Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project Fresno County, California

Prepared for Andy Flajole Jess Melin South Lake Solar LLC

Prepared by Dudek

September 2017 Revised September 2018 BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT

SOUTH LAKE SOLAR AND ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT

Prepared for

South Lake Solar LLC 700 Universe Boulevard MS JES/JB Juno Beach, Florida 33408

Prepared by

Dudek 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 800.450.1818

September 2017

Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Document Overview ...... 1 2.0 Project Location ...... 2 3.0 Project Description ...... 5 3.1 Solar Energy Generation System ...... 5 3.2 On-Site Substation ...... 6 3.3 Energy Storage System ...... 6 3.4 Generation Tie Line ...... 6 3.5 Ancillary Facilities ...... 7 3.6 Construction ...... 7 3.6.1 Construction Activities ...... 7 3.6.2 Construction Schedule ...... 8 3.6.3 Traffic ...... 9 3.6.4 Water Use ...... 10 3.6.5 On-Site Electrical Distribution ...... 11 3.7 Operation and Maintenance ...... 11 3.8 Decommissioning ...... 11 4.0 Regulatory Setting ...... 13 4.1 Federal...... 13 4.2 State...... 14 4.3 Regional ...... 17 5.0 Biological Setting ...... 18 5.1 Climate ...... 18 5.2 Soils...... 18 5.3 Terrain ...... 18 5.4 Land Uses...... 18 5.5 Hydrologic Features ...... 18 6.0 Methods...... 19 6.1 Literature Review ...... 19 6.2 Field Reconnaissance ...... 19 6.2.1 Vegetation Community and Land Cover Mapping ...... 20 6.2.2 Flora ...... 21 6.2.3 Fauna ...... 21 6.2.4 Special-Status and Regulated Resources ...... 21 6.3 Survey Limitations ...... 23

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page i Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

7.0 Results ...... 24 7.1 Vegetation Communities, Land Covers, and Floral Diversity ...... 24 7.1.1 Row-Crop Agriculture ...... 24 7.1.2 Developed ...... 24 7.2 Common Wildlife ...... 24 7.3 Special-Status/Regulated Resources ...... 25 7.3.1 Special-Status Plant Species ...... 25 7.3.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species ...... 25 7.3.3 Hydrologic Feature Assessment ...... 42 7.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages ...... 42 8.0 Project Impacts ...... 47 8.1 Definition of Impacts ...... 47 8.1.1 Direct Impacts ...... 47 8.1.2 Indirect Impacts...... 48 8.1.3 Cumulative Impacts ...... 48 8.2 Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers ...... 48 8.3 Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species ...... 48 8.4 Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species...... 51 8.4.1 Direct Permanent Impacts ...... 51 8.4.2 Short-Term Indirect Impacts ...... 53 8.4.3 Long-Term Indirect Impacts ...... 55 8.5 Impacts to Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Connectivity ...... 57 8.6 Impacts to Hydrologic Features ...... 57 8.7 Impacts to Regional Resource Planning ...... 57 8.8 Cumulative Impacts ...... 57 8.8.1 Cumulative Study Area ...... 58 8.8.2 Cumulative Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species ...... 58 9.0 Significant Impacts ...... 63 9.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance ...... 63 9.2 Impact BIO-1: Special-Status Wildlife Species ...... 64 9.3 Impact BIO-1: Nesting and Migratory Birds ...... 64 9.4 Impact BIO-2: Sensitive Natural Communities ...... 65 9.5 Impact BIO-3: State- and Federally Protected Wetlands and Waters ...... 65 9.6 Impact BIO-4: Wildlife Movement ...... 65 9.7 Impact BIO-5: Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources ...... 65

Page ii September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

9.8 Impact BIO-6: Conflicts with Habitat Conservation Plans ...... 65 9.9 Impact BIO-7: Cumulative Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species ...... 65 10.0 Measures Mitigating Significant Impacts ...... 67 10.1 Impact BIO-1: Special-Status Wildlife Species ...... 67 11.0 Literature Cited ...... 72 Figures

Figure 1. Regional Map ...... 3 Figure 2. Vicinity Map ...... 4 Figure 3. Vegetation Communities ...... 44 Figure 4. Special-Status Species Occurrences within 5 Miles ...... 45 Figure 5. Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination ...... 46 Figure 6. Impacts to Biological Resources ...... 49 Figure 7. Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Project-Level and Cumulative Impacts ...... 62

Tables

Table 1. Project Construction Duration, Equipment, and Workers by Activity ...... 9 Table 2. Project Construction Estimated Truck Activity ...... 10 Table 3. Field Surveys and Conditions ...... 20 Table 4. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Plant Species ...... 26 Table 5. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Wildlife Species ...... 27 Table 6. Summary of Conditions and Survey Results for the 2016 Swainson’s Hawk Surveys at the Project Site ...... 35 Table 7. Cumulative Impacts to Wildlife Habitat in the Study Area ...... 58

Appendices

Appendix A. Descriptions of Soils Occurring on the Project Site Appendix B. Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination Report Appendix C. Photo Documentation Appendix D. Cumulative List of Plant Species Observed Appendix E. Cumulative List of Wildlife Species Observed Appendix F. Results of 2017 United States Fish and Wildlife Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Trust Resources Report

September 2017, September August 2018 Page iii

South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The proposed South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project represents the “Project” for purposes of the biological technical report contained here within. The Project is proposed by South Lake Solar LLC (Applicant) and includes both the solar and energy storage project components and associated ancillary facilities.

1.1 Document Overview

Dudek has prepared this biological technical report for South Lake Solar Energy LLC in support of the proposed up to 80-megawatt (MW) Project, located in unincorporated Fresno County (County), California. This report addresses current site conditions, provides a habitat assessment for special-status species with the potential to occur in the Project and surrounding areas, survey methodology and results of survey efforts. This report analyzes the potential effects of the Project as it relates to sensitive biological resources within the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and California Fish and Game Code (e.g., protected species) and to recommended mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. In addition to proper documentation of biological resources, the intention of this report is to assist the County during California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project review process and environmental review by applicable regulatory resource agencies, specifically U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (formerly California Department of Fish and Game). Judgments regarding likelihood of occurrence and effects are based on an evaluation of available biological resource information dealing with regional and local conditions, species biology, existing evaluations of the Project and surrounding areas, and professional field investigation experience.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 1 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

2.0 PROJECT LOCATION

The Project site is located in the San Joaquin Valley of California, in southwestern Fresno County on approximately 585.2 acres (Figure 1, Regional Map). The Project site is approximately 30 miles southwest of the City of Fresno and 3.4 miles south–southwest of the unincorporated community of Five Points. The Project site is bordered by Paige Avenue to the north; West Jeffrey Avenue to the south; and bordered west and east by South Butte and South Lake Avenue, respectively (Figure 2, Vicinity Map). The site and surrounding properties consist mostly of tilled croplands. The site is adjacent to Westside/Whitney Solar Projects, which recently completed construction. Single-family residences, farm supply businesses, and other development are concentrated along State Route (SR-) 145 and South Butte Avenue, north and east of the site.

Page 2 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

Figure 1. Regional Map

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 3 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Figure 2. Vicinity Map

Page 4 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project consists of the following components:

 Solar energy generation system

 On-site substation

 Energy storage system

 Generation tie line (gen-tie line)

 Ancillary facilities

3.1 Solar Energy Generation System

The Project includes a solar-power-generating installation that is planned to be up to 80 MW. The 585.2- acre site would house all structures, including solar panels, fixed-tilt or single-axis tracking support structures, inverters, supervisory control and data acquisition system, and interconnection facilities (on- site substation), all of which would be enclosed by a perimeter security fence. Solar energy would be captured by photovoltaic (PV) panels mounted to a single-axis or fixed-tilt racking system. The high- efficiency commercially available PV panels convert incoming sunlight to direct current (DC) electrical energy. The panels are arranged in series to effectively increase output voltage to approximately 1,500 volts. These series chains of panels are called “strings” in industry terms and provide the basic building block of power conversion in the solar array. The strings are combined in the solar field via an above- or belowground DC collection system, and then further ganged together at the inverter stations, where the energy is converted to alternating current (AC) and then stepped to an intermediate voltage, typically 34.5 kilovolts (kV). The chosen PV panel would be either crystalline silicon or thin film and would be well suited for the environment due to their durability and reliability.

The racking system would be supported, when practical, by driven piers (piles) directly embedded into the ground and would be parallel to the ground. Each rack would hold approximately 80 to 90 panels (depending on final configuration) and at its highest edge would have a maximum height up to 12 feet above grade, depending on the dimensions of the chosen panel and racking technology. The minimum clearance from the lower edge of the panel to ground level would be approximately 18 to 24 inches, pending final design. The single-axis tracking system (if selected) would rotate slowly throughout the day at a range of +/- 60 degrees facing east to west to stay perpendicular to the incoming solar rays so that energy production would be optimized.

The inverter stations would be up to 12 feet in height and perform the following three critical functions for the solar plant: (1) collect DC power in a central location, (2) convert the DC power into AC power, and (3) convert low-voltage AC power to medium-voltage AC power. The inverter stations are typically open-air. The stations consist of DC collection equipment, utility-scale inverters, and a low-to medium-voltage transformer. The output power from the inverter stations is

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 5 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California then fed to the AC collection system via an above- or belowground collection system. This AC collection system would deliver the electricity to the on-site substation, where the voltage would be stepped up via a transformer to the interconnection voltage. 3.2 On-Site Substation

The Project on-site substation is the termination point of the collection system for 34.5 kV electricity. The output of the entire field would be passed through a final interconnection step-up transformer to convert it to the grid tie voltage at 70 kV. Additionally, the Project on-site substation would host the grid intertie safety equipment and switches required to interconnect to the high-voltage transmission system. The open-air on-site substation would potentially be constructed on the eastern border of the solar array nearest to the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) transmission line located on the western side of South Lake Avenue. The footprint of the on-site substation would be approximately 150 feet by 150 feet. The Project on-site substation would consist of components up to 55 feet in height, and feeders would be overhead lines constructed with 45-foot-tall and 60-foot-tall poles for the single and double circuits, respectively. 3.3 Energy Storage System

Adjacent to the on-site substation, an energy storage system is proposed to provide a maximum capacity of 80 MW. The energy storage batteries would be housed in a structure, container boxes, or trailers, and would be located on approximately 3 acres of the Project site. The maximum height of the structure, boxes, or trailers would be up to 25 feet. If a structure is utilized, the batteries would be housed in racking (similar to computer racking) 7 to 9 feet high, to allow efficient airflow between the batteries. The associated inverters, transformers, and switchgear would be located immediately adjacent to the energy storage facilities on concrete pads outdoors.

The energy storage equipment would be enclosed in a structure, container boxes, or trailers that would have a fire rating in conformance with local fire authority and County standards. The energy storage facilities would also have heating, ventilation, and air conditioning cooling in areas with batteries to maintain energy efficiency. Power to the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and lighting, among others, would be provided through a connection to the on-site station service transformer with connection lines installed above- and/or belowground. The energy storage system would be un-staffed and would have remote operational control and periodic inspections/maintenance performed as necessary. 3.4 Generation Tie Line

The energy from the solar energy generation and energy storage systems would be transported from the on-site substation to PG&E’s Five Points Switchyard via a gen-tie line. The gen-tie line would extend approximately 500 feet from the facility’s on-site substation to a new bay at PG&E’s switchyard. The 70 kV gen-tie line would consist of one or two single-circuit structures, which could be constructed with up to 150-foot-tall wood, concrete, or steel poles. The number, composition, and height of the poles, as well as the type of conductor, would be finalized during detailed design. PG&E plans to use existing poles where possible and add an additional set of insulators to accommodate a second circuit from the Project.

Page 6 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

3.5 Ancillary Facilities

Access Road The Project access roads would be 20 feet wide and composed of compacted native material with an aggregate base. The Project access roads would connect to the paved access roads constructed for the Whitney Point and Westside Solar Projects (which generally follow the alignment for South Lake Avenue) at the northeastern corner of the site and at the gen-tie interconnection point, and would require the construction of approximately 200 feet of new gravel entrance road. Permanent land disturbance would be less than 0.5 acres for the Project access roads and gen-tie components.

Signage A small sign at the main entry to the Project would be installed. The sign would be no larger than 8 feet by 4 feet and would read “South Lake Solar LLC.” In addition, required safety signs identifying high voltage within the facility, as well as information for emergency services, would be installed on the fence near the entrance and at the gates off South Lake Avenue.

Perimeter Fence The perimeter of the Project site would be enclosed by an approximately 6-foot-tall chain-link fence topped with 1 foot of three-strand barbed wire. Access into the Project site would be provided through drive-through gates. The main purpose of the fence is to prevent unauthorized access to the site. The total height, above grade, of the fence would be approximately 7 feet.

Lighting Low-elevation (<14 foot) controlled security lighting would be installed at primary access gates and the on-site substation, and at the entrances to the energy storage facilities. The lighting would only switch on when personnel enter the area (either motion-sensor or manual activation (switch)). All safety and emergency services signs would be lit when the lights are on. The lighting would be shielded so that the light is directed downwards. Electrical power to supply the access gate and lighting would be obtained from PG&E. Lighting would only be in areas where it is required for safety, security, or operations. All lighting would be directed on site and would include shielding as necessary to minimize illumination of the night sky or potential impacts to surrounding viewers.

3.6 Construction

3.6.1 Construction Activities

Construction will be composed of the following activities:

 Perimeter fence installation

 Site preparation and clearing/grading

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 7 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

 Demolition of existing structures

 Underground work (trenching)

 System installation

 Gen-tie installation

 Energy storage system

 Testing and commissioning

 Site cleanup and restoration

Because the Project site is fairly level, grading is expected to be minor in most instances. However, grading would occur throughout the site, especially for the construction of roads, inverter pads, and the substation/energy storage system. This would be accomplished with scrapers, motor graders, water trucks, dozers, and compaction equipment. The PV modules would be off-loaded and installed using small cranes, boom trucks, forklifts, rubber tired loaders, rubber tired backhoes, and other small- to medium-sized construction equipment as needed. Construction equipment would be delivered to the site on “low bed” trucks unless the equipment can be driven to the site (e.g., boom trucks). It is estimated that there would be approximately 35 pieces of construction equipment on site each month.

Vegetation on the site would be modified only where necessary. Vegetation would be removed where gravel roads would be constructed, where fill would be placed from grading operations, where buildings are to be constructed, and where transmission pole and tracker foundations would be installed (if necessary). At locations where transmission pole and tracker foundations would be installed, minor cuts may be required where the foundations would be driven. Minor earthwork would also occur to install access roads and transmission line maintenance roads. The surface of the roads would be at- grade to allow any water to sheet flow across the site as it currently does. Throughout the remainder of the developed area on the solar and energy storage site, any significant vegetation root mass would generally be left in place to help maintain existing drainage patterns on a micro level and to assist in erosion control.

3.6.2 Construction Schedule

This Project is anticipated to be built over an approximately 10-month timeframe from the onset of perimeter fence installation through testing and commissioning of the facility. It is anticipated that the work would be completed in 8- to 10-hour shifts, with a total of five shifts per week (Monday–Friday). Overtime and weekend work would be used only as necessary to meet scheduled milestones or accelerate schedule and would comply with all applicable California labor laws. Primary construction activities and durations are presented in Table 1. The activities in Table 1 would be overlapping in certain phases, and all are expected to occur within the estimated 10-month construction duration.

Page 8 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

Table 1. Project Construction Duration, Equipment, and Workers by Activity

Activity Duration Equipment Pieces Daily Workers

Perimeter fence installation 2 months Skid loader with auger attachment 1 Maximum = 275 Average = 195 4x4 forklift 1 Flatbed truck 1 Site preparation and 1.5 months Water truck – 3 axles 3 clearing/grading Grader 2 Bulldozer 1 Scraper 1 10-ton roller 1 Sheepsfoot roller 1 Tractor (with mower attachment) 1 Demolition of existing 2 weeks Backhoe with breaker 1 structures Excavator with thumb 1 10-cubic-yard dump truck 4 Front-end loader 1 Underground work 3 months Excavator 2 (trenching) Sheepsfoot roller 1 Water truck – 3 axles 1 Aussie padder (screening machine) 1 4x4 forklift 1 System installation 4 months 4x4 forklift 10 Small crane (80-ton) 1 All-terrain vehicle 26 Pile driver 5 Pickup truck 5 5 kw generator 3 Gen-tie installation 1 week Line truck (with spool trailer) 1 Boom truck (with bucket) 1 Energy storage system 7 months Foundation 1 Building construction 1 Batteries installation 1 4x4 forklift 1 Testing and commissioning 3 months Pickup truck 4 Site cleanup and restoration 1 month Grader 1 Skid loader 1 kw = kilowatt

3.6.3 Traffic

Peak daily construction employee count would be approximately 275 with an average of 195 workers daily. As shown in Table 2, in addition to the 275 maximum daily workers traveling to the site, there would be up to 25 truck trips per day at peak construction activity (trenching and system installation

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 9 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California phases overlap). A total of 313 trips per day is anticipated during peak construction activities, assuming a worst-case scenario whereby no carpooling occurs, though it is likely that carpooling would occur.

Table 2. Project Construction Estimated Truck Activity

Truck Type Average on Site Gross Weight (pounds) Trips/Day Duration

8,000-gallon water truck (will stay on site) 2 80,000 loaded 0 7 months 20-cubic-yard dump/bottom dump truck 3 80,000 loaded 4+ 2 months Pickup trucks 20 8,000 3 10 months Pile driver 5 15,000 2 3 months Grader 2 54,000 2 3 months Boom truck with bucket 1 42,000 2 >1 month Component delivery trucks 1 42,000 25 2 months Utility line service truck 3 30,000 1 >1 month

Delivery of material and supplies would reach the site through on-road truck delivery via Interstate (I-) 5 to Fresno Coalinga Road. The majority of the truck deliveries would be for the PV system installation, as well as any aggregate material that may be required for road base. It is estimated that a total of up to 3,250 truck trips are required to complete the Project, with the aggregate trucks accounting for approximately 30% of this number. It is estimated that there would be an average of 348 truck deliveries per month (about 17 per workday), with a peak number of truck deliveries of 500 deliveries per month (about 23 per workday) plus one other miscellaneous delivery, equating to a peak truck trip of 24 per workday. These truck trips would be intentionally spread out throughout the construction day to optimize construction efficiency as is practical by scheduling deliveries at predetermined times.

The heaviest delivery loads to the site would also consist of the tracker or fixed-tilt structures, rock truck deliveries, and the delivery of the generator step-up transformer. These loads would typically be limited to a total weight of 80,000 pounds, with a cargo load of approximately 25 tons or 50,000 pounds of rock or tracker/fixed-tilt structures. The generator step-up transformer could be up to 160,000 pounds. Typically, the rock is delivered in “bottom dump trucks” or ”transfer trucks” with six axles and the tracker structures would be delivered on traditional flatbed trucks with a minimum of five axles. Low bed transport trucks would transport the construction equipment to the site as needed. The size of the low bed truck (axles for weight distribution) would depend on the equipment transported.

3.6.4 Water Use

Water consumption during construction is estimated to be approximately 100 acre-feet for dust suppression and earthwork over an approximately 10-month period. Construction water is available from an existing hydrant located on South Lake Avenue, near the proposed site entrance. A temporary pipe would need to be installed in order to get the water to the Project site. Operational water use is described in Section 3.7, Operation and Maintenance.

Page 10 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

3.6.5 On-Site Electrical Distribution

Existing electrical power distribution lines on site that serve existing facilities would be removed to allow for the Project development. New distribution lines would be needed to provide backup power to the solar and energy storage facilities for lighting and communications purposes.

3.7 Operation and Maintenance

The Project component would be unmanned, and no operation and maintenance building would be constructed. The operations would be monitored remotely via the supervisory control and data acquisition system and periodic inspections and maintenance activities would occur. During operations, solar panel washing is expected to be conducted periodically as performance testing, weather, and site conditions dictate. General labor (up to 10 individuals) may assist in the panel cleaning. Panel washing for a project of this size would require 20 days to complete per wash cycle. Water consumption is expected to be around 0.28 gallons per square yard of panel based on other similar operations. Given an 80 MW AC plant, and assuming four cycles per year, the annual water usage is expected to consume up to approximately 8 acre-feet of water. While it is anticipated that PV panels will only be washed once per year, the panels may need to be washed up to four times per year based on site conditions. Conditions that may necessitate increased wash requirements include unusual weather occurrences, forest fires, local air pollutants, and other similar conditions. Therefore, the Project is requesting the use of up to 8 acre-feet per year for the explicit use of washing panels. Water trucks would be used to deliver water for panel washing operations from a local purveyor. The water used for panel washing operations will be clean water, with no chemicals added.

3.8 Decommissioning

The solar energy generation and energy storage systems would be recycled when the Project’s life is over. Most parts of the proposed systems are recyclable. Panels typically consist of silicon, glass, and a metal frame. If a tracking system is used, the tracking systems (not counting the motors and control systems) typically consist of aluminum and steel. Batteries include lithium-ion, which degrades but can be recycled and/or repurposed. Site structures would include steel or wood and concrete. All of these materials can be recycled. Concrete from deconstruction is to be recycled. Local recyclers are available. Metal and scrap equipment and parts that do not have free-flowing oil may be sent for salvage.

Fuel, hydraulic fluids, and oils would be transferred directly to a tanker truck from the respective tanks and vessels. Storage tanks/vessels would be rinsed and transferred to tanker trucks. Other items that are not feasible to remove at the point of generation, such as smaller containers lubricants, paints, thinners, solvents, cleaners, batteries, and sealants would be kept in a locked utility building with integral secondary containment that meets Certified Unified Program Agencies and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirements for hazardous waste storage until removal for proper disposal and recycling. It is anticipated that all oils and batteries would be recycled at an appropriate facility. Site personnel involved in handling these materials would be trained to properly handle them. Containers used to store

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 11 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California hazardous materials would be inspected regularly for any signs of failure or leakage. Additional procedures would be specified in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan closure plan submitted to the Certified Unified Program Agency. Transportation of the removed hazardous materials would comply with regulations for transporting hazardous materials, including those set by the California Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Highway Patrol, and California State Fire Marshal.

Page 12 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

4.0 REGULATORY SETTING

4.1 Federal

The following federal regulations pertaining to biological resources would apply to the Project.

Federal Endangered Species Act The FESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) gives joint authority to list a species as threatened or endangered to the Secretary of the Interior, represented by USFWS. Under FESA, the “take” of endangered or threatened wildlife, or plants species or adverse modifications to critical habitat in areas under federal jurisdiction is prohibited. Under FESA, “take” is defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The USFWS have interpreted the definition of “harm” to include significant habitat modification that could result in the take of a species.

Either an incidental take permit under Section 10(a) or an incidental take statement under Section 7 is required if an activity would result in the take of a federally listed species. Section 7 requires the reviewing agency to determine whether any federally listed species, or species proposed for listing, may be present on a Project site and if a project is likely to affect the species. Additionally, the reviewing agency must determine if a proposed project is likely to jeopardize the existence of a listed species or a proposed listed species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed or designated critical habitat for such species. FESA requires the federal government to designate “critical habitat” for any listed species, which is defined as specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing if they contain physical or biological features essential to the species conservation, and those features that may require special management considerations or protection. Additionally, it includes specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the regulatory agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation.

USFWS must authorize projects where a federally listed species is present and likely to be affected by an existing or proposed project. Project authorization may involve a letter of concurrence that the Project will not result in the take of a listed species, or a Biological Opinion that describes what measures must be undertaken to minimize the likelihood of an incidental take. Projects determined by USFWS to jeopardize the continued existence of a species cannot be approved under a Biological Opinion. Take that is incidental to the lawful operation of a project is permitted under Section 10(a) through approval of a habitat conservation plan, where a federal agency is not authorizing, funding, or carrying out the Project.

Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) regulates and prohibits taking, killing, possessing, harming, or trading in migratory birds. The MBTA addresses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. This international treaty for the conservation and management of bird species that migrate through one or more countries is enforced in the United States by USFWS. Currently, USFWS defines an “active nest” as one that includes viable eggs, chicks, or juveniles—not nests that are under construction (USFWS 2003).

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 13 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Clean Water Act The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of waters of the United States (as defined in 33 CFR 328.3[a]). Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) prohibits the discharge of any pollutant into waters of the United States. Project applicants for a federal license or permit to conduct activities including, but not limited to, the creation or operation of facilities, which may result in discharge into waters of the United States, must obtain certification that the Project would not violate applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) requires a federal license or permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States, unless activity is exempt from Section 404 permit requirements. Permit applicants must demonstrate that they have attempted to avoid or minimize impacts on the resource; however, if no further minimization of impacts is possible, the applicant is required to mitigate remaining impacts on all federally regulated waters of the United States. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are responsible for the protection of water quality under Section 401 of the CWA.

4.2 State

The following state regulations pertaining to biological resources would apply to the Project.

California Environmental Quality Act CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) was established by the state legislature to inform both state and local governmental decision makers and the public about significant environmental effects of proposed activities (including impacts on biological resources), to identify ways to avoid or reduce significant adverse effects on the environment, and to disclose the reasons why a project is approved if significant environmental impacts would result.

California Endangered Species Act The CESA and Section 2081 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code identify measures to ensure state-listed species and their habitats are conserved, protected, restored, and enhanced. CESA requires permits from CDFW for activities that could result in the take of a state-listed species threatened or endangered species. “Take” is defined as to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take of state-listed plants and animals unless otherwise permitted under Sections 2080.1, 2081, and 2835. Section 20814(b) affords CDFW the authority to issue permits for incidental take for otherwise lawful activities. To authorize an incidental take, the impacts of the take must be minimized and fully mitigated. Issuance of incidental take permits for may not jeopardize the continued existence of a state-listed species. For species listed as threatened or endangered under FESA, CDFW may rely on a federal incidental take statement or permit to authorize an incidental take under CESA.

Page 14 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

The California Fish and Game Commission maintain a list of threatened and endangered species (California Fish and Game Code, Section 2070). The California Fish and Game Commission maintains two additional lists: (1) a candidate species list, which identifies species under review for addition to either the endangered or threatened species list; and (2) a California Species of Special Concern (CSC) list, which serves as a watch list based on limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value.

California Fully Protected Species and Species of Special Concern The classification of “fully protected” was CDFW’s initial effort to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. California Fish and Game Code, Sections (fish in Section 5515, amphibians and reptiles in Section 5050, birds in Section 3511, and mammals in Section 4700) addressing “fully protected” species state that these species may not be taken or possessed at any time, and no provisions in this code or any other State law shall be construed to authorize permits for the take of fully protected species. CSCs are broadly defined as animals not listed under FESA or CESA but are nonetheless of concern to CDFW because they are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or they historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. This designation is intended to elicit special consideration for these animals by the CDFW, land managers, consulting biology, and others. Additionally, this is intended to stimulate collection of additional information on the biology, distribution, and status of poorly known at-risk species, and focus research and management attention on them.

California Department of Fish and Game Code, Section 3503 Nesting birds and birds of prey are protected in California under the California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503 and 3503.5, respectively). Section 3503.5 stipulates it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (diurnal birds of prey) or Strigiformes (owls) or to take, possess, or destroy any nest or egg of any bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Disturbance during breeding season that results in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise leads to nest abandonment is considered “taking” by the CDFW.

Nests of all other birds (except English sparrow [Passer domesticus], European starling [Sturnus vulgaris], and select other species) are also protected under Sections 3503 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code. CDFW currently defines “active nest” as any structure that is under construction or under modification or in use for the purposes of breeding.

California Fish and Game Code, Sections 1600–1616 Under Sections 1600–1616 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates activities that would substantially alter the flow, bed, channel, or bank of streams and lakes. Such activities require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. The California Code of Regulations defines a stream as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72). The term “stream” includes rivers, creeks, ephemeral streams, dry washes, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 15 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Stream Alteration Agreement from CDFW.

State Water Resources Control Board The SWRCB administers Section 401 of the CWA, which requires that an applicant for a Section 404 permit first obtain a water quality certification (WQC), or waiver thereof, that the Project will not violate applicable state water quality standards. The authority to either grant certification or waive the requirement for certification has been delegated by the SWRCB to nine regional boards, including the Central Valley RWQCB—Region 5—in the County. The SWRCB protects all waters of the state (California Water Code, Section 13260(a)), but has special responsibility for isolated wetlands and headwaters, pursuant to provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Waters of the state are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code, Section 13050(e)). These waterbodies have high resource value but are vulnerable to filling and may lack regulation by other programs. Projects that require a USACE permit or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact waters of the state are required to comply with the terms of the WQC Program. If a proposed project does not require a federal license or permit, but involves activities that may result in a discharge of fill or other substances to waters of the state, the RWQCBs have the option to regulate such activities under its state authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements or Certification of Waste Discharge Requirements.

California Native Plant Protection Act The California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 1900–1913) and the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act provide guidance on the preservation of plant resources. Vascular plants that have no designated status or protection under state or federal endangered species legislation but are listed as rare or endangered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) are defined as follows:

1. Rank 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere

2. Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere

3. Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere

4. Rank 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere

5. Rank 3: Plants about which more information is needed – a review list

6. Rank 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list

Generally, plants with CNPS Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, or 3 are considered to meet the criteria for endangered, threatened, or rare species as outlined by Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, plants with CNPS Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, or 3 also meet the definition of Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act), and Sections 2062 and 2067 (CESA) of the California Fish and Game Code.

Page 16 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

4.3 Regional

The Open Space and Conservation Element in the Fresno County General Plan (General Plan) provides protection and preservation of natural resources, open spaces, protection of cultural resources while providing recreational opportunities and managing production of commodity resources (Fresno County 2000). These goals and policies provide guidance for decision makers regarding the future affects to these resources within the County planning area. Goals and policies, which are applicable to the Project and the projects consistency according to these goals, were reviewed as part of the Project literature review. More specifically, those goals and policies within the Natural Resources Section E, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and Section F, Vegetation.

The goal for Section E is to “help protect, restore, and enhance habitats of Fresno County that support fish and wildlife species so that populations are maintained at viable levels;” whereas the goal for Section F is “to preserve and protect the valuable vegetation resources of Fresno County” (Fresno County 2000).

The County is responsible to ensure that each project within the County follows those goals and policies outlined within the General Plan and adhere to the implementation programs set forth within the General Plan.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 17 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

5.0 BIOLOGICAL SETTING

5.1 Climate

The climate of the Project site is typical of inland valleys in California, with hot dry summers and cool, mild winters. Daytime temperatures in the summer often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with lows in the 60s. In winter, daytime temperatures are usually in the 50s, with lows around 35°F. Radiation (Tule) fog is common in the winter and may persist for days.

5.2 Soils

Review of the Natural Resources Conservation Service resulted in three types of soil mapped on the Project site: Ciervo, wet-Ciervo Complex, saline-sodic, 0% to 1% slopes; Posochanet clay loam, saline- sodic, wet, 0% to 1% slopes; and Cerini clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes (USDA 2017a, 2017b). Soils descriptions are provided in Appendix A.

5.3 Terrain

Topography of the approximately 585.2-acre Project site is flat. The site slopes very slightly from approximately 260 feet above mean sea level in the south to 245 feet above mean sea level in the northeast.

5.4 Land Uses

As stated in Section 2, Project Location, the site and surrounding properties consist mostly of croplands. During field surveys, the Project site showed signs of active tilling and was observed in cultivation. The Project site was likely under agricultural production with wheat and/or barley crops.

5.5 Hydrologic Features

The Project site is located within the Cantua Creek–Fresno Slough watershed (USGS 2017a). The Project site is located within the Westlands Water District, which provides water allocations to the regional agricultural operations within the service area. In general, surface water within the Project site and surrounding area flows from southwest to northeast based on the local topography. Crescent ditch represents the nearest water conveyance feature to the Project site, which is located approximately 5.8 miles to the northeast. Several minor hydrologic features comprised of smaller canals and/ or ditches are located in the vicinity of the Project site. On-site, hydrologic features were limited to one ditch feature that does not connect to off-site hydrologic features.

Page 18 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

6.0 METHODS

Information on the biological resources of the Project site was collected based on a literature review, a field reconnaissance survey, focused Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) surveys, and a wetland delineation as described below.

6.1 Literature Review

Prior to conducting field surveys, a literature review was performed, which included a query of the CNPS Online Inventory of Rare Plants Database (2017), CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2017), and USFWS critical habitat and occurrence data (2017a) for nine U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle maps centered on Harris Ranch with the Westside, Five Points, Calfax, Huron, Guijarral Hills, Domengine Ranch, Coalinga, and Tres Picos Farms quads surrounding the center quad. Dudek also searched the University of California, Davis, Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) Portal (2017); and the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation system (2017b). Additional resources reviewed included the online database Calflora (Calflora 2017), USGS National Hydrography Dataset (2017b), and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (2017c).

Dudek also reviewed additional literature previously prepared for the Project, including the Draft Environmental Critical Issues Analysis: South Lake Solar Energy Project, Fresno County, California (Dudek 2016a); the Draft Biological Field Assessment Memorandum for the South Lake Solar Energy Project, Fresno County, California (Dudek 2017); the Swainson’s Hawk Survey for the South Lake Solar Project Site, Western Fresno County, California (Dudek 2016b); and the Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination Report (Appendix B).

These resources were used to identify biological resources, including special-status plant and wildlife species occurrences, in the area or potential occurrences within or in the vicinity of the Project site. Special-status species are those plants and wildlife listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS under FESA; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under CESA; animals designated as a CSC or fully protected by the CDFW; and plants listed as California Rare Plant Rank 1, 2, and 4 of the CNPS’s Botanical Survey Guidelines (2001) and Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (2017). The term special-status species excludes common avian species identified under the MBTA; however, these birds receive federal and state protection during nesting season.

6.2 Field Reconnaissance

Dudek conducted a field reconnaissance survey, focused Swainson’s hawk survey, and wetland delineation survey to assess the existing biological conditions, perform a habitat assessment for special- status plant species and special-status wildlife species with potential to occur, determine whether Swainson’s hawks nest near the site, and identify locations with potential jurisdictional features.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 19 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Habitat characteristics observed in the field were compared with characteristics of habitat known to be occupied by special-status plant species and special-status wildlife species potentially occurring on the Project site as documented in the literature (i.e., CNDDB [CDFW 2017]), USFWS (2017a, 2017b), Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2017), Information about California Plants for Education, Research and Conservation (Calflora 2017), National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2017b), and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (2017c).

The individuals who conducted the surveys, the date and time of the surveys, and survey conditions are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Field Surveys and Conditions

Date Hours Personnel Survey Focus1 Conditions

5/12/2016 0710–1124 Randall SWHA Surveys 68°F–96°F, 0-10% cloud 1540–1937 McInvale cover (cc), 0–5 mile per hour (mph) winds 5/26/2016 0604–1037 Dave Compton SWHA Surveys 55°F–84°F, 0%–5% cc, 3– 1600–1955 12 mph winds 6/23/2016 0631–1100 Dave Compton SWHA Surveys 66°F–100°F, 0% cc, 6–11 1557–1954 mph winds 7/22/2016 0650–1110 Russell Sweet SWHA Surveys 74.6°F–99.2°F, 0%–15% cc, 1600–2000 2.2–6.5 mph winds 8/03/2016 1440–1515 Traci Caddy SWHA nest spot check 99°F–100°F, 1–3 mph winds, mostly clear skies 3/06/2017 1600–1645 Heather Moine Reconnaissance-level biological field 58°F–59°F, 4–6 mph winds, Russell Sweet assessment partly cloudy with a slight breeze 8/15/2017 1330–1630 Randall Wetland Delineation 84°F–88°F, 0% cc, 3–6 mph McInvale winds Notes: 1 SWHA = Swainson’s hawk

6.2.1 Vegetation Community and Land Cover Mapping

Dudek conducted vegetation mapping during the reconnaissance survey to provide current conditions of the Project site. Vegetation mapping was conducted to be consistent with Vegetation Alliances and Associations: Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form (Natural Communities List; CDFG 2010) based on the Manual of California Vegetation, second edition (Sawyer et al. 2009), which is the California expression of the National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2 (FGDC 2008). These classification systems focus on a quantified, hierarchical approach that includes both floristic (plant species) and physiognomic (community structure and form) factors as currently observed (as opposed to predicting climax or successional stages).

At the time of the site visit, the Project site had been disked, thus vegetation mapping was conducted via windshield surveys, which covered 100% of the Project site. A 300-scale (i.e., 300 feet = 1 inch) aerial photograph map (Bing Maps 2016) with an overlay of the Project boundary was used to map vegetation communities. Following completion of the fieldwork, Dudek geographic information system (GIS) analysts

Page 20 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report digitized the vegetation boundaries as delineated by the field biologists and created GIS coverage for vegetation communities.

6.2.2 Flora

All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified to subspecies or variety, if possible, to determine sensitivity status. Latin and common names for plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (formerly CNPS Lists) follow the CNPS Inventory of Rare Endangered Plants of California (2017). For plant species without a California Rare Plant Rank, Latin names follow the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native and Naturalized Plants of California (Jepson Flora Project 2017) and common names follow the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database (USDA 2017c). A provides a list of all plant species observed on the Project site.

For the purposes of this report, special-status plant species are those plants listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS under FESA; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under CESA; plants that are California Rare Plant Rank 1, 2, and 3 in the CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (2017).

6.2.3 Fauna

All wildlife species, as detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs, were identified and recorded. In addition to species actually observed, expected wildlife usage of the site was determined according to known habitat preferences of regional wildlife species and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area. No trapping or focused surveys for special-status or nocturnal species were conducted. Latin and common names for vertebrate species referred to in this report follow Crother (2012) for amphibians and reptiles, Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals, and the American Ornithological Society (AOS) Checklist of North and Middle American Birds (AOS 2017) for birds.

For the purposes of this report, special-status wildlife species are those that are designated as either rare, threatened, or endangered (or candidate) by CDFW or the USFWS and are protected under either CESA (California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050 et seq.) or FESA (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.); meet the CEQA definition for endangered, rare, or threatened (14 CCR 15380[b],[d]); or are considered fully protected under Fish and Game Code, Section 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. Special-status wildlife species also include those that are of expressed concern to resource/regulatory agencies or local jurisdictions— specifically, those that are determined by CDFW to be a CSC.

6.2.4 Special-Status and Regulated Resources

6.2.4.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS Focused plant surveys were not conducted following the CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines (2001), CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009), and USFWS’s General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines (Cypher 2002). However, habitat characteristics present with the Project site were evaluated to determine the

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 21 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California potential to support special-status plant species. All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified to subspecies or variety, if applicable, to determine sensitivity status.

There are a number of special-status plant species with the potential to occur near the Project site. Habitat suitability was evaluated for special-status species based on their potential to occur on site based on the presence of “preferred” habitat, elevation, and soils present on the Project site. In general, special-status plants are not expected to occur because the site is composed of a tilled agricultural field and developed land.

6.2.4.2 SWAINSON’S HAWK Surveys were conducted based on the methodology outlined in the CDFW-endorsed protocol for the Central Valley, developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000). The surveys included (1) nesting/breeding surveys, and (2) nest inspection for nestlings and fledglings. Two surveys were conducted in the protocol-survey period between April 21 to June 10, 2016. Three visits to the site vicinity were conducted after June 10, 2016, including two complete surveys in the June 10 to July 30, 2016, period and a check of a nest site on August 3, 2016. The Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000) recommends surveys be initiated prior to the period beginning on April 21, 2016, and cautions that nests are extremely difficult to locate during this period. However, surveys could not be initiated prior to April 21, 2016, and Dudek conducted surveys during this period in the interest of maximizing the potential to gather useful information on the status of Swainson’s hawks nesting in the area. During the June 10 to July 30, 2016, survey period, young are generally active and visible and adults are making frequent trips to the nests to feed their young. Therefore, surveys are recommended for this period. Each survey included visits in the morning (dawn to late morning or noon) and evening (approximately 4:00 p.m. to sunset). The nest spot check took place midafternoon.

During each survey, biologists visited each location at least once where suitable trees had been identified within approximately 1 mile of the site. Locations of Swainson’s hawks, suitable nest structures, and confirmed, active Swainson’s hawk nests were noted. Swainson’s hawk behaviors, particularly any behavior relating to nesting, were noted. Surveyors examined each tree cluster from multiple angles, walking around clusters where possible. Some tree clusters were located around residences; in these cases, to avoid disturbing residents, surveyors observed from a distance with spotting scopes and binoculars and drove slowly by the tree cluster and examined the trees from the vehicle, as traffic permitted. Because of the limited amount of nesting habitat within 1 mile of the Project site, thorough coverage of the area in a single day was relatively easy.

After Swainson’s hawk nests were identified, surveyors continued to visit the nest site at least once per survey to note the stage of nesting. Surveyors also continued to visit suitable tree clusters within 1 mile of the site where Swainson’s hawk nests had not been located, to search for evidence of nesting. During each survey, the surveyor also investigated potential nesting locations between 1 and 5 miles from the site, as time permitted.

While most of the survey effort was expended observing nesting activity at tree clusters, surveyors also spent a portion of the survey time driving slowly or walking within the survey area, watching for foraging Swainson’s hawks and noting the suitability of habitat for foraging, per information included in the Staff

Page 22 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (Staff Report; CDFG 1994). The Staff Report recommends mitigation at a 1:1 ratio for loss of foraging habitat within 1 mile of an “active nest” (defined as “used during one or more of the last 5 years”); 0.75:1 mitigation for loss of foraging habitat within 5 miles, but greater than 1, of an active nest; and within 10 miles, but greater than 5 miles, of an active nest (CDFG 1994). Observations of foraging and of foraging habitat were recorded within 1 mile of the Project site, with particular attention to habitat suitability and Swainson’s hawk foraging on the site.

In addition to the Swainson’s hawk surveys and recording observations of foraging habitat within 1 mile of the site, Dudek used performed a desktop analysis of habitat greater than 1 mile from the site. A GIS technician determined the area occurring within 10 miles of all nest sites identified by Dudek during the surveys and within 10 miles of the site. Land use categories were determined from the County Assessor Parcel data and divided into “suitable” and “unsuitable” categories. Unsuitable categories included a variety of developed land types, orchards, vineyards, and open water. All other croplands, including pasture, and other undeveloped lands were considered suitable. Parcels with no designation were considered “unknown” suitability. A small portion of the area within 10 miles of the Project site and identified nests was outside of the County (in Kings County), and no data were obtained for this area. Therefore, it was considered “unknown.”

6.2.4.3 JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCE EVALUATION A formal jurisdictional wetlands delineation was conducted to determine the potential for presence of water resources under the jurisdiction of USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. The evaluation included the identification of vegetation communities dominated by hydrophytic vegetation and stream channels or other evidence of an ordinary high water mark within the Project site. Connectivity to local water conveyance features was also evaluated to determine the discharge points and their connection to regional waterways.

6.3 Survey Limitations

Focused surveys were only conducted for Swainson’s hawk and followed the CDFW-endorsed protocol for the Central Valley developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SHTAC 2000). Surveys for other special-status species was conducted on a habitat suitability level (i.e., potential to occur) and did not follow established guidelines or focus on a particular species. Additionally, responsible or trustee agency (i.e., USFWS and CDFW) developed protocol surveys or guidelines were not conducted. However, all special-status species observed were documented along with occupied habitats. The survey was conducted during daylight hours under weather conditions that allowed for quality biological observations (e.g., surveys were not conducted during heavy fog or rain). Additional limitations of the surveys include a diurnal bias for all wildlife species and recognizable sign of mammal species. Diurnal surveys usually result in few observations of mammals, many of which may only be active at night. In addition, many species of reptiles and amphibians are secretive in their habits and are difficult to observe using standard transects.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 23 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

7.0 RESULTS 7.1 Vegetation Communities, Land Covers, and Floral Diversity

During the field surveys, Dudek identified two land cover types over the entire 585.2 acres: row-crop agriculture and developed. As mention previously, during field surveys, the Project site showed signs of active tilling and was observed in cultivation. The Project site was likely under agricultural production with wheat and/or barley crops. Appendix C provides photo documentation of the Project site. Appendix D provides a list of all plant species observed on the Project site.

7.1.1 Row-Crop Agriculture

The majority (approximately 583.6 acres) of the Project site is row-crop agriculture (Figure 3, Vegetation Communities). During field surveys, the Project site showed signs of active tilling and was observed in cultivation. The Project site was likely under agricultural production with winter wheat and barley crops according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service CropScape website (2017d). Row-crop agriculture is not considered a sensitive biological resource by CDFW under CEQA (CDFG 2010).

7.1.2 Developed

Approximately 1.6 acres of developed land is located along the eastern-central portion of the Project site. Developed land on the Project site is limited to dirt roads and the adjacent developed solar facility. These developed areas do not support vegetation. 7.2 Common Wildlife

A total of 13 birds and 1 mammal were audibly or visually detected during surveys. Common species detected or observed during the survey are noted below. Appendix E provides a list of all wildlife species observed on the Project site.

The open habitat of the Project is well suited for predatory bird species. Power line towers adjacent to the Project provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors, and the site provides suitable foraging habitat. Common bird species observed were American kestrel (Falco sparverius), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), common raven (Corvus corax), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), house sparrow, long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta).

Amphibians require standing or flowing water for part or all of their life cycle. Ponds, seasonal pools, and drainages provide suitable habitat for common amphibian species. The hydrologic feature, one ditch located on the southwestern border of the Project site, consists of a narrow, linear depression between a cultivated field and an off-site equipment yard. Water inputs into the ditch are presumed to consist of

Page 24 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report runoff from the off-site equipment yard (Appendix B). At the time of the wetland delineation survey the ditch did not contain water and presumed to only contain water during the growing season, primarily from rainfall. No amphibian species were observed during the field survey.

Vegetation characteristics contribute to the possible diversity of reptiles in an area. Most reptiles prefer a variety of habitats in which to forage. They live in small burrows, which they also use as a refuge from differing ambient temperatures and predator avoidance. The agricultural practices on the Project site provide no suitable habitat for reptile species. No reptiles were observed during the field survey.

Agricultural fields can be used to a limited extent by mammalian predators such as coyote (Canis latrans) and foxes (Vulpes ssp.). However, the value is dependent on the availability of suitable prey species. Several small mammal species such as house mice, deer mice, voles, and harvest mouse may occur in such fields as the Project site. Mammal species directly observed included one coyote.

7.3 Special-Status/Regulated Resources

7.3.1 Special-Status Plant Species

No special-status plants were observed on the Project site during the field reconnaissance survey, which was not conducted within the appropriate blooming or phenological period for several special-status plant species and did not include a complete rare plant survey. However, due to the high level of disturbance from disking and crop rotations and lack of native species, the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for special-status plant species. All special-status plant species found in the CNPS (CNPS 2017) and CNDDB (CDFW 2017) occurrence records for the vicinity (i.e., 10 miles) were evaluated for their potential to occur on site based on the presence of suitable habitat, elevation, and soils, and are listed in Table 4. Based on the literature review and field surveys, no special-status plant species were identified as having potential to occur within the Project site. Additionally, there is no USFWS critical habitat for special- status plants mapped within or adjacent to the Project site (USFWS 2017a).

7.3.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species

Based on the literature review and field surveys, five special-status wildlife species were either observed or identified as having low to high potential to occur within the Project site. Table 5 shows special-status wildlife species that were observed during field surveys or have a low to high potential to occur at the Project site based on observed habitat. Species that have no potential to occur due to various factors, such as lack of suitable habitat, the site occurring outside the known geographic range, or the species having been extirpated from the region, are not discussed further in this report. In addition, species with to potential to occur only in parts of their life cycle on which their special status is not based (such as tricolored blackbird, which has potential to forage but not to nest on the Project site) are discussed only in Table 5. Appendix F provides the results from the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (2017b) query.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 25 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Table 4. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Plant Species

Status Common (Federal/State/ Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Scientific Name Name CRPR)1 Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur

Atriplex depressa Brittlescale None/None/1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal site due to regular tilling and grading in the area. In addition, the nearest pools; alkaline, clay/annual herb/Apr–Oct/3– CNDDB occurrence is approximately 15 miles northeast of the Project 1050 site (CDFW 2017). Atriplex subtilis subtle orache None/None/1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland; Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the alkaline/annual herb/June–Sep (Oct)/131– site due to regular tilling and grading in the area. 328 Caulanthus California FE/SE/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, pinyon and juniper Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the californicus jewelflower woodland, valley and foothill grassland; site due to regular tilling and grading in the area. sandy/annual herb/ February– May / 200– 3281. Delphinium recurved None/None/1B.2 Chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland, Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the recurvatum larkspur valley and foothill grassland; site, due to regular tilling and grading in the area. alkaline/perennial herb/ March–June/Mar– June/10–2592 Layia munzii Munz's tidy- None/None/1B.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the tips grassland (alkaline clay)/annual herb/Mar– site due to regular tilling and grading in the area. The site is outside the Apr/492–2297 species’ known elevation range. Layia pale yellow None/None/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the heterotricha layia pinyon and juniper woodland, valley and site due to regular tilling and grading in the area. The site is outside the foothill grassland; alkaline or clay/annual species’ known elevation range. herb/ March–June/984–5594 Lepidium jaredii Panoche None/None/1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland (steep slopes, Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the ssp. album pepper-grass clay)/annual herb/Feb–June/607–902 site due to regular tilling and grading in the area. The site is outside the species’ known elevation range. Malacothamnus Indian Valley None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland; rocky, Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the aboriginum bush-mallow granitic, often in burned areas/perennial site due to regular tilling and grading in the area. The site is outside the deciduous shrub/ April–October /492–5577 species’ known elevation range. Monolopia San Joaquin FE/None/1B.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the congdonii woollythreads grassland (sandy)/annual herb/Feb– site due to regular tilling and grading in the area. May/197–2625 Puccinellia California None/None/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the simplex alkali grass valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools; site due to regular tilling and grading in the area. alkaline, vernally mesic; sinks, flats, and lake margins/annual herb/ annual herb/Mar– May/7–3051 Status Legend FE: Federally listed as endangered

Page 26 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

SE: State listed as endangered CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Threat Rank 1 – Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) 2 – Fairly threatened in California (20%–80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

Table 5. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Wildlife Species

Status (Federal/State/ Scientific Name Common Name County/Other)1 Primary Habitat Associations Potential to Occur

Amphibians Ambystoma California tiger FT/ST Annual grassland, valley–foothill Not expected to occur. The Project site vicinity lack suitable californiense salamander hardwood, and valley–foothill grassland habitat or seasonal ponds/vernal pools required for riparian habitats; vernal pools, other breeding. Habitat is also unsuitable due to tilling. No CNDDB ephemeral pools, and occurrences are located within 10 miles of the Project site, although (uncommonly) along stream the Project site is within the species’ range (CDFW 2017). courses and human-made pools if predatory fishes are absent. Rana draytonii California red- FT/CSC Lowland streams, wetlands, Not expected to occur. The Project site vicinity lacks aquatic systems legged frog riparian woodlands, livestock including streams, wetlands, and riparian features, required by this ponds; dense, shrubby or emergent species. No CNDDB occurrences are located within 10 miles of the vegetation associated with deep, Project site (CDFW 2017). In addition, the Project site is located still or slow-moving water; uses outside and near the eastern edge of the species known range adjacent uplands. (CalHerps 2017; Thomson et al. 2016). Spea hammondii western None/CSC Breeding and egg laying occur Not expected to occur. The site vicinity lacks the aquatic habitat spadefoot almost exclusively in shallow, required by this species. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is temporary pools formed by heavy approximately 8.5 miles south of the Project site within a flood channel, winter rains. Most of the year is non-native grasses, and adjacent to row crops (CDFW 2017). spent in underground burrows, where it covers itself with sandy, friable soils. Primarily in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley- foothill hardwood woodlands.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 27 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Table 5. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Wildlife Species

Status (Federal/State/ Scientific Name Common Name County/Other)1 Primary Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Reptiles Actinemys marmorata western pond None/CSC Slow-moving permanent or Not expected to occur. The disturbed agricultural habitats found on turtle intermittent streams, ponds, small site and in the vicinity are not suitable for this species. Site would act lakes, reservoirs with emergent as a habitat sink. No CNDDB occurrences are located within 10 miles basking sites; adjacent uplands of the Project site, although the Project site is within the species’ range used during winter and for nesting. (CDFW 2017). Anniella pulchra Northern None/CSC Fossorial animal found primarily in Not expected to occur. The disturbed agricultural habitats found on California areas with sandy or loose soils site and in the vicinity are not suitable for this species. Site would act legless lizard where they typically are found as a habitat sink. No CNDDB occurrences are located within 10 miles beneath leaf litter. Variety of of the Project site, although the Project site is within the species’ range habitats, including beach dunes, (CDFW 2017). chaparral, California sagebrush scrub, oak woodlands, pine forests, pine–oak woodland, sandy washes, and stream terraces. Gambelia sila blunt-nosed FE/SE, FP Sparsely vegetated alkali and Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is absent, due to regular leopard lizard desert scrubs, including semi-arid tilling, and is not present in vicinity. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is grasslands, alkali flats, and approximately 9.7 miles southwest of the Project site in open habitat washes. Seeks cover in mammal near oil fields (CDFW 2017). burrows, under shrubs or structures. Masticophis flagellum San Joaquin None/CSC Open, dry habitats with little or no Not expected to occur. Larger mammals burrows are absent in the ruddocki whipsnake tree cover. Requires mammal site vicinity, due to regular tilling and grading. The nearest CNDDB burrows for refuge and oviposition occurrence is approximately 9 miles south of the Project site along sites. Mitchell Road, adjacent to row crops and farmland (CDFW 2017). Phrynosoma blainvillii Blainville's None/CSC Open areas of sandy soil in valleys, Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the horned lizard foothills, and semi-arid mountains study area, due to regular tilling and grading in the area. No CNDDB including coastal scrub, chaparral, occurrences are located within 10 miles of the Project site, although valley–foothill hardwood, conifer, the Project site is within the species’ range (CDFW 2017). riparian, pine–cypress, juniper, and annual grassland habitats.

Page 28 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

Table 5. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Wildlife Species

Status (Federal/State/ Scientific Name Common Name County/Other)1 Primary Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Thamnophis gigas giant garter FT/ST Freshwater marsh habitat and low- Not expected to occur. Suitable aquatic habitat is not present on or snake gradient streams; also uses canals adjacent to the site. In addition, the nearest CNDDB occurrence is and irrigation ditches approximately 9 miles northeast of the Project site in Fresno slough (CDFW 2017). Birds Agelaius tricolor tricolored None/CSC Breeds near fresh water, preferably Not expected to nest. Suitable foraging habitat is present, but the site (nesting colony) blackbird in emergent wetlands with tall, lacks the emergent and other vegetation suitable for nesting by this dense cattails or tules, but also in species. Although the Project site is within a CNDDB occurrence record, thickets of willow, blackberry, wild this record was mapped to a general area, which includes the Project site rose, other tall herbs, and cultivated (CDFW 2017). This species is known to have established a colony triticale fields. approximately 3.2 miles north of the Project site in stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) and willow (Salix spp.) habitat (UC Davis 2017). Asio flammeus short-eared owl None/CSC Open areas with few trees, such as Not expected to occur. The site is unsuitable for nesting currently, but if (nesting) annual and perennial grasslands, fallow for long periods may be suitable. Therefore, this species may have prairies, dunes, meadows, irrigated a low potential to nest in some years. No CNDDB occurrences are lands, and saline and fresh water located within 10 miles of the Project site (CDFW 2017). wetlands with emergent vegetation. Requires dense vegetation, often near wetlands, for nesting and roosting. Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None/CSC Open, dry, annual or perennial High potential to forage, not expected to nest. Potentially suitable (burrow sites and grasslands, deserts, and nesting habitat occurs in the vicinity of the Project site, where tilling some wintering sites) scrublands characterized by low- and grading may not impact burrows. The agricultural habitats on the growing vegetation. In agricultural site are suitable for foraging. environments in the San Joaquin Valley, sometimes nests in small colonies in untilled, ungraded areas. Nests in the abandoned burrows of ground squirrels, badgers, or other mammals.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 29 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Table 5. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Wildlife Species

Status (Federal/State/ Scientific Name Common Name County/Other)1 Primary Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Buteo swainsoni Swainson's None/ST Nests in open woodland and High potential to forage, not expected to nest. Suitable foraging (nesting) hawk savanna, riparian, and in isolated habitat occurs on the Project site. No nesting habitat on site, although large trees; forages in nearby suitable nesting trees are located adjacent to the Project surrounding grasslands and agricultural areas residential properties. The closest CNDDB record (nesting) is such as wheat and alfalfa fields and approximately 6 miles west of the Project site (CDFW 2017). pasture. Charadrius montanus mountain plover None/CSC Short grasslands, freshly plowed Low potential to winter. Suitable foraging habitat is present (wintering) fields, newly sprouting grain fields, periodically on the Project site, but habitat suitability likely varies and sometimes sod farms. Bare depending on the agricultural stage (growing versus recently disked ground and flat topography. versus fallow). No CNDDB occurrences are located within 10 miles of the Project site, although the Project site is within the species’ wintering range (CDFW 2017). Circus hudsonius northern harrier None/CSC Meadows, grasslands, open Low potential to nest. Suitable foraging habitat on the present Project (nesting) rangelands, desert sinks, and fresh site, and the species was observed in the immediate site vicinity in and saltwater emergent wetlands. 2016. The species may potentially nest in grain or fallow fields. Roosts and nests on the ground, usually in tall grasses and forbs, but sometimes in croplands (including alfalfa, grains, sugar beets, tomatoes, and melons). Males may hunt more than six miles from the nest. Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite None/FP Nests in treetops with dense foliage Not expected to nest, low potential to forage. No nesting habitat is and forages in open grasslands, present on the Project site. Foraging habitat is marginal. meadows, farmlands, and emergent wetlands. Ranges farther from roosting/nesting habitat in winter.

Page 30 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

Table 5. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Wildlife Species

Status (Federal/State/ Scientific Name Common Name County/Other)1 Primary Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead None/CSC Open habitats with scattered Not expected to nest, moderate potential to forage on occasion. (nesting) shrike shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility Marginal habitat quality. Suitable foraging habitat present throughout lines, or other perches, and the study area, but the vicinity lacks the trees and large shrubs requires impaling sites, such as necessary for nesting. thorns, sharp twigs, or barbed wire, for skewering and manipulating its prey. Nests in densely foliated shrubs or trees. Xanthocephalus yellow-headed None/CSC Nests in freshwater emergent Not expected to nest, moderate potential to forage. No nesting xanthocephalus blackbird wetlands with dense vegetation and habitat is present on the Project site, but suitable foraging habitat is (nesting) deep water. Often along the present. A small nesting colony was observed 2.7 miles north– borders of lakes or ponds. Forages northeast of the Project site in May and June 2016, including none within wetlands and surrounding begging fledglings on the latter date. grasslands, croplands, or savanna. Post-breeding birds forage mostly in cropland and grassland and may range several kilometers before returning to wetland roosts at dusk. Mammals Ammospermophilus San Joaquin None/ST Dry, sparsely vegetated loam soils Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat. In addition, the nearest nelsoni [Nelson's] in western San Joaquin Valley from CNDDB occurrence is approximately 10 miles south of the Project site antelope squirrel 200 to 1,200 feet elevation. Require (CDFW 2017). widely scattered shrubs, forbs and grasses in broken terrain with gullies and washes. Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None/CSC Rocky outcrops, cliffs, and crevices Not expected to roost. No roosting habitat present. Potential to with access to open habitats for forage on site. foraging. Dipodomys ingens giant kangaroo FE/SE Annual Grasslands on the western Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat not present on or adjacent to rat side of San Joaquin Valley. Alkali the site, due to regular tilling. CNDDB includes no occurrences within scrub only supports marginal 10 miles of the Project site (CDFW 2017). quality habitat. Requires level terrain and sandy loam soils for burrowing.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 31 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Table 5. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Wildlife Species

Status (Federal/State/ Scientific Name Common Name County/Other)1 Primary Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Dipodomys short-nosed None/CSC Friable soils on flat or gently rolling Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat not present on or adjacent to nitratoides brevinasus kangaroo rat terrain in grassland and desert- the site, due to regular tilling. CNDDB includes no occurrences within shrub vegetation 10 miles of the Project site (CDFW 2017). Dipodomys Fresno FE/SE Alkali sink and open grassland Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat not present in or adjacent to nitratoides exilis kangaroo rat habitats; sands and saline sandy the Project site. No records of this species since 1992. The Project site soils in chenopod scrub. is near the edge, and may be outside, of the historical range of the species. Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat None/CSC Forest, woodland, riparian, Not expected to roost, low potential to forage. Suitable roosting mesquite bosque, and orchards, habitat is absent on the Project site, and relatively little occurs in the including fig, apricot, peach, pear, vicinity. Given the relative lack of suitable roosting trees, this species almond, walnut, and orange; roosts has a low potential to forage over the site. in tree canopy. Onychomys torridus Tulare None/CSC Shrub land communities in hot, arid Not expected to occur. Habitat is unsuitable because of tilling. tularensis grasshopper grasslands, as well as blue oak Although the Project site is within the historic range of the species, mouse woodlands, alkali sink, mesquite CNDDB includes no occurrences in the vicinity. associations on the valley floor, upper Sonora shrub associations, and sloping margins of the San Joaquin Valley and the Carrizo Plain regions. Feeds mostly on arthropods, but also on small vertebrates, including lizards, frogs, pocket mice, and western harvest mice. Taxidea taxus American None/CSC Open, dry shrub, forest, and Not expected to occur. Suitable denning habitat not present on the badger herbaceous habitats, with friable site and immediate vicinity due to regular tilling and grading. CNDDB soils. Needs sufficient food, includes no occurrences within 10 miles of the Project site, although it uncultivated ground; preys on is within the species’ range (CDFW 2017). burrowing rodents.

Page 32 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

Table 5. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Wildlife Species

Status (Federal/State/ Scientific Name Common Name County/Other)1 Primary Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Vulpes macrotis San Joaquin kit FE/ST Annual grasslands or grassy open Low potential to occur. Due to regular tilling of the Project site, and mutica fox stages with scattered shrubby the lack of known occurrences in the immediate vicinity, the species is vegetation. Require loose-textured unlikely to establish dens. However, it may pass through the vicinity on sandy soils for burrowing, and occasion, while moving between suitable habitat west of I-5 and limited suitable prey base. Pups born in suitable areas on the valley floor. In addition, the nearest CNDDB dens excavated in open, level occurrence is approximately 8.2 miles southwest of the Project site areas with loose-textured soils. (CDFW 2017). Invertebrates Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy FT/None Vernal pools, seasonally ponded Not expected to occur. No vernal pools or seasonally ponded areas shrimp areas within vernal swales, and are located on the Project site. In addition, habitat is unsuitable ephemeral freshwater habitats because of tilling. CNDDB includes no occurrences within 10 miles of the Project site, although it is within the species’ range (CDFW 2017). CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database Status Legend FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened FP = CDFW Fully Protected SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened CSC = California Species of Special Concern

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 33 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

7.3.2.1 REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS Seven special-status reptiles and amphibians were identified as occurring in the region. Based on the highly disturbed nature of the Project site and continued intensive agricultural activity, no special-status reptiles or amphibians are expected to occur on the Project site (Please refer to Table 5, which describes the potential to occur for special-status wildlife species).

7.3.2.2 BIRDS Four special-status bird species were identified as having the potential to occur on the site in the part of their life cycle on which their special status is based (such as nesting or wintering): burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), and Swainson’s hawk (Please refer to Table 5, which describes the potential to occur for special-status wildlife species).

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Burrowing owl is a CSC. The burrowing owl inhabits a relatively wide-ranging distribution in the west (Poulin et al. 2011). In California, burrowing owls are yearlong residents of open, dry grassland and desert habitats and in grass, forb, and open shrub stages of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). Habitat is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gentle topography, and well-drained soils (Poulin et al. 2011).

The presence of burrows is the most essential component of burrowing owl habitat, as they are required for nesting, roosting, cover, and caching prey (Coulombe 1971; Martin 1973; Green and Anthony 1989; Poulin et al. 2011). In California, burrowing owls most commonly live in burrows created by California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Burrowing owls may occur in human-altered landscapes such as agricultural areas, ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots, and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable (i.e., open and sparse); useable burrows are available; and foraging habitat occurs in close proximity (Gervais et al. 2008). Debris piles, riprap, culverts, and pipes can be used for nesting and roosting.

Protocol-level surveys for the burrowing owl were not conducted during this survey effort. However, as the entire site was disked during surveys, no suitable burrows were present. Suitable nesting habitat is not present on the Project site. However, should burrowing owls nest in the vicinity, they may occasionally forage on the site. In addition, if fields on the Project site remain fallow for long enough for California ground squirrels may become established and the species could nest there in the future.

Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) The mountain plover is a CSC during its wintering period in California, from September through March, when it can be found on short grasslands and plowed fields of the Central Valley from Sutter and Yuba Counties southward. Mountain plovers are also found in foothill valleys west of San Joaquin Valley, the Imperial Valley, plowed fields of Los Angeles and western San Bernardino counties, and along the central Colorado River valley. They are found in areas with little or no vegetation, including short grasslands, freshly plowed fields, newly sprouting grain fields, and sod farms. No CNDDB occurrences are located within 10 miles of the Project site, although the Project site is within the species’ wintering range (CDFW 2017). Biological surveys were not conducted to detect mountain plovers. Conditions vary from winter to winter in the agricultural lands and pastures where this species often is found. Therefore,

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 34 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report occurrence may be sporadic, and mountain plovers may occur on the site on occasion during winter or migration, depending on crop rotation and other factors influencing habitat conditions.

Northern Harrier (Circus hudsonius)

The northern harrier is a CSC during the nesting season. The northern harrier is common along the west coast in mountain and desert regions. Northern harriers breed widely in northeastern California, the Central Coast, and the Central Valley, where the majority of breeding pairs occur despite most of their original habitat having been destroyed or degraded (Davis and Niemela 2008). Northern harriers use a wide variety of open habitats in California, including deserts, coastal sand dunes, pasturelands, croplands, dry plains, grasslands, estuaries, flood plains, and marshes (Macwhirter and Bildstein 1996). The species also forages over coastal sage scrub and other open scrub communities. Nesting areas are associated with marshes, pastures, grasslands, prairies, croplands, desert shrub-steppe, and riparian woodland (Macwhirter and Bildstein 1996). Winter habitats similarly include a variety of open habitats dominated by herbaceous cover. Northern harrier populations are most concentrated in areas with low vegetation. Breeding occurs from March to May. Nests are located in patches of dense and tall vegetation, particularly wetlands and dense grasslands, and have a clutch size of four to six eggs that are incubated for 30 to 32 days. Chicks typically fledge at 4 to 5 weeks by making brief flights near the nest (Macwhirter and Bildstein 1996). Suitable foraging habitat is on the present Project site, and the species was observed in the immediate site vicinity on May 26, 2016. The species may potentially nest in grain or fallow fields.

Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) The Swainson’s hawk is a state threatened species. In California, it nests in the Central Valley, Klamath Basin, Northeastern Plateau, Lassen County, and Mojave Desert. It breeds in riparian areas and stands with few trees near foraging habitat. Swainson’s hawks forage in adjacent grasslands or livestock pastures. In the Central Valley, they nest in riparian areas and in isolated tree clusters, often near rural residences or other areas with human disturbance. However, disturbance level may regulate the occurrence of this species in otherwise suitable nesting habitat.

Two surveys were conducted in May 2016, two surveys were conducted between June 23 and July 22, 2016, and a nest spot check was conducted on August 3, 2016 (Table 6). The following sections first describe habitat suitability on the Project site and in the survey area, and then describe Swainson’s hawk observations during the surveys.

Table 6. Summary of Conditions and Survey Results for the 2016 Swainson’s Hawk Surveys at the Project Site

Other Raptor No. Date / Time Biologists1 Site Conditions2 SWHA Observations3 Observations4

1 May 12, Randall Clear skies (0%–  1 SWHA hunting  NOHA hunting in a 2016 McInvale 10% cloud cover), northwest of the site grape vineyard with variable light in a wheat/ barley immediately west 7:10–11:24 winds (0 to 5 mph). field. of the Project site. a.m. Temperatures during the morning survey

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 35 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Table 6. Summary of Conditions and Survey Results for the 2016 Swainson’s Hawk Surveys at the Project Site

Other Raptor No. Date / Time Biologists1 Site Conditions2 SWHA Observations3 Observations4 3:40–7:37 ranged from 20C  1 SWHA hunting north  NOHA pair p.m. (68F) to 32C of the Project site in observed in a (89F). an alfalfa field. cultivated vetch Temperatures during  1 SWHA perched next field just over 1- the afternoon survey to a Nest 1 in a mile south of the ranged from 33C tamarisk windbreak site. (92F) to 36C immediately north of  RTHA pair perched (96F). SR-145. No activity on a transmission observed in the nest. line tower within 1- mile SW of the Project site along SR-145.  Active RTHA nest with 2 chicks in a transmission line tower approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the Project site. 2 May 26, Dave Mostly clear (0%–5%  Confirmed SWHA  NOHA male 2016 Compton cloud cover), with nest within 1 mile of hunting in the light to moderate the site, to the north west–central 6:04–10:37 winds (3 to 12 mph), along SR-145 (Nest portion of the a.m. mostly out of the 1), next to which a Project site; male northwest. SWHA was perched later hunting 4:00–7:55 Temperatures during during the 5/12/16 approximately 1.5 p.m. the morning survey survey. One SWHA miles northeast of ranged from 13C was on the nest and the Project site (55F) to 21C apparently incubating. may have been the (69F).  SWHA standing on the same individual. Temperatures during edge of Nest 2 at  RTHA – several the afternoon survey Colusa Ave. and W. present in the ranged from 27C Paige Ave., vicinity during (81F) to 29C approximately 2 miles surveys. (84F). west of the site.  AMKE Occupancy could not approximately 1 be determined. mile west of the  Likely SWHA nest site. (Nest 3) along W.  3 BNOW flushed Paige Ave., about 1.5 from tamarisk miles east of the site; approximately 0.6 SWHA pair present. miles south of site, Occupancy could not along S. Butte Ave. be determined.  Possible nest (Nest 4) in the community of Westside, approximately 1 mile north of the Project site. A nest structure was present but occupancy could not be determined.

Page 36 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

Table 6. Summary of Conditions and Survey Results for the 2016 Swainson’s Hawk Surveys at the Project Site

Other Raptor No. Date / Time Biologists1 Site Conditions2 SWHA Observations3 Observations4  105 foraging SWHA about 4 miles east– southeast of the site in a field currently being disked.  1 SWHA hunting in an alfalfa field approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Project site. 3 June 23, Dave Clear skies (0%  Nest 1, within 1 mile  RTHA perched 2016 Compton cloud cover), with of the site, along SR- along the W edge moderate winds (6 to 145, occupied by of the site, along S. 6:31‒11:00 11 mph) mostly from adult apparently Butte Ave. a.m. the west. brooding young,  RTHA adult at nest Temperatures during although nestlings not 3:57‒7:54 with 1 fledgling, 2.5 the morning survey observed. p.m. miles SE of site, in ranged from 19C  Adult and single trees along S. (66F) to 31C nestling in Nest 2, at Lassen Ave. (SR- (88F). Colusa Ave. and W. 269). Temperatures during Paige Ave.,  NOHA male the afternoon survey approximately 2 miles foraging in alfalfa ranged from 33C west of site. approximately 2 (91F) to 38C  Nest 3, 1.5 miles east miles NE of the (100F). of site, along W. site, north of W. Paige Ave. occupied Excelsior Ave. by two large nestlings.  Dead juvenile  Possible nest in the BNOW along W. community of Mount Whitney Westside (Nest 4; Ave., occupied in 2010 and approximately 3.5 2012) apparently not miles NNW of site occupied. (E of Colusa Ave.).  Light adult flushed from trees on the western side of Lassen Ave. (SR-269) at its intersection with W. Jeffrey Ave. No nest structure identified, but behavior suggested potential nesting.  Additional SWHA observed: 1 hunting 0.7 miles east of site; 5 foraging in bare field approximately 1.8 miles northwest of site (northwest of S. Yuba Ave. and W. Excelsior Ave.); 1 light subadult flying over Colusa Ave. south of W.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 37 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Table 6. Summary of Conditions and Survey Results for the 2016 Swainson’s Hawk Surveys at the Project Site

Other Raptor No. Date / Time Biologists1 Site Conditions2 SWHA Observations3 Observations4 Laguna Ave., 2.7 miles northwest of the site.; 2 adults on the ground and on utility pole along Colusa Ave. north of W. Paige Ave., 2.4 miles northwest of the site; 1 on utility pole along Lassen Ave. (SR-269) just south of W. Cadillac, approximately 2.3 miles east–southeast of the site; and 1 in mowed alfalfa approximately 2 miles northeast of the site, north of W. Excelsior Ave. 4 July 22, Russell Mostly clear skies  In Nest 1, within 1  NOHA male 2016 Sweet (0%–15% cloud mile of the site, along hunting cover), with variable SR-145, 1 nestling approximately 1.25 6:50–11:10 light winds (2.2 to 6.5 SWHA present, with 2 miles east of the a.m. mph). Temperatures adults perched site. during the morning nearby.  RTHA were 4:00‒8:00 survey ranged from p.m.  No SWHA observed observed west of 24C (74.6F) to at Nest 2, SR-269 and south 31C (88.1F). approximately 2 miles of SR-145, with Temperatures during west of the site. hunting SWHA the evening survey  Nest 3, about 1.5 juveniles and ranged from 37C miles east of the site, adults. (99.2F) to 35C was not occupied. (94.2F).  Approximately 30 juvenile and adult SWHA were observed approximately 2.7 miles north–northeast of the site, where tomato harvesting was being conducted.  Nest 4, approximately 1 mile north of the site, in the community of Westside, showed no signs of activity.  1 SWHA perched at power pole along SR- 145, approximately 0.1 miles west of the Project site.

Page 38 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

Table 6. Summary of Conditions and Survey Results for the 2016 Swainson’s Hawk Surveys at the Project Site

Other Raptor No. Date / Time Biologists1 Site Conditions2 SWHA Observations3 Observations4 5 August 3, Traci Caddy Mostly clear skies,  No Swainson’s hawks None 2016 (nest with light (1 to 3 were present at Nest spot check mph) north winds. 1, along SR-145. only) Temperatures ranged from 37C 2:40‒3:15 (99F) to 38C P.M. (100F). MPH = mile per hour; SR = State Route 1 Dudek biologists are Dave Compton, Randall McInvale, Russell Sweet, and Traci Caddy. 2 Wind and temperature were measured using a SpeedTech Windmate WM-200 or estimated by biologists. 3 SWHA = Swainson’s hawk 4 RTHA = Red-tailed hawk; NOHA = northern harrier; AMKE = American kestrel; BNOW = barn owl The Project site consisted of fallow agricultural and developed land. The agricultural land showed evidence of previous cultivation for grains. As trees of any kind are absent on the Project site, no Swainson’s hawk nesting habitat is present. Swainson’s hawks are known to use both fallow agriculture and grain fields for foraging (CDFG 1994; Swolgaard et al. 2008). Within 1 mile of the Project site, suitable nesting trees are present in several locations adjacent to the western boundary, along South Butte Avenue. Additional suitable trees are along SR-145, including within the unincorporated community of Westside, approximately 1 mile north of the site. Although development occurs in several locations adjacent to the site and within 1 mile (including residences, commercial farming facilities, and several solar energy plants), a variety of croplands occurs in the area. In the spring and summer 2016, these included limited areas of alfalfa, the favored foraging habitat for this species; grain fields; several types of low-growing row crops (such as tomatoes and cotton); vineyards; a newly planted orchard; and fallow land. While Swainson’s hawks use vineyards relatively infrequently, most other croplands within 1 mile of the Project site are suitable foraging habitat (CDFG 1994, Swolgaard 2008 et al.). Nesting by Swainson’s hawks was observed in one location within 1 mile on the Project site and in two locations between 1 and 5 miles on the Project site (Figure 4, Special-Status Species Occurrences within 5 Miles; Table 6). An adult Swainson’s hawk was first observed attending a nest in a tamarisk tree (Tamarix sp.) on the northern side of SR-145, 0.6 miles north of the Project site, on May 12, 2016 (Nest 1 on Figure 4). Activity was observed at this nest during the three subsequent surveys (Table 1). One large nestling was observed here during the final survey, on July 22, 2016 (Table 6). During a spot check of the nest site on August 3, 2016, no Swainson’s hawks were observed.

Surveys identified two active nests that produced young greater than 1 mile but within 5 miles of the Project site in 2016. A nest (Nest 3) in a lone tree 1.5 miles east of the Project site, along West Paige Avenue, was first observed on May 26, 2016, when two adults were present in the area, although occupancy of the nest could not be determined at the time. On June 23, 2016, two large Swainson’s hawk nestlings were observed in Nest 3. The young may have fledged by the time of the fourth survey, on July 22, 2016, when no activity was observed at this location. An occupied nest (Nest 2) with an adult standing

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 39 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California at the edge was also observed at the corner of Colusa Avenue and West Paige Avenue, approximately 2 miles west of the site, on May 26, 2016. An adult and one large nestling were observed in Nest 2 on June 23, 2016, although no activity was observed here during the fourth survey on July 22, 2016. Neither Nest 2 nor Nest 3 was examined during the spot check on August 3, 2016. An additional nest structure suitable for Swainson’s hawk approximately 1.1 miles north of the Project site (Nest 4) was visible in the community of Westside, just west of South Lake Avenue, during surveys (Figure 4). The nest tree was the site of Swainson’s hawk nesting in 2010 and 2012 (personal observations by D. Compton and John Davis IV). Nestlings were present in the nest in 2010, and a pair was present in 2012, when nest building was observed early in the year. In 2016, no Swainson’s hawk activity was observed in the vicinity of this nest. Although the nest is difficult to see, even if nesting was attempted early in the season, the presence of an American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) perched on top of the tree, several feet above the nest, on June 23, 2016, clearly indicated that Swainson’s hawks did not occupy the nest at this time. Although surveys suggest this nest may never have been occupied by Swainson’s hawks in 2016, the location is still considered an “active” nest, according to the definition by CDFW (CDFG 1994), as it may have been the site of nesting in the past 5 years. No other evidence of nesting was observed during surveys. A calling adult Swainson’s hawk apparently flushed from tamarisk trees (Tamarix sp.) on Lassen Avenue at West Jeffrey Avenue, on June 23, 2016, suggested potential nesting, but no nest structure could be found. Although the site supported suitable foraging habitat, Swainson’s hawks were not observed foraging on the Project site during surveys. Other than the adults tending Nest 1, 0.6 miles north of the site, Swainson’s hawks were observed foraging within 1 mile of the Project site on only two occasions: one foraging 0.7 miles east of the site on June 23, 2016, and one perched on a utility pole 0.1 miles west of the site, along SR-145, on July 22, 2016 (Table 6). Numerous Swainson’s hawks were observed foraging between 1 and 5 miles of the site during surveys, including two observations of single individuals on May 10 and 10 different individuals on June 23, 2016. High concentrations were observed on May 26 and July 22, 2016. On the latter date, approximately 30 individuals (adults and juveniles) were observed around a tomato field being harvested 2.7 miles north–northeast of the Project site. On May 26, 2016, in addition to a single bird foraging in an alfalfa field 1.5 miles northeast of the site, 105 individual Swainson’s hawks were counted in the vicinity of a field that was being disked, approximately 4 miles east–southeast of the Project site (Table 6). The desktop analysis of foraging habitat within 10 miles of the Project site and Swainson’s hawk nests identified during surveys determined that 175,637 acres (66%) of the 266,138 included in the analysis were suitable for Swainson’s hawk foraging, 51,065 acres (19%) were unsuitable, and 39,435 acres (15%) were of unknown suitability. No analysis was done to determine the extent of nesting habitat within the same area. Areas observed during surveys, which include much of the area within 5 miles of the site, were relatively uniform in terms of the presence of suitable trees. Little riparian habitat was observed in the area, and suitable nesting trees consisted of scattered clusters of trees and individual trees, usually in the vicinity of development (residences, commercial buildings, and other farm compounds). This relative “paucity” of nesting trees is consistent with that noted in Estep and Dinsdale (2012), which characterized

Page 40 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report the habitat for a major portion of western Fresno County, including most of the area included in the quantitative analysis of foraging habitat in this report. Estep and Dinsdale (2012) also noted only limited “small riparian corridors” within the area west of Fresno Slough (nearly the entire area within 10 miles of the Project site and nests identified during surveys occurs west of Fresno Slough).

7.3.2.3 MAMMALS Because the Project site consists of tilled agricultural or developed land, terrestrial mammal species in general do not have potential to occur on the Project site. Therefore, small mammal species have no potential to occur, and medium-sized species, such as American badger (Taxidea taxus), are highly unlikely to occur. Special-status bat species discussed in Table 5, such as the western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) or the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), have some potential to forage on the Project site but do not have the potential to roost because of the absence of trees or suitable anthropogenic structures. Therefore, the only species the site has the potential to effect is San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), although as discussed below, the species does not have the potential den or forage on the site and has only a low potential to occur in transit from suitable areas (Please refer to Table 5, which describes the potential to occur for special-status wildlife species).

San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) The San Joaquin kit fox is a federally endangered and state threatened species that was once common in the San Joaquin Valley. It lives in annual grasslands or grassy open stages with scattered shrubby vegetation. It requires loose-textured sandy soils for burrowing and a suitable prey base. San Joaquin kit fox dispersal has been documented through disturbed habitats, including agricultural fields, oil fields, rangelands, and across highways and aqueducts (USFWS 1998). Cypher et al. (2007) modeled least-cost corridors for San Joaquin kit fox traveling across heavily agricultural areas between larger populations east of I-5 and the islands of habitat on the valley floor in western Fresno and Madera Counties. The Project site is outside any area modeled as a least-cost corridor under current conditions; therefore, San Joaquin kit fox are unlikely to be found in the area. In addition, a habitat suitability analysis shows pockets of suboptimal habitat adjacent to the Project site (Cypher et al. 2007).

Also, while San Joaquin kit fox are known to disperse through disturbed areas and forage in agricultural land, recent research suggests that a lack of escape dens or refugia, specifically in agricultural areas that typically discourage and prohibit burrowing small mammals, can be a limiting factor in dispersal of San Joaquin kit fox through cropland (Cypher et al. 2005). Burrows are important refugia for San Joaquin kit fox because they provide protection from the elements and predation. Artificial dens and burrows for San Joaquin kit fox in agricultural lands have been studied, and these studies have documented the use of these artificial refugia (Cypher et al. 2005).

The Project site does not provide ideal habitat for denning (artificial or natural) or foraging/hunting and is not a suitable movement corridor for the San Joaquin kit fox. Due to regular tilling of the Project site, and the lack of known occurrences in the immediate vicinity, the species is unlikely to establish dens. However, it may pass through the vicinity on occasion while moving between suitable habitat west of I-5 and limited suitable areas on the valley floor. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is approximately 8.2 miles southwest of the Project site (CDFW 2017) and documented individuals and dens observed from 1972 up

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 41 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California to 1988. More recent records (2000 or more recent) are documented approximately 17 miles or more west and south of the Project site. In addition, known occupied habitat is located west of I-5.

7.3.3 Hydrologic Feature Assessment

Evidence of hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation were thoroughly examined during the field assessment within the Project site. At the time of the wetland delineation field assessment, the Project site had been recently disked and the majority of the site was unvegetated or supported only sparse cover of non-native annual species, primarily prostrate pigweed (Amaranthus albus) and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). The Project site is dryland farmed for some years. No hydrophytic vegetation was identified during the field assessment. Due to the lack of hydrophytic vegetation, evidence of hydrology was used as the primary indicator for the potential presence of jurisdictional resources. Hydrologic features present within the survey area were limited to one ditch located in the southwestern portion of the site (Figure 5, Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination). The ditch consists of a narrow, linear depression between a cultivated field and an off-site equipment yard. Due to the location of the ditch in a slightly elevated position based on the local topography, runoff from the Project site is not anticipated to flow into the ditch, which instead would flow to the northeast. Water inputs into the ditch are presumed to consist of runoff from the off-site equipment yard, as evidenced by two culverts in the southwestern portion of the survey area. A third culvert was identified at the approximate center point of the ditch that appears to connect this feature to an off-site basin; however, no connectivity was identified between the basin and other local hydrologic features.

A single wetland determination data form was recorded within the ditch identified within the survey area. The ditch was found to support indicators of wetland hydrology (surface soil cracks – B6), though hydrophytic vegetation and indicators of wetland hydrology were found to be absent. No other hydrologic features were identified within the survey area. Full details of the results of the wetland delineation field assessment are provided in Appendix B. Based on the lack of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology, as well as the lack of connectivity to regional hydrologic features, the ditch identified on site is determined to be a non-jurisdictional feature. No wetlands, waters, or riparian habitats under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or the County were identified.

7.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages

Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide avenues for the migration and dispersal of animals. Wildlife corridors contribute to population viability by assuring continual exchange of genes between populations, providing access to adjacent habitat areas for foraging and mating and routes for recolonization of habitat after local extirpation or ecological catastrophes (e.g., fires).

Habitat linkages are small patches that join larger blocks of habitat and help reduce the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation. Habitat linkages provide a potential route for gene flow and long- term dispersal of plants and animals and may serve as primary habitat for smaller animals, such as

Page 42 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report reptiles and amphibians. Habitat linkages may be continuous habitat or discrete habitat islands that function as stepping stones for dispersal.

Based on the fact that the surrounding areas adjacent to the Project site are similar and intensively farmed, it is not considered likely that any portion of the Project site serves as an important linkage between habitats. In addition, there are no regional migratory wildlife corridors that have been identified by the County or state resources agencies.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 43 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Figure 3. Vegetation Communities

Page 44 September 2017, September August 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

Figure 4. Special-Status Species Occurrences within 5 Miles

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 45 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Figure 5. Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination

Page 46 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

8.0 PROJECT IMPACTS

The purpose of this section is to describe the direct and indirect impacts of the Project on special-status or regulated biological resources. The significance determinations for potential impacts are described below.

8.1 Definition of Impacts

As described in Section 3, Project Description, the Project includes the construction of an approximately 539-acre solar facility on a 585.2-acre Project site. The facility will be connected to the PG&E substation, adjacent to the Westside/Whitney Solar Projects. The entire proposed solar facility, including the gen-tie line, will be analyzed for impacts.

8.1.1 Direct Impacts

Direct impacts are impacts that result from direct ground-disturbing activities. These impacts can be either permanent or temporary impacts to habitat. For the Project, this includes the footprint of the solar facility. Direct impacts to habitat were quantified by using GIS software to overlay the proposed construction limits on biological resources. Direct impacts can also be impacts to individuals of wildlife species (mortality or injury). As direct habitat impacts include removal of agricultural land only, and relatively few biological resources occur in this land cover type, the Project will result in relatively few direct impacts.

8.1.1.1 PERMANENT DIRECT IMPACTS Permanent direct impacts consist of possible effects associated with construction of the approximately 539-acre solar facility footprint (Figure 6, Impacts to Biological Resources). Approximately 539 acres will incur permanent direct impacts. Permanent direct impacts could result from the construction of structures such as solar panels, tracking/support structures, inverters, and interconnection facilities. These structures would be enclosed within a perimeter security fence approximately 7 feet high. In addition to habitat impacts, these impacts can include impacts to individuals of wildlife species. No direct impacts will occur to special-status plants. As discussed in Section 7.3.1, Special-Status Plant Species, no special- status plants are expected to occur on site.

8.1.1.2 TEMPORARY DIRECT IMPACTS Temporary direct impacts consist of ground disturbance associated with construction activities that would not result in a permanent structure and that would be restored to substantially similar conditions after construction is complete. Temporary impacts may result from equipment staging, equipment turnaround areas, and construction access. Additionally, temporary direct impacts can occur from removal or trampling of vegetation outside designated work zones in the absence of avoidance and minimization measures.

There are no temporary direct impacts as a result of construction of the Project. Temporary impacts are not discussed further in this report.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 47 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

8.1.2 Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts are reasonably foreseeable effects to biological resources that could be caused by the Project on adjacent or remaining biological resources. Indirect impacts may be short-term construction- related impacts, such as those due to noise and dust, or long-term impacts, such as degradation of habitat, or impacts from activities during operations and maintenance. Indirect impacts were considered within 500 feet of the construction limits of the Project.

8.1.3 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts refer to the combined environmental effects of the Project and other relevant projects. In some cases, the impact from a single project may not be significant, but when combined with other projects, the cumulative impact may be significant. Analysis of cumulative impacts is based on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that may be constructed or commence operation during the timeframe of activity associated with the Project.

8.2 Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers

Development of the Project will require disturbance of nearly the entire 585.2-acre Project site (Figure 6). As stated in Section 7.1, Vegetation Communities, Land Covers, and Floral Diversity, the Project site consists of row-crop agricultural fields or developed land that are not considered sensitive vegetative communities. Therefore, there will be no ipacts to sensitive vegetation communities or land cover types and will not be discussed further. No riparian or wetland vegetation or communities were identified on the Project site; therefore, no impacts will occur and will not be discussed further.

8.3 Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species

There is no potential for direct and indirect impacts to special-status plant species within the Project site. As described in Section 7.3.1, no special-status plant species have potential to occur on site and will not be discussed further.

Page 48 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

Figure 6. Impacts to Biological Resources

September 2017, Revised August 2018 Page 49 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Page 50 September 2017, Revised September 2018 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

8.4 Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species

As noted previously, development of the Project will require disturbance of 539 acres of the 585.2-acre Project site (Figure 6). All of these impacts are direct permanent impacts. The Project will result in no temporary impacts to habitat for any wildlife species.

8.4.1 Direct Permanent Impacts

8.4.1.1 SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX No San Joaquin kit fox or its sign (e.g., tracks, scat, or prey remains) were documented throughout the 585.2 acres Project site. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is approximately 8.2 miles southwest of the Project site (CDFW 2017). In addition, no small mammal burrows were observed on the Project site, which is regularly tilled. Due to these factors and because regular tilling would deter establishment of even temporary dens, the species is unlikely to become resident on the Project site. Also, while it is not possible to conclude that kit fox would never visit the site, the species is unlikely to occur there on a regular basis. As noted in Section 7.3, Special-Status/Regulated Resources, the Project site is outside any area where it is likely to travel between suitable habitat patches. Therefore, impacts to San Joaquin kit fox habitat would be less than significant.

Although impacts to San Joaquin kit fox habitat would be less than significant, the species has a small potential to pass through the vicinity on occasion. Any impact to individual San Joaquin kit foxes would constitute take of a state- and federally listed species, and therefore, would be a significant impact.

8.4.1.2 BURROWING OWL As noted in Section 7.3, nesting habitat is not present on the Project site. Also, while burrowing owls nesting in the vicinity have a high potential to forage on the Project site, abundant suitable foraging habitat would remain in the vicinity. Therefore, impacts to burrowing owl habitat from the Project would be less than significant. However, if fields on the Project site remain fallow for long enough for California ground squirrels to become established, the species could nest there in the future. In the unlikely event that burrowing owls are present on the Project site at the time of construction, ground-disturbing activities could result in mortality to owls through entombment in burrows or could result in abandonment of nests and destruction of eggs, nests, or nestlings. Therefore, the potential loss of individual burrowing owls and/or active nests would be a potentially significant impact.

8.4.1.3 SWAINSON’S HAWK This species was not observed nesting on the site during the survey, and nesting habitat is absent. Also, as the site does not have potential to support nesting, only adults, subadults, and fully fledged juveniles have the potential to occur on the Project site (i.e., neither nestlings nor recently fledged juveniles have the potential to occur). Therefore, Swainson’s hawks occurring on the Project site would be highly mobile individuals easily capable of avoiding construction machinery and leaving the site once construction activities began. As nesting habitat is absent and Swainson’s hawks present on the Project site would be able to avoid injury or mortality, the Project would result in no direct permanent impacts to Swainson’s hawk nesting habitat or individuals.

Page 51 September 2017, Revised September 2018 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

The Project site was fallow in the spring and summer 2016 but showed signs of past cultivation for grains. No Swainson’s hawks were observed foraging on the Project site during surveys in 2016. However, this species is known to forage in row and grain crop agriculture (Bechard et al. 2010). CDFW (CDFG 1994) recommends mitigation of up to 1:1 for loss of foraging habitat within 1 mile of a Swainson’s hawk nest active in the past 5 years and 0.75:1 for loss of habitat between 1 and 5 miles from an active nest. All of the site is within 5 miles of at least one Swainson’s hawk nest that was active in the past 5 years, and the northern part of the site is within 1 mile of a Swainson’s hawk nest that was active in 2016. The effect of habitat loss depends on the quality of the habitat removed and the quantity of the remaining habitat. In addition, the density of nesting Swainson’s hawks in an area may rely on the quality and availability of nesting habitat. Areas where less high quality nesting habitat (i.e., riparian woodland) is available may support fewer nesting Swainson’s hawks, despite the presence of extensive foraging habitat (Estep and Dinsdale 2012). Nonetheless, the loss of foraging habitat of high quality and in sufficient quantity could reduce the available habitat to nesting Swainson’s hawks such that the number of pairs could be reduced in the vicinity.

The 539 acres of fallow agricultural land that would be removed by the Project would constitute a loss of approximately 0.33% of the total suitable foraging habitat within 10 miles of the Project site and nests identified by the desktop analysis (it would result in the loss of 0.27% of the area either identified as suitable or as “unknown,” and therefore, potentially suitable). Also, after removal of 539 acres of fallow agricultural land on the Project site, approximately 175,098 acres of land identified as suitable would remain and would potentially be available for foraging by Swainson’s hawks. This impact would be less than significant under CEQA.

Although this impact would be less than significant given the small percentage of habitat affected within the foraging range of nesting Swainson’s hawks and the large amount of habitat that would remain available, another factor further reduces the level of this impact. As noted in Estep and Dinsdale (2012), despite the large acreage of foraging habitat available to Swainson’s hawks west of Fresno Slough, the density of Swainson’s hawk nesting in this area is much lower compared to portions of the County east of Fresno Slough. At the same time, Estep and Dinsdale (2012) noted that a large proportion of the trees in the area between Fresno Slough and I-5 were occupied by nesting Swainson’s hawks. According to Estep and Dinsdale (2012), “this pattern suggests that the agricultural landscape in this area, while only moderately suitable compared with the eastern portion of the study area [east of Fresno Slough], could support additional Swainson’s Hawk nesting pairs and that the lack of nesting habitat may be the primary factor limiting population size in that area.” If Estep and Dinsdale (2012) are correct, then the loss of 539 acres of potential foraging habitat should not result in any reduction of Swainson’s hawk nesting near the Project site because limited opportunities for nesting likely already limit the number of Swainson’s hawk pairs in the area.

8.4.1.4 MOUNTAIN PLOVER Biological surveys were not conducted to detect mountain plovers. Conditions vary from winter to winter in the agricultural lands and pastures where this species is often found. Therefore, occurrence may be sporadic, and mountain plovers may occur on the site on occasion during winter or migration, depending on crop rotation and other factors influencing habitat conditions. Cultivated or tilled lands, such as occur

Page 52 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report on the Project site, are apparently less favored compared to fallow land, burned fields, and heavily grazed grasslands (Hunting and Edson 2008). Although no CNDDB occurrences are located within 10 miles of the Project site, the Project site is within the species’ wintering range (CDFW 2017), and extensive habitat similar to that on the Project site is present. However, the species occurs rarely in the region and currently occupies only a small percentage of suitable wintering habitat. In addition, as noted previously, habitat currently occurring on the Project site is less favored than other habitat types. Therefore, the loss of 539 acres of marginally suitable habitat that represents only a fraction of the habitat that is available in the region would be a less-than-significant impact. Also, as this species only winters in the region, only highly mobile adults or fully fledged subadults have the potential to occur. In the unlikely event that mountain plovers are present at the time of construction, such individuals would easily be able to avoid construction equipment and escape injury or mortality. Therefore, impacts to individual mountain plovers would be less than significant.

8.4.1.5 NORTHERN HARRIER Biological surveys were not conducted to detect northern harrier. Suitable foraging habitat is present on the Project site, and the species was observed in the immediate site vicinity on May 26, 2016. The species may potentially nest in grain or fallow fields. However, fallow fields observed in 2016 and the actively disked fields observed since provide marginally suitable to unsuitable nesting habitat. Impacts from loss of habitat would be less than significant, since abundant suitable habitat remains in the Central Valley, particularly in grains and crop fields, where the species has been known to nest (Macwhirter and Bildstein 1996). Although impacts to nesting habitat under existing conditions would be less than significant, should any nesting habitat occur in the future, impacts could result to individual harriers from destruction of nests, eggs, and young. The potential loss of individuals, nests, eggs, and/or young is a significant impact.

8.4.1.6 NESTING AND MIGRATORY BIRDS The Project site is void of all trees and shrubs, which birds may use for nesting. However, several species, such as horned larks and western meadowlarks, have the potential to nest in fallow or even recently disked fields. Therefore, the Project could result in impacts to nesting bird, including nest abandonment and destruction of nests, eggs, or nestlings, which constitute a violation of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503. Therefore, impacts to nesting birds would be potentially significant.

8.4.2 Short-Term Indirect Impacts

Short-term or temporary indirect impacts to special-status wildlife species would primarily result from grading/filling activities associated with the construction of the solar facility. All special-status wildlife species observed or with a low to high potential to occur on site could be impacted by potential the following temporary indirect impacts:

 Generation of Fugitive Dust. Dust can impact vegetation and agricultural lands surrounding the Project site, resulting in changes in the community structure and function. These changes could result in impacts to special-status wildlife species foraging or nesting (such as northern harrier) in adjacent lands. As stated previously, the impacts of fugitive dust could result in the decrease and productivity of the vegetative and agricultural communities.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 53 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

 Noise. Project-related noise could occur from equipment used during construction activities. Noise impacts can have a variety of indirect impacts on wildlife species within the area, including increased stress, weakened immune systems, altered foraging behavior, displacement due to startle, damaged hearing from extremely loud noises, and increased vulnerability to predators (Lovich and Ennen 2011). The use of mechanized hand tools could cause temporary disruption of behaviors for the period the tool is in use, including causing wildlife to temporarily vacate the area and suppressing important activities, such as foraging and nesting.

 Chemical Pollutants. Accidental spills of hazardous chemicals could contaminate surface waters and indirectly impact wildlife species through direct or secondary poisoning and other sub-lethal effects (e.g., endocrine impacts), reduced prey availability, or altering suitable habitat.

 Increased Human Activity. Construction activities can deter wildlife from using habitat areas near or adjacent to the proposed activities while activities are in progress. Although the surrounding vicinity is used for agricultural production, the more intensive human presence from construction could potentially alter the foraging and movement of wildlife species using the areas adjacent to the Project site.

 Trash and Garbage. Trash and garbage from Project-related activities could attract species such as ravens, crows, opossums, skunks, and raccoons that could impact special-status wildlife species on the Project site. Such impacts include potential for nest failures due to predation on eggs and chicks, occupancy of dens/burrows, and decrease in prey species by increase of competition. In addition, trash and garbage may attract special-status species to the Project site, such as the San Joaquin kit fox.

8.4.2.1 SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX Short-term indirect impacts that potentially affect San Joaquin kit fox include fugitive dust, noise, chemical pollutants, increased human activity, and trash and garbage. Indirect impacts affecting San Joaquin fox that may pass through the Project site would be significant.

8.4.2.2 BURROWING OWL Short-term indirect impacts that potentially affect burrowing owl include fugitive dust, noise, and increased human activity. Indirect impacts reducing nesting opportunities or a reduction in egg or chicks would be potentially significant.

8.4.2.3 SWAINSON’S HAWK Short-term indirect impacts that potentially affecting Swainson’s hawk include noise and increased human activity. Trees suitable for Swainson’s hawk nesting occur near the western boundary of the site, particularly at the corner of South Butte Avenue and West Paige Avenue, near the northwestern corner of the site. Suitable habitat also occurs less than 0.5 miles from the site farther south along South Butte Avenue and along SR-145 north of the site. Mitigation guidelines for impacts to Swainson’s hawks (CDFG 1994) suggest that construction activities within 0.5 miles of an occupied nest in a rural area could result in nest abandonment and loss of young. This would constitute take of a species listed as threatened under CESA; therefore, short-term indirect impacts to this species are a potentially significant impact.

Page 54 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

8.4.2.4 MOUNTAIN PLOVER Because of the relatively low habitat value of the Project site and vicinity for this species, its low likelihood of occurring there, and its ability to avoid effects of construction, no short-term indirect impacts are expected to mountain plover.

8.4.2.5 NORTHERN HARRIER Short-term indirect impacts that potentially affect northern harrier include fugitive dust, noise, chemical pollutants, increased human activity, and trash and garbage. Indirect impacts resulting in disruption of nesting, abandonment of nests, and injury or morality to young would be potentially significant.

8.4.2.6 NESTING AND MIGRATORY BIRDS Indirect impacts to nesting birds may result during construction and are limited to increased human activity and noise. The presence of construction noise and/or increased human activity may affect the nesting success of those species nesting in the vicinity. Specifically, nesting birds may abandon nests, resulting in nest failure and mortality to nests, eggs, or nestlings. This would constitute a violation of MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503, and would be a significant impact.

8.4.3 Long-Term Indirect Impacts

As described in Section 1.1, operations would be monitored remotely, and only periodic inspections and maintenance activities would occur on site. Solar panel washing would occur annually, or up to four times a year, depending on conditions. Because no special-status wildlife species habitat will occur on the project during this period, and surrounding areas are mostly agricultural, the temporary impacts from on-site activities would primarily occur to foraging activities or migratory movements of species that use agricultural environments. Because the operational activities would be temporary, low-level disturbances, such impacts would be less than significant. A potential exception involves Swainson’s hawk, for which nesting habitat occurs within approximately 250 feet of the project site, in ornamental trees on adjacent developed lands. Noise and human presence are the indirect impacts most likely to disturb nesting Swainson’s hawks.

Operational activities would result in only low noise levels in surrounding areas. As noted in the Noise Technical Report for the Project (Dudek 2018), noise levels would reach only 40 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at the nearest residences (around which the nearest potential Swainson’s hawk nesting habitat occurs). Table 1 of the Noise Technical Report describes this sound level as the equivalent of “quiet urban, nighttime” sound levels (Dudek 2018). In addition, this level roughly approximates or is lower than the ambient noise levels measured in the site vicinity (Dudek 2018). Similarly, temporary increased human presence more than 200 feet from a potential nest site is not likely to disturb nesting Swainson’s hawks, because suitable habitat occurs adjacent to residences, where human activity levels would already be relatively high. Therefore, because of the infrequent and low levels of disturbances, which would at best approximate existing disturbances, impacts to special-status wildlife from maintenance and operations would be less than significant.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 55 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Potential long-term or permanent indirect impacts may also include the low possibility of raptor electrocution with the construction of the gen-tie line. Concerns regarding potential electrocution or bird strike from power lines are primarily focused on avian species. Electrocution of avian species can occur from wing contact with two conductors, as avian species perching, landing, or taking off from a utility pole can complete the electrical circuit. Avian electrocutions can also occur through simultaneous contact with energized phase conductors and other equipment or simultaneous contact with an energized wire and a grounded wire. Electrocution of avian species poses a greater potential hazard to larger birds, such as raptors, because their body sizes and wingspans are large enough to bridge the distance between the conductor wires and, thus, complete the electrical circuit. Long-term indirect impacts to Swainson’s hawk from an increase in electrical circuits resulting in injury or mortality of individuals to this species would be potentially significant, as any mortality or injury to this species would constitute take of a state-listed species.

Potential rodent control during the operation of the Project would be implemented if rodent populations exceed an acceptable level, which would be evaluated through regular Project monitoring. As the Project site is situated within the range of several special-status species, trapping or baiting of target species will be the primary method for rodent control, if determined to be necessary. Baiting, trapping, or other control methods, will be implemented only in focused locations where rodent populations have been determined to have exceeded acceptable levels. Other rodent control methods including burrow fumigation, habitat modification, or placement of poison tracking powder would be implemented only after coordination with the operator and a qualified biologist to ensure that non-target species are not impacted. Further, prior to implementation, the operator will coordinate with the Fresno County agricultural commissioner for recommendations and approval of select pesticides. For any pesticide approved for rodent control, the product label will be thoroughly examined to indicate if any restrictions exist for application of the product within the ranges of the San Joaquin Kit Fox and other endangered and protected animals. Therefore, following the stipulations in the rodent control plan, impacts to special-status wildlife from rodent control would be less than significant.

Potential weed control during the operation of the Project would be implemented if noxious weed species are identified on site. If identified, the risks associated with each species would be assessed and suppression and containment of noxious weeds would be carried out based on those assessed risks following monitoring and recommendations provided by a qualified biologist. Noxious weeds in the context of the Project would include those that have been identified as injurious to wildlife species and habitat, and therefore, the risk assessment would include potential threats to special-status wildlife species and control measures to be implemented to ensure that noxious weeds do not exceed pre-construction levels. Mechanical and chemical removal techniques will be utilized; however, hand removal will be the primary method of noxious weed control, as feasible. Any chemical herbicides utilized on site would be County-approved. For any herbicide approved for noxious weed control, the product label will be thoroughly examined to indicate if any restrictions exist for application of the product within the ranges of the San Joaquin Kit Fox, other endangered and protected animals, and special status plants. Therefore, following the stipulations in the noxious weed control management plan, impacts to special-status wildlife would be less than significant.

Page 56 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

8.5 Impacts to Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Connectivity

Natural habitats patches that permit wildlife to move between large areas of habitat, such as between the Coast Range foothills to the west of I-5 and isolated areas of suitable habitat on the Valley floor, are absent from the Project site and vicinity. In addition, larger habitat areas on the Valley floor, such as the Mendota Wildlife Area and the Kerman Ecological Reserve, are located well to the north or south, therefore away from expected travel routes of species such as American badger or San Joaquin kit fox. A least-cost corridor analysis conducted for San Joaquin kit fox under current conditions (Cypher et al. 2007) and under a proposed alternative for disposing of agricultural drainage water identified no potential corridors for San Joaquin kit fox near the Project site (Cypher et al. 2007). The drainage issue has not since been resolved, and conditions affecting San Joaquin kit fox movement in the region remain the same. Therefore, because no movement corridors occur in the vicinity, the Project would not result in impacts to wildlife movement.

8.6 Impacts to Hydrologic Features

As detailed in Appendix B and Section 7.3.3, Hydrologic Feature Assessment, no wetlands, waters, or riparian habitats under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or the County were identified. Therefore, no impacts would occur to hydrologic features.

8.7 Impacts to Regional Resource Planning

With implementation of appropriate species mitigation, the Project will not conflict with any adopted local plan, such as the County General Plan (Fresno County 2000). Thus, there will be no impact to regional resource planning.

8.8 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts refer to a project’s environmental effects that are cumulatively considerable (i.e., the project’s incremental effects are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, and reasonably foreseeable future projects (14 CCR 15130[a] and 15065[a][3]). Because the Project would not result in impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, rare plants, hydrologic features, or wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity, it would make no cumulative contribution to impacts to these resources. As noted previously, the agricultural land on the Project site is also not suitable or marginally suitable for most special-status wildlife species. The primary exception is Swainson’s hawk. Although Project-level impacts to foraging habitat would be less than significant, as described previously, impacts on foraging habitat may be cumulatively considerable when considered with impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. As Project-level impacts to several other bird species (i.e., burrowing owl, mountain plover, and northern harrier) are noted previously, although considered less than significant, these are also analyzed below for whether effects are cumulatively considerable.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 57 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

8.8.1 Cumulative Study Area

The Project is located in an expanse of mostly agricultural lands in the western portion of the San Joaquin Valley that extends well beyond the boundaries of the County. Efforts to delineate the cumulative study area at the County level, or within the San Joaquin Valley portion of the County, would be arbitrary. Therefore, the cumulative study area is based on standards for assessing foraging impacts to Swainson’s hawk, which have been established in the Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (CDFG 1994). As noted above, this analysis covers impacts within 10 miles of any known Swainson’s hawk nest. Therefore, the baseline analysis below covers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within 10 miles of the Project. Habitat impacts within this area are analyzed based on the County Assessor’s Office 2012 land use data (Fresno County 2012). Although these data do not include traditional vegetation data, they include data relevant to farming practices (Fresno County 2012). Because Project impacts occur only to agricultural land, and none occur to natural land covers, only data on agricultural land use is relevant. Therefore, cumulative impacts to parcels within 10 miles of the Project site and with land use designations for field crops and dry-land farming are considered (this excludes agricultural uses such as vineyards and orchards that do not provide similar habitat to those agricultural uses on the Project site).

Because impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat are based on nests that occur within 10 miles of foraging habitat impacts, the cumulative analysis for Swainson’s hawk is extended to include habitat within 10 miles of known nests. However, the Project list is the same for the cumulative analysis for other wildlife species and includes only those within 10 miles of the Project site.

8.8.2 Cumulative Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species

The cumulative study area includes two land use types that are consistent with the land cover type on the Project site: field crops and dry-land farming. One additional land use category supports habitat for species potentially occurring on the Project site: pasture. The total acreage of these land use types in the study area and project-level and cumulative impacts are in Table 7.

Table 7. Cumulative Impacts to Wildlife Habitat in the Study Area

Cumulative Project Project-Level Impacts Land-Use Category Study Area (Acres) Impacts (Acres) (Acres)

Dry-land farming 875.9 0.0 0.0 Field crops 162,593.7 14,910.0 538.7 Pasture 11,817.8 665.7 0.0 Total 175,287.3 15,575.7 538.7

 Field crops: 162,594 acres

 Dry-land farming: 876 acres

 Pasture: 11,818 acres

Page 58 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

The total area occupied by these land use categories is 175,287 acres. Development of the Project and other planned and approved projects would result in impacts to 15,576 acres of these land use categories (to field crops because no impacts would occur to dry-land farming), which may serve as habitat to special-status wildlife species. The Project’s contribution to this impact is 539 acres.

8.8.2.1 BURROWING OWL As noted in Section 8.4.1.2, the Project site does not support nesting habitat for burrowing owl under existing conditions. However, the field crops occurring on the Project site support suitable foraging habitat for burrowing owl. The study area supports 175,287 acres of land use categories that potentially provide foraging habitat for burrowing owl. Development of the Project and other planned and approved projects would result in impacts to 15,576 of these categories, or 9% of the potentially suitable habitat in the study area. The Project’s contribution to this impact would be 539 acres. However, 159,712 acres of suitable foraging habitat would remain in the study area that would be available for burrowing owl foraging. In addition, nesting areas for this species are limited to small areas that remain untilled or otherwise undisturbed for extended periods. Available nesting habitat, not foraging habitat, is the primary limiting factor for burrowing owls in the study area. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to the loss of burrowing owl foraging habitat in the study area would not be cumulatively considerable, and this impact would be less than significant.

Section 8.4.1.2 also notes that burrowing owls are unlikely to occur on the Project site in the future, and therefore, the Project is unlikely to result in mortality or injury of burrowing owls. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to direct impacts to individual burrowing owls would not be cumulatively considerable, and this impact would be less than significant. However, Section 8.4.2.2 notes that short- term indirect impacts to burrowing owl from fugitive dust, noise, and increased human presence would be potentially significant at the Project level.

8.8.2.2 MOUNTAIN PLOVER The study area supports 175,287 acres of potentially suitable winter foraging habitat for mountain plover. Development of the Project and other planned and approved projects would result in impacts to 15,576 of these categories, or 9% of the potentially suitable habitat in the study area. The Project’s contribution to this impact would be 539 acres. As noted in Section 8.4.1.4, the Project site supports only marginally suitable winter foraging habitat for mountain plover, which favors fallow land, burned fields, and heavily grazed grasslands. The land-use category most suitable for mountain plover foraging is pasture. Because the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to this land cover and would instead contribute only to impacts to marginally suitable land covers, impacts to mountain plover winter foraging habitat would not be cumulatively considerable, and this impact would be less than significant.

As noted in Section 8.4.1.4, the Project would not result in direct impacts to individual mountain plovers or to short-term indirect impacts to the species. Therefore, the Project would make no cumulative contribution to these impacts. If other projects potentially result in short-term indirect impacts to individual burrowing owls, the Project’s contribution to this impact could be cumulatively considerable, and therefore, potentially significant. Measures for reducing this impact to less than significant are discussed in Section 9.9.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 59 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

8.8.2.3 NORTHERN HARRIER The study area supports 175,287 acres of potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat for northern harrier. Development of the Project and other planned and approved projects would result in impacts to 15,576 of these categories, or 9% of the potentially suitable habitat in the study area. The Project’s contribution to this impact would be 539 acres. As noted in Section 8.4.1.5, the regularly disked fields on the Project site currently provide marginally suitable habitat for the species. Although some crops, such as grain crops, may provide both nesting and foraging habitat for the species, no crops have been observed planted on the field during recent visits. Also, abundant similar habitat, in addition to the presence of more suitable habitats, would remain available to the species. Because of this, the Project site provides only marginally suitable habitat for the species under existing conditions. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to impacts to northern harrier nesting and foraging habitat would not be cumulative considerable, and this impact would be less than significant.

In Section 8.4.1.5, direct impacts to nesting individual northern harriers and to their nests, eggs, and young are considered potentially significant. Short-term indirect impacts from noise and human disturbance to northern harriers nesting nearby are also a potentially significant impact, as described in Section 8.4.2.5. If other projects potentially result in direct or short-term indirect impacts to individual northern harriers, the Project’s contribution to this impact could be cumulatively considerable, and therefore, potentially significant. Measures for reducing this impact to less than significant are discussed in Section 9.9.

8.8.2.4 SWAINSON’S HAWK Because no direct impacts would occur to Swainson’s hawk nesting habitat or known Swainson’s hawk nesting locations, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to nesting habitat. Therefore, the analysis below focuses on cumulative impacts to foraging habitat.

Cumulative impacts to Swainson’s hawks are analyzed based on impacts to foraging habitat for known Swainson’s hawk nests within the study area. In addition to the four Swainson’s hawk nest locations shown on Figure 4, CNDDB includes seven nesting occurrences within 10 miles (CDFW 2017; Figure 7). Four of the CNDDB occurrences are located well south of the Project site; two are located along the California aqueduct, 6 to 7 miles west of the site; and one is approximately 8 miles northeast of the site. The area within 10 miles of the 11 known Swainson’s hawk nesting locations supports 312,242 acres with land use categories suitable for Swainson’s hawk nesting. The same area supports 165,768 acres that are unsuitable and 94,218 acres that are of unknown suitability because no land use data were assigned to the parcels or no data are available because the area falls within Kings County. Assuming that all proposed projects will be built (which is unlikely), development of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within 10 miles of the Project site would result in impacts to 15,576 acres, or 4%, of known suitable habitat. The Project’s contribution to this impact would be 539 acres, or 0.02%. In the worst-case scenario of all foreseeable projects being built, 296,666 acres (96%) of suitable Swainson’s hawk habitat within 10 miles of known occurrences will remain available for foraging.

As stated in Section 8.4.1.3, Estep and Dinsdale (2012) noted that the density of Swainson’s hawk nesting west of Fresno Slough (which includes the Project site) is much lower compared to portions of the County east of Fresno Slough despite the large acreage of foraging habitat available to Swainson’s hawks to the

Page 60 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report west. At the same time, Estep and Dinsdale (2012) noted that a large proportion of the trees in the area between Fresno Slough and I-5 were occupied by nesting Swainson’s hawks. According to Estep and Dinsdale (2012), “this pattern suggests that the agricultural landscape in this area, while only moderately suitable compared with the eastern portion of the study area [east of Fresno Slough], could support additional Swainson’s Hawk nesting pairs and that the lack of nesting habitat may be the primary factor limiting population size in that area.” If Estep and Dinsdale (2012) are correct, then the loss of 539 acres of potential foraging habitat should not result in any reduction of Swainson’s hawk nesting near the Project site because limited opportunities for nesting likely already limit the number of Swainson’s hawk pairs in the area. Because the reduction of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat from the Project itself would likely not reduce Swainson’s hawk nesting in the region, and that abundant suitable habitat would remain for the Swainson’s hawks that occupy the limited nesting habitat within 10 miles of the Project site, the Project’s contribution to impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and to the reduction of the Swainson’s hawk population would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

In addition, because the Project would not result in direct impacts to Swainson’s hawk nesting, and any adult or fully fledged Swainson’s hawks, which are highly mobile, would be able to avoid construction impacts, the Project would make no cumulative contribution to impacts to individual Swainson’s hawks from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

However, as discussed in Section 8.4.2.3, short-term indirect impacts to Swainson’s hawks from noise and human disturbance are potentially significant at the Project level. The level of short-term indirect impacts from all past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects is unknown. Therefore, it should be assumed that the Project’s contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable, and therefore, significant. Measures for avoiding impacts are discussed in Section 9.9.

September 2017, Revised September 2018 Page 61 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

Figure 7. Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Project-Level and Cumulative Impacts

September 2017, Revised August 2018 Page 62 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

9.0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

The purpose of this section is to identify the significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Project.

9.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance

Impacts to special-status vegetation communities, plants, wildlife species, and jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, must be quantified and analyzed to determine whether such impacts are significant under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064(b), states that an ironclad definition of “significant” effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, however, provides “examples of consequences that may be deemed to be a significant effect on the environment” (14 CCR 15064[e]). These effects include substantial effects on rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15065(a) is also helpful in defining whether a project may have “a significant effect on the environment.” Under that section, a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment if the project has the potential to (1) substantially degrade the quality of the environment, (2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, (3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or (6) eliminate important examples of a major period of California history or prehistory (14 CCR 15065[a]).

The following are the significance thresholds for biological resources provided in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, which states that a project could potentially have a significant affect if it does the following (14 CCR 15000 et seq.):

Impact BIO-1. Has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as being a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW.

Impact BIO-2. Has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.

Impact BIO-3. Has a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrologic interruption, or other means.

Impact BIO-4. Interferes substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Impact BIO-5. Conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Page 63 September 2017, Revised August 2018 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

 Impact BIO-6. Conflicts with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

9.2 Impact BIO-1: Special-Status Wildlife Species

Overall, the Project will have negligible impacts to special-status wildlife species because development would occur on agricultural or developed land. In addition, because adjacent lands are disturbed and developed or are also used for agriculture, relatively few biological resources occur in these areas that would be affected by the Project. In addition, operations and maintenance activities would be only periodic and would be low level disturbances, such as solar panel washing.

Potentially significant impacts identified in Section 8.4, Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species, include the small potential for direct impacts to San Joaquin kit fox that may use the Project site while moving between suitable areas of habitat; the small potential for direct impacts to burrowing owls, should the site remain fallow and untilled for an extended period, and burrowing owls occupy the site at the time of construction; and the small potential to disrupt the nesting of northern harriers, and therefore, result in nest failure and the loss of a nest, eggs, or nestlings. As described in Section 8.4, the Project would not result in a significant impact from the loss of nesting or foraging habitat. However, the loss of individuals of these species would be potentially significant without mitigation.

Potential short-term indirect impacts to special-status wildlife, including fugitive dust, chemical pollutants, noise, increased human activity, and trash and garbage, would be potentially significant, absent mitigation. Long-term indirect impacts to Swainson’s hawks or other raptors because of the potential for raptor electrocution from the gen-tie line would be potentially significant without mitigation.

MM-BIO-1.1 through MM-BIO-1.7 described in Section 10, Measures Mitigating Significant Impacts, would reduce potential direct and indirect impacts to these special-status wildlife species to less than significant level.

9.3 Impact BIO-1: Nesting and Migratory Birds

The Project site is void of all trees and shrubs, which can be used for nesting birds. However, suitable nesting trees surrounding residential development adjacent to the Project site could potentially be used by nesting birds. In addition, the Project site and adjacent agricultural fields could be used for ground nesting birds. Direct impacts to nesting or migratory birds that could result from the Project are considered a less- than-significant impact with mitigation. However, impacts could result from Project activities if nesting birds are present in the Project site at the time of construction and activities cause nest abandonment or mortality of young. MM-BIO-1.4 described in Section 10 would reduce potential impacts to nesting and migratory birds to less than significant.

Page 64 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

9.4 Impact BIO-2: Sensitive Natural Communities

As detailed in Section 7.1, Vegetation Communities, Land Covers, and Floral Diversity, no sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat, were identified. Therefore, no significant impacts to sensitive natural communities will occur.

9.5 Impact BIO-3: State- and Federally Protected Wetlands and Waters

As detailed in Section 7.3.3, no wetlands, waters, or riparian habitats under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or the County were identified. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur to the existing ditch or the culverts.

9.6 Impact BIO-4: Wildlife Movement

As detailed Section 7.4, Wildlife Corridor and Habitat Linkages, it is not considered likely that any portion of the Project site serves as an important linkage between habitats. In addition, there are no regional migratory wildlife corridors or potential fish habitat that have been identified on the Project site. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur to wildlife movement.

9.7 Impact BIO-5: Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources

With implementation of mitigation measures MM-BIO-1.1, MM-BIO-1.2, and MM-BIO-1.3, the Project will not conflict with any adopted local plan, such as the County General Plan (Fresno County 2000), as it relates to resources found on the Project site. Thus, no conflicts with local policies or ordinances are anticipated.

9.8 Impact BIO-6: Conflicts with Habitat Conservation Plans

There are no adopted habitat conservation plans; natural community conservation plans; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that cover the Project site. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with any provisions from an adopted local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

9.9 Impact BIO-7: Cumulative Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species

Although Section 8 identified no cumulatively considerable contributions to wildlife habitat impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the Project could result in cumulatively

September 2017, Revised August 2018 Page 65 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California considerable contributions to direct and short-term impacts to individual nesting northern harriers and short-term indirect impacts to individual burrowing owls. It could also result in noise and human disturbance that could constitute a cumulatively considerable contribution to short-term indirect impacts to Swainson’s hawks. Implementation of MM-BIO-1.4 described in Section 10 would result in avoidance of impacts to northern harrier individuals and their nests, eggs, and/or young. Therefore, with implementation of this measure, the Project’s contribution to direct and short-term indirect impacts to northern harriers would not be cumulatively considerable, and this impact would be reduced to less than significant. Implementation of MM-BIO-1.3 would require surveys and avoidance of burrowing owls and exclusion of owls during the non-breeding season if necessary. Implementation of this measure would reduce the Project’s contribution to cumulative indirect impacts to burrowing owls and would reduce this impact to less than significant. Implementation of MM-BIO-1.6 would result in identification of any nesting Swainson’s hawks within 0.5 miles of construction activities and require avoidance of impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks. Because this measure would ensure avoidance of impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks, the Project would not contribute to cumulative indirect impacts to Swainson’s hawks.

Page 66 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

10.0 MEASURES MITIGATING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

Recommended mitigation measures are included for special-status species. Significant direct and indirect impacts to special-status species will be mitigated to less than significant with implementation of the following measures.

10.1 Impact BIO-1: Special-Status Wildlife Species

Potentially significant impacts to special-status wildlife species discussed in Section 8.4, including San Joaquin kit fox, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, mountain plover, northern harrier, and nesting birds, will be less than significant with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures.

MM-BIO-1.1 San Joaquin Kit Fox. The Applicant shall have a qualified biologist conduct a pre- construction habitat assessment and burrow survey for San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to any construction-related activities. Surveys will be conducted on the Project site and within a 200-foot buffer zone within areas where legal access is available in order to evaluate and ascertain whether San Joaquin kit fox is using the Project site. Surveys will search for burrows/dens to ensure that San Joaquin kit fox or other burrowing animals, including burrowing owls, are not present. If it is determined that the site is unsuitable for denning because of tilling, then no survey needs to be conducted.

If an active San Joaquin kit fox den is observed within the work area or 200-foot buffer zone, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) shall be contacted prior to disturbance within 200 feet of the den to determine the best course of action. If no San Joaquin kit fox activity is detected, work shall continue as planned, and a brief memorandum shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS after the completion of the pre-construction survey.

While a San Joaquin kit fox is not anticipated to access the site during construction, the Applicant shall implement precautionary measures that includes recommendations described in the Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance developed by the USFWS (2011):

1. Project-related vehicles shall observe a 20-mile-per-hour speed limit in all Project areas, except on Fresno County (County) roads and state and federal highways; this is particularly important at night when San Joaquin kit foxes are most active. Off- road traffic outside of designated Project areas shall be prohibited.

2. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4 inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for San Joaquin kit fox before the pipe is

September 2017, Revised August 2018 Page 67 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a San Joaquin kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the San Joaquin kit fox has escaped.

3. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed regularly from the construction or Project site.

4. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in Project areas shall be restricted. Specifically, all uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other state and federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the USFWS. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide shall be used because of proven lower risk to San Joaquin kit fox.

5. To prevent harassment, mortality of San Joaquin kit fox, or destruction of dens by dogs or cats, no pets should be permitted on Project site. In addition, workers shall not feed wildlife. Escape ramps shall be provided for all open trenches or ditches deeper than 2 feet to allow animals to escape.

6. During the site disturbance and/or construction phase, grading and construction activities after dusk should be prohibited unless coordinated through the County, during which additional San Joaquin kit fox mitigation measures may be required.

7. Any contractor or employee who inadvertently kills or injures a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. The representative shall contact the USFWS and CDFW immediately in the case of a dead, injured, or entrapped kit fox.

8. The USFWS and CDFW shall be notified in writing within 3 working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project-related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information.

MM-BIO-1.2 Worker Education Training. Within 30 days prior to initiation of site disturbance and/or construction, all personnel associated with the Project should attend a worker education training program conducted by a qualified biologist to avoid or reduce impacts on sensitive biological resources. At a minimum, the training shall include the life history information for San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and nesting birds; all mitigation measures specified by Fresno County

Page 68 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

(County); and any related biological reports prepared for the Project. The Applicant should notify the County shortly prior to this meeting. A San Joaquin kit fox fact sheet shall also be developed prior to the training program and distributed at the training program to all contractors, employers, and other personnel involved with the construction of the Project.

MM-BIO-1.3 Burrowing Owl. The Applicant should retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre- construction burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) surveys. If the site has not been recently tilled, the qualified biologist should determine whether it is necessary survey all parts of the site. The survey should be conducted no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities in the area. If active burrows are detected, the required avoidance measures should conform to the following:

If burrowing owls are observed using burrows during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31), occupied burrows should be left undisturbed, and no construction activity should take place within 160 feet of the burrow where feasible. If disturbance of burrowing owls and burrows is unavoidable, burrowing owls should be excluded from all active burrows through the use of exclusion devices placed in occupied burrows in accordance with CDFW protocols (Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation [CDFG 1995, 2012]). Specifically, exclusion devices, using one-way doors, should be installed in the entrance of all active burrows. The devices should be left in the burrows for at least 48 hours to ensure that all burrowing owls have been excluded from the burrows. Each of the burrows should then be excavated by hand and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Exclusion should continue until the burrowing owls have been successfully excluded from the disturbance area, as determined by a qualified biologist.

If burrowing owls are observed using burrows during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), active burrowing owl burrows should not be disturbed, and burrowing owls should not be relocated. Construction activities should not be conducted within 300 feet of an active burrow at this season.

MM-BIO-1.4 Nesting Birds. If ground-disturbing activities cannot be completed outside the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), the following measures shall be implemented:

1. A pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of special-status birds or common bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the construction zone or within 100 feet (200 feet for non-listed raptors) of the construction zone.

2. The survey should be conducted within 1 week prior to construction or site preparation activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of

September 2017, Revised August 2018 Page 69 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

native bird species potentially nesting on the site (typically March 1 through August 30).

3. If active nests are found, a minimum 100-foot (this distance may be greater depending on the bird species and construction activity, as determined by the biologist) fence barrier shall be erected around the nest site where it overlaps with work areas, and clearing and construction within the fenced area should be postponed or halted, at the discretion of the biological monitor, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. In addition, all active nests shall be mapped with a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and nest locations with 100-foot buffers overlaid on aerial photographs (200 feet for raptors) to provide regular updated information to the Project manager/engineer and construction crew of areas to avoid. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during the breeding season to ensure that there are no inadvertent impacts to nesting birds.

MM-BIO-1.5 Avian Power Line Interaction Committee Measures. Construction of the gen-tie line shall apply Avian Power Line Interaction Committee measures as described in Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines (APLIC 2006).

MM-BIO-1.6 Swainson’s Hawk Survey and Avoidance. Should construction be scheduled during the Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) nesting season (March 1 through September 15), pre-construction Swainson’s hawk surveys should conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-endorsed protocol for the Central Valley (Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley [SHTAC 2000]). These surveys should be conducted over all areas within 0.5 miles of the proposed construction.

Any Swainson’s hawk nest found within 0.5 miles of any proposed construction activity during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1 through September 15) should be monitored periodically by a biologist approved by CDFW. Monitoring should continue until the nest is empty, and the adult and young Swainson’s hawks have left the area. The biologist will issue periodic reports on the status of the nesting hawks, noting whether Swainson’s hawks are still present and describing the stage of breeding activities. Once the Swainson’s hawks have left the area, restrictions on construction shall be lifted.

MM-BIO-1.7 Indirect Impacts to Special-Status Species. The following best management practices shall be implemented to minimize indirect impacts to special-status species:

1. Minimize construction impacts. The construction limits shall be flagged prior to ground-disturbance activities, and all construction activities, including equipment staging and maintenance, shall be conducted within the flagged disturbance limits.

Page 70 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

2. Avoid Toxic Substances on Road Surfaces. Soil-binding and weighting agents used on unpaved surfaces shall be non-toxic to wildlife and plants.

3. Minimize Spills of Hazardous Materials. All vehicles and equipment shall be maintained in proper condition to minimize the potential for fugitive emissions of motor oil, antifreeze, hydraulic fluid, grease, or other hazardous materials. Hazardous spills shall be immediately cleaned up and the contaminated soil shall be properly handled or disposed of at a licensed facility.

September 2017, Revised August 2018 Page 71 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

11.0 LITERATURE CITED

AOS (American Ornithological Society). 2017. 2017 Checklist of North and Middle American Birds. Accessed August 2017. http://www.americanornithology.org/content/checklist-north-and- middle-american-birds.

APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California: Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission.

Bechard, Marc J., C. Stuart Houston, Jose H. Saransola, and A. Sidney England. 2010. “Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni).” In The Birds of North America Online. (P.G. Rodewald, ed.). Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed August 2017. https://birdsna.org/Species- Account/bna/species/swahaw.

Bing Maps. 2016. Aerial Maps [GIS basemap]. Accessed March 2017.

Calflora. 2017. Information on California Plants for Education, Research and Conservation. [web application]. 2009. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database. Available at http://www.calflora.org/.

CalHerps (California Herps). 2017. A Guide to the Amphibian and Reptiles of California. Accessed August 2017. http://www.californiaherps.com.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. November 8, 1994.

CDFG. 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. October 17, 1995.

CDFG. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Sacramento, California: CDFG. November 24, 2009. Accessed August 2017. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/protocols_for_ surveying_and_evaluating_impacts.pdf.

CDFG. 2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations: Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form. Sacramento, California: CDFG. September 2010. Accessed March 2017. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp.

CDFG. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7, 2012.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. Rarefind 5: Commercial version. California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed March 2017. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. Published December 9, 1983, revised June 2, 2001.

Page 72 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

CNPS. 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Online edition, v8-02. Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. Accessed March 2017. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Coulombe, H.N. 1971. “Behavior and Population Ecology of the Burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California.” Condor 73:162–176.

Crother, B.I. 2012. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding. 7th ed. Herpetological Circular No. 39. Prepared by the Standard English and Scientific Names Committee. Shoreview, Minnesota: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. August 2012.

Cypher, B.L., P.A. Kelly, D.F. Williams, H.O. Clark Jr., A.D. Brown, and S.E. Phillips. 2005. Foxes in Farmland: Recovery of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox on Private Lands in California. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. California State University, Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program. June 27, 2005.

Cypher, B.L., S.E. Phillips, and P.A. Kelly. 2007. Habitat Suitability and Potential Corridors for San Joaquin Kit Fox in the San Luis Unit, Fresno, Kings, and Merced Counties, California. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation South-Central California Area Office and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program. California State University, Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program. May 22, 2007.

Cypher, E.A. 2002. “General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines.” Bakersfield, California: California State University, Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program. Revised July 2002. Accessed August 2017. https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols- Guidelines/Documents/rare_plant_protocol.pdf.

Davis, J.N., and C.A. Niemela. 2008. “Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus).” In California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California, ed. W.D. Shuford and T. Gardali, 149–155. In Studies of Western Birds 1. Camarillo, California: Western Field Ornithologists, and Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game.

Dudek. 2016a. Environmental Critical Issues Analysis: South Lake Solar Energy Project, Fresno County, California. Draft Version No. 001. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources LLC. December 2016.

Dudek. 2016b. Swainson’s Hawk Survey for the South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project Site, Western Fresno County, California. Prepared for NextEra Energy LLC. August 2016.

Dudek. 2017. Draft Biological Field Assessment Memorandum for the South Lake Solar Energy Project, Fresno County, California. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources LLC. April 2017.

September 2017, Revised August 2018 Page 73 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Dudek. 2018. Noise Technical Report. South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project , Fresno County, California. Prepared for South Lake Solar, LLC. July 2018.

Estep, J.A., and J.L Dinsdale. 2012. “Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Associations of Nesting Swainson’s Hawks in the Central San Joaquin Valley, California.” Central Valley Birding Club Bulletin 15:84–106.

FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2. FGDC-STD-005-2008. Reston, Virginia: Federal Geographic Data Committee, FGDC Secretariat, U.S. Geological Survey. February 2008. Accessed March 2016. https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards- projects/vegetation/NVCS_V2_FINAL_2008-02.pdf.

Fresno County. 2000. “Open Space and Conservation Element.” In Fresno County General Plan. October 2000. Accessed August 2017. http://www2.co.fresno.ca.us/4510/4360/ General_Plan/GP_Final_policy_doc/Open_Space_Element_rj.pdf.

Fresno County. 2012. Assessor’s Parcel Data [GIS data]. Accessed September 2017. http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departmentpage.aspx?id=16313.

Gervais, J.A., D.K. Rosenberg, and L.A. Comrack. 2008. “Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia).” In California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California, edited by W.D. Shuford and T. Gardali, 218–226. Studies of Western Birds no. 1. California: Western Field Ornithologists (Camarillo), and California Department of Fish and Game (Sacramento). February 4, 2008. Accessed August 2017. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/ Conservation/SSC/Birds.

Green, G.A., and R.G. Anthony. 1989. “Nesting Success and Habitat Relationships of Burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon.” Condor 91:347–354.

Hunting, K., and L. Edson. 2008. “Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus).” In California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California, ed. W.D. Shuford and T. Gardali, 180–186. In Studies of Western Birds 1. Camarillo, California: Western Field Ornithologists; Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game.

Jepson Flora Project. 2017. Jepson eFlora. Berkeley, California: University of California. Accessed August 2017. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange/.

Lovich, J.E., and J.R. Ennen. 2011. “Wildlife Conservation and Solar Energy Development in the Desert Southwest, United States.” Bioscience 61:982–992.

Macwhirter, R.B., and K.L. Bildstein. 1996. “Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus).” In The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed August 2017. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/210.

Page 74 September 2017, Revised September 2018 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Biological Technical Report

Martin, D.J. 1973. “Selected Aspects of Burrowing owl Ecology and Behavior.” Condor 75: 446–456.

Poulin, R.G., L. Danielle Todd, E.A. Haug, B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 2011. “Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). In The Birds of North America Online (P.G. Rodewald, ed.). Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. August 2017. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/ species/burowl.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd ed. Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society.

SHTAC (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. May 31, 2000.

Swolgaard, C.A., K.A. Reeves, and D.A. Bell. 2008. “Foraging by Swainson’s Hawks in a Vineyard- Dominated Landscape.” Journal of Raptor Research 42(3): 188–196.

Thomson, R.C., A.N. Wright, and H.B. Shaffer. 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Oakland, California: University of California Press.

UC Davis (University of California, Davis). 2017. Tricolored Blackbird Portal. Colony Locations. University of California Davis. Accessed August 2017. http://tricolor.ice.ucdavis.edu/locations/ public?field_county_value=21.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2017a. Web Soil Survey. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed August 2017. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

USDA. 2017b. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed August 2017. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.aspx.

USDA. 2017c. “California.” State PLANTS Checklist. Accessed August 2017. http://plants.usda.gov/dl_state.html.

USDA. 2017d. CropScape – Cropland Data layer. USDA: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Accessed August 2017. https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/ CropScape/.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region One. September 1998.

USFWS. 2003. “Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum.” April 15, 2003.

USFWS. 2011. Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Prepared by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. January 2011.

September 2017, Revised August 2018 Page 75 Biological Technical Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

USFWS. 2017a. “Critical Habitat and Occurrence Data” [map]. Accessed August 2017. http://www.fws.gov/data.

USFWS. 2017b. Information for Planning and Conservation System. Online database. Accessed August 2017. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

USFWS. 2017c. National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/ wetlands/data/Mapper.html. Accessed March 2017.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2017a. Watershed Boundary Dataset. Accessed August 2017. https://nhd.usgs.gov/wbd.html.

USGS. 2017b. National Hydrography Dataset. Viewer. Accessed March 2017. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/ viewer/nhd.html?p=nhd.

Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd ed. Online version. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California’s Wildlife. Vol. II. Birds. Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game.

Page 76 September 2017, Revised September 2018

APPENDIX A Descriptions of Soils Occurring on the Project Site

South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Appendix A

Based on review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resource Conservation Service web soil survey (USDA NCRS 2017), the soils on the Project site include Ciervo, Posochanet clay loam, and Cerini clay loam. A brief summary of the soils located on the Project site is provided herein based on the series descriptions provided by the USDA NRCS because biological resources can often be associated with various substrates; this is particularly true of some special-status plant species and wetland resources. These soils vary in depth, fertility, and permeability.

A brief description of the surface soils present within the Project site based on the USDA NRCS Official Soil Series Descriptions (OSDs) (USDA NRCS 2017) is provided below.

Ciervo, Wet-Ciervo Complex, Saline-Sodic, 0 to 1 Percent Slopes The Ciervo series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils on fan skirts which formed in alluvium derived dominantly from calcareous sedimentary rock. In areas where this soil occurs, the mean annual precipitation is 7 inches and the mean annual air temperature is 63°F. These soils are mainly used for irrigated crops such as cotton, alfalfa, sugar beets, wheat, onion, and tomatoes. Native vegetation on this soil series consists of annual grasses, forbs, and saltbush (Atriplex spp.). This soil type is the most common throughout the project site.

Taxonomic class. Fine, smectitic, thermic Vertic Haplocambids

Typical Pedon Ap1--0 to 7 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; hard, firm, very sticky, and very plastic; few very fine, fine and medium roots; common very fine tubular pores; strongly effervescent, carbonates disseminated, calcium carbonate equivalent is 3 percent; electrical conductivity is 1.2 decisiemens per meter; sodium adsorption ratio is 3; moderately alkaline (pH 8.1); abrupt smooth boundary. (3 to 10 inches thick)

Ap2--7 to 17 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; very hard, firm, moderately sticky, and moderately plastic; few very fine and fine roots; common very fine tubular pores; strongly effervescent, carbonates disseminated, calcium carbonate equivalent is 3 percent; electrical conductivity is 1.2 decisiemens per meter; sodium adsorption ratio is 6; moderately alkaline (pH 8.3); abrupt smooth boundary. (5 to 15 inches thick)

Posochanet Clay Loam, Saline-Sodic, Wet, 0 to 1 Percent Slopes The Posochanet series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils on fan skirt formed in stratified alluvium from calcareous sedimentary rocks with influence from granitic rock sources in some areas. In areas where this soil occurs, the mean annual precipitation is about 7 inches, and the mean annual air temperature is 64°F. These soils are used for irrigated crops such as cotton, wheat, seed alfalfa, safflower, barley, and sugar beets. Native vegetation is mainly annual grasses and forbs. This soil type is only present in the northeastern corner of the Project site.

Taxonomic class. Fine-silty, mixed, superactive, thermic Sodic Haplocambids

Page A-1 September 2017 Appendix A South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Typical Pedon Ap1--0 to 7 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; coarse strong subangular blocky structure parting to moderate subangular blocky; very hard, friable, moderately sticky and moderately plastic; common very fine and few fine roots; common very fine and fine tubular pores; slightly effervescent, carbonates disseminated; electrical conductivity is 1.6 decisiemens per meter; sodium adsorption ratio is 2; moderately alkaline (pH 7.9); abrupt smooth boundary. (6 to 10 inches thick)

Ap2--7 to 15 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; very hard, friable, moderately sticky and moderately plastic; few very fine, fine and medium roots; common very fine and fine tubular pores; slightly effervescent, carbonates disseminated; electrical conductivity is 3.6 decisiemens per meter; sodium adsorption ratio is 9; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); clear smooth boundary. (7 to 10 inches thick)

Cerini Clay Loam, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes The Cerini series consists of very deep, well drained soils on alluvial fans formed in alluvium derived dominantly from sedimentary rock. In areas where this soil occurs, the mean annual precipitation is about 7 inches, and the mean annual air temperature is 63°F. These soils are used for irrigated crops, mainly cotton, tomatoes, cantaloupes, garlic, onions, and wheat. Native vegetation is annual grasses, forbs, and saltbush. This soil type is present in the western portion of the Project site.

Taxonomic classes. Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, thermic Fluventic Haplocambids

Typical Pedon Ap--0 to 5 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; very hard, firm, slightly sticky and moderately plastic; common very fine and few fine roots; common very fine tubular and interstitial pores; slightly effervescent, carbonates disseminated; slightly alkaline (pH 7.7); abrupt smooth boundary. (3 to 10 inches thick)

Bw1--5 to 16 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; moderate coarse prismatic and moderate medium subangular structure; very hard, firm, moderately sticky and moderately plastic; common very fine and few fine roots; common very fine tubular and interstitial pores; slightly effervescent, carbonates disseminated; moderately alkaline (pH 7.9); abrupt smooth boundary. (6 to 15 inches thick)

September 2017 Page A-2

Appendix B Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination Report

Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination Report South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project Fresno County, California

Prepared for

Andy Flajole Jess Melin South Lake Solar LLC

Prepared by

Dudek

September 2017 WETLAND DELINEATION AND JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION REPORT

SOUTH LAKE SOLAR AND ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT

Prepared for

South Lake Solar LLC 700 Universe Boulevard MS JES/JB Juno Beach, Florida 33408

Prepared by

Dudek 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 760.942.5147

September 2017 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California WD/JD

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... iii 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Site Description ...... 2 3.0 Project Description ...... 5 4.0 Summary of Regulations ...... 7 4.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ...... 7 4.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board ...... 9 4.2.1 Section 401 of the CWA ...... 9 4.2.2 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ...... 10 4.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ...... 10 4.4 County of Fresno ...... 10 5.0 Methods...... 11 5.1 Literature Review ...... 11 5.2 Field Assessment ...... 11 5.2.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation ...... 13 5.2.2 Hydric Soils ...... 13 5.2.3 Hydrology ...... 13 5.3 Survey Limitations ...... 14 6.0 Results ...... 15 6.1 Vegetation ...... 15 6.2 Soils...... 15 6.3 Hydrology ...... 16 6.3.1 Regional and Local Hydrology ...... 16 6.3.2 Wetland Hydrology Indicators ...... 19 7.0 Jurisdictional Determination ...... 20 8.0 Literature Cited ...... 22 Figures

Figure 1. Regional Map ...... 3 Figure 2. Vicinity Map ...... 4 Figure 3. Site Plan ...... 6 Figure 4. Wetland Delineation ...... 12 Figure 5. Soils ...... 17 Figure 6. Hydrology ...... 18 Figure 7. Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination ...... 21

September 2017 Page i WD/JD South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Tables

Table 1. List of Hydrophytic Plant Species Observed at Feature Sample Points and Their Indicator Status ...... 15 Table 2. Soil Types and Hydric Status ...... 15

Appendices

Appendix A. Wetland Determination Data Forms ...... 24 Appendix B. Site Photos ...... 25 Appendix C. Soil Descriptions ...... 26

Page ii September 2017 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California WD/JD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Dudek prepared this wetland delineation and jurisdictional determination report (WD/JD) for South Lake Solar LLC (Applicant) in support of the South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project (Project) to identify and map potential waters and wetlands within the Project site. Features evaluated and mapped included those that fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Section 401 of the CWA and the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under Sections 1600–1607 of the California Fish and Game Code, and Fresno County (County) under the Fresno County General Plan (General Plan) (Fresno County 2000).

The WD/JD was completed through a literature review and field assessment to determine if features present within the Project site meet the regulatory definition of federal or state waters, wetland habitat, streambed, lake, and riparian vegetation and/or contain fish and wildlife resources. The features discussed in this WD/JD focus on those that would be impacted by the Project, as currently designed, to facilitate subsequent regulatory agency permitting and mitigation planning.

Based on the results of the wetland delineation field assessment, no wetlands, waters, or riparian habitats under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or County are present within the Project site.

September 2017 Page iii South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California WD/JD

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The proposed South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project represents the “Project” for purposes of the WD/JD contained here within. The Project is proposed by the Applicant and includes both the Project components and associated ancillary facilities.

The Applicant proposes to construct and operate the Project on approximately 585.2 acres of land. The Project would be an up to 80-megawatt (MW) alternating current (AC) photovoltaic (PV) solar energy facility with associated on-site substation, inverters, fencing, roads, and supervisory control and data acquisition system. The proposed energy storage components would include an up to 80 MW AC maximum capacity energy storage (battery) system. The Project would also include a 70-kilovolt (kV) overhead generation tie line (gen-tie line), which would extend approximately 500 feet from the on-site substation to the adjacent Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) transmission line located on the western side of South Lake Avenue.

September 2017 Page 1 WD/JD South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Project site is located in the San Joaquin Valley of California, in southwestern Fresno County (Figure 1, Regional Map). It is approximately 30 miles southwest of the City of Fresno and 3.4 miles south– southwest of the unincorporated community of Five Points. The Project site is situated roughly in the center of and encompasses a majority of Section 8, Township 18 South, Range 17 East, and the very western portion of Section 9, Township 18 South, Range 17 East, M.D.B. and M. of the Westside and Harris Ranch, U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangles at approximately latitude/longitude 36°22'43.96" N/120°8'50.93" W (Figure 2, Vicinity Map). The Project site is bordered on the north and south by Paige Avenue and West Jeffrey Avenue and west and east by South Butte Avenue and South Lake Avenue, respectively. A gen-tie line would extend east approximately 500 feet from the Project site to the existing north–south-oriented PG&E transmission line located on the western side of South Lake Avenue.

The location of the Project was selected because of its proximity to the existing PG&E transmission corridor, its proximity to the nearby Five Points switching station, the fact that the land was previously disturbed by agriculture, the site’s nearby access to existing roads, and the site’s excellent solar irradiance. The Project site is flat with elevation of approximately 260 feet above mean sea level. Locally, the main access to the Project would be located on the eastern edge of property, adjacent to the on-site substation, and would be accessible via the paved access road constructed for the adjacent Westside and Whitney Point Solar Projects, which generally follows a portion of the South Lake Avenue alignment.

The Project site and surrounding properties are mostly composed of tilled croplands, although the Project site was fallow in 2016. An existing irrigation restriction applies to properties in the vicinity, including the Project site, such that only dry farming can occur (refer to the detailed description below). The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract (parcels north and south of the site are enrolled in Williamson Act contracts; parcels within the Project site are not enrolled). The site is adjacent to the Westside and Whitney Point Solar Projects, which recently completed construction. Single-family residences, farm supply businesses, and other development are concentrated along State Route 145 and South Butte Avenue, north and west of the site.

The property was negatively impacted by drainage issues and subsequently retired in 2006 through a settlement agreement with Westlands Water District and the U.S. government. As a result of the settlement, the surface-water allocation was stripped from the property, and a non-irrigation covenant was recorded against the property. Hence, the property is prohibited from being irrigated and can only be dryland farmed.

Page 2 September 2017 unty Madera County Fresno County

Clovis 168 Fresno

99 180

145 Selma

43 Riverdale Project Site Fresno County 5 Kings County

Hanford

Lemoore Lemoore Station 41

269

198 33 C

Fresno County Avenal Monterey County

Kings County

Monterey County 0105 Miles

FIGURE 1 Regional Map

South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project Z:\Templates\Arcmap\Current\Vicinity\8x11_Vicinty_Portrait.mxd ?145 d x m . y t i n i c i V _ 2 e r u g i F \ R T B \ T N E M U C O D \ C O D P A M \ 1 0 5 5 7 9 j \ s t c e j o r P \ : Z

: h n t 0 1,000 2,000 a

P Project Site

Feet -

t a d o e d r

: y b d e v SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Westside and Harris Ranch Quadrangles FIGURE 2 a s t s a L

-

Vicinity Map 7 1 0 2 / 3 1 / 9

: South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project e t a D South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California WD/JD

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project includes several components related to the construction of an 80 MW solar energy facility. The facility will be situated on the 585.2-acre site, which would house all structures, including solar panels, fixed-tilt or single-axis tracking support structures, inverters, supervisory control and data acquisition system, and interconnection facilities (on-site substation), all of which would be enclosed by a perimeter security fence (Figure 3). Solar energy would be captured by PV panels mounted to a single- axis or fixed-tilt racking system. An on-site substation is the termination point of the collection system for 34.5 kV electricity. The output of the entire field would be passed through a final interconnection step-up transformer to convert it to the grid tie voltage at 70 kV. Adjacent to the on-site substation, an energy storage system is proposed to provide a maximum capacity of 80 MW. The energy storage batteries would be housed in a structure, container boxes, or trailers and would be located on approximately 3 acres of the Project site. The energy from the solar energy generation and energy storage systems would be transported from the on-site substation to PG&E’s Five Points switchyard via a gen-tie line. The gen-tie line would extend approximately 500 feet from the facility’s on-site substation to a new bay at the PG&E switchyard. The 70 kV gen-tie line would consist of one or two single-circuit structures, which could be constructed with up to 150-foot-tall wood, concrete, or steel poles. Additional components of the Project include ancillary facilities including access roads, signage, perimeter fencing, and lighting. A detailed project description including specifics on each Project component can be found in the Biological Technical Report for the Project (Dudek 2017).

September 2017 Page 5 xd

SOURCE: Revamp Engineering 2017 FIGURE 3 Site Plan

South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project Date: 8/30/2017 - Last saved by: rdeodat - Path: Z:\Projects\j975501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Wetland_Delineation\Figure3_SitePlan.m South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California WD/JD

4.0 SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS

The following agencies regulate specified activities within streams, wetlands, and riparian areas throughout California: USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. The USACE Regulatory Program regulates the discharge of dredge or fill material under Section 404 of the CWA. The RWQCB regulates dredge and fill activities within wetlands and non-wetland waters under Section 401 of the CWA and the state Porter-Cologne Act. CDFW regulates waters of the state under Sections 1600–1607 of the California Fish and Game Code. 4.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR 328.3[a]) defines “waters of the United States” as:

1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;

3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect foreign commerce including any such waters:

i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or

ii. From which fish or shell fish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or

iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce.

4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition;

5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1)-(4) of this section;

6. The territorial seas; and

7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) (1)-(6) of this section.

September 2017 Page 7 WD/JD South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

In the absence of wetlands, the limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which is defined at in the Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR 328.3[e]) as:

that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.

The term “wetlands” (a subset of “waters of the United States”) is defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support . . . a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3[b]). The discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, requires authorization from the USACE prior to temporary impacts.

The USACE regulates “discharge of dredged or fill material” into waters of the United States, which include tidal waters, interstate waters, and all other waters that are part of a tributary system to interstate waters or to navigable waters, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce or which are tributaries to waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide (33 CFR 328.3[a]), pursuant to provisions of Section 404 of the CWA. The USACE defines jurisdictional wetlands as areas supporting a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the procedures established in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987). However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, No. 99-1178 (January 9, 2001) held that the CWA does not give the federal government regulatory authority over non-navigable, isolated, intrastate waters (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Corps of Engineers 2001). Because of this decision, some previously regulated depressional areas, such as mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and vernal pools, that lack a hydrologic connection to other intra- or interstate waters of the United States are no longer regulated by the USACE. Although no formal guidance was issued by USACE interpreting the extent to which the SWANCC v. USACE decision would limit jurisdictional determinations, in practice, USACE considers intrastate waters as waters of the United States where there is an appropriate connection to navigable water or other clear interstate commerce connection

In 2006, the Supreme Court again issued an opinion as to what extent USACE had jurisdiction over certain waters under Section 404 of the CWA. The Rapanos-Carabell consolidated decisions addressed the question of jurisdiction over attenuated tributaries to waters of the United States, as well as wetlands adjacent to those tributaries (Rapanos v. United States 2006). USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued guidance related to the Rapanos decision on June 5, 2007 (USACE and EPA 2008). The guidance identifies those waters over which the agencies (USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) will assert jurisdiction categorically and on a case-by-case basis based on the reasoning of the Rapanos opinions. In summary, USACE will continue to assert jurisdiction over the following:

 Traditional navigable waters (TNWs) and their adjacent wetlands.

Page 8 September 2017 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California WD/JD

 Non-navigable tributaries of TNWs that are relatively permanent waters (e.g., tributaries that typically flow year-round or have a continuous flow at least seasonally) and wetlands that directly abut such tributaries (e.g., not separated by uplands, berm, dike, or similar feature).

Note: Relatively permanent waters do not include ephemeral tributaries, which flow only in response to precipitation, and intermittent streams, which do not typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months).

 Non-relatively permanent waters, if determined (on a fact-specific analysis) to have a significant nexus with a TNW, including non-navigable tributaries that do not typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally, wetlands adjacent to such tributaries, and wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent, non-navigable tributary. Absent a significant nexus, jurisdiction is lacking.

A significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or an insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical, and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Principal considerations when evaluating significant nexus include volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and the proximity of the tributary to a TNW, plus hydrologic, ecologic, and other functions performed by the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands. Certain ephemeral waters in the Arid West are distinguishable from the geographic features described previously where such ephemeral waters are tributaries and have a significant nexus to downstream TNWs. For example, these ephemeral tributaries may serve as a transitional area between the upland environment and the TNW. These ephemeral tributaries may provide habitat for wildlife and aquatic organisms in downstream TNWs and support nutrient cycling, sediment retention and transport, pollutant trapping and filtration, and improvement of water quality (USACE and EPA 2008). 4.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board

The State of California has concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government over CWA, Section 401, water quality certification for jurisdictional waters and wetlands of the United States. Where isolated waters and wetlands (not subject to federal jurisdiction) are involved, the state will exert independent jurisdiction through the Porter-Cologne Act.

4.2.1 Section 401 of the CWA

Section 401 of the CWA requires the following:

Any applicant for a federal permit for activities that involve a discharge to waters of the United States shall provide the federal permitting agency a certification from the state in which the discharge is proposed that states that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions under the federal Clean Water Act.

Therefore, in California, before USACE will issue a Section 404 permit, applicants must apply for and receive a Section 401 water quality certification or waiver from the RWQCB.

Under Section 401 of the CWA, the RWQCB regulates at the state level, all activities are regulated at the federal level by the USACE.

September 2017 Page 9 WD/JD South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

4.2.2 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

Pursuant to the provisions of the state Porter-Cologne Act, the RWQCB regulates actions that would involve “discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the waters of the State” (California Water Code, Section 13260[a]). The California Water Code defines “waters of the state” as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code, Section 13050[e]). Under the Porter-Cologne Act, the RWQCB regulates all such activities, as well as dredging, filling, or discharging materials into waters of the state, that are not regulated by USACE because of a lack of connectivity with a navigable water body. 4.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife

California Fish and Game Code, Sections 1600–1616, mandate that “it is unlawful for any person to . . . substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department, or use any material from the streambeds, without first notifying the department of such activity.”

CDFW jurisdiction includes ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial watercourses (including dry washes) and lakes characterized by the presence of (1) definable bed and banks, and (2) existing fish or wildlife resources. Furthermore, CDFW jurisdiction extends to riparian habitat and may include oak woodlands in canyon bottoms. Historic court cases have further extended CDFW jurisdiction to include watercourses that seemingly disappear but re-emerge elsewhere. Under the CDFW definition, a watercourse need not exhibit evidence of an OHWM to be claimed as under CDFW jurisdiction. The CDFW does not have jurisdiction over ocean or shoreline resources.

Water features such as vernal pools and other seasonal swales, where the defined bed and bank are absent and the feature is not contiguous with or adjacent to other jurisdictional features, are generally not asserted to fall within state jurisdiction. The state generally does not assert jurisdiction over human-made water bodies unless they are located where such natural features were previously located or (importantly) where they are contiguous with existing or prior natural jurisdictional areas.

Under California Fish and Game Code, Sections 1600–1616, the CDFW has authority to regulate work that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. The CDFW also has authority to regulate work that will deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. This regulation takes the form of a requirement for a lake or streambed alteration agreement and is applicable to all federal and nonfederal projects. 4.4 County of Fresno

In addition to the regulatory agencies identified previously, wetlands and riparian habitats are regulated by the County in accordance with the General Plan. Policies adopted by the County under the General Plan include the assurance of “no net loss” of wetlands, implementation of best management practices to protect water quality within wetlands, and establishment of buffers surrounding riparian areas (Fresno County 2000).

Page 10 September 2017 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California WD/JD

5.0 METHODS 5.1 Literature Review

The following data sources and reports were used in the WD/JD effort:

 Historical aerial photographs

 National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2017)

 National Hydric Soils List (USDA 2017a)

 National Wetlands Inventory Maps (USFWS 2017)

 National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2016)

 Web Soil Survey (USDA 2017b) 5.2 Field Assessment

Dudek biologist/wetland and permitting specialist Randall McInvale performed a formal (routine) wetland delineation within the Project site on August 15, 2017. The wetland delineation survey area included all areas within the Project site identified as being potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or the County were field verified and mapped (Figure 4, Wetland Delineation).

The wetland delineation was performed in accordance with the methods prescribed in the USACE’s 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region(Arid West Supplement) (USACE 2008a), A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual (USACE 2008b), and the USACE/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rapanos guidance (2008). For non-tidal waters of the United States, the USACE generally takes jurisdiction within rivers and streams to the OHWM, as defined in Section 4.1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, where no adjacent wetlands are present. If adjacent wetlands are present, the jurisdiction extends to the limit of wetlands. The USACE and RWQCB jurisdictional determination consists of the field identification of jurisdictional wetlands using the three parameters described in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology (USACE 1987). A predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, where associated with a stream channel, was used to determine CDFW-regulated jurisdiction.

Data collected during the fieldwork consisted of the wetland sampling points (wetland determination data forms) and the Global Positioning System (GPS) boundaries of hydrologic features. A single sample point was analyzed during the field assessment since only one potential jurisdictional feature was identified. Narrow linear features were measured using a transect tape at several locations to determine their overall width. The extents of each feature were collected in the field using GPS equipment and digitized in a geographic information system (GIS) using ArcGIS software.

September 2017 Page 11 neation.mxd

Project Site and Survey Area

0500 1,000 NHD Hydrologic Flowlines Feet

SOURCE: Google Imagery; NHD FIGURE 4 Wetland Delineation

South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project Date: 9/20/2017 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j975501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Wetland_Delineation\Figure4_WetlandDeli Path: - agreis by: saved Last - 9/20/2017 Date: South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California WD/JD

5.2.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation

Each sample point was assessed for whether it met the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. A sampling point was considered positive for hydrophytic vegetation if it passed the basic dominance test (Indicator 1), meaning that more than 50% of the dominant species sampled were characterized as either obligate, facultative wetland, or facultative per the Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2016). However, seasonal changes in species composition, human land-use practices, drought, wildfires, and other natural disturbances can adversely affect the wetlands vegetation determination based on the dominance test alone. If a station failed the dominance test but included positive indicators of hydric soils and hydrology, the vegetation parameter was re-evaluated using the prevalence index (Indicator 2), which takes into account all plant species in the community, not just dominants. The standard plot sampling technique was typically used; however, plot size was modified to adapt to site conditions at individual sampling points as indicated in the USACE Arid West Supplement (USACE 2008a). All plant species observed during the field assessment were identified and recorded. If a plant could not be identified in the field, a sample was taken for later identification in the laboratory.

5.2.2 Hydric Soils

According to the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, hydric soils are those “that are formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (59 FR 35680–35681). Soil pits were prepared, as determined to be necessary, using a “sharp shooter” shovel to determine if hydric soils were present. The presence of hydric soils was determined through consultations with the 1987 Manual (USACE 1987) and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (USDA 2017c) and the USACE Arid West Supplement (2008a). Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2009) were used to determine soil chroma and value. Where feasible, soil pits were prepared and excavated soils were examined for evidence of hydric conditions, including low chroma values and redoximorphic features, vertical streaking, sulfidic odor, and high organic matter content in the upper horizon. Evidence of previous ponding or flooding was assessed along with the slope, slope shape, existing landform characteristics, soil material/composition, and hydrophytic vegetation to determine if hydric soils were present.

5.2.3 Hydrology

Per the guidelines in the USACE Arid West Supplement (2008a), wetland hydrology indicators are separated into four major groups: A, B, C, and D. Group A indicators are based on direct observations of surface flow, ponding, and soil saturation/groundwater. Group B indicators consist of evidence that the site has been or is currently subjected to ponding, including but not limited to water marks, drift deposits, and sediment deposits. Group C indicators include signs of previous or current saturation, including oxidized rhizospheres surrounding living roots and the presence of reduced iron or sulfur, both of which are indicative of extended periods of soil saturation. Group D indicators consist of “vegetation and soil features that are indicative of current rather than historic wet conditions and include a shallow aquitard and results of the FAC-Neutral test” (USACE 2008a). Each group is subdivided into primary and secondary categories based on their frequency and reliability to occur in the Arid West region.

September 2017 Page 13 WD/JD South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Hydrology indicators specific to non-wetland waters were also assessed based primarily on the presence of an OHWM and/ or defined bed and bank. These indicators facilitate the delineation of the jurisdictional limits of non-wetland waters based on reliable and readily identifiable markers typically present in flowing stream systems, whether perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral. Additionally, connectivity of wetland and non-wetland waters with relatively permanent waters and TNWs was assessed based on current site conditions, topographic maps, National Hydrography Dataset and National Wetland Inventory data, and aerial photographs to determine the jurisdictional determinations for each feature. 5.3 Survey Limitations

The field assessment was completed during the summer season when identification of annual and cryptic perennial vegetation is less reliable. Additionally, the summer season does not allow for the assessment of the Project site under naturally inundated conditions, which may limit the identification of potential hydrologic features, including periodically saturated areas. These seasonal limitations were considered and accounted for during the field assessment.

Page 14 September 2017 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California WD/JD

6.0 RESULTS

The results of the wetland delineation are detailed below and on the wetland determination data form (Appendix A). Site photographs are provided in Appendix B. 6.1 Vegetation

Vegetation was identified to species at the sampling point and hydrophytic vegetation, if present, was recorded to document the potential for wetland designation. Table 1 includes a summary of the plant species identified within the feature and their associated wetland indicator status. Although the field assessment was completed in the summer season, the plant species present remained identifiable to species level.

Table 1. List of Hydrophytic Plant Species Observed at Feature Sample Points and Their Indicator Status

Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status1 Erigeron canadensis Canada horseweed FACU Helianthus annuus common sunflower FACU 1 Source: Lichvar et al. 2016. Notes: FACU = facultative upland 6.2 Soils

Soils were evaluated for indicators of hydric soil within the one potential jurisdictional feature; however, no indicators were identified (Appendix A). Based on review of the Custom Soil Resource Report for Fresno County, California (USDA 2017d), the primary soils within the Project site include Cerini clay loam, Ciervo, wet-Ciervo complex, and Posochanet clay loam. Table 2 lists the soil types within the Project site. A brief summary of the soils located on the Project site is provided in Appendix C because biological resources can often be associated with various substrates, which is particularly true of some special-status plant species and wetland resources. Figure 5, Soils, illustrates the location of Project site soils.

Table 2. Soil Types and Hydric Status

Soil Types Map Unit Number Hydric Status Cerini clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes 479 No Ciervo, wet-Ciervo complex, saline-sodic, 0% 462 No to 1% slopes Posochanet clay loam, saline-sodic, wet, 0% 475 No to 1% slopes Source: USDA 2017d.

Of the three soil mapping units found to be present on site, none are known to be hydric (USDA 2017a). It is important to emphasize that the hydric soils lists were designed primarily to generate a list of potentially hydric soils from the National Soil Information System database. They can be useful in making preliminary wetland determinations but in no way should replace field truthing. Field indicators must be used for all on-site determinations of hydric soils. A brief description of the surface soils present

September 2017 Page 15 WD/JD South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California within the Project site based on the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) soil survey map is provided in Appendix C (USDA NCRS 2017b). 6.3 Hydrology 6.3.1 Regional and Local Hydrology

The Project site is located within the Cantua Creek–Fresno Slough watershed (USGS 2017) (Figure 6, Hydrology). The Project site is located within the Westlands Water District, which provides water allocations to the regional agricultural operations within the service area. In general, surface water within the Project site and surrounding area flows from southwest to northeast based on the local topography. No National Hydrography Dataset or National Wetland Inventory data are present within the survey area, and Crescent Ditch represents the nearest water conveyance feature to the Project site, which is located approximately 5.8 miles to the northeast. Several minor hydrologic features included in National Hydrography Dataset data composed of smaller canals and/or ditches are located in the vicinity of the Project site. Topography and topographic position in the surrounding landscape were evaluated along with the underlying soils to determine potential hydrologic feature locations. The field assessment covered all portions of the survey area to examine the site conditions related to the presence of wetland hydrology. On site, hydrologic features were limited to one ditch feature that does not connect to regional hydrologic features; however, culverts direct runoff from the equipment yard on the adjacent properties into the ditch identified on site. This runoff is presumed to constitute the primary hydrologic input into the ditch feature.

Page 16 September 2017 33 940

145 5

269

198

Project Site Project Soils 475 459 - Ciervo clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes

462 - Ciervo, wet-Ciervo complex, saline- 462 sodic, 0 to 1 percent slopes 475 - Posochanet clay loam, saline-sodic, wet, 0 to 1 percent slopes 477 - Westhaven clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 479 - Cerini clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 482 - Calflax clay loam, saline-sodic, wet, 0 to 1 percent slopes 940 - Milham-Polvadero complex, organic surface, 0 to 5 percent slopes raphy.mxd 482

479

477

0 500 1,000 2,000 459 Feet

AERIAL SOURCE: Google Imagery, Topographic Contours generated from USGS 10m DEM FIGURE 5 Soils

South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project Date: 9/21/2017 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j975501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Wetland_Delineation\Figure5_Soils_Topog Path: - agreis by: saved Last - 9/21/2017 Date: Canal Arroyo Hondo-Fresno 33 Slough Watershed 145 Cres cent 5 Ditch

269

198

Project Site

Watersheds Arroyo Hondo-Fresno Slough

Cantua Creek-Fresno Slough

Kennedy Pond-Fresno Slough

Murphy Slough-Fresno Slough

North Fork Kings River-Kings River Cantua Creek-Fresno Slough Hydrologic Features Watershed Stream River Kennedy Canal/Ditch 145 Pond-Fresno Slough Pipeline Watershed

Artificial Path

269

xd Go ver nor Edm un d G Br own Ca al lifo n rn a ia A C que a du g ct n li a o C

5

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 33

SOURCE: USGS NHD and WBD 2017 FIGURE 6 Hydrology

South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project Date: 9/21/2017 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j975501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Wetland_Delineation\Figure5_Hydrology.m Path: - agreis saved by: Last - 9/21/2017 Date: South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California WD/JD

6.3.2 Wetland Hydrology Indicators

Wetland hydrology indicators observed at the site include one primary indicator from Group B. Indicators in Group B consists of evidence that the site is subject to flooding or ponding, although it was not inundated during the field assessment (USACE 2008b). The hydrology indicator observed consisted of the following:

 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) – Surface soil cracks consist of shallow cracks that form when fine- grained mineral or organic sediments dry and shrink, often creating a network of cracks or small polygons.

September 2017 Page 19 WD/JD South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

7.0 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

Evidence of hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation were thoroughly examined during the field assessment within the survey area. At the time of the wetland delineation field assessment, the Project site had been recently disked and the majority of the site was unvegetated or supported only sparse cover of non-native annual species, primarily prostrate pigweed (Amaranthus albus; facultative upland) and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus; facultative upland). As noted in Section 2.0, Site Description, the Project site is dryland farmed for some years. No hydrophytic vegetation was identified during the field assessment. Due to the lack of hydrophytic vegetation, evidence of hydrology was used as the primary indicator for the potential presence of jurisdictional resources. Hydrologic features present within the survey area were limited to one ditch located in the southwestern portion of the site. The ditch consists of a narrow, linear depression between a cultivated field and an off-site equipment yard. Due to the location of the ditch in a slightly elevated position based on the local topography, run-off from the Project site is not anticipated to flow into the ditch, which instead would flow to the north east. Water inputs into the ditch are presumed to consist of run-off from the off-site equipment yard, as evidenced by two culverts in the southwestern portion of the survey area. A third culvert was identified at the approximate center point of the ditch, which appears to connect this feature to an off-site basin; however, no connectivity was identified between the basin and other hydrologic features.

A single wetland determination data form was recorded within the ditch identified within the survey area. The ditch was found to support indicators of wetland hydrology (surface soil cracks; B6), though hydrophytic vegetation and indicators of hydric soil were found to be absent. No other hydrologic features were identified within the survey area. The results of the wetland delineation field assessment are provided on Figure 7, Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination. Based on the lack of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils, as well as the lack of connectivity to regional hydrologic features, the ditch identified on-site is determined to be a non-jurisdictional feature. No wetlands, waters, or riparian habitats under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or the County were identified.

Page 20 September 2017 36 23.082’ N 120 9.428’ W

7’(width)/2318’(length)

36 22.294’ N 120 8.354’ W neation_JD.mxd

Project Site Sample Point Non-Jurisdictional Features Culvert Irrigation Water Pipe 0500 1,000 Feet Ditch

SOURCE: Google Imagery FIGURE 7 Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination

South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project Date: 9/20/2017 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j975501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Wetland_Delineation\Figure7_WetlandDeli Path: - agreis by: saved Last - 9/20/2017 Date: WD/JD South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

8.0 LITERATURE CITED

33 CFR 328.1–328.5. Definition of Waters of the United States.

59 FR 35680–35681. Notice of change: “Changes in Hydric Soils in the United States.” July 13, 1994.

California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600–1616. Division 2: Department of Fish and Game, Chapter 6: Fish and Wildlife Protection and Conservation.

California Water Code, Section 13000–16104. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, as amended. Prepared by the State Water Resources Control Board, with additions and amendments (shown as tracked changes) effective January 1, 2011. Accessed August 2017. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/ laws_regulations/.

Dudek. 2017. Biological Technical Report, South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, Fresno County, California. September 2017.

Fresno County. Fresno County General Plan. October 2000.

Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. “The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings.” Phytoneuron 2016(30): 1–17. ISSN 2153 733X.

Munsell Soil-Color Charts (Munsell). 2009. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Year 2009 Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Rapanos et ux., et al. v. United States. 547 U.S. 715 (2006); no. 04-1034. Supreme Court decision on Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Accessed January 9, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Rapanos_SupremeCourt.pdf.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Corps of Engineers et al., 531 U.S. 159 (2001), no. 99–1178.

USACE and EPA (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. “Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.” December 2, 2008. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/ guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_12_3_wetlands_CWA_Jurisdiction_Following_ Rapanos120208.pdf.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Online ed. Environmental Laboratory, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. January 1987. Accessed August 2017. http://www.fedcenter.gov/Bookmarks/ index.cfm?id=6403&pge_id=1606.

Page 22 September 2017 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California WD/JD

USACE. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. September 2008.

USACE. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual. August 2008.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2017a. State Soil Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soils List. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed August 2017. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316619.html.

USDA. 2017b. Web Soil Survey. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed May 2017. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

USDA. 2017c. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils. Version 8.1. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.

USDA. 2017d. Custom Soil Resource Report for Fresno County, California.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed August 2017. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2017. National Hydrography Geodatabase: The National Map viewer. Accessed August 2017. http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/nhd.html?p=nhd.

September 2017 Page 23

Appendix A Wetland Delineation Data Forms

Appendix B Site Photos

Appendix B. Site Photos

Photo 1. Overview of the Project site from the Photo 2. Water pipe found within the survey area, northeast corner, facing south. August 15, 2017. facing northeast. August 15, 2017.

Photo 3. Ditch feature identified within the survey Photo 4. Sample Point 1 within the ditch feature. area, facing north. August 15, 2017. August 15, 2017.

9755 1 August 2017

Appendix C Soil Descriptions

South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Appendix C

SOIL DESCRIPTIONS

Based on review of the Fresno County Soil Survey map (USDA NCRS 2017), the primary soils on the project site include Cerini clay loam, Ciervo complex, and Posochanet clay loam. A brief summary of the soils located on the project site is provided herein because biological resources can often be associated with various substrates; this is particularly true of some special-status plant species and wetland resources. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service has mapped three soil series in the Project site with 3 distinct soils. These soils share similarities related to their development on alluvial fans and fan skirts and their utility for agricultural production. The following soils are located on the project site:

 Cerini clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes

 Ciervo, wet-Ciervo complex, saline-sodic, 0% to 1% slopes

 Posochanet clay loam, saline-sodic, wet, 0% to 1% slopes

A brief description of the surface soils present at the project site based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) is provided below (USDA-NRCS 2017).

Cerini clay loam Cerini clay loam occurs in the western portion of the site, bisecting large areas of Ciervo complex soil. The Cerini series consists of very deep, well drained soils on alluvial fans. These soils formed in alluvium derived dominantly from sedimentary rock. Slope is 0 to 5 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 7 inches, and the mean annual temperature is about 63 degrees F. Soils in this series are used mainly for irrigated crops; however, native vegetation occurring on this series include annual grasses, forbs, and desert saltbush.

Taxonomic class. Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, thermic Fluventic Haplocambids

Typical Pedon Ap - 0 to 5 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; very hard, firm, slightly sticky and moderately plastic; common very fine and few fine roots; common very fine tubular and interstitial pores; slightly effervescent, carbonates disseminated; slightly alkaline (pH 7.7); abrupt smooth boundary. (3 to 10 inches thick).

A--7 to 17 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sandy loam, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist; massive; hard, very friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; few very fine roots; many very fine interstitial and few very fine and fine tubular pores; strongly effervescent, carbonates disseminated; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); gradual wavy boundary. (5 to 15 inches thick).

Page C-1 September 2017 Appendix C South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Bw1 - 5 to 16 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; moderate coarse prismatic and moderate medium subangular structure; very hard, firm, moderately sticky and moderately plastic; common very fine and few fine roots; common very fine tubular and interstitial pores; slightly effervescent, carbonates disseminated; moderately alkaline (pH 7.9); abrupt smooth boundary. (6 to 15 inches thick).

Bw2 - 16 to 25 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; very hard, friable, slightly sticky and moderately plastic; common very fine and few fine roots; common very fine tubular and interstitial pores; strongly effervescent, carbonates disseminated; slightly alkaline (pH 7.8); abrupt smooth boundary. (0 to 10 inches thick).

Ciervo Complex Ciervo complex occurs throughout the majority of the site. The Ciervo series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils on fan skirts. These soils formed in alluvium derived dominantly from sedimentary rock. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 7 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 63 degrees F. Soils in this series are used mainly for irrigated crops; however, native vegetation occurring on this series include annual grasses, forbs, and desert saltbush.

Taxonomic class. Fine, smectitic, thermic Vertic Haplocambids

Typical Pedon Ap1 - 0 to 7 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; hard, firm, very sticky, and very plastic; few very fine, fine and medium roots; common very fine tubular pores; strongly effervescent, carbonates disseminated, calcium carbonate equivalent is 3 percent; electrical conductivity is 1.2 decisiemens per meter; sodium adsorption ratio is 3; moderately alkaline (pH 8.1); abrupt smooth boundary. (3 to 10 inches thick)

Ap2 - 7 to 17 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; very hard, firm, moderately sticky, and moderately plastic; few very fine and fine roots; common very fine tubular pores; strongly effervescent, carbonates disseminated, calcium carbonate equivalent is 3 percent; electrical conductivity is 1.2 decisiemens per meter; sodium adsorption ratio is 6; moderately alkaline (pH 8.3); abrupt smooth boundary. (5 to 15 inches thick)

Bw - 17 to 27 inches; light gray (2.5Y 7/2) clay, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) moist; weak medium subangular blocky structure; extremely hard, firm, moderately sticky, and moderately plastic; few very fine and fine roots; common very fine tubular pores; strongly effervescent, carbonates disseminated and segregated as few fine irregularly shaped threads, calcium carbonate equivalent is 4 percent; electrical conductivity is 1.5 decisiemens per meter; sodium adsorption ratio is 12; strongly alkaline (pH 8.6); abrupt smooth boundary. (6 to 15 inches thick)

September 2017 Page C-2 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Appendix C

Posochanet Clay Loam Posochanet clay loam occurs in a small area in the far northeastern portion of the site. The Posochanet series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils on fan skirts. These soils formed in stratified alluvium derived dominantly from calcareous sedimentary rocks with influence from granitic rock sources in some areas. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 7 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 64 degrees F. Soils in this series are used mainly for irrigated crops; however, native vegetation occurring on this series include mainly annual grasses and forbs.

Taxonomic classes. Fine-silty, mixed, superactive, thermic Sodic Haplocambids

Typical Pedon Ap1 - 0 to 7 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; coarse strong subangular blocky structure parting to moderate subangular blocky; very hard, friable, moderately sticky and moderately plastic; common very fine and few fine roots; common very fine and fine tubular pores; slightly effervescent, carbonates disseminated; electrical conductivity is 1.6 decisiemens per meter; sodium adsorption ratio is 2; moderately alkaline (pH 7.9); abrupt smooth boundary. (6 to 10 inches thick).

Ap2 - 7 to 15 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; very hard, friable, moderately sticky and moderately plastic; few very fine, fine and medium roots; common very fine and fine tubular pores; slightly effervescent, carbonates disseminated; electrical conductivity is 3.6 decisiemens per meter; sodium adsorption ratio is 9; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); clear smooth boundary. (7 to 10 inches thick).

Bw - 15 to 24 inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4) clay loam, olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) moist; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; hard, friable, moderately sticky and moderately plastic; common very fine and few fine roots; common very fine and few fine tubular pores; slightly effervescent, carbonates disseminated and segregated as common fine irregularly shaped seams and soft masses; electrical conductivity is 10.2 decisiemens per meter; sodium adsorption ratio is 30; moderately alkaline (pH 8.1); clear smooth boundary. (8 to 10 inches thick).

References: Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Available online. Accessed [August 24, 2017].

USDA-NRCS 2017. Custom Soil Resource Report for Fresno County, California. United States Department of Agriculture (NRCS). Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Page C-3 September 2017

Appendix C Photo Documentation

South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Appendix C

Photo 1. Project site, facing south. March 6, 2017. Photo 2. Project site, facing southeast. March 6, 2017.

Photo 3. Project site, facing west. March 6, 2017. Photo 4. Project site, facing west. March 6, 2017.

Page C-1 September 2017 Appendix C South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

Photo 5. Project site, facing north. March 6, 2017.

Photo 6. Project site, facing south. March 6, 2017.

September 2017 Page C-2 South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Appendix C

Photo 7. Project site, facing south. August 15, 2017. Photo 8. Project site, facing northeast. August 15, 2017.

Photo 9. Project site, facing north. August 15, 2017. Photo 10. Project site, facing north. August 15, 2017.

Page C-3 September 2017

Appendix D Cumulative List of Plant Species Observed

South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Appendix D

PLANT SPECIES

EUDICOTS

AMARANTHACEAE—AMARANTH FAMILY * Amaranthus albus—prostrate pigweed

ASTERACEAE—SUNFLOWER FAMILY Erigeron canadensis—Canadian horseweed

HELIANTHUS ANNUUS—COMMON SUNFLOWER * Lactuca serriola—prickly lettuce

CHENOPODIACEAE—GOOSEFOOT FAMILY * Salsola tragus—prickly Russian thistle

* signifies introduced (non-native) species

Page D-1 September 2017

Appendix E Cumulative List of Wildlife Species Observed

South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California Appendix E

WILDLIFE SPECIES – VERTEBRATES

BIRD

BLACKBIRDS, ORIOLES AND ALLIES

ICTERIDAE—BLACKBIRDS Agelaius phoeniceus—red-winged blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus—Brewer's blackbird Sturnella neglecta—western meadowlark

FALCONS

FALCONIDAE—CARACARAS AND FALCONS Falco sparverius—American kestrel

FLYCATCHERS

TYRANNIDAE—TYRANT FLYCATCHERS Sayornis nigricans—black phoebe Tyrannus verticalis—western kingbird

HAWKS

ACCIPITRIDAE—HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES, AND ALLIES Buteo jamaicensis—red-tailed hawk Circus hudsonius—northern harrier

JAYS, MAGPIES AND CROWS

CORVIDAE—CROWS AND JAYS Corvus corax—common raven

LARKS

ALAUDIDAE—LARKS Eremophila alpestris—horned lark

OLD WORLD SPARROWS

PASSERIDAE—OLD WORLD SPARROWS * Passer domesticus—house sparrow

Page E-1 September 2017 Appendix E South Lake Solar and Energy Storage Project, California

PIGEONS AND DOVES

COLUMBIDAE—PIGEONS AND DOVES Zenaida macroura—mourning dove

SHOREBIRDS

SCOLOPACIDAE—SANDPIPERS, PHALAROPES, AND ALLIES Numenius americanus—long-billed curlew

MAMMAL

CANIDS

CANIDAE—WOLVES AND FOXES Canis latrans—coyote

* signifies introduced (non-native) species

September 2017 Page E-2

Appendix F Results of 2017 United States Fish and Wildlife Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Trust Resources Report

IPaC: Explore Location Page 1 of 11

IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

IPaC resource list

This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location Fresno County, California

Not for consultation

Local office

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/D37XI7U3RVAUJHRASBXUFXCJ4A/resources 8/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location Page 2 of 11

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office

(916) 414-6600 (916) 414-6713

Federal Building 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

Not for consultation

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/D37XI7U3RVAUJHRASBXUFXCJ4A/resources 8/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location Page 3 of 11

Endangered species

This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5.NotClick REQUEST for SPECIES LIST.consultation Listed species

1 are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/D37XI7U3RVAUJHRASBXUFXCJ4A/resources 8/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location Page 4 of 11

Mammals NAME STATUS

Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis Endangered There is a final critical habitat designated for this species. Your location is outside the designated critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5150

Giant Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ingens Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6051

San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873

Reptiles NAME STATUS

Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/625

Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis gigas Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4482

Amphibians NAMENot for consultationSTATUS California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii Threatened There is a final critical habitat designated for this species. Your location is outside the designated critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/D37XI7U3RVAUJHRASBXUFXCJ4A/resources 8/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location Page 5 of 11

Fishes NAME STATUS

Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus Threatened There is a final critical habitat designated for this species. Your location is outside the designated critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321

Crustaceans NAME STATUS

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Threatened There is a final critical habitat designated for this species. Your location is outside the designated critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498

Critical habitats

Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.

Migratory birds

Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 1 andNot the Bald and for Golden Eagleconsultation Protection Act2. Any activity that results in the take (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of migratory birds or eagles is prohibited unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3. There are no provisions for allowing the take of migratory birds that are unintentionally killed or injured.

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations and implementing appropriate conservation measures.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/D37XI7U3RVAUJHRASBXUFXCJ4A/resources 8/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location Page 6 of 11

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)

Additional information can be found using the following links:

• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed- species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php • Conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project- assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php • Year-round bird occurrence data http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/default/datasummaries.jsp

The migratory birds species listed below are species of particular conservation concern (e.g. Birds of Conservation Concern) that may be potentially affected by activities in this location. It is not a list of every bird species you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that all of the bird species on this list will be found on or near this location. Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, special attention should be made to avoid and minimize impacts to birds of priority concern. To view available data on other bird species that may occur in your project area, please visit the AKN Histogram Tools and Other Bird Data Resources. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project- specific information is often required.

NAME SEASON(S)

Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin Migrating https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637

BaldNot Eagle Haliaeetus for leucocephalus consultationWintering https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Year-round https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9737

Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope Migrating https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9526

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/D37XI7U3RVAUJHRASBXUFXCJ4A/resources 8/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location Page 7 of 11

Costa's Hummingbird Calypte costae Year-round https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9470

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Wintering

Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Wintering https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Year-round https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8833

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Wintering https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5511

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa Wintering https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus Wintering https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3638

Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii Year-round https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Wintering https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8831

Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus Migrating Nothttps://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002 for consultation

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Wintering https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9295

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1098

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/D37XI7U3RVAUJHRASBXUFXCJ4A/resources 8/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location Page 8 of 11

Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis Wintering https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory bird species potentially occurring in my specified location?

Landbirds:

Migratory birds that are displayed on the IPaC species list are based on ranges in the latest edition of the National Geographic Guide, Birds of North America (6th Edition, 2011 by Jon L. Dunn, and Jonathan Alderfer). Although these ranges are coarse in nature, a number of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service migratory bird biologists agree that these maps are some of the best range maps to date. These ranges were clipped to a specific Bird Conservation Region (BCR) or USFWS Region/Regions, if it was indicated in the 2008 list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that a species was a BCC species only in a particular Region/Regions. Additional modifications have been made to some ranges based on more local or refined range information and/or information provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists with species expertise. All migratory birds that show in areas on land in IPaC are those that appear in the 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern report.

Atlantic Seabirds:

Ranges in IPaC for birds off the Atlantic coast are derived from species distribution models developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) using the best available seabird survey data for the offshore Atlantic Coastal region to date. NOAANCCOS assisted USFWS in developing seasonal species ranges from their models for specific use in IPaC. Some of these birds are not BCC species but were of interest for inclusion because they may occur in high abundance off the coast at different times throughout the year, which potentially makes them more susceptible to certain types of development and activities taking place in that area. For more refined details about the abundance and richness of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, see the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other types of taxa that may be helpful in your project review.

About the NOAANCCOS models: the models were developed as part of the NOAANCCOS project: Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and AbundanceNot on the forAtlantic Outer consultation Continental Shelf. The models resulting from this project are being used in a number of decision-support/mapping products in order to help guide decision- making on activities off the Atlantic Coast with the goal of reducing impacts to migratory birds. One such product is the Northeast Ocean Data Portal, which can be used to explore details about the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species in a particular area off the Atlantic Coast.

All migratory bird range maps within IPaC are continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available.

Can I get additional information about the levels of occurrence in my project area of specific birds or groups of birds listed in IPaC?

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/D37XI7U3RVAUJHRASBXUFXCJ4A/resources 8/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location Page 9 of 11

Landbirds:

The Avian Knowledge Network (AKN) provides a tool currently called the "Histogram Tool", which draws from the data within the AKN (latest,survey, point count, citizen science datasets) to create a view of relative abundance of species within a particular location over the course of the year. The results of the tool depict the frequency of detection of a species in survey events, averaged between multiple datasets within AKN in a particular week of the year. You may access the histogram tools through the Migratory Bird Programs AKN Histogram Tools webpage.

The tool is currently available for 4 regions (California, Northeast U.S., Southeast U.S. and Midwest), which encompasses the following 32 states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North, Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

In the near future, there are plans to expand this tool nationwide within the AKN, and allow the graphs produced to appear with the list of trust resources generated by IPaC, providing you with an additional level of detail about the level of occurrence of the species of particular concern potentially occurring in your project area throughout the course of the year.

Atlantic Seabirds:

For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAANCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Facilities Not for consultation Wildlife refuges

Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

THERE ARE NO REFUGES AT THIS LOCATION.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/D37XI7U3RVAUJHRASBXUFXCJ4A/resources 8/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location Page 10 of 11

Fish hatcheries

THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory

Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

THERE ARE NO KNOWN WETLANDS AT THIS LOCATION.

Data limitations

The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on- the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

WetlandsNot or other mappedfor features consultation may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions

Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/D37XI7U3RVAUJHRASBXUFXCJ4A/resources 8/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location Page 11 of 11

Data precautions

Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

Not for consultation

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/D37XI7U3RVAUJHRASBXUFXCJ4A/resources 8/22/2017