pacific wind energy project deir - appendix e iv/02...relocation of 120 wind turbine generators ......

Appendix E.2 Addendum to Biological

Resources Technical Report

PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECT ADDENDUM TO THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Prepared for: enXco Development Corporation

4000 Executive Parkway, Suite 100 San Ramon, California 94583

Prepared by: Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 430 North Halstead Street Pasadena, California 91107

May 24, 2010

Pacific Wind Energy Project Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Report May 24, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1378\1378-009\Documents\Tech Report Addenda_20100517\Addendum Bio Tech Report.Doc Page 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION This Addendum to the Pacific Wind Energy Project Biological Resources Technical Report was prepared to provide supplemental information to characterize baseline conditions for biological resources and potential project impacts to biological resources from the Pacific Wind Energy Project (proposed project), as a result of refinements undertaken by the enXco Development Corporation (enXco) to the proposed project. Specifically, this Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical report addresses the May 6, 2010, refined conceptual site plan developed by enXco to minimize potential impacts, maximize wind generation capacity, and optimize use of available property. The refined footprint of the proposed Pacific Wind Energy Project includes relocation of 120 wind turbine generators (WTGs), relocation of up to three substations, realignment of two transmission corridors, and the additional option to connect to the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) transmission corridor. The May 6, 2010, refined conceptual site plan includes 69 REpower MM92 2.05-megawatt (MW) WTGs and 66 GE 1.5xle 1.5-MW WTGs, for a total of 135 WTGs. The REpower MM92 2.05-MW and GE 1.5xle 1.5-MW combination layout was analyzed for effects to biological resources. This Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Report summarizes new information pertaining to the May 6, 2010, refined conceptual site plan potentially affecting biological resources that were previously characterized in the Biological Resources Technical Report:

• Drainage crossing that are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) pursuant to Section 1600 of the State Fish and Game Code

• Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei) • Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) • California condor (Gymnogyps californianus)

Section 1600 of the State Fish and Game Code The May 6, 2010, refined conceptual site plan results in impacts to five drainage crossings with riparian vegetation that would require mitigation. Bakersfield Cactus This Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Report addresses concerns about the potential for the Bakersfield cactus to occur on the Pacific Wind Energy Project site. Bakersfield cactus is designated as a federal and California state-listed endangered, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sensitive, and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1B.1 plant (List 1B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; List 0.1: Seriously endangered in California). Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducted rare plant surveys on approximately 850 acres of the approximately 8,300-acre proposed project property in 2008 and determined Bakersfield cactus to be absent at the site. However, Aspen Environmental, in a field visit to the Alta–Oak Creek Mojave Project site (located approximately 15 miles from the proposed project property), reported finding a number of Bakersfield cacti that were previously misidentified as beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris). Based on a meeting between enXco; Eight-Bar Brand Wind Energy Consultants; Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); the CDFG; and Sapphos Environmental, Inc. on April 7, 2010, it was determined that a botanist from Sapphos Environmental, Inc. would revisit the Pacific Wind Energy Project areas that would be subject to temporary and permanent impacts to reevaluate areas where cactus were previously identified and make a determination as to whether the species present is Bakersfield cactus or beavertail cactus.


Golden Eagle Operation of the proposed Pacific Wind Energy Project in southeastern Kern County would require compliance with newly introduced provisions of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and is subject to USFWS permit regulations. The USFWS is the primary federal authority charged with the management of golden eagles in the United States. A permit for take of golden eagles, including take from disturbance such as loss of foraging habitat, may be required for this project. USFWS guidance on the applicability of current Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act statutes and mitigation is currently under review. On November 10, 2009, the USFWS implemented new rules (74 FR 46835) governing the “take” of golden and bald eagles. The new rules were released under the existing Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which has been the primary regulation protection for unlisted eagle populations since 1940. All activities that may disturb or incidentally take an eagle or its nest as a result of an otherwise legal activity must be permitted by the USFWS under this act. The definition of disturb (72 FR 31132) includes “interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior to the degree that it causes or is likely to cause decreased productivity or nest abandonment.” Because large-scale renewable energy projects would result in the loss of large amounts of golden eagle foraging habitat, there are concerns about the cumulative impacts to golden eagles resulting from loss of foraging habitat. If a permit is required, due to the current uncertainty on the status of golden eagle populations in western United States, it is expected that permits would only be issued for safety emergencies or if conservation measures implemented in accordance with a permit would result in a reduction of ongoing take or a net take of zero. California Condor In response to a request for information1 sent by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. for two wind energy projects located in close proximity to the Pacific Wind Energy Project in 2009, the USFWS responded2 requesting that effects to the California condor be taken into consideration in designing wind energy projects due to the proximity of the Tejon Ranch designated critical habitat unit (CHU). This Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Report was prepared to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the relative probability of use by the California condor of areas under consideration for placement of WTGs. Probability of use was assessed as a function of empirical and corroborative data that characterize the spatial and behavioral ecology of the California condor in the proposed project study area and surrounding region. By evaluating the movements of condors while identifying the factors associated with high use in the Tejon Ranch area, it is possible to characterize the relative probability of use of the proposed project area in relation to existing occupied habitat. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The May 6, 2010, refined conceptual site plan proposed project facilities would include WTGs, service roads, a power collection system, communication cables, overhead and underground transmission lines, electrical switchyards, up to three project substations, up to seven meteorological towers, and one Operations and Maintenance (O&M) facility. The refined project’s

1 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 5 June 2009. Letter correspondence with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raymond Bransfield, from Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Charles J. Randel. Subject: Potentially Occurring Species Concurrence at the Proposed Avalon I Wind Energy Project, Kern County, California. 2 Bransfield, Raymond, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 6 July 2009. Letter correspondence with Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Charles J. Randel, from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raymond Bransfield. Subject: Species List for Avalon I Wind Energy Project, Kern County, California.


temporary facilities would include construction access roads, laydown areas, and concrete batch plants (Figure R2.3-1, Conceptual Location of 2.05- and 1.5-MW WTGs):

• Up to a maximum of 250 1-MW WTGs not to exceed 500 feet in height with associated generators, towers, foundations, and pad-mounted transformers (each WTG could range from 1 MW to 3 MW), for a total generation capacity not to exceed 250 MW of electricity;

• Up to 7 meteorological towers; • On-site and off-site project access roads, control cables, power collection cables,

and transmission lines necessary to serve the proposed project and connect to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) grid;

• Up to three project substations to step up the voltage generated by the WTGs to meet the electrical transmission system’s 230-kV voltage;

• One O&M buildings of approximately 4,800 square feet; • Up to 10 yards as temporary laydown construction yards that include up to six

temporary portable batch plant alternative locations for the construction phase of the proposed project (the number of actual batch plants is schedule-dependent, and no batch plants will remain after the completion of construction); and

• One yard would remain as the O&M facility, and up to three yards would remain for the project substation for ongoing use during the life of the proposed project.

3.0 REGUALATORY FRAMEWORK There are no changes to the Regulatory Framework Section as a result of the May 6, 2010 refined conceptual site plan. 4.0 METHODS 4.6 FEDERAL AND STATE WATERS Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducted studies of the proposed project study area to identify and determine the presence or absence of areas potentially requiring a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) with the CDFG in accordance with Sections 1600 through 1616 of the State Fish and Game Code. A preliminary investigation conducted by Sapphos Environmental, Inc., including a literature and map review and analysis of groundwater and flood data, determined that there are 20 ephemeral drainages, including Cottonwood Creek, two tributaries to Cottonwood Creek, and 17 independent unnamed drainages, comprising 36 linear miles within the proposed project property. Throughout the course of development of the conceptual site plan, the applicant evaluated a total of 73 potential proposed drainage crossings to determine if road crossing at these locations would require an SAA from CDFG jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 of the State Fish and Game Code. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducted site-specific field surveys at these locations on March 24–25 and November 12–13, 2009, and May 12 and 17–19, 2010, to formally delineate and determine agency jurisdiction. All proposed crossings were checked 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. For each potential drainage feature, the captured data included, but were 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.

0 21Miles

Q:\1378\1378-009\ArcProjects\EIRreview05032010\BioCncptSitePlan05202010.mxd

Conceptual Location of 2.05- and 1.5 MW WTGs

FIGURE R2.3-1

LEGENDTurbine Pads

1.5 MW

2.01 MW

Roads and Underground Transmission

230 KV Transmission Alternatives

Overhead - 230 kV Route 1



Existing SCE Transmission Lines and TRTP Approved Route

Franchise Route

PdV and Pacific Wind Secondary Route - Route 4

O&M Building Footprint

O&M Facility

Substation

Temporary Laydown Constr*

Project Boundary

SCE Property Control

SCE Substations(Alternative Locations)

Parcels


4.8 DIRECTED FIELD SURVEYS 4.8.1 Listed Species 4.8.1.2 Avian Species California Condor Sapphos Environmental, Inc. reviewed information from international, national, regional, and local studies specific to the Tejon Ranch population segment of the California condor. This information has been used to characterize the life habits of the California condor, describe the relationship of the Southern California population to the overall recovery efforts, assess the potential vulnerability of the California condor to the risk of colliding with WTGs, and identify potential conservation measures. Primary and secondary sources of information included the USFWS, CDFG, Los Angeles Zoo, San Diego Wild Animal Park, Ventana Wildlife Society, Kern County Audubon Society, Tehachapi Aubudon Society, and R. Risebrough. The scope of the investigation also included the review of primary and secondary literature on California condor and on other similar vulturine species. The scope of analysis included available data and literature that addresses the California condor and related sightings and data from the period between 1890 and 2010, inclusive of 1987, when the last California condor in Southern California was removed from the wild to initiate recovery efforts through a captive breeding program. The “recent” period considered herein begins in 1992, when the first captive-reared condor was released back into the wild. Global positioning system (GPS) telemetry data showing recent condor location and movement data in Southern California for the period between June 1, 2008, and February 9, 2009, were acquired from the USFWS and analyzed to provide the technical framework needed for the analysis in this project. In total, some 38,405 points representing 17 different individual condors were analyzed. The points were then overlaid on a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) digital elevation model (DEM) derived from 30-meter elevation data. At every point, elevation, slope, and aspect information was calculated as components to model suitable habitat for the California condor. Geographical information system (GIS) data for California condor historical range, feeding station locations, and release site locations were also analyzed and evaluated against condor location data points (Figure 4.8.1.2-2, USFWS California Condor Southern Flock Data). In this approach, the characterization of the relative probability of use of areas in Southern California by California condors was assessed in relation to the availability of potentially suitable habitat in other areas with low to no use. Based on the qualitative characterization of suitable habitat, a simple model to assess probability of use was developed using a series of existing or readily obtained spatial data layers in association with condor location data points to produce a generalized additive model that characterizes the relative probability of use of areas by the California condor. It is important to note that this model was not developed as a habitat suitability model but as a means whereby essential habitat components may be quantified, standardized, and compared across different areas. The model attempts to identify those variables assumed to be most important in explaining relative probability of use and then convert those relationships into algorithms that yield a single index of probability of use ranging in value from 0.0 to 5.0. To construct the probability of use model, five variables were selected for consideration: slope, elevation, historical range, distance to release sites, and aspect.

Bitter Creek NWR

Hopper Mountain NWR

Sespe-Piru Condor Area

FIGURE 4.8.1.2-2

USFWS California Condor Southern Flock Data

LEGEND

USFWS California Condor GPS Positions - Southern Flock

California Condor Release Locations

Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge

Sespe-Piru Condor Area

Feeding Station Locations

Proposed Project Study Area

Q:\1378\1378-009\ArcProjects\EIRreview05032010\Condor\ReleaseLocations.mxd

Mapped Area

Source: USFWS, USGS

0 10 20 30 405

Miles


Thus, the basic probability of use model was:

Probability of Use = Slope + Elevation + Historical Range + Distance to Release Sites + Aspect

For each variable of the model, coefficients either in the form of a binary value of 0 or 1 (unsuitable or suitable) or presented as various suitability classes ranging from 0 to 1 (0 = low suitability, 0.25 = low-to-moderate suitability, 0.5 = moderate suitability, 0.75 = moderate-to-high suitability, and 1.0 = high suitability) were assigned to various levels of that variable, with higher values representing higher probability of use and lower values representing lower probability of use (Table 4.8.1.2-2, Index Values Assigned to Five Variables Determined to Be Related to Probability of Use by California Condors).

TABLE 4.8.1.2-2 INDEX VALUES ASSIGNED TO FIVE VARIABLES DETERMINED TO BE RELATED TO

PROBABILITY OF USE BY CALIFORNIA CONDORS

Variable Index Value

Slope 31–50 degrees 1.00 51–60 and > 60 degrees 0.75 21–30 degrees 0.50 0–20 degrees 0.25 Elevation > 2,000 feet on San Joaquin Valley side and > 3,100 feet on Antelope Valley

side of the Tehachapis within historical range 1.00

> 2,000 feet on San Joaquin Valley side and > 3,100 feet on Antelope Valley side of the Tehachapis within 1 mile of historical range

0.50

< 2,000 feet on San Joaquin Valley side and < 3,100 feet on Antelope Valley side of the Tehachapis outside historical range

0.00

Historical Range Inside 1.00 Outside 0.00 Distance to Release Sites 0–15 miles 1.00 16–30 miles 0.75 31–45 miles 0.25 > 45 miles 0.00 Aspect

Southwest-facing aspects on the San Gabriel Mountains and northwest-facing aspects on the Tehachapi Mountains

1.00

Northeast-facing aspects on the San Gabriel Mountains and southeast-facing aspects on the Tehachapi Mountains

0.25

The five variables used in the development of relative probability of use model for condors and the rationale for their use are described further below.

1. Slope: The degree of slope has an effect on wind direction and speed. Wind and the associated thermal weather patterns have a corresponding influence on the foraging movements and use of specific areas by condors. Based on the analysis of GPS data points for condors, detections were more frequent on slopes between 31 to 50


degrees and less frequent on slopes shallower than 30 degrees. Accordingly, the slope class of 31–50 degrees was given a value of 1, the slope classes of 51–60 degrees and greater than 60 degrees were given a value of 0.5, and the slope classes of 0–20 and 21–30 degrees were given a value of 0.25 (Figure 4.8.1.2-3, California Condor Probability of Use - Slope).

2. Elevation: The assumption is that California condors generally limit their foraging

activities to certain elevations to take advantage of prevailing winds and updrafts. According to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Tejon Ranch, the Tejon Ranch has adopted elevation limits for the condor at predominately 2,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) on the San Joaquin Valley side of the Tehachapi Mountains and 3,100 feet MSL on the Antelope Valley side of the Tehachapi Mountains. This is supported by an analysis of the GPS data points, which indicate that 98 percent of the condor locations were above 2,000 feet in elevation on the San Joaquin Valley side of the Tehachapi Mountains, and 93 percent of the condor locations on the Antelope Valley side of the Tehachapi Mountains were above 3,100 feet in elevation. As such, a value of 1 was assigned to those areas that are within or adjacent to the known historical range of the California condor and above 2,000 feet elevation on the San Joaquin Valley side and above 3,100 feet on the Antelope Valley side of the Tehachapi Mountains. A value of 0.5 was assigned to areas that are separated from the known historical range of the California condor by more than 1 mile and above 2,000 feet elevation on the San Joaquin Valley side and above 3,100 feet on the Antelope Valley side of the Tehachapi Mountains. A 0 was assigned to all areas below 2,000 feet on the San Joaquin Valley side and below 3,100 feet on the Antelope Valley side of the Tehachapi Mountains, respectively (Figure 4.8.1.2-4, California Condor Probability of Use - Elevation).

3. Historical Range: Since the release of captive-bred condors into the wild was

initiated in 1992, nearly all of the observations of the California condor have occurred within the historical range. Therefore, based on 17 years of conventional sight observations, radio-telemetry data, and GPS data, the California condor has a high probability for use within its known historical range and low probability for use outside the historical range. This is supported by an analysis of the GPS location data for condors in which only 0.04 percent were outside the historical range. As such, a value of 1 was given to those areas within historical range and a value of 0 was given to those areas outside the historical range (Figure 4.8.1.2-5, California Condor Probability of Use - Historical Range).

4. Distance to Release Sites: California condors typically forage within 30 miles of

nesting sites, or for captive-bred birds, to their original release site.3,4,5 In addition, the provision of supplemental feeding sites within 30 miles of nesting sites and release sites has been demonstrated to effectively limit the probability of use. Accordingly, a value of 1 was assigned to those areas within 0–10 miles of a historical nest or release site, a value of 0.75 was assigned to those areas within 11–

3 Meretsky, V.J., and N.F.R. Snyder. 1992. “Range Use and Movement of California Condors.” Condor, 94: 313–335. 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. California Condor Recovery Plan. Third Revision. Portland, OR. 5 Grantham, J. 2007. “Reintroduction of California Condors into Their Historical Range: The Recovery Program in California.” In California Condors in the 21st Century, eds. A. Mee and L.S. Hall. Nuttall Ornithological Club, and the American Ornithologists’ Union.

FIGURE 4.8.1.2-3

California Condor Probability of Use - Slope

LEGEND

Study Area Condor Observations

0-20-degrees

21-30-degrees

31-50-degrees

>51-degrees


Q:\1378\1378-009\ArcProjects\EIRreview05032010\Condor\Slope.mxd

Mapped Area

Source: USFWS, USGS

0 5 102.5

Miles

FIGURE 4.8.1.2-4

California Condor Probability of Use - Elevation

LEGEND


Elevation

Elevation < 3,100-feet and Outside of Historical Range

Elevation > 3,100-feet and Outside of Historical Range

Elevation > 3,100-feet and Within 1-mile of Historical Range or < 3,100-feet Within Historical Range

Elevation > 3,100-feet and Within Historical Range


Q:\1378\1378-009\ArcProjects\EIRreview05032010\Condor\ELevation.mxd

Mapped Area

Source: USFWS, USGS

0 5 102.5

Miles

FIGURE 4.8.1.2-5

California Condor Probability of Use - Historical Range

LEGEND


California Condor Historical Range


Q:\1378\1378-009\ArcProjects\EIRreview05032010\Condor\HistoricRange.mxd

Mapped Area

Source: USFWS, USGS

0 5 102.5

Miles


20 miles of a historical nest or release site, a value of 0.5 was assigned to those areas within 21–30 miles of a historical nest or release site, and a value of 0.25 was assigned to those areas within 31–40 miles of a historical nest or release site, and a value of 0 was assigned to those areas greater than 40 miles from a historical nest or release site (Figure 4.8.1.2-6, California Condor Probability of Use - Distance to Release Sites).

5. Aspect: Aspect has an effect on wind and associated thermal weather patterns that

ultimately influence the foraging movements and use of specific areas by condors. Based on the analysis of GPS data points for condors, detections were most frequent on southwest- and northwest-facing aspects on the San Gabriel Mountains and Tehachapi Mountains, respectively, and the least frequent in northeast- and southeast-facing aspects on the San Gabriel Mountains and Tehachapi Mountains, respectively. Accordingly, southwest-, or northwest-facing landscape aspects were given a 1, and northeast- and southeast-facing aspects were given a 0.5 (Figure 4.8.1.2-7, California Condor Probability of Use - Aspect).

In the general probability of use model, locations that would have the highest overall probability of use by California condor would have five characteristics:

1. Located on a slope class of 31–50 degrees; 2. Predominately higher than 2,000 feet MSL on the San Joaquin Valley side of the

Tehachapi Mountains and 3,100 feet MSL on the Antelope Valley side of the Tehachapi Mountains;

3. Located within historical range of the condor; 4. Located within 10 miles of a release location; and 5. Located on southwest- and northwest-facing aspects on the San Gabriel Mountains

and Tehachapi Mountains, respectively. To see how well the combined probability of use model fits the currently mapped GPS condor location data, all GPS locations within the map extent of the GIS were overlaid on the final model. Of the total 2,807 locations within the map extent, 2,774 (99 percent) were located in areas modeled as high probability of use, and 33 (1 percent) were located in areas modeled as moderate probability of use. There were no GPS condor locations in areas mapped as low probability of use. Thus, there is considerable confidence in the model for its intended use. However, because of deficiencies in the knowledge of the ecology of the California condor, and the resulting uncertainty in density dependence of condor location data, the results of this analysis should not be used as the sole or major basis for making decisions about habitat suitability for this species. There are several field studies and data analyses that might potentially be very useful in reducing the uncertainty in several model parameters. Analysis of the altitude and directional component of the GPS data may, for example, give clues about the spatial trend in foraging behavior of condors. In addition, the temporal variation in these data may be used to estimate the variability of seasonal difference in foraging behaviors among condors and their correlation among populations. Once these data are analyzed and incorporated into the model, they may help to better refine the range of model results. Golden Eagle Because golden eagles are a resident species in the nearby Tehachapi Mountains and have been observed foraging over the proposed project study area, the proposed project would in essence

FIGURE 4.8.1.2-6

California Condor Probability of Use - Distance to Release Sites

LEGEND


Distance to Condor Release Sites

0 to 15-miles

15-30-miles

31-45-miles

> 45-miles


Q:\1378\1378-009\ArcProjects\EIRreview05032010\Condor\ReleaseDistance.mxd

Mapped Area

Source: USFWS, USGS

0 5 102.5

Miles

FIGURE 4.8.1.2-7

California Condor Probability of Use - Aspect

LEGEND


Aspect

Tehachapi Mountains Southeast and San Gabriel Mountains Northeast

Tehachapi Mountains Northwest and San Gabriel Mountains Southwest


Q:\1378\1378-009\ArcProjects\EIRreview05032010\Condor\Aspect.mxd

Mapped Area

Source: USFWS, USGS

0 5 102.5

Miles


remove up to 8,300 acres of foraging habitat for this species. The USFWS may consider this loss to substantially interfere with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior that would be considered a take. Under the new regulation, the USFWS would require project proponents to obtain take for the golden eagles. During the April 13, 2010, site visit of the Pacific Wind Energy Project, the USFWS (Ms. Ashleigh Blackford) recommended that the project proponent include provisions for non-purposeful take of golden eagle. The take would only be authorized for the incidental loss of birds from contact with facility structures or habitat loss. The permit would not be intended to allow the removal or disturbance of active nests. To document the status of golden eagle nesting sites and use areas within and adjacent to the proposed project study area, an aerial survey will be conducted in May 2010. The information could be used to support a programmatic take permit for non-purposeful take of golden eagles pursuant to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, when the permitting process is finalized by the USFWS and permits become available (Figure 4.8.1.2-8, Golden Eagle Survey Area).

Aerial Surveys. An aerial survey for raptor nests, including the golden eagle, was conducted on August 13, 2004, by Peter Bloom under contract with Sapphos Environmental, Inc. for the Manzana (formerly PdV) Wind Energy Project site, which is located directly adjacent to the proposed project area to the north. The aerial survey was undertaken, in appropriate habitats, to identify nest locations for raptors that were identified as having the potential to be present in the Manzana Wind Energy Project area and adjacent 3-mile buffer. The primary objective of the 2010 golden eagle aerial survey effort is to identify golden eagle nesting sites and use areas located within 10 miles of the proposed Pacific Wind Energy project. Aerial survey methods for the golden eagle survey effort undertaken in May 2010 will follow those outlined by the USFWS Interim Golden Eagle Technical Guidance: Inventory and Monitoring Protocols; and Other Recommendations in Support of Golden Eagle Management and Permit Issuance.6 The aerial survey of the entire project area and associated 5-mile buffer area will be conducted in May 2010 using a Bell Jet-Ranger 206 helicopter and is estimated to take 1/2 day to complete. Aircraft navigation within the survey area and maintenance of appropriate aircraft position in relation to the survey area will be facilitated using a pilot-operated and monitored GPS unit and real-time GPS tracking on an on-board computer. Two surveyors (the pilot and a qualified Sapphos Environmental, Inc. raptor biologist, seated in left- and right-hand positions of the helicopter, respectively) will examine the landscape within the project boundary and a 5-mile buffer around the site. Complete coverage of the project area will be obtained by systematically traversing the landscape and visually scanning all areas of potential nesting habitat for golden eagles. This typically involves slowing aircraft speed to 25 to 40 miles per hour when tall trees, cliffs, or rocky outcrops are encountered. When a possible nest site is located, a second fly-over will be made to confirm nest type and condition, and to obtain accurate GPS location coordinates using the pilot’s GPS unit. Multiple passes at several elevation bands may be necessary to provide complete coverage when surveying potential nesting habitat on large cliff complexes, escarpments, or headwalls. The observers will also be alert to noting and

6 Pagal, J.E., D.M. Whittington, and G.T Allen. 2010. Interim Golden Eagle Technical Guidance: Inventory and Monitoring Protocols; and Other Recommendations in Support of Golden Eagle Management and Permit Issuance. Carlsbad, California: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

FIGURE 4.8.1.2-8

Golden Eagle Survey Area

LEGEND

Golden Eagle Survey Area


Approved Manzana (Formerly PdV) Project

Q:\1378\1378-009\ArcProjects\EIRreview05032010\BioAddendum\GoldenEagleSurveyArea.mxd

0 1 20.5

Miles


recording the locations of perched golden eagles in trees as well as golden eagles observed in flight. Standardized information will be recorded for each observation:

• Date of observation • Time of observation • Weather during observation • Duration of observation • Name of observer(s) • Location of observation • Description of observation

4.8.1.4 Plants Bakersfield Cactus Supplemental Investigation Detailed field studies were designed and performed to evaluate the presence/absence of Bakersfield cactus (Figure 4.8.1.4-1, Photographs of Bakersfield Cactus and Beavertail Cactus). Sapphos Environmental reviewed the applicable guidelines from the USFWS publication General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines7 and the CDFG publication Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities8 to determine appropriate survey protocols for the target locally important plants. The baseline for the Bakersfield Cactus Supplemental Investigation at the proposed project property was also based on the following sources: published and unpublished literature (cited where applicable), including field guides (cited where applicable), the Kern County General Plan,9 the CNDDB,10 and:

• Benson, L.D. 1982. The cacti of the United State and Canada. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA, 1044 pp

• California Native Plant Society. 2006. “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.” Available at: http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi

• Hickman, J.C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Pp. 452-456

• Munz, P.A., and D.D. Keck. 1959. A California flora. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1681 pp.

• Twisselman, E.C. 1967. A flora of Kern County, California. Univ. San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 395 pp;

7 Cypher E.A. July 2002. General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines. California State University, Bakersfield, CA. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/documents/rare_plant_protocol.PDF 8 California Department of Fish and Game. [9 December 1983] Revised 8 May 2000. Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/documents/rare_plant_protocol.PDF 9 Kern County. 15 June 2004. Kern County General Plan. Bakersfield, CA. Available at: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGPIntroduction.pdf. 10 California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Rarefind 3: A Database Application for the Use of the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, CA.

PHOTO 1Bakersfield Cactus

PHOTO 2Beavertail Cactus

FIGURE 4.8.1.4-1Photographs of Bakersfield Cactus and Beavertail Cactus

PHOTO 3Bakersfield Cactus

PHOTO 4Beavertail Cactus

FIGURE 4.8.1.4-1Photographs of Bakersfield Cactus and Beavertail Cactus


Agency Consultation Coordination was undertaken with resource agencies and experts in the field to further evaluate the potential presence of special-status plant species. The CDFG was contacted, and coordination was undertaken with CNPS, a private organization dedicated to the conservation of native plants knowledgeable of the special-status species and areas that support potentially suitable habitat at the proposed project property.

• Golden, Clyde, California Native Plant Society, Kern County, CA. May 10, 2010. E-mail correspondence with Saudamini Sindhar, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.

Prior to conducting the surveys, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. personnel visited reference populations of Bakersfield cactus. Survey personnel were experienced in the undertaking of field surveys, as well as knowledgeable of the identification and ecology of target species. Surveys consisted of identification of the Bakersfield cactus within the project impact area suitable habitat during their appropriate blooming period by walking parallel transects spaced 50 meters apart (Figure 4.8.1.4-2, Project Impact Area Surveyed for Bakersfield Cactus). Sapphos Environmental, Inc. botanist, Ms. Saudamini Sindhar, conducted the presence/absence survey for Bakersfield cactus surveys on April 29 and 30, and May 3, 17, and 18, 2010. Additional surveys for Bakersfield cactus were conducted by Ms. Saudamini Sindhar and Sapphos Environmental, Inc. ecologist Mr. John Ivanov on May 13 and 14, 2010, The most definitive feature used to distinguish Bakersfield cactus from other varieties of O. basilaris in the field was the presence of spines within the eye-spots in addition to presence of bristles. Other features of Bakersfield cactus used in the field to distinguish it from related beavertail cacti included the smooth pad surfaces, cylindrical pad bases, nonsunken eye-spots, and longer (up to 5 millimeters [0.2 inch]) leaves (Figure 4.8.1.4-1). Sapphos Environmental botanists are aware of the existence of hybrids between the varieties of O. basilaris var. basilaris and Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei. All specimens of O. basilaris encountered in the field were carefully examined for hybridization, and a guideline was followed to consider hybrids possessing some but not all traits of Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei as the sensitive species. 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1.3 Areas Subject to Section 1600 of the State Fish and Game Code The existing conditions for areas potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the CDFG has been reduced from 1.31 acres as described in the Biological Resources Technical Report to 0.37 acre as a result of the May 6, 2010, refined conceptual site plan. During this process, roads and other facilities were micro-sited to avoid crossings subject to CDFG jurisdiction to the extent practicable. As result of this effort, four (R1, R6, R17, and R19) of the original eight drainage crossings subject to CDFG jurisdiction and requiring mitigation were eliminated from further consideration under the revised conceptual site plan. One additional drainage crossing subject to CDFG jurisdiction was added for a net total of five crossings containing approximately 0.37 acre of riparian habitat that would require a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Sections 1600 to 1603 of the

oFIGURE 4.8.1.4-2

Project Impact Area Surveyed for Bakersfield Cactus

LEGENDMay 13 and 14, 2010 Survey AreaProposed Project Study AreaApril 29 and 30 and May 3, 2010 Survey Area

Q:\1378\1378-009\ArcProjects\EIRreview05032010\BakersfieldCactusSurvey.mxd

0 1 20.5Miles


State Fish and Game Code. The following is a description of the newly added crossing as a result of the May 6, 2010, refined conceptual site plan. Isolated Drainage Crossing R2-3 Isolated Drainage Crossing R2-3 is located on the northwest-southeast trending Cottonwood Creek in the north central portion of the proposed project study area, north of drainage crossing R2-4. (Figure 5.1.3-10, Drainage Crossing R2-3). Isolated Drainage Crossing R2-3 was surveyed on May 18, 2010. The proposed crossing is characterized as a dry, isolated incised channel with sandy loam soils inside a small canyon. However, at the time of the survey, water was running in Cottonwood Creek in a channel approximately 3 to 6 feet wide. The vegetation around this proposed crossing is composed of black mustard, bromus sp., winterfat, and scalebroom, which is a riparian vegetation species. There is a defined bed and bank measuring approximately 88.5 feet in width that includes the riparian vegetation, but no other aquatic resources were observed. Therefore, this proposed isolated dry wash crossing is subject to CDFG jurisdiction. Assuming that the proposed road crossing is 36 feet wide (16 feet wide with 10-foot-wide shoulders on both sides of the road), the area subject to CDFG jurisdiction is approximately 0.02 acre at this proposed crossing. 5.1.5 Special-Status Species: Listed, Candidate, Sensitive, and Locally Important Species 5.1.5.1 Listed Species Bakersfield Cactus Bakersfield cactus has been determined to be absent from impact areas of the proposed project property, as a result of detailed field surveys conducted on April 29 and 30, and May 3, 13, 14, 17, and 18, 2010. Based on a literature review, consultation with regulatory oversight agencies, and recognized experts, it was further determined that there are no California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) or CNPS records in the vicinity of the proposed project study area.11 As a result of the detailed field survey efforts for special-status plant species (including the Bakersfield cactus) undertaken in summer and fall 2008, and focused survey efforts for the species undertaken in April and May 2010, it is concluded that the Bakersfield cactus or hybrids of the cactus is unlikely to occur in the Pacific Wind Energy Project site. Thus, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the Bakersfield cactus. Golden Eagle Ground and aerial surveys for raptor nests were conducted for the Manzana Wind Energy Project site during summer 2008 of all areas of potential raptor nesting habitat within the site and adjacent 3-mile buffer. The results of the survey indicated that nest sites for golden eagles within and adjacent the site were rare, as only one golden eagle adult pair was observed with a nest in a cliff

11 California Native Plant Society. 2005. “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.” Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi

SOURCE: SEI, GlobeXplorer

FIGURE 5.1.3-10

Drainage Crossing R2-3

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

2

17

11

27

13

282430

3125

20 19

3836

R-8

R-7

R-5

R-2

R2-5

R2-4

R2-2R2-1

R2-0

R2-7

R2-6

R2-3

R-26R-25 R-24

R-23R-22

R-21R-20

R-18

R-16

R-15

R-14

R-13

R-12R-10

0 21

Miles

o

!(R2-3

PHOTO 1 PHOTO 2

!( Stream-Road Intersection

Proposed Roads

Intermittent Drainages

0 250125

Feet

Looking Northeast fromBlue-line Feature Crossing R2-3

Looking Northwest fromBlue-line Feature Crossing R2-3

Q:\1378\1378-009\ArcProjects\EIRreview05032010\BioAddendum\StrmXing_R2_3.mxd


near the northwest corner of the site.12 No other golden eagle nests were observed on or within 3 miles of site. At the completion of the May 2010 survey effort, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will prepare a Golden Eagle Evaluation Report that will be used to support authorization by the USFWS of a programmatic permit for non-purposeful take of golden eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The report will summarize survey results from the May 2010 survey and provide distribution information on golden eagles within the proposed project area and surrounding region, evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of take of golden eagles based on established thresholds, and suggest advanced conservation practices that include best available techniques to reduce eagle disturbance/mortality to a level where any remaining take is unavoidable. This information will then be summarized in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). California Condor Results of the spatial probability of use model depict a wedge-shaped area along the Antelope Valley, as it merges with the Tehachapi and San Gabriel Mountains, that has low probability of use for condors (Figure 5.1.5.1-3a, California Condor Probability of Use - Final Model). The entire Pacific Wind Energy Project area is located in a zone of low probability of use for condors. The results of the analysis suggest that components of topography, including elevation and aspect, are important parameters in determining the relative probability of use of an area for condors, as the predicted level in probability of use decreases with an decrease in elevation and decreases sharply for southeast-facing and northeast-facing aspects on the Antelope Valley side of the Tehachapi and San Gabriel Mountains, respectively. The preponderance of GPS data points for California condors in the Tehachapi and San Gabriel Mountains illustrate an important point, namely that condors rarely venture outside their historical range and rarely descend below the upper slopes of the Tehachapi uplands (Figure 5.1.5.1-3a). This is substantiated by an analysis of condor data collected between June 1, 2008, and February 9, 2009, in which only 31 of the 38,405 GPS data points for condors (0.08 percent) were located on the Antelope Valley side of the Tehachapi and San Gabriel Mountains and only one data point for a California condor was located outside of the historical range. The Tehachapi Range has a unique geographic position, rendering it and the designated critical habitat within a central crossroads for condor movements between other important use areas within the historical condor range as a whole (e.g., between the SCS and the southern Sierra Nevada, and between the Coast Range and the Sierra Nevada). Much of the designated critical habitat in the Tehachapi Mountains lies in higher elevation than the proposed project area, which generally ranges below 3,500 feet in elevation with only a small proportion rising above 3,500 feet. In addition, strong and reliable prevailing northeasterly winds funnel through the passes from the San Joaquin Valley and into the east-west canyons and valleys of the Tehachapi Range that interact with Tejon Ranch and the general region that supports highly efficient foraging movements of condors, which prefer flying on the upwind sides of ridge crests. This phenomenon occurs because of the unique topography and climate of the region. A number of passes in the mountain ranges surrounding the Tejon Ranch serve as air transport corridors from adjacent areas into Kern County. The Tehachapi Pass connects the western Mojave Desert to the southern San Joaquin Valley, and Soledad Pass. The Kern County portion of the western Mojave Desert is influenced

12 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 23 January 2006. Memorandum for the Record No. 7. Subject: Results of 2004 Raptor Nest Surveys for Proposed PdV Wind Energy Project Site, Kern County, California. Pasadena, CA.

FIGURE 5.1.5.1-3a

California Condor Probability of Use - Final Model

LEGEND


California Condor Probability of Use

Low

Moderate

High


Q:\1378\1378-009\ArcProjects\EIRreview05032010\Condor\ModelResults05202010.mxd

Mapped Area

Source: USFWS, USGS

0 5 102.5

Miles


primarily by transport through the Tehachapi Pass corridor, with some potential influence through Soledad Pass. Additionally, there are no strong and reliable winds coming up out of the San Joaquin Valley that interact with the specific topography of the southern slope of the Tehachapi Mountains as it descends into the desert province in the Antelope Valley region to support highly efficient foraging movements of condors. In addition, southerly winds crossing the Antelope Valley rising up against the southern slope of the Tehachapi Mountains are generally weaker and more infrequent, thus providing less optimum conditions for condor foraging movements in this area. Although there is a recoverable wind resource within the proposed project area, the topography, wind, and associated thermal weather patterns do not have the same characteristics as those in the Tehachapi Mountains. The Tehachapi Range and designated critical habitat within is prime foraging habitat for condors. The Tehachapi Mountains have relatively high populations of native ungulates such as deer, and exotic ungulates such as feral pigs. A byproduct of recreational hunting activities for ungulates, such as deer and feral pigs, is the availability of carrion. The Tehachapi Mountains also have a plentiful food supply of carrion created by traditional livestock grazing operations. In contrast, condors have not been documented to use the proposed project area and surrounding areas as foraging habitat, even though nonnative grassland and native grassland habitats, which condors use, are available throughout the project area. The sparser vegetation in the proposed project area and surrounding region provides limited grazing for seasonal livestock operations. There are no substantial native populations of ungulates such as deer within the project area; therefore, there is limited recreational hunting activity for ungulates, such as deer and feral pigs, which are more plentiful in the Tehachapi Mountains. Potential for carrion in the proposed project area would be limited to periods of seasonal grazing activities. Compared with critical habitat functions and values associated with nesting and roosting, foraging, particularly with the existing captive released population, is much more subject to management through the provision of clean food sources (carcasses) in suitable locations. Condors have repeatedly demonstrated that they will locate and utilize carcasses provided throughout their historical range, including the Tejon Ranch critical habitat area. Based on the analysis of GPS telemetry data for the period of June 1, 2008, to February 9, 2009, condors showed a disproportionately high use of those areas within the Tejon Ranch critical habitat boundary that historically contained, and currently contain, animal carcasses and supplemental feeding areas. As can be seen in Figure 5.1.5.1-3a, the preponderance of perch and roost locations for GPS-transmittered birds are located in areas near supplemental feeding stations. If supplemental feeding is eliminated in the Tehachapi Mountains, California condor foraging movements should be expected to utilize historical foraging areas. However, the 1996 California Condor Recovery Plan stated that it recognized that reestablished condor populations in some areas may require continued artificial feeding to supplement natural food resources and/or to protect birds from exposure to contaminated carcasses.13 Therefore, supplemental feeding at these sites are likely to continue into the future and condors are unlikely to increase their foraging range into other areas including areas on the Antelope Valley side of the Tehachapi and San Gabriel Mountains.

13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. California Condor Recovery Plan. Third Revision. Portland, OR.


5.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS 5.2.4 Federal and State Waters An evaluation of the May 6, 2010, refined conceptual site plan indicates that the development of a roadway system within the proposed project area that is capable of supporting construction, operation, and maintenance activities requires 41 crossings of ephemeral drainages (Figure 5.2.4-2, CDFG Jurisdictional Survey Areas), including 36 locations that are unvegetated (Table 5.2.4-1, Unvegetated Drainage Crossings), and 5 locations containing approximately 0.37 acre of riparian habitat (Table 5.2.4-2, Vegetated Drainage Impacts). The project applicant has recommended measures to undertake habitat restoration such that there is no net loss of habitat function or value.

TABLE 5.2.4-1 UNVEGETATED DRAINAGE CROSSINGS

Drainage Crossing

36 38 R-5 R-7 19 R-8 25 31 30 24 28 13 27 R-12 R-13 R-14 R-15 R-16 11 R-20 R-21 R-22 R-23 R-24 R-25 R-26 2 R2-6 R2-7 R2-0 R2-1 R2-2 R2-4 R2-5 15 17

TABLE 5.2.4-2

VEGETATED DRAINAGE IMPACTS

Drainage Crossing

Width of Stream from Top of Streambed

(meters/feet) Width of Riparian

Habitat (meters/feet) CDFG Jurisdiction

(square meters/feet) CDFG Jurisdiction

(acres) 20 4.0/13.1 4.0/13.1 144/471.6 0.01 R21 5.5/18.0 3.0/10.0 61.0/200.0 0.02 R16 7.9/26.0 2.1/7.0 76.8/252.0 0.02 R181 60.9/200.0 60.0/200.0 1,219.5/4,000.0 0.30 R2-3 38.0/124.7 27.0/88.5 104/1120 0.02 Total 116.3/381.8 96.3/318.6 1,635.3/6,043.6 0.37

In arid regions, many small ephemeral drainages that are not represented as blue-line features on topographic maps and lack riparian vegetation are still considered by the CDFG to qualify as waters of the United States and may be subject to CDFG 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 proposed project. Table 5.2.4-2 presents drainage crossings that contain riparian habitat that could not be avoided by the proposed project and would require a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Sections 1600 to 1603 of the State Fish and Game Code.

2

17

11

27

13

282430

3125

2019

3836

R-8

R-7

R-5

R-2

R2-5

R2-4

R2-2R2-1

R2-0

R2-7

R2-6

R2-3

R-26R-25 R-24 R-23 R-22

R-21R-20

R-18

R-16

R-15

R-14

R-13

R-12R-10

FIGURE 5.2.4-2CDFG Jurisdictional Survey Areas

LEGENDCrossings SurveyedCrossings with Potential Effects to Riparian HabitatIntermittent DrainagesProposed Project Study AreaProposed Project Direct Impact Area

Q:\1378\1378-009\ArcProjects\EIRreview05032010\BioAddendum\CDFG_JurisdictionalAreas.mxd

0 1 20.5Miles


5.2.5 Special-Status Species and Potentially Suitable Habitats 5.2.5.1 Listed Species Bakersfield Cactus As a result of the detailed field survey efforts for special-status plant species (including the Bakersfield cactus) undertaken in summer and fall 2008, and focused survey efforts for the species undertaken in April and May 2010, it is concluded that the Bakersfield cactus is unlikely to occur in the Pacific Wind Energy Project site. Thus, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the Bakersfield cactus. Golden Eagle At the completion of the May 2010 survey effort, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will prepare a Golden Eagle Evaluation Report that will be used to support authorization by the USFWS of a programmatic permit for non-purposeful take of golden eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The report will summarize survey results from the May 2010 survey, provide distribution information on golden eagles within the proposed project area and surrounding region, evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of take of golden eagles based on established thresholds, and suggest advanced conservation practices that include best available techniques to reduce eagle disturbance/mortality to a level where any remaining take is unavoidable. This information will then be summarized in the Final EIR. California Condor Despite the very low level of probability, it is conceivable for a California condor to wander into the proposed project area. The ability of condors to avoid WTGs is unknown. Based on preliminary searches of the scientific literature, there appears to be a potential risk of collision to California condors from WTGs if and when the condor range and WTGs are located within close proximity of historical nesting sites and primary movement corridors. However, to date, there are no known California condor deaths that have been attributed to WTGs. It is important to stress that designation of unknown causes for condor mortality, are just that, unknown, and inferring probable causes for these unknown deaths is problematic. Thus, it is unlikely that few if any California condors that have died from unknown causes have been killed by WTGs in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area. As California condor numbers continue to increase in Southern California, including the Tehachapi Mountains, and their range expands, even into the margin of the Mojave Desert, the likelihood of condor mortality from collisions with WTGs increases. Nonetheless, wind development on the proposed Pacific Wind site is expected to pose a low risk to the California condor based on the probability of use analysis presented here. 5.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 5.3.3 Federal and State Waters The mitigation measures specified in the Biological Resources Technical Report would be adequate to address the May 6, 2010, refined conceptual site plan.


5.3.4 Special-Status Species and Potentially Suitable Habitat 5.3.4.1 Listed Species Bakersfield Cactus The Bakersfield cactus and/or Bakersfield cactus hybrids have been determined to be absent as a result of directed field surveys; therefore, no mitigation is required. Golden Eagle To document the status of golden eagle nesting sites and use areas within and adjacent to the proposed project study area, an additional aerial survey will be conducted in May 2010 (Sapphos, 2010; Appendix C-2). The information could be used to support a programmatic take permit for non-purposeful take of golden eagles pursuant to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, when the permitting process is finalized by the USFWS and permits become available. California Condor To minimize potential impacts to the California condor, please add biological resources mitigation measure MM-Avian/Bat-9:

MM Avian/Bat-9 The project proponent shall submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning Department showing that a qualified biologist with demonstrated knowledge of California condor identification will be on site to monitor all construction activities within the project area and assist the project proponent in the implementation of the monitoring program. Workers will be trained on the issue of microtrash―what it is, its potential effects to California condors, and how to avoid the deposition of microtrash. In addition, daily sweeps of the work area will occur to collect and remove trash. All spills of ethylene glycol will be cleaned up immediately and a report documenting the actions taken to remediate the spill will be provided to Kern County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game within 5 calendar days. The project proponent shall develop a flier that will be distributed to all workers on the project concerning information on the California condor. Information to be included consists of the following: species description with photos and/or drawings indicating how to identify the California condor and how to distinguish condors from turkey vultures and golden eagles; protective status and penalties for violation of the Endangered Species Act; avoidance measures being implemented on the project; and contact information for communicating condor sightings. A copy of the flier shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning Department to demonstrate compliance with this mitigation. All California condor sightings in the project area during construction shall be reported directly to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and Kern County.


The project proponent shall submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning Department showing implementation of the following additional measures:

a. Bird flight diverters shall be installed on all meteorological tower guy wires

on structures constructed as part of the project. b. During periods of active livestock grazing, a full-time monitor shall be

present to ensure immediate removal of carcasses on the project site. c. The project proponent will work with the property owners to phase out

grazing on the project site over the next 10 years. d. 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 on the number of turbines constructed as part of the project. Five telemetry units (at a cost of approximately $1,000 per unit) shall be funded for every hundred turbines plus an endowment of $35,000 to be used for tracking data over an eight-year period. Thus, the total funding to be provided shall include the cost of up to 13 telemetry units ($13,000) and an endowment of $35,000 for a total not exceed amount of $48,000.