 052928134 and 052928123)
adjacent land uses and community character. that were previously not within the project
boundary. The private parcels are
COUNTYWIDE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE
undeveloped land located within the county’s
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Resource Conservation (RC) zoning
CO 10.2 The location of electric facilities should be
designation.
consistent with the County’s General Plan, and the
General Plan should recognize and reflect the The county has a “one-map approach” for
need for new and upgraded electric facilities. both the General Plan land use designations
and zoning classifications to assure land use
DESERT REGION GOALS AND POLICIES OF
consistency between the county’s General
THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Plan and its zoning code. As noted in Land
D/OS 1.3 Maintain Rural Living (RL) and Resource
Use Table 1, the county recently adopted
Conservation (RC) Land Use Zoning Districts or
Development Code Chapter 84.29
zoning on steep slopes and remote areas to
(Renewable Energy Generating Facilities);
minimize hillside grading and to protect the rural
therefore, the county recognizes the need for
and natural environment.
renewable power generating facilities. Refer
to the discussion below for the proposed
project’s consistency with Chapter 84.29.
Given the allowances for development of solar
power in the RC zone in the county’s newly
adopted Development Code Chapter 84.29
(Renewable Energy Generating Facilities), the
Land Use 20
Applicable
LORS Description of Applicable LORS Consistent? Basis for Consistency
proposed water pipeline would be consistent
with these goals and policies.
DESERT REGION GOALS AND POLICIES OF YES The proposed water pipeline is a component
THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT for the development of a solar energy farm
GOAL D/CO 2. Encourage utilization of renewable that would produce up to a nominal 500 MW
energy resources. net of power. The power generated by the
COUNTYWIDE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE proposed project would be conveyed into
CONSERVATION ELEMENT SCE’s electric grid to provide electricity supply
CO 8.3 Assist in efforts to develop alternative for the area’s population. Because the
energy technologies that have minimum adverse proposed project makes use of a renewable
effect on the environment, and explore and resource (i.e., sun light), it is consistent with
promote newer opportunities for the use of this goal of the General Plan. In addition, the
alternative energy sources. county recently adopted Development Code
Chapter 84.29 (Renewable Energy
Generating Facilities). Therefore, the county
recognizes the need for renewable power
generating facilities and has adopted a code
to support renewable energy development;
and as a component of the proposed project,
the water pipeline would be consistent with
this goal and policy.
21 Land Use
County of San CHAPTER 84.29 RENEWABLE ENERGY YES This chapter of the county Development Code
Bernardino 2007 GENERATION FACILITIES was recently adopted in February of 2010 in
Development Code recognition of the State’s need for Renewable
(CSB 2007b) 84.29.020 Applicability and Land Use Zoning
Power Generating Facilities. The proposed
Districts
water pipeline is within the RC zone, and as a
The Land Use Zoning Districts that allow
facility associated with development of solar
renewable energy facilities are limited to the
power is consistent with the county’s
following:
Development Code.
RC (Resource Conservation)
AG (Agriculture)
FW (Floodway)
RL (Rural Living) Note: If a facility is proposed
solely in the Rural Living land use zoning district,
it must include a minimum of 20 acres in the
development proposal.IR (Regional Industrial)
Land Use 22
B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
This section addresses the extent to which the proposed project will affect the
local area’s transportation network. The evidence includes an analysis of the
roadways proposed for construction and operation; potential traffic-related
problems associated with the use of these routes; and the anticipated
encroachment upon public rights-of-way during the construction of the proposed
project and associated facilities.
Three airports were identified in the general project vicinity, but all of these
airports were over 18 miles away from the project site. (Ex. 300, p. C.11-8.)
The BNSF provides long-haul freight service throughout the United States. Near
and on the project site, BNSF operates a double-track railroad line through the
project site from east to west. AMTRAK’s Southwest Chief route from Los
Angeles to Chicago travels on this rail line through the site. The BNSF rail lines
are heavily used by freight trains. The trains, some of which are approximately
10,000 feet long, cross the tracks approximately every fifteen minutes from both
directions.. (Ex. 300, pp. C.11-7 and C.11-9.)
1. Construction Traffic
Parking for workers will be provided in the 14-acre construction laydown area
adjacent to the main services complex as well as the 26-acre laydown and
staging areas south of the complex. Employees may travel to and from the site
and/or the laydown parking areas in shuttles or other similar vehicles. We adopt
Condition of Certification TRANS-2 that requires the Applicant to develop a
parking and staging plan for workforce and construction vehicles. This plan will
include any impediments that may occur because of the need to cross the BNSF
Railway tracks.. (Ex. 300, p. C.11-11.)
According to the Applicant, for the first ten months of construction temporary
access for construction will be provided from an existing road off I-40, which will
be designed to cross the railroad tracks. In October 2011, construction traffic will
use a permanent access road designed to use the same exit off of Hector Road
and, which will be designed with a new bridge over the BNSF railroad tracks. We
adopt Condition of Certification TRANS-1 that requires the Applicant to obtain an
easement from BNSF Railway to construct the road on its right-of-way before
construction begins. This Condition also requires the Applicant to construct an
all-weather road so emergency vehicles have access to the site. (Ex. 300, p.
C.11-6.)
The existing BSNF line could pose a safety hazard for construction workers and
others visiting or making deliveries to the project site. The frequency of the trains
(every fifteen minutes) could result in traffic backing up or stacking on I-40 as
workers wait in vehicles for the train to pass and to cross the tracks. The same
scenario could occur as workers leave the site. State and federal regulations
require that a flag person be present at all times wherever workers, delivery
persons, or visitors cross an unattended or open track. To address this issue, we
adopt Condition of Certification TRANS-2 to require implementation of measures
that reduce traffic on I-40 during critical commute times and ensure safe crossing
of the BSNF Railway tracks. This Condition requires a traffic control plan that will
also address access by emergency service vehicles. (Ex. 300, p. C.11-10.)
To transport this equipment, the Applicant must obtain special permits from
Caltrans to move oversized or overweight materials and address other issues
such as routes used and delivery times. We adopt Condition of Certification
TRANS-3 to ensure the project owner complies with vehicle size and weight
limitation requirements of Caltrans and other relevant jurisdictions; Condition of
Certification TRANS-4 to ensure the Applicant complies with Caltrans’ and other
relevant jurisdictions’ limitations on encroachments into public rights of way; and
TRANS-5 to ensure that the project owner will restore all public roads,
easements, and rights-of-way that have been damaged due to project-related
construction activities. (Ex. 300, pp. C.11-15.to C.11-16.)
The evidence shows that vicinity roadways would continue to operate at LOS C
or better during the morning and evening peak hours. Table 2 below shows that
construction would not cause any of the Levels of Service to deteriorate to a level
that would have a significant impact. (Ex. 300, pp. C.11-14 and C.11-15, Tables
4 and 6.)
Traffic and Transportation Table 2
2011 Peak Hour Roadway Traffic Volumes
Design Capacities, and Levels of Service With Project
Morning Peak Evening Peak
2011 Existing Conditions with Calico
Hour Hour
Average Average
Traffic
Roadway Segment LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Volumes
(sec/veh) (sec/veh
I-40 – West of Hector Road 17,0001 B4 15.5 C 13.1 B
I-40 – East of Hector Road 17,2501 B4 16.5 C 11.0 B
Hector Road – North of I-40 705/7752 B/C5 --- --- --- ---
Hector Road – South of I-40 10/152 A/A5 --- --- --- ---
National Trails Highway –
10/102 A/A5 8.5 A 8.5 A
West of Hector Road
National Trails Highway –
10/152 A/A5 8.5 A 8.5 A
East of Hector Road
BLM Access Road – North of
81/122 A/A5 --- --- --- ---
I-40
Notes and Sources: 2007 Traffic Volumes (Caltrans, 2008a); 2AM/PM Volumes (Higher Volumes between
Northbound and Southbound Direction), Source: National Data Services, 2008a; 2007 Truck Volumes (Caltrans,
2008b); 4 ADT LOS; 5 Peak Hour LOS; 6 Peak Hour LOS is based on Table 5.11-3, San Bernardino CMP, 2003
Update. Information not listed was not available; ADT = Average Daily Traffic; LOS = Level of Service. Source:
URS Corporation 2008; Ex. 300, p. C.11-14.
Operation of the Calico Solar Project will result in a small amount of vehicular
traffic. Operational workforce is estimated to be 164 workers. The arrival and
departure time of those workers will be staggered in three 8-hour shifts over
operations on a 24 hour, 7-day-a-week basis. Consequently, peak week-day
traffic will be 53 vehicles even if every employee were to commute in his or her
own vehicle. The surrounding roadways and intersections are projected to
operate well below LOS capacity when the project is operational in 2016. (Ex.
300, p. C.11-17.)
The Applicant will build a permanent access road to the site directly from I-40.
To ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles, we adopt Condition of
Certification TRANS-1 to ensure that the access road conforms with local,
county, and State Fire Marshal Codes. (Ex. 300, p. C.11-17.)
As noted earlier, the BNSF operates a double-track railroad line through the
project site. The project includes construction of a bridge over the tracks that will
be used for permanent access at the project site. Therefore, we find that no
mitigation is necessary to address crossing of the tracks during operation. (Ex.
300, p. C.11-17.)
The proposed Calico Solar Project will use SunCatchers— a 40-foot tall, 25
kilowatt-electrical (kWe) solar dish developed by Stirling Energy Systems. The
SunCatcher system consists of a unique radial solar concentrator dish structure
that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors are designed
to automatically track the sun and collect and focus or concentrate its solar
energy onto a patented power conversion unit (PCU).
The SunCatcher mirrors have the potential to pose a visual hazard (glare). The
SunCatcher mirrors have the potential to move off-axis during cloud cover, and
the reflection of the sun on the mirrors nearest the rail line or roadways may pose
a hazard (temporary flash blindness) to motorists on Hector Road, I-40, and
Route 66; and to train crews using the BNSF tracks. To address the potential for
flash blindness, we adopt Condition of Certification TRANS-7, which requires the
project owner to modify the normal and offset tracking position to specific
specifications and ensures specific morning-stow and night-stow procedures are
followed. This Condition also requires a 223-foot minimum distance from any
SunCatcher reflector assembly to the BNSF ROW or any public roadway to
reduce the possibility of temporary flash blindness. The project owner must also
prepare an emergency glare response program that includes a monitoring plan;
plan for reporting malfunctions and complaints; immediate repositioning of
malfunctioning units; and a process of evaluating intrusive light conditions
through video surveillance. (Ex. 300, p. C.11-19.)
BNSF Railway has communicated its concern about the effect of glint and glare
on the railroad engineers’ ability to clearly and accurately see signal lights. Staff
has taken these comments into consideration. Because of the significance of the
signal lights to the operational safety of the crews and trains, Staff has
determined that any escaping glint and glare that may affect the railroad
engineer’s ability to clearly and accurately see signal lights will require shielding.
Therefore, we adopt Condition of Certification TRANS-7, which requires the
Applicant to work with the BNSF Railway to determine the appropriate size and
design of shields to be affixed to signal lights as well as measures to increase the
contrast of the signal light, including orienting the shield around the signal light;
The evidence shows that vicinity roadways will continue to operate at LOS C or
better during the morning and evening peak hours. Operation will not cause any
of these Levels of Service to deteriorate to a level that will have a significant
adverse impact. In addition, the evidence shows that the Calico Solar Project
has the potential to cause glint and glare in the project area. However, with the
implementation of Condition of Certification TRANS-7 the project will not have a
significant adverse impact to motorists or to the BNSF Railway.
4. Cumulative impacts
Truck travel as well as other non-employee site visits will be very small and will
typically occur during non-peak periods. Consequently, cumulative operational
impacts will not be significant and will not require mitigation. (Ex. 300, p. C.11-27
Comments were received from the Applicant and from the BSNF Railway
regarding the project. These comments are summarized below.
The Applicant contends that there is no potential for cumulative traffic impacts
between the Calico Solar Project and the Abengoa Mojave Project because
employee travel patterns will not overlap. The Calico Solar workforce is
expected to originate almost entirely in Barstow and in the opposite direction of
the Abengoa project. As such, the Applicant requested that Staff delete
Condition of Certification TRANS-2. Staff considered the Applicant’s comments,
reviewed the documents filed, and modified Condition of Certification TRANS-2
to address Applicant concerns. The revised Condition now provides the
Applicant flexibility in determining its options for controlling traffic. (Ex. 300, p.
C.11-31.)
On July 29, 2010, BSNF Railway submitted a comment letter that identified
concerns with glint and glare and requested intervener status on the project.
BNSF Railway also presented this letter/request at the Commission’s Prehearing
Conference on July 30, 2010. BNSF requested a site-specific glint and glare
study prior to the first SunCatcher disc being mounted on a pedestal. (Ex. 300,
p. C.11-31.)
Staff worked with BNSF representatives to resolve their concerns with glint and
glare. A glint and glare study was prepared for the project, which was reviewed
with BNSF Railway representatives. BNSF representatives also expressed
concern with the effect of glare on the railroad engineer’s ability to correctly
perceive the color of the signal lights. Staff identified Condition of Certification
TRANS-7 to require the Applicant to work with BNSF Railway to fund and
conduct a study to determine the specific measures needed, if any, to ensure
that the correct signal color is visible to BNSF Railway engineers. Staff
determined that measures such as hooding or increasing the intensity of the
lights will ensure that BNSF Railway engineers can correctly perceive the color of
the signal. This study and modifications to the signal, if required, are to be
completed before operation of the Calico Solar Project. (Ex. 300, p. C.11-32.)
3. The Suncatcher mirrors have the potential to produce glint and glare near
public roads and the BNSF railroad right-of-way. Condition of Certification
TRANS-7 will reduce these impacts.
5. The traffic associated with cumulative projects will not impact regional and
local roadways with the implementation of the Conditions of Certification.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
TRANS-2 – Traffic Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction for the Calico
Solar Project, the project owner shall prepare and implement a traffic
control plan (TPC) for the project’s construction and operation traffic.
The plan shall address the movement of workers, vehicles, and
materials, including arrival and departure schedules and designated
workforce and delivery routes.
For the project’s construction period, the plan is to be designed to take
into account any impediments that may or could occur because of the
need to cross BNSF Railway tracks. In developing this plan the
Applicant is required to consider off-site parking and staging in
designated areas and the use of buses to transport workers to and
from the construction site.
Once the bridge is constructed, the Applicant shall prepare a parking
and staging plan to require all project-related parking to occur on-site
or in designated off-site parking areas and that staging occurs on-site
in a specifically-defined area.
TRANS-4 – Encroachment into Public Rights of Way. The project owner and
its contractor shall comply with Caltrans and other relevant jurisdictions
limitations for encroachment into public rights-of-way and shall obtain
necessary encroachment permits from Caltrans and all relevant
jurisdictions.
Verification: In the monthly compliance reports (MCRs), the project owner
shall submit copies of permits received during the reporting period. In addition,
the project owner shall retain copies of these permits and supporting
documentation in its compliance file for at least six months after the start of
commercial operation.
1. Modify the offset tracking procedure to use a 25-degree offset instead of the
proposed 10-degree offset.
3. Ensure that the “Night Stow” should occur 30 minutes after sunset to avoid any
intrusive light effects.
4. Ensure that the minimum distance from any SunCatcher reflector assembly to
the BNSF right-of-way (ROW) or any public roadway shall be a minimum of
223 feet to reduce the possibility of temporary flash blindness. In addition,
during the normal tracking and offset tracking positions, the project operator
shall adhere to the following procedures and specifications:
a. Monitoring plan that requires (1) the use of video surveillance trucks to
identify and document intrusive light conditions, covering all hours of
operation on a weekly basis for five years; and (2) monitoring of the status
of individual SunCatchers during all hours of operation to immediately
The evidence for this topic was uncontested. (Ex. 300, p. C.10-1 et seq.)
The Applicant will construct the Calico Solar Project in two phases over an
approximate 44-month period. The project site will be located on undeveloped
land in San Bernardino County, primarily on BLM-administered land. The
proposed project site is approximately 37 miles east of the City of Barstow. This
assessment used San Bernardino County and Riverside County labor markets to
evaluate construction worker availability. To determine if a project would have
any significant impacts, Staff analyzed whether community services and
capacities could absorb the project- related impacts. The project’s property
taxes, sales tax, local school impact fees, or development fees can help local
governments augment public services. If the project’s impacts could appreciably
strain or degrade these services, then the impact would be significant adverse.
(Exs. 1, p. 5.10-2; 300, p. C.10-2 and C.10-4.)
1 Socioeconomics
1. Potential Impacts
An increased demand for labor could result in an influx of non-local workers and
their dependents, resulting in a strain on housing, schools, parks and recreation,
law enforcement, and medical services. (Ex. 300, p. C.10-2 to C.10-3.)
During the 41-month construction period for the Calico Solar Project, the project
owner will employ an average of 400 construction workers a month, with a peak
of 700 workers in the seventh month. The types of construction workers sought
by the project will include laborers, craftspeople, technicians, supervisory,
support, and management personnel. The construction trades include
occupations that will assemble the proposed SunCatcher units; workers engaged
in these occupations will require on-site training. (Exs. 1, p. 5.10.16; 300, p.
C.10-7.)
The evidentiary record indicates that the total labor by skill in the Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSA) is more than adequate to provide construction labor for the Calico Solar
Project. Because the majority of the construction workforce resides within San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties, we find that construction of the project will
not adversely induce substantial population growth. (Ex. 300, pp. C.10-6 to
C.10-7.)
The record indicates that power plant construction workers will typically commute
up to two hours from their homes to a project site rather than permanently
relocating to the site. (Exs. 1. p. 5.10-16; 300. p. C.10-2.) Because of the large
labor force within commuting distance of the project, the majority of construction
and operations workers will commute to the project daily from their existing
residences. Some workers may stay in local motels or other rental properties
during the workweek but return to their homes on weekends for the duration of
their job assignments. The evidence shows that an adequate supply of motels
and rental properties is available in the City of Barstow, and San Bernardino and
Riverside Counties to accommodate weekly commuters and/or temporary
residents. (Exs. 1, p. 5.10.22; 300, p. C.10-8.)
The project would have 180 full-time employees; the majority of whom are
expected to already reside in the area or within a one hour commute of the
project site. The Applicant expects to recruit 20 operational jobs from outside the
immediate project area. Some workers may relocate with their families to the
Socioeconomics 2
Barstow area with no expected adverse impacts on the local infrastructure or
community services. (Exs. 1, § 5.10.2.2; 300, p. C.10-8.)
The Calico Solar Project site is located within the Sliver Valley Unified School
District. The Barstow Unified School District is also located within the vicinity of
the project site. Section 17620 of the California Education Code allows school
districts to levy school development fees for new commercial or industrial
construction within school district boundaries. (See also Govt. Code, §§ 65996-
65997.) These fees are based on the project’s square feet of habitable space.
Because the main services complex of the Calico Solar Project (considered
“habitable space”) will be constructed entirely on BLM land, no private land would
be affected and therefore, the provisions of Education Code Section 17620 would
not apply to this project. In addition, the Silver Valley Unified School District
indicated that the proposed project will be exempt from the school impact fees
because it would be developed on federal lands. (Ex. 1. p. 5.10 13; Ex. 300, p.
C.10-12.)
3 Socioeconomics
Property Taxes. Under existing state law, the Calico Solar Project is exempt
from property taxes as a qualifying solar energy project. 1 If the property tax
exemption should lapse, the estimated tax would be $220,000 based on the local
tax rate of 1.1 percent applied to the solar project components (storage, power
conditioning equipment, transfer equipment, and parts relating to functioning of
these items). (Ex. 1, p 5.10-30.)
Capital Costs and Payroll. The total capital cost of the Calico Solar Project is
estimated at $1 billion for the final build-out of both phases of development. The
total construction payroll over 44 months is estimated at $159 million. The
construction payroll, local purchases of materials and supplies, and sales tax
revenues generated by the expenditures will have a temporary beneficial impact
on the San Bernardino County economy. (Exs. 1, p 5.10-24; 300. P. C.10-19.)
The annual operations and management (O&M) budget for the project is
estimated at $8.4 million for goods and supplies. The project will have an annual
payroll of approximately $10.1 million, which would include all salaries, overtime,
benefits, and incentives. The payroll, local purchases, and sales tax revenues
generated by the expenditures will likely have long-term beneficial effects on the
San Bernardino County economy. (Exs. 1. p. 5.10-29; 300, p. C.10-19.)
Indirect and Induced Benefits. The project will also create indirect economic
benefits and induced short-term employment in the study area. The Applicant
used an Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) input-output model of the study
area to estimate the project’s multiplier effects associated with construction and
operation. The IMPLAN results show that purchases by construction workers
and permanent employees as well as project expenditures for materials and
supplies will generate quantifiable secondary economic benefits that are likely to
occur if the project is developed.
1
California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 73.
Socioeconomics 4
In energy siting cases, Commission staff uses a demographic screening analysis
to determine whether a low-income and/or minority population exists within the
potentially affected area of the proposed site. The potentially affected area
consists of a six-mile radius of the site and is consistent with air quality modeling
of the range of a project’s air quality impacts. The demographic screening is
based on information contained in two documents: “Environmental Justice:
Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act” (Council on
Environmental Quality, December, 1997) and “Guidance for Incorporating
Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s Compliance Analyses” (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, April, 1998). The screening process relied on
Year 2000 U.S. Census data to determine the presence of minority and below-
poverty-level populations. (Ex. 300, p. C.10-5.)
The assessment included mapping the minority populations within the six-mile
radius of the project site and reviewing the analysis for all of the technical issue
areas addressed in the Calico Solar Project SA/DEIS. If minority populations are
identified then the analysis also considers all potential impacts and mitigation
measures and whether there would be a significant impact on a minority or low-
income population. (Ex. 300, pp. C.10-4 and C.10-5.)
The total population within the six-mile radius of the proposed site is 83 persons
and the total minority population is 20 persons, or about 24 percent of the total
population. (Ex. 300, p. C.10-5.) Therefore, we find that there are no
environmental justice impacts related to the Calico Solar Project. (Ex. 300, pp.
C.10-5 to C.10-6 and C.10-21.)
4. Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative socioeconomic impacts could occur when more than one project in
the same area has an overlapping construction schedule, thus creating a
demand for workers that cannot be met locally. An increased demand for labor
5 Socioeconomics
could result in an influx of non-local workers and their dependents, resulting in a
strain on housing, schools, parks and recreation, law enforcement, and medical
services. (Ex. 300, p. C-10-17.)
The evidence shows that the total construction labor force by MSA for the region
is more than sufficient to accommodate the labor needs for construction of power
generation facilities and other large industrial projects. Because of the robust
local and regional construction labor force, the record concluded that there would
be no influx of non-local workers and their dependents to the project area and no
significant and adverse impacts on housing, schools, parks and recreation, law
enforcement, and emergency medical services. Therefore, we find that
construction and operation of the Calico Solar Project will not contribute to any
significant adverse cumulative socioeconomic impacts. (Ex. 300, p. C-10-18.)
Based on the evidence provided for the Calico Solar Project, we find that the
project does not need Conditions of Certification for Socioeconomics and
Environmental Justice. The project owner will comply with all applicable
regulations.
Socioeconomics 6
FINDINGS OF FACT
8. The total construction payroll for both phases of Calico Solar Project is
estimated at over $159 million.
10. When both phases of Calico Solar Project are completed, the project will
provide an annual operations payroll of approximately $10 million and an
annual operations and maintenance budget estimated at over $8.4 million.
11. The project owner will not be required to pay the school development fee
to the Silver Valley Unified School District because the main services
complex would be constructed entirely on BLM land, and no private land
will be affected.
7 Socioeconomics
12. The project will provide direct, indirect, and induced economic benefits to,
San Bernardino County.
14. The project will not create disproportionate impacts on minority and/or low-
income populations because the project did not result in any significant
health or environmental impacts to any population in the project vicinity.
15. Construction and operation of the project will not result in any direct,
indirect, or cumulative significant adverse socioeconomic impacts.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3. The project will not create any disproportionate adverse effects on minority
or low-income populations.
Socioeconomics 8
D. NOISE AND VIBRATION
The construction and operation of any power plant create noise. A combination
of factors such as loudness, time of day, and proximity to sensitive receptors
determines whether the source of noise will cause significant adverse impacts.
In some cases, vibration may be produced as a result of construction activities,
such as blasting or pile driving, which may cause structural damage and
annoyance. The discussion below summarizes the noise and vibration
potentially produced by the construction and operation of the Calico Solar
Project, and presents the recommended mitigation to reduce significant
environmental impacts and comply with applicable law.
The Calico Solar Project (Calico Solar) would be constructed on a 4,613 acre site
located in San Bernardino County, approximately 37 miles east of the City of
Barstow, California. The site is on undisturbed public land managed by the BLM.
(Ex. 300, p. C.9-6.)
Noise sources in the project vicinity include train traffic, highway traffic, aircraft
traffic, wind, and wildlife. Two sensitive receptors (two residences) were
identified in the vicinity of the project site. The closest one is a single residence
(SR1) located approximately 1,200 feet from the project’s southwest border. A
second residence (SR2) is located approximately 7,800 feet east of the project
boundaries. (Exs. 1, §5.12.1.1, Figure 5.12 1; 300, p. C.9-6.)
The baseline used to compare predicted project noise to existing ambient noise
was based on an applicant-prepared ambient noise survey (Exs. 1, §5.12.1.4;
300, p. C.9-7.) The survey was conducted from November 2 to November 7,
2008, and monitored existing noise levels at two locations near SR1. Existing
ambient noise measurements were not taken at the second sensitive receptor
because one of the measurements taken for SR1 was considered to be
representative of the noise levels that could occur at SR2. (Ex. 300, p. C.9-7.)
Noise Table 1 provides the results of the ambient noise measurements.
1. Construction Noise
The only construction activity likely to produce vibration that could be perceived
off-site would be pile driving. Although the Applicant did not identify pile driving
as part of its application, noise associated with pile driving was evaluated. We
adopt Condition of Certification Noise-6 to ensure that pile driving will be limited
to daytime hours. (Ex. 300, p. C.9-10.)
The Applicant acknowledges the need to protect construction workers from noise
hazards and has recognized applicable LORS that would provide this protection
to workers. (Ex. 1, § 5.12.2.1.) To ensure that construction workers are
adequately protected, we adopt Condition of Certification Noise-3. (Ex. 300, p.
C.9-10.)
2. Operational Noise
The Applicant performed noise modeling to determine the project’s noise impacts
on sensitive receptors. Noise Table 2 summarizes the results of this modeling.
As a solar thermal generating facility, the Calico Solar Project would operate only
during daytime hours, typically 15 hours per day during the summer (with fewer
hours during the fall, winter, and spring), when sufficient solar insolation is
available. (Ex. 300, p. C.9-12.)
Power plant noise levels are predicted to be no greater than 57 dBA Leq and 52
dBA Leq at receptors SR1 and SR2, respectively, during daytime operation.
When projected plant noise is added to the daytime ambient value, the
cumulative level is higher than the ambient value at location SR1 by an inaudible
amount (see Noise Table 2). The cumulative level at location SR2 is
considerably higher, more than 10 dBA, than the ambient value. At night, no
change in ambient noise at any sensitive receptor would result from plant
operation. (Ex. 300, p. C.9-12.)
Another source of disturbance would be strong tonal noises. Tonal noises are
individual sounds (such as pure tones) that, while not louder than permissible
levels, stand out in sound quality. The Applicant can avoid the creation of
annoying tonal (pure-tone) noises by balancing the noise emissions of various
power plant features during plant design. To ensure that tonal noises do not
cause annoyance, we adopt Condition of Certification Noise-4. (Ex. 300, p. C.9-
12.)
Vibration from an operating power plant could be transmitted by two chief means;
through the ground (groundborne vibration) and through the air (airborne
vibration). The operating components include a reciprocating engine, cooling
fans, and air compressor. All of these pieces of equipment must be carefully
balanced in order to operate. Given the distributive layout of the project, we find
that the ground borne vibration from the Calico Solar Project would be
undetectable by any likely receptor. (Ex. 300, p. C.9-13.)
Airborne vibration (low frequency noise) can rattle windows and objects on
shelves and can rattle the walls of lightweight structures. None of the project
equipment is likely to produce low frequency noise; this makes it highly unlikely
that the Calico Solar Project would cause perceptible airborne vibration effects.
(Ex. 300, p. C.9-13.)
3. Cumulative Impacts
Section 15130 of the CEQA guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14) requires a
discussion of cumulative environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are two or
more individual impacts that, when considered together, compound or increase
the impact.
The Applicant identified two potential projects in the vicinity of Calico Solar that
might cause cumulative noise impacts. The Applicant originally planned to
propose an additional solar project (SES Solar Three) northwest of the Calico
Solar project site. Subsequent to the AFC filing, the Applicant withdrew the Plan
of Development for the SES Solar Three Project with the BLM and does not
intend to develop the site. Another development is proposed west of the Calico
Solar Project. The proposed solar project would be located on the opposite side
of the Calico Solar Project site and the identified residences, and no significant
Upon closure of the Calico Solar Project, all operational noise from the project
would stop, and no further adverse noise impact from its operation would be
possible. The remaining potential temporary noise source would be the
dismantling of the solar structures and equipment and any site restoration work
that may be performed. Since this noise would be similar to that caused by the
original construction, it can be similarly treated, that is, noisy work could be
performed during daytime hours, with machinery and equipment properly
equipped with noise-reducing devices. Any noise LORS that were in existence at
that time would apply. Applicable Conditions of Certification included in the
Energy Commission Decision would also apply unless modified. (Ex. 300, p.
C.9-19.)
The Applicant has predicted the noise impacts of project construction on the
nearest sensitive receptors. A comparison of construction noise estimates to
measured ambient conditions is summarized in Noise Table 3.
Noise and Vibration 6
Noise Table 3
Predicted Power Plant Construction Noise Impacts
Receptor Highest Measured Cumulative Change
Construction Existing Ambient2 (dBA Leq) (dBA)
Noise Level1 (dBA Leq)
(dBA Leq)
The San Bernardino County Development Code exempts construction noise from
established limits during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. except
Sundays and federal holidays. To ensure that these hours are, in fact, enforced,
we have adopted Condition of Certification NOISE-6.
Compliance with NOISE-6 would insure that the noise impacts of Calico Solar
Project construction activities would comply with the local noise LORS.
The Applicant has committed to comply with applicable noise LORS intended to
protect workers during construction and operation of the facility. We discuss
these fully in the WORKER SAFETY section of this Decision.
Comments were received from the Applicant on the Noise and Vibration section.
The Applicant provided text to clarify Conditions of Certification and to correct a
reference in Noise Table 1 of this Decision. Staff concluded that all clarifying
text was appropriate and the corresponding changes were made. All of the
comments were minor and did not change the original conclusions of the
analysis. (Ex. 300, pp. C.9-19 to C.9-21.)
Based on the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings and
reaches the following conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Construction and operation of the Calico Solar Project will not significantly
increase noise levels above existing ambient levels in the surrounding
project area.
2. Construction noise levels are temporary and transitory in nature and will
be mitigated to the extent feasible by employing measures such as sound
reduction devices and limiting construction to daytime hours in accordance
with local noise control laws and ordinances.
5. The project owner will implement measures to protect workers from injury
due to excessive noise levels.
6. The Calico Solar Project will not create ground or airborne vibrations,
which cause significant off-site impacts.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
NOISE-1 At least 15 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project
owner shall notify all residents within two miles of the site, by mail or
other effective means, of the commencement of project construction.
At the same time, the project owner shall establish a telephone number
for use by the public to report any undesirable noise conditions
associated with the construction and operation of the project and
include that telephone number in the above notice. If the telephone is
not staffed 24 hours per day, the project owner shall include an
automatic answering feature, with date and time stamp recording, to
answer calls when the phone is unattended. This telephone number
shall be posted at the project site during construction in a manner
visible to passersby. This telephone number shall be maintained until
the project has been operational for at least one year. If construction
outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. is required for any
construction activity, the project owner shall provide an additional
notice, to the CPM as well as to all residents within two miles of the
site, by mail or other effective means, of the commencement and
anticipated duration of the nighttime construction, at least 15 days prior
to the commencement of the nighttime construction.
NOISE RESTRICTIONS
NOISE-4 The project design and implementation shall include appropriate noise
mitigation measures adequate to ensure that the operation of the
project will not cause the noise levels due to plant operation alone to
exceed an average of 51 dBA Leq measured at or near monitoring
location SR2, and an average of 57 dBA Leq measured at or near
monitoring location SR1.
No new pure-tone components shall be caused by the project. “Pure-
tone” shall be understood to mean, for purposes of this Condition, a
prominent one-third octave band with prominence evaluated between
adjacent one-third octave band project operation sound levels and
using frequency-dependent prominence ratio criteria values similar to
those as defined by ANSI S1.13-2005 A.8.6. No single piece of
equipment shall be allowed to stand out as a source of noise that
draws legitimate complaints.
A. When the project first achieves a sustained output of 85 percent or
greater of rated capacity, the project owner shall conduct a 25-hour
community noise survey at monitoring location SR2, or at a closer
location acceptable to the CPM. This survey shall also include
measurement of one-third octave band sound pressure levels to
ensure that no new pure-tone noise components have been caused
by the project.
B. During the period of this survey, the project owner shall also
conduct a short-term survey of noise at monitoring location SL1 or
at a closer location acceptable to the CPM. The short-term noise
measurements at this location shall be conducted during morning,
early afternoon, and evening hours.
C. The measurement of power plant noise for the purposes of
demonstrating compliance with this Condition of Certification may
alternatively be made at a location, acceptable to the CPM, closer
to the plant (e.g., 400 feet from the plant boundary) and this
measured level then mathematically extrapolated to determine the
plant noise contribution at the affected residence. The character of
the plant noise shall be evaluated at the affected receptor locations
to determine the presence of pure tones or other dominant sources
of plant noise.
D. If the results from the noise survey indicate that the power plant
noise at the affected receptor sites exceeds the above specified
values, mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce noise
to a level of compliance with these limits.
1
Noisy Construction: “Noise that can potentially draw legitimate complaints.”
Legitimate Complaint: “A legitimate noise complaint refers to a complaint about noise that is
confirmed by the CPM to be disturbing, and that is caused by the Calico project as opposed to
another source. A legitimate complaint constitutes a violation by the project of any noise
condition of certification (as confirmed by the CPM), which is documented by an individual or
entity affected by such noise.”
• the CPM determines that the noise will not exceed the
daytime ambient noise levels at SR1 and SR2 (as shown in
Noise Table 5) by more than 10 dBA and the nighttime
ambient noise levels at SR1 and SR2 (as shown in Noise
Table 5) by more than 5 dBA; or
At least 20 days prior to the start of construction activities to occur outside the
above required schedule restrictions, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a
letter showing the affected homeowner’s consent. If the consent cannot be
obtained, at least 15 days prior to the start of those activities, the project owner
shall submit to the CPM documentation showing the expected construction noise
levels at SR1 and SR2, the nature of the work, the time of day/night that work will
occur, and the duration of the work.
Final noise levels at 3 feet from noise source: ________ dBA Date:
___________
Final noise levels at complainant's property: __________ dBA Date:
___________
Description of corrective measures taken:
Visual resources are the features of the landscape that contribute to the visual
character or quality of the environment. CEQA requires an examination of a
project’s visual impacts in order to determine whether the project has the
potential to cause substantial degradation to the existing visual character of the
site and its surroundings, substantially affect a scenic vista or damage scenic
resources, or create a new source of substantial light or glare affecting day or
nighttime views in the area. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 § 15382, Appen. G.)
1 Visual Resources
that experience high levels of visual change from a project are more likely to
experience significant adverse impacts.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that the federal
government use “all practicable means to ensure all Americans safe, healthful,
productive, and aesthetically (emphasis added) and culturally pleasing
surroundings” (42 U.S. Code 4331[b][2]).
In addition, we have reviewed federal, state, and local LORS and their policies or
guidelines for aesthetics or preservation and protection of sensitive visual
resources that may be applicable to the project site and surrounding area. These
LORS include local government land use planning documents (e.g., General
Plan, zoning ordinance) and can be found in Appendix A of this Decision.
Visual Resources 2
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE
The proposed CSP would be built in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino
County. The site is roughly 37 miles east of the town of Barstow and 17 miles
east of Newberry Springs. It is adjacent to the north side of Interstate 40 (I-40)
and near the historic Route 66/National Trails Highway that generally parallels I-
40 on the south in this area. The site is on BLM-administered land and is largely
bounded by BLM-administered land, although private tracts abut some portions
of the site and a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad line traverses the
site. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-3.)
The 84,400-acre Cady Mountain Wilderness Study Area borders the site on the
north and the Pisgah Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is adjacent
to the site’s eastern/southeastern boundary. The Kelso Dunes Wilderness and
Bristol Mountains Wilderness are approximately 10 miles east of the site. Much
of the Cady Mountain WSA and all of the Pisgah ACEC would be within in the
Mojave Trails National Monument proposed as part of the proposed 2010
California Desert Protection Act legislation. The proposed monument would
extend from the site’s east boundary to near Needles. I-40 forms the southern
boundary of the site. Three miles south of I-40 is the northern boundary of a
closed live-fire training area on Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base. Also
south of I-40 and immediately southwest of the project site is the Ord-Rodman
Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA). The Rodman Mountains Wilderness
is three miles distant, also to the southwest. The west side of the site is bounded
by undesignated BLM-administered land. Visual Resources Figure 1, Project
Setting, depicts the project site in its immediate regional context in relation to
these various protected areas. (Ex. 300, pp. C.13-3 to C.13-4.)
The site lies within the east-west trending Mojave Valley, a broad desert valley
resting between the Cady and Bristol Mountains to the north and northeast and
the Bullion, Lava Bed, Rodman, and Newberry Mountains to the south and
southwest. The valley floor ranges from approximately 1,800 feet to 2,200 feet in
elevation; the mountains rise to between 3,000 feet and 4,400 feet in elevation.
(Ex. 300, p. C.13-4.)
3 Visual Resources
Visual Resources – Figure 1
Calico Project – Project Setting
The project site comprises approximately 4,613 acres of public land administered
by the BLM. It does not include any private land except the site of the project’s
water well, adjacent to the BLM lands. Although not part of the project, three
adjacent tracts of private land are each surrounded on three sides by the
proposed project. The most prominent man-made features at or near the site are
I-40, which abuts the site on the south, and the BNSF Railroad traversing the
site. These features, though evident, remain visually subordinate to the vast
open expanse of the site and surroundings. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-4.)
The site occupies a band of bajadas, or alluvial fans typical of the Mojave Desert
landscape, which slope gently but noticeably southward toward the railroad and
highway, from the feet of the prominently visible Cady Mountains immediately
north of the site. The site is largely undisturbed and is currently managed by
BLM as Multiple-Use Class (MUC) M (Moderate Use), except for a very small
Visual Resources 4
portion along the northern boundary of the project, which is classified as MUC
Class L (Limited Use). (Ex. 300, p. C.13-4.)
No communities lie within the project viewshed, which extends five miles from the
site boundaries. 1 The project would be visible from various locations within the
five-mile radius with the exception of mountainous areas to the north and east
where terrain encloses views near the site boundary. The nearest rural
residence is located about two miles east of the site. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-4.)
1
A “viewshed” can be defined as the area from which the project can be seen, or which can be
visually impacted by the project, and upon which the visual impacts analysis is based. KOPs will
fall within the viewshed. An annotated map of the viewshed used for the Staff analysis is found in
the Supplemental Staff Assessment. (Ex. 300, Visual Resources Figure 3.)
5 Visual
2. Direct/Indirect Impacts and Mitigation
a. Construction Impacts
Site grading would cause a significant visual impact during construction. Surface
disturbance of the proposed site, as in most desert landscapes of the region,
would result in high contrast between the disturbed area and surroundings, due
to high contrast between the disturbed soil color and solar reflection (albedo),
and the color and albedo of the existing undisturbed, vegetated surface.
Mitigation of this impact is not feasible, because effectiveness of revegetation in
this arid environment is difficult, of limited effectiveness, and capable of recovery
only over a very long-term time frame. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-11.)
b. Operation Impacts
Visual Resources Figure 2 depicts the locations of the five KOPs selected for
visual analysis:
Visual Resources 6
VISUAL RESOURCES FIGURE 2
7 Visual
Before considering individual KOPs, we consider generally whether the project
will cause substantial degradation to the existing visual character of the site and
its surroundings, substantially affect a scenic vista or damage scenic resources,
or create a new source of substantial light or glare affecting day or nighttime
views in the area [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Appen. G, § I, subds. (a), (b) and (d)].
.(Ex. 300, p. C.13-21.)
A high level of viewer concern for scenic values was associated with the project
viewshed as seen from the highway due to the eligible State Scenic Highway
status of I-40 and the historic interest of Route 66. Views of the background
mountains are the most scenic element of views from the highways in the project
area, and these could potentially be blocked by the project, if the mirror units are
sited sufficiently close to the highway. With recommended Condition of
Certification VIS-3, those views would be preserved, though the foreground
would be strongly altered by the vast array of mirror units, strongly attracting
attention. With this measure, views would not be blocked, but the project’s effect
on the quality of those views would be strongly adverse and significant. (Ex. 300,
pp. C.13-21 to C.13-22.) We judge this to be a significant, unmitigable visual
impact.
The primary threat that Calico Solar Project poses to the visual environment is
whether the project will substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Appen. G, § I,
subd. (c)]. The Commission’s analysis of this issue involves examining the
project from several Key Observation Points, or KOPs.
Visual Resources 8
KOP 1 is taken from Route 66 (National Old Trails Highway), which parallels I-40
slightly to the south in this segment. It receives relatively high levels of traffic
(15,600 vehicles per day) (Ex. 1, p. 5.13-5). The KOP is fairly representative of
motorists on both of these roadways, though it differs from typical views from I-40
in that the project is seen from Route 66 at a greater distance. The visual
sensitivity of this KOP is moderately high. Existing scenic quality of this
landscape is moderate. Although some visually compromising elements
(including the highway, low-voltage utility lines, the BNSF rail line, and
disturbance from a pipeline right-of-way) are present, these remain visually
subordinate and the bajadas comprising the project site, descending from the
intact and visually vivid Cady Mountains nearby, appear predominantly
undisturbed and intact. However, viewer concern is moderately high since the
focus of many Route 66/National Trails Highway users would be on the historic
nature of this roadway and the encompassing landscape which earlier travelers
would have experienced. Viewer concern 2 is also elevated by the I-40’s state
eligible scenic highway status. Viewer exposure 3 is high. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-12.)
//
2
“Viewer concern” represents the reaction of a viewer to visible changes in the viewshed — an
area of land visible from a fixed vantage point. For example, viewers have a high expectation for
views formally designated as a scenic area or travel corridor as well as for recreational and
residential areas. Viewers generally expect that those views will be preserved.
3
“Viewer exposure” is a function of three elements previously listed, visibility, number of viewers,
and duration of view. Viewer exposure can range from a low to high. A partially obscured and
brief background view for a few motorists represents a low value; and unobstructed foreground
view from a large number of residences represents a high value.
9 Visual
Visual Resources – Figures 3A
Calico Solar Project – Existing view of project site from KOP 1 – Route 66/I-40
Visual Resources 10
Project visual contrast 4 would be very strong. Texture and form contrast with the
existing landscape of the vast rows of SunCatchers at this distance would be
strong, lending a distinctly man-made, industrial character to the location. Color
contrast with the existing natural environment would also be strong, and although
the field could at times resemble a vast lake surface, reflecting the sky, at other
times the mirrors are expected to appear very bright, to the point of representing
a strong nuisance or distraction, though not a hazard to navigation. In addition,
the long, linear, bright SunCatcher rows, which are oriented perpendicularly to
the highway, would rapidly alternate with the darker-colored land between each
row, introducing a large-scale flickering effect at the highway frontage that would
compound the nuisance and distraction of glare for some viewers.
From some viewpoints, the taller buildings of the Main Services Complex (up to
77 feet tall) could be visible in the middle of the site, exhibiting some vertical form
and line contrast and attracting attention, although at this distance they appear
relatively inconspicuous. Likewise, poles for the electric collection system,
though not depicted in the simulation of KOP 1, would be visible throughout the
site and introduce vertical and horizontal elements of visual complexity that
would detract from the visual unity of the scene and add to the overall industrial
character. However, these features generally would be dwarfed by the vast
scale and dominance of the SunCatcher fields. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-13.)
The project would exert extraordinary horizontal scale and spatial dominance,
occupying a vast expanse of the landscape along nearly five miles of highway
frontage. As depicted in the simulation, the overall proportion of the view
occupied by the project would be extensive compared to the foreground terrain,
background mountains, and sky, due to the sloping terrain and resulting site
exposure. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-13.)
As depicted in the simulation of KOP 1 (Figure 3B), the project does not
physically block scenic views of the Cady Mountains in the distance from
viewpoints along the highway. This feature of the simulation is discussed further,
below. Nevertheless, overall visual change to viewers from Route 66 is high.
4
“Contrast” concerns the degree to which a project’s visual characteristics or elements —form,
line, color, and texture — differ from the same visual elements in the existing landscape. The
degree of contrast can range from low to high. A landscape with forms, lines, colors, and textures
similar to those of a proposed energy facility is more visually absorbent; that is, more capable of
accepting those characteristics than a landscape in which those elements are absent4. Generally,
visual absorption is inversely proportional to visual contrast. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-48.)
11 Visual
This is because the project would demand attention, could not be overlooked,
and would be dominant in the landscape. (Ex. 300, pp. C.13-13 to C.13-14.)
In the context of moderately high overall visual sensitivity 5 , the high level of
visual change experienced by the majority of Route 66 and I-40 viewers – those
looking toward the project from KOP-1 within foreground and near-middle-ground
distance from the project – the impacts are significant. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-14.)
5
“Visual sensitivity” is comprised of three elements previous listed, visual quality, viewer concern,
and viewer exposure. Viewer sensitivity tends to be higher for homeowners or people driving for
pleasure or engaged in recreational activities and lower for people driving to and from work or as
part of their work. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-47.)
6
Applicant argued that Condition VIS-1 would be infeasible as applied to SunCatchers, since
dark colors would allow excess heat buildup. However, Applicant states that other light colors are
being investigated. If light colors that would blend with the background landscape are feasible,
Applicant shall use light, non-white colors on the backs of SunCatchers in order to reduce visual
contrast.
7
Dominance is a measure of (a) the proportion of the total field of view occupied by the field; (b)
a feature’s apparent size relative to other visible landscape features; and (c) the conspicuousness
of the feature due to its location in the view. A feature’s level of dominance is higher if it is (1)
near the center of the view; (2) elevated relative to the viewer; or (3) has the sky as a backdrop.
As the distance between a viewer and a feature increases, its apparent size decreases; and
consequently, its dominance decreases. The level of dominance ranges from low to high.
Visual Resources 12
KOP 2 – Cady Mountains WSA (Figures 4A and 4B)
Visual Resources Figure 4A represents a view of the project site from KOP 2
within the Cady Mountains WSA, as viewed from slightly over one-fourth mile
from the northern boundary of the site, at an elevation of roughly 300 feet above
the base of the nearest SunCatchers, and 500 feet above the BNSF rail line
visible in the view. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-15.)
In general, at this distance the project would exert strong horizontal scale and
spatial dominance, occupying a vast extent of the landscape. Due to the
viewshed characteristics in the Cady Mountains described above, however,
visual dominance would vary considerably, as a function of visual exposure due
to terrain. In the most exposed conditions, for example in the areas north of the
proposed project area, viewers could overlook a panorama of up to eight square
miles of SunCatchers or four times the area depicted in the simulation, with the
nearest of these seen at foreground distance. From such viewpoints, project
dominance would be very strong, occupying the largest part of the overall view
and overshadowing all other elements. In other cases, as in the simulated view,
where the preponderance of the project is hidden by terrain, contrast and
dominance could be moderate, and the project would appear to be visually co-
dominant with the background mountains. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-16.)
The project would not block scenic views, occupying the visual foreground of the
background mountains, although it would block view of the natural valley floor.
(Ex. 300, p. C.13-16.)
13 Visual
Visual Resources – Figure 4A
Calico Solar Project – Existing View of Project Site from KOP 2 – Cady Mountains WSA
Visual Resources 14
Visual change from KOP 2 and similar middle-ground viewpoints would thus
range from moderate to strong depending on location and distance. However,
according to viewshed mapping, from the majority of locations at distances
approaching a mile or more, visual exposure would decline due to intervening
terrain, as would visual dominance due to distance. In view of the very scattered
and intermittent visibility of the project predicted by viewshed mapping within the
one- and two mile distance zones, the relatively low levels of visitation, the small
proportion of the WSA that would be affected, and correspondingly limited view
durations, overall visual change from the Cady Mountains is considered to be
moderate. (Ex. 300, pp. C.13-16 to C.13-17.)
In the context of moderately high overall visual sensitivity, the moderate level of
visual change experienced by visitors to Cady Mountains WSA at distances of
over roughly one mile would be somewhat adverse. However, in view of the
small proportion of the Cady Mountains WSA potentially affected at closer
distances, overall impacts to viewers in the WSA are less than significant. (Ex.
300, p. C.13-17.)
KOP 3 represents the view from the nearest residence to the project, situated
approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the site (Visual Resources Figure 5A).
Based on the evidence, this viewpoint may be the only residence within the
project viewshed and may thus be unique, and not representative of a larger
viewer group. It is, however, informative of the appearance of the project at this
distance. Staff testified that this simulation does not accurately convey the level
of brightness expected from the face of the mirrors under typical conditions. (Ex.
300, p. C.13-17.)
15 Visual
Visual Resources – Figure 5A
Calico Solar Project – Existing View of Project Site from KOP 3 – Eastside View
Visual Resources 16
As illustrated in Visual Resources Figure 5B, at this distance the existing SCE
500-kV and 230-kV transmission line towers and poles are evident, though
visually subordinate within the view. The line and towers do not intrude into the
skyline due to the mountains in the background. The project would begin at the
transmission line and extend away from the viewer. However, numerous towers
and poles required by the project internal to the site would increase the degree of
vertical form and line contrast with the horizontal landscape. The contrast of the
combined transmission lines could attract attention and begin to dominate the
characteristic landscape. Due to the relatively level grade/elevation relationship
between the project and viewpoint, at this distance the project occupies a narrow
portion of the overall field of view due to the oblique viewing angle. The reduced
dominance due to oblique viewing angle is somewhat off-set however by the vast
horizontal extent of the project from viewpoints at this distance, resulting in high
spatial dominance; and by high contrast of anticipated mirror brightness under
many extended, typical conditions. Although not obstructing views of the distant
background, the extensive array of regularly spaced solar units along the project
boundary would completely dominate the middle-ground. Accounting for the
anticipated brightness of the mirror field for extended periods, and the strong
horizontal spatial dominance of the project, overall visual change at this distance
would be strong. The project would demand attention, could not be overlooked,
and would be dominant in the landscape. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-17.)
In the context of moderate overall visual sensitivity from this and similar
locations, due to low visual magnitude and very low viewer numbers, the
moderately high level of anticipated visual change of the project is considered
adverse but less than significant. (Ex. 300, pp. C.13-17 to C.13-18.)
17 Visual
Visual Resources – Figure 6A
Calico Solar Project – Existing View of Project Site from KOP 4 – BNSF and I-40 West
Visual Resources 18
According to the photo location, the camera position is very roughly 700 - 800
feet from the project boundary. When compared to other simulations in which
the SunCatchers are located at distances of one half mile or more, the difference
in level of impact as a function of distance is apparent. In addition, KOP 4
illustrates the effect of foreground views where grade relationships are relatively
level. In such situations, the mirror units are likely to block and enclose views, as
suggested by the simulation. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-18.) However, even with their
mitigation, the visual impact from KOP-4 is significant.
For most of the frontage of the project, I-40 is elevated in relation to the adjoining
ground. However, that amount of elevation is not sufficient by itself to prevent
the 38-foot-tall mirror units from blocking views and being highly dominant.
Based on USGS topographic maps, however, elevations of the adjoining plain
northward from the road edge tend to decrease along much of the highway
frontage until the point of the BNSF rail line, which generally represents a low
point. Thus, as indicated in simulations of KOP 1 (Visual Resources Figure
3B) above, and KOP 5 (Visual Resources Figure 7B), below, sufficient set-
backs from the highway are a critical factor in reducing the visual height and
magnitude of the mirror units, and for preventing view blockage or enclosure from
the highway by the mirror units. Condition of Certification VIS-3 proposes siting
of the SunCatchers to the north of the existing pipeline ROW, with a minimum
set-back of the SunCatchers from the highway of 500 feet. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-18.)
19 Visual
Visual Resources – Figure 7A
Calico Solar Project – Existing View of Project Site from KOP 5 – Interstate 40 Eastbound
Visual Resources 20
However, in order to fully understand the visual effect of the project from this or
other viewpoints on I-40, it is important to recall that for approximately five miles
the project fronts on I-40. In addition, the project would be visible for roughly
three miles to the east of the project and for roughly five miles to the west of the
project, particularly during morning and afternoon hours when diffuse reflection
could be strongest. (KOP 3 depicts the appearance of the project from a
distance of roughly two miles). The view in the KOP 5 simulation represents the
greatest distance between the highway and the project at any point in the five
miles of frontage. Over 80 percent of the frontage on I-40 could be as little as a
few yards from the highway right-of-way. Thus, based on the evidence, a closer
approximation of the I-40 experience is provided in KOPs 1 and 4, although as
discussed, this would only be true assuming adoption of recommended Condition
of Certification VIS-3. Without that measure, the project could potentially appear
more prominent than depicted in KOP 4 for a considerable portion of the I-40
frontage, because it could be located at a closer distance.
21 Visual
In the context of moderately high overall visual sensitivity, the high level of visual
change experienced by the majority of Route 66 and I-40 viewers – those within
foreground and near-middle-ground distance from the project – project impacts
are significant.
3. Impacts/Night Lighting 8
Nuisance glare is a major issue of concern for the Calico Solar Project, primarily
for aesthetic and comfort reasons. Affected receptors would be motorists on the
highways; and hikers, climbers and other visitors in Cady Mountains WSA and
associated open trails. Staff conducted an independent review of potential glare
impacts based on field data of the SunCatcher test site in Maricopa, Arizona
provided by the Applicant (refer to the Transportation section of this Decision for
a detailed discussion on glare). With recommended Condition of Certification
VIS- 3 (set back of SunCatchers locations from I-40) and TRANS-9, impacts
would be glaringly adverse, but would be reduced to less-than-significant levels
for motorists in I-40. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-21.)
The project viewshed is now largely dark at night. The pristine, unlit night sky is
an important part of the desert experience for many visitors to remote areas such
as this. Unmitigated night lighting of the project is an adverse impact to the
experience of campers in the nearby WSAs and other visitors to the area at
night.
Night lighting of the Main Services Complex would consist of 400-watt high-
pressure sodium lights, with illumination falling to 0.0 foot-candles on the ground
a short distance from the facility. Parking and roadway lighting would consist of
full cut-off luminaires to minimize night sky light pollution. Preliminary
photometric studies depict illumination from these fixtures falling to 0.0 foot-
candles a short distance from each roadway. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-20.)
However, night roadway lighting from tall light standards could be reflected into
the SunCatchers in stow position at night, reflecting bright illumination skyward
and causing night light pollution. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-20.) To reduce the impacts of
nighttime glare from the project while also meeting safety and security lighting
requirements, including construction lighting, Condition of Certification VIS-2,
8
Please refer to the Transportation section of this Decision for a detailed discussion on glare
impacts.
Visual Resources 22
Temporary and Permanent Exterior Lighting requires design of project lighting to
minimize skyward light reflection.
A project may result in a significant cumulative impact where its effects are
cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130.)
There is the potential for substantial future development in the Mojave Desert
area and throughout the southern California Mojave desert region. Known past,
current and foreseeable future projects are summarized in the Cumulative
Scenarios Section of the Staff’s Analysis. (Ex. 300, pp. B.3-4 to B.3-13.)
23 Visual
Creek Wind Energy, and possibly the Power Partners wind project. These are
the projects that appear to have the potential to directly interact with the Calico
Solar Project visually. (Ex. 300, p. C.13-31.)
Because the evidence shows that the effects of the Calico Solar Project alone
would have substantial visual impacts; cumulative impacts would also be
significant. Even with the mitigation measures contained in the Conditions of
Certification, the project would still contribute to a significant cumulative visual
impact. Staff’s Supplemental Staff Assessment Cumulative Impacts Table 1
identifies 72 solar projects and 61 wind project applications with a total overall
area of over one million acres within the CDCA. This figure does not include
renewable projects within the Nevada and Arizona portions of the Mojave Desert.
With this very high number of renewable energy applications currently filed with
BLM, the potential for profound widespread cumulative impacts to scenic
resources within the southern California is clear.
5. Regional Projects
Staff asserts that cumulative viewed impacts across the entire Mojave Desert
must be considered and concludes that the CSP project, when combined with
past and foreseeable future projects will have significant visual impacts in the
California portion of the Mojave Desert. (Ex. 300 pp. C.13-30 to C.13-32.)
Visual Resources 24
We decline to cast such a wide net in our cumulative impact analysis. Staff’s
analysis demonstrates that is not possible to do more than speculate in general
terms about the nature of regional impacts. (Ex. 300, pp. C.13-31 to C.13-32.)
We find it appropriate to define a single area for the cumulative analysis, not the
broader, regional areas as Staff suggests. That more localized area, for this
topic is the project viewshed, which is discussed above. The concern over the
denigration of viewsheds is adequately addressed by our analysis of direct and
cumulative impacts to the project’s viewshed.
6. LORS compliance
As is discussed in the LORS section of this Decision, the project will conform to
all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and standards relating to Visual
Resources.
FINDINGS OF FACT
25 Visual
7. Since the focus of many Route 66.Historic Trails Highway users is on the
historic nature of the roadway environs, the expansive landscape, and the
integrity of the view, the impacts of the project are significant.
8. From KOP-1 the project will create a strong, adverse, unmitigable and
significant visual impact.
9. All feasible mitigation measures have been adopted and other mitigation
steps, such as a reduced-size project alternative, fail to mitigate visual
impacts to a level of less than significant. The visual impacts that remain
after applying all feasible mitigation, are those described in Finding 6 and
7 above. We find these impacts are significant.
10. For KOP-2, which looks south across the project area from within the
Cady Mountains WSA, visual change would range from moderate to
strong depending on location and distance. In the most exposed views of
the project, viewers would overlook a panorama of up to eight square
miles of SunCatchers, with the nearest of these in the foreground, creating
a strong visual impact. However, in view of the small proportion of the
Cady Mountains WSA potentially affected at closer distances, overall
impacts to viewers in the WSA are less than significant.
11. KOP-3 represents the view from the nearest residence to the project but
may be unique. Due to low visual magnitude and very low viewer
numbers, the moderately high level of anticipated visual change of the
project is considered adverse but less than significant.
12. KOP-4 depicts the view from the BNSF rail line, looking northwest into the
project’s eastern boundary at a distance of roughly 800 feet. KOP-4
closely resembles viewing conditions of I-40 motorists in close proximity to
the project boundaries and, particularly, the SunCatcher units, along much
of the I-40 project frontage. The visual intrusion is high profile, high
contrast and interferes with distant views. We determine the visual impact
to be significant.
13. KOP-5 is a view northeastward from eastbound I-40 across the opposite
lanes of I-40. Viewer concern is moderately high, due to an elevated level
of concern with scenic values within the CDCA in general, and a high
proportion of motorists on I-40 concerned with those scenic values.
Viewer exposure is high; views are predominantly open and unobstructed
over an extensive area, and the project site is viewed at foreground and
middle-ground distance, along a highway frontage of roughly four miles.
We determine the visual impact to be significant.
14. The project’s impacts on views from the Cady Mountains Wilderness
Study Area are less-than-significant.
15. Implementation of the CSP would substantially degrade the existing visual
character and quality of the site and its surroundings, resulting in damage
to scenic vistas and significant impacts to motorists on Highway Interstate
40 and National Trails Highway/Route 66.
Visual Resources 26
16. Project impacts will be significant over an area of almost 10 square miles,
including approximately five miles of frontage on I-40. Visual impacts to
motorists on Highway I-40 are therefore significant.
17. The record contains mitigation measures which would greatly reduce, but
not eliminate, impacts which would remain significant and unavoidable.
19. The anticipated visual impacts, of both the Calico Solar Project and the
Reduced Acreage Alternative, in combination with past and foreseeable
future local projects in the immediate project viewshed, are cumulatively
considerable, significant, and unavoidable.
20. We have limited our cumulative impacts analysis of the project to the
localized area surrounding the CSP and the project viewshed. Our
cumulative impacts analysis does not take in the entire Mojave Dessert.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All feasible mitigation has been applied to the visual impacts of the project.
Such mitigation reduces, but does not eliminate the project’s significant
visual impacts.
2. Feasible alternatives examined in the record would reduce, but not
eliminate, significant visual impacts of the CSP project.
3. The evidence establishes that the project will substantially degrade the
existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings
4. Based on expert testimony and the visual simulations imposing the project
on KOPs 1, 3 and 5, we conclude that significant, unmitigated visual
impacts will remain after implementation of the Conditions of Certification.
5. The project will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and
standards regarding project design, architecture, landscaping, signage, and
other requirements related to Visual Resources.
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
VIS-1 To the extent feasible, the project owner shall treat all non-mirror
surfaces of all project structures and buildings visible to the public such
27 Visual
that a) their colors minimize visual intrusion and contrast by blending
with the existing tan and brown color of the surrounding landscape; b)
their colors and finishes do not create excessive glare; and c) their
colors and finishes are consistent with local policies and ordinances.
The transmission line conductors shall be non-specular and non-
reflective, and the insulators shall be non-reflective and non-refractive.
This measure shall include coloring of security fencing with vinyl or
other non-reflective coating; or with slats or similar semi-opaque, non-
reflective material, to blend to the greatest feasible extent with the
background soil.
The project owner shall submit for CPM review and approval, a specific
Surface Treatment Plan that will satisfy these requirements. The
treatment plan shall include:
A. A description of the overall rationale for the proposed surface
treatment, including the selection of the proposed color(s) and
finishes;
B. A list of each major project structure, building, tank, pipe, and wall;
the transmission line towers and/or poles; and fencing, specifying
the color(s) and finish proposed for each. Colors must be identified
by vendor, name, and number; or according to a universal
designation system;
C. One set of color brochures or color chips showing each proposed
color and finish;
D. A specific schedule for completion of the treatment; and
E. A procedure to ensure proper treatment maintenance for the life of
the project.
The project owner shall not specify to the vendors the treatment of any
buildings or structures treated during manufacture, or perform the final
treatment on any buildings or structures treated in the field, until the
project owner receives notification of approval of the treatment plan by
the CPM. Subsequent modifications to the treatment plan are prohibited
without CPM approval.
Verification: At least 90 days prior to specifying to the vendor the colors and
finishes of the first structures or buildings that are surface treated during
manufacture, the project owner shall submit the proposed treatment plan to the
CPM for review and approval and simultaneously to San Bernardino County for
review and comment. If the CPM determines that the plan requires revision, the
project owner shall provide to the CPM a plan with the specified revision(s) for
review and approval by the CPM before any treatment is applied. Any
modifications to the treatment plan must be submitted to the CPM for review and
approval.
Prior to the start of commercial operation, the project owner shall notify the CPM
that surface treatment of all listed structures and buildings has been completed
Visual Resources 28
and they are ready for inspection and shall submit to each one set of electronic
color photographs from the same key observation points identified in (d) above.
The project owner shall provide a status report regarding surface treatment
maintenance in the Annual Compliance Report. The report shall specify a): the
condition of the surfaces of all structures and buildings at the end of the reporting
year; b) maintenance activities that occurred during the reporting year; and c) the
schedule of maintenance activities for the next year.
VIS-2 To the extent feasible and consistent with safety and security
considerations, the project owner shall design and install all temporary
and permanent exterior lighting so that:
a) lighting does not cause excessive reflected glare;
b) lighting does not illuminate the nighttime sky;
c) mounting heights and locations of all lighting fixtures, including
roadway lighting, will not allow light to fall on the mirror surfaces of
the SunCatchers in the stowed position,
d) illumination of the project and its immediate vicinity is minimized as
to times of use and extent, and;
e) lighting on the exhaust stacks shall be the minimum needed to
satisfy safety and security concerns.
Permanent night lighting shall comply with all applicable standards,
practices, and regulations including, and specifically, the following
Illuminating Engineering Society documents:
• RP-33-99 Lighting for Exterior Environments
• DG-13-99 Outdoor Lighting
• TM-1 0-00 Addressing Obtrusive Light (Urban Sky Glow and
Light Trespass) in Conjunction with Roadway Lighting
• TM-1 5-07 Luminaire Classification System for Outdoor
Luminaires
Verification: At least 30 days prior to ordering any exterior lighting, the project
owner shall contact the CPM to show compliance with all of the above
requirements. This shall include, but not be limited to, final lighting plans, fixture
and control schedules, fixture and control cut sheets and specifications, a
photometric plan showing vertical and horizontal footcandles at all property lines
to a height of 20 feet, and the proposed time clock schedule.
Prior to construction and prior to commercial operation, the project owner shall
notify the CPM that the installation of the temporary and permanent lighting has
been completed and is ready for inspection. If after inspection the CPM notifies
the project owner that modifications to the lighting are needed, within 30 days
29 Visual
after receiving the notification the project owner shall implement the modifications
and notify the CPM when the modifications are competed and ready for
inspection.
Within 48 hours of receiving a lighting complaint, the project owner shall provide
the CPM with a complaint resolution form as specified in the Compliance General
Conditions, including a proposal to resolve the complaint, and a schedule for
implementation of the proposed resolution. The project owner shall notify the
CPM within 48 hours after completing the resolution of the complaint. A copy of
the complaint resolution form report shall be submitted to the CPM within 30 days
and included in the Annual Report.
VIS-3 To reduce the visual dominance and glare effects of the SunCatchers to
motorists on Highway I-40, the Applicant shall set back the nearest
units to the area north of the existing pipeline right-of-way, and at a
minimum distance of 223 feet from the edge of the roadway, whichever
is greater.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to start of construction, the project owner
shall present to BLM’s Authorized Officer and the CPM a revised plan depicting
how the proposed SunCatchers will be set back from the highway. If the CPM
determines that the plan requires revision, the project owner shall provide to the
CPM a revised plan for review and approval by the CPM.
The project owner shall not begin construction until receiving CPM approval of
the revised plan.
Visual Resources 30
VIII. OVERRIDE FINDINGS
Based on our analysis of the evidence in this proceeding, we find that the Calico
Solar Project (CSP) will have significant direct and cumulative unmitigated
environmental impacts, which are described in detail below.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that we make certain
findings before approving a project. We address the requirement as follows:
CEQA prohibits a public agency from approving a project which identifies one or
more significant effects on the environment unless both of the following occur:
“(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with
respect to each significant effect:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and
should be, adopted by that other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding
under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that
specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits
of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.”
(Pub. Res. Code § 21081.)
In the Cultural Resources, Land Use, and Visual Resources sections of this
Decision, we discuss in detail our findings that CSP will have the following
significant environmental impacts:
1 Override
intrusion on significant cultural resources on those sites and an overall net
reduction in cultural resources in the area
• Land Use. The CSP project would permanently change the nature of land
use at the project site from Government Special Public Limited Use and
Moderate Use to an intensive utility use for the generation of power.
Therefore, the combined effect of the overall cumulative past, present, and
proposed and reasonably foreseeable projects, including the proposed
project, in the desert region of San Bernardino County would adversely
affect recreation and wilderness resources, resulting in a significant and
unavoidable impact under CEQA
2. Project Benefits
The CSP, if constructed and operated as set forth in this Decision, will provide
the following benefits to California and its residents:
• CSP will provide 663.5 MW of renewable energy power, which will assist
in meeting California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which specifies that
retail sellers of electricity serve 20 percent of their load with renewable
energy by 2010. (Pub. Util. Code, § 399.11 et seq.) Governor’s Executive
Order S-14-08 increased the requirement to 33 percent by 2020.
• CSP will assist the state in meeting its ambitious GHG reduction targets
by generating 709 MW of electricity with substantially lower greenhouse
gas emissions than existing fossil fuel burning generating facilities.
Override Findings 2
• In its June 2010, Staff Report on California’s Renewable Electricity
Standard, Initial Statement of Reasons, the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) estimates that the environmental benefits resulting from a
20 percent renewable energy goal in 2020 are as follows:
b. The overall GHG emission benefit from adding wind and solar
generation is 830 lbs CO2e per MWh (GHG emissions from
displaced or avoided fossil fuel generation) minus emissions from
combustion turbines used to backup wind and solar generation.
• By generating electricity through the use of solar energy, CSP will reduce
California’s dependence on fossil fuels.
• CSP will provide construction jobs for an average and peak workforce of
400 and 700, respectively, and approximately 180 jobs during operations.
Most of those jobs will require highly trained workers.
• Construction and operation of CSP will add to the economy a $159 million
construction payroll over 44 months, a local annual operation payroll of
$10.1 million, sales and use taxes during construction of $623,100 and
during operation of $387,500 annually. An estimated $8.4 million would
be spent annually for local operations and maintenance.
3 Override
3. Comparison of Project Alternatives
4. Site Characteristics
5. Official Notice
In arriving at the following findings, we have taken official notice of the following
documents:
Override Findings 4
• EXECUTIVE ORDER S-21-09 was signed by Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger establishing the 33 percent Renewable Electricity
Standard.
Based upon the above documents, evidence and Staff recommendations, we find
that overriding considerations warrant the approval of the project as mitigated
through the Conditions of Certification we adopt herein. We further find that the
project is required for public convenience and necessity and that there are no
more prudent and feasible means of achieving such public convenience and
necessity.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the evidence and the conclusions drawn in other sections of this
Decision, we make the following findings and conclusions:
5 Override
the physical degradation of and visual intrusion on significant cultural
resources on those sites and an overall net reduction in cultural resources
in the area
b. A permanent change the nature of land use at the project site from
Government Special Public Limited Use and Moderate Use to an intensive
utility use for the generation of power. The combined effect of the overall
cumulative past, present, and proposed and reasonably foreseeable
projects, including the proposed project, in the desert region of San
Bernardino County would significantly impact recreation and wilderness
resources.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The CSP project benefits outweigh the significant direct and cumulative
impacts identified above.
2. It is appropriate to approve the CSP despite its remaining significant
environmental impacts.
3. As shown in the record, much of the debate over the CSP project was over
the impacts to biological resources, specifically the federally-listed
threatened species, desert tortoise and special-status plants found on the
project site. There was general agreement by wildlife, botanical, and
ecology experts that testified at the evidentiary hearings that there is a
combination of both natural and manmade processes that are affecting the
global climate; and that these special-status species are not immune to the
effects of climate change, but it is possible that they could adapt and
survive if given enough time. There was also general agreement that the
exact impacts of climate change to the biological resources are unknown –
various models predict varying temperature changes and precipitation
amounts for California’s desert region – resulting in potential detriment or
benefit to biological resources, depending on the habitat needs of the
species. It is the intent of this Commission to take all reasonable measures
to preserve the continued existence of the desert special-status species.
This Commission believes that this project, and other renewable energy
projects, will result in the reduction of greenhouse gases which will help
curb or reduce the impact of climate change to California, thereby allowing
for the continued existence of the desert special-status species.
4. Therefore, this decision overrides the remaining significant unavoidable
impacts that may result from this project, even with the implementation of
the required mitigation measures described in this Decision.
7 Override
..
..
..
..
..
APPENDICES
AIR QUALITY
Applicable LORS Description
Federal
40 Code of Federal Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) requires a permit
Regulations (CFR) Part 52 and requires Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and
Offsets. Permitting and enforcement delegated to Mojave
Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD).
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requires major
sources or major modifications to major sources to obtain
permits for attainment pollutants. The Calico Solar Project is a
new source that does not have a rule listed emission source
thus the PSD trigger levels are 250 tons per year for NOx,
VOC, SOx, PM10, PM2.5 and CO.
40 CFR Part 60 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), Subpart IIII
Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition
Internal Combustion Engines. Establishes emission standards
for compressions ignition internal combustion engines,
including emergency fire water pump engines.
40 CFR Part 93 Requires determination of conformity with State
General Conformity Implementation Plan for Projects requiring federal approvals if
project annual emissions are above specified levels.
State
Health and Safety Code Permitting of source needs to be consistent with Air Resource
(HSC) Section 40910-40930 Board (ARB) approved Clean Air Plans.
HSC Section 41700 Restricts emissions that would cause nuisance or injury.
California Code of Airborne Toxics Control Measure for Stationary Compression
Regulations (CCR) Section Ignition Engines. Limits the types of fuels allowed, established
93115 maximum emission rates, establishes recordkeeping
requirements on stationary compression ignition engines,
including emergency fire water pump engines.
Local (Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, MDAQMD)
Appendix A - 1
Applicable LORS Description
Rule 431 Sulfur Content of Limits the sulfur content of liquid fuels to no more than 0.5% by
Fuels weight.
Rule 461 Gasoline Transfer This rule specifies the vapor recovery requirement for gasoline
and Dispensing tank filling (Phase I) and vehicle refueling (Phase II) for
gasoline storage and refueling facilities.
Rule 900 Standard of
Incorporates the Federal NSPS (40 CFR 60) rules by
Performance for New
reference.
Stationary Source
Specifies BACT/Offsets technology and requirements for a
Rule 1303 New Source
new emissions unit that has potential to emit any affected
Review
pollutants.
Rule 1306 Electric Energy Describes actions to be taken for permitting of power plants
Generating Facilities that are within the jurisdiction of the Energy Commission.
GREENHOUSE GAS
Applicable LORS Description
Federal
40 Code of Federal Regulations This rule requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions for
(CFR) Part 98 facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2
equivalent emissions per year.
State
California Global Warming This act requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to
Solutions Act of 2006, AB 32 enact standards that will reduce GHG emission to 1990 levels
(Stats. 2006; Chapter 488; Health by 2020. Electricity production facilities will be regulated by the
and Safety Code sections 38500 et ARB.
seq.)
California Code of Regulations, These ARB regulations implement mandatory GHG emissions
tit. 17, Subchapter 10, Article 2, reporting as part of the California Global Warming Solutions Act
sections 95100 et. seq. of 2006 (Stats. 2006; Chapter 488; Health and Safety Code
sections 38500 et seq.)
Title 20, California Code of The regulations prohibit utilities from entering into long-term
Regulations, section 2900 et seq.; contracts with any base load facility that does not meet a
CPUC Decision D0701039 in greenhouse gas emission standard of 0.5 metric tonnes carbon
proceeding R0604009 dioxide per megawatt-hour (0.5 MTCO2/MWh) or 1,100 pounds
carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour (1,100 lbs CO2/MWh).
Appendix A - 2
ALTERNATIVES
In addition, the analysis must address the No Project Alternative. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 14, § 15126.6[e].) The analysis should identify and compare the impacts of the
various alternatives, but analysis of alternatives need not be in as much detail as
the analysis of the proposed project.
Appendix A - 3
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Appendix A - 4
Applicable LORS Description
STATE
California Endangered Protects California’s rare, threatened, and endangered species. “Take” of
Species Act of 1984 (Fish a State-listed species is prohibited without an Incidental Take Permit.
and Game Code, sections
2050 through 2098)
California Code of Lists the plants and animals of California that are declared rare,
Regulations (Title 14, threatened, or endangered.
sections 670.2 and 670.5)
Fully Protected Species Designates certain species as fully protected and prohibits the take of
(Fish and Game Code, such species or their habitat unless for scientific purposes (see also
sections 3511, 4700, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 670.7).
5050, and 5515)
Nest or Eggs (Fish and Protects California’s birds by making it unlawful to take, possess, or
Game Code section 3503) needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird.
Birds of prey (Fish and Birds of prey are protected in California making it “unlawful to take,
Game Code section possess, or destroy any birds of prey (in the order Falconiformes or
3503.5) Strigiformes).”
Migratory Birds (Fish and Protects California’s migratory birds by making it unlawful to take or
Game Code section 3513) possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame birds.
Significant Natural Areas Designates certain areas such as refuges, natural sloughs, riparian areas,
(Fish and Game Code and vernal pools as significant wildlife habitat.
section 1930 et seq.)
California Environmental CEQA defines rare species more broadly than the definitions for species
Quality Act (CEQA), listed under the State and federal Endangered Species Acts. Under
CEQA Guidelines section section 15830, species not protected through State or federal listing but
15380 nonetheless demonstrable as “endangered” or “rare” under CEQA should
also receive consideration in environmental analyses. Included in this
category are many plants considered rare by the California Native Plant
Society (CNPS) and some animals on the CDFG’s Special Animals List.
Streambed Alteration Regulates activities that may divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or
Agreement (Fish and the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake in California
Game Code sections designated by CDFG in which there is at any time an existing fish or
1600 et seq.) wildlife resource or from which these resources derive benefit. Impacts to
vegetation and wildlife resulting from disturbances to waterways are also
reviewed and regulated during the permitting process.
California Native Plant Designates State rare, threatened, and endangered plants.
Protection Act of 1977
(Fish and Game Code
section 1900 et seq.)
California Desert Native Protects non-listed California desert native plants from unlawful
Plants Act of 1981 (Food harvesting on both public and private lands in Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los
and Agricultural Code Angeles, Mono, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties.
section 80001 et seq. and Unless issued a valid permit, wood receipt, tag, and seal by the
California Fish and Game commissioner or sheriff, harvesting, transporting, selling, or possessing
Code sections 1925-1926) specific desert plants is prohibited.
Appendix A - 5
Applicable LORS Description
Local
San Bernardino County Includes objectives to preserve water quality and open space to benefit
General Plan: biological resources, and specific policies and goals for protecting areas
Conservation/Open of sensitive plant, soils and wildlife habitat and for assuring compatibility
Space Element of the between natural areas and development. Although the Calico Solar
County General Plan Project is not located on lands under county jurisdiction, the general plan
(County of San provides objectives which are consistent with some of the LORS listed
Bernardino 2007) above.
Appendix A - 6
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Appendix A - 7
Applicable LORS Description
(CDCA) Plan 1980 as 3. Ensure that cultural resources are given full consideration in land use
amended – Cultural planning and management decisions, and ensure that BLM-authorized
Resources Element actions avoid inadvertent impacts.
Goals 4. Ensure proper data recovery of significant (National Register of Historic
Places-quality) cultural resources where adverse impacts can be avoided.
State
California Environmental CEQA requires that state and local public agencies to identify the
Quality Act (CEQA), environmental impacts of the proposed discretionary activities or projects,
Sections 21000 et seq. determine if the impacts will be significant, and identify alternatives and
of the Public Resources mitigation measures that will substantially reduce or eliminate significant
Code (PRC) with impacts to the environment.
Guidelines for
Historical resources are considered a part of the environment and a project
implementation codified
that may cause a substantial adverse effect on the significance of a
in the California Code of
historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
Regulations (CCR),
environment. The definition of “historical resources” is contained in Section
Title 14, Chapter 3,
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Sections 15000 et seq.
AB 4239, 1976 Established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the
primary government agency responsible for identifying and cataloging
Native American cultural resources. The bill authorized the Commission to
act in order to prevent damage to and insure Native American access to
sacred sites and authorized the commission to prepare an inventory of
Native American sacred sites located on public lands.
Public Resources Code No public agency, and no private party using or occupying public property,
5097.97 or operating on public property, under a public license, permit, grant, lease,
or contract made on or after July 1, 1977, shall in any manner whatsoever
interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion as
provided in the United States Constitution and the California Constitution;
nor shall any such agency or party cause severe or irreparable damage to
any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or
ceremonial site, or sacred shrine located on public property, except on a
clear and convincing showing that the public interest and necessity so
require.
Public Resources Code Requires a landowner on whose property Native American human remains
5097.98 (b) and (e) are found to limit further development activity in the vicinity until he/she
confers with the Native American Heritage Commission-identified Most
Likely Descendents (MLDs) to consider treatment options. In the absence
of MLDs or of a treatment acceptable to all parties, the landowner is
required to reinter the remains elsewhere on the property in a location not
subject to further disturbance.
California Health and This code makes it a misdemeanor to disturb or remove human remains
Safety Code, Section found outside a cemetery. This code also requires a project owner to halt
7050.5 construction if human remains are discovered and to contact the county
coroner.
Appendix A - 8
Applicable LORS Description
Local
County of San GOAL CO 1. The County will maintain to the greatest extent possible
Bernardino 2007 natural resources that contribute to the quality of life within the County.
General Plan, C.
GOAL CO 3. The County will preserve and promote its historic and
Countywide Goals and
prehistoric cultural heritage.
Policies of the
Conservation Element POLICIES
CO 3.1 Identify and protect important archaeological and historic cultural
resources in areas of the County that have been determined to have known
cultural resource sensitivity.
CO 3.2 Identify and protect important archaeological and historic cultural
resources in all lands that involves disturbance of previously undisturbed
ground.
CO 3.3 Establish programs to preserve the information and heritage value
of cultural and historical resources.
CO 3.4 The County will comply with Government Code Section 65352.2
(SB18) by consulting with tribes as identified by the California Native
American Heritage Commission on all General Plan and specific plan
actions.
CO 3.5 Ensure that important cultural resources are avoided or minimized
to protect Native American beliefs and traditions.
County of San 82.12.010 Purpose
Bernardino 2007
(a) Many of the resources are unique and non-renewable; and
Development Code
(b) The preservation of cultural resources provides a greater knowledge of
County history, thus promoting County identity and conserving historic and
scientific amenities for the benefit of future generations.
82.12.040 Development Standards
Archaeological and historical resources determined by qualified
professionals to be extremely important should be preserved as open
space or dedicated to a public institution when possible.
Appendix A - 9
FACILITY DESIGN
Applicable LORS Description
Federal Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1910,
Occupational Safety and Health standards
State 2007 California Building Standards Code (CBSC) (also known as
Title 24, California Code of Regulations)
Local San Bernardino County regulations and ordinances
General American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
American Welding Society (AWS)
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Appendix A - 10
GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY
Applicable LORS Description
Federal
Antiquities Act of The proposed Calico Solar Project is located entirely on federal
1906 (16 United (Bureau of Land Management) land. Although there is no specific
States Code mention of natural or paleontological resources in the Act itself, or in
[USC], 431-433 the Act’s uniform rules and regulations (Title 43 Part 3, Code of
Federal Regulations [43 CFR Part 3], ‘objects of antiquity’ has been
interpreted to include fossils by the Federal Highways Act of 1956, the
National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
the Forest Service (USFS), and other Federal agencies. All design will
also need to adhere to any applicable BLM design standards.
Antiquities Act of The proposed Calico Solar Project facility site is located entirely on
1906 (16 United land currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management
States Code (BLM). Although there is no specific mention of natural or
[USC], 431-433) paleontological resources in the Act itself, or in the Act’s uniform rules
and regulations (Title 43 Part 3, Code of Federal Regulations [43 CFR
Part 3], ‘objects of antiquity’ has been interpreted to include fossils by
the Federal Highways Act of 1956, the National Park Service (NPS),
the BLM, the Forest Service (USFS), and other Federal agencies.
National Established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which is
Environmental charged with preserving ‘important historic, cultural, and natural
Policy Act (NEPA) aspects of our national heritage’.
of 1970 (42 USC
4321, et. seq.)
Federal Land Authorizes the BLM to manage public lands to protect the quality
Policy and scientific, scenic, historical, archeological, and other values, and to
Management Act develop ‘regulations and plans for the protection of public land areas
(FLPMA) of 1976 of critical environmental concern’, which include ‘important historic,
(43 USC cultural or scenic values’. Also charged with the protection of ‘life and
1701-1784) safety from natural hazards’.
Paleontological Authorizes Departments of Interior and Agriculture Secretaries to
Resources manage the protection of paleontological resources on Federal lands.
Preservation Act
(PRPA) (Public
Law [PL] 111-011)
State
California Building The CBC (2007) includes a series of standards that are used in
Code (CBC), 2007 project investigation, design, and construction (including grading and
erosion control).
Alquist-Priolo Mitigates against surface fault rupture of known active faults beneath
Earthquake Fault occupied structures. Requires disclosure to potential buyers of
Zoning Act, Public existing real estate and a 50-foot setback for new occupied buildings.
Resources Code Portions of the site and proposed ancillary facilities are located within
(PRC), Section designated Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones. The proposed site layout
2621–2630 places occupied structures outside of the 50-foot setback zone.
Appendix A - 11
Applicable LORS Description
The Seismic Areas are identified that are subject to the effects of strong ground
Hazards Mapping shaking, such as liquefaction, landslides, tsunamis, and seiches.
Act, PRC Section
2690–2699
PRC, Chapter 1.7, Regulates removal of paleontological resources from state lands,
Sections 5097.5 defines unauthorized removal of fossil resources as a misdemeanor,
and 30244 and requires mitigation of disturbed sites.
Warren-Alquist The Warren-Alquist Act requires the Energy Commission to “give the
Act, PRC, Sections greatest consideration to the need for protecting areas of critical
25527 and environmental concern, including, but not limited to, unique and
25550.5(i) irreplaceable scientific, scenic, and educational wildlife habitats;
unique historical, archaeological, and cultural sites…” With respect to
paleontological resources, the Energy Commission relies on
guidelines from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, indicated
below.
California Mandates that public and private entities identify the potential impacts
Environmental on the environment during proposed activities. Appendix G outlines
Quality Act the requirements for compliance with CEQA and provides a definition
(CEQA), PRC of significant impacts on a fossil site.
sections 15000 et
seq., Appendix G
Society of The “Measures for Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to
Vertebrate Non-Renewable Paleontological Resources: Standard Procedures” is
Paleontology a set of procedures and standards for assessing and mitigating
(SVP), 1995 impacts to vertebrate paleontological resources. The measures were
adopted in October 1995 by the SVP, a national organization of
professional scientists.
Local
San Bernardino Chapter 82.15 requires that a geological study will be undertaken
County 2007 where roads and structures are to be constructed. Also requires that
Development roads and utilities will be perpendicular to faults. Chapter 82.20
Code, Chapters defines criteria for site evaluation for paleontological resources in the
82.15, 82.20 and county, including preliminary field surveys, monitoring during
Safety Element construction, and specimen recovery; also defines qualifications for
professional paleontologists. The Safety Element requires compliance
with geological/geotechnical reports, the CBC, and other state
agencies and regulations.
Appendix A - 12
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
Applicable LORS Description
Federal
The Superfund Contains the Emergency Planning and Community
Amendments and Right To Know Act (also known as SARA Title III).
Reauthorization Act of 1986
(42 USC §9601 et seq.)
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of Establishes a nationwide emergency planning and
1990 (42 USC 7401 et seq. response program, and imposes reporting requirements
as amended) for businesses that store, handle, or produce significant
quantities of extremely hazardous materials.
The CAA Section on Risk Requires states to implement a comprehensive system
Management Plans (42 to inform local agencies and the public when a
USC §112(r) significant quantity of such materials is stored or handled
at a facility. The requirements of both SARA Title III and
the CAA are reflected in the California Health and Safety
Code, section 25531, et seq.
49 CFR 172.800 Requires that the suppliers of hazardous materials
prepare and implement security plans in accordance
with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulations.
49 CFR Part 1572, Requires that suppliers of hazardous materials ensure
Subparts A and B that their hazardous material drivers comply with
personnel background security checks.
The Clean Water Act Aims to prevent the discharge or threat of discharge of
(CWA) (40 CFR 112) oil into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.
Requires a written spill prevention, control, and
countermeasures (SPCC) plan to be prepared for
facilities that store oil that could leak into navigable
waters.
Title 49, Code of Federal Outlines gas pipeline safety program procedures.
Regulations, Part 190
Title 49, Code of Federal Addresses the transportation of natural and other gases
Regulations, Part 191 by pipeline. Requires preparation of annual reports,
incident reports, and safety-related condition reports.
Also requires operators of pipeline systems to notify the
U.S. Department of Transportation DOT) of any
reportable incident by telephone and submit a follow-up
written report within 30 days.
Appendix A - 13
Applicable LORS Description
Title 49, Code of Federal Addresses transportation of natural and other gases by
Regulations, Part 192 pipeline: Requires minimum federal safety standards,
specifies minimum safety requirements for pipelines,
and includes material selection, design requirements,
and corrosion protection. The safety requirements for
pipeline construction vary according to the population
density and land use that characterize the surrounding
land. This part also contains regulations governing
pipeline construction, which must be followed for Class 2
and Class 3 pipelines, and requirements for preparing a
pipeline integrity management program.
6 CFR Part 27 The CFATS (Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard)
regulation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) that requires facilities that use or store certain
hazardous materials to submit information to the DHS
so that a vulnerability assessment can be conducted to
determine what certain specified security measures
shall be implemented.
State
California Health and The California Accidental Release Program (Cal-ARP)
Safety Code, section 25531 requires the preparation of a Risk Management Plan
to 25543.4 (RMP) and Off-site Consequence Analysis (OCA) and
submittal to the local Certified Unified Program Agency
(CUPA) for approval.
Title 8, California Code of Requires facility owners to develop and implement
Regulations, Section 5189 effective safety management plans to ensure that large
quantities of hazardous materials are handled safely.
While these requirements primarily provide for the
protection of workers, they also indirectly improve public
safety and are coordinated with the RMP process.
Title 8, California Code of Sets forth requirements for design, construction, and
Regulations, Section 5189 operation of the vessels and equipment used to store
and transfer ammonia. These sections generally codify
the requirements of several industry codes including the
American Society for Material Engineering (ASME)
Pressure Vessel Code, the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) K61.1, and the National
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspection Code. These
codes apply to anhydrous ammonia but are also used
to design storage facilities for aqueous ammonia.
Appendix A - 14
Applicable LORS Description
California Health and Requires that “No person shall discharge from any
Safety Code, Section source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants
41700 or other material which causes injury, detriment,
nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of
persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort,
repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the
public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to
cause injury or damage to business or property.”
California HSC Sections Requires the preparation of a Spill Prevention, Control,
25270 through 25270.13 and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan if 10,000 gallons or
more of petroleum is stored on-site. The above
regulations would also require the immediate reporting
of a spill or release of 42 gallons or more to the
California Office of Emergency Services and the
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA).
California Safe Drinking Prevents certain chemicals that cause cancer and
Water and Toxic reproductive toxicity from being discharged into sources
Enforcement Act of drinking water.
(Proposition 65)
Local
2007 California Fire Code Adopts the California Fire Code, 2007 Edition, into San
Title 24, Part 9 Bernardino County regulations.
Appendix A - 15
LAND USE
Applicable LORS Description
Federal
Federal Land Policy Establishes public land policy; guidelines for administration; and
and Management provides for the management, protection, development, and
Act (FLPMA), 1976 enhancement of public lands. In particular, the FLPMA’s
– 43 CFR 1600 relevance to the proposed project is that Title V, Section 501
establishes BLM’s authority to grant rights-of-way for generation,
transmission, and distribution of electrical energy (FLPMA 2001).
Bureau of Land The 25 million-acre CDCA contains over 12 million acres of
Management - public lands spread within the area known as the California
California Desert Desert, which includes the following three deserts: the Mojave,
Conservation Area the Sonoran, and a small portion of the Great Basin. The 12
(CDCA) Plan, 1980 million acres of public lands administered by the BLM are half
as Amended (BLM of the CDCA.
1980) The CDCA Plan is a comprehensive, long-range plan with goals
and specific actions for the management, use, development,
and protection of the resources and public lands within the
CDCA, and it is based on the concepts of multiple use, sustained
yield, and maintenance of environmental quality. The plan’s
goals and actions for each resource are established in its 12
elements. Each of the plan elements provides both a desert-
wide perspective of the planning decisions for one major
resource or issue of public concern as well as a more specific
interpretation of multiple-use class guidelines for a given
resource and its associated activities.
Public Rangelands Establishes and reaffirms the national policy and commitment
Improvement Act to inventory and identify current public rangeland conditions
(1978) (PRIA 1978) and trends; manage, maintain and improve the condition of
public rangelands so that they become as productive as
feasible for all rangeland values in accordance with management
objectives and the land use planning process; and continue the
policy of protecting wild free-roaming horses and burros from
capture, branding, harassment, or death, while at the same
time facilitating the removal and disposal of excess wild free-
roaming horses and burros which pose a threat to themselves
and their habitat and to other rangeland values.
Appendix A - 16
Applicable LORS Description
Wild and Free- The BLM protects, manages, and controls wild horses and
Roaming Horse and burros under the authority of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses
Burro Act (1971) and Burros Act of 1971 (Act) to ensure that healthy herds
(BLM 2009j) thrive on healthy rangelands. The BLM manages these
animals as part of its multiple-use mission under the 1976
Federal Land Policy and Management Act. One of the BLM’s
key responsibilities under the Act is to determine the
"appropriate management level" (AML) of wild horses and
burros on the public rangelands.
State
None
Local
None
Appendix A - 17
NOISE AND VIBRATION
Applicable LORS Description
Federal (OSHA): 29 U.S.C. § 651 Protects workers from the effects of occupational
et seq. noise exposure.
State (Cal/OSHA): Cal. Code Protects workers from the effects of occupational
Regs., tit. 8, §§ 5095–5099 noise exposure.
Local
San Bernardino County General Establishes noise limits as specified in the
Plan Noise Element Development Code (below)
San Bernardino County Establishes property line noise limits for various
Development Code, Ch. 83.01 receiving uses. Exempts construction noise during
certain hours. Establishes vibration limits.
Appendix A - 18
POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY
No federal, state, local, or county laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS)
apply to the efficiency of this project.
No federal, state, local, or county laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS)
pertain to the reliability of this project.
Appendix A - 19
PUBLIC HEALTH
Applicable LORS Description
Federal
Clean Air Act section 112 This act requires new sources that emit more than 10
(Title 42, U.S. Code section tons per year of any specified Hazardous Air Pollutant
7412) (HAP) or more than 25 tons per year of any
combination of HAPs to apply Maximum Achievable
Control Technology.
State
California Health and Safety These sections establish thresholds of exposure to
Code section 25249.5 et seq. carcinogenic substances above which Prop 65
(Proposition 65) exposure warnings are required.
California Health and Safety This section states that “no person shall discharge from
Code section 41700 any source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury,
detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or to the public, or which endanger
the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such
persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural
tendency to cause injury or damage to business or
property.”
California Public These regulations require a quantitative health risk
Resource Code section assessment for new or modified sources, including
25523(a); Title 20 California power plants that emit one or more toxic air
Code of Regulations (CCR) contaminants (TACs).
section 1752.5, 2300–2309
and Division 2 Chapter 5,
Article 1, Appendix B, Part
(1); California Clean Air Act,
Health and Safety Code
section 39650, et seq.
Local
Mojave Desert Air Quality New Source Review for Toxic Air Contaminants.
Management District
(MDAQMD) Rule 1302
Appendix A - 20
SOCIOECONOMICS
Applicable LORS Description
Federal
Emergency Economic Extends the 30% investment tax credit (ITC) for solar energy property for
Stabilization Act of 2008 eight years through December 31, 2016. The bill allows the ITC to be
(P.L. 110-343) Business used to offset both regular and alternative minimum tax (AMT) and waives
Solar Investment Tax the public utility exception of current law (i.e., permits utilities to directly
Credit (IR Code invest in solar facilities and claim the ITC). The five-year accelerated
depreciation allowance for solar property is permanent and unaffected by
passage of the eight-year extension of the solar ITC.
State
California Education The governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee,
Code, Section 17620 charge, dedication, or other requirement for the purpose of funding the
construction or reconstruction of school facilities.
California Government Except for a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement authorized
Code, Sections under Section 17620 of the Education Code, state and local public
65996-65997 agencies may not impose fees, charges, or other financial requirements
to offset the cost for school facilities.
California Revenue and Property taxes are not assessed on solar facilities. Assembly Bill 1451
Taxation Code Section extended the current property tax exclusion for new construction of solar
70-74.7 energy systems to January 1, 2017.
Appendix A - 21
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES
Applicable LORS Description
Federal
Clean Water Act (33 The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1257 et seq.) requires states to
U.S.C. Section 1257 et set standards to protect water quality, which includes regulation of storm
seq.) water and wastewater discharges during construction and operation of a
facility. California established its regulations to comply with the CWA under
the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1967.
The CWA also establishes protection of navigable waters through Section
401 and 404. Section 404 permitting and. Section 401 certification through
the Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) is required if there are potential impacts to surface waters of the
State and/or Waters of the United States, such as perennial and
ephemeral drainages, streams, washes, ponds, pools, and wetlands. The
Army Corps and RWQCB can require impacts to these waters to be
quantified and mitigated.
Resource Conservation The Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) is a comprehensive
and Recovery Act, 40 body of regulations that give U.S. EPA the authority to control hazardous
CFR Part 260 et seq. waste from the "cradle-to-grave.” This includes the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste.
RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous
solid wastes.
State
California Constitution, This section requires that the water resources of the State be put to
Article X, Section 2 beneficial use to the fullest extent possible and states that the waste,
unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water is prohibited.
The Porter-Cologne Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the
Water Quality Control Act nine RWQCBs to adopt water quality criteria to protect state waters. Those
of 1967, Water Code Sec regulations require that the RWQCBs issue Waste Discharge
13000 et seq. Requirements specifying conditions for protection of water quality as
applicable. Section 13000 also states that the State must be prepared to
exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of the waters of
the State from degradation.
California Water Code Defines “waters of the State.”
Section 13050
California Water Code The Basin Plan establishes water quality objectives that protect the
Section 13240, 13241, beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater in the Region. The Basin
13242, 13243, & Water Plan describes implementation plans and other control measures designed
Quality Control Plan for to ensure compliance with statewide plans and policies and provides
the Lahontan Region comprehensive water quality planning. The following chapters are
(Basin Plan) applicable to determining appropriate control measures and cleanup levels
to protect beneficial uses and to meet the water quality objectives:
Chapter 2, Present and Potential Beneficial Uses; Chapter 3, Water
Quality Objectives, and the sections of Chapter 4, Implementation, entitled
“Requirements for Site Investigation and Remediation,” “Cleanup Levels,”
“Risk Assessment,” “Stormwater Problems and Control Measures,”
Erosion and Sedimentation,” “Solid and Liquid Waste Disposal to Land,”
and “Groundwater Protection and Management.”
Appendix A - 22
Applicable LORS Description
California Water Code Requires filing, with the appropriate RWQCB, a report of waste discharge
Section 13260 that could affect the water quality of the state unless the requirement is
waived pursuant to Water Code section 13269.
California Code of This chapter requires the submission of analytical test results and other
Regulations, Title 23, monitoring information electronically over the internet to the SWRCB’s
Division 3, Chapter 30 Geotracker database.
State Water Resources The SWRCB regulates storm water discharges associated with
Control Board General construction projects affecting areas greater than or equal to 1 acre to
Permit CAS000002. protect state waters. Under General Permit CAS000002, the SWRCB has
issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction
activity. Projects can qualify under this permit if specific criteria are met
and an acceptable Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is
prepared and implemented after notifying the SWRCB with a Notice of
Intent.
State Water Resources This general permit applies to the discharge of water to land that has a low
Control Board threat to water quality. Categories of low threat discharges include piping
2003-003-DWQ hydrostatic test water.
California Code of Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15 specifies Primary and Secondary Drinking
Regulations, Title 22 Water Standards in terms of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). These
MCLs include total dissolved solids (TDS) ranging from a recommended
level of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/l), an upper level of 1,000 mg/l and a
short term level of 1,500 mg/l. Other water quality MCLs are also specified,
in addition to MCLS specified for heavy metals and chemical compounds.
California Code of Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 15 applies to waste discharges to land and
Regulations, Title 23 requires the Regional Board issue Waste Discharge Requirements
specifying conditions for protection of water quality as applicable.
Local
County of San Bernardino Grading in San Bernardino County is subject to terms and conditions of
General Plan and San Bernardino County’s General Plan, Development Code and California
Development Code Building Code, based upon the 2006 International Building Code. Although
the proposed site is located on federal land, county regulations for public
health and safety are considered to be applicable to the project. If a county
grading permit is required, the grading plan would need to be completed in
compliance with San Bernardino County’s General Plan and Development
Code.
Appendix A - 23
Applicable LORS Description
California Safe Drinking Requires public water systems to obtain a Domestic Water Supply Permit.
Water Act and San The California Safe Drinking Water Act requires public water systems to
Bernardino County Code obtain a Domestic Water Supply Permit. Public water systems are defined
Title 3, Division 3, as a system for the provision of water for human consumption through
Chapter 6, Public Water pipes or other constructed conveyances that has 15 or more service
Supply Systems connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60
days out the year. California Department of Public Health (CDPH)
administers the Domestic Water Supply Permit program, and has
delegated issuance of Domestic Water Supply Permits for smaller public
water systems in San Bernardino County to the County. Under the San
Bernardino County Code Title 3, 5.15-6 Division 3, Chapter 6, Public
Water Supply Systems, the County Department of Environmental Services
monitors and enforces all applicable laws and orders for public water
systems with less than 200 service connections. The proposed project
would likely be considered a non-transient, non-community water system.
San Bernardino County To help protect water resources in unregulated portions of the desert while
Title 3, Division 3, not precluding its use, the County adopted this article. This article requires
Chapter 6,Article 5, a permit to locate, construct, operate, or maintain a new groundwater well
Desert Groundwater within the unincorporated, unadjudicated desert region of San Bernardino
Management County. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance must be
completed prior to issuance of a permit, and groundwater management,
mitigation, and monitoring may be required as a condition of the permit.
The ordinance states that it does not apply to “groundwater wells located
on Federal lands unless otherwise specified by inter-agency agreement.”
The BLM and County entered into a Memorandum of understanding
(MOU) that provides that the BLM will require conformance with this code
for all projects proposing to use groundwater from beneath public lands.
San Bernardino County Section 82.13.080 establishes regulations and procedures to control
Development Code human existing and potential induced accelerated erosion. Elements of
Section 82.13.080, Soil this ordinance include project planning, preparation of Soil Erosion and
Erosion and Sediment Sediment Control Plans, runoff control, land clearing, and winter
Control Plans/Permits operations.
San Bernardino County The current Permit, Order No. R8-2010-0036 adopted January 29, 2010,,
Municipal Stormwater outlines a schedule of monitoring requirements, best management
Permit practices, and conditions designed to promote the reduction of pollutants
in stormwater discharges.
San Bernardino County This ordinance requires the following compliance for all liquid waste
Ordinance Code, Title 3, disposal systems: (1) compliance with applicable portions of the Uniform
Division 3, Chapter 8, Plumbing Code and the San Bernardino County Department of
Waste Management, Environmental Health (DEHS) standards; (2) approval by the DEHS and
Article 5, Liquid Waste building authority with jurisdiction over the system; or (3) for alternative
Disposal systems, approval by the DEHS, the appropriate building official of this
jurisdiction, and the appropriate California RWQCB.
San Bernardino County This ordinance describes the installation and inspection requirements for
Ordinance Code, Title 6, locating disposal/leach fields and seepage pits.
Division 3, Chapter 3,
Uniform Plumbing Code
Appendix A - 24
Applicable LORS Description
State Policies and Guidance
Integrated Energy Policy In the 2003 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR), consistent with
Report (Public Resources SWRCB Policy 75-58 and the Warren-Alquist Act, the Energy Commission
Code, Div. 15, Section adopted a policy stating they will approve the use of fresh water for cooling
25300 et seq.) purposes by power plants only where alternative water supply sources and
alternative cooling technologies are shown to be “environmentally
undesirable” or “economically unsound.”
State Water Resources The “Antidegradation Policy” mandates that: 1) existing high quality waters
Control Board Res. of the State are maintained until it is demonstrated that any change in
No. 68-16 quality will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State,
will not unreasonable affect present and anticipated beneficial uses, and
will not result in waste quality less than adopted policies; and 2) requires
that any activity which produces or may produce a waste or increased
volume or concentration of waste and which discharges or proposes to
discharge to existing high quality waters, must meet waste discharge
requirements which will result in the best practicable treatment or control
of the discharge necessary to assure that: a) a pollution or nuisance will
not occur and b) the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit
to the people of the State will be maintained.
State Water Resources The principal policy of the SWRCB that addresses the specific siting of
Control Board Res. 75-58 energy facilities is the Water Quality Control Policy on the Use and
Disposal of Inland Waters Used for Power Plant Cooling (adopted by the
Board on June 19, 1976, by Resolution 75-58). This policy states that use
of fresh inland waters should only be used for power plant cooling if other
sources or other methods of cooling would be environmentally undesirable
or economically unsound.
State Water Resources States that all groundwater and surface water of the State are considered
Control Board Res. to be suitable for municipal or domestic water supply with the exception of
No. 88-63 those waters that meet specified conditions.
State Water Resources Adopts the concept of sustainability as a core value for State Water Board
Control Board Res. programs and directs its incorporation in all future policies, guidelines, and
2005-0006 regulatory actions.
State Water Resources Requires sustainable water resources management such as low impact
Control Board Res. development (LID) and climate change considerations, in all future
2008-0030 policies, guidelines, and regulatory actions. Directs Regional Water Boards
to “aggressively promote measures such as recycled water, conservation
and LID Best Management Practices where appropriate and work with
Dischargers to ensure proposed compliance documents include
appropriate, sustainable water management strategies.”
The California Safe The California Health & Safety Code Section 25249.5 et seq. prohibits
Drinking Water and Toxic actions contaminating drinking water with chemicals known to cause
Enforcement Act cancer or possessing reproductive toxicity. The RWQCB administers the
requirements of the Act.
Appendix A - 25
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Applicable LORS Description
Federal
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Includes standards for determining physical
Title 14, Aeronautics and Space; obstructions to navigable airspace; information about
Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable requirements for notices, hearings, and requirements
Airspace (14 CFR 77) for aeronautical studies to determine the effect of
physical obstructions to the safe and efficient use of
airspace.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Includes procedures and regulations pertaining to
Title 49, Subtitle B, Sections 171-177; interstate and intrastate transport (including hazardous
Sections 350-399; Appendices A-G materials program procedures) and as well as safety
Other Regulations Relating to measures for motor carriers and motor vehicles
Transportation operating on public highways.
State
California Vehicle Code (CVC), Pertain to licensing, size, weight, and load of vehicles
Division 2, Chapter 2.5, Div. 6; operated on highways; safe operation of vehicles; and
Chap. 7, Div. 13; Chap. 5, Div. 14.1; transporting hazardous materials.
Chap. 1 and 2, Div. 14.8, Div. 15
California Streets and Highway Code, Pertain to regulating rights-of-way encroachments and
Section 117; Section 660-695; granting permits for encroachment on state highways
Section 700-711; Section 1450; 1460 and freeways and on county roads.
et seq.; and 1480 et. Seq.
California Health and Safety Code; Pertain to operators of vehicles transporting hazardous
Section 25160 et seq. materials
Local
San Bernardino General Plan, Pertains to public policies and strategies for the
Circulation and Infrastructure transportation system in San Bernardino County,
Element, Desert Region including those pertaining to transportation routes,
terminals, and facilities; construction of extensions of
existing streets; and levels of services (LOS).
San Bernardino Traffic Code, Section Pertains to requirements for oversize and overweight
52.0125 vehicles.
Appendix A - 26
TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY AND NUISANCE
Applicable LORS Description
Aviation Safety
Federal
Title 14, Part 77 of the Code of Describes the criteria used to determine the need for a
Federal Regulations Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “Notice of
(CFR),”Objects Affecting the Proposed Construction or Alteration” in cases of potential
Navigable Air Space” obstruction hazards.
FAA Advisory Circular Addresses the need to file the “Notice of Proposed
No. 70/7460-1G, “Proposed Construction or Alteration” (Form 7640) with the FAA in
Construction and/or Alteration of cases of potential for an obstruction hazard.
Objects that May Affect the
Navigation Space”
FAA Advisory Circular 70/460-1G, Describes the FAA standards for marking and lighting
“Obstruction Marking and Lighting” objects that may pose a navigation hazard as established
using the criteria in Title 14, Part 77 of the CFR.
Interference with Radio Frequency Communication
Federal
Title 47, CFR, section 15.2524, Prohibits operation of devices that can interfere with
Federal Communications radio-frequency communication.
Commission (FCC)
State
California Public Utilities Governs the construction and operation of power and
Commission (CPUC) General communications lines to prevent or mitigate interference.
Order 52 (GO-52 )
Audible Noise
Local
San Bernardino County General References the county’s Ordinance Code for noise limits.
Plan, Noise Element
San Bernardino County Noise Establishes performance standards for planned
Ordinance residential or other noise-sensitive land uses.
Hazardous and Nuisance Shocks
State
CPUC GO-95, “Rules for Overhead Governs clearance requirements to prevent hazardous
Electric Line Construction” shocks, grounding techniques to minimize nuisance
shocks, and maintenance and inspection requirements.
Title 8, California Code of Specifies requirements and minimum standards for safely
Regulations (CCR) section 2700 et installing, operating, working around, and maintaining
seq. “High Voltage Safety Orders” electrical installations and equipment.
Appendix A - 27
Applicable LORS Description
National Electrical Safety Code Specifies grounding procedures to limit nuisance shocks.
Also specifies minimum conductor ground clearances.
Industry Standards
Institute of Electrical and Specifies the guidelines for grounding-related practices
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1119, within the right-of-way and substations.
“IEEE Guide for Fence Safety
Clearances in Electric-Supply
Stations”
Electric and Magnetic Fields
State
GO-131-D, CPUC ”Rules for Specifies application and noticing requirements for new
Planning and Construction of line construction including EMF reduction.
Electric Generation Line and
Substation Facilities in California”
CPUC Decision 93-11-013 Specifies CPUC requirements for reducing power
frequency electric and magnetic fields.
Industry Standards
American National Standards Specifies standard procedures for measuring electric and
Institute (ANSI/IEEE) 644-1944 magnetic fields from an operating electric line.
Standard Procedures for
Measurement of Power Frequency
Electric and Magnetic Fields from
AC Power Lines
Fire Hazards
State
14 CCR sections 1250-1258, “Fire Provides specific exemptions from electric pole and tower
Prevention Standards for Electric firebreak and conductor clearance standards and
Utilities” specifies when and where standards apply.
Appendix A - 28
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING
Appendix A - 29
flow and stability simulations verify defined performance
levels. Performance levels are defined by specifying the
allowable variations in thermal loading, voltage and
frequency, and loss of load that may occur on systems
during various disturbances. Performance levels range
from no significant adverse effects inside and outside a
system area during a minor disturbance (loss of load or a
single transmission element out of service) to a level that
seeks to prevent system cascading and the subsequent
blackout of islanded areas during a major disturbance
(such as loss of multiple 500 kV lines along a common
right of way, and/or multiple generators). While controlled
loss of generation or load or system separation is
permitted in certain circumstances, their uncontrolled loss
is not permitted (WECC 2006).
Appendix A - 30
to the NERC/WECC or NERC Reliability Planning
Standards for Transmission System Contingency
Performance. However, the California ISO Standards also
provide some additional requirements that are not found in
the WECC/NERC or NERC Standards. The California ISO
Standards apply to all participating transmission owners
interconnecting to the California ISO controlled grid. They
also apply when there are any impacts to the California
ISO grid due to facilities interconnecting to adjacent
controlled grids not operated by the California ISO
(California ISO 2002a).
Appendix A - 31
VISUAL RESOURCES
Applicable LORS Definition
Federal
National As discussed above, applicable federal requirements for
Environmental visual impact assessment are enacted through application of
Policy Act (NEPA) the BLM VRM methodology, discussed below.
Federal Land Policy Section 102 (a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management
and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) states that “ . . . the public lands be
Act of 1976 managed in a manner that will protect the quality of
(FLPMA) scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air
and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological
values …. “
Section 201 (a) states that “The Secretary shall prepare and
maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public
lands and their resources and other values (including ...
scenic values) ....”
California Desert The CDCA Plan represents the Resource Management Plan
Conservation Area (RMP) for the area required under FLPMA. The CDCA Plan
Plan (CDCA Plan) did not contain VRM mapping as in most RMPs.
The Calico site is classified in the CDCA Plan as Multiple-
Use Class (MUC) M (Moderate Use). MUC M lands are
managed to provide a wider variety of uses such as mining,
grazing, recreation, utilities, and energy development, while
conserving desert resources and mitigating damages
permitted uses may cause.
Under the CDCA Plan Electrical Power Generation
Facilities, including Wind/Solar facilities, may be allowed
within MUC Class M if NEPA requirements are met.
National Historic Under regulations of the NHPA, visual impacts to a listed or
Preservation Act eligible National Register property that may diminish the
(NHPA) integrity of the property’s “. . . setting . . .(or) feeling . . . .” in
a way that affects the property’s eligibility for listing, may
result in a potentially significant adverse effect. “Examples of
adverse effects . . . include . . .:
Appendix A - 32
Applicable LORS Definition
Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that
diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic
features . . . . “ (36 CFR Part 800.5)
State
State Scenic The State Scenic Highway Program promotes protection of
Highway Program designated State scenic highways through certification and
(CA. Streets and adoption of local scenic corridor protection programs that
Highways Code, conform to requirements of the State program.
Section 260 et seq.)
Local
San Bernardino CONSERVATION ELEMENT
County General
Plan (2007) GOAL CO 1. The County will maintain to the greatest extent
possible natural resources that contribute to the quality of
Applicable life within the County.
Conservation
Element Goals, Policy CO 1.2 The preservation of some natural resources
Objectives, requires the establishment of a buffer area between the
Programs resource and developed areas. The County will continue the
review of the Land Use Designations for unincorporated
areas within one mile of any state or federally designated
scenic area, national forest, national monument, or similar
area, to ensure that sufficiently low development densities
and building controls are applied to protect the visual and
natural qualities of these areas.
Appendix A - 33
Applicable LORS Definition
The County shall consult with electric utilities during the
San Bernardino planning construction of their major transmission lines
County General towers to ensure that they are aesthetically compatible with
Plan (2007) the surrounding environment.
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
POLICIES
D/CO 3.1 Protect the Night Sky by providing information
about and enforcing existing ordinances:
Appendix A - 34
Applicable LORS Definition
San Bernardino
County General
Plan (2007)
Applicable
Conservation
Element Goals,
Objectives,
Programs
(continued)
San Bernardino Sets various standards and conditions for external lighting in
Development Code residential and commercial situations. Exempts facilities on
Chapter 83.07.040 Federal Property
Glare and Outdoor
Lighting - Mountain
and Desert
Regions.
Appendix A - 35
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Applicable LORS Description
Federal
Title 42, United States The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended and revised by the
Code (U.S.C.), §6901, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) et al.,
et seq. establishes requirements for the management of solid wastes
(including hazardous wastes), landfills, underground storage tanks,
Solid Waste Disposal and certain medical wastes. The statute also addresses program
Act of 1965 (as administration, implementation and delegation to states,
amended and revised enforcement provisions, and responsibilities, as well as research,
by the Resource training, and grant funding provisions.
Conservation and
RCRA Subtitle C establishes provisions for the generation, storage,
Recovery Act of 1976,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste, including requirements
et al.)
addressing:
• Generator record keeping practices that identify quantities of
hazardous wastes generated and their disposition;
• Waste labeling practices and use of appropriate containers;
• Use of a manifest when transporting wastes;
• Submission of periodic reports to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or other
authorized agency; and
• Corrective action to remediate releases of hazardous waste
and contamination associated with RCRA-regulated
facilities.
RCRA Subtitle D establishes provisions for the design and
operation of solid waste landfills.
RCRA is administered at the federal level by U.S. EPA and its 10
regional offices. The Pacific Southwest regional office (Region 9)
implements U.S. EPA programs in California, Nevada, Arizona, and
Hawaii.
Appendix A - 36
Applicable LORS Description
Title 42, U.S.C., The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
§9601, et seq. Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund, establishes
authority and funding mechanisms for cleanup of uncontrolled or
Comprehensive abandoned hazardous waste sites, as well as cleanup of accidents,
Environmental spills, or emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into
Response, the environment. Among other things, the statute addresses:
Compensation and
• Reporting requirements for releases of hazardous
Liability Act
substances;
• Requirements for remedial action at closed or abandoned
hazardous waste sites, and brownfields;
• Liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous
substances or waste; and
• Requirements for property owners/potential buyers to
conduct “all appropriate inquiries” into previous ownership
and uses of the property to 1) determine if hazardous
substances have been or may have been released at the
site, and 2) establish that the owner/buyer did not cause or
contribute to the release. A Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment is commonly used to satisfy CERCLA “all
appropriate inquiries” requirements.
Title 40, Code of These regulations were established by U.S. EPA to implement the
Federal Regulations provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and RCRA (described
(CFR), Subchapter I – above). Among other things, the regulations establish the criteria for
Solid Wastes classification of solid waste disposal facilities (landfills), hazardous
waste characteristic criteria and regulatory thresholds, hazardous
waste generator requirements, and requirements for management
of used oil and universal wastes.
• Part 257 addresses the criteria for classification of solid
waste disposal facilities and practices.
• Part 258 addresses the criteria for municipal solid waste
landfills.
• Parts 260 through 279 address management of hazardous
wastes, used oil, and universal wastes (i.e., batteries,
mercury-containing equipment, and lamps).
U.S. EPA implements the regulations at the federal level. However,
California is an RCRA-authorized state, so most of the solid and
hazardous waste regulations are implemented by state agencies
and authorized local agencies in lieu of U.S. EPA.
Title 49, CFR, These regulations address the United States Department of
Parts 172 and 173. Transportation (DOT) established standards for transport of
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The standards include
Hazardous Materials requirements for labeling, packaging, and shipping of hazardous
Regulations materials and hazardous wastes, as well as training requirements
for personnel completing shipping papers and manifests. Section
172.205 specifically addresses use and preparation of hazardous
waste manifests in accordance with Title 40, CFR, section 262.20.
Appendix A - 37
Applicable LORS Description
Federal CWA, 33 USC The Clean Water Act controls discharge of wastewater to the
§ 1251 et seq. surface waters of the U.S.
Title 40 CFR Section This establishes procedures, methods, equipment, and other
112 requirements to prevent the discharge of oil from non-
transportation-related onshore and offshore facilities into or upon
the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines, or
into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or in connection
with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or the
Deepwater Port Act of 1974.
Subpart B - The Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures
(SPCC) Plan includes procedures, methods, and equipment at the
facility to prevent discharges of petroleum from reaching navigable
waters.
State
California Health and This California law creates the framework under which hazardous
Safety Code (HSC), wastes must be managed in California. The law provides for the
Chapter 6.5, §25100, development of a state hazardous waste program that administers
et seq. and implements the provisions of the federal RCRA program. It also
provides for the designation of California-only hazardous wastes
Hazardous Waste and development of standards (regulations) that are equal to or, in
Control Act of 1972, as some cases, more stringent than federal requirements.
amended
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA),
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) administers and
implements the provisions of the law at the state level. Certified
Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs) implement some elements of
the law at the local level.
Title 22, California These regulations establish requirements for the management and
Code of Regulations disposal of hazardous waste in accordance with the provisions of
(CCR), the California Hazardous Waste Control Act and federal RCRA. As
Division 4.5. with the federal requirements, waste generators must determine if
their wastes are hazardous according to specified characteristics or
Environmental Health lists of wastes. Hazardous waste generators must obtain
Standards for the identification numbers; prepare manifests before transporting the
Management of waste off site; and use only permitted treatment, storage, and
Hazardous Waste disposal facilities. Generator standards also include requirements
for record keeping, reporting, packaging, and labeling. Additionally,
while not a federal requirement, California requires that hazardous
waste be transported by registered hazardous waste transporters.
The standards addressed by Title 22, CCR include:
• Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (Chapter 11,
§66261.1, et seq.).
• Standards Applicable to Generator of Hazardous Waste
(Chapter 12, §66262.10, et seq.).
• Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste
(Chapter 13, §66263.10, et seq.).
• Standards for Universal Waste Management (Chapter 23,
§66273.1, et seq.).
Appendix A - 38
Applicable LORS Description
• Standards for the Management of Used Oil (Chapter 29,
§66279.1, et seq.).
• Requirements for Units and Facilities Deemed to Have a
Permit by Rule (Chapter 45, §67450.1, et seq.).
The Title 22 regulations are established and enforced at the state
level by DTSC. Some generator and waste treatment standards are
also enforced at the local level by CUPAs.
HSC, Chapter 6.11 The Unified Program consolidates, coordinates, and makes
§§25404 – 25404.9 consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections,
and enforcement activities of the six environmental and emergency
Unified Hazardous response programs listed below.
Waste and Hazardous
• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act requirements for Spill
Materials Management
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans.
Regulatory Program
(Unified Program) • Hazardous Materials Release and Response Plans and
Inventories (Business Plans).
• California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP)
Program.
• Hazardous Materials Management Plan / Hazardous
Materials Inventory Statements.
• Hazardous Waste Generator / Tiered Permitting Program.
• Underground Storage Tank Program.
The state agencies responsible for these programs set the
standards for their programs while local governments implement the
standards. The local agencies implementing the Unified Program
are known as CUPAs. The DTSC’s Calexico Field Office is the
CUPA for the Calico Solar Project.
Note: The Waste Management analysis only considers application
of the Hazardous Waste Generator/Tiered Permitting element of the
Unified Program.
Title 27, CCR, While these regulations primarily address certification and
Division 1, implementation of the program by the local CUPAs, the regulations
Subdivision 4, do contain specific reporting requirements for businesses.
Chapter 1, §15100, et
• Article 9 – Unified Program Standardized Forms and
seq.
Formats (§§ 15400–15410).
Unified Hazardous • Article 10 – Business Reporting to CUPAs (§§15600–
Waste and Hazardous 15620).
Materials Management
Regulatory Program
Public Resources The California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA)
Code, Division 30, establishes mandates and standards for management of solid
§40000, et seq. waste in California. The law addresses solid waste landfill diversion
requirements; establishes the preferred waste management
California Integrated hierarchy (source reduction first, then recycling and reuse, and
Waste Management treatment and disposal last); sets standards for design and
Act of 1989
Appendix A - 39
Applicable LORS Description
construction of municipal landfills; and addresses programs for
county waste management plans and local implementation of solid
waste requirements.
Title 14, CCR, These regulations implement the provisions of the California
Division 7, §17200, et Integrated Waste Management Act and set forth minimum
seq. standards for solid waste handling and disposal. The regulations
include standards for solid waste management, as well as
California Integrated enforcement and program administration provisions.
Waste Management • Chapter 3 – Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling
Board and Disposal.
• Chapter 3.5 – Standards for Handling and Disposal of
Asbestos Containing Waste.
• Chapter 7 – Special Waste Standards.
• Chapter 8 – Used Oil Recycling Program.
• Chapter 8.2 – Electronic Waste Recovery and Recycling.
HSC, Division 20, This law was enacted to expand the state’s hazardous waste
Chapter 6.5, Article source reduction activities. Among other things, it establishes
11.9, §25244.12, et hazardous waste source reduction review, planning, and reporting
seq. requirements for businesses that routinely generate more than
12,000 kilograms (approximately 26,400 pounds) of hazardous
Hazardous Waste waste in a designated reporting year. The review and planning
Source Reduction and elements are required to be done on a 4-year cycle, with a
Management Review summary progress report due to DTSC every fourth year.
Act of 1989
Title 22, CCR, These regulations further clarify and implement the provisions of the
§67100.1 et seq. Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act
of 1989 (noted above). The regulations establish the specific review
Hazardous Waste elements and reporting requirements to be completed by
Source Reduction and generators subject to the act.
Management Review
Title 23, CCR These regulations relate to hazardous material storage and
Division 3, Chapters 16 petroleum UST cleanup, as well as hazardous waste generator
and 18 permitting, handling, and storage. The DTSC San Bernardino
County CUPA is responsible for local enforcement.
Local
County of San The General Plan ensures all new development complies with
Bernardino General applicable provisions of the County Integrated Solid Waste
Plan Management Plan.
San Bernardino This document sets forth the county’s goals, policies, and programs
County, Countywide for reducing dependence on landfilling solid wastes and increasing
Integrated Waste source reduction, recycling, and reuse of products and waste, in
Management Plan compliance with the CIWMA. The plan also addresses the siting
and development of recycling and disposal facilities and programs
within the county.
Appendix A - 40
WORKER SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION
Applicable LORS Description
Federal
29 U.S. Code This Act mandates safety requirements in the workplace, with the
sections 651 et seq. purpose of “[assuring] so far as possible every working man and
(Occupational Safety woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to
and Health Act of preserve our human resources” (29 USC § 651).
1970)
29 CFR sections These sections define the procedures for promulgating regulations
1910.1 to 1910.1500 and conducting inspections to implement and enforce safety and
(Occupational Safety health procedures to protect workers, particularly in the industrial
and Health sector.
Administration
Safety and Health
Regulations)
29 CFR sections These sections provide federal approval of California’s plan for
1952.170 to enforcement of its own safety and health requirements, in lieu of most
1952.175 of the federal requirements found in 29 CFR §1910.1 to 1910.1500.
State
2007 Edition of NFPA standards are incorporated into the California State Fire Code.
California Fire Code The fire code contains general provisions for fire safety, including road
and all applicable and building access, water supplies, fire protection and life safety
NFPA standards systems, fire-resistive construction, storage of combustible materials,
(24 CCR Part 9) exits and emergency escapes, and fire alarm systems.
Title 24, California The California Building Code is comprised of 11 parts containing
Code of Regulations building design and construction requirements as they relate to fire,
(24 CCR § 3, et seq.) life, and structural safety. It incorporates current editions of the
International Building Code, including the electrical, mechanical,
energy, and fire codes applicable to the project.
8 CCR all applicable Requires that all employers follow these regulations as they pertain to
sections (Cal/OSHA the work involved. This includes regulations pertaining to safety
regulations) matters during the construction, commissioning, and operation of
power plants, as well as safety around electrical components, fire
safety, and hazardous materials usage, storage, and handling.
24 CCR section 3, et Incorporates the current edition of the International Building Code.
seq.
Health and Safety Requires a Hazardous Materials Business plan detailing emergency
Code sections response plans for hazardous materials emergencies at a facility.
25500 to 25541
Appendix A - 41
Applicable LORS Description
Local (or locally enforced)
Fire and Hazardous Includes California Fire Code and specific codes to regulate permits
Materials: San activities and administrative penalties. Adopts the 2007 California Fire
Bernardino County Code and adopts State requirements and guidelines as governing
Code, Title 2, hazardous materials release response plans and inventories.
Division 3, Chapter 1
et seq.
Health and Safety: Includes specific codes to regulate permits, activities (e.g., solid waste
San Bernardino management), and administrative penalties.
County Code Title 3,
Division 1, et seq.
Building and Adopts national standards such as Uniform Building Code and
Construction: San National Electrical Code.
Bernardino County
Code, Title 6,
Division 3, Chapter 1
et seq.
Appendix A - 42
BEFORE THE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1516 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
1-800-822-6228 – WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV
Project Name: Application for Certification for the CALICO SOLAR Project
Applicant’s Exhibits
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
Appendix B - 1
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
Appendix B - 2
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
2. Application to MDAQMD, dated January 28, 2009, docketed January 28, 2009
3. Data Adequacy Supplement, dated April 6, 2009, docketed April 6, 2009
a. Responses 1-5 Air Quality
b. Response 6 Economic benefits of alternate site
c. Responses 7-11 Biology
d. Responses 12-23 Cultural
e. Responses 24-26 Land Use
f. Responses 27-28 Noise
g. Responses 29 Project Overview
h. Response 30-32 Site ownership
i. Response 33 Transmission Line Route
j. Response 34-36 Socioeconomics
k. Response 37 Fill disposal location
l. Response 38 Soils
m. Responses 39 Traffic
n. Response 40-41 Agency contacts and other permits
o. Response 42-44 One-lines and agencies
p. Response 45-46 Visual
q. Response 47 Waste Management
r. Responses 48, 53-55 Surface Water
s. Responses 49-52 Groundwater
t. Response 50 Back-up water supply
4. Additional Information, dated April 29, 2009, docketed April 29, 2009, Pump Test Data
5. CEC/BLM Data Responses 49-70, 74, 75, 80, 82-84, 88-91, dated July 17, 2009,
docketed July 17, 2009
a. Response 49 Alternate site map
b. Responses 50-52, Biology, U.S. and State Waters 54-56, 82-84
c. Response 53 Evaporation Pond
d. Responses 57-60 Hydrogen system
e. Response 61 Paleontology
f. Responses 62-63 Project boundary
g. Responses 64-67 Land use
h. Response 68 Noise
Appendix B - 3
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
14. CEC/BLM Info Request Responses (9/16/09 workshop), dated October 15, 2009,
docketed October 15, 2009
a. Soil stabilizer and County contacts
b. Use of private parcels
15. CURE DR Responses 276-380, dated November 13, 2009, docketed November 12, 2009
a. Responses 276-282 Hydrogen
b. Response 283-285 BNSF water
c. Response 286 Soil testing
d. Response 287 Worker Safety
e. Responses 288-295 BNSF water
f. Responses 296-297, MTBF, emergencies283-285
g. Responses 298-303 SunCatcher testing
h. Responses 304-306 Delay
i. Responses 307-309 Funding
k. Responses 310-312 Land Use
l. Responses 313-359, Biology361-374, 377-379
m. Response 360
n. Responses 375, 376, Project description 380
16. CEC/BLM DR Responses, Set 1, part 2, dated November 19, 2009, docketed November
19, 2009
a. Response 92, 93 Geomorphology
b. Response 94-108 Cultural
17. CEC/BLM DR Responses 71-73, 76-79, 85, 128-141, dated November 23, 2009,
docketed November 23, 2009
a. Responses 71-73, Groundwater and aquifer data 77-79, 85
b. Response 76, 137, Well location 138, 139
c. Responses 128 Geotextile
d. Response 129-131, Road assumptions 136, 140
e. Response 132-134 Alternatives
f. Response 135 Biology impacts
g. Response 141 Traffic
18. CURE DR Responses 378-402, dated December 2, 2009, docketed December 3, 2009
a. Response 378-394 Biology
b. Response 395-402 DWMA ACEC Upper Johnson Valley
Appendix B - 5
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
19. DOW and BRW DR Responses, dated December 4, 2009, docketed December 4, 2009
DOW Responses 6-8, Alternative sites 11
a. DOW Responses 9, 10 Alternatives
b. DOW Responses 1-5 Biology
c. BRW Responses 1-3 Biology
20. CEC/BLM DR Responses, Set 2, dated December 4, 2009, docketed December 4, 2009
a. Response 142 Channel grading
b. Response 143 Research overview
c. Response 144-153 Groundwater
d. Response 154-161 Sediment, culverts
e. Response 162-166 PCU luminance/mirror visibility
Response 167-174 Oil storage, SPCC, waste streams
21. Updated project map, dated December 21, 2009, docketed December 21, 2009
Project Map Biology
22. Donated Parcel Study, dated December 17, 2009, docketed December 17, 2009
a. Biology
b. Cultural Resources
c. Geology
d. Soils
e. Land Use
f. Noise
g. Public Health
h. Visual Resources
23. Project Description for 275 MW Interconnection, dated December 23, 2009, docketed
December 23, 2009
SCE Description for 275 Interconnection
24. Biological Resources Technical Report, Biological Resources Baseline Study, and
Noxious Weed Management Plan, dated December 23, 2009, docketed December 23,
2009
25. Geotech Engineering Report, dated January 6, 2010, docketed January 8, 2010
26. Responses to CURE letter, dated January 7, 2010, docketed January 7, 2010
DR 10, 379, 380, 382
27. CAISO, Corridor Conflict Analysis, dated January 6, 2010, docketed January 8, 2010
Corridor Conflict & BLM letter
Appendix B - 6
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
28. Response to CEC transmission questions, dated January 8, 2010, docketed January 8,
2010
a. Items 1-3, 7 Biology
b. Items 4, 9 SCE transmission and 11
c. Items 5-6 Cultural
d. Items 8 & 10, Flood zones 12, 14
e. Item 13 BMPs for Erosion
29. Additional Alternatives Analysis, dated January 7, 2010, docketed January 8, 2010
a. Introduction, Land Use
b. Biological Resources
c. Cultural Resources
d. Water Resources
30. Additional Information on Water Supply, dated January 15, 2010, docketed January 15,
2010
Field efforts and back-up water supply
31. MDAQMD Final Decision, dated January 27, 2010, docketed January 27, 2010
32. Supplemental Information, dated January 27, 2010, docketed February 3, 2010
a. Sections 1.0 & 1.2 Cadiz water supply
b. Section 2.1 Introduction
c. Section 2.2 Air Quality
d. Section 2.3 Geology
e. Section 2.4 Soils
f. Section 2.5 Water
g. Section 2.6 Biology
h. Section 2.7 Cultural
i. Section 2.8 Paleontology
j. Section 2.9 Land Use
k. Section 2.10 Socioeconomics
l. Section 2.11 Traffic
m. Section 2.12 Noise
n. Section 2.13 Visual
o. Section 2.14 Waste Management
p. Section 2.15 Hazardous Materials
q. Section 2.16 Public Health
Appendix B - 7
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
Appendix B - 10
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
Staff’s Exhibits
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
300 Supplemental Staff Assessment
301 Final Determination of Compliance
302 “Estimated Location of Fire Facility Cost to Proposed Solar Energy Installations,” June 3,
2010, Stanley R. Hoffman Associates (for San Bernardino County Fire Department)
303 Staff Rebuttal Testimony and first Errata (updating the Biological Resources Section of the
SSA and Conditions of Certification BIO 17 and BIO 18), July 29, 2010.
Appendix B - 11
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
304 [Identification of future transmission system upgrades.]
305 Appendix A, Biological Resources
306 Soil and Water Figures 5A and 5B
307 Staff proposed revisions to Condition AQ-SC9
308 Staff proposed revision to Conditions Noise-1, etc.
309 Supplemental Staff Assessment, Part 2, dated August 9, 2010
310 Second errata to Supplemental Staff Assessment
311 8/25/10 letter from Wayne Donaldson to Roxie Trost
312 Cultural-4 Condition insert
313 Staff response to Committee questions
314 Tonya Moore email to Chris Huntley
315 Revisions to Worker Safety-6
316 Revisions to Haz-8
317 Supplemental Staff Assessment Addendum dated September, 2010
Intervenor CURE
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
400 Opening Testimony of David Marcus on Behalf of California Unions for Reliable Energy on
Transmission for the Calico Solar Project
401 Marcus Declaration
402 Marcus c.v.
403 131 FERC 61,071, Docket ER10-796, order issued April 26, 2010
404 (No Exhibit)
405 Rebuttal Testimony of Boris Poff on Behalf of California Unions for Reliable Energy on
Soil and Water for the Calico Solar Project
406 Poff c.v.
407 McFadden, Wells, Jercinovich, Department of Geology, Univ. of New Mexico, Influences
of eolian and pedogenic processes on the origin and evolution of desert pavements
408 Seager, Ting, Held, Kushnir, et al., Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More
Arid Climate in Southwestern North America Soil/Water Boris Poff
409 Okin, Murray, Schlesinger, Degradation of sandy arid shrubland environments:
observations, process modeling, and management implications
410 Okin, Gillette, Herrick, Multi-scale controls on and consequences of Aeolian processes in
landscape change in arid and semi-arid Environments
Appendix B - 12
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
411 Angel, Palecki, Hollinger, Storm Precipitation in the United States. Part II: Soil Erosion
Characteristics
412 Anderson, Wells, Graham, Pedogenesis of Vesicular Horizons, Cima Volcanic Field,
Mojave Desert, California
413 Rebuttal Testimony of Vernon C. Bleich on Biological for the Calico Solar Project
414 Bleich c.v.
415 Bleich, Wejaisem. Ramey, Rechel: Metapopulation Theory and Mountain Sheep:
Implications for Conservation
416 Epps, Wehausen, Bleich, Torres, Brashares: Optimizing dispersal and corridor models
using landscape genetics
417 Wehausen: Nutrient predictability, birthing seasons, and lamb recruitment for desert
bighorn sheep
418 Oehler, Bleich, Bowyer, Nicholson: Mountain Sheep and Mining: Implications for
Conservation and Management
419 Schwartz, Bleich, Holl: Genetics and the Conservation of Mountain Sheep
420 Belich, Wehausen, Holl: Desert-dwelling Mountain Sheep: Conservation Implications of a
Naturally Fragmented Distribution
421 Bleich, Bowyer, Wehausen: Sexual Segregation in Mountain Sheep: Resources or
Predation?
422 Epps, Wehausen, Palsoboll, McCullough: Using Genetic Tools to Track Desert Bighorn
Sheep Colonizations
423 Torres, Mulchahy, Gonzales, Pauli, Andrew: Human Induced Migration and Homing
Behavior of a Desert Bighorn Ram in the Whipple Mountains, California: Or Herman the
Trailer Park Ram
424 Rebuttal Testimony of Scott Cashen on Biology for the Calico Solar Project
425 Cashen c.v.
426 Belnap, Webb, Miller, et al.: Monitoring Ecosystem Quality and Function in Arid Settings of
the Mojave Desert
427 California Partners in Flight and PRBO Conservation Science: The Desert Bird
Conservation Plan, a Strategy for Protecting and Managing Desert Habitats and
Associated Bids in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts
428 U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS: Threats to Desert Tortoise Populations: A Critical
Review of the Literature
429 U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS: Modeling Habitat of the Desert Tortoise
(Gopherus agassizii) in the Mojave and Parts of Biology Scott Cashen 2309-080a 12 the
Sonoran Deserts of California, Nevada, Utah and Arizona
Appendix B - 13
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
430 Pagel, Whittington, Allen: Interim Golden Eagle Inventory and Monitoring Protocols; and
Other Recommendations
431 Marzluff, Knick, Vekasky, Schuek, Zarriello: Spatial Use and Habitat Selection of Golden
Eagles in Southwestern Idaho
432 Survey Protocols Required for NEPA/ESA Compliance for BLM Special Status Plant
Species
433 Okin, Murray, Schlesinger: Degradation of sandy arid shrubland environments:
observations, process modeling, and management implications
434 Record of Decision, West Mojave Plan, Amendment to the California Desert Conservation
Area Plan
435 U.S. Dept. of Interior: Effects of the International Boundary Pedestrian Fence in the
Vicinity of Lukeville, Arizona, on Drainage Systems and Infrastructure, Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument, Arizon
436 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Final Environmental Assessment, Proposal to permit Take
as provided Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
437 Southern California Edison act three overview map for the Calico Solar Project. x 8/4/10
438 Memorandum from Christopher Meyer to Felicia Bellows and Bob Therkelsen re: SES
Solar One Project—Transmission Line Upgrades
439 2008 and 2009 Annual Reports for the Fort Irwin Translocation Project. [authors], undated
440 Bighorn Habitat Connectivity Map
441 8/16/10 Rebuttal Testimony of David S. Whitley on Behalf of the California Unions
for Reliable Energy on Cultural Resources forthe Calico Solar Project (c.v. and
declaration)
442 2001 Desert Pavement and Buried Archaeological Feature in the Arid West: A
Case Study from Southern Arizona
443 Testimony of Scott Cashen on the Desert Tortoise Translocation Plan or the Calico Solar
Project dated August 17, 2010.
444 Desert Tortoise Council Abstracts 33 1d Annual Meeting and Symposium Biology
Scott Cashen
445 Desert Tortoise Council Abstracts 34th Annual Meeting and Symposium Biology
Scott Cashen
446 2/2010 Desert Tortoise Council Abstracts 35 th Annual Meeting and Symposium
Biology Scott Cashen
Appendix B - 14
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
447 4/2/09 US Dept. of the Army, Memorandum for Desert Tortoise Recovery
Coordinator, re Fort Irwin FISS Depredation Biology Scott Cashen
448 7/29/05 T. Esque, K. Nussear, P. Medica, Desert Tortoise Translocation Plan for
Fort Irwin's Land Expansion Program at the U.S. Army National Training Center
(NTC) & Fort Irwin - Biology Scott Cashen
449 5/1/09 T. Esque, K. Nussear, K. Drake, K. Berry, P. Medica, J.Heaton, Amendment
to Desert Tortoise Translocation Plan for Fort Irwin's Land Expansion Program at
the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) & Fort Irwin Biology Scott Cashen
450 Spring 2010 - Calico Solar Desert Tortoise Translocation Plan Recipient Site
Photograph; Photograph #4: Long Distance DWMA Translocation Area Biology
Scott Cashen
451 K.H. Berry, Draft Decision for Short-Distance Translocation of Desert Tortoises
Biology Scott Cashen
452 Single Factor ANOVA Model and Tests, Control Treatment Biology Scott Cashen
453 K. Berry, M. Christopher, Guidelines for the Field Evaluation of Desert Tortoise
Health and Disease Biology Scott Cashen
454 812540 —TestimonyS-cooftto-Cn-aDsheensert-Tortoise-Impacts-in--Staffs —Scott
Cashen Errata #2 Biology
455 K.E. Nussear, T.C. Esque, D.F. Haines, C.R. Tracy, Desert•Tortoise Hibernation:
Temperatures, Timing and Environment Biology Scott Cashen
456 C.H. Ernst, J.E. Lovich, Turtles of the United States and Canada
457 J.M. Germano, P.J. Bishop, Suitability of Amphibians
458 J.S. Heaton, et al., Spatially explicit decision support for selecting translocation
areas for Mojave desert tortoises
459 9/14/04 Redlands Institute Decision Support Team, Habitat Potential Knowledge
Base (cover and pp. 30-32)
460 Adaptive Management Working Group, The U.S. Dept. of the Interior Technical
Guide, 2009 ed., Chapter 1
461 9/17/10 Additional Rebuttal Testimony of Scott Cashen on Behalf of the California
Unions for Reliable Energy on the Applicant's Proposed Scenarios 5.5 and 6 for
the Calico Solar Project (c.v.) Biology Scott Cashen
462 2007 K.E. Nussear, T.C. Esque, D.F. Haines, C.R. Tracy, Desert Tortoise
Hibernation: Temperatures, Timing, and EnvironmentBiology Scott Cashen
Appendix B - 15
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
463 8/2008 Public Review Draft Recommendations of Independent Science Advisors
for The California Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP)
464 2007 K.E. Nussear, C.R. Tracy, Can Modeling Improve Estimation of Desert
Tortoise Population Densities? (Ecological Applicationspp.579-586)
465 9/17/10 Additional Rebuttal Testimony of David S. Whitley on Behalf of the
California Unions for Reliable Energy on Cultural Resources for the Calico Solar
Project
Appendix B - 17
Intervenor Sierra Club
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
1000 Photo of Nelson’s Bighorn Sheep X X
1001 Photo of Nelson’s Bighorn Sheep X X
1002 Photo of Golden Eagle X X
1003 Photo of Golden Eagle X X
1004 Photo of Desert Tortoise X X
1005 Photo of Desert Tortoise X X
1007 Photo of White-margined beardtongue X X
1008 Photo of Mojave fringe-toed lizard X X
1009 Photo of Mojave fringe-toed lizard X X
1010 Calico Project Site Map X X
1011 Photograph
1012 Photograph
1013 Photograph
1014 Photograph
1015 Photograph
1016 Photograph
1017 Photograph
1018 Photograph
1019 Photograph
1020 Untitled map X X
1021 Letter from Raymond Lee, Field Manager, BLM to Todd Stewart, Brightsource
Energy dated April 8, 2008 with attachment: Comments/Observations on Ivanpah X X
SEGS Sormwater Manaement
1022 Live Tortoise Encounter Form dated 4/4/10; URS Corp. Calico Solar 2010 Desert
X X
Tortoise Protocol Transect Survey dated 3/30/10
1023 Calico Solar Tortoise Burrow Data dated ____ X X
Appendix B - 18
Intervenor Newberry Community Services District
Exhibit Brief Description Offered Admitted
1100 Rebuttal Testimony – Newberry CSD
1101 San Bernardino County LAFCO Fire Districts Map
1102 San Bernardino County LAFCO Newberry CSD Boundary Map
1103 Location Reference Map Newberry CSD & Project Site Western Boundary
1104 SB County Fire – North Desert Division Site Map
1105 Newberry Springs Fire Department Incident Response Statistics
Appendix B - 19
BEFORE THE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1516 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
1-800-822-6228 – WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV
Appendix C - 1
INTERVENORS CONT. ENERGY COMMISSION
Jennifer Jennings
Public Adviser
e-mail service preferred
[email protected]
Appendix C - 2
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I, , declare that on , 2010, I served and filed copies of the attached , dated
, 2010. The original document, filed with the Docket Unit, is accompanied by a copy of the most recent
Proof of Service list, located on the web page for this project at: [www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/solarone].
The documents have been sent to both the other parties in this proceeding (as shown on the Proof of Service list)
and to the Commission’s Docket Unit, in the following manner:
AND
sending an original paper copy and one electronic copy, mailed and emailed respectively, to the address
below (preferred method);
OR
depositing in the mail an original and 12 paper copies, as follows:
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, that I am employed in the county where this
mailing occurred, and that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the proceeding.
Appendix C - 3