sand canyon wind nop

8/6/2019 Sand Canyon Wind Nop

1/56

PLANNING AND COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Lorelei H. Oviatt, AICP, Director2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 100BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-2323Phone: (661) 862-8600FAX: (661) 862-8601 TTY Relay 1-800-735-2929E-Mail: [email protected]

Web Address: www.co.kern.ca.us/planning

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGENCY

Ted James, AICP, DSA DIRECTORPlanning and Community Developmen

Engineering, Surveying and Permit Service

Roads Departmen

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

DATE: October 28, 2010

To: See Attached Mailing List FROM: Kern County Planning and Community

Development Department

Attn: Michael D. Hollier

2700 M Street, Suite 100

Bakersfield, CA 93301

(661) 862-8739

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT

The Kern County Planning and Community Development Department as Lead Agency (per CEQA Guidelines

Section 15052) has required that an Environmental Impact Report (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15161) be

prepared for the project identified below. The Planning and Community Development Department solicits the

views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your

agencys statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the

EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval of projects.

Due to the limits mandated by State law, your response must be received by November 29, 2010 at 5pm. In

addition, comments can be submitted at a scoping meeting that will be held at the Kern County Planning and

Community Development Department on November 18, 2010 at 1:30pm at the address shown above.

PROJECT TITLE: MDH 14-10; Sand Canyon Wind Projects; Zone Change Case No. 28, Map 167 and Zone

Change Case No. 29, Map 167 (PP11218 and PP11224).

PROJECT LOCATION: East and west side of Sand Canyon Road; north side of Tehachapi Boulevard; 300

feet north of State Route 58; 3/4 miles south of the unincorporated community of Sand Canyon; approximately

4 miles east of the City of Tehachapi; in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area of eastern Kern County; Portions

of Sections 27 and 28, T32S, R34E, MDBM.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are requesting a change in zone classification on approximately

300 acres in order to allow for the construction of up to 17 wind turbine generators which would generate up to40 megawatts (MW) of energy. Additionally, the project proposes the incorporation of the Floodplain (FP)

Combining District on about 100 acres located along Cache Creek. Implementation of the request would also

entail construction of three meteorological towers, seventeen crane pads, on and off-site access roads, control

cables, and subsurface feeder line corridors and collector system lines necessary to serve the project.

Signature: /S/Name: Michael HollierTitle: Planner II


2/56

ZCC #28, Map #167ZCC #29, Map #16714-10mbh.nop

City of Tehachapi115 South Robinson StreetTehachapi, CA 93561-1722

U.S. Bureau of Land ManagementCaliente/Bakersfield3801 Pegasus DriveBakersfield, CA 93308-6837

China Lake Naval Weapons CenterTim Fox, RLA - Comm Plans & Liaison429 E Bowen, Building 979Mail Stop 4003

China Lake, CA 93555-6108

Edwards Air Force BaseAFFTC/XRX Bldg 0001, Room 110#1 South Rosamond Blvd.Edwards AFB, CA 93524-1936

Federal Aviation AdministrationWestern Reg Office/Airport Div - AWP 60P.O. Box 92007Los Angeles, CA 90009

Federal Communications Comm18000 Studebaker Road, #550Cerritos, CA 90701

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service2493 Portola Road, Suite BVentura, CA 93003

Tehachapi Resource Cons Dist321 West "C" StreetTehachapi, CA 93561-2011

Environmental Protection AgencyRegion IX Office75 Hawthorn StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105

U.S. Dept of Agriculture/NRCS5000 California Avenue, Ste 100Bakersfield, CA 93309-0711

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersAttention Planning Division1325 "J" StreetSacramento, CA 95814

So. San Joaquin Valley Arch Info CtrCalifornia State University of Bkfd9001 Stockdale HighwayBakersfield, CA 93311

Caltrans/Dist 6Planning/Land Bank Bldg.P.O. Box 12616Fresno, CA 93778

Caltrans/Dist 9Planning Department500 South Main StreetBishop, CA 93514

Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics, MS #40P.O. Box 942873Sacramento, CA 94273-0001

State ClearinghouseOffice of Planning and ResearchP.O. Box 3044Sacramento, CA 95812-3044CERTIFIED MAIL

State Dept of ConservationDirector's Office801 "K" Street, MS 24-01Sacramento, CA 95814-3528

State Dept of ConservationDivision of Oil & Gas4800 Stockdale Highway, Ste 417Bakersfield, CA 93309

California Energy CommissionJames W. Reed, Jr.1516 Ninth StreetMail Stop 17Sacramento, CA 95814

State Dept of Fish & Game1234 East Shaw AvenueFresno, CA 93710

California Highway PatrolPlanning & Analysis DivisionP.O. Box 942898Sacramento, CA 94298-0001

Public Utilities Comm Energy Div505 Van Ness AvenueSan Francisco, CA 94102

California Regional Water QualityControl Board/Lahontan Region14440 Civic Drive, Suite 200Victorville, CA 92392-2306

Kern County Airports Department Kern County Engineering, Surveying,and Permit Svs/Floodplain

Kern County Engineering, Surveying,and Permit Svs/Survey

Kern CountyEnv Health Services Department

Kern County Fire DeptBrian Marshall

Kern County Fire DeptDave Goodell


3/56

Kern County Library/BealeLocal History Room

Kern County Library/BealeDiane Duquette

Kern County LibraryTehachapi Branch1001 West Tehachapi Blvd - Suite 400Tehachapi, CA 93561

Kern County Parks & Recreation Kern County Sheriff's DeptAdministration

Kern County Roads Department

Kern CountyWaste Management Department

Tehachapi Unified School Dist400 South SnyderTehachapi, CA 93561

Kern County Superintendent of SchoolsAttention Mary Baker1300 17th StreetBakersfield, CA 93301

Golden Hills Community Serv DistP.O. Box 637Tehachapi, CA 93581

Tehachapi-Cummings Co Water DistP.O. Box 326Tehachapi, CA 93561

Kern County Water AgencyP.O. Box 58Bakersfield, CA 93302-0058

Tehachapi Valley Rec & Parks DistP.O. Box 373Tehachapi, CA 93561

East Kern Air PollutionControl District

Mojave Airport1434 FlightlineMojave, CA 93501

East Kern Airport DistAttention Stuart Witt1434 FlightlineMojave, CA 93501

East Kern Airport Dist Engineer3900 Ridgemoor AvenueBakersfield, CA 93306

Northcutt and AssociatesP.O. Box 2893Lake Isabella, CA 93240

Mountain Valley AirportP.O. Box 100Tehachapi, CA 93581

Tehachapi City Hall/Airport115 South Robinson StreetTehachapi, CA 93561

Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & CardozoAttention: Janet M. Laurain601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000South San Francisco, CA 94080

U.S. Air ForceWestern Regional Environmental Officer50 Fremont Street, Suite 2450San Francisco, CA 94105-2230

U.S. ArmyDir of Public Works/Master Plan DivP.O. Box 105097Fort Irwin, CA 92310-5097

U.S. ArmyPeter RubinB7905th StreetParks RFTADublin, CA 94568

U.S. NavySteve Chung1220 Pacific HighwaySan Diego, CA 92132

U.S. Marine CorpsPatrick ChristmanBuilding 1164/Box 555246Camp Pendleton, CA 92055

AT & T5555 E. Olive Avenue, Cubicle 450FFresno, CA 93727

Kern Audubon SocietyP.O. Box 3581Bakersfield, CA 93385

Los Angeles Audubon926 Citrus AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90036-4929

Center on Race, Poverty& the Environmental47 Kearny Street, Suite 804San Francisco, CA 94108-5528


4/56

Center on Race, Poverty& the Environmental/CA Rural Legal Assistance Foundation1302 Jefferson Street, Suite 2Delano, CA 93215

Defenders of Wildlife/Cynthia Wilkerson, M.S.California Representative1303 "J" Street, Suite 270Sacramento, CA 95814

Mojave Chamber of CommerceP.O. Box 999Mojave, CA 93502

Native American Heritage Councilof Kern County/Fay Van HornP.O. Box 1507Bakersfield, CA 93302

Beth BoystPacific Crest Trail Program Manager1323 Club DriveVallejo, CA 94592

Eric MasonPacific Crest Trail AssociationP.O. Box 3398Idyllwild, CA 92549

Suzanne WilsonPacific Crest Trail Association26121-A Hemstreet PlaceIdyllwild, CA 92549

Sierra Club/Kern Kaweah ChapterArthur Unger ***PUT IN BUCKET***

Smart Growth Coalition/Bkfd302 S Mojave StreetTehachapi, CA 93561-1826

Southern California EdisonPlanning Dept.421 West "J" StreetTehachapi, CA 93561

Chumash Council of BakersfieldP.O. Box 902Bakersfield, CA 93302

David Laughing Horse RobinsonP.O. Box 1547Kernville, CA 93238

Santa Rosa RancheriaClarence Atwell, ChairpersonP.O. Box 8Lemoore, CA 93245

Tejon Indian TribeKathy Morgan, Chairperson2234 4th StreetWasco, CA 93280

Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon IndiansDelia Dominguez981 North VirginiaCovina, CA 91722

Tubatulabals of Kern CountyP.O. Box 226Lake Isabella, CA 93240

Tule River Indian TribeNeal Peyron, ChairpersonP.O. Box 589Porterville, CA 93258

Cuddy Valley Statistical11667 Steinhoff RoadFrazier Park, CA 93222

Eight Bar RanchJon and Helen Lantz11300 Cameron Canyon RoadMojave, CA 93501

Janice Armstrong25101 Bear Valley BoulevardPMB 20Tehachapi, CA 93561

Northcutt and AssociatesP.O. Box 2893Lake Isabella, CA 93240

Steve YatskoTerra-Gen11512 El Camino Real, Suite 100San Diego, CA 92130

URS Corporation30 River Park Place West, Suite 180Fresno, CA 93720

VestasSarah Adams1881 Southwest Naito ParkwayPortland, OR 97201

Kern Wind Energy Associationc/o Linda Parker5617 Spring Blossom StreetBakersfield, CA 93313


5/56

Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign identif ication numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or

previous draft document) please fill in.Revised 2008

Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal

Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613

For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

Project Title:

Lead Agency: Contact Person:

Mailing Address: Phone:

City: Zip: County:

Project Location: County: City/Nearest Community:

Cross Streets: Zip Code:

Longitude/Latitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): q c s N / q c s W Total Acres: Assessor's Parcel No.: Section: Twp.: Range: Base:

Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Waterways:

Airports: Railways: Schools:

Document Type:

CEQA: NOP Draft EIR NEPA: NOI Other: Joint Document

Early Cons Supplement/Subsequent EIR EA Final Document

Neg Dec (Prior SCH No.) Draft EIS Other:

Mit Neg Dec Other: FONSI

Local Action Type:

General Plan Update Specific Plan Rezone Annexation

General Plan Amendment Master Plan Prezone Redevelopment

General Plan Element Planned Unit Development Use Permit Coastal Permit

Community Plan Site Plan Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) Other:

Development Type:

Residential: Units Acres

Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Transportation: Type

Commercial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Mining: Mineral

Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Power: Type MW

Educational: Waste Treatment:Type MGD

Recreational: Hazardous Waste:Type

Water Facilities:Type MGD Other:

Project Issues Discussed in Document:

Aesthetic/Visual Fiscal Recreation/Parks Vegetation

Agricultural Land Flood Plain/Flooding Schools/Universities Water Quality

Air Quality Forest Land/Fire Hazard Septic Systems Water Supply/Groundwater

Archeological/Historical Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity Wetland/Riparian

Biological Resources Minerals Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Growth Inducement

Coastal Zone Noise Solid Waste Land Use

Drainage/Absorption Population/Housing Balance Toxic/Hazardous Cumulative Effects

Economic/Jobs Public Services/Facilities Traffic/Circulation Other:

Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:

Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary)

SCH #

Appendix C

Sand Canyon Wind Projects

Kern County Michael Hollier

2700 M Street, Suite 100 (661) 862-8787

Bakersfield 93301 Kern

Kern Tehachapi/Sand Canyon

Sand Canyon Road and Tehachapi Boulevard 93561

35 7 10 118 19 17 300

224-111-01 & -16, 224-120-17 & -18 27 & 28 32 S 34 E MDBM

58 Cache Creek

N/A Union Pacific N/A

Wind 40

SEEATTACHED

SEEATTACHED


6/56

Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal (Appendix C)

Additional Project Information for:

ZCC #28, Map 167

ZCC #29, Map 167

(Sand Canyon Wind Projects)

Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Description: Undeveloped/A-1 (Limited Agriculture) / 8.2

Resource (Resource Agriculture), 8.3 (Extensive Agriculture), 8.3/2.4 (Extensive Agriculture and SteepSlopes Physical Constraint), and 8.5 (Resource Management).

Project Description: The applicants are requesting a change in zone classification on approximately 300

acres in order to allow for the construction of up to 17 wind turbine generators which would generate up

to 40 megawatts (MW) of energy. Additionally, the project proposes the incorporation of the Floodplain

(FP) Combining District on about 100 acres located along Cache Creek. Implementation of the request

would also entail construction of three meteorological towers, seventeen crane pads, on and off-site

access roads, control cables, and subsurface feeder line corridors and collector system lines necessary to

serve the project.


7/56

Revised 2008

Reviewing Agencies Checklist

Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X".If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S".

Air Resources Board Office of Emergency Services

Boating & Waterways, Department of Office of Historic Preservation

California Highway Patrol Office of Public School Construction

Caltrans District # Parks & Recreation, Department of

Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Pesticide Regulation, Department of

Caltrans Planning Public Utilities Commission

Central Valley Flood Protection Board Regional WQCB #

Coachella Valley Mtns. Conservancy Resources Agency

Coastal Commission S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm.

Colorado River Board San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mtns. Conservancy

Conservation, Department of San Joaquin River Conservancy

Corrections, Department of Santa Monica Mtns. Conservancy

Delta Protection Commission State Lands Commission

Education, Department of SWRCB: Clean Water Grants

Energy Commission SWRCB: Water QualityFish & Game Region # SWRCB: Water Rights

Food & Agriculture, Department of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Department of

General Services, Department of Water Resources, Department of

Health Services, Department of

Housing & Community Development Other:

Integrated Waste Management Board Other:

Native American Heritage Commission

Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency)

Starting Date Ending Date

Lead Agency (Complete if applicable):

Consulting Firm: Applicant:

Address: Address:

City/State/Zip: City/State/Zip:

Contact: Phone:

Phone:

Signature of Lead Agency Representative: Date:

Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code.

S

S 6 & 9

S

S

SS Fres

S

S

S Lah

October 28, 2010 November 29, 2010

/S/ 10/27/10


8/56


9/56

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study

for the

Sand Canyon Wind Projects

ZCC #28, Map 167

ZCC #29, Map 167

Prepared by:

Kern County Planning and Community

Development Department

2700 M Street, Suite 100

Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370

(661) 862-8600

October 2010


10/56


11/56

Table of Contents

1. Project Description

1.1 Location ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Project Facilities and Operations ........................................................................................... 6

1.5 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................. 7

1.6 Proposed Discretionary Actions/Required Approvals ........................................................... 8

2. Environmental Determination

2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................................................................... 9

2.2 Determination ......................................................................................................................... 9

3. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ........................................................................................ 12

3.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 17

3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 19

3.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 20

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 22

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 24

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 27

3.10 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................ 30

3.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................ 31

3.12 Noise .................................................................................................................................... 32

3.13 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................... 35

3.14 Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 37

3.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 39

3.16 Transportation/Traffic .......................................................................................................... 40

3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 43

3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................... 45


12/56


13/56

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 LocationThe Sand Canyon Wind Energy Project by Sand Canyon of Tehachapi, LLC, and the Sand Canyon Creek

Wind Energy Project by Sand Canyon Creek, LLC will be collectively addressed in this Environmental

Impact Report (EIR) as the "project" and will be referenced individually as Site 1 and Site 2, respectively.

The project would be located in the eastern part of Kern County. Figures 1 and 2 show the regional

location and vicinity of the project area, respectively.

The proposed project site is located immediately north of Tehachapi Boulevard and State Route (SR) 58

in the Greater Tehachapi area of eastern Kern County (Figure 1). The project sites are generally bounded

north and east by the Tehachapi Mountains, to the south by Tehachapi Boulevard and SR 58, and to the

west by the Tehachapi Valley. Cache Creek traverses portions of Site 2 flowing from north to south.

Offsite access is from Sand Canyon Road. The Union Pacific railroad line is located approximately 150

feet south of Site 1. The Calaveras Cement Company is situated directly west of the Project while theTehachapi Airport is located approximately 6 miles to the west, and the Mountain Valley Airport is

situated approximately 5 miles to the southwest. The unincorporated community of Sand Canyon is

located approximately 3/4 miles to the north, and the City of Tehachapi is about 4 miles to the west.

The project is located entirely on the U.S. Geological Service 7.5 minute Monolith Topographic

Quadrangle. In Township 32 South, Range 34 East, M.D.B.&M., Site 1 spans portions of Section 28, and

Site 2 spans portions of Section 27.

1.3 Environmental Setting

The project sites (defined as the area within the project boundaries shown on Figure 2) consists of

approximately 300 acres divided into 4 privately owned parcels of undeveloped land located in the

Tehachapi Valley at the base of Sand Canyon. Site 1 is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Kern

County General Plan (KCGP), and Site 2 is located within the Sand Canyon Specific Plan (SCSP). Site 1

lands are designated Map Codes 8.2 (Resource Reserve), 8.3/2.4 (Extensive Agriculture Steep Slope

Physical Constraints), and 8.5 (Resource Management) according to the KCGP. Site 2 lands, within the

SCSP, are designated Map Code 8.5 (Figure 2). The both sites are zoned Limited Agriculture (A-1)

District (Figure 3).

Project topography is described as a double-peaked hill that steeply slopes to the east from about 4,210 ft.

above Mean Sea Level (MSL) into a small alluvial plain at about 3,910 ft. above MSL. Several small

mountain washes traverse the area draining into Cache Creek. Portions of Site 2 along Cache Creek are

located within an A Zone (100-year) Flood Hazard Area as delineated on the Federal Emergency

Management Agency's (FEMA) Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM). Site vegetation iscomprised of native and nonnative species typical of the upper reaches of the Tehachapi Valley.

Vegetation on the southeastern half of the project is described as juniper woodland, while the northeast

half is primarily described as pinyon-juniper woodland. Wetlands may be present along Cache Creek and

some of the washes traversing the project site. Site soils are primarily classified as Steuber series. No

structures are located on the project site. Two existing water wells are situated on the project sites, but the

applicant plans to abandon these wells after construction of the project.


14/56

|}58

|}14

|}202

|}58

|}1432 S 33 E 32 S 35 E32 S 34 E

11 N 12 W11 N 13 W11 N 15 W 11 N 14 W

32 S 36 E

31 S 34 E

32 S 32 E

31 S 33 E 31 S 35 E 31 S 36 E31 S 32 E

10 N 12 W10 N 15 W 10 N 14 W 10 N 13 W

1 N 16 W

0 N 16 W

12 N 15 W 12 N 14 W 12 N 13 W 12 N 12 W2 N 16 W

11 N

10 N

12 N

Backus Rd

OakCreek

Rd

Highline Rd

TehachapiW

illowSpringsR

d

SierraHwy

Cam

eron

Rd

HoltS

t

WoodfordTehachap

iRd

SandCanyonR

d

U nit

ed

S t

TehachapiBlvd

DennisonRd

Ste

ub

er

Rd California C

CacheC

reekBlv

dValley Blvd Los

Angeles

Aqued

uct

Vicinity Map

Sand Canyon Wind Proje

Sec. 27 & 28 - T. 32/R. 34

Kern CountyPlanning & CommunityDevelopment Department

10/27/20100.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

^_

PROJECT

SITES

Township/Range

City Limits

Figu

ZCC No. 28 & ZCC No. 29, Map No. 16


15/56

643.75 ac.

623.31 ac.

195.96 ac.

194.63 ac.313.25 ac.

308.18 ac.

161.95 ac.

120.76 ac.

451.7 ac.

113.43 ac.

99.61 ac.

196.45 ac.

157.51 ac.

158.76 ac.

80.8 ac.

165.8 ac.

81.21 ac.

1 9 5 . 3 4 a c .

80.34 ac.

86.26 ac.

136.29

ac

.

149.45 ac.

53.26 ac.

161.83 ac.

82.31 ac.

39.81

ac.

39.

74

ac

.

38.06 ac.

403.7

ac

.

63.79ac.

29.97

ac.

29.9

1

ac

.

26.87ac.

23.47ac.

127.81ac.

20.

82a

c.

19.96 ac.

20.

87

ac.

20.

92a

c.

13.22ac.

12.11ac.

|}58|}58

TehachapiBlvd

Sand

Canyon

Rd

Cannon Rd

Ferncuko

St

Zephyp

Ct

CenturyCt

ZCC No. 28 & ZCC No. 29, Map No. 16

Assessor's Parcelization


0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Fee

APN: 224-111-01; 224-111-1224-120-14; 224-120-1

SITE 1 Sand Canyon Wind Proje

Sec. 27 & 28 - T. 32/R. 34

10/27/2010

Figu

37.8 ac.

SITE 2

Parcel Boundaries

57.76 ac.


16/56

A

A WE

A-1

E(20)

E(2 1/2) RS MH

E(20) RS

AGH

|}58|}58

32 S 34 E

12 N 14 W 12 N 13 W

TehachapiBlvd

San

dCa

nyon

Rd

RabitishaAv

Camer

onRd

Ferncuk

oS

t

GuyonLn

B a s a

l t R

d

Juniper Wy

Cannon Rd

M a g g

i e R

d

SweetWaterRd

Scu

snitsa

St

PineGro

veDrPine

Cany

on

Rd

Old

WellR

d

CenturyCt

DeerTailR

d

0 4,00

Existing Zoning

KERN COUNTYZONING DESIGNATIONSA - Exclusive agricultureA-1 - Limited agricultureC-1 - Neighborhood commercialC-2 - General commercialCH - Highway commercialCO - Commercial office

DI - Drilling islandE(2 1/2) - Estate (2 1/2 acres)M-1 - Light manufacturingM-2 - Medium industrialM-3 - Heavy industrialMP - Mobilehome parkPL - Platted landsR-1 - Low density residentialR-2 - Medium density residentialR-3 - High density residentialRF - Recreation forestryFP - Floodplain combiningFPS - Floodplain secondary combiningGH - Geologic hazard combiningMH - Mobilehome combiningPD - Precise development combiningRS - Residential suburban combiningWE - Wind energy combining

Kern CountyPlanning & CommuniDevelopment Departm

Zoning Boundaries

A-1

A-1

A-1 A-1

A-1A-1

A

A WE

A WE

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Sections1

Township/Range

Sand Canyon Wind ProjectSec. 27 & 28 - T. 32/R. 34

10/27/2010

Figur

ZCC No. 28 &

ZCC No. 29, Map No. 167

A-1

SITE 1SITE 2

2 72 82 9 2 6 2 5

3 5 3 63 43 33 2

2 0 2 1 2 2

1 7 1 6 1 31 5 1 4

2 3 2 4


17/56

8.5

8.2

8.2/2.4

8.3

8.5/2.4

8.2/2.5

3.4.1

3.

4

3.3/2.1

5.6

8.3/2.4

8.3/2.5

3.4.1/2.2

3.7

3.4.1/2.4

8.2/2.2

8.5/2.5

3.3/2.5

8.5/2.1

|}58|}58

32 S 34 ETehachapiBlvd

Sand

Canyo

nR

d

RabitishaAv

Camero

nRd

FerncukoS

t

CannonRd

Scusn

itsa

St

Century

Ct

0 1,880 Feet

Existing General &

Specific Plan Map Cod

KERN COUNTYGENERAL/ SAND CANYONSPECIFIC PLANDESIGNATIONS1.1 State and federal land2.1 Seismic Hazard2.2 Landslide2.4 Steep slope2.5 Flood hazard3.3 Other facilities3.4 Solid waste disposal facility3.4.1 Solid waste disposal facility buffe5.6 Minimum 2.5 gross acres/unit8.1 Intensive agriculture (20 acre parce8.2 Resource reserve (20/80 acre parc8.3 Extensive agriculture (20/80 acre p8.4 Mineral and petroleum (5 acre parc8.5 Resource mgnt (20/80 acre parcel


F

General Plan Boundaries

Sections1

Township/Range

8.5

8.5

8.5

8.5/2.4

8.2/2.4

8.3/2.4

8.2

8.2

SITE 2

Sand Canyon Wind ProjectSec. 27 & 28 - T. 32/R. 34

10/07/2010

Figu

8.5

8.2

8.3/2.4

8.3/2.4 SITE 1

ZCC No. 28 &

ZCC No. 29, Map No. 167

SAND CANYONSPECIFIC PLAN

KERN COUNTYGENERAL PLAN

3 2 S 3 4 E3 2 S 3 4 E

2 72 8 2 6

3 53 43 33 2

2 9

2 32 22 12 0

1 7 1 8 1 6 1 5


18/56

KERN COUNTY

SAND CANYON WIND PROJECTS PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

1.3 Proposed Project

The applicants are requesting a zone change from A-1 (Limited Agriculture) Zone District to A WE

(Exclusive Agriculture - Wind Energy Combining) and A FP WE (Exclusive Agriculture Floodplain

CombiningWind Energy Combining) District.

The project sites existing base zone districts require the incorporation of the Wind Energy (WE)Combining District for development of the proposed wind energy facility. Since the current zoning of A-1

is not consistent with the 8.3 and 8.5 Map Codes, the project requires a zone change to the A District to

become consistent and allow for the incorporation of the WE Combining District. The purpose of the WE

Combining District is to promote the use of an alternative to fossil fuel-generated electrical power in areas

of the County that are identified to have suitable wind resources for production of commercial quantities

of wind-generated electrical power. The WE Combining District contains specific development standards

that apply to all construction and siting of wind turbines and accessory facilities in this zone without

further discretionary review. Since a 100-acre portion of the project lies within a DFIRM Zone A, the

Floodplain (FP) Combining District is necessary to protect public health and safety and minimizeproperty damage by designating areas that are potentially subject to flooding by establishing reasonable

restrictions on land use.

1.4 Project Facilities and OperationsThe proposed project facilities would include wind turbine generators (WTG), service roads, a power

collection system, communication cables, overhead and underground transmission lines, electrical

switchyards, project substations, and meteorological towers. The proposed projects temporary facilities

would include construction access roads and lay-down areas. Project elements include:

Up to a maximum of 17 WTG (proposed 8 WTG on Site 1 and 9 WTG on Site 2) not to exceed

500 feet in height with associated towers, foundations, and pad mounted transformers (each

turbine could range from 1 MW to 3 MW) for a total generation capacity not to exceed 40 MW of

electricity;

One (1) meteorological tower on Site 1, and up to two (2) meteorological towers on Site 2;

On-site and off-site project access roads, control cables, and power collection cables(transmission lines) necessary to serve the project and connect to the California Independent

System Operator (CAISO) grid;

A project substation or switchyard for each site to step up the voltage generated by the turbines to

meet the electrical transmission systems 56-kilovolt (kV) (Monolith line) or 230-kV (High Wind

line) voltage;

The turbines would be a three-blade, up-wind design, placed strategically on the sloping topography in

turbine rows to maximize output. Several lay-out options within the proposed WE zoned areas are being

considered. Due to military air traffic restrictions, the turbines would also need to conform to the military

height requirements at the time of proposed project permitting, as defined by Section 19.64 of the Kern

County Zoning Ordinance and Figure 19.08.160 of that same document. Presently, the maximum allowed

height within the proposed project area is 500 feet. The project is designed in conformance with Section19.08.160 (Height of Structures) of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance to avoid military flight test

airspace for Joint Service Restricted R-2508 Complex.

Project construction would last between three and six months for each site. Both sites could be

constructed concurrently or sequentially. After the project is constructed, the turbines would generate

electricity using wind power. A staff of about one to two workers would be present to mange ongoing

operations and conduct mechanical and electrical maintenance activities for each site.

Each of the two proposed substations or switchyards would cover less than 2 acres and would consist of a

control house, electrical breakers, transformers, and associated equipment. Each substation or switchyard


19/56

site would be graded to provide for storm water drainage, graveled, and enclosed within a security fence.

Each substation or switchyard would be built to Kern County building code requirements and would

include a suitable grounding grid to protect against lightning and shorts.

The proposed project entails installation of a small step-up transformer in or near the base of each wind

turbine to increase the output voltage of the power generated by the wind turbine to a level suitable for

local power collection within the property. For the proposed project, the power collection system voltagehas not been determined. Underground cables would be installed throughout the majority of the proposed

project and would connect to and between each turbine, connecting each turbine to a feeder circuit; each

feeder circuit would in turn be connected to the project substation. Overhead circuits could be used to

avoid environmentally sensitive areas, or other constraints inherent to the site. The different turbine

circuits would gather at the project substations or switchyards and then be sent to the overhead electricity

lines leading to a grid interconnection point.

There are two options under consideration for routing of overhead and underground electrical lines to

final utility interconnection points. Option A would begin at the project substations or switchyards and go

west along the north side of Tehachapi Boulevard to the existing Monolith Substation. Option B would

begin at the project substations or switchyards and go south to the High Wind Substation.

Fiber-optic communication wires would also be laid down using the same underground trenching

channels, and overhead, in conjunction with the Supervisory Control and Data System (SCADA) cabinet

to the substations or switchyards.

1.5 Project ObjectivesThe applicant's objectives for the project are:

Provide an approximately 40-MW project generating over 113,800 megawatt hours (MWh) peryear of electricity, in California, through optimization of renewable energy sources.

Utilize approximately 100 acres within Kern County, California, for the placement of up to 17wind turbines.

Supply renewable energy that will help the State of California meet its goals by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by displacing up to 37,404 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)annually.

Provide property tax revenues to Kern County.

Provide green jobs to Kern County and the State of California

Meet obligations under the project's Power Purchase Agreement to assist California it in reachingits California Renewable Portfolio Standard mandate.

Realize the full potential of the wind resource on the lands under lease.

Result in an economically feasible renewable energy project that would be developed throughcommercially available financing.

Displace 37,404 tons of carbon dioxide (a GHG) emissions per year that would otherwise berequired to generate the same amount of electricity as this 20 MW project.

Displace 27.2 metric tons of sulfur dioxide emissions per year.

Displace 32 metric tons of nitrogen oxide emissions per year.

Supply clean, safe, renewable energy for approximately 10,544 homes.

Support Californias aggressive goal of 33 percent renewable energy generation by 2020.


20/56

KERN COUNTY


1.6 Proposed Discretionary Actions/Required Approvals

Construction and operation of the proposed project may require the following discretionary actions and

approvals:

FederalFederal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation

Wind Turbine Generator Lighting Plan

State

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

Section 1600 et seq. permits (Streambed Alteration Agreements)

Section 2081 Permit (state-listed endangered species)

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit

General Construction Stormwater Permit (Preparation of a SWPPP)

Regional Water Quality Certification (401 Permit)

Local

Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District

Fugitive Dust Control Plan

Authority to Construct

Permit to Operate

Kern County Engineering, Surveying and Permit Services Department Plan for the Disposal of Drainage Waters

Grading and Building Plans

Kern County Environmental Health Services Department

Hazardous Materials Business Plan

Septic and Water System Permits

Kern County Fire Department

Fire Safety Plan

Kern County Board of Supervisors

Amendment of Zone Maps

Kern County Roads Department

Proposed Access Road Design and Encroachment Permit


21/56

2. Environmental Determination

2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least

one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact as indicated by the Kern County Environmental

Checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest

Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous

Materials

Hydrology and Water

Quality

Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population and Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of

Significance

2.2 Determination

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a

NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will notbe a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the

project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant

unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (a) has been adequately analyzed in an

earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) has been addressed by mitigation measures

based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is

required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all

potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE

DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to thatearlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed

upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed Name For

Michael D. Hollier

October 28 2010

Kern County

/S/


22/56

KERN COUNTY


Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except No Impact answers that are adequatelysupported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.

A No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the

impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault

rupture zone). A No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factorsas well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based

on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational

impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklistanswers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with

mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial

evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact

entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated@ applies where theincorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant Impact to a

Less Than Significant Impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure and briefly

explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section

XVII, Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, aneffect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, Section

15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist where within

the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legalstandards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the

earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less Than Significant With Mitigation MeasuresIncorporated, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the

earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources forpotential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or

outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the

statement is substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or

individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, leadagencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's

environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.

b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.


23/56

3. Probable Environmental EffectsThe following discussion addresses impacts to various environmental resources per adopted Kern County

Environmental Checklist Form as modeled by Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

3.1 Aesthetics

Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

PotentiallySignificant

Impact

Less ThanSignificant

WithMitigation

Incorporation


Impact No Impact

Would the project:

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on ascenic vista?

(b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited to, trees, rockoutcroppings, and historic buildings withina state scenic highway?

(c) Substantially degrade the existing visualcharacter or quality of the site and itssurroundings

(d) Create a new source of substantial light orglare which would adversely affect day ornighttime views in the area?

(a) Placement of wind turbines that are up to 500 feet high in the Tehachapi Valley would alter theviews of the project area. Persons traveling in passenger vehicles on nearby roads would observealterations to the scenic vista. The project could potentially result in significant alteration toexisting scenic vistas; therefore, this potential impact will be further evaluated in the EIR.

(b) Site 1 terrain is dominated by a double-peaked hill with rocky outcroppings, while Site 2 terrainis dominated by Cache Creek. Both sites are visible by motorists along Tehachapi Boulevard,State Route (SR) 58, and Sand Canyon Road. This area is currently not developed with windturbines or other tall structures, such as cell towers. This project could significantly change theview shed and scenic resources from public roads. This impact will be evaluated in the EIR.

(c) Most of the project area supports native mountain plant communities that are partially degradedbypast and current grazing activities and a network of paved and dirt roads. No existing land usesexist on the project site. The undeveloped character of the area may be adversely affected by the

project, and therefore the projects potential to substantially degrade its existing visual characteror quality of the site and its surroundings will be further evaluated in the EIR.

(d) The only existing source of light and glare in project site area from passing cars, the CalaverasCement Company, and scattered residences located in the unincorporated area of Sand Canyon tothe north. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is expected to require nighttime lightingon some metrological towers and on top of some of the wind turbine generators, which couldadversely affect nighttime views of the area. The type of lighting that the FAA would require hasnot yet been determined. Further analysis of the specific lighting required and the effects ofnighttime light are warranted and this potentially significant impact will therefore be evaluated inthe EIR.


24/56

KERN COUNTY


3.2 Agricultural Resources



Impact

Less ThanSignificant With

MitigationIncorporation


ImpactNo

Impact

In determining whether impacts to agriculturalresources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the CaliforniaAgricultural Land Evaluation and SiteAssessment Model (1997) prepared by theCalifornia Department of Conservation as anoptional model to use in assessing impacts onagriculture and farmland. In determining whetherimpacts to forest resources, including timberland,are significant environmental effects, leadagencies may refer to information compiled bythe California Department of Forestry and FireProtection regarding the states inventory of

forest land, including the Forest and RangeAssessment Project and the Forest LegacyAssessment project; and the forest carbonmeasurement methodology provided in the ForestProtocols adopted by the California AirResources Board. Would the project:

(a) Convert Prime Farmland, UniqueFarmland, or Farmland of StatewideImportance (Farmland), as shown on themaps prepared pursuant to the FarmlandMapping and Monitoring Program of theCalifornia Resources Agency, to

nonagricultural use?

(b) Conflict with existing zoning foragricultural use, or Williamson Actcontract?

(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or causerezoning of, forest land (as defined inPublic Resources Code section 12220(g)) ortimberland (as defined in Public ResourcesCode section 4526)?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or

conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existingenvironment which, due to their location ornature, could result in conversion ofFarmland to non-agricultural use orconversion of forest land to non-forest use?

f) Result in the cancellation of an open spacecontract made pursuant to the CaliforniaLand Conservation Act of 1965 or


25/56

Farmland Security Zone Contract for anyparcel of 100 or more acres (Section15206(b)(3) Public Resources Code?

a) There is no designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importancewithin the proposed project area. The proposed project area is comprised primarily of land

classified as grazing land according to the California Division of Land Resource ProtectionFarmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland maps. Lands immediatelyadjacent to the proposed site are similarly classified as grazing land. Therefore, constructionand operation of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of designated Farmlandto a nonagricultural use. No impact would occur and no further analysis is warranted.

(b) The Kern County base zoning district for the project area is Limited Agriculture (A-1). Theproject applicants are requesting that the County adopt the Exclusive Agriculture (A) District andincorporate the Wind Energy (WE) Combining District overlays to the A District to facilitateproject development. None of the project parcels are subject to Williamson Act land usecontracts. This impact to agricultural lands is considered negligible since construction andoperation of the wind energy facility will remove only a small amount of land from agriculturaluse. No impact would occur and no further analysis is warranted.

(c)/(d) The project sites or surrounding properties do not contain any forest land. No impacts resulting inthe loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use are expected to occur;therefore, the EIR will not discuss this issue.

(e) The proposed project does not involve any changes to the existing environment which, due totheir location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use orconversion of forest land to non-forest use, due the lack of such uses occurring on site. No impactwould occur and no further analysis is warranted.

(f) No portion of the project is subject to an open space contract made pursuant to the CaliforniaLand Conservation Act of 1965 or Farmland Security Zone Contract. Result in the cancellation ofan open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 orFarmland Security Zone Contract for any parcel of 100 or more acres (Section 15206(b)(3) Public

Resources Code.No impact would occur and no further analysis is warranted.


26/56

KERN COUNTY


3.3 Air Quality



Impact


WithMitigation

Incorporation


ImpactNo

Impact

Where available, the significance criteria establishedby the applicable air quality management or airpollution control district may be relied upon to makethe following determinations. Would the project:

(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ofthe applicable air quality plan?

(b) Violate any air quality standard as adopted in(c)i, (c)ii, or as established by EPA or airdistrict or contribute substantially to anexisting or projected air quality violation?

(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable netincrease of any criteria pollutant for which theproject region is nonattainment under anapplicable federal or state ambient air qualitystandard (including releasing emissions whichexceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? Specifically, wouldimplementation of the project exceed any ofthe following adopted thresholds:

i. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air PollutionControl District:

Operational and Area Sources

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)10 tons per year.

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)10 tons per year.

Particulate Matter (PM10)15 tons per year.

Stationary Sources - as determined byDistrict Rules

Severe Nonattainment25 tons per year.

Extreme Nonattainment10 tons per year.

ii. Kern County Air Pollution Control District.

Operational and Area Sources

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)25 tons per year.


27/56



Impact


WithMitigation

Incorporation


ImpactNo

Impact

Where available, the significance criteria established

by the applicable air quality management or airpollution control district may be relied upon to makethe following determinations. Would the project:

Oxides of nitrogen (NOx)25 tons per year.

Particulate Matter (PM10)15 tons per year.

Stationary Sources - determined by DistrictRules

25 tons per year.

(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantialpollutant concentrations?

(e) Create objectionable odors affecting asubstantial number of people?

(a) The project would be located entirely within the jurisdiction of the Eastern Kern Air PollutionControl District (EKAPCD) in the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The MDAB is designatednon-attainment for both the State and federal ozone standards, and the State particulate matter ofless than 10 microns in size (PM10) standard. Project construction would generate emissions ofnitrogen oxides (NOx) and PM10 that could result in significant impacts to air quality in the area.Equipment usage and activities during construction of the proposed project would result inemissions of PM10 and ozone precursors, including NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOC),

which could result in significant impacts to air quality in the area. The sources of emissionsinclude heavy equipment used to excavate and grade the turbine pads and roads, cranes, and on-road motor vehicles for equipment and material deliveries and workers commuting to the site.Activity on unpaved roads and lay-down areas and grading would contribute to PM10 emissions.This impact is potentially significant. Further analysis of air quality impacts is warranted todetermine whether the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicableplans for attainment and if so, to determine the reasonable and feasible mitigation measures thatcould be imposed. These issues will be evaluated in the EIR.

(b) Short-term construction emissions and temporary facilities could significantly contribute to anexisting or projected air quality violation of PM10 or ozone standards, requiring the considerationof mitigation measures. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated further in theEIR.

(c) The EKAPCD is a nonattainment area for the State and federal ozone standards, and the StatePM10 standard, and the EKAPCD rules and regulations apply to all project activities. No projectactivities would occur within the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.Cumulative contributions to the MDAB could be potentially significant. Construction andoperational emissions will be analyzed in the EIR

(d) Land uses determined to be sensitive to air quality include residential areas, schools,convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches. The nearestsensitive receptors to the proposed project are two residences. One residence is located about 1/2mile to southeast of the nearest proposed wind turbine generator. The other residence is located


28/56

KERN COUNTY


about 1/2 mile to the north of the nearest proposed wind turbine on an adjacent property.Additional residences are located in the unincorporated community of Sand Canyon, situatedabout 3/4 miles to the north. Project activities would not occur near any other type of sensitivereceptors listed above. Construction-related activity and temporary facilities would result in dieselexhaust emissions and dust that could adversely affect air quality for the nearest sensitivereceptors. Mitigation measures for diesel equipment and dust control that are recommended by

the EKAPCD will be evaluated as part of the EIR to avoid or reduce the impacts to constructionworkers and occupants of nearby residences.

(e) Aside from odors associated with vehicle exhaust and fueling, no other odors would result fromthe proposed project. Because there are only a few potential residences in the vicinity, fuelingodors during project construction would not impact a substantial number of people. Therefore, theproposed project is not expected to result in significant impacts to air quality related toobjectionable odors, and no further analysis is warranted.


29/56

3.4 Biological Resources



Impact


WithMitigation

Incorporation


ImpactNo

Impact

Would the project:

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly orthrough habitat modifications, on any speciesidentified as a candidate, sensitive, or special statusspecies in local or regional plans, policies, orregulations or by the California Department of Fishand Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparianhabitat or other sensitive natural communityidentified in local or regional plans, policies,

regulations, or by the California Department of Fishand Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federallyprotected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of theClean Water Act (including, but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through directremoval, filling, hydrological interruption, or othermeans?

(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of anynative resident or migratory fish or wildlife species,or with established native resident or migratory

wildlife corridors, or impede the use of nativewildlife nursery sites?

(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinancesprotecting biological resources, such as a treepreservation policy or ordinance?

(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HabitatConservation Plan, Natural CommunityConservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan?

(a) Field surveys for special status plant and animal species, and species listed as either threatened or

endangered by either the State or federal government are currently being conducted and will beincluded in the EIR. No field studies have been completed to date; therefore potential impacts tobiological resources have not been fully identified. In conclusion, impacts to biological resources,including avian species, are potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR.

(b) Field surveys for riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities are currently being conductedand will be included in the EIR. No field studies have been completed to date; therefore potentialimpacts to riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities have not been fully identified. Inaddition, project related access roads and transmission lines may cross streams and washes thatrequire evaluation for riparian habitat and may also require Streambed Alteration permits from


30/56

KERN COUNTY


the California Department of Fish and Game. In conclusion, impacts are potentially significantand will be analyzed in the EIR.

(c) Wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, may be present on the project site.The projects impacts on potential wetlands will therefore be evaluated in the EIR.

(d) The project site and surrounding area may be used for migration or dispersal by some avian

species. Birds and bats would also likely be subject to mortality during wind turbine operation ifthey collide with the towers or turbine blades. Project construction and operation would alsoremove foraging habitat. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.

(e) Oak woodland plant communities may be located within the project boundaries. The Kern CountyGeneral Plan includes oak tree conservation policies (Section 1.10.10, pages 74-75). The projectsite will be constructed as to be consistent with these policies; therefore, no further analysis iswarranted.

(f) The proposed project does not occur within any area covered by the proposed an adoptedconservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the any adopted conservationplan. No further analysis is warranted.


31/56

3.5 Cultural Resources



Impact


With MitigationIncorporation


ImpactNo

Impact

Would the project:

(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in thesignificance of a historical resource as definedin Section 15064.5?

(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in thesignificance of an archaeological resourcepursuant to Section 15064.5?

(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a uniquepaleontological resource or site or uniquegeologic feature?

(d) Disturb any human remains, including thoseinterred outside of formal cemeteries?

(a) A cultural resources survey is currently being conducted for the project site and will be includedwithin the EIR. Further evaluation is warranted to identify potential impacts and formulateavoidance or mitigation measures, if applicable.

(b) An archaeological survey of the site is being completed and will be included within the EIR.Further evaluation is necessary to identify potential impacts and to formulate avoidance ormitigation measures, if applicable.

(c) A paleontological records search within the proposed project area is currently being conductedand will be included within the EIR. A known fossil locality exists nearby to the project area.Potential impacts to paleontological resources and proposed mitigation measures will therefore,be evaluated in the EIR.

(d) If human burial grounds are identified in any part of the project area, the project would beredesigned to avoid them. Given the sensitivity of the project area the potential for locatinghuman remains is reasonably foreseeable, and therefore, potentially significant. The EIR willevaluate this potential impact and identify measures to be implemented if any are unexpectedlyuncovered during the course of development.


32/56

KERN COUNTY


3.6 Geology and Soils



Impact


WithMitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No

Impact

Would the project:

(a) Expose people or structures to potentialsubstantial adverse effects, including therisk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recentAlquist-Priolo Earthquake FaultZoning Map issued by the StateGeologist for the area or based on other

substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines andGeology Special Publication 42.

ii. Strong seismic groundshaking?

iii. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction?

iv. Landslides?

(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the lossof topsoil?

(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that isunstable, or that would become unstable asa result of the project, and potentially resultin on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined inTable 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life orproperty?

(e) Have soils incapable of adequately

supporting the use of septic tanks oralternative wastewater disposal systemswhere sewers are not available for thedisposal of wastewater?

(a) (i) Construction of the proposed project would be subject to all applicable ordinances of theKern County Building Code (Chapter 17.08). Kern County has adopted the CaliforniaBuilding Standards Code, 2007 Edition (CCR Title 24), which imposes substantially thesame requirements as the Internation Building Code (IBC), 2006 Edition, with somemodifications and amendments. The entire County is located in a seismic Zone 4, adesignation previously used in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) (the predecessor to the


33/56

IBC) to denote the areas of highest risk to earthquake ground motion. Adherence to allapplicable regulations would mitigate any potential impacts associated with the proposedproject

The project is not crossed by an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. However, the northbranch of the Garlock Fault is located approximately one mile to the southwest of theproposed project. The north branch of the Garlock fault is considered an active fault(known to have been active during Holocene time, in the past 10,000 years). The Garlockfault is a high-angle shear zone with predominant strike-slip movement to the west (leftlateral). Significant seismic activity in the area could adversely affect structures andworkers on the site. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR.

(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking could occur at the project site, resulting in damage tostructures that are not properly designed to withstand strong ground shaking. The proposedproject is located within the Tehachapi Valley, on the edge of the Tehachapi Mountains, ageologically young and seismically active area. The project would potentially be subject tomoderate to strong ground shaking from local and regional earthquakes. This potentialimpact will be evaluated in the EIR.

(iii) The potential for substantial adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction, will be examined in the geotechnical report being prepared for the project siteand related potential impacts will be analyzed in the EIR.

(iv) Although the project site is not considered to be at high risk area for landslides, thepotential for substantial adverse effects due to landslides will nevertheless be analyzed inthe EIR.

(b) Grading would be required for access roads throughout the project site. Grading and excavationwould be required for foundations for each WTG tower. Construction activities could result insubstantial soil erosion if the improved access roads and/or turbine sites are not properlydesigned. Careful design of access road gradients and WTG sites would prevent substantialerosion within the project area. Nevertheless, these impacts are potentially significant and thepotential for increased erosion will be evaluated in the EIR.

(c) The proposed project would be designed such that it would not degrade the stability of theunderlying soils. The geotechnical report currently being prepared will examine the currentbaseline stability of the soils that underlie the project area and the findings of that report will beevaluated in the EIR. While potential impacts are expected to be less than significant they will beevaluated in the EIR and mitigation measures will be presented, if necessary, to protect bothstructures and people from adverse effects due to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction, or collapse

(d) Expansive soils generally result from specific clay minerals that expand when saturated andshrink in volume when dry. The geotechnical report currently being prepared for the project willconfirm the presence or absence of expansive soils within the project area, and those results willbe evaluated in the EIR.

(e) No septic systems or leach lines are being proposed as part of the project. Nevertheless, the

ability of soils within the project area to support a septic tank will be examined in thegeotechnical report, and the results of that report will be evaluated in the EIR.


34/56

KERN COUNTY


3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions



Impact


WithMitigation

Incorporation


ImpactNo

Impact

Would the project:

(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, eitherdirectly or indirectly, that may have asignificant impact on the environment?

(b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy orregulation of an agency adopted for thepurpose of reducing the emissions ofgreenhouse gases?

(a) Neither the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District, nor any other federal, State, or localagency has adopted a threshold to measure a projects impact on global climate change. Globalclimate change is an international phenomenon, and the regulatory background and scientific dataare changing rapidly. In 2006, the California state legislature adopted AB 32, the CaliforniaGlobal Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 describes how global climatechange would affect the environment in California. The impacts described in AB 32 includechanging sea levels, changes in snow pack and availability of potable water, changes in stormflows and flood inundation zones, and other impacts.

As required by AB 32, California Air Resources Board (CARB) determined what the statewidegreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions level was in 1990 and then approved a statewide GHGemissions limit that is equivalent to that level, which is to be achieved by 2020. CARB approvedthe 2020 limit on December 6, 2007. CARBs GHG inventory estimated the 1990 emissions levelin California to be 427 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). In 2004, theemissions were estimated to be 480 MMTCO2e.

The primary source of GHG emissions from the proposed project during operation would bemobile sources. Not all GHGs exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; therefore, GHGcontributions are commonly quantified in carbon dioxide equivalencies. The carbon dioxideequivalent (CO2e) portion of GHGs from the proposed project is being estimated in an air qualityimpact analysis using the URBEMIS program and California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)General Reporting Protocol (see Table 4.71). These emissions would be short term in durationand would not have a continual impact on the environment. The proposed projects operational emissions are expected to be low. Regardless, since this project would replace the creation ofenergy through other methods, such use of a natural gasfired turbine, the operational GHGemissions would actually have a reduction in GHG emission. Impacts related to GHGs andclimate stemming from the proposed project, as an alternative to fossil fuel electric generation

facilities, would be offset; therefore, it can be expected that the proposed project would have alessthansignificant impact. Nevertheless, this issue will be evaluated in the EIR.

(b) Recommended Action E3,Renewable Portfolio Standard, of CARBs Climate Change ScopingPlan enforces the Governors call for a statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of 33%.The proposed project would help the State meet this goal by adding a wind farm designed togenerate up to 20 MW of power to Californias current renewable portfolio. Therefore, in thisregard, the proposed project would help the state meet its goals under AB32.

A number of Recommended Actions targeted at the transportation sector would be applicable toconstruction equipment and maintenance vehicles associated with the proposed project. However,


35/56

given that these Recommended Actions are based on CARB enforced standards, it can beassumed that the proposed project would not conflict with implementation of such standards. Theproposed project would also be consistent with the Countys policy to encourage wind energydevelopment to conserve fossil fuels and improve air quality.

The California Attorney General has suggested measures that could be undertaken or funded by adiverse range of projects (e.g., measures related to energy efficiency, renewable energy, waterconservation and efficiency, solid waste, land use, transportation and motor vehicles, and carbonoffsets). Operation of the proposed project would provide electric power, with negligible GHGemissions over the long term when compared with traditional fossilfueled generationtechnologies. GHG emissions from the operational powergeneration portion of the proposedproject (non-maintenance) is expected to be zero; therefore, the projectspecific generated GHGswould be less than significant because the proposed project would meet the required offsetreduction of 29% below business as usual, thereby achieving the mandated emissionreductiontargets established by AB 32. Therefore, the proposed project is already in compliance and willnot implement the mitigation measures outlined by the attorney general. Impacts are expected tobe less than significant; nevertheless, this issue will be further evaluated in the EIR.


36/56

KERN COUNTY


3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials



Impact


WithMitigation

Incorporation


ImpactNo

Impact

Would the project:

(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment through the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials?

(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment through reasonably foreseeableupset and accident conditions involving therelease of hazardous materials into theenvironment?

(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardousor acutely hazardous materials, substances, orwaste within 1/4 mile of an existing orproposed school?

(d) Be located on a site which is included on a listof hazardous materials sites compiled pursuantto Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as aresult, would it create a significant hazard tothe public or the environment?

(e) For a project located within the adopted KernCounty Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,

would the project result in a safety hazard forpeople residing or working in the project area?

(f) For a project within the vicinity of a privateairstrip, would the project result in a safetyhazard for people residing or working in theproject area?

(g) Impair implementation of, or physicallyinterfere with, an adopted emergency responseplan or emergency evacuation plan?

(h) Expose people or structures to a significant

risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildlandfires, including where wildlands are adjacentto urbanized areas or where residences areintermixed with wildlands?

(i) Would implementation of the project generatevectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) orhave a component that includes agriculturalwaste? Specifically, would the project exceedthe following qualitative threshold:


37/56


38/56

KERN COUNTY


waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impacts wouldoccur and further analysis is not warranted.

(d) Staff has reviewed the lists of projects relating to hazardous wastes pursuant to Section 65962.5of the California Government Code and concluded the project site is not on the list. Therefore, noimpacts would occur and further analysis is not warranted.

(e) The project area is not located within two miles of a public or public use airport or within an areacovered by the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Therefore, there areno anticipated safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area with respect to theprojects proximity to a public or public use airport. The military aviation section of the ALUCPwill be reviewed for the projects compliance with policies. The total turbine height includingturbine, tower and blade would not exceed 500 feet at its highest point. The project is designed toin conformance with Section 19.08.160 (Height of Structures) of the Kern County ZoningOrdinance to avoid military flight test airspace for Edwards Air Force Base. Therefore, noimpacts would occur and further analysis is not warranted.

(f) The proposed project is located approximately 5 miles to the east of the Mountain Valley Airportprivate airstrip. Although impacts are expected to be less than significant, the EIR will evaluatepotential impacts related to safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area with

respect to the projects proximity to this private airstrip(g) After construction the proposed project development will not physically impede the existing

emergency response plans, emergency vehicle access, or personnel access to the site. The site islocated in a rural area with several alternative access roads allowing easy access to the site in theevent of an emergency. Therefore, no impacts related to impairment of the implementation of orphysical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan isanticipated. Nevertheless, the potential for project construction-related traffic to impair orinterfere with emergency response or evacuation plans will be evaluated in the EIR.

(h) The proposed project sites are under the jurisdiction of the Kern County Wildland FireManagement Plan. This plan documents the wildland fire situation within the county. The projectsites are within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), and the California Department of Forestry andFire Protection (CAL FIRE) implements wildfire planning and protection for the SRA. The

proposed project sites are located in an area highly susceptible to wildfires; vegetation consists of juniper and pinyon woodland, with areas of introduced annual grasses, native needle grassgrassland, and pine oak woodlands along wetland areas. The potential for construction andoperation of the proposed project to result in increased risk of wildfires in the project area will beevaluated in the EIR. The evaluation will include a review of the 2004 Kern County FireDepartment Wildland Fire Management Plan and CAL FIREs and Kern County FireDepartments prevention measures for wildland fires. With implementation of mitigation toreduce wildfire ignitions and prevent the spread of wildfires, the proposed project is not expectedto result in significant impacts to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury, or death involving wildland fires.

(i) The proposed project is two wind energy generation facilities that would result in construction ofwind turbine generator towers, substations, and operations and maintenance facilities. Project-

related infrastructure is not expected to result in features or conditions (such as standing water,agricultural products, agricultural waste, or human waste) that would provide habitat for vectorssuch as mosquitoes, flies, cockroaches or rodents. Workers would generate small quantities ofsolid waste (i.e. trash) that would be appropriately stored for permanent disposal. Therefore,impacts would be negligible and no further analysis is warranted.


39/56

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality



Impact


WithMitigation

Incorporation


ImpactNo

Impact

Would the project:

(a) Violate any water quality standards or wastedischarge requirements?

(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies orinterfere substantially with groundwater rechargesuch that there would be a net deficit in aquifervolume or a lowering of the local groundwatertable level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a levelwhich would not support existing land uses or

planned uses for which permits have beengranted)?

(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage patternof the site or area, including through thealteration of the course of a stream or river, in amanner which would result in substantial erosionor siltation on site or off site?

(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage patternof the site or area, including through thealteration of the course of a stream or river, orsubstantially increase the rate or amount of

surface runoff in a manner which would result inflooding on site or off site?

(e) Create or contribute runoff water which wouldexceed the capacity of existing or plannedstormwater drainage systems or providesubstantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

(g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazardarea as mapped on a federal Flood HazardBoundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other

flood hazard delineation map?

(h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard areastructures which would impede or redirect floodflows?

(i) Expose people or structures to a significant riskof loss, injury, or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of alevee or dam?


40/56

KERN COUNTY




Impact


WithMitigation

Incorporation


ImpactNo

Impact

Would the project:

(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

(a) It is anticipated that appropriate best management practices and compliance with applicableregulations would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. However,this potential impact will be evaluated fully in the EIR.

(b) The proposed project will not include the construction of any water wells in order to supply waterto the proposed project during construction. If the project proponent is unable to secure the use ofone of the two existing wells within the project boundary then water would be imported to thesites. The proposed project is located in the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality ControlBoard, Lahontan Region. Based on available data for groundwater resources in the vicinity of theproposed project area, domestic water sources are both groundwater extracted from local wells

and imported water from the Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District. The proposed projectwould not require a large quantity of water for construction or operation of the turbines. Becausethe proposed project would not include the substantial increase in impervious surfaces, theproposed project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, theproject is not expected to result in significant impacts to hydrology and water quality.

(c) Project topography is described as a double-peaked hill that steeply slopes to the east from about4,210 ft. above Mean Sea Level (MSL) into a small alluvial plain at about 3,910 ft. above MSL.

sand canyon wind nop

Documents