3.4 Biological Resources - ACGOV.org...2013/11/01 · Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis Biological Resources APWRA Repowering Final PEIR 3.4‐1 October

Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis

Biological Resources

APWRA Repowering Final PEIR 3.4‐1

October 2014ICF 00323.08

3.4 Biological Resources ForthepurposeofthisEIR,biologicalresourcescomprisevegetation,wildlife,naturalcommunities,andwetlandsandotherwaters.Potentialbiologicalresourceimpactsassociatedwiththeprogramandthetwoindividualprojectsareanalyzed.PotentialimpactsaredescribedquantitativelyandqualitativelyinSection3.4.2,EnvironmentalImpacts.Thissectionalsoidentifiesspecificanddetailedmeasurestoavoid,minimize,orcompensateforpotentiallysignificantimpactsonbiologicalresources,wherenecessary.

3.4.1 Existing Conditions

Regulatory Setting

Federal

Endangered Species Act

PursuanttothefederalEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA),USFWSandtheNationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS)haveauthorityoverprojectsthatmayresultintakeofaspecieslistedasthreatenedorendangeredundertheact.TakeisdefinedundertheESA,inpart,askilling,harming,orharassing.Underfederalregulations,takeisfurtherdefinedtoincludehabitatmodificationordegradationthatresults,orisreasonablyexpectedtoresult,indeathorinjurytowildlifebysignificantlyimpairingessentialbehavioralpatterns,includingbreeding,feeding,orsheltering.Ifalikelihoodexiststhataprojectwouldresultintakeofafederallylistedspecies,eitheranincidentaltakepermit,underSection10(a)oftheESA,orafederalinteragencyconsultation,underSection7oftheESA,isrequired.Severalfederallylistedspecies—vernalpoolfairyshrimp(Branchinectalynchi),longhornfairyshrimp(Branchinectalongiantenna),vernalpooltadpoleshrimp(Lepiduruspackardi),Californiatigersalamander(Ambystomacaliforniense),Californiared‐leggedfrog(Ranadraytonii),Alamedawhipsnake(Masticophislateraliseuryxanthus),andSanJoaquinkitfox(Vulpesmacrotismutica)—havethepotentialtobeaffectedbyactivitiesassociatedwiththeGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectsaswellassubsequentrepoweringprojects.Accordingly,suchprojectswouldrequireconsultationwithUSFWSasdescribedabove.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

TheFishandWildlifeCoordinationAct,asamendedin1964,wasenactedtoprotectfishandwildlifewhenfederalactionsresultinthecontrolormodificationofanaturalstreamorbodyofwater.Thestatuterequiresfederalagenciestotakeintoconsiderationtheeffectthatwater‐relatedprojectswouldhaveonfishandwildliferesources.ConsultationandcoordinationwithUSFWSandtheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife(CDFW)arerequiredtoaddresswaystopreventlossofanddamagetofishandwildliferesources,andtofurtherdevelopandimprovetheseresources.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

TheMigratoryBirdTreatyAct(MBTA)domesticallyimplementsaseriesofinternationaltreatiesthatprovideformigratorybirdprotection.TheMBTAauthorizestheSecretaryoftheInteriortoregulatethetakingofmigratorybirds.Theactfurtherprovidesthatitisunlawful,exceptas





permittedbyregulations,“topursue,take,orkillanymigratorybird,oranypart,nestoreggofanysuchbird…”(16USC703).Thisprohibitionincludesbothdirectandindirectacts,althoughharassmentandhabitatmodificationarenotincludedunlesstheyresultindirectlossofbirds,nests,oreggs.ThecurrentlistofspeciesprotectedbytheMBTAcanbefoundintheNovember1,2013FederalRegister(78FR65844–65864).Thislistcomprisesseveralhundredspecies,includingessentiallyallnativebirds.Permitsfortakeofnongamemigratorybirdscanbeissuedonlyforspecificactivities,suchasscientificcollecting,rehabilitation,propagation,education,taxidermy,andprotectionofhumanhealthandsafetyandofpersonalproperty.TakeofnongamemigratorybirdscannotbeauthorizedthroughtheMBTAfortheprogramorPattersonPassandGoldenHillsprojects.USFWSpublishesalistofbirdsofconservationconcern(BCC)toidentifymigratorynongamebirdsthatarelikelytobecomecandidatesforlistingunderESAwithoutadditionalconservationactions.TheBCClistisintendedtostimulatecoordinatedandcollaborativeconservationeffortsamongfederal,state,tribal,andprivateparties.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

TheBaldandGoldenEagleProtectionAct(BGEPA)(16USC668)prohibitstakeanddisturbanceofindividualsandnests.Takepermitsforbirdsorbodypartsarelimitedtoreligious,scientific,orfalconrypursuits.However,theBGEPAwasamendedin1978toallowminingdeveloperstoapplytoUSFWSforpermitstoremoveinactivegoldeneagle(Aquilachrysaetos)nestsinthecourseof“resourcedevelopmentorrecovery”operations.Withthe2007removalofbaldeaglefromtheESAlistofthreatenedandendangeredspecies,USFWSissuednewregulationstoauthorizethelimitedtakeofbaldeagles(Haliaeetusleucocephalus)andgoldeneaglesundertheBGEPA,wherethetaketobeauthorizedisassociatedwithotherwiselawfulactivities.AfinalEaglePermitRulewaspublishedonSeptember11,2009(74FR46836–46879;50CFR22.26).

Apermitauthorizeslimited,non‐purposefultakeofbaldeaglesandgoldeneagles,andcanbeappliedforbyindividuals,companies,governmentagencies(includingtribalgovernments),andotherorganizationstoallowdisturbanceoforotherwisetakeeaglesinthecourseofconductinglawfulactivities,suchasoperatingutilitiesandairports.UnderBGEPA,takeisdefinedas“pursue,shoot,shootat,poison,wound,kill,capture,trap,collect,destroy,molestordisturb.”Disturbisdefinedintheregulationsas“toagitateorbotherabaldorgoldeneagletoadegreethatcauses,orislikelytocause,basedonthebestscientificinformationavailable:(1)injurytoaneagle;(2)adecreaseinitsproductivity,bysubstantiallyinterferingwithnormalbreeding,feeding,orshelteringbehavior;or(3)nestabandonment,bysubstantiallyinterferingwithnormalbreeding,feeding,orshelteringbehavior.”Mostpermitsissuedunderthenewregulationsauthorizedisturbance.Inlimitedcases,apermitmayauthorizethephysicaltakeofeagles,butonlyifeveryprecautionisfirsttakentoavoidphysicaltake.

USFWSissuedtheEagleConservationPlanGuidance(ECPGuidance)intendedtoassistpartiestoavoid,minimize,andmitigateadverseeffectsonbaldandgoldeneagles(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2013a).TheEagleGuidancecallsforscientificallyrigoroussurveys,monitoring,assessment,andresearchdesignsproportionatetotherisktoeagles.TheEagleGuidancedescribesaprocessbywhichwindenergydeveloperscancollectandanalyzeinformationthatcouldleadtoaprogrammaticpermittoauthorizeunintentionaltakeofeaglesatwindenergyfacilities.USFWSrecommendsthateagleconservationplansbedevelopedinfivestages.Eachstagebuildsonthepriorstage,suchthattogethertheprocessisaprogressive,increasinglyintensivelookatlikelyeffectsoneaglesofthedevelopmentandoperationofaparticularsiteandconfiguration.AdditionalrefinementstotheEagleGuidanceareexpectedatsomepointinthefuture.Todate,one





programmaticeagletakepermithasbeenissuedbyUSFWSonJune31,2014(http://www.fws.gov/cno/conservation/migratorybirds.html).

Clean Water Act

WetlandsandotherwatersoftheUnitedStatesareprotectedunderSection404oftheCleanWaterAct(CWA).AnyactivitythatinvolvesanydischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialintowatersoftheUnitedStates,includingwetlands,issubjecttoregulationbytheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE).WatersoftheUnitedStatesisdefinedtoencompassnavigablewatersoftheUnitedStates;interstatewaters;allotherwaterswheretheiruse,degradation,ordestructioncouldaffectinterstateorforeigncommerce;tributariesofanyofthesewaters;andwetlandsthatmeetanyofthesecriteriaorareadjacenttoanyofthesewatersortheirtributaries.WetlandsaredefinedunderSection404asthoseareasthatareinundatedorsaturatedbysurfacewaterorgroundwateratafrequencyanddurationsufficienttosupport,andthatundernormalcircumstancesdosupport,aprevalenceofvegetationtypicallyadaptedforlifeinsaturatedsoilconditions.Jurisdictionalwetlandsmustmeetthreewetlanddelineationcriteria.

Theysupporthydrophyticvegetation(i.e.,plantsthatgrowinsaturatedsoil).

Theyhavehydricsoiltypes(i.e.,soilsthatarewetormoistenoughtodevelopanaerobicconditions).

Theyhavewetlandhydrology(i.e.,conditionsofflooding,inundation,orsaturationthatsupportwetlandcommunities).

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands

ExecutiveOrder11990(May24,1977)establishedtheprotectionofwetlandsandripariansystemsastheofficialpolicyofthefederalgovernment.Theexecutiveorderrequiresallfederalagenciestoconsiderwetlandprotectionasanimportantpartoftheirpolicies;takeactiontominimizethedestruction,loss,ordegradationofwetlands;andpreserveandenhancethenaturalandbeneficialvaluesofwetlands.

Federal Noxious Weed Act and Code of Federal Regulations (Title 7, Part 360)

TheselawsandregulationsareprimarilyconcernedwiththeintroductionoffederallydesignatednoxiousweedplantsorseedsacrosstheUnitedStates’internationalborders.TheFederalNoxiousWeedAct(7USC2801–2813)alsoregulatestheinterstatemovementofdesignatednoxiousweedsundertheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture’spermitsystem.

Executive Order 11312: Invasive Species

ExecutiveOrder11312(February3,1999)directsallfederalagenciestopreventandcontroltheintroductionandspreadofinvasivenonnativespeciesinacost‐effectiveandenvironmentallysoundmannertominimizetheireffectsoneconomic,ecological,andhumanhealth.Theexecutiveorderwasintendedtobuilduponexistinglaws,suchasNEPA,theNonindigenousAquaticNuisancePreventionandControlAct,theLaceyAct,thePlantPestAct,theFederalNoxiousWeedAct,andESA.TheexecutiveorderestablishedanationalInvasiveSpeciesCouncilcomposedoffederalagenciesanddepartments,aswellasasupportingInvasiveSpeciesAdvisoryCommitteecomposedofstate,local,andprivateentities.Thecouncilandadvisorycommitteeoverseeandfacilitateimplementationoftheexecutiveorder,includingpreparationoftheNationalInvasiveSpecies





ManagementPlan.FederalactivitiesaddressinginvasiveaquaticspeciesarenowcoordinatedthroughthiscouncilandthroughtheNationalAquaticNuisanceSpeciesTaskForce.

State Plans, Policies, and Regulations

California Environmental Quality Act

CEQAistheregulatoryframeworkbywhichCaliforniapublicagenciesidentifyandmitigatesignificantenvironmentalimpacts.Aprojectnormallyhasasignificantenvironmentalimpactonbiologicalresourcesifitsubstantiallyaffectsarareorendangeredspeciesorthehabitatofthatspecies,substantiallyinterfereswiththemovementofresidentormigratoryfishorwildlife,orsubstantiallydiminisheshabitatforfish,wildlife,orplants.TheStateCEQAGuidelinesdefinerare,threatened,andendangeredspeciesasthoselistedunderESAortheCaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct(CESA)oranyotherspeciesthatmeetthecriteriaoftheresourceagenciesorlocalagencies(e.g.,speciesofspecialconcern,asdesignatedbyCDFW).TheguidelinesstatethattheleadagencypreparinganEIRmustconsultwithandreceivewrittenfindingsfromCDFWconcerningprojectimpactsonspecieslistedasendangeredorthreatened.TheeffectsofaproposedprojectontheseresourcesareimportantindeterminingwhethertheprojecthassignificantenvironmentalimpactsunderCEQA.

California Endangered Species Act

CESA(CaliforniaFishandGameCodeSections2050–2116)statesthatallnativespeciesoffishes,amphibians,reptiles,birds,mammals,invertebrates,andplantsandtheirhabitatsthatarethreatenedwithextinctionandthoseexperiencingasignificantdeclinethat,ifnothalted,wouldleadtoathreatenedorendangereddesignationwillbeprotectedorpreserved.

UnderSection2081oftheCaliforniaFishandGameCode,anincidentaltakepermitfromCDFWisrequiredforprojectsthatcouldresultinthetakeofaspeciesthatisstate‐listedasthreatenedorendangered.UnderCESA,takeisdefinedasanactivitythatwoulddirectlyorindirectlykillanindividualofaspecies.Thedefinitiondoesnotincludeharmorharass,asdoesthedefinitionoftakeunderESA.Consequently,thethresholdfortakeunderCESAishigherthanthatunderESA.Forexample,habitatmodificationisnotnecessarilyconsideredtakeunderCESA.

Fully Protected Species

Sections3511,3513,4700,and5050oftheCaliforniaFishandGameCodepertaintofullyprotectedwildlifespecies(birdsinSections3511and3513,mammalsinSection4700,andreptilesandamphibiansinSection5050)andstrictlyprohibitthetakeofthesespecies.CDFWcannotissueatakepermitforfullyprotectedspecies,exceptundernarrowconditionsforscientificresearchortheprotectionoflivestock,orifaNaturalCommunityConservationPlan(NCCP)hasbeenadopted.

California Native Plant Protection Act

TheCNPPAof1977gavetheCaliforniaFishandGameCommissiontheauthoritytolistplantspeciesasrareorendangeredandauthorizedthemtoadoptregulationsprohibitingimportationofrareandendangeredplantsintoCalifornia,takeofrareandendangeredplants,andsaleofrareandendangeredplants.TheCNPPAprohibitstake,possession,transportation,exportation,importation,orsaleofrareandthreatenedplants,exceptasaresultofagriculturalpractices,firecontrolmeasures,timberoperations,mining,oractionsofpublicagenciesorprivateutilities.Private





landownersarealsoexemptfromtheprohibitionagainstremovingrareandendangeredplants,althoughtheymustprovide10‐daynoticetoCDFWbeforeremovingtheplants.TheCNPPPAhasmostlybeensupersededbyCESA.

California Rare Plant Rankings

CDFWmaintainslistsofplantsofspecialconcerninCalifornia,inadditiontothoselistedasthreatenedorendangered.ThesespecieshavenoformalprotectionunderCESA,butthevaluesandimportanceoftheselistsarewidelyrecognized.PlantswithaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1A,1B,and2meetthedefinitionsofSection1901oftheCaliforniaFishandGameCodeandmayqualifyforstatelisting.Accordingly,forpurposesofthisanalysis,suchplantspeciesareconsideredrareplantspursuanttoSection15380ofCEQA.

Protection of Birds and Raptors

Section3503oftheCaliforniaFishandGameCodeprohibitsthekillingofbirdsand/orthedestructionofbirdnests.Section3503.5prohibitsthekillingofraptorspeciesand/orthedestructionofraptornests.Typicalviolationsincludedestructionofactivebirdandraptornestsasaresultoftreeremoval,andfailureofnestingattempts(lossofeggsand/oryoung)asaresultofdisturbanceofnestingpairscausedbynearbyhumanactivity.Section3513prohibitsanytakeorpossessionofbirdsdesignatedbytheMBTAasmigratorynongamebirdsexceptasallowedbyfederalrulesandregulationspursuanttotheMBTA.CDFWcannotissuepermitsunderMBTAforthetakeofbirdsbytheprogramortheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojects.

Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code

Sections1600–1603oftheCaliforniaFishandGameCodestatethatitisunlawfulforanypersonoragencytosubstantiallydivertorobstructthenaturalfloworsubstantiallychangethebed,channel,orbankofanyriver,stream,orlakeinCaliforniathatsupportswildliferesources,ortouseanymaterialfromthestreambeds,withoutfirstnotifyingCDFW.ALakeandStreambedAlterationAgreement(LSAA)mustbeobtainedifeffectsareexpectedtooccur.Theregulatorydefinitionofastreamisabodyofwaterthatflowsatleastperiodicallyorintermittentlythroughabedorchannelhavingbanksandthatsupportswildlife,fish,orotheraquaticlife.Thisdefinitionincludeswatercourseshavingasurfaceorsubsurfaceflowthatsupportsorhassupportedriparianvegetation.CDFW’sjurisdictionwithinalteredorartificialwaterwaysisbasedonthevalueofthosewaterwaystofishandwildlife.

Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act

UnderthePorter‐CologneAct,watersofthestatefallunderjurisdictionofthenineRegionalWaterQualityControlBoards(RWQCBs).Underthisact,eachRWQCBmustprepareandperiodicallyupdatewaterqualitycontrolbasinplans.Eachbasinplansetsforthwaterqualitystandardsforsurfacewaterandgroundwater,aswellasactionstocontrolnonpointandpointsourcesofpollution.ProjectsthataffectwetlandsorwatersmustmeetthewastedischargerequirementsoftheRWQCB.PursuanttoCWASections401,anapplicantforaSection404permittoconductanyactivitythatmayresultindischargeintonavigablewatersmustprovideacertificationfromtheRWQCBthatsuchdischargewillcomplywithstatewaterqualitystandards.AspartofthewetlandspermittingprocessunderSection404,aprojectapplicantwouldberequiredtoobtainawaterqualitycertificationfromtheapplicableRWQCB.





Section13050ofthePorter‐CologneAct(CaliforniaWaterCode,Division7)authorizestheStateWaterResourcesControlBoardandtherelevantRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard(inthecaseoftheAPWRA,theCentralValleyandSanFranciscoBayWaterBoards)toregulatebiologicalpollutants.TheCaliforniaWaterCodegenerallyregulatesmoresubstancescontainedindischarges,anddefinesdischargestoreceivingwatersmorebroadlythantheCWAdoes.

California Wetlands Conservation Policy

ThegoalsoftheCaliforniaWetlandsConservationPolicy,adoptedin1993(ExecutiveOrderW‐59‐93),are“toensurenooverallnetloss,andachievealong‐termnetgaininthequantity,quality,andpermanenceofwetlandsacreageandvaluesinCalifornia,inamannerthatfosterscreativity,stewardship,andrespectforprivateproperty”;toreduceproceduralcomplexityintheadministrationofstateandfederalwetlandsconservationprograms;andtomakerestoration,landownerincentiveprogramsandcooperativeplanningeffortstheprimaryfocusofwetlandsconservation.

Regional and Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations

East County Area Plan

LanduseplanningintheeasternportionofAlamedaCountyisgovernedbytheECAP,whichwasadoptedbytheCountyinMay1994.InNovember2000,theAlamedaCountyelectorateapprovedMeasureD,theSaveAgricultureandOpenSpaceLandsInitiative,whichamendedportionsoftheCounty’sGeneralPlan,includingtheECAP(AlamedaCounty2000).TheOpenSpaceElementoftheECAPaddressessensitivelandsandregionallysignificantopenspace,includingbiologicalresources.WindfarmsareaddressedintheSpecialLandUsessectionoftheECAP.

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy

TheEastAlamedaCountyConservationStrategy(EACCS)isacollaborativeeffortamongseverallocal,state,andfederalagenciesintendedtoprovideaneffectivevoluntaryframeworktoprotect,enhance,andrestorenaturalresourcesineasternAlamedaCounty,whileimprovingandstreamliningtheenvironmentalpermittingprocessforimpactsresultingfrominfrastructureanddevelopmentprojects(ICFInternational2010).TheEACCSisintendedtofocusonimpactsonbiologicalresourcessuchasendangeredandotherspecial‐statusspeciesandsensitivehabitattypes(e.g.,wetlands,ripariancorridors,rareuplandcommunities).TheEACCSwillultimatelyenablelocalprojectstocomplywithstateandfederalregulatoryrequirementswithinaframeworkofcomprehensiveconservationgoalsandobjectives,andwillfacilitateimplementationusingconsistentandstandardizedmitigationrequirements.ByimplementingtheEACCS,localagencieswillbeabletomoreeasilyaddressthelegalrequirementsrelevanttothesespecies.

TheEACCSstudyareaencompasses271,485acres,orapproximately52%ofAlamedaCountyintheupperAlamedaCreekwatershedofthecentralcountyarea,andtheeast‐facingslopesoftheAltamontHills.ThecitiesofDublin,Livermore,andPleasantonarewithintheEACCSstudyarea.ThewesternboundaryoftheEACCSstudyareafollowsthewesternedgeoftheAlamedaCreekwatershed,andthenorthern,southern,andeasternboundariesfollowtheAlamedaCountylinewithitsadjacentcounties.TheEACCSstudyareaincludestheprogramarea.

AfinaldraftoftheEACCSwascompletedinOctober2010andreleasedtothepublicinMarch2011.OnMay31,2012,USFWSissuedtheProgrammaticBiologicalOpinionfortheEastAlamedaCounty





ConservationStrategy(referenceNo.08ESMFOO‐2012‐F‐0092‐1)(ProgrammaticBO).Installation,operation,andmaintenanceofwindenergyprojectsareidentifiedascoveredinfrastructureprojectsundertheProgrammaticBO.However,avianandbateffectsassociatedwiththesetypesofprojectsarenotcoveredundertheProgrammaticBO.IndividualprojectsmaybeappendedtotheProgrammaticBOiftheyareconsistentwiththeEACCS,occurwithintheEACCSstudyarea,andareacoveredactivity.TheProgrammaticBOdoesnotprovideincidentaltakeauthorization;therefore,individualprojectsappendedtotheProgrammaticBOwillbegrantedindividualtakecoverageaspartoftheproject’sSection7consultationprocess.BecausetheEACCSisdesignedtobeanadaptivemanagementprocess,theProgrammaticBOmaybeamendedinthefuture,oranewBOmaybewritteniftherearesubstantivechangestotheEACCS.

ForprojectswhereUSACEisnotthefederalleadagencyforSection7consultationorwhereSection10consultationisrequired,consistencywiththeProgrammaticBOwillenableotherfederalagenciesandnonfederalapplicantstostreamlinetheirindividualESAconsultationsbyutilizingpreapprovedmitigationstandardsandfocusingmitigationinconservationpriorityareas.

EACCSdevelopmentincludedinputandreviewbyCDFWtoaddressimpactsonstate‐listedspecies.ConsistencywiththeEACCSalsoaidsinstreamliningCESApermitcomplianceforprojectimpactsonstate‐listedspecies.

AlthoughparticipationintheEACCSbyapplicantsisvoluntary,AlamedaCountyparticipatesinthestrategyandconsidersittobethebestavailableinformationwhenconsideringtheimpactsofproposedprojectsonthefullrangeofprotectedwildlife,plants,andhabitats.

2007 Settlement Agreement

In2007,Audubon,CARE,andthreewindenergycompanies(AES,NextEra,andEnXco)enteredintoaSettlementAgreementtoresolvelitigationregardingtheCounty’s2005issuanceofCUPapprovalsofcontinuedwindenergyoperations.The2007SettlementAgreement,includingExhibitG‐1(modifiedfromthe2005CUPs),requiresparticipantstodevelopanNCCPorasimilaragreementto“addressthelong‐termoperationofwindturbinesattheAPWRAandtheconservationofimpactedspeciesofconcernandtheirnaturalcommunities.”Inparticular,the2007SettlementAgreementcommittedtheparticipatingwindcompaniestoachievea50%reductioninavianfatalitiesfromanestimatedbaselineofannualfatalitiesoffourfocalspecies(goldeneagle,burrowingowl[Athenecunicularia],Americankestrel[Falcosparverius],andred‐tailedhawk[Buteojamaicensis])throughtheimplementationoftheAvianWildlifeProtectionProgramandSchedule(AWPPS)asestablishedin2005andmodifiedin2007.The2007SettlementAgreementandtheamendedAWPPSrequiredtheimplementationofvariousmanagementactions,includingseasonalshutdownofturbinesandremovalofturbinesdeemedtobe“high‐risk”turbines,untilthe50%reductiongoalwasachieved.TheAWPPSrequiredtheestablishmentoftheAlamedaCountyAvianFatalityMonitoringTeam(AFMT).TheAFMTwaschargedwithdevelopingandimplementing—underthesupervisionanddirectionoftheScientificReviewCommittee—aprogramtomonitorturbine‐relatedavianfatalityratesanduseoftheAPWRAbybirdsofmanagementconcern.Underthe2007SettlementAgreement,theemphasisoftheAFMTwasdirectedtothefourfocalspecies,anditsworkwascentraltoevaluationofprogresstowardachievingthe50%reductiongoalestablishedbytheSettlementAgreement.

AsanalternativetotheNCCPcalledforintheSettlementAgreement,theCountypreparedthisPEIRwithmitigationmeasurestoprovideaframeworkforreviewandapprovalofwindprojectsintheAPWRAandtopromoteconservationmeasurestobenefitavianspecies.AsdescribedinSection





1.2.4,ConditionalUsePermits,theCountydevelopedadraftAvianProtectionProgram(APP)toprovideaframeworkandprocessforwindenergyprojectstoaddressapplicablestatutes(e.g.,MBTAandBGEPA)throughtherepoweringprocess.TheAPPprovidedabroadevaluationofexistingenvironmentalconditions,birduse,andavianfatalitiesintheprogramarea.Itfocusedonavianmortalityassociatedwithrepoweringprojects—specificallyconstruction,operation,monitoring,andmitigation.ThekeyprovisionsoftheAPPwereincorporatedintotheprogram‐levelmitigationmeasuresofthisPEIR.Projectproponentswillbeexpectedtodevelopproject‐specificAPPs,incorporatingmitigation,monitoring,andadaptivemanagementstrategiesassetforthinthisPEIR.

2010 Settlement Agreement

OnDecember3,2010,Audubon,CARE,NextEra,thePeopleoftheStateofCalifornia,andtheAttorneyGeneralenteredintoasettlementagreement.Therepoweringscheduleinthe2010SettlementAgreemententailedNextErarepoweringold‐generationturbinesunderitscurrentownershipintheAPWRAassoonascommerciallyreasonable,inthreeorfewerphases,witheachphasecomprisingupto80MWandeachphaseundergoingCEQAreviewbymeansofanEIR.Phase1wastheVascoWindsprojectinContraCostaCounty;Phases2and3wouldbeprojectsintheAlamedaCountyportionoftheAPWRA.Eachphaseofrepoweredturbinesissubjectto3yearsofpostconstructionfatalitymonitoring,usingthefocalspeciesidentifiedinthe2007SettlementAgreementaswellasbatsasbenchmarksforevaluatingeffectivenessofrepowering.Theagreementisstructuredsuchthateachphaseofrepoweringisintendedtoinformthesitingofturbinesinsubsequentphases.Mitigationfeestocompensateforongoingbirdandbatfatalitieswerealsoestablishedintheagreement.NextEraistheonlywindoperatorintheAPWRAthatwasapartytothe2010SettlementAgreement.WhiletheCountyisnotapartytothe2010SettlementAgreementandthereforehasnoresponsibilitiesundertheagreement,therepowering,conservation,andmonitoringmeasuresintheagreementwerereviewedandincorporatedintothemitigationmeasuresinthePEIRasdeemedappropriatebytheCounty.

Environmental Setting

Theprogramareaischaracterizedbyrollinghillswithelevationsrangingfrom256to1,542feetabovemeansealevel.Windfarmoperations,livestockgrazingand,toalesserextent,drylandfarming(graincrops)aretheprimarylandusesintheprogramarea.

Theprogramareacontains19landcovertypesthatweremappedduringpreparationoftheEACCS.LandcovertypesintheprogramareaarelistedinTable3.4‐1andshowninFigure3.4‐1.LandcovertypesintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareasarelistedinTables3.4‐2and3.4‐3andshowninFigures3.4‐2and3.4‐3,respectively.MappingresourcesusedfortheEACCSincludeddigitalorthophotographyfrom2005and2007,previouslymappedwetlandsfrom2001,USFWSwetlandsinventorydatalayer,andfieldverificationsurveysconductedbyICFin2010.DrainagedatafromU.S.GeologicalSurveyNationalHydrographyDatasetfrom2012wereaddedtothesedatasetstocreateFigures3.4‐1through3.4‐3.Theplantcommunitiesandassociatedwildlifeineachlandcovertypeintheprogramareaaredescribedbelow.Existingturbinesmaynotbepresentinalllandcovertypesdescribedbelow;however,alllandcovertypesaredescribedbecauseitisassumedthatrepoweringactivitiescouldhaveimpactsonanylandcovertypewithintheprogramarea.LandcovertypesthatarepresentwithintheGoldenHillsorPattersonPassprojectareasaresonotedinthelandcoverdescriptionsbelow.Mostrecently,EDFREconductedhabitatassessmentsforspecial‐statusspeciesandadelineationofwatersoftheUnitedStates,includingwetlands,thatUSACEhas





verified.AreportdetailingtheresultsoftheEDFREbiologicalsurveyandwetlanddelineationisincludedinAppendixCofthisPEIR.

Table 3.4‐1. Approximate Acreages of Land Cover Types in the Program Area

LandCover AmountinProgramArea(acres)

Annualgrassland 39,375.79

Alkalimeadow/scald 555.06

Rockoutcrop 42.05

Northernmixedchaparral/chamisechaparral 28.65

Northerncoastalscrub/Diablansagescrub 74.51

Mixedevergreenforest/oakwoodland 582.18

Blueoakwoodland 163.61

Foothillpine–oakwoodland 21.11

Mixedwillowriparianscrub 39.27

Mixedriparianforestandwoodland 9.93

Alkaliwetland 483.17

Seasonalwetland 82.76

Perennialfreshwatermarsh 5.01

Canal/Aqueduct 158.21

Ponds 53.74

Reservoirs 176.58

Drainages Notcalculated

Cropland 4.55

DevelopedandDisturbed 1,502.58

Total 43,358.76

Table 3.4‐2. Approximate Acreages of Land Cover Types in the Golden Hills Project Area

LandCover AmountinProjectArea(acres)

Annualgrassland 4,287.08

Alkalimeadow/scald 145.69


Alkaliwetland 37.13


Ponds 2.89

Drainages Notcalculated

DevelopedandDisturbed 0.71

Total 4,480.13





Table 3.4‐3. Approximate Acreages of Land Cover Types in the Patterson Pass Project Area

LandCover AmountinProjectArea(acres)

Annualgrassland 939.81



Perennialfreshwatermarsh 4.99

Ponds 0.84

Drainages 0.81

Total 951.86

Grassland

Grasslandconsistsofherbaceousvegetationdominatedbygrasses,althoughfloweringforbsareoftenaconspicuouscomponentoftheplantcover.MostofthegrasslandintheprogramareaischaracterizedasCaliforniaAnnualGrassland.Twootherhabitats,alkalimeadowandrockoutcrops,areinterspersedassmallpatcheswithinthegrasslandmatrixandare,accordingly,includedinanddiscussedascomponentsofthegrasslandhabitat.

Grassland Plant Communities

California Annual Grassland

Californiaannualgrasslandisfoundthroughouttheprogramarea,occupyingapproximately39,375.79acres.Californiaannualgrasslandisanherbaceousplantcommunitydominatedbynonnativeannualgrasses(Holland1986:36–37;SawyerandKeeler‐Wolf1995:40–41).ThedominantspeciesaremostlynonnativegrassesfromtheMediterraneanbasin,suchassoftchess(Bromushordeaceus),redbrome(Bromusmadritensissubsp.rubens),Mediterraneanbarley(Hordeummarinumvar.gussoneanum),wildoats(Avenaspp.),ripgutbrome(Bromusdiandrus),Italianryegrass(Festucaperennis[Loliummultiflorum]),andrat‐tailfescue(Festucamyuros).Inthespring,manyoftheannualgrasslandsareinterspersedwithdiversenativewildflowerstypicaloftheinnerCoastRanges.Commonlyfoundspeciesofwildflowersinthesegrasslandsincludelupine(Lupinusspp.),fiddleneck(Amsinckiaspp.),popcornflower(Plagiobothrysspp.),bigheronbill(Erodiumbotrys),redstemmedfilaree(E.cicutarium),Californiapoppy(Eschscholziacalifornica),owl’s‐clover(CastillejaandTriphysariaspp.),andclarkia(Clarkiaspp.).Special‐statusplantspeciesthatmaybefoundinthisplantcommunityincludelarge‐floweredfiddleneck(Amsinckiagrandiflora),bigtarplant(Blepharizoniaplumosa),round‐leavedfilaree(Californiamacrophylla),Lemmon’sjewelflower(Caulanthuslemmonii),diamond‐petaledCaliforniapoppy(Eschscholziarhombipetala),shiningnavarretia(Navarretianigelliformisssp.radians),andcaper‐fruitedtropidocarpum(Tropidocarpumcapparideum).

AnnualgrasslandisalsothedominantlandcovertypeintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectsareas,withannualgrasslandconstituting96%(4,287.08acres)and99%(934.06acres)oftheprojectareas,respectively.

Alkali Meadow

Alkalimeadowoccursinscatteredpatchestotalingapproximately555.06acresinthecentralandnorthernportionsoftheprogramarea.Alkalimeadowisaperennialgrasslandcommunitythat





occursonalkalisoils(Holland1986:42–43;SawyerandKeeler‐Wolf1995:78–79).Dominantspeciesinalkalimeadowincludesaltgrass(Distichlisspicata),wildbarley(Hordeumspp.),andalkaliryegrass(Elymustriticoides).Theassociatedherbcoverconsistsofhalophytes,includingsaltbush(Atriplexspp.),alkaliheath(Frankeniasalina),alkaliweed(Cressatruxillensis),alkalimallow(Malvellaleprosa),andcommonspikeweed(Centromadiapungens).AlkalimeadowisconsideredasignificantnaturalcommunitybyCDFWbecauseofitsrarityandthepressingthreatstotheremnantcommunitiesfromovergrazingandlanduseconversion(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013a).Special‐statusplantspeciesthatmaybefoundinthisplantcommunityincludeSanJoaquinspearscaleandrecurvedlarkspur.

Alkalimeadowcomprisesapproximately3%(145.69acres)oftheGoldenHillsprojectarea.ThereisnoalkalimeadowinthePattersonPassprojectarea.

Rock Outcrop

Rockoutcropsarefrequentlyencounteredinsomegrasslands,andapproximately42.05acresarepresentintheprogramarea.Theseoutcropsareexposuresofbedrockthattypicallylacksoilandhavesparsevegetation.Withintheprogramarea,severaltypesofrockoutcropsarepresentandarederivedfromsedimentaryandmetamorphicsources.ThegreatestconcentrationofrockoutcropsoccursnearBrushyPeakRegionalPreserve,althoughotherrockoutcropsareinthevicinityofTeslaRoad.Onespecial‐statusplantspecies,raylessragwort(Packeraindecora),maybefoundinthisplantcommunity.

Common Wildlife Associations

Characteristicwildlifespeciesingrasslandsincludereptilessuchaswesternfencelizard(Sceloporusoccidentalis),commongartersnake(Thamnophissirtalis),andwesternrattlesnake(Crotalisviridis);mammalssuchasblack‐tailedjackrabbit(Lepuscalifornicus),Californiagroundsquirrel(Spermophilusbeecheyi),westernharvestmouse(Reithrodontomysmegalotis),Californiavole(Microtuscalifornicus),andcoyote(Canislatrans);andbirdssuchasred‐tailedhawk,Americankestrel,barnowl(Tytoalba),andwesternmeadowlark(Sturnellaneglecta).Severalcommonbatspecies,suchascanyonbat(Parastrellushesperus),canroostinrockyoutcropsandforageovergrassland.

Special‐statuswildlifespeciesassociatedwithgrasslandsincludegoldeneagle,Swainson’shawk,westernburrowingowl,loggerheadshrike(Laniusludovicianus),SanJoaquinkitfox,andAmericanbadger(Taxideataxus).Californiared‐leggedfrogandCaliforniatigersalamanderusegrasslandsasmovementandaestivation(summerhibernation)habitat.Alamedawhipsnakeisknowntousegrasslandsadjacenttoshrublandsandrockoutcropsforbreedingandrefugia.Pallidbat(Antrozouspallidus)isknowntoroostincrevicesinrockoutcropsandforageoversurroundinggrassland.Annualgrasslandalsoprovidesimportantforaginghabitatfornorthernharrier(Circuscyaneus)andwhite‐tailedkite(Elanusleucurus).

Scrub/Chaparral

Chaparralcommunitiesaredominatedbydenselypackedandnearlyimpenetrabledrought‐adaptedevergreenwoodyshrubs,6.5–13feettall,thatpossesssmall,thick,leathery,sclerophyllousleaves(Hanes1977:419;Holland1986:20–21).Coastalscrubcommunities,incomparison,aregenerallycharacterizedbylowshrubs,usually1.5–6.5feettallwithsoftnon‐scerophyllousleaves,andinterspersedwithgrassyopenings(Holland1986).Twoscrub/chaparralplantcommunitiesare





presentintheprogramarea:northernmixedchaparral/chamisechaparralandnortherncoastalscrub/Diablansagescrub.

Scrub/Chaparral Plant Communities

Northern Mixed Chaparral/Chamise Chaparral

Northernmixedchaparral/chamisechaparraloccupiesapproximately28.65acresinthesouthernendoftheprogramarea.Northernmixedchaparralmayinterminglewithnortherncoastalscrub/Diablansagescrub,foothillpine‐oakwoodlands,andmixedevergreenforest/oakwoodland.

Dominantshrubsinthiscommunityintheprogramareaincludechamise(Adenostomafasciculatum),manzanita(Arctostaphylossp.),scruboak(Quercusberberidifolia),andceanothus(Ceanothussp.).Otherimportantspeciesaretoyon(Heteromelesarbutifolia),coffeeberry(Rhamnuscalifornica),madrone(Arbutusmenziesii),Californiabay(Umbellulariacalifornica),birchleafmountain‐mahogany(Cercocarpusbetuloides),poison‐oak(Toxicodendrondiversilobum),bushmonkeyflower(Mimulusaurantiacus),andCaliforniayerbasanta(Eriodictyoncalifornicum).Somechaparralstandsmaybealmostentirelycomposedofdensestandsofchamise.Nospecial‐statusplantsoccurinthisplantcommunityintheprogramarea.

Northern Coastal Scrub/Diablan Sage Scrub

Northerncoastalscrub/Diablansagescruboccupiesapproximately74.51acresinthesouthernportionoftheprogramarea.Northerncoastalscrub/Diablansagescrubintheprogramareaiscomposedprimarilyofevergreenshrubswithanherbaceousunderstoryinopenings.Northerncoastalscrub/DiablansagescrubcommunitiesaredominatedbyCaliforniasagebrush(Artemisiacalifornica)andblacksage(Salviamellifera),withassociatedspeciesincludingcoyotebrush(Baccharispilularis),toyon,big‐berrymanzanita(Manzanitaglauca),Californiabuckwheat(Eriogonumfasciculatum),poison‐oak,Californiayerbasanta,andbushmonkeyflower(Holland1986:8–10).Rockoutcropsarealsopresentinthisplantcommunity.Nospecial‐statusplantsoccurinthisplantcommunityintheprogramarea.


Commonwildlifespeciesthatusechaparralandscrubhabitatsintheprogramareaincludegophersnake(Pituophismelanoleucus),westernrattlesnake,westernfencelizard,brushrabbit(Sylvilagusbachmani),Californiapocketmouse(Perognathuscalifornicus),spottedskunk(Spilogalegracilis),muledeer,coyote,andbobcat(Lynxrufus).Commonbirdspeciesincludemourningdove(Zenaidamacroura),Californiaquail(Callipeplacalifornica),Anna’shummingbird(Calypteanna),westernscrub‐jay(Aphelocomacalifornica),Bewick’swren(Thryomanesbewickii),Californiatowhee(Pipilocrissalis),lessergoldfinch(Carduelispsaltria),foxsparrow(Passerellailiaca),white‐crownedsparrow(Zonotrichialeucophrys),anddark‐eyedjunco(Juncohyemalis).

Special‐statuswildlifespeciesknowntooccurinchaparralandnortherncoastalscrubcommunitiesincludeAlamedawhipsnakeandloggerheadshrike.ChaparralandnortherncoastalscrubaretheprimaryhabitatsforAlamedawhipsnake,whichbreeds,forages,andthermoregulatesinthishabitat.Contiguousstandsarenecessarytosupportviablepopulationsofthisspeciesthroughoutitsrange.Loggerheadshrikesareknowntonestandforageinscrubhabitatswithlowdensitiesofshrubcanopycover.





Woodland

Theprogramareacontainsthreewoodlandplantcommunities:mixedevergreenforest/oakwoodland,blueoakwoodland,andfoothillpine‐oakwoodland.TheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareasdonotsupportanywoodlandplantcommunities.

Woodland Plant Communities

Mixed Evergreen Forest/Oak Woodland

Mixedevergreenforest/oakwoodlandisthemostcommonwoodlandcommunityintheprogramarea,occupyingapproximately582.18acresatthesouthendoftheprogramarea.Mixedevergreenforest/oakwoodlandischaracterizedbyadiverseoverstoryoftendominatedbycoastliveoak(Quercusagrifolia)(Holland1986:86;SawyerandKeeler‐Wolf1995:241–242).Associatedco‐dominantspeciescanincludeblueoak(Q.douglasii),valleyoak(Q.lobata),Californiabay,madrone,Californiabuckeye(Aesculuscalifornica),andblackoak(Q.kelloggii).Whereshrubby,theunderstoryconsistsofpatchesoftoyon,poison‐oak,andscruboak.Wheremoreopen,theunderstorytypicallyconsistsofannualgrassesandshade‐tolerantperennials,suchasyerbabuena(Clinopodiumdouglasii)andcommonsnowberry(Symphoricarposalbus).Nospecial‐statusplantsoccurinthisplantcommunityintheprogramarea.

Blue Oak Woodland

Thereareapproximately163.61acresofblueoakwoodlandscatteredthroughoutthesouthernhalfoftheprogramarea.Thislandcovertypicallyoccursinthelow‐tomid‐elevationhillsinslightlydriermicroclimates.Blueoakwoodlandisdominatedbyblueoak,ahighlydrought‐tolerantspeciesadaptedtogrowthonthinsoilsinthedryfoothills.Californiabuckeyeandfoothillpine(Pinussabiniana)areassociatedtreespeciesinthiscommunity.Theunderstoryofblueoakwoodlandvariesfromshrubbytoopen.Understoryspeciestypicallyincludeannualgrasses,hollyleafcherry(Prunusilicifolia),poison‐oak,andcoffeeberry.SomeblueoakwoodlandalliancesareconsideredbyCDFWtobesensitivecommunities(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame2010).Onespecial‐statusplantspecies,shiningnavarretia,occursinthisplantcommunityintheprogramarea.

Foothill Pine‐Oak Woodland

Foothillpine‐oakwoodlandoccupiesapproximately21.11acresinthesouthernportionoftheprogramarea.Thecanopyisdominatedbyfoothillpineandblueoak(Holland1986:77).Oaksbecomemoreprevalentatlowerelevations,oftenformingaclosedcanopylayerbelowtheemergentpines,andtheunderstorylacksanappreciableshrublayer.Associatedcanopyspeciesincludeinteriorliveoak,coastliveoak,andCaliforniabuckeye.Associatedshrubspeciesincludeceanothusspecies,bigberrymanzanita,Californiacoffeeberry,poison‐oak,silverlupine(Lupinusalbifrons),blueelderberry,Californiayerbasanta,rockgooseberry(Ribesquercetorum),andCaliforniaredbud(Cercisoccidentalis).Nospecial‐statusplantsoccurinthiscommunityintheprogramarea.


Characteristicwildlifespeciesthatcanbefoundinwoodlandhabitatsincludegophersnake, westernfencelizard,red‐tailedhawk,Americankestrel,barnowl,greathornedowl(Bubovirginianus),acornwoodpecker(Melanerpesformicivorus),Nuttall’swoodpecker(Picoidesnuttallii),northernflicker(Colaptesauratus),white‐breastednuthatch(Sittacarolinensis),Californiaquail,spottedtowhee(Pipilomaculatus),Bewick’swren,bushtit(Psaltriparusminimus),bigbrownbat





(Eptesicusfuscus),Californiamyotis(Myotiscalifornicus),deermouse(Peromyscusmaniculatus),westerngraysquirrel(Sciurusgriseus),muledeer,andcoyote.

Special‐statuswildlifespeciesthatmaybefoundinoakwoodlandsincludeCaliforniatigersalamander,Alamedawhipsnake,goldeneagle,loggerheadshrike,hoarybat,pallidbat,westernredbat(Lasiurusblossevillii),SanJoaquinkitfox,andAmericanbadger.Californiatigersalamandersuseburrowsinthegrassyunderstoryofopenwoodlandsforaestivationandrefugia.Alamedawhipsnakemayuseoakwoodlandformovementbetweenchaparralandcoastalscrubhabitats.Goldeneaglesandloggerheadshrikesusevalleyoakwoodlandandotherwoodlandsforroosting,nesting,andforaging.Hoarybat,pallidbat,andwesternredbatroostinwoodlandsandforageabovethecanopy,inforestopenings,andalongforestedges.SanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadgermayuseopenvalleyoakwoodlandfordenning,foraging,andmovement.

Riparian

Withintheprogramarea,theriparianlandcovertypeoccursalongcreeksandaroundopenwaterbodies.Riparianvegetationintheprogramareaconsistoftwocommunitytypes:mixedwillowriparianscrubandmixedriparianforestandwoodland.Atthestatelevel,riparianplantcommunitiesareconsideredsensitivebecauseofthesubstantialreductionintheiramountandrange,andfortheirvalueashabitatforalargenumberofplantandwildlifespecies.

Riparian Plant Communities

Mixed Willow Riparian Scrub

Mixedwillowriparianscruboccupiesapproximately39.27acresinandalongthemarginsoftheactivechannelofintermittentandperennialdrainages.Intheprogramarea,thisplantcommunityisfoundalongPattersonRunanddrainagesnorthtoI‐580.

Conditionsinthemixedwillowriparianscrubcommunitycanrangefromopenwell‐developedcanopieswithminimalunderstorytodenseareasdominatedprimarilybyunderstoryspecieswithlittletonocanopy.Yellowwillow(Salixlasiandra),redwillow(S.laevigata),arroyowillow(S.lasiolepis),andnarrowleafwillow(exigua)arethedominantcanopyspeciesinthishabitat.Scrubcommunitiestypicallyconsistofscatteredwillowsandmulefat(Baccharissalicifolia),whichoccurinandalongthemarginsofopensandywashes.Understorydevelopmentinthiscommunitytypeiscontrolledbycanopydensity.Nospecial‐statusplantsoccurinthisplantcommunityintheprogramarea.

Mixedwillowriparianscrubcomprisesapproximately0.1%(6.54acres)oftheGoldenHillsprojectareaand0.4%(4.00acres)ofthePattersonPassprojectarea.

Mixed Riparian Forest and Woodland

Mixedriparianforestandwoodlandoccupiesapproximately9.93acresinthesouthernportionoftheprogramarea.ItoccursalongsectionsofArroyoSecoalongTeslaRoad,ArroyoVallenearHaysCamp,CorralHollowCreekanditstributaries,andFairchildGulchandDeadmanGulchinElyarCanyon.

Mixedriparianforestandwoodlandcommunitiesaresimilartomixedwillowriparianscrubintermsofhabitatrequirements.Theyarefoundinandalongthemarginsoftheactivechannelonintermittentandperennialdrainages.Generally,nosinglespeciesdominatesthecanopy,and





compositionvarieswithelevation,aspect,hydrology,andchanneltype.ThemajorcanopyspeciesincludeCaliforniasycamore,valleyoak,coastliveoak,redwillow,andCaliforniabay.AssociatedtreesandshrubsincludeCaliforniablackwalnut,otherspeciesofwillow,Californiabuckeye,Fremontcottonwood,andbigleafmaple.Nospecial‐statusplantsoccurinthiscommunityintheprogramarea.


WildlifespeciesthatareoftenassociatedwithriparianhabitatsincludeamphibianssuchasSierrantreefrog(Pseudacrissierrae),Californianewt(Tarichatorosa),westernaquaticgartersnake(Thamnophiscouchii),red‐shoulderedhawk(Buteolineatus),Wilson’swarbler(Wilsoniapusilla),spottedtowhee,Bullock’soriole(Icterusbullockii),long‐tailedweasel(Mustelafrenata),grayfox(Urocyoncinereoargenteus),raccoon(Procyonlotor),andyumamyotis(Myotisyumanensis).

Special‐statuswildlifespeciesassociatedwithriparianforestandscrubincludeCaliforniared‐leggedfrog,Swainson’shawk,westernredbat,Townsend’sbig‐earedbat(Corynorhinustownsendii),andhoarybat.Californiared‐leggedfrogsuseriparianhabitattypesforbreeding,foraging,andrefugia.Swainson’shawksnestandroostinriparianforest,andhoaryandwesternredbatsusethishabitatforroostingandforaging.Townsend’sbig‐earedbatsareknowntoforagealongripariancorridorswhenappropriateroosthabitatisnearby.

Wetland

Thewetlandlandcovertypeincludesareassubjecttoseasonalorperennialfloodingorponding,orthatpossesssaturatedsoilconditionsandthatsupportpredominantlyhydrophyticor“water‐loving”herbaceousplantspecies(Cowardinetal.1979).Becausewetlandsareperiodicallywaterlogged,theplantsgrowinginthemmusttoleratelowlevelsofsoiloxygenassociatedwithwaterloggedorhydricsoils.Thepresenceofflood‐tolerantspeciesoftenindicatesthatasiteisawetlandevenifthegroundappearstobedryformostoftheyear,orifhydrologicinfluencesarelessobvious.

Thewetlandlandcovertypeintheprogramareaconsistsofthreecommunities:alkaliwetland,seasonalwetland(includingvernalpools),andperennialfreshwatermarsh.Ingeneral,wetlandsareconsideredasensitivebioticcommunitybecauseoftheirlimiteddistributionandtheirimportancetospecial‐statusplantandwildlifespeciesstatewide.

Wetland Plant Communities

Alkali Wetland

Alkaliwetlandsoccupyapproximately483.17acresintheprogramarea.Alkaliwetlandssupportpondedorsaturatedsoilconditionsandoccurasperennialorseasonallywetfeaturesonalkalisoils.Alkaliwetlandsoccurprimarilyalongstreamchannelswherealkalisoilsarepresent.Intheprogramarea,thisplantcommunityoccursalongAltamontCreek,thesouthsideofI‐580,andinseveraldrainagessouthoftheAlameda/ContraCostaCountylineandwestofBethanyReservoir.TheonlysiteinAlamedaCounty(besidestheSpringtownAlkaliSink)thatsupportslargeareasofalkalisoilsandintactstandsofvalleysinkscrubandalkaligrasslandisanareaofapproximately267acresinthenortheasterncornerofthecounty.ThesiteoccursneartheintersectionofKelsoandBrunsRoadsbetweentheDelta‐MendotaCanalandtheCaliforniaAqueduct.





Thevegetationofalkaliwetlandsiscomposedofhalophyticplantspeciesadaptedtobothwetlandconditionsandhighsalinitylevels.Typicalspeciesincludesaltgrass,alkaliheath,andcommonspikeweed.Theassociatedherbcoverconsistsofhalophytes,includingsaltbush,alkaliheath,seepweed,alkaliweed,andsaltmarshsandspurry(Spergulariamarina).Standsofiodinebushmayalsobepresent.Special‐statusplantspeciesthatoccurinthisplantcommunityintheprogramareaincludebrittlescale(Atriplexdepressa),SanJoaquinspearscale(A.joaquinana),lessersaltscale(A.minuscula),andrecurvedlarkspur(Delphiniumrecurvatum).

Alkaliwetlandcomprisesapproximately0.8%(37.13acres)oftheGoldenHillsprojectarea.AlkaliwetlandsarenotpresentinthePattersonPassprojectarea.

Seasonal Wetlands

Seasonalwetlandsoccupyapproximately82.76acresscatteredthroughouttheprogramarea,withseverallargeseasonalwetlandcomplexes(i.e.,groupsofmanysmallpoolsorwetlands)occurringalongroadwaysanddrainagebottomsinthevicinityofAltamontPass.Thiscommunityoftenoccursadjacenttoalkaliwetland.

Seasonalwetlandsarefreshwaterwetlandsthatsupportpondedorsaturatedsoilconditionsduringwinterandspringandaredrythroughthesummerandfalluntilfall/winterrainfallbeginstosaturatethesoil.Vernalpoolsareatypeofseasonalwetlandthatpondwateronthesurfaceforextendeddurationsduringwinterandspringanddrycompletelyduringlatespringandsummerduetoanunderlyinghardpan.Thishardpanrestrictsthepercolationofwaterandcreatesa“perched”seasonalwatersource.Theysupportatypicalfloralargelycomposedofnativewetlandplantspecies.VernalpoolsineasternAlamedaCountyoccurindistinctivetopographywithlowdepressionsmixedwithhummocksormounds.Thesedepressionsfillwithrainwaterandrunofffromadjacentareasduringthewinterandmayremaininundatedduringthespringtoearlysummer.VernalpoolsarefoundeastandnorthofLivermoreandnortheastofBethanyReservoir.

Vegetationtypicallyassociatedwithotherseasonalwetlandsconsistsofwetlandgeneralists,suchashyssoploosestrife(Lithiumhyssopifolia),cocklebur(Xanthiumstrumarium),Mediterraneanbarley,andItalianryegrass.Uplandspeciessuchassoftchess,blackmustard(Brassicanigra),redstemmedfilaree,andcommontarweed(Holocarphavirgata)canalsooccur.Commonspeciesinseasonalwetlandswithintheprojectareaincludewatercress(Rorippasp.),waterspeedwell(Veronicaanagallis‐aquatica),andsmartweeds(Polygonumspp.).Noknownoccurrencesofspecial‐statusplantshavebeendocumentedinthiscommunityintheprogramarea.Mostofthespecial‐statusplantsintheprogramareavicinitydonotoccurinseasonalwetlands;however,onespecies—alkalimilk‐vetch(Astragalustenervar.tener)—occursonthemarginsofalkalivernalpools.

Seasonalwetlandcomprisesapproximately0.02%(0.09acre)oftheGoldenHillsprojectareaand0.1%(1.32acres)ofthePattersonPassprojectarea.

Perennial Freshwater Marsh

Perennialfreshwatermarshoccupiesapproximately5.01acresoftheprogramarea.Perennialfreshwatermarshoccursprimarilyinsmallpatchesalongstreamcoursesordrainagesandattheedgesofsomeponds.Intheprogramarea,perennialfreshwatermarshispresentinthenortheastportionoftheprogramareanearBrunsRoad.

Perennialfreshwatermarshisdominatedbyemergentherbaceousplants(reeds,sedges,grasses)witheitherintermittentlyfloodedorperenniallysaturatedsoils(Holland1986:48–49).Inthe





programarea,plantspeciesassociatedwithperennialfreshwatermarshincludewillows,saltgrass,Mediterraneanbarley,Italianryegrass,rabbitsfootgrass(Polypogonsp.),nutsedge(Cyperuseragrostis),willowweed(Polygonumlapathifolium),watercress,Balticrush(Juncusbalticus),narrow‐leavedcattail(Typhaangustifolia),ricecutgrass(Leersiaoryzoides),bur‐reed(Sparganiumeurycarpum),alkalibulrush(Bolboschoenusrobustus),stingingnettle(Urticadioicassp.holosericea),willowherb(Epilobiumciliatum),celery‐leavedbuttercup(Ranunculusscleratus),small‐floweredsaltcedar(Tamarixparviflora),andperennialpeppergrass(Lepidiumlatifolium).Nospecial‐statusplantsoccurinthisplantcommunityintheprogramarea.

NoperennialfreshwatermarshoccursintheGoldenHillsprojectarea.

Perennialfreshwatermarshcomprisesapproximately0.5%(4.99acres)ofthePattersonPassprojectarea.


Alkaliandseasonalwetlandsprovideimportanthabitatforavarietyofaquaticinvertebratesandamphibians,whichprovidefoodsourcesforvariousbirdspecies.Perennialfreshwatermarshisanimportanthabitatforawidevarietyofwildlifespecies.Wildlifespeciesthatoccurinorusefreshwatermarshforbreedingorcoverincludewesternpondturtle(Actinemysmarmorata),severalgartersnakespecies,greatblueheron(Ardeaherodias),greategret(Ardeaalba),mallard(Anasplatyrhynchos),killdeer(Charadriusvociferus),greateryellowlegs(Tringamelanoleuca),muledeer,andcoyote.Seasonalwetlandsarecommonlyusedbyavarietyofwildlifeduringthewetseason,includingSierrantreefrog,Californiatoad(Bufoboreas),black‐neckedstilt(Himantopusmexicanus),Americanavocet(Recurvirostraamericana),red‐wingedblackbird(Agelaiusphoeniceu),white‐tailedkite,andnorthernharrier.Numerousspeciesofbatsforageoverfreshwaterwetland,includingMexicanfree‐tailedbat(Tadaridabrasiliensismexicanus).

Special‐statuswildlifespeciesassociatedwithalkaliand/orseasonalwetlandsincludelonghornfairyshrimp,vernalpoolshrimp,vernalpooltadpoleshrimp,curved‐foothygrotusdivingbeetle(Hygrotuscurvipes),Californiatigersalamander,Californiared‐leggedfrog,andhoarybat.Longhornfairyshrimp,vernalpoolfairyshrimp,andvernalpooltadpoleshrimparedependentonephemeralwetlandssuchasvernalpoolsandalkaliwetlands.CaliforniatigersalamandersuseseasonalwetlandsthatholdwateruntilAprilorlaterandperennialfreshwatermarshforbreedingandlarvaldevelopment.Californiared‐leggedfrogsuseseasonalwetlandsandfreshwatermarshforrefugiaandbreeding.Perennialfreshwatermarshispotentialhabitatforwesternpondturtle.Hoarybatsforagenearoroverwetlands.

Aquatic

Theaquaticlandcovertypeconsistsofopenwaterhabitatssuchasreservoirs,rivers,streams,canals,andponds(includingquarryandstockpondsthatdonottypicallysupportemergentvegetation).Aquatichabitatintheprogramareacomprisescanal/aqueducts,ponds,reservoirs,andstreams.

Aquatic Plant Communities

Canal/Aqueduct

Canal/aqueductencompassesapproximately158.21acresoftheprogramarea.PortionsoftheCaliforniaAqueductandtheDeltaMendotaCanal,aswellasotherirrigationcanals,arepresentin





theprogramarea.Becausethesefeaturesareintendedtomovewaterbetweenareas,theyareoftenmanagedforminimalvegetationtoenhancetheflowofwaterthroughthechannels.Canalsandaqueductstypicallyconveylargeamountsofwaterandcontaindeepwaterwithswiftflowyear‐round.Nospecial‐statusplantsoccurinthiscommunityintheprogramarea.

Canal/aqueductisnotpresentintheGoldenHillsorPattersonPassprojectareas.

Ponds

Pondsoccupyapproximately53.74acresoftheprogramareaandweredefinedasperennialorseasonalwaterbodieslessthan20acresinsize.Pondsarescatteredthroughouttheprogramarea.Pondsmayhavevaryingamountsofemergent,submerged,and/orfloatingvegetation,dependingonthelengthofinundationandleveloflivestockgrazing.

Themajorityofthepondsintheprogramareaaresmallstockpondswithlittleornovegetationthatprovidewaterforlivestock.Plantsoftenassociatedwithpondsincludefloatingplantssuchasduckweed(Lemnaspp.)orrootedplantssuchascattails,bulrushes,sedges,rushes,watercress,andwaterprimrose.

Stockpondsareoftensurroundedbypasturewithgrazinglivestock.Immediatelyadjacenttothestockpond,soilmaybeexposedbecauseofthecontinuedpresenceoflivestock.Stockpondsinungrazedareasorthathavebeenprotectedfromgrazingmaybesurroundedbywetlandvegetationincludingwillows,cattails,reeds,bulrushes,sedges,andtules(Scirpuscalifornicus).Nospecial‐statusplantsoccurinthiscommunityintheprogramarea.

Pondsconstituteapproximately0.06%(2.89acres)oftheGoldenHillsprojectareaand0.1%(0.84acre)ofthePattersonPassprojectarea.

Reservoirs

Thereservoirlandcovertypeencompassesapproximately176.58acresoftheprogramarea.Reservoirsweredefinedasbeinglargerthan20acres.Reservoirsareopenwaterbodiesthatarehighlymanagedforwaterstorage,watersupply,floodprotection,orrecreationaluses.BethanyReservoiristheonlyreservoirintheprogramarea.ThereservoirservesasaforebayfortheSouthBayPumpingPlantandaconveyancefacilityinthisreachoftheCaliforniaAqueduct.

Plantsoftenassociatedwithreservoirsincludethoseplantscommontodeepwatersystems.Algaearethepredominantplantlifefoundintheopenwatersofreservoirs.Dependingonreservoirtemperature,waterlevel,andotherenvironmentalconditions,algalbloomsmayoccur,resultinginthickalgalmatsonthesurfaceofthereservoir.Ifthereservoiredgesareshallow,plantspeciessimilartothosefoundinpondsmaybepresent.Ifthereservoirhassteeperedges,waterdepthandfluctuationsinreservoirheightmaypreventtheestablishmentofvegetation.Uplandandripariantreesthatwerenotremovedduringconstructionofthereservoirorthatwereplantedafterwardmaybepresentalongtheperimeterofthereservoir.Nospecial‐statusplantsoccurinthiscommunitytypeintheprogramarea.

DrainagesTherearenumerousperennial,intermittent,andephemeraldrainagesintheprogramarea.Becausethesearelinearfeatures,theareaofdrainageintheprogramareawasnotcalculated.MajordrainageswithintheprogramareaincludeBrushyCreek,AltamontCreek,MountainHouseCreek,CorralHollowCreek,andPattersonRun.Largerdrainagesoftenhaveriparianvegetationalongthem(seethediscussionoftheriparianlandcovertypeabove).Theriparianplant





compositionandwidthoftheripariancorridorvarydependingonchannelslope,magnitudeandfrequencyofchannelandoverbankflows,andthefrequency/durationoffloodingflowsthatinundatethebroaderfloodplain.Willowsmaybecomeestablishedin‐channelinareasofsedimentdeposition,unlesssuppressedbyintensivegrazing.

Intermittent,ephemeral,andpotentiallyperennialdrainagesarepresentintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.TheacreageofdrainageswasnotcalculatedfortheprogramareaortheGoldenHillsprojectareabecausenodelineationofwaterswasconductedfortheseareas.

AwetlanddelineationwaspreparedforthePattersonPassproject,and0.85acreofdrainageswasmappedinthePattersonPassprojectareaaspartofthewetlanddelineation.


Openwatersupportsavarietyofducksincludingmallard,green‐wingedteal,cinnamonteal(Anascyanoptera),gadwall(A.strepera),Americanwigeon(A.americana),andAmericancoot.Manyspeciesofcommonandspecial‐statusbats,includingyumamyotisandsilver‐hairedbat(Lasionycterisnoctivagans),forageonemergentaquaticinvertebratesandobtainfreshwaterfromopenwaterhabitats.

Whilecanalsandaqueductscanserveasloafinghabitatforsomewaterfowlspecies,theygenerallydonothavemuchhabitatvalue.Becausethesewaterwaysaresowideanddeep,theyalsocreatebarrierstomovementonthelandscapeforterrestrialspecies.However,thesefeaturesmayprovidetheopenexpansesofwaternecessaryforbatspeciesthatdrinkonthewingandlackthemaneuverabilitytoaccesssmallerwatersources,suchaswesternmastiffbat(Eumopsperotis).

Pondsattractmanybirdsthatarenormallyfoundintheadjacentgrasslands;forexample,Californiaquail,mourningdove,andbarnandcliffswallows(HirundorusticaandH.pyrrhonota)allrequiredailywaterandareknowntousepondsaswatersources.Pondsthatcontaineithersubmergedoremergentvegetationareofparticularimportancetonativeamphibiansasbreedinghabitat.Inperennialponds,nonnativebass(Micropterusssp.)andbullfrog(Lithobatescatesbeianus)arecommonandareoftenprevalentwildlifespecies.Raccoonsforagealongtheedgesofpondsforadultandlarvalamphibians,fish,andcrayfish.

Reservoirsprovidefoodforsomeraptors,whichmayalsonestinnearbytrees.Shoreandwadingbirdsincludingkilldeer,black‐neckedstilt,greateryellowlegs,andseveralgullspeciesmaybefoundinandattheedgesofreservoirs.Reservoirsprovidehabitatforsomenativefishsuchashitch,Sacramentoblackfish,Californiaroach,andSacramentosucker,butmorecommonlysupportnonnativefishsuchasbluegill,sunfish,brownbullhead,carp,goldfish,andlargemouthbass.Reservoirscanalsoprovidesuitablerearinghabitatfornonmigratoryrainbowtroutifconditionsarefavorable.

Special‐statuswildlifespeciesthatmaybefoundinoruseponds,streams,themarginsofreservoirs,ortheinletswherestreamsflowintoreservoirsincludeCaliforniatigersalamander,Californiared‐leggedfrog,westernpondturtle,andtricoloredblackbird.Tricoloredblackbirdsrelyonvegetationassociatedwithponds(cattailsandbulrush)fornesting.Westernredbat,hoarybat,Townsend’sbig‐earedbat,andsilver‐hairedbatcouldforageaboveordrinkfromcanalsoraqueducts.





Cropland

Cropland Plant Communities

Thecroplandlandcovertypeencompassesallareaswherethenativevegetationhasbeenclearedforirrigatedagriculturaluseordrylandfarming.Thiscommunitydoesnotincluderangeland,whichisoftencharacterizedasanagriculturallanduse(mostrangelandintheprogramareaisclassifiedasannualgrassland).Approximately4.55acresofcroplandispresentinthenortheastcorneroftheprogramarea.Nospecial‐statusplantsoccurinthislandcovertypeintheprogramarea.


Somenativewildlife,suchassmallmammals,certainraptors,andmigratorywaterfowl,utilizecroplandseasonallyoryear‐round.Year‐roundactivitytendstobeconcentratedalongthemarginsofactivefarmlandwherevegetationislessdisturbedorwheretreesandshrubstendtooccur(someareplanteddeliberatelyaswindbreaks).Openfieldsthatareirrigatedforforagecropsarealsousedbywildlife.Cultivatedagricultureisbisectedbystreams,ditches,andchannels.Someamphibiansandreptilesutilizetheselinearaquaticfeaturesandtheadjacentuplandhabitat.

Special‐statuswildlifespeciesexpectedtobefoundinoralongtheedgesofcroplandareburrowingowl,white‐tailedkite,loggerheadshrike,Swainson’shawk,andgoldeneagle.SanJoaquinkitfoxesandAmericanbadgersmaymovethroughorforagealongtheedgesofcroplandsifitoccursnearsuitablegrasslandareas.CaliforniatigersalamandersandCaliforniared‐leggedfrogsmaymovethroughcroplandstoreachsuitablebreedingandaestivationhabitat.

Developed and Disturbed

Approximately1,502.58acresofthedevelopedanddisturbedlandcovertypearepresentintheprogramarea.Developedlandcomprisesalltypesofdevelopmentforresidential,commercial,industrial,transportation,landfill,landscaping,andrecreationaluses(e.g.,siteswithstructures,pavedsurfaces,horticulturalplantings,golfcourses,andirrigatedlawns).Developedanddisturbedlandsintheprogramareaincluderuderalland,urban/suburbandevelopment,ruralresidential,landfill,golfcourses/urbanparks,andwindturbinesandassociatedinfrastructure.

Developed and Disturbed Plant Communities

Ruderalareasareperiodicallydisturbedandarecharacterizedbysparsenonnative,typicallyweedyvegetation.Mostruderalareasarevacantparcelssurroundedbydevelopedareas.Wherevegetationispresent,ruderallandcoverisdominatedbyamixtureofnonnativeannualgrassesandweedyspecies,suchasblackmustard(Brassicanigra),thistles(Cirsiumspp.),andwildradish(Raphanussativa),thattendtocolonizequicklyafterdisturbance.

Vegetationfoundinotherdevelopedlandsisusuallyintheformoflawns,landscaping,andplantedstreettrees(e.g.,elm,ash,liquidambar,pine,palm).Theruralresidentiallandsmayalsoincludesmallareasofirrigatedpasture.

Landfillsarehighlydisturbedareaswhileinuse.Afteralandfillisclosedandcapped,itmaybereturnedtonaturalcommunitytypesthroughplantingandmanagement.






Developedanddisturbedareasprovidelimitedhabitatforwildlifebutareoftenknowntosupportcommonurban‐dwellingspeciessuchasnorthernmockingbird(Mimuspolyglottos),rockpigeon(Columbalivia),mourningdove,housesparrow(Passerdomesticus),housefinch(Carpodacusmexicanus),westernscrub‐jay,Botta’spocketgopher(Thomomysbottae),Californiagroundsquirrel,housemouse(Musmusculus),blackrat(Rattusrattus),andcoyote.Semi‐developedareascontaininggrass,trees,orwatersources(smallpondsandditches)maysupportadditionalwildlifespecies.Mexicanfree‐tailedbatisknowntoformlargecoloniesinurbanbuildingsandbridges,andothercommonspecies,suchasbigbrownbat,arefoundinresidentialatticsandornamentaltreesincityparks.Thesespeciesaretypicallygeneralizedopportunisticforagersthatarehighlytolerantofhumanactivity.

Whiledevelopedlandscapesdonotprovidehigh‐qualityhabitatforspecial‐statuswildlifespecies,somedevelopedareasmaybeusedforforagingandmovement.SanJoaquinkitfoxes,goldeneagles,andloggerheadshrikesmaymovethroughand/orforageinruderalareas,golfcourses/urbanparks,andornamentalwoodlands.Burrowingowlsmayuseruderalareas,urban/suburban,andgolfcoursesforforagingandbreeding.CaliforniatigersalamandersandCaliforniared‐leggedfrogsmaymigratethroughsomedevelopedareasbetweenhabitatpatches.CaliforniatigersalamandersandCaliforniared‐leggedfrogsmayalsousegolfcoursesifpondsarepresentonornearthegolfcourseandsuitableuplandhabitatisnearby.Somespecial‐statusbatsmayuseartificialstructuresassociatedwithurbanlandscapes—suchasbuildings,bridges,andtunnels—formaternityroosts.Pallidbatsareknowntoroostincrevicesinbridgesorbuildings,andTownsend’sbig‐earedbatshavebeenfoundinopenspacesinabandonedbuildings,tunnelsandotherartificialstructures.

Special‐Status Species

Special‐statusspeciesareplantsandanimalsthatarelegallyprotectedunderESA,CESA,orotherregulations;andspeciesthatareconsideredsufficientlyrarebythescientificcommunitytoqualifyforsuchlisting.Special‐statusspeciesaredefinedasfollows.

SpeciesthatarelistedorproposedforlistingasthreatenedorendangeredunderESA(50CFR17.11[listedanimals];50CFR17.12[listedplants];andvariousnoticesintheFederalRegister.

SpeciesthatarecandidatesforpossiblefuturelistingasthreatenedorendangeredunderESA(77FR69993,November21,2012).

SpeciesthatarelistedorproposedforlistingbytheStateofCaliforniaasthreatenedorendangeredunderCESA(14CCR670.5).

SpeciesthatmeetthedefinitionsofrareorendangeredunderCEQA(StateCEQAGuidelinesSection15380).

PlantslistedasrareundertheCNPPA(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlifeCommission1900etseq.).

PlantswithaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1A,1B,2A,and2B(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013).

AnimalslistedasCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcernonCDFW’sSpecialAnimalsList(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame2011).





AnimalsthatarefullyprotectedinCalifornia(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlifeCommission3511[birds],4700[mammals],5050[amphibiansandreptiles],and5515[fish]).

BatsidentifiedasmediumorhighpriorityontheWesternBatWorkingGroupregionalpriorityspeciesmatrix(WesternBatWorkingGroup2007).

APWRAfocalspecies.

SpeciesoflocalconservationconcernintheAPWRA.

Special‐Status Plants

Thirty‐sixspecialstatusplantspeciesoccurinorwithin5milesoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b)(Table3.4‐4).Twenty‐fourofthespeciesarenotknowntooccurintheprogramarea(i.e.,theyoccurwithinthe5‐mileradiusbutnotwithintheprogramareaboundary)andarenotdiscussedfurther.Thefollowingdiscussionfocusesonthe12speciesthatoccurintheprogramarea.

Large‐Flowered Fiddleneck

Large‐floweredfiddleneckisstate‐andfederallylistedasendangered,withaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1B.1.Historically,itwasknownfromtheMountDiablofoothillsinContraCosta,Alameda,andSanJoaquinCounties,butitiscurrentlyknownonlyfromtwonaturaloccurrencesnearCorralHollowRoadinSanJoaquinCounty(KelleyandGanders2012:454;CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Large‐floweredfiddleneckgrowsingrasslands,generallyonnorth‐facingslopes.Asinglepopulationwasknownfromtheprogramarea,locatedonLawrenceLivermoreLaboratory’sSite300testarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Thisoccurrenceappearstohavebeenextirpatedbyerosionandhasnotbeenobservedsince1997(Carlsenetal.2012).Californiaannualgrasslandsintheprogramareaarepotentialhabitatforthisspecies.

Brittlescale

BrittlescalehasnofederalorstatelistingstatusbuthasaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1B.2.ItispresentalongthewesternsideoftheGreatValleyfromGlenntoMercedCountiesandinthesmallvalleysoftheinnerCoastRanges,includingtheLivermoreValley(Zacharias2012:633–634;CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Atthelandscapelevel,brittlescaleoccursinthebroadfloodbasinsofthevalleyfloorandonalluvialfansassociatedwiththemajordrainagesdrainingfromtheinnerCoastRangefoothills.Itgrowsiniodinebushscrubandalkaligrasslandsonthemarginsofvernalpools,swales,slickspots,andscalds.Itisgenerallyfoundatlowelevationsbuthasbeencollectedupto1,055feetabovesealevel.BrittlescalehasbeenreportedintheprogramareafromscaldsinthevicinityofAltamontPassRoad(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Potentialhabitatforthisspeciesoccursinalkaliwetlandsintheprogramarea;alkaliwetlandsoccurintheGoldenHillsprojectareabutnotinthePattersonPassprojectarea.

San Joaquin Spearscale

SanJoaquinspearscalehasnofederalorstatelistingstatusbuthasaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1B.2.ItoccursalongthewesternsideoftheGreatValleyfromGlenntoFresnoCountiesandinthesmallvalleysoftheinnerCoastRanges,includingtheLivermoreValley(Zacharias2012:634;CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).ItoccursinthebroadfloodbasinsofthevalleyfloorandonalluvialfansassociatedwiththemajordrainagesdrainingfromtheinnerCoastRanges

Table 3.4‐4. Special‐Status Plant Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Altamont Pass Wind Repowering Program Area Page 1 of 4

CommonNameScientificName

StatusaFederal/State/CRPR Distribution Habitat OccurrenceinProgramArea

Sharsmith’sonionAlliumsharsmithii

–/–/1B.3 MountHamiltonRange Rockyserpentineslopes,inchaparralorcypresswoodland;bloomsMarch–May

NearestoccurrencesonCedarMountain;programareaoutsideknownrangeofspecies

Large‐floweredfiddleneckAmsinckiagrandiflora

E/E/1B.1 HistoricallyknownfromMountDiablofoothillsinContraCosta,Alameda,andSanJoaquincounties;currentlyknownfromtwonaturaloccurrences

Valleygrasslandslopesbelow1,200feet;bloomsApril–May

Occursinprogramarea

Alkalimilk‐vetchAstragalustenervar.tener

–/–/1B.2 SouthernSacramentoValley,northernSanJoaquinValley,eastSanFranciscoBayArea

Grassyflatsandvernalpoolmargins,onalkalisoils;bloomsMarch–June

NearestoccurrencesinLivermoreValley,ByronHotSprings(bothoccurrencesextirpated)

HeartscaleAtriplexcordulata

–/–/1B.2 CentralValleyfromColusaCountytoKernCounty

Alkaligrassland,alkalimeadow,alkaliscrub;bloomsMay–October

Occurrencerecordsnearprogramareabasedonmisidentifications

BrittlescaleAtriplexdepressa

–/–/1B.2 WesternandeasternCentralValleyandadjacentfoothillsonwestsideofCentralValley

Alkaligrassland,alkalimeadow,andalkaliscrub

Occursinprogramarea

SanJoaquinsaltbushAtriplexjoaquiniana

–/–/1B.2 EasternSanFranciscoBayArea,westedgeofCentralValleyfromGlennCountytoFresnoCounty

Alkalimeadow,alkaligrassland,saltbushscrub;bloomsApril–September

Occursinprogramarea

LessersaltscaleAtriplexminuscula

–/–/1B.1 SanJoaquinValleyfromMercedCountytoKernCounty;ButteCounty

Alkalisinkandsandyalkalinesoilsingrasslands,between65–325feet;bloomsMay–October

Occursinprogramarea

BigscalebalsamrootBalsamorhizamacrolepis

–/–/1B.2 ScatteredoccurrencesintheCoastRangesandSierraNevadafoothills

Fieldsandrockyhillsides,below2,000feet;grassland,foothillwoodland;bloomsMarch–June

NearestoccurrenceinLivermore(occurrenceextirpated)

BigtarplantBlepharizoniaplumosa

–/–/1B.1 InteriorCoastRangefoothillsfromContraCostaCountytoStanislausCounty

Annualgrassland,ondryhillsandplains,between50–1,500feet;bloomsJuly–October

Occursinprogramarea

Round‐leavedfilareeCaliforniamacrophylla

–/–/1B.1 ScatteredoccurrencesintheGreatValley,southernNorthCoastRanges,SanFranciscoBayArea,SouthCoastRanges,ChannelIslands,TransverseRanges,andPeninsularRanges

Grasslands,onfriableclaysoils;blooms;March–May

Occursinprogramarea

Table 3.4‐4. Continued Page 2 of 4



MountDiablofairylanternCalochortuspulchellus

–/–/1B.2 EndemictoContraCostaCounty Cismontanewoodland;chaparral;bloomsApril–June

NearestoccurrenceinLosVaqueroswatershed

ChaparralharebellCampanulaexigua

–/–/1B.2 SanFranciscoBayregion;northerninnersouthCoastRanges;Alameda,ContraCosta,SanBenito,SantaClara,andStanislausCounties

Rockyareasinchaparral,usuallyonserpentinite;bloomsMay–June


Lemmon'sjewelflowerCaulanthuslemmonii

–/–/1B.2 SoutheastSanFranciscoBayArea,souththroughtheSouthCoastRangesandadjacentSanJoaquinValley

Dryexposedslopesingrasslandsandpinyon‐juniperwoodland,between260–4,000feet;bloomsMarch–May

Occursinprogramarea

Congdon'sspikeweedCentromadiaparryisubsp.Congdonii

–/–/1B.2 EastSanFranciscoBayArea,SalinasValley,LosOsosValley

Annualgrassland,onlowerslopes,flats,andswales,sometimesonalkalineorsalinesoils,below560feet;bloomsJune–November

Occurrencerecordsinprogramareabasedonmisidentifications

Hispidbird’s‐beakChloropyronmollesubsp.Hispidum

–/–/1B.1 ScatteredlocationsinSanJoaquinValleyfromSolanoCountytoKernCounty

Meadow,grassland,playa;onalkalinesoils,below500feet;bloomsJune–September

NearestoccurrenceinLivermore

Palmatebird’s‐beakChloropyronpalmatum

E/E/1B.1 LivermoreValleyandscatteredlocationsintheCentralValleyfromColusatoFresnoCounty

Alkalinegrasslands,chenopodscrub;bloomsMay–October


MountHamiltonthistleCirsiumfontinalevar.campylon

–/–/1B.2 EastSanFranciscoBayArea Serpentineseepsandstreams;bloomsApril–October


LivermoretarplantDeinandrabacigalupii

–/–/1B.2 EndemictoAlamedaCounty(LivermoreValley)

Alkaligrassland;bloomsJune–October


HospitalCanyonlarkspurDelphiniumcalifornicumvar.interius

–/–/1B.2 EasternSanFranciscoBayArea,northernSouthCoastRange;CarmelValley

Moistravinesandslopesinwoodlands;bloomsMarch–May

Nearestoccurrencessouthofprogramarea

RecurvedlarkspurDelphiniumrecurvatum

–/–/1B.2 SanJoaquinValleyandinteriorvalleysoftheSouthCoastRanges,fromContraCostaCountytoKernCounty

Subalkalinesoilsinannualgrassland,saltbushscrub;bloomsMarch–May

Occursinprogramarea




Diamond‐petaledCaliforniapoppyEschscholziarhombipetala

–/–/1B.1 InteriorfoothillsofSouthCoastRangesfromContraCostaCountytoStanislausCounty;CarrizoPlaininSanLuisObispoCounty

Grassland,chenopodscrub;onclaysoils,wheregrasscoverissparseenoughtoallowgrowthoflowannuals;bloomsMarch–May

Occursinprogramarea

TalusfritillaryFritillariafalcata

–/–/1B.2 SanFranciscoBayArea,InteriorSouthCoastRanges

Chaparral,oakwoodland,coniferousforest,onserpentinetalus;bloomsMarch–May


DiablohelianthellaHelianthellacastanea

–/–/1B.2 SanFranciscoBayArea Atchaparral/oakwoodlandecotone,ofteninpartialshade,onrockysoils,between80–3,800feet;bloomsApril–June

NearestoccurrencesonCedarMountain

Brewer’sdwarfflaxHesperolinonbreweri

–/–/1B.2 KnownonlyfromContraCosta,Napa,andSolanocounties

Serpentineslopesinchaparralandgrasslands;bloomsMay–July

NearestoccurrenceinLosVaqueroswatershed

TehamaCountywesternflaxHesperolinontehamense

–/–/1B.3 NorthernandcentralinteriorNorthCoastRanges:Tehama,GlennCounties

Chaparral,foothillwoodland,onserpentine;100–1,000m;bloomsMay–July

NearestoccurrencesonCedarMountain;nohabitatinprogramarea

CaliforniahibiscusHibiscuslasiocarpus

–/–/1B.2 ScatteredsmalllocationsincentralCalifornia,fromButtetoSanJoaquinCounty

Freshwatermarshalongriversandsloughs;bloomsAugust–September

NearestoccurrencesnearCliftonCourtForebay

LomaPrietahoitaHoitastrobilina

–/–/1B.1 SanFranciscoBayArea Oakwoodland,riparianwoodland,chaparral,onserpentinite;bloomsMay–October

NearestoccurrenceonCedarMountain

MountHamiltoncoreopsisLeptosynehamiltonii

–/–/1B.2 DiabloRange Steepshaletalusslopes;bloomsMarch–May

NearestoccurrenceonCedarMountain

Mason’slilaeopsisLilaeopsismasonii

–/R/1B.1 Sacramento/SanJoaquinRiverdelta Freshwaterorbrackishmarsh,intidalzone;bloomsApril–October


DeltamudwortLimosellaaustralis

–/–/2.1 ContraCosta,Sacramento,SanJoaquin,andSolanoCounties

Marshesandswamps;bloomsMay–August


ShowymadiaMadiaradiata

–/–/1B.1 ScatteredpopulationsintheinteriorfoothillsoftheSouthCoastRanges

Oakwoodland,grassland;slopesbelow3,000feet;bloomsMarch–May

NearestoccurrencesnearCorralHollow




ShiningnavarretiaNavarretianigelliformissubsp.radians

–/–/1B.2 InteriorfoothillsofSouthCoastRangesfromMercedCountytoSanLuisObispoCounty

Mesicareaswithheavyclaysoils,inswalesandclayflats;inoakwoodland,grassland;between650–3,300feet;bloomsMay–June

Occursinprogramarea

HairlesspopcornflowerPlagiobothrysglaber

–/–/1A CoastalvalleysfromMarinCountytoSanBenitoCounty

Alkalinemeadows;bloomsApril–May

NearestoccurrenceinLivermore(extirpated)

RaylessragwortSenecioaphanactis

–/–/2.2 ScatteredlocationsinCentralWesternCaliforniaandSouthwesternCalifornia,fromAlamedaCountytoSanDiegoCounty

Oakwoodland,coastalscrub;opensandyorrockyareas;bloomsJanuary–April

Occursinprogramarea

SalinecloverTrifoliumdepauperatumvar.hydrophilum

–/–/1B.2 SacramentoValley,centralwesternCalifornia

Saltmarsh,mesicalkalineareasingrasslands,vernalpools,below990feet(300m);bloomsApril–June


Caper‐fruitedtropidocarpumTropidocarpumcapparideum

–/–/1B.1 HistoricallyknownfromthenorthwestSanJoaquinValleyandadjacentCoastRangefoothills

Grasslandsinalkalinehillsbelow500feet;bloomsMarch–April

Occursinprogramarea

a Statusexplanations:

Federal– = nostatus.E = listedas“endangered”underthefederalEndangeredSpeciesAct.

State– = nostatus.E = listedas“endangered”undertheCaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct.R = listedas“rare”undertheCaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct.

CaliforniaRarePlantRank1A = plantspresumedextinctinCalifornia.1B = rare,threatened,orendangeredinCaliforniaandelsewhere.2 = rare,threatened,orendangeredinCalifornia,butmorecommonelsewhere.0.1 = seriouslyendangeredinCalifornia.0.2 = fairlyendangeredinCalifornia.0.3 = notveryendangeredinCalifornia.





foothills.Itgrowsiniodinebushscrub,alkalimeadow,andalkaligrasslands.Itisgenerallyfoundatlowelevations,buthasbeencollectedupto820feetabovesealevel.Intheprogramarea,SanJoaquinspearscalehasbeenrecordedinalkaliwetlandsalongAltamontPassRoad,BrunsRoad,andMountainHouseRoad(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Potentialhabitatforthisspeciesoccursinalkaliwetlandsintheprogramarea;alkaliwetlandsoccurintheGoldenHillsprojectareabutnotinthePattersonPassprojectarea.

Lesser Saltscale

LessersaltscalehasnofederalorstatelistingstatusbuthasaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1B.1.ItisknownprimarilyfromtheSanJoaquinValleyandtheLivermoreValley,althoughotherdisjunctoccurrenceshavebeenreportedinButteandwesternAlamedaCounties(Zacharias2012:634–636;CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Lessersaltscaleoccursinvalleysinkscrubandalkaligrasslandhabitatsonsandy,alkalisoils,oftenonthemarginsofslickspotsoralkalinerainpools.Intheprogramarea,lessersaltscalehasbeenreportedfromalkaliwetlandsalongDyerRoad(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Potentialhabitatforthisspeciesoccursinalkaliwetlandsintheprogramarea;alkaliwetlandsoccurintheGoldenHillsprojectareabutnotinthePattersonPassprojectarea.

Big Tarplant

BigtarplanthasnostateorfederallistingstatusbuthasaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1B.1.ItisknownfromtheeasternSanFranciscoBayAreaandthenorthwesternSanJoaquinValley(Baldwin2012).Bigtarplantoccursinannualgrasslandonclaytoclay‐loamsoils,usuallyonslopesandofteninburnedareas,below1,500feet.Intheprogramarea,bigtarplantoccursinthevicinityofCorralHollowRoadandtheMidwaySubstation(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).PotentialhabitatforthisspeciesoccursinCaliforniaannualgrasslandintheprogramarea,includingintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectsareas.

Round‐Leaved Filaree

Round‐leavedfilareehasnostateorfederallistingstatusbuthasaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1B.1.ItisknownfromscatteredoccurrencesintheCentralValley,southernNorthCoastRanges,SanFranciscoBayArea,SouthCoastRanges,ChannelIslands,TransverseRanges,andPeninsularRanges(Alarcónetal.2012;CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Itoccursingrasslandsandopen,grassyareasinoakwoodland.Intheprogramarea,round‐leavedfilareeisknownfromsixoccurrencesalongCorralHollowRoad,atLawrenceLivermoreLaboratory’sSite300testarea,alongAltamontPassRoad,atMountainHouse,andinthehillseastofAltamontPassRoadandDyerRoad(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).PotentialhabitatforthisspeciesoccursinCaliforniaannualgrasslandintheprogramarea,includingtheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectsareas.

Lemmon’s Jewelflower

Lemmon’sjewelflowerhasnostateorfederallistingstatusbuthasaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1B.1.ItrangesfromthesoutheasternSanFranciscoBayareasouthintotheSouthCoastRangesandadjacentSanJoaquinValley,fromAlamedatoVenturaCounties(Al‐Shehbaz2012:538;CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Lemmon’sjewelflowergrowsondryexposedslopesingrasslandsandpinyon‐juniperwoodlands,generallybetween260and4,000feetabovesealevel.Intheprogramarea,oneoccurrenceisknownfromthevicinityofCorralHollowRoad(California





DepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).PotentialhabitatforthisspeciesoccursinCaliforniaannualgrasslandintheprogramarea,includingintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectsareas.

Recurved Larkspur

RecurvedlarkspurhasnostateorfederallistingstatusbuthasaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1B.2.RecurvedlarkspurwasformerlywidespreadintheCentralValleyfromColusatoKernCounties,althoughithasbeenextirpatedfromtheSacramentoValley(KoontzandWarnock2012:1411;CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Itoccursinchenopodscrubandgrasslandsonpoorlydrained,fine,alkalinesoils(KoontzandWarnock2012:1411).Intheprogramarea,oneoccurrenceofrecurvedlarkspurisknownfromalkaligrasslandsalongBrunsRoad(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Plantcommunitiesintheprogramareathatmayprovidehabitatforrecurvedlarkspurarealkalimeadowandalkaliwetlands.AlkaliwetlandsintheGoldenHillsprojectareamayprovidehabitatforrecurvedlarkspur;therearenoalkaliwetlandsinthePattersonPassprojectarea.

Diamond‐Petaled California Poppy

Diamond‐petaledCaliforniapoppyhasnostateorfederallistingstatusbuthasaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1B.1.ThisspecieswasknownhistoricallyfromtheinteriorfoothillsoftheNorthandSouthCoastRangesbutiscurrentlyknownfromonlythreelocationsinAlamedaandSanLuisObispoCounties(HannanandClark2012:984;CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Diamond‐petaledCaliforniapoppygrowsinclaysoilswithinCaliforniaannualgrassland.Intheprogramarea,diamond‐petaledCaliforniapoppyisknownfromtwolocationsatLawrenceLivermoreLaboratory’sSite300testarea,northofCorralHollowRoad(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).PotentialhabitatforthisspeciesoccursinCaliforniaannualgrasslandintheprogramarea,includingintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectsareas.

Shining Navarretia

ShiningnavarretiahasnostateorfederallistingstatusbuthasaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1B.2.ThisspeciesrangesthroughouttheSouthCoastRanges,althoughadditionaloccurrencesarereportedfromthecentralSanJoaquinValley(Johnson2012:1066;CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).Shiningnavarretiagrowsonclaysoilsingrasslandsandoakwoodland,sometimesinassociationwithdryingdepressions.Intheprogramarea,shiningnavarretiaisknownfromasingleoccurrenceatLawrenceLivermoreLaboratory’sSite300testarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).PotentialhabitatforthisspeciesoccursinCaliforniaannualgrasslandintheprogramarea,includingtheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectsareas,andinblueoakwoodland,whichdoesnotoccurintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectsareas.

Rayless Ragwort

RaylessragworthasnostateorfederallistingstatusbuthasaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof2.2.ItisknownfromscatteredlocationsintheCaliforniaCoastRangessouthofSanFranciscoBay,theTransverseRanges,southwestCalifornia(includingSantaCruzIsland),andBajaCalifornia(Preston2000).Itisfoundinareaswithlowvegetationcoveringrasslandandcoastalscrub,onvarioussubstrates:clay,coarsesand,rockoutcrops(includingserpentinite),andsoilswithhighgypsumcontentorhighalkalinity(Preston2000).Intheprogramarea,raylessragwortisknownfromasingleoccurrenceinthevicinityofCorralHollowRoad(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife





2013b).Rockoutcropsintheprogramareaarepotentialhabitatforthisspecies.RockoutcropsdonotoccurintheGoldenHillsorPattersonPassprojectsareas.

Caper‐Fruited Tropidocarpum

Caper‐fruitedtropidocarpumhasnostateorfederallistingstatusbuthasaCaliforniaRarePlantRankof1B.1.ItwashistoricallyknownfromthenorthwestSanJoaquinValleyandadjacentDiabloRangefoothills,butalloftheseoccurrencesarebelievedtobeextirpated.IthasrecentlybeenreportedtooccurinFresno,Monterey,andSanLuisObispoCounties.Itgrowsonclaysoilsingrasslands.Intheprogramarea,caper‐fruitedtropidocarpumisknownfromasingleoccurrencenearMountainHouse(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).PotentialhabitatforthisspeciesoccursinCaliforniaannualgrasslandintheprogramarea,includingintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectsareas.

Special‐Status Wildlife

BasedontheUSFWSspecieslist(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2013b);CNDDB(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c)recordssearchforthequadranglesoverlappingtheprogramarea(Altamont,CedarMountain,ByronHotSprings,CliftonCourtForebay,andMidway);andfatalityrecordsfromAPWRAfatalitymonitoring,36special‐statuswildlifespecieswereidentifiedashavingpotentialtooccurintheprogramarea.Ofthese35species,9weredeterminedtohavelowornopotentialtooccurintheprogramareaandarenotdiscussedfurther(Table3.4‐5);26ofthe35speciesareknowntooccurorhaveamoderatetohighlikelihoodofoccurringwithintheprogramareabecausesuitablehabitatispresent(longhornfairyshrimp,vernalpoolfairyshrimp,vernalpooltadpoleshrimp,valleyelderberrylonghornbeetle[Desmoceruscalifornicusdimorphus],curved‐foothygrotusdivingbeetle,Californiatigersalamander,westernspadefoot[Speahammondii],Californiared‐leggedfrog,foothillyellow‐leggedfrog[Ranaboylii],westernpondturtle,Blainville’s[coast]hornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,SanJoaquincoachwhip[Masticophisflagellumruddocki],white‐tailedkite,northernharrier,Swainson’shawk,goldeneagle,westernburrowingowl,loggerheadshrike,tricoloredblackbird,littlebrownbat,westernredbat,hoarybat,pallidbat,Americanbadger,andSanJoaquinkitfox).Inadditiontothese26species,threespecies(baldeagle,Townsend’sbig‐earedbat,andsilver‐hairedbat)wereaddedtothistablebasedonsuitablehabitatconditionsandprofessionaljudgment.ItshouldbenotedthattheCNDDBisapresence‐onlydatabasethatdependsonvoluntarysubmissionofspecieslocationdataandisnotacompletedatabaseofspecieslocations.

AllwildlifespeciesconsideredarelistedinTable3.4‐5,whichpresentstheirregulatorystatus,distribution,habitatrequirements,andarationalefortheirpotentialtooccurintheprogramarea.The29special‐statuswildlifespeciesthatareknowntooccurorhaveamoderatetohighpotentialtooccurintheprogramareaarediscussedbrieflybelow.

Inadditiontohabitatconditions,APWRAfatalitydata,andCNDDBdata,informationfromavianusesurveysoftheprogramareacollectedbytheAFMTwasusedtoevaluatethepotentialforspecial‐statusbirdstooccurintheprogramareaandtobepotentiallyadverselyaffectedbyconstructionandoperationofnewwindturbines.Collectionofavianusedatawasinitiatedin2004andinvolvessamplingavianpresenceat70–90observationpointsdistributedthroughouttheAPWRAfor10–30minutesateachobservationpoint.ThemethodsusedtoestimateavianfatalityratesandtomeasureandmonitoravianuseoftheprogramareaaredetailedintheAltamontPassWindResourceAreaBirdFatalityStudy,BirdYears2005–2011(ICFInternational2013).





Longhorn Fairy Shrimp

Longhornfairyshrimpisfederallylistedasendangered.TherangeoflonghornfairyshrimpisrestrictedtotheeasternedgeofthecentralCoastRanges.ThespecieshasbeenfoundinthefoothillgrasslandswestofTracy,atKestersonNationalWildlifeRefugeinMercedCounty,andnearSodaLakeinSanLuisObispoCounty(EriksenandBelk1999:91).

Longhornfairyshrimphavebeenfoundinclear‐waterdepressionalpoolsinsandstoneoutcrops,ingrasslandpools,andinpoolsinvalleysaltbushscrub.ThespecieshasbeenobservedfromlateDecembertomid‐Mayinpoolsthatarefilledbywinterandspringrains.Inhabitedpoolsinsandstoneoutcropstendtobeverysmallwithclearwaterandlowlevelsofsolublesubstances.Clay‐andgrass‐bottomedpoolsthatlonghornfairyshrimpinhabitarecleartofairlyturbid.Poolswherelonghornfairyshrimpoccurareprobablyshort‐lived(approximately3weeks).Larvaehatchsoonafterpoolsfillandwatertemperatureisapproximately10ºC.Longhornfairyshrimpneedwatertemperaturesof15–20ºCtoattainmaturity.Maturationisachievedin23daysunderoptimalconditions,but43daysismoretypical(EriksenandBelk1999:91‐92).

Intheprogramarea,seasonalwetlandsandrockoutcropsprovidesuitablehabitatforlonghornfairyshrimp.ThereisoneCNDDBrecordforanoccurrenceoflonghornfairyshrimpinthenortheastportionoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).Thereisanadditionalrecordforanoccurrenceoflonghornfairyshrimpwithin0.5milenorthoftheprogramarea.LonghornfairyshrimpisalsoknowntooccurneartheprogramareaatBrushyPeakPreserve(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2007:3).Criticalhabitatforlonghornfairyshrimpislocatedinthenorthwestportionoftheprogramarea(Figure3.4‐4).

Grass‐bottomseasonalpoolsandrockoutcroppoolsthataresuitableforlonghornfairyshrimpmaybepresentwithintheGoldenHillsprojectarea.OneseasonalwetlandinthePattersonPassprojectareaprovidessuitablehabitatforlonghornfairyshrimp.AlthoughrockoutcropsarepresentinthePattersonPassprojectarea,theydonotcontainsuitablepoolhabitatforlonghornfairyshrimp.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesoflonghornfairyshrimpineitheroftheprojectareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).ThereisnodesignatedcriticalhabitatforlonghornfairyshrimpintheGoldenHillsorPattersonPassprojectareas(Figure3.4‐4).

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp

Vernalpoolfairyshrimpisfederallylistedasthreatened.ThespeciesisfoundfromShastaCountyinthenorththroughouttheCentralValleytoTulareCountyandwesttothecentralCoastRanges.DisjunctpopulationsoccurinSanLuisObispo,SantaBarbara,andRiversideCounties(EriksenandBelk1999:92,125).Vernalpoolfairyshrimpinhabitsandstonedepressionpoolsandvernalpoolsingrasslandhabitats.Vernalpoolfairyshrimparemostcommonlyfoundingrassormud‐bottomedswales,earthslumps,orbasalt‐flowdepressionpoolsinunplowedgrasslands(Engetal.1990:257).Thechemicalcompositionofthehabitatandwatertemperaturevariationsresultingfrompoolsfillingatdifferenttimesanddistributionofpoolsalongaltitudinalandlongitudinalgradientsarethemostimportantfactorsindeterminingthedistributionofdifferentspeciesoffairyshrimp(Engetal.1990:273).Vernalpoolfairyshrimpalsooccurinotherwetlandsthatprovidehabitatcharacteristicssimilartothoseofvernalpools;theseotherwetlandsincludealkalinerainpools,rockoutcroppools,andsomedisturbedandconstructedsites(59FR48136–48153,September16,1994;EriksenandBelk1999:93).Occupiedhabitatsrangeinsizefrom6‐square‐footpuddlestopoolsexceeding24acres.Suitablepoolsmuststayinundatedlongenoughforvernalpoolfairyshrimptocompletetheirlifecycle,whichtypicallytakes3–6weeks(EriksenandBelk1999:93).Vernalpoolfairyshrimpis

Table 3.4‐5. Special‐Status Wildlife Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Altamont Pass Wind Repowering Program Area Page 1 of 9


StatusFederal/State/Other GeographicDistribution HabitatRequirements

LikelihoodtoOccurintheProgramArea

Invertebrates

ConservancyfairyshrimpBranchinectaconservatio

E/–/– DisjunctoccurrencesinSolano,Merced,Tehama,Ventura,Butte,andGlennCounties

Large,deepvernalpoolsinannualgrasslands

Low—suitablehabitatmaybepresentbutnotknowntooccurinAlamedaCounty.

LonghornfairyshrimpBranchinectalongiantenna

E/–/– EasternmarginofcentralCoastRangesfromContraCostaCountytoSanLuisObispoCounty;disjunctpopulationinMaderaCounty

Small,clearpoolsinsandstonerockoutcropsofcleartomoderatelyturbidclay‐orgrass‐bottomedpools

High—suitablehabitatpresentintheprogramarea;knownpopulationatBrushyPeakPreservenearprogramarea;designatedcriticalhabitatforthespeciesoverlapswithasmallportionoftheprogramarea.

VernalpoolfairyshrimpBranchinectalynchi

T/–/– CentralValley,centralandsouthCoastRangesfromTehamaCountytoSantaBarbaraCounty;isolatedpopulationsalsoinRiversideCounty

Commoninvernalpools;alsofoundinsandstonerockoutcroppools

High—alkaliandseasonalwetlandsintheprogramareaprovidepotentialhabitatforthespecies;occurrencesknowninprogramarea.

VernalpooltadpoleshrimpLepiduruspackardi

T/–/– ShastaCountysouthtoMercedCounty Vernalpoolsandephemeralstockponds

High—programareaiswithinthespeciesknownrangeandstockpondsandalkaliwetlandsintheprogramareaprovidepotentialhabitatforthespecies.Notknowntooccurinprogramarea.

ValleyelderberrylonghornbeetleDesmoceruscalifornicusdimorphus

T/–/– Streamsidehabitatsbelow3,000feetabovesealevelthroughouttheCentralValley.

Riparianandoaksavannahabitatswithelderberryshrubsandstreamsidehabitatsbelow3,000feetabovesealevel.Elderberryshrubisthehostplant.

Moderate—projectareasupportselderberryshrubs,butnoCNDDBoccurrencesinprogramarea.

Curved‐foothygrotusdivingbeetleHygrotuscurvipes

–/–/– KelloggCreekwatershedandonesitenearOakley,ContraCostaCountyandAlamedaCounty

Aquatic;smallseasonalpoolsandwetlandsandsmallpoolsleftindrycreekbeds,associatedwithalkaline‐tolerantvegetation

High—suitablehabitatinprogramarea;severalCNDDBoccurrencesinnorthwesternportionofprogramarea.





Fish

GreensturgeonAcipensermedirostris

T/SSC/– InmarinewatersofthePacificOceanfromtheBeringSeatoEnsenada,Mexico.InriversfromBritishColumbiasouthtotheSacramentoRiver,primarilyintheKlamath/TrinityandSacramentoRivers.

Primarilymarine,usinglargeanadromousfreshwaterriversandassociatedestuariesforspawningandrearing.

None—outsideofspeciesknownrangeandnosuitablehabitatintheprogramarea.

DeltasmeltHypomesustranspacificus

T/T/– PrimarilyintheSacramento–SanJoaquinEstuary,buthasbeenfoundasfarupstreamasthemouthoftheAmericanRiverontheSacramentoRiverandMossdaleontheSanJoaquinRiver;rangeextendsdownstreamtoSanPabloBay.

OccursinestuaryhabitatintheDeltawherefreshandbrackishwatermixinthesalinityrangeof2–7partsperthousand(Moyle2002).

None—outsideofspeciesknownrange.

CentralCaliforniaCoaststeelheadOncorrhynchusmykiss

T/–/– CoastaldrainagesalongthecentralCaliforniacoast.

Ananadromousfishthatspawnsandspendsaportionofitslifeininlandstreams,typicallymaturingintheopenocean

None—outsideofspeciesknownrangeandnosuitablehabitatintheprogramarea.

CentralValleysteelheadOncorrhynchusmykiss

T/–/– SacramentoandSanJoaquinRiverandtheirtributaries.

Ananadromousfishthatspawnsandspendsaportionofitslifeininlandstreams,typicallymaturingintheopenocean

None—noperennialstreamssuitableforanadromousfisharepresentintheprogramarea.

CentralValleyspring‐runChinooksalmonOncorhynchustshawytscha

T/T/– UpperSacramentoRiverandtributariesofFeatherandYubaRivers

Occursinwell‐oxygenated,cool,riverinehabitatwithwatertemperaturesfrom8.0to12.5°C.Habitattypesareriffles,runs,andpools.Coldwaterpoolsareneededforholdingadults(Moyle2002.)


SacramentoRiverwinter‐runChinooksalmonOncorhynchustshawytscha

E/E/– MainstemSacramentoRiverbelowKeswickDam(Moyle2002)

Occursinwell‐oxygenated,cool,riverinehabitatwithwatertemperaturesfrom8.0to12.5°C.Habitattypesareriffles,runs,andpools.(Moyle2002.)






Amphibians

CaliforniatigersalamanderAmbystomacaliforniense

T/T/– CentralValley,includingSierraNevadafoothills,uptoapproximately1,000feet,andcoastalregionfromSonomaCountysouthtoSantaBarbaraCounty

Smallponds,lakes,orvernalpoolsingrasslandsandoakwoodlandsforbreedingandlarvaldevelopment;rodentburrows,rockcrevices,orfallenlogsforcoverforadultsandjuvenilesforsummerdormancy.

High—specieshasbeendocumentedatnumerouslocationswithinandneartheprogramarea.Alluplandandsuitableaquatichabitatswithintheprogramareaareconsideredpotentiallyoccupied.

WesternspadefootSpeahammondii

–/SSC/– SierraNevadafoothills,CentralValley,CoastRanges,coastalcountiesinsouthernCalifornia

Shallowstreamswithriffles;seasonalwetlands,suchasvernalpoolsinannualgrasslandsandoakwoodlands

High—programareaiswithinthespeciesknownrangeandsuitablehabitatispresentintheprogramarea.

Californiared‐leggedfrogRanadraytonii

T/T/– FoundalongthecoastandcoastalmountainrangesofCaliforniafromMendocinoCountytoSanDiegoCountyandintheSierraNevadafromButteCountytoStanislausCounty.

Permanentandsemipermanentaquatichabitats,suchascreeksandcold‐waterponds,withemergentandsubmergentvegetation;mayestivateinrodentburrows,soilcracks,ordownedlogsduringdryperiods

High—specieshasbeendocumentedatnumerouslocationswithinandneartheprogramarea;alluplandandsuitableaquatichabitatswithintheprogramareaareconsideredpotentiallyoccupied.Theprogramareaisentirelywithindesignatedcriticalhabitatforthespecies.

Foothillyellow‐leggedfrogRanaboylii

–/SSC/– OccursintheKlamath,Cascade,northCoast,southCoast,Transverse,andSierraNevadaRangesuptoapproximately1,800meters(6,000feet).

Creeksorriversinwoodland,forest,mixedchaparral,andwetmeadowhabitatswithrockandgravelsubstrateandlowoverhangingvegetationalongtheedge.Usuallyfoundnearriffleswithrocksandsunnybanksnearby.

Moderate—streamswithintheprogramareathatcontainsuitablesubstrateandcovercouldsupportthespecies;CNDDBrecordsforoccurrenceswithin2milesoftheprogramarea.





Reptiles

WesternpondturtleActinemysmarmorata

–/SSC/– ThewesternpondturtleisuncommontocommoninsuitableaquatichabitatthroughoutCalifornia,westoftheSierra‐Cascadecrestandabsentfromdesertregions,exceptintheMojaveDesertalongtheMojaveRiveranditstributaries.

Occupiesponds,marshes,rivers,streams,andirrigationcanalswithmuddyorrockybottomsandwithwatercress,cattails,waterlilies,orotheraquaticvegetationinwoodlands,grasslands,andopenforests.Nestsaretypicallyconstructedinuplandhabitatwithin0.25mileofaquatichabitat.

High—suitableaquaticanduplandnestinghabitatintheprogramarea;tablehabitat;knowntooccurinandneartheprogramarea.

Blainville’s(Coast)hornedlizardPhyrnosomablainvillii

–/SSC/– SacramentoValley,includingfoothills,southtosouthernCalifornia;CoastRangessouthofSonomaCounty;below1,200meters(4,000feet)innorthernCalifornia.

Grasslands,brushlands,woodlands,andopenconiferousforestwithsandyorloosesoil;requiresabundantantcoloniesforforaging

High—suitablehabitat(grasslandandwoodland)ispresentthroughouttheprogramareaalthoughsuitablesubstrateconditionsmaynotbepresentthroughouttheprogramarea;knowntooccurinandneartheprogramarea.

SilveryleglesslizardAnniellapulchra

–/SSC/– AlongtheCoast,Transverse,andPeninsularRangesfromContraCostaCountytoSanDiegoCountywithspottyoccurrencesintheSanJoaquinValley;elevationrangeextendsfromsealeveltoabout5,100feet.

Occursinmoistwarmloosesoilwithplantcover.Moistureisessential.Habitatconsistofsparselyvegetatedareasofbeachdunes,chaparral,pine‐oakwoodlands,desertscrub,sandywashes,andstreamterraceswithsycamores,cottonwoods,oroaks.Leaflitterundertreesandbushesinsunnyareas,anddunesstabilizedwithbushlupineandmockheatheroftenindicatesuitablehabitat.Usesurfaceobjectssuchasrocks,boards,driftwood,andlogsforcover.

Low—limitedsuitablehabitatinprogramareaandsoilmoistureconditionsunlikely.





GiantgartersnakeThamnophisgigas

T/T/– CentralValleyfromthevicinityofBurrelinFresnoCountytonearChicoinButteCounty.ExtirpatedfromareassouthofFresno.

Sloughs,canals,low‐gradientstreams,andfreshwatermarsheswherethereisapreybaseofsmallfishandamphibians.Alsoirrigationditchesandricefields.Requiresgrassybanksandemergentvegetationforbaskingandareasofhighgroundprotectedfromfloodingduringwinter.

None—programareaisoutsideofspeciesrangeexceptforextremenortheastcornerofprogram;nosuitablehabitatispresentintheprogramareaandnonearbyoccurrences.

AlamedawhipsnakeMasticophislateraliseuryxanthus

T/T/– RestrictedtoAlamedaandContraCostaCounties;fragmentedintofivedisjunctpopulationsthroughoutitsrange

Valleys,foothills,andlowmountainsassociatedwithnortherncoastalscruborchaparralhabitat;requiresrockoutcropsforcoverandforaging

High—suitablegrasslandhabitatispresentthroughouttheprogramareabutvegetationassociations(scrubandchaparral)androckoutcropsaremorelimited;knowntooccurinandneartheprogramarea.Designatedcriticalhabitatforthespeciesoverlapsaportionoftheprogramarea.

SanJoaquincoachwhipMasticophisflagellumruddocki

–/SSC/– FromColusacountyintheSacramentoValleysouthwardtothegrapevineintheSanJoaquinValleyandwestwardintotheinnercoastranges.AnisolatedpopulationoccursatSutterButtes.Knownelevationalrangefrom20to900meters.

Occursinopen,dry,vegetativeassociationswithlittleornotreecover.Itoccursinvalleygrasslandandsaltbushscrubassociations.Oftenoccursinassociationwithmammalburrows

High—suitablegrasslandhabitatispresentwithintheprogramarea;knowntooccurinandneartheprogramarea.





Birds

White‐tailedkiteElanusleucurus

–/FP/– LowlandareaswestofSierraNevadafromtheheadoftheSacramentoValleysouth,includingcoastalvalleysandfoothillstowesternSanDiegoCountyattheMexicoborder

Lowfoothillsorvalleyareaswithvalleyorliveoaks,riparianareas,andmarshesnearopengrasslandsforforaging

High—speciesisknowntooccurintheprogramareaandislikelytoforageintheprogramarea.Largetreessuitablefornestingarelimited.

BaldeagleHaliaeetusleucocephalus

P/E,FP/– NestsinSiskiyou,Modoc,Trinity,Shasta,Lassen,Plumas,Butte,Tehama,Lake,andMendocinoCountiesandintheLakeTahoeBasin;reintroducedintocentralcoast;winterrangeincludestherestofCalifornia,exceptthesoutheasterndeserts,veryhighaltitudesintheSierraNevada,andeastoftheSierraNevadasouthofMonoCounty

InwesternNorthAmerica,nestsandroostsinconiferousforestswithin1mileofalake,reservoir,orstream,ortheocean

Moderate—suitablenestingandforaginghabitatpresentatBethanyReservoir;notknowntooccurintheprogramareabutmaynest,forage,ormovethroughit.

NorthernharrierCircuscyaneus

–/SSC/– ThroughoutlowlandCalifornia;hasbeenrecordedinfallathighelevations

Grasslands,meadows,marshes,andseasonalandagriculturalwetlandsprovidingtallcover

High—suitablenestingandforaginghabitatispresentthroughouttheprogramarea;knowntooccurintheprogramarea.

Swainson’shawkButeoswainsoni

–/T/– LowerSacramentoandSanJoaquinValleys,KlamathBasin,andButteValley.HighestnestingdensitiesoccurnearDavisandWoodland,YoloCounty.

Nestsinoaksorcottonwoodsinornearriparianhabitats.Foragesingrasslands,irrigatedpastures,andgrainfields.

High—speciesisknowntooccurintheprogramareabutislargelyaCentralValleyspeciesandislesslikelytoforageintheprogramarea.Largetreessuitablefornestingarelimited.

GoldeneagleAquilachrysaetos

P/FP/– FoothillsandmountainsthroughoutCalifornia;uncommonnonbreedingvisitortolowlandssuchastheCentralValley

Nestsincliffsandescarpmentsortalltrees;foragesinannualgrasslands,chaparral,oroakwoodlandsthatprovideabundantmediumandlarge‐sizedmammalsforprey

High—suitablenestingandforaginghabitatpresent;knowntooccurinprogramarea.





WesternburrowingowlAthenecunicularia

–/SSC/– LowlandsthroughoutCalifornia,includingtheCentralValley,northeasternplateau,southeasterndeserts,andcoastalareas;rarealongsouthcoast

Level,open,dry,heavilygrazedorlowstaturegrasslandordesertvegetationwithavailableburrows

High—suitablenestingandforaginghabitatispresentthroughouttheprogramarea;numerousknownoccurrencesthroughouttheprogramarea.

LoggerheadshrikeLaniusludovicianus

–/SSC/– ResidentandwintervisitorinlowlandsandfoothillsthroughoutCalifornia;rareoncoastalslopenorthofMendocinoCounty,occurringonlyinwinter

Prefersopenhabitatswithscatteredshrubs,trees,posts,fences,utilitylines,orotherperches.Nestsindenselyfoliagedtreesorshrubs

High—suitablenestingandforaginghabitatpresent;knowntooccurinprogramarea;nestinghabitatislimitedtoareasthatsupportshrubsandtrees.

TricoloredblackbirdAgelaiustricolor

–/SSC/– PermanentresidentintheCentralValleyfromButteCountytoKernCounty;breedsatscatteredcoastallocationsfromMarinCountysouthtoSanDiegoCountyandatscatteredlocationsinLake,Sonoma,andSolanoCounties;rarenesterinSiskiyou,Modoc,andLassenCounties

Nestsindensecoloniesinemergentmarshvegetation,suchastulesandcattails,oruplandsiteswithblackberries,nettles,thistles,andgrainfields;habitatmustbelargeenoughtosupport50pairs;probablyrequireswateratornearthenestingcolony

High—suitablenestingandforaginghabitatpresent;knowntooccurinprogramarea;nestinghabitatislimitedtoareasthatsupportlargerexpansesofemergentfreshwatermarshandblackberry.

Mammals

LittlebrownbatMyotislucifugus

–/–/WBWGModerate

FoundthroughoutthenorthernportionofCalifornia,primarilyathigherelevations.

Oftenassociatedwithconiferousforest.Requiresnearbywater.Roostsinhollowtrees,rockoutcrops,buildings,andoccasionallyminesandcaves.

High—mayroost,forageordrinkintheprogramarea.Assumingidentificationwascorrect,thisspecieshasbeendocumentedinfatalityrecordsatAPWRA.

Silver‐hairedbatLasionycterisnoctivagans


FoundfromtheOregonbordersouthalongthecoasttoSanFranciscoBayandalongtheSierraNevadaandGreatBasinregiontoInyoCounty.AlsooccursinsouthernCaliforniafromVenturaandSanBernardinoCounties.southtoMexico.HasbeenrecordedinSacramento,Stanislaus,MontereyandYoloCounties

Duringspringandfallmigrationsthesilver‐hairedbatmaybefoundanywhereinCalifornia.Summerhabitatsincludecoastalandmontaneconiferousforests,valleyfoothillwoodlands,pinyon‐juniperwoodlands,andvalleyfoothillandmontaneriparianhabitats.Roostsinhollowtrees,snags,buildings,rockcrevices,caves,andunderbark.

Moderate—mayroost,forageordrinkintheprogramarea;fewfatalityrecordsfromwindfarmsintheDelta,approximately25milesnorth/northwest.Thisspecieshasbeenacousticallydocumentedataneighboringwindfarm(Pandion2010).





WesternredbatLasiurusblossevillii

–/SSC/WBWGHigh

CoastalareasfromtheSanFranciscoBayareasouth,plustheCentralValleyandsurroundingfoothills,withalimitednumberofrecordsfromsouthernCalifornia,extendingasfareastaswesternRiversideandcentralSanDiegocounties,upperSacramentoRivernearDunsmuir,SiskiyouCounty.

Foundprimarilyinriparianandwoodedhabitats.Occursatleastseasonallyinurbanareas.Dayroostsintreeswithinthefoliage.FoundinfruitorchardsandsycamoreriparianhabitatsintheCentralValley.

High—mayroost,forageordrinkintheprogramarea.DocumentedinfatalityrecordatAPWRA.

HoarybatLasiuruscinereus


OccursthroughoutCaliforniafromsealevelto13,200feet.Statewideinwoodedareas.WinterinsouthernCalifornia.

Primarilyroostsinforestedhabitats.Alsofoundinriparianareasandinparkandgardensettingsinurbanareas.Dayroostswithinfoliageoftrees.

High—mayroost,forageordrinkintheprogramarea.DocumentedinfatalityrecordatAPWRA.

Townsend’sbig‐earedbatCorynorhinustownsendii

–/SSC/WBWGHigh

WidespreadthroughoutCalifornia,fromlowdeserttomid‐elevationmontanehabitats.

Roostsincaves,tunnels,mines,buildings,andothercave‐likespaces.Willnightroostinmoreopensettings,includingunderbridges.

Moderate—Mayroostincavesorstructureswithinoradjacenttotheprogramarea;couldforageordrinkwithinprogramarea.

PallidbatAntrozouspallidus

–/SSC/WBWGHigh

OccursthroughoutCaliforniaexceptthehighSierrafromShastatoKernCountyandthenorthwestcoast,primarilyatlowerandmidelevations(upto6,000feet).

Occursinavarietyofhabitatsfromdeserttoconiferousforest.Mostcloselyassociatedwithoak,mixedconifer,redwood,andgiantsequoiahabitatsinnorthernCaliforniaandoakwoodland,grassland,anddesertscrubinsouthernCalifornia.Reliesheavilyontreesforroostsbutalsousescaves,mines,bridges,andbuildings.

High—mayroost,forageordrinkintheprogramarea;onerecordforanoccurrencewithin5milesoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013b).





AmericanbadgerTaxideataxus

–/SSC InCalifornia,badgersoccurthroughoutthestateexceptinhumidcoastalforestsofnorthwesternCaliforniainDelNorteandHumboldtCounties

Occursinawidevarietyofopen,aridhabitatsbutaremostcommonlyassociatedwithgrasslands,savannas,mountainmeadows,andopenareasofdesertscrub;theprincipalhabitatrequirementsforthespeciesappeartobesufficientfood(burrowingrodents),friablesoils,andrelativelyopen,uncultivatedground.

High—suitablegrasslandhabitatthroughouttheprogramarea;knowntooccurwithinandneartheprogramarea.

SanJoaquinkitfoxVulpesmacrotismutica

E/T PrincipallyoccursintheSanJoaquinValleyandadjacentopenfoothillstothewest;recentrecordsfrom17countiesextendingfromKernCountynorthtoContraCostaCounty

Saltbushscrub,grassland,oak,savanna,andfreshwaterscrub.

High—suitablegrasslandhabitatispresentthroughouttheprogramarea;althoughrecentsightingsarelimited,thespecieshasbeendocumentedatseverallocalitieswithinandneartheprogramarea.

a Statusexplanations:

Federal

E = listedasendangeredunderthefederalEndangeredSpeciesAct.T = listedasthreatenedunderthefederalEndangeredSpeciesAct.– = nolisting.

State

E = listedasendangeredundertheCaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct.T = listedasthreatenedundertheCaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct.FP = fullyprotectedundertheCaliforniaFishandGameCode.SSC = speciesofspecialconcerninCalifornia.– = nolisting.

Other

WesternBatWorkingGroup(WBWG)Priority

High = speciesareimperiledorathighriskofimperilment.Moderate = thisdesignationindicatesalevelofconcernthatshouldwarrantcloserevaluation,moreresearch,andconservationactionsofboththespeciesand

possiblethreats.Alackofmeaningfulinformationisamajorobstacleinadequatelyassessingthesespecies'statusandshouldbeconsideredathreat.





notfoundinriverine,marine,orotherpermanentwaters(59FR4813648153,September16,1994).

Alkaliandseasonalwetlandsintheprogramareaprovidesuitablehabitatforvernalpoolfairyshrimp.ThereisoneCNDDBrecordforanoccurrenceofvernalpoolfairyshrimpinthenorthwestportionoftheprogramareaandfiveadditionalrecordsforoccurrencesthatarewest,north,andnortheastoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).Thereisnodesignatedcriticalhabitatforvernalpoolfairyshrimpwithintheprogramarea(Figure3.4‐4).

AlkaliandseasonalwetlandsthatprovidesuitablehabitatforvernalpoolfairyshrimpmaybepresentwithintheGoldenHillsprojectarea;however,habitatsurveyshavenotbeenconducted.OneseasonalwetlandinthePattersonPassprojectareaprovidessuitablehabitatforvernalpoolfairyshrimp.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofvernalpoolfairyshrimpineitheroftheprojectareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp

Vernalpooltadpoleshrimpisfederallylistedasendangered.ThisspeciesisaCaliforniaCentralValleyendemicspecies,withthemajorityofpopulationsintheSacramentoValley.VernalpooltadpoleshrimphasalsobeenreportedfromtheSacramentoRiverDeltaeastofSanFranciscoBayandfromscatteredlocalitiesintheSanJoaquinValleyfromSanJoaquintoMaderaCounties(Rogers2001:1002).

Vernalpooltadpoleshrimpoccurinawidevarietyofseasonalhabitatsincludingvernalpools,pondedclayflats,alkalinepools,ephemeralstocktanks,androadsideditches.Habitatswherevernalpooltadpoleshrimphavebeenobservedrangeinsizefromsmall(lessthan25squarefeet),clear,vegetatedvernalpoolstohighlyturbidalkaliscaldpoolstolarge(morethan100acres)winterlakes(Helm1998:134–138;Rogers2001:1002–1005).Thesepoolsandotherephemeralwetlandsmustdryoutandbeinundatedagainforthevernalpooltadpoleshrimpcyststohatch.Thisspecieshasnotbeenreportedinpoolsthatcontainhighconcentrationsofsodiumsalts,butmayoccurinpoolswithhighconcentrationsofcalciumsalts(Helm1998:134–138;Rogers2001:1002–1005).

Seasonalwetlandsandephemeralpondsintheprogramareathatremaininundatedforaminimumof6–8weekswouldprovidesuitablehabitatforvernalpooltadpoleshrimp.AlthoughtherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofvernalpooltadpoleshrimpintheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c),theprogramareaislocatedwithintheirknownrange.Thereisnodesignatedcriticalhabitatforvernalpooltadpoleshrimpwithintheprogramarea.

SeasonalwetlandsandephemeralpondsthatprovidesuitablehabitatforvernalpooltadpoleshrimpmaybepresentwithintheGoldenHillsprojectarea.OneareaofperennialfreshwatermarshinthePattersonPassprojectareaprovidessuitablehabitatforvernalpooltadpoleshrimp.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofvernalpooltadpoleshrimpineitheroftheprojectareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle

Valleyelderberrylonghornbeetleisfederallylistedasthreatened.OnOctober2,2012,USFWSproposedtoremovevalleyelderberrylonghornbeetlefromthefederallistofendangeredandthreatenedspecies(77FR60237–60276).Theproposedrule,ifmadefinal,wouldalsoremovethedesignationofcriticalhabitatforthesubspecies.ThepubliccommentperiodontheproposeddelistingendedDecember3,2012,andwasextendedthroughJanuary23,2013(78FR4812–4813).





USFWSwillreviewcommentsandmakeafinaldeterminationontheproposedrule.Thereisnoofficialtimeperiodforthisdetermination;untilitismade,thebeetleretainsitsprotectedstatusandcriticalhabitatdesignation.

ThecurrentknownrangeofvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetleextendsthroughoutCalifornia’sCentralValleyandassociatedfoothillsfromaboutthe3,000‐footcontourontheeastandthewatershedoftheCentralValleyonthewest(U.S.FishandWildlifeService1999:1).Valleyelderberrylonghornbeetleisdependentonitshostplant,elderberry,whichisacommoncomponentofripariancorridorsandadjacentuplandareasintheCentralValley(Barr1991:5).

Valleyelderberrylonghornbeetlehasfourstagesoflife:egg,larva,pupa,andadult.Femalesdepositeggsonoradjacenttothehostelderberry.Eggproductionvaries;femaleshavebeenobservedtolaybetween16and180eggs.Eggshatchwithinafewdaysofbeingdeposited.Larvaeemergeandboreintothewoodofthehostplant,creatingalongfeedinggalleryinthepithoftheelderberrystem.Thelarvaefeedonthepithoftheplantfor1–2years.Whenalarvaisreadytopupate,itchewsanexitholetotheoutsideofthestemandthenplugsitwithfrass.Thelarvathenretreatsintothefeedinggalleryandconstructsapupalchamberfromwoodandfrass.ThelarvaemetamorphosebetweenDecemberandApril;thepupalstagelastsaboutamonth.Theadultremainsinthechamberforseveralweeksaftermetamorphosisandthenemergesfromthechamberthroughtheexithole.Adultsemergebetweenmid‐Marchandmid‐June,thefloweringseasonoftheplant.Adultsfeedonelderberryleavesandmatewithintheelderberrycanopy(Talleyetal.2006:7‐9).

Elderberryshrubsintheprogramareaprovidesuitablehabitatforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle.Elderberryshrubsmaybeassociatedwiththemixedriparianforestandwoodland,mixedwillowriparianscrub,blueoakwoodland,foothillpine‐oakwoodland,mixedevergreenforestoakwoodland,andgrasslandlandcovertypes.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetleintheprogramarea.TheclosestrecordisforthreeadultsobservedatLawrenceLivermoreNationalLaboratorySite300(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

ElderberryshrubsmaybepresentintheGoldenHillsprojectareaandwouldprovidesuitablehabitatforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle.Elderberryshrubsmaybeassociatedwiththemixedwillowriparianscrubandgrasslandlandcovertypes.AnICFbiologistfound39elderberryshrubsinthePattersonPassprojectareaduringasurveytoassesshabitatsforspecial‐statusspeciesinNovember2013.Severaloftheshrubshadvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetleexitholes.

Curved‐Footed Hygrotus Diving Beetle

Curved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetledoesnothaveanystateorfederalstatusbutisconsideredrareunderCEQA.IntheNovember15,1994NoticeofReview(50FR58982–59028),USFWSconcludedthatcurved‐foothygrotusdivingbeetlewaspossiblyappropriateforlistingasthreatenedorendangeredbutlackingpersuasivedatatosupportaproposalforlisting.Itsstatustrendwaslistedasunknown.

Theknownrangeofthecurved‐foothygrotusdivingbeetleislimitedtoContraCostaandAlamedaCounties(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).Littleinformationisavailableforthecurved‐foothygrotusdivingbeetle.Thespeciesisknowntoinhabitvernalandseasonalpoolsandwetlands(EssigMuseumofEntomology2013),aswellasstockponds,irrigationcanals,roadsideditches,poolsincreeksandcreekswithslowflows(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).Bothlarvalandadultlifestagesarepredaceousand,likeotherspeciesinthefamily,winged





adultscandispersebetweenhabitats(PowellandHogue1979).Reasonsfordeclineofthespeciesincludelossofhabitattodevelopmentandnon‐targeteffectsofmosquitocontrol(EssigMuseumofEntomology2013).

Seasonalwetlands,ponds,andsomecreeksintheprogramareamayprovidesuitablehabitatforcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle.TherearethreeCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleinthenorthwestportionoftheprogramareaandeightadditionalrecordsforoccurrencesthatarewest,north,andeastoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Seasonalwetlands,ponds,andsomecreeksmayprovidesuitablehabitatforcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleintheGoldenHillsprojectarea.PondsandsomecreeksmayprovidesuitablehabitatforthisbeetleinthePattersonPassprojectarea.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleineitheroftheprojectareas;howeveroneoftheoccurrencesintheprogramareaisjustoutsideoftheGoldenHillsprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

California Tiger Salamander

TheCentralCaliforniadistinctpopulationsegmentofCaliforniatigersalamander(whichoverlapswiththeprogramarea)isfederallylistedasthreatened(50CFR47212–47248,August4,2004).Californiatigersalamanderisalsostate‐listedasthreatened(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame2011).

CaliforniatigersalamanderisendemictotheSanJoaquin–SacramentoRivervalleys,borderingfoothills,andcoastalvalleysofcentralCalifornia(BarryandShaffer1994:159).Californiatigersalamanderisalowlandspeciesrestrictedtograsslandsandlowfoothillregionswhereitsbreedinghabitatoccurs(JenningsandHayes1994:14).Breedinghabitatconsistsoftemporarypondsorpools,slowerportionsofstreams,andsomepermanentwaters(Stebbins2003:153–154).Permanentaquaticsitesareunlikelytobeusedforbreedingunlesstheylackfishpredators(JenningsandHayes1994:14).Californiatigersalamandersalsorequiredry‐seasonrefugesitesinthevicinityofbreedingsites(within1mile)(JenningsandHayes1994:14).Californiagroundsquirrel(Spermophilusbeecheyi)burrowsareimportantrefugesitesforadultsandjuveniles(Loredoetal.1996:283–284).

AdultCaliforniatigersalamandersmovefromsubterraneanrefugesitestobreedingpoolsduringrelativelywarmlatewinterandspringrains(JenningsandHayes1994:12).BreedinggenerallyoccursfromDecemberthroughMarch(Stebbins2003:154).Developmentthroughmetamorphosisrequires3–6months(69FR47215).Metamorphosedjuvenilesleavetheirpondsinthelatespringorearlysummerandmovetoterrestrialrefugesitesbeforeseasonalpondsdry(Loredoetal.1996:282).However,inlatefall1993,onelarvaloverwinteringsalamanderwasobservedinMontereyCountyandmanyoverwinteringsalamanderswereobservedinthreeperennialstockpondsinContraCostaCountyfrom1998to2001(Alvarez2004:344).

Ponds,longerlastingseasonalwetlands,andportionsofdrainagesintheprogramareamayprovidesuitablebreedinghabitatforCaliforniatigersalamander,andsurroundinggrasslandsandoakwoodlandprovidesuitableuplandrefugeanddispersalhabitat.Therearenumerous(morethan20)CNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofCaliforniatigersalamanderintheprogramarea.Themajorityoftheseoccurrencesareinthenorthernportionoftheprogramarea.Therearemorethan70additionalrecordsforoccurrencesofCaliforniatigersalamandersurroundingtheprogramarea





(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).ThereisnodesignatedcriticalhabitatforCaliforniatigersalamanderintheprogramarea.

PondsandpooledportionsofdrainagesintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareasprovidesuitablebreedinghabitatforCaliforniatigersalamander,andsurroundinggrasslandsprovidesuitableuplandrefugeanddispersalhabitat.LongerlastingseasonalwetlandsintheGoldenHillsprojectareamayalsoprovidesuitablehabitatforCaliforniatigersalamander.ThereareCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofCaliforniatigersalamanderinbothprojectareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Western Spadefoot

WesternspadefootisaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcern.Westernspadefootisalowlandtoadthatoccursinwashes,riverfloodplains,alluvialfans,playas,andalkaliflatswithinvalleyandfoothillgrasslands,openchaparral,andpine‐oakwoodlands.Itbreedsinquietstreamsandtemporaryrainpools.Westernspadefootprefershabitatswithopenvegetationandshortgrasseswherethesoilissandyorgravely(Stebbins2003:203).Westernspadefoottoadsspendaconsiderableportionoftheyearundergroundinburrows(Zeineretal.1988:56).Dependingontemperatureandrainfall,egglayingoccursbetweenlateFebruaryandlateMay.Eggshatchwithin6days,andlarvaldevelopmentcanbecompletedwithin3–11weeks(JenningsandHayes1994:94)Recentlymetamorphosedtoadsdisperseafterspendingafewhoursordaysatthepondmargin(Zeineretal.1988:56).

Seasonalwetlands,pooledportionsofdrainages,andephemeralpondsintheprogramareathatremaininundatedforaminimumof4weekswouldprovidesuitablehabitatforwesternspadefoot.AlthoughtherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofwesternspadefootintheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c),theprogramareaiswithintheirknownrange.

Seasonalwetlands,pooledportionsofdrainages,andephemeralpondsthatprovidesuitablehabitatforwesternspadefootmaybepresentintheGoldenHillsprojectarea.OneseasonalwetlandandtwopooledareasinadrainageprovidesuitablehabitatforwesternspadefootinthePattersonPassprojectarea.TherearenoCNDDBoccurrencesofwesternspadefootineitheroftheprojectareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

California Red‐Legged Frog

Californiared‐leggedfrogisaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcernandisfederallylistedasthreatened.ThetaxonisknownfromisolatedlocationsintheSierraNevada,NorthCoast,andnorthernTransverseRanges.ItisrelativelycommonintheSanFranciscoBayAreaandalongthecentralcoast.Californiared‐leggedfrogisbelievedtobeextirpatedfromtheflooroftheCentralValley(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2002a:5).

Californiared‐leggedfrogsuseavarietyofhabitats;theseincludevariousaquatic,riparian,anduplandhabitats(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2002a:12).However,Californiared‐leggedfrogsmaycompletetheirentirelifecycleinapondorotheraquaticsitethatissuitableforalllifestages(66FR14626).Californiared‐leggedfrogsinhabitmarshes;streams;lakes;ponds;andother,usuallypermanent,sourcesofwaterthathavedenseriparianvegetation(Stebbins2003:225).Habitatconsistsofdeep(atleast2.5feet)stillorslow‐movingwaterwithshrubbyriparianvegetation(willows[Salixsp.],tules[Scirpussp.],orcattails[Typhasp.])(JenningsandHayes1994:64).Californiared‐leggedfrogsarehighlyaquaticandspendthemajorityoftheirlivesintheriparian





zone(BrodeandBury1984:32).Adultsmaytakerefugeduringdryperiodsinrodentholesorleaflitterinriparianhabitats(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2002a:14).

Californiared‐leggedfrogsbreedfromNovemberthroughAprilandtypicallylaytheireggsinclustersaroundaquaticvegetation(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2002a:16).LarvaeundergometamorphosisbetweenJulyandSeptember,3.5–7monthsafterhatching(66FR14626).However,larvaehavebeenobservedtotakemorethan1yeartocompletemetamorphosisinfourcountiesincentralcoastCalifornia(Fellersetal.2001:156).

Ponds,perennialmarsh,seasonalwetlands,drainages,andmixedwillowriparianscrubintheprogramareaprovidesuitablebreedingand/orforaging/dispersalhabitatforCaliforniared‐leggedfrog,andsurroundinggrasslandsandoakwoodlandprovidesuitableuplandrefugeanddispersalhabitat.Therearenumerous(morethan40)recordsforoccurrencesofCaliforniared‐leggedfrogthroughouttheprogramarea.TherearemanyadditionalCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofCaliforniared‐leggedfrogsurroundingtheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).TheentireprogramareaiswithindesignatedcriticalhabitatforCaliforniared‐leggedfrog.

Ponds,perennialmarsh,seasonalwetlands,drainages,andmixedwillowriparianscrubwithintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareasprovidesuitablebreedingand/orforaging/dispersalhabitatforCaliforniared‐leggedfrog,andsurroundinggrasslandsprovidesuitableuplandrefugeanddispersalhabitat.ThereareCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofCaliforniared‐leggedfroginbothprojectareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).TheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareasarelocatedentirelywithindesignatedcriticalhabitatforCaliforniared‐leggedfrog(Figure3.4‐4).

Foothill Yellow‐Legged Frog

Foothillyellow‐leggedfrogisdesignatedasaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcern.Historically,foothillyellow‐leggedfrogsoccurredinthecoastalfoothillsandmountainsfromtheOregonbordersouthtoLosAngelesCountyandintheSierraNevadafoothillssouthtoKernCounty(Zweifel1955:215;Stebbins2003:232).ThecurrentrangeexcludescoastalareassouthofnorthernSanLuisObispoCountyandfoothillareassouthofFresnoCountywherethespeciesisapparentlyextirpated(JenningsandHayes1994:67–69).Thespeciescanoccurfromsealevelto6,000feetabovesealevel(Stebbins2003:232).Foothillyellow‐leggedfrogsoccupyrockydrainagesinvalley‐foothillhardwood,valley‐foothillhardwood‐conifer,valley‐foothillriparian,ponderosapine,mixedconifer,coastalscrub,mixedchaparral,andwetmeadowtypesofhabitat(Zeineretal.1988:86).Thestreambedisusuallygravellyorsandyandthestreamgradientisgenerallynotsteep(Zweifel1955:221).Foothillyellow‐leggedfrogsaretypicallyfoundnearwater,especiallynearriffleswithrocksnearbyandsunnybanks(Stebbins2003:232).Foothillyellow‐leggedfrogsareactivefromlateFebruaryorearlyMarchthroughsummerandintothefall(Zweifel1955:226).Thespeciesbreedsfrommid‐MarchtoMayafterthehigh‐waterstageinstreamshaspassedandlesssedimentisbeingconveyed(Stebbins1954:130).

Perennialandintermittentdrainagesandmixedwillowriparianscrubintheprogramareamayprovidesuitablehabitatforfoothillyellow‐leggedfrog.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesoffoothillyellow‐leggedfrogwithintheprogramarea;howevertherearetworecordsforoccurrencesthataresouthandsouthwestoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).





PerennialandintermittentdrainagesandmixedwillowriparianscrubintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareasmayprovidesuitablehabitatforfoothillyellow‐leggedfrog.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesoffoothillyellow‐leggedfrogineitheroftheprojectareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Western Pond Turtle

WesternpondturtleisaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcern.InCalifornia,therangeisdiscontinuouslydistributedthroughoutthestatewestoftheCascade‐Sierrancrest(JenningsandHayes1994:99).Aquatichabitatsusedbywesternpondturtlesincludeponds,lakes,marshes,rivers,streams,andirrigationditcheswithamuddyorrockybottomingrassland,woodland,andopenforestareas(Stebbins2003:250).Westernpondturtlesspendaconsiderableamountoftimebaskingonrocks,logs,emergentvegetation,mudorsandbanks,orhuman‐generateddebris(Jenningsetal.1992:11).Westernpondturtlesmovetouplandareasadjacenttowatercoursestodepositeggsandoverwinter(JenningsandHayes1994:98).Turtleshavebeenobservedoverwinteringseveralhundredmetersfromaquatichabitat.Inthesouthernportionoftherangeandalongthecentralcoast,westernpondturtlesareactiveyear‐round.Intheremainderoftheirrange,theseturtlestypicallybecomeactiveinMarchandreturntooverwinteringsitesbyOctoberorNovember(Jenningsetal.1992:11).

Ponds,reservoirs,BrushyCreek,andportionsofotherdrainagesintheprogramareamayprovidesuitableaquatichabitatforwesternpondturtle.Theymayalsodepositeggsinmixedwillowriparianscruborgrasslandareasnearaquatichabitatintheprogramarea.TherearetwoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofwesternpondturtlewithintheprogramareaandmanyadditionalrecordsforoccurrenceswithin5milesoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

PondsandportionsofdrainagesintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareasmayprovidesuitableaquatichabitatforwesternpondturtle.TheymayalsodepositeggsinmixedwillowriparianscruborgrasslandareasnearaquatichabitatintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofwesternpondturtleineitheroftheprojectareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Blainville’s (Coast) Horned Lizard

Blainville’shornedlizardisaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcern.Althoughfragmented,therangeofBlainville’shornedlizardgenerallyextendsalongthePacificcoastfromBajaCaliforniawestofthedesertsandtheSierraNevada,northtotheBayArea,andinlandasfarnorthasShastaReservoir.ItalsooccursontheKernPlateaueastofthecrestoftheSierraNevada(CaliforniaHerps.com2013).Thespeciesoccursbetweensealevelandanelevationof8,000feet(Stebbins2003:301).

Blainville’shornedlizardoccupiesavarietyofhabitats,includingareaswithanexposedgravelly‐sandysubstratesupportingscatteredshrubs,chamisechaparral,annualgrassland(JenningsandHayes1994:132),broadleafwoodland,andconiferforest(Stebbins2003:300).Theyaremostcommoninlowlandsalongsandywasheswithscatteredshrubsforcover.Habitatrequirementsincludeopenareasforbasking;patchesoffine,loosesoilwhereitcanburyitself;andantsandotherinsectprey(Stebbins2003:300–301).Forextendedperiodsofinactivityorhibernation,hornedlizardsoccupysmallmammalburrowsorburrowintoloosesoilsundersurfaceobjects(Zeineretal.1988:48).Blainville’shornedlizardshavebeenobservedtobeactivebetweenAprilandOctober,andhatchlingsfirstappearinJulyandAugust(JenningsandHayes1994:130).





Portionsofgrassland,chaparral,andoakwoodlandintheprogramareaprovidesuitablehabitatforBlainville’shornedlizard.TherearethreeCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofBlainville’shornedlizardinthesoutheastportionoftheprogramarea,andadditionalrecordsforoccurrencesoutsideoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

PortionsofgrasslandintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareasmayprovidesuitablehabitatforBlainville’shornedlizard,buttherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofBlainville’shornedlizardineitheroftheprojectareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Alameda Whipsnake

Alamedawhipsnakeisstateandfederallylistedasthreatened.TheAlamedawhipsnakeisasubspeciesoftheCaliforniawhipsnake.TheNorthAmericandistributionfortheCaliforniawhipsnakeincludesNorthernCaliforniawestoftheSierranCrestanddeserttocentralBajaCalifornia.Thisspeciesisfoundprimarilyinthefoothillsbutitsrangeextendsintodeciduousandpineforestsofmountains.(Stebbins2003:353–354.)Historically,AlamedawhipsnakeprobablyoccurredwithintheentirecoastalscrubandoakwoodlandcommunitiesthroughouttheEastBayinContraCosta,Alameda,andpartsofSanJoaquinandSantaClaraCounties.Currently,itsdistributionencompassesfiveseparatepopulationswithlittleornointerchangewithinthesesamecounties(70FR60608–60656,October18,2005).

Alamedawhipsnakesareprimarilyfoundwithinamixtureofhabitattypescontainingscrub/shrubcommunities,withasignificantportionofannualgrassland,andotherwoodedhabitatssuchasblueoak‐foothillpine,blueoakwoodland,coastaloakwoodland,valleyoakwoodland,ripariancommunities,orrockoutcrops.Theywillalsomoveintoadjacentgrassland,oaksavannah,andoccasionally,oak‐baywoodlandhabitats.Alamedawhipsnakespreferhabitatswithwoodydebrisandexposedrockoutcrops,whichprovidebaskingareas,shelterfrompredators,andanabundanceofwesternfencelizards,whichareamajorpreyitemofthissnake.Thesubspecieshasbeenobservedtoregularlymove200meters(656feet)fromscrubandchaparralandwillremainingrasslandsforseveralhourstoweeksatatime.Grasslandsareusedextensivelyduringthebreedingseason(MarchthroughJuly).Malesnakesusegrasslandareasextensivelyduringthematingseasonandfemalesnakesusegrasslandsaftermating,possiblytosearchforegg‐layingsites.(70FR60610,October18,2005.)

Annualgrassland,scrub,chaparral,oakwoodland,andmixedwillowriparianscrubintheprogramareaprovidesuitablehabitatforAlamedawhipsnake.TherearesevenCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofAlamedawhipsnakealongtheeasternportionoftheprogramareaandnumerousadditionalrecordsforoccurrencesoutsidebutneartheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).DesignatedcriticalhabitatforAlamedawhipsnakeislocatedinthesoutheastportionoftheprogramarea(Figure3‐4‐4).

AnnualgrasslandandmixedwillowriparianscrubintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareasmayprovidesuitablehabitatforAlamedawhipsnake.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofAlamedawhipsnakeineitheroftheprojectareas;howeverthereareseveralrecordsforoccurrencesjustsoutheastoftheprojectareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).AnICFbiologistconductedhabitatassessmentsforspecial‐statusspeciesinthePattersonPassprojectareaanddeterminedthatAlamedawhipsnakehasalowpotentialtooccurtherebecauseofthedistancetoscrubandchaparralhabitats,whicharetheprimaryhabitatsforthespecies.ThereisnodesignatedcriticalhabitatforAlamedawhipsnakeintheGoldenHillsorPattersonPassprojectareas(Figure3.4‐4).





San Joaquin Coachwhip

TheSanJoaquincoachwhip(whipsnake)isoneofsixsubspeciesofthecoachwhipthathasaknownrangeextendingfromColusaCountyintheSacramentoValley,southtotheGrapevineinKernCountyintheSanJoaquinValley,andwesttotheinnerSouthCoastRanges.AnisolatedpopulationoccursintheSutterButtes.Thetaxonisknowntooccurfrom65to2,950feetabovesealevel.SanJoaquincoachwhiplivesinopen,dryvegetativeassociationswithlittleornotreecover.InthewesternSanJoaquinValley,coachwhipinhabitsgrasslandandsaltbushscrubassociations,andisknowntoclimbbushessuchassaltbushtoviewpreyandpredators.MammalburrowsareusedbySanJoaquincoachwhipsforrefugeandlikelyasovipositionsites.Coachwhipsubspecieswillnotemergefromburrowsuntilnear‐surfacetemperaturesreach280Coneitheradailyorseasonalbasis.Forthisreason,emergencetendstobelateintheseason(ApriltoearlyMay)andlaterinthemorning(10–11a.m.),althoughyoungerindividualsmayemergeearlierintheday.Thesubspeciesprimarilyeatslizardsandrobsthenestsofbirdsandmammals,butmayalsoeatcarrion.Landconversionfromgrasslandandgrassland/scrubhabitattoagriculturehasremovedhabitatandeliminatedthefoodbaseandmammalburrowassociationsonwhichthecoachwhipdependsforrefuge.UrbandevelopmentanddroughthavealsobeenimplicatedinthedepletionandfragmentationofSanJoaquincoachwhippopulations(JenningsandHayes1994:162–164).

AnnualgrasslandintheprogramareaprovidessuitablehabitatforSanJoaquincoachwhip.ThereisoneCNDDBrecordforanoccurrenceofSanJoaquincoachwhipalongtheeasternportionoftheprogramareaandtworecordsforoccurrenceseastandwestoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

AnnualgrasslandintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareasprovidessuitablehabitatforSanJoaquincoachwhip.TherearenoCNDDBoccurrencesofSanJoaquincoachwhipineitheroftheprojectareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

White‐Tailed Kite

White‐tailedkiteisfullyprotectedundertheCaliforniaFishandGameCode.White‐tailedkitesgenerallyinhabitlow‐elevationgrassland,savannah,oakwoodland,wetland,agricultural,andriparianhabitats.Somelargeshrubsortreesarerequiredfornestingandforcommunalroostingsites.Nesttreesrangefromsmall,isolatedshrubsandtreestotreesinrelativelylargestands(Dunk1995).White‐tailedkitesmakenestsoflooselypiledsticksandtwigs,linedwithgrassandstraw,nearthetopofdenseoaks,willows,andothertreestands.ThebreedingseasonlastsfromFebruarythroughOctoberandpeaksbetweenMayandAugust.White‐tailedkitesforageinundisturbed,opengrassland,meadows,farmland,andemergentwetlands(Zeineretal.1990a:120).

Foraginghabitatandasmallamountofsuitablenestinghabitatforwhite‐tailedkitesarepresentintheprogramarea.TheCNDDBliststworecordsofwhite‐tailedkitenestsinthenortheastandsoutheastportionsoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c)andTwoadditionalrecordswithin2milessouthwestoftheprogramarea.

Suitablenestingandforaginghabitatforwhite‐tailedkiteispresentintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.TherearenoCNDDBoccurrencesofwhite‐tailedkitenestsineitherprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).White‐tailedkiteshavebeendocumentedforaginginbothprojectareasduring2005–2011avianusesurveysconductedbytheAFMT(AlamedaCountyunpublisheddata).





Bald Eagle

Baldeagleisstate‐listedasendangeredandisprotectedundertheMBTA,theBGEPA,andseveralsectionsoftheCaliforniaFishandGameCode.BaldeagleisapermanentresidentanduncommonwintermigrantinCalifornia(Zeineretal.1990a:122).Baldeaglesbreedatcoastalareas,rivers,lakes,andreservoirswithforestedshorelinesorcliffsinnorthernCalifornia.Winteringbaldeaglesareassociatedwithaquaticareascontainingsomeopenwaterforforaging.Baldeaglesnestintreesinmatureandoldgrowthforeststhathavesomehabitatedgeandaresomewhatclose(within1.25miles)towaterwithsuitableforagingopportunities.Althoughnestscanbecloser,theaveragedistanceofbaldeagleneststohumandevelopmentanddisturbanceismorethan1,640feet(Buehler2000:6).ThebreedingseasonisFebruarythroughJuly(Zeineretal.1990a:122).

Suitablenestingandforaginghabitat(BethanyReservoir)forbaldeagleispresentintheprogramarea.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofbaldeaglenestsorwinteringbaldeaglesinorneartheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c),althoughtheAFMThasdocumentedthemflyingthroughtheprogramareawithincreasingfrequency.

SuitablenestingandforaginghabitatforbaldeaglemaybepresentintheGoldenHillsprojectareanearBethanyReservoir.NosuitablenestingorforaginghabitatispresentinthePattersonPassprojectarea,butbaldeaglesmayforageinorflythroughthisarea.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofbaldeaglenestsorwinteringbaldeaglesineitherprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).TheAFMThasdetectedbaldeaglesfourtimesinthevicinityoftheGoldenHillsprojectareawithinthelast4years,butnotinthePattersonPassprojectarea.

Northern Harrier

NorthernharrierisaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcern.Northernharrierisayear‐roundresidentthroughouttheCentralValleyandisoftenassociatedwithopengrasslandhabitatsandagriculturalfields.Nestsarefoundonthegroundintall,denseherbaceousvegetation(MacWhirterandBildstein1996).NorthernharriernestsfromApriltoSeptember,withpeakactivityinJuneandJuly.Thebreedingpopulationhasbeenreduced,particularlyalongthesoutherncoast,throughthedestructionofwetlandhabitat,nativegrassland,andmoistmeadowsandthroughtheburningandplowingofnestingareasduringearlystagesofbreeding(Zeineretal.1990a:124).

Suitablenestingandforaginghabitatfornorthernharrierispresentintheprogramarea.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofnorthernharriernestswithintheprogramarea;thereisonerecordforanestwithin2milesnortheastoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).TheAFMThasdocumentednorthernharriersforaginginallmonthsoftheyearthroughouttheprogramarea.

SuitablenestinghabitatmaybepresentandsuitableforaginghabitatispresentfornorthernharrierintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.AlthoughtherearenoCNDDBrecordsofnorthernharriernestsineitherprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c),theAFMThasdocumentednorthernharriersyear‐roundintheAPWRAasnotedabove.

Swainson’s Hawk

Swainson’shawkisastate‐listedthreatenedspeciesandaspeciesoflocalconservationconcern.Swainson’shawksforageingrasslands,grazedpastures,alfalfaandotherhaycrops,andcertaingrainandrowcroplands.Vineyards,orchards,rice,andcottoncropsaregenerallyunsuitablefor





foragingbecauseofthedensityofthevegetation(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame1992:41).ThemajorityofSwainson’shawkswinterinSouthAmerica,althoughsomewinterintheUnitedStates.Swainson’shawksarriveinCaliforniainearlyMarchtoestablishnestingterritoriesandbreed(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame1994).Theyusuallynestinlarge,maturetrees.Mostnestsites(87%)intheCentralValleyarefoundinriparianhabitats(Estep1989:35),primarilybecausetreesaremoreavailablethere.Swainson’shawksalsonestinmatureroadsidetreesandinisolatedtreesinagriculturalfieldsorpastures.ThebreedingseasonisfromMarchthroughAugust(Estep1989:12,35).

AlthoughsuitablenestingandforaginghabitatforSwainson’shawksispresentintheprogramarea,Swainson’shawksmoretypicallyoccurinflatterrainandrarelyoccurinthefoothillsoftheCoastRanges.ThereisoneCNDDBrecordofaSwainson’shawknestinthenortheasternportionoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c),andEastBayRegionalParkDistrict(EBRPD)reportedaSwainson’shawknestingintheprogramarea(Bartonpers.comm.).Thereare11additionalCNDDBrecordsofSwainson’shawknestseastandnortheastoftheprogramarea,includingonethatisjustoutsideoftheprogramarea.Swainson’shawkhasbeendocumentedasafatalityonlyonceinmorethan7yearsofintensivefatalitymonitoring(ICFInternational2013),andonly11sightingsofSwainson’shawkshavebeenrecordedintheprogramareainmorethan7yearsofavianusemonitoringconductedthroughouttheprogramareabytheAFMT(AlamedaCountyunpublisheddata).

ForaginghabitatandasmallamountofsuitablenestinghabitatforSwainson’shawksispresentintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofSwainson’shawknestsineitherprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c),and,asnotedabove,theAFMThasrarelyobservedSwainson’shawksintheAPWRA.

Red‐Tailed Hawk

Red‐tailedhawkisnotastate‐orfederallylistedspecies.However,itisprotectedundertheMBTAandtheCaliforniaFishandGameCodeandisanAPWRAfocalspecies.Red‐tailedhawksoccurinCaliforniathroughouttheyear.Largenumbersofmigratoryandwinteringred‐tailedhawksentertheCentralValleyfromOctoberthroughFebruary,substantiallyaugmentingthepopulationoccurringwithinthestate.Migratory,wintering,andresidentred‐tailedhawksinhabitCaliforniainopenareas,suchasgrasslands,agriculturalfields,pastures,andopenbrushhabitats,thatareinterspersedwithpatchesoftreesorstructurallysimilarfeaturesfornesting,perching,androosting(PoliteandPratt1990).Thisspeciesisprimarilyasit‐and‐waitpredatorthatrequireselevatedperchsitesforhunting;however,red‐tailedhawkscanalsobeseensoaringoveropenlandscapesandswoopingforprey.Theirdietincludesawidevarietyofsmalltomedium‐sizedmammals,birds,andsnakes,withoccasionalinsectsandfreshcarrion(PrestonandBeane1993).Nestlocationsvarywithvegetationandtopography.1InthewesternUnitedStates,satellitetrackingindicatesthatadultred‐tailedhawksshowhighfidelitytotheirsummerandwinterrangesandtomigrationroutes(GoodrichandSmith2008).

WhiletheCNDDBdoesnotcontainrecordsforred‐tailedhawks,previousstudiesfoundtheprogramareaandthesurroundingregiontobeanimportantwinterforagingareaandmigrationcorridorforraptors,includingred‐tailedhawks(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame1993).

1Observationsofnestingred‐tailedhawksintheAPWRAin2005to2006wereconfirmedinthefieldbyJones&StokeswildlifebiologistJuliaCamp.





NaturalperchesfromwhichthisspecieshuntswerescarcebeforedevelopmentoftheAPWRA.Turbinesandtransmissiontowers,poles,andlinesprovideabundantperchesandmayhaveresultedinasubstantialincreaseinwinteringred‐tailedhawksintheprogramareaoverhistoricnumbers(OrloffandFlannery1992).

Golden Eagle

GoldeneagleisfullyprotectedundertheCaliforniaFishandGameCodeandisanAPWRAfocalspecies.ItisalsoprotectedbytheMBTA,theBGEPA,andseveralsectionsoftheCaliforniaFishandGameCode.

Goldeneagleisayear‐roundresidentthroughoutmuchofCalifornia.ThespeciesdoesnotbreedinthecenteroftheCentralValleybutbreedsinmuchoftherestofthestate.Goldeneaglestypicallyoccurinrollingfoothills,mountainareas,sage‐juniperflats,anddeserts(Zeineretal.1990a:142–143).InCalifornia,goldeneaglesnestprimarilyinopengrasslandsandoak(Quercusspp.)savannabutwillalsonestinoakwoodlandandopenshrublands.Goldeneaglesforageinopengrasslandhabitats(Kochertetal.2002:6).Preferredterritorysitesincludethosethathaveafavorablenestsite,adependablefoodsupply(smalltomediummammals,includinggroundsquirrels,andbirds),andbroadexpansesofopencountryforforaging.Hillyormountainouscountrywheretakeoffandsoaringaresupportedbyupdraftsisgenerallypreferredtoflathabitats(Johnsgard1990:262).IntheinteriorcentralCoastRangesofCalifornia,goldeneaglesfavoropengrasslandsandoaksavanna,withlessernumbersinoakwoodlandandopenshrublands.IntheDiabloRangeofCalifornia,allexceptafewpairsnestintreesinoakwoodlandandoaksavannahabitatsduetoalackofsuitablerockoutcropsorcliffs.Nesttreespeciesincludeseveraloakspecies(Quercusspp.),foothillpine(PinussabianianaandP.coulteri),Californiabaylaurel(Umbellulariacalifornica),eucalyptus(Eucalyptusspp.),andwesternsycamore(Platanusracemosa).Afewpairsofeaglesnestonelectricaltransmissiontowerstraversinggrasslands(Huntetal.1999:13).

Suitablenestingandforaginghabitatforgoldeneagleispresentintheprogramarea.TheAPWRAhasbeenreportedtocontainahigherdensityofgoldeneaglesthananywhereelseintheworld(HuntandHunt2006).ThePredatoryBirdResearchGroupestimatedthatatleast70activegoldeneagleterritoriesexistedwithin19milesoftheprogramarea,basedonannualsurveysfromJanuary1994toDecember1997(Huntetal.1999).Theseterritorieswereresurveyedandoccupancyverifiedin2005(HuntandHunt2006).Thegoldeneaglepopulationwithin19milesoftheAPWRAincludessevengoldeneagleterritories/breedingareaswithintheLosVaqueroswatershed.Nestsurveysandmonitoringhavebeenconductedwithinthewatershedfrom1994to2013,and26goldeneagleneststructureshavebeendocumentedduringthisperiod.Sixofthesevenbreedingareaswereoccupiedbygoldeneaglepairsduring2013(CaliforniaEnvironmentalServices2014).Moreover,EBRPDreportedthreehistoricandonerecentgoldeneaglenestswithintheprogramareaandtwoadditionalnestswithin2milesoftheprogramarea(Bartonpers.comm.).TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofgoldeneaglenestswithintheprogramarea;however,thereare10recordsofnestswithin3.5milesnorthandnorthwestoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).Inearly2014,ground‐basedsurveysforgoldeneagleswereinitiatedinanexpandedareatocollectinformationonsiteoccupancyandnestingsuccessofthebroaderpopulationofgoldeneaglesintheDiabloMountains.ThisstudyisacollaborativeeffortledbytheU.S.GeologicalSurvey,withtheoverallobjectivebeingtodevelopandevaluatesurveyandmonitoringmethodsforestimatingtrendsinoccurrenceandnestingsuccessofgoldeneagles(U.S.GeologicalSurvey2013).Theresultsofthe2014surveyshavenotyetbeenpublished.





GoldeneagleisunlikelytonestatPattersonPassbecausethelargerwillowtreespresentarelocatedinadeepravineanddonotofferanopenviewofthelandscape.SuitablenestinghabitatforgoldeneaglemaybepresentintheGoldenHillsprojectarea,andgoldeneaglesmayforageineitherprojectarea.TheCNDDBlistsnooccurrencesofgoldeneaglenestsineitherprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

ResearchofthegoldeneaglepopulationintheAPWRAhasrevealedittobestablebutwithreducedresilienceduetoturbine‐relatedmortality.Hunt(2002)examineddatacollectedovera7‐yearperiodbetween1994and2002thatincludedthemonitoringof60–70activeterritorieswithin30kilometers(19miles)oftheAPWRA.In2005,theseterritorieswerefoundstilltobe100%occupied(HuntandHunt2006).TheconclusionsofthesestudieswerethatthegoldeneaglepopulationintheAPWRAregionremainsstable(Hunt2002;HuntandHunt2006).Inaddition,thestudiesfoundnoincreaseinthenumberofactivelybreedingsubadults,indicatingthatthereareenoughfloaterstobufferanylossofbreedingadults(Hunt2002;HuntandHunt2006).TheconclusionofastablegoldeneaglepopulationintheAPWRAvicinitywassupportedbytheresultsofapopulationdynamicsmodelthatusedreproductionratesandfatalityrates,amongothervariables(Hunt2002).However,themodelresultsalsosuggestedthatthenumberofestimatedannualfatalitiesusedinthemodel,50individuals,couldnotbesustainedbythenumberofbreedingadultswhenconsideringthelossofreproductivepotentialincurredbyeacheaglefatality(HuntandHunt2006).AlthoughthevacantterritoriesarefilledbyfloatersandsubadultstostabilizetheAPWRApopulation,theAPWRAvicinitycanbeconsideredapopulationsinkbecausethepopulationdemandsaflowofrecruitsfromoutsidetheareatofillbreedingvacanciesastheyoccur.

HuntandHunt(2006)recommendedfuturestudiesoftheAPWRAgoldeneaglepopulationstobetterunderstandlong‐termtrends.TheU.S.GeologicalSurveyiscurrentlyconductingapopulationinventoryintheAPWRAregion(U.S.GeologicalSurvey2013)tobuildonpreviousresearchbyexpandingsurveysofterritoryoccupancyandnestingsuccesstoincludethebroaderpopulationofgoldeneaglesintheDiabloMountains.Theobjectivesofthestudyareto(1)estimatethebreedingandnonbreedingpopulationandmeasurereproductivesuccess,(2)evaluategoldeneagledetectabilitybasedontemporalandsurveymethodologyfactors,and(3)recommendstrategiesforimprovinggoldennestingsuccessandmethodstomonitortrends(U.S.GeologicalSurvey2013).ThisstudywillhelptoinformfuturemanagementofgoldeneaglesintheAPWRAandsurroundingregion.

American Kestrel

Americankestrelisnotastate‐orfederallylistedspecies.However,itisprotectedundertheMBTAandtheCaliforniaFishandGameCodeandisanAPWRAfocalspecies.TheNorthAmericanBreedingBirdSurveyhasdetectedsignificantdeclinesofAmericankestrelpopulationsinmanyareasoftheUnitedStates,includingCalifornia(SmallwoodandBird2002).

Americankestrelsarefoundinavarietyofopentosemi‐openhabitats,includingmeadows,grasslands,deserts,earlyfieldsuccessionalcommunities,openparkland,agriculturalfields,andbothurbanandsuburbanareas(SmallwoodandBird2002).GrinnellandWythe(1927)describedAmericankestrelasacommonresidentthroughouttheSanFranciscoBayregion.Americankestrelsarecavitynesters,usingtress,snags,rockcrevices,cliffs,banks,andbuildings(PoliteandAhlborn1990).Theydisplaystrongsitefidelitytobreedingterritoriesandwinteringareas;however,littleinformationexistsregardingtheactualdelineationofterritorysize.Thebreedingseasonin





CaliforniaoccursbetweenlateFebruaryandAugust,withegglayingoccurringfrommid‐MarchtolateJune(SmallwoodandBird2002).

Americankestrelsforageonawidevarietyofinsects,includinggrasshoppers,cicadas,beetles,dragonflies,butterflies,andmoths;smallrodents,especiallyvolesandmice;andsmallbirds(Sherrod1978).Americankestrelsareperchandpounceorhoverandpouncepredators,rarelypursuingpreyonwing(PoliteandAhlborn1990);theytendtoperchloweraswindspeedincreases(SmallwoodandBird2002).

WhiletheCNDDBdoesnotcontainrecordsforAmericankestrel,previousstudiesintheregionhavefoundtheprogramareavicinitytobeanimportantwinterforagingareaandmigrationcorridorforraptors,includingAmericankestrels(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame1993).NaturalperchesfromwhichthisspecieshuntswerescarcebeforedevelopmentoftheAPWRA.Turbinesandtransmissiontowers,poles,andlinesprovideabundantperchesandhavelikelyresultedinasubstantialincreaseinAmericankestrelnumbersintheAPWRAoverhistoricnumbers(OrloffandFlannery1992).

Prairie Falcon

Prairiefalconisnotastate‐orfederallylistedspecies.However,itisprotectedundertheMBTAandtheCaliforniaFishandGameCodeandisaspeciesoflocalconservationconcernintheAPWRAduetothehighnumberofrecordedfatalities.PrairiefalconinhabitsaridenvironmentsofwesternNorthAmericainopenplainsandshrub‐steppedesertswithcliffs,bluffs,orrockoutcroppings.Anefficientandspecializedpredatorofmedium‐sizeddesertmammalsandbirds,prairiefalconsrangewidely,searchinglargeareasforpatchilydistributedprey.Nesting,postnesting,andwinteringrangesaregenerallywidelyseparated,withmovementsbetweenrangesbeingpotentiallydependentonseasonalavailabilityofprey.Thesediurnalhunterspreypredominantlyongroundsquirrels,smallbirds,reptiles,andinsects.Huntingstrategiesincludestill‐huntingfromperches,soaring,andlowactiveflight(Phipps1979).Prairiefalconsnestoncliffswitheagles,ravens,andred‐tailedhawks,buthavealsobeenknowntousetrees,caves,buildings,andtransmissionlines(Nelson1974;Pitcher1977;HaakandDenton1979;MacLarenetal.1984;Roppeetal.1989;Bunnelletal.1997).

TheCNDDB(2013c)liststwoprairiefalconoccurrenceswithintheprogramarea,and11morewithin10milesoftheprogramareaboundary.Twenty‐sixobservationsofprairiefalconswererecordedduringfixedpointsurveysaroundtheDiabloWindsrepoweringprojectfrom2005to2007(WesternEcosystemsTechnology2008).AtleastfourrecentknownnestsiteshavebeenidentifiedwithintheAPWRAandatleasttwowithin2milesoftheprogramarea.AtelemetrystudyconductedbyEastBayRegionalParksDistrict(unpublisheddata)hasdocumentedextensiveuseoftheprogramareabyprairiefalconsnestingmorethan10milesfromtheprogramarea(FinalPEIRAppendixE,CommentLA‐1‐46).

Barn Owl

Barnowlisnotastate‐orfederallylistedspecies.However,itisontheDFGWatchList,isprotectedundertheMBTAandtheCaliforniaFishandGameCode,andisaspeciesoflocalconservationconcernintheAPWRA.BarnowlisfoundthroughoutmostoftheUnitedStates,exceptinthenorthernportionsoftheRockies,midwest,andnortheast(Martietal.2005).WithinCalifornia,thisspeciesisayear‐roundresidentrangingfromsealevelto5,500feet,preferringhabitatingrasslands,agriculturalfields,chaparral,andmarshesandotherwetlandareas.Barnowlsnestinawidevarietyofcavities,naturalandartificial,suchastrees,cliffs,caves,riverbanks,churchsteeples,





barnlofts,haystacks,andnestboxes.Thespecies’breedingnumbersseemlimitedbytheavailabilityofnestcavitiesnearadequatedensitiesofprey.Mosthuntingoccurswhileflyingabout5–15feetabovethegroundinopenhabitats,usingexcellentlow‐lightvisionandsoundtodetectprey(Marti1974;Bunnetal.1982).Barnowlsoccasionallyhuntfromperchesandfeedprimarilyonmice,rats,voles,pocketgophers,andgroundsquirrels.Theyalsoconsumeshrews,insects,crustaceans,reptiles,amphibians,andbirds,includingmeadowlarksandblackbirds(Polite1990).

ThebarnowlbreedingseasoninCaliforniaoccursbetweenJanuaryandNovember,withegglayingpotentiallyoccurringduringmostmonths,asbarnowlstypicallyhavetwobroodsayear(Polite1990;Martietal.2005).Reproductivesuccessvarieswithage,priorbreedingexperience,preyavailability,andweather(Martietal.2005).Barnowlsdefendonlytheimmediatevicinityofthenest,allowingtwoormorepairstonestincloseproximityandsharethesameforaginghabitat.

Thereisnosignificantcontinent‐widebarnowlpopulationtrend.PopulationdeclineshavebeenevidentintheMidwestandNortheast,whilewesternU.S.populationsappeartobemostlystable.Localthreatsordeclinesdonotposeamajorconservationproblemfromaglobalperspective(NatureServe2012).TheCNDDBdoesnotcontainrecordsforbarnowlsastheyarenotastate‐orfederallylistedspecies.Studiesofwind‐turbine‐relatedfatalitiesintheAPWRAhavefoundnumerousbarnowls,suggestingthisspeciesisfairlycommoninportionsoftheprogramarea.BarnowlsareparticularlycommonintheareasofBrushyPeakandVascoCavesRegionalPreserves,usingavailablerockoutcrops,palmtrees,andstructuresfornestingandroosting(EastBayRegionalParksDistrict2000).

Western Burrowing Owl

WesternburrowingowlisaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcernandanAPWRAfocalspecies.Westernburrowingowlisayear‐roundresidentintheCentralValley,SanFranciscoBayregion,CarrizoPlain,andImperialValley.Theyoccurprimarilyingrasslandhabitatsbutmayalsooccurinlandscapesthatarehighlyalteredbyhumanactivity.Suitablehabitatmustcontainburrowswithrelativelyshortvegetationandminimalamountsofshrubsortallervegetation.Westernburrowingowlmayalsooccurinagriculturalareasalongroads,canals,ditches,anddrains.TheymostcommonlynestandroostinCaliforniagroundsquirrelburrows,butmayalsouseburrowsdugbyotherspecies,aswellasculverts,pilesofconcreterubble,andpipes.ThebreedingseasonisMarchtoAugust,butcanbeginasearlyasFebruary.Duringthebreedingseason,owlsforageneartheirburrowsbuthavebeenrecordedhuntingupto1.7milesaway.Rodentpopulations,particularlyCaliforniavolepopulations,maygreatlyinfluencesurvivalandreproductivesuccessofCaliforniaburrowingowls(ShufordandGardali2008:219,221).

Suitablenestingandforaginghabitatforwesternburrowingowlispresentintheprogramarea.Thereare30recordsforoccurrencesofbreedingand/orwinteringowlsintheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).Themajorityoftheserecordsareinthenorthernportionoftheprogramarea.Therearemorethan40additionalCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofburrowingowlsurroundingtheprogramarea.Moreover,westernburrowingowlfatalitieshavebeendocumentedduringAPWRAfatalitysurveys(ICFInternational2013).ArecentstudyconductedundertheauspicesoftheAFMTproducedanestimateoftheAPWRA‐widebreedingseasonpopulationofburrowingowlsofapproximately635pairs(90%confidenceinterval368–903,P228)(Smallwoodetal.2011).

SuitablenestingandforaginghabitatforwesternburrowingowlispresentintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.TherearetwoCNDDBrecordsofoccurrencesofburrowingowlinthe





PattersonPassprojectareaandoneCNDDBrecordforburrowingowlintheGoldenHillsprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).BurrowingowlshavebeendocumentedinboththeGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareasduringavianusesurveysconductedbytheAFMT(AlamedaCountyunpublisheddata).

Loggerhead Shrike

LoggerheadshrikeisaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcernandaspeciesoflocalconservationconcernintheAPWRA.InCalifornia,therangeofloggerheadshrikeextendsthroughoutmostofthestateexceptfortheheavilyforestedareasofthecoastalslope,CoastRanges,KlamathandSiskiyoumountains,SierraNevadaandsouthernCascades,andhighelevationsoftheTransverseRanges.Loggerheadshrikesbreedinshrublandsandopenwoodlandswithgrasscoverandbareground.Theysearchforpreyfromtallshrubs,trees,fences,andpowerlines,andfrequentlyimpaletheirpreyonsharp,thorny,ormulti‐stemmedplantsandbarbed‐wirefences.Loggerheadshrikesforageinopenareaswithshortgrassesandforbsorbareground.(ShufordandGardali2008:274)Nestsarebuiltintreesorshrubswithdensefoliageandareusuallyhiddenwell.ThenestingperiodforloggerheadshrikesisMarchthroughJune(Zeineretal.1990a:546).

Suitablenestingandforaginghabitatforloggerheadshrikeispresentintheprogramarea.TherearethreeCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofloggerheadshrikenestsinthesoutheastportionoftheprogramarea.TherearefouradditionalCNDDBrecordsforoccurrenceseast,southeast,andsouthwestoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).LoggerheadshrikefatalitieshavebeendocumentedduringAPWRAfatalitysurveys(ICFInternational2013),andloggerheadshrikesareregularlydocumentedintheprogramareaduringavianusesurveysconductedbytheAFMT(AlamedaCountyunpublisheddata).

SuitableforaginghabitatforloggerheadshrikeispresentintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas,andsuitablebreedinghabitatmaybepresent.AlthoughtherearenoCNDDBrecordsofloggerheadshrikenestsineitheroftheprojectareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c),loggerheadshrikesareregularlydocumentedinportionsofbothprojectareasduringavianusesurveysconductedbytheAFMT(AlamedaCountyunpublisheddata).

Tricolored Blackbird

TricoloredblackbirdisaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcern.TricoloredblackbirdisahighlycolonialspeciesthatislargelyendemictoCalifornia.Tricoloredblackbirdbreedingcolonysitesrequireopen,accessiblewater;aprotectednestingsubstrate,includingeitherflooded,thorny,orspinyvegetation;andasuitableforagingspaceprovidingadequateinsectpreywithinafewmilesofthenestingcolony.Tricoloredblackbirdbreedingcoloniesoccurinfreshwatermarshesdominatedbytulesandcattails,inHimalayanblackberries(Rubusarmeniacus),andinsilageandgrainfields(BeedyandHamilton1997:3–4).ThebreedingseasonisfromlateFebruarytoearlyAugust(BeedyandHamilton1999).Tricoloredblackbirdforaginghabitatsinallseasonsincludeannualgrasslands,dryseasonalpools,agriculturalfields(suchaslargetractsofalfalfawithcontinuousmowingschedules,andrecentlytilledfields),cattlefeedlots,anddairies.Tricoloredblackbirdsalsoforageoccasionallyinriparianscrubhabitatsandalongmarshborders.Weed‐freerowcropsandintensivelymanagedvineyardsandorchardsdonotserveasregularforagingsites.Mosttricoloredblackbirdsforagewithin3milesoftheircolonysitesbutcommutedistancesofupto8mileshavebeenreported(BeedyandHamilton1997:5).





Surveysduringthe1990s(Hamiltonetal.1995;BeedyandHamilton1997;Hamilton2000)confirmedasignificantdecliningtrendinCaliforniapopulationssincethe1930s,withaparticularlydramaticdeclinenotedafter1994.Statewidesurveysconductedduringthe2000sindicatesomerecoveryfromthe1999low;however,thepopulationincreaseshaveprimarilybeenlimitedtotheSanJoaquinValleyandtheTulareBasin(KyleandKelsey2011).Atotalof145,135tricoloredblackbirdswerecountedduringthemostrecent(2014)statewidesurvey,withMadera,Placer,Sacramento,andTulareCountiesaccountingforabout64%ofthetotalpopulationinApril2014(Meese2014:6,8).Thenumberoftricoloredblackbirdsstatewidedecreasedfromapproximately395,000in2008to259,000in2011,adeclineof34%Breedingsurveysconductedbetween1994and2011documentedtricoloredblackbirdpopulationsthatfluctuatedfromjustunder100,000birdstonearly400,000birds(KyleandKelsey2011).From2011to2014,thenumberoftricoloredblackbirdsdeclinedby44%,fromapproximately259,000to145,000.Thedeclineintricoloredblackbirdsfrom2008to2014was64%.Whilethenumberoftricoloredblackbirdsisdownstatewide,declinesaremostpronouncedintheSanJoaquinValley(78%declinebetween2008and2014)andalongtheCentralCoast(91%declinebetween2008and2014).Conversely,populationsinSacramentoCountyandtheSierraNevadaFoothillshaveincreasedby145%since2008.Overall,therateofdeclineappearstobeaccelerating,andadditionaleffortstoreducetherateofdeclinemaybenecessary(Meese2014:6–7,13–15).

Suitablenestingandforaginghabitatfortricoloredblackbirdispresentintheprogramarea.TherearetwoCNDDBrecordsoftricoloredblackbirdnestingcoloniesintheprogramarea.Thesenestingcoloniesarelocatedinthenorth‐centralportionoftheprogramareaandjustsoutheastofBethanyReservoir.Thereisoneadditionalrecordforatricoloredblackbirdcolonyapproximately1.5mileseastoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).TricoloredblackbirdhasalsobeendocumentedduringAPWRAfatalitysurveys(ICFInternational2013).

SuitableforaginghabitatfortricoloredblackbirdispresentintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas,andsuitablebreedinghabitatmaybepresent.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsoftricoloredblackbirdnestingcoloniesineitheroftheprojectareas;however,thereisonerecordforanestingcolonynearBethanyReservoirjustoutsidetheGoldenHillsprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Little Brown Bat

LittlebrownbatisconsideredamoderatepriorityspeciesinCaliforniabytheWesternBatWorkingGroup(2007).Thespeciesoccursprimarilyinmid‐toupperelevationsinCalifornia.ItisassociatedwithwoodlandhabitatsinbothurbanandwildernessareasbutmayoccuranywhereinCaliforniaduringseasonalmovements.Littlebrownbatsforageoverwaterandalongwoodlandedges.Theyuseawidevarietyofcreviceandcavity‐typeroostsitesintrees,buildings,otherartificialstructures,androckformationsandcaves,andrelyonnightroostsbetweenforagingbouts(Anthonyetal.1981:151).Maternitycoloniescancontainseveralhundredbats.Thespeciescongregatesinmatingswarmsinthefall,thoughmatingcontinuesinhibernaculathroughoutthewinter.Littlebrownbatshibernateincavesandabandonedmines,potentiallyinlargeaggregations.

Suitableforaginghabitatforlittlebrownbatispresentalongdrainagesandoverpondsandotheraquatichabitatsintheprogramarea.Smallamountsofsuitableroostinghabitatmaybepresentintheprogramareaaswell.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsoflittlebrownbatroostsintheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c);however,asinglelittlebrownbatfatalityhas





beententativelyidentifiedintheprogramareaduringAPWRAfatalitysurveys(ICFInternational2013).

AsmallamountofsuitableroostinghabitatmaybepresentinthegoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.However,giventhecurrentlyknownelevationpreferencesandrangeforthisspeciesinCalifornia,itisunlikelythatanylocationintheAPWRAcontainshibernaculaorsignificantmaternityroostinghabitat.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsoflittlebrownbatroostsineitherprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c);nevertheless,littlebrownbatsmayforageinorflythroughbothprojectareas.

Silver‐Haired Bat

Silver‐hairedbatisconsideredamoderatepriorityspeciesinCaliforniabytheWesternBatWorkingGroup(2007).Silver‐hairedbatsoccurprimarilyinthenorthernportionofCaliforniaandathigherelevationsinthesouthernandcoastalmountainranges(BrownandPierson1996)butmayoccuranywhereinCaliforniaduringtheirspringandfallmigrations.Theyareassociatedwithcoastalandmontaneconiferousforests,valleyfoothillwoodlands,pinyon‐juniperwoodlands,andvalleyfoothillandmontaneriparianhabitats(Zeineretal.1990b:54).Silver‐hairedbatsroostintreesalmostexclusivelyinthesummer,andmaternityrooststypicallyarelocatedinwoodpeckerhollowsoringapsunderbark.Maternalcoloniesrangefromseveraltoabout75individuals(BrownandPierson1996).

Suitableforaginghabitatforsilver‐hairedbatispresentalongdrainagesandoverpondsandotheraquatichabitatsintheprogramarea.Treesintheprogramareamayprovidesuitableroostinghabitatforsilver‐hairedbat.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofsilver‐hairedbatroostsintheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Suitableforaginghabitatforsilver‐hairedbatispresentalongdrainagesandoverpondsintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.Treesintheprojectareasmayprovidesuitableroostinghabitatforsilver‐hairedbat.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofsilver‐hairedbatroostsineitherprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Western Red Bat

WesternredbatisaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcernandisconsideredahighpriorityspeciesinCaliforniabytheWesternBatWorkingGroup(2007).ItoccursthroughoutmuchofCaliforniaatlowerelevations.Itisfoundprimarilyinriparianandwoodedhabitatsbutalsooccursseasonallyinurbanareas(BrownandPierson1996).Westernredbatsroostinthefoliageoftreesthatareoftenlocatedontheedgeofhabitatsadjacenttostreams,fields,orurbanareas.ThisspeciesbreedsinAugustandSeptemberandyoungareborninMaythroughJuly(Zeineretal.1990b:60).

Suitableforaginghabitatforwesternredbatispresentalongdrainagesandoverpondsandotheraquatichabitatsintheprogramarea.Treesandmixedwillowriparianscrubintheprogramareamayprovidesuitableroostinghabitatforwesternredbat.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofwesternredbatroostsintheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c);however,westernredbathasbeendocumentedintheprogramareaduringAPWRAfatalitysurveys(ICFInternational2013).

SuitableforaginghabitatforwesternredbatispresentalongdrainagesandoverpondsintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.Treesandmixedwillowriparianscrubintheproject





areasmayprovidesuitableroostinghabitatforwesternredbat.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofwesternredbatroostsineitherprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Hoary Bat

HoarybatisconsideredamoderatepriorityspeciesinCaliforniabytheWesternBatWorkingGroup(2007).HoarybatsoccurthroughoutCaliforniabutarethoughttohaveapatchydistributioninthesoutheasterndeserts(Zeineretal.1990b:62).Hoarybatsarefoundprimarilyinforestedhabitats,includingriparianforests,andmayoccurinparkandgardensettingsinurbanareas.Dayroostsitesareinthefoliageofconiferousanddeciduoustrees(BrownandPierson1996).Woodlandswithmediumtolargetreeswithdensefoliageprovidesuitablematernityroostsites(Zeineretal.1990b:62).Matingoccursinthefall,andafterdelayedfertilization,youngarebornMay–June(Zeineretal.1990b:62;BrownandPierson1996).

Suitableforaginghabitatforhoarybatsispresentalongdrainagesandoverpondsandotheraquatichabitatsintheprogramarea.Treesandmixedwillowriparianscrubintheprogramareamayprovidesuitableroostinghabitatforhoarybat.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofhoarybatroostsintheprogramarea;however,thereisonehistoricrecordofaroostnearLakedelValle,southwestoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).Inaddition,hoarybathasbeendocumentedintheprogramareaduringAPWRAfatalitysurveys(ICFInternational2013)andinacousticsurveysattheVascoWindrepoweringsite(PandionSystems2010;Szewczak2013).

SuitableforagingandpotentiallysuitableroostinghabitatforhoarybatsispresentintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.Treesandmixedwillowriparianscrubintheprojectareasmayprovidesuitableroostinghabitatforhoarybat.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofhoarybatroostsineitherprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Townsend’s Big‐Eared Bat

Townsend’sbig‐earedbatisacandidatespeciesforlistingundertheCaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct,isaCaliforniastatespeciesofspecialconcern,andahighpriorityspeciesundertheWesternBatWorkingGroup’sconservationprioritymatrix(WesternBatWorkingGroup2007).Townsend’sbig‐earedbatoccursthroughoutCaliforniabutdistributionappearstobelimitedbytheavailabilityofcavern‐likerooststructures.Townsend’sbig‐earedbatshavebeenfoundinawidevarietyofhabitatsfromdeserttoriparianandcoastalwoodland,buttheyarefoundingreatestnumbersinareaswithcavern‐formingrockorabandonedmines(WesternBatWorkingGroup2005).Townsend’sbig‐earedbatsroostindome‐likespacesincavesormines,wheretheyroosthangingintheopenfromtheceiling.Theyhavealsobeenknowntousecavern‐likespacesinabandonedbuildingsorbridges,andinthebasalhollowsinlargecoastredwoodtrees(Mazurek2004:60).Matingoccursinfallandspring,andpupsareborninlatespringtoearlysummer(PiersonandRainey1998:2).Maternityroostsizevaries,andmaycontainonlyafeworuptoseveralhundredindividuals.Thespeciesisbelievedtoberelativelysedentary,hibernatingincavesandminesnearsummermaternityroosts,thoughseasonalmovementsarenotwellunderstood.Townsend’sbig‐earedbatsmayhavehibernatedhistoricallyinaggregationsofthousandsofindividuals(PiersonandRainey1998:1).Theyarehighlysensitivetoroostdisturbance.

SuitableforaginghabitatforTownsend’sbig‐earedbatispresentalongdrainagesandoverpondsandotheraquatichabitatsintheprogramarea.Smallamountsofsuitableroostinghabitatmaybepresentintheprogramareaaswell.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofTownsend’sbig‐earedbat





roostsintheprogramarea;howeverthereisonerecordofaroostsitesouthwestoftheprogramareanearLakedelValle(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

ItisunlikelythatsuitableroostinghabitatforTownsend’sbig‐earedbatispresentintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas;however,Townsend’sbig‐earedbatsmayforageinorflythroughbothoftheseprojectareas.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofTownsend’sbigearedbatroostsineitherprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Pallid Bat

PallidbatisaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcernandisconsideredahighpriorityspeciesinCaliforniabytheWesternBatWorkingGroup(2007).ItisfoundthroughoutmostofCaliforniaatlowtomiddleelevations(6,000feet).Pallidbatsarefoundinavarietyofhabitatsincludingdesert,brushyterrain,coniferousforest,andnon‐coniferouswoodlands.Daytimeroostsitesincluderockoutcrops,mines,caves,hollowtrees,buildings,andbridges.Nightroostsarecommonlyunderbridgesbutarealsoincavesandmines(BrownandPierson1996).HibernationmayoccurduringlateNovemberthroughMarch.PallidbatsbreedfromlateOctoberthroughFebruary(Zeineretal.1990b:70)andoneortwoyoungareborninMayorJune(BrownandPierson1996).

Suitableforaginghabitatforpallidbatispresentalongdrainagesandoverpondsandotheraquatichabitatsintheprogramarea.Smallamountsofsuitableroostinghabitatmaybepresentintheprogramareaaswell.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofpallidbatroostsintheprogramarea;howevertherearetworecordsforoccurrencessouthwestoftheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

SuitableforaginghabitatforpallidbatispresentalongdrainagesandoverpondsintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.Treesintheprojectareasmayprovidesuitableroostinghabitatforpallidbat.TherearenoCNDDBrecordsofpallidbatroostsineitherprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

American Badger

AmericanbadgerisaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcern.InCalifornia,AmericanbadgersoccurthroughoutthestateexceptinhumidcoastalforestsofnorthwesternCaliforniainDelNorteandHumboldtCounties.Americanbadgersoccurinawidevarietyofopen,aridhabitatsbutmostcommonlyareassociatedwithgrasslands,savannas,andmountainmeadows.Theyrequiresufficientfood(burrowingrodents),friablesoils,andrelativelyopen,uncultivatedground.(Williams1986:66–67.)Badgersdigburrows,whichareusedforcoverandreproduction.Thespeciesmatesinsummerandearlyautumn,andyoungareborninMarchandearlyApril.(Zeineretal.1990b:312.)

SuitabledenningandforaginghabitatforAmericanbadgerispresentintheprogramarea.Thereareeightrecordsforoccurrencesofbadgersintheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).TherearefouradditionalCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofAmericanbadgeroutsidebutneartheprogramarea.

SuitabledenningandforaginghabitatforAmericanbadgerispresentintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.TherearetwoCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofAmericanbadgerintheGoldenHillsprojectarea,andanadditionaloccurrencejustoutsideit(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).TherearenoCNDDBrecordsforAmericanbadgerinthePattersonPassprojectarea.





San Joaquin Kit Fox

TheSanJoaquinkitfoxisstate‐andfederallylistedasendangered.SanJoaquinkitfoxesoccurinsomeareasofsuitablehabitatontheflooroftheSanJoaquinValleyandinthesurroundingfoothillsoftheCoastRanges,SierraNevada,andTehachapiMountainsfromKernCountynorthtoContraCosta,Alameda,andSanJoaquinCounties(U.S.FishandWildlifeService1998).Since1998,thepopulationstructurehasbecomemorefragmented,withsomeresidentsatellitepopulationshavingbeenlocallyextirpated;thoseareashavebeenusedbydispersingkitfoxesratherthanresidentanimals(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2010:15).ThelargestextantpopulationsofkitfoxareinKernCounty(ElkHillsandBuenaVistaValley)andSanLuisObispoCountyintheCarrizoPlainNaturalArea(U.S.FishandWildlifeService1998).

NaturalhabitatsforSanJoaquinkitfoxincludealkalisink,alkaliflat,andgrasslands.SanJoaquinkitfoxesmayuseagriculturallandssuchasrowcrops,orchards,andvineyardstoalimitedextent,buttheyareunabletooccupyfarmlandonalong‐termbasis.(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2010:19–21.)SanJoaquinkitfoxesusuallypreferareaswithloose‐texturedsoilssuitablefordenexcavation(Orloffetal.1986:62)butarefoundonvirtuallyeverysoiltype(U.S.FishandWildlifeService1998:129).Wheresoilsmakediggingdifficult,kitfoxesmayenlargeormodifyburrowsbuiltbyotheranimals,particularlythoseofCaliforniagroundsquirrels(Orloffetal.1986:63;U.S.FishandWildlifeService1998:127).Structuressuchasculverts,abandonedpipelines,andwellcasingsmayalsobeusedasdensites(U.S.FishandWildlifeService1998:127).

ThebreedingseasonbeginsduringSeptemberandOctoberwhenadultfemalesbegintocleanandenlargenatalorpuppingdens.LittersoftwotosixpupsarebornbetweenlateFebruaryandlateMarch.(U.S.FishandWildlifeService1998:126.)

SuitabledenningandforaginghabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxispresentintheprogramarea.Thereare11recordsforoccurrencesofSanJoaquinkitfoxintheprogramarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).Themajorityoftheoccurrencesareinthenorthandeasternportionsoftheprogramarea.Thereare15additionalCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofSanJoaquinkitfoxoutsidebutneartheprogramarea.

SuitabledenningandforaginghabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxispresentintheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectareas.TherearethreeCNDDBrecordsforoccurrencesofSanJoaquinkitfoxintheGoldenHillsprojectareaandoneinthePattersonPassprojectarea(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013c).

Birds and Bats Subject to Turbine‐Related Mortality

Inadditiontothespecial‐statuswildlifespeciesdiscussedabove,severalnon‐special‐statusspeciesofbirdsandbatsareconsideredinthisEIRbecauseoftheirpotentialtobekilledbyoperatingwindturbines.Batsareparticularlyvulnerablebecauseoftheirlowreproductiverateandsusceptibilitytoturbine‐relatedmortality.Pastandexistingturbine‐relatedavianandbatmortalityandmonitoringarediscussedbelowtoprovidecontextfortheturbine‐relatedavianandbatmortalityimpactdiscussions.

Avian Mortality and Monitoring

TheAPWRAsupportsabroaddiversityofresident,migratory,andwinteringbirdspeciesthatregularlymovethroughthearea(OrloffandFlannery1992).Inparticular,diurnalraptors(eagles





andhawks)usetheprevailingwindsandupdraftsforsoaringandglidingduringdailytravel,foraging,andmigration.Birdspassingthroughtherotorplaneofoperatingwindturbinesareatriskofbeinginjuredorkilled.MultiplestudiesofavianmortalityintheAPWRAshowthatsubstantialnumbersofgoldeneagles,red‐tailedhawks,Americankestrels,burrowingowls,barnowls,andadiversemixofnon‐raptorspeciesarekilledeachyearinturbine‐relatedincidents(HowellandDiDonato1991;OrloffandFlannery1992;Howell1997;SmallwoodandThelander2004;ICFInternational2013).

Untilrecently,attemptstoreduceavianfatalitiesintheAPWRAhavefocusedprimarilyontwomanagementactions:theshutdownofturbinesduringthewinterperiodwhenuseoftheareabyred‐tailedhawks,goldeneagles,andAmericankestrelsishighest,andtheremovalofturbinesdeterminedtoposethehighestcollisionriskbasedonhistoryoffatalities,topographicpositionoftheturbine,andotherfactors(SmallwoodandSpiegel2005a,2005b,2005c;ICFInternational2013).Whiletheseactionshavemetwithsomesuccess,theireffectivenesshasbeenlessthanexpectedforreasonsthatarenotyetclear.However,anincreasingbodyofevidencesuggeststhatrepowering—inthiscasethereplacementofnumerousolder,smallerturbineswithfewernewer,largerturbines—couldresultinasubstantialreductioninavianfatalities.UsingthefirstfewyearsofdatafromtheAlamedaCountyAvianFatalityMonitoringProgram,SmallwoodandKaras(2009)concludedthatthemosteffectivewaytoreduceturbine‐relatedavianfatalitiesintheAPWRAistorepower.EvidencecollectedtodatefromthethreesitesintheAPWRAthathavebeenrepoweredsuggeststhatthelargermodernturbinescausesubstantiallyfewerturbine‐relatedavianfatalitiesthantheoldergenerationturbines(Brownetal.2013;ICFInternational2013),althoughitshouldbepointedoutthattwoofthethreesitesinvolvedhadmuchsmallerturbinesthanthoseproposedforuseintheprogram.TheScientificReviewCommittee(SRC)fortheAPWRAhasalsoproducedguidelinesforsitingwindturbinestoreduceavianfatalitiesintheAPWRA.TheSRCevaluatedtopographic,windpattern,birdbehavior,andturbinesitingvariablesrelatedtohazardousconditionstoprovideguidancetothewindcompaniestoreduceaviancollisionhazards(AlamedaCountyScientificReviewCommittee2010).

ThemonitoringprogramestablishedbytheSettlementAgreementdescribedinChapter1ofthisEIRandconductedbytheAlamedaCountyAFMThasresultedinconsiderableinformationonwhichtobaseconclusionsabouttheeffectsoftheAPWRA‐wideprogramandtheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassrepoweringprojects.Themonitoringprogramhasbeenrunningcontinuouslysince2005,andannualestimatesofturbine‐relatedavianfatalityratesandestimatesofthetotalnumberofbirdskilledeachyearareavailableforeachbirdyearfrom2005through2011.AbirdyearstartsonOctober1andendsonSeptember30andisnamedforthecalendaryearinwhichitstarts.Birdyearsareusedasthebasisforanalysisbecausetheybetterreflectthetimingofavianmovementsandecologythandocalendaryears(ICFInternational2013).

Bat Fatality and Monitoring

TheAPWRAsupportshabitattypessuitableformaternity,foraging,andmigrationforspecial‐statusandcommonbats.Severalofthesespeciesaresusceptibletodirectmortalitythroughcollisionorotherinteractionswithwindturbines.FivespeciesofbathavebeendocumentedasfatalitiesintheAPWRA:littlebrownbat,Californiamyotis,westernredbat,hoarybat,andMexicanfree‐tailedbat(Table3.4‐6)(InsigniaEnvironmental2012:47–48;ICFInternational2013:3‐3).HoarybatsandMexicanfree‐tailedbatshavemadeupthemajorityofdocumentedfatalities;westernredbat,anothermigratoryspeciesandaCaliforniaspeciesofspecialconcern,hassustainedthethirdhighestnumberofdocumentedfatalities.





Otherthanfatalityrecords,occurrencedataforbatspeciesintheAPWRAarelimited,andexpectationsofpresencearegenerallybasedonknownrangesandhabitatassociations.However,preliminaryanalysisofpre‐andpostconstructionacousticsurveydatafromtherecentlyrepoweredVascoWindsfacilityintheContraCostaCountyportionoftheAPWRAdocumentsthepresenceoffouradditionalspecies(bigbrownbat,silver‐hairedbat,canyonbat,andYumamyotis).Acousticsurveysindicatedbatactivityinallthreeseasonsinwhichsurveyswereconducted,withaspikeinactivityinthefall(PandionSystems2010;Szewczak2013).Mexicanfree‐tailedbatandhoarybatcomprisedthemajorityoftheacousticdetections(PandionSystems2010).

Relativelylittleisknownaboutbatbiologyasitrelatestofatalityriskatwindenergyfacilities.Limitedknowledgeofsuchfactorsasmigration,matingbehavior,behavioraroundturbines,andseasonalmovementsimpedeeffortstopredictriskofturbinecollision.StudiesatwindenergyfacilitiesinNorthAmericagenerallyshowstrongseasonalandspecies‐compositionpatternsinbatfatalities,withthebulkoffatalitiesconsistingofmigratoryspeciesandoccurringinlatesummertomid‐autumn.AsinotherpartsofNorthAmerica,themajorityofdocumentedfatalitiesintheAPWRAhaveoccurredduringthefallmigrationseasonandhaveconsistedofmigratorybatspecies.

Historically,thenumberofbatfatalitiesdetectedaspartoftheavianfatalitymonitoringprogramatold‐generationturbinesintheAPWRAhasbeenextremelylow,dueatleastinparttothemonitoringprogram’sdesign,whichhasfocusedonbirdmortality.Aspreviousstudymethodswerenotdesignedtogeneratedefensiblebatmortalityrates,andasnewgenerationturbinesmayposenovelthreatstobats,assumptionsofspeciesvulnerabilitybasedonextrapolationfromtheolderturbinetechnologiespresentintheAPWRAarenotnecessarilyvalid(CaliforniaBatWorkingGroup2006).

Calculatingadjustedbatfatalityratesatoldgenerationturbinesusingdatacollectedundertheearlyavianmonitoringprogramisproblematicbothbecausethesamplesizeislowandbecausemonitoringandanalysismethodswerenotdesignedtodetectandadjustforthesetypesoffatalities.Intheirpapergrapplingwithcomparisonsoffatalityratesbetweenold‐generationturbinesattheAPWRAandearlyrepoweringprojects,SmallwoodandKaras(2009)illustratedthesepointsbyacknowledgingthatalloftheirold‐generationbatfatalityestimatesarelikelybiasedlow(2009:1065)andthatdifferencesobservedincomparisonsofvariousbatfatalityestimates,eventhoseasseeminglysignificantas800%,couldnotbestatisticallydefendedduetothesmallsamplesizesinvolved(SmallwoodandKaras2009:1066–67).

Batfatalityratesavailableforold‐generationturbinesattheAPWRAareasfollows.Fortheearlieryears,covering1998–2002andacombinationofturbinemodels,nameplatecapacities,anddesigns,SmallwoodandKaraspresentedabatfatalityrateestimateof0.115(SE+‐0.073)batdeaths/MW/year(2009:1066).Formorerecentold‐generationturbinemonitoringyears(2005–2007),SmallwoodandKaraspresentedabatfatalityrateestimateof0.263(SE+_0.172)batdeaths/MW/year,(usedasthebaselineinthisPEIR)(2009:1066).

BatfatalityratesdocumentedatthethreerepoweredprojectsintheAPWRAvary.Theserateswerealsogeneratedusingdifferentsearcheffortsanddifferentadjustmentcalculations,makingdirectcomparisonproblematic,despitethecommonmetricreported.FortheDiabloWindsEnergyProject(2005–2007),SmallwoodandKaras(2009:1067)reportedabatfatalityrateestimateof0.783(SE+‐0.548)/MW/year;fortheBuenaVistaWindFarm(2008‐2010),InsigniaEnvironmental(2012:ES‐3)reportedabatfatalityraterangeof0.48–1.08/MW/year,dependingoncalculationmethods;forthefirstyearoftheVascoWindsrepoweringproject(2012–2013),Brownetal.(2013:35–36)reported





abatfatalityraterangeof0.663(SE+‐0.486)to2.281(SE+‐1.06)/MW/year,withthe“bestestimate”ratereportedas1.679(SE+‐0.801)/MW/year(2013:39).

Consistentacrossalldocumentedrates,thoughmethodsusedtogeneratetheseratesvary,isthatreportedbatfatalityratesincreasedwhenold‐generationturbineswerereplacedbynewer,largerturbines(SmallwoodandKaras2009:1068).TurbinesusedinfuturerepoweringprojectsarelikelytobesimilarinsizetotheVascoWindsturbinesbutmuchlargerthantheDiabloWindsandBuenaVistaturbinesinbothoverallsizeandratednameplatecapacity.Inameta‐analysisofbatfatalitiesatnumerouswindenergyfacilitiesinNorthAmerica,Barclayetal.foundthatbatfatalityincreasedexponentiallywithincreasingturbineheight(2007:384).

ThelimiteddataavailablefortheprogramareaandvicinitysuggestthepotentialforsimilarspeciescompositionandtemporalpatternsofbatmortalitytothosethathavebeendocumentedattheVascoWindsrepoweringprojectandatotherfourth‐generationwindenergyfacilities,suchasthoseintheMontezumaHillsWindResourceArea.

Table 3.4‐6. Raw Bat Fatalities by Species Detected in Standardized Searches at Various APWRA Monitoring Projects

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

APWRAMonitoringa

Hoarybat 0 2 1 0 2 0 5

Mexicanfree‐tailedbat 0 1 1 1 1 0 4

Westernredbat 0 1 1 1 0 0 3

Littlebrownbat 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Unidentifiedbat 0 2 1 1 1 2 7

Totalbats 0 6 4 3 5 3 21

BuenaVistaRepoweringProjectb

Hoarybat 1 5 3 9

Mexicanfree‐tailedbat 0 1 2 3

Californiamyotis 0 0 1 1

Totalbats 1 6 6 13

VascoWindsRepoweringProject,YearOnec

Hoarybat 10

Mexicanfree‐tailedbat 7

Westernredbat 1

Unidentifiedbat 1

Totalbats 19

Sources:APWRA:ICFInternational2013:3‐3;BuenaVista:InsigniaEnvironmental2012:47‐8.Note:Fatalitiesareshownforallyearsforwhichmonitoringdataareavailable.a Variable:upto417MWinstalled,turbineheightsof60–164feet.b 38MWinstalled,turbineheightsof147–196feet.MonitoringresultsfromFebruary2008toJanuary2011.

c 78MWinstalled,turbineheightsof263feet.MonitoringresultsfromMay2012–May2013.





3.4.2 Environmental Impacts

Methods for Analysis

Thissectiondescribesthemethodsandassumptionsusedtodeterminethedirectandindirectimpactsoftheprogramandthetwospecificprojectsonbiologicalresources.Thegeneralmethodsforanalysisarefollowedbydiscussionsofthemethodsusedtoevaluateandquantifyavianandbatfatalityimpacts.Themethodsforanalysisofimpactsonbiologicalresourcesarebasedonprofessionalstandardsandinformationcitedthroughoutthissection.Thekeyeffectswereidentifiedandevaluatedbasedontheenvironmentalcharacteristicsoftheprogramandprojectareasandtheexpectedmagnitude,intensity,anddurationofactivitiesrelatedtotheconstructionandoperationoftheprogramandthePattersonPassandGoldenHillsprojects.

Directimpactsarethoseeffectsthataredirectlycausedbyprojectconstructionandoperation(eveniftheresultingeffectbecomesapparentovertime).Indirectimpactsarethoseeffectsofaprojectthatoccureitherlaterintimeoratadistancefromtheprojectlocationbutarereasonablyforeseeable,suchasconversionofwetlandstouplandsfromdiversionofupstreamwatersources.Directandindirectimpactscanbeeitherpermanentortemporary.Impactsonlandcoveraregenerallyconsideredtemporarywhenthelandcoverisrestoredtopreconstructionconditionswithin1year.

Theactivitieslistedbelowcouldhavedirecteffectsonbiologicalresources.

Vegetationclearing;grading;excavating/trenching;andconstructionofcranepads,turbinefoundations,andbatchplants.

Constructionofnewdirtorgravelroadsandwideningofexistingroads.

Temporarystockpilingandsidecastingofsoil,constructionmaterials,orotherconstructionwastes.

Soilcompaction,dust,andwaterrunofffromconstructionsites.

Increasedvehicletraffic.

Short‐termconstruction‐relatednoise(fromequipment)andvisualdisturbance.

Degradationofwaterqualityindrainagesandotherwaterbodiesresultingfromconstructionrunoffcontainingpetroleumproducts.

Introductionorspreadofinvasiveplantspecies.

Operationofwindturbines.

Reclamationoflandscape.

Maintenanceoffirebreaksandroads.

Theconditionslistedbelowareexamplesofindirecteffectsonbiologicalresources.

Permanentalterationstolightandnoiselevels.

Damagethroughtoxicityassociatedwithherbicidesandrodenticides.





Mostofthebiologicalimpactsassociatedwithrepoweringactivitiesanalyzedinthissectionaredirectimpacts.Whereindirectimpactswouldresultfromsuchactivities,theyaresoidentifiedintheimpactdiscussion.

Permanentdirecteffectsonbiologicalresourceswerequantifiedusingtheestimatedamountoflandcoverthatwouldbeconvertedasaresultofconstructionofnewfacilities.Temporaryeffectsonbiologicalresourceswerequantifiedusingtheestimatedamountoflandcoverthatwouldbetemporarilydisturbedduringprojectconstructionbutwouldberestoredtopreprojectconditionswithin1yearofdisturbance.

Fortheprogram,specificlocationsoffacilitiesandroadsarenotavailable.Toestimatepermanentandtemporaryimpactacreagesintheprogramarea,impactinformationderivedfromtheGoldenHillsprojectdescriptionwasusedtocalculateaveragepermanentandtemporaryareasofdisturbanceforan80MWprojectusingturbinessimilartothoseproposedfortheprogram.Thesestandardizedareasofimpactwereappliedtothespecificationsoftheprogram(seeChapter2,ProgramDescription).Thetotalamountsofpermanentandtemporaryimpactswerethenallocatedtothevariouslandcovertypesbasedontheproportionoftheprogramareacomprisingeachlandcovertype.Accordingly,theestimatedpermanentandtemporarylandcoverimpactsareproportionaltotheamountofeachlandcovertypeintheprogramarea.TheseestimatedimpactsareshowninTable3.4‐7.





Table 3.4‐7. Estimated Permanent and Temporary Impacts on Land Cover Types in the Program Areaa

LandCoverType

AmountinProgramArea(acres)

PercentofTotalProgramArea

PermanentImpactEstimate(acres)b

TemporaryImpactEstimate(acres)c

Alt1 Alt2 Alt1 Alt2

Annualgrassland 39,381.63 90.83 598.57 645.80 526.81 568.60

Alkalimeadow 555.06 1.28 8.44 9.10 7.42 8.01

Rockoutcrop 42.05 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Northernmixedchaparral/chamisechaparral

28.65 0.0007 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Northerncoastalscrub/Diablansagescrub

74.51 0.002 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Mixedevergreenforest/oakwoodland

582.18 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06

Blueoakwoodland 163.61 0.004 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03

Foothillpine–oakwoodland 21.11 0.0005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mixedwillowriparianscrub 39.27 0.0009 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Mixedriparianforestandwoodland

9.93 0.0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Alkaliwetland 483.17 1.11 7.31 7.89 6.44 6.95

Seasonalwetland 81.44 0.002 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Perennialfreshwatermarsh 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Canal/Aqueduct 158.21 0.004 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03

Ponds 54.19 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Reservoirs 176.58 0.004 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03

Drainagesd – – – – – –

Cropland 4.55 0.0001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

DevelopedandDisturbed 1,502.58 0.03 0.20 0.21 0.17 0.19

a Theseimpactestimatesdonotincludeoffsetoflandcoverthatisreturnedtonaturalconditionsfromremovaloffacilitiesandroads.Therefore,acreagesofimpactsarelikelytobelowerthanthoseshownhere.

b Percentoftotalprogramareamultipliedby659acres(Alternative1)and711acres(Alternative2)oftotalpermanentimpactsassociatedwiththeprogram.

c Percentoftotalprogramareamultipliedby580acres(Alternative1)and626acres(Alternative2)oftotaltemporaryimpactsassociatedwiththeprogram.

d Acreagewasnotcalculatedforimpactsondrainages.Typically,suchimpactsaremeasuredinlinearfeet;theseimpactswillbequantifiedwhendesigndrawingsareavailable.

Itshouldbenotedthatsitingconsiderationsduringdesignanddevelopmentofindividualprojectsandimplementationofavoidanceandminimizationmeasureswouldlikelymodifysuchimpacts.Forexample,becausemostroadsandfacilitieswouldnotbeconstructedinlowareaswheremostpondsandwetlandsarelocated,permanentlossoftheselandcovertypesisnotanticipated.Additionally,impactestimatesdonottakeintoaccountthatsomedevelopedareasmaybereturnedtonatural





conditions;suchrestorationwouldoffsettheacreagesofaffectedlandcover.Consequently,theestimatesinTable3.4‐7likelyexceedtheactualimpactsthatwouldresultfromconstruction.

LandcoverimpactsassociatedwiththeGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectsweredeterminedbyoverlayingthefootprintoftheproposedprojectcomponentsonthemappedlandcovertypesandcalculatingtheareaofeachlandcovertypethatwouldbepermanentlyandtemporarilyaffected.Permanentandtemporaryimpactsonlandcover(andspecial‐statusspecieshabitat)resultingfromtheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojectsareshowninTables3.4‐8and3.4‐9,respectively.

Table 3.4‐8. Estimated Permanent and Temporary Impacts on Land Cover Types in the Golden Hills Project Area (acres)a

LandCover Permanent

Temporary

AssociatedWildlifeSpeciesConstruction Decommissioning

Annualgrassland

124.89 91.80 28.47(existingturbines)117.00(roads)

Californiatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,Californiared‐leggedfrog,westernpondturtle,Blainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,SanJoaquincoachwhip,white‐tailedkite,northernharrier,Swainson’shawk,goldeneagle,westernburrowingowl,loggerheadshrike,tricoloredblackbird,Americanbadger,SanJoaquinkitfox,non–special‐specialstatusmigratorybirds

Alkalimeadow 0.30 3.69 – Sameasannualgrassland

Ponds 0.15 0.00 – Vernalpooltadpoleshrimp,curved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle,Californiatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,Californiared‐leggedfrog,westernpondturtle

Drainagesb – – Curved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle,Californiatigersalamander,Californiared‐leggedfrog,foothillyellow‐leggedfrog,westernpondturtle


b Acreagewasnotcalculatedforimpactsondrainages.Typically,suchimpactsaremeasuredinlinearfeet;theseimpactswillbequantifiedwhendesigndrawingsareavailable.





Table 3.4‐9. Permanent and Temporary Impacts (acres) on Land Cover Types in the Patterson Pass Project Area (acres)a

LandCover Permanent

Temporary

AssociatedWildlifeSpeciesConstruction Decommissioning

Annualgrassland

15.59 56.38 12.34(existingturbines)66.00(roads)

Californiatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,Californiared‐leggedfrog,westernpondturtle,Blainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,SanJoaquincoachwhip,white‐tailedkite,northernharrier,Swainson’shawk,goldeneagle,westernburrowingowl,loggerheadshrike,tricoloredblackbird,Americanbadger,SanJoaquinkitfox,non–special‐specialstatusmigratorybirds

SeasonalWetland

– 0.01 – Longhornfairyshrimp,vernalpoolfairyshrimp,vernalpooltadpoleshrimp,curved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle,westernspadefoot

Perennialfreshwatermarsh

– 0.02 – Californiatigersalamander,Californiared‐leggedfrog,westernpondturtle

Drainages 0.01 0.03 – Curved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle,Californiatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,Californiared‐leggedfrog,foothillyellow‐leggedfrog,westernpondturtle


Potentialindirectimpactsresultingfromtheprogramandthetwoprojectswereevaluatedqualitativelyfortworeasons:(1)indirectimpactswouldoccurfartherfromtheprojectareaorlaterintime,and(2)evaluatingindirecteffectsquantitativelywouldbehighlyspeculative.

Avian Fatality Analysis Methods

Fatality Rates

Estimatingthenumberofbirdskilledatwindenergyfacilitiesisarapidlydevelopingfield,withavarietyofmetrics,methods,andestimatorsusedtoquantifyturbine‐relatedavianfatalities.Mostcommonlyusedestimatorsfirstcalculatetherateatwhichbirdsarekilled.Historically,themostcommonlyusedratehasbeenthenumberofbirdskilledpermegawatt(MW)peryear,whereMWsaremeasuredastheratednameplatecapacitiesoftheturbines.Theratednameplatecapacityofaturbineistheamountofpoweritcangenerateunderitsidealconditions(differentturbinesaredesignedtooperatemostefficientlyunderdifferentconditions).

ThenumberoffatalitiesperMWperyearhasbeenusedmostoftenbecauseitfacilitatescomparisonsacrossanumberofdifferentturbinetypeswithdifferentsizesandratednameplatecapacities.However,thenumberofbirdskilledperturbineperyearisbeingusedmoreoftenatfacilitiesusingmodernturbinesbecausetheselargerturbinesarereachingasizeatwhichahigher





densityofturbinesisnolongerfeasible.Consequently,thenumberoftowersbecomesrelativelymoreimportantthantheactualratedcapacity.

Regardlessofthemetricused,thefatalityrate(expressedeitherperMWorperturbine)isthenmultipliedbyeitherthetotalnumberofMWsinthefacilityorthetotalnumberofturbinesinthefacility,respectively,toobtaintheestimateofthetotalnumberofbirdskilledeachyearatthefacility.

ThebaselineestimateofthenumberofbirdskilledannuallyforeachprojectandfortheprogramareawasbasedonthetotalnumberofMWsthatwereinstalled(referredtoasthetotalinstalledcapacity)atthetimetheNoticeofPreparationforthisPEIRwasfiled.TheinstalledcapacityatthetimetheNOPwasfiledwas329MWfortheprogramarea,80.5MWfortheGoldenHillsprojectarea,and21.8MWforthePattersonPassprojectarea(theprogramareatotalincludesthecapacityofthetwoprojectareas).

Forthefatalityrates,theaverageoftheannualestimatesofeachfatalityratefromthe2005–2011birdyears(n=7years)providedbytheAlamedaCountyAvianFatalityMonitoringProgram(ICFInternational2013)wasbasedonold‐generationturbinesonly(i.e.,resultsfromtheDiabloWindsandBuenaVistaturbineswereexcludedbecausetheyarenotconsideredold‐generationturbines).Thisaveragewasusedbecausetheannualfatalityratesvaryconsiderablyfromyeartoyear.

Theanalysiswasbasedonfivegroupsofspecies:focalspecies,speciesoflocalconservationconcern,raptors(includingowlsandturkeyvultures),non‐raptors,andallbirds.Focalspeciesweredefinedinthe2007SettlementAgreementasAmericankestrel,burrowingowl,goldeneagle,andred‐tailedhawkforthepurposeofmeasuringthereductioninraptorfatalitiesresultingfromimplementationofmanagementactions.Fouradditionalspecies(loggerheadshrike[Californiaspeciesofspecialconcern],prairiefalcon[CDFWWatchList],Swainson’shawk[listedasthreatenedunderCESA],andbarnowl)wereaddedfortheanalysesinthisPEIRbecauseofahighfatalityrate,generalconcernsabouttheconservationstatusofthesespecies,orboth.

ICFbiologistscomparedthebaselinenumberoffatalitiesforeachspeciesandspeciesgroupcalculatedasoutlinedabovetothenumberoffatalitiesexpectedtooccurasaresultofrepowering.Thenumberoffatalitiesexpectedtooccurasaresultofrepoweringwasbasedonthe417and450MWcapsforthetwoprogramalternativesandonthesizeofeachoftheprojectsmeasuredinMWsasoutlinedintheprojectdescription.TheratesusedtocalculatethenumberoffatalitiesexpectedtooccurasaresultofrepoweringwerederivedfromtheratesatthreerepoweringprojectsintheAPWRAthatusenewer,repoweredturbines:DiabloWinds,BuenaVista,andVascoWinds.DiabloWindscomprisesthirty‐one660kWturbines,BuenaVistathirty‐eight1MWturbines,andVascoWindsthirty‐four2.3MWturbines(InsigniaEnvironmental2012;Brownetal.2013;ICFInternational2013).Althoughthereisconsiderablerangeinturbinesizesamongthesethreeprojects,theyareallconsiderednew‐generationturbinesrelativetotherestoftheturbinesinstalledintheAPWRA.Theannualfatalityrates(expressedasfatalitiesperMWperyear)forthesethreerepoweringprojectsarepresentedinTable3.4‐10,alongwiththeaverageoftheannualfatalityratesatnonrepoweredturbinesforcomparison.However,itshouldbenotedthattherateestimatesavailablefromnew‐generationrepoweredturbinesintheAPWRAmaynotberepresentativeofratesthatwouldoccuratotherlocationsintheAPWRA.Thisisbecausethethreeexistingrepoweredprojectsiteseachhavedifferentturbinetypesandarelocatedinthreerelativelysmall,distinctareaswithsite‐specificgeographic,topographic,andotherecologicalconditions,andbecausetheprimaryspeciesofconcernarenotevenlydistributedthroughouttheAPWRA.





Table 3.4‐10. Annual Adjusted Fatality Rates for Nonrepowered and Repowered APWRA Turbines

Species/Group Nonrepowereda

Repowered

DiabloWindsb BuenaVistac VascoWindsd

Americankestrel 0.59 0.09 0.15 0.30

Barnowl 0.24 0.02 0.00 0.03

Burrowingowl 0.78 0.84 – 0.05

Goldeneagle 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.03e

Loggerheadshrike 0.19 0.00 – –

Prairiefalcon 0.02 – 0.00 –

Red‐tailedhawk 0.44 0.20 0.10 0.25

Swainson’shawk 0.00 – – –

Allraptors 2.43 1.21 0.31 0.64

Allnativenon‐raptors 4.50 2.51 1.01 2.09

Notes: fatalityratesreflectannualfatalitiesperMW.“–”denotesthatnofatalitiesweredetected.“0.00”signifiesthat,althoughfatalitiesweredetected,therateislowerthantwosignificantdigits.

a Averageof2005–2011birdyears.b Averageof2005–2009birdyears.c Averageof3years(2007–2009).d Valuesfromfirstyearofmonitoring(2013).e ValueupdatedbasedoninformationprovidedbyNextEraEnergyResourcesonJuly21,2014.Valueprovidedisanaverageoftheadjustedratesfrommonitoringyears1(0.016)and2(0.048).

Potential Biases in the Avian Fatality Analysis Methods

Severalfactorsconfoundthecomparisonofavianfatalityratesbetweenold‐andnew‐generationturbines.Thefatalityratesfromnonrepoweredturbineswereobtainedwhilemanagementactionswerebeingimplementedtoreduceavianfatalities.Theseactionsincludedtheshutdownofturbinesduringthewinterperiod,atimewhenwindsarelowestbutavianuseoftheareaishighestforthreeofthefourfocalspecies.Inaddition,hazardousturbineswerebeingremovedduringtheperiodofdatacollection.Theseactionsincombinationresultedinareductionofavianfatalityrates,tendingtounderestimatethedifferencesbetweenold‐generationturbinesandnewerturbinesbecausethenewerturbinesarenotshutdownduringthewinterperiodandnoneweredeemedhazardousenoughtowarrantremoval.

Thefatalityratesfromtwoofthethreerepoweredprojectsareassociatedwithturbinesconsiderablysmallerthanthoselikelytobeusedinallfuturerepoweringprojects.Evidencecollectedtodatesuggeststhatavianfatalityratesmaydecreaseasturbinesizeincreases(SmallwoodandKaras2009).Consequently,theseratesmaybebiasedhighrelativetotheturbineslikelytobeusedinthetwoprojectsdescribedinthisPEIRandfutureprojectsimplementedintherestoftheAPWRA.Inaddition,thereisconsiderablevariationincollisionriskacrossthevarioustopographiesandgeographiesoftheAPWRA,presumablydueinparttovariationsinabundanceanduseoftheseareasbydifferentspecies.Forexample,burrowingowlswereknowntobeabundantintheareaaroundtheDiabloWindsturbineswhentheywereinstalled,andthusthereisarelativelyhighrate(fornew‐generationturbines)offatalitiesattheseturbines.Conversely,noburrowingowlfatalitiesweredetectedintheBuenaVistaprojectareainthe3yearsoffatalitymonitoringafterrepowering.Thus,thefatalityratesatthethreerepoweredprojectsitesmaynotbe





representativeofthefatalityrateslikelytooccuratotherrepoweringprojectsites.Becauseofthevariationbetweentheseprojects,fatalityratesfromallthreeprojectswereusedtoprovidearangeintheestimatesoftotalannualfatalitieslikelytooccurasaresultofrepowering.

Finally,oneofthebiggestdifferencesamongallstudiesisvariationindetectionprobability.Detectionprobabilityasitisusedherereferstotheprobabilitythataturbine‐relatedfatalityisactuallydetected.Therearevariouswaysofmeasuringdetectionprobability,themostcommonbeingtheuseofcarcassplacementtrialstomeasuretherateatwhichcarcassesareremovedfromthesearchareaandtherateatwhichsearchersdetectcarcassesgiventhattheyarestillpresent.Detectionprobabilityvariesamongsearchers,habitattypes,seasons,years,andmanyotherfactors.TheAlamedaCountyAvianFatalityMonitoringProgrammeasureddetectionprobabilitiesinonlyoneyear,andtheseprobabilitieswereusedtoestimatethenumberofkilledbirdsinallyearsofthestudy.Ifdetectionprobabilityvariesconsiderablyacrossyears,suchvariationcanalsoconfoundtoanunknowndegreecomparisonsoffatalityratesandestimatesoftotalfatalitiesacrossprojects.

Differencesinsearchradiusmayconstituteanadditionalbiasaffectingtheanalysis.Thereissomedebateinthescientificcommunityregardingtheappropriatesearchradii;consequently,fatalityratesfornew‐generationturbinesmayhaveapotentialandasyetunknownbias.

Bat Fatality Analysis Methods

Fatality Rates

TheassessmentofbatspeciespotentiallyatriskisbasedonareviewofexistingbatfatalitydatafortheAPWRA,speciesoccurrencedatainandaroundtheprogramandprojectareas,thecurrentunderstandingofthosespecies’susceptibilitytofourth‐generationturbine–relatedmortality,andknowntrendsinbatfatalitiesatwindenergyfacilitiesingeneral.

Methodsusedtoconducttheanalysisweresimilartothoseusedtoassessthepotentialimpactsonavianspecies.ThetotalinstalledcapacityatthetimetheNOPforthisPEIRwasfiledwasusedtoestimatethebaselinenumberoffatalitiesthatwouldoccuriftheold‐generationturbinesweretocontinueoperatingwithoutanyrepowering.ThisvaluewasmultipliedbythefatalityrateforbatsprovidedbySmallwoodandKaras(2009:1066)usingdatafromtheAFMTforthe2005–2007birdyearstoobtainestimatesoftotalbatfatalitiesperyearfortheprogramandthetwoprojects.Thesenumberswerecomparedtothenumberoffatalitiesexpectedtooccurifold‐generationturbineswerereplacedwithnewer,modernturbines.Thenumberoffatalitiesexpectedtooccurasaresultofrepoweringwasbasedonthe417MWcapfortheprogramareaandthesizeofeachoftheprojectsmeasuredinMWsasoutlinedintheprojectdescription.

Estimatesofbatfatalityratesfromseveralsourceswereusedtoprovidearangeofbatfatalityestimatesthatcouldoccurasaresultofrepowering.Theprimarysource,VascoWinds,wassupplementedwithbatfatalityrateestimatesfromthetwootherrepoweringprojectsintheAPWRA—DiabloWindsandBuenaVista—bothofwhichusedturbinessmallerthanthoseusedincurrentandfuturerepoweringprojects.BatfatalityratesfromthenearbyMontezumaHillsWindResourceAreawerealsousedbecausethisisthenearestarea—beyondVascoWinds—wherefourth‐generationturbinesareinoperation.Theresultantrangeofpossiblefatalityrateswascomparedtothebaselineestimatesoftotalfatalitiesforthetwoprojectareasandtheprogramarea.





Potential Biases in the Bat Fatality Analysis Methods

Althoughthebestavailableevidencewasusedtoestimatethenumberofbatfatalitiespotentiallyresultingfromimplementationoftheproposedprogramandprojects,thereismoreuncertaintyintheseestimatesthanthereisforbirdfatalityestimates.BecausetheAlamedaCountyAvianFatalityProgramwasnotdesignedtocountbats,thebaselinefatalityrateislikelyunderestimated.Moreover,becauseVascoWindsisnotrepresentativeoftheentireprogramarea,extrapolationofresultsfromthissitetootherareasshouldbeinterpretedwithcaution.Finally,thenearbyMontezumaHillsWindResourceArea,whilesharingsomelandusecharacteristics(e.g.,grazing),supportsmoredrylandfarmingthantheAPWRAandhasadifferenttopographicalprofile.

Determination of Significance

Thebasisfordeterminingwhenagivenimpactexceedsthethresholdofsignificance—thatis,whenithasasubstantialadverseeffect—wasdeterminedbytheprofessionaljudgmentofqualifiedbiologists.Underlong‐establishedCEQApracticeandprinciple,suchdeterminationsarederivedfromcomparisonwiththebaselineofexistingconditions,asthefocusofCEQAison“substantialadverseeffect”asachangefromexistingconditions.Theanalysisofimpactsonbiologicalresources,andinparticularonavianspeciesintheprogramarea,accordingly,entailedthecomparisonoftheexistingconditionofregularandmoreorlesspredictablelevelsofavianmortalityassociatedwiththeexistingwindturbines—thebaselinemortalityratedefinedaboveinAvianFatalityAnalysisMethods—withtheanticipatedorcalculatedprojectionofthemortalityratethatwouldresultfromimplementationoftheprogramorprojects.Wheretheprojectedratewouldexceedthebaselinerate,theimpactwouldtypicallybesignificant;iftheprojectedrateisbelowthebaselinerate,theimpactwouldtypicallybeconsideredlessthansignificant.TheCountyconsideredseveralissuesinvolvinguseofthetypicaldeterminationofsignificanceoutlinedabove.

Thebaselineconditionisonethatalreadyresultsinasubstantialnumberofavianfatalities,whichinitselfconstitutesasignificantimpact.

Avianmortalityconsistsofaseriesoftemporal,moment‐to‐momentevents;accordingly,itcannotbeviewedasaconstantinthewaythatotherbaselineenvironmentalconditions,suchaspresenceofexistinghabitatareas,landscapefeatures,oranearthquakefault,canbeviewed.

Estimationoffatalityratesfromexistingandnew‐generationturbinesis,asdiscussedintheimpactanalysis,variableanduncertain.

Adeterminationofsignificancewouldbeappropriateifwindturbineoperationscouldviolatespecificlawsandregulations(e.g.,ESA,CESA,MBTA)thatarenottiedtomortalityrates.

Commitmentswereagreedtobythemajorityofthewindoperators,documentedinthe2007SettlementAgreement,toachievea50%reductioninavianfatalitiesofannualfatalitiesoffourfocalspecies(goldeneagle,burrowingowl,Americankestrel,andred‐tailedhawk)throughimplementationoftheAvianWildlifeProtectionProgramandSchedule(AWPPS)asestablishedin2005andmodifiedin2007.

Accordingly,inviewoftheforegoingconsiderations,thefactthatevenreducedavianfatalitiescouldviolatespecificlawsandregulations,andtheconservationapproachdescribedinthe2007SettlementAgreement,theCountyhasdeterminedthatthethresholdofsignificanceforimpactsonavianspeciesiseffectivelyanylevelofavianmortalityabovezero.





InaccordancewithAppendixGoftheStateCEQAGuidelines,theprogramalternativesandthePattersonPassandGoldenHillsprojectswouldbeconsideredtohaveasignificanteffectiftheprogramorprojectwouldresultinanyoftheconditionslistedbelow.

Haveasubstantialadverseeffect,eitherdirectlyorthroughhabitatmodifications,onanyspeciesidentifiedasacandidate,sensitive,orspecial‐statusspeciesinlocalorregionalplans,policies,orregulations,orbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlifeorU.S.FishandWildlifeService.

Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonanyriparianhabitatorothersensitivenaturalcommunityidentifiedinlocalorregionalplans,policies,orregulations,orbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlifeorU.S.FishandWildlifeService.

HaveasubstantialadverseeffectonfederallyprotectedwetlandsasdefinedbySection404oftheCleanWaterAct(including,butnotlimitedto,marshes,vernalpools,coastalwetlands,etc.)throughdirectremoval,filling,hydrologicalinterruption,orothermeans.

Interferesubstantiallywiththemovementofanynativeresidentormigratoryfishorwildlifespeciesorwithestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,orimpedetheuseofnativewildlifenurserysites.

Substantiallyreducethehabitatofacommonplantorwildlifespecies,causeaplantorwildlifepopulationtodropbelowself‐sustaininglevels,orthreatentoeliminateaplantoranimalcommunity.

Conflictwithanylocalpoliciesorordinancesprotectingbiologicalresources,suchasatreepreservationpolicyorordinance.

ConflictwiththeprovisionsofanadoptedHCP,NCCP,orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ThefollowingdiscussionassessespotentialimpactsonbiologicalresourcesresultingfromimplementationoftheprogramandtheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojects.Wildlifespecieswithsimilarhabitatuse(e.g.,tree‐nestingspecies)weregroupedintheimpactdiscussionsbelow.

MitigationmeasuresforpotentialimpactsoftheprogramandPattersonPassandGoldenHillsprojectsweredevelopedtobeconsistentwiththeavoidance,minimization,andmitigationmeasuressetforthintheEastAlamedaCountyConservationStrategy(EACCSorConservationStrategy).TheConservationStrategywasdevelopedtoassistwithenvironmentalcompliancerequirementsofESA,CESA,CEQA,NEPA,andotherapplicablelawsforallprojectswithintheareacoveredbythestrategythatwouldhaveimpactsonbiologicalresources.TheConservationStrategyestablishesgoalsandobjectivesandacompensationprogramtooffsetimpactsfromprojectsinthecoveredarea.TheprogramarealieswithintheareacoveredbytheConservationStrategy.Whereapplicable,thegoalsandobjectivesintheConservationStrategywereusedtodevelopmitigationmeasurestominimizepotentialimpactsresultingfromtheprogramandtheindividualprojectsaddressedinthisEIR.Likewise,compensatorymitigationfortheprogramandindividualprojectsreferstomitigationratiosfromtheConservationStrategy.IntheeventthattakeauthorizationisobtainedforanyspecieslistedunderESA,CESA,orBGEPA,avoidance,minimization,andcompensatorymitigationwillbeundertakeninaccordancewiththeauthorizationinconsultationwithUSFWSand/orCDFW.ImplementationofstateandfederalrequirementscontainedinsuchauthorizationwillconstitutecompliancewithcorrespondingmeasuresinthisPEIR.





ImpactBIO‐1a‐1:Potentialforground‐disturbingactivitiestoresultinadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsorhabitatoccupiedbyspecial‐statusplants—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Ground‐disturbingactivitiesassociatedwithAlternative1couldresultinadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsortheirhabitat.Directeffectsincludethoseeffectswhereplantsmayberemoved,damaged,orcrushed(seedlings)byground‐disturbingactivities,themovementorparkingofvehicles,and/ortheplacementofequipmentandsupplies.Grounddisturbancecankillordamagematureindividualsoreliminatetheirhabitat.Excavationalterssoilpropertiesandmaycreateconditionsunsuitableforthegrowthofsomespeciesorfavortheirreplacementbyotherspecies.Therootsofshrubsandotherperennialspeciesaresusceptibletodamagefromsoilcompactionbyequipmentorconstructionmaterials.Possibleindirecteffectsonplantscouldresultfromerosionthatdegradeshabitatoraccidentalignitionofafirethatdamagesorkillsindividuals.Becausetheseground‐disturbingactivitiescouldhavesubstantialadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantspecies,thisimpactissignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1athroughBIO‐1ewouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐1a:Conductsurveystodeterminethepresenceorabsenceofspecial‐statusplantspecies

Projectproponentswillconductsurveysforthespecial‐statusplantspecieswithinandadjacenttoallprojectsites.Allsurveyswillbeconductedbyqualifiedbiologistsinaccordancewiththeappropriateprotocols.

Special‐statusplantsurveyswillbeconductedinaccordancewithProtocolsforSurveyingandEvaluatingImpactstoSpecialStatusNativePlantPopulationsandNaturalCommunities(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame2009)duringtheseasonthatspecial‐statusplantspecieswouldbeevidentandidentifiable—i.e.,duringtheirbloomingseason.Nomorethan3yearspriortoground‐disturbingrepoweringactivitiesandduringtheappropriateidentificationperiodsforspecial‐statusplants(Table3.4‐4),aqualifiedbiologist(asdeterminedbyAlamedaCounty)willconductfieldsurveyswithindecommissioningworkareas,proposedconstructionareas,andtheimmediatelyadjacentareastodeterminethepresenceofhabitatforspecial‐statusplantspecies.TheprojectproponentwillsubmitareportdocumentingthesurveyresultstoAlamedaCountyforreviewandapprovalpriortoconductinganyrepoweringactivities.Thereportwillincludethelocationanddescriptionofallproposedworkareas,thelocationanddescriptionofallsuitablehabitatforspecial‐statusplantspecies,andthelocationanddescriptionofothersensitivehabitats(e.g.,vernalpools,wetlands,riparianareas).Additionally,thereportwilloutlinewhereadditionalspeciesand/orhabitat‐specificmitigationmeasuresarerequired.Thisreportwillprovidethebasisforanyapplicablepermitapplicationswhereincidentaltakeoflistedspeciesmayoccur.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐1b:Implementbestmanagementpracticestoavoidandminimizeimpactsonspecial‐statusspecies

ProjectproponentswillensurethatthefollowingBMPs,inaccordancewithpracticesestablishedintheEACCS,willbeincorporatedintoindividualprojectdesignandconstructiondocuments.

Employeesandcontractorsperformingdecommissioningandreclamationactivitieswillreceiveenvironmentalsensitivitytraining.Trainingwillincludereviewofenvironmental





laws,mitigationmeasures,permitconditions,andotherrequirementsthatmustbefollowedbyallpersonneltoreduceoravoideffectsonspecial‐statusspeciesduringconstructionactivities.

Environmentaltailboardtrainingswilltakeplaceonanas‐neededbasisinthefield.Thesetrainingswillincludeabriefreviewofthebiologyofthecoveredspeciesandguidelinesthatmustbefollowedbyallpersonneltoreduceoravoidnegativeeffectsonthesespeciesduringdecommissioningandreclamationactivities.Directors,managers,superintendents,andthecrewleaderswillberesponsibleforensuringthatcrewmemberscomplywiththeguidelines.

Vehiclesandequipmentwillbeparkedonpavement,existingroads,andpreviouslydisturbedareastotheextentpracticable.

Offroadvehicletravelwillbeavoided.

Materialwillbestockpiledonlyinareasthatdonotsupportspecial‐statusspeciesorsensitivehabitats.

Gradingwillberestrictedtotheminimumareanecessary.

Priortoground‐disturbingactivitiesinsensitivehabitats,projectconstructionboundariesandaccessareaswillbeflaggedandtemporarilyfencedduringconstructiontoreducethepotentialforvehiclesandequipmenttostrayintoadjacenthabitats.

Vehiclesorequipmentwillnotberefueledwithin100feetofawetland,stream,orotherwaterwayunlessabermedandlinedrefuelingarea(i.e.,acreatedbermmadeofsandbagsorotherremovablematerial)isconstructed.

Erosioncontrolmeasureswillbeimplementedtoreducesedimentationinnearbyaquatichabitatwhenactivitiesarethesourceofpotentialerosion.Plasticmonofilamentnetting(erosioncontrolmatting)orsimilarmaterialcontainingnettingwillnotbeusedattheproject.Acceptablesubstitutesincludecoconutcoirmattingortackifiedhydroseedingcompounds.

Significantearthmoving‐activitieswillnotbeconductedinriparianareaswithin24hoursofpredictedstormsoraftermajorstorms(definedas1‐inchofrainormore).

Thefollowingwillnotbeallowedatornearworksitesforprojectactivities:trashdumping,firearms,openfires(suchasbarbecues)notrequiredbytheactivity,hunting,andpets(exceptforsafetyinremotelocations).

MitigationMeasureBIO‐1c:Avoidandminimizeimpactsonspecial‐statusplantspeciesbyestablishingactivityexclusionzones

Wheresurveysdeterminethataspecial‐statusplantspeciesispresentinoradjacenttoaprojectarea,directandindirectimpactsoftheprojectonthespecieswillbeavoidedthroughtheestablishmentofactivityexclusionzones,withinwhichnoground‐disturbingactivitieswilltakeplace,includingconstructionofnewfacilities,constructionstaging,orothertemporaryworkareas.Activityexclusionzonesforspecial‐statusplantspecieswillbeestablishedaroundeachoccupiedhabitatsite,theboundariesofwhichwillbeclearlymarkedwithstandardorangeplasticconstructionexclusionfencingoritsequivalent.Theestablishmentofactivityexclusionzoneswillnotberequiredifnoconstruction‐relateddisturbanceswilloccurwithin250feetof





theoccupiedhabitat.ThesizeofactivityexclusionzonesmaybereducedthroughconsultationwithaqualifiedbiologistandwithconcurrencefromCDFWbasedonsite‐specificconditions.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐1d:Compensateforimpactsonspecial‐statusplantspecies

Allprojectproponentswillavoidorminimizetemporaryandpermanentimpactsonspecial‐statusplantsthatoccuronprojectsitesandwillcompensateforimpactsonspecial‐statusplantspecies.Althoughallimpactsonlarge‐floweredfiddleneck,diamond‐petaledCaliforniapoppy,andcaper‐fruitedtropidocarpumwillbeavoided,impactsonotherspecial‐statusplantspecieswillbeavoidedtotheextentfeasible,andanyunavoidableimpactswillbeaddressedthroughcompensatorymitigation.

Whereavoidanceofimpactsonaspecial‐statusplantspeciesisinfeasible,lossofindividualsoroccupiedhabitatofaspecial‐statusplantspeciesoccurrencewillbecompensatedforthroughtheacquisition,protection,andsubsequentmanagementinperpetuityofotherexistingoccurrencesata2:1ratio(occurrencesimpacted:occurrencespreserved).TheprojectproponentwillprovidedetailedinformationtotheCountyandCDFWonthelocationofthepreservedoccurrences,qualityofthepreservedhabitat,feasibilityofprotectingandmanagingtheareasin‐perpetuity,responsibilityparties,andotherpertinentinformation.Ifsuitableoccurrencesofaspecial‐statusplantspeciesarenotavailableforpreservation,thentheprojectwillberedesignedtoremovefeaturesthatwouldresultinimpactsonthatspecies.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐1e:Retainabiologicalmonitorduringground‐disturbingactivitiesinenvironmentallysensitiveareas

Allprojectproponentswillretainaqualifiedbiologist(asdeterminedbyAlamedaCounty)toconductperiodicmonitoringofdecommissioning,repowering,andreclamationactivitiesthatoccuradjacenttosensitivebiologicalresources(e.g.,special‐statusspecies,sensitivevegetationcommunities,wetlands).MonitoringwilloccurduringinitialgrounddisturbancewheresensitivebiologicalresourcesarepresentandweeklythereafterorasdeterminedbytheCountyincoordinationwithaqualifiedbiologist.Thebiologistwillassistthecrew,asneeded,tocomplywithallprojectimplementationrestrictionsandguidelines.Inaddition,thebiologistwillberesponsibleforensuringthattheprojectproponentoritscontractorsmaintainexclusionareasadjacenttosensitivebiologicalresources,andfordocumentingcompliancewithallbiologicalresources–relatedmitigationmeasures.

ImpactBIO‐1a‐2:Potentialforground‐disturbingactivitiestoresultinadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsorhabitatoccupiedbyspecial‐statusplants—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Ground‐disturbingactivitiesassociatedwithAlternative2couldresultinadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsortheirhabitat.DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Directeffectsincludethosewhereplantsmayberemoved,damaged,orcrushed(seedlings)byground‐disturbingactivities,themovementorparkingofvehicles,and/ortheplacementofequipmentandsupplies.Grounddisturbancecankillordamagematureindividualsoreliminatetheirhabitat.Excavationalterssoilpropertiesandmaycreateconditionsunsuitableforthegrowthofsomespeciesorfavortheirreplacementbyotherspecies.Therootsofshrubsandotherperennial





speciesaresusceptibletodamagefromsoilcompactionbyequipmentorconstructionmaterials.Possibleindirecteffectsonplantscouldresultfromerosionthatdegradeshabitatoraccidentalignitionofafirethatdamagesorkillsindividuals.Becausetheseground‐disturbingactivitiescouldhavesubstantialadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantspecies,thisimpactissignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1athroughBIO‐1ewouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.






ImpactBIO‐1b:Potentialforground‐disturbingactivitiestoresultinadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsorhabitatoccupiedbyspecial‐statusplants—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Ground‐disturbingactivitiesassociatedwiththeGoldenHillsProjectcouldresultinadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsortheirhabitat.Directeffectsincludethoseeffectswhereplantsmayberemoved,damaged,orcrushed(seedlings)byground‐disturbingactivities,themovementorparkingofvehicles,and/ortheplacementofequipmentandsupplies.Grounddisturbancecankillordamagematureindividualsoreliminatetheirhabitat.Excavationalterssoilpropertiesandmaycreateconditionsunsuitableforthegrowthofsomespeciesorfavortheirreplacementbyotherspecies.Therootsofshrubsandotherperennialspeciesaresusceptibletodamagefromsoilcompactionbyequipmentorconstructionmaterials.Possibleindirecteffectsonplantscouldresultfromerosionthatdegradeshabitatoraccidentalignitionofafirethatdamagesorkillsindividuals.Becausetheseground‐disturbingactivitiescouldhavesubstantialadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantspecies,thisimpactissignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1athroughBIO‐1ewouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.










ImpactBIO‐1c:Potentialforground‐disturbingactivitiestoresultinadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsorhabitatoccupiedbyspecial‐statusplants—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Ground‐disturbingactivitiesassociatedwiththePattersonPassProjectcouldresultinadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsortheirhabitat.Directeffectsincludethoseeffectswhereplantsmayberemoved,damaged,orcrushed(seedlings)byground‐disturbingactivities,themovementorparkingofvehicles,and/ortheplacementofequipmentandsupplies.Grounddisturbancecankillordamagematureindividualsoreliminatetheirhabitat.Excavationalterssoilpropertiesandmaycreateconditionsunsuitableforthegrowthofsomespeciesorfavortheirreplacementbyotherspecies.Therootsofshrubsandotherperennialspeciesaresusceptibletodamagefromsoilcompactionbyequipmentorconstructionmaterials.Possibleindirecteffectsonplantscouldresultfromerosionthatdegradeshabitatoraccidentalignitionofafirethatdamagesorkillsindividuals.Becausetheseground‐disturbingactivitiescouldhavesubstantialadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantspecies,thisimpactissignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1athroughBIO‐1ewouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.










ImpactBIO‐2a‐1:Adverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsandnaturalcommunitiesresultingfromtheintroductionandspreadofinvasiveplantspecies—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Constructionactivitieshavethepotentialtofacilitatetheintroductionandspreadofinvasivenonnativeplantspeciesbyremovingvegetationanddisturbingsoils.Constructionvehiclesandmachineryareprimaryvectorsforthespreadofsuchspecies.Invasivespeciescompetewithnativespeciesforresourcesandcanalternaturalcommunitiesbyinfluencingfireregimes,hydrology(e.g.,sedimentationanderosion),lightavailability,nutrientcycling,andsoilchemistry(RandallandHoshovsky2000).Invasivespeciesalsohavethepotentialtoharmhumanhealthandtheeconomybyadverselyaffectingnaturalecosystems,recreation,agriculturallands,anddevelopedareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame2008).Theintroductionandspreadofinvasivenonnativeplantspeciesasaresultofactivitiesassociatedwiththeprogramwouldconstituteasignificantindirectimpact.However,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐2,BIO‐5c,andWQ‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.


MitigationMeasureBIO‐2:Preventintroduction,spread,andestablishmentofinvasiveplantspecies

Toavoidandminimizetheintroductionandspreadofinvasivenonnativeplantspecies,allprojectproponentswillimplementthefollowingBMPs.

Constructionvehiclesandmachinerywillbecleanedpriortoenteringtheconstructionarea.Cleaningstationswillbeestablishedattheperimeteroftheconstructionareaalongallconstructionroutesorimmediatelyoffsite.

Vehicleswillbewashedonlyatapprovedareas.Nowashingofvehicleswilloccuratjobsites.

Todiscouragetheintroductionandestablishmentofinvasiveplantspecies,seedmixturesandstrawusedwithinnaturalvegetationwillbeeitherricestraworweed‐freestraw,asallowedbystateandfederalregulationofstormwaterrunoff.

Inaddition,theprojectproponentswillprepareandimplementerosionandsedimentcontrolplanstocontrolshort‐termandlong‐termerosionandsedimentationeffectsandtorestoresoilsandvegetationinareasaffectedbyconstructionactivities(MitigationMeasuresBIO‐1bandWQ‐1).Priortoinitiatinganyconstructionactivitiesthatwillresultintemporaryimpactsonnaturalcommunities,arestorationandmonitoringplanwillbedevelopedfortemporarilyaffectedhabitatsineachprojectarea(MitigationMeasureBIO‐5c).RestorationandmonitoringplanswillbesubmittedtotheCountyandCDFWforapproval.Theseplanswillincludemethodsforrestoringsoilconditionsandrevegetatingdisturbedareas,seedmixes,monitoringandmaintenanceschedules,adaptivemanagementstrategies,reportingrequirements,andsuccesscriteria.Followingcompletionofprojectconstruction,theprojectproponentswillimplementtherevegetationplanstorestoreareasdisturbedbyprojectactivitiestoaconditionofequalorgreaterhabitatfunctionthanoccurredpriortothedisturbance.





MitigationMeasureBIO‐5c:Restoredisturbedannualgrasslands

Seediscussiononpages3.4‐78and3.4‐79.

MitigationMeasureWQ‐1:ComplywithNPDESrequirements

Seediscussiononpages3.9‐8and3.9‐9.

ImpactBIO‐2a‐2:Adverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsandnaturalcommunitiesresultingfromtheintroductionandspreadofinvasiveplantspecies—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Constructionactivitieshavethepotentialtofacilitatetheintroductionandspreadofinvasivenonnativeplantspeciesbyremovingvegetationanddisturbingsoils.Constructionvehiclesandmachineryareprimaryvectorsforthespreadofsuchspecies.Invasivespeciescompetewithnativespeciesforresourcesandcanalternaturalcommunitiesbyinfluencingfireregimes,hydrology(e.g.,sedimentationanderosion),lightavailability,nutrientcycling,andsoilchemistry(RandallandHoshovsky2000).Invasivespeciesalsohavethepotentialtoharmhumanhealthandtheeconomybyadverselyaffectingnaturalecosystems,recreation,agriculturallands,anddevelopedareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame2008).Theintroductionandspreadofinvasivenonnativeplantspeciesasaresultofactivitiesassociatedwiththeprogramwouldconstituteasignificantindirectimpact.EffectsunderAlternative2wouldbethesameasthoseunderAlternative1.Althoughtheareaofdisturbancewouldbe8%greaterunderAlternative2,theseverityoftheeffectsofintroductionandspreadofinvasiveplantspeciesdoesnotnecessarilycorrelatedirectlytothearealextentofdisturbance,butrathertothepracticesthatfacilitateintroduction.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐2wouldreducethisimpacttoalevelless‐than‐significantlevel.


ImpactBIO‐2b:Adverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsandnaturalcommunitiesresultingfromtheintroductionandspreadofinvasiveplantspecies—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Constructionactivitieshavethepotentialtofacilitatetheintroductionandspreadofinvasivenonnativeplantspeciesbyremovingvegetationanddisturbingsoils.Constructionvehiclesandmachineryareprimaryvectorsforthespreadofsuchspecies.Invasivespeciescompetewithnativespeciesforresourcesandcanalternaturalcommunitiesbyinfluencingfireregimes,hydrology(e.g.,sedimentationanderosion),lightavailability,nutrientcycling,andsoilchemistry(RandallandHoshovsky2000).Invasivespeciesalsohavethepotentialtoharmhumanhealthandtheeconomybyadverselyaffectingnaturalecosystems,recreation,agriculturallands,anddevelopedareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame2008).TheintroductionandspreadofinvasivenonnativeplantspeciesasaresultofactivitiesassociatedwiththeGoldenHillsProjectwouldconstituteasignificantindirectimpact.However,implementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐2wouldreducethisimpacttoalevelless‐than‐significantlevel.






ImpactBIO‐2c:Adverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsandnaturalcommunitiesresultingfromtheintroductionandspreadofinvasiveplantspecies—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Constructionactivitieshavethepotentialtofacilitatetheintroductionandspreadofinvasivenonnativeplantspeciesbyremovingvegetationanddisturbingsoils.Constructionvehiclesandmachineryareprimaryvectorsforthespreadofsuchspecies.Invasivespeciescompetewithnativespeciesforresourcesandcanalternaturalcommunitiesbyinfluencingfireregimes,hydrology(e.g.,sedimentationanderosion),lightavailability,nutrientcycling,andsoilchemistry(RandallandHoshovsky2000).Invasivespeciesalsohavethepotentialtoharmhumanhealthandtheeconomybyadverselyaffectingnaturalecosystems,recreation,agriculturallands,anddevelopedareas(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame2008).TheintroductionandspreadofinvasivenonnativeplantspeciesasaresultofactivitiesassociatedwiththePattersonPassProjectwouldconstituteasignificantindirectimpact.However,implementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐2wouldreducethisimpacttoalevelless‐than‐significantlevel.


ImpactBIO‐3a‐1:Potentialmortalityoforlossofhabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Constructionactivitiesintheprogramareacouldresultindirecteffectsonlonghornfairyshrimp,vernalpoolfairyshrimp,vernalpooltadpoleshrimp(vernalpoolbranchiopods),andcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleortheirhabitats.Themajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceongrasslandhabitatalongridgelines;consequently,lossofpotentialvernalpoolbranchiopodandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetlehabitatwouldgenerallybeavoided.However,directimpactsonhabitatassociatedwithroadconstructionorwideningandimpactsonwaterqualitycouldresultfromsomeconstructionactivities.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonalkaliwetland,seasonalwetland,andpondsthatmayprovidehabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleareshowninTable3.4‐7.Impactsondrainagesthatmayprovidepotentialhabitatforthebeetlecouldnotbeestimatedbecausethesefeatureshavenotyetbeendelineated.Constructionactivitiessuchasexcavation,grading,orstockpilingofsoil,couldfill,remove,orotherwisealtersuitablehabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleandcouldresultininjuryormortalityofthesespecies.Suchground‐disturbingactivitiesmaybeassociatedwithinstallationofpowercollectionandcommunicationsystemsandroadconstructionandwidening.Vernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetlescouldalsobeinjuredorkilledifvehiclesorconstructionequipmentaredriventhroughoccupiedhabitat,orifgasoline,oil,orothercontaminantsentertheirhabitat.Changesinhydrologyorsedimentationofhabitatfromerosionassociatedwithprojectconstructioncouldalterthesuitabilityofhabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleandcouldcausemortality.

Operationandmaintenanceactivitiesmayalsoresultinimpactsonvernalpoolbranchiopodsortheirhabitats.Useofherbicidesnearoccupiedhabitatcouldresultinmortalityorreducedfitnessof





vernalpoolbranchiopods(U.S.FishandWildlifeService1996).Herbicideorpesticideusenearorupstreamofsuitablehabitatforcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetlecouldresultinmortalityorreducedfitnessofthebeetle.Roadandfirebreakmaintenancemayalsoresultindegradationofhabitatorinjuryormortalityofvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetles.Theseimpactswouldbesignificantbecausetheprojectcouldreducethelocalpopulationsoffederallylistedvernalpoolbranchiopodsandararebeetlespeciesthroughdirectmortalityandhabitatloss.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,andBIO‐3bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.



MitigationMeasureBIO‐3a:Conductpreconstructionsurveysforhabitatforspecial‐statuswildlifespecies

Nomorethan3yearspriortoground‐disturbingrepoweringactivities,aqualifiedbiologist(asdeterminedbyAlamedaCounty)willconductfieldsurveyswithindecommissioning,repowering,andrestorationworkareasandtheirimmediatesurroundingstodeterminethepresenceofhabitatforspecial‐statuswildlifespecies.TheprojectproponentwillsubmitareportdocumentingthesurveyresultstoAlamedaCountyforreviewpriortoconductinganyrepoweringactivities.Thereportwillincludethelocationanddescriptionofallproposedworkareas,thelocationanddescriptionofallsuitablehabitatforspecial‐statuswildlifespecies,andthelocationanddescriptionofothersensitivehabitats(e.g.,vernalpools,wetlands,riparianareas).Additionally,thereportwilloutlinewhereadditionalspecies‐and/orhabitat‐specificmitigationmeasuresarerequired.Thisreportmayprovidethebasisforanyapplicablepermitapplicationswhereincidentaltakemayoccur.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐3b:Implementmeasurestoavoid,minimize,andmitigateimpactsonvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle

Wheresuitablehabitatforlistedvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleareidentifiedwithin250feet(oranotherdistanceasdeterminedbyaqualifiedbiologistbasedontopographyandothersiteconditions)ofproposedworkareas,thefollowingmeasureswillbeimplementedtoensurethattherepoweringprojectsdonothaveadverseimpactsonlistedvernalpoolbranchiopodsorcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle.ThesemeasuresarebasedonmeasuresfromtheEACCS,withsomemodificationsandadditions.Additionalconservationmeasuresorconditionsofapprovalmayberequiredinapplicableprojectpermits(e.g.,ESAincidentaltakepermit).

Avoidalldirectimpactsonsandstonerockoutcropvernalpools.

Grounddisturbancewillbeavoidedfromthefirstdayofthefirstsignificantrain(1inchormore)untilJune1,oruntilpoolsremaindryfor72hoursandnosignificantrainisforecastonthedayofsuchgrounddisturbance.

Ifvernalpools,clayflats,alkalinepools,ephemeralstocktanks(orponds),sandstonepools,orroadsideditchesarepresentwithin250feetoftheworkarea(oranotherappropriate





distanceasdeterminedbyaqualifiedbiologistonthebasisoftopographyandothersiteconditions),thebiologistwillstakeandflaganexclusionzonepriortoconstructionactivities.Thewidthoftheexclusionzonewillbebasedonsiteconditionsandwillbethemaximumpracticabledistancethatensuresprotectionofthefeaturefromdirectandindirecteffectsoftheproject.Exclusionzoneswillbeestablishedaroundfeatureswhethertheyarewetordryatthetime.Theexclusionzonewillbefencedwithorangeconstructionzoneanderosioncontrolfencing(tobeinstalledbyconstructioncrew).

Noherbicidewillbeappliedwithin100feetofexclusionzones,exceptwhenappliedtocutstumpsorfrilledstemsorinjectedintostems.Nobroadcastapplicationswillbeallowed.

Avoidmodifyingorchangingthehydrologyofaquatichabitats.

Minimizetheworkareaforstreamcrossingsandconductworkduringthedryseason(June1throughthefirstsignificantrainofthefall/winter).

Installutilitycollectionlinesacrossperennialcreeksbyboringunderthecreek.

Whereimpactscannotbeavoidedorminimized,compensatorymitigationwillbeundertakeninaccordancewithmitigationratiosandrequirementsdevelopedundertheEACCS(AppendixC).Intheeventthatanincidentaltakepermitisrequired,compensatorymitigationwillbeundertakeninaccordancewiththetermsofthepermitinconsultationwithUSFWS.

ImpactBIO‐3a‐2:Potentialmortalityoforlossofhabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Constructionactivitiesintheprogramareacouldresultindirecteffectsonvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleortheirhabitats.Themajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceongrasslandhabitatalongridgelines;consequently,lossofpotentialvernalpoolbranchiopodandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetlehabitatwouldgenerallybeavoided.However,directimpactsonhabitatassociatedwithroadconstructionorwideningandimpactsonwaterqualitycouldresultfromsomeconstructionactivities.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonalkaliwetland,seasonalwetland,andpondsthatmayprovidehabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleareshowninTable3.4‐7.Impactsondrainagesthatmayprovidepotentialhabitatforthebeetlecouldnotbeestimatedbecausethesefeatureshavenotyetbeendelineated.Constructionactivitiessuchasexcavation,grading,orstockpilingofsoil,couldfill,remove,orotherwisealtersuitablehabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleandcouldresultininjuryormortalityofthesespecies.Suchground‐disturbingactivitiesmaybeassociatedwithinstallationofpowercollectionandcommunicationsystemsandroadconstructionandwidening.Vernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetlescouldalsobeinjuredorkilledifvehiclesorconstructionequipmentaredriventhroughoccupiedhabitat,orifgasoline,oil,orothercontaminantsentertheirhabitat.Changesinhydrologyorsedimentationofhabitatfromerosionassociatedwithprojectconstructioncouldalterthesuitabilityofhabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleandcouldcausemortality.





Operationandmaintenanceactivitiesmayalsoresultinimpactsonvernalpoolbranchiopodsortheirhabitats.Useofherbicidesnearoccupiedhabitatcouldresultinmortalityorreducedfitnessofvernalpoolbranchiopods(U.S.FishandWildlifeService1996).Herbicideorpesticideusenearorupstreamofsuitablehabitatforcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetlecouldresultinmortalityorreducedfitnessofthebeetle.Roadandfirebreakmaintenancemayalsoresultindegradationofhabitatorinjuryormortalityofvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetles.Theseimpactswouldbesignificantbecausetheprojectcouldreducethelocalpopulationsoffederallylistedvernalpoolbranchiopodsandararebeetlespeciesthroughdirectmortalityandhabitatloss.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,andBIO‐3bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.





ImpactBIO‐3b:Potentialmortalityoforlossofhabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Impactsfromconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceoftheGoldenHillsprojectonvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetlewouldbesimilartothosedescribedabovefortheprogram.Themajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceongrasslandhabitatalongridgelines;consequently,lossofpotentialvernalpoolbranchiopodandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetlehabitatwouldgenerallybeavoided.However,directimpactsonhabitatassociatedwithroadconstructionorwideningandimpactsonwaterqualitycouldresultfromsomeconstructionactivities.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonalkaliwetland,seasonalwetland,andpondsthatmayprovidehabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleareshowninTable3.4‐8.Impactsondrainagesthatmayprovidepotentialhabitatforthebeetlecouldnotbeestimatedbecausethesefeatureshavenotyetbeendelineated.Theseimpactswouldbesignificantbecausetheprojectcouldreducethelocalpopulationsoffederallylistedvernalpoolbranchiopodsandararebeetlespeciesthroughdirectmortalityandhabitatloss.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,andBIO‐3bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.









ImpactBIO‐3c:Potentialmortalityoforlossofhabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Theseasonalwetlandthatprovidessuitablehabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetlewouldnotbefilledorremoved.However,mortalityoftheseaquaticspeciescouldoccurifoilorothercontaminantsenterthewetlandduringconstruction.Additionally,theseasonalwetlandcouldbeindirectlyaffectedifthehydrologyofthewetlandismodifiedasaresultofprojectconstruction.Smallareasofotherseasonalwetlandsandstream/freshwatermarshthatmayprovidesuitablehabitatforcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetlewouldbetemporarilyaffectedduringconstructionofcollectorlines.Noneofthepondsthatprovidesuitablehabitatforcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetlewouldbefilledorremoved.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonseasonalwetlandandstream/freshwatermarshthatmayprovidehabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleareshowninTable3.4‐9.Theseimpactswouldbesignificantbecausetheprojectcouldreducethelocalpopulationsoffederallylistedvernalpoolbranchiopodsandararebeetlespeciesthroughdirectmortalityorhabitatloss.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,andBIO‐3bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.





ImpactBIO‐4a‐1:Potentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Removalofhabitat(elderberryshrubs)andpotentialinjuryormortalityofvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetleassociatedwithremovalofelderberryshrubswouldbeconsidereddirecteffectsonthespecies.Trimmingofelderberrybranches1inchormoreindiametercouldalsoresultininjuryormortalityofvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle.Becausevalleyelderberrylonghornbeetlelarvaemayfeedontherootsofelderberries,disturbanceofelderberryrootswithintheshrubdriplinecouldalsoresultininjuryormortalityofindividuals.Reductionofwaterinfiltrationtoelderberryshrubscausedbychangesintopographyorcompactionofsoilfromconstructioncouldresultinreducedshrubvigor/vitalityandanassociateddecreaseinshoot,leaf,andflowerproductionand





couldultimatelyreducethesuitabilityoftheshrubstoprovidehabitatforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle.

Operationsandmaintenanceactivitiessuchasuseofherbicidesmayalsoaffectvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetleoritshabitat.Valleyelderberrylonghornbeetlescouldbeindirectlyaffectedifthereisalossofconnectivitybetweenelderberryshrubswhenelderberriesorassociatedvegetationisremoved.Removalofsuchvegetationcouldresultingapsinvegetationthataretoowideforbeetlestocrossbecauseoftheirfairlylimitedmovementdistances(Talleyetal.2006),resultinginseparationofindividualsorreducingthepossibilityofcolonizationofadjacentareas.Althoughmoreresearchisneeded,valleyelderberrylonghornbeetleshavebeenobservedtoflyamileormoreincontiguousorfairlycontiguoushabitat,andexitholeshavebeenobservedonisolatedshrubs0.25mile(0.4kilometer)ormorefromthenextnearestelderberry(Arnoldpers.comm.).Becauseelderberriesareexpectedtobewidelyseparatedduetothelimitedamountofriparianhabitatintheprogramarea,theremovalofanyelderberryshrubscouldconstituteasignificantimpact.Anyoftheseimpactscouldbesignificantbecausetheycouldreducethelocalpopulationsizeofafederallylistedspeciesthroughdirectmortalityorhabitatloss.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐4a,andBIO‐4bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.




MitigationMeasureBIO‐4a:Implementmeasurestoavoidorprotecthabitatforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle

IfitisdeterminedthroughpreconstructionsurveysconductedpursuanttoMitigationMeasureBIO‐3athatelderberryshrubsarepresentwithinproposedworkareasorwithin100feetoftheseareas,thefollowingmeasureswillbeimplementedtoensurethattheproposedprojectdoesnothaveasignificantimpactonvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle.

Avoidremovalofelderberryshrubs.

Elderberryshrubs/clusterswithin100feetoftheconstructionareathatwillnotberemovedwillbeprotectedduringconstruction.Aqualifiedbiologist(i.e.,withelderberry/VELBexperience)willmarktheelderberryshrubsandclustersthatwillbeprotectedduringconstruction.Orangeconstructionbarrierfencingwillbeplacedattheedgeofthebufferareas.ThebufferareadistanceswillbeproposedbythebiologistandapprovedbyUSFWS.Noconstructionactivitieswillbepermittedwithinthebufferzoneotherthanthoseactivitiesnecessarytoerectthefencing.Signswillbepostedevery50feet(15.2meters)alongtheperimeterofthebufferareafencing.Thesignswillcontainthefollowinginformation:Thisareaishabitatofthevalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle,athreatenedspecies,andmustnotbedisturbed.ThisspeciesisprotectedbytheEndangeredSpeciesActof1973,asamended.Violatorsaresubjecttoprosecution,fines,andimprisonment.





Bufferareafencesaroundelderberryshrubswillbeinspectedweeklybyaqualifiedbiologicalmonitorduringground‐disturbingactivitiesandmonthlyafterground‐disturbingactivitiesuntilprojectconstructioniscompleteoruntilthefencesareremoved,asapprovedbythebiologicalmonitorandtheresidentengineer.Thebiologicalmonitorwillberesponsibleforensuringthatthecontractormaintainsthebufferareafencesaroundelderberryshrubsthroughoutconstruction.BiologicalinspectionreportswillbeprovidedtotheprojectproponentandUSFWS.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐4b:Compensatefordirectandindirecteffectsonvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle

IfelderberryshrubscannotbeavoidedandprotectedasoutlinedinMitigationMeasure4a,theprojectproponentwillobtainanincidentaltakepermitfromUSFWSandcompensateforthelossofanyelderberryshrubs.Surveysofelderberryshrubstobetransplantedwillbeconductedbyaqualifiedbiologistpriortotransplantation.SurveyswillbeconductedinaccordancewiththeConservationGuidelinesfortheValleyElderberryLonghornBeetle(U.S.FishandWildlifeService1999).Surveyresultsandananalysisofthenumberofelderberryseedlings/cuttingsandassociatednativeplantsbasedonthesurveyresultswillbesubmittedtoUSFWSinabiologicalassessmentoranHCP.Afterreceiptofanincidentaltakepermitandbeforeconstructionbegins,theprojectproponentwillcompensatefordirecteffectsonelderberryshrubsbytransplantingshrubsthatcannotbeavoidedtoaUSFWS‐approvedconservationarea.Elderberryseedlingsorcuttingsandassociatednativespecieswillalsobeplantedintheconservationarea.Eachelderberrystemmeasuring1inchormoreindiameteratgroundlevelthatisadverselyaffected(i.e.,transplantedordestroyed)willbereplaced,intheconservationarea,withelderberryseedlingsorcuttingsataratiorangingfrom1:1to8:1(newplantingstoaffectedstems).Thenumbersofelderberryseedlings/cuttingsandassociatedripariannativetrees/shrubstobeplantedasreplacementhabitataredeterminedbystemsizeclassofaffectedelderberryshrubs,presenceorabsenceofexitholes,andwhethertheshrubliesinariparianornonriparianarea.Stockofeitherseedlingsorcuttingswouldbeobtainedfromlocalsources.

AtthediscretionofUSFWS,shrubsthatareunlikelytosurvivetransplantationbecauseofpoorconditionorlocation,oraplantthatwouldbeextremelydifficulttomovebecauseofaccessproblems,maybeexemptedfromtransplantation.Incaseswheretransplantationisnotpossible,minimizationratioswouldbeincreasedtooffsettheadditionalhabitatloss.

TherelocationoftheelderberryshrubswillbeconductedaccordingtoUSFWS‐approvedproceduresoutlinedintheConservationGuidelines(U.S.FishandWildlifeService1999).Elderberryshrubswithintheprojectconstructionareathatcannotbeavoidedwillbetransplantedduringtheplant’sdormantphase(Novemberthroughthefirst2weeksofFebruary).Aqualifiedbiologicalmonitorwillremainonsitewhiletheshrubsarebeingtransplanted.

Evidenceofvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetleoccurrenceintheconservationarea,theconditionoftheelderberryshrubsintheconservationarea,andthegeneralconditionoftheconservationareaitselfwillbemonitoredoveraperiodof10consecutiveyearsorfor7yearsovera15‐yearperiodfromthedateoftransplanting.TheprojectproponentwillberesponsibleforfundingandprovidingmonitoringreportstoUSFWSineachoftheyearsinwhichamonitoringreportisrequired.AsspecifiedintheConservationGuidelines,thereportwillincludeinformationontimingandrateofirrigation,growthrates,andsurvivalratesandmortality.





ImpactBIO‐4a‐2:Potentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Removalofelderberryshrubsandpotentialinjuryormortalityofvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetleassociatedwithremovalofelderberryshrubswouldbeconsidereddirecteffectsonthespecies.Trimmingofelderberrybranches1inchormoreindiametercouldalsoresultininjuryormortalityofvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle.Becausevalleyelderberrylonghornbeetlelarvaemayfeedontherootsofelderberries,disturbanceofelderberryrootswithintheshrubdriplinecouldalsoresultininjuryormortalityofindividuals.Reductionofwaterinfiltrationtoelderberryshrubscausedbychangesintopographyorcompactionofsoilfromconstructioncouldresultinreducedshrubvigor/vitalityandanassociateddecreaseinshoot,leaf,andflowerproductionandcouldultimatelyreducethesuitabilityoftheshrubstoprovidehabitatforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle.

Operationsandmaintenanceactivitiessuchasuseofherbicidesmayalsoaffectvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetleoritshabitat.Valleyelderberrylonghornbeetlescouldbeindirectlyaffectedifthereisalossofconnectivitybetweenelderberryshrubswhenelderberriesorassociatedvegetationisremoved.Removalofsuchvegetationcouldresultingapsinvegetationthataretoowideforbeetlestocrossbecauseoftheirfairlylimitedmovementdistances(Talleyetal.2006),resultinginseparationofindividualsorreducingthepossibilityofcolonizationofadjacentareas.Althoughmoreresearchisneeded,valleyelderberrylonghornbeetleshavebeenobservedtoflyamileormoreincontiguousorfairlycontiguoushabitat,andexitholeshavebeenobservedonisolatedshrubs0.25mile(0.4kilometer)ormorefromthenextnearestelderberry(Arnoldpers.comm.).Becauseelderberriesareexpectedtobewidelyseparatedduetothelimitedamountofriparianhabitatintheprogramarea,theremovalofanyelderberryshrubscouldconstituteasignificantimpact.Anyoftheseimpactscouldbesignificantbecausetheycouldreducethelocalpopulationsizeofafederallylistedspeciesthroughdirectmortalityorhabitatloss.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐4a,andBIO‐4bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.










ImpactBIO‐4b:Potentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

IfelderberryshrubsarepresentintheGoldenHillsprojectarea,theycouldbeaffectedbyprojectconstructionandoperation.Impactsfromconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceoftheGoldenHillsprojectwouldbesimilartothosedescribedfortheprogram.Removalofhabitat(elderberryshrubs),injuryormortalityofbeetles,cuttingelderberrybranchesorrootsthatare1inchormoreindiameter,andchangesinhydrologywoulddirectlyaffectvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle.Thebeetlemayalsobeindirectlyaffectedbyoperationsandmaintenanceactivitiessuchasuseofherbicidesorthroughthelossofconnectivitybetweenelderberryshrubswhenshrubsorassociatedvegetationareremoved.Becauseelderberriesareexpectedtobewidelyseparatedduetothelimitedamountofriparianhabitatintheprojectvicinity,theremovalofanyelderberryshrubscouldconstituteasignificantimpact.Anyoftheseimpactswouldbesignificantbecausetheycouldreducethelocalpopulationsizeofafederallylistedspeciesthroughdirectmortalityorhabitatloss.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐4a,andBIO‐4bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.






ImpactBIO‐4c:Potentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Noneofthe39elderberryshrubsinthePattersonPassprojectareawouldberemovedinordertoconstructtheproject.Oneoftheshrubsislocatedwithin100feetofaconstructionaccessroadandcouldbesubjectedtoincreasedlevelsofdustduringconstruction,potentiallyleadingtoreducedvigoroftheshrubandconsequentlyaffectingvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle.However,accordingtoTalleyetal.(2006b:654–655),anexperimentalongtheAmericanRiverParkway(SacramentoCounty)showedthatconditionsofelderberryshrubsassociatedwithdustfromnearbytrailsandroads(pavedanddirt)didnotaffectthepresenceofvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle.Thebeetlemayalsobeindirectlyaffectedbyoperationsandmaintenanceactivitiessuchasuseofherbicides,whichcouldharmelderberryshrubsand/orthebeetle.Impactsonvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetlewouldbesignificantbecausesuchimpactscouldreducethelocalpopulationsizeofafederallylistedspeciesthroughdirectmortalityorhabitatloss.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐4a,andBIO‐4bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.









ImpactBIO‐5a‐1:PotentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforCaliforniatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,Californiared‐leggedfrog,andfoothillyellow‐leggedfrog—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ConstructionactivitiesintheprogramareacouldresultindirecteffectsonCaliforniatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,Californiared‐leggedfrog,andfoothillyellow‐leggedfrog(collectivelyreferredtoasspecial‐statusamphibians)ortheirhabitats(seasonalwetland,freshwatermarsh,mixedwillowriparianscrub,ponds,drainages,andsurroundinguplandareas).Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonseasonalwetland,freshwatermarsh,mixedwillowriparianscrub,andpondsthatmayprovidehabitatforspecial‐statusamphibiansareshowninTable3.4‐7.ImpactsondrainagesthatmayprovidepotentialhabitatforCaliforniared‐leggedfrogandfoothillyellow‐leggedfrogcouldnotbeestimatedbecausethesefeatureshavenotyetbeendelineated.ThemajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceonsuitableuplandgrasslanddispersalandaestivationhabitatforCaliforniatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,andCaliforniared‐leggedfrog.Aquatichabitatsforspecials‐statusamphibianswouldgenerallybeavoided;however,directimpactsonhabitatandimpactsonwaterqualitycouldresultfromroadconstructionorwideningactivities.

Constructionactivitiessuchasexcavation,grading,orstockpilingofsoil,couldfill,removeorotherwisealtersuitablehabitatforspecial‐statusamphibiansorresultininjuryormortalityofindividualamphibians.Potentialdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjurybyequipment,entrapmentinopentrenchesorotherprojectfacilities,andremovalordisturbanceofuplandhabitatthatresultsindamageoreliminationofsuitableaestivationburrows.Specificactivitiesthatmayaffectthesespeciescouldincludeinstallationofpowercollectionandcommunicationsystems,turbineconstruction,roadinfrastructureconstruction/maintenanceandupgrades,meteorologicaltowerinstallationandremoval,temporarystagingareaset‐up,andreclamationactivities.Special‐statusamphibianscouldbeinjuredorkilledifvehiclesorconstructionequipmentaredriventhroughoccupiedhabitat,orifgasoline,oil,orothercontaminantsenterhabitat.Changesinhydrologyorsedimentationofhabitatfromerosionassociatedwithprojectconstructioncouldalterthesuitabilityoftheirhabitatorcausemortality.

Operationandmaintenanceactivitiesmayalsoresultinimpactsonspecial‐statusamphibiansortheirhabitats.Travelonmaintenanceroadsduringtherainyseasonorwhenamphibiansaredispersingcouldresultinmortalityofindividuals.Roadandfirebreakmaintenancecouldresultindegradationofhabitatorinjuryormortalityofspecial‐statusamphibians.Theseimpactswouldbesignificantbecausetheycouldreducethelocalpopulationsizesoffederallylistedandsensitive





amphibiansthroughdirectmortalityorhabitatloss.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,andBIO‐5athroughBIO‐5cwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.




MitigationMeasureBIO‐5a:Implementbestmanagementpracticestoavoidandminimizeeffectsonspecial‐statusamphibians

AllprojectproponentswillensurethatBMPsandotherappropriatemeasures,inaccordancewithmeasuresdevelopedfortheEACCS,beincorporatedintotheappropriatedesignandconstructiondocuments.ImplementationofsomeofthesemeasureswillrequirethattheprojectproponentobtainincidentaltakepermitsfromUSFWS(Californiared‐leggedfrogandCaliforniatigersalamander)andfromCDFW(Californiatigersalamanderonly)beforeconstructionbegins.Additionalconservationmeasuresorconditionsofapprovalmayberequiredinapplicableprojectpermits(e.g.,ESAorCESAincidentaltakeauthorization).TheapplicantwillcomplywiththeStateofCaliforniaStateWaterResourcesControlBoardNPDESconstructiongeneralrequirementsforstormwater.

Ground‐disturbingactivitieswillbelimitedtodryweatherbetweenApril15andOctober31.Noground‐disturbingworkwilloccurduringwetweather.Wetweatherisdefinedaswhentherehasbeen0.25inchofrainina24‐hourperiod.GrounddisturbingactivitieshaltedduetowetweathermayresumewhenprecipitationceasesandtheNationalWeatherService72‐hourweatherforecastindicatesa30%orlesschanceofprecipitation.Noground‐disturbingworkwilloccurduringadry‐outperiodof48hoursaftertheabovereferencedwetweather.

Whereapplicable,barrierfencingwillbeinstalledaroundtheworksitetopreventamphibiansfromenteringtheworkarea.Barrierfencingwillberemovedwithin72hoursofcompletionofwork.

Beforeconstructionbegins,aqualifiedbiologistwilllocateappropriaterelocationareasandpreparearelocationplanforspecial‐statusamphibiansthatmayneedtobemovedduringconstruction.TheproponentwillsubmitthisplantoUSFWSandCDFWforapprovalaminimumof2weekspriortothestartofconstruction.

Aqualifiedbiologistwillconductpreconstructionsurveysimmediatelypriortoground‐disturbingactivities(includingequipmentstaging,vegetationremoval,grading).Thebiologistwillsurveytheworkareaandallsuitablehabitatswithin300feetoftheworkarea.Ifindividuals(includingadults,juveniles,larvae,oreggs)arefound,workwillnotbeginuntilUSFWSand/orCDFWiscontactedtodetermineifmovingtheselife‐stagesisappropriate.Ifrelocationisdeemednecessary,itwillbeconductedinaccordancewiththerelocationplan.IncidentaltakepermitsarerequiredforrelocationofCaliforniatigersalamander(USFWSandCDFW)andCaliforniared‐leggedfrog(USFWS).Relocationof





westernspadefootandfoothillyellow‐leggedfrogrequiresaletterfromCDFWauthorizingthisactivity.

Nomonofilamentplasticwillbeusedforerosioncontrol.

Allprojectactivitywillterminate30minutesbeforesunsetandwillnotresumeuntil30minutesaftersunriseduringthemigration/activeseasonfromNovember1toJune15.SunriseandsunsettimesareestablishedbytheU.S.NavalObservatoryAstronomicalApplicationsDepartmentforthegeographicareawheretheprojectislocated.

Vehicleswillnotexceedaspeedlimitof15mphonunpavedroadswithinnaturallandcovertypes,orduringoffroadtravel.

Trenchesorholesmorethan6inchesdeepwillbeprovidedwithoneormoreescaperampsconstructedofearthfillorwoodenplanksandwillbeinspectedbyaqualifiedbiologistpriortobeingfilled.Anysuchfeaturesthatareleftopenovernightwillbesearchedeachdaypriortoconstructionactivitiestoensurenocoveredspeciesaretrapped.Workwillnotcontinueuntiltrappedanimalshavemovedoutofopentrenches.

Workcrewsortheonsitebiologicalmonitorwillinspectopentrenches,pits,andunderconstructionequipmentandmaterialleftonsiteinthemorningandeveningtolookforamphibiansthatmayhavebecometrappedorareseekingrefuge.

Ifspecial‐statusamphibiansarefoundintheworkareaduringconstructionandcannotordonotmoveoffsiteontheirown,aqualifiedbiologistwhoisUSFWSand/orCDFW‐approvedunderabiologicalopinionand/orincidentaltakepermitforthespecificproject,willtrapandmovespecial‐statusamphibiansinaccordancewiththerelocationplan.Relocationofwesternspadefootandfoothillyellow‐leggedfrogrequiresaletterpermitfromCDFWauthorizingthisactivity.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐5b:Compensateforlossofhabitatforspecial‐statusamphibians

Whereimpactsonaquaticanduplandhabitatforspecial‐statusamphibianscannotbeavoidedorminimized,compensatorymitigationwillbeundertakeninaccordancewithmitigationratiosandrequirementsdevelopedundertheEACCS(AppendixC).Intheeventthattakeauthorizationisrequired,compensatorymitigationwillbeundertakeninaccordancewiththetermsoftheauthorizationinconsultationwithUSFWSand/orCDFW.


Within30dayspriortoanygrounddisturbance,aqualifiedbiologistwillprepareaGrasslandRestorationPlanincoordinationwithCDFWandsubjecttoCDFWapproval,toensurethattemporarilydisturbedannualgrasslandsandareasplannedfortheremovalofpermanentroadsandturbinepadareasarerestoredtopreprojectconditions.TheGrasslandRestorationPlanwillincludebutnotbelimitedtothefollowingmeasures.

Gravelwillberemovedfromareasproposedforgrasslandrestoration.

Tothemaximumextentfeasible,topsoilwillbesalvagedfromwithinonsiteworkareaspriortoconstruction.Importedfillsoilswillbelimitedtoweed‐freetopsoilsimilarintexture,chemicalcomposition,andpHtosoilsfoundattherestorationsite.

Whereappropriate,restorationareaswillbeseeded(hydroseedingisacceptable)toensureerosioncontrol.Seedmixeswillbetailoredtocloselymatchthatofreferencesite(s)within





theprogramareaandshouldincludenativeornaturalized,noninvasivespeciessourcedwithintheprojectareaorfromthenearestavailablelocation.

Reclaimedroadswillberestoredinsuchawayastopermanentlypreventvehiculartravel.

Theplanwillincludearequirementtomonitorrestorationareasannually(betweenMarchandOctober)forupto3yearsfollowingtheyearofrestoration.Therestorationwillbeconsideredsuccessfulwhenthepercentcoverforrestoredareasis70%absolutecoveroftheplanted/seededspeciescomparedtothepercentabsolutecoverofnearbyreferencesites.Nomorethan5%relativecoverofthevegetationintherestorationareaswillconsistofinvasiveplantspeciesratedas“high”inCal‐IPC’sCaliforniaInvasivePlantInventoryDatabase(http://www.cal‐ipc.org).Remedialmeasuresprescribedintheplanwillincludesupplementalseeding,weedcontrol,andotheractionsasdeterminednecessarytoachievethelong‐termsuccesscriteria.Monitoringmaybeextendedifnecessarytoachievethesuccesscriteriaorifdroughtconditionsprecluderestorationsuccess.Otherperformancestandardsmayalsoberequiredastheyrelatetospecial‐statusspecieshabitat;thesewillbeidentifiedincoordinationwithCDFWandincludedintheplan.TheprojectproponentwillprovideevidencethatCDFWhasreviewedandapprovedtheGrasslandRestorationPlan.Additionally,theprojectproponentwillprovideannualmonitoringreportstotheCountybyJanuary31ofeachyear,summarizingthemonitoringresultsandanyremedialmeasuresimplemented(ifanyarenecessary)duringthepreviousyear.

ImpactBIO‐5a‐2:PotentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforCaliforniatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,Californiared‐leggedfrog,andfoothillyellow‐leggedfrog—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Constructionactivitiesintheprogramareacouldresultindirecteffectsonspecial‐statusamphibiansortheirhabitats(seasonalwetland,freshwatermarsh,mixedwillowriparianscrub,ponds,drainages,andsurroundinguplandareas).Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonseasonalwetland,freshwatermarsh,mixedwillowriparianscrub,andpondsthatmayprovidehabitatforspecial‐statusamphibiansareshowninTable3.4‐7.ImpactsondrainagesthatmayprovidepotentialhabitatforCaliforniared‐leggedfrogandfoothillyellow‐leggedfrogcouldnotbeestimatedbecausethesefeatureshavenotyetbeendelineated.ThemajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceonsuitableuplandgrasslanddispersalandaestivationhabitatforCaliforniatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,andCaliforniared‐leggedfrog.Aquatichabitatsforspecials‐statusamphibianswouldgenerallybeavoided;however,directimpactsonhabitatandimpactsonwaterqualitycouldresultfromroadconstructionorwideningactivities.

Constructionactivitiessuchasexcavation,grading,orstockpilingofsoil,couldfill,removeorotherwisealtersuitablehabitatforspecial‐statusamphibiansorresultininjuryormortalityofindividualamphibians.Potentialdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjurybyequipment,entrapmentinopentrenchesorotherprojectfacilities,andremovalordisturbanceofuplandhabitatthatresultsindamageoreliminationofsuitableaestivationburrows.Specificactivitiesthatmayaffectthesespeciescouldincludeinstallationofpowercollectionandcommunicationsystems,turbineconstruction,roadinfrastructureconstruction/maintenanceandupgrades,meteorologicaltowerinstallationandremoval,temporarystagingareaset‐up,andreclamationactivities.Special‐





statusamphibianscouldbeinjuredorkilledifvehiclesorconstructionequipmentaredriventhroughoccupiedhabitat,orifgasoline,oil,orothercontaminantsenterhabitat.Changesinhydrologyorsedimentationofhabitatfromerosionassociatedwithprojectconstructioncouldalterthesuitabilityoftheirhabitatorcausemortality.

Operationandmaintenanceactivitiesmayalsoresultinimpactsonspecial‐statusamphibiansortheirhabitats.Travelonmaintenanceroadsduringtherainyseasonorwhenamphibiansaredispersingcouldresultinmortalityofindividuals.Roadandfirebreakmaintenancecouldresultindegradationofhabitatorinjuryormortalityofspecial‐statusamphibians.Theseimpactswouldbesignificantbecausetheycouldreducethelocalpopulationsizesoffederallylistedandsensitiveamphibiansthroughdirectmortalityorhabitatloss.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,andBIO‐5athroughBIO‐5cwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.







ImpactBIO‐5b:PotentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforCaliforniatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,Californiared‐leggedfrog,andfoothillyellow‐leggedfrog—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Impactsfromconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceoftheGoldenHillsProjectwouldbesimilartothosedescribedfortheprogram.ThemajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceonpotentialuplandgrasslanddispersalandaestivationhabitatforCaliforniatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,andCaliforniared‐leggedfrog.Aquatichabitatsforspecials‐statusamphibianswouldgenerallybeavoided;however,directimpactsonhabitatandimpactsonwaterqualitycouldresultfromroadconstructionorwideningactivities.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonseasonalwetland,mixedwillowriparianforest,andpondsthatmayprovidehabitatforspecial‐statusamphibiansareshowninTable3.4‐8.ImpactsondrainagesthatmayprovidepotentialhabitatforCaliforniared‐leggedfrogandfoothillyellow‐leggedfrogcouldnotbeestimatedbecausethesefeatureshavenotyetbeendelineated.Theseimpactswouldbesignificantbecausetheycouldreducethelocalpopulationsizesoffederallylistedandsensitiveamphibiansthroughdirectmortalityorhabitatloss.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,andBIO‐5athroughBIO‐5cwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.











ImpactBIO‐5c:PotentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforCaliforniatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,Californiared‐leggedfrog,andfoothillyellow‐leggedfrog—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Impactsfromconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceofthePattersonPassProjectwouldbesimilartothosedescribedfortheprogram.ThemajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceonpotentialuplandgrasslanddispersalandaestivationhabitatforCaliforniatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,andCaliforniared‐leggedfrog.Aquatichabitatsforspecials‐statusamphibianswouldgenerallybeavoided;however,directimpactsonhabitatandimpactsonwaterqualitycouldresultfromroadconstructionorwideningactivities.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonseasonalwetland,mixedwillowriparianforest,andpondsthatmayprovidehabitatforspecial‐statusamphibiansareshowninTable3.4‐9.ImpactsondrainagesthatmayprovidepotentialhabitatforCaliforniared‐leggedfrogandfoothillyellow‐leggedfrogcouldnotbeestimatedbecausethesefeatureshavenotyetbeendelineated.Theseimpactswouldbesignificantbecausetheycouldreducethelocalpopulationsizesoffederallylistedandsensitiveamphibiansthroughdirectmortalityorhabitatloss.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,Bio‐3,BIO‐5athroughBIO‐5cwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.











ImpactBIO‐6a‐1:Potentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforwesternpondturtle—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Constructionactivitiesintheprogramareacouldresultindirecteffectsonwesternpondturtleoritshabitats(ponds,reservoirs,drainages,andsurroundingriparianandgrasslandareas).Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonponds,reservoirs,riparian,andgrasslandthatmayprovidehabitatforwesternpondturtleareshowninTable3.4‐7.Impactsondrainagesthatmayprovidepotentialhabitatforwesternpondturtlecouldnotbeestimatedbecausethesefeatureshavenotyetbeendelineated.Becausethemajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceongrasslandhabitatalongridgelines,suitableaquatichabitatwouldgenerallybeavoided;however,directimpactsonhabitatandimpactsonwaterqualitycouldresultfromroadconstructionorwideningactivities.

Aquaticandupland(overwintering,nesting)habitatforwesternpondturtlemayberemovedortemporarilydisturbedbyconstructionactivities.Potentialdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjurybyequipment,entrapmentinopentrenchesorotherprojectfacilities,andremovalordisturbanceofaquaticoruplandnestinghabitat.Westernpondturtlescouldalsobeinjuredorkilledifgasoline,oil,orothercontaminantsenterhabitat.Declinesinpopulationsofwesternpondturtlethroughoutthespecies’rangehavebeendocumented(JenningsandHayes1994).Lossofindividualsintheprogramareacoulddiminishthelocalpopulationandlowerreproductivepotential,contributingtothefurtherdeclineofthespecies.Thelossofuplandnestingsitesoreggswouldalsodecreasethelocalpopulation.Thisimpactwouldbesignificant,butimplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,andBIO‐6wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.




MitigationMeasureBIO‐6:Conductpreconstructionsurveysforwesternpondturtleandmonitorconstructionactivitiesifturtlesareobserved

IfitisdeterminedthroughpreconstructionsurveysconductedpursuanttoMitigationMeasureBIO‐3athatsuitableaquaticoruplandhabitatforwesternpondturtleispresentwithinproposedworkareas,thefollowingmeasures,consistentwithmeasuresdevelopedfortheEACCS,willbeimplementedtoensurethattheproposedprojectdoesnothaveasignificantimpactonwesternpondturtle.

Oneweekbeforeandwithin24hoursofbeginningworkinsuitableaquatichabitat,aqualifiedbiologist(onewhoisfamiliarwithdifferentspeciesofturtles)willconductsurveysforwesternpondturtle.Thesurveysshouldbetimedtocoincidewiththetimeofdayandyearwhenturtlesaremostlikelytobeactive(duringthecoolerpartofthedaybetween8a.m.and12p.m.duringspringandsummer).Priortoconductingthesurveys,thebiologistshouldlocatethemicrohabitatsforturtlebasking(logs,rocks,brushthickets)anddeterminealocationtoquietlyobserveturtles.Eachsurveyshouldincludea30‐minutewaittimeafterarrivingonsitetoallowstartledturtlestoreturntoopenbaskingareas.The





surveyshouldconsistofaminimum15‐minuteobservationperiodforeachareawhereturtlescouldbeobserved.

Ifwesternpondturtlesareobservedduringeithersurvey,abiologicalmonitorwillbepresentduringconstructionactivitiesintheaquatichabitatwheretheturtlewasobserved.Thebiologicalmonitoralsowillbemindfulofsuitablenestingandoverwinteringareasinproximitytosuitableaquatichabitatandwillperiodicallyinspecttheseareasfornestsandturtles.

Ifoneormorewesternpondturtlesarefoundintheworkareaduringconstructionandcannotordonotmoveoffsiteontheirown,aqualifiedbiologistwillremoveandrelocatetheturtletoappropriateaquatichabitatoutsideandawayfromtheconstructionarea.RelocationofwesternpondturtlerequiresaletterfromCDFWauthorizingthisactivity.

ImpactBIO‐6a‐2:Potentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforwesternpondturtle—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Constructionactivitiesintheprogramareacouldresultindirecteffectsonwesternpondturtleoritshabitats(ponds,reservoirs,drainages,andsurroundingriparianandgrasslandareas).Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonponds,reservoirs,riparian,andgrasslandthatmayprovidehabitatforwesternpondturtleareshowninTable3.4‐7.Impactsondrainagesthatmayprovidepotentialhabitatforwesternpondturtlecouldnotbeestimatedbecausethesefeatureshavenotyetbeendelineated.Becausethemajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceongrasslandhabitatalongridgelines,suitableaquatichabitatwouldgenerallybeavoided;however,directimpactsonhabitatandimpactsonwaterqualitycouldresultfromroadconstructionorwideningactivities.

Aquaticandupland(overwintering,nesting)habitatforwesternpondturtlemayberemovedortemporarilydisturbedbyconstructionactivities.Potentialdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjurybyequipment,entrapmentinopentrenchesorotherprojectfacilities,andremovalordisturbanceofaquaticoruplandnestinghabitat.Westernpondturtlescouldalsobeinjuredorkilledifgasoline,oil,orothercontaminantsenterhabitat.Declinesinpopulationsofwesternpondturtlethroughoutthespecies’rangehavebeendocumented(JenningsandHayes1994).Lossofindividualsintheprogramareacoulddiminishthelocalpopulationandlowerreproductivepotential,contributingtothefurtherdeclineofthespecies.Thelossofuplandnestingsitesoreggswouldalsodecreasethelocalpopulation.Thisimpactwouldbesignificant,butimplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,andBIO‐6wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.









ImpactBIO‐6b:Potentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforwesternpondturtle—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Impactsfromconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceoftheGoldenHillsProjectwouldbesimilartothosedescribedfortheprogram.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonponds,mixedwillowriparianscrub,andgrasslandthatmayprovidehabitatforwesternpondturtleareshowninTable3.4‐8.Impactsondrainagesthatmayprovidepotentialhabitatforwesternpondturtlecouldnotbeestimatedbecausethesefeatureshavenotyetbeendelineated.Becausethemajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceongrasslandhabitatalongridgelines,suitableaquatichabitatwouldgenerallybeavoided;however,directimpactsonhabitatandimpactsonwaterqualitycouldresultfromroadconstructionorwideningactivities.

Aquaticandupland(overwintering,nesting)habitatforwesternpondturtlemayberemovedortemporarilydisturbedbyconstructionactivities.Potentialdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjurybyequipment,entrapmentinopentrenchesorotherprojectfacilities,andremovalordisturbanceofaquaticoruplandnestinghabitat.Westernpondturtlescouldalsobeinjuredorkilledifgasoline,oil,orothercontaminantsenterhabitat.Declinesinpopulationsofwesternpondturtlethroughoutthespecies’rangehavebeendocumented(JenningsandHayes1994).Lossofindividualsintheprojectareacoulddiminishthelocalpopulationandlowerreproductivepotential,contributingtothefurtherdeclineofthespecies.Thelossofuplandnestingsitesoreggswouldalsodecreasethelocalpopulation.Thisimpactwouldbesignificant,butimplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,andBIO‐6wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.





ImpactBIO‐6c:Potentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforwesternpondturtle—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Impactsfromconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceofthePattersonPassProjectwouldbesimilartothosedescribedfortheprogram.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonponds,mixedwillowriparianscrub,andgrasslandthatmayprovidehabitatforwesternpondturtleareshowninTable3.4‐9.Impactsondrainagesthatmayprovidepotentialhabitatforwesternpondturtlecouldnotbeestimatedbecausethesefeatureshavenotyetbeendelineated.Becausethemajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceongrasslandhabitatalongridgelines,suitableaquatichabitatwouldgenerallybeavoided;however,directimpactsonhabitatandimpactsonwaterqualitycouldresultfromroadconstructionorwideningactivities.





Aquaticandupland(overwintering,nesting)habitatforwesternpondturtlemayberemovedortemporarilydisturbedbyconstructionactivities.Potentialdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjurybyequipment,entrapmentinopentrenchesorotherprojectfacilities,andremovalordisturbanceofaquaticoruplandnestinghabitat.Westernpondturtlescouldalsobeinjuredorkilledifgasoline,oil,orothercontaminantsenterhabitat.Declinesinpopulationsofwesternpondturtlethroughoutthespecies’rangehavebeendocumented(JenningsandHayes1994).Lossofindividualsintheprojectareacoulddiminishthelocalpopulationandlowerreproductivepotential,contributingtothefurtherdeclineofthespecies.Thelossofuplandnestingsitesoreggswouldalsodecreasethelocalpopulation.Thisimpactwouldbesignificant,butimplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,andBIO‐6wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.





ImpactBIO‐7a‐1:PotentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforBlainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,andSanJoaquincoachwhip—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ConstructionactivitiesintheprogramareacouldresultindirecteffectsonBlainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,andSanJoaquincoachwhiportheirhabitats(grassland,chaparral,oakwoodland,andscrub).Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsongrassland,chaparral,oakwoodland,andscrubthatmayprovidehabitatforthesespeciesareshowninTable3.4‐7.Itisanticipatedthatthemajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceongrasslandhabitatalongridgelinesandthatlossofchaparral,oakwoodland,andscrubhabitatwouldbeminimal.Potentialdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjurybyequipment,entrapmentinopentrenchesorotherprojectfacilities,andremovalordisturbanceofhabitat.Operationandmaintenanceactivities,suchasroadandfirebreakmaintenance,mayalsoresultininjuryormortalityofindividuals.Blainville’shornedlizardhasdisappearedfromportionsofitsrangeandcontinuestobethreatenedbydevelopmentinotherportionsofitsrange(JenningsandHayes1994:132).Alamedawhipsnakeisstate‐andfederallylistedasthreatenedbecauseofhabitatlossandfragmentationresultingfromurbandevelopment(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2002b:69).SanJoaquincoachwhiphasarestrictedgeographicrangeandisthreatenedbycontinuedconversionofitshabitattocroplandandurbandevelopment(JenningsandHayes1994:164).Lossofindividualsintheprogramareacoulddiminishthelocalpopulationsofthesespeciesandlowerreproductivepotential,contributingtothefurtherdeclineofthesespecies.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐5c,BIO‐7a,andBIO‐7bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevelbyreducingthepotentialforinjuryandmortalityofindividuals,restoringdisturbedhabitat,andcompensatingforpermanenthabitatloss.









MitigationMeasureBIO‐7a:Implementbestmanagementpracticestoavoidandminimizeeffectsonspecial‐statusreptiles

WheresuitablehabitatforBlainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,orSanJoaquincoachwhipisidentifiedinproposedworkareas,allprojectproponentswillensurethatBMPsandotherappropriatemeasures,inaccordancewithmeasuresdevelopedfortheEACCS,beincorporatedintotheappropriatedesignandconstructiondocuments.ImplementationofsomeofthesemeasureswillrequirethattheprojectproponentobtainincidentaltakepermitsfromUSFWSandCDFW(Alamedawhipsnake)beforeconstructionbegins.Additionalconservationmeasuresorconditionsofapprovalmayberequiredinapplicableprojectpermits(i.e.,ESAincidentaltakepermit).

Aqualifiedbiologistwillconductpreconstructionsurveysimmediatelypriortoground‐disturbingactivities(e.g.,equipmentstaging,vegetationremoval,grading)associatedwiththeprogram.IfanyBlainville’shornedlizards,Alamedawhipsnakes,orSanJoaquincoachwhipsarefound,workwillnotbeginuntiltheyaremovedoutoftheworkareatoaUSFWS‐and/orCDFW‐approvedrelocationsite.IncidentaltakepermitsfromUSFWSandCDFWarerequiredforrelocationofAlamedawhipsnake.RelocationofBlainville’shornedlizardandSanJoaquincoachwhiprequiresaletterfromCDFWauthorizingthisactivity.

Nomonofilamentplasticwillbeusedforerosioncontrol.

Whereapplicable,barrierfencingwillbeusedtoexcludeBlainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,andSanJoaquincoachwhip.Barrierfencingwillberemovedwithin72hoursofcompletionofwork.

Workcrewsoranonsitebiologicalmonitorwillinspectopentrenchesandpitsandunderconstructionequipmentandmaterialsleftonsiteforspecial‐statusreptileseachmorningandeveningduringconstruction.

Grounddisturbanceinsuitablehabitatwillbeminimized.

Vegetationwithintheproposedworkareawillberemovedpriortograding.Priortoclearingandgrubbingoperations,aqualifiedbiologistwillclearlymarkvegetationwithintheworkareathatwillbeavoided.Vegetationoutsidetheworkareawillnotberemoved.Wherepossiblehandtools(e.g.,trimmer,chainsaw)willbeusedtotrimorremovevegetation.Allvegetationremovalwillbemonitoredbythequalifiedbiologisttominimizeimpactsonspecial‐statusreptiles.

Ifspecial‐statusreptilesarefoundintheworkareaduringconstructionandcannotordonotmoveoffsiteontheirown,aqualifiedbiologistwhoisUSFWS‐and/orCDFW‐approved





underanincidentaltakepermitforthespecificprojectwilltrapandmovetheanimal(s)toaUSFWSand/orCDFW‐approvedrelocationarea.IncidentaltakepermitsfromUSFWSandCDFWarerequiredforrelocationofAlamedawhipsnake.RelocationofBlainville’shornedlizardandSanJoaquincoachwhiprequiresaletterfromCDFWauthorizingthisactivity.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐7b:Compensateforlossofhabitatforspecial‐statusreptiles

Whereimpactsonhabitatforspecial‐statusreptilescannotbeavoidedorminimized,compensatorymitigationwillbeundertakeninaccordancewithmitigationratiosandrequirementsdevelopedundertheEACCS(AppendixC).IntheeventthatincidentaltakepermitsarerequiredforAlamedawhipsnake,compensatorymitigationwillbeundertakeninaccordancewiththetermsofpermitsinconsultationwithUSFWSandCDFW.

ImpactBIO‐7a‐2:PotentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforBlainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,andSanJoaquincoachwhip—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.ConstructionactivitiesintheprogramareacouldresultindirecteffectsonBlainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,andSanJoaquincoachwhiportheirhabitats(grassland,chaparral,oakwoodland,andscrub).Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsongrassland,chaparral,oakwoodland,andscrubthatmayprovidehabitatforthesespeciesareshowninTable3.4‐7.Itisanticipatedthatthemajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceongrasslandhabitatalongridgelinesandthatlossofchaparral,oakwoodland,andscrubhabitatwouldbeminimal.Potentialdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjurybyequipment,entrapmentinopentrenchesorotherprojectfacilities,andremovalordisturbanceofhabitat.Operationandmaintenanceactivities,suchasroadandfirebreakmaintenance,mayalsoresultininjuryormortalityofindividuals.Blainville’shornedlizardhasdisappearedfromportionsofitsrangeandcontinuestobethreatenedbydevelopmentinotherportionsofitsrange(JenningsandHayes1994:132).Alamedawhipsnakeisstate‐andfederallylistedasthreatenedbecauseofhabitatlossandfragmentationresultingfromurbandevelopment(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2002b:69).SanJoaquincoachwhiphasarestrictedgeographicrangeandisthreatenedbycontinuedconversionofitshabitattocroplandandurbandevelopment(JenningsandHayes1994:164).Lossofindividualsintheprogramareacoulddiminishthelocalpopulationsofthesespeciesandlowerreproductivepotential,contributingtothefurtherdeclineofthesespecies.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐5c,BIO‐7a,andBIO‐7bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevelbyreducingthepotentialforinjuryandmortalityofindividuals,restoringdisturbedhabitat,andcompensatingforpermanenthabitatloss.











ImpactBIO‐7b:PotentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforBlainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,andSanJoaquincoachwhip—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Impactsfromconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceoftheGoldenHillsProjectwouldbesimilartothosedescribedfortheprogram.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsongrassland,chaparral,oakwoodland,andscrubthatmayprovidehabitatforBlainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,orSanJoaquincoachwhipareshowninTable3.4‐8.Itisanticipatedthatthemajorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceongrasslandhabitatalongridgelinesandthatlossofchaparral,oakwoodland,andscrubhabitatwouldbeminimal.Potentialdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjurybyequipment,entrapmentinopentrenchesorotherprojectfacilities,andremovalordisturbanceofhabitat.Operationandmaintenanceactivities,suchasroadandfirebreakmaintenance,mayalsoresultininjuryormortalityofindividuals.Lossofindividualsintheprojectareacoulddiminishthelocalpopulationsofthesespeciesandlowerreproductivepotential,contributingtothefurtherdeclineofthesespecies.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact,butimplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐5c,BIO‐7a,andBIO‐7bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.







ImpactBIO‐7c:PotentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforBlainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,andSanJoaquincoachwhip—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Impactsfromconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceofthePattersonPassProjectwouldbesimilartothosedescribedfortheprogram.EstimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsongrasslandandmixedwillowriparianscrubthatmayprovidehabitatforBlainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,orSanJoaquincoachwhipareshowninTable3.4‐9.Itisanticipatedthatthe





majorityofconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceongrasslandhabitatalongridgelinesandthatlossofmixedwillowriparianscrubhabitatwouldbeminimal.Potentialdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjurybyequipment,entrapmentinopentrenchesorotherprojectfacilities,andremovalordisturbanceofhabitat.Operationandmaintenanceactivities,suchasroadandfirebreakmaintenance,mayalsoresultininjuryormortalityofindividuals.Lossofindividualsintheprojectareacoulddiminishthelocalpopulationsofthesespeciesandlowerreproductivepotential,contributingtothefurtherdeclineofthesespecies.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐5c,BIO‐7a,andBIO‐7bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.







ImpactBIO‐8a‐1:Potentialconstruction‐relateddisturbanceormortalityofspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Constructionactivitiesduringthenestingseason(generallyFebruary1–August31)ofwhite‐tailedkite,baldeagle,northernharrier,Swainson’shawk,goldeneagle,westernburrowingowl,loggerheadshrike,andtricoloredblackbirdcouldresultindirecteffectsonthesespecies,aswellasonnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds,iftheyarenestingintheprogramarea.Suitablenestinghabitatmaybepresentinnearlyalllandcovertypesintheprogramarea.Removalofgrassland,burrows,wetlandandmarshvegetation,andtreesorshrubswithactivenestsandconstructiondisturbanceduringthebreedingseasonmayresultinnestabandonmentandsubsequentlossofeggsoryoung.Becausetheplacementofwindturbineswouldgenerallybeonthetopsofhillsandridgelinesintheprogramareawheretreesarenotgenerallypresent,thenumberoftreestoberemovedisexpectedtobeverylow.Exclusionofburrowingowlsfromtheirburrowsduringthenon‐nestingseasonaspartofeffortstoavoidorminimizesomeformsofdirecttakecouldresultinharmofburrowingowls.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonsuitableforaginghabitat(grassland,cropland,alkalimeadowandscald,andwetlands)forspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirdsareshowninTable3.4‐7.Suchlossescouldaffectthelocalpopulationofspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirds.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐5c,BIO‐8a,andBIO‐8bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.









MitigationMeasureBIO‐8a:Implementmeasurestoavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusnestingbirds

Wheresuitablehabitatispresentforraptorswithin1mile(within2milesforgoldeneagles)andfortree/shrub‐andground‐nestingmigratorybirds(non‐raptors)within50feetofproposedworkareas,thefollowingmeasureswillbeimplementedtoensurethattheproposedprojectdoesnothaveasignificantimpactonnestingspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirds.

Removesuitablenestinghabitat(shrubsandtrees)duringthenon‐breedingseason(typicallySeptember1–January31)fornestingbirds.

Totheextentfeasible,avoidconstructionactivitiesinornearsuitableoroccupiednestinghabitatduringthebreedingseasonofbirds(generallyFebruary1–August31).

Ifconstructionactivities(includingvegetationremoval,clearing,andgrading)willoccurduringthenestingseasonformigratorybirds,aqualifiedbiologistwillconductpreconstructionnestingbirdsurveyswithin7dayspriortoconstructionactivities.Theconstructionareaanda1‐milebufferwillbesurveyedfortree‐nestingraptors(exceptforgoldeneagles),anda50‐footbufferwillbesurveyedforallotherbirdspecies.

Surveystolocateeaglenestswithin2milesofconstructionwillbeconductedduringthebreedingseasonpriortoconstruction.A1‐mileno‐disturbancebufferwillbeimplementedforconstructionactivitiestoprotectnestingeaglesfromdisturbance.ThroughcoordinationwithUSFWS,theno‐disturbancebuffermaybereducedto0.5mileifconstructionactivitiesarenotwithinline‐of‐sightofthenest.

Ifanactivenest(otherthangoldeneagle)isidentifiednearaproposedworkareaandworkcannotbeconductedoutsidethenestingseason(February1–August31),ano‐activityzonewillbeestablishedaroundthenestbyaqualifiedbiologistincoordinationwithUSFWSand/orCDFW.Fencingand/orflaggingwillbeusedtodelineatetheno‐activityzone.Tominimizethepotentialtoaffectthereproductivesuccessofthenestingpair,theextentoftheno‐activityzonewillbebasedonthedistanceoftheactivitytothenest,thetypeandextentoftheproposedactivity,thedurationandtimingoftheactivity,thesensitivityandhabituationofthespecies,andthedissimilarityoftheproposedactivitytobackgroundactivities.Theno‐activityzonewillbelargeenoughtoavoidnestabandonmentandwillbebetween50feetand1milefromthenest,orasotherwiserequiredbyUSFWSand/orCDFW.





MitigationMeasureBIO‐8b:Implementmeasurestoavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonwesternburrowingowl

Wheresuitablehabitatforwesternburrowingowlisinorwithin500feetofproposedworkareas,thefollowingmeasureswillbeimplementedtoavoidorminimizepotentialadverseimpactsonburrowingowls.

Tothemaximumextentfeasible(e.g.,wheretheconstructionfootprintcanbemodified),constructionactivitieswithin500feetofactiveburrowingowlburrowswillbeavoidedduringthenestingseason(February1–August31).

Aqualifiedbiologistwillconductpreconstructiontakeavoidancesurveysforburrowingowlnolessthan14dayspriortoandwithin24hoursofinitiatingground‐disturbingactivities.Thesurveyareawillencompasstheworkareaanda500‐footbufferaroundthisarea.

Ifanactiveburrowisidentifiednearaproposedworkareaandworkcannotbeconductedoutsidethenestingseason(February1–August31),ano‐activityzonewillbeestablishedbyaqualifiedbiologistincoordinationwithCDFW.Theno‐activityzonewillbelargeenoughtoavoidnestabandonmentandwillextendaminimumof250feetaroundtheburrow.

Ifburrowingowlsarepresentatthesiteduringthenon‐breedingseason(September1–January31),aqualifiedbiologistwillestablishano‐activityzonethatextendsaminimumof150feetaroundtheburrow.

Ifthedesignatedno‐activityzoneforeitherbreedingornon‐breedingburrowingowlscannotbeestablished,awildlifebiologistexperiencedinburrowingowlbehaviorwillevaluatesite‐specificconditionsand,incoordinationwithCDFW,recommendasmallerbuffer(ifpossible)and/orothermeasurethatstillminimizesdisturbanceoftheowls(whileallowingreproductivesuccessduringthebreedingseason).Thesite‐specificbuffer(and/orothermeasure)willconsiderthetypeandextentoftheproposedactivityoccurringneartheoccupiedburrow,thedurationandtimingoftheactivity,thesensitivityandhabituationoftheowls,andthedissimilarityoftheproposedactivitytobackgroundactivities.

Ifburrowingowlsarepresentinthedirectdisturbanceareaandcannotbeavoidedduringthenon‐breedingseason(generallySeptember1throughJanuary31),burrowingowlsmaybeexcludedfromburrowsthroughtheinstallationofone‐waydoorsatburrowentrances.Aburrowingowlexclusionplan,preparedbytheprojectproponent,mustbeapprovedbyCDFWpriortoexclusionofowls.One‐waydoors(e.g.,modifieddryerventsorotherCDFW‐approvedmethod)willbeleftinplaceforaminimumof1weekandmonitoreddailytoensurethattheowl(s)havelefttheburrow(s).Excavationoftheburrowwillbeconductedusinghandtools.Duringexcavationoftheburrow,asectionofflexibleplasticpipe(atleast3inchesindiameter)willbeinsertedintotheburrowtunneltomaintainanescaperouteforanyanimalsthatmaybeinsidetheburrow.Owlswillbeexcludedfromtheirburrowsasalastresortandonlyifotheravoidanceandminimizationmeasurescannotbeimplemented.

Avoiddestructionofunoccupiedburrowsoutsidetheworkareaandplacevisiblemarkersnearburrowstoensurethattheyarenotcollapsed.

Conductongoingsurveillanceoftheprojectsiteforburrowingowlsduringprojectactivities.Ifadditionalowlsareobservedusingburrowswithin500feetofconstruction,theonsitebiologicalmonitorwilldetermine,incoordinationwithCDFW,iftheowl(s)areorwouldbeaffectedbyconstructionactivitiesandifadditionalexclusionzonesarerequired.





ImpactBIO‐8a‐2:Potentialconstruction‐relateddisturbanceormortalityofspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Constructionactivitiesduringthenestingseason(generallyFebruary1–August31)ofwhite‐tailedkite,baldeagle,northernharrier,Swainson’shawk,goldeneagle,westernburrowingowl,loggerheadshrike,andtricoloredblackbirdcouldresultindirecteffectsonthesespecies,aswellasonnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds,iftheyarenestingintheprogramarea.Suitablenestinghabitatmaybepresentinnearlyalllandcovertypesintheprogramarea.Removalofgrassland,burrows,wetlandandmarshvegetation,andtreesorshrubswithactivenestsandconstructiondisturbanceduringthebreedingseasonmayresultinnestabandonmentandsubsequentlossofeggsoryoung.Becausetheplacementofwindturbineswouldgenerallybeonthetopsofhillsandridgelinesintheprogramareawheretreesarenotgenerallypresent,thenumberoftreestoberemovedisexpectedtobeverylow.Exclusionofburrowingowlsfromtheirburrowsduringthenon‐nestingseasonaspartofeffortstoavoidorminimizesomeformsofdirecttakecouldresultinharmofburrowingowls.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonsuitableforaginghabitat(grassland,cropland,alkalimeadowandscald,andwetlands)forspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirdsareshowninTable3.4‐7.Suchlossescouldaffectthelocalpopulationofspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirds.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐5c,BIO‐8a,andBIO‐8bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.







ImpactBIO‐8b:Potentialconstruction‐relateddisturbanceormortalityofspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Constructionactivitiesduringthenestingseason(generallyFebruary1–August31)ofwhite‐tailedkite,baldeagle,northernharrier,Swainson’shawk,goldeneagle,westernburrowingowl,loggerheadshrike,andtricoloredblackbirdcouldresultindirecteffectsonthesespecies,aswellasonnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds,iftheyarenestingintheprojectarea.Suitablenesting





habitatmaybepresentinnearlyalllandcovertypesintheprojectarea.Removalofgrassland,burrows,wetlandandmarshvegetation,andtreesorshrubswithactivenestsandconstructiondisturbanceduringthebreedingseasonmayresultinnestabandonmentandsubsequentlossofeggsoryoung.Becausetheplacementofwindturbineswouldgenerallybeonthetopsofhillsandridgelinesintheprogramareawheretreesarenotgenerallypresent,thenumberoftreestoberemovedisexpectedtobeverylow.Exclusionofburrowingowlsfromtheirburrowsduringthenon‐nestingseasonaspartofeffortstoavoidorminimizesomeformsofdirecttakecouldresultinharmofburrowingowls.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonsuitableforaginghabitat(grassland,cropland,alkalimeadowandscald,andwetlands)forspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirdsareshowninTable3.4‐8.Suchlossescouldaffectthelocalpopulationofspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirds.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐5c,BIO‐8a,andBIO‐8bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.





MitigationMeasureBIO‐8a:Implementmeasurestoavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonspecial‐statusandnon‐special‐statusnestingbirds


ImpactBIO‐8c:Potentialconstruction‐relateddisturbanceormortalityofspecial‐statusandnon‐special‐statusmigratorybirds—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Constructionactivitiesduringthenestingseason(generallyFebruary1–August31)ofwhite‐tailedkite,northernharrier,Swainson’shawk,goldeneagle,westernburrowingowl,loggerheadshrike,andtricoloredblackbirdcouldresultindirecteffectsonthesespecies,aswellasonnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds,iftheyarenestingintheprojectarea.Suitablenestinghabitatmaybepresentinnearlyalllandcovertypesintheprojectarea.Removalofgrassland,burrows,wetlandvegetation,andtreesorshrubswithactivenestsandconstructiondisturbanceduringthebreedingseasonmayresultinnestabandonmentandsubsequentlossofeggsoryoung.Becausetheplacementofwindturbineswouldgenerallybeonthetopsofhillsandridgelinesintheprogramareawheretreesarenotgenerallypresent,thenumberoftreestoberemovedisexpectedtobeverylow.Exclusionofburrowingowlsfromtheirburrowsduringthenon‐nestingseasonaspartofeffortstoavoidorminimizesomeformsofdirecttakecouldresultinharmofburrowingowls.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonsuitableforaginghabitat(grassland,mixedwillowriparianscrub,andwetlands)forspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirdsareshowninTable3.4‐9.Suchlossescouldaffectthelocalpopulationofspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirds.This





wouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐5c,BIO‐8a,andBIO‐8bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.







ImpactBIO‐9a‐1:Permanentandtemporarylossofoccupiedhabitatforwesternburrowingowlandforaginghabitatfortricoloredblackbirdandotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirds—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Implementationoftheprogramwouldresultinthetemporaryandpermanentlossofgrasslandthatprovidessuitableforaginghabitatforburrowingowlandanumberofotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds.BecauseofthelimiteduseoftheprogramareabySwainson’shawksforforaging,nocompensationisproposedforthelossofforaginghabitatforSwainson’shawk.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonsuitablegrasslandforaginghabitatforburrowingowl,tricoloredblackbird,andotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirdsareshowninTable3.4‐7.Thelossofgrasslandforaginghabitatforspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirdswouldbecompensatedthroughimplementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐5b(forspecial‐statusamphibians)and/orthroughthestandardizedmitigationratiosfornonlistedspeciesdevelopedfortheEACCS(AppendixC).

CDFWhasdeterminedthatcompensationisrequiredforpermanentlossofoccupiedburrowingowlhabitat(i.e.,whereburrowingowlshavebeendocumentedtooccupyburrowsinthepreceding3years).Permanentlossofoccupiedburrowingowlhabitatcouldaffectthelocalpopulationandwouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐5b,BIO‐5c,andBIO‐9wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.



MitigationMeasureBIO‐9:Compensateforthepermanentlossofoccupiedhabitatforwesternburrowingowl

Ifconstructionactivitieswouldresultintheremovalofoccupiedburrowingowlhabitat(determinedduringpreconstructionsurveysdescribedinMitigationMeasureBIO‐8a),this





habitatlosswillbemitigatedbypermanentlyprotectingmitigationlandthroughaconservationeasementorbyimplementingalternativemitigationdeterminedthroughconsultationwithCDFWasdescribedinitsStaffReportonBurrowingOwlMitigation(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame2012:11–13).TheprojectproponentwillworkwithCDFWtodevelopthecompensationplan,whichwillbesubjecttoCountyreviewandapproval.

ImpactBIO‐9a‐2:Permanentandtemporarylossofoccupiedhabitatforwesternburrowingowlandforaginghabitatfortricoloredblackbirdandotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirds—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Implementationoftheprogramwouldresultinthetemporaryandpermanentlossofgrasslandthatprovidessuitableforaginghabitatforburrowingowlandanumberofotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds.BecauseofthelimiteduseoftheprogramareabySwainson’shawksforforaging,nocompensationisproposedforthelossofforaginghabitatforSwainson’shawk.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonsuitablegrasslandforaginghabitatforburrowingowl,tricoloredblackbird,andotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirdsareshowninTable3.4‐7.Thelossofgrasslandforaginghabitatforspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirdswouldbecompensatedthroughimplementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐5b(forspecial‐statusamphibians)and/orthroughthestandardizedmitigationratiosfornonlistedspeciesdevelopedfortheEACCS(AppendixC).

CDFWhasdeterminedthatcompensationisrequiredforpermanentlossofoccupiedburrowingowlhabitat(i.e.,whereburrowingowlshavebeendocumentedtooccupyburrowsinthepreceding3years).Permanentlossofoccupiedburrowingowlhabitatcouldaffectthelocalpopulationandwouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐5b,BIO‐5c,andBIO‐9wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.




ImpactBIO‐9b:Permanentandtemporarylossofoccupiedhabitatforwesternburrowingowlandforaginghabitatfortricoloredblackbirdandotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirds—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ConstructionoftheGoldenHillsProjectwouldresultinthetemporaryandpermanentlossofgrasslandthatprovidessuitableforaginghabitatforburrowingowl,tricoloredblackbird,andanumberofotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonsuitablegrasslandforaginghabitatforburrowingowl,tricoloredblackbird,andotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirdsareshowninTable3.4‐8.Thelossofgrasslandforaginghabitatforspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirdswouldbecompensatedthroughimplementationofMitigationMeasure5b(forspecial‐statusamphibians)and/orthroughthestandardizedmitigationratiosfornon‐listedspeciesdevelopedfortheEACCS(AppendixC).





CDFWhasdeterminedthatcompensationisrequiredforpermanentlossofoccupiedburrowingowlhabitat(i.e.,whereburrowingowlshavebeendocumentedtooccupyburrowsinthepreceding3years).Permanentlossofoccupiedhabitatcouldaffectthelocalpopulationandwouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐5b,BIO‐5c,andBIO‐9wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.




ImpactBIO‐9c:Permanentandtemporarylossofoccupiedhabitatforwesternburrowingowlandforaginghabitatfortricoloredblackbirdandotherspecial‐statusandnon‐special‐statusbirds—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ConstructionofthePattersonPassProjectwouldresultinthetemporaryandpermanentlossofgrasslandthatprovidessuitableforaginghabitatforburrowingowl,tricoloredblackbird,andanumberofotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds.Estimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsonsuitablegrasslandforaginghabitatforburrowingowl,tricoloredblackbird,andotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirdsareshowninTable3.4‐9.Thelossofgrasslandforaginghabitatforspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusbirdswouldbecompensatedthroughimplementationofMitigationMeasure5b(forspecial‐statusamphibians)and/orthroughthestandardizedmitigationratiosfornon‐listedspeciesdevelopedfortheEACCS(AppendixC).

CDFWhasdeterminedthatcompensationisrequiredforpermanentlossofoccupiedburrowingowlhabitat(i.e.,whereburrowingowlshavebeendocumentedtooccupyburrowsinthepreceding3years).Permanentlossofoccupiedhabitatcouldaffectthelocalpopulationandwouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐5candBIO‐9wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.




ImpactBIO‐10a‐1:PotentialinjuryormortalityofandlossofhabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ConstructionactivitiesintheprogramareacouldresultindirecteffectsonSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadgerortheirgrasslandhabitat.EstimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsongrasslandthatprovidesuitabledenningandforaginghabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadgerareshowninTable3.4‐7.Inadditiontothepermanentandtemporaryremovalofhabitat,otherpotentialdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjuryofindividualsfromconstructionvehiclesorheavyequipment,directmortalityorinjuryofindividualsfromdencollapseandsubsequentsuffocation,temporarydisturbancefromnoiseandhumanpresenceassociatedwithconstruction





activities,andharassmentofindividualsbyconstructionpersonnel.Additionally,exposedpipes,largeexcavatedholes,ortrenchesthatareleftopenafterconstructionhasfinishedforthedaycouldentrapSanJoaquinkitfoxesorAmericanbadgers.Operationandmaintenanceactivities,suchasroadandfirebreakmaintenance,mayalsoresultininjuryormortalityofindividuals.SanJoaquinkitfoxisfederallylistedasendangeredandstate‐listedasthreatenedbecauseofhabitatlossresultingfromagriculturaldevelopment,infrastructureconstruction,andurbandevelopment(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2010:25).Americanbadgerhasexperienceddrasticdeclines,particularlyintheCentralValley,andhasbeenextirpatedfrommanyareasinsouthernCalifornia(Williams1986:66).Lossofindividualsintheprogramareacoulddiminishthelocalpopulationsofthesespeciesandreducereproductivepotential,contributingtothefurtherdeclineofthesespecies.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐5c,BIO‐10a,andBIO‐10bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.





MitigationMeasureBIO‐10a:ImplementmeasurestoavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger

WheresuitablehabitatispresentforSanJoaquinfitfoxandAmericanbadgerinandadjacenttoproposedworkareas,thefollowingmeasures,consistentwithmeasuresdevelopedintheEACCS,willbeimplementedtoensurethatproposedprojectsdonothaveasignificantimpactonSanJoaquinkitfoxorAmericanbadger.ImplementationofsomeofthesemeasureswillrequirethattheprojectproponentobtainincidentaltakepermitsfromUSFWSandCDFW(SanJoaquinkitfox)beforeconstructionbegins.ImplementationofstateandfederalrequirementscontainedinsuchauthorizationmayconstitutecompliancewithcorrespondingmeasuresinthisPEIR..

Tothemaximumextentfeasible,suitabledensforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadgerwillbeavoided.

Allprojectproponentswillretainqualifiedapprovedbiologists(asdeterminedbyUSFWS)toconductapreconstructionsurveyforpotentialSanJoaquinkitfoxdens(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2011).ResumesofbiologistswillbesubmittedtoUSFWSforreviewandapprovalpriortothestartofthesurvey.

PreconstructionsurveysforAmericanbadgerswillbeconductedinconjunctionwithSanJoaquinkitfoxpreconstructionsurveys.

AsdescribedinU.S.FishandWildlifeService2011,thepreconstructionsurveywillbeconductednolessthan14daysandnomorethan30daysbeforethebeginningofgrounddisturbance,oranyactivitylikelytoaffectSanJoaquinkitfox.ThebiologistswillconductdensearchesbysystematicallywalkingtransectsthroughtheprojectareaandabufferareatobedeterminedincoordinationwithUSFWSandCDFW.Transectdistanceshouldbebased





ontheheightofvegetationsuchthat100%visualcoverageoftheprojectareaisachieved.Ifapotentialorknowndenisfoundduringthesurvey,thebiologistwillmeasurethesizeoftheden,evaluatetheshapeofthedenentrances,andnotetracks,scat,preyremains,andrecentexcavationsatthedensite.Thebiologistswillalsodeterminethestatusofthedensandmapthefeatures.DenswillbeclassifiedinoneofthefollowingfourdenstatuscategoriesdefinedbyUSFWS(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2011).

Potentialden:Anysubterraneanholewithinthespecies’rangethathasentrancesofappropriatedimensionsandforwhichavailableevidenceissufficienttoconcludethatitisbeingusedorhasbeenusedbyakitfox.Potentialdensinclude(1)anysuitablesubterraneanhole;or(2)anydenorburrowofanotherspecies(e.g.,coyote,badger,redfox,groundsquirrel)thatotherwisehasappropriatecharacteristicsforkitfoxuse;oranartificialstructurethatotherwisehasappropriatecharacteristicsforkitfoxuse.

Knownden:AnyexistingnaturaldenorartificialstructurethatisusedorhasbeenusedatanytimeinthepastbyaSanJoaquinkitfox.Evidenceofusemayincludehistoricalrecords;pastorcurrentradiotelemetryorspotlightingdata;kitfoxsignsuchastracks,scat,and/orpreyremains;orotherreasonableproofthatagivendenisbeingorhasbeenusedbyakitfox(USFWSdiscouragesuseofthetermsactiveandinactivewhenreferringtoanykitfoxdenbecauseagreatpercentageofoccupieddensshownoevidenceofuse,andbecausekitfoxeschangedensoften,withtheresultthatthestatusofagivendenmaychangefrequentlyandabruptly).

Knownnatalorpuppingden:Anydenthatisused,orhasbeenusedatanytimeinthepast,bykitfoxestowhelpand/orreartheirpups.Natal/puppingdensmaybelargerwithmorenumerousentrancesthandensoccupiedexclusivelybyadults.Thesedenstypicallyhavemorekitfoxtracks,scat,andpreyremainsinthevicinityoftheden,andmayhaveabroaderapronofmatteddirtorvegetationatoneormoreentrances.Anatalden,definedasadeninwhichkitfoxpupsareactuallywhelpedbutnotnecessarilyreared,isamorerestrictiveversionofthepuppingden.Inpractice,however,itisdifficulttodistinguishbetweenthetwo;therefore,forpurposesofthisdefinitioneithertermapplies.

Knownatypicalden:AnyartificialstructurethathasbeenorisbeingoccupiedbyaSanJoaquinkitfox.Atypicaldensmayincludepipes,culverts,anddiggingsbeneathconcreteslabsandbuildings.

WrittenresultsofthesurveyincludingthelocationsofanypotentialorknownSanJoaquinkitfoxdenswillbesubmittedtoUSFWSwithin5daysfollowingcompletionofthesurveyandpriortothestartofgrounddisturbanceorconstructionactivities.

Afterpreconstructiondensearchesandbeforethecommencementofrepoweringactivities,exclusionzoneswillbeestablishedasmeasuredinaradiusoutwardfromtheentranceorclusterofentrancesofeachden.Repoweringactivitieswillbeprohibitedorgreatlyrestrictedwithintheseexclusionzones.Onlyessentialvehicularoperationonexistingroadsandfoottrafficwillbepermitted.Allotherrepoweringactivities,vehicleoperation,materialandequipmentstorage,andothersurface‐disturbingactivitieswillbeprohibitedintheexclusionzones.Barrierfencingwillberemovedwithin72hoursofcompletionofwork.Exclusionzoneswillbeestablishedusingthefollowingparameters.





Potentialandatypicaldens:Atotaloffourorfiveflaggedstakeswillbeplaced50feetfromthedenentrancetoidentifythedenlocation.

Knownden:Orangeconstructionbarrierfencingwillbeinstalledbetweentheworkareaandtheknowndensiteataminimumdistanceof100feetfromtheden.Thefencingwillbemaintaineduntilconstruction‐relateddisturbanceshaveceased.Atthattime,allfencingwillberemovedtoavoidattractingsubsequentattentiontotheden.

Natal/puppingden:USFWSwillbecontactedimmediatelyifanatalorpuppingdenisdiscoveredinorwithin200feetoftheworkarea.

AnyoccupiedorpotentiallyoccupiedbadgerdenwillbeavoidedbyestablishinganexclusionzoneconsistentwithaSanJoaquinkitfoxpotentialburrow(i.e.,fourorfiveflaggedstakeswillbeplaced50feetfromthedenentrance).

Incaseswhereavoidanceisnotareasonablealternative,limiteddestructionofpotentialSanJoaquinkitfoxdensmaybeallowedasfollows.

Natal/puppingdens:NatalorpuppingdensthatareoccupiedwillnotbedestroyeduntiltheadultsandpupshavevacatedthedensandthenonlyafterconsultationwithUSFWS.Removalofnatal/puppingdensrequiresincidentaltakeauthorizationfromUSFWSandCDFW.

Knowndens:Knowndenswithinthefootprintoftheactivitymustbemonitoredfor3dayswithtrackingmediumoraninfraredcameratodeterminecurrentuse.Ifnokitfoxactivityisobservedduringthisperiod,thedenshouldbedestroyedimmediatelytoprecludesubsequentuse.Ifkitfoxactivityisobservedduringthisperiod,thedenwillbemonitoredforatleast5consecutivedaysfromthetimeofobservationtoallowanyresidentanimaltomovetoanotherdenduringitsnormalactivity.Useofthedencanbediscouragedbypartiallypluggingitsentrance(s)withsoilinsuchamannerthatanyresidentanimalcanescapeeasily.Onlywhenthedenisdeterminedtobeunoccupiedwillthedenbeexcavatedunderthedirectionofabiologist.Ifthefoxisstillpresentafter5ormoreconsecutivedaysofmonitoring,thedenmaybeexcavatedwhen,inthejudgmentofthebiologist,itistemporarilyvacant,suchasduringthefox’snormalforagingactivities.RemovalofknowndensrequiresincidentaltakeauthorizationfromUSFWSandCDFW.

Potentialdens:Ifincidentaltakepermitshavebeenreceived(fromUSFWSandCDFW),potentialdenscanberemoved(preferablybyhandexcavation)bybiologistorunderthesupervisionofabiologistwithoutmonitoring,unlessotherrestrictionswereissuedwiththeincidentaltakepermits.Ifnotakeauthorizationshavebeenissued,thepotentialdenswillbemonitoredasiftheyareknowndens.Ifanydenwasconsideredapotentialdenbutwaslaterdeterminedduringmonitoringordestructiontobecurrentlyorpreviouslyusedbykitfoxes(e.g.,kitfoxsignisfoundinside),thenallconstructionactivitieswillceaseandUSFWSandCDFWwillbenotifiedimmediately.

Nighttimeworkwillbeminimizedtotheextentpossible.Thevehicularspeedlimitwillbereducedto10milesperhourduringnighttimework.

Pipes,culverts,andsimilarmaterialsgreaterthan4inchesindiameterwillbestoredsoastopreventwildlifespeciesfromusingtheseastemporaryrefuges,andthesematerialswillbeinspectedeachmorningforthepresenceofanimalspriortobeingmoved.





Arepresentativeappointedbytheprojectproponentwillbethecontactforanyemployeeorcontractorwhomightinadvertentlykillorinjureakitfoxorwhofindsadead,injured,orentrappedkitfox.Therepresentativewillbeidentifiedduringenvironmentalsensitivitytraining(MitigationMeasureBIO‐1b)andhis/hernameandphonenumberwillbeprovidedtoUSFWSandCDFW.Uponsuchincidentorfinding,therepresentativewillimmediatelycontactUSFWSandCDFW.

TheSacramentoUSFWSofficeandCDFWwillbenotifiedinwritingwithin3workingdaysoftheaccidentaldeathorinjuryofaSanJoaquinkitfoxduringproject‐relatedactivities.Notificationmustincludethedate,time,andlocationoftheincident,andanyotherpertinentinformation.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐10b:CompensateforlossofsuitablehabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger

WherepermanentimpactsonhabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadgercannotbeavoidedorminimized,compensatorymitigationwillbeundertakeninaccordancewithmitigationratiosandrequirementsdevelopedundertheEACCS(AppendixC).IntheeventthatincidentaltakepermitsarerequiredforSanJoaquinkitfox,compensatorymitigationwillbeundertakeninaccordancewiththetermsofpermitsinconsultationwithUSFWSandCDFW.

ImpactBIO‐10a‐2:PotentialinjuryormortalityofandlossofhabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.ConstructionactivitiesintheprogramareacouldresultindirecteffectsonSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadgerortheirgrasslandhabitat.EstimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsongrasslandthatprovidesuitabledenningandforaginghabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadgerareshowninTable3.4‐7.Inadditiontothepermanentandtemporaryremovalofhabitat,otherpotentialdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjuryofindividualsfromconstructionvehiclesorheavyequipment,directmortalityorinjuryofindividualsfromdencollapseandsubsequentsuffocation,temporarydisturbancefromnoiseandhumanpresenceassociatedwithconstructionactivities,andharassmentofindividualsbyconstructionpersonnel.Additionally,exposedpipes,largeexcavatedholes,ortrenchesthatareleftopenafterconstructionhasfinishedforthedaycouldentrapSanJoaquinkitfoxesorAmericanbadgers.Operationandmaintenanceactivities,suchasroadandfirebreakmaintenance,mayalsoresultininjuryormortalityofindividuals.SanJoaquinkitfoxisfederallylistedasendangeredandstate‐listedasthreatenedbecauseofhabitatlossresultingfromagriculturaldevelopment,infrastructureconstruction,andurbandevelopment(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2010:25).Americanbadgerhasexperienceddrasticdeclines,particularlyintheCentralValley,andhasbeenextirpatedfrommanyareasinsouthernCalifornia(Williams1986:66).Lossofindividualsintheprogramareacoulddiminishthelocalpopulationsofthesespeciesandreducereproductivepotential,contributingtothefurtherdeclineofthesespecies.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐5c,BIO‐10a,andBIO‐10bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.











ImpactBIO‐10b:PotentialinjuryormortalityofandlossofhabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Impactsfromconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceoftheGoldenHillsProjectwouldbesimilartothosedescribedfortheprogram.EstimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsongrasslandthatprovidesuitabledenningandforaginghabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadgerareshowninTable3.4‐8.Inadditiontothepermanentandtemporaryremovalofhabitat,otherdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjuryofindividualsfromconstructionvehiclesorheavyequipment,directmortalityorinjuryofindividualsfromdencollapseandsubsequentsuffocation,temporarydisturbancefromnoiseandhumanpresenceassociatedwithconstructionactivities,andharassmentofindividualsbyconstructionpersonnel.Additionally,exposedpipes,largeexcavatedholes,ortrenchesthatareleftopenafterconstructionhasfinishedforthedaycouldentrapSanJoaquinkitfoxesorAmericanbadgers.Operationandmaintenanceactivities,suchasroadandfirebreakmaintenance,mayalsoresultininjuryormortalityofindividuals.Lossofindividualsintheprojectareacoulddiminishthelocalpopulationsand/orlowerthereproductivepotentialofSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger,contributingtothefurtherdeclineofthesespecies.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐5c,BIO‐10a,andBIO‐10bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.











ImpactBIO‐10c:PotentialinjuryormortalityofandlossofhabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Impactsfromconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceofthePattersonPassProjectwouldbesimilartothosedescribedfortheprogram.EstimatedpermanentandtemporaryimpactsongrasslandthatprovidesuitabledenningandforaginghabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadgerareshowninTable3.4‐9.Inadditiontothepermanentandtemporaryremovalofhabitat,otherdirectimpactsincludemortalityorinjuryofindividualsfromconstructionvehiclesorheavyequipment,directmortalityorinjuryofindividualsfromdencollapseandsubsequentsuffocation,temporarydisturbancefromnoiseandhumanpresenceassociatedwithconstructionactivities,andharassmentofindividualsbyconstructionpersonnel.Additionally,exposedpipes,largeexcavatedholes,ortrenchesthatareleftopenafterconstructionhasfinishedforthedaycouldentrapSanJoaquinkitfoxesorAmericanbadgers.Operationandmaintenanceactivities,suchasroadandfirebreakmaintenance,mayalsoresultininjuryormortalityofindividuals.Lossofindividualsintheprojectareacoulddiminishthelocalpopulationsand/orlowerthereproductivepotentialofSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger,contributingtothefurtherdeclineofthesespecies.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3,BIO‐5c,BIO‐10a,andBIO‐10bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.







ImpactBIO‐11a‐1:Avianmortalityresultingfrominteractionwithwindenergyfacilities—programAlternative1:417MW(significantandunavoidable)

Theoperationofwindenergyfacilitieshasbeenshowntocauseavianfatalitiesthroughcollisionswithwindturbinesandpowerlinesandthroughelectrocutiononpowerlines.

Mostcollectionlinesforfirst‐andsecond‐generationturbinesareabovegroundfacilities.Asrepoweringprojectsareimplemented,oldcollectionsystemswouldberemovedandnewcollectionsystemswouldbeinstalled.Themajorityofnewcollectionlinesassociatedwiththeprogramwouldbeundergrounded,reducingtheriskofavianfatalityfromelectrocutionorcollisionwithpowerlines.





DiabloWinds,BuenaVista,andVascoWindsaretheonlyrepoweredprojectsintheAPWRAforwhichestimatesofavianfatalityratesareavailable.Basedontheseestimates,aviancollisionriskisexpectedtobesubstantiallyreducedwhenolder‐generationturbinesarereplacedbynewer,largerturbineswiththesametotalratednameplatecapacity(Table3.4‐10).However,whiletheavailableevidencesuggeststhatrepoweringcouldsubstantiallyreduceturbine‐relatedavianfatalitiesbelowthelevelsdocumentedforoldergenerationturbines,avianfatalitieswouldcontinuetooccur.Moreover,whilerepoweringisintendedtoreducefatalities,enoughuncertaintyremainsinlightofproject‐andsite‐specificdatatowarrantaconservativeapproachintheimpactanalysis.Accordingly,thecontinuedorincreasedlossofbirds(includingspecial‐statusspecies)atarateexceedingthebaselineratewouldbeasignificantadverseimpact.Thereisalsoevidencethattherepoweringprogramwouldresultincontinuedavianmortalityinconflictwithspecificlawsandregulations(e.g.,ESA,CESA,MBTA)thatarenotbasedonmortalityrates,asdescribedaboveinDeterminationofSignificance,andwiththeobjectivesofthe2007SettlementAgreementthatboundthewindenergyoperatorsandtheCountytoprovidestrategiesandmeasurestoconserveavianspeciesofconcernandtheirhabitats.Thisconflictisconsideredasignificantimpactonprotectedandspecial‐statusavianspecies,andadoptingaconservativeexpectationthatsomelevelofavianmortalitywillcontinueevenwiththeimplementationofeveryfeasiblemitigationmeasureandconservationstrategy,thiswouldbeasignificantandunavoidableimpact.

ItshouldbenotedthatturbinesusedinfuturerepoweringprojectsarelikelytobeofsimilarsizetotheVascoWindsturbinesbutmuchlargerthantheDiabloWindsandBuenaVistaturbinesinbothoverallsizeandratednameplatecapacity.Thereisevidencetosuggestthatlargerturbines—likethoseusedintheVascoWindsproject—couldresultinadditionaldecreasesinavianfatalityratesforbirdspeciescurrentlykilledintheAPWRA(SmallwoodandKaras2009).However,itisalsopossiblethatlargerturbinesmaynegativelyaffectadifferentsuiteofbirdspeciesthathavebeenrelativelyunaffectedbyolder(i.e.,smaller)turbines.Inaddition,fatalityratesintheAPWRAarehighlyvariable(thatis,becausetheydifferacrossyears,turbinestypes,geographies,andtopographies,speciesimpactsmaydifferbetweensitesduetodifferentlevelsofuse)andpotentiallyimprecise(Smallwoodetal2010.;ICFInternational2013).Nonetheless,thesethreerepoweringprojectsrepresentthebestavailableinformationtounderstandthepotentialforavianfatalitiesassociatedwithrepowering;accordingly,datafromtheseprojectswereusedtoformthebasisforavianfatalityestimates.TheestimatedchangesassociatedwithAlternative1areshowninTable3.4‐11anddiscussedbelow.Postconstructionmonitoring,oncetheturbinesareinoperation,willprovidedatatoquantifytheactualextentofchangeinavianfatalitiesfromrepoweringandtheextentofavianfatalityforprojectsintheprogramarea,andwillcontributetothebodyofknowledgesupportingfutureanalyses.





Table 3.4‐11. Estimated Annual Avian Fatalities for Existing and Repowered Program Area—Alternative 1 (417 MW)

Species

EstimatedAnnualFatalitiesforProgramArea

Nonrepowered

Repowered

AverageAnnualFatalities

DiabloWindsa

BuenaVistab

VascoWindsc,d


%Decrease


%Decrease


%Decrease

Americankestrel 194.2 37.5 81 62.6 75 123.8 36

Barnowl 79.5 8.3 90 0.0 100 13.8 83

Burrowingowl 255.1 350.3 ‐37 0.0 100 20.9 92

Goldeneagle 26.6 4.2 84 16.7 44 13.3 50

Loggerheadshrike 61.8 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100

Prairiefalcon 6.6 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100

Red‐tailedhawk 144.5 83.4 42 41.7 71 102.6 29

Swainson’shawk 0.5 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100

Allraptors 799.9 504.6 37 129.3 84 267.7 67

Allnativenon‐raptors 1,482.0 1,046.7 29 421.2 81 873.2 41

Note:fatalityratesreflectannualfatalities(95%confidenceinterval).a DiabloWindsfatalityratesextrapolatedtotheoverallprogramarea.b BuenaVistafatalityratesextrapolatedtotheoverallprogramarea.c VascoWindsfatalityratesextrapolatedtotheoverallprogramarea.dVascoWindsfatalityrateforgoldeneaglebasedonupdatedinformationreceivedfromNextEraEnergyResourcesonJuly21,2014,andextrapolatedtotheoverallprogramarea.

AmericanKestrel.AsshowninTable3.4‐11,afullyrepowered417MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated38–124Americankestrelfatalitiesperyear.Basedontheseestimates,theprogramcoulddecreaseaverageannualfatalitiesby36–81%.

TheNorthAmericanpopulationofAmericankestrelsisestimatedatmorethan4,000,000birds,representing75%oftheglobalpopulation.PopulationshavedeclinedoverthewesternU.S.sincethe1980s,pronouncedlysosincethe1990s(HawkMountain2007).ThistrendisalsoapparentforCalifornia’sfoothillandCentralValleypopulations(Saueretal.2008).NorthAmericanBreedingBirdSurvey(BBS)dataindicateadeclineinAmericankestrelsforCoastalCaliforniaandthestateasawhole(Saueretal.2011),asdoChristmasBirdCountdataforCalifornia(NationalAudubonSociety2011).

BasedontheestimatedannualfatalitiesinTable3.4.11,adverseeffectsonAmericankestrelfromwindturbineswouldsubstantiallydecreasewithrepoweringintheprogramarea.Inaddition,MitigationMeasuresBIO‐11candBIO‐11fwillfurtherlimitpreyavailabilityandreducethenumberofpotentialperchsitesintheprogramarea,potentiallyreducingtheexposureofAmericankestrelstoturbinehazards.Furthermore,therotor‐sweptareaofrepoweredturbineswouldbehigheroffthegroundthanthatofexistingturbines,potentiallyreducingtherisktokestrels,astheyaregenerallyperchandpouncepredators,perchinglowerinhigherwindspeeds(SmallwoodandBird2002).ConsideringthatAmericankestrelfatalitiesarelikelytosubstantiallydeclinewithrepowering(Smallwoodetal.2009;Smallwood2010;ICFInternational2012),repoweringtheprogramareaisunlikelytohaveadverseimpactsonAmericankestrelsatthepopulationlevel.





BarnOwl.AsshowninTable3.4‐11,afullyrepowered417MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated8–14barnowlfatalitiesperyear.Basedontheseestimates,theprogramcoulddecreaseaverageannualfatalitiesby83–90%.

BarnowlsarecommoninCaliforniawithastablepopulationinthestate(AudubonCalifornia2010).AlthoughBBSresultsmayindicateadecliningpopulationinthestate,thedataareoflimitedcreditabilityduetosamplingdeficiencies(Saueretal.2011).BarnowlsareusedthroughoutCaliforniaforrodentcontrolinorchardsandvineyards(BarnOwlBoxCompany2012).Itisuncertainwhattheeffectofrepoweringtheprogramareawouldhaveonlocalbarnowlpopulations.Thehigherrotor‐sweptareaofrepoweredturbinesmayreducetheriskofturbinecollision,asmosthuntingisdoneinlowquarteringflightsatabout1.5–4.5meters(5–15feet)abovetheground(Martietal.2005).MitigationMeasureBIO‐11cwouldalsoreducetheperchavailabilityintheprogramarea.Itisunclearwhattheeffectsoftheestimated8–14turbine‐relatedfatalitiesofbarnowlsperyearwouldhaveonthelocalpopulation,butthespecies’relativeabundanceinthestatewouldindicatethatfatalitiesasaresultofrepoweringwouldbeunlikelytohaveadverseimpactsonthespeciesatthepopulationlevel.

BurrowingOwl.AsshowninTable3.4‐11,afullyrepowered417MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated30–350burrowingowlfatalitiesperyear—achangerangingfroma92%decreasetoa37%increaseinfatalities.ThisfatalityestimateisbasedondatafromDiabloWindsandVascoWindsbecausenoburrowingowlfatalitiesweredetectedatBuenaVista.Currentevidencesuggeststhatburrowingowlfatalityratesarenotreducedbythetransitionfromold‐tonew‐generationturbinestothesameextentasthefatalityratesofotherspecies.Theincreaseinenergyproductionfrom329MWto417MWwouldlikelyresultinasmallestimatedincreaseinburrowingowlfatalitiesperyear.

FocusedsurveysinContraCostaCountyin2006on3.3squaremilesand2007on4.4squaremilesintheAPWRAfound56pairsand67pairs,respectively(BarclayandHarman2008unpublisheddata),suggestingthattheAPWRAcouldsupportseveralhundredpairsofburrowingowlsdistributedinclusters.Smallwoodetal.’s(2012)surveysin2011and2012estimatedapproximately500–600breedingpairs,rangingindensityfrom0toapproximately28breedingpairspersquarekilometer.SincethisspecieshasbeenextirpatedfrommuchoftheSanFranciscoBayArea,itisbelievedthattheAPWRAmaysupportthelargestnumberofbreedingpairsintheBayArea(BarclayandHarman2008unpublisheddata).StudiesofburrowingowlsintheAPWRAhavesuggestedthatturbine‐relatedmortalitiesmayloweradultandjuvenilesurvivorshipsufficientlysuchthatthelocalpopulationisnotself‐sustaininginsomeyears(Smallwoodetal.2008),butrecentsurveysindicatethatburrowingowlabundanceintheAPWRAmaybemuchgreaterthanpreviouslyestimated(Smallwoodetal.2012).Agrowingbodyofcircumstantialevidenceindicatesthatmanyoftheburrowingowlfatalitiesfoundduringfatalitysurveysareduetopredationratherthanturbinecollision.Becauseofthisconfoundingeffect,thepotentialreductioninturbine‐relatedburrowingowlfatalitiesmaybeunderestimatedbecauseoftheinabilitytodistinguishfatalitiesresultingfrompredationfromthosecausedbyturbinecollision(ICFInternational2013).

GoldenEagle.AsshowninTable3.4‐11,afullyrepowered417MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated4–17goldeneaglefatalitiesperyear.Basedontheseestimates,theprogramcoulddecreaseaverageannualfatalitiesby44–84%.

PortionsoftheDiabloRangeinsouthernAlamedaCountyandeasternContraCostaCountysupportsomeofthehighestknowndensitiesofgoldeneaglenestingterritoriesintheworld(HuntandHunt





2006).Inthepast15years,severalcomprehensivestudies,discussedbelow,estimatedterritoryoccupancy(numberofbreedingpairs);assessedreproductiverates;andmonitoredjuvenile,subadult,andfloater2rangeandmortality.

Hunt(2002)examineddatacollecteddataovera7‐yearperiodbetween1994and2002thatincludedthemonitoringof60–70activeterritorieswithin30km(11.6miles)oftheAPWRA.In2005,theseterritorieswerefoundtostillbe100%occupied(HuntandHunt2006).Theconclusionsofthesestudieswerethatthegoldeneaglepopulationremainsstable(Hunt2002;HuntandHunt2006).Inaddition,thestudiesfoundnoincreaseinthenumberofactivelybreedingsubadults,indicatingthatthereareenoughfloaterstobufferanylossofbreedingadults(Hunt2002;HuntandHunt2006).TheconclusionofastablegoldeneaglepopulationintheAPWRAvicinityissupportedbytheresultsofapopulationdynamicsmodelthatusedreproductionratesandfatalityrates,amongothervariables(Hunt2002).However,themodelresultsalsosuggestedthatthenumberofestimatedannualfatalitiesusedinthemodel,50individuals,couldnotbesustainedbythenumberofbreedingadultswhenconsideringthelossofreproductivepotentialincurredbyeacheaglefatality(HuntandHunt2006).AlthoughthevacantterritoriesarefilledbyfloatersandsubadultstostabilizetheAPWRApopulation,becausethepopulationdemandsaflowofrecruitsfromoutsidetheareatofillbreedingvacanciesastheyoccur,theAPWRAcanbeconsideredapopulationsink.Theresearchersconclude,therefore,thatturbine‐relatedmortalityreducestheresilienceofthelocalgoldeneaglepopulation.

Table3.4.11showsanestimated4–17fatalitiesperyearinafullyrepoweredprogramarea,orbetween8and36%ofthe50fatalitiesestimatedfortheHunt(2002)model.Itisnotpossibletodeterminetheproportionofthesefatalitiesthatwouldconsistofindividualsfromthelocalpopulation.However,theseannualfatalityestimates,whencomparedtocurrentconditions,wouldindicatethatrepoweringtheprogramareawouldreducegoldeneaglefatalitiesandincreasethepotentialforrestoringaself‐sustaininglocalbreedingpopulation.Theimplementationofmitigationmeasuresdescribedbelow—includingMitigationMeasureBIO‐11e,whichwouldrequirethatexistingpowerlinesassociatedwithraptorstrikesberetrofittedtoberaptor‐safe—wouldfurtherreducegoldeneaglefatalitiesintheprogramarea.

LoggerheadShrike.NodocumentedfatalitiesofloggerheadshrikeshaveoccurredattheDiabloWinds,BuenaVista,orVascoWindsprojects(Table3.4‐10),althoughloggerheadshrikesareregularlydetectedinthevicinityoftheDiabloWindsturbines.Thelackofdocumentedfatalitiesmaysuggestareducedleveloffatalityfromtherepoweredturbinesatthesesites.

AccordingtoShufordandGardali(2008),loggerheadshrikewasanabundantresidentintheSanFranciscoBayregionintheearlytwentiethcentury.However,birdshavebeenextirpatedlocallyorreducedinnumbersbyhabitatloss(ShufordandGardali2008).BBSdataforCalifornia’sshrikepopulationshowanegativetrendfrom1968to2010(Saueretal.2011).Giventhelackofdocumentedfatalitiesatrepoweredfacilitiesintheprogramarea,itisdifficulttoquantifytheeffectsofafullyrepoweredprogramareaontheregionalloggerheadshrikepopulation.MinimizingavailableperchesthroughMitigationMeasureBIO‐11candincreasingtheheightoftherotor‐sweptareaofrepoweredturbinesmayreducetheriskofturbinecollisionsforshrikes,astheymostlytakepreyontheground(Yosef1996).Carefulmonitoringoffatalitiesandimplementingmonitoring

2Ajuvenileis3–15monthsofage,asubadultis1–3yearsofage,andafloaterisanonbreeding,nonterritorialadultindividualmorethan4yearsofage(Hunt2002).





protocolsthatarelikelytodetectloggerheadshrikefatalitieswillbeimportantforunderstandingimpactsonthisspeciesandimplementingadaptivemanagementmeasures,asappropriate.

PrairieFalcon.FatalityestimatesatrepoweredsitesarenotavailableforprairiefalconbecausenofatalitieshavebeendocumentedatDiabloWindsorVascoWindsandonlyonefatalityhasbeenrecordedatBuenaVista(Table3.4‐10).Consequently,itisdifficulttoestimatetheannualfatalitiesthatwouldresultfromafullyrepoweredprogramarea.Thelackofdocumentedfatalitiesmaysuggestareducedleveloffatalityfromtherepoweredturbinesatthesesites.However,thenonrepoweredfatalityrateforprairiefalconisalreadyrelativelylow(0.02fatality/MW/year),suggestingthatthecollisionriskforthisspeciesislow.Prairiefalconsarepresentmostlyinwinter,andthebaselinefatalityrateismeasuredduringaperiodwhentheseasonalshutdownhasbeenineffect.Repoweredturbinesarenotanticipatedtoshutdowninwinter.

AcrossNorthAmerica,theprairiefalconpopulationisstablebutexperiencinglocaldeclines;inCalifornia,thespeciesisvulnerabletoextirpation(NatureServe2012).Withintheprogramareaanditsvicinity,thespeciesissomewhatrare,withlessthanthreeyearlysightingsintheregionduringsummerBBScountsfrom2006to2010(Saueretal.2011).State‐wide,however,BBStrendsmayindicateanincreaseinabundance,althoughthedataareoflimitedvalueduetothesmallsamplesize(Saueretal.2011).Giventhelackofdocumentedfatalitiesatrepoweredfacilitiesintheprogramarea,itisdifficulttoquantifytheeffectsofafullyrepoweredprogramareaontheregionalprairiefalconpopulation.Prairiefalconsuseavarietyofforagingflightcharacteristics,includinghighsoaring,makingitdifficulttohypothesizehowrepoweredturbinesmayaffecttheriskofturbinecollision.Carefulmonitoringoffatalitiesandimplementingmonitoringprotocolsthatarelikelytodetectprairiefalconfatalitieswillbeimportantforunderstandingimpactsonthisspeciesandimplementingadaptivemanagementmeasures,asappropriate.

Red‐TailedHawk.AsshowninTable3.4‐11,thefullyrepowered417MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated42–103red‐tailedhawkfatalitiesperyear.Basedontheseestimates,theprogramcoulddecreasetheaverageannualfatalitiesby29–71%.

Anestimated89%oftheglobalpopulationofred‐tailedhawks(approximately1,960,000breedingbirds)isfoundinNorthAmerica(HawkMountain2007).PopulationshaveremainedstableorincreasedthroughoutmostofthewesternUnitedStatessincethe1980s,growing1.5%inCaliforniabetween1983and2005(HawkMountain2007;Saueretal.2008).Californiafoothillpopulationshaveremainedstablesince1968,whiletheCentralValleypopulationhassignificantlyincreased(Saueretal.2008).

Althoughasubstantialnumberofred‐tailedhawkfatalitiesoccurintheAPWRA,theannualfatalitieshaveshownagenerallydecreasingtrendsince2005,althoughnotastatisticallysignificantdecline(ICFInternational2012)andarepredictedtocontinuetodeclineasrepoweringproceedsintheAPWRA(Smallwood2010;ICFInternational2012).Theyearlyfatalitiesforred‐tailedhawkspresentedinTable3.4.11coincidewiththeseotherstudies,suggestingthatrepoweringtheprogramareaislikelytocontinuetoreducethenumberofred‐tailedhawkskilledeachyear.Consideringthatthered‐tailedhawkpopulationinCaliforniahasgrownwhiletheAPWRAhasbeeninoperation,continuedoperationofrepoweredturbinesintheprogramareaisunlikelytohaveanypopulation‐levelimpactsonred‐tailedhawk.

Swainson’sHawk.OnlyoneSwainson’shawkfatalityhasbeenrecordedintheAPWRA,yieldinganannualestimatedfatalityrateofapproximatelyzero(Table3.4‐10).NoSwainson’shawkfatalitiesweredetectedatDiabloWinds,BuenaVista,orVascoWinds.Basedonthelowestimatedfatality





ratefromnonrepoweredsites,thelackoffatalitiesdetectedatrepoweredsites,andtherelativelylowuseoftheAPWRAbySwainson’shawks,itisexpectedthatthefatalityrateforSwainson’shawkwouldremainlowundertheprogram.

Swainson’shawkisoneoftwo(theotherissandhillcrane)state‐listedspeciesthathasarecordedfatalityintheAPWRA(ICFInternational2012).Whiletheprogramareadoesnotprovidehigh‐valuenestingorforaginghabitatfortheSwainson’shawk,neighboringagriculturalareasinthenortheasternmostcornerofAlamedaCountyandnorthoftheAPWRAinContraCostaCountydoprovideprimeforaginghabitat,andSwainson’shawkmaycrossintotheprogramareaoccasionally.TheAudubonSociety(2007)includesSwainson’shawkonitsWatchListasadecliningorrarespeciesofnationalconservationconcern.EvidencefromeggcollectionssuggeststhattheCaliforniapopulationhasbeenreducedbyasmuchas90%fromitsestimatedhistoricallevels(Bloom1980).ThisseverepopulationdeclineintheCentralValleyofCaliforniaiscorroboratedbymicrosatelliteanalysesofDNAthatsuggestthatthedeclinehastakenplaceover68–75generations,orabout200years,correspondingwiththetimeofEuropeansettlement(AudubonSociety2007;Hulletal.2008).BasedonmigrationcountsinVeraCruz,Mexico,thepresentglobalpopulationmayapproach1millionindividuals(HawkWatchInternational2009).TheCaliforniapopulationisestimatedatmore1,900nestingpairs,95%ofwhichareintheCentralValley(Andersonetal.2007).TheBBSreportsarisingCaliforniapopulationsincesurveysbeganin1968,butalsoreportsthatimportantdeficienciesintheunderlyingdatamaymakethesetrendsinaccurate(Saueretal.2011).

TheverysmallnumberofestimatedfatalitiesintheprogramareacomparedtothesizeofthelocalpopulationeastoftheprogramareaintheCentralValleyindicatesthatturbine‐relatedfatalitiesintheprogramareaareunlikelytohaveanadverseeffectonthelocalSwainson’shawkpopulation.Theimplementationofsubsequentproject‐levelavianuseandfatalitystudiesdescribedinMitigationMeasureBIO‐11gwillcontinuetoprovidedataforassessingtheeffectofturbineoperationontheSwainson’shawkpopulationinthearea.

Raptors.AsshowninTable3.4‐11,afullyrepowered417MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated129–505raptorfatalitiesperyear.Basedontheseestimates,theprogramcoulddecreaseaverageannualraptorfatalitiesby37–84%.

Nativenon‐raptors.AsshowninTable3.4‐11,afullyrepowered417MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated421–1,047nativenon‐raptorfatalitiesperyear.Basedontheseestimates,theprogramcoulddecreasetheaverageannualfatalitiesby29–81%.

Asdescribedabove,forallavianspeciesanalyzed,afullyrepoweredprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoreduceestimatedfatalityrates.However,fatalitieswouldstillbeexpectedtoresultfromtheoperationoftherepoweredturbines,anduncertaintysurroundingtheaccuracyoftheestimatedfatalityratesandthetypesofspeciespotentiallyaffectedremains.Consideringthisinformation,anddespitetheanticipatedreductionsinavianimpactscomparedtothebaselinerates,theCountyhasdeterminedtouseaconservativeapproachfortheimpactassessment,concludingthatturbine‐relatedfatalitiescouldconstituteasubstantialadverseeffectonavianspeciesbecausetheratesforsomeorallofthespeciescouldbegreaterthanthebaselinerates.Thisimpactwouldbesignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐11athroughBIO‐11iwouldreducethisimpact,butnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel;accordingly,thisimpactisconsideredsignificantandunavoidable.Thesemeasures,whichindividualprojectproponentswouldberequiredtocarryoutasappropriateinlightofproject‐specificconditions,werederivedfromtheEACCS,basedonestablishedpractice,ordevelopedinthecontextoftheprogram’sconservationobjectives.





MitigationMeasureBIO‐11a:Prepareaproject‐specificavianprotectionplan

Allprojectproponentswillprepareaproject‐specificAPPtospecifymeasuresandprotocolsconsistentwiththeprogram‐levelmitigationmeasuresthataddressavianmortality.Theproject‐specificAPPswillinclude,ataminimum,thefollowingcomponents.

Informationandmethodsusedtositeturbinestominimizerisk.

Documentationthatappropriateturbinedesignsarebeingused.

Documentationthatavian‐safepracticesarebeingimplementedonprojectinfrastructure.

Methodsusedtodiscouragepreyforraptors.

Adetaileddescriptionofthepostconstructionavianfatalitymonitoringmethodstobeused(consistentwiththeminimumrequirementsoutlinedinMitigationMeasureBIO‐11g).

Methodsusedtocompensateforthelossofraptors(consistentwiththerequirementsofMitigationMeasureBIO‐11h).

Eachprojectapplicantwillprepareandsubmitadraftproject‐specificAPPtotheCounty.ThedraftAPPwillbereviewedbytheTACforconsistencyandtheinclusionofappropriatemitigationmeasuresthatareconsistentwiththePEIRandrecommendedforapprovalbytheCounty.EachprojectapplicantmusthaveanapprovedFinalAPPpriortocommercialoperation.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐11b:Siteturbinestominimizepotentialmortalityofbirds

Sitingofturbines—usinganalysesoflandscapefeaturesandlocation‐specificbirduseandbehaviordatatoidentifylocationswithreducedcollisionrisk—mayresultinreducedfatalities(Smallwoodetal.2009).Allprojectproponentswillconductasitingprocessandprepareasitinganalysistoselectturbinelocationstominimizepotentialimpactsonbirdandbatspecies.Proponentswillutilizeexistingdataaswellascollectnewsite‐specificdataaspartofthesitinganalysis.

ProjectproponentswillutilizecurrentlyavailableguidelinessuchastheAlamedaCountySRCguidelinesforsitingwindturbines(AlamedaCountySRC2010)and/orothercurrentlyavailableresearchorguidelinestoconductsitinganalysis.Additionally,projectproponentswillusetheresultsofprevioussitingeffortstoinformtheanalysisandsitingmethodsasappropriatesuchthatthescienceofsitingcontinuestobeadvanced.Allprojectproponentswillcollectfielddatathatidentifyorconfirmthebehavior,utilization,anddistributionpatternsofaffectedavianandbatspeciespriortotheinstallationofturbines.Projectproponentswillcollectandutilizeavailableexistinginformation,includingbutnotnecessarilylimitedto:sitingreportsandmonitoringdatafrompreviouslyinstalledprojects;publisheduseandabundancestudiesandreports;andtopographicfeaturesknowntoincreasecollisionrisk(trees,riparianareas,waterbodies,andwetlands).

Projectproponentswillalsocollectandutilizeadditionalfielddataasnecessarytoinformthesitinganalysisforgoldeneagle.AsrequiredinMitigationMeasureBIO‐8a,surveyswillbeconductedtolocategoldeneaglenestswithin2milesofproposedprojectareas.Sitingofturbineswithin2milesofanactiveoralternativegoldeneaglenestoractivegoldeneagleterritorywillbebasedonasite‐specificanalysisofriskbasedontheestimatedeagleterritories,conductedinconsultationwithUSFWS.





Projectproponentswillutilizemethods(i.e.,computermodels)toidentifydangerouslocationsforbirdsandbatsbasedonsite‐specificriskfactorsinformedbytheinformationdiscussedabove.Theprojectproponentswillcompiletheresultsofthesitinganalysesforeachturbineanddocumenttheseintheproject‐levelAPP,alongwiththespecificlocationofeachturbine.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐11c:Useturbinedesignsthatreduceavianimpacts

Useofturbineswithcertaincharacteristicsisbelievedtoreducethecollisionriskforavianspecies.Projectproponentswillimplementthedesign‐relatedmeasureslistedbelow.

Turbinedesignswillbeselectedthathavebeenshownorthataresuspectedtoreduceavianfatalities,basedontheheight,color,configuration,orotherfeaturesoftheturbines.

Turbinedesignwilllimitoreliminateperchingopportunities.Designswillincludeatubulartowerwithinternalladders;externalcatwalks,railings,orladderswillbeprohibited.

Turbinedesignwilllimitoreliminatenestingorroostingopportunities.Openingsonturbineswillbecoveredtopreventcavity‐nestingspeciesfromnestingintheturbines.

LightingwillbeinstalledonthefewestnumberofturbinesallowedbyFAAregulations,andallpilotwarninglightswillfiresynchronously.Turbinelightingwillemployonlyredordualred‐and‐whitestrobe,strobe‐like,orflashinglights(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2012).Alllightingonturbineswillbeoperatedattheminimumallowableintensity,flashingfrequency,andquantityallowedbyFAA(Gehringetal.2009;U.S.FishandWildlifeService2012).DurationbetweenflasheswillbethelongestallowablebytheFAA.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐11d:Incorporateavian‐safepracticesintodesignofturbine‐relatedinfrastructure

Allprojectproponentswillapplythefollowingmeasureswhendesigningandsitingturbine‐relatedinfrastructure.Thesemeasureswillreducetheriskofbirdelectrocutionandcollision.

Permanentmeteorologicalstationswillavoiduseofguywires.Ifitisnotpossibletoavoidusingguywires,thewireswillbeatleast4/0gaugetoensurevisibilityandwillbefittedwithbirddeterrentdevices.

AllpermanentmeteorologicaltowerswillbeunlitunlesslightingisrequiredbyFAA.Iflightingisrequired,itwillbeoperatedattheminimumallowableintensity,flashingfrequency,andquantityallowedbyFAA.

Totheextentpossible,allpowerlineswillbeplacedunderground.However,linesmaybeplacedabovegroundimmediatelypriortoenteringthesubstation.Allabovegroundlineswillbefittedwithbirdflightdivertersorvisibilityenhancementdevices(e.g.,spiraldampingdevices).Whenlinescannotbeplacedunderground,appropriateavianprotectiondesignsmustbeemployed.Asaminimumrequirement,thecollectionsystemwillconformwiththemostcurrenteditionoftheAvianPowerLineInteractionCommitteeguidelinestopreventelectrocutions.

Lightingwillbefocuseddownwardandminimizedtolimitskywardillumination.Sodiumvaporlampsandspotlightswillnotbeusedatanyfacility(e.g.,laydownareas,substations)exceptwhenemergencymaintenanceisneeded.Lightingatcollectionfacilities,includingsubstations,willbeminimizedusingdowncastlightingandmotion‐detectiondevices.Theuseofhigh‐intensitylighting;steady‐burningorbrightlightssuchassodiumvapor,quartz,





orhalogen;orotherbrightspotlightswillbeminimized.Wherelightingisrequireditwillbedesignedfortheminimumintensityrequiredforsafeoperationofthefacility.Greenorbluelightingwillbeusedinplaceofredorwhitelighting.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐11e:Retrofitexistinginfrastructuretominimizerisktoraptors

Anyexistingpowerlinesinaspecificprojectareathatareownedbythewindprojectoperatorandthatareassociatedwithelectrocutionofaneagleorotherraptorwillberetrofittedwithin30daystomakethemraptor‐safeaccordingtoAvianPowerLineInteractionCommitteeguidelines.Allotherexistingstructurestoremaininaprojectareaduringrepoweringwillberetrofitted,asfeasible,accordingtospecificationsofMitigationMeasureBIO‐11cpriortorepoweredturbineoperation.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐11f:Discouragepreyforraptors

Allprojectproponentswillapplythefollowingmeasureswhendesigningandsitingturbine‐relatedinfrastructure.Thesemeasuresareintendedtominimizeopportunitiesforfossorialmammalstobecomeestablishedandtherebycreateapreybasethatcouldbecomeanattractantforraptors.

Rodenticidewillnotbeutilizedontheprojectsitetoavoidtheriskofraptorsscavengingtheremainsofpoisonedanimals.

Boulders(rocksmorethan12inchesindiameter)excavatedduringprojectconstructionmaybeplacedinabovegroundpilesintheprojectareasolongastheyaremorethan500meters(1,640feet)fromanyturbine.Existingrockpilescreatedduringconstructionoffirst‐andsecond‐generationturbineswillalsobemovedatleast500meters(1,640feet)fromturbines.

Gravelwillbeplacedaroundeachtowerfoundationtodiscouragesmallmammalsfromburrowingnearturbines.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐11g:Implementpostconstructionavianfatalitymonitoringforallrepoweringprojects

Apostconstructionmonitoringprogramwillbeconductedateachrepoweringprojectforaminimumof3yearsbeginningonthecommercialoperationdate(COD)oftheproject.Monitoringmaycontinuebeyond3yearsifconstructioniscompletedinphases.Moreover,iftheresultsofthefirst3yearsindicatethatbaselinefatalityrates(i.e.,nonrepoweredfatalityrates)areexceeded,monitoringwillbeextendeduntiltheaverageannualfatalityratehasdroppedbelowbaselinefatalityratesfor2years,andtoassesstheeffectivenessofadaptivemanagementmeasuresspecifiedinMitigationMeasureBIO‐11i.Anadditional2yearsofmonitoringwillbeimplementedatyear10(i.e.,thetenthanniversaryoftheCOD).ProjectproponentswillprovideaccesstoqualifiedthirdpartiesauthorizedbytheCountytoconductanyadditionalmonitoringaftertheinitial3‐yearmonitoringperiodhasexpiredandbeforeandaftertheadditional2‐yearmonitoringperiod,providedthatsuchadditionalmonitoringutilizesscientificallyvalidmonitoringprotocols.

Atechnicaladvisorycommittee(TAC)willbeformedtooverseethemonitoringprogramandtoadvisetheCountyonadaptivemanagementmeasuresthatmaybenecessaryiffatalityratessubstantiallyexceedthosepredictedfortheproject(asdescribedbelowinMitigationMeasure





BIO‐11i).TheTACwillhaveastandingmeeting,whichwillbeopentothepublic,every6monthstoreviewmonitoringreportsproducedbyoperatorsintheprogramarea.Inthesemeetings,theTACwilldiscussanyissuesraisedbythemonitoringreportsandrecommendtotheCountynextstepstoaddressissues,includingschedulingadditionalmeetings,ifnecessary.

TheTACwillcompriserepresentativesfromtheCounty(includingoneormoretechnicalconsultants,suchasabiostatistician,anavianbiologist,andabatbiologist),andwildlifeagencies(CDFW,USFWS).AdditionalTACmembersmayalsobeconsidered(e.g.,arepresentativefromAudubon,alandownerintheprogramarea,arepresentativeoftheoperators)atthediscretionoftheCounty.TheTACwillbeavoluntaryandadvisorygroupthatwillprovideguidancetotheCountyPlanningDepartment.Tomaintaintransparencywiththepublic,allTACmeetingswillbeopentothepublic,andnoticeofmeetingswillbegiventointerestedparties.

TheTACwillhavethreeprimaryadvisoryroles:(1)toreviewandadviseonprojectplanningdocuments(i.e.,project‐specificAPPs)toensurethatproject‐specificmitigationmeasuresandcompensatorymitigationmeasuresdescribedinthisPEIRareappropriatelyandconsistentlyapplied,(2)toreviewandadviseonmonitoringdocuments(protocolsandreporting)forconsistencywiththemitigationmeasures,and(3)toreviewandadviseonimplementationoftheadaptivemanagementplans.

ShouldfatalitymonitoringrevealthatimpactsexceedthebaselinethresholdsestablishedinthisPEIR,theTACwilladvisetheCountyonrequiringimplementationofadaptivemanagementmeasuresasdescribedinMitigationMeasureBIO‐11i.TheCountywillhavethedecision‐makingauthority,asitistheorganizationissuingtheCUPs.However,theTACwillcollaborativelyinformthedecisionsoftheCounty.

Operatorsarerequiredtoprovideforavianusesurveystobeconductedwithintheprojectareaboundariesforaminimumof30minutesduration.SurveyorswillbequalifiedandtrainedandsubjecttoapprovalbytheCounty.

Carcasssurveyswillbeconductedateveryturbineforprojectswith20orfewerturbines.Forprojectswithmorethan20turbines,suchsurveyswillberequiredataminimumof20turbines,andasampleoftheremainingturbinesmaybeselectedforcarcasssearches.Theoperatorwillberequiredtodemonstratethatthesamplingschemeandsamplesizearestatisticallyrigorousanddefensible.Wheresubstantialvariationinterrain,landcovertype,management,orotherfactorsmaycontributetosignificantvariationinfatalityrates,thesamplingschemewillbestratifiedtoaccountforsuchvariation.Thesurveyprotocolforsetsandsubsetsofturbines,aswellasproposedsamplingschemesthatdonotentailasearchofallturbines,mustbeapprovedbytheCountyinconsultationwiththeTACpriortothestartofsurveys.

Thesearchintervalwillnotexceed14daysfortheminimumof20turbinestobesurveyed;however,thesearchintervalfortheadditionalturbines(i.e.,thoseexceedingthe20‐turbineminimum)thataretobeincludedinthesamplingschememaybeextendedupto28daysorlongerifrecommendedbytheTAC.

Theestimationofdetectionprobabilityisarapidlyadvancingfield.Carcassplacementtrials,broadlydefined,willbeconductedtoestimatedetectionprobabilityduringeachyearofmonitoring.Samplesizeswillbelargeenoughtopotentiallydetectsignificantvariationbyseason,carcasssize,andhabitattype.





OperatorswillberequiredtosubmitcopiesofallrawdataformstotheCountyannually,willsupplyrawdatainareadilyaccessibledigitalformattobespecifiedbytheCounty,andwillpreparerawdataforinclusionasappendicesintheannualreports.TheintentistoallowtheCountytoconductindependentanalysesandmeta‐analysesofdataacrosstheAPWRA,andtosupplythesedatatotheregulatoryagenciesifrequested.

AnnualreportssubmittedtotheCountywillprovideasynthesisofallinformationcollectedtodate.Eachreportwillprovideanintroduction;descriptionsofthestudyarea,methods,andresults;adiscussionoftheresults;andanysuitablerecommendations.Reportswillproviderawcountsoffatalities,adjustedfatalityrates,andestimatesofproject‐widefatalitiesonbothaperMWandperturbinebasis.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐11h:Compensateforthelossofraptorsandotheravianspecies,includinggoldeneagles,bycontributingtoconservationefforts

Discussion

Severaloptionstocompensateforimpactsonraptorsarecurrentlyavailable.Somearetargetedtobenefitcertainspecies,buttheymayalsohavebenefitsforotherraptorandnon‐raptorspecies.Forexample,USFWS’sECPGuidelinescurrentlyoutlineacompensatorymitigationstrategyforgoldeneaglesusingtheretrofitofhigh‐riskpowerpoles(polesknownorsuspectedtoelectrocuteandkilleagles).Thegoalofthisstrategyistoeliminatehazardsforgoldeneagles.However,becausethepolesarealsodangerousforotherlargeraptors(e.g.,red‐tailedhawk,Swainson’shawk),retrofittingthemcanbenefitsuchspeciesaswellaseagles.

Similarly,althoughtheretrofittingofelectricalpolesmayhavebenefitsforlargeraptors,suchanapproachmayprovideminimalbenefitsforsmallerraptorssuchasAmericankestrelandburrowingowl.Consequently,additionalmeasureswouldberequiredcomponentsofanoverallmitigationpackagetocompensateforimpactsonraptorsingeneral.

TheSecretaryoftheInteriorissuedOrder3330onOctober31,2013,outlininganewapproachtomitigationpoliciesandpracticesoftheDepartmentoftheInterior.Thisapproachrecognizesthatcertainstrategiesaimedatsomespecies(e.g.,raptors)canprovidesubstantialbenefittoothers(e.g.,non‐raptors)andtotheecologicallandscapeasawhole.Thelandscape‐scaleapproachtomitigationandconservationeffortsisnowcentraltotheDepartment’smitigationstrategy.AlthoughtheOrderwasintendedforusebyfederalagenciesandassuchisnotdirectlyapplicabletotheCounty,itisevidentthatsuchanapproachwouldlikelyhavethegreatestmitigationbenefits,especiallywhenconsideringongoingandlong‐termimpactsfromwindenergyprojects.

Withtheseconsiderationsinmind,theCountyhasoutlinedseveraloptionsthatarecurrentlyavailabletocompensateforimpactsonraptorsandotheravianspecies.Theoptionsdiscussedbelowarecurrentlyconsideredacceptableapproachestocompensationforimpactsonraptorsandotherspecies.Althoughnoteveryoptionisappropriateforallspecies,itishopedthatastimeproceeds,amorecomprehensivelandscape‐levelapproachtomitigationwillbeadoptedtobenefitabroadersuiteofspeciesthanmightbenefitfrommorespecies‐specificmeasures.TheCountyrecognizesthatthescienceofraptorconservationandtheunderstandingofwind‐wildlifeimpactsarecontinuingtoevolveandthatthesuiteofavailablecompensationoptionsmayconsequentlychangeoverthelifeoftheproposedprojects.





Conservation Measures

Topromotetheconservationofraptorsandotheravianspecies,projectproponentswillcompensateforraptorfatalitiesestimatedwithintheirprojectareas.Mitigationwillbeprovidedin10‐yearincrements,withthefirstincrementbasedontheestimates(raptors/MW/year)providedinthisPEIRfortheVascoWindsProject(Table3.4‐10)ortheproject‐specificEIRforfutureprojects.TheVascoWindsfatalityrateswereselectedbecausetheVascoturbinesarethemostsimilartothoselikelytobeproposedforfuturerepoweringprojectsandconsequentlyrepresentthebestavailablefatalityestimates.Eachprojectproponentwillconductpostcon‐structionfatalitymonitoringforatleast3yearsbeginningatprojectstartup(dateofcommercialoperation)andagainfor2yearsatyear10,asrequiredunderMitigationMeasureBIO‐11g,toestimatetheaveragenumberofraptorstakeneachyearbyeachindividualproject.Theprojectproponentwillcompensateforthisnumberofraptorsinsubsequent10‐yearincrementsforthelifeoftheproject(i.e.,three10‐yearincrements)asoutlinedbelow.MitigationMeasureBIO‐11galsorequiresadditionalfatalitymonitoringatyear10oftheproject.Theresultsofthefirst3yearsofmonitoringand/orthemonitoringatyear10mayleadtorevisionsoftheestimatedaveragenumberofraptorstaken,andmitigationprovidedmaybeadjustedaccordinglyonaone‐timebasiswithineachofthefirsttwo10‐yearincrements,basedontheresultsofthemonitoringrequiredbyMitigationMeasureBIO‐11g,inconsultationwiththeTAC.

Priortothestartofoperations,projectproponentswillsubmitforCountyapprovalanavianconservationstrategy,aspartoftheproject‐specificAPPoutlinedinMitigationMeasureBIO‐11a,outliningtheestimatednumberofraptorfatalitiesbasedonthenumberandtypeofturbinesbeingconstructed,andthetypeortypesofcompensationoptionstobeimplemented.Projectproponentswillusetheavianconservationstrategytocraftanappropriatestrategyusingabalancedmixoftheoptionspresentedbelow,aswellasconsideringnewoptionssuggestedbythegrowingbodyofknowledgeduringthecourseoftheprojectlifespan,assupportedbyaResourceEquivalencyAnalysis(REA)(seeexampleinAppendixC)orsimilartypeofcompensationassessmentacceptabletotheCountythatdemonstratestheefficacyofproposedmitigationforimpactsonraptors.

TheCountyPlanningDirector,inconsultationwiththeTAC,willconsider,basedontheREA,whethertheproposedavianconservationstrategyisadequate,includingconsiderationofwhethereachavianmitigationplanincorporatesalandscape‐scaleapproachsuchthattheconservationeffortsachievethegreatestpossiblebenefits.Compensationmeasuresasdetailedinanapprovedavianconservationstrategymustbeimplementedwithin1yearofthedateofcommercialoperations.AvianconservationstrategieswillbereviewedandmayberevisedbytheCountyevery10years,andonaone‐timebasisineachofthetwo10‐yearincrementsbasedonthemonitoringrequiredbyMitigationMeasureBIO‐11g.

Retrofittinghigh‐riskelectricalinfrastructure.USFWS’sECPGuidelinesoutlineacompensatorymitigationstrategyusingtheretrofitofhigh‐riskpowerpoles(polesknownorsuspectedtoelectrocuteandkilleagles).USFWShasdevelopedanREA(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2013a)asatooltoestimatethecompensatorymitigation(numberofretrofits)requiredforthetakeofeagles.TheREAtakesintoaccountthecurrentunderstandingofeaglelifehistoryfactors,theeffectivenessofretrofittingpoles,theexpectedannualtake,andthetimingofimplementationofthepoleretrofits.Theprojectproponentsmayneedtocontractwithautilityorathird‐partymitigationaccount(suchastheNationalFishandWildlifeFoundation)toretrofitthenumberofpolesneededas





demonstratedbyaproject‐specificREA.Ifcontractingdirectly,theprojectproponentwillconsultwithutilitycompaniestoensurethathigh‐riskpoleshavebeenidentifiedforretrofitting.Proponentswillagreeinwritingtopaytheutilityowner/operatortoretrofittherequirednumberofpowerpolesandmaintaintheretrofitsfor10yearsandwillprovidetheCountywithdocumentationoftheretrofitagreement.Thefirstretrofitswillbebasedontheestimatednumberofeaglefatalitiesasdescribedaboveinthismeasureorasdevelopedintheproject‐specificEIRforfutureprojects.Subsequentnumbersofretrofitsrequiredforadditional10‐yeardurationswillbebasedontheresultsofproject‐specificfatalitymonitoringasoutlinedinMitigationMeasureBIO‐11g.Iffewereaglefatalitiesareidentifiedthroughthemonitoring,thenumberoffuturerequiredretrofitsmaybereducedthroughaproject‐specificREA.Althoughretrofittingpoleshasnotbeenidentifiedasappropriatemitigationforotherlargeraptors,theywouldlikelybenefitfromsuchefforts,asthey(particularlyred‐tailedandSwainson’shawks)constitutethelargestnon‐eaglegrouptosufferelectrocutiononpowerlines(AvianPowerLineInteractionCommittee2006).

MeasuresoutlinedinanapprovedEagleConservationPlanandBirdandBatConservationStrategy.ProjectproponentsmayelecttoapplyforprogrammaticeagletakepermitsfromUSFWS.TheprogrammaticeagletakepermitprocesscurrentlyinvolvespreparationofanECPandaBirdandBatConservationStrategy(BBCS).TheECPspecifiesavoidanceandminimizationmeasures,advancedconservationpractices,andcompensatorymitigationforeagles—conditionsthatmeetUSFWS’scriteriaforissuanceofapermit.TheBBCSoutlinesmeasuresbeingimplementedbytheapplicanttoavoidandminimizeimpactsonmigratorybirds,includingraptors.Ifprogrammaticeagletakepermitsareobtainedbyprojectproponents,thosepermitterms,includingthemeasuresoutlinedintheapprovedECPandBBCS,mayconstituteanappropriateconservationmeasureforestimatedtakeofgoldeneaglesandotherraptors,providedsuchtermsaredeemedbytheCountytobecomparabletoormoreprotectiveofraptorsthantheotheroptionslistedherein.

Contributetoraptorconservationefforts.Projectproponentswillcontributefunds,intheamountof$580/raptorfatality,in10‐yearincrementstolocaland/orregionalconservationeffortsdesignedtoprotect,recover,andmanagelandsforraptors,ortoconductresearchinvolvingmethodstoreduceraptorfatalitiesorincreaseraptorproductivity.The$580amountisbasedontheaveragecosttorehabilitateoneraptorattheCaliforniaRaptorCenter,affiliatedwiththeUCDavisSchoolofVeterinaryMedicine,whichreceivesmorethan200injuredorillraptorsannually(Stedmanpers.comm.).Ten‐yearinstallmentsaremoreadvantageousthanmorefrequentinstallmentsforplanningandbudgetingpurposes.

Thefundswillbecontributedtoanentityorentitiesengagedintheseactivities,suchastheEastBayRegionalParkDistrictandtheLivermoreAreaRegionalParkDistrict.Conservationeffortsmayincludeconstructingandinstallingnestboxesandperches,conductinganawarenesscampaigntoreducetheuseofrodenticide,andconductingresearchtobenefitraptors.ThespecificconservationefforttobepursuedwillbesubmittedtotheCountyforapprovalaspartoftheavianconservationstrategyreviewprocess.ThedonationreceiptwillbeprovidedtotheCountyasevidenceofpayment.

Thefirstcontributionsforanygivenprojectwillbebasedontheestimatednumberofraptorfatalitiesasdescribedaboveinthismeasureorasdevelopedintheproject‐specificEIRforfutureprojects.Fundsforsubsequent10‐yearinstallmentswillbeprovidedonthebasisoftheaverageannualraptorfatalityratesdeterminedthroughpostconstruction





monitoringefforts,allowingforaone‐timeadjustmentwithineach10‐yearincrementaftertheresultsofthemonitoringeffortsareavailable.Iffewerraptorfatalitiesaredetectedthroughthemonitoringeffort,thesecondinstallmentamountmaybereducedtoaccountforthedifferencebetweenthefirstestimatednumbersandthemonitoringresults.

Contributetoregionalconservationofraptorhabitat.ProjectproponentsmayaddressregionalconservationofraptorhabitatbyfundingtheacquisitionofconservationeasementswithintheAPWRAoronlandsinthesameeco‐regionoutsidetheAPWRA,subjecttoCountyapproval,forthepurposeoflong‐termregionalconservationofraptorhabitat.Landsproposedforconservationmustbewell‐managedgrazinglandssimilartothoseonwhichtheprojectshavebeendeveloped.Projectproponentswillfundtheregionalconservationandimprovementoflands(throughhabitatenhancement,leadabatementactivities,eliminationofrodenticides,and/orothermeasures)usinganumberofacresequivalenttotheconservationbenefitoftheraptorrecoveryandconservationeffortsdescribedabove,orasdeterminedthroughaproject‐specificREA(seeexampleREAinAppendixC).Theconservationlandsmustbeprovidedforcompensationofaminimumof10yearsofraptorfatalities,as10‐yearincrementswillminimizethetransactioncostsassociatedwiththeidentificationandconservationoflands,therebyincreasingoverallcosteffectiveness.Theconservationeasementswillbeheldbyanorganizationwhosemissionistopurchaseand/orotherwiseconservelands,suchasTheTrustforPublicLands,TheNatureConservancy,CaliforniaRangelandTrust,ortheEastBayRegionalParksDistrict.TheprojectproponentswillobtainapprovalfromtheCountyregardingtheamountofconservedlands,anyenhancementsproposedtoincreaseraptorhabitatvalue,andtheentityholdingthelandsand/orconservationeasement.

OtherConservationMeasuresIdentifiedintheFuture.Asnotedabove,additionalconservationmeasuresforraptorsmaybecomeavailableinthefuture.ConservationmeasuresforraptorsarecurrentlybeingdevelopedbyUSFWSandnongovernmentalorganizations(e.g.,AmericanWindWildlifeInstitute)—forexample,activitiesservingtoreducesuchfatalitieselsewhere,andenhancingforagingandnestinghabitat.Additionaloptionsforconservationcouldincludepurchasingcreditsatanapprovedmitigationbank,creditsfortheretirementofwindfarmsthatareparticularlydangeroustobirdsorbats,thecurtailmentofpreyeliminationprograms,andhunter‐educationprogramsthatremovesourcesofleadfromtheenvironment.Underthisoption,theprojectproponentmaymakealternativeproposalstotheCountyforconservationmeasures—basedonanREAorsimilarcompensationassessment—thattheCountymayacceptasmitigationiftheyaredeemedbytheCountytobecomparabletoormoreprotectiveofraptorspeciesthantheotheroptionsdescribedherein.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐11i:Implementanavianadaptivemanagementprogram

IffatalitymonitoringdescribedinMitigationMeasureBIO‐11gresultsinanestimatethatexceedsthepreconstructionbaselinefatalityestimates(i.e.,estimatesatthenonrepoweredturbinesasdescribedinthisPEIR)foranyfocalspeciesorspeciesgroup(i.e.,individualfocalspecies,allfocalspecies,allraptors,allnon‐raptors,allbirdscombined),projectproponentswillprepareaproject‐specificadaptivemanagementplanwithin2monthsfollowingtheavailabilityofthefatalitymonitoringresults.Theseplanswillbeusedtoadjustoperationandmitigationtotheresultsofmonitoring,newtechnology,andnewresearchtoensurethatthebestavailablescienceisusedtominimizeimpactstobelowbaseline.Project‐specificadaptivemanagement





planswillbereviewedbytheTAC,revisedbyprojectproponentsasnecessary,andapprovedbytheCounty.TheTACwilltakecurrentresearchandthemosteffectiveimpactreductionstrategiesintoaccountwhenreviewingadaptivemanagementplansandsuggestingmeasurestoreduceimpacts.Theproject‐specificadaptivemanagementplanswillbeimplementedwithin2monthsofapprovalbytheCounty.Theplanswillincludeasteppedapproachwherebyanadaptivemeasureormeasuresareimplemented,theresultsaremonitoredforsuccessorfailureforayear,andadditionaladaptivemeasuresareaddedasnecessary,followedbyanotheryearofmonitoring,untilthesuccesscriteriaareachieved(i.e.,estimatedfatalitiesarebelowthebaseline).Projectproponentsshouldusethebestmeasuresavailablewhentheplanispreparedinconsiderationofthespecificadaptivemanagementneeds.Forexample,ifonlyonethresholdisexceeded,suchasgoldeneaglefatalities,theplanandmeasuresusedwilltargetthatspecies.AssetforthinotheragreementsintheAPWRA,projectproponentsmayalsofocusadaptivemanagementmeasuresonindividualormultipleturbinesifthoseturbinesareshowntocauseasignificantlydisproportionatenumberoffatalities.

Ingeneral,thefollowingtypesofmeasureswillbeconsideredbytheTAC,intheordertheyarepresentedbelow;however,theTACmayrecommendanyoftheseorothermeasuresthatareshowntobesuccessfulinreducingtheimpact.

ADMM‐1:VisualModifications.Theprojectproponentcouldpaintapatternonaproportionoftheturbineblades.TheproportionandthepatternofthebladestobepaintedwillbedeterminedbytheCountyinconsultationwiththeTAC.USFWSrecommendstestingmeasurestoreducemotionsmear—theblurringofturbinebladesduetorapidrotationthatrendersthemlessvisibleandhencemoreperiloustobirdsinflight.Suggestedtechniquesincludepaintingbladeswithstaggeredstripesorpaintingonebladeblack.Theprojectproponentwillconductfatalitystudiesonacontrollednumberofpaintedandunpaintedturbines.TheprojectproponentwillcoordinatewiththeTACtodeterminethelocationofthepaintedturbines,buttheintentistoimplementthismeasureinareasthatappeartobecontributingmosttothehighnumberoffatalitiesdetected.

ADMM‐2:Anti‐PerchingMeasures.TheCountywillconsultwiththeTACregardingtheuseofanti‐perchingmeasurestodiscouragebirduseofthearea.TheTACwillusethemostrecentresearchandinformationavailabletodetermine,onacase‐by–casebasis,ifanti‐perchingmeasureswillbeaneffectivestrategytoreduceimpacts.Ifdeterminedtobefeasible,anti‐perchingdeviceswillbeinstalledonartificialstructures,excludingutilitypoles,within1mileofprojectfacilities(withlandownerpermission)todiscouragebirduseofthearea.

ADMM‐3:PreyReduction.Theprojectproponentwillimplementapreyreductionprogramaroundthemosthazardousturbines.Examplesofpreyreductionmeasuresmayincludechangesingrazingpracticestomakethearealessdesirableforpreyspecies,activereductionthroughdirectremovalofpreyspecies,orothermeasuresprovidedtheyareconsistentwithmanagementgoalsforthreatenedandendangeredspecies.

ADMM‐4:ImplementationofExperimentalTechnologies.Projectproponentscandeployexperimentaltechnologiesattheirfacilitiestotesttheirefficacyinreducingturbine‐relatedfatalities.Examplesmayinclude,butarenotlimitedto,visualdeterrents,noisedeterrents,andactiveradarsystems.

ADMM‐5:TurbineCurtailment.Ifpostconstructionmonitoringindicatespatternsofturbine‐causedfatalities—suchasseasonalspikesinfatalities,topographicorotherenvironmental





featuresassociatedwithhighnumbersoffatalities,orotherfactorsthatcanpotentiallybemanipulatedandthatsuggestthatcurtailmentofaspecificturbine’soperationwouldresultinreducingfutureavianfatalities—theprojectoperatorcancurtailoperationsoftheoffendingturbineorturbines.CurtailmentrestrictionswouldbedevelopedincoordinationwiththeTACandbasedoncurrentlyavailablefatalitydata,usedata,andresearch.

ADMM‐6:Cut‐inSpeedStudy.Changesincut‐inspeedcouldbeconductedtoseeifchangingcut‐inspeedsfrom3meterspersecondto5meterspersecond(forexample)wouldsignificantlyreduceavianfatalities.TheproponentwillcoordinatewiththeTACindeterminingthefeasibilityofthemeasurefortheparticularspeciesaffectedaswellastheamountofthechangeinthecut‐inspeed.

ADMM‐7:Real‐TimeTurbineCurtailment.Theprojectproponentcanemployareal‐timeturbinecurtailmentprogramdesignedinconsultationwiththeTAC.Theintentwouldbetodeployabiologisttomonitoronsiteconditionsandissueacurtailmentorderwhenraptorsarenearoperatingturbines.Alternatively,radar,video,orothermonitoringmeasurescouldbedeployedinplaceofabiologicalmonitorifthereisevidencetoindicatethatsuchasystemwouldbeaseffectiveandmoreefficientthanuseofahumanmonitor.

ImpactBIO‐11a‐2:Avianmortalityresultingfrominteractionwithwindenergyfacilities—programAlternative2:450MW(significantandunavoidable)

Theoperationofwindenergyfacilitieshasbeenshowntocauseavianfatalitiesthroughcollisionswithwindturbinesandpowerlinesandthroughelectrocutiononpowerlines.

Mostcollectionlinesforfirst‐andsecond‐generationturbinesareabovegroundfacilities.Asrepoweringprojectsareimplemented,oldcollectionsystemswouldberemovedandnewcollectionsystemswouldbeinstalled.Themajorityofnewcollectionlinesassociatedwiththeprogramwouldbeundergrounded,reducingtheriskofavianfatalityfromelectrocutionorcollisionwithpowerlines.

DiabloWinds,BuenaVista,andVascoWindsaretheonlyrepoweredprojectsintheAPWRAforwhichestimatesofavianfatalityratesareavailable.Basedontheseestimates,aviancollisionriskmaybesubstantiallyreducedwhenolder‐generationturbinesarereplacedbynewer,largerturbineswiththesametotalratednameplatecapacity(Table3.4‐10).However,whiletheavailableevidencesuggeststhatrepoweringcouldsubstantiallyreduceturbine‐relatedavianfatalitiesbelowthelevelsdocumentedforoldergenerationturbines,avianfatalitieswouldcontinuetooccur.Moreover,whilerepoweringisintendedtoreducefatalities,enoughuncertaintyremainsinlightofproject‐andsite‐specificdatatowarrantaconservativeapproachintheimpactanalysis.Accordingly,thecontinuedlossofbirds(includingspecial‐statusspecies)ataratepotentiallygreaterthantheexistingbaselinefatalityratesisconsideredasignificantandunavoidableimpact.

ItshouldbenotedthatturbinesusedinfuturerepoweringprojectsarelikelytobeofsimilarsizetotheVascoWindsturbinesbutmuchlargerthantheDiabloWindsandBuenaVistaturbinesinbothoverallsizeandratednameplatecapacity.Thereisevidencetosuggestthatlargerturbines—likethoseusedintheVascoWindsproject—couldresultinadditionaldecreasesinavianfatalityratesforbirdspeciescurrentlykilledintheAPWRA(SmallwoodandKaras2009).However,itisalsopossiblethatlargerturbinesmaynegativelyaffectadifferentsuiteofbirdspeciesthathavebeenrelativelyunaffectedbyolder(i.e.,smaller)turbines.Inaddition,fatalityratesintheAPWRAarehighlyvariable(thatis,becausetheydifferacrossyears,turbinestypes,geographies,and





topographies,speciesimpactsmaydifferbetweensitesduetodifferentlevelsofuse)andpotentiallyimprecise(Smallwoodetal.2010;ICFInternational2013).Nonetheless,thesethreerepoweringprojectsrepresentthebestavailableinformationtounderstandthepotentialforavianfatalitiesassociatedwithrepowering;accordingly,datafromtheseprojectswereusedtoformthebasisforavianfatalityestimates.TheestimatedchangesassociatedwithAlternative2areshowninTable3.4‐12anddiscussedbelow.Postconstructionmonitoring,oncetheturbinesareinoperation,willprovidedatatoquantifytheactualextentofchangeinavianfatalitiesfromrepoweringandtheextentofavianfatalityforprojectsintheprogramarea,andwillcontributetothebodyofknowledgesupportingfutureanalyses.

Table 3.4‐12. Estimated Annual Avian Fatalities for Existing and Repowered Program Area—Alternative 2 (450 MW)

Species


Nonrepowered

Repowered


DiabloWindsa

BuenaVistab

VascoWindsc,d


%Decrease


%Decrease


%Decrease


Barnowl 79.5 9.0 89 0.0 0 14.9 81

Burrowingowl 255.1 378.0 ‐48 0.0 100 22.5 91

Goldeneagle 26.6 4.5 83 18.0 32 14.4 46


Prairiefalcon 6.6 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100

Red‐tailedhawk 144.5 90.0 38 45.0 69 110.7 23

Swainson’shawk 0.5 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100

Allraptors 799.9 544.5 32 139.5 83 288.9 64

Allnativenon‐raptors 1,482.0 1,129.5 24 454.5 69 942.3 36

Note:fatalityratesreflectannualfatalities(95%confidenceinterval).a DiabloWindsfatalityratesextrapolatedtotheoverallprogramarea.b BuenaVistafatalityratesextrapolatedtotheoverallprogramarea.c VascoWindsfatalityratesextrapolatedtotheoverallprogramarea.dVascoWindsfatalityrateforgoldeneaglebasedonupdatedinformationreceivedfromNextEraEnergyResourcesonJuly21,2014,andextrapolatedtotheoverallprogramarea.

AmericanKestrel.AsshowninTable3.4‐12,afullyrepowered450MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated41–138Americankestrelfatalitiesperyear.Basedontheseestimates,theprogramcoulddecreaseaverageannualfatalitiesby31–79%.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringontheAmericankestrelpopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

BarnOwl.AsshowninTable3.4‐12,afullyrepowered450MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated9–15barnowlfatalitiesperyear.Basedontheseestimates,theprogramcoulddecreaseaverageannualfatalitiesby81–89%.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringonthebarnowlpopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.





BurrowingOwl.AsshowninTable3.4‐12,afullyrepowered450MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated23–378burrowingowlfatalitiesperyear—achangerangingfroma91%decreasetoa48%increaseinfatalities.ThisfatalityestimateisbasedondatafromDiabloWindsandVascoWindsbecausenoburrowingowlfatalitiesweredetectedatBuenaVista.Currentevidencesuggeststhatburrowingowlfatalityratesarenotreducedbythetransitionfromold‐tonew‐generationturbinestothesameextentasthefatalityratesofotherspecies.Theincreaseinenergyproductionfrom329MWto450MWwouldlikelyresultinasmallestimatedincreaseinburrowingowlfatalitiesperyear.However,agrowingbodyofcircumstantialevidenceindicatesthatmanyoftheburrowingowlfatalitiesfoundduringfatalitysurveysareduetopredationratherthanturbinecollision.Becauseofthisconfoundingeffect,thepotentialreductioninturbine‐relatedburrowingowlfatalitiesmaybeunderestimatedbecauseoftheinabilitytodistinguishfatalitiesresultingfrompredationfromthosecausedbyturbinecollision(ICFInternational2013).ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringontheburrowingowlpopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

GoldenEagle.AsshowninTable3.4‐12,afullyrepowered450MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated5–18goldeneaglefatalitiesperyear.Basedontheseestimates,theprogramcoulddecreaseaverageannualfatalitiesby32–83%.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringonthegoldeneaglepopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

LoggerheadShrike.NodocumentedfatalitiesofloggerheadshrikeshaveoccurredattheDiabloWinds,BuenaVista,orVascoWindsprojects(Table3.4‐10),althoughloggerheadshrikesareregularlydetectedinthevicinityoftheDiabloWindsturbines.Thelackofdocumentedfatalitiesmaysuggestareducedleveloffatalityfromtherepoweredturbinesatthesesites.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringontheloggerheadshrikepopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

PrairieFalcon.FatalityestimatesatrepoweredsitesarenotavailableforprairiefalconbecausenofatalitieshavebeendocumentedatDiabloWindsorVascoWindsandonlyonefatalityhasbeenrecordedatBuenaVista(Table3.4‐10).Therefore,itisdifficulttoestimatetheannualfatalitiesthatwouldresultfromafullyrepoweredprogramarea.Thelackofdocumentedfatalitiesmaysuggestareducedleveloffatalityfromtherepoweredturbinesatthesesites.However,thenonrepoweredfatalityrateforprairiefalconisalreadyrelativelylow(0.02fatality/MW/year),suggestingthatthecollisionriskforthisspeciesislow.Prairiefalconoccursmostlyinwinter,andthebaselinefatalityrateismeasuredduringaperiodwhentheseasonalshutdownhasbeenineffect.Repoweredturbinesdonotshutdowninwinter.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringontheprairiefalconpopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

Red‐TailedHawk.AsshowninTable3.4‐12,thefullyrepowered450MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated45–111red‐tailedhawkfatalitiesperyear.Basedontheseestimates,theprogramcoulddecreasetheaverageannualfatalitiesby23–69%.Thepotentialimpactofrepoweringonthered‐tailedhawkpopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

Swainson’sHawk.ThereisonlyonerecordedSwainson’shawkfatalityintheAPWRA,resultinginanannualestimatedfatalityrateofapproximatelyzero(Table3.4‐10).NoSwainson’shawkfatalitiesweredetectedatDiabloWinds,BuenaVista,orVascoWinds.Basedonthelowestimatedfatalityratefromnonrepoweredsites,thelackoffatalitiesdetectedatrepoweredsites,andtherelativelylowuseoftheAPWRAbySwainson’shawks,itisexpectedthatthefatalityratefor





Swainson’shawkwouldremainlowundertheprogram.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringontheSwainson’shawkpopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

Raptors.AsshowninTable3.4‐12,afullyrepowered450MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated140–545raptorfatalitiesperyear.Basedontheseestimates,theprogramcoulddecreaseaverageannualraptorfatalitiesby32–83%.

Nativenon‐raptors.AsshowninTable3.4‐12,afullyrepowered450MWprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated455–1,130nativenon‐raptorfatalitiesperyear.Basedontheseestimates,theprogramcoulddecreasetheaverageannualfatalitiesby24–69%.

Asdescribedabove,forallavianfocalspeciesanalyzed,afullyrepoweredprogramareawouldbeexpectedtoreduceestimatedfatalityrates.However,fatalitieswouldstillbeexpectedtoresultfromtheoperationoftherepoweredturbines,anduncertaintysurroundingtheaccuracyoftheestimatedfatalityratesandthetypesofspeciespotentiallyaffectedremains.Consideringthisinformation,anddespitetheanticipatedreductionsinavianimpactscomparedtothebaselinerates,theCountyhasdeterminedtouseaconservativeapproachfortheimpactassessment,concludingthatturbine‐relatedfatalitiescouldconstituteasubstantialadverseeffectonavianspeciesbecausetheratesforsomeorallofthespeciescouldbegreaterthanthebaselinerates.Thisimpactwouldbesignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐11athroughBIO‐11iwouldreducethisimpact,butnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel;accordingly,thisimpactisconsideredsignificantandunavoidable.







MitigationMeasureBIO‐11g:Implementpostconstructionavianfatalitymonitoringforallrepoweringprojectsandimplementadaptivemanagementmeasuresasnecessary



ImpactBIO‐11b:Avianmortalityresultingfrominteractionwithwindenergyfacilities—GoldenHillsProject(significantandunavoidable)

TheoperationofrepoweredturbinesintheGoldenHillsprojectareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinareductioninavianfatalitiesbelowthenumberestimatedtooccurfromnonrepoweredturbines.However,asdiscussedaboveinImpactBIO‐11a‐1,repoweringwouldnoteliminateavianturbine‐relatedfatalities,considerableuncertaintysurroundingthecomparativedatasetremains,and





fatalitiesfromturbinecollisionwouldstillconstituteasignificantandunavoidableimpact.Theestimatedreductioninannualfatalitiesdiffersbyspeciesandspeciesgroup.ThesereductionsarepresentedinTable3.4‐13andsummarizedbelow.

Table 3.4‐13. Estimated Annual Avian Fatalities for Existing and Repowered Golden Hills Project Area

Species


Nonrepowered

Repowered


DiabloWindsa BuenaVistab

VascoWindsc,d


%Decrease


%Decrease


%Decrease


Barnowl 19.4 1.8 91 – – 2.9 85

Burrowingowl 62.4 74.3 ‐19 0.0 100 4.4 93

Goldeneagle 6.5 0.9 86 3.5 46 2.8 57


Prairiefalcon 1.6 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100

Red‐tailedhawk 35.4 17.7 50 8.8 75 21.7 39

Swainson’shawk 0.1 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100

Allraptors 195.7 107.0 45 27.4 86 56.8 71

Allnativenon‐raptors 362.6 221.9 39 89.3 75 185.1 49

Note:fatalityratesreflectannualfatalities(95%confidenceinterval).a DiabloWindsfatalityratesextrapolatedtotheGoldenHillsprojectarea.b BuenaVistafatalityratesextrapolatedtotheGoldenHillsprojectarea.c VascoWindsfatalityratesextrapolatedtotheGoldenHillsprojectarea.dVascoWindsfatalityrateforgoldeneaglebasedonupdatedinformationreceivedfromNextEraEnergyResourcesonJuly21,2014,andextrapolatedtotheGoldenHillsprojectarea.

AmericanKestrel.AsshowninTable3.4‐13,therepowered88.4MWGoldenHillsprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated8–26Americankestrelfatalitiesperyear—a45–83%decrease.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringontheAmericankestrelpopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

BarnOwl.AsshowninTable3.4‐13,therepowered88.4MWGoldenHillsprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimatedtwotothreebarnowlfatalitiesperyear—an85–91%decrease.ThisfatalityestimateisbasedonfatalityratesfortheDiabloWindsandVascoWindsprojects;fatalityestimatesforbarnowlwerenotavailablefromtheBuenaVistaproject.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringonthebarnowlpopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

BurrowingOwl.AsshowninTable3.4‐13,therepowered88.4MWGoldenHillsprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated4–74burrowingowlfatalitiesperyear—achangerangingfroma91%decreasetoa19%increaseinfatalities.





However,agrowingbodyofcircumstantialevidenceindicatesthatmanyoftheburrowingoffatalitiesfoundduringfatalitysurveysareduetopredationratherthanturbinecollision.Becauseofthisconfoundingeffect,thepotentialreductioninturbine‐relatedburrowingowlfatalitiesmaybeunderestimatedbecauseoftheinabilitytodistinguishfatalitiesresultingfrompredationfromthosecausedbyturbinecollision.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringontheburrowingowlpopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

GoldenEagle.AsshowninTable3.4‐13,therepowered88.4MWGoldenHillsprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinfromlessthanonetofourgoldeneaglefatalitiesperyear—a46–86%decrease.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringonthegoldeneaglepopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

LoggerheadShrike.NodocumentedfatalitiesofloggerheadshrikeshaveoccurredattheDiabloWinds,BuenaVista,orVascoWindsprojects(Table3.4‐13),althoughloggerheadshrikesareregularlydetectedinthevicinityoftheDiabloWindsturbines.ThelackofdocumentedfatalitiessuggeststhattheremaybeareducedleveloffatalityfromtherepoweredturbinesattheGoldenHillsprojectsite.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringontheloggerheadshrikepopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

PrairieFalcon.FatalityestimatesatrepoweredsitesarenotavailableforprairiefalconbecausenofatalitieshavebeendocumentedatDiabloWindsorVascoWindsandonlyonefatalityhasbeenrecordedatBuenaVista(Table3.4‐13).Therefore,itisdifficulttoestimatetheannualfatalitiesthatwouldresultfromtherepoweredGoldenHillsproject.ThelackofdocumentedfatalitiessuggeststheremaybeareducedleveloffatalityfromtherepoweredturbinesattheGoldenHillsprojectsite.However,thenonrepoweredfatalityrateforprairiefalconisalreadyrelativelylow(0.02fatality/MW/year),suggestingthatthecollisionriskforthisspeciesislow.Prairiefalconoccursmostlyinwinter,andthebaselinefatalityrateismeasuredduringaperiodwhentheseasonalshutdownhasbeenineffect.Repoweredturbinesdonotshutdowninwinter.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringontheprairiefalconpopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

Red‐TailedHawk.AsshowninTable3.4‐13,therepowered88.4MWGoldenHillsProjectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated9–22red‐tailedhawkfatalitiesperyear—a35–75%decrease.Thepotentialimpactofrepoweringonthered‐tailedhawkpopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

Swainson’sHawk.ThereisonlyonerecordedSwainson’shawkfatalityintheAPWRA,resultinginanannualestimatedfatalityrateofapproximatelyzero(Table3.4‐13).NoSwainson’shawkfatalitiesweredetectedatDiabloWinds,BuenaVista,orVascoWinds.Basedonthelowestimatedfatalityratefromnonrepoweredsites,thelackoffatalitiesdetectedatrepoweredsites,andtherelativelylownumberofdetectionsduringavianusesurveysconductedbytheAFMT(AlamedaCountyunpublisheddata),itisexpectedthatthefatalityrateforSwainson’shawkwouldremainnearzeroattherepoweredGoldenHillsproject.ThepotentialimpactofrepoweringontheSwainson’shawkpopulationwouldbesimilartothatdescribedinImpactBIO‐11a‐1.

Raptors.AsshowninTable3.4‐13,therepowered88.4MWGoldenHillsprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated27–107raptorfatalitiesperyear—a45–86%decrease.





Nativenon‐raptors.AsshowninTable3.4‐13,therepowered88.4MWGoldenHillsprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated89–222nativenon‐raptorfatalitiesperyear—a39–75%decrease.

Asdescribedabove,forallavianfocalspeciesanalyzed,therepoweredGoldenHillsprojectwouldbeexpectedtoreduceestimatedfatalityrates.However,fatalitieswouldstillbeexpectedtoresultfromtheoperationoftherepoweredturbines,anduncertaintysurroundingtheaccuracyoftheestimatedfatalityratesandthetypesofspeciespotentiallyaffectedremains.Consideringthisinformation,anddespitetheanticipatedreductionsinavianimpactscomparedtothebaselinerates,theCountyhasdeterminedtouseaconservativeapproachfortheimpactassessment,concludingthatturbine‐relatedfatalitiescouldconstituteasubstantialadverseeffectonavianspeciesbecausetheratesforsomeorallofthespeciescouldbegreaterthanthebaselinerates.Thisimpactwouldbesignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐12athroughBIO‐12jwouldreducethisimpact,butnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel;accordingly,thisimpactisconsideredsignificantandunavoidable.









TheCountyanticipatesthatthemitigationfeesrequiredbythe2010AgreementtoRepowerTurbinesattheAltamontPassWindResourceAreawillsatisfythismitigationmeasurefortheGoldenHillsProject.


ImpactBIO‐11c:Avianmortalityresultingfrominteractionwithwindenergyfacilities—PattersonPassProject(significantandunavoidable)

TheoperationofrepoweredturbinesinthePattersonPassprojectareawouldbeexpectedtoresultinareductioninestimatedavianfatalityrateincomparisonwiththefatalityestimatesfromnonrepoweredturbines.However,asdiscussedaboveinImpactBIO‐11a‐1and11a‐2,repoweringwouldnoteliminateavianturbine‐relatedfatalities,considerableuncertaintysurroundingthecomparativedatasetremains,andfatalitiesfromturbinecollisionwouldstillresultinasignificantandunavoidableimpact.Theestimatedreductioninannualfatalitiesdiffersbyspeciesandspeciesgroup.ThesereductionsarepresentedinTable3.4‐13andsummarizedbelow.





Table 3.4‐14. Estimated Annual Avian Fatalities for Existing and Repowered Patterson Pass Project Area

Species


Nonrepowered

Repowered


DiabloWindsa BuenaVistab

VascoWindsc,d


%Decrease


%Decrease


%Decrease


Barnowl 5.2 0.4 92 – – 0.7 87

Burrowingowl 16.9 16.6 2 0.0 100 1.0 94

Goldeneagle 1.8 0.2 89 0.8 56 0.6 67


Prairiefalcon 0.4 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100

Red‐tailedhawk 9.6 4.0 59 2.0 79 4.9 49

Swainson’shawk 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0

Allraptors 53.1 24.0 55 6.1 88 12.7 76

Allnativenon‐raptors 98.4 49.7 49 20.0 80 41.5 58

Note:fatalityratesreflectannualfatalities(95%confidenceinterval).a DiabloWindsfatalityratesextrapolatedtothePattersonPassprojectarea.b BuenaVistafatalityratesextrapolatedtothePattersonPassprojectarea.c VascoWindsfatalityratesextrapolatedtothePattersonPassprojectarea.dVascoWindsfatalityrateforgoldeneaglebasedonupdatedinformationreceivedfromNextEraEnergyResourcesonJuly21,2014andextrapolatedtothePattersonPassprojectarea.

AmericanKestrel.AsshowninTable3.4‐14,therepowered19.8MWPattersonPassprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimatedtwotosixAmericankestrelfatalitiesperyear—a54–86%decrease.

BarnOwl.AsshowninTable3.4‐14,therepowered19.8MWPattersonPassprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinlessthanonebarnowlfatalityperyear—an87–92%decrease.

BurrowingOwl.AsshowninTable3.4‐14,therepowered19.8MWPattersonPassprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated1–17burrowingowlfatalitiesperyear—a2–94%decreaseinfatalities.ThisfatalityestimateisbasedondatafromDiabloWindsandVascoWinds;noburrowingowlfatalitiesweredetectedatBuenaVista.

However,agrowingbodyofcircumstantialevidenceindicatesthatmanyoftheburrowingoffatalitiesfoundduringfatalitysurveysareduetopredationratherthanturbinecollision.Becauseofthisconfoundingeffect,thepotentialreductioninturbine‐relatedburrowingowlfatalitiesmaybeunderestimatedbecauseoftheinabilitytodistinguishfatalitiesresultingfrompredationfromthosecausedbyturbinecollision.

GoldenEagle.AsshowninTable3.4‐14,therepowered19.8MWPattersonPassprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinlessthanonegoldeneaglefatalityperyear—a56–89%decrease.

LoggerheadShrike.NodocumentedfatalitiesofloggerheadshrikeshaveoccurredattheDiabloWinds,BuenaVista,orVascoWindsprojects(Table3.4‐14),althoughloggerheadshrikesare





regularlydetectedinthevicinityoftheDiabloWindsturbines.ThelackofdocumentedfatalitiessuggeststhattheremaybeareducedleveloffatalityfromtherepoweredturbinesatthePatternPassprojectsite.

PrairieFalcon.FatalityestimatesatrepoweredsitesarenotavailableforprairiefalconbecausenofatalitieshavebeendocumentedatDiabloWindsorVascoWindsandonlyonefatalityhasbeenrecordedatBuenaVista(Table3.4‐14).Therefore,itisdifficulttoestimatetheannualfatalitiesthatwouldresultfromtherepoweredPattersonPassproject.ThelackofdocumentedfatalitiessuggeststhattheremaybeareducedleveloffatalityfromtherepoweredturbinesatthePattersonPassprojectsite.However,thenonrepoweredfatalityrateforprairiefalconisalreadyrelativelylow(0.02fatality/MW/year),suggestingthatthecollisionriskforthisspeciesislow.Prairiefalconoccursmostlyinwinter,andthebaselinefatalityrateismeasuredduringaperiodwhentheseasonalshutdownhasbeenineffect.Repoweredturbinesdonotshutdowninwinter.

Red‐TailedHawk.AsshowninTable3.4‐14,therepowered19.8MWPattersonPassprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimatedtwotofivered‐tailedhawkfatalitiesperyear—a49–79%decrease.

Swainson’sHawk.ThereisonlyonerecordedSwainson’shawkfatalityintheAPWRA,resultinginanannualestimatedfatalityrateofapproximatelyzero(Table3.4‐14).NoSwainson’shawkfatalitiesweredetectedatDiabloWinds,BuenaVista,orVascoWinds.Basedonthelowestimatedfatalityratefromnonrepoweredsitesandthelackoffatalitiesdetectedatrepoweredsites,itisexpectedthatthefatalityrateforSwainson’shawkwouldremainlowattherepoweredPattersonPassprojectsite.

Raptors.AsshowninTable3.4‐14,therepowered19.8MWPattersonPassprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated6–24raptorfatalitiesperyear—a55–88%decrease.

Nativenon‐raptors.AsshowninTable3.4‐14,therepowered19.8MWPattersonPassprojectwouldbeexpectedtoresultinanestimated20–50nativenon‐raptorfatalitiesperyear—a49–80%decrease.

Asdescribedabove,forallavianfocalspeciesanalyzed,therepoweredPattersonPassprojectwouldbeexpectedtoreduceestimatedfatalityrates.However,fatalitieswouldstillbeexpectedtoresultfromtheoperationoftherepoweredturbines,anduncertaintysurroundingtheaccuracyoftheestimatedfatalityratesandthetypesofspeciespotentiallyaffectedremains.Consideringthisinformation,anddespitetheanticipatedreductionsinavianimpactscomparedtothebaselinerates,theCountyhasdeterminedtouseaconservativeapproachfortheimpactassessment,concludingthatturbine‐relatedfatalitiescouldconstituteasubstantialadverseeffectonavianspeciesbecausetheratesforsomeorallofthespeciescouldbegreaterthanthebaselinerates.Thisimpactwouldbesignificant.Implementationofthemitigationmeasureslistedbelowwouldreducethisimpactbutnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel;accordingly,thisimpactisconsideredsignificantandunavoidable.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐11athroughBIO‐11iwouldreducethisimpactbutnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel;accordingly,thisimpactisconsideredsignificantandunavoidable.














ImpactBIO‐12a‐1:Potentialmortalityordisturbanceofbatsfromroostremovalordisturbance—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Severalspeciesofbothcommon(Myotisspp.)andspecial‐status(westernredbat,pallidbat,Townsend’sbig‐earedbat)batsareknowntooccurorcouldoccurinoraroundtheprogramarea,andcouldusetheareaforforaging,dispersal,andmigration.Batsmayuserockoutcrops,trees,buildings,bridges,andotherstructuresintheprogramareaasmaternityormigratorystopoverroosts.Permanentwaterbodiesandstocktanksinandadjacenttotheprogramareaprovidesourcesoffreshwaterforbothresidentandmigratorybats.

Constructionanddecommissioningofturbinescouldresultindisturbanceorlossofactivebatrooststhroughincreasedtraffic,noise,lighting,andhumanaccess.Removalordisturbanceoftrees,rockoutcrops,debrispiles,outbuildings,orotherartificialstructurescouldresultinremovalofroosthabitatandmortalityofbatsusingthestructureasaroost.Severalspeciesofbataresensitivetodisturbanceandmayabandonflightlessyoung,ortheymaysimplynotreturntotheroostoncedisturbed,resultinginthelossofthatroostashabitatforthelocalpopulation.Becausesomebatsroostcolonially,removalofspecial‐statusspecies’rooststructuresinaroost‐limitedhabitatcouldresultinthelossofasignificantportionofthelocalbatpopulation.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐3,BIO‐12a,andBIO‐12bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.



MitigationMeasureBIO‐12a:Conductbatroostsurveys

Priortodevelopmentofanyrepoweringproject,aqualifiedbatbiologistwillconductaroosthabitatassessmenttoidentifypotentialcolonialroostsitesofspecial‐statusandcommonbatspecieswithin750feetoftheconstructionarea.Ifsuitableroostsitesaretoberemovedorotherwiseaffectedbytheproposedproject,thebatbiologistwillconducttargetedroostsurveys





ofallidentifiedsitesthatwouldbeaffected.Becausebatactivityishighlyvariable(bothspatiallyandtemporally)acrossthelandscapeandmaymoveunpredictablyamongseveralroosts,severalseparatesurveyvisitsmayberequired.Surveyswillberepeatedatdifferenttimesofyearifdeemednecessarybythebatbiologisttodeterminethepresenceofseasonallyactiveroosts(hibernacula,migratorystopovers,maternityroosts).Appropriatefieldmethodswillbeemployedtodeterminethespecies,type,andvulnerabilityoftheroosttoconstructiondisturbance.Methodswillfollowbestpracticesforroostsurveyssuchthatspeciesarenotdisturbedandadequatetemporalandspatialcoverageisprovidedtoincreaselikelihoodofdetection.

Roostsurveysmayconsistofbothdaylightsurveysforsignsofbatuseandevening/nightvisit(s)toconductemergencesurveysorevaluatethestatusofnightroosts.Surveytimingshouldbeadequatetoaccountforindividualbatsorspeciesthatmightnotemergeuntilwellafterdark.

Methodsandapproachesfordeterminingroostoccupancystatusshouldincludeacombinationofthefollowingcomponentsasthebiologistdeemsnecessaryfortheparticularroostsite.

Passiveand/oractiveacousticmonitoringtoassistwithspeciesidentification.

Guanotrapstodetermineactivitystatus.

Night‐visionequipment.

Passiveinfraredcameratraps.

Atthecompletionoftheroostsurveys,areportwillbeprepareddocumentingareassurveyed,methods,results,andmappingofhigh‐qualityhabitatorconfirmedroostlocations.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐12b:Avoidremovingordisturbingbatroosts

Activebatroostswillnotbedisturbed,andwillbeprovidedaminimumbufferof500feetwherepreexistingdisturbanceismoderateor750feetwherepreexistingdisturbanceisminimal.ConfirmationofbufferdistancesanddeterminationoftheneedforabiologicalmonitorforactivematernityroostsorhibernaculawillbeobtainedinconsultationwithCDFW.Ataminimum,whenanactivematernityroostorhibernaculumispresentwithin750feetofaconstructionsite,aqualifiedbiologistwillconductaninitialassessmentoftheroostresponsetoconstructionactivitiesandwillrecommendbufferexpansioniftherearesignsofdisturbancefromtheroost.

Structures(naturalorartificial)showingevidenceofsignificantbatusewithinthepastyearwillbeleftinplaceashabitatwhereverfeasible.Shouldsuchastructureneedtoberemovedordisturbed,CDFWwillbeconsultedtodetermineappropriatebuffers,timingandmethods,andcompensatorymitigationforthelossoftheroost.

Allprojectproponentswillprovideenvironmentalawarenesstrainingtoconstructionpersonnel,establishbuffers,andinitiateconsultationwithCDFWifneeded.

Artificialnightlightingwithin500feetofanyroostwillbeshieldedandangledsuchthatbatsmayenterandexittheroostwithoutartificialilluminationandtheroostdoesnotreceiveartificialexposuretovisualpredators.

Treeandvegetationremovalwillbeconductedoutsidethematernityseason(April1–September15)toavoiddisturbanceofmaternitygroupsoffoliage‐roostingbats.





Ifamaternityroostorhibernaculumispresentwithin500feetoftheconstructionsitewherepreexistingdisturbanceismoderateorwithin750feetwherepreexistingdisturbanceisminimal,aqualifiedbiologicalmonitorwillbeonsiteduringgroundbreakingactivities.

ImpactBIO‐12a‐2:Potentialmortalityordisturbanceofbatsfromroostremovalordisturbance—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Severalspeciesofbothcommon(Myotisspp.)andspecial‐status(westernredbat,pallidbat,Townsend’sbig‐earedbat)batsareknowntooccurorcouldoccurinoraroundtheprogramarea,andcouldusetheareaforforaging,dispersal,andmigration.Batsmayuserockoutcrops,trees,buildings,bridges,andotherstructuresintheprogramareaasmaternityormigratorystopoverroosts.Permanentwaterbodiesandstocktanksinandadjacenttotheprogramareaprovidesourcesoffreshwaterforbothresidentandmigratorybats.

DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Constructionanddecommissioningofturbinescouldresultindisturbanceorlossofactivebatrooststhroughincreasedtraffic,noise,lighting,andhumanaccess.Removalordisturbanceoftrees,rockoutcrops,debrispiles,outbuildings,orotherartificialstructurescouldresultinremovalofroosthabitatandmortalityofbatsusingthestructureasaroost.Severalspeciesofbataresensitivetodisturbanceandmayabandonflightlessyoung,ortheymaysimplynotreturntotheroostoncedisturbed,resultinginthelossofthatroostashabitatforthelocalpopulation.Becausesomebatsroostcolonially,removalofspecial‐statusspecies’rooststructuresinaroost‐limitedhabitatcouldresultinthelossofasignificantportionofthelocalbatpopulation.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐3,BIO‐12a,andBIO‐12bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.





ImpactBIO‐12b:Potentialmortalityordisturbanceofbatsfromroostremovalordisturbance—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Constructionanddecommissioningofturbinescouldresultindisturbanceorlossofactivebatrooststhroughincreasedtraffic,noise,lightingorhumanaccess.Removalordisturbanceoftrees,rockoutcrops,debrispiles,outbuildings,orotherartificialstructurescouldresultinremovalofroosthabitatandmortalityofbatsusingthestructureasaroost.Severalspeciesofbataresensitivetodisturbanceandmayabandonflightlessyoung,ortheymaysimplynotreturntotheroostoncedisturbed,resultinginthelossofthatroostashabitatforthelocalpopulation.Becausesomebatsroostcolonially,removalofspecial‐statusspecies’rooststructuresinaroost‐limitedhabitatcould





resultinthelossofasignificantportionofthelocalbatpopulation.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐3,BIO‐12aandBIO‐12bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.





ImpactBIO‐12c:Potentialmortalityordisturbanceofbatsfromroostremovalordisturbance—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Constructionanddecommissioningofturbinescouldresultindisturbanceorlossofactivebatrooststhroughincreasedtraffic,noise,lightingorhumanaccess.Removalordisturbanceoftrees,rockoutcrops,debrispiles,outbuildings,orotherartificialstructurescouldresultinremovalofroosthabitatandmortalityofbatsusingthestructureasaroost.Severalspeciesofbataresensitivetodisturbanceandmayabandonflightlessyoung,ortheymaysimplynotreturntotheroostoncedisturbed,resultinginthelossofthatroostashabitatforthelocalpopulation.Becausesomebatsroostcolonially,removalofspecial‐statusspecies’rooststructuresinaroost‐limitedhabitatcouldresultinthelossofasignificantportionofthelocalbatpopulation.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐3,BIO‐12aandBIO‐12bwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.





ImpactBIO‐13a‐1:Potentialforconstructionactivitiestotemporarilyremoveoralterbatforaginghabitat—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificant)

Constructionofrepoweringprojectscoulddegradebatforaginghabitatbyreplacingvegetationwithnonvegetatedlandcovertypes.Projectconstructionwouldcreateatemporaryincreaseintraffic,noise,andartificialnightlightingintheprogramarea,reducingtheextentoflandscapeavailableforforaging.However,theamountoflandscapereturnedtoforaginghabitatintheprocessofdecommissioningthefirst‐andsecond‐generationturbineswouldoffsettheamountofforaginghabitatlosttorepoweringactivities.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.Nomitigationisrequired.





ImpactBIO‐13a‐2:Potentialforconstructionactivitiestotemporarilyremoveoralterbatforaginghabitat—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificant)

Constructionofrepoweringprojectscoulddegradebatforaginghabitatbyreplacingvegetationwithnonvegetatedlandcovertypes.DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Projectconstructionwouldcreateatemporaryincreaseintraffic,noise,andartificialnightlightingintheprogramarea,reducingtheextentoflandscapeavailableforforaging.However,theamountoflandscapereturnedtoforaginghabitatintheprocessofdecommissioningthefirst‐andsecond‐generationturbineswouldoffsettheamountofforaginghabitatlosttorepoweringactivities.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.Nomitigationisrequired.

ImpactBIO‐13b:Potentialforconstructionactivitiestotemporarilyremoveoralterbatforaginghabitat—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificant)

ConstructionoftheGoldenHillsProjectcoulddegradebatforaginghabitatbyreplacingvegetationwithnonvegetatedlandcovertypes.Projectconstructionwouldcreateatemporaryincreaseintraffic,noise,andartificialnightlightingintheprogramarea,reducingtheextentoflandscapeavailableforforaging.However,theamountoflandscapereturnedtoforaginghabitatintheprocessofdecommissioningthefirst‐andsecond‐generationturbineswouldoffsettheamountofforaginghabitatlosttorepoweringactivities.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.Nomitigationisrequired.

ImpactBIO‐13c:Potentialforconstructionactivitiestotemporarilyremoveoralterbatforaginghabitat—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificant)

ConstructionofthePattersonPassProjectcoulddegradebatforaginghabitatbyreplacingvegetationwithnonvegetatedlandcovertypes.Projectconstructionwouldcreateatemporaryincreaseintraffic,noise,andartificialnightlightingintheprogramarea,reducingtheextentoflandscapeavailableforforaging.However,theamountoflandscapereturnedtoforaginghabitatintheprocessofdecommissioningthefirst‐andsecond‐generationturbineswouldoffsettheamountofforaginghabitatlosttorepoweringactivities.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.Nomitigationisrequired.

ImpactBIO‐14a‐1:Turbine‐relatedfatalitiesofspecial‐statusandotherbats—programAlternative1:417MW(significantandunavoidable)

Residentandmigratorybatsflyinginandthroughtheprogramareamaybekilledbycollisionwithwindturbinebladesorotherinteractionwiththewindturbinegenerators.

Insufficientdataarecurrentlyavailabletodevelopaccuratefatalityestimatesforindividualbatspecies.FivebatspecieshavebeendocumentedinfatalitymonitoringprogramsintheAPWRA(InsigniaEnvironmental2012:48;Brownetal.2013:23;ICFInternational2012:3‐3),ofwhichtwo(westernredbatandhoarybat)arespecial‐statusspecies.Extrapolatingfromexistingfatalitydataandfromtrendsobservedatotherwindenergyfacilitieswherefourth‐generationturbinesareinoperation,itappearslikelythatfatalitieswouldoccurpredominantlyinthelatesummertomid‐fallmigrationperiod;thatfatalitieswouldconsistmostlyofmigratorybats,particularlyMexicanfree‐tailedbatandhoarybat;thatfatalitieswouldoccursporadicallyatothertimesofyear;andthatfatalitiesofoneormoreotherspecieswouldoccurinsmallernumbers.





DiabloWinds,BuenaVista,andVascoWindsaretheonlyrepoweredprojectsintheAPWRAforwhichestimatesofbatfatalityratesareavailable.Whiletheseratesvarywidely(SmallwoodandKaras2009:1067;InsigniaEnvironmental2012:65;Brownetal.2013:39),basedontheseestimates,batcollisionriskincreasessubstantiallywhenold‐generationturbinesarereplacedbynewer,largerturbines(SmallwoodandKaras2009:1068).TurbinesusedinfuturerepoweringprojectsarelikelytobesimilarinsizetotheVascoWindsturbinesbutmuchlargerthantheDiabloWindsandBuenaVistaturbinesinbothoverallsizeandratednameplatecapacity.ThereisevidencetosuggestthatlargerturbinessimilartothoseusedintheVascoWindsprojectwillresultinadditionalincreasesinbatfatalityratesforthosebatspeciescurrentlykilledintheAPWRA.

Somehypothesesfortheincreasedcollisionrisktomigratorybatspeciesatfourth‐generationturbinesaresummarizedbelow.

Batstendnottoflyathighwindspeeds.Thelowerwindspeedsatwhichfourth‐generationturbinesareabletoproducepowercreatemoreoverlapinthetimethatturbinesareoperatingandbatsareintheair.Inseveralstudies,themajorityoffatalitiesoccurredonnightsoflowerwindspeed(lessthan5.5meters/second[m/s])(Arnettetal.2008:73;Goodetal.2012:iv).Thiscorrelationsuggestsapossiblesourcefortheincreasedriskthatfourth‐generationturbinesposetobats.

Migratorytree‐roostingbatsmaybeattractedtothetubulartowerstructureofnewerturbines;thisattractionmayberelatedtomatingbehaviorduringmigration(Arnettetal.2008:73;Cryan2008:1).

Echolocationpulsesmaynotbeusedduringopen‐airmigratoryflight,ornotusedasoften,resultinginbatsbeingunawareofthehazardpresentedbytheturbineblades(Kunzetal.2007:319).

Foraging,wateracquisition,roostselection,ormatingbehaviorduringmigrationseasonmaybringbatsthroughtherotor‐sweptareaoftallerturbinesmoreoften(CryanandBarclay2009:1333).

Tallerturbineshavebeendocumentedtokillmorebats.Theincreasedheightoffourth‐generationturbinesputstherotor‐sweptareaintobatflightpaths(Barclayetal2007:384).

Table3.4‐15providesacomparisonoftheestimatednumberoffatalitiesexpectedtooccurifold‐generationturbinesareallowedtocontinueoperatingattheircurrentlevelandtheestimatednumberoffatalitiesexpectedtooccurafterrepoweringoftheprogramareaandthetwoprojectareas.Duetothehighdegreeofuncertaintyinbatfatalityestimates,arangeofestimatesbasedonavailabledataispresented.Thelowestestimateisderivedfromthebestestimaterateof1.679fatalities/MW/yearreportedforthefirstyearofmonitoringattheVascoWindsrepoweringproject(Brownetal.2013:39).Theupperendofthisrangeiscalculatedusingthebatfatalityrateof3.92fatalities/MW/yearreportedfortheShilohIprojectintheMontezumaHillsWindResourceArea.Thebaselineestimateisderivedfromthebatfatalityrateof0.263fatalities/MW/yearreportedfortheAPWRAfor2005–2007(SmallwoodandKaras2009:1066).AsshowninTable3.4‐15,annualestimatedbatfatalitiesintheprogramareafromimplementationofAlternative1areanticipatedtoincreasefromthecurrentestimateof87to700–1,635fatalities.





Table 3.4‐15. Estimated Range of Annual Bat Fatalities

StudyArea Capacity(MW) BaselineFatalitiesa PredictedFatalitiesb

Existingprogramarea 329 87 –

ProgramAlternative1 417 110 700–1,635

ProgramAlternative2 450 118 756–1,764

GoldenHills 88.4 23 148–347

PattersonPass 19.8 5 33–78a EstimateoftotalbaselinefatalitiesarebasedontheSmallwoodandKarasfatalityrateof0.263fatalities/MW/yearderivedfrom2005–2007monitoringattheAPWRA.

b EstimateoftotalpredictedfatalitiesarebasedonfatalityratesfromtheVascoWindsrepoweringproject(1.679fatalities/MW/year),andfromthemultiyearaverageratesfromtheShilohIprojectintheMontezumaHillsWRA(3.92fatalities/MW/year).

Despitethehighlevelofuncertaintyinestimatesofbatfatalityrates,allavailabledatasuggestthatrepoweringwouldresultinasubstantialincreaseinbatfatalities.Thedegreeofincreasemaybeinfluencedbythefollowingfactors.

Turbineplacementinareasofhighautumnbatactivityoralongmigrationroutes.

Turbineplacementalongcommutingflywaystokeyresources(e.g.,roosts,water,foraginghabitat).

Behavioroftheturbinemodelbeforeitcutsin(i.e.,whetherbladesareallowedtospinatlowerwindspeeds)(Goodetal.2012:v).

MitigationMeasuresBIO‐14athroughBIO‐14ewouldreducethisimpact,butnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel;accordingly,thisimpactisconsideredsignificantandunavoidable.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐14a:Siteandselectturbinestominimizepotentialmortalityofbats

Allprojectproponentswillusethebestinformationavailabletositeturbinesandtoselectfromturbinemodelsinsuchamannerastoreducebatcollisionrisk.Thesitingandselectionprocesswilltakeintoaccountbatuseoftheareaandlandscapefeaturesknowntoincreasecollisionrisk(trees,edgehabitats,riparianareas,waterbodies,andwetlands).Measuresincludebutarenotlimitedtositingturbinesthegreatestdistancefeasibleupto500meters(1,640)feetfromstillorflowingbodiesofwater,riparianhabitat,knownroosts,andtreestands(CaliforniaBatWorkingGroup2006:6).

Togeneratesite‐specific“bestinformation”toinformturbinesitingandoperationdecisions,abathabitatassessmentandroostsurveywillbeconductedintheprojectareatoidentifyandmaphabitatofpotentialsignificancetobats,suchaspotentialroostsites(treesandshrubs,significantrockformations,artificialstructures)andwatersources.TurbinesitingdecisionswillincorporaterelevantbatusesurveydataandbatfatalityrecordspublishedbyotherprojectsintheAPWRA.RoostsurveyswillbecarriedoutaccordingtothemethodsdescribedinMitigationMeasure‐BIO‐12a.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐14b:Implementpostconstructionbatfatalitymonitoringprogramforallrepoweringprojects





Ascientificallydefensible,postconstructionbatfatalitymonitoringprogramwillbeimplementedtoestimateactualbatfatalitiesanddetermineifadditionalmitigationisrequired.Bat‐specificmodificationstothe3‐yearpostconstructionmonitoringprogramdescribedinMitigationMeasureBIO‐11g,developedinaccordancewithCEC2007andwithappropriaterecommendationsfromCaliforniaBatWorkingGroupguidelines(2006),willbeimplemented.

InadditiontotherequirementsoutlinedinMitigationMeasureBIO‐11g,thefollowingtwobat‐specificrequirementswillbeadded.

IncludeontheTACatleastonebiologistwithsignificantexpertiseinbatresearchandwindenergyimpactsonbats.

Conductbatacousticsurveysconcurrentlywithfatalitymonitoringintheprojectareatoestimatenightly,seasonal,orannualvariationsinrelativeactivityandspeciesusepatterns,andtocontributetothebodyofknowledgeonseasonalbatmovementsandrelationshipsbetweenbatactivity,environmentalvariables,andturbinefatality.Shouldemergingresearchsupporttheapproach,thesedatamaybeusedtogeneratesite‐specificpredictivemodelstoincreasetheprecisionandeffectivenessofmitigationmeasures(e.g.,theseason‐specific,multivariatemodelsdescribedbyWellerandBaldwin2011:11).Acousticbatsurveyswillbedesignedanddataanalysisconductedbyqualifiedbiologistswithsignificantexperienceinacousticbatsurveytechniques.Methodswillbeinformedbythelatestavailableguidelines(CaliforniaEnergyCommissionguidelines,2007);CaliforniaBatWorkingGroupguidelines,2006),exceptwherebestavailablesciencesupportstechnologicalormethodologicalupdates.High‐quality,sensitiveacousticequipmentwillbeusedtoproducedataofsufficientqualitytogeneratespeciesidentifications.Surveydesignandmethodswillbescientificallydefensibleandwillinclude,ataminimum,thefollowingelements.

Acousticdetectorswillbeinstalledatmultiplestationstoadequatelysamplerangeofhabitatsintheprojectareaforbothresidentandmigratorybats.Thenumberofdetectorarraysinstalledperprojectsitewillincorporateemergingresearchonthedensityofdetectorsrequiredtoadequatelymeetsamplinggoalsandinformmitigationapproaches(WellerandBaldwin2011:10).

AcousticdetectorarrayswillsamplemultipleairspaceheightsincludingasclosetotherepoweredrotorsweptareaaspossibleVerticalstructuresusedformountingmaybepreexistingormaybeinstalledfortheproject(e.g.,temporaryorpermanentmeteorologicaltowers).

SurveyswillbeconductedsuchthatdataarecollectedcontinuouslyfromearlyJulytoearlyNovembertocovertheactivitytransitionfrommaternitytomigrationseasonanddetermineifthereiselevatedactivityduringmigration.Surveyseasonmaybeadjustedtomoreaccuratelyreflectthefullextentofthelocalmigrationseasonand/orseason(s)ofgreatestlocalbatfatalityrisk,ifscientificallysounddatasupportdoingso.

Anticipatedadaptivemanagementgoals,suchasdeterminingjustifiabletimeframestoreducerequiredperiodsofcut‐inspeedadjustments,willbereviewedwiththeTACandincorporatedindesigningtheacousticmonitoringanddataanalysisprogram.

Modificationstothefatalitysearchprotocolwillbeimplementedtoobtainbetterinformationonthenumberandtimingofbatfatalities(e.g.,Johnstonetal.2013:85).Modificationswillincludedecreasesinthetransectwidthandsearchintervalforaperiodoftimecoincidingwithhigh





levelsofbatmortality,i.e.,thefallmigrationseason(roughlyAugusttoearlyNovember,orasappropriateintheviewoftheTAC).Thenatureofbat‐specifictransectdistanceandsearchintervalswillbedeterminedinconsultationwiththeTACandwillbeguidedbyscientificallysoundandpertinentdataonratesofbatcarcassdetectionatwindenergyfacilities(e.g.,Johnstonetal.2013:54–55)andsite‐specificdatafromAPWRArepoweringprojectfatalitymonitoringprogramsasthesedatabecomeavailable.

OthermethodstoachievethegoalsofthebatfatalitymonitoringprogramwhileavoidingprohibitivecostsmaybeconsideredsubjecttoapprovalbytheTAC,ifthesemethodshavebeenpeerreviewedandevidenceindicatesthemethodsareeffective.Forexample,ifprojectproponentswishtohavetheoptionofalteringsearchmethodologytoanewlydevelopedmethod,suchassearchingonlyroadsandpads(Goodetal.2011:73),astatisticallyrobustfieldstudytoindextheresultsofthemethodologyagainststandardsearchmethodswillbeconductedconcurrentlytoensuresite‐specific,long‐termvalidityofthenewmethods.

Finally,detectionprobabilitytrialswillutilizebatcarcassestodevelopbat‐specificdetectionprobabilities.Careshouldbetakentoavoidintroducingnoveldiseasereservoirs;suchavoidancewillentailusingonsitefatalitiesorusingcarcassesobtainedfromwithinareasonablyanticipatedflightdistanceforthatspecies.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐14c:Prepareandpublishannualmonitoringreportsonthefindingsofbatuseoftheprojectareaandfatalitymonitoringresults

Annualreportsofbatuseresultsandfatalitymonitoringwillbeproducedwithin3monthsoftheendofthelastdayoffatalitymonitoring.Special‐statusbatspeciesrecordswillbereportedtoCNDDB.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐14d:Developandimplementabatadaptivemanagementplan

InconcertwithMitigationMeasureBIO‐14b,allprojectproponentswilldevelopadaptivemanagementplanstoensureappropriate,feasible,andcurrentincorporationofemerginginformation.Thegoalsoftheadaptivemanagementplansaretoensurethatthebestavailablescienceandemergingtechnologiesareusedtoassessimpactsonbats,andthatimpactsareminimizedtothegreatestextentpossiblewhilemaximizingenergyproduction.

Theproject‐specificadaptivemanagementplanswillbeusedtoadjustoperationandmitigationtoincorporatetheresultsofprojectareamonitoringandnewtechnologyandresearchresultswhensufficientevidenceexiststosupportthesenewapproaches.TheseplanswillbereviewedbytheTACandapprovedbytheCounty.Alladaptivemanagementmeasureswillbeimplementedwithinareasonabletimeframe,sufficienttoallowthemeasurestotakeeffectinthefirstfallmigrationseasonfollowingtheyearofmonitoringinwhichtheadaptivemanagementthresholdwascrossed.ADMMsmaybemodifiedbytheCountyinconsultationwiththeTACtotakeintoaccountcurrentresearch,site‐specificdata,andthemosteffectiveimpactreductionstrategies.ADMMswillincludeascientificallydefensible,controlledresearchcomponentandminimumpost‐implementationmonitoringtimetoevaluatetheeffectivenessandvalidityofthemeasures.Theminimummonitoringtimewillconsistofthreesequentialfallseasonsofthebat‐specificmortalitymonitoringprogramcoveringthe3–4monthsoftheyearinwhichthehighestbatmortalityhasbeenobserved:likelyAugust–November.Thestartandenddatesofthe3–4monthsofbat‐specificmortalitymonitoringperiodwillbebasedonexistingfatalitydataandinconsultationwiththeTAC.





Determiningafatalitythresholdtotriggeradaptivemanagementisnotstraightforward,asinsufficientinformationexistsonthestatusandvitalityofthepopulationsofmigratorybatspeciessubjecttomortalityintheAPWRA.ThelowestimateofanticipatedbatfatalityratesisfromtheVascoWindsprojectintheAPWRA.Applyingthisrateprogrammaticallywouldresultinanestimateof21,000batskilledoverthe30‐yearlifeoftheprogram.ThehighestimateisfromtheMontezumaHillsWindResourceArea.Applyingthisrateprogrammaticallywouldresultinanestimateof49,050batskilledoverthe30‐yearlifeoftheprogram.Batsareslowtoreproduce,andturbinesmaybemorelikelytokilladultbatsthanjuveniles,suggestingthataconservativeapproachiswarranted.Accordingly,aninitialadaptivemanagementthresholdwillbeestablishedusingthelowfatalityestimates,or1.679fatalities/MW/year,toensurethatthemostconservativetriggerforimplementationofadaptivemanagementmeasuresisadopted.

Ifpostconstructionfatalitymonitoringresultsinapointestimateforthebatfatalityratethatexceedsthe1.679fatalities/MW/yearthresholdbyastatisticallysignificantamount,then,inconsultationwiththeTAC,ADMM‐7andADMM‐8(describedbelow)forbatswillbeimplemented.

Itisimportanttonotethatneitherthehighnorthelowestimatespeakstotheabilityofbatpopulationstowithstandtheassociatedlevelsoftake.TheinitialfatalityratethresholdtriggeringadaptivemanagementmaybemodifiedbytheTACifappropriateandifsuchadaptationissupportedbythebestavailablescience.

TheTACmaydirectimplementationofadaptivemanagementmeasuresforotherappropriatereasons,suchasanunexpectedlyandmarkedlyhighfatalityrateobservedforanybatspecies,orspecial‐statusspeciesbeingkilledinunexpectedlyhighnumbers.

ADMMsforbatsmaybeimplementedusingasteppedapproachuntilnecessaryfatalityreductionsarereached,andmonitoringmethodsmustberevisedasneededtoensureaccuratemeasurementoftheeffectivenessoftheADMMs.AdditionalADMMsforbatsshouldbedevelopedasnewtechnologiesorsciencesupportsdoingso.

ADMM‐7:SeasonalTurbineCut‐inSpeedIncrease.Cut‐inspeedincreasesofferthemostpromisingandimmediatelyavailableapproachtoreducingbatfatalitiesatfourth‐generationwindturbines.Reductionsinfatalities(53–87%)wereobservedwhenincreasingmodernturbinecut‐inspeedto5.0–6.5m/s(Arnettetal.2009:3;Goodetal.2012:iii).Whileimplementingthismeasureimmediatelyuponaproject’scommencementwouldlikelyreducebatfatalities,thatassumptionisnotyetsupportedbyconclusivedata.Moreover,withoutestablishingbaselinefatalityatrepoweredprojects,therewouldbenowaytodeterminetheeffectivenessoftheapproachorwhetherthecostsofincreasedcut‐inspeeds(andconsequentpowergenerationreductions)wereprovidingfatalityreductions.

Cut‐inspeedincreaseswillbeimplementedasoutlinedbelow,witheffectivenessassessedannually.

Theprojectproponentwillincreasecut‐inspeedto5.0m/sfromsunsettosunriseduringpeakmigrationseason(generallyAugust–October).Ifthisisineffective,theprojectproponentwillincreaseturbinecut‐inspeedbyannualincrementsof0.5m/suntiltargetfatalityreductionsareachieved.





Theprojectproponentmayrefinesite‐specificmigrationstartdatesonthebasisofpre‐andpostconstructionacousticsurveysandongoingreviewofdatesoffatalityoccurrencesformigratorybatsintheAPWRA.

Theprojectproponentmayrequestashorterseasonofrequiredcut‐inspeedincreaseswithsubstantialevidencethatsimilarlevelsofmortalityreductioncouldbeachieved.ShouldresourceagenciesandtheTACfindthereissufficientsupportforashorterperiod(aslowas8weeks),evidenceinsupportofthisshorterperiodwillbedocumentedforthepublicrecordandtheshorterperiodmaybeimplemented.

Theprojectproponentmayrequestshorternightlyperiodsofcut‐inspeedincreaseswithsubstantialevidencefromdefensibleonsite,long‐termpostconstructionacousticsurveysindicatingpredictablenightlytimeframeswhentargetspeciesappearnottobeactive.Targetspeciesareheredefinedasmigratorybatsoranyotherspeciesappearingrepeatedlyinthefatalityrecords.

Theprojectproponentmayrequestexceptionstocut‐inspeedincreasesforparticularweathereventsorwindpatternsifsubstantialevidenceisavailablefromonsiteacousticorothermonitoringtosupportsuchexceptions(i.e.,allavailableliteratureandonsitesurveysindicatethatbatactivityceasesduringspecificweathereventsorotherpredictableconditions).

Intheabsenceofdefensiblesite‐specificdata,mandatorycut‐inspeedincreaseswillcommenceonAugust1andcontinuethroughOctober31,andwillbeineffectfromsunsettosunrise.

ADMM‐8:EmergingTechnologyasMitigation.Theprojectproponentmayrequest,withconsultationandapprovalfromagencies,replacementoraugmentationofcut‐inspeedincreaseswithdevelopingtechnologyoranothermitigationapproachthathasbeenproventoachievesimilarbatfatalityreductions.

Theprojectproponentmayalsorequestthesecondtierofadaptivemanagementtobetheadoptionofapromisingbutnotfullyproventechnologyormitigationmethod.TheserequestsaresubjecttoreviewandapprovalbytheTACandmustincludeacontrolledresearchcomponentdesignedbyaqualifiedprincipalinvestigatorsothattheeffectivenessofthemethodmaybeaccuratelyassessed.

Someexamplesofsuchemergingtechnologiesandresearchareasthatcouldbeincorporatedinadaptivemanagementplansarelistedbelow.

Theuseofacousticdeterrents(Arnettetal.2013:1).

Theuseofaltitude‐specificradar,nightvisionand/orothertechnologyallowingbatusemonitoringandassessmentofat‐riskbatbehavior(Johnstonetal.2013:90‐91)ifresearchintheseareasadvancessufficientlytoalloweffectiveapplicationofthesetechnologies.

Applicationofemergingpeer‐reviewedstudiesonbatbiology(suchasstudiesdocumentingmigratorycorridorsorbatbehaviorinrelationtoturbines)thatsupportspecificmitigationmethods.





MitigationMeasureBIO‐14e:Compensateforexpensesincurredbyrehabilitatinginjuredbats

Thecostofreasonable,licensedrehabilitationeffortsforanyinjuredbatstakentowildlifecarefacilitiesfromtheprogramareawillbeassumedinfullbyprojectproponents.

ImpactBIO‐14a‐2:Turbine‐relatedfatalitiesofspecial‐statusandotherbats—programAlternative2:450MW(significantandunavoidable)

Residentandmigratorybatsflyinginandthroughtheprogramareamaybekilledbycollisionwithwindturbinebladesorotherinteractionwiththewindturbinegenerators.

Insufficientdataarecurrentlyavailabletodevelopaccuratefatalityestimatesforindividualbatspecies.FivebatspecieshavebeendocumentedinfatalitymonitoringprogramsintheAPWRA(InsigniaEnvironmental2012:48;Brownetal.2013:23;ICFInternational2012:3‐3),ofwhichtwo(westernredbatandhoarybat)arespecial‐statusspecies.Extrapolatingfromexistingfatalitydataandfromtrendsobservedatotherwindenergyfacilitieswherefourth‐generationturbinesareinoperation,itappearslikelythatfatalitieswouldoccurpredominantlyinthelatesummertomid‐fallmigrationperiod;thatfatalitieswouldconsistmostlyofmigratorybats,particularlyMexicanfree‐tailedbatandhoarybat;thatfatalitieswouldoccursporadicallyatothertimesofyear;andthatfatalitiesofoneormoreotherspecieswouldoccurinsmallernumbers.

DiabloWinds,BuenaVista,andVascoWindsaretheonlyrepoweredprojectsintheAPWRAforwhichestimatesofbatfatalityratesareavailable.Whiletheseratesvarywidely(SmallwoodandKaras2009:1067;InsigniaEnvironmental2012:65;Brownetal.2013:39),basedontheseestimates,batcollisionriskincreasessubstantiallywhenold‐generationturbinesarereplacedbynewer,largerturbines(SmallwoodandKaras2009:1068).TurbinesusedinfuturerepoweringprojectsarelikelytobesimilarinsizetotheVascoWindsturbinesbutmuchlargerthantheDiabloWindsandBuenaVistaturbinesinbothoverallsizeandratednameplatecapacity.ThereisevidencetosuggestthatlargerturbinessimilartothoseusedintheVascoWindsprojectwillresultinadditionalincreasesinbatfatalityratesforthosebatspeciescurrentlykilledintheAPWRA.

Somehypothesesfortheincreasedcollisionrisktomigratorybatspeciesatfourth‐generationturbinesaresummarizedbelow.

Batstendnottoflyathighwindspeeds.Thelowerwindspeedsatwhichfourth‐generationturbinesareabletoproducepowercreatemoreoverlapinthetimethatturbinesareoperatingandbatsareintheair.Inseveralstudies,themajorityoffatalitiesoccurredonnightsoflowerwindspeed(lessthan5.5meters/second[m/s])(Arnettetal.2008:73;Goodetal.2012:iv).Thiscorrelationsuggestsapossiblesourcefortheincreasedriskthatfourth‐generationturbinesposetobats.

Migratorytree‐roostingbatsmaybeattractedtothetubulartowerstructureofnewerturbines;thisattractionmayberelatedtomatingbehaviorduringmigration(Arnettetal.2008:73;Cryan2008:1).

Echolocationpulsesmaynotbeusedduringopen‐airmigratoryflight,ornotusedasoften,resultinginbatsbeingunawareofthehazardpresentedbytheturbineblades(Kunzetal.2007:319).





Foraging,wateracquisition,roostselection,ormatingbehaviorduringmigrationseasonmaybringbatsthroughtherotor‐sweptareaoftallerturbinesmoreoften(CryanandBarclay2009:1333).

Tallerturbineshavebeendocumentedtokillmorebats.Theincreasedheightoffourth‐generationturbinesputstherotor‐sweptareaintobatflightpaths(Barclayetal2007:384).

Table3.4‐15providesacomparisonoftheestimatednumberoffatalitiesexpectedtooccurifold‐generationturbinesareallowedtocontinueoperatingattheircurrentlevelandtheestimatednumberoffatalitiesexpectedtooccurafterrepoweringoftheprogramareaandthetwoprojectareas.Duetothehighdegreeofuncertaintyinbatfatalityestimates,arangeofestimatesbasedonavailabledataispresented.Thelowestestimateisderivedfromthebestestimaterateof1.679fatalities/MW/yearreportedforthefirstyearofmonitoringattheVascoWindsrepoweringproject(Brownetal.2013:39).Theupperendofthisrangeiscalculatedusingthebatfatalityrateof3.92fatalities/MW/yearreportedfortheShilohIprojectintheMontezumaHillsWindResourceArea.Thebaselineestimateisderivedfromthebatfatalityrateof0.263fatalities/MW/yearreportedfortheAPWRAfor2005–2007(SmallwoodandKaras2009:1066).AsshowninTable3.4‐15,annualestimatedbatfatalitiesintheprogramareafromimplementationofAlternative2areanticipatedtoincreasefromthecurrentestimateof87to756–1,764fatalities.

Despitethehighlevelofuncertaintyinestimatesofbatfatalityrates,allavailabledatasuggestthatrepoweringwouldresultinasubstantialincreaseinbatfatalities.Thedegreeofincreasemaybeinfluencedbythefollowingfactors.

Turbineplacementinareasofhighautumnbatactivityoralongmigrationroutes.

Turbineplacementalongcommutingflywaystokeyresources(e.g.,roosts,water,foraginghabitat).

Behavioroftheturbinemodelbeforeitcutsin(i.e.,whetherbladesareallowedtospinatlowerwindspeeds)(Goodetal.2012:v).

MitigationMeasuresBIO‐14athroughBIO‐14ewouldreducethisimpact,butnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel;accordingly,thisimpactisconsideredsignificantandunavoidable.






ImpactBIO‐14b:Turbine‐relatedfatalitiesofspecial‐statusandotherbats—GoldenHillsProject(significantandunavoidable)





ResidentandmigratorybatsflyinginandthroughtheGoldenHillsprojectareamaybekilledbycollisionwithwindturbinebladesorotherinteractionwiththewindturbinegenerators.Repoweringintheprojectareawouldintroduceincreasedfatalityrisk,particularlytomigratorybats.

Extrapolatingfromexistingfatalitydataandfromtrendsobservedatotherwindenergyfacilitieswherefourth‐generationturbinesareinoperation,itappearslikelythatfatalitieswouldoccurpredominantlyinthelatesummertomid‐fallmigrationperiod;thatfatalitieswouldconsistmostlyofmigratorybats,particularlyMexicanfree‐tailedbatandhoarybat;thatfatalitieswouldoccursporadicallyatothertimesofyear;andthatfatalitiesofoneormoreotherspecieswilloccurinsmallernumbers.AsshowninTable3.4‐14,annualestimatedbatfatalitiesintheGoldenHillsprojectareaareanticipatedtoincreasefromthecurrentestimateof23to148–347fatalities.MitigationMeasuresBIO‐14athroughBIO‐14ewouldreducethisimpact,butnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel;accordingly,thisimpactisconsideredsignificantandunavoidable.






ImpactBIO‐14c:Turbine‐relatedfatalitiesofspecial‐statusandotherbats—PattersonPassProject(significantandunavoidable)

ResidentandmigratorybatsflyinginandthroughthePattersonPassprojectareamaybekilledbycollisionwithwindturbinebladesorotherinteractionwiththewindturbinegenerators.Repoweringintheprojectareawouldintroduceincreasedfatalityrisk,particularlytomigratorybats.

Extrapolatingfromexistingfatalitydataandfromtrendsobservedatotherwindenergyfacilitieswherefourth‐generationturbinesareinoperation,itappearslikelythatfatalitieswouldoccurpredominantlyinthelatesummertomid‐fallmigrationperiod;thatfatalitieswouldconsistmostlyofmigratorybats,particularlyMexicanfree‐tailedbatandhoarybat;thatfatalitieswouldoccursporadicallyatothertimesofyear;andthatfatalitiesofoneormoreotherspecieswilloccurinsmallernumbers.AsshowninTable3.4‐14,annualestimatedbatfatalitiesinthePattersonPassprojectareaareanticipatedtoincreasefromthecurrentestimateof5to33–78fatalities.MitigationMeasuresBIO‐14athroughBIO‐14ewouldreducethisimpact,butnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel;accordingly,thisimpactisconsideredsignificantandunavoidable.










ImpactBIO‐15a‐1:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonalkalimeadow—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Roadinfrastructureupgradeswouldincludegrading,widening,andregravellingofexistingroadsandconstructionofnewroadstoaccommodatedecommissionandrepoweringactivities.Culvertswouldbeupgradedforexistingroads,andnewculvertswouldbeinstalledfornewroads.Directeffectswouldconsistoffillofalkalimeadowatlocationswhereroadscrossingthehabitatwouldbewidened.Indirecteffectscouldinvolvealteredhydrologyorrunoffofsedimentandothersubstancesduringroadconstructionactivities.Someeffects,suchasthoseduetorunoff,wouldbeavoidedandminimizedthroughimplementationoferosioncontrolBMPsandpostconstructionreclamation.Installationofnewandupgradedculvertswouldmaintainexistinghydrology.However,lossofalkalimeadowhabitatasaresultofdirectfillwouldbeasubstantialadverseeffectonasensitivenaturalcommunity.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐15wouldreducethisimpacttoalevelless‐than‐significantlevel.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐15:Compensateforthelossofalkalimeadowhabitat

Ifalkalimeadowhabitatisfilledordisturbedaspartofarepoweringproject,theprojectproponentwillcompensateforthelossofthishabitattoensurenonetlossofhabitatfunctionsandvalues.Compensationratioswillbebasedonsite‐specificinformationanddeterminedthroughcoordinationwithstateandfederalagencies(CDFW,USFWS,USACE).Unlessspecifiedotherwisebyaresourceagency,thecompensationwillbeataminimum1:1ratio(1acrerestoredorcreatedforevery1acrefilled)andmaybeacombinationofonsiterestoration/creation,offsiterestoration,andmitigationcredits.Arestorationandmonitoringplanwillbedevelopedandimplemented.Theplanwilldescribehowalkalimeadowhabitatwillbecreatedandmonitored.

ImpactBIO‐15a‐2:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonalkalimeadow—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Roadinfrastructureupgradeswouldincludegrading,widening,andregravellingofexistingroadsandconstructionofnewroadstoaccommodatedecommissionandrepoweringactivities.DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Culvertswouldbeupgradedforexistingroads,andnewculvertswouldbeinstalledfornewroads.Directeffectswouldconsistoffillofalkalimeadowatlocationswhereroadscrossingthehabitatwouldbewidened.Indirecteffectscouldinvolvealteredhydrologyorrunoffofsedimentandothersubstancesduring





roadconstructionactivities.Someeffects,suchasthoseduetorunoff,wouldbeavoidedandminimizedthroughimplementationoferosioncontrolBMPsandpostconstructionreclamation.Installationofnewandupgradedculvertswouldmaintainexistinghydrology.However,lossofalkalimeadowhabitatasaresultofdirectfillwouldbeasubstantialadverseeffectonasensitivenaturalcommunity.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐15wouldreducethisimpacttoalevelless‐than‐significantlevel.


ImpactBIO‐15b:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonalkalimeadow—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Alkalimeadowcomprisesapproximately3%(145.69acres)oftheGoldenHillsprojectarea.Roadinfrastructureupgradesthatcouldaffectthishabitatwouldincludegrading,widening,andregravellingofexistingroadsandconstructionofnewroadstoaccommodatedecommissionandrepoweringactivities.Culvertswouldbeupgradedforexistingroads,andnewculvertswouldbeinstalledfornewroads.Directeffectswouldconsistoffillofalkalimeadowatlocationswhereroadscrossingthehabitatwouldbewidened.Indirecteffectscouldinvolvealteredhydrologyorrunoffofsedimentandothersubstancesduringroadconstructionactivities.Someeffects,suchasthoseduetorunoff,wouldbeavoidedandminimizedthroughimplementationoferosioncontrolBMPsandpostconstructionreclamation.Installationofnewandupgradedculvertswouldmaintainexistinghydrology.However,lossofalkalimeadowhabitatasaresultofdirectfillwouldbeasubstantialadverseeffectonasensitivenaturalcommunity.BecausespecificdesignshavenotbeendevelopedfortheGoldenHillsproject,itisnotpossibletoquantifythiseffect.However,ifalkalimeadowisaffectedbyroadinfrastructureupgrades,itwouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐15wouldreducethisimpacttoalevelless‐than‐significantlevel.


ImpactBIO‐15c:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonalkalimeadow—PattersonPass(noimpact)

BecausenoalkalimeadowoccursinthePattersonPassprojectarea,therewouldbenoimpact.Nomitigationisrequired.

ImpactBIO‐16a‐1:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonriparianhabitat—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Roadinfrastructureupgradeswouldincludegrading,widening,andregravellingofexistingroadsandconstructionofnewroadstoaccommodatedecommissionandrepoweringactivities.Culvertswouldbeupgradedforexistingroads,andnewculvertswouldbeinstalledfornewroads.Lossofriparianhabitatasaresultofdirectfillwouldbeasubstantialadverseeffectonasensitivenaturalcommunity.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐16wouldreducethisimpacttoalevelless‐than‐significantlevel.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐16:Compensateforthelossofriparianhabitat

Ifriparianhabitatisfilledorremovedaspartofaproject,theprojectproponentwillcompensateforthelossofriparianhabitattoensurenonetlossofhabitatfunctionsandvalues.Compensationratioswillbebasedonsite‐specificinformationanddeterminedthrough





coordinationwithstateandfederalagencies(CDFW,USFWS,USACE).Thecompensationwillbeataminimum1:1ratio(1acrerestoredorcreatedforevery1acrefilled)andmaybeacombinationofonsiterestoration/creation,offsiterestoration,andmitigationcredits.Arestorationandmonitoringplanwillbedevelopedandimplemented.Theplanwilldescribehowriparianhabitatwillbecreatedandmonitored.

ImpactBIO‐16a‐2:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonriparianhabitat—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Roadinfrastructureupgradeswouldincludegrading,widening,andregravellingofexistingroadsandconstructionofnewroadstoaccommodatedecommissionandrepoweringactivities.DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Culvertswouldbeupgradedforexistingroads,andnewculvertswouldbeinstalledfornewroads.Lossofriparianhabitatasaresultofdirectfillwouldbeasubstantialadverseeffectonasensitivenaturalcommunity.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐16wouldreducethisimpacttoalevelless‐than‐significantlevel.


ImpactBIO‐16b:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonriparianhabitat—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Roadinfrastructureupgradeswouldincludegrading,widening,andregravellingofexistingroadsandconstructionofnewroadstoaccommodatedecommissionandrepoweringactivities.Culvertswouldbeupgradedforexistingroads,andnewculvertswouldbeinstalledfornewroads.Lossofriparianhabitatasaresultofdirectfillwouldbeasubstantialadverseeffectonasensitivenaturalcommunity.BecausespecificdesignshavenotbeendevelopedfortheGoldenHillsproject,itisnotpossibletoquantifythiseffect.However,ifriparianhabitatisaffectedbyroadinfrastructureupgrades,itwouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐16wouldreducethisimpacttoalevelless‐than‐significantlevel.


ImpactBIO‐16c:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonriparianhabitat—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Undercurrentdesign,noriparianhabitatwouldbeaffectedbyroadinfrastructureupgrades.However,iffinaldesignwouldresultinriparianhabitatbeingaffectedbyroadinfrastructureupgrades,itwouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐16wouldreducethisimpacttoalevelless‐than‐significantlevel.


ImpactBIO‐17a‐1:Potentialforground‐disturbingactivitiestoresultindirectadverseeffectsoncommonhabitats—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificant)

Ground‐disturbingactivitieswouldresultinthepermanentlossofcommonhabitatsasaresultofconstructingnewpermanentfacilitiesandthetemporarylossofcommonhabitatsasaresultof





constructingtemporaryfacilitiesandlandscapereclamation.Theseactivitieswouldcreateminorchangesintotalacreageofcommonhabitatsintheprojectarea,primarilyintheannualgrasslandplantcommunity.

Alllandsdisturbedbyinfrastructureinstallationorremovalwouldbereturnedtopreprojectconditions.Ateachreclamationsite,thetopographywouldbecontourgraded(ifnecessaryandifenvironmentallybeneficial),stabilized,andreseededwithanappropriateseedmixturetomaintainslopestability.ReclamationactivitieswouldbeguidedbyareclamationplandevelopedincoordinationwiththeCountyandotherapplicableagencies.

Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.Nomitigationisrequired.

ImpactBIO‐17a‐2:Potentialforground‐disturbingactivitiestoresultindirectadverseeffectsoncommonhabitats—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificant)

Ground‐disturbingactivitieswouldresultinthepermanentlossofcommonhabitatsasaresultofconstructingnewpermanentfacilitiesandthetemporarylossofcommonhabitatsasaresultofconstructingtemporaryfacilitiesandlandscapereclamation.Theseactivitieswouldcreateminorchangesintotalacreageofcommonhabitatsintheprojectarea,primarilyintheannualgrasslandplantcommunity.

DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Alllandsdisturbedbyinfrastructureinstallationorremovalwouldbereturnedtopreprojectconditions.Ateachreclamationsite,thetopographywouldbecontourgraded(ifnecessaryandifenvironmentallybeneficial),stabilized,andreseededwithanappropriateseedmixturetomaintainslopestability.ReclamationactivitieswouldbeguidedbyareclamationplandevelopedincoordinationwiththeCountyandotherapplicableagencies.


ImpactBIO‐17b:Potentialforground‐disturbingactivitiestoresultindirectadverseeffectsoncommonhabitats—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificant)




ImpactBIO‐17c:Potentialforground‐disturbingactivitiestoresultindirectadverseeffectsoncommonhabitats—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificant)








ImpactBIO‐18a‐1:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonwetlands—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Roadinfrastructureupgradeswouldincludegrading,widening,andregravellingoftheexistingroadsandconstructionofnewroads.Culvertswouldbeupgradedforexistingroads,andnewculvertswouldbeinstalledfornewroads.Directeffectswouldincludefillofwetlandsatlocationswhereroadscrossingthehabitatwouldbewidened.Indirecteffectscouldincludealteredhydrologyorrunoffofsedimentandothersubstancesduringroadconstructionactivities.Someeffects,suchasthoseduetorunoff,wouldbeavoidedandminimizedthroughtheimplementationoferosioncontrolBMPsandpostconstructionreclamation.Installationofnewandupgradedculvertswouldmaintainexistinghydrology.However,lossofwetlandsasaresultofdirectfillwouldbeasubstantialadverseeffectonasensitivenaturalcommunity.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐18wouldreducethisimpacttoalevelless‐than‐significantlevel.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐18:Compensateforthelossofwetlands

Ifwetlandsarefilledordisturbedaspartofaproject,theprojectproponentwillcompensateforthelosstoensurenonetlossofhabitatfunctionsandvalues.Compensationratioswillbebasedonsite‐specificinformationanddeterminedthroughcoordinationwithstateandfederalagencies(CDFW,USFWS,USACE).Thecompensationwillbeataminimum1:1ratio(1acrerestoredorcreatedforevery1acrefilled)andmaybeacombinationofonsiterestoration/creation,offsiterestoration,andmitigationcredits.Arestorationandmonitoringplanwillbedevelopedandimplemented.Theplanwilldescribehowwetlandswillbecreatedandmonitored.

ImpactBIO‐18a‐2:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonwetlands—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Roadinfrastructureupgradeswouldincludegrading,widening,andregravellingoftheexistingroadsandconstructionofnewroads.Culvertswouldbeupgradedforexistingroads,andnewculvertswouldbeinstalledfornewroads.Directeffectswouldincludefillofwetlandsatlocationswhereroadscrossingthehabitatwouldbewidened.Indirecteffectscouldincludealteredhydrologyorrunoffofsedimentandothersubstancesduringroadconstructionactivities.Someeffects,suchasthoseduetorunoff,wouldbeavoidedandminimizedthroughtheimplementationoferosioncontrolBMPsandpostconstructionreclamation.Installationofnewandupgradedculvertswouldmaintain





existinghydrology.DirecteffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.However,lossofwetlandsasaresultofdirectfillwouldbeasubstantialadverseeffectonasensitivenaturalcommunity.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact;however,implementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐18wouldreducethisimpacttoalevelless‐than‐significantlevel.


ImpactBIO‐18b:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonwetlands—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)



ImpactBIO‐18c:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonwetlands—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)



ImpactBIO‐19a‐1:Potentialimpactonthemovementofanynativeresidentormigratorywildlifespeciesorestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,andtheuseofnativewildlifenurserysites—programAlternative1:417MW(significantandunavoidable)

Manycommonwildlifespecies(e.g.,groundsquirrels,voles,deer,coyote,raccoon,skunk)andspecial‐statuswildlifespecies(e.g.,Californiared‐leggedfrog,Alamedawhipsnake,American





badger)arelikelytooccurinandmovethroughtheprogramarea.Constructionactivitiesassociatedwiththeprogramandfencingofworkareasmaytemporarilyimpedewildlifemovementthroughtheworkareaorcauseanimalstotravellongerdistancestoavoidtheworkarea.Thiscouldresultinhigherenergyexpenditureandincreasedsusceptibilitytopredationforsomespeciesandisapotentiallysignificantimpact.Becausetheconstructionperiodforindividualprojectsintherepoweringprogramwouldbe9monthsforatypical80MWproject,itwouldlikelyencompassthemovement/migrationperiodforsomespecies(e.g.,Californiatigersalamandermovementto/frombreedingponds).Inparticular,smalleranimals,whoseenergyexpenditurestotravelaroundoravoidtheareawouldbegreaterthanforlargeranimals,couldbemoreseverelyaffected.Uponcompletionoftheprogram,thenewwindturbineswouldbespacedapartandwouldnotbeabarriertoon‐the‐groundwildlifemovement.Additionally,therewouldbefewerturbinesontheground,andanetincreaseintheamountofnaturalareawouldresultfromtherestorationofdecommissionedturbinepadsandfoundations.Thisremovalofturbinesandincreaseofnaturalareawouldpartiallycompensateforthisimpact.Asdiscussedaboveforspecial‐statusspecies,theprogramhasthepotentialtoaffectnativewildlifenurserysites(i.e.,breedingareas).Becausecommonspeciesmayalsousethesebreedingareas,theymayalsobeaffectedbytheprogram.Thiswouldconstituteasignificanteffect.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,BIO‐4a,BIO‐5a,BIO‐5c,BIO‐7a,BIO‐8a,BIO‐8b,andBIO‐10awouldavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonwildlifenurseryareasforspecial‐statusandcommonwildlifespecies.

Asdiscussedabove,theoperationofwindturbinesafterrepoweringwouldadverselyaffectraptors,otherbirds,andbatsmigratingthroughandwinteringintheprogramareabecausetheycouldbeinjuredorkillediftheyflythroughtherotorplaneofoperatingwindturbines.Asdiscussedabove,thiswouldbeasignificantandunavoidableimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐11b,BIO‐11c,BIO‐11d,BIO‐11e,BIO‐11i,BIO‐12a,BIO‐12b,BIO‐14a,andBIO‐14dwouldreducethisimpact,butnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel.Accordingly,thisimpactwouldbesignificantandunavoidable.
























ImpactBIO‐19a‐2:Potentialimpactonthemovementofanynativeresidentormigratorywildlifespeciesorestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,andtheuseofnativewildlifenurserysites—programAlternative2:450MW(significantandunavoidable)

EffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Manycommonwildlifespecies(e.g.,groundsquirrels,voles,deer,coyote,raccoon,skunk)andspecial‐statuswildlifespecies(e.g.,Californiared‐leggedfrog,Alamedawhipsnake,Americanbadger)arelikelytooccurinandmovethroughtheprogramarea.Constructionactivitiesassociatedwiththeprogramandfencingofworkareasmaytemporarilyimpedewildlifemovementthroughtheworkareaorcauseanimalstotravellongerdistancestoavoidtheworkarea.Thiscouldresultinhigherenergyexpenditureandincreasedsusceptibilitytopredationforsomespeciesandisapotentiallysignificantimpact.Becausetheconstructionperiodforindividualprojectsintherepoweringprogramwouldbe9monthsforatypical80MWproject,itwouldlikelyencompassthemovement/migrationperiodforsomespecies(e.g.,Californiatigersalamandermovementto/frombreedingponds).Inparticular,smalleranimals,whoseenergyexpenditurestotravelaroundoravoidtheareawouldbegreaterthanforlargeranimals,couldbemoreseverelyaffected.Uponcompletionoftheprogram,thenewwindturbineswouldbespacedapartandwouldnotbeabarriertoon‐the‐groundwildlifemovement.Additionally,therewouldbefewerturbinesonthe





ground,andanetincreaseintheamountofnaturalareawouldresultfromtherestorationofdecommissionedturbinepadsandfoundations.Thisremovalofturbinesandincreaseofnaturalareawouldpartiallycompensateforthisimpact.Asdiscussedaboveforspecial‐statusspecies,theprogramhasthepotentialtoaffectnativewildlifenurserysites(i.e.,breedingareas).Becausecommonspeciesmayalsousethesebreedingareas,theymayalsobeaffectedbytheprogram.Thiswouldconstituteasignificanteffect.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,BIO‐4a,BIO‐5a,BIO‐5c,BIO‐7a,BIO‐8a,BIO‐8b,andBIO‐10awouldavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonwildlifenurseryareasforspecial‐statusandcommonwildlifespecies.

Asdiscussedabove,theoperationofwindturbinesafterrepoweringwouldadverselyaffectraptors,otherbirds,andbatsmigratingthroughandwinteringintheprogramareabecausetheycouldbeinjuredorkillediftheyflythroughtherotorplaneofoperatingwindturbines.Asdiscussedabove,thiswouldbeasignificantandunavoidableimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐11b,BIO‐11c,BIO‐11d,BIO‐11e,BIO‐11j,BIO‐12a,BIO‐12b,BIO‐14a,andBIO‐14dwouldreducethisimpact,butnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel.Accordingly,thisimpactwouldbesignificantandunavoidable.
























ImpactBIO‐19b:Potentialimpactonthemovementofanynativeresidentormigratoryfishorwildlifespeciesorwithestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,orimpedetheuseofnativewildlifenurserysites—GoldenHillsProject(significantandunavoidable)

Manycommonwildlifespecies(e.g.,groundsquirrels,voles,deer,coyote,raccoon,skunk)andspecial‐statuswildlifespecies(e.g.,Californiared‐leggedfrog,Alamedawhipsnake,Americanbadger)arelikelytooccurinandmovethroughtheGoldenHillsprojectarea.ConstructionactivitiesassociatedwiththeGoldenHillsProjectandfencingofworkareasmaytemporarilyimpedewildlifemovementthroughtheworkareaorcauseanimalstotravellongerdistancestoavoidtheworkarea.Thiscouldresultinhigherenergyexpenditureandincreasedsusceptibilitytopredationforsomespeciesandisapotentiallysignificantimpact.Becausetheconstructionperiodisanticipatedtolast9months,itwouldlikelyencompassthemovement/migrationperiodforsomespecies(e.g.,Californiatigersalamandermovementto/frombreedingponds).Inparticular,smalleranimals,whoseenergyexpenditurestotravelaroundoravoidtheareawouldbegreaterthanforlargeranimals,couldbemoreseverelyaffected.Uponcompletionofprojectconstruction,thenewwindturbineswouldbespacedapartandwouldnotbeabarriertoon‐the‐groundwildlifemovement.Additionally,therewouldbefewerturbinesontheground,andanetincreaseintheamountofnaturalareawouldresultfromtherestorationofdecommissionedturbinepadsandfoundations.Thisremovalofturbinesandincreaseofnaturalareawouldpartiallycompensateforthisimpact.Asdiscussedaboveforspecial‐statusspecies,theGoldenHillsProjecthasthepotentialtoaffectnativewildlifenurserysites(i.e.,breedingareas).Becausecommonspeciesmayalsousethesebreedingareas,theymayalsobeaffectedbytheproject.Thiswouldconstituteasignificanteffect.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,BIO‐4a,BIO‐5a,BIO‐5c,BIO‐7a,BIO‐8a,BIO‐8b,andBIO‐10awouldavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonwildlifenurseryareasforspecial‐statusandcommonwildlifespecies.

Asdiscussedabove,theoperationofwindturbinesafterrepoweringwouldadverselyaffectraptors,otherbirds,andbatsmigratingthroughandwinteringintheprojectareabecausetheycouldbeinjuredorkillediftheyflythroughtherotorplaneofoperatingwindturbines.Thiswouldbeasignificantandunavoidableimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐11b,BIO‐11c,BIO‐11d,BIO‐11e,BIO‐11i,BIO‐12a,BIO‐12b,BIO‐14a,andBIO‐14dwouldreducethisimpact,butnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel.




























ImpactBIO‐19c:Potentialimpactonthemovementofanynativeresidentormigratoryfishorwildlifespeciesorwithestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,orimpedetheuseofnativewildlifenurserysites—PattersonPassProject(significantandunavoidable)

Manycommonwildlifespecies(e.g.,groundsquirrels,voles,deer,coyote,raccoon,skunk)andspecial‐statuswildlifespecies(e.g.,Californiared‐leggedfrog,Alamedawhipsnake,Americanbadger)arelikelytooccurinandmovethroughthePattersonPassprojectarea.ConstructionactivitiesassociatedwiththePattersonPassProjectandfencingofworkareasmaytemporarilyimpedewildlifemovementthroughtheworkareaorcauseanimalstotravellongerdistancestoavoidtheworkarea.Thiscouldresultinhigherenergyexpenditureandincreasedsusceptibilitytopredationforsomespeciesandisapotentiallysignificantimpact.Becausetheconstructionperiodisanticipatedtolast6–9months,itwouldlikelyencompassthemovement/migrationperiodforsomespecies(e.g.,Californiatigersalamandermovementto/frombreedingponds).Inparticular,smalleranimals,whoseenergyexpenditurestotravelaroundoravoidtheareawouldbegreaterthanforlargeranimals,couldbemoreseverelyaffected.Uponcompletionofprojectconstruction,thenewwindturbineswouldbespacedapartandwouldnotbeabarriertoon‐the‐groundwildlifemovement.Additionally,therewouldbefewerturbinesontheground,andanetincreaseintheamountofnaturalareawouldresultfromtherestorationofdecommissionedturbinepadsandfoundations.Thisremovalofturbinesandincreaseofnaturalareawouldpartiallycompensateforthisimpact.Asdiscussedaboveforspecial‐statusspecies,thePattersonPassProjecthasthepotentialtoaffectnativewildlifenurserysites(i.e.,breedingareas).Becausecommonspeciesmayalsousethesebreedingareas,theymayalsobeaffectedbytheproject.Thiswouldconstituteasignificanteffect.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,BIO‐4a,BIO‐5a,BIO‐5c,BIO‐7a,BIO‐8a,BIO‐8b,andBIO‐10awouldavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonwildlifenurseryareasforspecial‐statusandcommonwildlifespecies.

Asdiscussedabove,theoperationofwindturbinesafterrepoweringwouldadverselyaffectraptors,otherbirds,andbatsmigratingthroughandwinteringintheprojectareabecausetheycouldbeinjuredorkillediftheyflythroughtherotorplaneofoperatingwindturbines.Thiswouldbeasignificantandunavoidableimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐11b,BIO‐11c,BIO‐11d,BIO‐11e,BIO‐11i,BIO‐12a,BIO‐12b,BIO‐14a,andBIO‐14dwouldreducethisimpact,butnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
























ImpactBIO‐20a‐1:Conflictwithlocalplansorpolicies—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

TheECAPencouragesthepreservationofareasknowntosupportspecial‐statusspecies,nonetlossofriparianandseasonalwetlands,andprotectionofexistingriparianwoodlandhabitat.Additionally,theECAPhasseveralpoliciesrelatedtowindfarms,includingestablishingamitigationprogramtominimizetheimpactsofwindturbineoperationsonbirdpopulations.Lossofspecial‐statusspeciesandtheirhabitat,lossofalkalimeadow,lossofriparianhabitat,andlossofexistingwetlandsasaresultofimplementingtheprogramwouldbeinconflictwiththesepolicies.Thisimpactissignificant;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1athroughBIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,BIO‐4a,BIO‐4b,BIO5athrough5c,BIO‐7a,BIO‐7b,BIO‐8a,BIO‐8b,BIO‐9,BIO10a,BIO‐10b,andBIO‐15,BIO‐16,andBIO‐18wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevelbecausethesemeasuresrequiretheprojectapplicanttominimizeimpactsonhabitatforspecial‐statusspeciesand





compensateforthepermanentlossofsuitablehabitat,aswellastoensurethatanyimpactsonriparianandwetlandsarecompensatedfortoensurenonetlossofhabitatfunctionsandvalues.ThemitigationmeasuresfortheimpactsofwindturbineoperationsonbirdpopulationsfromtherepoweringprogramareconsistentwiththeestablishmentofamitigationprogramrecommendedbytheECAP.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐1a:Conductsurveystodeterminethepresenceorabsenceofspecial‐statusspecies





MitigationMeasureBIO‐3a:Implementmeasurestoavoid,minimize,andmitigateimpactsonvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle










MitigationMeasureBIO‐9:Compensateforthepermanentlossofforaginghabitatforwesternburrowingowl










ImpactBIO‐20a‐2:Conflictwithlocalplansorpolicies—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

TheECAPencouragesthepreservationofareasknowntosupportspecial‐statusspecies,nonetlossofriparianandseasonalwetlands,andprotectionofexistingriparianwoodlandhabitat.Additionally,theECAPhasseveralpoliciesrelatedtowindfarms,includingestablishingamitigationprogramtominimizetheimpactsofwindturbineoperationsonbirdpopulations.Lossofspecial‐statusspeciesandtheirhabitat,lossofalkalimeadow,lossofriparianhabitat,andlossofexistingwetlandsasaresultofimplementingtheprogramwouldbeinconflictwiththesepolicies.TheeffectsunderAlternative2wouldbesimilartothoseunderAlternative1,excepttheoverallareaofdisturbancewouldbelargerbecausetheincreasednumberofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructurewouldentailanestimated8%increaseintotaldisturbancearea.Thisimpactissignificant;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1athroughBIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,BIO‐4a,BIO‐4b,BIO5athrough5c,BIO‐7a,BIO‐7b,BIO‐8a,BIO‐8b,BIO‐9,BIO10a,BIO‐10b,andBIO‐15,BIO‐16,andBIO‐18wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevelbecausethesemeasuresrequiretheprojectapplicanttominimizeimpactsonhabitatforspecial‐statusspeciesandcompensateforthepermanentlossofsuitablehabitat,aswellastoensurethatanyimpactsonriparianandwetlandsarecompensatedfortoensurenonetlossofhabitatfunctionsandvalues.ThemitigationmeasuresfortheimpactsofwindturbineoperationsonbirdpopulationsfromtherepoweringprogramareconsistentwiththeestablishmentofamitigationprogramrecommendedbytheECAP.

ImpactBIO‐20b:Conflictwithlocalplansorpolicies—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

TheECAPencouragesthepreservationofareasknowntosupportspecial‐statusspecies,nonetlossofriparianandseasonalwetlands,andprotectionofexistingriparianwoodlandhabitat.Additionally,theECAPhasseveralpoliciesrelatedtowindfarms,includingestablishingamitigationprogramtominimizetheimpactsofwindturbineoperationsonbirdpopulations.Lossofspecial‐statusspeciesandtheirhabitat(ImpactsBIO‐1bthroughBIO‐10b),lossofalkalimeadow(ImpactBIO‐15b)lossofriparianhabitat(ImpactBIO‐16b),andlossofexistingwetlands(ImpactBIO‐18b)asaresultofimplementingtheGoldenHillsProjectwouldbeinconflictwiththesepolicies.Thisimpactissignificant;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1athroughBIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,BIO‐4a,BIO‐4b,BIO5athrough5c,BIO‐7a,BIO‐7b,BIO‐8a,BIO‐8b,BIO‐9,BIO10a,BIO‐10b,andBIO‐15,BIO‐16,andBIO‐18wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevelbecausethesemeasuresrequiretheprojectapplicanttominimizeimpactsonhabitatforspecial‐statusspeciesandcompensateforthepermanentlossofsuitablehabitat,aswellasensurethatanyimpactson





riparianandwetlandsarecompensatedfortoensurenonetlossofhabitatfunctionsandvalues.ThemitigationmeasuresfortheimpactsofwindturbineoperationsonbirdpopulationsfromtherepoweringprogramareconsistentwiththeestablishmentofamitigationprogramrecommendedbytheECAP.


























ImpactBIO‐20c:Conflictwithlocalplansorpolicies—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

TheECAPencouragesthepreservationofareasknowntosupportspecial‐statusspecies,nonetlossofriparianandseasonalwetlands,andprotectionofexistingriparianwoodlandhabitat.Lossofspecial‐statusspeciesandtheirhabitat(ImpactsBIO‐1cthroughBIO‐6c),lossofalkalimeadow(ImpactBIO‐15c)lossofriparianhabitat(ImpactBIO‐16c),andlossofexistingwetlands(ImpactBIO‐18c)asaresultofimplementingthePattersonPassProjectwouldbeinconflictwiththesepolicies.Thisimpactissignificant;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1athroughBIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,BIO‐4a,BIO‐4b,BIO5athrough5c,BIO‐7a,BIO‐7b,BIO‐8a,BIO‐8b,BIO‐9,BIO10a,BIO‐10b,andBIO‐15,BIO‐16,andBIO‐18wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevelbecausethesemeasuresrequiretheprojectapplicanttominimizeimpactsonhabitatforspecial‐statusspeciesandcompensateforthepermanentlossofsuitablehabitat,aswellasensurethatanyimpactsonriparianandwetlandsarecompensatedfortoensurenonetlossofhabitatfunctionsandvalues.

























ImpactBIO‐21a‐1:ConflictwithprovisionsofanadoptedHCP/NCCPorotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan—programAlternative1:417MW(noimpact)

TherearenoadoptedHCP/NCCPsapplicabletotheprogramarea.TheEACCS,whilenotaformalHCP,providesguidancefortheprojectplanningandpermittingprocesstoensurethatimpactsareoffsetinabiologicallyeffectivemanner.Asnotedabove,themitigationmeasuressetforthinthisPEIRarebasedonmeasuresfromtheEACCS,withsomemodificationsandadditions.BecausetherearenoadoptedHCP/NCCPsfortheprogramareaandtheprogramwouldnotconflictwiththeEACCS,therewouldbenoimpact.

ImpactBIO‐21a‐2:ConflictwithprovisionsofanadoptedHCP/NCCPorotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan—programAlternative2:450MW(noimpact)

TherearenoadoptedHCP/NCCPsapplicabletotheprogramarea.TheEACCS,whilenotaformalHCP,providesguidancefortheprojectplanningandpermittingprocesstoensurethatimpactsareoffsetinabiologicallyeffectivemanner.Asnotedabove,themitigationmeasuressetforthinthis





PEIRarebasedonmeasuresfromtheEACCS,withsomemodificationsandadditions.BecausetherearenoadoptedHCP/NCCPsfortheprogramareaandtheprogramwouldnotconflictwiththeEACCS,therewouldbenoimpact.

ImpactBIO‐21b:ConflictwithprovisionsofanadoptedHCP/NCCPorotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan—GoldenHillsProject(noimpact)

TherearenoadoptedHCP/NCCPsapplicabletotheGoldenHillsprojectarea.TheEACCS,whilenotaformalHCP,providesguidancefortheprojectplanningandpermittingprocesstoensurethatimpactsareoffsetinabiologicallyeffectivemanner.Asnotedabove,themitigationmeasuressetforthinthisPEIRarebasedonmeasuresfromtheEACCS,withsomemodificationsandadditions.BecausetherearenoadoptedHCP/NCCPsfortheprojectareaandtheGoldenHillsProjectwouldnotconflictwiththeEACCS,therewouldbenoimpact.

ImpactBIO‐21c:ConflictwithprovisionsofanadoptedHCP/NCCPorotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan—PattersonPassProject(noimpact)

TherearenoadoptedHCP/NCCPsapplicabletothePattersonPassprojectarea.TheEACCS,whilenotaformalHCP,providesguidancefortheprojectplanningandpermittingprocesstoensurethatimpactsareoffsetinabiologicallyeffectivemanner.Asnotedabove,themitigationmeasuressetforthinthisPEIRarebasedonmeasuresfromtheEACCS,withsomemodificationsandadditions.BecausetherearenoadoptedHCP/NCCPsfortheprojectareaandthePattersonPassProjectwouldnotconflictwiththeEACCS,therewouldbenoimpact.

3.4.3 References Cited

Printed References

AlamedaCounty.Unpublisheddata.AvianUseDatabase.InformationgatheredaspartoftheongoingAvianFatalityMonitoringProgram.

———.2000.EastCountyAreaPlan.AdoptedMay1994.ModifiedbypassageofMeasureD,effectiveDecember22,2000.Oakland,CA.

AlamedaCountySRC.2010.GuidelinesforSitingWindTurbinesRecommendedforRelocationtoMinimizePotentialCollision‐RelatedMortalityofFourFocalRaptorSpeciesintheAltamontPassWindResourceArea.May23.AlamedaCountySRCDocumentP‐70.Available:http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p70_src_relocation_guidelines.pdf.

Alarcón,M.,C.Aedo,andC.Navarro.2012.California.Page818inB.G.Baldwin,D.H.Goldman,D.J.Keil,R.Patterson,T.J.Rosatti,andD.H.Wilken(eds.).TheJepsonManual:VascularPlantsofCalifornia.SecondEdition.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Al‐Shehbaz,I.A.2012.Caulanthus.Pages535–538inB.G.Baldwin,D.H.Goldman,D.J.Keil,R.Patterson,T.J.Rosatti,andD.H.Wilken(eds.).TheJepsonManual:VascularPlantsofCalifornia.SecondEdition.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Alvarez,J.A.2004.OverwinteringCaliforniaTigerSalamander(Ambystomacaliforniense)Larvae.HerpetologicalReview35(4):344.





Anderson,R.L.,J.L.Dinsdale,andR.Schlorff.2007.CaliforniaSwainson'sHawkInventory:2005–2007.FinalReport.Sacramento,CA:DepartmentofFishandGameResourceAssessmentProgram,CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.

Anthony,E.L.P.,M.H.Stack,andT.H.Kunz.1981.NightRoostingandtheNocturnalTimeBudgetoftheLittleBrownBat,Myotislucifugus:EffectsofReproductiveStatus,PreyDensity,andEnvironmentalConditions.Oecologia51(2):151–156.

Arnett,E.B.,W.K.Brown,W.P.Erickson,J.K.Fiedler,B.L.Hamilton,T.H.Henry,A.Jain,G.D.Johnson,J.Kerns,R.R.Koford,C.P.Nicholson,T.J.O’Connell,M.D.Piorkowski,andR.D.Tankersley,Jr.2008.PatternsofBatFatalitiesatWindEnergyFacilitiesinNorthAmerica.JournalofWildlifeManagement72(1):61–78.

Arnett,E.B.,C.D.Hein,M.R.Schirmacher,M.M.P.Huso,andJ.M.Szewczak.2013.EvaluatingtheEffectivenessofanUltrasonicAcousticDeterrentforReducingBatFatalitiesatWindTurbines.PLOSONE8(6):e65794.

Arnett,E.B.,MSchirmacher,M.M.P.Huso,andJ.P.Hayes.2009.EffectivenessofChangingWindTurbineCut‐inSpeedtoReduceBatFatalitiesatWindFacilities—2008AnnualReport.April.AnnualreportsubmittedtotheBatsandWindEnergyCooperative.Austin,TX:BatConservationInternational.

AudubonSociety.2007.The2007AudubonWatchList.Available:http://birds.audubon.org/2007‐audubon‐watchlist.Accessed:May21,2014.

AudubonCalifornia.2010.BarnOwlNamedAudubonCalifornia’s2010BirdoftheYear:HugeWrite‐inEffortLandsWinsitforPopularOwlSpecies.YubaNet.com.December14.Available:http://yubanet.com/california/Barn‐Owl‐named‐Audubon‐California‐s‐2010‐Bird‐of‐the‐Year.php.AccessedMay21,2014.

AvianPowerLineInteractionCommittee.2006.SuggestedPracticesforAvianProtectiononPowerLines:TheStateoftheArtin2006.PIERFinalProjectReportCEC‐500‐2006‐022.Washington,DC,andSacramento,CA:EdisonElectricInstitute,APLIC,andtheCaliforniaEnergyCommission.

Baldwin,B.2012.Blepharizonia.P.262inB.G.Baldwin,D.H.Goldman,D.J.Keil,R.Patterson,T.J.Rosatti,andD.H.Wilken(eds.).TheJepsonManual:VascularPlantsofCalifornia.SecondEdition.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Barclay,R.M.R.,E.F.Baerwald,andJ.C.Gruver.2007.VariationinBatandBirdFatalitiesatWindEnergyFacilities:AssessingtheEffectsofRotorSizeandTowerHeight.CanadianJournalofZoology85:381–387.

BarnOwlBoxCompany.2009.BarnOwlsbyUSStates.Available:http://www.barnowlbox.com/us‐barn‐owl.html#california_barn_owls.AccessedMay21,2014.

Barr,C.B.1991.TheDistribution,Habitat,andStatusoftheValleyElderberryLonghornBeetle:Desmoceruscalifornicusdimorphus.U.S.FishandWildlifeService.Sacramento,CA.

Barry,S.J.,andH.B.Shaffer.1994.TheStatusoftheCaliforniaTigerSalamander(Ambystomacaliforniense)atLagunita:A50‐YearUpdate.JournalofHerpetology24(2):159–164.





Beedy,E.C.,andW.J.Hamilton,III.1997.TricoloredBlackbirdStatusUpdateandManagementGuidelines.PreparedforU.S.FishandWildlifeService,MigratoryBirdsandHabitatPrograms,andCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,BirdandMammalConservationProgram.

———.1999.TricoloredBlackbird(Agelaiustricolor).InA.Poole,(ed.).TheBirdsofNorthAmericaOnline.Ithaca:CornellLabofOrnithology.Available:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/423.Accessed:February12,2012.

Bloom,P.H.1980.TheStatusoftheSwainson’sHawkinCalifornia.PreparedforTheResourcesAgency:DepartmentofFishandGameandUnitedStatesDepartmentoftheInterior,BureauofLandManagement.

Brode,J.M.,andR.B.Bury.1984.TheImportanceofRiparianSystemstoAmphibiansandReptiles.Pages30–36inR.E.WarnerandK.M.Hendrix(eds.).CaliforniaRiparianSystemsEcology,Conservation,andProductiveManagement.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Brown,P.E.,andE.D.Pierson.1996.NaturalHistoryandManagementofBatsinCaliforniaandNevada.WorkshopsponsoredbytheWesternSectionofTheWildlifeSociety.November13–15.

Brown,K.,K.S.Smallwood,andB.Karas.2013.VascoAvianandBatMonitoringProject2012–2013AnnualReport.Final.September.PreparedbyVentusEnvironmentalSolutions,Portland,OR.PreparedforNextEraEnergyResources,Livermore,CA.

Buehler,D.A.2000.BaldEagle.InA.Poole,(ed.).TheBirdsofNorthAmericaOnline.Ithaca:CornellLabofOrnithology.Available:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/506.

Bunn,D.S.,A.B.Warburton,andR.D.S.Wilson.1982.TheBarnOwl.Vermillion,SD:ButeoBooks.

Bunnell,S.T.,C.M.White,D.Paul,andS.D.Bunnell.1997.StickNestsonaBuildingandTransmissionTowersUsedforNestingbyLargeFalconsinUtah.GreatBasinNat.57:263–267.

Marti,C.D.1974.FeedingEcologyofFourSympatricOwls.Condor76:5–61.CaliforniaBatWorkingGroup.2006.GuidelinesforAssessingandMinimizingImpactstoBatsatWindEnergyDevelopmentSitesinCalifornia.September.

CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.1992.1992AnnualReportontheStatusofCaliforniaState‐ListedThreatenedandEndangeredAnimalsandPlants.Sacramento,CA.

———.1993.LosVaquerosProject‐FishandWildlifeImpacts.AStatusReport.

———.1994.StaffReportRegardingMitigationforImpactstoSwainson’sHawk(Buteoswainsoni)intheCentralValleyofCalifornia.Sacramento,CA.November1.

———.2008.CaliforniaAquaticInvasiveSpeciesManagementPlan.January.Sacramento,CA.

———.2009.ProtocolsforSurveyingandEvaluatingImpactstoSpecialStatusNativePlantPopulationsandNaturalCommunities.November24.Available:http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/survey_monitor.html.

———.2010.ListofVegetationAlliancesandAssociations.September.VegetationClassificationandMappingProgram.Sacramento,CA.Available:http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp.Accessed:December10,2013.





———.2011.SpecialAnimalsList.Available:http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf.Accessed:January2011.

———.2012.StaffReportonBurrowingOwlMitigation.StateofCaliforniaNaturalResourcesAgency.March7.

CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife.2013a.CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabase,RareFind4.(May3,2013update).Reportforalkalimeadow.Sacramento,CA.Accessed:May2013.

———.2013b.CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabase,RareFind4.(May3,2013update).Sacramento,CA.Searchof7.5‐minuteMidway,Altamont,CedarMountain,ByronHotSprings,andCliftonCourtForebayquadranglesforspecial‐statusplants.Sacramento,CA.Accessed:May2013.

———.2013c.CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabase,RareFind4.(July2,2013update).Sacramento,CA.Searchof7.5‐minuteMidway,Altamont,CedarMountain,ByronHotSprings,andCliftonCourtForebayquadranglesforspecial‐statusanimals.Sacramento,CA.Accessed:July26,2013.

CaliforniaEnergyCommissionandCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.2007.CaliforniaGuidelinesforReducingImpactstoBirdsandBatsfromWindEnergyDevelopment.October.CommissionFinalReport.CEC‐700‐2007‐008‐CMF.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,RenewablesCommittee,andEnergyFacilitiesSitingDivision,andCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,ResourcesManagementandPolicyDivision.

CaliforniaEnvironmentalServices.2014.LosVaquerosWatershed2013AnnualGoldenEagleMonitoringReport.January.SanRamon,CA.PreparedforContraCostaWaterDistrict,Concord,CA.

CaliforniaHerps.com.2013.AGuidetotheAmphibiansandReptilesofCalifornia.RangeinformationforPhrynosomablainvillii,Blainville'sHornedLizard(CoastHornedLizard).Accessed:April8,2013.

CaliforniaRaptorCenter.2011.AdmissionsStatistics.Available:http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/calraptor/rescue_rehabilitation/admissions_stats.cfm.Accessed:November9,2011.

Carlsen,T.M.,L.E.Paterson,T.M.Alfaro,andS.D.Gregory.2012.RarePlantMonitoringandRestorationattheLawrenceLivermoreNationalLaboratoryExperimentalTestSite,Site300,ProjectProgressReport2007through2011.LLNL‐TR‐585933.Livermore,CA:LawrenceLivermoreNationalLaboratory.

Cowardin,L.M.,V.Carter,F.C.Golet,andE.T.LaRoe.1979.ClassificationofWetlandsandDeepwaterHabitatsoftheUnitedStates.OfficeofBiologicalServices,FishandWildlifeService,U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,Washington,D.C.

Cryan,P.M.2008.MatingBehaviorasaPossibleCauseofBatFatalitiesatWindTurbines.April.JournalofWildlifeManagement72(3):845–849.

Cryan,P.M.,andR.M.R.Barclay.2009.CausesofBatFatalitiesatWindTurbines:HypothesesandPredictions.JournalofMammalogy90(6):1330–1340.

CurryandKerlinger,LLC.2009.AvianMonitoringStudyandRiskAssessmentfortheShilohIIIWindPowerProject,SolanoCounty,California.December.McLean,VA.PreparedforenXco,Inc.,Tracy,CA.





Dunk,J.R.1995.White‐TailedKite(Elanusleucurus).InA.Poole,(ed.).TheBirdsofNorthAmericaOnline.Ithaca:CornellLabofOrnithology.Available:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/178.

EastBayRegionalParksDistrict.2000.VascoCavesRegionalPreserveResourceManagementPlan.PreparedbyEastBayRegionalParksDistrictPlanning/StewardshipDepartmentinCooperationwithContraCostaWaterDistrict.Oakland,CA.

Eng,L.L,D.Belk,andC.H.Eriksen.1990.CalifornianAnostraca:Distribution,Habitat,andStatus.JournalofCrustaceanBiology10(2):247–277.

Eriksen,C.H.,andD.Belk.1999.FairyShrimpsofCalifornia’sPuddles,Pools,andPlayas.Eureka,CA:MadRiverPress.

EssigMuseumofEntomology.2013.California’sEndangeredInsects:Curve‐FootedDivingBeetle.EssigMuseumofEntomology,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.Available:http://essig.berkeley.edu/endins/hygcurve1.htm.Accessed:August5,2013.

Estep,J.A.1989.Biology,Movements,andHabitatRelationshipsoftheSwainson’sHawkintheCentralValleyofCalifornia,1986–1987.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,NongameBirdandMammalSection.Sacramento,CA.

Fellers,G.M.,A.Launer,G.Rathbun,S.Bobzien,J.Alvarez,D.Sterner,R.B.Seymour,andM.Westphal.2001.OverwinteringTadpolesintheCaliforniaRed‐LeggedFrog(Ranaauroradraytonii).HerpetologicalReview32(3):156157.

Gehring,J.,P.Kerlinger,andA.M.ManvilleII.2009.CommunicationTowers,Lights,andBirds:SuccessfulMethodsofReducingtheFrequencyofAvianCollisions.EcologicalApplications19:505–514.

Good,R.E.,W.Erickson,A.Merrill,S.Simon,K.Murray,K.Bay,andC.Fritchman.2011.BatMonitoringStudiesattheFowlerRidgeWindEnergyFacility,BentonCounty,Indiana—April13–October15,2010.January28.PreparedforFowlerRidgeWindFarm.Cheyenne,WY:WesternEcoSystemsTechnology,Inc.

Good,R.E.,A.Merrill,S.Simon,K.Murray,andK.Bay.2012.BatMonitoringStudiesattheFowlerRidgeWindFarm,BentonCounty,Indiana—April1–October31,2011.January31.PreparedforFowlerRidgeWindFarm.Bloomington,IN:WesternEcoSystemsTechnology,Inc.

Goodrich,L.J.,andJ.Smith.2008.RaptorMigrationinNorthAmerica.InK.L.Bildstein,J.Smith,andE.Ruelas(eds.),TheStateofNorthAmerica’sBirdsofPrey(.SeriesinOrnithologyNumber3.Orwigsburg,PA:HawkMountainSanctuary,.

Haak,B.A.,andS.J.Denton.1979.SubterraneanNestingbyPrairieFalcon.RaptorRes.13:121–122.

Hamilton,W.J.,III.2000.TricoloredBlackbird2000SurveyandPopulationAnalysis.PreparedforU.S.FishandWildlifeService,Portland,OR.

Hanes,T.L.1977.CaliforniaChaparral.Pages41–469inM.G.BarbourandJ.Major(eds.).TerrestrialVegetationofCalifornia.NY:JohnWileyandSons.





Hannan,G.L.,andC.Clark.2012.Eschscholzia.Pages982–984inB.G.Baldwin,D.H.Goldman,D.J.Keil,R.Patterson,T.J.Rosatti,andD.H.Wilken(eds.),TheJepsonManual:VascularPlantsofCalifornia.SecondEdition.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

HawkMountain.2007.ConservationStatusReportsfortheAmericanKestrelandRed‐TailedHawk.Available:http://www.hawkmountain.org/raptorpedia/hawks‐at‐hawk‐mountain/hawk‐species‐at‐hawk‐mountain/hawk‐species‐at‐hawk‐mountain/page.aspx?id=344.Accessed:May14,2014.

Helm,B.1998.BiogeographyofEightLargeBranchiopodsEndemictoCalifornia.Pages124–139inC.W.Witham,E.T.Bauder,D.Belk,W.R.Ferren,Jr.,andR.Ornduf(eds.).Ecology,Conservation,andManagementofVernalPoolEcosystems—Proceedingsfroma1996Conference.Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaNativePlantSociety.285pages.

Holland,R.F.1986.PreliminaryDescriptionsoftheTerrestrialNaturalCommunitiesofCalifornia.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,Sacramento,CA.

Howell,J.A.1997.AvianMortalityatRotorSweptAreaEquivalents,AltamontPassandMontezumaHills,California.TransactionsoftheWesternSectionoftheWildlifeSociety33:24–29.

Howell,J.A.,andJ.E.DiDonato.1991.AssessmentofAvianUseandMortalityRelatedtoWindTurbineOperations,AltamontPass,AlamedaandContraCostaCounties,California,September1998throughAugust1989.Final.SubmittedtoU.S.Windpower,Inc.Livermore,CA.

Hull,J.M.,R.Anderson,M.Bradbury,J.A.Estep,andH.B.Ernest.2008.PopulationStructureandGeneticDiversityinSwainson’sHawks(ButeoSwainsoni):ImplicationsforConservation.ConservationGenetics9(2):305–316.

Hunt,G.2002.TheTrendofGoldenEagleTerritoryOccupancyintheVicinityoftheAltamontPassWindResourceArea:2005Survey.PreparedfortheCaliforniaEnergyCommission,contract500‐01‐032,tothePredatoryBirdResearchGroup,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz.

Hunt,G.,andT.Hunt.2006.TheTrendofGoldenEagleTerritoryOccupancyintheVicinityoftheAltamontPassWindResourceArea:2005Survey.PreparedfortheCaliforniaEnergyCommission,contract500‐01‐032,tothePredatoryBirdResearchGroup,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz,CA.ReporttoCaliforniaEnergyCommission,Sacramento,CA.

Hunt,W.G.,R.E.Jackman,T.L.Brown,D.E.Driscoll,andL.Culp.1999.APopulationStudyofGoldenEaglesintheAltamontPassWindResourceArea:PopulationTrendAnalysis1994–1997.PreparedfortheNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory,subcontractXAT‐6‐16459‐01tothePredatoryBirdResearchGroup,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz.

ICFInternational.2010.EastAlamedaCountyConservationStrategy.Final.October.(ICF00906.08.)SanJose,CA.PreparedforEastAlamedaCountyConservationStrategySteeringCommittee,Livermore,CA.

———.2012.AltamontPassWindResourceAreaBirdFatalityStudy,BirdYears2005–2010.October.(ICF00904.08.)Sacramento,CA.PreparedforAlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentAgency,Hayward,CA.





———.2013.AltamontPassWindResourceAreaBirdFatalityStudy,BirdYears2005–2011.November.M87.(ICF00904.08.)Sacramento,CA.PreparedforAlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentAgency,Hayward,CA.

InsigniaEnvironmental.2012.FinalReportfortheBuenaVistaAvianandBatMonitoringProject:February2008toJanuary2011.September.PaloAlto,CA.PreparedforContraCostaCounty,Martinez,CA.

Jennings,M.R.,andM.P.Hayes.1994.AmphibianandReptileSpeciesofSpecialConcerninCalifornia.RanchoCordova,CA:CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.

Jennings,M.R.,M.P.Hayes,andD.C.Holland.1992.APetitiontotheU.S.FishandWildlifeServicetoPlacetheCaliforniaRed‐LeggedFrog(Ranaauroradraytonii)andtheWesternPondTurtle(Clemmysmarmorata)ontheListofEndangeredandThreatenedWildlifeandPlants.

Johnsgard,P.A.1990.Hawks,EaglesandFalconsofNorthAmerica:BiologyandNaturalHistory.WashingtonandLondon:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.

Johnson,L.A.2012.Navarretia.Pages1062–1068inB.G.Baldwin,D.H.Goldman,D.J.Keil,R.Patterson,T.J.Rosatti,andD.H.Wilken(eds.).TheJepsonManual:VascularPlantsofCalifornia.SecondEdition.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Johnston,D.S.,J.A.Howell,S.B.Terrill,N.Thorngate,J.Castle,J.P.Smith(H.T.Harvey&Associates);T.J.Mabee,J.H.Plissner,N.A.Schwab,P.M.Sanzenbacher,andC.M.Grinnell(ABR,Inc.).2013.BirdandBatMovementPatternsandMortalityattheMontezumaHillsWindResourceArea.June.CEC‐500‐2013‐015.Available:http://www.solanocounty.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10104.PreparedbyH.T.Harvey&Associates.PreparedfortheCaliforniaEnergyCommission.

Kelley,R.N.,andF.R.Ganders.2012.Amsinckia.Pages453–454inB.G.Baldwin,D.H.Goldman,D.J.Keil,R.Patterson,T.J.Rosatti,andD.H.Wilken(eds.).TheJepsonManual:VascularPlantsofCalifornia.SecondEdition.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Kochert,M.N.,K.Steenhof,C.L.McIntyre,andE.H.Craig.2002.GoldenEagle(Aquilachrysaetos).InA.PooleandF.Gill(eds.).TheBirdsofNorthAmerica,No.684.Philadelphia,PA:TheBirdsofNorthAmerica,Inc.

Koontz,J.A.,andM.J.Warnock.2012.Delphinium.Pages1136–1142inB.G.Baldwin,D.H.Goldman,D.J.Keil,R.Patterson,T.J.Rosatti,andD.H.Wilken(eds.).TheJepsonManual:VascularPlantsofCalifornia.SecondEdition.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Kunz,T.H.,E.B.Arnett,W.P.Erickson,A.R.Hoar,G.D.Johnson,R.P.Larkin,M.D.Strickland,R.W.Thresher,andM.D.Tuttle.2007.EcologicalImpactsofWindEnergyDevelopmentonBats:Questions,ResearchNeeds,andHypotheses.FrontiersinEcologyandtheEnvironment5(6):315–324.

Kyle,K.,andR.Kelsey.2011.Resultsofthe2011TricoloredBlackbirdStatewideSurvey.AudubonCalifornia,Sacramento,CA.Available:http://tricolor.ice.ucdavis.edu/downloads.

Loredo,I.,D.VanVuren,andM.L.Morrison.1996.HabitatUseandMigrationBehavioroftheCaliforniaTigerSalamander.JournalofHerpetology30(2):282–285.





Maclaren,P.A.,D.E.Runde,andS.Anderson.1984.ARecordofTree‐NestingPrairieFalconsinWyoming.Condor86:487–488.

MacWhirter,R.B.,andK.L.Bildstein.1996.NorthernHarrier(Circuscyaneus).InA.PooleandF.Gill,(eds.).TheBirdsofNorthAmerica,No.210.Philadelphia,PA:TheAcademyofNaturalSciencesandWashington,DC:TheAmericanOrnithologists’Union.

Marti,C.D.,A.F.Poole,andL.R.Bevier.2005.BarnOwl(Tytoalba).InA.PooleandF.Gill(eds.),TheBirdsofNorthAmericaIthaca:CornellLabofOrnithology.RetrievedfromtheBirdsofNorthAmericaOnline.Available:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/001.Accessed:May19,2014.

Meese,R.J.2014.Resultsofthe2014TricoloredBlackbirdStatewideSurvey.July31.Davis,CA:UniversityofCalifornia,Davis,DepartmentofEnvironmentalScienceandPolicy.

Mazurek,M.J.2004.AMaternityRoostofTownsend’sBig‐EaredBats(Corynorhinustownsendii)inCoastRedwoodBasalHollowsinNorthwesternCalifornia.NorthwesternNaturalist85:60–62.

NationalAudubonSociety.2011.TheChristmasBirdCountHistoricalResults[Online].Available:http://www.christmasbirdcount.org.AccessedDecember12,2012.

NatureServe.2012.NatureServeExplorer:AnOnlineEncyclopediaofLife[webapplication].Version7.1.NatureServe,Arlington,VA.Available:http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.Accessed:May19,2014.

Nelson,R.W.1974.PrairieFalcons:NestingAttemptonaBuildingandEffectofWeatheronCourtshipandIncubation.RaptorResearchFoundationEthologyInformationExchange1:10–12.Orloff,S.,andA.Flannery.1992.WindTurbineEffectsonAvianActivity,HabitatUse,andMortalityinAltamontPassandSolanoCountyWindResourceArea.ReporttoCaliforniaEnergyCommission,Sacramento,CA.SantaCruz,CA:BiosystemsAnalysis,Inc.

Orloff,S.,F.Hall,andL.Spiegel.1986.DistributionandHabitatRequirementsoftheSanJoaquinKitFoxintheNorthernExtremeofTheirRange.TransactionsoftheWesternSectionoftheWildlifeSociety22:60–70.

PandionSystems,Inc.2010.AltamontVascoRepower—AcousticBatMonitoringPreliminaryFindings.October8.AppendixCofVascoWindsRepoweringProjectFinalEnvironmentalImpactReport.StateClearinghouseNo.2010032094.April2011.Martinez,CA:ContraCostaCountyDepartmentofConservationandDevelopment.

Phipps,K.B.1979.HuntingMethods,HabitatUseandActivityPatternsofPrairieFalconsintheSnakeRiverBirdsofPreyNaturalArea,Idaho.Master'sThesis.WesternIllinoisUniversity,Macomb.

Pierson,E.D.,andW.E.Rainey.1998.Distribution,Status,andManagementofTownsend’sBig‐EaredBat(Corynorhinustownsendii)inCalifornia.May.BMCPTechnicalReportNumber96‐7.FinalReportforContractNo.FG7129.SubmittedNovember1994toWildlifeManagementDivision,BirdandMammalConservationProgram.Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.

Pitcher,E.J.1977.NestSiteSelectionforPrairieFalcons.Auk94:371.





Polite,C.1990.California’sWildlife:Barnowl.CaliforniaWildlifeHabitatRelationshipsSystem,Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaInteragencyWildlifeTaskGroup,CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.

Polite,C.,andG.Ahlborn.1990.AmericanKestrel.Editor:S.Bailey.CaliforniaWildlifeHabitatRelationshipsSystem,CaliforniaInteragencyWildlifeTaskGroup,CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.Available:http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx.Accessed:May19,2014.

Polite,C.,andJ.Pratt.1990.California’sWildlife:Red‐TailedHawk.CaliforniaWildlifeHabitatRelationshipsSystem,Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaInteragencyWildlifeTaskGroup,CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.

Powell,J.A.,andC.L.Hogue.1979.CaliforniaInsects.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Preston,R.E.2000.NoteworthyCollections:California.Madroño47:138.

Preston,C.R.,andR.D.Beane.1993.Red‐TailedHawk(Buteojamaicensis).InA.PooleandF.Gill(eds.),TheBirdsofNorthAmerica.Ithaca:CornellLabofOrnithology.RetrievedfromtheBirdsofNorthAmericaOnline.Available:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/052.Accessed:May2014.

Randall,J.M.,andM.C.Hoshovsky.2000.California’sWildlandInvasivePlants.Pages11–19inC.C.Bossard,J.M.Randall,andM.C.Hoshovsky(eds.).InvasivePlantsofCalifornia’sWildlands.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Rogers,C.2001.RevisionoftheNearcticLepidurus(Notostraca).JournalofCrustaceanBiology21(4):991–1006.

Roppe,J.A.,S.M.Siegel,andS.E.Wilder.1989.PrairieFalconNestingonTransmissionTowers.Condor91:711–712.

Sauer,J.R.,J.E.Hines,andJ.Fallon.2008.TheNorthAmericanBreedingBirdSurvey,ResultsandAnalysis1966–2007.Version5.15.2008.Laurel,MD:USGSPatuxentWildlifeResearchCenter.

Sauer,J.R.,J.E.Hines,J.E.Fallon,K.L.Pardieck,D.J.Ziolkowski,Jr.,andW.A.Link.2011.TheNorthAmericanBreedingBirdSurvey,ResultsandAnalysis1966–2010.Version12.07.2011.Laurel,MD:USGSPatuxentWildlifeResearchCenter.

Sawyer,J.O.,andT.Keeler‐Wolf.1995.AManualofCaliforniaVegetation.Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaNativePlantSociety.

Sherrod,S.K.1978.DietsofNorthAmericanFalconiforms.JournalofRaptorResearch12:49–121.

Shuford,W.D.,andT.Gardali(eds.).2008.CaliforniaBirdSpeciesofSpecialConcern:ARankedAssessmentofSpecies,Subspecies,andDistinctPopulationsofBirdsofImmediateConservationConcerninCalifornia.StudiesofWesternBirdsNo.1.WesternFieldOrnithologists,Camarillo,CA,andCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,Sacramento,CA.

Smallwood,J.A.,andD.M.Bird.2002.AmericanKestrel(Falcosparverius).InA.PooleandF.Gill(eds.),TheBirdsofNorthAmerica.Ithaca:CornellLabofOrnithology;retrievedfromtheBirdsofNorthAmericaOnline.Available:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/602.Accessed:May2014.





Smallwood,K.S.,2010.BaselineAvianandBatFatalityRatesattheTresVaquerosWindProject,ContraCostaCounty,California.ReporttotheEastBayRegionalParkDistrict.,2010.

Smallwood,K.S.,D.A.Bell,S.A.Snyder,J.E.Didonato.2010.NovelScavengerRemovalTrialsIncreaseWindTurbine–CausedAvianFatalityEstimates.JournalofWildlifeManagement74(5):1089–1097.

Smallwood,K.S.,andB.Karas.2009.AvianandBatFatalityRatesatOld‐GenerationandRepoweredWindTurbinesinCalifornia.JournalofWildlifeManagement73(7):1062–1071.

Smallwood,K.S.,andL.Neher.2010.SitingRepoweredWindTurbinestoMinimizeRaptorCollisionsattheTresVaquerosWindProject,ContraCostaCounty,California.April.Draft.PreparedfortheEastBayRegionalParkDistrict.

Smallwood,K.S.,L.Neher,andD.A.Bell.2009.Map‐BasedRepoweringandReorganizationofaWindResourceAreatoMinimizeBurrowingOwlandOtherBirdFatalities.October.Energies2:915–943.

Smallwood,K.S.,L.A.Neher,D.A.Bell,J.E.DiDonato,B.R.Karas,S.A.Snyder,andS.R.Lopez.2008.RangeManagementPracticestoReduceWindTurbineImpactsonBurrowingOwlsandOtherRaptorsintheAltamontPassWindResourceArea,California.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,PIEREnergy‐RelatedEnvironmentalResearchProgram.CEC‐500‐2008‐080.

Smallwood,K.S.,L.Neher,andJ.Mount.2011.NestingBurrowingOwlDistributionandAbundanceintheAltamontPassWindResourceArea,California.September16.P228.PreparedfortheAltamontPassWindResourceAreaScientificReviewCommittee.Available:http://www.altamontsrc.org/.Accessed:November26,2013.

Smallwood,S.,andL.Spiegel.2005a.AssessmenttoSupportanAdaptiveManagementPlanfortheAPWRA.January19.CEC‐releasedTechnicalReport.

———.2005b.PartialRe‐AssessmentofanAdaptiveManagementPlanfortheAPWRA:AccountingforTurbineSize.March25.CEC‐releasedTechnicalReport.

———.2005c.CombiningBiology‐BasedandPolicy‐BasedTiersofPriorityforDeterminingWindTurbineRelocation/ShutdowntoReduceBirdFatalities.June1.CEC‐releasedTechnicalReport.

Smallwood,K.S.,andC.G.Thelander.2004.DevelopingMethodstoReduceMortalityintheAltamontPassWindResourceArea.FinalReportbyBioResourceConsultantstotheCaliforniaEnergyCommission,PublicInterestEnergyResearch—EnvironmentalArea500‐01‐019.

Stebbins,R.C.1954.AmphibiansandReptilesofWesternNorthAmerica.NewYork,NY:McGraw‐HillBookCompany,Inc.

———.2003.WesternReptilesandAmphibians.ThirdEdition.NewYork,NY:HoughtonMifflinCompany.

Szewczak,J.M.2013.AcousticBatSurveyatVascoWinds,LLCWindArea2012.September.AttachmenttoFinal2012–2013AnnualReport,AvianandBatMonitoringProject,VascoWinds,LLC.PreparedforVentusEnvironmentalSolutions,Portland,OR.





Talley,T.S.,D.Wright,M.Holyoak.2006.Assistancewiththe5‐YearReviewoftheValleyElderberryLonghornBeetle(Desmoceruscalifornicusdimorphus).UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService.Sacramento,CA.

U.S.FishandWildlifeService.1996.ProgrammaticFormalEndangeredSpeciesActConsultationonIssuanceof404PermitsforProjectswithRelativelySmallEffectsonListedVernalPoolCrustaceanswithintheJurisdictionoftheSacramentoFieldOffice,California.February28.1‐1‐96‐F‐1.IssuedbyEcologicalServices,SacramentoFieldOffice,Sacramento,CA.

———.1998.RecoveryPlanforUplandSpeciesoftheSanJoaquinValley,California.Region1,Portland,OR.

———.1999.ConservationGuidelinesfortheValleyElderberryLonghornBeetle.SacramentoFishandWildlifeOffice,Sacramento,CA.RevisedJuly9.

———.2002a.RecoveryPlanfortheCaliforniaRed‐LeggedFrog(Ranaauroradraytonii).Portland,OR.

———.2002b.DraftRecoveryPlanforChaparralandScrubCommunitySpeciesofSanFranciscoBay,California.November.Portland,OR.

———.2007.LonghornFairyShrimp(Branchinectalongiantenna)5‐YearReview:SummaryandEvaluation.PreparedbytheSacramentoFishandWildlifeOffice.Sacramento,CA.

———.2010.SanJoaquinKitFox(Vulpesmacrotismutica)5‐YearReview:SummaryandEvaluation.PreparedbytheSacramentoFishandWildlifeOffice.Sacramento,CA.

———.2011.U.S.FishandWildlifeServiceStandardizedRecommendationsforProtectionoftheEndangeredSanJoaquinKitFoxpriortoorduringGroundDisturbance.January.Sacramento,CA:SacramentoFishandWildlifeOffice.Available:http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/survey‐protocols‐guidelines/Documents/kitfox_standard_rec_2011.pdf.Accessed:December12,2013.

———.2012.U.S.FishandWildlifeServiceLand‐BasedWindEnergyGuidelines.March23.OMBControlNo1018‐0148.

———.2013a.EagleConservationPlanGuidance:Module1—Land‐BasedWindEnergy.Version2.April.DivisionofMigratoryBirdManagement.Available:http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html.Lastupdated:June27,2014.

———.2013b.ListofFederal,EndangeredandThreatenedSpeciesthatOccurinormaybeAffectedbyProjectsintheU.S.GeologicalSurvey7.5‐MinuteMidway,Altamont,CedarMountain,ByronHotSprings,CliftonCourtForebayQuadrangles.LastRevised:September18,2011.Available:www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/auto_list.cfm.Accessed:July1,2013.

U.S.GeologicalSurvey.2013.EstimationofSiteOccupancyandNestingSuccessofGoldenEaglesintheDiabloMountainsofCentralCalifornia.August.InformationBrief.ForestandRangelandEcosystemScienceCenter.

WesternBatWorkingGroup.2005.Townsend’sBig‐EaredBat.Speciesaccountdevelopedforthe1998RenoBiennialMeeting;updatedatthe2005PortlandBiennialMeeting.OriginalaccountbyRickSherwin;2005updatebyAntoinettePiaggio.Available:http://www.wbwg.org.Accessed:December20,2013.





———.2007.RegionalBatSpeciesPriorityMatrix.Available:http://www.wbwg.org/spp_matrix.html.

Weller,T.J.,andJ.A.Baldwin,2011.UsingEcholocationMonitoringtoModelBatOccupancyandInformMitigationsatWindEnergyFacilities.TheJournalofWildlifeManagement9999:1–13;2011;DOI:10.1002/jwmg.260.

WesternEcoSystemsTechnology,Inc.2008.DiabloWindsWildlifeMonitoringProgressReport,March2005–February2007.August.Cheyenne,WY.

Williams,D.F.1986.MammalianSpeciesofConcerninCalifornia.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameReport86‐1.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,Sacramento,CA.112pages.

Yosef,R.1996.LoggerheadShrike(Laniusludovicianus).InA.PooleandF.Gill(eds.),TheBirdsofNorthAmerica.Ithaca:CornellLabofOrnithology;RetrievedfromtheBirdsofNorthAmericaOnline.Available:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/231.Accessed:May2014.

Zacharias,E.H.2012.Atriplex.Pages630–638inB.G.Baldwin,D.H.Goldman,D.J.Keil,R.Patterson,T.J.Rosatti,andD.H.Wilken(eds.).TheJepsonManual:VascularPlantsofCalifornia.SecondEdition.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Zeiner,D.C.,W.F.Laudenslayer,Jr.,andK.E.Mayer(eds.).1988.California’sWildlife.VolumeI:AmphibiansandReptiles.CaliforniaStatewideWildlifeHabitatRelationshipsSystem.Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.

———.1990a.California’sWildlife.VolumeII:Birds.CaliforniaStatewideWildlifeHabitatRelationshipsSystem.Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.

———.1990b.California’sWildlife.VolumeIII:Mammals.CaliforniaStatewideWildlifeHabitatRelationshipsSystem.Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.

Zweifel,R.G.1955.Ecology,Distribution,andSystematicsofFrogsoftheRanaboyleiGroup.UniversityofCaliforniaPublicationsinZoology54(4):207–292.

Personal Communications

Arnold,RichardA.,PhD.2011.Entomologist,EntomologicalConsultingServicesLtd.,PleasantHill,CA.August22and23,2011—WrittencommentsontheDraftSupplementalBiologicalAssessmentforPG&E’sValleyElderberryLonghornBeetleConservationProgram.

Barton,Chris.2014.ActingEnvironmentalProgramsManager.July21,2014—LettertoSandraRivera,AssistantPlanningDirector,AlamedaCountywithcommentsontheAPWRARepoweringDraftEIR.

Stedman,Bret.Manager,CaliforniaRaptorCenter,UCDavis.December13,2012—EmailcorrespondencewithLucasBare,ICFInternational,Englewood,CO.