Twentynine Palms City Council
March 23, 2026

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
species of vertebrate wildlife more than those
detected in the DEIR, or a 30% increase.

Based on a database review, Smallwood’s site
visit, and empirical research, Dr. Smallwood
concludes that 122 special-status species of
wildlife are known to occur near enough to the
Project site to warrant analysis of occurrence
potential. Of these 122 species, 9 were recorded
on or just off the project site, and another 13
species have been documented within 1.5 miles of
the site (Very close), another 46 between 1.5 and
4 miles (Nearby), and another 33 between 4 to 30
miles (In region). The DEIR’s baseline analysis was
limited to a desktop review which only considered
the occurrence likelihood of 22 out of the 122
predicted special-status species detected in a site
visit by Dr. Smallwood. This means that 100 (82%)
of the special-status species with potential to
occur were screened out of the analysis during
desktop review.

Dr. Smallwood’s comments provide substantial
evidence that the Project site supports multiple
special-status species of wildlife which the DEIR
fails to identify. Dr. Smallwood’s site evaluation
also demonstrates that the Project site has the
potential for supporting many more special-status
species of wildlife than reported in the DEIR based
on the proximity of species in Smallwood’s
recorded occurrences.
surveys (refer to Table 2.5-1 of the DEIR). As stated in Appendix D.1, Biological Resources Technical Report, all Dudek surveys conformed to the currently accepted protocols, guidelines, and policies required by the resource agencies (e.g., A Manual of California Vegetation {CNPS 2024}, California Natural Community List {CDFW 2024c}, CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines {CNPS 2001}, Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Populations and Natural Communities {CDFW 2018}, General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines {Cypher 2002}, Mojave Desert Tortoise Pre-Project Field Survey Protocol section included in Preparing for Any Action That May Occur within the Range of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) {USFWS 2019}, Appendix D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation {CDFG 2012}, USACE’s 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual {USACE 1987} and its 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region {Version 2.0} {USACE 2008a}, etc.). Therefore, surveys conducted by Dudek provided all appropriate and required surveys to form an accurate baseline analysis under CEQA. CEQA does not require lead agencies to conduct exhaustive biological inventories documenting the species detected per survey. CEQA requires a reasonable description of the environmental baseline that provides sufficient information to evaluate the potential for significant environmental impacts. The CEQA Guidelines expressly state that the baseline “shall be no longer than is necessary to provide an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project” (CEQA Guidelines section 15125[a]). Courts have affirmed that lead agencies may rely on a combination of credible data sources, including habitat evaluations, expert opinion, and field observations, so long as the information is supported by substantial evidence and reflects a reasonable effort to characterize the site conditions. All species recorded within the Project site or vicinity during Dudek field surveys are included in Appendix D, Plant Compendium, and

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
As discussed below, the DEIR’s deficient baseline
analysis results in a similarly deficient impact
analysis for burrowing owls and LeConte’s
Thrasher.

Appendix E, Wildlife Compendium, to the Biological Technical Report, which is included as Appendix D.1 to the DEIR. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

The project’s impact analysis included a comprehensive literature review of species occurrence databases, which included CNDDB.

CNDDB is a publicly accessible “natural heritage program” that provides location and natural history information on special-status plants, wildlife, and natural communities to aid in the environmental review of projects and land use changes, and provide baseline data helpful in recovering species and for research projects. Use of the CNDDB for assisting with the evaluation of biological resource impacts in support of CEQA analyses is an industry standard.

Appendix F, Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Biological Study Area and Appendix G, Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Biological Study Area, both included in Appendix D.1 to the DEIR provide tables of all specialstatus species (plants and wildlife, respectively) whose geographic ranges fall within the general biological study area vicinity. Specialstatus species’ potential to occur within the study area were evaluated based on known species distribution, species-specific habitat preferences, field surveys conducted within the site, and Dudek biologists’ knowledge of regional biological resources. Species potentially occurring within the biological study area are identified as having moderate or high potential to occur based on habitat conditions on site, and species for which there is little or no suitable habitat are identified as not expected to occur or having low potential to occur. Additionally, survey limitations were acknowledged in Section 3.2.5 of Appendix D.1 to the DEIR. Therefore, potential impacts to species were accurately analyzed in the DEIR.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
Also see response to comment 106 below for burrowing owl and response to comment 107 below LeConte’s thrasher.
10 6
ABJC Dr. Smallwood’s comments provide substantial
evidence that the DEIR’s characterization of the
burrowing owl survey outcome and potential
impacts is inaccurate and misleading. The DEIR
states that burrowing owl only has a moderate
chance of occurring on the Project site. The DEIR
also states that a detected burrowing owl was
outside of the project-level impact area. However,
during the burrowing owl survey at least one
pellet was observed at one burrow
located within the northwestern portion of the
Biological Survey Area (“BSA”). As Dr. Smallwood
explains, the burrow is on the edge of Amboy
Road, which is planned for widening and thus
likely to be impacted by the Project. Dr.

Smallwood also explains that any burrowing owls
found within the BSA should be regarded as
vulnerable to project impacts, because burrowing
owls do not live only in a
burrow. Additionally, burrowing owls are listed as
a candidate species, meaning they require
heightened protections and any potential impacts
need to be disclosed.

Therefore, the DEIR’s environmental impact
analysis and mitigation for burrowing owls is not
supported by substantial evidence because of the
deficient environmental baseline analysis.

See response to comment 105 above. Surveys conducted by Dudek provided all appropriate and required surveys to form an accurate baseline analysis under CEQA.

The commenter inaccurately reports the results of the focused protocol-level burrowing owl surveys stating “The DEIR also states that a detected burrowing owl was outside of the project-level impact area.” As stated in DEIR Section 2.5 as well as Appendix D.1, Biological Resources Technical Report Section 5.3.2, no burrowing owl individuals were observed during the 2024 focused surveys. One observation of burrowing owl sign (i.e., pellet) was mapped outside of the project-level impact area. As stated in Appendix D.1, Biological Resources Technical Report, it should be noted that mitigation for biological resource impacts within the future extensions of Samarkand Drive, Amboy Road, and Noels Knoll Road will only be implemented if and when these roads are built and are therefore analyzed separately. Any such impacts would be subject to Mitigation Measures BIO-3, BIO-5, and BIO-6.

As stated in Appendix D.1, Biological Resources Technical Report, Section 2.2.1, burrowing owl was added as a candidate for potential listing as a protected species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). As a candidate for potential listing, the species is temporarily afforded the same protections as a state-listed endangered or threatened species. According to DEIR Section 2.5 as well as Appendix D.1, Biological Resources Technical Report Section

6.3.1.2.1, direct impacts from implementation of the proposed project to burrowing owl individuals and potentially occupied habitat would be significant absent mitigation. MM-BIO-5 states if burrowing owls are detected, and if impacts to burrowing owl cannot be feasibly

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
avoided, the project applicant will consult with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from the CDFW through the CESA Incidental Take Permit process. Mitigation for direct impacts to burrowing owl shall be fulfilled through compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project, through the purchase of credits at a CDFW approved mitigation bank or other conservation mechanism approved by CDFW, or as otherwise determined through the Incidental Take Permit process. E-Group has submitted an Incidental Take Permit application to CDFW (see Exhibit 3), which is currently under review, and includes burrowing owl.
10 7
ABJC Dr. Smallwood’s comments demonstrate that
LeConte’s Thrasher was identified by eBird and
iNaturalist as a species likely to be found
“nearby”, or within 1.5 and 4 miles, of the Project
site. Noriko Smallwood also observed the
LeConte’s Thrasher during her survey of the
Project site. This provides
substantial evidence that the LeConte’s Thrasher
is present at the Project site. The DEIR failed to
disclose its potential presence or analyze the
impacts the Project would have on this species.

Resources such as eBird and iNaturalist are citizen-science projects that often include unverified accounts and unreliable locational information from non-professional contributors. Their use has not been accepted by the resource agencies to determine potential for occurrence or analysis of adverse effects for the purposes of CEQA.

The comment lists the species observed during the surveys conducted by the commenter around the perimeter of the project site and includes photographs but does not include any geographical information (e.g., latitude/longitude time stamps) to assert the location of the photo; therefore, it is unknown where the observation was detected.

See response to comment 105 above for details on using CNDDB searches as a standard practice to supplement and direct appropriate field surveys for special-status species, and support an accurate CEQA impact analysis. Additionally, as stated in Section 5.3 of Appendix D.1 to the DEIR, after the database searches were conducted, specialstatus species’ potential to occur within the Project site are then evaluated based on known species distribution (i.e., using CDFW California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Life History and Range and other applicable sources), species-specific habitat preferences, and

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
Dudek biologists’ knowledge of regional biological resources.

Appendix G, Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring Within the Biological Study Area, provided all special-status species that could occur within the project site or vicinity based on standard database searches. These databases (i.e., CNDDB, USFWS, and CNPS occurring in the nine U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and surrounding the Project site) provide survey data from other sites within the project site vicinity and are used to inform baseline. LeConte’s thrasher did not come up in the nine U.S.

Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and surrounding the project site.

Dudek used industry standard databases such as CNDDB and the potential to occur determinations made by Dudek biologists were based on field surveys conducted within the site unlike the commenter, which only conducted surveys along the perimeter of the site.
10 8
ABJC CEQA requires protection of biological resources
to “[p]revent the elimination of fish or wildlife
species due to man’s activities, insure that fish
and wildlife populations do not drop below selfperpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and
animal communities.” In accordance with this
policy, a substantial impact to biological resources
occurs when a Project
will have “a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Dudek used industry standard databases such as CNDDB to include those species that have potential to occur within or surrounding the project site vicinity. The project’s impact analysis included a comprehensive literature review of species occurrence databases, which included CNDDB. Use of the CNDDB for assisting with the evaluation of biological resource impacts in support of CEQA analyses is an industry standard. Appendix G, Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Biological Study Area, both included in Appendix D.1 to the DEIR provide tables of all special-status species (plants and wildlife, respectively) whose geographic ranges fall within the general biological study area vicinity. This database (i.e., CNDDB occurring in the nine U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and surrounding the project site) provide survey data from other sites within the project site vicinity and are used to inform baseline. LeConte’s thrasher did not come up in the nine U.S.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.” CEQA Guidelines also states that
a species that is not listed in the California or
Federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) shall
nevertheless be considered to be endangered,
rare or threated if certain criteria are met.

Specifically, a species will be considered
“Endangered” “when its survival and reproduction
in the wild are in
immediate jeopardy as a result of loss of habitat,
change in habitat, overexploitation, predation,
competition, disease, or other factors.”
Additionally, a species will be considered
“Rare” when either:
(A) Although not presently threatened with
extinction, the species is existing in such small
numbers throughout all or a significant portion of
its range that it may become endangered if its
environment worsens; or
(B) The species is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range and may be
considered “threatened” as that term is used in
the Federal Endangered Species Act.

The DEIR’s omission of the LeConte’s Thrasher is
significant because the LeConte’s Thrasher is a
special-status species—it is designated as a
Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and surrounding the project site; therefore, this species was not included as part of Appendix G, Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Biological Study Area, both included in Appendix D.1 to the DEIR.

LeConte’s thrasher is a year-round resident and occupies extremely arid desert environments with sparse, low vegetation. It is most often found on desert flats, washes, saltbush scrub, creosote bush scrub, and alkali desert scrub, typically where scattered shrubs such as saltbush, mesquite, or cholla provide limited cover. These habitats feature large expanses of open sandy or alkaline ground, which the species uses for terrestrial foraging. Their home range size averages around 40 hectares (100 acres) in saltbush–cholla scrub habitats and nesting territories are smaller portions of the home range, averaging about 6 hectares (15 acres), and are defended most actively during the early breeding period (December–February).

Even if an individual were to be detected onsite, the project has incorporated several measures that coincide with recommendations from the Desert Thrasher Working Group to reduce impacts associated with solar projects (20241). These include:
• Selection of low-value sites (including sites with low plant diversity, dominated by single-aged creosote/mesquite,
invasive-grass dominated);
• Avoidance of installation of fencing across washes;
• Avoidance of installation of guyed towers;
1 Desert Thrasher Working Group. 2024. Conservation of Bendire’s and LeConte’s Thrashers at Solar Development Sites: Site Evaluation, Selection, and Design

Considerations to Benefit Desert Thrashers. Version 1.0, September 2024 1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
species of special concern by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”).

Additionally, while the LeConte’s Thrasher is not
listed as an endangered species in the California or
Federal ESA, there is substantial evidence that it
qualifies as an endangered, or, at a minimum, a
threatened species under CEQA. Specifically, the
2025 U.S. State of the Birds report named
LeConte’s Thrasher as one of the Country’s 42 Red
Alert Tipping Point Species. This designation is
reserved for bird
species that have lost more than half their
populations within the past 50 years and whose
declines require immediate and urgent action. The
LeConte’s Thrasher has
lost nearly 70% of their U.S. population primarily
because of destructive sprawl development and
other habitat degradation in southern California,
Nevada, and Arizona.

Because of this rapid decline, on July 30 and
September 16, 2025, the Center for Biological
Diversity (“CBD”) petitioned the California Fish
and Game Commission and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to list the LeConte’s Thrasher
under both the California and Federal ESA. These
petitions explained that, combined, the Sonoran
and Mojave Deserts and Coastal California
Biological Conservation Regions support 99% of
LeConte’s Thrasher global breeding
populations and that lack of action may put
LeConte’s Thrasher at risk of extirpation. “Flat,
• Installation of line markers on gen-tie lines and fences (see response to comment 119);
• Minimizing length of gen-tie (<2 miles);
• Restoring vegetation to 60–70% of pre-disturbance levels after construction (as through the Project Habitat Restoration Plan); and
• Minimizing water use.

These measures, combined with the very low numbers of LeConte’s thrasher, if any, expected to occupy the project site, and the amount of available habitat still present in the vicinity, would not put the species at risk and would be considered a less than significant impact.

Also see responses to comments 105 and 107.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
desert habitats preferred by LeConte’s Thrasher
are also desired for anthropogenic uses including
housing, industrial, infrastructure, and energy
developments…these land uses have resulted in
habitat loss, population decline, and extirpation of
populations within historical strongholds, and
continue to threaten the survival of LeConte’s
Thrasher.” The CBD petition concludes that
“[g]iven the numerous current threats, recent
extirpations in historical strongholds,
and a perilously small and fragmented
populations, LeConte’s Thrasher is at severe risk of
extirpation across its entire range [and]…meets
the criteria for listing as threatened or endangered
under the ESA.”
Substantial evidence demonstrates that the
survival and reproduction of the LeConte’s
Thrasher are in jeopardy as a result of continuing
habitat loss and that it is in danger of becoming
extinct throughout all of its range. Because of this,
the LeConte’s Thrasher meets the criteria for
treatment as an endangered species, or, at a
minimum, a threatened species under CEQA
Guidelines 15830. The DEIR fails
to disclose, analyze, or mitigate impacts to the
LeConte’s Thrasher and therefore
mischaracterizes the environmental setting and
understates the Project’s potential biological
impacts. In order to comply with CEQA, the DEIR
must be revised and recirculated to thoroughly

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
analyze and propose mitigation for the LeConte’s
Thrasher.
10 9
ABJC The DEIR concludes that Valley Fever poses a less
than significant impact because in 2022 the
incidence rate of Valley Fever in San Bernardino
County was only 3 per 100,000. The DEIR also
concludes that applying Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District (“MDAQMD”) standard dust
control measures (Rule 403) and replanting the
site as part of the proposed habitat restoration
plan will ensure impacts remain at less than
significant levels. Dr. Clark’s comments provide
substantial evidence demonstrating that the DEIR
underestimates the significant public health risk to
construction workers, nearby residences, and
surrounding community members that Valley
Fever spores released during Project construction
pose. Dr. Clark also explains why the Project’s
mitigation measures are insufficient to ensure
impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.

One of CEQA’s basic purposes is to inform
government decision-makers and the public about
the potential significant environmental effects of
proposed projects. Courts have previously found
environmental documents deficient for failing to
See response to comment 102.

Also, the comment provides background information regarding the physical location of valley fever fungal spores in soil; the types of activities that can cause soil disturbance that releases fungal spores; the infectious dose rate; and, the most common types of employees at risk for infection.

The comment also addresses fungal spore exposure concerns for both on-site, construction workers and off-site, non-construction workers.

However, as discussed in response to comment 1052 above, a comprehensive suite of regional air quality rules and state regulations will serve to both minimize dust generation impacting on- and off-site receptors, and provide for the protection of workers. The regional air quality rules align with many of the CDIR, CDPH, OSHA and CDC recommendations for reducing exposure to valley fever fungal spores during construction, such as: using water and other soil stabilizers to reduce airborne dust; stabilizing stock piles; and, suspending work during heavy winds. Many of these requirements are also incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Project and requirements under the proposed Development Code Amendment applicable to solar projects within the city.
2 14 See CDIR, Protection from Valley Fever webpage, available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/valley-fever-home.html (last accessed March 9, 2026); CDPH, Hazard Evaluation System & Information Service, Preventing Work- Related Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever) (June 2013), available at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/OHB/HESIS/Pages/Publications.aspx#otherhazards (last accessed March 9, 2026); U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Valley Fever Control and Prevention webpage, available at https://www.osha.gov/valley-fever/controlprevention (last accessed March 9, 2026); and, CDC, Valley Fever Prevention for Workers webpage, available at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/valleyPage 428 of 1008 fever/about/index.html (last accessed March 9, 2026).
1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
correlate adverse air pollution effects with indirect
health effects. Thus, impacts from potential Valley
Fever exposure must be analyzed and mitigated to
the greatest extent feasible in the DEIR pursuant
to CEQA.

Valley Fever is an infectious disease caused by
inhaling Coccidioides spores, a fungus that lives in
the top 2 to 12 inches of soil.50 When soil
containing this fungus is disturbed by construction
activities, the fungal spores become airborne and
pose a significant health risk. Valley Fever often
manifests as a mild respiratory illness, but it can
progress to serious chronic forms, especially in
immunocompromised individuals, and may even
become disseminated, impacting organs including
the skin, bones, brain, and spinal cord.

Disseminated Valley Fever is associated with
severe symptoms like meningitis, painful lesions,
and swollen joints. The most at risk populations
are construction workers and agricultural workers.

However, while construction workers would be
directly exposed by the Project, the potentially
exposed population in surrounding areas is much
larger. As Dr. Clark explains, the nonselective
raising of dust during Project construction will
carry the very small spores into nonendemic
areas, potentially exposing large non-Projectrelated populations. Additionally, the nearest residences are only 1,400 feet east of the Solar
Project and even closer to the Residential GPA
portions. Dr. Clark concludes that they may be
Finally, the comment states that Dr. James J. J. Clark, Ph.D. of Clark & Associates provides “substantial evidence” that the DEIR underestimates the significant public health risk to construction workers, nearby residences, and surrounding community members that Valley Fever spores released during Project construction pose. In response, the pertinent question is not whether substantial evidence supports Dr. Clark’s position, but whether substantial evidence supports the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. The CEQA Guidelines expressly recognize that “[d]isagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate.” (CEQA Guidelines, §15151.) In this instance, Terra Nova (the environmental consulting firm with air quality analysts responsible for the Draft EIR’s valley fever analysis) has developed a record of substantial evidence on the topic of valley fever that reaches a different conclusion than the one reached by Dr.

Clark. This is not an indicator of inadequacy; further, the disagreement is acknowledged and addressed throughout these responses, consistent with CEQA’s informational disclosure objectives.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
exposed to Valley Fever spores that reach their
homes during the construction phase of the
Project.
11 0
ABJC Dr. Clark’s comments highlight the fact that,
contrary to the City’s statements, there is no safe
level of exposure to Valley Fever spores. Dr. Clark
also provides substantial evidence that the Project
will only further contribute to the increasing rates
of Valley Fever cases in San Bernardino County. In
particular, recent data from the California
Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) shows that
the number of cases of Valley Fever in San
Bernardino County has increased from

1.8 per 100,000 in 2016 to 10.5 in 2022. This is an
increase of 583%. Data from CDPH also shows that
Valley Fever cases have increased 155% from 2023
to 2025.

See responses to comments 102 and 109.

The comment references cases of valley fever in San Bernardino County in 2016 and 2022, and provides a percentage of valley fever case increase from 2023 to 2025.

Relatedly, California Labor Code section 6709 defines “highly endemic” areas for valley fever as those areas where the annual incidence rate is greater than 20 cases per 100,000 persons per year.

Section 6709, subdivision (c), requires employers located within highly endemic areas to provide specialized awareness training regarding valley fever on an annual basis to their employees. Section 6709, subdivision (b) also identifies specific counties by name as highly endemic; this list does not include San Bernardino County. It further provides that – if additional counties are determined to be highly endemic (based on their annual incidence rate exceeding 20 cases per 100,000 persons per year) – such counties will need to comply with the awareness training requirements in the calendar year subsequent to the publication of the exceedance in CDPH’s annual report. (Lab. Code, §6709, subd. (e).)
Below, the annual valley fever incidence rate for San Bernardino County identified by CDPH
(https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/ValleyFeverDa shboard.aspx) is provided for the most recent seven reporting years:
• 2024: 8.2 cases per 100,000 persons
• 2023: 6.0 cases per 100,000 persons
• 2022: 14.3 cases per 100,000 persons

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
• 2021: 11.3 cases per 100,000 persons
• 2020: 10.7 cases per 100,000 persons
• 2019: 10.5 cases per 100,000 persons
• 2018: 4.5 cases per 100,000 persons
As shown, while the annual rate fluctuates, San Bernardino County has not exceeded the benchmark for identification of “highly endemic” valley fever areas. For context, these data points for San Bernardino County stand in stark contrast with reporting data for Kern and Kings counties (located in the Central Valley / San Joaquin Valley), which respectively reported 428 and 307 cases per 100,000 persons in calendar year 2024. Therefore, the overall prevalence of valley fever cases in San Bernardino County remains low in comparison to other areas of California and the associated risk of releasing spores associated with valley fever similarly remains low. 11 1
ABJC The 2022 data relied on in the DEIR is not only
outdated, but fails to recognize that any level of
exposure could expose construction workers and
nearby residents significant to health risks. The
Project will only further exacerbate this
risk. As demonstrated by a study in Antelope
Valley, a clear link between soil disturbance
caused by large renewable energy construction
projects and increased incidence of Valley Fever.

Dr. Clark explains that the mass disturbance of
soils anticipated by the proposed Project will
create the same conditions that were detailed in
the above study. The Project site’s desert location
and exposure to desert winds also amplify these
risks.

See response to comment 102, 109, and 110.

The comment references a 2017 summary report regarding the detection of Coccidioides immitis in soil samples collected from six sites identified for solar facility construction in the Antelope Valley area of northern Los Angeles County and southeast Kern County. The commenter states the study demonstrates a clear link between soil disturbance specifically associated with renewable energy construction and increased incidence of valley fever. The commenter fails to state that Kern County is highly endemic for valley fever (as evidence by the 428 cases per 100,000 persons in calendar year 2024) and instead directly correlates a specific land use type (i.e., large renewable energy construction) with a specific public health effect (i.e., increased incidence of Valley Fever). The commenter also fails to note that in the referenced summary report the instances of Coccidioides immitis detected in soil samples collected from six sites identified for solar facility construction in the Antelope Valley was

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
primarily located in soils of the Pond-Oban complex (Alkali Flats), which are characterized by an elevated pH and salt bush communities. Instead, the commenter seemingly misinterprets the reported site -specific data and attempts to apply soil sample results to broader desert regions as a whole (which is not supported by the referenced study). Lastly, the commenter fails to summarize a key finding/recommendation of the referenced study which identifies long-term dust mitigation plans, similar to the measures incorporated into the project conditions and mitigation measures, as effective protection to combat potential for valley fevers cases.

The commenter also endorses a “zero risk” policy concerning potential exposure to valley fever risk. This is not consistent with any threshold or standard adopted under CEQA. Nor would such a standard be practicable. If adopted as recommended by the commenter, the City would not be able to approve any project that included grading of undeveloped areas of the city, including but not limited to the extension of currently undeveloped roads or the construction of residential housing to meet the city’s future housing needs.
11 2
ABJC Risks of allowing this Project to move forward as
currently proposed are also demonstrated by the
City’s past actions related to commercial solar
energy projects. Specifically, the City of
Twentynine Palms previously banned commercial
solar fields because it recognized the risks they
posed to the City and its residents, stating that
“Commercial Solar Fields can be shown to
have…potential decreases in the quality of life for
those individuals that reside with properties
adjacent to or surrounding such facilities.” As
currently proposed, the Project still has the
General statements made by the City outside of the context of the specific proposed project do not provide evidence of the project’s environmental or health impacts. Specific consideration has been provided through site selection, environmental review, and imposition of mitigation measures and conditions of approval to address these concerns. Further, the City’s statements were not made in the context of Valley Fever or any specific health considerations.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
potential to decrease the quality of life to nearby
residences who may be exposed to Valley Fever.

The DEIR fails to disclose or mitigate this public
health risk.
11 3
ABJC Dr. Clark further explains that the DEIR’s standard dust control measures (Rule 403) and postconstruction replanting of the site as required by Mitigation measure AES-1 will not reduce the risk
of Valley Fever exposure to less than significant
levels. First, Rule 403 includes requirements for a
Dust Control Plan, signage and fencing
requirements, as well as surface watering and
stabilization with chemicals, gravel and asphaltic
pavement to eliminate visible fugitive dust from
vehicular travel and wind erosion. Dr. Clark
explains that these measures still allow for a
percentage of the dust that could be generated to
migrate offsite. This is because conventional dust
control measures primarily focus on visible dust or
larger dust particles and fail to address the very
fine particles that transport Valley Fever spores.

Valley Fever spores are approximately 5 times
smaller than other dust particles and remain
airborne much longer. Compliance with Rule 403
also relies on visual opacity readings for dust
control, which is insufficient to prevent exposure
to Valley Fever spores. This rule is based on
smoke-monitoring methods that require active
monitoring by certified observers, rely on
The comment asserts that conventional dust control measures will not prevent the dissemination of valley fever fungal spores because such measures “largely focus on visible dust or larger dust particles – the PM10 fraction – not the very fine particles where” the fungal spores are found. As such, the comment is critical of the Draft EIR’s reliance of SCAQMD Rule 403 compliance.

First, published scientific literature disagrees with the representations made in the comment regarding the relevance of PM10. For example, one article available via the National Library of Medicine reports that:
• PM10 is a strong predictor of Valley fever cases because this particulate matter fraction contains fungal spores that cause infection. Particulate matter is an important gauge of air quality, and this metric quantifies the amount of pollutants and biological material such as allergens and potentially pathogenic fungi in the air [footnote omitted]. … Several studies have shown that PM10 is an effective predictor of certain infectious diseases that are environmentally acquired [footnotes omitted].3
Second, as discussed in response to comment 109 above, reliance on MDAQMD Rule 403 to control dust and correspondingly minimize exposure to fungal spores (should they be present in the soil) is consistent with the recommendations of CDPH, CDIR, OSHA and CDC, 3 19 Microbiology Spectrum, Kollath, Daniel R., et al., PM10 and Other Climatic Variables Are Important Predictors of Seasonal Variability of Coccidioidomycosis

in Arizona (March / April 2022), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9045372/ (last accessed March 9, 2026). 1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
subjective observation, and are affected by
variables such as lighting, distance, and weather
conditions. Due to these limitations, Dr. Clark
explains that opacity readings do not provide
accurate, continuous data on fine airborne
particles.
among others4. For example, the County of San Bernardino Environmental Health Services also expressly identifies dust suppression including wetting soil and covering base soil as a valley fever preventative measure to be implemented during construction activities.5
11 4
ABJC Second, AES-1 requires that “[w]ithin 60 days of
the completion of construction, or at the earliest
possible time that is appropriate to achieve plant
establishment, as determined by the City and a
qualified Project biologist, native plants shall be
installed on the Solar Project site.” Contrary to the
City’s statement, Dr. Clark explains that this
mitigation measure does nothing to reduce the
movement of Valley Fever spores offsite during
the construction phases of the Project. Replanting
after construction will not reduce exposure to
Valley Fever during this phase, which is when the
most amount of soil will be disturbed. Therefore,
the DEIR fails to propose adequate mitigation for
the Project’s significant Valley Fever health risk
impacts.

AES-1 is intended to reduce impacts associated with project operations. Please see also responses to comments 109 and 113. 11 5
ABJC Dr. Clark provides a list of measures the City
should implement that would actively suppress
The comment recommends a number of feasible mitigation measures to suppress the spread of valley fever. As discussed above, however, 4 See CDIR, Protection from Valley Fever webpage, available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/valley-fever-home.html (last accessed March 9, 2026); CDPH, Hazard Evaluation System & Information Service, Preventing Work- Related Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever) (June 2013), available at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/OHB/HESIS/Pages/Publications.aspx#otherhazards (last accessed March 9, 2026); U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Valley Fever Control and Prevention webpage, available at https://www.osha.gov/valley-fever/controlprevention (last accessed March 9, 2026); and, CDC, Valley Fever Prevention for Workers webpage, available at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/valleyfever/about/index.html (last accessed March 9, 2026). 5 See San Bernardino County Public Health Environmental Health Services “Coccidioidomycosis” available at

https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/dph/dehs/Depts/EnvironmentalHealth/EHSDocuments/Coccidioidomycosis.pdf (last accessed March 9, 2026); 1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
the spread of Valley Fever. These include, but are
not limited to: providing specific requirements in
the Project’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program
regarding safeguards to prevent Valley Fever;
applying chemical stabilizers at least 24-hours
prior to high wind events; applying water to all
disturbed areas a minimum of three times per
day; thoroughly cleaning equipment, vehicles, and
other items before they are moved off-site to
other work locations; and working with medical
professionals to develop a protocol to medically
evaluate employees who have symptoms of Valley
Fever.
the Project would not result in a significant valley fever impact, so no mitigation is required. (CEQA Guidelines, §15126.4, subd. (a)(3).) Nonetheless, the following is offered in response to the list of recommendations:

First, as to the referenced Injury and Illness Prevention Program, employers already are required by law to address valley fever in such plans via the provisions of CCR, Title 8, section 3203.21. No CEQA mechanism is required or appropriate in this instance; rather, employers should abide by the existing requirements of California labor laws.

Second, as discussed throughout these responses, MDAQMD Rule 403 already requires the Project to control dust exposure – consistent with the comment’s recommendations – by applying water and/or chemical stabilizers to exposed soil / dirt and stockpiles; ceasing construction activities during high-wind events; cleaning construction equipment and vehicles to minimize track-out; preventing spillage of bulk materials during transport; and, ensuring no less than six inches of freeboard. Many of these conditions are also required by the City as proposed conditions of approval.

Finally, while the Project’s valley fever impact would not be significant and no mitigation is required by CEQA, in response to this comment and the commenter’s overall concern with the subject of valley fever, the Project applicant has requested that the City include the following condition of approval in the Project’s record of proceedings, should the Final EIR be certified and the Project approved. This condition of approval is intended to complement the Project’s required compliance with the existing regulatory rubric for control measures and engineering standards that address dust.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
Valley Fever Exposure Minimization. The following strategies, while not required by CEQA, shall be administered in consideration of the potential release of valley fever fungal spores during the Project’s construction period:

First, the applicant or its designee shall monitor the California Department of Public Health’s valley fever data dashboard and report San Bernardino County’s annual incidence rate to the City on a yearly basis during the Project’s construction period. In the event that San Bernardino County’s annual incidence rate becomes “highly endemic,” as that rate is defined in California Labor Code section 6709, subdivision (b) during the Project’s construction period, the City shall require the applicant or its designee to notify and remind all construction employers of their: (1) statutory compliance obligations under Labor Code section 6709, and (2) regulatory compliance obligations in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. In doing so, the applicant or its designee also shall refer the referenced employers to the California Department of Industrial Relations’ webpage for valley fever, and particularly the information for employers therein.

Second, in the event that the County’s status changes to “highly endemic,” during the Project’s construction period, the City shall reach out to San Bernardino County Environmental Health Services to request that the County undertake a public notification, awareness and education campaign regarding valley fever.

Third, prior to any ground disturbance activity associated with Project construction, and regardless of whether San Bernardino County has been found “highly endemic” or not, the applicant or its designee shall require the primary Project construction contractor to prepare and implement a worker training program

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
that describes potential health hazards associated with valley fever, common symptoms, proper safety procedures required by California’s employee protection laws to minimize health hazards, and notification procedures if suspected work‐related symptoms are identified during construction. The worker training program described herein is intended to align with the existing legal rubric applicable to employers, as identified by the California Department of Industrial Relations.

The applicant has also offered to provide HEPA filters to residents located within 1.5 miles downwind (easterly) of the Solar Project site during construction of the Solar Project upon demand and is willing to include this commitment as a condition of approval. 11 6
ABJC The DEIR violates CEQA by not disclosing,
analyzing, and mitigating the potentially
significant health impacts of Valley Fever. Dr
Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence
that the Project’s construction may result in
significant health impacts from Valley Fever
exposure. Given the significant public health risk
posed by the Project’s release of Valley Fever
spores, and the DEIR’s failure to address
this impact, the City must prepare a revised DEIR
to accurately disclose and mitigate the Project’s
impacts on local air quality and public health.

Revisions to the DEIR should include a special
focus on construction workers and nearby
sensitive receptors. The revised DEIR should also
include effective mitigation measures specifically
tailored to Valley Fever because standard dust
controls are inadequate for managing the risks
posed by this pathogen. Ensuring robust
The comment is conclusory in nature and summarizes prior positions and comments provided with regard to valley fever. See responses to comments 102 and 109 through 115.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
protections for both on-site workers and off-site
receptors is essential to prevent potentially severe
health consequences for the surrounding
community.
11 7
ABJC The City conducts a piecemeal analysis of the
estimated ROG emissions from the Project’s Solar
and Residential GPA portions. The DEIR concludes
that the Project will result in criteria emissions
below MDAQMD significant thresholds and thus
impacts related to construction and operation will
be less than significant.

The City comes to this conclusion by analyzing the
emissions of the Project’s solar and residential
GPA portions separately. The DEIR states that the
Project will result in 89.4 pounds (“lbs”) of ROG
during construction, while the Residential GPA will
result in 84.4 lbs of ROG during construction, each
of which are individually below the MDAQMD
threshold of 137 lbs/day. However, the DEIR fails
to compare the combined ROG emissions from the
concurrent Project construction phases against
the MDAQMD threshold. This violates CEQA’s
prohibition against piecemeal analysis.

CEQA forbids piecemeal review of the significant
environmental impacts of a project. Agencies
cannot allow “environmental considerations [to]
become submerged by chopping a large project
into many little ones-each with a minimal
potential impact on the environment-which
cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.”
The EIR evaluates the entire project and does not piecemeal the analysis. It fully evaluates both the proposed solar project and the environmental impacts associated with rezoning a portion of the project site for greater residential zoning. As noted in the EIR, the project applicant does not propose any residential development.

While no such development has been proposed, the DEIR includes conservative assumptions that residential development could occur in 2027, which would not overlap with the proposed solar project schedule, which is anticipated to occur in 2026 immediately upon receiving all project entitlements and authorizations. Therefore, there would be no cumulative air quality emissions, as any residential development would occur at a different time than construction of the solar project.

Further, as noted in the DEIR, the residential rezoning would not increase air quality emissions over the environmental baseline because it would not increase the overall permitted density of residential housing in the area beyond that currently allowed and analyzed under the General Plan. See DEIR, pgs. 2.4-15-17.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
The CEQA Guidelines provide “[w]here an
individual project is a necessary precedent for
action on a larger project, or commits the Lead
Agency to a larger project, with significant
environmental effects, an EIR must address itself
to
the scope of the larger project.”
Here, construction of the Project’s solar and
residential GPA portions would result in significant
environmental effects when analyzed together.

The total ROG emissions from both the solar and
residential GPA portions would be 173.8 lbs of
ROG. This exceeds the MDAQMD threshold of 137
lbs/day. The DEIR fails to disclose this impact or
propose adequate mitigation to ensure that
impacts will be reduced to less than significant
levels.

For mitigation, the DEIR merely states that
compliance with the City’s General Plan policies
and standard MDAQMD rules and regulations will
ensure future impacts remain less than significant.

The City has not provided any evidence to support
this conclusion because the DEIR did not analyze
the combined air emission impacts of the solar
and residential GPA portions. Additionally, the
currently proposed MDAQMD standard dust
control measures (Rule 403) reduce dirt in the air.

Since ROG comes from engines, fuel, and
construction materials—not dust—these

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
emissions would not be reduced.by compliance
with Rule 403.

The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to
adequately analyze the whole of the Project and
propose necessary mitigation that will reduce
impacts to the greatest extent feasible.
11 8
ABJC The DEIR concludes, without supporting evidence,
that the Project would not result in significant
impacts to birds related to collision with PV
panels. Dr. Smallwood provides substantial
evidence demonstrating that the DEIR’s
conclusions are misleading and based on
inaccurate evidence. He also provides substantial
evidence that the Project may result in significant
impacts to birds and bats due to collisions with the
PV panels, as well as the security fence planned
for the Project site.

The DEIR’s conclusion relies upon occurrence of
the “lake effect,” which is a hypothesis that PV
panels reflect ultraviolet light rays that cause birds
to misidentify solar panels as a body of water.

Specifically, the DEIR concludes that there “is no
evidence that the Solar Project would result in a
reasonably foreseeable ‘lake effect’ to migratory
birds, and there are no known special avian
species, particularly water birds such as rails in the
area that would be expected to be affected by a
potential ‘lake effect.’” Dr. Smallwood explains
that this reasoning is flawed in two ways. First,
most of the birds killed by PV panels in utility-scale
The commenter asserts that the DEIR’s conclusion regarding collision risk to birds and bats is unsupported and that Dr. Smallwood provides “substantial evidence” that the Project may result in significant impacts. The commenter also states that the DEIR relies solely on the “lake effect” hypothesis and fails to consider other collision mechanisms. These assertions mischaracterize both the DEIR’s analysis and the scientific literature on photovoltaic (PV) collision risk.

The DEIR acknowledges the lake-effect hypothesis as one of several proposed mechanisms for avian collisions at solar facilities. The DEIR does not conclude that lake effect is the only relevant mechanism, nor does it rely on that hypothesis to dismiss collision risk. Instead, the DEIR evaluates collision potential based on site specific biological surveys, existing habitat conditions, regional data, and project design features.

Current peer-reviewed evidence indicates that avian mortality at utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) solar facilities is generally low relative to other anthropogenic structures, such as communication towers, buildings, and wind turbines, with no evidence of mass-fatality events typically associated with tall vertical features. Studies synthesizing results from 10 PV facilities across 13 site-years in California and Nevada demonstrate that overall fatality rates remain modest, with a high-end estimate of approximately 2.49 birds per megawatt per year. Species affected vary significantly among facilities, with

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
solar settings are not birds known to inhabit
aquatic environments, suggesting that most birds
that fatally collide with solar panels are either
locals or they are low-flying migrants. The DEIR
fails to consider how the collision with PV panels
would impact these populations. Second, the DEIR
incorrectly assumes that aquatic birds do not fly
over inland areas far from water bodies. As Dr.

Smallwood explains, many aquatic bird collision
victims have been documented at PV solar
projects in the Mojave Desert, far from water.

Therefore, the DEIR’s conclusion is unsupported.
water-obligate birds present in 90% of site-years, although this pattern does not necessarily imply attraction to PV installations. A major challenge in interpreting PV-related mortality stems from detection limitations: roughly 61% of intact carcasses show undetermined causes of death, making it difficult to determine whether fatalities are caused by facility-specific mechanisms or background ecological processes.

Evidence for collision risk at PV facilities is minimal. An extensive camera-based monitoring program documented more than 17,000 bird activity events without a single confirmed collision, strongly suggesting that panel-related strike events are rare. Further, carcass locations both inside and outside project boundaries indicate no consistent pattern of attraction, even at PV facilities situated within agricultural landscapes. One outlier facility with fixed-tilt panels lacking anti-reflective coatings did experience elevated aquatic bird mortality, but subsequent studies found that this pattern has not occurred at other PV installations and should not be expected at modern facilities, such as that proposed by the Solar Project, that include anti-reflective treatments. Overall, these findings suggest that facility design and landscape context play a larger role in shaping avian interactions than the physical characteristics of panels alone.

Overall, scientific literature supports the conclusion that PV solar facilities pose relatively low avian mortality risk compared to many other human-made structures. Where mortality occurs, it is typically site-specific, influenced by local habitat conditions rather than panelrelated interactions. 6 6 Kosciuch, K., Riser-Espinoza, D., Gerringer, M., & Erickson, W. (2020). A summary of bird mortality at photovoltaic utility scale solar facilities in the Southwestern U.S. PLOS ONE; Tetra Tech, Inc. (2024). Avian Fatality Assessment for PV Solar Projects (California Energy Commission docket filings); AgriSolar Clearinghouse (2022). A Summary of Bird Mortality at Photovoltaic Utility-Scale Solar Facilities in the Southwestern U.S.; Walston, L. et al. (2016). Supplemental

Information: A Preliminary Assessment of Avian Mortality at Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facilities in the United States 1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
To further address this concern, the applicant recommends that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 be revised as follows:
“. . . Fencing. The solar array site shall include a 7-foot-high perimeter fence upon completion of construction and
through the duration of operation to minimize the impact on sensitive or special-status biological resources occurring adjacent to the site. The fence will be marked consistent with U.S.

Fish & Wildlife recommendations to increase the visibility of the security fence for birds and other wildlife . . .”
Based on these factors, the project is not expected to create conditions that would result in a significant collision hazard. 11 9
ABJC Dr. Smallwood also highlights that cyclone fencing is known to kill wildlife via collision and
entanglement. The DEIR discloses that the Project
plans to build a 7-foot tall cyclone fence that
would surround the solar project, but fails to
analyze the potential impacts to birds and bats
who may collide with the fence.

The commenter asserts that the Project’s perimeter cyclone fencing would result in bird and bat mortality and cites numerical predictions from Smallwood (20227
). No studies, methods, calculations, or
site-specific analysis were provided to demonstrate how these generalized rates apply to the Project site, the Project’s fence design, or local species behavior. Unsupported numerical estimates do not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA. The DEIR evaluated potential wildlife impacts based on the Project’s actual environmental setting.

The Project’s fencing is standard 7‑foot chain‑link, which is widely used in the region and not associated with documented high levels of avian or bat mortality in similar settings. Because the commenter’s predictions are not supported by site-specific evidence and do not 7 Smallwood, K. S. (2022). Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management. Wiley Periodicals LLC. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.22216.

[docslib.org]
1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
demonstrate a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an identified impact, recirculation is not required. 12 0
ABJC Dr. Smallwood estimates that, if the Project were
approved as currently proposed, it would kill 648
birds per year and 15 bats per year due to
collisions with PV panels and the security fence.

This constitutes a significant impacts that must be
disclosed and mitigated.

As discussed in detail below, the DEIR’s mitigation
is inadequate to reduce impacts to less than
significant levels. The DEIR must be revised and
recirculated to include a comprehensive analysis
of collision mortality with PV panels and security
fencing, as well as additional mitigation measures.

Based on the literature described in response to comment 118 and the EIR, annual avian impacts would be closer to 130 birds, which is significantly less than the amount killed annually by other uses like commercial buildings, skyscrapers, airplanes, and vehicles. This would not represent a significant impact under CEQA.

A review by Natural England (2017) found that there was no peerreviewed experimental research that isolated direct impacts—such as collisions—caused solely by solar PV developments, including for bats. Instead, the available data mostly comes from carcass monitoring reports and observational studies aggregated across multiple sites. Further, a review of 14 solar facilities in California estimated bat mortalities at 0.06 bats/MW/year at photo voltaic projects (Smallwood 2022), which would translate into 3 bats per year.8

CEQA requires that impact determinations be based on substantial evidence relevant to the Project’s environmental setting. Because the commenter’s estimates are not based on site-specific data, do not account for the Project’s design features, and do not demonstrate a nexus to local conditions, they are not directly applicable for determining significance under CEQA.
12 1
ABJC The DEIR concludes, absent substantial evidence,
that the Project will not significantly impact
wildlife movement and corridors.

The DEIR identifies that the Project site lies within a General Plan– designated Wildlife Linkage Area; however, this designation is broad and reflects a planning‑level objective to maintain landscape permeability across the region. On the landscape, the area is part of 8 Smallwood, K. S. (2022). Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management. Wiley Periodicals LLC. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.22216. [docslib.org]. Natural England (2017). Evidence review of the impact of solar farms on birds, bats and general ecology (NEER012). Manchester Metropolitan University.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
The DEIR acknowledges, the Project site is within
the General Plan’s designated Wildlife Linkage
Area and is “located within the established habitat
linkage areas for desert tortoise and burrowing
owl that would also allow for viable populations of
smaller terrestrial species and/or species’
dispersal movement through the BSA and the
immediate vicinity.” Despite this, the DEIR reasons
that wildlife movement would not be interfered
with because “larger mammal species…are not
anticipated to use the BSA or immediate vicinity
due to the openness of the site, which would not
provide enough cover for these species.” It
goes on to state that because the BSA CDFW
connectivity ranking is only ACE Rank 1 it does not
qualify as a significant regional wildlife corridor,
and “Project implementation would not disrupt
regional migratory patterns given the abundance
of surrounding undeveloped land for wildlife
passage.”
Dr. Smallwood explains that this reasoning is
speculative and unsupported. First, both mule
deer and coyotes were observed on the Project
site. Therefore, contrary to the City’s claim, larger
mammals do occupy the site. Second, a lower
CDFW connectivity ranking does not provide
substantial evidence demonstrating that wildlife
movement will not be significantly impacted by
the Project because these rankings are not based
on measurements of wildlife movement. The City
one large contiguous block of suitable habitat that includes all of the species’ habitat needs to support all life history needs including foraging, cover, and breeding. Therefore, it not a constrained corridor or linkage. CEQA requires analysis of site‑specific biological conditions, not reliance solely on generalized land‑use designations.

DEIR and Appendix D.1 Biological Resources Technical Report accordingly analyzed the Project site habitat structure and vegetation cover, species observed during extensive and comprehensive surveys spanning from April 2023 through May 2025, adjacent land uses, scale and configuration of the Project, and availability of alternate movement pathways in the surrounding landscape. This site-specific evidence adequately supports the DIER’s conclusion that the Project will not significantly impact wildlife movement and corridors.

As stated in Appendix D.1, Biological Resources Technical Report MMBIO-3 (Desert Tortoise Avoidance and Minimization Measures), security fencing shall be placed inside of the desert tortoise exclusion fencing, which shall remain in place for the duration of project operations (e.g., excluding all wildlife from entering the Project), as recommended by USFWS and CDFW (Lalumiere, pers. comm. 2025).

E-Group initially proposed to raise the fencing to allow for wildlife movement through the Project site; however, both USFWS and CDFW requested that the applicant continue to exclude wildlife movement through the Project Site during project operation. Furthermore, the Project design initially had security fencing around the entirety of the 184-acre solar facility site that is located on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0612 201-01-0000 and 0612-201-05-0000; however, this fencing design was pulled back to the project-level impact area of the solar array site. This project redesign thus allowed the main drainage within the northwestern portion of the Project to be avoided and would not impede wildlife movement. Larger mammals such as mule deer and coyote are wide-ranging species that are

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
also did not conduct any measurement of wildlife
movement on the project site to support this
conclusion. Therefore, the City lacks substantial
evidence for its significance determination.
expected to occur in many open landscapes and do not, by themselves, establish that the site functions as a significant movement corridor. Further, the site consists of open, sparsely vegetation with limited cover which is not conducive to regular or high-frequency movement by larger mammals.

The DEIR uses the ACE ranking appropriately as one component of a broader analysis and does not claim that the ACE score alone determines significance; rather, it uses the ranking to contextualize the site’s relative importance within the regional landscape.

CEQA does not require telemetry studies, camera arrays, or other quantitative movement analysis unless there is substantial evidence that a site functions as a movement corridor. As stated in Appendix D.1, Biological Resources Technical Report to the DEIR, the surrounding landscape provides multiple, unobstructed pathways and open vacant lands surrounding the site for wildlife movement to occur. Furthermore, based on the extensive amount of surveys completed from April 2023 through May 2025, there was no documented concentrated wildlife usage in the site. Given these conditions, the DEIR appropriately relied on standard biological survey methods and habitat‑based analysis.

The comment does not provide substantial evidence that the Project site functions as a significant wildlife movement corridor or that the Project would impede regional wildlife movement.

Finally, the commenter describes actions that include trespassing on the property since permission to enter had not been requested or granted.

Also see response to comment 122.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
12 2
ABJC Dr. Smallwood’s comments also provide
substantial evidence that the Project will
significantly interfere with wildlife movement. For
instance, the Project will destroy between 184 and
224 acres of habitat that would normally support
wildlife movement in the region. It will also
construct a security fence that would block
wildlife movement. This constitutes substantial
evidence that the Project will result in significant
impacts to wildlife movement that the DEIR fails
to adequately analyze or mitigate.

The DEIR must be revised to provide a
comprehensive analysis of the Project’s potential
impacts to wildlife movement that is supported by
substantial evidence.

Impacts concerning the installation of a security fence and the solar project are thoroughly evaluated in Section 2.5 of the DEIR. As noted therein, “The movement of other small terrestrial species throughout the area in proximity to the subject site is not anticipated to face significant restrictions considering that the Solar Project is located within an expansive undeveloped region of Twentynine Palms.

Therefore, movement by these small species within the area will be possible via access to vacant lands to the north, south, east, and west of the site. Restrictions by the Project’s buildout to existing migratory patterns will be low and at no point would it reach a level of significance.” DEIR, pgs. 2-5.32-33.

Also see response to comment 121.
12 3
ABJC The DEIR fails to address potentially significant
impacts to birds from collision with vehicles
traveling to and from the Project-site during
construction and operation. This omission is
significant because as Dr. Smallwood explains
vehicle collisions have accounted for thousands of
amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod
fauna deaths. In the United States alone, 2,200 to
8,405 bird deaths per 100 km per year occur, or 89
million to 340 million total per year.

Dr. Smallwood also provides substantial evidence
that the Project will result in significant bird
deaths from project-generated traffic. Dr.

Smallwood estimates that the Project would result
in 1,673 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year as a
The DEIR evaluated potential impacts to biological resources, including special-status and common wildlife species, based on the best available data and standard CEQA practice and the analysis considered both direct and indirect impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project.

The commenter’s estimates on wildlife-vehicle collision rates rely on generalized regional or national collision rates that are not specific to the Project area, roadway conditions, traffic speeds, or species assemblages. CEQA requires analysis of substantial evidence relevant to the project’s environmental setting; therefore, generalized mortality estimates are not directly applicable without project‑specific data or a demonstrated nexus to local conditions and cannot be used for determining significance under CEQA.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
result of the combined traffic from both the
construction of the solar project and operation of
the residential GPA project.

The DEIR must be revised to comprehensively
analyze and propose mitigation for this potentially
significant impact.

Furthermore, as stated in DEIR Section 1.4, Project operations will be unmanned and monitored remotely. Solar Project personnel will visit the site only for maintenance and system monitoring on an as‑needed basis, with one annual inspection. As described in DEIR Section 2.4.6 and Table 2.4‑7, once operational, maintenance vehicles will visit the site up to three times per year. Accordingly, operational traffic volumes associated with the Solar Project are extremely low and do not represent a substantial increase over existing conditions that would elevate wildlife‑vehicle collision risk. As noted in the DEIR, construction-related traffic would not result in a significant increase in traffic along Two Mile Road, and would not result in an increase in risk of vehicular collisions with wildlife as compared to existing conditions. See DEIR, at 2.17-10. It is entirely possible that there will be no avian/vehicle collisions.
12 4
ABJC Mitigation Measure BIO-1 . . . Dr. Smallwood
explains that the conservation benefits of items 1-
9 above would be de minimis relative to impacts.

They would not avoid the permanent loss of
habitat nor the collision mortality during project
operations. Dr. Smallwood’s comments on
collision with security also demonstrate that item
10, which requires fencing, is wholly inadequate
as it contributes to collision mortality.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is specifically designed to reduce indirect impacts to biological resources during construction, operation, and decommissioning. BIO-1 does not purpose to mitigate permanent habitat conversion; that impact is addressed separately in the DEIR’s analysis and, where applicable, through other mitigation measures.

The commenter’s criticism that BIO-1 does not offset permanent habitat loss therefore misunderstands the measure’s purpose.

Further, these measures are standard, widely accepted, and effective practices used throughout California to avoid and minimize impacts to special-status species. These measures are consistent with CDFW and USFWS guidance and are routinely relied upon in CEQA documents to reduce indirect impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Additionally, the Project proposes standard chain-link fencing intended and requested by the agencies (see response to comment 121) to prevent wildlife from entering the Project site. The commenter provides no site-specific or peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating that chain-link fencing of this type results in

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
substantial wildlife mortality. BIO-1 includes additional measures (e.g., daily inspections, wildlife escape provisions, debris checks) that further reduce any potential risk.

CEQA does not require mitigation to avoid all impacts; it requires feasible measures that substantially reduce impacts. Therefore, the DEIR concludes, based on substantial evidence, that with implementation of BIO-1 and other applicable measures, indirect impacts would be less than significant.
12 5
ABJC Mitigation Measure BIO-2 . . . Dr. Smallwood
concludes that this measure is inadequate
because it would not avoid the permanent loss of
habitat nor the collision mortality during project
operations. Dr. Smallwood explains that many bird
nests would likely be missed and even assuming
they could all be found the mitigation measure
only applies when construction or
decommissioning activities must occur during the
breeding season.

Mitigation Measure BIO‑2 requires a pre‑construction nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to ground‑disturbing activity during the nesting season, and the establishment of avoidance buffers for all active nests (larger buffers for raptors and special‑status species), maintained until the young have fledged. The measure also grants the biological monitor stop‑work authority if nesting birds are detected during construction.

These procedures are consistent with Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Fish and Game Code, and typical CEQA practice for nesting‑bird protection.

The commenter states that BIO‑2 is inadequate because it does not avoid permanent habitat loss or collision mortality during operations.

As described in the DEIR, BIO‑2 is an avoidance/minimization measure designed specifically to prevent take of active nests during construction and decommissioning. Permanent habitat loss is addressed through other biological mitigation measures, including compensatory habitat requirements for special‑status species (e.g., Mitigation Measure BIO‑6).

Regarding operational collision mortality, the DEIR identifies that the facility will be unmanned, with very low vehicle trip frequency (approximately three two‑way trips per year), and therefore the

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
potential for bird‑vehicle collision during operations is minimal. No evidence in the DEIR supports the conclusion that the project would result in a substantial collision‑related operational impact that would require additional mitigation beyond the existing biological measures.

Also see response to comment 123.
12 6
ABJC Additionally, the mitigation measure fails to
establish criteria for determining what constitutes
an “appropriate buffer” if an active bird nest is
found during the survey. It merely states that the
buffer shall be determined by the
biologist “based on the species’ sensitivity to
disturbance.” This constitutes impermissibly
deferred mitigation under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B), which provides that
formulation of mitigation measures shall not be
deferred until some future time. Impermissible
deferral of mitigation measures occurs when an
EIR puts off analysis or orders a report without
either setting standards or
demonstrating how the impact can be mitigated in
the manner described in the EIR. The CEQA
Guidelines provide that “[t]he specific details of a
mitigation measure, however, may be developed
after project approval when it is impractical or
infeasible to include those details during the
project’s environmental review….” In Preserve
Wild Santee v. City of Santee, the city
impermissibly deferred mitigation
where the EIR did not state why specifying
performance standards for mitigation measures
The mitigation measure is sufficiently definitive and does not constitute deferred mitigation. The commenter fails to quote the remainder of the sentence, which provides that the buffer would be typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and special status species. See DEIR, pg. 2.5-39. It is impractical to list the buffer that may be appropriate for each nesting bird species. The mitigation measure provides appropriate general parameters to be confirmed by a certified biologist based upon the specific nesting species encountered.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
“was impractical or infeasible at the time the EIR
was certified.” The
DEIR does not state why specifying the buffer
standards was impractical or infeasible at the time
the DEIR was drafted.

Therefore, the DEIR improperly relies on
mitigation measure BIO-2 to conclude that
impacts to biological resources will be mitigated to
less than significant levels.
12 7
ABJC Mitigation Measure BIO-3 . . . Dr. Smallwood
explains that the conservation benefits of this
mitigation measure would be de minimis relative
to project impacts. This measure would not avoid
the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision
mortality during project operations. Additionally,
Dr. Smallwood states that, even if no burrowing
owls are detected, the loss of foraging habitat
would need to be mitigated. As written, the
measure does not guarantee that necessary
habitat replacement will occur.

Mitigation Measure BIO‑3 requires a CDFW‑compliant
pre‑construction burrowing owl survey (including surveys within 14 days and again within 24 hours of ground disturbance), and, if present and if avoidance is infeasible, the Project applicant must consult with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) process. These procedures are consistent with CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) and are designed to avoid or minimize direct take during construction.

If an ITP is required, direct impacts to burrowing owl will be mitigated through compensatory habitat replacement at a minimum 1:1 ratio, or at another ratio determined appropriate by CDFW during ITP review. The Project applicant has already submitted an ITP application for burrowing owl, which is currently under review by CDFW through the consultation process, ensuring agency oversight and appropriate compensatory requirements. See Exhibit 3. 12 8
ABJC Dr. Smallwood goes on to explain that the
mitigation measure does not outline the correct
process for consulting with the CDFW. Specifically,
because the burrowing owl is a candidate for
listing under the California Endangered Species
The applicant has commenced consultation with CDFW concerning potential impacts to burrowing owl. See Exhibit 3.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
Act, consultation with the CDFW needs to begin
before any surveys are conducted, not afterwards
as written.
12 9
ABJC Mitigation Measure BIO-4 . . . Dr. Smallwood
explains that the conservation benefits of this
measure would be de minimis relative to the
Project’s impacts and would not avoid the
permanent loss of habitat nor the collision
mortality during project operations.

Mitigation Measure BIO‑4 is intended to avoid and minimize direct impacts to desert kit fox during construction through preconstruction surveys by a qualified biologist. This mitigation measure, together with Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (biological monitoring, WEAP training, vehicle-speed limits/under-vehicle checks, trash control), provide effective avoidance and minimization. While additional mitigation is not required for desert kit fox based upon existing biological surveys, it should be noted that the habitat preserved under Mitigation Measure BIO‑6 for permanent impacts to occupied habitat for desert tortoise will also provide suitable habitat for desert kit fox. Operational vehicle‑strike risk is expected to be minimal because the facility is unmanned and limited to infrequent maintenance trips and access controls and speed/inspection protocols further reduce exposure during operations. Accordingly, the DEIR concludes desert kit fox impacts are reduced to less than significant with mitigation through the combined implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO‑1 and BIO‑4. Additionally, based on work performed on other similar utility-scale solar facilities, fencing and solar infrastructure do not exclude desert kit foxes – they have often been found to apparently purposefully establish dens and reside in the facilities.9 In some cases, they will wait for gates to open in the morning to enter sites.

Also see response to comment 138.
13 0
ABJC Mitigation Measure BIO-5 . . . Dr. Smallwood
explains that the conservation benefits would be
The DEIR includes appropriate mitigation, including mitigation associated with the loss of desert tortoise habitat. See response to 9 Brock Ortega, Principal & Senior Ecologist at Dudek. Pers comm/pers obs. Mr. Ortega has observed this activity on at least three different utility-scale solar

farm projects in California.
1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
de minimis relative to the Project’s impacts. Also,
neither the permanent loss of habitat nor the
deaths caused by collision with project-related
automobiles would be avoided.
comment 27. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 has been specifically developed in consultation with USFWS and CDFW to minimize impacts to desert tortoise. The assertion that Mitigation Measure BIO‑5 “does not avoid permanent habitat loss” misunderstands the mitigation framework. Permanent loss of habitat is mitigated by Mitigation Measure BIO‑6; Mitigation Measure BIO‑5 works in tandem to prevent direct injury and mortality. The two measures address different impact mechanisms and are meant to work in combination, consistent with agency practice for this species.

Permanent habitat loss is addressed through compensatory mitigation in Mitigation Measure BIO‑6, to be finalized through USFWS and CDFW ITPs.

See response to comment 123 concerning vehicle-related impacts. 13 1
ABJC Mitigation Measure BIO-6 . . . Dr. Smallwood
explains that this measure is inadequate to
address impacts to the Desert Tortoise because its
population is in rapid decline. Dr. Smallwood
recommends a ratio of 5:1 to ensure no net loss of
the species. Additionally, the area subject to this
mitigation needs to be 224 acres, which equates
to the total area the PV solar project and the
residential development would occupy. As
currently written, the mitigation only includes
142.1 acres, which does not even equal the size
of the solar project.

The DEIR appropriately addresses desert tortoise impacts. Mitigation Measure BIO‑6 is consistent with CEQA, CDFW and USFWS practices, and the substantial evidence in the DEIR.

The requested expansion of compensatory acreage to 224 acres (total area of PV solar project and residential development). As noted in the EIR, the project applicant does not propose any residential development. While no such development has been proposed, the DEIR includes conservative assumptions that residential development could occur in 2027, which would not overlap with the proposed solar project schedule, which is anticipated to occur in 2026 immediately upon receiving all project entitlements and authorizations. Mitigation of potential desert tortoise impacts associated with future residential development are addressed separately through Mitigation Measure BIO-7. As noted in the DEIR, the 142.1 acres is the area of impacted desert tortoise habitat, which is less than the overall Solar Project

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
acreage. See DEIR, at 2.5-25, Mitigation Measure BIO-6, Appendix D1.

The requested increase to a 5:1 mitigation ratio is not supported and is not required under CEQA. The ultimate ratio will be determined by USFWS and CDFW during ITP issuance, consistent with California Endangered Species Act and Federal Endangered Species Act requirements, and the Project must comply with the required mitigation.
13 2
ABJC Mitigation Measure BIO-7 . . . This measure
requires future biological surveys and proposes
mitigation for any portion of the site outside the
Solar Project BSA. The DEIR states that no
residential development is currently proposed on
the residential GPA portion of the Project site. As
such, the DEIR states that the analysis for this
portion of the site is a program-level analysis, and
further review of project-specific impacts will be
required when specific residential projects are
proposed. Because this mitigation measure
applies only to studies and mitigation that will be
required for future
residential development, it does not provide
mitigation for any significant impacts associated
with the current project being analyzed in the EIR.

The mitigation measure does not require future biological surveys or associated mitigation for the solar project because those have already been provided and identified in the DEIR. See DEIR Appendix D-1. 13 3
ABJC Dr. Smallwood proposed substantial feasible
mitigation to reduce impacts to biological
resources.

First, in order to mitigate the Project’s destruction
of productive capacity of the project site for birds,
mammals, and reptiles, Dr. Smallwood explains
that the DEIR should propose compensatory
See responses to comments 8 and 131. Specifically, CDFW and USFWS have advised the applicant that they do not prefer an area adjacent to the project site for mitigation of desert tortoise impacts because the project site and surrounding areas are not identified as critical habitat areas.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
mitigation as close to the Project site as possible.

In order to achieve a no net loss standard, Dr.

Smallwood recommends a 5:1 mitigation ratio.
13 4
ABJC Second, the DEIR should be revised to include
compensatory mitigation proposed by Dr.

Smallwood to mitigate impacts associated with
mortality to species due to project-generated road
traffic. Feasible compensatory mitigation includes
directing funding toward research to identify
fatality patterns and effective impact reduction
measures such as reduced speed limits and
wildlife under-crossings or
overcrossings of particularly dangerous road
segments. Dr. Smallwood also recommends
donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to
cover the costs of injured animals that will be
delivered to these facilities for care.

The project incorporates a maximum speed limit of 15 MPH except on county and state roads, incorporated in Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

See response to comment 123 for additional information. 13 5
ABJC Third, the DEIR should include compensatory
mitigation for animal deaths caused by collision
with the Project’s PV Panels and security fencing.

This includes funding wildlife rehabilitation
facilities. To inform this mitigation, Dr.

Smallwood also recommends that the Project
undergo scientific monitoring of collision mortality
prior to construction.

The DEIR appropriately analyzes potential wildlife impacts and concludes, based on substantial evidence, that collision mortality associated with solar panels and project fencing is not expected to be significant. The Project already incorporates comprehensive biological protection measures (BIO‑1 through BIO‑10).

Because no significant collision‑related impact has been identified, CEQA does not require compensatory mitigation, funding for wildlife rehabilitation facilities, or pre‑construction collision‑mortality monitoring. Accordingly, no revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

See responses to comments 118, 119, 120, and 123 for additional information.
13 6
ABJC Fourth, Dr. Smallwood recommends that the
residential GPA portion of the Project be
The project does not propose any residential development. Any landscaping will be determined pursuant to the City’s landscaping

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
landscaped with California native plants rather
than landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and
trees. Landscaping with native plants over exotic
plants increases the abundance and diversity of
birds, particularly native birds. It has also been
shown to maintain or to bring back some of the
natural habitat and lessen the footprint of
urbanization by acting as interconnected patches
of habitat for wildlife.
requirements provided in its Municipal Code upon submission of any such application.
13 7
Nalini Ash
Maharaj
Twentynine Palms derives significant economic
benefits from tourism related to Joshua Tree
National Park, which serves as one of the primary
economic drivers in the area. This is evident when
reviewing the city’s Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT) revenue figures. In our city’s adopted
tourism marketing plan, Indian Cove
Campground and the 49 Palms Oasis trailhead are
identified as signature tourism assets within our
market positioning. These are not incidental
locations. They are competitive advantages that
set Twentynine Palms apart from neighboring
communities such as Joshua Tree, Yucca
Valley, Landers, Pioneertown, Wonder Valley,
and Morongo Valley. Hence, placing industrialscale infrastructure in a residential scenic tourism gateway contradicts our adopted tourism strategy
and weakens our competitive advantage. We are
fortunate that these assets sit within our city
boundaries. They are a cornerstone of our tourism
economy. And this proposed 185+ acre industrial
solar facility sits directly within that gateway
corridor.

See response to comment 39. In response to this concern, the Planning Commission requested additional visual simulations, including from Joshua Tree National Park. As shown in the additional visual renderings included as Exhibit 8, the project would not be prominently visible from Joshua Tree National Park and would largely be similar to the surrounding visual landscape.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
This is a fundamental land-use conflict.

Visitors choose Twentynine Palms for:
• Open desert horizon lines
• Dark night skies
• Quiet rural character
• Immediate access to park experiences
Industrializing a primary tourism corridor
undermines those very attributes. Tourism here
supports lodging, restaurants, short-term rentals,
retail, and long-term real estate investment. In a
tourism-driven micro-market, perception is value.
13 8
ABJC Specifically, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 addresses
pre-construction surveys for Desert Kit Fox. The
measure was revised to reference survey methods
that include procedures used to classify identified
dens as inactive dens, active and potentially active
dens, and active natal dens, and methods to
qualify and locate single or paired animals. The
revisions also add monitoring requirements,
procedures for exclusion and passive relocation,
and protocols governing den excavation and
timing. However, Dr. Smallwood explains that
these revisions do not alter the fundamental
inadequacy of the measure. Dr. Smallwood’s
previous comments explained how the
conservation benefits would be de minimis
relative to project impacts and that it would not
avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the
significant collision mortality that would result
from Project operation. While the revisions refine
the mechanics of pre-construction compliance,
they do not mitigate the significant long-term
As revised, Mitigation Measure BIO‑4 incorporates pre‑construction surveys, den‑classification methods (inactive, active/potentially active, and natal), monitoring requirements, exclusion and passive‑relocation procedures, and controlled den‑excavation timing, consistent with CDFW practice. These revisions were made directly in responses to comments received from CDFW to ensure Mitigation Measure BIO‑4 aligns with agency-recommended kit fox protection standards (see response to comment 96). Mitigation Measure BIO‑4 is intended to avoid and minimize direct impacts to desert kit fox during construction.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
impacts to the species. Dr. Smallwood also
explains that despite the revisions, the Project’s
environmental setting remains deficient because
the survey will only be conducted after Project
approval. Therefore, the FEIR still lacks substantial
evidence to conclude that Project impacts would
be reduced to less than significant levels.
13 9
ABJC Dudek revises the Habitat Restoration Plan, but
these revisions do not address the significant
deficiencies in the DEIR and impacts to wildlife
that I identified in my previous comments. Dudek
(2026) is also deficient because it does not identify
where the restoration efforts would be directed. It
provides no map of where the approximately 35
acres of habitat restoration would be
implemented. It is difficult to take a habitat
restoration plan seriously without knowing exactly
where the plan is to be implemented. It would
also help for the plan to specify which species
would be the target(s) of the habitat restoration.

As noted in response to response to comment 94 above, the Habitat Restoration Plan was updated between the Draft and Final EIR to address CDFW concerns and requirements. However, the primary objectives of the Habitat Restoration Plan have remained consistent throughout the environmental review process and are to achieve regrowth of native vegetation to address long-term and operational dust impacts as well as provide some mitigation for aesthetic impacts.

While it is anticipated to provide some biological benefit, the Habitat Mitigation Plan is not relied upon in the DEIR for mitigation of potentially adverse biological impacts, including potential impacts to wildlife species. As the Habitat Restoration Plan is not intended to and does not function as mitigation for impacts to biological resources, it neither provides nor is required to provide the specific

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
In wildlife ecology, habitat is species-specific, so
restoration directed to one species might not
restore the habitat of another. Dudek (2026)
identifies four objectives of the habitat restoration
plan: (1) Native Vegetation Recovery, (2) Invasive
Plant Species Reduction, (3) Native Wildlife
Habitat Rehabilitation, and (4) Dust Suppression.

Assuming these objectives are listed in priority
order, the habitat restoration plan prioritizes
native vegetation without any regard to specific
plant species, and it places wildlife habitat third in
priority, but again without identifying species.

These two objectives – Objectives 1 and 3 – are
too vague for formulating success criteria and
subsequently measuring success of habitat
restoration. Invasive Plant Species Reduction is
Dudek’s (2026) second level of priority, which is
higher than the priority assigned to wildlife.

According to Dudek (2026:16), Objective 2 is “To
help the native recovery, invasive species will be
managed during the recovery process and
following recovery to both help the habitat
reestablish as well as ensure the native habitat
conditions are maintained over time.” However,
the occurrences of nonnative plants are reported
within areas mapped as Disturbed Habitat, but
Disturbed Habitat covers only 1.9 acres, or only

0.79% of the study area (see Table 1 in Dudek
2026). Dudek (2026:14) reports that the 1.9 acres
mapped as Disturbed Habitat occurs on “an east–
west trending dirt road, representing an
undeveloped portion of Samarkand Drive, that
details requested by commenter, including but not limited to precise mapping of intended restoration efforts. The commenter is correct in that a traditional Habitat Restoration Plan prepared for the primary purpose of mitigating impacts to vegetation communities/biological resources would include precise mapping and other items; however, to reiterate and as stated in the Habitat Restoration Plan (see page 5):
“the habitat restoration program described below is for general site landscaping to allow the impacted areas to recover, as well as provide a native vegetative cover that will reduce dust levels across the facility.”
The four objectives in the Habitat Restoration Plan are not hierarchical; all are required components of successful restoration and envisioned dust suppression goals. Invasive species management is included. While invasive plants occur at low densities throughout the site, they can rapidly colonize disturbed soils. Dust suppression is included due to the overarching plan goal of dust suppression and support native plant establishment and invasive species control.

Regarding the commenter’s statement that the Habitat Restoration Plan lacks any reference to specific plant species, Section 6.1 Native Seed Palette identifies native desert species targeted for restoration seeding.

Regarding the commenter’s concern expressed over lack of the environmental baseline, refer to Section 8.02, Reference Site, of the Habitat Restoration Plan. As described therein, “a reference site will be established on undisturbed similar habitat adjacent to, or in close proximity to the restoration site. A justification for the selected reference site will be provided in the first annual monitoring report.

The reference site will be used to determine if progress of the restoration site is consistent with response of the reference site to prevailing weather and environmental conditions.” Identification of

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
runs along the southern boundary of the BSA.”
Dudek (2026) fails to identify this dirt road as a
targeted area for habitat restoration, and if it is
not, then the identification of invasive plant
species reduction should warrant a lower priority
than as the Plan’s Objective 2. As for Objective 4,
Dudek (2026) fails to explain why or how dust
suppression has any bearing on the other three
objectives of habitat restoration. Dust suppression
would benefit the energy generation from the PV
solar panels, but it is not a typical objective of
habitat restoration. And as Dudek (2026) states,
dust suppression is not even regarded as a
mitigation measure. Why is dust suppression a
habitat restoration objective? Explaining Objective
3, Dudek (2026:16) writes, “The re-establishment
of native plant communities will benefit wildlife
species, including special-status wildlife species, so
that the areas that are temporarily impacted by
project grading and construction can once again
provide wildlife habitat value.” Although I
generally concur that native plants benefit native
wildlife, Dudek provides no examples of such
benefits, nor specific ecological relationships
between native plant species and native wildlife
species. Dudek’s explanation is too vague for
operationalization. What I mean by
operationalization is the establishment of success
criteria and the measurement of restoration
success.
the reference site in an annual monitoring report is sufficient for the intent of the Habitat Restoration Plan and is consistent with expectations of CDFW and USFWS when reviewing more traditional Habitat Restoration Plans.

1605879335.11
Response to DEIR Public Comments
Geneva Solar Project
No Comment
er
Comment Response
The habitat restoration plan starts from no
baseline, such as how many of each targeted
native plant species and how many of each
targeted native wildlife species occurs in the plan
area. And as noted earlier, there is no reported
baseline habitat restoration plan area. To measure
the success of a habitat restoration plan, the
analyst needs to understand baseline conditions
to formulate the intended endpoint of habitat
restoration. From this understanding, appropriate
metrics can be identified for measurement at
intervals throughout the Plan’s implementation.

As currently written, no baseline is described, no
endpoint is described, and the metrics are too
vague for any sort of enforcement. The Plan’s
performance metrics consist of percent cover of
native plants, percent cover of non-native plants,
and maximum percent perennial invasive and CalIPC Species. The metrics for Objectives 1 and 2 inform of only spatial cover, and not of numbers
of ramets or genets, nor of plant height or health.

Note that none of these metrics are of wildlife,
which means that there is no means of measuring
success of Objective 3. (Nor is there any
measurement of the success of Objective 4.) The
habitat restoration plan is incomplete, and it is
unenforceable.

Exhibit 1
Operational Noise Screening Assessment

TWENTYNINE PALMS SOLAR PROJECT
Screening Analysis for Equipment Noise Impacts at Closest Off-site Receivers (Inverters) The project includes 170 inverters evenly distributed across the solar array field, with one in the center of each block of approximately 12 rows of arrays.

The columns of inverters would be spaced 120 feet apart and there would also be 120 feet separating each inverter from the one above or below.

The arrays are about evenly divided east and west of the entry road, meaning that 85 inverters would be located within the arrays to the east of the entry road.

While not proposed by the project, this screening analysis assumes that all 85 inverters for the east half of the array field would be in the one array block along the east boundary of the array field, and just above the southern most east/west internal road. This point is closet to off-site residences, 1524 feet away.

This screening analysis is extremely conservative, because all inverters for the eastern half would be at the minimum distance from the existing residences.

Decibel values are based upon the common logarithm (log10) which means matematical functions with dB must employ logarithmic equations.

Adding equal sound levels from N sources
Lt = Ls + 10 Log (N)
Where Lt is the total sound level and Ls is the level from one source N is the number of sources
If we place 85 inverters together, each with a sound level of 79 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet):

Sound source is: 79 dBA
Number of sources: 85

1.93 is the Log10 of 85 X 10 = 19.3
Lt = 98.3 dBA
The composite sound from all 85 inverters together in that first block would be 98 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) Response to Comments - Twentynine Palms Solar Project State Clearinghouse No. 2024021042 Page 462 of 1008

TWENTYNINE PALMS SOLAR PROJECT
Screening Analysis for Equipment Noise Impacts at Closest Off-site Receivers (Inverters) Now we must determine the sound level from these massed inverters at the closest residence (1524 feet away).

The formula for outdoor sound attenuation with distance for a point source is often simplified as a 6 dB reduction with each doubling of distance.

The actual equation to calculate the sound level at some distance from a point sound source is:

L2 = L1 - 20 x LOG(D2/D1)
Where L1 is the reported sound level at a given distance D1 And L2 is the sound level at the target distance D2
Taking our L1 value of 98 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) and our closest residence at 1524 feet:

L2 = 98 - 20 x LOG (1524/3.28)
L1 D1 D2 L2
98 3.28 1524 44.7
So even if all 85 inverters on the eastern half of the solar array were gathered together in the block closest to the existing neighbors, the composite sound level would be no greater than 45 dBA, which is 20 dBA lower than the 65 dBA exterior limit for residential zones.

The next closest noise-sentitive use is a church approximately 2,612 feet southeast of the array block in this example.

Taking our L1 value of 98 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) and the church proeprty at 2,612 feet:

L2 = 98 - 20 x LOG (2612/3.28)
L1 D1 D2 L2
98 3.28 2612 40.0
Given inverters would be distributed across the entire property, with much greater distances from individual invertes to these uses, actual inverter noise levels would be much lower than this extreme example. But for screening, it is very clear that the inverters would not result in significant noise levels at the nearby church or at existing residences in the project area.

Response to Comments - Twentynine Palms Solar Project State Clearinghouse No. 2024021042 Page 463 of 1008

TWENTYNINE PALMS SOLAR PROJECT
Screening Analysis for Equipment Noise Impacts at Closest Off-site Receivers (Transformer) The project includes one Generator Step Up (GSU) transformer on a concrete pad at the site’s southeastern corner, immediately adjacent to the unpaved portion of Samarkand Drive, defining the site’s southern boundary.

At this location, the transformer is approximately 1,650 feet from the nearest residences located on the east side of Sunrise Road, and approximately 2,612 feet from Desert Congregational Church at the northeast corner of Two Mile Road and Sunrise Road.

Sound pressure levels for medium-sized liquid-filled distribution transformers (in the 1,000–2,000 kVA range) are approximately 63 to 73 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) from the transformer.

Taking our transformer worst-case L1 value of 73 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) and our closest residence at 1650 feet:

L2 = 73 - 20 x LOG (1650/3.28)
L1 D1 D2 L2
73 3.28 1650 19
Taking our transformer worst-case L1 value of 73 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) and the church at 2612 feet:

L2 = 73 - 20 x LOG (2612/3.28)
L1 D1 D2 L2
73 3.28 2612 15
Based on the above, transformer noise levels at the closest residences east of the project, and at the church southeast of the project, would be less than half of the noise levels from our massed inverter example.

Response to Comments - Twentynine Palms Solar Project State Clearinghouse No. 2024021042 Page 464 of 1008

TWENTYNINE PALMS SOLAR PROJECT
Screening Analysis for Equipment Noise Impacts at Closest Off-site Receivers (Inverters and Transformer Combined) Now let's add the composite inverter noise level to the transformer level at our two selected receivers.

The formula to add two noise levels together is:

Ltotal = 10 x LOG (10L1/10 + 10l2/10)
Where L1 is the first noise level (dBA) and L2 is the second noise level (dBA).

For the combined inverter noise level and transformer level at the closest residences:

Ltotal = 10 x LOG (1045/10 + 1019/10)
L1 L2 Ltotal
45 19 45
For the combined inverter noise level and transformer level at the church:

Ltotal = 10 x LOG (1040/10 + 1015/10)
L1 L2 Ltotal
40 10 40
The above sums follow the rule that when two noise levels are greater than 10 dBA apart their sum will be equal to the greater noise level.

CONCLUSION: Inverter noise (even in this extreme screening example) combined with transformer noise from the project would remain very well below the exterior residential limit of 65 dBA, and would actually be compliant with the general plan limit of 45 dBA for residential interior space.

Response to Comments - Twentynine Palms Solar Project State Clearinghouse No. 2024021042 Page 465 of 1008 Exhibit 2
Dudek Technical Memorandum Regarding Low-Frequency Sound

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Tierra del Sol Solar Farm LLC; Rugged Solar LLC
From: Mike Greene, Environmental Specialist/Acoustician Subject: Infrasound, Low-Frequency, Inverter, Transformer and Fenceline Noise Measurements at Newberry Springs Solar Facility, Newberry Springs, CA Date: May 6, 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION
In response to comments received during public review of the Soitec Solar Development Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) requesting quantification of infrasound and low-frequency noise (ILFN) levels from the Proposed Project, Dudek conducted ILFN measurements of key noise components at the concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) solar facility located in Newberry Springs, CA (Figure 1). The solar facility at Newberry Springs, CA deploys CPV technology that is comparable to that of the Proposed Project analyzed in the DPEIR, such as CPV electric generation systems and associated inverters and transformers. This memorandum summarizes the results of the ILFN noise measurements.

2.0 BACKGROUND
Low frequency sound is generally sound at frequencies between 20 and 200 hertz (Hz), while infrasound commonly refers to sound at frequencies below 20 Hz. Sound is perceived and recognized by its loudness (pressure) and pitch (frequency), but the human ear does not respond equally to all frequencies. The human ear can most easily recognize sounds in the middle of the audible spectrum, between approximately 1000 to 4000 Hz. The perceptibility of sound at the extremes of the spectrum is markedly reduced. For this reason, ILFN is typically inaudible, i.e., outside the range of perception at ordinary pressure levels. ILFN may become audible, however, at very high pressure levels, exceeding 85 decibels (dB).

A recent United States District Court Decision for a wind turbine project (THE PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION, BACKCOUNTRY AGAINST DUMPS, and DONNA TISDALE vs. SALLY JEWELL, et al. and TULE WIND LLC, CASE NO. 13CV575 JLS (JMA)

Technical Memorandum
Subject: Infrasound, Low-Frequency, Inverter, Transformer and Fenceline Noise Measurements at Newberry Springs Solar Facility
2 May 2014
determined that the Bureau of Land Management “was not required to accept Plaintiffs’ opinion that an assessment of wind turbine noise must give special prominence to low-frequency sound, or that a “G-weighted” scale is more appropriate for measuring wind turbine noise than other existing scales.” Nonetheless, in order to provide the requested information, noise measurements were conducted using unweighted 1/3rd-octave bands as well as the G-weighted scale.

3.0 ILFN STANDARDS
No standards have been adopted in the United States for large sources of low-frequency noise that would govern acceptable levels of ILFN exposure for the general public or on the basis of receiving land use categories. However, environmental protection agencies in Australia and Denmark have adopted an ILFN threshold of 85 dBG for residential uses.

4.0 NOISE MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT
Specialized noise measurement equipment is necessary in order to assess ILFN. A Rion NA-18 infrasound sound level meter and 1/3rd octave band real time analyzer fitted with a 1-inch microphone (model UC24) was used for the measurements. This equipment is capable of measuring sound frequencies from 1 hertz (Hz) to 80 Hz. Using the Rion NA-18, noise measurements of the transducers and inverters were conducted using the G-weighted scale and in the unweighted 1/3rd octave band frequency domain.

For the noise measurements, the measurement equipment was attached to a tripod at a height of five feet above the ground and the microphones were fitted with windscreens. For the measurements of the inverters, a reference distance of 50 feet from the equipment was used, because the noise level from the equipment of interest was high enough relative to the ambient noise level so as to render a sufficiently robust signal-to-noise ratio. For the measurements of the transformer noise, a reference distance of 25 feet was used to ensure a robust signal-to-noise ratio. The noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 1.

5.0 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The noise measurements were conducted on April 23, 2014, in the middle of the day.

Meteorological conditions were warm and sunny, with generally light winds and low humidity (81 degrees F, 2-3 mph winds, 22% relative humidity). The G-weighted noise measurements are summarized in Table 1; the unweighted 1/3rd-octave band noise measurements are summarized in Table 2.

Technical Memorandum
Subject: Infrasound, Low-Frequency, Inverter, Transformer and Fenceline Noise Measurements at Newberry Springs Solar Facility
3 May 2014
Table 1: G-Weighted Noise Measurements
Measurement
Number
Start
Time
End
Time
Leq
(dBG) Measurement Location
1 11:55 11:56 59.4 Schneider Xantrex GT250 480 Inverter at 50' 4 12:30 12:31 61.4
5 12:31 12:32 59.8 Transformer & Cooling fans cabinet at 25' 6 12:36 12:37 62
7 12:45 12:46 57
Schneider Xantrex GT500 Inverter at 50'
8 12:47 12:48 59
9 12:49 12:50 55.1
10 12:55 12:56 59.8
11 13:21 13:22 65.6 Fenceline, south side, 250' from GT 500 inverter
12 13:51 13:52 60.2 Fenceline, southwest side, 375' from GT 500 inverter
13 14:11 14:12 68.9
Tonopah Street & Tujunga Avenue (Ambient
Measurement) approx. 0.5 mile from project
site

Table 2: 1/3rd-Octave Band Noise Measurements
Measurement
Location
Start
Time
End
Time
1 Hz

1.25 Hz

1.6 Hz
2 Hz

2.5 Hz

3.15 Hz
4 Hz
5 Hz

6.3 Hz
8 Hz
10 Hz

12.5 Hz
16 Hz
20 Hz
25 Hz

31.5 Hz
40 Hz
50 Hz
63 Hz
80 Hz
GT 250
Inverter at
50'
11:55 11:56 62.6 62.1 60.8 61 56.6 53.6 53.4 50.8 49.5 47.9 46.5 45.9 45.6 46.3 46.6 45.9 43.7 44 44.7 43.1 Transformer
& Cooling
fans cabinet
at 25 '
12:30 12:31 74 69.9 65 67.9 65.8 64.7 61 57.7 57 53.2 49.8 48 46.7 48.7 46.8 40.4 39 40.5 42.4 39.1 Schneider
Xantrex
GT500
Inverter at
50'
12:45 12:46 58.4 54.3 55 53.3 52.1 50 48.4 47.5 45.1 46 44 41.2 44.1 44.1 43.2 42.1 45.3 47.5 52.8 46.5

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
The G-weighted noise measurement data in Table 1 indicates that measured ILFN equipment noise levels ranged from 55 dBG (Xantrex GT500 Inverter measurement 9, at 50 feet) to 62 dBG (transformer and cooling cabinet at 25 feet). When normalized to a distance of 50 feet assuming an attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance, however, the expected sound pressure level would be approximately 56 dBG. Thus, even at a relatively near distance (far nearer than a resident or other noise-sensitive receiver would be located), the G-weighted noise levels were found to be well under the threshold of 85 dBG used by environmental protection agencies in Australia and Denmark.

It is also noted that the G-weighted noise levels measured at the fenceline were comparable to or greater than the levels measured at the reference locations for the transformers and inverters.

Specifically, the G-weighted noise level measured approximately ½-mile from the site was 7 to 14 dB higher than at the reference locations for the transformers and inverters. It is established that acoustical energy (audible or inaudible) diminishes with distance from a source because of geometric spreading as well as atmospheric effects. Therefore, it is concluded the contribution of ILFN from the transformers and inverters to offsite receivers is negligible when compared to the existing ambient ILFN noise in the area.

Sincerely,
_______________________
Mike Greene
Environmental Specialist/Acoustician

SITE PLAN SOURCE: RBF 2014
AERIAL SOURCE: BING MAPPING SERVICE
7345
FIGURE 1
Noise Measurement Locations, Newberry Springs, CA
Tierra del Sol Solar Farm LLC; Rugged Solar LLC
Document Path: Z:\Projects\j734501\MAPDOC\MAPS\Newberry\Noise_Figures\Figure1_Noise_Measurement with Site Plan.mxd Noise Measurement Locations 0 350 700
Feet

Exhibit 3
CDFW Incidental Take Permit Application

October 23, 2025
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Inland Deserts Region 6
ATTN: Magdalena Rodriguez, Eric Weiss
3602 Inland Empire Blvd, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764

Subject: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California
Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b) and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Sections 783.2– 783.8, E-Group PS, LLC (applicant) is submitting this application for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for impacts to the federally and state-listed threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and state-listed candidate endangered burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) associated with the E-Group PS Solar Project (Project) in in the City of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California.

On November 22, 2024, Dudek facilitated a pre-application meeting with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to introduce the Project, proposed timeline, and overview of CDFW-jurisdictional resources. The following ITP application package for the Project has been uploaded to the document repository for California Endangered Species Act ITPs on the CDFW Environmental Permit Information Management System (2081-2025- 052-06).

Sincerely,
____________________________________ ____________________________________ Peter Bobro Brock Ortega
Applicant Authorized Agent
E-Group PS LLC Dudek
____________________________________
Robert Smith
Authorized Agent
K&L Gates
Atts: 1 – CDFW Incidental Take Permit Application Package, E-Group PS Solar Project 2 – Figures 1–8
3 – CDFW 2025 CESA Fee Schedule
4 – Biological Resources Technical Report
5 – Desert Tortoise Survey Forms

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 2
OCTOBER 2025
6 – 2025 Desert Tortoise Survey Letter Report
7 – Site Photographs
cc: Josh Saunders, Britney Schultz (Dudek)

1600384323.6
Attachment 1
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Incidental Take Permit Application Package,
E-Group PS Solar Project

ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT

1 Application Fee
Based on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2025 California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Fees and Incidental Take Permit (ITPs) and CDs (Attachment 3, California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2025 CESA Fee Schedule), E-Group PS, LLC (applicant) paid the application fee for the E-Group PS Solar Project (Project) of $40,296.50.
2 Applicant Information
Applicant
Peter Bobro
E-Group PS, LLC
40764 Winchester Road, Suite 590
Temecula, California 92591
949.763.9555
[email protected]
Authorized Agent
Brock Ortega
Dudek
605 3rd Street
Encinitas, California 92024
760.420.9044
[email protected]
3 Species Proposed for Coverage by Take Permit
The species proposed for coverage in this ITP application are presented below in Table 1. This ITP application includes potential take of up to two individual desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) during construction. No burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) individuals were observed; however, potential take is anticipated of up to two individual burrowing owls during construction. No operational take (including maintenance activities) is anticipated for desert tortoise or burrowing owl.

Table 1. Project Proposed Species for Coverage by Take Permit Common Name Scientific Name CESA Status
Desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii ST, SCE
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SCE
Notes: CESA = California Endangered Species Act; SCE= state candidate endangered; ST= state listed as threatened.

The following activities may result in take of Covered Species during Project construction: road improvements (i.e. elevated and reinforced with compacted gravel surface) and site grading; installation of bridges, steel piles, and the PV modules; and trenching/excavation for underground gen-tie line and fiber optic cables. All of these activities would require the use of heavy equipment (i.e. bore/drill rigs, crawler tractors, crushing equipment, excavators, graders, rollers, tractors/loaders/backhoes, trenchers, dump trucks, and water trucks), which can crush desert tortoise individuals above and below ground as well as collapse occupied burrows trapping or crushing tortoises or burrowing owls inside. The potential relocation of desert tortoises prior to commencement of project construction may also result in take. No Project activities with the potential to take Covered Species (i.e. desert tortoise and burrowing owl), including but not limited to, grading, crushing, mowing, and driving, will occur outside of the 143.9- acre impact area (i.e. permit area). Take coverage for Covered Species will not include operation activities (including maintenance activities) or decommissioning activities.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 5
OCTOBER 2025

3.1 Other Species Considered
Dudek conducted biological surveys within the 235.4-acre biological survey area (BSA) (i.e. Project site and off-site impact areas plus a 100-foot buffer)
1 and evaluated the potential for the Project to result in take of other statelisted species. This evaluation was based on Dudek’s extensive review of literature such as the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2023a), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2023), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online tool (USFWS 2025) and supporting Project-specific survey reports. Considerations were also made based on Project coordination with CDFW beginning in November 2024.

The additional species that were included in this evaluation and the rationale for not seeking take coverage for each species are presented below in Table 2.
1 Note that the BSA acreage presented within the Biological Resources Technical Report (Attachment 4) included the future extensions of Samarkand Drive, Amboy Road, and Noels Knoll Road; therefore, total BSA acreages differ. These future extension areas are not included in this application as the Project does not involve the extension of such roads.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE, E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT 14392 6
OCTOBER 2025
Table 2. Additional Species Considered, Potential to Occur, and Rationale for Not Requesting Take Coverage Common Name Scientific Name State Status Potential to Occur in Project Area Rationale western Joshua
tree
Yucca brevifolia Candidate Suitable habitat is present to support this species but the perennial species was not observed during rare
plant surveys. Species is not expected to occur.

This species is not expected to occur due
to absence during 2023 western Joshua
tree survey and 2024 Project-specific
rare plant surveys; therefore, the
proposed Project is not expected to result
in take of this species.
golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Fully Protected
(nesting and
wintering)
Suitable nesting habitat is absent from the Project
site. Species is not expected to nest.

This species is not expected to occur due
to absence of suitable nesting habitat;
therefore, the proposed Project is not
expected to result in take of this species.
southwestern
willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii
extimus (nesting)
Endangered No suitable dense riparian habitats for nesting along streams, reservoirs, or wetlands within the
Project site.

This species is not expected to occur due
to absence of suitable nesting habitat;
therefore, the proposed Project is not
expected to result in take of this species.
least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus
(nesting)
Endangered No suitable dense riparian thickets for nesting along water or along dry parts of intermittent
streams within Project site.

This species is not expected to occur due
to absence of suitable nesting habitat;
therefore, the proposed Project is not
expected to result in take of this species.
desert bighorn
sheep
Ovis canadensis
nelsoni
Fully Protected There is suitable alluvial fan habitat; however, the Project site does not provide steep slopes or rocky
and rough topography needed for providing cover
for this species.

This species is not expected to occur. The
Project site is located outside bighorn
sheep core areas and patches as
designated by the California Desert
Linage Network (Penrod et al. 2012). The
closest CNDDB occurrence is
approximately 2.5 miles south (CDFW
2023a). The Project site is not expected
to be used for critical life function (i.e.
foraging, breeding, and rearing of young)
or regional movement due to the lack of
cover (i.e. open habitat associated with
the valley floor). Therefore, the proposed
Project is not expected to result in take of
this species.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE, E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT 14392 7
OCTOBER 2025
Table 2. Additional Species Considered, Potential to Occur, and Rationale for Not Requesting Take Coverage Common Name Scientific Name State Status Potential to Occur in Project Area Rationale Mountain lion Puma concolor Candidate Site contains scrub habitat but no rocky areas, riparian habitat, cliffs, or ledges that provide cover.

This species occurs in all habitats except xeric
regions of the Mojave and Colorado Deserts, which
do not support prey populations (e.g. mule deer,
bighorn sheep) (CDFW 2023b).

This species is not expected to occur.

There are no mule deer or bighorn sheep
herds that are using the BSA regularly
enough for the site to provide a
sustainable food source for mountain lion
(i.e. no live individuals, scat, or tracks
were observed during field surveys within
the BSA). Additionally, the site contains
open habitat lacking cover (i.e. irregular
terrain, caves, thickets, rocky outcrops,
and/or trees). Even if present, the project
is not expected to cause “take” as
measures could be taken to avoid “take.”
Therefore, the proposed Project is not
expected to result in take of this species.

Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii Candidate Site contains scrub communities and floral resources.

This species is not expected to occur.

There are no CNDDB occurrences for this
species within the nine USGS 7.5-minute
quadrangles containing and surrounding
the Project site (CDFW 2023a) and they
are much less likely to occur in relatively
depauperate and dry desert areas where
nectar resources are only briefly and
inconsistently available. Additionally, the
closest iNaturalist (2024) observation is
17 miles southwest of the Project site.

Therefore, the proposed Project is not
expected to result in take of this species.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 8
OCTOBER 2025
4 Project Description
The Project is proposing construction and operation of a solar facility site located in the City of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1, Project Location). The Project applicant, E-Group PS LLC (E-Group), proposes to entitle, construct, operate, and maintain the Project, which would consist of up to 50 megawatts of photovoltaic solar generation and would connect via a generation interconnection line along Two Mile Road to the nearby Southern California Edison (SCE) Carodean Substation (Figure 2, Site Plan). Construction is proposed to begin in January 2026, with the Project becoming commercially operational by January 2027. The operational lifespan of the facility is estimated to be 35 years.

Project Site
The proposed Project consists of approximately 160,000 ground-mounted solar panels. A series of PV module arrays will be mounted on racking systems supported by a steel pile-driven foundation design. Each array will be approximately 104 feet wide and 252 feet long, consisting of 720 PV panels in each array. Each array will be spaced approximately 10 feet apart to allow access. Each mounted solar array is approximately 6 to 7 feet tall above grade depending on the slope. Minimum ground clearance will be 3 feet, with an average ground clearance throughout the site of 4.5 feet. Security will be provided by an approximately 7-foot-high fence, which will include CCTV cameras to be monitored by a local security company. The solar arrays will be generally setback a minimum of 30 feet from the security fence perimeter. Points of ingress/egress will be accessed by locked remotely controlled 40-foot-wide gates for facility services and maintenance, as required.

Off-Site Gen-Tie Line
The energy will ultimately be delivered to the SCE transmission network at Carodean Substation via underground gen-tie line, measuring approximately 0.5 miles long. The gen-tie line will run from the site, underground below the improved access road on the site south to Two Mile Road, then west along Two Mile Road (proposed within the northern right-of-way on the edge of the road), to the point of interconnection at Carodean Substation. As proposed, the gen- tie will generally parallel the alignment of the Project driveway/access road from the on-site substation south towards Two Mile Road. Within the disturbed right-of-way of Two Mile Road, the proposed gen-tie line will turn west and then parallel Two Mile Road for approximately 0.5 miles. At this point, the gen-tie will turn south to be installed beneath Two Mile Road and then continue its underground alignment for approximately 60 feet before transitioning to aboveground via a single pole to be installed just outside the existing Carodean Substation fence line.

Off-Site Access Road
Access to the site will be provided through a private driveway from Two Mile Road. E-Group will improve the road to be elevated and reinforced with compacted gravel surface. The improved road will be approximately 26 feet in width and 1,250 feet long. Additional compacted gravel roads for fire access will be constructed through the site, which will be approximately 20 feet in width. Where the roads must cross ephemeral streams, E-Group will install bridges to minimize and avoid any impacts on the streams. Bridges are made of prefabricated steel designed to support 20 tons of weight. The on-site bridge is 20 feet wide and 80 feet long and the off-site bridge along the access road

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 9
OCTOBER 2025
will be 26 feet wide and 40 feet long. Points of ingress/egress to the private driveway from Two Mile Road will be accessed by locked chained fence for facility services and maintenance, as required.

Construction and Project Phasing
Construction would consist of three phases that will take approximately 9 months with the Project becoming commercially operational after 1 year. Proposed construction hours are between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Construction traffic will be routed along Two Mile Road and will access the site via the improved access road on the south side of the property.

Phase 1: Site Preparation
The site will need to be graded to accommodate the solar facility (Figure 2). E-Group will minimize impacts to vegetation to the greatest extent feasible and will allow areas to revegetate after grading.

E-Group has submitted a Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City for review and approval, which is designed to reduce potential impacts related to erosion and surface water quality during construction activities and throughout the life of the Project, including best management practices (BMP). Please refer to the draft SWPPP for further discussion of potential Project impacts and proposed BMPs.

Phase 2: Photovoltaic Panel System Installation
The second phase of construction will include installation of steel piles and the PV modules. Steel piles will be driven approximately 7 feet, 6 inches deep into the ground by an automated piling robot. After piles have been driven, the PV modules will be securely attached on the top of piles.

Phase 3: Inverters, Transformers, Substation, Collector System, Interconnection Underground cables to connect panel strings will be installed using ordinary trenching techniques, which typically include a rubber-tired backhoe excavator or trencher. Wire depths will be in accordance with local, State, and Federal requirements, and will likely be buried within excavated trenches approximately 18 inches wide and 4 feet below grade to accommodate the conduits or direct buried cables. After excavation, cable rated for direct burial or cables installed inside a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) conduit will be installed in the trench, and the excavated soil will likely be used to fill the trench and lightly compressed.

All electrical inverters will be attached under the panels on the fixed tilt racking above ground and transformers will be placed on concrete pads formed with plywood and reinforced with structural rebar. The Project substation area will be excavated for the transformer equipment. The site area for the Project substation will be graded and compacted to level grade. The foundation for the Project substation will be formed with a concrete pad, plywood, and reinforced with structural rebar. E-Group will install a below ground gen-tie line and fiber optic cable running from the Project substation to the point of intersection at the Carodean Substation. Commissioning of equipment will include testing and calibration of equipment. The Project substation equipment, inverters, collector system, and PV array systems will be tested prior to commencement of commercial operations. Upon completion of successful testing, the equipment will be energized.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 10
OCTOBER 2025
SCE has also requested certain interconnection, and facility upgrades to connect the Project to the Carodean Substation and associated grid. These include development of a structure near the Carodean Substation, likely at the end of the gen-tie line, for SCE’s telecommunications equipment and remote terminal units, as well as a new 115kV switchrack position, relays, a remote terminal unit, and 115kV transmission tower structures within and/or adjacent to the existing Carodean Substation. E-Group is also responsible for replacing one existing 220 kV circuit breaker with a 63 kA circuit breaker at the Devers Substation, located immediately north of the City of Palm Springs.

Operations/Maintenance
Upon commissioning, the Project will enter the operational phase. For the duration of the operational phase, the Project will be operated on an unstaffed basis and monitored remotely, with on-site personnel visitations for security, maintenance, and system monitoring. Project maintenance performed on the site will consist of equipment inspection and replacement. Facility maintenance will be dispatched on an as-needed basis in response to equipment malfunction or decreased facility performance. There will be no full-time site personnel on-site during operation. Trips for maintenance and security will occur as needed but are anticipated to occur very infrequently.

The Project does not require any lighting for operations. No water is required for operations. As the Project's PV arrays produce electricity passively with minimal moving parts, maintenance requirements will be limited. Any required planned maintenance will be scheduled to avoid peak load periods, and unplanned maintenance would be typically responded to as needed depending on the event. E-Group will use a self-powered, water-free cleaning robot for regular cleaning of the panels to remove dust. The only water used to clean panels would be to powerwash panels after a major weather event like a sandstorm. This water would be trucked into the site by a third party and will not impact regional water demand. The site will also be inspected annually to ensure that the facility is operating as planned. Maintenance will occur during daylight hours, when possible. However, maintenance activities on the PV modules and DC systems will be typically performed at night when panels are not collecting power. Routine maintenance should be performed by a single truck without the need for heavy equipment. Any parts required will be stored remotely and brought to the site as needed to service or replace the equipment. During the operational phase, the Project is estimated to have approximately three maintenance trips per year.

Security
To ensure the safety of the public and the facility, the site will be fenced, and signs posted. Security measures will be installed as necessary to mitigate and/or deter unauthorized access. Access to the site will be controlled and gates installed at the entrance to the site from the private access road from Two-Mile Road. Security will be provided by an approximately 7-foot-high fence, which will include CCTV cameras to be monitored by a local security company.

The solar arrays will be generally setback a minimum of 30 feet from the security fence perimeter. Points of ingress/egress to the Project site will be accessed by locked remotely controlled 40-foot-wide gates for facility services and maintenance, as required. Points of ingress/egress to the private driveway from Two Mile Road will be accessed by locked chained fence for facility services and maintenance, as required.

Project Decommissioning
E-Group will decommission and remove the system and its components at the end of the life of the Project and restore the site to its pre-Project condition. The site could then be converted to other uses in accordance with

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 11
OCTOBER 2025
applicable land use regulations in effect at that time. Re-power and reuse programs will be researched prior to the decision to decommission to minimize environmental impact. All decommissioning and restoration activities will adhere to the requirements of the appropriate governing authorities and will be in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and City regulations. A collection and recycling program will be executed to dispose of the site materials.
5 Project Location and Environmental Setting
The following summarizes the Project location and environmental setting. As described above in the Project Description (Section 4), the Project is proposing construction of a solar facility site that is located on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0612 201-01-0000 and 0612-201-05-0000 and includes approximately 3.3-acres of offsite areas that are associated with a proposed site driveway constructed off Two Mile Road and gen-tie alignment from the proposed solar facility to the existing SCE Carodean Substation.

5.1 Project Location
The 184-acre Project site is located in the City of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California, and is bounded by undeveloped lands in all directions. The Project area is bordered by vacant desert land to the north; by vacant desert land, then a dirt road (Canyon Road) to the west; by vacant desert land, then Sunrise Road (a dirt road), then several rural residential properties to the east; and by vacant desert land, then Two Mile Road (a paved road) to the south (Figure 1). The Project is located in Section 23 of Township 1 North, Range 8 East on the San Bernardino Principal Meridian, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Twentynine Palms 7.5-minute quadrangle. The approximate center of the Project corresponds to 34.160458°N and -116.115977°W. Regional access to the Project site is provided via Route 62 (SR 62).

Figure 3, Permit Area, depicts the location of the 143.9-acre permit area (i.e. impact areas within the Project site and off-site impact areas) for which this incidental take permit for desert tortoise and burrowing owl is being sought for the proposed Project. It should be noted that the permit area only includes the impacted portion of the 184-acre Project site. No Project activities with the potential to take Covered Species (i.e. desert tortoise and burrowing owl), including but not limited to, grading, crushing, mowing, and driving, will occur outside of the 143.9-acre impact area shown on Figure 3.

5.2 Environmental Setting

5.2.1 Climate
The Project site is located in the Morongo Basin/High Desert region in San Bernardino County. Average annual temperatures in the Twentynine Palms area range from 52°F to 84°F; average annual snowfall is 0.7 inches; and the average annual precipitation is 4.24 inches (WRCC 2024).

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 12
OCTOBER 2025

5.2.2 Soil and Terrain
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey, no existing soil data is available for the Project site (USDA 2023). Soils observed within the Project site during field surveys conducted by Dudek were generally sandy/gravelly soils.

5.2.3 Land Use
The Project site consists of open/vacant land located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Twentynine Palms Highway (SR-62). The BSA has not undergone any major land use changes since the mid-1990s. Active off-roadvehicle use by unknown third parties occurs within the ephemeral washes of the Project site.

The surrounding area is predominantly rural undeveloped land. Undeveloped land is located immediately to the south with single-family residential homes located approximately one-half mile south of the Project site. The area east of the Project site is vacant land, with the closest residences approximately 1,500 feet from the Project site.

The Desert Congregational Church is located approximately one-half mile southeast, at the intersection of Two Mile Road and Sunrise Road. Properties north and west of the Project site are vacant undeveloped land.

5.2.2 Biological Resources
Dudek conducted the following biological surveys between April 2023 and June 2024 within the 235.4-acre biological survey area (BSA) (i.e. Project site and off-site impact areas plus a 100-foot buffer) 2: an aquatic resources
delineation, vegetation mapping, a general habitat assessment, protocol-level presence/absence surveys for Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), a western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) inventory survey, a desert native plant survey, a focused rare plant survey, and protocol surveys for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). A Biological Technical Report has been completed for the Project and is included as Attachment 4. Biological resources present within the BSA are summarized below.

Vegetation Communities and Land Cover
A total of six vegetation communities and land cover types were mapped in the BSA. Larrea tridentata–Ambrosia dumosa–Ambrosia salsola comprises a medium patch on the southwestern portion of the BSA. Associated species observed within this association in the field included cheesebush, creosote bush, bursage scrub, ephedra species, and Branched pencil cholla. Larrea tridentata–Ambrosia dumosa–Krameria (erecta, grayi) comprises most of the BSA and off-site improvement areas. Associated species observed within this association in the field included creosote bush, bursage scrub, and white rhatany. Cheesebush–sweetbush scrub occurs in one large and one small patch in the northeastern portion of the BSA. Another large patch transects the middle of the BSA from north to south. Associated species observed within this alliance in the field included creosote bush and cheesebush. Desertwillow–smoketree wash woodland occurs in a medium linear patch that stretches diagonally along the northwestern corner of the BSA and a small patch in the northeastern portion. Associated species observed within this alliance in the field included smoketree, creosote bush, and cheesebush. Disturbed habitat comprises an east–west trending dirt road that runs along the southern boundary of the BSA. Within the BSA, the urban/developed land 2 Note that the BSA acreage presented within the Biological Resources Technical Report (Attachment 4) included the future extensions of Samarkand Drive, Amboy Road, and Noels Knoll Road; therefore, total BSA acreages differ. These future extension areas are not included in this application as the Project does not involve the extension of such roads.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 13
OCTOBER 2025
cover consists of Two Mile Road, an off-site paved road, and a section of the nearby SCE Carodean Substation. The spatial distribution of the vegetation communities and land cover types are presented on Figures 4Aand 4B, which also include the desert tortoise survey results. The acreages of the mapped vegetation alliances/associations and other land covers in the BSA are presented in Table 3.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE, E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT 14392 14
OCTOBER 2025
Table 3. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types within the BSA Vegetation
Community or Land
Cover Type Alliance Association Ranking1
BSA (Acres)
Total
Project Site (Acres)
Off-Site
100-Foot
Buffer
Scrub
Creosote Bush–White
Bursage Scrub
Larrea tridentata–
Ambrosia dumosa
Larrea tridentata– Ambrosia dumosa–
Krameria (erecta, grayi)
G5S5 165.1 3.3 39.6 208.1
Larrea tridentata–
Ambrosia dumosa
Larrea tridentata– Ambrosia dumosa–
Ambrosia salsola
G5S5 2.8 0 1.1 3.9
Cheesebush–
Sweetbush Scrub
Ambrosia salsola–
Bebbia juncea
Ambrosia salsola–Larrea tridentata G4S4 12.2 0 2.3 14.5 Scrub Subtotal 180.1 3.3 43.2 226.4
Riparian
Desert Willow–
Smoketree Wash
Woodland*
Chilopsis linearis–
Psorothamnus
spinosus
Psorothamnus spinosus G4G5 S3 4.0 0 2.2 6.2
Riparian Subtotal 4.0 0 2.2 6.2
Disturbed and Developed
Disturbed Habitat N/A N/A N/A <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Urban/Developed N/A N/A N/A 0 <0.1 2.7 2.7
Disturbed and Developed Subtotal <0.1 <0.1 2.7 2.8
Total 184.0 3.3 48.0 235.4
Source: CDFW 2024c.

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
1 The conservation status of a vegetation community is designated by a number from 1 to 5, preceded by a letter reflecting the appropriate geographic scale of the assessment (G = global, N = national, and S = subnational). The numbers have the following meaning (NatureServe 2024):
1 = critically imperiled
2 = imperiled
3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction
4 = apparently secure
5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure
N/A = not applicable
GNR = unranked, global rank not yet assessed
SNA = unranked, subnational rank not yet assessed

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE, E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT 14392 15
OCTOBER 2025
* Community is sensitive under CEQA and listed by California Department of Fish and Wildlife as sensitive (i.e., State Rank [S] 1, 2, or 3) (CDFW 2024c).

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 16
OCTOBER 2025
Special-Status Plants and Wildlife
Special-status plants include those listed, or candidates for listing, as threatened or endangered by United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW, and species with a CRPR of 1 or 2. Dudek biologists performed an extensive desktop review of literature, existing documentation, and GIS data to evaluate the potential for specialstatus plant species to occur within the BSA. Each special-status plant species was assigned a rating of “not expected,” “low,” “moderate,” or “high” potential to occur based on relative location to known occurrences, vegetation community, soil, and elevation. Based on the results of the literature review and database searches, 21 special-status plant species were reported in the CNDDB and CNPS databases as occurring in the nine USGS 7.5- minute quadrangles containing and surrounding the BSA. Of these, 12 species were determined to have a moderate to high potential to occur based on suitable soils and vegetation communities present within the BSA and historical occurrences: California ayenia (Ayenia compacta), alkali mariposa-lily (Calochortus striatus), Rau’s jaffueliobryum moss (Jaffueliobryum raui), Wright’s jaffueliobryum moss (Jaffueliobryum wrightii), little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus (Linanthus maculatus ssp. maculatus), spear-leaf matelea (Matelea parvifolia), Mojave menodora (Menodora spinescens var. mohavensis), appressed muhly (Muhlenbergia appressa), Latimer’s woodland-gilia (Saltugilia latimeri), salt spring checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana), jackass-clover (Wislizenia refracta ssp. refracta), and western Joshua tree. Therefore, focused surveys for these species were conducted in April 2024. No special-status plant species, including the target species, were observed during the 2024 survey. These target species are discussed in further detail in Attachment 4. There were no additional special-status plant species that were determined to have a moderate or high potential to occur within the BSA, based on the soils, vegetation communities (habitat) present, elevation range, and previous known locations based on the CNDDB and CNPS Inventory.

Special-status wildlife include those listed, or candidates for listing, as threatened or endangered by USFWS and CDFW, and those designated as fully protected or species of special concern by CDFW and as sensitive by USFWS.

Similar to special-status plants, Dudek biologists performed an extensive desktop review of literature, existing documentation, and GIS data to evaluate the potential for special-status wildlife species to occur within the BSA.

Each special-status wildlife species was assigned a rating of “not expected,” “low,” “moderate,” or “high” potential to occur based on relative location to known occurrences and vegetation community/habitat association. Based on the results of the literature review and database searches, 21 special-status wildlife species were reported in the CNDDB and USFWS databases as occurring in the vicinity of the BSA. Of these 21 species, two special-status wildlife species were determined to have a moderate or high potential to occur within the BSA based on habitat present and/or the BSA’s proximity to previous known locations in CNDDB records: burrowing owl and Mojave desert tortoise; therefore, focused surveys for these species were conducted. Protocol-level surveys for Mojave desert tortoise were positive. Burrowing owl sign (i.e., pellet) was observed outside of the permit area; however, there were suitable burrows observed within the permit area; however, they did not contain evidence of sign. Furthermore, no burrowing owl individuals or active (i.e., recent) sign were observed during the 2024 focused surveys. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) and vermilion flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus) were the only other special-status species observed during biological surveys within the northern portion of the BSA.

Desert Tortoise Survey Results
Because the Project lies within the range for desert tortoise, suitable habitat is present (USFWS 2008), and because it occurs in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit (USFWS 2011), Dudek conducted a focused survey for desert tortoise to determine the status of the species on site. To evaluate the impacts to desert tortoise, a protocol survey was

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 17
OCTOBER 2025
conducted in accordance with the Mojave Desert Tortoise Pre-Project Field Survey Protocol section included in Preparing for Any Action That May Occur within the Range of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) (USFWS 2019). Following the small project survey protocol, which states surveys can be completed at any time of year, Dudek biologists conducted surveys between December 7 and 15, 2023, for the BSA. Biologists surveyed the area by walking approximately 10-meter-wide transects for 100% coverage of the BSA.

The 2023 Mojave desert tortoise protocol-level surveys conducted within the BSA were positive for desert tortoise individuals and desert tortoise presence (occupancy) was confirmed. Active suitable burrows were present with desert tortoise sign such as scat, burrows, as well as one bone fragment and one carcass observed. Figure 4A depicts the 2023 Mojave desert tortoise protocol-level survey results as well as additional incidental desert tortoise individual and/or desert tortoise sign observations mapped during other field survey efforts in 2023 and 2024.

Specifically, 13 Class 1 burrows, meaning that burrows were considered currently active and occupied, with desert tortoise or recent sign were mapped. Fifteen Class 2 burrows were mapped, meaning burrows were of good condition, confirmed desert tortoise burrow; however, no evidence of recent use observed. Eight Class 3 burrows were mapped, meaning deteriorated condition which included collapsed burrow and confirmed desert tortoise burrow. Additionally, 23 Class 4 and 5 burrows were mapped, meaning they were of good or deteriorated condition and possible desert tortoise burrow. Desert tortoise data sheets can be found in Attachment 5, Desert Tortoise Forms.3 Table 4 summarizes the live individuals observed during both the 2023 protocol-level surveys and incidental observations that occurred during other field survey efforts in 2023 and 2024. Locations and dates for each live desert tortoise observation, separated by protocol-level survey observations and incidental observations, are shown on Figure 4B. Note that each individual observation does not necessarily signify a different individual tortoise.

Table 4. Live Desert Tortoise Individuals Observed within the BSA Date Observation Notes Live Individuals
Mojave Desert Tortoise Protocol Survey
12/07/2023 No live tortoises were detected during this survey. 0 12/08/2023 All individuals were observed within burrows at 2 locations (i.e., two individuals were located within one burrow and 1 individual was located in a separate burrow).
3 12/14/2023 No live tortoises (one carcass observed) were detected during this survey. 0 12/15/2023 No live tortoises were detected during this survey. 0 2023 Protocol Survey Total 3
Incidental Observations
08/09/2023 Three individuals observed: two within burrows and one walking/foraging. 3 03/21/2024 One subadult (6 inches) observed resting under pencil cholla. 1 03/26/2024 Four individuals observed: two within burrow, one resting, one walking. 4 03/27/2024 Three individuals observed foraging and resting. 3 03/29/2024 One individual observed. 1
3 Desert tortoise forms include only those burrows and live tortoises mapped during the 2023 and 2025 protocol survey efforts; additional burrows and live tortoises incidentally mapped during the 2023 aquatic resources delineation and 2024 focused burrowing owl surveys are not included in the forms as they were not part of the desert tortoise protocol-level surveys. However, all desert tortoise burrows and live desert tortoise observations from 2023 and 2024 are included on Figures 4A and 4B, respectively.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 18
OCTOBER 2025
Table 4. Live Desert Tortoise Individuals Observed within the BSA Date Observation Notes Live Individuals
04/23/2024 One individual observed resting on dirt road. 1 05/21/2024 One individual observed within a burrow. 1
07/02/2024 Two individuals observed, each within separate burrows. 2 Note: Incidental observations may include double counting of individuals.

Upon the request of the USFWS and CDFW (hereafter collectively referred to as Wildlife Agencies), additional protocol-level surveys were conducted May 6 through May 9, 2025, during the desert tortoise’s most active periods (April through May or September through October) to provide a more accurate count of the specific number of individual desert tortoises within the BSA. To ensure there was no bias influencing the survey results, Dudek created a new map for the qualified biologists to record all evidence and observations of Mojave desert tortoise. During the May 9, 2025, survey, the biologist was provided with the previously mapped locations of individual tortoises, tortoise burrows, and tortoise sign from the December 2023 survey effort to ensure full coverage of these previously mapped areas. Refer to Attachment 6 for additional details regarding the desert tortoise surveys conducted in 2025.

A total of two individuals (one adult male and one adult female) and 16 burrows were observed during the 2025 surveys. The female tortoise was noted to have some distinctive carapace markings/damage to the right, rear marginal scutes of the carapace, as well as notable deep-set grooves between the carapace scutes, particularly along the vertebral and costal scutes. Biologists observed and photographed an open (recent) wound along the front of her leg (see Attachment 6, Photo Log). The adult male was observed within the same vicinity (i.e., within 200 feet) of the location where the female tortoise was observed. The male’s carapace was distinct from the female’s, and the male’s carapace did not have any obvious, distinctive markings or damage, and the scutes were smooth, without deep set grooves between them. Neither individual had any marginal scute notching, nor any sign that these individuals have been previously marked or documented.

Each documented tortoise burrow was assigned a condition class, as described in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Field Manual (Gopherus agassizii) prepared by the USFWS (2009). Of the 16 burrows, one burrow was considered Class 1, two burrows were considered Class 2, six burrows were considered Class 3, and seven burrows were considered Class 4. In addition to the two live Mojave desert tortoise individuals, biologists observed shell bone fragments and a plastron during the survey effort. The plastron was a subadult tortoise, and the shell bone fragments appeared to be from an adult. Attachment 7 includes photographs of the observed desert tortoises as well as the shell bone fragments and subadult plastron. The 2025 live desert tortoise individuals survey results are included in Table 5 and shown on Figures 4C and 4D. Desert tortoise data sheets and photographs for the 2025 protocol-level surveys can be found in Attachment 5, 6, and 7, respectively.

Table 5. Current (2025) Survey Results of the Live Desert Tortoise Individuals Observed within the BSA
Date Observation Notes Live Individuals
Mojave Desert Tortoise Protocol Survey
05/06/2025 No live tortoises were detected. 0
05/07/2025 One adult female was observed resting under a branched pencil cholla (Cylindropuntia ramosissima). One adult male was observed within a 2

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 19
OCTOBER 2025
Table 5. Current (2025) Survey Results of the Live Desert Tortoise Individuals Observed within the BSA
Date Observation Notes Live Individuals
burrow located approximately within 200 feet of the location of the adult female.
05/08/2025 No live tortoises were detected. 0
05/09/2025 The adult female and adult male observed on 05/07/2025 were observed again during the recheck of the southwestern corner of the Project boundary. The adult male was located at the same burrow as documented on 05/07/2025; however, this time he was observed outside of the burrow. The adult female (identified by leg injury) was observed resting under a branched pencil cholla approximately 93 feet southwest of the location observed on 05/07/2025.
0*
Total Live Tortoise Observations within BSA 2
Note:
* The adult female and adult male were the same individuals observed on May 7, 2025.

Burrowing Owl Survey Results
Dudek conducted protocol burrowing owl surveys within the BSA to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owl. These surveys were conducted in accordance with Appendix D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). The protocol states that four survey passes shall be performed, with the first visits occurring between February 15 and April 15 and the remaining three visits, at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15, with at least one visit after June 15. Survey conditions for each survey pass are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Burrowing Owl Survey Conditions
Date Biologists Pass Time Weather Conditions
03/26/2024 Alex Chaney, Sandra Nash,
Dilip Mahto, Sarah Mendez
Pass 1 6:34 a.m.–10:00 a.m. 52°F–61°F1; 8–10 mph
wind
03/27/2024 Alex Chaney, Sandra Nash,
Dilip Mahto, Sarah Mendez
Pass 1 6:17 a.m.–9:59 a.m. 48°F–61°F; 0–10% cloud
cover; 0–3 mph wind
03/28/2024 Alex Chaney, Sandra Nash,
Dilip Mahto, Sarah Mendez
Pass 1 6:22 a.m.–10:00 a.m. 50°F–71°F; 10% cloud
cover; 1–3 mph wind
03/29/2024 Alex Chaney, Sandra Nash,
Dilip Mahto, Sarah Mendez
Pass 1 6:30 a.m.–7:45 a.m. 48°F; 0% cloud cover; 0–
3 mph wind
04/23/2024 Alex Chaney, Sandra Nash,
Megan Minter, Gerry Avila
Pass 2 6:07 a.m.–10:00 a.m. 63°F–77°F; 0% cloud
cover; 1–3 mph wind
04/24/2024 Megan Minter, Gerry Avila Pass 2 8:25 a.m.–6:00 a.m. 50°F–70°F; 0% cloud cover; 1–3 mph wind
05/21/2024 Alex Chaney, Megan Minter Pass 3 5:40 a.m.–10:00 a.m. 65°F–73°F; 0% cloud cover; 0–3 mph wind
05/22/2024 Alex Chaney, Sandra Nash,
Megan Minter
Pass 3 5:54 a.m.–10:05 a.m. 63–81°F; 0% cloud cover;
1–4 mph wind
07/01/2024 Alex Chaney, Sandra Nash Pass 4 5:30 a.m.–10:00 a.m. 73°F–91°F; 0% cloud cover; 1–4 mph wind

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 20
OCTOBER 2025
Table 6. Burrowing Owl Survey Conditions
Date Biologists Pass Time Weather Conditions
07/02/2024 Alex Chaney, Sandra Nash Pass 4 5:30 a.m.–10:00 a.m. 75°F–87°F; 0% cloud cover; 0–5 mph wind
Notes: N/A = not applicable; F = Fahrenheit; mph = miles per hour.

Concurrent with the first pass of the burrowing owl surveys, Dudek biologists walked the entirety of the BSA to identify areas with suitable burrowing owl habitat (i.e., relatively open habitat with low gradients and burrow resources) and mapped all suitable burrows or burrow surrogates (i.e., ground-level cavities with openings of 4 inches in diameter or greater) using ESRI Collector. Following completion of the first survey pass, which included the burrow survey, polygons were drawn around large clusters of burrow resources to create a burrowing owl survey area. The remaining three survey passes were conducted within this refined burrowing owl survey area and completing using a combination of pedestrian transects spaced approximately 20 meters apart and spot checks where suitable burrows and the surrounding areas were investigated to determine the status of suitable burrows in these areas.

To ensure accurate documentation of observations and prevent inadvertent flushing of potential individuals, the burrows and surrounding area were initially scanned from a distance using binoculars. If needed, the biologists carefully approached the burrowing owl survey area while scanning the area for burrowing owl individuals and investigating suitably sized burrows for any signs of activity. The use of pedestrian transects, or spot checks was determined in the field by the spatial distribution and density of suitable burrows or burrow features. If observed, any direct observations (visual or audible) or active burrow sign (e.g., molted feathers, pellets, prey remains, whitewash) of burrowing owls was recorded. The surveys were conducted when conditions were suitable for detecting owls (no rain, high winds [greater than 20 mph], dense fog, or temperatures over 90°F). If observed, any burrowing owl sightings, occupied burrows, and burrows with burrowing owl sign were mapped and recorded.

During the 2024 focused surveys, burrowing owl sign (i.e., one pellet) was observed at one burrow within the northwestern portion of the BSA; however, this burrow is located outside of the Project’s impact area. Numerous inactive suitable burrows were observed within the permit area; however, no burrowing owl sign was observed within these burrows. No burrowing owl individuals were observed during the surveys. The closest CNDDB occurrence is approximately 9 miles northeast of the permit area (Occ. No. 1659 is from September 12, 2010) and the observation included one individual flushed from a burrow around mid-day and was later observed back inside burrow that same afternoon. No California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) were observed within the BSA during surveys. Burrow locations within the BSA are shown on Figure 5, Vegetation Communities and 2024 Burrowing Owl Survey Results.

Jurisdictional Waters
Dudek conducted a delineation of state and federal jurisdictional waters and wetlands within the BSA on April 28, August 8, and December 15, 2023, and June 17, 2024, in accordance with current policies. Federal wetlands were mapped based on the procedures in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2008a). Non-wetland waters were mapped at the OHWM based on the procedures defined in A Field Guide to the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008b). In addition, each of the potential non-wetland waters within the BSA was evaluated to determine all features are ephemeral

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 21
OCTOBER 2025
using the Beta Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for the Arid West (SDAM) (Mazor et al. 2023) and the Mapping Episodic Stream Activity (MESA) guidelines (Brady 2013). Waters of the state were mapped in accordance with the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (SWRCB 2021). CDFW jurisdictional areas were mapped to include the bank of the stream/channel and outer dripline of adjacent riparian vegetation, if present, as set forth under California Fish and Game Code Section 1602.

Streambeds under the jurisdiction of CDFW were delineated using the Cowardin method of waters classification, which defines waters boundaries by a single parameter (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, or hydrology) (Cowardin et al. 1979). CDFW also regulates riparian vegetation communities that occur beyond the limits of regulated streambeds.

To aid in the delineation and in conformance with the USACE 2008 Field Guide, eleven OHWM data sheets (OHMWT-1 through T-11), four SDAM data sheets (SDAM-T-1 through SDAM-T-4), and eight MESA data sheets (MESA-T-1 through MESA-T-8) were recorded at potential non-wetland waters within the BSA to determine the OHWM indicators within those features and to determine all features are ephemeral. Therefore, it was determined that no features within the BSA are regulated by USACE given (1) that they are ephemeral and temporary in nature and are not permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water, and (2) their lack of downstream connection to a traditional navigable water.

The limits of aquatic resources were collected in the field using a Trimble R1 GPS unit and ESRI Field Maps mobile application with sub-meter accuracy. The geographic extents were digitized in a GIS based on the GPS data and data collected directly onto field maps into a Project-specific GIS using ArcGIS software.

Waters of the State
The jurisdictional aquatic resources delineation identified 7.39 acres of potential jurisdictional aquatic resources under Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and CDFW jurisdiction. All 7.39 acres are considered RWQCB non-wetland waters and 4.35 acres are considered CDFW streambeds. Areas of streambeds that overlap the desertwillow–smoketree wash woodland vegetation community were classified as CDFW riparian habitat totaling 3.04 acres. The BSA occurs within an alluvial fan, a landform typically associated with episodic sediment transport and deposition within a system of braided channels. Geologic mapping (Dibblee 1968) shows that the BSA is underlain by “Older Alluvium” which is an erosion resistant unit exposed in a topographically higher position than the thin, discontinuous veneer of recently transported “Recent Alluvium” deposits observed on aerial photographs as an apparent network of braided channels. However, field surveys found a number of swale features created from sheet flow runoff that lack evidence of sediment deposition, continuous fluvial features such as channel banks, floodplain or bar surfaces, and/or bankfull. Many of these swale features appear on aerial photographs but are actually sandy off-highway vehicle tracks or relic features that did not exhibit recent fluvial activity. Therefore, due to the presence of the older alluvium and lack of fluvial indicators, these relic swale features were not mapped as watercourses.

Furthermore, the Hydrology and Hydraulic Technical Study (Dudek 2025) for the Project was reviewed in the context of the potential jurisdictional aquatic resources within the BSA. However, the ultimate decision on the amount and location of jurisdictional resources is made by the resource agencies (i.e., CDFW and RWQCB), and, therefore, potential aquatic resources may increase or decrease.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 22
OCTOBER 2025
6 Analysis of the Potential for Take
The California Fish and Game Code defines take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” (California Fish and Game Code Section 86). Under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW may authorize acts that are otherwise prohibited if the take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The Project could potentially result in take of two species listed under the California Endangered Species Act and potentially occurring in the Project vicinity: desert tortoise and burrowing owl.

6.1 Desert Tortoise Species Background
Mojave desert tortoise is a federally and state listed as threatened species and a state candidate for listing as endangered and occurs within the BSA. This species dwells in a variety of desert habitats, frequently digging burrows in friable soils and sand but occasionally inhabiting rock or caliche shelters or suitable human-constructed structures such as culvert pipes. The active season is generally from March through June and September through October (USFWS 2022), with mostly young tortoises being active outside of those seasons. Forage consists mainly of native plant species with some supplemental minerals gleaned from consuming soil and bone. Mojave desert tortoises breed in March and April, lay 1–12 eggs May through July, and generally hatch between July and October (CaliforniaHerps 2022).

The range of the Mojave population of desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) includes portions of the Mojave Desert and the Colorado Desert in Southern California (parts of Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties), southern Nevada (Clark, Esmeralda, Nye, and Lincoln Counties), northwestern Arizona (Mohave County), and southwestern Utah (Washington County). The Project site occurs in the USFWS Western Mojave Recovery Unit for desert tortoise (USFWS 2011). Desert tortoise home range sizes vary based on location, sex, and resource availability, with female tortoise’s annual home range averaging around 35 to 40 acres, about one third the size of male home ranges, which are variable but can be greater than 500 acres (USFWS 2009). Over a lifetime, a desert tortoise may use more than 1.5 square miles and may make periodic movements of more than 7 miles (USFWS 2011). In terms of population trends, the USFWS Biological Opinion for the DRECP estimated 17,644 desert tortoises within the Western Mojave Recovery Unit in 2014, which was a 51% decline from the population estimate in 2004 (USFWS 2016). Using updated methods for estimating range-wide abundance, the USFWS 2022 5-Year Review estimated a desert tortoise abundance of 64,871 (mean densities ranging from 2.4 to 3.6 tortoises per square kilometer [km2]) in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit, which also indicated an over 50% decline in abundance from 2004 (USFWS 2022).

The typical habitat for desert tortoise in the Mojave Desert is creosote bush scrub in areas where precipitation ranges from 2 to 8 inches per year, with a relative high diversity of perennial plants and high productivity of ephemeral plants. Throughout most of the Mojave Desert, desert tortoises occur most commonly on gently sloping terrain with sandy gravel soils where there is sparse cover of low-growing shrubs, which allows for the establishment of herbaceous plants. Soils must be friable enough for digging of burrows, but firm enough so that burrows do not collapse (USFWS 2008). Although populations of desert tortoises are not generally known to inhabit elevations much above 4,000 feet amsl, they occur from below sea level to an elevation of 7,300 feet amsl. Occupied habitat varies from flats and slopes dominated by creosote bush scrub at low elevations, to rocky slopes in blackbrush and juniper woodland ecotones at high elevations (USFWS 2008).

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 23
OCTOBER 2025
Threats to desert tortoise identified in the species’ recovery plan include habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation; wildfire resulting from the invasion of non-native plants; illegal collection; and disease and predation (USFWS 2011).

6.2 Desert Tortoise Anticipated Take
To prevent take of desert tortoise, all desert tortoise individuals will be removed from the 143.9-acre permit area (i.e. passively or by an authorized biologist) and permanent desert tortoise exclusion fencing will be installed around the solar facility’s impact footprint perimeter and temporary desert tortoise exclusion fencing will be installed along the Project’s new access road prior to start of construction, as required by the Project’s mitigation program.

However, the following activities may result in take of desert tortoise during Project construction: road improvements (i.e. elevated and reinforced with compacted gravel surface) and site grading; installation of bridges, steel piles, and the PV modules; and trenching/excavation for underground gen-tie line and fiber optic cables. All of these activities would require the use of heavy equipment (i.e. bore/drill rigs, crawler tractors, crushing equipment, excavators, graders, rollers, tractors/loaders/backhoes, trenchers, dump trucks, and water trucks), which can crush desert tortoises above and below ground as well as collapse occupied burrows trapping or crushing tortoises inside. Project construction is anticipated to take approximately 9 months. Therefore, potential take of desert tortoise during the Project construction phase would be 9 months. Construction take within the permit area is shown on Figure 3.

The Project site’s desert tortoise exclusion fencing around the solar facility’s impact footprint perimeter will remain in place for the duration of Project operations (e.g., excluding all wildlife from entering the Project), as recommended by USFWS and CDFW (Lalumiere, pers. comm. 2025). Access points will be protected by installing the latest specification entrance gates/grates/etc., including on-site gates east and west of the bridge (e.g., excluding wildlife from entering the Project). In all cases, the protection system will not include gaps sufficient for even the smallest hatchling to pass through. The integrity of the fences will be reviewed during every maintenance site check. Project operations include activities such as as-needed (i.e. there will be no full-time site personnel on-site during operation) on-site personnel visitations for security, panel maintenance (including power-wash panels after a major weather event like a sandstorm), and system monitoring. Therefore, potential take of desert tortoise within the solar facility during the 35-year Project operations lifespan is not anticipated. Once construction along the Project’s new access road is completed, the desert tortoise exclusion fencing shall be removed; however, during Project operations, points of ingress/egress to the private driveway from Two Mile Road will be accessed by a locked chain fence for facility services and maintenance, as required, which are estimated to be approximately three maintenance trips per year. Therefore, no operational take (including maintenance activities) is anticipated for desert tortoise .

For the purposes of this ITP application, permanent impacts are defined as those that involve permanent land conversion resulting in the loss of existing biological resources (e.g., species habitat) and temporary impacts are those that involve disturbance of areas that currently support biological resources for the duration of construction only. Permanent impacts associated with the proposed Project include the installation of the solar arrays, on-site substation, solar facility access roads, two bridges (i.e., bridge abutments), perimeter fencing, construction of the off-site access road, and gen-tie line. Temporary impacts associated with the Project include a 14-foot work area for the off-site underground gen-tie line installation along the northside of Two Mile Road and for the on-site gentie trench work area, and a 5-foot temporary construction easement on the west and east side of the proposed offsite access road. All impacts are shown on Figures 6A and 6B and summarized in Table 7.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 24
OCTOBER 2025
Table 7. Impact Summary (Acres)
Impact Location Permanent Impact Temporary Impact
Project-Level
Project Site Impacts
Access Roads 9.0 0
PV Installation Area 131.4 0
Gen-Tie Trench Work Area 0 <0.1
Substation 0.2 0
Project Site Impacts Subtotal 140.6 <0.1
Off-Site Impacts
Gen-Tie Interconnection Pole Footprint <0.1 0
Gen-Tie Trench Installation/Two Mile Road 0 1.1
Gen-Tie/Access Road Alignment and Gen-Tie
Trench Work Area

1.6 0.6
Off-Site Impacts Subtotal 1.6 1.7
Total 142.2 1.8
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

A total of 142.2 acres of suitable occupied desert scrub habitat would be permanently impacted and 1.7 acres of suitable occupied desert scrub habitat would be temporarily impacted by the proposed Project. Suitable desert tortoise habitat impact totals include all habitat except for disturbed habitat and urban/developed land cover types, as summarized in Table 8. Occupied habitat is defined as areas that include the presence of either live tortoises or tortoise sign (burrows, scats, and carcasses) and areas within the permit area that are comprised with similar habitats and that may be affected directly or indirectly with implementation of the Project. Even though neither tortoises nor tortoise sign were found within some portions of the permit area at the time of the survey, the area may reasonably be part of tortoise’s home range. Given the homogeneity of the vegetative and topographic resources, desert tortoises would be expected to have potential to occupy the entire 143.9-acre permit area.

Compensatory mitigation would be required to offset habitat loss for desert tortoise as listed under Section 8, Proposed Minimization and Mitigation Measures.

Potential short-term indirect impacts to desert tortoises resulting from construction activities include adverse effects from the generation of fugitive dust, noise and vibration, and increased human presence, including generation of trash that may attract desert tortoise predators (e.g., ravens, domestic dogs). Potential long-term indirect impacts that could result from operations and maintenance of the solar facility near desert tortoise individuals or their suitable habitat located outside the Project site would be chemical releases such as oils and grease from vehicles that could degrade habitat; increased invasive plant species that may degrade habitat; and trampling of vegetation and soil compaction by humans, which could affect soil moisture, water penetration, surface flows, and erosion. Proposed measures to avoid and minimize the potential for take of desert tortoise are listed under Section 8, Proposed Minimization and Mitigation Measures, including desert tortoise relocation and exclusion fencing.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE, E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT 14392 25
OCTOBER 2025
Table 8. Suitable Desert Tortoise Habitat Impacts
Vegetation
Community or
Land Cover Type Alliance Association Ranking1
Project Site (acres) Off-Site (acres) Total
Impacts
Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary (acres)
Scrub
Creosote Bush–
White Bursage
Scrub
Larrea tridentata–
Ambrosia dumosa
Larrea tridentata–
Ambrosia dumosa–
Krameria (erecta,
grayi)
G5S5 139.1 <0.1 1.5 1.7 142.4
Larrea tridentata–
Ambrosia dumosa
Larrea tridentata–
Ambrosia dumosa–
Ambrosia salsola
G5S5 0.1 0 0 0 0.1
Cheesebush–
Sweetbush Scrub
Ambrosia salsola–
Bebbia juncea
Ambrosia salsola–
Larrea tridentata
G4S4 1.4 0 0 0 1.4
Scrub Subtotal2 140.6 <0.1 1.5 1.7 143.9
Riparian
Desert Willow–
Smoketree Wash
Woodland*
Chilopsis linearis–
Psorothamnus
spinosus
Psorothamnus
spinosus
G4G5 S3 0 0 0 0 0
Riparian Subtotal2 0 0 0 0 0
Total2 140.6 <0.1 1.5 1.7 143.9
Notes:
1 The conservation status of a vegetation community is designated by a number from 1 to 5, preceded by a letter reflecting the appropriate geographic scale of the assessment (G = global, N = national, and S = subnational). The numbers have the following meaning (NatureServe 2024):
1 = critically imperiled
2 = imperiled
3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction
4 = apparently secure
5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure
N/A = not applicable
GNR = unranked, global rank not yet assessed
SNA = unranked, subnational rank not yet assessed
2 Totals may not sum due to rounding.
* Community is sensitive under CEQA and listed by California Department of Fish and Wildlife as sensitive (i.e., State Rank [S] 1, 2, or 3) (CDFW 2024c).

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 26
OCTOBER 2025

6.3 Burrowing Owl Species Background
Burrowing owl is a candidate for listing under CESA. With a relatively wide-ranging distribution throughout the west, burrowing owls are considered to be habitat generalists (Lantz et al. 2004). In California, burrowing owls are yearlong residents of open, dry grassland and desert habitats, and in grass, forb and open shrub stages of pinyonjuniper and ponderosa pine habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). Preferred habitat is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gentle topography, and well-drained soils (Haug et al. 1993).

The presence of burrows is the most essential component of burrowing owl habitat as they are required for nesting, roosting, cover, and caching prey (Coulombe 1971; Martin 1973; Green and Anthony 1989; Haug et al. 1993). In California, western burrowing owls most commonly live in burrows created by California ground squirrels. Burrowing owls may occur in human-altered landscapes such as agricultural areas, ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots, and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable (i.e., open and sparse); usable burrows are available; and foraging habitat occurs in close proximity (Gervais et al. 2008). Debris piles, riprap, culverts, and pipes can be used for nesting and roosting.

Threats to burrowing owl include habitat loss due to agricultural and urban development, habitat fragmentation leading to reduced opportunities for mating, and eradication of burrowing mammals (e.g. California ground squirrels) through pest control programs (Klute et. al. 2003). Additionally, burrowing owls nesting along roadsides are susceptible to collisions with vehicles in agricultural environments (Klute et al. 2003; Gervais et al. 2008), and agricultural practices, such as disking fallow fields to control weeds and road and ditch maintenance, may collapse occupied burrows (Rosenberg and Haley 2004; Gervais et al. 2008).

6.4 Burrowing Owl Anticipated Take
No burrowing owls were detected during the 2024 protocol burrowing owl surveys. Only one suitable burrow contained sign (i.e., pellet), located outside of the Project’s impact area, as shown on Figure 7, Impacts to Vegetation Communities and 2024 Burrowing Owl Survey Results. Burrowing owls are a transient species and the numerous inactive burrows observed within the permit area during surveys have the potential to be occupied prior to initiation of construction activities. Adult burrowing owls can reside below ground and therefore are susceptible to injury and mortality during construction activities. CDFW has determined the following activities have the potential to take burrowing owls, their nests or eggs, or destroy or degrade burrowing owl habitat: grading, disking, cultivation, earthmoving, burrow blockage, heavy equipment compacting and crushing burrow tunnels (CDFG 2012). Therefore, to prevent take of burrowing owl, a pre-construction survey would be necessary to reevaluate the locations of potential burrowing owl burrows within the project site so that take of owls and/or active owl nests are avoided. If burrowing owl is observed within the permit area, and if it is determined that relocation would be needed, further coordination with CDFW shall be required and a Draft Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by CDFW prior to implementation. Furthermore, implementation of a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan is likely to require a permit (e.g., Scientific Collection Permit or ITP).

The following activities may result in take of burrowing owl during Project construction: road improvements (i.e. elevated and reinforced with compacted gravel surface) and site grading; installation of bridges, steel piles, and the PV modules; and trenching/excavation for underground gen-tie line and fiber optic cables. All of these activities would require the use of heavy equipment (i.e. bore/drill rigs, crawler tractors, crushing equipment, excavators,

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 27
OCTOBER 2025
graders, rollers, tractors/loaders/backhoes, trenchers, dump trucks, and water trucks), which can crush burrowing owls below ground by collapsing occupied burrows trapping or crushing burrowing owls inside. Project construction is anticipated to take approximately 9 months. Therefore, potential take of burrowing owls during the Project construction phase would be 9 months. Construction take within the permit area is shown on Figure 3. No operational take (including maintenance activities) is anticipated for burrowing owl.

A total of 142.2 acres of potentially suitable desert scrub habitat would be permanently impacted and 1.7 acres of potentially suitable desert scrub habitat would be temporarily impacted by the proposed Project. Potentially suitable burrowing owl habitat impact totals include all habitat except for disturbed habitat and urban/developed land cover types, as summarized in Table 8. The permit area is not known to be occupied by burrowing owl; however, given the homogeneity of the vegetative and topographic resources, burrowing owls would be expected to have potential to occupy the entire 143.9-acre permit area. Compensatory mitigation would be required to offset habitat loss for burrowing owl as listed under Section 8, Proposed Minimization and Mitigation Measures.

Potential short-term indirect impacts to burrowing owls resulting from construction activities include adverse effects from the generation of fugitive dust, noise and vibration, and increased human presence. Potential long-term indirect impacts that could result from operations and maintenance of the solar facility near burrowing owl individuals or their suitable habitat located outside the Project site would be chemical releases such as oils and grease from vehicles that could degrade habitat; increased invasive plant species that may degrade habitat; and trampling of vegetation and soil compaction by humans, which could affect soil moisture, water penetration, surface flows, and erosion. Proposed measures to avoid and minimize the potential for take of burrowing owls are listed under Section 8, Proposed Minimization and Mitigation Measures, including preconstruction surveys. 7 Analysis of Whether Issuance of the Incidental Take
Permit Would Jeopardize the Species
In determining whether or not the issuance of an ITP would jeopardize the continued existence of desert tortoise and/or burrowing owl, and pursuant to Title 14, Section 783.2(a)(7) of the California Code of Regulations, this section includes consideration of the species’ (a) capability to survive and reproduce, and (b) any adverse impacts of the incidental taking on those abilities in light of (1) known population trends, (2) known threats to the species, and (3) reasonably foreseeable impacts on the species from other related Projects and activities. This analysis describes how the proposed minimization and mitigation measures (Section 8) for the proposed Project will ensure that those impacts will not jeopardize the continued existence of desert tortoise and/or burrowing owl.

7.1 Desert Tortoise
The Project would result in the permanent removal of suitable occupied habitat for desert tortoise, as well as potential take of two individual desert tortoises during construction. No operational take is anticipated for desert tortoise.

The desert tortoise population in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit is considered to be in decline, and the latest estimates indicate a desert tortoise abundance of 64,871 tortoise with mean densities ranging from 2.4 to 3.6 individuals per km2 for the recovery unit. Based on the protocol surveys for the Project, the permit area supports a

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 28
OCTOBER 2025
similar desert tortoise density compared to the overall recovery unit, with 3.4 individuals per km2 (i.e. 2 desert tortoises over 143.9 acres (0.58 km2)). To prevent take of desert tortoise, all desert tortoise individuals will be removed from the 143.9-acre permit area (i.e. passively or by an authorized biologist) and permanent desert tortoise exclusion fencing will be installed around the solar facility’s impact footprint perimeter and temporary desert tortoise exclusion fencing will be installed along the Project’s new access road prior to start of construction, as required by the Project’s mitigation program. Therefore, the proposed action would not affect the desert tortoise’s capability to survive and reproduce.

The permit area occurs within a desert tortoise core linkage as designated by the California Desert Linkage Network (Penrod et al. 2012) with access provided through CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) (CDFW 2024e) (Figure 8, Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages). A desert tortoise core linkage is a potentially continuous area of suitable habitat large enough to support and sustain at least 50 desert tortoise individuals for several generations (Penrod et al. 2012). The permanent impact area is relatively small compared to the size of the desert tortoise core linkage and there is a significant amount of vacant and undeveloped land for desert tortoises to utilize within the surrounding area. Additionally, the Project site contains two individuals that will be removed from the impact area and by utilizing the surrounding areas, which are also included in the desert tortoise core linkage, or another similar conservation area approved by CDFW and USFWS, these individuals would continue to sustain future generations of desert tortoises. Therefore, the proposed action will not appreciably reduce the number of desert tortoises throughout its range or appreciably affect the distribution of the desert tortoise.

As described in Table 4, three adult desert tortoises were observed during the December 2023 focused protocollevel survey, in addition to one subadult desert tortoise that was incidentally observed in March 2024. An adult female carcass was also observed during the December 2023 protocol-level surveys and nearby coyote (Canis latrans) scat was observed. Both coyote and domestic dog (Canis familiaris) were observed during field surveys.

The 2025 survey effort did not observe the third adult desert tortoise and a subadult plastron was observed that was of the same size and nearby vicinity as the subadult observed incidentally in March 2024 (i.e., along Samarkand Drive). This subadult appears to have been predated by a common raven (Corvus corax). Therefore, existing threats within the site include potential predation by other wildlife species such as coyote, domestic dog, and raven. The Project would not increase the likelihood of these threats through implementation of the proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, as described in Section 8 below.

7.1 Burrowing Owl
The Project would result in the permanent removal of 142.2 acres of potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owl.

No burrowing owl individuals were observed; however, potential take is anticipated of two individual burrowing owls during construction. If burrowing owl is observed within the permit area during construction and is in physical danger, relocation would be conducted in coordination with CDFW. No operational take is anticipated for burrowing owl.

The permit area occurs within a burrowing owl patch linkage as designated by the California Desert Linkage Network (Penrod et al. 2012) with access provided through CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) (CDFW 2024e) (Figure 8). A burrowing owl patch is defined as suitable habitat large enough to support a breeding pair of burrowing owls and are useful to the species if the patches are linked via dispersal to other patches and core areas (Penrod et al. 2012). The permanent impact area is relatively small compared to the size of the

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 29
OCTOBER 2025
burrowing owl patch linkage within the surrounding vicinity, which provides a significant amount of vacant and undeveloped land for burrowing owls to utilize and would continue to sustain future generations of burrowing owls outside the impact area. Additionally, no breeding burrowing owls were observed during surveys, and the Project’s permit area is located along the outer perimeter of the designated patch linkage and does not connect into any core areas along the northern boundary.

The Project would not jeopardize the ability of the species to survive and reproduce within its range based on the following: (1) avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented during construction to ensure that no active burrowing owl burrows would be disturbed and no mortality or injury of burrowing owl would occur; (2) the permanent loss of 142.2 acres of potentially suitable burrowing owl habitat constitutes a small loss of habitat compared to the amount of potentially suitable burrowing owl habitat within the vicinity; and (3) habitat mitigation as described under Section 8 would compensate for this habitat loss. Therefore, the proposed action will not appreciably reduce the number of burrowing owls throughout its range or appreciably affect the distribution of the burrowing owls.
8 Proposed Minimization and Mitigation Measures

8.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Project implementation of measure MM-BIO-2 (Construction-Related and Operational-Related Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources) would minimize potential indirect impacts to desert tortoise and burrowing owl during construction by requiring implementation of biological monitoring and a WEAP Training that will cover the specialstatus resources and mitigation requirements for the Project; delineation of Project boundaries; implementation of standard dust control measures; and recontouring of temporary impact areas to natural grade and revegetated with application of a native seed mix. Direct impacts to desert tortoise individuals would be avoided through implementation of the Project’s measure MM-BIO-3 (Desert Tortoise Avoidance and Minimization Measures), which would require the following: installation of permanent desert tortoise exclusion fencing around the Project site and temporary fencing along the access road during construction prior to the initiation of vegetation clearing, removal of tortoises from the area by the authorized biologist if the appropriate state and federal permits have been obtained or be allowed to move off site on their own by creating a gap in the fence, desert tortoise clearance surveys, trash removal, biological monitors with stop work authority, and speed limit restrictions. Direct impacts to burrowing owl individuals would be avoided through implementation of the Project’s measure MM-BIO-5 (Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Surveys and Avoidance), which would require a pre-construction survey 14 days prior to start of construction in compliance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) to reevaluate the locations of potential burrowing owl burrows within the Project site so that take of owls and/or active owl nests are avoided. If burrowing owl is not observed during the pre-construction survey, no further mitigation would be required. Avoidance and minimizations measures MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-3, and MM-BIO5 are provided below.

MM-BIO-2 Construction-Related and Operational-Related Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources. For each phase of Project implementation, suitable habitat for special-status species (i.e., all undeveloped land within the Project site) with potential to occur in the Project, the Project’s Applicant/Developer shall include the following in the construction contractor’s plans and specifications to address indirect construction-related impacts to special-status species:

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 30
OCTOBER 2025
Biological Monitoring. A qualified Project biologist shall conduct monthly checks throughout the duration of Project construction in order to inspect construction fencing, ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat, species of concern, and other sensitive biological resources outside the Project footprint, and ensure that all applicable requirements from the mitigation measures are being upheld.

Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to grading, a pre-construction meeting shall be required that includes a training session for Project personnel by the biological monitor. The training shall include (1) a description of the species of concern and its habitats; (2) the general provisions of the applicable regulations pertaining to biological resources, including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act; (3) the need to adhere to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and other applicable regulations; (4) the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and other applicable regulations; (5) the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the Project; and (6) the access routes to and from disturbance area boundaries within which the Project activities must be accomplished. Additionally, the training shall include the measures and mitigation requirements for the applicable resources. Copies of the mitigation measures and any required permits from the resource agencies shall be made available to construction personnel. The video can be recorded so that multiple personnel are able to watch the material. The training shall be provided in alternate languages, as needed. In addition, operations and maintenance personnel shall be required to watch the recorded training prior to entering the Project during operations, with the only exception including emergency situations.

Copies of the mitigation measures and any required permits from the resource agencies shall be made available to operations and maintence personnel. This training will be enforced during operation as well
Delineation of Property Boundaries. Before beginning activities that would cause impacts, the contractor shall, in consultation with the biological monitor, clearly delineate the boundaries with fencing, stakes, or flags, consistent with the grading plan, within which the impacts will take place.

All impacts outside the fenced, staked, or flagged areas shall be avoided, and all fencing, stakes, and flags shall be maintained until the completion of impacts in that area. In addition, any avoided environmental resources shall be clearly delineated. Prior to implementing construction activities, the biological monitor shall verify that the flagging clearly delineates the construction limits and any sensitive environmental resources to be avoided.

Standard Dust Control Measures. Standard dust control measures as per the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District shall be implemented to reduce dust impacts on nearby conserved lands, plants, and wildlife. Measures include controlling speed to 15 mph or less on unpaved roads, replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible, frequently watering active work sites, installation of shaker plates, and suspending excavation and grading operations during periods of high winds.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for construction, the applicant shall submit a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to the City of Twentynine Palms that specifies best management practices to prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater, with the intent of keeping sedimentation or any other pollutants from

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 31
OCTOBER 2025
moving off site and into receiving waters. The requirements of the SWPPP shall be incorporated into design specifications and construction contracts.

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

Servicing of construction equipment shall take place only at a designated staging area. Staging areas shall not be located within the Project’s avoidance areas.

Wildlife Hazards. The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that wildlife do not become trapped, entangled, injured, or poisoned by constructuction activities:
- Structures in which wildlife may become trapped (e.g., open pipes, pits, trenches, etc.) shall be tightly covered at the end of each work day. If covering the structure is not possible, an escape ramp shall be provided to allow any wildlife that falls in to safely escape.
- Debris piles, construction materials, equipment, and other items that may be used as wildlife refuge shall be inspected for wildlife at the start of each work day and prior to disturbance. If wildlife is discovered, it shall either be moved out of harm’s way by a qualified biologist or allowed to move off of the study area on its own. - Nets and mesh shall be made of loose-weave material that is not fused at the intersections of the weave, as nets with welded weaves present an entanglement risk. - Toxic materials and garbage shall be removed from the work site and safely stored or disposed of at the end of each work day.

Invasive Weeds. The Project applicant shall be required to replant all temporarily impacted areas with native plants and remove invasive plants. The species proposed for replanting shall not include any plants found on the most recent version of the Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Inventory (http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php).

Noise. Proposed noise-generating land uses affecting suitable habitat for special-status species shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife are not expected to be subjected to noise that would exceed rural residential noise standards.

Fencing. The solar array site shall include a 7-foot-high perimeter fence upon completion of construction and through the duration of operation to minimize the impact on sensitive or specialstatus biological resources occurring adjacent to the site.

Lighting. All construction activities shall be conducted during the daytime, and lights shall not be kept on overnight in the construction area. While night lighting is not currently proposed, if it is required for security purposes during construction activities or operational activities, all exterior lighting along undeveloped land shall be fully shielded and directed downward in a manner that will prevent light spillage or glare into the adjacent avoidance areas. As applicable, emergency maintenance work on the solar arrays at night would be performed using battery or gas-powered light stands that would be directed to the active work area.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 32
OCTOBER 2025
MM-BIO-3 Desert Tortoise Avoidance and Minimization Measures. Relocation and/or take of a desert tortoise may not occur without consultation with the USFWS and CDFW. The phrases “authorized biologist” and “desert tortoise monitor,” as used herein, are taken from the most up to date USFWS guidance (USFWS 2009), and the definitions, roles, and responsibilities of each will be adhered to during construction. Also, in accordance with guidance in USFWS (2019), if tortoises or fresh sign are observed during Project construction, all activities that could result in take of desert tortoise should cease immediately until an authorized biologist can confirm that no desert tortoise is present or the desert tortoise moves off the site on its own.

Project Site
Desert tortoise exclusion fencing shall be installed around all construction areas prior to the initiation of vegetation clearing. Once the area is fenced, desert tortoises shall be removed from the area by the authorized biologist if the appropriate state and federal permits have been obtained or be allowed to move off site on their own by creating a gap in the fence. Note that they cannot be “harassed” or otherwise directly encouraged to move off site without obtaining a federal take permit (or as directly authorized/directed by the USFWS and possibly CDFW). If the desert tortoise is allowed to move off site on its own, the gap in the exclusion fence will be closed once the tortoise has left the fenced area. After desert tortoise is no longer inside the fence, the fence shall be maintained in place until construction is completed. The purpose of the fence is to preclude all desert tortoises from the construction impact zone, including desert tortoises that may try to get back to their on-site burrow(s). A minimum of two tortoise-free pre-construction clearance survey passes conducted by the authorized biologist or desert tortoise monitor, after exclusion fencing has been installed, are required to ensure that desert tortoises are no longer on the site and construction may commence. If the fence fails or is subject to gaps then two more tortoise-free survey passes must occur before work can resume.

The fence shall be constructed of 0.5-inch mesh hardware cloth and extend 18 inches above ground and 12 inches below ground. Where burial of the fence is not possible, the lower 12 inches shall be folded outward against the ground and fastened to the ground so as to prevent desert tortoise entry. The fence shall be supported sufficiently to maintain its integrity, be checked at least weekly during construction by the authorized biologist or desert tortoise monitor, and maintained when necessary, by the Project proponent to ensure its integrity. Access points will be protected by installing the latest specification entrance gates/grates/etc. In all cases, the protection system will not include gaps sufficient for even the smallest hatchling to pass through. Common raven perching deterrents shall be installed as part of the fence construction. If unsupervised gaps are detected, then pre-construction clearance surveys will be required after remediation and prior to resumption of work.

All Project-related facilities and construction-related areas, such as staging areas and personnel parking areas, other than the access road and Two Mile Road discussed below, shall occur within the fenced area. All related infrastructure shall also remain within the fenced area.

As part of the Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, all workers (including operational maintenance workers) shall be informed to check beneath any parked vehicle

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 33
OCTOBER 2025
immediately prior to moving the vehicle while in desert tortoise habitat outside fenced impact areas. After the desert tortoise-exclusion fence has been installed, all personal vehicles and construction equipment shall be parked inside the fenced area. Vehicular travel outside of established roads (including Samarkand Road, Sunrise Road, and private roads (once constructed) prior to removal of desert tortoises shall be prohibited. If a desert tortoise is found beneath a vehicle, the authorized biologist shall be contacted to move it from harm’s way, if the appropriate state and federal permits have been obtained. Alternatively, the vehicle shall not be moved until the desert tortoise has left of its own accord. The authorized biologist shall be responsible for taking appropriate precautions to ensure that any desert tortoise moved in this manner is not exposed to temperature extremes that could be harmful to the animal.

The desert tortoise exclusion fence during construction shall have as part of its design either a desert-tortoise-proof cattle guard, desert tortoise exclusion gate, exclusion grate, or a breakaway portion of fence that can be opened and closed to allow vehicle access. The gate or modified fence shall remain closed at all times during construction except to allow vehicles to enter or leave the site. This measure may be modified if the desert tortoise monitor, based on surveys of surrounding areas, determines that there is little or no likelihood of desert tortoises entering the site through the opening. If the authorized biologist determines that the gate may be left open and subsequently finds that a desert tortoise has entered the construction area through that opening, a gate or modified fence shall be installed and kept closed after desert tortoise has left the site.

Prior to installing the fence, the authorized biologist shall survey the area along which the fence will be installed, with the goal of establishing a fenced area that allows for as many desert tortoise burrows to remain outside the fenced area while still accommodating Project construction. The authorized biologist shall consider the direction of the burrow and know that burrows may be 30 to 40 feet long. So, not only the burrow opening, but also the burrow's end, shall be considered and excluded if the fence line is to be altered. Any desert tortoise burrows found within the proposed fence line that cannot be avoided shall be hand excavated by the authorized biologist prior to clearing of the fence line or installation of the fence. Burrow excavation procedures are discussed in Desert Tortoise Council (1999). The authorized biologist or desert tortoise monitors shall remain on-site to monitor the installation of the fence.

After installing the fence, and before any other activities occur within the fenced area, the authorized biologist shall survey the site for desert tortoises. If possible, the surveys shall occur immediately after installation of the fence and several days prior to brushing or grading activities.

The site shall be searched at least two consecutive times with a negative survey result, meaning if the site is searched and desert tortoise are found, two additional surveys must be completed until the result is negative. Burrows shall either be excavated as they are found or flagged for excavation later. Each burrow shall also be carefully checked for viable desert tortoise eggs. If found, the authorized biologist shall have a plan for disposition of these eggs outside the impact zone but within the adjacent area and move the eggs in such a way that the viability of the eggs is not adversely affected by their movement (Desert Tortoise Council 1999). Handling of desert tortoise eggs would require consultation with CDFW and the USFWS.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 34
OCTOBER 2025
Security fencing shall be placed inside of the desert tortoise exclusion fencing, which shall remain in place for the duration of Project operations (e.g., excluding all wildlife from entering the Project), as recommended by USFWS and CDFW (Lalumiere, pers. comm. 2025).

Off-Site Gen-Tie Line/Access Road Alignment/Substation
Prior to conducting vegetation clearing or grading activities in desert tortoise habitat outside permanently fenced areas of the Project site (i.e., off-site access road, gen-tie alignment, and substation), the authorized biologist or desert tortoise monitor under the supervision of an authorized biologist will survey the access road impact area immediately prior to conducting these activities to ensure that no desert tortoises are present. Because of the linear nature of the access road, the applicant may conduct surveys at any time of year but shall avoid impacts to potential and known desert tortoise burrows, in addition to avoiding impacts to desert tortoises. Potential burrows will be buffered by 30 feet unless they can be shown to be unoccupied, or the authorized biologist believes a smaller buffer is appropriate in order to protect underground burrows.

Examples of situations where smaller buffers may be appropriate may include the following: burrow entrances are obviously oriented away from the impact area; the type of activity near the burrow is not likely to impact desert tortoise (e.g., the activity will not have the potential to crush a burrow); the burrow is adjacent to an existing thoroughfare that receives vehicle use already and the proposed activity is similar in nature; etc. Temporary desert tortoise exclusion fencing will be installed along the access road. Once construction along the access road is completed, the desert tortoise exclusion fencing shall be removed. No vehicle or equipment parked outside any of the fenced areas will be moved prior to inspecting the ground beneath the vehicle or equipment for the presence of desert tortoise. If present, the desert tortoise will be left to move on its own.

In addition to the mitigation measures described above by Project location, the following additional avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented for both the Project site, and the access road:

Prior to initiation of construction activities, the applicant shall develop a WEAP, to be presented to all construction and contractor personnel, that includes the following information and requirements for desert tortoise:
- A description of the desert tortoise, including adults and juveniles - Color photographs of desert tortoise
- Protections to the desert tortoise under the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts and potential penalties for violating the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts - Measures implemented under the Project to protect desert tortoises and to conserve their habitat
- The requirement that all workers shall check beneath any parked vehicle immediately prior to moving the vehicle while in desert tortoise habitat outside fenced impact areas and what to do if a desert tortoise is found
- Information for contacting the authorized biologist or desert tortoise monitor in case personnel observe one or more desert tortoises on the Project site

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 35
OCTOBER 2025
- All trash that may attract desert tortoise predators (e.g., ravens, domestic dogs) shall be removed from the work site at the end of each day.
- If desert tortoises occur in a work area and will not leave of their own accord, then it will be necessary to coordinate with the USFWS and CDFW. Physical relocation of a desert tortoise may not occur unless approved by the wildlife agencies, and this may require authorizations pursuant to Incidental Take Permits from the USFWS and CDFW. - The biological monitors shall have the authority to stop work at all times, if proper avoidance measures are not in place or Project activities may potentially result in impacts to desert tortoises.
- A speed limit of 15 mph shall be maintained at all times except on county/state roads. - Work shall be restricted to daylight hours at all times when working within or adjacent to desert tortoise habitat, except in an emergency, to avoid vehicle traffic when tortoise may be on access roads at times of poor visibility.

MM-BIO-5 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Surveys and Avoidance. One pre‐construction burrowing owl survey shall be completed no more than 14 days before initiation of site preparation or grading activities and a second survey shall be completed within 24 hours of the start of site preparation or grading activities. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction surveys, the project site shall be resurveyed. Surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted in accordance with protocols established in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game [now California Department of Fish and Wildlife; CDFW]) in 2012 or current version.

If burrowing owls are detected, and if impacts to burrowing owl cannot be feasibly avoided, the project applicant will consult with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and obtain appropriate take authorization from the CDFW through the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Incidental Take Permit process.

In the event an Incidental Take Permit is needed, mitigation for direct impacts to burrowing owl shall be fulfilled through compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project, or as otherwise determined through the Incidental Take Permit process. Mitigation shall be accomplished either through off-site conservation or through a CDFW-approved mitigation bank. If mitigation is not purchased through a mitigation bank, and lands are conserved separately, a cost estimate shall be prepared to estimate the initial start-up costs and ongoing annual costs of management activities for the management of the conservation easement area(s) in perpetuity. The funding source shall be in the form of an endowment to help the qualified natural lands management entity that is ultimately selected to hold the conservation easement(s). The endowment amount shall be established following the completion of a Project-specific Property Analysis Record to calculate the costs of inperpetuity land management. The Property Analysis Record shall take into account all management activities required in the Incidental Take Permit to fulfill the requirements of the conservation easement(s), which are currently in review and development.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 36
OCTOBER 2025

8.2 Compensatory Habitat Mitigation
Permanent impacts to occupied desert tortoise habitat would be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio in accordance with MM-BIO-4 (Desert Tortoise Habitat Compensatory Mitigation), which will provide compensatory mitigation to help contribute to land acquisitions that ensure landscape-level conservation and habitat connectivity and reduce the potential for fragmentation, as well as assisting in recovery efforts (USFWS 2011). Mitigation for direct impacts to burrowing owl shall be fulfilled through compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project, as further detailed in MMBIO-5. Mitigation measure MM-BIO-4 and MM-BIO-5 are provided below.

MM-BIO-4 Desert Tortoise Habitat Compensatory Mitigation. The Project applicant shall implement habitat mitigation for 142.1 acres of permanent impacts to occupied desert tortoise habitat.

Permanent impacts to occupied desert habitat shall be compensated at a minimum 1:1 ratio either through one or a combination of the following:

1. Purchase of off-site habitat mitigation lands that contain suitable habitat for desert tortoise (the offsite habitat mitigation lands would be conserved through a conservation easement, include the preparation of a long-term Preserve Management Plan, managed in perpetuity by a suitable management entity, and funded by a non-wasting endowment informed by a PAR analysis [or similar estimator]).

2. Purchase of mitigation credits at a mitigation bank for desert tortoise.

The applicant shall submit a document outlining the permanent impacts to desert tortoise habitat, along with a compensatory mitigation plan, to the USFWS and CDFW for review and approval.

The Project applicant shall also be required to obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under Section 2081 of California Fish and Game Code and from the USFWS under Section 7 and/or Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act or under the USFWS General Conservation Plan once approved. The ITP process shall be coordinated with the CDFW and USFWS regional offices. The ITP shall include an analysis of whether Project impacts would jeopardize the continued existence of the species, provide suitable avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential impacts, and adequate mitigation through conservation or mitigation banking. Unavoidable impacts to occupied suitable habitat shall be compensated at a minimum of 1:1, as described above, in addition to implementing all other measures and conditions of the ITPs
MM-BIO-5 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Surveys and Avoidance. One pre‐construction burrowing owl survey shall be completed no more than 14 days before initiation of site preparation or grading activities and a second survey shall be completed within 24 hours of the start of site preparation or grading activities. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction surveys, the project site shall be resurveyed. Surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted in accordance with protocols established in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game [now California Department of Fish and Wildlife; CDFW]) in 2012 or current version.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 37
OCTOBER 2025
If burrowing owls are detected, and if impacts to burrowing owl cannot be feasibly avoided, the project applicant will consult with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and obtain appropriate take authorization from the CDFW through the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Incidental Take Permit process.

In the event an Incidental Take Permit is needed, mitigation for direct impacts to burrowing owl shall be fulfilled through compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project, or as otherwise determined through the Incidental Take Permit process. Mitigation shall be accomplished either through off-site conservation or through a CDFW-approved mitigation bank. If mitigation is not purchased through a mitigation bank, and lands are conserved separately, a cost estimate shall be prepared to estimate the initial start-up costs and ongoing annual costs of management activities for the management of the conservation easement area(s) in perpetuity. The funding source shall be in the form of an endowment to help the qualified natural lands management entity that is ultimately selected to hold the conservation easement(s). The endowment amount shall be established following the completion of a Project-specific Property Analysis Record to calculate the costs of inperpetuity land management. The Property Analysis Record shall take into account all management activities required in the Incidental Take Permit to fulfill the requirements of the conservation easement(s), which are currently in review and development.

If off-site habitat mitigation lands are selected for either species, which is the preferred mitigation strategy, the Project applicant will provide funding or bonding for the acquisition and conservation of compensation lands and/or the purchase of approved conservation bank credits to fulfill the required compensatory mitigation obligation.

Conservation instruments, associated documentation, and/or securities will be submitted to the applicable agencies for review and approval, prior to or within 18 months of initiating ground disturbance, pursuant to the requirements of permits and authorizations issued by lead, responsible, and permitting agencies. 9 Plan to Monitor Compliance
Compliance with the minimization measures described under Section 8 will be monitored by CDFW-approved biologists present on site during construction. Biologists approved by CDFW to conduct on-site monitoring will have demonstrated their experience with desert tortoise and burrowing owl biology and identification and will therefore be able to effectively monitor construction activities for potential take of individuals. If habitat acquisition and preservation is used to fulfill the compensatory habitat mitigation obligation, a preserve management plan will be prepared for any preserves established that will describe both management and monitoring activities and reporting requirements. The Project will prepare annual reports documenting compliance with all mitigation measures and requirements set forth in the preserve management plan and would be subject to reporting in compliance with the preserve management plan.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 38
OCTOBER 2025
10 A Description of the Funding Source and the Level
of Funding Available for Implementation of the
Minimization and Mitigation Measures
E-Group PS, LLC, as the Project applicant, is required to ensure that all mitigation, minimization, and avoidance measures identified in this Section 2081 Permit Application (Section 8) are fully funded. If habitat acquisition and preservation is used to fulfill the compensatory habitat mitigation obligation, funding for lands acquired and preserved off site will be estimated through preparation of a Property Analysis Record (PAR), or PAR-Equivalent Analysis, which is an itemized cost estimate of the initial and capital period costs and annual ongoing costs. 11 Certification Language
I certify that the information submitted in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that any false statement herein may subject the applicant to suspension of revocation of this permit and to civil and criminal penalties under the laws of the State of California. 12 Compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act
CDFW will act as lead agency for purposes of issuing this ITP. Under regulations, in addition to the information required by the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1, Subdivision 3, Chapter 6, Article 1, Section 783.2, the Applicant shall provide sufficient information to enable CDFW to determine whether the Project or activity for which a permit is sought, as proposed, may result in significant adverse environmental effects in addition to the impacts of taking analyzed pursuant to Section 783.2, and, if so, whether feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures would avoid or substantially lessen any such significant adverse effects. In compliance with this requirement, an environmental impact report is currently being prepared for the Project.

We look forward to future discussions and continuing to work with CDFW in the review and processing of this ITP application. Please contact me at [email protected] if you have any questions or require additional information.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 39
OCTOBER 2025
13 References
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. California Natural Resources Agency, CDFG. March 7, 2012. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=83843&inline.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023a. RareFind 5, Version 5.3.0. California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, California: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed December 2023. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/
Maps-and-Data.

CDFW. 2023b. “California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Life History and Range.” https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/ CWHR/Life-History-and-Range.

CaliforniaHerps. 2022. “Mohave Desert Tortoise – Gopherus agassizii.” Accessed April 2022. http://www.californiaherps.com/turtles/pages/g.agassizii.html.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2023. “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants” (online edition, v-9.5).

Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. Accessed December 2023. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/.

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

Dibblee, T.W. 1968. Geologic map of the Twentynine Palms quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California [map]. 1:62,500. U.S. Geological Survey I-561 Dudek. 2025. Hydrology and Hydraulic Technical Study for the Twentynine Palms Solar Project. January 2025.

Prepared by Dudek.

Gervais, J.A., D.K. Rosenberg, and L.A. Comrack. 2008. “Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia).” In California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California, edited by W.D. Shuford and T. Gardali, 218–226.

Studies of Western Birds no. 1. California: Western Field Ornithologists (Camarillo), and California Department of Fish and Game (Sacramento). February 4, 2008. Accessed December 11, 2012. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ssc/birds.html.

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

Haug, E.A., B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. “The Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia).” In The Birds of North America, edited by A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 40
OCTOBER 2025
iNaturalist. 2024. Crotch’s Bumble Bee. Accessed June 2024. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/271451-Bombuscrotchii Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green W.H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Shaffer, S.R. Sheffield, and T.S. Zimmerman. 2003.

Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003. Washington, District of Columbia: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Lantz, S. J., H. Smith, and D.A. Keinath. 2004. Species Assessment for Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) in Wyoming. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. September 2004.

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

Penrod, K., P. Beier, E. Garding, and C. Cabañero. 2012. A Linkage Network for the California Deserts. Produced for the Bureau of Land Management and The Wildlands Conservancy. Produced by Science and Collaboration for Connected Wildlands, Fair Oaks, CA www.scwildlands.org and Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona http://oak.ucc.nau.edu/pb1/. Available online at http://www.scwildlands.org Rosenberg, D.K., and K.L. Haley. 2004. “The Ecology of Burrowing Owls in the Agroecosystem of the Imperial Valley, California.” Studies in Avian Biology 27: 120–135.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Online ed.

Environmental Laboratory, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi:

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. January 1987. https://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Portals/38/docs/USACE%2087%20Wetland%20Delineation%20Manual. pdf.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2023. “Web Soil Survey.” USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed November 2023. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. “Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California and Nevada Region, Sacramento, California.

USFWS. 2009. Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Field Manual (Gopherus agassizii). December 2009.

USFWS. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).

Sacramento, California: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 222 pp.

USFWS. 2016. Biological Opinion on the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment Under the Desert Renewable Energy Plan. FWS-KRN/SBD/INY/LA/IMP/RIV-16B0138-16F0200. August 16.

USFWS. 2022. Desert Tortoise. FWS Focus. https://www.fws.gov/species/desert-tortoise-gopherus-agassizii USFWS. 2025. Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC). https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/

1600384323.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE,

E-GROUP PS SOLAR PROJECT
14392 41
OCTOBER 2025
WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2024. “Twentynine Palms, California: Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary.” Accessed April 2024. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca9099 Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California’s Wildlife. Vol. II. Birds.

Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game.

1600384323.6
Attachment 2
Figures

Project Location
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California SOURCE: NEXT Engineering Group, 2024; County of San Bernardino; Open Street Map; Bing Maps Date: 5/13/2025 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BIO\ITP\Figure1-ProjectLocation.mxd 01 500 ,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Permit Area
Gen-Tie Alignment
Avoidance
Bridge
FIGURE 1
Loma
Linda Yucaipa
Yucca Valley
Twentynine
Palms
Big Bear Lake
Victorville
Barstow Needles
Apple Valley
Inyo County
Kern
County
Riverside
County
Imperial County
Nevada
Arizona
395
66 95
243
18 74
91 39 206 330
178
173
86 177
76 60
78 79
58 2
38 247
14 111
190
138
127
5 15
605
215 10
15 210
40 405
Project Site
Carodean
Substation
Gen-Tie Alignment
Access Road/Gen-Tie Alignment

061220129
061219109
061220122
061220125
061218101
061218106
061220120
061220115
061220112
061220109
061214127
061220110
061101105
061104112
061220128
061220105 061220101
061219108
061218105
061101109
061101108
061101107
061101106
061104116
061104115
061104114
061104113
061324102 061432128 061429121
061429134
061429109
061429133
061428112
061428111

GRAPHIC SCALE
Site Plan
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California FIGURE 2 SOURCE: E-Group PS LLC, 2024
Z:\Projects\j1439201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BIO\BTR

Sunrise Rd
Two Mile Rd
Timothy Ave
Easy St
Noels Knoll Rd
Carodean Rd
Fuschia Rd
Samarkand Dr
Grande Ave
Permit Area
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California SOURCE: NEXT Engineering Group, 2024; County of San Bernardino; Open Street Map; ESRI World Imagery Date: 10/24/2025 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BIO\ITP\Figure3-PermitArea.mxd 01 500 ,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Permit Area
Construction Take (desert tortoise and burrowing owl)
Avoidance
Bridge
FIGURE 3
The Project site’s desert tortoise exclusion fencing
around the solar facilitys impact footprint perimeter
will remain in place for the duration of Project operations.

Therefore, potential take of desert tortoise within the solar facility during the 35-year Project operations
lifespan is not anticipated.

Carodean
Substation

Date: 7/15/2025 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BIO\ITP\Figure4A-Vegetation_DETO.mxd Two Mile Rd
Timothy Ave
Easy St
Noels Knoll Rd
Carodean Rd
Vegetation Communities, 2023 DETO Survey Results, and 2023-2024 Incidental Observations California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, SOURCE: County of San Bernardino; ESRI World Imagery
01 500 ,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Permit Area
Biological Study Area (BSA)
Avoidance
Bridge
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Ambrosia salsola - Larrea tridentata
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Ambrosia salsola
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Krameria (erecta, grayi) Psorothamnus spinosus
Disturbed Habitat
Urban/Developed
Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) Observations Live Individual
Sign
Bone fragment
Carcass
Burrow Class
1 - Currently active and occupied, with desert tortoise or recent sign 2 - Good condition, definitely desert tortoise, no evidence of recent use 3 - deteriorated condition which included collapsed burrows; definitely desert tortoise 4 - good condition; possible desert tortoise
5 - deteriorated condition which includes collapsed burrows; possible desert tortoise FIGURE 4A
Carodean
Substation
E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California Page 519 of 1008 Date: 7/15/2025 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BIO\ITP\Figure4B-Vegetation_LiveDETO.mxd 1 Live Individual
(12/8/2023)
2 Live Individuals
(12/8/2023)
1 Live Individual
(8/9/2023)
1 Live Individual
(3/26/2024)
1 Live Individual
(3/21/2024)
1 Live Individual
(3/26/2024) 1 Live Individual
(3/26/2024)
1 Live Individual
(3/26/2024)
1 Live Individual
(3/27/2024)
1 Live Individual
(3/27/2024)
1 Live Individual
(3/27/2024)
1 Live Individual
(3/29/2024)
1 Live Individual
(4/23/2024)
1 Live Individual
(5/21/2024)
1 Live Individual
(7/2/2024)
1 Live Individual
(7/2/2024)
1 Live Individual
(8/9/2023)
1 Live Individual
(8/9/2023)
Two Mile Rd
Timothy Ave
Easy St
Noels Knoll Rd
Carodean Rd
Vegetation Communities and 2023-2024 DETO Live Individuals California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, SOURCE: County of San Bernardino; ESRI World Imagery
01 500 ,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Permit Area
Biological Study Area (BSA)
Avoidance
Bridge
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Ambrosia salsola - Larrea tridentata
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Ambrosia salsola
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Krameria (erecta, grayi) Psorothamnus spinosus
Disturbed Habitat
Urban/Developed
2023 Protocol Survey Observations
Live Individual
2023-2024 Incidental Observations
Live Individual
FIGURE 4B
Carodean
Substation
E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California Page 520 of 1008 Date: 7/15/2025 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BIO\ITP\Figure4C-Vegetation_DETO_2025_Survey.mxd Two Mile Rd
Timothy Ave
Easy St
Noels Knoll Rd
Carodean Rd
Vegetation Communities and 2025 DETO Survey Results
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, SOURCE: County of San Bernardino; ESRI World Imagery
01 500 ,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Permit Area
Biological Study Area (BSA)
Avoidance
Bridge
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Ambrosia salsola - Larrea tridentata
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Ambrosia salsola
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Krameria (erecta, grayi) Psorothamnus spinosus
Disturbed Habitat
Urban/Developed
Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) Observations Live Individual
Pallet
Carcass
Burrow Class
1 - Currently active, with desert tortoise or recent desert tortoise sign 2 - Good condition, definitely desert tortoise; no evidence of recent use 3 - Deteriorated condition which includes collapsed burrows; definitely desert tortoise 4 - Good condition; possibly desert tortoise
FIGURE 4C
Carodean
Substation
E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California Page 521 of 1008 Date: 7/15/2025 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BIO\ITP\Figure4D-Vegetation_LiveDETO_2025_Survey.mxd 1 Live Individual
(5/72025)
Male
(5/9/2025)
1 Live Individual
(5/9/2025)
Two Mile Rd
Timothy Ave
Easy St
Noels Knoll Rd
Carodean Rd
Vegetation Communities and 2025 DETO Live Individuals
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, SOURCE: County of San Bernardino; ESRI World Imagery
01 500 ,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Permit Area
Biological Study Area (BSA)
Avoidance
Bridge
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Ambrosia salsola - Larrea tridentata
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Ambrosia salsola
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Krameria (erecta, grayi) Psorothamnus spinosus
Disturbed Habitat
Urban/Developed
Protocol Survey Observations
Live Individual
Occupied burrow with Male (5/7/2025)
FIGURE 4D
Carodean
Substation
E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California Page 522 of 1008 Date: 7/15/2025 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BIO\ITP\Figure5-Vegetation_BUOW.mxd Two Mile Rd
Timothy Ave
Easy St
Noels Knoll Rd
Carodean Rd
Vegetation Communities and 2024 Burrowing Owl Survey Results California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, SOURCE: County of San Bernardino; ESRI World Imagery
01 500 ,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Permit Area
Biological Study Area (BSA)
Avoidance
Bridge
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Ambrosia salsola - Larrea tridentata
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Ambrosia salsola
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Krameria (erecta, grayi) Psorothamnus spinosus
Disturbed Habitat
Urban/Developed
Focused Survey Area
Burrowing Owl Observations
Potentially Active Burrow, Pellet sign
Suitable Burrow
* No burrowing owl individuals were observed
FIGURE 5
Carodean
Substation
E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California Page 523 of 1008 Date: 6/12/2025 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BIO\ITP\Figure5A-Impacts_DETO.mxd Impacts to Vegetation Communities and 2025 DETO Survey Results California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, SOURCE: County of San Bernardino; Bing Maps
01 500 ,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Permit Area
Permanent Impacts
Access Road
Gen-Tie/Road Alignment
PV Installation Area
Substation
Gen-Tie Interconnection Pole Footprint
Temporary Impacts
Gen-Tie Trench Work Area
Gen-Tie Trench Installation
Avoidance
Bridge
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Ambrosia salsola - Larrea tridentata
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Ambrosia salsola
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Krameria (erecta, grayi) Psorothamnus spinosus
Disturbed Habitat
Urban/Developed
Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) Observations Live Individual
Pallet
Plastron
Shell Bone
Burrow Class
1 - Currently active, with desert tortoise
or recent desert tortoise sign
2 - Good condition, definitely desert tortoise;
no evidence of recent use
3 - Deteriorated condition which includes collapsed burrows; definitely desert tortoise
4 - Good condition; possibly desert tortoise
FIGURE 6A
Carodean
Substation
E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California Page 524 of 1008 Date: 6/12/2025 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BIO\ITP\Figure5B-Impacts_DETO.mxd Impacts to Vegetation Communities and 2025 DETO Live Individuals California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, SOURCE: County of San Bernardino; Bing Maps
01 500 ,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Permit Area
Permanent Impacts
Access Road
Gen-Tie/Road Alignment
PV Installation Area
Substation
Gen-Tie Interconnection Pole Footprint
Temporary Impacts
Gen-Tie Trench Work Area
Gen-Tie Trench Installation
Avoidance
Bridge
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Ambrosia salsola - Larrea tridentata
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Ambrosia salsola
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Krameria (erecta, grayi) Psorothamnus spinosus
Disturbed Habitat
Urban/Developed
Protocol Survey Observations
Live Individual
Occupied burrow with Male (5/7/2025)
FIGURE 6B
Carodean
Substation
E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California Page 525 of 1008 Date: 7/15/2025 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BIO\ITP\Figure7-Impacts_BUOW.mxd Two Mile Rd
Timothy Ave
Easy St
Noels Knoll Rd
Carodean Rd
Impacts to Vegetation Communities and 2024 Burrowing Owl Survey Results California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, SOURCE: County of San Bernardino; ESRI World Imagery
01 500 ,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Permit Area
Biological Study Area (BSA)
Permanent Impacts
Access Road
Gen-Tie/Road Alignment
PV Installation Area
Substation
Gen-Tie Interconnection Pole Footprint
Temporary Impacts
Gen-Tie Trench Work Area
Gen-Tie Trench Installation
Avoidance
Bridge
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Ambrosia salsola - Larrea tridentata
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Ambrosia salsola
Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa - Krameria (erecta, grayi) Psorothamnus spinosus
Disturbed Habitat
Urban/Developed
Burrowing Owl Observations
Potentially Active Burrow, Pellet sign
Suitable Burrow
FIGURE 7
Carodean
Substation
E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California Page 526 of 1008 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit Application Package, E-Group PS Solar Project, San Bernardino County, California SOURCE: CDFW BIOS; USGS National Map
Date: 7/14/2025 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1439201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BIO\ITP\Figure8-DETO_CoreLinkages.mxd 01 0.5 Miles
Project Boundary
Permit Area
Gen-Tie Alignment
Avoidance
Bridge
Desert Tortoise Habitat Connectivity Modeling
Core Linkages
Burrowing Owl Habitat Connectivity Modeling
Patch Linkage
FIGURE 8
247
10 Project Site

Exhibit 4
USFWS General Conservation Plan for Desert Tortoise

DRAFT

DRAFT GENERAL CONSERVATION PLAN

FOR THE DESERT TORTOISE IN CALIFORNIA
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this draft general conservation plan (Plan) intended for use as a means of issuing incidental take permits, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, for desert tortoises in California. This document is a product of numerous internal discussions and coordination with other agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management (Bureau) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department).

The Service would approve this Plan as a basis to issue incidental take permits under its regulations and guidance once it:

1. Receives and addresses public comments on the draft Plan and the draft environmental impact statement;

2. Completes an internal consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act to assess the effects of use of the Plan on the desert tortoise and its critical habitat and on any other listed species or critical habitat that it may affect.

3. Completes a record of decision for the National Environmental Policy Act process; and

4. Signs the Plan.

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 2

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Many of the terms used in the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, as amended by the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (Bureau of Land Management 2016) are relevant to this general conservation plan. Consequently, we have used numerous definitions from that land use plan amendment (Bureau 2016) and added others that are specifically pertinent to this document.

A
Acquired lands. Lands in federal ownership that are not public domain and that have been obtained by the government by purchase, exchange, donation, or condemnation. Acquired lands are normally dedicated to a specific use or uses.

Acquisition. The activity of obtaining land and/or interest in land through purchase, exchange, donation, or condemnation.

Activity. Development, operation, and maintenance conducted by project proponents with a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit issued under the auspices of this general conservation plan.

Adaptive management. A process for assimilating new information, including, but not limited to, from monitoring and research, and assessing if adjustments to the general conservation plan or individual incidental take permits are needed.

Applicant. A public or private entity, or an individual, that applies to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for an incidental take permit, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

Area of critical environmental concern. An area designated by the Bureau of Land Management (Bureau) within public lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.

C
California Desert Conservation Area. As designated by Congress in 1976 through the Federal Land and Policy Management Act and defined in section 601 of that act, the California Desert Conservation Area is a 25-million-acre expanse of land in southern California. The Bureau administers approximately 10 million acres of the California Desert Conservation Area under its California Desert Conservation Area Plan.

California Desert National Conservation Lands. The land use plan amendment for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan identified California Desert National Conservation Lands, in accordance with the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Omnibus Act), which are nationally significant landscapes within the California Desert Conservation Area with

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 3 outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values. The California Desert National Conservation Lands are a permanent addition to the National Landscape Conservation System, as per the direction to Bureau in the Omnibus Act.

Clearance survey. Clearance surveys are surveys conducted immediately prior to activities that can kill or injure desert tortoises. Qualified biologists conduct these surveys and translocate or move desert tortoises from harm’s way prior to disturbance, as per the minimization measures in the general conservation plan and individual incidental take permits issued under the auspices of the general conservation plan. Clearance surveys must be conducted in accordance with the Service’s most up-to-date survey protocol or as specified individual incidental take permits issued under the auspices of the general conservation plan.

Conservation easement. A partial interest in land that can be transferred to a qualified land conservancy or government entity. The purpose is to conserve or protect the land. Conservation easements typically restrict allowable uses of the land by prohibiting development and sometimes restricting or requiring particular management activities. A conservation easement is legally binding for a specified term, which may be in perpetuity.

Conservation lands. Administrative designations by the Bureau that include California Desert National Conservation Land, areas of critical environmental concern, and wildlife allocation designations on Bureau-administered land.

Critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as (1) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and which may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Through section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies must ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

D
Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. The Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan resulted from an interagency planning effort of the Bureau, Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California Energy Commission to address a biological conservation framework and renewable energy strategy for the California desert. The Bureau completed a land use plan amendment for the public lands portion of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan; the Service and Bureau completed formal consultation, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, on the land use plan amendment in 2016.

Desert tortoise conservation areas. Desert tortoise conservation areas are areas where the management goals of the landowner or manager are compatible with the recovery of the desert tortoise. The recovery plan for the desert tortoise (2011, Box 2) generally describes conservation lands as desert tortoise habitat within critical habitat, areas of critical environmental concern,

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 4 national monuments, national wildlife refuges, National Park Service lands, and other conservation areas or easements managed for desert tortoises.

F
Federal lands. Land or interest in land owned and/or administered by the United States.

Activities on federal lands in the general conservation plan area are administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau, National Park Service, and Bureau of Reclamation.

The Department of Defense administers other federal lands in the planning area.

H
Harass. Harass is a form of “take,” as defined in section 3(19) of the Endangered Species Act.

Regulations at 50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.3 further define “harass” as “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”
Harm. Harm is a form of “take,” as defined in section 3(19) of the Endangered Species Act.

Regulations at 50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.3 further define “harm” as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding or sheltering.” I
Incidental take. “Incidental take” or “incidental taking” means any taking otherwise prohibited, if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity (see 50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.3).

L
Land use plan amendment. The land use plan amendment is a set of decisions that establishes management direction for Bureau-administered land within an administrative area through amendment to existing land use plans.

M
Maximum extent practicable. Section 10(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Endangered Species Act requires that a project proponent minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking “to the maximum extent practicable.” To meet this statutory standard, the project proponent must propose minimization and mitigation measures that are commensurate with the impacts of the taking or, if the measures will not completely offset the impacts of the taking, demonstrate that minimization and mitigation measures proposed in the conservation plan represent the most the project proponent can practicably accomplish (Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2016, page 9-28).

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 5 Mitigation area. Mitigation area refers to areas within the planning area where mitigation resulting from issuance of incidental take permits under the auspices of the general conservation plan to project proponents would occur; these areas would also serve as recipient sites for desert tortoises that are translocated from development sites.

Moved from harm’s way. For the purposes of this general conservation plan, “moved from harm’s way” means the movement of desert tortoises by biologists authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Service from an activity footprint to adjacent habitat to protect them during the conduct of the activity. In general, moving a desert tortoise from harm’s way is an appropriate tool when the disturbance in the activity footprint is temporary or insignificant enough to allow for desert tortoises to re-occupy the site at the conclusion of the activity. Moving a desert tortoise from harm’s way involves short distances, which means the desert tortoise would likely remain within its home range.

N
National Landscape Conservation System. In accordance with and as defined by Public Law 111-11 in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, sections 2002(a),(b)(1)(A–F), and (b)(2)(D), the National Landscape Conservation System is a Bureau land use designation to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values for the benefit of current and future generations. Areas specially designated as part of the National Landscape Conservation System in Public Law 111-11 are wilderness, wilderness study areas, national monuments, national scenic trails, national historic trails, and national and wild and scenic rivers. Public Law 111-11 also directed the Bureau to designate public land within the California Desert Conservation Area administered for conservation purposes as part of the National Landscape Conservation System. These lands are the California Desert National Conservation Lands and are an addition to the other components of the National Landscape Conservation System.

Non-federal lands. Land owned by state agencies, local jurisdictions (e.g., cities or counties), non-governmental organizations, or private citizens, or otherwise not under federal ownership or management.

P
Permit area. The permit area refers to areas within the planning area where project proponents could use the general conservation plan to apply for incidental take permits for the desert tortoise under the auspices of the general conservation plan.

Permittee. A public or private entity, or an individual, to whom the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued an incidental take permit, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

Planning area. The planning area includes the entire area covered by this general conservation plan. The permit area and the mitigation area comprise the planning area.

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 6 Pre-project surveys. Pre-project surveys are surveys conducted prior to a project or an activity to determine whether desert tortoises are likely to be present. Such surveys will assist a project proponent in determining whether an application for an incidental take permit is advisable. They may consist of the standard protocol surveys developed by the Service or other methods of detecting desert tortoises developed in cooperation with the Service for specific circumstances.

Proponent or project proponent. For the purposes of this general conservation plan, “proponent” or “project proponent” refers to either an applicant for an incidental take permit or a permittee who has received an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The precise meaning is dependent on the context of proponent or project proponent in the document.

Protocol survey. The Service has developed a standard protocol survey for desert tortoises that recommends the timing and methodology for such surveys and contains a model that estimates the likely number of desert tortoises present, based on the results of the field work and monitoring of transmittered desert tortoises.

Public domain. Vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved public lands, or public lands withdrawn by Executive Order 6910 of November 26, 1934, as amended, or Executive Order 6964 of February 5, 1935, as amended, and not otherwise withdrawn or reserved, or public lands within grazing districts established under section 1 of the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended, and not otherwise withdrawn or reserved.

Public land. Land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the U.S.

Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau, without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, but not including (1) lands on the outer continental shelf and (2) lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aluets, and Eskimos.

T
Take. Section 3(19) of the Endangered Species Act defines “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 USC 1532(3)(19)). Take of endangered animals is prohibited by section 9 of the Endangered Species Act; the Service extended the take prohibitions of section 9 to the desert tortoise, a threatened species, through federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act.

Translocation. For the purposes of this general conservation plan, “translocation” means the movement of desert tortoises by biologists authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Service from an activity footprint to a recipient site. In general, translocation is an appropriate tool when the activity footprint would no longer be suitable for occupation by desert tortoises because of the activity; the recipient site would generally be at some distance from the activity and likely outside the home range of the translocated desert tortoise.

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 7 W
Wildlife allocation. A Bureau conservation designation on Bureau-administered lands where management emphasizes wildlife values, but the area does not contain the same sensitive values or management limitations as an area of critical environmental concern.

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 8

COVER SHEET
TITLE: General Conservation Plan for Issuance of Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits for the Desert Tortoise in California
SPECIES: Mojave distinct population segment of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) PLANNING AREA: Figure 1 depicts the planning area. The planning area generally encompasses most of the range of the desert tortoise in California. Incidental take permits deriving from the general conservation plan (Plan) would be available on non-federal lands outside of desert tortoise conservation areas as described in the recovery plan for the desert tortoise (Service 2011). Additionally, the Plan also covers activities along existing rights-of-way through federal lands in the California desert where the federal agency no longer has discretionary authority. Mitigation associated with implementation of the Plan would occur within desert tortoise conservation areas, where they overlap with Bureau of Land Management conservation lands (California Desert National Conservation Lands and areas of critical environmental concern) as identified in the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, as amended by the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (see Figure 2 in Bureau 2016), National Park Service lands, or on non-federal lands that are being managed for conservation (Figure 3). The Plan does not include lands within military bases or the area covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Any regional or local habitat conservation plan can supersede this Plan upon issuance by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) of a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit for that specific area.

COORDINATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: We will discuss compliance with the California Endangered Species Act later in this Plan. However, regardless of how project proponents comply with the California Endangered Species Act, close coordination between the Service and Department will be a key component of maximizing the efficiency of this Plan and conservation of the desert tortoise. In almost every situation where a project proponent is seeking a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, they would need to comply with the California Endangered Species Act. We envision that, at every step in the process of applying for a federal incidental take permit, the project proponent would engage the Department at the same time. We did not insert this important concept throughout this document, but the Service fully intends to work with the Department closely on every project where the project proponent is seeking incidental take permits from both agencies.

COVERED ACTIVITIES: The Plan covers otherwise lawful commercial, agricultural, residential, industrial, and infrastructure development. It will also cover operations and maintenance of these activities.

AMOUNT OF INCIDENTAL TAKING: Resource agencies do not conduct systematic surveys to estimate the number of desert tortoises that reside outside of conservation areas.

Given the results of numerous surveys for specific projects, we conclude that desert tortoises are not abundant on non-federal lands where the Plan would permit covered activities. To ensure that

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 9 we have not underestimated the abundance of desert tortoises on these lands, the Service will establish a threshold system as part of its review process (Section 4). Incidental take is likely to occur in the form of killing, wounding, harming, and capturing desert tortoises during the conduct of covered activities.

FUNDING PLAN: Project proponents must commit to funding full implementation of the measures listed in their project-specific application, which would be based on the minimization, mitigation, and monitoring programs described more generally in this Plan. Project proponents will minimize and mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, for all incidental take of desert tortoises that occurs under the authority of this Plan (Section 6). Project proponents will provide funding assurances with their individual project package application.

MONITORING PLAN: Each project proponent will provide an annual report on March 31 each year that its incidental take permit is in effect or until the Service agrees that an annual report is no longer needed.

DURATION OF PERMITS ISSUED UNDER THE PLAN: The duration of permits issued under the Plan will vary according to the nature of the specific proposed action for which a project proponent requests an incidental take permit.

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 10 Section 1.

Introduction
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the taking of any federally listed endangered or threatened fish or wildlife species. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act allows non-federal entities to apply for incidental take permits to take listed fish or wildlife species in the course of otherwise legal activities.

The Service (2007) developed the concept of general conservation plans to streamline the habitat conservation planning process. This process streamlines the application for a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit by allowing the Service to develop a single general conservation plan for a local area. The Service then completes all documents required by the Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Non-federal entities may apply for an incidental take permit, provided they commit to complying with the monitoring, minimization, and mitigation measures in the general conservation plan.

The Service developed this Plan to provide a streamlined mechanism for project proponents engaged in covered activities to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Act, while promoting conservation of the federally threatened desert tortoise. Covered activities include commercial, agricultural, residential, industrial, and infrastructure development.

This Plan is a conservation plan as required in section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act for issuance of an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B). Participation in the Plan and applying for authorization to take desert tortoises are voluntary. To obtain an incidental take permit for the desert tortoise through this streamlined process, project proponents must:
• Meet the issuance criteria found at 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 13 and 17;
• Document that their projects meet various qualifying criteria (described below); • Agree to implement the minimization, mitigation, and monitoring generally described in this document and described in detail in the project-specific application and comply with the terms and conditions of any incidental take permit issued under this Plan; and • Provide documentation that they have met all incidental take permitting requirements for their project as described in this document.

Once approved, the Plan will provide a basis for project proponents to obtain individual incidental take permits for covered activities in a streamlined manner. To use the Plan, project proponents must submit an individual project application package for the Service’s approval.

Section 6 of this Plan describes the process for submission and approval of an individual project package.

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 11 The Service recognizes that covered activities may result in take of the desert tortoise.

Equipment and vehicles may crush or strike them; habitat degradation or loss could impair their breeding, feeding, or sheltering to the extent that they are reasonably certain to die; and the entities implementing a project may capture them (with authorization from the Service) for translocation or move them from harm’s way. Section 4 discusses the potential impacts on the desert tortoise of the issuance of incidental take permits under this Plan. This Plan also describes actions that can serve to minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking to the maximum extent practicable.

We developed this document to meet the Service’s statutory and regulatory requirements.

Despite the best efforts of responsible agencies and project proponents, some projects may have the potential to take desert tortoises in a manner that we did not foresee during the development of this Plan or affect federal candidate, proposed, or listed species not covered by the Plan. If covered activities may result in take of non-covered federally listed species, the Service would recommend that project proponents apply for an incidental take permit for the non-covered species.

The Service may suspend or revoke an incidental take permit for noncompliance with its conditions or with any applicable laws or regulations governing the conduct of the permitted activity (50 CFR 13.27, 13.28). Revocation can further disqualify a project proponent from receiving or exercising the privileges of a similar permit for a period of 5 years from the date of the agency decision on the revocation (50 CFR 13.21(c)(2)).

Planning Area
The defined planning area includes a large portion of the range of the desert tortoise in California (Figure 1) and is the entire area covered by this Plan.

Because of the large sizes of the proposed planning, permit, and mitigation areas, the maps in this document are unlikely to precisely match on-the-ground boundaries. During application of the Plan, if the Service adopts it, the Service will abide by and rely on the spirit and intent of the Plan. Specifically, we intend the Plan to be available to facilitate the issuance of incidental take permits for the desert tortoise for activities on non-federal land that are outside of desert tortoise conservation areas; the Plan would also be available for activities along existing non-federal rights-of-way that traverse federal lands, provided that the activities are within the original purpose of the right-of-way. Mitigation required for the issuance of an incidental take permit would occur within a mitigation area, as defined in the Plan.

The two components of the planning area consist of the permit area and the mitigation area.

Project proponents could use the Plan to apply for incidental take permits within the permit area.

The permit area generally encompasses non-federal lands outside of desert tortoise conservation areas (Figure 2). It also includes existing rights-of-way in the planning area where the federal agency no longer has discretionary authority; consequently, interagency consultation, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, does not apply in these areas. The Plan would

Figure 1. Planning area.

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 12

Figure 2. Potential permit area. The permit area depicted on this map may change because of public input and further analysis.

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 13

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 14 apply to such rights-of-way that cross federal lands, whether they are within or outside of mitigation areas. Within conservation areas, the Plan would be available only for projects that are intended to improve the safety and functionality of the existing right-of-way; the Service will not consider its use appropriate if the proposed action changes the basic function of the existing right-of-way. For example, the holder of such a right-of-way could apply for an incidental take permit under the Plan for the excavation of sand and gravel from the right-of-way to repair its utility in the right-of-way. However, we would not consider use of the Plan if the purpose was to sell the sand and gravel off site.

Mitigation resulting from issuance of incidental take permits under the auspices of the Plan to project proponents would occur within the defined mitigation area; we also propose to translocate desert tortoises into this area from development sites, as appropriate. The mitigation area generally includes “desert tortoise conservation areas” as described in the recovery plan for the desert tortoise (2011, Box 2). Conservation areas include conservation lands managed by the Bureau (California Desert National Conservation Lands and areas of critical environmental concern) as identified in the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, as amended by the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (Bureau 2016), National Park Service lands, and other conservation areas or easements managed for desert tortoises. The Plan would not be available to proponents of projects within the mitigation area, even if the proposed project is on non-federal land.

Figure 3 depicts desert tortoise conservation areas as described in the previous paragraph that overlay areas with a habitat potential of 0.5 or above for desert tortoises, as described by Nussear et al. (2009).

The Plan does not include the area covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Also, the potential exists that the Service may issue incidental take permits for regional or local areas in the future. The Service and stakeholders can decide during those planning processes whether project proponents for incidental take permits in those areas can rely on this Plan or if the new habitat conservation plan would supersede this Plan.

The planning area includes undeveloped land, active and fallow agricultural lands, and rural and urban development. The undeveloped land encompasses various types of desert scrub habitat; human activities have disturbed some areas of scrub habitat. Desert tortoises occur primarily within undeveloped land but occasionally use fallow agricultural lands.

Duration of Incidental Take Permits Issued under the Plan The duration of permits issued under the Plan will vary according to the nature of the specific proposed action for which a project proponent requests an incidental take permit. For example, if the proposed action would involve the incidental take of desert tortoises and the project proponent can fully implement the mitigation and monitoring over a brief time, the duration of that incidental take permit would be relatively short. For projects where incidental take and the implementation of mitigation are likely to require a long time, the incidental take permit for that project could extend for decades.

Figure 3. Potential mitigation area. The mitigation area depicted on this map is likely to change as a result of public input and further analysis.

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 15

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 16 Regulatory Context
Permits issued under this Plan cover only take incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity (50 CFR 17.3). Project proponents seeking an incidental take permit under this Plan must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations to ensure that the action is otherwise lawful.

Regulatory Framework
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Service’s responsibilities include administering the Act. Section 9 of the Act and federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the taking of any federally listed endangered or threatened fish or wildlife species. Take is defined in Section 3(19) of the Act as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 USC 1532(3)(19)). Regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 further define harm as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding or sheltering.” The Act provides for civil and criminal penalties for the unlawful taking of listed species.

Exemptions to the prohibitions against take are available through coordination with the Service in two ways. If a Federal agency has discretion with regard to funding, authorizing, or carrying out an action that may affect a listed species, the Federal agency must consult with the Service pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act, and, if an incidental take statement is provided, receive a take exemption through section 7(o)(2) of the Act. Any applicant would also receive the take exemption. Private individuals, State and local agencies, or other entities who propose an action that is reasonably certain to result in the take of federally listed fish or wildlife species, and for which no Federal nexus exists, may comply with the Act by applying for, and receiving, an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. A conservation plan must accompany the application for an incidental take permit.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Pursuant to 50 CFR 402.2, “Jeopardize the continued existence of…” means “to engage in an action that would reasonably be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.” Destruction or adverse modification means “a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a listed species.” Issuance of an incidental take permit by the Service, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B), constitutes a Federal action that is subject to the requirements of section 7(a)(2) and the Service must prepare an internal consultation to address the effects of the permit issuance.

Draft General Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in California 17 Incidental Take Permit Process
The conservation planning process has four primary phases: (1) pre-application; (2) development of a conservation plan; (3) processing of the permit; and (4) post-issuance compliance. First, the Service provides the potential project proponent guidance in deciding if an incidental take permit is appropriate and, if so, what type and scale of conservation plan would fit the proponent’s needs. During the second phase, the project proponent prepares a plan that integrates the proposed project or action with conservation of listed species. Pursuant to section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act, every conservation plan submitted in support of an application for an incidental take permit must specify:

1. The impact that will likely result from such taking;

2. What steps the project proponent will take to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts, the funding that will be available to implement such steps, and the procedures to be used to deal with unforeseen circumstances;

3. What alternative actions to such taking the project proponent considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not proposed to be utilized; and

4. Such other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan.

Development of a conservation plan concludes and the permit processing phase begins when the project proponent submits a complete application package to the appropriate permit-issuing office. A complete application package consists of a conservation plan, a permit application, and payment of a $100 fee by the project proponent. The Service will publish a notice of availability of the package in the Federal Register to allow for public comment and issue its incidental take permit when it determines that all the statutory requirements have been met. Pursuant to section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the criteria for issuance of the permit are:

1. the taking will be incidental;

2. the project proponent will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking;

3. the project proponent will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided;

4. the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and

5. the project proponent will meet measures, if any, required by the Service as necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan.

The Service must also determine that it has received any other assurances that it may require that the project proponent will implement the plan. The permit will contain such terms and conditions as the Service deems necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of the issuance criteria, including, but not limited to, reporting requirements necessary to determine whether the project proponent is complying with the terms and conditions of the incidental take permit. The Service will prepare a set of findings that evaluates the application for the section 10(a)(1)(B) in the context of these issuance criteria.