Chapter 7 - Kern County Home

Transcription

Volume VI
Chapter 7
Response to Comments
SCH# 2011021051
CATALINA RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT
enXco Development Corporation
Zone Change Case No. 8, Map 215
Conditional Use Permit No. 6, Map 215
Kern County
Planning and Community Development Department
Bakersfield, California
October 2011
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Lorelei H. Oviatt, AICP, Director
2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 100
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-2323
Phone: (661) 862-8600
FAX: (661) 862-8601 TTY Relay 1-800-735-2929
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGENCY
Ted James, AICP, DSA DIRECTOR
Administrative Operations
Engineering, Surveying and Permit Services
Planning and Community Development
Roads
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web Address: www.co.kern.ca.us/planning
October 14, 2011
File: ZCC No. 8, Map No. 215
ZCC No. 8, Map No. 216
CUP No. 6, Map No. 215
CUP No. 7, Map No. 215
S.D. #2 – Scrivner
Addressee (see Distribution List)
RE:
Response to Comments for Draft Environmental Impact Report – Catalina Renewable Energy
Project by enXco Development Corporation; (PP11250)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a document entitled Volume 6 - Chapter 7 - Response to Comments, for the above-referenced
project. Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to
evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and prepare a written response addressing each comment. This document is Chapter 7 of
the Final EIR.
A public hearing has been scheduled with the Kern County Planning Commission to consider this request on
October 27, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. or soon thereafter, at the chambers of the Board of Supervisors, first floor,
Kern County Administrative Center, 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California.
Thank you for your participation in the environmental process for this project. If you have any questions
regarding this letter please contact Jacquelyn R. Kitchen, Planner III at (661) 862-8619.
Very truly yours,
LORELEI OVIATT, AICP, DIRECTOR
Planning and Community Development Department
By:
Jacquelyn Kitchen, Planner III
Advanced Planning Division, CEQA Section
COMMENTING AGENCIES AND INTERESTED PERSONS: Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research; Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection; California Department of
Fish and Game; California Highway Patrol; California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Lahontan
Region; Native American Heritage Commission; Kern County Development Services Agency – Roads
Department; Kern County Department of Airports – Meadows Field Airport; The Kern Audubon Society;
Leah Samuel; Tübatulabal Tribe; Cynda Thomas; Raymon and Annie Gentry; Phyllis E. Garlin Trust;
Gregory Garlin; Lewis McSweeney; Curtis Skelton
Department of Conservation
Division of Land Resource Protection
Attn: John M. Lowrie
801 K Street, MS 18-01
Sacramento, CA 95814
Raymond and Annie Gentry
Arlen and Amanda Van Tol
3746 S. Woodland Street
Visalia, CA 93277
Department of Fish and Game
Central Region
Attn: Jeffrey R. Single
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710
Phyllis E. Garlin Trust
500 S. Oak Park Street
Visalia, CA 93277
Department of California Highway Patrol
Mojave Area
Attn: R. Sheldon II
1365 Highway 58
Mojave, CA 93501
Mr. Gregory Garlin
12358 Avenue 416
Orosi, CA 93647
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Lahontan Region
Victorville Office
Attn: Brianna Bergen
14440 Civic Drive, Suite 200
Victorville, CA 92392
County of Kern Development Services
Agency Roads Department
Attn: Warren Maxwell
County of Kern Department of Airports
Meadows Field Airport
Attn: Ron Brewster
3701 Wings Way, Suite 300
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Mr. Lewis McSweeney
3225 Daytona Avenue
Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403
The Kern Audubon Society
Attn: Harry Love
P.O. Box 3581
Bakersfield, CA 93385
State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044
Ms. Leah Samuel
2027 Ridgeview Court
Redlands, CA 92373
Curtis Skelton
2259 Inyo
Mojave, CA 93501
Native American Heritage Commission
Attn: Dave Singleton
915 Capitol Mall, Room 364
Tübatulabal Tribe
Attn: Donna Miranda-Begay
P.O. Box 226
12600 Mountain Mesa Road, Suite #B
Lake Isabella, CA 93240
Ms. Cynda Thomas
Trustee for the Thomas Trust
3308 Fairway Street
Claremore, OK 74019
Volume VI
Chapter 7
SCH# 2011021051
CATALINA RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT
enXco Development Corporation
Kern County Planning and Community Development Department
2700 M Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370
(661) 862-8600
Technical Assistance by:
RBF Consulting
4540 Duckhorn Drive, Suite 202
(916) 928-1113
October 2011
County of Kern
Table of Contents
Chapter 7
Page
Chapter 7
Response to Comments ................................................................................. 7-1
7.1
Introduction ............................................................................................. 7-1
Purpose .................................................................................................. 7-1
Environmental Review Process ............................................................. 7-1
7.2
Revisions to the Project Draft EIR .......................................................... 7-2
Page 1-27 through 1-52 .......................................................................... 7-3
Page 4.4-25 .......................................................................................... 7-13
Pages 4.4-65 through 4.4-67 ................................................................ 7-13
Pages 4.4-70 through 4.4-74 ................................................................ 7-15
Pages 4.4-79 through 4.4-81 ................................................................ 7-18
Page 4.9-12 .......................................................................................... 7-21
7.3
Errata to the Project Draft EIR ............................................................. 7-23
Global Change ...................................................................................... 7-23
Pages 2-10 ........................................................................................... 7-23
Other Text Changes to the DEIR .......................................................... 7-27
Page v .................................................................................................. 7-27
Page 1-10 ............................................................................................. 7-27
Page 1-11 ............................................................................................. 7-30
Pages 1-25 and 1-26 ............................................................................ 7-31
Pages 1-30 through 1-52 ...................................................................... 7-32
Pages 1-52 and 1-53 ............................................................................ 7-38
Pages 1-54 through 1-58 ...................................................................... 7-39
Pages 1-62 and 1-63 ............................................................................ 7-42
Page 1-70 ............................................................................................. 7-43
Pages 1-72 and 1-73 ............................................................................ 7-44
Page 1-86 ............................................................................................. 7-45
Pages 3-6 and 3-7 ................................................................................ 7-46
Page 3-21 ............................................................................................. 7-46
Page 3-22 ............................................................................................. 7-46
Page 3-23 ............................................................................................. 7-49
Page 3-23 ............................................................................................. 7-49
Page 3-31 ............................................................................................. 7-49
Page 4.1-5 ............................................................................................ 7-49
Pages 4.1-18 and 4.1-19 ...................................................................... 7-50
Page 4.1-19 .......................................................................................... 7-50
Page 4.1-21 .......................................................................................... 7-54
Page 4.1-24 .......................................................................................... 7-55
Page 4.3-28 .......................................................................................... 7-55
Page 4.3-35 .......................................................................................... 7-56
Pages 4.4-9 and 4.4-10 ........................................................................ 7-56
Final Environmental Impact Report
Catalina Renewable Energy Project
i
October 2011
County of Kern
Table of Contents
Page 4.4-11 .......................................................................................... 7-58
Page 4.4-13 .......................................................................................... 7-58
Page 4.4-14 .......................................................................................... 7-59
Page 4.4-22 .......................................................................................... 7-59
Page 4.4-23 .......................................................................................... 7-59
Page 4.4-24 .......................................................................................... 7-60
Pages 4.4-26 and 4.4-27 ...................................................................... 7-62
Pages 4.4-30 and 4.4-31 ...................................................................... 7-62
Page 4.4-33 .......................................................................................... 7-63
Page 4.4-34 .......................................................................................... 7-63
Page 4.4-53 .......................................................................................... 7-63
Pages 4.4-53 and 4.4-54 ...................................................................... 7-63
Page 4.4-54 .......................................................................................... 7-64
Page 4.4-57 .......................................................................................... 7-64
Page 4.4-59 .......................................................................................... 7-65
Page 4.4-61 .......................................................................................... 7-65
Pages 4.4-61 and 4.4-62 ...................................................................... 7-65
Page 4.4-62 .......................................................................................... 7-67
Page 4.4-64 .......................................................................................... 7-67
Pages 4.4-67 and 4.4-68 ...................................................................... 7-67
Page 4.4-70 .......................................................................................... 7-70
Pages 4.4-74 and 4.4-75 ...................................................................... 7-70
Pages 4.4-75 and 4.4-76 ...................................................................... 7-71
Pages 4.4-78 and 4.4-79 ...................................................................... 7-72
Page 4.4-81 .......................................................................................... 7-73
Page 4.4-82 .......................................................................................... 7-73
Page 4.4-85 .......................................................................................... 7-74
Page 4.4-89 .......................................................................................... 7-75
Page 4.5-1 ............................................................................................ 7-75
Pages 4.5-9 and 4.5-10 ........................................................................ 7-75
Page 4.5-11 .......................................................................................... 7-76
Page 4.5-12 .......................................................................................... 7-76
Page 4.5-13 .......................................................................................... 7-77
Page 4.5-14 .......................................................................................... 7-78
Page 4.5-15 .......................................................................................... 7-79
Page 4.5-16 .......................................................................................... 7-79
Page 4.5-17 .......................................................................................... 7-82
Page 4.5-25 .......................................................................................... 7-83
Pages 4.5-27 through 4.5-30 ................................................................ 7-83
Page 4.6-16 .......................................................................................... 7-85
Pages 4.8-35 and 4.8-36 ...................................................................... 7-86
Page 4.8-36 .......................................................................................... 7-87
Page 4.9-21 .......................................................................................... 7-87
Pages 4.9-23 and 4.9-24 ...................................................................... 7-87
Page 4.11-12 ........................................................................................ 7-88
Page 4.11-22 ........................................................................................ 7-88
Page 4.16-10 ........................................................................................ 7-88
Page 5-2 ............................................................................................... 7-88
Pages 6-14 and 6-15 ............................................................................ 7-89
Page 6-18 ............................................................................................. 7-89
ii
October 2011
County of Kern
Table of Contents
7.4
Page 6-20 ............................................................................................. 7-90
Page 10-1 ............................................................................................. 7-90
Page 10-2 ............................................................................................. 7-90
Page 10-4 ............................................................................................. 7-91
Page 10-5 ............................................................................................. 7-91
Response to Comments ...................................................................... 7-92
State Agencies
Comment Letter 1: Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research – State Clearinghouse .................................................... 7-94
Comment Letter 2: California Regional Water Quality Control
Board – Lahontan Region (August 25, 2011) ............................... 7-102
Comment Letter 3: Natural Resources Agency, Department of
Conservation (August 24, 2011) ................................................... 7-131
Comment Letter 4: Native American Heritage Commission
(September 20, 2011) ................................................................... 7-137
Comment Letter 5: California Department Highway Patrol
(July 27, 2011) .............................................................................. 7-143
Comment Letter 6: California Department of Fish and Game
(October 3, 2011) .......................................................................... 7-145
Local Agencies
Comment Letter 7: Kern County Roads Department
(August 26, 2011) ......................................................................... 7-180
Comment Letter 8: Kern County Department of Airports
(September 7, 2011) ..................................................................... 7-182
Interested Parties
Comment Letter 9: Kern Audubon Society (August 15, 2011) ...... 7-185
Comment Letter 10: Tübatulabal Tribe (August 22, 2011) ........... 7-192
Comment Letter 11: Gentry, Garlin, Van Tol
(September 17, 2011) ................................................................... 7-196
Comment Letter 12: Cynda Thomas (July 21, 2011) .................... 7-201
Comment Letter 13: Hi Leah (September 27, 2011) ..................... 7-203
Comment Letter 14: Lewis McSweeney, Jr.
(September 27, 2011) ................................................................... 7-205
Comment Letter 15: Curtis Skelton (October 6, 2011) ................. 7-209
Tables
7.1 Introduction
Table
7-1
Page
Public Comments Received on the DEIR ............................................... 7-1
7.2 Revisions to the Project Draft EIR
Table
1-3
Page
Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of
Impacts after Mitigation (pages 1-27 through 1-52) ................................ 7-3
iii
October 2011
County of Kern
Table of Contents
7.3 Errata to the Project Draft EIR
Table
Page
1-1
Summary of Significant Impacts of the Project (page 1-11) ................. 7-30
1-3
Impacts after Mitigation (pages1-25 and 1-26) ..................................... 7-31
1-3
Impacts after Mitigation (pages 1-30 through 1-52) .............................. 7-32
1-3
Impacts after Mitigation (pages 1-52 and 1-53) .................................... 7-38
1-3
Impacts after Mitigation (pages 1-54 through 1-58) .............................. 7-39
1-3
1-3
Impacts after Mitigation (page 1-70) ..................................................... 7-43
1-3
1-3
Impacts after Mitigation (page 1-86) ..................................................... 7-45
4.1-1
Potential Shadow Flicker Impact Summary for Vestas
V100-2.0 MW Layout ............................................................................ 7-52
4.1-2
Potential Shadow Flicker Impact Summary for GE1.6xle
Layout ................................................................................................... 7-53
4.4-2
Crossings Category by Project Features (page 4.4-23) ....................... 7-60
4.4-3
Federally and State-Listed Species with the Potential to
Occur within the Project Area and Project Vicinity (page
4.4-30) .................................................................................................. 7-62
4.4-4
Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur in the Project
Vicinity (page 4.4-31) ............................................................................ 7-63
4.4-4
Vicinity (page 4.4-33) ............................................................................ 7-63
4.4-4
Vicinity (page 4.4-34) ............................................................................ 7-63
4.5-1
Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Sites (page
4.5-12) .................................................................................................. 7-76
4.5-2
Newly Recorded Prehistoric Isolates (page 4.5-13) ............................. 7-78
4.5-3
Newly Recorded Historic Archaeological Sites (page 4.514) ........................................................................................................ 7-79
4.5-4
Newly Recorded Historic Isolates (page 4.5-16) .................................. 7-81
iv
October 2011
County of Kern
5-1
Table of Contents
Summary of Significant Impacts of the Project (page 5-2) ................... 7-88
Figures
Figure 3-3. Generation Tie-Line Routes .............................................. 7-24
Figure 7-1. Interconnection Facilities at Whirlwind
Substation.......................................................................... 7-25
Figure 3-4a. Site Plan .......................................................................... 7-47
Figure 3-4b. Solar Array Locations ...................................................... 7-48
Figure 4.4-2. Proposed Drainage Crossings ....................................... 7-61
Figures 4.4-6 Burrowing Owl Locations ............................................... 7-66
Attachments
A
Hydrology Report Signature Page
B.1
Supplemental Information Regarding Shadow Flicker
Effects, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. October 4, 2011
B.2
Catalina Wind Energy Project Shadow Flicker Impact
Analysis, DNV, October 6, 2011
C.1
Results of 2011 Spring Avian Species Survey
C.2
Supplemental Results of 2011 Summer Avian Species
Survey
C.3
Supplemental Results of 2011 Breeding Season Burrowing
Owl Survey
C.4
Supplemental Mohave Ground Squirrel Guideline Survey
C.5
Supplemental Results of the Special-Status Small Mammal
2011 Survey
C.6
Supplemental Results of the 2011 Protocol-level Desert
Tortoise Surveys and Other Related Incidental
Observations
D.1
Results of the Supplemental Cultural Resources Survey for
Transmission Line Corridor Alternatives
D.2
Results of the Supplemental Cultural Resources Surveys
D.3
NAHC Responses March and April 2009
E
Impacts of Wind Projects on Property Values
v
October 2011
County of Kern
Chapter 7. Response to Comments
Chapter 7
7.1
Introduction
Purpose
As defined by Section 15050 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department is serving as "Lead
Agency," for preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Catalina Renewable
Energy Project (Project). The Final EIR (FEIR) presents the environmental information and
analyses that have been prepared for the Project, including comments received addressing the
adequacy of the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments. In addition to the responses to
comments, clarifications, corrections, or minor revisions have been made to the Draft EIR. The
FEIR, which includes the responses to comments, the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, will be used by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in the decisionmaking process for the Project.
Environmental Review Process
A Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (SCH No. 2011021051) was circulated for a 30-day public
review period beginning on February 18, 2011, and ending on March 21, 2011. A scoping
meeting was noticed and held on March 14, 2011. Twelve (12) written comments were received
and used in the preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR for the Catalina Renewable Energy
Project was circulated for a 45-day public review period beginning on August 19, 2011 and
ending on October 3, 2011. A total of thirteen (13) written comment letters were received on the
Draft EIR.
Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the lead agency evaluate comments on
environmental issues received from persons and agencies that reviewed the Draft EIR and prepare
a written response addressing each of the comments received. The response to comments is
contained in this Volume 6, Chapter 7 of the Draft EIR. Volumes 1 through 6 together comprise
the FEIR. A list of agencies, organizations, and interested parties who have commented on the
Draft EIR is provided below. A copy of each numbered comment letter and a lettered response to
each comment is provided in Section 7.4, Response to Comments, of this chapter.
Table 7-1 Public Comments Received on the DEIR
Letter No.
Commenter
Commenter Type
1
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board – Lahontan Region
State
2
California Department of Conservation –
Natural Resources Agency
State
3
Native American Heritage Commission
State
4
California Department of Highway Patrol
State
5
California Department of Fish and Game
State
7-1
October 2011
County of Kern
Table 7-1 Public Comments Received on the DEIR
Letter No.
7.2
Commenter
Commenter Type
6
Kern County Roads Department
Local
7
Kern County Department of Airports
Local
8
Kern Audubon
Interested
Party
9
Tübatulabal Tribe
Interested
Party
10
Gentry, Garlin, Van Tool
Interested
Party
11
Cynda Thomas
Interested
Party
12
Hi Leah
Interested
Party
13
Lewis Sweeney
Interested
Party
Revisions to the Project Draft EIR
The following revisions are made to the text of the Catalina Renewable Energy Draft EIR.
Amended text is identified by page number. Clarifications to the Draft EIR text are shown with
underlining and text removed from the Draft EIR is shown with strikethrough.
7-2
October 2011
County of Kern
Pages 1-27 through 1-52, Table 1-3
Table 1‐3. Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Impacts after Mitigation Impact
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
MM 4.4-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the wind and/or solar components of the project, the project
proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community Development
Department of the following:
Significant and
unavoidable
Biological Resources
Impact 4.4-1: Have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the CDFG or USFWS.
Significant
a.
That the grading plans have minimized, to the greatest extent feasible, the area required for project
construction and operation. Except for permanent exclusionary fencing for desert tortoise, Aall fences
installed on the project site will be a maximum of four (4) eight (8) feet in height, wire strand, with a smooth
bottom wire at least eighteen (18) inches from the ground to facilitate wildlife movement during operation of
the project.
b.
Evidence that a biological firm has been retained to monitor construction activities and to recover and
relocate ground-dwelling special-status species as encountered during construction. Any capture and
relocation activities shall require the appropriate scientific collecting permits issued by the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), if applicable. The recovery and relocation of ground-dwelling
special-status species shall not include any species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act
(FESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA); unless, the project proponent obtains the
appropriate permit authorization as issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and CDFG.
c.
Documentation demonstrating that environmental training will be provided to all personnel working on the
site during construction and operation. Training materials and briefings shall include but not be limited to:
discussion of the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; the consequences of non-compliance with these acts; identification and
values of plant and wildlife species and significant natural plant community habitats; fire protection
measures; measures to minimize the spread of weeds during construction; hazardous substance spill
prevention and containment measures; a contact person at the on-call biological services provider in the
event of the discovery of dead or injured wildlife; and, review of mitigation requirements.
d.
Evidence that a qualified biologist has conducted a pre-construction sweep of the project site for specialstatus wildlife species. For the desert tortoise, these pre-construction sweeps shall be in addition to any
applicable protocol-level surveys that are required by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
7-3
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
In habitats capable of supporting coast (San Diego) horned lizard and coast (California) horned lizard
focused surveys for these species shall occur within 200 feet of work areas no more than 14 days prior to
the start of ground disturbance. If either the coast (San Diego) horned lizard or the coast (California)
horned lizard are detected during focused surveys, no work shall occur within 200 feet and California
Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted and the appropriate approvals and/or permits shall be
obtained before construction can proceed.
The project proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department demonstrating compliance with this mitigation. During these surveys the
biologist will:
e.
1.
Inspect the project area for any sensitive wildlife species;
2.
Ensure that potential habitats within the construction zone are not occupied by sensitive species (e.g.,
potential burrows/nests are inspected); and
3.
In the event of the discovery of a non-listed, special-status ground-dwelling animal, recover and
relocate the animal to adjacent suitable habitat within the project site at least 200 feet from the limits
of construction activities.
Evidence that the project proponent(s) have conducted pre-construction surveys for nesting birds if
construction, ground disturbance, and/or vegetation trimming/removal activities are scheduled to occur
during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31). A qualified biologist shall conduct the breeding bird
surveys within thirty (30) days prior to the start of construction, ground disturbance, or vegetation
trimming/removal activities to identify the presence of breeding birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the California and federal Endangered Species Acts.
In riparian habitats, pre-construction nesting surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher, gray vireo, and
western yellow-billed cuckoo following the most current United States Fish and Wildlife Service protocols
for each species will be conducted. If a nesting listed riparian bird is detected, a 500-foot disturbance-free
buffer will be established and Kern County, California Department of Fish and Game, and/or the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (as appropriate) shall be notified. Buffer sizes may be modified in
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The project proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department that the pre-construction avian nest survey was conducted on the project site
7-4
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
per the requirements of this mitigation. The pre-construction sweep for breeding birds shall be conducted
no more than three (3) thirty (30) days prior to the start of construction at each work area. If nesting birds
are encountered during preconstruction nesting surveys and/or sweeps, a 300-foot disturbance-free buffer
shall be established around each nest, and no activities will be allowed within the buffer(s) until the young
have fledged from the nest or the nest fails. If nesting golden eagles are identified, a 0.25-mile no-activity
buffer will be implemented when nests have a direct line of sight to the work area. If the work area is not
within direct view of the nest, the no-disturbance buffer shall be 660 feet. Nest buffers for eagles and other
nesting birds may be adjusted to reflect existing conditions including ambient noise, topography, and
species’ disturbance tolerance with the approval of the appropriate resource agencies (California
Department of Fish and Game and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service).
If for any reason a bird nest must be removed during the nesting season, the project proponent(s) shall
provide written documentation providing concurrence from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
the California Department of Fish and Game authorizing the nest relocation. The project proponent(s) shall
provide a written report to the Kern County Planning Department, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game documenting the relocation efforts. The report
shall include what actions were taken to avoid moving the nest, the location of the nest, what species is
being relocated, the number and condition of the eggs taken from the nest, the location of where the eggs
are incubated, the survival rate, the location of the nests where the chicks are relocated, and outcome
(whether or not the chicks survived and fledged).
MM 4.4-6 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the wind and/or solar components of the project, the
project proponent shall conduct the following pre-construction surveys:
No changes were made to MM 4.4-6a.
b Mohave Ground Squirrel: The project proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to the Kern County
Planning and Community Development Department showing implementation of pre-construction surveys for
the Mohave ground squirrel within all suitable habitat prior to initial ground disturbing activities. The name
and phone number of the biological monitor shall be provided to a California Department of Fish and Game
regional representative at least 14 days before the initiation of ground-disturbing activities. If the biological
monitor observes a Mohave ground squirrel on the construction site, work shall be halted and redirected to
areas not supporting this species. A written report shall be sent to California Department of Fish and Game
within five calendar days of the sighting. The report will include the date, time of the finding or incident (if
known), and location of the animal. If a dead Mohave ground squirrel is encountered, all work shall stop in
7-5
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
the immediate vicinity of the encounter and the remains shall be collected, frozen as soon as possible, and
California Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted immediately to determine the appropriate
course of action, such as the need for an Incidental Take Permit where the remains will be sent.
No changes were made to MM 4.4-6c.
d. Desert kit fox: The project proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning
and Community Development Department showing implementation of pre-construction surveys, no less
than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction
activities, for desert kit fox when construction is proposed in portions of the project site containing
suitable habitat for the species. If present, occupied kit fox dens shall be flagged and ground-disturbing
activities avoided within 50 feet of the occupied den avoided. Maternity dens shall be flagged for
avoidance, identified on construction maps, and a biological monitor shall be present during construction.
If an occupied desert kit fox den is encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity shall stop until the
California Department of Fish and Game is consulted for the appropriate course of action.
d.e. Bats: The project proponent(s) shall conduct a survey for roosting bats prior to any ground disturbance
activities in all areas within 200 feet of rocky outcrops, large trees, or any other habitat capable of
supporting roosting bats. The project proponent(s) shall also conduct surveys for roosting bats during
the maternity season (1 March to 31 July) within 300 feet of project activities near rocky outcrops or
other habitat capable of supporting bat nursery colonies. These areas shall be surveyed by a qualified
bat biologist. Surveys shall include a minimum of one day and one evening visit. If active maternity
roosts or hibernacula are found, the rock outcrop or tree occupied by the roost shall be avoided (i.e., not
removed) by the project, if feasible. If avoidance of the roost is not feasible, the bat biologist shall
survey (through the use of radio telemetry or other California Department of Fish and Game -approved
methods) for nearby alternative maternity colony sites. If the bat biologist determines, in consultation
with and with the approval of the California Department of Fish and Game, that there are alternative
roost sites used by the maternity colony and young are not present, then no further action is required.
However, if there are no alternative roost sites used by the maternity colony, provision of substitute
roosting bat habitat is required. If active maternity roosts are absent, but a hibernaculum (i.e., a nonmaternity roost) is present, then exclusion of bats prior to demolition of roosts is required.
i. Provision of substitute roosting bat habitat. If a maternity roost will be impacted by the project, and no
alternative maternity roosts are in use within one mile of the site, substitute roosting habitat for the
maternity colony shall be provided on, or in close proximity to, the project site no less than three
months prior to the eviction of the colony. Alternative roost sites will be constructed in accordance with
7-6
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
the specific bats’ requirements in coordination with California Department of Fish and Game and Kern
County. Alternative roost sites must be of comparable size and proximal in location to the impacted
colony. The California Department of Fish and Game shall also be notified of any hibernacula or active
nurseries within the construction zone.
ii. Exclude bats prior to demolition of roosts. If non-breeding bat hibernacula are found in rocky outcrops
scheduled to be removed or in crevices in rock outcrops within the grading footprint, the individuals
shall be safely evicted, according to timing and under the direction of the qualified bat biologist, by
opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity or other means determined appropriate by
the bat biologist (e.g., installation of one-way doors). In situations requiring one-way doors, a minimum
of one week shall pass after doors are installed and temperatures should be sufficiently warm for bats
to exit the roost. This action should allow all bats to leave during the course of one week. Roosts that
need to be removed in situations where the use of one-way doors is not necessary in the judgment of
the qualified bat biologist shall first be disturbed by various means at the direction of the bat biologist at
dusk to allow bats to escape during the darker hours, and the roost tree shall be removed or the
grading shall occur the next day (i.e., there shall be no less or more than one night between initial
disturbance and the grading or tree removal).
If an active maternity roost is located in an area to be impacted by the project, and alternative
roosting habitat is available, the demolition of the roost site must commence before maternity
colonies form (i.e., prior to 1 March) or after young are flying (i.e., after 31 July) using the exclusion
techniques described above.
e. f. Burrowing Owl: A pre-construction survey for burrowing owls, in conformance with the Burrowing Owl
Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993), shall be
completed no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction within suitable habitat at the project
site(s) and buffer zone(s). The project proponent(s) shall submit the results of the pre-construction survey
to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department and the California Department of
Fish and Game. The project proponent shall also submit evidence of conformance with federal and State
regulations regarding the protection of the burrowing owl by demonstrating compliance with the following:
i. Unless otherwise authorized by California Department of Fish and Game, no disturbance shall occur
within 50 meters of occupied burrows during the non-breeding season (September 1 through
January 31) or within 75 meters during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31).
7-7
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
ii. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31)
unless a qualified biologist approved by California Department of Fish and Game verifies through
non-invasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that
juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent
survival. Eviction outside the nesting season may be permitted pending evaluation of eviction plans
(developed in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game protocol for burrowing owls)
by California Department of Fish and Game and receipt of formal written approval from the
California Department of Fish and Game authorizing the eviction.
iii. Any damaged or collapsed burrow will be replaced with artificial burrows in adjacent habitat.
iv. Unless otherwise authorized by California Department of Fish and Game, a 250-foot buffer, within
which no activity will be permissible, will be maintained between project activities and nesting
burrowing owls during the nesting season. This protected area will remain in effect until August 31
or at California Department of Fish and Game’s discretion and based upon monitoring evidence,
until the young owls are foraging independently.
v. If accidental take (disturbance, injury, or death of owls) occurs, the lead biological monitor will be
notified immediately.
vi. Impacts to burrowing owl territories shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio through the acquisition of
occupied habitat off-site in an area of Kern County where turbines would not pose a mortality risk.
Acquisition of habitat shall be consistent with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993). Off-site habitat must be suitable burrowing
owl habitat, as defined in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California
Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993). Additionally, the site shall be approved by the California
Department of Fish and Game. Land should be purchased and/or placed in a conservation
easement in perpetuity and managed to maintain suitable habitat. The offsite area to be preserved
can coincide with off-site desert tortoise mitigation lands for this project.
g. Bakersfield cactus: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, if Bakersfield cactus is identified
within the construction area, the project proponent shall submit written documentation to the Kern County
Planning and Community Development Department to demonstrate how the following measures to
reduce impacts to the Bakersfield cactus shall be implemented:
i. The project proponent(s) shall work with the designated biologist(s) to identify all known Bakersfield
cactus and to establish “avoidance areas.” All Bakersfield cacti found within the WE-corridor shall be
avoided by a buffer of 25 feet through micro-siting activities within the project area. Sturdy, highly
visible, orange plastic construction fencing shall be installed around all Bakersfield cactus avoidance
7-8
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
ii.
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
areas and shall be located in accordance with direction from the designated biologist(s). The fence
shall be securely staked and installed in a durable manner that would be reasonably expected to
withstand wind and weather events and last at least through the construction period. Fencing shall
be removed upon completion of the project construction.
Bakersfield Cactus Translocation. Any Bakersfield cactus that cannot feasibly be avoided during
construction shall be translocated according to the California Department of Fish and Game’s
“Cactus Translocation (Revegetation)” guidelines. Cacti shall be translocated to a suitable,
California Department of Fish and Game-approved site.
MM 4.4-17 The project proponent shall continuously comply with the following during all project-related construction
activities for the wind and/or solar component of the project:
a.
During construction activities, if an injured or dead special-status species is encountered, the project
proponent(s) shall stop work within the immediate vicinity. Prior to the recommencement of construction,
tThe project proponent(s) shall notify the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department,
the on-call biologist, and the appropriate resources agency (e.g., United States Fish and Wildlife Service or
California Department of Fish and Game) and shall consult with the appropriate resource agencies before
construction is allowed to proceed to determine the appropriate course of action, such as the need for an
Incidental Take Permit.
b.
At the end of each work day, the biological monitor shall ensure that all potential wildlife pitfalls (trenches,
bores, and other excavations) have been backfilled. If backfilling is not feasible, all trenches, bores, and
other excavations shall be sloped at a 3:1 ratio at the ends to provide wildlife escape ramps, or covered
completely to prevent wildlife access, or fully enclosed with exclusion fencing. If any wildlife species
become entrapped, construction shall not occur until the animal has left the trench or been removed by a
qualified biological monitor as feasible. Employees and contractors shall look under vehicles and
equipment for the presence of wildlife before moving vehicles and equipment. If wildlife is observed, no
vehicles or equipment would be moved until the animal has left voluntarily or is removed by the biological
monitor. No listed species will be handled.
If an entrapped special-status species is encountered, the project proponent(s) shall stop work within the
immediate vicinity. Prior to the recommencement of construction, the project proponent(s) shall notify the
Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, the on-call biologist, and the appropriate
resources agency (e.g., United States Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and
Game) and shall consult with the appropriate resource agencies to determine the appropriate course of
action. Any entrapped species that is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or
7-9
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) shall not be disturbed unless the appropriate authorization is
obtained from the appropriate resource agency.
d. Within 24 hours prior to construction activities at each site within potential habitat for this species, a
qualified biologist shall conduct focused clearance surveys for desert tortoise, including Mojave mixed
woody scrub, creosote bush scrub, black brush scrub, and juniper woodlands. Clearance surveys are
required in any area (including appropriate buffers) that supports suitable desert tortoise habitat and that
would be subject to disturbance as a result of implementation and operation of the project, unless
otherwise authorized by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of
Fish and Game. Clearance surveys shall follow the most current United States Fish and Wildlife
Servicewildlife agency’s desert tortoise survey protocol. The authorized biologist shall determine whether
tortoises are present at the site, and whether tortoises may occur in adjacent areas and immigrate into the
impact area. If tortoises or intact burrows are found in the impact area or if the authorized biologist
determines that a tortoise may enter the construction site, the project proponent(s) shall halt work within
500 feet of the tortoise or burrow and construction activities may not resume within this 500-foot buffer
without concurrence from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish
and Game. Upon discovery of a tortoise or active tortoise burrow, and prior to any road widening or
reconstruction on Jawbone Canyon Road any project construction in potentially suitable habitat for the
desert tortoise,, a Desert Tortoise Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed and implemented that
includes the following measures in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
California Department of Fish and Game:
i. The project proponent(s) shall retain a qualified biologist with demonstrated expertise with desert
tortoise to monitor all construction activities and assist in the implementation of the monitoring program.
This person will be approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the onset of
ground-disturbing activities. This biologist will be referred to as the authorized biologist hereafter. The
authorized biologist will be present during all construction activities immediately adjacent to or within
habitat that supports desert tortoise.
ii. Prior to the onset of construction activities, the project proponent(s) shall provide all personnel who will
be present on work areas within or adjacent to the project area the following information:
a. A detailed description of the desert tortoise including color photographs;
b. The protection the desert tortoise receives under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts
7-10
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
and possible legal action that may be incurred for violation of the Acts;
c. The protective measures being implemented to conserve the desert tortoise and other species
during construction activities associated with the project;
d. A point of contact if desert tortoises are observed.
iii. All trash that may attract predators of desert tortoises will be removed from work sites or completely
secured at the end of each work day.
iv. Where construction can occur in habitat where desert tortoise are widely distributed, work areas will be
fenced in a manner that excludes tortoises from the work area and prevents equipment and vehicles
from straying from the designated work area into adjacent habitat. The authorized biologist will assist in
determining the boundaries of the area to be fenced in consultation with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game/Kern County. All workers will be advised that
equipment and vehicles must remain within the fenced work areas. Installation of the fencing and any
necessary surveys will be directed and/or conducted by the authorized biologist in concurrence with
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game/Kern County.
v. Temporary tortoise-proof fencing shall be replaced by permanent fencing for the operational phase
of the project. The temporary tortoise-proof fencing shall not be removed until the permanent
exclusionary fencing is erected. The permanent desert tortoise exclusionary fencing shall be
implemented in conjunction with the project security fencing. Permanent tortoise-proof fencing shall
be located around solar arrays, substations, and Operations and Maintenance facilities. The
permanent tortoise-proof fencing shall be erected and maintained between the interface of
permanent project structures, exclusive of turbine pads, transmission towers, and roadways, and
any remaining desert tortoise habitat prior to initiating operation of the structure. Permanent desert
tortoise exclusionary fencing would comply with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
September 2005 Recommended Specifications for Desert Tortoise Exclusionary Fencing.
Installation of fencing shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If desert tortoises are found within
an area that has been fenced to exclude the species, activities will cease and the authorized biologist
will contact California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service for
further direction.
vi. If desert tortoises are found in a construction area where fencing was deemed unnecessary, work will
cease until the animal(s) leave on their own. The authorized biologist in consultation with United States
Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game/Kern County will then determine
whether additional surveys or fencing are needed. Work may resume while this determination is being
7-11
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
made, if deemed appropriate by the authorized biologist.
vii. The authorized biologist will have the authority to stop all activities until appropriate corrective
measures have been completed.
If impacts to desert tortoise cannot be avoided, the California Department of Fish and Game and The
United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall be consulted and the necessary approvals and/or permits
obtained.
e.
Nest trees for Swainson’s hawks within the project shall not be removed. If a nest tree for a Swainson’s hawk
must be removed, a Management Authorization (including conditions to offset the loss of the nest tree) must be
obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game. If construction or other project-related activities
that may cause nest abandonment by a Swainson’s hawk or forced fledging occur, the work shall be halted
until the birds have fledged.
7-12
October 2011
County of Kern
Page 4.4-25
In arid regions, many small, ephemeral drainages that are not represented as blue-line features on
topographic maps and lack riparian vegetation may still be considered by the CDFG and the
RWQCB to qualify as Waters of the State and may be subject to both CDFG and RWQCB
jurisdiction. Subsequently, a streambed alteration notification shall be submitted to the CDFG
prior to any construction activities for final determination of jurisdiction for each drainage
crossing potentially impacted by the project.
Pages 4.4-65 through 4.4-67
MM 4.4-1
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the wind and/or solar components of the
project, the project proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to the Kern
County Planning and Community Development Department of the following:
a. That the grading plans have minimized, to the greatest extent feasible, the area
required for project construction and operation. Except for permanent
exclusionary fencing for desert tortoise, Aall fences installed on the project site
will be a maximum of four (4) eight (8) feet in height, wire strand, with a smooth
bottom wire at least eighteen (18) inches from the ground to facilitate wildlife
movement during operation of the project.
b. Evidence that a biological firm has been retained to monitor construction
activities and to recover and relocate ground-dwelling special-status species as
encountered during construction. Any capture and relocation activities shall
require the appropriate scientific collecting permits issued by the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), if applicable. The recovery and
relocation of ground-dwelling special-status species shall not include any species
listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or California
Endangered Species Act (CESA); unless, the project proponent obtains the
appropriate permit authorization as issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and CDFG.
c. Documentation demonstrating that environmental training will be provided to all
personnel working on the site during construction and operation. Training
materials and briefings shall include but not be limited to: discussion of the
Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; the consequences of non-compliance
with these acts; identification and values of plant and wildlife species and
significant natural plant community habitats; fire protection measures; measures
to minimize the spread of weeds during construction; hazardous substance spill
prevention and containment measures; a contact person at the on-call biological
services provider in the event of the discovery of dead or injured wildlife; and,
review of mitigation requirements.
d. Evidence that a qualified biologist has conducted a pre-construction sweep of the
project site for special-status wildlife species. For the desert tortoise, these preconstruction sweeps shall be in addition to any applicable protocol-level surveys
that are required by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
7-13
October 2011
County of Kern
In habitats capable of supporting coast (San Diego) horned lizard and coast
(California) horned lizard focused surveys for these species shall occur within
200 feet of work areas no more than 14 days prior to the start of ground
disturbance. If either the coast (San Diego) horned lizard or the coast (California)
horned lizard are detected during focused surveys, no work shall occur within
200 feet and California Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted and the
appropriate approvals and/or permits shall be obtained before construction can
proceed.
The project proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to the Kern County
Planning and Community Development Department demonstrating compliance
with this mitigation. During these surveys the biologist will:
1. Inspect the project area for any sensitive wildlife species;
2. Ensure that potential habitats within the construction zone are not occupied by
sensitive species (e.g., potential burrows/nests are inspected); and
3. In the event of the discovery of a non-listed, special-status ground-dwelling
animal, recover and relocate the animal to adjacent suitable habitat within the
project site at least 200 feet from the limits of construction activities.
e. Evidence that the project proponent(s) have conducted pre-construction surveys
for nesting birds if construction, ground disturbance, and/or vegetation
trimming/removal activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season
(February 1 to August 31). A qualified biologist shall conduct the breeding bird
surveys within thirty (30) days prior to the start of construction, ground
disturbance, or vegetation trimming/removal activities to identify the presence of
breeding birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act, and the California and federal Endangered Species Acts. In
riparian habitats, pre-construction nesting surveys for southwestern willow
flycatcher, gray vireo, and western yellow-billed cuckoo following the most
current United States Fish and Wildlife Service protocols for each species will be
conducted. If a nesting listed riparian bird is detected, a 500-foot disturbance-free
buffer will be established and Kern County, California Department of Fish and
Game, and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (as appropriate) shall
be notified. Buffer sizes may be modified in consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Game and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The project proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to the Kern County
Planning and Community Development Department that the pre-construction
avian nest survey was conducted on the project site per the requirements of this
mitigation. The pre-construction sweep for breeding birds shall be conducted no
more than three (3) thirty (30) days prior to the start of construction at each work
area. If nesting birds are encountered during preconstruction nesting surveys
and/or sweeps, a 300-foot disturbance-free buffer shall be established around
each nest, and no activities will be allowed within the buffer(s) until the young
have fledged from the nest or the nest fails. If nesting golden eagles are
identified, a 0.25-mile no-activity buffer will be implemented when nests have a
direct line of sight to the work area. If the work area is not within direct view of
7-14
October 2011
County of Kern
the nest, the no-disturbance buffer shall be 660 feet. Nest buffers for eagles and
other nesting birds may be adjusted to reflect existing conditions including
ambient noise, topography, and species’ disturbance tolerance with the approval
of the appropriate resource agencies (California Department of Fish and Game
and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service).
If for any reason a bird nest must be removed during the nesting season, the
project proponent(s) shall provide written documentation providing concurrence
from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department
of Fish and Game authorizing the nest relocation. The project proponent(s) shall
provide a written report to the Kern County Planning Department, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and
Game documenting the relocation efforts. The report shall include what actions
were taken to avoid moving the nest, the location of the nest, what species is
being relocated, the number and condition of the eggs taken from the nest, the
location of where the eggs are incubated, the survival rate, the location of the
nests where the chicks are relocated, and outcome (whether or not the chicks
survived and fledged).
MM 4.4-6
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the wind and/or solar
components of the project, the project proponent shall conduct the following preconstruction surveys:
b
Mohave Ground Squirrel: The project proponent(s) shall submit written
documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community Development
Department showing implementation of pre-construction surveys for the Mohave
ground squirrel within all suitable habitat prior to initial ground disturbing
activities. The name and phone number of the biological monitor shall be
provided to a California Department of Fish and Game regional representative at
least 14 days before the initiation of ground-disturbing activities. If the biological
monitor observes a Mohave ground squirrel on the construction site, work shall
be halted and redirected to areas not supporting this species. A written report
shall be sent to California Department of Fish and Game within five calendar
days of the sighting. The report will include the date, time of the finding or
incident (if known), and location of the animal. If a dead Mohave ground squirrel
is encountered, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the encounter and
the remains shall be collected, frozen as soon as possible, and California
Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted immediately to determine the
appropriate course of action, such as the need for an Incidental Take Permit
where the remains will be sent.
d. Desert kit fox: The project proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to
the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department showing
implementation of pre-construction surveys, no less than 14 days and no more
than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction
7-15
October 2011
County of Kern
activities, for desert kit fox when construction is proposed in portions of the
project site containing suitable habitat for the species. If present, occupied kit
fox dens shall be flagged and ground-disturbing activities avoided within 50
feet of the occupied den avoided. Maternity dens shall be flagged for
avoidance, identified on construction maps, and a biological monitor shall be
present during construction. If an occupied desert kit fox den is encountered,
all work in the immediate vicinity shall stop until the California Department of
Fish and Game is consulted for the appropriate course of action.
d.e. Bats: The project proponent(s) shall conduct a survey for roosting bats prior to
any ground disturbance activities in all areas within 200 feet of rocky outcrops,
large trees, or any other habitat capable of supporting roosting bats. The project
proponent(s) shall also conduct surveys for roosting bats during the maternity
season (1 March to 31 July) within 300 feet of project activities near rocky
outcrops or other habitat capable of supporting bat nursery colonies. These
areas shall be surveyed by a qualified bat biologist. Surveys shall include a
minimum of one day and one evening visit. If active maternity roosts or
hibernacula are found, the rock outcrop or tree occupied by the roost shall be
avoided (i.e., not removed) by the project, if feasible. If avoidance of the roost
is not feasible, the bat biologist shall survey (through the use of radio telemetry
or other California Department of Fish and Game -approved methods) for
nearby alternative maternity colony sites. If the bat biologist determines, in
consultation with and with the approval of the California Department of Fish
and Game, that there are alternative roost sites used by the maternity colony
and young are not present, then no further action is required. However, if there
are no alternative roost sites used by the maternity colony, provision of
substitute roosting bat habitat is required. If active maternity roosts are absent,
but a hibernaculum (i.e., a non-maternity roost) is present, then exclusion of
bats prior to demolition of roosts is required.
i.
ii.
Provision of substitute roosting bat habitat. If a maternity roost will be
impacted by the project, and no alternative maternity roosts are in use
within one mile of the site, substitute roosting habitat for the maternity
colony shall be provided on, or in close proximity to, the project site no less
than three months prior to the eviction of the colony. Alternative roost sites
will be constructed in accordance with the specific bats’ requirements in
coordination with California Department of Fish and Game and Kern
County. Alternative roost sites must be of comparable size and proximal in
location to the impacted colony. The California Department of Fish and
Game shall also be notified of any hibernacula or active nurseries within the
construction zone.
Exclude bats prior to demolition of roosts. If non-breeding bat hibernacula
are found in rocky outcrops scheduled to be removed or in crevices in rock
outcrops within the grading footprint, the individuals shall be safely evicted,
according to timing and under the direction of the qualified bat biologist, by
opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity or other means
determined appropriate by the bat biologist (e.g., installation of one-way
doors). In situations requiring one-way doors, a minimum of one week shall
pass after doors are installed and temperatures should be sufficiently warm
7-16
October 2011
County of Kern
for bats to exit the roost. This action should allow all bats to leave during
the course of one week. Roosts that need to be removed in situations where
the use of one-way doors is not necessary in the judgment of the qualified
bat biologist shall first be disturbed by various means at the direction of the
bat biologist at dusk to allow bats to escape during the darker hours, and the
roost tree shall be removed or the grading shall occur the next day (i.e.,
there shall be no less or more than one night between initial disturbance and
the grading or tree removal).
If an active maternity roost is located in an area to be impacted by the
project, and alternative roosting habitat is available, the demolition of the
roost site must commence before maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to 1
March) or after young are flying (i.e., after 31 July) using the exclusion
e.f. Burrowing Owl: A pre-construction survey for burrowing owls, in
conformance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993), shall be completed
no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction within suitable habitat at
the project site(s) and buffer zone(s). The project proponent(s) shall submit the
results of the pre-construction survey to the Kern County Planning and
Community Development Department and the California Department of Fish
and Game. The project proponent shall also submit evidence of conformance
with federal and State regulations regarding the protection of the burrowing
owl by demonstrating compliance with the following:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Unless otherwise authorized by California Department of Fish and
Game, no disturbance shall occur within 50 meters of occupied burrows
during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) or
within 75 meters during the breeding season (February 1 through August
31).
Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season
(February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by
California Department of Fish and Game verifies through non-invasive
methods that either the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation
or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently
and are capable of independent survival. Eviction outside the nesting
season may be permitted pending evaluation of eviction plans (developed
in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game protocol for
burrowing owls) by California Department of Fish and Game and receipt
of formal written approval from the California Department of Fish and
Game authorizing the eviction.
Any damaged or collapsed burrow will be replaced with artificial
burrows in adjacent habitat.
Game, a 250-foot buffer, within which no activity will be permissible,
will be maintained between project activities and nesting burrowing owls
during the nesting season. This protected area will remain in effect until
August 31 or at California Department of Fish and Game’s discretion
7-17
October 2011
County of Kern
v.
vi.
and based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging
independently.
If accidental take (disturbance, injury, or death of owls) occurs, the lead
biological monitor will be notified immediately.
Impacts to burrowing owl territories shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio
through the acquisition of occupied habitat off-site in an area of Kern
County where turbines would not pose a mortality risk. Acquisition of
habitat shall be consistent with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and
Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993).
Off-site habitat must be suitable burrowing owl habitat, as defined in the
Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California
Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993). Additionally, the site shall be
approved by the California Department of Fish and Game. Land should
be purchased and/or placed in a conservation easement in perpetuity and
managed to maintain suitable habitat. The offsite area to be preserved
g. Bakersfield cactus: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, if
Bakersfield cactus is identified within the construction area, the project
proponent shall submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning and
Community Development Department to demonstrate how the following
measures to reduce impacts to the Bakersfield cactus shall be implemented:
i. The project proponent(s) shall work with the designated biologist(s) to
identify all known Bakersfield cactus and to establish “avoidance areas.”
All Bakersfield cacti found within the WE-corridor shall be avoided by a
buffer of 25 feet through micro-siting activities within the project area.
Sturdy, highly visible, orange plastic construction fencing shall be installed
around all Bakersfield cactus avoidance areas and shall be located in
accordance with direction from the designated biologist(s). The fence shall
be securely staked and installed in a durable manner that would be
reasonably expected to withstand wind and weather events and last at least
through the construction period. Fencing shall be removed upon completion
of the project construction.
ii. Bakersfield Cactus Translocation. Any Bakersfield cactus that cannot
feasibly be avoided during construction shall be translocated according to
the California Department of Fish and Game’s “Cactus Translocation
(Revegetation)” guidelines. Cacti shall be translocated to a suitable,
California Department of Fish and Game-approved site.
MM 4.4-17 The project proponent shall continuously comply with the following during all projectrelated construction activities for the wind and/or solar component of the project:
a. During construction activities, if an injured or dead special-status species is
encountered, the project proponent(s) shall stop work within the immediate vicinity.
Prior to the recommencement of construction, tThe project proponent(s) shall notify
the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, the on-call
biologist, and the appropriate resources agency (e.g., United States Fish and Wildlife
7-18
October 2011
County of Kern
Service or California Department of Fish and Game) and shall consult with the
appropriate resource agencies before construction is allowed to proceed to determine
the appropriate course of action, such as the need for an Incidental Take Permit.
b. At the end of each work day, the biological monitor shall ensure that all potential
wildlife pitfalls (trenches, bores, and other excavations) have been backfilled. If
backfilling is not feasible, all trenches, bores, and other excavations shall be sloped at
a 3:1 ratio at the ends to provide wildlife escape ramps, or covered completely to
prevent wildlife access, or fully enclosed with exclusion fencing. If any wildlife
species become entrapped, construction shall not occur until the animal has left the
trench or been removed by a qualified biological monitor, as feasible. Employees and
contractors shall look under vehicles and equipment for the presence of wildlife
before moving vehicles and equipment. If wildlife is observed, no vehicles or
equipment would be moved until the animal has left voluntarily or is removed by the
biological monitor. No listed species will be handled.
If an entrapped special-status species is encountered, the project proponent(s) shall
stop work within the immediate vicinity. Prior to the recommencement of
construction, the project proponent(s) shall notify the Kern County Planning and
Community Development Department, the on-call biologist, and the appropriate
resources agency (e.g., United States Fish and Wildlife Service or California
Department of Fish and Game) and shall consult with the appropriate resource
agencies to determine the appropriate course of action. Any entrapped species that is
listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) shall not be disturbed unless the appropriate authorization is
obtained from the appropriate resource agency.
d. Within 24 hours prior to construction activities at each site within potential habitat
for this species, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused clearance surveys for
desert tortoise, including Mojave mixed woody scrub, creosote bush scrub, black
brush scrub, and juniper woodlands. Clearance surveys are required in any area
(including appropriate buffers) that supports suitable desert tortoise habitat and that
would be subject to disturbance as a result of implementation and operation of the
project, unless otherwise authorized by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
and the California Department of Fish and Game. Clearance surveys shall follow the
most current United States Fish and Wildlife Servicewildlife agency’s desert tortoise
survey protocol. The authorized biologist shall determine whether tortoises are
present at the site, and whether tortoises may occur in adjacent areas and immigrate
into the impact area. If tortoises or intact burrows are found in the impact area or if
the authorized biologist determines that a tortoise may enter the construction site, the
project proponent(s) shall halt work within 500 feet of the tortoise or burrow and
construction activities may not resume within this 500-foot buffer without
concurrence from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California
Department of Fish and Game. Upon discovery of a tortoise or active tortoise
burrow, and prior to any road widening or reconstruction on Jawbone Canyon Road
any project construction in potentially suitable habitat for the desert tortoise, a Desert
Tortoise Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed and implemented that
7-19
October 2011
County of Kern
includes the following measures in consultation with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game:
i.
The project proponent(s) shall retain a qualified biologist with demonstrated
expertise with desert tortoise to monitor all construction activities and assist in
the implementation of the monitoring program. This person will be approved by
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the onset of grounddisturbing activities. This biologist will be referred to as the authorized biologist
hereafter. The authorized biologist will be present during all construction
activities immediately adjacent to or within habitat that supports desert tortoise.
ii.
Prior to the onset of construction activities, the project proponent(s) shall
provide all personnel who will be present on work areas within or adjacent to
the project area the following information:
a. A detailed description of the desert tortoise including color photographs;
b. The protection the desert tortoise receives under the federal and State
Endangered Species Acts and possible legal action that may be incurred for
violation of the Acts;
c. The protective measures being implemented to conserve the desert tortoise
and other species during construction activities associated with the project;
iii.
All trash that may attract predators of desert tortoises will be removed from
work sites or completely secured at the end of each work day.
iv.
Where construction can occur in habitat where desert tortoise are widely
distributed, work areas will be fenced in a manner that excludes tortoises from
the work area and prevents equipment and vehicles from straying from the
designated work area into adjacent habitat. The authorized biologist will assist
in determining the boundaries of the area to be fenced in consultation with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and
Game/Kern County. All workers will be advised that equipment and vehicles
must remain within the fenced work areas. Installation of the fencing and any
necessary surveys will be directed and/or conducted by the authorized biologist
in concurrence with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service/California
Department of Fish and Game/Kern County.
v.
Temporary tortoise-proof fencing shall be replaced by permanent fencing for
the operational phase of the project. The temporary tortoise-proof fencing
shall not be removed until the permanent exclusionary fencing is erected. The
permanent desert tortoise exclusionary fencing shall be implemented in
conjunction with the project security fencing. Permanent tortoise-proof
fencing shall be located around solar arrays, substations, and Operations and
Maintenance facilities. The permanent tortoise-proof fencing shall be erected
and maintained between the interface of permanent project structures,
exclusive of turbine pads, transmission towers, and roadways, and any
remaining desert tortoise habitat prior to initiating operation of the structure.
Permanent desert tortoise exclusionary fencing would comply with the United
7-20
October 2011
County of Kern
States Fish and Wildlife Service September 2005 Recommended
Specifications for Desert Tortoise Exclusionary Fencing. Installation of
fencing shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If desert tortoises are found
within an area that has been fenced to exclude the species, activities will cease
and the authorized biologist will contact California Department of Fish and
Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service for further direction.
vi. If desert tortoises are found in a construction area where fencing was deemed
unnecessary, work will cease until the animal(s) leave on their own. The
authorized biologist in consultation with United States Fish and Wildlife
Service/California Department of Fish and Game/Kern County will then
determine whether additional surveys or fencing are needed. Work may resume
while this determination is being made, if deemed appropriate by the authorized
biologist.
vii. The authorized biologist will have the authority to stop all activities until
appropriate corrective measures have been completed.
If impacts to desert tortoise cannot be avoided, the California Department of Fish
and Game and The United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall be consulted
and the necessary approvals and/or permits obtained.
e. Nest trees for Swainson’s hawks within the project shall not be removed. If a nest
tree for a Swainson’s hawk must be removed, a Management Authorization
(including conditions to offset the loss of the nest tree) must be obtained from the
California Department of Fish and Game. If construction or other project-related
activities that may cause nest abandonment by a Swainson’s hawk or forced fledging
occur, the work shall be halted until the birds have fledged.
Page 4.9-12
California Water Code §13260 Under Porter-Cologne, California Water Code §13260 requires that any person discharging
waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the
waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, must submit a report of waste
discharge to the applicable RWQCB. “Waste” is defined in the Basin Plan to include any waste
or deleterious material including, but not limited to, waste earthen materials (such as soil, silt,
clay, rock, or other organic or mineral material) and any other waste as defined in the California
Water Code, §13050(d). Any actions related to the project that would be applicable to California
Water Code §13260 would be reported to the Lahontan RWQCB.
NPDES General Construction Permit The NPDES was established per 1972 amendments to the federal Water Pollution Control Act, in
order to control discharges of pollutants from point sources (Section 402). As described above,
under “Federal,” 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act created a new section of the act
devoted to storm water permitting (Section 402[p]), with individual States designated for
administration and enforcement of the provisions of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES permit
program. The SWRCB issues both General Construction Permits and individual permits under
this program.
7-21
October 2011
County of Kern
The NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit, Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ,
contains requirements for post-construction stormwater management. The project must include
the implementation of long-term BMPs to address post-construction stormwater, particularly for
impervious surface runoff, access road alignment, and proposed drainage crossings.
Projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a Notice of
Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB to be covered under the State NPDES General Construction
Permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction activity. The project proponent
must control measures that are consistent with the State General Permit. A SWPPP must be
developed and implemented for each site covered by the General Permit. A SWPPP describes
BMPs the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and reduce potential impacts to surface
water quality through the construction period. The SWPPP must contain the following: a visual
monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be
implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges
directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment (SWRCB 2009). The area that
would be disturbed under the project exceeds one acre and; therefore, the project would be
required to comply with the General Permit.
7-22
October 2011
County of Kern
7.3
Errata to the Project Draft EIR
The following errata are provided for the text of the Catalina Renewable Energy Project.
Amended text is identified by page number. Clarifications to the Draft EIR text are shown with
underlining and text removed from the Draft EIR is shown with strikethrough.
Global Change
Multiple sections of the Draft EIR describe the planned transmission options, with the first
description being located on page 2-10 of Chapter 2, Introduction, of the Draft EIR. A global
change has been made to all sections of the Draft EIR which describe transmission. Please see the
revised Figure 3-3, Generation Tie-Line Routes, below. Additionally, a figure is included as
Figure 7-1 to this Response to Comments to illustrate a conceptual schematic of the proposed
interconnection facilities at the Whirlwind Substation.
The global change is shown below as an amendment to the applicable language on page 2-10 and
would also be changed for all transmission descriptions in the remainder of the EIR:
Page 2-10
The project boundaries are located entirely within the KCGP; however, the project’s generation
tie-line crosses through the adjacent Pacific Wind Energy Project which is a separate wind
project, a portion of which that is located within the boundaries of the Willow Springs Specific
Plan. The Pacific Wind Energy Project is located contiguous to the Catalina project site and the
Pacific Wind Energy Project’s generation tie-line and connection to the SCE Whirlwind
Substation was previously analyzed and approved via a certified EIR. Therefore, no further
analysis of the generation tie-line’s extension beyond the project boundary is required. The
project’s generation tie-line would include a 230-kV, double-circuited, overhead transmission line
and over/underground communication cables for interconnection into the Southern California
Edison (SCE) Whirlwind Substation location. The project’s generation tie-line would connect
through a transmission corridor located adjacent to the 14-mile long, 230-kV overhead
transmission corridor, that was approved in conjunction with the Pacific Wind Energy Project.
The transmission corridor is aligned from the northeast to the southwest, where it connects to the
SCE Whirlwind Substation.
There are two potential routes, both crossing through the approved, adjacent Pacific Wind Energy
Project. The primary route would parallel the 230-kV, overhead, dual-circuited Route 1 through
the Pacific Wind Energy Project property, starting north of LADWP Aqueduct Number 1 and
continuing to the interconnection at the SCE Whirlwind Substation (Revised Figure 3-3,
Generation Tie-Line Route). The primary or preferred route would travel south on private
easements along the eastern boundaries of Sections 25 and 36, and then cut diagonally west
across Section 36 to Section 2, where it would turn south through Sections 2, 11, 14, and 28 to the
breaker positions at the Whirlwind Substation. The secondary or alternative route would travel
southwest on private easements to the middle of Section 25 and then turn south through the
middle of Sections 36, 11, 12, and 13 to the western boundary of Section 24 and continue west to
the center of Section 14, following the primary route south to the breaker positions at the
Whirlwind Substation. The Pacific Wind Energy Project EIR analyzed these routes, the
disturbances, environmental impacts, and alignments.
7-23
October 2011
LEGEND
11
10
12
Generation Tie-Line
7
8
9
10
11
12
7
8
18
17
16
15
14
13
18
17
19
20
21
23
24
Preferred Route
Alternative Routes
Route Corridors
15
14
Corridor 1
13
Corridor 2
Corridor 3
Corridor 4
Corridor Alt
23
Catalina Project Boundary
22
24
10 N 14 W
10 N 15 W
22
26
27
19
25
30
20
10 N 13 W
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
12
7
8
9
10
11
12
7
11
9 N 15 W
10
14
15
22
9 N 13 W
8
13
24
23
9 N 14 W
16
17
18
19
20
21
15
14
22
23
13
24
18
17
19
20
CATALINA RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT • EIR
0
0.5
1 mile
ZCC No. 8, MAP 215; ZCC No. 8, MAP 216; CUP No. 6, MAP 215; CUP No. 7, MAP 215
Generation Tie-Line Routes
Figure 3-3
G:\1378\1378-038\Documents\AEIR
Source: TriAxis Engineering, Inc.
Interconnection Facilities at
Whirlwind Substation
Figure 7-1
County of Kern
The transmission lines are a monopole design and dual circuited, with both an optical ground wire
(OPGW) line and buried communication lines/ fiber optic lines to meet SCE’s interconnection
requirements. The monopole design would end at the southern edge of the Pacific Wind Energy
Project property and then transfer to the SCE transmission lines built on either monopoles or
lattice type towers in the SCE Whirlwind property boundaries to the SCE breaker positions for
interconnection. The transmission corridor for the Catalina project would include monopoles
constructed at intervals of 400 to 600 feet, or approximately 10 per mile. In addition, a temporary
10-foot-wide dirt road could be used during construction to install the monopoles. The
underground communications lines would be installed within the temporary road alignment. The
transmission corridor for the generation tie-line would be constructed in conjunction with the
solar element of the project.
The permanent right-of-way (ROW) width for the line would range from 60 to 125 feet in width.
The total length of roads constructed and maintained for access to the t-line would equal the total
miles of tie-line constructed including the generation tie connector road (approximately 1,415 feet
in length) at the northeastern project boundary, which connects to an approved Pacific Wind
Energy Project road, for an estimated permanent impact area of 117.2 acres. Roads would be
constructed with a 16-foot width, with 10 feet on each side as temporary disturbance. One (1)
monopole structure with two (2) vertical tangent configurations for the circuits would be
supported by the structure. The average height of the pole structures along this transmission line
would be between 110 feet and up to 150 feet tall, and minimum ground clearance beneath
conductors would meet all federal, state, and local design standards as required. Poles would be
spaced at approximately 400 to 600 feet apart or approximately 12 poles per mile, dependent on
topography and engineering requirements; therefore, the total number of poles is estimated at
approximately 160 to 190 for the approximate 14-mile-long line. Ground disturbance at the base
of each pole would be less than approximately 0.001 acre permanent impact and less than
approximately 0.23 acre temporary impact. Temporary disturbance associated with the activities
required to pull wires (pull-sites) from eight (8) and up to 25 locations is estimated to be from 1.7
and up to 8 acres. The total area of impact for both permanent and temporary disturbance for the
project from the placement of poles and associated pull-sites is estimated at 24.2 and up to117.2
acres.
It is anticipated that the project interconnection facilities would be constructed within the SCE
Whirlwind Substation. The interconnection facilities would consist of a new dead-end structure to
be installed by SCE within the Whirlwind footprint. Additionally, SCE will install, own, and
operate approximately 1,500 feet of 230-kV line consisting of four spans of conductors and 35
dead-end insulator/hardwire assemblies. The facilities to be constructed by SCE include: two
single-circuit, dead-end structures with OPGW at the Whirlwind Substation, and one double–
circuit, dead-end structure with OPGW at the Whirlwind Substation. In addition, SCE will install
underground fiber optic cable (i.e., underground communication lines) to extend fiber from a
vault at the perimeter of Whirlwind Substation to the communication room inside the substation.
The location of the interconnection facilities was evaluated in the Pacific Wind Energy Project
EIR and approved for such use.
The interconnection facilities at the SCE Whirlwind Substation would include the installation of
one dead-end structure, three coupling capacitor voltage transformers (CCVT), protection relays,
and a 230-kV switch rack position No. 2 to terminate the Catalina 230-kV transmission line.
Approximately 3,000 feet of underground optical fiber cable/ underground communication lines
7-26
October 2011
County of Kern
would be installed to extend the OPGW within the transmission corridor of the Catalina project to
the interconnection at the SCE Whirlwind Substation. The underground communications
improvements would also include dual synchronous optical networking (SONET) optical
multiplex and channel equipment at Whirlwind and at each project substation. In addition, one
remote terminal unit (RTU), revenue metering cabinet, and revenue meter will be installed at each
substation. This equipment associated with the interconnection will be owned, operated, and
maintained by SCE.
Other Text Changes to the DEIR
Page v
The information contained in the list of appendices to reflect all documents within each appendix
and listed on the table of contents for Volumes II through V, as they were provided during public
circulation. This is to clarify that, in many cases, more than one report was provided in a given
appendix. The revisions are provided below:
B Air Quality Impact Technical Report and Supplemental Air Quality Analysis
C Biological Resources Technical Report and Supplemental Biological Survey Memoranda
D Cultural Resources Technical Report and Results of the Supplemental Cultural Resources
Survey
H Noise Impact Technical Report and Memorandum for the Record for the Noise Technical
Report
I
Traffic Study and Addendum to the Traffic Study
J
Visibility Analysis Technical Report, Shadow Flicker Analysis, Supplemental Shadow
Flicker Research (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011), and Supplemental Shadow Flicker
Analysis (DVM, 2011).
Page 1-10
The following subsection is inserted into Section 1.5.2, Impacts of the Proposed Project, between
the subsection “No Potential for Impacts to Occur” and the subsection “Unavoidable Significant
Adverse Impacts.”
Less than Significant Impacts with Incorporation of Mitigation Measures Potential environmental effects of the project and mitigation measures are discussed in detail in
Chapter 4 of this EIR. The following effects were determined after full analysis to be less than
significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
Air Quality
•
Impact 4.3-1: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan
•
Impact 4.3-4: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentration
•
Impact 4.4-2: Have Substantial Adverse Effects to Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive
Natural Community
7-27
October 2011
County of Kern
•
Impact 4.4-4: Interference with Wildlife Movement, Migration Corridors, or Nursery Sites
•
Impact 4.4-5: Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
•
Impact 4.5-2: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or
Unique Geologic Feature
•
Impact 4.5-3: Disturb any Human Remains, Including those Interred Outside of Formal
Cemeteries
Geology and Soils
•
Impact 4.6-1: Expose People or Structures to Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the
Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving the Rupture of A Known Earthquake Fault
•
Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Seismic-related Ground Failure, Including
Liquefaction
•
Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Landslides
•
Impact 4.6-6: Be Located on a Geologic Unit or Soil that is Unstable, or that Would
Become Unstable as a Result of the Project, and Potentially Result in On- or Off-site
Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse
•
Impact 4.6-7: Be Located on Expansive Soil, as Defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), Creating Substantial Risks to Life or Property
•
Impact 4.6-8: Have Soils that are Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use of Septic
Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Systems Where Sewers are Not Available for the
Disposal of Wastewater
•
Impact 4.6-9: Contribute to Cumulative Geologic and Soils Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
•
Impact 4.8-1: Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment through the
Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
•
Impact 4.8-2: Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment through
Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of
Hazardous Materials into the Environment
•
Impact 4.8-3: Results in a Hazard to Air Navigation In the Vicinity of A Public Airport
•
Impact 4.8-4: For a Project within the Vicinity of a Private Airstrip, Would the Project
Result in a Safety Hazard for People Residing or Working in the Project Area
•
Impact 4.8-5: Impair Implementation of, or Physically Interfere with, an Adopted
Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
•
Impact 4.8-6: Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death
Involving Wildland Fires, Including Where Wildlands are Adjacent to Urbanized Areas or
Where residences are Intermixed with Wildlands
7-28
October 2011
County of Kern
•
Impact 4.8-7: Would Implementation of the Project Generate Vectors or Have a
Component That Includes Agricultural Waste Exceeding Adopted Qualitative Thresholds
•
Impact 4.8-8: Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Hydrology and Water Quality
•
Impact 4.9-1: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
•
Impact 4.9-2: Substantially Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere with Groundwater
Recharge Such That There Would Be a Net Deficit in Aquifer Volume or a Lowering of the
Local Groundwater Table Level
Land Use and Planning
•
Impact 4.10-1: Conflict with any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation of an
Agency with Jurisdiction Over the Project Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or
Mitigating an Environmental Effect
Noise
•
Impact 4.11-1: Exposure of Persons to, or Generation of, Noise Levels in Excess of
Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance or Applicable
Standards of Other Agencies
•
Impact 4.11-3: Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project
Vicinity above Levels Existing without the Project
•
Impact 4.11-4: Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the
Project Vicinity above Levels Existing without the Project
•
Impact 4.11-7: Contribute to Cumulative Noise Impacts
Public Services
•
Impact 4.13-1: Increased Need for or Alter, Fire Protection Services
•
Impact 4.13-2: Increase Need for or Alter, Police/Sheriff Protection Services
•
Impact 4.13-6: Contribute to Cumulative Public Service Impacts
Transportation and Traffic
•
Impact 4.15-1: Exceed the Capacity of the Existing Circulation System, Based on an
Applicable Measure of Effectiveness (as Designated in a General Plan Policy, Ordinance,
etc.), Taking into Account All Relevant Components of the Circulation System
•
Impact 4.15-3: Change in Air Traffic Patterns That Result in Substantial Safety Risks
•
Impact 4.15-4: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature or Incompatible
Uses
•
Impact 4.15-5: Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
•
Impact 4.15-7: Contribute to Cumulative Transportation and Traffic Impacts
7-29
October 2011
County of Kern
Utilities and Service Systems
•
Impact 4.16-2: Require or Result in the Construction of New Water or Wastewater
Treatment Facilities or Expansion of Existing Facilities, the Construction of Which Could
Cause Significant Environmental Effects
•
Impact 4.16-4: Have Sufficient Water Supplies Available to Serve the Project from
Existing Entitlements and Resources, or Are New or Expanded Entitlements Needed
•
Impact 4.16-5: Comply with Federal, State, and Local Statutes and Regulations Related to
Solid Waste
•
Impact 4.16-6: Contribute to Cumulative Impacts on Utilities and Service Systems
Page 1-11
Table 1-1, Summary of Significant Impacts of the Project is revised as follows, based on Section
4.3, Air Quality and Section 4.4, Biological Resources.
Table 1‐1. Summary of Significant Impacts of the Project Resources
Project Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
Air Quality
PM10 and NOX emissions during
construction would result in temporary
increases
above
the
established
thresholds. Even with mitigation
measures, temporary (construction)
impacts are considered significant and
unavoidable.
Annual NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions
during construction would result in temporary
significant impacts, as well as cumulatively
significant impacts for annual operational
PM10. Therefore, the annual NOx, PM10, and
and
VOC
emissions
during
PM2.5,
construction (although temporary) and the
annual operational PM10 emissions are
considered cumulatively significant and
unavoidable.
Biological
Resources
Project construction and operational
impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable for bird and bat species,
including special status species, due to
potential collision with WTGs. Including
the following: Golden eagle, California
condor, pallid bat, western small-footed
myotis, long-eared myotis, fringed
myotis, and Yuma myotis. Impacts due
to construction and operation of the
project would remain significant and
unavoidable for other terrestrial plants
and animals, including special status
species, due to ground disturbing
activities.
When considered cumulatively, avian and bat
mortality due to collisions with WTGs and
associated infrastructure, as well as terrestrial
plants and animals, including special status
species, would be significant and unavoidable.
In addition, wildlife movement would be
disrupted during construction due to
avoidance of construction activities and
temporary barriers to movement such as
fencing. Therefore, avian, bat, terrestrial
species, and wildlife movement impacts of the
Project, when combined with impacts of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects,
are considered cumulatively significant and
unavoidable.
7-30
October 2011
County of Kern
Pages 1-25 and 1-26, Table 1-3
Table 1‐3. Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Impacts after Mitigation
Level of
Impact
Significance
before Mitigation
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Air Quality
Impact 4.3-1: Conflict with or
Obstruct Implementation of the
Applicable Air Quality Plan
Potentially
significant
MM 4.3-2 The project proponent shall continuously comply with the following during construction and operation of the wind and
solar projects:
Less than
significant
To control emissions from the on-site off-road construction equipment:
a. All off-road construction diesel engines not registered under California Air Resources Board’s Statewide
Portable Equipment Registration Program, which have a rating of 50 horsepower or more, shall meet, at a
minimum, the Tier 3 California Emission Standards for Off-road Compression-Ignition Engines as specified in
California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2423(b)(1) unless that such engine is not available for a
particular item of equipment. In the event a Tier 3 engine is not available for any off-road engine larger than
100 horsepower, that engine shall be equipped with retrofit controls that would provide nitrogen oxides and
particulate matter emissions that are equivalent to Tier 3 engine.
b. All equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Engine idling of all equipment shall be minimized.
c. All equipment engines shall be maintained in good operating condition and in proposed tune per
manufacturers’ specification.
To control NOx emissions from on-road heavy-duty diesel haul vehicles that are contracted on a continuing basis for
use to haul equipment and materials for the project:
a. 20062007 engines or pre-20062007 engines with CARB certified Level 3 diesel emission controls will be used
to the extent possible.
b. All on-road construction vehicles, except those meeting the 20062007/CARB certified Level 3 diesel
emissions controls, shall meet all applicable California on-road emission standards and shall be licensed in
the State of California. This does not apply to worker personal vehicles.
c. The construction contractor shall ensure that all on-road construction vehicles are properly tuned and
maintained in accordance with the manufacture’s specifications.
No changes were made to the remainder of MM 4.3-2.
7-31
October 2011
County of Kern
Pages 1-30 through 1-52, Table 1-3
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
MM 4.4-2 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the wind and/or solar components of the project, the
project proponent shall develop and submit a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan to the Kern County
Planning and Community Development Department for review and approval.
Significant and
unavoidable
Impact 4.4-1: Have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the CDFG or USFWS.
Significant
The Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
No changes were made to MM 4.4-2a through 4.4-2d.
e. For any permanent loss of desert wash and riparian habitat, the project proponent shall mitigate at a
minimum of 3:1 or as identified in the California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration
Agreement. All other native habitats shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio for permanent impacts. Permanent
impacts to ruderal or disturbed habitats shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio if those habitats support specialstatus species, such as the burrowing owl and desert tortoise. Permanent impacts shall be mitigated
through one or more of the following:
i.
Through a conservation easement, or through Aacquisition and conservation of off-site lands which
supporting comparable habitats and species. Restoration and/or enhancement/re-vegetation shall be
conducted on mitigation lands as necessary to achieve a functional value comparable to habitats
impacted by the project.
ii.
Onsite restoration, enhancement, and management (i.e., weed control, etc.) of disturbed areas not
impacted by project construction.
iii.
Mitigation banking, in consultation with Kern County.
f. The Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan developed shall establish performance criteria, tentative
time frames for restoration of the site in addition to provisions for a monitoring program to assess the
success of restoration efforts. The Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan shall be developed and
implemented to preserve native shrub communities to the maximum extent feasible.
g. As part of the Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan, the project proponent(s) shall prepare and
implement a Joshua Tree Preservation Plan to compensate for permanent impacts to Joshua tree
woodlands. The Joshua Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Kern
County Planning and Community Development Department. Upon approval of the Plan, and prior to
7-32
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
initiating project construction, the project proponent(s) shall have a qualified biologist document the location
and acreage of Joshua tree woodland, size, and branching complexity of all individual Joshua trees that
would be subject to permanent disturbance.
The Joshua Tree Preservation Plan shall describe field methods used to delineate acreage of Joshua tree
woodland and shall provide a detailed compensatory mitigation strategy, based on one or both of the
following options:
i. On-site or off-site preservation of Joshua tree woodland habitat shall occur on parcels within Kern
County that containing at minimum the number of individual Joshua trees impacted by the project. The
project proponent(s) may mitigate all or part of the project’s impacts to Joshua trees on-site, as follows:
Delineate and designate one or more parcels on-site for dedication for permanent conservation
management; establish a conservation easement on those parcels, the easement to be held and
managed by a suitable management entity as determined by the Director of the Kern County Planning
and Community Development Department; prepare and implement a Habitat Management Plan to
maintain habitat conditions on the site in perpetuity; and provide a non-wasting endowment sufficient to
implement the habitat management plan in perpetuity. The mitigation lands shall provide habitat at a
1:1 ratio for impacted lands, comparable to habitat to be impacted by the project (i.e., similar
abundance and size of Joshua trees, similar dominant vegetation community, similar levels of
disturbance or habitat degradation). Suitable mitigation lands provided for other species may be used
for Joshua tree woodland mitigation, at a 1:1 ratio. The Habitat Management Plan shall specify
maintenance and monitoring requirements for each parcel, which shall include but shall not be limited
to fencing and access control; signage; security and enforcement; weed control; control measures for
feral animals or pets; native habitat enhancement; fire prevention and management; and other longterm habitat considerations as appropriate.
ii. In lieu monetary funding. The project proponent(s) may mitigate all or part of the project’s impacts to
Joshua tree woodlands by funding the acquisition and management in perpetuity of Joshua tree
woodland habitat or habitats similar to those that contain impacted Joshua trees on site. Funding and
management may shall be provided through a Kern County approved conservation Plan, either
through an existing mitigation bank (e.g., as managed by the City of Lancaster Parks, Recreation and
Arts Department) or through a third-party entity such as the Wildlife Conservation Board or a regional
Land Trust. The in-lieu fee shall provide sufficient funds to acquire appropriate lands to provide habitats
containing Joshua trees at a 1:1 ratio for impacted lands, comparable to habitat to be impacted by the
project (i.e., similar abundance and size of Joshua trees, similar dominant vegetation community,
7-33
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
similar levels of disturbance or habitat degradation). Suitable mitigation lands provided for other
species may be used for Joshua tree woodland mitigation, at a 1:1 ratio.
Additionally, the Joshua Tree Preservation Plan shall contain provisions for the following:
a. The plan shall identify specific efforts that will be made to minimize vegetation removal and
permanent loss at construction sites. If necessary, native vegetation should be flagged for
protection. When non-native vegetation is removed or disturbed, then native vegetation shall be
the replacement.
b. The plan shall identify specific methods for avoiding Joshua tree woodlands and cactus. To provide
the basis for mitigation, a Joshua tree woodland and cactus survey shall be conducted within areas
proposed for disturbance. All Joshua tree woodlands and cactus within disturbance areas shall be
mapped, and their condition recorded. Suitable candidates for translocation shall be identified and
this strategy shall be employed over removal.
c.
The plan shall disclose the amount of acres of Joshua tree woodland to be removed. This
quantification shall be used for compensation purposes.
d. The plan shall specify that a qualified biologist shall monitor construction and all Joshua trees and
cactus removed or damaged shall be recorded and replaced at appropriate mitigation ratios.
The creation or restoration of all habitats, as mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts, shall be
monitored until established success criteria are met, to assess progress and identify potential problems
with the restoration site. Remedial activities (e.g., additional planting, weeding, or erosion control) shall be
taken during the monitoring period if necessary to ensure the success of the restoration effort. If the
mitigation fails to meet the established performance criteria within the established maintenance and
monitoring period, monitoring shall extend beyond the initial period until the criteria are met or unless
otherwise approved by Kern County and the California Department of Fish and Game.
MM 4.4-4
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the wind and/or solar components of the project, a Raven
Management Plan shall be developed for the project site in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and California Department of Fish and Game to minimize the potential for the project to indirectly impact
desert tortoises by subsidizing raven populations. The Raven Management Plan will require measures such as
annual nest removal by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game
and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, removal of carrion at the base of turbines, storage of garbage
7-34
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
in raven-proof containers, and installation of anti-nesting devices on structures where raven nests could be built.
In addition, to offset the cumulative contributions of the project to desert tortoise from increased raven numbers,
the project proponent(s) shall also contribute to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Common
Raven Management Program through the payment of fees not to exceed $150 per disturbed acre. This number
shall be verified utilizing the formula established by the Desert Managers Group.
MM 4.4-7
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the wind and/or solar components of the project, the
project proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department of the following regarding the California condor:
e.
The project proponent(s) shall also provide written documentation to the Kern County Planning
Department showing implementation of the following additional measures:
i.
Bird flight diverters shall be installed on all meteorological tower guy wires on structures
constructed as part of the project.
ii.
During periods of livestock grazing, a full-time monitor shall be present to ensure immediate
removal of carcasses on the project site.
iii. The applicant shall work together with the area grazing permittees to develop Best Management
Practices for grazing.
iii. iv. Funding for conservation measures such as radio telemetry, condor feeding programs, or other
such measures as deemed appropriate shall be provided to the California Condor Recovery
Program. Funding shall be calculated at six (6) units per one hundred (100) turbines installed as
part of the project. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits for the first (1st) turbine,
the project proponent shall fund six telemetry units in the amount of $188,100 ($4,150 per unit
plus an "endowment" of $163,200 to be used for tracking data over an eight-year period). Prior to
the issuance of any building or grading permits for the one-hundred-and-first (101st) turbine, the
project proponent shall fund six additional telemetry units in the amount of $188,100 ($4,150 per
unit plus an endowment of $163,200 to be used for tracking data over an eight year period). The
total funding to be provided shall not exceed $376,200.
MM 4.4-9W Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a wind turbine generator, if applicable, the project proponent
shall submit a current copy of their Avian and Bat Protection Plan to the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department. develop and submit to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service an Avian and Bat
7-35
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
Protection Plan that is guided by the Interim Guidelines for the Development of a Project Specific Avian and Bat
Protection Plan for Wind Energy Facilities (2010). The plan shall be reviewed and any comments shall be
provided, along with the plan, to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. The Kern
County Planning and Community Development Department shall coordinate with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service regarding any comments received and shall include any additional clarifications, as deemed
appropriate. The Avian and Bat Protection Plan framework shall comply with the following framework which
shall include, but not be limited to, the following sections/chapters:
a)
Introduction – includes detailed project description and permit compliance information;
b)
Environmental Setting - includes habitat and species characterization, detailed listing of the studies
performed (including pertinent dates), and the project’s risk assessment;
c)
Conservation and Compensation Strategies – includes a detailed list of all Kern County adopted
biological mitigation measures and conservation efforts for the project related to avian and bat species,
and any additional compensatory strategies that have been determined to be feasible and appropriate
for the project;
d)
Monitoring and Reporting – includes a detailed description of post-monitoring and reporting as required by
Kern County adopted mitigation measures.
MM 4.4-10W Prior to issuance of approval for final occupancy of the wind component of the project, the project
proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community Development
Department showing that the following measures to reduce avian and bat impacts from turbine activities have
been implemented. This mitigation measure includes the following:
No changes were made to MM 4.4-10Wa trough 4.4-10We.
f.
Permanent Uun-guyed meteorological towers shall be constructed for the wind project, if feasible. Any
proposed temporary meteorological towers which utilize guy wires will require review and authorization
by Kern County on a case-by-case basis. If guy wires are necessary, bird deterrents shall be used.
MM 4.4-16W After three years of Post-Construction Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring, the project proponent shall consult
with the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department and the California Department of
Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to determine if the project is resulting in
unanticipated significant adverse impacts on the population of an avian or bat species or is significantly
interfering with any migratory corridor. If this determination is made, the project proponent(s) shall provide
supplemental mitigation as determined by the Agencies listed above. In accordance with California
7-36
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15065 and Appendix G, a significant impact shall be
determined on a species-by-species basis according to the following criteria:
a. Cause an avian or bat species to drop below self-sustaining levels;
b. Threaten to eliminate a bat or avian community;
c. Substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species;
d. Substantially impair movement through any migratory corridor; or
e. Have a substantial adverse effect on any candidate, sensitive or special status avian or bat species
Supplemental measures to be considered shall include:
a. Additional migration count surveys, conducted using a methodology that allows comparison with the
baseline surveys conducted in 2010/2011.
b. Provision of additional nesting structures or platforms.
c. Operational modifications to the WTG(s) that contribute to significant avian and/or bat mortality.
Operational modifications to be considered include changing WTG cut-in speed or decommissioning
individual WTG(s) that are responsible for a disproportionately high amount of mortality.
d. c. Contribution to research that addresses the sources of mortality and population impacts on the
species of concern.
e. d. Funding of regional conservation measures with the intent of enhancing and preserving existing
foraging and nesting habitat in an amount not to exceed the value of acreage representing the project’s
rotor swept area based on installed turbines.
7-37
October 2011
County of Kern
Impact 4.4-5: Conflict with Local
Policies or Ordinances Protecting
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Potentially
significant
Implement MM 4.4-2.
MM 4.4-19 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the wind and/or solar component, the following measures shall be
implemented in order to protect the Joshua trees, which are afforded protection under applicable provisions of
the California Desert Native Plants Act:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
Less than
significant
Every effort shall be made to minimize vegetation removal and permanent loss at construction sites. If
necessary, native vegetation should be flagged for protection. When non-native vegetation is removed or
disturbed, then native vegetation shall be the replacement.
Priority shall be given to avoiding individual Joshua trees and cactus whenever feasible. To provide the
basis for mitigation, a Joshua tree and cactus survey shall be conducted within areas proposed for
disturbance. All Joshua trees and cactus within disturbance areas shall be mapped, and their condition
recorded. Suitable candidates for translocation shall be identified and this strategy shall be employed over
removal whenever feasible.
A Joshua tree woodland protection plan shall be developed for the project prior to further ground
disturbance. The Project proponent shall mitigate impacts on Joshua tree woodland by preparing and
submitting a Joshua Tree Impact Plan to the Kern County Planning Department detailing the amount of
acres of Joshua tree woodland removed. If Joshua tree woodland is impacted, the applicant shall
contribute funding to a Kern County approved conservation program, which may include but is not limited
to: the City of Lancaster Prime Desert Woodlands Preserve managed by the City of Lancaster Parks,
Recreation & Arts Department to compensate for the loss at a ratio of 1:1 prior to the issuance of a building
permit in the area affected.
A qualified biologist shall monitor construction and all Joshua trees and cactus removed or damaged shall
be recorded and replaced at appropriate mitigation ratios. In addition, acreage of Joshua tree woodland
removed shall be quantified for compensation purposes.
7-38
October 2011
County of Kern
Page 1-54 through 1-58, Table 1-3
Impact 4.4-7 Contribute to Cumulative
Biological Resources Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Significant
Implement MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-1819.
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
Significant and
unavoidable
Cultural Resources
Impact 4.5-1: Cause a Substantial
Adverse Change in the Significance
of a Historical or Archaeological
Resource as Defined in Section
15064.5
Significant
MM 4.5-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall prepare a Cultural Resources Management Significant and
Plan that will detail how all cultural resources within the project will be avoided or treated. The Cultural unavoidable
Resources Management Plan shall: (i) be prepared by a County-approved archaeologist, at the sole expense of
the project proponent; and (ii) shall be submitted to and approved by the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department prior to issuance of the building permit for the project.
The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall include the following:
a.
Detailed plan for avoiding and protecting resources that are eligible or potentially eligible for the
California Register of Historical Resources (in accordance with MM 4.5-2, above).
b.
Documentation of coordination with Native Americans.
The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall include detailed provisions to demonstrate that the project
proponent, in coordination with the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, consulted
with all tribes and individuals listed by the Native American Heritage Commission who may have concerns
about the project regarding treatment of all prehistoric archaeological sites identified at any time during surveys
for this Environmental Impact Report or surveys for areas beyond what was surveyed for this Environmental
Impact Report. Consultation shall continue throughout the course of planning and construction of the project.
Additionally, Tthe project proponent, at its sole expense, shall notify all applicable tribes of the time and duration
of construction activities near culturally sensitive sites. The purpose of this notification is to allow for the
applicable tribes, at their sole expense, to arrange for a tribe representative, and/or cultural monitor, to be
present on site to observe earth-moving activities. shall facilitate agreements The project proponent shall also
consult with the applicable tribes regarding site treatment during construction between Native Americans and
the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department that are approved by the County. The plan
7-39
October 2011
County of Kern
shall include provisions for full documentation of the consultation process, including records of all contacts and
meetings.
c.
Subsurface and Evaluative Testing Plan.
If it is determined that a project element requiring ground disturbance cannot be located at least 60 feet from
the mapped boundaries of an archaeological site, then subsurface testing (Phase II evaluation) shall be
conducted by employing a small number of shovel test units. These shovel test units would be used to
ensure that sufficient data are collected to characterize the nature and extent of previous disturbance and
the density, diversity and horizontal and vertical distribution of cultural materials within areas needed for
grading, trenching and other ground disturbance and shall verify whether or not the site would be affected by
the disturbance.
Where ground disturbance would occur within 60 feet, some sites would require additional excavations for
the purpose of evaluative testing in order to make a more definitive determination of California Register of
Historical Resources eligibility. Evaluative testing shall be conducted to evaluate the nature, extent, and
significance of the cultural resources. Evaluative testing shall be designed to record horizontal extent, depth
of the cultural matrix, and degree of internal stratification. Because subsurface testing, like any form of site
excavation, is destructive it shall be conducted only when necessary and in moderation. This evaluation
program shall involve the following:
d.
•
A detailed testing plan that includes a research design (from which to evaluate California Register
of Historical Resources eligibility); excavation plan with rationale for sample size and placement;
and discussion of special studies/ analyses that may be required—to be reviewed and approved by
a professional archaeologist the County before implementation.
•
Controlled hand excavation and surface collection of a representative sample of the site deposit as
detailed in the approved testing plan.
•
A detailed analysis of the material recovered.
•
An assessment of cultural resource data potentials, integrity, and eligibility for listing on the
California Register of Historical Resources in a regional context.
•
Preparation of a final report with recommendations for impact mitigation if necessary to be
reviewed and approved by a professional archaeologist.
•
Curation of all artifacts and data from testing evaluations.
Programmatic Data Recovery Plan.
Resources found to be not significant shall not require mitigation. However, site-specific testing results may
indicate that additional data recovery (Phase III) investigations are necessary to mitigate project impacts
adequately where avoidance would not completely preclude direct impacts to significant deposits. These
investigations shall be funded wholly by the project proponent, and may include more intensive analysis of
7-40
October 2011
County of Kern
materials excavated during testing, as well as additional excavations to recover, analyze and document a
representative sample of the deposits. Resources found to be not significant shall not require additional
mitigation; however, those sites found to be significant may require additional data recovery (Phase III)
investigations to mitigate project impacts adequately where avoidance would not completely preclude direct
impacts to significant deposits. To assist the development of site-specific data recovery investigations, the
California Cultural Resources Management Plan shall include a Programmatic Data Recovery Plan that
identifies, among other topics, standard procedures and guidelines for determining sampling intensity, and
data recovery methods based on testing results. The Data Recovery Plan shall also address research issues
that would be investigated. Further the Data Recovery Plan shall consider the project’s grading plan, utility
plan, irrigation and landscaping plan, and any other plan that delineates areas of project disturbance in
determining portions of a significant site that would be investigated. The Data Recovery Plan shall be
reviewed and approved by a professional archaeologist the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department before initiation of data recovery fieldwork.
e.
Sensitive Archaeological Locations Monitoring Plan.
A detailed plan for monitoring sensitive archaeological locations during ground-disturbing project activities.
The plan shall specify that the project proponent will provide for a qualified archeologist to monitor
earthmoving activities in areas within 60 feet of the identified archaeological sites, or in areas that have been
determined to have a high sensitivity for prehistoric resources. The archaeologist shall be authorized to halt
construction, if necessary, in the immediate area where buried cultural resources are encountered. The
monitor shall maintain a daily log of activities and shall submit a final monitoring report, which has been
prepared to California Environmental Quality Act standards, describing the results of cultural resources
monitoring efforts associated with the Project. This report shall be submitted within 90 days of completion of
the archaeological monitoring to Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, the
project proponent, the Museum of Anthropology, and the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at
California State University, Bakersfield.
f.
Pre-Construction On-site Personnel Workshop
The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall include provisions which require that a workshop be held to
brief all construction workers and supervisors on monitor roles, responsibilities, and authority; restricted
areas and approved vehicle corridors; the types of artifacts that may be encountered; penalties for
unauthorized collection of artifacts; and the need to temporarily redirect work away from the location of any
unanticipated discovery until it is recorded and adequately documented and treated. The names of all
personnel who attend the training shall be recorded and workers shall be issued hardhat stickers indicating
they have received the workshop training. The workshop shall be videotaped or digitally recorded on Digital
Video Discs or other similar media in order to train additional personnel who may join the construction project
in the future. Construction workers shall not be permitted to operate equipment within construction zones
unless they have attended the workshop or viewed the presentation and are wearing hardhats with the
required sticker.
7-41
October 2011
County of Kern
g.
Curation Requirements
The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall state that archaeological collections, final reports, field
notes, and other standard documentation collected during project implementation shall be permanently
curated at a facility in the County that meets Guidelines for the Curation of Archeological Collections
(California Department of Parks and Recreation 1993).
h.
Standards for Discovery of Human Remains
The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall specify standard procedures for recording and treating
human remains in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and guidelines. In-place preservation and
protection from further disturbance shall always be the preferred approach. If human remains are
discovered, work in the immediate vicinity shall stop until the Kern County coroner can determine whether
the remains are those of a Native American. If they are those of a Native American, the following would
apply:
a. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission.
b. If discovered human remains are determined to be Native American remains, and are released by the
coroner, these remains shall be left in situ and covered by fabric or other temporary barriers.
c. The human remains shall be protected until Kern County and the Native American Heritage
Commission come to a decision on the final disposition of the remains.
According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a
cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052).
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
Geology and Soils
Impact 4.6-1: Expose People or Potentially
Structures to Substantial Adverse significant
Effects, Including the Risk of Loss,
Injury, or Death Involving the Rupture
of a Known Earthquake Fault
MM 4.6-1 Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for the wind or solar project, the project proponent shall
conduct a full geotechnical study to evaluate soil conditions and geologic hazards on the project site and submit
it to the Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department for review and approval. The
geotechnical study must be signed by a California-registered professional engineer and must identify the
following:
7-42
Less than
significant
October 2011
County of Kern
•
•
•
Location of fault traces and potential for surface rupture;
Maximum considered earthquake and associated ground acceleration;
Potential for seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, differential settlement, and
mudflows;
• Stability of existing cut-and-fill slopes;
• Collapsible or expansive soils;
• Foundation material type;
• Potential for wind erosion, water erosion, sedimentation, and flooding;
• Location and description of unprotected drainage that could be impacted by the proposed
development; and,
• Recommendations for placement and design of facilities, foundations, and remediation of unstable
ground.
The project proponent shall determine the final siting of project facilities based on the results of the
geotechnical study and implement recommended measures to minimize geologic hazards. The project
proponent shall not locate project facilities on or immediately adjacent to a fault trace. All structures shall be
offset at least 100 feet from the mapped extension of the Cottonwood Fault trace. Alternatively, a detailed
fault trenching investigation may be performed to accurately locate the fault trace(s) to avoid sighting
improvements on or close to these fault structures and to evaluate the risk of fault rupture. After locating the
fault, accurate setback distances can be proposed.
The Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department shall evaluate any final facility
siting design developed prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits to verify that geological
constraints have been avoided.
Page 1-70, Table 1-3
Table 1‐3. Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Impacts after Mitigation
Impact
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.8-6: Expose People or
Structures to a Significant Risk of
Loss, Injury, or Death Involving
Wildland Fires, Including Where
Wildlands are Adjacent to Urbanized
Areas or Where residences are
Potentially
significant
MM 4.8-9 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the wind and/or solar component of the project, the
project proponent shall develop and implement a Fire Safety Plan for use during construction and operation.
The project proponent shall submit the Fire Safety Plan, along with maps of the project site and access roads,
to the Kern County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permit or
grading permits. The Fire Safety Plan shall contain notification procedures and emergency fire precautions
including, but not limited to, the following:
7-43
Less than
significant
October 2011
County of Kern
Intermixed with Wildlands.
No changes were made to MM 4.8-9a through 4.8-9g.
h.
The project proponent shall confer with the Kern County Fire Department regarding the need to install dip
tanks within the project site. Should dip tanks be required, the project proponent shall construct dip tanks
as specified by the Kern County Fire Department.
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 4.9-2: Substantially Deplete
Groundwater Supplies or Interfere
with Groundwater Recharge Such
that There Would Be a Net Deficit in
Aquifer Volume or a Lowering of the
Local Groundwater Table Level
Less than
Significant
Potentially
significant
No additional mitigation measures are required.
MM 4.9-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall develop and implement a Water Supply
Contingency Plan. The Water Supply Contingency Plan shall be prepared by a qualified hydrogeologist and
submitted by the project proponent to Kern County for review and approval. The Water Supply Contingency
Plan shall provide detailed procedures for conducting a groundwater investigation to determine whether the
identified groundwater resource(s) to be used for the project is in overdraft conditions; such investigation may
include review of historic groundwater well data, groundwater monitoring, hydrologic modeling, and/or interviews
with private well owners. The project proponent shall coordinate groundwater investigation efforts with the
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. This groundwater investigation shall occur prior to the onset of
construction in order to ensure that no groundwater resources from overdrafted basins are used to meet project
needs.
Less than
significant
The Water Supply Contingency Plan shall identify at least two groundwater supply wells for project use during
construction, a primary supply well and a secondary supply well. The Water Supply Contingency Plan shall
identify the well sites, proximity to other active wells, estimated total depth, well screen depth, diameter,
estimated yield and water quality. If the daily yields of the primary supply well are inadequate or become
inadequate to meet the project requirements, the secondary supply well shall be used in order to avoid potential
drawdown impacts at wells near the primary. Use of a secondary supply well would not alter the quantity of
groundwater pumped for project purposes; the purpose of the secondary supply well would be to avoid potential
impacts associated with over-pumping the primary supply well.
The Water Supply Contingency Plan shall specify when the second supply well shall be used, what conditions
would trigger necessary use of the second supply well, the person responsible for determining when to utilize
the second supply well, and how such use shall be reported. The Environmental Monitor shall verify that the
7-44
October 2011
County of Kern
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
secondary supply well is installed and is capable of producing daily yields sufficient to supplement or replace the
primary supply well in meeting construction water demand, as needed.
Page 1-86
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
after Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 4.16-4: Have Sufficient Water Potentially
Supplies Available to Serve the significant
Project from Existing Entitlements and
Resources, or Are New or Expanded
Entitlements Needed
MM 4.16-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the project proponent shall obtain water appropriation rights
for on-site potable water to the satisfaction of the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department, if
applicable.
7-45
Less
significant
than
October 2011
County of Kern
Pages 3-6 and 3-7
During the circulation of the Draft EIR, the project proponent has continued to refine certain
project elements. Figure 3-4a, Site Plan, and Figure 3-4b, Proposed Solar Array Locations, have
been revised to reflect the most recent site plans.
Page 3-21
Electrical Collection System. The project entails installation of a small step-up transformer in or
near the base of each WTG and in collection areas for the PV solar system blocks to increase the
output voltage of the power generated by the WTG and PV solar system blocks to a level suitable
for local power collection within the property. For the project, the power collection system voltage
is 34.5 kV. Underground cables would be installed throughout the majority of the project with some
overhead circuits as necessary and would connect to and between each WTG, connecting each
WTG to a feeder circuit; each feeder circuit would in turn be connected to one of the project
substations. The PV solar system blocks would contain underground cables that would connect the
PV solar system blocks to a feeder circuit and each feeder circuit would in turn be connected to one
of the project substations. Fiber-optic communication wires cables would also be laid down using
the same underground trenching channels, and overhead, in conjunction with the feeder circuits
connecting each of the WTGs and PV solar system blocks with the O&M buildings to the
substations, communication building, and O&M buildings as required to facilitate project
interconnection and operations. Overhead circuits could be used to avoid environmentally sensitive
areas, or other constraints inherent to the site. The different WTG and PV solar system block
circuits would gather at the project substations (or switchyard) and then be sent to the overhead
electricity lines leading to a grid interconnection point at the SCE Whirlwind Substation breakers.
Page 3-22
Equipment at the project substations would include transformers, breakers, grounding systems, and
associated equipment. Each substation facility would house the power generation control, metering
and relaying equipment, communication systems potentially including microwave systems, station
batteries, and SCADA system. Each substation would be remotely operated and periodically
maintained but would not be permanently manned. Each substation would be cleared, graded, and
graveled. An 8-foot-tall chain-link security fence would be installed around the perimeter for safety
and security purposes. Construction and operation of up to two substations would each affect 10.5
to 12 acres each for the wind component and 0.7 acre each for the solar component.
7-46
October 2011
1
11
12
6
5
4
7
8
9
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
14
!
.
13
16
!
.
10 N 15 W
23
20
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
30
25
26
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
31
!
.
12
7
8
9
13
18
17
16
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
21
!
.
!
.
!
.
14
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
19
!
.
22
25
36
10 N 13 W
BAC
KUS RD
20
21
30
29
28
31
32
33
23
!
.
27
!
.
!
.
!
. 28
26
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
35
34
33
!
.
24
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
29
!
.
!
.
36
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
35
!
.
11
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
10
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
4
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
5
15
!
.
!
.
!
.
19
24
!
.
6
!
.
!
.
!
.
1
!
.
!
.
17
18
!
.
!
.
2
10 N 14 W
!
.
!
.
3
TEHACHAPI WILLOW SPRINGS RD
2
32
!
.
!
.
!
.
Project Proposed 230-kV Gen-tie
5
6
1
2
4
Project Proposed 230-kV Gen-tie Alternative
3
!
.
2
9 N 14 W
9 N 15 W
Approximate Turbine Locations
O&M, Construction, Parking, Solar
Township / Range
Wind Substations
Solar Substation
Sections
5
1
6
Proposed Roads
Wind Construction Yards
Solar Project Footprint
Underground Electrical Collection
Wind Energy Zoning Overlay
Access Roads
Concrete Batch Plant Locations
HAMILTON RD
Project Site
11
12
8
7
9
10
11
12
4
Arterial Roads
9 N 13 W
7
Solar
Wind
8
9
0
1
2 miles
Site Plan
Figure 3-4a
Township / Range
Sections
Major Roads
Solar Modules
Project Boundary
Parcels
23
22
s
Lo
A
e
ng
les
A
ed
qu
uc
t
10 N 14 W
26
27
Solar Ar rays
35
34
0
0.25
0.5 miles
ZCC No. 8, MAP 215; ZCC No. 8, MAP 216;
CUP No. 6, MAP 215; CUP No. 7, MAP 215
Proposed Solar Array Locations
Figure 3-4b
County of Kern
Page 3-23
Operations and Maintenance Facilities. Up to five yards are defined to support one O&M facility
for the wind component and one O&M facility for the solar component, including a building and
storage yard that would be construction as a base for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the
project. Each O&M building would be up to 4,800 square feet and the permanent O&M facility at
each site would be two acres within a 10- to 50-acre parcel. Each O&M facility would be
constructed to house the facility electronic controls and communications systems; provide storage
for tools, maintenance supplies, and spare parts; and provide on-site office, kitchen, and bathroom
facilities for operations staff. The O&M facility site would also provide parking space for
employees, visitors, and equipment. Water would be provided to the O&M facilities via a well or
other water service (to serve the non-potable demands) and bottled drinking water and the O&M
facilities would utilize a septic system for sewage treatment. The O&M facilities would also
include approved hazardous waste containment for turbine oils and fuels, as required. The project
proponent is currently pursuing various options for water supply, including purchasing water from a
private water truck company (RMR Water Trucks) with a facility located near the unincorporated
community of Rosamond, from the Rosamond Community Services District, and/or from the
Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District’s connect located at the intersection of Oak Creek
Road and Willow Springs Road.
Page 3-23
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System. The SCADA system is critical to proper
operations and maintenance of the project and utilizes proprietary software, a fiber optic
transmission system, a telephone communications network and other means of communication such
as radio-links and phase loop communication systems. The SCADA system functions as a
monitoring and diagnostic tool that optimizes the proposed project’s operations. It allows for the
remote start, stop, reset and tag out for individual WTGs, thus minimizing the manpower and site
visits needed to run the project. This system utilizes network interfaces to collect and analyze
diagnostic information generated from the WTGs, meteorological towers, and substations. The
SCADA system would also control the various proposed project substations allowing a fully
centralized operation of the project. In addition, the project may also utilize the off-site
communication tower permitted in conjunction with the Pacific Wind Energy Project.
Page 3-31
The proposed PV solar arrays produce electricity passively with minimal maintenance
requirements. It is anticipated that panels would be washed four two times per year using water
brought in by trucks from off-site locations. Any required planned maintenance would be
scheduled to avoid peak load periods.
Page 4.1-5
The following text has been added to the top of page 4.1-5, prior the subsection titled “Viewers”.
Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker is the alternating change in light intensity that occurs when rotating WTG blades
cast moving shadows on the ground or on structures. Shadow flicker effects may have the
potential to cause seizures in certain photosensitive individuals. Epilepsy affects more than three
million Americans. Three percent of epilepsy patients have a type of photosensitive epilepsy
7-49
October 2011
County of Kern
where an exposure to flashing lights at certain intensities or to certain visual patterns can trigger
seizures. Seizures in photosensitive people may be triggered by exposure to such sources as
television screens and computer monitors due to the flicker or rolling images of video games,
television broadcasts containing rapid flashes or alternating patterns of different colors, or by
intense strobe lights like visual fire alarms. Seizures may also be triggered by natural light, such
as sunlight, especially when shimmering off water, flickering through trees, or gleaming through
the slats of Venetian blinds (Epilepsy Foundation 2010). However, even in individuals
predisposed to flicker-induced seizures, many factors must combine to trigger the photosensitive
reaction, such as frequency and brightness of the flash, contrast with background lighting,
distance between the viewer and the light source, and wavelength of light (Epilepsy Foundation
2010).
Pages 4.1-18 and 4.1-19
Shadow Flicker With the installation of WTGs, the project has the potential to result in a phenomenon known as
“shadow flicker.” As noted on page 4.1-5, shadow flicker is the alternating change in light intensity
that occurs when rotating WTG blades cast moving shadows on the ground or on structures.
Shadow flicker effects may have the potential to cause seizures in some individuals.
The project proponent conducted a shadow flicker analysis of the conceptual WTG layouts
developed for the proposed project. Conceptual WTG layout includes 69 REpower 2.05-MW
WTGs and 66 GE 1.5-MW WTGs to minimize potential impacts and maximize the wind energy
production. There are approximately 38 structures with one known residence within the project site.
The Shadow Flicker Analysis was prepared to examine the potential of the known residence and
other potentially inhabitable structures to be affected by shadow flicker from the wind component
of the project, based on location, orientation and distance from the WTGs.
Page 4.1-19
The project proponent conducted several shadow flicker analysesis using the conceptual WTG
layouts developed using either 38 Vestas V100-2.0 MW WTGs or 75 GE 1.6xle WTGs for the
proposed project to minimize potential impacts and maximize wind energy production (DNV
Renewables (USA) Inc. 2011.). These studies are included as Appendix J.2 of the EIR and as
Attachments B.1 and B.2 of this Response to Comments. Conceptual WTG layout includes 69
Repower 2.05-MW WTGs and 66 GE 1.5-MW WTGs to minimize potential impacts and maximize
the wind energy production. There are approximately 38 structures with one known residence
within the project site. The Shadow Flicker Analysis was prepared to examine the potential of the
known residence and other potentially inhabitable structures to be affected by shadow flicker from
the wind component of the project, based on location, orientation and distance from the WTGs.
The total number of hours per year that each structure would be expected to experience shadow
flicker from project WTGs was calculated with WindPRO modeling software and is summarized in
the Shadow Flicker Summary presented in Appendix J.2. In order to generate a realistic scenario,
the model allowed for the input of typical atmospheric conditions for the area including sunshine
probability, wind speed, and wind direction. The sunshine probability was based on an average of
the loud cover for the Lancaster Fox Field weather station from May 2006 to present (Sapphos
Environmental, Inc., 2010c). Because the precise window locations and orientation of the sensitive
receptors is not known, the model conservatively assumes that windows at affected structures face
all directions and are perpendicular to all of the WTGs. Therefore, the modeled results would be
7-50
October 2011
County of Kern
expected to may be higher values than what would actually occur. Table 4.1-2, Summary of
Structures Evaluated for Potential Shadow Flicker from the Project, summarizes the structures
included in the shadow flicker modeling analysis.
As presented in Appendix J.2, shadow flicker would be expected to occur at 33 of 38 existing
structures within the ZVI. As shown below in Table 4.1-3, Structures Expected to Experience
Shadow Flicker from the Project, the total annual shadow flicker from project WTGs at the 33
affected structures would range from 23.3 hours to 236.5 hours per year, up to 39 minutes per day.
The actual time per day would vary widely at the locations that would experience shadow flicker;
some days there would be no shadow flicker and some days there would be more than 39 minutes
of shadow flicker. (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011). As shown below in Table 4.1-1 and Table
4.1-2, for the Vestas V100-2.0 MW layout, all 31 structures may experience shadow flicker impacts
with the greatest expected impact predicted to be 20 hours per year or an average eight (8) minutes
per day on those days that shadow flicker is expected to occur. For the GE 1.6xle layout, 28 of the
31 structures may experience shadow flicker, with the greatest expected impact predicted to be 17
hours per year or an average eight (8) minutes per day (DNV Renewables (USA) Inc. 2011.)
Table 4.1-1. Structures Expected to Experience Shadow Flicker from the Project
Mean Daily Shadow
Structure ID
Annual Shadow Time
Descripti
(Hrs / Yr)
Time (Hr: Min: Sec)
on
F
Structure
59:07
0:09:43
G
Structure
136:57
0:22:31
H
Structure
136:06
0:22:22
I
Structure
77:53
0:12:48
J
Structure
86:27
0:14:13
K
Structure
61:39
0:10:08
L
Structure
78:40
0:12:56
M
Structure
71:47
0:11:48
N
Structure
42:33
0:07:00
O
Structure
28:28
0:04:41
P
Structure
56:30
0:09:17
Q
Structure
62:50
0:10:20
R
Structure
54:16
0:08:55
S
Structure
82:37
0:13:35
T
Structure
38:10
0:06:16
U
Residence
100:52
0:16:35
V
Structure
50:35
0:08:19
7-51
October 2011
County of Kern
W
Structure
84:47
0:13:56
X
Structure
59:49
0:09:50
Y
Structure
23:20
0:03:50
Z
Structure
46:57
0:07:43
AA
Structure
75:20
0:12:23
AB
Structure
97:34
0:16:02
AC
Structure
101:53
0:16:45
AD
Structure
93:54
0:15:26
AE
Structure
95:52
0:15:46
AF
Structure
173:33
0:28:32
AG
Structure
96:23
0:15:51
AH
Structure
95:38
0:15:43
AI
Structure
126:43
0:20:50
AJ
Structure
170:58
0:28:06
AK
Structure
236:33
0:38:53
Table 4.1‐1. Potential Shadow Flicker Impact Summary for Vestas V100‐2.0 MW Layout Expected Case²
Worst Case¹
Residence
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Days of
Potential
Impact per
Year
Total
Annual
Hours
Max
Minutes
per Day
Total
Annual
Hours
Average
Minutes per
Day³
[Days]
[Hours]
[Minutes]
[Hours]
[Minutes]
91
39
38
58
57
58
93
58
68
120
48
103
97
145
127
19
5
4
14
14
14
20
19
20
42
7
14
14
35
58
29
11
11
24
24
24
20
23
21
38
13
14
13
33
44
4
1
1
4
4
4
6
6
7
14
2
3
3
10
18
2
0
0
4
4
4
4
6
6
7
2
2
2
4
9
7-52
October 2011
County of Kern
Expected Case²
Worst Case¹
Residence
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
Days of
Potential
Impact per
Year
Total
Annual
Hours
Max
Minutes
per Day
Total
Annual
Hours
Average
Minutes per
Day³
[Days]
[Hours]
[Minutes]
[Hours]
[Minutes]
59
147
27
28
26
28
28
28
65
63
86
48
146
144
142
113
19
73
4
4
4
4
4
4
10
10
13
7
49
36
34
26
22
47
15
15
15
15
15
14
20
20
14
14
47
33
34
30
6
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
13
10
9
7
6
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
4
4
3
1. Worst-case, not adjusted for cloud cover, yaw position, or non-operational time.
2. Expected-case, shadow adjusted for cloud cover, yaw position, and non-operational time.
3. Mean minutes per day calculated only on days with potential impact, and impacts of less than
1 minute are set as 0. Mean minutes per day would be much lower if days with no potential
impact were factored in.
Table 4.1‐2. Potential Shadow Flicker Impact Summary for GE 1.6xle Layout Expected Case²
Worst Case¹
Days of
Potential
Impact per
Year
Residence
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
[Days]
175
118
119
142
141
143
109
0
0
254
139
151
Total
Annual
Hours
Max
Minutes
per Day
Total
Annual
Hours
Average
Minutes per
Day³
[Hours]
[Minutes]
[Hours]
[Minutes]
34
17
17
28
28
28
17
0
0
63
22
45
33
14
14
21
20
20
16
0
0
31
16
35
7
3
3
7
7
7
5
0
0
15
5
12
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
0
0
4
2
5
7-53
October 2011
County of Kern
Expected Case²
Worst Case¹
Days of
Potential
Impact per
Year
Residence
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
[Days]
200
83
245
0
80
18
18
18
18
18
18
131
118
130
139
73
86
122
97
Total
Annual
Hours
Max
Minutes
per Day
Total
Annual
Hours
Average
Minutes per
Day³
[Hours]
[Minutes]
[Hours]
[Minutes]
56
9
61
0
30
3
3
3
3
3
3
47
37
59
21
12
10
17
13
37
12
33
0
35
14
14
14
14
14
14
44
34
49
15
20
12
13
16
15
2
16
0
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
17
5
3
2
5
4
4
2
4
0
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
8
2
2
2
2
2
1. Worst-case, not adjusted for cloud cover, yaw position, or non-operational time.
2. Expected-case, shadow adjusted for cloud cover, yaw position, and non-operational time.
3. Mean minutes per day calculated only on days with potential impact, and impacts of less than
1 minute are set as 0. Mean minutes per day would be much lower if days with no potential
impact were factored in.
Page 4.1-21
Although it is not yet known which make and model of WTG would be installed at the project
site, the approximate number of flashes per second caused by a WTG with three blades was
estimated with the following assumptions:
1 flash = 1 revolution per blade
revolutions per minute =18.4 (Vestas 2010)
8.8 to 20.2 RPM for Vestas V100-2.0 MW
9.8 to 18.7 RPM for GE 1.6xle
3 blades/rotor
Using the above assumptions, it is estimated that structures within the shadow path of WTGs on a
sunny day would experience shadow flicker at a frequency of less than or equal to one flash per
second (0.92 flashes per second up to 1.0 flash per second for Vestas V100-2.0 MW and up to 0.9
flash per second for GE 1.6xle), which is well below the frequency of flashes considered most
likely to trigger seizures (i.e. 5 to 30 flashes per second). Therefore, shadow flicker effects of the
7-54
October 2011
County of Kern
project would not be expected to induce seizures in photosensitive individuals at or within the
structures identified in Table 4.1-31 and 2 above.
As discussed in the Supplemental Shadow Flicker Memorandum for the Record, provided in
Attachment B of the FEIR, expert witness testimony from California Neurological Specialists
Lorne S. Label, MD, MBA, FAAN, of Thousand Oaks, CA states that there is no known or
documented health effects caused by WTG shadow flicker. Specifically, the anticipated
frequency of the shadow flicker would not be expected to induce seizures in photosensitive
individuals (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011c).
Based on information and information from the Photosensitive Epilepsy Informational Brochure
from the Epilepsy Action, individuals with photosensitive epilepsy are typically sensitive to16 to
25 flashes per second. However, some people may be sensitive to rates as low as three flashes
per second and as high as 60 flashes per second. Newer WTGs are constructed to generate a
shadow flicker of less than 1 flash per second. Based on this information, WTGs would not
significantly impact individuals with photosensitive epilepsy.
Given the relatively short duration of exposure as shown in Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 of the EIR
and the fact that actual shadow flicker effects would be less than those modeled, this effect is
considered to be less than significant. In addition, design of future residential structures that
would be constructed after the project is present on-site would likely be able to incorporate design
features to minimize the effects of shadow flicker on the structure. Project impacts would be
considered to be below the level of significance.
Although shadow flicker effects of project WTGs would not be expected to induce seizures, these
shadow flicker effects may be considered a nuisance depending on the intensity of the effect which
would be directly dependent on the distance and orientation of a subject property (or a structure’s
windows) to the WTGs causing the effect as well as the brightness of the sun. Impacts are
considered less than significant and unavoidable.
Page 4.1-24
The project’s impacts to light and glare flare have the potential to combine with impacts of other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects to combine to result in a cumulative visual
impact. New outdoor lights at new O&M facilities and substations would combine with existing and
planned outdoor lighting at existing and planned wind and solar farms to create new sources of
nighttime light and potentially trespass light and/or glare. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
would minimize impacts by shielding light fixtures and directing light onto the site, and impacts
would be less than significant. However, introduction of new red strobe lights on WTG nacelles
would create a significant and unavoidable visual impact. Therefore, impacts of the project would
combine with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects to result in a significant
and unavoidable cumulative impact for light and glare.
Page 4.3-28
MM 4.3-2 The project proponent shall continuously comply with the following during
construction and operation of both the wind and solar elements of the project:
To control emissions from the on-site off-road construction equipment:
a. All off-road construction diesel engines not registered under California Air
Resources Board’s Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program, which
have a rating of 50 horsepower or more, shall meet, at a minimum, the Tier 3
7-55
October 2011
County of Kern
California Emission Standards for Off-road Compression-Ignition Engines as
specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2423(b)(1) unless
that such engine is not available for a particular item of equipment. In the event a
Tier 3 engine is not available for any off-road engine larger than 100 horsepower,
that engine shall be equipped with retrofit controls that would provide nitrogen
oxides and particulate matter emissions that are equivalent to Tier 3 engine.
b. All equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Engine idling of all equipment
shall be minimized.
c. All equipment engines shall be maintained in good operating condition and in
proposed tune per manufacturers’ specification.
To control NOX emissions from on-road heavy-duty diesel haul vehicles that are
contracted on a continuing basis for use to haul equipment and materials for the
project:
a. 20062007 engines or pre-20062007 engines with CARB certified Level 3 diesel
emission controls will be used to the extent possible.
b. All on-road construction vehicles, except those meeting the 20062007/CARB
certified Level 3 diesel emissions controls, shall meet all applicable California
on-road emission standards and shall be licensed in the State of California. This
does not apply to worker personal vehicles.
c. The construction contractor shall ensure that all on-road construction vehicles are
properly tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacture’s
specifications.
No changes were made to the remainder of the MM 4.3-2.
Page 4.3-35
Level of Significance after Mitigation The cumulative annual NOX, PM10, and PM2.5, and VOC emissions during construction would result
in temporary significant and unavoidable impacts, as well as cumulatively significant and
unavoidable impacts for annual operational PM10.
Pages 4.4-9 and 4.4-10
Qualified ornithologists have completed six 30-minute unlimited distance counts in each of the
winter, and spring, and summer seasons, and will continue surveys efforts for the remaining
summer and autumn seasons, . Four of the six counts in each season are conducted during the
morning hours during the activity peak of most bird species. Two counts are conducted during the
afternoon or evening in order to ensure detection of species active late in the day, such as most
raptors. The All directed surveys for avian species were designed to conform to the Guideline
recommendations. The primary diurnal avian survey technique for pre-permitting studies at wind
energy projects in California is the bird use count (BUC), which was conducted for the project;
however, area searches, reconnaissance surveys, raptor nest searches, and a variety of other methods
may also be needed if BUCs are not adequate to answer questions about bird use and potential
impacts such as collision risk. Therefore, per the Guideline recommendations, area searches, data
analyses, raptor nest searches, incidental observations, and reconnaissance surveys were also
conducted.
7-56
October 2011
County of Kern
Winter 2010 and spring 2011 avian winter bird sampling surveys were comprised of the following:

Bird use counts: six (6) thirty (30)-minute unlimited distance counts at each of seventeen (17)
points within the project area in four (4) habitats;

Area search counts: surveys conducted in areas not covered by BUCs;

Reconnaissance bird counts: conducted throughout the project area; and,

Raptor nest searches: surveys and area searches conducted on 12 days within and just beyond
the project site.
Additional spring surveys were conducted between April 4 and May 14, 2011 and were comprised
of the following:

BUCs: three (3) thirty (30)-minute unlimited distance counts at each of the points within the
project area in the main habitats: Mojave Creosote Bush Scrub, Mixed Mojave Woody Scrub,
Joshua Tree Woodland, and Desert Native Grassland;

Reconnaissance counts: two surveys covering 100 percent of two remaining habitat types,
Rabbitbrush Scrub and Mojave Desert Wash Scrub, for potential nesting raptors and specialstatus avian species;

Raptor nest searches: conducted throughout the project area, based on raptor observations and
nesting behavior observed during survey visits; and,

Incidental observations: conducted opportunistically throughout the project area during survey
visits.
A summer survey was conducted between July 1 and July 21, 2011 and was comprised of the
following:

BUCs: six (6) thirty (30)-minute unlimited distance counts at each of the points within the
Project area in the four main habitats, Mojave Creosote Bush Scrub, Mixed Mojave Woody
Scrub, Joshua Tree Woodland, and Desert Native Grassland;

Area searches: two replicates of surveys covering 100 percent of the two remaining habitat
types, Rabbitbrush Scrub and Mojave Desert Wash Scrub, for potential nesting raptors and
special-status avian species;

Raptor nest searches: conducted throughout the project area based on raptor observations and
nesting behavior observed during survey visits; and,

Reconnaissance surveys: conducted opportunistically throughout the project area during survey
visits.
The following provides a brief description of the varied methods used, as appropriate, for the
winter, spring, and summer survey methods identified above. A more detailed explanation, specific
to each seasonal survey, is provided in Appendix C-1 of this EIR.
Bird Use Counts. The protocol for BUC surveys followed methods outlined in the bird use count
section of the Guidelines (CEC and CDFG, 2007). BUC surveys began in December 2010 and were
conducted over 16 days during two-three day periods over 12 weeks until March 2011. These
surveys were conducted to determine the range of avian species, and their relative numbers, that
typically utilize habitats in or near the project area.
Raptor Nest Searches. The two primary methods used were Raptor nest searches were conducted
using various combinations of reconnaissance surveys and area searches based on raptor
7-57
October 2011
County of Kern
observations and nesting behavior observed during site visits. The site was searched for active and
inactive raptor and common raven nest sites on 12 days within and just beyond the project site, as
appropriate. from February 4, 2011 to March 24, 2011.
Reconnaissance Bird Counts. Reconnaissance Initial reconnaissance bird counts conducted during
winter and spring primarily focused on target species, including loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus) and nesting raptors. Additionally, reconnaissance bird counts were conducted to for
plot mapping of loggerhead shrike locations, and noting the locations of special-status bird species
and species not observed during other survey types, and other notable field observations.
Reconnaissance counts were also used to observe migratory birds outside specific survey periods
for the other survey techniques.
Area Searches. Observers conducted area searches in Rabbitbrush Scrub and Mojave Desert Wash
Scrub. Area searches focused on surveying for potential nesting raptors and special-status avian
species in the two habitats that were not covered by BUCs, Rabbitbrush Scrub and Mojave Desert
Wash Scrub. The searches When utilized, this survey method resulted in 100 percent visual and/or
aural coverage of the property during winter avian bird surveys.
Incidental Observations. Observers collected incidental observations on various areas of the
project site during the spring surveys (April to May 2011). These observations were focused on: (1)
species not observed during other survey types; (2) special-status species; and, (3) raptors.
Page 4.4-11
Burrowing owls surveys were conducted in April, May, and June, July, and August 2011. Winter
occupancy status will be determined during burrowing owl surveys scheduled between December 1,
2011 and January 31, 2012. The survey study area included a 150-meter (500-foot) buffer zone
around the project boundary. Burrowing owl habitat can be found in annual and perennial
grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. Suitable owl habitat
may also include trees and shrubs if the canopy covers less than 30 percent of the ground surface.
Burrows are the essential component of burrowing owl habitat: both natural and artificial burrows
provide protection, shelter, and nests for burrowing owls. Burrowing owls typically use burrows
made by fossorial mammals, such as ground squirrels or badgers, but also may use manmade
structures, such as cement culverts; cement, asphalt, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath
cement or asphalt pavement.
Page 4.4-13
A habitat assessment, conforming to the specifications of CDFG, of the 7,472-acre project site
resulted in identification of 5,691 acres of potentially suitable habitat. A detailed habitat assessment
of the 5,691 acres was undertaken between March 15 and April 15, 2009 by wildlife biologists
holding permits for survey and handling of Mohave ground squirrel. A supplemental habitat
assessment was undertaken on April 10, 2010, by Phoenix Ecological Consulting on an additional
1,373 acres that was added to the study area following the 2009 survey period. Consistent with the
required protocol, all potential habitats were visually surveyed during daylight hours by a biologist
familiar with Mohave ground squirrel habitat requirements to assess areas for further sampling.
Areas mapped as Mojave Creosote Bush Scrub, Mojave Mixed Woody Scrub, Desert Native
Grassland, Joshua Tree Woodland, and Mojave Desert Wash Scrub were subject to detailed habitat
assessment surveys between March 15 and April 15, 2009.
7-58
October 2011
County of Kern
Supplemental surveys were undertaken within 5,832 acres of potentially suitable habitat (during
favorable ecological conditions) from March 15 to July 15, 2011 by Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
(refer to Attachment C.4). All surveys were conducted consistent with CDFG Mohave ground
squirrel survey guidelines of 2003. All areas mapped as Creosote Bush Scrub, Mojave Mixed
Woody Scrub, and Juniper Woodland and Scrub were subject to detailed habitat assessment surveys
between March 15 and July 15, 2011.
Although Mohave ground squirrel was not observed during any of the visual surveys conducted,
pursuant to the survey guidelines, Mohave ground squirrel sampling grids were established in
accordance with CDFG guidelines to confirm the presence or absence of this species within the
study area surveys. CDFG guidelines specify that one sampling grid of 100 live traps (greater than
one inch in length) shall be established for every 32.4 hectares (80 acres), or fraction thereof, of
potential Mohave ground squirrel habitat on the project site. Trapping grid locations were identified
based on criteria that included the presence of shrubs and forbs that would serve as food resources
and the presence of sandy to gravelly soils appropriate for burrow construction.
During the 2009 trapping season, trapping was undertaken for five consecutive days during all three
established sampling sessions: March 15 to April 30, May 14 to May 31, and June 15 to July 15,
20102009. Additional Mohave ground squirrel surveys were conducted during the 2010 trapping
season to ensure adequate survey coverage of the study area. Two additional Mohave ground
squirrel trapping grids were established in potential Mohave ground squirrel habitat. Trapping was
undertaken for five consecutive days during all three established sampling sessions. For the 2011
surveys, a total of five trapping grids were established in the project area.
Page 4.4-14
Detailed surveys for other potentially occurring sensitive mammal species were completed in
conjunction with surveys completed for the plant community mapping and habitat assessment, the
desert tortoise survey, Mohave ground squirrel survey, and avian surveys. Additional small
mammal directed surveys were conducted on the project site in June and July 2011, as discussed in
the Supplemental Results of the Special-Status Small Mammal 2011 Survey prepared by Sapphos
Environmental, Inc dated September 30, 2011 (refer to Attachment C.5). Wildlife biologists
familiar with the habitat requirements, range, and life history of other potentially occurring sensitive
mammal species searched for direct visual observation and other signs of species, including prints,
scat, and burrows.
Page 4.4-22
Birds. Of the 113The avian species recorded as a result of avian surveys from winter 2009 through
spring summer 2011, after excluding included listed, sensitive, and migratory species, as well as it
was determined that 29 species were common year-round residents. The 29 year-round residents
included three common species of interest, all raptors, which include the red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). Two other
common species of interest, both raptors, include the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and
western screech-owl (Megascops kennicottii), were not observed within the project area as a result
of directed surveys.
Page 4.4-23
A total of 109 143 potential drainage crossings were evaluated (Table 4.4-2, Crossing Categories
by Project Element). Of the 80 crossing of potential jurisdictional drainage areas within the wind
7-59
October 2011
County of Kern
element of the project, there are 73 that are expected to require a streambed alteration agreement;
there was no defined bed or bank observed for the seven remaining locations. Of the 29 63
potential drainage crossings evaluated within the solar element of the project, there are 28 62 that
are expected to require a streambed alteration agreement; there was no defined bed or bank for
the one remaining location.
Table 4.4‐2 Crossings Category by Project Features Project Element
Wind
Crossings Category
Small
42
Medium
19
Large
12
No bed/ bank observed
7
Total for Wind Element
Solar
Number of Crossings
80
Small
17
Medium
11
Large
0 34
No bed/ bank observed
1
Total for Solar Element
29 63
TOTAL PROJECT
109 143
Based on CDFG jurisdictional delineations conducted at 109 143 proposed blue-line feature
crossings within the project site, all 101 135 proposed crossings were identified as features that
would require submission of a notification package to the CDFG, at which time the CDFG
determines if a Streambed Alteration Agreement is necessary pursuant to Sections 1600 to 1603
of the State Fish and Game.
Page 4.4-24
Figure 4.4-2, Potential CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Potential Drainage Crossings, has been
updated to reflect the 143 potential drainage crossings and the 135 proposed crossings identified
as features that would require submission of a notification package to the CDFG.
7-60
October 2011
4
5
8
9
3
2
10
11
1
12
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
7
8
9
!
(!
( 14
13
18
17
16
!
(
17
15
16
14
13
18
16
!
(
17
10 N 15 W
!
(
21
22
23
!
(
!
(
19
!
(
28
29
26
!
(
21
!
(
20
(
!
(!
25
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
( 30 !
!
(
33
32
34
35
36
(
!!
(
!
(
3
4
5
2
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
( !
(
!
(22
!
(
23
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
(!
28
!
(
!
(
27!
(
(!
!
(
(
!!
(
!
(
!
(
!!
(
(
(!
!
(!
(!
(
9 N 15 W
19
20
21
!
(
26
25
30
29
28
!
(!
(
!
(
36
31
32
33
6
5
4
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
33
34
35
6
!
(
5
4
3
2
1
11
12
Legend
11
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
10
9
24
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
((
8
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!!
(
(
!!
(
1
10 N 13 W
!
!
((
!
(
!
((
(!
!
(!
(
!!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
( !
!
(
!
(
!
(
32
31
!
(!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
29
!
(
!
( !
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( !
(
(
!
( !
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
27
!
(
!
(
!
( !
(
!
(!
(
!
(
24
15
10 !(N 14 W
!
(
20
!
(
12
7
8
9
10
7
8
Stream/Drainage
Crossing
Alternative Generation Tie-Line Routes
Route Corridors
17
14
15
16
13
18
17
16
9
Preferred Generation Tie-Line Route
9 N 14 W
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
15
14
13
17
18
9 N 13
Streams/Drainages
W
16
Whirlwind Substation
!
(
Project Boundary
20
23
22
21
24
19
20
21
22
23
24
Township
/ Range20
19
21
Sections
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
0
0.5
1
2 miles
Proposed Drainage Crossings
Figure 4.4-2
County of Kern
Pages 4.4-26 and 4.4-27
A known turkey vulture migration route is located through the Kern River Valley 30 miles north of
the project area. The largest turkey vulture migration in the United States has been recorded in the
Kern River Valley near Kelso Creek, in Kern County, with over 27,000 vultures counted during 46
days in 1994. This fall migration route passes through the South Fork Kern River and provides
roosting sites at riparian habitats for the vultures before passing over the Mojave Desert to the
nearest documented roosting site along the Mojave River near Victorville, California. Over 12,000
turkey vultures have been counted by the Mojave Desert Raptor Watch near Victorville; however,
the project area is located over 20 miles from the documented migration route. Rowe and Gallion
(1996) state that a portion of the turkey vulture migration may also pass through the Tehachapi
Mountains and Tehachapi Valley and into the Central Valley. The entire project site provides
suitable habitat for the turkey vulture, although the species prefers upland habitats, as opposed to
Mojave Desert Wash Scrub communities. Turkey vultures do not breed within the project site; it
may be a local breeding resident in the Ridgecrest area of eastern Kern County. In winter, turkey
vultures were observed on 6 of 32 survey dates (January 25–26; four days from March 16–24,
2009) on or over the study area where they were the second most numerous raptor during avian
winter surveys in 2009. The total number of birds was 66 individuals. In spring, turkey vultures
were observed from March 16, 2009, through May 4, 2009, on 3 of 41 survey dates on or over the
study area, where they were the second most numerous raptor during avian spring surveys in 2009.
The total number of individual birds was 12. Nesting birds were not documented. In autumn, turkey
vultures were observed from September 18 to October 24, 2009 over the study area, where they
were the second most numerous raptor during avian autumn surveys in 2009. The total number of
individual birds was 75. At all For the seasons identified above, birds flew below, within, and above
proposed WTG blade swept heights, to over 600 feet; over all seasons, the turkey vulture was one
of only three species that regularly flew above 100 feet above ground at the project site.
Additional avian surveys conducted in spring and summer 2011 resulted in the observance of turkey
vultures flying within the rotor-swept zone (200-400 feet). Of the nine raptor species observed
during BUCs performed during the spring surveys, the most commonly observed was the turkey
vulture, with seven detections. Raptor species observed during the summer surveys also included
turkey vulture (one detection).
Page 4.4-30 and 4.4-31
The following changes to Tables 4.4-3 and 4.4-4 are a result of the change in status related to the
American peregrine falcon and the observation on-site.
Table 4.4‐3. Federally and State‐Listed Species with the Potential to Occur within the Project Area and Project Vicinity Directed
Present/
Status
Species
Habitat
Surveys
Absent
Birds
American peregrine falcon
SE, FP
(Falco peregrinus anatum)
Open and semi-open habitats, including grasslands and
shrublands during migration
7-62
Yes
Absent
October 2011
County of Kern
Table 4.4‐4. Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity Directed
Surveys
Present/
Absent
Species
Birds
Status
Habitat
American peregrine falcon (Falcon
peregrines anatum)
FP
Open and semi-open habitats, including
grasslands and shrublands during migration
Yes
Present
CSC, 1,
WeMo
Away from the Salton Sea, this species is a
transient through Southern California;
forages on edges of lakes, marshes, rivers
and estuaries, during day and night by
dipping bill into water to catch fish
Yes
Present
American white pelican
(Pelecanus erythrorhynchos)
Page 4.4-33
Table 4.4-4. Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity
Species
Plants
southern grasshopper mouse
(Onychomys torridus torridus)
Directed
Surveys
Status
Habitat
CSC
Mojavean Juniper Woodland and Scrub,
Mojave Creosote Bush Scrub, Joshua Tree
Woodland, and Mojave Mixed Woody Scrub
Yes
Present/
Absent
Presumed
Present
Page 4.4-34
Table 4.4-4. Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity
Species
Plants
Darwin rock-cress
(Arabis pulchra var. munciensis)
Directed
Surveys
Status
Habitat
BLM,
CNPS
1B.1
Chenopod and Mojavean scrub, in
carbonate soil; at elevations of 3,610–6,810
feet (1,100-2,075 m) above MSL; perennial
herb in the Brassicaceae that blooms in
April.
Yes
Present/
Absent
Absent
Page 4.4-53
As a result of USFWS protocol-level surveys for desert tortoise conducted for the project site in
May and June 2011, a single desert tortoise burrow was observed on a parcel adjacent to the solar
component of the project. The burrow was further monitored and no evidence of use by desert
tortoise was observed., and Additionally, a single desert tortoise was observed 24 feet east of the
eastern project boundary of the solar component of the project, and a second observation was made
east of the project site on the southeastern side of Aqueduct Road. Desert tortoise sign has been
observed on the Avalon Wind Energy Project property, one mile east of the project site. The project
site is not within designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise.
Pages 4.4-53 and 4.4-54
Although the project site is not located within designated critical habitat and desert tortoise was not
observed within the project site, the species and sign of the species was present in immediately
adjacent properties. Therefore, the project applicant has identified a series of desert tortoise
conservation measures to be employed in the design, construction, maintenance, and
7-63
October 2011
County of Kern
decommissioning of the project. The applicant communicated the findings of project-level surveys
to Kern County, the USFWS, and the CDFG in May 2011. Although it is anticipated that the
proposed conservation measures will be sufficient to avoid “take” of the desert tortoise, the
applicant has elected to pursue issuance of an incidental take permit in the event of an unanticipated
take of desert tortoise. The applicant has initiated the preparation of applications to the CDFG and
USFWS for incidental take coverage. The finding that the mitigation measures will reduce impacts
to desert tortoise to a less than significant level is not dependent on the applicant obtaining
incidental take coverage from CDFG and USFWS.
Page 4.4-54
Golden Eagle. The project site provides suitable foraging habitat for the golden eagle. Golden
eagles were observed foraging in most habitats within the adjacent PdV Wind Energy Project
(recently referred to as the Manzana Wind Energy Project) property and Pacific Wind Energy
Project property (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2006; 2009). The golden eagle is a permanent
resident in the nearby Tehachapi Mountains where numerous shallow caves, ledges, and rocky
outcrops occur. Additionally, data records from the CNDDB and West Mojave Plan indicate that
golden eagles were observed 20.5 miles southwest and 16.5 miles northeast of the project site,
respectively. Of the ten active golden eagle nests observed during the 2010 and 2011 aerial surveys,
the closest was located 17 miles from the project site, and the closest inactive golden eagle nest
structure was located 17 miles from the project site. Surveys conducted in February and March
2011 resulted in observance of five sub-adult golden eagles flying over the project site at 500 feet
above ground level or higher; Figure 4.4-5, Golden Eagles Observations and Nest Sites in Relation
to Project Site (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011). Additionally, three golden eagles were
observed flying over the project site during the spring surveys conducted in April and May 2011.
No golden eagles were observed flying over the site during summer surveys conducted in July
2011.
Page 4.4-57
Burrowing Owl. A total of 6,090 acres (90 percent) of the project site, which includes five of the
six identified habitats (Mojave Creosote Bush Scrub, Mojave Mixed Woody Scrub, Mojave Desert
Wash Scrub, Rabbitbrush Scrub, and Desert Native Grassland) constitute suitable habitat for the
burrowing owl. This species nests in small numbers in the Antelope Valley, and both breeding and
non-breeding usage of the site by burrowing owls was confirmed. Two occurrences of non-breeding
individuals were documented on the site during reconnaissance surveys conducted on March 15,
2011. Both of the birds observed at this time had departed by the next scheduled survey of the area
on March 24, 2011, as would be expected for migrating individuals, or wintering individuals that
subsequently departed on migration. Fourteen burrows of burrowing owl were observed during
May and June 2011 breeding season surveys; at least 12 of the borrows are in active use by
breeding owls (Figure 4.4-6, Burrowing Owl Locations). Burrows were determined to be in active
use when owls were observed at the burrow entrances and/or the following signs were observed:
feathers (placed as decoration), whitewash or regurgitated owl pellets at burrow entrances.
In addition to the surveys discussed above, surveys for burrowing owl were conducted during the
months of April, May, June, July, and August, 2011 (refer to Attachment C.3). Twenty-three
burrows were located within the project site. Of the 23 burrows, 13 were observed to be occupied
during the 2011 breeding season; the remaining burrows were determined to be unoccupied during
the 2011 breeding season. Twenty-nine burrowing owls were observed at or in close proximity to
the burrows that were located in suitable habitat. In addition, four juvenile burrowing owls were
7-64
October 2011
County of Kern
observed on the site more than 150 meters from the closest known burrow. These individuals most
likely fledged from burrows on and adjacent to the project site and subsequently dispersed from
their natal burrows.
Page 4.4-59
A Supplemental Results of 2011 Breeding Season Burrowing Owl Survey at the Proposed
Catalina Renewable Energy Project, Kern County, California Memorandum for the Record was
prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. dated September 30, 2011 and is provided in
Attachment C.3. Based on the supplemental information, Figure 4.4-6, Burrowing Owl
Locations, was revised and is provided below.
Page 4.4-61
American Peregrine Falcon, Northern Harrier. These raptor species are migratory in the region.
The northern harrier and the American peregrine falcon were was observed on-site during the
surveys undertaken; however, the American peregrine falcon was not. The entire project site
provides suitable and occupied foraging habitat for the northern harrier, but it does not breed within
or near the project site. The project site provides suitable foraging habitat for the American
peregrine falcon. This species may is likely to pass through the site, during migration periods.
Direct impacts to these species would be the same as described for other avian species and could
include disruption of activities due to increased dust, noise, and human presence associated with
construction activities and the loss of habitat due to construction of WTGs, associated
infrastructure, substations, and the construction and improvement of access roads. Indirect impacts
could include the loss of habitat due to the establishment of noxious weeds. Operational impacts
could include collision with WTGs and transmission lines, and disturbance of birds due to the
presence of maintenance personnel and noise generated by operation of the WTGs.
Pages 4.4-61 and 4.4-62
Le Conte’s Thrasher, Loggerhead Shrike, and Long-eared Owl. Le Conte’s thrasher,
loggerhead shrike, Southwestern willow flycatcher and Long-eared Owl (nest) were observed in the
project area during avian surveys (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011; Appendix C-1). Additionally,
the project area may support suitable breeding habitat for these species. Direct impacts to these
species would be the same as described for other avian species and could include disruption of
breeding and/or foraging activity due to increased dust, noise, and human presence associated with
construction activities and the loss of habitat due to construction of WTGs, PV solar system blocks,
associated infrastructure, substations, and the construction and improvement of access roads.
Indirect impacts could include the loss of habitat due to the establishment of noxious weeds.
Operational impacts could include collision with WTGs and transmission lines, and disturbance of
birds due to the presence of maintenance personnel and noise generated by operation of the WTGs,
PV solar system blocks, or O&M facilities.
7-65
October 2011
LEGEND
Occupied Owl Burrow
(
!
Unoccupied Owl Burrow
(
!
[
b
(
!
12
Burrowing Owl Observations
Burrowing Owl Survey Area
Concurrent Burrowing Owl and
Desert Tortoise Survey Area
Project Boundary
[
b
(
!
21
2
!!
(
(( 19
!
[
b
(
!
17
20
!!
(
( 16
22
(
!
[
b
23
[
b
(
!
(
!
[
b
(
!
8
9
! 10
(
(
!
(
!
[
b
11
1
(
!
5
3
(
!
4
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
6
13
14
(
!
15
7
[
b
0
0.5
1 mile
Burrowing Owl Locations
Figure 4.4-6
County of Kern
Page 4.4-62
Mohave Ground Squirrel. The Mohave ground squirrel was not observed during protocol-level
surveys conducted in the project area, and no Mohave ground squirrels were captured during the
multiple-year, protocol-level surveys on-site (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011; Appendix C-1);
however, . 5,832 acres of suitable habitat was determined to be present within the study area. As
discussed in the Supplemental Mohave Ground Squirrel Guideline Surveys prepared by Sapphos
Environmental, Inc. dated September 30, 2011 and provided in Attachment C.4, the nearest
documented Mohave ground squirrel occurrences are located 4.8 miles to the east of the project
site. Potentially suitable habitat exists for Mohave ground squirrel in Mojave Creosote Bush
Scrub, Mojave Mixed Woody Scrub, and Mojave Desert Wash Scrub. The potential for Mojave
ground squirrel to occur is low because the project area is generally outside the range of reported
sightings for the species and multiple survey efforts over several seasons have failed to detect the
presence of this species within the project area and surrounding region. According to CNDDB
(2010) records, two individuals were reported at the Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project site in 2006,
but subsequent trapping surveys in the region have been negative.
Page 4.4-64
Southern Grasshopper Mouse, Tehachapi White-Eared Pocket Mouse, San Joaquin Pocket
Mouse, Tulare Grasshopper Mouse.
There is potentially suitable habitat for Tehachapi White-Eared Pocket Mouse, San Joaquin Pocket
Mouse, and Tulare grasshopper mouse within the project area. The southern grasshopper mouse has
been was identified on-site during recent surveys within the location for the solar element of the
project. It is difficult to discern the difference between Ssouthern grasshopper mouse and Tulare
grasshopper mouse in the field; therefore, they are the Tulare grasshopper mouse is both being
treated as presumed present within the solar element of the project. The yellow-eared pocket mouse
and white-eared pocket mouse were not observed within the wind or solar elements of the project
area as a result of direct surveys (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011; Appendix C-1). Direct
impacts to special-status mice may include mechanical crushing by vehicles and construction
equipment, trampling, dust, and loss of habitat. Construction disturbance can also result in the
flushing of small animals from refugia which increases the predation risk for small rodents. Indirect
impacts include alteration of soils, such as compaction that could preclude burrowing, and the
spread of exotic weeds. Operational impacts include risk of road kill on access roads by
maintenance personnel, the spread of nonnative and invasive weeds, and disturbance due to
increased human presence; however, these impacts would not substantially reduce regional
populations below self-sustaining levels or restrict the range of these species as habitat for these
species is widespread in the region. Mitigation Measures, including development and
implementation of a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan, the development of a Weed
Control Plan, recovery and relocation of southern grasshopper mouse and Tulare grasshopper
mouse from the proposed location for the solar element of the project, worker environmental
training, pre-construction sweeps, and covering steep-walled excavations, would reduce impacts to
these species to a less than significant level.
Pages 4.4-67 and 4.4-68
MM 4.4-2
components of the project, the project proponent shall develop and submit a Habitat
7-67
October 2011
County of Kern
Restoration and Revegetation Plan to the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department for review and approval.
The Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan shall include, but shall not be limited
to, the following:
No changes were made to MM 4.4-2a through 4.4-2d
e. For any permanent loss of desert wash and riparian habitat, the project
proponent shall mitigate at a minimum of 3:1 or as identified in the California
Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement. All other
native habitats shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio for permanent impacts.
Permanent impacts to ruderal or disturbed habitats shall be mitigated at a 1:1
ratio if those habitats support special-status species, such as the burrowing
owl and desert tortoise. Permanent impacts shall be mitigated through one or
more of the following:
i. Through a conservation easement or through Aacquisition and
conservation of off-site lands which supporting comparable habitats and
species. Restoration and/or enhancement/re-vegetation shall be
conducted on mitigation lands as necessary to achieve a functional value
comparable to habitats impacted by the project.
ii. Onsite restoration, enhancement, and management (i.e., weed control,
etc.) of disturbed areas not impacted by project construction.
iii. Mitigation banking, in consultation with Kern County.
f. The Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan developed shall establish
performance criteria, tentative time frames for restoration of the site in
addition to provisions for a monitoring program to assess the success of
restoration efforts. The Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan shall be
developed and implemented to preserve native shrub communities to the
maximum extent feasible.
g. As part of the Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan, the project
proponent(s) shall prepare and implement a Joshua Tree Preservation Plan to
compensate for permanent impacts to Joshua trees woodland. The Joshua
Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. Upon
approval of the Plan, and prior to initiating project construction, the project
proponent(s) shall have a qualified biologist document the location and
acreage of Joshua tree woodland, size, and branching complexity of all
individual Joshua trees that would be subject to permanent disturbance.
The Joshua Tree Preservation Plan shall describe field methods used to
delineate acreage of Joshua tree woodland and shall provide a detailed
compensatory mitigation strategy, based on one or both of the following
options:
i. On-site or off-site preservation of Joshua tree woodland habitat shall
occur on parcels within Kern County that containing at minimum the
number of individual Joshua trees impacted by the project. The project
proponent(s) may mitigate all or part of the project’s impacts to Joshua
7-68
October 2011
County of Kern
trees on-site, as follows: Delineate and designate one or more parcels
on-site for dedication for permanent conservation management;
establish a conservation easement on those parcels, the easement to be
held and managed by a suitable management entity as determined by the
Director of the Kern County Planning and Community Development
Department; prepare and implement a Habitat Management Plan to
maintain habitat conditions on the site in perpetuity; and provide a nonwasting endowment sufficient to implement the habitat management
plan in perpetuity. The mitigation lands shall provide habitat at a 1:1
ratio for impacted lands, comparable to habitat to be impacted by the
project (i.e., similar abundance and size of Joshua trees, similar
dominant vegetation community, similar levels of disturbance or habitat
degradation). Suitable mitigation lands provided for other species may
be used for Joshua tree woodland mitigation, at a 1:1 ratio. The Habitat
Management Plan shall specify maintenance and monitoring
requirements for each parcel, which shall include but shall not be limited
to fencing and access control; signage; security and enforcement; weed
control; control measures for feral animals or pets; native habitat
enhancement; fire prevention and management; and other long-term
habitat considerations as appropriate.
ii. In lieu monetary funding. The project proponent(s) may mitigate all or
part of the project’s impacts to Joshua tree woodlands by funding the
acquisition and management in perpetuity of Joshua tree woodland
habitat or habitats similar to those that contain impacted Joshua trees on
site. Funding and management may shall be provided through a Kern
County approved conservation Plan, either through an existing
mitigation bank (e.g., as managed by the City of Lancaster Parks,
Recreation and Arts Department) or through a third-party entity such as
the Wildlife Conservation Board or a regional Land Trust. The in-lieu
fee shall provide sufficient funds to acquire appropriate lands to provide
habitats containing Joshua trees at a 1:1 ratio for impacted lands,
comparable to habitat to be impacted by the project (i.e., similar
abundance and size of Joshua trees, similar dominant vegetation
community, similar levels of disturbance or habitat degradation).
Suitable mitigation lands provided for other species may be used for
Joshua tree woodland mitigation, at a 1:1 ratio.
Additionally, the Joshua Tree Preservation Plan shall contain provisions for
the following:
a. The plan shall identify specific efforts that will be made to minimize
vegetation removal and permanent loss at construction sites. If
necessary, native vegetation should be flagged for protection. When
non-native vegetation is removed or disturbed, then native vegetation
shall be the replacement.
b. The plan shall identify specific methods for avoiding Joshua tree
woodlands and cactus. To provide the basis for mitigation, a Joshua
7-69
October 2011
County of Kern
tree woodland and cactus survey shall be conducted within areas
proposed for disturbance. All Joshua tree woodlands and cactus within
disturbance areas shall be mapped, and their condition recorded.
Suitable candidates for translocation shall be identified and this
strategy shall be employed over removal.
c. The plan shall disclose the amount of acres of Joshua tree woodland to
be removed. This quantification shall be used for compensation
purposes.
d. The plan shall specify that a qualified biologist shall monitor
construction and all Joshua trees and cactus removed or damaged shall
be recorded and replaced at appropriate mitigation ratios.
The creation or restoration of all habitats, as mitigation for both temporary and
permanent impacts, shall be monitored until established success criteria are met, to
assess progress and identify potential problems with the restoration site. Remedial
activities (e.g., additional planting, weeding, or erosion control) shall be taken during
the monitoring period if necessary to ensure the success of the restoration effort. If the
mitigation fails to meet the established performance criteria within the established
maintenance and monitoring period, monitoring shall extend beyond the initial
period until the criteria are met or unless otherwise approved by Kern County and
the California Department of Fish and Game.
Page 4.4-70
MM 4.4-4
components of the project, a Raven Management Plan shall be developed for the
project site in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
California Department of Fish and Game to minimize the potential for the project to
indirectly impact desert tortoises by subsidizing raven populations. The Raven
Management Plan will require measures such as annual nest removal by a qualified
biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, removal of carrion at the base of turbines,
storage of garbage in raven-proof containers, and installation of anti-nesting devices
on structures where raven nests could be built. In addition, to offset the cumulative
contributions of the project to desert tortoise from increased raven numbers, the
project proponent(s) shall also contribute to the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service Regional Common Raven Management Program through the payment of
fees not to exceed $150 per disturbed acre. This number shall be verified utilizing
the formula established by the Desert Managers Group.
Pages 4.4-74 and 4.4-75
MM 4.4-7
components of the project, the project proponent(s) shall submit written
Department of the following regarding the California condor:
7-70
October 2011
County of Kern
e. The project proponent(s) shall also provide written documentation to the Kern
County Planning Department showing implementation of the following
additional measures:
i.
Bird flight diverters shall be installed on all meteorological tower guy
wires on structures constructed as part of the project.
ii.
During periods of livestock grazing, a full-time monitor shall be present
to ensure immediate removal of carcasses on the project site.
iii.
The applicant shall work together with the area grazing permittees to
develop Best Management Practices for grazing.
iii. iv. Funding for conservation measures such as radio telemetry, condor
feeding programs, or other such measures as deemed appropriate shall be
provided to the California Condor Recovery Program. Funding shall be
calculated at six (6) units per one hundred (100) turbines installed as part
of the project. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits for
the first (1st) turbine, the project proponent shall fund six telemetry units
in the amount of $188,100 ($4,150 per unit plus an "endowment" of
$163,200 to be used for tracking data over an eight-year period). Prior to
the issuance of any building or grading permits for the one-hundred-andfirst (101st) turbine, the project proponent shall fund six additional
telemetry units in the amount of $188,100 ($4,150 per unit plus an
endowment of $163,200 to be used for tracking data over an eight year
period). The total funding to be provided shall not exceed $376,200.
Pages 4.4-75 and 4.4-76
MM 4.4-9W Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a wind turbine generator, if
applicable, the project proponent shall submit a current copy of their Avian and Bat
Protection Plan to the Kern County Planning and Community Development
Department. develop and submit to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service an
Avian and Bat Protection Plan that is guided by the Interim Guidelines for the
Development of a Project Specific Avian and Bat Protection Plan for Wind Energy
Facilities (2010). The plan shall be reviewed and any comments shall be provided,
along with the plan, to the Kern County Planning and Community Development
Department. The Kern County Planning and Community Development Department
shall coordinate with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service regarding any
comments received and shall include any additional clarifications, as deemed
appropriate. The Avian and Bat Protection Plan framework shall comply with the
following framework which shall include, but not be limited to, the following
sections/chapters:
a) Introduction – includes detailed project description and permit compliance
information;
b) Environmental Setting - includes habitat and species characterization, detailed
listing of the studies performed (including pertinent dates), and the project’s risk
assessment;
7-71
October 2011
County of Kern
c) Conservation and Compensation Strategies – includes a detailed list of all Kern
County adopted biological mitigation measures and conservation efforts for the
project related to avian and bat species, and any additional compensatory
strategies that have been determined to be feasible and appropriate for the
project;
d) Monitoring and Reporting – includes a detailed description of post-monitoring
and reporting as required by Kern County adopted mitigation measures.
MM 4.4-10W Prior to issuance of approval for final occupancy of the wind component of the
project, the project proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to the Kern
County Planning and Community Development Department showing that the
following measures to reduce avian and bat impacts from turbine activities have
been implemented. This mitigation measure includes the following:
No changes were made to MM 4.4-10Wa through 4.4-10We.
f.
Permanent Uun-guyed meteorological towers shall be constructed for the
wind project, if feasible. Any proposed temporary meteorological towers
which utilize guy wires will require review and authorization by Kern
County on a case-by-case basis. If guy wires are necessary, bird deterrents
shall be used.
Pages 4.4-78 and 4.4-79
MM 4.4-16W After three years of Post-Construction Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring, the
project proponent shall consult with the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department and the California Department of Fish and Game and
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to determine if the project is resulting in
unanticipated significant adverse impacts on the population of an avian or bat
species or is significantly interfering with any migratory corridor. If this
determination is made, the project proponent(s) shall provide supplemental
mitigation as determined by the Agencies listed above. In accordance with
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15065 and Appendix G, a
significant impact shall be determined on a species-by-species basis according to the
following criteria:
a. Cause an avian or bat species to drop below self-sustaining levels;
b. Threaten to eliminate a bat or avian community;
c. Substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or
threatened species;
d. Substantially impair movement through any migratory corridor; or
e. Have a substantial adverse effect on any candidate, sensitive or special status
avian or bat species
Supplemental measures to be considered shall include:
a. Additional migration count surveys, conducted using a methodology that allows
comparison with the baseline surveys conducted in 2010/2011.
b. Provision of additional nesting structures or platforms.
7-72
October 2011
County of Kern
c. Operational modifications to the WTG(s) that contribute to significant avian
and/or bat mortality. Operational modifications to be considered include
changing WTG cut-in speed or decommissioning individual WTG(s) that are
responsible for a disproportionately high amount of mortality.
d. c. Contribution to research that addresses the sources of mortality and
population impacts on the species of concern.
e. d. Funding of regional conservation measures with the intent of enhancing and
preserving existing foraging and nesting habitat in an amount not to exceed
the value of acreage representing the project’s rotor swept area based on
installed turbines.
Page 4.4-81
The project proponent has indicated 101135 proposed drainage crossings within the project area
would be potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the CDFG pursuant to Section 1603 of the State
Fish and Game Code (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011); Appendix C-1). The development of a
roadway system within the project area, including the generation tie-line connector road (up to
1,415 feet in length) at the northeastern project boundary, which connects to the approved Pacific
Wind Energy Project road, that is capable of supporting construction, operation, and maintenance
activities within these 101 135 drainage crossings, would not result in the alteration of riparian
and terrestrial upland habitats, including 57.7 60.5 acres of temporary impacts and 124.1 155.3
acres of permanent impacts. The wind element of the project would be expected to affect 73
drainages subject to CDFG jurisdiction including 45.4 acres of temporary impacts and 68.1 acres
of permanent impacts. The solar element of the project would be expected to affect 63 drainages
subject to CDGF jurisdiction including 15.1 acres of temporary impacts and 87.2 acres of
permanent impacts. The area that would be subject to CDFG jurisdiction could be greater
depending on a final CDFG determination. Any project-related activities that would impact these
drainages, such as the construction of a road crossing, underground communication cables, would
require a SAA from the CDFG. The project proponent will provide documentation of all
applicable water quality permits, including a SAA, to the County upon their approval by the
appropriate entity. Additionally, the project proponent would implement habitat
restoration/compensation to mitigate impacts to areas meeting CDFG jurisdiction.
Page 4.4-82
CDFG and RWQCB Jurisdictional Areas.
The project proponent has indicated that of the 101 143 crossings, 135 proposed drainage crossings
within the project area would be potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the CDFG pursuant to
Section 1603 of the State Fish and Game Code (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011); Appendix C1). The development of a roadway system within the project area that is capable of supporting
construction, operation, and maintenance activities within these 101 135 drainage crossings, would
not result in the alteration of riparian and terrestrial upland habitats, including 57.7 60.5 acres of
temporary impacts and 124.1 155.3 acres of permanent impacts. The wind element of the project
would be expected to affect 73 drainages subject to CDFG jurisdiction including 45.4 acres of
temporary impacts and 68.1 acres of permanent impacts. The solar element of the project would be
expected to affect 28 63 drainages subject to CDGF jurisdiction including 12.3 15.1 acres of
temporary impacts and 86.0 87.2 acres of permanent impacts. The area that would be subject to
CDFG jurisdiction could be greater depending on a final CDFG determination. Any project-related
7-73
October 2011
County of Kern
activities that would impact these drainages, such as the construction of a road crossing, would
require a SAA from the CDFG. The project proponent will provide documentation of all applicable
water quality permits, including a SAA, to the County upon their approval by the appropriate entity.
Additionally, the project proponent would implement habitat restoration/compensation to mitigate
impacts to areas meeting CDFG jurisdiction.
Studies of the project area were also conducted to identify and determine the presence or absence of
areas potentially requiring a Waste Discharge Requirement pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act.
The 109 143 potential drainage crossings on-site were evaluated to determine if road crossings at
those locations would require a Waste Discharge Requirement. Based on that evaluation, an
application for Waste Discharge Requirements shall be submitted to the RWQCB prior to any
construction activities for final determination of jurisdiction for each drainage crossing potentially
impacted by the project.
Page 4.4-85
Mitigation Measures Implement MM 4.4-2.
MM 4.4-19: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the wind and/or solar component, the
following measures shall be implemented in order to protect the Joshua trees, which
are afforded protection under applicable provisions of the California Desert Native
Plants Act:
a. Every effort shall be made to minimize vegetation removal and permanent loss at
construction sites. If necessary, native vegetation should be flagged for protection.
When non-native vegetation is removed or disturbed, then native vegetation shall
be the replacement.
b. Priority shall be given to avoiding individual Joshua trees and cactus whenever
feasible. To provide the basis for mitigation, a Joshua tree and cactus survey shall
be conducted within areas proposed for disturbance. All Joshua trees and cactus
within disturbance areas shall be mapped, and their condition recorded. Suitable
candidates for translocation shall be identified and this strategy shall be employed
over removal whenever feasible.
c. A Joshua tree woodland protection plan shall be developed for the project prior to
further ground disturbance. The Project proponent shall mitigate impacts on Joshua
tree woodland by preparing and submitting a Joshua Tree Impact Plan to the Kern
County Planning Department detailing the amount of acres of Joshua tree
woodland removed. If Joshua tree woodland is impacted, the applicant shall
contribute funding to a Kern County approved conservation program, which may
include but is not limited to: the City of Lancaster Prime Desert Woodlands
Preserve managed by the City of Lancaster Parks, Recreation & Arts Department to
compensate for the loss at a ratio of 1:1 prior to the issuance of a building permit in
the area affected.
d. A qualified biologist shall monitor construction and all Joshua trees and cactus
removed or damaged shall be recorded and replaced at appropriate mitigation
7-74
October 2011
County of Kern
ratios. In addition, acreage of Joshua tree woodland removed shall be quantified for
compensation purposes.
Page 4.4-89
Mitigation Measures Implement MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-18-19.
Page 4.5-1
This section is based on the cultural resource records searches, inventories, and Native American
scoping conducted by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. and as discussed in their Catalina Renewable
Energy Project Cultural Resources Technical Report (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011), which is
included as Appendix D of this document, and associated memoranda for the record provided on
June 24, July 18, and October 1, 2011 prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc dated July 18 and
October 1, 2011, respectively, which are included in Attachments C.1 and C.2. The cultural
evaluation was conducted in compliance with Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources
Code (PRC) to identify archaeological or historical resources in the area of potential effect. Due to
the confidential nature of the location of cultural resources, this report does not include maps or
location descriptions. The cultural resources report can be found on file at the Kern County
Planning and Community Development Department.
Pages 4.5-9 and 4.5-10
A complete survey was conducted within the area of potential effects (APE), which included all
areas of potential permanent and temporary impacts for a reasonable worst-case development.
Phase I walkover surveys were conducted for a total of 3,642 acres in support of the project. Of the
3,642 acres, 3,317 acres are located within the current boundaries of the project site. Survey areas
for the wind component of the project were defined by mapping the conceptual site plan, including
all areas that would be subject to ground disturbance, and adding a minimum 60-foot buffer to those
areas. The APE for the wind component of the project, as of January 2011, totals 815 acres and has
been surveyed for cultural resources. The survey area for the portion of the solar component of the
project consists of 1,441 acres, of which 619 acres would be subject to ground disturbance. The
May 2011 survey area for alternative access roads included Hamilton Road and previously
unsurveyed Champagne Road, for a total of 161 acres. The June 6 to July 11, 2011 surveys
included all areas of potential impact totaling 465 acres and consisted of previously unsurveyed
portions of the transmission line corridor alternatives. The July 25 to August 26, 2011 surveys
consisted of 100-percent walkover coverage of 2,728 acres and consisted of previously unsurveyed
portions of the project area suitable for wind energy development.
Pedestrian surveys of 3,642 acres within the cultural resources study area were also conducted,
including 100 percent of the APE, from January 2010 until February 2011. Supplemental pedestrian
surveys of 161 acres were also conducted, including a 100-percent walkover coverage of 161 acres,
in May 2011, 465 acres in June and July 2011, and 2,728 acres from July 2011 until August 2011.
The surveys encompass two proposed, 50-foot-wide access roads (Hamilton Road and Champagne
Road) with a 60-foot buffer on either side of each access road. All areas were surveyed on foot with
field investigation teams composed of three persons, spaced 33 to 66 feet (10 to 20 meters) apart
depending on the terrain. When an artifact was found, the crew examined the surrounding area was
examined to determine the extent of the cultural material. The determination of a site was based on
the analysis of the artifact classes represented, the context in which they were found, and their
7-75
October 2011
County of Kern
spatial relation to other cultural material across the landscape. Individual artifacts and small, very
sparse scatters of artifacts that appeared to be secondary deposits were identified as isolates. Sites
and isolates were given field numbers using the prefix AV (Avalon). Global positioning system
(GPS) data points were collected with submeter accuracy by the Trimble GeoXH and/or Ashtech
Mobilemapper unit for all sites and isolates encountered during the survey, and their locations were
mapped on the appropriate USGS quadrangles using the post-processed GPS data. All sites and
isolates were recorded on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation site record forms
(DPR 523 series). No artifacts were collected during the survey (Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
2011).
Page 4.5-11
Fifteen Sixteen (165) historic archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the
cultural resources study area: 14 15 sites and one isolate. Five of the sites are all (P-15-10951/CAKER-6304H, P-15-12804/CA-KER-7225H, and P-15-12686/CA-KER-7144H) or partially (P-15003549/CA-KER-3549H and P-15-12714/CA-KER-7172H) located outside the project site, but
within the one-mile buffer. The remaining nine (9) sites and one isolate are located within the
project site boundaries. Seven of the sites (P-15-003549/CA-KER-3549H, P-15-10951/CA-KER6340H, P-15-12868/CA-KER-7144H, P15-12687/CA-KER-7145H, P-15-12711/CA-KER-7169H,
P15-12712/CA-KER-7170H, and P15-12713/CA-KER-7171H) are associated with the First Los
Angeles Aqueduct; these sites include the aqueduct itself, large can scatters, broken glass
fragments, household utility wares, construction materials, and hardware, and are generally located
adjacent to the Aqueduct Road. The other six historic sites within the cultural resources study area
(P-15-012714/CA-KER-12714, P-15-12798/CA-KER-7219H, P-15-12799/CA-KER-7220H, P-1512800/CA-KER-7221H, P-15-12801/CA-KER-7222H, and P-15-12805/CA-KER-7226H) consist
of variously sized concrete and brick foundations, pit excavations, and rock features with an
assortment of historic debris. CA-KER-3549H, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, was recommended
eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a contributing element to the proposed First Los Angeles
Aqueduct Historical Archaeological District. None of the other resources have been evaluated for
the NRHP or CRHR. No nonarchaeological historic resources (i.e., buildings or structures) have
been recorded within the cultural resources study area.
Page 4.5-12
A total of nine 15 new prehistoric archaeological resources were recorded during the Phase 1
surveys: three six sites and nine six isolates (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011). Table 4.5-1,
Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, provides a summary of the six three sites
identified during the field surveys. Two Five of the six three sites are located within the project site
and one is located within the one-mile buffer. None of the newly recorded prehistoric sites lie
within the APE.
Table 4.5‐1. Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Sites
Within
Description
Site
Project
AV Site 2
Lithic scatter with chipped and ground stone
X
Within One Mile
of Project Site
Within Area of
Potential Effects
No
AV Site 6
Prehistoric encampment
AV Site 10
Bedrock mortar and pestle
X
No
AV Site 15
Bedrock mortar
X
No
X
7-76
No
October 2011
County of Kern
Table 4.5‐1. Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Sites
Within
Description
Site
Project
Within One Mile
of Project Site
Within Area of
Potential Effects
AV Site 16
Bedrock mortar
X
No
AV Site 17
Bedrock mortar
X
No
Source: Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011
Page 4.5-13
AV Site 10. This site is located within the project boundaries and outside of the APE and it
contains a single bedrock mortar and pestle; both artifacts are made from granite. The granite
boulder has a north-facing lean that offsets the mortar in a downward position instead of laying
flat. The boulder is weathered with a visible crack running almost down the center of the boulder
and is adjacent to the mortar. The boulder shows evidence of foliation on all four corners and
measures 105 centimeters (cm) long by 86 cm wide by 36 cm thick. The mortar is oval shaped,
shallow, not well defined, with little surface polish and is rough around its perimeter. The mortar
measures six cm long by six cm wide by two cm deep and contained no contents. The pestle was
biface-exhibiting polish and usage in only one corner and is a square shape. The pestle measures
14 cm long by 13 cm wide by 7.8 cm thick.
contains a single bedrock mortar. The granite boulder measures 86 cm long by 75 cm side. The
mortar is oval in shape with rough interior walls and a smooth bottom surface and measures 13
cm wide by 3.5 cm deep.
contains two bedrock mortars. The granite boulder is located on the east bank of an ephemeral
stream and measures 912 cm long by 170 cm wide by 172 dm high. Mortar #1 is located on the
top of the boulder, has a well-defined circular shape, and measures 12 cm wide and 3.5 cm deep.
The bottom interior of the mortar measures 7 cm by 8 cm and is well polished. Mortar #2 is an
oval mortar located on a relatively flat area of the boulder’s shoulder and measures 15 cm wide
by 5.5 cm deep and is surrounded by a finely textured grinding slick that measures 32 cm by 23
cm. A possible bifacial granite pestle was discovered adjacent to the milling station on the west
side of the feature. The pestle has a blunt nose and shows some evidence of unifacial polish on
one side. The pestle measures 22 cm long by 14 cm wide, by 12 cm thick. The unusually high
position of the mortars above ground surface suggests that the milling station and mortars may
have been used for ritual purposes, which is consistent with known ceremonial sites in the area.
contains a bedrock milling station of a single bedrock mortar. The mortar is on an area of
exposed bedrock measuring 75 cm by 50 cm. These is no grinding slick or other use-wear on the
boulder or surrounding the mortar. The mortar has a poorly-defined circular shape, with rough
interior walls and a smooth bottom surface, and measures 10 cm wide by 4.5 cm deep.
Isolates. Seven Nine prehistoric isolates were recorded during the Phase I surveys: four six isolates
are located within the project site and two isolates are located within the one-mile buffer of the
project boundary. Prehistoric isolate finds are summarized in Table 4.5-2, Newly Recorded
7-77
October 2011
County of Kern
Prehistoric Isolates. One isolate, AV ISO 24, is located within the APE for the solar component of
the project.
Table 4.5‐2. Newly Recorded Prehistoric Isolates
Description
Isolate
AV ISO 19
Within Project
Within One Mile of
Project Site
Within Area of
Potential
Effects
Lithic flakes
X
AV ISO 20
Rhyolite projectile point
X
AV ISO 24
Rhyolite flake
X
X
AV ISO 25
Rhyolite projectile point
X
X
AV ISO 27
Single chert flake
X
AV ISO 28
Rhyolite reduction flake
X
AV ISO 29
Bedrock mortar
X
AV ISO 31
Obsidian projectile point
X
AV ISO 32
Obsidian projectile point
X
X
Page 4.5-14
AV ISO 29. This isolate is a single bedrock mortar made from granite. The boulder measures 30
cm long by 9.5 cm wide by 23 cm thick. The mortar is oval shaped and well defined with polish
on all interior surfaces. The mortar measures 9.5 cm outside diameter by 4.5 cm deep.
AV ISO 31. This isolate is an obsidian projectile point. The point measures 3.4 cm in length by
2.4 cm is width and 0.6 cm in cross-section. It has shallow side notches, a shallow basal notch,
and sloping shoulders and its blade shape is symmetrical in profile and cross-section. The point’s
rounded tip suggests that it has been resharpened. It appears to be a Pinto point or a resharpened
Elko Eared type.
AV ISO 32. This isolate is the medial section of an obsidian projectile point. The point has
broken at the tip and just above the shoulder, and therefore cannot be classified. The fragment
measures 2.5 cm long and 3.5 cm side.
Historical Archaeological Sites, Buildings, and Isolates Sites. Thirteen Twenty-four (2413) new historic archaeological resources were identified during the
Phase 1 surveys: nine six historic sites and seven fifteen historic isolates (Sapphos Environmental,
Inc. 2011). Of the nine six newly recorded historic archaeological sites, eightfour are located within
the project site, twoone is are located adjacent to the project boundary, and one is located in the onemile buffer. Table 4.5-3, Newly Recorded Historic Archaeological Sites, summarizes the ninesix
sites identified during the field surveys. None of the newly recorded sites lies within the APE.
7-78
October 2011
County of Kern
Table 4.5‐3. Newly Recorded Historic Archaeological Sites
Site
AV Site 1H
Description
Within
Property
Historic homestead
X
AV Site 5H
Historic earth depressions (foxholes for military
exercises or agricultural use, such as tree planting)
X
AV Site 7H
Historic can scatter
AV Site 8H
Historic refuse/can scatter
X
AV Site 9H
Historic temporary field camp
X
AV Site 11H
Historic homestead
X
AV Site 12H
Historic homestead
X
AV Site 13H
Historic trash scatter
X
AV Site 14H
Historic camp and trash dump
X
AV Site 18H
Historic rock dam
X
Within
One Mile
of
Property
Within
Area of
Potential
Effects
X
X
Page 4.5-15
AV Site 5H. The site consists of five earth depressions or shallow pits in a mostly east-west
orientation suggesting foxholes used in military exercises or pits associated with tree planting. The
rocks are unsorted igneous and metamorphic rocks with sizes ranging from less than 5 cm to more
than 20 cm in diameter. None of the rocks observed within or surrounding the depressions appear to
have been worked or modified. An arbitrary 10-meter boundary was established around the
depression features, making the site roughly 42 meters long by 22 meters wide. One artifact, a
rusted can, was found just within the site boundary. No other artifacts were observed at the site.
This site is not within the project APE.
Page 4.5-16
AV Site 11H. The site is a historic homestead containing six features located on a flat area above
an ephemeral stream and wash system between two major dirt roads. The site appears to be
moderately distributed with modern trash, glass fragments, beer cans, clothes, rifle cartridges, and
shotgun shells. The site contains a large quantity of food stuff cans; German-, Chinese-, and
American-made porcelains; brown-ware pottery (possibly Chinese); rock foundations and/or
retaining walls; milled lumber pieces; wire nails; window glass; glass fragments; metal brackets;
and dry battery cells. The large quantity of Chinese-made porcelains and pottery may suggest a
Chinese site occupation or on-site Chinese workers. This site is not within the project APE.
AV Site 12H. The site is a historic homestead consisting of a small depression or pit and an
associated artifact scatter. Surface artifacts consists of milled lumber fragments, wire nails,
solarized window glass, purple glass fragments, more than 35 metal food times of various types
and sizes, porcelain plate and cup fragments, mason jar seals and glass fragments, metal and glass
7-79
October 2011
County of Kern
lantern fragments, a tobacco can, and a metal bed spring. Six notable artifacts were recorded,
including a belt buckle and a metal lid of a food container. The site is located in an area that
gently slopes southeast with an ephemeral wash that bisects the northeastern portion of the site.
This site is not within the project APE.
AV Site 13H. This site is a historic trash scatter consisting of an artifact concentration surrounded
by a light can scatter. Sanitary tins are the most prevalent can type at the site, but both external
and internal friction lids are also represented. Most cans have complete openings, although a
small number of tins were noted with puncture holes. Other artifacts at the site include a Milk of
Magnesium bottle fragment, glass jar fragments, lime-green pressed-glass fragments with no
maker’s mark, several porcelain bowl fragments, and a rusted metal bed spring. Three notable
artifacts were recorded, including a complete Ovaltine tin with an embossed lid, a porcelain bowl
with a maker’s mark, and a Best Foods glass jar base. The site is located 20 meters south of a dirt
road in an area the gently slopes to the southeast. This site is not within the project APE.
AV Site 14H. This site is a possible historic camp and trash deposit, and contains five large rock
features. It is located on a flat area and is bisected north to south by an ephemeral wash. The site
is situated 480 feet east of a well traveled dirt road and is approximately 1/8 mile south of AV
Site 11H. The site dates from the late 1920s to the 1930s and the trash deposit includes several
intact clear glass food jars, canning has fragments and tin canning jar lids; a metal frame from a
trunk or suitcase, a metal bracket, unidentifiable pieces of metal hardware, a barrel hoop, and
one-inch diameter metal cable. The five rock features are piles of local granite cobbles and
boulders that are lined up in a roughly east-west direction. The age and function of the features is
unknown; however, their proximity to historic cultural materials would suggest that they are
within the same historic period. This site is not within the project APE.
AV Site 18H. This site is a historic rock dam constructed of local granite boulders and cobbles.
The dam crosses and ephemeral drainage that runs in a north-northeast to south-southwest
direction. The dam appears to have been used to collect water for livestock or for other
agricultural purposes. The dam is constructed of more than 50 granite rocks of various sizes and
dimensions, stacked up to four courses high without mortar. Sedimentary buildup is evident on
both sides of the dam, which measures 280 cm long by 44 cm side by 62 cm tall at its tallest
point. This site is not within the project APE.
Buildings. Three buildings were encountered during the July 25 through August 26, 2011 survey.
Two of the buildings do not appear eligible for inclusion in the California Register of the National
Register. One building appears eligible for inclusion of the California Register. This site is not
within the project APE.
Building 1. This building is characterized as a wooden building that is topped with a low-pitched,
side-gabled roof. The southern half of the building is open to the elements and serves as a porch.
Two window openings are visible on one elevation and a third on a secondary elevation; there are
no doors. A wood shed with a shed roof is located on the property. The structure and shed are
enclosed by a wood rail fence. The building was constructed circa 1960s and is in poor condition.
This building and its associated shed do not have any known association with significant historical
trends or persons and do not embody any significant architectural trends. They do not appear
eligible for inclusion in the CRHP or NRHP and are therefore, not a historical resource pursuant to
CEQA. No further research is necessary.
7-80
October 2011
County of Kern
Building 2. This building consists of an octagonal wooden building with a glazed cupola and a
wooden outhouse; a wooden sign along the driveway designates this property as “Borracho
Springs.” Four of the bays have a fixed picture window, the other half are open to the elements with
no roof covering. The building has a dirt floor and a wood stove in the middle of the floor plan. The
building was constructed circa 1960s and is in poor condition. Due to its deteriorating condition and
lack of distinguishing features, other than its floor plan, the building does not appear to be eligible
for the NRHP. However, this building may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR under Criterion 3
for its embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of the octagon building. The style was mostly
used for residences in the latter part of the 19th century, although they were used for other buildings
such as barns. Further research would be required to positively determine the building’s CRHR
eligibility, and project avoidance is recommended. This site is not within the project APE.
Building 3. This building is characterized as being raised on concrete footings, and has a shed roof
that angles away from the primary entrance. It has a full-width porch with a shed roof supported by
five wooden posts. The building has five windows, four sliding and one single hung. A wooden
shed and a mobile trailer share the site with the building. The building was constructed circa 1970
and is in poor condition. This building and its associated buildings do not have any known
association with significant historical trends or persons and do not embody any significant
architectural trends. They do not appear eligible for inclusion in the CRHR or NRHP, and are
therefore not a historical resource pursuant to CEQA. No further research is necessary.
Isolates. Historic isolated finds are described in Table 4.5-4, Newly Recorded Historic Isolates. All
15seven isolates lie within the project site.
Table 4.5‐4. Newly Recorded Historic Isolates
Description
Isolate
AV ISO 4H
Within
Project
Within One Within
Area of
Mile of
Potential
Project Site Effects
Sun-colored amethyst glass fragments
X
Yes
AV ISO 5H
Historic can and bottle scatter
X
Yes
AV ISO 6H
Historic feature: hole
X
Yes
AV ISO 21H
Historic can and glass scatter
X
Yes
AV ISO 22H
License plate
X
Yes
AV ISO 23H
Historic can and glass scatter
X
Yes
AV ISO 27H
Historic wood-burning stove and stove elbow pipe
X
Yes
AV ISO 30H
Historic refuse scatter
X
No
AV ISO 33H
X
No
AV ISO 34H
X
No
AV ISO 35H
X
No
AV ISO 36H
X
No
AV ISO 37H
Historic can scatter
X
No
7-81
October 2011
County of Kern
Table 4.5‐4. Newly Recorded Historic Isolates
Description
Isolate
Within
Project
Within One Within
Area of
Mile of
Potential
Project Site Effects
AV ISO 38H
X
No
AV ISO 39H
Historic glass scatter
X
No
Page 4.5-17
AV ISO 27H. This consists of an oval-shaped wood-burning stove and elbow-stove pipe; both
items are made of tin. The top of the stove has a 5 1/4 inch diameter opening for the stove pipe,
with a 8 1/4 inch diameter opening on the stove’s top, which would have been used for inserting
wood/fuel into the stove. There was a handle and valve located on the stove’s front side, which
acted as air intact value. The stove’s lightweight construction made it a good choice for heating
and/or food preparation in a tent cabin or at temporary field camp.
AV ISO 30H. This consists of a small historic refuse scatter containing a household utensil
(fork), a single piece of solarized glass, and Coca-Cola bottle fragments with an intact base. The
eating utensil is a three-tined metal fork with the handle missing. The Coca-Cola bottle
fragments appear to derive from a single bottle, and the bottle’s based contained the maker’s
mark “MG” in the center. This mark is associated with the Maywood Glass Company of
Compton, California, which operated from 1930 to 1961. The “MG” motif dates to circa 1940.
AV ISO 33H. This contains a n historic refuse scatter containing clear glass fragments, two holein-top cans, and one can lid. The scatter includes clear glass fragments, most of which show air
bubbles and some solarization. The can lid contains a diamond-shaped embossment with the
words “RE _ _ __ A//DETROIT” in the center. The embossment is not recognized and the
manufacturer could not be determined through a literature search.
AV ISO 34H. This consists of a historic refuse scatter contained six sanitary cans, one
rectangular food or spice can, one piece of milled lumber, and one iron pipe fitting. None of the
artifacts contain manufacturer’s markings.
AV ISO 35H. This contains a small historic refuse scatter that is located adjacent to a modern
trash dump. The scatter contains 10 sanitary cans and three clear glass jars with screw tops. One
jar contained a Hazel-Atlas maker’s mark that reads “18//GAL.CONS.CO”; this mark dates from
1920 to 1964 and was associated with the Hazel Glass Company of Wellsburgh, West Virginia.
AV ISO 36H. This contains a historic refuse scatter containing 20 sanitary cans, six intact clear
glass bottles with screw tops, glass fragments of various sizes and types, a metal lantern top, a
purple dishware fragment, a metal tape holder or cover, various wire fragments, and various
metal hardware fragments. None of the artifacts contain manufacturer’s markings.
AV ISO 37H. This contains a historic can scatter consisting of five hole-in-top cans, two
sanitary cans with church key openings, and a shallow metal pan. None of the artifacts contain
manufacturer’s markings.
7-82
October 2011
County of Kern
AV ISO 38H. This contains a historic refuse scatter consisting of one hole-in-top can, an oval tin
can, two sanitary cans, two blue glass fragments, one crown bottle cap, two bent 60D penny nails,
and three milky glass fragments that are embossed with “ORCELAIN LINED CA_ _ _ BOYDS.”
The embossment is not recognized and the manufacturer could not be determined through a
literature search.
AV ISO 39H. This contains a historic glass scatter containing 16 solarized glass fragments and
two clear glass bottle bases. The bases each have a maker’s mark reading “B”. The bottles’
manufacturer could not be determined through a literature search.
Pages 4.5-25
The project would be designed and engineered to avoid impacts to the 13 previously recorded
prehistoric archaeological sites (P-15-001905/CA-KER-1906, P-15-002539/CA-KER-2539, P-15002819/CA-KER-2819, P-15-002820/CA-KER-2820, P-15-002821/CA-KER-2821,
P-15004118/CA-KER-4047, P-15-004119/CA-KER-4048, P-15-004120/CA-KER-4049,
P-15004121/CA-KER-4050,
P-15-012494/CA-KER-7036,
P-15-12495/CA-KER-7037,
P-15012807/CA-KER-7228, and P-15-12808/CA-KER-7229) and the five two newly recorded
prehistoric archaeological sites (AV Site 2, and AV Site 10, AV Site 15, AV Site 16, and AV Site
17) located within the cultural resources study area. All fivefour sites lie outside the project APE.
Therefore, no impacts would occur to these sites.
The project would also be designed and engineered to avoid impacts to the 11 previously
recorded historic archaeological sites (P-15-003549/CA-KER-3549H, P15-12687/CA-KER7145H, P-15-12711/CA-KER-7169H, P15-12712/CA-KER-7170H, P-15-12713/CA-KER7171H, P-15-12714/CA-KER-7172H, P-15-12798/CA-KER-7219H, P-15-12799/CA-KER7220H, P-15-12800/CA-KER-7221H, P15-12801/CA-KER-7222H, and P15-12805/CA-KER7226H) and the tenfive (5) newly recorded historic archaeological sites (AV Site 1H, AV Site 5H,
AV Site 8H, AV Site 9H, and AV Site 11H, AV Site 12H, AV Site 13H, AV Site 14H, and AV
Site 18H) that are located within the project site. The project would also be designed and
engineered to avoid impacts to the three buildings within the project property. All of these sites
and buildings lie outside the project APE; therefore, no impacts would occur.
MM 4.5-3
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall prepare a
Cultural Resources Management Plan that will detail how all cultural resources
within the project will be avoided or treated. The Cultural Resources Management
Plan shall: (i) be prepared by a County-approved archaeologist, at the sole expense
of the project proponent; and (ii) shall be submitted to and approved by the Kern
County Planning and Community Development Department prior to issuance of the
building permit for the project.
a. Detailed plan for avoiding and protecting resources that are eligible or
potentially eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (in
accordance with MM 4.5-2, above).
b. Documentation of coordination with Native Americans.
The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall include detailed provisions
to demonstrate that the project proponent, in coordination with the Kern
7-83
October 2011
County of Kern
County Planning and Community Development Department, consulted
with all tribes and individuals listed by the Native American Heritage
Commission who may have concerns about the project regarding treatment
of all prehistoric archaeological sites identified at any time during surveys
for this Environmental Impact Report or surveys for areas beyond what
was surveyed for this Environmental Impact Report. Consultation shall
continue throughout the course of planning and construction of the project.
Additionally, Tthe project proponent, at its sole expense, shall notify all
applicable tribes of the time and duration of construction activities near
culturally sensitive sites. The purpose of this notification is to allow for
the applicable tribes, at their sole expense, to arrange for a tribe
representative, and/or cultural monitor, to be present on site to observe
earth-moving activities. The project proponent shall also consult with the
applicable tribes facilitate agreements regarding site treatment during
construction between Native Americans and the Kern County Planning and
Community Development Department that are approved by the County.
The plan shall include provisions for full documentation of the consultation
process, including records of all contacts and meetings.
c. Subsurface and Evaluative Testing Plan.
If it is determined that a project element requiring ground disturbance
cannot be located at least 60 feet from the mapped boundaries of an
archaeological site, then subsurface testing (Phase II evaluation) shall be
conducted by employing a small number of shovel test units. These shovel
test units would be used to ensure that sufficient data are collected to
characterize the nature and extent of previous disturbance and the density,
diversity and horizontal and vertical distribution of cultural materials
within areas needed for grading, trenching and other ground disturbance
and shall verify whether or not the site would be affected by the
disturbance.
Where ground disturbance would occur within 60 feet, some sites would
require additional excavations for the purpose of evaluative testing in order
to make a more definitive determination of California Register of
Historical Resources eligibility. Evaluative testing shall be conducted to
evaluate the nature, extent, and significance of the cultural resources.
Evaluative testing shall be designed to record horizontal extent, depth of
the cultural matrix, and degree of internal stratification. Because
subsurface testing, like any form of site excavation, is destructive it shall
be conducted only when necessary and in moderation. This evaluation
program shall involve the following:
•
A detailed testing plan that includes a research design (from which to
evaluate California Register of Historical Resources eligibility);
excavation plan with rationale for sample size and placement; and
discussion of special studies/ analyses that may be required—to be
reviewed and approved by a professional archaeologist by the County
before implementation.
7-84
October 2011
County of Kern
•
Controlled hand excavation and surface collection of a representative
sample of the site deposit as detailed in the approved testing plan.
•
A detailed analysis of the material recovered.
•
An assessment of cultural resource data potentials, integrity, and
eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historical
Resources.
•
Preparation of a final report with recommendations for impact
mitigation if necessary to be reviewed and approved by a professional
archaeologist.
•
Curation of all artifacts and data from testing evaluations.
d. Programmatic Data Recovery Plan.
Resources found to be not significant shall not require mitigation.
However, site-specific testing results may indicate that additional data
recovery (Phase III) investigations are necessary to mitigate project
impacts adequately where avoidance would not completely preclude direct
impacts to significant deposits. These investigations shall be funded wholly
by the project proponent, and may include more intensive analysis of
materials excavated during testing, as well as additional excavations to
recover, analyze and document a representative sample of the deposits.
Resources found to be not significant shall not require additional
mitigation; however, those sites found to be significant may require
additional data recovery (Phase III) investigations to mitigate project
impacts adequately where avoidance would not completely preclude direct
impacts to significant deposits. To assist the development of site-specific
data recovery investigations, the California Cultural Resources
Management Plan shall include a Programmatic Data Recovery Plan that
identifies, among other topics, standard procedures and guidelines for
determining sampling intensity, and data recovery methods based on
testing results. The Data Recovery Plan shall also address research issues
that would be investigated. Further the Data Recovery Plan shall consider
the project’s grading plan, utility plan, irrigation and landscaping plan, and
any other plan that delineates areas of project disturbance in determining
portions of a significant site that would be investigated. The Data Recovery
Plan shall be reviewed and approved by a professional archaeologist by the
Kern County Planning and Community Development Department before
initiation of data recovery fieldwork.
No changes were made to MM 4.5-3e through 4.5-3h.
Page 4.6-16
MM 4.6-1
Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for the wind or solar project, the
project proponent shall conduct a full geotechnical study to evaluate soil conditions
and geologic hazards on the project site and submit it to the Kern County
Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department for review and approval.
The geotechnical study must be signed by a California-registered professional
engineer and must identify the following:
7-85
October 2011
County of Kern
•
Location of fault traces and potential for surface rupture;
•
Maximum considered earthquake and associated ground acceleration;
•
Potential for seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides,
differential settlement, and mudflows;
•
Stability of existing cut-and-fill slopes;
•
Collapsible or expansive soils;
•
Foundation material type;
•
Potential for wind erosion, water erosion, sedimentation, and flooding;
•
Location and description of unprotected drainage that could be impacted by the
proposed development; and,
•
Recommendations for placement and design of facilities, foundations, and
remediation of unstable ground.
The project proponent shall determine the final siting of project facilities based on
the results of the geotechnical study and implement recommended measures to
minimize geologic hazards. The project proponent shall not locate project facilities
on or immediately adjacent to a fault trace. All structures shall be offset at least 100
feet from the mapped extension of the Cottonwood Fault trace. Alternatively, a
detailed fault trenching investigation may be performed to accurately locate the
fault trace(s) to avoid sighting improvements on or close to these fault structures
and to evaluate the risk of fault rupture. After locating the fault, accurate setback
distances can be proposed.
The Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department shall
evaluate any final facility siting design developed prior to the issuance of any
building or grading permits to verify that geological constraints have been avoided.
Pages 4.8-35 and 4.8-36
MM 4.8-9
component of the project, the project proponent shall develop and implement a Fire
Safety Plan for use during construction and operation. The project proponent shall
submit the Fire Safety Plan, along with maps of the project site and access roads, to
the Kern County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of
any building permit or grading permits. The Fire Safety Plan shall contain
notification procedures and emergency fire precautions including, but not limited to,
the following:
No changes were made to MM 4.8-9a through 4.8-9g.
h. The project proponent shall confer with the Kern County Fire Department
regarding the need to install dip tanks within the project site. Should dip
tanks be required, the project proponent shall construct dip tanks as specified
by the Kern County Fire Department.
7-86
October 2011
County of Kern
Page 4.8-36
As proposed, the project does not possess a component that includes agricultural waste; however,
implementation of the project would involve construction and operations that could result in
standing water, trash piles, or open containers that could provide breeding areas for mosquitoes,
flies, or rodents. These potential disease vectors could pose a potential hazard to personnel or the
public. MM 4.8-12 4.8-13 provided herein would prohibit standing water, trash piles, and open
containers from being accumulated at the site. MM 4.8-12 4.8-13 would also reduce the potential
for disease vectors to be generated during implementation of the proposed project.
Page 4.9-21
Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.9-1 and MM 4.9-2, listed below, MM 4.4-18 4.430, presented in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, and MMs 4.8-1 and 4.8-3 through 4.8-5,
presented in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would minimize or avoid the potential
for project activities to result in the violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
Pages 4.9-23 and 4.9-24
With adherence to MM 4.9-3 and adherence to the methods and sources of water delivery
recommended in the WSA report (Kleinfelder 2011; Appendix K), construction of the project
would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level.
Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are required.
MM 4.9-3
Prior to issuance of grading permits for the wind or solar components of the project,
the project proponent shall develop and implement a Water Supply Contingency Plan
that has been prepared by a qualified hydrogeologist and submitted to the Kern
County Planning and Community Development Department for review. The Water
Supply Contingency Plan shall contain the following:
a. Shall identify at least two groundwater supply wells for project use during
construction, a primary supply well and a secondary supply well. The Plan shall
identify the well sites, proximity to other active wells, estimated total depth, well
screen depth, diameter, estimated yield and water quality.
b. Should the daily yields of the primary supply well be found to be inadequate or
should they become inadequate to meet the project requirements, the plan shall
contain provisions for use of the secondary supply to avoid potential drawdown
impacts at wells near the primary well. Use of a secondary supply well would not
alter the quantity of groundwater pumped for project purposes; the purpose of the
secondary supply well would be to avoid potential impacts associated with overpumping the primary supply well.
c. The plan shall specify when the second supply well shall be used, what
conditions would trigger necessary use of the second supply well, the person
7-87
October 2011
County of Kern
responsible for determining when to utilize the second supply well, and how such
use shall be reported. An Environmental Monitor shall verify that the secondary
supply well is installed and is capable of producing daily yields sufficient to
supplement or replace the primary supply well in meeting construction water
demand, as needed.
Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
Page 4.11-12
The anticipated operational equipment that would be used for operation and maintenance activities
was based on an operational scenario and phasing information provided by enXco Development
Corporation. The maximum number of days that this equipment would be anticipated to operate on
a yearly basis is between 32 to 64, based on a worst-case scenario of a 10 percent failure rate of
WTGs, and assuming the maximum number of WTG that could be used for the project. The
proposed PV solar system blocks produce electricity passively with no moving parts, so
maintenance requirements, other than washing the panels an estimated four two times per year,
would be minimal.
Page 4.11-22
The PV solar system block component would only be in operation during daylight hours.,.
Assuming a 14-hour day, the Ldn from the solar project at the nearest structure would be 8.3 dBA.
This would be well below the 65 dBA Ldn limit for outdoor noise and the 45 dBA Ldn for indoor
noise.
Page 4.16-10
MM 4.16-2
Prior to issuance of a building permit for an operations and maintenance building,
the project proponent shall obtain water appropriation rights for on-site potable
water to the satisfaction of the Kern County Environmental Health Services
Department, if applicable.
Page 5-2
Table 5-1, Summary of Significant Impacts of the Project is revised as follows, based on Section
4.3, Air Quality and Section 4.4, Biological Resources.
Project Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
Air Quality
PM10 and NOX emissions during
increases above the established thresholds.
Even with mitigation measures, temporary
(construction) impacts are considered
significant and unavoidable.
Annual NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions during
significant impacts, as well as cumulatively
significant impacts for annual operational PM10.
Therefore, the annual NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, and
VOC emissions during construction (although
temporary) and the annual operational PM10
emissions
are
considered
cumulatively
significant and unavoidable.
7-88
October 2011
County of Kern
Project Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
Biological
Resources
Project construction and operational
impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable for bird and bat species,
potential collision with WTGs. Including
the following: Golden eagle, California
condor, pallid bat, western small-footed
myotis, long-eared myotis, fringed myotis,
and Yuma myotis. Impacts due to
construction and operation of the project
would remain significant and unavoidable
for other terrestrial plants and animals,
ground disturbing activities.
When considered cumulatively, avian and bat
mortality due to collisions with WTGs and
associated infrastructure, as well as terrestrial
plants and animals, including special status
species, would be significant and unavoidable. In
addition, wildlife movement would be disrupted
during construction due to avoidance of
construction activities and temporary barriers to
movement such as fencing. Therefore, avian, bat,
terrestrial species, and wildlife movement
impacts of the Project, when combined with
impacts of past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable
projects,
are
considered
cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
Pages 6-14 and 6-15
Biological Resources Biological resources impacts would be similar to those of the project, except that their severity for
terrestrial species would be reduced as a result of the reduced level of construction, the reduced
number of WTGs, and reduced footprint for the PV solar system blocks on the landscape. Impacts
to birds and bats would be unlikely to be reduced with implementation of Alternative C, because
this alternative would continue to introduce up to 94 WTGs on the project site, resulting in impacts
to birds and bats that would be commensurate with the project. However, because the northernmost
and western portions of the site would not be developed under Alternative C, construction and
maintenance impacts to terrestrial species would be less severe, and Alternative C would displace
less habitat than the project. In addition, Alternative C would reduce any potential impacts to
beavertail cacti as the WTGs would not be constructed in the northernmost portion of the project
site, closest to known beavertail cacti. Impacts to the terrestrial wildlife species listed would be
reduced proportionally to the reduction in the project’s size; however, any impacts to special
status species would be considered significant, and this impact Nonetheless, impacts to certain
special status birds and bat species due to collisions with WTGs would remain significant and
unavoidable for Alternative C.
Impacts related to terrestrial species, including special-status terrestrial species, would be reduced
with the reduction in developed area; however, because some loss of special-status terrestrial
species are likely to occur and because bird and bat collisions would be equally likely to occur
under Alternative C, and therefore this impact would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The alternative’s project’s contribution to cumulative effects on biological resources would be
reduced, but not to a less-than-significant level.
Page 6-18
Biological Resources Biological resources impacts would be similar to those of the project, except that their severity for
terrestrial species would be reduced as a result of the reduced level of construction from the
7-89
October 2011
County of Kern
elimination of the PV component. Potential impacts to birds and bats would remain the same as the
project with implementation of Alternative D, because this alternative would continue to introduce
up to 134 WTGs on the project site, resulting in potential impacts to birds and bats that would be
commensurate with the project. However, because the eastern portion of the site, south of the
LADWP aqueduct would not be developed under Alternative D, potential construction and
maintenance impacts to terrestrial species would be less, and Alternative D would displace less
sensitive habitat area than the project. Potential impacts to the terrestrial wildlife species listed
would be reduced proportionally to the reduction in the project’s size; however, any impacts to
special status species would be considered significant, and this impact Nonetheless, impacts to
certain special status species due to collisions with WTGs would remain significant and
unavoidable for Alternative D.
Impacts related to terrestrial species, including special-status terrestrial species, would be reduced
with the reduction in developed area; however, because some loss of special-status terrestrial
species are likely to occur and because bird and bat strikes would be equally likely to occur under
Alternative D, and therefore this impact would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The
alternative’s contribution to cumulative effects on biological resources would be reduced, but not to
a less-than-significant level.
Page 6-20
Biological Resources Biological resources impacts under Alternative E would be reduced as compared to those of the
project because this alternative would develop 1,223 acres for solar energy and no WTGs would be
constructed. Potential impacts to birds and bats would be reduced with implementation of
Alternative E, because this alternative would not introduce WTGs on the project site, thus reducing
the impacts to birds and bats to a less than significant level. Because the 5,456 acres of the project
site would remain undeveloped under this alternative, construction and maintenance impacts to
terrestrial species would be less severe, and Alternative E would displace less habitat than the
project. In addition, Alternative E would reduce any potential impacts to cacti, as no activity would
occur in the northernmost portion of the project site, closest to known beavertail cacti. Impacts to
the terrestrial wildlife species listed would be reduced proportionally to the reduction in the
project’s size and Mitigation Measures provided in this EIR would effectively reduce maintain any
potential impacts to less than significant.
Impacts to bird and bat terrestrial species, including special-status bird and bat terrestrial species,
would be reduced with the reduction in developed area and the elimination of WTGs; therefore, the
project’s contribution to cumulative effects on biological resources would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level.
Page 10-1
CCR (California Code of Regulations). 2010. Title 14 § 15382. [online]:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art20.html . Accessed June 23, 2011.
DNV Renewables Inc. 2011d. Catalina Renewable Energy Project Shadow Flicker Impact Analysis.
DNV Consultant, Kern County, California. October 6, 2011.
Page 10-2
______. 2011b. Catalina Renewable Energy Project Shadow Flicker Analysis. Kern County, California.
June 16, 2011.
7-90
October 2011
County of Kern
______. 2011c. Supplemental Information Regarding Shadow Flicker Effects Resulting from the
Proposed Catalina Renewable Energy Project. Kern County, California. October 4, 2011.
Page 10-4
Sapphos (Sapphos Environmental, Inc.). 2011. Catalina Renewable Energy Project, Biological Resources
Technical Report. March 4.
______. 2011a. Results of 2011 Spring Avian Species Survey at the Proposed Catalina Renewable
Energy Project. Kern County, California. September 29, 2011.
______. 2011b. Supplemental Results of 2011 Summer Avian Species Survey at the Proposed Catalina
Renewable Energy Project. Kern County, California. September 30, 2011.
______. 2011c. Supplemental Results of 2011 Breeding Season Burrowing Owl Survey at the Proposed
Catalina Renewable Energy Project. Kern County, California. September 30, 2011.
______. 2011d. Supplemental Mohave Ground Squirrel Guideline Survey for the Proposed Catalina
Renewable Energy Project. Kern County, California. September 30, 2011.
______. 2011e. Supplemental Results of the Special-Status Small Mammal 2011 Survey at the Proposed
Catalina Renewable Energy Project. Kern County, California. September 30, 2011.
______. 2011f. Supplemental Results of the 2011 Protocol-Level Desert Tortoise Surveys and Other
Related Incidental Observations for the Proposed Catalina Renewable Energy Project. Kern
County, California. October 3, 2011.
Page 10-5
Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2011. Catalina Renewable Energy Project, Cultural Resources Technical
Report. May 6, 2011.
______. 2011a. Results of the Supplemental Cultural Resources Surveys for Transmission Line Corridor
Alternatives for the Proposed Catalina Renewable Energy Project. Kern County, California. July
18, 2011
______. 2011a. Results of the Supplemental Cultural Resources Surveys for the Proposed Catalina
Renewable Energy Project. Kern County, California. October 1, 2011.
7-91
October 2011
County of Kern
7.4
The comment letters received on the Draft EIR are addressed in their entirety in this section. Each
comment contained in the letter has been assigned a reference code. The responses to reference
code comments follow each letter.
7-92
October 2011
County of Kern
State Agencies
7-93
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 1
1-A
7-94
October 2011
County of Kern
7-95
October 2011
County of Kern
7-96
October 2011
County of Kern
7-97
October 2011
County of Kern
7-98
October 2011
County of Kern
7-99
October 2011
County of Kern
7-100
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 1: Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research - State Clearinghouse (October 4, 2011)
A. The commenter states that the State Clearinghouse submitted the DEIR for selected agencies to
review. It is stated further that the letter acknowledges compliance with State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act. A comment letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) (9/30/11) is attached.
Thank you for your comment. Responses to the RWQCB letter is provided in Comment Letter 2.
7-101
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 2
2-A
7-102
October 2011
County of Kern
2-A
2-B
7-103
October 2011
County of Kern
2-C
2-D
2-E
2-F
2-G
7-104
October 2011
County of Kern
2-G
2-H
2-I
2-J
2-K
2-L
7-105
October 2011
County of Kern
2-M
2-N
7-106
October 2011
County of Kern
2-O
7-107
October 2011
County of Kern
2-O
7-108
October 2011
County of Kern
2-O
7-109
October 2011
County of Kern
2-O
7-110
October 2011
County of Kern
2-O
7-111
October 2011
County of Kern
2-O
7-112
October 2011
County of Kern
2-O
7-113
October 2011
County of Kern
2-P
7-114
October 2011
County of Kern
2-P
7-115
October 2011
County of Kern
2-P
7-116
October 2011
County of Kern
2-P
7-117
October 2011
County of Kern
2-P
7-118
October 2011
County of Kern
2-P
7-119
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 2: California Regional Water Quality Control
Board – Lahontan Region (August 25, 2011 and September 30, 2011)
A. The comment was provided by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The commenter provided a summary of the project and describes the authority of
the RWQCB over the project, and states that implementation of the project must comply with
all applicable water quality standards and regulations, including provisions of the Water
Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Lahontan Region.
Thank you for your comment. The authority of the Lahontan RWQCB over the project area is
discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. Applicable water
quality standards and regulations are presented under Section 4.9.3, and discussed under
Impact 4.9-1 (Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements) on
pages 4.9-18 through 4.9-21. In addition, MM 4.9-2, provided on page 4.9-22, requires that
the project proponent comply with all applicable water quality standards and prohibitions,
including the provisions of the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan for the Lahontan Region is
discussed throughout Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR.
B. The commenter requests that Appendix G, Hydrology Report, be revised to include a copy of
the hydrology report prepared for the project. In response to these comments, the Lead
Agency notes the project’s Hydrology Report, prepared by Pinnacle Civil Engineering, was
inadvertently omitted from the Draft EIR Appendices, as the project’s Limited Feasibility
Level Geologic Hazard and Soils Evaluation was duplicated under Appendix F and G,
respectively. Therefore, a corrected version of the Draft EIR was re-distributed, and the close
of the public comment period for the Draft EIR was extended from August 26, 2011 to
October 3, 2011. The only revision to the previously distributed Draft EIR was the inclusion
of the Hydrology Report as Appendix G. All conclusions, analyses, and proposed mitigation
remained the same as proposed in the original Volume 1 of the Draft EIR.
C. The commenter requests that the necessary hydrologic, hydraulic, and sediment yield
analyses be performed for the project. In response to these comments, the Lead Agency notes
that sufficient technical studies were prepared to support the project analysis sufficiently and
to characterize potential environmental impacts of the project and develop project-specific
mitigation measures to minimize or avoid such impacts. The Biological Resources Technical
Report, provided in Appendix C.1 of the Draft EIR, includes jurisdiction delineations.
Appendix D of the Biological Resources Technical Report provides in-depth detail regarding
the jurisdictional delineation. Appendix G, Hydrology Report, provides in-depth detail
regarding surface water. The Biological Resources Technical Report, Appendix C.1, and the
Hydrology Report, Appendix G, include sufficient detail to appropriately characterize
potential hydrology impacts for the purposes of the EIR. The implementation of Mitigation
Measures, best management practices (BMPs), and applicable laws and regulations discussed
in the Draft EIR would ensure that potential water quality impacts associated with stormflows
and sediment budgets would not be significant. The Sediment yield analyses noted by the
commenter is an analysis that compares existing sediment yield (amount of sediment leaving
the site during a runoff event) to the project operation sediment yield. This type of analysis
would involve complex computer modeling that is beyond the scope of the EIR, and is not
7-120
October 2011
County of Kern
necessary in order to characterize impacts and mitigation measures for the purposes of the
EIR.
D. The commenter states that it is unclear how on-site ephemeral drainages were delineated (in
the Biological Resources Technical Report), and that the potential waters of the State
identified and evaluated in the Draft EIR only included those that were previously identified
in the literature review and “blue-line” drainages and not ephemeral drainages, other surface
waters and groundwater, resulting in incomplete hydrology and water quality analyses.
The Biological Resources Technical Report, provided in Appendix C.1 of the Draft EIR,
includes jurisdiction delineations. Appendix D of the Biological Resources Technical Report
provides in-depth detail regarding the jurisdictional delineation. As stated on page D-3 of the
Biological Resources Technical Survey Report, the resources were analyzed to determine the
presence of hydric soils, blue-line features, and the potential presence of features / isolated
dry washes and intermittently flooded features. These were then verified in the field to assess
the connection of local ephemeral drainages within the project to regional drainage patterns.
In addition, groundwater and flood data were analyzed to determine the impacts of the project
and/or constraints to the project. This information was used to identify the locations of
proposed stream crossings to determine the potential presence of features subject to
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 of the
State Fish and Game Code. The areas of potential roadway crossings were determined and
analysis was conducted to ensure all drainage crossings within the project boundary were
identified and field surveys were conducted in March and August 2010 and April, May, and
June 2011.
As discussed on page 4.4-23 of the Draft EIR and page D-4 of the Biological Resources
Technical Survey Report, all proposed roadway crossings were surveyed in March and
August 2010 and April, May, and June 2011 for the presence of a channel, a defined bed and
bank, associated riparian vegetation, and the potential to carry water ephemerally in a storm
event. The width of each stream was recorded from top of bank to top of bank. The width of
the riparian canopy was also recorded. The data collected included, but was not limited to,
the type of vegetation present, presence of a defined water flow area, presence of polygonal
cracking, ordinary high water mark, water stains, riparian- or desert wash-associated
vegetation, or other indicators of directed / channeled water flow. The Biological Resources
Technical Report contains Appendix D, Attachment 1 which provides all observations
recorded in the field. A review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map did not
identify any wetlands within the project site, which was verified during the field surveys in
2010 and 2011.
In its review, the Leady Agency has determined that the Biological Resources Technical
Report, including its appendices, Appendix C.1, and the Hydrology Report, Appendix G,
include sufficient detail to appropriately characterize potential hydrology and water quality
impacts for the purposes of the EIR. The implementation of Mitigation Measures, best
management practices, and applicable laws and regulations discussed in the Draft EIR would
ensure that potential water quality and hydrology impacts associated with drainages would be
appropriately mitigated and would result in a less than significant impact.
7-121
October 2011
County of Kern
E. The commenter refers to Section 4.9-1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR and states that due to
the complex hydrology of watershed systems, waters downstream of areas where pollutants
generated by the project may enter surface water should be considered in the EIR analysis
because local water quality degradation may propagate upstream and downstream of the
initial pollution location, and requests that the FEIR assess potential hydrologic impacts of
the project.
In response to the commenter’s notes regarding the complex hydrology of watershed systems,
the Lead Agency notes that potential water quality impacts associated with the project are
discussed under Impact 4.9-1 (Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge
Requirements) on pages 4.9-18 through 4.9-21 of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 4.9-21,
improper design and/or implementation of a dewatering plan could result in discharge of
contaminated groundwater containing excessive amounts of sediment and/or hazardous
substances to a surface waterbody, which would subsequently lead to degradation of surface
water quality. Additionally, the Lead Agency notes that there is nothing unusual about this
site as compared to other development in the area. There is not unusual topography on the site
that would require additional permits beyond those that are typically required for this type of
project. A proper dewatering plan would include testing of the groundwater to be dewatered,
and subsequent treatment of that groundwater prior to discharge if contamination is
discovered. Discharge of the dewatered effluent would be regulated under the NPDES
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General
Permit) required by the Lahontan RWQCB. Compliance with the conditions of the NPDES
General Permit would ensure that contaminated groundwater is properly tested and treated, if
necessary, prior to discharge to any surface water.
In addition, as described on page 4.8-29 of the Draft EIR, the project would occur in
compliance with the federal Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule,
which requires a secondary means of containment for spills of large quantities of petroleum
products used at the project site; MM 4.8-5, presented on page 4.8-30 of the Draft EIR,
formalizes this requirement and specifies timing and oversight. The analyses of potential
water quality impacts presented in Sections 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR are considered sufficient, such that potential
impacts are reasonably and appropriately characterized. The EIR analyzed impacts to all
known waters. Others areas may exist, but no evidence has been submitted to the record to
identify such unknown waters. Adequate mitigation has been included for the project that
would lessen any impacts to waters that may subsequently be identified during project
implementation.
F. The commenter states that Section 4.9-2, Surface Water, does not include discussion and
evaluation of wetlands, springs, and seeps within the project site and also 500 feet upstream
and downstream of the project boundaries. Refer to Response to Comment 2-D, above, for a
discussion of the delineations completed for the project.
With regard to the comment that the Drat EIR does not evaluate wetlands, springs, and seeps
with the project site, the Lead Agency notes that, the Biological Resources Technical Report,
provided in Appendix C of the Draft EIR, and the Hydrology Report, provided in Appendix
G, include sufficient detail to appropriately characterize potential surface water and
hydrology impacts for the purposes of the EIR. Field surveys of 109 drainage crossings were
7-122
October 2011
County of Kern
conducted in 2010 and 2011. The findings from these studies were incorporated into the
analysis included in the EIR.
As discussed beginning on page 4.4-25 of the draft EIR, it was determined that while there
are ephemeral streams located within the site, there are no wetlands or named blue-line
streams located on the project site. This conclusion was reached as a result of the analysis of
topographic maps, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map, aerial photographs, and field
investigation of on-site and upstream and downstream resources. It was determined that 30.3
miles of drainages mapped by USGS were determined to be non-navigable, isolated, and nonintrastate drainages. As a result of these field investigations, it was determined that no other
activity that may be considered interstate commerce, including recreational use, industrial
use, or fishing or harvest of shellfish for sale, occurs within the proposed project boundary or
on any of the drainages or dry washes upstream or downstream of the project. Also refer to
Response to Comment 2-D, above.
G. The commenter requests than a definition of “waste” should be added to the discussion of the
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act presented on page 4.9-12 of the Draft EIR. The
commenter also suggests that projects subject to coverage under the NPDES General
Construction Stormwater Permit (Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ) must implement
long-term BMPs for post-construction management of stormwater runoff, particularly for
impervious surface runoff, access road alignment, and proposed drainage crossings.
The suggested definition of “waste” has been added to page 4.9-12 of the EIR (see below).
In response to the commenter’s suggestions regarding long-term management of stormwater
runoff, potential alterations to drainage patterns on the project site and in the area are
discussed under Impacts 4.9-3 and 4.9-4, on pages 4.9-24 through 4.9-26 of the Draft EIR,
including as related to the project’s potential to increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
such that substantial erosion or siltation (Impact 4.9-3) or substantial flooding (Impact 4.9-4)
would occur on- or off-site. As described in the Draft EIR, the project would comply with
the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan (KCGP),
as well as the Kern County Grading Code and Floodplain Management Ordinance
requirements. As described on page 4.9-25 of the Draft EIR, the Kern County Grading Code
and Floodplain Management Ordinance include project design-specifications and BMPs to
minimize or avoid any potential increase in surface water runoff.
As described on page 4.9-21 of the Draft EIR, land clearing and grading required for the
project would be performed according to the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Mitigation Plan
required by Section 19.64.140.K (WE Combining District - Development Standards and
Conditions) of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance; the project would also occur in
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to Waste
Discharge Requirement (WDR) permits issued by Lahontan RWQCB. As required by Section
19.64.140.K of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance, the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Mitigation Plan must include detailed provisions for site re-vegetation, and must be
“consistent with the applicable requirements of the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board pertaining to the preparation and approval of storm water pollution prevention
plans.” It is the jurisdiction of the Lahontan RWQCB as a responsible agency to issue and
enforce SWPPP’s where applicable. At this time the RWQCB has not provided any
7-123
October 2011
County of Kern
recommended BMP’s for the project; however, BMPs are included in the project design as
industry standards.
These would include the following:
a. The following techniques will be used to prevent sediment from entering watercourses
during and after construction.
i. Following construction, all temporary roads within waters of the State will be
decompacted and re-contoured to pre-construction grade.
ii. Biodegradable coir (coconut fiber) mesh netting, matting, hay bales, or silt fencing
may be installed on graded slopes within ephemeral drainages to limit erosion and
assist in plant establishment.
iii. Tackifier may be applied to re-contoured slopes prior to the rainy season to further
control erosion of stream banks until vegetation is reestablished.
iv. Temporary disturbance areas will be revegetated.
b. The following project avoidance and/or minimization measures will be used to protect
fish, wildlife, and plant resources. To avoid and minimize impacts during construction,
the following measures will be implemented:
i. All construction work within waters of the State will be conducted during dry
weather. Appropriate sediment control BMPs will be employed at the base of
stockpiled soil in the vicinity of water bodies during periods of wet weather. To
prevent habitat degradation, dust shall be controlled; and Excess materials, debris,
and trash shall be controlled onsite and/or removed.
ii. Construction staging areas will be located outside of native vegetation communities.
iii. To avoid impacts to sensitive biological receptors, water quality will be protected
through adherence to a written Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan or Water
Pollution Control Plan. The plan will provide the following minimum protections:
• No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, cement, or concrete or
washing thereof; oil or petroleum products; or other organic or earthen material
from any construction or associated activity will be allowed to enter into or be
placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into washes or culverts that
cross the project site.
• Raw cement/concrete or washing thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material,
oil or other petroleum products or any other substances which could be hazardous
to aquatic life, resulting from project-related activities, will be prevented from
contaminating the soil and/or entering washes or culverts that cross the project
site.
• No equipment maintenance/parking will be done within or near any stream, lake,
or channel margin where petroleum products or other pollutants from the
equipment may enter these areas under any flow; this includes drainages.
The project is not anticipated to result in hydrologic changes or drainage pattern alterations
that would require additional mitigation actions to minimize or avoid potential impacts to
hydrology and water quality, including as related to post-construction stormwater runoff.
The commenter requests that the California Water Code §13260, under “Regulatory Setting”
on page 4.9-12 of Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, be revised to include reference
7-124
October 2011
County of Kern
to the definition of waste. In response to the commenter’s request, the Lead Agency has
revised the paragraph as follows:
Under Porter-Cologne, California Water Code §13260 requires that any person
discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect
the quality of the waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, must
submit a report of waste discharge to the applicable RWQCB. “Waste” is defined in the
Basin Plan to include any waste or deleterious material including, but not limited to,
waste earthen materials (such as soil, silt, clay, rock, or other organic or mineral material)
and any other waste as defined in the California Water Code, §13050(d). Any actions
related to the project that would be applicable to California Water Code §13260 would be
reported to the Lahontan RWQCB.
In addition, the commenter requested that the NPDES General Construction Permit, under
“Regulatory Setting” on page 4.9-12 of Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, be revised
to additional language regarding the Permit. In response to the commenter’s request, the
Lead Agency has revised the language as follows:
The NPDES was established per 1972 amendments to the federal Water Pollution Control
Act, in order to control discharges of pollutants from point sources (Section 402). As
described above, under “Federal,” 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act created a
new section of the act devoted to storm water permitting (Section 402[p]), with individual
States designated for administration and enforcement of the provisions of the Clean
Water Act and the NPDES permit program. The SWRCB issues both General
Construction Permits and individual permits under this program.
The NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit, Water Quality Order 2009-0009DWQ, contains requirements for post-construction stormwater management. The project
must include the implementation of long-term BMPs to address post-construction
stormwater, particularly for impervious surface runoff, access road alignment, and
proposed drainage crossings.
Projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a
Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB to be covered under the State NPDES General
Construction Permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction activity.
The project proponent must control measures that are consistent with the State General
Permit. A SWPPP must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the
General Permit. A SWPPP describes BMPs the discharger will use to protect stormwater
runoff and reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction
period. The SWPPP must contain the following: a visual monitoring program; a chemical
monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of
BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body
listed on the 303(d) list for sediment (SWRCB 2009). The area that would be disturbed
under the project exceeds one acre and; therefore, the project would be required to
comply with the General Permit.
H. The commenter states that the EIR should include mitigation measures to address postconstruction stormwater runoff and the potential for post-construction erosion and
7-125
October 2011
County of Kern
sedimentation to result in hydrology and water quality impacts. The commenter notes
particular concern with potential changes to hydrologic characteristics of surface waterways,
such as flow constriction and/or increased flow volume, which could lead to long-term
hydrologic impacts, both upstream and downstream of the disturbance.
In response to the commenter’s suggestions regarding stormwater runoff, potential alterations
to drainage patterns on the project site and in the area are discussed under Impacts 4.9-3 and
4.9-4, on pages 4.9-24 through 4.9-26 of the Draft EIR, including as related to the project’s
potential to increase the rate or amount of surface runoff such that substantial erosion or
siltation (Impact 4.9-3) or substantial flooding (Impact 4.9-4) would occur on- or off-site.
The project area is drained by natural stream channels and does not rely on constructed
stormwater drainage systems. Construction of the project would introduce impervious
surfaces associated with permanent infrastructure, and would import water for concrete
manufacturing and dust suppression activities, but would not have the potential to
substantially increase the amount of stormwater runoff. The pattern and concentration of
surface water runoff may be altered by project activities, such as grading of access roads, but
the amount of runoff across the project site would not be substantially altered. As noted
above, the project would comply with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the
KCGP, as well as Kern County Grading Code and Floodplain Management Ordinance
requirements. In addition, a project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
would be prepared and implemented in compliance with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit requirements, including BMPs to minimize or
avoid erosion and sedimentation on-site or off-site. The project does not have any identified
significant and unavoidable impacts to hydrology. Furthermore, when impacts are not
considered significant, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require
the lessening of these impacts to a less than significant level.
Any alteration of the bed or banks of any drainage deemed to be a jurisdictional water of the
State, including through access road improvement and/or construction, would not be
permitted to commence prior to approval of a Streambed Alteration Agreement by the CDFG,
and approval of Waste Discharge Requirements by the Lahontan RWQCB. Encroachment of
a WTG, PV solar system block, or other project-related permanent infrastructure into a
stream channel or floodplain, including Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)designated Flood Hazard Areas, could result in flooding of or erosion damage to the
encroaching structure, diversion of flows and increased flood risk for adjacent property, or
increased erosion on adjacent property. This impact is likely to occur only where WTGs, PV
solar system blocks, or other permanent project features are constructed in or closely adjacent
to a stream channel. With the exception of very wide and undefined ephemeral desert washes,
it is not expected that infrastructure associated with the project would be placed in an existing
stream channel or flood hazard area. Access and/or spur roads on the project site would cross
multiple ephemeral streams. As required by MM 4.9-1, the precise locations of all stream
crossings would be identified in the project Road Plan. MM 4.9-1, on page 4.9-21 of the
Draft EIR, requires the project proponent to submit a “Road Plan” to the Kern County
Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department for approval. The Road Plan
includes the following:
7-126
October 2011
County of Kern
•
•
A map/plot plan that identifies the precise location of all planned access roads
and spur roads, as well as any planned improvements to existing roads.
A list and description of the specific improvements/modifications that would be
undertaken at each location or road segment, including the planned width of each
completed segment, the engineered limits of cut and fill, the location of any
drainage and/or sensitive habitat within 100 feet of either edge of the planned
access or spur road, and the location and construction details of any new or
modified stream crossings or drainage diversion structures.
Thus, as discussed in Response to Comment 1-C, the Draft EIR, along with the Biological
Resources Technical Report in Appendix C.1 and the Hydrology Report in Appendix G
include sufficient detail to appropriately characterize potential hydrology and surface water
impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measures, BMPs, and applicable laws and regulations
discussed in the Draft EIR would ensure that potential hydrologic and surface water impacts
would not be significant.
I.
The commenter states that the Road Plan required by MM 4.9-1 must include long-term
BMPs to ensure that post-construction peak storm discharges do not exceed pre-project
levels. The project will required BMPs through the grading and road plan (Kern County
Grading Code 17.28). A project-specific SWPPP would be prepared and implemented in
compliance with NPDES General Permit requirements, including BMPs to minimize or avoid
erosion and sedimentation on- or off-site, to be determined by the RWQCB.
J.
The commenter requests that Section 4.4.2 be amended to include references to the RWQCB
jurisdiction. Thank you for your comment. The Lead Agency notes that, per the
commenter's request, the second paragraph on page 4.4-25 of Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, has been revised to include both CDFG and RWQCB.
In arid regions, many small, ephemeral drainages that are not represented as blue-line
features on topographic maps and lack riparian vegetation may still be considered by the
CDFG and the RWQCB to qualify as Waters of the State and may be subject to both
CDFG and RWQCB jurisdiction. Subsequently, a streambed alteration notification shall
be submitted to the CDFG prior to any construction activities for final determination of
jurisdiction for each drainage crossing potentially impacted by the project.
K. The commenter requests that the discussion of Impacts 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 in Section 4.4,
Biological Resources, should recognize the RWQCB’s authority over wildlife habitat
beneficial use designations for waters of the State, which are applicable to all surface waters
in the Willow Springs Hydrologic Unit. The Lead Agency notes that Section 4.4 recognizes
the RWQCB’s authority; as stated on pages 4.4-2, 4.4-3, 4.4-4, 4.4-23, and 4.4-25 of the
Draft EIR. Section 4.4 also includes extensive discussion of wildlife habitat, including as
related to surface waters and riparian areas, under Impact 4.4-1 (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 CDFG or USFWS) and Impact 4.4-2 (Have Substantial Adverse
Effects to Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community). Additionally, as stated on
page 4.9-11 of the Draft EIR, “The project would be expected to not disrupt current or
designated beneficial uses of surface waters.”
7-127
October 2011
County of Kern
L. The commenter requests that the Lahontan RWQCB be provided the opportunity to review
and comment on the Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan required per MM 4.4-2, as
related to waters of the State. The Lahontan RWQCB will be determining BMPs if a projectspecific SWPPP would be prepared. Therefore, it is not necessary for the RWQCB to review
the Habitation Restoration and Revegetation Plan. The Lahontan Region has developed a
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) to show how the quality of the surface and ground
waters in the Region should be managed to provide the highest water quality as reasonably
possible. The Basin Plan lists the various beneficial uses of water within the region; describes
the water quality which must be maintained to allow those uses; describes the programs,
projects, and other actions which are necessary to achieve the standards established in this
plan; and summarizes plans and policies to protect water quality. The project would be
expected to not disrupt current or designated beneficial uses of surface waters.
M. The commenter requests that the EIR include discussion of avoidance and minimization of
environmental impacts of the proposed Project through design modifications, including but
not limited to the following: 1) micro-siting wind turbines to avoid surface waters, 2) use of
existing roads, 3) avoid culvert crossings, 4) maintain and mimic natural drainage patterns, 5)
allow stormwater runoff to percolate into the landscape.
In response to this comment, please note that CEQA does not require evaluation of
alternatives to reduce already less than significant impacts, and the micro-siting of project
features is managed through existing regulations, ordinances, the WE Combining District site
plan review process, permits, and mitigation measures. As discussed in the Draft EIR,
environmental impacts of the project would be minimized or avoided wherever possible.
Micro-siting of WTGs will be conducted during final engineering and will be determined
based on a variety of factors, including the results of a site-specific geotechnical
investigation.
Development within a WE zone requires approval of a detailed plot plan demonstrating
compliance with any mitigation measures incorporated into any environmental documents
adopted for the implementation of a WE district for specific parcels (Kern County Ordinance,
Section 19.64.130). The project would comply with the WE Combining District (Chapter
19.64) which contains development standards and conditions (Kern County Ordinance,
Section 19.64.140) that would be applicable to the siting and operation of WTGs. In
addition, as described in Response to Comment 1-H, above, MM 4.9-1, on page 4.9-21 of the
Draft EIR, requires the project proponent to submit a “Road Plan” to the Kern County
Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department for approval.
Page 3-28 of the Draft EIR states that existing roads would be utilized where possible, and
upgraded where necessary. Page 3-24 states “…the project proponent would install
appropriate crossings in order to minimize impacts to CDFG jurisdictional areas.”
Additionally, discussion provided in Chapter 3, Project Description, and Section 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, describes that drainage patterns will be maintained wherever
possible, and project features will be designed and constructed to minimize disturbance to
existing drainage patterns, including as related to stormwater runoff.
7-128
October 2011
County of Kern
N. The commenter states that obtaining a permit and conducting monitoring does not constitute
adequate mitigation, and states that the EIR must specifically describe BMPs and other
mitigation measures to mitigate for project impacts.
In response to this comment the Lead Agency notes that compliance with existing permit and
monitoring requirements, in addition to implementation of mitigation measures identified in
the Draft EIR, is reasonably considered sufficient to minimize or avoid potential impacts of
the project, including as related to hydrology and water quality. The Draft EIR identifies
Mitigation Measures, including specific BMPs, to supplement permit requirements and
minimize or avoid potential environmental impacts of the project. To further minimize or
avoid the potential for project activities to result in the violation of any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements, MM 4.9-1, MM 4.8-1, and MM 4.8-3, discussed
below, would be implemented as part of the project.
MM 4.9-1, on page 4.9-29 of the Draft EIR, requires that prior to the construction of or
upgrade to any access road or spur road, the project proponent to submit a “Road Plan” to the
Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department for approval. Refer to
Response to Comment 2-H for details related to MM 4.9-1.
MM 4.9-1 continues to require that should the road plan propose a “cut” or “fill” of more
than twelve (12) inches, or the movement of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material, the
road plan shall be submitted in the form of a grading permit application to the Kern County
Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department for review and approval.
MM 4.8-1, on page 4.8-26 of the Draft EIR, requires the project proponent to prepare a
Hazardous Materials Business Plan and submit it to the Kern County Environmental Health
Services Department for review and approval, in accordance with the California Health and
Safety Code and Kern County regulations. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan shall
delineate hazardous material and hazardous waste storage areas; describe proper handling,
storage, and disposal techniques; describe methods to be used to avoid spills and minimize
impacts in the event of a spill; describe procedures for handling and disposing of
unanticipated hazardous materials encountered during construction; and establish public and
agency notification procedures for spills and other emergencies, including fires. The project
proponent shall provide the Hazardous Materials Business Plan to all contractors working on
the project and will ensure that one (1) copy is available at the project site at all times.
If herbicides are utilized, MM 4.8-3, on page 4.8-27 of the Draft EIR, requires the project
proponent to have all the appropriate State and local herbicide applicator licenses and comply
with all State and local regulations regarding herbicide use. Herbicides shall be mixed and
applied in conformance with the product manufacturer’s directions. The herbicide applicator
shall be equipped with splash protection clothing and gear, chemical resistant gloves,
chemical spill/splash wash supplies, and material safety data sheets for all hazardous
materials to be used. To minimize harm to wildlife, vegetation, and waterbodies, herbicides
shall not be applied directly to wildlife, products identified as non-toxic to birds and small
mammals shall be used if nests or dens are observed, and herbicides shall not be applied
within 50 feet of any surface water-body when water is present. Herbicides shall not be
applied if it is raining at the site, rain is imminent, or the target area has puddles or standing
water. Herbicides shall not be applied when wind velocity exceeds ten (10) miles per hour. If
7-129
October 2011
County of Kern
spray is observed to be drifting to a non-target location, spraying shall be discontinued until
conditions causing the drift have abated.
O. The commenter provided a copy of the letter submitted to the Kern County Planning and
Community Development Department on March 17, 2011 during the 30-day public review
period for the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study. Please refer to page 2-5 of the Draft
EIR for a summary of the letter. Please refer to Section 4.4, Biological Resources, and
Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for discussion regarding protecting and
maintaining water quality within the Lahontan region.
P. The commenter submitted a third letter, dated September 30, 2011. In general, this letter
reiterated the same comments that were made in the August 25, 2011 letter, with the
exception of the comment listed under bullet number one on page three. That comment,
related to Appendix G, Hydrology Report, of the DEIR, was updated to state that Appendix G
of the DEIR does not contain a signature of the registered professional who prepared the
Hydrology Report. Therefore, the Lead Agency has included a copy of the signed cover page,
attached at Attachment A of this Chapter 7, Response to Comments document.
7-130
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 3
3-A
7-131
October 2011
County of Kern
3-A
7-132
October 2011
County of Kern
3-A
3-B
7-133
October 2011
County of Kern
3-B
7-134
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 3: Natural Resources Agency, Department of
Conservation (August 24, 2011)
A. The commenter describes the purpose of the Agency and describes their understanding of the
project description. The commenter acknowledges that the wind generation portion of the
project is considered consistent with the Williamson Act due to the limited interference with
agricultural operations; however, the commenter states that the solar component of the project
is considered an industrial use of the land. The commenter acknowledges that though the
solar panels are a permitted use under the County Zoning Ordinance and the Kern County
General Plan (KCGP), they should be considered an impact to agricultural and open space
resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The commenter further
requests that the LESA model be used to support the findings that the solar component of the
project will not have a significant impact on agricultural or open space resources.
Thank you for your comments. In response to these comments, the Lead Agency notes that
Section 4.2, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, of the Draft EIR analyzes impacts to
agricultural resources that would result under the project. As stated on page 4.2-2, the project
would not construct solar panels within Williamson Act contracted land and no Williamson
Act contracted land cancellations would be necessary. Page 4.2-8 states that there is no
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) within
the project site. As shown in Figure 4.2-1, FMMP Classifications, on page 4.2-9 of the Draft
EIR, the 1,223-acre area for the solar component of the project is designated as “NonAgricultural and Natural Vegetation.” Additionally, the Lead Agency notes that the project
site has no developed water source and the Kern County records show that the parcels have
not been actively farmed in at least the last 12 years. The Lead Agency agrees that the
development of solar facilities is a permanent use. In determining the significance of the
project’s impact to farmland, the Lead Agency analyzes the site based on three factors: 1) is
the site designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance; 2) does the site have the proper soils; and 3) is there water available to the site.
Per the Department of Conservation Farmland Maps, the project site is not on FMMP
classified land for Prime Farmland Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance;
per the Limited Feasibility Level Geological Hazard and Soils Evaluation Study contained in
Appendix F of the EIR, the project site is on soil that is classified as having severe limitations
that make them unsuitable for cultivation and that have restricted uses for both irrigated and
non-irrigated; and, the project site does not have a developed water source. Therefore, the
impacts to agricultural land of conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, as analyzed in
Impact 4.2-5 on page 4.2-13 of the Draft EIR, is considered less than significant.
B. The commenter requests that mitigation measures be provided for the loss of agricultural land
as a result of the solar component of the project. The commenter requests information on
hearing dates and copies of staff reports pertaining to this project.
In response to the request for mitigation measures to address the loss of agricultural land as a
result of the project, please refer to Response to Comment 3-A. As noted above, the impacts
to agricultural land of conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, as analyzed in Impact
4.2-5 (conversion of farmland to non-agricultural) on page 4.2-13 of the Draft EIR, are
considered less than significant. Per State CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures are
required when an impact is significant. The project will have a less than significant impact;
therefore, no mitigation measures are required for this project. The scheduled dates for public
hearings pertaining to this project were listed in the Notice of Availability (NOA) that was
7-135
October 2011
County of Kern
included with the circulated Draft EIR. The commenter was added to the notification list for
future hearing dates and those dates are scheduled as October 27, 2011 for consideration by
the Kern County Planning Commission and November 15, 2011 for consideration by the
Kern County Board of Supervisors.
7-136
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 4
4-A
7-137
October 2011
County of Kern
4-B
4-C
4-D
7-138
October 2011
County of Kern
4-D
7-139
October 2011
County of Kern
4-E
7-140
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 4: Native American Heritage Commission
(September 20, 2011)
A. The commenter provides an introduction to the letter, states the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and states that the Lead Agency is required to
assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on cultural resources within the area
of potential effect, and if so, to mitigate that effect.
Thank you for your comments. The Lead Agency has conducted an environmental analysis of
cultural resource impacts from the project in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR provides the environmental setting, impacts,
and mitigation measures for this resource area.
B. The commenter recommends early consultation with Native American tribes in the project
area and with tribes and interested Native American tribes/individuals (provided a list).
In response to these comments, the Lead Agency notes page 4.5-10 of the Draft EIR and the
Cultural Resources Technical Reports prepared for the project (Appendix D, Cultural
Resources Technical Study and Results of the Supplemental Cultural Resources Survey),
indicate that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on March 2,
2009 for a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) to determine if any known Native
American cultural properties are present within or adjacent to the Project area. A
supplementary records search from the NAHC SLF was requested on April 22, 2009.
Written responses were received on March 11, 2009 and April 24, 2009, indicating the
presence of Native American cultural resources within the cultural resources study area.
Ongoing consultation was initiated with NAHC on February 8, 2011.
On the
recommendation of the NAHC, letters were sent to five Native American contacts classified
by the NAHC as potential sources of information related to cultural resources in the vicinity
of the project area. As identified on page 4.5-10 of the Draft EIR and in the cultural
resources technical reports in Appendix D of the Draft EIR and Attachment D of the FEIR,
one response had been received from the Tejon Indian Tribe stating that the project area was
used by their ancestors but that they currently have no information or concerns.
C. The commenter recommends consultation conducted in compliance with the requirements of
NEPA and Section 106 and 4(f) of the NHPA. The project falls under the jurisdiction of
CEQA only, and as CEQA Lead Agency, Kern County is responsible for compliance with
applicable State and local regulations. Because there is no federal involvement, the project is
not considered a “federal undertaking”. Therefore, regulations and guidelines set forth in
NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA do not apply to this project.
D. The commenter recommends confidentiality of “historic properties of religious and cultural
significance” and providing in the document a discussion of the accidental discovery of
archaeological resources and/or human remains.
The Lead Agency concurs with the comment regarding confidentiality. As contained in
Appendix D, Cultural Resources Technical Study and Results of the Supplemental Cultural
Resources Survey, of the Draft EIR, the Cultural Resources Technical Reports prepared for
the project does not include maps or specific location descriptions of cultural resources. MM
4.5-3 and MM 4.5-7 have been proposed to protect previously unidentified cultural resources
7-141
October 2011
County of Kern
discovered during construction activities and the process to be followed in the event of an
accidental discovery of human remains during construction activities.
E. The commenter provided a list of Native American contacts. The list has been added to the
Record and will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
7-142
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 5
5-A
7-143
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 5: Department of California Highway Patrol,
(July 27, 2011)
A. The commenter indicated that the project would not substantially increase vehicular traffic
and therefore no change to CHP staffing or workloads are anticipated.
Thank you for your comment. The Lead Agency concurs with the commenter. Analysis and
discussion of the potential impacts of the project on public services can be found in Section
4.13, Public Services, on page 4.13-9 of the Draft EIR.
7-144
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 6
6-A
7-145
October 2011
County of Kern
6-A
7-146
October 2011
County of Kern
6-B
7-147
October 2011
County of Kern
6-C
6-D
7-148
October 2011
County of Kern
6-D
6-E
6-F
7-149
October 2011
County of Kern
6-F
6-G
6-H
6-I
7-150
October 2011
County of Kern
6-I
6-J
6-K
6-L
6-M
7-151
October 2011
County of Kern
6-M
6-N
6-O
7-152
October 2011
County of Kern
6-O
7-153
October 2011
County of Kern
6-P
7-154
October 2011
County of Kern
6-P
7-155
October 2011
County of Kern
6-P
7-156
October 2011
County of Kern
6-P
7-157
October 2011
County of Kern
6-P
7-158
October 2011
County of Kern
6-P
7-159
October 2011
County of Kern
6-P
7-160
October 2011
County of Kern
6-P
7-161
October 2011
County of Kern
6-P
7-162
October 2011
County of Kern
6-P
7-163
October 2011
County of Kern
6-P
7-164
October 2011
County of Kern
6-P
7-165
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 6: California Department of Fish and Game,
(October 3, 2011)
A. The commenter states that some mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR would be
effective in reducing project impacts while others would not and recommends that they be
modified using approaches that are known to be feasible and capable of successful
implementation. In addition, the commenter notes that impacts to California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) species identified as “significant and unavoidable” would likely mean
that avoidance of these species is infeasible and the applicant would need to obtain an
Incidental Take Permit (ITP).
Thank you for your comments. The Lead Agency notes that Section 4.4 (Biological
Resources) of the Draft EIR has identified 18 feasible mitigation measures, MM 4.4-1
through 4.4-18 as provided in this FEIR to avoid, reduce and compensate for the potentially
significant effects of the project. The Lead Agency agrees with the California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) that consultation with the CDFG would be required if the take of a
species listed within CESA is unavoidable. Specific species concerns are further discussed
under the appropriate topics listed below.
B. The commenter states that the baseline bird surveys used in the Draft EIR deviate from the
protocols listed in the California Guidelines for Reducing Impacts to Birds and Bats from
Wind Energy Development (California Energy Commission [CEC] and CDFG, 2007) and do
not provide enough information to adequately assess the project’s potential impacts to birds
or create an adequate avian use baseline. The commenter also noted that nocturnal surveys
were not conducted.
The Lead Agency notes that prior to the preparation of the Draft EIR, winter avian species
surveys of the project site were conducted in support of the project consistent with the
voluntary CEC guidelines. Surveys consisted of three methods, including bird use counts
(BUCs), area searches, and reconnaissance surveys. The standardized data collection method
recommended by the CEC Guidelines is the bird use count (BUC), which was conducted at
the project property. The Guidelines suggest developing additional site-specific survey
methods based on detailed information specific to the property. In developing the survey
methods for the Catalina Renewable Energy Project, information collected from the
surrounding area was used, including data from more than 100 BUCs. The density of BUC
avian survey locations on the proposed project was higher than the number recommended in
the CEC Guidelines: 17 BUC points were surveyed on the 6,739-acre (10.5 square mile)
property, for a density of 1.6 points per square mile. The BUC survey sites were selected and
proportionally distributed among the four main habitat types. As a result, the entire project
property was covered by the 17 BUC locations in the manner recommended by the CEC
Guidelines, and high quality baseline data collected by highly qualified observers. Based on
the overall low avian use of the surrounding area as determined by previous studies, 24
replicate BUCs were conducted per year. In addition, each BUC point was located to
maximize visibility of the surrounding area, and observers were able to detect raptors at
distances greater than a mile away, as verified on the ground. Surveys conducted for the
proposed project included early morning and afternoon or evening flight counts to maximize
the detection of avian diurnal migrants.
The Lead Agency notes that nocturnal radar surveys are recommended in the CEC Guidelines,
but are not required. This survey type was determined to be unnecessary for the project based
7-166
October 2011
County of Kern
on the results of field investigations undertaken on the adjacent Manzana Wind Energy
Project property, located immediately west of the proposed project property. Nexrad data that
was collected and analyzed for the Manzana Wind Energy Project did not provide any
information that differed significantly from that derived from other survey methods that were
employed and replicated on the adjacent Pacific Wind Energy Project property. The diurnal
bird surveys provided evidence that the property is characterized by generally low bird use
and diurnal migrants were infrequently observed. Sites of low use by diurnal migrants would
not be expected to have high usage by nocturnal migrants. Further, the lack of topographic
features to concentrate migrants indicates that radar surveys would be inappropriate for the
proposed project property. High-elevation migration does not present conflicts with turbines.
The height of the bird flights is included in the EIR. Collision risk for birds occurs in the rotor
swept area, a height range that is visible without radar.
Since publication of the Draft EIR, spring and summer avian species surveys have also been
conducted. The results of the subsequent surveys are documented in Memorandums for the
Record dated September 29, 2011, and September 30, 2011 (refer to Attachments B.1 and B.2
of this FEIR). The spring and summer surveys consisted of the identification of birds each
using four methods, including BUCs, area searches, reconnaissance counts, raptor nest
searches, and/or incidental species observations, and were also conducted consistent with the
CEC guidelines. These methods were employed to establish an avian use baseline that is
adequate to allow for the determination of significance under CEQA. The Lead Agency
notes that sufficient technical studies were prepared to support the project analysis
sufficiently and to characterize potential environmental impacts of the project and develop
project specific mitigation measures to avoid and minimize such impacts.
The commenter also states that the sampling effort appears inadequate to determine baseline
bat use within the project area. The Lead Agency disagrees with the assessment that
sampling efforts were inadequate. The level of survey effort conducted for bats is consistent
with CEC guidelines and is adequate to form a baseline for determining significance under
CEQA. Detailed field studies were performed for sensitive bat species identified as having
the potential to occur at the project site based on literature review, agency consultation, plant
community mapping and habitat assessment. The project property and surrounding area lacks
habitat features (nearby roosts, water bodies) that would be expected to potentially
concentrate foraging bats at the site. Analyses of the survey data collected to date indicates
that bat activity is relatively low, with an average of 1 recorded bat call per detector-night
during the winter and early spring and 2+ recorded bat calls per detector-night during the
summer and early autumn. As documented on page 4.4-14 of the Draft EIR, field studies
were designed and performed to take into account the particular life history traits and habitat
requirements of the bat species potentially occurring on the project site.
C. The commenter states that the parameters used to determine whether individual cactus
warrant protection under the CESA were inappropriate and recommends that each cactus be
identified as either Bakersfield cactus or beavertail cactus prior to ground disturbing
activities. Surveys of the project site were conducted in the spring of 2011 to assess the
presence or absence of Bakersfield cactus. As documented in the Draft EIR, plant
identification followed detailed morphological evaluations, utilizing characteristics included
in both The Jepson Manual and those included in the original species description of the
Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei. Cacti on the project site were determined to be the beavertail
cactus and, therefore, there would be no impact to Bakersfield cactus. If Bakersfield cactus
7-167
October 2011
County of Kern
plants are identified at the proposed project property, then appropriate mitigation will take
place, and the project proponent will apply for an Incidental Take Permit to ensure
compliance with CESA. MM 4.4-6 has been revised to include section 4.4-6g to ensure all
feasible actions are taken, should Bakersfield cactus be found on-site:
MM 4.4-6g: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, if Bakersfield cactus is
identified within the construction area, the project proponent shall submit
written documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community Development to demonstrate how the following measures to reduce impacts to the
Bakersfield Cactus will be implemented:
i. The project proponent shall work with the designated Biologist(s) to
identify all known Bakersfield cactus and to establish “avoidance areas.”
All Bakersfield cacti found within the WE-corridor will be avoided by a
buffer of 25 feet through micro-siting activities within the project are.
Sturdy, highly visible, orange plastic construction fencing shall be installed
around all Bakersfield cactus avoidance areas and shall be located in
accordance with direction from the Designated Biologist(s). The fence shall
be securely staked and installed in a durable manner that would be reasonably expected to withstand wind and weather events and last at least through
the construction period. Fencing shall be removed upon completion of
project construction.
ii. Bakersfield Cactus Translocation. Any Bakersfield cactus that cannot
feasibly be avoided during construction shall be translocated according to
the California Department of Fish and Game’s “Cactus Translocation
(Revegetation)” guidelines. Cacti shall be translocated to a suitable,
California Department of Fish and Game–approved site.
D. The commenter states that there is not enough information provided in the Draft EIR to
conclude that Mohave ground squirrel (MGS) are absent from the project site. The Lead
Agency notes, since publication of the Draft EIR, supplemental protocol-level surveys were
conducted within 5,832 acres of potentially suitable habitat on the project site in accordance
with CDFG’s Mohave Ground Squirrel Survey Guidelines (2003). The results of the
supplemental protocol-level surveys conducted from March to July 2011 are provided in
Attachment C.4 of this FEIR. Within the survey area, five MGS grids covering 160 acres (64
hectares; 12 percent of suitable habitat) were sampled during three pre-established survey
periods. No MGS were observed or captured during the 2011 surveys, and no MGS were
captured during multiple-year, protocol-level surveys. In addition, in 2009 and 2010, nine
MGS grids (four in 2009, five in 2010) within potentially suitable habitat were sampled
resulting in no MGS captures. As noted above on page 7-15, MM 4.4-6b was revised to
ensure that if MGS are identified at the proposed project, then the project proponent will
consult with the CDFG as necessary.
E. The commenter states that borrowing owls are highly susceptible to fatalities within wind
farms and recommends off-site mitigation to compensate for likely fatalities and habitat
degradation. As provided on page 4.4-73 of the Draft EIR, MM 4.4-6f requires a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls, in conformance with the Borrowing Owl Survey
Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993). In
addition, MM 4.4-6f requires the acquisition of off-site habitat suitable for borrowing owls,
7-168
October 2011
County of Kern
as approved by CDFG. The off-site location must be purchased and/or placed in a
conservation easement in perpetuity and managed to maintain suitable habitat.
F. The commenter states that wind turbine generators (WTGs) can present a significant threat to
Swainson’s hawk and other raptor species and disagrees with the determination that impacts
to the species would be less than significant. Due to the close proximity of a Swainson’s
hawk nest and the high likelihood for mortality as a result of a WTG strike, the commenter
recommends that the applicant obtain an ITP for the species. The commenter also states that
the Draft EIR mitigation measures would potentially reduce impacts to the species during
construction but not during operation. Finally, the commenter disagrees that only 23.3
percent of the project site would be considered lost foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.
As documented in the Draft EIR on page 4.4-56, Swainson’s hawk is a rare spring migrant
and rare to uncommon autumnal migrant in the Antelope Valley. A few Swainson’s hawk
pairs still nest in the Antelope Valley but do not nest on the project site. Directed surveys for
Swainson’s hawk were designed to conform to CEC guidelines. There have been no reported
losses of Swainson’s hawk in Kern County from collisions with WTGs. Therefore, the risk is
considered low.
The Draft EIR includes a wide range of mitigation measures to avoid and
minimize the potential for take of Swainson’s hawk. These include:
•
MM 4.4-2, habitat restoration and revegetation (pages 4.4-67 through 4.4-69)
•
MM 4.4-3, weed control plan (pages 4.4-69 through 4.4-70)
•
MM 4.4-6, pre-construction Swainson’s hawk surveys (page 4.4-71)
•
MM 4.4-14W, post-construction breeding monitoring, including nesting analysis (page
4.4-77)
Several measures would also be implemented to reduce impacts associated with collisions
and electrocution risks, including:
•
MM 4.4-8W, minimize night lighting on wind turbine generators and meteorological
towers (page 4.4-75)
•
MM 4.4-15W, post-construction avian and bat mortality monitoring, including
preparation of a mortality analysis (pages 4.4-77 through 4.4-78)
•
MM 4.4-16W, supplemental mitigation, if unanticipated significant impacts result
G. The commenter acknowledges that the Draft EIR addresses potential impacts to golden eagle
and suggests that a programmatic take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) could be necessary. The commenter further states that a permit from USFWS
would not address CDFG concerns with the species because the golden eagle is a fully
protected species under State Statute and therefore, CDFG cannot permit take under the
project. The Lead Agency notes, as that, as provided in the Draft EIR, of the ten active
golden eagle nests observed during 2010 and 2011 aerial surveys, the closest was located 17
miles from the project site. No other golden eagle nests were observed. Surveys conducted
in February and March 2011 resulted in the observance of five sub-adult golden eagles flying
over the project site at 500 feet above ground level or higher. Surveys conducted in April and
May 2011 resulted in the observance of three golden eagles flying over the project site at 60
feet above ground level or higher. No golden eagles were observed during the July 2011
surveys. Given the known nesting locations, the golden eagle is correctly characterized in the
Draft EIR as an uncommon visitor to the project area, which is supported by the low number
of observations over several years of directed surveys. Mitigation Measure 4.4-5W requires
7-169
October 2011
County of Kern
the project applicant to provide documentation to CDFG, USFWS and Kern County to ensure
compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Act. Additionally, MM 4.4-15W requires that
the project proponent conduct Post-Construction Mortality Monitoring for the golden eagle
for the life of the project. This documentation is required to be submitted to the Kern County
Planning Department, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California
Department of Fish and Game. This mitigation is not deferred and will allow for the
appropriate agencies to review data as it becomes available to determine if further actions are
necessary to address the golden eagle’s use of the project site.
H. The commenter recommends that the Final EIR include a measure to require compliance with
regulations prohibiting the take of desert kit fox. The Lead Agency notes specific surveys for
desert kit fox were not conducted; however, a Supplemental Mohave Ground Squirrel
Guideline Surveys for the Proposed Catalina Renewable Energy Project, Kern County,
California Memorandum for the Record was prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. dated
September 30, 2011 and is provided as Attachment C.4 of this FEIR. During the Mohave
ground squirrel surveys from March 15, through July 15, 2011, one desert kit fox was
observed within the project boundaries. MM 4.4-6 has been revised to include section 4.4-6d
which requires preconstruction surveys for desert kit fox. MM 4.4-6d also provides
requirements dependent on the preconstruction survey results.
MM 4.4-6
components of the project, the project proponent shall conduct the following preconstruction surveys:
b
Mohave Ground Squirrel: The project proponent(s) shall submit written
activities. The name and phone number of the biological monitor shall be
provided to a California Department of Fish and Game regional representative at
least 14 days before the initiation of ground-disturbing activities. If the biological
monitor observes a Mohave ground squirrel on the construction site, work shall
be halted and redirected to areas not supporting this species. A written report
shall be sent to California Department of Fish and Game within five calendar
days of the sighting. The report will include the date, time of the finding or
incident (if known), and location of the animal. If a dead Mohave ground squirrel
is encountered, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the encounter and
the remains shall be collected, frozen as soon as possible, and California
Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted immediately to determine the
appropriate course of action, such as the need for an Incidental Take Permit
where the remains will be sent.
d. Desert kit fox: The project proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to
the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department showing
implementation of pre-construction surveys, no less than 14 days and no more
than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction
7-170
October 2011
County of Kern
activities, for desert kit fox when construction is proposed in portions of the
project site containing suitable habitat. If present, occupied kit fox dens shall
be flagged and ground-disturbing activities avoided within 50 feet of the
occupied den avoided. Maternity dens shall be flagged for avoidance, identified
on construction maps, and a biological monitor shall be present during
construction. If an occupied desert kit fox den is encountered, all work in the
immediate vicinity shall stop until the California Department of Fish and Game
is consulted for the appropriate course of action.
d.e. Bats: The project proponent(s) shall conduct a survey for roosting bats prior to
any ground disturbance activities in all areas within 200 feet of rocky outcrops,
large trees, or any other habitat capable of supporting roosting bats. The project
proponent(s) shall also conduct surveys for roosting bats during the maternity
season (1 March to 31 July) within 300 feet of project activities near rocky
outcrops or other habitat capable of supporting bat nursery colonies. These
areas shall be surveyed by a qualified bat biologist. Surveys shall include a
minimum of one day and one evening visit. If active maternity roosts or
hibernacula are found, the rock outcrop or tree occupied by the roost shall be
avoided (i.e., not removed) by the project, if feasible. If avoidance of the roost
is not feasible, the bat biologist shall survey (through the use of radio telemetry
or other California Department of Fish and Game -approved methods) for
nearby alternative maternity colony sites. If the bat biologist determines, in
consultation with and with the approval of the California Department of Fish
and Game, that there are alternative roost sites used by the maternity colony
and young are not present, then no further action is required. However, if there
are no alternative roost sites used by the maternity colony, provision of
substitute roosting bat habitat is required. If active maternity roosts are absent,
but a hibernaculum (i.e., a non-maternity roost) is present, then exclusion of
bats prior to demolition of roosts is required.
iii.
Provision of substitute roosting bat habitat. If a maternity roost will
be impacted by the project, and no alternative maternity roosts are in
use within one mile of the site, substitute roosting habitat for the
maternity colony shall be provided on, or in close proximity to, the
project site no less than three months prior to the eviction of the
colony. Alternative roost sites will be constructed in accordance
with the specific bats’ requirements in coordination with California
Department of Fish and Game and Kern County. Alternative roost
sites must be of comparable size and proximal in location to the
impacted colony. The California Department of Fish and Game shall
also be notified of any hibernacula or active nurseries within the
construction zone.
iv.
Exclude bats prior to demolition of roosts. If non-breeding bat
hibernacula are found in rocky outcrops scheduled to be removed or
in crevices in rock outcrops within the grading footprint, the
individuals shall be safely evicted, according to timing and under the
direction of the qualified bat biologist, by opening the roosting area
to allow airflow through the cavity or other means determined
7-171
October 2011
County of Kern
appropriate by the bat biologist (e.g., installation of one-way doors).
In situations requiring one-way doors, a minimum of one week shall
pass after doors are installed and temperatures should be sufficiently
warm for bats to exit the roost. This action should allow all bats to
leave during the course of one week. Roosts that need to be removed
in situations where the use of one-way doors is not necessary in the
judgment of the qualified bat biologist shall first be disturbed by
various means at the direction of the bat biologist at dusk to allow
bats to escape during the darker hours, and the roost tree shall be
removed or the grading shall occur the next day (i.e., there shall be
no less or more than one night between initial disturbance and the
grading or tree removal).
If an active maternity roost is located in an area to be impacted by the
project, and alternative roosting habitat is available, the demolition of the
roost site must commence before maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to 1
March) or after young are flying (i.e., after 31 July) using the exclusion
e.f. Burrowing Owl: A pre-construction survey for burrowing owls, in
conformance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993), shall be completed
no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction within suitable habitat at
the project site(s) and buffer zone(s). The project proponent(s) shall submit the
results of the pre-construction survey to the Kern County Planning and
Community Development Department and the California Department of Fish
and Game. The project proponent shall also submit evidence of conformance
with federal and State regulations regarding the protection of the burrowing
owl by demonstrating compliance with the following:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Game, no disturbance shall occur within 50 meters of occupied burrows
during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) or
within 75 meters during the breeding season (February 1 through August
31).
Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season
(February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by
California Department of Fish and Game verifies through non-invasive
methods that either the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation
or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently
and are capable of independent survival. Eviction outside the nesting
season may be permitted pending evaluation of eviction plans (developed
in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game protocol for
burrowing owls) by California Department of Fish and Game and receipt
of formal written approval from the California Department of Fish and
Game authorizing the eviction.
Any damaged or collapsed burrow will be replaced with artificial
burrows in adjacent habitat.
Game, a 250-foot buffer, within which no activity will be permissible,
will be maintained between project activities and nesting burrowing owls
during the nesting season. This protected area will remain in effect until
7-172
October 2011
County of Kern
v.
vi.
I.
The commenter recommends that language in MM 4.4-1b be revised to refer to species not
listed under the CESA. The commenter also recommends that MM 4.4-1d describe methods
that would be used for burrow inspections. The Lead Agency notes with respect to comments
regarding MM 4.4-1d, please refer to Response to Comment 6-E. MM 4.4-6f requires the
surveys be in conformance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines. With respect to the comment regarding MM 4.4-1b, on page 4.4-65, it has been
revised as shown below:
MM 4.4-1b
J.
August 31 or at California Department of Fish and Game’s discretion
and based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging
independently.
If accidental take (disturbance, injury, or death of owls) occurs, the lead
biological monitor will be notified immediately.
Impacts to burrowing owl territories shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio
through the acquisition of occupied habitat off-site in an area of Kern
County where turbines would not pose a mortality risk. Acquisition of
habitat shall be consistent with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and
Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993).
Off-site habitat must be suitable burrowing owl habitat, as defined in the
Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California
Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993). Additionally, the site shall be
approved by the California Department of Fish and Game. Land should
be purchased and/or placed in a conservation easement in perpetuity and
managed to maintain suitable habitat. The offsite area to be preserved
Evidence that a biological firm has been retained to monitor construction
activities and to recover and relocate ground-dwelling special-status species as
encountered during construction. Any capture and relocation activities shall
require the appropriate scientific collecting permits issued by the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), if applicable. The recovery and
relocation of ground-dwelling special-status species shall not include any species
listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or California
Endangered Species Act (CESA); unless, the project proponent obtains the
appropriate permit authorization as issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and CDFG.
The commenter recommends that MM 4.4-6b require all work to stop and the applicant
and/or operator immediately contact CDFG if a dead MGS is found. The Lead Agency notes
MM 4.4-6b on page 4.4-71 has been revised as shown below.
MM 4.4-6b Mohave Ground Squirrel: The project proponent(s) shall submit written
activities. The name and phone number of the biological monitor shall be provided
to a California Department of Fish and Game regional representative at least 14
days before the initiation of ground-disturbing activities. If the biological monitor
observes a Mohave ground squirrel on the construction site, work shall be halted
and redirected to areas not supporting this species. A written report shall be sent to
California Department of Fish and Game within five calendar days of the sighting.
The report will include the date, time of the finding or incident (if known), and
7-173
October 2011
County of Kern
location of the animal. If a dead Mohave ground squirrel is encountered, all work
shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the encounter and the remains shall be
collected, frozen as soon as possible, and California Department of Fish and Game
shall be contacted immediately to determine the appropriate course of action, such
as the need for an Incidental Take Permit where the remains will be sent.
K. The commenter states that MM 4.4-7e would not likely ensure take of the California condor
would be avoided. This measure requires the use of bird flight diverters on guy wires,
immediate removal of livestock carcasses from the 6,739-acre site, and a contribution to the
California Condor Recovery Fund to provide funding for conservation measures such as radio
telemetry, condor feeding programs, or other appropriate measures The Lead Agency notes
that the use of measures described in MM 4.4-7e are considered feasible mitigation to reduce
impacts to California condors.
The Lead Agency notes that CEQA stipulates that mitigation measures are to be reasonable
and feasible such that a project which is approved by an elected hearing body can be
physically implemented. Section 21002.1 (b) and (c) of the California Public Resources Code
states that “Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so” and
that “If economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more
significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out
or approved at the discretion of a public agency if the project is otherwise permissible under
applicable laws and regulations.” The Lead Agency notes that the appropriate reasonable and
feasible mitigation measures have been applied to the project.
The Lead Agency also notes that the commenter does not provide suggestions for alternative
feasible mitigation measures.
L. The commenter questions how the Post-Construction Breeding Monitoring for the first,
second and third year following initial project operation required under MM 4.4-14W would
determine the long-term decline in regional bird use. The Lead Agency notes that MM 4.414W is not designed to provide a metric of long-term decline, but rather a metric of the
project’s more immediate impact on breeding populations, if any. The post-construction
breeding monitoring period is consistent with the suggested timeframes for such monitoring
pursuant to CEC and CDFG guidelines.
M. The commenter supports the Post-Construction Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring required
in MM 4.4-15W but over a longer period of time and annually. The commenter also
recommends that raptor mortality surveys be required for the life of the project for CESAlisted and fully protected raptor species. The Lead Agency notes MM 4.4-15W, on page 4.477, requires that Post-Construction Avian Bat Mortality Monitoring be completed in the first,
second, and third years of project operation. It also requires that Post-Construction Mortality
Monitoring for golden eagle be conducted for the life of the project. MM 4.4-16W, on page
4.4-78, states that after three years of Post-Construction Avian Bat Mortality Monitoring, the
project proponent shall consult with Kern County Planning and Community Development,
CDFG and USFWS to determine if the project is resulting in unanticipated significant
adverse impacts on the population of an avian or bat species or is significantly interfering
with any migratory corridor. Upon the determination by the agencies, supplemental measures
would include additional migration count surveys and contribution to research that addresses
the sources of mortality and population impacts on the species. No scientific evidence has
7-174
October 2011
County of Kern
been provided to demonstrate the benefits of requiring additional years of study, beyond what
is required in MM 4.4-15W and 4.4-16W.
N. The commenter states that the individual measures proposed in MM 4.4-16W would not
reduce the project’s impacts to avian and bat species and recommends that the measures
include but not be limited to the removal of individual WTGs or WTG rows that are shown
through extensive mortality surveys to have higher incidences of avian and bat mortality, and
the feathering or non-operation of WTGs during low wind periods. The Lead Agency notes
that the project is expected to have relatively low levels of mortality to birds and bats.
Nonetheless, monitoring has been required to validate the accuracy of those projections and
adaptive management measures articulated in the event that mortality levels exceed levels
anticipated by the Draft EIR. The commenter has not presented substantial evidence to
support why measures to enhance habitat would be ineffective. Elimination of WTGs or
seasonal shutdowns are extraordinary measures that have not been warranted by the low
levels of avian and bat mortality in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA) and are not
anticipated to be warranted. Post-construction monitoring is required to validate these
conclusions.
O. The commenter recommends that the language in MM 4.4-17a requiring work to stop within
the immediate vicinity of an injured or dead special-status species if encountered during
construction be revised to state that this requirement only applies to species not listed under
the CESA. The commenter also recommends this language for MM 4.4-17b for a wildlife
species that becomes entrapped during construction. The commenter requests that the
language in MM 4.4-17d be revised to require desert tortoise surveys prior to construction
regardless of any authorization by USFWS. Finally, the commenter recommends that the
applicant obtain an ITP for the desert tortoise prior to any construction activities.
The Lead Agency has revised MM 4.4-17a and 4.4-17b to include the following:
MM 4.4-17 The project proponent shall continuously comply with the following during all
project-related construction activities for the wind and/or solar component of the
project:
a. During construction activities, if an injured or dead special-status species is
encountered, the project proponent(s) shall stop work within the immediate
vicinity. Prior to the recommencement of construction, tThe project
proponent(s) shall notify the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department, the on-call biologist, and the appropriate resources
agency (e.g., United States Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department
of Fish and Game) and shall consult with the appropriate resource agencies
before construction is allowed to proceed to determine the appropriate course
of action, such as the need for an Incidental Take Permit.
b. At the end of each work day, the biological monitor shall ensure that all
potential wildlife pitfalls (trenches, bores, and other excavations) have been
backfilled. If backfilling is not feasible, all trenches, bores, and other
excavations shall be sloped at a 3:1 ratio at the ends to provide wildlife escape
ramps, or covered completely to prevent wildlife access, or fully enclosed with
exclusion fencing. If any wildlife species become entrapped, construction shall
not occur until the animal has left the trench or been removed by a qualified
biological monitor, as feasible. Employees and contractors shall look under
vehicles and equipment for the presence of wildlife before moving vehicles
7-175
October 2011
County of Kern
and equipment. If wildlife is observed, no vehicles or equipment would be
moved until the animal has left voluntarily or is removed by the biological
monitor. No listed species will be handled.
If an entrapped special-status species is encountered, the project proponent(s)
shall stop work within the immediate vicinity. Prior to the recommencement
of construction, the project proponent(s) shall notify the Kern County Planning
and Community Development Department, the on-call biologist, and the
appropriate resources agency (e.g., United States Fish and Wildlife Service or
California Department of Fish and Game) and shall consult with the
appropriate resource agencies to determine the appropriate course of action.
Any entrapped species that is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act
(FESA) or California Endangered Species act (CESA) shall not be disturbed
unless the appropriate authorization is obtained from the appropriate resource
agency.
d. Within 24 hours prior to construction activities at each site within potential
habitat for this species, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused clearance
surveys for desert tortoise, including Mojave mixed woody scrub, creosote
bush scrub, black brush scrub, and juniper woodlands. Clearance surveys are
required in any area (including appropriate buffers) that supports suitable
desert tortoise habitat and that would be subject to disturbance as a result of
implementation and operation of the project, unless otherwise authorized by
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game. Clearance surveys shall follow the most current United States
Fish and Wildlife Service’s wildlife agency’s desert tortoise survey protocol.
The authorized biologist shall determine whether tortoises are present at the
site, and whether tortoises may occur in adjacent areas and immigrate into the
impact area. If tortoises or intact burrows are found in the impact area or if the
authorized biologist determines that a tortoise may enter the construction site,
the project proponent(s) shall halt work within 500 feet of the tortoise or
burrow and construction activities may not resume within this 500-foot buffer
without concurrence from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
California Department of Fish and Game. Upon discovery of a tortoise or
active tortoise burrow, and prior to any road widening or reconstruction on
Jawbone Canyon Roadany project construction in potentially suitable habitat
for the desert tortoise, a Desert Tortoise Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall
be developed and implemented that includes the following measures in
consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California
Department of Fish and Game:
i.
The project proponent(s) shall retain a qualified biologist with
demonstrated expertise with desert tortoise to monitor all construction
activities and assist in the implementation of the monitoring program.
This person will be approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service prior to the onset of ground-disturbing activities. This biologist
will be referred to as the authorized biologist hereafter. The authorized
7-176
October 2011
County of Kern
biologist will be present during all construction activities immediately
adjacent to or within habitat that supports desert tortoise.
ii.
Prior to the onset of construction activities, the project proponent(s) shall
provide all personnel who will be present on work areas within or
adjacent to the project area the following information:
a. A detailed description of the desert tortoise including color
photographs;
b. The protection the desert tortoise receives under the federal and State
Endangered Species Acts and possible legal action that may be
incurred for violation of the Acts;
c. The protective measures being implemented to conserve the desert
tortoise and other species during construction activities associated with
the project;
iii.
All trash that may attract predators of desert tortoises will be removed
from work sites or completely secured at the end of each work day.
iv.
Where construction can occur in habitat where desert tortoise are widely
distributed, work areas will be fenced in a manner that excludes tortoises
from the work area and prevents equipment and vehicles from straying
from the designated work area into adjacent habitat. The authorized
biologist will assist in determining the boundaries of the area to be fenced
in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service/California Department of Fish and Game/Kern County. All
workers will be advised that equipment and vehicles must remain within
the fenced work areas. Installation of the fencing and any necessary
surveys will be directed and/or conducted by the authorized biologist in
concurrence with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service/California
Department of Fish and Game/Kern County.
v.
Temporary tortoise-proof fencing shall be replaced by permanent
fencing for the operational phase of the project. The temporary tortoiseproof fencing shall not be removed until the permanent exclusionary
fencing is erected. The permanent desert tortoise exclusionary fencing
shall be implemented in conjunction with the project security fencing.
Permanent tortoise-proof fencing shall be located around solar arrays,
substations, and Operations and Maintenance facilities. The permanent
tortoise-proof fencing shall be erected and maintained between the
interface of permanent project structures, exclusive of turbine pads,
transmission towers, and roadways, and any remaining desert tortoise
habitat prior to initiating operation of the structure. Permanent desert
tortoise exclusionary fencing would comply with the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service September 2005 Recommended Specifications for
Desert Tortoise Exclusionary Fencing. Installation of fencing shall be
monitored by a qualified biologist. If desert tortoises are found within an
area that has been fenced to exclude the species, activities will cease and
7-177
October 2011
County of Kern
the authorized biologist will contact California Department of Fish and
Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service for further direction.
vi.
If desert tortoises are found in a construction area where fencing was
deemed unnecessary, work will cease until the animal(s) leave on their
own. The authorized biologist in consultation with United States Fish and
Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game/Kern County
will then determine whether additional surveys or fencing are needed.
Work may resume while this determination is being made, if deemed
appropriate by the authorized biologist.
vii.
The authorized biologist will have the authority to stop all activities until
appropriate corrective measures have been completed.
If impacts to desert tortoise cannot be avoided, the California Department
of Fish and Game and The United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall
be consulted and the necessary approvals and/or permits obtained.
No changes were made to 4.4-17e.
P. The commenter provided reference material and information including the taxonomy and
identification of Bakersfield cactus. Please refer to Response to Comment 6-C regarding the
absence of Bakersfield cactus within the project boundaries. This additional information is
included in the Record and will be provided to the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors.
7-178
October 2011
County of Kern
Local Agencies
7-179
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 7
7-A
7-B
7-180
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 7: Kern County Roads Department (August
26, 2011)
A. The commenter clarifies that additional right-of-way on Backus Road and bridges/crossings
of the aqueduct must be to Kern County Development Standards and approved by the Kern
County Roads Department.
Thank you for your comment. The Lead Agency notes as required in MM 4.15-4, provided
on page 4.15-22 of the Draft EIR, the project proponent shall submit engineering drawings of
access roads for review and approval by the Kern County Roads Department. In addition,
MM 4.9-1 on page 4.9-21, requires the project proponent to submit a “Roads Plan” to Kern
County Engineering, Survey, and Permit Services Department for approval. Refer to
Response to Comment 2-H, above, for additional discussion regarding MM 4.9-1.
B. The commenter requests the project applicant provide the necessary information to facilitate
the revisions of AADTs, Traffic Index, and Structural Calculations for the determination of
revised structural sections on Rosamond Boulevard, if the project uses Rosamond Boulevard
as an alternate route.
The Lead Agency notes page 4.15-5 of the Draft EIR describes access to the project site. The
primary access would be provided from Backus Road; which connects directly to SR-14 and
which also connects indirectly to SR-58 via Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road. Additional
access routes from SR-14 include Avenue A and Avenue D. The project would also be
accessed on 170th Street West and or via Willow Springs Road through the approved Pacific
Wind Project. The solar component of the project site is accessed from Backus Road and
Champagne Avenue. As required in the mitigation measures provided in Section 4.15,
Transportation and Traffic, a Construction Traffic Control Plan must be approved by the
Kern County Roads Department as well as the California Department of Transportation, see
MM 4.15-1. In addition, MM 4.15-2 requires the project proponent to conduct a pavement
index assessment and load rating analysis to ensure all access points can accommodate
construction related truck traffic, particularly over crossing of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. It
is not anticipated that the project would be accessed using Rosamond Boulevard. If, during
the implementation of mitigation measures, Rosamond Boulevard is found to be a necessary
access road, then the project proponent will work with the Kern County Roads Department to
provide all necessary information.
7-181
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 8
8-A
7-182
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 8:
(September 7, 2011)
Kern County Department of Airports
A. The commenter agrees with the Draft EIR conclusion that the project does not conflict with
any aviation safety standards as they relate to airport operations.
Thank you for your comment. The comment is noted for the Record and will be provided to
the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
7-183
October 2011
County of Kern
Interested Parties
7-184
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 9
9-A
9-B
7-185
October 2011
County of Kern
9-B
9-C
9-D
9-E
7-186
October 2011
County of Kern
9-E
9-F
9-G
9-H
9-I
7-187
October 2011
County of Kern
9-I
7-188
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 9: Kern Audubon Society (August 15,
2011)
A. The commenter states that there must be language that requires the project proponent to avoid
the siting of WTGs on ridgelines. The Lead Agency notes that MM 4.4-10W states that,
wherever feasible, the WTGs shall not be sited on or immediately adjacent to the upwind
sides of ridge crests. This language was utilized to ensure that the project could be built in a
way that would allow it to achieve its objectives while off-setting wind turbine generators
from ridgelines when possible. The term “wherever feasible” was utilized to ensure that the
applicant could accommodate the unique terrain, potential culturally sites, hydrology,
biological impacts, etc. of the project site while allowing Staff to encourage placement of
turbines away from ridgelines during review of building plans. The Lead Agency additionally
notes that while the Tehachapi Mountains generally occur to the north and west of the
project, the site itself is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 3,880 to 3,000 feet. There
are no major ridgelines located within the project boundary.
B. The commenter states that Alternative C should be evaluated as to its effect on the
environmental resources, independent of the project objectives.
In response to the comments, the Lead Agency notes an alternative to a project is considered
a viable alternative if it can reduce at least one significant and unavoidable impact as
compared to the proposed project. Alternative C was compared to the project for the
following resources: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources. The
Conclusions and relationship to the project objectives discussion on page 6-15 states that
“Alternative C would likely be able to provide electricity via wind and solar energy
sources and would meet all the objectives at a reduced scale. Alternative C would
result in less severe but nonetheless significant and unavoidable impacts on
aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources.”
This conclusion does not dismiss the validity of the alternative, but rather concludes that
impacts would be reduced from that of the project at a smaller scale than the project.
C. The commenter requests that post mortality bat and avian studies be extended from three
years to five years. In response to these comments, please refer to Response to Comment 6M.
D. The commenter states that buffer zones should be identified between the closest wind turbine
generators (WTGs) of a neighboring project and this project, such that the buffer zone can
provide a safe passage for migratory birds, as recommended by the California Energy
Commission (CEC).
The Lead Agency notes the shortest distance between typical WTG layouts for this project
and the neighboring approved Pacific Wind Energy Project to the south and west is more than
1,000 feet. As the project is in preliminary design, the distances may vary based on the actual
WTG model, turbine size, WTG siting requirements, and other factors as presented in this
EIR. The Biological Resources Technical Report and Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of
the Draft EIR indicate that no known bird migration routes cross the project area. As stated
in the Biological Resources Technical Report and on page 4.4-27 of the Draft EIR, it is likely
that the project site does not constitute a significant route for migrating bat species. Per the
7-189
October 2011
County of Kern
impact discussion on page 4.4-48, the region poses a low risk to birds compared to other
wind-energy facilities, with relatively low numbers of raptors and birds in the project area.
E. The commenter requests additional clarification regarding the retention of a qualified
biologist for pre- and post-construction monitoring and recommends biologist requirements
for non-operational orders.
The Lead Agency notes mitigation measures have been provided in the Draft EIR that require
a biologist, including MM 4.4-1, 4.4-15W, and 4.4-16W. MM 4.4-15W, MM 4.4-16W and
MM 4.4-17 require that studies and findings be provided to the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in addition to the Kern
County Planning and Community Development Department. CDFG and USFWS are experts
in biological resources and will provide comment if a biologist is deemed unqualified or if
studies and findings are determined to be inadequate.
With respect to providing the authority to issue a non-operational order by a biologist, MM
4.4-15W and MM 4.4-16W require that mortality studies and findings be submitted to the
Kern County, USFWS, and CDFG. Regarding the potential for WTGs to exhibit a high
degree of avian mortality, supplemental mitigation has been included for post-construction
monitoring, if deemed necessary.
F. The commenter requests additional information regarding the compensation measures to
support regional conservation of migratory birds.
The Lead Agency notes MM 4.4-14W requires post-construction breeding monitoring for the
project, while subsection “d” discusses that if a WTG has been determined to result in an
injury and mortality that the project proponent shall undertake supplemental compensatory
measures to support regional conservation of migratory birds. MM 4.4-15W and 4.4-16W
provide the additional details regarding post-construction avian and bat mortality and
additional measures which may occur. Specifically, MM 4.4-16W states that supplemental
measures to be considered shall include provision of additional nesting structure or platforms,
contributions to additional research addressing the impacts, and funding of regional
conservation measures. The combination of MM 4.4-14W, 4.4-15W, and 4.4-16W provide
sufficient mitigation and explanation of “supplemental compensation measure to support
regional conservation of migratory birds.”
G. The commenter requests that the ratio of land for mitigation regarding burrowing owls be
increased from 1:1 to either 2:1 or 3:1.
The Lead Agency notes there is no scientific evidence presented that a replacement ratio
exceeding 1:1 is required. MM 4.4-6 has been clarified to ensure that habitat mitigation
occurs for the burrowing owl at a 1:1 ratio and that habitat lands are set aside within Kern
County.
No change to portions 4.4-6.a through 4.4-6ev have occurred. The only change that has been
made to MM 4.4-6 is to portion 4.4-6evi as follows:
MM 4.4-6.e.vi Impacts to burrowing owl territories shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio through
the acquisition of occupied habitat off-site in an area of Kern County where
turbines would not pose a mortality risk. Acquisition of habitat shall be
consistent with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993). Off-site habitat
must be suitable burrowing owl habitat, as defined in the Burrowing Owl
7-190
October 2011
County of Kern
Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl
Consortium, 1993). Additionally, the site shall be approved by the California
Department of Fish and Game. Land should be purchased and/or placed in a
conservation easement in perpetuity and managed to maintain suitable
habitat. The offsite area to be preserved can coincide with off-site desert
tortoise mitigation lands for this project.
H. The commenter requests that MM 4.4-15Wd list the three separate Audubon Society
divisions. In response to these comments, the Lead Agency notes that it will continue to send
notices to those Audubon Society divisions that are on file with the County. Should the
Audubon wish to add additional addresses to the County mailing list, the Lead Agency
requests that the Audubon submit a written request which lists each of the additional
addresses to be added to the mailing database. The changes have been made as requested.
I.
The commenter requests that the County develop a wind facility division separate from the
planning division which monitors the reports from the different wind facilities as to biological
issues and reports to the Board of Supervisors on a semi-annual basis to chart current
environmental issues.
The Lead Agency notes that the request for an additional wind-facility division within the
Planning and Community Development Department is noted for the Record and will be
provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
The commenter also notes that information regarding general trends with respect to the
cumulative project should be made available to the public. The Lead Agency notes that each
stage of the CEQA process is made available for public review, including the Notice of
Preparation, the Notice of Availability/Circulation of the Draft EIR, the hearing notice, Staff
Reports for public hearings, and the actual Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
hearings themselves. Additionally, the Kern County Planning and Community Development
Department has established a Permit Assistance Center (PAC) to assist the public and
applicants in submitting land use applications and in obtaining grading/building permits.
This division functions to review the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Programs (MMRPs)
for each project as the project proponents apply for the grading and building permits for wind
project. The Staff is dedicated to ensuring that each mitigation measure is satisfied prior to
issuance of the permits. The post-construction monitoring reports are not only reviewed by
Kern County but also by the CDFG and USFWS. The review of the reports by three agencies
helps to ensure that any regional trends or correlations between wind farm projects are
identified in a timely manner.
The PAC is available to answer the public’s questions at any time regarding general planning
questions and more specific items such s the status of on-going applications. Additional
information available to the public is available on the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department’s webpage and includes information regarding renewable energy.
The webpage can be found at: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning. The renewable energy link
provides a list of wind projects as well as a map of the wind projects within the Tehachapi
Wind Resource Area. As noted above, all Draft and Final EIRs as well as staff reports are
also included on the website for public access.
7-191
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 10
10-A
7-192
October 2011
County of Kern
10-A
7-193
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 10: Tübatulabal Tribe (August 22, 2011)
A. The commenter, Tübatulabal Tribe, noted that cultural resource report was very thorough;
however, there is concern that cultural sites are located near the project site. Therefore, the
commenter recommended having Native American cultural site monitors on-site or available
during major construction periods of the project. The commenter requests the list of tribal
contacts made during the completion of the cultural resources reports.
Thank you for your comments. With respect to the location of cultural resources, Appendix D
of the Draft EIR included a thorough Cultural Study, as noted by the commenter.
Additionally, Attachments D.1 and D.2 of this Response to Comments, include supplemental
cultural resources reports. These supplemental reports identify six new prehistoric
archaeological resources, three sites and two isolates. All newly recorded resources are
outside the area of potential effects (APE). The Lead Agency agrees that the potential
cultural impacts on the projects site are potentially significant and notes that MM 4.5-3 and
MM 4.5-4 on pages 4.5-27 through 4.5-30 of the Draft EIR, require the proposed proponent
to provide a qualified archaeologist. In order to ensure that the local Native American
communities are made aware of the timing of construction periods, the Lead Agency has
revised MM 4.5-3 to read as follows:
MM 4.5-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall prepare a
Cultural Resources Management Plan that will detail how all cultural resources
within the project will be avoided or treated. The Cultural Resources
Management Plan shall: (i) be prepared by a County-approved archaeologist, at
the sole expense of the project proponent; and (ii) shall be submitted to and
approved by the Kern County Planning and Community Development
Department prior to issuance of the building permit for the project.
a. Detailed plan for avoiding and protecting resources that are eligible or
potentially eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (in
accordance with MM 4.5-2, above).
b. Documentation of coordination with Native Americans.
The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall include detailed provisions
to demonstrate that the project proponent, in coordination with the Kern
County Planning and Community Development Department, consulted with
all tribes and individuals listed by the Native American Heritage
Commission who may have concerns about the project regarding treatment
of all prehistoric archaeological sites identified at any time during surveys for
this Environmental Impact Report or surveys for areas beyond what was
surveyed for this Environmental Impact Report. Consultation shall continue
throughout the course of planning and construction of the project.
Additionally, Tthe project proponent, at its sole expense, shall notify all
applicable tribes of the time and duration of construction activities near
culturally sensitive sites. The purpose of this notification is to allow for the
applicable tribes, at their sole expense, to arrange for a tribe representative,
and/or cultural monitor, to be present on site to observe earth-moving
activities. shall facilitate agreements The project proponent shall also consult
with the applicable tribes regarding site treatment during construction
7-194
October 2011
County of Kern
between Native Americans and the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department that are approved by the County. The plan shall
include provisions for full documentation of the consultation process,
including records of all contacts and meetings.
With respect to the Native American tribal contacts, the Lead Agency notes that the Wind
Energy (WE) zone classification change would not entail a General Plan or Specific Plan
amendment; therefore, Native American consultation under Senate Bill 18 (California
Government Code, Section 65352.3) is not required. However, based on a recommendation
by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (refer to Attachment D.3, NAHC
Responses March and April 2009), five letters were sent Native American contacts classified
by the NAHC as potential sources of information related to cultural resources in the vicinity
of the project area. The Native American contacts included: Tule River Indian Tribe; Ron
Wermuth; Tejon Indian Tribe; Kern Valley Indian Council; and Tübatulabals of Kern Valley.
To date, the only response received was the comment from the Tübatulabal tribe.
7-195
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 11
11-A
7-196
October 2011
County of Kern
11-A
11-B
11-C
11-D
7-197
October 2011
County of Kern
11-D
7-198
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 11: Gentry, Garlin, and Van Tol (October 17,
2011)
A. The commenters state that they own properties located within the proposed development area,
and believe the most appropriate action by the Lead Agency would be to approve
“Alternative A”, the no project alternative. The comment is noted for the Record and will be
provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The Lead Agency notes that
the five parcels owned by the commenters are located within Section 29, T10N, R14W of the
project boundary.
B. The commenters note that the project would disrupt the existing flora and fauna in the area, in
addition to the scenic backdrop created by the Tehachapi Mountains. The commenters also
express concern about the elimination of the natural flora and fauna.
In response to these comments, the Lead Agency notes that numerous studies have been
conducted on-site to identify common and special-status species that occur in the project area.
The results of these studies are summarized in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, and survey
reports are included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR and Attachment C of the FEIR. Impacts
related to the construction phase, as well as long-term impacts associated with habitat loss
during operation of the project, are also discussed under Impact 4.4-1 on page 4.4-45 of the
Draft EIR. Impacts to wildlife and plant species, which may include Swainson’s hawks,
Mohave ground squirrel, American badger, bats, burrowing owl, snakes, lizards, and small
mammals, native grassland, Mojave creosote bush scrub, Mojave desert wash scrub,
Mohavean juniper woodland and scrub, and rabbitbush scrub, are discussed under Impact 4.41 (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 CDFG or USFWS) in Section 4.4,
Biological Resources. These include impacts from loss of habitat, mortality on access roads
and collisions with WTGs, and displacement or interference with wildlife movement.
Mitigation Measures presented in Section 4.4 would minimize impacts to these species (see
MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-17). In addition, MM 4.4-2 on page 4.4-67 of the Draft EIR,
includes the development and implementation of a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan
which would be required prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
A Visibility Analysis Technical Report was prepared for the project (refer to Appendix J in
the Draft EIR), and the results of the report are summarized in Section 4.1, Aesthetics. Key
Observation Point (KOP) 1 discussed on page 4.1-5 and illustrated in Figure 4.1-2 of the
Draft EIR, provides a background view of the Tehachapi Mountains, and the analysis on page
4.1-14 states that the visual character of the residents nearby the project site would be altered.
In addition, the conclusion on page 4.1-16 of the Draft EIR states that Mitigation Measures
would reduce impacts at individual KOP locations; however, because there are no feasible
Mitigation Measures that can be implemented to preserve the existing open space landscape
character while at the same time developing the renewable energy project, impacts to visual
resources would be significant and unavoidable.
C. The commenters note their concern for the potential to increase natural and man-caused
hazards in the area, such as flash floods.
In response to these comments, the Lead Agency notes as discussed on page 4.9-3 of the
Draft EIR, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has classified Flood Zones for
7-199
October 2011
County of Kern
the project area. FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) indicates that the project site is
largely designated as Flood Zone C, areas of minimal flooding and no standing water. Lower
elevations on the project site (particularly the areas south of the Los Angeles Aqueduct and
from northeast of Bean Canyon drainage to Gamble Springs Canyon drainage), are within
Special Flood Hazard Areas Zone A. Specifically, the project site is subject to flooding from
Bean Canyon. Other small tributaries within the project site and north of the Los Angeles
Aqueduct are also within Zone A.
According to FEMA, development is permitted in Flood Hazard Areas, provided that the
development complies with local floodplain management ordinances. Any construction that
takes place within areas of special flood hazards, areas of flood-related erosion hazards, and
areas of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) hazards within the jurisdiction of unincorporated Kern
County would comply with the requirements and construction design specifications of the Kern
County Floodplain Management Ordinance.
As discussed on page 1-2 of the Draft EIR, the project proponent is requesting a zone
classification to incorporate the Floodplain (FP) Combining District to the base district for a
portion of the project. The purpose of the FP Combining District is to protect the public
health and safety and minimize property damage by designating areas that are potentially
subject to flooding and by establishing reasonable restrictions on land use in such areas. The
FP Combining District shall be applied to those areas lying within Zone A on the FEMA
FIRM or those areas potentially subject to flooding as designated by the Kern County
Engineering, Surveying and Permit Services Department pending reclassification of such
areas into the FPP (Floodplain Primary) Combining District or FPS (Floodplain Secondary)
Combining District. The regulation established by the FP Combining District shall be in
addition to the regulations of the base district with which the FP Combining District is
combined. The provisions of these zoning chapters protect properties against flash floods and
similar “natural phenomena.”
D. The commenters note their concern regarding the potential for an increased threat of
terrorism, in addition to their disapproval of the project. The comment is noted for the Record
and will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
7-200
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 12
12-A
7-201
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 12: Cynda Thomas, Trustee of the Thomas
Trust (July 21, 2011)
A. The commenter states that they own property in the area that is for sale and is concerned
about the damages to property value as a result of the project, specifically the wind turbine
generators (WTGs). The commenter is also concerned that the project, specifically the
WTGs, will stop development with private investors or small farms with module homes in the
area.
In response to these comments, the Lead Agency notes that loss of property value and
potential effects can only be tested through data from parcel sales. The Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory conducted and published a study in 2009 of single-family home sales in the
vicinity of a number of wind power projects across the United States. The study (Attachment
E of this Response to Comments) found wind power projects had no statistically significant
negative effect on home sales prices in the areas surrounding them. Additionally Section
15131 of CEQA (Economic and Social Effects) states that economic effects of a project shall
not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Therefore, the impacts to property
values are not required to be included in an EIR under CEQA.
The Draft EIR assessed consistency with the Kern County General Plan and the Kern County
Zoning Ordinance, as discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning. The project would
include incorporating the WE Combining District into existing zone classifications. The WE
Combining District is to promote the use of an alternative to fossil fuel-generated electrical
power in areas that are identified to have suitable wind resources. The WE Combining
District contains specific development standards and conditions that apply to all construction
and siting of the WTGs in this zone.
The use of the land for agricultural purposes has been evaluated in the Draft EIR under
Section 4.2, Agricultural and Forestry Resources. The Kern County Board of Supervisors has
adopted a set of “Agricultural Preserve Standard Uniform Rules.” These Uniform Rules were
updated in 2007 to identify “Commercial windfarm developments” as a compatible land use
with agricultural uses. At the end of the project lifespan, the project could be restored to
conditions suitable for grazing and other agricultural uses. Therefore, construction of the
project would not prohibit the development of small farms in the area.
7-202
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 13
13-A
7-203
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 13: Hi Leah (September 27, 2011)
A. The commenter states concerns about the relevant marketability, value, and usage of their
property which borders the project site. The Lead Agency notes that the commenter’s
property is not located within the project boundary, but rather within the southeast quarter of
Section 32, which is located just east of the project boundary. Please refer to Response to
Comment 12-A for further detail regarding property value as well as adjacent property uses.
7-204
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 14
14-A
14-B
7-205
October 2011
County of Kern
14-C
7-206
October 2011
County of Kern
14-C
7-207
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 14: Lewis McSweeney, Jr. (September 27,
2011)
A. The commenter is concerned that if the project is approved, access to property Assessor
Parcel Number [APN] 474-212-24-00-0 would be eliminated.
The Lead Agency notes the project would not eliminate any existing legal access, nor would
it remove any paved portions of existing roads. The project would not vacate any mid-section
or section lines as identified in the Kern County General Plan.
B. The commenter is concerned about the usage of the property which borders the project site.
Refer to Response to Comments 12-A for further detail regarding adjacent property uses.
C. The commenter provided comments on the “Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
Notice of Availability For Public Review,” which included the commenter’s disapproval of
the project and his property APN (APN 474-212-24-00-0). The comment is noted for the
Record and will be provided to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
7-208
October 2011
County of Kern
Comment Letter 15
15-A
7-209
October 2011
County of Kern
Response to Comment Letter 15: Curtis Skelton (October 6, 2011)
A. The commenter states that he believes there may be an Indian burial ground is within the
southwest corner of Section 19, Township 10 North, Range 14 West. The commenter
notes that he lives one mile from the location where he believes the site exists and has seen
individual digging in the area and leaving with items that appear to be cultural resources;
however, he has not witnessed actual finds on the site. The Lead Agency notes that
Section 19 is outside of the project boundary. Additionally, the Lead Agency has reviewed
the Cultural Surveys prepared for the site, as described in Chapter 4.5, Cultural Resources,
of the EIR, and notes that the record search and Native American coordination results did
not give any indication that any burial grounds are located within a one-mile radius of the
project site or within Section 19. Therefore, the Lead Agency thanks Mr. Skelton for his
comment and notes it for the record.
7-210
October 2011