APPENDIX A - AIR QUALITY AND GHG

Transcription

1 APPENDICES

2

3 APPENDIX A - AIR QUALITY AND GHG

4

5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 1 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Sirius Solar Project Merced County, Annual Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population User Defined Commercial 0.00 User Defined Unit Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 49 Climate Zone 3 Operational Year 2014 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (lb/mwhr) CH4 Intensity (lb/mwhr) N2O Intensity (lb/mwhr) User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Solar Site = 9.5 acres Construction Phase - 5 month building period Off-road Equipment - Trips and VMT - Estimated trips Energy Use - the site produces eletricity Land Use Change - Operational Off-Road Equipment - one Water Truck, one worker truck. Intermittent truck use

6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 2 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblconstructionphase NumDays tbllanduse LotAcreage tbloperationaloffroadequipment OperDaysPerYear tbloperationaloffroadequipment OperDaysPerYear tbloperationaloffroadequipment OperHoursPerDay tbloperationaloffroadequipment OperOffRoadEquipmentNumber tbloperationaloffroadequipment OperOffRoadEquipmentNumber tblprojectcharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tbltripsandvmt WorkerTripNumber Emissions Summary

7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 3 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr e- 003 Total e Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr e- 003 Total e ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction

8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 4 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area Energy Mobile Offroad e e e e e e e e Waste Water Total e e e e e e e e

9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 5 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area Energy Mobile Offroad e e e e e e e e Waste Water Total e e e e e e e e ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction

10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 6 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 2.3 Vegetation Vegetation CO2e Category MT Vegetation Land Change Total Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Grading Grading 2/12/2014 3/11/ Solar Panal Installation Building Construction 3/12/ /7/ Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating sqft) OffRoad Equipment

11 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 7 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Excavators Grading Graders Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Solar Panal Installation Cranes Solar Panal Installation Forklifts Solar Panal Installation Generator Sets Solar Panal Installation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Solar Panal Installation Welders Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Grading LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Solar Panal Installation LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

12 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 8 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 3.2 Grading Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust Off-Road e- 004 Total e e e Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling Vendor Worker e e e e e e e e e e Total e e e e e e e e e e

13 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 9 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 3.2 Grading Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust Off-Road e- 004 Total e e e Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling Vendor Worker e e e e e e e e e e Total e e e e e e e e e e

14 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 10 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 3.3 Solar Panal Installation Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road e- 003 Total e Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling Vendor Worker e e e e e e e Total e e e e e e e

15 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 11 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 3.3 Solar Panal Installation Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road e- 003 Total e Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling Vendor Worker e e e e e e e Total e e e e e e e Operational Detail - Mobile

16 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 12 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated Unmitigated Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT User Defined Commercial Total Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by User Defined Commercial LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N

17 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 13 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated Electricity Unmitigated NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGas Unmitigated Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kbtu/yr tons/yr MT/yr User Defined Commercial Total

18 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 14 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kbtu/yr tons/yr MT/yr User Defined Commercial Total Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kwh/yr MT/yr User Defined Commercial Total

19 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 15 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kwh/yr MT/yr User Defined Commercial Total Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated Unmitigated

20 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 16 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating Consumer Products Landscaping Total Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating Consumer Products Landscaping Total Water Detail

21 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 17 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated Unmitigated Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/ Outdoor Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr User Defined Commercial 0 / Total

22 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 18 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/ Outdoor Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr User Defined Commercial 0 / Total Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated Unmitigated

23 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 19 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr User Defined Commercial Total Mitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr User Defined Commercial Total Operational Offroad

24 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 20 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Dumpers/Tenders Diesel Off-Highway Trucks Diesel UnMitigated/Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Equipment Type tons/yr MT/yr Dumpers/Tenders e e e e e e e e Off-Highway Trucks e e e e e e e e Total e e e e e e e e Vegetation

25 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 21 of 21 Date: 12/10/ :35 AM Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT Unmitigated Vegetation Land Change Vegetation Type Initial/ Final Acres Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT Cropland 9.5 / Total

26 Year 2009 Summary Tables egrid2012 Version 1.0 (created April 2012) 1. Year 2009 egrid Subregion Emissions - Greenhouse Gases 2. Year 2009 egrid Subregion Emissions - Criteria Pollutants 3. Year 2009 egrid Subregion Output Emission Rates - Greenhouse Gases 4. Year 2009 egrid Subregion Output Emission Rates - Criteria Pollutants 5. Year 2009 egrid Subregion Resource Mix 6. Year 2009 NERC Region Emissions 7. Year 2009 NERC Region Output Emission Rates 8. Year 2009 NERC Region Resource Mix 9. Year 2009 egrid2012 Grid Gross Loss (%) 10. Year 2009 State Emissions and Input Emission Rates 11. Year 2009 State Resource Mix 12. Year 2009 Generation by Fuel Type (graphic representation)

27 Year 2009 egrid Subregion Emissions - Greenhouse Gases Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) Methane (CH 4 ) Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) egrid subregion acronym Total output emission rate (lb/mwh) Total output emission rate (lb/gwh) Total output emission rate (lb/gwh) egrid subregion name Emissions (tons) Emissions (lbs) Emissions (lbs) Emissions (tons) Total output emission rate (lb/mwh) AKGD ASCC Alaska Grid 3,418, , , , ,426, , AKMS ASCC Miscellaneous 355, , , , AZNM WECC Southwest 110,878, , ,561, ,900, ,365, , CAMX WECC California 70,073, ,157, ,311, ,341, ERCT ERCOT All 199,139, , ,629, ,416, ,883, , FRCC FRCC All 122,439, , ,166, ,816, ,962, , HIMS HICC Miscellaneous 2,040, , , , ,049, , HIOA HICC Oahu 6,366, , , , ,402, , MROE MRO East 23,546, , , , ,678, , MROW MRO West 155,238, , ,490, ,297, ,117, , NEWE NPCC New England 44,339, ,213, ,686, ,697, NWPP WECC Northwest 110,316, ,118, ,366, ,882, NYCW NPCC NYC/Westchester 12,366, , , ,394, NYLI NPCC Long Island 6,356, , , , ,384, , NYUP NPCC Upstate NY 21,928, ,403, , ,035, RFCE RFC East 123,710, ,008, ,907, ,389, RFCM RFC Michigan 73,224, , ,771, ,461, ,635, , RFCW RFC West 427,000, , ,176, ,115, ,294, , RMPA WECC Rockies 56,623, , ,380, ,687, ,899, , SPNO SPP North 59,020, , ,365, ,878, ,325, , SPSO SPP South 112,285, , ,265, ,059, ,793, , SRMV SERC Mississippi Valley 82,878, , ,215, ,761, ,185, , SRMW SERC Midwest 98,040, , ,193, ,247, ,566, , SRSO SERC South 167,509, , ,628, ,250, ,382, , SRTV SERC Tennessee Valley 161,685, , ,114, ,260, ,544, , SRVC SERC Virginia/Carolina 151,834, , ,306, ,114, ,693, , U.S. 2,402,619, , ,962, ,431, ,414,688, , This is a representational map; many of the boundaries shown on this map are approximate because they are based on companies, not on strictly geographical boundaries. USEPA egrid2012 Version 1.0 p. 1

28 Year 2009 egrid Subregion Emissions - Criteria Pollutants egrid subregion acronym Nitrogen oxides (NO x ) Total output emission rate (lb/mwh) Ozone season emissions (tons) Ozone season total output emission rate (lb/mwh) Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) Total output emission rate (lb/mwh) egrid subregion name Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) AKGD ASCC Alaska Grid 6, , , AKMS ASCC Miscellaneous 4, , , AZNM WECC Southwest 141, , , CAMX WECC California 44, , , ERCT ERCOT All 121, , , FRCC FRCC All 102, , , HIMS HICC Miscellaneous 8, , , HIOA HICC Oahu 9, , , MROE MRO East 21, , , MROW MRO West 220, , , NEWE NPCC New England 31, , , NWPP WECC Northwest 140, , , NYCW NPCC NYC/Westchester 5, , , NYLI NPCC Long Island 5, , , NYUP NPCC Upstate NY 17, , , RFCE RFC East 106, , , RFCM RFC Michigan 78, , , RFCW RFC West 368, , ,657, RMPA WECC Rockies 80, , , SPNO SPP North 66, , , SPSO SPP South 133, , , SRMV SERC Mississippi Valley 86, , , SRMW SERC Midwest 56, , , SRSO SERC South 134, , , SRTV SERC Tennessee Valley 121, , , SRVC SERC Virginia/Carolina 99, , , U.S. 2,215, , ,086, This is a representational map; many of the boundaries shown on this map are approximate because they are based on companies, not on strictly geographical boundaries. USEPA egrid2012 Version 1.0 p. 2

29 Year 2009 egrid Subregion Output Emission Rates - Greenhouse Gases Total output emission rates Fossil fuel output emission rate Non-baseload output emission rates egrid subregion acronym egrid subregion name CO 2 (lb/mwh) CH 4 (lb/gwh) N 2 O (lb/gwh) CO 2 (lb/mwh) CO 2 (lb/mwh) CH 4 (lb/gwh) N 2 O (lb/gwh) AKGD ASCC Alaska Grid 1, , , AKMS ASCC Miscellaneous , , AZNM WECC Southwest 1, , , CAMX WECC California , ERCT ERCOT All 1, , , FRCC FRCC All 1, , , HIMS HICC Miscellaneous 1, , , HIOA HICC Oahu 1, , , MROE MRO East 1, , , MROW MRO West 1, , , NEWE NPCC New England , , NWPP WECC Northwest , , NYCW NPCC NYC/Westchester , , NYLI NPCC Long Island 1, , , NYUP NPCC Upstate NY , , RFCE RFC East , , RFCM RFC Michigan 1, , , RFCW RFC West 1, , , RMPA WECC Rockies 1, , , SPNO SPP North 1, , , SPSO SPP South 1, , , SRMV SERC Mississippi Valley 1, , , SRMW SERC Midwest 1, , , SRSO SERC South 1, , , SRTV SERC Tennessee Valley 1, , , SRVC SERC Virginia/Carolina 1, , , U.S. 1, , , This is a representational map; many of the boundaries shown on this map are approximate because they are based on companies, not on strictly geographical boundaries. USEPA egrid2012 Version 1.0 p. 3

30 Year 2009 egrid Subregion Output Emission Rates - Criteria Pollutants Total output emission rates Fossil fuel output emission rates Non-baseload output emission rates egrid subregion acronym Ozone season NO x (lb/mwh) Ozone season NO x (lb/mwh) Ozone season NO x (lb/mwh) egrid subregion name NO x (lb/mwh) SO 2 (lb/mwh) NO x (lb/mwh) SO 2 (lb/mwh) NO x (lb/mwh) SO 2 (lb/mwh) AKGD ASCC Alaska Grid AKMS ASCC Miscellaneous AZNM WECC Southwest CAMX WECC California ERCT ERCOT All FRCC FRCC All HIMS HICC Miscellaneous HIOA HICC Oahu MROE MRO East MROW MRO West NEWE NPCC New England NWPP WECC Northwest NYCW NPCC NYC/Westchester NYLI NPCC Long Island NYUP NPCC Upstate NY RFCE RFC East RFCM RFC Michigan RFCW RFC West RMPA WECC Rockies SPNO SPP North SPSO SPP South SRMV SERC Mississippi Valley SRMW SERC Midwest SRSO SERC South SRTV SERC Tennessee Valley SRVC SERC Virginia/Carolina U.S This is a representational map; many of the boundaries shown on this map are approximate because they are based on companies, not on strictly geographical boundaries. USEPA egrid2012 Version 1.0 p. 4

31 Year 2009 egrid Subregion Resource Mix Generation resource mix (percent) egrid subregion acronym Other unknown/ purchased fuel egrid subregion name Nameplate capacity (MW) Net Generation (MWh) Coal Oil Gas Other fossil Biomass Hydro Nuclear Wind Solar Geothermal AKGD ASCC Alaska Grid 1, ,337, AKMS ASCC Miscellaneous ,364, AZNM WECC Southwest 48, ,138, CAMX WECC California 73, ,768, ERCT ERCOT All 101, ,031, FRCC FRCC All 65, ,123, HIMS HICC Miscellaneous ,019, HIOA HICC Oahu 1, ,991, MROE MRO East 8, ,587, MROW MRO West 53, ,640, NEWE NPCC New England 36, ,742, NWPP WECC Northwest 68, ,325, NYCW NPCC NYC/Westchester 13, ,501, NYLI NPCC Long Island 6, ,431, NYUP NPCC Upstate NY 24, ,081, RFCE RFC East 73, ,151, RFCM RFC Michigan 29, ,251, RFCW RFC West 146, ,623, RMPA WECC Rockies 17, ,070, SPNO SPP North 21, ,008, SPSO SPP South 43, ,443, SRMV SERC Mississippi Valley 50, ,358, SRMW SERC Midwest 27, ,061, SRSO SERC South 70, ,713, SRTV SERC Tennessee Valley 67, ,173, SRVC SERC Virginia/Carolina 80, ,154, U.S. 1,134, ,951,097, This is a representational map; many of the boundaries shown on this map are approximate because they are based on companies, not on strictly geographical boundaries. USEPA egrid2012 Version 1.0 p. 5

32 Year 2009 NERC Region Emissions NERC region acronym NERC region name Emissions (tons) Nitrogen oxides (NO x ) Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) Methane (CH 4 ) Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) Total output emission rate (lb/mwh) Ozone season emissions (tons) Ozone season total output emission rate (lb/mwh) Emissions (tons) Total output emission rate (lb/mwh) Emissions (tons) Total output emission rate (lb/mwh) Emissions (lbs) Total output emission rate (lb/gwh) Emissions (lbs) total output emission rate (lb/gwh) ASCC Alaska Systems Coordinating Council 11, , , ,774, , , , FRCC Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 102, , , ,439, , ,166, ,816, HICC Hawaiian Islands Coordinating Council 18, , , ,406, , ,031, , MRO Midwest Reliability Organization 242, , , ,785, , ,199, ,098, NPCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council 60, , , ,991, ,493, ,513, RFC Reliability First Corporation 553, , ,530, ,935, , ,956, ,484, SERC SERC Reliability Corporation 498, , ,744, ,948, , ,458, ,634, SPP Southwest Power Pool 199, , , ,305, , ,630, ,938, TRE Texas Regional Entity 121, , , ,139, , ,629, ,416, WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council 407, , , ,892, ,218, ,266, U.S. 2,215, , ,086, ,402,619, , ,962, ,431, This is a representational map; many of the boundaries shown on this map are approximate because they are based on companies, not on strictly geographical boundaries. USEPA egrid2012 Version 1.0 p. 6

33 Year 2009 NERC Region Output Emission Rates Total output emission rates Fossil fuel output emission rates Non-baseload output emission rates NERC region acronym Ozone season NO x (lb/mwh) NERC region name NO x (lb/mwh) SO 2 (lb/mwh) CO 2 (lb/mwh) CH 4 (lb/gwh) N 2 O (lb/gwh) NO x (lb/mwh) SO 2 (lb/mwh) CO 2 (lb/mwh) NO x (lb/mwh) SO2 (lb/mwh) CO2 (lb/mwh) CH4 (lb/gwh) N2O (lb/gwh) ASCC Alaska Systems Coordinating Council , , , FRCC Florida Reliability Coordinating Council , , , HICC Hawaiian Islands Coordinating Council , , , MRO Midwest Reliability Organization , , , NPCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council , , RFC Reliability First Corporation , , , SERC SERC Reliability Corporation , , , SPP Southwest Power Pool , , , TRE Texas Regional Entity , , , WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council , , U.S , , , Ozone season NO x (lb/mwh) Ozone season NO x (lb/mwh) This is a representational map; many of the boundaries shown on this map are approximate because they are based on companies, not on strictly geographical boundaries. USEPA egrid2012 Version 1.0 p. 7

34 Year 2009 NERC Region Resource Mix Generation resource mix (percent) NERC region acronym Nameplate NERC region name capacity (MW) Net Generation (MWh) Coal Oil Gas Other fossil Biomass Hydro Nuclear Wind Solar Geo-thermal ASCC Alaska Systems Coordinating Council 2, ,702, FRCC Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 65, ,123, HICC Hawaiian Islands Coordinating Council 2, ,010, MRO Midwest Reliability Organization 62, ,227, NPCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council 81, ,757, RFC Reliability First Corporation 249, ,026, SERC SERC Reliability Corporation 295, ,061,462, SPP Southwest Power Pool 64, ,451, TRE Texas Regional Entity 101, ,031, WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council 208, ,303, U.S. 1,134, ,951,097, Other unknown/ purchased fuel This is a representational map; many of the boundaries shown on this map are approximate because they are based on companies, not on strictly geographical boundaries. USEPA egrid2012 Version 1.0 p. 8

35 Year 2009 egrid2012 Grid Gross Loss (%) Region Grid Gross Loss (%) Eastern 5.82 Western 8.21 ERCOT 7.99 Alaska 5.84 Hawaii 7.81 U.S USEPA egrid2012 Version 1.0 p. 9

36 Year 2009 State Emissions and Input Emission Rates Nitrogen oxides (NO x ) Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) Methane (CH 4 ) Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) Input emission rate (lb/mmbtu) Ozone season emissions (tons) Ozone season Input emission rate (lb/mmbtu) Input emission rate (lb/mmbtu) Input emission rate (lb/mmbtu) State Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) Emissions (lbs) Emissions (lbs) Emissions (tons) AK 11, , , ,774, , , ,783,278.6 AL 53, , , ,601, ,706, ,270, ,982,182.6 AR 35, , , ,963, ,128, , ,130,380.7 AZ 66, , , ,723, ,732, ,596, ,989,263.8 CA 20, , , ,970, ,355, , ,179,328.9 CO 63, , , ,860, ,097, ,265, ,067,665.8 CT 5, , , ,999, ,933, , ,071,059.5 DC , , ,259.2 DE 4, , , ,346, , , ,364,922.3 FL 111, , , ,022, ,552, ,050, ,584,792.4 GA 61, , , ,749, ,464, ,643, ,185,356.4 HI 18, , , ,406, ,031, , ,451,486.1 IA 42, , , ,136, , ,386, ,361,407.7 ID , , , , ,611.4 IL 73, , , ,507, ,366, ,368, ,054,687.6 IN 114, , , ,680, ,773, ,933, ,319,209.4 KS 49, , , ,065, , ,247, ,268,706.7 KY 79, , , ,703, ,142, ,137, ,212,230.1 LA 54, , , ,332, ,053, ,113, ,526,847.2 MA 15, , , ,739, ,878, , ,871,236.3 MD 19, , , ,964, ,340, , ,125,750.9 ME 4, , , ,089, ,434, , ,168,675.3 MI 86, , , ,156, ,088, ,631, ,597,127.7 MN 43, , , ,304, ,514, ,373, ,543,747.2 MO 56, , , ,853, ,804, ,607, ,276,958.7 MS 27, , , ,850, ,016, , ,959,848.2 MT 21, , , ,215, , , ,319,821.5 NC 42, , , ,184, ,088, ,319, ,565,537.6 ND 63, , , ,183, , ,129, ,366,794.8 NE 46, , , ,628, , , ,776,913.4 NH 4, , , ,056, ,445, , ,116,646.9 NJ 9, , , ,987, ,397, , ,057,301.8 NM 66, , , ,128, , ,081, ,305,703.5 NV 15, , , ,001, , , ,058,379.0 NY 28, , , ,793, ,207, , ,954,005.2 OH 101, , , ,180, ,870, ,018, ,833,577.4 OK 78, , , ,107, ,615, ,369, ,336,487.5 OR 8, , , ,303, , , ,345,388.5 PA 121, , , ,167, ,348, ,090, ,857,329.8 RI ,446, , , ,449,789.0 SC 25, , , ,282, ,448, ,342, ,506,229.8 SD 12, , , ,713, , , ,733,412.3 TN 29, , , ,709, ,084, ,461, ,947,631.7 TX 163, , , ,380, ,102, ,582, ,319,905.6 UT 63, , , ,307, , ,287, ,516,961.7 VA 32, , , ,844, ,615, ,195, ,057,384.3 VT , , , ,977.4 WA 13, , , ,962, ,083, , ,042,836.9 WI 36, , , ,533, ,465, ,496, ,781,336.4 WV 37, , , ,154, ,594, ,387, ,541,100.5 WY 69, , , ,707, ,084, ,612, ,968,525.6 U.S. 2,215, , ,086, ,402,619, ,962, ,431, ,414,688,998.8 USEPA egrid2012 Version 1.0 p. 10

37 Year 2009 State Resource Mix Generation resource mix (percent) State Nameplate capacity (MW) Net Generation (MWh) Coal Oil Gas Other fossil Biomass Hydro Nuclear Wind Solar Geothermal Other unknown/ purchased fuel AK 2, ,702, AL 34, ,353, AR 16, ,457, AZ 29, ,971, CA 71, ,767, CO 15, ,508, CT 8, ,206, DC , DE 3, ,841, FL 68, ,125, GA 39, ,698, HI 2, ,010, IA 15, ,850, ID 3, ,100, IL 50, ,864, IN 31, ,717, KS 13, ,677, KY 24, ,630, LA 30, ,993, MA 16, ,036, MD 13, ,774, ME 4, ,349, MI 33, ,246, MN 16, ,981, MO 22, ,354, MS 17, ,701, MT 5, ,712, NC 30, ,910, ND 6, ,196, NE 8, ,586, NH 4, ,164, NJ 20, ,816, NM 8, ,674, NV 12, ,705, NY 43, ,115, OH 36, ,090, OK 22, ,060, OR 14, ,690, PA 49, ,531, RI 2, ,696, SC 25, ,125, SD 3, ,123, TN 23, ,716, TX 118, ,975, UT 7, ,469, VA 25, ,082, VT 1, ,282, WA 30, ,455, WI 19, ,146, WV 17, ,782, WY 7, ,029, U.S. 1,134, ,951,097, USEPA egrid2012 Version 1.0 p. 11

38

39 APPENDIX B BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT

40

41 Biological Resources Assessment for LeGrande/Sirius Site Merced County, California 18 December 2013 Prepared For: Green Light Energy Corporation

42 CONTENTS Biological Resources Assessment for Green Light Energy Corporation LeGrande/Sirius Site 1.0 INTRODUCTION Project Location Project Description Project Characteristics Construction Operations and Maintenance Biological Setting REGULATORY SETTING Federal Regulations Federal Endangered Species Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act Federal Clean Water Act State or Local Regulations California Endangered Species Act Fully Protected Species Native Plant Protection Act California Streambed Alteration Notification/Agreement CEQA Significance Criteria METHODS Special Status Species RESULTS Site Characteristics and Land Use Plant Communities and Wildlife Vegetation Communities Wildlife Soils...10

43 4.2.4 Potential Waters of the U.S Special-Status Plants Special-Status Wildlife Wildlife Movement/Corridors RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES...16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity Figure 2. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Figure 3. Wetland Assessment and Biological Constraints Figure 4. California Natural Diversity Database Occurrence Records for Special-Status Species LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Species LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Representative Site Photos Attachment B - Plants Observed On-Site (30 May 2013) Attachment C - Wildlife Observed On-Site (30 May 2013)

44 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of Green Light Energy Corporation, ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP) has conducted a biological resources assessment for the acre LeGrande/Sirius site located in Merced County, California. The purpose of the assessment was to collect information on the biological resources present within the site, and to determine any potential biological constraints to site construction. 1.1 Project Location The Green Light Energy LeGrande/Sirius site is located north of Mission Avenue, west of Santa Fe Avenue, approximately one mile southeast of Planada, California (Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity). The site corresponds to a portion of Section 35, Township 07 South, and Range 15 East (MDBM) of the Planada, California 7.5-minute quadrangle (U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey 1961). The approximate center of the site is located at North and West within the Middle San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] # , U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey 1978). 1.2 Project Description Project Characteristics In an effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and expand the availability of alternative energy resources locally and regionally, the Project developer/applicant, Green Light Energy Corp. ( Green Light ) proposes construction of a 1.5 megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic (PV) energy generating facility on undeveloped acres. The project site is designated as Agricultural land use and zoned A1 (General Agriculture). The proposed project consists of solar modules mounted on single-axis trackers that follow the movement of the sun. The silicon solar cells are covered by antireflective glass. At peak production, the 1.5 MW solar energy facility would supply enough clean energy to power up to 1,500 residential homes. The proposed project site footprint would be enclosed with fencing that meets National Electric Code safety requirements for protective arrangements in electric supply stations. The fence will not be electrified. Signage bearing warnings against trespassing under 18 U.S.C., Section 1366 would be posted along the fence perimeter. The project development footprint, which considers the net amount of land that would contain physical structures (such as solar modules, equipment pads, fencing, etc.), would be approximately 9.5 acres. The balance of the site would be left in open space. The proposed project conceptual design takes into account existing site conditions with respect to topography and natural storm water drainage. Site grading would be minimal given that the existing topography of the site is relatively flat and intent of the design is to adhere to the existing topography to minimize grading and earth moving. The site has been surveyed and a base flood elevation certificate issued to the County; elevation details have been accounted for in the project design to ensure that flood zone requirements are met. Any identified biological or hydrological features have been buffered by a 100 foot setback incorporated into the project design. The proposed solar facility project would generate electricity by harvesting sunlight utilizing approximately 5, watt (W) anti-reflective polycrystalline solar PV modules. Individual PV modules will be connected together in series to create a string to carry direct current (DC) Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

45 electricity. Multiple DC strings will be brought together into a combiner box to merge the strings into a single cable and provide overcurrent protection. Cabling would run underground from the combiner boxes to a central pad-mounted power station where one 1,500 kilowatt (kw) inverter would convert the DC electricity to usable 320 volt (V) alternating current (AC) power. The AC power would then be transmitted to a step-up transformer that converts the voltage from 320V to kilovolts (kv). The inverters, transformer, and other electrical equipment would be mounted on a concrete equipment pad. The medium voltage power would be conveyed underground and aboveground where necessary to cross over any sensitive site features to an aboveground 3-pole interconnection that then ties into the existing PG&E approved point of interconnection (POI) utility pole on the Wilson 12.47kV distribution line approximately 50 feet outside the proposed solar facility across E. Mission Ave. The poles would be located in a line between the underground connection point on the site and the PG&E POI. The first pole closest to the POI will support a 12.47kV utility-approved air switch along with utility grade metering. Additionally, this pole would also support the 12.47kV generation tie-in via an overhead line that would run from this pole to the PG&E POI. The second pole will house a 12kV recloser (circuit breaker), and the third pole will consist of a 12.47kV riser, switch, and full dead end. The poles will be spaced between the onsite inverter, transformer, and switchgear, and the PG&E utility pole located approximately 50 feet outside the proposed solar facility across E. Mission Ave. Each pole will be approximately 37 feet in height. All required electrical breaker systems and protective relay systems would be installed as part of the proposed project. Surge arrestors would be used to protect the project and all auxiliary equipment from lightning strikes or other disturbances. The generated power would then be transmitted off-site through existing PG&E transmission lines located along E. Mission Ave. The power would travel downstream (away from PG&E s Wilson Substation) and upstream (towards PG&E s Wilson Substation), satisfying local neighborhood residential, agricultural, commercial, and industrial electrical needs. At the point where all of the electrical demands downstream are satisfied, the power is then pushed back upstream and delivered to the Wilson Substation, which is located approximately 6 ½ miles west of the project site at the corner of Highway 140 and N. Tower Road in Merced, CA. This excess power is then distributed from the Wilson Substation to other local distribution lines sending the power downstream and satisfying additional local neighborhood residential, agricultural, commercial, and industrial electrical demands. The electrical power generated by the proposed project creates local electrical grid stability at the Wilson Substation, benefitting the community that receives electrical power from this substation Construction Any existing site vegetation and minor improvements in the direct path of the proposed project would be removed. Minimal grading may be required for leveling and no exporting of soil is anticipated. Support piles would be installed using tractor-mounted impact or vibratory hammers similar to those used to install fence posts. Support poles and the tracker assemblies and PV modules would then be attached and the wiring installed. Concrete foundations would be poured for the drive motors, equipment pads, and overhead poles. Concrete would be purchased from a local concrete batch plant. A variety of equipment and vehicles would be utilized during construction, such as graders, compacters, trenchers, backhoes, forklifts, pile drivers, skid steers, front end loaders, and material hauling trucks in addition to a 4,000 gallon water truck Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

46 With regard to any PG&E off-site improvements (cable trenching, new transmission lines, etc.) the project specific PG&E Initial Review results indicate that no new transmission lines would be required. However, on the project site and the PG&E Wilson Substation, additional reclosers, voltage regulators, and safety devices may be required Operations and Maintenance Once construction is completed the proposed project would generate electricity 7 days per week, 365 days per year during sunlight hours. The approximate start and stop times will generally be 6am to 6pm, but will vary as a function of the time or season of the year. No employees would be based at the project site as the project will be remotely controlled to the largest extent possible. Primary security-related monitoring would be done also remotely. Security personnel would conduct routine unscheduled security rounds and would be dispatched to the site in response to a fence breach or other alarm. Site maintenance workers would access the project site approximately 2 to 4 times per year to clean the panels and maintain the equipment and project area. The public would not have access to the facility. Access to the area would be infrequent and limited to authorized personnel. Site maintenance is anticipated to occur approximately 2 to 4 times per year for a period of 3 to 5 days per maintenance period. Site maintenance may include any or all of the following activities per visit: 1) module washing; 2) Site preventative maintenance; 3) vegetation control. Module washing is anticipated to employ 2 to 3 employees visiting the site approximately 2 to 4 times per year to rinse or scrub and rinse off the modules of dust and dirt that can accumulate during the non-rainy season. The required water would be brought in via a 4,000 gallon water truck. No chemicals or soaps will be used in the cleaning process. The project design does not anticipate any significant changes to the existing site drainage. Preventative maintenance is anticipated to entail 2 to 3 employees visiting the site to perform routine maintenance on the mechanical and electrical equipment to ensure optimal performance. This can include any or all of the following: 1) site walk inspection of all electrical and mechanical components for wear and tear; 2) system electrical testing; 3) inverter inspection and preventative maintenance; 4) drive motor inspection and preventative maintenance; and 5) removal of any debris that can restrict airflow within the PV array. Vegetation may be controlled and/or mitigated by periodic grazing utilizing typical farm animals such as sheep or goats to ensure that it does not grow to a point where it may shade the modules or pose a fire hazard. If grazing is not a feasible option, vegetation would be periodically removed manually and/or treated with a combination of pre and post emergent herbicides with an adherent additive. 1.3 Biological Setting The Green Light LeGrande/Sirius site is located in the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley portion of the Central Valley and has a Mediterranean climate, which is characterized by hot and dry summer months and cold and wet winter months. The annual precipitation in Merced is 12.4 inches (with the wettest period during November-March), and average daily temperatures ranging from 61 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in December to 87 degrees F in July (NOAA 2002) Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

47 The local topography is the interface between the flat Central Valley floor and the gently rolling to hilly terrain of the Sierra Nevada Range foothills immediately to the east. The project site has a flat aspect and has an elevational range from 230 to 237 feet above mean sea level (MSL). 2.0 REGULATORY SETTING 2.1 Federal Regulations Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects plants and animals that are listed as endangered or threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Section 9 of FESA prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where taking is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct (50CFR 17.3). For plants, this statute governs removing, possessing, maliciously damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on federal land and removing, cutting, digging-up, damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on non-federal land in knowing violation of state law (16 USC 1538). Under Section 7 of FESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS if their actions, including permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect a listed (or proposed) species (including plants) or its critical habitat. Through consultation and the issuance of a biological opinion, the USFWS may issue an incidental take statement allowing take of the species that is incidental to an otherwise authorized activity provided the activity will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Section 10 of FESA provides for issuance of incidental take permits where no other federal actions are necessary provided a habitat conservation plan is developed Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, any of their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. As authorized by the MBTA, the USFWS issues permits to qualified applicants for the following types of activities: falconry, raptor propagation, scientific collecting, special purposes (rehabilitation, education, migratory game bird propagation, and salvage), take of depredating birds, taxidermy, and waterfowl sale and disposal. The regulations governing migratory bird permits can be found in 50 CFR part 13 General Permit Procedures and 50 CFR part 21 Migratory Bird Permits. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in Sections 3800, 3513, and of the California Fish and Game Code Federal Clean Water Act The federal Clean Water Act s (CWA) purpose is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation s waters. Section 404 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The definition of Waters of the U.S. includes rivers, streams, estuaries, the territorial seas, ponds, lakes and wetlands. Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

48 life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR b). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has authority over wetlands and may override a USACE permit. Substantial impacts to wetlands may require an individual permit. Projects that only minimally affect wetlands may meet the conditions of one of the existing Nationwide Permits. A Water Quality Certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for Section 404 permit actions; this certification or waiver is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2.2 State or Local Regulations California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA, but unlike its federal counterpart, CESA applies the take prohibitions to species proposed for listing (called candidates by the state). Section 2080 of the CDFG Code prohibits the taking, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of endangered, threatened, or candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or in the regulations. Take is defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill. CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects. State lead agencies are required to consult with CDFW to ensure that any action they undertake is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of essential habitat Fully Protected Species The State of California first began to designate species as fully protected prior to the creation of the CESA and FESA. Lists of fully protected species were initially developed to provide protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction, and included fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, birds and mammals. Most fully protected species have since been listed as threatened or endangered under CESA and/or FESA. The regulations that implement the Fully Protected Species Statute (California Fish and Game Code Section 4700) provide that fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time. Furthermore, CDFW prohibits any state agency from issuing incidental take permits for fully protected species, except for necessary scientific research Native Plant Protection Act The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code Sections ) was created with the intent to preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State. The NPPA is administered by CDFW. The Fish and Game Commission has the authority to designate native plants as endangered or rare and to protect endangered and rare plants from take. The CESA of 1984 (California Fish and Game Code Section ) provided further protection for rare and endangered plant species, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code California Streambed Alteration Notification/Agreement Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires that a Streambed Alteration Application be submitted to CDFW for any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. CDFW reviews the Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

49 proposed actions and, if necessary, submits to the Applicant a proposal for measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the Applicant is the Streambed Alteration Agreement. Often, projects that require a Streambed Alteration Agreement also require a permit from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA. In these instances, the conditions of the Section 404 permit and the Streambed Alteration Agreement may overlap CEQA Significance Criteria Section of the CEQA Guidelines encourages local agencies to develop and publish the thresholds that the agency uses in determining the significance of environmental effects caused by projects under its review. However, agencies may also rely upon the guidance provided by the expanded Initial Study checklist contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix G provides examples of impacts that would normally be considered significant. Based on these examples, impacts to biological resources would normally be considered significant if the project would: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS; Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFG or USFWS; Have 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, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. An evaluation of whether or not an impact on biological resources would be substantial must consider both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional or local context. Substantial impacts would be those that would diminish, or result in the loss of, an important biological resource, or those that would obviously conflict with local, state, or federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations. Impacts are sometimes locally important but not significant according to CEQA. The reason for this is that although the impacts would result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions, they would not substantially diminish, or result in the permanent loss of an important resource on a population-wide or region-wide basis. 3.0 METHODS ECORP biologist Eric Stitt conducted the site assessment on 30 May Prior to conducting the field portion of the assessment, the CDFW s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2013) and California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2013) were queried to determine the special-status species that had been documented in the topographic quadrangle that Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

50 encompasses the site. Additional data regarding the potential occurrence of special-status species were gathered from various online websites. Soil types were determined using the United States Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2013). The site assessment was conducted by walking around the project area, taking photos, and gathering information on the biological resources present. Biological resource information that was collected included: Potential Waters of the U.S.; Plant and animal species directly observed; Characterization of habitats present on-site; Animal signs (e.g., scat, tracks); Active bird nests; Burrows and any other special habitat features; and Representative site photographs. 3.1 Special-Status Species Using information from the CNDDB, the literature review, and observations in the field, a list of special-status plant and animal species that have the potential to occur on the site was generated (Table 1). Each of these species was assessed for their potential to occur on-site based on the following criteria guidelines: Present: High: Species was observed on-site during a site visit or focused survey. Habitat (including soils and elevational requirements) for the species occurs on-site and a known occurrence occurs within 5 miles of the site. Moderate: Habitat (including soils and elevational requirements) for the species occurs on-site and a known occurrence occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the site; or a known occurrence occurs within 5 miles of the site and marginal or limited amounts of habitat occurs on-site. Low: Absent: Limited habitat (including soils and elevational requirements) for the species occurs on-site and a known occurrence occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the site. No suitable habitat (including soils and elevational requirements) occurs on-site, the site is located outside the species known geographical range, or the species was determined to be absent during focused surveys. For the purposes of this assessment, special-status species are defined as plants or animals that: Have been designated as either rare, threatened, or endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and are protected under either the California or Federal Endangered Species Acts; Are candidate species being considered or proposed for listing under these same acts; Are fully protected by the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, or 5515; or Are of expressed concern to resource and regulatory agencies, or local jurisdictions Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

51 Table 1. Special-Status Species -LeGrande/Sirius Site Common Name Scientific Name Federal ESA Status California ESA Status Other Status Habitat Description Approximate Survey Dates Potential To Occur On- Site Plants Beaked clarkia Clarkia rostrata - - 1B cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grassland (197' - 1,640') Colusa grass Neostapfia colusana FT CE 1B large vernal pools in adobe soils (16' - 656') Dwarf downingia Downingia pusilla vernal pools and mesic areas in valley and foothill grassland (3' - 1,460') April-May May-August March-May Absent; no habitat occurs on-site Absent; no habitat occurs on-site Absent; no habitat occurs on-site Greene's tuctoria Tuctoria greenei FE CR 1B vernal pools (98' - 3,511') May-September Absent; no habitat occurs on-site Heartscale Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata - - 1B scrub, meadows and seeps and valley foothill or grassland, sandy/saline or alkali April-October Absent; no habitat occurs on-site Hoover's calycandenia Calycadenia hooveri - - 1B rocky, cismontane woodland and valley foothill and grassland (213'-1,082') Merced phacelia Phacelia ciliate var. opaca sometimes alkali, valley and foothill grassland (clay) (197'-492') July-September Feburary-May Absent; no habitat occurs on-site Absent; no habitat occurs on-site Picushion navaretia Navarretia myersii spp. Myersii - - 1B vernal pools, often acidic (65'-1,082') April-May Absent; no habitat occurs San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass Orcuttia inaequalis Shining navarretia Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians on-site FT CE 1B vernal pools (0' - 2,100') April - September Absent; no habitat occurs on-site - - 1B cismontane woodland, valley and foothill May-July Absent; no habitat occurs grassland, and vernal pools (300' - 3,280') on-site April - May Absent; no habitat occurs wetland-riparian systems (240' - 1,000') on-site FT CE 1B vernal pools, often acidic (164' - 2,461') April-May Absent; no habitat occurs on-site Spiny-sepaled button celery Eryngium spinosepalum - - 1B Valley grassland, freshwater wetlands, Succulent owl's-clover Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta Invertebrates Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT - - Vernal pools/wetlands November-April Absent; no habitat occurs on-site Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi FE - - vernal pools/wetlands November-April Absent; no habitat occurs on-site Amphibians California tiger salamander (Central California DPS) Reptiles Birds Ambystoma californiense FT CT CSC Vernal pools, wetlands/adjacent grassland March-May Absent; no habitat occurs on-site Western spadefoot Spea hammondii CSC Vernal pools, wetlands/adjacent grassland March-May Absent; no habitat occurs on-site Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata CSC - - ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation (0' to 6560') April-September Low; marginal habitat present off-site Swainson s hawk (nesting) Buteo swainsoni - CT BCC grassland, riparian March-August Low; marginal abandoned orchard habitat Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus - - BCC, CSC Grassland, woodland March-July Present Burrowing owl (burrow sites) Athene cunicularia - - BCC, CSC Grassland, widespread March-August Moderate Mammals San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica FE CT - Grasslands, sagebrush scrub, San Joaquin April 15-July 15, Low Valley September 1- December Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/Vega Bio

52 Table 1. Special-Status Species -LeGrande/Sirius Site Federal ESA Status California ESA Status Other Status Habitat Description Approximate Survey Dates Potential To Occur On- Site Status Codes: FE - Federal ESA listed, Endangered. FT - Federal ESA listed, Threatened. FPE - Formally Proposed for federal ESA listing as Endangered. FPT - Formally Proposed for federal ESA listing as Threatened. FPD - Listed under Federal ESA, but formally proposed for delisting. Fd - Formally Delisted (delisted species are monitored for 5 years). FC - Candidate for federal ESA listing as Threatened or Endangered. NMFS - NOAA/NMFS species of concern BCC - U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS, 2002). CE - California ESA or Native Plant Protection Act listed, Endangered. CT - California ESA or Native Plant Protection Act listed, Threatened. CR - California ESA or Native Plant Protection Act listed, Rare. CC - Candidate for California ESA listing as Endangered or Threatened. CFP - Fish and Game Code of California Fully Protected Species ( 3511-birds, 4700-mammals, 5050-reptiles/amphibians). CSC - California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern (CDFG, updated August 2004). 1A - California Native Plant Society/Presumed extinct. 1B - California Native Plant Society/Rare or Endangered in California and elsewhere. 2 - California Native Plant Society/Rare or Endangered in California, more common elsewhere. 3 - California Native Plant Society/Plants about which more information is needed 4 - California Native Plant Society/Plants of Limited Distribution. CNDDB - Species that is tracked by CDFG's Natural Diversity Database but does not have any of the above special-status designations otherwise. Potential To Occur On-site: Present - Species was observed on-site. High - Habitat (including soils and elevational requirements) for the species occurs on site and a known occurrence occurs within 5 miles of the site. Moderate - Habitat (including soils and elevational requirements) for the species occurs on site and a known occurrence occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the site; or a known occurrence occurs within 5 miles of the site and marginal or limited amounts of habitat occurs on site. Low - Limited habitat (including soils and elevational requirements) for the species occurs on site and a known occurrence occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the site. Absent - No suitable habitat (including soils and elevational requirements) occurs on site, the site is located outside the species known geographical range, or the species was determined to be absent during focused surveys Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/Vega Bio

53 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Site Characteristics and Land Use The proposed project area lies within an agricultural area southeast of the farming community of Planada. The lands surrounding the site are generally irrigated fields and orchards with flat topography. The project site consists of a fig (Ficus carica) orchard and an unimproved road leading from East Mission Avenue north to a homestead northwest of the proposed project site. Faming implements, irrigation supplies, and other materials are stored in areas cleared around the house and at various places in the orchard and north of the project site. Numerous large California walnut (Juglans californica) trees occur at the northern edge of the property along a riverine feature (Owens Creek) near the northern boundary, 100 feet from the project site. Owens Creek probably carries natural runoff during the wet season and irrigation runoff during the dry season and flows from east to west. Another fig orchard occurs north of the riverine feature. Large, well-tended fig trees dominated the orchard, and the understory was dominated by mustard (Brassicaceae). Staging/storage areas for irrigation and other farming materials also occurred in places north of Owens Creek. California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) were abundant at agricultural edges, especially along the southern bank of the creek. 4.2 Plant Communities and Wildlife Vegetation Communities The sole vegetation community on the project site is planted fig orchard, with disked soil underneath. The western, southern and eastern edges of the property have a fringe of roadside weeds consisting of wild oats (Avena fatua) and mustards (Brassica sp.). A few large trees occur at the northern corner of the project site provide potential nesting habitat for raptors and other birds. Owens Creek and a relatively narrow riparian corridor are location in the northern portion of the site, but are not located within the proposed project footprint. A list of plants observed during the field surveys is included in Attachment B Wildlife A list of wildlife observed during the field surveys is included in Attachment C. Wildlife habitat is limited due to the absence of cover in the proposed project area and the lack of complexity on the site. Species documented during the survey were generally common and adaptable species including northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), and coyote (Canis latrans) tracks and scat. Several black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) and California ground squirrels were seen during the survey Soils Four soil types are identified within the Project Area (Figure 2. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types) including Porterville clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Marguerite silty clay loam 0 to 1 percent slopes; Yokohi clay loam 0 to 3 percent slopes; and Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes (NRCS 2013) Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

54 4.2.4 Potential Waters of the U.S. A wetland assessment was conducted to determine the distribution and extent of potential Waters of the U.S., including wetlands within the site. The site appears to have been historically leveled and is currently a fig orchard, although in partial disrepair. Owens Creek is a mapped NWI feature, labeled as intermittent stream/river and occurs 100 feet north of the proposed project development site, (Figure 3. Aerial and Wetland Information) (USFWS 2013). Owens Creek has a streambed width of feet. During the site visit, the northwestern reach of the creek was inundated and ponded to a depth of approximately 3 4 feet deep. The source of the water is likely irrigation runoff, but this section appeared to be perennially inundated. Dense riparian vegetation, primarily Himalayan blackberry (Rhubus armenicus), bulrush (Schoenoplectus species), johnsongrass (Sorghum halpense), and giant reed grass (Arundo donax) and fruit trees provided an overstory on the banks of the ponded section. The southeastern reach of the creek had no standing water and was dry during the site visit. This section appeared to be ephemeral and rarely inundated. Water flow through this area, when it occurs, may occur at relatively high velocity as indicated by the sandy substrate. The southern bank of Owens Creek was covered with an abundance of pruned fig branches, perhaps in preparation of burning. Numerous discarded household appliances and other debris (tires, pallets, trash) were found in the dry, sandy creek bed. The project design has incorporated a 100-foot buffer so that potential impacts from panel cleaning and other maintenance operations will not directly or indirectly affect Owens Creek Special-Status Plants No special-status plants were observed during the field survey. Thirteen special-status plants have been previously documented to occur within 5 miles of the proposed project site (CDFW 2013) (Figure 4. CNDDB Occurrence Records for Special-Status Species). These are: beaked clarkia (Clarkia rostrata), colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana), Dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla), Green s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei), heartscale (Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata), Hoover s calycandenia (Calycadenia hooveri), Merced phacelia (Pacelia ciliate var. opaca), pincushion navaretia (Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii), San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), shining navaretia (Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians), spiny-sepaled button-celery (Eryngium spinosepalum), and succulent owls clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta). These special-status plants are associated with unique soil/geological characteristics, vegetation communities, and/or habitats, generally vernal pools and valley/foothill grassland. There are no vernal pools, other aquatic habitats, or grasslands on-site. The creek that flows through the northern portions of the site is 100 feet north of the project site and will not be impacted by the proposed project as it is currently configured. Due to the absence of habitat within the project site, the proposed project will not adversely affect special-status plants Special-Status Wildlife One special-status bird species (loggerhead shrike) was observed perched on overhead lines during field surveys. There is suitable nesting habitat (trees) for this species on-site. A number of other special-status animal species have been documented within 5 miles of the project site (Figure 4), including vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Swainson s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

55 There are no aquatic features on-site, so vernal pool fairy shrimp (federally Threatened) and tadpole shrimp (federally Endangered), which occur only in still, seasonally inundated vernal pool depressions, do not occur on-site. California tiger salamander (a state and federal-listed Threatened species) and Western spadefoot (a California Species of Special Concern) breed in seasonally inundated waters, often vernal pools, during their late winter/early spring reproductive periods. Adults of both species use uplands extensively during most other times of the year, foraging above ground at night during suitable weather (warm, humid nights). These species use underground retreats, especially small mammal burrows, as temporary refugia and for estivation during hot, dry times of the year. Spadefoots also will dig their own burrows in soft, friable soils. Aquatic habitat needs for these species generally include predator-free ponded or slowly moving waters in which eggs are laid and resultant aquatic larvae can grow to metamorphosis. Because there are no waters directly on-site, breeding does not occur within project limits. The inundated northwestern section of Owens Creek appears to have a hydroperiod unsuitable for breeding for California tiger salamander and Western spadefoot. The long, possibly perennial inundation of the ponded area favors introduced predators such as American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbieanus), crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), and fish, including mosquitofish (Gambusia sp.). Conversely, the southeastern section of Owens creek appears to be too ephemeral and may flow with too much velocity when inundated to support breeding. Despite a very narrow fringe of ground squirrel and other small mammal burrows on the bank of Owens Creek, no small mammal burrows were found within the actual project site. The site is frequently disced and mowed, and upland areas within the project limits appear unsuitable for use as temporary refugia or for aestivation. The project site is approximately 2 miles west of designated and occupied critical habitat for California tiger salamander (Critical Habitat Unit 10; Figure 4). An extensive mixed agricultural matrix of orchards and intensively farmed fields occurs between the project site and known occupied critical habitat. Additional critical habitat (Critical Habitat Unit 9) occurs approximately 6 miles northwest of the project site. Again, an extensive matrix of agriculture and the town of Planada exists between the project site and this known occupied habitat. All spadefoot occurrences in the larger area are in association with the critical habitat units designated for California tiger salamander and none are from within the intense agriculture surrounding the site (Figure 4). Habitat for the western pond turtle (a California Species of Special Concern) consists of ponds, marshes, creeks or aquatic features with aquatic vegetation, none of which occur directly on the project site. Owens Creek north of the site provides potential habitat. However, the water quality conditions observed during the site assessment appeared very marginal (water appeared to contain pollutants) for western pond turtle occupancy. Thermoregulatory options for these ectothermic animals appeared lacking. Suitable basking areas within ponded areas appeared limited, and the shoreline was densely vegetated and perhaps too deeply shaded to serve as suitable basking areas. Additionally, the intensive agricultural use of uplands right up to the banks of Owens Creek suggests that upland breeding habitat in the vicinity is extremely limited. The nearest record for this species is from approximately 6 miles northeast of the project site, below Owens Reservoir. The use of a 100-foot buffer between the project site and Owens Creek should minimize any impacts to this species, if it exists adjacent to the impact area. The site provides potential habitat for burrowing owls, a California Species of Special Concern. Abundant ground squirrel burrows, which burrowing owls use for shelter and nesting, were observed off-site along the bank of Owens River. The project site could provide foraging or nesting habitat Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

56 In consultation with CDFW, the CEQA Lead Agency will likely be required to perform burrowing owl surveys of the project area and associated 500-foot buffer surrounding the property. Mitigation and minimization measures, including the postponement of ground disturbing activities until after the breeding season, may be required if owls are documented during protocol surveys (CDFW 2012). Large trees surrounding the project area provide potential nesting habitat for the Californiathreatened Swainson s hawk. No active Swainson s hawk or other raptor nests were found during the field assessment. As described above, the project site is an orchard surrounded by irrigated fields and other orchards. The orchard on-site does not provide any potential Swainson s hawk nesting habitat and is considered unsuitable foraging habitat for Swainson s hawk (CDFW 1994). Additionally, irrigated and fallowed row-crops and pastures closer to documented active Swainson s hawk nests (Figure 4) provide ideal foraging habitat. Because nesting and foraging habitat does not occur on-site, he proposed project would not adversely affect Swainson s hawk. The site is located within the known range of the federal- and state-endangered San Joaquin kit fox. Use of burrows within Owens Creek berm north of the site cannot be ruled out, and the project site may provide foraging habitat for this species. In order for projects to avoid impacts to San Joaquin kit fox, surveys should be conducted by qualified personnel within 200 feet of the project footprint (USFWS 2011). Minimum buffers of 50 feet for potential or atypical dens and 100 feet for known dens must be established with fencing permeable to kit foxes around dens to ensure that construction activities avoid them (USFWS 2011). Natal/pupping dens, if found, are demarcated in consultation with USFWS and may have larger buffers. In occupied kit fox areas several additional measures are required during construction and ongoing operation, including limiting vehicle speed and preventing entrapment of foxes in trenches, pipes, and culverts (USFWS 2011) Wildlife Movement/Corridors The proposed project is located within an intensively farmed landscape and in close proximity to existing rural residences, vehicular traffic, a railroad right-of-way, and human presence. Owens Creek located north of the site may provide wildlife cover and a movement corridor. The project, as currently configured, will not impact the creek. However, the potential exists for burrowing owls, if present, to forage within the project area. Fencing surrounding the proposed project site will not likely hinder movements of burrowing owls, if present. The potential also exists for San Joaquin kit fox to use banks and vegetation within the creek for denning or movement between areas. Fencing permeable to kit foxes (USFWS 2011) will likely be required so that movements of kit foxes, if present, will not be hindered. With minimization measures, he proposed project will not significantly affect wildlife movement Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

57 5.0 Recommendations This assessment does not preclude the potential for birds, including ground-nesting species such as burrowing owl, to nest on-site in the future. All native birds, including raptors, are protected under the California Fish and Game Code and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The potential for occurrence of the San Joaquin kit fox cannot be ruled out based on this assessment. To ensure that there are no impacts to protected active bird nests and San Joaquin kit fox the following mitigation measures are recommended: Migratory/Raptor Nesting a. Conduct a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds of all suitable habitats on the project site within 14 days of the commencement of construction. The bird survey will be conducted if construction begins during the nesting season (February 1-August 31), and will extend at least 500-feet beyond the project boundary b. If active nests are found, a no-disturbance buffer around the nest shall be established. The buffer distance shall be established by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. Identified nests shall be continuously survey for the first 24 hours prior to any construction related activities to establish a behavioral baseline, and the nests shall continue to be monitored to detect any behavioral changes. If behavioral changes are observed, work that is causing the behavioral change shall halt until consultation with CDFW. The buffer shall be maintained until the fledglings are capable of flight and become independent of the nest tree, as determined by a qualified biologist. Once the young are independent of the nest, no further measures are necessary. Pre-construction nesting surveys are not required for construction activity outside the nesting season. Additionally, all vertical pipes and fencing poles should be capped to prevent bird death and injury and no pesticides or rodenticides shall be used on the project site. c. Conduct protocol-level surveys for burrowing owl according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) in all suitable habitats on the project site and within the 500-foot buffer at least 14 days prior to groundbreaking. If active burrowing owl burrows are found during the breeding season (February 1-August 31), CDFW will be consulted. At the very least, occupied burrows will be completely avoided and marked with a buffer for complete avoidance. If found during non-breeding season, CDFW will provide guidance regarding suitable buffer size and collapsing of burrows. d. The project site does not appear to include nesting or foraging habitat for Swainson s hawk. However, if required by the CEQA Lead Agency, surveys for Swainson s hawk may be conducted out to 0.5 mile beyond the project boundary and performed according to the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California s Central Valley (SWTAC 2000). San Joaquin Kit Fox a. Conduct a pre-construction clearance for San Joaquin kit fox on the project site and out to 200-feet within 14 days of the commencement of construction Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

58 b. If found on-site, mitigation and minimization requirements from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011) will be implemented prior to ground disturbance. These measures include but are not limited to: establishing exclusionary buffers around dens, making sure trenches and steep-sloped holes are ramped, using project-fencing permeable to kit fox movement, reducing speed limits in project areas, and containing all food and trash. c. A Worker s Awareness Training shall be conducted prior to construction and include training materials and a briefing covering all sensitive species and habitats tor further educate construction personnel regarding potential adverse effects to these resources. These training materials and briefings would include the laws and regulations that protect these resources and the consequences of non-compliance with those laws and regulations. A contact person shall be provided in the event that protected biological resources are discovered at the project site Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

59 6.0 References California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swainson s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. Dated November 8. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Dated March 7. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Rarefind Natural Diversity Database Program. Version 3.1.1, commercial version dated: March 1, California Natural Diversity Database. The Resources Agency, Sacramento. Accessed 5/27/2013. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-13mar ). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed 5/27/2013. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climatography of the United States No. 81, Monthly Station Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days, , 04 California. NOAA, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Climatic Data Center. Asheville, North Carolina. SHTAC (Swainson s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee) Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson s hawk nesting surveys in California s Central Valley. Dated May 31. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2). Available online: Accessed 7/19/2013. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory. Available Online: Accessed 7/19/2013 United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Dated January United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS) "Planada, California" 7.5-minute Quadrangle. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit Map, State of California. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia Green Light Energy SURVEY REPORTS/Biology/LeGrande/Sirius Bio

60 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity Figure 2. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Figure 3. Site Aerial and Wetland Information Figure 4. California Natural Diversity Database Occurrences of Special-Status Species

61 PROJECT Location: N:\2013\ GLEC Solar Sites\MAPS\Site_Vicinity\Sirius_LnV_v1.mxd (DW)-dwagnon 8/13/2013 Merced County, California 35, T.07S, R.15E, MDBM Latitude: 37 16' 27" N Longitude: ' 18" W Watershed: Middle San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla ( ) Sc ale in Feet I 0 1,000 2,000 Planada CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle US Geological Survey (1961) Map Date: 8/13/2013 Service Layer Credits: Copyright: 2012 DeLorme PROJECT Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity GLEC Solar Sites

62 PwA PwA AaA Figure 2. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Map Features Serius-LeGrand Project Boundary Series Number - Series Name MfA - Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes YdA YdA YbA YbA PwA PwA - Porterville clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes YbA - Yokohl clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes YdA - Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes YdA MfA MfA MfA Owens Creek Location: N:\2013\ GLEC Solar Sites\MAPS\Soils\Sirius_Soils.mxd (ECK, DW)-dwagnon 8/13/2013 PwA GLEC Solar Sites PwA Sc ale in Feet PwA I PwA Photo Source: NAIP 2009 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Merced, CA Map Date: 8/13/2013

63 Figure 3. Wetland Assessment and Biological Constraints Map Features Project Boundary Area Not Surveyed XY XY "J Power Lines California Walnut English Walnut Coyote Den!" Loggerhead Shrike Creek CNDDB Occurrences 2 Hoary Bat Location: N:\2013\ GLEC Solar Sites\MAPS\SSS_Survey_and_Mapping\Constraints\WA_v1\Sirius_ConstraintsWA_v1.mxd (DW)-dwagnon 8/13/ GLEC Solar Sites Owens Creek Sc ale in Feet I Photo Source: NAIP (2009) 2 CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), May 2013 Update (GIS Shapefile) Planada Sc ale in Mile s Map Date: 8/13/2013

64 MINTURN RD Location: N:\2013\ GLEC Solar Sites\MAPS\SSS_Survey_and_Mapping\CNDDB\Sirius_CNDDB_201307_5mi.mxd (DW)-dwagnon 8/13/2013 #* [c #* [c E!" v O L I V E A V E E CHILDS AVE [b KIBBY RD [c Merced GLEC Solar Sites #* [c #* #* #* #* ÄÆ 99 #* [c #* [c #*!"B!"B #* #* [c #* [c #* [c!" l #* [c #* [b [b [c [c [c [c [c [c [c #* [c [c [b [b [b!"b!" v Planada PLAINSBURG RD [c Mi le s [c [c [c [c [c [c ÄÆ L E G R A N D #* #* [c SANTA FE AVE R D I!"!" v [c [c #* [c [c!" v [c #*!" v!" v [c #* [c [c!" #* v [c #* [c #*!" v #* [c #* [c [c [c "v [c [c [c [c #* #* #*!" v!" [c v!" #*!" l v!" l #*!" l!" #* #* l v!" l [c #* #* #* #*!" #* lv [c #*!" l!" [c l #*!" [c lv #* #*!" l!"b Le Grand!" v [c #* #*!" v M a rr i M M e e r r c c e e d d C C o o u u n n t t y y i p o s a C o u n tt y [c [c [c #* [c [c[c!" l!" v [c W H I T E R O C K S SANTA FE AVE #* R D "v [c [c #* #*!" lv Owens Reser voir!" v!" v Distance From Project 1 mile 5 miles CNDDB Occurrences 2 Plants Figure 4. CNDDB Occurrences of Special-Status Species Beaked Clarkia Colusa Grass Dwarf Downingia Greene's Tuctoria Hoover's Calycadenia Pincushion Navarretia San Joaquin Valley Orcutt Grass #* Shining Navarretia #* Spiny-sepaled Button-celery #* Succulent Owl's-clover Inver tebrates [c Conservancy Fairy Shrimp [c Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp [c Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Critical Habitat 3 Colusa Grass Fleshy Owl's-clover Greene's Tuctoria San Joaquin Orcutt Grass Boundaries Project Boundary 1 CNDDB Polygon Extent 2 Amphibians/Reptiles!" v California Tiger Salamander "v Western Pond Turtle!" l Western Spadefoot Birds!" Burrowing Owl!" Mountain Plover* [b Swainson's Hawk Mammals!"B San Joaquin Kit Fox California Tiger Salamander Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Thismap mayinclude multiple species occurrencesateach location, some of which may not be visible on this graphic.the CNDDB occurr encesshownmaynotreflecttheactuallocationoftheoccur r ence. *Speciesoccur renceisrepresentedsolelybyapolygon. Thecentr oid pointisnotvisiblewithinthemapextents. 1 Project Boundary: Z Global/Merced County Parcel 2 CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), July 2013 Update (GIS Shapefile) 3 USFWS Final Critical Habitat CNDDB Occurrences Located on USGS 7.5' Quadrangles: El Nido, Le Grand, Merced, Owens Reservoir, Plainsburg, Planada, Yosemite Lake. Map Date: 8/13/2013

65 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Representative Site Photographs Attachment B - Plants Observed On-Site (30 May 2013) Attachment C - Wildlife Observed On-Site (30 May 2013)

66 ATTACHMENT A Representative Site Photographs

67 View from North edge of site looking southeast. Project site to right, riverine feature at boundary is to the left. View from north edge of property looking south through site. Representative Site Photos GLEC Solar Sites Sirius BRA

68 View from southern edge of site looking north. View from southern edge of site looking northwest. Representative Site Photos GLEC Solar Sites Sirius BRA

69 ATTACHMENT B Plants Observed On-Site (30 May 2013)

70 Attachment B. Plants Observed On-site (30 May 2013) Scientific Name ASTERACEAE Artemisia douglasiana Silybum marianum BORAGINACEAE Amsinckia menziesii BRASSICACEAE Brassica species* Raphinus sativa CONVOLVULACEAE Convolvulus arvensis* EUPHORBIACEAE Croton setigerus FABACEAE Vicia villosa GERANIACEAE Erodium botrys* MALVACEAE Malva parviflora POACEAE Arundo donax Avena fatua Bromus diandrus Bromus hordeaceus Cynodon dactylon* Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum* Sorghum halepense SALICACEAE Salix exigua SOLANACEAE Datura wrightii ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Tribulus terrestris *Denotes non-native species Common Name SUNFLOWER FAMILY Mugwort Milk Thistle BORAGE FAMILY Rancher s fireweed MUSTARD FAMILY Mustard Wild radish MORNING-GLORY FAMILY Morning glory SPURGE FAMILY Turkey Mullein PEA FAMILY Winter vetch GERANIUM FAMILY Filaree MALLOW FAMILY Cheeseweed GRASS FAMILY Giant reed grass Wild oats Ripgut brome Soft brome Bermuda grass Mediterranean barley Johnson grass WILLOW FAMILY Sandbar willow NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Jimsonweed CALTROP FAMILY Puncture vine

71 ATTACHMENT C Wildlife Observed On-Site (30 May 2013)

72 Attachment C. Wildlife Observed On-Site (30 May 2013) Common Name Reptiles Western fence lizard Birds Mallard Turkey vulture Red-tailed hawk Black phoebe Western kingbird Loggerhead Shrike American crow Common Raven Cliff swallow American robin Northern mockingbird European starling Red-winged blackbird Western Meadowlark Brewer s blackbird House Finch House Sparrow Mammals Botta s Pocket Gopher Scientific Name Sceloporus occidentalis Anas platyrhynchos Cathartes aura Buteo jamaicensis Sayornis nigricans Tyrannus verticalis Lanius ludovicianus Corvus brachyrhynchos Corvus corax Petrochelidon pyrrhonata Turdus migratorius Mimus polyglottos Sturnus vulgaris Agelaius phoeniceus Sturnella neglecta Euphagus cyanocephalus Haemorhous mexicanus Passer domesticus Thomomys bottae

73 APPENDIX C CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT

74

75 DRAFT Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility Merced County, California ECORP Project No Prepared For: Jeremy Vaa Greenlight Energy Corporation 103 Crescent Ave #3 San Francisco, California Prepared By: Katherine Knapp, RPA and Jeremy Adams, M.A. ECORP Consulting, Inc Warren Drive Rocklin, California August 2013

76 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY In 2013, Greenlight Energy Corporation of San Francisco retained ECORP Consulting, Inc. to conduct a cultural resources survey of the proposed Sirius Solar Facility in Merced County. The entire Project Area is composed of 23 acres; however, Greenlight Energy Corporation plans to only develop the portion of the property south of the irrigation canal located within the northeastern end of the Project Area. Therefore, even though the project area totals 23 acres, only 22.7 acres were surveyed as stipulated by future project design. The Project Area is located approximately one mile southeast of the town of Planada, in Merced County, California. The inventory included a records search, literature review, and field survey. The records search results indicated that three previous cultural resources studies were conducted within 0.5 mile of the project area, and two sites (Planada Canal and Atchison, Topeka, Santa Fe Railroad) and one district (Merced Irrigation District) have previously been recorded within 0.5 mile of the project area. No sites or districts have been previously recorded within the project area. A field survey was carried out on 30 May As a result of the survey, one site was recorded: (SIR- 001) consisting of a ranching complex containing a front gabled two-story residential house and three structures associated with fig processing and drying. This resource must be evaluated using the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility criteria. If the site is eligible and inside the project area, as determined by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), mitigation could consist of some combination of preservation in place, data recovery, and public interpretation. Recommendations for the management of unanticipated discoveries are also provided. i / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

77 CONTENTS Cultural Resources Survey Sirius Facility MANAGEMENT SUMMARY... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION Project Location Project Description Area of Potential Effect Regulatory Context Report Organization SETTING Environmental Setting Geology and Soils Vegetation and Wildlife CULTURAL CONTEXT Regional Prehistory Local Prehistory Ethnography Regional History Project Area History METHODS Personnel Qualifications Records Search Methods Native American Coordination Methods Field Methods RESULTS Records Search Native American Coordination Results Field Survey Results MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Conclusions...21

78 6.2 Unanticipated Discovery REFERENCES CITED...23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Site and Vicinity Figure 2. Survey coverage Figure 3. Overview of orchards in center of Project Area (view north, 30 May 2013)...16 Figure 4. View of the front of Feature 1, residence (view north, 30 May 2013)...17 Figure 5. View of the west side of the residence (Feature 1) to include the addition (view east, 30 May 2013)...17 Figure 6. View of the west side of Feature 2 (view east, 30 May 2013)...18 Figure 7. Overview of Feature 3, storage shed/drying tunnel (view northeast, 30 May 2013)...19 Figure 8. View of Feature 4, equipment cover (view northeast, 30 May 2013)...20 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Previous Cultural Study In or Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Property...12 Table 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Property...13 Table 3 GLO Land Patent Records...13 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Records Search Confirmation Attachment B Native American Coordination Attachment C Project Area Photographs Attachment D Confidential Site Record

79 1.0 INTRODUCTION In 2013, ECORP was retained by Greenlight Energy Corporation of San Francisco to conduct a cultural resources survey of the proposed Sirius Solar Facility (Project Area), located one mile southeast of the town of Planada, in Merced County, California. A survey of 22.7 acres of the 23-acre Project Area was required to identify potentially eligible cultural resources (archaeological sites and historic buildings, structures, and objects) that could be affected by the project. Property within the 23-acre Project Area totaling 0.3 acres, but northeast of the irrigation canal will not be developed and was therefore not surveyed for cultural resources. 1.1 Project Location The Project Area is composed of 23 acres located one mile southeast of the town of Planada in Merced County, California. The Project Area is located in the southwestern quarter of the southwestern quarter of Section 35, Township 07 South, Range 15 East, Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian (MDBM), as shown on the Planada USGS topographic quadrangle maps (Figure 1). The Project Area is a triangular shape and rests on private ranch land bounded by fig fields on the west, Mission Avenue on the south, and Santa Fe Avenue on the northeast. The Assessor s Parcel Number for the property is Project Description The proposed project is a solar power generation system that would cover approximately 10 acres in the southeast corner of the 23-acre Project Area. 1.3 Area of Potential Effect The Area of Potential Effects (APE) consists of the horizontal and vertical limits of the project, and includes the area within which significant impacts or adverse effects to Historical Resources or Historic Properties could occur as a result of the project. The horizontal APE consists of all areas where activities associated with the project are proposed, and in the case of the current project, equals the project area subject to environmental review under CEQA. This includes areas proposed for construction, pole replacement or installation, vegetation removal, grading, trenching, stockpiling, staging, paving, and other elements described in the official project description. The horizontal APE is illustrated in Figure 1 and also represents the survey coverage area. It measures approximately 22.7 acres in size. The vertical APE is described as the maximum depth below the surface to which excavations for project foundations and facilities will extend. Thus, the vertical APE includes all subsurface areas where archaeological deposits could be affected. The subsurface vertical APE varies across the project, depending on whether or not solar panel supports are installed. Ground disturbance of up to 10 feet below the surface will be necessary in order to install solar panel supports and related equipment. The vertical APE also is described as the maximum height of poles and equipment, which could impact the physical integrity and integrity of setting of cultural resources, including districts and traditional cultural properties. For the current project, the above-surface vertical APE is up to 30 feet above the surface, which is the maximum height of the proposed solar panels / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

80 Figure 1. Project Site and Vicinity / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

81 1.4 Regulatory Context To meet the regulatory requirements of this project, this cultural resources investigation was conducted pursuant to the provisions for the treatment of cultural resources contained within Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Res. Code et seq.). The goal of NHPA and CEQA is to develop and maintain a high-quality environment that serves to identify the significant environmental effects of the actions of a proposed project and to either avoid or mitigate those significant effects where feasible. CEQA pertains to all proposed projects that require state or local government agency approval, including the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of development project maps. NHPA pertains to projects that entail some degree of federal funding or permit approval. NHPA and CEQA (Title 14, CCR, Article 5, Section ) apply to cultural resources of the historical and prehistoric periods. Any project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a cultural resource, either directly or indirectly, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. As a result, such a project would require avoidance or mitigation of impacts to those affected resources. Significant cultural resources must meet at least one of four criteria that define eligibility for listing on either the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Pub. Res. Code , Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 60.4). Cultural resources eligible for listing on the NRHP are considered Historic Properties under 36 CFR Part 800 and are automatically eligible for the CRHR. Resources listed on or eligible for inclusion in the CRHR are considered Historical Resources under CEQA. In anticipation of the possibility that the project may affect Waters of the United States (U.S.), thereby requiring the project proponent to meet the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District Regulatory Branch, this report is also in compliance with the 2011 Sacramento District Regulatory Branch Guidelines for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Moreover, because this project qualifies as a federal undertaking, regulations (36 CFR Part 800) implementing Section 106 of the NHPA require that cultural resources be identified and then evaluated using NRHP eligibility criteria. 1.5 Report Organization The following report documents the study and its findings and was prepared in conformance with the California Office of Historic Preservation s Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Contents and Format. Attachment A includes a confirmation of the records search with the California Historical Resources Information System. Attachment B contains documentation of Native American Consultation. Attachment C presents photographs of the Project Area. Attachment D contains a confidential site record for SIR-001. Sections 6253, 6254, and of the California Code authorize state agencies to exclude archaeological site information from public disclosure under the Public Records Act. In addition, the California Public Records Act (Government Code 6250 et seq.) and California s open meeting laws (The Brown Act, Government Code et seq.) protect the confidentiality of Native American cultural place information. Under Exemption 3 of the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 5), because the disclosure of cultural resources location information on federal lands is prohibited by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470hh), it is also exempted from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Likewise, the Information Centers of the California Historical Resources Information System maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation prohibit public dissemination of records search information. Likewise, the Information Centers of the California Historical Resources Information System maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation prohibit public dissemination of records search / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

82 information. This report was prepared as a confidential document, which is not intended for public distribution in either paper or electronic format. 2.0 SETTING 2.1 Environmental Setting The Project Area is located in the eastern portion of the lower Central Valley and has a Mediterranean climate, which is characterized by hot and dry summer months and cold and wet winter months. The annual precipitation in Merced, California is 12.4 inches (with the wettest period during November- March), and average temperatures ranging from 61 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in December to 87 degrees F in July (NOAA 2002). The local topography is the interface between the flat Central Valley floor and the gently rolling to hilly terrain of the Sierra Nevada Range immediately to the east. The Project Area has a flat aspect and has an elevation range from 230 to 237 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The Project Area lies within an agricultural area southeast of the farming community of Planada, California. The lands surrounding the site are generally irrigated fields and orchards with flat topography. The project area consists of an active fig (Ficus carica) orchard. Numerous large California oak (Juglans californica) trees occur at the northern edge of the property along a riverine feature that bounds the northern boundary. 2.2 Geology and Soils Four soil types are identified within the Project Area including Porterville clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Marguerite silty clay loam 0 to 1 percent slopes; Yokohi clay loam 0 to 3 percent slopes; and Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes (California Soil Resource Lab 2013). 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife The sole vegetation community in the Project Area is a planted fig orchard, with disked soil underneath. West, south, and eastern edges of the property have a fringe of road weeds consisting of wild oats (Avena fatua) and mustards. Wildlife habitat is limited due to the absence of cover in the Project Area. Documented species include: northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), coyote (Canis latrans), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), and California ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus beechii). 3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT 3.1 Regional Prehistory It is generally believed that human occupation of California began at least 10,000 years before present (BP). The archaeological record indicates that between approximately 10,000 and 8000 years BP, a predominantly hunting economy existed, characterized by archaeological sites containing numerous projectile points and butchered large animal bones. Animals that were hunted probably consisted mostly of large species still alive today. Bones of extinct species have been found, but cannot definitely be associated with human artifacts. Although small animal bones and plant grinding tools are rarely found within archaeological sites of this period, small game and floral foods were probably exploited on a limited basis. A lack of deep cultural deposits from this period suggests that groups included only small numbers of individuals who did not often stay in one place for extended periods (Wallace 1978a) / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

83 Around 8000 years BP, there was a shift in focus from hunting towards a greater reliance on plant resources. Archaeological evidence of this trend consists of a much greater number of milling tools (e.g., metates and manos) for processing seeds and other vegetable matter. This period, which extended until around 5000 years BP, is sometimes referred to as the Millingstone Horizon (Wallace 1978a). Projectile points are found in archaeological sites from this period, but they are far fewer in number than from sites dating to before 8000 years BP. An increase in the size of groups and the stability of settlements is indicated by deep, extensive middens at some sites from this period (Wallace 1978a). In sites dating to after about 5000 years BP, archaeological evidence indicates that reliance on both plant gathering and hunting continued as in the previous period, with more specialized adaptation to particular environments. Mortars and pestles were added to metates and manos for grinding seeds and other vegetable material. Flaked-stone tools became more refined and specialized, and bone tools were more common. During this period, new peoples from the Great Basin began entering southern California. These immigrants, who spoke a language of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock, seem to have displaced or absorbed the earlier population of Hokan-speaking peoples. During this period, known as the Late Horizon, population densities were higher than before and settlement became concentrated in villages and communities along the coast and interior valleys (Erlandson 1994; McCawley 1996). Regional subcultures also started to develop, each with its own geographical territory and language or dialect (Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996; Moratto 1984). These were most likely the basis for the groups encountered by the first Europeans during the eighteenth century (Wallace 1978a). Despite the regional differences, many material culture traits were shared among groups, indicating a great deal of interaction (Erlandson 1994). The introduction of the bow and arrow into the region sometime around 2,000 years BP is indicated by the presence of small projectile points (Wallace 1978a; Moratto 1984). 3.2 Local Prehistory The San Joaquin Valley and adjacent Sierra foothills and Coast Range have a long and complex cultural history with distinct regional patterns that extend back more than 11,000 years (McGuire 1995). The first generally agreed-upon evidence for the presence of prehistoric peoples in the region is represented by the distinctive basally-thinned and fluted projectile points, found on the margins of extinct lakes in the San Joaquin Valley. These projectiles, often compared to Clovis points, have been found at three localities in the San Joaquin Valley including along the Pleistocene shorelines of former Tulare Lake (approximately 11 miles southwest of the Project Area). Based on evidence from these sites and other well-dated contexts elsewhere, these Paleo-Indian hunters who used these spear points existed during a narrow time range of 11,550 to 8550 BP (Rosenthal et al. 2007). As a result of climate change at the end of the Pleistocene, a period of extensive deposition occurred throughout the lowlands of central California, burying many older landforms and providing a distinct break between Pleistocene and subsequent occupations during the Holocene. Another period of deposition, also a product of climate change, had similar results around 7550 BP, burying some of the oldest archaeological deposits discovered in California (Rosenthal and Meyer 2004). The Lower Archaic ( BP) is characterized by an apparent contrast in economies, although it is possible they may be seasonal expressions of the same economy. Archaeological deposits which date to this period on the valley floor frequently include only large stemmed spear points, suggesting an emphasis on large game such as artiodactyls (Wallace 1991). Recent discoveries in the adjacent Sierra Nevada have yielded distinct milling assemblages which clearly indicate a reliance on plant foods. Investigations at Copperopolis (LaJeunesse and Pryor 1996) argue that nut crops were the primary target of seasonal plant exploitation. Assemblages at these foothill sites include dense accumulations of handstones, millingslabs, and various cobble-core tools, representing frequently visited camps in a seasonally structured settlement system (Rosenthal et al. 2007). As previously stated, these may represent different elements of the seasonal round. What is known is that during the Lower Archaic, regional interaction spheres had been well established. Marine shell from the central California coast has / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

84 been found in early Holocene contexts in the great basin east of the Sierra Nevada, and eastern Sierra obsidian comprises a large percentage of flaked stone debitage and tools recovered from sites on both sides of the Sierra. About 8,000 years ago, many California cultures shifted the main focus of their subsistence strategies from hunting to nut and seed gathering, as evidenced by the increase in food-grinding implements found in archeological sites dating to this period. This cultural pattern is best known for southern California, where it has been termed the Millingstone Horizon (Wallace 1954, 1978a), but recent studies suggest that the horizon may be more widespread than originally described and is found throughout the region during the Middle Archaic Period. Radiocarbon dates associated with this period vary between 8,000 and 2,000 BP, although most cluster in the 6000 to 4000 BP range (Basgall and True 1985). On the valley floor, early Middle Archaic sites are relatively rare. This changes significantly toward the end of the Middle Archaic. In central California late Middle Archaic settlement focused on river courses on the valley floor. Extended residential settlement at these sites is indicated by refined and specialized tool assemblages and features, a wide range of non-utilitarian artifacts, abundant trade objects, and plant and animal remains indicative of year-round occupation (Rosenthal et al. 2007). Again, climate change apparently influence this shift, with warmer, drier conditions prevailing throughout California. The shorelines of many lakes, including Tulare Lake, contracted substantially, while at the same time rising sea levels favored the expansion of the San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta region, with newly formed wetlands extending eastward from the San Francisco Bay. In contrast, early Middle Archaic sites are relatively common in the Sierran foothills, and the mainly utilitarian assemblages recovered show relatively little change from the preceding period with a continued emphasis on acorns and pine nuts. Few bone or shell artifacts, beads, or ornaments have been recovered from these localities. Projectile points from this period reflect a high degree of regional morphological variability, with an emphasis on local toolstone material supplemented with a small amount of obsidian from eastern sources. In contrast with the more elaborate mortuary assemblages and extended burial mode documented at Valley sites, burials sites documented at some foothill sites such as CA-FRE-61 on Wahtoke Creek are reminiscent of re-burial features reported from Millingstone Horizon sites in southern California. These reburials are characterized by re-interment of incomplete skeletons often capped with inverted millingstones (McGuire 1995). A return to colder and wetter conditions marked the Upper Archaic in Central California ( BP). Previously desiccated lakes returned to spill levels and increased freshwater flowed in the San Joaquin and Sacramento watershed. Cultural patterns as reflected in the archeological record, particularly specialized subsistence practices, emerged during this period. The archeological record becomes more complex, as specialized adaptations to locally available resources were developed and valley populations expanded into the lower Sierran foothills. New and specialized technologies expanded distinct shell bead types occur across the region. The range of subsistence resources utilized and exchange systems expanded significantly from the previous period. In the Central Valley, archaeological evidence of social stratification and craft specialization is indicated by well-made artifacts such as charmstones and beads, often found as mortuary items. The period between approximately 1000 BP and Euro-American contact is referred to as the Emergent Period. The Emergent Period is marked by the introduction of bow and arrow technology which replaced the dart and atlatl at about 1100 to 800 BP. In the San Joaquin region, villages and small residential sites developed along the many stream courses in the lower foothills and along the river channels and sloughs of the valley floor. A local form of pottery was developed in the southern Sierran foothills along the Kaweah River. While many sites with rich archaeological assemblages have been documented in the northern Central Valley, relatively few sites have been documented from this period in the southern Sierran foothills and adjacent valley floor, despite the fact that the ethnographic record suggests dense populations for this region / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

85 3.3 Ethnography The Project Area can also be associated with territory occupied by the Penutian-speaking Northern Valley Yokuts. Their territory extended from above the junction of the San Joaquin, Old, and Mokelumne rivers on the north, to the big westward bend in the San Joaquin River in the south. Unfortunately, the ethnography of the northern, or lower, San Joaquin Valley is poorly known, due to the fact that the native inhabitants were for the most part gone by the time studies were undertaken. Disease, flight from missionization, and conflicts with the miners and settlers who suddenly entered the area in large numbers reduced the native population to small, isolated remnants. Thus, the available information has been gleaned from historic accounts of early explorers, soldiers, hunters and trappers, and missionaries. Archaeology has added some information, but the record is by no means complete (Wallace 1978b). The Yokuts, (meaning person or people ) who were Penutian/Yokutsan speakers, were divided into three distinct groups: the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothills Yokuts. These groups spoke different dialects, and were separated by topography (Kroeber 1976; Shipley 1978). Controversy surrounds the date for Yokut presence in the northern part of the San Joaquin Valley. Linguistic studies suggest that the Northern Valley Yokuts were relatively recent arrivals, moving from the south about 500 years ago, as a result of pressure from Numic speakers moving into the San Joaquin drainage from the west. However, Moratto (1984) suggests that a Yokuts presence in the Stockton area can be discerned in the archaeological record before AD 400. A drier climate in the lower foothills and valley edges may have triggered occupation of the riverbanks in the central valley at that time. In any case, by the time the Spanish arrived in the early part of the nineteenth century, the Northern Valley Yokuts were well entrenched, with established settlements, on low mounds in the delta, and along the banks of the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. Population estimates for the entire San Joaquin Valley range from 11,000 to over 52,000, but these are only estimates, and the true population is not known (Moratto 1984; Wallace 1978b). Village settlements were composed of small round to oval house structures, which were closely spaced in a row along a riverbank. Houses were covered with light, woven tule reed mats, Villages were located mostly along the eastern bank of the San Joaquin River, and along its tributaries. Sweathouses and ceremonial chambers were also found in these villages (Wallace 1978b). Kroeber (1976) suggests that territories of the tribes within the Yokuts group averaged about 300 square miles, which he suggests is about a half-day s walk in each direction. Though no records exist, it is likely that social organization was centered on the family. It has been suggested that the Southern Valley Yokuts were divided into two moieties based on patrilineal descent, and this may have been true for those in the north, also (Wallace 1978b). However, marriage was matrilocal, with the groom moving in with the bride s family. Polygamy was also practiced, with wives located in several villages, thus creating ties and alliances between dispersed groups (Kroeber 1976). Not surprisingly, given their proximity to rivers and the delta, a large part of Northern Valley Yokuts subsistence was based on fishing. King salmon, which spawned in the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, were an important resource, but the Yokuts also made use of other native species such as white sturgeon, river perch, western suckers, and Sacramento pike. Dragnets with stone sinkers were used, as were harpoons with bone or antler tips (Wallace 1978b). In addition, the enormous populations of waterfowl present in the valley were exploited, as were the large herds of tule elk and pronghorn antelope. It is thought, however, that hunting was a marginal resource procurement activity, when compared to fishing. Gathering of plant resources, though, was as important as fishing, with acorns from the stands of huge valley oaks being a major component of this activity. Tule roots and a variety of seeds also were utilized (Wallace 1978b). Like their Nisenan neighbors to the north, the Northern Valley Yokuts were politically organized into tribelets, estimated to be of about 300 people each. Tribelets known to be in the Delta area were the Chulamni, the Cholbones, the Coybos, and the Nototemnes. A tribelet identified as the Leuchas / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

86 reportedly lived near the project area, but were mostly missionized by about 1815 (Cook 1955, cited in Becker 2004). Generally sedentary, the Northern Valley Yokuts would disperse seasonally for hunting and gathering expeditions and were sometimes forced out by flooding (Wallace 1978b). Chiefs gained their position through wealth, and since women were occasionally chiefs, inheritance appears to have been important (Kroeber 1976). The Spanish arrived on the coast in 1769, and by 1776 the central valley had been explored by José Canizares. In 1808, the area was crossed by Gabriel Moraga, and in 1813, a major battle was fought between the Miwok to the north and the Spaniards near the mouth of the Cosumnes River. Though the Yokuts appear to have escaped being removed to missions by the Spanish, but they were not spared the ravages of European-spread disease. In 1833, an epidemic probably malaria raged through the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, killing an estimated 75% of the native population. Not far to the north, when John Sutter erected his fort at the future site of Sacramento, he had no problem getting the few neighboring Nisenan survivors to settle nearby. The discovery of gold in 1848, near the Nisenan village of Colluma (also Coloma), drew thousands of miners into the area, and led to widespread killing and the near total destruction of traditional Nisenan and Yokuts cultures (Wilson and Towne 1978). By the latter part of the 1800s, the Yokuts had virtually ceased to exist (Kroeber 1976; Wallace 1978b). 3.4 Regional History The first European to visit California was Spanish maritime explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo in Cabrillo was sent north by the Viceroy of New Spain (Mexico) to look for the Northwest Passage. Cabrillo visited San Diego Bay, Catalina Island, San Pedro Bay, and the northern Channel Islands. The English adventurer Francis Drake visited the Miwok Native American group at Drake s Bay or Bodega Bay in Sebastian Vizcaíno explored the coast as far north as Monterey in He reported that Monterey was an excellent location for a port (Castillo 1978). Colonization of California began with the Spanish Portolá land expedition. The expedition, led by Captain Gaspar de Portolá of the Spanish army and Father Junipero Serra, a Franciscan missionary, explored the California coast from San Diego to the Monterrey Bay Area in As a result of this expedition, Spanish missions to convert the native population, presidios (forts), and pueblos (towns) were established. The Franciscan missionary friars established 21 missions in Alta California (the area north of Baja California) beginning with Mission San Diego in 1769 and ending with the mission in Sonoma established in The purpose of the missions and presidios was to establish Spanish economic, military, political, and religious control over the Alta California territory. No missions were established in the Central Valley. The nearest missions were in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay and included Mission San Francisco de Asis (Dolores) established in 1776 on the San Francisco peninsula, Mission Santa Clara de Asis at the south end of San Francisco Bay in 1777, Mission San Jose in 1797, Mission San Rafael, established as an asistencia in 1817 and a full mission in 1823, and Mission San Francisco Solano in Sonoma in 1823 (Castillo 1978). Presidios were established at San Francisco and Monterey. The Spanish took little interest in the area and did not establish any missions or settlements in the Central Valley. After Mexico became independent from Spain in 1821, what is now California became the Mexican province of Alta California with its capital at Monterey. In 1827, American trapper Jedediah Smith traveled along the Sacramento River and into the San Joaquin Valley to meet other trappers of his company who were camped there, but no permanent settlements were established by the fur trappers (Thompson and West 1880). The Mexican government closed the missions in the 1830s and former mission lands, as well as previously unoccupied areas, were granted to retired soldiers and other Mexican citizens for use as cattle ranches. Much of the land along the coast and in the interior valleys became part of Mexican land grants or ranchos (Robinson 1948). During the Mexican period there were small towns at San Francisco (then / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

87 known as Yerba Buena) and Monterey. The rancho owners lived in one of the towns or in an adobe house on the rancho. The Mexican Period includes the years 1821 to John Sutter, a European immigrant, built a fort at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers in 1839 and petitioned the Mexican governor of Alta California for a land grant, which he received in Sutter built a flour mill and grew wheat near the fort (Bidwell 1971). Gold was discovered in the flume of Sutter s lumber mill at Coloma on the South Fork of the American River in January 1848 (Marshall 1971). The discovery of gold initiated the 1849 California Gold Rush, which brought thousands of miners and settlers to the Sierra foothills east and southeast of Sacramento. The American period began when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed between Mexico and the United States in As a result of the treaty, Alta California became part of the United States as the territory of California. Rapid population increase occasioned by the Gold Rush of 1849 allowed California to become a state in Most Mexican land grants were confirmed to the grantees by U.S. courts, but usually with more restricted boundaries, which were surveyed by the U.S. Surveyor General s office. Land outside the land grants became federal public land which was surveyed into sections, quarter-sections, and quarter-quarter sections. The federal public land could be purchased at a low fixed price per acre or could be obtained through homesteading (after 1862) (Robinson 1948). 3.5 Project Area History When California was divided into 27 counties in 1850, the region fell under Mariposa County, which was then further divided in 1855 into ten other counties, including Merced County (Elliott 1881). The construction of the Central Pacific Railroad (the name was changed to Southern Pacific Railroad in 1885) through the San Joaquin Valley (Valley) in 1872 led to the growth of the town of Merced, which, due to its location on the railroad route, allowed it to supersede the town of Snelling as the county seat in 1872 (Elliott 1881). The agricultural industry surrounding the Project Area continues to be one of the primary economic activities in Merced County. The historical landscape of the Valley in Merced County is conducive to growing a variety of crops because of the topography. Wheat and other grains were grown in the late 19th century and were the foundation for the local economy of Merced (Outcalt 1925). Another historically lucrative industry throughout Merced County was cattle ranching. Expansive grasslands, annual winter rains, and unending miles of land throughout the Valley made cattle ranching a profitable business. Prior to 1848 in California, cattle were used for their hides and tallow (Jelinek 1982); an average size steer would cost as much as $4 a head and was often sold at ranchos. The onset of the Gold Rush in 1848, however, resulted in a huge influx of miners and settlers into California, which raised the demand for beef in the growing cities of San Francisco, Sacramento, and the surrounding areas. The demand for cattle became so great that prices soared to as much as $500 a head when purchased in San Francisco. During the 1850s, cattle were primarily raised using free-range methods on the established large open ranchos. Within the decade of the Gold Rush, when competition for land was fierce, cattle ranching moved from the free-range style of the ranchos to the European style of feedlots and fenced areas. A no-fence law was passed in 1872, which made ranchers responsible for the damages caused by their livestock if they were unfenced (Jelinek 1982). Both ranchers and farmers have adapted to the arid summer climate of the central valley by constructing irrigation systems throughout the region. In the 1860s, these began as small scale projects that modified and expanded existing natural waterways. The Robla Canal Company and Farmer s Canal Company were early irrigation systems that were followed by more ambitious projects in the 1880s. The Merced Canal and Irrigation Company became the Crocker-Huffman Land and Water Company that created Lake Yosemite, and the Fairfield and Le Grand canals leading out of the lake. This company created irrigated farmsteads called colonies, totaling 30,000 acres that were designed to increase land prices and attract / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

88 settlers. Cultivated crops included fruits, nuts, and alfalfa. The latter was an important crop used as feed for dairy farming, an important contributor to the Merced economy since the early 1900s (City of Merced 2001). Two large inter-regional canals or aqueducts were built along the west side of the valley in the mid-20th century. In response to salinity, flooding, and supply problems in the central valley, which were compounded by a lack of state funding, the Central Valley Project was authorized by the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act in 1935 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Stene n.d.). The Central Valley Project continues to be operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. In 1951, construction of the Delta- Mendota Canal, part of the Central Valley Project, was completed, resulting in a 117-mile long aqueduct that connects Old River, a natural channel in the Delta, to the Mendota Pool, created by an impoundment at the junction of the San Joaquin River and the north fork of the Kings River (Stene 1994). Although the landscape is dominated by large aqueducts and canals, small-scale irrigation networks and systems are prolific throughout the Central Valley. After World War II, smaller-scale irrigation systems continued to be improved with the introduction of concrete pipes that have gradually replaced open irrigation ditches and canals. The benefits of concrete pipe for irrigation were promoted in the early 1950s by circulars describing various structures and specifications that could be applied to orchards or agricultural and grazing fields (Pillsbury 1952; Portland Cement Association 1952). The Project Area is located near the town of Planada, east of the City of Merced. The town of Planada was originally surveyed in 1896 and recorded as the town of Geneva (Outcalt 1925). The town name was later changed to Whitton, until 1911 when the area was resurveyed by E.D. Severance and then renamed Planada (Outcalt 1925). 4.0 METHODS 4.1 Personnel Qualifications All phases of the cultural resources investigation were conducted or supervised by Registered Professional Archaeologist Arleen Garcia-Herbst, C.Phil., RPA, who meets the Secretary of the Interior s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric archaeologist. Fieldwork was conducted by Field Director Stephen Pappas. Dr. Roger Mason, Ph.D., RPA, provided technical report review and quality assurance. Resumes are available upon request. Arleen Garcia-Herbst is a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist and has been professionally involved with cultural resources management in southern California since She is the author of many reports dealing with cultural resource surveys, evaluations, and mitigation programs in California. Ms. Garcia-Herbst has extensive project experience with the cultural resources requirements of CEQA, Hawai i Revised Statutes and Administrative Rules, and Section 106 of the NHPA. She is adept at formulating prehistoric contexts and research questions to be employed in evaluating whether prehistoric sites are eligible under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4. In addition to the numerous technical and professional reports that she has prepared over the years, Ms. Garcia-Herbst has written published articles, presented papers, and provided public lectures. Stephen Pappas is a Staff Archaeologist and Field Director for ECORP and has eight years of experience in cultural resources management, primarily in California and New Mexico. He holds a B.A. degree in Anthropology and has participated in all aspects of archaeological fieldwork, including survey, test excavation, data recovery, and construction monitoring. He has extensive familiarity in meeting the cultural resource requirements of CEQA and Section 106 (NHPA) projects / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

89 4.2 Records Search Methods A records search for the property was completed by the Central California Information Center (CCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California State University-Stanislaus on 22 May 2013 (CCIC search #8584 I; Attachment A). The purpose of the records search was to determine the extent of previous surveys within a 0.5-mile (800-meter) radius of the proposed project location, and whether previously documented prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties exist within this area. In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in Merced County, the following historic references were also reviewed: Historic Property Data File for Merced (Office of Historic Preservation 2012); The National Register Information System website (National Park Service 2013); Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks website (Office Historic Preservation 2013); California Historical Landmarks (Office of Historic Preservation 1996 and updates); and California Points of Historical Interest (Office of Historic Preservation 1992 and updates). Other references examined include historic General Land Office (GLO) land patent records (BLM 2013) including PLAT maps and Historic Topographic USGS Maps. Historic maps reviewed include: GLO Plat for Township 7 South, Range 15 East GLO Plat for Township 8 South, Range 15 East 1918 Planada USGS (1:31680-scale) 1948 Planada USGS 7.5 (1:24000-scale) 4.3 Native American Coordination Methods ECORP contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a search of the Sacred Land Files for the Project Area. In a letter dated 31 May 2013, the NAHC failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources located within the Project Area. The NAHC also provided a list of individuals and organizations in the Native American community that may be able to provide information about unrecorded sites in the project vicinity (Attachment B). ECORP contacted all persons or organizations on the NAHC list by letter on 12 June 2013 to request information on unrecorded cultural resources that may exist within the current Project Area, or to inquire about any concerns regarding sacred sites or traditional cultural properties in the vicinity that might be affected by the proposed action. Each individual was subsequently telephoned on 18 and 25 July 2013 to ensure that the materials had been received and to further solicit comments. 4.4 Field Methods Because not all of the 23-acre Project Area is intended for development, on 30 May 2013, 22.7 acres south of the existing irrigation canal located in the northeastern end of the Project Area were subjected to an intensive pedestrian survey under the guidance of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Identification of Historic Properties (National Park Service 1983) using 15-meter transects. A total of 0.25 person-day was expended in the field with a total area of 22.7 acres surveyed (Figure 2). At that time, the ground surface was examined for indications of surface or subsurface cultural resources. The general morphological characteristics of the ground surface were inspected for indications of subsurface deposits that may be manifested on the surface, such as circular depressions or ditches. Whenever possible, the locations of subsurface exposures caused by such factors as rodent activity, water or soil erosion, or vegetation disturbances were examined for artifacts or for indications of buried deposits. No subsurface investigations or artifact collections were undertaken during the pedestrian survey / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

90 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Records Search Three previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within 0.5 mile of the property, covering approximately 5 percent of the total area surrounding the property within the record search radius (Table 1). These studies revealed the presence of historical sites including the Santa Fe Railway and Planada Canal. The previous studies were conducted between 1996 and 2009 and vary in size up to 2,000 linear miles. Table 1 Previous Cultural Study In or Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Property Report Number Author(s) Report Title Year 2930 Jensen & Associates Archaeological Inventory Survey; Tracy to Fresno Longhaul Fiberoptics Data Transmission Line, Portions of Fresno, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Counties, California Far Western Cultural Resource Survey for the Level (3) 3995 Anthropological Research Communications Long Haul Fiber Optics Project; Group, Inc. Segment WS04: Sacramento to Bakersfield Historic Properties Survey Report, 10-Merced Tang, B. BNSF RR, PM to , Le Grand to Merced, CA Double Track Project * the survey covers a portion of the Project Area Area Covered Unstated Linear Survey ~2,000 Linear Miles ~16.5 Linear Miles Includes Project Area Yes* No No The results of the records search indicate that entire northeastern border of the property has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. However, the previous survey, performed by Jensen and Associates, was linear, with the majority of the survey area outside of the Project Area. In addition, the survey was conducted in 1996 and is 17 years old; therefore, a pedestrian survey of the APE was warranted. The records search also determined that two previously recorded historic-period cultural resources and one historic district are located within 0.5 mile of the Project Area (Table 2). The Merced Irrigation District (MID), P , was originally recorded by Dice in 2010 and recommended eligible for the NRHP. An update to the district record, however, was completed by Loftus in 2011 and concluded that the District was not properly inventoried or evaluated and improper techniques for determining integrity and District boundaries were used. Therefore, Loftus concluded that the MID needs to be reevaluated as a whole, an appropriate District boundary needs to be delineated, and a list of contributing elements needs to be determined. The Planada Canal, P , is unofficially considered part of the District, per conclusions drawn by the Information Center staff based on the fact that the Canal is owned by the MID. Since the MID was not properly inventoried and an official list of contributing elements to the District is not included with the record, the Planada Canal should be considered an individual resource until a complete inventory and evaluation of the MID is conducted. The CCIC has not received a determination of eligibility with concurrence from SHPO for the MID. The Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway, located adjacent to the northeastern portion of the Project Area, is associated with the arrival of the second transcontinental railroad system in the Central Valley. Due to lack of integrity, this segment of the railway does not relate to the site s period of significance and is not eligible for the NRHP / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

91 Table 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Property Site Primary Within Age/ Number Number Recorder and Year Site Description Project Period CA-MER- P-24- Area 366H 609 Pierce, Bethard, Overly, Stevens 1999 Historic Planada Canal No n/a 1881 Smallwood, J Historic Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad No n/a 1909 Dice, M (Updated Loftus, 2011) Historic Merced Irrigation District No The Office of Historic Preservation s Directory of Properties, Historic Property Data File (dated 4/05/2012) did not include any resources within 0.5 mile of the Project Area. A review of California Inventory of Historic Resources (March 1976) indicated that there are no inventoried properties within the Project Area or within the vicinity of the Project Area. The National Register Information System (National Park Service 2013) failed to reveal any eligible or listed properties within the Project Area. The nearest National Register properties are located ten miles northwest of the Project Area in Merced. Resources listed as California Historical Landmarks (Office of Historic Preservation 1996) and on the Office of Historic Preservation website (Office of Historic Preservation 2013) were reviewed on 24 May The nearest listed landmarks are located in Los Banos, approximately 33 miles southwest of the Project Area. The Caltrans Bridge Local and State Inventories (Caltrans 2013a, Caltrans 2013b) did not list any historic bridges in or within 0.5 mile of the Project Area. Historic GLO land patent records from the BLM s patent information database (BLM 2013) revealed that the southwest quarter Section 35 was patented to William Chapman on July 20, Table 3 GLO Land Patent Records Patentee Patent Date Serial Number William Chapman 7/20/1869 AGS Patent Type/Authority July 2, 1862: State Grant-Agri College (12 Stat. 503) Location SW¼ of Section 35. The 1948 USGS Planada, CA Quadrangle (1:24,000) does not show any structures within or near the Project Area. The 1918 USGS Planada, CA Quadrangle (1:31,680) shows one structure directly south of the irrigation canal which is located in the northeastern end of the Project Area. Aerial photographs taken from 1999 to the present, show the same structure that is currently situated in the northern corner of the Project Area. The Project Area appears to be flat fields. The Handbook of North American Indians (Wallace 1978b) shows the Project Area to be situated between two Native American tribal territories; to the north, the Coconoon in the vicinity of the Merced River and to the south, the Chawchila, in the vicinity of the Chowchilla River. The Coconoon are situated / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

92 approximately 20 miles north of the Project Area and the Chawchila are situated approximately 12 miles to the south of the Project Area. 5.2 Native American Coordination Results A search of the Sacred Lands File by the NAHC failed to indicate the presence of traditional cultural places or Native American cultural resources within the Project Area. Follow-up telephone calls were successful in soliciting comments. Valentin Lopez of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Ohlone/Coastanoan Group stated that if the project is near a waterway, the Tribe is concerned about contaminants leaching into the ground water and nearby natural water ways. Mr. Lopez s primary request is that work should be at least 500 feet away from any natural waters. Les James, Spiritual Leader of the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation requests that proper measures be taken if any resources are encountered throughout the project. Robert Ledger Sr., Chairperson for the Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government requests Native American monitors be present during ground-breaking construction activities. If any further comments are received after the submission of this report, then they will be forwarded to the lead agencies for further consideration and appropriate action. A complete record is provided in Attachment B / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

93 Figure 2. Survey coverage / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

94 5.3 Field Survey Results Fieldwork consisted of surveying 22.7-acres of the 23-acre Project Area. Only the acreage located south of the irrigation canal located in the northeastern portion of the Project Area was surveyed because the 0.3 acre north of the canal is not intended for development. The Project Area was bound by fig orchards to the west, East Mission Avenue to the south, and Santa Fe Avenue to the east. The northern end was bound by a dry canal. The land measured 440 meters east-west by 370 meters north-south in a triangular area. The property consists of level agricultural (fig) orchards laid out in north-south rows (Figure 3). Overall, the landscape was free of weeds and grasses with tilled soil between the rows of trees. Surface visibility was 75 percent. Figure 3. Overview of orchards in center of Project Area (view north, 30 May 2013) One historical resource (SIR-001) was discovered during the survey consisting of four features or structures associated with residential occupation and fig processing and drying operations. Feature 1 is a front gabled two-story residential house with elevated doorway on the southern façade over an open garage port (Figures 4 and 5). The garage contains two large openings, one on the southern façade and the other on the western façade. Significant wear and deterioration is present throughout the building including a sagging roof, boarded windows, and warped wall batten siding. Porch lights are located on the eaves over the northern and southern facing doorways. A more recent, yet dilapidated, addition protrudes from the first level, adjacent to a lower level doorway, on the northern façade of the building. The addition and original residential structure measure 50 feet north-south by 30 feet east-west. The sloped roof of the addition is composed of rusted corrugated metal and is not level with the remains of the composite roof on the house. The addition contains doorways on both the western and eastern facades and provides a covered porch above the northern entrance to the house. According to the Merced County Assessor On-Line Inquiry (Merced County 2013), the structure is 1,464 square feet and was built in / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

95 Figure 4. View of the front of Feature 1, residence (view north, 30 May 2013) Figure 5. View of the west side of the residence (Feature 1) to include the addition (view east, 30 May 2013) / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

96 Feature 2 appears to be a storage shed or workshop with a rectangular footprint and is located just northeast of Feature 1. The shed also has a relatively flat corrugated metal roof with wall batten siding and is currently deteriorating in place. An upper-level addition extends from the southern top of the shed and appears more recent, yet is still significantly deteriorated. Figure 6. View of the west side of Feature 2 (view east, 30 May 2013) Feature 3 appears to be a storage shed, or was previously used as a fruit drying tunnel with a rectangular footprint and is located just north of Feature 1 and 2 (Figure 6). The structure measures 60 feet long (north-south) by 15 feet wide and is composed of a flat-top wood roof with deteriorated stucco siding a large opening making up the entire southern façade. The north wall contains a large rectangular hole where stucco and wood has been removed, allowing access from both the northern and southern ends of the structure. Several fruit drying racks are located within the structure as it is currently being used for storage / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

97 Figure 7. Overview of Feature 3, storage shed/drying tunnel (view northeast, 30 May 2013) Feature 4 is a large farm equipment cover with a gabled, corrugated metal roof supported by tall wooden poles and cross-beams (Figure 7). The wooden poles are set in a large concrete slab covering the entire surface of the cover, measuring approximately 80 feet north-south by 44 feet east west. The structure appears to have contained a northern wall of some kind at one point, but only a few cross beams remain intact. Attached to the northeastern beams of the cover is an open-air work area with a wood and corrugated metal roof. Directly east of the work area is an attached stucco-walled storage area, containing rows of fruit drying racks. This storage area has the stucco walls on the north, east, and southern sides, opening up to the west and the rest of the cover / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

98 Figure 8. View of Feature 4, equipment cover (view northeast, 30 May 2013) In addition to the standing structures, several fruit drying racks, processing tables, fruit bins, tractors, trailers, and other farming implements were observed within and around the structures. The complex also contained a large amount of non-farming or ranching refuse that appeared to have been collected throughout the years consisting of automotive parts, scrap metal, a modern trailer, discarded wood, and broken furniture / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

99 6.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Conclusions SIR-001 appears outside of the architectural APE for the Project. Photographs and Google Earth images help make a clear argument that the building will not be visually affected by installation of solar facilities due to obstruction by existing trees and visual distance. The site was included within the survey coverage area because it is located within the existing parcel boundaries; however, the parcel boundaries do not match the architectural APE for the Project. The Project involves the installation of ground-level solar facilities, not buildings or other large structures which cause an obvious distraction from the setting and landscape, so the architectural APE is minimal. Therefore, no potential impact to the setting of this cultural resource is anticipated as a result of the Project. Until the lead agency concurs with the APE and identification of cultural resources for this project, no ground-disturbing activity or demolition should occur. 6.2 Unanticipated Discovery There always remains a possibility that unrecorded cultural resources are present beneath the ground surface, and that such resources could be exposed during project construction. CEQA requires the lead agency to address any unanticipated cultural resource discoveries during project construction. Therefore, ECORP recommends the following mitigation measures be adopted and implemented by the lead agency to reduce potential adverse impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure #1: Unanticipated Discovery If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, then all work must halt within a 200-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior s Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeologist, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find. A Native American monitor, following the Guidelines for Monitors/Consultants of Native American Cultural, Religious, and Burial Sites established by the Native American Heritage Commission, may also be required. Work cannot continue at the discovery site until the archaeologist conducts sufficient research and data collection to make a determination that the resource is either 1) not cultural in origin; or 2) not potentially significant or eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered, then the archaeologist, lead agency, and project proponent shall arrange for either 1) total avoidance of the resource, if possible; or 2) test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if eligible, total data recovery as mitigation. The determination shall be formally documented in writing and submitted to the lead agency as verification that the provisions in CEQA/NEPA for managing unanticipated discoveries have been met. When human remains, as opposed to general subsurface cultural deposits, are discovered, state law requires that the discovery be reported to the County Coroner and that reasonable protection measures be taken during construction to protect the discovery from disturbance. As outlined in Mitigation Measure #1, construction activities within 100 feet of the discovery will be halted or diverted, and additionally, the provisions of Section of the California Health and Safety Code, Section of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 will be implemented. If the Coroner determines the / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

100 remains are Native American, the Coroner notifies the NAHC, which then designates a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (Section of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD then has 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains (AB 2641). If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (Section of the Public Resources Code). If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (Section of the Public Resources Code). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). The Lead Agency is responsible for ensuring compliance with these mitigation measures because damage to significant cultural resources is in violation of CEQA and Section 106. Section of Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 7 of CEQA, Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting, the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. A public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed the lead agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

101 7.0 REFERENCES CITED Basgall, M. E. and D. L. True 1985 Archaeological investigations in Crowder Canyon, : Excavations at Sites SBR-421B, SBR-421C, SBR-421D, and SBR-713. Report on file, Caltrans, Sacramento, CA. Becker, K. M Results of the Discovery Phase of Data Recovery at CA-SJO-3; South County Water Supply Program, San Joaquin County, California. Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands, California. Bidwell, John 1971 Sutter s Fort. In California Heritage: An Anthology of History and Literature, edited by John and Laree Caughey, pp F. E. Peacock Publishers, Itasca, Illinois. Revised Edition. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2013 Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records. Electronic document, accessed May California Soil Resource Lab 2013 UC Davis Soil Resource Laboratory. Electronic Document, accessed 11 July Caltrans 2013a Caltrans Local Bridge Survey, Structure Maintenance & Investigations website. Electronic Document, Viewed 29 July b Caltrans State Bridge Survey, Structure Maintenance & Investigations website. Electronic Document, Viewed 29 July Castillo, Edward D The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. City of Merced 2001 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the University Community Plan. Prepared for Merced County. Prepared by EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Elliott, Wallace 1881 History of Merced County, California, Wallace W. Elliott and Co., Publishers, San Francisco, California. Erlandson, J. M Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York. Jelinek, Lawrence 1982 Harvest Empire: A History of California Agriculture. Boyde and Fraser Publishing Company, San Francisco, California. Kroeber, A. L Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, Inc., New York 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

102 LaJeunesse, Roger M., and John M. Pryor 1996 Skyrocket Appendices. Report on file, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fresno. McCawley, William 1996 The First Angelinos: the Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press, Ballena Press, Banning, California. McGuire, Kelly R Test Excavations at CA-FRE-61, Fresno County, California. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 5. Museum of Anthropology, California State University Bakersfield, CA. Marshall, James W The Discovery. In California Heritage: An Anthology of History and Literature, edited by John and Laree Caughey, pp F. E. Peacock Publishers, Itasca, Illinois. Revised Edition. Merced County 2013 Assessor On-line Inquiry website. Electronic Document, quiry/inquiry.aspx?cn=merced&site=public&dept=asr&pg=search, accessed 29 July Moratto, M. J California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Francisco. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climatography of the United States No. 81, Monthly Station Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days, , 04 California. NOAA, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Climatic Data Center. Asheville, North Carolina. National Park Service (NPS) 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior s Standards and Guidelines. 48 FR (Federal Register) National Register Information System Website. Electronic document. accessed 29 July Office of Historic Preservation California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Merced County. On file at CCIC, California State University, Stanislaus, California Office of Historic Preservation California Historical Landmarks Website, Electronic document. accessed 29 July Outcalt, John 1925 History of Merced County, Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, CA. Pillsbury, Arthur F Concrete Pipe for Irrigation. College of Agriculture, Circular 418, University of California / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

103 Portland Cement Association 1952 Irrigation with Concrete Pipe. Portland Cement Association, Chicago. Robinson, W. W Land in California: The Story of Mission Lands, Ranchos, Squatters, Mining Claims, Railroad Grants, Land Scrip, Homesteads. University of California Press, Berkeley. Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., and Jack Meyer 2004 Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record: A Geoarchaeological Study of the Southern Santa Clara Valley and Surrounding Region. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication No. 14, University of California, Davis. Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., Gregory G. White and Mark Q. Sutton 2007 The Central Valley: A View from the Catbird s Seat. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, pp , edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. Alta Mira Press, New York. Shipley, W. F Native Languages of California. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Stene, Eric A. n.d. Central Valley Project: Overview. Bureau of Reclamation Delta Division: Central Valley Project. Bureau of Reclamation. Thompson, T.H. and A.A. West 1880 History of Sacramento County. Reproduced by Howell-North, 1960, Berkeley. Wallace, William J. 1978a Post-Pleistocene Archeology, 9000 to 2000 BC. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1978b Northern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C Tulare Lake s Archaeological Past. In Background to a Study of Tulare Lake s Archaeological Past, pp Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology 1. Wilson, N. L., and A. H. Towne 1978 Nisenan. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C / Cultural Resources Survey Report Sirius Solar Facility

104 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Records Search Confirmation Attachment B Native American Coordination Attachment C Project Area Photographs Attachment D Confidential Site Record

105 ATTACHMENT A Records Search Confirmation

106 ATTACHMENT B Native American Coordination

107 ATTACHMENT C Project Area Photographs

108 ATTACHMENT D Confidential Site Record

109 APPENDIX D SOILS REPORT

110

111 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Merced Area, California November 21, 2013

112 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments ( and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center ( agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist ( state_offices/). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2

113 for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3

114 Contents Preface...2 How Soil Surveys Are Made...5 Soil Map...7 Soil Map...8 Legend...9 Map Unit Legend...10 Map Unit Descriptions...10 Merced Area, California...12 MfA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...12 PwA Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes...13 YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...14 Soil Information for All Uses...16 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use...16 Building Site Development...16 Dwellings Without Basements (CA)...16 Soil Properties and Qualities...21 Soil Erosion Factors...21 Wind Erodibility Group...21 Wind Erodibility Index...24 K Factor, Whole Soil...27 T Factor...30 Soil Qualities and Features...33 Drainage Class...33 Hydrologic Soil Group...36 Water Features...40 Depth to Water Table...40 Soil Reports...45 Soil Physical Properties...45 Physical Soil Properties...45 Water Features...49 Water Features...49 References

115 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the 5

116 Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soillandscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 6

117 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 7

118 120 18' 23'' W Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map ' 5'' W 37 16' 30'' N ' 21'' N ' 30'' N 37 16' 21'' N ' 23'' W N Map Scale: 1:2,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS ' 5'' W

119 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Merced Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 7, Mar 31, 2008 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 15, 2010 May 12, 2010 Jun The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 9

120 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Merced Area, California (CA648) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI MfA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes % PwA Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes % YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes % Totals for Area of Interest % Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If 10

121 Custom Soil Resource Report intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 11

122 Custom Soil Resource Report Merced Area, California MfA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 30 to 600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 63 degrees F Frost-free period: 260 to 280 days Map Unit Composition Marguerite and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Marguerite Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from metamorphic rock Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Typical profile 0 to 10 inches: Silty clay loam 10 to 30 inches: Clay loam 30 to 60 inches: Stratified gravelly fine sandy loam to gravelly loam Minor Components Yolo Percent of map unit: 5 percent Wyman Percent of map unit: 5 percent Burchell Percent of map unit: 5 percent 12

123 Custom Soil Resource Report PwA Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 50 to 300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 57 to 63 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 300 days Map Unit Composition Porterville and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Porterville Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 1 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s Land capability (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Typical profile 0 to 13 inches: Clay 13 to 60 inches: Clay Minor Components Seville Percent of map unit: 5 percent 13

124 Custom Soil Resource Report Hornitos Percent of map unit: 5 percent Daulton Percent of map unit: 5 percent YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 30 to 400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 16 to 22 inches Mean annual air temperature: 61 degrees F Frost-free period: 220 to 300 days Map Unit Composition Yolo and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Yolo Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from sedimentary rock Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: High (about 9.6 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Typical profile 0 to 20 inches: Loam 20 to 60 inches: Loam 14

125 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Marguerite Percent of map unit: 5 percent Madera Percent of map unit: 5 percent Burchell Percent of map unit: 5 percent 15

126 Soil Information for All Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation. Building Site Development Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Dwellings Without Basements (CA) Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This interpretation shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect dwellings without basements. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification of the soil. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. 16

127 Custom Soil Resource Report The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses. "No limitations" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Limitations" indicates that the soil has some features that are favorable for the specified use and some that are unfavorable. This interpretation identifies only the most significant limitations for any given soil. The limitations listed can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair to poor performance and moderate to high maintenance costs can be expected, depending on the number of limitations and the severity of each limitation. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which a soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as the one shown for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given to help the user better understand the extent to which the rating applies to the map unit. Other components with different ratings may occur in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless the aggregated rating of the map unit, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The California version of this interpretation differs from the national version in that the limiting features were edited in order to convey more information to the user. The rating classes were edited to read "no limitations" or "limitations." 17

128 120 18' 23'' W Custom Soil Resource Report Map Dwellings Without Basements (CA) ' 5'' W 37 16' 30'' N ' 21'' N ' 30'' N 37 16' 21'' N ' 23'' W N Map Scale: 1:2,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS ' 5'' W

129 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Limitations No limitations Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Limitations No limitations Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Limitations No limitations Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Merced Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 7, Mar 31, 2008 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 15, 2010 May 12, 2010 Jun The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 19

130 Custom Soil Resource Report Tables Dwellings Without Basements (CA) Dwellings Without Basements (CA) Summary by Map Unit Merced Area, California (CA648) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) MfA PwA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Rating reasons (numeric values) Limitations Marguerite (85%) Shrink-swell (LEP 3-6) (0.50) Limitations Porterville (85%) Shrink-swell (LEP >6) (1.00) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI % % No limitations Yolo (85%) % Totals for Area of Interest % Dwellings Without Basements (CA) Summary by Rating Value Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Limitations % No limitations % Totals for Area of Interest % Rating Options Dwellings Without Basements (CA) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher 20

131 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Properties and Qualities The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality. Soil Erosion Factors Soil Erosion Factors are soil properties and interpretations used in evaluating the soil for potential erosion. Example soil erosion factors can include K factor for the whole soil or on a rock free basis, T factor, wind erodibility group and wind erodibility index. Wind Erodibility Group A wind erodibility group (WEG) consists of soils that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible. 21

132 120 18' 23'' W Custom Soil Resource Report Map Wind Erodibility Group ' 5'' W 37 16' 30'' N ' 21'' N ' 30'' N 37 16' 21'' N ' 23'' W N Map Scale: 1:2,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS ' 5'' W

133 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons L Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines L Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points L Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Merced Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 7, Mar 31, 2008 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 15, 2010 May 12, 2010 Jun The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 23

134 Custom Soil Resource Report Table Wind Erodibility Group Wind Erodibility Group Summary by Map Unit Merced Area, California (CA648) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI MfA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes PwA Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes % % % Totals for Area of Interest % Rating Options Wind Erodibility Group Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Wind Erodibility Index The wind erodibility index is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to wind erosion, or the tons per acre per year that can be expected to be lost to wind erosion. There is a close correlation between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments, organic matter, and a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind erosion. 24

135 120 18' 23'' W Custom Soil Resource Report Map Wind Erodibility Index ' 5'' W 37 16' 30'' N ' 21'' N ' 30'' N 37 16' 21'' N ' 23'' W N Map Scale: 1:2,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS ' 5'' W

136 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Merced Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 7, Mar 31, 2008 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 15, 2010 May 12, 2010 Jun The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 26

137 Custom Soil Resource Report Table Wind Erodibility Index Wind Erodibility Index Summary by Map Unit Merced Area, California (CA648) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (tons per acre per year) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI MfA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes PwA Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes % % % Totals for Area of Interest % Rating Options Wind Erodibility Index Units of Measure: tons per acre per year Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher K Factor, Whole Soil Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. "Erosion factor Kw (whole soil)" indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments. 27

138 120 18' 23'' W Custom Soil Resource Report Map K Factor, Whole Soil ' 5'' W 37 16' 30'' N ' 21'' N ' 30'' N 37 16' 21'' N ' 23'' W N Map Scale: 1:2,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS ' 5'' W

139 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Merced Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 7, Mar 31, 2008 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 15, 2010 May 12, 2010 Jun The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 29

140 Custom Soil Resource Report Table K Factor, Whole Soil K Factor, Whole Soil Summary by Map Unit Merced Area, California (CA648) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI MfA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes PwA Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes % % % Totals for Area of Interest % Rating Options K Factor, Whole Soil Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Surface Layer (Not applicable) T Factor The T factor is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind and/or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period. The rate is in tons per acre per year. 30

141 120 18' 23'' W Custom Soil Resource Report Map T Factor ' 5'' W 37 16' 30'' N ' 21'' N ' 30'' N 37 16' 21'' N ' 23'' W N Map Scale: 1:2,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS ' 5'' W

142 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Merced Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 7, Mar 31, 2008 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 15, 2010 May 12, 2010 Jun The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 32

143 Custom Soil Resource Report Table T Factor T Factor Summary by Map Unit Merced Area, California (CA648) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (tons per acre per year) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI MfA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes PwA Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes % % % Totals for Area of Interest % Rating Options T Factor Units of Measure: tons per acre per year Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Interpret Nulls as Zero: No Soil Qualities and Features Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil. Drainage Class "Drainage class (natural)" refers to the frequency and duration of wet periods under conditions similar to those under which the soil formed. Alterations of the water regime by human activities, either through drainage or irrigation, are not a consideration unless they have significantly changed the morphology of the soil. Seven classes of natural soil drainage are recognized-excessively drained, somewhat excessively drained, well drained, moderately well drained, somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained, and very poorly drained. These classes are defined in the "Soil Survey Manual." 33

144 120 18' 23'' W Custom Soil Resource Report Map Drainage Class ' 5'' W 37 16' 30'' N ' 21'' N ' 30'' N 37 16' 21'' N ' 23'' W N Map Scale: 1:2,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS ' 5'' W

145 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Area of Interest (AOI) Soil Rating Polygons Excessively drained Somewhat excessively drained Well drained Moderately well drained Somewhat poorly drained Poorly drained Very poorly drained Subaqueous Soil Rating Lines Not rated or not available Excessively drained Somewhat excessively drained Well drained Moderately well drained Somewhat poorly drained Poorly drained Very poorly drained Subaqueous Water Features Transportation Background Excessively drained Somewhat excessively drained Well drained Moderately well drained Somewhat poorly drained Poorly drained Very poorly drained Subaqueous Not rated or not available Streams and Canals Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Merced Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 7, Mar 31, 2008 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Soil Rating Points Not rated or not available Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 15, 2010 May 12, 2010 Jun The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 35

146 Custom Soil Resource Report Table Drainage Class Drainage Class Summary by Map Unit Merced Area, California (CA648) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI MfA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes PwA Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Well drained % Well drained % Well drained % Totals for Area of Interest % Rating Options Drainage Class Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from longduration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the 36

147 Custom Soil Resource Report surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. 37

148 120 18' 23'' W Custom Soil Resource Report Map Hydrologic Soil Group ' 5'' W 37 16' 30'' N ' 21'' N ' 30'' N 37 16' 21'' N ' 23'' W N Map Scale: 1:2,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS ' 5'' W

149 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Merced Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 7, Mar 31, 2008 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. A/D B Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 15, 2010 May 12, 2010 Jun B/D The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 39

150 Custom Soil Resource Report Table Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group Summary by Map Unit Merced Area, California (CA648) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI MfA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes PwA Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes B % D % B % Totals for Area of Interest % Rating Options Hydrologic Soil Group Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Water Features Water Features include ponding frequency, flooding frequency, and depth to water table. Depth to Water Table "Water table" refers to a saturated zone in the soil. It occurs during specified months. Estimates of the upper limit are based mainly on observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone, namely grayish colors (redoximorphic features) in the soil. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table. This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used. 40

151 120 18' 23'' W Custom Soil Resource Report Map Depth to Water Table ' 5'' W 37 16' 30'' N ' 21'' N ' 30'' N 37 16' 21'' N ' 23'' W N Map Scale: 1:2,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS ' 5'' W

152 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons > 200 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines > 200 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Merced Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 7, Mar 31, 2008 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 15, 2010 May 12, 2010 Jun > 200 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 42

153 Custom Soil Resource Report Table Depth to Water Table Depth to Water Table Summary by Map Unit Merced Area, California (CA648) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (centimeters) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI MfA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes PwA Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes > % > % > % Totals for Area of Interest % 43

154 Custom Soil Resource Report Rating Options Depth to Water Table Units of Measure: centimeters Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Interpret Nulls as Zero: No Beginning Month: January Ending Month: December 44

155 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Soil Physical Properties This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil physical properties. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Soil physical properties are measured or inferred from direct observations in the field or laboratory. Examples of soil physical properties include percent clay, organic matter, saturated hydraulic conductivity, available water capacity, and bulk density. Physical Soil Properties This table shows estimates of some physical characteristics and features that affect soil behavior. These estimates are given for the layers of each soil in the survey area. The estimates are based on field observations and on test data for these and similar soils. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated. Particle size is the effective diameter of a soil particle as measured by sedimentation, sieving, or micrometric methods. Particle sizes are expressed as classes with specific effective diameter class limits. The broad classes are sand, silt, and clay, ranging from the larger to the smaller. Sand as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.05 millimeter to 2 millimeters in diameter. In this table, the estimated sand content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Silt as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are to 0.05 millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated silt content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Clay as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated clay content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of sand, silt, and clay affects the physical behavior of a soil. Particle size is important for engineering and agronomic interpretations, for determination of soil hydrologic qualities, and for soil classification. The amount and kind of clay affect the fertility and physical condition of the soil and the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture. They influence shrink- 45

156 Custom Soil Resource Report swell potential, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), plasticity, the ease of soil dispersion, and other soil properties. The amount and kind of clay in a soil also affect tillage and earthmoving operations. Moist bulk density is the weight of soil (ovendry) per unit volume. Volume is measured when the soil is at field moisture capacity, that is, the moisture content at 1/3- or 1/10- bar (33kPa or 10kPa) moisture tension. Weight is determined after the soil is dried at 105 degrees C. In the table, the estimated moist bulk density of each soil horizon is expressed in grams per cubic centimeter of soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Bulk density data are used to compute linear extensibility, shrink-swell potential, available water capacity, total pore space, and other soil properties. The moist bulk density of a soil indicates the pore space available for water and roots. Depending on soil texture, a bulk density of more than 1.4 can restrict water storage and root penetration. Moist bulk density is influenced by texture, kind of clay, content of organic matter, and soil structure. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water. The estimates in the table are expressed in terms of micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly structure, porosity, and texture. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank absorption fields. Available water capacity refers to the quantity of water that the soil is capable of storing for use by plants. The capacity for water storage is given in inches of water per inch of soil for each soil layer. The capacity varies, depending on soil properties that affect retention of water. The most important properties are the content of organic matter, soil texture, bulk density, and soil structure. Available water capacity is an important factor in the choice of plants or crops to be grown and in the design and management of irrigation systems. Available water capacity is not an estimate of the quantity of water actually available to plants at any given time. Linear extensibility refers to the change in length of an unconfined clod as moisture content is decreased from a moist to a dry state. It is an expression of the volume change between the water content of the clod at 1/3- or 1/10-bar tension (33kPa or 10kPa tension) and oven dryness. The volume change is reported in the table as percent change for the whole soil. The amount and type of clay minerals in the soil influence volume change. Linear extensibility is used to determine the shrink-swell potential of soils. The shrinkswell potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than 3 percent; moderate if 3 to 6 percent; high if 6 to 9 percent; and very high if more than 9 percent. If the linear extensibility is more than 3, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures and to plant roots. Special design commonly is needed. Organic matter is the plant and animal residue in the soil at various stages of decomposition. In this table, the estimated content of organic matter is expressed as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of organic matter in a soil can be maintained by returning crop residue to the soil. Organic matter has a positive effect on available water capacity, water infiltration, soil organism activity, and tilth. It is a source of nitrogen and other nutrients for crops and soil organisms. Erosion factors are shown in the table as the K factor (Kw and Kf) and the T factor. Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the 46

157 Custom Soil Resource Report Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and Ksat. Values of K range from 0.02 to Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Erosion factor Kw indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments. Erosion factor Kf indicates the erodibility of the fine-earth fraction, or the material less than 2 millimeters in size. Erosion factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind and/or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period. The rate is in tons per acre per year. Wind erodibility groups are made up of soils that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible. The groups are described in the "National Soil Survey Handbook." Wind erodibility index is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to wind erosion, or the tons per acre per year that can be expected to be lost to wind erosion. There is a close correlation between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments, organic matter, and a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind erosion. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. ( 47

158 Custom Soil Resource Report Physical Soil Properties Merced Area, California Map symbol and soil name Depth Sand Silt Clay Moist bulk density Saturated hydraulic conductivity Available water capacity Linear extensibility Organic matter Erosion factors Kw Kf T Wind erodibility group Wind erodibility index In Pct Pct Pct g/cc micro m/sec In/In Pct Pct MfA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Marguerite PwA Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes Porterville YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Yolo

159 Custom Soil Resource Report Water Features This folder contains tabular reports that present soil hydrology information. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Water Features include ponding frequency, flooding frequency, and depth to water table. Water Features This table gives estimates of various soil water features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations. Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from longduration storms. The four hydrologic soil groups are: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Surface runoff refers to the loss of water from an area by flow over the land surface. Surface runoff classes are based on slope, climate, and vegetative cover. The concept indicates relative runoff for very specific conditions. It is assumed that the surface of the soil is bare and that the retention of surface water resulting from irregularities in the ground surface is minimal. The classes are negligible, very low, low, medium, high, and very high. The months in the table indicate the portion of the year in which a water table, ponding, and/or flooding is most likely to be a concern. Water table refers to a saturated zone in the soil. The water features table indicates, by month, depth to the top (upper limit) and base (lower limit) of the saturated zone in most years. Estimates of the upper and lower limits are based mainly on observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone, namely 49

160 Custom Soil Resource Report grayish colors or mottles (redoximorphic features) in the soil. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table. Ponding is standing water in a closed depression. Unless a drainage system is installed, the water is removed only by percolation, transpiration, or evaporation. The table indicates surface water depth and the duration and frequency of ponding. Duration is expressed as very brief if less than 2 days, brief if 2 to 7 days, long if 7 to 30 days, and very long if more than 30 days. Frequency is expressed as none, rare, occasional, and frequent. None means that ponding is not probable; rare that it is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions (the chance of ponding is nearly 0 percent to 5 percent in any year); occasional that it occurs, on the average, once or less in 2 years (the chance of ponding is 5 to 50 percent in any year); and frequent that it occurs, on the average, more than once in 2 years (the chance of ponding is more than 50 percent in any year). Flooding is the temporary inundation of an area caused by overflowing streams, by runoff from adjacent slopes, or by tides. Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snowmelt is not considered flooding, and water standing in swamps and marshes is considered ponding rather than flooding. Duration and frequency are estimated. Duration is expressed as extremely brief if 0.1 hour to 4 hours, very brief if 4 hours to 2 days, brief if 2 to 7 days, long if 7 to 30 days, and very long if more than 30 days. Frequency is expressed as none, very rare, rare, occasional, frequent, and very frequent. None means that flooding is not probable; very rare that it is very unlikely but possible under extremely unusual weather conditions (the chance of flooding is less than 1 percent in any year); rare that it is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions (the chance of flooding is 1 to 5 percent in any year); occasional that it occurs infrequently under normal weather conditions (the chance of flooding is 5 to 50 percent in any year); frequent that it is likely to occur often under normal weather conditions (the chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in any year but is less than 50 percent in all months in any year); and very frequent that it is likely to occur very often under normal weather conditions (the chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in all months of any year). The information is based on evidence in the soil profile, namely thin strata of gravel, sand, silt, or clay deposited by floodwater; irregular decrease in organic matter content with increasing depth; and little or no horizon development. Also considered are local information about the extent and levels of flooding and the relation of each soil on the landscape to historic floods. Information on the extent of flooding based on soil data is less specific than that provided by detailed engineering surveys that delineate flood-prone areas at specific flood frequency levels. 50

161 Custom Soil Resource Report Absence of an entry indicates that the data were not estimated. The dash indicates no documented presence. Water Features Merced Area, California Map unit symbol and soil name Hydrologic group Surface runoff Month Water table Ponding Flooding Upper limit Lower limit Surface depth Duration Frequency Duration Frequency Ft Ft Ft MfA Marguerite silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Marguerite B Medium Jan-Dec None None PwA Porterville clay, o to 3 percent slopes Porterville D High Jan-Dec None None YdA Yolo loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Yolo B Low Jan-Dec None None 51

162 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook Soil Survey Staff Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook Soil Survey Staff Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Tiner, R.W., Jr Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook

163 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook

164 APPENDIX E FLOOD CERTIFICATE

165

166

167