appendix 1 - san benito county

Public Scoping Report

Solargen Energy, Inc.

Panoche Valley Solar Farm Project

CEQA Lead Agency:

County of San Benito Planning & Building Inspection Services

3224 Southside Road Hollister, CA 95023 SCH # 2010031008

Prepared by Aspen Environmental Group

June 2010

Panoche Valley Solar Farm Project SCOPING REPORT

June 2010 i

Contents

CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................2

1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1

1.1 PURPOSE OF SCOPING........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................................... 2

1.3 SCOPING REPORT ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................ 2

2. PROJECT SCOPING...........................................................................................3

2.1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND OTHER NOTICES .................................................................. 3

2.2 SCOPING MEETINGS .............................................................................................................. 4 Meeting Locations and Handouts ........................................................................................... 4 Newspaper Advertisements.................................................................................................... 4 Tribal Government Consultation............................................................................................. 4

2.3 OUTREACH............................................................................................................................. 5 Project Information Hotline and Fax....................................................................................... 5 Project Email Address.............................................................................................................. 5 Project Internet Websites ....................................................................................................... 5

3. SCOPING COMMENTS .....................................................................................5

3.1 KEY ISSUES RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD............................................... 6 Human Environment Issues and Concerns.............................................................................. 6 Physical Environmental Issues and Concerns.......................................................................... 7 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 7

3.2 SUMMARY OF ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY COMMENTS..................................... 7

4. NEXT STEPS IN THE EIR PROCESS ...................................................................29

5. APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND OTHER NOTICES

APPENDIX B: SCOPING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT AND HANDOUTS

APPENDIX C: SCOPING COMMENT LETTERS


June 2010 1

1. Introduction

This scoping report documents the public scoping effort conducted for the Panoche Valley Solar Farm project (proposed project). Solargen Energy, Inc. (Applicant) has filed an application with the County of San Benito (County) for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the proposed project. As part of the approval process, the County will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which will evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and will identify mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, where possible. To assist in the development of the scope of the EIR, the County held a 45‐day public scoping period to allow the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies an opportunity to comment on the scope of the environmental document and the alternatives considered, and to identify issues that should be addressed in the EIR1. This report documents the issues and concerns expressed at the public scoping meetings and the written comments received from the public and other interested parties during the public comment period.

1.1 Purpose of Scoping

The process of determining the focus and content of the EIR is known as scoping. Scoping helps to identify the range of alternatives, environmental effects, and mitigation measures to be analyzed in depth, and eliminates from detailed study those issues that are not pertinent to the final decision on the proposed project. The scoping process is not intended to resolve differences of opinion regarding the proposed project or evaluate its merits. Instead, the process allows all interested parties to express their concerns regarding the proposed project and thereby ensures that all opinions and comments are considered in the environmental analysis. Scoping is an effective way to bring together and address the concerns of the public, affected agencies, and other interested parties. Members of the public, relevant federal, State, regional and local agencies, interest groups, community organizations, and other interested parties may participate in the scoping process by providing comments or recommendations regarding issues to be investigated in the EIR.

Comments received during the scoping process are part of the public record as documented in this scoping report. The comments and questions received during the public scoping process have been reviewed and considered by the County in determining the appropriate scope of issues to be addressed in the EIR.

The purpose of the scoping process for the proposed project was to:

Inform the public and relevant public agencies about the proposed project, CEQA requirements, and the environmental impact analysis process;

Identify potentially significant environmental impacts for consideration in the EIR;

Identify possible mitigation measures for consideration in the EIR;

Identify alternatives to the proposed project for evaluation in the EIR; and

Compile a mailing list of public agencies and individuals interested in future project meetings and notices.

1 During the scoping period, it came to the County’s attention that the project fax number was incorrectly printed on

the Comment Cards that were distributed at the scoping meetings held in Panoche Valley and Hollister March 15 and 16, 2010, respectively. This number was accurately presented in the Notice of Preparation, the other scoping meeting handouts, and on the project website. In order to accommodate scoping meeting attendees who may have been confused by the fax number error, the County extended the comment period by two weeks, from a 30‐day scoping period to a 45‐day scoping period.


2 June 2010

1.2 Summary of Proposed Project

The Panoche Valley Solar Farm project would be a 420 megawatt (MW) solar energy generation facility. At the public scoping meetings, the proposed project was described as consisting of 1,822,800 pole‐mounted, solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and associated electrical equipment, an electrical substation, and an opera‐tions and maintenance building. The proposed project would deliver electricity to the regional transmis‐sion system by interconnecting to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) Moss‐Panoche/Coburn‐Panoche 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line on site. The proposed project would be considered a renew‐able energy generation facility, and according to the Applicant would support California in meeting its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandate.

The proposed project would be constructed in five phases, subject to minor adjustment:

The first 20 MW phase beginning construction in late 2010 and finishing in late 2011

The second 100 MW phase beginning construction late 2011 and finishing in late 2012

The third 100 MW phase beginning construction in late 2012 and finishing in late 2013

The fourth 100 MW phase beginning construction in late 2013 and finishing in late 2014

The fifth 100 MW phase beginning construction in late 2014 and finishing in late 2015

Two ephemeral streams, Panoche Creek and Las Aguilas Creek, traverse the site, entering from the northwest and converging in the southern portion of the site. Several other unnamed washes are also located on the site. The PG&E Moss‐Panoche/Coburn‐Panoche transmission line traverses the site in a northwest‐southeast direction. Surrounding land uses primarily include livestock grazing. There are scat‐tered rural residences adjacent to the site. The Panoche Inn is located south of the project site near the intersection of Panoche Road and Little Panoche Road. Panoche School is located approximately ¾ mile from the project’s southeastern boundary.

1.3 Scoping Report Organization

This scoping report includes four main sections and appendices, as described below:

Section 1 provides an introduction to the report and describes the purpose of scoping and a brief overview of the proposed project.

Section 2 provides information on the scoping meetings and notification materials, including the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and other notices.

Section 3 summarizes the comments received and issues raised during the scoping comment period.

Section 4 describes the next steps in the EIR process.

Appendices consist of all the supporting materials used during scoping as well as copies of comment letters received on the proposed project.

o Appendix A: The appendix includes the Notice of Preparation and other notices.

o Appendix B: The appendix includes copies of the advertisements for the scoping meetings, and scoping meeting materials provided at the public scoping meetings.

o Appendix C: The appendix includes copies of comment letters received.


June 2010 3

2. Project Scoping This section describes the methods used to notify the public and agencies about the scoping process con‐ducted for the proposed project. It outlines how information was made available for public and agency review and identifies the different avenues available for providing comments on the project (meetings, fax, email, mail, and phone).

2.1 Notice of Preparation and Other Notices

As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15082, the County issued a NOP on March 1, 2010, that summarized the proposed project, stated its intention to prepare an EIR, and requested comments from interested parties (See Appendix A). The NOP also included notice of the two public scoping meetings that were held on March 15 and 16, 2010 in Panoche Valley and Hollister, respec‐tively. The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 2, 2010 (SCH #2010031008), which began the 30‐day public scoping period. The scoping period was extended at the end of March by an additional notice, described below. The review period for the NOP ended on April 15, 2010.

Approximately 88 copies of the NOP were distributed to federal, State, regional, and local agencies; elected officials; and the general public. The mailing included the following approximate distribution:

31 agency representatives and area planning groups

2 environmental groups/organizations

11 tribal government representatives

5 elected officials

39 private citizens and other interested parties

In addition, four copies of the NOP were delivered to the local repository sites. The NOP and project‐related documents were available for review at the repository sites defined in Table 1.

Table 1. Repository Sites

Repository Site Address and Phone Panoche Inn 29960 Panoche Road, Paicines, CA 95043

(831) 628-3538

San Benito County Department of Planning and Building Inspection Services

3224 Southside Road, Hollister, CA 95023 (831) 637-5313

San Benito County Free Library 470 5th Street, Hollister, CA 95023 (831) 626-4107

San Benito County Administration Building 481 4th Street (First Floor) Hollister, CA 95023 (831) 636-4000

During the scoping period, it came to the County’s attention that the project fax number was incorrectly printed on the Comment Cards that were distributed at the scoping meetings held in Panoche Valley and Hollister March 15 and 16, 2010, respectively. This number was accurately presented in the Notice of Preparation, the other scoping meeting handouts, and on the project website. In order to accommodate scoping meeting attendees who may have been confused by the fax number error, the County extended the comment period by two weeks. Approximately 129 copies of the notice to extend the scoping period were distributed to interested parties (including people who attended the scoping meetings and people who originally received the NOP). Appendix A includes a copy of this notice .


4 June 2010

2.2 Scoping Meetings

The County held two public scoping meetings in two locations near the proposed project site on March 15 and 16. The scoping meetings provided an opportunity for the public and government agencies to obtain more information on the proposed project, to learn more about the CEQA process, to ask ques‐tions regarding the proposed project, and to provide formal comments on the proposed project.

Meeting Locations and Handouts

The scoping meetings were held at the locations and on the dates specified on Table 2. This table also indicates the numbers of attendees and comments received.

Table 2.Public Scoping Meetings

Date and Time Meeting Location Sign-Ins Oral Comments Written Comments

Monday March 15, 2010 6:00 to 8:00 pm

Panoche Valley Panoche School 31441 Panoche Road Paicines, CA 95043

25 9 0

Tuesday March 16, 2010 6:00 to 8:00 pm

Hollister Veterans Memorial Building 649 San Benito Street, Room 218 Hollister, CA 95023

42 19 0

Totals 67 28 0

Handouts and informational materials available at each meeting are listed below. Refer to Appendices A and B for copies of these materials.

Notice of Preparation, English and Spanish (Appendix A)

PowerPoint Presentation (Appendix B)

Self‐Addressed Speaker Comment Sheet (Appendix B)

Speaker Registration Card (Appendix B)

Notes were taken at each meeting to record all oral comments presented at the meetings. This report provides a summary of these oral comments. In addition, the County provided Spanish translation services at the meetings in the event that such services were needed.

Newspaper Advertisements

A legal advertisement with the dates and locations of the public scoping meetings was published in two local newspapers on March 5 and 9, 2010: The Pinnacle and the Hollister Free Lance (see Appendix B). The advertisement provided a brief synopsis of the proposed project and announced the meeting details.

Tribal Government Consultation

A letter from the Native American Heritage Commission in February 2010 stated that a records search for cultural resources in the immediate project area failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources. However, a list of Native American individuals/organizations with knowledge of the cultural resources in the project area was included. The County sent the Notice of Preparation and Notice of the corrected fax number to the recommended representatives, in addition to another five representatives of regional tribes. No scoping comments were received from tribal government representatives or Native American individuals or organizations prior to publication of the Scoping Report.


June 2010 5

2.3 Outreach

The County also provided opportunities for the public and agencies to ask questions and to comment on the proposed project outside of the two public scoping meetings described in Section 2.2. In addition to the scoping meetings, a public telephone hotline, email address, and website were established and made avail‐able during the public comment period to accept comments on the EIR or to receive questions regarding the proposed project or the environmental review process. All of these outreach tools will be available to the public throughout the environmental review process. These additional outreach efforts are described below.

Project Information Hotline and Fax

In order to offer another opportunity to inquire about the scoping meetings or the proposed project, a telephone hotline [(888) 467‐1863] was established to take oral comments and questions from those unable to attend the meetings. Telephone messages were retrieved daily and all calls were responded to within a 48‐hour period. The hotline also allowed comments to be submitted by facsimile. Comments received through this hotline (voice and fax) have been considered and incorporated into this report.

Project Email Address

An email address was established for the public to use ([email protected]) as another means of submitting comments on the scope of the EIR and throughout the EIR process. The email address was provided on project notices and meeting handouts, and was posted on the website. Comments received by email have been considered and incorporated into this report.

Project Internet Websites

Two project websites were set up to provide information about the proposed project, and to ensure that a backup system is in place in the event one site is unreachable for unforeseen reasons. The project website and the County website have included, and will continue to include, identical information. During the March/April 2010 scoping period, the websites included electronic versions of the project application, NOP, and provided another public venue to learn about the project. The websites will remain a public resource for the project and will announce future public meetings and hearings. The website addresses are:

County Website Project Website

http://www.san-benito.ca.us http://www.panochesolar.info

3. Scoping Comments

This section summarizes the comments raised by the public and agencies during the scoping process for the Panoche Valley Solar Farm project EIR. This summary is based upon both written and oral comments that were received during the scoping review period, from March 1, 2010 to April 15, 2010. All written and oral comments received during the public comment period, during the public scoping meetings, through the phone line (voice/fax), and through email were reviewed for this report and for the EIR.

Approximately sixty‐seven (67) individuals presented oral comments during the scoping meetings, and 32 comment letters were submitted during the scoping process. In addition to private individuals, six govern‐ment agencies and six private organizations submitted written comments.


6 June 2010

3.1 Key Issues Raised during the Public Comment Period

The discussion below presents the specific issues raised during the public scoping process according to the following topics and issue areas:

Human Environment Issues and Concerns

Physical Environment Issues and Concerns

Alternatives

Human Environment Issues and Concerns

Some public comments focused on the potential effect of the project on the human environment, includ‐ing conflicts with existing land uses and impacts to property values, fiscal impacts, noise, construction impacts, and hazards.

Conflicts with Existing Land Uses

One of the most common land use issues identified both in the public meetings and through the written comment letters was the potential impact of the proposed project on agriculture. The concerns centered on the effects of dust on agriculture from the construction and operation of the proposed project and irreversible impacts to Grade 1/Class 1 soils. Commenters requested an analysis of the agricultural poten‐tial of the valley, and requested consideration of the loss of Williamson Act lands specifically with regard to the moratorium in the County on program enrollment. Additional concerns focused on the reflection of polarized light from thin‐film panels, which would potentially impact pollinating insects in the valley.

Commenters also expressed concern regarding the potential impact of the proposed project on eco‐tourism in the valley, and impacts on tourism at Mercy Hot Springs.

Impacts to Property Values and Other Socioeconomic issues

Some residents expressed concern regarding loss of manufacturing jobs and loss of ranching in the area. Additionally, commenters expressed concern about a loss in their property values due to the project. Fiscal concerns included impacts on police and fire services, deterioration of County roads, and loss of tourism revenue.

Noise

Some commenters also expressed concern with the noise generated by construction and asked that noise be sufficiently evaluated in the EIR.

Hazards

A number of concerns regarding hazards were raised during the scoping period. Concern was expressed regarding an increase in the disease Valley Fever from soil‐disturbing construction activities. Additional concerns were expressed regarding the risk of fire from electrical arcing and potential impacts to resi‐dences from grass fires. Additionally, commenters were concerned with the risk of high winds damaging the panels and the associated release of toxic substances that may be contained in the panels.


June 2010 7

Physical Environmental Issues and Concerns

Commenters expressed concern with the potential impacts of the proposed project on the physical envi‐ronment, particularly biological resources.

Biological Resources Issues

Commenters expressed a variety of concerns regarding impacts to biological resources. These included concern regarding the impacts of the thin film panels as they reflect polarized light and attract insects, which in turn attract birds resulting in potential avian collisions. Specific concern was expressed for the endangered California condor. Additional concern was expressed regarding the impact of the project on special status species, candidate species, species of special concern, and sensitive species. Commenters mentioned that the EIR timeline was too short for a full analysis of all listed species in the region. Full protocol surveys were requested. Cumulative impacts for San Joaquin kit fox was repeatedly noted, especially as the project would be located in one of three core recovery areas for this species. Further concern was expressed for the potential effects on wildlife from night lighting, increased shade, and increased temperatures.

Aesthetics

Concern for impacts to the aesthetics of the valley was also noted. Specifically, commenters mentioned the effects of dust on regional views and the visual blight the project would potentially have on the valley and surrounding areas. Concern was expressed over night lighting and its potential impacts to stargazers. A request was made for accurate representations of the project from all angles inclusive of all proposed structures.

Transportation & Circulation

Another key issue that arose during the scoping period included potential impacts to San Benito and Fresno County roads. One commenter suggested that roads ought not be improved solely for this project because it would lead to an overuse of roads by visitors after project construction has ended.

Alternatives

As noted earlier in this report, approximately 67 individuals presented oral comments on the project and 32 written comments were received during the scoping period. There was a substantial number of suggested alternatives received from agencies, private organizations, and citizens. The following points provide a broad sampling of the alternatives suggested.

Rooftop solar projects in population centers

Alternative sites, including the Westlands Water District site

“Brownfield” or previously disturbed sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency

Wind, geothermal, other renewable technologies

3.2 Summary of All Public Comments and Agency Comments

Table 3 provides a summary of all written comments received. Appendix C includes copies of written com‐ments received on the proposed project.


8 June 2010

Table 3. Summary of Written Comments Received

Date From Comments February 5, 2010 Santa Clara Valley

Audubon Society Shani Kleinhaus

Panoche Valley and other areas of San Benito County are frequented by members, and provide home to core populations of rare and endangered animals and is considered an Important Bird Area of global priority.

Inappropriately siting solar energy can result in impacts to ecological communities, endangered species, and result in costly and time-consuming recovery, re-planning and in prolonged litigation.

Alternatives: need a comprehensive analysis of alternatives that would reduce footprint and minimize harm to plants and animals.

Transmission Infrastructure: PG&E interconnection study should be included with the project to examine feasibility of connecting to a 230 kV line. Any upgrades to the line should be included.

Applicant should not sign a Power Purchase Agreement with a utility company for any specific amount of energy until the transmission line study is complete.

Biological Resources: EIR should consider impacts to bird species, insects including aquatic species, bat species, biological phenomena such as migration, wildlife corridors, endangered plant and animal species, habitats, ecosystems, and pollination. The introduction of nuisance plants should be considered as well as cumulative impacts.

A groundwater analysis for the project and alternatives should be included. Dust abatement measures should be included. The toxicity of the panels should be discussed including manufacturing, any

leaching from the panels, cleaning chemicals, and end-of-life disposal. EIR should consider any road infrastructure upgrades. Visual impacts of solar farm should be analyzed. Mitigation monitoring and enforcement must be included in the CEQA document.

March 9, 2010 Frank Saunders Owns land in Panoche Valley and requests a map that shows the parcels of the project and those immediately adjacent to the project so that the exact location of the project can be known.

Project will create aesthetic impacts to the pristine valley. March 12, 2010 Diana Verhalen Concerned because of risk to wildlife and local farms by the installation of solar

panels. Better ways to locate and utilize the renewable energy. March 18, 2010 Ruth Erickson Had a variety of socioeconomic concerns including: how the project will benefit

county and residents; will workers be hired from within the County; where will the panels be manufactured; will the County and city residents receive cheaper energy bills; how will local ranchers benefit; who will pay for maintenance, upkeep, and replacement of materials; will there be education for County residents about solar power.

How will heavy rains affect rivers and streams in the surrounding areas once the project has created additional grading.

How will wildlife cross the area, including bobcats, wild boars, deer, etc. Will fencing be a problem?

Will high power lines transport the energy out of the valley? Will this affect the area?

How will the height of the power lines and heat from the panels affect planes and birds? Will there be a problem with glare?


June 2010 9


Date From Comments March 19, 2010 San Benito County

Fire Department James Dellamonica – Captain

A fire sprinkler system is required throughout the doublewide trailers and other structures.

Plans and calculations shall be submitted to the office for review prior to installation.

If the facility or building is more than 400 feet from a hydrant, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be required.

Comment letter included specifications as to the gate requirements, access roads, and a Fire Protection/Prevention Plan.

Response time to the site would be 45 minutes to 1 hour – by sending an engine and staff to this location, the engine and staff would be committed for at least 2 and a half hours. This would leave the rest of the County without a quick response to fire emergencies –this impact should be seriously considered.

March 20, 2010 Rani Douglas Concern regarding drawdown of water table due to the project, causing wells to dry up due to dust mitigation and cleaning of panels.

Threatened and endangered species and bird habitat should not be disturbed, project will cause major loss of habitat. Cannot mitigate the habitat loss in the hills.

March 21, 2010 Collette Cassidy Grading may result not only in an increased presence of Valley Fever and anthrax. Have already vaccinated cows for anthrax.

March 23, 2010 Daniel George Requests that the EIR address long-term economic burden on San Benito County, including remediation and clean up of the site and direct fiscal benefits.

EIR should consider ramifications of central power source. What loss of energy occurs over transmission line? What security issues exist?

What is the economic viability of the plant in five to twenty years given development of solar elsewhere?

Are there alternative locations not on prime agriculture land and that wouldn’t impact endangered species?

Would the project be increased in size in the future? Should be considered as a cumulative effect.

What is the long-term effect on County planning? What is the cumulative impact on threatened and endangered species? What level of water consumption would be required? How would this impact farms

and ranches? What impact will fencing have on wildlife migration? Would the conditions of the site remain suitable for grazing? EIR should consider cumulative impacts of other large solar projects. EIR should consider impacts to night sky and value of darkness. EIR should consider loss of agriculture land. Identify true potential for greenhouse gas offset by project, specifically need for

coal plants to continue to operate at night. March 29, 2010 San Benito County

Environmental Health Bob Shingai

EIR should include information regarding liquid waste disposal, water system infor-mation, hazardous materials information of the proposed project, site assessment regarding hazardous waste impacting the site, and site assessment regarding any abandoned sewage disposal system.


10 June 2010


Date From Comments March 29, 2010 Silicon Valley Toxics

Coalition Sheila Davis

Advocates a mandatory takeback policy for all solar photovoltaic modules sold in the U.S.

Requests that Applicant implement a pre-funded takeback and recycling program for all PV modules installed, takeback program should not use prison labor nor allow waste to be exported to developing countries.

Protect workers from exposure to toxic materials and ensure a living wage. Conduct lifecycle analysis and risk assessments on the inputs used to manufacture

solar PV modules. Be transparent and accountable to communities regarding where the PV modules

will be manufactured, installed,and disposed of. Request information regarding what kinds of modules will be used for project,

anticipated nameplate peak power output rating of PV plant, number of modules used to achieve this capacity, recoverable materials of the modules, and toxic materials contained in the modules.

Disposal plan for faulty or defective modules. Disposal for end-of-life modules, including takeback and recycling. Cost of safely and responsibly recycling modules. Current disposal of defective modules. Cost of decommissioning plant, description of decommissioning phases. If modules are broken onsite, what kinds and quantities of particulate mater is

expected. Who will bond plant decommissioning and takeback? Cost of transporting decommissioning wastes. Would modules that Solargen use have industry standards?


June 2010 11


Date From Comments March 30, 2010 Center for Biological

Diversity Ileene Anderson; Defenders of Wildlife Pamela Flick; Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Shani Kleinhaus; Fresno Audubon Society Brandon Hill; Monterey Audubon Society Blake Matheson; Santa Cruz Bird Club Mathew Strusis-Timmer

Concerned with the project timeline, request information on how a complete site specific DEIR can be completed in proposed time frame. Requests methodology for collecting, studying, and assessing necessary baseline data.

PG&E transmission line interconnection study should be included in DEIR, any necessary upgrades should be listed and impacts of the upgrades addressed.

Alternatives: Evaluate alternative private and public sites on significantly disturbed land with no habitat value; evaluate alternative resources such as rooftop solar, parking lots, and distributed generation in urban areas; alternatives that reduce the spatial footprint of the project.

Request thorough, seasonal surveys for sensitive plant and animal species and full disclosure of survey methods and results in addition to full season of breeding and wintering bird surveys.

Full floral inventory of all species encountered should be documented and included in DEIR.

Include vegetation and wildlife maps to be large enough scale to be useful for evaluating impacts, half-acre minimum mapping is recommended.

EIR must evaluate impacts to all federally and state listed endangered and threatened species, including candidate species and Sensitive Species and Species of Special Concern.

Evaluate cumulative impacts to Panoche Valley wildlife including impacts from development in other core distribution areas and to long-term genetic viability and recovery.

Provide comprehensive groundwater and surface water impact analysis. Assess risks that polarized light reflected from PV solar panels pose to insects,

birds, and bats. Evaluate biological impacts on wildlife movement due to fencing including impacts

on large and small mammals and other groups and determine appropriate size and locations of habitat linkages. Include cumulative impacts.

Evaluate biological impacts due to project structures, on foodwebs, on ecological community structure in the Panoche Valley, if electromagnetic waves will be generated by the panels, impact to the Panoche Valley climate and indirect impacts on species, impacts of light pollution/glare on wildlife, and impacts to wildlife caused by increased human activity.

Evaluate increased risk of fire including best management practices for fire prevention and water sources and availability for fighting fires.

Include a dust abatement section and estimated water use for dust abatement. Analyze feasibility of Applicant proposal to seed vegetation near the panels. Show accurate portrayal of what the project will look like; verify accuracy of

modeling and demonstrate if visual impacts can be mitigated. DEIR should specify who in San Benito County is responsible for mitigation

monitoring/enforcement and mitigation should not be deferred. DEIR should indentify decommissioning plan and ensure appropriate funding.


12 June 2010


Date From Comments March 30, 2010 Audubon California

Jordan Wellwood Central Valley/Sierra Nevada Conservation Coordinator

In support of renewable projects if they are planned, sited, and operated in a manner that prioritizes avoidance of habitat disturbance over mitigation.

Concerned with project because of unavoidable and extensive impacts to wildlife habitat and bird species; Panoche Valley has been designated as an Important Bird Area of Global Significance. The Important Bird Area program is part of an international effort to designate and support conservation efforts at sites that provide important breeding, wintering, or migratory habitats.

The Panoche Valley IBA was designated because it contains more than twelve sensitive bird species and a significant portion of the global populations of Mountain Plovers currently proposed for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act and listed as a California Bird Species of Special Concern. Panoche Valley is notable for high concentrations of wintering raptors, sparrow flocks, burrowing owl, and other grassland species. Grassland birds are among the fastest declining birds in North American.

The EIR should address: grassland bird species in each season, impacts on migrating birds, cumulative impacts on wildlife, loss of productive farmland, water needs of the project, impacts of decommissioning, need for additional infrastructure, light pollution, impacts of fencing on wildlife corridors.

Request a full season of breeding and wintering bird surveys within the project area using CDFG methods and request the data from the surveys be made publicly available.

Any plan to move forward should include a comprehensive monitoring plan for impacts on wildlife.

March 30, 2010 Jeannette Velasquez Concerned that project would create runoff problem because rainfall would be deflected by solar panels. Water flowing through Panoche Valley begins near the project area before flowing through family farming field, beyond I-5.

Additionally how much additional cemented areas would be included from the project adding to the project runoff.

Includes photos of the fragile creek bank conditions on New Idria Road. Documented changes to the creek bank during last 15 years. Damage to creek in back of fields is significant as large areas are impacted by erosion and fallen into the creek. Access roads in three areas have been washed away.

What are the plans to protect these areas, current creek cannot handle increased runoff. What protection will be offered along the creek banks? New Idria Road should be maintained and protected.


June 2010 13


Date From Comments March 30, 2010 California

Department of Conservation Dan Otis, Program Manager

Construction and use of solar panels would need to satisfy Government Codes §51238.1 “Principles of Compatibility.”

PV arrays not typically related to or compatible with grazing and would displace much of the grazing land; DOC does not consider the project, as proposed, to be a compatible use with grazing.

If cancellation of the Williamson Act lands is required, notification must be submitted to the Department when the County accepts the application for a tentative cancellation as complete.

Recommend EIR include a discussion on whether any cancellation involved in the project would meet required findings of Government Code §51282(c). Notification of cancellation must be submitted separately to the DOC.

Project is considered of statewide or regional or area-wide significance if it would result in cancellation of 100 or more acres of Williamson Act land. DOC recom-mends following information is provided in EIR: map detailing location of agriculture preserves and contracted land, discussion of any Williamson Act contracts that may be terminated, if portions will continue to be under Williamson Act contracts discuss proposed use of the lands, removal of any lands in Agriculture Preserves or changes in General Plan Designations or Zoning in the Preserves.

Division offers a variety of permitting conditions the County could consider for permitting energy projects including items such as requiring a reclamation plan for solar farm facilities, requiring a new permit be applied for after a certain time period, requiring permanent agriculture conservation easements through the outright purchase of easements or donation of mitigation fees to a local, regional, or statewide organization or agency whose purpose includes acquisition and stewardship of agricultural conservation easements.

March 30, 2010 Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Michael Ferreira

Current timeline appears too brief to gather the best scientific data and to conduct studies with diligence.

Cumulative issues and alternatives should be considered. Alternatives should consider areas where prime agriculture lands and endangered species are not an issue such as the Westlands Water District, south of the Panoche Valley.

March 31, 2010 Rancho de la Llanada Don and Nenette Corotto

Demonstrate how project is compatible with agriculture/rangeland zoning in County zoning ordinance and agriculture zoning in General Plan. Show mitigation for loss of prime agriculture, Class I soil.

Alternatives: consider how much private and commercial rooftop space and commercial and private parking space there is in Hollister and San Juan Bautista; consider non-prime agriculture lands within the Hollister and San Juan Bautista sphere of influence; include playgrounds and school yard PV shade structures.

Include a full cost and benefit analysis for the County including items such as County labor, road improvements, increased law enforcement, increase emergency services, loss of tax revenues, loss of jobs in the Panoche Valley, effects of project on surrounding property values, cost for mitigation monitoring, county costs during the project lifetime, increase revenue for County, increases in jobs in County, include legal agreements between Applicant and County to make yearly donation of $1 million per year to County in lieu of taxes.

EIR should include construction details and grading impacts on wildlife, topsoil erosion, and future agriculture, avoidance of sensitive areas, limits to the placement of the panels and impacts to populated areas.

EIR should include decommissioning plans, end-of-life disposal of panels, toxics emitted during decommissioning, recycling opportunities, and legal agreements between County and Applicant regarding clean up costs.

EIR should include an accurate account regarding energy that could be generated by project.

PG&E transmission interconnection study, upgrades, details of the Purchase Power Agreement with PG&E.


14 June 2010


Date From Comments

Impacts to biological resources including bird species, insects, bat species, biological phenomena, wildlife corridors, California and Federal species of special interest, threatened and endangered species, impacts to ecological communities and services, and risk of introduced species.

Identify seed source for revegetation and information regarding ability to grow under panels, describe how hydroseeding would work under panels and water needs, include details on noxious weed and invasive plant control plan.

Provide historic changes in stream and wash paths, impacts of rainwater runoff, increased erosion due to rainwater runoff, total areas of impervious surfaces caused by project.

Include list of substances used for maintenance and risks they pose for soil and groundwater erosion, and cumulative impacts on soil, groundwater, wildlife.

Include a full groundwater use impact analysis and any impacts on water availability for current and future farming.

Include discussion on light pollution and impacts to migrating birds, insects, photo-periodic behavior, and on sensitive species.

Any impacts on electromagnetic radiation. Impacts of fugitive dust on plants, air quality, and idling restrictions. Include a full dust abatement plan, including Valley Fever spores. Include information on toxicity of panels, any impacts caused by failed panels, and

toxic or hazardous materials in production of PV solar cells. Include information on potential health effects due to exposure of electromagnetic

radiation and exposure to toxic and hazardous materials. Increased risk of fire and response and cleanup in the event of a natural disaster. Analysis of all direct and cumulative noise impacts on Panoche Elementary

School, surrounding business livestock, wildlife and tourism. Include a traffic study for construction and operations and increase in visitors to

the valley if San Benito becomes a solar hub. Full analysis of impacts to roads and necessary road improvements. Any visual impacts and monitoring/enforcement requirements.

March 10, 2010 and March 31, 2010

Kevin Davis Highlights discrepancies in the project description including that the number and type of solar panels used in the project would not add up to 420 MW. Michael Petersen has stated that the project would not use amorphous silicon panels. According to the press release, Solargen has the option to purchase panels from China and the typical power output from the type of power that the panels would produce would require over 4 million panels or over 69 million square feet to achieve the desired energy.

Requests details on project description including: solar panels to be used, current description of panels do not exist and closest panels are more toxic than in the project details; how panels are to be mounted.

Requests total figure of grasslands removed, including roads, pathways, and fire blocks.

Concern regarding impacts to aesthetics, including the significant vistas in Panoche. Applicant states it will use panels from NexPower but this manufacturer does not

produce 230 watt solar panels, NexPower panels would require greater amount of space than stated in the initial report.

No coverage in the application regarding the capacity of the 230 kV transmission line and no mention of upgrades to the existing line and the exact specifications of any and all upgrades should be declared in a new application.


June 2010 15


Date From Comments March 31, 2010 Maxine Davis EIR should consider impacts to property values in Panoche Valley with the inclusion

of an industrial facility. Concern regarding the road conditions in the Panoche Valley Both Panoche Road and Little Panoche Road have blind corners, one-lane sections,

and bridges. EIR should discuss funding of road improvements during construction and operations due to increased use of the road.

EIR should discuss increased fire risk during summer months. Dust storms will likely increase due to amount of access roads required. Concern regarding the use of non-native seeds for replanting and the impacts of

planting directly beneath the solar panels with limited sun and water. EIR should address how the water used for the project will impact the water table

in the Panoche Valley. EIR should consider cumulative loss of grasslands. Chain link fence would impact biological resources. Construction impacts would increase noise during a 5 year period, impacting quality

of life and creating impacts to wildlife. Project would create impacts to the night sky, and to wildlife who are active during

the night. Concerns regarding impacts to wildlife including San Joaquin kit fox and giant

kangaroo rat. Consider a distributed solar alternative, with installation on rooftops and parking

areas. EIR should look at the availability on the PG&E transmission line for this project.

March 31, 2010 Jeannette Langstaff Project should be in an industrial area not on an agricultural area. Agriculture and wildlife habitat should be preserved, including land under

Williamson Act. Greenhouse gases assessment should consider importing food from other countries

should productive agriculture lands be used for the project. Project impacts endangered species in this core area, loss of the land increases

probability of extinction. Concern regarding impacts of the PV panels and transmission lines on migration,

birds see panels as water, insects lay their eggs on the panels interrupting their cycle.

Project would require new roads, which are not currently needed. Put efforts into rooftop solar and commercial installations instead. The company’s record should be considered, how have their plans and projects

turned out in the last 5 to 10 years. March 31, 2010 Dustin Mulvaney Applicant and all renewable energy project Applicants should consider the life cycle

impacts of their projects including information such as the project’s energy return on investment; lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions; lifecycle emissions of criteria air pollutants; carbon debt from land use change and energy payback; avoided carbon costs of the project; estimated capacity factor of the power plant; estimated power degradation rate of the modules; and the kind of panel and inverter design.

March 31, 2010 Your Family Farm Kim Williams

Permitting: explain how a site specific EIR can be completed in the County proposed time frame, including investigation methodology, protection from liability, and state held liability due to the fast-track directions.

Does the project trigger federal nexus through Army Corps of Engineers involvement and if NEPA is required.

Show CPUC approval for any Power Purchase Agreements. Does site include Areas of Critical Environmental Concern or critical habitat. Land Use/Zoning: Is project compatible with General Plan and zoning and list any

General Plan or zoning amendments required.


16 June 2010


Date From Comments Show all mitigation efforts for loss of prime farmland, and potential for increased

development pressure in surrounding areas and future eminent domain consider-ations should public utility take control of project.

Include scenario if Panoche Valley becomes an urbanized area and the formation of a Special District in order to handle the increase in service needs.

Alternatives: consider alternative sites; private, commercial, and public rooftop space in Hollister and San Juan Bautista; non-prime farmland in Hollister and San Juan Bautista; alternative sites in San Benito County that aren’t prime farmlands and home to endangered species; other technologies that use less space.

Include a full cost and benefit analysis with items such as County labor, road improvements, increased law enforcement, increase emergency services, loss of tax revenues, loss of jobs in the Panoche Valley, effects of project on surrounding property values, cost for mitigation monitoring, county costs during the project lifetime, increase revenue for County, increases in jobs in County, legal agreements between Applicant and County to make yearly donation of $1 million per year to County in lieu of taxes, impacts on farms due to increased livestock predation, increased demand for public services.

Include a comprehensive analysis of potential for Hollister to become a solar hub/center.

Include a financial risk analysis of Solargen Energy Inc. including the viability of the company without ARRA subsidies.

Requests detailed construction plans and grading impacts, and use of less sensitive areas.

Any plans for construction crew work camps in or near the site including on the Panoche Inn.

Plans for a project visitor center and any impacts due to increases in visitors. Include decommissioning plans, end-of-life disposal solutions, toxic emissions

during decommissioning, and legal agreements for decommissioning. Analysis of how the project will generate 420 MW. PG&E transmission interconnection study, upgrades, details of the Purchase Power

Agreement. Any historical and prehistoric cultural resources at project site and in greater

Panoche Valley. Impacts to bird species and violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or Bald

and Golden Eagle Protection Acts. Project impacts to insects and bats during all seasons. Impacts on biological phenomena and wildlife corridors. Impacts to California and Federal listed, threatened, and endangered species. Impacts to ecosystems services and impacts to pollinators. Cumulative impacts to biological resources. Include information regarding appropriate mitigation lands with viable populations. Include information regarding source of revegetation efforts, including how the

seeds will grow in shade areas, how hydroseeding can occur under panels, how the plants used for revegetation would be chosen, and a Noxious Weed and Invasive Plan Control Plan.

Provide historic changes in stream and wash paths, impacts of rainwater runoff, increased erosion due to rainwater runoff, total areas of impervious surfaces caused by project.

Include list of substances used for maintenance and risks they pose for soil and groundwater erosion, and cumulative impacts on soil, groundwater, wildlife.

Include a full groundwater use impact analysis for lower and upper aquifers and any impacts on water availability for current and future farming and project’s compliance with County policy reserving ground water for agriculture uses.

Include discussion on light pollution and impacts to migrating birds, insects,


June 2010 17


Date From Comments photo-periodic behavior, and on sensitive species.

Any impacts on electromagnetic radiation. Include information regarding greenhouse gases and carbon sequestration in the

Panoche Valley and all greenhouse gas emissions during construction of the project and during manufacturing of the solar panels.

Impacts of fugitive dust on plants, air quality, and idling restrictions. Include a full dust abatement plan, including Valley Fever spores. Include information on toxicity of panels, any impacts caused by failed panels, and

toxic or hazardous materials in production of PV solar cells. Include information on potential health effects due to exposure of electromagnetic

radiation and exposure to toxic and hazardous materials. Increased risk of fire, including to the Panoche Elementary School, and response

and cleanup in the event of a natural disaster. Analysis of all direct and cumulative noise impacts on Panoche Elementary School,

surrounding business livestock, wildlife and tourism. Include a traffic study for construction and operations and increase in visitors to

the valley if San Benito becomes a solar hub. Full analysis of impacts to roads and necessary road improvements. Any visual impacts and monitoring/enforcement requirements. Provide full analysis of mitigation plans, including long-term maintenance

requirements, schedule and means of implementation, and mitigation requirements.

Show how the County will implement, track, monitor, and report on any proposed mitigation, and all legal documentation of requirements.

April 1, 2010 Defenders of Wildlife Joshua Basofin and Pamela Flick

A number of special status species were documented on the site or have suitable habitat on the site, of which, the California condor, golden eagle, and blunt-nosed leopard lizard are “Fully Protected” under California state law. Fully Protected species cannot be taken or possessed at any time.

Under the USFWS San Joaquin kit fox recovery plan site specific protection requires protection of 90 percent of the existing potential habitat in the Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area; the CDFG Wildlife Action Plan calls for the protection of three core kit fox populations including the Ciervo-Panoche National Area and connections between populations.

Panoche Valley is one of six “highest priority” areas targeted for habitat protection for blunt-nosed leopard lizard and this species is especially sensitive to habitat disturbance and the Panoche Valley population is important for overall conservation and recovery.

The project fencing would impede movement across the valley floor and would likely increase predation. The fencing would pose an unacceptable risk to kit foxes; suggest use of a traditional three-four strand barbed wire fence with a smooth wire on lower tier.

Project proponent should determine appropriate mitigation to fully mitigate impacts and not allow deferred mitigation, propose a 5:1 mitigation ratio due to historic loss of San Joaquin Valley ecosystem habitat. Recommend protocol level surveys for all special status species known to occur on the project site. Full disclosure of survey methods and results are requested.

Alternatives: alternatives should include lands that have been mechanically disturbed, brownfields, locations adjacent to urban areas, locations that minimize the need to build new roads, locations that could be served by existing substations, areas proximate to municipal wastewater, locations proximate to load centers.

Cumulative impacts must include past, present and reasonably probable future projects including the two large-scale solar projects in the Carrizo Plain in eastern San Luis Obispo County and additional solar projects in western Kern County. Believes solar projects in the Panoche Valley, Carrizo Plain, and western Kern


18 June 2010


Date From Comments County would cause significant cumulative impacts and may cause jeopardy to the future existence of the San Joaquin kit fox, giant kangaroo rat, and blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

April 1, 2010 Robert Brians Distributed energy is the way forward in the field of solar energy large demand for solar rebates indicating a trend in local installations; also reduces line loss

References the PG&E and SCE rooftop solar installations. Rooftop solar is becoming more cost effective. Avoid any loss of power because the power is created at the point of use. Includes six reference materials for review.

April 1, 2010 Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Jean Getchells Supervising Planner

District uses Air Quality Management Plan for North Central Coast Air Basin to determine impact on regional air quality, contact Association of Monterey Bay Area Government for consistency determination.

If project or cumulative traffic would cause Level of Service to decline from D or better to E or F, dispersion modeling should be undertaken to determine if carbon monoxide concentrations would violate ambient air quality standards.

If project would create odors, nuisances, or sensitive receptors, EIR should assess those impacts. District Rule 402, Nuisances, should be reviewed.

EIR should discuss the presence of naturally occurring asbestos on project site. Refer to Rule 439, Building Removals, and Rule 424, NESHAPS, regarding any

demolitions on site. NOP did not describe project in terms that would allow Air District to determine if it

would create significant impacts. Refer to Air District’s thresholds of significance. Mitigation measures should identify any significant impacts on air quality. Air District suggested a number of mitigation measures for construction and

fugitive dust and anti-idling regulation. April 1, 2010 Rich Saxe No indication that the Initial Study was independently reviewed and many impacts

are identified as less than significant or no impact. A four season study should be prepared for the endangered species as well as

other species. County’s Land Use Element and Open Space and Conservation Element need to

be considered to determine consistency. Indirect impacts such as carbon footprint of the panels and the time required to

offset this carbon footprint should be considered. Alternative sites and projects must be considered in the EIR, including

decentralizing the panels, different locations, and rooftop projects. April 1, 2010 Martha Schauss Concern regarding the blunt-nosed leopard lizard known to occur onsite –

avoidance of any potential blunt-nosed leopard lizard habitat should be required. All potential California tiger salamander upland habitat within ½ mile of breeding

pond on the project site should be avoided. Not possible to adequately mitigate the loss of San Joaquin kit fox land. Protection of Panoche Valley is of high priority for giant kangaroo rat. Provisions for clean up and land restoration after the lifetime of the project should

be included. EIR should discuss activities and potential habitat changes that could enhance

conditions for non-native plant and animal species, including red fox, yellow star thistle, and non-native grasses.

Alternatives: should consider rooftop solar and placement of solar on disturbed fallow farmland in the Central Valley.


June 2010 19


Date From Comments April 4, 2010 Devii Rao Concerned about the development in Panoche Valley because the valley is important

for federally and state listed endangered and special-status species, including the San Joaquin kit fox. Panoche Valley is one of three core areas for the kit fox and should not be impacted.

EIR should consider an alternative where solar arrays are put on rooftops of commercial and residential building and on parking structures.

April 8, 2010 Bureau of Land Management Rick Cooper Field Manager

The BLM would have a potential role in the permitting changes to the existing right-of-way for the PG&E transmission line that would export the power generated by the solar array.

The transmission lines and towers cross public lines to the east. Should any upgrades be required the proponent would require a ROW authorization from the BLM. In permitting a ROW request the BLM would consider impacts to public land resources, including special status species, cultural and paleontological resources, and existing multiple use values pursuant to NEPA.

For reasonable foreseeable projects, programs, and plans the Hollister Management Plan Record of Decision (2007) outlines the BLM’s goals and objectives for management of natural and cultural resources as well as other land use authori-zations on public lands in the region and management of public lands with special designations.

The DEIR should evaluate potential for direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to resources on BLM public lands and identify mitigation measures that would reduce any adverse effects. In particular BLM has management responsibility and concern for public lands in the Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area (CPNA) and reduction in habitat for kit foxes or other special status species could reduce the local population sizes such that these species may be extirpated from adjacent public lands.

The DEIR should analyze impacts of the proposed action to particular species, including San Joaquin kit fox, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, giant kangaroo rat, and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures to protect core populations within the CPNA. DEIR must analyze impacts of disturbance and shading on Federally-listed plant species in the project area.

These issues, a reasonable range of alternatives, and appropriate mitigation measures such as the option to purchase compensation lands in the CPNA and any role the BLM could serve in managing these mitigation lands should be addressed in consultation with the Hollister Field Office and appropriate FWS Field Offices during preparation of the DEIR.

The U.S. Department of Interior and BLM support the development of renewable energy resources through environmentally sustainable means and are willing to work with the County and Applicant to consider reasonable alternatives and appropriate mitigation measures.


20 June 2010


Date From Comments April 11, 2010 Patrick and Linda

Graham Concerned about the visual impact on Panoche Valley. Concerned about the loss of grazing land and Class I soils, and impacts to

ranching heritage. Concerned about water contamination from any leaking solar panels. Impacts to air quality from soil erosion due to lack of growth below solar panels. Impacts to rare and endangered species, flora and fauna. Impacts to County roads during and after construction. Impacts on humans and animals from exposure to solar panels; solar panel are

antiquated, inefficient, and built from hazardous materials. High winds can damage panels and cause contamination.

Panels are built outside of the U.S., which will result in lack of jobs. Solargen’s track record – lack of solar projects and have been involved in failed

ventures. San Benito County will have higher energy rates. Concerned with wildfires and lightning strikes, will be increased stress on emergency

response teams. Impact fees should be applied to project. Impacts to honeybees and insects. Recommend using unbiased biological team. Concerned with use of Federal funds to purchase land at an inflated price. Impact to County revenues from demolition of project and revegetation.

April 14, 2010 California Department of Fish and Game Jeffrey R. Single, PhD Regional Manager

Department would like to work with County and Applicant to identify alternatives that would reduce potential biological impacts, including substantially reduced footprint, off-site development alternatives on lower-value habitat, etc.

DEIR's biological impact analysis include a robust assessment of the proposed Project's potential to substantially reduce and adversely modify habitat for special status species, cause populations of species to drop below self-sustaining levels, reduce the number and range of special status species, and conflict with the provisions of the Recovery Plan.

For each State-listed species, the DElR should demonstrate that the impacts would be fully mitigated as required by the California Endangered Species Act.

The Project likely warrants Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement and an lncidental Take Permit for the State and Federal endangered giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens), State threatened and Federal endangered San Joaquin kit fox. (Vulpes macrofis mutica), State threatened San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsono, and State candidate (soon to be listed as threatened) and Federal threatened California tiger salamander.

For the Lead Agency's CEQA document to suffice for CESA permit issuance, it must fully describe the potential Project-related impacts to State-listed species and commit to measures to avoid, minimize, and fully mitigate impacts to these resources. This means that the Project must not diminish the overall populations of State-listed species.

San Joaquin kit fox: DElR should address the effects of large-scale habitat modification and the potential for "take" during construction and operation of the solar arrays and associated Project features. The DElR should also address the potential kit fox impacts for the life of the Project. The Ciervo-Panoche area is one of three San Joaquin kit fox core populations identified in the Recovery Plan. The Panoche Valley is essential for the Ciervo-Panoche population and it supports giant kangaroo rat colonies, which are considered the optimum kit fox prey base. Without the Panoche Valley, much of the remaining natural lands in the vicinity would be relatively rugged and the viability of this kit fox population would be substantially compromised. DElR should assess how degrading the Panoche population may affect connectivity between other populations and the persistence of smaller, satellite populations and the entire population.


June 2010 21


Date From Comments

Habitat Degradation within Solar Arrays: CEQA analysis should consider the potential for adverse effects within the solar arrays resulting from two main features: the physical and visual barriers created by the vertical structures and the shade produced from the panels. The effects on kit fox's ability to utilize the landscape within a solar array have not been demonstrated. However, the fact that kit fox are adapted to very open, arid, low-relief landscapes with short vegetation suggests that the combination of panels and their microenvironmental effects would substantially limit kit foxes' ability to utilize the Project site compared to existing conditions.

Traffic: DElR should assess the potential for increased kit fox mortality resulting from the traffic increases associated with construction and operation of this Project.

Mitigation: Title 14, CCR, Section 783.4 requires that Applicants fully mitigate the impacts of the permitted "take" of a State-listed species, including all impacts on the species that result from any act that would cause the proposed taking. Providing for the same total number of kit foxes as baseline conditions may require a sub-stantial commitment of land area. The most effective tool to increase kit fox density in remaining habitat may be to take land out of crop production or other uses which have degraded habitat.

DElR should also commit the Applicant to providing/assuring adequate funding to implement all mitigation measures, including endowments, land easement acquisition, restoration, and monitoring.

Giant Kangaroo Rat: Giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens) is a State and Federal endangered species that occurs on the Project site. The Department expects that the Project would take giant kangaroo rat through large-scale habitat modification, installation of panel support posts and other Project features, trenching, road and other facility construction, and potentially during Project operations and maintenance. The Department expects that constructing solar panel arrays would render the underlying habitat unsuitable for giant kangaroo rat for similar reasons as discussed earlier for kit fox. All impacts related to the permitted taking of giant kangaroo rat must be fully mitigated. Mitigation proposals should consider the same factors discussed above for San Joaquin kit fox.

Giant Kangaroo Rat Surveys: Surveys for giant kangaroo rats should focus on the identification of their characteristic habitat types and burrow systems. Daytime line-transect surveys for burrow systems should be conducted by walking the property at 10- to 30-meter (30- to 100-foot) intervals to provide systematic coverage of the entire Project area. Maximum detectability for this species will be midsummer to late summer when first-year animals have dispersed and are still abundant and when surface sign is most detectable.

California Condor: The Project site lies within the range of the Federal and State endangered and fully protected California condor (Gymnogyps californianus). Historic and recent flight datashows use of the Project area in general including flights over the Panoche Valley. DElR should include the avoidance and minimi-zation measures to preclude "take" of condors. Any potential for creating "microtrash" on site should be avoided. DElR should determine the significance of the large-scale elimination of foraging opportunities on the Project site.

Vernal Pool Brachiopods: DElR should address potential impacts to vernal pool branchiopods. The Department recommends that the Applicant coordinate with the USFWS to determine the need for vernal pool branchiopod surveys and to formulate minimization and avoidance measures.

Grassland Bird Species: DElR should assess and disclose the Project's potential to substantially reduce habitat for special status grassland bird species that occur in the Panoche Valley including species listed in Table 1 of comment.

California Tiger Salamander: The Department recommends quantifying potential impacts to breeding sites and upland habitats within 2 kilometers (km) of known or potential breeding sites. Surveys for this species should follow current USFWS


22 June 2010


Date From Comments protocol methods. Should the Project potentially result in "take" of this species, "take" authorization from the Department in the form of an Incidental Take Permit would be required prior to Project implementation.

Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard: The Department cannot authorize "take" of blunt-nosed leopard lizard because it is also a fully protected species (Fish and Game Code Section 5050). Blunt-nosed leopard lizard surveys should follow Department protocol (CDFG 2004). The Department recommends surveying the entire Project site to determine the precise distribution of leopard lizards and assure that "take" will be avoided during project construction. Department recommends assessing whether the habitat alteration, habitat loss, and additional traffic would hinder expansion of the local leopard lizard population in good years, which allows the population to maintain viable numbers through poor years. The genetics of the Panoche blunt-nosed leopard lizard population show a high degree of geographic isolation. The distinct genetics of this population also increases its value in recovery and conservation of the species as a whole, and displacing and fragmenting the habitat of this population would likely hinder its recovery.

San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel: Focused visual surveys for San Joaquin antelope squirrel should coincide with their most active season, April 1 to September 30, and should be conducted only when air temperatures are between 20" to 30" C (68" to 86" F). Should the Project potentially result in "take" of this species, "take" authorization from the Department in the form of an Incidental Take Permit would be required prior to Project implementation.

Burrowing Owl: The Department recommends following the California Burrowing Owl Consortium survey methods (CBOC 1993) to establish the status of burrowing owl on the Project site and to provide for a CEQA baseline. If the Project site contains potential burrowing owl burrows, the Department recommends a number of avoidance items during breeding seasons and passive relocation during non-breeding season.

Special Status Plant Species: Botanical surveys should follow guidelines developed by the Department and USFWS. Currently proposed plant survey method for the Project does not include April plant surveys. The vast majority of California Consortium of Herbaria collection records for several species that are highly likely to occur on-site are from April or the end of March through April. Defensible surveys for this site would include mid-March, mid-April, May-June, then August-September.

Other: The Department recommends additional information and consideration of the proposed vegetation management practices, small mammal control, transmis-sion line upgrades, and erosion control and landscaping specifications.

Cumulative: Cumulatively, solar projects have the potential to displace approxi-mately 20,000 to 30,000 acres of occupied kit fox habitat. In a November 2009 letter to Ren Lohoefener, Regional Director of the USFWS Pacific Southwest Region, the San Joaquin Valley Recovery Team concluded that potential cumu-lative impacts from currently proposed solar projects have the potential to preclude the recovery of San Joaquin kit fox, giant kangaroo rat, and blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

April 15, 2010 Christie Kissinger Owns small business Field to Feast that delivers farm goods to Panoche Valley businesses. Concerned construction of project will negatively impact farms. Specifically, what dust control measures would be in place and what cement dust measures would be in place during construction.


June 2010 23

Table 4 presents a comprehensive summary of all oral comments received from the general public, govern‐ment agencies, and private companies at the scoping meetings.

Table 4. Summary of Oral Comments Received at Scoping Meetings

Name Organization Comments

Scoping Meeting, March 15, 2010 (6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m.) – Panoche Valley Charles McCullough

Coleman Ranch LLC Presented an overview of the farming history in the Panoche Valley beginning with grandfather who came to the valley in 1885. Valley is not productive for farming, the soil is lacking in organic matter. A number of people have tried to farm in the valley and have gone broke; farming is not practical in the area. Some crops will grow but the price for these crops is low.

Two water tables under the valley, the deep water table is high in salts and the shallow water table does not produce large enough amounts of water. Additionally there is boron in the water.

If the solar farm comes into the valley there will be less dust. There are few people remaining in the valley and the noise won’t impact anybody

because there is nobody around the region, most are absentee landowners. Valley is similar to a desert, it is an ideal place to have a solar farm. Believe that solar panels will help the endangered species, the project would put

up fences that would not allow coyote through but would allow kit fox which are much smaller and would have a safe place to be.

Maxine Davis Farming on her farm, and the soil is amazing. The farming Mr. McCullough spoke of is old fashioned but row crops with drip irrigation are fine. There are crops that are suitable to the water of the valley, that are suitable to water with boron in it.

The air with the lack of pollutants is awesome. Grading of the plant matter would lead to additional dust. Concerned about the

additional dust on fruit trees and crops. Also, project calls for reseeding the area under the panels with unknown seeds.

How feasible is this plan, how are the seeds going to grow underneath the panels?

Lights would create an impact to the night sky, any little lights in the valley are visible.

Chain link fence will create impacts to wildlife, see kangaroo rats on their fields. There would be visual impacts from the black panels, idea is to have ecotourism

and the solar farm would change all this. Ken Davis Your Family Farm There is an astronomer club in the Panoche Valley because there is no night

lighting. We are off the grid, we believe in solar done right, but the project is done wrong.

Larry Ronneberg Mercey Hot Springs Have a restaurant that buys local foods, one of the key aspects is to promote locally grown foods. If the solar project hurts the farmers then it hurts their business also.

Is a road going out to I-5 being considered in the EIR? This would include Fresno County roads.

Impacts to vegetation under the panels. Grass grows under the edges of a picnic table but does not grown underneath the picnic table, where the sun doesn’t hit. The panels are designed to absorb the sun and nothing will grow underneath them.

Would like to know if there are similar projects that have been completed in the last five years to compare the project to.

If the project goes forward are there funds to compensate people who are nega-tively impacted by it? Where is the benefit of the project for the valley? Solargen would benefit but if others do not, there needs to be some back and forth.


24 June 2010


Name Organization Comments Grant Brians Requests that the EIR consider the agricultural potential of the valley, not the actual

agriculture that is using old techniques. Requests that the abilities of the land in the valley be surveyed and summarized. The project of such a size and nature will have impacts to what people can do going forward. Look for experts in organic farming, talk to people who have knowledge with the history of the valley and the individual operation. People have this knowledge but no longer live in this valley. The valley is dedicated to range and agriculture; zoning requires that any project be compatible with agriculture.

Need climate study of how solar panels and the manner of construction of the project will affect the climate of the valley. Need expertise to come up with this kind of information.

Agriculture in the valley has been boom and bust post 1900. Fascinating what happened in 1880s and earlier and later that has not been fully researched. The earlier agriculture should be considered as part of the agricultural study. Need to know the history of the valley. Also should consider the many mines around here, there are many abandoned projects sitting around California.

The dark skies ordinance in the County works very badly for two reasons. The1st reason is that there is no enforcement on part of the County to eliminate violations to that ordinance. The 2nd reason is that the ordinance does not fully detail how to quantify impacts to people around the valley. This has been a point of contention in many areas. Need a critical characterization for managing lighting at the site. Ultimately the project will change, need to know how it will be addressed.

The proposal has not described what impacts the solar panels would have on runoff events and how the nature of those runoff events would be affected by the project. Although sandy soils are good at soaking up rain, there are many historical events where resources disturbed because of runoff events.

It is very important when looking at impacts, to note that desert projects are not being built in the same environment as the Panoche Valley and this is also true for European projects. They are also not comparable. Should not introduce erroneous data points.

Rani Douglas Douglas Ranch Farm in the Panoche Valley and the previous owner grew alfalfa that had a repu-tation around California as the best alfalfa. Race tracks came in to buy the alfalfa. Kept the ranch as a family ranch until ready to retire. Now heirloom organics are what is being planted. Grant produces over 100 varieties of vegetables each year. It is possible to farm in the valley but not with a big tractor. We know you can grow things out here, sustainably using less water. There is a niche market for local produce.

Requests that the EIR present how the project would be beneficial for sequestering carbon. Requests a lifecycle analysis, start to finish, including shipping the panel from China, how much fuel it takes to get the panels here and compare this with the carbon sequestration that occurs in the valley.

Also requests information on the use of toxic materials in the manufacturing and inspection of the facilities to make sure they don’t use slave labor.

Expressed concern regarding the timeframe for the EIR – that it seemed to be going very quickly for such a large project.


June 2010 25


Name Organization Comments Kim Williams Your Family Farm When studying impacts on threatened and endangered species are you also going

to be considering other core areas that are being impacted by additional solar projects such as in the projects in San Luis Obispo County.

Will the costs and benefits to the County be fully analyzed. The Applicant anticipates benefits to the County will be indirect. The County would

become a solar hub similar to Silicon Valley. Yet the Westlands Water District in Fresno County would become an even bigger solar hub because larger projects are planned there.

Requests to know if panels will be placed within 50 feet of streams, it is common courtesy to sit back 100 feet from streams. EIR should study historical change in path of streams.

For ARRA funding, is there a figure available to see if there is enough money for all the projects currently under review.

Richard Williams Your Family Farm Requests an analysis on how much predation to expect from the loss of the rangeland. Coyotes would have 4700 acres less to find food. Flocks of sheep will be impacted by this.

Jerry Muenzer CEQA should consider the cost if dismantling panels once they are no longer used. Is it possible to screen the panels with vegetation to cut down impacts on the

viewshed?

Scoping Meeting, March 16, 2010 (6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m.) – Hollister Peter Fairchild Sierra Club Requests additional information regarding the specifics of projects itself, how high

are the panels, how far between rows, actual details of the project. Density of the panels, spacing between rows.

Major issue with the project is light. Facility will be lit at night; the area has no light now.

Kim Williams Your Family Farm The description in the NOP seems incorrect. Some of protocol level surveys are being conducted, how are the protocol level

surveys being decided? What impacts project would have on ground water and what kind of water would it

use? Process – the County retained Aspen for EIR yet Solargen stands to profit for this

whole venture, why aren’t they paying for this EIR? Kit Schultz Analysis seems to imply no federal nexus is that right. Shani Kleinhous Santa Clara Valley

Audubon Society EIR must consider a range of alternatives as part of CEQA process, request an

alternative that could reduce spatial footprint of project and could include techno-logical alternatives as well.

PG&E transmission interconnection study should be included, any network upgrades that are needed and any impacts with upgrades should be included in cumulative impacts.

Applicant should not be allowed to sign Power Purchase Agreement prior to approval with any inflexibility regarding what the county can do later.

Microclimate impacts, shade impacts. Solar panel arrays that occupy half the valley floor will have severe or strong impacts in valley.

Recent studies that show PV panels, especially thin film, reflect 100% of the polarized light. While people don’t see this, it is significant to insects and possibly to birds. Insects see polarized light and are attracted to it; many insects prefer to lay their eggs on solar panels even if there is nearby water. Polarized lights used by bees for navigation, may have an impact on bees in the nearby area. Insectiv-orous birds that go after insects so risk of collision with birds is very real. If look at endangered species need to consider insects. Lead agency needs to be able to track and report on any mitigation.


26 June 2010


Name Organization Comments Debra Jamison Santa Clara Valley

Audubon Society National Audubon society has designated Panoche Valley as special birding area.

One third of birds in US are now in serious decline. Request the EIR address all federally and state listed species, including the California condor.

Endangered San Joaquin Kit fox has very limited range and cumulative impacts needs to be considered as there are solar projects for all three core recovery areas. Comprehensive and cumulative consideration. Cumulative impacts may constitute jeopardy for the species and additionally all species that are candidates for listing, species of special concern, and California lists of all special animals.

Evaluate impacts of fencing and connectivity of wildlife particularly night lighting, impacts on migrating birds, nocturnal insects, and diurnal animals with light induced behaviors.

Consider impacts to ground water, surface water, wells. What impacts would occur from wastewater?

Study and evaluate impacts of shade and heat including microclimates. Consider solar PV, such as rooftops, parking lots, etc as an alternative.

Sofia Sella Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society

Project will have a strong visual impact, 1, 822,000 panels would be located on this valley, would like an accurate representation of what the project would look like from all angles, including from surrounding valley ranges. Also like to see representation of high voltage collection lines, and transmitting lines if they are strung above ground.

Ruth Ericson Had a variety of socioeconomic concerns including: how the project will benefit county and residents; will workers be hired from within the County; where will the panels be manufactured; will the County and city residents receive cheaper energy bills; how will local ranchers benefit; who will pay for maintenance, upkeep, and replacement of materials; will there be education for County residents about solar power?

How will heavy rains affect rivers and streams in the surrounding areas? How will wildlife cross the area, including bobcats, wild boars, deer, etc? Will

fencing exclude them from crossing the natural land? Will an overhead transmission line transport the energy to other areas?

Ann Marie Sayers Indian Canyon Mutsun Band

Requests to know who is the archaeological firm that is doing walk over survey. There is Ohlone territory from San Francisco to Big Sur.

Concern with possible burials that could be uncovered, requests that the agencies talk to local native societies, where will people be reinterred so that they will not be disturbed again?

Frank Saunders Property owner in the Panoche Valley, heirloom organic farm and family farm. Found a mortar on my property that was pulled up by a plow so know that there

are historical artifacts in the area. The project map doesn’t show the adjacent properties need to make clear how

close/far to solar project. Want the EIR to address economic factors of the project, including why this

project has to be pushed so quickly and the economic viability of the project if it does not get federal funding.

Wants to consider different technologies and the actual efficiencies of these green projects for the production of energy, solar, wind, geothermal. Because San Benito is not near a large economic center seems there would be a loss of energy in the transmission line.

Concern regarding wind and dust. Can blow like a cyclone and blow days on end. What will hold the dust from the project from blowing all over the valley?

Want to know economic damage to my piece of property, bought it knowing it was a pristine valley, quite, and tranquil; will land owners be compensated for that loss of valley?


June 2010 27


Name Organization Comments Jeanette Langstaff Is a teacher, and opposed to the use of pristine land, supports rooftop solar. Santa

Cruz and Monterey Counties have asked County to join them with rooftop solar. Local solar panels are best investment for local environment. Use infrastructure already in place.

Agriculture and wildlife habitat must be maintained. Large ranges with Williamson Act lands, small farms using sustainable practices. Dry farming and drip irrigation. Local foods to our towns and regions.

Oppose project that will destroy habitat; kit fox, burrowing owl, mountain plover, cannot just be moved. Darkness, golden eagles, bald eagles, using land raises possibilities of extinction for some animals.

PV panel disorients natural animal migration. Dust and noise pollution need full analysis. Valley is noted for rugged roads, this project shouldn’t be the reason to change

them now. Panels are from China, want to know about carbon that is being created by

making those panels. Brandon Hill Fresno Audubon Consider project threat to wildlife, open space, anybody who has been there and

has wits about them knows it is a beautiful place and paving with panels will destroy.

Solargen’s figures on amount of jobs created is a moving target, roughly 600 people going in everyday, the County roads can’t support them. People who travel roads everyday will tell you so. Fresno County would also be very interested, whole stretch is Fresno County roads.

Second: wildlife–Fresno County Audubon would be happy to include a list of all the species that members have seen there in five-ten years. Full protocol surveys for important species. The concern isn’t just about rare species, about keeping common things common so they don’t become endangered.

Lots of people visit and stay in Mercey Hot Springs, BLM area, if project goes through there will be a loss in agritourism.

Alternatives should consider: Rooftop solar; other projects on less sensitive lands; fallowed agriculture lands, including Westlands Water District; and brownfields.

Need cost/benefit to County, analyze what County will get for this. Look at track record of firms that are working on a project of this size. Do they have the history and resources to support the project?

Maxine Davis What is increased risk of fire due to electrical arcs? How this facility will control fires – no fire station in Panoche Valley, grass valley can spread far, how will this impact surrounding farms, toxic substances released?

How will the hazards be taken care of during extreme events? Tornadoes took roofs off farms, what if they crash into panels? How will this bring anything positive to San Benito County?

Robert Frusetta EIR should consider impacts due to the reduction of 4,700 acres under Williamson Act. Williamson Act bill encourages farmers to keep their land in agriculture. Large amount of agriculture will be removed.

Collette Cassidy Claravale Farm Moved to Panoche Valley four years ago because of land issues in Santa Cruz County. Our business will be impacted; the family farm will be impacted. There is a trend for locally produced, responsibly produced agriculture. Do not impact prime agricultural areas with Class I soil that can be used for cows grazed for beef.

Additional concerns regarding the impact to the aesthetics of the valley.


28 June 2010


Name Organization Comments Daniel George EIR should address cumulative impacts of other projects in region. Loss of

agricultural lands is a trend in whole nation. Report should address greenhouse gases if our nation becomes importer of food

rather than have own food. Night sky –report should address impacts to aesthetics. Alternatives – if our County and state and nation place renewable energy as

important, what other areas can we use other than prime agricultural lands. Areas that have been paved or have structure. Actual GHG offset. Solar energy during day – understanding of coal fired plants have to run at certain pace, if we have a time window in evening, then that plant may still need to be operating to maintain maximum need – need to be able to keep that need up. Maintain plant for need at night.

Jennifer Westphal Expressed concern with mitigation issues, what kind of lands will be offered up for mitigation. If the project takes up valley, and would impact valley bottom species, 1,000 of acres of hillside lands for mitigation would not have the same ecosystem use as project. Where will Solargen be able to get lands that they will use to mitigate the valley land.

Ken King Sierra Club - Loma Prieta Conservation Committee

Concern regarding the brief timetable for study, 2 and a half months for a draft EIR. Has never seen an EIR draft completed in less than 15 months and nothing as complex or having endangered species like here. Need adequate time to study the species in the area because there is not a lot of data.

Tiger salamander – dubious about quality of study in such a short time. EIR needs to consider decommissioning, should talk about cost of converting the

site back to natural land. Better to take into account that Solargen may likely go bankrupt. How will County indemnify itself?

Wants to know if you take rooftop solar doubles every year, at what point do the large solar projects become unnecessary. PV changing rapidly, nano materials, paints going on any rooftop in 3 to 5 years.

Grading occurs during construction, EIR should consider what kinds of pathogens are being released, such as Valley fever.

Martha Schauss After the project’s lifetime is over, what will be done with the land and the panels. Clay Kempf? (Need to confirm)

Concern regarding police and fire, how would the project be protected against vandalism, is this included in cost/benefit analysis.

Bring groups here to see birds. Mostly dollars that enter the community are not calculated currently because they include people driving through.

How you mitigate what is designated as a core recovery area – by definition only a few in existence, cannot really mitigate, cannot manufacture.


June 2010 29

4. Next Steps in the EIR Process

While scoping is the initial step in the environmental review process, additional opportunities to comment on the project EIR will be provided. Table 5 presents the proposed schedule for the EIR and identifies where in the process the public and agencies can provide additional input in the environmental review process.

Table 5. EIR/EIS Events and Documents

Event/Document Purpose Approximate Date

Completed Events/Documents

Release of NOP Notified interested parties and agencies of the County’s intent to prepare an EIR.

March 1, 2010 Notice of Preparation (NOP) Public Review

Period Held public scoping period on the project to provide for public comments on the scope of EIR.

March 1 to April 15, 2010

Scoping Meetings – NOP

Two scoping meetings were held

Presented information on the project and provided opportunity for public and agency comments in a public forum.

March 15 and 16, 2010

Scoping Report Documents public and agency comments on the proposed project and environmental issues of concern to the public, agencies, and other interested parties.

April 2010

Upcoming Events/Documents

Release of Draft EIR

Will present impacts and mitigation for the proposed project and its alternatives

June 2010

Public Review Period

CEQA requires a 45-day minimum review period

45 days

Draft EIR

Draft EIR Public Meetings

Will allow for public comment on the draft document Summer 2010

Final EIR Release of Final EIR

Will respond to comments on the Draft EIR

September 2010

County Public Hearings

Certification of Final EIR and County decision on project

October/November 2010


30 June 2010

5. Appendices


June 2010 31

Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Other Notices

Notice of Preparation Date: March 1, 2010 To: Interested Parties and Responsible Agencies

Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: County of San Benito Phone: (831) 637-5313 Fax: (831) 637-5334 Contact: Michael Krausie, Associate Planner Email: [email protected] Project Title: Panoche Valley Solar Farm

Project Applicant: Solargen Energy, Inc., Eric Cherniss Notice is hereby given that the County of San Benito will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Panoche Valley Solar Farm project. The County of San Benito is interested in knowing your views regarding the scope and content of the environmental information germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Please provide the following information:

1. Name of the contact person for your agency, mailing address, e-mail, and telephone number; 2. Permit(s) or approval(s) under your agency’s authority; 3. Environmental information that must be addressed in the EIR to enable your agency to use

this documentation as a basis for your permit issuance or approval; 4. Permit stipulations or conditions that your agency will apply to this project; 5. Alternatives that your agency recommends be analyzed in the EIR; and 6. Reasonably foreseeable projects, programs, or plans under your agency’s authority that

may have an overlapping influence with the proposed project. The project description, its location, and its probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent no later than 30 days after receipt of this notice, or postmarked by April 1, 2010, whichever is later. Note also that two public scoping meetings will be held at the dates, times, and locations listed below. Please mail your comments to:

Michael Krausie, Associate Planner c/o Aspen Environmental Group 235 Montgomery Street Suite 935 San Francisco, CA 94104

Alternatively, you may submit scoping comments via email or fax to the email address or telephone number shown in the table on the following page.

Notice of Preparation

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS

Panoche Valley Meeting – Monday, March 15, 2010 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM

Hollister Meeting – Tuesday, March 16, 2010 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM

Panoche School 31441 Panoche Road Paicines, CA 95043

Veterans Memorial Building 649 San Benito Street, Room 218

Hollister, CA 95023

EIR TEAM CONTACT INFORMATION

Hotline for phone messages and faxes:

(888) 467-1863 Project email address for comments or questions:

[email protected]

A Scoping Report will be prepared, summarizing all comments received (including oral comments made at the scoping meetings). This report will be posted on the County’s website (http://www.san-benito.ca.us), and copies will be placed in local document repository sites listed below.

REPOSITORY SITES

Panoche Inn 29960 Panoche Road, Paicines, CA 95043................(831) 628-3538


3224 Southside Road, Hollister, CA 95023 ................(831) 637-5313

San Benito County Free Library 470 5th Street, Hollister, CA 95023 ............................(831) 626-4107

San Benito County Administration Building

481 4th Street (First Floor) Hollister, CA 95023..........(831) 636-4000

Date: 3/1/10 Signature: _____________________________

Title: Michael Krausie, Associate Planner

Notice of Preparation Project Title: Panoche Valley Solar Farm

Project Applicant: Solargen Energy, Inc., Eric Cherniss

Project Location: The Panoche Valley Solar Farm site is located along Little Panoche Road in the Panoche Valley, in southeastern San Benito County. The project site consists of approximately 4,717 acres currently used for livestock grazing and open space. The site is located approximately 2 miles southwest of the Fresno County Line and the Panoche Hills, and approximately 15 miles west of Interstate 5. The project would be located within Township 15S, Range 10E, Sections 3-5, 8-11, 13-17, and 20-25 and Township 15S, Range 11E, Sections 18, 20, 29, and 30 of the United States Geologic Survey’s Cerro Colorado, Llanada, Mercy Hot Springs, and Panoche 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps.

Project Description Solargen Energy, Inc. (hereinafter “applicant”) proposes to construct the Panoche Valley Solar Farm project (hereinafter “proposed project”), a 420 Megawatt (MW) solar energy generation facility con-sisting of 1,822,800 pole-mounted, silicon-based solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and associated elec-trical equipment, an electrical substation, and an operations and maintenance building. The proposed project would deliver electricity to the regional transmission system by interconnecting to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Moss-Panoche/Coburn-Panoche 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line on site. The proposed project would be considered a renewable energy generation facility, and according to the applicant would support California in meeting the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandate. The proposed project would be constructed in five phases, and would be constructed as follows, subject to minor adjustment:

• The first 20 MW phase beginning construction in late 2010 and finishing in late 2011 • The second 100 MW phase beginning construction late 2011 and finishing in late 2012 • The third 100 MW phase beginning construction in late 2012 and finishing in late 2013 • The fourth 100 MW phase beginning construction in late 2013 and finishing in late 2014 • The fifth 100 MW phase beginning construction in late 2014 and finishing in late 2015

Two ephemeral streams, Panoche Creek and Los Aguilas Creek, traverse the site, entering from the northwest and converging in the southern portion of the site. Several other unnamed washes are also located on the site. The PG&E Moss-Panoche transmission line traverses the site in a northwest-southeast direction. Surrounding land uses primarily include livestock grazing. There are scattered rural residences adjacent to the site. The Panoche Inn is located south of the project site near the intersection of Panoche Road and Little Panoche Road. Panoche School is located approximately ¾ mile from the project’s southeastern boundary. Maps illustrating the location of the proposed project and the proposed layout are presented on the following pages.

Notice of Preparation Panoche Valley Solar Farm EIR

Hollister

Panoche Valley Solar Farm


Potential Environmental Issues of Concern

Solargen Energy, the applicant, submitted an Initial Study in October of 2009 identifying potential environmental issues of concern. The Initial Study is available on the County’s website (http://www.san-benito.ca.us) under the heading “Solargen Application Materials.” The impact con-clusions presented in the Initial Study will not be used to guide the preparation of the EIR, as the EIR will be prepared by an independent consulting firm under County direction, but the Initial Study does include useful reference materials. All CEQA environmental topic areas will be addressed in the EIR; however, the following areas of project review are anticipated to be of particular importance. The level of analysis for these sub-ject areas may be refined or additional subject areas may be analyzed based on responses to this Notice of Preparation (NOP) and/or refinements to the project that may occur subsequent to the publication of this NOP.

1. Aesthetics 2. Agricultural Resources 3. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 4. Biological Resources 5. Cultural Resources 6. Traffic and Circulation

Construction impacts (e.g., noise, dust, vehicle emissions) will be evaluated for all environmental issue areas. The EIR will include a cumulative impact analysis that will consider past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects with impacts that could combine with those of the proposed project. Initial assumptions for each of the major areas of analysis are provided below. Aesthetics The proposed project would result in a large-scale conversion of an agricultural valley landscape to an alternative energy use. Solar PV panels would be dark in color, and the project would not intro-duce highly prominent vertical features. However, the project would dominate the plain of the Panoche Valley and would be visible from the elevated slopes surrounding the project site. The EIR will provide visual photo simulations of the proposed project and evaluate impacts to sensitive visual receptors. Agricultural Resources The proposed project site and adjacent lands in the Panoche Valley currently support livestock grazing operations, and a portion of the parcels on which the proposed project would be located have active Williamson Act contracts. The project’s compatibility with continued grazing operations at the site and its potential to displace agricultural operations will be evaluated in the preparation of the EIR. In addition, the possible cancellation of a portion of the existing Williamson Act con-tracts in the area proposed for construction may be analyzed. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Most of the air quality impacts associated with the proposed project would occur during the con-struction phase, and would consist of fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions. In addition, emissions of greenhouse gases would result from vehicular emissions during con-struction. The air quality analysis will assess short duration (i.e., construction and demolition) and long-term (i.e., operational) regional air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project. Greenhouse gas emissions of the project will also be quantified and analyzed for potential effects related to climate change.


Biological Resources Many special-status species are known to occur on the project site: California tiger salamander, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, San Joaquin antelope ground squirrel, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin coachwhip, mountain plover, golden eagle, northern harrier, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and American badger. In addition, suitable habitat for the following special-status species exists at the project site: vernal pool fairy shrimp, Swainson’s hawk, western spade-foot, California horned lizard, merlin, pallid bat, and western mastiff bat. The biological resources analysis will identify and describe the current baseline conditions of the project site using the results of field surveys and research. The EIR will analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project to biological resources, including potential impacts to wildlife move-ment corridors, and provide mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to the extent feasible. The analysis will be used by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game in their own permitting processes for the project. Cultural Resources The cultural resources section of the EIR will include consideration of archaeological and historic resources and Native American concerns. It will present results of a records search at the North-west Information Center of the California Historical Resources File System; analysis of sacred lands identified through consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission; and consulta-tion, as appropriate, with Native Americans and other interested parties (e.g., local historical societies). It will also address paleontology, using existing collections databases and geologic maps to determine the sensitivity of the area for the presence of paleontological resources. An archaeo-logical survey of the Area of Potential Effect will be conducted. Traffic and Circulation The project site is served by several one/two-lane paved and unpaved roads. Access to the Panoche Valley from the west is via State Route 25 to Panoche Road, and from the east via Interstate 5 to Panoche Road or via Little Panoche Road. Construction traffic will consist of work and delivery trucks and construction personnel vehicles. The EIR will present a traffic impact analysis and address the level of service at key study intersections and roadway segments within the study area under existing, background, project, and general plan conditions with implementation of the proposed project.

March 31, 2010 Subject: Panoche Valley Solar Farm Project EIR Scoping – Corrected Comment Card Fax Number

To All Interested Parties and Responsible Agencies,

It has come to the County’s attention that the fax number was incorrectly printed on the Comment Cards that were distributed at the scoping meetings held in Panoche Valley and Hollister March 15 and 16, 2010, respectively. The correct fax number is (888) 467‐1863. This number was accurately presented in the Notice of Preparation, the other scoping meeting handouts, and on the project website.

In order to accommodate scoping meeting attendees who may have been confused by the fax number error, the County has extended the comment period by two weeks. The new deadline for submission of scoping comments is April 15, 2010.

It is the County’s intent to ensure that all interested parties and responsible agencies have an opportunity to provide meaningful comments on the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being prepared for the Panoche Valley Solar Farm Project. To this end, the EIR Team has provided members of the public with four methods of submitting scoping comments:

• In person at the scoping meetings noted above (either orally or in writing), • Via postal mail, • Via email, and • Via fax.

A notification of the fax number printing error was emailed to scoping meeting participants who provided the EIR Team with their email addresses on March 19, 2010. In addition, notification of the printing error was posted on the project website at http://www.panochesolar.info. This letter serves to ensure that the notification process has been adequate such that that all scoping meeting participants are notified of the correct fax number.

Scoping comments may be submitted by email to [email protected] or by fax to (888) 467‐1863. The address for mailing comments is:

Art Henriques, Director of Planning c/o Aspen Environmental Group 235 Montgomery Street Suite 935 San Francisco, CA 94104

Thank you for your participation.

Sincerely, Michael Krausie, Associate Planner for Art Henriques, Director of Planning

Aviso de la Preparación

Fecha: 1 de marzo, 2010

Para: Personas Interesadas y Agencias Responsables

Tema: Aviso de la Preparación de un Informe de Impacto Ambiental

Agencia Líder: Condado de San Benito

Teléfono: (831) 637-5313 Fax: (831) 637-5334 Contacto: Michael Krausie, Urbanista Email: [email protected]

Título del Proyecto: Panoche Valley Solar Farm

Solicitante: Solargen Energy, Inc., Eric Cherniss Aquí se avisa que el Condado de San Benito será la Agencia Líder y va a preparar un borrador Informe de Impacto Ambiental (EIR por sus siglas en inglés) según la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (CEQA) para el proyecto Panoche Valley Solar Farm. Al Condado de San Benito le gustaría conocer sus opiniones a cerca del alcance y contenido de la información ambiental vinculado a las responsabilidades legales de su agencia en lo que se refiere al proyecto propuesto. Por favor provee la información siguiente:

1. Nombre de contacto para su agencia, dirección, e-mail, y número telefónico; 2. Permiso(s) o aprobación(es) bajo la autoridad de su agencia; 3. Información ambiental que se necesita abordar en el EIR para permitir que su agencia usa la

documentación como base para emitir su permiso o aprobación; 4. Las estipulaciones o condiciones que su agencia aplicaría a este proyecto en el permiso; 5. Las alternativas al proyecto recomendadas por su agencia para analizar en el EIR; y 6. Proyectos, programas, o planes previstos bajo la autoridad de su agencia que podrían tener

una influencia traslapada con el proyecto propuesto. Se describe el proyecto, su local, e los impactos ambientales potenciales en los materiales atajados. Dado los límites impuesto por la ley estatal, las repuestas a las preguntas tienen que ser enviadas antes de 30 días después de recibir este aviso, o sellado antes del 1 de abril, 2010, a lo más tarde. A demás, se organizará dos reuniones públicas a cerca del estudio previo del alcance del proyecto en las fechas, horas, y locales presentadas aquí. Por favor envíe sus comentarios a:

Michael Krausie, Associate Planner c/o Aspen Environmental Group 235 Montgomery Street Suite 935 San Francisco, CA 94104

También puede someter sus comentarios sobre el estudio previo del alcance del EIR por email o fax en la dirección o número telefónico notado en la página siguiente.


REUNIONES PÚBLICAS DE ESTUDIO PREVIO

Reunión en Panoche Valley

lunes, 15 de marzo, 2010 6:00 PM hasta 8:00 PM

Reunión en Hollister

martes, 16 de marzo, 2010 6:00 PM hasta 8:00 PM

Panoche School 31441 Panoche Road Paicines, CA 95043

Veterans Memorial Building 649 San Benito Street, Room 218

Hollister, CA 95023

CONTACTOS DEL EQUIPO EIR

Para mensaje telefónico o fax: (888) 467-1863

Dirección de email para comentarios o preguntas: [email protected]

Un estudio previo del alcance del proyecto será preparado para el proyecto propuesto, resumiendo todos los comentarios recibidos (incluyendo los comentarios orales hechos durante las reuniones públicas). Este estudio será publicada sobre el website del Condado (http://www.san-benito.ca.us), y tendrán copias en los repositos incluidos abajo.

REPOSITORIOS

Panoche Inn 29960 Panoche Road, Paicines, CA 95043 .................. (831) 628-3538


3224 Southside Road, Hollister, CA 95023 .................. (831) 637-5313

San Benito County Free Library 470 5th Street, Hollister, CA 95023 ............................. (831) 626-4107

San Benito County Administration Building

481 4th Street (First Floor) Hollister, CA 95023 ............ (831) 636-4000

Fecha: 3/1/10 Firma: _____________________________

Título: Michael Krausie, Associate Planner

http://www.san-benito.ca.us/


Título del Proyecto: Panoche Valley Solar Farm

Solicitante: Solargen Energy, Inc., Eric Cherniss

Local: El Panoche Valley Solar Farm será localizado a lado de la calle Little Panoche Road en el Valle Panoche, al sureste del Condado de San Benito. El proyecto consiste en aproximadamente 4,717 acres usado actualmente para ganado y espacio libre. El local se localiza aproximadamente 2 millas suroeste de la frontera del Condado de Fresno y las Colinas Panoche, y aproximadamente 15 millas oeste de la carretera I-5. El proyecto se localiza dentro de Township 15S, Range 10E, Sections 3-5, 8-11, 13-17, y 20-25 y Township 15S, Range 11E, Sections 18, 20, 29, y 30 de las mapas geológicas cuadriláteras topográficas de los Estados Unidos Cerro Colorado, Llanada, Mercy Hot Springs, y Panoche.

Descripción del Proyecto

Solargen Energy, Inc. (de aquí en adelante “solicitante”) propone construir el proyecto Panoche Valley Solar Farm (de aquí en adelante “proyecto propuesto”); un proyecto de generación de electricidad solar de 420 megavatios (MW) que consiste de 1,822,800 paneles solares fotovoltaicos (PV) de base silicón instalados en postes y el equipo eléctrico asociado, una subestación eléctrica, y un edificio para operación y mantenimiento. El proyecto propuesto conectaría a la línea de alta tensión de 230 kilovoltios (kV) Moss-Panoche/Coburn-Panoche de Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) para entregar la electricidad al sistema de transmisión regional. El proyecto propuesto se considera una generadora de energía renovable, y según el solicitante ayudaría a California para satisfacer la obligación de su Portafolio de Proyectos de Energías Renovables (RPS). El proyecto propuesto sería construido en cinco fases de la siguiente manera, sujeto a ajustamientos menores:

Las primera fase de construcción de 20 MW se comenzaría fin de 2010 y se terminaría fin de 2011

La segunda fase de construcción de 100 MW se comenzaría fin de 2011 y se terminaría fin de 2012

La tercera fase de construcción de 100 MW se comenzaría fin de 2012 y se terminaría fin de 2013

La cuarta fase de construcción de 100 MW se comenzaría fin de 2013 y se terminaría fin de 2014

La quinta fase de construcción de 100 MW se comenzaría fin de 2014 y se terminaría fin de 2015

Dos arroyos efímeros, Panoche Creek y Los Aguilas Creek, pasan por el local, entran por la parte noroeste y se reúnen en la parte sur del local. Varios otros arroyos sin nombres pasan por el local. La línea de alta tensión PG&E Moss-Panoche cruza el local en la dirección noroeste-sudeste. Las aldeas son usados mayormente para ganado. Existen residencias rurales aisladas en proximidad al local. El Panoche Inn se localiza sud del proyecto cerca de la cruce de las calles Panoche Road y Little Panoche Road. La Escuela Panoche se localiza aproximadamente ¾ millas del borde sudeste del proyecto.


Mapas del local del proyecto propuesto y el diseño propuesto son presentadas en las páginas siguientes.

Aviso de la Preparación Panoche Valley Solar Farm EIR

Hollister

Panoche Valley Solar Farm


Posibles Impactos Ambientales Solargen Energy Inc., el solicitante, sometió un Estudio Inicial al Condado en octubre de 2009 que identifica posibles impactos ambientales. El Estudio Inicial se encuentra en el website del Condado (http://www.san-benito.ca.us) bajo el título “Solargen Application Materials.” Las conclusiones de impactos presentados en el Estudio Inicial no serán usados como guía para la preparación del EIR, ya que el EIR será preparada por una empresa de consultaría independiente bajo la dirección del Condado, pero el Estudio Inicial incluye materias útiles de referencia . Todas las temas ambientales de CEQA serán tratados en el EIR pero se anticipa que las siguientes temas serán importantes. El nivel de análisis de estas temas pueden ser refinados o temas adicionales podrían ser analizados dependiendo sobre las respuestas recibidas a este Aviso de Preparación (NOP) y/o el refinamiento del proyecto que puedría ocurrir después de la publicación del NOP.

1. Estética 2. Recursos Agrícolas 3. Calidad de Aire y Emisiones de Gases que Causan el Efecto Invernadero 4. Recursos Biológicos 5. Recursos Culturales 6. Tráfico y Circulación

Impactos de construcción (por ejemplo, ruido, polvo, emisiones que causan vehículos) serán evalu-ados en todos las áreas ambientales. El EIR va a incluir un análisis de los impactos acumulativos que considerará los impactos de proyectos pasados, presentes, y futuros que podrían acumular con los impactos del proyecto propuesto. Siguientemente, se provee consideraciones iniciales para cada tema de análisis importante. Estética

El proyecto propuesta resultaría en una conversión en grande escala de un paisaje de un valle agrícola a un uso de energía renovable. Los paneles solares PV sería oscuras en color, y el proyecto no intro-duciría características verticales destacadas. Sin embargo, el proyecto dominaría el Valle Panoche y sería visible por las laderas elevadas alrededor del proyecto. El EIR tendrá simulaciones fotográficas visuales del proyecto propuesto y evaluará los impactos visuales para recipientes sensitivos. Recursos Agrícolas

El local del proyecto propuesto y las aldeas en el Valle Panoche son usadas actualmente para ganado, y algunas de las parcelas sobre cual se construiría el proyecto propuesto tienen contractos activos de Williamson Act. La compatibilidad del proyecto con operaciones de pastoreo y su potencial para desplazar a operaciones agrícolas serán evaluados en la preparación del EIR. Además, la posibilidad de cancelar una porción de los contratos existentes de Williamson Act en la área propuesta para la construcción serán analizadas. Calidad de Aire y Emisiones de Gases que Causan el Efecto Invernadero

La mayoría de los impactos asociados con la calidad de aire del proyecto propuesto ocurrirían durante la fase de construcción, y consistirían de emisiones fugitivas de polvo y otros contaminantes. Además, emisiones de gases que causan el efecto invernadero resultarían de las emisiones de vehículos durante la construcción. El análisis de la calidad de aire considerará impactos de corto plazo (por ejemplo, construcción y demolición) e impactos de largo plazo (por ejemplo, operación) de emisiones de polución regional asociados al proyecto propuesto. Emisiones de gases que causan el

http://www.san-benito.ca.us/


efecto invernadero del proyecto serán cuantificados y analizados para ver si tienen efectos relacionados al cambio de clima.

Recursos Biológicos

Varios especies de status especial ocurren en el local del proyecto: salamandra atigrada (Ambystoma

californiense), lagartija (Gambelia silus), ardilla (Ammospermophilus leucurus), rata canguro (Dipodomys ingens), zorro San Joaquin (Vulpes macrotis mutica), tejón americano (Taxidea taxus), víbora San Joaquin (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki), y varios especies de pájaros, águilas, y lechuzas (Charadrius montanus, Aquila chrysaetos, Circus cyaneus, Athene cunicularia, Lanius

ludovicianus). Además, existe hábitat para los siguientes especies de status especial en el local: camarón (Branchinecta lynchi), hálcon (Buteo swainsoni), sapo (Spea hammondii), iguana cornuda (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), hálcon (Falco columbarius), y murciélagos (Antrozous pallidus y

Eumops perotis).

El análisis de recursos biológicos identificará y describirá las condiciones de base actuales del local del proyecto usando los resultados de estudios e inspecciones del local. El EIR analizará los impactos potenciales del proyecto propuesto, incluyendo impactos potenciales a corredores para fauna o animales silvestres y proveerá medidas de mitigación para reducir los impactos potenciales a recursos biológicos lo más posible. El análisis será usada por el Servicio de Fauna y Peces de los Estados Unidos (USFWS) y el Departamento de California de Caza y Peces (CDFG) en sus propios procesos de aprobación para el proyecto. Recursos Culturales

La sección sobre recursos culturales del EIR incluirá una consideración sobre los recursos arqueo-lógicos e históricos y asuntos relacionados a personas indígenas. Presentará los resultados de un estudio de archivos del Centro Informático Noroeste del Sistema de Recursos Históricos de California; un análisis de tierras sagradas identificadas por consultación con la Comisión Patrimonial de Personas Indígenas; y consultación, si apropiado, con personas indígenas y otras personas interesadas (por ejemplo, sociedades históricas locales). El EIR también tratará la paleontología, usando colecciones actuales de bases de datos y mapas geológicas para determinar la sensibilidad de la área de tener la presencia de recursos paleontológicos. Se llevará a cabo un estudio arqueológico de la Área de Impacto Potencial. Tráfico y Circulación

El local del proyecto tiene varios caminos pavimentados de uno o dos pistas tanto como caminos sin pavimento. Acceso al Valle Panoche del oeste sería a través de la Ruta Estatal 25 hasta Panoche Road, y acceso del este sería a través de la Carretera I-5 hasta Panoche Road o hasta Little Panoche Road. El tráfico durante la fase de construcción incluiría camiones de trabajo y reparto y vehículos de construcción personales. El EIR presentará un análisis de impactos al tránsito incluyendo el nivel de servicio de los cruces de calles importantes y los segmentos de carreteras importantes dentro de la área de estudio bajo condiciones actuales, antecedentes, futuros y del plan general con la implementación del proyecto propuesto.


32 June 2010

Appendix B: Scoping Meeting Announcement and Handouts

SAN BENITO COUNTY

Comment Form Proposed Panoche Valley Solar Farm

Date: __________

Name*:

Affiliation (if any):*

Address:*

City, State, Zip Code:*

Telephone Number:*

Email:*

Prefer paperless (email) notification? ___yes ___no

Comment:

*Please print. Your name, address, and comments are public information and may be released to interested parties if requested.

Please either deposit this sheet at the sign-in table before you leave today, or fold, staple/tape, stamp, and mail. Insert additional sheets as needed. Comments must be postmarked by April 1, 2010. Comments may also be faxed to the project hotline at (888) 467-1863 or emailed to [email protected].

C M Y K

FEATURESC3 TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010

fr

This month, St.Luke’s EpiscopalChurch in Hollister

welcomes local residentsto a number of specialevents. They plan to markthe 30th anniversary ofthe martyrdom of OscarRomero, the RomanCatholic archbishop of SanSalvador who was assassi-nated in 1980.

Oscar Arnulfo Romero yGaldamez was a priest ofthe Catholic Church in theCentral American nation ofEl Salvador.

Born in 1917, he wasselected archbishop of SanSalvador in 1977. To thesurprise of many, hebecame a spokesman for“liberation theology” byspeaking out in support ofthe poor and those beingpersecuted and deniedhuman rights by the coun-try’s government.

A humble man, Romeroabandoned his bishop’spalace to live in a hospital.It was in that hospital’schapel where he wasgunned down by a memberof a right-wing death squadwhile celebrating Mass onMarch 24, 1980, setting offa 12-year civil war.

Romero is considered theunofficial patron saint of ElSalvador by much of thecountry’s population, and acampaign to have himdeclared an official saintbegan in 1997. Pope JohnPaul II bestowed upon himthe title “Servant of God.”The canonization process iscontinuing.

The Rev. Amy DennyZuniga, priest in charge ofSt. Luke’s in Hollister, wasordained to the priesthoodduring her ministry in ElSalvador and was “power-

fully influenced byRomero’s life.” Salvadoransremember where they wereand what they were doingwhen they heard of thearchbishop’s death in muchthe same way Americans ofa previous generationremember President JohnF. Kennedy’s assassination,she said.

Romero, who is oftenreferred to as “San Romero”in his native country, hashad an influence uponChristians far beyond theborders of that smallnation:

■ He is one of the 1020th-century martyrs fromaround the world depictedin statues above the GreatWest Door of London’sWest Minster Abbey.

■ On March 20, an ecu-menical Service ofRemembrance will be held atYork Minster in NorthernEngland.

■ On Palm Sunday,Catholic, Anglican, andProtestant leaders will gatherat Westminster Abby for anecumenical service in hishonor.

■ Last year, theEpiscopal Church in the

United States addedRomero’s name to its offi-cial calendar to be remem-bered with scripture read-ings and special prayer onMarch 24, the anniversaryof his martyrdom.

■ A 1989 motion picturestarring Raul Julia broughthis story of courage anddedication to justice to theAmerican public.

St. Luke’s congregationwelcomes anyone interestedin learning more about thisremarkable Christian heroto take part in any of theseplanned activities:

■ Now through the endof the month, join anonline interactive discus-sion of Romero’s powerfulpreaching at theviolence-oflovebyoscarromero.blogspot.com. Participants canshare their ideas and opin-ions online.

■ At 7 p.m. March 17,share a simple meal andwatch the biographicalmovie “Romero” at St. Luke’sParish House, 431 SeventhSt., Hollister.

■ At 6 p.m. March 24 ,walk the Stations of theCross in St. Luke’s Church,720 Monterey St., Hollister,with photos from ElSalvador and quotes fromhis sermons. This will be fol-lowed by a simple meal fea-turing Salvadoran cuisineand a discussion ofRomero’s life and work.

■ At 11 a.m. March 27,join a pilgrimage to SanFrancisco’s Grace Cathedralfor an Interfaith Service ofRemembrance andDedication.

For more information, call the parish at

(831) 637-7570, go to www.hollis-

terepiscopal.com or e-mail amyden-

[email protected].

RELIGION TODAY

CHUCK FLAGG

[email protected]

COURTESY OF DOROTHY DAY CATHOLIC WORKER

St. Luke’s Episcopal Church is celebrating the 30th anniversary ofthe martyrdom of Oscar Romeo with several events this month.

Hollister church honors martyr’s memory

DunnevilleDunnevilleDunnevilleDunnevilleDunnevilleCafe & Market

5970 San Felipe Rd., Hollister

831.637.9191http://dunneville.isoars.com

NEW MENU

Breakfast & LunchMon-Fri 10am-2:30pm

Sat & Sun 7am-3pm

Deli Open Daily6am-6pm

NEW CHEFFred Carlos

(formerly - Elks in Gilroy)

Bocce BallEat & Play!

– BREAKFAST & LUNCH – Mon-Fri: 11am - 2:30pm

Sat-Sun: 7am - 3pm

– DELI OPEN DAILY –6am - 6pm

(Located at the intersection of Shore, San Felipe and Fairview roads)

Hollister Free Lance and Weekend Pinnacleare available here

Cafe & Market

Bill & Gloria Regentz5970 San Felipe RoadHollister, CA 95023

831.637.9191

GABILAN HILLS SCHOOLHollister School District

Now accepting applications for the 2010-2011 school year:

Who: Current HSD 5th grade studentsFor: Gabilan Hills 6-8 Grade School of ChoiceHow: Complete an intradistrict transfer request

form at any HSD school

An informational meeting will beheld at Gabilan Hills on 3/10/10,

at 6:00 PM in Gecko Hall.

ASAPSpace is limited!

Pastor Jeff Holmes

www.gilroypres.org

6000 Miller Ave, GilroyOff Santa Teresa

842-3000

9:00am..........Traditional Service 10:30am..Contemporary Service

Childrens Sunday School

Quality Nursery Care

Sunday Worship

Interested in listing yourchurch services?

Call 408.842.0420

WorshipServices

Is Your Heater Efficient?Call today for an appointment!

831.636.3767www.riandaair.com

703 McCray St. • Hollister • Lic.#699804

Gas Fireplace Specialistsfeaturing indoor & outdoor fireplaces:

Lic. #897845

Regency • Mendota • Majestic • SuperiorUNITS FOR ALL ROOMS

Gas & Wood • Inserts • Stoves • Vent Pipes

OVER 20 YEARS HEATING EXPERIENCE!Call to see models at Rianda Air Inc., Hollister

831.636.3733 • www.visualheat.com

FREE ReplacementEstimates

831-637-3873 anplumbinginc.com

NewLowerPrice

• New Construction

• Commercial

• ResidentialHollister

Kick the Salt HabitWith Zeta Rod®

Sewer Line Inspections

$99 Video SpecialSee What’s at the Root of

Your Sewer Main Problems

650 San Benito St. • Hollister 831.637.5952

CUSTOMER APPRECIATION MONTH

$50* for any facial treatmentservice.regular price$65 & up

Microdermabrasionalso included.

* Euro facial not included inspecial offer. Expires 3/31.

HAIR • SKIN CARE • NAILS • TANNING • MASSAGE

Thanks to all of you who voted

Pamela WitherspoonBest Esthetician in SBC.

Ausaymas Veterinary ServiceRoger Bruce, D.V.M. • Rosie Matli, D.V.M. • 1750 Orchard Road, Hollister

831-637-0097Website coming soon!

Specializing in: • Large and small animal care• After hours emergency care available• Full surgical facility

Puppy & Kitten Care PackagesOnly $150 Call for details

Car Broken Down Again?Car Broken Down Again?

561 East Street • Downtown Hollister • Mon-Fri 7:30am-5:00pm

831.636.1072CHECK ONLINE FOR SPECIALS! http://autoworks.isoars.com

See the Service Experts at Autoworks

COMPLETE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRService • 4x4 Center • Brakes • Tires & Wheels

Machine Shop• Engines & Cylinder Heads• Brake Rotors & Drums• Flywheel Surfacing

Tune-up & Computer Diagnostics• Scheduled Maintenance Services

Air Conditioning ServiceAlignmentsExhaust Systems

Certified Master MechanicCertified Master Machinist

3YR/100,000 MILE NATIONWIDEWARRANTY

Voted Best Auto Repair by Free Lance &Pinnacle readers

OVER 28 YEARS EXPERIENCE!

Call for an appointment today!

5

25

PROPOSEDPROJECT

LLANADAPANOCHE

MERCY

HOT

SPRINGS

WOOD

RANCH

LA JOLLA

RANCH

PINNACLES

CHANEY

RANCH

elt t i

L

ehco

na

P

daoR

P

anoche Road

Panoche Valley Solar FarmProposed Project Site

NTS

I

Public Notice

Publish: March 5,9, 2010P/FL 127488

April 1,

April 1,

cyanmagentayellowblack SB C8

C8 The Weekend Pinnacle March 5, 2010

Breen: A simple letter helps stu-dents further their educationContinued from page C1

and have to leave the cocoon that is high

school. That cocoon that felt restrictive

for so long now feels protective for some,

who are excited but scared about what lies

ahead for them.

Classroom conversations sometimes

mention the regrets of seniors who wish

they would have taken school more seri-

ously, as they realize how their previous

disinterest now limits their options. There

are those students who begin sporting the

T-shirts or sweatshirts of their college,

proud to announce that they are entering

the big time education-wise.

And there are those students who still

don’t know what they’ll be doing after June

for a while.

The stress of college and scholarship

application deadlines will shortly be re-

placed with the stress over clearing deten-

tion hours so seniors can participate in the

graduation ceremony or the stress of await-

ing word on whether they’ll be able to af-

ford the next step in their education.

For many, that step includes a frantic

request for a simple letter.

Adam Breen writes a blog at http://thebreenblog.blogspot.com and teaches newspaper and yearbook classes at San Benito High School. He is a reporter for The Pinnacle and former editor of The Free Lance.

Congressman Sam Farr (D-Carmel) last week in-troduced legislation that would establish a com-

petitive grant program to

promote domestic regional

tourism.

t turn around

without hearing someone

creation, and we all know

how important tourism is

Farr, the co-chair of the

Congressional Travel and

Tourism Caucus, made up

of more than a hundred

members of Congress.

vel and tour-

ism industry is one of the

top industries in every sin-

gle congressional district

across the country, and it

has the potential to be one

of the largest vehicles for

-

The Travel RegionalInvestment Partnership Act, or the TRIP Act, di-rects the Secretary of Com-merce to create a grant program designed to pro-mote domestic regional

tourism growth and new

domestic tourism market creation. The bill (H.R. 4676) authorizes $10 mil-

lion in competitive grants,

to range between $100,000 and $1 million each, to ac-complish those goals.

mpor-

tant the travel and tourism

industry is to our econo-

-

ports more than 8 million

times the rate of GDP than

the automotive industry.

But in 2009 alone, we saw

a decrease of $130 billion

in the industry. This bill is

I look forward to working

with my colleagues to get

Industry members

were also supportive of the

legislation.

-

ism will help our economy

recover and I fully support

said Caroline Beteta, presi-

dent and CEO of the Cali-

fornia Travel and Tourism

Commission and national

chair of U.S. Travel Asso-

employment across a va-

riety of economic sectors,

from hospitality to retail,

restaurants and attractions

to rental cars and other

transportation businesses.

-

not be outsourced to other

countries and directly im-

The grant program will

apply to convention and

visitors bureaus as well

as partnerships between

state or local governments

and local tourism entities.

Groups will be required to

provide matching funds for

proposal for a Travel Re-

gional Investment Act is

an innovative approach to

strengthen the public pri-

vate partnership and en-

courage investment in one

of America’s top indus-

-

gie Ivy, CEO of the Santa

Cruz County Conference

Santa Cruz County alone,

tourism generates more

than $600 million in con-

sumer spending annually.

-

anism and opportunity to

support small businesses,

employment and the health

Bob Cowdrey, inter-

County Convention and

the second largest industry

must protect and grow the

tourism industry that cre-

$46 million in tax revenues

and generates $2 billion

in spending. Travel means

and growth. One of every

directly or indirectly by

Farr introduces regional tourism billPinnacle staff report

C M Y KC M Y K

5

25

PROPOSEDPROJECT

LLANADAPANOCHE

MERCY

HOT

SPRINGS

WOOD

RANCH

LA JOLLA

RANCH

PINNACLES

CHANEY

RANCH

elt t i

L

ehco

na

P

daoR

P

anoche Road

Panoche Valley Solar FarmProposed Project Site

NTS

I

Public Notice

Publish: March 5,9, 2010P/FL 127488

April 1,

April 1,

Notification of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 2010 Rate Design Window Application Filing

On February 26, 2010, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its 2010 Rate Design Window Application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The application complies with Commission Decision 09-03-026, which directed PG&E to design this type of program.

What is the Peak Time Rebate (PTR) program? PG&E would like to inform our customers about proposed new time-based electric rates that will be available to residential customers on a staged basis during the summers of 2011 and 2012. This proposed rate is called the Peak Time Rebate (PTR) program. It is offered in response to a CPUC requirement that PG&E offer residential electric rates that will provide benefits to customers who conserve energy during critical peak periods. PG&E is proposing the design of this program in its 2010 Rate Design Window proceeding.

The PTR program will automatically apply to approximately 4.5 million PG&E residential electric customers when rollout is complete. To be eligible to participate, customers must have SmartMeter™ technology and be billed using hourly data. For most customers, PTR will apply starting in May 2012. In some limited geographic areas, PTR will be available in May 2011. In a few other areas, PTR may not be available until after May 2012 depending on the progress of SmartMeter™ deployment and hourly billing rollout. PTR will not apply to non-residential business or agricultural electric customers. Certain residential customers will also be ineligible for PTR, including Direct Access, Community Choice Aggregation, solar net metering and master metered customers, as well as customers with service on separately metered charging outlets for alternative fuel vehicles.

Under PG&E’s proposal, the PTR program will provide residential customers bill credits for certain reduced electric usage on PTR event days. PG&E's proposal would give a credit of $0.75 for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) reduction below a customer's savings threshold usage level. The savings threshold usage level is based on usage from days that precede the PTR event day. Customers participating in PG&E’s SmartAC™ air conditioner (AC) program could receive additional credit savings by enrolling to have their AC system participate in PTR event days. These customers would receive a bill credit of $1.25 for each kWh reduction below the savings threshold level.

PG&E proposes to trigger the PTR program on only 9 to 15 days per year, from 2:00 pm to 7:00 pm, based on temperature conditions or system constraints. Customers will be notified of a PTR event day by 2:00 pm on the preceeding day.

PTR and other dynamic pricing and demand response programs are designed to reduce demand at critical times. PG&E does not benefit from the purchase of electricity in the wholesale market. This cost of electricity, as well as the cost of natural gas fuel, is a pass-through cost for our customers.

Will rates increase as a result of this application? This application requests authority to recover in rates approximately $32.7 million for the incremental costs associated with implementing PTR in 2010 through 2013. If the CPUC approves PG&E's full request, the cost of implementing the program will be recovered from all customers who receive transmission and distribution service from PG&E, including bundled customers (those who receive electric generation, as well as transmission and distribution service from PG&E) and direct access customers (those who purchase electricity from a non-PG&E supplier). The average increase in bundled electric rates would be 0.10 percent, and 0.16 percent for direct access customers.

THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application. The DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a multi-disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA’s views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate.

The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not participate in, these hearings.

After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E’s request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC’s final decision may be different from PG&E’s application.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 1-800-PGE-5000 For TDD/TTY (speech-hearing impaired) call 1-800-652-4712 Para más detalles llame 1-800-660-6789 1-800-893-9555

You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2010 Rate Design Window Application P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120.

You may also contact the CPUC’s Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor’s Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102

1-415-703-2074 or 1-866-849-8390 (toll free) TTY 1-415-703-5282, TTY 1-866-836-7825 (toll free) E-mail to [email protected]

If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor’s Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff.

A copy of PG&E’s 2010 Rate Design Window application and exhibits are also available for review at the California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday - Friday 8 a.m.-noon.

Public Notice

Publish: March 5, 2010P/D 126809 re:PGL-14-NR

NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE SUMMER 2010 RATE RELIEF FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH UPPER

TIER CONSUMPTION

On February 26, 2010, PG&E filed an application for expedited authorization from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to modify the Tier 3 through 5 electric rates of residential customers not enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program. Specifically, PG&E proposes to increase the Tier 3 rate, and reduce the Tier 4 and 5 rates, to bring them closer together. Households with substantial upper tier consumption are experiencing great hardship due to the steeply tiered rate structure currently in place. PG&E’s proposal will lower bills for such households, particularly during hot summer months in areas with large cooling demands, and reduce month-to-month bill volatility. Households with Tier 3 consumption will see moderate bill increases under PG&E’s proposal. Overall, this proposal is revenue-neutral, collecting the same amount of revenue as current rates. Under PG&E’s proposal, rate changes would become effective June 1, 2010.

Will rates increase as a result of this application? No changes are proposed for non-residential rates or for residential customers on the CARE program. Tier 1 and Tier 2 residential rates will remain unchanged as well. Under PG&E’s proposal, non-CARE Tier 3 rates will increase by about 4.3 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), while non-CARE Tier 4 and 5 rates will decrease by about 3.7 cents and 5.4 cents, respectively, per kWh. Increases or decreases on individual residential non-CARE customer bills will depend on each customer’s electric usage. If the CPUC approves this application, a typical residential customer using 550 kWh per month will see the average monthly bill change from $76.79 to $79.42, an increase of $2.63 per month. A residential customer using 850 kWh per month, which is about twice the baseline allowance, will see the average monthly bill change from $172.29 to $179.87, an increase of $7.58 per month. A residential customer using 1,500 kWh per month will see the average monthly bill change from $461.13 to $437.99, a decrease of $23.14 per month. Individual customers’ bills may differ.

THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application. The DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a multi-disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA’s views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate.

The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not participate in, these hearings.

After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E’s request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC’s final decision may be different from PG&E’s application.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the application and exhibits or for more details, call PG&E at 1-800-PGE-5000. Para más detalles llame al 1-800-660-6789

1-800-893-9555 For TDD/TTY(speech-hearing impaired),call 1-800-652-4712.

You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Summer 2010 Rate Relief Application P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120

You may contact the CPUC’s Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows:

Public Advisor’s Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102

1-415-703-2074 or 1-866-849-8390 (toll free) TTY 1-415-703-5282 or 1-866-836-7825 (toll free) E-mail to [email protected]

If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor’s Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff.

A copy of PG&E’s Summer 2010 Rate Relief and exhibits are also available for review at the California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday–Friday, 8 a.m.–noon.

Public Notice

Publish: March 5, 2010P/D 127473 PL00-16-NR

1

WELCOME TO

PANOCHE VALLEY SOLAR FARM

EIR SCOPING MEETING

Presented by the

County of San Benito

Department of Planning and Building Inspection

March 15, 2010 — Panoche Valley

March 16, 2010 — Hollister


EIR SCOPING MEETING

Meeting Agenda

• Introduction – Sandra Alarcón-Lopez, Aspen

• Project Overview – Michael Krausie, Associate Planner

• EIR Process – Byron Turner, Assistant Director

• Major Environmental Issues – Susan Lee, Aspen

• Public Comments – Sandra Alarcón-Lopez, Aspen

• Meeting Conclusion

Introduction

Purpose of Scoping

• Provide information on the Proposed Project

• Get public input on EIR scope and analysis

• 30-day comment period

The Purpose of this Meeting

• Forum to receive public comments


EIR SCOPING MEETING

2

Introduction• San Benito CountyLead Agency

• Aspen Environmental GroupIndependent consulting firm retained by County to prepare EIR

under County’s direction

Experienced in preparing EIRs for solar and other energy

infrastructure projects

Works almost exclusively for public agencies


EIR SCOPING MEETING

Project Overview

• Applicant – Solargen Energy, Inc.

• 420 MW Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Power Plant

Renewable Power

• 4,717 acres currently used as agricultural rangeland

• Deliver electric power to grid via existing transmission line

PG&E Transmission Travels Through Site

• Maximum height of PV panels is 15 feet

• Construction in 5 phases over 5 years


EIR SCOPING MEETING

Regional Map – Panoche Valley Solar Farm

Proposed Project

3

Site Map – Panoche Valley Solar Farm

Visual Simulation – Panoche Valley Solar Farm

EIR Process

County Decisions

• Conditional Use Permit Triggers review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

• Environmental Impact Report (EIR) RequiredSan Benito County is Lead Agency under CEQA

• Planning Commission and Board of SupervisorsDecision whether to certify EIR

Project approval or disapproval will consider EIR

• Other Required County PermitsBuilding Permit, Grading Permit


EIR SCOPING MEETING

4

EIR Process

• Notice of PreparationIncludes a project summary and identifies potential impacts

Solicits guidance as to the scope and content of the information in a

Draft EIR

• 30-day Scoping PeriodProvides public opportunity to guide scope and content of EIR

• Draft EIR (~June 2010)Detailed project description

Analysis of impacts in all resource areas

Alternatives to reduce environmental impacts

Cumulative impacts


EIR SCOPING MEETING

EIR Process

Comprehensive Evaluation of All Resources


EIR SCOPING MEETING

Aesthetics

Air Quality

Agricultural Resources

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Paleontological Resources

Fiscal Impacts

Geology, Soils & Minerals

Greenhouse Gases

Hazards & Hazardous

Materials

Land Use & Recreation

Noise

Population & Housing

Public Services & Utilities

Traffic & Circulation

Water Resources

EIR Process

• 45-Day Comment PeriodPublic may comment on Draft EIR

• Draft EIR Workshops (June/July 2010)Allow public to discuss analysis and conclusions of

Draft EIR with County and Technical Team

• Final EIR (Mid-September 2010)Provides detailed responses to comments

Incorporates comments on Draft EIR


EIR SCOPING MEETING

5

Public Hearing(s)• Planning Commission review of EIR and Use Permit

• Take public input

• Render a decision on EIR and Conditional Use Permit

• Planning Commission final unless appealed


EIR SCOPING MEETING

EIR Process

Other Agency Input

• U.S. Army Corps of EngineersSection 404 Wetlands Permit

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceThreatened & Endangered Species Take Permit

• California Department of Fish and GameStreambed Alteration Permit

Threatened & Endangered Species Take Permit


EIR SCOPING MEETING

EIR Process

Other Agency Input

• State and Regional Water Quality Control BoardsGeneral Stormwater Permit

Section 401 Certification

• State Office of Historic PreservationHistoric Preservation and Cultural Resources Review

• Monterey Unified Air Pollution Control DistrictFugitive Dust Emission and Control Measures and

Emission Offset Measures


EIR SCOPING MEETING

6

Major Environmental Issues

• Biological ResourcesSurveys ongoing

Species include:

Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard

California Tiger Salamander

Giant Kangaroo Rat

San Joaquin Kit Fox

Birds

Mountain Plover

Swainson’s Hawk

Burrowing Owl

Golden Eagle

Other Threatened and Endangered Species


EIR SCOPING MEETING


• AestheticsConversion of open space (grazing land) to industrial use

• Air QualityFugitive dust emissions

Construction vehicle emissions

• Agricultural ResourcesWilliamson Act contracts

• NoiseConstruction equipment, traffic


EIR SCOPING MEETING


• Cultural ResourcesField surveys ongoing

Consultation with potentially affected Native American tribes

• Traffic & CirculationConstruction worker commute traffic

Heavy truck traffic


EIR SCOPING MEETING

7

Your Comments

Your local knowledge will help define scope and content of EIR

• Comments on…

Scope of EIR

Content of EIR

Local environmental issues of concern

Methods of environmental analysis

Potential alternatives to the project

Possible mitigation measures to reduce or avoid

environmental impacts

• Comment Card

• Summary Posted on Web


EIR SCOPING MEETING

Thank You for Participating!

Contact InformationHotline

(888) 467-1863

Project email address

[email protected]

Project websites

www.panochesolar.info

www.san-benito.ca.us


EIR SCOPING MEETING

Send Written Comments ToArt Henriques, Director of Building and

Planning

c/o Aspen Environmental Group

235 Montgomery Street Suite 935

San Francisco, CA 94104

Comments Must Be Postmarked by

April 1, 2010

Sign-In (Note: If you are already on the mailing list, you do not need to complete your address information.)

Monday, March 15, 2010 — Panoche Valley Solar Farm Project Scoping Meeting Panoche Valley, California

Name Affiliation Address City, State, Zip Phone Email

PLEASE PRINT

Do you prefer to receive notifications via email? Check here

Speaker Registration Card

(Please Print)

Name: Affiliation (if any): Address: City, State, and Zip: Phone:

Email:

Panoche Valley Hollister

Speaker Registration Card

(Please Print)

Name: Affiliation (if any): Address: City, State, and Zip: Phone:

Email:

Panoche Valley Hollister

Appendix C: Scoping Comment Letters

Panoche Valley Solar Farm Project EIR Team

From: Frank Saunders [[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 9:50 AM

To: [email protected]

Subject: solargen

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Red

3/10/2010

To whom it may concern: I own 160 Acres in Panoche Valley on the corner of Panoche Rd and Ricalde Road. I have reviewed the Notice of Preparation for the Solargen project and am most interested in the map. It is not immediately obvious where exactly these panels are to be located. Without looking at a parcel map showing roads and parcels it is impossible to know what the impacts might be to the surrounding properties. Please address this issue at your earliest convenience. For the record I believe this project will be an aesthetic nightmare in a pristine valley. Frank Saunders 2600 Garden Rd. #127 Monterey, CA 93940 831-375-5145 office 831-595-1640 cell

Ref: Solargen Notice of Preparation – formal request. Dear Mr. Krausie, I would like to draw your attention to some discrepancies with Solargen’s proposal as stated in their submission and the NOP and would like this to be a formal request to be taken onto record. Fact stated: Solargen will use 1,822,800 solar panels (from NOP). Fact stated: Panels will be 2’ x 4’ (from CUP application) Fact stated: Panels will be 230 watt (from CUP attachment D page 11) Fact stated: panels will be amorphous silicon A-si Simple mathematics will see that this will add up to the expected 420 megawatts that the plan covers. Michael Petersen has repeatedly told us that they will use amorphous silicon panels, the problem here is that those panels CANNOT PRODUCE that much power. According to a press release: http://www.newenergyworldnetwork.com/renewable-energy-news/by_technology/solar-by_technology-new-news/sungen-to-supply-solargen-with-125gw-of-solar-panels.html Solargen has the option to buy from china, a fact that M. Petersen DID NOT deny during a meeting with the farm bureau last year but it is unimportant, what I wish to show here is TYPICAL power output from these type of panels. http://www.sungen.com/en/products03.php shows us that the MOST powerful product they have is a 100w panel that measures 1100mm x 1400mm (43.3”x 55” or 16.54 sqft). If we extend this figure Solargen would need 4,200,000 panels to achieve this amount or 69,468,000 square feet of panels instead of the 14,582,400 square feet as per their application, nearly five times the amount! Another issue that has no coverage in their application is to the capacity of the 230kV transmission line that transverses the valley. A guide line by PG&E puts a 230kV line to handle up to 600 megawatts and recommend a 500kV line for above this. There is absolutely NO mention of any upgrades to the existing line and therefore the project should be reduced to conform to this limitation OR exact specifications of any and all upgrades be declared in a new application. What I see here is a gross miscalculation that has to be rectified BEFORE the NOP can be released. We need complete disclosure as to which technology is to be used and/or correct panel coverage needs to be disclosed. It is not acceptable for Solargen to put a project forward using vague numbers to which a realistic and complete Environmental Impact cannot be calculated. I therefore DEMAND that this NOP be corrected BEFORE the meetings next week. Yours truly Kevin Davis

http://www.newenergyworldnetwork.com/renewable-energy-news/by_technology/solar-by_technology-new-news/sungen-to-supply-solargen-with-125gw-of-solar-panels.html



http://www.sungen.com/en/products03.php


From: Diana Verhalen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 9:46 AM To: Janet Slibsager Subject: Solargen panels project Please do not put wildlife and local farms at risk with the proposed large installation of solar panels. There are much better ways to locate and utilize this renewable energy method. Diana Verhalen Certified Somatic Coach & Organizational Consultant Fiore Consulting - Wisdom in Action www.fioreconsulting.com(510) 764-4567 "How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. ~Anne Frank

http://www.fioreconsulting.com/

SAN BENITO COUNTY FlRE DEPARTMENT

1979 Fairview Road, Hollister, California 95023 office (831) 636-2080 fax (831) 636-2775

OFFICE OF THE FlRE MARSHAL

March 19,201 0

Planning Department

Re: Solargen Energy, Inc.

Project Fire Safety Requirements are as follows;

Note: As a condition of submittal of these plans, the submitter, designer, contractor and installer certify that these plans and details comply with applicable Specifications, Standards, Codes and Ordinances, agree that they are solely responsible for compliance with applicable Specifications, Standards, Codes and Ordinances, and further agree to correct any deficiencies noted by this review, subsequent review, inspection or other source, and, to hold harmless and without prejudice, the reviewer and reviewing agency.

An NFPA 13 Fire Sprinkler System is required to be installed throughout the two double wide trailers and any other structures built over 500 square feet. Plans and calculations shall be submitted to this office for review prior to installation. These plans shall include all piping and plumbing from the water source to the riser. Water system shall be capable of supplying sprinkler systems and any necessary fire hydrants. Hydrant shall be wharf Type. Hydrant location(s) shall be determined when final design plans are submitted.

CFC Section 508.5.1 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be required by the fire code official.

Address posted at main entrance gate.

Entrance gate shall be equipped with a Knox Locking System. Gate shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in unobstructed width with fifteen (1 5) feet of unobstructed vertical clearance.

Entrance gate shall be installed a minimum of thirty (30) feet off the main county roadway to allow fire apparatus off road parking to open security gate.

A thirty (30) foot wide cleared buffer zone /fuel break shall be installed around the periphery of the project. Access roads that completely surround the project may satisfy this requirement if reviewed and approved by the fire department.

A thirty (30) foot clearance shall be installed and maintained around all buildings.

A ten (1 0) foot clearance shall be installed and maintained around all transformers or conversion stations.

All weather surfaced access roads shall be installed and maintained throughout the entire solar panel installation.

A Fire Protection / Prevention Plan, as previously discussed, shall be submitted to this fire depment forfliew, comment and approval prior to any permits being issued.

Capt in James Dellamonica 4 CA"/'"R" Fire Marshal San Benito County Fire Department

NOTE: It should be noted that the response time for any emergency that occurs at this facility will be in the 45 minute to one hour range depending on surface road traffic. Further, by sending the engine and paid staff to the location, the engine and staff would be committed for a minimum of two and one half hours. This could seriously leave the rest of the County without a quick response to fire department type emergencies. This impact should be seriously considered.


From: Collette Cassidy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 4:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Panoche Solar Alert

Hi, I made a comment at the meeting in Hollister and I believe you have that on tape. I wanted to add another concern however. Someone at the meeting mentioned Valley Fever as a result of stirring up the soil. There is also anthrax. We had to have our cows vaccinated for it. That is very disconcerting! Collette Cassidy Acupuncturist/Herbalist www.claravaledairy.com Cell: (831)234-7088 Claravale Farm: (831)628-3219

SAN BENITO COUNTY

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

ELIZABETH FALADE, M.D., M.P.H.

HEALTH OFFICER

KATHRYN FLORES DIRECTOR

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES

439 Fourth Street Hollister, CA 95023

831-637-5367

MEDICAL THERAPY UNIT 761 South Street

Hollister, CA 95023 831-637-1989

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

1111 San Felipe Road, Ste 102 Hollister, CA 95023

831-636-4035

HEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAMS


831-637-5367

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES Healthy People in Healthy Communities

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES


831-636-4066

TO: Michael Krausie, Associate Planner C/o Aspen Environmental Group 235 Montgomery Street Suite 935 San Francisco, CA 94104 [email protected]

FROM: Bob Shingai San Benito County Environmental Health 1111 San Felipe Road Suite 102 Hollister, CA 95023 [email protected]

DATE: March 29, 2010

SUBJECT: Panoche Valley Solar Farm

Information Requested: #1: San Benito County Environmental Health Bob Shingai 1111 San Felipe Road Suite 101, Hollister, CA 95023 [email protected] 831-636-4035 #2: Permit(s) or approval(s) under this agency’s authority:

a. Liquid waste disposal permit b. Small water system permit (2-4 water service connections) c. Hazardous Material Business Plan d. Hazardous Materials – site clean up e. Abandonment of sewage disposal systems

#3: Environmental Information required:

a. Liquid waste disposal b. Water system information c. Hazardous Materials information (proposed project) d. Site assessment re/Hazardous waste impacting the site e. Site assessment re/abandoned sewage disposal system

mailto:[email protected]



SAN BENITO COUNTY

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

ELIZABETH FALADE, M.D., M.P.H.

HEALTH OFFICER

KATHRYN FLORES DIRECTOR

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES


831-637-5367

MEDICAL THERAPY UNIT 761 South Street

Hollister, CA 95023 831-637-1989

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES


831-636-4035

HEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAMS


831-637-5367

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES Healthy People in Healthy Communities

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES


831-636-4066

#4: That the required permits and clearance(s) are applied for and obtained.

#5: Refer to item #3

#6: None

March 31, 2010 Michael Krausie, Associate Planner c/o Aspen Environmental Group 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935 San Francisco, CA 94104 Submitted via email to: [email protected] Re: Panoche Valley Solar Farm Dear Mr. Krausie, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Panoche Valley Solar Farm project. As a land owner and taxpayer in San Benito County, I would like to provide the following comments. I would like the EIR to look into the negative impact on the property values in Panoche Valley as a result of a large industrial project being built in a rural agriculture community. The EIR should also examine the potential negative fiscal impact to the Panoche Valley farms that are visited by people who want to drive to a beautiful, rural grassland valley to visit these farms. I am concerned over the current conditions of the roads leading into Panoche Valley from Paicines and from I-5 and how these roads will further deteriorate due to the increased traffic caused by this project. These roads have always been in disrepair with the current traffic flow in and out of the valley. Both Panoche Road/J1 and Little Panoche Road have several blind corners, one-lane sections and bridges. The road is consistently being repaired based on it’s current use. The EIR should include a traffic study that addresses level of service on each roadway, signage, ability of the roads and bridges to handle the increased traffic and heavy truck loads of equipment and supplies as well as identifying mitigation measures to offset negative impacts. The EIR should address funding for roadway improvements that will be required due to this project. In addition, ongoing funding sources for maintenance and operations of the roads for the duration of this project should be considered in the EIR. We have days and sometimes weeks of high winds in Panoche Valley. In the summer time, there is an increased risk of fire due to the dry state of the valley. The EIR should address the increase fire risk this project will bring to the valley, the fire suppression measures that should be taken and the ability for Solargen to fight fires which can easily turn into wild fires spreading across the grassland valley into neighboring homes, barns and other out buildings. These high winds create dust storms in the summer which will likely be increased drastically by the amount of access roads being proposed for the project area. The EIR should address how the increase in exposed soil will cause a decrease in the air quality in Panoche due to the dust caused from vehicles, wind and new roads.

Maxine Davis Comments Panoche Solar Farm March 31, 2010 I am concerned over the lack of information provided by Solargen Energy, Inc. on the type of seeds they will use when replanting the disturbed land and how these seeds will grow with no water or direct sunlight due to the shading caused from the solar panels. The EIR should address the cause of using non native seeds in Panoche Valley and the affect of planting beneath solar panels with no irrigation and no direct sunlight. If irrigation will be used, the EIR should address how this increased water usage will affect the water table in Panoche Valley. The EIR should also address how the water table will be affected by this project due to the occasional cleaning of the panels. The proposed project area of 4,700 acres will cover over 40% of the valley floor and will be surrounded by chain link fence which would eliminate the beautiful open views we have of the grassland valley. The EIR should look into the loss of another grassland valley in California. How many grassland valleys does California have? What is the cost of losing this valuable rangeland and wildlife habitat? The proposed chain link fencing could impede the ability for the wildlife species to freely roam the valley as they currently do. The EIR should look into how this impediment could negatively affect the wildlife species in Panoche Valley. The EIR should look into how the impact of 5 years of construction noise will have an impact on the quiet rural aspects, quality of life to the people, the domestic animals, birds and other wildlife that live in Panoche Valley. The security lighting proposed would take away the night sky that we currently have in Panoche Valley. Currently in Panoche Valley I can see the Milky Way galaxy brighter than anywhere I have ever seen it in all the places I have lived in America. This night time lighting will take away our night sky viewing and could possibly have a negative affect on the bats that I have seen in the valley as well as other species that hunt and come out of their burrows during the night, such as the Giant Kangaroo Rat. These changes to the existing environment in Panoche Valley need to be examined. I believe they will be drastic changes and could have a major negative impact on the valley. The EIR should address how these changes to the night sky will have an impact on the valley residents, both human and animal as well as plant. I have viewed wildlife in Panoche Valley, namely the San Joaquin Kit Fox, the Giant Kangaroo Rat and many birds of prey. I have concerns over how 4,700 acres of solar panels will affect the current forage that grows in Panoche Valley, the ability for these animals to easily roam in Panoche Valley, and the effects of 5 years of construction in the valley. The EIR should address these concerns. Farmers and ranchers in Panoche Valley currently practice sustainable practices, using drip irrigation and rotational grazing. We conserve and protect the valley because this is our home. This project will forever change the valley and the EIR should look into the loss of this valuable grassland valley, the loss of the ability to graze cattle in the valley due to the size of the project and the inability to graze cattle within the 4,700 acres of the project area.

Maxine Davis Comments Panoche Solar Farm March 31, 2010 The EIR should address how distributed solar installation on city rooftops and parking areas could produce the same amount of energy as this large industrial solar project. The EIR should look into whether or not the existing transmission lines in Panoche Valley can handle the load of energy being proposed by this project. The EIR should look into whether or not the solar panels being proposed for this project actually exist and if the amount of energy that Solargen Energy, Inc. states they will produce will actually be the same amount of energy after it travels the great distances to the cities where the energy will be used. Thank you for looking into these concerns. Sincerely, Maxine Davis 34672 Panoche Road Paicines, CA 95043 Email: [email protected]

March 30th, 2010 Michael Krausie, Associate Planner San Benito County Planning & Building Inspection Services 3224 Southside Road Hollister CA, 95023 Dear Mr. Krausie: Solargen Energy, Inc. proposes to construct the Panoche Valley Solar Farm project in southeastern San Benito County (the County). This project would comprise a 420 Megawatt (MW) solar energy generation facility consisting of 1,822,800 pole-mounted, silicon based solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and associated electrical equipment on 4717 acres of agricultural land, a 12 acre electrical substation, and an operations and maintenance building. The proposed project plans to deliver electricity to the regional transmission system by interconnecting to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Moss-Panoche/Coburn-Panoche 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line on site. Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Fresno Audubon Society, Monterey Audubon Society, Santa Cruz Bird Club, and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (Conservation Organizations) are pleased to submit the following scoping comments for the proposed Solargen Energy Inc. solar development in Panoche Valley. (Note: Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) has already provided scoping comments on February 2nd, 2010. This document provides supplemental scoping comments for SCVAS.) The development of renewable energy is a critical component of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, avoid the worst consequences of global warming, and to assist California in meeting emission reductions set by AB 32 and Executive Orders S-03-05 and S-21-09. The above listed Conservation Organizations support the development of renewable energy production, and the generation of electricity from solar power, in particular. However, like any project, proposed solar power projects should be thoughtfully planned to minimize impacts to the environment. In particular, renewable energy projects should avoid impacts to sensitive species and habitat, and should be sited in proximity to the areas of electricity end-use in order to reduce the need for

extensive new transmission corridors and the efficiency loss associated with extended energy transmission. Only by maintaining the highest environmental standards with regard to local impacts, and effects on species and habitat, can renewable energy production be truly sustainable. General comments

Careful documentation of the current site resources is imperative in order to analyze how best to avoid or minimize impacts, and how to mitigate any unavoidable impacts. The draft environmental impact report (DEIR) must evaluate all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to sensitive species, communities and habitats and should address the following issues:

1. We are concerned with the outlined schedule for the CEQA process. Please explain how a complete, site specific DEIR can realistically be completed in the time frame proposed by the County. Explain the methodology used for collecting, studying and assessing all of the necessary baseline data for the project and for proposed alternatives. Explain how this methodology complies with standard protocols.

2. A PG&E transmission line interconnection study should be included in the DEIR to examine the feasibility of the proposed project connecting to the existing 230 kV PG&E transmission line. Any network upgrades that may be needed should be listed. If upgrades are necessary, the impacts associated with these upgrades should be addressed in the DEIR so comprehensive environmental impacts both direct and cumulative, and project alternatives, are properly addressed. To do otherwise will segment the two projects which clearly rely on each other for implementation.

Project alternatives

The DEIR must include a robust analysis of alternatives, including alternatives using other technologies including distributed generation. The stated objectives of the project must not unreasonably constrain the range of feasible alternatives evaluated in the DEIR. The County must establish an independent set of objectives that do not unreasonably limit the DEIR’s analysis of feasible alternatives including alternative sites.

1. Evaluate alternate project sites on public and private lands that have been significantly disturbed and environmentally compromised and posses little or no habitat value.

2. Evaluate and consider the use of alternative resources such as roof tops, parking lots, and other distributed generation within developed urban areas to minimize adverse environmental impacts.

3. Evaluate alternative technologies that may reduce the spatial footprint of the project and minimize harm to wildlife.

Biological Surveys and Mapping

The Conservation Organizations request that thorough, seasonal surveys be performed for sensitive plant and animal species and communities, under the direction and supervision of the County and resource agencies such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Full disclosure of survey methods and results to the public and other agencies without limitations imposed by the applicant must be implemented to assure full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Further, Panoche Valley is recognized by the National Audubon Society and by Birdlife International as an Important Bird Area (IBA) of Global Significance. A full season of breeding and wintering bird surveys within the project area is needed, using methods approved by the California Department of Fish and Game. We request that the data from these surveys be made publicly available so that we can adequately review and comment on the potential impacts of this project.

Confidentiality agreements should not be allowed for the surveys in support of the proposed project. Surveys for the plants and plant communities should follow California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) floristic survey guidelines1 and should be documented as recommended by CNPS2 and California Botanical Society policy guidelines. A full floral inventory of all species encountered needs to be documented and included in the DEIR. Surveys for animals should include an evaluation of the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System’s (CWHR) Habitat Classification Scheme. All rare species (plants or animals) need to be documented with a California Natural Diversity Data Base form and submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game using the CNDDB Form3 as per the State’s instructions4.

The Conservation Organizations request that the vegetation and wildlife maps be at a large enough scale to be useful for evaluating the impacts. Vegetation/wetland habitat mapping should be at such a scale to provide an accurate accounting of wetland and adjacent habitat types that will be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed activities. A half-acre minimum mapping unit size is recommended, such as has been used for other development projects. Habitat classification should follow CNPS’ Manual of California Vegetation (2008).

Adequate surveys must be implemented, not just a single season of surveys, in order to evaluate the existing on-site conditions. Due to unpredictable precipitation, organisms have evolved to survive in harsh conditions and if surveys are performed at inappropriate times of year or in particularly dry years many plants that are in fact on-site may not be apparent during surveys (e.g. annual and herbaceous perennial plants).

1 http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/guidelines.php and http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/Protocols_for_Surveying_and_Evaluating_Impacts.pdf 2 http://www.cnps.org/cnps/archive/collecting.php

3 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/CNDDB_FieldSurveyForm.pdf 4 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitting_data_to_cnddb.asp

Evaluation and mitigation of Impacts: Biological Resources

For all of the following comments and for each potentially adverse project impact analyze the entire project, and include all discrete and severable project activities and components in all project phases. Project analysis should include any planned and potential project-associated infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to power and road infrastructure (including any roads into the valley and any necessary upgrades to the PG&E Moss-Panoche/Coburn-Panoche 230 kV transmission line). Analyze impacts as projected for all times and seasons, with the whole action involved, off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct. Assess impacts on time and spatial scales relevant to the impacted species. State all significance criteria or thresholds used for evaluations and describe methodology used for analysis.

1. Evaluate potential adverse project impacts to all federally and state listed endangered and threatened species, including candidate species that are proposed for listing. Evaluate potential adverse project impacts to all Sensitive Species and Species of Special Concern as per the California Department of Fish and Game, February 2008, list of “Special Animals.” Evaluate potential adverse project impacts to important species with no formal conservation status but thought by experts to be rare or in serious decline and to warrant special status based on recent information. Evaluate impacts to the bird species of Panoche Valley, to the avian community structure, and to the IBA. Include impacts on grassland bird species in each season and impacts on migrating birds.

2. Evaluate the cumulative impacts to Panoche Valley wildlife that may result from development in their other core distribution areas, such as the Carrizo Plain and Western Kern County. Cumulative impacts should also include solar and other projects planned within the range of San Joaquin kit fox and other special status San Joaquin Valley species.

3. Determine project site baseline values as resident habitats as well as pass-through habitats for all area species. Include in the baseline assessment any associated infrastructure improvements (powerlines, roads) that may be necessary for full project build-out (all phases) to occur.

4. Evaluate the cumulative impacts to long-term genetic viability and recovery of species whose populations may be cut off from other core populations as a result of the project and its associated infrastructure.

5. Provide a comprehensive groundwater and surface water impact analysis for the proposed project and each alternative. Calculate water use for each year of the project, and analyze impacts on water availability for wildlife, biological communities and ecosystems. Evaluate project impacts to wetlands, vernal pools, ephemeral streams and riparian habitats.

6. Assess risks that polarized light reflected from PV solar panels pose to insects, birds and bats (see Appendix A). Evaluate impacts of polarized light on biological phenomena, ecosystem

services and ecological function. These include, but are not limited to, impacts on pollination and migration.

7. Evaluate adverse project impacts due to fencing. Include in the analysis impacts that fencing and structures will have on the movement of wildlife and connectivity of habitats, the potential for perimeter fencing to increase road kills of wildlife species. Evaluate the capacity of the projects’ perimeter fencing to exclude predators, such as coyotes and fox, and evaluate the effects of predator exclusion on the population of prey species.

8. Evaluate adverse biological impacts due to project structures, including 1,822,800 pole-mounted, silicon based solar PV panels and associated electrical equipment, a 12 acre electrical substation, an operations and maintenance building, and fences.

9. Evaluate project impacts to foodwebs and food availability for listed and rare species.

10. Evaluate impacts on ecological community structure in Panoche Valley, and discuss which species have the potential for an increased population and whether such increased population may adversely impact listed species including but not limited to the San Joaquin kit fox. Evaluate the risk of introduction of nuisance plant and invasive animal species.

11. Determine if electromagnetic waves generated by solar panels will potentially impact wildlife.

12. Assess the effects of the project on the Panoche Valley climate and evaluate impacts to wildlife and agriculture.

13. Evaluate the impacts of light pollution from the project and all its associated structures on wildlife. Evaluate glare impacts.

14. Evaluate impacts on wildlife from human activity, including but not limited to generation of light, noise, traffic and human presence.

15. Will the project increases the potential for human-caused fire to occur on site? Fire prevention, including best management practices, must be addressed and clearly identified in the DEIR - not only on-site protection of resources, but also preventing fire from moving into the adjacent lands. This should include an analysis of water source and availability for fire fighting use. In addition, evaluate impacts of fire management practices on vegetation and wildlife.

16. Include a dust abatement section. Analyze estimates of water use for dust abatement for each year of the project. Assess impacts of dust management practices on vegetation and wildlife.

17. A thorough and independent evaluation of the project’s impacts on wildlife movement is essential, including all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to wildlife movement corridors. The analysis should cover movement of large mammals, as well as other taxonomic groups, including small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and vegetation communities. The DEIR should first evaluate habitat suitability within the

analysis window for multiple species, including all listed and sensitive species. The habitat suitability maps generated for each species should then be used to evaluate the size of suitable habitat patches in relation to the species average territory size to determine the appropriate size and location of linkages and that they provide both live-in and move-through habitat. The analyses should also evaluate if suitable habitat patches are within the dispersal distance of each species. The DEIR should address both individual and intergenerational movement (i.e., will the linkages support metapopulations of smaller, less vagile species). The DEIR should identify which species would potentially utilize any proposed wildlife movement corridors under baseline conditions and after build out, and for which species they would not accommodate. In addition, the DEIR should consider how wildlife movement will be affected by other approved, planned, and proposed development in the region as part of the cumulative impacts.

The EIR should analyze whether any proposed wildlife movement corridors are wide enough to minimize edge effects and allow natural processes of disturbance and subsequent recruitment to function. The EIR should also evaluate whether the proposed wildlife movement corridors would provide key resources for species, such as host plants, pollinators, or other elements. For example, many species commonly found in washes depend on upland habitats during some portion of their cycle. Therefore, in areas with intermittent or perennial streams, upland habitat protection is needed for these species. Upland habitat protection is also necessary to prevent the degradation of aquatic habitat quality.

18. Identify and assess impacts of any infrastructure upgrades that will be needed in order to facilitate all stages of the project in the Panoche Valley. Describe and assess impacts of all road types, paved and unpaved, including roads within the project area that will be needed to provide access to individual panels, and improvement to public roads that may be needed to provide regional access to the project areas. All short and long term cumulative impacts on all species, habitat, wildlife corridors and alternatives should be addressed.

19. Will vegetation thrive near solar panels? Analyze feasibility of applicant proposal to plant/seed native vegetation in solar panel array areas. Analyze feasibility/compatibility of grazing livestock in solar panel array areas. Assess impacts of these management methods on Panoche Valley wildlife.

20. Determine appropriate mitigation measures to fully mitigate impacts to listed and rare species, ecological communities, ecosystems and habitats. Demonstrate clearly if/how impacts can be mitigated, and provide documented validation and record of success for all mitigation measures.

Evaluation and mitigation of Impacts: Aesthetics

1. Show accurate portrayal of what the project will look like. Verify accuracy of modeling criteria and quality of representations. Provide accurate sense of place and scale relative to Panoche Valley and the surrounding areas.

2. Demonstrate clearly if/how impacts can be mitigated, and provide documented validation and record of success for all mitigation measures.

Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement:

1. CEQA requires that the lead agency (the County) be able to implement, track, monitor, and report on any proposed mitigations for any identified impact. The DEIR should specify who in San Benito County will be responsible, and how long would the monitoring/enforcement last. The county must show that it has resources available to implement, track, monitor, report and enforce mitigation measures and plans.

2. Do not defer mitigation. Decommisioning

Identify and promulgate an appropriate decommissioning plan for the project and ensure that adequate funding for site restoration is guaranteed.

We request that recommendations, suggestions and comments be applied to and addressed in the DEIR for the Solargen Energy project. Thank you for your consideration of these important issues. Sincerely,

Ileene Anderson Pamela Flick Center for Biological Diversity Defenders of Wildlife PMB 447, 8033 Sunset Blvd. 1303 J Street, Suite 270 Los Angeles, CA 90046-2401 Sacramento, CA 95814 [email protected] [email protected]

Shani Kleinhaus Brandon Hill, President Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Fresno Audubon Society 22221 McClellan Rd. PO Box 9324 Cupertino, Ca 95014 Fresno, CA 93791-9324 [email protected] [email protected]

Blake Matheson, President Matthew Strusis-Timmer Monterey Audubon Society Santa Cruz Bird Club 1240 Pico Ave 1210 Lockhart Gulch Rd. Pacific Grove, CA, 93950 Scotts Valley, CA 95066 [email protected] [email protected] Appendix A A scientific article titled “Solar Panels Create Reversible Ecological Traps for Polarotactic Aquatic Insects” by Horvath et. al. was recently accepted for publication in the Journal of Conservation Biology. For additional information contact: Dr. Bruce Robertson Research Associate Kellogg Biological Station Michigan State University 3700 East Gull Lake Drive Hickory Corners, MI 49060 206-718-9172 [email protected] Homepage: www.msu.edu/~roberba1/Index.html/

Via e-mail to [email protected] and U.S. Mail

April 1, 2010 Mr. Michael Krausie, Associate Planner c/o Aspen Environmental Group 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935 San Francisco, CA 94104 Re: Scoping Comments for the Panoche Valley Solar Farm Dear Mr. Krausie: Defenders of Wildlife (“Defenders”) submits the following comments pursuant to the public review provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and associated regulations. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002. State agencies are required to involve the public, to the extent practicable, in preparing environmental assessments. CEQA Guidelines, § 15201. The County of San Benito (“the County”), as the lead agency under CEQA for the Panoche Valley Solar Farm (“Project”), is charged with fully considering public scoping comments for the Project, which may have significant adverse environmental impacts if implemented as described in the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (“NOP”). These comments are in addition to comments submitted by a coalition of conservation groups, including Defenders. These comments are submitted on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, a non-profit public interest conservation organization with more than1,000,000 members and supporters nationally, 200,000 of which reside in California. Defenders is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. Defenders has advocated for heightened protection of San Joaquin Valley grassland species, such as giant kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard and San Joaquin kit fox (“kit fox” or “SJKF”), all three of which are listed as endangered under the federal and California endangered species acts. Defenders strongly supports the emission reduction goals found in AB 32, including the development of renewable energy in California. However, we urge that in the quest for renewable power, project proponents design their projects in the most sustainable manner possible. This is essential to ensure that project approval moves forward expeditiously and in a manner that does not sacrifice our remaining wildlife heritage and values. Project Scope

The Panoche Valley Solar Farm site is located in the Panoche Valley in southeastern San Benito County. The project site consists of approximately 4,717 acres of private land that is currently used for


Defenders of Wildlife – 2 April 1, 2010

livestock grazing and open space. The site is located along Little Panoche Road, approximately two miles southwest of the Fresno County line and the Panoche Hills, and approximately 15 miles west of Interstate 5. Solargen Energy, Inc. proposes to construct the Panoche Valley Solar Farm project, a 420 Megawatt solar energy generation facility consisting of 1,822,800 pole-mounted, silicon-based solar photovoltaic panels and associated electrical equipment, an electrical substation, and an operations and maintenance building. The proposed Project would deliver electricity to the regional transmission system by interconnecting to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Moss-Panoche/Coburn-Panoche 230 kilovolt transmission line on site. The proposed Project would be constructed in five phases beginning in late 2010 and finishing in late 2015. Two ephemeral streams, Panoche Creek and Los Aguilas Creek, traverse the site, entering from the northwest and converging in the southern portion of the site. Several other unnamed washes are also located on the site. The PG&E Moss-Panoche transmission line traverses the site in a northwest-southeast direction. Surrounding land uses primarily include livestock grazing. There are scattered rural residences adjacent to the site. The Panoche Inn is located south of the Project site near the intersection of Panoche Road and Little Panoche Road. Panoche School is located approximately ¾ mile from the Project’s southeastern boundary. Wildlife Species of Concern According to the Panoche Valley Solar Farm Initial Study (“Initial Study;” Palm 2009), the following special status species have been documented to be present on the Project site: California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), San Joaquin antelope ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni), giant kangaroo rat (Dipdomys ingens), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), San Joaquin coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki), mountain plover (Charadruis montanus), golden eagle (Aquilla chrysaetos), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and American badger (Taxidea taxus).

While not specifically observed during the initial two-day reconnaissance survey, the Panoche Valley and Project site provide suitable habitat for the following special status species: vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatium), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), merlin (Falco columbarius), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus). Further, there have been historical observations of Tulare grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus tularensis) in the Panoche Valley. The Initial Study notes that the California condor has been observed on site (at 31), but goes on to say that “[n]o condors have been observed foraging onsite” (at 32). Despite this inconsistency, the proximity of the Project site to the active condor release site at Pinnacles National Monument west of the Project, in addition to the documented observation of the species onsite, suggest that this species be included in any biological impacts analysis.

The California condor, golden eagle, and blunt-nosed leopard lizard are “Fully Protected” species

under California state law. The classification of Fully Protected was California’s initial effort in the 1960’s to identify and provide additional protection to animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collection for scientific research or relocation of bird species for the protection of livestock. Since the proposed development does not fall under either of the exempted activities, take for all Fully Protected species must be avoided and must not occur.


The San Joaquin Kit Fox

The San Joaquin kit fox co-occurs with nearly all of the other species included in the San Joaquin Valley upland species recovery plan (“recovery plan”), although the fox is much more restricted in its choice of habitats (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Such broad distribution and requirement for relatively large areas causes the kit fox to act as an umbrella species with regards to the protection of many other associated species requiring less habitat. Simply put, fulfilling the fox’s needs also meets the needs of many other species. Under the recovery plan, the site-specific protection requirement to meet delisting criteria for the San Joaquin kit fox is to protect 90 percent of the existing potential habitat in the Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area (Ibid.). It is unclear to Defenders how this goal can be achieved if the Panoche Valley Solar Farm is constructed on such a significant portion of the Valley floor.

The California Department of Fish and Game’s 2008 Wildlife Action Plan states that “[w]ith only about 5 percent of the San Joaquin valley’s original natural areas remaining untilled and undeveloped, these Central Coast habitats…are important for the [San Joaquin kit fox’s] survival” (at 171). Further, this plan references the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Recovery Plan for the San Joaquin kit fox, and “calls for the protection of a complex of fox populations, including three core populations (the Carrizo Plain, western Kern County, and Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area)” and “recommends protecting remaining connections between populations to counteract interbreeding or declines in any one population” (emphasis added; at 172). Defenders suggests the Project proponents consult the state Wildlife Action Plan in the evaluation of the Project, with special attention paid to conservation actions to restore and conserve wildlife, including:

a. the “protection of large, relatively unfragmented habitat areas, wildlife corridors, and

under-protected ecological community types” (at 191); b. the protection of “sensitive species and important wildlife habitats” (at 192); and c. the allocation of “sufficient water for ecosystem uses” and “[p]roviding adequate water for

wildlife and in-stream uses” that “is particularly important in systems that support sensitive species or important habitat areas” (at 196).

Blunt-Nosed Lizard Panoche Valley is one of six “highest priority” areas targeted for additional habitat protection for

the blunt-nosed leopard lizard in the species recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). It is our understanding that there is new (although not yet published) scientific data indicating that the genetics of the Panoche blunt-nosed leopard lizard population shows a high degree of geographic isolation and no recent genetic flow between this and other blunt-nosed populations. Due to such isolation, this population is more susceptible to extirpation, or local extinction. This species is especially sensitive to habitat disturbance, making it all the more susceptible to extirpation. Furthermore, the Panoche blunt-nosed leopard lizard population in the Panoche Valley represents an important value for the overall conservation and recovery of the leopard lizard population.

Wildlife Movement As proposed in the Initial Study, the Project site would be enclosed by a six-foot chain-link fence for security purposes. Such fence would be designed to incorporate “regularly spaced, appropriately sized culverts to enable certain wildlife, including SJKF, to move through the site” (at 48). The Initial Study goes on to say that such fencing, even with regularly spaced culverts, would impede movement across the Panoche Valley floor for a number of species, including coyote, kit fox, American badger, cougar and potentially mule deer (Ibid.). Such movement restrictions have a high likelihood to increase the level of


predation for several of these species. Defenders believes that such fencing poses an unacceptable risk to kit foxes, especially in light of the cunning nature of coyotes, kit foxes’ primary predator. We suggest that the Project utilize a traditional three-four strand barbed wire fence with a smooth wire on the lowest tier to minimize risk of injury to wildlife crossing under the fencing and reduce hindrance of migratory wildlife corridors. Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Habitat loss is the primary cause of San Joaquin Valley upland species endangerment (U.S. Fish & Wildlife 1998). It is essential that habitat for endangered and sensitive species in the Project area is protected to ensure survival and recovery of the species. To ensure habitat protection, land use must maintain or enhance the value of the land. The recommended approach for safeguarding such habitat is to protect land in large blocks whenever possible. This minimizes edge effects, increases the likelihood that ecosystem functions will remain intact and facilitates management. Mitigation

Defenders recommends that the project proponent determine appropriate mitigation to fully mitigate impacts and not allow for deferred mitigation. As noted below, we are concerned that the scale of impacts to certain listed species may not be mitigated below a level of significance or to avoid jeopardy. We propose a 5:1 mitigation ratio due to the significant, historic loss of San Joaquin Valley ecosystem habitat and Panoche Valley’s heightened significance for recovery of San Joaquin Valley upland species.

We recommend protocol-level surveys be done for all special status species that are known to

occur on the Project site or for which suitable habitat exists in the Panoche Valley. Thorough, seasonal surveys should be performed for sensitive plant species and vegetation communities, and animal species under the direction and supervision of the County and resource agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Full disclosure of survey methods and results to the public and other agencies without limitations imposed by the applicant must be implemented to assure full compliance with the CEQA. Reasonable Range of Alternatives

CEQA requires project proponents and lead agencies to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a). Defenders strongly encourages the County to consider alternative sites; alternative technologies, including technologies with a lesser footprint and impact; and project reconfigurations for the Project that would avoid impacts to wildlife and habitat.

Defenders has identified criteria for preferred siting for renewable energy projects. We urge the

County to consider alternatives that include the following characteristics:

o Lands that have been mechanically disturbed, i.e., locations that are degraded and disturbed by mechanical disturbance:

• Lands that have been “type-converted” from native vegetation through plowing, bulldozing or other mechanical impact often in support of agriculture or other land cover change activities (mining, clearance for development, heavy off-road vehicle use).


o Brownfields: • Revitalize idle or underutilized industrialized sites. • Existing transmission capacity and infrastructure are typically in place.

o Locations adjacent to urbanized areas:1 • Provide jobs for local residents often in underserved communities; • Minimize growth-inducing impacts; • Provide homes and services for the workforce that will be required at new energy facilities; • Minimize workforce commute and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

o Locations that minimize the need to build new roads. o Locations that could be served by existing substations. o Areas proximate to sources of municipal wastewater for use in cleaning. o Locations proximate to load centers.

Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires lead agencies to analyze cumulative impacts created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the environmental impact report together with other projects causing related impacts. CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a)(1). The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. CEQA Guidelines, § 15355(d). The requirement for a cumulative impact analysis under CEQA must be interpreted so as to afford the fullest possible protection of the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory and regulatory language. See Citizens to Preserve the Ojai vs. Board of Supervisors, 176 Cal.App.3d 421 (1985). Therefore, the County must enumerate every past, present and reasonably probable future project, determine the proposed project’s contribution to the region’s cumulative impacts, and identify mitigation measures to alleviate the project’s cumulatively significant impacts. As the County may or may not be aware, there are currently two utility-scale solar projects proposed for the Carrizo Plain in eastern San Luis Obispo County. First Solar is the proponent of the Topaz Solar Farm, which has a footprint of approximately 4,200 acres of private land in the northwestern portion of the Plain near the Carrisa Plains Elementary School, both north and south of State Highway 58. SunPower Corporation is the proponent of the California Valley Solar Ranch Project, which has a footprint of approximately 4,365 acres on private land in the northeastern portion of the Plain just south of State Highway 58 and approximately two miles north of the northern extent of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. Further, there are additional solar projects proposed for western Kern County. As noted above, the Carrizo Plain, Panoche Valley and western Kern County are identified in the San Joaquin Upland Species Recovery Plan as the three core recovery areas for federally and state endangered San Joaquin kit fox and provide critically important habitat for a wide variety of other special status species including giant kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard. Cumulative impacts to San Joaquin Valley upland species must be carefully evaluated, especially in light of the fact that there are renewable energy projects proposed for all three core recovery areas for the kit fox. When evaluated comprehensively, these projects may constitute jeopardy under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under the ESA, jeopardy occurs when an action is reasonably expected, directly or indirectly, to diminish a species numbers, reproduction, or distribution so that the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild is appreciably reduced. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. Defenders believes that the proposed solar projects in Panoche

1 Urbanized areas include communities that welcome local industrial development but do not include communities that are dependent on tourism for their economic survival.


Valley, western Kern and on the Carrizo Plain will cause significant cumulative impacts and may cause jeopardy to the future existence of these critically imperiled species.

* * *

Defenders requests all CEQA notices for the above-referenced project. The requested notices should be mailed to Defenders’ office at the California address listed at the top of page one of this comment letter. Defenders of Wildlife appreciates the County’s commitment to maintaining the viability of sensitive species while facilitating the development of renewable energy facilities. We look forward to assisting the County in conducting a comprehensive environmental analysis of the proposed Panoche Valley Solar Farm. Sincerely,

Joshua Basofin California Representative

Pamela Flick California Program Coordinator References California’s Wildlife: Conservation Challenges. California’s Wildlife Action Plan. 2007. Prepared by UC Davis Wildlife Health Center for California Department of Fish and Game. Available online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/wap/report.html. Palm, Kara. Power Engineers, Inc. Panoche Valley Solar Farm: Initial Study. August 2009. Anaheim, CA. 88 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California . Region 1, Portland, OR.. 319 pp.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/wap/report.html

MBUAPCD Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District 24580 Silver Cloud Court Serving Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties Monterey, CA 93940 PHONE: (831) 647-9411 • FAX: (831) 647-8501

Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer

April 1, 2010 Mr. Michael Krausie Sent Electronically to: c/o Aspen Environmental Group [email protected] 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935 Original Sent by First Class Mail San Francisco, CA 94104 SUBJECT: NOP FOR PANOCHE VALLEY SOLAR FARM Dear Mr. Krausie: Projects that help meet California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard and other mandates of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 should reduce reliance on fossil fuels, which should decrease the associated impacts on air quality.

Air Quality Impacts Associated with Implementation of the Panoche Valley Solar Farm Project Project’s Cumulative Air Quality Impact on Regional Ozone The District uses consistency with the 2008 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the North Central Coast Air Basin to determine a project’s cumulative impact on regional air quality (ozone levels). Please contact the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments for a consistency determination for the project. Project’s Localized Air Quality Impact on Carbon Monoxide Levels Localized impact is evaluated by determining if build-out would create or substantially contribute to carbon monoxide “hotspots” (where federal or State ambient air quality standards are exceeded). If project or cumulative traffic would cause LOS to decline from D or better to E or F, dispersion modeling should be undertaken to determine if carbon monoxide concentrations would violate ambient air quality standards at sensitive receptor locations. Odors, Nuisances and Sensitive Receptors If the project would revise land use designations that might result in development of odors, nuisances or sensitive receptors in adjacent land uses, the Draft EIR should include an assessment of those impacts. District Rule 402, Nuisances, should be reviewed for applicable requirements.


2

Naturally Occurring Asbestos The Draft EIR should discuss any findings that have been made concerning the presence of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) on the project site. The presence of NOA, a federally regulated toxic air contaminant, would require mitigation measures, especially during the construction phase (grading and building) when soil is disturbed and emissions of fugitive dust follow. Demolition of Existing Structures If any of the existing structures on the project site are demolished, deconstructed or renovated, please refer to Rule 439, Building Removals, and Rule 424, NESHAPS, which are attached for your reference. Mike Sheehan of the District’s Compliance Division should be contacted to discuss any demolition or renovation that may involves asbestos-containing materials. Project Description / Thresholds of Significance The Notice of Preparation did not describe the project in terms that would allow the Air District to determine if it would create significant impacts. The Air District’s thresholds of significance include: 82 lbs/day of PM10, 137 lbs/day of VOC and 137 lbs/day of NOx. (Please see Tables 5-2 and 5-3 at the conclusion of this letter, which specify these thresholds. You may find greater detail on the District’s website at www.mbuapcd.org under Programs/Air Quality Planning/CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.) Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures should be identified for any significant impacts on air quality. The Draft EIR should quantify the emission reduction effectiveness of each measure, identify the agencies responsible for implementation and monitoring, and determine whether mitigation measures reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Construction and Fugitive Dust The Air District suggests the following mitigation measures:

Limit grading to 8.1 acres per day, and grading and excavation to 2.2 acres per day. Water graded / excavated areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of

operations, soil and wind exposure. Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph) Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction

projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days) Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations,

and hydro-seed area. Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2’0” of freeboard. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials. Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. Cover inactive storage piles. Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks. Pave all roads at construction sites.

http://www.mbuapcd.org/

3

Anti-Idling Regulation Please see Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2485 (c) (1) regarding idling of commercial vehicles, which follows:

California Code of Regulations Title 13. § 2485. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling (a) Purpose. The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other air contaminants by limiting the idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles. (b) Applicability. This section applies to diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles that operate in the State of California with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds that are or must be licensed for operation on highways. This specifically includes: (1) California-based vehicles; and (2) Non-California-based vehicles. (c) Requirements. On or after February 1, 2005, the driver of any vehicle subject to this section: (1) shall not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d); and (2) shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d).

From the District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (February 2008): TABLE 5-2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WITH POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Pollutant: PM10 Activity Potential Threshold* Construction site with minimal earthmoving 8.1 acres per day Construction site with earthmoving (grading, excavation) 2.2 acres per day * Based on Midwest Research Institute, Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (1995). Assumes 21.75 working weekdays per month and daily watering of site. Source: Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District 1996 Note: Construction projects below the screening level thresholds shown above are assumed to be below the 82 lb/day threshold of significance, while projects with activity levels higher than those above may have a significant impact on air quality. Additional mitigation and analysis of the project impact may be necessary for those construction activities.

4

TABLE 5-3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN OPERATIONAL IMPACTS* Pollutant Source Threshold(s) of Significance VOC 137 lb/day (direct + indirect) NOx, as NO2 137 lb/day (direct + indirect) PM10 82 lb/day (on-site)**

AAQS exceeded along unpaved roads (off-site) CO LOS at intersection/road segment degrades from D or

better to E or F or V/C ratio at intersection/road segment at LOS E or F increases by 0.05 or more or delay at intersection at LOS E or F increases by 10 seconds or more or reserve capacity at unsignalized intersection at LOS E or F decreases by 50 or more*** 550 lb/day (direct)***

SOx, as SO2 150 lb/day (direct)**

* Projects that emit other criteria pollutant emissions would have a significant impact if emissions would cause or substantially contribute to the violation of State or national AAQS. Criteria pollutant emissions could also have a significant impact if they would alter air movement, moisture, temperature, climate, or create objectionable odors in substantial concentrations. When estimating project emissions, local or project-specific conditions should be considered. ** The District’s 82 lb/day operational phase threshold of significance applies only to onsite emissions and project-related exceedances along unpaved roads. These impacts are generally less than significant. On large development projects, almost all travel is on paved roads (0%) unpaved), and entrained road dust from vehicular travel can exceed the significance threshold. Please contact the Air District to discuss estimating emissions from vehicular travel on paved roads. District approved dispersion modeling can be used to refute (or validate) a determination of significance if modeling shows that emissions would not cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of State and national AAQS *** Modeling should be undertaken to determine if the project would cause or substantially contribute (550 lb/day) to exceedance of CO AAQS. If not, the project would not have a significant impact. Source: Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the document.

Sincerely,

Jean Getchell Supervising Planner Planning and Air Monitoring Division cc: Michael Krausie, S. Benito Co. Planning John Doughty, AMBAG Mike Sheehan, District Compliance Division Attachments: Air District Rules 402, 424, and 439

MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

08/21/02 Rule 402 (Nuisances)

1

RULE 402 -- NUISANCES(Adopted 9-1-1968) (Revised 3-22-2000 and 8-21-2002)

CONTENTS

PART 1 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 Effective Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART 2 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1 Agricultural Processing Activity, Operation, Facility, or Appurtenances Thereof . . 22.2 Continuous Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 Proper and Accepted Customs and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PART 3 REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Rule is to provide an explicit prohibition against sources creatingpublic nuisances while operating within the Monterey Bay Unified Air PollutionControl District (Air District).

1.2 Applicability

The provisions of this Rule shall apply to all sources of air pollutant emissions withinthe Air District unless exempted pursuant to Section 1.3 below.

1.3 Exemptions



2

The provisions of this Rule shall not apply to odors emanating from:

1.3.1 agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or raising of fowl or animals. {California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 41705}

1.3.2 any agricultural processing activity, operation, facility, or appurtenances thereof,conducted or maintained for commercial purposes, and in a manner consistent withproper and accepted customs and standards, due to any changed condition in or aboutthe locality after it has been in continuous operation for more than three years if it wasnot a nuisance at the time it began; unless the facility substantially increases itsactivities or operations after which time a new three year clock begins during whichtime this exemption is not valid. {California Civil Code Section 3482.6}

1.4 Effective Dates

This Rule, as most recently revised, is effective on August 21, 2002.

1.5 References

The requirements of this Rule arise from the provisions of California Health and SafetyCode (HSC) Sections 41509, 41700 and 41705.

PART 2 DEFINITIONS

2.1 Agricultural Processing Activity, Operation, Facility, or Appurtenances Thereof

Includes, but is not limited to rendering plants licensed pursuant to Section 19300 of theFood and Agricultural Code and collection centers licensed pursuant to Section 19300.5of the Food and Agricultural Code, the canning or freezing of agricultural products, theprocessing of dairy products, the production and bottling of beer and wine, theprocessing of meat and egg products, the drying of fruits and grains, the packing andcooling of fruits and vegetables, and the storage or warehousing or retail markets ofagricultural products.

2.2 Continuous Operation

Means at least 30 days of agricultural processing operations per year.



3

2.3 Proper and Accepted Customs and Standards

Means the compliance with all applicable state and federal statutes and regulationsgoverning the operation of the agricultural processing activity, operation, facility, orappurtenances thereof with respect to the condition or effect alleged to be a nuisance.

PART 3 REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS

No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants orother materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerablenumber of persons or to the public; or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety ofany such persons or the public; or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury ordamage to business or property. {HSC Section 41700}

* * * * *


RULE 424 - NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIRPOLLUTANTS (NESHAPS)(Adopted 5-31-78; Revised 3-21-79, 10-11-84, 12-13-84, 12-17-86, 12-16-87, 2-20-91, 9-17-97,12-15-99, 10-18-00, 11-14-01, 1-15-03, 4-21-04, 6-16-04, and 9-20-06.)

CONTENTS

PART 1 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 Effective Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART 2 DEFINITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1 Administrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART 3 REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 Incorporation of Federal Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 List of Incorporated CFR Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Rule is to provide clarity on the District’s enforcement authority forthe National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants by incorporating thoseprovisions of Parts 61 and 63, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40CFR Parts 61 & 63) into this Rule by reference.

1.2 Applicability

All new stationary sources of air pollution, and all modified orreconstructed stationary sources of air pollution shall comply withthe standards, criteria, and requirements set forth herein. Whenever any source is subject to more than one rule, regulation,provision or requirement relating to the control of any aircontaminant, the most stringent provision shall apply.

2

1.3 Exemptions

As noted in each subpart’s applicability section.

1.4 Effective Dates

This Rule as most recently revised is effective on September 20, 2006.

1.5 References

The authority for this Rule arises from the provisions of California Health and SafetyCode Sections 40001 and 40702.

PART 2 DEFINITION

For the purpose of this Rule, the definition below shall apply.

2.1 Administrator

The word "Administrator" as used in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63 shall meanthe Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) of the District, exceptwhere the reference to "Administrator" relates to approval ofalternate or equivalent test methods or alternative work practices.

PART 3 REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Incorporation of Federal Standards

The provisions of Parts 61 and 63, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of FederalRegulations (40 CFR Parts 61 & 63), as identified in Section 3.2 below, areincorporated herein as part of the Rules and Regulations of the Monterey Bay UnifiedAir Pollution Control District.

3.2 List of Incorporated CFR Provisions

The following tables list all provisions which are incorporated intheir entirety as part of this Rule. Notations in these lists indicatedeviations from the US EPA-promulgated provision found in the CFR

3

which have been adopted by the District Board for inclusion in thisRule.

3.2.1 40 CFR Part 61

CFR Subpart Title

Subpart A General Provisions.

Subpart C National Emission Standard for Beryllium

Subpart D National Emission Standard for Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing

Subpart E National Emission Standard for Mercury

Subpart F National Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride

Subpart J National Emission Standard for Equipment Leaks (FugitiveEmission Sources) of Benzene

Subpart L Benzene Emissions from Coke By-Products Recovery Plants

Subpart M National Emission Standard for Asbestos

NOTE: The following provisions are added to the federal provisionsindicated, or are District specified requirements.

C The definition of "Asbestos Mill" at §61.141 is revised toinclude the indoor or outdoor storage, handling, conveying,and loading of asbestos material.

C The definition of "Visible Emissions" at § 61.141 is clarifiedto include emissions from any source, whether a point sourceor an area source.

C The Standard for Roadways at §61.143 is revised to add: "Noperson shall cause or allow the deposition of any asbestosmaterial upon any public roadway as a result of any transportor hauling activity."

C “Thoroughly Inspect” as required in §61.145(a) is clarified asfollows: All suspect building materials, in each building, thatwill be disturbed by planned demolition or renovationactivities shall be sampled and analyzed for asbestos usingthe method specified in Appendix E, Subpart E, 40 Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 763, Section 1 (Polarized LightMicroscopy) or assumed to be asbestos containing. Suspectmaterials include, friable asbestos-containing material,Category I nonfriable asbestos-containing material, Category

4

II nonfriable asbestos-containing material or any othermaterial that may contain asbestos based on pastmanufacturing practices or use.

C The Standard for waste disposal for asbestos mills at §61.151is revised to include incineration among the activities fromwhich visible emissions are prohibited.

C Building surveys shall clearly identify all suspect buildingmaterials, sample locations and the laboratory analysis foreach sample taken in a written report. The written buildingsurvey report shall be submitted along with the notificationfor each demolition project and for asbestos removal projectsthat will disturb building materials other than those beingabated.

C For asbestos renovation projects, all containment areas shallhave viewports installed where feasible to allow clearviewing of asbestos removal operations from outside thecontainment area.

Subpart N National Emission Standard for Inorganic Arsenic Emissionsfrom Glass Manufacturing Plants

Subpart O National Emission Standard for Inorganic Arsenic Emissionsfrom Primary Copper Smelters

Subpart P National Emission Standard for Inorganic Arsenic Emissionsfrom Arsenic Trioxide and Metallic Arsenic ProductionFacilities

Subpart V National Emission Standard for Equipment Leaks (FugitiveEmission Sources)

Subpart Y Benzene Emissions from Benzene Storage Vessels

Subpart BB Benzene Emissions from Benzene Transfer Operations

Subpart FF Benzene Waste Operations

Appendix A Compliance Status Information

Appendix B Test Methods

Appendix C Quality Assurance Procedures

Appendix D Methods for Estimating Radionuclide Emissions

Appendix E Compliance Procedures Methods for DeterminingCompliance with Subpart I

5

3.2.2 40 CFR Part 63

CFR Subpart Title

Subpart A General Provisions

Subpart D Regulations Governing Compliance Extensions for EarlyReductions of Hazardous Air Pollutants

Subpart F National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous AirPollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical ManufacturingIndustry

Subpart G National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous AirPollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical ManufacturingIndustry for Process Vents, Storage Vessels, TransferOperations, and Wastewater

Subpart H National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous AirPollutants for Equipment Leaks

Subpart I National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous AirPollutants for Certain Processes Subject to the NegotiatedRegulation for Equipment Leaks

Subpart J National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forPolyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production

Subpart L National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries

Subpart M National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for DryCleaning Facilities

Note: On May 21, 1996, the U.S. EPA granted approval to the ARB toimplement and enforce the State Air Toxics Control Measure(ATCM) in place of the NESHAP. However, major sources aresubject to both the State ATCM and the NESHAP.

Subpart N National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions FromHard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and ChromiumAnodizing Tanks

Note: On March 15, 1999, the U.S. EPA approved the State ATCM asequivalent to the NESHAP. However, major sources are subject toboth the State ATCM and the NESHAP.

Subpart O Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities.

6

Note: The California Air Resources Board has submitted an equivalencyrequest to the U.S. EPA for the State ATCM. If approved by EPA,the State ATCM will replace this NESHAP.

Subpart Q National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forIndustrial Process Cooling Towers.

Subpart R National Emissions Standards for Gasoline DistributionFacilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline BreakoutStations)

Subpart S National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants fromthe Pulp and Paper Industry

Subpart T National Emission Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning

Subpart U National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air PollutantEmissions: Group I Polymers and Resins

Subpart W National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forEpoxy Resins Production and Non-Nylon PolyamidesProduction

Subpart X National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants fromSecondary Lead Smelting

Subpart Y National Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel LoadingOperations

Subpart AA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants FromPhosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants

Subpart BB National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants FromPhosphate Fertilizers Production Plants

Subpart CC National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants FromPetroleum Refineries

Subpart DD National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants fromOff-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

Subpart EE National Emission Standards for Magnetic Tape ManufacturingOperations

Subpart GG National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing andRework Facilities

Subpart HH National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants FromOil and Natural Gas Production Facilities

7

Subpart II National Emission Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair(Surface Coating)

Subpart JJ National Emission Standards for Wood FurnitureManufacturing Operations

Subpart KK National Emission Standards for the Printing and PublishingIndustry

Subpart LL National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant forPrimary Aluminum Reduction Plants

Subpart MM National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forChemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite,and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills

Subpart YY National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable ControlTechnology Standards

Subpart CCC National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forSteel Pickling - HCL Process Facilities and Hydrochloric AcidRegeneration Plants

Subpart DDD National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forMineral Wool Production

Subpart EEE National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants FromHazardous Waste Combustors

Subpart GGG National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forPharmaceuticals Production

Subpart HHH National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants fromNatural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities

Subpart III National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forFlexible Polyurethane Foam Production

Subpart JJJ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air PollutantEmissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins

Subpart LLL National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Fromthe Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry

Subpart MMM National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forPesticide Active Ingredient Production

8

Subpart NNN National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forWool Fiberglass Manufacturing

Subpart OOO National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air PollutantEmissions: Group III Polymers and Resins

Subpart PPP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyether Polyols Production

Subpart QQQ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forPrimary Copper Smelting

Subpart RRR National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forSecondary Aluminum Production

Subpart TTT National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forPrimary Lead Smelting

Subpart UUU National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forPetroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, CatalyticReforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units

Subpart VVV National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forPublically Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)

Subpart XXX National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forFerroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese

Subpart AAAA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forMunicipal Solid Waste Landfills

Subpart CCCC National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast

Subpart DDDD National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forPlywood and Composite Wood Products

Subpart EEEE National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forOrganic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)

Subpart FFFF National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forMiscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Subpart GGGG National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production

Subpart HHHH National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forWet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production

9

Subpart IIII National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forSurface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks

Subpart JJJJ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forPaper and Other Web Coating

Subpart KKKK National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forSurface Coating of Metal Cans

Subpart MMMM National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forSurface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

Subpart NNNN National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:Surface Coating of Large Appliances

Subpart OOOO National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forPrinting, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles

Subpart PPPP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forSurface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products

Subpart QQQQ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forSurface Coating of Wood Building Products

Subpart RRRR National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forSurface Coating of Metal Furniture

Subpart SSSS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:Surface Coating of Metal Coil

Subpart TTTT National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forLeather Finishing Operations

Subpart UUUU National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:Cellulose Products Manufacturing

Subpart VVVV National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forBoat Manufacturing

Subpart WWWW National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forReinforced Plastic Composites Production

Subpart XXXX National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:Rubber Tire Manufacturing

Subpart YYYY National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forStationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

10

Subpart ZZZZ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forCombustion Turbines

Subpart AAAAA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forLime Manufacturing

Subpart BBBBB National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forSemiconductor Manufacturing

Subpart CCCCC National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forCoke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks

Subpart DDDDD National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forIndustrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and ProcessHeaters

Subpart EEEEE National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forIron and Steel Foundries

Subpart FFFFF National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forIntegrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing

Subpart GGGGG National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forSite Remediation

Subpart HHHHH National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forMiscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

Subpart IIIII National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forMercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants

Subpart JJJJJ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forBrick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

Subpart KKKKK National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forClay Ceramics Manufacturing

Subpart LLLLL National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forAsphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing

Subpart MMMMM National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forFlexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations

Subpart NNNNN National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forHydrochloric Acid Production

Subpart PPPPP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forEngine Test Cells/Stands

11

Subpart QQQQQ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forFriction Materials Manufacturing Facilities

Subpart RRRRR National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forTaconite Iron Ore Processing

Subpart SSSSS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forRefractory Products Manufacturing

Subpart TTTTT National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants forPrimary Magnesium Refining

Appendix A Test Methods

Appendix B Sources Defined For Early Reduction Provisions

Appendix C Determination of the Fraction Biodegraded (Fbio) in a BiologicalTreatment Unit

Appendix D Alternative Validation Procedure for EPA Waste andWastewater Methods

* * * * *


RULE 439 - BUILDING REMOVALS(Adopted 9-20-06)

CONTENTS

PART 1 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 Effective Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART 2 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1 Building Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 Deconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 Demolition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PART 3 REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 Visible Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 Work Practice Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Rule is to limit particulate emissions from the removal of buildingswithin the District.

1.2 Applicability

The provisions of this Rule shall apply to all building removals.

1.3 Exemptions

Reserved.

1.4 Effective Dates

This Rule, as originally adopted, is effective on September 20, 2006.

1.5 References

1.5.1 The provisions of this Rule derive from the standards for lead exposure in theCalifornia Air Resources Board’s Risk Management Guidelines for New,Modified, and Existing Sources of Lead.

1.5.2 Referenced or related rules include: Rule 400 (Visible Emissions) and Rule 402(Nuisances)

PART 2 DEFINITIONS

2.1 Building Removal

The deconstruction or demolition of any building.

2.2 Deconstruction

The manual removal of painted components including, but not limited to, woodsiding,exterior trim, doors, window sashes and overhanging eaves prior to the destruction andremoval of the building by either manual or mechanical means.

2.3 Demolition

The destruction and removal of a building by mechanical means.

PART 3 REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS

3.1 Visible Emissions

There shall be no visible emissions whatsoever from building removals.

3.2 Work Practice Standards

The following work practice standards shall be followed during building removals:

3.2.1 As necessary to prevent visible emissions, sufficiently wet the structure prior toremoval. Continue wetting as necessary during active removal and the debrisreduction process.

3.2.2 Demolish structure inward toward building pad. Laydown roof and walls so thatthey fall inward and not away from the building.

3.2.3 Commencement of removal activities are prohibited when the peak wind speedexceeds 15 miles per hour.

* * * * *

Wednesday March 31, 2010

To: Michael Krausie, Associate Plannerc/o Aspen Environmental Group235 Montgomery St. Suite 935San Francisco, CA 94104

Subject: Scoping comments for Panoche Valley, Solargen project

I am a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley where I study the life cycleimpacts of renewable energy technologies and the metrics used to measure theirperformance. There are several important life cycle metrics that the applicant and allrenewable energy project applicants should provide to describe the full benefits of theproposed project. Without knowing the full benefits of the project it is difficult toascertain the tradeoffs involved in the decision-making process. There are acceptedmethodologies for determining these metrics based on ISO 14040, including rules forsetting system boundaries, allocating co-products, and applying sensitivity analyses.

Life cycle analysis

What is the project’s energy return on investment on the balance of the system? Thereis an energy cost to procuring all energy generation sources. How much energy isrequired in along the entire life cycle of the project from raw material acquisitionthrough manufacturing, fabrication, transportation, construction, operation,maintenance, decommissioning and disposal or recycling?

What are the project’s life cycle greenhouse gas emissions?

What are the life cycle emissions of criteria air pollutants? How does this compare withthe avoided criteria air pollutants?

What is the carbon debt from land use change and energy payback time for the landuse impacts of project? California’s Air Resources Board and the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency both require direct and indirect land use change effects beincorporated into the well-to-wheel impacts of transportation fuels. Direct land useeffects include the effects to the carbon balance that result from the activities on theland. Indirect land use effects are the effects of displacing activities to new sites. Whichmodel will be used to project land use change?

What are the avoided carbon costs of the project? How does PG&E intend to utilizethis new generating capacity? Which power generation sources will no longer be inservice when this plant is operating at peak power?

What is the estimated capacity factor for this power plant?

What is the estimated power degradation rate of the modules? What does thewarranty from the manufacturer specify for degradation?

What kind of panel and inverter design will be used? Does this maximize poweroutput under conditions of shading or hot spots on the module surfaces?

These are some initial comments that help identify data needs to conduct a proper lifecycle analysis. If you have further questions about how to approach a life cycleanalysis of this project, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SincerelyDustin Mulvaney, Ph.D.Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management345 Giannini HallUniversity of California, [email protected]

831 247 3896


From: Rich Saxe [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 1:47 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Solargen NOP Art Henriques, Director of Building and Planning, c/o Aspen Environmental Group. I would like to submit these comments regarding the Solargen NOP;

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) refers to the Initial Study (IS) on the website. There is no evidence that the IS submitted by Solargen was independently reviewed by the County. This could become problematic if the information in the IS is used without “independent analysis”.

Many of the issues identified as Less Than Significant, or No Impact are not supported by factual information. Although the NOP does not identify a single issue of Potentially Significant Impact it goes on to state ”All CEQA environmental topic areas will be addressed in the EIR; however, the following areas of project review are anticipated to be of particular importance.” I believe that all potentially significant environmental should be addressed to the same level of detail.

Biological section identifies several endangered species as well as other species. It would be appropriate to prepare four season studies of the site to truly determine the impact on each of them and the site.

The IS brushes over the land Use and Planning section with a cursory review of the County’s Land Use Element. It appears that the other elements like the Open Space and Conservation Element need a look prior to determining consistency.

Secondary Impacts need to be analyzed; such as the carbon foot print of purchasing Chinese solar panels that were surly built with energy from fossil fuels. How long will the Panoche Valley Solar Farm have to operate just to offset the carbon of the manufacturing?

Alternatives sites and projects must be included in the EIR. Decentralizing the panels into surrounding communities should be an alternative it should include an analysis of loss of energy through transmission. A different location needs to be identified. Roof top with subsidies should be included.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Richard Saxe 2956 Anzar Rd. Aromas, Ca. 95004 831-726-3609

Monday March 29, 2010

To: Michael Krausie, Associate Plannerc/o Aspen Environmental Group235 Montgomery St. Suite 935San Francisco, CA 94104

From: Silicon Valley Toxics CoalitionRe: Panoche Valley Solar Farm, Solargen Energy, Inc., EIR scoping comments

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the scoping of the Panoche Valley Solar farm projectproposed by Solargen Energy, Inc.

The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) is a U.S.-based non-profit organization engaged inresearch, advocacy, and grassroots organizing to promote healthy environments and environmentaljustice in response to the rapid growth in the semiconductor industry. Founded in 1982, SVTC hashelped reduce the toxic burden on workers and communities, and has fostered community right toknow, extended producer responsibility, and raises awareness about the impacts of e-waste, andmore recently solar PV manufacturing and end-of-life.

SVTC embraces solar PV as part of our energy future. Yet SVTC recognizes that a failure to learnfrom the legacy of semiconductor manufacturing will jeopardize not only workers and theenvironment, but the solar PV industry itself and the global effort to reduce greenhouse gasemissions. It is important that the deployment of solar PV proceed responsibly with foresight andproper planning.

SVTC advocates a mandatory takeback policy for all solar photovoltaic (PV) modules sold in theU.S. Extended producer responsibility is a key component of environmental sustainability as itgives greater assurances of product stewardship throughout the product’s life cycle. In Europe, PVmanufacturers are implementing a takeback and recycling system called PV Cycle in part to avoidregulation under a European e-waste directive, but also because they are responding better toconsumers’ demands. Most major solar manufacturers have financially committed to the PV Cycleprogram in Europe, and some support a similar program for the US.

In short we ask Solargen to do the following:

(1) Implement a pre-funded takeback and responsible recycling program for all PV modulesinstalled, or ensure that the manufacturer has one in place before purchasing PV modules.PV modules must be safely and responsibly recycled. This takeback program should not useprison labor and should not allow module waste to be exported to developing countries.There is no evidence from Solargen’s website that they have made such a commitment.

(2) Ensure that the “green jobs” created through this project protect workers from exposure totoxic materials and ensure a living wage. This can be accomplished by requiringmanufacturers, suppliers, and their supply chains follow a code of conduct to verify supplierperformance, enforce environmental, health, and safety violations, and refrain from usingprison labor.

(3) Conduct life cycle analyses and risk assessments on the inputs used to manufacture PVmodules. Manufacturers should avoid using all chemicals listed on the European Union’sRestriction on Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS), conduct risk assessments on novelchemicals such as indium compounds, selenium compounds, cadmium compounds, or/andany nanoparticles used, and should conduct life cycle analyses on the potent greenhousegases used in PV manufacturing.

(4) Be transparent and accountable to the communities where the PV modules they purchasewill be manufactured, installed, and disposed of. This means, among other things, disclosinginformation on chemicals used in manufacturing and contained in the modules, quantities ofwaste generated, biomonitoring information, chemical risk assessments, and plans fordecommissioning.

In addition to the above recommendations we ask for responses to the following questions for theenvironmental impact report.

What kind of modules will be used in the project? Critical to knowing the costs and impactsassociated with PV recycling, is the type of technology used in the project.

What is the anticipated nameplate peak power output rating of the PV plant? How many moduleswill be used to achieve this nameplate capacity? Achieving the 420 MWp proposed in this projectwould require more than doubling the number of panels used if amorphous silicon is used. Thissignificantly affects the cost of decommissioning.

What is the disposal plan for faulty or defective modules in the Solar Farm?

How will end-of-life modules be disposed of?

What kind of collection infrastructure paradigm is in place for the takeback and recycling of thesesolar PV modules?

What is the cost in dollars per watt-peak of safely and responsibly recycling modules?

What does the manufacturer of these modules currently do with manufacturing defects andexperimental modules?

420 MWp could be achieved using crystalline silicon modules using the proposed number ofmodules. If crystalline silicon modules are used, will these be lead-free modules? Will Solargenensure that crystalline PV module manufacturers use only polysilicon from factories that recyclesilicon tetrachloride? Does the manufacturer have a takeback plan for their end-of-life and defectivemodules?

What is the approximate cost of decommissioning the PV plant?

Describe how decommissioning phases will proceed.

If modules are broken up on site, what kinds and quantities of particulate matter are expected?

Will the decommissioning and takeback program be prefunded? Given the proximity to one of themost active areas of the San Andreas Fault, it is critically that this program be prefunded.

Who will bond the PV plant decommissioning and prefunded takeback plan?

We estimate the weight of the waste from decommissioning the panels alone to be 46,800 tons,what is the estimated cost for transporting these wastes?

The industry standard is 5 years for a product warranty, and 25 years power output warranty. Willthe modules that Solargen installs have an industry standard warranty?

What is the current status of Sungen’s UL certification? When is certification expected?

Which recoverable materials are in the PV modules?

Which toxic materials are contained in the PV modules?

SVTC believes that answers to these questions are essential to mitigating potential impacts from thePanoche Valley solar farm, and look forward to hearing your responses.

Sincerely,

Sheila DavisSilicon Valley Toxics Coalition760 N. First St.San Jose, CA 95112

408-287-6707

www.svtc.org

765 University Avenue Sacramento, California 95825 Tel: 916-649-7600 Fax: 916-649-7667 www.audubon.org

March 30, 2010 Michael Krausie Associate Planner, County of San Benito c/o Aspen Environmental Group 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935 San Francisco, CA 94104 Re: Proposed Panoche Valley Solar Farm Dear Mr. Krausie: On behalf Audubon California’s more than 150,000 members and supporters, we offer the following information for consideration by San Benito County during the scoping phase for the proposed Panoche Valley Solar Farm. As an organization devoted to protecting California’s resources, we are in support of renewable energy projects that will help slow the effects of climate change and achieve our aggressive renewable energy goals. However, these projects must be planned, sited, and operated in a manner that prioritizes avoidance of habitat disturbance over mitigation in addressing negative impacts on bird and wildlife populations. Audubon California is concerned with the Panoche Valley Solar Farm proposal due to the unavoidable and extensive impacts to wildlife habitat and bird species associated with such a development. Panoche Valley is an area that has been designated by Audubon California as an Important Bird Area (IBA), and is recognized by the National Audubon Society and Birdlife International as an Important Bird Area of Global Significance. The Important Bird Areas program, administered in the United States by the National Audubon Society, is part of an international effort to designate and support conservation efforts at sites that provide significant breeding, wintering, or migratory habitats for specific species or concentrations of birds. Sites are identified based on standardized criteria and supporting data. Information about this Important Bird Area may be found at http://ca.audubon.org//iba/index.php. The Panoche Valley IBA was designated as such because it contains more than twelve sensitive bird species and in particular a significant portion of the global population of wintering Mountain Plovers. Mountain Plovers are currently proposed for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act and are listed as a California Bird Species of Special Concern (BSSC). Panoche Valley is notable for its high concentrations of wintering raptors and enormous sparrow flocks, which join a resident population of Burrowing Owl (BSSC) and other grassland species. Grasshopper Sparrow and Short‐eared Owl breed here (both BSSC), and both of these species have been virtually eliminated as nesters elsewhere in the San Joaquin Valley.

Winter brings Mountain Plover to the grazed grasslands on the valley floor, one of the few areas of the state where this species still winters in large numbers. The interior canescens race of Sage Sparrow (Audubon watchlist) breeds here, near the northern limit of its isolated San Joaquin Valley range. Long‐billed Curlew (Audubon watchlist) commonly winters here. Other BSSC species that are regularly observed in Panoche Valley grasslands include Northern Harrier and Loggerhead Shrike. Other birds of prey commonly observed include Prairie Falcon, White‐tailed Kite and Golden Eagle (California Fully Protected Species). Grassland birds are among the fastest declining birds in North America – 48% of species are of conservation concern and 55% are showing significant declines. It is critical that the environmental impact report fully assess the impacts on grassland bird species by destruction or alteration of habitat, including the impacts from invasive species that may be attracted by habitat alteration and/or destruction. During the environmental impact assessment process, San Benito County should address the following:

Impacts on grassland bird species in each season, especially breeding season

Impacts on migrating birds

Cumulative impacts on wildlife of this project and other solar developments in the area

Loss of productive farmland

Water needs of the project

Impacts of decommissioning

Need for additional infrastructure

Light pollution

Impacts of fencing on wildlife corridors

We request that the project proponents conduct a full season of breeding and wintering bird surveys within the project area, using methods approved by the California Department of Fish and Game. We further request that the data from these surveys be made publicly available so that we can adequately review and comment on the potential impacts of this project. Any plans to move forward should include a comprehensive monitoring plan for impacts on wildlife, as well as measures to mitigate for wildlife impacts. Thank you very much for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely,

Jordan Wellwood Central Valley/Sierra Nevada Conservation Coordinator Audubon California cc: David Hacker, Department of Fish & Game Mike Westphal, Bureau of Land Management Daniel Olstein, The Nature Conservancy

Pamela Flick, Defenders of Wildlife Philip Berry, Sierra Club Ileene Anderson, Center for Biological Diversity Brandon Hill, Fresno Audubon Society Bob Power, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Blake Matheson, Monterey Bay Audubon Society

California Natural ResourCes Agency ARNOLD DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Central Region 1234 East Shaw Avenue Fresno, California 9371 0 (559) 243-4005 http:Ilwww.dfg .ca.gov

SCHWA RZENEGGER. Governor JOHN McCA MMAN, Director

April 14,201 0

Michael Krausie, Associate Planner C/O Aspen Environmental Group 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935 San Francisco, California 941 04

Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Panoche Valley Solar Farm (State Clearinghouse Number 2010031008)

Dear Mr. Krausie:

The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the NOP to prepare a Draft Environmental lmpact Report (DEIR) for the Panoche Valley Solar Farm project (Project). The Project, proposed by Solargen, Inc., includes installing 1,822,800 pole- mounted photovoltaic panels on a 4,717-acre site on the Panoche Valley floor in San Benito County. The Project would provide 420 megawatts of solar capacity. Five construction phases are proposed between late 201 0 and late 201 5.

The Panoche Valley is a known reservoir of biological diversity, harboring many species which are now rare, threatened, or endangered primarily due to widespread habitat loss in California's Central Valley. The Ciervo-Panoche area is considered to be an essential area of remaining habitat supporting core populations of many of these special status species, including four State- andlor Federally listed threatened or endangered species (one of which is a State fully protected species) and two California Species of Special Concern (CSSC). The Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (Recovery Plan) identifies maintaining compatible land uses at the Project location as primary criteria for recovery of these species (USFWS 1998). The Project site also supports the State candidate (soon to be listed as threatened) and Federal threatened species California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and several additional CSSCs. The Panoche Valley has an additional distinction of being a recognized Audubon Society Important Bird Area because of several bird Species of Special Concern which occur here, including the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), the reason for which the Panoche Valley has the highest ranking of global concern. The Department anticipates that the Project as proposed would substantially adversely modify and reduce the habitat for the State- and Federally listed species, grassland bird Species of Special Concern, and other terrestrial vertebrates known to occur on the Project site. The Department would like to work with the County and the applicant to identify alternatives which would substantially reduce the potential biological

Michael Krausie, Associate Planner April 14,201 0 Page 2

impacts, ideally to less than significant levels. Alternatives may include substantially reduced Project footprints so that impacts can be mitigated on-site, off-site development alternatives on lower-value wildlife habitat, or others.

Given the known importance of the Panoche Valley for many special status species, the Department recommends that the DEIR's biological impact analysis include a robust assessment of the proposed Project's potential to substantially reduce and adversely modify habitat for special status species, cause populations of species to drop below self-sustaining levels, reduce the number and range of special status species, and conflict with the provisions of the Recovery Plan. For each State-listed species, the DElR should demonstrate that the impacts would be fully mitigated as required by the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The mitigation discussion should describe how compensation lands and other measures would allow the Project to proceed in a manner where, upon project completion, the State-listed species populations would not be diminished and their recovery would not be precluded.

Following is a more detailed discussion of our California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CESA responsibilities for this Project and recommendations for preparing a DElR with a defensible biological impact analysis.

CEQA and CESA Authority

The Department is a Trustee Agency with the responsibility under CEQA for . commenting on projects that could impact fish and wildlife resources. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1802, the Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. As a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources, the Department is responsible for providing, as available, biological expertise to review and comment on environmental documents and impacts arising from project activities, as those terms are used under CEQA.

The Department is a Responsible Agency when a subsequent permit or other type of discretionary approval is required from the Department, such as an Incidental Take Permit, pursuant to CESA, or a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) issued under Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq. The Project likely warrants LSAAs and an lncidental Take Permit for the State and Federal endangered giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens), State threatened and Federal endangered San Joaquin kit fox. (Vulpes macrofis mutica), State threatened San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsono, and State candidate (soon to be listed as threatened) and Federal threatened California tiger salamander.

I

Michael Krausie, Associate Planner April 14, 201 0 Page 3

The Department's issuance of an lncidental Take Permit andlor an LSAA is also considered a "project" subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). The Department typically relies on the Lead Agency's CEQA compliance to make findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. For the Lead Agency's CEQA document to suffice for CESA permit issuance, it must fully describe the potential Project-related impacts to State-listed species and commit to measures to avoid, minimize, and fully mitigate impacts to these resources. This means that the Project must not diminish the overall populations of State-listed species. An EIR containing a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant unmitigated impacts to State-listed species may not support lncidental Take Permit issuance. If the CEQA document completed for this Project does not contain these commitments, the Department may need to act as a Lead CEQA Agency and complete a subsequent CEQA document to support permit issuance. This could significantly delay permit issuance and, subsequently, Project implementation.

A complete CESA lncidental Take Permit application from the applicant should provide the following information (California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Section 783.2):

analysis of the impact of the proposed taking

an analysis of whether lncidental Take Permit issuance would jeopardize the continued existence of kit fox and any other State-listed species for which 'take" coverage is being sought

measures that minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the proposed taking

a proposed plan to monitor compliance with the minimization and mitigation measures

a description of the funding source and level of funding available for implementation of the minimization and mitigation measures

The Department can provide a complete list of required lncidental Take Permit application components upon request.

General Information on Specific Impacts

In this section, we provide information intended to assist in appropriately identifying potentially affected species, evaluating possible impacts, and finding solutions to some of the challenges raised by the Project as proposed. This material is based on our current understanding of the proposed Project, and existing information we possess on the Project site and potentially affected resources. Additional species not discussed

Michael Krausie, Associate Planner April 14,2010 Page 4

below, and that should be addressed in the DEIR, include the CSSCs American badger (Taxidea taxus), San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus inornatus), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondi), and San Joaquin coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki). As additional information becomes available, we hope to work productively with the County to incorporate that information, and effectively address the relevant issues.

San Joaquin Kit Fox

San Joaquin kit foxes currently occupy the Project site. The existing environment (baseline) for this Project is high-quality, intact kit fox habitat that has been identified as essential to the recovery of the San Joaquin kit fox and several other State- and Federal listed species which occupy the Project site. The DElR should address the effects of large-scale habitat modification and the potential for "take" during construction and operation of the solar arrays and associated Project features. The DElR should also address the potential kit fox impacts for the life of the Project as discussed later in this letter under 'Wildlife Impacts from Vegetation Management" and "Small Mammal Control." Effects from human activities associated with operations and maintenance should also be assessed.

The Ciervo-Panoche area is one of three San Joaquin kit fox core populations identified in the Recovery Plan. The generalized recovery goals identify the steps necessaito downgrade the federal listing status from endangered to threatened, and to delist the species. The primary step toward these goals is to "secure and protect specified recovery areas from incompatible uses." The area-specific goals identify the delisting criteria, which include protecting "90 percent of existing potential habitat" in the Ciervo-Panoche area. Recovery Task 2.1 , I4 is specific to the Ciervo-Panoche areas, and is ranked as a first priority for San Joaquin kit fox, giant kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, and the CSSC short-nosed kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus) and Tulare grass hopper mouse (Onychomys torridus tularensis):

"...protect natural lands from development through acquisition or easement from willing sellers; ensure traditional rangeland uses continue while monitoring and protecting vulnerable plant and insect populations" (USFWS 1998).

The Panoche Valley is essential for the Ciervo-Panoche population because it is the most extensive, intact area of low topographic relief and it supports giant kangaroo rat colonies, which are considered the optimum kit fox prey base. Topography appears to be a primary constraint on kit fox habitat use in undeveloped areas without irrigated


agriculture. Warrick and Cypher (1 998) found that kit fox capture rates were negatively associated with topographic ruggedness. Koopman et al. (2001) found that the mean slope for kit fox movements was 3" (5.2 percent slope) and that only 0.9 percent of movements occurred on slopes greater than 6" (1 0.5 percent slope). Without the Panoche Valley, much of the remaining natural lands in the vicinity would be relatively rugged and the viability of this kit fox population would be substantially compromised.

The DElR should assess how degrading the Panoche population may affect connectivity between other populations and the persistence of smaller, satellite populations and the entire population. The Panoche area kit fox population is a likely stepping stone between smaller populations to the north and the core populations to the south. Panoche is also a likely source population important to maintaining smaller populations nearby. Keeping this population connected with the other two core populations is considered essential for overall San Joaquin kit fox population viability.

Habitat Degradation within Solar Arrays: The applicant proposes allowing vegetation, small mammals, and kit fox to persist (no mass grading and leveling) within the solar arrays to minimize kit fox habitat loss and fragmentation. While the Department encourages these on-site measures to minimize kit fox impacts, the effectiveness of maintaining San Joaquin kit fox habitat values on-site and minimizing "take" during Project operation is unknown and has not been demonstrated at any similar facility. Almost no data exist to demonstrate the effects on terrestrial wildlife within photovoltaic arrays. The CEQA analysis should consider the potential for adverse effects within the solar arrays resulting from two main features: the physical and visual barriers created by the vertical structures and the shade produced from the panels.

The published literature that is available to date suggests that solar arrays would substantially alter the microenvironmental characteristics within the panel arrays. The shading would be substantial compared to the existing, complete exposure. The area under each panel would receive direct sunlight for only a short period before its shadow would lengthen and extend under the neighboring panel. Smith (1984) documented that solar panel shading and washing in a desert setting significantly changed plant community composition, caused vegetation to remain green longer, and resulted in a delayed green biomass peak compared to natural conditions. Smith (1 981 ) and Smith et al. (1987) demonstrated that shading from simulated solar panels increased the soil moisture underneath and between panels, reduced temperatures under panels, altered plant community composition, and reduced the total plant biomass. The construction disturbance and uncertain grazing regime are likely to result in Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) or other plant invasions which would further alter the vegetation structure and composition, further degrading kit fox habitat value.

Michael Krausie, Associate Planner April 14, 2010 Page 6

These habitat alterations are expected to change the wildlife community composition within the arrays, and are expected to be adverse for species such as kit fox, which are adapted to open substrates, low vegetation heights, and arid environments. The shade and longer growing season in the arrays should be expected to preclude the optimal prey base (giant kangaroo rats) and favor an increase in rabbits. Rabbit increases are understood to adversely affect foxes because they can facilitate an increase in coyote (a kit fox predator) abundance. This is supported by Smith (1981) who observed substantial increases in diurnal rabbit visitation under panels in summer months. The loss of giant kangaroo rat over a large area of the Panoche Valley will further reduce the number of foxes that the areas will be able to support. Giant kangaroo rats are considered the optimal prey base; kit fox densities are highest where giant kangaroo rats are present.

The effects on kit fox's ability to utilize the landscape within a solar array have not been demonstrated. However, the fact that kit fox are adapted to very open, arid, low-relief landscapes with short vegetation suggests that the combination of panels and their microenvironmental effects would substantially limit kit foxes' ability to utilize the Project site compared to existing conditions. The unknown implications of changes in vegetation, temperature, and soil moisture to kit fox habitat suitability further confound the predictability of kit fox habitat value within the arrays. The Department expects that the altered habitat resulting from Project implementation would be substantially degraded compared to the baseline condition of the Project site, which is currently high-quality habitat.

Traffic Impacts: Hels and Buchwald (2001) and Waller et al. (2005) found that roadkill probability is primarily a function of traffic volume and the animal's velocity. This Project would increase traffic through kit fox habitat. The existing traffic levels on Panoche Road and Little Panoche Road are very low, and kit fox are often encountered along these roadways. Because the existing traffic levels are extremely low, even small numbers of vehicles related to the Project will substantially increase the probability of vehicle-caused mortality of kit foxes and other species. The DElR should assess the potential for increased kit fox mortality resulting from the traffic increases associated with construction and operation of this Project. Fatalities in this population may be of greater consequence than in the other larger, more robust core populations.

Mitigation: Title 14, CCR, Section 783.4 requires that applicants fully mitigate the impacts of the permitted "take" of a State-listed species, including all impacts on the species that result from any act that would cause the proposed taking. The analysis and ultimate determination of full mitigation considers both direct and indirect impacts (including spatial, temporal, sub-lethal, and cumulative impacts). The desired outcome of full mitigation is to ensure that the status of the covered species is preserved such that it is able to continue to survive and thrive after completion of the Project and mitigation.


Part of the full mitigation requirement will be to essentially offset the "take" of individual foxes and loss of carrying capacity by producing more foxes. It is not clear that adjacent habitats in their current conditions could absorb additional foxes displaced by this Project. Producing more foxes on less habitat would require enhancing the remaining habitat for kit fox.

Providing for the same total number of kit foxes as baseline conditions may require a substantial commitment of land area. The most effective tool to increase kit fox density in remaining habitat may be to take land out of crop production or other uses which have degraded habitat. Bidlack (2007) found that kit fox sightings increased significantly along a road in San Luis Obispo County after dry-farmed areas were taken out of production and re-colonized by kangaroo rats, an important kit fox prey item. White et al. (1993) documented kit fox home ranges that were entirely within dry-farmed lands within one to five years of fallowing. Restoring croplands to grasslands or suitable shrublands would likely provide the greatest increase in potential kit fox abundance per unit area. The Department recommends that the proposal to fully mitigate the potential kit fox impacts from this Project include acquiring a combination of high-quality habitat .

and highly degraded habitat that has high restoration potential.

The DElR should identify the amount and location of mitigation lands required for full mitigation. If the DElR cannot commit to conserving specific areas, it should identify the larger area within which mitigation lands could be acquired, along with the amount of land required, to fully mitigate the Project's individual and cumulative kit fox impacts. The DElR should demonstrate how the amount, location, and management of mitigation lands would increase the number of kit foxes on those lands in perpetuity and at a rate which fully offsets the Project's individual and cumulative impacts to the kit fox population, including the direct and indirect effects discussed above. This analysis and specifics regarding mitigation obligations should be coordinated with the Department in order to avoid different mitigation obligations between the DElR and the Department's lncidental Take Permit.

The DElR should also commit the applicant to providinglassuring adequate funding to implement all mitigation measures, including endowments, landleasement acquisition, restoration, and monitoring. The Department, when issuing an Incidental Take Permit for a project, requires that funding for any measures that are not completed prior to project implementation must bk secured through an Irrevocable Letter of Credit or equivalent mechanism approved by the Department's Office of the General Counsel (OGC). The securities would be released as each phase of mitigation is accomplished. An endowment to cover costs of perpetual mitigation site monitoring and management will also be required by the Department's lncidental Take Permit, and the endowment funds must be held in perpetuity. The easement or title must be held by an approved


I Giant Kangaroo Rat

-

Giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens) is a State and Federal endangered species that , occurs on the Project site. The Recovery Plan specifies protecting the entire population

of giant kangaroo rat in the Ciervo-Panoche area as criteria for de-listing this species. The DElR should address how the Project would avoid precluding the recovery of this species.

third party non-profit conservation organization or the Department. In the event that another conservation organization is selected, the Department will need to hold a Conservation Easement over the lands or be a third party Conservation Easement beneficiary. The Department can provide a list of approved title, easement, or endowment holders upon request.

The Department expects that the Project would take giant kangaroo rat through large-scale habitat modification, installation of panel support posts and other Project features, trenching, road and other facility construction, and potentially during Project operations and maintenance.

The Department expects that constructing solar panel arrays would render the underlying habitat unsuitable for giant kangaroo rat for similar reasons as discussed earlier for kit fox. Giant kangaroo rats require sunlight and dry conditions to cure large seed caches on the surface prior to underground storage. These seed caches are essential for individuals to survive until the next growing season. The substantial changes in microenvironmental characteristics under and between solar panels, detected by Smith (1 981, 1984) and Smith et al. (1987), strongly suggest that the conditions under panels would be significantly modified and rendered unsuitable for giant kangaroo rat because they would change the forage composition and affect the ability to dry seed caches. These known effects include the following:

significantly increased soil moisture

I significantly decreased soil and air temperatures

wind attenuation

increased biomass

altered plant community composition

delayed annual plant dessication


The Department expects these changes to also affect air temperatures and humidity in burrow systems, which are also likely to affect giant kangaroo rats' ability to utilize solar arrays. Most importantly, it is unlikely that giant kangaroo rats would attempt to burrow under or near solar panels because giant kangaroo rats select areas of low vegetation when establishing precincts. This species is not known to establish precincts under overhead structure.

Areas between solar panel arrays would be highly fragmented habitats. The Department will consider these areas to be degraded compared to existing conditions, and potentially unsuitable depending on their size and degree of isolation. Any proposed mitigation should offset the loss or degradation of these areas.

As with kit fox, all impacts related to the permitted taking of giant kangaroo rat must be fully mitigated. Mitigation proposals should consider the same factors discussed above for San Joaquin kit fox.

The Department expects that large-scale displacement of giant kangaroo rats would substantially degrade habitat values for other species on the Project site and the surrounding areas. The giant kangaroo rat is considered to be a keystone species. They are the optimum prey base for San Joaquin kit fox, provide optimum burrow structures for blunt-nosed leopard lizards and San Joaquin antelope squirrels, and modify plant community structure and composition in a way that benefits many other species. Cropping vegetation to near ground level on their precincts further benefits species which are adapted to open habitats, including blunt-nosed leopard lizard, arid grassland bird species, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, and San Joaquin kit fox. The effects are likely to extend beyond the Project footprint because the large-scale habitat loss is likely to reduce giant kangaroo rat abundance in the remaining fragmented habitat around the proposed Project.

Giant Kangaroo Rat Surveys: Surveys for giant kangaroo rats should focus on the identification of their characteristic habitat types and burrow systems. All known or potential giant kangaroo rat precincts should be accurately mapped. Daytime line-transect surveys for burrow systems should be conducted by walking the property at 10- to 30-meter (30- to 100-foot) intervals to provide systematic coverage of the entire Project area. Transect width should be adjusted based on vegetation height, topography, etc., to facilitate the detection of precincts and other sign. Since Dipodomys heermanni are also known to construct haystacks, the presence of haystacks alone should not be used as a diagnostic characteristic to confirm presence of giant kangaroo rat. Maximum detectability for this species will be midsummer to late summer when first-year animals have dispersed and are still abundant and when surface sign is most detectable. Surveys at other times of the year may under-represent distribution because rain and vegetation can obscure surface sign and because the population will not be at its highest point for the year.


Species

Ammodramus savannarum

California Condor

The Project site lies within the range of the Federal and State endangered and fully protected California condor (Gymnogyps californianus). Historic and recent flight data shows use of the Project area in general including flights over the Panoche Valley. Condors may increase use of the area in the future as the re-introduced population expands its use of the historic range. The DElR should include the avoidance and minimization measures to preclude "take" of condors. Any potential for creating "microtrash" on site should be avoided. New transmission lines should be designed to eliminate potential for collision or electrocution and should include flight diverters of a design that has proven effective. The DElR should also determine the significance of the large-scale elimination of foraging opportunities on the Project site. The Department

Common Name

grasshopper sparrow

recommends coordinating with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding this species to determine impacts and formulate minimization and avoidance measures.

Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Residence Status

breeding

The DElR should address potential impacts to vernal pool branchiopods. The Department recommends that the applicant coordinate with the USFWS to determine the need for vernal pool branchiopod surveys and to formulate minimization and avoidance measures. The DElR should consider the potential for direct and indirect impacts from displacement, changes in surface hydrology, the removal of grazing animals, and vegetation management practices required for fuels reduction.

Listing Status

CSSC

Grassland Bird Species

The Department recommends that the DElR assess and disclose the Project's potential to substantially reduce habitat for special status grassland bird species that occur in the Panoche Valley. These include the species listed in Table 1 and potentially others.

Table 1. Special-Status Grassland Bird Species Known or Expected to Occur on the Project Site.

Aquila chrysaetos I golden eagle I year-round I f u l l yp ro teded I

Asio flammeus I short-eared owl I breeding or wintering I CSSC I


Species

A tbene cunicularia

Charadrius monfanus

Circus cyaneus

Lanius ludovicianus

The Panoche Valley is an Audubon Important Bird Area of global concern because it is important for mountain plover. The Department does not expect mountain plovers or most grassland bird species to utilize habitat within solar arrays or most fragments of habitat between solar arrays. The habitat loss to these species from the proposed project would be substantial.

Common Name

burrowing owl

Poocetes grarnineus a Mnis

California Tiger Salamander

mountain plover

northern harrier

loggerhead shrike

The State candidate (soon to be State threatened) and Federal threatened species California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) is known to occur in the vicinity, and was documented breeding on the Project site in 1992. The Department recommends quantifying potential impacts to breeding sites and upland habitats within

Residence Status

resident, breeding, or wintering

Oregon vesper sparrow

2 kilometers (kin) of known or potential breeding sites. Surveys for this species should follow current USFWS protocol methods. The Department anticipates that construction and habitat loss or alteration within two (2) km of breeding sites has the potential to "take" California tiger salamanders. Should the Project potentially result in "take" of this species, "take" authorization from the Department in the form of an Incidental Take Permit would be required prior to Project implementation. "Take" authorization would require full mitigation, as discussed above for San Joaquin kit fox.

Listing Status

CSSC

wintering

year-round, wintering, or breeding

year-round

wintering I CSsC

Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard

CSSC

CSSC

CSSC

The blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila) is a Federal and State endangered species. Please note that the Department cannot authorize "take" of blunt-nosed leopard lizard because it is also a fully protected species (Fish and Game Code Section 5050). Blunt-nosed leopard lizard surveys should follow Department protocol (CDFG 2004). The Department recommends surveying the entire Project site to determine the precise distribution of leopard lizards and assure that "take" will be avoided during project construction. The DElR should also include measures to


preclude "take" on the Project site during operations and from traffic increases related to the Project. The DElR should analyze the potential "take" as a result of habitat modification. If a project's modification of occupied habitat causes mortality of individuals, then the project will be considered the cause of the "take." Therefore, to avoid "take," construction and operations activities should avoid all observed lizards by a distance of no less than the distance that blunt-nosed leopard lizards are known or expected to travel within their home range, based on telemetry, mark-recapture, or other data.

Additional buffers may also be warranted to ensure that the project would not reduce the species' abundance or distribution over time due to habitat loss and fragmentation. The Department recommends assessing whether the habitat alteration, habitat loss, and additional traffic would hinder expansion of the local leopard lizard population in good years, which allows the population to maintain viable numbers through poor years. Leopard lizard abundance and distribution can fluctuate in response to climatic conditions and land management. Absence in part of the Panoche Valley in one year does not mean that the species is absent from that area in other years or that the species does not rely on it for population persistence. The Panoche Valley floor population may be an essential source for maintaining or recovering populations in smaller habitat patches near the valley; isolating and fragmenting the Panoche Valley population may affect the ability for the species to persist in the surrounding area. Further, the current distribution may be restricted to smaller areas than what the Panoche Valley floor is capable of supporting if the population were allowed to recover through beneficial management. Recovery Task 2.1.14 of the Recovery Plan identifies conserving the habitat at the Project site as a first-priority recovery task. The DElR should assess how the Project will be compatible with the recovery goals and avoid precluding the recovery of blunt-nosed leopard lizards.

The Department does not expect blunt-nosed leopard lizards to occupy solar panel arrays, since this species requires relatively open habitat and ground and air surface temperature play a critical role in their limited surface activity. It is likely that ground temperatures also affect their underground activity. As described in the kit fox discussion above, solar panels are known to significantly alter these habitat variables in ways that are reasonably expected to be adverse for several listed species, including blunt-nosed leopard lizard. Further, the solar arrays would likely permanently displace giant kangaroo rats, whose burrows provide optimum refugia for blunt-nosed leopard lizards.

The genetics of the Panoche blunt-nosed leopard lizard population show a high degree of geographic isolation. There is no recent genetic flow between this group and the rest of the population (personal communication, Dave Germano and Adam Grimes,


California State University, Bakersfield). Geographic isolation increases the vulnerability of populations; isolated populations are more susceptible to extirpation. Blunt-nosed leopard lizards are particularly susceptible to extirpation from habitat disturbance. The distinct genetics of this population also increases its value in recovery and conservation of the species as a whole, and displacing and fragmenting the habitat of this population would likely hinder its recovery. The Department is currently unaware of opportunities to replace habitat for this population.

San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel

The San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophiius nelsoni) is a State threatened species. Focused visual surveys for San Joaquin antelope squirrel should coincide with their most active season, April 1 to September 30, and should be conducted only when air temperatures are between 20" to 30" C (68" to 86" F). Surveys should be conducted using daytime line transects with 10 to 30 meter spacing. Should the Project potentially result in "take" of this species, "take" authorization from the Department in the form of an Incidental Take Permit would be required prior to Project implementation. "Take" authorization would require full mitigation, as discussed above for San Joaquin kit fox.

Burrowing Owl

Burrowing owls are known to nest on the Project site. The Department recommends following the California Burrowing Owl Consortium survey methods (CBOC 1993) to establish the status of burrowing owl on the Project site and to provide for a CEQA baseline. The CEQA impact assessment and "take" avoidance should follow the Department's staff report recommendations (DFG 1995). Habitat compensation and enhancement should be sufficient to provide for the number of animals displaced by the Project. Burrowing owl and burrow surveys should be conducted during both the wintering and nesting seasons, unless the species is detected on the first survey. The winter survey should be conducted between December 1 and January 31 (when wintering owls are most likely to be present), and the nesting season survey should be conducted between April 15 and July 15 (the peak of the breeding season). Surveys conducted from two hours before sunset to one hour after, or from one hour before to two hours after sunrise, are also preferable. If the Project site contains potential burrowing owl burrows, the Department recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a survey no more than 30 days before the onset of any ground-disturbing activities. The Department recommends that projects avoid occupied burrows with a minimum 250-foot no-construction buffer zone, unless a Department-approved biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either I ) the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Failure to implement this buffer zone could cause


adult burrowing owls to abandon the nest, cause eggs or young to be directly impacted (crushed), and/or result in reproductive failure. Impacts of this nature violate Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 351 3, and the International Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

If burrowing owls occupy the site during the non-breeding season, a passive relocation effort may be instituted. The CEQA document should describe methods that would be used to evict owls from burrows, including a monitoring program to ensure that evicted individuals are using a relocation site. The Department's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (DFG 1995) also recommends that foraging habitat be acquired and permanently protected to offset the loss of foraging and burrowing habitat on the Project site.

Special Status Plants

Botanical surveys should follow guidelines developed by the Department (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/guideplt.pdf) and the USFWS (http:/lwww.fws.govlventura/speciesinfolprotocols~guidelines/docs/ botanicalinventories.pdf). Regardless of specific survey protocol used, botanical surveys should cover the entire area of direct and indirect effects and should be timed appropriately to detect all species which may occur on the property before CEQA analysis occurs. Use of reference sites is recommended for species which are known to occur in the vicinity or which othewise have a high potential of occurring on the Project site.

The currently proposed plant survey method for the Project does not include April plant surveys. The vast majority of California Consortium of Herbaria collection records for several species that are highly likely to occur on-site are from April or the end of March through April. Surveying in early March and May-June as proposed misses the peak bloom for these species. April surveys should be included to maximize detectability for these species:

Deinandra halliana Hall's tarplant (CNPS 19.1)

Delphinium recurvafum recurved larkspur (CNPS 1 B.2)

Layia heterotricha pale-yellow layia (CNPS 18.1 )

L epidium jare dii ssp. album Panoche pepper-grass (CNPS 16.2)

Madia radiata showy madia (CNPS l B . l )

Monolopia congdonii San Joaquin woollythreads (Federal Endangered)


With the current proposal it appears that two months or more would lapse between surveys at any given location within the Project site, and those two months are the peak bloom for several species which are likely to occur on-site. The Department recommends that no more than one month lapse between surveys at any given point within the Project area during peak bloom. Defensible surveys for this site would include mid-March, mid-April, May-June, then August-September. Reference sites should be used for the species listed above to ensure that they are blooming when surveys are performed.

Wildlife Impacts from Vegetation Management

The current application proposes general vegetation management practices. The Department recommends that the CEQA analysis describe in more detail the anticipated vegetation management practices (e.g., grazing, mowing, herbicide use) and assess its impacts on terrestrial vertebrates and nesting birds. The discussion should include impacts to non-listed species, special status species (e-g., San Joaquin kit fox), and species protected under the International Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 et seq.

The Department recommends clarifying what the fuels management requirements would be within the solar arrays and along perimeters, and how this would affect kit fox (and other special status species) habitat suitability and the potential for "take" during fuels management activities. Most proposed and existing solar projects, even in less vegetated areas such as deserts, manage fire risk by means of complete vegetation removal. The DElR should clarify why allowing flashy fuels under and around the panels is feasible for this Project and not other similar projects.

Small Mammal Control

The application materials state that small mammals could occupy the Project site following construction. Although the effects on the small mammal community composition are unknown, it is likely that ground squirrels, leporids, and other small mammals would inhabit the site. These species could pose a substantial maintenance issue. The Department requests that the CEQA analysis specify the potential maintenance requirements and methods, and their implications for wildlife, including the potential for direct or indirect "take" of listed and non-listed species. It is important to note that the post-construction viability of the small mammal community within the Project site has direct implications on the viability of San Joaquin kit fox using the Project site post-construction.


Transmission Line

It is the Department's understanding that the Project requires upgrading existing transmission lines in the future to facilitate later Project phases. The transmission capacity increases would have utility only with future panel installations, and visa-versa. Neither action would have independent utility. Therefore the Department considers both the future array installations and the future transmission upgrades to be part of the Project. The DElR should address any potential impacts from the subsequent array installations and the transmission upgrades that are necessary to transmit the power from proposed solar arrays.

Avoidable Wildlife lmpacts from Erosion Control Mesh Products

Due to this Project site's extensive wildlife habitat interface, the Department recommends that erosion control and landscaping specifications allow only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes for use in erosion control mats, blankets, and straw or fiber wattles. "Photodegradable" and other plastic mesh products have been found to persist in the environment, ensnaring and killing terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Herpetofauna kills from plastic erosion netting are well-documented (Barton and Kinkead 2005, Walley et al. 2005, Washington State Department of Transportation 2005). Plastic mesh erosion control products would likely cause unanticipated, avoidable impacts including "take" of special-status species.

Cumulative Impacts

The CEQA document which supports Incidental Take Permit issuance for this Project will have to adequately address cumulative impacts to State-listed species. The Department recommends quantifying the impacts to biological resources, including State-listed species, from all proposed solar developments which would affect the same species. The State-listed species which would be affected by this Project and other large-scale projects include giant kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, and San Joaquin kit fox.

Including this Project, large-scale solar projects are proposed on approximately 10,000 acres of high-quality San Joaquin kit fox habitat (grassland and saltbush scrub) in the three remaining core populations that are identified for conservation in the Federal recovery plan for kit fox: the Ciervo-Panoche area, the Carrizo Plains, and western Kern County. Approximately 7,000 of those acres are occupied by giant kangaroo rat. An additional 4,000 to 5,000 acres of solar plants are proposed on kit fox habitat in the linkage connecting the Carrizo Plains core population, the Salinas Valley satellite population, and the Western Kern core population. Solar projects are proposed


on an additional 6,000 to 10,000 acres of occupied San Joaquin kit fox habitat. Cumulatively, solar projects have the potential to displace approximately 20,000 to 30,000 acres of occupied kit fox habitat. In a November 2009 letter to Ren Lohoefener, Regional Director of the USFWS Pacific Southwest Region, the San Joaquin Valley Recovery Team concluded that potential cumulative impacts from currently proposed solar projects have the potential to preclude the recovery of San Joaquin kit fox, giant kangaroo rat, and blunt-nosed leopard lizard. The Recovery Team was initiated by the USFWS and is comprised of State, Federal, and independent biologists.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Panoche Valley Solar Farm NOP. We look forward to working with you to find solutions for this challenging energy Project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Dave Hacker, Staff Environmental Scientist, at 3196 Higuera Street, Suite A, San Luis Obispo, California 93401, by telephone at (805) 594-6152, or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. sdgle, Ph.D. Regional Manager

cc: See Page Eighteen


cc:' Susan Jones United States Fish and Wildlife Sewice 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, California 95825

Chris Diel United States Fish and Wildlife Service Ventura Field Office 2493 Portola Road, Suite 8 Ventura, California 93003

The Nature Conservancy California Field off ice 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 941 05-1 832

Rick Cooper, Field Manager Bureau of Land Management Hollister Field Office 20 Hamilton Court Hollister, California 95023

State Clearinghouse Post Office Box 3044 Sacramento, California 9581 2-3044

ec: Department of Fish and Game Eric Loft, Wildlife Branch Chief Tina Bartlett, Habitat Conservation Branch Chief Scott Flint, Habitat Conservation Branch Annee Ferranti, Central Region Dave Hacker, Central Region


Literature Cited

Barton, C. and K. Kinkead. 2005. Do erosion control and snakes mesh? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 60:33A-35A ,

Bidlack, L.A. 2007. Mesocarnivore responses to changes in habitat and resource availability in California. Dissertation. University 07 California, Berkeley.

CBOC, 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. California Burrowing Owl Consortium, April 1993. http:llwww.dfg.ca.govlwildlifelspecies/docs/boconsortium.pdf

QFG, 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. California Department of Fish and Game. http://ww.dfg.ca.gov/wildlifelspecies/docs/burowlmit. pdf

DFG, 2000. Guidelines for Assessing Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Game. May, 2000. http://ww.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodatalcndd blpdfslguideplt. pdf

Franklin, J.F. and D.B. Lindenrnayer. 2009. Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:234-350.

Hels, T. and Buchwald, E. 2001. The effect of road kills on amphibian populations. Biological Conservation 99:331-340.

Koopman, M. E., B. L. Cypher, and D. R. McCullough. 2001. Factors influencing space and prey use by San Joaquin kit foxes. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 37:77-83.

Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 24 1 : I 455-60.

Prugh, L.R., K.E. Hodges, A.R.E. Sinclair, and J.S. Brashares. 2008. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:20770-20775.

Smith, S.D. 1981. Microenvironmental responses of a Sonoran Desert ecosystem to a simulated solar collection facility. Dissertation. Arizona State University.


Smith, S.D. 1984. Environmental effects of solar thermal power systems: analysis of plant invasion into the Barstow 10MWe pilot STPS. Prepared for US Department of Energy Contract No. DOE-AM03-76-SF00012.

Smith, S.D., D.T. Patton, and R.K. Monson. 1987. Effects of artificially imposed shade on a Sonoran Desert ecosystem: microclimate and vegetation. Journal of Arid Environments 13:65-82.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Region 1, Portland, Oregon, USA.

USFWS, 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. January, 2000. http://www.fws.gov/ventura/sppinfolprotocolslbotanicalinventories.pdf

Waller, J.S., C. Sewheen, and D.A. Patterson. 2005. Probabilistic measure of road lethality. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation.

Walley, H.D., R.B. King, J.M. Ray, and J. Robinson. 2005. What should be done about erosion mesh netting and its destruction of herpetofauna? Journal of Kansas Herpetology 16:26-28.

Warrick, G.D., and B.L. Cypher. 1998. Factors affecting the spatial distribution of San Joaquin kit foxes. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:707-717.

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2005. WSDOT determines that certain erosion control mesh can be detrimental to bull snakes. Regional Road Maintenance ESA Newsletter December Volume 3, Issue I.

White, P.J. and K. Ralls. 1993. Reproduction and spacing patterns of kit foxes relative to changing prey availability. J. Wildlife Management 57:861-867.

Wilcox, B.A., and D.D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist 125:879-87.

Panoche Valley Solar Farm Project EIR Team From: Christie Kissinger [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:58 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Panoche Solar Farm Scoping Comments Hello, My name is Christie Kissinger and I own a small business, Field to Feast, that offers a delivery service of farm fresh goods from several Panoche Valley businesses. My concern about this project proposed by Solargen, is that the construction of this large scale solar utility will have a negative impact on these farms. The specific concerns I have are: What specific measures are in place to control dust from the disturbed soil during construction? What specific measures are in place to control cement dust during construction? Thank you for taking this into consideration and including this in your Environmental Impact Report. Christie Christie O'Hara Kissinger Field to Feast, LLC www.fieldtofeast.org Friends of Panoche www.savepanochevalley.org