SEPV Mojave West Solar Project Draft Environmental Impact Report ...

Draft Environmental Impact Report

SCH# 2014091028

Volume 2 Appendices

SEPV MOJAVE WEST SOLAR PROJECT (PP13287) By SEPV Mojave West LLC

General Plan Amendment No. 17, Map 179

Zone Change No. 54, Map 179 Conditional Use Permit No. 14, Map 179

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department

Bakersfield, California

October 2014

Draft

Environmental Impact Report

SCH# 2014091028 Volume 2

Appendices

SEPV MOJAVE WEST SOLAR PROJECT (PP13287) By SEPV Mojave West LLC

General Plan Amendment No. 17, Map 179

Zone Change No. 54, Map 179 Conditional Use Permit No. 14, Map 179

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department Public Services Building

Attn: Janice Mayes, Planner II or, Jacquelyn Kitchen, Supervising Planner

2700 M Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370

(661) 862-8600

Technical Assistance by: ESA

Deanna Hansen, Vice President/So. Cal. Community Development Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100

Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-599-4300

October 2014

DraftEnvironmentalImpactReportSEPVMojaveWestSolarProject i

October 2014

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Volume2Appendices

APPENDIXA NOTICEOFPREPARATION/INITIALSTUDYANDCOMMENTSAPPENDIXB SUNPOWERGLAREANALYSISAPPENDIXC SOILRESOURCEREPORTAPPENDIXD1 AIRQUALITYANDGREENHOUSEGASTECHNICALREPORTAPPENDIXD2 RESPONSETOPEERREVIEWMEMOFORSEPVMOJAVEWESTSOLARPROJECTAIRQUALITYAPPENDIXE1 GENERALHABITATASSESSMENT&FOCUSEDDESERTTORTOISE,SWAINSONSHAWK&

BURROWINGOWLPROTOCOLPRESENCE/ABSENCESURVEYSANDRAREPLANTSURVEYSAPPENDIXE2 MOHAVEGROUNDSQUIRRELTRAPPINGRESULTSAPPENDIXE3 JOSHUATREEPRESERVATIONPLANAPPENDIXE4 JDREPORTAPPENDIXE5 GENTIEOPTIONSRECONSURVEYAPPENDIXE6 RESPONSETOPEERREVIEWMEMOFORSEPVMOJAVEWESTSOLARPROJECTBIOLOGICALAPPENDIXF1 PHASEICULTURALRESOURCESURVEYAPPENDIXF2 CULTURALSTUDYADDENDUMAPPENDIXG1 GEOTECHNICALENGINEERINGREPORTAPPENDIXG2 FATEANDTRANSPORTEVALUATIONAPPENDIXG3 PHASEIENVIRONMENTALSITEASSESSMENTAPPENDIXG4 RESPONSETOPEERREVIEWMEMOFORSEPVMOJAVEWESTSOLARPROJECTGRADINGPLANAPPENDIXG5 RESPONSETOPEERREVIEWMEMOFORSEPVMOJAVEWESTSOLARPROJECTGEOTECHNICALAPPENDIXH PRELIMINARYHYDROLOGYSTUDYAPPENDIXI CONSTRUCTIONEQUIPMENTNOISELEVELSAPPENDIXJ1 TRAFFICSTUDYMEMORANDUMAPPENDIXJ2 TRAFFICSTUDYANDRESPONSETOPEERREVIEWMEMOFORSEPVMOJAVEWESTSOLARPROJECT

TRAFFICAPPENDIXK1 WATERSTUDYREPORTAPPENDIXK2 WILLSERVELETTER

CountyofKern TableofContents

DraftEnvironmentalImpactReportSEPVMojaveWestSolarProject ii

October2014

Volume1boundunderseparatecover

Chapter1 ExecutiveSummary

Chapter2 Introduction

Chapter3 ProjectDescription

Section4.1 Aesthetics

Section4.2 AgricultureandForestResources

Section4.3 AirQuality

Section4.4 BiologicalResources

Section4.5 CulturalResources

Section4.6 GeologyandSoils

Section4.7 GreenhouseGases

Section4.8 HazardsandHazardousMaterials

Section4.9 HydrologyandWaterQuality

Section4.10 LandUseandPlanning

Section4.11 Noise

Section4.12 PublicServices

Section4.13 TrafficandTransportation

Section4.14 UtilitiesandServiceSystems

Chapter5 ConsequencesofProjectImplementation

Chapter6 Alternatives

Chapter7 ResponsetoComments

Chapter8 OrganizationsandPersonsContacted

Chapter9 ListofPreparers

Chapter10 Bibliography

DraftEnvironmentalImpactReportSEPVMojaveWestSolarProject

October 2014

AppendixANoticeofPreparation/InitialStudyandComments

GPA #1; ZCC #54; CUP #14, Map #197 SEPV Mojave West EIR WO #PP13287 I:\WP\LABELS\eir09-13jkm.ec.doc Sc 02/03/14

Beyond Coal Campaign/Sierra Club Sarah K. Friedman 1417 Calumet Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90026

City of Arvin P.O. Box 548 Arvin, CA 93203

Bakersfield City Planning Dept 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

Bakersfield City Public Works Dept 1715 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

California City Planning Dept 21000 Hacienda Blvd. California City, CA 93515

Delano City Planning Dept P.O. Box 3010 Delano, CA 93216

State Dept of Conservation Director's Office 801 "K" Street, MS 24-01 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528

City of McFarland 401 West Kern Avenue McFarland, CA 93250

City of Ridgecrest 100 West California Avenue Ridgecrest, CA 93555

City of Shafter 336 Pacific Avenue Shafter, CA 93263

City of Taft Planning & Building 209 East Kern Street Taft, CA 93268

City of Tehachapi 115 South Robinson Street Tehachapi, CA 93561-1722

City of Wasco 764 E Street Wasco, CA 93280

Inyo County Planning Dept P.O. Drawer "L" Independence, CA 93526

Kings County Planning Agency 1400 West Lacey Blvd, Bldg 6 Hanford, CA 93230

Los Angeles Co Reg Planning Dept 320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012

San Bernardino Co Planning Dept 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 1st Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182

San Luis Obispo Co Planning Dept Planning and Building 976 Osos Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93408

Santa Barbara Co Resource Mgt Dept 123 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Tulare County Planning & Dev Dept 5961 South Mooney Boulevard Visalia, CA 93291

Ventura County RMA Planning Div 800 South Victoria Avenue, L1740 Ventura, CA 93009-1740

U.S. Bureau of Land Management Ridgecrest Field Office 300 South Richmond Road Ridgecrest, CA 93555

China Lake Naval Weapons Center Tim Fox, RLA - Comm Plans & Liaison 429 E Bowen, Building 981 Mail Stop 4001 China Lake, CA 93555

Edwards AFB, Sustainability Office 412 TW/XPO, Bldg 2750, Rm 204-38 195 East Popson Avenue Edwards AFB, CA 93524

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2493 Portola Road, Suite B Ventura, CA 93003

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hopper Mtn. (Bitter Creek) National Wildlife Refuge Attention Debora Guillot P.O. Box 5839 Ventura, CA 93005

Eastern Kern Resource Cons Dist 300 South Richmond Road Ridgecrest, CA 93555-4436

Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office 75 Hawthorn Street San Francisco, CA 94105

U.S. Dept of Agriculture/NRCS 5000 California Avenue, Ste 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309-0711

State Air Resources Board Stationary Resource Division P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

So. San Joaquin Valley Arch Info Ctr California State University of Bkfd 9001 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93311

Caltrans/Dist 6 Planning/Land Bank Bldg. P.O. Box 12616 Fresno, CA 93778

Caltrans/Dist 9 Planning Department 500 South Main Street Bishop, CA 93514

State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research 1400 10th Street, Room 222 Sacramento, CA 95814

State Dept of Conservation Director's Office 801 "K" Street, MS 24-01 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528

State Dept of Conservation Division of Oil & Gas 4800 Stockdale Highway, Ste 417 Bakersfield, CA 93309

California State University Bakersfield - Library 9001 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93309

California Energy Commission James W. Reed, Jr. 1516 Ninth Street Mail Stop 17 Sacramento, CA 95814

California Fish & Wildlife 1234 East Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710

California Highway Patrol Planning & Analysis Division P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001

State Office of Historical Pres Attention Susan Stratton P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 95296-0001

Integrated Waste Management P.O. Box 4025, MS #15 Sacramento, CA 95812-4025

Calif. Dept of Public Health Drinking Water Field Operations 4925 Commerce Drive, Suite 120 Bakersfield, CA 93309

Public Utilities Comm Energy Div 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

California Regional Water Quality Control Board/Lahontan Region 14440 Civic Drive, Suite 200 Victorville, CA 92392-2306

Kern County Agriculture Department

Kern County Airports Department

Kern County Administrative Officer Kern County Engineering, Surveying, & Permit Svs/Floodplain

Kern County Engineering, Surveying, & Permit Svs/Survey

Kern County Env Health Services Department

Kern County Fire Dept Brian Marshall, Fire Chief

Kern County Fire Dept Benny Wofford

Kern County Fire Dept Dave Goodell

Kern County Library/Beale Local History Room

Kern County Library/Beale Sherry Gomez

Kern County Library Mojave Branch 16916 1/2 Highway 14, Space D2 Mojave, CA 93501

Kern County Parks & Recreation Development Services Agency Special Projects/Fiscal Analysis

Kern County Sheriff's Dept Administration

Kern County Roads Department Kern County Waste Management Department

Mojave Town Council Bill Deaver, President P.O. Box 1113 Mojave, CA 93502-1113

Mojave Unified School Dist 3500 Douglas Mojave, CA 93501

Kern High School Dist 5801 Sundale Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93309

Kern County Superintendent of Schools Attention Mary Baker 1300 17th Street Bakersfield, CA 93301

KernCOG 1401 19th Street - Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301

Golden Hills Community Serv Dist P.O. Box 637 Tehachapi, CA 93581

Kern County Water Agency P.O. Box 58 Bakersfield, CA 93302-0058

East Kern Air Pollution Control District

Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 6500 West Avenue N Palmdale, CA 93551

Mojave Airport 1434 Flightline Mojave, CA 93501

East Kern Airport Dist Attention Stuart Witt 1434 Flightline Mojave, CA 93501

East Kern Airport Dist Engineer 3900 Ridgemoor Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93306

Northcutt and Associates 4220 Poplar Street Lake Isabella, CA 93240-9536

Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo Attention: Janet M. Laurain 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080

AT&T California OSP Engineering/Right-of-Way 4540 California Avenue, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93309

Kern Audubon Society P.O. Box 3581 Bakersfield, CA 93385

Los Angeles Audubon 926 Citrus Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90036-4929

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environmental 47 Kearny Street, Suite 804 San Francisco, CA 94108-5528

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environmental/ CA Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 1012 Jefferson Street Delano, CA 93215

Communities for a Better Environment 1904 Franklin Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612-2922

Defenders of Wildlife/ Cynthia Wilkerson, M.S. California Representative 1303 "J" Street, Suite 270 Sacramento, CA 95814

Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee 4067 Mission Inn Avenue Riverside, CA 92501

Mojave Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 935 Mojave, CA 93502

Native American Heritage Council of Kern County/Fay Van Horn P.O. Box 1507 Bakersfield, CA 93302

Beth Boyst Pacific Crest Trail Program Manager 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592

Anitra Kass Pacific Crest Trail Association 41860 Saint Annes Bay Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203

Pacific Gas & Electric Co Land Dept 1918 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301

Sheppard Mullin Attn: Kendra Joy Casper 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071

Robert Burgett 9261 - 60th Street, West Mojave, CA 93501

Southern California Edison Planning Dept. 421 West "J" Street Tehachapi, CA 93561

Southern California Gas Co 1510 North Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308

Southern California Gas Co Transportation Dept 9400 Oakdale Avenue Chatsworth, CA 91313-6511

Verizon California, Inc. Attention Engineering Department 520 South China Lake Boulevard Ridgecrest, CA 93555

Chumash Council of Bakersfield 2421 "O" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301-2441

David Laughing Horse Robinson P.O. Box 20849 Bakersfield, CA 93390

Kern Valley Indian Council Attn: Robert Robinson, Chairperson P.O. Box 401 Weldon, CA 93283

Kern Valley Indian Council Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 401 Weldon, CA 93283

Santa Rosa Rancheria Clarence Atwell, Chairperson P.O. Box 8 Lemoore, CA 93245

Tejon Indian Tribe Kathy Morgan, Chairperson 1731 Hasti-acres Drive, Suite 108 Bakersfield, CA 93309

Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians Chairperson 115 Radio Street Bakersfield, CA 93305

Tubatulabals of Kern County Attn: Robert Gomez, Chairperson P.O. Box 226 Lake Isabella, CA 93240

Tule River Indian Tribe Neal Peyron, Chairperson P.O. Box 589 Porterville, CA 93258

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians Attn: John Valenzuela, Chairperson P.O. Box 221838 Newhall, CA 91322

Matthew Gorman The Gorman Law Firm 1346 E. Walnut Street, Suite 220 Pasadena, CA 91106

Matthew Gorman The Gorman Law Firm 1346 E. Walnut Street, Suite 220 Pasadena, CA 91106

Cuddy Valley Statistical 11667 Steinhoff Road Frazier Park, CA 93222

Native American Heritage Council of Kern County/Fay Van Horn P.O. Box 1507 Bakersfield, CA 93302

Joyce LoBasso P.O. Box 6003 Bakersfield, CA 93386

Mojave Foundation Attn: Todd Quelet 16922 Airport Boulevard Mojave, A 93501

Eight Bar Ranch Jon and Helen Lantz 11300 Cameron Canyon Road Mojave, CA 93501

Lozeau Drury LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607

Chaparral Petroleum, Inc. 206 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93304

David Walsh 22941 Banducci Road Tehachapi, CA 93561

U.S. Air Force Attn: Steve Arenson Western Regional Environmental Officer 50 Fremont Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94105-2230

U.S. Army Attn: Philip Crosbie, Chief Strategic Plans, S3, NTC P.O. Box 10172 Fort Irwin, CA 92310

U.S. Army Attn: Tim Kilgannon, Region 9 Coordinator Office of Strategic Integration 721 - 19th Street, Room 427 Denver, CO 80202

U.S. Navy Attn: Steve Chung Regional Community & Liaison Officer 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92132-5190

U.S. Marine Corps Attn: Patrick Christman Western Regional Environmental Officer Building 1164/Box 555246 Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5246

Sempra Generation Marilyn Burke 101 Ash Street HQ-14A San Diego, CA 92101

Terra-Gen Randy Hoyle, Sr. Vice Pres 11512 El Camino Real, Suite 370 San Diego, CA 92130

Renewal Resources Group Holding Company Rupal Patel 5700 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 330 Los Angeles, CA 90036

Fotowatio Renewable Ventures Sean Kiernan 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94104

Element Power Solar Dev, LLC John Gaglioti 864 Portola Drive Monterey, CA 93940

Congentrix Sunshine, LLC Rick Neff 9405 Arrowpoint Blvd Charlotte, NC 28273

Darren Kelly, Sr. Business Mgr Terra-Gen Power, LLC 1095 Avenue of the Americas, 25th Floor, Ste A New York, NY 10036-6797

EDP Renewables Company Jon VanDerZee 53 SW Yamhill Street Portland, OR 97204

Wind Stream, LLC Albert Davies 1275 - 4th Street, No. 107 Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Wayne Mayes, Dir Tech Serv Iberdrola Renewables 1125 NW Couch St, Ste 700, 7th Fl Portland, OR 97209

Bill Barnes, Dir of Asset Mgt AES Midwest Wind Gen P.O. Box 2190 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2190

PG&E Steven Ng, Manager Renewal Dev, T&D Intercon 77 Beal Street, Room 5361 San Francisco, CA 94105

Tehachapi Area Assoc of Realtors Carol Lawhon, Assoc Exe, IOM 803 Tucker Road Tehachapi, CA 93561

Michael Strickler, Sr Project Mgr Iberdrola Renewables 1125 NW Couch St, Ste 700, 7th Fl Portland, OR 97209

Recurrent Energy Seth Israel 300 California Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 92109

T.T Case P.O. Box 2416 Tehachapi, CA 93581

EcoPlexus, Inc. Marcus V. daCunha, VP of Dev 650 Townsend Street, Suite 310 San Francisco, CA 94103

Kelly Group Kate Kelly P.O. Box 868 Winters, CA 95694

Structure Cast Larry Turpin, Sales Mgr 8261 McCutchen Road Bakersfield, CA 93311

Terra-Gen Steve Yatsko 11512 El Camino Real, Suite 370 San Diego, CA 92130

Sierra Club/Kern Kaweah Chapter Arthur Unger ***PUT IN BUCKET***

INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION

SEPV Mojave West

by SEPV Mojave West, LLC (PP13287)

General Plan Amendment No. 1, Map No. 197; Zone Change No. 54, Map No. 197;

Conditional Use Permit No. 14, Map 197

LEAD AGENCY:

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department

2700 M Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370

Contact: Janice Mayes 661-862-8793

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BY:

Environmental Science Associates

626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017

February 2014

KERN COUNTY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

SEPV MOJAVE WEST SOLAR PROJECT

1. Project Description 1.1 Project Location The SEPV Mojave West Solar Project (proposed project) proposed by SEPV Mojave West, LLC would develop a photovoltaic (PV) solar facility using approximately 89,000 solar modules mounted on single-axis tracking systems that would generate approximately 20 megawatts (MW) of renewable electrical energy. The proposed project is located on approximately 180 acres of undeveloped land in eastern Kern County. Electricity generated by the proposed project would be delivered to the Southern California Edison (SCE) utility grid by a proposed generation-tie (gen-tie) line. The proposed gen-tie would run from the project site to SCEs existing Windhub Substation at Oak Creek Road, which is located approximately one mile north of the project site.

The project site is located in the western extent of the Mojave Desert in Mojave, California. 90th Street West is located approximately 0.5 mile west of the project site, Oak Creek Road is located approximately one mile north of the proposed site, and a Union Pacific railroad track borders the project site on the north and northeast. South of the project site is an unimproved dirt road, wind energy facilities, and undeveloped land. The project site is approximately six miles west of State Route (SR) 14.

The project site consists of two adjoining parcels; the Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) of the project site and the project site characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the proposed project.

Table 1. Project Site Characteristics

Capacity

Number of Solar Panels

(approximate) Gross Acres

(approximate) Assessor Parcel

Numbers Section/Township/Range

20MW 89,000 160 237-054-03 Section 29, Township 11 North, Range 13 West

20 237-032-33 Section 20, Township 11, Range 13 West

1.2 Environmental Setting The project site totals approximately 180 acres, consisting of undeveloped desert land. The project site is relatively flat, with an approximate elevation ranging between 3,210 and 3,305 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The nearest residence is located approximately four miles east of the project site.

The surrounding land uses to the north, south, east and west of the project site are primarily recently-constructed wind energy projects or vacant land. Additionally, Union Pacific Railroad tracks are north and northeast of the project site, beyond which is land developed with wind turbines and the Windhub Substation. To the east is wind turbines and undeveloped land. To the south and west, undeveloped land and wind turbine development. A cement quarry is located approximately two miles northwest of the project site.

Initial Study/Notice Of Preparation 1 February 2014



The project site is not located in the vicinity of lands designated as forest, parkland, or preserve areas. The project site is located within the boundaries of the West Mojave Plan (WMP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) areas; however, the DRECP has not been adopted. The WMP planning area covers 9.3 million acres in the western portion of the Mojave Desert in southern California covering parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Kern, and Inyo counties. This is an interagency habitat conservation plan prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in collaboration with the region's cities, counties, state and federal agencies. The plan applies to the 3.2 million acres of public lands and 2.9 million acres of private lands (BLM, 2012). The nearest designated park areas are the Tehachapi Mountain Park, located approximately 18 miles west of the project site and the Angeles National Forest, the Desert Pines Wildlife Sanctuary, and the Arthur B. Ripley Desert Woodland State Park located more than 20 miles from the project site.

The project site is not located within a 100- or 500-year flood zone as defined by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The project site is not identified as a wetland area on the National Wetland Inventory. There are no identified state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones on the project site. The nearest active fault is the Garlock fault, which is located approximately four miles north of the project site.

The proposed project would be served by the Kern County Sheriffs Department for law enforcement and public safety. The closest sheriff station is located 6.5 miles east of the project site, located at 1771 Highway 58, Mojave. The Kern County Fire Department (KCFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical and rescue services for the proposed project area. The closest KCFD fire station to the project site is Station No. 14, located 6.4 miles east of the project site, located at 1953 Highway 58, Mojave.

The closest school to the project site is the Joshua Middle School, which is located 5.1 miles to the east of the project site. The nearest hospital is the Tehachapi Hospital located approximately 12 miles northwest of the project site.

The project site is located approximately 8.5 miles east of Mojave Air and Space Port, 8.8 miles northwest of Mountain Valley Airport, and 11 miles northwest of Tehachapi Municipal Airport. The proposed project is not located within an Airport Influence Area, per the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).

As shown in Figure 3 and listed on Table 2, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of 7.3 (Heavy Industrial). As shown on Figure 4, a majority of the project site, 160-acres, is zoned M-3 (Heavy Industrial) and 20-acres is zoned A-1 (Limited Agriculture).

The Department of Conservations (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) has designated both parcels as grazing land. The project site is not encumbered by a Williamson Act land use contract.


KERN COUNTY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTSEPV MOJAVE WEST SOLAR PROJECT

BY SEPV MOJAVE WEST, LLC

IS/NOP 2014

Figure 1: SITE VICINITY

0 800

Feet

Mojave

Cant i l

Rosamond

Tehachap i

Los A

ngele

s Aqu

educ

t

Area of Detail

Kern County

Mojave West Solar

14

58

58

Kern CountyLos Angeles County

14

0 6

Miles

IS/NOP 2014

Figure 2: PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY



0 800

Feet

0 2,000

Feet

LegendSite Boundary

Railroad

IS/NOP 2014

Figure 3: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN



0 800

Feet

7.3

8.3

7.3

7.3

7.3/2.5

7.3

7.3 8.5

8.5

8.5

8.3

90Th

St W

Aque

duct

Rd

80Th

St W

Purdy Ave

Arizona Ave

Camelot Blvd

8.5

7.3

7.3

8.3

7.3/2.5

8.5 8.5/2.5

At and

SF Rai

lroad

0 2,000

Feet

LegendSite Boundary

RailroadKern County General Plan Map Code Designations2.5 - Flood Hazard7.3 - Heavy Industrial8.3 - Extensive Agriculture (Min. 20 Acre Parcel Size)8.4 - Minerial and Petroleum (Min. 5 Acre Parcel Size)8.5 - Resources Management (Min. 20 Acre Parcel Size)

IS/NOP 2014

Figure 4: EXISTING ZONING



0 800

Feet

8.5

M-3

M-3

A-1

A-1

A-1

A

A-1

A-1

A-1 WE

A

M-3

A-1 WE

A-1

A WE

PL RS

A-1 FP

A-1

M-3 WE

M-3 WE

A-1

M-3 WE

M-3 FP

A-1

A-1 WE

A-1 WE

M-3 FP

A WE

M-3 WE

M-3 FP

A-1

M-3 WE

M-3 WEA-1

M-3 FP

A-1 FP

A WE

M-3 WE

M-3 WE

M-3 WE

M-3 FP WE

M-3 FP WE

A WE

M-3 WE

M-3 FP WE

M-3 WE

A-1 FP WE

M-3 WE

M-3 FPM-3 FP

A WE

At and

SF Rai

lroad

0 2,000

Feet

LegendSite Boundary

RailroadZoning ClassificationsA - Exclusive AgricultureA-1 - Limited AgricultureFPP - Floodplain PrimaryM-3 - Heavy IndustrialOS - Open SpaceWE - Wind Energy RS - Residential CombiningMH - Mobilehome CombiningFP - Floodplain Combining



Table 2: Existing Land Use, General Plan Map Code Designations, and Zoning Classifications Direction from Project Site Existing Land Use Existing Map Code Designations

Existing Zoning Classifications

Project Site Undeveloped 7.3 (Heavy Industrial) M-3 (Heavy Industrial) and A-1 (Limited Agriculture)

North Undeveloped 7.3 (Heavy Industrial) M-3 (Heavy Industrial), A (Exclusive Agricultural), and WE (Wind Energy)

East Undeveloped 8.5 (Resource Management) A-1 (Limited Agriculture) and A (Exclusive Agriculture) and WE (Wind Energy)

South Undeveloped 7.3 (Heavy Industrial) M-3 (Heavy Industrial) and WE (Wind Energy)

West Undeveloped 7.3 (Heavy Industrial) M-3 (Heavy Industrial)

1.3 Project Description The project site is located within the M-3 (Heavy Industrial) and A-1 (Limited Agriculture) zoning districts and therefore a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (CUP 14, Map 197) and a Zone Change (ZCC) (ZCC 54, Map 197) are required to allow for the construction and operation of a solar PV facility on this site. The project site is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Kern County General Plan and both parcels are designated 7.3 (Heavy Industrial) by the General plan.

The project proponent is requesting a Zone Change (ZCC), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), General Plan Amendment (GPA), and approval of a franchise agreement from the Kern County Board of Supervisors. The request for a ZCC from A-1 to M-3, together with the CUP, would allow for the construction and operation of a solar electrical generating facility on the portion of the site currently designated as A-1 (Limited Agriculture). The request for a GPA, is to amend the circulation element of the Kern County General Plan and allow the dissolution of section and midsection lines to optimize the site plan design on the parcels. The proposed project would consist of the following entitlement actions: ZCC No. 54, GPA No. 1and CUP No. 14, Map 197, to build a 20 MW solar energy generating facility on 180 acres.

1.3.1 Project Characteristics

Proposed Facilities

The proposed project would install and operate a 20 MW PV solar energy generating facility. The proposed site plan for the proposed project is shown in Figure 5. The proposed project would include the following components, which are described in more detail below:

Installation of approximately 89,000 solar PV modules utilizing crystalline silicon or thin film technology mounted on a racking structure that would be attached to a single-axis tracking system supported by steel columns;

On-site inverters and transformers;

On-site access roads;


IS/NOP 2014

Figure 5: PROPOSED SITE PLAN

KERN COUNTY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SEPV MOJAVE WEST SOLAR PROJECT


0 800

Feet



Perimeter security fencing and nighttime motion sensitive directional lighting; and

Gen-tie line to connect to SCEs existing Windhub Substation located on Oak Creek Road.

The proposed solar facility is intended to operate year-round, and would be designed to produce up to 20 MW of solar power during daylight hours when electricity demand is at its peak.

Solar PV Generating Facility

The proposed project would consist of a solar energy generating facility with approximately 89,000 non-reflective solar PV modules mounted on single-axis tracking systems that follow the sun from east to west throughout the day. Power generated by the proposed project would be transferred to the Windhub Substation on Oak Creek Road via a proposed gen-tie line originating at the substation located on the project site. The make, model, and quantities of all project components including PV modules, inverters, transformers, and tracking systems would be determined during the final engineering phase of the project.

Solar Modules

The proposed PV modules would be mounted on single-axis tracking systems, and would be electrically connected to inverters and transformers to convert the modules direct current energy to alternating current compatible with SCEs electrical system. The modules would utilize crystalline silicon or thin film technology, which would be dark in color and highly absorptive of sunlight.

Each PV module is approximately two meters by one meter and weighs approximately 28 kilograms (kg). The PV modules would be wired together in a series and parallel configuration and connected to inverters and transformers located throughout the project site.

The PV modules are uniformly dark in color, non-reflective, and designed to be highly absorptive of all light that strikes their glass surfaces. The PV modules deployed for use in the proposed project would comply with all industry standard quality testing and have been stringently tested and are robustly constructed to guarantee a useful life of 25-30 years in adverse weather conditions. The PV modules would be installed in accordance with local codes and regulations.

Support Structures

Racking refers to the support structure to which the solar PV modules are affixed that allows them to be properly positioned for maximum capture of the suns solar energy. The single-axis tracking arrays (a row of PV modules) would be oriented along a north-south axis and the PV modules would be mounted on steel and aluminum tracking structures that rotate from east to west in order to track the suns path throughout a day. While a fixed tilt system is less expensive to install and has lower maintenance costs, use of the tracking function adds additional value to the project in the following ways.

Solar tracking can increase system energy production output by up to 30 percent.

Solar tracking can generate more energy during utility peak loading periods, usually afternoons during the summer months.

The tracking structures are typically mounted on foundations of steel beams or tubes directly embedded into the ground to a depth of five to eight feet depending upon loading conditions. These structural elements are typically driven into the earth with vibratory or hydraulic press-in methods and are not pounded in by a traditional impact pile driver. Approximately 17,000 beams/tubes would be used on the




proposed project. This type of driven pier foundation offers multiple benefits, including quick installation and minimal site disturbance, and are a concrete-free foundation solution that would allow for easy site reclamation at the end of the project life cycle. The PV modules, at their highest point of the solar tracking during the day, would be less than nine feet above the ground surface.

Site Preparation

Proposed project initiation would involve preparing the site for installation of project equipment, electrical infrastructure, access driveways, and temporary construction staging areas. Prior to initial construction mobilization, preconstruction surveys would be performed and sediment and erosion controls would be installed in accordance with an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Stabilized construction entrance and exits would be installed at driveways to reduce tracking of sediment onto adjacent public roadways.

Given the relatively flat topology of the site, and adaptability of the array structures, a minimal amount of surface smoothing and grading by wheeled or tracked scrapers and graders would be performed. The rough locations of all foundations, trenches, roads, fences, and equipment will be surveyed and marked. Project access roads would be graded and compacted as required for construction, maintenance, and emergency vehicle access as recommended by a licensed California Professional Engineer. No import or export of soils materials would occur other than as needed to mitigate dust control.

System Installation

Trenching would be performed for placement of underground electrical and communications lines, and may include the use of trenchers, backhoes, excavators, haul vehicles, compaction equipment and water trucks. Concrete foundations/pads for structures, equipment enclosures and equipment vaults would be prepared based on the recommendations of a licensed California Professional Engineer. Concrete would be purchased from an off-site supplier and trucked into the project site for placement. The steel beam/tube foundations (posts) for the tracking or racking structures would be driven into the soil using vibratory or hydraulic press-in methods. Approximately 17,000 beams/tubes would be used on the proposed project. Once the posts have been installed, the horizontal cross-members of the single-axle tracking system and associated motors would be placed and secured. A steel and aluminum racking system, which holds the PV modules in the correct position for maximum capture of solar insolation would then be field assembled and attached to the horizontal cross members.

During the installation phase, there would be multiple crews working on the project site with vehicles, including special vehicles for transporting the modules and other equipment. The wiring would run to the appropriate electrical and communication terminations and the circuits would be checked and commissioned prior to operation.

Hazardous Materials

Small amounts of hazardous materials typically used for construction projects of this type would be present on-site at various times. Materials would include small quantities of gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, lubricants, solvents, detergents, degreasers, paints, ethylene glycol, and welding materials/supplies. A hazardous materials business plan would be provided to the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department, Hazardous Materials Section. The plan would include a complete list of all materials used on-site and information regarding how the materials would be transported and in what form they would be




used. This information would be recorded to ensure safety and prevent possible environmental contamination or worker exposure. During project construction, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all applicable materials present at the project site would be made readily available to on-site personnel.

Hazardous Waste

Small quantities of hazardous wastes would be generated over the course of construction. These wastes may include waste paint, spent construction solvents, waste cleaners, waste oil, oily rags, waste batteries, and spent welding materials. Workers would be trained to identify and handle all hazardous materials properly. Hazardous waste would be either recycled or disposed of at a permitted and licensed treatment and/or disposal facility. All hazardous waste shipped off site for recycling or disposal would be transported by a licensed and permitted hazardous waste hauler.

Temporary Construction Services and Facilities

Temporary construction trailers and associated work facilities would be place on-site and utilized through the construction, testing and commissioning phases of the project . It is expected that the majority of these temporary facilities would be located at a single staging area. Other construction details are summarized below.

Electrical Supply

Temporary power for construction is expected to be provided by mobile gasoline or diesel-powered generators.

Construction Water Use

The overall construction water usage is anticipated to be 11,000,000 gallons, or 34 acre-feet (one acre-foot is equal to 325,851 gallons) during the construction period (Fomotor, 2013). Water needed for construction would be brought to the project site by truck.

The main use of water would be for dust control throughout the entire construction period. Lesser quantities would be required for compaction of project access roads.

Stormwater

A SWPPP would be prepared and mitigation measures followed. The project will create a negligible amount of impervious surfaces and all applicable measures would be designed to meet state and local stormwater management plan requirements. All Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) discharge requirements and Kern County water quality regulations would be adhered to throughout the construction period.

Health and Safety

All employees and contractors would be required to adhere to the appropriate health and safety plans and emergency response plans. All construction and operation contractors would be trained and required to operate under a health and safety program that meets applicable industry and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards.




Fire Protection

The proposed project will comply with the Countys requirements.

Operation and Maintenance

The proposed project would be remotely operated and monitored and there would be no requirement for daily on-site employees. The solar energy generating facility would be monitored by the telecommunication and data acquisition systems that would be installed as part of proposed project. Operations and maintenance staff would be on-call to respond to any alerts generated by the monitoring systems, and would be present on the project site periodically to perform maintenance.

During operation of the proposed project, routine washing of the PV modules would occur as needed (up to four times per year) to increase the function of the panels. The proposed project would require approximately 0.31 acre-feet of water for each routine panel washing operation.

Lighting

Minimal lighting will be utilized for operations and will be limited to safety and security functions. Lighting would be directed downward and shielded to focus illumination on the desired areas only and to minimize light trespass in accordance with applicable County requirements. If lighting is needed for night maintenance, portable temporary, lighting equipment would be used.

Maintenance Equipment

No heavy equipment would be required on-site during normal operations. Maintenance vehicles would include forklifts and trucks (such as pickups, flatbeds, and water trucks).

Noise

Table 3. Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Equipment List Equivalent Federal Transit Administration Classification

Typical Sound Pressure Level (dBA) at 50 feet from source

Vibratory post driver Pneumatic tool 85 Corner-mount pole hole auger/ pressure digger1

Pneumatic tool1 84

Crawler tractors/dozer Dozer 85 Dump, concrete, and tender trucks Truck 88 Excavators Backhoe 80 Forklifts/aerial lifts/booms Crane, mobile 83 Generator/compressor Air compressor/generator 81 Graders Grader 85 Rollers/compactors Roller 74 Scrapers Scraper 89 Tractors/loaders/backhoes Loader 85 Vibratory plate (handheld) Compactor 82 Highway tractor Scarifier 83 Flatbed truck Truck 88 Water truck Truck 88




Hazardous Materials

Limited amounts of hazardous materials would be stored or used on- site during operations. Such materials would include diesel fuel, gasoline and motor oil for vehicles, mineral oil to be sealed within the transformers and lead acid-based and/or lithium ion batteries for emergency backup. Appropriate spill containment and clean-up kits would be maintained during operation of the proposed project.

Hazardous Waste

The proposed project would produce a small amount of waste associated with maintenance activities, which could include broken and rusted metal, defective or malfunctioning modules, electrical materials, empty containers, and other miscellaneous solid wastes, including the typical refuse generated by workers. Most of these materials would be collected and delivered back to the manufacturer or to recyclers.

Hours of Operation

Once placed into service, the solar PV power-generating facility would generate energy during daylight hours. The un-manned solar energy generating facility will be secured at all times until personnel would be required on-site to service and maintain the facility, including periodically washing the PV modules. Replacement parts and components would be warehoused off site and deployed as needed. Most scheduled maintenance would be during the daytime but work will occasionally be performed at night for safety reasons.

Decommissioning

Power generated by the proposed project would be sold under the terms of a long-term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with SCE. Following expiration of the PPA, typically 20 to 25 years, the owners of the proposed project may choose to enter into a subsequent PPA, update technology and re-commission, or decommission and remove the generating facility and its components. Upon decommissioning, the project site could be converted to other uses in accordance with applicable land use regulations in effect at that time. A collection and recycling program would be executed to promote recycling of proposed project components and minimize disposal in landfills.

1.4 Project Objectives The proponent of the proposed project has identified the following objectives:

1. Establish a solar PV power-generating facility that is of a sufficient size and configuration to produce up to 20 MW of electricity.

2. Interconnect directly to SCEs electrical sub-transmission system.

3. Use reliable PV technology that requires low maintenance.

4. Assist SCE in meeting its obligations under Californias Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program. In April 2011, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill X1-2, which establishes a new RPS for all electricity retailers in the state. Electricity retailers must adopt the new RPS goals of 20 percent of retails sales from renewables by the end of 2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, with the 33 percent requirement being met by the end of 2020.

5. Assist California in meeting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goal by 2020 as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32).


http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx1_2_bill_20110412_chaptered.html



1.5 Proposed Discretionary Actions/Required Approvals The Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, the lead agency for the project, has discretionary authority over the primary project proposal. To implement this project, the project proponent would need to obtain the following discretionary and ministerial permits/approvals.

1.5.1 Kern County Consideration and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with appropriate

Findings (15091 and 15093) and Mitigation Monitoring Program, if applicable, by the Kern County Board of Supervisors.

Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 14, Map No. 197

Approval of Zone Change No. 54, Map No. 197

Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 1, Map No. 197

Grading Permits

Building Permits

Franchise Agreement

1.5.2 Other Responsible Agencies Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD)

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

The preceding are potentially required and do not necessarily represent a comprehensive list of all possible discretionary permits/approvals required. Other additional permits or approvals from responsible agencies may be required for the proposed project.




Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except No Impact answers that are adequately supported

by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant Impact to a Less-than-Significant Impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review;

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist where within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis; and

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a projects environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level.




Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than-Significant

Impact

No Impact

AESTHETICS. Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic

vista?

b. Substantially damage scenic resources,

including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual

character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare

that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion

a. The project site is located in a sparsely developed rural area of Kern County. The existing visual environment in the project area includes several existing wind turbine projects to the north, south and east. To the west of the project site is an area that is currently being developed with wind turbines. Additionally, to the northwest of the proposed project is the Windhub Substation and overhead power lines, and high voltage transmission lines associated with the surrounding renewable energy projects. Aside from the infrastructure associated with alternative energy that surrounds the project site, the area is relatively uniform, with broad, dry, flat landscapes with distant mountains to the west and northwest. The project site is located approximately one mile south of Oak Creek Road and due to the flat topography of the project site and height of the solar panels, visual impacts would most likely be limited to the small number of persons traveling the adjacent unimproved dirt roadways. In addition, the project site is not located within an area designated for or identified as having a scenic vista or scenic views. However, because the proposed project would substantially change views, impacts to scenic vistas may occur and will be evaluated in the EIR.

b. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highway Mapping System, the nearest eligible scenic highways are the SR 14 and the SR 58, which intersect approximately six miles northeast of the project site. Because of this distance, the proposed PV solar facilities would not be visible from either roadway. Therefore, project impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would not occur, and will not be evaluated in the EIR.

c. The project site is in a rural area with areas surrounding the project site supporting alternative energy projects and associated infrastructure, as well as undeveloped land. Placement of PV solar panels and associated structures on the project site would alter the character of the area. Changes to




the visual quality and character of the project site may be significant, and impacts will be further evaluated in the EIR.

d. The project site is located in a rural, largely undeveloped area that is surrounded by alternative energy wind development; thus, limited lighting exists. The proposed PV modules are designed to absorb sunlight to maximize electrical output; therefore, they would not create significant reflective surfaces or the potential for glint/glare during the day. The nighttime lighting at the proposed solar facility would be designed to provide the minimum illumination needed to achieve safety and security objectives, and would be directed downward and shielded to focus illumination on the desired areas only and minimize light trespass. However, further analysis of the specific lighting and effects of nighttime light and glare from the proposed project will be evaluated in the EIR.






Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-than- Significant

Impact

No Impact

AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the states inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or

Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural

use or a Williamson Act Contract?

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause

rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned timberland production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of

forestland to nonforest use?

e. Involve other changes in the existing

environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?






Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

f. Result in the cancellation of an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or Farmland Security Zone Contract for any parcel of 100 or more acres (Section 15205(b)(3) Public Resources Code)?

Discussion

a. As shown in the California Department of Conservation (CDC), Division of Land Resource Protections California Important Farmland Finder, no lands classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance were identified within the project site. The project site is within the boundaries of Agricultural Preserve No. 23. The project site and the surrounding lands primarily consist of undeveloped and land developed with alternative energy infrastructure. Because the proposed project would not convert lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use this issue does not warrant further discussion in the EIR.

b. The project site does not contain lands that are subject to Williamson Act contracts, either active or in nonrenewal. A majority of the project site is zoned M-3, (Heavy Industrial), with a twenty-acre parcel that is zoned A-1 (Limited Agriculture). The proposed project would be permitted upon approval of a CUP for the M-3 zoned property, and a zone change, issuance of a CUP for the A-1 zoned property. With approval of the requested zone change, permit and franchise agreement, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. There would be no impacts to Williamson Act lands. However, because a portion of the project site is currently zoned A-1 (Limited Agricultural) this issue will be further evaluated in the EIR.

c, d. The project site is not situated on forest land or timberland with areas that are currently under production. There is no land in the vicinity of the project site that is zoned as forest land, timberland, or lands zoned for timberland production. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for timberland production and no further analysis is warranted.

e. The project site consists primarily of largely undeveloped desert land with undeveloped and alternative energy land uses in the proposed project vicinity. The project site does not contain agricultural uses, nor are agricultural uses adjacent to the project site. Development of the project site for solar uses would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. However, because a portion of the project site is currently zoned A-1 (Limited Agricultural), this issue will be further evaluated in the EIR.

f. The project site is not subject to an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or the Farmland Security Zone Contract. As stated above, the project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract, and no impacts are anticipated. Therefore, further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.






Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the

applicable air quality plan?

b. Violate any air quality standard as adopted in (c)

i or (c) ii, or as established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or air district or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net

increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Specifically, would implementation of the project exceed any of the following adopted thresholds:

i. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District:

Operational and Area Sources

Reactive organic gases (ROG) 10 tons per year.

Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 10 tons per year.

Particulate matter (PM10) 15 tons per year.

Stationary Sources - as Determined by

District Rules

Severe nonattainment 25 tons per year.

Extreme nonattainment 10 tons per year.






Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

ii. Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District. Operational and Area Sources

Reactive organic gases (ROG) 25 tons per year.

Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 25 tons per year.

Particulate matter (PM10) 15 tons per year.

Stationary Sources as Determined by

District Rules

25 tons per year. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial

pollutant concentrations?

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a

substantial number of people?

Discussion

a. The project site is located entirely within the jurisdiction of the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD), in the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). EKAPCD is designated as a nonattainment area for both the state and federal ozone standards and the state particulate matter (PM10) standard. Project construction would generate emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), both of which are known as ozone precursors, and PM10 that could result in significant impacts to air quality in the area. EKAPCDs most recently adopted air quality management plan is its Ozone Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP). As the proposed project would generate emissions of ozone precursors (along with PM10) during construction, the proposed project could potentially conflict with EKAPCDs Ozone AQAP. Thus, further analysis of the proposed projects air quality impacts is warranted to determine whether the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of EKAPCDs applicable air quality plan for attainment and, if so, to determine the reasonable and feasible mitigation measures that could be imposed. These issues will be evaluated in the EIR.

b. The proposed project consists of the development of PV solar energy generating facilities on a 180-acre project site. Given that the project would be monitored remotely by telecommunications and data acquisition systems and would not require any on-site employees, the projects operational emissions would be minimal. However, the short-term construction emissions generated at the project site could significantly contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation of criteria pollutant (ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5) standards established by EKAPCD, requiring the consideration of mitigation measures. The sources of construction emissions at the project site would include off-road heavy equipment (e.g., graders, loaders, backhoes, dozers, etc.) used during the various construction phases for the proposed project and on-road motor vehicles for equipment




and material deliveries and workers commuting to and from the project site. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR.

c. EKAPCD is designated as a nonattainment area for the state and federal ozone standards and the state PM10 standard. As such, the emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM10 during construction and operation of the proposed project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants in the MDAB. Thus, the proposed projects contribution to cumulative air quality impacts in the MDAB could be potentially significant. The proposed projects contribution of construction and operational emissions to the MDAB will be analyzed in the EIR.

d. The land uses surrounding the project site consist primarily of undeveloped and alternative energy land uses. Based on review of an aerial map, it appears that the nearest residential structures to the project site are currently located four miles to the east. The projects construction-related activities would result in diesel exhaust emissions and dust that could adversely affect air quality for the nearest sensitive receptors. Thus, this impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR. Where warranted, mitigation measures for diesel equipment and dust control that are recommended by the EKAPCD will be evaluated as part of the EIR to avoid or reduce the potential impacts.

e. Land uses typically producing objectionable odors include wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project would not have any stationary sources or equipment located onsite that would generate objectionable odors. During construction activities, only short-term, temporary odors from vehicle exhaust and construction equipment engines would occur. However, these odors would only be temporary and would be dispersed rapidly. Therefore, it is anticipated that there would be no impact and further analysis is not warranted in the EIR.






Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly

or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the (CDFW) and (USFWS)?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally

protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any

native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances

protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted

habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?

Discussion

a. The proposed project is located at the western edge of the Antelope Valley, west of the community of Mojave. The project site is situated along the edge of the Tehachapi Mountains in the lower foothills. The habitat is considered creosote scrub and is situated within proximity of a transitional zone or ecotone with juniper scrub and Joshua tree woodlands. A database query of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Societys (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants was conducted to identify special-status plant and wildlife species that have been historically documented near the project site. The database search identified several special-status species including desert tortoise, burrowing owl (Athene




cunicularia), Mohave ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus mohavensis), Swainsons hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and several potential rare plant species (Young, 2013). Therefore, impacts to special-status species and their habitats are potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR. Field surveys for special-status plant and animal species, riparian and sensitive natural communities, and species listed as either threatened or endangered by either the state or federal government will be completed. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.

b. The project site is undeveloped and comprised of relatively undisturbed, desert scrub and grassland habitat. They do not appear to support any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as may be defined by local or regional plans, policies, or regulations (Young, 2013). Field surveys for sensitive natural communities will be completed, and the results included in the EIR.

The USFWS does not identify any critical habitats on or near the project site. The nearest critical habitat is located 13.8 miles northwest of the project site, in the Tehachapi Mountains, for the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus).

No drainages are located on the site nor are drainages depicted on the topographic map for this area. To the extent required, a biological assessment, and hydrology analysis with jurisdictional delineations will be prepared for the proposed project. These studies will be used to evaluate potential proposed project-related impacts to sensitive natural communities in the EIR. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.

c. The project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; therefore project implementation would not result in impacts related to wetlands. As noted above, the project site may contain potentially jurisdictional waters of the state; however no federally protected waters would be affected by the proposed project. Although it is anticipated that the project would not significantly affect any federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the EIR will include a comprehensive biological resources analysis.

d. The project site and surrounding areas may be used for migration or dispersal of resident Mojave ground squirrel populations. Proposed project construction and operation would remove foraging habitat. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.

e. Although there is no local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources, Joshua tree woodland is a CDFW sensitive plant community and Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) are located on the project site. Many native desert plants are protected under the California Desert Native Plant Act, including yucca (i.e., Joshua tree) species. Potential impacts to the Joshua trees will be included in the EIR.

f. The project site is located within the WMP HCP and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) areas. Although the DRECP has not yet been finalized, compliance with, and/or acknowledgement of these conservation plans will be examined in more detail and further evaluated in the EIR. This impact is considered less than significant, but will be evaluated further in the EIR.






Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d. Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion

a, b. The site consists of undeveloped land. Development of the proposed project would require some ground disturbance for installation of the solar modules and gen-tie lines and placement of underground electrical and communications lines, which could impact archaeological resources. A cultural resources survey will be conducted for the proposed project. Further evaluation in the EIR is warranted to identify potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources and to formulate avoidance or mitigation measures, if applicable.

c. Kern County is rich in paleontological resources. If sensitive paleontological formations are located under the project site, ground disturbance could result in impacts to paleontological resources. Thus, a paleontological study for the proposed project will be performed. Further evaluation in the EIR is warranted to identify potential impacts and to formulate avoidance or mitigation measures, if applicable.

d. There is no evidence that the project site is located within an area likely to contain human remains, and discovery of human remains during earthmoving activities is not anticipated. However, impacts could be potentially significant if remains are found, therefore; the potential for human remains to be encountered will be further analyzed in the EIR.






Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:

a. Expose people or structures to potential

substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as

delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction?

iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of

topsoil?

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is

unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in

Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting

the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Discussion

a.i Primary ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of the causative fault during an earthquake. The project site is not transected by known active or potentially active faults. The Garlock fault zone, located approximately four miles north of the project site is the closest fault. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Due to the distance from the nearest active fault to the project site, the potential for surface fault rupture at the project site is considered negligible.




In addition, construction of the proposed project would be subject to all applicable ordinances of the Kern County Building Code (Chapter 17.08). Kern County has adopted the California Building Code (CBC), 2007 Edition (CCR Title 24), which imposes substantially the same requirements as the International Building Code (IBC), 2006 Edition, with some modifications and amendments. Adherence to all applicable regulations would mitigate any potential impacts associated with the proposed project. Furthermore, after construction is completed, on-site workers would not be required with the exception of periodic panel maintenance and semi-annual panel cleaning, which would limit exposure of persons to seismic risks. Although it is anticipated that the project site would not be adversely affected, fault rupture will be evaluated in the EIR.

a.ii Due to the location of active faults in the region, strong seismic ground shaking could occur at the project site, resulting in damage to structures that are not properly designed to withstand strong ground shaking. The proposed project would include the construction of a field of solar PV panels, transmission lines, an on-site substation, and other associated infrastructure. As described above, the proposed project would not require full-time staff for operational activities, nor would it involve structures that would be occupied for any significant amount of time during either construction or operation activities. Should strong seismic ground shaking occur at the project site, damage to the PV modules and other ancillary facilities (e.g., substation) could result. However, because the proposed project would not establish a permanent on-site population, damage to these on-site structures would not expose substantial numbers of people to potential adverse effects. In addition, construction of the proposed project would be subject to all applicable ordinances of the Kern County Building Code (Chapter 17.08), and International Building Code and California Building Code earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. Adherence to all applicable regulations would mitigate any potential impacts associated with seismic ground shaking at the project site. Impacts related to exposing people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death from strong seismic ground shaking, are anticipated to be less than significant; however, the EIR will include an evaluation of potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking.

a.iii Seismically induced liquefaction occurs when loose, water-saturated sediments of relatively low density are subjected to cyclic shaking that causes soils to lose strength or stiffness because of increased pore water pressure. Liquefaction generally occurs when the depth to groundwater is less than 50 feet. Based on review of the Geology Report prepared for the proposed project, groundwater in the area is reported to be more than 50 feet below ground surface (Earth Systems, 2013). Thus, the potential for liquefaction at the surface is low. Structures constructed as part of the proposed project would be required by state law to be constructed in accordance with all applicable IBC and CBC earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. Adherence to all applicable regulations would avoid any potential impacts to structures resulting from liquefaction at the project site. Potential impacts for this issue area would be less than significant; however, further analysis of this issue is warranted in the EIR.

a.iv The project site is located in a relatively flat-lying plain, does not contain any steep slopes, and the likelihood of landslides is very low. Therefore, impacts related to landslides are not anticipated to occur or pose a hazard to the proposed project or surrounding area and further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

b. Removal of vegetation and excavation would be required for module foundations at the project site, and trenching would be required for the installation of underground cables and circuits. The proposed project would employ disk-and-roll grading, micrograding, and land-leveling equipment




for soils compaction. As a result, project construction would have the potential to result in erosion, sedimentation, and discharge of construction debris from the site. Vegetation clearing and grading activities, for example, could lead to exposed or stockpiled soils susceptible to peak stormwater runoff flows and wind forces. The compaction of soils by heavy equipment may reduce the infiltration capacity of soils (exposed during construction) and increase runoff or erosion potential. The presence of large amounts of raw materials for construction, including aggregate base course material, may lead to stormwater runoff contamination.

There are no drainages located on the site nor are drainages depicted on the topographic map for this area (Young, 2013). However, a SWPPP would be required to specify best management practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants, including erosion of soils (such as topsoil), from moving off-site. Although impacts are anticipated to be less than significant with implementation of the requirements, impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be evaluated in the EIR.

c. The project site lies in a relatively flat-lying plain where landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse are not expected to occur. Therefore, impacts related to geologic instability are not anticipated to occur or pose a hazard to the proposed project or surrounding area, and further analysis of this issue is not warranted in the EIR.

According to the preliminary geotechnical report, depth to groundwater at the project site is over 50 feet, and on-site soils do not appear to be susceptible to soil liquefaction. Thus, liquefaction is not a potentially significant impact related to the proposed project. Seismic settlement, lateral spreading and collapse are not expected to result in significant impacts. Furthermore, the structures would be subject to all applicable ordinances of the Kern County Building Code (Chapter 17.08), as well as all applicable IBC and CBC earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required in the EIR.

d. Expansive soils are fine-grained soils (generally high plasticity clays) that can undergo a significant increase in volume with an increase in water content and a significant decrease in volume with a decrease in water content. Changes in the water content of a highly expansive soil can result in severe distress to structures constructed on or against the soil. Preliminary geotechnical investigations have indicated that the expansion potential of on-site soils may be classified very low (0-20), and special design is not necessary. Nevertheless, the proposed project would be designed to comply with applicable building codes and structural improvement requirements to withstand the effects of expansive soils. The implementation of Kern County Building Code requirements, as applicable, would minimize the potential impact of expansive soils. Impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant and no further analysis is warranted in the EIR.

e. Operation of the proposed project would not require full-time staff at the project site. A portable toilet would be used during both construction and operations and a septic system would not be installed. Waste and wastewater would be removed from the site by qualified contractors and disposed of in accordance with applicable codes and regulations pertaining to portable toilets. Therefore, the proposed project does not propose the construction of any on-site septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The proposed project would have no impact and no further analysis is warranted in the EIR.






Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either

directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion

a. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change or global warming. The principal GHGs are CO2, methane (CH4), NOX, ozone, water vapor, and fluorinated gases. The temporary construction activities associated with the proposed project, which would involve operation of heavy off-road equipment, on-road trucks (for deliveries and hauling), and construction worker commute trips, would generate GHGs. However, as a solar facility, the proposed project is expected to displace traditional sources of electricity production that involves combustion energy sources (e.g., burning coal, fuel oil, or natural gas). As such, the provision of solar energy by the proposed project would produce GHG-free electricity that is anticipated to offset GHGs that would otherwise be generated by traditional sources of electricity. Overall, given the long-term GHG offsets provided by operation of the proposed project, impacts associated with GHGs from implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to be less than significant. Nonetheless, the potential impacts associated with GHG emissions generated during construction of the proposed project and the potential GHG offsets resulting from operation of the proposed project will be further evaluated in the EIR.

b. California has passed several bills and the governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding GHGs. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) was passed by the California legislature on August 31, 2006. It requires the states global warming emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that was phased in starting in 2012.

SEPV Mojave West Solar Project Draft Environmental Impact Report ...

Documents