Prepared for: Prepared by: City of Palmdale/Inland Energy AECOM

60138 8 27 July 2011



# Addendum to the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project Biological AssessmentPrepared for: Prepared by: City of Palmdale/Inland Energy AECOM

60138227 July 2011



# Addendum to the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project Biological Assessment

_________________________________ Prepared By Craig Wentworth

_________________________________ Reviewed By Sara J. HeadAECOM

July 2011 Addendum to the PHPP Biological Assessment

, Los Angeles County, California Page 1 

## Introduction

This document serves as a n A ddendum to the Biological Assessment (BA) for the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project (PHPP or Project ), Los Angeles County, California, Marc h 2009. The BA for the PHPP was submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 31, 2009 along with the application for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit (AECOM 2009a) for the PHPP, including a request that the E PA initiate consultation for the Project with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As noted in the cover letter for the PSD Application and BA in March 2009, the City of Palmdale (the Applicant) anticip ated that EPA
would seek concurrence with the USFWS that the PHPP “ may affect but is not likely to adversely

affect ” federally listed species.

Subsequent to the submittal of the PSD application and BA to the EPA in March 2009, the licensing/permitting of the Project has progressed under the California Energy Commission’s (CEC’s) siting process. This Addendum to the BA is needed to address two ad ditional potential components o f the Project identified during this CEC process: 1) an alternative transmission line route that was developed and assessed by the CEC; and 2) a list of ten specific road segments in and around the City of Palmdale that may be paved to create emission reduction credits for the PHPP. The proposed

a lternative transmission line and road paving were both added to the Project scope subsequent to the completion of the BA. This BA A ddendum contains the description of the se addition al Project components . This BA A ddendum provides analys e s in support of a determination of may affect but is not likely to adversely affect for the federally listed desert tortoise ( Gopherus agassizii ) and a

determination of n o e ffect for the federally li sted arroyo toad ( Anaxyrus californicus ).



## Project Description, Alternative Transmission Line Route 4

In the CEC’s Final Staff Assessment (FSA), December 2010, the CEC Staff identified a number of alternative transmission line routes in response to comments received on the Staff’s Preliminary Staff Assessment. Of these alternatives, Staff determined that the Alternative Transmission Line Route 4, the Partial Underground/Overhead Transmission Route (Alternative Route 4)

, i s a feasible alternative

. In the Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision (PMPD), issued in June 2011 (CEC 2011b) , the CEC has proposed appr oving both the Applicant’s proposed transmission line route and Staff’s Alternative

Route 4 . Both options are expected to be fully approved by the Energy Commission in August 2011

and if so, the Applicant will have approval to construct the transmission l ine along either route.

Alternative Route 4 would run along the proposed gas pipeline and proposed reclaimed water pipe line for part of the route, and would be considerably shorter than the Applicant’s proposed route. The partial underground transmission line route would follow the PHPP underground fuel gas supply pipe line route for 6.75 miles and then would proceed approximately 6 miles as an overhead route, for a total route length of approximately 12.8 miles. The Alternative Route 4 is shown in Figure 1.

Alternative Route 4 would be shorter than the Applicant’s proposed transmission line and would consolidate impacts of the transmission, water, and gas pipe lines along one roadway for about half of its length (CEC 2010)

. However, Alternative Route 4 wo uld impact a wider corridor since t he gas pipe line and the transmission line would be separated to meet regulatory requirements. Although longer, the Applicant’s proposed route would follow existing roads and/or an existing SCE transmission line, and would have minimal impacts to habitat along the route. Although temporary during construction, Alternative Route 4 would cause greater disruption to businesses along this busy

traffic route and would increase traffic congestion. Maintenance of an undergr ound line over the life of a project is also much more difficult to do than an overhead line, and access would be a problem. Importantly, both routes were found to have insignificant impacts to biological resources with the implementation of the CEC’s req uired mitigation measures ( CEC 2010; CEC 201 1b ). Thus, neither Alternative Route 4 nor the proposed project route would result in a significant impact to biological

resources.AECOM

July 2011 Addendum to the PHPP Biological Assessment

, Los Angeles County, California Page 2 

## Project Description, Roads Proposed for Paving

In addition, the A pplicant has p roposed to pave segments of up to ten roads in the vicinity of the

PHPP to offset PM10 emissions from the Project. The Applicant identified 11 road segments as having the highest potential for reducing PM10 emissions in a May 2009 submittal in response to CEC Staff data requests (AECOM 2009 b ) , and later agreed to drop one of these segments (number 7) from further consideration due to concerns raised in public comments on the Project. The ten road segments under consideration for road paving are listed in Table 1. The locations of these road segments within the City of Palmdale or surrounding Los Angeles County are shown in Figures 2.a

and 2.b.



### Addendum to the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project Biological Assessment

– Table 1. Potential Road Segments for Gene ration of PM10 ERC

Segment Street From To

1 Avenue B 90 th Street West 30 th Street West

2 Avenue S

- 2 96 th th Street East 106 th Street East

3 110th Street East Avenue L Columbia Way / Avenue M

4 40th Street West Avenue N Avenue N

- 8

5 Avenue Q 90 th Street East 110 th Street East

6 Avenue S

- 6 96 th Street East 106 th Street East

7 Barrel Springs Road Sierra Highway 25 th Street East

8 Avenue T

- 10 87 th Street East 96 th Street East

9 Avenue N

- 8 Bolz Ranch Road 30 th Street West

10 Avenue G 90 th Street East 120 th Street East

11 Carson Mesa Road El Sastre Vincent View Road

Source: PHPP Responses to CEC Data Request Set 2 (91

- 162), May 1, 2009

As described in the CEC Staff ’s Rebuttal Testimony ( CEC 2011 a ), proposed road se gments 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 are located within urban areas characterized by large lot residential communities supporting single family homes, landscaping, and open ruderal fields where homes have either not been developed or have been removed (Table 2 )

. R oad segment s 1 and 5, while in mo re rural areas

, support scattered residences, fallow agricultural lands, and natural desert scrub communities. Active farming occurs along portions of road segment 5. Road segment 11, while largely supporting natural

lands

, is located adjacent to the railr oad and parallels Highway 14.

Road segment s 3, 7

, and 10 are located in more isolated areas supporting various native and non

native plant communities. For example, road segment 3 appears to be a lightly travelled road that appears to be within the active portion of an ephemeral drainage. This area is bordered by large tracts

of natural lands to the east and scattered rural residence s to the west. Road segment 7 (Barrel Springs Road) also passes through native habitat in close proximity to Una Lake. Severa l small drainages also appear to bisect this road. Due to concerns raised about road segment 7, the Applicant agreed to drop this segment from further consideration.AECOM

July 2011 Addendum to the PHPP Biological Assessment

, Los Angeles County, California Page 3 

### Addendum to the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project Biological Assessment

– Table 2 : Road L ocation and Existing Conditions

Road Segment Segment

Name Existing Conditions Potential

for

Sensitive Species Expected

ROW Width (feet)

1 Avenue B Low density rural residences, fallow and active agricultural lands, desert scrub, and ephemeral drainages Moderate 40

2 Avenue S

- 2 Residential development on approximately

one

- acre lots. Landscape vegetation, ruderal fields, and disturbed areas Low 40

3 110 th Street

East Primarily natural lands, road appears to be

within active channel of seasonal drainage. Moderate 92

4 40 th Street

West Urban residential lands. Landscaped

areas. Low 40

5 Avenue Q Low density rural residences, desert scrub, and various ephemeral drainages Moderate 92

6 Avenue S

- 6 Residential development on approximately

one

- acre lots. Landscape vegetation,
ruderals fields, and disturbed areas Low 40

7 Barrel Springs Road Primarily natural lands with sparse rural residences. Supports various scrub communities, juniper woodland, and several drainages. Close to Una Lake, known to support nesting vireos. Moderate 92

8 Avenue T

- 10 Residential development on approximately

one

- acre lots. Landscape vegetation,
ruderals fields, and disturbed areas Low 40

9 Avenue N

- 8 Urban residential lands. Landscaped

areas. Low 60

10 Avenue G Primarily fallow agricultural lands likely supporting rabbit bush scrub, various desert scrub, and several ephemeral drainages. Moderate 40

11 Carson Mesa

Road Primarily natural lands with various scrub communities, juniper woodland, and small

ep hemeral drainages. General parallels a railroad ROW and State Highway 14 Moderate 40

Source: CEC Staff Rebuttal Testimony, 2011 a. ROW = Right of WayAECOM

July 2011 Addendum to the PHPP Biological Assessment

, Los Angeles County, California Page 4 

## Listed and Proposed Species in the Project Area

Desert Tortoise

The Mojave population of the desert tortoise, which includes all tortoises occurring west and north of the Colorado River, is listed as threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS ) and the California Department of Fish and Game ( CDFG ) . The dese rt tortoise is most common in desert scrub, desert wash, and Joshua tree habitats in a variety of terrain types, including alluvial fans, valleys, rocky hillsides, and washes. The species requires friable soil for burrow and nest construction.

Burrows are typically found at the base of shrubs, in the interspaces between shrubs, and occasionally in caliche soil bank areas or underneath boulders/rocks. Desert tortoises are herbivores

that feed on a variety of plants

, including annual herbs and perennial grass es. The Project area contains no designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise.



### Arroyo Toad

The arroyo toad is a medium

- sized toad, and adults range from 2.2 to 2.6 inches in length (USFWS 1999). Adults typically require overflow pools adjacent to t he inflow channel of streams that are generally third order or greater and generally free of predators. Normally, shallow pools with sandy or gravely bottoms surrounded by little woody vegetation are preferred. Regular disturbance in the form of flooding i s required to maintain areas of sparsely vegetated, sandy stream channels and terraces, which are used by adults and sub

- adults for foraging and burrowing (USFWS 2001). Outside the breeding season, arroyo toads use a wide range of habitats in both upland ( to a distance of at least 3,740 feet from the upland

- riparian ecotone) and riparian areas (Holland and Sisk 2001). Upland habitats used by arroyo toads include coastal sage scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, grassland, riparian, and agricultural habitats (Gri ffin and Case 2001; USFWS 2001). The Project area contains no designated critical habitat for the arroyo toad.



## Assessment of Potential Impacts, Alternative Route 4

Transmission Line

Desert Tortoise

Desert tortoise potentially occurs along the northern po rtion of the underground segment of Alternative Route 4, west and south of the PHPP site. This area is considered to have a low potential to support the species due to the highly disturbed, degraded

, and fragmented condition of the surrounding land.

In add ition

, these parcels are confined by development and are further fragmented by Sierra Highway

and U.S. Air Force P lant 42

. Therefore, direct and indirect effects to the species would have a very low potential to occur with implementation of Alternative Route 4

.

No desert tortoise designated critical habitat is present on or near the Project site. The nearest designated critical habitat and known occupied habitat for this species is located approximately 16

miles north east within the Fremont

- Kramer Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA) ( AMEC 2008). Vegetation communities identified on the Project site ( e.g. , desert scrub, desert wash, and Joshua tree) are known to be used by desert tortoises , but f ocused surveys conduc ted in 2006 on the power plant site did not detect desert tortoise or sign and f ocused surveys conducted in 2008 did not detect desert tortoise on the Project site, buffer zone, or zone of influence (ZOI) transects. One burrow that potentially could be use d by a tortoise (Class 5: good condition, undetermined species) was found during 2008 surveys on the 3,960

- foot ZOI transect west of the power plant site. The mouth of the burrow was overgrown with vegetation, and no sign of recent use was evident. Focused surveys conducted in 2008 did not detect desert tortoise or sign on adjacent U.S. Air Force Plant 42. The highly fragmented nature of the Project s ite with numerous barriers ( e.g., highways, railroad tracks,AECOM

July 2011 Addendum to the PHPP Biological Assessment

, Los Angeles County, California Page 5 development) makes it highly unlikely that dese rt tortoises are present or could wander there from adjacent lands

– the connectivity to known occupied habitat is very low. Known occupied habitat is 16 miles northeast of the Project s ite, spanning numerous barriers.

D esert tortoise also have not been detected along the Applicant proposed transmission line alignment

, and t ortoises are not expected to occur within the Alternative Route 4 alignment due to the urban setting and disturbed habitat that occurs there.

Potential direct and indirect impacts to wildlife at the PHPP plant site and along the linear facilities will

be reduced to less

- than

- significant levels with impact avoidance and minimization measures. To

reduce potential effects to the desert tortoise, Conditions of Certification will be contain ed in the CEC Final PHPP Decision (anticipated to be approved in August 2011) that apply to protection of desert tortoise and other biological resources in and near the PHPP. The Conditions of Certification include preconstruction surveys, installation of tortoise exclusion fencing, clearance surveys, monitoring; and verification that all desert tortoise impact avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures have been implemented. Additional measures w ill require the development and implementation of a R aven Monitoring, Management, and Control Plan and the payment of a raven management fee to minimize impacts to desert tortoise resulting from increases in raven populations. These Conditions of Certification will apply to either transmission line route al ternative, depending on which one is selected by the Applicant for construction. Implementation of these conditions w ill further reduce or avoid the already low potential for impacts to the desert tortoise. Based on the low potential for

occurrence or imp acts , no compensatory mitigation for the loss of desert tortoise habitat is proposed.



### Arroyo Toad

Designated critical habitat for the federally listed arroyo toad is not present along Alternative Route 4

. The nearest critical habitat designated for the ar royo toad (Unit 21 Little Rock Creek Basin) occurs 2.6 miles south of the Segment 2 transmission line. Construction of the Alternative Route 4 would not affect critical habitat for this species.

Arroyo toads were not detected in 2009 during protocol surve ys at the A pplicant proposed

transmission line route crossing of Little Rock Creek . It was previously concluded that the arroyo toad

was not observed during 2006 or 2008 surveys because of a lack of suitable habitat (i.e.

, lack of flowing water; C ity o f P almdale 2008). In addition, the Biological Assessment (A ECOM 2009 a ) indicated that the most recent sighting of this species was in 2001, three miles upstream of the Project crossing. Protocol surveys for arroyo toad were conducted at the proposed transmiss ion line crossing in 2009. Arroyo toads were not detected during surveys of the Project area in 2009. Reconnaissance level surveys of Little Rock Creek were conducted for arroyo toads during the 2010 breeding season.

Toads were verified by calling near the confluence of Santiago and Little Rock creeks above the dam;

however

, toads were not detected during night time surveys below the dam. In addition, an inspection of the creek below the dam did not detect any egg masses or tadpoles. Further, it appears that habitat in this area has been compromised by the construction of the Little Rock Reservoir which has trapped sediment, altered flows, and resulted in the degradation of the stream channel below the dam. If arroyo toads persist below the dam

, they are expe cted to occur in very low densities and are likely isolated from upstream populations. Although the proposed project transmission line route would cross Little Rock Creek, survey and avoidance requirements would be implemented such that there is little pot ential to affect Arroyo toad.

Adult Arroyo toads typically require overflow pools adjacent to the inflow channel of streams that are generally 3 rd order or greater and generally free of predators. Normally, shallow pools with sandy or gravely bottoms s urrounded by little woody vegetation are preferred. Regular disturbance in the formAECOM

July 2011 Addendum to the PHPP Biological Assessment

, Los Angeles County, California Page 6 of flooding is required to maintain areas of sparsely vegetated, sandy stream channels and terraces, which are used by adults and sub

- adults for foraging and burrowing (US FWS 2001; CEC 2010). Th is ty pe of suitable habitat does not occur along Alternative Route 4. Therefore, construction or operation of Alternative Route 4 w ould have **no effect** on Arroyo toad.



## Assessment of Potential Impacts, Road Paving

Desert Tortoise

Surveys for desert tortoise have not been conducted for the proposed road segment s

, and this species may occur along portions of road segment s 1, 3, 5, and 10. The majority of the proposed roads, however, are located in existing urban residential areas whe re the surrounding habitat is

disturbed. D esert tortoise has a very low potential to occur near the proposed roads identified in Table

2 (CEC 2011a)

.

As mentioned above related to Alternative Route 4, Conditions of Certification will be contained in the Final PHPP Decision (anticipated to be approved in August 2011) that apply to protection of desert tortoise and other biological resources in and near the PHPP. These conditions will also apply to road paving activities. Therefore, paving any of the iden tified road segments is expected to have insignificant impacts on desert tortoise.



### Arroyo Toad

No suitable habitat for the arroyo toad occurs in the proposed roads paving area location s

. As noted above, f ocused presence/ absence surveys were conducted in suitable habitat for the Applicant’s proposed transmission line route with negative results. Mitigation has not been proposed for potential impacts to arroyo toad during PHPP road paving due to the absence of suitable habi tat in the Project impact area or vicinity. Similar to the Alternative Route 4, since suitable habitat for Arroyo toad (as described above) is not found in the vicinity of these road segments, n o impact to the species is expected from the road paving

.



## Det ermination of Effects

Desert Tortoise

Implementation of Alternative Route 4 or the road paving as described may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise. The proposed Project area and associated features are primarily

located within disturbed, developed, and fragmented urban areas. Because of this structural spatial arrangement

, habitat conditions are sub

- prime for tortoise activity.



### Arroyo Toad

Implementation of Alternative Route 4 or the road paving will have no effect to the arro yo toad or arroyo toad critical habitat , since suitable habitat does not occur where these project components

would be located . Comprehensive surveys have not revealed the presence of the species within the Project area , and habitat is absent from these additional project components

.AECOM

July 2011 Addendum to the PHPP Biological Assessment

, Los Angeles County, California Page 7 

### Addendum to the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project Biological As s es s ment

–

Figure 1 : Proposed Transmission Line Alternative Route 4 (CEC 2010)AECOM

July 2011 Addendum to the PHPP Biological Assessment

, Los Angeles County, California Page 8 

### Addendum to the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project Biological As s es s ment

–

Figure 2 .a : Potential Road Segments for Paving (CEC 2011 c )AECOM

July 2011 Addendum to the PHPP Biological Assessment

, Los Angeles County, California Page 9 

### Addendum to the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project Biological As s es s ment

–

Figure 2.b : Potential Road Segments for Paving (CEC 2011 c )AECOM

July 2011 Addendum to the PHPP Biological Assessment

, Los Angeles County, California Page 10 

## References

AECOM

, 2009 a

. S. Head (tn: 51347). PSD Application and Draft Biological Assessment. Submitted to

EPA on 3/31/09 and to the CEC Docket Unit on 4/29/09.

AECOM, 2009b. PHPP Responses to CEC Data Request Set 2 (91

- 162) and Supplemental Response to #4 to CEC Data Request Set 1, May 1.

AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc

. , 2008. Palmdale Hybrid Power Project Biological Resources Technical Report. Prepared for ENSR Corporation (AECOM). July.

California Energy Commission (CEC), 2011 a

. Energy Commission Staff's Rebuttal Testimony

. 7 pp

and Table 1.

CEC, 2011b. PHPP Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision. June.

CEC, 2011 c . Palmdale Hybrid Power Project

– Location of Potential Roads for Paving.

CEC, 2010. PHPP Final Staff Assessment. December.

City of Palmdale

, 2008 . Application for Certification for the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project. Dated

7/30/08. Placed in the CEC/Docket Unit on 8/ 4/08.

Holland, D.C., and N.R. Sisk. 2001. Habitat use and population demographics of the arroyo toad ( Bufo

californicus) on MCB Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California 1998

- 2000. AC/S Environmental Security, Wildlife Management Branch. Contract No. M 00681

- 97

- C

- 0034.

Grif fin, P.C. and T.J. Case. 2001. Terrestrial habitat preferences of adult arroyo southwestern toads. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65(4): 633

- 644.

United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Arroyo southwestern toad ( Bufo micoscaphus

californicus ) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. vi + 119 pp.

USFWS

. 2001

. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat Listing for the Arroyo Toad. Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 26.