Appendix_B_-_Edwards_AFB_EUL_2008_EBS.pdf

Edwards AFB Request for Qualifications No. AFCEC-17-R-0002

United States Department of the Air Force

Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC)

Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC)

Enhanced Use Leasing Project Edwards Air Force Base, CA

Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Appendix B 2008 Environmental Baseline Survey

No. AFCEC-17-R-0002

PROPOSALS ARE DUE NO LATER THAN

5:00 P.M. CT on March 15, 2017 in accordance with Section 4.3, Submission of Response

CH2-AFC-SRPT-07318-0001B

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE SURVEY FOR REAL ESTATE ENHANCED USE

LEASE TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT,

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

March 2008

95th Air Base Wing Environmental Management Directorate

Edwards Air Force Base, California

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202- 4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

03-25-2008

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) October 2007 through March 2008 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER F42650-01-C-7218 5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Environmental Baseline Survey for Real Estate Enhanced Use Lease to Construct and Maintain a Solar Energy Development, Edwards Air Force Base, California

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Vaughn, Stephanie L., Project Manager, JT3/CH2M HILL

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT

NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

JT3/CH2M HILL

190 South Wolfe, Building 1260 Edwards AFB, California 93524

CH2-AFC-SRPT-07318-0001B

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT

NUMBER(S)

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

95 ABW/EM AFFTC/XPX

5 East Popson Avenue, Building 2650A 5 North Sellers, Building 3000 Edwards AFB, California 93524 Edwards AFB, California 93524

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Control No. 07-0904EBS CA: Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, California

14. ABSTRACT

This report presents the results of the Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) for the construction and maintenance of a solar energy development to document existing environmental conditions of the property, categorize the property according to EBS guidance, and provide a means for disclosing information of environmental concern. This EBS was requested by the 95th Air Base Wing, Environmental Management Directorate at Edwards AFB, California, and was conducted by JT3/CH2M HILL, from October 2007 through March 2008.

The Enhanced Use Lease identifies an underutilized asset of 3,288 acres of land in the northwest corner of the base, approximately ½ miles east of the western boundary. The parcel may be leased as a whole or in phases in order for the Air Force to capitalize the profit made from this transaction. During the lease period, the lessee would be required to operate and maintain all improvements in good condition and must have the lease modified for future construction and improvements.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Environmental Baseline Survey EBS Enhanced Use Lease Solar Energy

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON Robert Wood

a. REPORT

UNCLASSIFIED

b. ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code) 661-277-1407

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Baseline Survey for Real Estate Enhanced Use Lease to Construct and Maintain a Solar Energy Development, Air Force Form 813, Control No. 07-0904EBS

Contract F42650-01-C-7218

Letter of Technical Direction

1B022000-0001-FY08

Prepared by:

JT3/CH2M HILL

FLIGHT TEST SUPPORT CENTER

The views, opinions, and findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), position, policy or decision, unless so designated by other documentation.

For:

95th Air Base Wing

March 2008 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2 Project Description

1.3 Location of the Survey Area

1.4 Document Organization

2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

2.1 Approach and Rationale

2.2 Description of Documents Reviewed

2.3 Property Inspections

2.4 Personal Interviews

2.5 Sampling

2.6 Aerial Photograph Review

2.7 Property Categorization

2.8 Adjacent Property Assessment

3.0 FINDINGS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

3.1 History and Current Use

3.2 Geology and Soils

3.3 Hazardous Substances

3.4 Environmental Restoration Program Contamination

3.5 Pesticides/Herbicides

3.6 Ordnance

3.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyl

3.8 Wetlands

3.9 Groundwater Monitoring Well

3.10 Cultural Resources

3.11 Natural Resources

4.0 FINDINGS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY

4.1 Land Use and Surveyed Properties

4.2 Findings

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Property Categorization

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.0 CERTIFICATION

7.1 Certification of the Environmental Baseline Survey

APPENDIX A REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B VISUAL SITE INSPECTIONS AND RESEARCH SUMMARY................B-1

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL March 2008 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)

Section Title Page No.

APPENDIX C NATURAL RESOURCES RESEARCH DATA .......................................... C-1

APPENDIX D UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA

DISTRICT, MUNITIONS AND EXPLOSIVES OF CONCERN

SURVEY REPORT......................................................................................... D-1

March 2008 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page No.

1 Approximate Location of Proposed Solar Power Plant 2 Proposed Solar Power Plant and BLM Property with United States Geological

Survey Well Locations 3 Proposed Solar Power Plant with Rocket Range Area 4 Range Categorization Map

APPENDIX B

B-1 Proposed Solar Power Plant and BLM Property with United States Geological Survey Well Locations ................................................................................. B-4

B-2 Proposed Solar Power Plant with Rocket Range Area ................................................... B-7

APPENDIX C

C-1 Natural Resources Data Map .......................................................................................... C-4 C-2 Natural Resources Habitat Quality Area Plots Map ....................................................... C-7

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX B

Photo Title Page No.

B-1 View of the Proposed Power Plant Site Looking West .................................................. B-5 B-2 View of the Proposed Power Plant Site Looking East.................................................... B-5 B-3 View from Center of Square Firing Point....................................................................... B-8 B-4 View from Middle of West Edge of Square Firing Point ............................................... B-8

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page No.

1 Natural Resources Recorded During Visual Site Inspection 2 Summary of Environmental and Property Disclosure Factors of the

Proposed Solar Power Plant, Edwards AFB

APPENDIX C

C-1 Other Potential Sensitive Natural Resources .................................................................. C-5

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL March 2008 vi

March 2008 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AFB Air Force Base

AFFTC Air Force Flight Test Center

AFI Air Force Instruction

AFRPA Air Force Real Property Agency

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNPS California National Plant Society

CWM chemical warfare material

DOD Department of Defense

EBS Environmental Baseline Survey

EDR Environmental Data Resources

ERP Environmental Restoration Program

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

Eos element of occurrences

EUL enhanced use lease

GIS Geographic Information System

JA Judge Advocate

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

MEC munitions and explosives of concern

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OEW ordnance and explosive waste

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL March 2008 viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Concluded)

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PL Public Law ppm parts per million

SC species of concern

SCE Southern California Edison

SOP standard operating procedure

USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USAF United States Air Force

U.S.C. United States Code

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United State Geological Survey

VSI visual site inspection

§ Section

March 2008 EBS for Solar Power Plant EUL 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

An Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) is required when the United States Air Force (USAF) grants temporary use of Air Force property as stipulated in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-9003 and Supplement 1, Granting Temporary Use of Air Force Real Property (1997, 1998).

This EBS is complementary to other site surveys that are required when the Air Force either gains or releases property through acquisition, lease, sale, or transfer to a party other than the Air Force in accordance with AFI 32-7066, Environmental Baseline Surveys in Real Estate Transactions (1994). This EBS follows guidance provided in Letter Memorandum, AFMC Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) Guidance (USAF, 2006). To ensure that all site conditions are addressed, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527-05, 2005, “Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Site Assessments” and E1528-06, 2006, “Standard Practice for Limited Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process” are also followed.

1.1 Background

Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section (§) 2667, as amended, Armed Forces, Leases:

non-excess property of military departments, allows military installations to lease underutilized land and facilities to private or public entities. This is considered an enhanced use lease (EUL).

An EUL for an energy management project would accomplish the following goals: reduce base operational costs and energy consumption, secure a reliable source of energy, investment of savings into better supporting the Air Force mission, and maximize the use of an underutilized asset on the base. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law [PL] 109-58) indicates that the electric energy consumed by the federal government must be renewable energy according to the following schedule: at least 3 percent in 2007-2009, 5 percent in 2010-2012, and 7.5 percent in 2013 and after. Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management (1999), indicates that the federal government shall strive to install 20,000 solar energy systems at federal facilities by 2010. Due to the identification of an underutilized asset of land and the requirements for federal facilities in PL 109-58, the USAF is soliciting proposals from qualified entities interested in entering into an EUL, for a term in line with the approved development, with the government to construct and maintain a solar energy development on Edwards Air Force Base (AFB).

1.2 Project Description

An EBS shall be prepared for the construction and maintenance of a solar energy development to document existing environmental conditions of the property, categorize the property according to EBS guidance, and provide a means for disclosing information of environmental concern. The EUL identifies an underutilized asset of 3,288 acres of land in the northwest corner of the base, approximately ½ mile east of the western base boundary line (Figure 1). This parcel may be leased as a whole or in phases in order for the USAF to capitalize the profit made from this transaction.

Figure 2 depicts the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property which is located on the southeast boundary of the parcel. This property will not be impacted during construction activities. The proposed parcel is covered with natural desert vegetation and transected by numerous unpaved roads.

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL March 2008 2

Figure 1. Approximate Location of Proposed Solar Energy Development

March 2008 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL 3

Figure 2. Proposed Solar Energy Development and BLM Property with United States Geological Survey Well Locations

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL March 2008 4

This EBS was prepared during the initial drafting phase of the EUL. During this phase, a developer had not been chosen and the project specifics had not been disclosed. Compatible solar energy developments may include solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, concentrating solar power, or combined hybrid fossil/thermal plants.

Site preparation activities may include: complete destruction of existing vegetation, leveling of the land, grading or construction of existing and new access roads, installation of access control and security measures, installation of utility service lines, and construction of a parking area. Following the preparation activities, the solar devices and associated power plant equipment would be installed.

During the lease period, the lessee would be required to operate and maintain all improvements in good condition and must have the lease modified for future construction and improvements. Upon expiration of the lease or any extension thereof, the government has sole discretion to choose between two options: the Lessee shall demolish all facilities and improvements, properly abandon or remove utilities from the leased land, restore the land to the reasonable satisfaction of the government, and then surrender the land to the government at no cost; or the facilities and improvements shall revert or be transferred to the government at no cost (DRAFT-United States Department of the Air Force, Air Force Flight Test Center [AFFTC], Air Force Real Property Agency [AFRPA], Enhanced Use Leasing, Edwards Air Force Base, Request for Qualifications, MWH Americas, Inc., 2007).

1.3 Location of the Survey Area

Edwards AFB is located in the Antelope Valley region of the western Mojave Desert in Southern California. It is about 60 miles northeast of Los Angeles, California. The base occupies an area of approximately 301,000 acres or 470 square miles. Portions of the base lie within Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties. The EUL proposed project site is located ½ mile east of the western base boundary and flush against the adjacent northern base boundary line. The solar energy development area is approximately 3½ miles in length along the northern boundary and 1½ miles in length along the western boundary. This site can be accessed via Pole Line Road, which runs north off of Rosamond Boulevard east of the western base boundary line; Sopp Road, which runs east off of Sierra Highway; and base access gates along the northern base boundary fenceline on Trotter Avenue (see Figure 2).

1.4 Document Organization

This EBS consists of six sections and four appendices. It has been prepared according to the template provided in AFI 32-7066. The sections and appendices are summarized as follows:

a. Section 1.0–Introduction, describes the underlying purpose and need for the EBS;

b. Section 2.0–Survey Methodology, describes the methods and procedures used to prepare the EBS;

c. Section 3.0–Findings for the Subject Property, describes the subject property;

d. Section 4.0–Findings for Adjacent Properties, describes observations of surrounding, adjacent properties;

e. Section 5.0–Conclusions, describes basis for property categorization, based on environmental conditions, and identifies data gaps;

March 2008 5 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL

f. Section 6.0–Recommendations, describes suggestions that are made regarding the implementation of the proposed action;

g. Section 7.0-Certification;

h. Appendix A–References/Bibliography;

i. Appendix B–Visual Site Inspection (VSI) and Research Summary;

j. Appendix C–Natural Resources Research Data; and

k. Appendix D–United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), Omaha District, Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) Survey Report.

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL March 2008 6

March 2008 7 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL

2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

2.1 Approach and Rationale

This EBS follows a process in which all reasonably available information is analyzed and conclusions drawn regarding the environmental condition of a site and the surrounding area activities, which may have impacted the site. A review of historical records and photos, and archival research documents was conducted. Areas of interest at the site and the adjacent properties were those that store, or may have stored in the past, hazardous materials, where past industrial activities may have occurred, where past military trainings may have occurred, and areas where activities may have resulted in solid- and hazardous-waste storage, release, or disposal. Only the areas that were in a groundwater up-gradient location were reviewed as part of the adjacent property, since they would have the potential to impact the groundwater condition on the subject property.

Current and historical aerial photographs and drawings were obtained to assess environmental conditions that may have affected site conditions. Aerial photographs were obtained from the base Geographic Information System (GIS) file dated 2000 and 2002, the base historical office dated between 1970 and 1990, and Environmental Data Resources (EDR) dated between 1952 and 2002. Interviews with personnel who may have any information of prior uses of this parcel and VSIs were conducted. This EBS includes an assessment of land uses in adjacent properties relatively near the parcel that could pose an environmental concern and/or affect the subject property.

For over 20 years, Edwards AFB has conducted investigations to identify contaminated areas on the base. The contamination is a result of many different types of activities that are commonplace for an Air Force base (e.g., aircraft testing and maintenance; rocket fuel development and testing; and vehicle and equipment maintenance). To address the contamination, Edwards AFB has set up and implemented the Environmental Restoration Program (ERP). The ERP activities include investigation and remediation. A search of ERP and EDR records was conducted to assess the environmental condition of the parcel and the adjacent properties.

This research process provides a composite picture of the environmental characteristics of the parcel. The composite information was then used to evaluate the location and character of the property as identified in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), § 120(h)(4) (Title 42 U.S.C. § 9620 et seq.). The information acquired was also used to determine the level of contamination for real property categorization.

Disclosure information on substances or conditions not regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System that may present an environmental concern is also provided as baseline information.

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL March 2008 8

2.2 Description of Documents Reviewed

The following documents were used as informative and guidance documents in preparation of this EBS:

a. Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC), 1998, Cultural Resources Overview and Management Plan for Edwards AFB, California, Volume 2, Overview of Historic Cultural Resources, March;

b. AFI 32-7066, 1994, Environmental Baseline Surveys in Real Estate Transactions, 25 April;

c. AFI 32-9003, 1997, Granting Temporary Use of Air Force Real Property, 19 August; and Supplement 1, 1 July 1998;

d. ASTM Standard E1527-05, 2005, “Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Site Assessments;”

e. ASTM Standard E1528-06, 2006, “Standard Practice for Limited Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process;”

f. MWH Americas Inc., 2007, DRAFT-United States Department of the Air Force, Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC), Air Force Real Property Agency (AFRPA), Enhanced Use Leasing, Edwards Air Force Base, Request for Qualifications;

g. USAF, 1999, Letter Memorandum Interim Use of Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) Property Categorization Codes;

h. USAF, 2006, Letter Memorandum AFMC Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) Guidance;

i. USACOE, 1994, DRAFT-Archives Search Report, Conventional Ordnance, Edwards Air Force Base, California;

j. USACOE, 2008, Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) Survey, Proposed Solar Farm Project at Edwards AFB, 95th Air Base Wing, Air Force Materiel Command, Edwards AFB, California;

k. U.S.C, Title 42, § 9620, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, Federal Facilities, § 120(h)(4); and

l. Weston Solutions, Inc., 2007, Range Assessment Report, Munitions Constituent Migration at Operational Ranges, Edwards Air Force Base, California.

2.3 Property Inspections

Visual site inspections were conducted on 16 and 29 October 2007 to evaluate the current environmental setting and physical condition of the site and surrounding area (Appendix B). Information gathered during the records search from reports and personal interviews were reviewed and examined in the field, when appropriate. Potential environmental concerns such as unusual odors, stained soils, stressed vegetation, leachate seeps, or other indications of potential contamination were also of interest and examined if appropriate.

The USACOE, Omaha District, conducted a visual survey of over 13 percent of the EUL property to evaluate the possible presence of surface MEC between 28 and 31 January 2008.

March 2008 9 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL

2.4 Personal Interviews

The following persons were interviewed for this project:

a. Richard Buckreis, Department of Defense (DOD), Multimedia Graphics Chief, 95th Communications Group, was interviewed on 12 November 2007, providing historical photograph information;

b. Sharon McLain, DOD, Property Management, 95th Air Base Wing, Civil Engineer and Transportation Directorate, Resources Division, was interviewed on 23 October 2007, providing EUL project information;

c. Paul Schiff, DOD, Restoration Program Manager, 95th Air Base Wing, Environmental Management Directorate, was interviewed on 23 October and 13 November 2007, providing archival research and groundwater monitoring well information;

d. Warren Seidel, DOD, Chief, Environmental/Labor Law, AFFTC, Judge Advocate (JA), was interviewed on 14 November 2007, providing wetland information;

e. Judith Tepperman, DOD, Air Force Real Property Agency, was interviewed on 23 October 2007, providing EUL project information;

f. Enrique Torres, DOD, Base Energy Manager and Utility Engineer, Project Manager, 95th Air Base Wing, Civil Engineer and Transportation Directorate, was interviewed on 23 October 2007, providing EUL project information;

g. Richard Bark, Site Protection Lead, JT3, Cultural Resources Division, was interviewed on 23 October and 1 November 2007, providing cultural resources information;

h. Amber Bruno, Biologist, JT3, Natural Resources Division, was interviewed on 23 October and 9 November 2007, providing natural resources information;

i. Allen Tamura, Environmental Planner/Geologist, JT3, was interviewed on 5 November 2007, providing geological information; and

j. Wayne Williams, Safety and Environmental, Southern California Edison (SCE) T&D Environmental Services, was interviewed on 10 December 2007, providing transformer polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) content information.

2.5 Sampling

Sampling was not required for this EBS as it is a Phase I assessment.

2.6 Aerial Photograph Review

Current and historical aerial photographs were obtained to assess environmental conditions that may have affected site conditions. Aerial photographs were obtained from the base GIS file dated 2000 and 2002, the base historical office dated between 1970 and 1990, and EDR dated between 1952 and 2002.

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL March 2008 10

2.7 Property Categorization

Property categorization is used to identify the environmental site condition. The categorization process has two steps. The first step satisfies CERCLA § 120(h)(4) requirements to identify uncontaminated property. The second step identifies property where hazardous substances were stored, released, disposed of, or migrated (moved onto the parcel from sources on adjacent property).

Based on analysis of available data, the EBS categorizes properties according to the seven categories as defined in Letter Memorandum, Interim Use of Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) Property Categorization Codes (USAF, 1999). The description of the property categories are as follows:

a. Category 1–Areas where no release or disposal of hazardous or petroleum substances has occurred (including no migration of these substances from adjacent areas).

b. Category 2–Areas where only release or disposal of petroleum substances has occurred.

c. Category 3–Areas where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances has occurred, but at concentrations that do not require removal or remedial response.

d. Category 4–Areas where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances has occurred, all removal or remedial actions have been taken.

e. Category 5–Areas where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances has occurred, all removal or remedial actions are underway, but not yet taken.

f. Category 6–Areas where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances has occurred, but remedial actions have not been implemented.

g. Category 7–Areas that are not evaluated or require additional evaluation.

2.8 Adjacent Property Assessment

The adjacent property assessment included an area within a 1-mile radius of the parcel (see Figure 2). The topography surrounding the property indicates that activities conducted north of the area could be of concern. The activities associated with the surface-to-surface rocket range were also considered due to the impact area extending onto the proposed project site. The present and past activities of the other adjacent properties are not expected to have an impact on the subject property. Visual site inspections and reviews of historical records and photos, and archival research documents were conducted for a complete assessment of the adjacent property.

March 2008 11 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL

3.0 FINDINGS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

At the time this EBS was completed, the subject property was primarily undisturbed with minimal recorded historical activities. Because of this, most of the subsections listed under Section 3.0 in AFI 32-7066 Attachment 2, Format for the EBS Report, do not apply and have not been included in this section. The subsections that were applicable are covered in the following sections.

3.1 History and Current Use

The parcel where a solar energy development is proposed was acquired by the USAF between 1952 and 1961 (AFFTC, 1998). Prior to acquisition by the Air Force, cultural resources research indicates that this area was used for numerous homesteads (Bark, 2007). A 1957 standard operating procedure (SOP) for the use of AFFTC bombing ranges at Edwards AFB indicates that a surface-to-surface rocket range (also known as PB-24) was established southeast of the subject property and is listed as a potential ordnance and explosive waste (OEW) contaminated area. After reviewing historical data and photos, and conducting VSIs, the firing point is believed to have been approximately 3 miles southeast of the southeast corner of the parcel (Figure 3). A positive location for the target is not possible.

The potential firing point is visible on the aerial photograph in Figure 3. The aerial photograph shows two points that may have been used as the firing point for PB-24. This area was inspected during a VSI conducted by the cultural resources group. The graded square point is approximately 394 feet on each side and there was no evidence of a pad or any other structure. The circular point is approximately 394 feet in diameter and there were remnants of tar or asphalt and paint (Bark, 2007). The SOP indicates that the range may have been used for the ground firing of rockets up to 5 inches in diameter. The height of the fired rockets was not to exceed 2,000 feet and the down-range-impact area extended to 8 miles conically. The type of rockets launched at PB-24 was not found in the historical documents.

According to past documentation and research documents, the impact area extends onto the southwest corner of the subject property and amounts to approximately 462 acres, which is 14 percent of the overall property acreage. A margin of error must be considered when reviewing historical data and figures. The base ranges were surface cleared in 1985. It is unknown whether this range was included in the surface clearance; however, it is documented that rockets were recovered during this cleanup process. If future uses other than bombing targets are determined for this range, extensive subsurface clearance will have to be considered (USACOE, 1994). During a historical aerial photograph search, there were no photographs found indicating ground disturbance impacts on or near the proposed project site, which usually indicate the use of heavy munitions (Buckreis, 2007). Due to the availability of large parcels of open land, the possibility exists that troop training exercises could have been conducted basewide.

The use of live munitions was phased out sometime after the AFFTC was established in 1951.

The exact date could not be determined, but base personnel have indicated that after the establishment of the AFFTC, the base mission evolved more into a weapons delivery research establishment rather than munitions testing. Thus, it is believed that no live munitions have been

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL 12 March 2008

Figure 3. Proposed Solar Project Area with Rocket Range

March 2008 13 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL deployed at Edwards AFB in over 50 years except those deployed on the Precision Impact Range Area (Weston, 2007).

It is documented that biological and radiological research has been conducted and chemical warfare materials (CWM) have been stored and deployed at Edwards AFB. Although CWM storage was typically for short-term use and supported immediate associated activities, suspected disposed materials and residues from CWM may still exist. The base Environmental Management Restoration Division has conducted an investigation regarding potential CWM and biological and radiological testing sites. No evidence of CWM or biological and radiological testing was found at Edwards AFB (Weston, 2007).

In 2002, Edwards AFB was designated as an ‘operational range’ due to DOD installations being required to inventory and categorize their ranges and historical data indicating that the entire base was used as a range (Schiff, 2007). The northwest corner of the base, where the solar energy development is proposed, is indicated as an ‘inactive range’ (Figure 4).

The USACOE, Omaha District, conducted a visual survey of over 13 percent (442 acres) of the EUL property to evaluate the possible presence of surface MEC between 28 and 31 January 2008. A three-person team walked 30 feet apart on planned transects which were 90 feet in width. The visual survey included 49 acres located in the southwest portion of the property where the PB-24 impact area was identified. No items were found that would indicate this property was used for military munitions training exercises (USACOE, 2008).

This parcel is currently not being used.

3.2 Geology and Soils

a. Geologic Setting–The geologic setting at the site and surrounding area is characterized by pre-Tertiary igneous rocks consisting mainly of quartz monzonite and granite. The site would be constructed mainly on soils derived from the nearby igneous rocks.

b. Topography–The parcel is located on an alluvial fan surface. The alluvial fan was derived from the nearby outcrops of igneous rocks and slopes gently to the south and southeast towards Rosamond and Rogers Dry Lakebeds, respectively.

c. Soils–The dominant soil in the area is the Helendale loamy sand that typically forms over granitic rocks. The sands are described as well drained with negligible to low surface water runoff.

The permeability of the soil is moderately rapid.

d. Seismicity–The Rosamond Fault has been mapped to the south of the parcel and an extension of the Mirage Valley Fault has been mapped east of the parcel. The faults are seismically dormant and have not recorded any surface displacements in recent history based on United States Geological Survey (USGS) records (Tamura, 2007).

3.3 Hazardous Substances

The surface-to-surface rocket range is listed as an area of interest as a potential source area for remnant munitions constituents being present in the surface or subsurface soils from complete and incomplete detonation activities (Weston, 2007).

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL 14 March 2008

Figure 4. Range Categorization Map

March 2008 15 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL

A concern associated with OEW materials is the contamination of metal ordnance scrap and residual chemical waste. Some reports indicate that scrap metal from impact areas was buried at or near the site where it was recovered. This is pointed out because of the potential hazard associated with ordnance scrap that has not been properly sanitized and disposed

(USACOE, 1994).

However, a visual survey of the property was conducted by the USACOE, Omaha District, to evaluate the possible presence of surface MEC. The survey team did not visually identify any munitions debris, except for one expended, degraded M-18 smoke grenade. This item did not seem to be indicative of military munitions training activities since it was the only item found during the survey. This item did not pose an explosive hazard (USACOE, 2008).

There was no visible evidence of hazardous materials or waste, or petroleum products being stored on the parcel during the VSI.

3.4 Environmental Restoration Program Contamination

There are no ERP sites located within this parcel.

3.5 Pesticides/Herbicides

There are no available records that indicate the use or nonuse of pesticides or herbicides on this property.

3.6 Ordnance

In 2002, Edwards AFB was designated as an ‘operational range’ due to DOD installations being required to inventory and categorize their ranges and historical data indicating that the entire base was used as a range (Schiff, 2007). The northwest corner of the base, where the solar energy development is proposed, is indicated as an ‘inactive range.’

A surface clearance for the designated ranges on base was conducted in 1985. It is unknown whether PB-24 and the assumed impact area were included in the surface clearance; however, it is documented that rockets were recovered during this cleanup process (USACOE, 1994). A subsurface clearance has not been recorded for this area.

Due to past military activities, there is a potential for ordnance to be found at the subject property.

However, a visual survey of the property was conducted by the USACOE, Omaha District, to evaluate the possible presence of surface MEC. The survey team did not visually identify any munitions debris, except for one expended, degraded M-18 smoke grenade. This item did not seem to be indicative of military munitions training activities since it was the only item found during the survey. This item did not pose an explosive hazard (USACOE, 2008).

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL 16 March 2008

3.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyl

An SCE transmission-line easement is located ½ mile west of the proposed solar energy development site’s western boundary running north and south. An additional easement is along the northern boundary line running east and west. There are pole-mounted transformers on several of the poles within the easements.

Southern California Edison has mineral oil-filled distribution pole- and pad-mounted transformers in its system that were manufactured before 1980 that may have regulated concentrations of PCBs (i.e., greater than 50 parts per million [ppm]). Although these units may contain PCBs, they are authorized to be used pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), Title 40, Part 761.30, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions-Applicability. While electrically connected, these mineral oil-filled distribution transformers are assumed to contain 50 to 499 ppm PCBs as prescribed by regulation (Williams, 2007).

Distribution transformers found to be leaking are electrically disconnected; the PCB concentration of the mineral oil is determined through laboratory analytical testing and then properly disposed. Southern California Edison utilizes generator knowledge in determining that mineral oil-filled distribution transformers manufactured in 1981 or newer, contain PCB concentrations less than the federal regulatory threshold of 50 ppm. Again, the exact PCB concentration of these units is also determined through laboratory analysis upon removing them from service (Williams, 2007).

3.8 Wetlands

The EDR report indicates several areas within the proposed project site as being included on the National Wetlands Inventory with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, it was determined by the AFFTC, JA Division, that Edwards AFB does not have jurisdictional wetlands based on the Supreme Court decision in the case of the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus United States Army Corps of Engineers et al. (99-178) (531 U.S. 159, 2001) (Seidel, 2007).

3.9 Groundwater Monitoring Well

A USGS groundwater monitoring well is located within the proposed project site (see Figure 2).

Monitoring wells were installed by the USGS to evaluate local hydrology and groundwater activity in the region (Schiff, 2007).

This monitoring well is not to be disturbed during project activities.

3.10 Cultural Resources

Approximately 55 percent of the project area has been surveyed; however, 1,537 acres of the previously surveyed 1,792 acres were inventoried over 5 years ago. The base standard for keeping data up to date and ensuring that a complete survey has been conducted, is to rely on survey data collected within the past 5 years. According to the previous surveys documented for this parcel; a total of 112 historic, prehistoric, and submodern sites have been identified. Out of

March 2008 17 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL the 112 sites, 8 sites have been recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and 12 sites were found not eligible for the NRHP. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, § 106, Subsection 800, Protection of Historic Properties, indicates that sites previously determined as eligible or ineligible may require reevaluation due to various factors which include the passage of time, changing perceptions of significance, or incomplete prior evaluations (Bark, 2007).

The presence and eligibility of cultural resources will require further evaluation prior to construction activities.

3.11 Natural Resources

A natural resources VSI was conducted on 8 November 2007. The VSI consisted of driving the existing dirt roads that travel north and south approximately 1 and 2 miles east of the proposed project site’s western boundary to assess the existing vegetation communities and their level of disturbance. The VSI did not include surveys on foot. Table 1 presents a list of plants and animals recorded during the VSI. According to the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Edwards Air Force Base, California (AFFTC, 2004), this area spans four vegetation class communities: four-wing saltbush scrub (Atriplex canescens ssp. canescens), shadscale scrub (Atriplex confertifolia), creosote bush (Larrea tridentate), and burro-bush scrub (Ambrosia dumosa). The habitat ranges from highly disturbed to heavily vegetated saltbush scrub (Appendix B, Photos B-1 and B-2).

Table 1. Natural Resources Recorded During Visual Site Inspection

Plant Species Observed

Common Name Scientific Name allscale Atriplex polycarpa

Barbwire Russian thistle Salsola paulensii cheese bush Hymenoclea salsola var. salsola creosote bush Larrea tridentata desert croton Croton californicus var. mohavensis four-wing saltbush Atriplex canescens ssp. canescens

Joshua tree Yucca brevifolia var. brevifolia peachthorn Lycium cooperi

Nevada jointfir Ephedra nevadensis rabbit brush Chrysothamnus nauseosus salt grass Distichlis spicata threadleaf snakeweed Gutierrezia microcephala

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL 18 March 2008

Table 1. Natural Resources Recorded During Visual Site Inspection (Concluded)

Plant Species Observed

Common Name Scientific Name wire-lettuce Stephanomeria pauciflora

Animal Species Observed white tailed antelope ground squirrel Ammospermophilus leucurus

Based on previously collected data, sensitive natural resources inhabiting this area include:

desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) (Relative Density Estimates of Desert Tortoise on Edwards Air Force Base, California, Laabs, 1996), alkali Mariposa lily (Calochortus striatus) (Inventory and Population Characterization Study of Alkali Mariposa Lily on Edwards Air Force Base, California, AFFTC, 1995), Mojave spineflower (Chorizanthe spinosa) (Biological Resources Environmental Planning Technical Report Basewide Vegetation and Wildlife Surveys and Habitat Quality Analysis, AFFTC, 1993), and various migratory bird species (AFFTC, 1993).

Based on habitat preferences, there is a potential that the following sensitive natural resources may occur in the area: Barstow woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum mohavense), Mohave ground squirrel (Spermophilus mohavensis), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (Bruno, 2007).

Appendix C provides additional natural resources data that was compiled as reference material for this EBS. The presence and requirements of natural resources in the area will require further evaluation prior to construction activities.

March 2008 19 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL

4.0 FINDINGS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY

The adjacent property assessment included an area within a 1-mile radius of the parcel. The topography surrounding the property indicates that activities conducted north of the area could be of concern. The activities associated with the surface-to-surface rocket range were also considered due to the impact area extending onto the proposed project site. The present and past activities of the other adjacent properties are not expected to have an impact on the subject property. Visual site inspections and reviews of historical records and photos, and archival research documents were conducted for a complete assessment of the adjacent property.

4.1 Land Use and Surveyed Properties

The adjacent properties to the west and north of the parcel are private, residential areas. The properties to the south and east are included within the base boundary and are primarily undisturbed.

4.2 Findings

No current features were identified during the VSIs that would affect the environmental site conditions at the proposed solar energy development site.

The EDR reports indicate base property as a potential contamination site due to historical military activities and the fact that Edwards AFB is listed on the National Priority List, also known as Superfund. The ERP conducts on-going projects to remediate identified contaminated sites on base. However, no ERP sites have been identified within the adjacent properties.

Refer to Sections 3.1, 3.3, and 3.5 of this report for more information on documented historical activities and concerns.

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL 20 March 2008

March 2008 21 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

This section consolidates the findings in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of this report and presents the information in Table 2. Table 2 identifies the overall property category number for the proposed solar energy development site.

5.1 Property Categorization

Based on all available information, site inspections, and historical data records search, the property category for the parcel is Category 1, areas where no release or disposal of hazardous or petroleum substances has occurred (including no migration of these substances from adjacent areas).

Table 2. Summary of Environmental and Property Disclosure Factors of the Proposed Solar Energy Development, Edwards AFB

Environmental and Property Disclosure Factor Status

Hazardous Substances No

Environmental Restoration Program Sites No

Storage Tanks No

Oil/Water Separator No

Pesticides/Herbicides Unknown

Medical or Biohazardous Waste No

Ordnance No

Radioactive Wastes No

Solid Waste No

Groundwater Contaminated Above Maximum Contaminant Level No

Wastewater Treatment, Collection, and Discharge No

Asbestos-Containing Material No

Polychlorinated biphenyls Yes, in transformers

Radon No

Lead-Based Paint No

Property Category 1

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL 22 March 2008

March 2008 23 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Due to the location of the property being on a military facility, in addition to historical military activities, it is recommended that basic munitions recognition training be provided for personnel involved in construction activities on this site as a preventative safety measure

(USACOE, 2008).

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL 24 March 2008

This page intentionally left blank

7.0 CERTIFICATION

7.1 Certification of the Environmental Baseline Survey

JT31CH2M HILL conducted this Environmental Baseline Survey on behalf of the Air Force.

JT31CH2M HILL has reviewed available appropriate records and has conducted visual and physical site inspections of the site following an analysis of information during the record search.

The information contained within the survey report is based on records made available and to the best of JT31CH2M HILL'S knowledge is correct as of 25 February 2008.

Certified by:

THOMAS RADEMACHER

JT3lCH2M HILL Environmental Department Manager

Date

March 2008

Date

25 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL 26 March 2008

APPENDICES

March 2008 A-1 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL A-2 March 2008

March 2008 A-3 EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL

REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC) 1993, Biological Resources Environmental Planning Technical Report Basewide Vegetation and Wildlife Surveys and Habitat Quality Analysis.

Document on file at Environmental Management (95 ABW/EM), Edwards AFB, California.

AFFTC, 1995, Inventory and Population Characterization Study of Alkali Mariposa Lily on Edwards Air Force Base, California. Document on file at Environmental Management (95 ABW/EM), Edwards AFB, California.

AFFTC, 1998, Cultural Resources Overview and Management Plan for Edwards AFB, California, Volume 2, Overview of Historic Cultural Resources, March. Document on file at Environmental Management (95 ABW/EM), Edwards AFB, California.

AFFTC, 2004, Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Edwards Air Force Base, California. Document on file at Environmental Management (95 ABW/EM), Edwards AFB, California.

Air Force Instructions (AFIs) AFI 32-7066, 1994, Environmental Baseline Surveys in Real Estate Transactions, 25 April.

AFI 32-9003, 1997, Granting Temporary Use of Air Force Real Property, 19 August; and Supplement 1, 1 July 1998.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard, E1527-05, 2005, “Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Site Assessments.”

ASTM Standard, E1528-06, 2006, “Standard for Limited Environmental Due Diligence:

Transaction Screen Process.”

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Diversity Database, 2007a, Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List, quarterly publication, 69 pp.

CDFG Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, 2007b, Special Animals.

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System maintained by the CDFG and supported by the California Interagency Wildlife Task Group Database Version 8.1, 2005.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) Title 36 CFR Section 106 Subsection 800, Protection of Historic Properties.

Title 40 CFR Part 761.30, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions – Applicability.

Executive Order 13123, 1999, Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management.

Fish and Game Code, Section 2050 et seq., California Endangered Species Act.

EBS for Solar Energy Development EUL A-4 March 2008

REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)

Jennings, W.B., 1997, Habitat Use and Food Preferences of the Tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, in the Western Mojave Desert and Impacts of Off-Road Vehicles, Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles–An International Conference, pp. 42-45.

Laabs, D.M., M.L. Allaback, B. Ellis, D. Mitchell, J. Sawasaki, E. LaRue, Jr., 1996, Relative Density Estimates of Desert Tortoise on Edwards Air Force Base, California.

MWH Americas Inc., 2007, DRAFT-United States Department of the Air…