25 - Ivanpah GeoPaleoMinerals

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY AND MINERALS
Prepared by Patrick A. Pilling, Ph.D., P.E., G.E., D.GE.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The proposed Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) is located in a
moderately active geologic area on the west side of Ivanpah Valley, east of the Clark
Mountain Range in the eastern Mojave Desert of Southern California. The main
geologic hazards at this site include ground shaking; liquefaction; settlement due to
compressible soils, subsidence associated with shrinkage of clay soils,
hydrocompaction, or dynamic compaction; and the presence of expansive clay soils.
These potential hazards can be effectively mitigated through facility design by
incorporating recommendations contained in a design-level geotechnical report as
required by the California Building Code (2007) and Condition of Certification GEO-1.
Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5, and CIVIL-1 in the Facility Design section,
should also mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed project is currently not used for mineral production, nor is it under claim,
lease, or permit for the production of locatable, leasable, or salable minerals. Sand and
gravel resources are present at the site and could potentially be a source of salable
resources; however, such materials are present throughout the regional area such that
the ISEGS should not have a significant NEPA or CEQA impact on the availability of
such resources.
Paleontological resources have been documented within 45 miles of the project, but no
significant fossils were found during field explorations on the solar plant sites or near the
sub-station and ancillary facilities; however, pack rat middens with plant remains were
found in the carbonate bedrock outcrop west of Ivanpah 3. If encountered, potential
impacts to paleontological resources contained in these materials due to construction
activities will be mitigated through worker training and monitoring by qualified
paleontologists, as required by Conditions of Certification PAL-1 through PAL-7.
BLM and Energy Commission staff (hereafter jointly referred to as staff) believe that the
potential for significant adverse cumulative impacts to the project from geologic hazards
during its design life and to potential geologic, mineralogical, and paleontological
resources from the construction, operation, and closure of the proposed project, is not
significant with respect to CEQA or NEPA. It is staffs opinion that the ISEGS can be
designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances,
regulations, and standards (LORS), and in a manner that both protects environmental
quality and assures public safety, to the extent practical. Conditions of Certification
referred to herein serve the purpose of both the Energy Commissions Conditions of
Certification for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and BLMs
Mitigation Measures for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
INTRODUCTION
This Final Staff Assessment/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FSA/DEIS)
discusses the potential impacts of geologic hazards on the proposed ISEGS as well as
October 2009
6.15-1
GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS
geologic, mineralogical, and paleontological resources. Staffs objective is to ensure that

there will be no consequential adverse impacts to geological, mineralogical, and
paleontological resources during the project construction, operation, and closure and
that operation of the plant will not expose occupants to high-probability geologic
hazards. Brief geological, mineralogical, and paleontological overviews are provided.
The section concludes with staffs proposed monitoring and mitigation measures for
geologic hazards and geologic, mineralogical, and paleontological resources, with the
proposed conditions of certification.
LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS (LORS)

Applicable LORS are listed in the application for certification (AFC) (CH2M Hill, 2007).
The following briefly describes the current LORS for both geologic hazards and
resources and mineralogical and paleontological resources.
Geology, Paleontology and Minerals Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable Law
Federal
Federal Land
Policy and
Management Act
(FLPMA) of 1976
General Mining
Law of 1872
Materials Act of
July 31, 1947
Surface
Resources Act of
1955
Mining Claims
Rights
Restoration Act of
August 11, 1955
Classification and
Multiple Use Act
of 1964
Description
Provides for the immediate and future protection and administration
of public lands in the California desert within the framework of a
program of multiple use and sustained yield, and the maintenance
of environmental quality. This Statute requires the Secretary of the
Interior to retain and maintain public lands in a manner that will
protect the quality of Scientific, scenic, historical, ecological,
environmental, air and atmospheric, water resources and
archeological values.
Declared all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the
United States to be free and open to exploration and purchase.
This law remains the method for disposal of minerals in Federal
lands that are not specifically provided for in later mineral leasing
and sales laws.
Authorizes the sale of certain materials, including sand, stone,
gravel, and common clay from public lands, if not otherwise
expressly authorized or prohibited by law.
Defined common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, and other
materials and authorized the Government to manage and dispose
of any land and surface resources that are not incident to mining on
unpatented mining claims.
Permits the mining, development, and utilization of mineral
resources on all public lands withdrawn or reserved for power
development.
Authorized the Secretary of the Interior to classify and Manage
Bureau of Land Management land for retention or disposal, and for
multiple use, including specification of dominate uses and
preclusion of inconsistent uses in an area.
6.15-2
October 2009
Applicable Law
Mining and
Mineral Policy Act
of 1970
Description
Declared that the Federal Government policy is to encourage
private enterprise in the development of a sound and stable
domestic mineral industry, domestic mineral deposits, minerals
research, and methods for reclamation in the minerals industry.
California Desert
Defines multiple-use classes for BLM-managed lands in the CDCA,
Conservation
which includes the land area encompassing the proposed project
Area (CDCA) Plan location.
Northern and
The purpose of this amendment to the CDCA Plan was to evaluate
Eastern Mojave
land use changes necessary to protect threatened and endangered
Desert
species.
Management Plan
(NEMO)
Amendment
Antiquities Act of
The proposed ISEGS is located entirely on federal (Bureau of Land
1906 (16 United
Management) land. Although there is no specific mention of natural
States Code
or paleontological resources in the Act itself, or in the Acts uniform
[USC], 431-433
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 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.
Omnibus Bill (HR Provides for the protection and preservation of Paleontological
554) and
Resources.
Paleontological
Resources
Preservation Act,
of March 30, 2009
Title 43 Code of
Regulate the management of Public Lands.
Federal
Regulations
State
California Building The CBC (2007) includes a series of standards that are used in
Code (2007)
project investigation, design, and construction (including grading
and erosion control). The CBC has adopted provisions in the
International Building Code (IBC).
Alquist-Priolo
Mitigates against surface fault rupture of known active faults
Earthquake Fault beneath occupied structures. Requires disclosure to potential
Zoning Act, Public buyers of existing real estate and a 50-foot setback for new
Resources Code
occupied buildings. The site is not located within a designated
(PRC), Section
Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone.
26212630
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
26902699
October 2009
6.15-3
Applicable Law
PRC, Chapter 1.7,
Sections 5097.5,
5097.9 and 30244
Warren-Alquist
Act, PRC,
Sections 25527
and 25550.5(i)
California
Environmental
Quality Act
(CEQA), PRC
Sections 15000 et
seq., Appendix G
Society for
Vertebrate
Paleontology
(SVP), 1995
California Surface
Mining and
Reclamation Act
(SMARA)
Local
San Bernardino
County General
Plan
San Bernardino
County 2007
Development
Code, Chapter
82.20
California Surface
Mining and
Reclamation Act
(SMARA)
Description
Regulates removal of paleontological resources from state lands,
defines unauthorized removal of fossil resources as a
misdemeanor, and requires mitigation of disturbed sites.
The Warren-Alquist Act requires the Energy Commission to give
the greatest consideration to the need for protecting areas of critical
environmental concern, including, but not limited to, unique and
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 for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP),
indicated below.
Mandates that public and private entities identify the potential
impacts on the environment during proposed activities. Appendix G
outlines the requirements for compliance with CEQA and provides
a definition of significant impacts on a fossil site.
The Measures for Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts

to Non-Renewable Paleontological Resources: Standard
Procedures is a set of procedures and standards for assessing
and mitigating impacts to vertebrate paleontological resources. The
measures were adopted in October 1995 by the SVP, a national
organization of professional scientists.
Requires local governments with California to regulate mining
operations, and to develop planning policies that balance mineral
production with maintenance of environmental quality.
Mandates compliance with a number of development standards,

including safety requirements. The county also incorporates
standards and provisions established by the CBC (2007).
Defines criteria for site evaluation for paleontological and cultural
resources in the county, including preliminary field surveys,
monitoring during construction, and specimen recovery; also
defines qualifications for professional paleontologists.
San Bernardino County is the lead agency for SMARA within the
County, and issues permits and regulates salable mineral
operations.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed ISEGS will be constructed in three phases on a total of approximately
4,072.5 acres (6.4 square miles) located approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the
California/Nevada border and Primm, Nevada, and 1 to 3.5 miles west of Interstate
Highway 15 in San Bernardino County, California. The proposed project is located
6.15-4
October 2009
entirely on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and is
roughly 1.6 miles west of Ivanpah Lake, a predominantly dry playa lakebed. The power
plants will be capable of generating a total 400 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the
three separate electrical generating sites. Ivanpah 1, 2 and 3 will occupy the southern,
central and northern portions of the overall site, respectively. Ivanpah 1 and 2 will
consist of one heliostat (mirror) array that will focus sunlight onto one solar power tower
receiver, and Ivanpah 3 will consist of five heliostat arrays focusing sunlight onto one
solar power tower in the center of each of the five arrays. Steam produced by solar
boilers will be fed to a single Rankine-cycle reheat steam turbine adjacent to each
power tower. A natural gas-fired boiler will used for start-up and during periods of
temporary cloud cover, but use will not exceed 4 hours on any given day.
A new 115/220-kilovolt (kV) substation will be constructed between Ivanpah 1 and 2 by
Southern California Edison (SCE) adjacent to existing transmission lines. New 115 kV
transmission lines will connect each power plant to the SCE grid at the new Ivanpah
Substation. Auxiliary components include air-cooled condensers, water storage tanks,
deaerators, back-up generators, and switchyards. Ancillary facilities include two water
wells, a water treatment system, a septic system for disposal of sanitary wastewater,
and an administration/maintenance/control building. A total of approximately 6 miles of
4- to 6-inch diameter natural-gas pipeline, most of which will be installed within the
project boundaries, will connect to an existing Kern River Gas Transmission line located
approximately 0.5 mile north of Phase 3. A total of approximately 8 miles of optic cable
line will be installed both overhead on the existing Nipton 33-kV or 12-kV distribution
line poles and through new underground conduits in two segments: between the
Ivanpah substation and the Mountain Pass substation and from Mountain Pass
substation to a designated local telecommunication carrier interface point approximately
1.5 miles away.
REGIONAL GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The ISEGS site is located at the east end of the Mojave Desert in Southern California.
The region is part of the Mojave Desert geomorphic province (Norris and Webb, 1990),
and the solar plant site is in the northeast corner near the boundary with the Basin and
Range geomorphic province. Mountain ranges in the Mojave Desert are composed of
complexly faulted and folded crystalline, metamorphic, volcanic, and carbonate
basement rocks that range in age from pre-Cambrian to Mesozoic. Volcanic and
sedimentary rocks deposited in the Cenozoic are common as well.
Younger faulting in the eastern half of the Mojave Desert geomorphic province is
characterized by generally north- to northwest-trending normal faults associated with
regional extension in the Great Basin. Detachment faults, which are large-scale normal
listric faults that flatten at depth, are common in the eastern Mojave Desert of California
and Southern Nevada. Thick, nearly flat-lying breccia zones that juxtapose rocks on a
regional scale have been identified as the deep portions of these detachment faults, and
attest to the depth of erosion in the region. Localized right-lateral strike-slip movement
associated with the normal faulting is common in the eastern Mojave Desert.
Extensional tectonics is predominant in the Great Basin geomorphic province to the
north, although some northwest-striking right-lateral strike-slip faulting, which may or
may not be associated with normal faulting, is present. Rapid subsidence has occurred
October 2009
6.15-5
in pull-apart basins, such as the Death Valley depression, in response to strike-slip

faulting (Norris and Webb, 1990; Wright and others, 1999). Strike-slip tectonics may
also be partially responsible for the development of Shadow Valley, located southwest
of the Clark Mountain Range, during the Miocene (Prave and McMackin, 1999).
Geology in the Clark Mountain Range, located west of the ISEGS site, is characteristic
of both the Mojave Desert and Great Basin geomorphic provinces. A major thrust fault,
the Keystone Thrust, which was active in the late Jurassic to early Cretaceous, has
juxtaposed Paleozoic marine carbonate sediments over rocks typical of a continental
setting (USGS 2006). The carbonates were deposited in a miogeoclinal environment,
which, along with the Mesozoic age (Cordilleran orogeny) thrust fault relationship, is
characteristic of the Basin and Range geomorphic province (USGS 2006; Norris and
Webb, 1990). The southernmost occurrence of these miogeoclinal basin fill sediments
that is in thrust fault contact over continental rocks occurs in the Clark Mountain Range.
Mesozoic granitic, metamorphic, volcanic and sedimentary rocks in the Mojave Desert
to the southwest are more typical of a magmatic arc tectonic setting.
The Clark Mountain Range, which reaches an elevation of 7,930 feet, is bounded on the
west side by the Halloran Hills Detachment Fault (Fowler and Calzia, 1999). The core of
the range has remained unaffected by regional extension. The Kingston Range to the
west and the McCullogh Mountains to the east, however, have been affected by
extension and detachment faulting that has been dated as Miocene age between 16.5
and 11.0 million years (Ma) (USGS 2006). The Clark Mountain Range appears to be a
high-standing, partially detachment fault-bounded, undeformed zone that remained after
major east- and west-directed detachment faulting occurred. The adjacent Ivanpah
Valley, with a lakebed elevation of 2,602 feet could be primarily a product of the same
relatively recent regional extension and normal listric faulting. Speculation that Shadow
Valley, located on the opposite side of the Clark Mountain Range from Ivanpah Valley,
is a Miocene basin that developed in partial response to strike-slip faulting (Prave and
McMackin, 1999) complicates the picture. The Pahrump Valley Fault Zone and the
Stateline Fault, which are interpreted to have a strike-slip sense of motion, border the
east side of Ivanpah Valley. Strike-slip faulting, therefore, could be partly responsible for
the formation of Ivanpah Valley, although extensional tectonics remains the primary
factor.
The Cima Volcanic Field is located southwest of the ISEGS site beyond the Clark
Mountain Range. The nearest cinder cone is approximately 15.5 miles away. Basaltic
eruptions within the volcanic field have occurred about 330 to 480 years before present
(CDMG 1994).
GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT SITE

The power plant site is located on a broad alluvial bajada deposited on the eastern flank
of the Clark Mountain Range. The site is situated on the west side of Ivanpah Valley,
which extends northward into Las Vegas Valley. Clasts of alluvial and fluvial origin are
predominantly composed of pre-Cambrian to Mesozoic granitic, metamorphic and
carbonate rocks derived from sources located roughly 1 to 2.5 miles to the west and
north (CDMG 1961; CDMG 1967; USGS 2006). The Quaternary sediments overlie
rocks of similar age and composition to the source rocks in the Clark Mountain Range.
6.15-6
October 2009
Outcrops of carbonate and metamorphic rocks to the west of Ivanpah 3 and northeast of
Ivanpah 2, respectively, indicate that alluvial fan thickness is relatively thin in the area.
However, boreholes in Ivanpah 2, which were advanced to depths up to 80 feet, did not
encounter bedrock (Terracon 2007). Subsurface information is not available in the
immediate vicinity of Ivanpah 1 and 3.
The Quaternary alluvium mapped across all power plants of the proposed solar plant
can be grouped into two major categories based on composition of the sand and gravel
clasts. Sediments composed of fine sand to boulders derived from multiple sources,
including granitic, metamorphic and carbonate rocks, are present at the surface in the
northern half of Ivanpah 1 and the northwest half of Ivanpah 3 (USGS 2006). All other
areas are mapped as alluvium that contains coarse sand to fine gravel of predominantly
granitic composition (grus). Young alluvium of both types is late Pleistocene to
Holocene in age and characterized by poorly cemented and consolidated sediments
with poorly developed soil horizons and desert pavement. Older young alluvium (latest
Pleistocene to early Holocene) is slightly more weathered than young alluvium and
contains localized weak soil and desert varnish development. Intermediate alluvial fan
deposits occur only in the northwest corner of Ivanpah 3, and are middle to late
Pleistocene in age. The sediments are composed of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and
boulders, and are moderately to strongly weathered with a dark brown surface clayey
horizon. Desert pavement is moderately to well developed, and desert varnish is
moderate to strong (USGS 2006).
Two exploratory borings were drilled within the limits of Ivanpah 2 to depths of 80 feet
(Terracon 2007). Medium dense to very dense granular soils, including silty sand with
gravel and silty gravel with sand, were the predominant materials encountered. Clayey
sand occurred only locally, in boring B-1 (7 to 15 feet) and boring B-2 (3 to 4 feet). All
soils are typical alluvial fan sediments. No fine-grained or clay soils typical of deposition
in a lacustrine environment were observed. The lowest blowcount recorded was 21
blows/foot, and all but four blowcounts were above 30 blows/foot, indicative of generally
dense granular soils. Sieve analyses yielded 8.4 to 16.4 percent non-plastic fines and
3.8 to 20.3 percent gravel in silty sands. Groundwater was not encountered in either
boring.
Two small bedrock hills are located adjacent to Ivanpah 2 and 3. All literature sources
agree that the small ridge of carbonate rocks to the west of Ivanpah 3 is Paleozoic in
age, and the hills composed of metamorphic rocks to the northeast of Ivanpah 2 are
early pre-Cambrian to Cambrian in age (CDMG 1961; CDMG 1967; CH2M Hill, 2007).
Jennings (CDMG 1961) maps the carbonate rocks as undivided marine limestone and
dolomite of either the Riggs Formation, which occurs only in the Silurian Hills to the
northwest beyond the Clark Mountain Range, or the early Cambrian to Devonian
Goodsprings Dolomite. Exposures of the Goodsprings Dolomite, which is described as
a dark gray, fine-grained, thick-bedded and locally mottled dolomite (CDMG 1961;
CDMG 1967), are abundant in the Clark Mountain Range several miles north of the
project site (CDMG 1967). The unit generally lacks fossils, except for echinoderm
plates. The Geologic Hazards section of the AFC (CH2M Hill, 2007) also refers to the
carbonate bedrock adjacent to Ivanpah 3 as Goodsprings Dolomite. However, the
Paleontological Resources section interprets the rocks to be part of the Bonanza King
Formation, which is similarly fine-grained, thick-bedded and devoid of fossils, based on
October 2009
6.15-7
field examination of the outcrops (CH2M Hill, 2007). The Cambrian Bonanza King
Formation does occupy the same relative stratigraphic position as the Goodsprings
Dolomite (CDMG 1967; Miller and Walker, 2002).
McCleod (2007) speculates that the carbonate bedrock belongs to the Mississippian
age Monte Cristo Limestone or Pennsylvanian age Bird Spring Formation. Both units
are mapped in the Clark Mountain Range to the north (CDMG 1961; CDMG 1967). The
basal portions of the Bird Spring Formation and certain members of the Monte Cristo
Limestone contain abundant marine fossils. The lack of fossils in the outcrop near the
project site makes positive determination of the age and formation of the rocks difficult.
The east half of the Clark Mountain Range is mapped as much older pegmatite dikes
and gneisses of granitic composition that could be Archean in age (CDMG 1961; CDMG
1967). The hills northeast of Ivanpah 2 are composed of gray quartzites and other
metamorphic rocks that are undifferentiated in most literature sources. The rocks are
tentatively assigned to the lower Cambrian Zabriskie Quartzite in the Paleontological
Resources section of the AFC (CH2M Hill, 2007) based on field observations. Although
the unit is not mapped in the Clark Mountain Range in the vicinity of the project, the
Tapeats Sandstone is a red quartzite of Cambrian age mapped north of the nearby
Mesquite Pass (CDMG 1967). The Tapeats Sandstone occupies the same stratigraphic
position as the Zabriskie Quartzite (CDMG 1967; Miller and Walker, 2002).
REGIONAL TECTONTIC SETTING
Several active and potentially active faults related to regional strike-slip faulting to the
west and north, as well as to extensional tectonics in the Great Basin and eastern
Mojave Desert, are present within 100 miles of the ISEGS project area. EQFAULT
Version 3.00, a computer program for the deterministic estimation of peak site
acceleration using three-dimensional articulated planar elements (faults), was used to
model seismogenic sources (Blake, 2006a). The site latitude and longitude inputs were
35.5588 degrees and -115.4672 degrees, respectively, which is centrally located in
Ivanpah 2. The search radius was 100 miles. The attenuation relationship used was that
recommended by Boore, et al. (1997) for Site Class D. The various faults are listed in
Geology, Paleontology and Minerals Table 2, along with the distance from the project
site and maximum earthquake magnitude. The peak acceleration and estimated
intensity the site would experience during a maximum magnitude earthquake on each
fault is also given. The fault locations can be found on the Fault Activity Map of
California (CDMG 1994).
6.15-8
October 2009

Active Faults in the Project Area
Estimated Maximum Earthquake Event
Fault Name, Zone or
System
Death Valley (South)

Garlock (East)
Owl Lake
Pisgah-Bullion Mountain
Mesquite Lake
Death Valley (Graben)
Approximate
Distance
(mi [km])
Maximum
Earthquake
Magnitude (Mw)
Peak Site
Surface
Acceleration (g)
51.3 (82.5)
51.3 (82.6)
67.0 (107.9)
7.1
7.5
6.5
0.080
0.098
0.047
Estimated Site
Intensity
(Modified
Mercali Scale)
VII
VII
VI
76.8 (123.6)
7.3
0.065
VI
79.6 (128.1)
7.1
0.069
VI
Estimated Maximum Earthquake Event

Fault Name, Zone or
System
Panamint Valley
Calico Hidalgo
Landers
Emerson South Copper
Mountain
Gravel Hills Harper Lake
Blackwater
Johnson Valley (Northern)
Tank Canyon
Lenwood-Lockhart-Old
Woman Springs
Approximate
Distance
(mi [km])
Maximum
Earthquake
Magnitude (Mw)
Peak Site
Surface
Acceleration (g)
80.9 (130.2)
84.1 (135.4)
92.3 (148.6)
7.4
7.3
7.3
0.065
0.060
0.056
Estimated Site
Intensity
(Modified
Mercali Scale)
VI
VI
VI
93.3 (150.1)
7.0
0.047
VI
94.4 (151.9)
94.6 (152.3)
97.9 (157.6)
98.7 (158.9)
7.1
7.1
6.7
6.4
0.050
0.049
0.039
0.040
VI
VI
V
V
99.2 (159.6)
7.5
0.059
VI
Geology, Paleontology and Minerals Table 2 presents only the active faults with
Holocene age (less than 10,000 years) activity. One northwest-striking fault, the
Stateline Fault, has had movement in the early to middle Pleistocene (700,000 to
1,600,000 years) (CDMG 1994). The fault is located approximately 4.5 miles to the
northeast, and closely follows the California-Nevada border. The Stateline Fault is the
southern segment of the Pahrump Valley Fault Zone, which has been interpreted to be
a right-lateral strike-slip structure with some vertical movement (USGS 2006). The fault
borders the east side of Ivanpah Valley, and crosses the valley north of the solar plant
site. No other fault with Pleistocene activity is present within 35 miles of the proposed
solar plant. Numerous older bedrock faults are mapped in all mountain ranges, including
the Clark Mountain Range, in the eastern Mojave Desert, but are not considered to be
active. The Ivanpah Fault, which is shown by the CDMG (1961 and 1994) to be
concealed beneath Quaternary sediments of Ivanpah Valley, is located roughly 4,500 to
5,500 feet southwest of the site. The fault separates predominantly pre-cambrian
granitic and metaporphic rocks in the western portion of the Clark Mountain Range from
Paleozoic carbonates in the eastern half (CDMG 1961; CDMG 1967). Several bedrock
faults have also mapped on the small metamorphic rock outcrop just northeast of
Ivanpah 2 (CDMG 1961).
As discussed in Section 14 Soil and Water, groundwater depth on the ISEGS site is not
precisely known. The only local information available indicates that groundwater does
October 2009
6.15-9
not occur within 80 feet of the existing ground surface at two boring sites within the
limits of Ivanpah 2 (Terracon 2007). It is recommended that the areas of the project that
lack subsurface information be investigated to establish depths to groundwater and
bedrock, as well as other geologic conditions, per CBC (2007) requirements and
proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1. Data from wells within Ivanpah Valley, which
was obtained from the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR 2004), show
high historic groundwater levels at 367, 90, 24 and 85 feet in the south central, central,
western margin and north central parts of the basin, respectively. Levels have fluctuated
between 6 and 8.5 feet since about 1916-1917.
Local subsidence in the form of sinkholes has been observed at the site and along the
northern edge of Ivanpah Dry Lake. While its potential cause can sometimes be
attributed to groundwater withdrawal as well as other causes, in this case, the cause is
believed to be from dehydration of clays between the soil surface and the water table
that can result in a major loss of volume, and thus the collapse of overlying soils
(Broadbent 2009). The potential for such shrinkage to affect structural components will
need to be mitigated through facility design.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION

This section considers two types of impacts. The first is geologic hazards, which could
impact the proper functioning of the proposed facility and create life/safety concerns.
The second is the potential impacts the proposed facility could have on existing
geologic, mineralogical, and paleontological resources in the area.
METHOD AND THRESHOLD FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE

Federal agencies are required to review major federal actions such as the ISEGS
project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This document has been
prepared in consultation and coordination with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
to also address federal environmental issues. The BLM and CEC have conducted a
joint environmental review of the project in a single NEPA/California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) process. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(FLPMA) establishes the agencys multiple-use mandate to serve present and future
generations.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, Appendix G, provide a
checklist of questions that lead agencies typically address.
y
Section (V) (c) includes guidelines that determine if a project will either directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or a unique geological
feature.
Sections (VI) (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) focus on whether or not the project would
expose persons or structures to geologic hazards.
Sections (X) (a) and (b) concern the projects effects on mineral resources.
The California Building Standards Code (CBSC) and CBC (2007) provide geotechnical
and geological investigation and design guidelines, which engineers must follow when
designing a facility. As a result, the criteria used to assess the significance of a geologic
6.15-10
October 2009
hazard include evaluating each hazards potential impact on the design and
construction of the proposed facility. Geologic hazards include faulting and seismicity,
liquefaction, dynamic compaction, hydrocompaction, subsidence, expansive soils,
landslides, tsunamis, and seiches.
Staff has reviewed geologic and mineral resource maps for the surrounding area, as
well as site-specific information provided by the applicant, to determine if geologic and
mineral resources exist in the area. Staff also reviewed the operating procedures of the
proposed facility, in particular groundwater extraction and mass grading, to determine if
those operations could adversely affect geologic and mineralogical resources.
To evaluate whether the proposed project and alternatives would generate a potentially
significant impact as defined by CEQA on mineral resources, the staff evaluated them
against checklist questions posed in the 2006 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G,
Environmental Checklist established for Mineral Resources. These questions are:
A. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and residents of the state?
B. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
Under NEPA, the impact of the proposed project and alternatives on mineral resources
would be considered significant if they would directly or indirectly interfere with active
mining claims or operations, or would result in reducing or eliminating the availability of
important mineral resources. The staffs evaluation of the significance of the impact of
the proposed project on mineral resources includes an assessment of the context and
intensity of the impacts, as defined in the NEPA implementing regulations 40 CFR Part
1508.27.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 United States Code [USC]) requires that objects of
antiquity be taken into consideration for federal projects and the California
Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G, also requires the consideration of
paleontological resources. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009
requires the Secretaries of the United States Department of the Interior and Agriculture
to manage and protect paleontological resources on Federal land using scientific
principles and expertise. The potential for discovery of paleontological resources or the
impact of surface disturbing activities to such resources is assessed using the Potential
Fossil Yield Classification (PYFC) system. This system includes three conditions
(Condition 1 [areas known to contain vertebrate fossils]; Condition 2 [areas with
exposures of geological units or settings that have high potential to contain vertebrate
fossils]; and Condition 3 [areas that are very unlikely to produce vertebrate fossils]). The
PYFC class ranges from Class 5 (very high) for Condition 1 to Class 1 (very low) for
Condition 3.
The proposed conditions of certification allow BLMs Authorized Officer, the Energy
Commissions compliance project manager (CPM) and the applicant to adopt a
October 2009
6.15-11
compliance monitoring scheme ensuring compliance with LORS applicable to geologic

hazards and the protection of geologic, mineralogical, and paleontological resources.
Based on the information below, it is staffs opinion that the potential for significant
adverse impacts to the project from geologic hazards, and to potential geologic,
mineralogical, and paleontological resources from the proposed project, is low.
DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Proposed Project Geologic Hazards
The main geologic hazards at this site include ground shaking; liquefaction; settlement
due to compressible soils, subsidence associated with shrinkage of clay soils,
hydrocompaction, or dynamic compaction; and the possible presence of expansive clay
soils. The potential hazards can be effectively mitigated through facility design as
required by the California Building Code (2007) and proposed Condition of Certification
GEO-1. Proposed Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5, and CIVIL-1 in the
Facility Design section are also intended to mitigate these impacts to a less than
significant level.
The AFC (CH2M Hill, 2007) provides documentation of potential geologic hazards at the
ISEGS plant site, although no site-specific subsurface information was available for
Ivanpah 1 and 3 at the time the AFC was submitted. Review of the AFC, coupled with
staffs independent research, indicates that the possibility of geologic hazards affecting
the operation of the plant site during its practical design life is low. However, geologic
hazards, such as strong ground shaking during seismic events; liquefaction; settlement
due to compressible soils, subsidence associated with shrinkage of clay soils,
hydrocompaction, or dynamic compaction; and expansive clay soils must be addressed
in a project geotechnical report per CBC (2007) requirements and proposed Condition
of Certification GEO-1.
Staffs independent research included the review of available geologic maps, reports,
and related data of the ISEGS plant site. Geological information was available from the
California Geological Survey (CGS), (CDMG), and other governmental organizations.
Faulting and Seismicity
Staff reviewed the CDMG publication Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent
Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions (1994) and Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone mapping and reports (CDMG 2003; CGS 2002; and Hart and
Bryant, 1999). No active faults are shown on published maps as crossing the boundary
of new construction on the proposed ISEGS site or in the vicinity of the proposed gas
pipeline. The closest mapped active faults to the plant site are the Death Valley Fault
Zone and Garlock Fault located approximately 51 miles to the west. Movement on the
north-northwest-striking Death Valley Fault is normal, related to extensional tectonics in
the Great Basin, coupled with right-lateral strike-slip, related to San Andreas-style
transform faulting. The Garlock Fault is a major east-west-striking, left-lateral strike-slip
fault, also associated with regional transform faulting to the west. One northwest-striking
fault, the Stateline Fault, has had movement in the early to middle Pleistocene (700,000
6.15-12
October 2009
to 1,600,000 years) (CDMG 1994). The fault is located approximately 4.5 miles to the
northeast, and closely follows the California-Nevada border.
Geology, Paleontology and Minerals Table 2, page 9, lists all Holocene age faults
within 100 miles of the solar plant site. The majority, including the Pisgah-Bullion
Mountain-Mesquite Lake, Calico-Hidalgo, Landers, Emerson-Copper Mountain, Gravel
Hills-Harper Lake, Blackwater, Johnson Valley, and Lenwood-Lockhart-Old Woman
Springs Faults, are right-lateral strike-slip faults similar in style and orientation to the
San Andreas Fault. These structures are located in the western Mojave Desert. The
Panamint Valley Fault is located east of the Death Valley Fault Zone, and sense-ofmovement and orientation are similar. The Owl Lake Fault, which strikes northeast, and
the Tank Canyon Fault, which is a north-striking reverse fault, appear to be associated
with the regional left-lateral Garlock Fault.
The Garlock Fault is the only structure designated as a Type A fault (CDMG 1994;
ICBO 1998). All others listed in Table 2 are Type B. Type A faults have slip-rates of >5
mm/yr and are capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater. Type B
faults have slip-rates of 2 to 5 mm/yr and are capable of producing an earthquake of
magnitude 6.5 to 7.0.
The Alquist-Priolo Act of 1973 and subsequent California state law (California Code of
Regulations, 2001) require that all occupied structures be set back 50 feet or more from
the surface trace of an active fault. Since no active faults have been documented within
the ISEGS power plant site, setbacks for occupied structures will not be required.
Estimates of potential seismic ground motion generated using the Seismic Hazard
Curves, Response Parameters and Design Parameters software found at the United
States Geological Survey website (http://eartquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design)
indicate that the peak bedrock ground acceleration is expected to be 0.15g at the site.
The resulting deterministic peak surface accelerations on the site for each fault are
summarized in Geology, Paleontology and Minerals Table 3.
October 2009
6.15-13

Estimated Deterministic Peak Surface Accelerations
Date
Depth
(km)
Earthquake
Magnitude
Peak
Site
Surface
Acc. (g)
Site
Modified
Mercali
Scale
Intensity
Approx.
Distance (mi
[km])
117.000
11/04/1908
0.0
6.5
0.045
VI
91.1 (146.6)
36.000
117.000
11/10/1916
0.0
5.5
0.027
91.1 (146.6)
36.705
116.293
06/29/1992
8.0
5.4
0.025
91.6 (147.3)
34.516
116.495
06/01/1975
4.5
5.2
0.023
IV
92.5 (148.9)
34.250
116.167
03/20/1945
0.0
5.0
0.019
IV
98.7 (158.8)
35.967
114.817
05/04/1939
0.0
5.0
0.035
46.1 (74.1)
34.711
116.027
09/26/1965
8.3
5.0
0.026
66.5 (107.1)
34.860
34.860
116.390
116.410
10/21/1999
10/22/1999
4.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.025
0.025
V
V
71.0 (114.2)
71.8 (115.6)
34.983
116.550
04/10/1947
0.0
6.2
0.046
VI
72.8 (117.2)
34.950
116.533
04/10/1947
0.0
5.0
0.024
73.6 (118.0)
34.967
116.550
04/10/1947
0.0
5.1
0.026
73.5 (118.2)
34.967
116.550
04/11/1947
0.0
5.0
0.024
73.5 (118.2)
34.800
116.410
10/21/1999
1.0
5.0
0.024
74.7 (120.2)
34.680
116.280
10/16/1999
8.0
5.8
0.036
76.1 (122.4)
Latitude
North
Longitude
West
Date
Depth
(km)
Earthquake
Magnitude
Peak
Site
Surface
Acc. (g)
Site
Modified
Mercali
Scale
Intensity
Approx.
Distance (mi
[km])
34.533
115.983
07/18/1946
0.0
5.6
0.032
76.6 (123.3)
34.830
116.520
09/26/1929
0.0
5.1
0.024
77.8 (125.3)
34.594
116.271
10/16/1999
0.0
7.1
0.068
VI
80.6 (129.7)
34.583
116.319
07/05/1992
0.0
5.4
0.027
82.8 (133.2)
34.712
116.503
09/25/1965
10.6
5.2
0.025
82.7 (133.1)
34.970
34.333
116.819
115.800
03/18/1997
12/22/1943
1.0
0.0
5.1
5.5
0.023
0.028
IV
V
86.4 (139.0)
86.7 (139.5)
34.442
116.248
10/16/1999
1.0
5.7
0.030
88.9 (143.0)
Latitude
North
Longitude
West
36.000
Location of
Epicenter
Southwest of
Death Valley, CA
South of Death
Valley, CA
Lathrop Wells, NV
South of Hector,
CA
East of Landers,
CA
Boulder City, NV
S. Bristol Mtns.,
CA
Hector, CA
Hector, CA
East of Barstow,
CA
East of Barstow,
CA
East of Barstow,
CA
East of Barstow,
CA
Hector, CA
Southeast of
Hector Mine, CA
Location of
Epicenter
N. Bullion Mtns.,
CA
Hector, CA
Southeast of
Hector Mine, CA
Southeast of
Hector, CA
South of Hector,
CA
Calico Mtns., CA
Bullion Mtns., CA
Southeast of
Hector Mine, CA
EQSEARCH Version 3.00 software was used to search an abbreviated and modified
version of the published CGS earthquake catalog for California in order to obtain the
information presented in Geology, Paleontology and Minerals Table 3 (Blake,
2006a). The site latitude and longitude inputs were 35.5588 degrees and -115.4672
degrees, respectively, which is centrally located in Ivanpah 2. The range of historic
earthquake magnitudes selected was 5.0 to 9.0, and the search radius was 100 miles.
The location of each seismic event was obtained from the USGS 7.5 Minute
Topographic Map Series and the California Historical Earthquake Online Database
(http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/quakes/historical/).
6.15-14
October 2009
Twenty-three historic earthquakes of Magnitude 5.0 (M5.0) or greater have occurred on

active faults between 51 and 100 miles of the site (CGS 2007). Only three of these, with
epicenters located near the Hector Mine (M7.1), southwest of Death Valley (M6.5) and
east of Barstow (M6.2), were of Magnitude 6.0 or greater. Nearly all of the faults are
predominantly associated with strike-slip faulting. The earthquakes in the Death Valley
region resulted from a combination of extensional and strike-slip faulting. The
earthquake at Lathrop Wells, Nevada occurred in the vicinity of an east-west-striking
left-lateral strike-slip fault within the poorly understood Southern Nevada Seismic Zone
that extends eastward across Nevada from the Death Valley area (NBMG1998).
The appropriate soil profile for Ivanpah 2 is Type D based on information contained in
the project geotechnical report (Terracon 2007). Depth to bedrock is expected to vary
across the site, so the soil profile is also assumed to be Type D for Ivanpah 1 and 3. A
design-level geotechnical report, as required by GEO-1, is needed to confirm the soil
profile and provide appropriate seismic design parameters.
The estimated peak horizontal bedrock acceleration for the power plant is 0.084 times
the acceleration of gravity (0.084g) based on a 10 percent probability of exceedence in
50 years, while the estimated peak horizontal bedrock acceleration is 0.152 times the
acceleration of gravity (0.152g) based on a 2 percent probability of exceedence in 50
years (CBC 2007).
The potential of surface rupture on a fault at the energy facility footprint is considered to
be very low, since no faults are known to have ruptured the ground surface of the
proposed energy facility location.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a condition where in a cohesionless soil may lose shear strength
because of sudden increase in pore water pressure caused by an earthquake. Medium
dense to very dense sandy and gravelly soils encountered in borings in Ivanpah 2,
coupled with a groundwater table that is below 80 feet, would indicate no potential for
liquefaction; however, no subsurface information was presented in the AFC for Ivanpah
1 and 3 of the ISEGS site such that liquefaction potential for these areas of the project
should be addressed in a project-specific geotechnical report as required by the CBC
(2007) and proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1.
Dynamic Compaction
Dynamic compaction of soils results when relatively unconsolidated granular materials
experience vibration associated with seismic events. The vibration causes a decrease in
soil volume, as the soil grains tend to rearrange into a more dense state (an increase is
soil density). The decrease in volume can result in settlement of overlying structural
improvements. Medium dense to very dense granular soils encountered in borings in
Ivanpah 2 are not likely to be susceptible to dynamic compaction during an earthquake.
It is not possible to assess the potential for dynamic compaction in Ivanpah 1 and 3
without site-specific geotechnical exploration. The potential for and mitigation of the
effects of dynamic compaction of site soils during an earthquake should be addressed
in a project-specific geotechnical report as required by the CBC (2007) and proposed
Condition of Certification GEO-1. Common mitigation methods include deep foundations
October 2009
6.15-15
(driven piles; drilled shafts) for severe conditions, geogrid reinforced fill pads for
moderate severity and over-excavation and replacement for areas of minimal hazard.
Hydrocompaction
Hydrocompaction (also known as hydro-collapse) is generally limited to young soils that
were deposited rapidly in a saturated state, most commonly by a flash flood. The soils
dry quickly, leaving an unconsolidated, low density deposit with a high percentage of
voids. Foundations built on these types of compressible materials can settle
excessively, particularly when landscaping irrigation dissolves the weak cementation
that is preventing the immediate collapse of the soil structure. Medium dense to very
dense sands and gravels present in borings in Ivanpah 2 are not generally susceptible
to hydrocompaction. It is not possible to assess the potential for hydrocompaction in
Ivanpah 1 and 3 without site-specific geotechnical exploration. The potential for and
mitigation of the effects of hydrocompaction of site soils should be addressed in a
project-specific geotechnical report as required by the CBC (2007) and proposed
Condition of Certification GEO-1. Typical mitigation measures would include overexcavation/replacement, mat foundations or deep foundations, depending on severity
and foundation loads.
Subsidence
Consolidation settlement may occur when areas containing compressible soils are
subjected to surcharge loads. Although consolidation testing was not performed on soil
samples from borings in Ivanpah 2, the coarse-grained soils encountered are not
considered highly sensitive to surcharge loading. It is not possible to assess the
potential for consolidation settlement in Ivanpah 1 and 3 without site-specific
geotechnical exploration. The potential for and mitigation of the effects of consolidation
settlement at the site should be addressed in a project-specific geotechnical report as
required by the CBC (2007) and proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1. Mitigation
is normally accomplished by over-excavation and replacement of the surifical materials,
or by incorporating deep foundations for deeper deposits.
Regional ground subsidence is typically caused by petroleum or groundwater
withdrawal that increases the effective unit weight of the soil profile, which in turn
increases the effective stress on the deeper soils. This results in consolidation or
settlement of the soils. No known petroleum or gas fields are located within hundreds of
miles of the project site (CDC 2001) such that subsidence due to petroleum withdrawal
is not anticipated. However, regional subsidence associated with shrinkage of clay soils
may be occurring (Broadbent 2009), and possible evidence of subsidence has been
found on the playa surface to the east of the project site in the form of sinkholes and
possible degradation of a portion of the Interstate Highway 15 road base. Subsidence
associated with shrinkage of clay soils will need to be addressed in the design-level
geotechnical report required by proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1 and
mitigated through facility design.
Groundwater pumping can also contribute to regional subsidence. Staffs assessment
as noted in the Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation analysis of the Soil and Water
section also concludes that groundwater withdrawal is not causing a local lowering of
the water table, and thus would not contribute to subsidence.
6.15-16
October 2009
Expansive Soils
Soil expansion occurs when clay-rich soils with an affinity for water exist in-place at a
moisture content below their plastic limit. The addition of moisture from irrigation,
capillary tension, water line breaks, etc. causes the clay soils to collect water molecules
in their structure, which in turn causes an increase in the overall volume of the soil. This
increase in volume can correspond to movement of overlying structural improvements.
Although expansion testing was not performed on soil samples from borings in Ivanpah
2, the coarse-grained, generally non-plastic soils encountered are not considered to be
expansive. It is not possible to assess the potential for expansive soils in Ivanpah 1 and
3 without site-specific geotechnical exploration. The potential for and mitigation of the
effects of expansive soils on the site should be addressed in a project-specific
geotechnical report as required by the CBC (2007) and proposed Condition of
Certification GEO-1. Mitigation is normally accomplished by over-excavation and
replacement of the expansive soils. For deep-seated conditions, deep foundations are
commonly used. Lime-treatment (chemical modification) is often used to mitigate
expansive clays in pavement areas.
Landslides
Landslide potential at the ISEGS site is negligible since the proposed energy facility is
located on a broad, gently east-sloping alluvial fan.
Flooding
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified the ISEGS site
and gas pipeline route as lying in a Zone D, which is an area in which flood hazards are
undetermined (FEMA 1997). Flooding potential is further addressed in the Soil and
Water section.
Tsunamis and Seiches
The proposed ISEGS power plant site is not located near a large body of water that
could be inundated by a tsunami or seiche, such as a lake or open ocean. As a result,
there is no potential for a tsunami or seiche to affect the facility.
Proposed Project Mineral Resources

Staff has reviewed applicable geologic maps and reports for this area (CDC 2001;
CDMG 1961; CDMG 1967; CDMG 1987; CDMG 1990; CDMG 1998; CDMG 1999;
CH2M Hill, 2007; McCleod, 2007; Scott, 2007; Terracon 2007; and UCMP 2007). The
ISEGS site is mapped as Mineral Resource Zone 4 (CDMG 1987). MRZ-4 refers to
areas where geologic information does not rule out either the presence or absence of
industrial mineral resources. The carbonate bedrock outcrop just west of Ivanpah 3 is
designated as MRZ-3a, which is an area underlain by geologic terranes within which
undiscovered industrial mineral resources similar to known deposits in the same
producing district or region may reasonably expected to exist (hypothetical resources).
Such areas may include prospects of undetermined significance. These carbonate
rocks could be encountered at shallow depths in Ivanpah 3.
There are a variety of active mining operations in the general area near the proposed
project location, but no active operations occur within the proposed project boundaries.
October 2009
6.15-17
The closest current mining operation is the Chevron Mining, Inc. Rare Earth facility
(formerly Molycorp) located in at Mountain Pass, approximately 8 miles to the west of
the proposed project location. Other mining operations that have occurred in the local
area in the past include the Colosseum Mine, which produced gold at a location
approximately 5 miles west of the proposed project location from 1988 to 1993.
Regionally, mineral production includes gold, silver, barite, boron, hectorite, bentonite,
gypsum, tungsten, talc, zeolites, sodium, limestone, sand, gravel, stone, and turquoise.
The nearest prospects and historic workings are located approximately 8,000 feet
northwest of Ivanpah 3 and 12,500 feet southwest of Ivanpah 2 and 3 (CDMG 1987;
CDMG 1998). Base metal and limestone prospects are also located roughly 6,000 feet
northwest of the northern end of the proposed gas pipeline. A pit is located 7,500 feet
east of Ivanpah 1, and is the closest known source of borrow material (USGS 1985).
The proposed project location is located on alluvial fan materials. The general area is
potentially leasable, and there has been limited exploration for oil and gas. However,
there has been no production, and the area is considered to have low potential for
leasable minerals. The nearest oil and gas fields are located at least 75 miles west and
southwest of Barstow, California, which is roughly 100 miles to the southwest of the
project site (CDC 2001). Some dry lake beds in California are sources of brine and salt
production, but Ivanpah Dry Lake is not expected to be a potential resource for these
materials.
The presence of alluvial fan materials on the proposed project location means that the
property could potentially be accessed a source for of salable sand and gravel
resources. During construction, the applicant may need or desire to move sand and
gravel either offsite, or between the different units of the facility. Should this occur, the
applicant would be required to comply with BLM regulations in at 43 CFR Part 3600,
which regulates the production and use of sand and gravel from public lands. Use of
sand and gravel or other mineral materials within the boundaries of an authorized Rightof-way (ROW) is permitted, however, removal of these materials from an authorized
ROW would require payment to the US of the fair market value of those materials.
Adjacent to the western boundary of the proposed project location is an outcrop feature
known as Limestone Hill. Limestone Hill is the location of two active locatable minerals
claims, including a lode claim and a placer claim. These claims are identified as
Numbers CAMC234026 and CAMC237293. Underground exploration is being
conducted sporadically, however, commercial economic production is not apparent from
either claim. The extent of the underground workings is not known.
Although active mining claims exist on Limestone Hill directly adjacent to the proposed
property boundary, there are no indications that these would become active economic
commercial operations. If they become active economic operations, the existence of the
proposed facility is not expected to interfere with the ability of the claimant to access
those minerals. The only potential conflict would occur if the claimant or another person
locates a new claim for locatable minerals located underneath the proposed project,
within the project boundaries. This could potentially occur, as the proposed project
location has not been withdrawn from mineral entry. The potential for this scenario is
expected to be low. If it did occur, conflicts between the surface use of the land for solar
6.15-18
October 2009
energy production and access to the subsurface minerals would be addressed in

accordance with appropriate regulations.
The proposed project site is currently not used for mineral production, nor is it under
claim, lease, or permit for the production of locatable, leasable, or salable minerals.
Sand and gravel resources are present at the site; however, such materials are present
throughout the regional area such that the ISEGS should not have a significant impact
on the availability of such resources. In addition, the potential resource would become
available again following decommissioning of the project. In addition, only limited
exploration for oil and gas resources has been performed in the area, and no active oil
or gas operations are located in the immediate vicinity of the project. As a result, the
ISEGS project would not impact any current or reasonably foreseeable development of
geologic or mineral resources.
Proposed Project Paleontologic Resources

Staff has reviewed the paleontological resources assessment in Section 5.8 of the AFC
(CH2M Hill, 2007) and the paleontological records search attached in Appendix 5.8A
(Scott, 2007). Staff has also reviewed the paleontological literature and records search
conducted by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (McCleod, 2007), as
well as the online records database maintained by the University of California, Museum
of Paleontology (UCMP 2007). Site-specific information generated by the applicant for
the ISEGS was also reviewed. All research was conducted in accordance with accepted
assessment protocol (SVP 1995) to determine whether any known paleontological
resources exist in the general area. If present or likely to be present, conditions of
certification which outline required procedures to mitigate impacts to potential
resources, and proposed as part of the projects approval. Based on a review of this
information, no paleontological resources have been documented on the ISEGS plant
site or at the proposed lay down area.
Young to intermediate (middle Pleistocene to Holocene) age alluvial fan sediments
represent all soils that are mapped at the surface of the ISEGS site. These deposits are
considered to have a low paleontological sensitivity due to the high energy environment
of deposition and/or are too young to yield fossils of scientific significance. There is a
low potential to impact paleontological resources during grading and trenching in such
materials (McLeod, 2007; Scott, 2007). Quaternary lacustrine sediments are considered
to have a high paleontological sensitivity because vertebrate and plant fossils have
been recovered from deposits east of the project site around Ivanpah Lake and roughly
30 miles to the northwest near Tecopa, California (McLeod, 2007; Scott, 2007);
however, it is unlikely that lake bed sediments are present beneath the site within the
anticipated depths of grading and trenching such that there is a low potential to impact
paleontological resources in these materials.
The carbonate bedrock west of Ivanpah 3 is assigned a high paleontological sensitivity
rating, based on the presence of Late Quaternary packrat middens that occupy solution
cavities in the outcrops and the occurrence of time-restrictive marine fauna in late
Cambrian rocks in the Clark Mountain Range (UCMP 2007; CH2M Hill, 2007; Scott,
2007). Since shallow carbonate bedrock may be present in the western portion of
Ivanpah 3 and could be encountered during project excavation in this area, there is a
October 2009
6.15-19
high potential to impact paleontological resources in this area. The Pre-Cambrian

metamorphic rocks in the bedrock outcrops northeast of Ivanpah 2 is considered to
have negligible paleontological sensitivity.
Based on the above discussion, SVP criteria, and the confidential paleontological report
appended to the AFC, staff considers the probability that paleontological resources will
be encountered during grading and excavation in the western portion of Ivanpah 3 to be
high. Proposed Conditions of Certification PAL-1 to PAL-7 are designed to mitigate
potential impacts to paleontological resource to less than significant levels. These
conditions essentially require a worker education program in conjunction with the
monitoring of earthwork activities by a qualified professional paleontologist
(paleontological resource specialist; PRS).
The extent and distribution of lakebed sediments associated with Ivanpah Lake relative
to the solar plant sites is difficult to determine. No fine-grained or clay soils were
encountered in the two 80-foot-deep borings at Ivanpah 2. The nearest mapped surface
exposure of lacustrine sediments, which are latest Pleistocene to Holocene in age, is
roughly 1.35 miles east of Ivanpah 1 (USGS 2006). The lowest elevation on the solar
plant site is approximately 2,765 feet above MSL, which is nearly 130 feet above the
highest exposure of Quaternary lakebed sediments (approximate elevation 2,638 feet)
and 163 feet above the floor of Ivanpah Lake (elevation 2,602 feet). The Nevada
Bureau of Mines and Geology (NBMG 1979) has determined that precipitation rates
were not high enough to overcome rapid evaporation rates that persisted in the
Southern Nevada group of pluvial lakes, of which Ivanpah Lake is a part, during the
Wisconsinan pluvial period (late Pleistocene beginning 72,000 years ago).
Establishment of perennial lakes of substantial depths for consequential periods of time
was unlikely under these environmental conditions. The lack of ancient shoreline
features in Ivanpah Valley supports this conclusion (NBMG 1979). Therefore, the
probability of impacting paleontological resources in Quaternary lakebed sediments is
considered to be low since the lakebed deposits are present at approximate depths of
130 feet below the lowest existing ground surface at the site.
The Pre-Cambrian metamorphic rocks in the bedrock outcrops northeast of Ivanpah 2
are considered to have negligible paleontological sensitivity. However, the carbonate
bedrock west of Ivanpah 3 is assigned a high paleontological sensitivity rating, based on
the presence of Late Quaternary packrat middens that occupy solution cavities
observed during the site investigation conducted for the AFC (CH2M Hill, 2007). Packrat
middens are known to contain paleobotanical material as old as 40,000 years that is
well preserved in the dry Mojave Desert climate (CH2M Hill, 2007; Spaulding, 1990).
One midden contained remains of juniper or cedar twigs (Juniperus sp.), greasebush
leaves (Forsellesia nevadensis), snowberry twigs and fruit (Symphoricarpos longiflorus
sp.), and globemallow epidermis (Sphaeralcea sp.), most of which are indicative of
present-day higher elevation woodland environments. The University of California
Museum of Paleontology also possesses 8 specimens of a marine branched thrombolite
(Favosamaceria cooperi) collected from a location somewhere in the Clark Mountain
Range (UCMP 2007). The thrombolite, which is a plant species similar to stromatolites,
is restricted to the Late Cambrian Saukia Trilobite Zone (Shapiro and Awramik, 2006).
Many sources agree that the carbonates adjacent to Ivanpah 3 are probably Cambrian
in age (CDMG 1961; CH2M Hill, 2007). Although no fossils were observed in the
6.15-20
October 2009
limestone/dolomite outcrops, the potential to impact paleontological resources is still

considered to be high in excavations that might encounter shallow carbonate bedrock,
particularly on the west side of Ivanpah 3. These excavations could uncover packrat
middens buried by young alluvium or time-restricted late Cambrian thrombolites in the
carbonate rock.
Several paleontological sites are documented in Quaternary lacustrine sediments within
45 miles of the ISEGS project area. The San Bernardino County Museum collection
contains remains of tortoise (Gopherus sp.), kangaroo rat (Dipodomys sp.), wood rat
(Neotoma sp.), and other small vertebrates from a locality between 1 and 2 miles
southeast of the site on the west side of Ivanpah Lake (Scott, 2007). The site also
yielded hackberry seed (Celtus sp.) and tufa deposited in the lake. The Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles collection includes several paleontological remains from similar
lakebed sediments near Tecopa, California, approximately 45 miles to the northwest.
The fossil specimens consist of mastodon (Mammut), mammoth (Mammuthus),
rhinoceros (Rhinocerotidae), horse (Equus), [rpngjprn antelope (Antilocapridae), and
camels (Camelops and Capricamelus gettyi) (McCleod, 2007). Capricamelus gettyi is a
species of short-legged camel named from specimens found at the Tecopa lakebed
site.
Proposed Project - Construction Impacts and Mitigation

Geologic Hazards
The design-level geotechnical investigation required for the project by the CBC (2007)
and proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1 should provide standard engineering
design recommendations for mitigation of potential geologic hazards that include strong
ground shaking; liquefaction; settlement due to compressible soils, subsidence
associated with shrinkage of clay soils, hydrocompaction, or dynamic compaction; and
the presence of expansive clay soils.
Mineral Resources
Construction of the proposed project would directly remove approximately 4,072.5 acres
from potential use for sand and gravel production under BLMs salable mineral program.
In general, sand and gravel resources are widely available throughout the region. The
primary consideration in the economic viability of sand and gravel operations is the
transportation cost, which is driven by the proximity of the operation to its point of use.
There is likely to be widespread development in Ivanpah Valley that would require sand
and gravel resources, removal of the 4,072.5-acre area from potential production is not
expected to have any significant impact. The proposed project site represents a small
fraction of the total sand and gravel resource available within the valley. As a result, the
ISEGS project would not impact any current or reasonably foreseeable development of
geologic resources. However, during construction, the applicant may need or desire to
move sand and gravel either offsite, or between the different units of the facility. Should
this occur, the applicant would be required to comply with BLM regulations in at 43 CFR
Part 3600, which regulates the production and use of sand and gravel from public lands.
Use of sand and gravel or other mineral materials within the boundaries of an
October 2009
6.15-21
authorized Right-of-way (ROW) is permitted, however, removal of these materials from

an authorized ROW would require payment to the US of the fair market value of those
materials.
The proposed project would not have any direct or indirect impact on the production of
locatable or leasable minerals outside of the proposed project boundaries. Although
active mining claims exist on Limestone Hill directly adjacent to the proposed property
boundary, there are no indications that these could become economic commercial
operations. If they become economic operations, the existence of the proposed facility
is not expected to interfere with the ability of the claimant to access those minerals. The
only potential conflict would occur if the claimant or another person locates a new claim,
for locatable minerals underneath the proposed project, within the project boundaries.
This could potentially occur, as the proposed project location has not been withdrawn
from mineral entry. The potential for this scenario is expected to be low. If it did occur,
conflicts between the surface use of the land for solar energy production and access to
the subsurface minerals would be addressed in accordance with appropriate
regulations. Therefore, the ISEGS project would not impact any current or reasonably
foreseeable development of mineral resources.
Paleontological Resources
Significant paleontological resources, specifically pack rat middens, have been
documented in nearby Paleozoic carbonate bedrock that could be encountered during
construction of the Ivanpah 3 plant and linear facilities. The nearest vertebrate fossil
locality is 1 to 2 miles away and was recovered from Quaternary lacustrine sediments,
although the potential to encounter similar sediments during grading and trenching is
low. The young to intermediate age alluvium that underlies the majority of the site, as
well as Pre-Cambrian metamorphic rocks located just northeast of Ivanpah 2, are
considered to be of low to negligible sensitivity with respect to containing
paleontological resources. Construction of the proposed project will include grading,
foundation excavation, utility trenching and possibly drilled shafts. Staff considers the
probability of encountering paleontological resources to be generally high on portions of
the site, particularly the west side of Ivanpah 3, based on the soils profile, SVP
assessment criteria, and the near surface occurrence of the sensitive geologic units.
The potential for encountering fossils hosted in Quaternary lake bed sediments will
increase with the depth of cut. Excavations for ancillary facilities and new pipelines and
on-site excavations deeper than 5 feet may have a higher probability of encountering
potentially high sensitivity materials, although sensitive materials could occur nearer the
surface.
Proposed Conditions of Certification PAL-1 to PAL-7 are designed to mitigate any
paleontological resource impacts, as discussed above, to a less than significant level.
Essentially, these conditions require a worker education program in conjunction with
monitoring of earthwork activities by qualified professional paleontologists (PRS).
Earthwork is halted any time potential fossils are recognized by either the paleontologist
or the worker. When properly implemented, the conditions of certification yield a net
gain to the science of paleontology since fossils that would not otherwise have been
discovered can be collected, identified, studied, and properly curated. A paleontological
resource specialist is retained, for the project by the applicant, to produce a monitoring
6.15-22
October 2009
and mitigation plan, conduct the worker training, and provide the on the monitoring.
During the monitoring, the PRS can and often does petition the CEC for a change in the
monitoring protocol. Most commonly, this is a request for lesser monitoring after
sufficient monitoring has been performed to ascertain that there is little change of
finding fossils. In other cases, the PRS can propose increased monitoring due to
unexpected fossil discoveries or in response to repeated out-of-compliance incidents by
the earthwork contractor.
Based upon the literature and archives search, field surveys, and compliance
documentation for the ISEGS, the applicant has proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures to be followed during the construction of the ISEGS. Energy Commission
staff believes that the facility can be designed and constructed to minimize the effect of
geologic hazards at the site during project design life and that impacts to vertebrate
fossils encountered during construction of the power plant and associated linear
projects would be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Proposed Project - Operation Impacts and Mitigation

Operation of the proposed plant facilities should not have any adverse impact on
geologic, mineralogical, or paleontological resources. Potential geologic hazards,
including strong ground shaking; liquefaction; settlement due to compressible soils,
subsidence associated with shrinkage of clay soils, hydrocompaction, or dynamic
compaction, and the presence of expansive clay soils can be effectively mitigated
through facility design (See proposed Conditions of Certification GEO-1, and GEN-1,
GEN-5, and CIVIL-1 in the Facility Design section) such that these potential hazards
should not affect operation of the facility.
Proposed Project Closure and Decommissioning Impacts and

Mitigation
The decommissioning and closure of the project should not negatively affect geologic,
mineralogical, or paleontological resources since the majority of the ground disturbed
during plant decommissioning and closure would have been already disturbed, and
mitigated as required, during construction and operation of the project. Facility closure
will make land occupied by the proposed project once again available for potential
future development of geologic or mineralogical resources within the former project
borders.
No Project/No Action Alternative

In the No Project/No Action Alternative, the proposed action would not be undertaken.
The BLM land on which the project is proposed would continue to be managed within
BLMs framework of a program of multirole use and sustained yield, and the
maintenance of environmental quality [43 USC 1781 (b)] in conformance with applicable
statures, regulations, policy, and land use plan.
October 2009
6.15-23
The results of the No Project/No Action Alternative would be the following:
The Impacts of the proposed project would not occur. However, the land on which
the project is proposed would become available to other uses that are consistent
with BLMs land use plan, including another solar project.
The benefits of the proposed project in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
gas-fired generation would not occur. Both State and Federal law support the
increased use of renewable power generation.
The No Project/No Action alternative would leave the proposed project area
undisturbed and would therefore have no affect on existing geologic or
paleontological resources in the area other than to maintain their availability for
potential future development.
If this project is not approved, renewable projects would likely be developed on other
sites in the Mojave Desert or in adjacent states as developers strive to provide
renewable power that complies with utility requirements and State /Federal mandates.
For example, there are three large solar projects proposed on BLM land in Nevada
within a few miles of the Ivanpah Site. In addition, as of August 2009 there are currently
66 applications for solar projects covering 611,692 acres pending with the BLM in the
California Desert District.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

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 Regulations, Title 14, Section 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).
There is the potential for substantial future development in the Ivanpah Valley area and
throughout the southern California desert region. Analysis of cumulative impacts is
based on data provided in the following maps and tables (see the Cumulative
Scenario section of this FSA/DEIS):
Cumulative Impacts Figure 1, Regional Renewable Applications
Cumulative Impacts Figure 2, Regional Renewable Applications (Detail)
Cumulative Impacts Figure 3, Ivanpah Valley Existing and Future/Foreseeable

Projects
Cumulative Impacts Table 1, Regional Renewable Energy Projects
Cumulative Impacts Table 2, Existing Development in the Ivanpah Valley
Cumulative Impacts Table 3, Future Foreseeable Projects in the Ivanpah Valley

Area.
6.15-24
October 2009
The analysis in this section first defines the geographic area over which cumulative
impacts to geology or paleontology could occur. The cumulative impact analysis itself
describes the potential for cumulative impacts to occur as a result of implementation of
the ISEGS project along with the listed local and regional projects.
GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT
Cumulative impacts can occur if implementation of the ISEGS project could combine
with those of other local or regional projects. Cumulative impacts would occur locally if
ISEGS project impacts combined with impacts of projects located within the Ivanpah
Valley. 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.
However, with the exception of geologic subsidence, cumulative impacts related to
geology only have the potential to occur within the boundaries of the project site itself.
This is because geologic materials occur at specific locales and are unaffected by
activities not acting on them directly and any impacts of the ISEGS project would be
site-specific. Therefore the geographic extent for cumulative impacts associated with
geology is the project location itself (including all linear facilities).
The geographic extent for the analysis of local cumulative impacts associated with the
ISEGS project includes the Ivanpah Valley Basin. Regional cumulative impacts for this
analysis are impacts that would occur as a result of implementation of future solar and
wind development projects that are currently proposed on over one million acres of the
California Desert Conservation Area, as well as on BLM land in Nevada and Arizona.
Therefore, the geographic extent for the analysis of regional cumulative impacts is
defined as the desert areas of southeastern California, southern Nevada, and western
Arizona, as shown on Cumulative Impacts Figure 1 (Regional Renewable Applications).
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS LOCAL PROJECTS

Most cumulative impacts related to geology and paleontology only have the potential to
occur within boundaries of the project site itself because geologic materials occur at
specific locales and are unaffected by activities not acting on them directly. Most
geologic impacts of the ISEGS project would be site-specific and would therefore not
have the potential to combine with impacts from other projects.
Geologic Hazards
Local subsidence in the form of sinkholes has been observed at the site and along the
northern edge of Ivanpah Dry Lake. While its cause can sometimes be attributed to
groundwater withdrawal as well as other causes, in this case, the cause is believed to
be from dehydration of clays between the soil surface and the water table that can result
in a major loss of volume, and thus the collapse of overlying soils (Broadbent 2009).
Staffs assessment as noted in the Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation analysis of the
Soil and Water section also concludes that groundwater withdrawal is not causing a
local lowering of the water table, and thus would not contribute to subsidence. The
projects groundwater use would contribute only 1.8 percent to the existing and only 1.7
percent of the reasonable foreseeable cumulative pumping volume in the Ivanpah
Valley Groundwater Basin. Staff believes the projects proposed contribution to the
October 2009
6.15-25
cumulative groundwater pumping in the Ivanpah Valley Groundwater Basin is not

significant. Staff has determined that the project would not substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level. Staff has estimated that Ivanpah Valley Groundwater Basin still has a
surplus outflow to the Las Vegas Valley of approximately 1,351 to 2,666 acre-feet per
year (AFY). Therefore, staff does not believe that groundwater pumping associated with
ISEGS would contribute to subsidence in the Ivanpah Valley. When combined with
impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, ISEGS would not be
considered cumulatively considerable.
Mineral Resources
The proposed project site is currently not used for mineral production, nor is it under
claim, lease, or permit for the production of locatable, leasable, or salable minerals.
Sand and gravel resources are present at the site; however, such materials are present
throughout the region and the ISEGS should not have a significant impact on the
availability of such resources. In addition, the potential resource would become
available again following decommissioning of the project. As a result, the ISEGS project
would not impact any current or reasonably foreseeable development of geologic or
mineral resources.
Paleontological Resources
As discussed above, no paleontological resources have been documented on the
ISEGS project site or at the proposed lay down area. However, based on the geology of
the site and because paleontological resources have been discovered on sites within
two miles of the ISEGS project, the probability of encountering paleontological
resources is considered to be generally high on portions of the ISEGS site. For the
same reasons, it is likely that paleontological resources have been uncovered during
construction of past projects in the Ivanpah Valley and will likely be uncovered during
construction of at least some of the reasonably foreseeable projects presented in Table
3 of the Cumulative Scenario section. However, the ISEGS project includes conditions
of certification that would require a worker education program in conjunction with
monitoring of earthwork activities by qualified professional paleontologists, which would
require that earthwork be halted any time potential fossils are recognized by either the
paleontologist or the worker. When properly implemented, the conditions of certification
yield a net gain to the science of paleontology since fossils that would not otherwise
have been discovered can be collected, identified, studied, and properly curated. It is
reasonable to assume that the reasonably foreseeable projects presented in Table 3 of
the Cumulative Scenario section would include similar measures to identify, study, and
curate any paleontological resources discovered during construction. Therefore,
implementation of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would likely result
in a net gain to the science of paleontology and would not combine to result in
cumulatively considerable impacts to paleontological resources.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS - REGIONAL PROJECTS

Because no impacts from geologic hazards, or to mineralogical or paleontological
resources have been identified for the ISEGS project, there would be no potential for
these impacts to combine on a regional level.
6.15-26
October 2009
As discussed above, no paleontological resources have been documented on the

ISEGS project site or at the proposed lay down area. However, based on the geology of
the site and because paleontological resources have been discovered on sites within
two miles of the ISEGS project, the probability of encountering paleontological
resources is considered to be generally high on portions of the ISEGS site. Additionally,
because many other paleontological resources occur throughout the Mojave Desert, it is
likely that paleontological resources will be uncovered during construction of at least
some of the reasonably foreseeable renewable energy projects shown on Cumulative
Scenario Figure 1 and Figure 2. However, as discussed above for local cumulative
impacts, the ISEGS project includes measures such as monitoring earthwork activities
by qualified professional paleontologists, and identifying, studying, and properly curating
any paleontological resources discovered. It is reasonable to assume that the
reasonably foreseeable projects shown on Cumulative Scenario Figure 1 and Figure
2 would include similar measures to identify, study, and curate any paleontological
resources discovered during construction. Therefore, implementation of the ISEGS
project and the reasonably foreseeable renewable energy projects proposed within
southeastern California, southern Nevada, and western Arizona, would likely result in a
net gain to the science of paleontology. Therefore, impacts of the ISEGS project would
not have the potential to combine with impacts of the reasonably foreseeable renewable
energy projects proposed within southeastern California, southern Nevada, and western
Arizona to result in cumulative impacts to known paleontological resources.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT CONCLUSION

Impacts of the ISEGS project would not have the potential to combine with impacts of
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects to result in any other significant
contributions to local or regional cumulative impacts.
Impacts of the ISEGS project would not have the potential to combine with impacts of
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects to result in a significant contribution
to either local or regional cumulative impacts to mineralogical and/or paleontological
resources.
NOTEWORTHY PUBLIC BENEFITS

Excavation activities during construction of the proposed ISEGS project may uncover
important paleontological resources which, with proper collection and curation by the
project PRS, would enhance the understanding of prehistoric climate and geography of
the region for the benefit of current and future generations.
PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS ON THE PSA

Staff has not received any agency or public comments regarding geologic hazards,
mineral resources, or paleontology at this time.
CONCLUSIONS
The applicant would be able to comply with applicable LORS, provided that the
proposed conditions of certification are followed. The design and construction of the
October 2009
6.15-27
project should have no adverse impact with respect to geologic, mineralogical, and
paleontological resources, and thus would not have significant impacts with respect to
either CEQA or NEPA. Staff proposes to ensure compliance with applicable LORS
through the adoption of the proposed conditions of certification listed below.
MITIGATION MEASURES/PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF

CERTIFICATION
The proposed ISEGS is situated in an active geologic environment. Strong ground
shaking potential must be mitigated through foundation and structural design as
required by the CBC (2007). Settlement due to compressible soils, groundwater
withdrawal, hydrocompaction, or dynamic compaction, as well as potential impacts due
to expansive soils and possible liquefaction, must be mitigated in accordance with a
design-level geotechnical investigation as required by the CBC (2007), proposed
Condition of Certification GEO-1, and proposed Conditions of Certification GEN-1,
GEN-5, and CIVIL-1 under Facility Design. Paleontological resources have been
documented in the general area of the project and in sediments similar to those that are
present near the site. The potential impacts to paleontological resources due to
construction activities will be mitigated as required by proposed Conditions of
Certification PAL-1 to PAL-7.
The proposed conditions of certification allow BLMs Authorized Officer and the Energy
Commission Compliance Project Manager (CPM) and the applicant to adopt a
compliance monitoring scheme ensuring compliance with applicable LORS for geologic
hazards and geologic, mineralogical, and paleontological resources.
GEO-1
The Soils Engineering Report required by Section 1802A of the 2007 CBC
should specifically include laboratory test data, associated geotechnical
engineering analyses, and a thorough discussion of the potential for
liquefaction; settlement due to compressible soils, subsidence associated with
shrinkage of clay soils, hydrocompaction, or dynamic compaction; and the
presence of expansive clay soils. The report should also include
recommendations for ground improvement and/or foundation systems
necessary to mitigate these potential geologic hazards, if present.
The project owner shall include in the application for a grading permit a
Verification:
copy of the Soils Engineering Report which addresses the potential for liquefaction;
settlement due to compressible soils, groundwater withdrawal, hydrocompaction, or
dynamic compaction; and the possible presence of expansive clay soils, and a
summary of how the results of the analyses were incorporated into the project
foundation and grading plan design for review and comment by the Chief Building
Official (CBO). A copy of the Soils Engineering Report, application for grading permit
and any comments by the CBO are to be provided to BLMs Authorized Officer and the
CPM at least 30 days prior to grading.
PAL-1
The project owner shall provide BLMs Authorized Officer and the Compliance
Project Manager (CPM) with the resume and qualifications of its PRS for
review and approval. If the approved PRS is replaced prior to completion of
project mitigation and submittal of the Paleontological Resources Report, the
6.15-28
October 2009
project owner shall obtain BLMs Authorized Officer and 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 BLMs Authorized Officer
and the CPM.
The PRS resume shall include the names and phone numbers of references.
The resume shall also demonstrate to the satisfaction of BLMs Authorized
Officer and the CPM the appropriate education and experience to accomplish
the required paleontological resource tasks.
As determined by BLMs Authorized Officer and 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 (PRMs) 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:
(1) At least 60 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project
owner shall submit a resume and statement of availability of its designated PRS for onsite work.
(2) 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 BLMs Authorized
October 2009
6.15-29
Officer and the CPM. The letter shall be provided to BLMs Authorized Officer and the
CPM no later than one week prior to the monitors beginning on-site duties.
(3) Prior to the termination or release of a PRS, the project owner shall submit the
resume of the proposed new PRS to BLMs Authorized Officer and the CPM for review
and approval.
PAL-2
The project owner shall provide to the PRS, BLMs Authorized Officer and the
CPM, for approval, maps and drawings showing the footprint of the power
plants, 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, BLMs Authorized Officer 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 of 1 inch = 40
feet to 1 inch = 100 feet range. If the footprint of the project or its linear
facilities change, the project owner shall provide maps and drawings
reflecting those changes to the PRS, BLMs Authorized Officer and CPM.
If construction of the ISEGS project proceeds in phases, maps and drawings
may be submitted prior to the start of each power plant. A letter identifying the
proposed schedule of each project power plant shall be provided to the PRS,
BLMs Authorized Officer and CPM. Before work commences on affected
power plants, the project owner shall notify the PRS, BLMs Authorized
Officer 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:
(1) At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project
owner shall provide the maps and drawings to the PRS, BLMs Authorized Officer and
CPM.
(2) If there are changes to the footprint of the project, revised maps and drawings shall
be provided to the PRS, BLMs Authorized Officer and CPM at least 15 days prior to the
start of ground disturbance.
(3) If there are changes to the scheduling of the construction phases of each power
plant, the project owner shall submit a letter to BLMs Authorized Officer and the CPM
within 5 days of identifying the changes.
PAL-3
If after review of the plans provided pursuant to PAL-2, the PRS determines
that materials with moderate, high, or unknown paleontological sensitivity
could be impacted, the project owner shall ensure that the PRS prepares, and
the project owner submits to BLMs Authorized Officer and the CPM for
review and approval, a paleontological resources monitoring and mitigation
plan (PRMMP) to identify general and specific measures to minimize potential
6.15-30
October 2009
impacts to paleontological resources. Approval of the PRMMP by BLMs

Authorized Officer and 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 BLMs Authorized Officer and
CPM approval. This document shall be used as the basis of discussion when
on-site decisions or changes are proposed. Copies of the PRMMP shall
reside with the PRS, each monitor, the project owners on-site manager,
BLMs Authorized Officer and the CPM.
The PRMMP shall be developed in accordance with the guidelines of the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (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 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 Paleontologys standards and
requirements for the curation of paleontological resources;
October 2009
6.15-31
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
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 BLMs Authorized Officer and 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.
PAL-4
If after review of the plans provided pursuant to PAL-2, the PRS determines
that materials with moderate, high, or unknown paleontological sensitivity
could be impacted then, prior to ground disturbance and for the duration of
construction activities involving ground disturbance, the project owner and the
PRS shall prepare and conduct weekly BLM Authorized Officer- and CPMapproved training for the following workers: project managers, construction
supervisors, foremen and general workers involved with or who operate
ground-disturbing equipment or tools. Workers shall not excavate in sensitive
units prior to receiving BLM Authorized Officer- and CPM-approved worker
training. Worker training shall consist of an initial in-person PRS training
during the project kick-off, for those mentioned above. Following initial
training, a CPM-approved video or in-person training may be used for new
employees. The training program may be combined with other training
programs prepared for cultural and biological resources, hazardous materials,
or other areas of interest or concern. No ground disturbance shall occur prior
to BLMs Authorized Officer and CPM approval of the Worker Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP), unless specifically approved by the CPM.
The WEAP shall address the possibility of encountering paleontological
resources in the field, the sensitivity and importance of these resources, and
legal obligations to preserve and protect those resources.
The training shall include:
1. A discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the law;
2. Good quality photographs or physical examples of vertebrate fossils for
project sites containing units of high paleontological sensitivity;
3. Information that the PRS or PRM has the authority to halt or redirect
construction in the event of a discovery or unanticipated impact to a
paleontological resource;
4. Instruction that employees are to halt or redirect work in the vicinity of a
find and to contact their supervisor and the PRS or PRM;
5. An informational brochure that identifies reporting procedures in the event
of a discovery;
6.15-32
October 2009
6. A WEAP certification of completion form signed by each worker indicating

that he/she has received the training; and
7. A sticker that shall be placed on hard hats indicating that environmental
training has been completed.
(1) At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance, the project owner shall
Verification:
submit the proposed WEAP, including the brochure, with the set of reporting procedures
for workers to follow.
(2) At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance, the project owner shall submit the script
and final video to BLMs Authorized Officer and the CPM for approval if the project
owner is planning to use a video for interim training.
(3) If the owner requests an alternate paleontological trainer, the resume and
qualifications of the trainer shall be submitted to BLMs Authorized Officer and the CPM
for review and approval prior to installation of an alternate trainer. Alternate trainers
shall not conduct training prior to BLMs Authorized Officer and CPM authorization.
(4) 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 BLMs Authorized Officer and 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
BLMs Authorized Officer and 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 BLMs Authorized Officer and 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
October 2009
6.15-33
paleontological resource monitoring and mitigation activities with BLMs

Authorized Officer and the CPM at any time.
3. The project owner shall ensure that the PRS notifies BLMs Authorized
Officer and the CPM within 24 hours of the occurrence of any incidents of
non-compliance with any paleontological resources conditions of
certification. The PRS shall recommend corrective action to resolve the
issues or achieve compliance with the conditions of certification.
4. For any paleontological resources encountered, either the project owner
or the PRS shall notify BLMs Authorized Officer and 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 resource monitoring,
including any incidents of non-compliance or any changes to the monitoring
plan that have been approved by BLMs Authorized Officer and 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, BLMs Authorized
Officer and 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 paleontological resource materials
encountered and collected during project construction.
The project owner shall maintain in his/her compliance file copies of

Verification:
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 BLM Authorized Officer- and CPM-approved
paleontological resource report (see PAL-7). The project owner shall be responsible for
paying any curation fees charged by the museum for fossils collected and curated as a
6.15-34
October 2009
result of paleontological mitigation. A copy of the letter of transmittal submitting the

fossils to the curating institution shall be provided to BLMs Authorized Officer and the
CPM.
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.
Within 90 days after completion of ground-disturbing activities,

Verification:
including landscaping, the project owner shall submit the PRR under confidential cover
to BLMs Authorized Officer and the CPM.
October 2009
6.15-35
Certification of Completion
Worker Environmental Awareness Program
ISEGS (07-AFC-5)
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.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Employee Name
Title/Company
Signature
Cultural Trainer: _____________ Signature:__________________ Date: ___/___/____

PaleoTrainer: ______________
Signature:__________________ Date: ___/___/____
Biological Trainer: _____________Signature:___________
6.15-36
Date:___/___/
October 2009
REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 2006a, EQFAULT Version 3.00, A Computer Program for the
Deterministic Estimation of Peak Acceleration Using Three-Dimensional
California Faults as Earthquake Sources, http://thomasfblake.con/eqfault.htm.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal
Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American
Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol.
68, No. 1, pp. 128-153.
Broadbent 2009 Broadbent & Associates, Inc. Groundwater Monitoring Ten-Year
Report, July 10, 1998 to July 10, 2008, Primm Valley Golf Club PRMA Land
Development Company, Ivanpah Valley, California. Dated May 2009.
CBC California Building Code, 2007.
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, 1997, Natural Resources Division 7, California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Publication 232-97-004.
CDC 2001 California Department of Conservation, Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Fields
in California.
CDWR 2004 California Department of Water Resources, South Lahontan Hydrologic
Region, Ivanpah Valley Groundwater Basin. in Groundwater Occurrence. Bulletin
No. 118.
CDMG 1961 California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map of California,
Kingman Sheet, Scale 1:250,000.
CDMG 1967, Geology of the Eastern Part of the Clark Mountain Range, San Bernardino
County, California, Map Sheet 6.
CDMG 1987, Mineral Land Classification of the Northern Part of the Kingman 1X2
Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California, Open-File Report 85-15.
CDMG 1990, Industrial Minerals in California: Economic Importance, Present
Availability, and Future Development. Special Publication 105, reprinted from
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1958.
CDMG 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and
Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale: 1:750,000.
CDMG 1998, Gold Districts of California, Sesquicentennial Edition, California Gold
Discovery to Statehood, Bulletin 193.
CDMG 1999, Mines and Mineral Producers Active in California (19971998), Special
Publication 103.
October 2009
6.15-37
CDMG 2003, Fault Investigation Reports for Development Sites Within Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zones in Southern California, 1974-2000.
CGS 2002 California Geological Survey, Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under
the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Region 2 Southern California,
CD 2002-02.
CGS 2007, California Historical Earthquake Online Database.
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/quakes/historical/.
CH2M Hill, 2007, Application for Certification, Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating
System. Prepared for BrightSource Energy, Inc., Oakland, California, Submitted
to the California Energy Commission, August 31, 2007.
Code of Federal Regulations, 2008, Title 40, Protection of Environment, July 1, 2008.
Code of Federal Regulations, 2004, Title 43 Part 3, Public Lands: Interior, January 1.
2004.
FEMA 1997 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map,
San Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas, Flood Insurance
Rate Map No. 06071C000, Dated January 17, 1997.
Fowler, T.K. and Calzia, J.P. 1999, Kingston Range Detachment Fault, Southeastern
Death Valley Region, California: Relation to Tertiary Deposits and Reconstruction
of Initial Dip. Geological Society of America Special Paper 333, p. 245-257.
Hart, E. W. and Bryant, W. A., 1999, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps:
California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ICBO 1998 International Conference of Building Officials, Map of Known Active Fault
Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada.
Miller, J.S. and Walker, J.D. 2002, Mesozoic geologic evolution of Alvord Mountain,
central Mojave Desert, California, In Geologic Evolution of the Mohave Desert
and Southwestern Basin and Range. Geological Society of America Memoir 195.
McCleod, S.A. 2007, Unpublished paleontology resources report. Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California, 2 p.
NBMG 1979 Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Pluvial Lakes and Estimated
Pluvial Climates of Nevada. Bulletin 94.
NBMG 1998, Earthquakes in Nevada, 1852-1996. Map 111.
Norris, R. M. and R. W. Webb. 1990, Geology of California. Second Edition. John Wiley
and Sons. New York.
6.15-38
October 2009
Prave, A.R., and McMackin, M.R. 1999, Depositional framework of mid- to late-Miocene
strata, Dumont Hills and southern margin Kingston Range: Implications for the
tectonostratigraphic evolution of the southern Death Valley region, Geological
Society of America Special Paper 333, p. 259-275.
Scott, E. 2007, Paleontology literature and records review, Ivanpah Solar Power
Generating Station, Ivanpah Lake region, San Bernardino County, California. in
Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Station, Application for Certification, Appendix
5.8A. Prepared for Bright Source Energy, Oakland, California.
Shapiro, R.S. and Awramik, S.M. 2006, Favosamaceria cooperi New Group and Form:
A Widely Dispersed, Time-Restricted Thrombolite. Journal of Paleontology. Vol.
80. p. 411-422.
SVP 1995 Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, Measures for Assessment and
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Non-Renewable Paleontologic Resources:
Standard Procedures.
Spaulding, W.G. 1990, Vegetational and climatic development of the Mojave Desert:
The last glacial maximum to the present: In Packrat middens: The last 40,000
years of biotic change. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Terracon 2007 Terracon Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Report, Solar
Power Plant, Ivanpah Valley, San Bernardino County, California, Prepared for
Bright Source Energy, Oakland, California.
UCMP 2007 University of California Museum of Paleontology, University of California
Museum of Paleontology Specimens. http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/.
USGS 1985 United States Geological Survey, Ivanpah Lake Quadrangle, CaliforniaNevada, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map.
USGS 2006, Preliminary surficial geologic map of the Mesquite Lake 30 X
60quadrangle, California and Nevada, Open-File Report 2006-1035.
Wright, L.A., Greene, R.C., Cemen, I., Johnson, F.C., and Prave, A.R. 1999,
Tectonostratigraphic Development of the Miocene-Pliocene Furnace Creek Basin
and Related Features, Death Valley Region, California: Relation to Tertiary
Deposits and Reconstruction of Initial Dip, Geological Society of America Special
Paper 333, p. 87-114.
October 2009
6.15-39

25 - Ivanpah GeoPaleoMinerals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

25 - Ivanpah GeoPaleoMinerals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

25 - Ivanpah GeoPaleoMinerals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY AND MINERALS

Prepared by Patrick A. Pilling, Ph.D., P.E., G.E., D.GE.

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

geologic, mineralogical, and paleontological resources. Staffs objective is to ensure that

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS (LORS)

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

The Measures for Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts

Mandates compliance with a number of development standards,

REGIONAL GEOLOGICAL SETTING

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

in pull-apart basins, such as the Death Valley depression, in response to strike-slip

GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT SITE

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

Geology, Paleontology and Minerals Table 2

Death Valley (South)

Estimated Maximum Earthquake Event

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION

METHOD AND THRESHOLD FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

compliance monitoring scheme ensuring compliance with LORS applicable to geologic

DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

Geology, Paleontology and Minerals Table 3

Twenty-three historic earthquakes of Magnitude 5.0 (M5.0) or greater have occurred on

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

Proposed Project Mineral Resources

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

energy production and access to the subsurface minerals would be addressed in

Proposed Project Paleontologic Resources

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

high potential to impact paleontological resources in this area. The Pre-Cambrian

limestone/dolomite outcrops, the potential to impact paleontological resources is still

Proposed Project - Construction Impacts and Mitigation

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

authorized Right-of-way (ROW) is permitted, however, removal of these materials from

Proposed Project - Operation Impacts and Mitigation

Proposed Project Closure and Decommissioning Impacts and

No Project/No Action Alternative

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

The results of the No Project/No Action Alternative would be the following:

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Cumulative Impacts Figure 1, Regional Renewable Applications

Cumulative Impacts Figure 2, Regional Renewable Applications (Detail)

Cumulative Impacts Figure 3, Ivanpah Valley Existing and Future/Foreseeable

Cumulative Impacts Table 1, Regional Renewable Energy Projects

Cumulative Impacts Table 2, Existing Development in the Ivanpah Valley

Cumulative Impacts Table 3, Future Foreseeable Projects in the Ivanpah Valley

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS LOCAL PROJECTS

GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY & MINERALS

cumulative groundwater pumping in the Ivanpah Valley Groundwater Basin is not

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS - REGIONAL PROJECTS

As discussed above, no paleontological resources have been documented on the

CUMULATIVE IMPACT CONCLUSION

Cultural Trainer: _ Signature:____ Date: _/_/__

Signature:________________ Date: _/_/__

Biological Trainer: ___Signature:_