County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
•
Section 19.64.140(K): Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, a plan for the mitigation
of potential soil erosion and sedimentation shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer
or other professional and submitted for the approval by the Director of the Engineering,
Surveying, and Permit Services Department. The plan shall include provisions for site
revegetation, including any necessary re-soiling, proposed plant species, proposed plant
density and percentage of ground coverage, and the methods and rates of application and
shall include sediment collection facilities as may be required by the Engineering,
Surveying, and Permit Services Department.
The soil erosion and sedimentation control plan shall 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. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the revegetation portion of the soil erosion and sedimentation plan shall be
prepared by a professional biologist or other professional approved, in advance, by the
Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department.
The plan shall include a timetable for full implementation, estimated costs, and a surety
bond or other security as approved by the Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services
Department in an amount determined by that department to guarantee plan implementation.
The soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including the revegetation plan and
security instrument, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Floodplain Management
Section of the Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services Department prior to the
issuance of any grading permit. The security shall remain on file with the Engineering,
Surveying, and Permit Services Department until that department has verified that the plan
has been successfully implemented.
Section 19.64.140(L): A minimum of on-site roadways shall be constructed. Temporary
access roads utilized for initial machine installation shall be revegetated to a natural
condition after completion of machine installation. The project proponent shall submit a
plan of all proposed roads, temporary and permanent, for approval by the Planning Director
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Section 19.64.140(M): Construction of any slopes steeper than four to one (4:1) shall be
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Kern County Planning Department and
mitigation is provided.
Section 19.64.140(N): Wind project facilities shall be encircled with a ten- (10-) foot-wide
fuel break. Subject fuel breaks may be installed for each wind machine or the perimeter of
the total project, but in no event shall encompass more than forty (40) acres per block.
Permanent access roads may also be considered fuel breaks. This requirement may be
modified at the discretion of the Kern County Fire Chief.
•
•
•
4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section describes the methodology used in conducting the impact analysis for biological
resources, the thresholds of significance used in assessing impacts to biological resources, and the
assessment of impacts to biological resources, including relevant mitigation measures.
Methodology This section describes the potential biological resources impacts associated with development of the
project. This analysis first established baseline conditions for the affected environment relevant to
biological resources, as presented above in Section 4.4.2 (Environmental Setting). These baseline
conditions were evaluated based on their potential to be affected by construction activities as well as
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐58 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
operation and maintenance activities for the project. As described in Sections 3.7 (Construction),
3.8 (Operation and Maintenance Activities), and 3.9 (Decommissioning and Repowering), activities
that are reasonably expected to occur throughout the life of the project, including construction and
installation of WTGs, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning, may extend over a period
of up to 30 years. The predicted interactions between the affected environment and project activities
are evaluated based on the significance criteria identified below (Thresholds of Significance).
Thresholds of Significance The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist
state that a project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would:
•
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS;
•
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS;
•
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
•
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites;
•
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance; or
•
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
Project Impacts The following section describes potential impacts and mitigation measures related to biological
resources that could occur as a result of the project.
The CEQA Guidelines define direct impacts as those impacts that result from the project and occur
at the same time and place. Indirect impacts are caused by the project, but can occur later in time or
farther removed in distance while still reasonably foreseeable and related to the project. The
potential impacts discussed in this analysis are those most likely to be associated with construction
and operation of a wind generation project. Construction impacts would include both direct and
indirect impacts to biological resources. While direct impacts associated with construction of the
project are expected to occur only through the duration of construction activities, indirect
construction impacts, such as the spread of nonnative and invasive weeds, could potentially remain
an ongoing source of disturbance. Operational impacts would also include both direct and indirect
impacts to biological resources. Ongoing operations and maintenance impacts would occur during
routine inspection and maintenance of the project facilities and would include such activities as
routine inspections and emergency repairs, as well as impacts related to the operation of the WTGs
themselves. Operational impacts would remain an ongoing source of disturbance for many plants
and wildlife species that occur within the fenced facility perimeter and in adjacent habitat.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐59 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Project impacts are considered permanent if they involve the conversion of land to a new use, such
as with the construction of new roads or the foundations of WTGs. Temporary project impacts are
those effects that do not result in a permanent land use conversion. Temporary effects to vegetation
communities or other ground disturbance activities restricted solely to the construction phase, such
as grading roads and clearing vegetation within staging areas, are considered temporary provided
that native vegetation is not replaced with infrastructure or the area is not maintained free of
vegetation, and that restoration is deemed feasible prior to project implementation.
As discussed in Appendix A (Notice of Preparation/Initial Study [NOP/IS]), the project was
determined to have no impact with regard to the following impact threshold: Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. This issue is re-evaluated in the
EIR because it was determined after circulation of the NOP/IS that the project lies partially within
the boundaries of the West Mojave Plan (WMP). See Impact 4.4-6 below for an analysis of
potential impacts to lands included in the WMP.
Impact 4.4‐1: Substantial Adverse Effects to Special‐Status Species A total of 91 special-status plant species and 81 special-status wildlife species were identified as
potentially occurring in the project area. Of these, 15 special-status plants were identified in the
project study area and 41 wildlife species were observed or detected in the project study area during
surveys. Additionally, 25 special-status plant species and 28 special-status wildlife species were
determined to have a moderate or high potential to occur. The remaining 51 special-status plant
species and 13 special-status wildlife species were determined to have a low potential or were
unlikely to occur in the project area (Tables 4.4-2 and 4.4-3).
Construction and operation of the project could impact plants and wildlife in a variety of ways.
Construction activities could result in mortality or harm to sensitive species or displace wildlife.
The construction of WTGs and associated infrastructure including roads, substations, transmission
lines, etc. would result in the loss of habitat for plant and wildlife species. Operation of the project
could result in mortality through collision or displacement of avian and bat species utilizing the
project area. Use of access roads for maintenance operations could also result in the injury or
mortality of wildlife species. These potential effects are analyzed in the following sections. The
potential for these effects to impact special-status species in the project area is then evaluated.
Loss of Habitat The removal of vegetation can result in direct and indirect effects to biological resources from the
temporary and permanent loss of habitat. Degradation of habitat including damage to shrubs and
plants could alter access to a variety of essential resources, including shade, shelter, and food
sources. In addition, construction activities would result in the displacement and/or potential
mortality of resident wildlife species that are poor dispersers such as snakes, lizards, and small
mammals. Construction may also result in the temporary degradation of the value of habitat in and
adjacent to the project area. Direct impacts as a result of construction activities associated with the
project would include the permanent removal and temporary disturbance of native vegetation
communities utilized as habitat for both common and special-status wildlife and plants, result in the
transport of fugitive dust to adjacent habitat, and increased noise levels due to heavy equipment
operations occurring in these areas.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐60 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Potential indirect impacts to habitat include alterations to existing topographical and hydrological
conditions, increased erosion and sediment transport, and the establishment of nonnative and
invasive weeds. Operational impacts include disturbance due to increased human presence, risk of
injury or mortality from maintenance vehicles on access roads, and further opportunities for the
introduction and spread of nonnative and invasive weeds. Table 4.4-4 lists the permanent and
temporary impacts to habitat communities that would occur as a result of implementation of the
project.
Table 4.4-4. Proposed Project Impacts by Plant Community
Plant Community
Black brush scrub
Blue oak woodland
California juniper woodland
Desert olive scrub
Fremont cottonwood forest
Gray pine woodland
Mojave mixed woody scrub
Non-native grassland
Rubber rabbitbrush scrub
Singleleaf pinyon woodland
Southern willow scrub
Tucker oak chaparral
Wright’s buckwheat scrub
Total
NSRP Development Impact
Total
Permanent Temporary
NSRP
Acres
Acres
Impact
Acreage
54.83
134.67
189.51
24.76
86.51
111.27
83.63
238.93
322.56
0.17
1.60
1.78
0.59
2.51
3.10
0.57
2.51
3.08
0.21
6.56
6.77
54.80
185.71
240.51
9.92
64.57
74.48
10.67
36.83
47.50
0.01
0.87
0.88
1.00
1.00
43.52
126.95
170.47
283.70
889.22
1,172.92
JWEP Development Impact
Total
Permanent Temporary
JWEP
Acres
Acres
Impact
Acreage*
11.24
54.54
65.78
3.21
29.49
32.70
0.30
2.09
2.39
1.74
1.74
1.02
14.62
15.64
4.22
39.29
43.51
21.72
140.03
161.76
Total
Project
Impact
Acreage
189.51
177.05
355.26
1.78
3.10
5.47
6.77
240.51
76.22
47.50
0.88
16.64
213.98
1,334.68
* An additional 4.3 acres would be impacted for the development of the JWEP water supply infrastructure on the water supply parcel located
just northwest of the project area. Vegetation information for this parcel is not available at this time, but habitats are similar to those mapped in
the project area.
Clearing and grading of the project site to facilitate installation of up to 116 WTGs and associated
infrastructure would permanently impact 305 (283.7 acres NSRP, 21.7 acres JWEP) acres of native
vegetation communities. Additionally, a total of 1,029 acres of native vegetation communities
would be temporarily impacted due to clearing activities associated with laydown yards and
temporary access road buffers. In total, construction of the project would permanently disturb 2.3
percent and temporarily disturb 7.6 percent of the project area. Most of the habitats in the project
area are expected to be utilized by both common and rare wildlife for foraging, breeding, and
shelter. Loss of habitat would also affect the ability of species to disperse throughout the project
area.
Impacts to special-status species related to loss of habitat would be significant. However,
implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce these impacts through
development and implementation of a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4) and
the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM 4.4-5).
Injury or Mortality Construction Impacts
Direct mortality of plants, small mammals, amphibian, reptiles, and other less mobile species could
occur during construction of the project. Depending on the timing of construction, eggs and
nestlings of bird species with small, well-hidden nests could also be subject to loss. This action
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐61 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
would result primarily during habitat clearing, earth removal, grading, digging, and equipment
movement. More mobile species like birds and larger mammals would be expected to disperse into
nearby habitat areas during construction.
The use of access roads by construction/maintenance vehicles could result in accidental road-killed
wildlife if these species occurred on roads during construction activities. While Jawbone Canyon
Road is open to the public and is heavily used by recreationists in the Jawbone OHV Open Area,
construction of the project would substantially increase traffic along this access road during the 12month construction phase (see Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic). Other unnamed dirt access
roads to the project from SR 58 in the south, and the network of roads within the project area are not
open to the public and do not currently support large amounts of vehicle traffic. Increases in use
along these routes would be substantial during construction and would likely result in vehiclecaused mortality for a number of terrestrial species, including reptiles and small mammals.
Diurnal reptiles and small mammals are the most likely to be subject to vehicle-caused mortality,
although few if any wildlife species are immune to vehicle collisions. Because access roads will be
used heavily, albeit for relatively short durations of time during the construction phase, there exists
a high likelihood for mortality of wildlife due to vehicle collisions. Of note is the presence of desert
tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel in Jawbone Canyon; both of these listed species would be
vulnerable to mortality along Jawbone Canyon Road. Injury to or mortality of a special-status
species during construction would represent a significant impact. Juvenile tortoises for example are
extremely small and difficult to detect even with reduced vehicle speeds. However, implementation
of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce the potential for injury or mortality of specialstatus species during construction through monitoring and relocation of special-status species in the
work area (MM 4.4-6), worker environmental training (MM 4.4-7), reporting dead or injured
special-status species (MM 4.4-21), pre-construction sweeps for special-status wildlife (MM 4.4-8),
covering all steep-walled excavations (MM 4.4-21), maintaining a maximum of 15 miles per hour
(mph) speed limit (MM 4.4-21), and implementation of rare plant surveys, avoidance, and
compensation (MM 4.4-9).
Operational Impacts
Vehicle and equipment travel on access roads during operation and maintenance may also disturb
wildlife. Vehicles could cause direct mortality or injury to wildlife that is unable to move out of the
way of vehicle traffic. As with construction, injury to or mortality of a special-status species during
operation and maintenance would be significant. However, use of project roads during operation
and maintenance would be of low volume, and speeds would be limited to 15 MPH (MM 4.4-21).
In addition, exterior lighting in the project area would be kept to a minimum and nighttime
vehicular traffic would be minimized (MM 4.4-3).
Collisions with WTGs. A significant environmental impact associated with operation of a wind
power development is the mortality of birds and bats due to collision with WTGs and barotraumas
(in bats). Data suggest that 2.2 avian fatalities occur per WTG per year in the United States
(Erickson, et al., 2001); however, the range of avian fatalities likely varies substantially with the
location of the wind facility. Estimates of bat fatalities are less certain as most studies have focused
on bird mortality, but range from 0.8 to 8.6 bats/MW/year (Kunz, et al., 2007). It is estimated that
more bats than birds are killed at wind developments (Baerwald, et al., 2008). The cause of death
for bats is often barotrauma, which is caused by a rapid drop in air pressure near moving turbine
blades (Baerwald et al., 2008). Bats are unable to detect these low-pressure areas, and when they
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐62 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
enter the area the low pressure causes severe lung damage that results in mortality. In a recent study
investigating barotraumas in bats at a wind development in Canada, 91 percent of recovered bats
showed signs of barotrauma (Baerwald, et al., 2008).
The potential for bird and bat strikes varies greatly depending on the location of the wind farm, the
type of wind technology employed, and surrounding land uses. For example, the Altamont Pass
Wind Resource Area (APWRA) has a disproportionately high number of raptor fatalities associated
with wind power developments there. However, this resource area is located within an avian
migratory corridor, contains foraging habitat for a variety of raptor species, and primarily supports
older, shorter WTGs with rotor-swept areas located at elevations frequented by foraging raptors.
The Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA) is not known to contain a major migratory bird route,
and migrants are believed to pass through in a more diffuse fashion.
The CEC and CDFG Guidelines for reducing impacts to birds from wind energy development
recommend that migration counts for diurnal avian species be conducted at topographical features,
such as mountain ridges or passes, at potential wind energy facility sites that may lie within a
known or likely migration corridor (CEC and CDFG, 2007). Low flying, visible terrestrial avian
movements may be concentrated along local topographic features, such as mountain passes,
regardless of whether or not a feature is situated along a major migration route (Williams et al.,
2001). Avoidance of migration corridors is frequently the single most important factor in reducing
avian mortality at wind energy facilities (Kuvlesky et al, 2007; CEC and CDFG, 2007).
Kelso Creek, a National Audubon Society “Important Bird Area,” is located 15 miles north of the
project area. Butterbredt Springs, located less than two miles northeast of the project boundary, is a
nationally recognized migratory stopover. Migrant songbirds pass through the region in very large
numbers in the spring, and utilize these two areas as stopovers. In the fall, thousands of turkey
vultures migrate south from the Kern Valley along Kelso Creek and over the project region on their
way to the Colorado River and Mexico (Audubon, 2011).
Other fall migrants pass along this route as well. Most migrants pass over Butterbredt Springs, but
many stop there and stay up to several days before continuing on (Heindel, 2000). The large
number of migrants that utilize this area may be attributed to a “funnel effect” of northbound
migrants moving up to the mountains from the Mojave Desert below. The entrance to Jawbone
Canyon, located nine miles east of the project, has a northwest entrance and may provide a more
natural flyway than other canyons in the vicinity (Heindel, 2000). Jawbone Canyon leads to the
Butterbredt Springs area, which provides water and riparian habitat for migrating birds.
Because of the presence of nearby known migratory bird stopovers, and the project’s location
within a known migratory corridor, the conclusion can be made that bird use within the project area
could be relatively high during spring and autumn. However, several regional and project-specific
studies have been conducted in the TWRA over the last 15 years (as summarized in Appendix F1 of
CH2MHill, 2010) that indicate overall avian use of the region is relatively low compared to other
wind resource areas in the United States. The lowest levels of bird use in the TWRA have been
recorded at sites in the Mojave Desert in the northwestern portion of the Antelope Valley, below the
foothills of the Tehachapi Mountains (Kern County 2007, 2009, 2010; Appendix F1 of CH2MHill,
2010). Areas within the Tehachapi Pass and the higher-elevation portion of the Alta-Oak Creek
Mojave Project, located 12 miles and 16 miles southwest of the project, respectively, have slightly
higher bird use rates but are still considered low when compared to other wind resource areas
(Appendix F1 of CH2MHill, 2010).
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐63 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Pre-construction avian use surveys and post-construction fatality monitoring have been conducted
at the Pine Tree Wind Development which is located immediately south of the project, but results of
these studies are not currently available. While the portion of the Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Project
and the Tehachapi Pass areas referenced above have similar habitats, elevations, and topography as
found on the project site, they are considerably farther away from known migratory stopovers (i.e.,
Butterbredt Springs), and the “funnel effect” of Jawbone Canyon hypothesized by Heindel (2000)
creates an environment that likely supports a higher level of bird use at the project site as compared
to these other sites. However, suspected funnel effect of Jawbone Canyon remains a hypothesis to
be tested.
Studies conducted for the PdV Wind Energy Project, which is located 25 miles southwest of the
project, included a nocturnal migrating bird risk assessment using archived radar remote sensing
data. The purpose of this assessment was to determine levels of avian activity, distribution, and
seasonal variation in the vicinity of the PdV Wind Energy Project. Data sources included data from
the National Weather Service’s NEXRAD WSR-88D, a national weather radar operations system
with a center at Edwards Air Force Base, and regional National Weather Service Surface Area
Observations (SAO) visibility databases (Appendix C of PdV2007). In addition to the PdV site
location, 10 regional samples were selected that were the same distance from Edwards Air Force
Base, including a site located near Butterbredt Springs. Data were examined to determine avian use
during the typical spring (15 March to 15 May) and fall (15 August to 1 November) migration
periods. Data were also evaluated for use between the hours of 5:00 pm and 6:00 am to assess the
level of nocturnal migration.
Two locations evaluated in this study, Sample Site 2 and the Butterbredt Springs sample site,
include the project area. The data derived in this study were an approximation/estimation of average
bird density in the airspace between January 2003 through December 2005. Of the 11 sites
evaluated for total density per km2, Butterbredt Springs ranked fourth lowest of the eleven sites and
Sample Site 2 ranked eighth lowest of the eleven sites. For fall night migrants, Butterbredt Springs
ranked sixth lowest and Sample Site 2 ranked seventh lowest. Total average night migration density
was significantly higher at both sites during the fall, although very high densities were recorded on
some single spring nights. The highest nocturnal migration intensity for both fall and spring was
observed primarily at the reference sites to the south and east of Butterbredt Springs and the project.
Based on a literature review of studies focused on migrant flight altitude, mean migration flight
altitudes generally range from 410 to 2,000 m (1,345 to 6,562 ft) above ground level (AGL), well
above the maximum turbine height of 122 m (400 ft) AGL (Appendix C of PdV, 2007).
Additional radar studies in the region have documented nocturnal migration rates that are lower
than those recorded over other wind resource areas in the United States (Appendix F1 of
CH2MHill, 2010). While nocturnal migrants are at the highest risk for collisions with WTGs due to
lack of visibility and the potential for attraction to aviation lighting on towers, diurnal migrants are
also at risk and may be much more abundant than nocturnal migrants.
The results of avian studies conducted in southeastern Kern County to date support the general
conclusion that this region likely poses relatively low risk to birds compared to other wind energy
facilities in the US (Appendix F1 of CH2MHill, 2010). However, existing studies are limited, and
data are not always collected in a manner that allows for direct comparisons with wind projects in
other areas of the US. Assessment of avian and bat risk is difficult because of large variation in use
as well as topographical, habitat, weather patterns, and other risk considerations. Similarly, different
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐64 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
sites located within the same wind resource area may pose very different levels of risk to birds and
bats based on these same types of risk factors. Therefore, adequate site-specific baseline studies are
crucial for estimating avian and bat use of a given site, which can be roughly correlated to the
species’ risk of collision once a project is operational.
Baseline avian use data collection began at the project site in May 2010, and will conclude in May
2011. Eighteen bird use count stations were established within the various habitat types across the
project site, and use counts are being recorded weekly for one full year. In addition, raptor nest
searches (both aerial and ground-based) are being conducted, and acoustical monitoring for bat use
is ongoing. Preliminary results from the various avian and bat pre-permitting studies, where
available, are discussed below, and the final results of these studies will be included in the Final
EIR for the project.
Preliminary data from fixed-point bird use counts for the project, conducted between May 18, 2010
and February 28, 2011 are included in Appendix E-1 (Chatfield and Bay, 2011a). During this
period, 120 unique bird species were observed representing a total of 12,713 individual bird
observations within 4,058 separate groups . Passerines were the most abundant bird type recorded,
accounting for 71.3 percent of all observations. This was primarily due to relatively high numbers
of horned larks, dark-eyed juncos, white-crowned sparrows, western scrub-jays, and mountain
bluebirds observed. These five passerine species represented only 4.2 percent of all the bird species
observed, yet accounted for 42.7 percent of the total bird observations. Large corvids were the
second most abundant bird type observed in the study area, representing 12.0 percent of all
observations, while upland game birds were the third most abundant bird type, accounting for 9.7
percent of all observations. A total of 269 diurnal raptor observations were made during fixed-point
surveys, and 10 separate species were observed. Diurnal raptors accounted for 2.1 percent of all
observations, with red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, and golden eagle being the most commonly
observed diurnal raptors.
Golden eagles are a permanent resident in the Tehachapi and Piute Mountains and this species was
observed foraging in the project on over 50 occasions during surveys conducted over all four
seasons (CH2MHill, 2010; Sapphos, 2010). In addition, 15 golden eagle nest sites were detected
within 10 miles of the project boundary during aerial nest surveys conducted during winter 2010
and late-winter 2011 (CH2MHill, 2011; 2011c), with the closest inactive nest being located two
miles from the project boundary and closest active nest being located 3.8 miles north of the project
site. Golden eagles are a permanent resident in the Tehachapi and Piute Mountains and this species
was observed foraging in 2011. During the summer, fall, and winter observation periods, the
adjusted mean raptor use in the project was considered low (0.25, 0.27, and 0.20 raptors/plot/20minute survey, respectively) relative to other wind resource areas with data for summer, fall, or
winter. (Chatfield and Bay, 2011a). Nonetheless, golden eagles and other avian species have been
recorded on site and collisions with WTGs may occur.
Passerines are the most frequently reported fatalities at wind farms, most likely because they are the
most common flying vertebrates in most ecosystems (Kunz, et al., 2007). Of the songbird fatalities
reported in 31 studies, half were nocturnal, migrating songbirds (Erickson, et al., 2001). Raptors are
at particular risk from WTGs in some areas, including in the Tehachapi Pass, and mortality from
collisions with WTGs is higher than that of other birds, such as passerines and corvids (Anderson,
et al., 2004). Raptors are at risk from collision with WTGs because they tend to forage at levels
within the rotor-swept area, and they soar on updrafts at ridge crests where WTGs often are located.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐65 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Raptor use of a given area was the clearest factor related to raptor mortality at Tehachapi Pass
during a period of study between 1996 and 1998 (Anderson, et al., 2004). Red-tailed hawks, great
horned owls, and American kestrels were reported to have the highest number of collisions in the
TWRA (Anderson, et al., 2004). All three of these species were observed in the project study area
during baseline bird surveys for this project.
Baseline bat activity and use studies were initiated at the project site in November 2009. These
studies are ongoing, but acoustic data collected by a total of nine AnabatTM SD1 bat detectors
during the period of November 5, 2009 through February 22, 2011 is presented in Appendix E-1
(Chatfield and Bay, 2011b). Due to timing of meteorological tower construction and other project
logistics, not all nine Anabat units were deployed within the study area at the start of the study in
November 2009. Initially, two Anabat detectors were deployed within the study area at fixed
ground-based reference stations. One Anabat unit was placed at a spring-fed stock pond used by
cattle (Mud Springs), and the other was situated in a riparian area (Cottonwood Creek). These two
stations were selected because they contain features attractive to bats (i.e., water sources). While bat
activity at these two stations is not necessarily representative of activity in areas proposed for WTG
siting, the stations likely represent the upper limits of bat activity occurring within the project and
were therefore considered reference stations. Data was collected continuously at these two reference
stations from November 5, 2009, to February 22, 2011.
In August 2010, an additional four fixed detectors were deployed at three met towers within the
project: paired (ground and raised) detectors at a met tower in the north of the study area, and single
ground detectors at each of two other met towers in the central and southern portions of the study
area. These fixed stations established at met towers are located in areas proposed for turbine siting
and are therefore considered non-reference stations. On September 1, 2010, an additional three
mobile detectors were deployed within the project. These mobile detectors targeted areas proposed
for turbine siting which were not covered by the fixed non-reference stations.
At the two reference stations located near water features, a total of 30,182 bat passes were recorded
during 913 detector-nights during the period from November 5, 2009 to February 22, 2011, or 32.98
bat passes per detector per night. Detectors were operable for 96.1 percent of the study period.
During the period August 17, 2010 to February 22, 2011, a total of 12,859 bat passes were recorded
at the fixed and temporary stations during 1,053 detector-nights, or approximately 12.27 bat passes
per detector per night. These detectors were operable for 87.1 percent of study period. Activity by
bats varied considerably among stations, ranging between 1.62 to 43.76 bat passes per detectornight. Bat activity was generally higher among the temporary stations compared to the fixed
stations. Among the four fixed stations, bat activity ranged from 1.62 to 9.50 bat passes per
detector-night. The highest bat activity among fixed stations occurred at the single raised detector,
located in an over-grazed area with a few junipers scattered throughout (Chatfield and Bay, 2011b).
At reference stations, overall bat activity varied considerable throughout the study period, with
noticeable peaks in activity occurring in late winter of 2009 (mid-November to mid-December) and
spring of 2010 (early to mid-May). Throughout the remainder of the study period (mid- August
through early December) activity was very sporadic with moderate to high spikes in activity
occurring the weeks of August 20, September 24, and December 3, 2010. At fixed and temporary
stations, the level of bat activity and species composition also varied considerably over time.
Activity was relatively low in mid-August and gradually increased through late August and early
September until peaking the week of September 10. After mid-September, bat activity gradually
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐66 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
decreased though the middle of November. Beginning in mid-November, activity was sporadic with
large spikes in activity occurring the weeks of December 3, December 10, and January 15, and little
to no bat activity recorded in the intervening weeks (Chatfield and Bay, 2011b).
To date, relatively few studies of wind energy facilities have recorded both bat passes per night and
bat fatality rates (Appendix A of Chatfield and Bay, 2011b). Those that have generally show
correlation between bat activity levels and estimated fatality rates, and the expectation amongst the
scientific and resource-management communities is that an association may exist for preconstruction activity and post-construction fatalities. However, such a relationship has not yet been
established empirically due to lack of sufficient data. For the studies that have measured both
activity and fatalities, data were collected during the fall using Anabat detectors placed near the
ground (i.e., none raised on met towers). The Chatfield and Bay (2011b) bat report for the project
relies on the mean bat activity for fixed ground-based non-reference detectors during the fall period
to assess potential risk of bat fatalities at the project relative to the other studies with similar data.
However, these other studies were not conducted in the Southwestern US, and it is unknown how
activity might relate to mortality in this region (Chatfield and Bay, 2011b).
The relatively high activity rates recorded at the reference stations (25.42 and 40.55 bat passes per
detector-night) might initially suggest higher fatality rates could be expected at the project.
However, the reference stations were established at sites containing features that are generally
attractive to bats (e.g., springs, riparian areas), and are not necessarily representative of bat activity
in areas proposed for WTG siting. Individual bats are likely to spend long periods of time at these
locations as they forage, drink, or interact socially, and an individual bat may be recorded multiple
times. As a result, data collected at reference stations likely provide an upper bound for the
estimated bat activity levels within the project (CH2MHill, 2010; Chatfield and Bay, 2011b). Bat
activity recorded by fixed non-reference ground detectors within the project during the fall (2.59 ±
0.35 bat passes per detector-night) was similar to activity levels reported in Minnesota and
Wyoming, where bat fatality rates were relatively low, and was much lower than activity levels
reported at wind energy facilities in West Virginia, Iowa, and Tennessee, where bat fatality rates
have been highest (Appendix A of Chatfield and Bay, 2011b). Thus, based on the expected
relationship between pre-construction bat activity and post-construction fatalities, bat fatality rates
at the project may be similar to the 1.73 to 4.03 bat fatalities/MW/study period reported at Buffalo
Ridge facility in Minnesota, and are anticipated to be much lower than the 39.70
fatalities/MW/study period reported at the Buffalo Mountain facility in Tennessee (Chatfield and
Bay, 2011b). Acoustic bat studies are scheduled to continue at the project through spring 2011.
An additional bat acoustic survey was initiated on August 15, 2010 in the project area, and is
scheduled to continue for one full year. This study includes three ReBAT™ acoustic monitoring
arrays in the project area. Each array is attached to a meteorological tower, with one detector
mounted 9 m above ground level and a second detector mounted 45.5 m above ground level. The
upper detector is intended to detect bats flying within the rotor swept zone for the project (Pandion,
2011). An interim report documenting data collected and analyzed on a random sampling of 30
nights between August 15 and October 31, 2010 (fall migratory period) is included in Appendix E-1
(Pandion, 2011). Overall, bat activity detected within the project area was moderate, with an
average of 10.78 bat passes per detector night reported from preliminary data analysis (includes data
from all 3 ReBAT™ systems). Bat activity was variable on analyzed nights with the first peak in
activity occurring late September, and an additional major peak was observed during the third week
in October. The species most often detected during the acoustic monitoring survey was T.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐67 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
brasiliensis (Mexican free-tailed bat) (65 percent of all detections). Parastrellus hesperus (canyon
bat) and Lasiurus cinereus (hoary bat) made up 10 percent and 9 percent of all detections,
respectively. All three species are considered rather common and widespread throughout much of
California. Additionally, all three species are known to have been killed at active wind energy
facilities (Pandion, 2011).
Bats are known to use the area, and are vulnerable to collisions and/or barotrauma. While
preliminary results of acoustic monitoring in the project area show an increase in bat activity during
the spring and fall migration periods, there is insufficient data available to determine whether or not
a focused bat migration corridor exists in the project area. Although bat use in the vicinity of the
proposed WTGs is likely to be lower than that recorded near water sources, actual rates of use are
currently unknown for all proposed WTG locations. Therefore, potential impacts to bats from
turbine collisions and/or barotrauma are considered significant. Mitigation measures presented
below, including post-construction mortality monitoring and operational modifications for WTGs
posing a significant threat to bats (MMs 4.4-17 and 4.4-20), would reduce collision-related impacts
to bats but not below a level of significance.
The levels of mortality associated with the project due to avian and bat collisions are expected to be
low relative to other wind developments in the western United States (Anderson, et al., 2004;
CH2MHill, 2010). However, mortality is likely to be higher at the project than at other wind
developments within the TWRA due to its proximity to a known migratory passage (Jawbone
Canyon/Kelso Valley) and migratory stopover (Butterbredt Springs). Additional studies are
currently ongoing and are scheduled to be completed in early summer 2011. As described above,
most species that migrate through the area travel well above the rotor-swept area, but migrants
descending toward or ascending from Butterbredt Springs may fly through that elevation range,
greatly increasing their risk for collision. In addition, several special-status species have been
observed in the project area, including golden eagle, Swainson’s hawk, prairie falcon, ferruginous
hawk, willow flycatcher, and loggerhead shrike, among others. Any mortality of special-status
species would be significant.
It should be noted that the majority of birds observed during surveys, including passerines, corvids,
upland game birds, and raptors that otherwise have no special status, are covered by the MBTA and
any take of these species would also be significant. Therefore, mitigation measures would be
required to minimize risk to all birds. Several measures would be implemented to reduce impacts
associated with avian and bat collisions with WTGs, including minimized lighting on WTGs and
appurtenant structures (MMs 4.4-3 and 4.4-15), post-construction avian and bat mortality
monitoring, including a Mortality Analysis (MM 4.4-17), and supplemental mitigation if results of
the analysis indicate significant effects (MM 4.4-20). The project proponent(s) would also conduct
post-construction breeding monitoring, including a nesting analysis (MM 4.4-16), and implement
additional measures to reduce the potential for bird and bat impacts with WTGs (MM 4.4-18).
Any mortality of special-status birds or bats would be considered a significant impact. Although
mortality risks to birds and bats would be minimized through implementation of mitigation
measures, because these measures would not eliminate the risk of mortality of special-status species
through collisions with WTGs, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Electrocution and Collisions with Transmission Lines. California condors, Swainson’s hawks,
golden eagles, and other large aerial perching birds are susceptible to electrocution on power lines
because of their large size, distribution, and proclivity to perch on tall structures that offer views of
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐68 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
potential prey. The design characteristics of transmission towers/poles are a major factor in raptor
electrocutions. Electrocution occurs when a perching bird simultaneously contacts two energized
phase conductors or an energized conductor and grounded hardware. This happens most frequently
when a bird attempts to perch on a transmission tower/pole with insufficient clearance between
these elements. Electrocution can occur when horizontal separation is less than the wrist-to-wrist
(flesh-to-flesh) distance of a bird’s wingspan or where vertical separation is less than a bird’s length
from head-to-foot. Electrocution can also occur when birds perched side-by-side span the distance
between these elements (APLIC, 2006).
The largest bird that could come in contact with the transmission lines of the project is the
California condor (wingspan of 9 feet, height of 4.2 feet) (APLIC, 2006). The golden eagle has a
wingspan of up to 7.5 feet (wrist-to-wrist length of 3.5 feet) and height up to 2.2 feet (APLIC,
2006). The Swainson’s hawk has a 4.5-foot wingspan, and can be 1.3 feet tall. The red-tailed hawk
is the most common large raptor that could come in contact with the subtransmission lines and are
widespread in the project area. The red-tailed hawk’s wingspan is up to 4.7 feet (wrist-to-wrist
length of 1.9 feet) and height up to 1.8 feet (APLIC, 2006). Other large birds that could in contact
with the subtransmission lines are the raven (3.5 to 4-foot wingspan, 1.3 feet tall), turkey vulture
(5.8-foot wingspan, two-foot wrist-to-wrist length, 1.8 feet tall) and great horned owl (4.3-foot
wingspan, 2.1-foot wrist-to-wrist length, 1.3 feet tall) (APLIC, 2006).
Raptors that use the towers/poles for nesting could be electrocuted while landing. Furthermore,
nests may be built in areas that are susceptible to electrical charges that could result in fire as well as
an electrical outage. Although most raptor electrocutions are caused by lines that are energized at
voltage levels between 1 kilovolt (kV) and 69 kV, and “the likelihood of electrocutions occurring at
voltages greater than 69 kV is extremely low” (APLIC, 2006), the project could result in the
electrocution of special-status and State and/or federally protected bird species. Low-voltage aboveground electrical collections systems as well as 230-kV transmission lines are included as
components of the project.
Bird collisions with power lines generally occur when a power line or other aerial structure transects
a daily flight path used by a concentration of birds, or migrants are traveling at reduced altitudes and
encounter tall structures in their path. Collision rates generally increase in low light conditions,
during inclement weather such as rain or snow, during strong winds, and during panic flushes when
birds are startled by a disturbance or are fleeing from danger. Collisions are more probable near
wetlands, valleys that are bisected by power lines, and within narrow passes where power lines run
perpendicular to flight paths. Passerines and waterfowl are known to collide with wires, particularly
during nocturnal migrations or poor weather conditions (APLIC, 2006). However, passerines and
waterfowl have a lower potential for collisions than larger birds, such as raptors. Some behavioral
factors contribute to a lower collision mortality rate for these birds. Passerines and waterfowl tend
to fly under power lines, while larger species generally fly over lines and risk colliding with higher
static lines.
Current guidelines for constructing power lines have been developed to minimize the potential
effects from bird strikes and electrocution. To reduce the effects associated with bird strikes and
electrocution resulting from implementation of the project, power collection and transmission
facilities will be designed to be raptor-safe in accordance with the current Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee Guidelines (MM 4.4-19).
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐69 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Displacement of Sensitive Avian and Bat Species. The amount of habitat permanently disturbed
by the project is small (2.3 percent of the project site), but the area impacted by moving rotors
extends for many meters and could potentially disturb or displace nesting and foraging birds and
bats, which could affect their survivorship. Given that a relatively high level of avian nesting
activity was observed in the project study area, especially for raptors, the project may significantly
affect avian survivorship due to displacement.
Surveys for roosting bats have not been conducted to date, but numerous rock outcrops, large trees,
and mine adits (entrances) occur in the project and surrounding areas that provide potential roosting
habitat. Bat use of the project area was found to be high at two locations sampled (Cottonwood
Creek and a spring-fed stock pond). However, the data at the project were collected at sites
containing water features that are attractive to bats. Individual bats are likely to spend long periods
of time at these locations as they forage, drink, or interact socially, and an individual bat may be
recorded multiple times. As a result, these data likely provide an upper-bound for the estimated
activity levels of bats within the project area.
Data collection for bat use is ongoing at a number of other sites across the project, which is
expected to provide a better understanding of bat use in the area as a whole. The results of this study
will be included in the Final EIR for the project. Based on preliminary data, it is assumed that
displacement of bats would occur, and these impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation
measures would be implemented to reduce impacts associated with avian and bat displacement.
These would include development and implementation of a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation
Plan (MM 4.4-4), pre-construction nesting surveys and establishing buffers around occupied nests
(MM 4.4-10), post-construction breeding monitoring (MM 4.4-16), and nursery colony surveys and
avoidance measures (MM 4.4-13).
Raptor Displacement. In addition to possible direct effects on raptors within the study area
(discussed above), indirect effects caused by disturbance-type impacts, such as construction activity
near an active nest or primary foraging area, also have the potential to impact raptor species. Raptor
nest surveys to date have found numerous nests, both active and historic, for several raptor species.
Golden eagles are known to nest at several locations within 10 miles of the project site, but to date
no active or historic nests have been identified on site. However, six active golden eagle nests were
identified within 10 miles of the project boundaries during spring 2011 aerial surveys (CH2MHill,
2011c) with the closest inactive nest being located two miles from the project boundary and closest
active nest being located 3.8 miles from the project site, and foraging golden eagles have been
observed in the project area on numerous occasions. Additionally, eight prairie falcon nest sites
were documented within 10 miles of the project during winter 2010 and spring 2011 aerial surveys,
and three of these were within or adjacent to the project boundaries. A total of 47 raptor nest
locations have been recorded during aerial surveys to date, with 13 nest locations documented
within the project boundaries (CH2MHill, 2011c). The 13 nests within the project area included two
prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), one great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and 10 unknown raptor
nests. Unknown raptor nests were not associated with any raptor or corvid species at the time of
observation, but the nest locations were documented for future survey efforts due to the potential for
the nests to become occupied (CH2MHill, 2011c). Overall, raptor nest density within the project
area is relatively high compared to most other regional wind-energy facilities, and foraging habitat
is abundant.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐70 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Several raptor species were observed in the project study area, including Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed
hawk, American peregrine falcon, sharp-shinned hawk, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s
hawk, northern harrier, long-eared owl, osprey, merlin, and prairie falcon. Birds displaced from
wind-energy facilities might move to areas with fewer disturbances, but lower quality habitat, with
an overall effect of reducing breeding success. Most studies on raptor displacement at wind-energy
facilities; however, indicate effects to be negligible (Johnson et al., 2002, 2003; Madders and
Whitfield, 2006). Notable exceptions to this include a 2005 study that described territorial golden
eagles avoiding the entire wind-energy facility area, except when intercepting non-territorial birds
(Walker et al., 2005). A study at the Buffalo Ridge wind-energy facility in Minnesota found
evidence of northern harriers avoiding WTGs on both a small scale (< 328 feet [100 meters] from
WTGs) and a larger scale in the year following construction (Johnson et al., 2002). Two years after
construction; however, no large-scale displacement of northern harriers was detected.
Some studies have been published that suggest avoidance of WTGs by nesting raptors. One study
occurred at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, where raptor nest density on 101 square miles of land
surrounding a wind project was one nest per 1.65 square miles, yet no nests were present in the 12
square miles wind-energy facility itself, even though habitat was similar (Usgaard et al., 1997).
However, this analysis assumes that raptor nests are uniformly distributed across the landscape, an
unlikely event, and even though no nests were found, only two would be expected for an area 12
square miles in size if the nests were distributed uniformly.
Another study conducted at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) radio-tracked
various age classes of golden eagles, including breeding individuals. The surveys showed that
breeding eagles rarely entered the APWRA, whereas nonterritorial eagles tended to move about
freely throughout the study area, often visiting the APWRA (Hunt et al., 1999). However, at a wind
energy facility in eastern Washington, based on extensive monitoring using helicopter flights and
ground observations, raptors still nested in the area at the same levels after construction, and several
nests were located within 0.5 mile of WTGs (Erickson et al., 2004). At the Foote Creek Rim WindEnergy Facility in southern Wyoming, one pair of red-tailed hawks nested within 0.3 mile of the
WTG strings, and seven red-tailed hawk, one great horned owl, and one golden eagle nests located
within one mile of the wind farm successfully fledged young (Johnson et al., 2000). The golden
eagle pair successfully nested 0.5 mile from the wind farm for three different years after it became
operational. A Swainson’s hawk also nested within 0.25 mi (0.8 km) of a WTG string at the
Klondike I wind-energy facility in Oregon after the facility was operational (Johnson et al., 2003).
Although these observations suggest that there would be limited nesting displacement of some
raptors in the project area, others such as golden eagles may be displaced from much of the site.
Displaced raptors would potentially be forced into lower-quality habitats in the region, or would be
subject to high levels of competition from birds already established in areas that they are displaced
into. However, raptors that avoid the project area would be at a lower risk for direct mortality
through collision with WTGS and/or collision and electrocution on project power lines.
Mitigation would be implemented to reduce impacts associated with raptor displacement. These
measures include development and implementation of a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan
(MM 4.4-4), pre-construction nesting surveys and establishing buffers around occupied nests (MM
4.4-10), and post-construction breeding monitoring and additional conservation measures if
significant unanticipated impacts are found to occur (MM 4.4-20). With the implementation of
these measures, impacts associated with avian and bat displacement would be considered less than
significant.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐71 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Passerine Bird Species Displacement. Studies concerning displacement of non-raptor species have
concentrated on grassland passerines (Larsen and Madsen, 2000; Mabey and Paul, 2007;
Winkelman, 1990). Wind-energy facility construction appears to cause small-scale local
displacement of grassland passerines and is likely due to the birds avoiding WTG noise and
maintenance activities. Construction also reduces habitat suitability because of the presence of
access roads and large gravel pads surrounding WTGs (Johnson et al., 2000; Leddy, 1996). Leddy
et al. (1999) surveyed bird densities in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands at the
Buffalo Ridge wind-energy facility in Minnesota, and found mean densities of 10 grassland bird
species were four times higher at areas located 180 meters (591 feet) from WTGs than they were at
grasslands nearer WTGs. Johnson et al. (2000) found reduced use of habitat by seven of 22
grassland-breeding birds following construction of the Buffalo Ridge wind energy facility in
Minnesota. Results from the Stateline wind-energy facility in Oregon and Washington (Erickson et
al., 2004), and the Combine Hills wind-energy facility in Oregon (Young et al., 2005), suggest a
relatively small impact of the wind-energy facilities on grassland-nesting passerines. Transect
surveys conducted prior to and after construction of the wind-energy facilities found that grassland
passerine use was significantly reduced within 50 meters (164 feet) of WTG strings, but areas
further away from WTG strings did not have reduced bird use.
All studies have shown that there is some displacement of passerine birds at wind energy facilities.
However, it is generally low and is not expected to be a significant impact for the project. The
region surrounding the project area is largely undeveloped and would provide alternative habitat for
displaced individuals. Because passerine use in the region has not been documented to be extremely
high, these displaced individuals would not be expected to exceed the carrying capacity of nearby
suitable habitats. However, the project area likely supports a relatively large number of migrant
passerines in the spring, but migrants are expected to use nearby areas such as Butterbredt Springs,
Kelso Creek, and the South Fork Kern River more than the project area. Even with migrant use of
the area, passerine displacement is not expected to be significant. Mitigation such as development
and implementation of a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4), pre-construction
nesting surveys and establishing buffers around occupied nests (MM 4.4-10), and post-construction
breeding monitoring (MM 4.4-16) would further reduce impacts associated with displacement of
passerine species.
Special‐Status Species Special-Status Plants
The NSRP proponent conducted detailed special-status plant surveys on most of the NSRP site in
2010 (CH2MHill, 2010). The NSRP surveys covered the disturbance areas as identified in the
NSRP site plan dated May 24, 2010. The site plan has since changed slightly, but the 2010 surveys
covered habitats representative of the entire project area. Appropriately-timed surveys would be
required in any newly identified areas of disturbance not previously surveyed (including the JWEP
site and NSRP and JWEP gen-tie lines and access roads) to avoid potential impacts to sensitive
plants or quantify their loss for mitigation; however, no additional sensitive species beyond those
considered in this analysis are expected to occur in these areas, and based on the small areas subject
to project disturbance, this would not constitute an unmitigated impact.
The JWEP proponent has provided the results of the on-site surveys that were conducted in
association with the Hoffman Summit Project on nine days between September 20, 2006 and
October 18, 2006, during which time any observations of special-status species across the entire
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐72 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
12,000-acre Hoffman Summit Project study area were recorded. Although Sapphos (2010) indicates
in the Jawbone Wind Energy Project, Biological Resources Technical Report that no special-status
plants were detected in the JWEP area during surveys, the project area supports suitable habitat for
a variety of these plants including the State-listed Rare Tracy’s eriastrum.
Table 4.4-2 presents the special-status plants that were identified during surveys and those that may
occur within the project area, as well as the habitats in which they typically occur. A number of
special-status plants were identified during surveys of the NSRP area. Because habitats within the
JWEP are similar to those found in the southern section of the NSRP, special-status plants found
there could also occur on the JWEP site. The JWEP site does not contain unique habitats or features
that are not found on the NSRP site, and the same special-status species would have the potential to
occur on the JWEP and NSRP sites. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the results of the
2010 botanical studies conducted on the NSRP site are considered representative of the entire
project area. However, because of the paucity of site-specific data on the JWEP site, mitigation has
been included to require floristic botanical surveys prior to any ground disturbance in this site.
Fifteen (15) special-status plants were identified on site during surveys for the project and the
previously proposed Hoffman Summit Wind Energy Project (see Table 4.4-2). Included in this total
is a previously undescribed species of the genus Triteleia that was discovered during the NSRP
botanical surveys. If the Triteleia sp. is confirmed to be a new species with no other known
locations, then it would be protected under CEQA section 15380(d). Therefore, this species is
considered special-status in this analysis. One State-listed Endangered plant, the Mojave tarplant,
was abundant within the project area; 10 sites with 15,000 individuals were observed. Tracy’s
eriastrum, State-listed Rare, was mapped at 32 locations, totaling 25,000 individuals. Potential
habitat for this species also occurs within the JWEP site. To date, populations of these species have
not been detected in areas proposed for disturbance; however final engineering of the facility has
not been completed. As proposed, the project proponents intend to avoid populations of listed plant
species during construction of the project. In addition to these species, 25 special-status plant
species have a moderate or high potential to occur in the project area.
Direct impacts to special-status plant species present on site could occur in a variety of ways,
including the direct removal of plants during the course of construction. Clearing and grading
associated with the placement of WTGs and transmission towers or the grading of access roads may
also result in the alteration of soil conditions, including the loss of native seed banks and changes to
the topography and drainage of a site such that the capability of the habitat to support special-status
species is impaired. Dust from road travel, grading, or other construction activities may also reduce
photosynthetic capacity in plants over time or inhibit reproduction by physically coating
reproductive structures or excluding insect pollinators. Potential indirect impacts include the
creation of conditions that are favorable for the invasion of weedy exotic species that outcompete
native species and prevent the establishment of desirable vegetation. Potential operational impacts
include trampling or crushing due to use of new or improved access roads, increased erosion, and
the spread and colonization of noxious weeds. Other potential operational impacts include removal
and trimming of vegetation during maintenance activities. Impacts to State-listed plant species
(Mojave tarplant and Tracy’s eriastrum) would require consultation with CDFG under CESA.
Should federally listed plants be identified within proposed disturbance areas, the project
proponent(s) would be required to consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the federal ESA if
the plants occur on federal lands. For private lands the project proponent(s) would be required to
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐73 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
comply with mitigation requirements required by the lead agency and coordinate with the USFWS
and CDFG.
Impacts to special-status plants (federally or State-listed and/or CRPR 1 and 2 species) would be
considered significant absent mitigation. However, implementation of rare plant surveys, avoidance,
and restoration/compensation (MM 4.4-9) as well as development and implementation of a Habitat
Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4) and the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM
4.4-5) would reduce impacts to special-status plants to less than significant. Impacts to CRPR 3 and
4 species would be less than significant.
Special-Status Wildlife
Kern Shoulderband, Whitefir Shoulderband. Surveys for invertebrates were not conducted by
the project proponent for the project. However, there is a moderate potential for Kern shoulderband
and whitefir shoulderband to occur based on known distributions and habitat use for these species
(CNDDB, 2011). Direct impacts to special-status snails, if present, could include crushing by
vehicular or foot traffic during construction activities and permanent loss of habitat. Potential
indirect impacts to these species include compaction of soils and the introduction of exotic plant or
animal species (i.e., Argentine ants, brown garden snail [Cornu aspersum; formerly Helix aspersa]
or decollate snails [Rumina decollate]). Operational impacts could include risk of mortality due to
increased use of the project area by maintenance personnel. Although these species may be subject
to direct, indirect, and operational impacts as a result of implementation of the project, Kern
shoulderband and whitefir shoulderband are expected to be widely distributed throughout Kern
County in microhabitats that support suitable soil moisture, foliage, and cover. Impacts associated
with the project would be localized and are not likely to result in significant effects to viable
populations of these species. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Tehachapi Slender Salamander, Yellow-Blotched Salamander. A habitat evaluation for these
species was conducted at the NSRP in June, 2010 (Appendix D of CH2MHill, 2010). Yellowblotched salamanders occur at all known Tehachapi slender salamander localities and both species
have been found beneath the same cover object at some sites (Appendix D of CH2MHill, 2010), so
potential habitat within the project area was considered suitable for both species. The habitat
evaluation occurred at the end of the typical activity period for these species and during a time when
conditions were generally too dry to support surface activity, and no individuals of either species
were detected. Potential suitable habitat for the Tehachapi slender salamander and yellow-blotched
salamander was identified in the southwestern portion of the project area based on the May 24,
2010 NSRP description. The area of potential suitable habitat for these salamanders has since been
eliminated from the project description.
Potential direct impacts to these species include mechanical crushing during turbine site
preparation, grading of new access roads, and preparation of staging locations; fugitive dust; and
general disturbance due to increased human activity. Furthermore, project implementation may
result in permanent loss of habitat due to permanent structures and/or roads and temporary loss of
habitat from construction activities. Water quality degradation caused by spills of toxic materials
(i.e., fuels, lubricants, paint) or sedimentation could directly impact salamander eggs, larvae, and
adults. In addition, if water diversions or groundwater drawdown were to occur and result in
impacts to Cottonwood Creek or any springs or seeps on site, this could also result in a loss of
habitat and potential mortality to one or both of these species, if present. Potential indirect impacts
to these species include compaction of soils and the introduction of exotic plant and animal (i.e.,
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐74 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Argentine ants) species. Potential operational impacts include risk of mortality by vehicles and
disturbance near access roads if maintenance personnel drove into potential salamander habitat.
Salamanders would not be expected to enter roadways, as they typically remain under leaf litter,
rocks, downed logs, and other areas with high levels of moisture.
With the implementation of the mitigation measures described below, including pre-construction
sweeps, construction monitoring, and recovery/relocation (MMs 4.4-8 and 4.4-6) and restoration of
temporary impacts to vegetation communities (MM 4.4-4), impacts to yellow-blotched salamanders
would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. If Tehachapi slender salamander is found in or near
a work area during pre-construction focused surveys, a disturbance-free buffer would be established
and CDFG would be consulted for the appropriate permits before construction can proceed in that
location (MM 4.4-8). Impacts to Tehachapi slender salamanders, if present, would be reduced to
less-than-significant levels.
Coast Horned Lizard, Silvery Legless Lizard. Coast horned lizard and silvery legless lizard are
both present in the project area (CH2MHill, 2010; Sapphos, 2010). Potential habitat for both species
is distributed throughout much of the project area.
Potential direct impacts to these species include being hit by vehicles on access roads; mechanical
crushing during WTG site preparation, grading of new access roads, and preparation of staging
locations; fugitive dust; and general disturbance due to increased human activity. Furthermore,
project implementation may result in permanent loss of habitat due to permanent structures and/or
roads and temporary loss of habitat from construction activities. Individuals of these species could
be injured or killed during ground-disturbing project activities in undeveloped habitat throughout
the project area. Potential indirect impacts to these species include compaction of soils and the
introduction of exotic plant and animal (i.e., Argentine ants) species. Potential operational impacts
include risk of mortality by vehicles and disturbance on access roads due to increased use by
maintenance personnel.
Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce the potential for impacts to
coast horned lizard and silvery legless lizard, if present, through development and implementation
of a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4), the development of a Weed Control
Plan (MM 4.4-5), monitoring and relocation of special-status species in the work area (MM 4.4-6),
worker environmental training (MM 4.4-7), reporting dead or injured special-status species (MM
4.4-21), pre-construction sweeps for special-status wildlife (MM 4.4-8), covering all steep-walled
excavations (MM 4.4-21), and maintaining a speed limit of 15 mph (MM 4.4-21).
Western Pond Turtle. Western pond turtle was not identified in the project area during surveys,
but potential habitat exists in portions of Cottonwood Creek as well as several small ponds located
on site. While the ponds are not likely to be subject to project impacts, access roads may be
constructed across portions of Cottonwood Creek that could support this species.
The western pond turtle is normally found in and along riparian areas, although overland
movements of up to 500 meters or more between areas of aquatic habitat have been documented
(Reese, 1996). In addition, nesting and overwintering have each been recorded over 400 meters
from watercourses, although these activities typically occur closer (Reese, 1996). The preferred
habitat for these turtles includes ponds or slow-moving water with numerous basking sites (logs,
rocks, etc.), food sources (plants, aquatic invertebrates, and carrion), and few predators (raccoons,
introduced fishes, and bullfrogs). Juvenile and adult turtles are commonly seen basking in the sun at
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐75 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
appropriate sites, although they are extremely wary animals and often dive into the water at any
perception of danger.
Direct effects to western pond turtle may occur from construction activity as a result of mechanical
crushing; loss of nesting, breeding or basking sites; and human trampling. Disturbance would be
associated with the removal of vegetation, construction and widening of access roads, excavation of
footings, and construction of WTGs and/or overhead power line and transmission towers adjacent
to areas that support this species. Disruption of basking activity and potential impacts to western
pond turtles may result from construction activities, if pond turtles are moving from the creek to
basking sites. Access road use, including grading of existing roads, could also result in direct
mortality from mechanical crushing or from the importation of sediment laden waters into existing
drainages.
Direct impacts to western pond turtles could also result from temporary impacts to water quality,
fugitive dust, temporary loss of upland nesting sites and foraging habitat, disruption of breeding
activity, or disturbance of basking sites. Juvenile western pond turtles typically move from nesting
sites in adjacent upland or riparian areas to the stream in the spring (Buskirk, 1992). Hatchlings are
very small, often less than one inch, and may be inadvertently trampled during project construction.
In addition, access to zooplankton, an important hatchling food source, may be disrupted if water
quality were to be severely degraded by project construction.
Potential indirect impacts to western pond turtle include alteration of habitat that would preclude
pond turtle use, degradation of water quality over time due to siltation and sedimentation, and the
spread of noxious weeds. Operational impacts include risk of mortality by vehicles and disturbance
on access roads due to increased use by maintenance personnel. Other operational impacts include
removal and trimming of vegetation during maintenance activities.
The greatest potential for injury or mortality to western pond turtles as a result of project activities is
the damage or destruction of nesting areas. Since western pond turtles often nest communally,
damage or destruction of a nesting area could result in injury or mortality to a large number of
incubating eggs or hatchling turtles and could disrupt egg-laying activities of adult female turtles.
Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce the potential for impacts to
western pond turtle, if present, through development and implementation of a Habitat Restoration
and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4), the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM 4.4-5),
monitoring and relocation of special-status species in the work area (MM 4.4-6), worker
environmental training (MM 4.4-7), reporting dead or injured special-status species (MM 4.4.8),
pre-construction sweeps for special-status wildlife (MM 4.4-8), covering all steep-walled
excavations (MM 4.4-21), and maintaining a speed limit of 15 mph (MM 4.4-21).
Desert Tortoise. Several records for desert tortoise exist in the vicinity of the project in Jawbone
Canyon and Pine Tree Canyon (CH2MHill, 2010). Additionally the NSRP proponent modeled
some areas of moderate potential desert tortoise habitat along project access roads and within the
northern and eastern portions of the project area (CH2MHill, 2010). Surveys following the USFWS
1992 and 2010 protocols (USFWS, 1992; 2010b) were conducted for desert tortoise in 2010. The
survey area consisted of the unpaved portion of Jawbone Canyon Road that runs along the eastern
and northern sides of the project boundary, Gold Canyon Road, and proposed disturbance areas in
the eastern and northern portions of the project area (see Figure 6-1 and Appendix E of CH2MHill,
2010). Along Jawbone Canyon and Gold Canyon Roads, the surveys included Zone of Influence
(ZOI) transects at 100’, 300’, 600’, 1,200’ and 2,400’, following 1992 USFWS protocol. However,
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐76 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
the 2010 USFWS protocol requires 10-meter (~30’) wide transects to account for the low density of
tortoises typically found in portions of the Mojave Desert. The northern portion of Jawbone Canyon
Road and the proposed disturbance corridors within the project area were surveyed using 30-meter
(~100’) transects. This reduced the detection rate of tortoises in the project area.
One female desert tortoise was found in the mouth of a burrow, 549 feet east of Jawbone Canyon
Road along a hill slope. This location is 0.2 mile south of the switchback area that would likely
need to be reconstructed in order to allow the passage of large construction equipment. Three adult
tortoises, eight scat detections, one courtship ring indicating recent reproductive activity, a female
carcass, and a juvenile carcass were identified along Gold Canyon Road. Five active tortoise
burrows and four additional tortoise burrows that were estimated to have been used within the last
year, but were lacking fresh sign, were also detected in the Gold Canyon Road survey area.
Tortoises and their sign (burrows, tracks, scat, carcasses, etc.) were not detected within the survey
areas in the project site (Appendix E of CH2MHill, 2010). However, because surveys in these areas
were conducted using much wider transects than what is currently required by USFWS (2010b), the
potential remains that tortoises could occur within the project area in potential habitat (black brush
scrub, California juniper woodland, Mojave mixed woody scrub) within the northern and eastern
portions of the site.
The detection of four adult tortoises, two carcasses (including a juvenile), and abundant sign along
Gold Canyon and Jawbone Canyon Roads east of the project site indicate that tortoise occur in the
area. This area is part of the Sierra/Mojave/Tehachapi transition zone, and is at the western edge of
the desert tortoise’s known range. It is unclear where the tortoise population drops off in the area,
but it is possible some individuals occur within potential disturbance areas in the project site. Based
on the survey data, it is not possible to extrapolate tortoise density or population numbers. The
actual number of desert tortoises on the project site cannot be determined from the field survey data
alone, due to the likelihood that some tortoises may have been overlooked during surveys (e.g., they
may have been in deep burrows where they could not be seen, were obscured by brush or
topography, or merely overlooked by the surveyor due to the width of the transects). Juvenile
tortoises and tortoise eggs are also often overlooked during surveys. Juvenile tortoises are extremely
difficult to detect because of their small size and their cryptic nature and account for 31 to 51
percent of the overall tortoise population (Turner et al., 1987). However, as this area will largely be
subject only to road use and road grading, the surveys provide adequate information to confirm
tortoise presence in the project area along Jawbone Canyon Road.
The NSRP proponent is no longer proposing to use Gold Canyon Road as an access road, but
Jawbone Canyon Road would be used for access to the northern portion of the site. Switchbacks
occurring along this road, 0.2 mile north of one of the desert tortoises detected during the
presence/absence surveys, may need to be reconstructed in order to allow access for large
construction equipment. Any work along this road could potentially result in injury or mortality of
desert tortoises or loss of burrows in proximity to the road. While this road is currently open to the
public and provides access between Kelso Valley and Jawbone Canyon, the amount of traffic on
this road is currently low. During the construction phase, traffic along this road would increase
substantially, resulting in a much higher risk of impacts to desert tortoise. However, the period of
above ground activity for the desert tortoise is typically associated with a two to three month period
in the spring and early summer and about two months in the fall. However, this species may emerge
in summer in response to summer rains, or during warm spells in winter. Much of the construction
activity will be outside the window of above-ground activity.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐77 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Potential direct impacts to desert tortoise associated with construction of the project would include
mortality due to collisions with vehicles or heavy equipment, loss of habitat, fugitive dust,
entombment within or crushing of burrows, entrapment within open trenches or holes, and
increased noise and vibration levels. Desert tortoises may also be attracted to the construction area
by shade beneath vehicles, equipment, or materials, or the application of water to control dust,
placing them at higher risk of injury or mortality. Compared to current conditions, increased use of
access roads during operation would also occur, although traffic levels would be substantially lower
than during the construction phase. However, if tortoises occur within the project site, even light use
of roads would present an ongoing risk of injury and mortality for tortoises. In addition, noise from
WTGs could interfere with tortoise predator avoidance behavior by masking the approach of
predators such as coyotes. Potential indirect project impacts include the introduction of non-native,
invasive plant species, soil compaction, and increases in predators such as common ravens, kit fox,
and coyotes.
Construction and operation of wind developments could provide resources in the form of trash,
litter, or water, which attract and subsidize unnaturally high numbers of predators such as the
common raven, kit fox, and coyote. This influx of predators could then place unnaturally high
predation pressure on desert tortoises and other special-status species in the region. Predation of
juvenile tortoises by common ravens is a well-documented source of mortality for tortoise
populations throughout the Mojave Desert.
Ravens habituate to human activities and are subsidized by the food and water, as well as roosting
and nesting resources, that are introduced or augmented by human encroachment. Ravens were
observed during site visits of the project area. Ravens may also use the new transmission line
structures as potential nest and perch sites, increasing the potential for loss of tortoises from raven
predation. Currently the USFWS has provided recommendations for contributing fees to a regional
raven management plan for projects in and near desert tortoise habitat. This fee is used to offset
project impacts to desert tortoise from increased raven predation associated with transmission lines
and other structures.
Activities that result in the harm, harassment, mortality, or degradation of habitat utilized by desert
tortoises would be considered a “take” by the USFWS and CDFG. Consultation with the USFWS
and the CDFG would be required to ensure compliance with the ESA and CESA, respectively.
Mitigation proposed below, including clearance surveys, temporary tortoise fencing, and the
development of a desert tortoise mitigation and monitoring plan if tortoises or signs of active use in
the project area by tortoises are discovered (MM 4.4-21), development and implementation of a
Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4), the development of a Weed Control Plan
(MM 4.4-5), worker environmental training (MM 4.4-7), pre-construction sweeps for special-status
wildlife (MM 4.4-8), covering or fencing all steep-walled excavations (MM 4.4-21), preparing a
project-specific Raven Management Plan and contributing to the USFWS regional raven
management program (MM 4.4-11), and maintaining a 15 mph speed limit (MM 4.4-21) would
reduce impacts to desert tortoise.
The project area is not located within USFWS designated critical habitat for desert tortoise.
Therefore, impacts to desert tortoise critical habitat would not occur.
Golden Eagle. The golden eagle is a permanent resident in the Tehachapi and Piute Mountains
where numerous shallow caves, ledges, and rocky outcrops occur. This species was observed
foraging in the project on more than 50 occasions during surveys conducted over all four seasons,
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐78 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
including surveys at the site for the previously proposed Hoffman Summit Wind Energy Project
(CH2MHill, 2010; Sapphos, 2010). In addition, a total of 15 golden eagle nest sites were detected
within 10 miles of the project boundary during aerial nest surveys conducted during winter 2010
and spring 2011 (CH2MHill, 2011, 2011c). Six of these were determined to be active in 2011, eight
were determined to be inactive at the time of surveys. One additional inactive nest was identified as
a remnant nest and was deteriorated beyond use (CH2MHill, 2011c). One active nest is within four
miles of a proposed WTG. This nest is located on a north-facing cliff and is not in line of sight of
the project. One nest that was determined to be inactive in 2011 is located within two miles of the
project. Three passes on separate occasions were conducted at this nest location to ensure that no
eagles were visiting or occupying the nest (CH2MHill, 2011c). It is clear that the project area and
the region in general support a medium to high density golden eagle population.
Potential direct impacts to golden eagles include the loss of or disruption of foraging habitat and
noise from construction activities and human disturbance. The most significant concern for this
species with regard to the project, however, is collision with project infrastructure, including WTGs
and transmission lines. Impacts related to collision with WTGs for birds, including golden eagles,
are discussed above.
A four-year study was conducted at the Altamont Pass WRA from January 1994 through December
1997 to investigate the ecology of the species in the vicinity of the WRA. Eagles were tagged with
radio transmitters equipped with mortality sensors (a total of 79 juveniles, 106 subadults, 40
floaters, and 43 breeders). Aerial surveys were conducted weekly, weather permitting, to locate the
radio-tagged eagles and monitor their survival. During the four-year study period, the deaths of a
total of 61 radio-tagged golden eagles were recorded. Of these, 23 (38 percent) were caused by
wind turbine blade strikes and 10 (16 percent) by electrocutions on distribution lines, all outside the
Altamont Pass WRA. Additional fatalities went unrecorded because turbine blade strikes destroyed
the transmitter in an estimated 30 percent of cases. The aerial surveys showed that breeding eagles
rarely entered the WRA, whereas nonterritorial eagles tended to move about freely throughout the
study area, often visiting the WRA (Hunt et al., 1999).
While the turbines associated with this study are of an older technology and may pose more risk to
golden eagles than the WTGs proposed for use at the project site, little data is known about the
effects of these newer, larger WTGs on golden eagles. In addition, three golden eagles were known
to have been killed at Tehachapi-area wind farms recently (CH2MHill, 2011b). Two of these
fatalities occurred at the Pine Tree Wind Development located adjacent to the project to the south.
Golden eagles would be at a high risk of collision with WTGs at the project site, given the
proximity to areas of known eagle collisions as well as the abundance of high-quality foraging
habitat at the site. Golden eagles routinely use the project site for foraging, as evidenced by the
large number of golden eagles observed at the site during surveys for the project as well as the
former Hoffman Summit Wind Energy Project. Eagles may also be displaced from the site during
certain life stages, as the Altamont Pass WRA study indicated an avoidance of the WRA by
breeding individuals. This could result in a significant loss of foraging habitat for the eagles that are
known to nest within 10 miles of the project.
Golden eagles commence nest building prior to most other birds, and disruption of nest building or
the abandonment of existing nest sites could occur should eagles nest within one mile of
construction activities in the project area. This species is sensitive to human encroachment and if
nests are disturbed by humans, nest abandonment will typically occur (Thelander, 1974).
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐79 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
The USFWS is the primary federal authority charged with the management of golden eagles in the
United States. On November 10, 2009 the USFWS implemented new rules (74 FR 46835)
governing the “take” of golden and bald eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(USFWS, 2009). The new rules were released under the existing Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act which has been the primary regulation protection 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. Due to the current uncertainty on the status of golden eagle populations in western
United States, it is expected 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 (USFWS, 2009). The project would likely require either a standard or
programmatic take permit under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Golden eagles are a resident species in the project region and have been routinely observed foraging
over the project study area. It is unknown to what extent golden eagles will use or forage on the
project site after development. Eagles that do forage in the area would be exposed to greater risk of
collision with WTGs. Conversely, eagles that avoid the area due to the presence of the WTGs will
lose access to foraging habitat. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that implementation
of the project would essentially remove up to 13,535 acres of foraging habitat for this species
(considering that some birds would likely avoid the entire project area once WTGs are constructed).
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 proponent(s) to obtain a take permit for golden eagles. 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.
Indirect impacts to golden eagles would include the loss of habitat due to the establishment of
noxious weeds. Operational impacts would include collision with WTGs and transmission lines (as
described above), electrocution on project power lines, noise generated by operation of the WTGs,
and disturbance of birds due to the presence of maintenance personnel.
Implementation of mitigation measures for development and implementation of a Habitat
Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4) and the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM
4.4-5) would reduce impacts associated with loss of foraging habitat for this species. However, the
large scale loss of foraging habitat would require the project proponent(s) to provide documentation
of compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (MM 4.4-12) to offset potential loss
of this species in the project area. This may involve enhancing other lands or reducing threats to
golden eagle nests in other locations. Furthermore, several mitigation measures would be
implemented to reduce impacts associated with collisions and electrocution risks. These include
minimized lighting on WTGs and appurtenant structures (MMs 4.4-3 and 4.4-15); post-construction
avian and bat mortality monitoring, including a Mortality Analysis (MM 4.4-17); supplemental
mitigation if results of the analysis indicate significant effects (MM 4.4-20); siting WTGs away
from the upwind sides of ridge crests, designing turbine pads and foundations to minimize small
mammal (prey) abundance, and using bird deterrents on guy wires for meteorological towers (MM
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐80 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
4.4-18); and designing transmission facilities to be raptor-safe in accordance with the current Avian
Power Line Interaction Committee Guidelines (MM 4.4-19). However, while the mitigation
proposed above would minimize risks to golden eagles, because any impacts to this species are
considered significant and unavoidable and because there is no feasible mitigation to ensure that no
impacts to golden eagles would occur, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
The information obtained from the winter 2010 and spring 2011 aerial surveys 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.
California Condor. Prehistorically, the California condor ranged widely over much of the southern
United States. This species disappeared from much of this range during the late Pleistocene
extinction of North American megafauna about 10,000 to 11,000 years ago. By the time Europeans
began settling in western North America, the condor range was limited to a narrow Pacific coastal
strip extending from British Columbia, Canada to Baja California Norte (USFWS, 1996). The
California condor experienced a steady population decline during the 20th century that was primarily
related to factors including loss of habitat, low reproductive rate, poisoning, and shooting. By the
1980s, the condor range in California was restricted to a wishbone-shaped area encompassing six
counties just north of Los Angeles (USFWS, 1996). In 1982, less than 25 individuals remained in
the wild. In 1987 the last remaining wild condors were taken into captivity. In 1992 the first
reintroductions into the wild of captive-bred birds began, and reintroductions continue today. As of
February 28, 2011, the wild condor population in California numbered 99 individuals. The southern
California flock, which is the flock nearest the project, consisted of 33 free-flying adults and 10
wild-fledged young for a total of 43 birds (USFWS, 2011b).
This species is intensively monitored by the USFWS, and as of 2011 one-half of the birds in the
wild California population are tracked via GPS transmitters. This gives a good indication of the
main areas of condor use, but because one-half of wild birds are not tracked, the current distribution
of condors is likely larger than what is indicated by mapped GPS locations. However, the maps give
a general indication of areas of high condor use, as well as areas that condors forage in less
frequently. Further, these maps, when viewed over the last 10 years, indicate that the wild condor
population is quickly expanding throughout their former range and possibly beyond. That fact
increases concern that condors will utilize areas currently being proposed and developed for wind
energy, both in the Tehachapi area as well as in other parts of California.
The California condor was not observed in the project study area during surveys (CH2MHill, 2010;
Sapphos, 2010). A California condor risk assessment was developed by the NSRP proponent to
outline the potential risk to California condors associated with developing a wind energy facility
within the project site. This risk assessment included a review of California condor life history,
ecology, and behavior; used a resource selection probability function (RSPF) analysis to evaluate
habitat use of California condors in relation to available habitat in the project area; reviewed
relevant information on wind energy development impacts to related species of vultures; and
provided a qualitative assessment of the potential for California condor impacts at the project
(Johnson and Howlin, 2011). The risk assessment concluded that, based on a review of the relevant
literature, it is apparent that physical characteristics (e.g., high wing loading) and behavior (e.g.,
attraction to novel objects) would put California condors at risk of colliding with turbines in a wind
development. Also, data on flight heights indicate condors can spend considerable time flying at
heights within the potential rotor-swept heights of modern wind turbines. Furthermore, other related
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐81 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
species, such as Griffon, Egyptian, and turkey vultures, have been documented to collide with
commercial wind turbines. Based on this information, a wind energy facility built where California
condors commonly occur would likely be at risk for lethal take of this species (Johnson and Howlin,
2011). However, the assessment also concluded that condor use of the project site would likely be
low, despite the fact that the project area contains features related to habitat, topography, and
elevation that are suitable for use by California condors.
Results of the RSPF analysis indicate that the project has habitat features that are suitable for use by
California condors. Approximately half the 13,312-square-mile study area used for the RSPF
analysis above 200 meters elevation has higher probability of use than the project, and half has
lower probability of use by condors (maps provided in Johnson and Howlin, 2011; included in
Appendix E-1). Therefore, the assessment concluded the project is not more or less likely to be used
by condors than the surrounding area. Results of the RSPF analysis also indicate that most of the
project area would be ranked either low or moderate in terms of the potential for California condor
use, although small portions of the project area would have the potential for relatively higher use, as
shown in Figures 21 and 22 of Johnson and Howlin, 2011.
Results of the RSFP analysis indicate that at least portions of the NSR Project provide potentially
suitable habitat for California condors. Based on current habitat and spatial use by California
condors, construction of the project may result in relatively low risk to California condors (Johnson
and Howlin, 2011). However, if the population continues to increase in size and expand its range,
future use of the project area may become more likely, but the extent to which condors may use this
area in the future cannot be predicted at this time.
There are no reported accounts of California condor in the project area since the release program
began in 1992. A review of 161,896 GPS telemetry points over the period 2005 to 2010 provided by
the USFWS and extensive BUC surveys between May 18, 2010, and February 28, 2011 suggest
that the current population does not regularly use the project area. However, not all California
condors are outfitted with telemetry and BUC surveys only represent a temporal sample (Chatfield
and Bay, 2011a; Johnson and Howlin, 2011).
Potential range expansion using wind currents as a parameter is currently being studied by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). Risks to California condor at the project site may need to be reassessed following release of the USGS study.
It is thought that provision of supplemental food has reduced the foraging range of condors, and
elimination of this practice in the Tehachapi Mountains at Tejon Ranch could increase the foraging
range of the species. Although current plans call for continued feeding of condors at Tejon Ranch, it
is thought that supplemental feeding will no longer be required once the ban on lead ammunition
becomes fully effective (Johnson and Howlin, 2011). Therefore, condor foraging range in the
Tehachapi Mountains could expand in the future, and portions of the project area provide suitable
grassland and oak savannah foraging habitat. Rock outcrops, grey pines, and other large trees in the
project area could be used as roost sites. In addition, the project provides suitable habitat for big
game, primarily mule deer, and it is currently grazed by cattle, both of which are potential sources
of food for condors (Johnson and Howlin, 2011).
Despite the proximity of areas of high condor use (Tejon Ranch) to operating wind developments,
to date no condors have been reported colliding with WTGs. Sorenson et al. (2009) report that in
California, power lines are the number one cause of condor mortality with lead poisoning a close
second. In the early years of the condor reintroduction program, five condors were killed by
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐82 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
collision with power lines. Distribution lines (lower-voltage, smaller power lines) also pose a risk of
electrocution for condors and other large birds. The California Condor Recovery Program began a
power pole aversion training program for all pre-release birds, which has greatly reduced condor
mortalities from power line collisions (CCRP, 2008). However, 10 of the condors released in
southern California since 2005 have collided with overhead wires or were electrocuted on power
lines (Snyder, 2007 as reported in Johnson and Howlin, 2011). The project would require
construction of 11 miles of new gen-tie transmission line, as well as overhead collector power lines
within the project area. These features could pose a risk of collision and/or electrocution to condors,
should they occur in the project area at any time over the life of the project.
Potential direct operational impacts to condors, if present, include collision with WTGs and
collision and/or electrocution on project power lines, as discussed above. Noise generated by
operating WTGs may also disturb condor foraging or roosting behavior. Other potential direct
impacts include the loss or disruption of foraging habitat, and the introduction of micro-trash (i.e.,
broken glass, paper and plastic waste, small pieces of metal) and exposure to ethylene glycol
antifreeze during construction or maintenance activities. Indirect effects could result from a
disruption of normal foraging activity through the use of the new or improved access roads and
subsequent increase in human activities. The introduction of micro-trash and exposure to ethylene
glycol antifreeze as a result of subsequent use of improved access roads could also indirectly affect
this species, should it occur onsite. Degradation and alteration of habitat due to construction
activities could preclude use by condors.
Construction activities would result in the loss of potential foraging habitat if condors were using
the project area. Construction debris, litter, leaking equipment, or road kill can attract this species to
the project area. Condors are curious birds and have been documented in close association with oil
pumps and human activity on the Los Padres National Forest. During cleanup activities at trash
sites, condors have been observed sitting on guard rails adjacent to the cleanup activities. Adverse
effects to condors have also been documented by the animal’s collection of micro-trash. This waste
is often brought back to nest sites where young birds ingest the material. This can lead to mortality
of young birds. Ethylene glycol, a component in antifreeze and petroleum products can also be
ingested by condors, ultimately leading to death. Condors could be especially vulnerable to collision
with WTGs if grazing were to occur on the site during operation as birds could be attracted to the
site by the presence of dead livestock. Similarly, hunting at the project site could also attract
condors if carcasses and/or gut piles are left within areas accessible to the birds.
Because the project site is within historic condor range (dating back to the 1800s), there is
potential for range expansion in the direction of the project. Although the possibility of a
California condor collision fatality at the project cannot be ruled out, for the reasons mentioned
above, development of a wind energy facility at this location and time would likely result in
relatively low risk to California condors.
Implementation of mitigation measures requiring development and implementation of a Habitat
Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4) and the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM
4.4-5) would reduce impacts associated with loss of foraging habitat for this species. Additionally,
the project proponent would implement measures for the removal of microtrash from construction
sites, immediately resolve any ethylene glycol spills, conduct worker awareness training for
condors, and phase out grazing practices (MM 4.4-14) to eliminate or reduce the potential for
impacts to condors. Furthermore, several mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐83 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
impacts associated with collisions and electrocution risks. These include minimized lighting on
WTGs and appurtenant structures (MMs 4.4-3 and 4.4-15); post-construction avian and bat
mortality monitoring, including a Mortality Analysis (MM 4.4-17); supplemental mitigation if
results of the analysis indicate significant effects (MM 4.4-20); siting WTGs away from the upwind
sides of ridge crests, designing turbine pads and foundations to minimize small mammal (prey)
abundance, and using bird deterrents on guy wires for meteorological towers (MM 4.4-18); and
designing transmission facilities to be raptor-safe in accordance with the current Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee Guidelines (MM 4.4-19).
Any impacts to California condors would be considered significant. Implementation of mitigation
measures would reduce the potential for impacts to occur, however because these measures cannot
completely eliminate the risk of impacts to this species through collisions with WTGs, project
impacts to condors would remain significant and unavoidable.
The project area is not located within USFWS designated critical habitat for California condor.
Therefore, impacts to California condor critical habitat would not occur.
Burrowing Owl. The NSRP proponent conducted protocol surveys for burrowing owls at the
project site in 2010. No burrowing owls or signs of burrowing owls were detected during the
protocol surveys, and no burrowing owls were detected during any of the other surveys conducted
on site, including baseline avian surveys for the project and the previously proposed Hoffman
Summit Wind Energy Project (CH2MHill, 2010; Sapphos, 2010). However, potential habitat for
this species occurs in several locations throughout the project area, most notably within the grazed
areas in the central portion of the site. The nearest CNDDB record for this species is 10 miles east
of the project. The USFWS indicate that burrowing owls are year-round residents in the Jawbone
Canyon area (USFWS, 2011d).
Burrowing owls can occur wherever there are natural or manmade burrows, such as ground squirrel
burrows, drainage pipes, and rural road berms. Should they occur, direct impacts to burrowing owls
as a result of construction activities for the project could include the crushing of burrows, removal
or disturbance of vegetation, increased noise levels and vibration from heavy equipment, increased
human presence, and exposure to fugitive dust. Potential indirect impacts include the loss of habitat
due to the colonization of noxious weeds.
If burrowing owls are present within a construction zone, or adjacent to such an area, disturbance
could destroy occupied burrows or cause the owls to abandon burrows. Construction during the
breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to
nest abandonment. The loss of occupied burrowing owl habitat (habitat known to have been
occupied by owls during the nesting season within the past three years) or reductions in the number
of this special-status species, directly or indirectly through nest abandonment or reproductive
suppression, would constitute an adverse impact. Furthermore, raptors, including owls and their
nests, are protected under both federal and State laws and regulations, including the MBTA and
California State Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5.
Potential operational impacts include mortality due to collisions with WTGs, disturbance from
noise generated by operation of the WTGs, and increased human presence from maintenance
personnel that would flush or otherwise disturb burrowing owls. Smallwood and Thelander (2008)
estimate the annual mortality rate for burrowing owls at the Altamont Pass WRA is 440 individuals.
Smallwood et al. (2007) estimated that more than 100 burrowing owls are killed per year at the
Altamont Pass WRA, or the same number that was estimated nesting in the Altamont Pass WRA.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐84 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
While the Altamont Pass WRA is known for a particularly high incidence of raptor and other avian
mortality, these data indicate that burrowing owls are particularly susceptible to collision. However,
site conditions, WTG densities, and WTG technology at the Altamont WRA where this study was
conducted differ somewhat from those at the project site, so the results of this study may not be
directly applicable to the project. However, even though burrowing owls spend most of their time
near the ground, courtship displays and dispersal flights can occur at altitudes within the rotor-swept
area. Burrowing owls are not currently known to occur in the project area, but if they were to move
into the area, risk of collision would be high.
Mitigation proposed below, including development and implementation of a Habitat Restoration
and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4), the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM 4.4-5), and preconstruction surveys and disturbance-free buffers around burrowing owl nest sites (MM 4.4-13),
would reduce impacts to burrowing owls. Additionally, several mitigation measures would be
implemented to reduce impacts associated with collisions and electrocution risks. These include
minimized lighting on WTGs and appurtenant structures (MMs 4.4-3 and 4.4-15); post-construction
avian and bat mortality monitoring, including a Mortality Analysis (MM 4.4-17); supplemental
mitigation if results of the analysis indicate significant effects (MM 4.4-20); siting WTGs away
from the upwind sides of ridge crests, designing turbine pads and foundations to minimize small
mammal (prey) abundance, and using bird deterrents on guy wires for meteorological towers (MM
4.4-18); and designing transmission facilities to be raptor-safe in accordance with the current Avian
Power Line Interaction Committee Guidelines (MM 4.4-19).
Because burrowing owls are not currently known to occur in the project area, impacts to this species
would be less than significant.
American Peregrine Falcon, Merlin, Northern Goshawk, Northern Harrier, Sharp-Shinned
Hawk, Bald Eagle, Osprey, Ferruginous Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk. These nine raptor species are
migratory in the region, and sharp-shinned hawk may also winter here. With the exception of bald
eagle and northern goshawk, all of these raptors were observed in the project study area during
surveys for the project and/or the previously proposed Hoffman Summit Wind Energy Project
(Sapphos, 2010; CH2MHill, 2010). The potential for bald eagle to occur on site is low, but northern
goshawk is known to migrate through the nearby Kelso Valley (Rowe and Gallion, 1996).
Swainson’s hawk is known to nest in the Antelope Valley, but has not been recorded nesting in the
project region. Swainson’s hawk has been documented migrating through the area in low numbers
and a single Swainson’s hawk was observed at Butterbredt Springs during spring 2007 migration
surveys conducted for the Hoffman Summit Wind Project (Sapphos, 2010). Additionally, a single
Swainson’s hawk was observed incidentally in the project area (i.e., was not observed during fixedpoint surveys) during summer 2010 avian baseline studies (Chatfield and Bay, 2011a). In the
region, Swainson’s hawks primarily forage in association with agricultural fields, either active or
inactive but will also utilize annual grasslands, various desert scrub communities, and Joshua tree
woodlands in areas where those habitats occur. Suitable habitat for this species, including potential
nesting trees, occurs over much of the project area.
Potential direct impacts to these species would be the same as described for other avian species
including 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. Potential indirect
impacts include the loss of habitat due to the establishment of noxious weeds. Potential operational
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐85 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
impacts 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.
Although the likelihood is low, if Swainson’s hawk breeds within the project area, potential direct
impacts include disruption of breeding and/or foraging activity due to increased dust, noise, and
human presence associated with construction activities. Mortality or injury due to collision and/or
electrocution with project infrastructure components, including WTGs and transmission lines could
also result in direct impacts to Swainson’s hawk. Although Swainson’s hawks have not been
observed nesting in the project study area, construction disturbance during the breeding season
could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment,
if breeding activities should occur. The CDFG recommends that buffer zones of a minimum of onehalf mile be placed around nest locations away from urban development to reduce these risks. These
buffer zones may be adjusted as appropriate in consultation with a qualified ornithologist and
CDFG. Pre-construction surveys would be required to determine the presence of Swainson’s hawk
in and near the project area prior to ground disturbance, and a disturbance-free buffer would be
implemented around any nests found (MM 4.4-13). In addition, nest trees for Swainson’s hawk
would not be removed without authorization from CDFG (MM 4.4-21). Construction-related
impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks, if present, would be less than significant.
Implementation of mitigation measures for development and implementation of a Habitat
Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4) and the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM
4.4-5) would reduce impacts associated with loss of foraging habitat for these species. Additionally,
several mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts associated with collisions and
electrocution risks. These include minimized lighting on WTGs and appurtenant structures (MMs
4.4-3 and 4.4-15); post-construction avian and bat mortality monitoring, including a Mortality
Analysis (MM 4.4-17); supplemental mitigation if results of the analysis indicate significant effects
(MM 4.4-20); siting WTGs away from the upwind sides of ridge crests, designing turbine pads and
foundations to minimize small mammal (prey) abundance, and using bird deterrents on guy wires
for meteorological towers (MM 4.4-18); and designing transmission facilities to be raptor-safe in
accordance with the current Avian Power Line Interaction Committee Guidelines (MM 4.4-19).
Any mortality of special-status birds could be considered a significant impact. Although mortality
risks to migratory and wintering raptors would be minimized through implementation of mitigation
measures, because these measures would not eliminate the risk of mortality of these species through
collisions with WTGs, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Long-Eared Owl, Short-Eared Owl, White-Tailed Kite, Cooper’s Hawk, Prairie Falcon. These
five raptor species are year-round residents in the region. Long-eared owl was recorded on site
during surveys for the Hoffman Summit Wind Energy Project (Sapphos, 2010). Potential breeding
habitat for this species is limited within the project area and is likely associated with the riparian
community at Cottonwood Creek and the various pine/oak forest edges that border more open
grasslands. At least 18 prairie falcon observations were recorded on site during avian baseline
surveys for the project, and six nest sites were documented during aerial nest surveys conducted in
winter 2010 (CH2MHill, 2010, 2011). Three of these nest sites were within or adjacent to the
project boundary, and courtship behavior was observed at one of these nest sites during the
February 15 site visit by Aspen. Two Cooper’s hawks were observed during 2010 surveys for the
project, and one active Cooper’s hawk nest was observed on site during surveys for the Hoffman
Summit Wind Energy Project (CH2MHill, 2010; Sapphos, 2010). There is a moderate potential for
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐86 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
short-eared owl and white-tailed kite to occur in grasslands and forest edges. Direct impacts to these
species would be the same as described for other avian species and could include disruption of
breeding 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. Potential indirect impacts include the loss of
habitat due to the establishment of noxious weeds. Potential operational impacts 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.
Implementation of mitigation measures for development and implementation of a Habitat
Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4) and the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM
4.4-5) would reduce impacts associated with loss of foraging habitat for these species. Additionally,
several mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts associated with collisions and
electrocution risks. These measures include minimized lighting on WTGs and appurtenant
structures (MMs 4.4-3 and 4.4-15); post-construction avian and bat mortality monitoring, including
a Mortality Analysis (MM 4.4-17); supplemental mitigation if results of the analysis indicate
significant effects (MM 4.4-20); siting WTGs away from the upwind sides of ridge crests, designing
turbine pads and foundations to minimize small mammal (prey) abundance, and using bird
deterrents on guy wires for meteorological towers (MM 4.4-18); and designing transmission
facilities to be raptor-safe in accordance with the current Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
Guidelines (MM 4.4-19).
Any mortality of special-status birds could be considered a significant impact. Although mortality
risks to resident raptors would be minimized through implementation of mitigation measures,
because these measures would not eliminate the risk of mortality of these species through collisions
with WTGs, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Willow Flycatcher, Least Bell’s Vireo, Western YellowBilled Cuckoo. Riparian habitat occurring primarily along portions of Cottonwood Creek provides
potential nesting and foraging habitat for these listed birds in the project area. Thirty-four
observations of willow flycatchers were recorded during protocol surveys conducted in 2010 for the
NSRP (Appendix F3 of CH2MHill, 2010). (Thirty-five observations were recorded in the text of the
report, but only 34 birds were recorded on field survey forms). No individuals were detected after
mid-June, and no evidence of breeding was observed. This species likely migrates through the
project area. Five observations of willow flycatcher were made during fixed-point bird use surveys
conducted between May 18, 2010 and February 28, 2011 (Chatfield and Bay, 2011a). All willow
flycatchers detected in the project area to date have only been identified to the species level, not to
subspecies, due to the difficulty in distinguishing subspecies.
Least Bell’s vireos were not detected during protocol surveys conducted in 2010 for the NSRP.
However, species level Least Bell’s vireos were recorded on site during surveys for the Hoffman
Summit Wind Energy Project, and it is likely this was a least Bell’s vireo based on known
geographic distribution of the four subspecies. While suitable habitat occurs within the project area,
primarily along Cottonwood Creek and at some springs, this species is typically associated with
riparian habitats at much lower elevations than what occurs on site. It is known to breed at the South
Fork Kern River Preserve, just over 20 miles north of the project area (BLM, 2005). Western
yellow-billed cuckoos were not detected during protocol surveys conducted in 2010 for the NSRP.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐87 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Suitable habitat occurs within the project area, primarily along Cottonwood Creek. Western yellowbilled cuckoos are also known to breed in the south fork of the Kern River.
Potential direct impacts to listed riparian birds include disruption of breeding activity due to
increased dust, noise, and human presence associated with construction activities, as well as loss of
habitat due to improvement and construction of access roads and altered hydrology. Potential
indirect impacts include loss of habitat due to the establishment of noxious weeds. Potential
operational impacts include collision with transmission lines and WTGs, and disturbance of birds
due to the presence of maintenance personnel and noise generated by the operation of WTGs.
Implementation of mitigation measures including pre-construction surveys for nesting listed
riparian birds, disturbance-free buffers around nests, and vegetation removal practices that avoid
disturbing nesting birds (MM 4.4-10), and restoration of temporary disturbance to vegetation
communities (MM 4.4-4), impacts to breeding listed riparian birds, if present, would be less than
significant. Additionally, several mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts
associated with collisions and electrocution risks. These measures include minimized lighting on
WTGs and appurtenant structures (MMs 4.4-3 and 4.4-15); post-construction avian and bat
mortality monitoring, including a Mortality Analysis (MM 4.4-17); supplemental mitigation if
results of the analysis indicate significant effects (MM 4.4-20); siting WTGs away from the upwind
sides of ridge crests, designing turbine pads and foundations to minimize small mammal (prey)
abundance, and using bird deterrents on guy wires for meteorological towers (MM 4.4-18); and
designing transmission facilities to be raptor-safe in accordance with the current Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee Guidelines (MM 4.4-19).
Any mortality of special-status birds could be considered a significant impact. Although mortality
risks to riparian birds would be minimized through implementation of mitigation measures, because
these measures would not eliminate the risk of mortality of these species through collisions with
WTGs, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
American White Pelican, Vaux’s Swift, Black Swift, Long-Billed Curlew, Grasshopper
Sparrow, Olive-Sided Flycatcher, Summer Tanager, Yellow-Breasted Chat, Yellow Warbler,
Gray Vireo, Yellow-Headed Blackbird, Purple Martin, White-Faced Ibis. These species are
generally migratory in the region. Yellow-headed blackbird and purple martin could potentially
breed in the project area as well. Vaux’s swift, olive-sided flycatcher, summer tanager, yellowbreasted chat, gray vireo, yellow warbler, and yellow-headed blackbird were all observed in the
project study area during surveys (Sapphos, 2010; Chatfield and Bay, 2011a). American white
pelican and white-faced ibis were observed flying over the site (Chatfield and Bay, 2011a). Black
swift, long-billed curlew, grasshopper sparrow, and purple martin all have a moderate potential to
occur in the project area. Potential direct impacts to these species would be the same as described
for other avian species, including 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.
Potential indirect impacts include the loss of habitat due to the establishment of nonnative and
invasive weeds. Potential operational impacts 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.
Implementation of mitigation measures for development and implementation of a Habitat
Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4) and the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐88 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
4.4-5) would reduce impacts associated with loss of foraging habitat for these species. Additionally,
several mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts associated with collisions and
electrocution risks. These measures include minimized lighting on WTGs and appurtenant
structures (MMs 4.4-3 and 4.4-15); post-construction avian and bat mortality monitoring, including
a Mortality Analysis (MM 4.4-17); supplemental mitigation if results of the analysis indicate
significant effects (MM 4.4-20); siting WTGs away from the upwind sides of ridge crests, and using
bird deterrents on guy wires for meteorological towers (MM 4.4-18); and designing transmission
facilities to be raptor-safe in accordance with the current Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
Guidelines (MM 4.4-19).
Any mortality of special-status birds could be considered a significant impact. Although mortality
risks to migratory birds would be minimized through implementation of mitigation measures,
because these measures would not eliminate the risk of mortality of these species through collisions
with WTGs, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
California Horned Lark, Le Conte’s Thrasher, Bendire’s Thrasher, Loggerhead Shrike,
Tricolored Blackbird. These five species are year-round residents in the region. California horned
lark, Le Conte’s thrasher, and loggerhead shrike were observed in the project study area during
avian surveys (Sapphos, 2010; Chatfield and Bay, 2011a). Tricolored blackbird has a moderate
potential to occur on site, but breeding tricolored blackbirds are not expected onsite as suitable
nesting habitat (marshes with dense emergent vegetation such as Typha spp. and willows) is limited.
Bendire’s thrasher is known to occur in the vicinity of Butterbredt Springs and Kelso Valley, and an
ACEC has been established for its protection north and west of the site in Kelso Valley and the
greater Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC. Bendire’s thrasher has a high potential to occur on site.
Potential direct impacts to these species would be the same as described for other avian species,
including 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,
associated infrastructure, substations, and the construction and improvement of access roads.
Potential indirect impacts include the loss of habitat due to the establishment of noxious weeds.
Potential operational impacts 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.
Implementation of mitigation measures for development and implementation of a Habitat
Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4), the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM 4.45), pre-construction nesting surveys and establishing buffers around occupied nests (MM 4.4-10),
and post-construction breeding monitoring (MM 4.4-16) would reduce impacts to these species.
Additionally, several mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts associated with
collisions risks. These include minimized lighting on WTGs and appurtenant structures (MMs 4.4-3
and 4.4-15); post-construction avian and bat mortality monitoring, including a Mortality Analysis
(MM 4.4-17); supplemental mitigation if results of the analysis indicate significant effects (MM
4.4-20); siting WTGs away from the upwind sides of ridge crests, designing turbine pads and
foundations to minimize small mammal (prey) abundance, and using bird deterrents on guy wires
for meteorological towers (MM 4.4-18); and designing transmission facilities to be raptor-safe in
accordance with the current Avian Power Line Interaction Committee Guidelines (MM 4.4-19).
Any mortality of special-status birds could be considered a significant impact. Although mortality
risks to resident birds would be minimized through implementation of mitigation measures, because
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐89 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
these measures would not eliminate the risk of mortality of these species through collisions with
WTGs, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Brown-Crested Flycatcher, Mountain Plover, Vermillion Flycatcher. Brown-crested flycatcher
is a summer resident and mountain plover is a winter non-breeding resident in the region.
Vermillion flycatcher may winter or breed in the region; its range is changing and it could begin
utilizing areas that were previously not used for wintering or breeding (BLM, 2005). Vermillion
flycatcher and one pair of brown-crested flycatchers were identified on site during avian surveys
(Sapphos, 2010; CH2MHill, 20112010). Mountain plover has a moderate potential to winter in the
project area. Potential direct impacts to these species would be similar to those described for other
avian species, including disruption of breeding activity (brown-crested flycatcher) and foraging 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. Potential indirect impacts include the loss of habitat due to the
establishment of nonnative and invasive weeds. Potential operational impacts 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.
Implementation of mitigation measures for development and implementation of a Habitat
Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4) and the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM
4.4-5) would reduce impacts to these species. Additionally, several mitigation measures would be
implemented to reduce impacts associated with collisions risks. These include minimized lighting
on WTGs and appurtenant structures (MMs 4.4-3 and 4.4-15); post-construction avian and bat
mortality monitoring, including a Mortality Analysis (MM 4.4-17); supplemental mitigation if
results of the analysis indicate significant effects (MM 4.4-20); siting WTGs away from the upwind
sides of ridge crests, and using bird deterrents on guy wires for meteorological towers (MM 4.4-18);
and designing transmission facilities to be raptor-safe in accordance with the current Avian Power
Line Interaction Committee Guidelines (MM 4.4-19).
Any mortality of special-status birds could be considered a significant impact. Although mortality
risks to special status birds would be minimized through implementation of mitigation measures,
because these measures would not eliminate the risk of mortality of these species through collisions
with WTGs, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mohave Ground Squirrel. Protocol-level surveys were not conducted for the Mohave ground
squirrel in the project area; however the project site lies within the western edge of the Mohave
ground squirrel’s historic range and potential habitat (blackbrush scrub, creosote bush scrub, etc.)
occurs within and near the project area. The NSRP proponent conducted a habitat modeling
exercise to identify areas of potential habitat within the project area. A small amount of potential
habitat was identified in the northern portion of the site. Additionally, most of the habitat along the
Jawbone Canyon access road could also support this species, and there are three historical records
of this species in Butterbredt Springs and Jawbone Canyon, ranging from 1.4 to 7 miles from the
project boundary. The potential for Mohave ground squirrel to occur is high because the project
area supports some limited potential habitat, and potential habitat occurs along most of Jawbone
Canyon Road. In addition, this species is historically known from Jawbone Canyon and the
Butterbredt Springs area. Though this species has not been detected during biological resources
surveys for the project or the former Hoffman Summit Wind Energy Project, it is notoriously
difficult to detect, and would be unlikely to be observed during routine biological surveys on site.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐90 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Leitner (2008) considered only the eastern and northeastern portions of the project area to be within
the current known range of the species. If present, direct effects to the Mohave ground squirrel
related to construction could include crushing of burrows, mortality due to road kill, and loss of
habitat. Potential indirect impacts include degradation of habitat due to the spread of nonnative an
invasive weeds and dust. Potential operational impacts include increased risk of road kill and
disturbance due to increased use of access roads by maintenance personnel as well as disturbance
and interference with communication calls from the noise generated by operating WTGs.
Construction activities may result in take of individual Mohave ground squirrels within suitable
habitat, if present. The greatest threat to the Mohave ground squirrel from the project would be
crushing of burrows during grading and other construction activities, especially road reconstruction
or establishment of construction staging areas along Jawbone Canyon Road, if they were to occur.
Individuals may also be hit by vehicles on access roads. Construction activities that result in the
harm, harassment, or mortality of this species, if present, would be considered a “take” by the
CDFG. These effects would only be authorized through the context of a 2081 Incidental Take
Permit issued by the CDFG. Mitigation proposed below, including development and
implementation of a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4), the development of a
Weed Control Plan (MM 4.4-5), covering or fencing steep-walled excavations (MM 4.4-21),
maintaining a 15-mph speed limit on access roads (MM 4.4-21), and pre-construction surveys and
avoidance measures (MM 4.4-13) would reduce impacts to Mohave ground squirrel, if present, to
less than significant.
Desert Kit Fox, American Badger. Desert kit fox was identified on site during surveys conducted
for the previously proposed Hoffman Summit Wind Energy Project, and suitable foraging and
denning habitat occurs throughout the project area. Fifteen active American badger dens were found
on site during 2010 surveys for the NSRP, and other sign (forage holes, burrows, tracks, scat, and
evidence of recent digging) was abundant within the site and along access roads. Desert kit fox and
American badger occur in dry, open habitats with friable soil, including grassland, desert scrub,
Mojave juniper woodland and scrub, Mojave pinyon woodland, Joshua tree woodland, and herbdominated habitats. The majority of the project site supports suitable habitat for these species.
Potential direct impacts to desert kit fox and American badger include mechanical crushing of
individuals or burrows by vehicles and construction equipment, entombment within burrows, noise,
dust, and loss of habitat. Potential indirect impacts include alteration of soils, such as compaction
that could preclude burrowing, and the spread of exotic weeds. Potential operational impacts
include risk of road kill on access and spur roads by maintenance personnel, the spread of noxious
weeds, and disturbance due to increased human presence. These species could also be subject to
poisoning if chemical rodent control is used. Construction activities including clearing and grading
of WTG sites, staging areas, substation locations, and access roads could result in mortality of
individual foxes or badgers or disturbance of maternity dens during the pup-rearing seasons
(February 15 to July 1).
Mitigation proposed below, including development and implementation of a Habitat Restoration
and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4); the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM 4.4-5);
prohibition of chemical rodent-control programs on site (MM 4.4-18); a 15-mph speed limit on
access roads (MM 4.4-21); and preconstruction surveys, disturbance-free buffers around maternity
dens, and passive relocation (MM 4.4-13) would reduce impacts to desert kit fox and American
badger to less-than-significant levels.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐91 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Ringtail. The ringtail, a fully protected species in California, has the potential to occur in oak
woodlands or riparian habitats within the project. Direct impacts due to construction activities could
include mortality of individual ringtail or disturbance of ringtail maternity dens during the puprearing season (1 May to 1 September). The construction and use of access roads in riparian areas
could also disturb denning ringtails. Construction noise, dust, human presence, or ground
disturbance could result in the abandonment of these dens or result in mortality of juvenile animals.
Indirect impacts to ringtail could include the spread of noxious weeds that would degrade habitat
quality, degradation of water quality due to siltation, and alteration of soils. Potential operational
impacts include the spread of noxious weeds. This is a California fully protected species and direct
loss of this species is prohibited. Construction activities that occur in areas potentially supporting
this species would require the completion of preconstruction surveys to evaluate the potential
presence of this species in or adjacent to the proposed work area. If present, work would be
redirected to adjacent areas. With the exception of the denning period, this species is highly mobile
and may leave the work area undetected. However, as this species is primarily nocturnal (although it
has been observed during the day in remote canyons), there is some potential to disturb denning or
resting animals, if present.
To reduce these effects on ringtail the project proponent shall restore temporarily disturbed habitat
(MM 4.4-4). In addition, the project proponent shall conduct focused surveys for ringtail if
construction activities will occur in suitable habitat, and will passively relocate animals during the
non-breeding season (MM 4.4-13). With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to
ringtail would be less than significant.
Pallid Bat, Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat, Spotted Bat, Western Mastiff Bat, Western Red Bat,
Western Small-Footed Myotis, Long-Eared Myotis, Fringed Myotis, Yuma Myotis, Pocketed
Free-Tailed Bat, Big Free-Tailed Bat. Pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, western
mastiff bat, western red bat, fringed myotis, western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, and
Yuma myotis were detected during surveys in the project study area, both for the project and for the
former Hoffman Summit Wind Energy Project (Sapphos, 2010; Pandion, 2011; Chatfield and Bay,
2011b). Pocketed free-tailed bat and big free-tailed bat, have a moderate potential to occur in the
project area.
As described above, acoustic monitoring began on November 5, 2009, with the installation of
ground-level units at two stations (Mud Springs and Cottonwood Creek). These two stations are
considered reference stations because they have habitat features (water sources) that would be
expected to attract bats. Additional monitoring units were installed in August and September 2010
at met towers, and ground-level units were installed in early September 2010 (identified as fixed
and mobile stations). Anabat™ SD1 bat detectors (Titley Scientific™, Australia) and Pandion
ReBAT™ units are in use for monitoring activity of bats on site.
Preliminary results from the Anabat units for the period November 5, 2009, through February 22,
2011, were summarized in an interim report included in Appendix E-1 (Chatfield and Bay, 2011b).
There were 12,859 bat passes recorded over 1,053 detector nights at fixed and mobile Anabat
stations located within areas proposed for construction of WTGs. Passes per detector night ranged
from 1.62 to 43.76, averaging 12.27 at fixed and mobile Anabat stations from August 17, 2010 to
February 22, 2011. Responses varied by station with NS3g recording the fewest responses and
station NS3M with the most recordings (see Figure 1 in Chatfield and Bay, 2011b for map of
stations). At the two reference stations (NS-MS and NS-CC), 30,182 passes were recorded over 913
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐92 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
detector nights from November 5, 2009 to February 22, 2011. The average numbers of passes per
detector night at the reference stations were 40.55 and 25.42 for station NS-MS and NS-CC,
respectively. At fixed and mobile stations “low frequency” species (e.g., big brown bat, Mexican
free-tailed bat, hoary bat) comprised the majority of passes whereas “high frequency” species (e.g.,
Myotis spp.) comprised the majority at the reference stations.
Bat activity varied by season with high numbers of bats passing at fixed and mobile stations from
late August through early September. At the reference stations, bat activity was greatest in midwinter of 2009 and spring of 2010 (Chatfield and Bay, 2011b). Figures 3a and 3b of Chatfield and
Bay (2011b) show weekly bat activity at fixed and mobile stations, and reference stations,
respectively.
As described above under “Collisions with WTGs”, Chatfield and Bay (2011b) reviewed bat studies
from other wind energy projects and found few studies of wind energy facilities that have recorded
both bat passes per night and bat fatality rates. The limited available data suggest a positive
correlation between bat activity levels and estimated fatality rates. While the relatively high activity
rates recorded at the reference stations (25.42 and 40.55 bat passes per detector-night) might
initially suggest higher fatality rates could be expected at the project, the reference stations were
established at sites containing features that are generally attractive to bats (e.g., springs, riparian
areas) and are not necessarily representative of bat activity in areas proposed for turbine siting. As a
result, data collected at reference stations, while not comparable with the data from other studies
(listed in Chatfield and Bay, 2011b), likely provide an upper-bound for the estimated bat activity
levels within the project. Bat activity recorded by fixed non-reference ground detectors within the
project during the fall (2.59 ± 0.35 bat passes per detector-night) was similar to activity levels
reported in Minnesota and Wyoming, where bat fatality rates were relatively low, and was much
lower than activity levels reported at wind energy facilities in West Virginia, Iowa, and Tennessee,
where bat fatality rates have been highest (Chatfield and Bay, 2011b). Thus, based on the expected
relationship between pre-construction bat activity and post-construction fatalities, bat fatality rates
at the NSR Project may be similar to the 1.73 to 4.03 bat fatalities/MW/study period reported at
Buffalo Ridge facility in Minnesota and are anticipated to be much lower than the 39.70
fatalities/MW/study period reported at the Buffalo Mountain facility in Tennessee. However,
comparing acoustic bat activity among sites must be interpreted with caution because of potential
differences in level of effort, timing of sampling, species recorded, and detector settings and
position. There have been a few studies that have collected bat acoustic data concurrently with
conducting mortality searches, and it is important to acknowledge that many of the study sites
referred to in reports prepared for the project (Chatfield and Bay, 2011b; Pandion, 2011) do not
have the same topography and habitat, nor occur in the same geographic area as the project
(Pandion, 2011).
Potential roosting habitat such as rock outcrops, large trees, and mine adits are abundant at the site
and within the general region. Bats may also be found within conifer/oak woodlands where cavities
occur either in tree trunks or from exfoliating bark. At this time, the project is not known to occur in
a migratory route for bats. However, more extensive bat use studies are currently ongoing in the
project area.
Potential direct effects to bats include mortality of individuals during construction activities,
permanent loss of habitat due to construction of permanent structures (e.g., new towers or access
roads) or other construction activities (removal of roosting habitat at pulling and assembly sites),
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐93 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
and temporary disturbance during construction (noise, air turbulence, dust, and ground vibrations
from construction equipment). Bats that forage near the ground, such as the pallid bat, would also
be subject to crushing or disturbance by vehicles driving at dusk, dawn, or during the night. The
construction and use of access roads could also disturb bats.
Potential direct impacts to bats during operation of the project include disturbance by vehicles and
individuals utilizing new or improved access and spur roads. Potential indirect effects include
increased traffic, dust, and human presence in the project area that could result in bats abandoning
their roosts or maternal colonies, if present. For example, Townsend’s bPig-eared bat is known to
abandon young when disturbed. The greatest risk to bats from the project would occur during
operation and would include collision with WTGs and barotrauma due to bats flying too near to the
WTGs. As described above, bats may account for more fatalities than birds at wind developments.
Implementation of mitigation measures for development and implementation of a Habitat
Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4) and the development of a Weed Control Plan (MM
4.4-5) would reduce impacts associated with loss of foraging habitat for these species. Additionally,
nursery colony and roost surveys and avoidance measures (MM 4.4-13) would be implemented.
Furthermore, several mitigations measures would be implemented to reduce impacts associated
with collisions risks. These include minimized exterior night lighting at project facilities and
appurtenant structures (MM 4.4-3), lighting on WTGs and appurtenant structures (MM 4.4-15);
post-construction avian and bat mortality monitoring, including a Mortality Analysis (MM 4.4-17);
and supplemental mitigation if results of the analysis indicate significant effects (MM 4.4-20).
Any mortality of special-status bats would be considered a significant impact. Although mortality
risks to bats would be minimized through implementation of mitigation measures, because these
measures would not eliminate the risk of mortality of these species through collisions with WTGs,
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Southern Grasshopper Mouse, Tehachapi Pocket Mouse, Tulare Grasshopper Mouse, San
Joaquin Pocket Mouse, Yellow-Eared Pocket Mouse. San Joaquin pocket mouse was detected in
the project study area during surveys conducted for the former Hoffman Summit Wind Energy
Project (Sapphos, 2010). There is moderate potential for southern grasshopper mouse, Tehachapi
pocket mouse, Tulare grasshopper mouse, and yellow-eared pocket mouse to occur in the project
area. The adjacent Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC includes protection for the yellow-eared pocket
mouse (BLM, 2005). Direct impacts to special-status mice 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 described below, including development
and implementation of a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4), the development
of a Weed Control Plan (MM 4.4-5), construction monitoring and recovery and relocation of
wildlife found within work areas (MM 4.4-6), worker environmental training (MM 4.4-7), preconstruction sweeps (MM 4.4-8), and covering or fencing steep-walled excavations (MM 4.4-21),
would reduce impacts to these species to a less-than-significant level.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐94 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent(s) shall minimize to
the greatest extent feasible the area required for project construction and operation
by grading a minimal amount of new roads, facilitating joint-use of access roads
where possible, etc. Additionally, all fences installed on the project site will be a
maximum of four (4) 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.
MM 4.4-2
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project proponent(s) shall implement
the following siting constraint measures and provide documentation to Kern County
Planning and Community Development Department that these design measures have
been have been met on the final siting plan:
a. All ground-disturbing work and any work involving hazardous materials
shall be conducted at least 100 feet from wetlands and riparian areas.
b. Specifications for wind tower foundations shall provide at least a 2,500square-foot (50 feet by 50 feet) clear vegetation zone.
c. Turbine specifications shall ensure that the lower reach of rotor blades is no
lower than 85 feet above the ground surface.
MM 4.4-3
Prior to the issuance of final occupancy approval, the building inspector shall verify
that all exterior lighting at operation and maintenance facilities, substations, and
appurtenant structures located within half a mile of the turbines shall be of the
lowest illumination required for security and human safety. The project
proponent(s) shall install and continuously use and maintain lights with motion
or heat sensors and switches to keep lights off when not required. Light fixtures
shall be fully shielded and directed downward to minimize illumination above
the horizontal plane. The project proponent(s) shall continuously minimize use of
high‐intensity lighting, steady‐burning, or bright lights such as sodium vapor,
quartz, halogen, or other bright spotlights. Nighttime vehicle traffic associated
with project activities shall be kept to a minimum volume and speed to prevent
mortality of nocturnal wildlife species.
MM 4.4-4
Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, the project proponent(s) shall
develop and submit a Habitat 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 plans which
demonstrate the following:
a. All areas disturbed by project construction, including temporary disturbance
areas around structure construction sites, laydown/staging areas, and
temporary access roads shall be fully restored to their pre-project conditions.
Non-native areas will be restored with an appropriate native seed mix.
b. All grading activities shall include topsoil salvage. The upper 3 to 6 inches
of soil (topsoil and seedbank) shall be salvaged in all areas where the terrain
will allow it. Topsoil shall be windrowed and marked to keep it separated
from other soil. Topsoil piles shall be stabilized by crusting with sprayed
water to protect the soil from wind erosion. All salvaged topsoil shall be
spread over all restored areas as a top dressing within the project boundaries.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐95 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
c. Hydroseeding, drill seeding, broadcast seeding or an otherwise proven
restoration technique shall be utilized on all disturbed surfaces using a
locally endemic native seed mix approved by Kern County.
d. Erosion control mats, blankets, and straw or fiber wattles shall be composed
of natural fiber, biodegradable meshes to minimize the potential for wildlife
impacts.
e. The plan shall include the Best Management Practices identified in the
California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement.
f.
Weed control methods used during implementation of the Habitat
Restoration and Revegetation Plan shall include all legally permitted
herbicide, manual, and mechanical methods applied with the authorization
of the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department and
California Department of Fish and Game, where appropriate. The
application of herbicides shall be in compliance with all State and federal
laws and regulations and implemented by a Licensed Qualified Applicator.
Herbicides shall not be applied during or within 72 hours of a scheduled rain
event. In riparian areas only water-safe herbicides shall be used. Herbicides
shall not be applied when wind velocities exceed 6 mph.
g. For the permanent loss of desert wash and riparian habitat, the project
proponent(s) 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 or American badger. Permanent impacts shall be
mitigated through one or more of the following:
i. Acquisition and conservation of off-site lands 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.
h. The Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan shall establish performance
criteria, time frames for restoration of the site, and 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 habitats to the maximum extent feasible.
i.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 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. 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, size, and
branching complexity of all individual Joshua trees that would be subject to
permanent disturbance.
4‐4‐96 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
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 preservation of parcels 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). 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.
j.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report In lieu monetary funding. The project proponent(s) may mitigate all
or part of the project’s impacts to Joshua trees 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 be provided 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).
As part of the Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan, the project
proponent(s) shall prepare and implement an Oak Tree and Woodlands
Preservation Plan to minimize and compensate for permanent impacts to oak
woodlands and individual oaks. The Oak Tree and Woodlands 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 size (diameter at
4‐4‐97 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
breast height; DBH) of all individual oak trees that would be subject to
permanent disturbance. The acreage of impacts to oak woodlands, which are
defined as having canopy cover of at least 10 percent (10%), as determined
from base line aerial photography or by site survey performed by a
Registered Professional Forester (RPF), shall be quantified for the entire
project site.
The Oak Tree and Woodlands Preservation Plan shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:
i.
Oak woodlands are subject to a minimum canopy coverage
retention standard of thirty percent (30%). The Registered
Professional Forester shall include recommendations regarding
thinning and diseased tree removal in conjunction with the
discretionary project.
ii.
Use of aerial photography and a dot grid system shall be considered
adequate in determining the required canopy coverage standard.
iii.
Adjustments below thirty percent (30%) minimum canopy standard
may be made based on a report to assess the management of oak
woodlands.
iv.
All oak trees within 25 feet of ground disturbance will be fenced
three feet outside the dripline with plastic mesh fencing. Fencing
shall be in place prior to any ground disturbance, and shall remain
until ground disturbance is completed within 25 feet of the tree.
v.
No equipment staging or materials storage shall be allowed beneath
the canopy of any oak tree.
vi.
No parking shall be permitted beneath the canopy of any oak tree.
vii.
The area around oak tree trunks shall be kept clear of soils, debris,
construction tools, etc.
viii.
Those areas of the project site having an oak tree canopy cover of
less than ten percent (10%), but containing individual oak trees
equal to or greater than a 12-inch diameter trunk at 4.5 feet breast
height shall be subject to the following: Such trees shall be
identified on plot plans, project development shall avoid the area
beneath and within the trees unaltered drip line unless approved by a
licensed or certified arborist or botanist, and specified tree removal
related to the construction of the project may be only be granted by
the Board of Supervisors upon showing that a hardship exists based
on substantial evidence in the record.
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 4.4-5
Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the project proponent(s) shall
prepare a comprehensive, adaptive Weed Control Plan, for review and approval by
the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, to minimize
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐98 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
the establishment and spread of nonnative and invasive weed species within the
project area during construction activities. The Weed Control Plan shall be
implemented upon commencement of construction activities. The Weed Control
Plan shall include at minimum:
Prevention Measures
a) All landscaping and restoration seeds and plant materials shall be certified
weed-free.
b) All straw materials such as those used for erosion control shall be certified
weed-free.
c) Revegetate areas of temporary disturbance with local native plant species as
soon as construction is complete to reduce erosion and inhibit the
establishment of invasive weeds.
d) Vehicles and equipment shall be cleaned (with water or high pressure air)
prior to commencing work on the project site. Vehicles and equipment shall
be cleaned at existing construction yards or legally operating car washes, or
at onsite washing station(s) at project access points. Once equipment and
vehicles have been staged on the job site no further washing would be
required unless the vehicles or equipment are exposed to populations of nonnative and invasive weeds present on the site.
e) The project proponent(s) shall document that all vehicles have been washed
prior to commencing project work, if those vehicles have left the project
boundaries since they were last used on-site. A written daily log shall be kept
for all vehicle/equipment washing that states the date, time, location, type of
equipment washed, methods used, and staff present. The log shall include
the signature of a responsible staff member. Logs shall be available to Kern
County for inspection at any time and shall be submitted to Kern County
upon request.
Weed Control Methods
a) Develop species-specific control procedures for high priority invasive weeds
(as determined through consultation with the BLM weed specialist, the Kern
County Agricultural Commissioner, and the Kern County Weed
Management Area)
b) Potential methods include physical or mechanical removal, chemical control,
and environmental control
c) The application of herbicides shall be in compliance with all State and
federal laws and regulations and implemented by a Licensed Qualified
Applicator. Herbicides shall not be applied during or within 72 hours of a
scheduled rain event. In riparian areas only water-safe herbicides shall be
used. Herbicides shall not be applied when wind velocities exceed 6 mph.
d) Establish a long-term schedule for regular weed control throughout the
project site.
e) Implement a regular weed control program using approved procedures,
properly maintained equipment, and safety gear.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐99 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Monitoring and Follow-Up
a) Conduct annual monitoring to assess weed presence and the success of
control measures.
b) Implement remedial (follow-up) control measures if previous procedures
have not achieved eradication or control objectives.
Reporting
a) Prepare a final report for submittal to the Kern County Planning and
Community Development Department, at the end of the project construction
phase. The report shall document the implementation of the Weed Control
Plan, including outcome of the weed control measures and recommendations
for changes to improve rates of success.
MM 4.4-6
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent(s) shall submit written
documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community Development
Department showing 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.
MM 4.4-7
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent(s) shall submit written
documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community Development
Department showing 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.
MM 4.4-8
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and initial ground-disturbing activities (e.g.,
mechanized clearing or rough grading) for all project-related construction activities,
a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction sweep of the project site for
special-status wildlife species. In habitats capable of supporting Tehachapi slender
salamander, yellow-blotched salamander, and/or western pond turtle, 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 Tehachapi slender salamander is
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:
a. Inspect the project area for any sensitive wildlife species;
b. Ensure that potential habitats within the construction zone are not occupied
by sensitive species (e.g., potential burrows/nests are inspected); and
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐100 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
c. 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.
MM 4.4-9
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent(s) shall conduct rare
plant surveys prior to any ground disturbance, and implement avoidance/
minimization/compensation strategies. Rare plants are defined as all State and
federally listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare plant species; plant species that
are candidates for state or federal listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare;
California Rare Plant Rank [previously known as CNPS List] 1B and 2 species); and
the undescribed species of Triteleia identified on site. The project proponent(s) shall
conduct surveys during the floristic period appropriate for each of the rare plant
species identified with the potential to occur within the project area and within 100
feet of all surface-disturbing activities. Surveys shall be conducted by qualified
botanists according to protocols established by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Bureau of Land Management, and
the California Native Plant Society. Populations of rare plants shall be flagged and
mapped prior to construction. If rare plants are located during the focused surveys,
then modification of the placement of structures, access roads, laydown areas, and
other ground-disturbing activities would be implemented in order to avoid the plants,
if feasible. A report of the rare plants observed during the referenced surveys shall be
prepared and submitted to Kern County Planning and Community Development
Department and the appropriate resource agencies before the start of construction.
Impacts to rare plant species shall first be avoided where feasible, and, where not
feasible, impacts shall be compensated through reseeding (with locally collected
seed stock), or other Kern County approved methods (for California Rare Plant Rank
List 1B and 2 species only). Compensation for impacts to State and/or federally
listed or candidate plant species would be determined in consultation with the
appropriate resource agency for each affected species, and could include reseeding,
transplant, or acquisition of off-site mitigation lands.
If project activities will result in the loss of more than 10 percent of the known
individuals within an existing population of a California Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2
plant species, the project proponent(s) shall preserve existing off-site occupied
habitat that is not already part of the public lands in perpetuity at a 2:1 mitigation
ratio (habitat preserved: habitat impacted). The preserved habitat shall be occupied
by the plant species impacted, and be of superior or similar habitat quality to the
impacted areas in terms of soil features, extent of disturbance, habitat structure, and
dominant species composition, as determined by a qualified plant ecologist. If
impacts to State or federally listed or candidate plant species cannot be avoided, the
appropriate resource agency (California Department of Fish and Game and/or the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service) shall be contacted and the appropriate
approvals and/or permits shall be obtained.
MM 4.4-10
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent(s) shall conduct preconstruction 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
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐101 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
riparian habitats, pre-construction nesting surveys for southwestern willow
flycatcher, least Bell’s 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) 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 4.4-11
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, 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.
MM 4.4-12
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project proponent(s) shall
provide documentation to the California Department of Fish and Game, United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Kern County Planning and Community
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐102 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Development Department that the project is in compliance with the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (Title 16, United States Code, sections 668-668c).
MM 4.4-13
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project proponent shall
conduct the following pre-construction surveys:
a. Swainson’s hawks: To assure that nesting Swainson’s hawks are not disturbed
by construction activities, the project proponent shall submit written
documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community Development
Department and the California Department of Fish and Game showing that a
qualified ornithologist has conducted a pre-construction nesting survey within
one-half mile of the project in areas with potentially suitable nesting habitat for
Swainson’s hawks no more than thirty (30) days prior to commencement of
construction. If a nest site is found, consultation with California Department of
Fish and Game shall be required to ensure project construction will not result
in nest disturbance. No new disturbances or other project-related activities that
may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging shall be initiated within onehalf mile of an active nest between March 1 and September 15, or until August
15 if a Management Authorization is obtained for the project from the
California Department of Fish and Game. These buffer zones may be adjusted
as appropriate in consultation with a qualified ornithologist and California
Department of Fish and Game. If impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks cannot
be avoided, the California Department of Fish and Game shall be consulted for
authorization, through the context of an incidental take permit.
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 the remains shall be collected,
frozen as soon as possible, and California Department of Fish and Game shall
be contacted to determine where the remains will be sent.
Permanent impacts to potential Mohave ground squirrel habitat at the project
site shall be mitigated on site and/or off site at a ratio of one acre impacted to
one acre preserved. Potential habitat shall include areas in the northern portion
of the site, as determined by the project proponent’s Mohave ground squirrel
habitat model (Appendix H of CH2MHill, 2010) as well as impacts along
Jawbone Canyon Road (outside of the current roadbed). Impacts to potential
habitat shall be mitigated through acquisition and preservation of habitat for
this species, or preservation of potential habitat on site. If acquisition is
necessary for some or all of the mitigation lands, mitigation acquisition shall
occur at a California Department of Fish and Game approved location and shall
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐103 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
be coordinated through a California Department of Fish and Game approved
entity. The project proponent(s) shall enter into a binding legal agreement with
California Department of Fish and Game regarding the preservation of on-site
and/or off-site lands describing the terms of the acquisition, enhancement, and
management of those lands. Fee title acquisition of habitat lands or a
conservation easement over these lands will be transferred to an entity
approved by California Department of Fish and Game, along with funding for
enhancement of the land and an endowment for permanent management of the
lands. Management of off-highway vehicles is necessary on Mohave ground
squirrel mitigation areas to prevent burrow collapse, especially during the
aestivation season. Mitigation areas should be relatively flat with a perennial
plant cover ranging from 10 to 20 percent and should support several plant
species necessary for Mohave ground squirrel survival, including herbaceous
annuals, winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), spiny hopsage (Grayia
spinosa), creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), and burrobush (Ambrosia
dumosa).
c. Desert kit fox and American badger: The project proponent(s) shall submit
written documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department showing implementation of pre-construction surveys
for desert kit fox and American badger within suitable habitat. If present,
occupied kit fox and/or badger dens shall be flagged and ground-disturbing
activities avoided within 50 feet of the occupied den avoided. Maternity dens
shall be avoided during pup-rearing season (February 15 through July 1) and a
minimum 200-foot buffer established. Maternity dens shall be flagged for
avoidance, identified on construction maps, and a biological monitor shall be
present during construction.
If avoidance of a non-maternity den is not feasible, kit foxes and badgers shall
be passively relocated by slowly excavating the burrow (either by hand or
mechanized equipment under the direct supervision of the biologist, removing
no more that 4 inches at a time) before or after the rearing season (February 15
through July 1). Any relocation of kit foxes and/or badgers shall occur only
after consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the
Kern County monitor. A written report documenting the kit fox and/or badger
removal shall be provided to the California Department of Fish and Game and
Kern County within 30 days of relocation.
d. Ringtails: The project proponent(s) shall conduct pre-construction ringtail
surveys at sites with suitable denning habitat within the project area. This
includes oak woodland and riparian habitat within 200 feet of any grounddisturbing activity. Occupied dens will be flagged and ground-disturbing
activities within 200 feet will be avoided. If occupied dens are found in the
project area and avoidance is not possible, denning ringtails shall be safely
evicted under the direction of a qualified biologist (as determined by a
Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Fish and
Game). The qualified biologist shall facilitate the removal of ringtails by
delaying construction activity for a minimum of 20 days during the early puprearing season (1 May to 15 June) and a minimum of 5 days during the rest of
the year (16 June to 30 April). If the qualified biologist documents ringtails
voluntarily vacating the den site during this period, then construction may
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐104 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
begin within 7 days following this observation. If the ringtails do not vacate the
den voluntarily within the required period, then the qualified biologist will
coordinate with California Department of Fish and Game to passively relocate
ringtails (excluding the early pup-rearing season: 1 May to 15 June). All
activities that involve the ringtail shall be documented and reported to the
California Department of Fish and Game and Kern County within 30 days of
the activity.
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.
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.
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
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐105 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
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.
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.
v.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 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.
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.
If accidental take (disturbance, injury, or death of owls) occurs, the lead
biological monitor will be notified immediately.
4‐4‐106 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
vi.
MM 4.4-14
Impacts to burrowing owl territories shall be mitigated through the
acquisition of occupied habitat off-site in an area 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.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project proponent(s) shall
submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department of the following regarding the California condor:
a. 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(s) in the implementation of the
monitoring program.
b. 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, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of
Fish and Game within 5 calendar days.
c. The project proponent(s) 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 federal and California Endangered Species
Acts; 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 and Community Development
Department to demonstrate compliance with this mitigation.
d. All California condor sightings in the project area during construction will be
reported directly to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California
Department of Fish and Game, and Kern County within 5 calendar days.
e. The project proponent(s) shall also provide written documentation to the Kern
County Planning Department showing implementation of the following
additional measures:
i.
ii.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Bird flight diverters shall be installed on all meteorological tower guy
wires on structures constructed as part of the project.
During periods of livestock grazing, a full-time monitor shall be present
to ensure immediate removal of carcasses on the project site.
4‐4‐107 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
iii.
iv.
The project proponent(s) will phase out grazing on the project site over
the next five years.
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.
MM 4.4-15
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and to reduce collisions of avian and bat
species with turbines, the project proponent(s) shall submit written documentation to
the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department demonstrating
coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration to minimize the number of
wind turbine generators and meteorological towers that require night lighting and to
use lighting that would minimize attraction of birds and bats to the project area. The
project proponent(s) shall utilize only red, or dual red and white strobe, strobe‐like,
or flashing lights, not steady burning lights, to meet Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) requirements for visibility lighting of wind turbines, permanent met towers,
and communication towers. Only a portion of the turbines within the wind project
should be lighted, and all pilot warning lights should fire synchronously.
MM 4.4-16
The project proponent(s) or its representative shall conduct Post-Construction
Breeding Monitoring in the first, second, and third years following the initial
operation of the project to demonstrate to Kern County Planning and Development
Department that sensitive resident birds are compatible with operation of wind
turbine generators, and that the level of incidental injury and mortality does not
result in a long-term decline in sensitive resident bird species in the region. Postconstruction Breeding Monitoring shall include a Nesting Analysis that shall be
conducted as follows:
a. The project proponent(s) shall provide to the Kern County Planning and
Community Development Department and the California Department of Fish
and Game the results of a study and comparative data analysis, using
methods approved by the County. Qualified ornithologists shall conduct the
study of nesting raptors.
b. Nesting raptor surveys shall be conducted throughout the project site
between February 15 and August 15.
c. Directed field surveys for nesting raptors shall be conducted during the
breeding season by vehicle and on foot to determine the presence or absence
of raptor nests, especially mid-sized to large raptor nests within suitable
habitat areas.
d. If at the end of the second round of monitoring (three years following the
initial operation of the project), the operation of wind turbine generators has
been determined to result in a level of incidental injury and mortality to
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐108 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
nesting birds that constitutes a significant adverse impact on a breeding
population, the project proponent(s) shall undertake supplemental
compensatory measures to support regional conservation of migratory birds.
The results of the Nesting Analysis shall be made available to regional entities
involved in research related to the conservation of nesting birds such as the
Audubon Society.
MM 4.4-17
The project proponent(s) or its representatives shall perform Post-Construction
Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring in the first, second, and third years following
the initial operation of the project to demonstrate the level of incidental injury and
mortality to populations of avian or bat species in the vicinity of the project site.
Post-Construction Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring shall include a Mortality
Analysis, which shall be conducted as follows:
a. The project proponent(s) shall provide to the Kern County Planning and
Community Development Department and the California Department of Fish
and Game the results of a mortality study for avian and bat species on an
annual basis. A qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct mortality
monitoring using a statistically significant sample size of operational
turbines within the wind energy development project.
b. The Mortality Analysis shall note species number, location, and distance
from the turbine for each recovered bird or bat, availability of bird and bat
prey species, and apparent cause of avian or bat mortality. The project
proponent(s) shall provide all results to the Wildlife Response and Reporting
System database within 90 days of completion of the annual study.
c. The mortality monitoring shall follow standardized guidelines outlined by
the California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and
Game (CEC and CDFG, 2007) and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS, 2010), and shall include carcass scavenging and searcher
efficiency trials.
d. The results of the Mortality Analysis shall be provided to the Kern County
Planning Department and regional entities involved in the conservation of
resident and migratory avian and bat species, including United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the
Audubon Society. At a minimum, the Mortality Analysis shall consider three
factors:
i. Number of annual avian and bat mortalities per turbine,
ii. Disproportionate representation of a particular species, and
iii. Comparison to existing data on wind farm mortality.
MM 4.4-18
Prior to issuance of approval for final occupancy, 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:
a. Wherever feasible, turbines shall not be sited on or immediately adjacent to
the upwind sides of ridge crests.
b. Turbine construction shall minimize cutting into hill slopes in an attempt to
achieve smooth rounded terrain, rather than sudden berms or cuts, to reduce
prey abundance.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐109 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
c. Rocks unearthed during the excavation process shall be used during
construction of foundations or hauled off site and disposed of properly, and
not be left in piles near turbines.
d. Discourage small mammals and reptiles from burrowing under or near
turbine bases by placing gravel at least 5 feet around each tower foundation.
e. The wind component developer shall not participate in rodent control
programs on leased lands and will discourage landowners from using
poisoning for rodent control in the vicinity of the project.
f.
Un-guyed meteorological towers shall be constructed for the wind project, if
feasible. If guy wires are necessary, bird deterrents shall be used.
MM 4.4-19
Prior to issuance of approval for final occupancy, the project proponent(s) shall
submit written documentation to the Kern County Planning and Community
Development Department showing that all power lines are constructed to the most
current Avian Power Line Interaction Committee Guidelines. The project
proponent(s) shall conform to the latest practices to protect birds from electrocution
and collision.
MM 4.4-20
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.
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. Contribution to research that addresses the sources of mortality and
population impacts on the species of concern.
e. Funding of regional conservation measures with the intent of enhancing and
preserving existing foraging and nesting habitat in an amount not to exceed
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐110 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
the value of acreage representing the project’s rotor swept area based on
installed turbines.
MM 4.4-21
The project proponent shall continuously comply with the following during all
project-related construction activities:
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. 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) before construction is allowed to
proceed.
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.
c. Vehicle speed limits shall not exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) during
construction and operation of the project. A speed limit sign shall be posted at
all project site entry locations.
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. Clearance surveys shall follow the
most current United States Fish and Wildlife Service’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 500foot 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, 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:
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐111 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
i.
ii.
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.
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;
d. A point of contact if desert tortoises are observed.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 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.
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.
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.
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.
The authorized biologist will have the authority to stop all activities
until appropriate corrective measures have been completed.
4‐4‐112 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
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.
MM 4.4-22
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a wind turbine generator, the project
proponent shall 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;
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.
Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.4‐2: Substantial Adverse Effects to Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community CDFG Jurisdictional Areas. Activities that result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural
flow of a stream, or which substantially change its bed, channel or bank, or which utilize any
materials (including vegetation) from the streambed, may require that the project proponent enter
into a SAA with the CDFG. CDFG determines whether a SAA is necessary for a given water course
after submission of a notification package by the project proponent. For the project, the project
proponent will comply with California State Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq to notify
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐113 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
CDFG of activities proposed for any drainages and/or associated riparian vegetation that could
potentially fall under the jurisdiction of CDFG. These include dry washes, ephemeral and
intermittent drainages, blue-line streams, and drainages with subsurface flow that are present in the
project area, as well as any modifications to or road crossings over Cottonwood Creek. Figure 4.4-3
shows the locations of mapped streams and wetlands in the project area.
The project proponent has indicated that numerous drainage crossings within the project area would
be subject to the jurisdiction of the CDFG pursuant to Section 1603 of the State Fish and Game
Code (CH2MHill, 2010). Additional impacts to drainages would likely occur from construction of
the gen-tie line and its access road. Any project-related activities that would impact drainages and
wetlands on site, 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 (MM 4.4-23). Additionally, the
project proponent(s) would implement habitat restoration/compensation (MM 4.4-4) to mitigate
impacts to areas meeting CDFG jurisdiction.
Sensitive Habitats. Three riparian vegetation communities, Fremont cottonwood forest, southern
willow scrub, and desert olive scrub, were mapped within the current project area along
Cottonwood Creek, natural springs, and intermittent and ephemeral washes. Two additional habitats
considered rare and worthy of consideration by the CDFG and/or Kern County also occur in the
project area: blue oak woodland and Wright’s buckwheat scrub. See the discussion under Section
4.4.2 (Environmental Setting) for details on the locations and compositions of these communities.
Based on the proposed site plan, an estimated 80 acres of Fremont cottonwood forest, 29 acres of
southern willow scrub, 6.5 acres of desert olive scrub, 1,492 acres of blue oak woodland, and 3,528
acres of Wright’s buckwheat scrub occur within the project area. Of this, 3.1 acres of Fremont
cottonwood forest, 0.9 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.8 acres of desert olive scrub, 177.1 acres of
blue oak woodland, and 213.98 acres of Wright’s buckwheat scrub would be impacted by
implementation of the project (see Table 4.4-4).
Joshua tree woodlands are also considered a sensitive vegetation community by CDFG and Kern
County. Although Joshua trees do not occur at a density that would be considered a “woodland”,
several of the habitat types mapped within the project, including California juniper woodland and
Mojave mixed woody scrub, include occasional Joshua trees. Additional impacts to sensitive
vegetation communities may occur from construction of the gen-tie line and its access road.
Construction activities occurring within any of these sensitive natural communities would result in
direct impacts through the removal of vegetation during construction activities. These grounddisturbing construction activities would include clearing and grading for WTGs and transmission
tower pad preparation, the substation site, pulling and tensioning sites, staging areas, and
construction, grading, and widening of new and existing access roads. Potential indirect impacts to
native vegetation communities include alterations in existing topography and hydrology regimes,
the accumulation of fugitive dust, disruptions to native seed banks from ground disturbance, and the
colonization of non-native, invasive plant species. Ongoing operations and maintenance impacts
would occur during routine inspection and maintenance of project facilities. These impacts include
trampling or crushing of native vegetation by vehicular or foot traffic if maintenance personnel
leave access roads, alterations in topography and hydrology, increased erosion and sedimentation,
and the introduction of non-native, invasive plants due to increased human presence.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐114 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Impacts to sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitats, would be minimized through
the development and implementation of a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan, Joshua Tree
Preservation Plan, and an Oak Tree and Woodlands Preservation Plan (MM 4.4-4) and the
development of a Weed Control Plan (MM 4.4-5).
Nonnative and Invasive Weeds. The introduction of nonnative and invasive weed species is a
special concern for native plant communities. Nonnative and invasive weeds pose a threat to the
natural processes of plant community succession, fire frequency, biological diversity and species
composition. Nonnative and invasive weeds can affect the persistence of some populations of
special-status species by replacing the foraging base, altering habitat structure, or excluding a
species by vegetative growth. The potential introduction or spread of nonnative and invasive weeds
would occur primarily during construction activities, but would also continue to occur during
operation and maintenance phases of the project. The introduction of nonnative and invasive weeds
would be related to ground disturbance from clearing and grading; expansion and construction of
access roads; the use of vehicles, construction equipment, or earth materials contaminated with nonnative plant seed; use of straw bales or wattles that contain seeds of non-native plant species; and
increased use of project roads during and after construction. Weed seeds are often spread on
equipment or clothing by construction or maintenance personnel. This would provide many avenues
for new propagules (any part of a plant that may generate a new individual plant) to be carried into
areas that previously were isolated from sources of nonnative weed seeds.
Typically in areas where few exotic species occur, the characteristics of the existing topsoil
structure, cryptogammic crusts, or the existing native vegetation prevent weed seeds from
germinating. Once soil disturbance has occurred, the soil structure or native biotic components are
affected such that these factors no longer preclude the establishment of noxious or invasive weeds.
Following establishment, new populations of weeds are often extremely difficult to eradicate,
especially in arid environments. It may take several years or decades to re-establish the native soil
structure and biota.
As many nonnative weeds occurring in southern California are fast-growing plants adapted to high
light conditions, the removal of canopy vegetation, either in woodlands or in scrub habitats, may
release weed seeds present in the seed bank from dormancy and allow them to germinate and
establish.
Direct impacts associated with the introduction of nonnative weeds could occur when nonnative
weeds become established in an area. These invasive plant species can cause a permanent or longlasting change to the environment by increasing vegetative cover, creating a dense layer that
prevents native vegetation from germinating, altering the edaphic and hydrological conditions
through nitrogen fixation, or may drain the water table. Nonnative weeds can create such an
unfavorable environment for wildlife that associate, mutualistic species necessary for native plant
life cycles, such as seed dispersers, fossorial mammals, or pollinators, are lost from the area.
Potential indirect impacts attributed to the colonization of nonnative weeds include a gradual
decrease in natural biodiversity as nonnative weed infestations may extirpate native plant
populations. Potential operational and maintenance impacts include the facilitation of nonnative
weed establishment and spread as a result of increased vehicular and human traffic.
The development and implementation of a Weed Control Plan (MM 4.4-5) would minimize impacts
associated with the introduction and spread of nonnative and invasive weeds.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐115 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Mitigation Measures Implement MM 4.4-1 though MM 4.4-22
MM 4.4-23
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project proponent(s) shall
submit to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department all
required water quality permits before engaging in soil-disturbing construction
activities, before entering flowing or ponded water, and before constructing
crossing(s) at flowing or ponded water. Such permits may include, but are not
limited to, a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of
Fish and Game, a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the United States Army
Corps of Engineers, a Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction Activities, and/or a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification from the
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Hazardous Materials
Business Plan approval from the Kern County Environmental Health Services
Department. Additionally, after review and approval of all required water quality
permits, the project proponent(s) shall maintain and make available on-site at all
times an approved copy of all required permits.
Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 4.4‐3: Substantial Adverse Effects to Federally Protected Wetlands The project area contains no connectivity to traditional navigable waters (TNWs). A significant
nexus to a TNW must be present for a wetland or water of the United States to be considered
jurisdictional. Preliminary analysis indicates there is no nexus to a TNW by wetlands or waters in
the project area. Therefore, it is unlikely that the project contains any wetlands or waters subject to
federal jurisdiction (CH2MHill, 2010). The NSRP and JWEP proponents made a determination of
non-jurisdiction, but to date concurrence from the USACE that the project is not subject to
jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA has not been provided.
Potential direct impacts to federally protected wetland habitats, should they occur, include the
removal of native riparian vegetation, the discharge of fill, degradation of water quality, and
increased erosion and sediment transport. Most of these impacts would occur during access road
improvements and heavy equipment and vehicle passage where jurisdictional waters traverse access
roads. Potential indirect impacts include alterations to the existing topographical and hydrological
conditions and the introduction of non-native, invasive plant species.
As required by law the project proponent(s) would comply with the regulations regarding
conducting project activities in water bodies under the jurisdiction of the federal government. As
such the project proponent(s) would obtain required permits pursuant to Section 401 and 404 of the
CWA if the USACE determines that federally protected wetlands do occur on site. Biological
resources associated with jurisdictional habitats have been discussed in detail and mitigation has
been presented to reduce or avoid effects to both plant and wildlife that may occur in these areas.
Implementation of a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan (MM 4.4-4) and the development of
a Weed Control Plan (MM 4.4-5) would reduce impacts to federally protected wetlands, should
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐116 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
they occur, to less-than-significant levels. All applicable permits for impacts to jurisdictional areas
will be obtained prior to construction (MM 4.4-23).
Mitigation Measures Implement MM 4.4-1 though MM 4.4-23
Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 4.4‐4: Interference with Wildlife Movement, Migration Corridors, or Nursery Sites As described in Section 4.4.2, the project is situated within the landscape linkage identified as the
Southern Sierra Checkerboard, which is considered an important connection between the flora and
fauna of the Sierra Nevada and the Mojave & Sonoran Deserts ecoregions. Ridgelines, canyon
bottoms, and drainages within the region likely serve as movement corridors for a variety of
terrestrial wildlife, including large animals such as deer, bear, mountain lion, bobcat, etc. However,
wildlife are not expected to limit their movement to specific drainages. For many species including
mule deer and small carnivores, movement patterns are expected to be more dispersed and include
large swaths of open areas and vegetated trails. Tule elk are known from the region and likely move
through the project site (EDAW, 2004). Migrating birds and bats are known to pass through the
area, and the Kelso Valley to the west and northwest of the project site is a well-known bird
migratory corridor. Turkey vultures and other raptors move through the Kelso Valley in large
numbers during the fall. Additionally, Butterbredt Springs, a migratory bird stop-over, is located
less than two miles northeast of the site. Birding records from the region suggest Jawbone Canyon
provides a corridor for birds migrating north over the Mojave Desert on their way to the Kern River
and beyond.
Ground-disturbing activity, including WTG construction, grading of new access roads, construction
of substations and transmission lines, and use or improvement of existing access roads could
interfere with terrestrial wildlife movement during construction. Construction would affect wildlife
in adjacent habitats by interfering with movement patterns or causing animals to temporarily avoid
areas adjacent to the construction zone. In general, nocturnal (i.e., active at night) wildlife would be
affected less by construction than diurnal (i.e., active during the day) species since construction
would occur primarily during daylight hours. More mobile species like birds and larger mammals
are expected to disperse into adjacent habitat areas during the land clearing and grading phases
associated with WTG construction.
Construction activities may temporarily limit terrestrial wildlife movement at WTG and
infrastructure locations; however, the broad geographic range and habitat that occurs in the area of
the project would remain available to wildlife. Mobile wildlife would be able to respond to
construction activities by moving to adjacent habitats, and as many large species move during the
evening or early morning when construction activities would be limited, construction would not
substantially interfere with their movement.
Work areas may be fenced during construction, as needed. This fencing would be utilized to prevent
wildlife or unauthorized persons from entering the work areas. This fencing would temporarily
impede wildlife movement through the work area, but it would also prevent injury or mortality
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐117 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
should wildlife approach work areas. However, upon completion of construction, permanent
fencing would be installed around individual portions of the project site, as required by the County.
This fencing would likely permanently preclude access by some larger terrestrial wildlife, but small
animals would be able to pass under the fence as the bottom strand of smooth barbed wire would be
a minimum of 18 inches above the ground. This would minimize habitat fragmentation for small
animals, but not larger ones, although some larger species may still be able to pass under or over the
fence.
The construction of new WTGs and the installation of new above-ground transmission lines could
interfere with aerial migratory movements of some birds or bats (See Impact 4.4-1). Data submitted
by the project proponents suggest that the migration corridor that includes the Kelso Valley and
Butterbredt Springs does not pass over the project site (CH2MHill, 2011b). However, the project’s
proximity to this known corridor, and the presence of some areas of perennial water and riparian
vegetation onsite, suggest that this area could still receive a relatively high level of avian use.
As discussed under Impact 4.4-1, birds and bats could be killed or displaced by the WTGs, once
operational. Baseline avian and bat studies conducted in support of this project and the previously
proposed Hoffman Summit Wind Energy Project at the same location indicate that use of the
project area by birds is relatively low, and that displacement or mortality due to collisions would
occur with relatively low frequency. Bat activity was found to be high on site, but these data are
from two water features that likely attract bats for extended periods of time, and multiple calls may
have been recorded from relatively few individuals. Data from additional bat recorders located
within a variety of habitat types on site would give a better picture of overall site use by bats, but
these data are currently being collected and are not available at this time. Therefore, at this time it is
assumed that implementation of the project would substantially interfere with avian and bat
movement corridors on site. While mitigation proposed above (MMs 4.4-3 and 4.4-15 through 4.418, 4.4-20, and 4.4-22) would minimize impacts to the extent possible, there is no feasible
mitigation available to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
A bat nursery colony site is where pregnant female bats assemble (or one bat if it’s of a solitary
species) to give birth and raise their pups. Bat nursery colonies would be adversely impacted by a
wind development project if humans approach an active nursery colony, if entrances to nursery
colony sites become blocked, if construction involves blasting or drilling that causes substantial
vibration of the earth/rock surrounding an active nursery colony, or if a structure such as a bridge is
disturbed by construction. These colonies could be located in rock crevices, caves, or culverts;
inside/under bridges; in other man-made structures; and in trees (typically snags or large trees with
cavities). No bat nursery colonies were detected during surveys, but focused roost surveys were not
conducted and suitable habitat occurs within and near the project area. Mitigation proposed below,
which requires surveys for bat nursery colonies (MM 4.4-13), would reduce disturbance to bat
nursery colonies in the project area, if present, to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures Implement MM 4.4-1 though MM 4.4-23
Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐118 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
Impact 4.4‐5: Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources The project would be constructed in compliance with the requirements of the KCGP. Joshua trees
occur at low density in some habitats within the project, and oak woodlands are abundant within the
southwestern portion of the project area. Section 1.10.10 of the KCGP provides policies and
implementation measures for the conservation of oak woodlands and individual oak trees, and
Joshua trees are also considered sensitive by Kern County. Mitigation proposed below, including
the preparation and implementation of a Joshua Tree Preservation Plan and an Oak Tree and
Woodlands Preservation Plan (MM 4.4-4) would ensure impacts to Joshua trees and oaks would be
minimized and mitigated in compliance with local policies.
Mitigation measures identified under Impacts 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 above would minimize impacts to
biological resources to the extent feasible. With the exception of impacts to avian and bat species
due to collision with WTGs, above-ground transmission lines, and other appurtenant structures,
impacts to biological resources would be less than significant or mitigated to a less-than-significant
level. Therefore, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources.
Mitigation Measures Implement MMs 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-23.
Level of Significance Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 4.4‐6: Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan The project area is within the boundaries of the West Mojave Plan (WMP), which is comprised of a
pending HCP and an approved amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan for the
desert tortoise, Mohave ground squirrel, and nearly 100 additional species. The WMP was approved
for BLM lands in 2006, and the portion of the WMP that would apply to non-BLM lands is still
pending. Therefore, the WMP is only applicable to BLM lands within the project. Elements of the
project that could potentially occur on BLM lands include access roads and transmission line rightof-way (ROW). WTGs, the project substation, the O & M facility, staging areas, and the majority of
project roads and power lines would occur on private lands. Any impacts to BLM lands would be a
small proportion of the total disturbance associated with development of the project.
The Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC has been designated on most of the BLM lands in the project area.
As described in Section 4.4.2, this ACEC was established to manage and protect significant cultural
and biological resources present in the transition zone environment between the mountains and the
Mojave Desert. Conservation areas for Mohave ground squirrel, Kelso Creek monkeyflower, and
Bendire’s thrasher within the Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC do not occur within the project
boundaries. Provisions of the WMP applicable to the Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC include a 1%
limitation on allowable ground disturbance and the requirement of a 5:1 mitigation fee ratio.
Impacts within the ACEC, should they occur, would be mitigated in accordance with the WMP
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐119 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
through the context of an Environmental Assessment for the project that is currently being prepared
by the BLM.
Suitable habitat for desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel exists on portions of the project site
as well as along the Jawbone Canyon access road. However, through project design and the
mitigation measures proposed for biological resources, the project proponent shall ensure
consistency with the conservation goals of the HCP. With the implementation of mitigation
proposed for impacts to biological resources, the project would not conflict with the WMP on BLM
lands or on private lands if it is approved.
Mitigation Measures Implement MMs 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-23.
Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cumulative Setting The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to biological resources includes all development
projects within a six-mile radius of the project. In addition, because of the nature of biological
resources impacts related to wind developments on a region-wide level, all planned, proposed, and
existing wind energy developments in Kern County are considered in this analysis. Analysis of
cumulative impacts takes into consideration the entirety of impacts that the projects, zone changes,
and general plans discussed in Section 3.11 would have on biological resources. This geographic
scope of analysis is appropriate because, although impacts of the project are primarily localized to
the impact areas, losses of vegetation types or fragmentation of wildlife corridors would combine
with similar impacts of other projects beyond these limited impact areas.
Impact 4.4‐7: Contribute to Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts With regard to adverse effects to special-status species and sensitive natural communities, the
project would have less-than-significant effects on sensitive natural communities; special-status
plants and special-status mammals; and reptile, bird, and mammal species due to loss of habitat,
construction-related impacts, and displacement. However, the project would have significant and
unavoidable impacts on avian and bat species due to collision with WTGs.
Numerous energy and infrastructure developments are planned within the geographic scope of this
analysis. These developments would further reduce habitat for special-status and common plants
and wildlife, fragment wildlife corridors, contribute to construction-related impacts, and displace
special-status and common wildlife. When considered cumulatively on a region-wide scale, these
impacts would be significant.
At least seven other wind developments of varying size are planned within the region, and at least
six existing and recently approved wind energy developments occur in this area. In addition to the
projects discussed in Section 3.11, numerous other older wind developments are scattered
throughout the TWRA. Impacts related to avian and bat collisions would occur at all of these
developments as well. The project is situated nearest to a known avian migratory pathway, which
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐120 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
includes the Butterbredt Springs migratory stopover, less than three miles to the northeast of the
closest proposed WTGs as well as the Kelso Valley adjacent to the west side of the project.
However, existing and proposed wind energy developments adjacent to or within the general
vicinity of the project would also contribute to the potential for migrants to collide with WTGs.
Therefore, when considered cumulatively, avian and bat mortality due to collisions with WTGs and
associated infrastructure would be significant and unavoidable.
In addition, wind projects facilitated in the future by the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission
Project (TRTP) will contribute to cumulative impacts. These projects could add up to 4500 MW of
new wind generation in the TWRA, which would result in additional cumulative impacts to birds
and bats based on habitat loss, displacement, and direct mortality. Potential impacts resulting from
additional wind generation in the TWRA are difficult to quantify. The potential for bird and bat
strikes varies greatly depending on the location of the wind farm, technology used, and surrounding
land uses. New wind facilities within the TWRA would primarily use newer technology.
Consequently, estimated fatality rates for the buildout of the TWRA cannot be accurately calculated
based on fatality rates from wind projects in other locations or those using older technology.
Impacts of the project would combine with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects to result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
With regard to effects to federally protected wetlands, the project proponents have indicated that no
drainages or wetland onsite are likely to fall under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the project would
have no effect on these wetlands and would not contribute to cumulative impacts. With regard to
State-protected wetlands, several drainages that likely fall under CDFG jurisdiction are located
within the project area. However, the project proponent(s) would obtain a SAA from CDFG for any
jurisdictional drainages that would be impacted within the project. Other projects in the cumulative
analysis area would be required to do the same. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to
combine with impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects to result in a
cumulative impact.
With regard to interference with wildlife movement, migration corridors, or nursery sites, the
project has the potential to disrupt wildlife movement and could potentially affect a known avian
migration corridor in the vicinity of the project area. Birds migrating through the Kelso Valley,
Butterbredt Springs, and Jawbone Canyon may have the potential to collide with proposed WTGs,
as discussed above. Currently available data for the project region confirm that migratory birds pass
through the area; however, passage rates and directions in and out of Kelso Valley and Butterbredt
Springs are poorly understood. Existing wind developments to the south and southwest of the
project also pose a risk to avian migrants, although the project is situated closer to the migratory
pathway. Terrestrial wildlife movement would be disrupted during construction due to avoidance of
construction activities and temporary barriers to movement such as fencing. Permanent fencing
would obstruct movement of many large animals during operation of the project, but small animals
and even some larger ones would be able to pass under the fence. Other development projects,
including wind developments and energy infrastructure within the geographic scope of this analysis,
would also disrupt wildlife movement to varying degrees. For example, transmission lines would
not present appreciable barriers to movement as wildlife can move around and in between towers,
but existing and proposed wind developments would present an obstacle to movement because of
the required fencing (individual WTGs, WTG rows, or entire projects), and would displace some
larger terrestrial species. Therefore, impacts of the project would combine with impacts of past,
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐121 May 2011 County of Kern 4.4 Biological Resources
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects to result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact to wildlife movement and migration corridors.
With regard to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, the project would
comply with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the KCGP and therefore would
not violate any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. As such, impacts of the
project would not have the potential to combine with impacts from past, present, or reasonably
foreseeable projects to result in a cumulative impact.
With regard to adopted HCPs, NCCPs, or other approved local, regional, or State HCPs; only the
WMP occurs in the project area. The WMP is a HCP that has been proposed but has not yet been
approved for private lands, and is only applicable to BLM lands at this time. While the project falls
within the planning area for the WMP, it would not conflict with the conservation goals of the
WMP. Therefore, impacts of the project would not have the potential to combine with impacts from
past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects to result in a cumulative impact to an adopted HCP.
Mitigation Measures Implement MMs 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-23.
Level of Significance after Mitigation Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
North Sky River Wind Energy Project and Jawbone Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐4‐122 May 2011